Would you really?

[vernon]

Dean, just wanted to say I agree with your reading of the situation 100%

 

[HorizonsFan]

Dean:
I understand your point now. Do you think that DVC is under pressure from any entity if not to realize profit to at least minimize expense?

 

[Dean]

Originally posted by HorizonsFan
Dean:
I understand your point now. Do you think that DVC is under pressure from any entity if not to realize profit to at least minimize expense?

I'm sure they are and they should be at least from us owners. I just don't think they are playing hardball with the other DVC entities as much as they should be.

 

[Werner Weiss]

Dean is making an excellent point -- and one that isn't obvious on the surface.

DVC, as management entity, makes a continuing profit, year after year -- but only in the form of the management fee, which is a component of our annual dues. Of course, initially Disney Vacation Development (DVD) makes a good profit by selling the leaseholds at prices substantially in excess of construction costs. Nothing wrong with that. That's the business model by which successful timeshares work.

In a conventional timeshare, such as Marriott Vacation Club (MVCI), the business model is much more obvious. MVCI's development/sales entity sells the timeshares. MVCI's management entity manages the timeshare in the timeshare owners' interest, in exchange for a management fee which is a percentage of the budget. The same is true with DVD and DVC.

Where it gets confusing with Disney Vacation Club is that WDW realizes a lot of ongoing, indirect profits from park admissions, meals, and merchandise purchased by DVC members. It's easy to blur DVC's management role and WDW as a whole, but there really is a distinction.

DVC, as the management entity, has a responsibility to look after the DVC members' interests -- and that includes negotiating the best possible business arrangements with other parts of Disney. The other parts of Disney, such as the theme parks, in turn, have a responsibility to maximize profits -- and one way to this is provide attractive, sales-and-profit-generating discounts and other perks to DVC members. 60,000 DVC families -- who are motivated by value, and most of whom return year after year -- represent a sizable market for Disney.

 

[Dean]

DVC, as the management entity, has a responsibility to look after the DVC members' interests -- and that includes negotiating the best possible business arrangements with other parts of Disney. The other parts of Disney, such as the theme parks, in turn, have a responsibility to maximize profits -- and one way to this is provide attractive, sales-and-profit-generating discounts and other perks to DVC members. 60,000 DVC families -- who are motivated by value, and most of whom return year after year -- represent a sizable market for Disney.

And this is the reason I say the board has a conflict of interest and that there should be direct member representation on the board. Either as board members or as ex officio members.

 

[Dreamfinder2]

Whew. Are the details on these posts gonna be on our final exam?

 

[mistermouse]

Werner said,
60,000 DVC families -- who are motivated by value

"Motivated by value" is at the heart of this discussion. While all consumers are motivated by value to one degree or another, DVC'ers I believe to be much more value driven than the typical WDW vacation consumer. As such, the DVC family represents a specialty market segment (and a fast growing one at that).

Our satisfaction with DVC ownership really has little to do with the demand for value priced park admissions. Like most, my wife and I are very satisfied with our investment in DVC. That does not mean we are satisfied with Disney's park admission media and the prices we pay for it. We are part of a large and growing frequent users group; judging by feedback on this board many feel the same way. Because of this, some are opting to spend less time in the parks and less $$$ on site. While LOS does fit the DVC "lifestyle," the value we receive relative to the cost is significantly less than the value provided to a less frequent WDW vacationer. We want casual access to the parks and we want it at a reasonable price. We are not commando riding all the E-ticket rides and staying open to close, we should be billed accordingly. AP's are a better fit, but as a different market segment we expect a better value than the typical AP consumer.

This is why FL discounts are so often referenced in this thread. Discounted tickets, dining programs, after 4 Epcot admissions, etc are much more aligned with the type of access we are demanding. With park attendance down and growing competition Disney will eventually move to satisfy our willingness to spend more time in the parks; but it is at least partially up to us to communicate to Disney that these types of programs are what we expect from the company. So talk to your guides and resort staff, write letters, etc. Explain you want to spend more time on property, but also explain that the same value equation used to purchase DVC accomodations is what keeps you from doing so. In the interim enjoy some of what Orlando has to offer off property.

None of these points should be seen as any kind of revolt against WDW. In fact, we will still spend the majority of our time at the place we love, just more time away than we would normally want(casual dinners, slow days, etc).

Corporations regularly reward frequent/repeat customers. Airlines (SkyMiles, OnePass, etc), carwash (every 6th wash free), frequent diners clubs, etc. recognize the value in bringing customers back on a regular basis. While Disney does have it's own types of rewards (DisneyClub, APs, etc), a significant part of these programs are room discounts which we do not need. We want casual access at reasonable costs. The FL discount programs fit the bill and that is what we should be leveraging our stength to attain; it may be the easiest to lobby for and administer since it already exists. To recognize FL DVC owners, the black-out date restrictions should be removed for DVC. Many other previous suggestions might also be satisfactory.

I'm with most of you and feel such a change would be a win/win for Disney. We get the greater value we expect and Disney keeps us at home where we belong.

upcoming trips
HHI in Oct - first Time!!!
OKW in Jan - (no park visits this time, waiting til next visit)

 

[sumessefui]

In the poll I voted as a puchaser of AP's. WE like to go to the parks for short visits and to dine. This will be the last time we will purchase AP's, however. The price goes up, they start as soon as you purchase them( as against when you first use them), and I do not always get 2 visits in. UMP's or whatever are not a good value for we do not always go into the park every day. The new pass for DVC'ers is a joke. I will now buy park hopper's at the AAA discount, and spend time( and money) elsewhere.

 

[penguincruiser]

The only reason I am thinking about buying an AP of PAP is because we have banked points and will probably take 2 trips within a year. But I am still weighing up the pros and cons of using up the days on my previous hopper pass and getting a new one for this and the next trip, Why? because the days never expire.

Why am I thinking about APs? because of the flexibility, we can go where we want when we want and not have to bother about using an option for 2 hours at DQ or 1 hour at PI. This to me is worth the extra cash and I think this is also how a lot of DVC members see it. They just want to be able to kick back and relax at "home" and then go out for a meal or one or two rides etc.

The 5 year hopper is also very restrictive, what I would like to see is a DVC hopper pass. Buy 10, 20, 30 days (with related amount of options), no limits on when you use the days, unused days expire in 2042! Add ons possible - just like points
This would make a lot more sense than what they have thought up now. It might not give as much freedom as an AP but you could then do "park days" and "non-park days" during numerous trips, long and short with the same pass.

Does this make any sense?

JJ Penguin