DVC makes sense to us!

[pilferk]

She's getting a three bedroom 2 bathroom condo for $100 a night. To compare, you are looking at the Grand Villas on the DVC point charts. If you are happy staying offsite and want bigger units, that is a way better deal than anything you can get at DVC. We tend to stay for 272 points in a BW 2 bedroom in October. I figure that's about $1800 in point cost and dues. She's getting a bigger unit (one more bedroom) for $700. That $1100 pays for a lot of parking.

But does it pay for:

parking
rental car or taxi service to and from the airport
EMH (without price)
package delivery to her room so she doesn't have to schlep
rental car or taxi service to and from the parks
"themed" accomodations (NOT withoug price...but would require the person in the scenario to rent another room at WDW)
Disney level service (without price)
easy access to them parks (without price)
Access to the DDP (money saver...saves us a few hundred bucks even paying for it..could change in '08..but without price)
Discounts on AP's for her family

Now, I agree....she's getting a lot for her money. MAYBE better than DVC for that trip. But lets face it, you're not exactly comparing apples to apples here.

Now add to the fact that it's unlikely that, 50 years from now, that same level of accomodation will be able to be found in Orlando at that same price....and the fact you will STILL be paying the same rate for your room + dues adjustments.

 

[starbox]

But does it pay for:

parking
rental car or taxi service to and from the airport we've never used DME and never will
EMH (priceless)I hate EMH and avoid them at all costs - too many crowds
package delivery to her room so she doesn't have to schlepI've used this, maybe twice - we just purchase stuff as we are leaving or go to DTD just to shop one day
rental car or taxi service to and from the parks
"themed" accomodations (priceless)agreed
Disney level service (priceless)agreed
easy access to them parks (priceless)true - but this is a bigger issue with some touring styles, if you go the parks in the am and stay till the night - it's not as noticable. This is a bigger perk if you do back and forth
Access to the DDP (money saver...saves us a few hundred bucks even paying for it..could change in '08)agreed
Discounts on AP's for her familyAP's are not always the best deal. We'll make out better with 10 day no expiration plus tickets next year. All the water park visits that don't expire are a great way to stretch vacations

I obviously love my DVC, but I am also a former girl-that-chose-to-be-on-a-budget. We lived very frugally for years so that we could afford to cut our income in half and I could have the luxury of not working while I had babies/toddlers/preschoolers at home.

You can have a fabulous vacation and not stay on property. You can love Disney and not stay on property. What DVC really provides is the opportunity to regularly stay in a themed resort, with Disney service, and (with the DDP) and affordable way to eat all of your meals in themed restaurants. With DVC, you can get either 1) a larger unit than you would get paying rack rate for a Disney room OR 2) more vacation days per year that you would get paying rack rate via. CRO

For many of us, that is priceless - which is a good thing, because we are, without a doubt, paying a premium price for it. As I said, I love DVC and I'd much rather own DVC than a new minivan (at about the same cost). Would I recommend owning DVC to someone trying to live (for whatever reason) on a budget? Not unless they annually spent 3,000-5,000 on vacations.

 

[crisi]

But does it pay for:

parking
rental car or taxi service to and from the airport
EMH (priceless)
package delivery to her room so she doesn't have to schlep
rental car or taxi service to and from the parks
"themed" accomodations (priceless)
Disney level service (priceless)
easy access to them parks (priceless)
Access to the DDP (money saver...saves us a few hundred bucks even paying for it..could change in '08)
Discounts on AP's for her family

Now, I agree....she's getting a lot for her money. MAYBE better than DVC for that trip. But lets face it, you're not exactly comparing apples to apples here.

Now add to the fact that it's unlikely that, 50 years from now, that same level of accomodation will be able to be found in Orlando at that same price....and the fact you will STILL be paying the same rate for your room + dues adjustments.

I know you are a very sensible person - are those things truly priceless, or are the opportunity costs just worth it to you? If DVC were $100,000 for 160 points, would you still buy? If staying onsite meant spending $4,000 more instead of $1000 more, would you stay onsite? $10,000? $50,000. Obviously, these things do have a price - its just that what they are actually worth - their utility in an economic sense - is going to be different for each person.

