GF DVC Site Plan?

[Pioneer Hall]

Agreed.

And to the people who wish they'd spend the money to build a deluxe resort instead of a DVC resort: the money comes from different accounts. DVC money is DVC money. When they build a DVC resort, all the associated costs are rolled into the cost of that building, and point costs are determined accordingly.

Walt Disney Parks and Resorts LLC builds resort hotels. DVC builds DVC Villas.

DVC is part of Walt Disney Parks and Resorts falling under the Tom Staggs umbrella.

 

[Tom]

Well then I guess it must not be DVC, since the applicant for the project is Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US Incorporated.

DVC is part of Walt Disney Parks and Resorts falling under the Tom Staggs umbrella.

Ok, fine. Semantics.

My point is that they don't build DVC OR Disney Resort Hotel because they're isolated profit centers within the company. Separate accounting systems (primarily because of time share laws). While initial capital may come from the company coffers, the bill will ultimately be footed by DVC for this building (i.e. WDI will send an invoice to DVC for their services, etc), while the bill for a standard Disney Resort hotel would be footed by WDW.

It's all the same giant bucket of money, but there are strict accounting rules governing time shares, and as such, the construction of this resort isn't stealing new resort opportunities from non-DVC members.

Besides, as discussed previously, the demand is higher for DVC resorts than it is for additional Disney Resort hotels - purely based on occupancy.

 

[Computer Magic]

Ok, fine. Semantics.

My point is that they don't build DVC OR Disney Resort Hotel because they're isolated profit centers within the company. Separate accounting systems (primarily because of time share laws). While initial capital may come from the company coffers, the bill will ultimately be footed by DVC for this building (i.e. WDI will send an invoice to DVC for their services, etc), while the bill for a standard Disney Resort hotel would be footed by WDW.

It's all the same giant bucket of money, but there are strict accounting rules governing time shares, and as such, the construction of this resort isn't stealing new resort opportunities from non-DVC members.

Besides, as discussed previously, the demand is higher for DVC resorts than it is for additional Disney Resort hotels - purely based on occupancy.

I totally agree with this post, good accounting description. My question is if the initial capital comes from WDI isn't capital being diverted from other captial projects? Disney is a business and I'm sure the budget holds for many capital projects in a year or over several years. If WDI wasn't investing money into DVC, the money would go elsewhere. Yes it's going into DVC because Disney can see an ROI over a period of time. Where as FantasyLand investment is hard to quantify an ROI. It's more soft dollars. That makes good business since but not necessary good creative since.

This is the difference between an accountant running Disney and someone creative running the show. ROI drives decision instead of creative thinking, where good show brings guest back instead of a 50 year contact that is almost impossible to resale over the open market.

IF DVC has to keep the money into DVC then how does that help park projects? Again, I'm sure WDI pulls the profit out by "charging" services.

 

[Tom]

I totally agree with this post, good accounting description. My question is if the initial capital comes from WDI isn't capital being diverted from other captial projects? Disney is a business and I'm sure the budget holds for many capital projects in a year or over several years. If WDI wasn't investing money into DVC, the money would go elsewhere. Yes it's going into DVC because Disney can see an ROI over a period of time. Where as FantasyLand investment is hard to quantify an ROI. It's more soft dollars. That makes good business since but not necessary good creative since.

This is the difference between an accountant running Disney and someone creative running the show. ROI drives decision instead of creative thinking, where good show brings guest back instead of a 50 year contact that is almost impossible to resale over the open market.

IF DVC has to keep the money into DVC then how does that help park projects? Again, I'm sure WDI pulls the profit out by "charging" services.

This is one of the few times where I would say, "Walt would have done it this way..."

When Walt was starting out, he'd do whatever it took to be the best, and to continuously improve, no matter what it cost. He made it Roy's problem to figure out how to pay for his projects after the fact. As a result, Disney was synonymous with "the best", and often "the first".

Unfortunately, when stockholders are calling the shots, everything is the complete opposite. They count their beans first, then scale their projects to fit. Halfway through, the stockholders decide they want bigger beans, so they scale down the projects accordingly until we're either left with a mediocre product, or no product at all.

Tis a shame that entertainment and quality is governed by the almighty dollar.

 

[Computer Magic]

This is one of the few times where I would say, "Walt would have done it this way..."

