Would you join a lawsuit against DVC to stop/revert the 2020 reallocation?

[DizneyLizzy]

As with Chuck, I purchased 310 points in 1992 so I could get a week in a 2BR during Magic. As you state, today's buyers are looking for prefixed, except for annual dues increases, hotel rooms.

As a recent buyer who travels with a small family but prefers the deluxe resorts for their amenities, yes, fixed price hotel rooms was exactly why we bought DVC. We saw the costs of rooms and tickets skyrocketing, and dvc was a way to help us continue doing Disney at a reasonable/relatively fixed cost for at least the accommodations. For us personally, one of the reasons we bought a small contract is the current and trending price of park tickets. We aren’t AP people anymore since having kids, so we bought DVC to cover a trip every other summer in a one bedroom, or every year in a studio. If we want to go more often than that while our kids are little, or stay longer, and now that our points won’t go as far, we’ll cycle a moderate or point rental stay in. We could have bought more points, but we decided against it almost exclusively bc of ticket prices. All of those 10 day non-exp tickets that I started to stockpile around 2010 are almost gone 1990s or early 2000s ticket prices? Sure we would have bought more points planning for longer and more frequent stays, and for having extended family come with us - it’s also harder to get relatives to come along as often now too bc of ticket prices. My father in law is joining us this summer for part of our trip, and his 4 day park hopper was $458. I think my non-discounted AP in 2013 cost less than that. I wonder if all of that contributes to the smaller contracts as well.

Anyway I just thought I’d chime in as I’ve been following the thread to shed some light on us lowly small contract people and why we bought small. Am I disappointed by the charts as a studio and one bedroom family? Sure. But I’m also a wait and see person, and our favorite place to stay (OKW one bedroom) did not change for our usual travel dates. If we are short points, we’ll just tag on a night at a moderate. We kind of like that as an excuse to do a one night dining plan anyway.

 

[Mumof4mice]

I have asked DVC and they have said the broker has to provide it.
I have an older version and I asked for the latest one. I think they should either be able to provide the latest version or a list of amendments done over the years.

I believe their position has been that they provided the POS to the direct buyer who needs to provide that information to his resale purchaser.

Call and say you're a prospective client considering buying, and would like a POS posted out to you. We asked for the POS at a sales presentation (Aulani) and it was given to us without protest.

 

[zavandor]

I believe their position has been that they provided the POS to the direct buyer who needs to provide that information to his resale purchaser.

The POS are amended over time. I have the earliest SSR POS. A lot of direct buyers don't have the latest one too.
Why don't they publish it on the website, free to download? It's a public document, isn't it?

 

[Madame]

The POS are amended over time. I have the earliest SSR POS. A lot of direct buyers don't have the latest one too.
Why don't they publish it on the website, free to download? It's a public document, isn't it?

Yes it’s one thing to say « you should know what you bought/signed up for » and the reality is you can’t even easily get a copy of the current POS which apparently changes with frequency....

 

[Chuck S]

Yes it’s one thing to say « you should know what you bought/signed up for » and the reality is you can’t even easily get a copy of the current POS which apparently changes with frequency....

I'm not sure the really important language changes much from revision to revision. It is mostly revised, as a multi resort document, to include new resorts whenever one is announced for sale.

 

[Madame]

I'm not sure the really important language changes much from revision to revision. It is mostly revised, as a multi resort document, to include new resorts whenever one is announced for sale.

Sure, but as a resale buyer it would seem no one even offers up any version. 2 resale contracts, no POS for either SSR or BCV.

 

[Dean]

I have asked DVC and they have said the broker has to provide it.
I have an older version and I asked for the latest one. I think they should either be able to provide the latest version or a list of amendments done over the years.

I believe their position has been that they provided the POS to the direct buyer who needs to provide that information to his resale purchaser.

I haven't been in this position in quite a while but I don't see how they can deny the information to the owner. And since there is no electronic file like many others, I think they'll have to send it if pushed but again, they may charge.

 

[RobDoc]

The POS are amended over time. I have the earliest SSR POS. A lot of direct buyers don't have the latest one too.
Why don't they publish it on the website, free to download? It's a public document, isn't it?

Perhaps you should add that to your list of things to ask DVC when you talk with them as I have no idea why they don't publish it.

 

[Wakey]

I almost cannot believe what I'm reading here.

Consumers are meant to be protected. If they are not, the law needs changing.

I spent a year researching DVC in detail before buying in.

I read these and other boards all the time.

I knew full well about points re-allocation. I thought it was a good idea, and had been expecting it to happen on studios and with October to December, as that was obviously a stress point in the system.

Never had I seen it suggested anywhere they could make points out of thin air.

Now I'm reading they may have a right to do it, and if we don't like it, sell up.

If I didn't know this, 99.9% of other members would not, as most hardly do any research.

