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

WebmasterDoc said:

Why are you now willing to accept the same information you were challenging less than 7 hours ago in this same thread?

Click to expand...

You misread what I wrote 7 hours ago.

My point was: how do we argue against data DVCMC is using to make their point when they won’t show us that data? What options do we have in that conversation? That’s not unlike the conversation we are having. You’ve accepted it on good faith that DVCMC is acting in our interest. We don’t have access to that data, so what can we possibly rely on to counter that? You’ve dismissed outright any value in what we presently observe and have historically observed on 1BR availability as it doesn’t stand up against the phantom data that we can only assume, but can’t actually prove, exists.

I would like to think that like most who take issue with the reallocation, if presented with evidence that would prove that 1BRs are HUGELY in demand over 2BRs, warranting the reallocation, we’d accept that. Absent that, I don’t trust blindly that DVCMC will serve our best interest, especially when the membership buying power has been broadly reduced by way of the lockoff premiums going up he way they did.

Johnny D said:

Not talking about protest at the parks or interrupting anyones vacation. I’m talking about at the sales center. Let’s let prospective buyers of Dvc know that they are not being exactly honest in their sales practices and sell you a product Kind of with a slight of hand. Everyone has a right to protest and have their voice heard. It’s the American way. Disney is a public company just like any other public company. People protest companies and their actions all the time. What makes Disney so untouchable?

Click to expand...

The sales center is still private property, AND is located at an operating resort that has both DVC and cash guests and their families, so nope, it would not only be inappropriate, you would be removed and likely permanently banned from WDW property. Disney, and no other company, has any obligation to provide you with a protest venue. It is NOT public property, it is private property and in most states, property owners have the right to control what goes on. Remember neither DVC nor DVC Members OWN the actual property the resorts are built upon, it is a right to use lease from The Walt DIsney World Resort.

WebmasterDoc said:

Then why not use the anecdotal examples garnered over the past 7 years to support the premise/complaint? No one has provided examples from past years to support the complaint regarding demand that has led to the 2020 reallocation.

When Studios are removed from lock-off 2BR villas, the remaining accommodation is the 1BR villa. I have no data to rely on and will NOT accept the anecdotal information being thrown around here as proof of anything. The anecdotal references do not show how these reservations have been made - using banked points from a prior Use Year, using borrowed points from a future Use Year, using points returned to DVC from non-DVC reservations, which they need to reserve for cash reservations, using DVC-owned points (although I suspect that is a relatively small number since many DVC owned points need to be used for rehab, renovation, etc.), using DVC owned points from foreclosure/ROFR, using DVC points used for World Passport exchanges with RCI.

We do not have ANY of that information available to use to make any supposition about actual demand.

IMO, reallocation is a complex decision based on information not readily available based on information suggested by 12 and 6 night reservation requests made using the online booking system.

Click to expand...

You won't accept what you call anecdotal information as proof of anything, yet you are willing to give Disney a complete free pass? Is that what you are saying, cause that is what it sounds like to me?

Bing Showei said:

You misread what I wrote 7 hours ago.

My point was: how do we argue against data DVCMC is using to make their point when they won’t show us that data? What options do we have in that conversation? That’s not unlike the conversation we are having. You’ve accepted it on good faith that DVCMC is acting in our interest. We don’t have access to that data, so what can we possibly rely on to counter that? You’ve dismissed outright any value in what we presently observe and have historically observed on 1BR availability as it doesn’t stand up against the phantom data that we can only assume, but can’t actually prove, exists.

I would like to think that like most who take issue with the reallocation, if presented with evidence that would prove that 1BRs are HUGELY in demand over 2BRs, warranting the reallocation, we’d accept that. Absent that, I don’t trust blindly that DVCMC will serve our best interest, especially when the membership buying power has been broadly reduced by way of the lockoff premiums going up he way they did.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't even need evidence of being hugely in demand over 2 beds. Even if it was remotely close I would say: "ok, I can see where they come from." The problem is we realize the evidence we have (from the RAT) is flawed, but it also strongly contradicts their stance. Again, if it was close I'd hardly argue the change. I don't argue at all raising studios, even though I only stay in studios.

