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

[CMNJ]

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.

Agreed but I don’t think they will do it. If people would be able to trade out of a popular location like the BWV/BCV or BLT/Poly into SSR for a significant point reduction it might drive those wanting to save some points to a less desirable location. This in turn would open up more rooms at the highly desirable resorts at 7 months. Of course SSR owners would be upset their points wouldn’t go as far at other resorts but if the main issue is empty rooms there vs other resorts it seems like a reasonable solution. They would only pay a premium if they traded out because they’d still maintain their current point structure for their current resort.

 

[crvetter]

Agreed but I don’t think they will do it. If people would be able to trade out of a popular location like the BWV/BCV or BLT/Poly into SSR for a significant point reduction it might drive those wanting to save some points to a less desirable location. This in turn would open up more rooms at the highly desirable resorts at 7 months. Of course SSR owners would be upset their points wouldn’t go as far at other resorts but if the main issue is empty rooms there vs other resorts it seems like a reasonable solution. They would only pay a premium if they traded out because they’d still maintain their current point structure for their current resort.

Did you meant to say trading from a popular location to SSR would lead to a significant point increase? Then it works with my understand how this could balance demand:

I think those trading from BCV/BLT/PVB/BWV would get more more points when trading to SSR in the example you suggest. And SSR would get less points trading into them. Since the mandate for the relative weighting is to balance demand across resorts in the BVTC this would be the way it would be acheived. Make it more attractive for BCV etc to trade to SSR by making their points go further. But to balance the system SSR would have have less points when they use at BCV etc.

Remember BVTC mandate isn’t to make sure all rooms are used that is DVCMC mandate. BVTC mandate is to make sure trading happens between resorts in a fair manner. As of right now they just thought 1 to 1 was fair. If the resale restrictions don’t work, which I honestly believe was done to try and make 7 months better for direct owners (or sell it as better), I bet we see this relative weighting in a few years as a possibility.

 

[CMNJ]

I think those trading from BCV/BLT/PVB/BWV would get more more points when trading to SSR in the example you suggest. And SSR would get less points trading into them. Since the mandate for the relative weighting is to balance demand across resorts in the BVTC this would be the way it would be acheived. Make it more attractive for BCV etc to trade to SSR by making their points go further. But to balance the system SSR would have have less points when they use at BCV etc.

Remember BVTC mandate isn’t to make sure all rooms are used that is DVCMC mandate. BVTC mandate is to make sure trading happens between resorts in a fair manner. As of right now they just thought 1 to 1 was fair. If the resale restrictions don’t work, which I honestly believe was done to try and make 7 months better for direct owners (or sell it as better), I bet we see this relative weighting in a few years as a possibility.

Yes That is what I meant I guess it just wasn’t clear. My thought is that when we trade via BVTC we are essentially trading currency (home resort points to BVTC points) so I could see how it could work but I doubt Disney goes that route. Honestly I only believe it would help me as I own BLT and BWV (though I really don’t trade out that much) which are always high in demand. I just don’t see Disney doing it. Of course I also didn’t see them starting the restrictions going into place at Riviera or the lock off premium mess in the 2020 point charts coming so what do I know lol.

 

[skier_pete]

OK. I had my call with Yvonne (and another person present). I just wanted to get the gist down quickly:

I really wanted to keep focused on a minimal number of issues - which in my case were:
1) That increasing the lock-off premium has to potential to NOT be beneficial to the membership and
2) That by using these changes to increase the lock-off premium once, what would stop them from further increases which could further reduce mine (and others) ability to book resorts.

I avoided arguing about demand - though she did reiterate what she has told others - that while studios are far in away the highest demand, 1-bedrooms are second, 2-bedrooms are third and GV are last. I simply stated that I am not in position to disagree because the data I have is limited to availability and availability does not equal demand. (I don't wholly believe that Disney is 100% correct in how it evaluates demand either - but there is no way to know this.

So - she continued to state that the reallocation is based on data analysis, and that data says that the they by increasing studios and 1-bedrooms, and lowering (somewhat) 2-bedrooms this will drive more people to 2-bedrooms.

To question #2, she said that any further changes would only be driven by doing what's best for the members - so essentially she said she could not predict what is going to happen in the future - but that it would be only done to benefit the membership.

I pointed out what COULD happen in this situation - that by increasing lock-out premiums, you COULD succeed in driving more people to 2-bedrooms - and you would need to at BWV for example get about 14% more lock-offs booked as 2-bedrooms to equalize out the points. But you COULD have the opposite effect, and find that it doesn't actually increase the number of people booking two bedrooms. I pointed to her for example that for a family like myself that only has 3 people you could raise studios 50% and I wouldn't be booking a 2-bedroom since my family has no need for that much space regardless. And I asked her what would be the response in that case where the data shows instead of driving people to 2-bedrooms it had no effect or the opposite effect (this circled back to my question #2 above). What she said is that every year the allocations are re-evaluated and there are adjustments made based on the data. In other words - she wasn't going to come out and say that they would roll it back, but the implication was if it didn't work then they would at least consider that option. (Editor's note: I don't believe this.)

