The Poly2 Pricing Thread

[maui22]

Yes they are - but people think this is because they expect it to go on sale and open earlier in 2024 than Poly2.

Honestly, I think their silence on the same/different association has to do with timing - they could announce right away with GFV because it was such a quick turnaround. With the Poly, they're building a whole new tower. If they announced it right away in 2022 - it would be a 2.5 year head start for resale and cut significantly into new sales once it came online.

I also feel, as a current Poly owner, that it's the biggest slap-in-the-face if they go with a different association. While they never promised an expansion, there were actual talks of adding a tower someday. Now that someday has come, they're building a tower on Poly property, using same resources, but it's not for current owners????

Thank you.

If CFW is opening earlier in 2024 than the tower, shouldn't sales start for CFW start in the next few months?

Also, since DVD tends to raise prices right before selling a new resort, this may be indicator tower prices will see 2 increases before the tower sales (regardless of same or difference association) ever start.

 

[Mai Ku Tiki]

One of the best recent threads on here.

You channeled my immediate thought!!

 

[Genie+]

Honestly, while my spreadsheet told me longer expiry resorts make the most financial sense… that’s only because I was enough of a bean counter to make a spreadsheet! BCV and BWV have persisted because at the end of the day, people desire the ability to book those resorts, and SAPs from somewhere else don’t always get you there. It might not be a great deal, but I see people still wanting their BCV/BWV studios and 2-bedrooms well into the 2030s… enough to not bother selling, and enough for the diminishing time contracts to still sell for more than they “should.”

We bought BW resale aware that other resorts had a much better cost per point per year. We wanted BW home priority since that’s where we like staying often. I wanted more than to luck into occasional stays; we wanted more reliability. My math focused on buying BW at a reasonable cost per night. I think that will keep BW/BC resale values up. When there’s only 10yrs left I bet more people view it that way.

After that we bought VGF for SAP and home resort priority.

 

[intamin]

My prediction is still same association, mostly because the existing PVB with only studios and bungalows is by far the most weirdly unbalanced DVC in existence, and the new tower would round off the rooms balance nicely, with a ton of existing PVB owners eager to add on because their families have grown and they want larger room options. Also it gives Disney a handy excuse to make the expiration date years earlier than it would be for a new association. As well as allowing them to put photos of the bungalows in the sales materials, private plunge pools sparkling in the sun (which I suspect is the main reason for those pools’ existence). Having said that, we all know from experience that Disney often makes choices that appear not to be rational, and they have clearly decided to keep their options open for now.

I’ve seen this thought thrown around about the point imbalance but I’m not sure if DVC cares? It’s been this way for the past 8 years. The resort is already sold out. They already have current PVB owner money. I’m not sure if they care about opening up more options for current PVB owners. If it were a new association, current owners may try to sell PVB and buy Poly 2 direct which would benefit them. The new association guarantees all points bought are sold directly through them as opposed to people like me who very well might run to resale if it’s the same association. Really only time will tell what will happen..

 

[Sandisw]

Is Disney still saying CFW will be the 17th association like they have in the past?

The article sharing that the permit was filted including the original info from DVC.

But the article was not from Disney directly.

 

[tidefan]

I also feel, as a current Poly owner, that it's the biggest slap-in-the-face if they go with a different association. While they never promised an expansion, there were actual talks of adding a tower someday. Now that someday has come, they're building a tower on Poly property, using same resources, but it's not for current owners????

Well, they already did a slap to the face of VGF1 owners, so there is that...

I’ve seen this thought thrown around about the point imbalance but I’m not sure if DVC cares? It’s been this way for the past 8 years. The resort is already sold out. They already have current PVB owner money. I’m not sure if they care about opening up more options for current PVB owners. If it were a new association, current owners may try to sell PVB and buy Poly 2 direct which would benefit them. The new association guarantees all points bought are sold directly through them as opposed to people like me who very well might run to resale if it’s the same association. Really only time will tell what will happen..

The thing about this, though, is that if they keep making decisions that don't benefit, or even impair existing owners (see VGF1 comment above), then are they cutting off their face to spite their nose? I mean, yes, new sales are large, but I would suspect that add-on sales are a much larger percent than what people are giving credit for. We've added on direct 4 times. At some point, if you disillusion enough members, it will not be good for business. It used to be that DVC sales reps didn't need to do much to sell DVC other than to have prospective members talk to current members. I don't know that is the case anymore.

