TouringPlans sunsetting room requests

[Tatebeck]

What's your specific scenario?

If I were them I would make it as part of a tiered direct-point reward system like has been suggested before. The more direct points you have the more benefits you get. And they could add the Valet Room Requests as part of a 300, or 500 point, etc. direct point tier.

They wouldn't have to charge anyone directly for it, but it would incentivize members to buy more direct points to avoid that notorious FOMO, and make them money in that way without as much of the bad optics IMO

Basically have tiered membership extras, where the more direct points you accumulate, the better stuff you get. One thing could be a preferred room request pool. For example, they could pull the room requests for all the members who have gotten 500+ (or 300+ etc. the amount/tier is negotiable) points direct in a random order first, before starting on the members who have not.

No actual extra cost for the request, just a better chance for those who have been more loyal to the brand

 

[Sykes]

IMO, Disney could implement a fee to specify room preferences if they can come up with an argument that it benefits the membership as a whole, and I don't think that's an especially high barrier to overcome. Disney can't implement it for DVC as a pure cash grab, but implementing room preferences (especially the faxed room preferences that Touring Plans used to offer) has a real manpower cost and I don't hate the idea of shifting the cost burden to those who use the service (provided that they accommodate for any genuine accessibility needs without a fee). I felt the same way about DME.

 

[walt34]

Basically have tiered membership extras, where the more direct points you accumulate, the better stuff you get. One thing could be a preferred room request pool. For example, they could pull the room requests for all the members who have gotten 500+ points direct in a random order first, before starting on the members who have not.

No actual extra cost for the request, just a better chance for those who have been more loyal to the brand

This can be done - as other timeshares have done something similar - if you put this into the timeshare POS from the beginning. There might be some difficulties in implementing this later. But the key aspect here is that it's not paid programme from which Disney benefits directly in the process of room assignment (for which they are already compensated), only indirectly (by selling more points)

I also don't think they'd do this because it would mainly benefit renters and I find it hard to imagine that many buyers would buy significantly more points than they need just to get first dibs at room assignment.

 

[Tatebeck]

This can be done - as other timeshares have done something similar - if you put this into the timeshare POS from the beginning. There might be some difficulties in implementing this later. But the key aspect here is that it's not paid programme from which Disney benefits directly in the process of room assignment (for which they are already compensated), only indirectly (by selling more points)

I also don't think they'd do this because it would mainly benefit renters and I find it hard to imagine that many buyers would buy significantly more points than they need just to get first dibs at room assignment.

Well it would be one of hopefully many benefits that the tiers would have. So even if the room request portion itself doesn't fuel a ton of sales, the sum of the tiers hopefully would.

And they could have it so the benefit only applies when a member is staying on their own reservation, and not extend the benefit to any renters of that members' points. Just like how a renter cannot use a member's merchandise or dining discount. This would also incentivize members with a lot of direct points to use them themselves instead of renting.


---------
But even if they wanted to do a paid system for room requests, as long as they had data that they felt the membership wanted the option, I don't think it would be strictly disallowed legally

 

[juliebee]

It would only run afoul of the documents if they forced members to pay for it. It would IMO 100% be allowed if it was optional. All you are guaranteed with your points is one or any of the rooms in the category you booked, and Disney gets to decide which one you get.

I would not compare it to regular parking at all, but valet parking. You can use the parking for free with your membership, just like you can get a room in your booking category with no extra charge. But then you could pay extra if you wanted to get valet/preferred parking. So they could in theory add a valet room assignment option where they look through and assign the valet purchasers' rooms or room requests first.

Disney is smelling the money they could make with this idea. I hope they don't charge for room selection, but think they would consider doing it.

 

[J-Dog]

I think the biggest downfall of the “pay to select your room” is that the room you might want is already selected by someone else for your check in day and isn’t available. You already paid to pick your room, but get a 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice. Then say the room that you picked needs maintenance and you have to get assigned something different. People will want the option to back out or get a refund if they don’t actually get the room they want.

I agree that it could become a huge pain in the a$$.

For example, I want only one specific room at Aulani. I would absolutely pay extra to get that room, but if I didn't get it, there really isn't a "second choice" room that would be worth paying for. Any other room would be equally fine.

