Tiered Benefits

[DVCGeek]

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).

I think I'm following your scenario now, but at 7 months anyone could get that same room, so I'm still not sure it is an advantage. The owner is still tying up their 'home resort' points for the first 4 months and sooner or later they need to use those home points someplace or they'll expire...

To your second point, anyone know what the details of the current criteria are regarding what triggers a "Modify reservation" vs. a "Cancel reservation" and subsequent "Reservation" pair?

 

[OhioDVC]

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.

There seems to be more then a little "class envy" showing up in this blog. Of course customers in any travel/tourist industry get tiered benefits for traveling/staying more. It is common practice throughout the industry.

And thank God for hard working wealthy people. Depending on which study you quote, approximately, the top 10% of wage earners in the US pay about 70% of the taxes. While the bottom 50% of wage earners pay only 3% of the taxes. Personally, I'm glad the top 10% of wage earners have the "TIERED BENEFIT" of paying 70% of the taxes. The lower 50% could not afford to pay their fair share.

The Lexus driver wouldn't park street side, he/she would be paying for a private garage. He/She also had the "Tiered Benefit" of paying more sales tax on the purchase of the Lexus and paying more income tax on the income earned to buy the Lexus, maybe they should get free parking. They already paid enough for it!

Don't discriminate against wealthy people or large points owners in DVC. Wealth/Points doesn't mean someone is greedy, evil or is a bad person. More then likely they are a talented, hard working individual who has been paid accordingly.

Anyone who owns DVC and vacations regularly is probably consider at least upper middle class.

As far as tiered benefit, the large point owner is actually cheaper for DVC to service versus servicing multiple owners. When they purchased a large contract, DVD incurs reduced marketing expenses when selling to a large buyer, thus justifying the reduced price per point sales price.

Any tiered benefit provided to high point owners is earned (paid for) and justified as long as it does not adversely effect members with lower points.

If a airline lets a frequent flier get on a plane early, and everyone arrives at the destination at the same time, how is the occasional traveler harmed?

Leave the pixie dust out of the discussion, tiered benefits is a pure business decision about optimizing profit. In a down economy, DVD is looking for a way to maximize sales and profit. Just like any good business should.

I'll put on my helmet and body armor now so I can survive the attacks.

 

[DVCGeek]

I'll put on my helmet and body armor now so I can survive the attacks.

Probably a good idea! I'm easily amused by flame anticipation comments like that though...

Something else, don't some high ticket items actually have a "Luxury tax", either state or federal, besides the tired benefit taxes you mention? IMO, something along those lines could be construed as pre-paying your parking in this ongoing example.

 

[Dizny Dad]

I agree with OhioDVC - give me a moment to put my stuff on too; let the flames begin . . . .

 

[mopee3]

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.

I really don't see how resale's hurt Disney. They sold and received payment for those points once, granted maybe not full payment, and now they are doing same again? So it's like a new car and then a used car. I would think Disney would want All people to be DVC members, not just a few. What better way to keep people in the parks? I realize we don't spend our whole vacation at the parks but during each trip we spend time at one park or another. It's why we became DVC members, not for the cruses, resorts, trade value, etc.

Moe

 

[culli]

I really don't see how resale's hurt Disney. They sold and received payment for those points once, granted maybe not full payment, and now they are doing same again? So it's like a new car and then a used car. I would think Disney would want All people to be DVC members, not just a few. What better way to keep people in the parks? I realize we don't spend our whole vacation at the parks but during each trip we spend time at one park or another. It's why we became DVC members, not for the cruses, resorts, trade value, etc.

Moe

Exactly the point they already received money for those pts they want to sell you new pts. Just like a car manufacturer they want you to buy a new vehicle not a used one from someone else. Yes if you buy a used vehicle of their brand it might increase their service and parts income.....but the sales division isn't happy they would rather have you in a new vehicle. Now good resales prices might help out the sales division but they want you buying NEW NEW NEW not resale. That is how they make their money.

Buying the new sales contracts allows them to build more DVC projects/resorts not you buying resale contracts. Like you stated they already received their money for those contracts.

 

[mopee3]

Exactly the point they already received money for those pts they want to sell you new pts. Just like a car manufacturer they want you to buy a new vehicle not a used one from someone else. Yes if you buy a used vehicle of their brand it might increase their service and parts income.....but the sales division isn't happy they would rather have you in a new vehicle. Now good resales prices might help out the sales division but they want you buying NEW NEW NEW not resale. That is how they make their money.

Buying the new sales contracts allows them to build more DVC projects/resorts not you buying resale contracts. Like you stated they already received their money for those contracts.

Ok I see your point for DVC but for Disney if resales provide a way to add more people in the parks, well who would win this battle DVC or Disney itself?

Let’s see, more tickets, more people in the restaurants, more everything and DVC picks up the cost of the rooms and their maintenance.


Moe

 

[Dizny Dad]

. . . . . . . It's why we became DVC members, not for the cruses, resorts, trade value, etc.

Moe

Ah, , , , , , some of us are members for the resorts with the parks as benefits; not the other way around.