Also, as a PVB1 owner, no way am I selling my PVB1 points if it's a new association for the tower, because then while you gain 11 months access at the tower, you would lose it at PVB1. I know that the discussion here has been that everyone wants 1+ bedroom units, that just hasn't proven to be the case for DVC demand. Studios are by far the largest driver of demand... and PVB1 satisfies that much better than a separate tower PVB2 would.

I'm also not adding on at a different association PVB2 because I'd have to purchase enough points to make an every 3 year 1+ bedroom worth it, and now I'd have to manage 2 different sets of points at the same resort, which would be a pain.

 

[TheLyinKing]

Well, they already did a slap to the face of VGF1 owners, so there is that...


The thing about this, though, is that if they keep making decisions that don't benefit, or even impair existing owners (see VGF1 comment above), then are they cutting off their face to spite their nose? I mean, yes, new sales are large, but I would suspect that add-on sales are a much larger percent than what people are giving credit for. We've added on direct 4 times. At some point, if you disillusion enough members, it will not be good for business. It used to be that DVC sales reps didn't need to do much to sell DVC other than to have prospective members talk to current members. I don't know that is the case anymore.

Also, as a PVB1 owner, no way am I selling my PVB1 points if it's a new association for the tower, because then while you gain 11 months access at the tower, you would lose it at PVB1. I know that the discussion here has been that everyone wants 1+ bedroom units, that just hasn't proven to be the case for DVC demand. Studios are by far the largest driver of demand... and PVB1 satisfies that much better than a separate tower PVB2 would.

I'm also not adding on at a different association PVB2 because I'd have to purchase enough points to make an every 3 year 1+ bedroom worth it, and now I'd have to manage 2 different sets of points at the same resort, which would be a pain.

I don't have the numbers but I'm pretty sure there's been evidence posted on these boards that add-ons make up a fairly small percentage of sales. Could be wrong though...

 

[tidefan]

I don't have the numbers but I'm pretty sure there's been evidence posted on these boards that add-ons make up a fairly small percentage of sales. Could be wrong though...

Only DVD has these numbers, actually. Everything else is just speculation.

 

[TheLyinKing]

Only DVD has these numbers, actually. Everything else is just speculation.

Fair enough

 

[tidefan]

Fair enough

Well, if there aren't very many members purchasing additional contracts, then I guess the term "Add-on-itis" can be retired...

It would be interesting to see what proportion of owners, even the ones on here, hold more than 1 contract. We have 5...

 

[Sandisw]

Well, if there aren't very many members purchasing additional contracts, then I guess the term "Add-on-itis" can be retired...

It would be interesting to see what proportion of owners, even the ones on here, hold more than 1 contract. We have 5...

We have 5 as well. The difference between add ons and new buyers though is the size of the contracts.

Add ons tend to be smaller. Based on sales data and average size of contracts sold, it tends to support that the largest group of buyers are new ones and not current owners.

 

[tidefan]

We have 5 as well. The difference between add ons and new buyers though is the size of the contracts.

Add ons tend to be smaller. Based on sales data and average size of contracts sold, it tends to support that the largest group of buyers are new ones and not current owners.

Perhaps... Our add-ons (all direct) were between 100 and 190 point contracts.

 

[Genie+]

I have 1 resale and 1 direct. We’ll might add-on, just don’t know if it will be resale or direct.

Those add-on buttons for direct make it too easy

 

[aka Charles]

Well, if there aren't very many members purchasing additional contracts, then I guess the term "Add-on-itis" can be retired...

It would be interesting to see what proportion of owners, even the ones on here, hold more than 1 contract. We have 5...

We currently have 7 contracts, at three resorts, but are selling one to make room for an add-on at CFW and/or Poly2.
.

 

[RuntheMouse]

Well, if there aren't very many members purchasing additional contracts, then I guess the term "Add-on-itis" can be retired...

It would be interesting to see what proportion of owners, even the ones on here, hold more than 1 contract. We have 5...

We also have 5.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

We also have 5.

We have 4, though will have 5 next month when our resale closes. 200direct, followed by 125 resale, 150 direct (because of great VGF promotion), and finally 101 resale, which was in the works before 150 direct.

We like Poly a lot, but are unlikely to purchase there direct unless it’s a combined association. Want the option to travel with our kids in one/two studios as well as a 1 bedroom. If it’s split, hoping to pick up resale poly on the cheap.

