Rumor: Direct Minimum for DVC Purchase Increasing to 150 Points

[YeOswaldianSociety]

Such greedy cows.

 

[dvc lover 1970]

When I bought in in 1996 the minimum was 150, then we added on 56 more points direct. They should have never lowered it to 25 IMO.

Agree 25 points does not get you anything. Back then resale was really small too.

 

[Bjaiken77]

I managed to book Riviera Tower rooms under 6 months out. Made me glad I have some direct points to book it. I only stuck with the min 125 points but I think that’s sufficient for me to have some unrestricted access. I currently have more resale than direct points. So far no regrets for the direct points and relief that I don’t have to scramble and make rash decisions to buy some under the pressure of point increase. I knew it was going to be raised at some point but didn’t think it would be so quick.

I went with 125 direct from RIV too. I could have saved another $8/point by going to 150, but that’s still another $4,650 out of pocket. If I really want more RIV points, I’ll either buy them direct in small chunks so they are easier to sell or buy resale RIV only points. I plan to hold on to my 125 RIV direct points for the life of the contract, as it’s connected to my blue card.

I’ll sell anything else I may acquire before I sell these. Also, 125 is a point I’m comfortable with based on resale restrictions. I never plan to sell but the restrictions bother me to the point where I wouldn’t want more than the blue card minimum.

 

[KAngela]

Here's my supposition (based on nothing concrete):

Every business everywhere wants to increase revenue after a lost year in 2020, and DVC is no different. And they have multiple ways they could do that, but you can boil it down to acting across two axes: your price point, and how much customers get for that spend.

On the "price point" they can act on things like points required, cost per point, ROFR on the resale market, and so on and so forth. What we see here is them being active in ROFR to push up the resale point cost, increasing direct point costs, and pushing up minimum points for a blue card. So they are driving up the price point.

On the "how much they get for that spend" we see them actively decreasing what you get: RIV restrictions, no restoration of perks, a reduced park experience (closed stuff, fireworks cancelled, etc), no transparency on restoration, no APs, and so on.

The order a business does things in matters, and this order is really interesting. As customers we always want businesses to increase the "how much you get" first, so we know what we're paying for. For whatever reason, Disney's doing it opposite: cutting back what you get (or leaving cuts in place) while raising the price point. Ahead of the 50th anniversary celebration, no less.

Disney's not stupid. Maybe they're seeing how much that impacts sales so they can bring back perks stepwise to avoid "over-perking" direct membership. Maybe they think they're oversold so they're trying to drive some people out of DVC. Maybe they figure they can force resale people to pony up money for direct membership by making the "best new locations" direct-only. Maybe they think time is on their side and they can be methodical about how they do this. I dunno.

Disney also knows several important pieces of data that we don't: what percentage of visitors are DVC, how many DVC members are local, how often DVC members come, how their spend patterns vary based on pricing and points quantities, what percentage of direct buyers are already DVC versus new, etc. For whatever reason, they chose pricing first and perks later (or maybe never ). I really wish they hadn't, but that's the order of operations in mid-2021.

A lot of smart people on this thread have suggested logic which seems like it might be driving this (some that I cribbed above), and there's plenty of other suppositions we could make. Whatever the reasoning, Disney's chosen pricing first; I guess they think it's a seller's market. Our only response as customers is either buy or not buy, let Disney know how we feel about it, and see how it all plays out.

 

[ScubaCat]

We want enough points for a studio week every other year and we'll maybe upgrade to enough for a week every year later.

That's not their target market, hence the increased minimums (and volume of "studio availability" threads).

 

[limace]

It’s so hard to know-because they are planning two more studio only or studio-heavy expansions (VGF 2 and DLT).

 

[Starport Seven-Five]

That's not their target market, hence the increased minimums (and volume of "studio availability" threads).

Businesses evolve to fit needs. Seems like an easy win to shift towards a studio focus if there is demand because existing hotels can be converted (VGF2 / PVB).

 

[TinkB278]

This may be a stupid question but I already own over 150 points and RIV but was planning on adding on in 25 point increments. Will that still be possible with this increase?

 

[Spinster Travel]

This may be a stupid question but I already own over 150 points and RIV but was planning on adding on in 25 point increments. Will that still be possible with this increase?

Yes, you can add on in 25 point increases (except at RR, which I believe is a minimum of 50) at any time once you are an existing owner. This increase will be the minimum for new buyers to buy direct or for resale buyers to get the Blue Card benefits.

 

[ParkHoppers]

I'm torn on opinion with this...

150 points can be a lot more than you need for a once per year week long studio stay. And I think a lot of people being pulled out of the parks to tour DVC are just looking for a deal on their "hotel room" for their annual trip. The longing for 2 bedrooms and add-on-itis will come later.

We tried to buy when they were selling AKV and SSR and we did the presentation and they're sitting their putting on paper how we need maybe 100 points for our stay but then refuse to sell us less than 160.

