Will we see tiers within DVC?

[CarolMN]

........(snip).....

• 750-999 maybe no fees, a 2 week priority on booking, 3 transfers per UY, the ability to pay fees and tickets with points, reduced CC/DC/DCL stays.
• 1000 and above, maybe $15 fees, a 3 week priority on booking, no fees, unlimited transfers, transfer banked/borrowed points, lower points costs to pay fees and tickets compared to the above group. Priortity line for checkin, special events, the possibility of using points for a castle stay. Further reduced CC/DC/DCL stays.........

....(snip).....

I hear cheering - from the members in the rental business.

I think a tiered system would negatively impact future sales. My guess is that there are a lot more members who want to buy less than 500 points than there are who want to buy 1000 or more.

 

[Grumpygrandpa]

I think you would see a bump in referrals. Esp. if we get nice perks. FPs anyone?

 

[mlayton14]

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

I hear ya ... but we will have to agree to disagree. If someone already has 400 pts for example .. are they going to drop another $10k for another 100 pts that they might not need for a enhanced priority booking window?

I see DVC as largely a money saving program, not a luxury program. Offering largely "fringe" perks wouldnt justify the large expense IMO for the large majority of members. And if they really sweetened those perks with larger benefits, then wouldnt that devalue the membership of those that already purchased? How does Disney sell this to existing members?

 

[tjkraz]

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.

I agree that it will never be completely equitable. In this case, the member who uses points for Christmas still has the same opportunity to book September or any other low-priced period. It's entirely their decision to pay the higher rates. But I see where you're coming from.

Personally, I think we take the dues a little too seriously at times...at least when it comes to the "my dues better not be paying for that" angle. Not all members use the resort pools. Not all members use the Community Halls. Not all of us use playgrounds or BBQ grills or bus stops or even the parking lots. Nevertheless we all pay for those things.

And even if we do use the amenities, we have no direct control over them. We don't choose which staff members to hire or how much their benefits cost. We don't determine how frequently the trees are trimmed or buildings re-roofed.

At the larger resorts, just one penny per point in dues can generate over $100,000 per year. And I'm sure all of us are paying a few pennies per year toward amenities, staff members and perks we will never use.

I don't see how DVC could offer dues reductions for members who own a certain number of points. The resort budgets still need to be funded and I don't see DVC kicking in the difference. There are much cheaper perks they could cook-up.

I hear ya ... but we will have to agree to disagree. If someone already has 400 pts for example .. are they going to drop another $10k for another 100 pts that they might not need for a enhanced priority booking window?

There may not be many members buying 100 additional points to reach a threshold but smaller increments wouldn't surprise me. If you were already at 400 and considering an 80-pt add-on, wouldn't you think twice about the extra 20 points to get the bonus perks?

I am quite certain this happens now with the incentives DVC offers. If you're looking at 75 points, 100 may seem more palatable with a higher discount or even 125 with a free cruise. After all, it's not like most people would have trouble using 25-50 extra points. They just need a little nudge to justify the purchase.

If you owned 350 DVC points and were looking at Hawaii destinations, wouldn't DVC earn greater scrutiny if you knew a 150-pt Hawaii add-on would get you into "the club"? That could be all that's necessary to give DVC a leg-up on Marriott or some other Hawaii TS.

If an add-on thru DVC counts toward the club but a resale add-on doesn't, wouldn't that give you greater reason to buy direct? I'm not saying folks would spend $30 more per point to buy thru DVC than resale. But on newer resorts where that disparity is smaller, I could see lifetime admittance to "the club" as being sufficient motivation to spend a little more for the add-on.

All of those extra points add up quickly to DVC. And I doubt we're talking about a club that would cost millions per year to administer.

 

[nunzia]

<<<<Personally, I think we take the dues a little too seriously at times...at least when it comes to the "my dues better not be paying for that" angle. Not all members use the resort pools. Not all members use the Community Halls. Not all of us use playgrounds or BBQ grills or bus stops or even the parking lots. Nevertheless we all pay for those things.

And even if we do use the amenities, we have no direct control over them. We don't choose which staff members to hire or how much their benefits cost. We don't determine how frequently the trees are trimmed or buildings re-roofed.

At the larger resorts, just one penny per point in dues can generate over $100,000 per year. And I'm sure all of us are paying a few pennies per year toward amenities, staff members and perks we will never use.

