Value DVC Timeshares Coming?

[tjkraz]

Couldn't they reclassify BLT to enter that "super resorts" group, even add Alunai as well, with the intention of eventually creating a Poly DVC? That would create that top tier.

Every time a new resort is under construction there's been speculation that Disney would create a separate system. Search the forum history and you'll find posts from people who were convinced it would happen with AKL, VGC and BLT.

So far nothing. And creating this "super deluxe" class would be the antithesis of any sort of Value DVC.

IMO, one of the keystones of the program has always been its simplicity. They aren't just selling points in Saratoga Springs...they're selling the ability to book Bay Lake, BoardWalk, Beach Club, etc. Adding a series of except/buts to the program can only harm overall sales, IMO.

The 11/7 month rules are pretty straightforward to explain. Try selling someone on the program if its meager selection of 11 resorts features 2 or 3 separate groupings based upon class. Convince a customer that they would have "no problem" booking a "super deluxe" resort just 3 months out (to pick a number) under a system with multiple tiers and home resort privileges.

As others pointed out, perhaps the most dubious aspect of this lie in the fact that Value resorts currently have the highest occupancy among Disney's 3 different resort classes. I don't see why Disney would be so quick to start selling off Animation Suites at discount DVC prices when they should command $250+ per night.

A more logical approach would seem to be continuing to chip-away at the Deluxe resorts as demand falters. If Disney's Deluxe resort occupancy rates continue to fall--as spending habits change and cash guests show increased preference for things like the Value suites--we could see blocks of hotel rooms at the Wilderness Lodge or Beach Club or others slowly converted to DVC villas.

 

[Brian Noble]

Couldn't they reclassify BLT to enter that "super resorts" group, even add Alunai as well, with the intention of eventually creating a Poly DVC? That would create that top tier.

Probably not with existing resorts. It would probably have to be new inventory.

But, even if they *did* create a *higher* tier, that isn't necessarily a reason to *also* create a lower tier. Remember: tiers are designed to encourage "buying up" not "dropping down."

 

[JimMIA]

Oh yes, sales have resumed. The MF's increased 33%....ugly....

Thanks for the info. I haven't exactly been hanging on every word about Aulani. Glad they got it resolved.

 

[Greysword]

Plus, $99 for SSR is a different situation. SSR is not priced at $99 in order to tap into a "new" value market. SSR has been on their books for quite some time now. I'm sure there developer costs, third party profit sharing agreements and carrying costs that we do not have details on. The price is lower in order to close this project out, and to get this project off their books.

I'm still reading the thread and I go to this point and felt the need to comment. If someone has brought up this point already, my apologies.

There seems to be a misunderstanding that SSR is not sold out. Technically, this is true; however, not due to the common assumptions. The main SSR buildings are sold out, as such the resort is as well. The current pricing ($99/point) without incentives reflect this (just like the other sold out resorts).

DVD continues to sell SSR points; because, they continue to add THV units to the inventory. The THV are incremental to SSR, but have been incorporated into the resort, likely due to location and ease of administration.

It is probable they will continue to declare THV until all of the units have been declared (according to DVCNews.com, they are getting there fairly quickly) or the market for the units is depleted. The THV points provide DVD with a readily available low-cost DVC option for buyers that do not want/can't pay the BLT or AKV prices.

I guess the point is that SSR is not technically sold out; because, DVD chooses to continue to add THV units to the mix, and not due to a problem selling points. If they did not add units, SSR would be completely sold out; since, the main sections of SSR have been sold our for several years (since 2008, I believe). That said, THV points seem to be an integral part of the DVD portfolio; providing potential buyers with the opportunity to purchase points directly from DVD at a relatively low price.

Someone please correct me if my information is not accurate.

Thanks,

Chris

 

[Greysword]

You know what's interesting is that for DLR resorts, DVC does not charge the $95 fee. I've always wondered why they charge it for members to trade into the WDW resort hotels.

It appears the reason they did not (and still don't) charge the fee for Disneyland Resorts is due to a lack of DVC accommodations for points in the DLR, which makes a Florida timeshare purchase more appealing to people on the West coast. I would think the DVC sales staff in California emphasize this point with potential West coast Aulani buyers as well; however, the policy will likely change if a significantly greater number of DVC rooms become available (such as a DLH tower for DVC or a new DVC resort built).

 

[kdzgon]

Everyone seems to be jumping to the conclusion that this means DVC will sell points in the new resort. It could also mean that the Art of Animation rooms would be added to the Disney collection. If Disney really has gotten a lot of requests from members to stay at a value resort on weekends, this would be an additional carrot for buying direct.

