Tiered Benefits

[disneynutz]

If it's more difficult to book non-home resort, it may make timeshare swapping or renting even more common.

One door closes, another one opens.

The problem is that Disney has the key to the door.

Bill

 

[toocherie]

...and a lovely and cheerful good morning to you too

calypso--I appreciate you posting the rumor--my experience has been that oftentimes there is a nugget of truth coming out of the rumors from the MouseHouse. and I have heard from a good source that changes are afoot too and that direct sales are dramatically down. So, I am always ready to hear about rumors--but won't get too excited, as someone else said, until something "official" is announced.

 

[tjkraz]

As to the validity -- it's a rumor, as stated, but from a relatively credible source and someone else in that thread confirmed they heard something similar from a DVC source (now whether it's all coming from the same DVC source, who knows?).

When you drill down to the details, it really makes me question what is true and what isn't. As "wdrl" already pointed out, there really isn't any evidence to support the allegation of declining sales and canceled contracts. Sales have largely been on an upswing the last 6 months--particularly December. And that's despite price increases and mediocre incentives.

The comment of sales being "tens-of-millions" behind doesn't ring true either. DVC doesn't even have that many points available, and overall sales haven't been that far off of prior year numbers despite the economy.

The common line of thinking is that anyone at TWDC who actually knows anything isn't talking about it. Between the constantly changing outlook, the apparent errors in some statements and the inflammatory comments made about the state of DVC, it makes me wonder how "inside" this source really is.

Quite Honestly, I don't think a "slight" booking advantage after home booking window is that devaluing to the DVC brand (the 8 vs 7 month booking window for non home resort), it could really push people to buy extra points, but would not really negatively impact the population as a whole.

I agree. I believe Wyndham allows VIP members extra booking privileges just 1 or 2 times per year depending upon the number of points owned. I don't see that such a move by DVC would radically change the landscape. Owners at each resort would still have plenty of time to book their Homes.

I would be surprised if DVC allowed unlimited priority booking to large point owners given the likelihood that some of those folks are point renters. DVC does seem to be going out of its way to squash rental activities whenever possible.

 

[going/again]

Part of the thinking is that those who own less points actually cost more pp from a management standpoint and that is true.

While I realise this is all pure speculation, how does an owner with say 300 points and uses them all in one vacation, cost more to management than say someone who owns say 600 points but uses them over say 6 vacations. not looking for an argument just some clarification.

 

[tjkraz]

While I realise this is all pure speculation, how does an owner with say 300 points and uses them all in one vacation, cost more to management than say someone who owns say 600 points but uses them over say 6 vacations. not looking for an argument just some clarification.

It's not about the activity of one specific owner vs. one specific other owner that matters--it's more about the trends that develop when you look at all owners as an aggregate.

Consider one owner of 600 points vs 6 owners of 100 points each. From DVC's perspective that's 6 copies of Disney Files vs. 1 copy. There are 6 times as many annual dues statements to be mailed, 6 times as many Vacation Planners, perhaps 6 times as many Annual Pass discounts utilized.

I also suspect that owners of smaller contracts are prone to shorter stays and would thus utilize a greater proportion of things like front desk services and housekeeping...perhaps Members Services, too.

There will always be exceptions to the rule but overall one would expect numbers to fall into predictable patterns based upon the size of one's ownership.

 

[dianeschlicht]

Here's a little different take on this subject. IF (it's a big if) they reward the higher point owners, and those higher point owners are among those who do a lot of renting, isn't DVC cutting off their nose to spite their face? That is especially true if the tier benefits involve better booking windows etc. It seems to me those of us in the "middle tier" groups will be more likely to actually have a benefit from better booking windows, while high point people who rent out a lot of reservations will be giving that benefit to their "clients".

 

[dizfan]

When you drill down to the details, it really makes me question what is true and what isn't. As "wdrl" already pointed out, there really isn't any evidence to support the allegation of declining sales and canceled contracts. Sales have largely been on an upswing the last 6 months--particularly December. And that's despite price increases and mediocre incentives.

