Tired of SSR being blamed

[Brianstl]

Only if people don't use their points...by renting them out or staying at the resort they bought at. I honestly think that you'd see a flood onto the resale market, devaluing direct points, where Disney has long term capital tied up, and they'd see a significant financial hit.

I really think for the 90%+ of direct buyers, buying resale never even crosses their mind. This board is completely different than the vast majority of Disney customers.

 

[Heather07438]

Even if a new 7 month point chart wasn't drastic, it could still make a difference to behavior. Adding a couple points to the highest demand rooms, while deducting a few points from rooms that are always last to fill could be enough to entice a portion of guests to book those much sooner and not because they're the only thing left.

Owners of home resorts that have some decreased 7 month point rooms would be honored at 11 months to book those savings, increasing the value in utilizing those 'last-pickings' rooms at their home resort. Those 'lost' points paid to the system would need to be made up with slight increases in the high demand booking categories.

I wouldn't balk at paying a few more points to get a high demand room but do understand that people who have booked these rooms outside their home in the past won't take kindly to new increase. But the reality wouldn't be drastic. Say cheaper studios avg 13pts, now they cost 15pts outside home resort.
It's not a huge sacrifice to gain better selection. The demand of certain rooms justifies the value of increases and conversely, decreasing points to low demand adds value to them.

Definitely an interesting angle to address this issue. If it actually worked and was received well by owners, great.

 

[Pooh12863]

I just had a flashback to the initial 2020 points charts.....people were out of the ever loving minds over that.

 

[Heather07438]

I just had a flashback to the initial 2020 points charts.....people were out of the ever loving minds over that.

Disney would need to be more savvy in how they offered this approach for sure. They'd need to lead with the possible savings aspect, then proceed to explain the value of increasing high demand room points will afford better availability to all guests. Tricky

 

[SL6827]

I think in order for this to work, the high demand rooms will really have to be bumped up high in points, not two or three, but probably at least five or six.

 

[Heather07438]

I think in order for this to work, the high demand rooms will really have to be bumped up high in points, not two or three, but probably at least five or six.

You're probably right because the problem originates in the small number of those rooms vs the high number of low demand rooms that end up being the last pickings.

Not sure of the exact numbers but probably a 3/1 ratio, maybe worse.

 

[Bing Showei]

Only if people don't use their points...by renting them out or staying at the resort they bought at. I honestly think that you'd see a flood onto the resale market, devaluing direct points, where Disney has long term capital tied up, and they'd see a significant financial hit.

The resale restrictions aren't stopping a lot of buyers at Riviera, so I don't imagine a new exchange chart would impact resale prices enough to deter people buying whatever property Disney is actively selling. It will take a lot longer to figure out if this holds, but early indications do not support your concern. If the resale restrictions have proven anything, it's that there has been a decoupling of resale and direct value, with the former having much less an affect on the latter than we may have previously believed.

SSR is 14M points. Judging by observed availability at the property, most owners are trading out regularly. If SSR alone was charged the additional 2-3 points/night to book elsewhere, that would be a tremendous amount of breakage income for Disney.

If the exchange no longer operated on a 1:1 basis, an SSR owner would be faced with a choice, eat the cost and continue to trade out, trade out less and stay at SSR, or sell. The market will adjust for the additional cost of SSR ownership to use the exchange and resale value may take a hit, but I'd wager some owners will shake their fist at Disney, then settle back in to the higher temperature waters. "It's only an addition 21 points for my 7 day stay. I still pay less than the guy who bought VGF as a home resort." And life would go on.

 

[Sandisw]

Even if a new 7 month point chart wasn't drastic, it could still make a difference to behavior. Adding a couple points to the highest demand rooms, while deducting a few points from rooms that are always last to fill could be enough to entice a portion of guests to book those much sooner and not because they're the only thing left.

Owners of home resorts that have some decreased 7 month point rooms would be honored at 11 months to book those savings, increasing the value in utilizing those 'last-pickings' rooms at their home resort. Those 'lost' points paid to the system would need to be made up with slight increases in the high demand booking categories.

I wouldn't balk at paying a few more points to get a high demand room but do understand that people who have booked these rooms outside their home in the past won't take kindly to new increase. But the reality wouldn't be drastic. Say cheaper studios avg 13pts, now they cost 15pts outside home resort.
It's not a huge sacrifice to gain better selection. The demand of certain rooms justifies the value of increases and conversely, decreasing points to low demand adds value to them.

Definitely an interesting angle to address this issue. If it actually worked and was received well by owners, great.

Any of this completely changes the product. While it sounds Ike they have the right to do it..just like they can remove any L14 from the club and you would only be able to book your home resort., I really don’t think it is a move Disney would make since everything would still be first come, first serve, and people still won’t get what they want, when they want, all the time.

Now, as someone who owns 800 points, this change won’t affect me, and other high point owners too much. But it will those that have a more typical membership.

i also think that it would encourage people to book their home resorts to ensure they have trips set, even when maybe they arent sure.