There was a post years ago about someone going to Disney yearly on a shoestring budget (DVC was not in the picture) and she said something like "we may eat rice and beans for a year and never go out to dinner, but we aren't giving up Disney." To me, that's a great example of opportunity cost I'm not willing to do. I'm not willing to cut my day to day comfort (grocery bills, having a pizza delivered, keeping my house at a comfortable temperature - and other things - we live in a modest home for our income, but we could live in a more modest home, we don't drive luxury cars, but we don't drive used Escorts either) in order to vacation - not worth it to me - not for Disney, not for Europe, not for an overnight down at the local hotel with a pool. Fortunately we can live at a level I feel comfortable at, AND go to WDW. Not everyone gets to do both, and everyone has to decide what is truly worthwhile to them and what isn't.

 

[pilferk]

I obviously love my DVC, but I am also a former girl-that-chose-to-be-on-a-budget. We lived very frugally for years so that we could afford to cut our income in half and I could have the luxury of not working while I had babies/toddlers/preschoolers at home.

You can have a fabulous vacation and not stay on property. You can love Disney and not stay on property. What DVC really provides is the opportunity to regularly stay in a themed resort, with Disney service, and (with the DDP) and affordable way to eat all of your meals in themed restaurants. With DVC, you can get either 1) a larger unit than you would get paying rack rate for a Disney room OR 2) more vacation days per year that you would get paying rack rate via. CRO

For many of us, that is priceless - which is a good thing, because we are, without a doubt, paying a premium price for it. As I said, I love DVC and I'd much rather own DVC than a new minivan (at about the same cost). Would I recommend owning DVC to someone trying to live (for whatever reason) on a budget? Not unless they annually spent 3,000-5,000 on vacations.

First, to clarify my first post, when I say priceless, I mean it literally....not "I value it above any price" but "there is no price the person could pay in her scenario that would buy it for her". I'll also agree she MAY not find value in those offerings (indeed, probably doesn't) which is what makes her deal so "right" for her. But my point was...you're paying for all those things (whether you use them or not) when staying on DVC points. So when looking at what's she's "saving", in making that comparison, to get anywhere near "apples to apples" you have to somehow factor all that in.

I also agree...for those that are completely budget minded, or are happy to stay off site, or even are happy in a value: DVC is not for them. At least, not if they're looking at short term savings. Of course, one could also point out that hotel rates and rental rates (for that 3 bedroom she's getting at 100 a night) are only going up.....while the variable portion of DVC's costs are going up slower (historically) and is a lesser piece overall. So for the LONG term, DVC MAY turn out to be a better budget choice, too. But...well...that would be a tough sell.

If you're going to WDW at least once per year, and staying in a deluxe hotel every trip, DVC is a good deal. You get most of the perks (sans daily housekeeping and promos like free dining.) you get on property. You get themed, Disney-style accomodations. I can't get those things off property, and I place a high enough value on them that I wouldn't stay off property because of that.

Others will disagree....and that's fine. They can prefer their "oranges" to my "apples". But for me..I love me some "apples"...would be buying "apples" anyway for the next 50 years. And if I compare the cost of the "apples" every year, IGNORING the fact those "apples" will get more expensive, to the cost of prepaying for all my "apples" now.....I seem to come out significantly ahead. Ahead, even, if I decided to conservatively invest my pre-purchasing "apple" money and pay OOP for apples every year.....

OK, I admit, I just stretched that analogy so far I think I broke it.

 

[pilferk]

I know you are a very sensible person - are those things truly priceless, or are the opportunity costs just worth it to you? If DVC were $100,000 for 160 points, would you still buy? If staying onsite meant spending $4,000 more instead of $1000 more, would you stay onsite? $10,000? $50,000. Obviously, these things do have a price - its just that what they are actually worth - their utility in an economic sense - is going to be different for each person.

In the person's scenario (off site for 100 per night) what price could she pay to get those services?

She can't. Not and still stay off property and pay her 100 per night.

Thus, they are "priceless". Literally, they have no price she could pay to get them.

Clearer?

There was a post years ago about someone going to Disney yearly on a shoestring budget (DVC was not in the picture) and she said something like "we may eat rice and beans for a year and never go out to dinner, but we aren't giving up Disney." To me, that's a great example of opportunity cost I'm not willing to do. I'm not willing to cut my day to day comfort (grocery bills, having a pizza delivered, keeping my house at a comfortable temperature - and other things - we live in a modest home for our income, but we could live in a more modest home, we don't drive luxury cars, but we don't drive used Escorts either) in order to vacation - not worth it to me - not for Disney, not for Europe, not for an overnight down at the local hotel with a pool. Fortunately we can live at a level I feel comfortable at, AND go to WDW. Not everyone gets to do both, and everyone has to decide what is truly worthwhile to them and what isn't.

