What do DVC owners think of DVC renters?

[DisDaydreamer]

So what do you suggest as far as members having priority over non members staying... Have it so if you are making ressies for people other than your self, have the window at 6 months or something like that? Curious to hear your thoughts.

I purchased and own my points. How I use them is nobody's business as long as I am not making a living from it. Many people think the rental prices are too low now... just imagine what would happen in this scenario. The logistical complexities involved in policing this type of scenario would be near impossible or very expensive.

We recently made reservations for our DD and DSIL as our wedding present to them. So, in this scenario, I can't take advantage of my ownership and get them peak time and view. That is just not right.

I have never rented out or in, but as long as it is not for commercial purposes I don't care how an owner uses the points they own.

JMHO

 

[yitbos96bb]

Ah I gotcha now. Makes sense.

Boardwalk View is a booking category, not a request - so not those. But things like "top floor, Crest of the Wave" or "Village Green" - there are very few of those rooms. And since SSR doesn't have booking categories (that I know of) - yeah, any view request at SSR.



Your guests would be non-members, they wouldn't get member priority for requests. Members would still be able to book their points for their guests/renters 11 months out, but all the view requests would be lower priority than any member making a view request.

 

[yitbos96bb]

I don't see that as unreasonable. When I stay at BCV, I really don't care that much about the view and if I get Lake or MK view at BLT or Boardwalk View at BWV, then I am happy to have the room and am not too picky. I was fortunate to get a BWV with a BW view for F and W festival. My room wasn't in the heart of things we were down near the far end close to Atlantic Dance Hall and our balcony was solid wood so you couldn't see the BW while sitting. However, we had an awesome view to see much of illuminations and I got some great pics (once I figured out to not HOLD the new digital slr camera while having it at a higher aperture.. I just used the wall of the balcony) of the fireworks.

At SSR, I do care where I am at as I nearly always want to stay in Congress Park and want a DTD view. Since that is my home resort I can definitely see your point. I love the quick jaunt from there to DTD, just like I like the quick walks to the Studios and Epcot from BWV and BCV.

To clarify, I wasn't calling for the booking window to happen, just was proposing a hypothetical solution. I actually have no issues with the current booking windows... if I wanted anything to change, it would be to go back to the old way of reserving, where you called in every day or on your leaving date. I understand why they changed it, but I was usually able to get exactly what I wanted under the old method. No big deal, for selfish reasons I like the old way.

I agree with crisi, and would even go farther -

I'd like to see requests not considered at all unless the member is staying in the room AND is staying at a home resort using ONLY home resort points. Everyone else would just get "run of the house" assignments - i.e., where ever the room assigner can fit them in. There would need to be exceptions for those who need HA accommodations, of course.

I'm sure very few members, if any at all, will agree with me. I just think that those who pay the dues at a particular resort should get a few more perks when they stay there (than those who do not own there).

FWIW, I do not think someone who books at 7 months should have priority for either reservations or requests over a renter whose reservation was booked prior to the 7 month window. JMHO. YMMV and that's OK.

 

[yitbos96bb]

I purchased and own my points. How I use them is nobody's business as long as I am not making a living from it. Many people think the rental prices are too low now... just imagine what would happen in this scenario. The logistical complexities involved in policing this type of scenario would be near impossible or very expensive.

We recently made reservations for our DD and DSIL as our wedding present to them. So, in this scenario, I can't take advantage of my ownership and get them peak time and view. That is just not right.

I have never rented out or in, but as long as it is not for commercial purposes I don't care how an owner uses the points they own.

JMHO

My comment was purely hypothetical... and I misunderstood Crisi's comment otherwise I wouldn't have written it. I actually agree with you on the points and the windows. I'm fine with people working within the rules.

 

[Deb & Bill]

As a long time Dis Member, maybe you can answer this for me, I've always been puzzed with David's Point Rental Service, given the rules how is he able to make a business out of this, cleary not for personal use but for personal gain.

Add me to your list.

 

[DisDaydreamer]

Add me to your list.

Me too. With the current controls (on associates), I don't understand how this business stays in business.

 

[DisDaydreamer]

My comment was purely hypothetical... and I misunderstood Crisi's comment otherwise I wouldn't have written it. I actually agree with you on the points and the windows. I'm fine with people working within the rules.

I'm not taking issue with you... just the concept of... if the member is not staying the rules change. Just not a viable alternative. It would be like punishing all for the actions of some.

 

[Alexander]

We rented points several times before we became owners ourselves. Now we have rented out our points when we didn't use them or wanted cash to cruise, and we sometimes rent points from other owners when we need more. I think this is a wonderful type of transaction. Everyone wins. Besides the OP didn't buy the points for $10, they rented some of one year's allotment. It almost sounds like the DVC owner his wife talked to is mad because they didn't know about renting, and may feel like that would have been a better deal for them than buying.

