Why Do So Many Hate DVC

[DVCOwner]

Here is what you are not taking into account:

Disney DVC are sold to the members. Once all the property is sold than Disney gets all of its money back plus the profit. Till than Disney rents rooms and makes money off them at that time. So DVC builds a resort and in 5 years it is sold out. Disney gets full return on investment in a short period of time. Disney in order to keep people on WDW wants as many resorts as possible. The more people that stay on property the more money that Disney makes. If Disney had to build all new resorts with Disney capital it would tie up funds for a much longer period of time.

So here is the simple answer:

WDW in order to make as much revenue as possible wants people to stay on property. People staying on property send more at WDW in total than those staying off property.

Disney uses other peoples money (DVC members) to build some of the resorts needed to keep people on property.

Disney than has additional capital (from the profits of people staying on park and not investing Disney money in the resorts) to send as it likes.

Disney (not DVC) sends that money on the parks, ABC, ESPN, movies, etc. in order to make more profits. At this time it is not spending as much at WDW as other parks. It is making massive investments in expanding Disneyland Resort and Hong Kong at this time. It is also building a new park in Shanghai.

Disney Vacation Club is a cash cow for Disney and that is why Disney wants to expanded it as quickly as it can find new members.

 

[captainkidd]

Actually it is not. DVC does not pull from the construction or maintenance budgets of the parks. The two are operated as separate companies.

And are those 2 companies not owned by Disney?

 

[ddbowdoin]

And are those 2 companies not owned by Disney?

have to agree with the kid here... they may act as seperate entities but at the end of the day various amounts of revenue is moved between ventures to maintain certain benchmarks.

 

[greebomusic]

have to agree with the kid here... they may act as seperate entities but at the end of the day various amounts of revenue is moved between ventures to maintain certain benchmarks.

Then perhaps you should blame ABC too?

 

[captainkidd]

Then perhaps you should blame ABC too?

Bad analogy. How much impact does ABC have on WDW? DVC has a TON of impact on WDW.

 

[disneyeater]

If it is the case that revenues are shared between these entities in the Disney Corporation, I would then argue that at this point, it would be DVC sharing revenues with the parks. DVC is making more than enough money to support the building of their new DVC resorts. They have sold out every property they created excluding the latest ones and BLT is almost sold out already.

Other than the original OKW DVC resort, I cannot see how you can argue that DVC is taking money from the resorts.

And I am not a DVC owner.

 

[dizzney]

DVC certainly more than pays for itself, and even though I love the world, I do wish that they would do more than the fantasy land expansion right now. We do need more in Epcot, AK and DHS. To stay abreast of the Harry Potter effect, Disney needs to expand otherwise people will be spending their money outside of the world.

My kids have said they want to visit Universal on our next visit, thats not a usual request. Harry is a big draw for kids

 

[DVCOwner]

DVC had approximately 70,000 members in 2003; there were over 300,000 in 2006. The LA Times reported that the Disney Vacation Club's sales and profits more than doubled from 2003 to 2007. I looked back at the last few annual reports from Disney and none talk of an losses from DVC. All stated that profits where up (maybe not as much as they would like),but did not break down the numbers. Every year DVC puts money back into the Disney Company.

All I can add is that having 300,000+ members, with most visiting Disney parks with family and friends every year, has to be good for resort revenues. I know that my group all staying using DVC pionts also spent over $5,000 in five days this year on tickets, food, tours, gift shop stuff, etc.

 

[Pioneer Hall]

I can't prove that DVC doesn't take money from other areas since I don't work for them (yet, of course). However, I can't imagine that much money is needed for these resorts outside of their initial build. The day these resorts go on sale is the day they start paying for themselves. The amount of money that they earn from selling points at a respective resort, covers the cost of construction and then some. After that, the owners are the ones who pay to maintain all the neccesary DVC functions of the resorts themselves. When I get my dues statement, it has a breakdown of everything I pay for. This includes everything from front desk, housekeeping, animal programs (AKV exclusively), transportation, etc. There is nothing that doesn't get accounted for in this equation. Also, Disney doesn't lose anything when the resort isn't fully sold either. Until points are declared Disney can do one of two things...they can rent the rooms for cash and take in money for a room that someone will later own and pay them once again. They can also just let the rooms sit dormant and not worry about any of the cost besides minimal upkeep (which is what I believe they are doing with some of the treehouse villas until more SSR points are sold).

