Would you join a lawsuit against DVC to stop/revert the 2020 reallocation?

[4evryoung]

But I will ask an explanation about why they think the reallocation was legal

I think this is a key question for anyone having a phone or face to face conversation. Get them on record with their justification, preferably with reference to the data they are reliant upon, and then there is a stronger basis going forward if a legal challenge is required.

 

[PaintsWithAllTheColors]

You can save the applause, Wakey. I've had two conversations with Yvonne Chang and there was one thing that she made abundantly clear:

Disney did not make a mistake.

More accurately, their position is that the only mistake that they may have made was in their messaging. That is all. If anyone is starting to feel good about the walk-back of the 2020 point charts, they will be back. This time with a more organized messaging of the change; that will be the only difference.

Yvonne made it a point to underscore that out of the quarter of a million member families, fewer than two dozen emailed or called to express any unhappiness with this change.

To me this was the most disheartening. For all the noise people made here, for all the likes and thank you messages, for all the outrage that people expressed on these boards, fewer than twenty four people reached out to Disney. And what did that allow her to do? She weaponized this minuscule .01% number to underscore that a very vocal minority was making all this "noise on the internet" not really representative of the broader membership's concerns and that this is not at all the big issue that the fewer than 24 people who reached out have made it out to be.

She then went on about how the majority of happy people remain silent. And stated that with people asking questions it's clear there was some "confusion" about the change, but because we we are so important as members, and how they want us to know that our feedback matters, they wanted to make sure to communicate more proactively the next time.

Through both exchanges, she used the majority of the time reiterating what a great company Disney is to work for and how she loves how they care so much about the guests and members. She also talked about how, despite what is commonly observed, the data supports that 1BRs are in higher demand than 2BRs and that the attempted reallocation was not wrong in that regard. That this reallocation was within their legal rights and outside of messaging, was executed appropriately and to benefit of the membership.

If the choices DVCMC made around this reallocation did bother you, gave you pause about ownership, made you questions Disney's motivations; if you don't buy the whole 1BRs are grossly more popular than 2BRs, you are concerned about member interests being served, you can't help but feel like the lock-off premium is being leveraged outside the scope of DVCMCs fiduciary obligations, please, please, please, express your concerns to Disney. It can be as simple as an email to member services (Members@DisneyVacationClub.com). But please say something.

Absent that all of us who were so upset, we're just a sum total of .01%. That's an easy number to roll over.

Thanks for sharing this. I will make an effort to call and email to let her know that the few who reached out represent a much larger percentage, myself included. Those of you who made sure this was brought to their attention deserve that support.

As a side note, I don’t believe it was only a few dozen and that they also didn’t nothing wrong. If it was really only .01% they wouldn’t have cared or revised charts.

 

[4evryoung]

If they ultimately decide to make these point chart changes down the road, they need to change their "communication" not just to us but to their potential buyers. I think they need a little time to master the way they are going to address "total points can't change" in their sales pitch

I would hope that they do not just consider how they are going to change their sales pitch script to future members. I would hope they would also provide the data that proved the changes were a benefit to the membership -- ie. meet their obligation to show that the changes were legitimate within the contract made with existing members.

 

[Bing Showei]

I have no doubt that zavandor, crvetter, or someone else who presented their points to Yvonne, triggered Disney to circle back with legal to make sure they dotted their i’s and crossed their t’s. And they are taking this time do exactly that.

Whether or not they presently have the legal right to do what they did, based on the latitude they are granted to modify the POS, it would be just a matter of getting the POSs to align with their intentions, or as crvetter suggested, maybe even just pace it out over two years to moderate the outrage.

Yvonne repeated the message from her email to Ryan which was that they acted within their full legal right and will continue to fulfill the legal mandate that they have to re-allocate according to demand. And they are certain that 1BR are in high demand well over the demand of 2BRs; that their statisticians and vacation planners have the data - that data, of course, cannot be publicly shared.

Do I believe that everything that they did was above the board, legal, and would’ve stood up in court/arbitration? No, I don’t. And I suspect they were concerned it may not either. But I do believe they’re going to make sure it does and we’ll be doing this dance again.

