2013 Point Chart Changes

[hakepb]

I tend to believe the "late" reallocation announcements are just to reduce any chance of an organized backlash before booking begins. Once booking begins, it is "too late" to make any changes and us members will have to live with it.

 

[BUDDYBEAR]

GOOD LUCK TO US ALL

 

[tjkraz]

I tend to believe the "late" reallocation announcements are just to reduce any chance of an organized backlash before booking begins. Once booking begins, it is "too late" to make any changes and us members will have to live with it.

In years past, I would have thought the late release was designed to minimize complaints from members. It did cause a brief uproar but the bonfire died out after a few days. But DVC did mix things up a bit this year by warning us of the changes in early-December.

As for making changes in response to member complaints, there's absolutely no chance of that regardless of the uproar. Whatever charts DVC ends up publishing will be backed by statistical data from member booking trends. Frankly making the changes is the most responsible course for DVC to take. Letting it go so many years without adjustments was irresponsible and tweaking the results in response to member complaints would be completely unjustifiable / negligent.

 

[Sammie]

I tend to believe the "late" reallocation announcements are just to reduce any chance of an organized backlash before booking begins. Once booking begins, it is "too late" to make any changes and us members will have to live with it.

The only organized backlash would be on forums such as these. And while we are an educated and vocal group when it comes to DVC, we are very tiny speck of the 500,000 members.

Many won't even know of the changes unless they get an email or when they get ready to actually book.

 

[rentayenta]

The only organized backlash would be on forums such as these. And while we are an educated and vocal group when it comes to DVC, we are very tiny speck of the 500,000 members.

Many won't even know of the changes unless they get an email or when they get ready to actually book.

This is a very good point. We are a small concentrated group. I have friends who have timeshares and can't tell me a thing about them. Most folks don't perseverate like us cool kids.

 

[Dean]

I don't even want to think that they might revert back to lowering the point cost for weekdays. I never understood why weekend guests were supporting weekday guests.

I think from day one the plan was to make many changes to the point charts, but had to be done in a little at a time because of that rule about a vote. So instead of making all of the changes the first reallocation they are making it in three. But then there is a gap where no changes were made--so my there goes my theory down the drain.

I have to agree with the others it's probably a seasonal adjustment--some seasons are way too popular and are in high demand partly because of the low point cost. And other times of the year villas are empty because the points aren't low enough to attract guests.

They overcompensated the adjustments related to weekdays/weekend differential so I wouldn't be surprised to see them move it back a little. I'm guessing that all of the time from Thanksgiving to the first Mon of Jan will be higher if it's not already premier. I wouldn't be surprised to see Adventure go away completely either for all of the WDW options.

DH suggested that DVC might be going to less flexible mode and require a minimum 1 week booking beginning on Saturday as many other TSs follow at least until the 7 month mark. Just an idle thought, nothing to back this up! He did ask if this was possible though as a tweak ala reallocations. Naturally, I have no idea so I'll ask it here.

That was the other explanation I came up with related to the overcompensated weekend/weekday reallocation, that they might come up with a minimum stay in one way or another. They can't simply make it 7 days but they can back into such a situation in a number of ways too complicated for such a thread as this. They can require up to 5 days but they could also group weekend days and other days together if they wanted. The current ability to reserve 7 days on day 1 already has some effect of a minimum stay.

I'm sure there are some valid reasons for such a change--most notably slight reductions in housekeeping and front desk charges. But I can't see those very modest savings offsetting the value in marketing the program's flexibility.

A 7 day system with defined check in days has a significant savings over the current system. I don't think it'll happen partly because I think DVC's focus is quite the opposite and partly because the POS limitations would minimize the savings. I wouldn't be surprised to see a 3 day min or an extra housekeeping fee for shorter stays.

I understand your feelings about DVCMC looking at booking patterns during the Home Resort period. However, for the purpose of reallocating point charts, I think the focus should be exclusively on vacancy rates.