Like with everyone else - she stressed that everything they had done was within the legal rights of DVC - but her reason for the rollback which is slightly different from what others have been told - was that some members were confused by the changes. (She used this word several times - "confused".) She admitted that in the past and in this case - they have done a very poor job in communicating with the membership the reason for the changes - which can leave members confused. That in the future they intend to be more forthcoming with the reasons for the changes to the allocation charts. She did NOT (of course) indicate that they would not make these (or similar) changes in the future. She also specified (and maybe the first time I've heard this) that what they are saying in their sales materials can also be confusing to the members. I also at this point said that I didn't think I personally had any confusion about what they could do - I just did not think that increases to the lock-off premium would occur since they would never be beneficial to the membership. She said that changes need to take into consideration all 65,000 members - not just myself. I agreed that I understood that a change may impact me negatively and I am OK with that, but want to be able to see where the change impacts members overall favorably.

She did take the time towards the end to take a little shot at me for being a resale owner - she re-iterated that they want to keep ALL owners satisfied regardless of whether DVC had seen a financial benefit from their membership or not - pointing out that in my case they did not. I could not let that go - and I pointed out that while they didn't receive a financial benefit from my purchase - Disney definitely receives a financial benefit from having me as a member. She conceded that comment as well. Her point was that Disney still wants to differentiate itself from others into how it treats its customers. I did reiterate both at the beginning and the end of the call how much I appreciated her time. (I spent roughly 30 minutes on the phone.) I did say that as a member I have been extremely happy up until this point, but feel that for the first time I have concerns about this membership with their ability.

In summary - I was not surprised that I did not get any warm fuzzies from this discussion. On the bright side, I got the impression that they might not be making all the same changes again next year because of the customer feedback they were receiving, even though they were well within their rights to make the change. That future change would be communicated better to the members. If the increase to the lock-off premium was not effective in doing what they wanted - they would re-consider it.

I am still not sure what to think of all this. The changes still don't 100% pass the sniff test with me. While they stay completely on-point about how legal it is, it seems to me like they keep changing the answer on why they rolled it back. (At one point negative feedback from a few members, now confusion by a number of members. She did not invoke the "less than 24" members number to me.) I am not sure that I am completely satisfied by the conversation, but don't know that further conversations would do any good. In all, I'm happy to have my voice heard, even if it's just one single solitary "YOP!"

It makes me continue in my "wait and see" attitude. I have no desire to sell points, but no desire to buy more points.

 

[TexasChick123]

OK. I had my call with Yvonne (and another person present). I just wanted to get the gist down quickly:

I really wanted to keep focused on a minimal number of issues - which in my case were:
1) That increasing the lock-off premium has to potential to NOT be beneficial to the membership and
2) That by using these changes to increase the lock-off premium once, what would stop them from further increases which could further reduce mine (and others) ability to book resorts.

I avoided arguing about demand - though she did reiterate what she has told others - that while studios are far in away the highest demand, 1-bedrooms are second, 2-bedrooms are third and GV are last. I simply stated that I am not in position to disagree because the data I have is limited to availability and availability does not equal demand. (I don't wholly believe that Disney is 100% correct in how it evaluates demand either - but there is no way to know this.

So - she continued to state that the reallocation is based on data analysis, and that data says that the they by increasing studios and 1-bedrooms, and lowering (somewhat) 2-bedrooms this will drive more people to 2-bedrooms.

To question #2, she said that any further changes would only be driven by doing what's best for the members - so essentially she said she could not predict what is going to happen in the future - but that it would be only done to benefit the membership.

I pointed out what COULD happen in this situation - that by increasing lock-out premiums, you COULD succeed in driving more people to 2-bedrooms - and you would need to at BWV for example get about 14% more lock-offs booked as 2-bedrooms to equalize out the points. But you COULD have the opposite effect, and find that it doesn't actually increase the number of people booking two bedrooms. I pointed to her for example that for a family like myself that only has 3 people you could raise studios 50% and I wouldn't be booking a 2-bedroom since my family has no need for that much space regardless. And I asked her what would be the response in that case where the data shows instead of driving people to 2-bedrooms it had no effect or the opposite effect (this circled back to my question #2 above). What she said is that every year the allocations are re-evaluated and there are adjustments made based on the data. In other words - she wasn't going to come out and say that they would roll it back, but the implication was if it didn't work then they would at least consider that option. (Editor's note: I don't believe this.)

