Value DVC Timeshares Coming?

[edk35]

The AoA suites look like a solid improvement over the ones at ASMu, at least.

http://disneyparks.disney.go.com/bl...f-animation-resort/?CMP=SOC-WDWFY11Q4FBDM0021

Yes those do look completely different that ASMU suites. They are rather BRIGHT aren't they!!

 

[joeandmel]

This just has problems written all over it...... BIG TIME......... AT LEAST TO ME. Not to mention there are people that talk trash about DVC on these boards... gosh forbid...they add a "lower class" division of DVC. This is going to be a wild ride...if it is true.

It has nothing to do with a lower class. It has to do with value of points. Why would you spend $140 a point at BLT when you can get in at just say $80 a point at AOA. They would never sell another point at BLT. To be part of the collection would be ok, but to offer it as a home resort wouldn't be right. And in the same tone would a person spend $140 a point to make AOA there home resort when you can get in at BLT for the same price? And imo i think if the rack rate to stay at a dvc resort is $300 or more a night it should stay like that. Joe

 

[Who's your Mickey?]

Some form of the long rumored tiered system would most likely have to be implemented if a "DVC Value Resort" is added... Perhaps something as simple as a new booking window... Rather than having the ability to jump to another resort at 7 months out, "DVC Value Resort" owners would have to wait until 3 months out or something like that... I'd hope that all current DVC members would be grandfathered under the rules we have now, before any tiering begins...

 

[jupers]

Boy!!!

If there IS ever a dvc value resort....Deb & Bill will be ALL OVER this!!!
Buying points, holding parties and serving Kool Aid to the masses!!!

Kewl!!!!

 

[sschu717]

Some form of the long rumored tiered system would most likely have to be implemented if a "DVC Value Resort" is added... Perhaps something as simple as a new booking window... Rather than having the ability to jump to another resort at 7 months out, "DVC Value Resort" owners would have to wait until 3 months out or something like that... I'd hope that all current DVC members would be grandfathered under the rules we have now, before any tiering begins...

Or, there could be a premium required to book in a tier different than the one your home resort is in.

 

[Brian Noble]

Yes those do look completely different that ASMU suites. They are rather BRIGHT aren't they!!

It's not so much the decor (though I imagine that being a big draw for families with younger kids) but the layout. The master BR is smaller, so that the living space can increase, but maintaining the total size of "two Value rooms". That also allows for a more functional furniture grouping. I think they did a nice job with the layout, from what we can tell so far.

Some form of the long rumored tiered system would most likely have to be implemented if a "DVC Value Resort" is added...

The motivation behind tiers is primarily to get existing members to add on, and new members to buy a little bit more than they might otherwise. So, the tier benefits have to be *upward* looking. For example, in Wyndham, the highest current tier is "Presidential Reserve"---specific resorts and/or high-end rooms at existing resorts can only be booked by Presidential Reserve members until well into the standard booking window. To qualify for Presidential Reserve, you need a *developer* purchase in those specific high-end properties, equalling what in DVC-speak would be about 1400 points annually. If you own "the right number" of points elsewhere, but want to convert to Presidential Reserve, you need to do an "equity swap", trading your points at older inventory to this new, special resort/class of rooms (and paying a fee, of course).

I don't see a downgrade in lodging quality being a motivator for people to add on or "reach up". There are some reasons why a lower price point might make sense, but a tiered ownership program isn't one of them.

 

[mom of princessx2]

I think it is a pretty good idea. I haven't read all of this so many may have already hit on these points. I don't think they would charge less for points but instead require less to buy in. So instead of the 160 needed you would only be required to buy say 75 at AoA. Your points may go farther at AoA than other resorts.

I know when DH and I first started looking into DVC we were put back by the amount of points to "buy in". That delayed us for a few years. I may have bought sooner at a lower point amount then added on in the future.

I would use points at AoA. We are already planning on staying 1 night next Oct but my girls will like it.

 

[mjc2003]

The motivation behind tiers is primarily to get existing members to add on, and new members to buy a little bit more than they might otherwise. So, the tier benefits have to be *upward* looking.
I don't see a downgrade in lodging quality being a motivator for people to add on or "reach up". There are some reasons why a lower price point might make sense, but a tiered ownership program isn't one of them.

