Does Disney have to offer DVC perks?

[achinforsomebacon]

If we feel like we’re getting the shaft, we’ll still have to pay those dues. If we feel so shafted that we sell, even better; now they won’t have to give the new owner any perks at all, and those same dues will still be paid year after year.

This makes it seem like Disney should want people to buy direct and then sell. I'm guessing they make the most indirect money off of new owners and this tends to wane as more and more trips are taken. By people reselling, this potentially brings in new blood to start the cycle all over (I do understand that a lot of resales may also be add-ons to long timers). As you mention, the resale owners don't get the perks. And the cherry on top is that if the resale price is too low, they can buy it back, jack up the price, and sell it all over again.

 

[achinforsomebacon]

We need a poll to get some data on whether discounted APs or lack thereof would affect DVC owners willingness to go into parks. My wife and I would drastically reduce park attendance if we had to pay $200 plus per day. We currently go into the parks 25 to 30 days a year. $5000 - $6000 per year is not a spending choice We would make. (and admission prices will continue to skyrocket)

You would still have the option to purchase an annual pass, just not the discounted one. Call the discounted gold passes $750 a piece and undiscounted platinum passes $1400 each (yuck, I didn't realize how much this was!). I'm not saying the additional $1300 for the two of you is insignificant, but it's far from paying $200 per day. And if you needed the platinum pass based on travel dates, the discounted one increases to $950, further reducing the benefit. Now where it really makes a difference is when you start getting into the families of 4+.

We don't get the discount. Our plan is to get 2-3 trips per annual pass and then take a year off (trip right when pass starts, just under a year later to get in before passes expire, and maybe one more in the middle). Doing this every other year is a little easier to stomach and we feel we're getting a decent value for the passes.

 

[sethschroeder]

What is that lost attendance as a percentage of park attendance? What percentage of Disney timeshare owners would drastically reduce their attendance? How will that reduction pace against people who bite the bullet and pay for annual passes anyway? How does the revenue from per/day ticket sales weigh against revenue from APs less the discount?

From park attendance loss of 1 person there is losses to revenue so the percentage does not actually matter. All it might possibly do is say if its really important to offer or its not as important to offer.

Flip side the discount someone gets is minimal at best for Disney in grand scheme of all revenue extracted from a family. Using October as an example below.

Baseline ticket price: $700 (10 days hopper ticket) or $625 (10 day base ticket)
DVC AP: $720 or $620 Renewal
AP: $1270 or $1070 Renewal

The only cost you really care about is the difference between DVC AP vs AP which would be a loss of $450-$550 per person ($50/day). This then is a negotiation point from DVC to cover some of the cost and Parks looking to provide a discount to a high affinity group to draw them in so they are eating dinner at higher priced restaurants vs the surrounding area.

How much day tickets are are less consequential since when people stay less they will be on day tickets anyways and if they did buy an AP when day tickets would have been less Disey would make more money by offering a discount that backfires on the guest. If they stayed more if it was approaching the $1270 or $1070 AP costs they would be getting the out of state AP anyways and not paying for 2/3/4 separate tickets.

I think you can likely zero out any difference from people who buy 3 separate tickets and would have saved money on AP vs those who bought an AP and actually would have saved by buying individual tickets.

Those who choose to will just decide to pony up for whatever the new front-of-line add-on option there will be, pay for parties, etc. Disney timeshare owners are such a small small percentage of park goers; losing the few who actually choose to go less would be even less significant. Believing otherwise would likely require an overinflated sense of representation of Disney timeshare ownership as a percentage of park attendance.

Except that is a Parks discussion not a should DVC get a discount discussion. DVC has point limits on blue cards to both increase sales but also to limit the number of future members so they can afford to pay Parks for the discounts/events that they negotiate.

Also if Parks didn't want to provide a AP discount there is likely some other discount they would work out with DVC as they have shown through the years there will be some type of ticket discount for DVC members so they obviously feel something needs to be offered or there would be a loss of revenue.

I just think this is way to much in depth when discussing a ticket/AP discount for DVC. There isn't extensive losses when you consider Disney already has the capacity just sitting empty otherwise anyways. Flip side there could be the potential gains.

