DVC Members Resistance

[NormC]

Last year we stayed at BLT (our home resort) in a 1 bedroom Park view suite for 6 nights. We went to Uni IOA on the Wednesday. On Feb 1st we are staying in a 1 bedroom savanna view suite at AKL Kidani. We do not plan to leave property this time. When HP2 is finished we will spend a day or 2 at Uni again but we decided we can wait for it to be finished. Kids want to go to Splitsville this time and have a relaxing non park day in DTD. We still have 94 points left but our AP expires Feb 23rd. Not sure what we will do after this trip. I think a cruise or DisneyLand.

 

[PhilharMagician]

Maliciously? No. To make more $$$? Hmmmm. Also not sure how it "improved" things for us? We used to be able to take a weeklong vacation each year and only pay our annual dues...now I have to pay for one night's stay to do the exact same thing? So yes, they are within the letter of the law and can say what they like... but have you tried to stay a full week on older DVC points at home resort? Were YOU happy with what happened?

I'm not saying it didn't work out for some people who take other sized trips, but for us, not so much. Moving on....

Reallocation of points does not make them anymore money. It simply works to take the roller coaster humps out of the season.
If it requires 10 more points for the first week of December than the 10 points is removed from elsewhere in the same calendar year. At no point can DVC collect more points at one resort for the same amount of rooms. If 100,000 points were initially available at a resort then they only ever have 100,000 points unless they add more rooms. This is in your contract.

 

[awilliams4]

By definition, if it isn't occupied by DVC members it doesn't sit idle, other customers have access and pay the going rate which is.....drumroll....MORE money. Anyways.... We're not selling, we still enjoy going to Disney, we were simply frustrated by the change.

If a DVC Member trades out of DVC (RCI, Disney Cruise, Adventures By Disney, etc), Disney will attempt to sell the rooms for cash. However, that revenue goes to offset the cost incurred by Disney to give the member a Cruise or pay RCI or Adventures By Disney.

If Disney sells rooms that are meant for points that Disney owns either through reacquired points, points that haven't been sold yet or points they reserve and never sell at all resorts (2-4% of all points), they pay maintenance fees for those points just like the rest of us.

Your post insinuates that those rooms unfairly become inflated revenue options for Disney. That is wrong. Each time you give an example of how you are suggesting Disney is screwing DVC members, your argument isn't accurate. No matter how much you want to believe they screwing you.

 

[awilliams4]

I find it hysterical that you are effectively arguing people can't predict how many points they will need in the future (a 40+ year contract) so they should have just buy more points.

I've said for a long time this having to align points to your desired use risks buying points you can't use or get caught short.. and everyone says 'nah.. that doesn't happen!' and here we have an example of a guest buying points to match their intended use.. and you're arguing 'well you just should have bought more!'. So for 10 years they should have been paying for points they didn't need?

Classic

Here you have an example of someone trying to buy the bare minimum today without taking into consideration how the program works.

Here is an FAQ on this matter, so it is not classic at all, it is just short sighted. If you plan to spend the big bucks and one little shift in the wind screws everything up even thought the shift is already spelled out in the contract before you made the purchase, that is the buyer's fault, not the seller. Knowledge is power. Google is also your friend.

http://dvcnews.com/index.php/dvc-program/owning-dvc/faqs

'Buyers should assume that reallocations will occur every few years, and buy with the understanding that a trip which costs exactly 185 points in 2010 may cost moderately more or less in a future year. "

 

[flynnibus]

If Disney sells rooms that are meant for points that Disney owns either through reacquired points, points that haven't been sold yet or points they reserve and never sell at all resorts (2-4% of all points), they pay maintenance fees for those points just like the rest of us.

And what about rooms that are open due to being idle (banking/borrowing) or the portion of rooms held back for maintanence/cycling?

There are open rooms that are 'owned' by the membership due to people booking higher point value nights and banking/borrowing. The # of points is fixed... but that doesn't mean there is 100% utilization. And there are moves possible that would could influence open rooms.

