CCV now $210/Point Direct

[skier_pete]

My only hope is that since reflections is partially a cash redort that they make the cabins there so that they are half DVC and half cash. I think had they built say 8-10 of them at the Poly and CCV it would have bothered me less.

I do think that there's probably enough interest in them across the entire membership to keep them reasonably occcupied. The problem is really the CCV ownership that has to sustain them. Reflections could see an even bigger problem long term if those are all DVC cabins, as the resale restrictions will make the resale their extremely unappealing to people wanting studios, unless they put in a higher ratio of studios.

In truth, i don't understand why they don't put in more studios. Yes, it's more occupation at the resort per square foot, which increases expenses, but still it's more occupancy at Disney, more people buying tickets, more people buying merch.Again, not suggesting the Poly route and do all studios, but what about 30% in studios?

 

[katandmouse]

Personally I would be sad if DVC were to build more studios per resort. We love Poly but buying there was a complete nonstarter for us because it only has studios (and bungalows). I get that I’m in the minority especially these days, but we bought for 1 and 2 brs.

What I would like to see is to make the points more affordable - and especially lower point charts for 1 brs to get more families able to stay in those. I think that would help a lot.

At least it looks like Riviera is more balanced than CCV. I was interested in Reflections before, but now I’m really concerned knowing the # of DVC rooms and what looks like 20 cabins.

 

[Katie L]

In truth, i don't understand why they don't put in more studios. Yes, it's more occupation at the resort per square foot, which increases expenses, but still it's more occupancy at Disney, more people buying tickets, more people buying merch.

Usually when companies as large as Disney operate, each of their entities operate entirely separately. They rarely do a good job looking holistically at the business. So what DVC does and their motivations and goals have little to nothing to do with Parks Operations. (Caveat: all speculation - based on working for a large business lol)

 

[jerseyduke]

Personally I would be sad if DVC were to build more studios per resort. We love Poly but buying there was a complete nonstarter for us because it only has studios (and bungalows). I get that I’m in the minority especially these days, but we bought for 1 and 2 brs.

What I would like to see is to make the points more affordable - and especially lower point charts for 1 brs to get more families able to stay in those. I think that would help a lot.

At least it looks like Riviera is more balanced than CCV. I was interested in Reflections before, but now I’m really concerned knowing the # of DVC rooms and what looks like 20 cabins.

Why would you be sad to see more studios?
They are the often the hardest to get. I get, and totally agree with your poly point of view - a STUDIOS ONLY resort was just not a nice move.

1 bedrooms tend to be very easy to get (because so many lock off 2 bed rooms become studios and orphan 1 bed rooms).

Disney should try to balance the number of rooms per category with demand for them. Ideally, when a resort is down to only 3 rooms left, it would be nice if it were 1 2 bedroom, 1 1 bedroom, and 1 studio.
Right now its usually going to be 3 1 bedrooms, or nowadays, 3 cabins/bungalows.

Of course that is idealistic, and virtually impossible, but it should be the goal.

I would say they need MORE DEDICATED studios. The VGF has no dedicated studios, just 47 2 bedroom lock offs, which I would guess tend to very quickly become 47 studios and 47 1 bedrooms. Same supply of both room types, and very different demands.

Not owning at CCV, I do not have experience with trying to get a studio, but, I am willing to bit, if they never built the cabins, the studio problem would be a heck of a lot less, if not nonexistent.

 

[Madame]

I won't claim the cabins and bungalows are close to being good for the overall membership (despite how much I love staying in them). However, if you look at October through December of this year, there are only 18 days which have ANY availability for a cabin. I realize this is peak season, but that is very high occupancy (~70 days with 100% occupancy).

7 month window is open. All the resorts which are cheaper to buy, whether resale or direct, (ie netting the buyer more overall points) provide those owner with the possibility of staying in these point heavy rooms for an overall cheaper cost. Some bash the "cheaper points" but it's better than them going to breakage.

 

[katandmouse]

Why would you be sad to see more studios?
They are the often the hardest to get. I get, and totally agree with your poly point of view - a STUDIOS ONLY resort was just not a nice move.

1 bedrooms tend to be very easy to get (because so many lock off 2 bed rooms become studios and orphan 1 bed rooms).

Disney should try to balance the number of rooms per category with demand for them. Ideally, when a resort is down to only 3 rooms left, it would be nice if it were 1 2 bedroom, 1 1 bedroom, and 1 studio.
Right now its usually going to be 3 1 bedrooms, or nowadays, 3 cabins/bungalows.

Of course that is idealistic, and virtually impossible, but it should be the goal.

I would say they need MORE DEDICATED studios. The VGF has no dedicated studios, just 47 2 bedroom lock offs, which I would guess tend to very quickly become 47 studios and 47 1 bedrooms. Same supply of both room types, and very different demands.

