Riviera resale restrictions lifting: possible

[sky2823]

This is only a brainstorm and I know I will get torn a part for this suggestion. There would also be legal hurdles but I think DVC should create some sort of tiered system like Marriott Vacation Club.

This isn’t ideal for DVC members, but Disney continuing to attempt to increase their piece of the pie in an unpredictable fashion is far from ideal as well . This just makes more sense as a long-term strategy for them.

Also, I’m just spitballing the tiers and months.

Home resort gets you 11 to 9 months exclusive access to your resort booking

More than 500 direct points owned (across all of DVC) gets you platinum status booking non-home resort at 9 to 7 months

Between 250 to 499 direct points owned gets you gold status booking non-home resorts at 7 to 5 months

Between 0 to 249 direct points owned gets you silver status booking non-home resorts at 5 to 3 months

0 direct points owned gets you bronze status booking non-home resorts 3 to 0 months

You can upgrade your status annually for a monetary fee as well as have full DVC membership for an annual fee

 

[sethschroeder]

make buying direct more appealing and in a way they have finally succeeded.

How is buying direct more appealing now than 12 months ago? It just makes buying resale less appealing. Being more appealing would mean they added something.

Also, I’m just spitballing the tiers and months.

I think this very likely would kill lots of peoples interest. I know I wouldn't even consider it if that was the structure.

 

[Sandisw]

If that were the case then Disney wouldn't need to do anything. Why do any funky rules if a vast majority of potential buyers don't even know about your competitors.



I just see Reflections as much more likely a bust than a great success. That's part of the issue I think on the other side where for the next 20 years at this point there is nothing exciting for new DVC likely but you have tons of options.

I mean the new DL DVC? Won't be able to transfer in to that anyways likely.

Disney should just put out an offer to pay like $100/point or something to make points direct. They can stop ROFR, some resorts will go cheaper, people can justify the extra price to have them direct, and Disney makes money without holding inventory.

Disney doesn't lose buyers to resale. Someone will always buy resale regardless of restrictions.

Why did they do it? IMO, to add it as a selling point so that when a new buyer comes in, they can mention that when buying direct, this is what you get, even for the buyer walking in who has no idea about resale. But, for those buyers who may have the idea walking in, they now have an product that is different..and in their eyes, better and worth the extra money.

I think you are underestimating the draw of Reflections for those that like that area and just gives them another option to be near MK. Obviously, it’s not on a monorail, but it will be a boat ride away from MK , which some will find a big plus.

I believe Disney will sell it with the same restrictions as RIV for resale, and then be able to market that the only way you can stay at both RIV and Reflections plus all the other DVC resorts is to buy direct,

I bought 10 years ago at BLT for $92/point. I would have never predicted them being able to sell at $188, but they are. I put nothing past Disney for being very good at what they do and being able to market their product to a vast majority of buyers. I can’t tell you how many people ask me about DVC all the time who had no idea about resale.

 

[lovin'fl]

This is only a brainstorm and I know I will get torn a part for this suggestion. There would also be legal hurdles but I think DVC should create some sort of tiered system like Marriott Vacation Club.

This isn’t ideal for DVC members, but Disney continuing to attempt to increase their piece of the pie in an unpredictable fashion is far from ideal as well . This just makes more sense as a long-term strategy for them.

Also, I’m just spitballing the tiers and months.

Home resort gets you 11 to 9 months exclusive access to your resort booking

More than 500 direct points owned (across all of DVC) gets you platinum status booking non-home resort at 9 to 7 months

Between 250 to 499 direct points owned gets you gold status booking non-home resorts at 7 to 5 months

Between 0 to 249 direct points owned gets you silver status booking non-home resorts at 5 to 3 months

0 direct points owned gets you bronze status booking non-home resorts 3 to 0 months

You can upgrade your status annually for a monetary fee as well as have full DVC membership for an annual fee

Nope! Not what we bought into. Don't like it.

 

[Sandisw]

This is only a brainstorm and I know I will get torn a part for this suggestion. There would also be legal hurdles but I think DVC should create some sort of tiered system like Marriott Vacation Club.

This isn’t ideal for DVC members, but Disney continuing to attempt to increase their piece of the pie in an unpredictable fashion is far from ideal as well . This just makes more sense as a long-term strategy for them.

Also, I’m just spitballing the tiers and months.

