The Vilification Of Renting?

[rinkwide]

For the first 15 years of the DVC program there was little, if any comment from Disney Vacation Development regarding the practice of members renting out their points. Things were pretty much laissez faire -- In fact, you even had sales guides openly touting the rental option as part of the program's flexibility. But things have changed and it appears that DVD is going out of their way in an attempt to dissuade renting.

In the last year or so there seems to be a concerted effort to restrict the ease with which members can rent out their points. We've recently seen point transfers restricted to one per year and renters no longer able to confirm reservations with MS. And now there are reports of warning letters going out to suspected commercial renters, anti-renting language being added to official documents, scrutiny of reservations by Members Services -- there's even a vague renting disclaimer that's been added to the new vacation planner.

All this begs the question:

What do you think is precipitating all this newly focused attention on renting?

And also:

Could DVD ban renting altogether?

Could a new DVC property have language in the POS prohibiting renting?

 

[Chuck S]

Under FL law, I'm not sure they could ban renting altogether.

I think DVC has probably seen a significant increase in what meets the stated definition of commercial renting over the last few years. Not all the changes are, imho, a negative.

Members, who pay for the operation of Member Services, should not be paying for non-members to confirm reservations...MS was not created to assist commercial renters run their business.

Nor should the average member be paying for a service that can not limit someone calling up and reserving several hard to get rooms that will be used for rental at the expense of those members trying to book their own family vacations.

 

[Dean]

For the first 15 years of the DVC program there was little, if any comment from Disney Vacation Development regarding the practice of members renting out their points. Things were pretty much laissez faire -- In fact, you even had sales guides openly touting the rental option as part of the program's flexibility. But things have changed and it appears that DVD is going out of their way in an attempt to dissuade renting.

In the last year or so there seems to be a concerted effort to restrict the ease with which members can rent out their points. We've recently seen point transfers restricted to one per year and renters no longer able to confirm reservations with MS. And now there are reports of warning letters going out to suspected commercial renters, anti-renting language being added to official documents, scrutiny of reservations by Members Services -- there's even a vague renting disclaimer that's been added to the new vacation planner.

All this begs the question:

What do you think is precipitating all this newly focused attention on renting?

And also:

Could DVD ban renting altogether?

Could a new DVC property have language in the POS prohibiting renting?

My guess is that it's a case of the tail wagging the dog, complaints from members. As for doing away withs renting, it'd take a vote of the actual membership to change the POS in such a way. The individual POS for each resort will be the standard unless it conflicts with FL law in anyway, which I think it does personally but that's another thread I guess and won't be decided unless it actually goes to court. Where the Multi site POS and individual POS conflict, the individual resort POS will take precedence. Certainly any new property could have different language but as long as Disney is renting, it'd be hard to make it stick.

 

[Granny]

What do you think is precipitating all this newly focused attention on renting?

I agree with Dean that some members have probably been complaining about commercial renters tieing up prime weeks/locations. We've definitely seen in the last year what I would consider a LOT of complaints that many reservations that used to be easy to get at 7 months or "last minute" are no longer available, so that could be adding to it.

My guess is that the inclusion of point renting in "WDW on the Cheap" kind of guidebooks has increased those wanting to get in on a great deal.

The continued acceptance and validity of doing business on the internet with strangers (not even corporations) is adding fuel to the fire.

And on a note, Disney no doubt sees that while they increase resort prices every year, the price to rent points hasn't changed much in the five years I've looked at it.

So the "deal" that people get renting points grows into a better deal each year. Maybe it's something that is actually affecting resort cash reservations? Or least is perceived to be a contributor?

 

[rinkwide]

...Members, who pay for the operatin of Memeber Services, should not be paying for non-members to confirm reservations...

Do you think it's possible that this prohibition might actually create more calls and therefore more work for Member Services resulting in even higher dues and less accessibility for other members?

 

[rinkwide]

...the inclusion of point renting in "WDW on the Cheap" kind of guidebooks...

Yep, I bet the WDW marketing teams love reading stuff like that.