So while money might come out of the overall budget in order to initially plan and build a resort, that resort pays for itself much faster than any other will. By this logic, most people should be in an uproar over Art of Animation. The rate of return on that resort is much lower than any DVC, and will take probably take a few years for it to be showing a true profit. These funds also come more directly from a WDW budget, since it is part of that legal entity.

I also don't chock this up to my new ownership either...I would be defending the point as well if I didn't own. I believe that the current lack of maintenance and innovation comes from mismanagement and a desire to prove to the Sr Management that they are profitable. Disney World management knows that they cater almost entirely to tourists and people who make infrequent trips. These are people who won't notice some chipped paint or a broken yeti. They won't need a new attraction every year because they are only going to go every three years. Take a look at Disneyland which is going through unprecedented growth and upkeep (and this doesn't even have to include DCA). They know that they cater to their 1,000,000+ AP holders who expect that their park be pristine. These people expect Disneyland to continue to be their star of the company and voice their opinions loudly if things start to slip. So I wouldn't blame DVC, I would blame the management who knows what they have and refuse to exceed expectations as they used to do on a daily basis. We can only hope that the recent attention to detail in queues, carts, and concept art is a sign of a new WDW renaissance.

 

[s8film40]

I can't prove that DVC doesn't take money from other areas since I don't work for them (yet, of course). However, I can't imagine that much money is needed for these resorts outside of their initial build. The day these resorts go on sale is the day they start paying for themselves. The amount of money that they earn from selling points at a respective resort, covers the cost of construction and then some. After that, the owners are the ones who pay to maintain all the neccesary DVC functions of the resorts themselves. When I get my dues statement, it has a breakdown of everything I pay for. This includes everything from front desk, housekeeping, animal programs (AKV exclusively), transportation, etc. There is nothing that doesn't get accounted for in this equation. Also, Disney doesn't lose anything when the resort isn't fully sold either. Until points are declared Disney can do one of two things...they can rent the rooms for cash and take in money for a room that someone will later own and pay them once again. They can also just let the rooms sit dormant and not worry about any of the cost besides minimal upkeep (which is what I believe they are doing with some of the treehouse villas until more SSR points are sold).

So while money might come out of the overall budget in order to initially plan and build a resort, that resort pays for itself much faster than any other will. By this logic, most people should be in an uproar over Art of Animation. The rate of return on that resort is much lower than any DVC, and will take probably take a few years for it to be showing a true profit. These funds also come more directly from a WDW budget, since it is part of that legal entity.

I also don't chock this up to my new ownership either...I would be defending the point as well if I didn't own. I believe that the current lack of maintenance and innovation comes from mismanagement and a desire to prove to the Sr Management that they are profitable. Disney World management knows that they cater almost entirely to tourists and people who make infrequent trips. These are people who won't notice some chipped paint or a broken yeti. They won't need a new attraction every year because they are only going to go every three years. Take a look at Disneyland which is going through unprecedented growth and upkeep (and this doesn't even have to include DCA). They know that they cater to their 1,000,000+ AP holders who expect that their park be pristine. These people expect Disneyland to continue to be their star of the company and voice their opinions loudly if things start to slip. So I wouldn't blame DVC, I would blame the management who knows what they have and refuse to exceed expectations as they used to do on a daily basis. We can only hope that the recent attention to detail in queues, carts, and concept art is a sign of a new WDW renaissance.

While you can't solely blame DVC for it. DVC does encourage that type of mentality within the WDW management. For every new person that signs up for DVC that's one less person they have to worry about whether they will be coming back again.

Also WDW has to dedicate a lot of resources to DVC, just the staffing alone is one example.

 

[Pioneer Hall]

While you can't solely blame DVC for it. DVC does encourage that type of mentality within the WDW management. For every new person that signs up for DVC that's one less person they have to worry about whether they will be coming back again.