 

[awilliams4]

And what about rooms that are open due to being idle (banking/borrowing) or the portion of rooms held back for maintanence/cycling?

There are open rooms that are 'owned' by the membership due to people booking higher point value nights and banking/borrowing. The # of points is fixed... but that doesn't mean there is 100% utilization. And there are moves possible that would could influence open rooms.

What about that specific set of circumstances. One poster is suggesting Disney is screwing the owners. I am showing that is not the case. The rooms that are idle through backing and borrowing are probably dealt with through a typical Timeshare algorithm that has to be tweaked a bit to deal with some of Disney's own rules. Like banking and borrowing. So what? No one is getting cheated when that happens.

 

[awilliams4]

There needs to be a new forum......haters that hate Disney and insist they screw everybody no matter how much of the evidence dictates otherwise.

 

[flynnibus]

Here you have an example of someone trying to buy the bare minimum today without taking into consideration how the program works.

No, your just being dismissive without actually addressing the point. No one is ignorant of reallocation (the drum you keep beating), it's about the nuanses that can result and (my point) is the hysterical game that people deny exists when it comes to modeling how many points you really need and being able to avoid overbuying.

Your 'solution' for the guy was 'should have bought more!' .

 

[Phonedave]

Two Items

1) Points are both a pro and con of DVC. You have more flexibility with points than you do with a fixed week, but on the other hand you may get caught short or over from time to time. I don't know about others, but I understood that going into the contract. It was made pretty clear to me how it worked. DVC moves point costs around in order to try and even out demand.

2) We are cutting back on our WDW trips as well. We are going in June for a big tip (week in a Treehouse, my family + the in-laws, still room for 2 more - trying to convince our friends to go as well) but that will be the last for us for a while. Way back when I first went to WDW as an adult (1998 or so) I really had no great desire to go. When I went I was quickly sold on the overall quality of the experience. How clean everything was, how well maintained, the quality of the attractions and shows, and the lack of petty charges. Yes it was expensive, but I didn't feel like they were charging me for every little thing - there were plenty of free "plusses" - well, that all is pretty much gone. I have a feeling that if I went to WDW for the first time now, I would not have a desire to go back. Too much planning, too much work, too much money, and not enough enjoyment. I still have fun there, don't get me wrong, and if I was local and had an AP and could pop in and out, maybe I would, but for the effort (and massively increased airfare) that it takes to go to WDW, I no longer have a desire to.

Chances are my wife and I will continue to do an "adults only" weekend in November for Food and Wine - we still enjoy the seminars and tastings, but even that is getting crazy with the pricing.

I think for the summber of 2015 we are going to bank our points and then come 2016 see what happens - if word is WDW has improved, maybe we will go. If word is that it is still the same, then manbe we go to Hilton Head, or *gasp* use points towards a cruise (by renting them and using the cash, not a direct trade)

-dave

 

[awilliams4]

Your 'solution' for the guy was 'should have bought more!' .

That is not my solution. That is the general understanding for anyone that is a DVC member or should be. Tim at DVCNews is not a dummy on this. So if I am wrong, so is he and many many others that already suggest the same thing when you google how many points should I buy and reallocation.

 

[flynnibus]

What about that specific set of circumstances. One poster is suggesting Disney is screwing the owners. I am showing that is not the case. The rooms that are idle through backing and borrowing are probably dealt with through a typical Timeshare algorithm that has to be tweaked a bit to deal with some of Disney's own rules. Like banking and borrowing. So what? No one is getting cheated when that happens.

You're missing how these things can be manipulated to your advantage. Because it is not 'one to one', but requires a continuous chunk of something.. there often is something you call the 'quantizer effect' - that you can't get full utilization of all your point. Take a abstract example... I have 100 units of payment.. but a product costs 40 units. I can only buy 2 units, and the last 20 units are unusable. That's the generic principle, but its more complicated in DVC due to the varying costs and the pull forward/back, etc.

