Growth=difficulty booking?

[squirrlygirl]

I keep seeing the growth of DVC being blamed for people not getting their desired reservations when they call. But doesn't the number of DVC members correspond to the number of rooms available? So more members=more rooms, which means it should be the same? Unbalanced, maybe, with smaller resorts filling more quickly, but when NOTHING is available, isn't that more of a popular-time problem?

 

[Melrosgirl]

Yes I think though the problem people complain about is when people seem to book only at resorts which are not their home resorts. For instance, I own at BCV, and I always try to book at BCV, but when I can't get a room there, I will have to stay somewhere else.

Some people buy at SSR (a huge resort with lots of rooms) and seem to never book (on purpose) at SSR. That's the argument. It's one of the benefits to DVC (being able to stay anywhere), but it also causes problems for people who own at the smaller resorts. That's where the 11 month window is crucial.

 

[CarolMN]

Growth has made it more difficult to book the smaller DVC resorts (BCV, VWL & BCV) when you get to the 7 month mark. Growth has increased the number of members who are able to book the smaller resorts at 7 months, but it didn't (can't) increase the number of units available at the smaller resorts.

Growth has only an indirect effect on booking your home resort if you call before the 7 month window opens. The indirect effect is that members who no longer can easily get into one of the smaller resorts at 7 months are buying add on contracts for the smaller resorts. They are very likely using the home resort booking advantage to a greater degree than the sellers of those contracts did. Nevertheless, prior to the 7 month window opening, you are only competing with other owners to book your home resort. Growth isn't a factor if you use your home resort booking advantage.

You are correct in that DVC membership growth equals growth in DVC units as well. However, it appears that the demand for DVC resorts is not equal. In general, VWL, BCV & BWV book up more quickly than the larger resorts, SSR & OKW. Until AKV is fully built, we really won't know for sure how quickly it will book to capacity compared to the others. In size, it is between BWV and OKW (IIRC).

And yes - when nothing is available, it is a popularity issue (or a matter of the late bird finds no worms). DVC is a flexible system - it was not designed so that every member can stay during Christmas week. But there are enough unit nights available so that all of the points sold could be used to stay sometime within the year.

DVC works best for those who can plan ahead and those who either buy where they want to stay the most or are happy to stay at any DVC.

 

[Dean]

I keep seeing the growth of DVC being blamed for people not getting their desired reservations when they call. But doesn't the number of DVC members correspond to the number of rooms available? So more members=more rooms, which means it should be the same? Unbalanced, maybe, with smaller resorts filling more quickly, but when NOTHING is available, isn't that more of a popular-time problem?

If the growth were all of equal demand to the overall mix it would not really matter and your premise would be correct, but it is not. For example, while SSR is only some ROUGHLY 35-40% of the points and units, it's likely 80% or more of the points vying at the 7 month window.

 

[DisDaydreamer]

To put it simply... many people buy at a particular resort, but then make ressies at other resorts... so, unless a new resort is a real draw, the new members are trying to make ressies at other resorts. So, it is a matter of demand... or lack of...

 

[AKV707]

To put it simply... many people buy at a particular resort, but then make ressies at other resorts... so, unless a new resort is a real draw, the new members are trying to make ressies at other resorts. So, it is a matter of demand... or lack of...

SOunds like simple economics. The reason we bought AKV over SSR was that, for us, AKV is a place that we can see ourselves staying on every trip.

Time of year is also crucial. At F&W, BWV and BCV are in high demand because of the International Gateway. They are hard to get. And that mekes sense.

 

[doconeill]

Time of year is also crucial. At F&W, BWV and BCV are in high demand because of the International Gateway. They are hard to get. And that mekes sense.

I've heard its hard to get BWV and BCV at the 11 month mark for F&W...

Remember, any hotel or resort aims for 100% occupancy 100% of the time. That means that not everyone can book at popular times. We are fortunate that DVC is not 100% sold, and that there are a reserve of rooms given to CRO that I believe can be reclaimed closer to booking dates.

