Top of the World Lounge at Bay Lake Tower at Contemporary Resort - *2 New Parties Added! “Enchantment at the Top” & New “Bound to Be Bad” Dates Added

[Sandisw]

There's an interesting distinction, DVD specific or Disney in general. Disney is making a ton of money from loyal customers returning each year to spend in parks shops and restaurants. But I guess we're (resale buyers) nothing but a nuisance to DVD. But I think the point xdan is making is that DVD already sold the contracts resale buyers now own. If they don't want them to remain in the hands of resale buyers they have the right to buy them back themselves. Imposing restrictions after passing and waiving ROFR seems fundamentally wrong and unfair to me.

DVD is who I am referring to. Disney has nothing to do with DVC perks other than being willing to negotiate with DVD to enter into a contract to offer something.

Case in point are the APs…DPEP is in charge of those and they do not value DVC owners any more than they do all the other bucket of guesrs who want them. No matter what DVD might want, they can’t force that division to offer them.

Of course, someone paid DVD for the product but all the perks and extras continue to be paid for, in some way, by DVD. And, someone who buys on the resale market gets exactly the same guarantee to use their product at their home resort as someone who buys direct. So, DVD has no control over that. So they don’t care if the contract changes hands. But perks are not part of the contract..and that is the key.

Everyone who buys DVD should know that perks can be eliminated, whether you are resale or not. I bought when free valet parking was a perk and within a few months it was gone. There was no grandfathering or anything…why? Because it was a contract with a third party and the cost was no longer something DVD wanted to pay for in order to give the perk.

In the end, DVD has decided it will only offer an incidental benefits program…and that is what TOTWL was…to those who buy from them.

Another way to think of it is that DVD is not selling you the perks with the contract. They are not part of the POS, they can’t be.

They are giving them to you, as a person, and thus only you get to use them. Just like some airline credits when you have to cancel…only the person who booked the original trip can use that credit…it can’t be given to someone else. It’s the same thing…why should the airline care who uses it and sits in the sit?

They do because they want the other person to buy their own seat and not use yours.

 

[RKS03]

In most other timeshare systems, it is the latter. Here's Wyndham's, for example:
https://clubwyndham.wyndhamdestinations.com/us/en/club-benefits/vip-by-wyndham

In that system, resale points do not count towards VIP levels, and if you have a "hybrid" account with both VIP-eligible points and resale points, you cannot use the VIP perks (e.g. extra housekeeping tokens) on reservations using resale points.

I think the conversation here about DVC might include both perspectives, based on recent rumors, etc.

Very interesting, thanks. As a point of comparison how does dvc points compare to Wyndom? These thresholds are pretty high so assuming they’re different. Would 100 dvc points correspond to say 100k?

 

[Jenglish13]

But with the ticket analogy, that is a fixed product. They are for use at one game,

But let’s say they sold tickets to fill up the entire stadium and then decide they will add more seats to the ground and want to sell those too.

Those new seats do indeed become competition for the old seats so the ticket seller is going to want someone to buy those and not just replace that person who already bought.

DVD wants to sell more DVC points and increase the number of owners in the system to go with the new rooms they added to the system. So, they don’t want a new buyer to replace you…they want you to buy from them instead and see the number of owners grow.

So, the resale contracts are in direct competition with the direct contracts, whether people think of it that way or not.

Now, for years, when there were very few resorts, they didn’t care, The price difference between resale and direct wasn’t that big and so a healthy resale market helped them to sell contracts,

But now? They obviously think it’s better to enhance their product to get more buyers by limiting the use of the resale product.

Do I get it? I do and I made the choice to go direct because of it. Had there been no difference, like in 2009 when I first bought, I would not have and DVD would have lost out on the $$$ I just gave them for VGF.

Again, I am not trying to say direct buyers are better or buying direct is better…we are not and it isnt for many…

Of course, DVD didn't have to change the product to make direct different than resale. But they did and they did it for a reason…it makes them more money and honestly, that is the whole purpose of it all.

Its the same with any business…why does my local Chevy dealer offer free oil changes for their product as long as I own it? But if I sell, the new buyer loses that? Because that’s the way they want it.

Except there are season tickets and even multi year ownership ticket packages for NFL, which are much more comparable to DVC contract than a single game purchase And even if we're talking about a single game the cost is $20-150 not $30,000 to $75,000.

The point is you set a price and sell a product. If the product is a 30-40 year benefit, then price it accordingly. If you don't want resale then take it in ROFR and resell it yourself with whatever restrictions you want to impose.

