The good news and the bad news about recent DVC changes (IMO)

[DisDadDVC]

The good news is that DVC likely does not want to create a "fourth class" anytime soon. So, I don't see them making any changes like they just did for a while (years).

The bad news is that if DVC IS going to make any changes in the near future, I would bet it will affect ALL resale buyers retroactively. THAT will be the whopper change.

 

[Coamfo]

I really don't think they will do that. If they think they had an uproar over a few caught in the contract/ROFR phase, I'd hate to see what happens then. Even though they are a business looking to make money, I think they try harder than most businesses to make their customers happy. I think the reversal on their resale decision today shows that.

However, I'm not taking any chances. I'll be buying WL direct when the new cabins are done.

 

[Dean]

The good news is that DVC likely does not want to create a "fourth class" anytime soon. So, I don't see them making any changes like they just did for a while (years).

The bad news is that if DVC IS going to make any changes in the near future, I would bet it will affect ALL resale buyers retroactively. THAT will be the whopper change.

I don't see any requirement to grandfathering though they likely would if they made further changes to items present already. The obvious next steps are to not combine resale contracts to current contracts and a VIP program possibly adding fees to those who are not VIP.

 

[Nabas]

The bad news is that if DVC IS going to make any changes in the near future, I would bet it will affect ALL resale buyers retroactively. THAT will be the whopper change.

Disney appears to use restrictions to boost direct sales. It's difficult to see how adding restrictions to those who previously bought through resale helps with future direct sales.

As they have done in the past, what's more likely to happen is that DVD will make changes that affect all members, including those who buy direct.

 

[Dean]

Disney appears to use restrictions to boost direct sales. It's difficult to see how adding restrictions to those who previously bought through resale helps with future direct sales.

As they have done in the past, what's more likely to happen is that DVD will make changes that affect all members, including those who buy direct.

They do use it to push members to retail but having the risk you might lose future benefits after owning certainly would further do so. But Timeshares change over time and often not for the better. IMO all of the changes combined are pretty lightweight.

 

[suebeelin]

positive reinforce works better than negative reinforcement.

Anyone with a kid knows that.

If they added 3 extra free fast passes for those staying in the room for a few years, or x annual passes/tickets for Y number of direct points, ppl would buy, including current owners.

Punishing resales is negative reinforcement. I understand why they are doing it, but it is less likely to incentivize current owners to buy direct. I find it a big turn off- If I were to want poly points, which I briefly considered, I'm definitely not buying now. Just my opinion.

 

[Dean]

positive reinforce works better than negative reinforcement.

Anyone with a kid knows that.

If they added 3 extra free fast passes for those staying in the room for a few years, or x annual passes/tickets for Y number of direct points, ppl would buy, including current owners.

Punishing resales is negative reinforcement. I understand why they are doing it, but it is less likely to incentivize current owners to buy direct. I find it a big turn off- If I were to want poly points, which I briefly considered, I'm definitely not buying now. Just my opinion.

Not with timeshare sales.

 

[mynameisnobody]

The bad news is that if DVC IS going to make any changes in the near future, I would bet it will affect ALL resale buyers retroactively. THAT will be the whopper change.

I really don't think they will do that. If they think they had an uproar over a few caught in the contract/ROFR phase, I'd hate to see what happens then. Even though they are a business looking to make money, I think they try harder than most businesses to make their customers happy. I think the reversal on their resale decision today shows that.

However, I'm not taking any chances. I'll be buying WL direct when the new cabins are done.

I agree with DisDadDVC the next step is to remove member extras from all resale only contracts. I've said as much in other posts. Read the MEADS, it's already written into that document. If you do not have a direct purchase contract the member extras will be taken away. It's not a matter of 'if' but 'when'. They'll wait for the smoke to die down over this little incident then you'll see the notices coming out that they will be discontinuing discounts and other extras to resale only owners.

 

[auralia]

So I have a resale contract and a small direct from Disney contract (30pts) that I bought to get me to the point number I needed for my family with the use month I wanted... long story short what am I then in reguard to this? my resale was purchased several years ago before they changed anything and then my 30 points not too long after. I am assuming even if they removed the grandfather clause I would get direct purchase benefits (I have 0 interest in trading out for cruises etc if they don't grandfather that stuff in) due to my small direct from Disney contract... so couldn't anyone buy resalse and then just do a 20 point add on with the savings to get the membership discounts and benefits?

 

[JimMIA]

First of all, I'm not so sure the impetus for the recent change was either punitive or designed to help direct sales. For one thing, I don't think the resale market is that much of a competitor for DVD. Most prospective buyers don't even know resale exists, and whatever impact it does have is offset somewhat by the sales point that your DVC will be worth something when you want to get out.

Rather than a shot at resale, I have a nagging suspicion that the root cause was the increase in AP prices raising the ante for DVD to provide those perks to DVC owners. We don't know what they pay, but I think it's very likely that DVD pays something for every DVC AP sold. The same is probably true for the other discounts -- it's not very likely that the merchandising and dining folks are just giving stuff away to DVC.

If my suspicion is correct, a logical response would be for someone to ask, "Hey, wait a minute...we're paying a cost for people who didn't buy from us to have these discounts! What's up with that? And how can we a) reduce our costs and b) make sure we're only subsidizing our own customers?"

We may never know, but I'd bet there is some other reason for these changes.

 

[JimMIA]

As far as what's next, I'm not very optimistic -- not because I think these kinds of restrictions are great ideas, but just because I don't have much confidence in DVD management.

As Dean has commented frequently for years, there are a LOT of things DVD could do to enhance their direct sales that would be much more productive than taking away member benefits.