The assumption some are making is that DVC has a lot of sophisticated tracking devices and methods, and has gathered and analyzed a lot more data to base its conclusions on than we have. Apparently, some have gotten religion, and DVC IT, which after twenty years still cannot get the DVC website to work properly, and still seems to be operating in the dark ages of computer skills, is somehow presumed to be super-competent when it comes to tracking and analyzing reservation information, and I guess it is presumed to be even more super-competent when DVC will not even tell us what the data is and the basis for the conclusions that are currently being made.

Obviously I cannot compete with such presumed super-competence, But I do know what I have seen while personally tracking DVC reservations for years and 1BRs have generally, with one exception, been in less demand than dedicated 2BRs where dedicateds exist (i.e., dedicated 2BRs fill first at the resorts before 1BRs) -- the exception is VFG where 1BRs became the required choice because members could not even get studios at certain times at 11 months out.. Dedicated 2BRs at BCV and BLT standard view often even fill before studios.

When dealing with resorts that have only lock-off 2BRs, demand becomes a tricky issue. For example, at BWV all the 2BRs disappear long before 1BRs in each booking category due partly to studio demand. Possibly, fewer 2BRs are ultimately reserved than 1BRs but that has nothing to do with any lack of demand for 2BRs but instead the high demand for studios. At SSR all three categories of rooms are typically open at 7 months out much of the year, and 1BRs still typically last the longest.

Highest demand is for studios and in the last nine years the demand for studios has increased.But one needs to consider why studio demand is the highest. One factor is that it is supposed to be -- any room that costs less than others is generally going to have more seeking to reserve it. But a more important factor is DVD. In the last nine years, it has raised DVC per point prices about 100%. In that same period it opened VGF and Poly, which took the needed points per night to a very high level. It added ridiculously expensive bungalows and cabins (e.g., when the bungalows went on sale it would have cost you $250,000 to buy enough points for a week; cabins comparable). DVD knew darn well that most buyers were not going to be able to buy to get those units, but those units gave it a lot more points to sell. And to sell points, DVD lowered, in 2009, the required number of points needed (160) by new purchasers to 100 and at times 50 and has continued that process ever since, because most buyers could not afford much more than that once DVD jacked up the dollar and nightly per point costs. In essence, for nine years, DVD knew it was overselling studios, knew that it was creating a situation where studio demand would increase, and did nothing to stop itself, except to wait until until now after it had sold all those resorts and all those studios, and made its huge profit. Now it turns round and says to all those purchasers, too bad, we are now going to raise the points you need year round. Moreover, from what I can tell now, with its series of changes in the Product Understanding document, the 2020 point change is likely something DVC decided to set the groundwork for starting at least five years ago.

I am one of those supposed "fools" who believes there is a potential case for holding that DVC cannot raise points for one size of room and set that off with a decrease in another. Even under DVC's belief, it should not be able to do what it has done because off-setting decreases in 2BRs are not coming in "another use day or days," when the studio and 1BR increases are for the entire year.

WebmasterDoc said:

So you have hand-picked dates for two resorts in August and September for stays of 12 nights and 6 nights and that should be proof of anything? The dates for one are just within 7 months and the other is more than 7 months.

This doesn't seem to prove your premise.

Be sure to use to use this as an example of something when you contact DVCMC and for two resorts you have also hand-picked. What is this supposed to prove regarding reallocation for the last few years?

The data likely used for the 2020 reallocation came from 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 2017, and maybe even 2018.

Anecdotal observations for two resorts in the latter half of 2019 proves nothing to sway a decision made since the last reallocation - if anything. Perhaps, these examples may serve to modify future reallocations.

Click to expand...

You are entitled to an opinion, but:

