RUMOR: Disney Vacation Club Considering Paid Member Perks Program

[john7994]

Undoubtedly there is a grain of truth to this. Some of the things mentioned in the first couple paragraphs of the story are consistent with member surveys and other leaks over the years. Things like "Enhanced Park Access" and "Expanded Access to Members Only Spaces" strike me as clear value-added offerings. Disney hasn't announced any long term plans for Extended Evening Hours. This could be DVC's way of trying to subsidize continuation of that perk as a recurring DVC-only.

Certain elite perks would require an elite cost to make it worthwhile. But I don't see that as being the goal here. This seems more like a group-buy situation. If 200k members agree to spend $100, that's $20m annually. Can you fund a second theme park lounge and some amount of DVC-only park hours--plus a few random ticket offers and other low-cost perks--for $20 million? Probably.

Things spin a little off the rails when speculating that TOTWL access, AP discounts and free lightning lanes could be part of this tier, along with priority access to DVC reservations or Moonlight Magic. That's all wild fantasy and not worth getting worked-up about, IMO.

Everything is worth getting worked up about - otherwise - is any of this real?

 

[sethschroeder]

I can also see over time all the ‘blue card’ benefits moving to this model. That could allow resale to buy into benefits, which is not a bad thing in the long run.

They would need to stop offering membership extras to new members then and let it run its required course of time where no one is guaranteed it any more. How its set up right now is that if they remove something they need to replace it with something of equal quality and value in the program.

So if it were done it would be a all at once sort of thing.

Move it to this model, give everyone free access via the historical model, then once the last contract runs out of time for Membership Extra guarantee they drop it fully.

 

[sethschroeder]

The contracts state we are only guaranteed a room at the resort we purchased everything else is a perk this renders the home resort advantage section void if they decide to remove the perk to book at another resort. The contract even tells you the room you own as well as the percentage. Further than letting you choose a room number they could charge to book in a different resort. Of course all of this would be a really bad idea for them to make a direct sale but than again we just do not know the layout of the new Poly as they can easily change the contract and how that is sold. They can easily start DVC 2. People stop buying groceries and spend lots more money on Disney food and tours and merchandise and ????? lets not try to save money and use the original DVC concept. We may get to keep the perks we have.

What? The contracts and rules and laws state way more than access to a room. All sorts of rules and regulations in place.

As an example if they removed being able to switch between resorts it would be gone not something Disney could then charge extra for access to the system to from what I have come across.

This likely will be another one of those things that they announce and then realize they broke 15 different aspects of their contracts and then roll it back.

 

[Sandisw]

They would need to stop offering membership extras to new members then and let it run its required course of time where no one is guaranteed it any more. How its set up right now is that if they remove something they need to replace it with something of equal quality and value in the program.

So if it were done it would be a all at once sort of thing.

Move it to this model, give everyone free access via the historical model, then once the last contract runs out of time for Membership Extra guarantee they drop it fully.

The program is guaranteed three years or less so nothing to prevent them ending membership extras program tomorrow. That is consistent with timeshare statutes as well.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

What's really funny is when you consider how many of the 'perks' DVD actually controls themselves.

"Get'em to pay for things we can't even control. Sure. They'll do it. They don't know any better. They know we have their best interests in mind! Baa Ha Ha Ha!"

 

[Spivey378]

“Reimagined” perk program.

 

[Doug7856]

This is very funny. Strip away all benefits, then charge to bring them back.

All while being defended tooth and nail by the proletariat.

What a business model.

Disney’s recent history with this isn’t encouraging: Genie+

 

[zavandor]

Would it be $100 per membership, or $100 per person that wanted privies? Big difference, and an important one.
A family of six should not get all the privies off a family of two for the same price…. At least not imo.

Agreed.
It's more a question of value for money. If $100 is the right amount for the perks for a family of 6, then a family of 3 would be crazy to buy. If it's enough for a single traveler (like myself), a couple should jump at it. They cannot price it right if it's per membership. Given the Apple and Google wallet thing, if they ever do it should be a cost per person and it will show up in the personal wallet for access to the perks.

 

[RoseGold]

If we are going to see PSLs, we are going to see them in California. The $$$$ fan base is there, ad they really need to limit the quantity.

But they're not going to roll that out in the middle of the lawsuit.

 

[sethschroeder]

This all has me thinking how nice it will be when the parks have much lower attendance in a few years likely. I could be wrong though.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

This all has me thinking how nice it will be when the parks have much lower attendance in a few years likely. I could be wrong though.

This all reminds me of how nice it used to be. Even when the parks were crowded.

