"Tiered Loyalty Program" -- any ideas?

I'll start off with two areas where I think some changes might be beneficial, would cost DVC nothing, and would provide real benefit to owners of larger contracts:

Extended Banking Privileges
Owners of large point accounts probably take more trips than most, and an extended banking deadline would be a real benefit. This would cost nothing, would have no effect on owners of smaller accounts, but you'd want to keep it as simple as possible.

So, just for the sake of argument, lets suggest this setup:
  • < 500 points - the current 8 month banking period (this is my group, incidentally)
  • 500-999 points - unlimited banking through 10 months
  • 1000 and up - unlimited banking at any time during the UY

A New "Program Fee"
Currently DVC dues consist of a number of line items, some of which are costs of running the overall DVC system (member admin, member accounting, MS, etc) and a second category of costs which are specific to the home resort expenses (taxes, etc).

In some other timeshare systems, those costs are segregated. The good thing about segregation of these expenses is that it more accurately apportions the costs.

Every DVC contract has specific annual costs of managing, from computing and billing annual dues, to collecting those dues, billing mortgage payments, etc. And many of those costs are the same whether the contract is for 25 points or 2500. Wouldn't it be more fair -- and a benefit to large owners ("tiered loyalty") if those costs were apportioned more accurately?

I'll give you an example of one system I am familiar with -- Wyndham's. Wyndham charges a "Program fee" for the admin costs of supporting the whole system, and those fees are "tiered."

For accounts of 300,000 points or less, the current program fee is $.57 per K. And because there is a minimum cost for administering every contract, there is a minimum program fee of $88.12 per year. So if you own 154,000 points, you pay $88.12 or $.57 per K. But if you only own 77,000 points, you still pay $88.12...$1.17 per K.

For accounts of more than 300,000, the program fee is $.51 per K. Larger accounts still pay higher total fees than smaller accounts, but their rate is lower.

Wyndham has recently gone even one step further. Wyndham has numerous Every-Other-Year accounts which receive points only in odd or even years. But Wyndham has to administer those accounts every year, and in fact, those points can be used in any year. So they recently started charging the program fee every year on EOY accounts. Needless to say, EOY owners were not pleased, but logic is obviously on Wyndham's side. Every account, regardless of size or structure, has annual costs.

The home resort expenses are prorated equally among all owners based on the number of points owned, so there is no difference there in the rate between large holdings and smaller holdings.

Just a little food for thought.

I have no issues with your first guess.

The second, I'd be ok on a per point fee, but not for those with more points to pay cheaper fees. Fees should be billed completely per point. Favoring those who bought more and not forcing them to pay their fair share for their 50+ years of usage is ridiculous, IMHO.
 
I think that would be totally unfair. If you own a lower amount of points and want a popular reservation time or room type, you wouldn't have a chance even calling on day 1. It's bad enough that people with a larger amount of points can afford to "walk" reservations.

How about 12-7?
 
Ugh - it all just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

But a member standing up and asking what extra stuff she's going to get for her 1600 points?! Ick. Talk about entitlement. Hey, I'd love to have that many points, but we had to work our butts off for our 195 that we do have.

What "leaves a bad taste in my mouth" is that you may have implied that those with more than 195 points didn't have to "work their butts off".....believe me, we have!

I don't think it is an entitlement mentality for a regular customer to ask if there are any perks for being a regular customer - airlines call it "frequent flier" and yes, they give perks. It isn't a penalty program for those that only fly once a year, it is a benefit program to say "thank you" to those that regularly use the airline. An entitlement mentality would be for a person who flies once a year to expect, no demand a first class upgrade because the person who flew 30 times received an upgrade.

In the same way, I think it would be totally appropriate for there to be "tiered perks". It wouldn't punish anyone for owning DVC, it would say "thank you" to those that own a ton of DVC!:goodvibes
 
The second, I'd be ok on a per point fee, but not for those with more points to pay cheaper fees. Fees should be billed completely per point. Favoring those who bought more and not forcing them to pay their fair share for their 50+ years of usage is ridiculous, IMHO.

I think Jim's point is that large point owners are already paying an inordinately high percentage of certain fees which are based upon a per-point calculation.

Think about some of the items that go into servicing members.

An owner with 50 points gets one copy of Disney Files magazine. An owner with 2000 points also gets one copy of Disney Files. But with the cost of producing the mag being expressed on a "per point" basis, the 2000 point owner is paying far more.

Both owners each get one annual dues statement. Both have the same DVCMember.com access. Both can purchase the same number of discounted Annual Passes. There are many examples where a large point owner would cost the same (or only marginally more) for DVC to manage as a small point owner, yet the large point owner is paying far more because all of those fees are charged per point.
 
I think Jim's point is that large point owners are already paying an inordinately high percentage of certain fees which are based upon a per-point calculation.

