DVC point balancing 2022 vs 2021

[JGINPL]

checking back in if anyone else has any updates.

 

[lovethesun12]

I went through this process and don't have much to add except I was referred to the sales team after a call to member services. I realized this probably wouldn't provide much information but went with it. After mentioning my concerns with the point charts, I was basically told there must have been an error in the calculations (I used minniemoo15's numbers for poly since I am a poly owner as well) because when points are increased they must be met with a decrease, etc. I said I didn't think there was an error but would double check to be certain. I was basically then told to call member services back because they were better suited to answer my questions.

Eventually after emailing/chat feature/etc and no real response I decided to email Terri Schultz as well. She was incredibly quick and again gave a general response regarding how the point charts for usage in total can fluctuate in particular due to when holidays fall/etc and asked if that helped or if I would prefer to be called back.

I asked to be called back and a day or two later I was. I asked why a chart was chosen that led to such a high increase for point totals for members, and also mentioned how even the sales person thought there was an error in the calculations of the point totals for the 2022 chart. I was basically told the chart was selected as a result of increased demand/etc. I asked how it was determined there would be a higher demand in 2022 when both 2020/2021 had large decreases in demand (based on the availability I've seen) and she said the pandemic didn't factor into the choices for the point charts.

I was told that due to the increases in demand the chart would benefit members and I said I'm not sure most members buy in thinking they would collectively have to pay for tens of thousands of more points annually for the same vacations; they are under the impression point charts vary very little as they had done from 2016-2021 because that is how the sales reps are presenting it. At this point I did say thank you for their time but that I would prefer a change back to the previous charts because I felt they were better for members than the 2022 chart. She said thank you that feedback is useful and said she would make note of it.

ETA: I'm still not satisfied with the 2022 chart but not sure what to do from here.

 

[Minniemoo15]

I went through this process and don't have much to add except I was referred to the sales team after a call to member services. I realized this probably wouldn't provide much information but went with it. After mentioning my concerns with the point charts, I was basically told there must have been an error in the calculations (I used minniemoo15's numbers for poly since I am a poly owner as well) because when points are increased they must be met with a decrease, etc. I said I didn't think there was an error but would double check to be certain. I was basically then told to call member services back because they were better suited to answer my questions.

Eventually after emailing/chat feature/etc and no real response I decided to email Terri Schultz as well. She was incredibly quick and again gave a general response regarding how the point charts for usage in total can fluctuate in particular due to when holidays fall/etc and asked if that helped or if I would prefer to be called back.

I asked to be called back and a day or two later I was. I asked why a chart was chosen that led to such a high increase for point totals for members, and also mentioned how even the sales person thought there was an error in the calculations of the point totals for the 2022 chart. I was basically told the chart was selected as a result of increased demand/etc. I asked how it was determined there would be a higher demand in 2022 when both 2020/2021 had large decreases in demand (based on the availability I've seen) and she said the pandemic didn't factor into the choices for the point charts.

I was told that due to the increases in demand the chart would benefit members and I said I'm not sure most members buy in thinking they would collectively have to pay for tens of thousands of more points annually for the same vacations; they are under the impression point charts vary very little as they had done from 2016-2021 because that is how the sales reps are presenting it. At this point I did say thank you for their time but that I would prefer a change back to the previous charts because I felt they were better for members than the 2022 chart. She said thank you that feedback is useful and said she would make note of it.

Thank you for reaching out with your concerns. The more members that do, the better.

I find it interesting that they are now using the argument of increased availability as a benefit to members. They told me that as well. But what’s the limit? What’s to stop them from adding thousands more points every year to “increase” availability in the name of “member satisfaction”?

If this is the new direction of DVCM then they should immediately tell their guides to stop telling potential buyers that total points cannot increase.

 

[Leight19]

Thank you for reaching out with your concerns. The more members that do, the better.

I find it interesting that they are now using the argument of increased availability as a benefit to members. They told me that as well. But what’s the limit? What’s to stop them from adding thousands more points every year to “increase” availability in the name of “member satisfaction”?

If this is the new direction of DVCM then they should immediately tell their guides to stop telling potential buyers that total points cannot increase.

Does it even help availability if they can “predict” breakage and proactively pull those rooms?

The other thing I’ve been thinking through is whether the extra income for dvcm is really negligible within rounding error. By best estimate, the extra points seem to land around 0.5% increase. If you assume points are worth $20 per point, this represents $0.1 per point. When compared to operating budget as represented by dues ($7.05 for poly), this accounts for 1.4% of budget. Put into perspective, this is over half the cap for breakage owners receive and something like 10% of the budget they receive to manage the whole system.

Unless my math is off somewhere, both of these representations show this is clearly not rounding error to them and any claim they made claiming it was is disingenuous to distract from what they are doing.

 

[Eldon32]

Just an update to the thread; they rescheduled my call until next week - so it will be a while; but will update the thread with my findings.

