Will DVC Ever Tier the Point System?

[lilpooh108]

Just a thought since SSR is officially at $90/pt. Obviously, DVC now recognizes and most importantly, admits that all resorts are not created equal and as with any other real estate interest, prices are different depending on location, amenities, etc.

I'm guessing that Aulani will debut at prices similar to BLT...but how can people buying in at BLT or Aulani be happy with the fact that their points (which cost so much more) are worth essentially the same as SSR points?

If DVC recognizes that SSR points are essentially worth less, but that all points are essentially of equal value at and after the 7 month mark, do you think DVC will ever tier points to build more value at other resorts? Or do you think this is built in since different resorts have different point values per stay and there is also home resort advantage?

 

[angelmav]

And thus the old wisdom of buy where you want to stay comes into play. They could wave there wand tomorrow and take away the ability to book at resorts you dont own at and that would end the whole discussion right there.

I think price point isnt a good measure though, since people who bought in at the inception got a much better deal per point and you can also buy for less on the resale market, doesnt make the points themselves unequal.

 

[Sandisw]

I am a BLT owner and for me, it is about knowing that I will be at a resort that I am happy with every single time.

So, even though I can buy SSR for less, and could have saved around $5000 to buy it resale, I went with BLT because that is where I want to be unless I choose to go somewhere else.

Believe me, I still think about it. Now that SSR is $90 and BLT is $120, I could save about $1500 if I go with that for a 50 point add on. But, in the end, I want to be at BLT and want the 11 month window. And last year, when I could book what I wanted for my upcoming trip, I loved it!

It doesn't bother me in the least that others are getting in to DVC for less and even getting to stay at BLT with those points. But, I do think, especially with them now allowing new members in at BLT with only 100 points, that the ability to book BLT at 7 months is going to get harder, and owning there will be important.

We go during Magic season and the other resorts we are interested in cost the same points wise (give or take 1 or 2 points) so for us, I didn't even need to buy more points to get BLT.

I really don't see them needing to tier because people are continuing to buy BLT, at the higher price, as I think they really believe that the resort's location is enough to justify owning there.

 

[Crystal_27]

If DVC recognizes that SSR points are essentially worth less, but that all points are essentially of equal value at and after the 7 month mark, do you think DVC will ever tier points to build more value at other resorts? Or do you think this is built in since different resorts have different point values per stay and there is also home resort advantage?

As a BLT owner (and, I'm assuming by your logic, therefore an owner with points having the most value because it costs the most to buy in there), it would very much disappoint me if Disney went to a tiered system, and I think it would hurt the whole DVC system as a whole. Each DVC resort has its own attractions, and I just can't see DVC devaluing one resort in favor of another. Think about the message that such a valuation would send the owners of those resorts that wind up in the bottom tier...and my guess would be that it would create this sort of artificial non-demand for these resorts which, again, hurts the entire system. Nope...I'm very happy with the current system as is.

 

[js]

I guess I am in the minority since I would choose SSR over BLT (don't need to be close to MK at night), BWV and BC (I like the GV at SSR).
One of the big factors for us buying our 420 points at SSR was location.
With my dh and me in our mid 40s, two teens-with one a couples of years away from college, it was important for us to be able to have nightlife close by. Sure BLT can be great but at night, I would have to use my car or the bus system to do anything other than go to MK.
My teens can go over to DQ, movies or shop. My dh and I can go out for a few drinks and "walk home". When the kids are older and they want to spend some time there, they can do the same.
I am so happy there is a place for everyone but for me, I don't see why BLT should be priced higher, other than it is a newer building since that is not what I am looking for in a resort.
To each his own but as SO MANY of us say...buy where you want to stay since you never know!

 

[dianeschlicht]

I hope not. Just because I bought my membership 13 years ago when points were less than $65 a point, does that make my membership less? I don't think so. I do agree that you buy where you wouldn't mind staying, because the ability to "trade" into non-home resorts at 7 months can be taken away at any time. I'm certainly not begrudging of anyone who paid BLT prices who wants the point value of staying at OKW, and I would hope the BLT folks would feel the same way.

 

[Anthony1971]

In some ways Disney has already done so. It is less points at SSR and OKW or a Value or standard view room etc. Disney knows people will pay more to be near a park and have a view.... To me what is the sense of staying at AKV with a view of a pool or a parking lot but some bought for that reason. Same with BLT why would you want to stay on a low floor where you see shrubs? therefore the different point amounts to stay..... But if you want a view and to be close to a park it still does cost you more points... For a lot of people who like SSR and OKW for there offerings they are a great deal...
Do not assume everyone who owns at BLT will want to stay near the MK when thier kids are grown. People change as they get older and what may seem attractive now may not be 10,15,20 years from now... At some point you may want to come to Disney with your grand kids stay in your room and have a BBQ at night... making BLT an unattractive option as it has little grounds to enjoy....
From what I understand Disney is running a special on SSR that can change just like they had BLT was in the mid low 90's for a while.

