What do we think Disney's END GAME is with resale restrictions

[NoTime42]

End Game? I sometimes feel as if Thanos is sat at the head of the DVD table, ready to click his fingers and all us resale buyers turn to dust, the points flying into Thanos’ fist and making him and his DVD all powerful.

I guess we need to team up and execute a “time heist” to prevent Thanos’ snap.

 

[TiggerBouncy]

I immediately thought they could give earlier access for booking to “ full members” or at least to the owners at the “DVC 2.0” resorts. This would be a game changer wouldn’t it? It could lock you out of studios in your home resort!

Say what you will, but if they made a policy that Direct could book 12 months out and resale could only book 11 at their home resort, I would buy Riviera Direct tomorrow. I am very frustrated trying to get my room. Anything they did to ease access to room inventory - even if I had to pay extra to be part of an "elite" club that got it I have no problem paying a premium for. My only concern is they would do the same thing as they did with DVC and Extra Magic Hours and any other premium experience and so overstock it that the benefit goes away,

 

[Matty B13]

Say what you will, but if they made a policy that Direct could book 12 months out and resale could only book 11 at their home resort, I would buy Riviera Direct tomorrow. I am very frustrated trying to get my room. Anything they did to ease access to room inventory - even if I had to pay extra to be part of an "elite" club that got it I have no problem paying a premium for. My only concern is they would do the same thing as they did with DVC and Extra Magic Hours and any other premium experience and so overstock it that the benefit goes away,

Wouldn't this run counter to the "Deeded" rights of all owners? I don't think we want them doing this, and it could ended going to court. I know I would join a lawsuit if DVC were to try to enact this type of "elite" club.

 

[TiggerBouncy]

And every year the families will decide whether to go to Disney or not, where with DVC that decision is made for them. And if they go elsewhere, so does the revenue from food, merch, and tickets.

This is a common argument, and I think a false one. It would be accurate IF Disney had problems packing their rooms. They do not. ESPECIALLY not their DVC rooms. If those people do not go to Disney, others will. As long as there are butts in the beds, there are people there buying merch and food. IN FACT, It's better for Disney is the butts in the beds are one time only or occasional guests as they tend to buy more merch, higher priced limited time tickets and more food experiences. Us oldtimers already have a lot of the merch, cook or avoid high cost experiences and purchase value tickets. We want and only buy seasonal or new items.

 

[TiggerBouncy]

Wouldn't this run counter to the "Deeded" rights of all owners? I don't think we want them doing this, and it could ended going to court. I know I would join a lawsuit if DVC were to try to enact this type of "elite" club.

They could not do it to the L14 resorts, certainly. Whether they could do it to the V2.0 resorts, I am not sure. I have not read the contract for Riveria because I have not been in the market for more points - largely because of room availability.

There is certainly a question about what is allowed under Florida and Federal law. However Disney also has a lot of clout when laws need to be... shifted... in their favor. DVC is really a RTU timeshare. All the FTC has to say on the subject in human terms is here: https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0073-timeshares-and-vacation-plans
which just says basically You buy points, and use them to stay. How many points depends on which unit, what time of year and other factors. The FTC doesn't have any laws or regulations that specify that one person cannot have priority booking over another. I am less familiar with Florida laws. It's how DVC is able to allow the home resort benefit. As long the the contract clearly defines it, Disney wouldn't be violating any laws.

Again, they can't do it to the L14's. They may or may not be able to do it to the Riveria. They could almost certainly modify the contract for Reflections to allow for it and probably not run foul into any federal regulations.

 

[Miffy]

I 100% agree with @BillPA--greed.

DVC seems hell-bent on instituting more and more restrictions, especially on resale buyers. The first one that comes to mind would be DVC no longer allowing owners to rent their points. Or making this a restriction on new contracts or--the most likely possibility--not allowing resale buyers to rent their points. I'm not saying this will happen, but I'm saying that it's possible this is something that could happen, assuming it's within DVD's legal rights to implement a policy like this.

It seems to me that making resale contracts more and more restrictive would end up hurting direct sales. But maybe only people here on this forum are so well informed. Perhaps many (most?) DVC direct buyers don't even consider needing or wanting to sell their contracts at some point.

