Tiered Benefits

[BWV Dreamin]

Besides, they shut down All My Children already and that really teed me off.

Yes, the WORST change of all!!! Next is One Life to Live in about 2 weeks. That just may push me over the edge.....

 

[lugnut33]

I'm so glad I only have 170 points (perfect amount of points for us) and bought them resale. I can't ever see myself adding more points, especially direct. There is no benefit they could give me that would make me buy more.

 

[dcibrando]

I've said this A LOT on recent posts on this board and others....and I'll say it again

Disney needs to be careful looking like they are constanstly just trying to make or save a buck rather than provide the best magical experience for guests.

With all the rumors and things I have heard and witnessed over my last few trips, I'm getting somewhat concerned Disney is beginning to weigh more heavly towards $ (make or save) v/s guest experience. I know they are a business out to make money, I get it... but when they start reducing the magic for the middle class and catering more towards those in the higher class is when they may begin to lose the middle class...not just in park visits but being loyal to other disney "stuff". I just think they need to be careful not to cross a line to take away from the majority of those that visit the parks today to give to those higher income groups. If they want to give them more perks ok.. but DO NOT take away something many are already able to experience today.

 

[Brian Noble]

I will go out on a limb and suggest that Disney hasn't changed, so much as your perception. The more familiar we become with Mickey, the more we realize he's been a rodent all along.

 

[Sammie]

I will go out on a limb and suggest that Disney hasn't changed, so much as your perception. The more familiar we become with Mickey, the more we realize he's been a rodent all along.

Well said Brian. His costume is just wearing a little thin lately or else my Rose colored glasses became magnified readers where I see much more clearly now.

And truly it's ok. We had a a lot of good trips for the last 28 years and we have recouped all of our money from our DVC purchase and then some. There will be plenty of new members who won't know about the good old days and they will be the ones that DVC will lure in if they offer a Tier program.

But us old timers, are just not interested and no dog and pony routine they offer will change that.

Honestly I wish I had sold half of what I had years ago when I might have actually made a profit. I am more concerned about what and the heck I am going to do with them for the next 32 years, I certainly do not need any more to worry about.

 

[Dean]

I think both reality and perception have changed but I agree with Brian that the change has been far more in perception than that DVC/DVD themselves have truly changed. Many went in making assumptions that "Disney was different" and that certain things wouldn't happen because they hadn't in a while but that was a mistake on their part. I remember posts on the reallocation thread's about those that didn't know this could happen and those that knew it and assumed it wouldn't, shame on both groups IMO.

DVC is just another good timeshare in many ways, different but not better or worse IMO than other good timeshares like Marriott, Hilton, etc. I would disagree with Brian's portrayal that this is a problem or negative on Disney's part (rodent) because I don't think it is. I think the problem is on the members who made inappropriate assumptions and didn't understand what they were tying into, just another good timeshare. I don't think it was ever as good as some felt or as bad as some feel now. I believe unreasonable expectations and entitlement mentality have been the largest causes of negative opinions (reallocations, valet parking issues as examples).

 

[Caren90]

I think both reality and perception have changed but I agree with Brian that the change has been far more in perception than that DVC/DVD themselves have truly changed. Many went in making assumptions that "Disney was different" and that certain things wouldn't happen because they hadn't in a while but that was a mistake on their part. I remember posts on the reallocation thread's about those that didn't know this could happen and those that knew it and assumed it wouldn't, shame on both groups IMO.

DVC is just another good timeshare in many ways, different but not better or worse IMO than other good timeshares like Marriott, Hilton, etc. I would disagree with Brian's portrayal that this is a problem or negative on Disney's part (rodent) because I don't think it is. I think the problem is on the members who made inappropriate assumptions and didn't understand what they were tying into, just another good timeshare. I don't think it was ever as good as some felt or as bad as some feel now. I believe unreasonable expectations and entitlement mentality have been the largest causes of negative opinions (reallocations, valet parking issues as examples).

Dean I tend to agree with your assessment.