 

[Bing Showei]

From park attendance loss of 1 person there is losses to revenue so the percentage does not actually matter. All it might possibly do is say if its really important to offer or its not as important to offer.

Flip side the discount someone gets is minimal at best for Disney in grand scheme of all revenue extracted from a family. Using October as an example below.

Baseline ticket price: $700 (10 days hopper ticket) or $625 (10 day base ticket)
DVC AP: $720 or $620 Renewal
AP: $1270 or $1070 Renewal

The only cost you really care about is the difference between DVC AP vs AP which would be a loss of $450-$550 per person ($50/day). This then is a negotiation point from DVC to cover some of the cost and Parks looking to provide a discount to a high affinity group to draw them in so they are eating dinner at higher priced restaurants vs the surrounding area.

How much day tickets are are less consequential since when people stay less they will be on day tickets anyways and if they did buy an AP when day tickets would have been less Disey would make more money by offering a discount that backfires on the guest. If they stayed more if it was approaching the $1270 or $1070 AP costs they would be getting the out of state AP anyways and not paying for 2/3/4 separate tickets.

I think you can likely zero out any difference from people who buy 3 separate tickets and would have saved money on AP vs those who bought an AP and actually would have saved by buying individual tickets.



Except that is a Parks discussion not a should DVC get a discount discussion. DVC has point limits on blue cards to both increase sales but also to limit the number of future members so they can afford to pay Parks for the discounts/events that they negotiate.

Also if Parks didn't want to provide a AP discount there is likely some other discount they would work out with DVC as they have shown through the years there will be some type of ticket discount for DVC members so they obviously feel something needs to be offered or there would be a loss of revenue.

I just think this is way to much in depth when discussing a ticket/AP discount for DVC. There isn't extensive losses when you consider Disney already has the capacity just sitting empty otherwise anyways. Flip side there could be the potential gains.

Personally, I think offering Gold AP discounts is a no brainer. I think, it quickly turns families like mine and mustinjourney’s into more revenue (how much more vs. no AP option is debatable).

Plus, offering Disney’s timeshare owners a pass that is offered freely to any human being by virtue of being one of 22 Million people with a Florida address is less magnanimous than it is highway robbery of the estimated 500,000 high traffic owners for whom Mickey rolls out the literal “Welcome Home” mat to who don’t live in Florida.

To me, the bigger question of whether Disney needs to offer perks at all has been answered pretty loudly, and that answer is a resounding “no” that runs all the way up to the top. The continued success of resale, as pointedly illustrated in a post by ScubaCat, and the ability for Disney to sell retail on the model of “future-proofing” the ownership experience against missing out on new resorts tells me the reason people own at the end of the day is so they can stay at WDW (mostly) or anywhere a Disney timeshare opens.

Being able to move the volume they do on that alone tells me perks can go away and the product will still sell; inclusive of the timeshare division saving on paying the parks division for those AP discounts.

 

[sssteele]

What is that lost attendance as a percentage of park attendance? What percentage of Disney timeshare owners would drastically reduce their attendance? How will that reduction pace against people who bite the bullet and pay for annual passes anyway? How does the revenue from per/day ticket sales weigh against revenue from APs less the discount? Given behaviors of those who still choose to attend, whether by ticket sales or annual pass, how much loss in dining or merchandise revenue is actually realized? How many owners will adjust their touring habits by trying to do more in fewer days? Is the math really as straightforward as a family going 6 days instead of 18 days spending 1/3rd on on meals, merchandise, experiences?

Sure, it’s a very easy concept to draw conclusions on if you take a very simplistic view of revenue on the basis of number of days visited. I suspect it’s not as straightforward as that and that if forced to do 8 days instead of 12, most Disney fans who love the magic so much as to commit to buying 50 years of it would just try to be more efficient each day.

Those who choose to will just decide to pony up for whatever the new front-of-line add-on option there will be, pay for parties, etc. Disney timeshare owners are such a small small percentage of park goers; losing the few who actually choose to go less would be even less significant. Believing otherwise would likely require an overinflated sense of representation of Disney timeshare ownership as a percentage of park attendance.

There is no indication that annual passes will be available, discounted or not.

