What would I have done differently if I started DVC right now?

Dean

DIS Veteran<br><a href="http://www.wdwinfo.com/dis
Joined
Aug 19, 1999
Messages
39,228
OK, here’s a few thoughts that I think would make things much easier and cheaper in the long run for everyone. Remember that some of the issues would be for Disney’s advantage, not necessarily what the members would prefer. I know that many of them would not be popular with certain members but keep in mind that we’d be starting from scratch so it wouldn’t be an issue of taking the benefits away now.
  • Limit points package sizes to match the points per week.
  • Make a full week slightly less points that the sum of the individual points per day.
  • Give a one month priority to those reserving a full week for both the 11 month and 7 month times.
  • Require a minimum stay of 3 days.
  • Impose fees for banking, borrowing, cancellations or changes, multiple reservations in one use year
  • Allow someone to book a full week at the 11 month window on day one.
  • Give home resort owners top choice in unit assignments no matter when they arrive or reserved.
  • Adjust BW view points up and pool/garden view points down and possibly evening them out with the standard view.
  • Eliminate Pool Hopping.

I’m sure I’ll add to this list but this is a start. IMO, these issues would reduce fees by at least 25% overall even taking into account the extra fees mentioned above. I'm not saying these are what I want to happen, only that I think DVC would have been better off overall had they done so.
 
Dean,

Very interesting....!

There would be one concern for me, that is the imposing fees for banking, borrowing, cancellations or changes, multiple reservations in one year. My concern, I have 1055 points, and I would think I would have more of these type transactions than someone with only 230 points.

I like the idea of points being less if you book a full week, that would be one way to use up the "Weekend" points, instead of so many members going to the All Stars ;)

I also like the idea of the BW having different point value for a Pool View versus a BW view. I like the change they have in place now, so at least, you know ahead of time that you are not getting a BW view! Although, I've got to admit, some of the pool views are breathtaking! I stayed in a one bedroom there once, over looking the quiet pool and the community hall, and I loved it! I would take that room over the BW view....if I could be assured that view! :teeth:
 
hey I like being able to stay 1 night - this is really a nice benefit for guests using the cruise lines

you need to remember that OKW (which I know you know) was the first DVC resort - alot of the stuff was done to sell it.

I sure you were given the speak I was given (several times) - this may not always be a Disney resort - or the management might change at any time - I don't remember what the other was one.

Now on the last member survey that I got send - not long ago - we were asked about the miniumum stay.

Also the one that I know they would like to change the last minute cancellations - if you cancel 5 days or less - your lose your points - but they haven't done that either (yet).

Alot of home owners are the last to arrive - I remember back when we could do the check in over the phone - so our rooms were ready when we got there - on one trip the place was packed and mean packed - the computers were down - so no one could get a room - well since I had done it in advance - my package and room were ready - oh boy the dirty looks I got......

you are asking for this type of situation every time you checkin - if you made everyone else wait...

oh the way that DVC handled that situation was to do away with the advance check in on the basis that members were not really using it.....I still miss it - it was one of the best benefits.....

when DVC was first selling - it was 230 points - they only adjusted points for years so the bottom price would be under $12,000???? or am I missing something.....
 
I think if these were the rule from the beginning it would benefit DVC as you stated , However, I also believe many would not have bought.

These types of restrictions would not have fit my family at all. ONe of the reasons we bought DVC opposed to another in Orlando ( besides the obvious WDW location ) is the ability to do short stays...we can never get away for more than 5 nites and sometimes only 2 or 3...and I also know at this point we will never trade out because of the one week deal.

To us DVC is not even a timeshare but a special way to be able to enjoy all we love about WDW. I may be in the minority here with the short stays but some would have to agree!
 

One of the most oft cited selling points of WDW (at least be the DVC Guioes I have spoken with) is "flexibility" of the points. Although some of your suggestions Dean would benefit me personally because I wouldn't mind staying the week, it seems that the "flexibility" of short stays on points is an appealing draw of DVC over the classic Time Share.

Although at this point it's impossible for me to imagine not being a DVC owner, the sales "pitch" would have been very different beyond "Own a Piece of the Magic". It is interesting to think whether I would be a DVC member without the flexibility offered by the current system.

