SSR Price Increased to $120/pt.

[Anthony1971]

If we just look at SSR and BLT--two resorts which are now identically priced--it goes without saying that BLT is the better deal. More years...lower dues...better location. Even if DVC does something like offering extra benefits to direct buyers, BLT is still the more attractive buy with prices being equal.

Location is a Preference for the buyer to choose some find better value being by MK some by DTD. I left out Spa and Golf as BLT is close but not onsight...
Dues are less but points needed is much higher
I agree with more years

I would not buy at BLT after staying there... I spoke to others who were staying there who felt the same. BLT has some good points however seemingly more bad for a lot of people and certianly is not a hands down choice over any of the other resorts.

SSR as stated above is outselling other resorts so the reason may be just that.

 

[Sammie]

It has already been stated that the furnishings disrepair is being replaced by the vendor and that these expenses will NOT be passed on to DVC members. So that statement has no relevance in this discussion.

Furniture is being replaced. Where did you get that info? And where is it documented that this cost is not being passed on?

 

[wdrl]

Perhaps DVC didn't get the sale bump they thought they would see by lowering the price, so they decided to take it back up again and earn more revenue for each point sold.

From July 1, 2010, through October 15, 2010, deeds recorded with the Orange County Comptroller show that DVD sold 113,732 SSR points. As tjkraz states, only DVD knows whether those sales met expectation.

My suspicions are that the SSR sales amounts were good, but they cannibalized sales at OKW and AKV. From March 1 to June 30, 2010, DVD sold 52,350 OKW points, and since July 1, 2010, OKW has sold 28,369. The shift in marketing emphasis by DVD from OKW to SSR was probably intentional, driven in large part by the volume of unsold points available at SSR.

But the significant downturn in AKV sales over recent months was probably not expected by DVD. Throughout 2009 and early 2010, AKV averaged good monthly sales. Not as good as BLT, but they exceeded SSR and the other WDW resorts. However, since July 1, 2010, DVD has sold only 66,570 AKV points, about 60% as much as SSR. Compare that to a 6-week period in March and April 2010 when AKV sold 99,255 points. At its current rate of monthly sales, it will take DVD about 17 years to sell all 7.4 million AKV points.

 

[McCrae]

Location is a Preference for the buyer to choose some find better value being by MK some by DTD. I left out Spa and Golf as BLT is close but not onsight...
Dues are less but points needed is much higher
I agree with more years

I would not buy at BLT after staying there... I spoke to others who were staying there who felt the same. BLT has some good points however seemingly more bad for a lot of people and certianly is not a hands down choice over any of the other resorts.

SSR as stated above is outselling other resorts so the reason may be just that.

BLT is the cheapest option to buy DVC membership. Whilst staying at BLT is not the cheapest option. Why not buy BLT to stay at SSR?

Are you sure SSR is out selling BLT...not sure this is the case.

 

[JimMIA]

Furniture is being replaced. Where did you get that info? And where is it documented that this cost is not being passed on?

I must have missed that info also. I know the interior modifications due to poor design are being corrected at DVD's expense (like moving the toilet from the sleeping area of the studio to the balcony), but I haven't heard of any vendor replacements.

If the furniture is truly faulty (as opposed to just being cheap), certainly the vendor should make it good, but I don't know if that's the case.

(P.S. just kidding about the toilet!)

 

[SSR]

I must have missed that info also. I know the interior modifications due to poor design are being corrected at DVD's expense (like moving the toilet from the sleeping area of the studio to the balcony), but I haven't heard of any vendor replacements.

If the furniture is truly faulty (as opposed to just being cheap), certainly the vendor should make it good, but I don't know if that's the case.

(P.S. just kidding about the toilet!)

I'm skeptical, too.

I would be shocked if 5 year old furniture in a commercial setting is going to be "replaced" by the vendor for being "faulty" and that we owners won't pay for it. I hope someone posts a primary source of that information.

