2020 Point Charts

I am not defending the re-allocation. My personal stays will be shorter or cost more, but I can see the benefits if one considers the membership "as a whole".

My point is that if I want a studio but can never book one, but now I can get one because other members now can't stay so many nights, that's a benefit.

I think that is a good way of looking at it.

Also, I think, if someone was really planning to hold Disney's feet to the fire, one should look at what booking looks like at 60 days (or whenever breakage happens). If most owners are like me, I only know how tough stuff is at 11 months and 7 months, but for reallocation justification, Disney would be looking at 60 days. In other words, 1 bedrooms might be super easy to get at 6 months, 5 months, 4 months, but actually fill up by 2 months or 1 month (I don't know the real numbers, this is just a hypothetical). In that case, Disney might have a justification for raising 1 bedrooms.
I don't necessarily agree with that logic, but it is defensible as rational.

In other words, if DVC divides rooms/seasons into buckets, one labeled "Rooms that wind up in Breakage" and "Rooms that do not wind up in Breakage," they can justify lowering the points on the former and raising the points on the latter. It could be that 1 bedrooms linger for months, but do end up getting booked on points eventually and have low breakage rates.

I actually feel better about all this.
 
I think that is a good way of looking at it.

Also, I think, if someone was really planning to hold Disney's feet to the fire, one should look at what booking looks like at 60 days (or whenever breakage happens). If most owners are like me, I only know how tough stuff is at 11 months and 7 months, but for reallocation justification, Disney would be looking at 60 days. In other words, 1 bedrooms might be super easy to get at 6 months, 5 months, 4 months, but actually fill up by 2 months or 1 month (I don't know the real numbers, this is just a hypothetical). In that case, Disney might have a justification for raising 1 bedrooms.
I don't necessarily agree with that logic, but it is defensible as rational.

In other words, if DVC divides rooms/seasons into buckets, one labeled "Rooms that wind up in Breakage" and "Rooms that do not wind up in Breakage," they can justify lowering the points on the former and raising the points on the latter. It could be that 1 bedrooms linger for months, but do end up getting booked on points eventually and have low breakage rates.

I actually feel better about all this.

A requirement to even out the last minute (aka breakage) booking window? Breakage by definition is allowing DVC to rent out unbooked aka unwanted rooms. If they were doing as you suggest then I'd suggest they are taking it too far. Nothing at all indicates having equal room availability down to the very last room rented. If so then they should just build resorts that have a single room type.
 
Last edited:
I think we have two different camps here. In one camp we have the group that do not trust the reallocation without having some explanation from Disney and in the other camp we have the group that is willing to trust Disney without any evidence.

I used to belong to the trust Disney without evidence camp, but no longer do.

I get the requirement for the weekend/weekday change, that was creating holes in availability that were hard to fill which increased breakage.

What I could have easily accepted in this reallocation was an increase in studios matched with a decrease in 1 bedrooms and then an adjustment in seasons to increase points required in the Fall and Xmas, with a matching decrease at other times in the year. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of members could of accepted a change like that.

What Disney did instead sure seems like it benefits them the most by generating lots of additional breakage.

I think you hit the nail on the head there. There's some folks that can accept the rationalization as to why they did it. Others (including myself) can't see how the choice they made regarding lock-off premium doesn't primarily benefit Disney while hurting a larger % of the members than it helps. And again - it's all about those 1-bedroom increases in conjunction with creating lock-off premium points. If they had raised studios while keeping lockout premium the same then I could totally agree with the argument even though it personally hurts my own usage.

The worst to me is that it highlights the fact that they could increase that lockout premium to 100% with no recrimination. From what the supporters say - they could even eventually say 50 pt for studio = 50 pt of 1-bedroom + 50 pt of 2-bedroom. This of course has no real benefit to them, because at that point everyone would book 2-beds, but still they could eventually say 30 pts for studio + 40 pts for 1-bedroom = 50 pts for 2-bedroom and there's nothing we could do to stop them.
 
I think we have two different camps here. In one camp we have the group that do not trust the reallocation without having some explanation from Disney and in the other camp we have the group that is willing to trust Disney without any evidence.

I used to belong to the trust Disney without evidence camp, but no longer do.

I get the requirement for the weekend/weekday change, that was creating holes in availability that were hard to fill which increased breakage.

What I could have easily accepted in this reallocation was an increase in studios matched with a decrease in 1 bedrooms and then an adjustment in seasons to increase points required in the Fall and Xmas, with a matching decrease at other times in the year. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of members could of accepted a change like that.

What Disney did instead sure seems like it benefits them the most by generating lots of additional breakage.
I think there is another. Those that understand what they own and can see and understand the company side of this. I think we all agree there are some unanswered components.
 


