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

[crvetter]

I’m still on for Friday... anxious to hear how yours go!

Personally I think we are all going to get the same speech that was given to me and others a month or so ago (changes were allowed, listened to member feedback and work on relating information). But I’m still impressed they are following up individually with each and every person that wrote. Even I’m getting a 4th call because they got another letter somehow. When I explained I already talked to Yvonne they wanted me still to speak with her.

Though overall I think everyone politely outlining to Yvonne and her team our issues shows it’s more than the less than 2 dozen that wrote in. Also show them we want explanations at the very least.

 

[Bing Showei]

Quick question to the group:

Are we fundamentally against a lock off premium increasing? Or is it that the lockoff premium defies what we presently understand to be observed member demand?

The focus of my conversations and an upcoming conversation with Yvonne has been around how Disney defines “demand” and how to reconcile that with what members have come to define demand. If it were that we all saw 2BRs available at 60 days while seeing studios and 1BRs fly off the shelves, I’m not sure how much issue we would take with the reallocation.

I’m moving away from the legalities of reallocating between villa types (if SSR treehouses didn’t trigger a class action, not sure what would) given that zavandor and others have addressed this with Yvonne in much greater depth than what I could offer, and I’m choosing instead to focus on transparency around data to support the retracted reallocation.

 

[Dean]

Quick question to the group:

Are we fundamentally against a lock off premium increasing? Or is it that the lockoff premium defies what we presently understand to be observed member demand?

The focus of my conversations and an upcoming conversation with Yvonne has been around how Disney defines “demand” and how to reconcile that with what members have come to define demand. If it were that we all saw 2BRs available at 60 days while seeing studios and 1BRs fly off the shelves, I’m not sure how much issue we would take with the reallocation.

I’m moving away from the legalities of reallocating between villa types (if SSR treehouses didn’t trigger a class action, not sure what would) given that zavandor and others have addressed this with Yvonne in much greater depth than what I could offer, and I’m choosing instead to focus on transparency around data to support the retracted reallocation.

Personally no but I'd want them to have a good reason to do so. Pushing people to a 2 BR appropriately would be a good reason in my view as would to decrease demand for either smaller component, again for appropriate reasons.

 

[skier_pete]

Quick question to the group:

Are we fundamentally against a lock off premium increasing? Or is it that the lockoff premium defies what we presently understand to be observed member demand?

The focus of my conversations and an upcoming conversation with Yvonne has been around how Disney defines “demand” and how to reconcile that with what members have come to define demand. If it were that we all saw 2BRs available at 60 days while seeing studios and 1BRs fly off the shelves, I’m not sure how much issue we would take with the reallocation.

I’m moving away from the legalities of reallocating between villa types (if SSR treehouses didn’t trigger a class action, not sure what would) given that zavandor and others have addressed this with Yvonne in much greater depth than what I could offer, and I’m choosing instead to focus on transparency around data to support the retracted reallocation.

I can't say I'm necessarily against them 100% - but pretty close. To me - raising the lock-off premiums is for the most part helpful primarily to Disney's bottom line and not to the members - and I have not really seen an argument that shows it is. In most cases - the lock-off premiums should be treated like any other point allocation - you can raise studios, but they should be offset by lowering 1-bedrooms to increase popularity of 1-bedrooms. A slight change in the lock-off premium is acceptable - but increasing it by 10-20% simply should never happen.

The only circumstance that could truly possibly justify is MAYBE at SSR - where Studios are overly popular compared to BOTH 2-BD AND 1-BD You can maybe argue both 1-BD and 2-BD are in significant and similar excess. So maybe you would want to raise the studios, and NOT lower the 1-BD, because you want to encourage 2-BD as well. And because all rooms are allocated as 2-BD, you CAN'T lower the 2-BD to offset the studio raising - it would only be able to be done lowering the 1-BD.

That said, I won't mention that single idea during my call. My argument intends to be that increases to the lock-off premium are solely beneficial to the Disney, and are unlikely to EVER benefit the members.

