Thread on the Disney Camping Forum

[hakepb]

A studio with a king, and 2 queens in a master suite is an interesting thought, but I don't think it would be practical. It would certainly almost eliminate the possibility of trading outside the DVC system for that resort, especially with RCI or II. And many intra-DVC owners put more than 2 people in a studio.

I'm still talking about a normal 2BR which could be used in trading if the other derivatives are not trade able.
although is sounds some would want a whirlpool tub added to the traditional 'studio' part of the 2BR, too..

Yes, I would be talking about a design that is less desirable for the 3-4 in a Studio crowd. But those owners currently get a huge value in the existing DVC's. I'm just suggesting an alternative of great value for 2 in a King bed/tub room, and for families greater than 4/5...

 

[Chuck S]

I'm still talking about a normal 2BR which could be used in trading if the other derivatives are not trade able.
although is sounds some would want a whirlpool tub added to the traditional 'studio' part of the 2BR, too..

Yes, I would be talking about a design that is less desirable for the 3-4 in a Studio crowd. But those owners currently get a huge value in the existing DVC's. I'm just suggesting an alternative of great value for 2 in a King bed/tub room, and for families greater than 4/5...

I understand, but for outside trading purposes, DVC still needs to comply with timeshare industry norms of occupancy and sleeping areas. If a resort does not meet normal standards, then those owners may find it difficult to trade out to other timeshares, as they could not offer a comparable room to in incoming trade.

 

[nolanboys]

The FW cabins do have a larger sleeping capacity that makes them an unbeatable value for larger families.

Rather than making a lower amenity DVC resort to sell cheaper, I'd like to see them do something innovative, like, say a reverse lockoff. (Get a romance suite: king bed and whirlpool, no kitchen/living, for studio points. Get a 'family suite', 2 queens, pullouts and full kitchen for a 7 capacity at 1br points. Add the option for an attached family suite or 2BR for more affordable point large gatherings.....)

I love these options! I wish they did have 1 resort with 2 queen beds in the master and a pull out sofa so families of 6 could enjoy and afford a 1 bedroom. I know if this was an option we would have bought in much sooner and let the kids have the master while DH and I sleep on the sofa since we are last to go to bed and 1st to get up in the morning! Okay well that was the way it used to be, now teens way out last us at night! [/QUOTE]
Oh, do I love this idea! As a family of six, I would love to give my kids the bedroom and save on the points!

 

[Dean]

When the topic of "different" unit designs comes up, you see people come out out the woodwork thinking what would be good for them. Few seem to grasp the realities such as complying with exchange standards and the expectations of the masses looking to buy as Chuck points out. While it's certainly OK to think and plan outside the box, there are certain realities at work in sales, exchanges, even using points at other resorts. For example, the sleep 5 units will still only exchange for sleep 4 in RCI and elsewhere and even within DVC itself where applicable. Even though you can't tell it from this site, the reality is that studios and 1 BR's are not intended for 4 people and 2 BR are not intended for 8. variations like a 2 queens in the master or a sleep 6 1 BR are not very feasible. The latter does exist in the timeshare world and isn't what it's cracked up to be, esp when you look at cost and yearly dues. Take the sleep 6 1 BR for example. Those who offer it assume generally it'll be little more than a 1 BR sleep 4 but actually the cost in points and yearly fees would almost certainly be far closer to that of a 2 BR than a 1 BR, minimally OVER half of the points difference between the two and more likely 70-80% of the difference.

 

[dianeschlicht]

When the topic of "different" unit designs comes up, you see people come out out the woodwork thinking what would be good for them. Few seem to grasp the realities such as complying with exchange standards and the expectations of the masses looking to buy as Chuck points out. While it's certainly OK to think and plan outside the box, there are certain realities at work in sales, exchanges, even using points at other resorts. For example, the sleep 5 units will still only exchange for sleep 4 in RCI and elsewhere and even within DVC itself where applicable. Even though you can't tell it from this site, the reality is that studios and 1 BR's are not intended for 4 people and 2 BR are not intended for 8. variations like a 2 queens in the master or a sleep 6 1 BR are not very feasible. The latter does exist in the timeshare world and isn't what it's cracked up to be, esp when you look at cost and yearly dues. Take the sleep 6 1 BR for example. Those who offer it assume generally it'll be little more than a 1 BR sleep 4 but actually the cost in points and yearly fees would almost certainly be far closer to that of a 2 BR than a 1 BR, minimally OVER half of the points difference between the two and more likely 70-80% of the difference.