 

[Anthony1971]

BLT is the cheapest option to buy DVC membership. Whilst staying at BLT is not the cheapest option. Why not buy BLT to stay at SSR?

Are you sure SSR is out selling BLT...not sure this is the case.

As above It is outselling AKV do not know about BLT and would doubt it is..

If you own at SSR you can book the Treehouses
Other than that I would not disagree with thinking this way, however this would not be a thought with most when buying retail.
Also keep in mind there is no way of knowing if BLT dues will stay the lowest.

 

[Anthony1971]

(like moving the toilet from the sleeping area of the studio to the balcony)
(P.S. just kidding about the toilet!)

This would explian why I saw lot of people without shirts on on the balconies when I was there.
I guess they did not get to the room I was satying in yet.

 

[princessbride6205]

Disney seems to intentionally be pushing a lot of sales toward BLT. They hold daily sales presentations at BLT and it's the Walt Disney World option which appears to be getting most of the press at the expense of AKV and SSR.

My guess is that they are trying to sell as many Bay Lake Tower points as possible at $110-120 each before the resale market starts to impact BLT. Once BLT is "sold out", they may have to bite the bullet and heavily discount SSR and AKV in order to remain competitive.

But for the time being, my sense is that they are using unrealistically high AKV and SSR pricing simply to help make BLT look good. As in: "why pay $120 per point for SSR or AKV when you can get lower dues and more years at BLT!"

This is indeed the case. I called at the end of September to add on to my existing AKV contract and my guide tried to talk me into BLT. For the exact same purchase price, I'd get 3 years more membership and lower dues. She wasn't inappropriately pushy in tone, but she didn't give up. She tried three different tactics to convince me on BLT. In the end, we chose not to do an add on at this time and continue looking resale.
I would think that Disney would have to discount AKV and SSR, too. But I also thought that they would do better incentives or fewer price increases due to the economy, but I was dead wrong!

From July 1, 2010, through October 15, 2010, deeds recorded with the Orange County Comptroller show that DVD sold 113,732 SSR points. As tjkraz states, only DVD knows whether those sales met expectation.

My suspicions are that the SSR sales amounts were good, but they cannibalized sales at OKW and AKV. From March 1 to June 30, 2010, DVD sold 52,350 OKW points, and since July 1, 2010, OKW has sold 28,369. The shift in marketing emphasis by DVD from OKW to SSR was probably intentional, driven in large part by the volume of unsold points available at SSR.

But the significant downturn in AKV sales over recent months was probably not expected by DVD. Throughout 2009 and early 2010, AKV averaged good monthly sales. Not as good as BLT, but they exceeded SSR and the other WDW resorts. However, since July 1, 2010, DVD has sold only 66,570 AKV points, about 60% as much as SSR. Compare that to a 6-week period in March and April 2010 when AKV sold 99,255 points. At its current rate of monthly sales, it will take DVD about 17 years to sell all 7.4 million AKV points.

It doesn't surprise me that AKV sales are down. [And thanks for the awesome math by the way - love numbers ] The incentives really fell off along with the price increase on July 1st. Before then it was possible to get AKV for $95-97 or less with incentives. Should have bought then, I guess.

Very interesting thread.

 

[Greatfalls]

It looks to me like the main objective is to dissuade people from buying blocks under 100, which of course are easiest to resell. Once the discounts kick in at 100 and 250, the price increase isn't that much.

 

[newyorkmike]

Net price change is far less than that. It went from net of $95 to $108/$102 depending upon the volume of points purchased.

Where are you getting those numbers? I am looking at the DVC explorer website that my guide sent to me which updates regularly with real time numbers, and it is showing net purchase price of $120 for less than 100 point contracts, $114 for 100-149 point contracts ($6 discount), and $108 net purchase price for 150+ points ($12 discount)?

I am not sure if I am allowed to post the explorer website publicly as it is password protected. Can someone advise if that is allowed?

I am happy that my parents were able to buy in last month at $95/pt.