There is no perfect answer because lengths of stays are not uniform nor is point redemption mandatory. They can't simply say week 1-10 costs X, weeks 11-20 cost Y, etc... so there are many more combinations, and many that will result in having to alter the number of days, not just when you go... regardless of how many points you have unless you over buy. But what I was highlighting, and you gloss over is, there are manipulations possible in there that do lead to opportunistic ways Disney can squeeze more money from the inventory even with the 100% points distribution. Am I saying they are doing it nefariously? No... but your argument of 'its not possible' is not true.

 

[awilliams4]

You're missing how these things can be manipulated to your advantage. Because it is not 'one to one', but requires a continuous chunk of something.. there often is something you call the 'quantizer effect' - that you can't get full utilization of all your point. Take a abstract example... I have 100 units of payment.. but a product costs 40 units. I can only buy 2 units, and the last 20 units are unusable. That's the generic principle, but its more complicated in DVC due to the varying costs and the pull forward/back, etc.

There is no perfect answer because lengths of stays are not uniform nor is point redemption mandatory. They can't simply say week 1-10 costs X, weeks 11-20 cost Y, etc... so there are many more combinations, and many that will result in having to alter the number of days, not just when you go... regardless of how many points you have unless you over buy. But what I was highlighting, and you gloss over is, there are manipulations possible in there that do lead to opportunistic ways Disney can squeeze more money from the inventory even with the 100% points distribution. Am I saying they are doing it nefariously? No... but your argument of 'its not possible' is not true.

There is definitely leakage and remainders after the calculations are done and probably even bumped up things like BLT uses X of the transportation costs at the Contemporary where in reality it is probably Y if there were enough resources to get the actual real costs in line.

However, I am not missing the point because these are not the original accusations that have been made on this thread. One accusation was that the reallocation was for a revenue stream. Another suggested that they were guaranteed a week at SSR. These things are just wrong.

 

[EOD K9]

If word is that it is still the same, then manbe we go to Hilton Head, or *gasp* use points towards a cruise (by renting them and using the cash, not a direct trade)

-dave

That's exactly what I have been doing. I find the cruises so much more enjoyable. I am going to the World for a short trip but only doing one day in the parks. It's just too expensive. I'm also not into planning everything so far in advance.
Second, in regards to this one week thing. Am I to understand that someone bought 100 points at SSR thinking they were always guaranteed a week long stay? Just curious.

 

[Longhairbear]

Considering DVC visits are typically planned 7-11 months out and FP+ ressies started just a couple of months ago, I have a hard time understanding how that can be the main reason. The $20 thing started like maybe 60 days ago?!?!?!

The PAP was $399 last year. The regular AP is $424 to DVC Members. How much lower should it be?

I think what you discovered was just another thread with a group of haters griping about stuff they haven't even experienced yet.

You can just hang out at the Fox News comments section for that.

I specifically mentioned that the site was conservative, meaning Pixie Dust Central. Posters on that site never say a negative thing about Disney usually. So, I find it interesting that they are using their DVC as a home base for every other location in Orlando, and not the Disney Parks. They are not haters, but are starting to see the price of admission going up, and comparing the value with other places. Some said they were letting go of their AP when it expires, as they are not going to WDW as much anymore, and the cost of an AP no longer makes sense. They feel they are finding better value, and sometimes better quality outside of WDW. However, they still stay on property in their DVC. A very different use of DVC than before.
As for disliking MDE, the part they dislike the most, is the planning ahead. ADR's, full restaurants, and now the $20.00 credit card fee has pushed some of these DVC members offsite to find good food at a decent price, and not have to book that months ahead.
I reached that point 3 years ago, except that I started cooking in my villa much more. Next trip, whenever that may be, we will rent a car for the first time in the 12 years we have been members of DVC. We dropped our AP at WDW 5 years ago or more, as we stopped going as often, and the numbers didn't crunch out well.
Another reason we have not been back to WDW is the lack of new attractions. We were realizing the only new thing to do every year was to stay at a different DVC resort each trip. So, back to my original post. Others are starting to do what I don't think Disney ever dreamed DVC members would do, and that is, using DVC as a place to sleep between visits to everywhere else besides WDW Parks.

