Why is everyone so concerned with the new Poly tower

[ParkHoppers]

If the Poly Tower is a separate association I think I am in.

 

[Nabas]

I don’t think 11 month access to the bungalows means anything. Since the point charts for them are over the moon high, they’re easily bookable at 7 months. In my opinion, they‘re also nowhere near as good as the cabins at CCV, which require less points as well.

I don't disagree but that's not how advertising works.

Disney is selling the dream of one day staying in a bungalow.

I suspect 90% of direct DVC buyers have no idea how hard or easy it is to book a bungalow at 7 months.

I suspect that 90% of direct DVC buyers don't even know there are cabins at the Wilderness Lodge.

We are well-informed on these threads. But I suspect 90% of WDW vacationers have never heard of disboards.com.

 

[theMoreDisneytheBetter]

I don't disagree but that's not how advertising works.

Disney is selling the dream of one day staying in a bungalow.

I suspect 90% of direct DVC buyers have no idea how hard or easy it is to book a bungalow at 7 months.

I suspect that 90% of direct DVC buyers don't even know there are cabins at the Wilderness Lodge.

We are well-informed on these threads. But I suspect 90% of WDW vacationers have never heard of disboards.com.

I still keep coming back to the idea that it is in no way in Disney's best interest to sell Poly 2 as part of the Poly 1 association. Existing buyers already know about the bungalow dream, and new buyers aren't going to think "gee, this shiny new tower is beautiful but what would REALLY tip it over the edge would be to be able to stay over there..."

I just keep thinking that Disney has a complete resort with the tower. Why wouldn't they want to control ALL of the points, rather than let this huge existing ownership and resale market dilute their new tower.

I could be wrong but unless the world is in a dramatically different place 2 years from now I would be shocked if it were part of the existing association.

 

[Nabas]

I still keep coming back to the idea that it is in no way in Disney's best interest to sell Poly 2 as part of the Poly 1 association. Existing buyers already know about the bungalow dream, and new buyers aren't going to think "gee, this shiny new tower is beautiful but what would REALLY tip it over the edge would be to be able to stay over there..."

I'll continue to point out what Disney actually did with VGF2.

VGF2 has only Studios, yet the advertising material for VGF2 includes a lot of information for VGF1's one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and Grand Villas. Disney is using VGF1 rooms to sell VGF2.

IMO, if Disney believes that advertising the Bungalows (which Poly Tower will not have) will help sell Poly Tower points, then Disney will include them in the same association.

Think of it this way. A potential first-time buyer has never stayed at a DVC resort and is on their very first Poly Tower tour. Their Guide says, "Let me show you these amazing bungalows that are over the water with a direct view of the Magic Kingdom that are part of your Home Resort."

Rhetorical question: Will this potential first-time buyer be more likely to buy points at Poly Tower?

The Bungalows are just as shiny as anything that will be in the Poly Tower. In fact, as an experience, the bungalows are a step above. (We stayed in Grand Villas and Bungalows before.) You get your own mini-house with a great view. (They are luxurious and remind me of over-the-water bungalows in the South Pacific.) The Bungalows really are a different experience than being in (yet another) hotel tower, which WDW now has a lot of. (Four Seasons, Waldorf Astoria, Swan, Swan Reserve, Dolphin, BLT, Riviera, and Grand Destino.)

Still, the question is not what you and I think will help sell Poly Tower points? The real question is, what does Disney think?

 

[KimMcGowan]

I find it interesting that it’s been 3 months since the announcement, and there have been a lot of talk about it in the public and yet, nothing from DVD to clarify.

We are well-informed on these threads. But I suspect 90% of WDW vacationers have never heard of disboards.com.

Sandi,
I wonder if this is actually true. Yes, there is a LOT of discussion about this here on these boards. However, as Nabas points out, we are well informed. Outside of these boards is this a discussion topic? (I am really asking.)