And again - it's all about those 1-bedroom increases in conjunction with creating lock-off premium points. If they had raised studios while keeping lockout premium the same then I could totally agree with the argument even though it personally hurts my own usage.

Had they done that, I likely would have been able to talk DW into an add-on at VGF so that we could move up to 1BR instead of studios. 125 to 247 doesn't make a lot of sense...but 132 to 240 would make a lot more sense to me.
 
I think we have two different camps here. In one camp we have the group that do not trust the reallocation without having some explanation from Disney and in the other camp we have the group that is willing to trust Disney without any evidence.

I used to belong to the trust Disney without evidence camp, but no longer do.

I get the requirement for the weekend/weekday change, that was creating holes in availability that were hard to fill which increased breakage.

What I could have easily accepted in this reallocation was an increase in studios matched with a decrease in 1 bedrooms and then an adjustment in seasons to increase points required in the Fall and Xmas, with a matching decrease at other times in the year. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of members could of accepted a change like that.

What Disney did instead sure seems like it benefits them the most by generating lots of additional breakage.

I'm with you. I used to trust that Disney would do the right thing. All of these recent changes are making me think otherwise.

I saw this happen with my Golf membership. The original owner hadn't increased member dues for something like 10 years. After I joined, they started increasing guest fees, then food & merchandise, tournament fees went up 60% in two years! Not a big deal, since those were all secondary benefits to the actual golf...but then the owner sold the club to another group and they fired most of the staff, the greens went to ****, and then they jacked up the monthly fees every single year. I went from paying $300 a month to close to $500 a month in 5 years. Even though my initiation fee was non-refundable, I walked away because it just wasn't worth it.

I really hope DVC does not follow suit.
 
Last edited:
I think that is a good way of looking at it.

Also, I think, if someone was really planning to hold Disney's feet to the fire, one should look at what booking looks like at 60 days (or whenever breakage happens). If most owners are like me, I only know how tough stuff is at 11 months and 7 months, but for reallocation justification, Disney would be looking at 60 days. In other words, 1 bedrooms might be super easy to get at 6 months, 5 months, 4 months, but actually fill up by 2 months or 1 month (I don't know the real numbers, this is just a hypothetical). In that case, Disney might have a justification for raising 1 bedrooms.
I don't necessarily agree with that logic, but it is defensible as rational.

In other words, if DVC divides rooms/seasons into buckets, one labeled "Rooms that wind up in Breakage" and "Rooms that do not wind up in Breakage," they can justify lowering the points on the former and raising the points on the latter. It could be that 1 bedrooms linger for months, but do end up getting booked on points eventually and have low breakage rates.

I actually feel better about all this.

this chart does a pretty good job of showing what you're asking for...at least for studios and 1BRs.

https://www.disboards.com/threads/p...rooms-june-2018-update.3689931/#post-59393366
 


I think there is another. Those that understand what they own and can see and understand the company side of this. I think we all agree there are some unanswered components.

Well, the optimist feels that DVDs goal (I think I have that right.) is to manage the resorts for us in a manner so that fees offset expenses. Disney profits from the sale of new properties (and ROFR at old properties), not from the existing properties.

The pessimist believes that if Disney thinks they can get away with making money from the management of the property by taking advantage of loopholes in the POS that they will. "Business is business" after all.
I think that is a good way of looking at it.

Also, I think, if someone was really planning to hold Disney's feet to the fire, one should look at what booking looks like at 60 days (or whenever breakage happens). If most owners are like me, I only know how tough stuff is at 11 months and 7 months, but for reallocation justification, Disney would be looking at 60 days. In other words, 1 bedrooms might be super easy to get at 6 months, 5 months, 4 months, but actually fill up by 2 months or 1 month (I don't know the real numbers, this is just a hypothetical). In that case, Disney might have a justification for raising 1 bedrooms.
I don't necessarily agree with that logic, but it is defensible as rational.

In other words, if DVC divides rooms/seasons into buckets, one labeled "Rooms that wind up in Breakage" and "Rooms that do not wind up in Breakage," they can justify lowering the points on the former and raising the points on the latter. It could be that 1 bedrooms linger for months, but do end up getting booked on points eventually and have low breakage rates.

I actually feel better about all this.

The increase to breakage will only REALLY show up at one resort - and that's SSR (maybe some at OKW). Since we don't know how many rooms are actually available - the charts really don't tell us if instead of having 40 rooms to rent they now have 50 rooms to rent cash.
 
Well, the optimist feels that DVDs goal (I think I have that right.) is to manage the resorts for us in a manner so that fees offset expenses. Disney profits from the sale of new properties (and ROFR at old properties), not from the existing properties.

The pessimist believes that if Disney thinks they can get away with making money from the management of the property by taking advantage of loopholes in the POS that they will. "Business is business" after all.


