The Vilification Of Renting?

[dolphingirl47]

I am not sure that if DVC decided to ban all renting, they would not shoot themselves in the foot. Sure, I can fully understand that large-scale, commercial renting is damaging for DVC, Disney as a whole and to the members. However, I cannot see any harm in an individual member renting out a few points that they cannot use themselves. I have however read both here and on other boards that they have rented DVC points and as a result of experiencing the benefits of membership have either become members themselves or are seriously considering it. If DVC will stop the rental of points they might actually close one avenue of recruiting new members.

dolphingirl47

 

[DVC Mike]

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.

Home Resort Rules and Regulations - P56 – VI.(3) Amendments

DVCMC reserves the right to amend these Rules and Regulations, in its sole, absolute and unfettered discretion. These changes may affect a Club Member’s right to use, exchange and rent the Club Member’s Ownership Interest and impose obligations upon the use and enjoyment of his or her Ownership Interest and the appurtenant Club Membership.

Note: emphasis is mine.

 

[Lynne M]

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?

This, I think, is the key point. There's no way to know. At all.

I'd be interested to know what percentage of DVC members have ever rented points, meaning, took payment from a total stranger for a reservation as it's done here on the rent/trade board. I'd guess it's a pretty small percentage. If Disney said "you can't sell a reservation to a stranger anymore," the vast majority of members probably wouldn't even care.

BUT - how many members have given a reservation to family members or friends as a gift, or accepted a payment from family members or friends for the use of a reservation? That, I think, is a much, much larger number.

My point is, there's absolutely no way for Disney to tell if it's the first scenario, or the second. The only way to prevent scenario #1 (renting to a stranger) is to also prevent scenario #2 - by requiring that the member be present for all reservations. THAT would create an enormous uproar, and would probably cause some members to sell. And I think it would have an significant impact on future sales, as well, if people couldn't share their membership with family and friends.

Until the day that Disney starts investigating the familial connections and bank accounts of people on the reservation.....they won't be able to stop renting.

 

[disneynutz]

It's a money thing. The popularity of the DVC resorts has really increased this last year. Disney sees renting DVC rooms through CRO as a added income stream. You didn't really think that they are building all of the new DVC resorts just for members did you. Didn't I read somewhere that they are changing the DVC resort name. Something like Disney Deluxe Vacation Resorts? I had a discussion with a DVC employee last week and I was told that they are activity working to reduce renting. the DIS Rent/Trade board was mentioned as was their legal department.

 

[CDNmouse]

I am a recent DVC owner so renting out our points is not even a consideration at all right now. We want to use them all.

If someone had a lot of points nad was booking rooms on speculation that they could rent them I would be upset if I it was at my home resort and I could never get a room.

Therefore I am probably against renting.

BUT .... if a family member wanted to go to Disney World and I had extra points (as we will this year) I would glaly book a room for them so that they could stay at a nice DVC resort.

... and renting can lead to purchasing a DVC interest. Someone that I work with rented points several times and loved it enough to recently become DVC owners themselves. So renters are good prospects that may become owners too. DVCMC shouldn't completely discourage renting if for this reason only

Gary

 

[jar]

My two cents from reading all of these posts:

1) Renting does have great value in attracting new members -- we are among the many who were able to kick the tires by renting points for a stay at BWV before deciding to purchase. I don't know that I would have done it otherwise and am very happy that we did.

2) I am opposed to commercial renting but think that flexibilty is important to permit more reasonable uses -- I've never rented out my points (although I've only been a member for two years) and don't contemplate doing so in the near future, but I would be disappointed if I wanted to make reservations for family members or transfer points to/from friends and found myself stymied by the recent rule changes (or more stringent enforcement). Even if I might want to rent points once or twice when I couldn't use mine wouldn't be terrible. I think that a bright line rule of 1 transfer in or out per year is too strict. I can imagine a circumstance where you transfer points out and then find time for a vacation and want to transfer some points back in. It seems that 2 or 3 in/out transfers wouldn't hurt and would still prevent the levels of commercial renting that trouble people (maybe 3 total, no more than 2 of which can be out).

3) Name changes -- I think that limiting name changes after a reservation is made is the best way to minimize commercial renting abuses during peak periods. I don't know how this is handled by MS now, but I think that the suggestion that members can designate a list of other relatives for permitted name changes and all others require cancel/rebooking is both reasonable and easily administrable. Given how everything is computerized, it should be a breeze for me to be able to list a few family members in my profile to allow the transfer of reservations to them. But sold reservations should not get priority over members who are waitlisted.