1) The way they explained the availability measure to Zirvadan would suggest they are using quite a basic way of measuring availibility.
2) Anyone who checks availibility regularly, will tell you that it is so patently obvious 2 beds are gone well before 1 beds, that it would appear to have to be a huge data skew caused by 1 bed lockoff taking 2 beds away to get what we see. Skier Pete is not cherry picking, it is the general regular pattern.
3) DVCMC at the moment have completely failed to disclose this data so we can analyse it.
4) Some of their comments as reported by Zirvadan, such as 1 beds fly off the shelves, appear patently wrong. I look at 1 bed availability at 7 months all the time, I can basically stay anywhere no problem. Skier Pete’s charts show more or less the same thing. These rooms are not flying off the shelves. If that is wrong, what else is wrong?
5) The only way to produce points out of thin air and more breakage, get people to buy new points and basically improve the bottom line is to exploit the lockoff premium at member’s expense. I am not saying they are doing that, but this is a fact: It is the only way. With that in mind, with the execs running DVD running DVCMC I would have thought they’d be eager to produce the data to demonstrate no conflict of interest arises- every such situation should have checks and balances, and openness. Not because I’m suggesting they have done anything wrong, but where the potential is there for conflict in any organisation, decisions need to be justified openly.
6) Based on the analysis I have seen of resorts with large amounts of lock offs, it seems points have gone up overall.

At the moment all I can do is scratch my head and wonder why this has been done. I am currently not happy at all based on what I observe: that last to go one beds have had their points put even higher. I always had a one bed, now I’m considering a studio. If this doesn’t cause one beds to go even slower, I will be really surprised. I’ve repeatedly said I’ll give judgment when and if the data is ever released. I cannot see why it would be any issue whatsoever for the management company we employ to manage our points to show the data which justifies them putting one beds up in price.

WebmasterDoc said:

Then why not use the anecdotal examples garnered over the past 7 years to support the premise/complaint? No one has provided examples from past years to support the complaint regarding demand that has led to the 2020 reallocation.

When Studios are removed from lock-off 2BR villas, the remaining accommodation is the 1BR villa. I have no data to rely on and will NOT accept the anecdotal information being thrown around here as proof of anything. The anecdotal references do not show how these reservations have been made - using banked points from a prior Use Year, using borrowed points from a future Use Year, using points returned to DVC from non-DVC reservations, which they need to reserve for cash reservations, using DVC-owned points (although I suspect that is a relatively small number since many DVC owned points need to be used for rehab, renovation, etc.), using DVC owned points from foreclosure/ROFR, using DVC points used for World Passport exchanges with RCI.

We do not have ANY of that information available to use to make any supposition about actual demand.

IMO, reallocation is a complex decision based on information not readily available based on information suggested by 12 and 6 night reservation requests made using the online booking system.

Click to expand...

Except we are not conspiracy theorists who have been gathering data with the thought we would need it for a counter argument to DVC's claim that 1 bedrooms are in "much higher demand than 2BR's". skier_pete and Drusba have been collecting information for quite some time and sharing it with board members to assist in their booking plans. Then there are many of us have just perused availability since it became possible 7 years ago. That we haven't been making meticulous records doesn't mean our observations are not valid. Many have spoken of the anecdotal evidence that has been gathered of the past 7 years since online booking allowed a view at availability. Ever since I joined DVC it's been well reported - essentially a given - that 1BR's are the last to book. It's even been recommended purchase strategy to buy the lowest cost resort if you plan to only book 1BR's - because they are so easy to book and have high availability at 7 months. Until we hit the newest resorts with the large point creep and DVC's decisions to start membership minimums at 50 points every thing seen in booking indicated that and on my part the observations were about confirming that rather than documenting it for future evidence.

I think it is a bit less complex determining where the demand is and more complex in how to balance it. But reallocation based on demand is what they are tasked with. If the result of that task seems contrary to the requirement of it then it isn't surprising there are questions. And DVC is not beyond reproach and thus undeserving of the questions - they have done reallocation without any history in the past (BLT), they have had some cooked books relating to MF's in the past (Aulani).

And you know what. I would kind of love it for DVCMC to produce data showing that what they are doing makes sense. This would then allow me to say to my wife, who is very unhappy about this as she didn’t really see the need to buy into DVC in the first place; “Look there is nothing off about this, they are looking out for our best interests”.

It would also partly restore my lost faith in the product and management.

And stop me feeling like I may have been a bit of a mug.

So I would genuinely love it if they provided enough evidence for Webmaster Doc to come on and say ‘See I told you so’ and we all have to accept what is being done is for the overall membership good. That would take my current anxiety about DVC away. At the moment I am sat here thinking- ‘Am I going to need even more points in 2021? Is there now an appetite to manufacture points?’ and I don’t know the answers.

I’m just thankful people are putting the time in to raise with DVC, and do the Whats Wrong website etc so hopefully I can have my anxiety taken away. Maybe dramatic, but this is how I feel.