The increase to breakage will only REALLY show up at one resort - and that's SSR (maybe some at OKW). Since we don't know how many rooms are actually available - the charts really don't tell us if instead of having 40 rooms to rent they now have 50 rooms to rent cash.
The realist says that DVD/DVCMC has control, if we're not OK giving up a certain level of control, we shouldn't play in the sandbox. One has to separate out sales and the management. In my view Disney has too much on the line to go into something specifically and illegally trying to profit by being shady. IMO it is what it says it is, their interpretation of their mandate and their best try at fixing it. The impact on a minority, no matter the specifics is not their problem. We've all agreed that the demand for studios was off and the reality is that a studio and 1 BR are a matched set in most situations and at most resorts. The exception at WDW would be Poly and the changes there are clear and appropriate. I think we can all agree that studios were the most in demand followed by the larger units with 1 BR bringing up the rear. Raising studios and lowering 1 BR proportionately does not fix the 2 BR option and might even make it worse. Personally, if I get to the level of distrust that some here are, I'm voting with my feet or I'm going up the ladder to legal action (not nansy pansy class action either), no in between unless I get answers that satisfy me. I don't know why anyone would want to continue to own otherwise. Just complaining or trying to convince this group does nothing.
 
The realist says that DVD/DVCMC has control, if we're not OK giving up a certain level of control, we shouldn't play in the sandbox. One has to separate out sales and the management. In my view Disney has too much on the line to go into something specifically and illegally trying to profit by being shady. IMO it is what it says it is, their interpretation of their mandate and their best try at fixing it. The impact on a minority, no matter the specifics is not their problem. We've all agreed that the demand for studios was off and the reality is that a studio and 1 BR are a matched set in most situations and at most resorts. The exception at WDW would be Poly and the changes there are clear and appropriate. I think we can all agree that studios were the most in demand followed by the larger units with 1 BR bringing up the rear. Raising studios and lowering 1 BR proportionately does not fix the 2 BR option and might even make it worse. Personally, if I get to the level of distrust that some here are, I'm voting with my feet or I'm going up the ladder to legal action (not nansy pansy class action either), no in between unless I get answers that satisfy me. I don't know why anyone would want to continue to own otherwise. Just complaining or trying to convince this group does nothing.

That is what we agree on studios had issues, 1BR's brought up the rear. So what then needed fixing on the 2BR's if it fell in between? To even out then studios should be made less appealing, 1BR's more appealing and leave 2BR's in the middle hoping the other 2 will meet up with it.
 
this chart does a pretty good job of showing what you're asking for...at least for studios and 1BRs.

https://www.disboards.com/threads/p...rooms-june-2018-update.3689931/#post-59393366
Oh yeah. I had forgotten about those charts. At the time they were posted I only really looked at the patterns at 7 months. I forgot the charts went all the way to 1 month.
It looks like most everything books up. Not sure what it all means, but I can see an angle where what DVC is doing is rational; at least to the extent where 1 bedrooms don't necessarily need to have lower point costs and what CaronMN said. I also see angles where they are being money grubbing leeches (lock off premium).
 
The realist says that DVD/DVCMC has control, if we're not OK giving up a certain level of control, we shouldn't play in the sandbox. One has to separate out sales and the management. In my view Disney has too much on the line to go into something specifically and illegally trying to profit by being shady. IMO it is what it says it is, their interpretation of their mandate and their best try at fixing it. The impact on a minority, no matter the specifics is not their problem. We've all agreed that the demand for studios was off and the reality is that a studio and 1 BR are a matched set in most situations and at most resorts. The exception at WDW would be Poly and the changes there are clear and appropriate. I think we can all agree that studios were the most in demand followed by the larger units with 1 BR bringing up the rear. Raising studios and lowering 1 BR proportionately does not fix the 2 BR option and might even make it worse. Personally, if I get to the level of distrust that some here are, I'm voting with my feet or I'm going up the ladder to legal action (not nansy pansy class action either), no in between unless I get answers that satisfy me. I don't know why anyone would want to continue to own otherwise. Just complaining or trying to convince this group does nothing.

Just cause I may think I am right, doesn't mean I think I can win against Disney. There isn't any point in fighting hopeless battles, especially if they can end up costing you more than you can afford to lose.

So rather than taking Disney on directly, a different approach is to try and generate as much bad publicity as possible, thereby causing them to have lower sales. How many current owners have now decided to not purchase at the Riviera now because of all the discussions going on here. And while there will be new buyers to make up for that drop in sales to current members, those new members are going to be pretty pissed when they try and sell their contracts and find out how little they are worth compare to current resale prices.