Spot on, Dean! I am currently trying to work out a deal with someone on TUG to trade OKW for Hawaii. The problem is, I want a 1 bedroom, and he needs a 2 bedroom. He COULD get by with a 1 bedroom, but like me, he doesn't like to have his kids on pullouts. There is no way I would accept a master bedroom with 2 beds in it. That's rediculous! I don't have 2 beds in my master at home, and I certainly don't want it on vacation either. That defeats the purpose of a master bedroom.

 

[Dean]

Spot on, Dean! I am currently trying to work out a deal with someone on TUG to trade OKW for Hawaii. The problem is, I want a 1 bedroom, and he needs a 2 bedroom. He COULD get by with a 1 bedroom, but like me, he doesn't like to have his kids on pullouts. There is no way I would accept a master bedroom with 2 beds in it. That's rediculous! I don't have 2 beds in my master at home, and I certainly don't want it on vacation either. That defeats the purpose of a master bedroom.

I understand that there are a subset of people who would want some of the weird setups mentioned such as 2 queens in a 1 BR, just not enough to make it reasonable for the system. The other issue, as I alluded to above, is that they're assuming it'll either save them money (points) or it'll allow them to afford something they couldn't otherwise. In both cases the benefits from a cost standpoint would be minimal but the compromises moderate. Ultimately the cost/benefit ratio doesn't add up for most or all of those situations.

As I noted, there certainly are other approaches they could take though and still stay within the framework of what's reasonable in the areas we've laid out. Things like a lockoff with two 1 BR, with one larger and one smaller, are workable and offer benefits with minimal negatives. Another, which I've seen at one resort are 3 BR units that are double lockoff's. Two 1 BR units with a studio sandwiched in between. Another option, which I think also has potential for a larger resort are 4 BR units that lockoff into two 2 BR units. Another that I specifically suggested for SSR, is individual or duplex type lake homes. Unfortunately, SSR was the perfect resort for all such options due to it's layout and size. It's much harder to get creative with smaller resorts or where space is more of an issue.

The other side of the story is such issues must make sense to DVD and from a management standpoint.

 

[dbs1228]

I completely "get" the reality of the trading and unit set ups but it would be nice if Disney, maybe not necessarily DVC had accomadations such as a 1 bedroom unit with 2 queen beds in the bedroom (lets not call it the master then) and a pull out sofa in the living room. If there were rooms like this with a full kitchen and W&D I would have probably looked into that instead of buying until my kids were done traveling with us. It is Disney, families with multiple kids. I was in the travel industry for 20 years there is certainly a need for that sort of set up at Disney - if it was a dvc they would have no trouble renting out the units that could not be traded out vs. the outrageous prices of the 2 bedroom villas!

 

[Dean]

I completely "get" the reality of the trading and unit set ups but it would be nice if Disney, maybe not necessarily DVC had accomadations such as a 1 bedroom unit with 2 queen beds in the bedroom (lets not call it the master then) and a pull out sofa in the living room. If there were rooms like this with a full kitchen and W&D I would have probably looked into that instead of buying until my kids were done traveling with us. It is Disney, families with multiple kids. I was in the travel industry for 20 years there is certainly a need for that sort of set up at Disney - if it was a dvc they would have no trouble renting out the units that could not be traded out vs. the outrageous prices of the 2 bedroom villas!

As I tried to point out, there might be a specialty need (desire) for such an option. However, the reason for the "need" is almost certainly cost. The reality is that the cost wouldn't be that much lower than a 2 BR. Lets say a 1 BR were $400 a night and a 2 BR $600 a night. The price for the sleep six 1 BR is likely $500 MINIMUM and depending on how prevalent plus other factors, as much as $550 per night.

The other point I've alluded to, but maybe not made directly, is that there's a business reality to the situation. Why sell/rent a 1 BR sleep 6 when you can sell/rent a 2 BR. Plus having a specialty unit that is a minority has extra costs and risks to the system. They cost more to plan and maintain and they have a risk of generating overall lower rental income than more traditional alternatives. If they're going to go with a specialty unit, it is far better if they go with something they can fit within their current framework, those I mentioned above do. Ultimately it all comes down to the dollars on the developer and maint side. IF there are enough people that are interested in a given option, it will increase sales OVERALL. If it's not desirable enough to increase overall sales, no reason for them to take such risks. Remember that every specialty unit takes away from other units that could be added.

