Is DVC Getting too Big?

[Mississippian]

For those of us who love being able to walk to one of the theme parks, every unit that opens without walking access to the parks means DVC is getting too big.

I own at BWV and really wish the booking window would be reduced to four months for non-members. I know that's not going to happen, but I can dream.

I also wish there would be a small point surcharge when visiting another resort. For example, if I want to visit SSR then I would have to pay 10 percent extra, rounded up, for the length of my stay. It would give people an incentive to stay put at their home resorts, thus making more rooms available for actual members of each resort. The extra points collected could be rented out and the cash used to offset member dues.

Of course, if DVC adds rooms with a point chart that is idenical to BWV (including standard view rooms), walking distance to EPCOT or the Magic Kingdom, Signature Dining, and a compact design (no internal bus), then a million rooms aren't too many as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Donna]

I actually started a thread about this a while back...all buses are now using "Welcome Home" as part of the new recording when the bus enters the resort gates....from the Values to the DVCs.

I was surpsied at the responses on that thread...most folks said that they didn't really care about the Welcome Homes.

My point was fairly simple...having that "Welcome Home" each time at your DVC resort is something that DVC can do for members that costs NOTHING yet makes members feel special. Why they would abandon a FREE "perk" is beyond me.

Guess they're just preparing for every resort to eventually have a DVC attached to it. The buses will already be programmed.

I agree it takes away from the exclusivity of being a member, or what WAS once an exclusive perk.

 

[Donna]

I'm betting 5,000 wouldn't get you back very far.

No...i mean to when there were ONLY 5,000 members, in the mid 90s. THOSE were the good ole days!

 

[BroganMc]

I also wish there would be a small point surcharge when visiting another resort. For example, if I want to visit SSR then I would have to pay 10 percent extra, rounded up, for the length of my stay. It would give people an incentive to stay put at their home resorts, thus making more rooms available for actual members of each resort. The extra points collected could be rented out and the cash used to offset member dues.

Only two issues with that:

1) There already IS a point surcharge for remote resort owners when booking a theme park walkable resort. It'll cost me 3 more points per night to stay in a BWV studio instead of my home SSR. On the other hand, there's a point savings for BWV/BCV/VWL owners staying at my resort. An even bigger one for OKW. (Reason for OKW owners to cry foul when they can't get their Grand Villas?)

2) Enforcing a policy to keep members at their home resort defeats the purpose of a vacation "club". To have the same experience your way, then Disney would have owners with small point contracts spread out among several resorts. Or else there'd be mass resales with owners deciding it better to just stay offsite and be part of a true flexible vacation club like Marriott.

 

[BroganMc]

I am a BWV owner and I think just the opposite is true. I have way more ability to switch resorts as I book my home resort (BWV) early and then can switch to OKW or SSR fairly easily once the 7 month window opens.

I was referring to trades within small boutique resorts vs. trades within large real estate resorts. The larger resorts will always have an advantage in getting a booking under 7 months just due to sheer size. But woe be those who want to switch small boutique resorts. i.e. A BWV owner switching to BCV or VWL (a trade easily done 5 years ago) is now competing with SSR and AKV owners as well.

Same holds for future GCV and CRV owners who want to stay anywhere besides home and/or a large resort.

 

[Sammie]

For those of us who love being able to walk to one of the theme parks, every unit that opens without walking access to the parks means DVC is getting too big.

I own at BWV and really wish the booking window would be reduced to four months for non-members. I know that's not going to happen, but I can dream.

I also wish there would be a small point surcharge when visiting another resort. For example, if I want to visit SSR then I would have to pay 10 percent extra, rounded up, for the length of my stay. It would give people an incentive to stay put at their home resorts, thus making more rooms available for actual members of each resort. The extra points collected could be rented out and the cash used to offset member dues.

Of course, if DVC adds rooms with a point chart that is idenical to BWV (including standard view rooms), walking distance to EPCOT or the Magic Kingdom, Signature Dining, and a compact design (no internal bus), then a million rooms aren't too many as far as I'm concerned.