More to my point, do I believe fewer than two dozen people reached out about this? Yeah, I do believe that. Personally I had no real plans to be one of those 24 people. I read about the reallocation and got annoyed, complained in a couple of posts, grumbled in conversations off the boards, but honestly? I could afford the change pretty easily, and was ready to move on. That was my plan. But then I saw the ardent defense of Disney, the repeated dismissal in this thread of the questions Zavandor was raising, how we can’t possibly know what Disney knows, or how all our rights are signed away when we buy in and that we should’ve known better when we signed the contract, and it just felt awful. I am ready to list my contracts and get out. That is the only reason I reached out to Disney to express my concerns.

What was annoying was to have Yvonne undercut my concerns because fewer than 24 people vocalized the issues I was raising.

If fewer than 24 people took the time to call or email, how many will really have the constitution to engage legally in a class action suit against a Disney that will be prepared to defend these changes now that they’ve had the time to put things in order? I (and probably Disney) would wager not a lot.

 

[Mumof4mice]

Yvonne repeated the message from her email to Ryan which was that they acted within their full legal right and will continue to fulfill the legal mandate that they have to re-allocate according to demand. And they are certain that 1BR are in high demand well over the demand of 2BRs; that their statisticians and vacation planners have the data - that data, of course, cannot be publicly shared.

Until Disney back flipped on the point chart reallocation I didn't give the issue much thought. I considered the contracts sunk cost, still do.

What irrefutable evidence could DVCMC be relying on to justify the reallocation? My guess is although 1BRs book up earlier, they can demonstrate that more points from un-rented 2BRs ultimately go to breakage. Although 2BRs book earlier, any change or cancellation would be harder to fill than studios and 1BRs. Big families deploy at the speed of tar, friends sharing a 2BR need to coordinate travel schedules. For our family at least, isolated stray available days are just not useful.

Right now, 1BR and 2BR availability in April (about to enter breakage period) is similar at most resorts, with 2BRs being slightly less available at resorts with lower point charts, and more available at high point chart resorts. 2BRs represent more points - more points could be going to breakage from 2BRs?

Of course having data that DVCMC can massage to suit their agenda is separate to the validity of the proposed solution. A better remedy could be building more studios and less of the other room types in future resorts. Oh, wait, future resorts are segregated from the current pool of resorts...

 

[Matty B13]

The one thing that any decision that DVC Management will always run up against is..... they are suppose to be managing DVC Resort in the best interest of the ownership, which is us, not in the best interest of DVC. Even if DVC owns more than the 2% that they have to own, and probably own up to 10% at some resorts, that leaves 90% of the resorts owned by us. I think a judge or arbitrator would always come back to this one principle no matter what the POS says, DVC was setup for the enjoyment of the membership/owners, DVD already made their profits off the original sales of the contracts, and trying to game the POS for even more profit would look pretty slimy to any judge.

Wells Fargo tried to pass off what they did as "improving their costumer experience", and probably many people clicked on a box on a website after a ton of small print to allow them to do this, but they were found out and charged and fined for fraud, which it completely was.

 

[TheMick424]

I have no doubt that zavandor, crvetter, or someone else who presented their points to Yvonne, triggered Disney to circle back with legal to make sure they dotted their i’s and crossed their t’s. And they are taking this time do exactly that.

Whether or not they presently have the legal right to do what they did, based on the latitude they are granted to modify the POS, it would be just a matter of getting the POSs to align with their intentions, or as crvetter suggested, maybe even just pace it out over two years to moderate the outrage.

Yvonne repeated the message from her email to Ryan which was that they acted within their full legal right and will continue to fulfill the legal mandate that they have to re-allocate according to demand. And they are certain that 1BR are in high demand well over the demand of 2BRs; that their statisticians and vacation planners have the data - that data, of course, cannot be publicly shared.

Do I believe that everything that they did was above the board, legal, and would’ve stood up in court/arbitration? No, I don’t. And I suspect they were concerned it may not either. But I do believe they’re going to make sure it does and we’ll be doing this dance again.

More to my point, do I believe fewer than two dozen people reached out about this? Yeah, I do believe that. Personally I had no real plans to be one of those 24 people. I read about the reallocation and got annoyed, complained in a couple of posts, grumbled in conversations off the boards, but honestly? I could afford the change pretty easily, and was ready to move on. That was my plan. But then I saw the ardent defense of Disney, the repeated dismissal in this thread of the questions Zavandor was raising, how we can’t possibly know what Disney knows, or how all our rights are signed away when we buy in and that we should’ve known better when we signed the contract, and it just felt awful. I am ready to list my contracts and get out. That is the only reason I reached out to Disney to express my concerns.

