Is DVC Getting Too Big ???

[tjkraz]

When you quoted me, you left out an important sentence, imo, backing up my opinion. That sentence is: "Considering the vast differences in resort sizes, this would even out the playing field, somewhat." And this is true. It is a lot harder to compete for a resort that has a lot less villas then one that is huge, compared to the others. Since the DVC members willingly and knowingly pay higher expenses for a membership at these home resorts, the large difference in available villas, is not realistic nor evenly applied to all DVC resorts, solely due to the size differences, with the existing home resort booking window. It is about supply and demand. Fewer available villas opened up to all members at the same time, greatly stacks the odds for home members being shut out of the smaller resorts without booking somewhere between 11 & 7 months out. Considering these home resorts also are the highest cost wise to members, makes the whole thing even more lop sided.

You can call it equality if you wish, but it sounds more like exclusivity to me.

Right now, the playing field IS level by my way of thinking--we all have 4 months to book our Home. Those who can book within that time frame will NEVER have a problem (subject to demand by their fellow resort owners, of course.)

The 11/7 booking window has always been clearly stated in all DVC literature as something that could change at any time, in either direction. Nothing was ever promised to members regarding this.

True. But that doesn't mean that people wouldn't be upset if DVC chose to exercise those rights. We all silently hope that DVC will continue to offer a program which is materially similar to the program we bought into.

As you point out, DVC can also reduce the Home resort window to as little as one month. Something tells me that if the booking window were suddenly changed to 11/10, your response wouldn't be "oh well, DVC never promised me that 4 month Home resort advantage."

I also do not see where a change in the booking window would be a disservice to all DVC members. Actually the way it stands now, it is really a disservice to the members that own at the smaller resorts and pay the higher costs.

By my line of thinking, any change in the program which does not clearly favor the vast majority of owners (like a discount on WDW Annual Passes) does a disservice to us all. If we have to start counting hands to see who likes and dislikes a rule change, we're all in trouble.

To say that by lengthing the home resort booking window would cause members to stay at their home resort "every single trip for the next 40 years", is absurb. Members would still be able to book at non home resorts, they would just have a shorter window to do so and the home members would have a longer window to get into their home resorts.

But you can't argue that it would be MUCH more difficult to get into non-Home resorts than to get into a Home resort. People can't afford to wait until 3-4 months before their trips to start booking airfare, scheduling vacation time, and securing a dogsitter. So, Home resort bookings will increase dramatically, with (some) members scrambling to try and switch 3-4 months out. The net result increased difficulty in booking non-Home resorts. I mean, that's what this is all about right?

An increase in Home resort bookings would be most noticable at the smaller resorts. An owner at SSR will have a very difficult time getting into BCV only 3-4 months out. At the same time, owners of any resort will probably have little trouble getting a room at OKW or SSR simply because they are the two largest resorts. Is that any more fair than the system we have now?

And what happens during high-demand periods when I can't even book my Home? If I'm an owner at VWL trying to book a December trip on 6 months' notice, it's very possible that I will find zero availability at my Home resort. With a non-Home booking window of only 3-4 months, I must wait many more weeks to find out if there is any availability at the other resorts. Effectively my trip is in limbo until as little as 90 days prior to my departure date. Not exactly ideal, IMO.

I also find it hard to believe, that just because someone does not read the Dis, they would not investigate all the ins and outs of a purchase, that requires the cash layout of a DVC membership. We owned DVC long before we ever heard of the Dis and we researched our purchase throughly.

Then why has DVC been able to sell millions of points at SSR? If people are doing their research, they know going in the importance of the 4-month Home resort window. They know they can save thousands of dollars buying OKW via resale.

DVC almost makes it too easy to buy. Candidates for DVC are people who are already spending thousands of dollars annually for a week or more at a Disney resort. When presented with the rudimentary workings of the program and a simple payment plan, many have little reason to look further. I won't insult anyone by quoting posts, but you don't have to look far on these boards to find a post from a owner member that shows a staggering ignorance of DVC policies and procedures.

I do not see the 12/4 month booking window as being that much of a problem for future sales. This still allows members to book at their home resort and waitlist for a non home resort for 1/4 of the year. It just would be a flip flop of the existing policy.

