Value DVC,..

[edk35]

I think that is exactly what I was trying to say. That I like the POP location for DVC, but it would not be a "Value DVC" it would be a regular Deluxe condo style DVC like OKW and SSR, and that existing buildings, if structurally sound, could easily be re-purposed to fit the Deluxe requirements.

Okie dokie ....yeah another themed resort would be awesome. Another great choice for DVC peeps. I just wouldn't want to to see a "value DVC added to the list".

 

[DisFlan]

Would the "value" members be able to stay at other DVC resorts? (Which is pretty much the hallmark of DVC.) Would their "points" be the same as other "points"? Would someone who bought 200 cheap points be able to turn around and use them at BLT? I could see some major irritations if that happened. "Equitability" would be a problem unless the points were limited to the value DVC resort. Or possibly doubled for elsewhere.

And if the points required for weekend nights were low at the value resort, I could see a number of regular DVCers grabbing them (or buying small, cheap add-ons) in lieu of the the more point-costly weekend stays at the other resorts. Which would mean less weekend traffic at BCV, AKV etc. We could see the "minimum night" requirement invoked - including a weekend night.

I doubt that Disney wants to open this can of worms. Even if it could be made to work, it would likely end up generating less profit for DVC than selling "deluxe" points. They'd need nearly twice as many value buyers to generate the same $$.

DisFlan

 

[spiceycat]

yea but you can put more units in a value DVC resort than a deluxe one.

can easily see 3,000 units in the Pop - they would definitely be smaller - but the resort can go higher. especially with those fancy hotels that is being put in Bonnett Creek - and besides a value DVC would definitely attract those Wyndham buyers....

first against a value DVC resort - but hey if anyone can get it to work DVC can.

would think it would be like Horizons -- they got less time to trade into the regular Marriott timeshares. so instead for 11/7, there would be 11/4 or even 11/3. that gives them a month before the remaining units goes to CRO.

 

[BostonDisneyKid]

Would the "value" members be able to stay at other DVC resorts? (Which is pretty much the hallmark of DVC.) Would their "points" be the same as other "points"? Would someone who bought 200 cheap points be able to turn around and use them at BLT? I could see some major irritations if that happened. "Equitability" would be a problem unless the points were limited to the value DVC resort. Or possibly doubled for elsewhere.

That is a valid point but I think the opposite issue would/could be worse...

Take that example given by logan115 to a higher level... I have 370 points and at 5 pts a day that would be 74 nights in a studio which isnt a lot of points in comparison to many owners who have 1000, 1500, 2000+ points. Imagine the possabilities of those owners individually (200, 300, 400 studio nights a year). Now imagine if the 1000 point club got together, what the possabilties could be... They could essentially take over the resort, if they chose to...

 

[redrosesix]

That is a valid point but I think the opposite issue would/could be worse...

Take that example given by logan115 to a higher level... I have 370 points and at 5 pts a day that would be 74 nights in a studio which isnt a lot of points in comparison to many owners who have 1000, 1500, 2000+ points. Imagine the possabilities of those owners individually (200, 300, 400 studio nights a year). Now imagine if the 1000 point club got together, what the possabilties could be... They could essentially take over the resort, if they chose to...

I think this is probably closer to what would happen. They're not going to create a separate points system, but the value DVC would require less points per night. But if this scenario is at all possible, then it shows that there is probably a market for a value DVC, or at least for more studios.

As far as the minimum buy-in, the 160 points is already too much for many people. I don't think we have any choice but to buy resale because we probably won't need more than 110 points.

 

[spiceycat]

That is a valid point but I think the opposite issue would/could be worse...

Take that example given by logan115 to a higher level... I have 370 points and at 5 pts a day that would be 74 nights in a studio which isnt a lot of points in comparison to many owners who have 1000, 1500, 2000+ points. Imagine the possabilities of those owners individually (200, 300, 400 studio nights a year). Now imagine if the 1000 point club got together, what the possabilties could be... They could essentially take over the resort, if they chose to...

not because the way I was saying it would be 11/3 months for them to trade into the other DVC - well guess what that works both ways - you could not trade out until 3 months before you left either.

so really doubt enough of the resort would be left for anyone to take it over.

 

[disneychic]

I'd NEVER utilize this. I can honestly say that I hope this is one of those ideas that slips through the cracks.

 

[DisFlan]

I'd NEVER utilize this. I can honestly say that I hope this is one of those ideas that slips through the cracks.

A lot of people probably feel as you do. (I'm don't think I'd enjoy it, either.) But there are also a lot of members who now stay at Pop or All Stars for a night or two prior to or during their DVC stay to stretch their points or work more trips in per year. Not to mention prospective buyers who balk at the current price tag of ownership. I'd bet there'd be a considerable interest in both using and buying a value DVC. I'm not sure I'd ever like to see it happen - or that Disney is interested in doing it, but I don't doubt its potential popularity.

DisFlan

 

[ADP]

I think at some point we will see classes of DVC like a value class. Let's face it if we have a value class we and others maybe able to take an extra trip or two per year to WDW. I thnk Disney would love it's most loyal fans visiting WDW once or twice more per year.

 

[DVCGeek]

I don't see how DVC could add what you described and yet have a buy in of less than 160 points at a "value" price that would entice these type vacationers.

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...

 

[Chuck S]

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...

I think that would pretty much be a disaster for the DVC brand in the marketplace as a whole. They would have little, if any, trading power through RCI/II, and really, why should they even have the same trade power within the DVC system. It would almost need to be a completely stand alone, single destination membership. And resale value would be terrible compared to other DVC resorts, I can't imagine selling it for the same price per point. But it would cost almost the same to build, so the ROI wouldn't be there for DVD. And maintenance fees would be about the same as other resorts per point, so another strike against it as far as resale value.