What was annoying was to have Yvonne undercut my concerns because fewer than 24 people vocalized the issues I was raising.

If fewer than 24 people took the time to call or email, how many will really have the constitution to engage legally in a class action suit against a Disney that will be prepared to defend these changes now that they’ve had the time to put things in order? I (and probably Disney) would wager not a lot.

I am really curious about their data that shows 1BR are in higher demand than 2BR. What are they seeing that we are not, and vice-versa? Seems like a fundamental piece of the analysis and if the membership is pointing out an alternative view or observation, they should be obligated to look into it. I really hope they are going back and pulling more data to either support or disprove their position.

 

[zavandor]

The one thing that any decision that DVC Management will always run up against is..... they are suppose to be managing DVC Resort in the best interest of the ownership, which is us, not in the best interest of DVC. Even if DVC owns more than the 2% that they have to own, and probably own up to 10% at some resorts, that leaves 90% of the resorts owned by us. I think a judge or arbitrator would always come back to this one principle no matter what the POS says, DVC was setup for the enjoyment of the membership/owners, DVD already made their profits off the original sales of the contracts, and trying to game the POS for even more profit would look pretty slimy to any judge.

When I spoke with Yvonne and told her that the product understandment checklist has been modified removing all references to being allowed to reallocate points only within the same vacation home without a change in the POS and this being possibly misleading she said: "We have changed the POS to make it clearer due to members feedback of it being too long".
The odd thing is that she used the word "We". DVD is responsible for that document, while DVCMC should be a separate entity. Does she work for DVCMC or DVD? For both?

Her personal employment position a part, I think that if we will ever be forced to go to court, having DVD and DVCMC coordinating sales docs and POS changes could be seen as questionable by a judge. This is another reason why they might not be able to change the POS at will, to allow the changes that are currently forbidden.
Also, Drusba some time ago srote a post saying a fiduciary company cannot change the official document in order to make a mistake they did to be legal.
So while they might try to find with their lawers a way to make the changes legal, they might have less leeway than we think to do so.

 

[glamdring269]

She gave the corporate spin as there is no other safe way to spin it. It would be a lot more damaging to say "we screwed up, you caught us, /noogie".

 

[CarolMN]

Until Disney back flipped on the point chart reallocation I didn't give the issue much thought. I considered the contracts sunk cost, still do.

What irrefutable evidence could DVCMC be relying on to justify the reallocation? My guess is although 1BRs book up earlier, they can demonstrate that more points from un-rented 2BRs ultimately go to breakage. Although 2BRs book earlier, any change or cancellation would be harder to fill than studios and 1BRs. Big families deploy at the speed of tar, friends sharing a 2BR need to coordinate travel schedules. For our family at least, isolated stray available days are just not useful.
, with a scattering of the largest villas
Right now, 1BR and 2BR availability in April (about to enter breakage period) is similar at most resorts, with 2BRs being slightly less available at resorts with lower point charts, and more available at high point chart resorts. 2BRs represent more points - more points could be going to breakage from 2BRs?

Of course having data that DVCMC can massage to suit their agenda is separate to the validity of the proposed solution. A better remedy could be building more studios and less of the other room types in future resorts. Oh, wait, future resorts are segregated from the current pool of resorts...

I've been keeping an eye on the 60 day availability and it's true that there is rarely a studio or 1 bedroom on that list for any time of the year. It's mostly 2 bedrooms at SSR.

So what you suggest for their rationale does make some sense to me, especially since 2 Bedrooms must be more difficult to rent to the general public when they do go to breakage. My guess is that most of the public would choose a studio or 1 bedroom over a 2 bedroom, just like most of us do. Maybe Disney has to heavily discount the 2 bedrooms that go to breakage to get any revenue from them at all. Since the Members are already getting the max possible from breakage, the discounting means Disney takes the "hit". Interesting.

 

[Airb330]

Disney was never going to admit fault obviously, but if the 24 number is true, I highly doubt they'd reverse course on it. Most people didn't even look at the 2020 charts until a few days before they went into effect--then I did see people on social media ask the question, "what's up with 2020."

