Value DVC,..

[BostonDisneyKid]

What are your thoughts on this...

If the imaginary "value dvc resort" buy in had a reduced ownership life cycle, say 15 year life of ownership vs 50 year life of ownership as with regular dvc to offset the point costs/allocations. And add a restriction of no resale options; all sales were direct from disney and had a 15 yr life cycle regardless when you purchased and had a limited booking/transfer policy of say 2-3 months less (8/4 rule?).

Note before the flames begin - this was just a idea/thought without thinking of additional implications or affect to current dvc owners...

 

[Chuck S]

What are your thoughts on this...

If the imaginary "value dvc resort" buy in had a reduced ownership life cycle, say 15 year life of ownership vs 50 year life of ownership as with regular dvc to offset the point costs/allocations. And add a restriction of no resale options; all sales were direct from disney and had a 15 yr life cycle regardless when you purchased and had a limited booking/transfer policy of say 2-3 months less (8/4 rule?).

Note before the flames begin - this was just a idea/thought without thinking of additional implications or affect to current dvc owners...

I think "upgrading" Member Services computer for different booking windows, and different resort rules, would be expensive and cause a lot of problems. Then re-training CMs on the new rules...

I think buyers, even at a reduced cost and reduced length of lease, would expect full membership rights.

I think trying to operate two similar products under two separate sets of rules would cause more trouble than it is worth.

 

[redrosesix]

What are your thoughts on this...

If the imaginary "value dvc resort" buy in had a reduced ownership life cycle, say 15 year life of ownership vs 50 year life of ownership as with regular dvc to offset the point costs/allocations. And add a restriction of no resale options; all sales were direct from disney and had a 15 yr life cycle regardless when you purchased and had a limited booking/transfer policy of say 2-3 months less (8/4 rule?).

Note before the flames begin - this was just a idea/thought without thinking of additional implications or affect to current dvc owners...

I'm not sure this deal would be attractive to anyone -- it wouldn't probably affect the current DVC values, but I can't imagine anybody buying this, especially when they can "own" a regular timeshare offsite

I think "upgrading" Member Services computer for different booking windows, and different resort rules, would be expensive and cause a lot of problems. Then re-training CMs on the new rules...

I think buyers, even at a reduced cost and reduced length of lease, would expect full membership rights.

I think trying to operate two similar products under two separate sets of rules would cause more trouble than it is worth.

I agree. And I hate the thought of them doing anything new to the computer system.

 

[crisi]

What makes you think that Value vacationeers don't go to WDW annually. I'm sure that many do.

Probably, but they quite possibly:

1) They do not want to (cannot afford to) make the upfront committment to annual Disney vacations that a timeshare demands. Paying cash increases your flexibility A LOT. If you decide this year you can't quite afford your vacation, you just don't take it and are out nothing.

or

2) Are frugal and motivated by deals. I don't see the deal shopper as being a good match for DVC - they seem easily frustrated when they hear about free dining or someone getting a great postcard rate - and they usually seem pretty convinced they can get something.

 

[TSMIII]

I'm not saying it's a good idea, but theoretically-

What about DVC building a studio only "value" resort that had a low # points per room (hypothetically 1 point per night less than a value view studio @ AKV) and give a smaller minimum buy in but typical costs otherwise ($112/pt. purchase before promos, $3.75 / pt. dues to start...)? 1 week in Dream would be 75 points, so make that the minimum buy in FOR THAT RESORT ONLY. 160 isn't set in stone and I know there was a promotional 100 point minimum new member buy-in for AKV when I bought my BLT, and it had the 160 minimum then, so there is precedent for different minimums at different resorts...

If we consider what they did last year as you pointed out, I'd say DVC has already offered a type of "Value DVC", albeit short-lived.

Does anyone know what the motivation was for this promo? IIRC, many were speculating that DVC wanted to generate more sales by mitigating the minimum buy in "sticker shock" to a degree.

