Do you think renting DVC points bothers Disney?

flynnibus

Premium Member
This is the point I can't seem to get across.

Whether or not 1 party goes to Disney or not, has absolutely no bearing on whether another party does. Sure, that room that I cancelled at the Polynesian may very well be rented out to someone else. However, as I said, unless the resort is running at 100% capacity, then there IS some loss there. Simply put, there is no party that "took my room" if the resort isn't full.

Yeah, but this isn't a pure binary thing. If your vacated room isn't filled, Disney has lots of tools at it's disposal to try to fill that room, or even use it as a perk elsewhere if needed.

There is a good chance Disney will still fill that room.. maybe just not at the rate you would have originally paid. But that loss may be offset by the perk to the DVC community, or the idea of having two parties at the parks now instead of one.

If it goes down where Disney can't fill the room, then yeah, they lose.. but we can see over time it can't be THAT bad on Disney because they still maintain extremely flexible cancelation policies and changes. It wouldn't appear these vacancies created are hurting them too bad.

Regardless, my question was actually answered a while back when someone said there is a limit to how many points an owner can rent out in a year. That right there tells me, that it is at least on Disney's mind that people are renting points as opposed to paying Disney. If they didn't care, they wouldn't limit them.

They've put up roadblocks over time to try to keep the practice in check. But in the real 'sum' that matters... I'd wager the positive impact on the DVC community outweighs any nickle and dimeing they may lose trying to fill a room.
 

captainkidd

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
If a non-member pays cash for a Disney hotel room, Disney receives the hotel revenue plus the theme park revenue (including dining, souvenirs, etc.)

If a non-member rents points, all they get is the theme park revenue.

Given a choice between the two, Disney would much rather see a DVC villa sit vacant.

Again, thank you. You're explaining better in much fewer words what I couldn't.:)
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
If a non-member pays cash for a Disney hotel room, Disney receives the hotel revenue plus the theme park revenue (including dining, souvenirs, etc.)

If a non-member rents points, all they get is the theme park revenue.

Given a choice between the two, Disney would much rather see a DVC villa sit vacant.

Sure, if you only look at that slice of the universe. But that assumes Disney is unable or unwilling to backfill the vacancy.. which they do attempt to do. Your outline is the worst case scenario.

If Disney backfills, there is now another party in the mix..
 

captainkidd

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Sure, if you only look at that slice of the universe. But that assumes Disney is unable or unwilling to backfill the vacancy.. which they do attempt to do. Your outline is the worst case scenario.

If Disney backfills, there is now another party in the mix..

As I said, next week every resort has vacancies for the entire week.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
As I said, next week every resort has vacancies for the entire week.

Most hotels have room vacancies every week of the year... because not every room fits every need.. and as people outlined before... hotels often NEED spare capacity.

It's not a game of absolutes as people keep trying to make it.
 

tjkraz

Active Member
Yeah, but this isn't a pure binary thing. If your vacated room isn't filled, Disney has lots of tools at it's disposal to try to fill that room, or even use it as a perk elsewhere if needed.

Same is true of empty DVC rooms. All DVC villas not reserved by members 60 days prior to arrival are made available to the general public for cash bookings.

So instead of renting points, our fictional guest pays Disney for a hotel room. Meanwhile a villa goes unused which Disney can try to rent for cash, discount, use for free upgrade, etc.

If that room is filled, Disney earns some money on both hotel bookings AND gets theme park-related revenue from both parties. I call that having your cake and eating it, too. :drevil:

As soon as Disney got into the timeshare business, they knew they would have to replace cash guests. If someone like kidd--who is a recurring Deluxe resort guest--buys into DVC, that business has to be replaced on the hotel side. He no longer represents reliable revenue for the hotel unit.

If Disney were running near 100% hotel occupancy, then we could conclude they have been successful at replacing those guests and filling the vacancies. But that isn't the case.

If not for rentals, their 90% occupancy might be 91 or 92%.

But Disney has made billions (with a "B") off the sales of DVC points so we probably don't need to weep for them. ;)

If given their druthers, the hotel "suits" would love to see rentals disappear. The DVC "suits" know that rentals are good marketing and they have undoubtedly created millions in revenue. Love-hate.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
Same is true of empty DVC rooms. All DVC villas not reserved by members 60 days prior to arrival are made available to the general public for cash bookings.

So instead of renting points, our fictional guest pays Disney for a hotel room. Meanwhile a villa goes unused which Disney can try to rent for cash, discount, use for free upgrade, etc.

