7 month availability getting more difficult

[Bing Showei]

I doubt it’s that sinister. More likely they just haven’t gotten up the nerve to actually do it or they are having trouble getting away from the philosophy that made it where it is currently. Of course they have the internal data and it’s possible that the overall relative demand isn’t as far off as we all think it is though I think that’s less likely. The point that some often make when this comes up is if everything is used in the end it doesn’t matter anyway. And while I disagree somewhat with that answer, there is an element of truth to it from a practical standpoint. Remember a reallocation is actually quite costly because of all the time and resources that go into it.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it "sinister." But it makes business sense to set the entry level as low as possible (but still maintain a functioning product) to bring in as many buyers as you can.

To DVD, two 75 point contracts are the same as one 150 point contract.

To the buyer, the cost is $13,650.00 (plus closing) vs $26,300.00 (with developer incentives, plus closing). I haven't done the math, but I don't believe dollar increase is directly proportional to required pixie dust. I suspect it's more exponential.

While I'll moan and groan about it, the fact that Disney is a publicly-traded, for-profit company is not lost on me. And I do believe ultimately, it's the buyer's responsibility to know what they're buying into, but I do feel the system was, in-part, designed to allow Disney to move smaller contracts; fully knowing that it will negatively impact the system for all members, and the ease of booking at 11 months may be more of a challenge than guides suggest (not to mention the 7-month myth).

 

[Dean]

I wouldn't go so far as to call it "sinister." But it makes business sense to set the entry level as low as possible (but still maintain a functioning product) to bring in as many buyers as you can.

To DVD, two 75 point contracts are the same as one 150 point contract.

To the buyer, the cost is $13,650.00 (plus closing) vs $26,300.00 (with developer incentives, plus closing). I haven't done the math, but I don't believe dollar increase is directly proportional to required pixie dust. I suspect it's more exponential.

While I'll moan and groan about it, the fact that Disney is a publicly-traded, for-profit company is not lost on me. And I do believe ultimately, it's the buyer's responsibility to know what they're buying into, but I do feel the system was, in-part, designed to allow Disney to move smaller contracts; fully knowing that it will negatively impact the system for all members, and the ease of booking at 11 months may be more of a challenge than guides suggest (not to mention the 7-month myth).

While intertwined, DVCMC and DVD are legally different entities. If DVCMC were doing things themselves to support sales at the expense of the membership as a whole, they’d be in violation of their fiduciary duties. IMO purposefully not reallocating for this reason would be such a violation. If they were purposefully doing so to support sales, It would be SINISTER IMO. Sales can and will put a spin to make the current situation look favorable to buyers as they should. So if there were a reallocation they’d either tout the studios or 1BR (or both) as a good deal depending on specifics.

 

[crisi]

I wouldn't hold too much faith in their fiduciary duty in this case. Its easy enough for them to justify the situation by saying (and rightfully so) that raising the point cost of studios enough to create enough of a supply/demand curve shift between them and one bedrooms would negatively impact far too many members. Its a judgment call - and one that also has in play the fiduciary responsibility of the parent company of both entities to its shareholders. With a few exceptions, studios are available well into the home resort booking window - and I would think that is sufficient for meeting their obligations to the membership. And if that works out better in terms of sales for Disney as a whole - that helps out the options on all the DVCMC executives and the profit sharing of the staff.

 

[cruisin5]

Is there anyway to know the average number of points purchased on a new contract in recent years? If so, has that number changed greatly over the years?

 

[CarolynFH]

I wouldn't go so far as to call it "sinister." But it makes business sense to set the entry level as low as possible (but still maintain a functioning product) to bring in as many buyers as you can.

To DVD, two 75 point contracts are the same as one 150 point contract.

To the buyer, the cost is $13,650.00 (plus closing) vs $26,300.00 (with developer incentives, plus closing). I haven't done the math, but I don't believe dollar increase is directly proportional to required pixie dust. I suspect it's more exponential.

While I'll moan and groan about it, the fact that Disney is a publicly-traded, for-profit company is not lost on me. And I do believe ultimately, it's the buyer's responsibility to know what they're buying into, but I do feel the system was, in-part, designed to allow Disney to move smaller contracts; fully knowing that it will negatively impact the system for all members, and the ease of booking at 11 months may be more of a challenge than guides suggest (not to mention the 7-month myth).

In reference to the statement I’ve underlined, I believe the focus on selling studios is a relatively recent development that accompanied the recent increase in points cost. When we bought in 1997 the minimum purchase was something over 200 points (can’t remember exactly because we bought more than that) - more than needed for a studio at OKW or BWV, the only two onsite DVC resorts at the time.

 

[Woody412]

In reference to the statement I’ve underlined, I believe the focus on selling studios is a relatively recent development that accompanied the recent increase in points cost. When we bought in 1997 the minimum purchase was something over 200 points (can’t remember exactly because we bought more than that) - more than needed for a studio at OKW or BWV, the only two onsite DVC resorts at the time.

I’d imagine that with small contracts being the “new normal,” and the February rush of 25-point contracts, the average is somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 points.

 

[Woody412]

Is there anyway to know the average number of points purchased on a new contract in recent years? If so, has that number changed greatly over the years?

Sorry, meant to reply to this post. I’m still new at this internet stuff. ; )

 

[CaliAdventurer]

I wonder if one of the reasons DVC might not want to reallocate the studios is that having low point studios is a selling feature. If more people today are buying with the goal of only staying in studios (because of the high purchase price), raising the point cost of studios means people have to buy more points and the cost saving compared to cash rooms becomes smaller.

