RESALE POLICY CHANGE!

[skier_pete]

I will. I don't see any reason why they would raise the minimum direct purchase amount, for existing owners or otherwise.

It's entirely possible they raise the minimum direct buy-in for resale owners. I've never seen anything that says they couldn't do that. 25 for Direct buys vs 50 for resale. Completely possible. Not that I think they will bother to do it. If a resale owner wants to spend $4000 to get the AP discount, I doubt they'd be against it.

 

[disneynutz]

It's entirely possible they raise the minimum direct buy-in for resale owners. I've never seen anything that says they couldn't do that. 25 for Direct buys vs 50 for resale. Completely possible. Not that I think they will bother to do it. If a resale owner wants to spend $4000 to get the AP discount, I doubt they'd be against it.

They are in the business to make loads of money and they are good at what they do, they will position today for a benefit tomorrow. Just like they introduced membership magic, private MK nights and swim parities at the water parks so they could take them away from resale buyers. Will they increase the minimum buy in, it depends on what makes them the most money.

Bill

 

[mab2012]

It's entirely possible they raise the minimum direct buy-in for resale owners. I've never seen anything that says they couldn't do that. 25 for Direct buys vs 50 for resale. Completely possible. Not that I think they will bother to do it. If a resale owner wants to spend $4000 to get the AP discount, I doubt they'd be against it.

They are in the business to make loads of money and they are good at what they do, they will position today for a benefit tomorrow. Just like they introduced membership magic, private MK nights and swim parities at the water parks so they could take them away from resale buyers. Will they increase the minimum buy in, it depends on what makes them the most money.

Bill

Fully agree with both posts. I just don't see any advantage to Disney in raising the minimum buy-in, which is why I don't think they'll do it. Establishing a minimum number of direct points for perk eligibility makes far more sense to me, from the business point of view. But I could very well be completely wrong. Time will tell.

 

[tjkraz]

I bought resale post 2011. I carefully evaluated and determined that the things blocked from me as a resale buyer were poor uses of points.

If I were considering buying resale for the first time today, this would be a deal breaker.

Not because of the perks. I discussed on the first page of this long long thread how to end run this via a minimum buy in.

No. The issue is the concept of tiered ownership, real second class status in a way that 2011 wasn't.

We're basically at a philosophical impasse here.

I was around in 2011 and read many of the same comments. Believe it or not, many vocal members asserted that the 2011 restrictions would cause irreparable harm to resale values. Today resale values are as high as ever.

You admit that the 2011 restrictions had no impact on YOUR purchase decision, yet these 2016 restrictions create a "real second class status." I would simply propose that an overwhelming number of potential owners will not share that opinion.

Just about every consumer product we could name features additional perks and protections if bought "new" from the manufacturer or one of its agents. Houses, cars, electronics, appliances...if you buy at retail, you receive a level of quality and service. Buyers who elect to buy second-hand (thrift store, used car lot, eBay, buying a house from previous owner) typically should not expect those same perks or benefits from the original manufacturer.

In a few weeks or months, this will be the new norm. People who newly discover Disney Vacation Club will never have known a time when resale buyers received discounts on APs and meals.

Some will use this policy as fuel for their decision to not buy into DVC. But that's nothing new--many have contemplated DVC over the years and decided against it for a variety of reasons.

At the end of the day, a 25-pt add-on is all it takes to secure the perks. The added cost of those 25 direct points is maybe $1000-1500, depending on specifics. A buyer who sees the AP discounts and member events as a benefit knows they'll make up that difference in a couple years. This is probably where DVC stands to gain the most from this policy change.

Those who don't see the value in perks will stick with the resale points and never give it a second thought.

 

[mab2012]

I am certainly no expert on other TS, but I do know my DVC membership very well, as I should since I've owned 23 years. That said, I do own several weeks w/Marriott. Two are at their highest demand resort (by some data) that I bought direct. I find MF's vary widely by LOCATION as much as by company. My Vero Beach points cost me considerably more than my OKW contracts. My MVC ownership is for an oceanfront resort in a very pricey location so those dues are HIGH. I have found it much more difficult to utilize my pricey TS I have with MVC than what I have ever experienced in all these years w/DVC. It's pretty discouraging to call in at the first moment of inventory release at the 13 month window (I own direct and multi-week so I can book at 13 months) with Marriott only to find there is NO availability of me. THAT was the biggest TS disappointment I have ever had. And what took me to TUGS. If I knew then what I know now, I would have bought fixed weeks at my MVC resort. I would never have those same issues with DVC.