I like the POP location, but I still think it needs to be a condo style deluxe resort, similar to OKW and SSR.

 

[Dean]

Marriott tried this approach and failed. IMO they had a good idea they just got greedy. I feel this plan could be workable assuming some time protection for DVC members of say an extra month or two where the value DVC members couldn't reserve. I doubt Disney will do it since I doubt there's enough return in it for them and I don't share the belief that some seem to have the Disney owes it to provide a more affordable option.

 

[WALTSAGOD]

BUT...the folks who stay in the budget places (think Motel 6) aren't the kind who are going to spend the money annually for a WDW trip. They aren't going to be able to afford the rest of the trip.

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

 

[WALTSAGOD]

Plus...I think the VALUE STAYERS are not people interested in DVC as a 1,2, 3 bedroom accomodation experience.

I agree, but I think the popularity of a Value DVC would be in offering the same small, economical rooms, with a cheap buy in. In reality, pre paying their Value vacations similar to DVC.

 

[redrosesix]

I'm not sure I understand why so many people have something against Value guests booking DVC units -- it's not as if they'll need any less points to do so. The price per point is going to be the same regardless of their home resort, so wouldn't their points be worth just as much?

I guess I could ask the same question about some of the older DVC resorts -- their price per point is much lower than some others when you look at the resales.

 

[Chuck S]

I'm not sure I understand why so many people have something against Value guests booking DVC units -- it's not as if they'll need any less points to do so. The price per point is going to be the same regardless of their home resort, so wouldn't their points be worth just as much?

I guess I could ask the same question about some of the older DVC resorts -- their price per point is much lower than some others when you look at the resales.

For starters, it would undercut resale prices even farther, if there is a larger number of smaller contracts available via resale. It can make bookings for everyone even more difficult at the 7 month window, the larger the number of members wanting to travel during peak times with a set number of units makes normally busy booking periods even worse, especially if they want something other than a studio, if as some have suggested, the resort be studio heavy. The initial building cost is the pretty much the same, they can't make studios too much smaller and still comfortably sleep 4, so by making it less points per night, Disney would be making less initial profit. If they make the studios too small, or omit the kitchenette, basically making them a plain hotel room, their resort really has no appeal to most other members, it would just about have to be under 10 points a night for weekends to be comparable to the cost of a value resort room if you figure $10 per point.

 

[Dean]

I'm not sure I understand why so many people have something against Value guests booking DVC units -- it's not as if they'll need any less points to do so. The price per point is going to be the same regardless of their home resort, so wouldn't their points be worth just as much?

I guess I could ask the same question about some of the older DVC resorts -- their price per point is much lower than some others when you look at the resales.

First, you're making assumptions that are not necessarily true. We don't know if the points structure or price would be in line with the current DVC. It is valid to ask the question about any resort added to the system. SSR is a good example of a resort that added a lot of points to the system more than it added demand. But even then it's relative to other resorts in the system and the true difference between say SSR and maybe BCV is relatively small. That would not be true for value resorts where the only draw for current DVC members would be cost in almost all cases. Thus you drag a lot of extra points in the mix with essentially no demand from other DVC owners. This has a major impact if they are simply included in the system with open access at 7 months, far less if you give other DVC owners a 1-2 month priority for non home resorts. That's why I think it's only workable if there is a delay in access between the two systems.

Think of the program where you swap houses for a week or two. If one person got a 4 BR ocean front house on HH and the other got a mobile home in a field, it is not a fair trade even if you adjust in some way. If timeshare were cars, DVC would be an acura and the values a Kia. Both have their place but little cross over.

 

[Brian Noble]

Marriott tried this approach and failed.

Not only that---they recently announced that they're renaming the two "Horizons" resorts, and will be upgrading the furnishings to "regular" Marriott standards on the next refurb.

What makes you think that Value vacationeers don't go to WDW annually.

I don't think this is the question. Rather: what makes you think TWDC wants to lock in long-term guests at Value resort prices?

 

[edk35]

I agree, but I think the popularity of a Value DVC would be in offering the same small, economical rooms, with a cheap buy in. In reality, pre paying their Value vacations similar to DVC.

As long as those buying into the value DVC could only stay there at their values. I don't see them buying in at a low point price but yet being able to book the regular dvc resorts. If that was the case...people would buy value dvc points in large mass quantities so they could stay at the better resorts at the 7th month window. This is no win situation ............my opinion. There is NO way that DVC could offer up points for a value home resort less than what the current prices are ......if they want the value buyers to be able to stay at the other resorts then they would have to pay somewhere in the same ballpark as the latest new resorts. If they say we are selling the new "POP Value DVC at 50 bucks a point" do you think it is fair for them to be able to stay at the other resorts on those points? I don't. If the current market is 100-112 a point for AKV or BLT.....then they offer some cheap price per point for a DVC value resort.....some folks are going to be PEEVED.


i just don't think DVC will go in that direction. Look at what they have built thus far, AKV, BLT, the California resort and the new Hawaii one. NOPE can't see the Value DVC happening.

 

[Dean]

Not only that---they recently announced that they're renaming the two "Horizons" resorts, and will be upgrading the furnishings to "regular" Marriott standards on the next refurb.

They are changing the names and rebranding them as MVCI resorts. Orlando will be Marriott's Harbour Lake, not sure yet what the Branson resort will be. From a functional standpoint they became MVCI resorts when the exchange priority was combined to 24 days same for all Marriott resorts. This happened maybe in 2002 or 2003.