Why does it matter who stays where, why are you against nonowners staying at your home resort and how do you even know who is who.

You knew when you bought in, that this is a Club with access to all properties.

I am glad you love your home resort, but you could not give me a room there and I am sure others agree.

 

[Mr Man]

One last point that I neglected to mention in my previous post, and is the "elephant in the room" on this thread IMHO, is the dramatically lower prices "early adopters" of DVC paid for the privilege of owning here. I would bet that even if you adjust this cost per point out to account for inflation over the last 15yrs it still worked out in your favor. Let's face it, DVC isn't cheap. It was once less expensive than it was now.

The early adopters at DVC got one heck of a deal (better than us Noobs by far). Way to go (no really, wish I would have been in a position to do it 10 yrs ago but wasn't)! If that isn't a good enough incentive to stick with it .....well.....uh......hope you find happiness wherever you go. Maybe $ really isn't everything (although it does help pay for it......).

I guess I was expecting more back-patting over these good times (or jangling of jewelry in celebration ) than sadly reminiscing over what DVC used to be. Even if DVC has changed dramatically, it still has that essential Disney magic that we are all looking for (or we wouldn't be here right?).

Then again, this is all taking place on the Internet......which is in a way like being a teenager.....EVERYTHING is the end of the world!

Some say the glass is half empty, some say the glass is half-full. I say it is at 1/2 capacity.

 

[JimC]

Very interesting thread.

I don't think we have much choice. The DVC that many here fondly reminisced about is not going to return. I agree with others who have mentioned less seasonality, lower dining quality and most of the other detractions of our experience at WDW. But I do not believe those issues are the result of the size of DVC. They are driven by other factors.

DVC represents a golden handcuff for its member guests. We pay upfront for the capital costs and are committed to cover management fees to DVC, operation costs, maintenance and refurbishment until the end of contract term or we relinquish ownership (sale or foreclosure). This is the timeshare economic model applied extraordinarily well to the theme park business.

DVC is a highly profitable growth business for Disney. It fits nicely with Iger's stated intent to take the Disney vacation/leisure brand beyond the theme parks -- DCL expansion, Adventures by Disney, the non-theme park related resort rumors that have been circulating and whatever else that is on the drawing board.

However and unfortunately, DVC off property largely failed with its HH and VB offerings (and I enjoy both and will likely use VB often as it is convenient to my Orlando home). But why would I pay the DVC surcharge to buy and own DVC to visit Hawaii or Aruba or the southwest, etc? I own a MVCI portfolio for that purpose, including one in Orlando for a non-Disney holiday. The economics need to change for DVC to be competitive with Marriott, Hilton, Hyatt or Starwood. It will be interesting to see how they approach this.

As to overcrowding, Disney will invest in more gates and other offerings if and when it believes it can earn a risk adjusted 20% ROI (At least that was Eisner's expectation). Their typical cash guest in 2004 was a family of 3.6 people, staying 6 days and 5 nights, spending $2500 to $3000 per visit with 40% of them flying and requiring three years to save for the trip with 70% as return guests.

However, the recession and unfortunate events of 2001 drastically reduced cash guest visits and particularly so with foreign guests (tend to be longer stay with higher spend per visit). And I believe there is still concern here because of Disney's efforts to improve foreign traveler access to the US and their arrival experience. Most of us remember those times -- we had a private ride on Pirates during a special ticket event no less. That volatility raises the bar for the large capital investment that a fifth gate requires even taking into account Disney's phased park development philosophy.

I suspect DVC members are a much different profile. And one that is possibly less dependent upon the economy. Our growth on property is good for the likelihood of future investment at WDW. DL is purportedly getting a significant investment (I want to see it actually built because Disney has halted announced and green-lighted projects before); so access to capital is not the issue.

I expect that we will see DVC continue to offer a greater variety of resorts spread across property and that can be exciting as it may accelerate other investments. I am unsure and unconvinced about off property DVC investment due to the competitive pressure by other well respected timeshare programs. Hopefully I will be wrong about that.