I 100% agree. Just because something IS a good deal, financially, doesn't mean you can, or should, invest in it. Maybe you can't afford it. Or you're not willing to make compromises to get it in your budget. Maybe, while it's a good deal for what it's offering, it offers you nothing you want or need. All are valid viewpoints/opinions.

 

[Mtnman44]

DVC is simply one option for a WDW vacation. There are so many different vacationing styles, budget, and priorities in value given to different things that it is impossible to say that one choice is universally better than another. Each person can decide what is the "best" choice for them. The best thing is, when done this way, everyone is right!

Believe it or not, most people don't even go to WDW, ever! Thank goodness for that, as otherwise the lines would be outrageous.

 

[pilferk]

DVC is simply one option for a WDW vacation. There are so many different vacationing styles, budget, and priorities in value given to different things that it is impossible to say that one choice is universally better than another. Each person can decide what is the "best" choice for them. The best thing is, when done this way, everyone is right!

Believe it or not, most people don't even go to WDW, ever! Thank goodness for that, as otherwise the lines would be outrageous.

Absolutely true. I don't think anyone here has said it's the "best option" for everyone. Different people vacation differently, value different things, etc. It's nice there are so many options in that area to fit everyone's tastes.

 

[crisi]

In the person's scenario (off site for 100 per night) what price could she pay to get those services?

She can't. Not and still stay off property and pay her 100 per night.

Thus, they are "priceless". Literally, they have no price she could pay to get them.

Clearer?

Not if you are speaking economically. She CAN pay to get those services, by staying onsite. They obviously have a price to her, and to you. By paying to stay on site, you (and I) are saying that EMH, Disney theming, easy transporation, etc. is valued at or above the delta between prices. They have a price - its $1100. For you (and me) its worth at least $1100 to get whatever we value about DVC.

 

[pilferk]

Not if you are speaking economically. She CAN pay to get those services, by staying onsite. They obviously have a price to her, and to you. By paying to stay on site, you (and I) are saying that EMH, Disney theming, easy transporation, etc. is valued at or above the delta between prices. They have a price - its $1100. For you (and me) its worth at least $1100 to get whatever we value about DVC.

No, thay have a value...which would need to be at or above $1100 for her (or whoever) to reach equalibrium in comparisons. I didn't say they were valueless (that's a judgement call, person by person, as starbox demonstrated above).

Again, what price could she have paid and still stayed OFF SITE for $100 per night and gotten access to those things?

I can't find any price that would allow her to buy those things a la carte. Can you?

While the $1100 she's saving might, indeed, pay for a lot of parking (which DOES have a price), how could it pay for, with her still staying in the same place, the other things mentioned as "priceless"?

The $1100 is NOT the price for those options...it's the price to change her scenario so she has ACCESS to those options....and is no longer getting her room at $100 a night off site. That's the whole point: Taking her room and comparing it to the rooms on property we're using is comparing apples to oranges.

The VALUE in spending the $1100 might be found in those perks...but that's not their price. Again, Disney doesn't offer an a la carte price on those things...which makes them, quite literally, priceless.

 

[kend58]

In the person's scenario (off site for 100 per night) what price could she pay to get those services?

She can't. Not and still stay off property and pay her 100 per night.

Thus, they are "priceless". Literally, they have no price she could pay to get them.

Clearer?

But that person could rent a campsite at FW and get those services depending on the season Disney has therfor set the value to get that access "and a free campsite to boot" access at 41 to 200 per night Pricey but not Priceless

 

[pilferk]

But that person could rent a campsite at FW and get those services depending on the season Disney has therfor set the value to get that access "and a free campsite to boot" access at 41 to 200 per night Pricey but not Priceless

Creative, I'll grant you, but still not technically true.

You're paying for the campsite, not the perks. You get the perks because you rented the campsite, not the other way round. Check the paperwork when you sign in.....

If ANYONE can find me a la carte pricing on the items mentioned, I'll be happy to edit my post. But, AFAIK, no such thing exists.

