Wilderness Lodge DVC additions - Copper Creek Villas & Cabins

[ParentsOf4]

I disagree. The Polynesian and the Grand Floridan are priced at the high end of Disney's deluxe resorts, so it makes sense that their associated DVC properties are priced at the high end of the points scale. Conversely, Wilderness Lodge is the cheapest deluxe resort and I expect these cabins will be priced accordingly. They might end up on the high end strictly as a function of size (like the tree houses), but I don't foresee the GFV / BBB price point.

Please recall that the PVB Bungalows require more points per night than most Grand Villas, which are roughly double the size of the bungalows.

Although I am confident that these cabins will not be priced anywhere near as high as the PVB Bungalows, I also am relatively confident that they will be priced significantly more that SSR's Treehouse Villas.

Picking a random night (July 10) this summer:

• SSR Treehouse Villa: 58 points/night X $5.1749/point = $300.14/night
• VWL 2-Bedroom Villa: 55 points/night X $6.0251/point = $331.38/night
• PVB Bungalow: 187 points/night X $6.02/point = $1127.74/night

With a VWL 2-Bedroom Villa already costing more per night than a SSR Treehouse Villa, it's difficult to imagine these VWL standalone cabins being priced similar to a SSR Treehouse Villa. Again, they won't be priced like a PVB Bungalow but they will be very expensive.

Stepping on SSR DVC member toes, VWL is a far superior resort to SSR.

Time will tell which one of us is correct.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Please recall that the PVB Bungalows require more points per night than most Grand Villas, which are roughly double the size of the bungalows.

Although I am confident that these cabins will not be priced anywhere near as high as the PVB Bungalows, I also am relatively confident that they will be priced significantly more that SSR's Treehouse Villas.

Picking a random night (July 10) this summer:

• SSR Treehouse Villa: 58 points/night X $5.1749/point = $300.14/night
• VWL 2-Bedroom Villa: 55 points/night X $6.0251/point = $331.38/night
• PVB Bungalow: 187 points/night X $6.02/point = $1127.74/night

With a VWL 2-Bedroom Villa already costing more per night than a SSR Treehouse Villa, it's difficult to imagine these VWL standalone cabins being priced similar to a SSR Treehouse Villa. Again, they won't be priced like a PVB Bungalow but they will be very expensive.

Stepping on SSR DVC member toes, VWL is a far superior resort to SSR.

Time will tell which one of us is correct.

Where are you getting the price per point figures? Is that the original selling price?

I'm not sure price per point matters much. Can't you book across resorts regardless of where your "home" is? I would consider all points equal since price paid per point can vary widely based on market conditions at the time of the original sale. Not to mention it's a sunk cost. Thus, the treehouse's higher points requirement makes it more expensive than the VWL 2-bdr.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Those are just the maintenance fees. If he really wanted to show how ludicrous it is, he'd add 187 pts * $160 and divide it by 52 yrs- which adds another $575. And of course, thats if you took that $30k initial investment and put it under your matress to make 0 interest. Let that sit in- you have to pay $29,920 just for the right to stay 1 night a year at a PVB bungalow for $1,127 in fees. The PVB bungalows are insane.

I figured they were insane but 1) I didn't realize THAT insane, and 2) I didn't realize exactly how insane the rest of DVC's maintenance fees are. $6 per point to continue to use the thing you "purchased" for however many tens of thousands of dollars in the first place.

Loco coco.

 

[hpyhnt 1000]

No clue why anyone would buy in at this point. The incentives they offer are less, and the direct price will never break even unless Disney discontinues the regular 30-40% discounts. And even then, its like a 15 yr breakeven vs rack rates (not sale prices). It's an awful value.

And that right there sums up the entire problem with WDW's hotels and DVC. They want to raise the cost of DVC points to lock in more money from people. But to do that, you also need to raise hotel prices so that DVC still appears to have "value." What results is an ever upward climb of prices until it all crashes because the consumer finally says, "No, this is insane. I'm done."

At this point, it is clear that Disney has more less decided that it is willing to sacrifice potential revenue from daily hotel stays in favor of the chance at getting people to buy into DVC at exorbitant prices. But in the process, all they are doing is creating a Mouse version of the real estate bubble, not to mention diminishing the quality and amenities of WDW resorts as a whole.