 

[PetePanMan]

I may be missing something but wouldn’t it be too good to be true for existing Poly owners if they combine into one? They would have 11 month booking access to additional room options, new pools etc. and the demand / value of their points in resale market would likely go up.

 

[lovethesun12]

I may be missing something but wouldn’t it be too good to be true for existing Poly owners if they combine into one? They would have 11 month booking access to additional room options, new pools etc. and the demand / value of their points in resale market would likely go up.

It would be a benefit, but that doesn't mean it may not also be a benefit for Disney. Most existing poly owners purchased enough points for studio visits. Many would have to actually purchase more to enjoy a stay at the tower, which is good for Disney.

I guess an argument there is how much more likely would people be to purchase direct over resale? I think maybe quite likely, considering how well VGF2 has been selling. I know I would purchase direct for certain for multiple reasons but I'm not sure how others would feel.

The amenities (like pools) likely won't enter the discussion since both current poly owners and tower owners probably will be able to use them regardless of whether they are the same association or not. If they were separated, I think that would actually disadvantage new owners since the infinite pool - short glimpse of it - is inferior to the volcano pool.

 

[Marionnette]

I may be missing something but wouldn’t it be too good to be true for existing Poly owners if they combine into one? They would have 11 month booking access to additional room options, new pools etc. and the demand / value of their points in resale market would likely go up.

Sure, it would be good for existing owners at Poly1. That's why I don't think Poly2 will be part of the same association. DVD won't do what's good for owners. DVD will do whatever is good for Disney.

 

[Nabas]

I may be missing something but wouldn’t it be too good to be true for existing Poly owners if they combine into one? They would have 11 month booking access to additional room options, new pools etc. and the demand / value of their points in resale market would likely go up.

I don’t think Disney will care much one way or the other how this affects existing PVB members.

This (mostly) is about selling Poly Tower direct points. Disney wants to maximize this. Does making PVB and Poly Tower part of the same association help or help Poly Tower and RIV sales? Does it fit into Disney’s apparent long-term strategy to create a separate set of DVCs to help with future direct sales?

Separately, note that VGF1 resale prices dropped once the VGF2 direct pricing was announced. We could see PVB resale prices decline, depending on where Poly Tower pricing starts.

 

[PetePanMan]

I don’t think Disney will care much one way or the other how this affects existing PVB members.

This (mostly) is about selling Poly Tower direct points. Disney wants to maximize this. Does making PVB and Poly Tower part of the same association help or help Poly Tower and RIV sales? Does it fit into Disney’s apparent long-term strategy to create a separate set of DVCs to help with future direct sales?

Separately, note that VGF1 resale prices dropped once the VGF2 direct pricing was announced. We could see PVB resale prices decline, depending on where Poly Tower pricing starts.

My current thinking is that the Poly 1/2 situation is significantly different than VGF 1/2. Biggest difference is that Poly 2 will be a brand new and different building asset type with longer lifespan than a renovated existing, older structure (like Poly 1 or VGF 2). Unlike VGF 1/2, the addition of Poly 2 also provides additional room options (ie 1 / 2 bedrooms) rather than more of existing room type (I.e. more studios).

I will be very surprised if they don’t have separate associations. If they combine, I really think demand (and prices) for Poly 1 will go up significantly (I know I will be right there looking for contracts). People are more reluctant to buy right now given uncertainty but this would change quickly if it became known they would have full access to Poly 2. If there is a dip in Poly 1 resale prices while selling of Poly 2 direct (which I don’t really expect), I think it would be short lived with very strong long term demand and resale prices once Poly 2 is sold out (which in my view will likely be very quick).

 

[Sandisw]

I'll continue to point out what Disney actually did with VGF2.

VGF2 has only Studios, yet the advertising material for VGF2 includes a lot of information for VGF1's one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and Grand Villas. Disney is using VGF1 rooms to sell VGF2.

IMO, if Disney believes that advertising the Bungalows (which Poly Tower will not have) will help sell Poly Tower points, then Disney will include them in the same association.