 

[TiggerBouncy]

would be DVC no longer allowing owners to rent their points. Or making this a restriction on new contracts or--the most likely possibility--not allowing resale buyers to rent their points. I'm not saying this will happen, but I'm saying that it's possible this is something that could happen, assuming it's within DVD's legal rights to implement a policy like this.

Legally, maybe they could. I'm not sure since Florida law does permit the leasing the timeshares. That may violate state law. In any event, legal issues aside, this would be impossible from a practical matter. Of course not with the L14 or the current V2.0. In general though, people purchase DVC for their families. MANY DVC purchases are viewed as generational and the big draw is that although many DVC owners are too old to go every year or have interest in going, they purchase it so their Son / Daughter / Grandchildren / etc can use it. Could you image the nightmare DVC would have in trying to enforce that only people related to you could use your points? I would have more step-daughters and step-sons and half-siblings and adopting brothers than you could imagine. Even if they COULD legally get it into the contract, they could NEVER enforce it.

It seems to me that making resale contracts more and more restrictive would end up hurting direct sales. But maybe only people here on this forum are so well informed. Perhaps many (most?) DVC direct buyers don't even consider needing or wanting to sell their contracts at some point.

That is true. I did not buy to sell. I never plan to sell. I will leave my DVC interest to my son. HE may sell, but that's not my problem or consideration. I doubt it in any case as he loves Disney as much as I do. To that end, I don't give one crack what resell restrictions they make. They could put in there that if I decide to sell, I have to sell back to Disney at a prorated discount of the original price (meaning it's always at a loss) and I would shrug it off. Doesn't matter. I bought DVC to use it. Not as an investment or to sell it. The fact that those are options is nice to know, but not a consideration. As long as they don't mess with direct purchases, I'm good.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Say what you will, but if they made a policy that Direct could book 12 months out and resale could only book 11 at their home resort, I would buy Riviera Direct tomorrow. I am very frustrated trying to get my room. Anything they did to ease access to room inventory - even if I had to pay extra to be part of an "elite" club that got it I have no problem paying a premium for. My only concern is they would do the same thing as they did with DVC and Extra Magic Hours and any other premium experience and so overstock it that the benefit goes away,

DVC has provided you a solution - a fixed week. You can buy one today at Riviera and be set. DVC books the room for you at 12 months out.

What room are you trying to book that is causing such frustration? A cheap point studio or Concierge? There are plenty of room types that can be booked within DVC at 11 months without generating frustration like you describe.

 

[TiggerBouncy]

DVC has provided you a solution - a fixed week. You can buy one today at Riviera and be set. DVC books the room for you at 12 months out.

What room are you trying to book that is causing such frustration? A cheap point studio or Concierge? There are plenty of room types that can be booked within DVC at 11 months without generating frustration like you describe.

I don't know about you, but I work for a living. I can't plan on having the same week open every year. That would not be possible. As it is, planning 11 months out is difficult and I know what I said above would be worse, since that's a year out. But it would still be better than a fixed week.

However, you do have a point. To be fair, I usually don't even book 11 months out. More like 7 when it's open season. Part of that is my fault too since I have several contracts and I usually need points from all of them to make a good trip and they are at different resorts. I would do better to consolidate, but that's expensive. :-(

So the solution still wouldn't work for me. But my frustration is that DVC rooms do get very, very full very quickly. For example, I can't book a February or march trip right now unless I am very flexible in rooms and dates. To add to it, I talk to friends of mine who are not DVC and there are PLENTY of cash rooms at the same resort open. Yes, I know the in's and out's of it. I get why. But it is FRUSTRATING when I can't stay at a resort I own and some random person can buy rooms right up to a few weeks out. So please don't lecture me on why this is. I get it. I can still be frustrated about it.

 

[Bing Showei]

I don't know about you, but I work for a living. I can't plan on having the same week open every year. That would not be possible. As it is, planning 11 months out is difficult and I know what I said above would be worse, since that's a year out. But it would still be better than a fixed week.

However, you do have a point. To be fair, I usually don't even book 11 months out. More like 7 when it's open season. Part of that is my fault too since I have several contracts and I usually need points from all of them to make a good trip and they are at different resorts. I would do better to consolidate, but that's expensive. :-(

So the solution still wouldn't work for me. But my frustration is that DVC rooms do get very, very full very quickly. For example, I can't book a February or march trip right now unless I am very flexible in rooms and dates. To add to it, I talk to friends of mine who are not DVC and there are PLENTY of cash rooms at the same resort open. Yes, I know the in's and out's of it. I get why. But it is FRUSTRATING when I can't stay at a resort I own and some random person can buy rooms right up to a few weeks out. So please don't lecture me on why this is. I get it. I can still be frustrated about it.