Home resort gets you 11 to 9 months exclusive access to your resort booking

More than 500 direct points owned (across all of DVC) gets you platinum status booking non-home resort at 9 to 7 months

Between 250 to 499 direct points owned gets you gold status booking non-home resorts at 7 to 5 months

Between 0 to 249 direct points owned gets you silver status booking non-home resorts at 5 to 3 months

0 direct points owned gets you bronze status booking non-home resorts 3 to 0 months

You can upgrade your status annually for a monetary fee as well as have full DVC membership for an annual fee

I think this type of structure would diminish the product but more importantly, I would venture to guess thst Disney already knows that

Right now, with the restrictions in place, they have put in tiers to the extent, And, I would say that the average DVC buyer, even buying direct, is under 250. If one knows that trading out of home resort will be limited to 3 to 5 months, those owners will book home resort early to guarantee a room.

With that many owners not being able to shift at 7 months, those with lots of points even if given priority at other resorts, will have a difficult time finding rooms to trade into.

Years age, there was rumor of premium benefits for those that owned more direct vs resale points. But in the end, they went with restrictions.

Plus, a tiered system That you mention that gives high point owners an advantage over lower point owners would not be a good selling point for your average family on vacation who is being wooed into DVC saving money, If one needs to own so many to be able to stay elsewhere, it’s not going to make any financial sense....even the current perceived savings that Disney touts.

 

[Bing Showei]

How is buying direct more appealing now than 12 months ago? It just makes buying resale less appealing. Being more appealing would mean they added something.

Let's say I sell you a cookie for a $1.00. You like the cookie. Great, keep buying my cookie.

Guy next door sells the same exact cookie for $0.50. You're fine to buy that cookie. But if you do, contractually, now you have to come back here so I can kick you in the crotch.

Which cookie looks more appealing to you now? I'm still selling the same exact cookie.

 

[Bearval]

Let's say I sell you a cookie for a $1.00. You like the cookie. Great, keep buying my cookie.

Guy next door sells the same exact cookie for $0.50. You're fine to buy that cookie. But if you do, contractually, now you have to come back here so I can kick you in the crotch.

Which cookie looks more appealing to you now? I'm still selling the same exact cookie.

But with RIV and other resorts going forward the " cookie" is no longer the same.

 

[DaveNan]

But if you do, contractually, now you have to come back here so I can kick you in the crotch.

Makes me think of Rochambeau on South Park.

 

[sethschroeder]

Let's say I sell you a cookie for a $1.00. You like the cookie. Great, keep buying my cookie.

Guy next door sells the same exact cookie for $0.50. You're fine to buy that cookie. But if you do, contractually, now you have to come back here so I can kick you in the crotch.

Which cookie looks more appealing to you now? I'm still selling the same exact cookie.

I never purchased your cookie to start with. I wasn't sold on even buying the cookie for $1 so the $0.50 cookie requirement doesn't matter to me.

All it did was make the $0.50 cookie less attractive (unless I am smart enough to have steel underpants on) when I am deciding to possibly purchase a cookie.

I will take it even further what if there wasn't even a $0.50 option? There is only a $1 cookie option? Does that make the $1 more attractive?

 

[Sandisw]

But with RIV and other resorts going forward the " cookie" is no longer the same.

It is if you buy direct because you get all the same booking abilities as everyone else,

The only difference is the resale restriction but that doesn’t changes
the product in terms of use..

So, buying the cookie from Disney gets you the choice of flavors, all they offer, The one bought resale only offers a few,

Whether that matters to someone all depends on ones desires, wants, and needs,

 

[Jenniebee]

Q: If you buy Rivera resale, can you still trade into RCI? I am wondering if Rivera is literally the only place you can stay with this or is there any other option at all.

 

[Sandisw]

Q: If you buy Rivera resale, can you still trade into RCI? I am wondering if Rivera is literally the only place you can stay with this or is there any other option at all.

AFAIK, RCI remains an option. It is only restricted to Rivera as a DVC resort

 

[Bing Showei]

But with RIV and other resorts going forward the " cookie" is no longer the same.

Contractually, it is absolutely the same. Buying into Disney's timeshare, you are buying to stay at your home resort with a one-month booking advantage over others who do not own there. Disney guarantees absolutely nothing else outside of this.

Do they sell the Magic? You bet. Do they sell the fallacy of being able to stay anywhere with your points. Sure. But read the POS. It's a legal minefield. The only thing you bought was the right to try to stay at where you bought one month before anyone else. That's all. Full stop. Contractually, the cookie hasn't changed.