 

[EM Lawrence]

If member satisfaction is low due to lack of availability, the better remedy would be for DVC to stop taking rooms for breakage and renting them for cash beyond the 2.5% cap that actually goes towards offsetting member dues.

The breakage income up to 2.5% does actually benefit the members. Beyond that, the only beneficiary is DVCM.

I am very curious to know how much availability that would create.

 

[zavandor]

The Management company cannot say: point inflation benefits the members because it creates availability. It is illegal to inflate the point charts on purpose, saying that would be like signing a confession.
What they mean is that having rebalanced the point charts, will lead to a better distribution of demand and then open availability. Which is the aim of a point reallocation.
The point is not if a rebalancing is right of wrong, it's up to them to decide if it's needed (and many agree it was long due, even if they haven't addressed the elephant in the room: early December). The problem is how they've done it.

 

[Mumof4mice]

The point is not if a rebalancing is right of wrong, it's up to them to decide if it's needed (and many agree it was long due, even if they haven't addressed the elephant in the room: early December). The problem is how they've done it.

Agree with this.

I'd like to ask DVCM in what other business relationship do they get away with: Yes, I'm 0.5% off. But the amount is so small for me, you should allow it.

 

[drusba]

If member satisfaction is low due to lack of availability, the better remedy would be for DVC to stop taking rooms for breakage and renting them for cash beyond the 2.5% cap that actually goes towards offsetting member dues.

The breakage income up to 2.5% does actually benefit the members. Beyond that, the only beneficiary is DVCM.

I am very curious to know how much availability that would create.

Breakage income comes from renting rooms still open at 60-days out. As noted, the net income goes first to offset up to 2.5% of the budget for each resort. Amounts over that then go to BVTC to cover all its costs (plus 5% of those costs). After paying BVTC, any further amounts of breakage income go to DVCM to do with as it pleases. Since breakage income is actually how much of the costs of BVTC are covered, you cannot cut-off DVC's renting breakage rooms once the 2.5% level that applies as a set-off is reached, unless you want DVC to add a new item to annual dues to charge you directly for all the costs of BVTC currently covered by breakage income..

In any event, the lack of availability issue appears to have little to no relationship to renting breakage rooms. Breakage involves renting rooms that are usually available beyond the 7-month reservation window, i.e., there is no real "lack of availability" issue for those rooms. The current availability problems have had multiple causes. One is that for years the highest demand season was the fall to early winter when points were the lowest or second lowest of the year and WDW was at its peak for offerings -- Halloween, Thanksgiving, and Christmas delations and events -- and weather was some of the best of the year.

A second is DVD's sales program in the last 11-years which has resulted in the oversell of points to purchasers buying only enough points to get studios, e.g., DVD (a) lowered required new purchaser points from 160 to 100, and at times 75, or 50 during the early part of the Great Recession, and that continues today; (b) increased purchase prices over 100% in a ten-year period when the economy was weak, wages stagnant, and there was little real inflation; (c) built new resorts with much higher point costs than earlier resorts adding to the studio points oversell problem; (d) added large numbers of very high point cost bungalows and cabins for which most of the points were sold to those who could buy only enough points for smaller rooms, particularly studios; (e) changed resorts allowing only 4 in a studio to allowing 5 by adding a Murphy bed and thus create further enticements for purchasers to purchase only enough points to get studios. The result is that many studios are now very difficult to get even at 11-months out a number of times of the year. A main objective of the new point charts was to move some of the high demand in the fall to other times of the year. However, DVD, the sales entity, has shown no indication that it is going to take the more needed step to modify its modern sales practices so as minimize the problem of overselling points to those purchasing only enough points to get a studio.

 

[tjkraz]

If member satisfaction is low due to lack of availability, the better remedy would be for DVC to stop taking rooms for breakage and renting them for cash beyond the 2.5% cap that actually goes towards offsetting member dues.

The breakage income up to 2.5% does actually benefit the members. Beyond that, the only beneficiary is DVCM.

I am very curious to know how much availability that would create.

Breakage isn't "taken", it's organically created by lack of member demand. Members always have first opportunity to book those rooms. When they collectively choose not to book, rooms are left vacant and are eligible for breakage reservations.

What DVC can (and should) do is adjust the point charts to minimize breakage. Lowering the cost of dates/resorts/room types which are not being booked would help increase member point usage. Then fewer rooms end up going to breakage.

Adjustments to the point charts should be viewed as serving the greater good, regardless of how they impact individuals. Assuming those changes are backed by reservation data and not done in a manner which harms owners. (Which seems open to debate.)