Obviously, we walked.

So, I guess I can see blue card status at 150, but a new minimum buy-in at 150 makes me think they are targeting only people who come frequently or stay more than 1 week or don't want studios. With no APs to offer right now, I think their target audience will not match that profile.

If they get you to buy 150 points which is more than you need for a studio once a year they know there is a good chance you will buy another 60 points or so in the future to move up to one bedrooms. They know what they are doing.

 

[dsanner106]

So it is safe to assume there is no grandfathering og the older minimum for we older owners?

 

[Where'sPiglet?]

So it is safe to assume there is no grandfathering og the older minimum for we older owners?

That would be a departure from what they have always done.

They have honored the restrictions/thresholds that were in place at the time of purchase.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

So it is safe to assume there is no grandfathering og the older minimum for we older owners?

This would be minimums for brand new buyers. If you qualify for benefits now then that won't change.

 

[Sandisw]

So it is safe to assume there is no grandfathering og the older minimum for we older owners?

If you are asking if current owners would be allowed to still add on 125 for blue card after it is raised, then most likely no as they have never done that,

But, if you are already a blue card holder, that should not change...it never has when minimums were raised.

 

[CraigInPA]

I wonder if the change from 125 to 150 is to push the product to a higher price point, in order to lower their future up-front capital investments in additional free-standing DVC properties?

They cancelled the big project next to Wilderness Lodge, and replaced it with a building conversion at GF to consist only of studios. DLT hasn't broken ground. Right now they have a large amount of RIV undeclared, and it's going to take a few years to sell it. AUL is in perpetual sales mode, seemingly never to reach sold-out status. 2042 is the big year when contracts end at a bunch of DVC properties, but it's still 21 years away. At the historical rate of DVC building, you'd expect 6 more DVC properties to be built between now and then. By pushing the product price higher, it will take longer for them to sell out, extending the amount of time between new resorts. Plus, they're running out of desirable locations to build, and Disney hasn't announced any plans for a another park in Florida to accept visitors from these additional resorts.

 

[Sandisw]

I wonder if the change from 125 to 150 is to push the product to a higher price point, in order to lower their future up-front capital investments in additional free-standing DVC properties?

They cancelled the big project next to Wilderness Lodge, and replaced it with a building conversion at GF to consist only of studios. DLT hasn't broken ground. Right now they have a large amount of RIV undeclared, and it's going to take a few years to sell it. AUL is in perpetual sales mode, seemingly never to reach sold-out status. 2042 is the big year when contracts end at a bunch of DVC properties, but it's still 21 years away. At the historical rate of DVC building, you'd expect 6 more DVC properties to be built between now and then. By pushing the product price higher, it will take longer for them to sell out, extending the amount of time between new resorts. Plus, they're running out of desirable locations to build, and Disney hasn't announced any plans for a another park in Florida to accept visitors from these additional resorts.

Maybe. Or it’s a sign that VGF will be priced lower than the $255 and this is how they make it up!!

 

[RanDIZ]

Plus, they're running out of desirable locations to build, and Disney hasn't announced any plans for a another park in Florida to accept visitors from these additional resorts.

This is a key point you bring up. Disney is flooding the area with more and more resorts which is leading to massive overcrowding in the parks. A 5th gate is well overdue!

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

This is a key point you bring up. Disney is flooding the area with more and more resorts which is leading to massive overcrowding in the parks. A 5th gate is well overdue!

I'm not certain how DVC is flooding anything. CCV, PVB, Jambo were all conversions from existing Disney hotel rooms with the additions of Cabins and Bungalows which did not add much to occupancy. Riviera replaced moderate hotel rooms although did add. VGF addition is going to be conversion from existing Disney hotel rooms. BLT went in where they tore down a wing of the CR. There are a lot of attendees that come from offsite or are local. And one would assume that without DVC Disney would have added a hotel or two themselves. I'd be happy with a 5th gate and them packing fewer people into the parks but I do not think DVC is flooding much at all.

 

[KAngela]

I wonder if the change from 125 to 150 is to push the product to a higher price point, in order to lower their future up-front capital investments in additional free-standing DVC properties?
...
Plus, they're running out of desirable locations to build, and Disney hasn't announced any plans for a another park in Florida to accept visitors from these additional resorts.

I kind of wonder if they're not going to demolish a moderate or value hotel and replace it with a deluxe/DVC resort. This would drive up the price point, reduce park loading by replacing more rooms with less rooms, and solve the "desirable location" issue (sort-of, depending on where they chose to do that). I don't think they're headed to lower pricing any time soon...

 

[Sparky984]

I don’t think they are flooding anything. If the hotels aren’t on property, people will stay off property. Plenty already do.

Disney is increasing park capacity by making their parks bigger rather than adding a 5th gate. This is much cheaper and faster. All the infrastructure - roads, power, water, etc is already more or less there. Epcot has plenty more expansion options!