Johnny D said:

Bad look for DISNEY! Pretty un-American to shut down a protest. I like many knew there would be changes. Everything is a matter of the degree. The examples they gave me twice were moving points in the same type of accommodation to different seasons. Not taking one-bedroom and studios and jacking up the points but lowering two bedrooms. Families of three and four don’t need two bedrooms. This is at the least misleading sales practices. Their sales pitch to me and many others was misleading and the contract seems to be ambiguous for the average purchaser. Everyone is not an attorney. They are the experts and took advantage of people just like the predatory lenders. Lastly, the whole marketing sales pitch had to do with a locking in your price of future vacations. Well if I bought enough points for one week in a studio and they raised the point total for studios, my price isn’t exactly locked in.

Click to expand...

You knew or should have known things could change and likely that they would change. It doesn't affect that if the change was not the exact one expected or predicted.

freediverdude said:

I think this is something that we will have to start warning new purchasers about, maybe put it somewhere in the purchasing section. We need to be telling purchasers that if they are buying to have a certain number of days every year in a certain type of unit, that Disney can and will change the required points per night over all seasons for that unit, changing their reserving power of their points for that type. And that possibly there may not be any real limit on this over a number of years time.

This can and should be a deal breaker for a good number of buyers, and Disney of course is not going to readily disclose this.

Click to expand...

Many of us have warned potential buyers for years that changes could happen and likely would happen. Back in the range of 2001 and above I was warning people that there would likely be a reallocation. Many argued that the OKW change in the mid 90's was so contentious that it'd never happen. It took longer than I thought and likely longer than it should have, but now you know about the big change in 2010/11. There were changes there as well that people didn't agree with and we had essentially the same thread then as now. There's no reason for them to spell out every variations on the change. As part of buying you sign off on this issue for retail and resale buyers should be more informed in general than retail buyers.

Bing Showei said:

You dismiss any observations made and disparage it as “anecdotal” given the lack of hard data. You then presuppose that DVCMC must clearly have evidence and data that supports these changes; data that they refuse to share to support a reallocation that they chose not to release prior to a condo meeting just two weeks earlier. In so doing, you’re pitting what members see today and have observed for years against the very data inside a DVCMC imposed firewall that you’ve already accepted to have been acted on in good faith. Essentially, DVCMC is beyond reproach, absent evidence that proves otherwise, but the only evidence you will accept would be hard data which, again, only DVCMC has. That’s an impossible position to reason with.

Click to expand...

The only way they'll show you the data, if they will at all, is to make an appt and go in person to meet with corporate or possibly through a lawyer. I've done that on other matters and I know they have significant data. The idea that they did this without real and signifiant data is unreasonable. Now we may not agree with it or understand it but that's another matter.

Madame said:

Well if DVCMC would be more forthcoming & show members the data, we could all rest easy... but they won’t... Why act like you’ve something to hide, unless you’ve something to hide? It’s not as if booking patterns are going to reveal DVC secrets to the competition (they really have none since they own all the real estate)

Click to expand...

As I've stated, I believe they would be far better off if they were more forthcoming on such matters. I'd disagree though on the idea there is no risk to them sharing the information. Occupancy data would give their competition information they could use to better compete. Regardless I know for a fact they consider the occupancy proprietary and won't share just to share. However, I tend to think they'd have to share at least some of it if one goes in person and questions the reallocation because I believe they'd have to share how they got there but it might take legal action to get that info.

DougEMG said:

You won't accept what you call anecdotal information as proof of anything, yet you are willing to give Disney a complete free pass? Is that what you are saying, cause that is what it sounds like to me?

Click to expand...

I can't speak for Rob but I can for myself and that's not my point at all. I'm willing to know they have information because I know they've had information in the past and they track this type of data in great detail. That's how they figure out discounts, free dining, prices, etc.

Dean said:

I can't speak for Rob but I can for myself and that's not my point at all. I'm willing to know they have information because I know they've had information in the past and they track this type of data in great detail. That's how they figure out discounts, free dining, prices, etc.

Click to expand...

For CRO? Absolutely. For DVC other than to apparently reserve AKV value & concierge before the 11 month window when they seemingly have insider knowledge that something big is coming down (ie SWGE)? I don’t believe they could be bothered unless it’s to benefit them in some way.

