What does DVC look like in 2042?

[JETSDAD]

If 2042 contracts at BWV expire and Disney attempts to refresh/rebrand/rebuild/resell that resort to a new generation, could white card owners at other resorts subject to the 2019 restrictions loose access to booking the "new" BWV? Could they bring back the creepy clown, change the name to The Oldschool Boardwalk and claim it is no longer one of the original 14 resorts?

If they resell it then it would be a new resort and not one of the original 14. I think this is the plan for the resale restrictions to eventually make it so that all resale will only have access to the home resort. Of course this is still many years away and things could change in the meantime.

 

[_auroraborealis_]

Disney build a low-orbital capsule hotel DVC and operate a shuttle to and from the site. It costs a zillion dollars and sells out in 3 hours.

 

[Sandisw]

If 2042 contracts at BWV expire and Disney attempts to refresh/rebrand/rebuild/resell that resort to a new generation, could white card owners at other resorts subject to the 2019 restrictions loose access to booking the "new" BWV? Could they bring back the creepy clown, change the name to The Oldschool Boardwalk and claim it is no longer one of the original 14 resorts?

Yup! It would be considered a new resort, and thus currently not bookable with post January 2019 points.

I think that is why the resale restrictions for RIV in the long term will not be a huge issue as some of us feel that this is the new direction of DVC.

Once the ground lease ends, the DVC resort is no more. That is why I can’t see any resorts being given one with the possible exception of BRV so it matches CCV in terms of expiration.

 

[Shamus]

This is just my guess, and I base it on the fact that I don't see many current owners wanting to necessarily commit to another full 50 years ....
.
7-10 years prior to expiration Disney will survey current owners of the expiring resorts to determine their desire to remain DVC members.
This will include evaluating interest in different scenarios such as a 25 or 30 year "Extensions" vs. a 50 year Renewal.
Think of "Extension" as just a shorter length new lease and whichever way DVC chooses, it would be deeded as a separate new phase to avoid problems with those who chose not to continue ownership.

For rollover simplicity, I would not expect there to be any changes to points charts, especially if they go the extension route.
However all the quirky new rules and restrictions that we see for the newer resorts would be added to these new contracts.
It is even possible that the two phases would have an overlap use agreement which could help alleviate some of the end of lease point jam up. Complete room renovations could be completed during the early years utilizing the surplus of inventory from those that ended their membership.

As for pricing, I would expect an "25 year Extension" to cost 65-75% of the "New Construction" rate while a 50 year renewal for existing owners would be more in the 85-90% range.

Of course Disney's surveys may show that it would be more profitable for them to close down the resorts and not keep current members locked in. While I would find that surprising, it is a possibility.

JMHO

 

[hhisc16]

This is just my guess, and I base it on the fact that I don't see many current owners wanting to necessarily commit to another full 50 years ....
.
7-10 years prior to expiration Disney will survey current owners of the expiring resorts to determine their desire to remain DVC members.
This will include evaluating interest in different scenarios such as a 25 or 30 year "Extensions" vs. a 50 year Renewal.
Think of "Extension" as just a shorter length new lease and whichever way DVC chooses, it would be deeded as a separate new phase to avoid problems with those who chose not to continue ownership.

For rollover simplicity, I would not expect there to be any changes to points charts, especially if they go the extension route.
However all the quirky new rules and restrictions that we see for the newer resorts would be added to these new contracts.
It is even possible that the two phases would have an overlap use agreement which could help alleviate some of the end of lease point jam up. Complete room renovations could be completed during the early years utilizing the surplus of inventory from those that ended their membership.

As for pricing, I would expect an "25 year Extension" to cost 65-75% of the "New Construction" rate while a 50 year renewal for existing owners would be more in the 85-90% range.

Of course Disney's surveys may show that it would be more profitable for them to close down the resorts and not keep current members locked in. While I would find that surprising, it is a possibility.