Like with everyone else - she stressed that everything they had done was within the legal rights of DVC - but her reason for the rollback which is slightly different from what others have been told - was that some members were confused by the changes. (She used this word several times - "confused".) She admitted that in the past and in this case - they have done a very poor job in communicating with the membership the reason for the changes - which can leave members confused. That in the future they intend to be more forthcoming with the reasons for the changes to the allocation charts. She did NOT (of course) indicate that they would not make these (or similar) changes in the future. She also specified (and maybe the first time I've heard this) that what they are saying in their sales materials can also be confusing to the members. I also at this point said that I didn't think I personally had any confusion about what they could do - I just did not think that increases to the lock-off premium would occur since they would never be beneficial to the membership. She said that changes need to take into consideration all 65,000 members - not just myself. I agreed that I understood that a change may impact me negatively and I am OK with that, but want to be able to see where the change impacts members overall favorably.

She did take the time towards the end to take a little shot at me for being a resale owner - she re-iterated that they want to keep ALL owners satisfied regardless of whether DVC had seen a financial benefit from their membership or not - pointing out that in my case they did not. I could not let that go - and I pointed out that while they didn't receive a financial benefit from my purchase - Disney definitely receives a financial benefit from having me as a member. She conceded that comment as well. Her point was that Disney still wants to differentiate itself from others into how it treats its customers. I did reiterate both at the beginning and the end of the call how much I appreciated her time. (I spent roughly 30 minutes on the phone.) I did say that as a member I have been extremely happy up until this point, but feel that for the first time I have concerns about this membership with their ability.

In summary - I was not surprised that I did not get any warm fuzzies from this discussion. On the bright side, I got the impression that they might not be making all the same changes again next year because of the customer feedback they were receiving, even though they were well within their rights to make the change. That future change would be communicated better to the members. If the increase to the lock-off premium was not effective in doing what they wanted - they would re-consider it.

I am still not sure what to think of all this. The changes still don't 100% pass the sniff test with me. While they stay completely on-point about how legal it is, it seems to me like they keep changing the answer on why they rolled it back. (At one point negative feedback from a few members, now confusion by a number of members. She did not invoke the "less than 24" members number to me.) I am not sure that I am completely satisfied by the conversation, but don't know that further conversations would do any good. In all, I'm happy to have my voice heard, even if it's just one single solitary "YOP!"

It makes me continue in my "wait and see" attitude. I have no desire to sell points, but no desire to buy more points.

First of all, thank you for taking the time to speak with her.

I guess my biggest issue with what she said to you is that driving demand to 2-bedrooms by making the studios and 1-bedrooms more expensive is somehow a benefit to anyone. ??? I book 2-bedrooms, and I don't want more competition on it. How is that better for you or for me? As a family of 3, you want a smaller, less point heavy accommodation, as would I in your case. As a family of 4, we want the bigger accommodation but don't want to compete with more people for those rooms. So by making the studios or 1-bedrooms more expensive, how in the world does that help anyone out??? You have to pay more for the same room, and I have to compete with more people for the 2-bedrooms. Who exactly is benefited by this??? Oh, that's right, DVD gets to have more rooms open for cash when people's points don't go as far to book the same rooms or someone is shut out now that used to have little to no issues.

 

[Madame]

Her point was that Disney still wants to differentiate itself from others into how it treats its customers.

Perhaps they could start by not demonizing resale buyers who pay dues, buy tickets, attend upsale events, etc. Disney is NOT like any other timeshare where resale is concerned. Resalers pump money into TWDC each visit and are important to any recession-proofing.

 

[Doug Olsen]

OK. I had my call with Yvonne (and another person present). I just wanted to get the gist down quickly:

I really wanted to keep focused on a minimal number of issues - which in my case were:
1) That increasing the lock-off premium has to potential to NOT be beneficial to the membership and
2) That by using these changes to increase the lock-off premium once, what would stop them from further increases which could further reduce mine (and others) ability to book resorts.

I avoided arguing about demand - though she did reiterate what she has told others - that while studios are far in away the highest demand, 1-bedrooms are second, 2-bedrooms are third and GV are last. I simply stated that I am not in position to disagree because the data I have is limited to availability and availability does not equal demand. (I don't wholly believe that Disney is 100% correct in how it evaluates demand either - but there is no way to know this.

So - she continued to state that the reallocation is based on data analysis, and that data says that the they by increasing studios and 1-bedrooms, and lowering (somewhat) 2-bedrooms this will drive more people to 2-bedrooms.

To question #2, she said that any further changes would only be driven by doing what's best for the members - so essentially she said she could not predict what is going to happen in the future - but that it would be only done to benefit the membership.

I pointed out what COULD happen in this situation - that by increasing lock-out premiums, you COULD succeed in driving more people to 2-bedrooms - and you would need to at BWV for example get about 14% more lock-offs booked as 2-bedrooms to equalize out the points. But you COULD have the opposite effect, and find that it doesn't actually increase the number of people booking two bedrooms. I pointed to her for example that for a family like myself that only has 3 people you could raise studios 50% and I wouldn't be booking a 2-bedroom since my family has no need for that much space regardless. And I asked her what would be the response in that case where the data shows instead of driving people to 2-bedrooms it had no effect or the opposite effect (this circled back to my question #2 above). What she said is that every year the allocations are re-evaluated and there are adjustments made based on the data. In other words - she wasn't going to come out and say that they would roll it back, but the implication was if it didn't work then they would at least consider that option. (Editor's note: I don't believe this.)