I wouldn't call the black friday incentives mediocre. Prior to that, I believe the last time BLT was under $100/pt was in summer or fall of 2009.

Additionally, wasn't it July or August when SSR and OKW were priced at $90/pt as the incentive? After a month or so, I believe they raised SSR to $95/pt. While not great incentives compared to resale, they were likely promoted by guides and increased direct sales during those promotional periods (within the last 6 months).

 

[dianeschlicht]

Another thought about giving "referral" benefits. There are many of us who live in states where such benefits are illegal. Does that automatically rule us out? I have referred plenty of people to DVC, and all I've gotten for my trouble is a nice letter saying, "thanks, but you don't qualify for any referral benefits".

 

[tjkraz]

Here's a little different take on this subject. IF (it's a big if) they reward the higher point owners, and those higher point owners are among those who do a lot of renting, isn't DVC cutting off their nose to spite their face? That is especially true if the tier benefits involve better booking windows etc. It seems to me those of us in the "middle tier" groups will be more likely to actually have a benefit from better booking windows, while high point people who rent out a lot of reservations will be giving that benefit to their "clients".

That's one reason why I think any priority booking perk would be limited in quantity--perhaps just one or two times per year. Not only would that curb any abuse by renters, but it would also limit the overall impact on other owners.

Being able to book a non-Home 8 months out is an attractive perk, IMO. But it isn't going to completely destroy non-Home booking abilities (or the resale market) if only a small percentage of owners can exercise this option 1x per year.

 

[tjkraz]

I wouldn't call the black friday incentives mediocre. Prior to that, I believe the last time BLT was under $100/pt was in summer or fall of 2009.

Additionally, wasn't it July or August when SSR and OKW were priced at $90/pt as the incentive? After a month or so, I believe they raised SSR to $95/pt. While not great incentives compared to resale, they were likely promoted by guides and increased direct sales during those promotional periods (within the last 6 months).

Those were nice incentives but let's put them in perspective. The offers were only valid for a few days, were not highly publicized, were only offered to current members adding-on AND buyers had to be present at the Chicago or Long Island sales centers.

It's been over six months since DVC has offered anything attention-grabbing like free cruises, free Annual Passes, free RCI weeks, 2-3 years' worth of Developer Points or extra savings with a member referral. Those are the types of incentives that seem to grab buyers' attention, even if they aren't the financial equal of other offers that have come along in the past.

 

[TisBit]

Another thought about giving "referral" benefits. There are many of us who live in states where such benefits are illegal. Does that automatically rule us out? I have referred plenty of people to DVC, and all I've gotten for my trouble is a nice letter saying, "thanks, but you don't qualify for any referral benefits".

Most of those laws are restrictive on receiving monetary awards, etc for referring people, etc. If this is a perks based program, you would be eligible, because it has no cash equivalent (ie: you can't resell free valet, a dining discount or a booking advantage).

That's one reason why I think any priority booking perk would be limited in quantity--perhaps just one or two times per year. Not only would that curb any abuse by renters, but it would also limit the overall impact on other owners.

Being able to book a non-Home 8 months out is an attractive perk, IMO. But it isn't going to completely destroy non-Home booking abilities (or the resale market) if only a small percentage of owners can exercise this option 1x per year.

This is a good point, a restricted booking advantage would certainly solve a lot of problems, while giving a gret incentive to someone. As for giving large point owners, who rent their points more being a problem, some will say that it already is a problem. But DVC did start to curb this by beginning to define what commercial renting was and only allotting so many reservations a year in different names, etc. I could see them becoming more and more anti-renting (esp frequent rentals) if this was a problem.......

 

[TisBit]

You could say the opposite as well. If the amount of resales go up, supply and demand could push the resale prices up, and if the resale prices went up, more people might buy direct if the resale difference wasn't as big as it is now. (Looking at BLT resale prices right now, I'm sure most people are just buying direct.) Obviously that could then push resale prices down again, but it's all about reaching the proper balance.

Yes, but Disney will have a harder time directly impacting the resale prices right now (without risking a ton of capital) vs creating a better direct sale incentive that will pull the resales along.

