Should DVC Keep Expanding?

[DisneyEater]

Interesting 2 part article posted on 4parks1blog.com this week asking about DVC expansion.

First part is more of a common complaint look at it in relation to the parks.

The second part looks at it from a member point of view.

Personnally, I think they should limit any additional DVC in WDW and maybe add elsewhere, whether at DL, other Disney parks, or even offsite options like castaway cay.

If they add at WDW, they should keep it small to avoid over-building it. No more BLT's, AKV's, or SSR's.

 

[McCrae]

Don't agree.

I don't care how many resorts DVC build, the more the better in my book.

 

[DisneyEater]

Don't agree.

I don't care how many resorts DVC build, the more the better in my book.

You are not concerned with too many DVC resorts in WDW resulting in you not being able to book at BCV or VWL at the 7 month window?

 

[sweetdana]

If people keep buying them.. they will keep selling them.

They will continue to grow the parks as they have. Add more rides, shows, and even other parks as needed. They will not get to a point the parks will be so full they shut down regularly. ... They will add more for people to do.

If someone agrees to buy 50 yrs of coming to WDW.. Why wouldn't they sell the obligation to that person. ANY business would be silly to not jump on that band wagon. When BLT runs out they will build somewhere else, maybe GF, when that runs out.. they will build maybe at the Poly.. ect. They will never run out.

Off sites will be limited, based on location. As they cannot charge what ever they want for standard time share locations. IE in Vegas or Cleveland, they could not charge 140$ a point.. no one would pay the equivalent of 400$ a night for a 1 bedroom. (Well above the ave for the area.) Orlando, they have the mouse, and they kind-a control the value of it by what they charge per night for there resorts.

 

[DisneyEater]

If people keep buying them.. they will keep selling them.

They will continue to grow the parks as they have. Add more rides, shows, and even other parks as needed. They will not get to a point the parks will be so full they shut down regularly. ... They will add more for people to do.

If someone agrees to buy 50 yrs of coming to WDW.. Why wouldn't they sell the obligation to that person. ANY business would be silly to not jump on that band wagon. When BLT runs out they will build somewhere else, maybe GF, when that runs out.. they will build maybe at the Poly.. ect. They will never run out.

Off sites will be limited, based on location. As they cannot charge what ever they want for standard time share locations. IE in Vegas or Cleveland, they could not charge 140$ a point.. no one would pay the equivalent of 400$ a night for a 1 bedroom. (Well above the ave for the area.) Orlando, they have the mouse, and they kind-a control the value of it by what they charge per night for there resorts.

Some good points and another reason to vote for expansion as it would necessitate more attractions to keep up with the volume of people.

 

[JimMIA]

My personal opinion is that all of the DVC resorts on the planet constitute only a drop in the bucket in the supply of room-nights in the immediate WDW vicinity...and therefore, DVC expansion would have ZERO effect on the parks.

My prediction is that DVC continues to expand for many years at WDW. They have plenty of room. Park attendance is driven by the economy -- not by onsite room availability -- and those folks have to stay somewhere. The Mouse might as well get as many of those dollars as they can.

As far as the effects on existing members, I'm quite sure Disney doesn't care about that at all. They already have current owners' money. Their only concern is future sales.

Besides, new members from expansion are just using the same system and following the same rules as everyone else. If I'm an owner at XYZ DVC resort and I choose not to make a reservation during my 11-month booking window, whose fault is it if an owner of SSR snatches the last availability in their 7-month window?

For resorts away from Disney themeparks, I think they make sense only in very limited scenarios.

I think a resort in Hawaii makes sense for several reasons -- primarily as a draw for a rapidly growing Asian customer base. I'm not sure I would have built it at Ko Olina, but Disney obviously knows more about that than I do.

But National Harbour? Naw. Why? Location, location, location. Who the heck wants to stay there???

Ski resort? I certainly like ski resorts, but I don't see any Disney advantage there. If anything, they're at a disadvantage to companies like Hilton, Marriott, Wyndham, et al.

