2013 Point Chart Changes

[Muhlenberg]

It makes more sense to me if the reason was not demand/popularity, but rather how different the units are, i.e. 3 BR and stand-alone "houses" as opposed to a regular 2 BR (condo or hotel style).

Along that same line of differentiation, is the Value category and Concierge category at AKV. While they are popular and in high demand, BOTH of them are not more points. Their point assignments appear to reflect their uniqueness rather than demand/popularity.

I think their choice of words for the point-change reason was poor.

Like your hairdresser...only Disney knows for sure.

 

[Disney1fan2002]

Copying this from the other thread that was locked.....

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.

BTW...the one bedroom villas went up in points also for 2013. Actually, the choice season went up in all room catagories except the GV.

If someone who knows what they are doing more than me can explain this points difference, I would appreciate if you could explain what I might be doing wrong, or not understanding

..................................................
Someone replied that it has to do with the number of units SSR has...I still don't get it.

When DH and I were at our sales presentation, we were trying to get her to explain how the points can go up or down. (the huge selling point was that points could not change)

She showed us the yearly points chart and said the total number of points on this chart cannot change. If points go up in one season/room cat. then they have to go down in another, to keep the points equal.

Well, I don't see what the number of units has to do with it. All I know is what we were told at the sales pitch doesn't seem to be true.

 

[Ms.Minnie]

I just checked out the 2012/2013 pts for Boardwalk & I’m very happy to say there were no changes. That’s the only resort I checked because that is where we usually stay & is our home resort. Sorry for the large increase for your resort of choice, hopefully it will all work out for you. I’m interested to see what other resorts have been effected by the pts change but my time was limited so I only checked my home resort.

 

[disneynutz]

Demand and occupancy aren't the same thing. They could have 100 occupancy save for maintenance but that doesn't mean that the demand for each time is the same. It'll never be perfect but DVC has a legal obligation to even out demand if it is too far out of balance. That's the issue I think many miss, this is not personal and there's nothing wrong with this type of adjustment. If one time or type is too popular that there are a lot of people wanting that and a lot of wait list COMPARED to others, then they have to make a change at some point. All one has to do is read this BBS to understand that the relative demand and availability of the THV compared to the 2 BR at SSR was out of balance.

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

 

[Greatfalls]

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.

 

[BirdsOfPreyDave]

Copying this from the other thread that was locked.....

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.

BTW...the one bedroom villas went up in points also for 2013. Actually, the choice season went up in all room catagories except the GV.

If someone who knows what they are doing more than me can explain this points difference, I would appreciate if you could explain what I might be doing wrong, or not understanding

..................................................
Someone replied that it has to do with the number of units SSR has...I still don't get it.

When DH and I were at our sales presentation, we were trying to get her to explain how the points can go up or down. (the huge selling point was that points could not change)

She showed us the yearly points chart and said the total number of points on this chart cannot change. If points go up in one season/room cat. then they have to go down in another, to keep the points equal.

Well, I don't see what the number of units has to do with it. All I know is what we were told at the sales pitch doesn't seem to be true.

Sounds like you're doing a comparison adding up one room in each room type. However, it's not the total number of points on the chart that can't change, it's the number of points required to reserve every room in the resort for the full year.

So what's missing from your computation is the number of rooms.

So -- with completely made up numbers -- if there were, say, twice as many studios as there are one-bedrooms, studios could go down 1 point and the one-bedrooms go up 2 points, and while the total number of points on the chart would change, the total number of points for the resort would not.

 

[dzorn]

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

Because some categories or seasons are not reaching that 95% because of lower demand/occupancy. How to increase demand lower points there hopefully increasing occupancy.

Denise in MI

 

[chalee94]

Maybe I calculated wrong, maybe my math is off...I hope so...because I am officially confused.

total pts at the resort cannot change and that equals the number of villas times the pts required.

for example, if i have:

100 standard villas at 10 pts/nt (100 x 10 = 1000) and
100 preferred villas at 15 pts/nt (100 x 15 = 1500)

that would mean the resort total was 1000+1500=2500 pts

if i moved 20 villas to the standard category that would now use up

120 standard villas at 10 pts/nt = (120 x 10) 1200 pts...

so allocating the remaining 1300 pts (2500 for the total resort less 1200 for stnd villas) over the 80 preferred villas would push the requirement up to over 16 pts per nt.

that's just an example using 1 night - the actual calculation would be several different villa types over 365 days with different seasonal costs per night.

 

[lugnut33]

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.

 

[dizfan]

Will we see an increased demand for SSR?