 

[Orsino]

Just a thought since SSR is officially at $90/pt. Obviously, DVC now recognizes and most importantly, admits that all resorts are not created equal and as with any other real estate interest, prices are different depending on location, amenities, etc.

I'm guessing that Aulani will debut at prices similar to BLT...but how can people buying in at BLT or Aulani be happy with the fact that their points (which cost so much more) are worth essentially the same as SSR points?

Both of the bolded statements can not be true. The fact that Disney needed to reduce the price on SSR indicates that SSR is not worth the same as the other resorts. In other words, if SSR points truly were the same as BLT points, then the price difference would never have come to be. People are willing to pay more for BLT, so the price is higher. Obviously there is a reason for this higher willingness to pay more (11 month booking). If Disney changed the rules and turned DVC into a 11 month feeding frenzy where all points were the same, then (1) people would be rightfully pissed off (2) all prices would normalize.

 

[Mtnman44]

Who really cares? Buy whatever points which gives you personally the most value. I consider SSR points to have more value than BLT. If someone offered me 100 points right now of my choosing, I would take OKW or SSR. Why? Because those points buy a lot more vacation days at SSR or OKW than they do at BLT (prior to 7 months of course). So for me, they are "worth more". After factoring in purchase price, the value ratio for me goes up even more.

 

[TDC Nala]

Is this another one of those "it's not fair that people with SSR points can even stay at BLT" threads?

DVC fixed it so if you're sure you want BLT every time, you can buy there and get a 4 month advantage in booking over everyone else.

Not sure why DVC might change that but they do have the option if they want it, so if you know you will want to stay at BLT a majority of the time is is usually suggested to buy BLT points.

 

[DebbieB]

Both of the bolded statements can not be true. The fact that Disney needed to reduce the price on SSR indicates that SSR is not worth the same as the other resorts. In other words, if SSR points truly were the same as BLT points, then the price difference would never have come to be. People are willing to pay more for BLT, so the price is higher. Obviously there is a reason for this higher willingness to pay more (11 month booking). If Disney changed the rules and turned DVC into a 11 month feeding frenzy where all points were the same, then (1) people would be rightfully pissed off (2) all prices would normalize.

They could not do that. The contract guarantees that home resort will have at least a 1 month booking priority.

 

[JBx3]

Both of the bolded statements can not be true. The fact that Disney needed to reduce the price on SSR indicates that SSR is not worth the same as the other resorts. In other words, if SSR points truly were the same as BLT points, then the price difference would never have come to be. People are willing to pay more for BLT, so the price is higher. Obviously there is a reason for this higher willingness to pay more (11 month booking). If Disney changed the rules and turned DVC into a 11 month feeding frenzy where all points were the same, then (1) people would be rightfully pissed off (2) all prices would normalize.

The reduction of point cost to me, indicates only that SSR is a very large resort, thus creating more resale opportunities. This point reduction closes the gap and get more people to buy in direct may be their hope. The larger the resort and perhaps the older the resort has price point reflection in it.

All the new stuff being sold goes for more of a premium. It is simply supply and demand verus availabilty. That is the world od retail.

SSR (which has been referred to) I believe is a perfectly great resort for any of the reasons people select it. In no way do I feel there is any deminished value, simply the fact that it is a sign of the times right now and anyone (direct or resale) are doing what ever they can to create sales with hopes that better times are around the corner.

I am personally looking to take advantage of a buyers market and looking to add on at either HHI, SSR, OKW, or BWV and I think they are all awesome resorts regardless of age, price, supply and demand.

 

[Doug7856]

Actually, DVC is already a tiered system.

It cost more points to stay a night a BLT or BCV than SSR or OKW. There are many reasons it costs less per point at one resort over another including when the points expire, how much availability (size of the resorts), demand, etc.

 

[JBx3]

Actually, DVC is already a tiered system.

It cost more points to stay a night a BLT or BCV than SSR or OKW. There are many reasons it costs less per point at one resort over another including when the points expire, how much availability (size of the resorts), demand, etc.

You are spot on!

 

[Jason@dvcstore]

And thus the old wisdom of buy where you want to stay comes into play. They could wave there wand tomorrow and take away the ability to book at resorts you dont own at and that would end the whole discussion right there.

In my opinion Disney is more likely to wave their wand and make it so that you can book anywhere you want at 10 months and give home resort only a 1 month advantage. This would make all the resorts basically the same and then they could charge (price per point) close to equal for all.

Jason

 

[drusba]

Actually, DVC is already a tiered system.