Well, I think you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. The whole idea here is to limit members' access to non-Home resorts. If demand at the smaller resorts is such that you would advocate such a change, clearly there are people who would be disappointed in such a change.

Trying to put myself in the place of someone learning about DVC for the first time, hearing that I only have 3-4 months (or 1/3 to 1/4 of the total booking window) to book outside of my Home would certainly raise questions. And those questions would be justified.

 

[Dean]

Personally Is think the home resort window is not THAT important as to how long it is, given the 1 month guarantee. If it were only a month, most would book within that period that want their home resort. All it would do is shift the curve of people able to plan vs those that couldn't plan due to work and the like. OTOH, if the booking windows were made say 11/4, that would be just as fair and reasonable to all of the members, including those who bought elsewhere with the idea of staying mostly at resorts not their home resort.

The idea that higher dues give more benefits or are tied to certain resorts specifically to make them exclusive, is not accurate. While some of the more desirable may have higher fees, there is no implied benefits associated. Besides VB has the highest dues and is one of the least desired resorts by many. If one made a conscience decision to buy a specific resort knowing the dues were higher and expecting that to continue, that's fine. But the dues are to keep up the resort and pay their portion of direct and indirect expenses.

 

[thelobstershanty]

tjkraz,
We have to agree, to disagree. You think the home booking window is fine the way it is, I think it is much too short condsidering the huge addition of the number of DVC villas since this home booking window was first put in place. I am not trying to suggest any exclusivity, just trying to even out the equation between the number of villas available at each resort and the home resort booking window timeframe.
I agree not everyone plans a trip 4 months out but then a lot of people do not plan trips as far as 11 months out either. The same elements that make planning a trip 4 months out hard i.e. airfare, work & school schedules, kids sports, scouts, plays, lessons, etc also apply at the 11 month mark. For a family that has kids heavily involved in sports, you do not know how long a season will last. If the team does well and progresses to local and state championships this could easily add on a substanial amount of unplanned obligations. Then of course, if the team does well, then the whole summer is taken up with the sports camps, pre season, etc. Also many families make mutiple trips to WDW in a year. Trying to figure that all out at 11 months can be a nightmare.
I admit the whole purpose of changing the home booking window is to reduce access at none home resorts. I am not saying eliminate it, just reduce it. Also a member always has the option of booking at their home resort and switching resorts at the 4 month mark. This would not effect any type of travel plans since the member is not changing dates, but merely changing resorts.
DVC members with a home resort at the largest DVC resorts have the luxury of not always having to make travel plans so far out because there are so many villas available. By lengthing the home booking window would give DVC members, with their home resort at the smaller DVC resorts, the same luxury.
I agree changes made to DVC policies should favor all members, but on the flip side existing policies should not stack up against certain members because their home resort happens to be 1 of the smallest.

Dean,
I an not saying the members paying the higher dues and points are entitled to anything more than other members. I should have phrased it that I find it ironic and somewhat backwards that the members paying the highest dues (for the WDW resorts, not VB), also have the hardest time getting into their home resorts. Competing with other home members for certain times of the year, for certain villas etc can be tough during the home exclusive booking window. When the window opens up at 7 months to all members, makes it much more difficult.

 

[JohnNJ]

You guys make my head hurt.

 

[goldilocks_63]

"This would not effect any type of travel plans since the member is not changing dates, but merely changing resorts."

***

I've found that changing resorts can mean big differences in point usage, so this can affect my travel plans, as much as airline and other considerations....

Goldi

 

[Beach_Bound9]

NO! If you understood the system, you would realize that a bigger DVC provides more options for all members. So you cannot get into WLV or BVC at busy times at 7 months! Tough! Buy where you want to stay! NO timeshare allows you to book key times and key properties unless you BUY that specific resort!

Based on my understanding of supply and demand and DVC, the more resorts, the reduced the trading power available with other timeshares for non-DVC trades and cruises, reducing a benefit to current members. Your own post indicates the larger DVC becomes, the harder to get into some desired current resorts. What good is more options if current options become excessively limited, and newer options are not as desirable? Many prefer WLV and BCV over SSR and OKW. Many OKW's are opting to go to other resorts.