Over the years, many have posted that they would choose OKW over SSR because the point requirements for OKW were much lower.

While they are still not equal, reducing the point requirements for SSR studios, 1BR, and 2BR units does make it more attractive.


Similarly, I see the increase in BLT SV rooms and points per night as a good thing overall. IMHO, some of these rooms were not MK view. It was one of our biggest fears when we stayed in a MK view. When work2play began tracking the room #s, pictures, and categories, most on the boards agreed that these rooms should not be MK view.

Even though the changes hurt DW and I (October BLT studios went up weekdays), I applaud DVC for making these adjustments.

 

[tjkraz]

Personally and just my opinion I think it was sales related. The lower points at the THV when they came online was a huge focus for SSR which had gotten kinda stagnant in sales. They had not build the new pool yet and needed something to draw interest.

Now that people have experienced the Tree houses the new pool is open, they can afford to up the points some and lower them in some other areas to balance it out.

I'm sure there was some sales motivation for setting the points as the originally were. That's the case in any pricing decision: you charge what you feel will attract the greatest number of customers without sacrificing margins.

But in all honesty, if the Treehouses were priced at 10-15% higher than a Two Bedroom villa when they debuted, I doubt many of us would have had a beef. And it's pretty clear that at the original pricing, folks preferred Treehouses over Two Bedroom villas at SSR.

FWIW, I always assumed that the reason the THVs were the same price per point as the 2BR, was because they are almost identical in square footage.

It might have played some role but square footage is not exactly the driving motivator. A BoardWalk Standard View Two Bedroom has identical sq ft as a BoardWalk View 2B. A Savanna View villa at Kidani is the same size as a Standard View room.

 

[tjkraz]

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?

The success of the program lies in attracting guests to stay during every night of the year.

Occupancy numbers aren't solely driven by what is available to book. There has to be a willingness among owners to stay during every night of the year.

Imagine that a BLT Theme Park view room on New Year's eve cost the same number of points as a Standard View on a Wednesday in September. If 10% of members buy thinking they can use their points for New Year's Eve, many will be extremely disappointed. Just saying "sorry, you missed out" isn't good enough. Those people who couldn't get the NYE booking won't simply shrug their shoulders and book in September--for the same cost--because that's what is available.

Instead you'll get members selling due over their dissatisfaction and the reputation of the program will limit future sales.

When DVC charges more for higher-demand periods and views, it requires members to use a greater share of their ownership to stay during those popular periods. Those stays require greater resources, which helps suppress demand.

Similarly charging less for slower periods convinces budget-minded owners to try those dates.

You don't charge 30 points per night for every night of the year....you charge 15 points per night when demand is low and 75 points per night when demand is exceedingly high. THAT is what encourages year-round full occupancy--not strict first come, first served.

 

[disneybride96]

The success of the program lies in attracting guests to stay during every night of the year.

You don't charge 30 points per night for every night of the year....you charge 15 points per night when demand is low and 75 points per night when demand is exceedingly high. THAT is what encourages year-round full occupancy--not strict first come, first served.

How true. In October 1998, (before we joined DVC) we had booked a BWV 2BR for our group of 6. Upon arrival, we were upgraded to a Grand Villa at no additional charge. I doubt you would see that happen today, and probably just as rare to be able to book at GV during F&W.

DVC and Disney has done a great job of encouraging year-round occupancy with points and events like food & wine.

 

[disneynutz]

The success of the program lies in attracting guests to stay during every night of the year.

Occupancy numbers aren't solely driven by what is available to book. There has to be a willingness among owners to stay during every night of the year.

Imagine that a BLT Theme Park view room on New Year's eve cost the same number of points as a Standard View on a Wednesday in September. If 10% of members buy thinking they can use their points for New Year's Eve, many will be extremely disappointed. Just saying "sorry, you missed out" isn't good enough. Those people who couldn't get the NYE booking won't simply shrug their shoulders and book in September--for the same cost--because that's what is available.

Instead you'll get members selling due over their dissatisfaction and the reputation of the program will limit future sales.

When DVC charges more for higher-demand periods and views, it requires members to use a greater share of their ownership to stay during those popular periods. Those stays require greater resources, which helps suppress demand.

Similarly charging less for slower periods convinces budget-minded owners to try those dates.

You don't charge 30 points per night for every night of the year....you charge 15 points per night when demand is low and 75 points per night when demand is exceedingly high. THAT is what encourages year-round full occupancy--not strict first come, first served.