 

[note2001]

And that right there sums up the entire problem with WDW's hotels and DVC. They want to raise the cost of DVC points to lock in more money from people. But to do that, you also need to raise hotel prices so that DVC still appears to have "value." What results is an ever upward climb of prices until it all crashes because the consumer finally says, "No, this is insane. I'm done."

At this point, it is clear that Disney has more less decided that it is willing to sacrifice potential revenue from daily hotel stays in favor of the chance at getting people to buy into DVC at exorbitant prices. But in the process, all they are doing is creating a Mouse version of the real estate bubble, not to mention diminishing the quality and amenities of WDW resorts as a whole.

Very well said in under 100 words.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

And that right there sums up the entire problem with WDW's hotels and DVC. They want to raise the cost of DVC points to lock in more money from people. But to do that, you also need to raise hotel prices so that DVC still appears to have "value." What results is an ever upward climb of prices until it all crashes because the consumer finally says, "No, this is insane. I'm done." At this point, it is clear that Disney has more less decided that it is willing to sacrifice potential revenue from daily hotel stays in favor of the chance at getting people to buy into DVC at exorbitant prices. But in the process, all they are doing is creating a Mouse version of the real estate bubble, not to mention diminishing the quality and amenities of WDW resorts as a whole.

A few problems with your analysis.

1) Consumers aren't showing any resistance to the pricing, either on the DVC side or on the regular room night side.

2) If and when consumers do show resistance, it won't be all at once. Volumes will slowly decrease rather than all of a sudden "crash." Further, Disney is not powerless in this regard. When they encounter resistance, they have more than enough flexibility to discount down or slow the rate of YOY increase.

3) The real estate bubble is a poor analogy because the real estate bubble was driven by debt. Disney is nothing like your neighborhood real estate developer in that they're leveraged 100% and unable to hold assets without a cash injection in the event of a market downturn. If the bottom fell out of the economy tomorrow such that Disney couldn't sell DVC units at anything resembling a reasonable return, they have more than enough liquidity to hold them until a recovery while offering selective discounting.

4) There's zero risk to future "daily hotel stays" because, as I've already pointed out, Disney has flexibility. Rack rate means nothing to the hotel guest because rack rate isn't what they actually pay. As you alluded to, rack rate is a tool used to sell timeshares and create the illusion of value when they're discounted. It's never a target that Disney actually expects to get.

ETA: 5) The "diminishing quality of amenities at DVC resorts" argument has been debunked by others more articulate than I am so I'm not even going to bother. In fact, a portion of maintenance fees paid by DVC members is used on upkeep for common areas that are shared with the "regular" hotel at a given resort. In that way, DVC members are actually subsidizing a portion of the maintenance of lobbies, pools, and restaurants on behalf of the regular guests.

 

[mgf]

I might feel a bit better if Disney had managed to inspire an ounce of confidence from the work they did on the Poly.

 

[wdisney9000]

And that right there sums up the entire problem with WDW's hotels and DVC. They want to raise the cost of DVC points to lock in more money from people. But to do that, you also need to raise hotel prices so that DVC still appears to have "value." What results is an ever upward climb of prices until it all crashes because the consumer finally says, "No, this is insane. I'm done."

At this point, it is clear that Disney has more less decided that it is willing to sacrifice potential revenue from daily hotel stays in favor of the chance at getting people to buy into DVC at exorbitant prices. But in the process, all they are doing is creating a Mouse version of the real estate bubble, not to mention diminishing the quality and amenities of WDW resorts as a whole.

Aside from the real estate bubble they are creating, I also see another collision (of sorts) ahead.

Disney is far more concerned with gaining "new" customers at the moment. New customers who dont know how well the parks were once ran and think that attractions like POTC are perfect working order. New customers who dont know the better value that once existed.

So while the company is banking off the new breed of customers who are unaware of the declining state the parks have recently fallen into, they are also building timeshares galore to sell to them and keep them coming back for years which will eventually allow them to see how horribly they care for the parks in Orlando.

How long can the company sustain a model of constantly attracting new customers to buy timeshares before they hit the point when that new customer becomes more aware of how much Disney is really just after a bigger share of their wallet? And yes, they are building Avatar Land and most likely Star Wars land, but wont a few new shiny attractions just make it even more easy to spot the ones that are in bad shape?