Think of it this way. A potential first-time buyer has never stayed at a DVC resort and is on their very first Poly Tower tour. Their Guide says, "Let me show you these amazing bungalows that are over the water with a direct view of the Magic Kingdom that are part of your Home Resort."

Rhetorical question: Will this potential first-time buyer be more likely to buy points at Poly Tower?

The Bungalows are just as shiny as anything that will be in the Poly Tower. In fact, as an experience, the bungalows are a step above. (We stayed in Grand Villas and Bungalows before.) You get your own mini-house with a great view. (They are luxurious and remind me of over-the-water bungalows in the South Pacific.) The Bungalows really are a different experience than being in (yet another) hotel tower, which WDW now has a lot of. (Four Seasons, Waldorf Astoria, Swan, Swan Reserve, Dolphin, BLT, Riviera, and Grand Destino.)

Still, the question is not what you and I think will help sell Poly Tower points? The real question is, what does Disney think?

My only point is that there is a difference between marketing the ability to book 1 and 2 bedroom villas to sell people for VGF than it is to market a bungalow.

A studio only resort won’t sell the same way that a resort full of rooms sizes will.

Therefore, Poly tower is different in that it has everything already that VGF already had..only difference is the bungalows..which can still be booked at 7 months with those direct points.

The only other way would be resale Poly points…not any resort..and then you lose the tower

To me, that’s a win win for DVD. Keep resale points out of the resort but give people the knowledge that direct gives them access to both.

 

[Sandisw]

Sandi,
I wonder if this is actually true. Yes, there is a LOT of discussion about this here on these boards. However, as Nabas points out, we are well informed. Outside of these boards is this a discussion topic? (I am really asking.)

But the boards represent some who are discussing it. And they know that so if it was something they want to clear up, they could.

They have not which leads me to believe they think the vagueness of what wk happen is good for them not to share details if decision has been made…or they don’t want to commit yet.

When they announced VGF, it was immediate what would happen. Now that could be because that was a project going on sale in less than a year later so it was needed to be decided at that time.

I just think that the fact they haven’t don’t anything is on purpose.

 

[Sandisw]

It would be a benefit, but that doesn't mean it may not also be a benefit for Disney. Most existing poly owners purchased enough points for studio visits. Many would have to actually purchase more to enjoy a stay at the tower, which is good for Disney.

I guess an argument there is how much more likely would people be to purchase direct over resale? I think maybe quite likely, considering how well VGF2 has been selling. I know I would purchase direct for certain for multiple reasons but I'm not sure how others would feel.

The amenities (like pools) likely won't enter the discussion since both current poly owners and tower owners probably will be able to use them regardless of whether they are the same association or not. If they were separated, I think that would actually disadvantage new owners since the infinite pool - short glimpse of it - is inferior to the volcano pool.

The Volcano pool is part of the Poly resort, and not DVC. So regardless of the association I can’t see Disney restrict access to their pool to any guests staying onsite.

They are the ones that decide. Just like now,,, Poly owners have the right to use the pools..they are not common elements.

Looking beyond current PVB owners and whether they will add on or not is important. It’s whether or not that want all those resale points out there being able to book the resort and if you can get the tower at 7 months with resale points anywhere, then it doesn’t seem like it would guide people to direct.

Good pricing will get people to do that and it’s why I think we saw VGF priced well and why incentives have gotten better. They may have realized that lower pricing can move the needle when the direct does offer a difference.

 

[BeachClub2014]

Looking beyond current PVB owners and whether they will add on or not is important. It’s whether or not that want all those resale points out there being able to book the resort and if you can get the tower at 7 months with resale points anywhere, then it doesn’t seem like it would guide people to direct.

This is a key point, in my mind. I would love to know the percentage breakdown of who is actually buying points directly from DVC, and at what level. Are the majority of buyers first-time members? I would assume so but could be entirely off base in that assumption. What percentage of buyers are current members just adding on? DVC obviously knows those percentage breakdowns so I would assume that is one of the metrics driving the resale restriction decision.