I will also add that volume changes everything. When DVC began it was new and small and the attention to detail must have been excellent (I am assuming this from what I have read from people reminiscing about "the good old days" of DVC). Corporations have a tendency to think that more is better, when in fact, more creates more of everything (positives: jobs, income, higher share values. negatives: less efficiency, greater liability, higher costs, less attention to detail...) DVC seems to be running on this attitude that more is better (new construction) and I believe that for the people who were early members, the attention to detail and the feeling that you belonged to something very special has been diminished by the growth of the product.

My concern is whether DVC can maintain their growth projections without compromising the product. Look at how many big corporations have failed in this country. Many of them grew beyond their demand and became liabilities unto themselves.
Stephen

 

[BWV Dreamin]

I have always understood that point reallocations were probable prior to my purchases. I don't want to get off the subject of this thread so I will make it brief. There has been no data provided to owners concerning the need for these changes. The changes have come more frequently than in the past. And the changes for the most part have or will cost the owners money. I think it is a fiduciary responsibility to inform members. So I don't accept your opinion about your owners could have should have statement.

 

[Dean]

I have always understood that point reallocations were probable prior to my purchases. I don't want to get off the subject of this thread so I will make it brief. There has been no data provided to owners concerning the need for these changes. The changes have come more frequently than in the past. And the changes for the most part have or will cost the owners money. I think it is a fiduciary responsibility to inform members. So I don't accept your opinion about your owners could have should have statement.

It's clearly stated in the POS so everyone that bought in should have known it was possible at some point early on (resale buyers assume original buyers obligations). As a minimum members should have known it was possible and could happen even if they didn't expect it to. My info suggests that the problem was really DVC delaying it and that it should have happened in 2000 or 2001 when it would have fit more with the 1995 changes. While DVC has offered no formal extensive explanation (no need to really), I think those that have talked to upper level management have been reasonably satisfied with the explanations. DVC no longer publishes occupancy data (I believe they did early on), but the info that I had certainly confirmed the reasonableness of such a reallocation if accurate. Just common sense from reading these boards and those of us doing S-F stays would have confirmed higher demand for weekdays than weekends. DVC really has nothing to gain from a reallocation other than to fulfill their duties of management of the timeshare.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

I think DVC did " gain" when they created the "Rent up to 24 points from Disney at $15/pt. " program that was started right after the last reallocation.

It's clearly stated in the POS so everyone that bought in should have known it was possible at some point early on (resale buyers assume original buyers obligations). As a minimum members should have known it was possible and could happen even if they didn't expect it to. My info suggests that the problem was really DVC delaying it and that it should have happened in 2000 or 2001 when it would have fit more with the 1995 changes. While DVC has offered no formal extensive explanation (no need to really), I think those that have talked to upper level management have been reasonably satisfied with the explanations. DVC no longer publishes occupancy data (I believe they did early on), but the info that I had certainly confirmed the reasonableness of such a reallocation if accurate. Just common sense from reading these boards and those of us doing S-F stays would have confirmed higher demand for weekdays than weekends. DVC really has nothing to gain from a reallocation other than to fulfill their duties of management of the timeshare.

 

[Dean]

I think DVC did " gain" when they created the "Rent up to 24 points from Disney at $15/pt. " program that was started right after the last reallocation.

I don't see them as related or that there's any real gain to DVC or DVD for this program. If you want to go that route or suggest that it was a ploy to encourage add ons, that's fine. However, you'd also have to accept that the system was never intended to be S-F and that those of us who were doing so were legally gaming the system. My suspicion is that the reallocations were more related to behavior than points and demand (they over compensated I believe). That they WERE intentionally trying to disrupt those of us doing 5 days avoiding weekends and IMO, rightfully so.

 

[Brian Noble]

I would disagree with Brian's portrayal that this is a problem or negative on Disney's part (rodent) because I don't think it is.

Sorry, it was not meant as a criticism so much as a bit of poetically-licensed hyperbole: a short way of saying, "Folks tend to be blinded by all that pixie dust early in their Disney relationship."

There has been no data provided to owners concerning the need for these changes.