If you increase the demand for direct sales and Disney begins sellling lots of points...lets say DVC decides to start unloading some of the lower costs resorts at $85 bucks a point, then after unloading a large part of their points and drying up a lot of inventory they are ROFR these resales that are hitting all time lows. They could slowly begin raising direct sale prices up, while ROFR and selling points...the key is to keep a balance in the system.

So many people are defaulting on their homes, you can only imagine the defaults on DVC. Add into this all the people dumping their DVC's at fire sale prices...the resale market has been inundated and a lot of those points just needed to be cleared from the books before any type of plan could be made to recover. Honestly, by pulling AKV and SSR incentives, I think DVC made the best decision and did it a little late. Stop competing, sit on the points and focus on BLT....worry about the other two later, their time will come after the resale market begins to improve. As people stop selling, the prices will creep back up.

 

[wdrl]

Another thought about giving "referral" benefits. There are many of us who live in states where such benefits are illegal. Does that automatically rule us out? I have referred plenty of people to DVC, and all I've gotten for my trouble is a nice letter saying, "thanks, but you don't qualify for any referral benefits".

By offering benefits based on referrals, Disney may be able to reward Members who are barred from receiving direct payments. State laws may prevent you and I from receiving cash, but perhaps we could qualify as VIP members and receive an early booking window for ADRs, FastPasses, reserved seating for shows & fireworks, etc. Right now, Disney offers us nothing more than a nice "thank-you" letter. Perhaps things will change with a referral-based VIP program and we'll be able to gain something out of our referrals.

 

[dizfan]

Those were nice incentives but let's put them in perspective. The offers were only valid for a few days, were not highly publicized, were only offered to current members adding-on AND buyers had to be present at the Chicago or Long Island sales centers.

It's been over six months since DVC has offered anything attention-grabbing like free cruises, free Annual Passes, free RCI weeks, 2-3 years' worth of Developer Points or extra savings with a member referral. Those are the types of incentives that seem to grab buyers' attention, even if they aren't the financial equal of other offers that have come along in the past.

Absolutely agree that Disney hasn't offered near the incentives that they did before, or near the frequency that they did.

Incentives are like ice cream. One person likes vanilla ice cream, the next likes rocky road, etc.
One person may like the free cruise. Another may like the free APs. Another may prefer to save the money and use the savings. Another may take the developer points and rent to reduce the overall cost per point that they paid.

I was just trying to point out that BLT December and OKW and SSR (July/Aug) numbers were likely influenced by some of these incentives.

If 50 people per day bought at each Doorway store, that's an extra 300 contracts that would show up in December.

For the webcast, Disney used the carrot and the stick approach. Carrot was the incentives. Stick was leaking BLT going to $130/pt effective Dec 1. It gave the appearance of an extra $10 off. This was available to thousands who watched the web cast. Again, if only a few hundred buy or addon, the result is a large increase in Deeds showing up on the OCC in December.

 

[dianeschlicht]

That's one reason why I think any priority booking perk would be limited in quantity--perhaps just one or two times per year. Not only would that curb any abuse by renters, but it would also limit the overall impact on other owners.

Being able to book a non-Home 8 months out is an attractive perk, IMO. But it isn't going to completely destroy non-Home booking abilities (or the resale market) if only a small percentage of owners can exercise this option 1x per year.

Aha, so they would close the loophole before it develops. Good point.

 

[dianeschlicht]

By offering benefits based on referrals, Disney may be able to reward Members who are barred from receiving direct payments. State laws may prevent you and I from receiving cash, but perhaps we could qualify as VIP members and receive an early booking window for ADRs, FastPasses, reserved seating for shows & fireworks, etc. Right now, Disney offers us nothing more than a nice "thank-you" letter. Perhaps things will change with a referral-based VIP program and we'll be able to gain something out of our referrals.

Might be possible depending on how the state law is worded.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

I agree that would be nice, but shouldn't they charge more? Since the more points you have the more you will visit so you will use your AP more.