 

[CarolMN]

Personally no but I'd want them to have a good reason to do so. Pushing people to a 2 BR appropriately would be a good reason in my view as would to decrease demand for either smaller component, again for appropriate reasons.

Maybe that's true for the resorts that have a relatively large number of dedicated 2 bedrooms. But I see no justification for raising the premium at the BWV, where all 2 bedrooms are lock-offs. Yes, booking a 2 bedroom removes both a studio and a 1 bedroom from inventory, but it does nothing to address the demand differential between the studios and 1 bedrooms. IMO, increasing the premium the way they did for the BWV only exacerbates the demand imbalance between studios and 1 bedrooms.

It looks like they basically just did a quick cut and paste and really didn't thoughtfully consider the different resort configurations. Had they done that, we might have ended up with some seasonal adjustments that made enough sense for us to accept. (And I'm not convinced that the definition of the "seasons" needs to be the same for every WDW DVC resort, either).

 

[crvetter]

Maybe that's true for the resorts that have a relatively large number of dedicated 2 bedrooms. But I see no justification for raising the premium at the BWV, where all 2 bedrooms are lock-offs. Yes, booking a 2 bedroom removes both a studio and a 1 bedroom from inventory, but it does nothing to address the demand differential between the studios and 1 bedrooms. IMO, increasing the premium the way they did for the BWV only exacerbates the demand imbalance between studios and 1 bedrooms.

It looks like they basically just did a quick cut and paste and really didn't thoughtfully consider the different resort configurations. Had they done that, we might have ended up with some seasonal adjustments that made enough sense for us to accept. (And I'm not convinced that the definition of the "seasons" needs to be the same for every WDW DVC resort, either).

The best adjustment is to change costs per season. No real reason Fall is the cheapest anymore. So I agree little thought on their part. It needs to match the real desires to use DVC by a majority of members. Considering fall is consistently booked at 11 months for most resorts it is questionable why that wasn't their first and foremost effort. I'd personally like to see this first and this is coming from someone that travels October for a weekend and Thanksgiving week.

All they "tried" to balance was unit type demand but ignored seasonality which seems just as bad if not worse.

 

[Bing Showei]

That said, I won't mention that single idea during my call. My argument intends to be that increases to the lock-off premium are solely beneficial to the Disney, and are unlikely to EVER benefit the members.

I think I understand your position on the topic, but that presupposes that 1BRs are indeed lower in demand than 2BRs.

I guess I’m wondering if Disney was able to demonstrate, in a way that satisfies your need for proof, that 1BR were actually higher in demand than 2BRs across the board, would you object to addressing demand in a way that may result in a higher lockoff premium.

If not, given that a lockoff premium exists, how does Disney balance the points out to address that, at say VGF, where there are no dedicated studios or 1BRs?

 

[skier_pete]

Maybe that's true for the resorts that have a relatively large number of dedicated 2 bedrooms. But I see no justification for raising the premium at the BWV, where all 2 bedrooms are lock-offs. Yes, booking a 2 bedroom removes both a studio and a 1 bedroom from inventory, but it does nothing to address the demand differential between the studios and 1 bedrooms. IMO, increasing the premium the way they did for the BWV only exacerbates the demand imbalance between studios and 1 bedrooms.

It looks like they basically just did a quick cut and paste and really didn't thoughtfully consider the different resort configurations. Had they done that, we might have ended up with some seasonal adjustments that made enough sense for us to accept. (And I'm not convinced that the definition of the "seasons" needs to be the same for every WDW DVC resort, either).

I am not sure if it is "worse" but I what I agree here is that the reason they have given - that 2-BDs are more in demand than 1-BDs - completely falls apart at a resort like BWV. The fact that all the 2-BDs disappear when all the studios are gone means that raising BOTH studios and 1-BDs does nothing to alleviate the booking rates of the studios, which is the reason there are no 2-bedrooms available. The only way to drive 2-bd bookings would be to raise studios and LOWER 1-BDs, which would balance bookings better between those two categories, and in doing so, also keep 2-BDs available for longer periods. (More people in 1-BDs means less in studios, thus more 2-BDs remain available.)