I think we're spinning in circles because the argument we're making is philosophical, it's uncool/unfair/egregious to impose restrictions on resale. Whereas I think you're making the argument that so what, it is what it is, it's legal, it's spelled out in the contracts and everyone is making decisions in their own self interest. I think both can be and are kind of correct honestly. As much as we may complain about specific restrictions or DVD practices in general, here we all are participating of our own free will.

 

[Sandisw]

Except there are season tickets and even multi year ownership ticket packages for NFL, which are much more comparable to DVC contract than a single game purchase And even if we're talking about a single game the cost is $20-150 not $30,000 to $75,000.

The point is you set a price and sell a product. If the product is a 30-40 year benefit, then price it accordingly. If you don't want resale then take it in ROFR and resell it yourself with whatever restrictions you want to impose.

I think we're spinning in circles because the argument we're making is philosophical, it's uncool/unfair/egregious to impose restrictions on resale. Whereas I think you're making the argument that so what, it is what it is, it's legal, it's spelled out in the contracts and everyone is making decisions in their own self interest. I think both can be and are kind of correct honestly. As much as we may complain about specific restrictions or DVD practices in general, here we all are participating of our own free will.

In that I agree that the product is what it is and people have to decide if it works for them.

Both opinions are valid in terms of how the program is run.

And discussing whether it is a good move or not for DVD to have made the program what it is a great topic.

But, I do think its important to note that perks are not part of the actual contract, no matter who you buy it from.

It’s why they have you sign the document that says, “ Don’t buy this with the expectation these extras will continue” when buying with DVD.

Maybe that’s why I don’t care that they have different rules because anything I get above and beyond using my DVC for stays is pixie dust.

 

[Jenglish13]

....perhaps, but the car manufacturers would much rather have you buy new cars. That's how they make money.

But they don't reverse engineer the cars to make them worse for the new owners! But it does lead to the relevant point, if I sell my current Toyota there's a good chance I'll buy a new one at the same time, probably not so much with DVC.

 

[Jenglish13]

DVD is who I am referring to. Disney has nothing to do with DVC perks other than being willing to negotiate with DVD to enter into a contract to offer something.

Case in point are the APs…DPEP is in charge of those and they do not value DVC owners any more than they do all the other bucket of guesrs who want them. No matter what DVD might want, they can’t force that division to offer them.

Of course, someone paid DVD for the product but all the perks and extras continue to be paid for, in some way, by DVD. And, someone who buys on the resale market gets exactly the same guarantee to use their product at their home resort as someone who buys direct. So, DVD has no control over that. So they don’t care if the contract changes hands. But perks are not part of the contract..and that is the key.

Everyone who buys DVD should know that perks can be eliminated, whether you are resale or not. I bought when free valet parking was a perk and within a few months it was gone. There was no grandfathering or anything…why? Because it was a contract with a third party and the cost was no longer something DVD wanted to pay for in order to give the perk.

In the end, DVD has decided it will only offer an incidental benefits program…and that is what TOTWL was…to those who buy from them.

Another way to think of it is that DVD is not selling you the perks with the contract. They are not part of the POS, they can’t be.

They are giving them to you, as a person, and thus only you get to use them. Just like some airline credits when you have to cancel…only the person who booked the original trip can use that credit…it can’t be given to someone else. It’s the same thing…why should the airline care who uses it and sits in the sit?

They do because they want the other person to buy their own seat and not use yours.

Insightful, well done. I get it much more now. I don't necessarily like it much more, but I get it!

 

[Liquidice]

But, as I said, if DVD stopped the practice, or never makes another resort with restrictions, even though I own RIV, I can’t be mad or angry because it was my choice to buy this way in hopes of extras.

Just have to say - I would be mad or angry if the perks for direct members went away entirely. I know that it is legal and there's nothing I can do about it. But that doesn't mean I have to be happy about it!

 

[Sandisw]

Just have to say - I would be mad or angry if the perks for direct members went away entirely. I know that it is legal and there's nothing I can do about it. But that doesn't mean I have to be happy about it!

Absolutely…everyone gets to feel the way they feel. And, I’d venture to guess more would be disappointed and angry than not,

I just wanted to put it out there so everyone knows my thoughts are not based on the fact that I am eligible..but because I went Into it pretending I didn’t have them and made the decision it didn’t matter but restricted points did.

I mean, with the AP suspension, I haven’t yet got back the extra $8K I spent when it was all said and done to have my adult kids added to the contracts. If that goes away, it means I gambled and lost! Lol

Well not completely, we do now have 175 RIV instead of 150 BWV which gives them an extra 28 years of use!