But as DVC closes in on 100% sold, it will get harder to book at any of the resorts, even your home resort.

Relief can be found with new resorts being added (AKV, CRV, GCV, etc.), but as DVC itself becomes bigger, each resort added (unless it is massive) only dilutes the room pool by a smaller percentage every time.

 

[DisneyDVCdad]

I think a lot of it has to do with when you go! If you go at less popular times you will have an easier time booking! F & W is the perfect example of this! Every one wants to stay at either BCV or BWV for this event so the rooms book up very quickly! We try to go towards the end of September. Our kids are preschool age so We don't have to worry about that yet!
We have been in DVC for about 3 years now and we are still just checking out all the different resorts to see what they have to offer! The 11 month booking advantage at BCV and BWV comes in handy for those smaller resorts!

 

[Dean]

Relief can be found with new resorts being added (AKV, CRV, GCV, etc.), but as DVC itself becomes bigger, each resort added (unless it is massive) only dilutes the room pool by a smaller percentage every time.

Unfortunately it's not that simple. It's not the size of the resort but the number of rooms that make it to the 7 month window that runs this equation. For example, you'd likely have to add 2000 to 3000 or more rooms at a resort with the demand of BCV or similar to equal the changes to the system from SSR in regards to the availability at 7 months out for where you want to stay.

But as DVC closes in on 100% sold, it will get harder to book at any of the resorts, even your home resort.

Looking at the overall system, it really is fairly close to 100% "sold out" from a reservation standpoint and has been for some time. The unsold and undeclared points from SSR and AKV does not play into the equation and might never be included in the club if DVD chose to go that route. So they only declare small chunks of inventory just ahead of selling it keeping the club growing at about the same rate in terms of members, new points and units available. I do believe reservations will get harder at the 7 month window but for different reasons. Namely that new SSR owners will want to try their home initially but after a couple of visits, they'll want to venture out. We've seen this with all new resorts, it's just that it's time for SSR to go through that evolution and the numbers are so great. Given that I don't believe any announced or rumored new resorts will impact this scenario much, I feel we'll see a maximum impact somewhere between 2 & 3 years after SSR is completely sold out. The reason I don't think AKV, CRV or GCV will have much impact is I don't think many units will make it to the 7 month window.

 

[WebmasterDoc]

.... We are fortunate that DVC is not 100% sold, and that there are a reserve of rooms given to CRO that I believe can be reclaimed closer to booking dates. ...

There is no "reserve of rooms given to CRO". The rooms available for cash reservations thru CRO are mostly from points used by DVC members for non-DVC options like cruises and stays at other WDW resorts. The % held by DVD is primarily used to replace rooms under rehab or maintenance. Once within 60 days, any rooms not reserved using points is also made available for CRO cash reservations.

Presently at SSR and AKV unsold inventory is also made available to CRO. As that inventory is declared into the membership it is no longer available to CRO.

 

[jarestel]

I think growth does play a factor in the ability of a member to sucessfully reserve a room, even during the home resort booking period. Though there are the same number of rooms and the same number of points, due to the number of members purchasing small add-on memberships primarily to be able to reserve early at certain resorts, there are probably more owners than DVC initially envisioned. More owners attempting to book the same number of rooms does equate to less availability even during the home resort priority window.

 

[doconeill]

There is no "reserve of rooms given to CRO". The rooms available for cash reservations thru CRO are mostly from points used by DVC members for non-DVC options like cruises and stays at other WDW resorts. The % held by DVD is primarily used to replace rooms under rehab or maintenance. Once within 60 days, any rooms not reserved using points is also made available for CRO cash reservations.

Presently at SSR and AKV unsold inventory is also made available to CRO. As that inventory is declared into the membership it is no longer available to CRO.

I stand corrected, but I understood that CRO always started with a percentage of rooms, as I believe you can book a DVC resort via CRO well in advance of 60 days.

 

[squirrlygirl]

I don't see how more owners makes a difference. If you own fewer points, you either go much fewer days at a time, or bank and borrow and only go every 2 or 3 years. It's still the same amount of points. For someone to buy a small add-on at BWV, doesn't that mean someone else had to sell a small add-on?