Exactly this. I bet the number of folks who have bought more points specifically to get 1 bedrooms is pretty high. It seems like a nice member equity decision to reallocate studios and 1beds but not a sound business one. When you buy in, you don’t realize there is an avail problem until months later.

Now the bungalows being reallocated with all the other rooms- a DISer did the math the other day would require about 4 extra pts per night per studio on average to get the bungalows to like 600 or 700 a week- I cant remember. 4 pts doesnt seem like too bad of a hike but if 28 pts a week is a huge problem, folks are going to need more points and that’s a win win for DVC.

 

[DVCDisneyRunner]

Exactly this. I bet the number of folks who have bought more points specifically to get 1 bedrooms is pretty high. It seems like a nice member equity decision to reallocate studios and 1beds but not a sound business one. When you buy in, you don’t realize there is an avail problem until months later.

Now the bungalows being reallocated with all the other rooms- a DISer did the math the other day would require about 4 extra pts per night per studio on average to get the bungalows to like 600 or 700 a week- I cant remember. 4 pts doesnt seem like too bad of a hike but if 28 pts a week is a huge problem, folks are going to need more points and that’s a win win for DVC.

I would hope no one is suggesting four points a night. Here is the math for 4 points per night shift:

360 studios X 4 points/night = 1440 point/night

1440 points X 7 Nights = 10,080 points/week

10,080 points / 20 bungalows = 504 points off the cost of a bungalow/week

Current bungalow/week adventure season 841

841 points - 504 points = 337 for week in bungalow

That would be one heck of a deal for the bungalow. Perhaps a couple points a night (14/week) is more in line with what you saw.

841 - 252 = 589 for a bungalow week

 

[CaliAdventurer]

I would hope no one is suggesting four points a night. Here is the math for 4 points per night shift:

360 studios X 4 points/night = 1440 point/night

1440 points X 7 Nights = 10,080 points/week

10,080 points / 20 bungalows = 504 points off the cost of a bungalow/week

Current bungalow/week adventure season 841

841 points - 504 points = 337 for week in bungalow

That would be one heck of a deal for the bungalow. Perhaps a couple points a night (14/week) is more in line with what you saw.

841 - 252 = 589 for a bungalow week

I’m pretty sure he came up with 4 but there was a lot of math I ignored lol. So only 2 sounds perfect. I think it should be the same as Aulani OV 2 bed in high season which seems comparable which is just over 600 a week. A GV at VGF is over 1k for a week but you get A LOT more everything. So I can’t see many taking it for over 700.

For 700 I could be tempted. For 600, I’d do it. I’m hoping to try the cabins next time so I like the concept but the Bungalows and their boat horns doesn’t seem as appealing. Now if they had the old wave machines, that could be enough to change my mind : )

 

[ABE4DISNEY]

Going back to the SSR conversation, it is one of our favorite resorts...we like it better than OKW...by far. However, we think the points should be more comparable to OKW since they are basically the same "type/location." SSR is over-pointed. I would stay there a lot more if those point values would be reduced about 20 points per week.

 

[_auroraborealis_]

I would stay there a lot more if those point values would be reduced about 20 points per week.

Problem is, all those points have to stay within SSR somewhere. So something at SSR would have to be more expensive. And that's hard.

 

[SL6827]

Some have said that the Carousel section of SSR should require less points than a standard location.

 

[_auroraborealis_]

Some have said that the Carousel section of SSR should require less points than a standard location.

Again, those points would have to land somewhere. Where?

 

[Dean]

Again, those points would have to land somewhere. Where?

They could land anywhere they chose by increasing others. Likely a better options is to keep the points the same and make it a booking category. It's large enough, as is the resort in general, to do so without any real impact on management.

 

[zavandor]

They could create a guaranteedbDS view and make it a premium over preferred. DS view is probably the most underrated of the whole DVC. And I can see owners rushing to book carousel if the point cost was similar to values (I would).

 

[cruisin5]

They could create a guaranteedbDS view and make it a premium over preferred. DS view is probably the most underrated of the whole DVC. And I can see owners rushing to book carousel if the point cost was similar to values (I would).

Love this idea! Take the points from Carousel and add to Preferred DS View.

 

[DVCDisneyRunner]

Seems to me the creation of the Standard and Preferred categories allowed for the reduction of point in the Standard category to the basically put it on par with OKW.

Those in Green are less than or equal. So for the standard view there are more seasons that SSR is less expensive than OKW.

 

[Dean]

Seems to me the creation of the Standard and Preferred categories allowed for the reduction of point in the Standard category to the basically put it on par with OKW.

Those in Green are less than or equal. So for the standard view there are more seasons that SSR is less expensive than OKW.

View attachment 321168

If they reallocated, I'd expect an increase in standard slightly

 

[DVCDisneyRunner]

If they reallocated, I'd expect an increase in standard slightly

Going back to the SSR conversation, it is one of our favorite resorts...we like it better than OKW...by far. However, we think the points should be more comparable to OKW since they are basically the same "type/location." SSR is over-pointed. I would stay there a lot more if those point values would be reduced about 20 points per week.

Those are the current numbers. The reallocation happen start of 2017 when they created the Standard and Preferred categories. I am saying what people are asking for has already been done. I do not think a standard at SSR should be or will be reduced any further than it already has been. It is comparable to OKW now.