When Walt was starting out, he'd do whatever it took to be the best, and to continuously improve, no matter what it cost. He made it Roy's problem to figure out how to pay for his projects after the fact. As a result, Disney was synonymous with "the best", and often "the first".

Unfortunately, when stockholders are calling the shots, everything is the complete opposite. They count their beans first, then scale their projects to fit. Halfway through, the stockholders decide they want bigger beans, so they scale down the projects accordingly until we're either left with a mediocre product, or no product at all.

Tis a shame that entertainment and quality is governed by the almighty dollar.

Totally agree we are in a world of instant gratification. I would had hope Disney would not fall victim and let their product speak for themselves. I see GF DVC has a quick buck and not best for quality. However DVC members will enjoy a disounted vacation at GF, but at what cost?

 

[Pioneer Hall]

I totally agree with this post, good accounting description. My question is if the initial capital comes from WDI isn't capital being diverted from other captial projects? Disney is a business and I'm sure the budget holds for many capital projects in a year or over several years. If WDI wasn't investing money into DVC, the money would go elsewhere. Yes it's going into DVC because Disney can see an ROI over a period of time. Where as FantasyLand investment is hard to quantify an ROI. It's more soft dollars. That makes good business since but not necessary good creative since.

This is the difference between an accountant running Disney and someone creative running the show. ROI drives decision instead of creative thinking, where good show brings guest back instead of a 50 year contact that is almost impossible to resale over the open market.

IF DVC has to keep the money into DVC then how does that help park projects? Again, I'm sure WDI pulls the profit out by "charging" services.

The money DVC makes doesn't have to stay in DVC. When all is said and done Disney gets to take the money and do with it what they like. They sell out a new resort, and then Disney can use that money to take on different projects in whatever area they choose. The billion going into California Adventure isn't just money that was raised out there...it is money that is from every area of the company.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I totally agree with this post, good accounting description. My question is if the initial capital comes from WDI isn't capital being diverted from other captial projects? Disney is a business and I'm sure the budget holds for many capital projects in a year or over several years. If WDI wasn't investing money into DVC, the money would go elsewhere. Yes it's going into DVC because Disney can see an ROI over a period of time. Where as FantasyLand investment is hard to quantify an ROI. It's more soft dollars. That makes good business since but not necessary good creative since.

This is the difference between an accountant running Disney and someone creative running the show. ROI drives decision instead of creative thinking, where good show brings guest back instead of a 50 year contact that is almost impossible to resale over the open market.

IF DVC has to keep the money into DVC then how does that help park projects? Again, I'm sure WDI pulls the profit out by "charging" services.

Walt Disney Imagineering, while it does have its own budgets to carry out its own work, does not invest in the various Disney properties. They are essentially hired much like an outside design firm would be hired to do work, and in the case of the international resorts they are legally an outside company that has an exclusive contract to do design work.

Disney's Vacation Club, while it retains its own money, helps the parks because the most popular properties are at Walt Disney World. I do not think anybody is using their ownership to go stay at a Walt Disney World accommodation and then do nothing else at Walt Disney World. Buying admission, souvenirs, food, tours, or any of the other offerings open to all guests is all money going to Walt Disney World and not Disney's Vacation Club. I would also assume that staffing of the Disneyland and Walt Disney World accommodations is technically outsourced to the subsidiary that actually operates the whole resort.

 

[Hoop Raeb]

Oh and I'm pretty sure they can squeeze a DVC into the Poly just as they've done at GF. It won't be pretty but it'll go between the main buildings and the luau.

Excuse my poor MS Paint "skills".

 

[jakeman]

Isn't complaining about DVC akin to complaining about a new cruise ship being built? I'm not really seeing thread after thread that the Dream shouldn't have been built because the yeti isn't fixed. It's the same general department.

Or, if you want to put even a lesser point on it, complaining that ESPN shouldn't be renewing broadcast contracts because the parks are suffering?

DVC is an easy target because it is visibly associated with the resorts and only provides tangible benefits for DVC members, which do not make up a majority of Disney vacationers.

In the very long run, a DVC community with a vested interested in the quality and upkeep of WDW will benefit everyone. Especially if they become as vocal as the DL locals have become. For that to happen, DVC needs to make an even bigger impact on WDW's bottom line (in attendance).