I bought direct and resale.

Thus somewhere, myself and 99.9% of other buyers may have been let down from a consumer protection standpoint.

Potentially this for me means it becomes like every other tineshare- buyer beware. That wasn't ever the mission of DVC, Eisner and management from day 1 made it clear that DVC would be different. It's proven very lucrative being different and up to now pretty much beyond reproach.

Have we seen a tipping point where short term goals have ruined the trust of DVC?

 

[zavandor]

Something that hasn't been stressed enough, in my opinion, is the difference between DVD and DVCMC.
DVD builds the resorts and sells the points, DVCMC manages the resorts for the benefits of the members. DVCMC is the entity who does the points reallocations and should do so for the benefit of the membership as a whole.

The goal of the reallocation must not be to boost sales of points, allow DVD to sell larger contracts or push people to sell smaller contracts so others could buy them. DVCMC should have the interest of the current members at heart.
This doesn't mean that every change has to benefit everyone, but if someone is hurt, then more should benefit from the change.

A point reallocation that is neutral within the same Vacation Home, could be easily understood. The seasons that existed 25 years ago make very little sense now. The summer is not the busiest season of the year, for DVC and for parks alike. A reallocation that shifts points from Adventure and Choice to Dream and Magic makes sense. A few members will gain, a few others will loose, overall the membership gains from the change because the points chart reflect more accurately how demand spreads over the year.

Let's look at the lockoff premium now.
Studios are the most popular room size. This means a lot of owners have bought specifically to book studios. Increasing the lockoff premium makes booking studios and 1BR more expensive without a balance in other rooms. Members, on average over the year, will be able to book less nights with their points. This creates extra availability for studios, but at the expense of members who see the value of their points decrease. We're talking about tens of thousands of "lost" nights. There is a benefit for the membership because studios will be more available, but that change is not neutral, it is paid by the thousands of people who will loose vacation time.

Such an extreme measure (make members loose nights) doesn't seem to be justifiable. The only two resorts who have problems at 11 months to book studios seem to be VGF and CCV and only for the very highest demand times. At every other resort, studios can be booked at 11 months all year around, except a few booking categories made of a very small number of rooms. And while switching at 7 months has become more difficult, like many other members I've been quite successful at it. How can DVCMC justify causing members a loss of reservation power when they currently can book their home resort with very few issues? Issues that could be probably resolved with just a seasonal reallocation.
And let's not start with 1BR: the idea they require an increase of points to balance demand is just comical.

And neither I understand how switching points from studios to 2BR would benefit the membership as a whole.
I've read comments saying that having fewer small contracts would benefit the membership because there will be fewer check-ins, fewer parking spots used and so on. I couldn't disagree more.
People who could book a week with their points in a studio, after the reallocation will be able to book 6 nights, This means a check-in every 6 nights rather than every 7 ==> more cleaning needed, more front desk time required. Some people will upgrade to 2BR from 1BR, but unless they buy more points (something that cannot be the goal of the reallocation), they'd be able to book less nights in a 2BR than in a 1BR, causing more turnover (==> more housekeeping and more front desk costs).
And since the breakage income is already capped, we would not benefit from the extra income of the extra nights generated by the lockoff premium. I can easily see our MF go up because of the reallocation, not go down.

It's a loss (reservation power) - loss (MF increase) scenario for members. For DVD it's a win(more sales)-win(extra breakage income).

How can all of this be seen as an advantage for the membership as a whole?

 

[tjkraz]

The goal of the reallocation must not be to boost sales of points, allow DVD to sell larger contracts or push people to sell smaller contracts so others could buy them. DVCMC should have the interest of the current members at heart.
This doesn't mean that every change has to benefit everyone, but if someone is hurt, then more should benefit from the change.

While this is true, the management company and members have a different view on what is in the program's best interest. Generally speaking, the more people who feel pain from a point reallocation, the more necessary it was for the overall program good.

Back in 2010/2011, DVC rebalanced the weekday and weekend point costs.

Through 2009, a Standard View One Bedroom at BoardWalk in Adventure Season cost just 16 points per night. A full 5 nights in that room--Sunday to Thursday) was only 80 points. Friday and Saturday nights were then priced at 41 points...EACH. Anecdotally, the majority of DVC owners were using points exclusively for weekday stays, or perhaps adding just one weekend night to their visit. It was a very common topic of discussion here on the DIS. Members would pay cash for a cheap Disney hotel room on the weekends before moving to a villa. Some would stay off-site. Others would use points for a Studio on the weekends before moving to a larger villa on the weekdays.

When the dust settled from that 2-year reallocation, that same BWV room was priced at 20 points per weekday (an increase of 25%) and weekends at 27. Frankly the outrage over this 2020 change pales in comparison to 2010/2011. And a lot of the same theories were floated at the time (shorter length of stay, decreased satisfaction, "Disney gets less of my money").

