WDW resort going forward

[jon18uk]

Disney will create as much DVC as possible as long as it sells. There are rumors as well that DVC at the Carribean Beach would be like a moderate level DVC different than the deluxe.

Yet Saratoga Springs and Old Key West feel like moderates at the moment anyways...

 

[lockedoutlogic]

In response to the issue brought up several posts ago...
Typically...DVC is purchased by those that won't miss the money...and have more income than is required for basic needs.

It's not "cheap"...nor ever has been. It's a good deal - at least used to be - but never cheap. Many finance/pay it over time...but it's not burdensome.

That is buy design... They don't want people who scrape by buying vacation club. There is no value in that for Disney. They want your wallet each trip way more than the point fee in 1998 and your dues. That's the "business" angle.

But during the real estate bubble... I strongly suspect but can't prove...they had many buyers stretch the band too far and do silly things like charge the contract to visa and do it under home equities or then roll it into refis...

And the evidence is that Disney rolled with it and overbuilt two developments that have and will cause a strain on inventory demand for years to come...

You know them as "animal kingdom lodge" and most especially "Saratoga springs"

Without silly credit and Disney being drunk off the nectar of it...would they in their right minds put a thousand non-descript modular looking units across from cirque du soleil?

Just take a minute and ask yourself that...there's only one answer.

 

[rteetz]

Yet Saratoga Springs and Old Key West feel like moderates at the moment anyways...

I haven't stayed at either so I couldn't tell what I think but both resorts are full DVC resorts so they are different then the Grand, poly, beach, etc who have DVC additions. Old Key west is The DVC resort oldest of them all and really hasn't seen much of a change up since.

 

[tjkraz]

In response to the issue brought up several posts ago...
Typically...DVC is purchased by those that won't miss the money...and have more income than is required for basic needs.

Disney has previously reported that upward of 75% of direct buyers finance the purchase through them. (And it's reasonable to conclude that even more secure their own outside financing.)

Rather than saying most won't miss the money, it might be more accurate to say that they never had it in the first place.

You could argue that every person who visits Walt Disney World has "more income than is required for basic needs." Given the ease of financing and the manner in which DVC markets their product, I think it's a mistake to characterize most owners as being the sort who have no regard for their room charge balance at the end of a stay.

 

[tjkraz]

Too many things you are assuming in your scenario:

Occupancy rate - Deluxe is nowhere near close to 100% and is volatile

A similar expense line - not so

Occupied rooms has little bearing on resort budgets. The method used to allocate expenses between DVC and the cash hotel for combined properties uses actual guest counts as a measure.

In other words, at a resort like the BoardWalk or Beach Club with both hotel rooms and DVC villas, DVC pays a sum based upon the number of owners who enter the building in a given year. If there are 100K registered guests, of which 70K are staying on DVC points, the DVC dues will be charged-back for 70% of resort operating costs.

Occupancy is largely irrelevant--doesn't matter if those 30K hotel guests are staying in one room...10 rooms...100 rooms. The hotel is only funding 30% of pool operations, park transportation, front desk, etc.

There may be some variances in areas like housekeeping and maintenance. But occupancy will help drive those variances. If the hotel is only at 75% occupancy, they don't need to staff as many housekeepers or maintenance workers.

I'm sure there are other minor discrepancies between hotel and timeshare but they are not going to shift the numbers dramatically.

A 1 to 1 number of spend days (ex. a 3 night stay has a maximum of 2 but closer to 1.5 spend days in a trip, a 7 night has 6, closer to 5.5)

That a short stay has the same spend priorities and [patterns as a longer stay. From Disney's perspective, go ahead and cook your meals, we're doing alright with the restaurants - just clean up after yourself since we won't and spend those savings on $15 margaritas at La Cava, or go see La Nouba. Your spend pattern is different and doesn't show up in the avg per guest spend your insiders are pointing out.

Not really sure what you're getting at here. Average length of stay perhaps?

If so, what is your basis for assigning different LOS to either DVC or hotel guests? Personally I have no idea which group stays longer or what the averages may be. As a DVC owner, I've had multiple stays of just 1 and 2 nights.

Most importantly none of us can assume that our behavior is the same or our spend patterns are the norm. Yours is taking into account the die-hard DVC'rs you know or who are on these boards. It is not taking into account the large number who can tire of their DVC purchase very quickly and sell their points to guests (or brokers who do) who are now the best Disney customer Disney could want- very low cost but also potentially very high spend.