Again, on the VALUE front, I agree.....you could get VALUE from spending 41 per night, not using the site, and just using the perks. But that's still not the PRICE of those perks. There IS no price affixed to them.

 

[crisi]

Creative, I'll grant you, but still not technically true.

You're paying for the campsite, not the perks. You get the perks because you rented the campsite, not the other way round. Check the paperwork when you sign in.....

If ANYONE can find me a la carte pricing on the items mentioned, I'll be happy to edit my post. But, AFAIK, no such thing exists.

Again, on the VALUE front, I agree.....you could get VALUE from spending 41 per night, not using the site, and just using the perks. But that's still not the PRICE of those perks. There IS no price affixed to them.

But people DO rent campsites and not use them. Its a cheap way to get the "Disney perks" without paying for a Disney hotel. Disney may believe you rented the campsite, but to the purchaser, they've purchased the perks. I've heard of people who get value rooms during free dining and stay offsite because they want the free dining and all the onsite perks, but they can get what they are looking for (a condo) offsite for much cheaper than booking onsite. Its cheaper to book four adults in a value room and get free dining for them and stay offsite, than it is to feed four adults at WDW.

 

[pilferk]

But people DO rent campsites and not use them. Its a cheap way to get the "Disney perks" without paying for a Disney hotel. Disney may believe you rented the campsite, but to the purchaser, they've purchased the perks. I've heard of people who get value rooms during free dining and stay offsite because they want the free dining and all the onsite perks, but they can get what they are looking for (a condo) offsite for much cheaper than booking onsite. Its cheaper to book four adults in a value room and get free dining for them and stay offsite, than it is to feed four adults at WDW.

But they're still renting the campsite (or the value room). They still need to check into that room/site, take posession of that room/site (legally, anyway, by signing the paperwork Disney presents them with), and check out of that room/site. As far as Disney, and any court in the country is concerned, they rented a room/site. What the person's thought process was behind that, why they did it, or their perception that "they just bought the perks" doesn't really matter. Because what they just did, what they just paid for, is set out by the entity selling, not them.

They're not paying directly for the perks.

Now, to THEM....they might see it as paying for the perks. But legally, strictly, technically, really....what are they doing? You said it yourself: They're renting a campsite (or a value room, or whatever) and not using it.

The fact they see VALUE in doing that to get access to the perks speaks to the perks perceived VALUE...not their price.

Price would mean there is a number affixed to them so you can buy them a la carte.

The issue is a simple one: Is there a price affixed to those items so I can call Disney and buy them...just them, no room?

If they do not have a price (not a value, but a price) they are aptly labeled as priceless.

 

[kend58]

If they do not have a price (not a value, but a price) they are aptly labeled as priceless.

Per Websters:

priceless
One entry found for priceless.

Main Entry: price·less
Pronunciation: 'prIs-l&s
Function: adjective
1 a : having a value beyond any price : INVALUABLE b : costly because of rarity or quality : PRECIOUS
2 : having worth in terms of other than market value
3 : delightfully amusing, odd, or absurd


Obviously while these perks lack a seperate ala-carte price they do not have a value beyond any price since Disney is more than happy to give them away to anyone willing to pay $ 41 per night or more to have a KTTW card issued (to up to 10 people) ... the perks are unpurchaseable as a seperate item but not Price-less

 

[crisi]

But they're still renting the campsite (or the value room). They still need to check into that room/site, take posession of that room/site (legally, anyway, by signing the paperwork Disney presents them with), and check out of that room/site. As far as Disney, and any court in the country is concerned, they rented a room/site. What the person's thought process was behind that, why they did it, or their perception that "they just bought the perks" doesn't really matter. Because what they just did, what they just paid for, is set out by the entity selling, not them.

They're not paying directly for the perks.

Now, to THEM....they might see it as paying for the perks. But legally, strictly, technically, really....what are they doing? You said it yourself: They're renting a campsite (or a value room, or whatever) and not using it.

The fact they see VALUE in doing that to get access to the perks speaks to the perks perceived VALUE...not their price.

Price would mean there is a number affixed to them so you can buy them a la carte.

The issue is a simple one: Is there a price affixed to those items so I can call Disney and buy them...just them, no room?

If they do not have a price (not a value, but a price) they are aptly labeled as priceless.

But economically what is the difference? You are making an economic comparison and trying to compare apples to apples - not comparing legal transactions, if you can get the perks in this manner, it doesn't matter what the legal transaction is. Until Disney says "you have to occupy the campsite you rent" its the same transaction to the consumer - and that is who is making the economic decisions.