Like with everyone else - she stressed that everything they had done was within the legal rights of DVC - but her reason for the rollback which is slightly different from what others have been told - was that some members were confused by the changes. (She used this word several times - "confused".) She admitted that in the past and in this case - they have done a very poor job in communicating with the membership the reason for the changes - which can leave members confused. That in the future they intend to be more forthcoming with the reasons for the changes to the allocation charts. She did NOT (of course) indicate that they would not make these (or similar) changes in the future. She also specified (and maybe the first time I've heard this) that what they are saying in their sales materials can also be confusing to the members. I also at this point said that I didn't think I personally had any confusion about what they could do - I just did not think that increases to the lock-off premium would occur since they would never be beneficial to the membership. She said that changes need to take into consideration all 65,000 members - not just myself. I agreed that I understood that a change may impact me negatively and I am OK with that, but want to be able to see where the change impacts members overall favorably.

She did take the time towards the end to take a little shot at me for being a resale owner - she re-iterated that they want to keep ALL owners satisfied regardless of whether DVC had seen a financial benefit from their membership or not - pointing out that in my case they did not. I could not let that go - and I pointed out that while they didn't receive a financial benefit from my purchase - Disney definitely receives a financial benefit from having me as a member. She conceded that comment as well. Her point was that Disney still wants to differentiate itself from others into how it treats its customers. I did reiterate both at the beginning and the end of the call how much I appreciated her time. (I spent roughly 30 minutes on the phone.) I did say that as a member I have been extremely happy up until this point, but feel that for the first time I have concerns about this membership with their ability.

In summary - I was not surprised that I did not get any warm fuzzies from this discussion. On the bright side, I got the impression that they might not be making all the same changes again next year because of the customer feedback they were receiving, even though they were well within their rights to make the change. That future change would be communicated better to the members. If the increase to the lock-off premium was not effective in doing what they wanted - they would re-consider it.

I am still not sure what to think of all this. The changes still don't 100% pass the sniff test with me. While they stay completely on-point about how legal it is, it seems to me like they keep changing the answer on why they rolled it back. (At one point negative feedback from a few members, now confusion by a number of members. She did not invoke the "less than 24" members number to me.) I am not sure that I am completely satisfied by the conversation, but don't know that further conversations would do any good. In all, I'm happy to have my voice heard, even if it's just one single solitary "YOP!"

It makes me continue in my "wait and see" attitude. I have no desire to sell points, but no desire to buy more points.

Thanks for the update. Maybe Disney could say I'm thinking too simplistically, but I just don't see any way someone could convince me that essentially manufacturing more points is a benefit to any member (not counting Disney themselves of course), regardless of booking habits.

If the goal really was to balance the demand for studio/1 BR vs 2 BR that's fine. A corresponding change to each of the categories would be perfectly reasonable. I'm only in ROFR for my first contract and obviously wasn't on your call, but these answers you got only leave me more bothered.

It all just has an air of arrogance. We researched DVC through these boards and are certainly looking forward to the idea of being members at some point, but this sort of response makes it so I won't be heartbroken if our contract gets taken.

Thanks to those getting answers for people like me, even if they aren't satisfying.

 

[GrumpyInPhilly]

OK. I had my call with Yvonne (and another person present). I just wanted to get the gist down quickly:

I really wanted to keep focused on a minimal number of issues - which in my case were:
1) That increasing the lock-off premium has to potential to NOT be beneficial to the membership and
2) That by using these changes to increase the lock-off premium once, what would stop them from further increases which could further reduce mine (and others) ability to book resorts.

I avoided arguing about demand - though she did reiterate what she has told others - that while studios are far in away the highest demand, 1-bedrooms are second, 2-bedrooms are third and GV are last. I simply stated that I am not in position to disagree because the data I have is limited to availability and availability does not equal demand. (I don't wholly believe that Disney is 100% correct in how it evaluates demand either - but there is no way to know this.

So - she continued to state that the reallocation is based on data analysis, and that data says that the they by increasing studios and 1-bedrooms, and lowering (somewhat) 2-bedrooms this will drive more people to 2-bedrooms.

To question #2, she said that any further changes would only be driven by doing what's best for the members - so essentially she said she could not predict what is going to happen in the future - but that it would be only done to benefit the membership.