Many of your other suggestions might also limit flexibility and thus, eliminate a marketing point/reason for purchase for many of todays DVC members.

As to your thoughts on BWV, It probably makes sense (in light of the success of BCV and VWL) that BWV should not have had a tiered structure. Clearly this was doen originally, because DVC must have felt that purchasers would have "sticker shock" if shown the point differential between BWV Preferred and OKW. BWV Standard provided a "buffer" from any extreme negative reaction to the point differential. BWV Standard is clearly a byproduct of the time at which the resort was built and we BWV owners get the benefit :)

Thanks for some provocative thoughts.

Louis
 
As far as I can see Dean, they are all to Disney's advantage and none to the users. I agree with panfan that it would have cost a lot of sales.

Limit points packages to whole weeks makes no sense (other than minimal admin) unless you also limit bookings to weekly blocks, because it limits the choice of purchasers. Anyone wanting something inbetween would probably buy a smaller amount of points, costing dVC business.

Doing away with the weekend bias would seriously inconvenience those booking longer vacations as "weekenders" would block up all those. giving priority for full week bookings would just mean people would book up a full week, then cancel the unwanted days nearer the time. Unless the charges/penalties you plan were to be very costy (which would put people off from buying in)

Any minimum stay would have put off Florida residents ( the biggest single group of members) , it would have damaged sales.

I can see an argument for allowing someone to book their full vaca in one call, but IMHO you run the risk that at peak times (Xmas for example) you'd get some people calling and booking 10 days (from say Dec 17th) then cancel the first week. Again the penalties would have to be harsh in order to discourage abuse.

Imposing fees. DVC was sold on it's flexibility, high charges would have contradicted that selling point and would have hurt sales.

How can you give home resort owners choice "when ever they arrive". If they turn up after everyone else has checked in what do you do, throw the other guests cases out the window of the desired unit? It would increase the workload of the people allocating rooms to have different priority "members". I do however agree that first bookings should take priority.

Pool hopping?? how does eliminating that benefit anyone. It's a zero cost item to Disney and a rarely used, but nice option.

DVD (the company) doesn't benefit from lower dues, dues are ( or should be) a nonprofit item. They are there to provide a service to the owners. By offering a cheaper, but less flexible product, Disney would have been much closer to offering the standard "timeshare" floorplan that, IMHO, the majority of DVC owners have rejected in the past. For myself I can only say that I would not have entertained a DVC under the ideas that you put forward Dean, it's why I don't own any other timeshares and it's why I never will.
 
Interesting list and I do wish you well with your new Dean's Vacation Club, but your "improvements" seem to me to devour the very essence of the DVC I joined.

By removing the flexibility of the program and instituting additional costs for bookkeeping services, limiting the number of reservations able to be made (apparently without regard to the number of points owned) and other "costless" perks of the existing program, I'm afraid sales may be very slow for some time. I'm sure your version would never have offered park passes to encourage early buyers (since pool hopping has already been eliminated in your program) and the minimum stays, higher minimum for purchase (a full week's stay?) also fly in the face of the current DVC philosophy. Even allowing booking an entire stay on day one of the reservation priority creates an imbalance and unfair advantage- unless you will also prohibit any later changes to that reservation (yet another reduction of flexibility).

As for the changes mentioned reducing dues costs - I guess that will need a little more explanation, since it fails to register why these would change any costs at all- except to reduce the MS manpower needs and increase wait times on the phones.

Will you handle all sales yourself and thus cut the expense of paying a sales staff- passing along that savings to reduce dues?
Perhaps, with the changes listed, only one part-time sales person will be needed to handle the entire load anyway. :smooth:

Best of luck with the new project! :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by WebmasterDoc
Interesting list and I do wish you well with your new Dean's Vacation Club, but your "improvements" seem to me to devour the very essence of the DVC I joined.

:teeth: :teeth:

Here's my thoughts if I were a new prospective purchaser of D(ean's)VC. Btw, good luck in acquiring prime Disney property. Otherwise, everything's off! Maybe you could buy out the Fairfield project?!!!

Limit points package sizes to match the points per week.

I don't think that this would bother me too much to buy in initially, even though I prefer even numbers. But wouldn't the points packages required be different at OKW than the others? How would the add-on's work? Minimum add-on should equal points for one week night one bedroom? Fiquiring out the point packages needed and available and EXPLAINING it to prospective buyers is just too complicated. If buyers can't figure it out, they won't buy.