 

[Huskerpaul]

I still keep coming back to the idea that it is in no way in Disney's best interest to sell Poly 2 as part of the Poly 1 association. Existing buyers already know about the bungalow dream, and new buyers aren't going to think "gee, this shiny new tower is beautiful but what would REALLY tip it over the edge would be to be able to stay over there..."

I just keep thinking that Disney has a complete resort with the tower.

I don’t think it will be a complete resort and will lean on the existing facility to use more of the tower space to construct additional rooms they can sell In place of lineup of shops eateries etc.

I understand DVD could sell a new resort for less than 50 years. Why didn’t they do that with any of the new resorts? The last time it happened was when they were lining up the first DVC with 2042. They had a rational then. I wonder what that reasoning would in this case.

 

[Sandisw]

I don’t think it will be a complete resort and will lean on the existing facility to use more of the tower space to construct additional rooms they can sell In place of lineup of shops eateries etc.

I understand DVD could sell a new resort for less than 50 years. Why didn’t they do that with any of the new resorts? The last time it happened was when they were lining up the first DVC with 2042. They had a rational then. I wonder what that reasoning would in this case.

This would be the first brand new DVC being built from the ground up at the same location as another DVC resort,

So, they could decide it makes sense. If VGF is doing okay selling with less than 50 years, then maybe DVD decides that 50 year length isn’t crucial to sales?

While expiration date does need to be considered, is it enough to roll it in to PVB and give up all the benefits to DVD that come with making it a new DVC resort?

With CCV and BRC, it was needed because it would be way to short. But, is 42 year ground lease vs a 50 really enough to turn buyers away?

 

[Paul Stupin]

I don't disagree but that's not how advertising works.

Disney is selling the dream of one day staying in a bungalow.

I suspect 90% of direct DVC buyers have no idea how hard or easy it is to book a bungalow at 7 months.

I suspect that 90% of direct DVC buyers don't even know there are cabins at the Wilderness Lodge.

We are well-informed on these threads. But I suspect 90% of WDW vacationers have never heard of disboards.com.

Yeah, but I think all the fancy renderings of the new tower, coupled with new pools, new restaurants, new facilities, cool features, and well designed accommodations will give Disney a pretty solid new dream to sell to potential buyers. And you aren’t even considering the dream of staying in some spectacular grand villa that might very well be a part of the tower.

 

[Nabas]

Yeah, but I think all the fancy renderings of the new tower, coupled with new pools, new restaurants, new facilities, cool features, and well designed accommodations will give Disney a pretty solid new dream to sell to potential buyers. And you aren’t even considering the dream of staying in some spectacular grand villa that might very well be a part of the tower.

I keep twisting in the wind about which way Disney will go on this.

Before they cancelled Reflections, making the Poly Tower its own association would have been a no-brainer. They probably still will go that way, but VGF2 has me doubting myself. I still don't fully understand why VGF2 wasn't its own association.

 

[Sandisw]

I keep twisting in the wind about which way Disney will go on this.

Before they cancelled Reflections, making the Poly Tower its own association would have been a no-brainer. They probably still will go that way, but VGF2 has me doubting myself. I still don't fully understand why VGF2 wasn't its own association.

My opinion is that having hotel room DVC only wouldn’t sell well. . Resort studios, no matter what we call them, are hotel rooms so they really needed to have the current VGF to make it a true resort that has all rooms sizes.

It was also such a quick turn around that it just made sense to make it part of VGF.

 

[sethschroeder]

If they keep the tower 1,2&3br's

Which really won't happen.

I mean it could but not really. They aren't going to make many dedicated 1BR they would do 2br lock offs typically.

Many would have to actually purchase more to enjoy a stay at the tower, which is good for Disney.

Average contract size is typically geared towards studios.

I bet you would be surprised with those people at Poly that needed the extra space and already have points for 2 Studios.