I was someone who asked the question (will we see value resort DVCs?), posting a thread on another board. I was told of the allocation request, and as there was a very specific conversation re: both point cost and MFs (I questioned how a value offering would sit with existing members). It was clear (during my conversation) that the intent was selling DVC memberships, not an addition to the Disney Collection. It was also clear that it was a request for an allocation of rooms, but there was no feedback at that point what kind of response would occur.

While to date my source has been pretty reliable, I freely acknowledge it is still nothing more than a rumor heard. I was curious if anyone else was hearing the same or similar whispers. I am certainly not in any Disney "inner circle", so I posted to see what others thought.

That said, while my initial reaction was "why?", I do believe this will definitely broaden the potential market for DVC sales. I also believe it is quite doable from a numbers standpoint without the need for a tiered DVC model. Remember, these rooms have three separate sleeping areas but a capacity of 6 and will have kitchenettes, not full kitchens. It fills a current gap, potentially making DVC more affordable for families with three or four kids, or even smaller families that want better sleeping layouts over full kitchens as found in current 1-BRs. IMO, it's a lot of points to move up to a 1 BR for a not-very-workable sleeping arrangement with young children.

Certainly, when the young grandchildren visit from out of town we spend lots more time in the parks and less time at the resorts than when we take a long weekend. Perhaps for us a value DVC using less points might be an acceptable alternative for trips where the amenities are not as important.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

Kdzgon, thanks for posting!!!!!

 

[Dean]

If you're referring to a tiered system of perks or ancillary benefits then I wholeheartedly agree.

I was commenting on the suggestion that Disney would benefit from creating different resort tiers within the DVC system (i.e. Value, Deluxe, Super Deluxe) with different cross-over booking privileges, reservation dates, etc.

Personally I'm not convinced that the DVC audience would embrace such a complicated system, particularly given DVC's limited growth pace. There isn't much appeal to buying into a Value (presumably Art of Animation) or "Super Deluxe" (Grand Floridian) property if each class includes exactly one location into the foreseeable future.

I don't think there's much chance of one without the other, at least for a tiered timeshare system. IMO it really doesn't matter if the general DVC audience embraces it as much as the potential buyers. There are often ways to make a complicated system seem simple in the sales arena, timeshares do it all the time. While DVC's timeshare system is simple, the system overall is fairly complicated.

While the Marriott example is the only one I can think of where a top timeshare system has aimed lower, MANY timeshares shoot for the lower cost/lower priced product. I'd say that most new timeshares overall would fit into this category.

Couldn't they reclassify BLT to enter that "super resorts" group, even add Alunai as well, with the intention of eventually creating a Poly DVC? That would create that top tier.

Not for already declared components as those are already officially a member of the club and as such, the multi site POS would apply. They could do what Marriott did a year ago and convert to a trust essentially buying back individual memberships. The truth is that's likely the way they should have gone from year 1. It would have given them more power, more control and removed the need to have deeds when there are changes. They could create a separate system with new resorts and a crossover option if they wanted.

I'm still reading the thread and I go to this point and felt the need to comment. If someone has brought up this point already, my apologies.

There seems to be a misunderstanding that SSR is not sold out. Technically, this is true; however, not due to the common assumptions. The main SSR buildings are sold out, as such the resort is as well. The current pricing ($99/point) without incentives reflect this (just like the other sold out resorts).

DVD continues to sell SSR points; because, they continue to add THV units to the inventory. The THV are incremental to SSR, but have been incorporated into the resort, likely due to location and ease of administration.

It is probable they will continue to declare THV until all of the units have been declared (according to DVCNews.com, they are getting there fairly quickly) or the market for the units is depleted. The THV points provide DVD with a readily available low-cost DVC option for buyers that do not want/can't pay the BLT or AKV prices.

I guess the point is that SSR is not technically sold out; because, DVD chooses to continue to add THV units to the mix, and not due to a problem selling points. If they did not add units, SSR would be completely sold out; since, the main sections of SSR have been sold our for several years (since 2008, I believe). That said, THV points seem to be an integral part of the DVD portfolio; providing potential buyers with the opportunity to purchase points directly from DVD at a relatively low price.

Someone please correct me if my information is not accurate.

Thanks,

Chris

As you note, SSR is not sold out. Whether the unsold THV and ROFR purchases are all that's remaining, I don't know but I have my doubts knowing DVD's history of advanced announcements. VWL and HH both were not sold out for at least 2 years after they announced they were.

 

[Greysword]

They could do what Marriott did a year ago and convert to a trust essentially buying back individual memberships.

Is DVD allowed to do this if the members don't want to sell? What incentives/disciplines could they enact to "force" such an action?