Make a full week slightly less points that the sum of the individual points per day.

I actually like this idea. So, the points package would be based on this weekly "discount" or on the sum of it's parts?

Give a one month priority to those reserving a full week for both the 11 month and 7 month times.

Allow someone to book a full week at the 11 month window on day one.

Interesting idea. I might even like it. BUT I have no idea how it would work and still be fair for everyone. Maybe since there is a discount for the whole week, if you need to drop days, etc.. you would have to cancel the whole week and rebook, taking a chance that there's a wait-list.

Require a minimum stay of 3 days.

While this requirement wouldn't have really made a difference in how I already used my membership, since I have never stayed less than 3 days. I don't think I would really like NOT having the option of daily stays, especially since the point system is set up that way. I would potentially like to use points for a short stay before or after a cruise in the future. Personally, I think I would be o'kay with a minimum of 2 nights or a "cleaning fee of maybe $10-$20" for stays less than 3 nights. But all of this means that members are DOUBLE penalized for stays less than a week - higher points and "cleaning fee."

Potential problems for thought: What about how this would affect wait-lists? Let's say you want 8 nights but MS only has 2 nights available and you wait-list for the remaining nights on a day to day basis. Some nights come through but they are not neccessarily consecutive. How do they even handle this? What if you have to move mid-stay due to DVC availability? Does the entire stay count towards the minimum stay or will members be penalized for switching DVC resorts after only 2 nights because availibility never opened up? Getting a headache deciding if this DVC is for me.... :headache:

Impose fees for banking, borrowing, cancellations or changes, multiple reservations in one use year.

Yuck, yikes, nope, never!!! Would never get me to buy under these conditions, even if your DVC was dirt cheap or if the fees were $1.00. Even my parents tiny floating week timeshare in Mexico lets them bank their weeks forward (for 2 years) without any penalties.


Give home resort owners top choice in unit assignments no matter when they arrive or reserved.

Sounds good but won't work. Someone (home resort owner) will always get upset. This is a can of worms better left unopened. Might be better if this was an unofficial, unconfirmed, and unspoken policy. I'd rather they do away with all this and just guarantee non smoking and smoking room. Everything is just a request. Even better would be a set list of available requests. None of this nonsense, "3rd floor, even number room, facing northwest, pool and garden view, near elevators, but not next to elevators, view of MK, PI, and Epcot fireworks, etc."

Adjust BW view points up and pool/garden view points down and possibly evening them out with the standard view.

Works for me.

Eliminate Pool Hopping.

Never used this. O'kay with me. Better than elimating it AFTERWARDS.


Dean, thanks for posting your thoughts.
 
Wow... well, if DVC created a program like this proposal, I can say with certainty that there is NO WAY that we would have purchased.

It reminds me a lot of Marriott...

... without the trade weeks...

... and without access to the full II inventory...

... and without the same number of internal swapping options...

... without a Gold Crown (perhaps we could have some golden ears instead???)...


I can't think of one thing that you mentioned that would enhance the program for us. We'd be penalized for the times we take 5 day trips, and we'd be penalized for the weekend getaway trips we like to take (like our weekend trip to BCVs in two weeks).

Are you sure that ME didn't actually make this proposal at the board meeting last night??? ;)
 
just my opnion.

"Limit points package sizes to match the points per week.

Make a full week slightly less points that the sum of the individual points per day

Give a one month priority to those reserving a full week for both the 11 month and 7 month times.

Require a minimum stay of 3 days"


I'm not sure why they would want to encourage people to stay for week long stays. What advantage would there be for DVC? People are going to use their points or not, why do they care when you use them?

The advantage of DVC is that it is very flexible, rather than having to buy a week.

I think this would disuade people from Florida and maybe even Georgia or Alabama, etc. from buying. We rarely make a shorter than three day trip from Michigan, but we certainly do take long weekends of three nights.

Also, a really good thing about the flexibility of DVC is that your needs may change. When you buy it, you may want it for week long stays. Years down the road, you might find yourself living in Florida and wanting a weekend stay only. Or one year you might want to take a couple dozen relatives for a shorter stay, etc.