JMHO

Maybe at the 10 year mark before 2042, Disney will survey these members for which option they would pursue:
A) Zero extension
B) 10 years
C) 15 years
D) 20 years

Since I would be interested in extending my 2042 at HHI, I am curious to see which route Disney chooses.

 

[CarolynFH]

For rollover simplicity, I would not expect there to be any changes to points charts, especially if they go the extension route.

This is actually one of the reasons I believe they will not offer any extension at all. The points charts for the 2042 resorts are so low compared to the newer resorts that I'm sure Disney will seize the opportunity to sell a "new" BWV, etc., with a new points chart that's much higher than the current one (not to mention a much higher cost per point), so that enough points for a week in a studio, for instance, cost many more $$ to buy than than they do now. And they could also take that opportunity to increase the cost of Boardwalk view so that it's greater than P/G view.

 

[DougEMG]

I don't think DVC will offer any extension to the 2042 resorts for 2 reasons

1. They will want to increase the point charts, particularly at BWV and BCV
2. They will want to include the same resale restrictions at those resorts as RIV has

I don't think they would be able to do either of these with a simple extension like they did at OKW.

I think the best you could hope for is a pre-construction/renovation discount on purchasing the resort.

 

[Shamus]

This is actually one of the reasons I believe they will not offer any extension at all. The points charts for the 2042 resorts are so low compared to the newer resorts that I'm sure Disney will seize the opportunity to sell a "new" BWV, etc., with a new points chart that's much higher than the current one (not to mention a much higher cost per point), so that enough points for a week in a studio, for instance, cost many more $$ to buy than than they do now. And they could also take that opportunity to increase the cost of Boardwalk view so that it's greater than P/G view.

Seeing the Cooper Creek point charts being nearly identical to the existing 2042 WDW resorts makes me believe otherwise.
While DVD may like the idea of demand for resorts/room types be equal, I don't think it is important enough for them to reset the charts and potentially lose existing members. DVD can make it's money simply on a cost per point basis.

 

[_auroraborealis_]

Seeing the Cooper Creek point charts being nearly identical to the existing 2042 WDW resorts makes me believe otherwise.
While DVD may like the idea of demand for resorts/room types be equal, I don't think it is important enough for them to reset the charts and potentially lose existing members. DVD can make it's money simply on a cost per point basis.

They were forced into this by VWL. There was no 50 year argument they could make for making CCV a lot more points per night costly than VWL next door. Especially as CCV sleeps fewer persons per unit at studio through 2BR.

 

[CarolynFH]

Seeing the Cooper Creek point charts being nearly identical to the existing 2042 WDW resorts makes me believe otherwise.
While DVD may like the idea of demand for resorts/room types be equal, I don't think it is important enough for them to reset the charts and potentially lose existing members. DVD can make it's money simply on a cost per point basis.

i was typing my response when @_auroraborealis_ posted exactly the same thing. Just look at the Riviera points charts!

 

[Shamus]

They were forced into this by VWL. There was no 50 year argument they could make for making CCV a lot more points per night costly than VWL next door. Especially as CCV sleeps fewer persons per unit at studio through 2BR.

Yes - I understand that the BRV charts is why they did this, but the fact is they weren't FORCED to.
The chose to do so for good optics - MARKETING!

My thought process is based on the premise that they will offer new leases for the expiring resorts but for significantly shorter time periods.
So....In 2042 would it make sense to reintroduce BRV with a higher Point Chart then CCV? No - The BRV charts will remain the same.
Would a BWV owner be happy if they are told they need to purchase a higher number of points for the same room they've gotten for 45 years while the owners at the other expiring resorts don't need to do so?? Of course not!

Customer acquisition and retention costs (MARKETING) are extremely high for the mouse. Moonlight Magic, Member Lounge, etc. I just don't think minor tweaks to the points charts are worth their risk of losing customers they've already acquired.

Again - I could be all wrong - It's just my opinion.

 

[kanerf]

I will be buying points at DVC Space which I expect to be up and running by then. I mean WDW is practically on the Space Coast so it would be just like the cruises that they have now.