I don't see how DVC could offer dues reductions for members who own a certain number of points. The resort budgets still need to be funded and I don't see DVC kicking in the difference. There are much cheaper perks they could cook-up. >>>>

True..but at least now, if we chose to use those ammenities we could. And if we have problems with CMs complaints and watchful supervisors should adjust that.
I guess I just don't get that someone would pay another 10K for a spa discount or something. I also don't get why Disney would really need tiers. We all use our points and pay our MFs. I would think to Dinsey the useage from each point would be equal. Even if I stay one night in a studio, my 8 points are the same as if a 1,000 pointer stayed one night in a studio. So the 1,000 pointer stays 20 mights and I stay 7. I leave and another person moves in. The rooms are pretty well booked and Disney gets what they hope for from each of us. Just confused as to how Disney could make this really appealing enough for people to actually buy more points to reach a level. Also GOOD point about renters..they are probably a nice section of the big points club.

 

[Brian Noble]

I don't think they are too worried about "perks" when you consider that renter keys still designate ***DVC MEMBER***.

Renter keys don't say that. Guest keys do. Member Services relies upon the Member to designate the difference between the two, but the Member is incented to *not* identify their renters as such, because by "forgetting" to identify renters, the reservation is worth more with the perks.

It's easy to see why almost all renters are treated as if they are guests.

 

[tjkraz]

I guess I just don't get that someone would pay another 10K for a spa discount or something.

There I agree with you--I don't see many people spending that sort of money for the perks likely available in this sort of club. But I can easily see it generating increases in SMALL increments.

Like I said, If contemplating an add-on that would bring one within 25 points of some bonus perks, that's incentive enough for some people to buy the extra 25 points. Same for buying a DVC Hawaii add-on rather than another timeshare. Or if debating direct vs. resale for an add-on, this club may be reason enough to buy direct if resale purchases are excluded.

In some cases it's about making DVC just a little more appealing than a comparable purchase elsewhere. In other cases it's about convincing folks to buy a little more than what they need.

I also don't get why Disney would really need tiers. We all use our points and pay our MFs. I would think to Dinsey the useage from each point would be equal.

An extra 20 points sold to you is 20 points they don't have to try to sell someone else. If you add an extra 20 to get into the club....I add 10 more....someone else adds 30 more....over time the numbers can get pretty big.

Also GOOD point about renters..they are probably a nice section of the big points club.

That's one reason why I doubt there would be any preferential booking perks here. DVC has taken steps to discourage rentals in the past. I don't think they would do a 180 and give renters priority booking privileges.

Nor do I think these club perks would be accessible by renters.

 

[Dean]

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.

So you'd do it like I would, look at the end product and make a practicle decision. You're not adverse to the principle but would have to see how it does or does not work for you. IMO, this is the appropriate approach. I can see the other side of disaproving on principle but if one takes that approach, it really has to be an all or none view, as the view of how it affects you or I is one of selfishness and not of principle.

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?

Those with more points have an inherently lower risk of servicing their contracts. I'd argue that they are paying more than their fair share at this point and that those with smaller contracts are paying less than their fair share.

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

Most fixed week or floating full week systems have the same fees for all weeks or nearly so, also not equitable. Some will vary a little based mostly on taxes but not maint fee portion. The truth is likely somewhere in the middle. The lower demand times do likely see less wear and tear and other costs while those staying at higher demand times are getting a room that would cost more than were they staying at a lower demand time.

 

[Dean]

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.

As noted, I too think this would increase sales.

I hear cheering - from the members in the rental business.

I think a tiered system would negatively impact future sales. My guess is that there are a lot more members who want to buy less than 500 points than there are who want to buy 1000 or more.

That has not been the experience with other companies that do this. The salesman targets you with what they think will reel you in. Then in the future, they encourage additional purchases to get you to increase your holdings. This is a very effective sales tool, esp if coupled with the idea that resale buyers don't get all of the benefits.

I hear ya ... but we will have to agree to disagree. If someone already has 400 pts for example .. are they going to drop another $10k for another 100 pts that they might not need for a enhanced priority booking window?

I see DVC as largely a money saving program, not a luxury program. Offering largely "fringe" perks wouldnt justify the large expense IMO for the large majority of members. And if they really sweetened those perks with larger benefits, then wouldnt that devalue the membership of those that already purchased? How does Disney sell this to existing members?

I disagree on both levels. I think it's impossible to argue a value for DVC without including a certain amount of luxury in the equation but then I'd define being able to go to WDW, even staying off property, as a luxury. I can absolutely guarantee you that I would increase my holdings for the right benefits as I've done so with 2 other systems for this very purpose. Some would, some wouldn't, but I think those that would is a lot more than you think it is.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

The lower demand times do likely see less wear and tear and other costs while those staying at higher demand times are getting a room that would cost more than were they staying at a lower demand time.

