VGC has 1.136mil points. Currently the median pts/night is 25/50/68/143, by room category. If DVC had actually used 21/42/62/139 as their 'typical' pts/night instead, VGC would have had something like 90-100k fewer points, roughly an 8% reduction.
Speculation: considering how small it is and whatever they were forecasting for how long sales would take (trying to dovetail into Aulani sales beginning), I wouldn't be surprised if they realized fairly late in the process "we need to add more points" to make it last until Aulani and then deviated from the 21/42/62/139 plan, which had already been sent to printing for the Booklet.
Or maybe they just realized late they were under-pricing a premium product.
Then the recession magnified and VGC sold much slower than expected
Sorry for any confusion. We actually might be describing the same thing.
In that post I'm trying to characterize the points in the Booklet and determine if there's a mathematical process used involving a full Points Chart as input to reach the Booklet points. The idea being is that if there were one, maybe it could be reversed and we could get a fairly high confidence preview of the VDH Points Chart based on the Booklet points.
KAT4DISNEY described the Booklet points as a specific type of average, though with different wording.
There's different ways to calculate "average". The quick/dirty way to calculate the average number of points per night is to just average the numbers shown on the points chart. This is how I calculated "median", admittedly (but median instead of mean). This is the incorrect way to do it.
It's incorrect because different seasons have different number of days, and there's ~2.5x as many weekday nights as weekend nights. This can get particularly nasty with averages where the distribution is very uneven or there are outlier values that really skew the result.
A better way to calculate average is to count the number of weekday and weekend nights in each season, and multiply by the respective pts/night for that season. Do it for every season and this gets you total number of points in a year, which you can divide by 365 (or 366 next year) to get the 'most correct' average. It's just a properly weighted average. This is what KAT4DISNEY described very concisely (I think). The average numbers listed in the tables above are done using that methodology.
Another way to describe this method is "the average number of points per night you would spend if you were to book the same room for an entire year". I think this might be what you're saying, too.
Because the properly weighted average doesn't match what DVC lists in the Booklet (sometimes more than just rounding differences), it's unlikely that the Booklet actually lists the average points per night using this process for every resort.
I'm skeptical there is even a single mathematical process that describes all the Booklet's point values vs. 2023
point charts. It seems the Booklet might use original
points charts, before any reallocations over the years. Additionally, the Riviera listing is an oddball compared to other recent listings. Poly/CCV are really accurately represented in the Booklet, Riviera not so much.
Because there is likely no single mathematical process, I label them as 'reference' points. Where it describes a
typical pt/night, but not any specific night or any real mathematical representation of average pt/night.
Another way to think about it is that the numbers in the Booklet are some handwavey 'center point' of the Points Chart, and then the Points Chart spreads out from there. By establishing the center point in this Booklet they allow themselves maximum reallocation flexibility later.
In my post, I attribute the Riviera deviation from the Booklet due to late changes to the Points Chart, with the assumption that Booklet numbers go to printing before the Points Chart is published online, as is the case with VDH. Then I speculate on cause of the deviation.
(this is a wall of text, I'm sorry)
?! Interesting info and I have no idea how you can pull so much out of so little data to start with but amusing none the less.