In fact, my intention is to use the Boardwalk example in my discussions on Monday. To show what the affect would be on the point usage at the resort, what it would take for their NOT to be an increase in points usage at the resort - and that the result of what they were planning will simply lead to greater breakage because of it.

I think I understand your position on the topic, but that presupposes that 1BRs are indeed lower in demand than 2BRs.

I guess I’m wondering if Disney was able to demonstrate, in a way that satisfies your need for proof, that 1BR were actually higher in demand than 2BRs across the board, would you object to addressing demand in a way that may result in a higher lockoff premium.

If not, given that a lockoff premium exists, how does Disney balance the points out to address that, at say VGF, where there are no dedicated studios or 1BRs?

If they could demonstrate that demand for 1-BD are truly higher than 2-BD in a statisically significant manner - than MAYBE I could see the argument. But the problem is always going to be that they will never share the proof of what the affect of the change was - and I am 100% convinced that the main effect that would've occurred across the 10-resorts is that the demand issues would remain as they are - and the only result would be more points used for less rooms, and more rooms sent to breakage, which means money in their pockets.

 

[Bing Showei]

No real reason Fall is the cheapest anymore. So I agree little thought on their part. It needs to match the real desires to use DVC by a majority of members.

What if it DVCMC isn’t able to divorce itself from the greater Disney need of filling he parks during traditionally low seasons?

I understand they’re separate entities, and DVCMC has the fiduciary responsibility of focusing solely on DVC Membership needs, but I’m not convinced they are operating in silos as they should, and that greater Disney needs aren’t coming into play. Why else would seasonal shifts over the last 25 years been ignored in the reallocation? Do we beleive they’re really just that myopic about things? Given the detailed data they have access to, I find that theory to be as suspect as the last allocation.

 

[skier_pete]

What if it DVCMC isn’t able to divorce itself from the greater Disney need of filling he parks during traditionally low seasons?

I understand they’re separate entities, and DVCMC has the fiduciary responsibility of focusing solely on DVC Membership needs, but I’m not convinced they are operating in a silo as they should, and that greater Disney needs aren’t coming into play. Why else would seasonal shifts over the last 25 years been ignored in the reallocation? Do we beleive they’re really just that myopic about things? Given the detailed data they have access to, I find that theory to be as suspect as the last allocation.

I agree that shifting the seasons would be a MUCH more effective way to balance bookings - but what's odd to me here is from the sound of this - this "out of balance" seasons have been going on for a long time - and Disney has not done anything about it. They didn't even really do it HERE - just a little bit. (More damning evidence that the 2020 point re-allocation was not about benefiting members.)

 

[crvetter]

What if it DVCMC isn’t able to divorce itself from the greater Disney need of filling he parks during traditionally low seasons?

I agree that shifting the seasons would be a MUCH more effective way to balance bookings - but what's odd to me here is from the sound of this - this "out of balance" seasons have been going on for a long time - and Disney has not done anything about it. They didn't even really do it HERE - just a little bit. (More damning evidence that the 2020 point re-allocation was not about benefiting members.)

Agreed but technically speaking it should since it is a nonprofit corporation setup for the benefit of DVC owners through its role as the management company. My guess is DVCMC probably felt they would see more push back on that front of season adjustments. Plus since DVC resorts operate 100% most of the year (if not all year) I don't see Disney feeling that DVC point charts influence park demand that much. So IMO it is DVCMC thinking the balance over unit types would go over better. I expressed on my call if they have a demand issue seasonality seems to be the bigger issue, especially when I was told studios are so popular during F&W but much less so in July. So I specifically rebutted that as a seasonal demand issue not an issue with Unit type demand.

While we are at DVC can add (not subject to the 20% increase/decrease rule) use days that line up with Special Events or Holidays. So technically speaking DVC can make race weekends more expensive or call out F&W or other events driving demand immediately. So I'm surprised we haven't seen that.

