The Poly2 Pricing Thread

[Royal Consort]

I still split the baby on this one.

If VDH has restrictions AND Poly2 is a new association, then Poly2 will have restrictions.

But I think VDH with restrictions and Poly2 rolled into the existing PVB without restrictions is also perfectly viable.

If DVC decide to roll Poly2 into the same association, they've lost the plot and undermined their entire intention setting up their "DVC2" restricted program. They may as well get rid of the thing. Selling two different timeshare products long term (restricted and unrestricted) simultaneously is illogical.

The purpose of "DVC2" was to differentiate direct from resale and would only pay dividends well into the future. Continual undermining of that makes their initial DVC2 goals null and void. But then this is Disney: I've learned over the years their bureaucracy defies logic.

I'm still in the camp that thinks it will be a separate association to meet the original intention of the "DVC2" product that Riviera launched. That seems the most straightforward and logical business plan. I would not buy the new tower if it's not a separate association, no guarantee of getting into it.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

If DVC decide to roll Poly2 into the same association, they've lost the plot and undermined their entire intention setting up their "DVC2" restricted program. They may as well get rid of the thing. Selling two different timeshare products long term (restricted and unrestricted) simultaneously is illogical.

The purpose of "DVC2" was to differentiate direct from resale and would only pay dividends well into the future. Continual undermining of that makes their initial DVC2 goals null and void. But then this is Disney: I've learned over the years their bureaucracy defies logic.

I'm still in the camp that thinks it will be a separate association to meet the original intention of the "DVC2" product that Riviera launched. That seems the most straightforward and logical business plan. I would not buy the new tower if it's not a separate association, no guarantee of getting into it.

Not everything is monocausal. It's perfectly plausible that Disney likes the restrictions but likes selling shorter contracts at full price even more when the opportunity presents itself. Or that they don't like a studio-only resort for whatever reason.

 

[Cabius]

Not everything is monocausal. It's perfectly plausible that Disney likes the restrictions but likes selling shorter contracts at full price even more when the opportunity presents itself. Or that they don't like a studio-only resort for whatever reason.

It's also possible that they think the Bungalows are such an iconic selling point that they're nervous about having to tell new PVB2 owners that they aren't included in their 11-month booking window.

Obviously most owners don't actually book at the Bungalows -- they're much too expensive -- but what sells and what people will actually use aren't always the same thing. They're a highly visibly premium offering in a product that is essentially dream fulfillment. There's a reason that promo video footage always highlighted the bungalows (or cabins, at CCV). I imagine they'd like to be able to market the bungalows to new owners of PVB2 as well.

 

[Paul Stupin]

Not everything is monocausal. It's perfectly plausible that Disney likes the restrictions but likes selling shorter contracts at full price even more when the opportunity presents itself. Or that they don't like a studio-only resort for whatever reason.

Maybe, but imposing restrictions on some new construction, and not on others, would no doubt confuse consumers and undermine their own long term efforts to increase the value of direct sales. Also, I don’t think any of us have the sales projections for either option to determine their potential profitability.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

Not everything is monocausal. It's perfectly plausible that Disney likes the restrictions but likes selling shorter contracts at full price even more when the opportunity presents itself. Or that they don't like a studio-only resort for whatever reason.

Love it “ monocausal”…..LOL

 

[Sandisw]

Not everything is monocausal. It's perfectly plausible that Disney likes the restrictions but likes selling shorter contracts at full price even more when the opportunity presents itself. Or that they don't like a studio-only resort for whatever reason.

But they are having trouble selling VGF with the shorter contract and a higher price right now.

So I just can’t imagine that being a reason to drop restrictions.

 

[Cfabar1]

I wonder if the issue with VGF has more to do with the fact everyone who wants in already is in. I’m not sure if Poly 2 isn’t going to suffer the same fate…

For me, VGF is appealing because of the location, as well as the theming of the resort To a lesser extent. Poly 2 seems to have the same general location as VGF, and the theming as Poly1. I wonder how many people will be leaping in for that experience.

I personally am not a huge fan of Riviera, but to its credit, it is in an underserved area of the parks from a DVC perspective In my view. If they do a new association for Poly2, there would be 4 MK properties. I also think having two associations will be really confusing to the normal consumer. Two separate booking windows for rooms in the same Hotel?

 

[Nursemanit]

But they are having trouble selling VGF with the shorter contract and a higher price right now.

So I just can’t imagine that being a reason to drop restrictions.

They re not having trouble selling VGF - it will sell out way before RR.

 

[Royal Consort]

I also think having two associations will be really confusing to the normal consumer. Two separate booking windows for rooms in the same Hotel?

Boulder Ridge and Copper Creek didn't confuse too many.

 

[KimMcGowan]

I still think that if VDH has restrictions, Poly2 will as well, and that it’s a big jump to assume that a (potentially) carelessly labeled slide is significant. I think we’re all just trying to read tea leaves at this point.

Come on now, I know you hate the original Poly design - but they don’t make a mistake of this proportion when they have gone out of their way to be coy all this time.