The path DVC was on was not sustainable. In some cases like my illustration, fewer than 50% of the points were distributed over that 5-day Sunday - Thursday span and demand showed no signs of subsiding. Many current owners were quite content with those 5-night point stays and new buyers openly stated they had no intention of using points for weekends. Over the first 8-10 years that our family owned DVC Points, we only used points toward weekend nights once or twice.

Today, it's apparent Disney is selling a lot of points to owners who plan exclusively Studio stays. We can blame DVC due to lower minimums and changes in their marketing strategy, but there isn't some huge untapped market for the larger villas. And changes in DVC's marketing strategy isn't going to alter the habits of resale buyers.

To use your theoretical numbers, if the average length of stay for a Studio villa drops from 7 nights to 6 due to a point reallocation, a single studio room goes from accommodating 52 members per year up to 60. At a resort like Beach Club which has 110 dedicated + lockoff studios, that's a cumulative increase from 5720 stays to 6691 stays...nearly 1000 additional members accommodated every year.

Polynesian was nearly all studios and if the rumors pan out, Riviera will have a large Studio presence as well. Hopefully that will become the norm going forward. If demand for Studios is on the rise, finding a way to accommodate that increase IS in members' best interest. Even if it means the value of points used toward those studios just as they altered the value of weekday stays a decade ago.

 

[zavandor]

The 2010-11 reallocation was point neutral. Someone gained, someone lost, the total points needed to book rooms remained constant.

To use your theoretical numbers, if the average length of stay for a Studio villa drops from 7 nights to 6 due to a point reallocation, a single studio room goes from accommodating 52 members per year up to 60. At a resort like Beach Club which has 110 dedicated + lockoff studios, that's a cumulative increase from 5720 stays to 6691 stays...nearly 1000 additional members accommodated every year.

A lot of those 5720-6691 extra stays will not be enjoyed by BCV owners because of the increase in the lockoff premium. Owners lost more than they gained.
I cannot accept that reducing the reservation power can be a good thing. Otherwise resorts would be allowed to increase the points needed to book the whole resort after it sells out as a tool to reduce demand at peak time. That is prohibited by law, as it should an increase in the lockoff premium.

 

[tjkraz]

A lot of those 5720-6691 extra stays will not be enjoyed by BCV owners because of the increase in the lockoff premium.

Since breakage doesn't come into play until 60 days, members will have plenty of opportunity to book the days. And I suspect demand for studios is such that those villas will rarely go unbooked.

I cannot accept that reducing the reservation power can be a good thing.

In any adjustment of the point charts, there will be some shifting of power relative to how members have been using their points.

Otherwise resorts would be allowed to increase the points needed to book the whole resort after it sells out as a tool to reduce demand at peak time. That is prohibited by law, as it should an increase in the lockoff premium.

My post did not address the "lockoff premium" specifically. However, it's been a reality for 25+ years and I'm open to the idea that some adjustment was necessary due to changes in member usage trends, increases in refurb downtime, etc. I don't *like* that it happened per se, but I don't see anything which would deem it "illegal." Nor do I see a reason to fear that this premium will continue to grow in future years. If that happens, I'll certainly reevaluate the value of DVC ownership.

 

[Matty B13]

Polynesian was nearly all studios and if the rumors pan out, Riviera will have a large Studio presence as well. Hopefully that will become the norm going forward. If demand for Studios is on the rise, finding a way to accommodate that increase IS in members' best interest. Even if it means the value of points used toward those studios just as they altered the value of weekday stays a decade ago.

It makes you wonder if the points required for stays in studios and 1 bedrooms at Riviera will be much higher, thus causing new members to buy more points.

Also, still why no re-balancing of the seasons has happened is beyond me if the fall frenzy season is truly causing such high demand.

 

[4evryoung]

members will have plenty of opportunity to book the days.

Except of course that, in this example, home resort members will not have the points to book these extra days as they will have already used their points to book their reduced number of days. Other members may be able to book these rooms at the 7-month window, but that just means even more rooms unfilled by members at their home resorts. Disney will fill these rooms -- even at 60 days -- with non-members. SSR, which has many more lock-off studios than BCV, already has a large number of non-member guests, many from overseas, and this will likely increase as the result of these changes.

 

[tjkraz]

Except of course that, in this example, home resort members will not have the points to book these extra days as they will have already used their points to book their reduced number of days. Other members may be able to book these rooms at the 7-month window, but that just means even more rooms unfilled by members at their home resorts. Disney will fill these rooms -- even at 60 days -- with non-members. SSR, which has many more lock-off studios than BCV, already has a large number of non-member guests, many from overseas, and this will likely increase as the result of these changes.

If studio demand has grown the way that most people believe, there will be little difficulty filling the studios with members using points. Beach Club has a little over 3 million points sold. Even in 2020, it will only require 770,000 points to fill all of the Studios.