It seems that DVC needs to take a practical look at the problems and find reasonable ways to solve the problem without adversely affecting those who want and deserve some legitimately flexibilty to enjoy their investment. If they want to, they can do it without much trouble.

 

[BrentR]

One way DVC could stem this problem is to offer a "buy back/rental" program of sorts from owners who want to get rid of points. I know...I know...it seems much more profitable for those points to not be used and Disney can rent out the unused inventory at no cost to them (not having to "rent" owner's points).

However it seems to me if they rented back all or at least the majority of the points from members and had control of these points themselves it would be profitable for DVC.

1. Disney would make money on rentals that currently only members
are making money on.

2. Members would still recieve compensation
for points they need to rent by simply renting to DVC.

3. They would have control of the points and speculative renting may
be cut down

4. Seems to me they would make more $$ than now because they would
be in control of more points.

5. It was said earlier in this thread, by Granny, I believe (forgive me if I
am wrong) that point rentals seem to be stagnant and CRO ressies go
up each year. This may be a benefit to members as DVC would have
the ability to raise rental offers as rack rates increase.

6. Number of calls to MS would go down because members renting their
points would not be making calls for ressies (some making several calls
when plans are changed by their renters or ME or DDP need to be
added)


This may not fix the problem completely. However, I would guess that the majority of the rentals are not coming from "commercial" renters (looking at the number of rentals on the rent/trade board with smaller number of points available.

Am I out in left field with this train of thought ?!?!?!?!!?

 

[disneynutz]

Why would Disney want to buy back rental points? They seem to have plenty of points available. By putting pressure on renting, more points will be forfeited each year. As with all corporations it's money that drives their decisions. Today it's the renting issue. Tomorrow it will be the resale issue. When Disney decides that they can make money on resales, the rules will change. Don't get me wrong. We love our DVC membership. I just hope that they don't screw it up like so many other things in this world.

 

[Y-ASK]

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.

In addition DVC could waive the 30 day rule and allow those who cancel to bank the number of points used for the prime time stay. This way owners would have no excuse not to cancel and free up those dates. This would be good only during the peak weeks. Just a thought...

Y-ASK

 

[JimMIA]

Why would Disney want to buy back rental points? They seem to have plenty of points available. By putting pressure on renting, more points will be forfeited each year. As with all corporations it's money that drives their decisions.

Yep, and I suspect this concept, more than member complaints, is what is driving the crackdown on renting. As I suggested above, I think speculative rentals during peak periods could be easily controlled...if, in fact, that is the real boogyman. I doubt if it is -- I think improving CRO's revenue stream is the motivation.

 

[Blahnde]

In my humble opinion there is one overriding factor (and two sub-factors) at work here: corporate responsibility. The two sub-factors are breakage and competition. And through these two sub-factors renters hurt Disney's bottom line.

For those unfamiliar with the term, breakage is how DVC refers to a member's unused points on their financials. When you or I have any points left at the end of our use year that are not banked or used these go into breakage. A certain percent of this value (I believe 2.5%) is used to offset our fees, but the rest goes straight to Disney's bottom line! While it may not seem like a lot, imagine if all 100,000+ DVC members had just one point "left over." It adds up and it was part of what DVC's financial analysts relied on for income when they first set-up the DVC plan. Now imagine 15+ years later that with the aid of the internet and renting, people are using all their points ... that was not part of their plan. They relied upon us to "waste" some of our points and it is not going the way they want so they are changing the rules.

Add to that the fact that DVC villas are not selling well through CRO. If you question whether that is the case, check for yourself at disneyworld.com. You will see that at less than two months in advance you are still able to get a studio at SSR and OKW for cash during Easter week ... all the resorts have been booked solid for this week on points for months! And even though it is available through CRO, look at the Rent/Trade board and you will find people begging to rent points instead of pay cash to Disney. Those who are renting points are in direct competition with Disney for DVC villa reservations. Disney knows it and they want to shut down the competition ... renters.

Now for those of you who will argue that renting points allows people to "try before they buy" their DVC ownership that is true. But Disney wants them to do this using THEIR inventory through CRO, not OUR inventory of points. If renting points were the only way these people could try out DVC, you would have an argument. But potential owners can do the same thing through CRO, and doing it that way is better for Disney.

It isn't about what your ownership's intended use is or was; it isn't about rules and flexibility; it isn't about the value of your ownership; it isn't even about commercial or speculative renters. It is about money. Disney is a corporation and they are responsible to their shareholders. That is all. Now some may call that greed, but it is pure capitalism. And the only way to stop being a pawn in Disney's corporate scheme is to stop being a DVC owner and start being a Disney stock owner!

