Tired of SSR being blamed

[ckb_nc]

IF DVC somehow started having different point values to cross-stay at 7 months by home resort, then they would have a major problem. Legally sounds like it vague - but the reality is what they sold everyone, and I mean everyone is the ability to cross-book at 7 months based upon availability. Using the example above, the HH and Vero would be even more expensive points wise to cross-book. Some pigs being more equal than other pigs is rarely a good idea.

 

[SL6827]

IF DVC somehow started having different point values to cross-stay at 7 months by home resort, then they would have a major problem. Legally sounds like it vague - but the reality is what they sold everyone, and I mean everyone is the ability to cross-book at 7 months based upon availability. Using the example above, the HH and Vero would be even more expensive points wise to cross-book. Some pigs being more equal than other pigs is rarely a good idea.

No it is not a good idea, it is awful/dirty as crap to me. But I don't put anything past them at this point.

 

[ckb_nc]

No it is not a good idea, it is awful/dirty as crap to me. But I don't put anything past them at this point.

I bought resale - I can't book Cruises (not a biggie, or RCI (again not a biggie) or use points for rooms (terrible idea anyways). So far, been incredibly happy with DVC. Their are tiers of resorts - you pay more to have points at VGGF to be able to stay there but to date their have not created tiers in trading. I would considered selling if they do this retroactively. I will say DVC has been good to date on grandfathering owners. but it would be challenging bu not impossible to manage a reservation system with tiers, and dates of enforcement with direct/resale. Disney wants you to pay them for their points. And creating incentives to do that.

 

[Deb & Bill]

I bought resale - I can't book Cruises (not a biggie, or RCI (again not a biggie) or use points for rooms (terrible idea anyways). So far, been incredibly happy with DVC. Their are tiers of resorts - you pay more to have points at VGGF to be able to stay there but to date their have not created tiers in trading. I would considered selling if they do this retroactively. I will say DVC has been good to date on grandfathering owners. but it would be challenging bu not impossible to manage a reservation system with tiers, and dates of enforcement with direct/resale. Disney wants you to pay them for their points. And creating incentives to do that.

You can book RCI with resale points.

 

[Heather07438]

You prefer the feel good pixie dust sales pitch, I’d prefer to know the reality up front. The problem is more people are going to Disney more often, you won’t fix the 7 month availability”problem.”

People going more often does not affect the pool of points. Only if people were willingly giving up and not using their points in the past would that make a difference.

I'd be willing to buy DVC even with changed 7 months point charts. I'm looking at BWV too, and OKW. It would be ok to me to know using 10 or 20% more points is needed to try BLT or BC. Paying a small premium to enjoy resorts outside my home would be worth it to me, especially because at the same time it would ease some portion of the demand and make it more likely I could find a room.
People are booking standard studios often because points go the furthest. If there was an incentive to make their points go even further, some portion of guests would bite. They would willingly choose to pick Saratoga to save a bit. I would likely do both. I'd buy and mostly use my home resort. For variety, sometimes I'd splurge and pay extra to stay at BC and sometimes I'd like to stretch my points for a trip at SSR (or any other category that has low demand and always ends up being the last thing the DVC chooses). This could help availability at the 7 month window.

 

[Sandisw]

IF they did something like this, I doubt they'd grandfather anyone in. That would involve too many point charts and bother, and not do what the whole exercise was meant to do - rebalance options.

It would feel more in line with traditional time share ownership - where the trading power of your resort will determine where can stay.

I would hope that before they do this, they might adjust seasons first. But, I also think that a change of this nature would be another huge change to try and explain when selling.

But who would have thought they would have come up with the resale restrictions for RIV.

As already mentioned, I think the frustration lies with disappointment of some members,, but as a whole, they don’t see that it is an issue that needs a major overhaul

 

[ckb_nc]

Irony is SSR with the refurb and the remake of Disney Springs is actually more desirable. Plus if you like to run, its a great place to run. the run from SSR along the golf course to OKW is one of the best on-property runs from a length and scenery. I left from OKW, ended up in Disney Springs through SSR and back for a good solid 5 miles.

 

[SL6827]

I bought resale - I can't book Cruises (not a biggie, or RCI (again not a biggie) or use points for rooms (terrible idea anyways). So far, been incredibly happy with DVC. Their are tiers of resorts - you pay more to have points at VGGF to be able to stay there but to date their have not created tiers in trading. I would considered selling if they do this retroactively. I will say DVC has been good to date on grandfathering owners. but it would be challenging bu not impossible to manage a reservation system with tiers, and dates of enforcement with direct/resale. Disney wants you to pay them for their points. And creating incentives to do that.

A lot of people might be wanting to sell, might. That is why I wondered if the resale price could drop on OKW or SSR. I just don't see them grandfathering people into something like this. But you never know.

 

[SL6827]

But surely they wouldn't to the 7-month swap before trying other alternatives.

 

[ckb_nc]

I write software for the living; the current points table is literally changeable in about 30 seconds if they want (assuming Disney has good software engineers). Adding a layer of complexity at 7 months with multipliers based upon home resort is not hard - just another table. Home resort X resort you are hopping to X seasonal rate per night. It is hard to communicate well to us than to implement. Grandfathering - if you own based upon this date - you ware waved from the home resort multiplier.

 

[SL6827]

I write software for the living; the current points table is literally changeable in about 30 seconds if they want (assuming Disney has good software engineers). Adding a layer of complexity at 7 months with multipliers based upon home resort is not hard - just another table. Home resort X resort you are hopping to X seasonal rate per night. It is hard to communicate well to us than to implement. Grandfathering - if you own based upon this date - you ware waved from the home resort multiplier.

