Riviera Sales by the numbers (vs CCV) for 2019 - (December added 1/16/2020)

But what would you have had the guide say - "hey go to our competitor and make a few bucks more"? That is not the way any company that wants to stay in business acts.

At 100 points, it's not a giant delta and there is some value in the one-stop-shop aspect of it. They took care of everything in one sitting and had the new points available immediately rather than weeks or months that a resale can take. Everyone's situation and tolerance for things like this different, if it worked for them, I don't see the problem.
Again. I posted this story in response to the anecdote above. In both stories no lies were told, just information withheld. The Mariott salesperson was under no more obligation to help a customer save money that the DVC guide. Why is one slimy and not the other 🤷🏼‍♀️
 
Yes, but unless I misunderstood, you posted the anecdote above to indicate that DVC isn’t there yet. I would posit that they are. There isn’t much difference between the 2 stories except outcome - due to consumer education alone. So why is it shady when another TS does it, but not DVC ?

The job of the broker was to sell resale contract and if they weren’t upfront and honest with the buyer as to what the market would bring.l.which, as I just posted, there was no history for it at that point..then he may have taken advantage of the buyer.

The job of DVC is to sell contracts, not buy them back from owners and that is exactly what the guide did.
 
I actually don’t see it as the same. The broker who bought a contract for a lot less was in the job of selling resale contracts, and gave the person an option to sell the contract through resale. One thing we really do not know is why the original owner was willing to part with it so quickly at that price.

We also don’t know if the broker gave the resale buyer information that there was no history for what the contract would sell for.

Now, if that broker lead the owner to believe that $100 was a high is they could get or even that it would be less than that, then yeah, that is a problem for me.

Disney business is to sell contracts, not buy them back, So when asked if they would buy it back, they gave the buyer a price, exactly what they asked for. I just don’t see this as the same situation. But I also figure I could be in the minority.
In both cases no lies were told. Information was not volunteered so that a salesperson could profit.
 
The job of the broker was to sell resale contract and if they weren’t upfront and honest with the buyer as to what the market would bring.l.which, as I just posted, there was no history for it at that point..then he may have taken advantage of the buyer.

The job of DVC is to sell contracts, not buy them back from owners and that is exactly what the guide did.
I am not questioning your opinion that what the guide did wasn’t shady. I am saying that it was business as usual and therefore what the Marriott salesperson did was similarly business as usual.
 


In both cases no lies were told. Information was not volunteered so that a salesperson could profit.

I understand..but is it really the DVC guides job to share information about how to sell a currently owned contract for profit? I think that is the difference for me.

The information not shared with this particular buyer has nothing to do with buying a direct contract from Disney. She asked if Disney would buy it from her/him and they made her an offer,

Now if guides are not sharing the change in resale restrictions for Rivera I. Compared to L14 resorts, then yes, that would be withholding relevant information
 
I am not questioning your opinion that what the guide did wasn’t shady. I am saying that it was business as usual and therefore what the Marriott salesperson did was similarly business as usual.
Either I wasn't clear or you may have misunderstood. The Marriott salesman told me repeatedly that I could not simply convert my week to Destinations points, that the only way to convert was to buy more points and have it become part of the transaction. The truth was that for $595 I could convert my week, no additional purchase necessary. And that's what we ended up doing.

Yes, but unless I misunderstood, you posted the anecdote above to indicate that DVC isn’t there yet. I would posit that they are. There isn’t much difference between the 2 stories except outcome - due to consumer education alone. So why is it shady when another TS does it, but not DVC ?
Thanks for clarifying. I think it's fair for you to think that DVC is "there" and I think we simply disagree on that. For me there is a difference. In my story, the salesperson deliberately obfuscated the truth and in the DVC story the salesperson was happy to oblige and make a nice profit in the meantime. The key difference is that in my case, I asked for something that I knew was offered and was told (lied to) that it wasn't available. Even though that's what I got in the end. In the second story they asked for something and got it. The fact that it was not to their financial advantage is, to me, irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
Again. I posted this story in response to the anecdote above. In both stories no lies were told, just information withheld. The Mariott salesperson was under no more obligation to help a customer save money that the DVC guide. Why is one slimy and not the other 🤷🏼‍♀️
Besides being lied to, my story required me to spend money when it wasn't necessary. The DVC buyer simply did not get maximum value for their asset. I generally dislike car analogies, but I have traded many cars back to the dealership when I bought a new one, knowing full well that I could have sold it privately for thousands more. At times my car salesman told me that I could get more money selling it privately and at times he didn't. I thought it was nice when they did but I didn't think it was shady when they didn't. And at the end of the day it was worth taking less money to not have to deal with the hassle of selling a car privately. I think this is a direct comparison.
 