Perhaps you’re correct and we should be challenging them on having member representation on the board level.

DougEMG said:

You won't accept what you call anecdotal information as proof of anything, yet you are willing to give Disney a complete free pass? Is that what you are saying, cause that is what it sounds like to me?

Click to expand...

Are any of those have meticulously tracking DVC demand/availability able to provide numbers on how many reservations have become unavailable due to banked points being used, borrowed points being used, World Passport exchanges being used, points used for ADB/DCL/CC? Those aspects do affect availability remaining for direct DVC point reservations either online or by phone.

DVC does have access to that information, regardless our opinion regarding the quality of their IT department.

I can imagine the uproar should DVC announce tomorrow that banking and borrowing are no longer allowed. At some point, as we approach 2042, that will occur at least for those owning the resorts expiring on January 31, 2042 since there will be no way current Use Year points will find availability if banking/borrowing are allowed for ANY reservations in 2041, let alone January, 2042.

Johnny D said:

Not talking about protest at the parks or interrupting anyones vacation. I’m talking about at the sales center.

Click to expand...

What "sales center" are you referring to? The one at SSR? If so, you will be quickly invited to leave WDW property and, most likely, asked not to return.

I see a lot of back and forth in these 48 pages which is a good thing. However, I don't see a lot of support for the initial premise except for a few people. Not sure how a dozen members intend to organize and finance a legal action if it does have merit.

drusba said:

The assumption some are making is that DVC has a lot of sophisticated tracking devices and methods, and has gathered and analyzed a lot more data to base its conclusions on than we have. Apparently, some have gotten religion, and DVC IT, which after twenty years still cannot get the DVC website to work properly, and still seems to be operating in the dark ages of computer skills, is somehow presumed to be super-competent when it comes to tracking and analyzing reservation information, and I guess it is presumed to be even more super-competent when DVC will not even tell us what the data is and the basis for the conclusions that are currently being made.

Click to expand...

@drusba - this statement kind of caused a revelation with me. While I realize it is somewhat sarcastic, it may well be wrong for us to assume that Disney is looking at this with MORE sophisticated tools than what we (the members) have at our disposal. My assumption has always been that they look at each resort and respond in kind.

In a thread heavy with posts I want to note:
THIS MAKES A CASE THAT DISNEY IS BEING ABOVE BOARD IN WHAT THEY ARE DOING.

So one of the things I've noticed - and mentioned here - is while working on the availability tools is that while the 2-bedrooms appear to be generally more available than 1-bedrooms at most resort, at SSR I am seeing the 2-bedrooms as being more available, albeit in this case the difference is very small. (Say 1-beds are still well available 2 months in advance while 2-beds are available at 1-month or less.)

But @drusba's comment made me realize something - what if Disney's data analysis is LESS sophisticated than what we as the more observant members of the DVC community are using. What if instead of analyzing every resort - they are only looking at the whole thing - and specifically what's left at the end. They could in fact care less that say at WLV the studios are gone at 9 months advance, 2-beds are gone at 7 months advance, and 1-beds are gone at 4-months advance. All they look at is that the studios, 1-beds, and 2-beds are all occupied at that resort - and therefore are equally "in demand".

So if we piled ALL the data together across the 10 WDW resorts, what we might just see is this - the most unoccupied rooms that are left across an entire year in the entire WDW system are 2-bedrooms. Yes, all of these rooms are at SSR (and maybe occasionally at OKW or AKV) but WHERE they are doesn't matter. So, even though 1-beds as a generally rule book later - to Disney's way of thinking they ARE more occupied, and they are equaling "occupancy" with "demand".

Also, because so many two bedrooms become split into studios and 1-bedrooms by the drive for people to get studios, the total number of studios and 1-bedrooms - again across ALL resorts - may be VERY high. So if they are seeing this - combined with my underlined point above - there is a clear path to the internal logic that "Across all of the resorts - we need to find a way to drive more people to occupy two bedrooms." The logic becomes if we can increase occupancy of 2-bedrooms everywhere, it will drive occupancy of 2-bedrooms at SSR, which benefits the entire system, and in fact increases overall occupancy which reduces breakage.