I pointed out what COULD happen in this situation - that by increasing lock-out premiums, you COULD succeed in driving more people to 2-bedrooms - and you would need to at BWV for example get about 14% more lock-offs booked as 2-bedrooms to equalize out the points. But you COULD have the opposite effect, and find that it doesn't actually increase the number of people booking two bedrooms. I pointed to her for example that for a family like myself that only has 3 people you could raise studios 50% and I wouldn't be booking a 2-bedroom since my family has no need for that much space regardless. And I asked her what would be the response in that case where the data shows instead of driving people to 2-bedrooms it had no effect or the opposite effect (this circled back to my question #2 above). What she said is that every year the allocations are re-evaluated and there are adjustments made based on the data. In other words - she wasn't going to come out and say that they would roll it back, but the implication was if it didn't work then they would at least consider that option. (Editor's note: I don't believe this.)

Like with everyone else - she stressed that everything they had done was within the legal rights of DVC - but her reason for the rollback which is slightly different from what others have been told - was that some members were confused by the changes. (She used this word several times - "confused".) She admitted that in the past and in this case - they have done a very poor job in communicating with the membership the reason for the changes - which can leave members confused. That in the future they intend to be more forthcoming with the reasons for the changes to the allocation charts. She did NOT (of course) indicate that they would not make these (or similar) changes in the future. She also specified (and maybe the first time I've heard this) that what they are saying in their sales materials can also be confusing to the members. I also at this point said that I didn't think I personally had any confusion about what they could do - I just did not think that increases to the lock-off premium would occur since they would never be beneficial to the membership. She said that changes need to take into consideration all 65,000 members - not just myself. I agreed that I understood that a change may impact me negatively and I am OK with that, but want to be able to see where the change impacts members overall favorably.

She did take the time towards the end to take a little shot at me for being a resale owner - she re-iterated that they want to keep ALL owners satisfied regardless of whether DVC had seen a financial benefit from their membership or not - pointing out that in my case they did not. I could not let that go - and I pointed out that while they didn't receive a financial benefit from my purchase - Disney definitely receives a financial benefit from having me as a member. She conceded that comment as well. Her point was that Disney still wants to differentiate itself from others into how it treats its customers. I did reiterate both at the beginning and the end of the call how much I appreciated her time. (I spent roughly 30 minutes on the phone.) I did say that as a member I have been extremely happy up until this point, but feel that for the first time I have concerns about this membership with their ability.

In summary - I was not surprised that I did not get any warm fuzzies from this discussion. On the bright side, I got the impression that they might not be making all the same changes again next year because of the customer feedback they were receiving, even though they were well within their rights to make the change. That future change would be communicated better to the members. If the increase to the lock-off premium was not effective in doing what they wanted - they would re-consider it.

I am still not sure what to think of all this. The changes still don't 100% pass the sniff test with me. While they stay completely on-point about how legal it is, it seems to me like they keep changing the answer on why they rolled it back. (At one point negative feedback from a few members, now confusion by a number of members. She did not invoke the "less than 24" members number to me.) I am not sure that I am completely satisfied by the conversation, but don't know that further conversations would do any good. In all, I'm happy to have my voice heard, even if it's just one single solitary "YOP!"

It makes me continue in my "wait and see" attitude. I have no desire to sell points, but no desire to buy more points.

Thank you skier_pete for the time you have spent on this issue and others in recent months.

 

[Mumof4mice]

OK. I had my call with Yvonne (and another person present). I just wanted to get the gist down quickly:

I really wanted to keep focused on a minimal number of issues - which in my case were:
1) That increasing the lock-off premium has to potential to NOT be beneficial to the membership and
2) That by using these changes to increase the lock-off premium once, what would stop them from further increases which could further reduce mine (and others) ability to book resorts.

I avoided arguing about demand - though she did reiterate what she has told others - that while studios are far in away the highest demand, 1-bedrooms are second, 2-bedrooms are third and GV are last. I simply stated that I am not in position to disagree because the data I have is limited to availability and availability does not equal demand. (I don't wholly believe that Disney is 100% correct in how it evaluates demand either - but there is no way to know this.

So - she continued to state that the reallocation is based on data analysis, and that data says that the they by increasing studios and 1-bedrooms, and lowering (somewhat) 2-bedrooms this will drive more people to 2-bedrooms.

To question #2, she said that any further changes would only be driven by doing what's best for the members - so essentially she said she could not predict what is going to happen in the future - but that it would be only done to benefit the membership.

I pointed out what COULD happen in this situation - that by increasing lock-out premiums, you COULD succeed in driving more people to 2-bedrooms - and you would need to at BWV for example get about 14% more lock-offs booked as 2-bedrooms to equalize out the points. But you COULD have the opposite effect, and find that it doesn't actually increase the number of people booking two bedrooms. I pointed to her for example that for a family like myself that only has 3 people you could raise studios 50% and I wouldn't be booking a 2-bedroom since my family has no need for that much space regardless. And I asked her what would be the response in that case where the data shows instead of driving people to 2-bedrooms it had no effect or the opposite effect (this circled back to my question #2 above). What she said is that every year the allocations are re-evaluated and there are adjustments made based on the data. In other words - she wasn't going to come out and say that they would roll it back, but the implication was if it didn't work then they would at least consider that option. (Editor's note: I don't believe this.)