If anyone thinks losing BVTC privileges is the worst Disney can do to a resale contract, they aren't reading what they bought into. As an owner, you just have to weigh what the likelihood is of all the other things in the POS happening, but they are there.

I never purchased your cookie to start with. I wasn't sold on even buying the cookie for $1 so the $0.50 cookie requirement doesn't matter to me.

All it did was make the $0.50 cookie less attractive (unless I am smart enough to have steel underpants on) when I am deciding to possibly purchase a cookie.

I will take it even further what if there wasn't even a $0.50 option? There is only a $1 cookie option? Does that make the $1 more attractive?

Why is there a thriving resale market? It's because resale is a better value proposition than buying direct. If you took away the resale option, Direct would absolutely be more attractive if it's the only show in town. The choice becomes buy direct or don't buy at all.

Everyone who owns is saying, "I'm willing to commit to going to WDW over and over again for the next 21+ years because I am that crazy about the place." Will we crazies suddenly dislike Disney? Will we suddenly be ok paying rack rates regularly?

I agree that if resale did not exist, a lot of us here would never have bought in, but A LOT more people would, and have in the absence of a resale market by virtue of not knowing it even existed. I think as existing owners we overestimate how much Disney really cares about our value to their timeshare endeavors beyond our willingness to buy again.

No one likes getting kicked in the crotch. Some may be willing to just pay a little more to not have to deal with it. Others will just say it's not worth it and forego the experience entirely. But the line going out my door of people willing to pay $1 because a) they don't know about the guy next door, or b) they'd rather not get kicked in the crotch just in case they MAY want to have kids in the future tells me that my business model is just fine. The guy next door can shutter his doors for all I care.

 

[sethschroeder]

Direct would absolutely be more attractive if it's the only show in town.

How attractive something may be is tied to that specific item, its value, and its price. After rating each option then you determine which one is the most attractive out of all options to possibly move forward with. Having one option become less attractive or non-existent does not impact the other except at the end when you decide which is the overall most attractive option and then if you should purchase or not.

This is the same discussion people were trying to have about Value and Price. They are separate things.

In math it would be: (2-1)<2 not 2<(2+1)

The reason is you are removing not adding to the equation.

Everyone who owns is saying, "I'm willing to commit to going to WDW over and over again for the next 21+ years because I am that crazy about the place." Will we crazies suddenly dislike Disney? Will we suddenly be ok paying rack rates regularly?

Except again this is why you need to take each option independently. While you might not actively think about it you are actually ranking all the possible options in their attractiveness/value to you. Direct DVC, Resale DVC, Rental DVC, Deluxe, Moderate, Value, Offsite Hotel, Other Timeshare, Airbnb

Direct DVC may be the most attractive out of all the options but if we look at Airbnb and possibly new fees they will have on listings it does not make Direct DVC more attractive it just makes Airbnb even less attractive.

A LOT more people would

Except they wouldn't have as there is a predefined maximum number of points. No more people can buy in than there are contracts/points available. That is why these restrictions make no sense other than to try to tank the resale price to where Disney can buy them back through ROFR even cheaper to then flip for $$$$$.

 

[Sandisw]

How attractive something may be is tied to that specific item, its value, and its price. After rating each option then you determine which one is the most attractive out of all options to possibly move forward with. Having one option become less attractive or non-existent does not impact the other except at the end when you decide which is the overall most attractive option and then if you should purchase or not.

This is the same discussion people were trying to have about Value and Price. They are separate things.

In math it would be: (2-1)<2 not 2<(2+1)

The reason is you are removing not adding to the equation.



Except again this is why you need to take each option independently. While you might not actively think about it you are actually ranking all the possible options in their attractiveness/value to you. Direct DVC, Resale DVC, Rental DVC, Deluxe, Moderate, Value, Offsite Hotel, Other Timeshare, Airbnb

Direct DVC may be the most attractive out of all the options but if we look at Airbnb and possibly new fees they will have on listings it does not make Direct DVC more attractive it just makes Airbnb even less attractive.



Except they wouldn't have as there is a predefined maximum number of points. No more people can buy in than there are contracts/points available. That is why these restrictions make no sense other than to try to tank the resale price to where Disney can buy them back through ROFR even cheaper to then flip for $$$$$.