Exactly. A system by which people could vacation more on the same number of points will not induce more buying, just more maneuvering. And they would need an increased staff to handle the increased nightly turnover, as people jump from tier to tier to save points; more MS folk to handle the increased calls about increasingly complicated reservations, etc...

Doesn't really make sense. What makes sense is an incentive, whatever that may be, to own an increased number of points. It will no detract from current ownership, but add to the experience for those who buy more.

 

[tjkraz]

Some form of the long rumored tiered system would most likely have to be implemented if a "DVC Value Resort" is added... Perhaps something as simple as a new booking window... Rather than having the ability to jump to another resort at 7 months out, "DVC Value Resort" owners would have to wait until 3 months out or something like that... I'd hope that all current DVC members would be grandfathered under the rules we have now, before any tiering begins...

IMO, adding multiple tiers would complicate the system to the point that sales would suffer. Timeshares are already a difficult product for many to embrace. Disney has done a pretty good job of (if you'll pardon the expression) dumbing it down for the masses. But when you start adding different tiers of ownership, different booking windows for native resorts, creating different classes of ownership, customer acceptance would suffer.

It wouldn't make DVC the most complicated timeshare product on the market but it could easily do more harm than good.

I think it is a pretty good idea. I haven't read all of this so many may have already hit on these points. I don't think they would charge less for points but instead require less to buy in. So instead of the 160 needed you would only be required to buy say 75 at AoA. Your points may go farther at AoA than other resorts.

Buying 100 points is already commonplace and DVC has even gone as low as 50 points for first-time buyers.

They don't need a "value" DVC resort in order to tweak the minimum buy-in threshold.

 

[sschu717]

I don't see a downgrade in lodging quality being a motivator for people to add on or "reach up". There are some reasons why a lower price point might make sense, but a tiered ownership program isn't one of them.

If there is a three tier system - value, deluxe and super deluxe (choose your own category names) - it opens up two new sets of customers. Existing members would be in the deluxe category. With the addition of AoA and GF, there would be two new groups of customers could be marketed to. Of course existing members wouldn't use their points to stay at a value, or purchase value points. They would most likely want to upgrade to a super deluxe. That would be the motivator for existing members.

 

[dvcbrad]

Actually, I wouldn't mind a Deluxe DVC resort built where Animation Resort is being built. It is a nice location, and would give those DVC owners easy access to Pop Century's food court and pizza delivery. But I would not want to see a true "value" DVC resort. I don't really think it would fit well into the DVC framework.

1) the per point sales price would need to be low to appeal to people wanting a "value" class DVC. Remember, many people that regularly stay at value resorts are used to free dining, and lower than Deluxe per night rental rates. The value DVC would have to be price very competively to attract members there.

2) The dues per point would also need to be low for the same reasonm...to appeal to those wanting a "value" class DVC.

So now we'd have new members, with both low purchase price AND low dues able to use their value points at existing DVC resorts, basically much cheaper than long time owners. Bad idea, in effect the Deluxe DVC owners would be subsidizing the ability of value owners to stay at deluxe DVCs at 7 months. Unless the Value DVC and Deluxe DVC are totally separate and the points are not able to be used between resort classes.

I'm with you on this, Chuck, but as you suggest in your last sentence, what if the owners of the value class resort were restricted to just value class DVC's? In other words, what if it was structured such that existing 'deluxe' DVC owners could utilize either, but value owners just value? Seems like that might be a possibility to make it more attractive to all.

I guess the other school of thought merely could be that the points requirement serves as the differentiator, i.e. if value needs 10 points per night, but deluxe requires 20, why not let the value owner reserve the deluxe?

 

[ADP]

I'd welcome staying at a value DVC resort during trips when I don't plan on staying in my room or at the resort very much. Mostly in the theme parks. Sometimes I just need a bed and a bathroom.

 

[Chuck S]

I'm with you on this, Chuck, but as you suggest in your last sentence, what if the owners of the value class resort were restricted to just value class DVC's? In other words, what if it was structured such that existing 'deluxe' DVC owners could utilize either, but value owners just value? Seems like that might be a possibility to make it more attractive to all.