 

[BroganMc]

It was not to make more money. Do a search on DVC Reallocation purposes on Google. No need to speculate, the answers are out there. Timeshares are designed to be at full capacity to the greatest extent as possible. Otherwise, the members pay in more ways than one. If this negatively effected you, then it was because you got the bare minimum to make it work when all the planets aligned and the dates were just right. If that is the case and you didn't purchase points with the understanding of how a Timeshare works and how it can be modified in the future, that is just short sighted. I mean, who can you blame besides yourself? You are arguing with gravity at that point.

What's more there was a point reallocation the following year that adjusting things back again for many members.

The old allocation created a system where Fri/Sat nights were double the amount of Sun-Thurs nights. Many owners were only booking those weekday stays sucking up the availability and leaving only weekends. The point reallocation corrected that situation by raising weekday and lowering weekend. There was a tweak the following year that balanced it out better in less than peak seasons. The charts haven't changed in a few years now.

I was hot under the collar about this the first year of the change because it hurt my Sun-Fri stays negatively. I also realized just how tight a point profile I had afforded myself. But it was no different than the change experienced going from studio to 1bedroom stays.

The thing about a point system is it's meant to be flexible. You're not sure how you will use it year to year so you try to have a bank of points big enough to cover your most popular options.

Some owners dealt with the point reallocation by doing small add-ons. (Many of the BLT owners were most adversely affected because the point reallocation happened in the resort's second year of use. People who'd just bought had to buy again, assuming they had a small portfolio to begin with.) Other owners dealt with it by borrowing points from future years and planning a skip year or point transfer year when the borrowing caught up with them.

That said, the salesmen at SSR were pushing the idea of point charts never changing back in '04-'06. It was an easy mistake to make for newbie owners. I can understand the anger, but I don't think the accusation it was done out of pure greed rings true. Disney has a lot better ways of showing its greed to DVC members. Just look how the price per point has risen over the last 5 years. It's absolutely insane now. Thank goodness for a healthy resale market.

 

[ford91exploder]

What's more there was a point reallocation the following year that adjusting things back again for many members.

The old allocation created a system where Fri/Sat nights were double the amount of Sun-Thurs nights. Many owners were only booking those weekday stays sucking up the availability and leaving only weekends. The point reallocation corrected that situation by raising weekday and lowering weekend. There was a tweak the following year that balanced it out better in less than peak seasons. The charts haven't changed in a few years now.

I was hot under the collar about this the first year of the change because it hurt my Sun-Fri stays negatively. I also realized just how tight a point profile I had afforded myself. But it was no different than the change experienced going from studio to 1bedroom stays.

The thing about a point system is it's meant to be flexible. You're not sure how you will use it year to year so you try to have a bank of points big enough to cover your most popular options.

Some owners dealt with the point reallocation by doing small add-ons. (Many of the BLT owners were most adversely affected because the point reallocation happened in the resort's second year of use. People who'd just bought had to buy again, assuming they had a small portfolio to begin with.) Other owners dealt with it by borrowing points from future years and planning a skip year or point transfer year when the borrowing caught up with them.

That said, the salesmen at SSR were pushing the idea of point charts never changing back in '04-'06. It was an easy mistake to make for newbie owners. I can understand the anger, but I don't think the accusation it was done out of pure greed rings true. Disney has a lot better ways of showing its greed to DVC members. Just look how the price per point has risen over the last 5 years. It's absolutely insane now. Thank goodness for a healthy resale market.

Also how the HIGH seasons are expanding consuming more points in the process, DVC is really relying on the LETTER of the law. Can't wait till the legal eagles figure out there is money to be made here I'll make the popcorn for that show.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

No, your just being dismissive without actually addressing the point. No one is ignorant of reallocation (the drum you keep beating), it's about the nuanses that can result and (my point) is the hysterical game that people deny exists when it comes to modeling how many points you really need and being able to avoid overbuying.