 

[BeachClub2014]

But they don't reverse engineer the cars to make them worse for the new owners! But it does lead to the relevant point, if I sell my current Toyota there's a good chance I'll buy a new one at the same time, probably not so much with DVC.

But that wasn't really the point that you were making in your underlying point. You were commenting that car manufacturers tout the resale value of their cars, and why doesn't DVC do the same. I have no idea if it's actually true that car manufacturers do tout the resale values of their cars, but that's neither here nor there.

I've never leased a vehicle, I've always bought it with the intention of keeping it for at least 8-10 years. The potential resale price of the vehicle is never a consideration for me.

 

[Liquidice]

But they don't reverse engineer the cars to make them worse for the new owners! But it does lead to the relevant point, if I sell my current Toyota there's a good chance I'll buy a new one at the same time, probably not so much with DVC.

The car analogy is actually very much like buying certified pre-owned vehicles.

You can choose to save money and buy a car from a private seller, if you do so - you forego certain "perks" like an extended warranty or maybe a 100-point vehicle inspection and probably a guarantee that the car is in good working order before you purchase it.

However if you buy it from the dealer directly, you can choose to buy it as a certified pre-owned vehicle which comes with an extended warranty, sometimes it even comes with perks like free oil changes and tire rotations. You probably paid more for the right to have those perks, but you know going in what you're getting (same as DVC).

You can also buy a brand new car from the dealer directly and it also comes with certain perks like a manufacturer's warranty, maybe some perks like free oil changes or tire rotation, maybe they throw in free floor mats too.

The difference between vehicles and possibly only Disney time shares is that DVC seems to appreciate in value over time while vehicles generally depreciate in value over time.

But - you could equate buying direct for properties that have not sold out (Aulani, Grand Floridian and Riviera) as "new vehicles", Certified Pre-Owned vehicles as "sold out" properties bought directly from Disney and Resale as private sales or sales from a 3rd-party dealer.

 

[Liquidice]

But that wasn't really the point that you were making in your underlying point. You were commenting that car manufacturers tout the resale value of their cars, and why doesn't DVC do the same. I have no idea if it's actually true that car manufacturers do tout the resale values of their cars, but that's neither here nor there.

I've never leased a vehicle, I've always bought it with the intention of keeping it for at least 8-10 years. The potential resale price of the vehicle is never a consideration for me.

DVC absolutely touts the resale value of their timeshares and how they don't lose their value the same way most timeshares do and they say it is because of the Disney name and how Disney keeps the product maintained, etc (which they do through ROFR).

 

[DonMacGregor]

Disney Vacation Development Inc. does, and it turns out their opinion is the only one that matters.

 

[BeachClub2014]

DVC absolutely touts the resale value of their timeshares and how they don't lose their value the same way most timeshares do and they say it is because of the Disney name and how Disney keeps the product maintained, etc (which they do through ROFR).

I never indicated anything to the contrary? I've never paid much attention to what DVD says about the resale value on contracts.

 

[RanDIZ]

I’m just here in support of the resale army. I could care less about any of the so called perks that come with Direct ownership. Both resale and direct commuted to a lengthy contract spending thousands of dollars. Why create some divide between the two? They made their money when the initial contract was sold. What’s the difference if it’s sold 1 or 100 more times through the life of it? They’re still collecting the dues and still having guests stay and spend money. I go once a year so APs were not a factor. I don’t go to Disney for special events, so these “exclusive parties” are not a factor. I love AKV and CCV and would be fine staying at both for the rest of my contract, so being locked out of RIV and future resorts don’t bother me. Which is why I chose resale and more than happy with my decision. I’m still counting the money I saved going that route.

At the end of the day though, Disney is the one losing out on even more potential income by limiting their products. Lots of revenue lost in restricting APs when it was an actual perk. More time spent at a park equals more profit. I’m sure there’s not as much revenue made in FL APs since it’s probably used way more than out of staters. But those traveling a good distance with APs are more likely to stay in property and spend more money.

 

[BeachClub2014]

I’m just here in support of the resale army. I could care less about any of the so called perks that come with Direct ownership. Both resale and direct commuted to a lengthy contract spending thousands of dollars. Why create some divide between the two? They made their money when the initial contract was sold. What’s the difference if it’s sold 1 or 100 more times through the life of it? They’re still collecting the dues and still having guests stay and spend money. I go once a year so APs were not a factor. I don’t go to Disney for special events, so these “exclusive parties” are not a factor. I love AKV and CCV and would be fine staying at both for the rest of my contract, so being locked out of RIV and future resorts don’t bother me. Which is why I chose resale and more than happy with my decision. I’m still counting the money I saved going that route.