By the way, I have followed your advice of buying where I want to stay and almost always stay there. But in answer to the question is DVC getting too big, I'd have to say part of what I also purchased was the option to stay in other resorts at the 7 month window and to trade outside of DVC to desirable locations. When that trading power is reduced by an excessive supply of DVC accomodations available, I'm loosing out, more dues to that than I would have in the past (I know that trading out is not the most cost effective use of points, but it is becomming less and less cost effective as ownership grows).

 

[Dean]

Dean,
I an not saying the members paying the higher dues and points are entitled to anything more than other members. I should have phrased it that I find it ironic and somewhat backwards that the members paying the highest dues (for the WDW resorts, not VB), also have the hardest time getting into their home resorts. Competing with other home members for certain times of the year, for certain villas etc can be tough during the home exclusive booking window. When the window opens up at 7 months to all members, makes it much more difficult.

I'd say the dues have NOTHING to do with it, at least other than peripherally. BCV and VWL will be the hardest resorts to book because they are desirable and are smaller (less units). The sheer size of the system will overwhelm the available time there especially when it's likely a higher percent of owners at certain other resorts are trying to book certain resorts at the 7 month window more than the reverse. I'm sure there will be someone who owns at BCV or VWL and always stays at OKW or SSR but it's the aggregate usage that's important here. The home resort window should not be a problem, simply book at 7 months or longer. I'd say that anyone that can not plan 7 months out most of the time should probably not own a timeshare, DVC or otherwise. Since you would be setting yourself up for possible failure.

 

[Dean]

By the way, I have followed your advice of buying where I want to stay and almost always stay there. But in answer to the question is DVC getting too big, I'd have to say part of what I also purchased was the option to stay in other resorts at the 7 month window and to trade outside of DVC to desirable locations. When that trading power is reduced by an excessive supply of DVC accomodations available, I'm loosing out, more dues to that than I would have in the past (I know that trading out is not the most cost effective use of points, but it is becomming less and less cost effective as ownership grows).

Given the demand for on site DVC and that traditionally only 3% or less of the members trade, I don't think losing trade power will be an issue. What will be an issue is trading for cash equivalents as it will give DVC more units to liquidate to generate cash for DCL, CC, DC, etc. So all of these items will end up costing more points in the long run.

 

[DMDSTPRGIL]

What has happened to DVC happened just after 9/11. DVC wasn't even brought up at the big Disney meetings in Ca. till the big wigs noticed after 9/11 no workers at the DVC resorts had to be layed off. When asked why they were told because all the rooms are still booked up and they needed the workers. All the shops were makeing money as well as the resturants. Most of the big shots had to be told what the DVC was. They have since taken notice and hense the big push to make it bigger because it is a money maker for Disney World, something they never really took note of. There is also a rumor they are going to start a DVC in Ca.

 

[JohnNJ]

There is also a rumor they are going to start a DVC in Ca.

I also heard a rumor, most likely here, that Disney would not build another stand alone hotel at WDW. Any new construction will be DVC or DVC/hotel combo.

 

[joepoe]

If you understood the dvc resorts, you'd know there is no such place as BVC! Sorry, couldn't resist!

SORRY! I just realized I was a little harsh. Didnt intend for it to come out that way!

Sometimes I am a dork. BCV indeed!

 

[Megangel31]

DVC members with a home resort at the largest DVC resorts have the luxury of not always having to make travel plans so far out because there are so many villas available. By lengthing the home booking window would give DVC members, with their home resort at the smaller DVC resorts, the same luxury.
I agree changes made to DVC policies should favor all members, but on the flip side existing policies should not stack up against certain members because their home resort happens to be 1 of the smallest.

I own at both large and small resorts, so I can see both sides of this arguement. However, I think you're really stretching here to try and justify your position regarding home resort booking windows. It's laughable to think that people who own at OKW and SSR should have less of an opportunity to book elsewhere just because there's more availability at those resorts. I definitely agree with tjkraz on this one- you're basically promoting exclusivity. Sure, there are lots of folks who purchase points at OKW because they're less expensive or at SSR just to get in the system, maybe per the DVC sales pitch. But there are also lots of folks who buy through Disney and happen to get whatever is actively selling at the time. If you discovered DVC, either through research or just dumb luck, while they were selling VWL and BCV, good for you. It doesn't entitle you to protectionism.