 

[SteveAZee]

So all of this is based on a rumor (not sourced to anything), and everyone is all twisted on it?

You must be new to these here parks.

 

[chrisgeraci]

I think Pete said it best, it better not include stuff we used to get for free! As a member since 2008, I've seen a lot of really great perks go away. Free valet was my favorite. When I drive back to the resort, I'm thinking of bed, not parking, and spend the morning beeping the horn on the remote. Yeah that's me.

 

[Doug7856]

Undoubtedly there is a grain of truth to this. Some of the things mentioned in the first couple paragraphs of the story are consistent with member surveys and other leaks over the years. Things like "Enhanced Park Access" and "Expanded Access to Members Only Spaces" strike me as clear value-added offerings. Disney hasn't announced any long term plans for Extended Evening Hours. This could be DVC's way of trying to subsidize continuation of that perk as a recurring DVC-only.

Certain elite perks would require an elite cost to make it worthwhile. But I don't see that as being the goal here. This seems more like a group-buy situation. If 200k members agree to spend $100, that's $20m annually. Can you fund a second theme park lounge and some amount of DVC-only park hours--plus a few random ticket offers and other low-cost perks--for $20 million? Probably.

Things spin a little off the rails when speculating that TOTWL access, AP discounts and free lightning lanes could be part of this tier, along with priority access to DVC reservations or Moonlight Magic. That's all wild fantasy and not worth getting worked-up about, IMO.

This is the voice of reason.

 

[CarolMN]

This is the voice of reason.

He always is.

 

[Tiggerette]

I have a major issue with a "pay to play" aspect using common space paid by members through their purchase of real estate percentage, maintained through their dues. If I have reduced access, as compared to another member, then that is problematic and approaching a violation of our contract. Imagine not being able to access your own pool, not because it's being maintained or cleaned, but because a tiered membership allows access despite your continued payment into that common space. I can see an argument that places like the Epcot Lounge or Top of the World are not truly members only common spaces, but are members only accessible features. In that way, I can see a better argument that the feature is a "perk" and not indirectly and certainly not directly related to amenities in the contract.

Likewise the enhanced waitlist priority, or priority upgrade is problematic to the sentiments in the contracts that members are treated similarly when it comes to access to the unit. Therefore, anything that delays or increases access to a unit seems highly problematic to me.

Areas that are firmly in the "perk" area, free from indirect association with the terms and conditions of the contract, would be access to the park reservation system, access to an annual pass program, access to a dining plan, Genie + free days, options to purchase higher volumes of merchandise than current rules allow. In other words, these perks are not related to the access to the room or amenities of the resort.

Lastly, to the folks that are concerned we are wasting time and energy contemplating this program... DVC management over the recent years have tried multiple ways to increase revenue and not all have been on the "up and up" in the strict reading of the contract. (See multiple prior threads to review that well-discussed history) Some of the updates to "reimagined point charts" were because folks like us took the time to ponder, perform critical analysis and respectfully communicate concerns.

 

[Chuck S]

I have a major issue with a "pay to play" aspect using common space paid by members through their purchase of real estate percentage, maintained through their dues.

The State of Florida would also take a dim view for what is considered a common area maintained by dues. This is why we aren't charged to park at the resorts.

 

[Sandisw]

The State of Florida would also take a dim view for what is considered a common area maintained by dues. This is why we aren't charged to park at the resorts.

And which is why Epcot Lounge and TOTWL can be limited to who gets to use them as they are not common elements of any resort and are not in any way funded by dues.

FL timeshare is pretty clear that any level of incidental benefit can not be covered with dues, and must be something that are voluntary which means owners can choose whether or not that want to participate in them,

 

[Prince John Robin Hood]

Like some others have said I would have an issue if it was related to rooms at all. Everyone bought in with the understanding that it's a level playing field when booking.

I absolutely love it for everything else though. Lightning lane passes, parties, fireworks viewing, discounted tickets and more member lounges sounds great to me. I would love to have a DVC restaurant/lounge in the parks with paid food and drink options.

 

[Sandisw]

Like some others have said I would have an issue if it was related to rooms at all. Everyone bought in with the understanding that it's a level playing field when booking.

I absolutely love it for everything else though. Lightning lane passes, parties, fireworks viewing, discounted tickets and more member lounges sounds great to me. I would love to have a DVC restaurant/lounge in the parks with paid food and drink options.

Room requests would be the only thing that could be done as those are controlled by Disney And the room assigners.

But, the reason those are not guaranteed is because it’s too hard to make it all work…personally I’d rather see them gone.