 

[culli]

Ok I see your point for DVC but for Disney if resales provide a way to add more people in the parks, well who would win this battle DVC or Disney itself?

Let’s see, more tickets, more people in the restaurants, more everything and DVC picks up the cost of the rooms and their maintenance.


Moe

Yes but the "tier" benefit being discussed is from and paid for by DVD division of Disney. Again those pts are already sold and someone will be using them more than likely. On the other hand if you don't buy resale and stay in their hotels they will also be making that money.

For Disney they almost will always benefit as an overall company if you buy direct vs buying resale. There might be a few exceptions to the rule.

 

[cvjw]

Well said, OhioDVC. You could have read my mind. Being a DVC'er with a larger number of points, all the rich hate is hard to read.

 

[Dean]

I think I'm following your scenario now, but at 7 months anyone could get that same room, so I'm still not sure it is an advantage. The owner is still tying up their 'home resort' points for the first 4 months and sooner or later they need to use those home points someplace or they'll expire...

To your second point, anyone know what the details of the current criteria are regarding what triggers a "Modify reservation" vs. a "Cancel reservation" and subsequent "Reservation" pair?

If you plan accordingly and have the right points ownerships, it is possible to essentially get a few days advantage just before the 7 month window using non home resorts points. In effect your substituting non home resort points at the beginning of your stay and can reuse those points at the end of the stay or for a different stay in the same UY or even in the next UY if the points are later banked.

I really don't see how resale's hurt Disney. They sold and received payment for those points once, granted maybe not full payment, and now they are doing same again? So it's like a new car and then a used car. I would think Disney would want All people to be DVC members, not just a few. What better way to keep people in the parks? I realize we don't spend our whole vacation at the parks but during each trip we spend time at one park or another. It's why we became DVC members, not for the cruses, resorts, trade value, etc.

Moe

Disney's goal is to sell new points, yesterdays sales are meaningless going forward. Every resale that sells is a potential lost retail sale. Even the same sales today as yesterday is a certain amount of failure, the goal is ever increasing sales at as high a profit as possible.

Points already sold are sold and someone will use those points in most cases. Plus, it is my opinion, that they are actually counting on some points being lost from the system anyway. Plus while DVC overall supports the parks and rest of the Disney system on site, during certain times they are actually a deterrent for the busier venues like the parks. Basically when times are good, DVC members drag the overall system down, the reverse is true during the slow times. It's much like a restaurant the gives discounts, if a lot of people use them consistently, they can cost the business money. The difference with DVC is they can't stop the discounts.

Even though I've positioned myself with timeshares to be one of the haves in essentially every situation, I do feel that some of the options available are not overly fair to the membership overall. The good news is that in most cases it doesn't affect the end result for those that plan well within their options. OTOH, Timeshares change over time and I respect the abilities of the various systems to reward those that are willing to take the risks of time and money investment to give themselves more options than they might have otherwise, esp knowing that it could all be pulled from under them tomorrow.

 

[mybabesuz]

There seems to be more then a little "class envy" showing up in this blog. Of course customers in any travel/tourist industry get tiered benefits for traveling/staying more. It is common practice throughout the industry.

And thank God for hard working wealthy people. Depending on which study you quote, approximately, the top 10% of wage earners in the US pay about 70% of the taxes. While the bottom 50% of wage earners pay only 3% of the taxes. Personally, I'm glad the top 10% of wage earners have the "TIERED BENEFIT" of paying 70% of the taxes. The lower 50% could not afford to pay their fair share.

The Lexus driver wouldn't park street side, he/she would be paying for a private garage. He/She also had the "Tiered Benefit" of paying more sales tax on the purchase of the Lexus and paying more income tax on the income earned to buy the Lexus, maybe they should get free parking. They already paid enough for it!

Don't discriminate against wealthy people or large points owners in DVC. Wealth/Points doesn't mean someone is greedy, evil or is a bad person. More then likely they are a talented, hard working individual who has been paid accordingly.

Anyone who owns DVC and vacations regularly is probably consider at least upper middle class.

As far as tiered benefit, the large point owner is actually cheaper for DVC to service versus servicing multiple owners. When they purchased a large contract, DVD incurs reduced marketing expenses when selling to a large buyer, thus justifying the reduced price per point sales price.

Any tiered benefit provided to high point owners is earned (paid for) and justified as long as it does not adversely effect members with lower points.

If a airline lets a frequent flier get on a plane early, and everyone arrives at the destination at the same time, how is the occasional traveler harmed?

Leave the pixie dust out of the discussion, tiered benefits is a pure business decision about optimizing profit. In a down economy, DVD is looking for a way to maximize sales and profit. Just like any good business should.

I'll put on my helmet and body armor now so I can survive the attacks.

Well said...

I thought I read somewhere that they had scrapped the Tiered-Benefits idea because of all the backlash they were receiving.
People were canceling contracts and they were flooded with complaint and concern calls...