 

[pilferk]

Per Websters:

priceless
One entry found for priceless.

Main Entry: price·less
Pronunciation: 'prIs-l&s
Function: adjective
1 a : having a value beyond any price : INVALUABLE b : costly because of rarity or quality : PRECIOUS
2 : having worth in terms of other than market value
3 : delightfully amusing, odd, or absurd


Obviously while these perks lack a seperate ala-carte price they do not have a value beyond any price since Disney is more than happy to give them away to anyone willing to pay $ 41 per night or more to have a KTTW card issued (to up to 10 people) ... the perks are unpurchaseable as a seperate item but not Price-less

Yes, I'm aware of the strict definition of the word...it's why I later clarified what I meant.

Again, you're speaking of VALUE, not price.

Unless you can point to a la carte pricing, they are, indeed, without price (price-less). What effect their value might have IF they had a price is a moot point..they simply don't have one.

Please, point to the exact price set for the items in question...by all means. I'll be more than happy to edit my post if you can accomplish that feat.

Simply trying to equate them as "priced" because they are value adds to another thing isn't apt. You can HAVE them for that price...it doesn't mean that IS their price.

 

[pilferk]

But economically what is the difference? You are making an economic comparison and trying to compare apples to apples - not comparing legal transactions, if you can get the perks in this manner, it doesn't matter what the legal transaction is. Until Disney says "you have to occupy the campsite you rent" its the same transaction to the consumer - and that is who is making the economic decisions.

The difference is:

One is what is occuring

One is not.

Again, if you want to talk compartive value, we can crunch those numbers and see what we get....I'm certainly not opposed to that and it's probably more productive than arguing semantics.

Your issue was with the label I applied to those things...with the semantics...the label is an apt one as they are price-less (in the sense they have no price).

And the consumer is choosing to do what, exactly? Who are they calling and what legally binding agreement are they entering into? Whatever their perception is, or reasoning is, what are they ACTUALLY doing?

Renting a room or site.

 

[girt25]

But economically what is the difference? You are making an economic comparison and trying to compare apples to apples - not comparing legal transactions, if you can get the perks in this manner, it doesn't matter what the legal transaction is. Until Disney says "you have to occupy the campsite you rent" its the same transaction to the consumer - and that is who is making the economic decisions.

The difference in my mind is that, the price of these perks are not directly related to the perks themselves. Should disney choose to (unlikely) no longer sell the campsites, the cost of the perks suddenly doubles. If the cost of a value room suddenly has to go up.. because of a new mousekeeping contract, the price for the perks go up, completely unrelated to what you're paying for.

 

[PrincessDadx2]

Please, point to the exact price set for the items in question...by all means. I'll be more than happy to edit my post if you can accomplish that feat.

I cannot, but Starwood, SOG and Hilton can tell you the exact price of the benefits because they pay Disney for them. I have to agree with Crisi on this one. Money is fungible and the premium is related to benefits that can be duplicated through other means at a cost, certainly not priceless.

 

[pilferk]

Edited: I was confusing 2 seperate posts...we were talking 7 days here, comparing to 1800. I was confusing another thread where we were talking 10 days, 2100. Edited for 7 day stay.

Comparative value:

Room rate = $100 per night.

Taxes = $13 per night.

Campsite to get access to Disney perks = $41 per night

Taxes on THAT: 5.50 per night.

Transport to/from offsite to wherever (rental car for 7 days): $175 (Compact + taxes and fees...can go up MUCH more if you have more than 4 travelling or need a larger vehicle for luggage, etc...SUV would be about 250, Minivan about $400). No codes, discounts, frequent flyer, or "rental club" discounts...so you could drop that a bit, maybe.

That gets me to $1291 for the stay ($129.10 per night)...about 509 less, for the total stay, than the rate we looked at initially.

So $72.71 per night difference, plus you're more remote to the parks, don't get the DVC discounts (which, granted, you may or may not use) on AP's, shopping, dining, etc, and other intangibles that can't be effectively priced (themed resorts, Disney service, etc).

Edit: FYI, a week at SSR in value season is 243 points. I worked that out for AKV points...that's 1608.66 per week (approx, with current dues). That's 317 for the whole stay, or 45.28 per night difference