Like with everyone else - she stressed that everything they had done was within the legal rights of DVC - but her reason for the rollback which is slightly different from what others have been told - was that some members were confused by the changes. (She used this word several times - "confused".) She admitted that in the past and in this case - they have done a very poor job in communicating with the membership the reason for the changes - which can leave members confused. That in the future they intend to be more forthcoming with the reasons for the changes to the allocation charts. She did NOT (of course) indicate that they would not make these (or similar) changes in the future. She also specified (and maybe the first time I've heard this) that what they are saying in their sales materials can also be confusing to the members. I also at this point said that I didn't think I personally had any confusion about what they could do - I just did not think that increases to the lock-off premium would occur since they would never be beneficial to the membership. She said that changes need to take into consideration all 65,000 members - not just myself. I agreed that I understood that a change may impact me negatively and I am OK with that, but want to be able to see where the change impacts members overall favorably.

She did take the time towards the end to take a little shot at me for being a resale owner - she re-iterated that they want to keep ALL owners satisfied regardless of whether DVC had seen a financial benefit from their membership or not - pointing out that in my case they did not. I could not let that go - and I pointed out that while they didn't receive a financial benefit from my purchase - Disney definitely receives a financial benefit from having me as a member. She conceded that comment as well. Her point was that Disney still wants to differentiate itself from others into how it treats its customers. I did reiterate both at the beginning and the end of the call how much I appreciated her time. (I spent roughly 30 minutes on the phone.) I did say that as a member I have been extremely happy up until this point, but feel that for the first time I have concerns about this membership with their ability.

In summary - I was not surprised that I did not get any warm fuzzies from this discussion. On the bright side, I got the impression that they might not be making all the same changes again next year because of the customer feedback they were receiving, even though they were well within their rights to make the change. That future change would be communicated better to the members. If the increase to the lock-off premium was not effective in doing what they wanted - they would re-consider it.

I am still not sure what to think of all this. The changes still don't 100% pass the sniff test with me. While they stay completely on-point about how legal it is, it seems to me like they keep changing the answer on why they rolled it back. (At one point negative feedback from a few members, now confusion by a number of members. She did not invoke the "less than 24" members number to me.) I am not sure that I am completely satisfied by the conversation, but don't know that further conversations would do any good. In all, I'm happy to have my voice heard, even if it's just one single solitary "YOP!"

It makes me continue in my "wait and see" attitude. I have no desire to sell points, but no desire to buy more points.

Thanks @skier_pete . My appointment with Chang was at 5pm. Still waiting; she hasn't called me yet.

 

[zavandor]

I'm confused, for whom does Yvonne work? DVD or DVCMC?
If she works for DVD, why is she replying to questions about the points reallocations? If she works for DVCMC why does she says we resale owners haven't benefited DVC? Why should she care since the managing company (ie the people doing the reallocations) are financed with MF by resale and direct members alike?

 

[Mumof4mice]

I'm confused, for whom does Yvonne work? DVD or DVCMC?
If she works for DVD, why is she replying to questions about the points reallocations? If she works for DVCMC why does she says we resale owners haven't benefited DVC? Why should she care since the managing company (ie the people doing the reallocations) are financed with MF by resale and direct members alike?

https://www.linkedin.com/in/yvonne-chang-14b51464

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I'm confused, for whom does Yvonne work? DVD or DVCMC?
If she works for DVD, why is she replying to questions about the points reallocations? If she works for DVCMC why does she says we resale owners haven't benefited DVC? Why should she care since the managing company (ie the people doing the reallocations) are financed with MF by resale and direct members alike?

I think she may have "positions" within both. There's not a real good separation between the two.

 

[Mumof4mice]

I think she may have "positions" within both. There's not a real good separation between the two.

Agree. They're two heads of the same serpent.

 

[crvetter]

I'm confused, for whom does Yvonne work? DVD or DVCMC?
If she works for DVD, why is she replying to questions about the points reallocations? If she works for DVCMC why does she says we resale owners haven't benefited DVC? Why should she care since the managing company (ie the people doing the reallocations) are financed with MF by resale and direct members alike?

As others said she works for both. I asked her this exactly. In reality the leadership of DVD is the same as DVCMC and often the same as the board members for each association (DVC Resort). Essentially there is little separation between the companies in terms of leadership. However, she is essentially in charge of Regulatory affairs (and interpretations of the contracts). She told me on the DVD side her direct reports is Quality Assurance.

 

[cmwade77]

Ok, here is why I don't think they can change the total number of points required for a year's worth of a stay in any given unit.