 

[oct2014]

So long as you treat the place well, any problem I have is not with the renter. I just don't like the idea that I might not be able to get a reservation if someone has renters before the 7-month window such that the renter actually has a better shot than I do at getting the dates/unit that I want just because I own at a different resort. I also thought renting (as opposed to giving) points was against the rules. I need some extra rooms on a trip later this year, but I am paying for those rooms with cash because I am not comfortable with renting (purely because I am an owner). To each his own though, I don't expect others to turn down a good deal.

Caroline

There were a few responses, so I thought it was easier just to quote my original comments.

On the 7-month window, absolutely this could be the situation even without renters. I just found myself considering renting to get in before the window, and that is why it crossed my mind that this might mean someone patiently waiting for the window loses out (more of an emotional reaction as one pointed out).

On the transfer, I was not comfortable with any compensation whether for a rental or a transfer. I realize someone else mentioned that you can take compensation if you notify Disney. I did not have that impression, so I'm excited to hear that it is a possibility and probably will look into it.

Caroline

 

[DebbieB]

Me too. With the current controls (on associates), I don't understand how this business stays in business.

From what I understand, he does not become an associate. He just matches up the renters and members, the member makes the reservation, he does not.

I don't have a problem with renters. I bought my DVC membership, I pay my dues. If I make a reservation and go to a DVC resort or if someone pays me to go in my place, I don't see the difference to the rest of the members. My points are being used, not other members. I would not have a problem with the renters getting my benefits, again they are using the points I paid for, they are taking my place. By the way, I have never rented, I love going too much myself!

 

[MinnieGirl33]

What do you mean? Members can transfer to each other or they can rent a reservation from another member.

Right, I wish that rentals were ONLY allowed that way, that the only people able to hold a DVC points reservation are DVC Members (guests who are in the system). If a member found themself in a situation where they needed to rent out their points, I wish there was a more formal channel through DVC that would help them find other members to transfer or trade with. Think of it if there was a tab on the member site equivalent to Stub Hub or David's or Craiglist even.

Alot of it, for me, has to do with the "going rate" for points. I think the "bargains" that can be had by non-members can go a long way terms of lessening the perceived value of DVC (and therefore my investment).

Like I said, a renter is not doing anything against the rules. The OP asked what members thought so I responded. I'm sure more poeple than not are most likely of the "why should I care" mentality but that's not me.

 

[yitbos96bb]

Here's something to consider... Lowering the perceived value may be a good thing now that Disney is allowing 50 point BLT buy-ins. Frankly that concerns me more than renters in terms of competition for rooms at the 7 month level. I'd rather less people buy in if they feel its a lower value. Selfish yes, but just my 2 cents.

As for the going rates, it will never go up until most of the people on the trade board stop offering them for lower pricing. Of course then theirs ridiculous talk of price fixing and being illegal, which is untrue and those sort of things are irrelevant for that type of secondary market according to several lawyers I have talked to about the issue as well as a friend of mine who is a assistant US attorney.

It makes sense for them to go up. Disney is now renting points (up to 24) for members for $13 something a point plus tax... comes out to $15 even I believe.

Right, I wish that rentals were ONLY allowed that way, that the only people able to hold a DVC points reservation are DVC Members (guests who are in the system). If a member found themself in a situation where they needed to rent out their points, I wish there was a more formal channel through DVC that would help them find other members to transfer or trade with. Think of it if there was a tab on the member site equivalent to Stub Hub or David's or Craiglist even.

Alot of it, for me, has to do with the "going rate" for points. I think the "bargains" that can be had by non-members can go a long way terms of lessening the perceived value of DVC (and therefore my investment).

Like I said, a renter is not doing anything against the rules. The OP asked what members thought so I responded. I'm sure more poeple than not are most likely of the "why should I care" mentality but that's not me.

 

[yitbos96bb]

I'm not taking issue with you... just the concept of... if the member is not staying the rules change. Just not a viable alternative. It would be like punishing all for the actions of some.

No worries... just wanted to clarify is all. I didn't take it as an attack or anything.

 

[disneynutz]

From what I understand, he does not become an associate. He just matches up the renters and members, the member makes the reservation, he does not.

My understanding is that he use to be an Associate on the accounts that he represented. Disney found out about it and changed the Associate rules a few months ago to stop him and others from brokering rentals. Since then, he has become a reservation match maker.

Bill

 

[Brian Noble]

I thought I must have missed another thread at some point with DVC members complaining about RCI people exchanging IN to OUR resorts!

