Will we see tiers within DVC?

[Sammie]

What do you think you would do, sell (which doesn't really hurt DVC), make the most of it or add on more points?

Some perks would not bother me, a difference in maintenance fees would.

I would sell and I personally think if many sell it does hurt Disney. Kinda like looking for a house to buy on a street with a large number of houses for sale.

One begins to ask, what is wrong with the neighborhood.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

I was pretty sure you would not be happy with a have and have not system, guess I was wrong.

As I said earlier, I do believe in adding certain benefits for higher point holders. One example is the AP discount.

MG

 

[cvjw]

I am a new DVC member, and I guess I will be in the minority on this issue. If Disney were to offer good enough perks, it would make me want to buy more points to get that "next level". I have no problem with people who have bought more points with Disney having more priviledges than those who have bought less points.

 

[Chuck S]

I actually have my doubts that a tiered booking window or different fees would be allowed with DVC. While our POS does allow for Disney to do many things unilaterally, no where does it indicated that some members of a resort could ever have priority over other members of the same resort. Of course, that only refers to DVC operations...not "perks" such as the availability of discounted APs and park tickets, fastpasses, dining discounts, TiW availability and such that could be offered to people based on individual ownership requirements.

 

[mvc1997]

Some perks would not bother me, a difference in maintenance fees would.

I would sell and I personally think if many sell it does hurt Disney. Kinda like looking for a house to buy on a street with a large number of houses for sale.

One begins to ask, what is wrong with the neighborhood.

I agree with this.
If Disney wanted to create a new II tiered system, then it should be a new DVC altogether. Maybe starting with the GF DVC.
As it is some locations now cost more points per stay. Isn't that enough? If it costs more to stay, you need more points, your getting a better location or better accommodtions. You are getting what you paid for. More points more vacations. More days for the money on your APs.
The system is fair now. JMHO

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

There's already a "tier system" of sorts... A DVC member with twice as many points gets twice as many nights (all else being equal). But that should be the only difference.

When it comes to using our DVC points, all DVC members should be under the same rules. Having higher fees for some members than others would effectively mean that some members are subsidizing other members. Giving booking priorities based on total points owned would unfairly punish those who don't get the priority.

I could see change fees and minimum stays at some point, but only with such rules applied equally to all DVC members.

There is a direct, linear relationship between our deeded real estate lease interest and the DVC points that we get each year. Then it's up to us to use those points in whatever way is best for us -- with everyone playing by the same rules.

 

[Dean]

I actually have my doubts that a tiered booking window or different fees would be allowed with DVC. While our POS does allow for Disney to do many things unilaterally, no where does it indicated that some members of a resort could ever have priority over other members of the same resort. Of course, that only refers to DVC operations...not "perks" such as the availability of discounted APs and park tickets, fastpasses, dining discounts, TiW availability and such that could be offered to people based on individual ownership requirements.

I do think it could be problematic for hard coded things like reservations at existing resorts, that's why I mentioned picking up with new resorts and converting those that add on over. Absolutely no problem with additional perks like using points to pay for other cash options including dues and tickets would not be a problem at all from a rule standpoint.

Some perks would not bother me, a difference in maintenance fees would.

I would sell and I personally think if many sell it does hurt Disney. Kinda like looking for a house to buy on a street with a large number of houses for sale.

One begins to ask, what is wrong with the neighborhood.

As Tim noted, the devil is in the details. As Brian noted, other companies already do this successfully. If you sell, someone else will pay the dues so it does not hurt them a bit. If anything it helps the company overall because the new owner of those points is likely to spend more money over the next few years than a current owner. I would agree that it would represent an image shift but I personally think this is a very small issue compared to the dollars they could generate. I did not reference maint fees but currently there is already a tiered system in favor of those with smaller than average contracts and those with multiple smaller contracts even the total is larger. A more neutral system would be something more like $300 plus X a point, maybe $3-4 a point.

 

[ead79]

What do you think you would do, sell (which doesn't really hurt DVC), make the most of it or add on more points?

Well, it would depend on what exactly they did. For example...

1) If they kept my dues the same, but offered discounts on dues to those with lots of points. I would have no problem with that.

2) If they gave members with lots of points a 2 week booking priority window at the resorts (e.g. 11 months plus 2 weeks & 7 months plus 2 weeks). This would depend entirely on what it did to availability. If I saw that I was no longer able to book my choice of rooms (within reason) at 11 months out at my home resort, then I would be forced to sell.