Your 'solution' for the guy was 'should have bought more!' .

My take is that he should have bought more as well. Even if you add just 10-20 extra points to cover any changes, you can bank those unneeded extra points every single year. When you make a reservation, DVC uses those banked points first when making a reservation, so they just don't go away. After so many years, you have enough points to add on a day or two, add a long weekend trip, or simply rent those points out for cash (which someone can do every year, if they are not needed). They should never be lost or go to waste. If that happens, then the person did not plan correctly. We would never have considered only buying just enough to cover a particular week at only one resort. We go 2-3 times every year, staying in different resorts at different times so there was simply no way to say we only needed a certain amount. That may not work for everyone, but I would venture to say, it does for most DVC members.

I guess my other question is, why did he buy only to stay at one single resort every single time? Why wouldn't you want to try other DVC resorts? We own at SSR, but have stayed at OKW, BWV, and the VGC on our points. We are planning a trip next year, and will be trying to get into either VGF, VWL, BLT, or BCV. We don't go at busy times, so we usually have more luck than most getting in at the 7 month mark.

 

[Disneykidder]

Don't take this the wrong way but if you are dissatisfied with DVC, sell your contract. There is no pressure to stay so if it is a bother than sell your points each year or your entire contract altogether.

We love our DVC. We are taking a 10 day trip this summer (BCV and VGF). We used up every singe 2014 point. In 2015 we are taking a break and then going to WDW and DLR in 2016. When the Poly starts selling points we will prob. add on.

 

[xdan0920]

Don't take this the wrong way but if you are dissatisfied with DVC, sell your contract. There is no pressure to stay so if it is a bother than sell your points each year or your entire contract altogether.

We love our DVC. We are taking a 10 day trip this summer (BCV and VGF). We used up every singe 2014 point. In 2015 we are taking a break and then going to WDW and DLR in 2016. When the Poly starts selling points we will prob. add on.

How is that the solution??? The solution is for Disney to make us feel like we made the right choice in buying into DVC.

A great point was made earlier in the thread. WDW has seen a massive growth in guests. Meanwhile they offer less then ever. The infrastructure has been pushed to the breaking point (see the Monorail closure thread) and there is no place to soak up these crowds. It's a real problem.

 

[dreamfinder]

Maliciously? No. To make more $$$? Hmmmm. Also not sure how it "improved" things for us? We used to be able to take a weeklong vacation each year and only pay our annual dues...now I have to pay for one night's stay to do the exact same thing? So yes, they are within the letter of the law and can say what they like... but have you tried to stay a full week on older DVC points at home resort? Were YOU happy with what happened?

I'm not saying it didn't work out for some people who take other sized trips, but for us, not so much. Moving on....

For the most part, the point total stayed very close week in and week out. As already pointed out, the shift was to help combat the empty rooms over the weekends due to the higher point cost. No extra money was made by DVD as they already decided how many points were going to be sold, and that number didn't change.

Also how the HIGH seasons are expanding consuming more points in the process, DVC is really relying on the LETTER of the law. Can't wait till the legal eagles figure out there is money to be made here I'll make the popcorn for that show.

And if the high season did somehow happen to expand, there is an opposite shift at some other point in the year. There does tend to be a bit of flucuation depending on when holidays and such fall, but if you look at past point charts its mostly cyclical. No matter how much they may want to make more money, the only way they can do that is by increasing the cost of buying points direct. Pretty much every other cost associated with DVC is dictated by law. Fees are tied to what is actually spent, point totals declared when property is first sold, etc.

And for the record, yes we did just stay 9 days actually on older points at our home resort. The same number of days we stayed when we first bought it, same time period as when we first bought it, and no we didn't need to bank or borrow any points to do so (actually had some left over to bank for next year).