 

[4luv2cdisney]

I don't think DVC wants to be in the position with a bunch of resorts expiring at the same time again. I don't know what they'll do, but I think the end dates for any that they "bring back" will be staggered somehow.

I think BWV and BCV will have points charts higher than RIV and an outrageous per point cost and I think they will have no problem selling them out (unless Florida is under water by then). RIV will not be the shiny new toy and it will have "only" 28 years left. I imagine I will be going broke re-buying BWV for my kids / grandkids. lol

With SSR, OKW and AKV having 12- 15 years remaining the market will be FLOODED with those resale contracts. People will want to dump them while they still have some value, but with soooo many points on the market, the value won't be very high. Might be a good time for me to buy to live out the rest of my life with a nice cheap contract with a lot of points for traveling just the 2 of us. Maybe I won't want to walk to parks anymore, because I'll be too dang old!

In summary, in 2042 (if Florida isn't under water), I will probably be blowing my retirement $$ on DVC.

 

[Cabius]

I don't think DVC wants to be in the position with a bunch of resorts expiring at the same time again. I don't know what they'll do, but I think the end dates for any that they "bring back" will be staggered somehow.

They surely would issue the "new" resorts for re-sale at staggered intervals, so that they were always selling one primary resort and closing out another, with a third in the pipeline. Perfect scenario is for them to have ~25 resorts that they cycle through every ~2 years until the heat death of the universe.

But I don't think short-term extensions would make sense; they would simply leave some resorts vacant, or rent them out as a cash resort (I assume they can do that once the lease expires?) until they are ready to launch a new sales campaign.

 

[CarolynFH]

rent them out as a cash resort (I assume they can do that once the lease expires?)

They certainly can do that - the lease is to DVC, so when it expires the hotels revert to Disney Parks & Resorts ownership and can easily be rented for cash until Disney makes some sort of change. I doubt that they'd leave them totally vacant unless one hotel at a time (or one section of one hotel at a time) was closed for renovations to bring it up to hotel/timeshare standards as they are at that time. Or of course one or more could be torn down and become the site of something we haven't even thought of - lots of things will change over the next 20 years.

And of course one of the biggest assumptions we're all making here is that WDW is still owned by Disney and is still a popular tourist destination. Past performance is no guarantee of the future!

 

[Stank]

1) Climate change isn’t a real issue. Glaciers covered Minnesota and have since melted thousands of miles north 10,000 years before cars existed. Florida will be fine in 2042.

2) No extensions on DVC resorts. Zero reason for it. Almost every 2042 owner will be a resale owner; why would Disney give resale owners a break? Not to mention the OKW debacle; not a chance of an extension both legally and financially. These are resale owners.

3) Spin-off of all non-core DVC properties (Vero, HHI)

4) Reconstruction of aged resorts, sold with unattractive point charts, smaller rooms, and less friendly ownership terms

*(Wildcard) 5) Disney two decades from now has since waned in popularity. Years of taking customers for granted has eroded goodwill and overall interest among the general population. Mickey Mouse is already irrelevant to most kids these days. The mercenary IP they purchased doesn’t have the same pull dynamic as Disney classics for theme parks. The classic IP the kids today aren’t interested in; so 18 years from now they won’t be motivated to take their kids to see Mickey Mouse.

That leaves the current IP of Frozen, Moana, etc. Not sure it has that universal appeal and pull that Disney classics had. Kids do love the movies, but I don’t see Frozen being a franchise like Mickey Mouse has been. Frozen will be something kids watched and enjoyed, but among countless other childhood distractions. Kids today aren’t growing up with the same culture-setting cartoons. Many aren’t even watching cartoons. Every kid watched cartoons from the 40s-2000s. Today, it’s not the same dynamic.

While I think people use the past to project the future, I see serious headwinds for the Disney brand in general. They are still making enjoyable content, but also very questionable content. And the content they are making today isn’t the “sticky” cultural stuff of their past success. Sadly, Disney seems more like a brand straddling two centuries. An aging fan base + the replacement crop that doesn’t have the same irrational insistence on having to save up $10,000 to spend a week at attractions that are extremely out of date/irrelevant.