You don't think that Disney does this to cause Members to use and buy additional points? After the last adjustment they started selling one time use points but many Members purchased add ons.

I would think that Members are locked into their vacation times based on school and work schedules and increasing their point requirements won't cause them to change their vacation habits, it didn't us.

It's like charging more for food during the holidays, take a popular time and charge more for the privilege of eating or in this case the privilege of staying at a popular DVC resort.

I also have another thought about the BLT and Aulani dues being lower when they were first selling the resorts or THV and a 2 bedroom at SSR being the same number of points.

If a Guide uses the fact in their sales presentation, the item was deliberately created by Disney for sales reasons. After sales have ended, adjustments are made to put things where they belong.

Bill

 

[Sandisw]

I also wonder if the change for Theme Park view rooms being floor 5 and up will have an impact.

I always said I would not be willing to try that view when I had a chance of being on floor 3 or 4--now that I know it would at least 5th floor, I might consider it.

On the other hand, I know have a better chance of securing SV rooms (which I don't mind) and even end up with a not so bad view. We love BLT because of the location and not the views, but with this change, it does bring it back into the mix!

 

[tjkraz]

You don't think that Disney does this to cause Members to use and buy additional points?

If you want to take up that argument, you have to also acknowledge the sales DVC has lost due to the reallocations.

4 years ago you could get a SSR One Bedroom for as little as 20 points per night. Due to the weekday/weekend changes, the cheapest room is now 25 points per night.

Did some people add more points due to the reallocations? I'm sure some did but unless you have some inside knowledge of the situation, we're just spitting in the wind. I didn't add-on and I don't personally know anyone who did.

But it's undeniable that a 25% increase in weekday point costs has made some prospects reconsider a DVC purchase.

Which number do you think is greater:

1. The number of add-on points DVC sold as a result of the reallocations, or
2. The number of point sales DVC has lost--and will continue to lose for the next 50+ years--due to the fact that weekday stays are no longer the great value they once were.

As for the one-time use points, I've repeatedly said that strikes me as more of a reaction on DVC's part than a motivator. If that was all part of the master plan, why wait until 15 months AFTER the first reallocation to introduce the option? Why not do it 6 months or a year BEFORE the 2010 changes?

It's difficult for me to lend any credence to the conspiracy theories when demand-based point variations are such a key part of the program.

If you have thousands of people buying into SSR, hoping to get a "great deal" on a Treehouse Villa, there is going to be a lot of dissatisfaction when a large percentage of those members are left booking Two Bedroom villas for the same points.

 

[chalee94]

If a Guide uses the fact in their sales presentation, the item was deliberately created by Disney for sales reasons.

pretty sure this is backwards.

the guides will throw out anything they can think of as a "sales reason." if weeknights are cheap, they'll emphasize how many weeknights you can get for 100 pts. as weekends have gotten cheaper, guides will point out how nice it would be to use DVC for long weekends...

 

[BWV Dreamin]

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.

You don't think that Disney does this to cause Members to use and buy additional points? After the last adjustment they started selling one time use points but many Members purchased add ons.

I would think that Members are locked into their vacation times based on school and work schedules and increasing their point requirements won't cause them to change their vacation habits, it didn't us.

It's like charging more for food during the holidays, take a popular time and charge more for the privilege of eating or in this case the privilege of staying at a popular DVC resort.

I also have another thought about the BLT and Aulani dues being lower when they were first selling the resorts or THV and a 2 bedroom at SSR being the same number of points.

If a Guide uses the fact in their sales presentation, the item was deliberately created by Disney for sales reasons. After sales have ended, adjustments are made to put things where they belong.

Bill

 

[disneynutz]

pretty sure this is backwards.

the guides will throw out anything they can think of as a "sales reason." if weeknights are cheap, they'll emphasize how many weeknights you can get for 100 pts. as weekends have gotten cheaper, guides will point out how nice it would be to use DVC for long weekends...

The Guides don't just throw things, they are trained and told what to say and how to say it. The have sales meetings at least once a week and new sales strategies, key points, and what to push are told to the Guides.

That's not a negative thing it's just the sales business.

Bill

 

[disneynutz]

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.

Hard to say what was done by the prior management team and what will happen now.

Sales 101 would tell them to set the points and dues low and adjust when sold out. That's what other projects have done.

We owned another vacation property and when the developer sold out and left we found that they were subsidizing just about everything. The owners saw a doubling of their dues and services and amenities had to be cut due to the high cost. The value of the units plummeted and owners started selling which drove down the value even more. We got out just in time and only took a small hit.

Bill