Why?? I mean how is four people in a 1br during December different from four in a 1br during January?

MG

 

[Chuck S]

I think the best tool for increasing sales, would be to restrict perks, like free internet, AP discounts, pool hopping and such from those purchasing resale contracts.

I dont think with as many "under 500" point contracts as there are, that instituting a new tiered system would really work. If it had been in place since the start, it would be different.

DVC would be bombarded with complaints, and would see a decline in personal referrals, especially in states that offer no rewards...and referrals have got to be a fairly sizable sales tool. I mean, if someone you know has DVC and is unhappy with the product, chances are you won't even stop at a kiosk to enquire about the program. Imagine being in line for a ride, and overhearing a conversation that a family is thinking about DVC, and someone else pipes in..."I hope you've got LOTS of $$$ to spend on a timeshare, because to get any benefits you have to buy $100,000 worth of points!"

 

[tjkraz]

I do think it would have some positive impact on sales, but I'm not going to argue against a likely negative impact as well. As with any change, I'm sure some members would excluded and respond as they see fit (sell, stop buying, stop referring, etc.)

But on this point...

DVC would be bombarded with complaints, and would see a decline in personal referrals, especially in states that offer no rewards...

...according to the survey that started this all DVC was looking at giving folks credit toward the "club" for referring new business. It wasn't solely based upon personal ownership--referrals were specifically mentioned.

From that viewpoint, it could be viewed as a gain for many members who are prohibited from earning referral rewards. Rather than having to spend $100k to reach the required personal holdings, it could conceivably be a combination of points held plus new business referred.

 

[caewe]

Hope not

 

[Dean]

Why?? I mean how is four people in a 1br during December different from four in a 1br during January?

MG

As I said, there is some difference in maintenance assuming a difference in utilization during some seasons compared to others. Also, there is more value in some seasons than others due to the inherent costs of a cash reservation.

I think the best tool for increasing sales, would be to restrict perks, like free internet, AP discounts, pool hopping and such from those purchasing resale contracts.

I dont think with as many "under 500" point contracts as there are, that instituting a new tiered system would really work. If it had been in place since the start, it would be different.

DVC would be bombarded with complaints, and would see a decline in personal referrals, especially in states that offer no rewards...and referrals have got to be a fairly sizable sales tool. I mean, if someone you know has DVC and is unhappy with the product, chances are you won't even stop at a kiosk to enquire about the program. Imagine being in line for a ride, and overhearing a conversation that a family is thinking about DVC, and someone else pipes in..."I hope you've got LOTS of $$$ to spend on a timeshare, because to get any benefits you have to buy $100,000 worth of points!"

As I've noted, my sense is it would go the other way and generate more sales than it would cost. I think the reputation cost is overestimated. I would say that most who take a tiered approach also limit perks and the tiers to only retail purchases or sometimes, to those who add on retail afterwards.

 

[Chuck S]

As I said, there is some difference in maintenance assuming a difference in utilization during some seasons compared to others. Also, there is more value in some seasons than others due to the inherent costs of a cash reservation.

As I've noted, my sense is it would go the other way and generate more sales than it would cost. I think the reputation cost is overestimated. I would say that most who take a tiered approach also limit perks and the tiers to only retail purchases or sometimes, to those who add on retail afterwards.

I don't think the reputational aspect is overestimated. We had no intention of even gong to sales presentation, until we overheard a conversation on the monorail between someone who had just purchased and someone they had just met.

 

[Dean]

I don't think the reputational aspect is overestimated. We had no intention of even gong to sales presentation, until we overheard a conversation on the monorail between someone who had just purchased and someone they had just met.

We'll have to disagree. I seem to recall some saying they wouldn't do any further reallocation using the same arguement. Please note I didn't say it was unimportant, only that it's one factor and not the only one.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

As I said, there is some difference in maintenance assuming a difference in utilization during some seasons compared to others. Also, there is more value in some seasons than others due to the inherent costs of a cash reservation.

I'm sorry, but IMO this does not explain why four people in December wear out a carpet faster than four people in January.
I'm sure you must have facts to support your statement, and that's why I'm pressing for the answer. I sure can't come up with the explanation..

MG

 

[dizfan]

How about a tiered system based on owning a certain number of points at multiple destinations?

For example, those who own ___ points at a WDW resort and ___ points at GCV (or any future DL DVC) can purchase an annual pass that is valid at both WDW and DL. They could add perks to HH, VB, Hawaii, Washington DC, and any future destinations.

 

[DVC Mike]

I would appreciate a tiered system based upon the number of points you own.

 

[gkrykewy]

I would appreciate a tiered system based upon the number of points you own.

lol