Not owning at CCV, I do not have experience with trying to get a studio, but, I am willing to bit, if they never built the cabins, the studio problem would be a heck of a lot less, if not nonexistent.

Mostly selfish, for what I want DVC to be. For me the appeal of DVC is a “vacation home” at WDW. With more studios, like at Poly, the message seems to be “DVC is just a discount on deluxe rooms.” But then it can hide the problems - high purchase price, steep point charts, limited availability for studios, etc, and maybe it encourages more people just to buy the best deal they can get - the smallest contract for the cheapest rooms. So I think DVC is then creating this demand for more studios. I totally get and agree with you that DVC needs to balance demand. If the answer is just more studios, great. But I don’t think that alone addresses the other issues. I’d rather see a turn back toward making that “home away from home” more affordable - with more affordable purchase costs, lower point charts for the villas... Of course, that doesn’t profit DVC as much...

I think there’s a disconnect between what DVD builds (like the cabins and bungalows, squeezing more unaffordable points into resorts), DVC marketing (save on deluxe rooms, but don’t look too closely at the numbers), and buyers’/members’ finances.

I guess what I’m saying is that I’m sure Disney knows the demand for each room type, and what most people buy to stay in, but they also control what people buy and stay in to some extent with the price per point and point charts. So while they could and should build to estimated consumer demand, they have a part in determining what that will be. Maybe it’s more that I want the development side to align with the marketing side to align with the membership base. And if it all aligns with my personal wishes, all the better!

 

[ThisIsJason]

Good Lord. $210 a point. Good thing my wife and I bought in last week.

 

[jerseyduke]

Mostly selfish, for what I want DVC to be. For me the appeal of DVC is a “vacation home” at WDW. With more studios, like at Poly, the message seems to be “DVC is just a discount on deluxe rooms.” But then it can hide the problems - high purchase price, steep point charts, limited availability for studios, etc, and maybe it encourages more people just to buy the best deal they can get - the smallest contract for the cheapest rooms. So I think DVC is then creating this demand for more studios. I totally get and agree with you that DVC needs to balance demand. If the answer is just more studios, great. But I don’t think that alone addresses the other issues. I’d rather see a turn back toward making that “home away from home” more affordable - with more affordable purchase costs, lower point charts for the villas... Of course, that doesn’t profit DVC as much...

I think there’s a disconnect between what DVD builds (like the cabins and bungalows, squeezing more unaffordable points into resorts), DVC marketing (save on deluxe rooms, but don’t look too closely at the numbers), and buyers’/members’ finances.

I guess what I’m saying is that I’m sure Disney knows the demand for each room type, and what most people buy to stay in, but they also control what people buy and stay in to some extent with the price per point and point charts. So while they could and should build to estimated consumer demand, they have a part in determining what that will be. Maybe it’s more that I want the development side to align with the marketing side to align with the membership base. And if it all aligns with my personal wishes, all the better!

Interesting. Very different views on life as well as publicly owned company fiduciary responsibility. I think the shareholders might object to Disney doing things that will hurt profits (you don't sell something for less than people are willing to pay)

As to the points being unaffordable - all evidence points to the contrary, they sell 100,000 plus a month.

 

[skier_pete]

Interesting. Very different views on life as well as publicly owned company fiduciary responsibility. I think the shareholders might object to Disney doing things that will hurt profits (you don't sell something for less than people are willing to pay)

As to the points being unaffordable - all evidence points to the contrary, they sell 100,000 plus a month.

I wouldn't suggest they sell a product for less profit. I would suggest the sell a product to members that is what they represent it to be, which they don't. It's like if I went to car dealership and they told me "It's a car, but you can also use it as a boat." and I get home and find out it only works as a boat.

 

[jerseyduke]

I wouldn't suggest they sell a product for less profit. I would suggest the sell a product to members that is what they represent it to be, which they don't. It's like if I went to car dealership and they told me "It's a car, but you can also use it as a boat." and I get home and find out it only works as a boat.

Agreed.
PP suggested roll back prices.

I only hear talk about significant problems with book studios at CCV. (Cabins) To a lesser degree VGF(only up to 47 of them total) Do people experience any kind of significant problems with resorts from BLT and back? Such that is can often be a challenge at 11 months?

If i do go in on reflections with the plan on getting a Studio, it will certainly be a fixed week.

 

[skier_pete]

Agreed.
PP suggested roll back prices.

I only hear talk about significant problems with book studios at CCV. (Cabins) To a lesser degree VGF(only up to 47 of them total) Do people experience any kind of significant problems with resorts from BLT and back? Such that is can often be a challenge at 11 months?

Well, studios can be a problem everywhere, but really the only places that have "Can't get ANY studio at 11 months out" problem are VGF and CCV. As I pointed out, CCV is 13% of points in studio. Even without cabins, VGF isn't much better as it's like 16-17%. I believe BLT is higher because there are a higher fraction of lock-offs. (VGF is only 50% lockoff.)