I'm sorry it's been so frustrating. Sadly, the restrictions being implemented by Disney will do absolutely nothing to improve your situation.

 

[TiggerBouncy]

I'm sorry it's been so frustrating. Sadly, the restrictions being implemented by Disney will do absolutely nothing to improve your situation.

Thanks. However, I didn't mean to make this about me. LOL. I choose to be in DVC and I still choose to be in DVC. I can always sell if I want. It's a choice that I make. So I'm good.

Back to the point though, personally I think Disney is aware that there is a lot of frustration among buyers in inventory. I see this as a first attempt at trying to address it. I do not think this attempt will ultimately pan out. At least not by itself. There is probably a grander part of the scheme. It may be unpopular, but I don't see Disney as being purely a money grab. I see them as trying to make a profit by doing things people want. I have no problem with that.

I DO see how taking resale out of the L14 reservation system might help a little. However, I am still not 100% sure about that. I assume that if a L14 direct rents at Riveria, then Riveria has to pay cash back into the L14 since they can't exchange points. That just puts more stress on opening up cash rentals, but doesn't ease inventory at the L14's. [Edit: Actually that doesn't make sense after I typed it. They don't know if the payback is coming in a cash room or a v2.0 direct owner using a L14 resort..... Not sure how they are handling that). Unless there is something I do not understand, the only way to ease that congestion is to drive vacationers to the Non-WDW resorts, and replace the bungalows and tree houses with more economy rooms.

But I think the end game for this restrictions are to address the congestion. At least that's my 2 cents. I just don't believe anywhere in Disney there was a group of Vice Presidents who sat around a table and said "lets do this to make money. Yeah! That'll screw over our loyal customers and really make us a buck!". I prefer to believe there is a group of Vice Presidents that said "congestion is a real issue. let's try this idea and see if it helps".

 

[pacmanmp]

I do not think Disney has realized that a strong resale market only helps them sell. The ability to get out without taking a massive hit was one of the biggest things that led to me buying my first contract (direct). There are tons of stories from other timeshares where people had to pay to get rid it. I believe that a strong resale market only helps them.

 

[BrerRabbit1119]

I do not think Disney has realized that a strong resale market only helps them sell. The ability to get out without taking a massive hit was one of the biggest things that led to me buying my first contract (direct). There are tons of stories from other timeshares where people had to pay to get rid it. I believe that a strong resale market only helps them.

Totally agree with this. I feel like the restrictions on the Riviera only hurt direct sales and push more people to resale for the original 14. It's a lot easier for someone to make the commitment and buy direct if they know they can easily turn around and sell it a few years down the line if they want/need to.

 

[DougEMG]

Back to the point though, personally I think Disney is aware that there is a lot of frustration among buyers in inventory. I see this as a first attempt at trying to address it. I do not think this attempt will ultimately pan out. At least not by itself. There is probably a grander part of the scheme. It may be unpopular, but I don't see Disney as being purely a money grab. I see them as trying to make a profit by doing things people want. I have no problem with that.

I don't believe for a second that Disney cares one bit about owner frustrations unless it effects their current sales. RIV seems to be selling similarly as other past resorts, which make sense if the average buyer is someone at WDW on vacation that buys on the spur of the moment. The inventory problem is cause solely by DVC and their building of cabins and bungalows, huge point sinks that they can sell but which members that buy at their home resorts don't book. Lets pretend for one second that everyone could only book at their home resort, no trading ever again. I would be perfectly fine and not bothered, buy how happy do you think POLY and CCV owners are going to become?

These resale restrictions are a pure money grab. The resale restrictions are going to screw up the availability for RIV owners, forcing them to book earlier and earlier and eventually walk because that is what resale owners will start doing to ensure they have a room which will force direct owners to do the same thing.

Anyone who thinks this resale restriction is a good thing has drunk too much cool-aid.

