But this is where the logic breaks for me; I know Disney wants to proclaim that you can stay at Deluxe resorts for value/moderate pricing levels, but is this really the case? Looking at a customer's lifetime DVC cost, versus someone who would go to a Deluxe resort every 4th year, which income stream is better for Disney?
Of course it is ... sorta. Once you pay off the original purchase price, you are paying very little for Walmarted Deluxe accommodations. Someone here mentioned that they went to the Disney site to look at Pop Century and it was advertising rooms ... as 'value' rooms from $140 a night. How is that a value? Within spitting distance of that hotel (literally) is the Waldorf Astoria.
I think your comparison is off because most DVCers were never in the deluxe pool of visitors. And many that were, well, they likely visited more often than once in four years (hence, why they thought DVC was a 'deal' to begin with).
I'd argue that Disney's best income stream for long term health of the resort is having deluxe resorts at high occupancy levels that aren't inflated via discounting and/or converting units to timeshare.
I would theorize that this business model simply makes more sense for Disney since they secure long-term resort customers, which is necessary when it's hard to fill out the 25.000 rooms year round. Yes, it wasn't a problem in the 80's, when a fraction of those rooms existed, but apparently, as you say, it is today. Sure, we could also theorize that they could feel rooms via other means, e.g. lowering rates, but I'm not sure that would be a financially viable decision. Or at least I would argue that someone should do forecast calculations based on those scenarios before bluntly stating that what Disney is doing is outright stupid.
Perhaps, Disney overbuilt in a greedy feeding frenzy to get every Orlando guest to be a WDW guest?
Perhaps, Disney simply uses a pricing model that can't possibly sustain itself and is in the process of collpapsing inward?
Perhaps, the people who run Disney aren't interested in what the resort will be like in even five or 10 years time because they will be long gone and it will be someone else's problem (see: deferred maintenance, infrastructure that is crumbling, transport/monorail issues)?
Bluntly, while I'm not a financial Spirit, I have talked at length and over years with people in the hospitality business. Disney makes a profit on occupied rooms at a very low threshold (one that would likely shock many here). It differs from resort ... but if I said that $50 a night made Disney money at the Grand Flo, I'd likely be very close to reality.
So, this notion that having pricepoints that are somewhat real world wouldn't be financially viable just isn't accurate. Sure, Disney would 'lose' money based on its current modeling. But that means nothing.
On the other poster's vastly discounted $365 a night room at the Grand Flo, Disney is rolling in profit.
And because location still counts most of all in real estate, I'd argue (and will til I get bored) that WDW could easily run at upper 90s percentile load levels IF its prices weren't so out of whack with the market. Hell, if Disney ran rooms at that crazy $365 point year-round, I doubt you'd be able to get into the Grand Flo except a few very lousy periods a year.
Does DVC owners have any say in what they pay in annual fees? Does the DVC owners decide how much of their money go to the common areas (I would think that's something the resort works out as a DVC extension/conversion is done). Do you have examples of that wear and tear that at the same time is not a symbol of bad management, i.e. not happening at non-DVC resorts?
No, they do not.
No, they do not.
No, I do not.
No, I haven't read every single thread in the past 70 pages
I simply don't have the time to do that. Does that mean I can't ask a question?
No, of course you haven't. You've just dropped in to the middle of a discussion and want people to answer or discuss things that it would be rational to assume have already been brought up. Even multi-tasking, I simply don't have the time (nor the desire) to keep repeating things when they can be found elsewhere.
Besides the elitism going on in that post, I still don't understand why DVC is that much more appealing to lower-income families; isn't the initial upfront cost of membership quite substantial? I mean, you need to find that money somewhere, right?
Ah, so there's the elitism argument. DVC is going to appeal to people who could never afford deluxe resorts, but can afford to make a one-time purchase (sometimes on credit) or finance a timeshare. ... Generally, the wealthy didn't get that way by making dumb financial decisions Timeshare is almost never a smart financial decision, DVC or anywhere else. There's a reason why the industry, Disney included, thrive on an emotionally charged atmosphere where they don't want you leaving without signing on the dotted line ... very akin to what buying an automobile has traditionally been known for in the USA (since you're from Denmark and I don't know what their auto dealers are like!)
Well, that's just plain sad, if true. I mean, DVC owners and hotel guests alike are all bound by rules, and while you never want to come away as offensive, when your name is Disney, this just sounds like a weird way of handling that situation.
But explain to me why Disney treat DVC owners with more care than they would normal resort guests then?
Yes, if no one is lying and making things up to paint DVC in a bad and unfair light, you are right. That is sad. It also is reality.
Disney doesn't do confrontation well. And it never wants to confront guests (see other threads you haven't had time to read where we talk about Disney letting guests shoplift almost at will rather than do anything about it).
But, yes, you are correct. It is a weird way of handling things. It's just another reason why that entire management structure needs housecleaning and a ... major refurb!