So folks can talk about how DVC isn't different all they want and maybe for them it isn't at all different. But in my experience, there are still some pretty big differences. And I own on both sides of the TS fence.

Hypothetically, a desirable location shouldn't necessarily have any impact on dues. Local cost of living could influence wages for operational staff, and location can influence property taxes and insurance costs... that's all I can think of offhand. Definitely dues vary by resort, even within the same system, but that *should* just be a reflection of different operating costs at those resorts. Whether or not there are fees for things like reservations, banking, guest certificates, etc. is really just a matter of whether those costs are baked into the operational expenses. Ideally, that's something that should be decided by the owners. Unfortunately, getting many thousands of individual owners to agree on anything, or even take an interest, is logistically difficult. Which is why the management companies often end up doing whatever the developer wants, not necessarily what most owners would prefer.

DVC does offer a very inclusive experience relative to most other timeshares. That's important to me, and it sounds like it is to you too. I'm not sure that's what most people think of when they're considering the "Disney Difference" though.

The big takeaway is that with ANY timeshare, it is critically important to understand exactly what you're getting before you buy. My understanding is that DVD has done a pretty good job with low-pressure sales tactics and upfront education of buyers, which is perhaps why there seem to be fewer unsatisfied owners than some other systems experience. Of course, they get away with that because the Disney brand sells itself, to a point. That point has limits though. I doubt DVD has found the limit yet, but if they keep raising prices and reducing benefits, they eventually will.

 

[disneymomto5]

Sooo, maybe it's just me but this makes me sigh. I've bought direct and resale so I guess I'm not affected, but with this letter, prices going up all the time, membership extras going down all the time....it just makes me weary. I've never been sorry we have DVC and I won't be selling anytime soon but I was going to gradually add on and I don't think I will now. I know they can change membership perks anytime but why does it seem like it's a constant taking away?

 

[southerngirl528]

Hypothetically, a desirable location shouldn't necessarily have any impact on dues.

Not true at all when that location is oceanfront in particular. Insurance and upkeep are much higher. Prices for prime property anywhere are higher than non-prime and taxes will be much higher accordingly.

DVC does offer a very inclusive experience relative to most other timeshares. That's important to me, and it sounds like it is to you too. I'm not sure that's what most people think of when they're considering the "Disney Difference" though.

Yes. That is important to me. I didn't know how much until I had owned my DVC membership for a while.

The big takeaway is that with ANY timeshare, it is critically important to understand exactly what you're getting before you buy.

Amen!!

 

[mab2012]

Not true at all when that location is oceanfront in particular. Insurance and upkeep are much higher. Prices for prime property anywhere are higher than non-prime and taxes will be much higher accordingly.

I think I mentioned all of that. So I guess we agree.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

In most businesses, the perks you get from buying something new are not transferrable.

For example, a nearby automotive dealer offers free oli changes for life. If I bought a new Ford from that dealer, I would get the benefit of free oil changes. But, if I desired to save some money and buy the same vehicle from an individual who isn't happy with the vehicle they bought from that dealer and sells it to me, I wouldn't get the free old changes.

Does that mean their are two classes of buyers? Sure, but we all accept this as reasonable.

Why shouldn't we think it's also reasonable for DVC to do the same thing? Buy direct from them and DVD gives you some perks, but buy resale to purchase from an individual who purchased direct from DVC and the benefits are not transferrable.

Yet warranties from the manufacturer usually transfer with autos or even extended warranties. It certainly isn't done in all cases for every item you buy but some do. It tends to depend on the tact a business wishes to take. DVC could continue to do the same if they chose. There's nothing requiring for them to take that away, except perhaps a poor design choice coupled with rapidly increased pricing on top of it. Goodness - Poly could sell if that is what they chose and they'd still make a boat load of money.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

There are of course many ways to justify the change. And many ways to justify not having the change. It's the way their going and we'll never know what staying with the other path would have meant. I rarely find the reason "because xxxx does it" as being an overwhelming endorsement that it's the right thing to do for things like this.