According to my tax documents, I own interest in 0.9150% of Unit 9B at the Villas at Disney's Grand Californian, according to my contract I own 206 vacation points, which means that for the unit I own interest in, to stay an entire year would take 22,514 points. Now, if that total number of points for the year changes, then my percentage interest changes and the deed is wrong or they would have to adjust the number of vacation points I get every year and the contract is wrong, this is why they cannot change the total number of points for a year for any specific room type, as it would change percentages and yearly point totals for everyone that owns at that resort.

For example, let's say they did indeed change the number of points and it now takes 25,000 points for an entire year, that would mean my 206 points now only represents 0.824% or in order to retain the correct percentage, my points would have to be increased to 229 points per year.

I would be interested to know how the Yvonne person would respond to this point.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

As others said she works for both. I asked her this exactly. In reality the leadership of DVD is the same as DVCMC and often the same as the board members for each association (DVC Resort). Essentially there is little separation between the companies in terms of leadership. However, she is essentially in charge of Regulatory affairs (and interpretations of the contracts). She told me on the DVD side her direct reports is Quality Assurance.

I'm starting to wonder if what worked when DVC was smaller and did not have the distinctions between resale and direct thus less potential for conflict between members and potential members than there is now no longer works. It might be time for much better separation.

 

[skier_pete]

I'm confused, for whom does Yvonne work? DVD or DVCMC?
If she works for DVD, why is she replying to questions about the points reallocations? If she works for DVCMC why does she says we resale owners haven't benefited DVC? Why should she care since the managing company (ie the people doing the reallocations) are financed with MF by resale and direct members alike?

I want clarify this - because she wasn't being nasty or anything. She didn't say that we haven't benefited from DVC - she's said that Disney did not benefit (through sales) from us - BUT that Disney treats ALL DVC members the same when it comes to concerns from the membership. In other words, my concerns aren't any less valid because I'm a resale member. That said, she DID point out that I was a resale member.

First of all, thank you for taking the time to speak with her.

I guess my biggest issue with what she said to you is that driving demand to 2-bedrooms by making the studios and 1-bedrooms more expensive is somehow a benefit to anyone. ??? I book 2-bedrooms, and I don't want more competition on it. How is that better for you or for me? As a family of 3, you want a smaller, less point heavy accommodation, as would I in your case. As a family of 4, we want the bigger accommodation but don't want to compete with more people for those rooms. So by making the studios or 1-bedrooms more expensive, how in the world does that help anyone out??? You have to pay more for the same room, and I have to compete with more people for the 2-bedrooms. Who exactly is benefited by this??? Oh, that's right, DVD gets to have more rooms open for cash when people's points don't go as far to book the same rooms or someone is shut out now that used to have little to no issues.

Well, she did also point that SOME 2-bedrooms were lowered. The theory (I think) is that by getting more members to book two bedrooms that this will overall balance the occupancy rate. I see where it COULD in theory work. The problem is that because studios book up so much faster than either 1- or 2-bedrooms, raising the studios may slightly make the 2-bed lockoffs last longer but I think you will find the studios will still book very quickly. And once the studios are gone, the lock-off 2s are gone as well - so I think while the THEORY may work - I think the REALITY is that it doesn't work. Because she did say that the intent is to not increase breakage but to reduce it, and that's when I asked about what would happen if the effect they intend doesn't happen - would they revert back. And she said they would re-evaluate at that point, and they are constantly re-evaluating every year.

Thanks for the update. Maybe Disney could say I'm thinking too simplistically, but I just don't see any way someone could convince me that essentially manufacturing more points is a benefit to any member (not counting Disney themselves of course), regardless of booking habits.

If the goal really was to balance the demand for studio/1 BR vs 2 BR that's fine. A corresponding change to each of the categories would be perfectly reasonable. I'm only in ROFR for my first contract and obviously wasn't on your call, but these answers you got only leave me more bothered.

All I can say is that I do agree with her that we do not have access to all the data - but I agree with this comment - it's hard to believe generating more points at resorts is going to benefit ANYONE but Disney. I want to give them the benefit of the doubt but not convinced.

I am also still not sure they are going to go through with this...I again say you do not pull this back just because a couple customers are confused or you suddenly reconsider your communication policy. I tend to believe that there's something more that is up. We will have to wait another 10 months to find out what they do. (I suspect a more measured version of this.

Ok, here is why I don't think they can change the total number of points required for a year's worth of a stay in any given unit.

According to my tax documents, I own interest in 0.9150% of Unit 9B at the Villas at Disney's Grand Californian, according to my contract I own 206 vacation points, which means that for the unit I own interest in, to stay an entire year would take 22,514 points. Now, if that total number of points for the year changes, then my percentage interest changes and the deed is wrong or they would have to adjust the number of vacation points I get every year and the contract is wrong, this is why they cannot change the total number of points for a year for any specific room type, as it would change percentages and yearly point totals for everyone that owns at that resort.

For example, let's say they did indeed change the number of points and it now takes 25,000 points for an entire year, that would mean my 206 points now only represents 0.824% or in order to retain the correct percentage, my points would have to be increased to 229 points per year.