Either I wasn't clear or you may have misunderstood. The Marriott salesman told me repeatedly that I could not simply convert my week to Destinations points, that the only way to convert was to buy more points and have it become part of the transaction. The truth was that for $595 I could convert my week, no additional purchase necessary. And that's what we ended up doing.


Thanks for clarifying. I think it's fair for you to think that DVC is "there" and I think we simply disagree on that. For me there is a difference. In my story, the salesperson deliberately obfuscated the truth and in the DVC story the salesperson was happy to oblige and make a nice profit in the meantime. The key difference is that in my case, I asked for something that I knew was offered and was told (lied to) that it wasn't available. Even though that's what I got in the end. In the second story they aske for something and got it. The fact that it was not to their financial advantage is, to me, irrelevant.
Yes I did not read that the salesperson had lied to you. I understood that they had not volunteered the information. That makes a difference. Thank-you for clarifying.
 
Well he could have offered to buy it back for the most recently repurchased rofr from that resort. If I were the supervisor for the salesman that is what I would have suggested; you never know who is on the other end. If that buyer had a mild disability or was somewhat impaired, is the additional few dollars which is absolutely meaningless to Disney, worth the potential bad publicity? What if this was your 78 year old mother and they came to you after talking about their great deal; would you be thrilled with disney?
 
Yes I did not read that the salesperson had lied to you. I understood that they had not volunteered the information. That makes a difference. Thank-you for clarifying.
No problem. But you bring up an interesting point. Let's say I went in asking how I could convert my week to Destinations points and he told me that it would happen automatically when I added on but did not mention the $595 fee as an option. In that case, he failed to tell me of a much less expensive option. Is that the same as the DVC salesperson buying back the BCV contract for less than market value? You seem to think it is, and perhaps you are right. I'm not so sure. Regardless, it's definitely complicated...
 
Well he could have offered to buy it back for the most recently repurchased rofr from that resort. If I were the supervisor for the salesman that is what I would have suggested; you never know who is on the other end. If that buyer had a mild disability or was somewhat impaired, is the additional few dollars which is absolutely meaningless to Disney, worth the potential bad publicity? What if this was your 78 year old mother and they came to you after talking about their great deal; would you be thrilled with disney?
I think the question to be debated is whether or not Disney offered this woman a "fair" price for her contract. She got a full refund of her purchase price 20 years later...so she would say yes. We know that it is about $80 less per point than what she could get on the resale market, so some of us say no. I don't think there's a right answer here; "fair" is in the eye of the beholder.
 
No problem. But you bring up an interesting point. Let's say I went in asking how I could convert my week to Destinations points and he told me that it would happen automatically when I added on but did not mention the $595 fee as an option. In that case, he failed to tell me of a much less expensive option. Is that the same as the DVC salesperson buying back the BCV contract for less than market value? You seem to think it is, and perhaps you are right. I'm not so sure. Regardless, it's definitely complicated...
Yes. I do see those two scenarios as similar and while I find both personally distasteful, I can understand both from a business perspective. However, if this is the direction DVC is going, neither they nor we should be shocked when they get lumped in with all other TSs and their poor reputation. You can’t claim the Disney difference if you’re not different. I really dislike short term gain mentality 😕
 
But what would you have had the guide say - "hey go to our competitor and make a few bucks more"? That is not the way any company that wants to stay in business acts.