 

[Mississippian]

Only two issues with that:

1) There already IS a point surcharge for remote resort owners when booking a theme park walkable resort. It'll cost me 3 more points per night to stay in a BWV studio instead of my home SSR. On the other hand, there's a point savings for BWV/BCV/VWL owners staying at my resort. An even bigger one for OKW. (Reason for OKW owners to cry foul when they can't get their Grand Villas?)

2) Enforcing a policy to keep members at their home resort defeats the purpose of a vacation "club". To have the same experience your way, then Disney would have owners with small point contracts spread out among several resorts. Or else there'd be mass resales with owners deciding it better to just stay offsite and be part of a true flexible vacation club like Marriott.

The reason the BWV studio costs more is because of its proximity to Signature Dining, compact design and walking access to the parks. So you are not paying a "surcharge" to stay at another resort. Also, a standard studio costs less than SSR. The better comparison would be Old Key West, where the amenities would be much closer to SSR (but you would have a much bigger unit), and it would be at much lower cost.

Second, charging a very slight premium to stay away from one's home resort doesn't "ruin" the vacation club. If anything it reinforces the love one has for one's home club, assuming one's home club is worth loving. We're talking a couple of points here, just a very slight incentive to make the stay at another resort something special instead of "matter of course."

The whole point about DVC "getting too big" is that it takes away from the special "home resort" feel. There is a way to bring that back, and I'd love for DVC to do so.

 

[Mississippian]

Why does it matter who stays where, why are you against nonowners staying at your home resort and how do you even know who is who.

You knew when you bought in, that this is a Club with access to all properties.

I am glad you love your home resort, but you could not give me a room there and I am sure others agree.

Sammie,

First, I am in the process of selling 50 of my 200 BWV points. I am probably going to buy 100 HHI points and use them to book resorts at the 7-month window. I will never stay at HHI. I think it is "wrong" that I am allowed to do this, but since the rules allow it I am going to take advantage of it.

So I don't think anyone who stays at "my" resort is doing anything wrong. They are taking advantage of the rules as they exist. But I can still complain that I think the RULES are wrong, and I do.

When I bought, I can assure you I was unaware that Disney was building an 800-unit DVC bus resort (!) with no full-service restaurant so spread out that it required an internal bus system. Despite having all the space in the world, they built tiny rooms. I knew SSR was out there when I bought, but not the nightmare that it is in terms of size.

So my point is, I'm mad at the rules, not anyone who takes advantage of them. I plan to be taking advantage of these rule distortions soon because it is in my economic interest to do so. But I still think it's wrong and would much prefer that they be changed so that people could buy at the resort they like the most, and be given a really meaningful preference there, far beyond the 7-month booking window.

 

[Debbie H]

I hear ya! Let's go back to about......oh say.....5,000 members or so like it was when i joined. Everything was so much better, seems we were treated as "special" guests, not just a guest at wdw renting a hotel room. It seems now, they gouge us anywhere they can (i.e.,recent changes), the member cruise costs, for example, are ridiculous. People used to say "oh they got us, why do they have to "court" us and i used to say, oh no, dvc will never think that. How naive i was because that is what they think now for sure.

oh well, i will hold on to these 100 pts i have left (used to have 452) and use them here and there. Now, if DVC decides to build/add on at FORT WILDERNESS, yes, i will be one happy camper and would probably even ADD ON, lol.

OOOh Donna, careful, you know how these dis'ers get ... We have 2000points, so we are in for the long haul. We spend a lot of money every month in dues, so yes, I expect DVC to be what we bought, or at least better. Do we use them all at Disney? No, not anymore. Is it because we are "tired" of it? No, not really. Just tired of the hassle. People are not nice there anymore. The rooms are dirty, certainly not like they used to be, the food in the restaurants is terrible, we go off property now to eat, and you just can't have a "spontaneous" day down there anymore. With fast passes, disney dining whatevers, etc., it's just way too structured! We are now doing cruises and we are going to start using our points for many other things. Our kids love Disney but they know what changes have occurred and they feel as we do. Gone are the days when you could get up and say lets do the MK, then eat in Japan. Go now, can't get fast passes because they are out by 11, can't get a ressie, those were gone 90 days ago. See where I am going with this?