 

[Tatebeck]

I think the biggest downfall of the “pay to select your room” is that the room you might want is already selected by someone else for your check in day and isn’t available. You already paid to pick your room, but get a 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice. Then say the room that you picked needs maintenance and you have to get assigned something different. People will want the option to back out or get a refund if they don’t actually get the room they want.

I agree that it could become a huge pain in the a$$.

For example, I want only one specific room at Aulani. I would absolutely pay extra to get that room, but if I didn't get it, there really isn't a "second choice" room that would be worth paying for.

Another good reason to bundle it into a tiered reward that you aren't actually paying for. Nothing to refund!

 

[walt34]

IMO, Disney could implement a fee to specify room preferences if they can come up with an argument that it benefits the membership as a whole, and I don't think that's an especially high barrier to overcome. Disney can't implement it for DVC as a pure cash grab, but implementing room preferences (especially the faxed room preferences that Touring Plans used to offer) has a real manpower cost and I don't hate the idea of shifting the cost burden to those who use the service (provided that they accommodate for any genuine accessibility needs without a fee). I felt the same way about DME.

But even if they wanted to do a paid system for room requests, as long as they had data that they felt the membership wanted the option, I don't think it would be strictly disallowed legally

If Disney implements a fee that gives preference to some guests over others in being able to use DVC rooms, they are on thin ice. Room assignment is a core function of using a timeshare. If they make a direct profit from it (preference is given to Disney cash guests, being a Disney+ member, a $50 room preference fee etc.) I'm quite certain they can't do it. They'd be breaking their fiduciary duty.

Now there might a narrow corridor, if they can argue credibly that the fee just covers the costs they have in considering/handling the room request (but I assume the fee would have to be relatively low for this argument) or the fee for the room preference of DVD rooms (not for Disney hotel rooms) goes to the association (after covering costs). I still think this would be on very thin ice and Disney won't do it.

 

[Mirabell Rose]

That seems open to interpretation. If they did implement something like that, all owners would still have equal access to all rooms in all view categories, just the owner with the more open wallet would get preferential treatment for the room they specifically request.

They would not have equal access to ‘all rooms’ if they allow some to take specific rooms while not allowing others to.

 

[Mirabell Rose]

The DVC Resort front desk will assign a specific Vacation Home on or near the day of check in. Special Vacation Home requests, such as ground level Vacation Homes, cannot be guaranteed, but may be noted as a preference in the reservation record."

So creating a preferential tier is also in violation of this clause.

 

[Tatebeck]

If Disney implements a fee that gives preference to some guests over others in being able to use DVC rooms, they are on thin ice. Room assignment is a core function of using a timeshare. If they make a direct profit from it (preference is given to Disney cash guests, being a Disney+ member, a $50 room preference fee etc.) I'm quite certain they can't do it. They'd be breaking their fiduciary duty.

Now there might a narrow corridor, if they can argue credibly that the fee just covers the costs they have in considering/handling the room request (but I assume the fee would have to be relatively low for this argument) or the fee for the room preference of DVD rooms (not for Disney hotel rooms) goes to the association (after covering costs). I still think this would be on very thin ice and Disney won't do it.

I still would have to disagree.

While it may make sense at first glance to only charge whatever it would cost to actually do the room assigning, that likely wouldn't work as the fee would be too small. IE if the fee was $5, and everyone did it expecting the best possible room, they would all be disappointed and the system wouldn't work well at all.

If they did choose to do it in a way that had them charge a fee, the fee would have to be substantial enough to where not all of the members pay it in order for the system to work (or they would have to limit it- like lightning lanes) A fiduciary duty does not prevent the entity with the fiduciary duty from making any money, just that they act in the interest of the other party and do not charge an exorbitant amount that the other party would largely object to.