To put this into perspective, imagine if 25% of the rooms available at anytime at WDW were DVC rooms and occupied fully (for the sake of argument) by DVC members. Just making up some more numbers, lets say this accounts for 15% of the daily attendance at the theme parks.

Furthering this scenario, lets say another fiasco like Lights of Winter happens and, given that the DVC community is just as connected as the DL community is, 10% of the DVC'er who booked canceled (because realistically, it's a vocal minority who will ever put their money where their mouth is). You are looking at a 2.5% drop in hotel bookings and a 1.5% drop in attendance during a holiday season. That's enough to make any company think twice about cutting their offerings.

People may not like DVC, and that is fine. It's not for everyone, but the potential that is there for it to be a driving force at WDW shouldn't be ignored. I'll be the first to admit that potential is a long way off, but it is there.

Once last thought, if the internet had been more prevalent in the early and mid-90s, I wonder what people would have thought about all the resorts that sprung up during those times?

 

[mickeymatt]

Oh and I'm pretty sure they can squeeze a DVC into the Poly just as they've done at GF. It won't be pretty but it'll go between the main buildings and the luau.

Excuse my poor MS Paint "skills".

I might consider becoming a member if they do add a poly DVC.

 

[Master Yoda]

Isn't complaining about DVC akin to complaining about a new cruise ship being built? I'm not really seeing thread after thread that the Dream shouldn't have been built because the yeti isn't fixed. It's the same general department.

Or, if you want to put even a lesser point on it, complaining that ESPN shouldn't be renewing broadcast contracts because the parks are suffering?

DVC is an easy target because it is visibly associated with the resorts and only provides tangible benefits for DVC members, which do not make up a majority of Disney vacationers.

In the very long run, a DVC community with a vested interested in the quality and upkeep of WDW will benefit everyone. Especially if they become as vocal as the DL locals have become. For that to happen, DVC needs to make an even bigger impact on WDW's bottom line (in attendance).

To put this into perspective, imagine if 25% of the rooms available at anytime at WDW were DVC rooms and occupied fully (for the sake of argument) by DVC members. Just making up some more numbers, lets say this accounts for 15% of the daily attendance at the theme parks.

Furthering this scenario, lets say another fiasco like Lights of Winter happens and, given that the DVC community is just as connected as the DL community is, 10% of the DVC'er who booked canceled (because realistically, it's a vocal minority who will ever put their money where their mouth is). You are looking at a 2.5% drop in hotel bookings and a 1.5% drop in attendance during a holiday season. That's enough to make any company think twice about cutting their offerings.

People may not like DVC, and that is fine. It's not for everyone, but the potential that is there for it to be a driving force at WDW shouldn't be ignored. I'll be the first to admit that potential is a long way off, but it is there.

Once last thought, if the internet had been more prevalent in the early and mid-90s, I wonder what people would have thought about all the resorts that sprung up during those times?

There is only one problem with this....the contract. Unlike an AP which can simply not be renewed a DVC owner contractually obligated to keep paying regardless of what Disney does to the parks. Sure, DVC members can vacation elsewhere but the way DVC is structured keeps people coming to WDW as it is by far the most efficient use of points. I do feel that DVC members could become somewhat of a driving force in the way WDW handles their parks but I fear that force would be directed more towards DVC only perks than keeping up the parks. Maybe I am a bit biased on the subject but I see far more DVC members on this and other forums complaining that they are not treated like visiting royalty vs. up keep and development of the parks.

 

[jt04]

Oh and I'm pretty sure they can squeeze a DVC into the Poly just as they've done at GF. It won't be pretty but it'll go between the main buildings and the luau.

Excuse my poor MS Paint "skills".