So the problem IMO is not more owners or larger DVC really, it's more owners who prefer the smaller resorts. And more owners who buy a contract with the intention of taking advantage of that home priority period.

So what type of resort would balance the equation?

 

[dwelty]

I think growth does play a factor in the ability of a member to sucessfully reserve a room, even during the home resort booking period. Though there are the same number of rooms and the same number of points, due to the number of members purchasing small add-on memberships primarily to be able to reserve early at certain resorts, there are probably more owners than DVC initially envisioned. More owners attempting to book the same number of rooms does equate to less availability even during the home resort priority window.

Yes, but they only can use the home resort booking period for the number of points they have at that resort. For example if you have 300 SSR points and 100 BCV points, you can only book at BCV during the home resort booking period with those 100 points. You could not use your SSR points there until the 7 month window. (You used to be able to do this, It was called "Point Morphing" but Disney closed this loophole about a year ago).

So during the 11 month window, it should make no difference how many owners there are, the points are what matter.

 

[bobbiwoz]

Banking and borrowing throw something into the mix, and that's why it's noted that they could suspend either, IIRC.

Bobbi

 

[Dean]

I think growth does play a factor in the ability of a member to sucessfully reserve a room, even during the home resort booking period. Though there are the same number of rooms and the same number of points, due to the number of members purchasing small add-on memberships primarily to be able to reserve early at certain resorts, there are probably more owners than DVC initially envisioned. More owners attempting to book the same number of rooms does equate to less availability even during the home resort priority window.

Also, the extra competition at the 7 month window has driven a percentage of owners to booking earlier with a cascade effect all the way back to the 11 month window.

 

[jekjones1558]

So during the 11 month window, it should make no difference how many owners there are, the points are what matter.

Actually, I think it does matter how many owners there are. If there is one owner with 1000 points, for example, that owner probably would not use all 1000 points for a single reservation at a difficult-to-book time. But if those 1000 points are spread across 5 members with 200 points each, it could be that several of them may try to use all 200 points (maybe even borrow and/or bank additional points for a larger room and/or longer stay) for the same difficult-to-book time. I am not saying that this does, in fact, currently have a major impact on the booking issues being discussed, but mathematically it certainly could.

 

[AKV707]

Actually, I think it does matter how many owners there are. If there is one owner with 1000 points, for example, that owner probably would not use all 1000 points for a single reservation at a difficult-to-book time. But if those 1000 points are spread across 5 members with 200 points each, it could be that several of them may try to use all 200 points (maybe even borrow and/or bank additional points for a larger room and/or longer stay) for the same difficult-to-book time.

Maybe I am looking at this the wrong way, but the points correspond to unitis. (developer points aside) So wouldn't one owner with 1000 points be the same as 5 who own 200? Clearly 5 people can try to book the same resort and accomadation and time period.

 

[Dean]

Maybe I am looking at this the wrong way, but the points correspond to unitis. (developer points aside) So wouldn't one owner with 1000 points be the same as 5 who own 200? Clearly 5 people can try to book the same resort and accomadation and time period.

I can see jekjones point. There likely are some differences in HOW a member with 1000 points tends to use their points just like there are differences in how different demographics use the points as well. Someone who owns 1000 points and plans to simply use them MIGHT be less likely to try to get 5 units at the same high demand time than 5 members with 200 pts each. But they MIGHT not and OKW members might be different than AKV members, etc. I doubt any of us have much actual information on the usage habits of different groups to make any judgments though you can bet DVC and other timeshare systems do.

 

[SuzanneSLO]

Also, the extra competition at the 7 month window has driven a percentage of owners to booking earlier with a cascade effect all the way back to the 11 month window.

I think this is a very big factor. It results from 2 things: DVC is older, so many members have personally experienced a problem booking and the internet where people share their personal experiences in which they had a problem booking. The result is that more members are booking earlier, making it harder for those who don't want to (or can't) do that.

JMHO -- Suzanne