On a personal level, I still enjoy going to Disney. The change in point charts isn't going to change my trips as I have more than enough points to absorb the increases. My points are all grandfathered in so will be good everywhere. My daughter wants my points, so I have no plans to sell and I am financially well off that there is nothing I can imagine that would ever require me to sell my points. I also regularly rent out points, not eenough to trigger the 20 rental limit and there are going to be less and less people able to book anywhere as people buy resale in the future, so less rental competition.
 
Just cause I may think I am right, doesn't mean I think I can win against Disney. There isn't any point in fighting hopeless battles, especially if they can end up costing you more than you can afford to lose.

So rather than taking Disney on directly, a different approach is to try and generate as much bad publicity as possible, thereby causing them to have lower sales. How many current owners have now decided to not purchase at the Riviera now because of all the discussions going on here. And while there will be new buyers to make up for that drop in sales to current members, those new members are going to be pretty pissed when they try and sell their contracts and find out how little they are worth compare to current resale prices.

On a personal level, I still enjoy going to Disney. The change in point charts isn't going to change my trips as I have more than enough points to absorb the increases. My points are all grandfathered in so will be good everywhere. My daughter wants my points, so I have no plans to sell and I am financially well off that there is nothing I can imagine that would ever require me to sell my points. I also regularly rent out points, not eenough to trigger the 20 rental limit and there are going to be less and less people able to book anywhere as people buy resale in the future, so less rental competition.

I have pretty much the same feelings as you. I'm almost more disappointed in this move more than anything. I know they are a publicly traded company and need to maximize profits, but Disney usually goes the extra mile in customer service in so many aspects, that this whole situation just feels icky. I'd expect this from a normal timeshare company -- but not Disney. And certainly not 26 years into DVC.
 
The realist says that DVD/DVCMC has control, if we're not OK giving up a certain level of control, we shouldn't play in the sandbox.

And the realist in me feels the same way - we can't fight this and win. And I'm not going to sell my existing points. But as I said, I've cut back my plan to buy more points. At least for now. Impossible to see what the future holds, but for almost 5 years I've wanted more points (and did buy a 2nd contract) but now I don't. And I don't now "hate" Disney or DVC, just disappointed I guess. Isn't that what angry parents say to their kids? "I'm not mad, just disappointed."

Oh well, they don't much care what I or any existing owner thinks. Clearly.
 
And the realist in me feels the same way - we can't fight this and win. And I'm not going to sell my existing points. But as I said, I've cut back my plan to buy more points. At least for now. Impossible to see what the future holds, but for almost 5 years I've wanted more points (and did buy a 2nd contract) but now I don't. And I don't now "hate" Disney or DVC, just disappointed I guess. Isn't that what angry parents say to their kids? "I'm not mad, just disappointed."

Oh well, they don't much care what I or any existing owner thinks. Clearly.

haha -- I said the same thing. "Disney -- I'm disappointed in you!"

In all seriousness though -- I went from preaching the DVC gospel to anyone that would listen to now being a little turned off. I'm no longer willing to recommend it to anyone at this point in time until I here someone in management explain what the hell they were thinking.
 
haha -- I said the same thing. "Disney -- I'm disappointed in you!"

In all seriousness though -- I went from preaching the DVC gospel to anyone that would listen to now being a little turned off. I'm no longer willing to recommend it to anyone at this point in time until I here someone in management explain what the hell they were thinking.

Yep, we posted at the Same time!

Disney relies on the ignorance of its members. The few that realize what they did may be disappointed, the rest might discover points went up, but likely won't even question why.
 
Yep, we posted at the Same time!

Disney relies on the ignorance of its members. The few that realize what they did may be disappointed, the rest might discover points went up, but likely won't even question why.
had other people not posted the % change for studios and 1BRs across the whole season, I likely wouldn't have questioned it. I would have just said -- well, they finally increased the cheap season and must have made summer cheaper. oh well!!!
 
Yep, we posted at the Same time!

Disney relies on the ignorance of its members. The few that realize what they did may be disappointed, the rest might discover points went up, but likely won't even question why.

At VGF alone, they effectively freed up 80,000 points and added them to their own pockets. (albeit -- these points will effectively only go towards cash sales at less desired resorts and room types such as SSR and OKW). And that is just at VGF -- the amount of points effectively added at SSR is probably 10x.

And just in time for Star Wars land. When they rent DVC out for cash, they usually charge $30 or more per point, so the 80,000 points from VGF will give them $2.4 million.

I didn't know Scrooge McDuck took over DVC.
 
Well -- one thing is for sure -- after all this ****, I certainly don't feel bad about telling Disney my youngest was 2 on this last trip (even though she was just over 3 years). Saved $550 on tickets and $30 on a character breakfast.

Hahahahahaha, nice work!
 

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!






Top