Past threads on this subject have suggested that those interested in the crowded 1 BR are an extreme minority. My guess is that even most of those that are would not go that route when they realize the savings are meager. Disney does have units that are aimed at such situations. Sleep 5 moderates and the Family Suites at the values come to mind.

I've seen a number of variations over the years on the specialty unit options, some of which I mentioned above. From a usage standpoint NONE of them added much or any benefits from a usage standpoint. Some do add benefits from a trading and/or sales standpoint but neither esp applies to DVC.

 

[TiaMaria]

First of all, I want my Grand Floridian DVC!!!!

Second, I never did value before DVC and I'm certainly never going to do it now.

Third, I agree with Chuck. There is no reason for DVC to build any kind of stripped-down-amenities-value-type of DVC resort. It just doesn't match the branding DVC is selling. And they've certainly not had a huge problem selling contracts, although it probably slowed down the last couple of years due to the economy. Notice Disney has continued to build through all that? Since 2008 they've completed AKV, VGC, BLT and now Aulani (almost completed).

Let them build at RC/FW - and make it a value or even perhaps a moderate. Not DVC sharing with a value or moderate.

If they are so foolish, at least I won't have to spend even a second wondering if I can get a reservation at the 7 month mark!

 

[Dean]

First of all, I want my Grand Floridian DVC!!!!

Second, I never did value before DVC and I'm certainly never going to do it now.

Third, I agree with Chuck. There is no reason for DVC to build any kind of stripped-down-amenities-value-type of DVC resort. It just doesn't match the branding DVC is selling. And they've certainly not had a huge problem selling contracts, although it probably slowed down the last couple of years due to the economy. Notice Disney has continued to build through all that? Since 2008 they've completed AKV, VGC, BLT and now Aulani (almost completed).

Let them build at RC/FW - and make it a value or even perhaps a moderate. Not DVC sharing with a value or moderate.

If they are so foolish, at least I won't have to spend even a second wondering if I can get a reservation at the 7 month mark!

I think it would be fairly easy to make a DVC option work associated with a moderate. From a location and amenity standpoint (not rooms), OKW and SSR have more in common with moderates than they do the deluxe resorts as it is.

 

[Bullseye]

Staying at the cabins this past summer was one of the things that pushed us over the top on buying DVC directly therafter. We really enjoyed having a full kitchen, a private bedroom, and some extra living space.

One thing that was a real pain in the neck though was getting around FW. We already rented a car so I wasn't going to spend just as much on a golf cart. There are no pull-off's for the bus stops, so if you get behind one, you are just stuck stopping at every stop because you cannot pass.

If they were going to add a dvc resort, I think they would build it in the general vicinty, but it would have it's own access road and private amenities exclusive to DVC.

 

[Alexander]

Given the popularity of the SSR Treehouses, I could see something like a cabin-style based DVC resort over at FW. Different strokes for different folks, and just because you are a DVC member doesn't mean you wouldn't like the rustic camping-style of vacation (in a villa of course!).

 

[Sammie]

Given the popularity of the SSR Treehouses, I could see something like a cabin-style based DVC resort over at FW. Different strokes for different folks, and just because you are a DVC member doesn't mean you wouldn't like the rustic camping-style of vacation (in a villa of course!).

It would greatly appeal to my family. We have been to the parks so many times over the years, we love to just get away at times.

Something where you could fish and boat would be wonderful.

 

[SnowWitch]

Instead of treehouse villas maybe "wilderness cabins". Maybe relate it to the WL instead of the campground. Revamp river country as the pool area and that baby would sell like hot cakes. I would be interested and I am so not an out doorsy girl.

 

[mamaprincess]

First of all, I want my Grand Floridian DVC!!!!

Second, I never did value before DVC and I'm certainly never going to do it now.

Third, I agree with Chuck. There is no reason for DVC to build any kind of stripped-down-amenities-value-type of DVC resort. It just doesn't match the branding DVC is selling. And they've certainly not had a huge problem selling contracts, although it probably slowed down the last couple of years due to the economy. Notice Disney has continued to build through all that? Since 2008 they've completed AKV, VGC, BLT and now Aulani (almost completed).

Let them build at RC/FW - and make it a value or even perhaps a moderate. Not DVC sharing with a value or moderate.

If they are so foolish, at least I won't have to spend even a second wondering if I can get a reservation at the 7 month mark!

Amen to all of this! I am waiting for my Grand Floridian DVC as well. Never have been nor will be interested in value or moderate anything.

I don't know what they are really going to do. Hopefully we will have more than just speculation very soon.