Maybe they would grandfather in then. It would be the right thing to do and they do have a history of doing so, so who knows? And they may never do any of this. But I and I am sure many, many other people had no idea it was even possible.

 

[Brianstl]

IF DVC somehow started having different point values to cross-stay at 7 months by home resort, then they would have a major problem. Legally sounds like it vague - but the reality is what they sold everyone, and I mean everyone is the ability to cross-book at 7 months based upon availability. Using the example above, the HH and Vero would be even more expensive points wise to cross-book. Some pigs being more equal than other pigs is rarely a good idea.

I think the would be legally sound. You would still be able to cross book, they never guaranteed what you would be able to cross book with your points.

To the people that say DVC isn’t what it used to be....... this language has been there from the beginning. This stuff was always planned to be implemented at some point.

Also, to the people that would be upset about some points being worth more than other at 7 months, is it fair that people to the person at VCF that is paying 280 point now direct to have their points be worth the same as someone buying Vero?

 

[SL6827]

If they were to do this and grandfathered owners in, then have at it. But for those who thought that all points are equal at 7 months, which I bet is probably about 95% of owners, doing this and not grandfathering them in is awful. There is nothing wrong with making different points have different values at 7 months, as long as people know this going in to it.

 

[Dean Marino]

Deleted.

 

[Fred M]

Bottom line is that Disney is a money making machine. And this kind of restriction doesn’t make them a lot of money. It keeps more people at their home resort, which honestly probably causes a dip in the souvenir/restaurant business at the resorts (e.g. might buy an OKW mug during our first stay there but if I have 6 SSR mugs, I won’t get a 7th). It might cause people to add on, but with a robust resale market, there is no guarantee that people would add on with Disney absent an incentive. And with people getting less from Disney for their money than before, if they were to add on, it seems resale would be more likely.

I think the only way they make more money is to keep people in the parks longer. Like if the points transfer somehow makes it where a home resort stay shaves a couple of points a night off the stay to where the 100 points for a 5 night stay at the home resort is now 100 points for a 6 night stay.

 

[crisi]

I write software for the living; the current points table is literally changeable in about 30 seconds if they want (assuming Disney has good software engineers). Adding a layer of complexity at 7 months with multipliers based upon home resort is not hard - just another table. Home resort X resort you are hopping to X seasonal rate per night. It is hard to communicate well to us than to implement. Grandfathering - if you own based upon this date - you ware waved from the home resort multiplier.

Bother and complexity is more than just system issues. Its explaining the system during sales. Its complexity for the CMs who have to deal with it. Its end use confusion. Its goodwill - while Disney isn't that interested in delighting members, they need to make sure they profit off something in excess of the goodwill hit that they take - and there isn't profit here (30 year IT professional with an accounting background, myself).

 

[Bing Showei]

Bother and complexity is more than just system issues. Its explaining the system during sales. Its complexity for the CMs who have to deal with it. Its end use confusion. Its goodwill - while Disney isn't that interested in delighting members, they need to make sure they profit off something in excess of the goodwill hit that they take - and there isn't profit here (30 year IT professional with an accounting background, myself).

There would be a huge opportunity for profit here. By increasing the points required to trade into the BVTC for stays at non-home resorts, ownership value could be reduced wholesale, across the board by increasing breakage on a scale unlike anything we've seen.

The individual hit may be minor, 2-3 points/night on high-demand trade-outs, but the cumulative affect is a huge reduction of what owners are able to book with the points they bought as a percentage of the resort. It would be the 2020 retracted reallocation on steroids.

It could also be sold very easily in the same exact way the restrictions are. A move by Disney to help with availability issues that members have demanded be addressed. Of course it won't be able to do so without taking away additional ownership value, but if the restrictions and retracted reallocations are any indication, there will be a contingency of owners who will applaud this move, those that don't may grumble on these boards, but the ownership as a whole will eventually lay down and take it. Because that's our nature and Disney understands that better than we would like to admit.

 

[SL6827]

Makes me wonder if Disney has even thought about this and if they haven't what do they think with reading this thread?

 

[DizzyStitch]

It's funny I bought at SSR thinking I would never stay there. Ok I am hooked at staying at Congress Park. I love that location. The pool, driving to the outlets, walking to Disney Springs. It is the best! I think I got the best deal on the plant! I cannot wait until we come back in 2021. For now I get to try Disneyland in 2020. I just could not take an actual year off LOL.

 

[crisi]

There would be a huge opportunity for profit here. By increasing the points required to trade into the BVTC for stays at non-home resorts, ownership value could be reduced wholesale, across the board by increasing breakage on a scale unlike anything we've seen.

The individual hit may be minor, 2-3 points/night on high-demand trade-outs, but the cumulative affect is a huge reduction of what owners are able to book with the points they bought as a percentage of the resort. It would be the 2020 retracted reallocation on steroids.

It could also be sold very easily in the same exact way the restrictions are. A move by Disney to help with availability issues that members have demanded be addressed. Of course it won't be able to do so without taking away additional ownership value, but if the restrictions and retracted reallocations are any indication, there will be a contingency of owners who will applaud this move, those that don't may grumble on these boards, but the ownership as a whole will eventually lay down and take it. Because that's our nature and Disney understands that better than we would like to admit.

Only if people don't use their points...by renting them out or staying at the resort they bought at. I honestly think that you'd see a flood onto the resale market, devaluing direct points, where Disney has long term capital tied up, and they'd see a significant financial hit.