Cleveland? You know, I actually did not know that Cleveland was a timeshare hotspot! I feel so clueless. I'm gonna go check RCI and see what they have there -- I haven't been to Cleveland in years!

Castaway Cay? Maybe. We could get some immigrant rafts, and if we could figure out how to drift them across the Gulf Stream without ending up in Scotland, we might have a shot at getting there. Other than that, I guess we'd have to helicopter folks in from Miami.

 

[OrangeCountyCommuter]

I think DVC is getting ready to discover a HARSH reality.....

Once they leave the parks thier "premium" disappears.

You would think they would have learned from Hilton Head and Vero, but....

I expect we may see more at the parks, but I wouldn't be surprised if Hawaii is the last "off site"

 

[CMOORE185]

I think DVC is getting ready to discover a HARSH reality.....

Once they leave the parks thier "premium" disappears.

You would think they would have learned from Hilton Head and Vero, but....

I expect we may see more at the parks, but I wouldn't be surprised if Hawaii is the last "off site"

I do not know about Vero, but I think HH is a great success. It is nearly impossible to book at 7 months in the summer. People on these boards are purchasing resale contracts all the time just to get 11 month booking. Hilton Head Island itself is a gem, and the DVC resort is spectacular. By the way I think DVC should keep expanding both on and off site.

 

[Breyean]

They need to expand the DVC presence in California. They have a park there (or two) yet the VGC are so few. Plus with the possibility of people going to Aulani maybe doing a stopover for a few days at DL, it w/b nice to be able to get a DVD room there.

 

[kamik86]

Someone above (that I didn't quote, sorry!) said that building in WDW more would make it harder to book some resorts at 7 months. I disagree, building in OTHER places will make that harder.

Think about it if someone now owns at only Aulani they are now going to try to book WDW at 7 months. The more off-site owners there are the more people are trying to get WDW at 7 months when they want to go there. If they build XYZ resort at WDW yes they can try to get BLT at 7 months but I can get XYZ resort at 7 months so the impact isn't as much we will just all shift around at WDW like we do now. Yes some places like SSR are less desirable so a new one like that may hurt the chances of getting what you want at 7 months some but there is also a good chance that like BLT it will be a location many find desirable and doesn't affect 7 months bookings much at all.

 

[adminjedi]

You are not concerned with too many DVC resorts in WDW resulting in you not being able to book at BCV or VWL at the 7 month window?

More DVC people means more DVC rooms, right? Not everybody will want BCV or VWL at the 7 month window.

Personally, own where it is important to you to stay and it doesn't matter how many more DVC resorts are built or how many new DVC members join!

 

[dizfan]

The day DVD stops expanding, is the day I start worrying.

For example, didn't Marriott recently spin off their timeshare business?

 

[disneychic]

My personal opinion is that all of the DVC resorts on the planet constitute only a drop in the bucket in the supply of room-nights in the immediate WDW vicinity...and therefore, DVC expansion would have ZERO effect on the parks.

My prediction is that DVC continues to expand for many years at WDW. They have plenty of room. Park attendance is driven by the economy -- not by onsite room availability -- and those folks have to stay somewhere. The Mouse might as well get as many of those dollars as they can.

As far as the effects on existing members, I'm quite sure Disney doesn't care about that at all. They already have current owners' money. Their only concern is future sales.

Besides, new members from expansion are just using the same system and following the same rules as everyone else. If I'm an owner at XYZ DVC resort and I choose not to make a reservation during my 11-month booking window, whose fault is it if an owner of SSR snatches the last availability in their 7-month window?

For resorts away from Disney themeparks, I think they make sense only in very limited scenarios.

I think a resort in Hawaii makes sense for several reasons -- primarily as a draw for a rapidly growing Asian customer base. I'm not sure I would have built it at Ko Olina, but Disney obviously knows more about that than I do.

But National Harbour? Naw. Why? Location, location, location. Who the heck wants to stay there???