This is along the same lines as worrying about the resort budgets: you either have to trust the company (and the auditors), or you should get out. If they wanted to hide something from you, there is very little chance you would ever figure it out. For example, it would not be hard to provide cooked data if you wanted to hide something. You have to depend on accounting/auditing/other mechanisms to detect and prevent any shenanigans rather than think you can do it yourself.

In general, it's my opinion that most timeshare developers are genuinely not out-and-out crooks, and Disney is farther away from the "crook" line than nearly any of the others. And, full disclosure: I do not own DVC, so this is not an owner who has drunk the kool-aid.

Edited to add: as for the reallocations---frankly, I think it's a good thing that Disney is doing this. Wyndham has similar language in their governing documents, but to the best of my knowledge has never invoked it---even in the face of point allocation that clearly mis-predicts demand. Fixing those inequities would make Wyndham a stronger system.

 

[tjkraz]

I have always understood that point reallocations were probable prior to my purchases. I don't want to get off the subject of this thread so I will make it brief. There has been no data provided to owners concerning the need for these changes. The changes have come more frequently than in the past. And the changes for the most part have or will cost the owners money. I think it is a fiduciary responsibility to inform members. So I don't accept your opinion about your owners could have should have statement.

You've been around the forums and DVC long enough to get a good feel for how members use their points. It was increasingly obvious that members were coming into the program with the intent of doing Sunday - Thursday stays, avoiding the high priced weekends. And it's even more clear that time periods like October and early-December are still in dire need of a price increase given their popularity with members.

If anything, DVC deserves to be criticized for how long they took to respond to these changes in guest patterns which have been evolving for many years.

As for DVC benefitting from the reallocation, I'm sure some owners did find themselves needing more points to maintain their vacation habits. But also realize that DVC will suffer--probably to an even greater degree--via lost sales to new members. Over the past 3 years, how many sales has DVC lost because those formerly low-priced Sun - Thurs stays no longer exist? Whatever the number, they will continue to lose such sales for many years to come.

I think DVC did " gain" when they created the "Rent up to 24 points from Disney at $15/pt. " program that was started right after the last reallocation.

First recent reallocation was announced in January 2009. Next was January 2010. The one-time-use points were first available in April 2010.

Not sure I see it as being part of some master plan on DVC's part given that the one-time-use offer appeared 15 months after the first point changes. If anything, the one-time-use points strike me as a hastily-crafted response to member requests for some alternative to fill an occasional need.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

Edited to add: as for the reallocations---frankly, I think it's a good thing that Disney is doing this. Wyndham has similar language in their governing documents, but to the best of my knowledge has never invoked it---even in the face of point allocation that clearly mis-predicts demand. Fixing those inequities would make Wyndham a stronger system.

I do appreciate your comments and know you have a wealth of information in the TS world. That being said, I have a really hard time reading about comments on what is good and not with DVC when you aren't even an owner. I'd like to see you spend some dollars on DVC then I might take your advice a little more seriously.

 

[Dean]

Sorry, it was not meant as a criticism so much as a bit of poetically-licensed hyperbole: a short way of saying, "Folks tend to be blinded by all that pixie dust early in their Disney relationship."


This is along the same lines as worrying about the resort budgets: you either have to trust the company (and the auditors), or you should get out. If they wanted to hide something from you, there is very little chance you would ever figure it out. For example, it would not be hard to provide cooked data if you wanted to hide something. You have to depend on accounting/auditing/other mechanisms to detect and prevent any shenanigans rather than think you can do it yourself.

In general, it's my opinion that most timeshare developers are genuinely not out-and-out crooks, and Disney is farther away from the "crook" line than nearly any of the others. And, full disclosure: I do not own DVC, so this is not an owner who has drunk the kool-aid.

Edited to add: as for the reallocations---frankly, I think it's a good thing that Disney is doing this. Wyndham has similar language in their governing documents, but to the best of my knowledge has never invoked it---even in the face of point allocation that clearly mis-predicts demand. Fixing those inequities would make Wyndham a stronger system.

I suspected that was your intent and I agree with your assessment that timeshares are simply big business and not inherently evil.

I do appreciate your comments and know you have a wealth of information in the TS world. That being said, I have a really hard time reading about comments on what is good and not with DVC when you aren't even an owner. I'd like to see you spend some dollars on DVC then I might take your advice a little more seriously.