I personally love being a DVC owner, but I am well aware of the fact that I am not in charge in that role. But I'm equally aware that as a stock owner, I am!

Blahnde

 

[Chuck S]

Actually, I thought breakage is the result of rooms turned over to Disney that haven't been reserved by members at the 60 day mark, and the 2.5% figure is that breakage income can't be make up more than 2.5% of our total resort operating budget.

If a member has points expiring on a regular basis, they bought too many points, or have unforeseen circumstances arise that requires them canceling a reservation when the points can't be used. There is no reason for someone, between banking, depositing into II and occasionally renting, to lose points routinely.

 

[jekjones1558]

Well put, Blahnde. I just wish that the fairy-tale were true that Disney cares more about guests than similar businesses.
When we purchased about 9 years ago, I would NEVER have thought we might someday want to rent or transfer points. But now we have lots more points and our lives have become more complicated with illnesses, so it is much harder to be certain about plans. I hope that rule modifications regarding name changes on reservations do not force us to lose points. Believe me, we are among those who do NOT want the hassles of renting or transferring points or reservations. But life sometimes isn't as predictable as we would like and having options when a change in plans is necessary is much appreciated.

 

[simzac]

This is strictly my opinion, but I believe Disney is after one type of renter and only one. These are the owners who own more points than they can use during a given year, and routinely rent some of these points to cover MF or anything else they see fit. Doesn't matter how many points or reservations, these are still considered commercial renters in Disney's eyes. Disney will continue to close the noose on these individuals until they can no longer rent on a regular basis. All other forms of renting should be allowed to continue uninterupted as these are case by case circumstances such as those all ready mentioned in this thread and not people trying to regularly recoup some of their MF's. Again, JMO.

 

[disneynutz]

Lets not forget that we are still paying dues on unused points. As I have posted before, there are more points waisted every year then you would think. Some folks think that it is too much trouble to rent out their points. There are people who haven't used their points in years, and others who have never banked or borrowed. It's the same idea as the DDP.

 

[Blahnde]

There is no reason for someone, between banking, depositing into II and occasionally renting, to lose points routinely.

There are as many reasons as members!

How many scenarios have we all read on this board where someone has a change in plans and because of that "wastes" points. It could just be those few pesky points that you didn't bank, but didn't need for your planned reservation. It could be holding account points that you could never use because there is such limited availability at 60 days. It could be developer points that you cannot use for a waitlisted reservation. All the banking, borrowing, holding, transfer, and use year rules conspire to help Disney monitor inventory and help us "waste" points.

There are responsible members who understand the program inside and out and have never and will never "waste" a point. They are in the minority! And Disney relied upon this when setting up the DVC plan. It is just like they rely on cancellations when they overbook at a regular resort ... same theory. And when they relied on it, the world was a very different place! The internet was in its infancy, and the thought that people would effectively manage their DVC accounts through renting the way some people manage their stock porfolios was not in Disney's plan. But it is now a reality that they must deal with, and they are trying to fix it without telling members that they relied on us to be poor point managers.

Blahnde

 

[Deb & Bill]

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. ...

Well, Jim, just take a look at Redweek. You'll find single members with reservations at every single DVC resort for rent.

 

[childsplay]

it isn't even about commercial or speculative renters.
Blahnde

You made alot good arguments in your post, the vast majority of which I agree with, but this one I'm not so sure about. While it may not be the primary reason, I believe it's higher on the list than you may be giving it credit for. IMO, for the 9 years I have been following these boards, with the possible exception of room occupancy discussions, nothing has drawn the ire of DIS members more than speculative booking and commercial renting.
Now, which is Disney's primary motivator, economic or member satisfaction???...I'd be hard pressed to say, and in the end it doesn't really matter, because if Disney spins it correctly they can say they are simply responding to member concerns and reap the finacial benifits as well. Nothing like capitalistic greed cloaked in corporate benevolence.

 

[simpilotswife]

Personally I think it has to do with the attitude of some of the more greedy habitual renters.

 

[Dean]

Home Resort Rules and Regulations - P56 – VI.(3) Amendments


Note: emphasis is mine.

I'm not home to review the documents and won't be for over a week (Oahu/Maui). This option applies only to the rules and regulations and not the Bylaws or other sections which specifically state renting is allowed and includes the references of change that I alluded to earlier. One has to realize that there are several components to the POS, some are informational only and not truly part of the formal POS even though included with it.