 

[wdisney9000]

ETA: 5) The "diminishing quality of amenities at DVC resorts" argument has been debunked by others more articulate than I am so I'm not even going to bother. In fact, a portion of maintenance fees paid by DVC members is used on upkeep for common areas that are shared with the "regular" hotel at a given resort. In that way, DVC members are actually subsidizing a portion of the maintenance of lobbies, pools, and restaurants on behalf of the regular guests.

But isnt it safe to say that the company has overall decreased the amount or value of perks that AP'ers and DVC customers once had? I remember a few years ago we would get an AP discount at almost every place we showed our card, now its fewer places and the discount is half of what we once got, but the price of the AP has consistently increased.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

But isnt it safe to say that the company has overall decreased the amount or value of perks that AP'ers and DVC customers once had? I remember a few years ago we would get an AP discount at almost every place we showed our card, now its fewer places and the discount is half of what we once got, but the price of the AP has consistently increased.

We recently received a survey from DVC about the perks and discounts. Asked if we felt like we were valuable because of certain items. One of the comments I made was that a greater discount on APs than a Florida resident gets would start to make me feel wanted by DVC. We loved the $399 PAP they had a few years ago. We bought those, and thought that a good price for the PAP.

 

[GoofGoof]

A few problems with your analysis.

1) Consumers aren't showing any resistance to the pricing, either on the DVC side or on the regular room night side.

That may not be entirely true. DVC at Poly sales have been well below expectations. Through April they have only sold 194K of the 4 million points available. At that pace it would take about 7 years to sell out. Not good.

They were still finishing up sales of GFV so that may have had some impact and DVC sales tend to swing wildly month to month. The next 6 months will be very interesting to watch. If sales don't pick up it could be a sign that Disney finally hit the ceiling for DVC.

It could also be because they didn't build any 1BR or 2BR villas. Just studios and bungalows which may be the model they follow with WL.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

But isnt it safe to say that the company has overall decreased the amount or value of perks that AP'ers and DVC customers once had? I remember a few years ago we would get an AP discount at almost every place we showed our card, now its fewer places and the discount is half of what we once got, but the price of the AP has consistently increased.

The person to whom I responded was talking about a deterioration of resort amenities and services due to the inclusion of DVC. I have no opinion whatsoever on what perks are afforded to DVC members. Not sure what that has to do with anything. Even cast members have perks that fluctuate based on seasonality and demand.

We recently received a survey from DVC about the perks and discounts. Asked if we felt like we were valuable because of certain items. One of the comments I made was that a greater discount on APs than a Florida resident gets would start to make me feel wanted by DVC. We loved the $399 PAP they had a few years ago. We bought those, and thought that a good price for the PAP.

Wow. Isn't the PAP up over $800 now? That would be a crazy discount.

 

[Gregoryp73]

That may not be entirely true. DVC at Poly sales have been well below expectations. Through April they have only sold 194K of the 4 million points available. At that pace it would take about 7 years to sell out. Not good.

They were still finishing up sales of GFV so that may have had some impact and DVC sales tend to swing wildly month to month. The next 6 months will be very interesting to watch. If sales don't pick up it could be a sign that Disney finally hit the ceiling for DVC.

It could also be because they didn't build any 1BR or 2BR villas. Just studios and bungalows which may be the model they follow with WL.

This could be why they are switch focus to "improving" and adding to existing DVC properties rather than building giant standalones.

I would imagine as the inventory decreases we will see bungalow additions to both GF and BLT...although I would think beach club and boardwalk would be left alone.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

Considering sales are down almost 1 million points PER YEAR from 2011 to 2014 (thanks parentsof4!), you would think that the executive team would be carping bricks about the plummet. And that is a plummet. We bought way back when it was $90 point, and we had incentives that took it down to about $85. We would never consider buying in at $165, even though we can afford it. It's just crazy.

 

[doctornick]

That may not be entirely true. DVC at Poly sales have been well below expectations. Through April they have only sold 194K of the 4 million points available. At that pace it would take about 7 years to sell out. Not good.