Ski resort? I certainly like ski resorts, but I don't see any Disney advantage there. If anything, they're at a disadvantage to companies like Hilton, Marriott, Wyndham, et al.

Cleveland? You know, I actually did not know that Cleveland was a timeshare hotspot! I feel so clueless. I'm gonna go check RCI and see what they have there -- I haven't been to Cleveland in years!

Castaway Cay? Maybe. We could get some immigrant rafts, and if we could figure out how to drift them across the Gulf Stream without ending up in Scotland, we might have a shot at getting there. Other than that, I guess we'd have to helicopter folks in from Miami.

It's like you read my mind!

 

[TisBit]

More DVC people means more DVC rooms, right? Not everybody will want BCV or VWL at the 7 month window.

Personally, own where it is important to you to stay and it doesn't matter how many more DVC resorts are built or how many new DVC members join!

This is exactly right....yes, maybe this resort or that resort might be harder or easier to book, but it will open up other resorts as well. Its a somewhat balanced system, so there will be rooms somewhere. As others have said, if I wanted to book at BCV consistently, I need to consider adding on there.

As for expansion, the sad news that people don't think about is: If they stop expanding DVC, they lose ANY incentive in keeping up with DVC members. If you stop selling to new owners, what do you care what the existing owners have for perks, etc. You are in essence, saying..."we are there", its over and done and we have tapped out this revenue source. Who cares if the rooms are upkept, if the resorts are painted, if they have any perks, because we have washed our hands of the club.

Expanding off site will have limited impact on DVC, but it builds off the concept that Disney has said they want mini-resorts elsewhere. Like Aulani, you may have a Disney resort in the Northeast featuring indoor water parks or near ski areas to make it a four season resort. In the Southwest you may develop a resort that has a mini them park with coasters that can be a tourist draws for people in easy commuting distance and is not necessarily the WDW experience, but merely a taste of it. I remember Disney talking about these ideas and giving a percentage of those rooms over to DVC, will help....the question is will they be enough of a draw to sell even a limited amount of points.

The most obvious expansions will be to the overseas resorts. People that visit DLP will be willing to trade to WDW on occasion and vice versa.

 

[DebbieB]

My personal opinion is that all of the DVC resorts on the planet constitute only a drop in the bucket in the supply of room-nights in the immediate WDW vicinity...and therefore, DVC expansion would have ZERO effect on the parks.

My prediction is that DVC continues to expand for many years at WDW. They have plenty of room. Park attendance is driven by the economy -- not by onsite room availability -- and those folks have to stay somewhere. The Mouse might as well get as many of those dollars as they can.

As far as the effects on existing members, I'm quite sure Disney doesn't care about that at all. They already have current owners' money. Their only concern is future sales.

I agree, I don't think more DVC's = more people in the parks. I don't think new DVC resorts will bring in many people who have never been to WDW before or would not have come otherwise. They are just drawing away from the other WDW resorts or offsite.

I do not know about Vero, but I think HH is a great success. It is nearly impossible to book at 7 months in the summer. People on these boards are purchasing resale contracts all the time just to get 11 month booking. Hilton Head Island itself is a gem, and the DVC resort is spectacular. By the way I think DVC should keep expanding both on and off site.

Yes, in the summer. But what about the rest of the year? I think it took way longer to sellout the points at HH than they expected and they had to offer larger incentives to do it. A friend of mine bought there when they offered them 3 nights dirt cheap in the winter and then upgraded them (2 people) from a studio to a 2 bedroom. She has used the points elsewhere, she just wanted to get a foot in the door. I think DVC is going to be very careful building outside of the parks again. The name of the game is to build resorts and then sellout the points as quick as possible at the highest price.

I wish they would expand at DL, I think they only put 50 rooms at VGC to "test the waters", plus I don't think they wanted to draw away from Aulani since they will have more west coast people buying there.

 

[XGrumpy1]

I think those 50 rooms at VGC paid for the entire expansion.

