Tiered Benefits

[Dean]

Dean,

No this standard applies to all items managed by DVC including perks that they negotiate or offer directly from dues.

bookwormde

Sorry, that is not correct.

 

[bookwormde]

No sense in arguing

It is right in the state timeshare regulations for those that are interested.

bookwormde

 

[Dean]

No sense in arguing

It is right in the state timeshare regulations for those that are interested.

bookwormde

The portion in the FL statues only applies to the physical timeshare itself. It does not apply to perks nor exchange options including internal exchanges.

 

[RobPickles]

IMO Rob, your response is emotional based on your perception of fairness. In a sense I suspect all of us agree with you on some level but it's just not reality and really never has been even with DVC if you consider that having more points often gives one an inherent advantage over those with less.

That is what I mean. People with more points already have an advantage - can book longer stays, can book larger rooms, etc. Why are we going to reward them even more perks or "better" perks than a member with fewer points? They do not need an incentive - this only will coerce those with less points to have to buy more to keep up with the others.

So the "reality" is about selling more points and not really caring about their members at all.

 

[culli]

so the "reality" is about selling more points and not really caring about their members at all.

exactly - all about $$$

 

[RobPickles]

exactly - all about $$$

Makes you wonder why we are even discussing this subject then. LOL!

 

[Dean]

That is what I mean. People with more points already have an advantage - can book longer stays, can book larger rooms, etc. Why are we going to reward them even more perks or "better" perks than a member with fewer points? They do not need an incentive - this only will coerce those with less points to have to buy more to keep up with the others.

So the "reality" is about selling more points and not really caring about their members at all.

Obviously it's about the money and with Disney, control. There are inherent advantages to more points and more home resorts, both give you tremendous options. The question is whether the landscape is changing and in ways that many on this BBS don't see as inherently Disney and that will shift the advantages toward one group vs another (more points, retail, etc). IMO, the idea that Disney was above it all was always an illusion but I know some believed they were. IF it changes, it will hurt some and help others, in all likelihood, any such changes will hurt most people and help the limited few. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that's inherently wrong (actually from a business standpoint I think they're behind the times), just that there are realities involved that most here are probably not going to like.

 

[tjkraz]

That is what I mean. People with more points already have an advantage - can book longer stays, can book larger rooms, etc.

Don't know that I would call that an advantage. It's simply getting what you paid for. However many points you own, do you feel that you have an advantage over someone that owns half as many? 1/3 as many?

Why are we going to reward them even more perks or "better" perks than a member with fewer points? They do not need an incentive - this only will coerce those with less points to have to buy more to keep up with the others.

These sorts of perks programs are nothing new--either in the timeshare industry or our consumer economy. Of course it's about getting people to spend more money. But the approach is the same as reward programs offered by airlines, credit card companies, gas stations, grocery stores and hundreds others.

I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised when/if Disney decides it's in their best interest to follow suit.

So the "reality" is about selling more points and not really caring about their members at all.

exactly - all about $$$

On the "caring" issue, I think that remains to be seen. It's going to depend upon exactly what is offered and who it is offered to.

If, for example, Disney gives significant booking advantages to those who own over ____ points, AND the only points which qualify are points purchased direct after the program start date, then I would agree that they do not care. Those are some pretty rigid guidelines.

However, if the perks are basically cosmetic things (refillable mugs, fastpasses, etc.) which don't negatively impact other owners and/or they base participation upon all prior point purchases, then I think it will be a nice little reward program for long standing members.

 

[Dean]

Don't know that I would call that an advantage. It's simply getting what you paid for. However many points you own, do you feel that you have an advantage over someone that owns half as many? 1/3 as many?

Tim, while it is inherent to the system, having more points is an inherent advantage over having less, esp if you have a lot more. For example, one can book say a 1 BR & a 2 BR and then cancel the one later you end up not needing. Or you can book 2 weeks and cancel one later once you know what week you are traveling. Another option is that you can book a week, then WL a different resort in any one of many ways to ensure the best chance of having what you want at the time of the trip. And there are many other variations, some that actually give one essentially a home resort advantage at any resort one owns at even if not using home resort points. While these, and many related thoughts, are part of the system for what we all bought into, that doesn't mean the options won't change. As you point out (and I have), these programs are relatively common in the industry, but in each and every case, there were owners at a time prior to whatever the current version is with each system. And in each case, there are current owners who bought in at a given iteration and to them, that's the norm. Actually having a home resort priority and a points options combined seems to be the exception rather than the rule at the present time.

 

[DVCGeek]

some that actually give one essentially a home resort advantage at any resort one owns at even if not using home resort points.

How would that happen?