Actually, I have heard of people who visit often, but primarily stay off site. They purchase a very small resale so they can spend a few days at DVC every few years, and every year they get the full AP discount for the whole family.

MG

 

[Dean]

That is my point. IMO - benefits should be about member vs. non-member, not member with 100 points vs. member with 1000 points.

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.

Speculation spinned like t is coming from someone in the know. Ridiculous to think this has any merit. Or any more merit than "A busdriver told me....."

I think if you do some investigation rather than making assumptions you'll realize the poster has some credibility including on this BBS.

While I realise this is all pure speculation, how does an owner with say 300 points and uses them all in one vacation, cost more to management than say someone who owns say 600 points but uses them over say 6 vacations. not looking for an argument just some clarification.

It's not speculation that one with a small number of points is more costly to the system than one with more points on a pp basis. To illustrate the point a better example might be one who has 300 points vs one who has 25 or 50 points. If you have read my posts on the subject I believe I've been clear overall that my statements are in general and on average and that there are other factors besides number of points that include home resort and usage style.

Actually, I have heard of people who visit often, but primarily stay off site. They purchase a very small resale so they can spend a few days at DVC every few years, and every year they get the full AP discount for the whole family.

MG

I know a couple of people who stay off site and just get a day here and there in a studio to get pool time, an afternoon rest, etc.

The variations at the top of the list.

1) A preference system given to individuals with more points.. consisting of a longer booking window depending on number of points. The only points that would be eligible are the ones purchased directly from Disney or "grandfathered" in
2) Longer booking windows on the home resort that is bought directly from DVC
3) Longer booking windows in the non-home resorts when points are bought directly.
4) "Locking" the older resorts so that they cannot book in the "new" resorts at all or only with the last 60 days. ie.. people who bought resale in OKW could not book at BLT, SSR-THV, AKV and Aulani and all future resorts except in the last 60 days.

While I am torn on the legalities of these issues and realize Disney has a LOT of control, esp when it comes to none home resort reservations, overall my feeling is that none of these issues are likely to stand up to a legal challenge for existing declared inventory even if later sold resale. However, it would be simple and easy for new resorts and for any resort with a significant block of undeclared inventory like HI.

 

[Brian Noble]

The common line of thinking is that anyone at TWDC who actually knows anything isn't talking about it.

Those who know don't tell. Those who tell don't know.

And yes, Wyndham does limit VIP owners' early booking ("Reciprocal Advanced Reservation Priority") to just a few times per use year.

overall my feeling is that none of these issues are likely to stand up to a legal challenge for existing declared inventory

The POS only guarantees a minimum home advantage. So, I think #3 (differentiated non-home resort) is pretty doable. That might even be enough to implement #2, but that one is less clear to me.

 

[Dean]

The POS only guarantees a minimum home advantage. So, I think #3 (differentiated non-home resort) is pretty doable. That might even be enough to implement #2, but that one is less clear to me.

Brian I realize that DVC/DVD has almost complete control over the multi site POS AND reservation systems. I also realize that Marriott instituted a priority based on number of weeks one owned and was booking years ago but it did not differentiate resale vs retail. Bluegreen gives priority based on the wait list though actual bookings are done at the same time. My basis for taking the body of evidence to say that NONE of these options are workable for existing and declared inventory is that I don't believe any of the options could withstand a challenge based on the idea that I feel the POS will protect current owners (and subsequent owners of those points) for home resort reservations holding them all to the same legal standard. Although less stringent legally, I also believe the multi site POS will protect all club members in a likewise fashion for existing inventory. I do realize there are ways they could back door into some of these options along lines such as an expansion of the 1 week at a time option.

Certainly #4 is legally doable for any new resorts and HI (undeclared inventory), essentially creating a DVC II with crossover options as they define. They could also entice current owners to sign away their rights in a number of ways. I suppose they could also have the owners themselves vote for such changes but I doubt they'll do that both because they might lose the vote and because they wouldn't want to create a precedent of having owners vote on items. An interesting concept is tying such thoughts to extensions of existing resorts.