Also WDW has to dedicate a lot of resources to DVC, just the staffing alone is one example.

But you can look at it the other way and say that DVC should technically be the most loyal and vocal customer, similar to the AP Holder at Disneyland. If DVC owners complained more, maybe you would see positive changes.

Also, WDW does not pay for those resources. All staffing expenses for DVC are paid by the members in their dues. Even the 800 number I call for member services is covered by my dues. I said that in my previous post how all of those services are charged to me in my annual dues, and it is clearly oultlined to me each year. WDW isn't footing the bill for the person who checks me in, cleans my room, drives me to the park, or takes my bags. I pay for all of that on a yearly basis while a regular guest pays for that on each of their individual stays.

 

[s8film40]

But you can look at it the other way and say that DVC should technically be the most loyal and vocal customer, similar to the AP Holder at Disneyland. If DVC owners complained more, maybe you would see positive changes.

Also, WDW does not pay for those resources. All staffing expenses for DVC are paid by the members in their dues. Even the 800 number I call for member services is covered by my dues. I said that in my previous post how all of those services are charged to me in my annual dues, and it is clearly oultlined to me each year. WDW isn't footing the bill for the person who checks me in, cleans my room, drives me to the park, or takes my bags. I pay for all of that on a yearly basis while a regular guest pays for that on each of their individual stays.

The big difference with passholders and DVC members, is those DL passholders can all walk into guest relations and say fix this or were not renewing our passes, DL will listen. DVC memberships are renewed every 50 years, no one really cares if they're not happy, they already paid for it.

As for staffing resources it's not always about money. Just a few years ago Disney was really having a hard time filling positions, it's better now but when the economy turns around and people start looking for real jobs there will be a problem. They have in the past closed QSR and other smaller things due to staffing shortages.

 

[Pioneer Hall]

The big difference with passholders and DVC members, is those DL passholders can all walk into guest relations and say fix this or were not renewing our passes, DL will listen. DVC memberships are renewed every 50 years, no one really cares if they're not happy, they already paid for it.

As for staffing resources it's not always about money. Just a few years ago Disney was really having a hard time filling positions, it's better now but when the economy turns around and people start looking for real jobs there will be a problem. They have in the past closed QSR and other smaller things due to staffing shortages.

I can somewhat agree with you on the AP issue, but I think that DVC members can use their membership to their advantage too. They could stop going to WDW properties and visit the others or they could use their points at other properties. It isn't as strong as the AP argument, but it DVC owners were a bit more vocal, then they could probably have an effect. I think that a lot of DVC owners spend a considerably higher amount of time in a resort than a normal guest which is where this argument gets lost.

I think you are stretching the argument on staffing though. Disney doesn't close QSR places because they can't staff them, they close them because they don't want to pay people to attend to an under utilized area. Why open and fully staff a QSR if you aren't going to cover that expense? That isn't a staffing issue, that is simple profitability.

 

[s8film40]

I can somewhat agree with you on the AP issue, but I think that DVC members can use their membership to their advantage too. They could stop going to WDW properties and visit the others or they could use their points at other properties. It isn't as strong as the AP argument, but it DVC owners were a bit more vocal, then they could probably have an effect. I think that a lot of DVC owners spend a considerably higher amount of time in a resort than a normal guest which is where this argument gets lost.

While Disney will certainly politely hear the complaints of DVC members, what they're really thinking in the back of their head is "What are you going to do?.. sell you membership... HA HA HA."

I think you are stretching the argument on staffing though. Disney doesn't close QSR places because they can't staff them, they close them because they don't want to pay people to attend to an under utilized area. Why open and fully staff a QSR if you aren't going to cover that expense? That isn't a staffing issue, that is simple profitability.

I'm speaking from experience here, I have most definitely seen Disney close things or run them at reduced capacity and even during busy times due to staffing shortages. It has happened and will happen again.

 

[Pioneer Hall]

I'm speaking from experience here, I have most definitely seen Disney close things or run them at reduced capacity and even during busy times due to staffing shortages. It has happened and will happen again.