 

[katandmouse]

Interesting. Very different views on life as well as publicly owned company fiduciary responsibility. I think the shareholders might object to Disney doing things that will hurt profits (you don't sell something for less than people are willing to pay)

As to the points being unaffordable - all evidence points to the contrary, they sell 100,000 plus a month.

I understand about shareholders, but DVCM has a fiduciary duty to members, so there has to be a balance there as well.

I’m not saying I expect DVC to lower the purchase price, although I don’t think it’s too much to ask not to flood a resort with overly expensive cabin/bungalow units - that most owners of that resort cannot afford to stay there. And not to sell that resort with the idea of staying there the cheapest way possible, when in reality only a fraction of buyers will be able to do that.

I think the point chart is one area where the imbalance can be addressed right now. Evidently there are not enough studios and too many 1 brs; why not lower the 1 br points to get more people staying there?

The issue is complex, so a simple solution isn’t going to answer everything. Plenty of room for different views.

 

[katandmouse]

I’m also trying to find the thread now, but I remember seeing average points per contract, and VGF went down from previous to 140 points and Poly down even more to 130 points. I can’t remember what CCV is estimated. To me that seems like people couldn’t afford to buy more points - but the average number of points don’t go so far on those point charts (at least Poly has so many studios in that case!).

At least it looks like the average RIV points contract is back up to the 150s so far though, so I think maybe the incentives there are helping.

 

[crvetter]

I’m also trying to find the thread now, but I remember seeing average points per contract, and VGF went down from previous to 140 points and Poly down even more to 130 points. I can’t remember what CCV is estimated. To me that seems like people couldn’t afford to buy more points - but the average number of points don’t go so far on those point charts (at least Poly has so many studios in that case!).

At least it looks like the average RIV points contract is back up to the 150s so far though, so I think maybe the incentives there are helping.

Here is the info, as calculated by @dvcsince93

Average Points/Contract
BCV-160
SSR-161
BLT- 157
VGF-142
PVB-134
CCV-154
DRR-152 for the first 850 deeds recorded.

I wanted to also highlight a normalizing comparison between CCV and DRR by adopting the points for DRR at CCV and setting the Cabins at wherever allowed by the total points of the resort is how the numbers above were found. What is most striking is the third case in that we adopt the average point chart at DRR the cabins become severely underpriced.

• CCV adopting DRR's Standard View Charts cabins would be priced at 70% of today's levels, which makes the cabins 50% more than the two bedrooms.
• CCV adopting DRR's Preferred View Charts cabins would be priced at 23% of today's levels, which makes the cabins 60% cheaper than the two bedrooms, 48% cheaper than one bedrooms and 9% more than the studios
• CCV adopting the average of the point charts (25% standard and 75% preferred) of DRR cabins would be priced at 35% of today's levels, which makes the cabins 35% cheaper than the two bedrooms, 18% cheaper than one bedrooms and 72% more than the studios

Just thought I throw this analysis out there to really show this interesting comparison. So based on average contract size if DVCMC reallocated points (can they is a different question) from the cabins, which would take a year to three because of the 20% deviation allowed on points per use night CCV does have a higher average than PVB and VGF similar to DRR and PLT. I long maintained that Lake View BLT is likely where CCV could end up if DVCMC decides to reallocate from cabins (2020 original point charts hardly did this for CCV, so they can't argue the cabin issue is what they wanted to fix).

In short the average contract could likely support the cabins if DVCMC appropriately adjusted the points, and did so considering the 11 month booking window not the 7 month window. If they consider demand at 7 months they would effectively favoring the other resorts not the CCV owners.

 

[katandmouse]

Here is the info, as calculated by @dvcsince93

Average Points/Contract
BCV-160
SSR-161
BLT- 157
VGF-142
PVB-134
CCV-154
DRR-152 for the first 850 deeds recorded.

I wanted to also highlight a normalizing comparison between CCV and DRR by adopting the points for DRR at CCV and setting the Cabins at wherever allowed by the total points of the resort is how the numbers above were found. What is most striking is the third case in that we adopt the average point chart at DRR the cabins become severely underpriced.

• CCV adopting DRR's Standard View Charts cabins would be priced at 70% of today's levels, which makes the cabins 50% more than the two bedrooms.
• CCV adopting DRR's Preferred View Charts cabins would be priced at 23% of today's levels, which makes the cabins 60% cheaper than the two bedrooms, 48% cheaper than one bedrooms and 9% more than the studios
• CCV adopting the average of the point charts (25% standard and 75% preferred) of DRR cabins would be priced at 35% of today's levels, which makes the cabins 35% cheaper than the two bedrooms, 18% cheaper than one bedrooms and 72% more than the studios

Just thought I throw this analysis out there to really show this interesting comparison. So based on average contract size if DVCMC reallocated points (can they is a different question) from the cabins, which would take a year to three because of the 20% deviation allowed on points per use night CCV does have a higher average than PVB and VGF similar to DRR and PLT. I long maintained that Lake View BLT is likely where CCV could end up if DVCMC decides to reallocate from cabins (2020 original point charts hardly did this for CCV, so they can't argue the cabin issue is what they wanted to fix).