I'll go so far as to say that my own patterns are reasonably representative of my own circle of acquaintances. In 10+ years as an owner, I've met many fellow owners (both in person and online) and have quite a few personal friends who own points as well.

Some fit the pattern you describe. I do know people who have dinner at Cali Grill one night....Victoria & Alberts the next...spend considerable sums on exclusive Star Wars Weekends merchandise, and so on.

But in my own experiences, most tend to be more frugal. And it's not necessarily because they don't have the money--often times it's simply because they choose not to spend it...after 10 or 20 years of Mickey Mouse t-shirts and overpriced character meals, they just don't see the value anymore. Many owners don't go into the parks regularly because they don't find it worth the price of admission. Many have long since given up on purchasing any sort of Disney trinkets or dining in Disney restaurants.

Consider two important facts about DVC owners:

1) Every single one has a clear pattern of repeat visits to the Disney parks--some dating back nearly 25 years.
2) Every DVC owner is staying in a room which has either a full kitchen or a kitchenette.

Even without the spending data I've been provided (which I consider to be reliable), it seems ludicrous to suggest that people who have visited WDW 20...30...100 times or more will spend at the same level as someone making that once-in-a-lifetime visit. A round of mini-golf or a water mouse rental doesn't offset the cost of a 7-night Dining Plan purchase.

Despite the dramatic growth of DVC in recent years, there are still more Deluxe resort rooms at WDW than DVC. That's an awful lot of people in a similar tax bracket also gobbling up commemorative t-shirts, photo CDs, fireworks cruises and every other element necessary for the perfectly "magical" vacation.

 

[tjkraz]

But why convert Caribbean which is selling well as a moderate resort when there is Saratoga Springs which is already DVC?

I think the issue is that Saratoga Springs isn't appealing enough for a lot of people, it is the most moderate out of all the DVC resorts (I didn't think any of the facilities were better than Port Orleans). Maybe they would be better plussing SS rather than converting CBR which is already popular.

Disney earns most of its DVC revenues on the initial sale of the points. Saratoga Springs is fully sold-out. There's little financial justification for adding to that resort.

Popularity--perceived or otherwise--of SSR or any other resort is irrelevant. Disney successfully sold over 11 million points in that resort.

Also removing those rooms at CBR from the moderate section would just make CS, POR and POFQ busier. AoA doesn't offer the same facilities.

The limited numbers Disney officially reports point to average occupancy of 75-80% across all of WDW. That equates to thousands of rooms sitting vacant every night.

We can deduce that Art of Animation pulled some business from the Moderate properties...as does continued point sales.

Bottom line: As long as people keep buying DVC points, Disney will keep building resorts. They've gotten a lot of mileage from adding DVC to Deluxe resorts. If they can do the same at Caribbean Beach--along with reasonably-economical improvements to certain amenities--it will still cost far less than building an entirely new resort to sell as DVC.

From Disney's perspective, if this significantly improves occupancy at other moderates....great! There's little reason to maintain an inventory of 7000 Moderate guest rooms if over 1700 of them are sitting empty most nights.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Disney has previously reported that upward of 75% of direct buyers finance the purchase through them. (And it's reasonable to conclude that even more secure their own outside financing.)

Rather than saying most won't miss the money, it might be more accurate to say that they never had it in the first place.

You could argue that every person who visits Walt Disney World has "more income than is required for basic needs." Given the ease of financing and the manner in which DVC markets their product, I think it's a mistake to characterize most owners as being the sort who have no regard for their room charge balance at the end of a stay.

It's not that I characterize DVC as "lifestyles of the rich and famous"...

There is nothing wrong with credit and financing...it was created to allow the freedom of
Choice to the consumer and awarding the financial institution with fees for bankrolling that choice. It allows a modern economy to evolve and operate.

I'm just stating I'm not "looking down on it"

Most people don't have $20,000 sitting around with no other purpose but to be splurged one day at Saratoga...
Most often it would be tied up in investments or serving as savings or some type of operational backstop. Financing allows you to keep those things while paying a relatively painless monthly fee.

I get it...I wasn't making any kind of a judgement.