Wonder what kind of marketing & demographic data they got from this promo? Was this promo a trial balloon for the oft-mentioned "Value DVC"?

Think about those that got this deal - They bought in direct for less than 160 points with the 100 point offer and did so at the resort which has "value" rooms both in terms of size and point cost -OK so there's very few rooms that meet this standard, but they now get 11 month priority for the value rooms on property without the higher buy in cost (though the point price wasn't reduced) without the booking and use restrictions and without being restricted to some type of reduced amenities resort as has been suggested for a "Value DVC".

DVC could just do this again and gain some of those that would otherwise only be in the market for a "Value DVC" without the risk of cannibalizing regular DVC sales and with the potential that once in the system, those 100 point buy in folks may want/need to add-on more points.

 

[jodifla]

I don't see folks who love values coming up with the cash to buy in, frankly. And if the cost were low enough to appeal to these folks, then it wouldn't be financially worth it to WDW.

 

[BostonDisneyKid]

I don't see folks who love values coming up with the cash to buy in, frankly.

I am curious what makes you think that?
I ask because I bought 370 points back in 2004 (paid cash) and if given the choice or Pop or SSR - I'd chose Pop.
If given the choice of SSR or All Stars, I'd chose SSR.
If given the choice of ANY moderate or SSR, I'd chose the moderate.

 

[Chuck S]

As far as trading outside of WDW, I was really just thinking about a Value DVC with WDW only. I don't think that the Deluxe crowd would step down and cause the original DVC to lose anything any more than the Value crowd would step up. Both crowds seem to like their own resorts for different reasons; same for the Moderates.

I just think that for the lower DVC Value points required for buying in, many Value lovers would pre pay, DVC style, their vacations, allowing WDW to cash in on all of the upfront money.

The value suites seem to be doing pretty well from what I read.

Many frequent WDW vacationers love the no frills style of the value resorts, as they are only there to sleep and attack the parks commando style. I really do feel that would be/is a large market for the Value DVC.

Why would the 7 month booking be any harder with the Values?

Would there be any advantage to own a Value DVC? If people want "more for their money" they can spend almost the same as a Value resort to rent a studio from a DVC owner. I think the "typical" cash Value guest like the cash cancelation policies that would not be available to any points revervation, whether they rented from an owner or owned themselves. While some would be intereste, I would think that the vast majority of Value resort guests would not want to tie up a good chunk of $$ for an extended period of time, and if they did, there are offsite timeshares, like Bonnet Creek, to fill that market.

 

[logan115]

I really don't have a view on this being either good or bad, but.......

Just not sure that you "save" enough with a value DVC proposition. I'm buying DVC now because there's no way I could afford a 2BR for $800/night, but even "renting" points I could get that for $400, a savings of hundreds of dollars. If I can get POP now for $100, but using points it's only $50, yes it's a nice percentage discount, but if I only save $350/week how do I ever recoup my investment ? That's not even taking into account MFs.

Suppose a different set of points, different prices for these points which would result in a much lower buy in cost is possible, but as pps have said is there that big of a market for this ?

Here's another problem, let's say that there is a value DVC, and instead of members staying at the current DVC resorts on the weekend they stay at the POP DVC with their points, then switch for Sun-Thurs. Isn't this why there was just an adjustment made to the points schedule (praying this doesn't get moved to the "other" thread cuz I said that) and wouldn't it put DVC back into the same problem of having open weekend rooms ?

Chris

 

[WALTSAGOD]

I don't see folks who love values coming up with the cash to buy in, frankly. And if the cost were low enough to appeal to these folks, then it wouldn't be financially worth it to WDW.

That seems snotty to me. I would imagine that many Value vacationeers would have the money, but choose to stay at the values due their commmando vacation habits.

 

[Dean]

That seems snotty to me. I would imagine that many Value vacationeers would have the money, but choose to stay at the values due their commmando vacation habits.