3) If they charged a fee for banking/borrowing. If it was a small fee I would not sell. However, DVC certainly bills the "fabulousness" of being able to bank/borrow points heavily when you join. So if the fee was excessive, that would make me strongly consider selling, as I typically bank a few points left over from our joining bonus each year.

4) If they offered DCL, ABD, etc. discounts to high point holders. Since those discounts would be extra perks, this wouldn't bother me at all.

So essentially what it boils down to for me is whether anything they did was an added perk for large point owners or was an added fee or dis-incentive to smaller point owners. I have no issue with large point owners getting discounts, reduced fees, in-room gifts, etc. I would have a big issue with large point owners getting benefits that directly impact my ability to use my own points such as altering my booking window or charging me to bank/borrow my own points that I paid for.

While eventually I'd like to do an add on (I can easily see us wanting a 2 bedroom once we have kiddos), I wouldn't do it just to get in a higher tier if I couldn't afford it already, which I can't right now.

 

[crisi]

If I sell, it doesn't hurt Disney, but it does help me. My ROI has been acheived. I can sell tomorrow for $50 a point and be a very content customer of DVC. And then I am free to take my vacation time and dollars and invest them elsewhere - perhaps with Disney at WDW CRO resorts, on the cruise, on Adventures by Disney - perhaps doing something completely different (I think my kids would like a Dude Ranch, I want to spend ten days in England). And since I'm one of those people who is only content with my DVC ownership, goes back and forth on its long term potential for us, enjoys other travel opportunities with my family - this sort of change wouldn't be bad for us - but it would probably mean less Disney.

DVC ownership for me is "am I getting value out of this" - not "will selling hurt Disney." If I'm getting value out of it - irrespective of what other people get or don't get, its worthwhile to me. If I start feeling nickel and dimed on fees - I might not answer that question differently tomorrow than I do today.

 

[mvc1997]

Sorry but I don't understand why some think high point owners should get reduced fees.
So then lower pt. owners would have to make up the difference?

Not fair in my opinion. The more pts. the more they can use.
Use = maintenance. Just because A has more pts. than B does A use the AC less? Does their roof over their heads need less repair? No need to paint as often?

We own 455 pts. (This is not sour grapes. I'm happy for anyone who owns pts.)
We are blessed to be able to have that many pts. to share with our children & grandchildren.
We go in & reclean (yes, I'm picky), we clean before we leave, I don't expect reduced fees for this. I expect everyone to treat their home away from home with respect & leave it in the same condition in which they came. This would help keep the fees lower and the check-in times faster. Do the owners with more pts. always leave the place cleaner? They get what they pay for, just as the 150pt. owner.
OK, rant over!

 

[GuySmiley]

I wouldn't mind perks for higher 'tiers' as long as they don't devalue my membership. Assuming I'd be in a low(est) tier, with 234 pts, I wouldn't mind if they gave perks like better AP discounts, DDP discount, spa booking priviledges. As long as those discounts aren't paid back by dues! But I'd hate to see booking window perks, or room advantages, where now my membership is disadvantaged.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

The whole annual fee structure never made sense to me anyway. I mean, do you wear out the carpet faster if you stay over Christmas, or does the electricity cost more during Easter??
Of course it doesn't, but the Members who stay during those times pay much more for those items.

MG

 

[mvc1997]

I wouldn't mind perks for higher 'tiers' as long as they don't devalue my membership. Assuming I'd be in a low(est) tier, with 234 pts, I wouldn't mind if they gave perks like better AP discounts, DDP discount, spa booking priviledges. As long as those discounts aren't paid back by dues! But I'd hate to see booking window perks, or room advantages, where now my membership is disadvantaged.

Why??
A discount on AP because they use it less???
Come on, an AP cost the same amt. for using 7days or using 365 days! The more pts the more days the less that AP costs per day. That's a discount.

DDP dicount. Why????
Those with more pts. eat less?

Just don't understand this reasoning.

 

[nunzia]

I wouldn't mind perks for higher 'tiers' as long as they don't devalue my membership. Assuming I'd be in a low(est) tier, with 234 pts, I wouldn't mind if they gave perks like better AP discounts, DDP discount, spa booking priviledges. As long as those discounts aren't paid back by dues! But I'd hate to see booking window perks, or room advantages, where now my membership is disadvantaged.