I want to believe Disney but I just cannot with the 1 bedroom data. Perhaps they are only looking at the 60 day window and not the 11 month window? As many here said, they'll like have better corporate spin for 2021 and maybe spread 'the pain' over 2 years. While this doesn't help me personally, I do think October-December being more points with the summer being less points could spread demand better. All seasons, all studios & 1 bedrooms going up just seemed like a large shock to the whole system based on how we on the disboards understand it. Since I own at VGF, this was where it just didn't make sense to me: people walk the heck out of October and December but those times were still less points than say April or August in a less demand time (in 2019 anyways) and yet the points went up there too.

If they're going to do an intensive reallocation then IMO an adjustment to the seasons really needs to be done too. June was much busier in 2010 than it is in 2019 for example.

 

[The Jackal]

And ticket prices and annual passes too.

I've been keeping an eye on the 60 day availability and it's true that there is rarely a studio or 1 bedroom on that list for any time of the year. It's mostly 2 bedrooms at SSR.

So what you suggest for their rationale does make some sense to me, especially since 2 Bedrooms must be more difficult to rent to the general public when they do go to breakage. My guess is that most of the public would choose a studio or 1 bedroom over a 2 bedroom, just like most of us do. Maybe Disney has to heavily discount the 2 bedrooms that go to breakage to get any revenue from them at all. Since the Members are already getting the max possible from breakage, the discounting means Disney takes the "hit". Interesting.

DVC created the high demand for studios and 1 bedrooms by selling small point contracts, but continuing to make properties with lots of 2 bedroom units. They should be designing more properties with mostly studios, and 1 bedrooms with a handful of dedicated 2 bedroom and 3 bedroom villas. No cabins or bungalows. DVC has had some 27 years for figure out the ideal ratio. They should have years and years of data on which rooms book fastest. They should be building resorts based on that data. How often are their bungalows and cabins on the 60 day availability list. I don’t check often but I haven’t seen a cabin and see bungalows once in a while. While attending the DVC tour our guide said Disney has lots of people to pay cash for those bungalows. What do they do with all that cash?

If there were no resort rooms open at 60 days, how could people use points that in holding?

 

[skier_pete]

I think I talked about this on a more detailed basis earlier in the thread - but I feel like WDWs data they are using is exactly what people are showing, the 60-day breakage of rooms - mostly at SSR, and possibily higher in content for 2-bedrooms.

The problem I have with this argument is if they are correcting the point usage across EVERY WDW resort based on the breakage that occurs at ONE resort - SSR.

I also have a problem with their solution even if this is the argument. The solution of raising studios and 1-bedrooms (via lock-off premium) will NOT reduce breakage...it will INCREASE breakage. Most members that book studios/1-bedrooms are not going to suddenly book 2-bedrooms because they raise them a point or two a night. If I have a 160 point contract, and I normally book 8 nights in a studio, and now I can only book 7 nights in a studio - I'm not suddenly going to go "Oh 2-bedrooms are a better value - I'm going to book 3 nights in a 2-bedroom instead of my 7 nights in a studio" It may drive a few people to 2-bedrooms (VERY few) but overall it will create more phantom points due to the lock-off premiums, and therefore more breakage.

 

[bobbiwoz]

I think this is a key question for anyone having a phone or face to face conversation. Get them on record with their justification, preferably with reference to the data they are reliant upon, and then there is a stronger basis going forward if a legal challenge is required.

We were told that two bedrooms were sitting empty with studios and 1 bedrooms being used.

 

[bobbiwoz]

The one thing that any decision that DVC Management will always run up against is..... they are suppose to be managing DVC Resort in the best interest of the ownership, ....

Yvonne may have referred to Membership, but this was emphasized many times in our conversation.

 

[Madame]

We were told that two bedrooms were sitting empty with studios and 1 bedrooms being used.

At every resort? Or just SSR?

 

[The Jackal]

We were told that two bedrooms were sitting empty with studios and 1 bedrooms being used.

There seems to be a few at SSR open at 60 days. But how can people use points in holding if there are no rooms available at 60 days? There seems to be more at Aulani that are open. According to people who are long time DVC members from the original DVC resort, they could always make a reservation a month or two before going. If they don’t want rooms open at 60 days they are going to have to change banking rules and holding rules. Oh no they won’t do that. They want your points to expire and not be used. More rooms for them to rent for the 50 th anniversary.

 

[zavandor]

Data at SSR are not indicative of overall usage. All people who have an RCI membership have said in the last few years the only rooms that DVC deposits into RCI are 1BR at SSR.
This means two things:
- If really 1BR are in higher demand, then why DVC deposits them instead of a lower demand room?
- If DVC didn't deposit all those 1BR, would really more 2BR be unbooked?