 

[theww228]

If there was a DVC resort that was more closely related to moderate resorts, they could still sell points for $120 or whatever the going rate is. This would not "dilute" the system but allow more options. If week at VWL for a week is 255 points, maybe the new resort is 205 points (20% less). I think it would open DVC up to a lot a people who are are on the fence or who are not willing to buy 255 points to get into the game, but are will to buy 200. It could also be a teaser that gets people in the door and then they quickly realize how much they enjoy the DVC and now they want to add on more points to stay other places. I realize that DVD does not want to build a resort that brings in 20% less revenue, but if it costs 30% less to build they will come out ahead. I have been to OKW and I have no desire to ever stay there even though the point requirements are less. I do not think that OKW destroys the brand, it simply gives more options. If I was selling memberships I would love to be able to tell someone who is considereing buying at BLT, that they have an option to stay at a different for significant points savings, isn't DVC great? We are here to give you options, because we care!

 

[Chuck S]

If there was a DVC resort that was more closely related to moderate resorts, they could still sell points for $120 or whatever the going rate is. This would not "dilute" the system but allow more options. If week at VWL for a week is 255 points, maybe the new resort is 205 points (20% less). I think it would open DVC up to a lot a people who are are on the fence or who are not willing to buy 255 points to get into the game, but are will to buy 200. It could also be a teaser that gets people in the door and then they quickly realize how much they enjoy the DVC and now they want to add on more points to stay other places. I realize that DVD does not want to build a resort that brings in 20% less revenue, but if it costs 30% less to build they will come out ahead. I have been to OKW and I have no desire to ever stay there even though the point requirements are less. I do not think that OKW destroys the brand, it simply gives more options. If I was selling memberships I would love to be able to tell someone who is considereing buying at BLT, that they have an option to stay at a different for significant points savings, isn't DVC great? We are here to give you options, because we care!

Uhh, OKW was the Brand when it opened. It was the The Disney Vacation Club Resort, that is still the name in the legal paperwork, there were no others. And OKW and SSR are considered Deluxe class resorts.

The reason the points are less at OKW is because it was the first DVC, and the resort point structure is locked in at the time sales start. OKW was an experiment for Disney, if it hadn't sold, and sold well, there would still be no others.

 

[Dean]

If there was a DVC resort that was more closely related to moderate resorts, they could still sell points for $120 or whatever the going rate is. This would not "dilute" the system but allow more options. If week at VWL for a week is 255 points, maybe the new resort is 205 points (20% less). I think it would open DVC up to a lot a people who are are on the fence or who are not willing to buy 255 points to get into the game, but are will to buy 200. It could also be a teaser that gets people in the door and then they quickly realize how much they enjoy the DVC and now they want to add on more points to stay other places. I realize that DVD does not want to build a resort that brings in 20% less revenue, but if it costs 30% less to build they will come out ahead. I have been to OKW and I have no desire to ever stay there even though the point requirements are less. I do not think that OKW destroys the brand, it simply gives more options. If I was selling memberships I would love to be able to tell someone who is considereing buying at BLT, that they have an option to stay at a different for significant points savings, isn't DVC great? We are here to give you options, because we care!

Depending on the level of other amenities, it doesn't necessarily have to be priced less but it might be. SSR is more than OKW but less than BCV, etc. IMO, OKW represents closer to the appropriate differential based on locations and inherent difference but then I also think WL should be less than BWV & BCV. DVC's goal would be to price it at a level to sell maximum points for the highest price but to fit it within the basic structure of DVC in terms of usage and demand. Based on available details, I think EP would have met those goals better than SSR has but I know many disagree.

 

[theww228]

OKW is beautiful and peaceful resort, but it is more like CBR than the Poly. Even if OKW has "deluxe" in the name it is more similiar to a mod than a deluxe. It seems to be working well in the DVC system. I am not saying that OKW should not be in the DVC system, I am saying instead that members seem to enjoy having a resort with a low point structure. I think that members would like having the option of a resort with 10 pt a night rates in studios. If I was getting a grand villa I would stay at OKW before BLT because it take so many fewer points. A "moderate" DVC would be nice for time when members need larger quarters or would like to stay longer.

If they build the new resort as a mod DVC, but sell it as a deluxe they will have issues selling out and the rooms there will be the last to be used. If members could stay at CBR for 7 points a night there would be tons of takers. If they charged 17 a night there would be few if any.

 

[Sammie]

If DVC can build a resort with the quality and amenties that OKW offers, they can call it anything they want and if the points are lower than OKW, man, sign me up.

That is what I call a real deal.