I don't see any advantage of trying to shift DVC towards less flexibilty for Disney or for owners. Flexibility is a major advantage for DVC in terms of sales and for owners. People use their DVC points in many, many ways. I have never thought about our DVC points in "week long" units. We certainly didn't think that way when we bought any of our three contracts (they are all different sizes). We actually thought of it as "OK, we could do a long week-end in a studio and a week in a one bedroom, or a week in a two bedroom during a different time of year, or two weeks in a studio" that sort of thing.. Now, granted, those were based on times that we are most often to vacation NOW based on our work realities, but the flexibility for that to change along with different needs was a real important factor. I wouldn't have wanted to by if I felt pushed in to "weeks," or disadvantaged by not choosing to do it that way.

I just don't see any reason to do such things. The reason that weekend points are higher are supply and demand - there is more demand for them and so they are more precious. That means people want to go JUST FOR WEEKENDS, doesn't it. If the price point (in terms of points) is to high, then fewer people will stay on weekends and they will adjust the weekend and weekday points. No big deal.

Just IMHO.

"Allow someone to book a full week at the 11 month window on day one."

Why not book a full trip of four days? or 12 days? What is magical about a "week?"

"Give home resort owners top choice in unit assignments no matter when they arrive or reserved."

I agree with this one. I'm not sure why they don't just have the rooms assigned in advance, based on the requests that people put on the reservation. People have to realize that their are other guests there and everybody has to have a room somewhere. It is quite a puzzle putting it all together, I'm sure. Guess what, you have 40-50 years and you are going to get a great room sometime and you are going to get a less than great one sometime. Have fun you are in Disney world.

I think they would be better off having a day assigned in advance rather than doing it on the fly when guest's arrive. And in that case, if there is only one room available that fits the requests of two ore more guests checking in on that day, they should use priorty system. I don't have a problem with the first one being home resort or not. Then, because both parties could be home resort, they could have a second rule, who booked the room first. Both home resort, booked the same day, flip a coin. Then move on to the next room that most closely matches the request, and so on. That would be much fairer, to me, than basing the first priority on who shows up first, which doesn't really make sense to me. My flight was before yours! So what. Actually, that is a kind of systematic bias and makes it unfair for some poor guy who lives in a town a long way away with only later flights available - it is better to just be random because at least then it should work out over the years. It is also better than reading faxes about how important the trip is, because let's face something, everybody staying there is having a wedding, a birthday, a honeymoon, an anniversary, a reunion, bringing their friends or their grandchildren, or at least having a trip to disney world. It is something special for every single one of those guests. So the fairest thing is to have them assigned and stick to that with integrity. It is also much fairer than someone trying to schmooze the check in guy or flirt with him or whatever. Just assign them and stick to it.

Smoking preference is probably different and should be the first priority - actually, guests should be able to say what the priority of their requests are, and if smoking is #1 they should say so and that should be met. I know one time we took a smoking room at contemporary facing MK rather than a non-smoking room facing the lake - so people should rank those because everyone has different tolerances and it is impossible for them to know that. If someone has a health problem and needs to be near the elavator or on the first floor, they should say so on the reservation and that should be a top priority to fit as best as it can be fit. If someone checks in to their room and there is legimately something wrong with it, they should immediately fix it, and if the are underbooked move them to an unassigned room. If they are booked solid, comp it or move them to another resort. Take care of the room problems before the guests check in. If the person is just complaining about the view or whatever, well, Disney cms can handle saying "tough luck" much better than I can, but that should be the message. If the resort is underbooked and a room is avialable, let them choose it, but if there isn't one available, tough luck.

DR
 
Perhaps my favorite thing about a DVC timeshare (other than it being Disney, of course), is the flexibility.
I don't think we would have bought if all of these rules and fees were in place. :(

MG
 
Dean -- Interesting. In keeping wth your original thought for the thread, here are my thoughts about what Disney might consider if it had a clean sheet of paper.

1. A single point schedule for all resorts.

2. A single maintenance fee across all resorts.

3. Ownership would be in DVC and not individual resorts.

4. There would be no off property resorts.

5. Each theme park resort would be designed with a DVC option for expansion. Probably okay for the US parks as these are the only wholly owned theme parks. I am not sure how this would work at the two partially owned parks (Paris, Hong Kong) or Japan which they have no ownership interest.

