Value DVC Timeshares Coming?

[edk35]

I'd suggest giving OKW another try, Annie. It's lovely there ... really!

Yes GIVE OKW another try. We have stayed there 3 times and have enjoyed it there all three times. You get MORE bang for your buck as far as points go and it is such a nice l laid back resort in my opinion. It is close to DTD too. Gotta love the Jimmy Buffet music that is played there.

 

[BeccaG]

OK, some one is gonna have to explain it to me because I don't get it.

If they do a value DVC, I would assume that the points per night would be less than the other resorts, so why, would this lead to current owners subsidizing value owners to stay at their resort? Are Aulani owners subsidizing us "lowly" SSR and OKW owners in the same way? I guess I am confused as how this hurts current owners. In order for this to work, I am guessing they may allow smaller initial purchases, which might prevent value owners from being able to book hardly anything at a deluxe DVC, or it will require a whole lot of their points in comparison.

PS FWIW, I don't have an opinion on this one way or the other, I just don't quite get the rub here...

 

[Dean]

OK, some one is gonna have to explain it to me because I don't get it.

If they do a value DVC, I would assume that the points per night would be less than the other resorts, so why, would this lead to current owners subsidizing value owners to stay at their resort? Are Aulani owners subsidizing us "lowly" SSR and OKW owners in the same way? I guess I am confused as how this hurts current owners. In order for this to work, I am guessing they may allow smaller initial purchases, which might prevent value owners from being able to book hardly anything at a deluxe DVC, or it will require a whole lot of their points in comparison.

PS FWIW, I don't have an opinion on this one way or the other, I just don't quite get the rub here...

If a value DVC were to happen, the possibilities of how it could work and how it could fit into the current system are endless. My thought is that it would likely be a separate system with a crossover after 7 months out rather than a direct member of DVC. In terms of your question, it depends on how you look at it and what the specifics of a value DVC resort and system would look like. From a dues standpoint, each member pays for their own resort and for the management of the system as a whole. From a cost standpoint, that is the only portion that is shared over the resorts unless you could shared transportation expenses where applicable. However, from a value standpoint, one who buys points for say BLT may not be thrilled with someone who owns at a value resort purchased at a lower price, or paying a lower per point maint fee, staying there. To me this doesn't matter as long as the owner has the home resort priority in place but I think it does for some.

The bigger concern/discussion for many shouldn't be the cost/subsidy issue but what the affect on the overall system would be and this is directly applicable to SSR particularly. SSR came in as a very large resort with a lot of points for a resort with a lower demand than other on property resorts. It has changed the availability of all resorts to a degree, even inside the home resort window as people realize they have to plan better to be successful. I don't see this as a problem but I do see it as fact. And this is for a resort I see as Deluxe though lesser in some ways than some of the other deluxe resorts. It has worsened the chances of other members getting higher demand resorts at 7 months out. A value DVC resort that was a regular member of DVC could have even larger affects in many of the same ways but by definition brings a value room as a replacement for the deluxe room it takes out of the system. One could argue volume vs quality in that it would be swapping several value rooms for a single deluxe room. This is why I see it as a secondary member with access at say 6 months out instead of 7, if it were to happen, which I also doubt.

 

[Chuck S]

OK, some one is gonna have to explain it to me because I don't get it.

If they do a value DVC, I would assume that the points per night would be less than the other resorts, so why, would this lead to current owners subsidizing value owners to stay at their resort? Are Aulani owners subsidizing us "lowly" SSR and OKW owners in the same way? I guess I am confused as how this hurts current owners. In order for this to work, I am guessing they may allow smaller initial purchases, which might prevent value owners from being able to book hardly anything at a deluxe DVC, or it will require a whole lot of their points in comparison.

PS FWIW, I don't have an opinion on this one way or the other, I just don't quite get the rub here...

If you also assume a lower per point price & lower maintenance fee, here is how it would affect current owners.

1) Points are cheaper to purchase. So say a Value point sells for 75 per point..

2) Dues are cheaper, say $3.50 per point. There are lower property taxes, lower maintenance on the shallowwe pools, fewer front desk staff per guest, etc.