Yes, it would devalue those that own at the places like SSR and OKW whose points would be the likely ones not a 1:1 trade to more popular resorts. But in the end, wouldnt it more likely just cause people to buy resorts they want to be at...which, after a while, would put us right back where we are...difficulty trading to other resorts at 7 months.

In 10 years, things have changed in terms of last minute availability...I have seen that with struggling more with 4-6 month trips and choices. But, I have so far, been able to get trips with some extra time.

I just think you have to adjust how you use DVC when things change vs. upending the whole system. Disney has already begun to change its product with the resale restrictions and if they do it with a change in the trading out element, I will roll with it too!

 

[BWV Dreamin]

It's funny I bought at SSR thinking I would never stay there. Ok I am hooked at staying at Congress Park. I love that location. The pool, driving to the outlets, walking to Disney Springs. It is the best! I think I got the best deal on the plant! I cannot wait until we come back in 2021. For now I get to try Disneyland in 2020. I just could not take an actual year off LOL.

Is Congress Park a better location than the Grandstand?

 

[Heather07438]

"It's only an addition 21 points for my 7 day stay. I still pay less than the guy who bought VGF as a home resort." And life would go on.

And that increase of 21 points would come with better choices still left in that category.

 

[Sandisw]

Is Congress Park a better location than the Grandstand?

Congress Park is closer to the walkway to the Marketplace side of Disney Springs but a farther walk to the Carriage House...it’s preferred points,

Grandstand, even standard points, is closer to the boat and walkway to the other side of Disney Springs, but a pretty easy walk to the Carriage House.

I have stayed both and those are my requests depending on which type I book.

Id say depending on your needs, each is better!

 

[Sandisw]

And that increase of 21 points would come with better choices still left in that category.

But will it? if one needs more SSR points to stay at say VGF, then the resale value will decrease. If that happens, people will be able to get more SSR points for their dollar than now, enough to make the trades.

I guess I just don’t see how this would make a huge difference overall. At first, maybe, But in a few years, I’d bet we are right back in the same position.

 

[Heather07438]

Any of this completely changes the product. While it sounds Ike they have the right to do it..just like they can remove any L14 from the club and you would only be able to book your home resort., I really don’t think it is a move Disney would make since everything would still be first come, first serve, and people still won’t get what they want, when they want, all the time.

Now, as someone who owns 800 points, this change won’t affect me, and other high point owners too much. But it will those that have a more typical membership.

i also think that it would encourage people to book their home resorts to ensure they have trips set, even when maybe they arent sure.

Yes, it would devalue those that own at the places like SSR and OKW whose points would be the likely ones not a 1:1 trade to more popular resorts. But in the end, wouldnt it more likely just cause people to buy resorts they want to be at...which, after a while, would put us right back where we are...difficulty trading to other resorts at 7 months.

In 10 years, things have changed in terms of last minute availability...I have seen that with struggling more with 4-6 month trips and choices. But, I have so far, been able to get trips with some extra time.

I just think you have to adjust how you use DVC when things change vs. upending the whole system. Disney has already begun to change its product with the resale restrictions and if they do it with a change in the trading out element, I will roll with it too!

Roll with it! That's a good mantra to protect ourselves from aggravation.

I'm thinking it wouldn't be all the rooms, just the highest and lowest demand would be affected.

There will always be some who cannot get what they want for various reasons, this could lessen that. Where now you have a 20-40% chance at getting one of your preferences, the new system levels the demand field more to where your X has a 50-70% chance.

It would really depend how current owners receive this adjustment. Many may welcome it? I'm not sure. It does sound fair to me because it's protecting both the interests of those who like to splurge on high demand rooms and people who like a bargain. Personally, I'd do some of both on different trips.

 

[Bing Showei]

I really don’t think it is a move Disney would make since everything would still be first come, first serve, and people still won’t get what they want, when they want, all the time.

Ah, but Sandi, you're operating on the expectation that Disney is actually interested in affecting availability. They're not. If they were, the retracted 2020 reallocation which was designed to "address demand issues" would never have seen the light of day.

 

[Sandisw]

Roll with it! That's a good mantra to protect ourselves from aggravation.

I'm thinking it wouldn't be all the rooms, just the highest and lowest demand would be affected.

There will always be some who cannot get what they want for various reasons, this could lessen that. Where now you have a 20-40% chance at getting one of your preferences, the new system levels the demand field more to where your X has a 50-70% chance.

It would really depend how current owners receive this adjustment. Many may welcome it? I'm not sure. It does sound fair to me because it's protecting both the interests of those who like to splurge on high demand rooms and people who like a bargain. Personally, I'd do some of both on different trips.

I would only be able to use the word”fair” if the 7 month points charts were the same for all non-resort owners, but not to say that certain resort owners pay more than others.