 

[hardis5]

But it's clear when you walk into an automotive dealership and buy a car, which things are transferrable and which are not. The manufacturer warranty may be transferrable, but the free oil change for life (a perk) is not.

We accept that some rights of a purchase are not transferrable, and others are. The point is that someone who buys an item on the resale market may not get all the perks that were offered to the original buyer.

Again, the perk is a marketing tool to increase direct sales. The seller offers the perk to the people who buys direct from them, but not to third-hand non-direct purchasers.

I agree somewhat. But I pay the same maintenance costs to the dealer if buying a used car (beyond an oil change) and what I am offered and get paying that maintenance fee should be the same as a new car buyer.

A dealer never adds to the benefits once a vehicle is sold and cannot take away benefits written into the sales contract - Disney can and does and its contracts are explicitly written to allow it to do so, so comparing a new car freebie to a used car sale not having is not truly an apples to apples comparison here.

 

[DougEMG]

It's not the perks.

I bought resale post 2011. I carefully evaluated and determined that the things blocked from me as a resale buyer were poor uses of points.

If I were considering buying resale for the first time today, this would be a deal breaker.

Not because of the perks. I discussed on the first page of this long long thread how to end run this via a minimum buy in.

No. The issue is the concept of tiered ownership, real second class status in a way that 2011 wasn't.

Resale buyers do research. Many will opt not to pay tens of thousands of dollars to be second class citizens. Those opt outs aren't likely to reward that treatment by paying even more to the company creating it.

Personally, I think the resale market will take a hit, and rentals will get even hotter...

Until Disney drops a lead foot on that, too.

I bought lots of resale points in between 2010 and 2012. So some of my contracts are unaffected by the change in 2011 and some are. When I bought though, things like perks and tiered ownership did not enter into my calculations. I looked at the purchase price and maintenance fees and compared that to cash rates. Buying was going to save me money, so I bought. I'd do the exact same calculation now. What I'm buying is a room and nothing more. I'd much rather save the money on the purchase price and get no benefits what so ever, then pay the direct prices.

In the long run I don't think resale markets will take a hit from this at all. Resale prices are pretty much based on what is happening with direct prices and the economy in general.

But if I'm wrong and resale prices crash because of this, I'll gladly look to pick up some points at BLT or VGF!

 

[JimMIA]

I read your entire rebuttal which you are most entitled to but no where did I say with my list that DVC was the ONLY timeshare that did those things so what is your point?

Right, you said that DVC is different from other timeshares and listed five examples. One -- DME -- is not even a feature of DVC at all. Two other examples are actually quite common in the industry (points, nightly stays) and the other two (charges for banking and lockoffs) frankly are trivial.

There are at least three real advantages to DVC, but you didn't cite them:

• The uniqueness of the onsite WDW resorts. Nobody can top that one. There may be nicer timeshare resorts, but nobody can claim the location of the WDW resorts.
• The other feature that is rare in the timeshare world is the finite term of the DVC contracts. Some consider longer better, but I personally like the idea that the thing ends at some point, so I don't have to worry about my kids being saddled with something they don't want.
• [ETA]ROFR. Most other timeshares have ROFR or something like it, but DVC is the only one I know of that actually uses it. ROFR does help keep the resale prices up, and that's a legitimate plus for DVC.

We could go to that other side about how "lots of other timeshares" have big restrictions on their resales too, right?

That's really variable, as is the real-world ability to use your timeshare at non-home resorts. But honestly, I think DVC should go to school on the rest of the industry's approach to those things. If they looked around, they might learn something.

For example, Wyndham takes exactly the opposite approach from DVC. Wyndham has created not one, but several, special types of membership which are available ONLY through direct purchase. Instead of limiting or restricting resale points, they have taken the positive approach and created new options that I can't get with my resale points:

• Presidential Reserve (inventory that only members can book)
• Club Wyndham Access (several blocks of resort ownership interests pooled together with home resort booking windows at all resorts in the pool)
• and now Club Pass (Worldmark resorts made available to Wyndham owners).
• Wyndham also has a VIP program (always evolving to Wyndham's benefit) which can only be attained by direct purchase.