 

[Dean]

Maybe that's true for the resorts that have a relatively large number of dedicated 2 bedrooms. But I see no justification for raising the premium at the BWV, where all 2 bedrooms are lock-offs. Yes, booking a 2 bedroom removes both a studio and a 1 bedroom from inventory, but it does nothing to address the demand differential between the studios and 1 bedrooms. IMO, increasing the premium the way they did for the BWV only exacerbates the demand imbalance between studios and 1 bedrooms.

It looks like they basically just did a quick cut and paste and really didn't thoughtfully consider the different resort configurations. Had they done that, we might have ended up with some seasonal adjustments that made enough sense for us to accept. (And I'm not convinced that the definition of the "seasons" needs to be the same for every WDW DVC resort, either).

I do feel they need to look at the big picture. Therefore an issue that's more applicable to some resorts but less to others might still be a reasonable course of action.

 

[CarolMN]

I do feel they need to look at the big picture. Therefore an issue that's more applicable to some resorts but less to others might still be a reasonable course of action.

I agree to disagree. IMO, any demand re-balancing should be done by resort and made primarily for the benefit of the owners of the resort, not the CLUB as a whole. No one is guaranteed anything at 7 months.

What if it DVCMC isn’t able to divorce itself from the greater Disney need of filling he parks during traditionally low seasons?

I understand they’re separate entities, and DVCMC has the fiduciary responsibility of focusing solely on DVC Membership needs, but I’m not convinced they are operating in silos as they should, and that greater Disney needs aren’t coming into play. Why else would seasonal shifts over the last 25 years been ignored in the reallocation? Do we beleive they’re really just that myopic about things? Given the detailed data they have access to, I find that theory to be as suspect as the last allocation.

I am willing to believe that the lack of seasonal shifts is more a matter of ordinary incompetence than malice aforethought - especially if the majority of key DVC managers come from the ranks of the resort/parks divisions and are not actual experienced DVC members. Is it such a stretch to believe they have an unconscious bias to the parks & resorts busy seasons? I don't think so. But I'm hoping all the push back is getting them to step back and really look at things from the Members' perspective. It also seems that the traditional busy season mentality is not as relevant as it used to be several years ago. We'll see how open they are to changing direction based on something other than self-serving "Facebook" feedback.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Quick question to the group:

Are we fundamentally against a lock off premium increasing? Or is it that the lockoff premium defies what we presently understand to be observed member demand?

The focus of my conversations and an upcoming conversation with Yvonne has been around how Disney defines “demand” and how to reconcile that with what members have come to define demand. If it were that we all saw 2BRs available at 60 days while seeing studios and 1BRs fly off the shelves, I’m not sure how much issue we would take with the reallocation.

I’m moving away from the legalities of reallocating between villa types (if SSR treehouses didn’t trigger a class action, not sure what would) given that zavandor and others have addressed this with Yvonne in much greater depth than what I could offer, and I’m choosing instead to focus on transparency around data to support the retracted reallocation.

I am against the lockoff premium increasing in any scenario. It effectively is adding points to the resort and the beneficiary is the DVC management company.

Any issues with demand in studios, 1BR's and 2BR's can and should be addressed only with point reallocations of what exists already. Even more fundamentally I'm against the lockoff premium existing and have never cared for it but it's been there since the start so the best argument is for no increase to it.

 

[CMNJ]