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I guess the point is that SSR is not technically sold out; because, DVD chooses to continue to add THV units to the mix, and not due to a problem selling points. If they did not add units, SSR would be completely sold out; since, the main sections of SSR have been sold our for several years (since 2008, I believe). That said, THV points seem to be an integral part of the DVD portfolio; providing potential buyers with the opportunity to purchase points directly from DVD at a relatively low price.

Someone please correct me if my information is not accurate.

Thanks,

Chris

And just as a point of history - for a very brief period SSR was technically considered to be sold out. They stopped all incentives and were not actively marketing it. That was in July of 2008. It didn't last long b/c THV was added in Sept as part of SSR.

 

[Dean]

Is DVD allowed to do this if the members don't want to sell? What incentives/disciplines could they enact to "force" such an action?

Sure, all they have to do is swap out any new product and take in the old inventory. Then they can use the inventory as they want. I doubt they'll go that route now for existing resorts though. A far more likely scenario would be for new resorts to constitute a separate new timeshare system with a cross over option, likely run through the BVTC for the "exchanges".

 

[Dean]

And just as a point of history - for a very brief period SSR was technically considered to be sold out. They stopped all incentives and were not actively marketing it. That was in July of 2008. It didn't last long b/c THV was added in Sept as part of SSR.

I think this is an important distinction. Sold out and actively marketed are NOT the same thing. This was exactly what happened at VWL IIRC. As BCV was about to come online, they announced VWL was sold out apparently anticipating it would sell out under the table. It didn't and around the time that BCV was sold out, they had to reopen sales at VWL, which took another year after that to sell out. Nothing wrong with any of those issues by the way but just explanation that sold out for DVC often doesn't mean sold out even ignoring ROFR inventory.

 

[Anal Annie]

Honestly it's getting late and I have to get up at 5:00 so I didn't read the whole thread because I'm going to bed but....the topic caught my eye.

We have never stayed in a value property at WDW. We tried a Moderate property ONCE and that's when we decided if we didn't WANT to be priced into the Values we'd better buy DVC. We just stayed in a "Value" property at Disneyland Paris. I have no idea how they compare to WDW but it was certainly NO FRILLS and SMALL. I have heard that they are sub-standard to WDW there tho. But I can't compare myself. We only spent one night & it was just to crash & shower. But I can tell you that if we needed more than 1 night I wouldn't do it again. AKV Value Studios are about as "Value" as we want to get from now on. And that's not the same thing because they're still a high quality villa, just smaller. I would also have zero interest in moving resorts. We have better things to do with our limited time in FL than to spend the day moving. We would have no intersest in a "Value DVC" resort.

 

[edk35]

Honestly it's getting late and I have to get up at 5:00 so I didn't read the whole thread because I'm going to bed but....the topic caught my eye.

We have never stayed in a value property at WDW. We tried a Moderate property ONCE and that's when we decided if we didn't WANT to be priced into the Values we'd better buy DVC. We just stayed in a "Value" property at Disneyland Paris. I have no idea how they compare to WDW but it was certainly NO FRILLS and SMALL. I have heard that they are sub-standard to WDW there tho. But I can't compare myself. We only spent one night & it was just to crash & shower. But I can tell you that if we needed more than 1 night I wouldn't do it again. AKV Value Studios are about as "Value" as we want to get from now on. And that's not the same thing because they're still a high quality villa, just smaller. I would also have zero interest in moving resorts. We have better things to do with our limited time in FL than to spend the day moving. We would have no intersest in a "Value DVC" resort.

I TOTALLY AGREE. We stayed that one night at ASMU and we decided that would be our one and only too.

 

[kdzgon]

...Disney has spent 20 years building the Disney Vacation Club brand and positioning it as a high-quality operation to diminish its worth for something like Value-class accommodations. ...

Wasn't a similar argument made about Disney CR rooms when the value resorts were first proposed? I seem to recall quite an uproar, with claims about how it would cheapen the Disney brand, ultimately damaging attendance?

While some may argue the quality has indeed fallen at Disney (since the addition of value resorts), I do not believe the value resorts have resulted in lost revenues due to attendance drops. In fact, I'd say overall, value resort guests are a pretty loyal group but also very budget conscious. Future success at Disney Parks is dependent on repeat visitors. Making it easier (or making it more likely, due to an annual commitment via a timeshare) for this target group to visit may help build the base of repeat visitors.

 

[hakepb]

Honestly it's getting late and I have to get up at 5:00 so I didn't read the whole thread because I'm going to bed but....the topic caught my eye.