For the most part, those programs were created without taking anything away from any owner. Instead of "spitefully" punishing those awful resale owners, they gave them a legitimate reason to buy direct. (note: Club Wyndham Access contracts are now available on the resale market, but they were originally only available direct.)

Buying direct is still not worth it with Wyndham either IMHO, but they have had success with it.

Have a great weekend!

 

[sgtdisney]

So are the people who buy resale still members of Disney Vacation Club, or do you think Disney will give that class another name? I mean based on what they are doing, they really aren't members by the way they are wording things.

 

[southerngirl528]

So are the people who buy resale still members of Disney Vacation Club, or do you think Disney will give that class another name? I mean based on what they are doing, they really aren't members by the way they are wording things.

Any person listed on a DVC deed can make a reservation at a DVC resort on points vs. cash. And THAT and ONLY that comprise membership. If you can book on points, you ARE a member. Are you already a member, sgtdisney??

 

[southerngirl528]

FR. Most other timeshares have ROFR or something like it, but DVC is the only one I know of that actually uses it. ROFR does help keep the resale prices up, and that's a legitimate plus for DVC.

Have you looked at Marriott's prime properties on the resale market??? Take a gander at redweek.com and see for yourself. DVC is scarcely the only TS that exercises ROFR. There's a whole forum on TUGS that monitors exactly that.

One -- DME -- is not even a feature of DVC at all.

DME has been offered to DVC members for some time. It might not be in the contracts but for now, it is available for DVC members. Nobody comes to get me at my other TS. Yes, I well understand that Disney is no dummy and they shrewdly want to keep folks from roaming away from the property. Not unlike a grocery or department store. One has to go in circles to find what they really want to buy, and like Disney's plan, often spend more than they intended.

Thanks for the well wishes, I shall have a great weekend. Weather is scrumptious here in central FL. Have a good one yourself!

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

So are the people who buy resale still members of Disney Vacation Club, or do you think Disney will give that class another name? I mean based on what they are doing, they really aren't members by the way they are wording things.

Yes, I believe they are still members of the "club" as that is the registered name of the timeshare. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if they decide to give some sort of name rather than just the references of "Direct", "Resale prior to March 2011" and "Resale between March 2011 and 4/4/16". It would just be easier to reference although I'm sure it will very likely cause a degree of ill-will with many who bought before the names as it would solidify the differences. Going forward it would just be the norm for any new buyers.

 

[beer dave]

Sooo, maybe it's just me but this makes me sigh. I've bought direct and resale so I guess I'm not affected, but with this letter, prices going up all the time, membership extras going down all the time....it just makes me weary. I've never been sorry we have DVC and I won't be selling anytime soon but I was going to gradually add on and I don't think I will now. I know they can change membership perks anytime but why does it seem like it's a constant taking away?

I have been a member since 03-- and in my stretch, I have seen the level of resort (mostly due to location) increase with out having to pay extra or buy in-- I have become able to book locations I thought would never be available to DVC. This last year, the perks have been increasing quite a bit IMO. So my initial purchase now gives me an advantage due to Disney having to constantly increase the quality of the offerings in order to raise the cost of membership-- so the cost of ownership doubles, tripples? They need to keep upping the ante for the new (now direct) members-- so ALL OF US on this board who were members prior to a few days ago, are locked in to whatever DVC needs to offer to sell the new properties... I have been and still am wondering where it is going to go--- right now it seems like they are bracing for a dumping of a boatload of new perks to come out-- I for one would not be opposed to that.

Unless they create a DVCII.........

 

[beer dave]

You all do realize that this effects no one on this thread right now--- except maybe that one guy-- but he received a reprieve.....

 

[sgtdisney]

Any person listed on a DVC deed can make a reservation at a DVC resort on points vs. cash. And THAT and ONLY that comprise membership. If you can book on points, you ARE a member. Are you already a member, sgtdisney??

Yes, I am, since 1992. So if a person listed on a deed can make a reservation on points vs. cash, and that is what qualifies them as a Member, then a direct or resale buyer IS a Member. Interesting.. So if both types of buyers are Members then, according to how the membership is defined, then I should think a Member should they be eligible for Member Benefits. After all Disney does call them Member Benefits. See where I am going with this. They need to rethink what they call an owner or rethink what the call the direct only buyer "perks".