 

[tjkraz]

Tim, while it is inherent to the system, having more points is an inherent advantage over having less, esp if you have a lot more. For example, one can book say a 1 BR & a 2 BR and then cancel the one later you end up not needing. Or you can book 2 weeks and cancel one later once you know what week you are traveling. Another option is that you can book a week, then WL a different resort in any one of many ways to ensure the best chance of having what you want at the time of the trip. And there are many other variations, some that actually give one essentially a home resort advantage at any resort one owns at even if not using home resort points. While these, and many related thoughts, are part of the system for what we all bought into, that doesn't mean the options won't change. As you point out (and I have), these programs are relatively common in the industry, but in each and every case, there were owners at a time prior to whatever the current version is with each system. And in each case, there are current owners who bought in at a given iteration and to them, that's the norm. Actually having a home resort priority and a points options combined seems to be the exception rather than the rule at the present time.

I don't disagree with you, Dean. I just didn't get the sense that the poster in question was going in that direction when stating that large point owners already had "advantages" like "can book longer stays, can book larger rooms". If you own 1000 points, I don't see being able to book 1000 points' worth of stays as being an "advantage" over a smaller point owner, in and of itself. That 1000 pt owner also paid for the 1000 points and has large annual dues commitments than smaller point owners.

 

[SuzanneSLO]

Tim, while it is inherent to the system, having more points is an inherent advantage over having less, esp if you have a lot more. For example, one can book say a 1 BR & a 2 BR and then cancel the one later you end up not needing. Or you can book 2 weeks and cancel one later once you know what week you are traveling. Another option is that you can book a week, then WL a different resort in any one of many ways to ensure the best chance of having what you want at the time of the trip. And there are many other variations, some that actually give one essentially a home resort advantage at any resort one owns at even if not using home resort points. While these, and many related thoughts, are part of the system for what we all bought into, that doesn't mean the options won't change. As you point out (and I have), these programs are relatively common in the industry, but in each and every case, there were owners at a time prior to whatever the current version is with each system. And in each case, there are current owners who bought in at a given iteration and to them, that's the norm. Actually having a home resort priority and a points options combined seems to be the exception rather than the rule at the present time.

Under the current system, there is a limit to the advantage you gain as a large pointholder. Ultimately, it requires that you use (or rent) your points an average every year. If you cannot do that, then you are paying a steep price for the flexibility you get as a large point owner. For example, if you plan to book a 250 point per year stay each year, then having a 1000 points to use to make that booking would add to your advantage as you could book alternative dates, but the price to do so would be extremely high.

And if the issue is not alternative dates, but high demand, then I am not sure that having lots of extra points actually helps you book the first week in December every year in a 2BR AKL CL. -- Suzanne

 

[Dean]

I don't disagree with you, Dean. I just didn't get the sense that the poster in question was going in that direction when stating that large point owners already had "advantages" like "can book longer stays, can book larger rooms". If you own 1000 points, I don't see being able to book 1000 points' worth of stays as being an "advantage" over a smaller point owner, in and of itself. That 1000 pt owner also paid for the 1000 points and has large annual dues commitments than smaller point owners.

I realize we are approaching this specific portion of the issue from different angles. IMO, having enough points to book different resorts, multiple week and multiple unit sizes is a pretty huge advantage for some, not as much for others.

How would that happen?

I realize I was a little vague. Basically by booking with home resorts points and canceling JUST before the 7 month window though it's less of a benefit now that you can book 7 days at a time. The other approach one can take along those lines goes like this. Book a stay with home resort points, then when the 7 month window opens, use non home resort points canceling any days that you can get with 7 mo points. Obviously both issues fade away if DVC changes where any change to a reservation is a cancelation and rebooking (as I think they should).

Suzanne, no question there's a cost. There will be a cost (one way or another) if they go with any changes along the lines mentioned in this thread as well.

 

[csharpwv]

Nearly all hotel chains, airlines, car rental enterprises, and other travel companies have some sort of customer loyalty program.
I think that is really what DVC has in mind - the more you stay with Disney - the more benefits you receive.
It DOES make sense for members that own the minimum - because they are contributing the minimum amount to membership dues/fees etc.

It's not about fairness - it's about equality.

We own points at three resorts and would like some sort of added benefit for that. Not because we should have it - or because we 'deserve' it - but because we believe in what DVC has to offer us, and the better they treat us - the more DVC could possibly benefit - it's about good will toward DVC.

I am a Hilton Hhonors Diamond member - I stay with the Hilton Family of Hotels every time I travel for work - that loyalty gives me benefits that someone who stays at a hotel 1-2 nights a year does not have. It doesn't make sense that these two customer types would receive the same benefits.

When you think about what Disney has to offer that would not effect the bottom line - it really isn't much.
Increasing the frequency of housekeeping could get expensive.
Free park passes could get VERY expensive.
The list goes on and on.

However - I don't think that they should eliminate anything that is currently offered to all members.