At the end of the day though, Disney is the one losing out on even more potential income by limiting their products. Lots of revenue lost in restricting APs when it was an actual perk. More time spent at a park equals more profit. I’m sure there’s not as much revenue made in FL APs since it’s probably used way more than out of staters. But those traveling a good distance with APs are more likely to stay in property and spend more money.

I guess that I am here in support of those of us who have purchased both ways: directly and via resale.

 

[Matty B13]

The one perk that we have used, is the AP discount twice so far since 2016, and if that is taken away (or tiered), we would probably just sell some of our points or rent them out instead of going twice a year. We would also probably scale back our number of days at the parks, and possible go to Universal for a few days. All the other perks really aren't that great, but are nice since they are free. Not sure if we would pay a fee for them, unless it had the AP discount.

 

[Jenglish13]

But that wasn't really the point that you were making in your underlying point. You were commenting that car manufacturers tout the resale value of their cars, and why doesn't DVC do the same. I have no idea if it's actually true that car manufacturers do tout the resale values of their cars, but that's neither here nor there.

I've never leased a vehicle, I've always bought it with the intention of keeping it for at least 8-10 years. The potential resale price of the vehicle is never a consideration for me.

The original point was actually about sports tix retaining their access perks upon resale. Then I jumped to cars, lol, to make the same point, they don't make the cars worse (remove equipment or whatever) for new owners.

Someone else made an even better extended analogy, 3 "new" properties direct = buying a new car, buying sold out resorts direct = certified pre owned from dealer and buying in resale market = the used car lot. That's brilliant because it's not about the car itself but the perks and services. I get it now. I don't think I'll ever agree in general principle that person A shouldn't be able to transfer their membership with all bargained for perks remaining attached to person B but it's made clear from the start that's how it works and we make our choices. Some people are extended warranty types, others like to work on their cars themselves and forgo the cost. I'd like an extended warranty but they don't currently offer one that makes sense for me. Maybe one day.

 

[smmora]

I see it like Disney shutdown TOTWL

When considering options of what they could do in the future DVD said we'd like to rent it for us to use for perks and parties because we need a non park location

Disney said that works for us ... if DVD didn't want it for that purpose TOTWL could still be closed for all we know

 

[Paul Stupin]

Apparently some don't care about restrictions or perks, until they do...

Excellent point. In the last few years, some resale buyers have denigrated those who purchased direct, scoffing at what they regarded as meaningless perks. I remember on an Aulani thread there was alot of snickering about the fact that direct members got free popcorn refills, and comments to the effect that they hoped we enjoyed our $20,000 popcorn bucket, vs. the $1.00 charge for a refill if you didn’t own direct. And now those meaningless direct member perks aren’t looking so meaningless.

 

[JGINPL]

Because it costs more money to buy it, so getting the chance to get something extra is nice. Plus, I don’t think some of the things they give us would happen if everyone got them…like the AP…

So, I like that people DVD rewards those who choose to buy directly from them vs, someone else. I have used the example before…it’s like Costco…I pay for a more expensive membership and they give me 2% of my purchases back….so I shop there more and end up not only getting back the entire upgrade fee, I get about $30 extra too.

But, as I said, if DVD stopped the practice, or never makes another resort with restrictions, even though I own RIV, I can’t be mad or angry because it was my choice to buy this way in hopes of extras.

But you don’t buy resale from DVD…you buy from their competitor because it’s less expensive so I get why they don’t want to reward you for that, since most perks do cost them money.

Even this will cost them when it didnt before.

So, I am not bothered by them having different types of memberships with DVC…plenty of businesses have that…airlines, etc.

And, just like you, I can’t understand why anyone would be have an issue with a tiered approach for perks.

In terms of your example, the terms transfer because they allow them to transfer. I have a warranty on a product that is valid for as long as I own it but if I sell it to someone else, they don’t get the benefit.

Now, people don’t have to like that the DVC product doesn’t transfer benefits to others but why does a resale buyer think DVD should continue to pay for benefits when you weren’t their customer?

Great point but at the same time you see lots of members comment that the general public doesn’t even know too much about the resale process or buying resale. So all the people saying that dvd needs to have these different tiers cannot have it both ways saying that most buyers aren’t aware of resale but that dvd needs to have different tiers to help avoid resale purchases.