 

[kimberh]

In the 1 1/2 years that I have been a member I have noticed that it takes a lot more careful planning. I do remember the days of going to Magic Kingdom and eating in Japan, too. Those days are long gone! We travel In Jan, May, Oct, Dec. The trip in May, on The Extra Magic Hours day, the fast pass at Epcot were gone by early afternoon for Soaring. We had park hopped that day to eat at Epcot and ride Soaring, I was shocked. Went back that night, the line was 90 minutes. Our Resort was sold out, I asked. This was May and not Memorial Day. Tried to book a tour, it was sold out for the whole time we were there.

Is DVC getting to big? I don't know, but the parks are full, the restaurants are full, tours are full, so something has to give.

 

[BroganMc]

The reason the BWV studio costs more is because of its proximity to Signature Dining, compact design and walking access to the parks. So you are not paying a "surcharge" to stay at another resort.

You are paying solely for the ability to stay at a resort seen as being adjacent to a theme park. VWL, BCV and BWV have exactly the same point rates for 90-95% of the rooms. (All that are reasonably available within 7 mos.) VWL has no walkable path to a theme park but the ferry service is seen as equivelant. (How, I'm not sure since the busses at OKW and SSR are just as quick.)

AKV is all over the place. Sometimes it is more expensive than the theme park resorts, sometimes it is less, and others it is equal. It has no theme park access so sells itself on theming alone.

HHI and VB are sometimes much cheaper or much more expensive depending on expected demand for their locales.

Now OKW and SSR..?

The better comparison would be Old Key West, where the amenities would be much closer to SSR (but you would have a much bigger unit), and it would be at much lower cost.

OKW is cheapest because it is (a) older, (b) lacks some luxury and/or modern amenities (the spa and zero entry pool), and (c) is farther away from the local signature dining and public recreation area (DTD). For me, OKW is a step-down (though not a dreadful step) so should cost less.

SSR gives me a more pleasant place to walk, better amenities, and closer proximity to entertainment. (For the record, it does have a full service restaurant - Turf Club.) It is within walking distance of signature dining (Bongo's, Wolfgang Puck's, Fulton's Crab House, Portabello Yacht Club, Raglan Road, House of Blues, etc.), shopping, shows, movies, and contains no more internal resort walking than a BWV or BCV guest does on a daily basis.

Second, charging a very slight premium to stay away from one's home resort doesn't "ruin" the vacation club.

Again, that point surcharge already exists. As a SSR owner I know if I want to change my reservation to BWV for October (or VWL for December) to experience walking into WS for F&W, I'll have to forego a few extra points per night. Conversely, I can save a couple points staying at OKW but I give up my ability to walk home from DTD after midnight. (Since I can only use a pool with a zero entry or pool lift, I give up my pool time at every resort except SSR and AKV.)

I've made 4 bookings with DVC so far. All but the first time I booked, I've found myself reluctant to switch because the amenities of SSR were so appealing. And I guess therein lies the debate over "home bonding". I think it comes down to what each resort has to offer and what each owner prefers. My love for SSR is intrinsically tied to the pool, nature walking paths and proximity to DTD.

The true experience of "just another booking" is what you get with Marriott and Interval International membership. I can deposit my cheap Gold season Cypress Harbour Marriott week and get a prime Easter break week at Grande Vista for about $100. I've even been able to deposit my 2bedroom Cypress and get a 3bedroom at Grande Vista for the same price. My SIL used her much cheaper Horizons week to get 4th of July in Williamsburg when I (as an owner there) couldn't get any rooms.