I think DVC will do this more, do a rehab or an expansion and turn some part of that expansion into DVC, using the DVC "instant" money to pay for the whole project.

 

[JBx3]

I think the market is way overloaded with re-sales. Expansion by DVC may help Disney as long as they can keep selling direct.

Off-site would be interesting to see but I am sure they will wait to see how Hawaii does.

On-site expansion and watch your ability to sell at re-sale market declined dramatically as it is now. Too many resales now to keep the value propped.

 

[montrealdisneylovers]

My personal opinion is that all of the DVC resorts on the planet constitute only a drop in the bucket in the supply of room-nights in the immediate WDW vicinity...and therefore, DVC expansion would have ZERO effect on the parks.

My prediction is that DVC continues to expand for many years at WDW. They have plenty of room. Park attendance is driven by the economy -- not by onsite room availability -- and those folks have to stay somewhere. The Mouse might as well get as many of those dollars as they can.

As far as the effects on existing members, I'm quite sure Disney doesn't care about that at all. They already have current owners' money. Their only concern is future sales.Besides, new members from expansion are just using the same system and following the same rules as everyone else. If I'm an owner at XYZ DVC resort and I choose not to make a reservation during my 11-month booking window, whose fault is it if an owner of SSR snatches the last availability in their 7-month window?

For resorts away from Disney themeparks, I think they make sense only in very limited scenarios.

I think a resort in Hawaii makes sense for several reasons -- primarily as a draw for a rapidly growing Asian customer base. I'm not sure I would have built it at Ko Olina, but Disney obviously knows more about that than I do.

But National Harbour? Naw. Why? Location, location, location. Who the heck wants to stay there???

Ski resort? I certainly like ski resorts, but I don't see any Disney advantage there. If anything, they're at a disadvantage to companies like Hilton, Marriott, Wyndham, et al.

Cleveland? You know, I actually did not know that Cleveland was a timeshare hotspot! I feel so clueless. I'm gonna go check RCI and see what they have there -- I haven't been to Cleveland in years!

Castaway Cay? Maybe. We could get some immigrant rafts, and if we could figure out how to drift them across the Gulf Stream without ending up in Scotland, we might have a shot at getting there. Other than that, I guess we'd have to helicopter folks in from Miami.

I hope that they care about existing members because it is with happy existing members that they will increase their sales both through add-ons and by worth of mouth to new members.

One unhappy member can cause a greater loss of sales than 10 happy members can create. People will be quicker to complain when unhappy than compliment when happy.

 

[OrangeCountyCommuter]

I do not know about Vero, but I think HH is a great success. It is nearly impossible to book at 7 months in the summer. People on these boards are purchasing resale contracts all the time just to get 11 month booking. Hilton Head Island itself is a gem, and the DVC resort is spectacular. By the way I think DVC should keep expanding both on and off site.

I owned Hilton Head. It went DOWN in value before I sold it (and that was before the current decline) Looking at the prices it's never been that great on resale. Some folks are buying it because "you can book at a Disney resort at 7 months and it's the cheaper way in!"

In Disney's eyes it took WAY too long to sell out. Resale is NOT an indicator they care about unless you are buyng from them (and the prices indicate they aren't really interested in that one)

And a resort that's only popular a few months of the year is not really what Disney wanted!

 

[Dean]

IMO, the answer depends on what each members goals are and the specifics of the resort in question. The reality is that as long as the general demand of a new resort is equal to those of the more in demand resorts, it's neutral but provides options. However, new resorts that are in demand do NOT help the 7 month window enough to matter, even if those members exchange out a lot (HI). The reason is that in general they are more likely to trade to the other higher demand options. However, on the other side, a resort with a lot of points and lower demand has a dramatic affect on the 7 mo window (SSR as example). As a rough gestimate, it likely takes 10 times the points in a high demand option to balance a lower demand option. That be around 40-45 BCV resorts compared to just SSR. I'm personally of the opinion that the more the better due to more choices, but there is a downside depending on specifics.