I'm sure there are a number of people that would be interested but as I've hinted at already, there likely isn't as much market as you might think at a level DVC would have to sell for and it could not be just part of DVC itself. And I doubt there are enough people that would/could do it to make it worthwhile to DVC to compete with the own product. Lets explore the issue a little. Assume they rennovated the remaining pop rooms as studio units for comparisons sake then compare to DVC studios. Assume the same price per point and point structure but a lower minimum of say 50 points. So roughly $5500K to buy in and dues of maybe $3-3.50 a point. Would you buy there to use say 8 points at a value studio when you could get SSR for 11? This is about as large a spread in number of points that DVC could do and make a reasonable profit, if you were thinking half, you're way off. And one could get enough SSR resale to do the same thing without the compromise.

 

[DVCGeek]

That seems snotty to me. I would imagine that many Value vacationeers would have the money, but choose to stay at the values due their commmando vacation habits.

I think I am one of those Commando vacation - Value resort - have the money types you are referring to. Rope drop to park close each day. biggest break was typically a table service meal daily, occasionally lunch AND dinner. DW always said that it didn't make sense to spend extra on a 'nicer' room since I was never there on vacations in general. However, as things progressed-

DW & I stayed @ Pop in 2006 for her BD. 4 nights, commando style 3 days in parks; really wore her out. Then we were off property in 2007 for our honeymoon; some time at Universal, did Dive Quest & Backstage Magic tours + MNSSHP. She then admitted that Disney parks + staying On Property was better. All Star Movies (Preferred location room) in 2008 for my BD- 6 nights, only 3 park days + 1/2 day when we did DiveQuest. She decided Pop was nicer but still didn't like walking so much for everything. Neither of us like getting stuck with two double beds. So, BLT's location, the monorail, and guaranteed queen bed in a studio = enough to convenience her "let" me buy DVC after touring on that trip and giving a verbal commitment our last day @ WDW. (My guide was off so we finished everything by mail...)

Prior to that I stayed in All Star Music twice and off property once with my ex.

Now my plan is to pay roughly Value preferred location room rack rates (factoring the purchase price over the life of the contract + annual dues) for a MUCH MUCH better DVC studio, usually @ home in BLT or VGC [once that paperwork finishes; my add on isn't complete yet!]. We'd like to eventually try them all one by one if we can @ 7 months, though...

Devil's advocate, I stayed off property about 5 times and later at several Deluxe hotels w/ my parents growing up; Poly once, Contemporary once, and Wilderness Lodge once.

All told that is 14 times to WDW to date. Not many to most of you here on the boards but still a LOT more than many people I know. I also stayed at Disneyland Hotel in the '90s with my parents and Grand Californian in Nov. 2008 w/ DW (DPs from BLT rock! We had Paradise Pier booked but canceled it). No non-US Disney YET, but give me time...

Interestingly, I've never stayed at a Disney moderate, and probably never will at this point. The song "I Go to Extremes" comes to mind!

 

[sajetto]

Prior to buying DVC my husband and I stayed in values. At the time we were staying in values we were all about commando touring and were also very frugal. We bought in because our vacations habits have been changing over time. We started with 300 points at ages 22 and 26 and paid cash (currently own 601 points). Now at ages 25 and 29 and a baby on the way, our tastes, style, and needs have changed. I don't think that its a safe assumption to say that those who stay in values can't afford DVC because there are so many that don't feel the need for the size of accomodations. If it were not for the fact that our disney trips increased so much and that our habits changed, we'd still be staying in POP.

 

[redrosesix]

I don't think it would be safe to generalize about guests who stay in Value resorts. Pop has 2700 rooms and each of the AS resorts has about 1800, I think. That accounts for over 8000 rooms, so tens of thousands of guests per year.

And there are how many DVC rooms at each current DVC resort? I'm guessing no more than 500.

