DVC Point Charts for 2011 - Post chart release discussion begins on Pg 14

[DaveH]

While you may try to rationalize away the changes, your reasons are not what the DVC model was based on. Plain fact is they are messing with the original model and customers are not happy. People are speaking with their wallet, and Disney is now listening. However much damage has been done. Along with the erosion of member perks, price hikes for new resorts, any further points reallocation will be very bad for DVC. Jim Lewis, are you reading? You have been warned....

I believe you are in the minority here. I have my problems with DVC. They have nothing to do with the reallocation. Mine do not get me very upset. It sounds like you may need to rethink being a member. It sounds like it may not be working for you. I have had a couple of occasions before any reallocation I would have rented points like this. We may not have added on if it was available. I will never know. We enjoy DVC, but it does have things we are not happy with, but we can live with them.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

I believe you are in the minority here. I have my problems with DVC. They have nothing to do with the reallocation. Mine do not get me very upset. It sounds like you may need to rethink being a member. It sounds like it may not be working for you. I have had a couple of occasions before any reallocation I would have rented points like this. We may not have added on if it was available. I will never know. We enjoy DVC, but it does have things we are not happy with, but we can live with them.

Thanks for your comments! I haven't had any issues using my DVC. That doesn't mean I have to agree with events as they have occurred. Rethink being a member? Right now DVC is a cash cow for me. So as long as I am in the black, I'll roll with it. You must have missed where I say I BENEFITED from the reallocation. I won't drink the Kool aid. I call it as I see it.

 

[Dean]

Not sure I agree with your last statement. Waiting 15 years to reallocate doesn't show me that this was incorporated into the model. Then to reallocate two years in a row without giving anytime to see if the first one "swayed behavior", no I don't feel this was always part of the model.

If you read the documents you should see that not only is it an expressly allowed issue, it's on that is in effect required if the need arises. IMO it is expressly tied to the flexibility of the system. The reason there was such a lag was that the previous regime was too timid to make the changes that were needed back around 2000-2001 and since they no longer are required to publish occupancy and the number of villas does the same thing (only in part) the members by and large never knew it. Also, the imbalance has continued to grow in large part to those that have bought smaller contracts and are trying to stretch every point. The 2 years in a row was really one change that required 2 years due to limitations. I would agree with you that making a change and then waiting to see has merit, I state on DIS that I felt that was their best option, but I can see the need to get it all done as well. I also believe they have over corrected which leads one to ask WHY. However, it appears that they spent quite a bit of time and money getting an accounting firm to work this out and I'm sure they didn't want to do so again any time soon if they didn't have to. To me the 2 most likely reasons to over correct would be to sway behavior then swing back somewhat later or to institute a min stay, we'll see.

 

[Deb & Bill]

The last time they reallocated points VWL, BCV, SSR, AKV, VGC and BLT didn't exist. As more resorts are added, it takes longer to achieve the results they want to get to.

When you can get a DVC villa with a PIN for less than you spend renting a reservation, this may also have been a means to curbing wide-spread renting.

 

[WolfpackFan]

One issue with buying the points under the new deal is they are only available at 7 months. If you are going to HHI in the summer, you will probably need to make the reservation at 11 months. I would borrow the points and in a few years when you run out I would take a trip somewhere else or pay cash then. Or find a HHI member to transfer points to you, you could probably get them for less than $15.

Ha ha, borrowing the points that is a laugh. I've been in perpetual borrowing mode for 5 years now . I'm well aware of the difficulties of getting 7 month ressies at HHI. That is why we don't go in the summer.

 

[DaveH]

Thanks for your comments! I haven't had any issues using my DVC. That doesn't mean I have to agree with events as they have occurred. Rethink being a member? Right now DVC is a cash cow for me. So as long as I am in the black, I'll roll with it. You must have missed where I say I BENEFITED from the reallocation. I won't drink the Kool aid. I call it as I see it.

I did not remember the part about you gained. Your statement to Jim Lewis changed the meaning to your post for me. Those kind of statements in that manner to me means an angry person. I met Jim Lewis on the member cruise in 2007 and my impression is he could care less about how we feel about him or what he is doing. I was not overly interested in Hawaii at the time.

 

[BEASLYBOO]

The reallocation of points both 1 and 2 has no affect on me for the simple fact that I borrow to make up the difference, I still travel Sun-Thu and will continue to do so. DVC will have to wait another 30 years to see the effects of reallocation in my case, due to constant borrowing my contract will actually end in 2040 instead of 2042 because I'll be out of points.

