No, ROFR is never directly about buying cheap to resell, it's simply a tool to drive sales to retail and away from resale. It's only effective if they can afford to buy back enough to keep people guessing and to keep the difference in price small enough that people are willing to give up the savings for retail. Still, price and what they can recoup has to play a role because it doesn't make financial sense to compete with new sales. Two things have killed ROFR as being effective, the economy and the internet. Most timeshare companies have long since gone to offering more options to retail buyers and taking away options from resale buyers. In addition, some have a VIP system where you can jump ahead of other owners, even retail ones. Bluegreen and Wyndham are the ones I think of in terms of VIP systems.
I know they can't take away the home resort priority window and don't believe they can take away the ability for other DVC resorts same as other members. IMO, if they take away the non DVC options that may actually be a win for most owners even if they don't know it. Possible positives would include that they force better decisions on purchase (#of points) and usage by taking away the high cost, low value ($$$) options. It may also help those looking to buy in if it's simply taking away non DVC exchange options by reducing cost. The problem I have is that I don't see that alone as being enough to control the market. The only 2 approaches that I can think of and make any sense at all and are potentially drastic enough to have the desired effect are a DVC II with a charge to join or cross over which requires at least 2 to 3 new resorts with at least 1 or 2 being high demand resorts or some type of VIP system giving reservation and cost benefits to those who buy retail over resale.I would hate to see DVC reduce benefits of current owners and then having to pay a fee to get it back. They are not getting anything from owners who have owned 10-15-almost 20 years, so this would be a way. That would be really underhanded, but I would not be surprised.
I personally have never traded out and don't plan to, so I would not care about that. But I like being able to move around to different DVC resorts and I definitely want the priority window so that I can get the boardwalk view at BWV.
There's one other way it can be helpful: sowing doubt in the prospect's mind that a resale purchase will ever clear ROFR.
Do you mean that resale contracts had higher dues at Marriot??? Does it cost Disney more money for us to trade out??? Is this the big deal??
I've suspected that might be one of the "changes", and frankly, why not? It would keep those resales "in house" so to speak.
I agree with the bolded part in your above statement, Dean. Frankly, I'm not sure DVC does so well at the "exchange" thing anyway.
There is one way---on the sales floor. John and Jane Q. Public are on tour, and the resorts are lovely, "but we've always really loved the Polynesian." Well, you can use your points there, too!
Oh, I think it benefits Disney Resorts, or they wouldn't agree to it.
I don't buy that. I doubt if more than a small percentage of people taking tours even know a resale marketplace exists. The handful of prudent consumers who tour and then go home and do some research will learn about resale, but I'm sure most people who buy direct have no clue resale exists.
Essentially they came out with a new product, a points product. They grandfathered no one. You can buy into the new product or you can get crossover privileges for a fee. That fee was either $600 or $700 depending on numbers if you ONLY bought from Marriott and $1500 or $1900 if anything you were converting was resale. Those that didn't convert haven't lost anything that was contractual. They can still reserve their week just as before. They would have less or little access to new resorts. They kept the same exchange structure through II as before where they pay a yearly II fee and $109 internal exchange fees. If they did convert they get a free II account and free internal exchanges plus a few other benefits including the option of points. Short term it's really not a big deal, long term, it will be difficult for those that don't convert if the program is successful.
IF, big IF, they were to come out with a new system there are many variables. I think if this were to happen it's likely existing members wouldn't have much or any access to the new resorts at all if they didn't meet the requirements to be a member of the new system. We'll see, I'm not saying it will happen, only that it could.Ok...if they create DVC 2....Do you think there will be a 95 dollar fee to say go to Poly DVC for current owners....Or we can't go there at all unless we ahem get strongarmed into "upgrading".
If members decide to pay no extra.....Seems the benefit is a long way off. There is so much DVC to buy now. If they build at GF and Poly....that will take a while to implement.
I can't see a system that gives huge priorities because Disney has always been about....Once your in the bubble....everyone is the same.
Did I sprinkle to much pixie in my coffee today
My 1st contract was resale...150pts I then added on 50pts direct. I would hate for my points to be in 2 systems
Thanks....As you can see I am not business savvy
Kerri
That's correct, that's what I mean by keep them guessing.
Diane, I'm sure, DVC doesn't do well with exchanges. However, the current set up with no membership fee is better for those that just want access or the rare exchange. OTOH, if DVC were to allow direct RCI or II membership with all the usual benefits, it instantly moves to being a good to great trade option.
IMO, it's only a huge selling tool because they frame it as such. It's just as easy to play up not having the option and make it sound like the best option as well.
Except for anyone in the process of buying where they may get caught and given part of the rumors include a date of 1 Jan, 2011 and that it'd be difficult to close by then, it could be real important. Plus, if this change does happen, it's likely prices will be less after than before so one might have paid too much.