 

[Matty B13]

These resale restrictions are a pure money grab. The resale restrictions are going to screw up the availability for RIV owners, forcing them to book earlier and earlier and eventually walk because that is what resale owners will start doing to ensure they have a room which will force direct owners to do the same thing.

This will hurt direct owners, because most resale owners are much better educated about the whole DVC booking system, and once availability becomes and issue, the resale owners will adjust much quicker than the direct owners who will miss out on their reservations.

How many people come to Disboards asking "what is walking a reservation?" since they have no idea how to fully use the reservation system. Resale owners will be far ahead of the game for many years.

 

[katandmouse]

Back to the point though, personally I think Disney is aware that there is a lot of frustration among buyers in inventory. I see this as a first attempt at trying to address it. I do not think this attempt will ultimately pan out. At least not by itself. There is probably a grander part of the scheme. It may be unpopular, but I don't see Disney as being purely a money grab. I see them as trying to make a profit by doing things people want. I have no problem with that.

I DO see how taking resale out of the L14 reservation system might help a little. However, I am still not 100% sure about that. I assume that if a L14 direct rents at Riveria, then Riveria has to pay cash back into the L14 since they can't exchange points. That just puts more stress on opening up cash rentals, but doesn't ease inventory at the L14's. [Edit: Actually that doesn't make sense after I typed it. They don't know if the payback is coming in a cash room or a v2.0 direct owner using a L14 resort..... Not sure how they are handling that). Unless there is something I do not understand, the only way to ease that congestion is to drive vacationers to the Non-WDW resorts, and replace the bungalows and tree houses with more economy rooms.

The thing is, there is no way that this resale restriction could help inventory issues. Look at 7 month/non-home resort booking: with the restriction now we have restricted resale owners at the L14 who who cannot trade into RIV, but also direct RIV owners who may want to trade into the L14 resorts. There is now more competition for the L14 resorts at 7 months - more people/points eligible to book than there are rooms. Ok, so eligible L14 owners can still trade into RIV, until there are enough resale owners there to tip the scale and make booking there difficult. So what do we do? Book your home resort in the 7-11 month window, earlier and earlier, and buy where we want to stay so we have a reservation. But more people booking rooms earlier means less availability at 7 months or less, which then continues the cycle.

If DVC wants to help members with inventory availability, to make staying at different resorts at 7 months a prime feature of DVC (their attempt at distinguishing between direct and resale?) and also makes more money selling the newest resort and not sold out ones (to play down “buy where you want to stay”) - then restricting resales will hurt their goals. It might sound good on paper but once you think it through it would never work. Restricting some points from trading ends up restricting everyone’s points.

I’d like to think that DVC/Disney’s primary concern is helping improve members’ experience, but after last year’s original point charts and now reading through Riviera’s POS, I am much more skeptical. I just want them to reverse course on this too! Then I feel like I could just enjoy my new membership without always looking over my shoulder or perusing the POS with a fine-tooth comb.

 

[Grumpy6264]

The thing is, there is no way that this resale restriction could help inventory issues. Look at 7 month/non-home resort booking: with the restriction now we have restricted resale owners at the L14 who who cannot trade into RIV, but also direct RIV owners who may want to trade into the L14 resorts. There is now more competition for the L14 resorts at 7 months - more people/points eligible to book than there are rooms. Ok, so eligible L14 owners can still trade into RIV, until there are enough resale owners there to tip the scale and make booking there difficult. So what do we do? Book your home resort in the 7-11 month window, earlier and earlier, and buy where we want to stay so we have a reservation. But more people booking rooms earlier means less availability at 7 months or less, which then continues the cycle.

If DVC wants to help members with inventory availability, to make staying at different resorts at 7 months a prime feature of DVC (their attempt at distinguishing between direct and resale?) and also makes more money selling the newest resort and not sold out ones (to play down “buy where you want to stay”) - then restricting resales will hurt their goals. It might sound good on paper but once you think it through it would never work. Restricting some points from trading ends up restricting everyone’s points.

I’d like to think that DVC/Disney’s primary concern is helping improve members’ experience, but after last year’s original point charts and now reading through Riviera’s POS, I am much more skeptical. I just want them to reverse course on this too! Then I feel like I could just enjoy my new membership without always looking over my shoulder or perusing the POS with a fine-tooth comb.

This is pretty much what I was trying to say in my post above.

