From above: "Who pays for all these DVC Member nights celebrating the 25th Anniversary? Is this coming from annual dues? If so, how are they going to charge a future non-member and not allow them access?"
I would assume that DVD is not using any dues to pay for any of the incidental benefits and that should be the case regardless of whether resale purchasers are excluded. Florida law expressly prohibits the use of dues to pay for anything classified as an incidental benefit, Florida Statutes 721.075 (in the new Membership Extras statement, DVD asserts it is acting in compliance with that particular statute; if it is lying it will have far more serious problems than members being angry with it).
Thanks for this. I was assuming there must be some legality preventing the use of a member's dues for a benefit or event from which the member is explicitly excluded, but it's nice to have this clarification.
I have a few thoughts to share:
I think people need to keep in mind one thing. As Disney removes this member perk from resale buyers, it's not a far stretch to assume that at some point the benefits may go away all together. If there comes a point where DVC stops selling new DVC units, or maybe even moves onto a DVC II type of program there would not be a good reason to have these sales tools. Just a thought.
I can only think of two reasons Disney would offer member discounts. One is the obvious direct sales incentive. The other is to encourage spending, the same way any business might negotiate a discount with a large corporation or a club that has a particular interest in their product. Clearly, for the moment, Disney has decided that the discounts have more value to them as a timeshare sales tool than as a merchandise/dining sales tool. Certainly anything DVD is paying for outright would disappear if direct sales were discontinued, unless the membership agreed to increase dues in order to fund those activities (highly unlikely, to say the least). Discounts might or might not be available, depending on what the owners, or the management company employed to work on their behalf, could negotiate. The takeaway, though, is that members who like their perks need to hope that DVD stays solvent.
Despite how it might feel at this end, I truly don't think that DVD's intention here is to punish resale buyers. If that's what they wanted, existing resale buyers would not be grandfathered into the perks. Moreover, DVD is a business. They have no interest in "punishing" anyone, for any reason. They just want to make money. So I have to believe that their only intention is to incentivize direct sales. Of course, incentivizing direct sales and punishing resales are two sides of the same coin, but I think intent does matter, particularly if you're trying to predict future behaviour.
Finally, regarding the impact on resale prices, I think we need to consider why resale prices have stayed so high in the first place. IMO a major component of this is the increase in direct sales prices over time. If Disney was still selling direct at $100/pt, nobody would be paying $80-$90/pt (or higher!) for resale, even for resorts that are no longer available direct. And Disney certainly wouldn't be exercising ROFR at those levels if the direct price was lower. Plus if DVD stopped direct sales entirely, or operated at notably lower gross margins, not only would all those perks disappear, but so would all of those marketing dollars. And that would reduce both awareness and demand dramatically. Yes, rack rate cost and availability of preferred resorts have an impact as well, but those alone are not enough to support the kind of resale values DVC commands. If you doubt it, look at any other timeshare system. So yes, this change might put downward pressure on resale prices, especially in the short term. But it's nothing compared to what would happen to resale prices if there were no direct sales.
Just for the record, I don't like the changes either. But nothing is ever simple.