Agreed. I would never be in any tier but the lowest..because of finances and travelling style. I wouldn't mind some extras for those who have alot of points, but not at the direct detriment to my membership. Yes, big point owners have higher MFs, but not really! It is the same per POINT, so we all pay the same. They tie MFs in with useage in a very fair way right now, based on how much you actually use the system. I'm certainly much less 'maintainence' with my little points and few visits and few phone calls, so I think they should keep all things equal. I would not like tiers that included earlier booking windows, bigger/better discounts are fine, but not if that is something I am 'subsidizing'.
I pretty much hope things just stay the same.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

Why??
A discount on AP because they use it less???
Come on, an AP cost the same amt. for using 7days or using 365 days! The more pts the more days the less that AP costs per day. That's a discount.

Because someone can (and some do) buy 25 point contracts, get an AP discount for the whole family, and stay at the Holiday Inn for multiple vacations. They can use the AP as much as a high pint owner.

That's why I believe a better AP discount for high point owners is one of the fair things that should be tiered.

MG

 

[littlestar]

. . . I would not like tiers that included earlier booking windows, bigger/better discounts are fine, but not if that is something I am 'subsidizing'.
I pretty much hope things just stay the same.

I agree. If I start subsidizing others, then I would rather just sell my DVC points and then rent points and let somebody else take the financial hit.

 

[Sammie]

I do think it could be problematic for hard coded things like reservations at existing resorts, that's why I mentioned picking up with new resorts and converting those that add on over. Absolutely no problem with additional perks like using points to pay for other cash options including dues and tickets would not be a problem at all from a rule standpoint.

As Tim noted, the devil is in the details. As Brian noted, other companies already do this successfully. If you sell, someone else will pay the dues so it does not hurt them a bit. If anything it helps the company overall because the new owner of those points is likely to spend more money over the next few years than a current owner. I would agree that it would represent an image shift but I personally think this is a very small issue compared to the dollars they could generate. I did not reference maint fees but currently there is already a tiered system in favor of those with smaller than average contracts and those with multiple smaller contracts even the total is larger. A more neutral system would be something more like $300 plus X a point, maybe $3-4 a point.

When you mentioned fees that is what I thought you meant.

Honestly though, if I decide to sell I could care less about Disney and whether it benefits them or not, it would benefits me.

There are plenty of wonderful places to vacation where my dollar is appreciated. If I still have a desire to see Disney, I can certainly rent points or book one of the many discounts floating around.

Heck I might even do free dining.

 

[Chuck S]

Because someone can (and some do) buy 25 point contracts, get an AP discount for the whole family, and stay at the Holiday Inn for multiple vacations. They can use the AP as much as a high pint owner.

That's why I believe a better AP discount for high point owners is one of the fair things that should be tiered.

MG

I think if they had simply set a minimum number of points for perks early in the program, and had somehow designated that on our membership cards (less than xxx points would be a different color card) then it would have worked fine, but it is a little late in the game to try such a perk scheme. Honestly, I don't think they are too worried about "perks" when you consider that renter keys still designate ***DVC MEMBER***. And that would be far easier to fix, cost virtually nothing, and leave members with no cause for hard feelings.

 

[mlayton14]

I think I must be missing something here.

Why would Disney offer tiered levels of services to DVC members - they already have our money? Unless what they would offer would increase purchase of DVC points (none of which Ive seen posted thus far).

I see no incentive for Disney to do this, especially since there are already so many points out there that they would probably have to "grandfather" these benefits to existing members in which they wouldnt see a single penny out of that they havent already gotten.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

I think I must be missing something here.

Why would Disney offer tiered levels of services to DVC members - they already have our money? Unless what they would offer would increase purchase of DVC points (none of which Ive seen posted thus far).

I see no incentive for Disney to do this, especially since there are already so many points out there that they would probably have to "grandfather" these benefits to existing members in which they wouldnt see a single penny out of that they havent already gotten.

I believe there would be plenty of extra sales. If a Member was at the 460 point level, I believe they would be enticed to purchase a small add on to acquire some benefits. IMO this would hold true for both initial, and add on purchases... Perhaps even more so for add ons, as many Members don't start out with a gazillion points.

I don't think DVC would incur a huge expense by grandfathering in existing high point members. Many of the benefits would be of nominal cost, and it would be for a small percentage of the membership.

MG