In short the average contract could likely support the cabins if DVCMC appropriately adjusted the points, and did so considering the 11 month booking window not the 7 month window. If they consider demand at 7 months they would effectively favoring the other resorts not the CCV owners.

Thanks for sharing. That is really interesting about the CCV points, and in truth I wasn’t actually expecting the points to work out like that!

But I forgot about the whole question of if DVC can even legally reallocate points room to room, or just by season. Ugh, so many shady grey areas.


...Anyway the point I was originally intending to make about studios that got lost in my tangent was that I don’t know how many people really want studios because they are studios (one real bed and one sleeper sofa - to me that sounds great for solo trips and couples, but not so great for families), or because they are the cheapest option. If it’s the latter reason, then building more studios doesn’t really address that disconnect.

 

[jerseyduke]

Thanks for sharing. That is really interesting about the CCV points, and in truth I wasn’t actually expecting the points to work out like that!

But I forgot about the whole question of if DVC can even legally reallocate points room to room, or just by season. Ugh, so many shady grey areas.


...Anyway the point I was originally intending to make about studios that got lost in my tangent was that I don’t know how many people really want studios because they are studios (one real bed and one sleeper sofa - to me that sounds great for solo trips and couples, but not so great for families), or because they are the cheapest option. If it’s the latter reason, then building more studios doesn’t really address that disconnect.

I cant speak for others, but I am usually a party of 2. I do not want a studio because its a studio, i want it because thats all I need. I get ppl like the one bedrooms and they are nice, but I have no use for a kitchen (to me, cooking is what you do at home after work, not on vacation, but that is just me), and I am not doing laundry. I go on vacation to get away from all of that. And, i am in the room usually to sleep. If i am at the resort I am at the pool, in a lounge, etc. So yes, maybe I do get them because they are the cheapest. I dont think ppl tend to get them because the WANT a studio. Make a one bedroom the same point price and I am sure they would go a lot faster! but when they cost extra, I for one do not get anything extra out of it, so it doesnt make sense for me, i get nothing out of the extra cost.

the bungalows/cabins are, imo, a major issue.

Its a way for Disney to build high cost rooms to rent out and have members pay for them.

You can get A Bungalow or Cabin almost guaranteed at 7 months, so how many home resort points are really going to them? That's an answer Id love. If its more than 5% i would be shocked.

 

[DougEMG]

I cant speak for others, but I am usually a party of 2. I do not want a studio because its a studio, i want it because thats all I need. I get ppl like the one bedrooms and they are nice, but I have no use for a kitchen (to me, cooking is what you do at home after work, not on vacation, but that is just me), and I am not doing laundry. I go on vacation to get away from all of that. And, i am in the room usually to sleep. If i am at the resort I am at the pool, in a lounge, etc. So yes, maybe I do get them because they are the cheapest. I dont think ppl tend to get them because the WANT a studio. Make a one bedroom the same point price and I am sure they would go a lot faster! but when they cost extra, I for one do not get anything extra out of it, so it doesnt make sense for me, i get nothing out of the extra cost.

the bungalows/cabins are, imo, a major issue.

Its a way for Disney to build high cost rooms to rent out and have members pay for them.

You can get A Bungalow or Cabin almost guaranteed at 7 months, so how many home resort points are really going to them? That's an answer Id love. If its more than 5% i would be shocked.

I also don't need more than a studio. The kitchen and laundry are of no use to me. I might be tempted to book a 1 bedroom regularly if it was 40% more than a studio (king bed, extra TV and soaker tub are all things I like), but not at double the points.

 

[disneynutz]

By building less studios that are in higher demand, if you want to stay at that resort you book a 1 bedroom which requires more points. Now you need to buy additional points and a percentage of those sales will be direct.

Bill

 

[PsycProfPlum]

With direct prices, it's extremely difficult to get the math to make any kind of sense for a 1BR and many people don't need a 2BR. A lot of people are being pushed to Studios over 1BR by the pricing. Thus the problem of selling a huge number of points against cabins with the vast majority of those points being used towards a very small supply of studios.

 

[katandmouse]

Thank you everyone, I definitely see your points. I think there are certainly not enough studios for the demand right now, but I also see it as a 1 bedroom problem - 1 brs are too overpriced for what additional amenities they add (plus sometimes less occupancy than a studio! That’s crazy to me.)

And overshadowing all of that are the overpriced cabins/bungalows.