At 100 points, it's not a giant delta and there is some value in the one-stop-shop aspect of it. They took care of everything in one sitting and had the new points available immediately rather than weeks or months that a resale can take. Everyone's situation and tolerance for things like this different, if it worked for them, I don't see the problem.

I’m sort of shocked I am defending Disney here. After factoring in commission, taxes, the time value of money and the value of your time invested in selling the contact; the difference on a 100 point contract at $67 pp to Disney to what you would get on the resale market isn’t as big as most people would initially think. Could have they cleared more on the resale market? Sure. Is it worth the effort? That is an individual choice at a 100 point total.
 
Last edited:
I’m sort of shocked I am defending Disney here. After factoring in commission, taxes, the time value of money and the value of your time invested in selling the contact; the difference on a 100 point contract at $67 pp to Disney to what you would get on the resale market isn’t as big as most people would initially think. Could have they cleared more on the resale market? Sure. Is it worth the effort? That is an individual choice at a 100 point total.
I have to agree. I also saw that post on social media this morning and was somewhat appalled. But then I think about whether if I were that owner I would have gone to so much trouble to list it on the resale market to get a little more, since I’m assuming the seller didn’t otherwise have the $ to pay for RIV and they wanted RIV.

$8000 before broker fees, taxes, time, waiting on ROFR...it’s not a no-brainer. Though if I’d been that seller I’d have tried to get them to pay $100-120....
 
It's not the responsibility of a sellers to educate buyers as to what they could possibly sell things for that includes Disney Guides. I will say half the people in this thread probably made a deal at one time that they still feel good about. I can guarantee there are probably just as many here who feel they got taken in that same deal and could have done better.

At the end of the day if you feel good about the deal then it's a good deal not what posters on an internet forum tell you.
 
Last edited:
I am not questioning your opinion that what the guide did wasn’t shady. I am saying that it was business as usual and therefore what the Marriott salesperson did was similarly business as usual.
I am not trying to single you out but if you decide to sell your DVC stake will you be honest and upfront and sell for what you paid for it or is selling it for twice as much per point than your original buy in ethical? Just curious.
 
Well he could have offered to buy it back for the most recently repurchased rofr from that resort. If I were the supervisor for the salesman that is what I would have suggested; you never know who is on the other end. If that buyer had a mild disability or was somewhat impaired, is the additional few dollars which is absolutely meaningless to Disney, worth the potential bad publicity? What if this was your 78 year old mother and they came to you after talking about their great deal; would you be thrilled with disney?

You most definitely are not in sales because if you were you'd be un-employed! Margins mean everything in sales.
 
Last edited:
I am not trying to single you out but if you decide to sell your DVC stake will you be honest and upfront and sell for what you paid for it or is selling it for twice as much per point than your original buy in ethical? Just curious.
Since we bought in 2016 & 2018 SSR $80/BCV $132, and since we are international (which translates to an automatic lower price for some reason), I don’t think that will be an issue. And to be honest, I don’t think that making profit is a bad thing. I don’t think think ethics has anything to do with it. I simply don’t like double standards.
 
Since we bought in 2016 & 2018 SSR $80/BCV $132, and since we are international (which translates to an automatic lower price for some reason), I don’t think that will be an issue. And to be honest, I don’t think that making profit is a bad thing. I don’t think think ethics has anything to do with it. I simply don’t like double standards.
No there is nothing wrong with making a money or a profit but when it's only good for the goose but not the gander then ethics get involved. Whether it's you or DVC you both have the right but when one challenges the other well ... you ... mirror .. see how that works.

BTW Madame I am all for making money/profit and that includes allowing my enemies to make money too!
 
No there is nothing wrong with making a money or a profit but when it's only good for the goose but not the gander then ethics get involved. Whether it's you or DVC you both have the right but when one challenges the other well ... you ... mirror .. see how that works.
I have no idea what in the world you are on about. I have no problem with resalers making a profit. No problem with DVC making a profit, even on this deal. Not my problem. What I have a problem with is DVC retaining a reputation that it no longer seems to merit. They have chosen industry standards as their direction, they are going to have to own it.
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!









Top