However, this thread is about the perception of the program becoming too big. And much of the discussion has been about original OKW owners missing those perks offered by the pilot program. To some extent it has also been about OKW owner dismay at the upkeep and care that resort is getting. In general, I only think the program's size affects bookings under 7 mos. I can definitely see increased member competition making bookings at smaller resorts much harder to come by, but the larger resorts should be able to keep up with demand.

Now if we see an explosion of offsite resorts, especially ones with very seasonal demand, I can come around to agree with you on the unfairness of the growth. When I bought I met a couple staying at BWV who owned at HHI. They encouraged me to buy HHI instead of some place onsite because "you can always stay here and the maintenance is cheaper". I have no desire to use my DVC for anywhere but Disney World. That's why I have Marriott. But I'd be pretty peeved if say a future Colorado DVC owner got a room I planned for at SSR. (Something SSR owners fretted over with the recent Free Dining upgrades and the one flaw in SSR's bookings: no neighborhood categories.)

What you propose to do with your 100 HHI pts is essentially the same thing. Is it right? Well I guess it all depends on whether we want onsite DVC owners to have the ability to stay at HHI. It'll cost you the same number of pts to stay at HHI or BWV in Oct, but it will cost you more than twice the same pts to stay at BWV for Easter. Having seen Disney's HHI resort I can't see it really being worth it. JMHO but the Marriott's in HHI have much better locations. (Which I could all get for $100 with my Orlando Marriott / II weeks.)

 

[BroganMc]

The trip in May, on The Extra Magic Hours day, the fast pass at Epcot were gone by early afternoon for Soaring. We had park hopped that day to eat at Epcot and ride Soaring, I was shocked. Went back that night, the line was 90 minutes.

Soarin' has had high demand since it opened. New ride, everyone can enjoy, equals never-ending demand. What they need to do is lose a few tourists on the ride, get some bad press and then you can walk on like you can Mission: Space. A few slipnots on those seatbelts aughta do it.

 

[Donna]

OOOh Donna, careful, you know how these dis'ers get ... We have 2000points, so we are in for the long haul. We spend a lot of money every month in dues, so yes, I expect DVC to be what we bought, or at least better. Do we use them all at Disney? No, not anymore. Is it because we are "tired" of it? No, not really. Just tired of the hassle. People are not nice there anymore. The rooms are dirty, certainly not like they used to be, the food in the restaurants is terrible, we go off property now to eat, and you just can't have a "spontaneous" day down there anymore. With fast passes, disney dining whatevers, etc., it's just way too structured! We are now doing cruises and we are going to start using our points for many other things. Our kids love Disney but they know what changes have occurred and they feel as we do. Gone are the days when you could get up and say lets do the MK, then eat in Japan. Go now, can't get fast passes because they are out by 11, can't get a ressie, those were gone 90 days ago. See where I am going with this?

oh yeh, i see where you're going for sure. i've been going there too for quite some time and i suspect alot of old timers as well, i just haven't posted since, as you said, you will hear it on these boards. I see the DIS boards (dvc) as alot of newbies and they're still in their honeymoon stage. Hey, there is NOTHING WRONG with that at all! i was there once too! It's all a matter of perspective. I will never stop going to Disney. It's just getting harder to find a good time of year. I am a planner by nature anyways, so planning doesn't bother me, it's part of the fun. It's just that now that we have an RV, we are going to OTHER places, at disney..we can stay LONGER and don't even GO to parks some days. Then if the towels aren't changed over, or whatever, it is MY fault and in my control. Our home goes with us everywhere we go, instead of dues, i have gas to pay for, lol.

 

[doubletrouble_vb]

Getting too big? I think DVC was smarter when they chose AKL as the site for the next resort. Unfortunately when they built SSR they didn't build in a must have draw for the majority of WDW guests (notice I said WDW not DVC). That drop dead draw is what keeps people "home". Don't get me wrong, SSR has a lot of drawing power with the spa, golf course and DTD...but people mostly don't go to WDW for those things.