6. Booking would be 11 months from day of arrival (eliminating the day-by-day booking hassles). I am sure there must be something wrong with this or they would have switched to it by now, so this may be a bad entry to the list.

7. Negotiate a flat DVC discount available to members regardless of where, when or what.
 
<font face="times" size="+0">interesting ideas for saving DVC money.
but, wow! i would NOT have bought "Dean's Vacation Club"! :p and i would guess that Dean's VC sales revenue would be lower also. so maybe those operating cost savings wouldn't be so much savings with a lower revenue?

i agree with the BW view points being higher... and making everything else SV.
BWV is the only resort that clearly has a section of rooms with a superior view.

well,at BCV there's Epcot view, but then again there's that ugly road that comes along with those views... so i'm not sure if those deserve a higher cost category.

actually, maybe they should've just made all rooms at BWV the same point cost, to be in line with the other resorts.
</font>
 
Originally posted by WebmasterDoc
Interesting list and I do wish you well with your new Dean's Vacation Club, but your "improvements" seem to me to devour the very essence of the DVC I joined.

By removing the flexibility of the program and instituting additional costs for bookkeeping services, limiting the number of reservations able to be made (apparently without regard to the number of points owned) and other "costless" perks of the existing program, I'm afraid sales may be very slow for some time. I'm sure your version would never have offered park passes to encourage early buyers (since pool hopping has already been eliminated in your program) and the minimum stays, higher minimum for purchase (a full week's stay?) also fly in the face of the current DVC philosophy. Even allowing booking an entire stay on day one of the reservation priority creates an imbalance and unfair advantage- unless you will also prohibit any later changes to that reservation (yet another reduction of flexibility).

As for the changes mentioned reducing dues costs - I guess that will need a little more explanation, since it fails to register why these would change any costs at all- except to reduce the MS manpower needs and increase wait times on the phones.

Will you handle all sales yourself and thus cut the expense of paying a sales staff- passing along that savings to reduce dues?
Perhaps, with the changes listed, only one part-time sales person will be needed to handle the entire load anyway. :smooth:

Best of luck with the new project! :rolleyes:
I think you misunderstood my intent. It was to spur discussion and ideas and to get people to think about what they like and don't about the system. Also to get them to reallize that we are paying all the fees already. I actually prefer DVC they way it is though I would make adjustments for things that I would prefer. Members also need to realize there's usually at least one or two more sides to some of the issues we take for granted.
 