• They could come up with a meaningful VIP program for direct buyers only.
• They could be more aggressive in their sales activities -- not high pressure or low ethics, but just more actively soliciting sales opportunities.
• They could offer different versions of DVC ownership available to direct purchasers only -- for example, pooling ROFR'd and foreclosed inventory to form something like Wyndham's CWA where the purchasers of that inventory would have 11 month booking advantage at all the properties in the pool.

Lots of stuff they could do that would not be negative.

 

[disneynutz]

First of all, I'm not so sure the impetus for the recent change was either punitive or designed to help direct sales. For one thing, I don't think the resale market is that much of a competitor for DVD. Most prospective buyers don't even know resale exists, and whatever impact it does have is offset somewhat by the sales point that your DVC will be worth something when you want to get out.

Rather than a shot at resale, I have a nagging suspicion that the root cause was the increase in AP prices raising the ante for DVD to provide those perks to DVC owners. We don't know what they pay, but I think it's very likely that DVD pays something for every DVC AP sold. The same is probably true for the other discounts -- it's not very likely that the merchandising and dining folks are just giving stuff away to DVC.

If my suspicion is correct, a logical response would be for someone to ask, "Hey, wait a minute...we're paying a cost for people who didn't buy from us to have these discounts! What's up with that? And how can we a) reduce our costs and b) make sure we're only subsidizing our own customers?"

We may never know, but I'd bet there is some other reason for these changes.

I have been told by a guide that they consider resales like someone is taking food off of their table. Having extras available to entice prospective direct buyers is an added tool for them to use. The wording is pretty clear and in bold type, buy direct and you get rewarded, by resale and you don't. As I posted, all of the member magic extras introduced in the last year are all part of a master design aimed as direct buyer benefits.

Bill

 

[JimMIA]

So I have a resale contract and a small direct from Disney contract (30pts) that I bought to get me to the point number I needed for my family with the use month I wanted... long story short what am I then in reguard to this? my resale was purchased several years ago before they changed anything and then my 30 points not too long after. I am assuming even if they removed the grandfather clause I would get direct purchase benefits (I have 0 interest in trading out for cruises etc if they don't grandfather that stuff in) due to my small direct from Disney contract... so couldn't anyone buy resalse and then just do a 20 point add on with the savings to get the membership discounts and benefits?

You're in exactly the same place you were last week. You currently have the benefits...and they can be radically changed or taken away tomorrow with one swipe of the Mouse's pen.

 

[2thdr]

First of all, I'm not so sure the impetus for the recent change was either punitive or designed to help direct sales. For one thing, I don't think the resale market is that much of a competitor for DVD. Most prospective buyers don't even know resale exists, and whatever impact it does have is offset somewhat by the sales point that your DVC will be worth something when you want to get out.

Rather than a shot at resale, I have a nagging suspicion that the root cause was the increase in AP prices raising the ante for DVD to provide those perks to DVC owners. We don't know what they pay, but I think it's very likely that DVD pays something for every DVC AP sold. The same is probably true for the other discounts -- it's not very likely that the merchandising and dining folks are just giving stuff away to DVC.

If my suspicion is correct, a logical response would be for someone to ask, "Hey, wait a minute...we're paying a cost for people who didn't buy from us to have these discounts! What's up with that? And how can we a) reduce our costs and b) make sure we're only subsidizing our own customers?"

We may never know, but I'd bet there is some other reason for these changes.

Points are points, no matter who owns them, they are fixed. So I don't see how resale could cost them more in perks vs. the original owner keeping the contract.

 

[JimMIA]

I have been told by a guide that they consider resales like someone is taking food off of their table...

Oh, I'm sure the DVD timeshare salesmen certainly DO consider resale close to a personal attack on their family! But the timeshare sales personnel don't make these decisions.

 

[JimMIA]

Points are points, no matter who owns them, they are fixed. So I don't see how resale could cost them more in perks vs. the original owner keeping the contract.

I probably didn't make my point very clear. DVD previously was paying for perks for both direct and resale buyers. DVD -- which is the developer -- gets nothing from resale buyers. Not one penny. So the logic goes, "Why should we pay for their perks?"

And the fact that someone bought the points direct originally a long, long time ago is irrelevant. When I purchased resale, I didn't pay one penny to DVD. Only when I purchased direct did I pay DVD anything.

 

[CarolMN]

Points are points, no matter who owns them, they are fixed. So I don't see how resale could cost them more in perks vs. the original owner keeping the contract.

They don't. However, if Jim's theory is correct, DVD decided that there is no benefit to them to pay for perks that go to resale buyers.

Bottom Line: DVD pays for the perks, the perks are not contractually guaranteed and so DVD can pay for whatever they want for whoever they want.

 

[supersnoop]

Bottom Line: DVD pays for the perks, the perks are not contractually guaranteed and so DVD can pay for whatever they want for whoever they want.

I wonder if DVD actually pays for the perks or just negotiates for them.

 

[CarolMN]

I wonder if DVD actually pays for the perks or just negotiates for them.

My GUESS is that they negotiate for some and pay for some. For example, I'm sure the member events at Typhoon Lagoon is paid for - no benefit to parks for them to staff and run the park for "nothing". They probably negotiate for merchandise & dining discounts or at most, pay very little.

 

[mynameisnobody]

Points are points, no matter who owns them, they are fixed. So I don't see how resale could cost them more in perks vs. the original owner keeping the contract.

The resale points do cost DVD more than if the original owner keeps the contract but it's not the cost of perks, it's the costs associated with ROFR and contract/membership transfer.