And your previous post basically pinned this solely on DVC. I'm not going to go back and forth on this anymore, since I feel that when you dislike something to this level there really isn't a way for me to justify my point without it coming back at me. DVC is really a choice that works for some and not for others. Those with a mindset similar to you, continue to ask for proof that DVC doesn't affect park projects, yet you cannot justify your point in any way either. I think from a business standpoint I have tried to show that DVC sustains it's projects without having to reach into any other segments pockets, but that never really seems like it is enough for someone who is adamently against DVC.

 

[DVCOwner]

While Disney will certainly politely hear the complaints of DVC members, what they're really thinking in the back of their head is "What are you going to do?.. sell you membership... HA HA HA."

I'm speaking from experience here, I have most definitely seen Disney close things or run them at reduced capacity and even during busy times due to staffing shortages. It has happened and will happen again.

Like when I started this discussion, I said that there are alot of people who just hate DVC. s8film40 shows what I mean. How can someone blame staff shortages anywhere on DVC?

 

[Funfy]

For every new person that signs up for DVC that's one less person they have to worry about whether they will be coming back again.


Except that technically, you would never have to set foot in a park to use DVC. I know people argue about better values only with on property stays-but when I pay $95 for a four night cruise for four people-that is hard to argue with. Especially since my points have paid for themselves and several thousands over and my $1900 in annual dues for 405 points goes towards a $4-6,000 cruise-so, pleasing DVC members with only park amenities, may not be the corporation's overall goal!:xmas:

 

[Funfy]

DVC memberships are renewed every 50 years, no one really cares if they're not happy, they already paid for it.

Since the majority of their business comes from DVC member referrals, I don't think that is entirely accurate! I have never had anything/group/company bend over so much to make sure I was happy and satisfied---therefore telling all of my friends, family and strangers about how great it is!

 

[Master Yoda]

The big difference with passholders and DVC members, is those DL passholders can all walk into guest relations and say fix this or were not renewing our passes, DL will listen. DVC memberships are renewed every 50 years, no one really cares if they're not happy, they already paid for it.

As for staffing resources it's not always about money. Just a few years ago Disney was really having a hard time filling positions, it's better now but when the economy turns around and people start looking for real jobs there will be a problem. They have in the past closed QSR and other smaller things due to staffing shortages.

You could make that argument for any and every expansion at WDW. Every time they add an attraction, open a new store or restaurant more staff will be required. Eventually Disney will reach a point where they very well might be forced to pay more than market rate to effectively staff the parks. Supply and demand works both ways.

 

[tjkraz]

Yes, but DVC memberships are paid all at once up front. So one DVC member = about 50 guests.

There's no questioning the value of DVC sales itself. But selling points does nothing to guarantee revenues for the parks. As a DVC owners, I am under no obligation to purchase t-shirts, dine in their restaurants or even enter the parks. In fact, I could choose to use the points for a non-park destination, Disney cruise or even trade out entirely through RCI.

While you can't solely blame DVC for it. DVC does encourage that type of mentality within the WDW management. For every new person that signs up for DVC that's one less person they have to worry about whether they will be coming back again.

But that doesn't change the fact that DVC members are less than 10% of all guests entering the parks on a given day. In a time where even "flat" park attendance is viewed as an embarrassment, there is absolutely no reason to think that Disney is ignoring 90% percent of their park guests simply because 10% are all but guaranteed to show up.

DVC had approximately 70,000 members in 2003; there were over 300,000 in 2006.

Just a comment on that...somewhere over that span DVC changed the manner in which they were reporting their figures. No specifics have been given but the thinking is that the 70,000 figure represented the number of Master Contracts in existence. In other words, if my wife and I are both listed on a deed, we would only count as 1 among the 70k.

The 300,000 most likely counts all deeded owners separately. In that number, my wife and I would count as two.

DVC did experience impressive growth over that 4 year span, but the number of members didn't quadruple. They simply altered the manner in which they hyped the size of membership.

Today the number of Master Contracts is around 150,000, so the program did roughly double in size over the last 7-8 years.