 

[Dean]

I will say again as I have before, the affect of the reallocation on a given individual is irrelevant if the decision itself if founded in appropriate reason. In this case, an imbalance of demand. The affect on the membership as a whole is exactly the message, to even out demand with the purpose of affecting that that are most affected (weekday vs weekend, etc).

 

[Deb & Bill]

I did not remember the part about you gained. Your statement to Jim Lewis changed the meaning to your post for me. Those kind of statements in that manner to me means an angry person. I met Jim Lewis on the member cruise in 2007 and my impression is he could care less about how we feel about him or what he is doing. I was not overly interested in Hawaii at the time.

Shoot, I haven't even met Jim Lewis and I know that already.

Jim Lewis is only worried about Jim Lewis.

 

[BEASLYBOO]

The affect on the membership as a whole is exactly the message, to even out demand with the purpose of affecting that that are most affected (weekday vs weekend, etc).

Well let me give you the view point of 5 Fl DVC families who travel Sun-Thur. The reallocation changed nothing in the way we travel as I explained previously. The point structure is one factor of how and why we travel thi sway but the other more important factor is park attendance. Our 5 families which make up 26 people don't like attending the parks on week-ends when they are the busiest. So the intended weekday vs. weekend reallocation IMO isn't going to be all that Disney hoped, if as summized Florida DVC'rs (locals) are the problem. This is also why I buy discounted weekday only tickets instead of AP's now. Of course had they given the 1st reallocation enough time to be able to garner data to analize rather than jumping into the next one, they may or may not have done things differently.

I wonder what % of DVC ownership actually is made of locals who don't travel on Fri-Sat?

Dean, I think it was you that mentioned something about purposely overcorrecting the points on the second reallocation to possibly correct them at a later date, in your opinion, what purpose would this serve, is it just to throw us a bone later?

 

[White_Sox_Fan]

I don't necessarily agree that the purpose of reallocation is to change the habits of DVC members. It may well happen but the fact that they reallocated more points to weekdays means they have, in effect, increased the supply for weekdays and decreased the supply on weekends. Obviously not in room nights, but if, for example, you had enough points to book 5 nights previously and now you can only book 4 that is one more room night available to someone else.

 

[Muushka]

Well let me give you the view point of 5 Fl DVC families who travel Sun-Thur. The reallocation changed nothing in the way we travel as I explained previously. The point structure is one factor of how and why we travel thi sway but the other more important factor is park attendance. Our 5 families which make up 26 people don't like attending the parks on week-ends when they are the busiest. So the intended weekday vs. weekend reallocation IMO isn't going to be all that Disney hoped, if as summized Florida DVC'rs (locals) are the problem. This is also why I buy discounted weekday only tickets instead of AP's now. Of course had they given the 1st reallocation enough time to be able to garner data to analize rather than jumping into the next one, they may or may not have done things differently.

I wonder what % of DVC ownership actually is made of locals who don't travel on Fri-Sat?

Dean, I think it was you that mentioned something about purposely overcorrecting the points on the second reallocation to possibly correct them at a later date, in your opinion, what purpose would this serve, is it just to throw us a bone later?

I'm not Dean, but I will throw in my 2 cents. For me, the over correcting has left me not wanting to even bother with DVC any more. If it was up to me, we would have sold at least one of our 2 contracts.

 

[BEASLYBOO]

I'm not Dean, but I will throw in my 2 cents. For me, the over correcting has left me not wanting to even bother with DVC any more. If it was up to me, we would have sold at least one of our 2 contracts.

I can certainly understand.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

I don't necessarily agree that the purpose of reallocation is to change the habits of DVC members. It may well happen but the fact that they reallocated more points to weekdays means they have, in effect, increased the supply for weekdays and decreased the supply on weekends. Obviously not in room nights, but if, for example, you had enough points to book 5 nights previously and now you can only book 4 that is one more room night available to someone else.

Yes, I agree. Now that there is more S-Th availability, it enables DVC to rent those points out.

 

[White_Sox_Fan]

Yes, I agree. Now that there is more S-Th availability, it enables DVC to rent those points out.

I'm not sure what you mean by "rent those points out". There is more availability for members to book S-Th rooms. This, of course, is tempered by less availability on Fridays and Saturdays.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

I'm not sure what you mean by "rent those points out". There is more availability for members to book S-Th rooms. This, of course, is tempered by less availability on Fridays and Saturdays.