The "premium" may lead to excess capacity elsewhere in the system, but Studio villas are unlikely to remain empty. And the exact number of unbooked villas depends on a variety of factors like the percent of lockoffs booked separately, how members bank and borrow their points in any given year, how many rooms are taken out of service for maintenance or refurbishment.

 

[wdrl]

Also, still why no re-balancing of the seasons has happened is beyond me if the fall frenzy season is truly causing such high demand.

The 2020 reallocation is causing some rebalancing of the costs of the Seasons, which is increasing the cost of most days in the "Fall Frenzy period" that runs from September 1 to December 31. The two Seasons making up most of the Fall Frenzy period, Adventure and Choice, are increasing in point costs.

If you look at the numbers for Beach Club Villas, the overall cost of the Adventure Season (September 1 - 30 and December 1 - 14) from 2019 to 2020 is increasing by 2.99% and the Choice Season (October 1 - November 24; November 28 - 30; and December 15 - 23) is increasing by 5.71%. The Premier Season (December 24 - 31) has the greatest increase of all the Seasons at 6.19%.

On the other hand, the overall cost of the Magic Season is decreasing by 5.07%, while the Dream Season has almost no change, decreasing only 0.07%.

 

[zavandor]

If studio demand has grown the way that most people believe, there will be little difficulty filling the studios with members using points. Beach Club has a little over 3 million points sold. Even in 2020, it will only require 770,000 points to fill all of the Studios.

The "premium" may lead to excess capacity elsewhere in the system, but Studio villas are unlikely to remain empty. And the exact number of unbooked villas depends on a variety of factors like the percent of lockoffs booked separately, how members bank and borrow their points in any given year, how many rooms are taken out of service for maintenance or refurbishment.

Why is it prohibited to increase the points needed for booking without a balancing somewhere else? Any timeshare developer could increase the points needed for booking the resort when/where there is high demand to create extra nights that the members can book.

The law explicitly prohibit that because it would be a damage for members who would see their ownership interest to be devalued.
So why doing the same thing thanks a technicality/loophole should be fine?

 

[Dean]

The 2010-11 reallocation was point neutral. Someone gained, someone lost, the total points needed to book rooms remained constant.



A lot of those 5720-6691 extra stays will not be enjoyed by BCV owners because of the increase in the lockoff premium. Owners lost more than they gained.
I cannot accept that reducing the reservation power can be a good thing. Otherwise resorts would be allowed to increase the points needed to book the whole resort after it sells out as a tool to reduce demand at peak time. That is prohibited by law, as it should an increase in the lockoff premium.

So is this it appears from a legal standpoint. The legal requirement is based on the non locked of villas as spelled out in the POS though some resorts with smaller dedicated units have some vicarious control of the smaller unit points. I know you’re hung up on the wording but the intent was clear, to be able to adjust as demand dictated across they system by resort. I think it’s fair to question whether that was really done but it’d going to take some work, time and money to get that information and to change it, even if technically correct is going to take 6 figures in lawyer fees or more in all likelihood.

 

[Dean]

I almost cannot believe what I'm reading here.

Consumers are meant to be protected. If they are not, the law needs changing.

I spent a year researching DVC in detail before buying in.

I read these and other boards all the time.

I knew full well about points re-allocation. I thought it was a good idea, and had been expecting it to happen on studios and with October to December, as that was obviously a stress point in the system.

Never had I seen it suggested anywhere they could make points out of thin air.

Now I'm reading they may have a right to do it, and if we don't like it, sell up.

If I didn't know this, 99.9% of other members would not, as most hardly do any research.

I bought direct and resale.

Thus somewhere, myself and 99.9% of other buyers may have been let down from a consumer protection standpoint.

Potentially this for me means it becomes like every other tineshare- buyer beware. That wasn't ever the mission of DVC, Eisner and management from day 1 made it clear that DVC would be different. It's proven very lucrative being different and up to now pretty much beyond reproach.

Have we seen a tipping point where short term goals have ruined the trust of DVC?

Consumer are meant to be protected from predatory practices, not from themselves. You knew it could change and you assumed certain limitations on those changes that were not accurate. The POS clearly deals with non locked off villas and you knew the smaller components were more expensive than the full unit when you bought. That it changed different than you assumed could happen doens’t affect the reasonableness of the decision one way or another or the ethical judgement of the company involved. If they purposefully did this to put $$$ in their pocked, then I’m there with you. If I thought that were the case I would sell and frankly, I’d suggest anyone that has that opinion once things are said and done should not continue to be a member. I’ve long since opined that smaller contracts selling at a premium was not an automatic thing. Whether this will increase or decrease their demand remaines to be seen. My guess is it’ll increase the smallest ones and decrese the premium at 75 points or more.