In my opinion, it doesn't matter when Vacation Homes are booked, but if Vacation Homes are booked. If DVC resorts have a targeted occupancy rate of 98%, then it doesn't matter whether all the reservations were made at the 11-month mark or at the 60-day mark. The real issue should be the percentage of Vacation Homes that actually go vacant. Keep in mind that the DVC is a closed point system. If 10% of the Vacation Homes go vacant, the points that weren't used to book those Vacation Homes must still be used somewhere else in the Vacation Club system. However, since there is a finite amount of DVC inventory available to Members, there is a chance that those unused points will eventually be lost.

I think it does matter when the resort books up, not if it does. DVC has a defined number of units and points a year, just because all units book up and all points are used does not answer the question of demand, the reverse certainly does. I think the best parameters of demand are day 1 at 11 months out, the amount of unfilled requests for a given resort by owners there placed early in the 11 month period and the wait list comparisons. OTOH, good measures of lack of demand include availability at 7 months out and the % of owners at a given resort who try for other resorts at 7 months (whether filled or not). It occurs to me that this is exactly the discussion of the effect of SSR on the system as a whole.

I haven't a clue what Bilby thinks is to be gained by waiting until mid-January before the point charts are released. If she is waiting to get data on the Members' bookings in December 2011 and early January 2012 to see if it alters the degree of reallocation, then I fear she is using a very short view of the Members' booking patterns.

More likely the charts aren't done or they're not through checking them. A reallocation is a very complicated procedure to make sure all is as it should be.

I think that I am in the minority, but I don't mind the changes. I actually like that they don't have a rigid system that never changes. I like an evenly distributed system that should run at close to capacity for all 52 weeks. In the long run it is best for the system in my opinion.

Nice approach. IMO it really doesn't matter whether you or I like it other than as it might affect sales. IF the demand is out of balance DVC really has no choice but to reallocate. Obviously they want to macro-manage and not micromanage which means enough data to make good longer term decisions as well as the idea to get it right big picture but not to worry about a given resort too much if it has some individual variations. The effect on a given member is actually irrelevant to the system and it should be. Technically the changes hurt me but since I know they could and should make such changes, I don't worry about them.

 

[lilpooh108]

The only organized backlash would be on forums such as these. And while we are an educated and vocal group when it comes to DVC, we are very tiny speck of the 500,000 members.

Many won't even know of the changes unless they get an email or when they get ready to actually book.

So true. When I was touring Aulani's GV, I overheard DVC members asking the guide why they received a letter about the subsidy in Aulani dues or rescinding the contract. Although this was all over the DIS and in the Orlando Sentinel, I guess most people (even Aulani owners apparently) had not heard about it.

The other lady I toured with didn't know what her UY was and thought that it was the same as the month in which she bought. She also didn't know that "adding on" at BLT was not the same as adding on at Aulani. She also thought that some time in February, she would book an Ocean View 2bdrm at Aulani for June. I didn't have the heart to correct her.

 

[bookwormde]

Dean,

realocation is actually very simple once you have the spreadsheet developed for each resort. Since DVC has been doing this for the past few years they should be ready.

 

[Dean]

Dean,

realocation is actually very simple once you have the spreadsheet developed for each resort. Since DVC has been doing this for the past few years they should be ready.

I don't believe it's that easy, it certainly wasn't last time where they paid an outside firm to do it was my understanding. The charts were also delayed then as well if I recall. I'm sure once you have the spreadsheet laid out it could be easy but getting there is the hard part. But then you've got to check it all and update the calculators, etc. Then there's the requirement to have "no change" for the year.

 

[arthur06]

Nice approach. IMO it really doesn't matter whether you or I like it other than as it might affect sales. IF the demand is out of balance DVC really has no choice but to reallocate. Obviously they want to macro-manage and not micromanage which means enough data to make good longer term decisions as well as the idea to get it right big picture but not to worry about a given resort too much if it has some individual variations. The effect on a given member is actually irrelevant to the system and it should be. Technically the changes hurt me but since I know they could and should make such changes, I don't worry about them.

EXACTLY!!!! I understand that it hurts many people and there travel patterns. Disney did offer the one time use points to help with any small shortfall in points for existing travel patterns. I do understand it comes with a cost, but it does not require and add on.

Worry is like a rocking chair... Gives you something to do, but doesn't get you anywhere...

