A given buyer doesn't matter, it's the overall effect that is the issue. However, it is likely to driver new customers and those doing the tours to retail more than in the past. If not, we'll see more changes in all likelihood.
Yes, very true, and beyond that, it is a losing proposition to cater to customers who take things so personally as to corrupt this into a trust issue. A betrayal of trust requires a promise, and in this case, Disney has complied with their promise 100%.
I think even that is off-target. The most significant conflict in the thread is not whether people like this change or not, but rather only with regard to whether Disney is literally evil or not.
, will be at whatever the resale market dictates at the time, with or without changes, it definitely won't be what we paid (well maybe on that first contract back in 2000
) This is the same with every single other timeshare on the market.
We choose to spend our vacation time at one of two home resorts (which, again is why and what we bought), and we get to do just that whenever we want to travel. In the off chance we can't get our home resort, because we book too close to our travel dates, well then, we get another gorgeous DVC accommodation, SSR, OKW, whatever.
It doesn't matter, that ball is in their court. They could stop all options for all owners if they wanted above just the club resorts. DVC has always been just another nice timeshare. Anyone who thought otherwise were kidding themselves, IMO. This is a good thing for all owners in many ways. These include that it will improve the long term viability of the program, create other options and savings for those who understand the true value of DVC and it may prevent someone from making an impulse buy looking at the poor value exchange options.
I doubt it'll be a minuscule number that buy in resale but if it is, that means the change was successful. They are not unfairly competing, they never intended for you to have the true options to start with. Market forces will determine the value, not DVC.
They really should do this in some way. They likely can't reduce the points but what they could do would be to give the option to be a regular RCI member. In that case you could deposit lower seasons and smaller units and trade up effectively reducing the points costs. You'd have to pay higher exchange costs and a yearly membership fee. That change would benefit those that also own other RCI timeshares and be negative to those that simply want the option for rare use or just in case.
IMO, DVC has never been a true luxury timeshare, certainly not in the vein of Ritz or Four Seasons. Comparing to cruises, it's in the range of RCCL, not Holland America or Celebrity and certainly not Silver Seas or similar, same for DCL as it turns out.
Which supports the contention that DVC was actually under-priced rather than under-bonused.
I would rather get those perqs in the form of dividends or stock buy-back, than as a DVC member.
But the company sells " the pixie dust" It sells "the experience", it sells customer service , it sells making the guest feel special. That is how the customer justifies to themselves the extra cost compared to a similar product. The time and or money that any company puts into raising the guests experience is exactly that, an investment in it's future return revenue. It really all comes down to long term profit or short term gain. For any company to lose that class action law suit, you would have to show that the amount of investment they are putting into creating an experience that will encourage their customers to return ( and pay a premium) is unrealistic. You might as well sue Ford for buying too much steel.
You make a great point, I think it will be quite a lot, but it will take a while for it to hit and longer for the company to realize. To which I repeat my point
Too many companies allow their executives to asset strip ( pixie dust is one of Disney's greatest assets) and front load their profits at the long cost to their shareholders. But too many shareholders are, junkie like, addicted to the quick fix and don't see or don't care about the damage they are doing to their long term (financial) health.
And they still do - just not the "pixie dust" that perhaps you want them to sell. My comment wasn't saying that they should take away all "pixie dust", but rather I was simply saying that your personal preferences regarding which "pixie dust" they provide and which they don't doesn't necessary match what is best for them.
While what you're saying is true, in the abstract, most consumers value their own contributions to the equations far more than is warranted. They refuse to grant how much of what business does is fostering long-term value, and instead see everything that they personally don't like as clear evidence that businesses are stupid or evil, when the reality is that generally businesses, and especially Disney, are smart and crafty.
No it isn't. But that's another thread.
I feel that what I was sold, I still get (actually a little more with the Annual Pass discount). 