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

You can save the applause, Wakey. I've had two conversations with Yvonne Chang and there was one thing that she made abundantly clear:

Disney did not make a mistake.

More accurately, their position is that the only mistake that they may have made was in their messaging. That is all. If anyone is starting to feel good about the walk-back of the 2020 point charts, they will be back. This time with a more organized messaging of the change; that will be the only difference.

Yvonne made it a point to underscore that out of the quarter of a million member families, fewer than two dozen emailed or called to express any unhappiness with this change.

To me this was the most disheartening. For all the noise people made here, for all the likes and thank you messages, for all the outrage that people expressed on these boards, fewer than twenty four people reached out to Disney. And what did that allow her to do? She weaponized this minuscule .01% number to underscore that a very vocal minority was making all this "noise on the internet" not really representative of the broader membership's concerns and that this is not at all the big issue that the fewer than 24 people who reached out have made it out to be.

She then went on about how the majority of happy people remain silent. And stated that with people asking questions it's clear there was some "confusion" about the change, but because we we are so important as members, and how they want us to know that our feedback matters, they wanted to make sure to communicate more proactively the next time.

Through both exchanges, she used the majority of the time reiterating what a great company Disney is to work for and how she loves how they care so much about the guests and members. She also talked about how, despite what is commonly observed, the data supports that 1BRs are in higher demand than 2BRs and that the attempted reallocation was not wrong in that regard. That this reallocation was within their legal rights and outside of messaging, was executed appropriately and to benefit of the membership.

If the choices DVCMC made around this reallocation did bother you, gave you pause about ownership, made you questions Disney's motivations; if you don't buy the whole 1BRs are grossly more popular than 2BRs, you are concerned about member interests being served, you can't help but feel like the lock-off premium is being leveraged outside the scope of DVCMCs fiduciary obligations, please, please, please, express your concerns to Disney. It can be as simple as an email to member services (Members@DisneyVacationClub.com). But please say something.

Absent that all of us who were so upset, we're just a sum total of .01%. That's an easy number to roll over.

Yvonne - I know you have to say that stuff, but bull cookies.

For me, at this point, I'd have to see that analysis of 1BR's and how they are determining that to every be convinced that what they are stating is true. They also don't seem to use these "proprietary" numbers to do very well on the new builds and I don't really think there's much "proprietary" about room counts and bookings for Disney/DVC anyway. It doesn't match up to what I've seen at most resorts for years and it does for a couple but they can't just apply those couple that trend that way across the board. It's still terribly annoying because they created the issues with studios and even 1BR's at the newest resorts - lowering minimums, creating Bungalows and Cabins that those low minimum buyers can and never will book and also the point creep that makes studios pretty much the only option for all those low minimum point purchasers.

Regarding the reallocation though - my biggest issue was the increase to the lock-off premium. It benefited DVC not the membership. I do tend to believe their intention to start, many of the old documents and their sales efforts indicated reallocations within villa sizes but if they feel they have the right to ignore that historical and go full bore into changing the allocations across villa types then at least keep it the same overall point totals. Just adding points to studios and 1BR's to hopefully make them easier to book? That will never fall within all the parameters of how DVC was sold.

The couple of dozen emails? hmmmm - maybe emails to certain people? What about calls with feedback to member services? Or calls to member satisfaction? Or calls to guides about what was being done? I also do not believe they would reverse based on feedback from less than 2 dozen people out of the entire membership. Plus - many members don't pay attention to things like that until they go to book. There may 7/8ths of the membership that still hadn't even become aware of the changes.

 

[cmwade77]

I doubt Disney will make the same mistake twice, it is clearly laid out in the contracts that if it take 2,500 points to book a standard view studio at SSR for a year, then it must always take 2,500 to book a standard view studio at SSR for a year. (these numbers and resort are an example only, but it illustrates the point).

This means that for ALL existing contracts (at least all that I know of), they cannot say that the studio will now take 3,000 points and a 2 bedroom 500 points less. Now, they COULD put clauses in new contracts to allow for doing that, but that would ultimately mean at least two sets of point charts, one for old contracts and one for new contracts.

They can also reassign seasons, meaning it might take 300 points more in value season, but then 300 points less in moderate season and even adjust the dates of these seasons, but again the point totals have to remain the same for the entire year and they know it, which is why we saw revised point charts so quickly.