This also would be what is being used to drive the shift of points to make magic season 1-beds and 2-beds cheaper. Perhaps more of both are sitting unoccupied at that time of year than any other.

Though I think there are some flaws in the logic - I can see where this data would be enough to prove that the moves they made are in "the best interest of the members as a whole". And with that - I think any hope for an actionable case against Disney would fall apart.

skier_pete said:

@drusba - this statement kind of caused a revelation with me. While I realize it is somewhat sarcastic, it may well be wrong for us to assume that Disney is looking at this with MORE sophisticated tools than what we (the members) have at our disposal. My assumption has always been that they look at each resort and respond in kind.

In a thread heavy with posts I want to note:
THIS MAKES A CASE THAT DISNEY IS BEING ABOVE BOARD IN WHAT THEY ARE DOING.

So one of the things I've noticed - and mentioned here - is while working on the availability tools is that while the 2-bedrooms appear to be generally more available than 1-bedrooms at most resort, at SSR I am seeing the 2-bedrooms as being more available, albeit in this case the difference is very small. (Say 1-beds are still well available 2 months in advance while 2-beds are available at 1-month or less.)

But @drusba's comment made me realize something - what if Disney's data analysis is LESS sophisticated than what we as the more observant members of the DVC community are using. What if instead of analyzing every resort - they are only looking at the whole thing - and specifically what's left at the end. They could in fact care less that say at WLV the studios are gone at 9 months advance, 2-beds are gone at 7 months advance, and 1-beds are gone at 4-months advance. All they look at is that the studios, 1-beds, and 2-beds are all occupied at that resort - and therefore are equally "in demand".

So if we piled ALL the data together across the 10 WDW resorts, what we might just see is this - the most unoccupied rooms that are left across an entire year in the entire WDW system are 2-bedrooms. Yes, all of these rooms are at SSR (and maybe occasionally at OKW or AKV) but WHERE they are doesn't matter. So, even though 1-beds as a generally rule book later - to Disney's way of thinking they ARE more occupied, and they are equaling "occupancy" with "demand".

Also, because so many two bedrooms become split into studios and 1-bedrooms by the drive for people to get studios, the total number of studios and 1-bedrooms - again across ALL resorts - may be VERY high. So if they are seeing this - combined with my underlined point above - there is a clear path to the internal logic that "Across all of the resorts - we need to find a way to drive more people to occupy two bedrooms." The logic becomes if we can increase occupancy of 2-bedrooms everywhere, it will drive occupancy of 2-bedrooms at SSR, which benefits the entire system, and in fact increases overall occupancy which reduces breakage.

This also would be what is being used to drive the shift of points to make magic season 1-beds and 2-beds cheaper. Perhaps more of both are sitting unoccupied at that time of year than any other.

Though I think there are some flaws in the logic - I can see where this data would be enough to prove that the moves they made are in "the best interest of the members as a whole". And with that - I think any hope for an actionable case against Disney would fall apart.

Click to expand...

Then I’d argue that they are incompetent. Incompetent or underhanded. Neither is acceptable.

skier_pete said:

@drusba - this statement kind of caused a revelation with me. While I realize it is somewhat sarcastic, it may well be wrong for us to assume that Disney is looking at this with MORE sophisticated tools than what we (the members) have at our disposal. My assumption has always been that they look at each resort and respond in kind.

In a thread heavy with posts I want to note:
THIS MAKES A CASE THAT DISNEY IS BEING ABOVE BOARD IN WHAT THEY ARE DOING.

So one of the things I've noticed - and mentioned here - is while working on the availability tools is that while the 2-bedrooms appear to be generally more available than 1-bedrooms at most resort, at SSR I am seeing the 2-bedrooms as being more available, albeit in this case the difference is very small. (Say 1-beds are still well available 2 months in advance while 2-beds are available at 1-month or less.)

But @drusba's comment made me realize something - what if Disney's data analysis is LESS sophisticated than what we as the more observant members of the DVC community are using. What if instead of analyzing every resort - they are only looking at the whole thing - and specifically what's left at the end. They could in fact care less that say at WLV the studios are gone at 9 months advance, 2-beds are gone at 7 months advance, and 1-beds are gone at 4-months advance. All they look at is that the studios, 1-beds, and 2-beds are all occupied at that resort - and therefore are equally "in demand".