 

[sethschroeder]

To me, the bigger question of whether Disney needs to offer perks at all has been answered pretty loudly, and that answer is a resounding “no” that runs all the way up to the top. The continued success of resale, as pointedly illustrated in a post by ScubaCat, and the ability for Disney to sell retail on the model of “future-proofing” the ownership experience against missing out on new resorts tells me the reason people own at the end of the day is so they can stay at WDW (mostly) or anywhere a Disney timeshare opens.

I don't agree since DVC is absolutely leading with perks and AP discounts they won't even say sales are on hold during the sales process from what I saw.

You would actually have to remove the perks to actually get the data.

As an example if you asked right now and really pushed them so they actually said you couldn't buy right now they would say they are just waiting on Parks to start selling new AP again. That's even what the head of DVC said in a recent email basically back to a member.

Being able to move the volume they do on that alone tells me perks can go away and the product will still sell;

Except all perks are still being shown and being marketed as returning.

Moonlight Magic is even up and just showing old dates giving the impression that they will return after park capacity is lifted.

We are now I think 4 corrected membership benefits disclosures later and nothing really has changed again leading to the buying thought of all perks will return.

 

[Bing Showei]

Maybe the resale restrictions will do what they were designed to do, and dry up demand for the third class of resale buyer.

I don’t think restrictions/lack of perks, are designed to do anything to resale prices. Nor do I believe low resale value benefits Disney. The higher the resale cost, the better. The ideal situation being a crippled resale point (can stay only at home resort) selling for the same exact price as a point that can stay anywhere. In that instance direct will win every time.

The only thing about resale pricing that Disney might possibly care about is how much it can help direct prices look reasonable.

 

[Bing Showei]

I don't agree since DVC is absolutely leading with perks and AP discounts they won't even say sales are on hold during the sales process from what I saw.

You would actually have to remove the perks to actually get the data.

As an example if you asked right now and really pushed them so they actually said you couldn't buy right now they would say they are just waiting on Parks to start selling new AP again. That's even what the head of DVC said in a recent email basically back to a member.



Except all perks are still being shown and being marketed as returning.

Moonlight Magic is up and just showing old dates giving the impression that they will return after park capacity is lifted.

You don’t need to run any modeling to see if this is true. Disney did that for you already.

Between 1995 and 2005, Disney was able to move plenty of timeshare product with absolutely no AP discounts. During that same period there were zero moonlight magic events, no merchandise discount, no Epcot lounge, and no dining discounts either. Yet Disney still managed to move a ton of points to a willing consumer.

The Disney timeshare ownership as a whole will be more pliable than any single owner. So while there will always be owners who sell because there are no real perks to speak of, lining up around the corner are owners who will know nothing other than what Disney is selling today.

And what Disney is selling today is the same thing they sold to hundreds of thousands of people during the 10 year period when there were no perks to speak of beyond the opportunity to secure years of magical memories for you and your family.

As long as they have the theme parks to sell that story, and the corresponding rack rates to which you can compare it against, their timeshare will sell just fine, with or without perks.

 

[Sandisw]

There is no indication that annual passes will be available, discounted or not.

Actually there is, They continue to allow renewals and they continue to sell new passes to pass-holders under the recovery offer,

Neither had to happen and could have been sunsetted like DL passes. They have not The suspension is pandemic and capacity related.

 

[Sandisw]

I don't agree since DVC is absolutely leading with perks and AP discounts they won't even say sales are on hold during the sales process from what I saw.

You would actually have to remove the perks to actually get the data.

As an example if you asked right now and really pushed them so they actually said you couldn't buy right now they would say they are just waiting on Parks to start selling new AP again. That's even what the head of DVC said in a recent email basically back to a member.



Except all perks are still being shown and being marketed as returning.

Moonlight Magic is even up and just showing old dates giving the impression that they will return after park capacity is lifted.

We are now I think 4 corrected membership benefits disclosures later and nothing really has changed again leading to the buying thought of all perks will return.

Several CMs told us about the AP sales suspension when asked this last trip, We brought it up and they were honest about it.

So, in my experience, with 6 different people, none pretended you could get it. Matter of fact, not one mentioned perks until we asked, It was all about what you get buying DVC and the program.