So, if you want to make it so VGF, for example, costs more for everyone, whether they own SSR, Poly, BWV, etc...then okay.

But to say that places like SSR or OKW owners are the only ones who can’t trade out the same way others do, simply because they bought at a less popular resort isn‘t what I consider “fair”

What is really happening? People aren’t having the choices they used to to stay outside their home resort. It requires maybe more planning and work.

But, at least right now, everyone is in the same boat. And, I would guess resale owners are thinking harder about resort choice given the info on these boards that staying elsewhere is getting harder.

When availability is slim before the 7 month window is gone, it’s in part due to home resort owners adjusting with the times. When trading at 7 months is harder, it’s owners adjusting with the times.

 

[Sandisw]

Ah, but Sandi, you're operating on the expectation that Disney is actually interested in affecting availability. They're not. If they were, the retracted 2020 reallocation which was designed to "address demand issues" would never have seen the light of day.

But I would bet that the issue people are complaining about here is not seen as an issue by Disney. They don’t care what owners get rooms or how frustrated they are with the 7 month window difficulties. They have a duty to monitor supply and demand..yes..,but in my opinion, only for home resort owners, not those trading in.

I think they care about direct sales and I don’t see this change happening, UNLESS, they feel having a home resort and non home resort point charts drives people to buy the current resort like RIV. But, some of those rooms are already high and making them higher for non RIV owners could backfire.

 

[Heather07438]

But in a few years, I’d bet we are right back in the same position.

That is possible. It could work if the changes are only made to the highest and lowest percentiles of demand. Not all rooms across a resort, just the rooms that are the very first and very last to be picked. It's not changing anything for all the categories in between, just the very top and bottom.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

Congress Park is closer to the walkway to the Marketplace side of Disney Springs but a farther walk to the Carriage House...it’s preferred points,

Grandstand, even standard points, is closer to the boat and walkway to the other side of Disney Springs, but a pretty easy walk to the Carriage House.

I have stayed both and those are my requests depending on which type I book.

Id say depending on your needs, each is better!

This will be our first stay. I really appreciate it!

 

[crvetter]

They have a duty to monitor supply and demand..yes..,but in my opinion, only for home resort owners, not those trading in.

These are technically responsible by two separate entities. DVCMC has a responsibility (and obligation) to create home resort vacation points that balance demand (in consideration of home resort booking patterns). BVTC has the right (but not obligation) to create some sort way to convert Home Resort Vacation Points to DVC Vacation Points to balance demand among the resorts. This was actually one of my main sticking points with DVCMC over the 2020 original point charts. They made a comment they would help make the product more efficient and promote trading among the resorts. I reminded them that DVCMC isn't supposed to consider that and if that is the desire they should petition BVTC so adopt the methods that have been legally granted to them (through the DVC Resort Agreements) to handle that.

But overall I agree relative point valuations between resorts (common with other timeshares), which is lacking at DVC, is something that sets DVC apart from the rest. Though, I wouldn't put it past DVCMC (though probably is unlikely) to petition BVTC to do a set of point charts that do work at the 7 months. If they do I suspect it will be done through a conversion rate from Home to DVC Vacation points as that is the cleanest explanation possible. However, that sets up a huge conflict of interest as they introduce a new resort direct, what should it's relative conversion rate be? DVD who effectively control BVTC (and has no fiduciary duty to members) would likely always set it to 1:1 no matter the desirability of the resort. But if it was truly independent and no conflicts of interest this would force DVD to only build compelling resorts.

 

[Sandisw]

These are technically responsible by two separate entities. DVCMC has a responsibility (and obligation) to create home resort vacation points that balance demand (in consideration of home resort booking patterns). BVTC has the right (but not obligation) to create some sort way to convert Home Resort Vacation Points to DVC Vacation Points to balance demand among the resorts. This was actually one of my main sticking points with DVCMC over the 2020 original point charts. They made a comment they would help make the product more efficient and promote trading among the resorts. I reminded them that DVCMC isn't supposed to consider that and if that is the desire they should petition BVTC so adopt the methods that have been legally granted to them (through the DVC Resort Agreements) to handle that.

But overall I agree relative point valuations between resorts (common with other timeshares), which is lacking at DVC, is something that sets DVC apart from the rest. Though, I wouldn't put it past DVCMC (though probably is unlikely) to petition BVTC to do a set of point charts that do work at the 7 months. If they do I suspect it will be done through a conversion rate from Home to DVC Vacation points as that is the cleanest explanation possible. However, that sets up a huge conflict of interest as they introduce a new resort direct, what should it's relative conversion rate be? DVD who effectively control BVTC (and has no fiduciary duty to members) would likely always set it to 1:1 no matter the desirability of the resort. But if it was truly independent and no conflicts of interest this would force DVD to only build compelling resorts.

Thanks for all of this! I love when people have a more in-depth understanding of all the little aspects and each responsibility.