What I am saying... Is that I would be safe to assume that DVC owners are firmly - at a minimum - entrenched in the old "middle class" in terms of means. Because even a monthly Payment for future non-work related hotel rooms requires some bit of luxury to purchase. There are tons of ancillary costs associated that are a given. It's not for everyone.

Just getting there biannually, annually, or several times a year is a large
Throw away cost if you don't have means. Gas ain't cheap and the airlines are redinkulous now.

That's what I was conveying in response to what it takes to pay for it.
It's not necessarily for the "haves" (which I am not)...but definitely for the "have some of it" (which I definitely am)

 

[clsteve]

Occupied rooms has little bearing on resort budgets. The method used to allocate expenses between DVC and the cash hotel for combined properties uses actual guest counts as a measure.

In other words, at a resort like the BoardWalk or Beach Club with both hotel rooms and DVC villas, DVC pays a sum based upon the number of owners who enter the building in a given year. If there are 100K registered guests, of which 70K are staying on DVC points, the DVC dues will be charged-back for 70% of resort operating costs.

Occupancy is largely irrelevant--doesn't matter if those 30K hotel guests are staying in one room...10 rooms...100 rooms. The hotel is only funding 30% of pool operations, park transportation, front desk, etc.

There may be some variances in areas like housekeeping and maintenance. But occupancy will help drive those variances. If the hotel is only at 75% occupancy, they don't need to staff as many housekeepers or maintenance workers.

I'm sure there are other minor discrepancies between hotel and timeshare but they are not going to shift the numbers dramatically.



Not really sure what you're getting at here. Average length of stay perhaps?

If so, what is your basis for assigning different LOS to either DVC or hotel guests? Personally I have no idea which group stays longer or what the averages may be. As a DVC owner, I've had multiple stays of just 1 and 2 nights.



I'll go so far as to say that my own patterns are reasonably representative of my own circle of acquaintances. In 10+ years as an owner, I've met many fellow owners (both in person and online) and have quite a few personal friends who own points as well.

Some fit the pattern you describe. I do know people who have dinner at Cali Grill one night....Victoria & Alberts the next...spend considerable sums on exclusive Star Wars Weekends merchandise, and so on.

But in my own experiences, most tend to be more frugal. And it's not necessarily because they don't have the money--often times it's simply because they choose not to spend it...after 10 or 20 years of Mickey Mouse t-shirts and overpriced character meals, they just don't see the value anymore. Many owners don't go into the parks regularly because they don't find it worth the price of admission. Many have long since given up on purchasing any sort of Disney trinkets or dining in Disney restaurants.

Consider two important facts about DVC owners:

1) Every single one has a clear pattern of repeat visits to the Disney parks--some dating back nearly 25 years.
2) Every DVC owner is staying in a room which has either a full kitchen or a kitchenette.

Even without the spending data I've been provided (which I consider to be reliable), it seems ludicrous to suggest that people who have visited WDW 20...30...100 times or more will spend at the same level as someone making that once-in-a-lifetime visit. A round of mini-golf or a water mouse rental doesn't offset the cost of a 7-night Dining Plan purchase.

Despite the dramatic growth of DVC in recent years, there are still more Deluxe resort rooms at WDW than DVC. That's an awful lot of people in a similar tax bracket also gobbling up commemorative t-shirts, photo CDs, fireworks cruises and every other element necessary for the perfectly "magical" vacation.

I should have explained in more detail. So, let’s see if this clears it up a bit.

Occupancy has remained flat to slightly declining at 79%. That’s very misleading since it’s a Resort-wide number and doesn’t account for seasonality. Values and Mods bring it up. Deluxe brings it down. Deluxe is the main issue.

And occ rate is only important when comparing it to the real metrics that matter: Length of Stay (LOS), the Displacement Index (DI), and for a Resort Complex like Disney - Spend Days (what some call Time On-Site or TOS). These are what matter and they’re interrelated.

LOS directly correlates to expense – Check-in/out days are by far the most expensive, resource intensive, and lowest revenue generating. A short average LOS also decreases TOS, and most importantly increases the Displacement Index.