Now if that value owner has a 50 year contract, that means the first year points are (75/50)+3.50 or $5.00 per point in todays dollars. Now let's say that Aulani is $119 per point & $5.73 per point. That makes Aulani point costs (119/50)+5.73 or $8.11.

The cheapest studio at Aulani is 18 points per night. An Aulani owner would be paying $146 for a studio night in todays dollars. A value owners, booking Aulani at 7 months, would be paying $90 for that same noight in todays dollars. A difference of over $50 per night in todays dollars.

THe Older Deluxe DVC'swould be closer in price, even for older owners, figuring inflation rates into their original purchase. Given that the OKW purchase price in 1992 averaged $52 (it increaded from $51 to $53 mod year) that is $82.66 in todays dollars. So still more than a value resort.

So the question would be, is an 11 month home resort priority at Aulani going to be worth an additional $50 per night minimum to new purchasers, if a value resort is available without trading restrictions?

Plus, if the point per nights are cheaper at a Value resort, then that means there will be less points fir Disney to sell at that resort. A trend that is just the opposite of the current DVC philosophy, seeing at points per night have been increasing with each new resort.

 

[Anal Annie]

I'd suggest giving OKW another try, Annie. It's lovely there ... really!

Yes GIVE OKW another try. We have stayed there 3 times and have enjoyed it there all three times. You get MORE bang for your buck as far as points go and it is such a nice l laid back resort in my opinion. It is close to DTD too. Gotta love the Jimmy Buffet music that is played there.

Sorry, but there's not enough "loveliness" there to counter-act the crappy bus system and hot 15 minute August schlep to the main pool. If I say any more about the buses I'll be called out for being PI but suffice to say we were there long enough to figure out what the problem was with the buses... And don't get me started on the whole mousekeeping thing. OH, and the BEDS were like the ones in the brothel at Pompeii!!

I think our points will get plenty bang for their buck at AKV or SSR if we're looking to scrimp on points.

 

[DenLo]

Would anyone really pay $80 per point for a value resort? The whole point of building a DVC resort is to sell the points for the resort, as Disney makes money on selling the points.

And the required points per night would have to be quite a bit less than an AKV value. Because an AKV value is smaller than a regular DVC villa, but everything in it, especially the beds are still deluxe quality. But at an Art of Animation Value the beds will be more like boards (and might be only double beds versus queens). And the rooms will be smaller compared to a DVC resort including an AKV value.

I'm not really sure this set up would satisfy the people that used to stay at a DVC resort weekdays and moved somewhere else for the weekends as they did not use any points for these weekend dates. How would it it make them happy that they are still spending more points per night for weekday stays at a deluxe DVC resort and then they spend even more points at a Value DVC resort? How do they go back to spending less points? By only staying at a DVC value resort? Don't they want to stay a deluxe resort just like the rest of us?

 

[Bell30012]

I think that if a DVC Value Resort was to be built the price for the points and maint would probably be near what the points are for the other resorts, however it would take less points for each nights stay. Then you could still use your points at Animation at any other resort.

I am one of those that only stays Sun - Thur, then switches to a Value room where I pay cash. It just works out better for us mathematically.

 

[Dean]

Would anyone really pay $80 per point for a value resort? The whole point of building a DVC resort is to sell the points for the resort, as Disney makes money on selling the points.

And the required points per night would have to be quite a bit less than an AKV value. Because an AKV value is smaller than a regular DVC villa, but everything in it, especially the beds are still deluxe quality. But at an Art of Animation Value the beds will be more like boards (and might be only double beds versus queens). And the rooms will be smaller compared to a DVC resort including an AKV value.

I'm not really sure this set up would satisfy the people that used to stay at a DVC resort weekdays and moved somewhere else for the weekends as they did not use any points for these weekend dates. How would it it make them happy that they are still spending more points per night for weekday stays at a deluxe DVC resort and then they spend even more points at a Value DVC resort? How do they go back to spending less points? By only staying at a DVC value resort? Don't they want to stay a deluxe resort just like the rest of us?