 

[Fanatic4Disney]

Hi everyone,
I have just finished reviewing my contract and the new point calculations for 2012, not to mention whatever is coming for 2013. Being from California, we purchased in 2006 and because no properties were available to be sold in California, we were sold time at Saratoga Springs. We were asked by the salesman where we wanted to vacation, and we told him California, and we were told great, will be always be able to stay at the Disneyland Hotel and the points would remain level for a week's stay for the duration of our contract. Now that I have received the new booking schedules, and have gone back and assembled a chart of ALL points from the time of purchase until now, I have found that in the beginning a week would have cost me 203 points to stay a week in a standard room during regular season. That same room today will now cost me 376 points so now no longer have enough points to stay for a week during the summer months (regular season). Our salesman completely misrepresented to us with false and misleading statements that even though our "ownership" was in Florida, it could be used in the Disney Collection which was "exclusive" to DVC members -- which by the way I know now is available to Marriott timeshare owners -- and I believe the demand as a result of allowing other timeshares to book our resorts is driving the points up! Is there anyone else out there in California who purchased with the intent of almost exclusively staying in California and using your points at Disneyland Hotels? We are extremely disappointed and have placed a call to DVC and all they wanted to do was read us the contract. We know what the contract says, but we also know what the verbal contract and representations were and we are extremely unhappy. Believe it or not, we understand California Grand Californian is the most popular in all of DVC's holdings and therefore the most expensive when built. When we went for the "update" in 2010, we were told, however, that that would have no effect on point values for the remaining Disney Collection, i.e., the Disneyland Hotel. So, now when you take a look, the Grand Californian is 388 weekly points for the magic season (summer), and the Disneyland Hotel is 330 weekly points for the regular season (summer), compared to 196 points for a week from 2007-2011. We are feeling completely ripped off and defrauded. Anyone else actually done the comparison of points? If we just take a standard room at the Disneyland Hotel in 2008-2011, supervalue season 148 -- now 263 (increase of 115); value season 155 -- now 277 (increase of 122); regular season 196 -- now 330 (increase of 134); holiday season 214 -- now 376 (increase of 162). Can you imagine given their letter how much more this is going to go up for 2013? OR better yet, imagine what the points are going to cost us in 5 years, 10 years, or 40 years -- we won't be able to stay at all!!! What a bargain! Obviously, the intent of the DVC timeshare was that it will save us thousands of dollars to stay here, AND to quote our brochures received "The main reason we joined Disney Vacation Club is to have the ability to take a quality vacation at least once a year. We always know it's going to be a wonderful place where we can be together as a family." And lastly, I leave you with Walt Disney's quote "If you can keep the family together -- and that's the backbone of our whole business, catering to families - that's what we hope to do." Again, VERY disappointed in California.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

Many many people feel your pain. I would wait and see what the points charts look like before acting. I just don't ever see it ending. Really, all this constant change is making the product very unstable. How many points do you think the guides are going to sell when they say " Well these points charts will only be good for a guaranteed timeframe of one year. They have and will constantly be changing for the good of the membership". I would not want to be a guide trying to sell points these days. Hang in there. You'll know what to do shortly.