The Displacement Index measures the number of rooms lost due to occupancy and length of stay and the potential lost revenue. Simply put, think of it as the grid of open rooms caused by short stays. Short stays cause a high number of hard to fill single nights, mid week 2 and 3 night gaps split weekends and reduce the very lucrative multi room/multi night blocks for large groups. The shorter the stays, the harder to fill in the occupancy grid of rooms and the higher the DI. Hotel room nights are a perishable commodity – once it’s gone, you can’t get it back. The DI is crucial for the Resort Business and why there are overt minimum stay requirements and covert ones. For example, Disney (and all the others) will often refuse a 2 night stay and its revenue even if there are many open rooms in order to not turn 7 night open blocks into one 2 night stay with 2 open nights on one side and a 3 nights on the other.

I’ll give a (very) simple example of how this ties into what we’ve been discussing:

Consider a 7 day, one room occupancy grid with 2 separate 3 night stays – one checking in on Sunday and ending Wednesday morning the other checking in on Thursday and ending on Sunday morning Compare it to a single 7 night stay checking in on Sunday and ending the next Sunday morning. I’ll give a generous .5 TOS for each check in/out.

For the room:
the 7 night stay generates 7 room nights and 6 Spend Days (TOS = 6)
The 2, three night stays generate 6 room nights and 4 Spend Days (TOS = 4) and a +1 check in/out day (expense)

So, you not only lose the revenue of an empty room, you lose 2 spend days. Even if that weekly guest was an eat-every-meal-in-their-room, low-spend-in-the-Parks, DVC’r – they’re still going to spend something - say $100/day for a family of 4– even if that’s Mickey Bars in the Park and beers by the pool. This is beyond the lower expense line for DVC rooms.

So, beyond all of cash up front, predictable income, and lower expense line benefits caused by Deluxe-to-DVC conversion we’ve discussed, there are real, measurable benefits in occ rate, LOS, TOS, and (most importantly) the DI. Getting those rooms off the grid and occupied with a higher LOS is a big deal. DVC do have a higher LOS, so you can see the impact - beyond the expense side.

On a side note, Disney has a very unique, expensive and “one of a kind” issue in the Resort Industry: the intra-Resort split stay – where a family might do 4 nights in a Value and 2, 3 or 4 nights in a Deluxe to get in that monorail closeness or EPCOT closeness, but stay in budget. Let’s just say, they’re not big fans and you can see the issues it causes.

 

[usd2bmd]

I understand Disney's love of DVC. They make money. I get that. But I don't necessarily understand (if it is true) that the business model no longer includes $150 rooms.

That seems to me to be an extremely large percentage of the visiting public that they are willing to just say good bye to.

Especially when you consider the guy down the street sees it, has the money and is currently investing it in the parks and hotels with availability at that price point.

It might not happen as a mass exodus but there will be a slow and steady stream of visitors changing their vacation ways.

We used to visit every year. we stopped to do other things, we are coming back next summer but the price for the accommodations we normally get was to much for my wallet. We are back to a value resort for our visit and I wonder how many others are as well.

 

[Josh Hendy]

...

Without silly credit and Disney being drunk off the nectar of it...would they in their right minds put a thousand non-descript modular looking units across from cirque du soleil?

...

Or build an absolutely plain, generic, uninspired, un-themed, boring (some would say ugly) condo tower RIGHT beside (looming over) their most distinctively designed, unique and famous hotel, and right in between that hotel and in full view of their most famous, signature theme park in the middle of the world's largest and most popular (and until then best designed) holiday resort?

Only being drunk on making a big splash into a lake of financial loot (like Scrooge McDuck on his worst day) would explain a corporation or a resort/theme park unit losing its mind like that. I'm sure the more sane and level-headed brains at Disney must have been thinking to themselves, "Yeah go ahead and build this piece of junk and grab the money, but whenever the timeshare/condo bubble is over it's no problem at all to implode that puppy."

Disney has previously reported that upward of 75% of direct buyers finance the purchase through them. (And it's reasonable to conclude that even more secure their own outside financing.)

Reminds me of something I witnessed near the end of the 2000-era tech bubble. A product manager at this NYSE-traded corporation was explaining over a beer how everything was going great - the unrealistic-looking projected sales figures weren't unrealistic at all because, get this, we're going to lend money to our customers to buy our stuff!

The guy drained his beer and toddled off, and his colleagues sat there in absolute silence for a minute, until one of them muttered, "OK ... now we're efffed!"