Think about some of the items that go into servicing members.

An owner with 50 points gets one copy of Disney Files magazine. An owner with 2000 points also gets one copy of Disney Files. But with the cost of producing the mag being expressed on a "per point" basis, the 2000 point owner is paying far more.

Both owners each get one annual dues statement. Both have the same DVCMember.com access. Both can purchase the same number of discounted Annual Passes. There are many examples where a large point owner would cost the same (or only marginally more) for DVC to manage as a small point owner, yet the large point owner is paying far more because all of those fees are charged per point.

Well said.:thumbsup2
 
What "leaves a bad taste in my mouth" is that you may have implied that those with more than 195 points didn't have to "work their butts off".....believe me, we have!

I don't think it is an entitlement mentality for a regular customer to ask if there are any perks for being a regular customer - airlines call it "frequent flier" and yes, they give perks. It isn't a penalty program for those that only fly once a year, it is a benefit program to say "thank you" to those that regularly use the airline. An entitlement mentality would be for a person who flies once a year to expect, no demand a first class upgrade because the person who flew 30 times received an upgrade.

In the same way, I think it would be totally appropriate for there to be "tiered perks". It wouldn't punish anyone for owning DVC, it would say "thank you" to those that own a ton of DVC!:goodvibes

Thanks so much for the well written post. I so hate when people just assume that large point holders are "the evil rich". I may have more points than other members, but I also may live in a smaller house, drive a cheaper car, not go out to eat as much as members with fewer points. We choose to give alot of our disposable income to Disney, and it would be nice to be rewarded for doing so. Everyone is free to spend their money as they wish.
 
. . . . . I so hate when people just assume that large point holders are "the evil rich". . . . . .

The Evil Rich - are they evil because they are rich, or rich because they are evil; I always get that mixed up.

I agree with cvjw; be careful who you pick as "Rich". Are they the ones that didn't gamble, smoke, or drink their money away; worked hard, lived below their means, saved for the future, didn't party in excess and studied hard to get ahead? Oh, those guys. Yeah, they leave a bad taste in my mouth, too. And shame on them for having any expectations at all that may rub someone the wrong way.
 
The Evil Rich - are they evil because they are rich, or rich because they are evil; I always get that mixed up.

I agree with cvjw; be careful who you pick as "Rich". Are they the ones that didn't gamble, smoke, or drink their money away; worked hard, lived below their means, saved for the future, didn't party in excess and studied hard to get ahead? Oh, those guys. Yeah, they leave a bad taste in my mouth, too. And shame on them for having any expectations at all that may rub someone the wrong way.

:thumbsup2
 
I have no issues with your first guess.

The second, I'd be ok on a per point fee, but not for those with more points to pay cheaper fees. Fees should be billed completely per point. Favoring those who bought more and not forcing them to pay their fair share for their 50+ years of usage is ridiculous, IMHO.

The reality is that the inherent cost pp goes down somewhat as the number of points go up. There are other variables of course.
 
What "leaves a bad taste in my mouth" is that you may have implied that those with more than 195 points didn't have to "work their butts off".....believe me, we have!

I don't think it is an entitlement mentality for a regular customer to ask if there are any perks for being a regular customer - airlines call it "frequent flier" and yes, they give perks. It isn't a penalty program for those that only fly once a year, it is a benefit program to say "thank you" to those that regularly use the airline. An entitlement mentality would be for a person who flies once a year to expect, no demand a first class upgrade because the person who flew 30 times received an upgrade.

In the same way, I think it would be totally appropriate for there to be "tiered perks". It wouldn't punish anyone for owning DVC, it would say "thank you" to those that own a ton of DVC!:goodvibes

If that is how you've read it, that's too bad. I did not make a blanket statement that all high point owners are evil rich people. Nor did I EVER say they didn't work their butts off either. You are the one who implied something in my statement. I guess many DVC owners have alot of money. I will speak as one who doesn't - there are alot of "rich" people who think any one who doesn't have as much money as them is because those "poor" people just don't work hard enough. I was trying to make it clear in an earlier post that I have four jobs and DH has three - and we both have master's degrees and we still don't make a lot of money. I guess we should have chosen different career paths, but alas we are where we are. (DH is a teacher, and hey, everyone knows that teachers have it easy and make too much money, though, right?:sad2:)

We drive cheap economy cars, rent a small house, save most of our "going out to eat" for Disney trips, don't have any designer clothes. But I do have crushing student loan debt from grad school. Another poster "implied" that people with less points use all their money for other frivolous things. (I used quotes for a reason people.)

So please don't tell me I implied something that I didn't. I don't think in this one instance (the woman standing up asking what extras she was going to get) was me saying all rich are like that. But I think that woman was acting entitled. Sorry - I was raised by a german father - very strict hard worker - you don't just stand up and ask what else you're going to get! Who does that?!?!?

