I like Pop Century, too. But from a purely marketing standpoint, it is perception, perception, perception. A value class
DVC would dilute the DVC brand for marketing, just as you won't see See's Candies or Godiva Chocolates selling Hershey bars and M&Ms. It isn't what people expect from DVC. Unless they spend big bucks adding/upgrading amenities, and bus/boat services, it would overcrowd everything.
If it was dubbed a "value class" DVC resort, it is doubtful it would sell for $100 or more per point. Or it would require many, many fewer points per night, so not as many points would be sold to each buyer...neither of which makes good marketing sense for the brand.
I think that there already is a perceived "class" or "tier" of DVC. No knock on OKW, which I love, is somewhat viewed as the value DVC, if for no other reason than its significantly lower points. I think SSR is viewed on this "lower tier" to some degree as well, although the points aren't low enough to reflect this perception (which is one reason I think SSR is the least in-demand of the DVCs). I know many like that they are stand alone resorts, including myself at times, but the connection of the other DVCs to deluxe resorts give them a "higher class" perception.
On the flip side, BLT is perceived (and marketed) as a higher tiered resort (largely due to its location) as is reflected in its higher buy-in and points cost. BCV and BWV (to a lesser degree) also have this "higher-end" aura. If I were to rate how I think the WDW DVC "tiers" are perceived (and this by no means reflects my preferences), it would be: BLT, BCV, BWV, VWL, AKV, SSR, and OKW.
And we all know already that there are value options within individual resorts as well, namely AKV and BWV.
All that said, I think they could easily market a DVC that was perceived as more "value" than "deluxe". They certainly shouldn't call it a "value" DVC, but if they had the right combination of draws and point costs, I think a lower cost (in $$ and points) DVC could be quite successful.
For example, a stand alone resort near the campground and old RC could do quite well as a lower point resort without all the deluxe hotel-like amenities simply due to access to MK. Similarly, a stand alone resort, lower cost/point resort with no proximity to anything could do well, if say they build a superior pool area akin to SAB.
I don't think marketing and sales of a more "value" oriented DVC would be very difficult if done right. And I don't think maintaining a high occupancy at one would be difficult either since a lot of us look for ways to stretch out our points, again if its done right. I really think SSR would be a very attractive option in itself, and wouldn't have the occupancy issues it does, if they would have kept the point requirements closer to the OKW points, made rooms bigger, and/or did something to set it apart from the other resorts to off-set its perceived shortcomings (e.g., location, apartment building feel, etc.) For example, if they were to build up their pool area to something like SAB, you bet SSR would be much more in demand.
The big question is why would DVD do any of this? If they can build and sell a "value" DVC resort with diminished amenities and draws at a point premium by pushing the ability to stay at the other resorts, why wouldn't they?
but don't think that will ever happen but that would be great for my family.