At the end of the day, Disney does need some way to discourage resale activity - it's killing the bottom line, and offering a greatly discounted pathway to DVC membership/ownership - PLUS it is allowing members to buy in with far fewer points, but still giving those members all the same benefits as direct purchase members/owners.

It is in ALL owners best interest for Disney to force their hand on ROFR.

If you want into to DVC - you are going to pay a premium. That's the way it should be - and DVC will be far more profitable by buying back more contracts.

The economy is improving - and we've all seen the leaked info about the next possible DVC resort.
SSR is not sold out
AKV is not sold out
BLT is not sold out
Aulani is not sold out
VGC is the smallest DVC property ever built and took longer to sell out that anyone anticipated.

The game is different, and the rules have to be different.
Dues will be less when all points at any particular resort are sold out. It only makes sense that way.

DVC has to do something to protect their bottom line - and the first way they are going to do it is one that will cost them the least.
A member loyalty program - or tiered benefit program - is going to be the cheapest way to do it it seems.

What 'tiered benefits' means exactly..... well, that's yet to be seen!

 

[Dean]

Nearly all hotel chains, airlines, car rental enterprises, and other travel companies have some sort of customer loyalty program.

If Disney overall would do something that also includes DVC members, I would agree that's a high possibility. However, those programs have the premise of participants spending future dollars. To my knowledge, there are no timeshares that have a loyalty program as the basis of their VIP system and no way to do an effective VIP program without putting pressure on future members as a minimum, and possibly present members as well. Marriott ties their sales program into the Marriott Rewards program but it is not a significant part of their ongoing VIP system. However, Marriott has a lightweight VIP program.

Mark my words, IF DVC goes to any type of VIP program and/or tries to differentiate retail from resale buyers, the differences will be significant to many. Personally I'm doubting a VIP program but more expecting a simple reduction of options for resale buyers going forward. Most likely removal of all cash type exchange options but I would expect RCI & BVTC plus current reservation options to be retained, though only reservation options are protected. I bet that the contract with RCI includes that all members are elligible. Lack of ability to combine with current contracts is a likely possibility as well. Ultimately they may not do anything.

 

[marynvince]

of course it is. And it should be.

 

[Brian Noble]

Nearly all hotel chains, airlines, car rental enterprises, and other travel companies have some sort of customer loyalty program.

But, they really don't reward *past* loyalty. They reward *ongoing* loyalty---the ongoing decisions of customers who have the choice to take their dollars elsewhere, but don't.

That's very different than a timeshare. Timeshare owners *don't* have the choice of taking their dollars elsewhere---that is, they don't unless they sell their ownerships. Ultimately, this is the premise of timeshare. The developer provides you with a discount on vacation lodging in exchange for an up-front, long-term commitment. Once you have purchased, you are a captive audience member, not a discretionary one.

The only way in which "loyalty" programs work is if they stimulate *future, discretionary* spending. And, in DVC's case, that means buying more points, or (to a lesser extent) helping to convince others to do the same. Otherwise, loyalty programs just amount to giveaways. And, I can guarantee you that The Walt Disney Company is not interested in such charity work.

Dues will be less when all points at any particular resort are sold out. It only makes sense that way.

I don't believe this is true. My understanding is that the operating costs are divided per-point, based on the total number of points in the overall development, not just the points sold/declared. Disney pays its share of the operating costs for points it still owns, and in turn can use those points for its own purposes. If that were not the case, we would have seen decreases in resorts that *have* sold out, but I don't believe we've ever seen that. There were some system-wide decreases around 2000 or so, but presumably that has to do with decreases in other costs.

 

[disneynutz]

The reward program will reward direct sales and referrals.

They already have a program in place now, the more points you buy, the cheaper the price. The more referrals that you make, the larger your cash reward, but apparently the existing incentives aren't working well enough to help Disney meet their sales goals.

They want to take some of the business away from the resale market and they want to sell larger contracts. You can bet that the program will reward those who buy direct, those who own more points, and members who refer new members.

Maybe they will get free Valet service? In fact, maybe they will get back some of the benefits recently lost. No $95 fee, free Valet service, and larger wait lists.

Bill

 

[gkrykewy]

of course it is. And it should be.

Missing the point.

The question is whether one should get additional benefits just *because* they are wealthy (or hopelessly indebted to Disney, as the case may be). An analogy would be if luxury cars could park downtown for free, while everyone else has to feed the meter.

As others have said, my feelings would/will probably depend on the specifics.

 

[vicki_c]

Missing the point.

The question is whether one should get additional benefits just *because* they are wealthy (or hopelessly indebted to Disney, as the case may be). An analogy would be if luxury cars could park downtown for free, while everyone else has to feed the meter.

As others have said, my feelings would/will probably depend on the specifics.

I think that analogy would only work though if you purchased your car from the city/town benefiting from the revenue from the parking meter. And then it's basically the same as we're discussing about DVC - more points, more perks or benefits.