I would be interested to know how the Yvonne person would respond to this point.

You better send your own letter. The problem is, they have been doing THIS for many years (allocating points away from one unit to another) and so you will have a VERY hard time winning any sort of case on that basis. The argument as I see it is that the percentage of the unit you own is just a representation of the points. It doesn't mean they can't reallocate the point values. I wasn't an argument I wanted to get into.

 

[Louis morrell]

Quoted from skier_pete:
She did take the time towards the end to take a little shot at me for being a resale owner - she re-iterated that they want to keep ALL owners satisfied regardless of whether DVC had seen a financial benefit from their membership or not - pointing out that in my case they did not. I

But TWDC did see a financial benefit from your contract. The first owner purchased it from them. That is where it should end for Disney, they no,longer own the contract.
When you sell your car does the dealership think they should get a piece of the sale?

 

[aoconnor]

Ok, here is why I don't think they can change the total number of points required for a year's worth of a stay in any given unit.

According to my tax documents, I own interest in 0.9150% of Unit 9B at the Villas at Disney's Grand Californian, according to my contract I own 206 vacation points, which means that for the unit I own interest in, to stay an entire year would take 22,514 points. Now, if that total number of points for the year changes, then my percentage interest changes and the deed is wrong or they would have to adjust the number of vacation points I get every year and the contract is wrong, this is why they cannot change the total number of points for a year for any specific room type, as it would change percentages and yearly point totals for everyone that owns at that resort.

For example, let's say they did indeed change the number of points and it now takes 25,000 points for an entire year, that would mean my 206 points now only represents 0.824% or in order to retain the correct percentage, my points would have to be increased to 229 points per year.

I would be interested to know how the Yvonne person would respond to this point.

@wdrl disproved this theory a while back:

"In DVC's system, members aren't buying a fixed interest. Ownership and usage are not tied together to a single timeshare unit. When people buy into DVC their points are drawn from one of the resort's Residential Units, but their usage is not tied to that Residential Unit. Even though I own a 0.4675% real estate interest in BLT Unit 87A, which has one Lake View Grand Villa, my usage is not tied to that Unit; I don't have to use my 160 points for a Lake View Grand Villa. My BLT points allow me to book any villa in any Residential Unit at BLT and any time of the year. I'm only limited by availability and whether I have enough points. In other words, my ownership interest gives me resort-wide usage.

With the DVC system, which Unit your points are drawn from doesn't matter. Its the usage that matters. And the usage translates into access to the entire resort and any of the resort's vacation homes and Residential Units. Thus, when DVC does a reallocation, the reallocation is not done on a Vacation Home level, or a Unit level, but on the resort level."

 

[Dean]

First of all, thank you for taking the time to speak with her.

I guess my biggest issue with what she said to you is that driving demand to 2-bedrooms by making the studios and 1-bedrooms more expensive is somehow a benefit to anyone. ??? I book 2-bedrooms, and I don't want more competition on it. How is that better for you or for me? As a family of 3, you want a smaller, less point heavy accommodation, as would I in your case. As a family of 4, we want the bigger accommodation but don't want to compete with more people for those rooms. So by making the studios or 1-bedrooms more expensive, how in the world does that help anyone out??? You have to pay more for the same room, and I have to compete with more people for the 2-bedrooms. Who exactly is benefited by this??? Oh, that's right, DVD gets to have more rooms open for cash when people's points don't go as far to book the same rooms or someone is shut out now that used to have little to no issues.

In this area they have a mandate to even out demand if it's too far off regardless of how it affects various groups. Such a change would decrease demand for the units raised and lower demand for the rest thus altering the balance. It'd then be a trial and error as to whether it was enough or not.

Ok, here is why I don't think they can change the total number of points required for a year's worth of a stay in any given unit.

According to my tax documents, I own interest in 0.9150% of Unit 9B at the Villas at Disney's Grand Californian, according to my contract I own 206 vacation points, which means that for the unit I own interest in, to stay an entire year would take 22,514 points. Now, if that total number of points for the year changes, then my percentage interest changes and the deed is wrong or they would have to adjust the number of vacation points I get every year and the contract is wrong, this is why they cannot change the total number of points for a year for any specific room type, as it would change percentages and yearly point totals for everyone that owns at that resort.

For example, let's say they did indeed change the number of points and it now takes 25,000 points for an entire year, that would mean my 206 points now only represents 0.824% or in order to retain the correct percentage, my points would have to be increased to 229 points per year.

I would be interested to know how the Yvonne person would respond to this point.

Remember that legally it's based on who units, not sub components. Plus as I read all POS I have access to and all that's been presented, the only reasonable interpretation is that it's by resort not unit or villa. Being restricted by villa or unit means they cannot do an effective reallocation. The POS is clear that how many points you get does not limit them to making changes related to reallocation and you don't get more points if they do change it.