 

[sethschroeder]

Between 1995 and 2005, Disney was able to move plenty of timeshare product with absolutely no AP discounts.

Except they had some discounts including on tickets. I have asked and never heard of a time ticket discounts were not offered.

Never heard of a time something wasn't offered.

Also they had people who got years of AP for free. They also had people who got their whole cash stay paid for by buying DVC.

I never said they had to offer a AP discount I think another option is length of stay or AP for when you stay on points. Plenty of options that still save on tickets.

 

[Bing Showei]

Except they had some discounts including on tickets. I have asked and never heard of a time ticket discounts were not offered.

Never heard of a time something wasn't offered.

Also they had people who got years of AP for free. They also had people who got their whole cash stay paid for by buying DVC.

I never said they had to offer a AP discount I think another option is length of stay or AP for when you stay on points. Plenty of options that still save on tickets.

The program offered was length-of-stay passes for the duration of stay for the lesser of 1/2 the occupants or the number of guests.

But what was that worth to the family who bought in 1995 and was offered a nominal 10% discount on park tickets - a whopping $18.20/person for a six-day ultimate bees knees pass? Probably about as much as to the family that just bought Riviera and learned that just 4 years ago, people who spent a lot less on their ownership got platinum APs for the price of gold APs. “Yay them.”

On these boards alone, where you have probably the most informed consumers of Disney’s timeshare, you see post after post of people deciding to go direct because they don’t want restricted points. Future options at 7 months are the number one reason. The people most impervious to this are those with Developer kryptonite: grandfathered, unrestricted points.

Disney’s timeshare developers got it right this time. They could put anything into our soup and we’ll lap it up. People like to say this can only be pushed so far, but with a timeshare, there’s only so much voting you can do with your wallet. And sales seem to suggest they haven’t pushed far enough.

It doesn’t matter what was sold before, with every restriction, the consumers keeps lining up for more. And for every Riviera owner like yourself who talks over and over again about how restrictive resale ownership will be in 2042, how direct will be the only way to stay Epcot, the Disney Developer narrative firms up more and more.

Every new resort that is introduced into the system embodies the Developer’s drive to create an inferior product with the sole purpose of driving their own sales; moving closer and closer to making Disney the only place you can go to experience what every last pre-2019 owner enjoyed - choice. And by then, perks will mean nothing when compared to that choice.

 

[achinforsomebacon]

As long as they have the theme parks to sell that story, and the corresponding rack rates to which you can compare it against, their timeshare will sell just fine, with or without perks.

I think this is what it really boils down to and my thoughts when originally starting the thread. The perks might be nice but if they think sales won't suffer, why would they continue to offer them? They're finding ways to trim the fat everywhere. I can see the perks being low hanging fruit in the eyes of the current management. The one thing that could justify them is if they think certain perks lead to more overall profit from people spending more than they would without the perks.

 

[sethschroeder]

nominal 10% discount on park tickets - a whopping $18.20/person for a six-day ultimate bees knees pass?

10% now would be roughly $60-$70 per person so a family of 4 would see around $240-$280 in discounts.

Points also cost like $80-$90 direct?

 

[CSLucas]

10% now would be roughly $60-$70 per person so a family of 4 would see around $240-$280 in discounts.

Points also cost like $80-$90 direct?

But I think the point is still valid - compared to what the previous buyers got, the "perk" was pretty lame. I am personally of the opinion that we will see a few perks just to keep existing owners from making too much noise, but those will become less and less of a selling point until they are essentially non-existent. I completely understand the value of perks for some families, but there are plenty of families who buy ONLY because it's either buy DVC or pay rack rates at deluxe resorts, and all Disney needs to offer is a discounted room. I don't fault Disney for it - they offered the perks to help sell a product, and they have discovered they don't actually need any help selling it.

 

[sethschroeder]

But I think the point is still valid - compared to what the previous buyers got, the "perk" was pretty lame.

It's not valid. It's all relative you still got 10% off and it was still a ticket discount.

The point of this thread is could Disney remove all perks. My point is they never have really been without perks and even right now they are pushing sales with the idea of various perks including a AP discount.

So like I said right now there is no data on having no perks and there is no data on having "lame" perks at the higher price point on direct points since said "lame" discount was when points were selling for 60% less?