 

[Chuck S]

Do you think it's possible that this prohibition might actually create more calls and therefore more work for Member Services resulting in even higher dues and less accessibility for other members?

I don't see how. If non-members can't call to verify, that eliminates one call.

If a non-member needs ME or DDP added to the reservation, then the member must call instead, so that is a wash, same number of calls, just someone else calling.

What it does limit is DVC or MS possibily being put into litigation if they verified a reservation for a non-owner that was later canceled by an owner. It also limits Disney/DVC having to "make good" on a verified reservation that was later canceled by an owner. Think of the bad publicity if a non-owner claimed Disney/DVC varified a reservation, the non-owner arrived, and had no place to stay. Who would absord that cost, Disney, DVC Marketing, or DVC Members?

 

[Dean]

Do you think it's possible that this prohibition might actually create more calls and therefore more work for Member Services resulting in even higher dues and less accessibility for other members?

IMO, the day by day reservations are the big ticket item for MS work load.

 

[JimMIA]

As for doing away withs renting, it'd take a vote of the actual membership to change the POS in such a way.

Why do you say that? (Not arguing, just asking) It seems to me that changing the POS to prohibit renting would be no more difficult than changing it to implement the new 20-ressie rule.

What I think would be impossible, would be enforcing a no-renting rule. First of all, the thought of Disney enforcing anything makes me chuckle. And then, how would they know? How would they know that a ressie was a rental, rather than being my cousin from Boston, or my friend from Montana?

 

[snowbunny]

My guess is that the inclusion of point renting in "WDW on the Cheap" kind of guidebooks

Let's not forget the nice people at well-trafficked websites such as Mousesavers (boldface theirs not mine):



"Renting Disney Vacation Club (DVC) points is a little-known way to stay in a deluxe-level Disney resort for much less.

[snip]

Disney allows the general public to book DVC units at very high rates through its regular resort reservations system, when available. Renting points is a much better deal. For instance, a five-night stay (Sunday through Thursday) in a Villas at Wilderness Lodge studio in May 2007 will "cost" the DVC member 65 points. At the typical rate of $10-$12 a point, you could rent his points for $650-$780 and enjoy a stay that would cost over $1945 (including tax) if booked directly through Disney at 2007 rack rates. (For comparison, a standard room at Wilderness Lodge -- which would not include the mini-fridge and microwave you get with a studio -- would cost $1477 with tax if booked with Disney directly for May 2007.)"


Mousesavers and allearsnet, which are read by thousands of vactioneers for trip planning, is how I first learned of DVC.

 

[Dean]

Why do you say that? (Not arguing, just asking) It seems to me that changing the POS to prohibit renting would be no more difficult than changing it to implement the new 20-ressie rule.

What I think would be impossible, would be enforcing a no-renting rule. First of all, the thought of Disney enforcing anything makes me chuckle. And then, how would they know? How would they know that a ressie was a rental, rather than being my cousin from Boston, or my friend from Montana?

Because the method to change the POS states that it requires an actual vote of the membership itself for items that adversely affect the membership as whole. The new rule you reference is simply a clarification of an already existing rule, one that would stand the legal test of reasonableness, IMO. That's why they chose it because no one could reasonably argue that renting for more than 20 a year was not commercial. I'd agree that stating and enforcing would be too different things as well.

 

[rinkwide]

...How would they know that a ressie was a rental, rather than being my cousin from Boston, or my friend from Montana?

I'm sure that'll be handled by their next step in commercial rental countermeasures -- in-room microphones .

 

[JimMIA]

Because the method to change the POS states that it requires an actual vote of the membership itself for items that adversely affect the membership as whole.

I'm sure they would argue that eliminating renting would not adversely affect the membership as a whole, because the vast majority of owners don't rent.

I've also read here that they need a vote of the owners to make a "material" change in the POS. But again, they could argue that, since the POS has always said DVC is not to be used for "commercial purposes," they're doing nothing more than defining and explaining what one of those prohibited purposes is -- therefore, not material.

Don't get me wrong, I'm NOT in favor of eliminating renting...just wondering how and why they might try.

 

[Dean]

I'm sure they would argue that eliminating renting would not adversely affect the membership as a whole, because the vast majority of owners don't rent.