Possibly Disney has sold off the risk of eventual massive defaults in the form of a derivative contract of some kind, or else already built into the price or the interest rates of the loans a generous allowance for defaults. Or they isolated the credit risk in some kind of subsidiary corporation from which they are safe from contagion.

 

[tjkraz]

DVC do have a higher LOS...

What is your source for average LOS for both DVC and hotel?

 

[clsteve]

What is your source for average LOS for both DVC and hotel?

For the Industry as a whole - there's open source on average comparisons for both and some that's correlated with others that are mixed property or conversions. It'll take some digging if you're going the Google route. You can also look at avg. LOS Timeshare by most states YTY as compared to Hotel. Also, if you're a member or know someone who is of AHLA (American Hotel and Lodging Assoc.), or it's state-based constituents, there's data/reports and info into the calc methodologies and such - even some in their open source.

All I'll say about anything else is Disney isn't bucking any industry trends in this area. So, just take a look at some of the stuff above - it can be pretty interesting and enlightening and you can get as mathematically complex with it as you're so inclined. I think it would surprise some just how mathematically complex and formulaic that side of the house really is....

 

[tjkraz]

For the Industry as a whole - there's open source on average comparisons for both and some that's correlated with others that are mixed property or conversions. It'll take some digging if you're going the Google route.

I had assumed you already did the legwork since this is your argument...and have gone to such pains to dismiss any of my contributions which you feel were not adequately supported. I really have no desire to mine Google to either prove or disprove your theories. Especially since it gets us no closer to demonstrating whether or not DVC member visits to Splitsville bridge the spending gap between in-room cooking and meal plan buyers.

It is worth noting that many timeshares have mandatory weeklong stays while others have some lesser stated minimum (3 days, etc.) DVC has neither.

 

[beer dave]

What is your source for average LOS for both DVC and hotel?

My thoughts also. my average is probably 3.5 to 4.

 

[clsteve]

I had assumed you already did the legwork since this is your argument...and have gone to such pains to dismiss any of my contributions which you feel were not adequately supported. I really have no desire to mine Google to either prove or disprove your theories. Especially since it gets us no closer to demonstrating whether or not DVC member visits to Splitsville bridge the spending gap between in-room cooking and meal plan buyers.

It is worth noting that many timeshares have mandatory weeklong stays while others have some lesser stated minimum (3 days, etc.) DVC has neither.

Whoa...!! Slow down Cowboy!

I truly apologize if you think I've been out of line. Mea Culpa!

And yes, I have done the legwork and maybe have a just little experience in this. I'm just not a "I know this, I've done this, and I know this or that person" kinda guy. Never have been, never will be. And I'm very careful that any specific thing I say, any research I put out there, has complete open source backing and in no way would be considered proprietary by anyone, not just Disney. What purpose would I have to just make this stuff up?

I think the other threads bear that out.

So, let's just step back a bit and take all take all of the analysis out of it. Then, what do we know:

There are occupancy issues with Deluxe

We know, or sources are confirming they're moving forward with a conversion plan for significant number of Deluxe rooms to DVC units

It's not official, but it looks like additional DVC builds are on the books or being seriously considered/re-considered - according to sources that are at least reputable enough for this group of posters to discuss at length

They've been successful with DVC Sales

They absolutely love the up-front cash and predictable income flow from DVC

Disney can be short-sighted and focused on the now revenue; but does it really make sense for them to do all of this investment, conversion, and change just for that? And then end up with a larger, cook all their meals in, AP buying, non Park spending, DVC demographic?

I think they're smarter and a little more forward thinking than that. Objectively, it has to bring them something else - fix something else, as well.

So, if none of what I brought to the discussion is relevant - what is your premise?

 

[lockedoutlogic]

What is your source for average LOS for both DVC and hotel?

Common sense...

The amount of rack rate customers that spend multiple trips/ weeks at wdw per year has to be very small and shrinking...

While the amount of DVC that
Does that would be substantial...

Right?

I don't look at it as a "per trip" number... But more like over a year.

You can go for 12 days and live it up... I can go 3 times annually for 5 days...

Who would Disney evaluate as potentially more lucrative?

No right answer...just thinking out loud for discussion.

 

[OnSpaceshipEarth]

Beach and Yacht Club will see more DVC. This would also be just a conversion of existing rooms into DVC. Apparently according to Jim Hill those two resorts have an occupancy problem.