Just look at Disney now. It’s a hodgepodge of deteriorating classics with “meh” attempts at modern thrills. People in 18 years won’t “get” nor “appreciate” let alone “care” about old school animatronics—just as Disney appears less interested in them. Disney looks like 5th century Rome—-the magnificent structures are there reminding those who remember the glory past…but the reality is it’s an entity in decline with no direction.

I see Disney’s inevitability of “I have to vacation there!” transitioning into “I don’t get why I have to go.” It’s very much remnants of Boomers’ nostalgia, but as people only know their parents’ and grandparents’ names, few know their great grandparents’. I don’t see grandma’s/great grandma’s theme park appealing to 20 year olds in 2042

 

[AvidDisReader]

1) Climate change isn’t a real issue. Glaciers covered Minnesota and have since melted thousands of miles north 10,000 years before cars existed. Florida will be fine in 2042.

2) No extensions on DVC resorts. Zero reason for it. Almost every 2042 owner will be a resale owner; why would Disney give resale owners a break? Not to mention the OKW debacle; not a chance of an extension both legally and financially. These are resale owners.

3) Spin-off of all non-core DVC properties (Vero, HHI)

4) Reconstruction of aged resorts, sold with unattractive point charts, smaller rooms, and less friendly ownership terms

*(Wildcard) 5) Disney two decades from now has since waned in popularity. Years of taking customers for granted has eroded goodwill and overall interest among the general population. Mickey Mouse is already irrelevant to most kids these days. The mercenary IP they purchased doesn’t have the same pull dynamic as Disney classics for theme parks. The classic IP the kids today aren’t interested in; so 18 years from now they won’t be motivated to take their kids to see Mickey Mouse.

That leaves the current IP of Frozen, Moana, etc. Not sure it has that universal appeal and pull that Disney classics had. Kids do love the movies, but I don’t see Frozen being a franchise like Mickey Mouse has been. Frozen will be something kids watched and enjoyed, but among countless other childhood distractions. Kids today aren’t growing up with the same culture-setting cartoons. Many aren’t even watching cartoons. Every kid watched cartoons from the 40s-2000s. Today, it’s not the same dynamic.

While I think people use the past to project the future, I see serious headwinds for the Disney brand in general. They are still making enjoyable content, but also very questionable content. And the content they are making today isn’t the “sticky” cultural stuff of their past success. Sadly, Disney seems more like a brand straddling two centuries. An aging fan base + the replacement crop that doesn’t have the same irrational insistence on having to save up $10,000 to spend a week at attractions that are extremely out of date/irrelevant.


Just look at Disney now. It’s a hodgepodge of deteriorating classics with “meh” attempts at modern thrills. People in 18 years won’t “get” nor “appreciate” let alone “care” about old school animatronics—just as Disney appears less interested in them. Disney looks like 5th century Rome—-the magnificent structures are there reminding those who remember the glory past…but the reality is it’s an entity in decline with no direction.

I see Disney’s inevitability of “I have to vacation there!” transitioning into “I don’t get why I have to go.” It’s very much remnants of Boomers’ nostalgia, but as people only know their parents’ and grandparents’ names, few know their great grandparents’. I don’t see grandma’s/great grandma’s theme park appealing to 20 year olds in 2042

Lots of stuff in this post. I will only address the issue of Disney not appealing to future generations. This is totally up to Disney. When things were not going well in the 1990's we had the first animation renaissance (Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, etc). When things were again looking bleak we saw Frozen, Zootopia, Tangled, Etc. So does Disney choose to have a third renaissance? If yes, the Parks will continue to be a place parents will take their kids to visit.

 

[DonMacGregor]

Lots of stuff in this post. I will only address the issue of Disney not appealing to future generations. This is totally up to Disney. When things were not going well in the 1990's we had the first animation renaissance (Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, etc). When things were again looking bleak we saw Frozen, Zootopia, Tangled, Etc. So does Disney choose to have a third renaissance? If yes, the Parks will continue to be a place parents will take their kids to visit.