Couldn‘t it be more of the glass is half full or half empty, depending which one you use as the base, So, if one starts with what resale has to offer and compares that to DVC, the DVC may be more attractive because it offers more than resale.

However, if you start with what DVC has to offer at the base, and compare it to resale, you could then say resale is less attractive.

Well, that’s how I view it.

Resale restrictions make sense to Disney because it changes the product, plan and simple. Someone buying direct gets more for the product and can use points in a way resale buyers can not.

It absolutely costs more, no doubt about it and whether what one gets for that extra money is worth it or not is up to the individual purchasing. What is better for one is not for someone else.

Of course, it doesn’t change that no matter how you buy, you are only guaranteed your home resort. However, the likelihood of that for WDW resorts anytime soon, IMO, is low,

 

[sethschroeder]

Couldn‘t it be more of the glass is half full or half empty, depending which one you use as the base, So, if one starts with what resale has to offer and compares that to DVC, the DVC may be more attractive because it offers more than resale.

The ability to rent at Resort 15, 16, and more is a positive benefit. I am not arguing that.

Removing the benefit is a negative for resale. Not removing that benefit to direct is no change. Why would not changing something make a product better?

We decided to not remove the AP Discount is the announcement at the December meeting. Does that make the product more attractive? To me it's the same product it was yesterday.

However, if you start with what DVC has to offer at the base, and compare it to resale, you could then say resale is less attractive.

Again having the extra benefits makes Direct more attractive. Nothing has changed though to make Direct more attractive than itself a year ago. The change was they made resale worse so that in comparison Direct would have a wider gap. Again equate it to math it's 2-1 <2 where resale had something removed and direct stayed the same.

Basically I have run across this in my professional life and is very typical with sales programs with recurring revenue. You add zero additional aspects to your product (thus not increasing costs) but make the other alternative you sell worse pushing people to the newer product you want them on.

 

[Sandisw]

The ability to rent at Resort 15, 16, and more is a positive benefit. I am not arguing that.

Removing the benefit is a negative for resale. Not removing that benefit to direct is no change. Why would not changing something make a product better?

We decided to not remove the AP Discount is the announcement at the December meeting. Does that make the product more attractive? To me it's the same product it was yesterday.



Again having the extra benefits makes Direct more attractive. Nothing has changed though to make Direct more attractive than itself a year ago. The change was they made resale worse so that in comparison Direct would have a wider gap. Again equate it to math it's 2-1 <2 where resale had something removed and direct stayed the same.

Basically I have run across this in my professional life and is very typical with sales programs with recurring revenue. You add zero additional aspects to your product (thus not increasing costs) but make the other alternative you sell worse pushing people to the newer product you want them on.

I can see your point, but I would probably still say It’s just two ways of looking at the same information and qualifying it differently. One is not right with the other wrong,

Simply because the perks are the same for direct and the ones for resale are not, the current direct product will be seen by some as more attractive than it was last year in comparison to the current resale product.

At least is that is the way I see it. YMMV

 

[Bing Showei]

A LOT more people would

Except they wouldn't have as there is a predefined maximum number of points. No more people can buy in than there are contracts/points available.

You selectively chose five of my words to counter a point I wasn’t making. The full context of what I did say was that while a lot of us here may not buy if Disney devalues the product by way of resale restrictions, a lot more people would buy in anyway. Historically, ownership has proven this to be true.

I'm no defender of the restrictions, but do feel this makes absolute sense to Disney. It doesn't matter that CCV sold out so quickly, that every resort not called Aulani has sold out in short order, or that there is no shortage of direct buyers year after year. What matters is that there were buyers who bought the majority of their points resale and just enough points to get blue-card perks, whether that was 25, 75, or 100. Whatever the direct number was, the balance of their points bought via resale is what Disney wants a piece of. Resale owners bought points that already had someone committed to paying the bills for 40-50 years. There is no new revenue for Disney in the resale market.

No question this screws over the entire ownership, but as a business, Disney's decision makes absolute sense. And if direct sales numbers are any indication, it was obviously the right decision.

How attractive something may be is tied to that specific item, its value, and its price. After rating each option then you determine which one is the most attractive out of all options to possibly move forward with. Having one option become less attractive or non-existent does not impact the other except at the end when you decide which is the overall most attractive option and then if you should purchase or not.