I've also read here that they need a vote of the owners to make a "material" change in the POS. But again, they could argue that, since the POS has always said DVC is not to be used for "commercial purposes," they're doing nothing more than defining and explaining what one of those prohibited purposes is -- therefore, not material.

Don't get me wrong, I'm NOT in favor of eliminating renting...just wondering how and why they might try.

Given it would take away an option for each and every member I don't think they could do that but it would be interesting to see them try.

 

[DISNEY FIX]

Members, who pay for the operation of Member Services, should not be paying for non-members to confirm reservations...MS was not created to assist commercial renters run their business.

Nor should the average member be paying for a service that can not limit someone calling up and reserving several hard to get rooms that will be used for rental at the expense of those members trying to book their own family vacations.

Bravo, well said. Short and concise. Thanks Chuck.

 

[rinkwide]

...What it does limit is DVC or MS possibily being put into litigation if they verified a reservation for a non-owner that was later canceled by an owner. It also limits Disney/DVC having to "make good" on a verified reservation that was later canceled by an owner. Think of the bad publicity if a non-owner claimed Disney/DVC varified a reservation, the non-owner arrived, and had no place to stay. Who would absord that cost, Disney, DVC Marketing, or DVC Members?

I'd argue a non-member showing up to a cancelled reservation with a hard-copy confirmation letter is even more of a liability.

 

[Chuck S]

I'd argue a non-member showing up to a cancelled reservation with a hard-copy confirmation letter is even more of a liability.

Except that DVC/MS has had not direct contact with the renter, and the confirmation was mailed to the owner, thus taking Disney out of the loop entirely. The reservation was confirmed as a for the owner, as a use of the owners points, not the renter. The owner made the reservation in the name of the renter, but the owner still controlled the reservation.

 

[JimMIA]

I agree with Dean that some members have probably been complaining about commercial renters tieing up prime weeks/locations. We've definitely seen in the last year what I would consider a LOT of complaints that many reservations that used to be easy to get at 7 months or "last minute" are no longer available, so that could be adding to it.

It would be very interesting to have some actual data on this issue, rather than assumptions. I know we all think speculative bookings are a BIG problem, but until I see a commercial renter with more than 3-4 pre-booked prime weeks on their website, I'm going to remain a little skeptical. I don't think speculative bookings should be allowed at all, but I wonder if they are really the problem we sometimes assume they are.

I know there was a thread a few weeks ago on when owners who rent actually book their ressies. The majority of the responses indicated bookings inside the seven-month window...not speculative bookings tieing up Christmas week precisely at 11 months. Of course, there are two problems with that thread -- 1) the sample size was very small, and 2) nobody in their right mind would admit speculative booking at 11 months.

It seems to me that speculative booking during peak weeks could be pretty easily controlled. You simply pick out the time periods you want to focus on and tell everyone who books: "If you need to change the primary name on this ressie, it's cancel and rebook subject to availability." There is no need to apply that throughout the year or to mess up simple guest adjustments, but it could be easily applied to primary name changes only during the holidays.

I think a more likely cause of difficulty at 7 months is increased membership, and enhanced use of the system by owners. That also contributes to last minute difficulties, and I think Disney has been marketing DVC rentals through CRO more aggressively as well.

 

[JimMIA]

Except that DVC/MS has had not direct contact with the renter, and the confirmation was mailed to the owner, thus taking Disney out of the loop entirely. The reservation was confirmed as a for the owner, as a use of the owners points, not the renter. The owner made the reservation in the name of the renter, but the owner still controlled the reservation.

I don't think legal liability in this unlikely scenario is the big issue anyway. The big issue, if such a situation actually occurred (and I've heard it does occur rarely), would be the PR nightmare at the Front Desk. The lawyers could argue legal liability 'til the cows come home, that Front Desk manager is probably going to put the guest in a room somehow...and that's expensive.

 

[wildernessDad]

It would be nice to have a few family members on a list where if a primary name is taken off a reservation then someone on the list could be substituted without canceling. Don't know if this could be accomplished.