We have never stayed in a value property at WDW. We tried a Moderate property ONCE and that's when we decided if we didn't WANT to be priced into the Values we'd better buy DVC. We just stayed in a "Value" property at Disneyland Paris. I have no idea how they compare to WDW but it was certainly NO FRILLS and SMALL. I have heard that they are sub-standard to WDW there tho. But I can't compare myself. We only spent one night & it was just to crash & shower. But I can tell you that if we needed more than 1 night I wouldn't do it again. AKV Value Studios are about as "Value" as we want to get from now on. And that's not the same thing because they're still a high quality villa, just smaller. I would also have zero interest in moving resorts. We have better things to do with our limited time in FL than to spend the day moving. We would have no intersest in a "Value DVC" resort.

If you want no-frills, try a cheap off-site place:
No themeing
No landscaping
No pool heat
No transportation
No dining
No security (well, I guess the patty wagon showed up next door)

 

[Dean]

Wasn't a similar argument made about Disney CR rooms when the value resorts were first proposed? I seem to recall quite an uproar, with claims about how it would cheapen the Disney brand, ultimately damaging attendance?

While some may argue the quality has indeed fallen at Disney (since the addition of value resorts), I do not believe the value resorts have resulted in lost revenues due to attendance drops. In fact, I'd say overall, value resort guests are a pretty loyal group but also very budget conscious. Future success at Disney Parks is dependent on repeat visitors. Making it easier (or making it more likely, due to an annual commitment via a timeshare) for this target group to visit may help build the base of repeat visitors.

The truth is that it has cheapened Disney which can be good or bad. However, I don't think the comparison is valid. The closest correct comparison would be a value add on to an existing deluxe resort. I do believe it's possible to come up with a program that could fit or coexist with the current DVC system but I do not see it happening for a number of reasons.

If you want no-frills, try a cheap off-site place:
No themeing
No landscaping
No pool heat
No transportation
No dining
No security (well, I guess the patty wagon showed up next door)

I would quibble with you comparison. From a timeshare standpoint there are a number of resorts that do have some theming, that are as nice or nicer from a unit, grounds and pool standpoint. Some of them have shuttles, all I can think of have security.We stayed at The Fountains a few weeks ago for 2 nights tacked on to a DVC exchange. $79 a night for a 2500 sq ft Presidential suit, a pool at least equal to that of AKV with a 4 person Cabana for $35 for the day. Beni Hana in the parking lot, etc. Certainly there are hotels that fit your comparison.

 

[tjkraz]

I was told of the allocation request, and as there was a very specific conversation re: both point cost and MFs (I questioned how a value offering would sit with existing members). It was clear (during my conversation) that the intent was selling DVC memberships, not an addition to the Disney Collection. It was also clear that it was a request for an allocation of rooms, but there was no feedback at that point what kind of response would occur.

That doesn't surprise me. Companies make inquiries and--internally and externally--all the time.

But it would surprise me if such a project made it through all levels of approval for a myriad of reasons.

Wasn't a similar argument made about Disney CR rooms when the value resorts were first proposed? I seem to recall quite an uproar, with claims about how it would cheapen the Disney brand, ultimately damaging attendance?

I can't speak to that particular "uproar" but it doesn't strike me as a good parallel. Disney's Value, Moderate and Deluxe resorts each stand on their own. They have different quality of accommodations, amenities, activity programs, etc.

You get what you pay for.

In DVC terms, all owners are essentially on equal footing. I don't see how DVC would ultimately benefit if they allow buyers to purchase Value points at a lower price, dues and quantity, while using those points for stays at Bay Lake, BoardWalk and others.

At a minimum it seems they would have to create a new set of rules and restrictions for those owners, but I'm not convinced DVC would readily walk that road.

I think Brian addressed the issue of cash demand a couple pages back. Value-class accommodations are the one grouping that Disney has been most successful selling to cash guests of late. And the Value suites have been extremely popular.

All things being equal, a single guest room is far more profitable in the long run when retained as a hotel room rather than sold off as a timeshare. I'm not sure that Disney Resorts would even consider giving away a block of the Value suites if their expectation is a consistently high occupancy rate.

Value DVC villas would (IMO) serve as an admission by Parks & Resorts that they built too many Value suites AND it would represent a huge gamble by DVC. A negative impact on sales pace at their high-priced--and high cost--properties like BLT, Aulani and Grand Floridian could be very damaging.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

Don't know how this relates, but fromt the Resorts board, Value resorts are now getting FREE mini fridges in all the rooms. Hmmm....
http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2792935

 

[tjkraz]

Don't know how this relates, but fromt the Resorts board, Value resorts are now getting FREE mini fridges in all the rooms. Hmmm....
http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2792935

Why is that a "Hmmm..."?

Disney added refrigerators to the Moderate resorts a few years ago. If anything, it seems (to me) to further diminish the value of a DVC purchase to budget-minded guests.

Purchased in bulk, those mini fridges probably cost $100 per room. I'm surprised Disney hasn't done it already just to rid themselves of storage & handling from the "fridge swaps."

What's your take?