If everything existed in vacuum, this would be true. But in the real world, how attractive something is, is not dependent only upon to its own intrinsic qualities, but how those qualities measure to the options surrounding it. In High School you were a rock star athlete. In College, you rode the pine. Same athlete, same qualities. Coach just had more options at his disposal.

For too long, resale was materially the exact same as direct, so Disney's direct product was less attractive. This is reflected in every owner reading these boards who bought the majority of their points resale.

A year ago, blue card withholdings notwithstanding, direct being a less attractive proposition was still true. But with the new restrictions, those Riviera resale points really aren't as sexy as those direct ones anymore. It's the whole addition by subtraction concept.

At the end of the day your equations "(2-1)<2 vs 2<(2+1)" distills down to the same exact thing however you choose to come at it:

"resale < direct"

And that's all that matters. Direct doesn't have to be more attractive compared to its old self. It just has to be more attractive relative to the other options available. It just has to be materially better than resale. With Riviera, it absolutely is.

That's not something Disney could effectively argue before. But that is exactly the product they are selling today. It may take 21 years, but resale in the L14 will be eventually be crippled to same degree as the new Disney timeshare resale product is.

I agree that having only one option is not an attractive situation. But it doesn't stop the only option from becoming more attractive than it did prior to the restrictions.

 

[sethschroeder]

At the end of the day your equations "(2-1)<2 vs 2<(2+1)" distills down to the same exact thing however you choose to come at it:

"resale < direct"

Correct I never said Direct didn't have more benefits. I am saying direct did not get MORE benefits in the last year. The direct value did not increase they simply nerfed the benefits of resale to make it seem like direct got better. Its a practice I see play out in my professional career as well and is fairly successful at times.

I'm no defender of the restrictions, but do feel this makes absolute sense to Disney.

There is a maximum number of points so it makes no sense unless as I stated its to kill the resale value to where they can ROFR more easily. It doesnt matter if its you that bought direct, me that bought direct, or fred that bought direct. In the end the resort being sold out means they sold every point anyways. Just like Riviera is likely to sell out right about the time that Reflections comes online.

Even if Disney could sell out Riviera by January 2020 what would happen? They would have sold everything and not have anything left to do except to start selling Reflections earlier. Unless they can start flipping ROFR for the roughly $80-$100 per point that they seem to be around. Which restrictions are unlikely to impact the resale too much until we get much closer to 2042 or they build resorts that are sought after and bookable (ie a AKV size resort on the other side of GF where the new bridge is going).

 

[Bing Showei]

Correct I never said Direct didn't have more benefits. I am saying direct did not get MORE benefits in the last year. The direct value did not increase they simply nerfed the benefits of resale to make it seem like direct is better.

Not arguing otherwise, but no one ever said direct value increased. There was never a discussion about value. Your question was: would having no other option make the direct option more attractive. My answer is still yes.

There is a maximum number of points so it makes no sense unless as I stated its to kill the resale value to where they can ROFR more easily. It doesnt matter if its you that bought direct, me that bought direct, or fred that bought direct. In the end the resort being sold out means they sold every point anyways. Just like Riviera is likely to sell out right about the time that Reflections comes online.

They're not trying to kill resale value. They're trying to sell direct. They just don't care if resale goes down the toilet in the process. There is a difference.

It would actually be great for Disney if Riviera resale prices were $180/point. If resale was a materially inferior product (as it is with the resale restriction on new resorts), but cost was close to direct, Disney would be ecstatic. They will win over a buyer every time and more likely than not, that new owner will finance.

If Disney sold out Riviera by January 2020, it would matter most because it would mean 99% of Riviera owners bought through Disney. It also means odds are better than not that they financed through Disney. And if they default (which a lot of owners do when making a major purchase on a whim while on vacation), Disney just repackages and sells them new again. The longer it takes a resort to sell out, the more resale product lands on the market and the more market share Disney potentially loses. Look at Aulani.

The $/pt lost to resale is pittance compared to the money Disney loses to a resale buyer financing a big contract via Monera, LightStream, and VacationClub Loans, vs. buying that same size contract direct (and likely financing that way).

At the end of the day. People are still buying direct in droves. The restrictions don't matter as much as some of us would like to believe they do here. Hell, all it took was some filings for a new DLR timeshare and suddenly people don't care anymore about ownership devaluation, corporate greed, etc. No one is speculating about restrictions hurting sales there. All they are speculating about is how many months it would take to sell out 350 new rooms.

And Disney has another data point that the restrictions are absolutely the right move for the shareholders.