So if they thought the membership wanted a way to get a better shot at their preferred rooms for a modest fee (even above the labor cost to provide it), they would be within their fiduciary duty to provide it IMO.
----

We are not guaranteed the best room or even an average room in a category with our membership. We are only guaranteed a room, any room in fact, in that category, as assigned as DVC sees fit. With today's system, it is completely possible that a member who makes reservations, never makes specific room requests, and never complains about their assigned rooms has gotten substantially worse than an "average" room in their booking category. Would that member be owed something by DVC or has DVC broken their fiduciary duty to that member now? No, I would argue they have not.

Would it make you feel better if they split every resort into 20 different booking categories with the most requested rooms costing just a few more points? That would seem fair, but it would destroy the availability for continuous stays with so many booking categories. I would much prefer a reward tier option or yes, even a paid option

 

[Tatebeck]

So creating a preferential tier is also in violation of this clause.

No it's not. Having a higher chance at a certain room is not guaranteeing a room. <100% is not 100% (guaranteed)

And which is why I said that you may be able to argue against being able to choose a specific room to be guaranteed

The closest thing you could say is maybe that owners wouldn't be able to pick the exact room they want (since exact requests cannot be guaranteed)

Though with the paid option ,they would just call it something other than "Special Vacation Home requests" since it wouldn't be a request anymore and they may be able to get around it that way

 

[Mirabell Rose]

No it's not. Having a higher chance at a certain room is not guaranteeing a room. <100% is not 100% (guaranteed)

Having a higher chance is not equal access. Equal means the same.

 

[Tatebeck]

Having a higher chance is not equal access. Equal means the same.

You would have the exact same opportunity to buy into the program, pay the fee, or buy the points to get into the reward tier. That is equal

 

[walt34]

I still would have to disagree.

While it may make sense at first glance to only charge whatever it would cost to actually do the room assigning, that likely wouldn't work as the fee would be too small. IE if the fee was $5, and everyone did it expecting the best possible room, they would all be disappointed and the system wouldn't work well at all.

If they did choose to do it in a way that had them charge a fee, the fee would have to be substantial enough to where not all of the members pay it in order for the system to work. A fiduciary duty does not prevent the entity with the fiduciary duty from making any money, just that they act in the interest of the other party and do not charge an exorbitant amount that the other party would largely object to.

If you hire me to manage your parking lot and you pay me for doing that, and I move everyone to the far end and charge an extra fee for those who want to park close to the entrance and I keep that fee, I'm most certainly violating my fiduciary duty. And that's before Florida's timeshare laws come into play.

 

[Tatebeck]

If you hire me to manage your parking lot and you pay me for doing that, and I move everyone to the far end and charge an extra fee for those who want to park close to the entrance and I keep that fee, I'm most certainly violating my fiduciary duty. And that's before Florida's timeshare laws come into play.

So I guess valet parking is now illegal?

Joking aside, it would depend on our contracts/agreements and what I wanted. It would be easy for me as a single entity to say whether I felt something you did aligned with my interests or not.

With hundreds of thousands of DVC members (I believe) at this point, 100% are them are never going to agree on anything like this. So DVC would get to decide if the data they have shows that enough members wanted something like this. Then get challenged if enough members disagreed

 

[walt34]

So I guess Valet parking is now illegal?

Try reserving a part of Disney's parking lot and offer your own valet services without their consent to use it and let us know how it goes.

 

[Tatebeck]

Try reserving a part of Disney's parking lot and offer your own valet services without their consent to use it and let us know how it goes.

Try telling DVC that them offering valet parking in their own parking lot is illegal and let us know how that goes.

They have signed documents from every member that they get to decide how rooms are allocated within a category at their discretion. I do not have any signed documents that I get to run their parking system

 

[walt34]

Try telling DVC that them offering valet parking in their own parking lot is illegal and let us know how that goes

But the DVC rooms don't belong to Disney anymore - at least not until the contract runs out.

 

[Tatebeck]

But the DVC rooms don't belong to Disney anymore - at least not until the contract runs out.

The room reservation system and the room allocation rights do actually still belong to them, as the contracts state. As do a small amount 2%+ of the resort/points

Or the newer Trust properties too actually. Those are just right to use and not deeded properties (just CFW for now)

In your analogy they sold small portions of the individual parking spots and gave out points to use to book a spot in a section, but did not sell their right to assign who gets the "better" spots in each section at their discretion