I’m fundamentally against the ability to increase the lock off premium “to meet member demand”. While I knew it existed before I bought in, I (mistakenly) believed it was simply because the costs associated with 2 separate units (making/changing reservations, check in/check out, figuring out room assignments, etc) were slightly higher when 1 larger villa was split into 2 separate ones. I did not expect or understand that in balancing the point totals Disney only had to base it on the full 2 BR lock off units and not the components. While I can understand the concept that by raising the cost of studios and 1 BR may drive those who might book 2 studios to book one 2 BR instead, I highly doubt that will be a huge impact. Instead I see the impact actually being that those who book studios will be booking 1 less night per trip or taking less trips per year. Same with those in 1BR OR worse they will then join the fray to book studios so they don’t have to cut their vacations back a day. Of course this change will increase avail rooms (most likely 1 BR IMO) since everyone’s points won’t go as far. It’s point inflation pure and simple IMO. Unless a SIGNIFICANT number of people move up to 2 BR units Disney will be the primary beneficiary of this adjustment. Obviously those who book 2 BR may save a few points here and there but generally speaking I don’t think the decreases were all that large compared to the lock off increases . Disney however will benefit in that a significant number of owners will wind up with less nights for the points they own and Disney will have more available to book with their own points (since the 2 BR generally aren’t going up in points and less points in the system means more open rooms for Disney to book). Plus since breakage is already maxing out any additional rooms they acquire will do nothing to help the membership. If it was determined that this is the only was to proceed in 2021 in order to meet member demand I would suggest that we all demand they reevaluate the breakage policy. If this causes more breakage the additional money should return to the membership to offset dues. If we are now getting less for every point we own they should be returning more of that profit to us.

 

[Dean]

I agree to disagree. IMO, any demand re-balancing should be done by resort and made primarily for the benefit of the owners of the resort, not the CLUB as a whole. No one is guaranteed anything at 7 months.

Let's say it's a bigger issue for one resort than another but applicable to both, in that situation it is reasonable and likely preferred to rebalance both if one requires it but the other doesn't. If it's completely out of line for one and not the other, they likely shouldn't. But in reality for WDW the forces that push them to rebalance is going to be applicable to all.

 

[Bing Showei]

Let's say it's a bigger issue for one resort than another but applicable to both, in that situation it is reasonable and likely preferred to rebalance both if one requires it but the other doesn't. If it's completely out of line for one and not the other, they likely shouldn't. But in reality for WDW the forces that push them to rebalance is going to be applicable to all.

But why would Disney not just treat each resort individually? If it’s less applicable to one resort than another, how would it be reasonable to apply that same reallocation approach to both resorts; it certainly wouldn’t be for lack of resort-specific data. How would a less than ideal reallocation serve the membership?

 

[Dean]

But why would Disney not just treat each resort individually? If it’s less applicable to one resort than another, how would it be reasonable to apply that same reallocation approach to both resorts; it certainly wouldn’t be for lack of resort-specific data. How would a less than ideal reallocation serve the membership?

More work and more cost plus as I stated, the issues would apply to each resort, just possibly to a different degree. Plus if they do make them different, it will further skew demand. In large part it's the KISS principle.

 

[Mumof4mice]

Quick question to the group:

Are we fundamentally against a lock off premium increasing? Or is it that the lockoff premium defies what we presently understand to be observed member demand?

The focus of my conversations and an upcoming conversation with Yvonne has been around how Disney defines “demand” and how to reconcile that with what members have come to define demand. If it were that we all saw 2BRs available at 60 days while seeing studios and 1BRs fly off the shelves, I’m not sure how much issue we would take with the reallocation.

I’m moving away from the legalities of reallocating between villa types (if SSR treehouses didn’t trigger a class action, not sure what would) given that zavandor and others have addressed this with Yvonne in much greater depth than what I could offer, and I’m choosing instead to focus on transparency around data to support the retracted reallocation.

I'll be asking Yvonne to clarify their definition of "demand" too. Is it how quickly rooms are booked (7m/11m), or the number of rooms going to breakage, or something else? I'm not 100% against the lock-off premium increasing if she can offer a reasonable explanation of why raising the premium would help balance demand, as they define it.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

More work and more cost plus as I stated, the issues would apply to each resort, just possibly to a different degree. Plus if they do make them different, it will further skew demand. In large part it's the KISS principle.

I hate to say it but the better response would likely be for BVTC to develop different point charts for trading then. If the issue is localized to one, maybe two resorts that might be the better fix. It would not be popular with certain resort owners however.

Otherwise I'd also feel that it should be mostly focused on individual resort balancing. 7 months trading is a benefit but not something to balance towards.