No, you didn't miss one.

You missed several.

The switch to RCI was decried by a very few as an opening of the floodgates of low-class cheap timeshare owners. Here is one of my favorites that came from one of those original threads---I won't name the DISer who posted it, but if you care enough, you can probably search and find it.

I hate to appear to be a snob but when it comes to my money then I am snobbish. I hate to pay big bucks to Disney only to have them offer me non-parity resorts in exchange. One of the things I don't like about RCI is the class of people I meet in their resorts. It takes a lot of money to own some of the II resorts, just as it does to own DVC, and I appreciate that. By allowing folks who only have a tiny fraction invested to use our resorts opens up a Pandora's Box of calamities.

Happily, such people are in the minority. But, they are out there.

 

[crisi]

I agree with crisi, and would even go farther -

I'd like to see requests not considered at all unless the member is staying in the room AND is staying at a home resort using ONLY home resort points. Everyone else would just get "run of the house" assignments - i.e., where ever the room assigner can fit them in. There would need to be exceptions for those who need HA accommodations, of course.

I'm sure very few members, if any at all, will agree with me. I just think that those who pay the dues at a particular resort should get a few more perks when they stay there (than those who do not own there).

FWIW, I do not think someone who books at 7 months should have priority for either reservations or requests over a renter whose reservation was booked prior to the 7 month window. JMHO. YMMV and that's OK.

I'd throw in tiering - if it were possible without too much additional cost - home resort owners would get "first dibs" on requests. Members staying not at home would get second dibs. Guests, renters, RCI traders, cash guests, etc. who don't have a member staying with them would get what is left. I do think members of the system should get request (not reservation, but request) priority over non-members, even if they aren't staying at home. Obviously, rooms requested as HA would be handled FIRST.

But if that isn't possible a "requests are only added if you are a home resort owner staying in the room" would be fine with me.

I'd also, and this is a business thing as a Disney shareholder, not an "I hate renters as a DVC member" thing - not allow the dining plan to be booked unless a member is staying on the reservation and shows their blue card. The availability of the dining plan sells a lot of on site stays. Disney doesn't see the hotel revenue from those on site stays from renters - and I suspect the Dining Plan of being a loss leader - or at least less profitable than when people pay OOP for their meals. Its more of a competitive business decision that Disney has control over - that I'm not sure why they haven't done.

 

[Brian Noble]

I suspect the Dining Plan of being a loss leader - or at least less profitable than when people pay OOP for their meals

I'm not sure about this. I think, for *most* families, the DDP is an upsell disguised as a discount program. Most people, left to their own devices, probably do not eat one TS meal in a Disney restaurant per day, for example.

It also contributes to the "Destination Disney" model of ensuring that every minute and penny of a guest's vacation time/money is spent with Mickey, rather than an offsite provider.

That Disney convinces everyone that it is such a screamingly good deal is a credit to the Mouse's marketing might.

 

[crisi]

I'm not sure about this. I think, for *most* families, the DDP is an upsell disguised as a discount program. Most people, left to their own devices, probably do not eat one TS meal in a Disney restaurant per day, for example.

It also contributes to the "Destination Disney" model of ensuring that every minute and penny of a guest's vacation time/money is spent with Mickey, rather than an offsite provider.

That Disney convinces everyone that it is such a screamingly good deal is a credit to the Mouse's marketing might.

Even if it isn't a loss leader, its still not a good deal for Disney to sell it to DVC renters since they don't have the margin on hotel and aren't tying it to a multi day ticket.

Disney's restaurants have a capacity bottleneck. But they had the capacity bottleneck by and large before the dining plan.

 

[Brian Noble]

True of the popular places. Not true of the middle-tier. And, some of the lesser-demanded places are still easy to get into same-day, even with the dining plan.

The beauty of the dining plan is that the guests have already paid for it, so they have to eat somewhere---and they'll help fill up those less-demanded places. A cash guest might just say "eh, let's just grab something quick" when they find that Le Cellier is fully booked.

Edited: I'm starting from the assumption that Disney is actually pretty savvy from a business perspective. They're not giving anything to DVC guests to be nice---there is a reason for allowing it that ultimately is benefitting Disney.

 

[Jen_in_NH]

Couldn't agree with this more. Went last March 14-19 on a friends points they couldn't use. Contacted my DVC rep on March 21st to buy our own! If it weren't for the availablity of renting out points I would never have been able to convice DH that DVC is for us!

That's exactly what we did. DH saw how much we paid to rent points, and figured if we bought our own, and rented once or twice, it bought a good dent into the payment, making it something he was more willing to do. By the end of our trip, we were DVC owners.