I'm also not sure that a Value DVC would be mostly suites -- it seems like the most sold out category of DVC is the grand villas. I could see DVC adding more of these at a Value DVC, just like it is safe to assume they will be adding more family suites for regular resort guests (which can have up to 6 people). This is the market that WDW seems to be losing to the off-site resorts. IMHO, the target market for this would be young families who would otherwise be renting 2 rooms or have to stay off-site.

 

[Dean]

I don't think it would be safe to generalize about guests who stay in Value resorts. Pop has 2700 rooms and each of the AS resorts has about 1800, I think. That accounts for over 8000 rooms, so tens of thousands of guests per year.

And there are how many DVC rooms at each current DVC resort? I'm guessing no more than 500.

I'm also not sure that a Value DVC would be mostly suites -- it seems like the most sold out category of DVC is the grand villas. I could see DVC adding more of these at a Value DVC, just like it is safe to assume they will be adding more family suites for regular resort guests (which can have up to 6 people). This is the market that WDW seems to be losing to the off-site resorts. IMHO, the target market for this would be young families who would otherwise be renting 2 rooms or have to stay off-site.

Actually you must generalize to go forward with a discussion on this topic. That's not to say what each and every guest will do or how they will act but in this case, will enough be interested to make a profit, justify the new direction, justify the competition with the existing DVC, etc. Off site will be cheaper regardless, same for DVC. There is a larger pool of guests that stay off site than on property and many of them prefer to do so independent of the price. I can generally stay off property for about $300 a week in a 2 BR usually in resorts that in many ways are the equal or better than the DVC resorts. I can also generally get a 1 or 2 BR DVC for around $400-600 for a week through exchange. Which I do depends on what my goals and ideas are for the trip.

I have no doubt there would be interest in such a venture, the question is enough interest (payment ability, $$$, etc) from those that would not seriously consider DVC at a high enough price to justify the other risks, costs and aggravations of such an undertaking.

When I compared studios above, I did so for simplicity. I would expect larger units as well if this were to happen though I'm not sure 3 BR would be in order. They'd have to research it and decide if giving up the extra space would be worth it for such a system. A 1 BR takes out 2 studios/standard rooms and so on.

 

[tjkraz]

I have no doubt there would be interest in such a venture, the question is enough interest (payment ability, $$$, etc) from those that would not seriously consider DVC at a high enough price to justify the other risks, costs and aggravations of such an undertaking.

I agree.

I would also add that a "Value" DVC would pillage some sales from the current Deluxe-class. I'm sure there are DVC members who were quite content with the Value accommodations until they looked at the economics of DVC.

DVC is only hurting itself when it allows people to buy into a lesser timeshare for a fraction of the money they would have otherwise spent on the deluxe-class.

 

[DVCGeek]

I'm sure there are DVC members who were quite content with the Value accommodations until they looked at the economics of DVC.

DVC is only hurting itself when it allows people to buy into a lesser timeshare for a fraction of the money they would have otherwise spent on the deluxe-class.

Good point - For quite a while I was that class, at least to some extent. Although the deluxe level rooms will be nice!

 

[CarolMN]

Disney must have thousands of ways/suggestions to use its investment capital.

I'm positive that they calculate an ROI for every project and only those at the top of the list get serious consideration.

I just can't believe that a value DVC will ever get to the top of that list.

 

[Brian Noble]

I just can't believe that a value DVC will ever get to the top of that list.

Exactly. DVD can barely build "deluxe-class" resorts as fast as they sell. Why would they ever devote any of that time and energy to selling something at a lower price point?

 

[jodifla]

That seems snotty to me. I would imagine that many Value vacationeers would have the money, but choose to stay at the values due their commmando vacation habits.

I wasn't trying to be snotty...it's just that I think the numbers just don't add up. At a point where the price would be worth it to DVC, the cost wouldn't be worth it to people who don't care much about the accommodations, because they just aren't in them that much.