Wow...I'm kind of shocked. Of all the resorts to have "occupancy problems" I would never have guessed the Beach Club. I was always under the impression that it was one of their most popular Deluxe Resorts.

 

[rteetz]

Wow...I'm kind of shocked. Of all the resorts to have "occupancy problems" I would never have guessed the Beach Club. I was always under the impression that it was one of their most popular Deluxe Resorts.

Thats what pretty much everyone has said so everyone is confused by what Jim Hill is saying. None of the deluxes are seeing a lot of full occupancy times throughout the year so that is why they are going to convert rooms to DVC. Doing that makes occupancy rates look better.

 

[beer dave]

Common sense...

The amount of rack rate customers that spend multiple trips/ weeks at wdw per year has to be very small and shrinking...

While the amount of DVC that
Does that would be substantial...

Right?

I don't look at it as a "per trip" number... But more like over a year.

You can go for 12 days and live it up... I can go 3 times annually for 5 days...

Who would Disney evaluate as potentially more lucrative?

No right answer...just thinking out loud for discussion.

It is a hard call. We are I guess moderate to low on the spending scale on our trips, but I have a friend up north who comes on DVC for a long week every 2 years and spends like there is no tomorrow.... I think we all have a hard time seeing beyond our own touring styles.

Here's a thought-- By adding all the DVC to the deluxes, aren't they basically reducing the deluxe category to the condo or time share category, which in turn allows for the already reduced , non 5 star service being offered? Since they are having trouble filling the resorts as deluxe, reduce them to DVC, giving the members the feeling of getting to stay at a deluxe level, while the only deluxe is the location and the room size.... Eventually the deluxes will all be DVC resorts with some cash rooms available for the people who want the location or the space.

The other thing to consider is all the people renting their points... someone wanting to stay at a deluxe has the option of paying Disney or paying a DVC owner... I'm surprised Disney hasn't stopped this yet.... It is in my contracts that commercial use of points is not allowed..... just a matter of time.IMO.

 

[tjkraz]

What does DVC bring to the table? It's simple: A guaranteed stream of repeat business which Disney doesn't have to work to earn. With one sale, they have a customer locked-in for FIFTY YEARS...either the initial buyer or whoever later acquires the contract.

Consider how Walt Disney World weathered the 2009/2010 recession (the 'Great Recession') compared to the fallout from 9/11. In that period 5-6 years ago, revenues and profits were down but nothing on a scale that compared with the terror attacks more than a decade ago.

I was at WDW in the fall of 2003...more than 2 years after those terror attacks...and WDW was still struggling. This was back in the period when POFQ was shuttered for "renovations", early entry had been discontinued and the Magic Kingdom was closing at 6:30pm. (We ate dinner at Tony's while watching the last of the park guests filter out.)

The 300% growth in DVC ownership over that period played no small role in WDW sustaining its attendance. 900 villas at Saratoga Springs...500 at Animal Kingdom...300 at Contemporary.

With a DVC sale, they get the up-front money...in many cases financing buyers at a generous 15% rate. And they know that they a room will be filled for decades to come with guests spending some amount of money on park tickets, food, souvenirs and recreation.

But the average daily spending of a DVC owner doesn't compare with the infrequent or once-in-a-lifetime WDW guest. Even if they aren't cooking dinner in their villa every night, they also aren't splurging on mediocre, overpriced meals at Chef Mickey's or Crystal Palace year-after-year. They aren't buying "2014" souvenirs

The owner may spend more total dollars over a calendar year or some other unit of measure. Over the last 5 years, I'm quite sure I have given Disney more money than friends & neighbors who are non-members. The difference being, over those 5 years we have spent approximately 35-40 nights at Disney villas while our associates make 1 or 2 weeklong trips.

I don't look at it as a "per trip" number... But more like over a year.

You can go for 12 days and live it up... I can go 3 times annually for 5 days...

Here I wholeheartedly agree. DVC owners DO spend more dollars over an extended period of time. They DO fill the parks regardless of price or economic conditions. They ARE a guaranteed stream of business which Disney no longer needs to earn.

But in terms of average daily spending, the infrequent cash hotel guests are more likely to spend indiscriminately.

lockedoutlogic: As a DVC owner, is your average daily spending anywhere close to what it was before you bought DVC (or what it would likely be if you were only visiting once every 5 years as a non-owner?)