How about a high rise tower in the current parking lot or on part of the current TTC footprint? Guaranteed views of the MK from the north side of such a tower. Cha-ching. :lol:

 

[Computer Magic]

There is only one problem with this....the contract. Unlike an AP which can simply not be renewed a DVC owner contractually obligated to keep paying regardless of what Disney does to the parks. Sure, DVC members can vacation elsewhere but the way DVC is structured keeps people coming to WDW as it is by far the most efficient use of points. I do feel that DVC members could become somewhat of a driving force in the way WDW handles their parks but I fear that force would be directed more towards DVC only perks than keeping up the parks. Maybe I am a bit biased on the subject but I see far more DVC members on this and other forums complaining that they are not treated like visiting royalty vs. up keep and development of the parks.

perfectly stated. I also see an elite status by some DVC members , like they actually own property. I see more post about how they deserve other discounts because they visit every year. I see DVC members mad because non-DVC get certain discounts. Of course NON DVC get discounts, WDW needs to entice them to return. WDW already have DVC Members under contract for 40-50 years and change the rules to benefity themselves.

Now to be fair this new trend isn't just WDW. All orginazation is trying to get a reoccurring cost from their customers. You see it in yearly software maintenance, montly service fees, etc.

Bottom line, I don't see DVC members being a driving force to make the parks better. WDW already have DVC members locked into a contract.

Where I do see DVC members making a difference is "IF" they use their points at other locations. Then DVC members can make a difference in the parks. LIke you said the structure doesn't allow for efficient use at locations. WDW thinks of everything and is always one step ahead of guests.

 

[Pioneer Hall]

perfectly stated. I also see an elite status by some DVC members , like they actually own property. I see more post about how they deserve other discounts because they visit every year. I see DVC members mad because non-DVC get certain discounts. Of course NON DVC get discounts, WDW needs to entice them to return. WDW already have DVC Members under contract for 40-50 years and change the rules to benefity themselves.

Now to be fair this new trend isn't just WDW. All orginazation is trying to get a reoccurring cost from their customers. You see it in yearly software maintenance, montly service fees, etc.

Bottom line, I don't see DVC members being a driving force to make the parks better. WDW already have DVC members locked into a contract.

Where I do see DVC members making a difference is "IF" they use their points at other locations. Then DVC members can make a difference in the parks. LIke you said the structure doesn't allow for efficient use at locations. WDW thinks of everything and is always one step ahead of guests.

There is only one problem with this....the contract. Unlike an AP which can simply not be renewed a DVC owner contractually obligated to keep paying regardless of what Disney does to the parks. Sure, DVC members can vacation elsewhere but the way DVC is structured keeps people coming to WDW as it is by far the most efficient use of points. I do feel that DVC members could become somewhat of a driving force in the way WDW handles their parks but I fear that force would be directed more towards DVC only perks than keeping up the parks. Maybe I am a bit biased on the subject but I see far more DVC members on this and other forums complaining that they are not treated like visiting royalty vs. up keep and development of the parks.

It would be nice to see DVC members actually speak up like Disneyland AP holders do. As a member, I think that they should see us in the same regard since we are their guaranteed client for a long time now. However, I agree with Richard that members tend to complain about their perks over the parks...but I understand that at as well. It would be nice for Disney to offer some small perks to members that help their bottom line quite a bit. I know we get some decent ones already, but it wouldn't hurt to offer a few cheap extras as well. While it might not be the best comparison...casinos offer their frequent customers plenty of nice perks, why not a destination such as Disney? However, I suppose that this is an entirely different discussion.

 

[jakeman]

There is only one problem with this....the contract. Unlike an AP which can simply not be renewed a DVC owner contractually obligated to keep paying regardless of what Disney does to the parks. Sure, DVC members can vacation elsewhere but the way DVC is structured keeps people coming to WDW as it is by far the most efficient use of points. I do feel that DVC members could become somewhat of a driving force in the way WDW handles their parks but I fear that force would be directed more towards DVC only perks than keeping up the parks. Maybe I am a bit biased on the subject but I see far more DVC members on this and other forums complaining that they are not treated like visiting royalty vs. up keep and development of the parks.

That's a good point. However, in most cases (mine included) that money for the DVC purchase is already gone and paid for. The only thing remaining is dues.

I think the scenario I described can occur at a stage that we are entering, when the number of "mature" DVC contracts begin to outweigh the new contracts.

The mature DVC contracts are really like locals now. You are right that WDW is the best use of points, but I see that as similar that DL is the most convenient Disney park for SoCal locals.

I guess I should preference that this is a long term scenario, like 10-15 years.

perfectly stated. I also see an elite status by some DVC members , like they actually own property. I see more post about how they deserve other discounts because they visit every year. I see DVC members mad because non-DVC get certain discounts. Of course NON DVC get discounts, WDW needs to entice them to return. WDW already have DVC Members under contract for 40-50 years and change the rules to benefity themselves.

