Dean
DIS Veteran<br><a href="http://www.wdwinfo.com/dis
- Joined
- Aug 19, 1999
The numbers only have to match in the base year which I believe was 1991 and matching years. There will be some year to year variation due to when seasons and weekends fall.I thought the total number of points could not change? If Disney raises points in one season/room type they have to lower it in others..keeping the total value of all points equal?
I just added up all the seasons for all the room types and came up with a total of 7,957 in 2012. The total I get for 2013 is 8,130. Maybe I calculated wrong, maybe my math is off...I hope so...because I am officially confused.
Bill, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying ignore demand because members have to use their points somewhere/sometime and either they use them or they lose them. Technically that's true so they don't have to micromanage the demand but if there is a major discrepancy, they are required to balance it when the difference is too great. They real question isn't why they've done it several times recently but why they didn't do it around 2000/2001 when they should have. Plus as noted, their not all at the 95% anyway.I still don't get it. Why adjust due to demand? Members have to stay somewhere and if they want to wait list for THV so be it. If it doesn't come through, they are still staying somewhere else. How does increasing the required points help the members?
Along the same lines, why increase the required points for popular seasons? There would still be a 95% occupancy during all seasons.
What would be the impact if there weren't any seasons?
Bill
It's not difficult. All you have to do is take the number of each unit and construct a spreadsheet for the year for each unit type that is dedicated (ignore the lockoff portions). I did this for 2 resorts the last reallocation and it came out to be "the same". The difference was something like 0.0001% or so IIRC. Now there are those unreasonable souls that will say that's not the same but that's their problem.It's not as easy as just adding up points on the chart. It's the number of points available for the entire resort in a year. The number of units in each category is a factor. To give an example, if there were twice as many 2BRs as THVs, then reducing 2BRs by one point and increasing THVs by 2 points would result in no net change. Maybe somebody has prepared an elaborate spreadsheet or program to total up all of the available points, but otherwise, it's probably close to impossible to verify that the total points haven't changed.
It seems you post this like it's a problem or personal. It's neither, it's what they are supposed to do. They're not pocketing anything related to this change, they're simply fulfilling their required oversight based on the good of the membership over the desires of a minority.Isn't this pretty much standard operating proceedure for Disney, if something is very popular they raise the price (in this case, points) and keep raising it until there is a breaking point. If demand on the THV doesn't diminish rapidly, you'll probably see another 15% increase again.
They could change them yearly if they want/needed to and be legal and appropriate. Practically it wouldn't make sense because there are costs involved and it takes time to establish new trends, but not 15 years.I think this maybe setting a sales trend. Lets think about Grand Flo. Are they going to artifically set the points charts low, then once it sells out in about 2 years or so, reallocate the points chart due to demand (or what ever excuse they want to use)? I see this as being a potentially fraudulent sales tactic if these reallocations repeat themselves with Grand Flo.Its one thing reallocationg once in 15 years, quite another once every other year.
I think it's amusing when people say that such things are motivated by sales. There are situations with timeshares where this is the case but outside of the reduction of benefits to resale buyers, I can't think of another change one can relate to sales as a factor in the change itself. Certainly not reallocation in any form or valet parking, which have been the 2 big talk items the past few years. OTOH, it's sale's job to take the current situation and spin it in such a way to try to make a sale.
This was the point I was trying to make earlier. The same thing happened (in reverse) when BWV came on board with what amounted to an increase in points that was in part due to location/resort type but in part an acknowledgement that the OKW points structure was TOO LOW.According to my back-of-a-napkin math, for 2013 a Treehouse Villa will cost about 2000 more points than it did in 2012. (2012 year-long cost was 15,100 points and each night went up 10-15%.)
If DVC had set the Treehouse points to their 2013 level when they first began to sell, it would have given them about 120,000 more SSR points to sell. (2000 x 60). At $99 per point, that's nearly $12 million in added revenues that COULD have been generated if the points were set higher from Day One.
Honestly I think you would have a really hard time convincing an impartial third party that Disney committed fraud by intentionally turning its back on $12 million in revenues.