here would be one concern for me, that is the imposing fees for banking, borrowing, cancellations or changes, multiple reservations in one year. My concern, I have 1055 points, and I would think I would have more of these type transactions than someone with only 230 points.
Some other companies do this already. If they are multiple contracts, it's usually one per contract. The extra fee is minimal, maybe $25 or so and if you think about it, we're all paying for it now.
I also like the idea of the BW having different point value for a Pool View versus a BW view. I like the change they have in place now, so at least, you know ahead of time that you are not getting a BW view! Although, I've got to admit, some of the pool views are breathtaking! I stayed in a one bedroom there once, over looking the quiet pool and the community hall, and I loved it! I would take that room over the BW view....if I could be assured that view!
Most timeshares don't get too worried about the view of an individual unit. They more label the units based on location. If it's ocean front but ground floor with no view, it's still ocean front.
Also the one that I know they would like to change the last minute cancellations - if you cancel 5 days or less - your lose your points - but they haven't done that either (yet).
I’ll actually add that to my list but I’ll make it 30 or 60 days where you lose a portion of the points.
One of the most oft cited selling points of WDW (at least be the DVC Guioes I have spoken with) is "flexibility" of the points. Although some of your suggestions Dean would benefit me personally because I wouldn't mind staying the week, it seems that the "flexibility" of short stays on points is an appealing draw of DVC over the classic Time Share.
Do you really think DVC would not have sold without those options. Just imagine a different set of selling spiels. Frankly, I think DVC would have sold almost as well if it were a fixed week/fixed unit timeshare. Remember the cost would be somewhat less as there would be far less marketing, sales costs and the yearly fees would be about half what they are for a week.
As far as I can see Dean, they are all to Disney's advantage and none to the users. I agree with panfan that it would have cost a lot of sales.
The advantages to members would be cheaper up front costs and lower maint fees. Thus making DVC far more affordable for more people in the long run.
Limit points packages to whole weeks makes no sense (other than minimal admin) unless you also limit bookings to weekly blocks, because it limits the choice of purchasers. Anyone wanting something inbetween would probably buy a smaller amount of points, costing dVC business.
Other points systems offer mostly or totally points packages that fit a full week. Most of them also give preference to booking a full week.
Doing away with the weekend bias would seriously inconvenience those booking longer vacations as "weekenders" would block up all those. giving priority for full week bookings would just mean people would book up a full week, then cancel the unwanted days nearer the time. Unless the charges/penalties you plan were to be very costly (which would put people off from buying in)
No one mentioned, at least not me, doing away with the weekend bias. In the system I’m discussing, a priority would be given to those reserving a full week and actually weekend points might even be higher than they are now. Bluegreen has weekends about 5 to 1 weekdays. One would need a substantial penalty if canceling late and would have to make reserving a full week with the idea of changing it later as not workable.
Any minimum stay would have put off Florida residents ( the biggest single group of members) , it would have damaged sales.
Maybe, but my guess is a lot less than you think.
I can see an argument for allowing someone to book their full vaca in one call, but IMHO you run the risk that at peak times (Xmas for example) you'd get some people calling and booking 10 days (from say Dec 17th) then cancel the first week. Again the penalties would have to be harsh in order to discourage abuse.
Marriott already does this. I bought another week at Grande Ocean just to be able to book at 13 months out instead of twelve. I know of someone who owns 17 weeks and thus can book at 13 months plus 16 weeks ahead of essentially all others. On one hand it may not seem fair but it sure is an advantage to the home resort.
Imposing fees. DVC was sold on it's flexibility, high charges would have contradicted that selling point and would have hurt sales.
Again, I doubt it would have mattered that much and in the long run it'd actually be a cheaper option than it is now.
How can you give home resort owners choice "when ever they arrive". If they turn up after everyone else has checked in what do you do, throw the other guests cases out the window of the desired unit? It would increase the workload of the people allocating rooms to have different priority "members". I do however agree that first bookings should take priority.
What you do is assign all units at about 7-10 days out in the order of Owners at that resort, Cash from CRO, other DVC members, then exchangers from II. As it should be.
 
Originally posted by ILuvDVC
I have 1055 points, and I would think I would have more of these type transactions than someone with only 230 points.

Darla
"Welcome to the 1000 or more pt Club"!!;)

1000 Pt Club or more.........

1. akalucky-2500 pts
2. nuthut-2150 pts
3. Debbie H-2000 pts
4. katzha-2000
5. tmc2469-2000
6. bongo59-1500
7. DBBN-1375
8. PKK/MJK-1350
9. Icy Dog- 1252
10. sanddune-1236
11. Poorman-1220
12. BEIRMUGG-1200
13. tworgs-1200
14. wdw1972-1150
15. Nanjo1-1135
16. PKK/MJK- 1110
17. Maistre Gracey-1100
18. jni1992-1060
19. ILuvDVC-1055**
20. CarolAnnK-1020
21. Laurabearz-1000
22. Terry S-1000
23. WalterS-1000
 
"Limit points package sizes to match the points per week."

Nope


"Make a full week slightly less points that the sum of the individual points per day."

Yep


"Give a one month priority to those reserving a full week for both the 11 month and 7 month times."

Nope


"Require a minimum stay of 3 days."

Fine with me.


"Impose fees for banking, borrowing, cancellations or changes, multiple reservations in one use year"

Nope most especially to the multi-reservations per year. Some people buy into DVC with banking every other year specifically in mind. Why penalize them for not needing their points every yr? Also penalize people for wanting to come back to WDW and spend more money? I'm thinking that isn't going to happen.


"Allow someone to book a full week at the 11 month window on day one."

Yep!


"Give home resort owners top choice in unit assignments no matter when they arrive or reserved."

Nope.


"Adjust BW view points up and pool/garden view points down and possibly evening them out with the standard view."

Okay.


"Eliminate Pool Hopping."

No.
 















New Posts





DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top