Not really a possibility. There would likely be a legal requirement that there be a true interuse agreement, not a one-sided use agreement. It probably would not be allowed by the state timeshare board, as it could be considered overselling the resort.

I guess the other school of thought merely could be that the points requirement serves as the differentiator, i.e. if value needs 10 points per night, but deluxe requires 20, why not let the value owner reserve the deluxe?

Well, here's the kicker to that idea. Let us say that BLT sells for $114 per point, and has dues of $5 pp. So, 114/50 = $2.28 + $5, making the BLT owners point cost about 7.28 per year. Now let's assume that a value resort sells for $90 pp and has $3.50 dues. Meaning the per point per year cost would be about $5.30. So, If a BLT studio is 20 pts per night, that would mean that a BLT owner would pay $145.60 per night, and a value owner would pay $106 per night to stay at BLT. How do you think that would affect sales at BLT (or other deluxe resorts)? Is the 11 month priority at a deluxe really going to be worth an extra $40 per night for a studio?

 

[hakepb]

How would a value DVC actually have lower dues per point?

If a BLT room takes (20x5)=100 / night to maintain than how would a Value only take (10*3.5)=35?
Which dues line items would be dramatically lower?

 

[Brian Noble]

If there is a three tier system - value, deluxe and super deluxe (choose your own category names) - it opens up two new sets of customers. Existing members would be in the deluxe category.

Except that I posit the "value" category of customers is more profitable as cash rental guests at the moment. After all, (and as I wrote in my first response to this thread) the Value category resorts are seeing much stronger booking demand than the Moderates and Deluxes by cash guests---even with the pressure to move up in various promotions (e.g. only "free" QsDDP for Value bookings, etc.)

Worse, creating a Value category might encourage some current (i.e. "mid-tier") guests to trade down, doing more harm than good.

Which dues line items would be dramatically lower?

It's not that expenses are lower, it's that guest density is higher. Some costs are variable (per-guest/room) but others are fixed, and a higher density of guests gives you economies of scale. This is, after all, one reason why Value resorts can still be profitable for cash rental at lower price points.

 

[DVCconvert]

How would a value DVC actually have lower dues per point?

If a BLT room takes (20x5)=100 / night to maintain than how would a Value only take (10*3.5)=35?
Which dues line items would be dramatically lower?

well, at least in theory...
a value proably wouldn't have the same property taxes as a deluxe, then there's the associated amenity expenses....one larger pool maybe cheaper to maintain than 1 large pool and multiple quiet pools...transport expenses would be limited to buses - not having to contribute to monorail/boats...etc.

 

[Bill and Jen]

The cost per point argument is moot. Resale has been going as low as the 40 dollar range for some WDW resorts .

With the price of resales my cost per night at blt is way under an owner. The cost difference between ssr direct and blt is huge already nevermind h h .

Point values are already not equal . They never will be so i really think it is a non issue to Dvc

 

[Chuck S]

The cost per point argument is moot. Resale has been going as low as the 40 dollar range for some WDW resorts .

With the price of resales my cost per night at blt is way under an owner. The cost difference between ssr direct and blt is huge already nevermind h h .

Point values are already not equal . They never will be so i really think it is a non issue to Dvc

But imagine what the resale cost would be for a "value" resort! Lowering the perceived value of owning at a Deluxe property even more. Sales run on perceptions of value for $ paid. Little to no perceived value, no new sales at the Deluxe resorts. The value resorts would need to be a separate DVC, or the new sales of the Deluxe resorts could collapse even further than their current levels.

 

[DVCconvert]

I hope this does not happen. It would bring different type of people to the DVC resorts.

Tito

In what way do you mean "different type of people" ?

 

[sschu717]

Except that I posit the "value" category of customers is more profitable as cash rental guests at the moment. After all, (and as I wrote in my first response to this thread) the Value category resorts are seeing much stronger booking demand than the Moderates and Deluxes by cash guests---even with the pressure to move up in various promotions (e.g. only "free" QsDDP for Value bookings, etc.)

Worse, creating a Value category might encourage some current (i.e. "mid-tier") guests to trade down, doing more harm than good.

But that's a temporary situation. A value tier would create long-term revenue as does the current DVC.

As for mid-tier guests reserving value accommodations, there would be incentives in place to discourage that.