So if we piled ALL the data together across the 10 WDW resorts, what we might just see is this - the most unoccupied rooms that are left across an entire year in the entire WDW system are 2-bedrooms. Yes, all of these rooms are at SSR (and maybe occasionally at OKW or AKV) but WHERE they are doesn't matter. So, even though 1-beds as a generally rule book later - to Disney's way of thinking they ARE more occupied, and they are equaling "occupancy" with "demand".

Also, because so many two bedrooms become split into studios and 1-bedrooms by the drive for people to get studios, the total number of studios and 1-bedrooms - again across ALL resorts - may be VERY high. So if they are seeing this - combined with my underlined point above - there is a clear path to the internal logic that "Across all of the resorts - we need to find a way to drive more people to occupy two bedrooms." The logic becomes if we can increase occupancy of 2-bedrooms everywhere, it will drive occupancy of 2-bedrooms at SSR, which benefits the entire system, and in fact increases overall occupancy which reduces breakage.

This also would be what is being used to drive the shift of points to make magic season 1-beds and 2-beds cheaper. Perhaps more of both are sitting unoccupied at that time of year than any other.

Though I think there are some flaws in the logic - I can see where this data would be enough to prove that the moves they made are in "the best interest of the members as a whole". And with that - I think any hope for an actionable case against Disney would fall apart.

Click to expand...

Isn’t the point reallocation language supposed to limit point reallocation only within a specific resort?

skier_pete said:

what if Disney's data analysis is [B][U]LESS[/U][/B] sophisticated than what we as the more observant members of the DVC community are using. What if instead of analyzing every resort - they are only looking at the whole thing - and specifically what's left at the end.

Click to expand...

If this is the DVCMC train of thought, it’s even more likely in violation of the POS. That’s not how reallocation is supposed to be used. When buying into any property, one is taking a real estate interest in that specific property.

Issues that arise out of the exchange, regardless of its impact on other resorts, should be addressed as an exchange issue separately.

drusba said:

The assumption some are making is that DVC has a lot of sophisticated tracking devices and methods, and has gathered and analyzed a lot more data to base its conclusions on than we have. Apparently, some have gotten religion, and DVC IT, which after twenty years still cannot get the DVC website to work properly, and still seems to be operating in the dark ages of computer skills, is somehow presumed to be super-competent when it comes to tracking and analyzing reservation information, and I guess it is presumed to be even more super-competent when DVC will not even tell us what the data is and the basis for the conclusions that are currently being made.

Click to expand...

Two entirely different things. Integrating a variety of 30 year old computer systems and getting them to "talk" to one another and a web front end is certainly a challenge.

Here we're talking about analyzing data. Anyone with an advanced statistics degree could pull a dump of raw reservation data, load it into SQL and analyze it up one side and down the other.

The problem with any "analysis" pulled from the DVC website is that only two states can be determined: 1+ rooms available and 0 rooms available. Underneath that data lies the true patterns which dictate how rooms are being booked. They can tell who is using Home resort points vs non-Home points, how quickly different room types reach specific occupancy milestones (25%, 50%, etc), cancellation rates, how many are rolling to cash reservations, etc.

Hypothetically, it's possible that One Bedroom villas are booked at a faster rate closer to 11 months, perhaps throughout the Home resort priority period. Only later does demand trickle off, with Two Bedroom demand passing 1Bs. How you weigh a factor like that is up to the data analysts and decision makers.

There are countless underlying trends which very likely exist between seasons, room types, room views which are completely undetectable via the website.

I don't own DVC. It was on my wishlist - finances aren't such that I could make that happen yet, but I'd hoped to.

However, after the shenanigans that are going on right now, I've completely changed my mind. The belief that Disney was different than other timeshare companies has evaporated completely. It was quite an eye-opener that the laws in this area do very little to protect the consumer, and that the POS, the rules that govern how things are run, can be changed by (just) one party, apparently at-will. I'd be crazy to enter in a long-term expensive contract under conditions like that.

And that all Disney has to do to avoid breaking the law is say, "We aren't going to actually show you any proof, but trust us, it's in your best interest."

A question for who trades into DVC using RCI: which are the most common rooms to get?