 

[Paul Stupin]

Come on now, I know you hate the original Poly design - but they don’t make a mistake of this proportion when they have gone out of their way to be coy all this time.

I think you’re giving them a bit too much credit. I just don’t see the caption of one slide providing any kind of definitive answer, or being some clever, subtle way of telling everyone that the two Polys will share the same association.

But maybe they’re having fun with all the conjecture and guess work and want to keep it going. Or maybe I’m completely wrong!

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Maybe, but imposing restrictions on some new construction, and not on others, would no doubt confuse consumers and undermine their own long term efforts to increase the value of direct sales. Also, I don’t think any of us have the sales projections for either option to determine their potential profitability.

I think you guys are giving the average buyer waaaaaay too much credit in terms of knowledgeability and research.

 

[Matty B13]

I know we would be Poly owners if they had a 2 bedroom option when first built, but we ended up with VGF points because we wanted the location and 2 bedroom option. Not really sure what we will do when Poly 2.0 comes out, but might just keep what we have and see what happens at the 7 month mark, plus we have grown to love VGF 1.0....... not a fan of VGF 2.0.

 

[Sandisw]

They re not having trouble selling VGF - it will sell out way before RR.

VGF has 1.7 million points, and RIV has 6.7. When VGF went on sale, RIV had a little more than 3 million points to sell.

Of course, VGF will sell out first…it has 1 million fewer points to sell. But, in the world of DVC and sales, selling 44k points a month for an active selling resort is not selling well.

So, yes they are having trouble selling it because buyers the direct buyers are overwhelming choosing RIV right now as well as other resorts.

 

[pianomanzano]

Well, to add insult to injury on lack of AP's..... the price increase on single tickets is pretty hefty... We are going in April and doing one day with PH. The price went up $20 per person from yesterday.... A one day PH ticket is now $219 for the day I selected.

If you haven't purchased tickets yet, undercovertourist.com is still selling tickets at the old rates. We grabbed tickets for my parents and my in-laws yesterday for our July trip and saved about $170 compared to the new pricing.

 

[RoseGold]

It's also possible that they think the Bungalows are such an iconic selling point that they're nervous about having to tell new PVB2 owners that they aren't included in their 11-month booking window.

Obviously most owners don't actually book at the Bungalows -- they're much too expensive -- but what sells and what people will actually use aren't always the same thing. They're a highly visibly premium offering in a product that is essentially dream fulfillment.

They could just complete the set and put in the last one or two that would fit. Put them in Poly2, just to be super confusing to everyone.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Obviously most owners don't actually book at the Bungalows -- they're much too expensive -- but what sells and what people will actually use aren't always the same thing. They're a highly visibly premium offering in a product that is essentially dream fulfillment.

I've been beating this drum for a long time when it comes to Aulani. It's extremely valuable as a big sexy carrot to put in the portfolio and say "look, you can go to Hawaii for free!" when in reality probably 98% of DVC members will never set foot in the place.

 

[hglenn]

My bet would be that the person putting the slides together, as well as whoever approved them, both know about as much as we do.

Oooh, I don't know.. I would disagree here. Whenever we put out any marketing - especially product marketing, there is a legal review prior to full release. This isn't just some junior office assistant throwing together slides.

 

[MarkNC2Disney]

Oooh, I don't know.. I would disagree here. Whenever we put out any marketing - especially product marketing, there is a legal review prior to full release. This isn't just some junior office assistant throwing together slides.

Completely agree.

 

[TCRAIG]

I've seen a few people express similar sentiment and I'm curious to how many nights/year you guys tend to vacation in Disney?
I can't see where the money saved in AP is of weight for deciding on going with DVC. I'm not challenging you on the topic, I'm just genuinely curious to see the details behind such position as the math for how we vacation makes a DVC a no brainer and AP irrelevant.

For instance, we go annually and prefer Grand Floridian.
We utilize two studios with standard view, at rack rate of $6,618 per room for our preferred week.
Normally we'd be paying $13,236 or $9,927 if we utilized any 25% off room discounts at the time (which I wouldn't be surprised to see fade away as demand stays high).

I'm saving $9,927 - $13,236 per year ($7,123 to $10,432 after annual dues)
I'm breaking even in 5.5 to 7 years on my purchase (5.5 if deluxe room discounts disappeared, 7 years if they stayed) and saving $7-$10k a year after.
That doesn't include the residual 84 points left over after our primary trip that I have that I can pocket $1,600+ on annually.

It seemed like such a no brainer for how we vacation and I assumed most DVC owners do a week or more per year, which is why I'm confused as to how APs are a deal breaker for some.

We own right at 1400 points - we go 3-5 times a year to WDW - a week at a time and stay in 1Brs. It’s mainly just my husband and me. We usually go to a park for a few hrs a day except on our leave day. We drive (live in the Carolinas) and I own my ECV - so our trip costs are pretty minimal. I don’t buy Genie+ or pay for ILLs because there’s always ‘next time’ or deluxe EMH for hard to get rides. Keeping and renewing our APs is the right decision for us. Without an AP - we would definitely change the way we ‘do Disney’.