Resorts like HHI, VB and Aulani contribute significantly to the issue with 7 month availability. Another significant factor are Bungalows and Cabins and smaller minimum contract size is another. For example, people buying smaller contracts at Polynesian (expecting to use it for studios) buy points allocated to the Bungalows. They have no way to use their points for the bungalows, so the demand for all studios increases.

Every resort that is added increases 7 month availability pressure, especially for the high demand (and often smaller resorts/room types) forcing people to stay in their home resort or settle for a room they may not want.

There isn't really a solution to this problem, it is inherent to the system and while the restrictions may be meant to ease the problem, I don't think that it is possible. The only real way to prevent the issue from getting worse for the legacy 14 resorts is to prevent owners of the new resorts from being able to book at the legacy 14 resorts. This won't make the current situation any better, but it should prevent it from getting any worse. They would also have to prevent the legacy owners from using their points in the new resorts, otherwise you would cause more issues with the new resorts.

Maybe allow owners to purchase the right to exchange between the old and new resorts for a fee, but this would not be very well received either.

Like I said, I don't think there is a realistic way to prevent booking non-home resorts from getting more difficult.

 

[CanadaDisney05]

There isn't really a solution to this problem, it is inherent to the system and while the restrictions may be meant to ease the problem, I don't think that it is possible.

This wouldn't 100% fix the problem (because of the things you mentioned that have already happened in the past), but wouldn't a simple point reallocation minimize the availability issue. (I understand it would create a whole new set of problems for some. There is always give and take).

1) Adjust the point charts to even out the majority of the year. One of the issues is that DVC members are always fighting for the low point times of the year. The demand during this time is where the real issue is. Increase the point requirements during these periods, and decrease it in the current high periods. This will even things out.

2) Increase the point requirements for studios, and decrease the point requirements for 1 & 2 bedrooms. It may be hard to change the point values on the bungalows & cabins drastically without seeing a major increase on the more traditional room types.

3) I don't know the bylaws specifically, but could they not technically build more rooms? Lets take Poly as an example. If you build another building with 50 more studios, without selling more points, could you not technically lower the bungalow point charts and migrate those points to the studios? I understand that this would increase maintenance fees.

 

[Grumpy6264]

There isn't a simple point reallocation that can be done.

The number of variables that need to be taken into account make the process extremely difficult.

They have to account for lock-offs as well as dedicated units. A studio in the same room category is priced the same whether it is a lock-off studio or a dedicated studio. The total points available at a given resort were determined by the number of each dedicated room at the resort. So if you increase the price of a studio in a resort with both dedicated and lock-off rooms, the formula for balancing out the points over the entire year for every dedicated room is quite difficult.

As far as reallocating seasons, that is a little easier, but the point are where they are to ensure that the resorts are booked all year.

I don't think that they can just build more rooms without allocating points. Points are a representation of ownership interest in a specific unit at a specific resorts. If you built more rooms, I would assume that there would need to be points associated with those rooms.

I don't think that there is a way to improve the situation, because like you said, what has happened has happened. They could stop the bleed by creating DVC 2 and not allowing the legacy resorts from trading into DVC 2 or vice versa, but this is an unpopular option. It is viewed as restricting the flexibility of the system, so we are back to there really isn't a solution.

 

[CanadaDisney05]

They have to account for lock-offs as well as dedicated units. A studio in the same room category is priced the same whether it is a lock-off studio or a dedicated studio. The total points available at a given resort were determined by the number of each dedicated room at the resort. So if you increase the price of a studio in a resort with both dedicated and lock-off rooms, the formula for balancing out the points over the entire year for every dedicated room is quite difficult.

I'm not suggesting you or I start doing this on an Excel spreadsheet in the next 20 minutes. I'm sure DVD has the resources and software to figure this out.

As far as reallocating seasons, that is a little easier, but the point are where they are to ensure that the resorts are booked all year.

Problem is, the majority of the demand is located between Sept and Feb. You can even it out there. Increase points during that period, and decrease in Mar to Aug.

The real problem with these options is that people who only bought enough points to stay at a specific time in a specific room type, will be forced into buying more points. Win for Disney. Win for those who stay in bigger room categories. Win for those who stay in studios but don't mind buying a few additional points to alleviate the shortage issue. Lose for those who don't have enough/don't want to spend more.