I meant members to rent from DVC for $15/ point. Think about it. More availability is created by upping the S-Th points. Now DVC can RENT you some points. If there wasn't availability, there would be little renting going on. So did the reallocation actually create a revenue source, even if indirectly? Just food for thought.

 

[White_Sox_Fan]

I meant members to rent from DVC for $15/ point. Think about it. More availability is created by upping the S-Th points. Now DVC can RENT you some points. If there wasn't availability, there would be little renting going on. So did the reallocation actually create a revenue source, even if indirectly? Just food for thought.

There are no additional resort points to rent. I don't know the details but would imagine that the points are coming from DVC/DVD's stock of points. It is no different than if I rented you points.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

There are no additional resort points to rent. I don't know the details but would imagine that the points are coming from DVC/DVD's stock of points. It is no different than if I rented you points.

Speculation is they are points from forclosures, buy backs, ROFR's, existing points that haven't released for sale. (Developer). So yes, in essence, they are exisiting points other than developer points. But the point is not WHO owns the points, but that Disney is making money off of the ones they have, and that availability is being made to use them.

 

[Muushka]

I meant members to rent from DVC for $15/ point. Think about it. More availability is created by upping the S-Th points. Now DVC can RENT you some points. If there wasn't availability, there would be little renting going on. So did the reallocation actually create a revenue source, even if indirectly? Just food for thought.

That was what I thought also.
I don't think DVC intentionally changed the point allocation to make money, but I'll bet that they are cashing in on the changes.
Otherwise, why else did they think up this scenario of people to be able to rent from them?
In our case we are 60 points short a year. They hope that people like us will rent from them. Wrong.
We will probably just do WDW once a year instead of twice. No problem. I love cruising!

 

[Dean]

Well let me give you the view point of 5 Fl DVC families who travel Sun-Thur. The reallocation changed nothing in the way we travel as I explained previously. The point structure is one factor of how and why we travel thi sway but the other more important factor is park attendance. Our 5 families which make up 26 people don't like attending the parks on week-ends when they are the busiest. So the intended weekday vs. weekend reallocation IMO isn't going to be all that Disney hoped, if as summized Florida DVC'rs (locals) are the problem. This is also why I buy discounted weekday only tickets instead of AP's now. Of course had they given the 1st reallocation enough time to be able to garner data to analize rather than jumping into the next one, they may or may not have done things differently.

I wonder what % of DVC ownership actually is made of locals who don't travel on Fri-Sat?

Dean, I think it was you that mentioned something about purposely overcorrecting the points on the second reallocation to possibly correct them at a later date, in your opinion, what purpose would this serve, is it just to throw us a bone later?

The issue isn't to change everyone, but a portion and it will do that. Many have said it will affect their choices and it will mine. It will change how you do things if for no other reason than you will have less points to do it with or less points left over to work with for other options.

As for the other issue, I made a statement and gave 2 possible explanations. My statement was I felt they had over corrected, if that's the case, I speculate there were only 2 reasons that made sense, either to affect behavior then swing back later OR to institute a minimum stay. There's no doubt that over correcting will affect behavior in a larger group of people and to a larger degree than doing so in increments. As to a min stay, if you swing the number of people using S-F to 6 or 7 days, you make a min stay less of an impact overall. Maybe there are other reasonable options but I can't imagine the demand is equal to the shift though I do realize that it's an educated guess as to what the demand will be after the change.

I don't necessarily agree that the purpose of reallocation is to change the habits of DVC members. It may well happen but the fact that they reallocated more points to weekdays means they have, in effect, increased the supply for weekdays and decreased the supply on weekends. Obviously not in room nights, but if, for example, you had enough points to book 5 nights previously and now you can only book 4 that is one more room night available to someone else.

In effect the same thing in my way of thinking as I alluded to above in that you'll have less points to work with. Some will espouse the conspiracy theory of DVC trying to get more rental dollars, I don't believe that and if I did, I'd sell tomorrow.

There are no additional resort points to rent. I don't know the details but would imagine that the points are coming from DVC/DVD's stock of points. It is no different than if I rented you points.

It's also likely this will include points given up for cash type trades like DCL. Even if it doesn't, it will decrease the number of points going to CRO from other points groups and the end effect for either should be cheaper long term points costs for those exchanges. I doubt it will include breakage inventory since this is more room specific than points specific. I see this as a win-win with almost no downside.