They were still finishing up sales of GFV so that may have had some impact and DVC sales tend to swing wildly month to month. The next 6 months will be very interesting to watch. If sales don't pick up it could be a sign that Disney finally hit the ceiling for DVC.

It could also be because they didn't build any 1BR or 2BR villas. Just studios and bungalows which may be the model they follow with WL.

Yeah, the Poly is such a different DVC animal with only studios and (very expensive) 2 BR bungalows. A lot of DVC folks use 1BR or (normally priced) 2BR units and Poly might not appeal to them. We'll have to see what happens to sales, but I'm not convinced the slower sales are a general DVC issue as much as an execution one specific to that resort.

Assuming that any and all of the room conversions in the existing lodge will be Studios, I think it would make sense for the WL cabins to be a mix of 1BR and 2BR unit (would 2 BR lockoffs be feasible? Would seem kind of odd) and for the prices to be more in line with existing VWL points -- maybe having 2BR cabins be 25-30% more than existing 2BR units at VWL. If they make points anywhere near the absurd prices for Poly bungalows, they won't sell IMHO.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Considering sales are down almost 1 million points PER YEAR from 2011 to 2014 (thanks parentsof4!), you would think that the executive team would be carping bricks about the plummet. And that is a plummet. We bought way back when it was $90 point, and we had incentives that took it down to about $85. We would never consider buying in at $165, even though we can afford it. It's just crazy.

YOY sales are a terrible comparison point for the simple reason that inventory isn't the same YOY. From 2011 to 2014, you've always been able to book a Woods View room at Wilderness Lodge on the second Tuesday in October. Or seven nights at Pop Century at the end of April. DVC points are only available sporadically, and even then at different resorts and price points.

 

[majortom1981]

Considering sales are down almost 1 million points PER YEAR from 2011 to 2014 (thanks parentsof4!), you would think that the executive team would be carping bricks about the plummet. And that is a plummet. We bought way back when it was $90 point, and we had incentives that took it down to about $85. We would never consider buying in at $165, even though we can afford it. It's just crazy.

Is that due to people not buying or points availability. The newer resorts don't have as many rooms and isnt VGF almost sold out?

 

[GoofGoof]

Where are you getting the price per point figures? Is that the original selling price?

I'm not sure price per point matters much. Can't you book across resorts regardless of where your "home" is? I would consider all points equal since price paid per point can vary widely based on market conditions at the time of the original sale. Not to mention it's a sunk cost. Thus, the treehouse's higher points requirement makes it more expensive than the VWL 2-bdr.

I think @ParentsOf4 was trying to convert DVC points to dollars since many people don't really understand how DVC works. Everyone can follow a dollar cost per night. If you don't want to use maintenance fees you can use the equivalent price to rent the same points. That gives you a true fair market value of the points used.

Treehouse 58 points X $14 per point or $812
VWL 55 points X $16 per point or $880
Bungalow 187 points X $16 or $2,992

We have no way of knowing if the new units at WL will be 2 or 3 bedroom but I'm pretty certain they will cost more than a 2BR at VWL or the treehouse villas and less than the bungalow. If they have 3 bedrooms they won't be less than 100 points a night for the time period in question.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

YOY sales are a terrible comparison point for the simple reason that inventory isn't the same YOY. From 2011 to 2014, you've always been able to book a Woods View room at Wilderness Lodge on the second Tuesday in October. Or seven nights at Pop Century at the end of April. DVC points are only available sporadically, and even then at different resorts and price points.

Is that due to people not buying or points availability. The newer resorts don't have as many rooms and isnt VGF almost sold out?

That is true. They haven't built a huge DVC like Kidani or SSR, so maybe that is part of the reason. If so, why aren't they building more, if they thought they could sell that many more points? They already have the plans completed for the River Country DVC resort, and that is supposed to be entirely DVC.

No DVC resort is ever actually "sold out". There are always literally thousands of points available at any resort due to foreclosures and Disney exercising their ROFL on resales. All you have to do is ask your guide what resort, how many points, and what use year, and they will make it happen. Certain combinations will cause you to be out on a wait list, though.

 

[GoofGoof]

Is that due to people not buying or points availability. The newer resorts don't have as many rooms and isnt VGF almost sold out?

VGF is sold out. It sold in less than 2 years, but is pretty small compared to Poly and BLT.