 

[zavandor]

Well, they already did a slap to the face of VGF1 owners, so there is that...

When VGF opened it was the most expensive resort in price per point and by number of points per night (nothing compared at the time).
It was also the first resort to sleep 5 in a studio and have a split bathroom.
I remember a lot, and I mean A LOT, of people saying they would buy regardless of the cost because they could squeeze their family of 5 in a studio and it was still cheaper than a 1BR or 2BR at other resorts. (At the time there weren't overall even many 1BR with 5 sleeping surfaces).

VGF became the first resort to be difficult to book even at 11 month are peak time.
Studios have always been a problem at VGF. People complained DVD made a mistake making studios sleep 5 (which they went on doing even more).
It is possible DVC saw adding more studios to the same association as a good thing for the membership overall.

I am not sure 1BR are currently much more difficult to get than before VGF2. Deluxe studios are more difficult, but at least there is a plan B available. Not everyone is unhappy.

 

[intamin]

The thing about this, though, is that if they keep making decisions that don't benefit, or even impair existing owners (see VGF1 comment above), then are they cutting off their face to spite their nose? I mean, yes, new sales are large, but I would suspect that add-on sales are a much larger percent than what people are giving credit for. We've added on direct 4 times. At some point, if you disillusion enough members, it will not be good for business. It used to be that DVC sales reps didn't need to do much to sell DVC other than to have prospective members talk to current members. I don't know that is the case anymore.

Also, as a PVB1 owner, no way am I selling my PVB1 points if it's a new association for the tower, because then while you gain 11 months access at the tower, you would lose it at PVB1. I know that the discussion here has been that everyone wants 1+ bedroom units, that just hasn't proven to be the case for DVC demand. Studios are by far the largest driver of demand... and PVB1 satisfies that much better than a separate tower PVB2 would.

I'm also not adding on at a different association PVB2 because I'd have to purchase enough points to make an every 3 year 1+ bedroom worth it, and now I'd have to manage 2 different sets of points at the same resort, which would be a pain.

Sad to say I think a lot of Disney's decisions have been pretty short sighted and without much regard to the long term value of the product or loyalty to owners. I've added on twice obviously from my sig but both were resale. I wonder how many people added on direct after their original direct purchase and not resale. Obviously you have multiple times but is that the norm? We're not the typical DVC consumer on here.. I'd put money on the fact that most people on these boards have added on since their original contract but OTOH most people buy their 150-200 point contract and are done. I have multiple family members and friends who bought their one 200 point contract and stopped after that.

Agreed that PVB1 satisfies the studios much better than a separate tower PVB2 would.. yet here we are building dedicated deluxe studios and duo studios into the tower.

Regarding the managing 2 different sets of points, I mean is it that different between what's already going on at WL with CCV and BRV? But I understand not wanting to own at both when it feels redundant and it meaning you’d have to add on a significant amount of points to get to the 1BR tier.

 

[GoingSince1990]

When VGF opened it was the most expensive resort in price per point and by number of points per night (nothing compared at the time).
It was also the first resort to sleep 5 in a studio and have a split bathroom.
I remember a lot, and I mean A LOT, of people saying they would buy regardless of the cost because they could squeeze their family of 5 in a studio and it was still cheaper than a 1BR or 2BR at other resorts. (At the time there weren't overall even many 1BR with 5 sleeping surfaces).

VGF became the first resort to be difficult to book even at 11 month are peak time.
Studios have always been a problem at VGF. People complained DVD made a mistake making studios sleep 5 (which they went on doing even more).
It is possible DVC saw adding more studios to the same association as a good thing for the membership overall.

I am not sure 1BR are currently much more difficult to get than before VGF2. Deluxe studios are more difficult, but at least there is a plan B available. Not everyone is unhappy.

Agreed. “Boy, Disney really screwed VGF1 owners with BPK” seems to have become conventional wisdom among many, but as an original VGF1 owner who only ever books 1BR, 2BR and GVs, I still haven’t had any trouble getting what I want in the owners’ window. Maybe people wanting studios who pre-BPK would have stretched to a larger villa if a studio was unavailable are now opting for BPK instead. I’m certainly not angry at Disney due to BPK.

 

[Hubalorian]

Could DVD have the best of both worlds? Could it be the same association but just extend Poly2 to create a Poly extended like there is an extension with some OKW contracts?

So Poly1 maintains original expiration date, yet Poly2 could still have 50 years when it goes on sale