If that room is filled, Disney earns some money on both hotel bookings AND gets theme park-related revenue from both parties. I call that having your cake and eating it, too. :drevil:

Yes, if your role is purely hotels.. you see DVC rentals as a leech on your prospective bookings.

Disney selling a cash room is best case scenario for Disney... but that isn't a scenario they can force, and it doesn't make the other scenarios 100% lose either.

As you say in the conclusion - it's about the total sum. That's why I keep saying this is about about finite absolutes. Between discounting, give/take, and the perceived value to DVC owners and future owners... Disney still appears to come out just fine with rentals occurring at the levels they are at now.

With the prices as they are, the offerings, and the tradeoffs of renting - they can influence the prevalence of renting without directly trying to throttle it.
 

MichWolv

Born Modest. Wore Off.
Premium Member
Again, thank you. You're explaining better in much fewer words what I couldn't.:)

But the story isn't that simple, as the rest of us are trying to point out.

Sure, if everything else could be held constant, Disney would rather you pay them then rent points. But everything else couldn't be held constant.

That said, if you're happy with hearing the only words you needed to hear, so am I.
 

slappy magoo

Well-Known Member
This might not be the best analogy...but to be fair, it's the only one I have at the moment. :)

Think about the age-old battle of mortals...the refillable mug argument.

Now for years, people asked "Does Disney really care if you bring an old mug back to be refilled?" Yeah, the signs to not do it are everywhere, but it's not enforced so does it matter, and they don't pay for the soda and yammer yammer yammer...

Only until recently did they start taking some serious steps to stop beverage thievery, with the RFID chips in the mugs. I don't know if this means a: WDW finally decided it was an issue or b: they always thought it was an issue but now there are affordable steps to combat it in a way that they don't lose money to do it. And who knows if this will work or they'll continue to do it. What we do know is, for year, it wasn't enough of a deal for them to, say, have cola patrol guards making sure you didn't use an old mug. If they saw one, maybe they'd say something, but they weren't looking...they weren't making a concerted effort, so it wasn't enough of a deal at the time...


NOW...

think about how many rooms are in WDW...

how many of them are WDW rooms? How many of them are DVC rooms?

And how many DVC rooms, on any given day, are being used by people renting DVC points?

Seriously.

I know it's more than one or two, but is it more than... a hundred? Less than a hundred? Are there that many renters? I know it's enough that "Dave" can make some coin facilitating the rentals, but enough for Disney to be plotting something to prevent renting from happening?

And for all the people operating under the assumption that a DVC renter is a Disney guest not renting a room, who's to say that that person would have gone to WDW were it not for renting points? Sure, WE all would, but that's not to say some of those renters would have gone elsewhere instead of to WDW had they not rented points.

I think Disney doesn't make a big deal about people renting points because then you start delving into people's personal affairs. Since they didn't restrict point rentals before, it would be potentially problematic to try to retroactively add that restriction, or to just add that restriction to new members going forward, thus affecting the golden calf that is DVC sales. There is a restriction about using DVC points for profit - I'd be far more worried about people who book trips on, say, Christmas Week using DVC points and then trying to auction the trip on ebay versus renters. And perhaps one day Disney might try an injunction to prevent "dave" or anyone else from making money off of those points. But ultimately, no matter how much money it may seem like to us, I think that sort of loss is planned for in their budgets, just like they won't tolerate stealing, but they nonetheless assume each store will experience some loss due to theft and incorporate that loss into the pricing of items...

Hey...wait a minute...didn't think about that until now. Maybe they don't care as much about it because they know it happens and "hide" that loss in the price of the rooms rented to everyone else, just as they do transportation and extra magic hours. It's not broken down on your bill, so you don't know it, but it's there all the same, just as your hotel bill compensates for the jerk who stole soda using an old mug, or swiped some nilla wafers out of the FW General store, or lifted some silverware out of a restaurant as a "souvenir." It's all rolled into something that someone else pays. And that's why there's not more of an effort to combat it.
 

Annielkd

Member
As I said, next week every resort has vacancies for the entire week.

Only for cash. Almost all the DVC rentals are out next week. I know... I tried switching hotels. They only have a few days available. And for some stupid reason I don't get, they will not allow DVC members to use points on rooms that are "rack" rates. I think if they had them available, they should let someone get them a week or so ahead if they wanted instead of leaving them vaccant.
 

captainkidd

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Only for cash. Almost all the DVC rentals are out next week. I know... I tried switching hotels. They only have a few days available. And for some stupid reason I don't get, they will not allow DVC members to use points on rooms that are "rack" rates. I think if they had them available, they should let someone get them a week or so ahead if they wanted instead of leaving them vaccant.