This right here. People seem to forget (or aren't old enough to remember) that there was serious stagnation at Disney from the early 70's (pretty much right after Roy's death) up through 1989 and the release of The Little Mermaid. You could arguably say that from 1971 to '77 (The Rescuers), Disney didn't put out one single piece of entertainment of any merit, and from 1977 to '89, they went right back in the hole. One success in 18 years.

Animation was in a total funk, with the absolute low point being when Don Bluth left and took most of the best animators with him in '81/'82. You had the Saul Steinberg takeover attempt, and the huge shakeup when Roy Jr., Stan Gold and Sid Bass worked to oust Ron Miller (Walt's son in law) in 1984 and hired Eisner, Wells and Katzenberg (the last one being a further organizational disruption of epic proportions, until he left). The last piece of the puzzle being Peter Schneider taking over animation in 1985.

For comparison, Disney stock lost +/- 60% of its value between 1971 and 1973, and didn't regain its January 1971 value until September of 1985.

The current challenges facing Disney today, pale in comparison to what the company faced back in the mid-eighties, and looking back on those times, you can see how the company absolutely CAN turn itself around and reinvent itself.

 

[CarolynFH]

This right here. People seem to forget (or aren't old enough to remember) that there was serious stagnation at Disney from the early 70's (pretty much right after Roy's death) up through 1989 and the release of The Little Mermaid. You could arguably say that from 1971 to '77 (The Rescuers), Disney didn't put out one single piece of entertainment of any merit, and from 1977 to '89, they went right back in the hole. One success in 18 years.

Animation was in a total funk, with the absolute low point being when Don Bluth left and took most of the best animators with him in '81/'82. You had the Saul Steinberg takeover attempt, and the huge shakeup when Roy Jr., Stan Gold and Sid Bass worked to oust Ron Miller (Walt's son in law) in 1984 and hired Eisner, Wells and Katzenberg (the last one being a further organizational disruption of epic proportions, until he left). The last piece of the puzzle being Peter Schneider taking over animation in 1985.

For comparison, Disney stock lost +/- 60% of its value between 1971 and 1973, and didn't regain its January 1971 value until September of 1985.

The current challenges facing Disney today, pale in comparison to what the company faced back in the mid-eighties, and looking back on those times, you can see how the company absolutely CAN turn itself around and reinvent itself.

Yes, indeed! And folks who are depending on the value of their DVC purchase to appreciate while they hold it (we didn’t, and we didn’t base any purchase decision on that at all) need to hope that Disney does turn around. The disconnect between the Purchasing forum, with people deciding to buy a given resort because it “will” be worth more at some hypothetical time when they sell, and the doom and gloom on the News & Rumors forum is sometimes quite painful to me.

 

[Cfabar1]

I have a few thoughts:

1. Spinning off VB and HHI may not be quite as easy as one would suspect…. Also, the idea they have to sell everything as DVC there may prove to be unnecessary - Aulani has pointed to a different path…. Not saying it will make sense to rebuild, but maintaining the existing resorts may be quite doable as a cash resort property or a cash and DVC joint property.

2. There is no way they don’t offer substantial existing home resort owner discounts.

3. The economy is going to dictate how many resorts they try to sell at the same time. They could even anticipate this by selling “Yacht Club” a few years ahead of time or “the NEW beach club villas” in a new building a few years ahead as well.

4. There’s a reason why they stopped having everything having a 2042 expiration… they do not want to be in the position of having to sell all these resorts again At once.

5. Wondering when Peak DVC saturation will arrive, and if it will be before 2042… that could get very interesting. Also, really since the early 2000s recession, Disney parks have been in a recessionary period. The Eisner “more is more” approach with hotel resorts has definitely been eliminated - we haven’t seen massive new Disney Deluxe resorts constructed in years sadly, and I think we are unlikely to see that ever happen again. The Disney Decade was a remarkable time, and Eisner and Wells were a remarkable team.