There are going to be a lot of SSR owners when the resort is completed. Disney isn't going to upset the apple cart just to appease a smaller group of owners who feel threatened because of the number of players. Whining about paying slightly higher dues won't cut it. The smaller group of owners should just get smarter about booking within the appropriate window. And if they can't, as was mentioned before, maybe they shouldn't worry about having a points-based timeshare where they can't control their "week" in the first place.

It will only get worse if Eagle Pines comes to fruition after SSR is finished selling.

 

[Megangel31]

And I agree with those who say that it's not necessarily that DVC is getting too big, but that the number of Disney accommodations, along with all the perks that go with them, is getting out of hand. There are just that many more people entering the parks early or staying late, using programs such as Magical Express, or taking advantage of the free dining (and crowding out the Disney eating establishments) by staying onsite. When is enough enough?

 

[DisFlan]

Let's back up a step. Maybe what WDW actually needs is more park rather than more DVC. Anyone else think the whole place is just too darned crowded?

Discounts and free dining plans and special events and new rides are fine - up to a point. When they draw in so many people that shoulder-to-shoulder park crowds lessen the enjoyment, it means something is out of kilter. The "slow" periods are becoming less and less frequent. We need more park space before we need more DVC projects. And as far as I can tell, no new parks or expanded parks are planned for WDW.

Yes, I understand how the present crowds are a financial plus for Disney, but (barring a catastrophe) a day will come not too far in the future when more than a few of us will begin to opt out of a trip here and there because we simply don't want to fight massive park crowds, overcrowded restaurants, packed transportation and overworked CMs during our favorite time(s) of the year. This won't be because of a lack of DVC accommodations, it'll be because there isn't enough of everything else.

DisFlan

 

[rinkwide]

...they draw in so many people that shoulder-to-shoulder park crowds lessen the enjoyment...

Interestingly, attendance in the parks was actually down 1% last year (but overall revenue was up). According to analysts, the lack of admission discounts slowed the turnstiles but didn't stop those that made it through the gates from spending like crazy.

Probably in the minority, but I'm all for raising ticket prices to keep the riff-raff out, err, uh, I mean keep the crowds down.

 

[BusterCat]

I understand and sympathize with thelobstershanty’s frustration. In the past I’ve always made reservations at the 11mo window --- BUT I have also been able to make modifications to my reservation after the 7 mo window (add a day, change room size, etc,). If you own at SSR modifying your reservation will still be relatively painless. However, for owners at smaller resorts those days of easily modifying an existing reservation are over -- unless you’re willing to stay at SSR or go on a waitlist with increased competition.

Is this in accordance with the bylaws? --- YES. Do I like it? -- NO. Is this what I signed up for? – NOT EXACTLY --- can’t say I foresaw DVC building a behemoth resort with limited desirability.

 

[gjw007]

can’t say I foresaw DVC building a behemoth resort with limited desirability.

I'm assuming that you are referring to SSR. I wonder why you had to insult those of us who bought and like SSR.

 

[nono]

Is this in accordance with the bylaws? --- YES. Do I like it? -- NO. Is this what I signed up for? – NOT EXACTLY --- can’t say I foresaw DVC building a behemoth resort with limited desirability.

And that is the coolest part of owning DVC. Unlike most other timeshare/club purchases, you still have resale value and can choose to sell if you no longer like the way the "club" is arranged. Give TSS a call!

 

[DisFlan]

Interestingly, attendance in the parks was actually down 1% last year (but overall revenue was up). According to analysts, the lack of admission discounts slowed the turnstiles but didn't stop those that made it through the gates from spending like crazy.

Probably in the minority, but I'm all for raising ticket prices to keep the riff-raff out, err, uh, I mean keep the crowds down.

I wonder how much of that 1% was because of hurricanes. The crowds sure weren't lacking when we were there last year.

I agree with you about raising ticket prices. Call me a snob and flame me crispy, but I'd rather pay more if it'll lessen the chances of seeing someone change a diaper in a fountain. (Yup, I really did. It sort of put me off wanting dinner.)


DisFlan

 

[tjkraz]

I wonder how much of that 1% was because of hurricanes.

None of it. The figures cited were comparison of the fiscal 3rd quarter 2004 vs 2005. WDW's 3Q runs April to June.