I don't think most people would set themselves up to pay an equivalent of $80 a night for a value hotel room but we're not really talking hotel rooms, assumptions would be we're talking studios through at least 2 BR units. Regardless, I agrees the price/value would come into play. Plus there might be other incentives like access to other DVC resorts or even sales incentives like free park passes, etc. Simply comparing resort to possible resort and ignoring other possible factors including sales incentives (free park passes, etc), I would agree there needs to be a break point for price. Making the assumption of cheaper materials, smaller villa sizes, possibly smaller beds and even possibly lower sleeping capacity in addition to the differences between a value resort and the current DVC, I put the break at about 60% of SSR as likely points costs, again, with assumptions.

Is that level enough to entice those that might consider DVC and barely or almost be able to "afford" DVC, I'm sure it would for some, the question is whether it would for enough to justify both the risk and the competition with the current product. The other issue is it would cheapen the current system in many's eyes and might further hurt sales beyond just the direct competition. These are some of the reasons I feel such a system, were it to happen, would have to be somewhat separate.

 

[BeccaG]

If you also assume a lower per point price & lower maintenance fee, here is how it would affect current owners.

1) Points are cheaper to purchase. So say a Value point sells for 75 per point..

2) Dues are cheaper, say $3.50 per point. There are lower property taxes, lower maintenance on the shallowwe pools, fewer front desk staff per guest, etc.

Now if that value owner has a 50 year contract, that means the first year points are (75/50)+3.50 or $5.00 per point in todays dollars. Now let's say that Aulani is $119 per point & $5.73 per point. That makes Aulani point costs (119/50)+5.73 or $8.11.

The cheapest studio at Aulani is 18 points per night. An Aulani owner would be paying $146 for a studio night in todays dollars. A value owners, booking Aulani at 7 months, would be paying $90 for that same noight in todays dollars. A difference of over $50 per night in todays dollars.

THe Older Deluxe DVC'swould be closer in price, even for older owners, figuring inflation rates into their original purchase. Given that the OKW purchase price in 1992 averaged $52 (it increaded from $51 to $53 mod year) that is $82.66 in todays dollars. So still more than a value resort.

So the question would be, is an 11 month home resort priority at Aulani going to be worth an additional $50 per night minimum to new purchasers, if a value resort is available without trading restrictions?

Plus, if the point per nights are cheaper at a Value resort, then that means there will be less points fir Disney to sell at that resort. A trend that is just the opposite of the current DVC philosophy, seeing at points per night have been increasing with each new resort.

OK, if DVC did it that way, I think I understand, but wouldn't most of the problem be eliminated if cost per point was about the same however the rooms required less points to book?

 

[Maistre Gracey]

OK, if DVC did it that way, I think I understand, but wouldn't most of the problem be eliminated if cost per point was about the same however the rooms required less points to book?

I was thinking the same thing. That would also cause the maintenance fees to be high, and that could deter those members from booking the higher point resorts.
I don't see the big deal, nor do I see why it wouldn't work.

MG

 

[Chuck S]

If the rooms required less points per night, again, it would be less points at the resort overall available for sale, and less overall profit. Also, it would likely mean that Disney would need to reduce the minimum number of pionts for new contracts, and given that it takes the same amount of sales persons time, and the same amount of marketing capital, it likely would be below the minimum point where Disney considers it "worth their time." I mean, people looking at a value DVC that takes less than 60 points for a week would liikely not be open to purchasing even 100 or 160 points minimum, especially if the points cost the same, with the same annual maintenance as a Deluxe DVC.

 

[Dean]

I was thinking the same thing. That would also cause the maintenance fees to be high, and that could deter those members from booking the higher point resorts.
I don't see the big deal, nor do I see why it wouldn't work.

MG

It doesn't matter for the home resort, it only matters in 2 areas. One, in the relative comparison between existing resorts and any new resorts and two, as it applies to the psychology of purchasing. IF such a resort were a regular DVC member then the relative conversion factors (up front price and due) become very important. If it's a separate system but with a crossover options, the relative conversion factors are still important, but less so and the importance would vary considerably with the specifics and feasibility of such a crossover option. For simplicity, it would be best and easiest, from an integration and thinking standpoint, to have the buy in price and dues somewhat in line with BLT but likely a little less in both areas.