I agree. That's one of the negatives about DVC. Though I believe Disney has to leave some rooms open by law, or something or other.
 

Annielkd

Member
I agree. That's one of the negatives about DVC. Though I believe Disney has to leave some rooms open by law, or something or other.

That's what they told me... something about the bylaws. I don't know why they care. I'm going next week... I should be able to use my points on any dvc property with rooms. They are free to let people purchase the properties but, it can't work in reverse.
 

captainkidd

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
But the story isn't that simple, as the rest of us are trying to point out.

Sure, if everything else could be held constant, Disney would rather you pay them then rent points. But everything else couldn't be held constant.

That said, if you're happy with hearing the only words you needed to hear, so am I.

It is that simple. People are just trying to make it more complicated by adding factor "X" and "Y" into it, when it's not necessary. The question is, which is better for Disney? Selling a room for cash, or having someone stay at a DVC Villa by renting points off of a member? Sure, as long as they're on property they're going to spend money. Disney wins either way. But they'd win a lot more if the customer was paying cash to stay at a resort. It's not a lose situation for Disney. It's just a question of not winning as much. Paint it however you want, unless that hotel that I was going to stay at is at 100% capacity, Disney is losing SOME money.
 

RonAnnArbor

Well-Known Member
That would be a true philosophy anywhere in the world except at Disney -- where the philosophy is ANY money brought in is better than no money brought in, and it doesn't matter if its at a resort, a park, or a restaurant. Every penny you spend goes back to Disney. Period. They do not care who is in the room, the club, or who uses the points as long as you spend your money at Disney. It ALL goes back to them. They even get kickbacks from the independent restaurants and stores at DD....everything ultimately trickles back to Disney.

Its one of the reasons they don't care if non-resort guests use their busses or crowd the line to Saratoga Springs or take the boats to the resorts. They will ultimately spend money, even if its to buy a soda or candy bar along the way. That money all flows back to Disney's income.

Please spend as much as you like.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
It is that simple. People are just trying to make it more complicated by adding factor "X" and "Y" into it, when it's not necessary. The question is, which is better for Disney? Selling a room for cash, or having someone stay at a DVC Villa by renting points off of a member? Sure, as long as they're on property they're going to spend money. Disney wins either way. But they'd win a lot more if the customer was paying cash to stay at a resort. It's not a lose situation for Disney. It's just a question of not winning as much. Paint it however you want, unless that hotel that I was going to stay at is at 100% capacity, Disney is losing SOME money.

If you only look at a slice and not the whole picture.. you can be right in the slice, and still wrong in the long haul.

It's not about isolated transactions - because there really is no such thing in the real world.
 

captainkidd

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
That would be a true philosophy anywhere in the world except at Disney -- where the philosophy is ANY money brought in is better than no money brought in, and it doesn't matter if its at a resort, a park, or a restaurant. Every penny you spend goes back to Disney. Period. They do not care who is in the room, the club, or who uses the points as long as you spend your money at Disney. It ALL goes back to them. They even get kickbacks from the independent restaurants and stores at DD....everything ultimately trickles back to Disney.

Its one of the reasons they don't care if non-resort guests use their busses or crowd the line to Saratoga Springs or take the boats to the resorts. They will ultimately spend money, even if its to buy a soda or candy bar along the way. That money all flows back to Disney's income.

Please spend as much as you like.

I give up. I guess this is one of those things that is impossible to explain, though it shouldn't be.

To me, it's very simple:

X+Y=Z
If you take X out of the equation, then Z is not going to equal as much.
 

Annielkd

Member
It is that simple. People are just trying to make it more complicated by adding factor "X" and "Y" into it, when it's not necessary. The question is, which is better for Disney? Selling a room for cash, or having someone stay at a DVC Villa by renting points off of a member? Sure, as long as they're on property they're going to spend money. Disney wins either way. But they'd win a lot more if the customer was paying cash to stay at a resort. It's not a lose situation for Disney. It's just a question of not winning as much. Paint it however you want, unless that hotel that I was going to stay at is at 100% capacity, Disney is losing SOME money.

I looked back at the original post. Did you know your opinion on this prior to posting? Did you form it along the way? I know this has sparked a nice debate... but, was is planned? Just curious.
 

captainkidd

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
If you only look at a slice and not the whole picture.. you can be right in the slice, and still wrong in the long haul.

It's not about isolated transactions - because there really is no such thing in the real world.

I think there is. If there wasn't, Disney wouldn't put restrictions on things like Annual Passes and refillable mugs.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom