Multi-Site POS Revision Dated 01/19/19

[TK-Tampa]

I did wonder if maybe their wasn't something in the works that cause them to postpone today. Probably not, but it is possible. I have my list of questions and thoughts ready to go for Monday. One question/point I want to definitely make is if they hate resale so much why not keep the resale price up to a spot where direct is more appealing. They do have control over that through ROFR.

Just today we received notice that Disney waived ROFR for us on a small PVB contract at $145/pt. For that savings I don't really care I can't book Riviera with those points, I have other contracts that are grandfathered in. If that price was $180 or more I would have just bought direct most likely. They want to fix a problem they already have the solution to.....

Sorry. I decided to delete my original comments.

Glad you were able to speak to someone.

 

[DougEMG]

Personally I am glad that they read these threads. At least then they can see exactly how pissed off some of their members are and how far we are ready to push back (lawsuit).

 

[Drewferin]

I want to see a new poll for current DVC owners who'd buy direct Riviera if they lifted the resale restrictions. I'd be the first to vote that I'd buy... Restrictions have left me looking at resale (Opposite effect DVD intended).

 

[TexasChick123]

I want to see a new poll for current DVC owners who'd buy direct Riviera if they lifted the resale restrictions. I'd be the first to vote that I'd buy... Restrictions have left me looking at resale (Opposite effect DVD intended).

Hmmm...let me try to do one.

 

[DougEMG]

I want to see a new poll for current DVC owners who'd buy direct Riviera if they lifted the resale restrictions. I'd be the first to vote that I'd buy... Restrictions have left me looking at resale (Opposite effect DVD intended).

Include an option of waiting for Riviera prices to crash so as to buy resale.

 

[TexasChick123]

I want to see a new poll for current DVC owners who'd buy direct Riviera if they lifted the resale restrictions. I'd be the first to vote that I'd buy... Restrictions have left me looking at resale (Opposite effect DVD intended).

Include an option of waiting for Riviera prices to crash so as to buy resale.

Ok. I created the poll and only asked about buying direct if restrictions were removed.

 

[Katie L]

Personally I am glad that they read these threads. At least then they can see exactly how pissed off some of their members are and how far we are ready to push back (lawsuit).

I'm just not sure they care. Though I agree in theory.

 

[zavandor]

They would be foolish not to monitor constantly this forum and the other main DVC one.
Companies pay a lot of money for focus groups, this is basically a bigger one for free.

 

[Aron1012]

They would be foolish not to monitor constantly this forum and the other main DVC one.
Companies pay a lot of money for focus groups, this is basically a bigger one for free.

Exactly, that's why I just expect they do monitor it. Just not sure why it was intentionally brought up and in particular the way it was. It seemed a lot of the conversation was about they are satisfying some members. I think no matter what you did you could manage to please a few people out of a few hundred thousand. That doesn't make it best for membership overall.

That's why I challenged on the feedback that members asked them to differentiate between direct and resale. I told her no chance a majority feel that way and likely only a small fraction who really just want to know what do I get for paying such a premium. Driving down resale only makes that worse.

 

[CraigInPA]

I was told by the Liberty Tree Tavern restaurant manager a few years ago that she personally read every review of her restaurant to be aware of what the high and low points of dining at her establishment were, and to figure out ways to fix whatever problems customers experienced.

So, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that DVC is stalking us as well...

 

[glamdring269]

I'm glad they read the threads. The only thing I would suggest is that folks may want to consider not posting "I have a meeting with such and such at x time on y date.". Kind of makes it easy on them to figure out who you are. Big bro not needed!

 

[Katie L]

I just keep wondering what is the next shoe to drop. They never planned to manipulate the resale market like this. I'm surprised it took til 2016, to start meaningful restrictions when they realized they could. Boiling frog and all that. Would love to see the 5 year roadmap. Ha.

 

[Grumpy6264]

What they realized is that there is gold in the resale market, and they want their share.

The modification of Use Year isn't going to lower the resale price, in fact it may increase it. If Disney starts to exercise ROFR more often, then people wanting to buy resale are going to pay more (less that what Disney is charging) hopefully avoid ROFR. This benefits the seller, because they are going to get their money either way.

Placing restrictions on resale contracts will have some negative effect on prices, but the restrictions that were in place previously didn't have a huge impact on resale price. As long at the price for direct purchases is as high as it is, there is going to be a market for resale.

The restriction on resales not being able to reserve at any of the new resorts, or the new resorts being able to reserve the existing resorts is more of an attempt to fix the issue that DVC is too big and adding new resorts is only making the issue worse. If they had created DVC II, I think there would have been issues with the first few DVC II resorts not being able to utilize DVC I, but as new DVC II resorts come into being, that would be reduced as well.

It is just getting too big for there to be any simple solutions.

 

[LAX]

What they realized is that there is gold in the resale market, and they want their share.

The modification of Use Year isn't going to lower the resale price, in fact it may increase it. If Disney starts to exercise ROFR more often, then people wanting to buy resale are going to pay more (less that what Disney is charging) hopefully avoid ROFR. This benefits the seller, because they are going to get their money either way.

Placing restrictions on resale contracts will have some negative effect on prices, but the restrictions that were in place previously didn't have a huge impact on resale price. As long at the price for direct purchases is as high as it is, there is going to be a market for resale.

The restriction on resales not being able to reserve at any of the new resorts, or the new resorts being able to reserve the existing resorts is more of an attempt to fix the issue that DVC is too big and adding new resorts is only making the issue worse. If they had created DVC II, I think there would have been issues with the first few DVC II resorts not being able to utilize DVC I, but as new DVC II resorts come into being, that would be reduced as well.

It is just getting too big for there to be any simple solutions.

NO. The restriction was put in place to increase profit at DVD/DD period. It's not an attempt to fix anything despite of what they might claim otherwise. There are likely more effective and member-friendly measures that can be attempted if the intention is to benefit the membership as a whole.

LAX

 

[Grumpy6264]

NO. The restriction was put in place to increase profit at DVD/DD period. It's not an attempt to fix anything despite of what they might claim otherwise. There are likely more effective and member-friendly measures that can be attempted if the intention is to benefit the membership as a whole.

I agree that increasing profit is the ultimate motivation to every decision that they make. I think that the root cause is the flexibility that is built into the system. The flexibility is part of the reason (besides cost) that we bought into DVC. If we had to stay at the same resort the same week every year, we would not have bought in. As long as there are certain times of the year and locations that remain much more desirable, there is going to be an issue with availability. Every resort that opens adds to the problem. Having rooms with point requirements so high that very few people can actually utilize them add to the problem. Having small contracts that can typically only utilize studios also contribute to the problem.

If they had stuck with the original model of a higher minimum contract size, this would have been alleviated somewhat. I get that not everyone can afford 160 points (especially at todays point price), but if I bought a smaller contract with the expectation that I would use it for a studio and I could not get into a studio I would be upset.

I would love to see a member friendly solution to the problem, I just struggle to find a solution that doesn't negatively affect members.

 

[TexasChick123]

I agree that increasing profit is the ultimate motivation to every decision that they make. I think that the root cause is the flexibility that is built into the system. The flexibility is part of the reason (besides cost) that we bought into DVC. If we had to stay at the same resort the same week every year, we would not have bought in. As long as there are certain times of the year and locations that remain much more desirable, there is going to be an issue with availability. Every resort that opens adds to the problem. Having rooms with point requirements so high that very few people can actually utilize them add to the problem. Having small contracts that can typically only utilize studios also contribute to the problem.

If they had stuck with the original model of a higher minimum contract size, this would have been alleviated somewhat. I get that not everyone can afford 160 points (especially at todays point price), but if I bought a smaller contract with the expectation that I would use it for a studio and I could not get into a studio I would be upset.

I would love to see a member friendly solution to the problem, I just struggle to find a solution that doesn't negatively affect members.

Well said. My favorite part of DVC is that I get to pick when I visit and the size unit I stay in. Most other timeshares lock you into specific weeks in particular units. If I want to stay in a studio in January and a 2BR in September, I can if I have enough points. I agree that DVC is getting too big to stay on its current course.

I think there is one solitary goal DVD is trying to accomplish with the latest resale restrictions: motivating people to buy direct from them rather than resale by offering all the bells and whistles

 

[LAX]

I agree that increasing profit is the ultimate motivation to every decision that they make. I think that the root cause is the flexibility that is built into the system. The flexibility is part of the reason (besides cost) that we bought into DVC. If we had to stay at the same resort the same week every year, we would not have bought in. As long as there are certain times of the year and locations that remain much more desirable, there is going to be an issue with availability. Every resort that opens adds to the problem. Having rooms with point requirements so high that very few people can actually utilize them add to the problem. Having small contracts that can typically only utilize studios also contribute to the problem.

If they had stuck with the original model of a higher minimum contract size, this would have been alleviated somewhat. I get that not everyone can afford 160 points (especially at todays point price), but if I bought a smaller contract with the expectation that I would use it for a studio and I could not get into a studio I would be upset.

I would love to see a member friendly solution to the problem, I just struggle to find a solution that doesn't negatively affect members.

Do you honestly think the resale restriction is a solution at all?? I agree that booking non-home resorts at the 7-month window is becoming more and more challenging, but the resale restriction does NOTHING to fix that. Let's go through a few simplified scenarios here.

1. DRR is a home run & all owners (direct & resale) only stay there. Guess what? None of the L14 owners can stay there because no one is trading out. How does that alleviate the 7-month window for the L14 owners??
2. DRR is another SSR (apology to current SSR owners) & all direct owners book else where while the resale owners are confined there. Since the direct owners will try to scour the L14 resorts (can you imagine someone preferring SSR over DRR? An extreme example, I know) for any available villa, competition at those resorts becomes more intense as a result.
3. DRR is somewhere in between. Since the resale owners can only book there, they have no where to go, which decreases availability there for L14 owners. As the percentage of DRR resale owners increases, the 7-month availability further decreases for L14 owners. While this scenario doesn't put new stress on the L14 resorts, it doesn't really improve it, though.

Can you think of a scenario where the 7-month window would be improved with this restriction? Let's not forget that as DVD/DD continues to sell smaller contracts to accommodate those who are mostly interested in the Tower studios, the pressure on studios at ALL resorts will only increase.

As for what member-friendly policies that might improve this relatively bleak picture, how about improving the experience at the currently "less" desirable resorts? Perhaps increase amenities there to enhance the stay? I don't think a downward adjustment of point structure would hurt either. Since many current members often try to stretch their points by booking the lower point cost, but often less desirable villas (ie: no view), may be they would be willing to stay at one of the less desirable resorts if it means staying an extra day or two?

IMHO, the new resale restriction is an attack on the core of DVC, which is the flexibility that members (you and I included) have come to enjoy and value, which I am not sure it's intentional or not.

LAX

 

[Donald Ace]

I think I figured out who the new management is at DVC after reading this thread:

 

[skier_pete]

So this has probably already been stated in this thread - but in the long run, it feels like these restrictions really screw the DIRECT owner more than the resale owner. I mean, as a DRR resale owner, you KNOW going in that you can only book at this resort. It's part of the deal.

As a DIRECT owner you (a) have no idea what the affect this new restriction will have on your resale value and (b) you have no idea what the long-term affect is on booking the resort. In the second one, what I'm showing is that let's say 15 years from now there enough owner turnover that say 25 % of the resort is resale owners. That 25% knows they have no option but to book their home resort - so they will be fighting tooth and nail to get what they want at 11 months. Direct owners can book out at 7 months, but popular seasons and popular rooms may be even more difficult to get at the home resort. And its likely to only get worse as more and more resale contracts are sold.

Of course, we have no idea what percent of a resorts owners end up as resale owners over time - while the data is technically available it would take someone months to go through it all, but a resort with a lot of resale owners restricted to their home resort will also punish direct purchasers as well.

 

[Katie L]

Of course, we have no idea what percent of a resorts owners end up as resale owners over time

I feel like I read the "average" time of ownership was 8-10 years but I have no idea where that data came from and could just be a made up magic number.

while the data is technically available it would take someone months to go through it all

Aren't you doing all the analysis on room availability? (Amazing analysis, by the way!) I feel like this could be a new exciting project for you once you complete 2 bedroom availability!

Seriously though, IS it possible? I feel like if the average is 8-10 years many contracts have switched many, many times by now. Would be quite the trail to try to follow on OCC.