I don't think that's fair. I think Brian has more than demonstrated both his knowledge and objective viewpoint on DVC. Didn't you sell out then recently buy back in? You might go over to TUG and look up timeos2 (John Chase) and read his opinions about DVC if you want an opinion from an owner (former). I don't think I'm being unfair in saying it's about as negative as one could be. I'd rather read info from Brian any time.

 

[Starr W.]

I suspected that was your intent and I agree with your assessment that timeshares are simply big business and not inherently evil.

I don't think that's fair. I think Brian has more than demonstrated both his knowledge and objective viewpoint on DVC. Didn't you sell out then recently buy back in? You might go over to TUG and look up timeos2 (John Chase) and read his opinions about DVC if you want an opinion from an owner (former). I don't think I'm being unfair in saying it's about as negative as one could be. I'd rather read info from Brian any time.

I agree with your views on timeos2's DVC posts. If anyone wants to stop addonitis go over to TUG and read his posts.

I too would rather read Brian's posts also, he usually is spot on with his overall analysis. As the saying goes, "he doesn't have a dog in this hunt" and can be a little more objective on the big picture. As a fellow Tugger, his upfront analysis of Wyndham ownership helped me make a decision to buy into that system. And I will say it is the most versitle ownership in our portfolio.

Personally I have never tried to book the 1st 2 weeks of December(kids in school) but have run into a few ex-DVC'ers on TUG that not being able to get a villa during that time was one of the reasons for selling. And it is telling that the launch of the long awaited online booking system is post 11 month window for the 1st 2 weeks of December.

 

[Brian Noble]

That being said, I have a really hard time reading about comments on what is good and not with DVC when you aren't even an owner. I'd like to see you spend some dollars on DVC then I might take your advice a little more seriously.

Of course, you are welcome to take or leave my writings as you see fit. I am not here to seek your approval, or anyone else's, for that matter.

That said, if I were bashing DVC, it would be fair to take my status as a non-Member into account. After all, it could just be motivated by jealousy, as an outsider looking in. However, in this case, my position is that DVC is following a course that I think is wise and prudent for the overall system, and one that I wish a system that I do own also pursued. If anything, my status as a non-Member lends weight to this opinion, rather than detracting from it.

 

[DenLo]

When I think about I understand why the DVC is considering tiered benefits. They are everywhere in the travel industry, the hotels, airlines, cruise ships and other time shares too. I know we began to cruise we were excited about the tiered program Princess Cruises offers. Now because of the perks we find we get such a better deal with Princess that we rarely cruise on a different line. And we miss our perks when we do. We like to cruise for a minimum of 14 to 30 days at a time. So the perk that is our favorite is free laundry and dry cleaning--the steward picks up your laundry/dry cleaning in the morning and returns it the next day.

That's the kind of benefit the DVC is looking for--preventing DVC members from spending their vacation dollars elsewhere. For a long time the pixie dust kept people coming back, now brand recognition isn't enough. So the DVC needs to find a perk that really grabs a guest. And the one IMO that would do it is related to free park passes. And since the DVC does not own the parks I can't see Disney Parks agreeing to free park passes. It might affect the Disney Parks division's bottom line.

 

[carlbarry]

So the DVC needs to find a perk that really grabs a guest. And the one IMO that would do it is related to free park passes. And since the DVC does not own the parks I can't see Disney Parks agreeing to free park passes. It might affect the Disney Parks division's bottom line.

Not only affect the bottom line, but create attendance problems. HS and MK had to be closed due to crowds. HS was allowing people to park on the road in to the parking lot! Would thousands of DVCers showing up with free tickets help the situation?

 

[Chuck S]

And since the DVC does not own the parks I can't see Disney Parks agreeing to free park passes. It might affect the Disney Parks division's bottom line.

I wouldn't rule it out completely. Early purchasers of DVC did receive free park passes until the year 2000. But, they were not "gifted" from Disney Parks, they were paid for via an agreement with DVC Marketing. It would not surprise me to see "free" park passes paid for by marketing make a return, but I think the tier would need to be pretty high.