 

[JimMIA]

It looks to me like the main objective is to dissuade people from buying blocks under 100, which of course are easiest to resell. Once the discounts kick in at 100 and 250, the price increase isn't that much.

I don't think they're discouraging smaller contracts, just smaller total packages. In other words -- unless they've changed this -- you could buy five 50-point contracts for a total of 250 points and still get the maximum discount.

If they really wanted to discourage smaller contracts, there's a better way. Some timeshare programs have a "program fee" which is a fee that goes to defray the overall cost of administering the timeshare system.

That fee is often the same for every account, regardless of size, because every account has underlying administration costs regardless of how many points it contains. Over the longer term, a system like that costs the small contract owner somewhat more per point than it costs people who own more points. That's really a much more fair system than DVC uses, because it allocates the costs where they actually occur.

 

[ELKHUNTER]

[If we just look at SSR and BLT--two resorts which are now identically priced--it goes without saying that BLT is the better deal. More years...lower dues...better location. Even if DVC does something like offering extra benefits to direct buyers, BLT is still the more attractive buy with prices being equal. ]

Some may also feel that even if BLT was less than SSR they would still buy SSR. I know i personally would because comtemporary decor is not our cup of tea. JMHO

 

[william1375]

It could be increased demand with their selling smaller blocks of points. No reason to raise prices on something that is not selling. My guess is they are making a mint selling smaller deeds and so can afford to raise prices.

 

[gkrykewy]

This is indeed the case. I called at the end of September to add on to my existing AKV contract and my guide tried to talk me into BLT. For the exact same purchase price, I'd get 3 years more membership and lower dues. She wasn't inappropriately pushy in tone, but she didn't give up. She tried three different tactics to convince me on BLT.

Now this is strange. I guess Disney really isn't at all concerned about slow sales at AKV, for whatever reason.

 

[dbs1228]

Very strange because in Feb. our guide was pushing SSR and AKV and never even brought out the sheets for BLT until we asked! Both SSR/AKV with incentives were about 97.00 pp.

We wanted MK location and went with BLT and almost bought SSR also since we really want the THV. Boy am I glad we waited on SSR 1 month later bought SSR for 30.00 pp less, same UY and it had all 2009 points!

Still think they have something in the works to make buying direct a much better "deal"
or rather, make people think twice about buying resale. Right now you just cannot justify paying 120.00 pp for SSR when resale is about 60.00pp!

 

[zalansky]

Keep in mind, many of the people who tour DVC every day have no idea there is a resale market out there. Bringing the cost of SSR (and the others) up makes it look as desirable as BLT to those who are not as savvy as us DIS-ers. If I were touring DVC for the first time and had no knowledge of it, and SSR was selling for $30 less per point it would make me wonder why it was so much less and what was wrong with it. They bring the price up and that takes that doubt away. Just a thought.

I know when we toured SSR back in 2005, we loved it...had never even been to Beach Club, Boardwalk, etc. So we had no comparison. And we still bought at SSR.

 

[bwvBound]

Bringing the cost of SSR (and the others) up makes it look as desirable as BLT to those who are not as savvy as us DIS-ers.

LOL! Keep in mind that personal taste will still factor into future purchase decisions. Some might not favor BLT's format and style?

 

[TisBit]

I haven't looked at resale listings in awhile (just by rule I don't concern myself with it) but was actually surprised that looking at it there aren't that many SSR contracts out there right now.

I really think DVC might be doing something smart here, allow SSR/AKV contracts sell low to clear out the initial glut of inventory from sales without trying to compete by dropping their prices. Once supply and demand begin to even out (less available contracts out there, higher the asking price) and then offer deals with the remaining inventory/forclosures points. In the end it will help keep bring resales back up and the will just continue to slowly sell inventory as needed.

Right now, BLT is still relatively competitive with resale, so to me it makes sense to continue to push it.

 

[McCrae]

Agreed. I think resale prices will soar, especially once the economy improves and their are less forced sellers.

The discount between resale and Disney is too large for it to continue at SSR.

Has Disney ever cut the headline cost of a DVC resort?