 

[csharpwv]

I really don't see how resale's hurt Disney. They sold and received payment for those points once, granted maybe not full payment, and now they are doing same again? So it's like a new car and then a used car. I would think Disney would want All people to be DVC members, not just a few. What better way to keep people in the parks? I realize we don't spend our whole vacation at the parks but during each trip we spend time at one park or another. It's why we became DVC members, not for the cruses, resorts, trade value, etc.

Moe

Why should Disney allow new members to buy in for $75.00 a point when they are selling points direct for $130 (before discounts)? That's where a resale contract SHOULD be different than directly purchased contracts.

We own two direct purchase contracts and one resale - there were a few reasons we bought resale - size of contract - use year - and of course PRICE.

The new/used car anaolgy doesn't work with timeshares. You KNOW you are buying a used car - it has miles on it, it has a scratch here and there, possibly a few interior stains, may not have latest technology, etc etc.

The contract purchased through resale is going to be exaclty as if you bought it through Disney. While there may not be as many years LEFT on the contract as it had when purchased new - you will not experience any difference. Why buy BLT for more than $100 per point when you can get it for less than $100 on the resale market? It just doesn't make sense!

That's where Disney is LOSING sales.

As I said in a previous post - Disney could REALLY sell a lot more points if they would execute their ROFR more often - purchase points at $60 - sell them for $75 to new and existing members as part of other add on deals!

If when we added on at Bay Lake Tower they would have offered us XX amount of points at another resort that we loved - we would have done it. DVC could increase their add on number - reduce the resale market inventory - and make new and existing members happy at the same time.

Instead of offering new members $XX.XX off per point - DVC could offer them XXX points for 1/2 price or something similar at a resort that is 'sold out'. That is a FAR better incentive for most members than a discount on their 'new points'. PLUS it isn't costing DVC a penny more - it's actually saving them money! As long as they get more out of the points than what they bought them for - it would be a GREAT incentive.

If your guide called you and said - We are offering a dual buy in program for Old Key West and Aulani. If you buy Aulani at full price - we will sell you a matching number of points for Old Key West at $45.00 per point - What do you think?

- Would you jump on that?

If you look at ROFR lists on the boards you will see where Disney could make money and keep members (new and old alike) interested in adding on!

The bottom line is that supply and demand rules the market - if DVC has the ability to control both, their profits will soar....

They do have the ability, and they should exercise that ability!

 

[RobPickles]

If when we added on at Bay Lake Tower they would have offered us XX amount of points at another resort that we loved - we would have done it. DVC could increase their add on number - reduce the resale market inventory - and make new and existing members happy at the same time.

It's funny you say this, because I have been saying this forever...especially when it comes to referrals. Instead of offering cash incentives, why not offer points in one of the properties as an option. They still make out in the end when you have to pay dues and taxes, etc. and the person who referred someone could be happy because they are getting more points.

 

[csharpwv]

It's funny you say this, because I have been saying this forever...especially when it comes to referrals. Instead of offering cash incentives, why not offer points in one of the properties as an option. They still make out in the end when you have to pay dues and taxes, etc. and the person who referred someone could be happy because they are getting more points.

I am glad someone agrees with me!

DVC just needs to work smarter - not harder!

 

[DVCGeek]

If you buy Aulani at full price - we will sell you a matching number of points for Old Key West at $45.00 per point - What do you think?

I don't want home resort at either and the dues are higher than BLT & VGC, so I would NOT be interested in that deal. BUT, I'm sure some people would be!

As for RobPickles's point, sure Disney would get dues money, but that profit goes to DVC not DVD, and since both are trying to be profitable I'm not sure this model would look good at the division level even if it does from a bigger picture...

 

[vicki_c]

Well said...

I thought I read somewhere that they had scrapped the Tiered-Benefits idea because of all the backlash they were receiving.
People were canceling contracts and they were flooded with complaint and concern calls...

Calls I might believe (even though those would be jumping the gun based on nothing being announced, just rumors and speculation), but cancelling contracts I would find really hard to believe. I don't think they cancelled anything that was really in the works to start 1/1/11; I think it's more likely that they hadn't finalized what they were doing anyway.

 

[a742246]

I would just let supply and demand control the prices. It seems like everytime we change a balanced system things mess up.

 

[tjkraz]

It's funny you say this, because I have been saying this forever...especially when it comes to referrals. Instead of offering cash incentives, why not offer points in one of the properties as an option. They still make out in the end when you have to pay dues and taxes, etc. and the person who referred someone could be happy because they are getting more points.

Disney spends hundreds-of-thousands of dollars to build and market these resorts. They aren't going to just give points away haphazardly.

Disney has assigned a value of $90-130 per point to these assets. Regardless of what sort of inventory they may have on hand, they aren't going to slip you a dozen points...worth $1500 or more...just for referring a member.

Some members wouldn't even WANT the points and obligations that go along with them. Others would send them right over to a resale broker, where they would then represent still more competition for Disney's own direct sales.

 

[OhioDVC]

You can have excessive demand for your product or service, but without investment capital to expand, you can not meet the demand.

Assuming your capacity is already at a maxim rate