And I suspect they could provide data showing that, with identical costs, demand for the Treehouse Villas has been greater than demand for Two Bedroom villas.
Since they don't see a villa, but rather simply points, such an increase would have made little difference in the sales they did have, they would have had additional sales on the additional points and thus additional revenue and profit. I don't think the actual points tables for THV would have cost them enough sales to even register.Yes they COULD have generated more revenue, but that assumes sales would have stayed the same. I don't think they would have. They got the sales at $99/pt. and able to stay at the Tree Houses for the price of a two bedroom. Hard to pass that up. Seriously don't think they would have generated the same sales figures if points were like they are today, assuming the THV's were the big selling factor.
We understand it differently. My info suggests that DVC has a far more subjective view and determination of what a given villa type should cost. I think you're confusing how they allot the points for sale vs how they arrive at the total points to sell and then how they implement selling them. My understanding is that they look at multiple factors including size, amenities of the resort and known demand issue compared to other options. Once they have that info and do the math, then they redivide for sale based on the concept that all units of a given type COULD end up being the same with a reallocation. Otherwise SSR would have been the same points as BWV/BCV/VWL. Of course they also want simplicity where they can get it so they will give some leeway, otherwise VWL would not have been the same points as BCV/BWV preferred when it was introduced.DVD doesn't take booking costs into consideration in determining how many points to allot to a Unit. It is strictly determined by a formula based on the square footage of the underlying real estate interest. This approach is necessary because of the formulas used by the condo associated to distribute operating and maintenance costs in an equitable manner to all owners based on the percentage of real estate ownership in the association.
A BWV Standard View two-bedroom Unit is allotted about 17,340 points, the same as a Boardwalk/Preferred Unit. If DVD were to build and add more Vacation Homes to the BWV condo association that were the same size as the existing Units, then its hands are tied: Those new Vacation Homes will be allotted 17,340 points. It wouldn't matter whether those Vacation Homes were classified as Standard View, Boardwalk View, or given a new category such as Concierge or Dumpster View.
Look at BCV when it came on board as a good example and compare it to BWV. Same unit size, roughly the same layout, similar location, similar amenities overall and same expiration date. If size were a major factor, the points there should have been in between BWV SV & pref. Were view the major factor, it should have been the same or closer to BWV SV. Why was it the same as BWV BW view, simply because they could, it was a way to raise the price incrementally. Same for SSR, which should have been around the same costs as OKW but it was not, again as an incremental price increase.
Maybe, I don't have that info. It would seem so for certain short segments. My guess is that DVCMC is trying to macro manage and not micro manage and thus they'll give a fair amount of leeway for short segments they are outliers.The seasons are still far out of whack (IMO)...and I say that again as someone who is making his third straight early-December stay in 2012.
Same thing isn't it. All options are compared to the other available options (resort, unit size, time of year, etc). Outliers on both sides are looked at and decisions are made. I doubt you'll see much change related to the concierge simply because it's such a specialty with only 5 units, that it'd be impossible to rebalance any change even if they wanted to.Rather than blaming the SSR reallocation on the fact that the THVs are too popular, I think the reverse is true: The real culprit might be that the non-THV SSR Vacation Homes are not achieving the desired occupancy rates.
True, I've made this point a number of times over the years. I'll go a step further in that if I believed the latter, I wouldn't own, period, no matter any other factors. It's been interesting to see this group (in general) go from blind followers to unreasonable opponents over the past 4-5 years or so.The guessing games about what drove the change are interesting. But, at the end of the day, you have only a couple of choices. One is: you can assume that DVCMC is acting in their fiduciary duty, as they are required to. Under that assumption, while some changes might not benefit you personally, they are for the betterment of the membership overall, and so you can begrudgingly accept them as "right".
Alternatively, you can instead assume that something nefarious must be going on. But, if you go with Door #2, your only real recourse is to live with it or sell. The program has to be audited annually. The auditors repeatedly issue clean bills of health. If they can hide shenanigans from the auditors, they can also hide them from you.