 

[Louis morrell]

Well I just a call from MS concerning my string of emails. I explained my concern and was told in no uncertain terms that the points did not increase. She said if they decrease one category they have to balance it by increasing another (as we all already know) . When I explained that brighter minds than mine had done the research to prove the points did go up she tried to tell me that no one knows the number on 1br,2br and so on at SSR not even her therefore the points total could not be calculated by anyone else. I'm not sure how i feel about the call after reading the responses others have gotten that were all over the map. I asked her to pass my concerns up the chain so.

 

[Matty B13]

When I explained that brighter minds than mine had done the research to prove the points did go up she tried to tell me that no one knows the number on 1br,2br and so on at SSR not even her therefore the points total could not be calculated by anyone else.

If no one knows the number of rooms, then how did they come up with the point charts????????

 

[Minniemoo15]

Well I just a call from MS concerning my string of emails. I explained my concern and was told in no uncertain terms that the points did not increase. She said if they decrease one category they have to balance it by increasing another (as we all already know) . When I explained that brighter minds than mine had done the research to prove the points did go up she tried to tell me that no one knows the number on 1br,2br and so on at SSR not even her therefore the points total could not be calculated by anyone else. I'm not sure how i feel about the call after reading the responses others have gotten that were all over the map. I asked her to pass my concerns up the chain so.

I know in my PVB POS, the number of rooms for each category are clearly outlined . It’s not hard to calculate from there if you have the know-how to do so.
FWIW: one of the managers told me my total point numbers (thanks to the members here who calculated them for me) were “bang on”.

 

[Louis morrell]

To be clear. I was not saying I think what she told me was factual although I think she believed it was.

I was born at night but not last night.

 

[Louis morrell]

If no one knows the number of rooms, then how did they come up with the point charts????????

I think she was saying no one besides them.

 

[Mumof4mice]

Well I just a call from MS concerning my string of emails. I explained my concern and was told in no uncertain terms that the points did not increase. She said if they decrease one category they have to balance it by increasing another (as we all already know) . When I explained that brighter minds than mine had done the research to prove the points did go up she tried to tell me that no one knows the number on 1br,2br and so on at SSR not even her therefore the points total could not be calculated by anyone else. I'm not sure how i feel about the call after reading the responses others have gotten that were all over the map. I asked her to pass my concerns up the chain so.

I'm not surprised they tried that line on you.

"Members have no idea how many rooms of each type there are" was the first explanation offered by YC, in our conversation about the lock-off premium. That statement was immediately refuted by myself and I'm sure most of the others who spoke with DVCM.

It is unlikely the DVCM employee you spoke with could be that incompetent and misinformed. They had to have been playing dumb.

 

[EYL]

"Members have no idea how many rooms of each type there are" was the first explanation offered by YC, in our conversation about the lock-off premium. That statement was immediately refuted by myself and I'm sure most of the others who spoke with DVCM.

Really?! They need to come up with something better, especially if the information is easily searchable...
https://disneyvacationclub.disney.g...-for-timeshare-contracts-01-29-2020-clean.pdf

 

[Louis morrell]

I did tell her that she underestimated the power of the internet. I am sure this wad a low lever employee just assigned to try to smooth things over.

 

[DougEMG]

Well I just a call from MS concerning my string of emails. I explained my concern and was told in no uncertain terms that the points did not increase. She said if they decrease one category they have to balance it by increasing another (as we all already know) . When I explained that brighter minds than mine had done the research to prove the points did go up she tried to tell me that no one knows the number on 1br,2br and so on at SSR not even her therefore the points total could not be calculated by anyone else. I'm not sure how i feel about the call after reading the responses others have gotten that were all over the map. I asked her to pass my concerns up the chain so.

Maybe we should start a list of the dumbest things ever said by a DVC employee!

 

[Tiggerette]

I don't agree with making a list with an insulting, pejorative focus. There is merit, however, to note the disparate responses to the same or very similar questions. The focus then would be to document how employees are not aware of, or are not able to abide to by current policies and practices laid out for their organization within the various contracts and governing regulations.

The inability to consistently apply policies and procedures is an audit risk, and one that may have traction if ever these disagreements about interpretation have to go forward to some third party arbitration. (Thus far, I don't see any of the responses from management to owners deter from their position. The answers have ranged widely, yes, but ultimately there has not been a shift in their position/interpretation that the 2022 chart remains valid as-is. So, it may require resolution elsewhere, if owners want definitive clarity.)

The inability to speak clearly and consistently to policies and procedures demonstrates a problematic lack of understanding, and therefore places the application of those policies at similar audit risk. Regardless whether the contract terms or policy is clear, if an employee does not understand it, then how can they perform it within their scope of work? This is why it is an audit risk. It is not sufficient to have a clear policy, it must also be clear for those whose job it is to carry it out. Sure, it may be a lesser finding than willful intent to subvert a contract or policy, but an audit can expose areas of weakness where controls are substandard in practice. The variety of responses from management noted in this thread seem to reveal lack of controls in the education, understanding and interpretation of point assessment, use and allocation.