It cost more points to stay a night a BLT or BCV than SSR or OKW. There are many reasons it costs less per point at one resort over another including when the points expire, how much availability (size of the resorts), demand, etc.

Not actually a tier system which would be one where the home resort owner at BLT pays, for example, 12 points a night for a studio at BLT and the non-owner from SSR pays 16, and the similar advantage when going the other way (BLT owner pays 12 a night at SSR for whatever the SSR owner would usually pay 16). Thus, an actual tier system would attach more reservation value to each point of the member at a particular resort when reserving at any resort.

Disney's system depends mainly on home resort reservation advantage to assure owners at a higher cost resort receive a perceived value greater than those at a lower cost resort and thus will choose to purchase at the higher per point cost resort. Disney could potentially go to a tiered system with a new resort, but it is unlikely as long as it believes sales will be fine with the existing system.

The existing system works pretty well for members reserving their home resort as long as they can reserve 11 to 8 months out. However, it does not work for those who can only reserve a few months out and as many have expressed on these boards, DVC is probably not a good option for persons who are in that group. A real tier system could possibly make DVC more saleable to that group but Disney assumes (likely correctly) that most who are considering a timeshare are probably those who usually can reserve a long time out.

 

[Orsino]

They could not do that. The contract guarantees that home resort will have at least a 1 month booking priority.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply that Disney would or could eliminate the 4 month advantage, only that until they do (which apparently they can't) saying that SSR points are 'essentially' the same as BLT points is not true. The only way SSR point would be the same as BLT points is if the 4 month advantage was eliminated.

 

[Orsino]

In my opinion Disney is more likely to wave their wand and make it so that you can book anywhere you want at 10 months and give home resort only a 1 month advantage. This would make all the resorts basically the same and then they could charge (price per point) close to equal for all.

Jason

Interesting. I think that would cause a huge ruckus. As an SSR owner, it would probably benefit me, but I very much see that move as being unfair.

If booking advantage became less useful, then I would predict prices to align based on expiration date. SSR ends in 2054! It should cost less than BLT which ends in 2060.

 

[lilpooh108]

Not actually a tier system which would be one where the home resort owner at BLT pays, for example, 12 points a night for a studio at BLT and the non-owner from SSR pays 16, and the similar advantage when going the other way (BLT owner pays 12 a night at SSR for whatever the SSR owner would usually pay 16). Thus, an actual tier system would attach more reservation value to each point of the member at a particular resort when reserving at any resort.

Disney's system depends mainly on home resort reservation advantage to assure owners at a higher cost resort receive a perceived value greater than those at a lower cost resort and thus will choose to purchase at the higher per point cost resort. Disney could potentially go to a tiered system with a new resort, but it is unlikely as long as it believes sales will be fine with the existing system.

The existing system works pretty well for members reserving their home resort as long as they can reserve 11 to 8 months out. However, it does not work for those who can only reserve a few months out and as many have expressed on these boards, DVC is probably not a good option for persons who are in that group. A real tier system could possibly make DVC more saleable to that group but Disney assumes (likely correctly) that most who are considering a timeshare are probably those who usually can reserve a long time out.

Your explanation of your concept of a possible tiered system is actually what I meant to say in the original post---I was wondering if DVC would ever tie more point value to the points purchased at 1 resort over another.

For example, if we all think that Aulani will be high in point value to stay per night, and will be expensive to buy, (other than having home resort advantage) it would *cost* an Aulani owner more $$ to stay at his own resort than it would a SSR owner to stay at Aulani just because of the initial buy in discrepancy. I'm concerned that at some point DVC might give Aulani points say, 1 pt value per pt for stays at Aulani and 2 pt value per pt for stays in a lower tiered resort.

I'm not saying that this will or will not happen, but if it did I wouldn't be surprised (since DVC is no longer acting as if all of their resorts are worth the same per point at initial buy in).

 

[DebbieB]

Your explanation of your concept of a possible tiered system is actually what I meant to say in the original post---I was wondering if DVC would ever tie more point value to the points purchased at 1 resort over another.

For example, if we all think that Aulani will be high in point value to stay per night, and will be expensive to buy, (other than having home resort advantage) it would *cost* an Aulani owner more $$ to stay at his own resort than it would a SSR owner to stay at Aulani just because of the initial buy in discrepancy. I'm concerned that at some point DVC might give Aulani points say, 1 pt value per pt for stays at Aulani and 2 pt value per pt for stays in a lower tiered resort.

I'm not saying that this will or will not happen, but if it did I wouldn't be surprised (since DVC is no longer acting as if all of their resorts are worth the same per point at initial buy in).

The tradeoff for that is dues are lower per point. BLT dues per point are way lower than some of the older resorts. But the points cost per night is higher. So it really hurts when someone from say BWV decides to stay at BLT, they have to use more per points per night plus are paying higher dues per point.