Hi everyone,
I have just finished reviewing my contract and the new point calculations for 2012, not to mention whatever is coming for 2013. Being from California, we purchased in 2006 and because no properties were available to be sold in California, we were sold time at Saratoga Springs. We were asked by the salesman where we wanted to vacation, and we told him California, and we were told great, will be always be able to stay at the Disneyland Hotel and the points would remain level for a week's stay for the duration of our contract. Now that I have received the new booking schedules, and have gone back and assembled a chart of ALL points from the time of purchase until now, I have found that in the beginning a week would have cost me 203 points to stay a week in a standard room during regular season. That same room today will now cost me 376 points so now no longer have enough points to stay for a week during the summer months (regular season). Our salesman completely misrepresented to us with false and misleading statements that even though our "ownership" was in Florida, it could be used in the Disney Collection which was "exclusive" to DVC members -- which by the way I know now is available to Marriott timeshare owners -- and I believe the demand as a result of allowing other timeshares to book our resorts is driving the points up! Is there anyone else out there in California who purchased with the intent of almost exclusively staying in California and using your points at Disneyland Hotels? We are extremely disappointed and have placed a call to DVC and all they wanted to do was read us the contract. We know what the contract says, but we also know what the verbal contract and representations were and we are extremely unhappy. Believe it or not, we understand California Grand Californian is the most popular in all of DVC's holdings and therefore the most expensive when built. When we went for the "update" in 2010, we were told, however, that that would have no effect on point values for the remaining Disney Collection, i.e., the Disneyland Hotel. So, now when you take a look, the Grand Californian is 388 weekly points for the magic season (summer), and the Disneyland Hotel is 330 weekly points for the regular season (summer), compared to 196 points for a week from 2007-2011. We are feeling completely ripped off and defrauded. Anyone else actually done the comparison of points? If we just take a standard room at the Disneyland Hotel in 2008-2011, supervalue season 148 -- now 263 (increase of 115); value season 155 -- now 277 (increase of 122); regular season 196 -- now 330 (increase of 134); holiday season 214 -- now 376 (increase of 162). Can you imagine given their letter how much more this is going to go up for 2013? OR better yet, imagine what the points are going to cost us in 5 years, 10 years, or 40 years -- we won't be able to stay at all!!! What a bargain! Obviously, the intent of the DVC timeshare was that it will save us thousands of dollars to stay here, AND to quote our brochures received "The main reason we joined Disney Vacation Club is to have the ability to take a quality vacation at least once a year. We always know it's going to be a wonderful place where we can be together as a family." And lastly, I leave you with Walt Disney's quote "If you can keep the family together -- and that's the backbone of our whole business, catering to families - that's what we hope to do." Again, VERY disappointed in California.

 

[bookwormde]

Dean,

There are several Dis members who have created "clones" of the spreadsheet to check the accuracy, if DVC had to hire an outside firm to do it that is just plain "sad"

bookwormde

 

[crewmatt]

Verifying a spreadsheet adds isn't very hard. Optimizing changes for usage patterns is much more difficult. Just imagine the number of possible changes you cold make to a point chart and have it add up. Not impossible though. Especially if you have lots of data of past years and impacts of changes. And a clear goal. If I want to think the best of Disney I'd say the goal is maximizing the number of people who get to stay. If I want to think the worst they want to have the most number of points spent in the minimum number of days so they have rooms to rent as cash inventory. So many different optimizations. Would be a very interesting problem to solve.

 

[crewmatt]

If anyone has that data or something close or other similar data let me know. I'd love to play around with it.

 

[DebbieB]

Hi everyone,
I have just finished reviewing my contract and the new point calculations for 2012, not to mention whatever is coming for 2013. Being from California, we purchased in 2006 and because no properties were available to be sold in California, we were sold time at Saratoga Springs. We were asked by the salesman where we wanted to vacation, and we told him California, and we were told great, will be always be able to stay at the Disneyland Hotel and the points would remain level for a week's stay for the duration of our contract.

While the DVC resorts have to "balance" the points over the entire year contractually, The Disney Collection does not. They will likely continue to increase. Have you tried to get into VGC?

 

[Fanatic4Disney]

Debbie,

What is VGC?

 

[Sammie]

Debbie,

What is VGC?

Villas of Grand Californian. As to Marriot members trading in, that only happens when DVC members trade out, so while you might see them as competition, truly they are not.

 

[recmouse]

Our initial reaction to that letter was "UGH" - probably means points going up on everything, everywhere. I know that was the feeling of our other DVC friends too.

We aren't going to purchase any more points so it will stink if I won't be able to go when I want too... or have to pay cash for some nights.

Let's hope for the best for the 2013 charts.

 

[DebbieB]

Our initial reaction to that letter was "UGH" - probably means points going up on everything, everywhere. I know that was the feeling of our other DVC friends too.

We aren't going to purchase any more points so it will stink if I won't be able to go when I want too... or have to pay cash for some nights.

Let's hope for the best for the 2013 charts.

A reallocation for DVC resorts has to balance. Some goes up, some goes down. Everything can't go up.