Now to be fair this new trend isn't just WDW. All orginazation is trying to get a reoccurring cost from their customers. You see it in yearly software maintenance, montly service fees, etc.

Bottom line, I don't see DVC members being a driving force to make the parks better. WDW already have DVC members locked into a contract.

Where I do see DVC members making a difference is "IF" they use their points at other locations. Then DVC members can make a difference in the parks. LIke you said the structure doesn't allow for efficient use at locations. WDW thinks of everything and is always one step ahead of guests.

I think your last paragraph sums up what I was trying to get at and why it is a very long term prospect.

We have also seen that Disney is slowly building up its non-WDW properties as well. As these come online the affect on WDW may become more apparent.

 

[ryanduggers]

I just saw the plans and it looks to me like a 3 room reception hall for the wedding pavilion. If it was to be a building for GF, the entrance would be on the other side.

I always thought it was strange that the wedding pavilion didn't have a place for receptions.

 

[dreamfinder]

perfectly stated. I also see an elite status by some DVC members , like they actually own property. I see more post about how they deserve other discounts because they visit every year. I see DVC members mad because non-DVC get certain discounts. Of course NON DVC get discounts, WDW needs to entice them to return. WDW already have DVC Members under contract for 40-50 years and change the rules to benefity themselves.

Look at any group that gets any "status" at WDW. The old school Magic Kingdom Club wanted discounts, Disney Visa wants discounts, AP's want discounts, AAA wants premier parking, on and on down the line. Why should someone who visits the park once be treated any differently than someone who stays DVC every 6 months? Balance it out across the board or be prepared for complaining.

It would be nice to see DVC members actually speak up like Disneyland AP holders do.

This. DVC owners are the closest things to the DLR AP holders that WDW has. The WDW local AP holders are nowhere near as vocal or rabid as those in DLR. DVC owners have something invested in their ownership. Yeah, it may only be .003% of the hotel, but as an owner, my investment in that .003% is directly affected by how the parks perform and are maintained. I know, I know, buying timeshare as an investment is a crappy idea, but its to prove a point. The purchase was made with the expectation that it would provide us with a well kept place in which to vacation in the future. The parks go to crud, I have no reason to go to central Florida, and I will have problems finding people to use my points.

As a member, I think that they should see us in the same regard since we are their guaranteed client for a long time now. However, I agree with Richard that members tend to complain about their perks over the parks...but I understand that at as well. It would be nice for Disney to offer some small perks to members that help their bottom line quite a bit. I know we get some decent ones already, but it wouldn't hurt to offer a few cheap extras as well. While it might not be the best comparison...casinos offer their frequent customers plenty of nice perks, why not a destination such as Disney? However, I suppose that this is an entirely different discussion.

See my first comment. While it would be nice to see additional perks, I don't expect them. They already often give away freebies, got a print last trip just for staying at DVC. If you attend the member mixers they often have freebies as well. And don't forget the $100 AP discount for DVC owners.

 

[Pioneer Hall]

I just saw the plans and it looks to me like a 3 room reception hall for the wedding pavilion. If it was to be a building for GF, the entrance would be on the other side.

I always thought it was strange that the wedding pavilion didn't have a place for receptions.

I believe that any receptions that people want to have at the Grand Floridian are held at the Convention Center.

 

[Buried20KLeague]

I just saw the plans and it looks to me like a 3 room reception hall for the wedding pavilion. If it was to be a building for GF, the entrance would be on the other side.

I always thought it was strange that the wedding pavilion didn't have a place for receptions.

As seen in an earlier post, the hallways and measurements and everything line up perfectly for this to be DVC. It would be way too coincidental for DVC not to be involved.

While I could see the lowest floor possibly having some reception facilities, the vast majority of this building (at least) has to be DVC rooms.

 

[bgraham34]

As seen in an earlier post, the hallways and measurements and everything line up perfectly for this to be DVC. It would be way too coincidental for DVC not to be involved.

While I could see the lowest floor possibly having some reception facilities, the vast majority of this building (at least) has to be DVC rooms.

I agree and since BLT is almost sold out Disney needs something else to sell.