If Disney keeps building DVC's adjacent to or including a major draw then they won't get too big. For example a DVC with Typhoon Lagoon or Blizzard Beach as its theme pool would be a DVC with a major draw (also relieving some of the burden on BCV. Hotel guests would get a free pass imprinted on their key. A boring but large quiet pool would be available for those who didn't want to deal with the waterpark

 

[Sammie]

Sammie,

First, I am in the process of selling 50 of my 200 BWV points. I am probably going to buy 100 HHI points and use them to book resorts at the 7-month window. I will never stay at HHI. I think it is "wrong" that I am allowed to do this, but since the rules allow it I am going to take advantage of it.

So I don't think anyone who stays at "my" resort is doing anything wrong. They are taking advantage of the rules as they exist. But I can still complain that I think the RULES are wrong, and I do.

When I bought, I can assure you I was unaware that Disney was building an 800-unit DVC bus resort (!) with no full-service restaurant so spread out that it required an internal bus system. Despite having all the space in the world, they built tiny rooms. I knew SSR was out there when I bought, but not the nightmare that it is in terms of size.

So my point is, I'm mad at the rules, not anyone who takes advantage of them. I plan to be taking advantage of these rule distortions soon because it is in my economic interest to do so. But I still think it's wrong and would much prefer that they be changed so that people could buy at the resort they like the most, and be given a really meaningful preference there, far beyond the 7-month booking window.

Ok thanks that makes sense. Something else you need to consider though, is that many times when members can not book their home resort at under 7 months, it is not due to other members booking it, but other home members trading out.

Disney employees are one of the largest percentage of DVC members and they almost exclusively use DVC to trade out. They were able to purchase DVC with a discount and use it travel elsewhere as they have no need or desire to use it at WDW.

If your reference is to SSR, they do have a full service restuarant.

I guess size is relevant. We find the BW to much more cumbersome to get around even though you are inside. We found SSR to be very walker friendly and the main building very centrally located from all points, unlike BW which has everything in the middle and then a long haul to the outer rooms.

 

[tomandrobin]

Unfortunately when they built SSR they didn't build in a must have draw for the majority of WDW guests (notice I said WDW not DVC).

Ok....Here we go again. What is the drop dead draw of the other DVC resorts? OKW, themed pool, but must be lame for your standards. BWV has a themed pool, but again must be lame. BCV, does not have a themed pool, uses the adjacent Beach Club Resort pool. VWL, does not have a themed pool either, but like BCV uses the adjacent hotel pool.

That drop dead draw is what keeps people "home". Don't get me wrong, SSR has a lot of drawing power with the spa, golf course and DTD...but people mostly don't go to WDW for those things.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Funny how you can not comprehend that to some families, DTD is a big draw. My kids are older ...14,16 and 22. They love going over to DTD. They could care less about SAB, its built for little kids.

Since when do people not go to a resort for spa, shopping and golf? I can show you 100's of timeshares and resorts that offer those as selling points. Here is a link just for Marriott Resorts. Link for resorts in the Eastern US link, western US link, Carribbean link.

Don't get me wrong, SSR has a lot of drawing power with the spa, golf course and DTD...but people mostly don't go to WDW for those things.

And your last sentence contradicts your first. SSR has no draw to the majority of WDW guests, but has alot of drawing power with spa, gof and DTD. Which is it? Is there a Wlat Disney World guest poll that indicates that is true, or are you speculating like so many others.

 

[Sammie]

Tomandrobin, don't let it get to you again. The problem is that some on these forums feel their personal preferences for resorts reflect the preferences of others and even the majority.

There is no fact to support that and I know for sure that SSR is selling well and staying booked.

Just because does not appeal to some or even possibly the majority of DISers that proves nothing in the appeal it has to the DVC membership.

I personally do not care for BW, but would never presume it does not have a loyal following due to my opinion.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

VWL, does not have a themed pool either, but like BCV uses the adjacent hotel pool.

Not to side track anything, but VWL does indeed have a themed pool.

MG