So anyway, back to the *ahem* light-hearted nature of our speculative thread..... ;)
 
. . . . . . . . . So anyway, back to the *ahem* light-hearted nature of our speculative thread..... ;)

Bravo - Enough said.

OK everyone, Let's all stand up and brush ourselves off; the rumble is over. Smile and make nice . . . or we'll raise the level to qualify for free stuff . . . :eek:
 
I think Jim's point is that large point owners are already paying an inordinately high percentage of certain fees which are based upon a per-point calculation.

Think about some of the items that go into servicing members.

An owner with 50 points gets one copy of Disney Files magazine. An owner with 2000 points also gets one copy of Disney Files. But with the cost of producing the mag being expressed on a "per point" basis, the 2000 point owner is paying far more.

Both owners each get one annual dues statement. Both have the same DVCMember.com access. Both can purchase the same number of discounted Annual Passes. There are many examples where a large point owner would cost the same (or only marginally more) for DVC to manage as a small point owner, yet the large point owner is paying far more because all of those fees are charged per point.
Most of the other points systems have a club fee which is universal, generally in the low $100. This divides up the inherent system costs evenly. At least one charges a base fee then so much a point because they believe that the per point costs are higher for smaller points owners.
 
I honestly haven't read much of this thread but I have a guess: those with a bunch of points are all for tiered benefits based on number of points owned, those with a small amount are not. Who could have guessed?!?!

I'm like everyone else, I'd want what would be more beneficial to me!
 
I honestly haven't read much of this thread but I have a guess: those with a bunch of points are all for tiered benefits based on number of points owned, those with a small amount are not. Who could have guessed?!?!

I'm like everyone else, I'd want what would be more beneficial to me!

I disagree with your conclusion.
I try to live without situational ethics...if I believe something is logical or right or true, it doesn't matter which side of the fence I personally am standing on. Example: If I expect my bank to correct a mistake that decreased my balance, I should report to them a mistake that increased my balance. My thinking "frequent flyer programs" are ok has nothing to do with how often "I fly".;)
 
I disagree with your conclusion.
I try to live without situational ethics...if I believe something is logical or right or true, it doesn't matter which side of the fence I personally am standing on. Example: If I expect my bank to correct a mistake that decreased my balance, I should report to them a mistake that increased my balance. My thinking "frequent flyer programs" are ok has nothing to do with how often "I fly".;)

I was guessing more in general the direction I thought the thread would probably be going in.

Personally I wouldn't like to see changes made that gives anyone an edge in getting reservations over someone else due to having more points. We all signed up under the same agreement of 11/7 month windows. Some other perks are fine, maybe give them some extra housekeeping, free valet parking, things of that nature...
 
I was guessing more in general the direction I thought the thread would probably be going in.

Personally I wouldn't like to see changes made that gives anyone an edge in getting reservations over someone else due to having more points. We all signed up under the same agreement of 11/7 month windows. Some other perks are fine, maybe give them some extra housekeeping, free valet parking, things of that nature...

I agree with you. I have no idea where we woul fall with our 370 points, but I don't think perks for one group should have a possible negative affect on another group like ressies. Pool hopping to SAB, free valet parking, extra discounts. They don't hurt the low point owners, but I'm not sure they are a big enough to attract people to buy more points.
 
I agree with the two previous posters that new Perks shouldn't penalize the rest, but unfortunately, most of the things being talked about in this thread WOULD penalize those with fewer points. We just have to hope DVD finds a way to reward high point levels without penalizing others.

LOL, as I said earlier, I'm sure they will make the cut off for perks around 450, since I own 449!!!:rotfl2:
 
The Evil Rich - are they evil because they are rich, or rich because they are evil; I always get that mixed up.

I agree with cvjw; be careful who you pick as "Rich". Are they the ones that didn't gamble, smoke, or drink their money away; worked hard, lived below their means, saved for the future, didn't party in excess and studied hard to get ahead? Oh, those guys. Yeah, they leave a bad taste in my mouth, too. And shame on them for having any expectations at all that may rub someone the wrong way.

When thumbing thru the WSJ yesterday read interesting poll results asking millionares i.e. "the rich" what level of accumulated assets/$ one must have to be considered wealthy...

$7.5 million:eek:

apparently looking down on the 'po folk is all relative based upon your perch on the totem pole:laughing:
 
When thumbing thru the WSJ yesterday read interesting poll results asking millionares i.e. "the rich" what level of accumulated assets/$ one must have to be considered wealthy...

$7.5 million:eek:

apparently looking down on the 'po folk is all relative based upon your perch on the totem pole:laughing:

Its official. I'm not wealthy!
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!













facebook twitter
Top