 

[Bing Showei]

It's not valid. It's all relative you still got 10% off and it was still a ticket discount.

Being “relative” is exactly the point. You had families the previous year saving $360 (and would continue to for another four years) while new owners during that time get to save a little over $60. That’s an 83% reduction in benefit for a new owner. On what planet is a new owner supposed to see that and think, “I’m so lucky it’s 10%”? Relatively speaking, that 10% discount was the shaft.

My point was actually that in 1995, there was a big sales incentive that was taken away and Disney’s timeshare sold just fine. In 2019 Disney threw a big **** you to owners and people still lined up in droves to buy direct. Some even flipped a 180, found religion at the new resort despite the new restrictions, and regurgitate how the non-retail alternative will be an even more diminished product in 20 years.

What sort of “data” are you looking for to convince you that Disney can pee in our pool and ownership will still happily go for a swim? The absence of ticket discounts? Relatively speaking, that’s a pretty low bar.

 

[mustinjourney]

You don’t need to run any modeling to see if this is true. Disney did that for you already.

Between 1995 and 2005, Disney was able to move plenty of timeshare product with absolutely no AP discounts. During that same period there were zero moonlight magic events, no merchandise discount, no Epcot lounge, and no dining discounts either. Yet Disney still managed to move a ton of points to a willing consumer.

The Disney timeshare ownership as a whole will be more pliable than any single owner. So while there will always be owners who sell because there are no real perks to speak of, lining up around the corner are owners who will know nothing other than what Disney is selling today.

And what Disney is selling today is the same thing they sold to hundreds of thousands of people during the 10 year period when there were no perks to speak of beyond the opportunity to secure years of magical memories for you and your family.

As long as they have the theme parks to sell that story, and the corresponding rack rates to which you can compare it against, their timeshare will sell just fine, with or without perks.

I thought dvc owners got free park passes with each stay back then.

also, park tix were cheap back then. You could buy ticket books I think with non- expiry days.

far cry from $500+ for a week right now.

in short, ticket prices have far outpaced inflation. So no AP back then isn’t the same.

 

[Sandisw]

It's not valid. It's all relative you still got 10% off and it was still a ticket discount.

The point of this thread is could Disney remove all perks. My point is they never have really been without perks and even right now they are pushing sales with the idea of various perks including a AP discount.

So like I said right now there is no data on having no perks and there is no data on having "lame" perks at the higher price point on direct points since said "lame" discount was when points were selling for 60% less?

I think you may be overestimating the history of perks, what they offered and the impact it had on the sales.

Even now, the average buyer does not buy for the perks. They buy DVC for DVC and I’d bet 95% of them didn’t even think about the perks or just
see them as a bonus.

So, I don’t think the loss of perks would ever impact sales to the degree it matters. Obviously offering shiny things is nice, but very few DVC owners who are blue card will sell if the AP is gone.

We bought hoping it stays around as it’s a big benefit for my kids and their households. But, if it doesn’t, then it doesn’t. We still ended up with RIV points which is why we bought.

Just don’t agree that CMs are pushing perks as the big selling point when my own experience is different. Or that the minimal discount of years past was what swayed someone to spend over $12 k for DVC.

 

[mustinjourney]

Being “relative” is exactly the point. You had families the previous year saving $360 (and would continue to for another four years) while new owners during that time get to save a little over $60. That’s an 83% reduction in benefit for a new owner. On what planet is a new owner supposed to see that and think, “I’m so lucky it’s 10%”? Relatively speaking, that 10% discount was the shaft.

My point was actually that in 1995, there was a big sales incentive that was taken away and Disney’s timeshare sold just fine. In 2019 Disney threw a big **** you to owners and people still lined up in droves to buy direct. Some even flipped a 180, found religion at the new resort despite the new restrictions, and regurgitate how the non-retail alternative will be an even more diminished product in 20 years.

What sort of “data” are you looking for to convince you that Disney can pee in our pool and ownership will still happily go for a swim? The absence of ticket discounts? Relatively speaking, that’s a pretty low bar.

As long as there is enough chlorine, the pee is neutralized. Just keep giving me $17 long islands.