Tired of SSR being blamed

[The Jackal]

(its DVC’s fault for such a large resort with minimal effort on making it unique).

There is plenty unique about it, it is huge. It has 2 feature pools and 2 quiet pools, it has 2 entrances, it is a short walk to the largest choice of restaurants on property (DS) and off property. The points charts to stay there are on the low side for DVC, so you get more for your money. If you bring a car, you can park it at your villa and not have to walk a 1/2 mile to it. Maybe if Disney built the Monorail to it like they planned on it might be unique enough for some, I’m glad they didn’t because I’d rather ride in a crowded clean bus than a empty monorail that stinks of dirty diapers. We just stayed at VGF for a week, lots of monorails, they all stunk. I can’t believe this is the main transportation system for WDW’s premier resorts, it’s a disgrace. Maybe in 10 years when they get new ones they won’t stink.

 

[Bing Showei]

I think that when we begin to discuss ways to change this so that people who bought at smaller or more popular resorts have an advantage over SSR owners have a higher chance to get those rooms, we start down a slope that changes the system to benefit certain owners over others.

That differentiation of owners already exists. Most explicitly, it exists at Riviera where owners are certainly not all treated equally.

If what you’re suggesting is that we shouldn’t support the idea of ranking resorts because it creates a class system of owners, you should also support that one should not buy Riviera because it embodies the resale restrictions perfectly and creates a class system of owners. Disney is saying under no uncertain terms, “Behold. The new DVC.”

In terms of slippery slopes, different 7-month charts would have nothing on the resale restrictions which are the most slippery of slopes. It fundamentally alters the product most people bought into and changes the product like no other restriction before.

Personally, as an SSR owner who trades out regularly, charts that look at how a resort behaves relative to other resorts in the system to determine trade value would adversely affect me and my family. The impact on my family’s ownership would be disproportionately higher than it would to a VGF, BLT, or BWV owner. But it would be a less dishonest attempt to address imbalance in the system than the wholesale devaluation of ownership interest across the board for every Disney timeshare owner.

I would take those charts in a heartbeat over the resale restriction. But I’m probably rare in that way. The beauty of the resale restrictions is that it separates the haves and have nots in a way that everyone, the exact moment it was implemented in January, was a “haves.”

It doesn’t matter a lick whether I think there is a 7-month problem. All that matters is that this is the position of DVD and the sales guides in justifying the resale restrictions. The only justification they have for the resale restrictions is that the 7-month issue is real and they’ll do whatever they need to to address it. This includes devaluing ownership value wholesale.

 

[crvetter]

It has 2 feature pools and 2 quiet pools, it has 2 entrances, it is a short walk to the largest choice of restaurants on site and off site, it is the only resort with views of DS. The points charts to stay there are on the low side for DVC, so you get more for your money. If you bring a car, you can park it at your villa and not have to walk a 1/2 mile to it. Maybe if Disney built the Monorail to it like they planned on it might be unique enough, I’m glad they didn’t because I’d rather ride in a crowded clean bus than a empty monorail that stinks of dirty diapers. We just stayed at VGF for a week, lots of monorails, they all stunk. I can’t believe this is the main transportation system for WDW’s premier resorts, it’s a disgrace. Maybe in 10 years when they get new ones they won’t stink.

I agree with most of what you stated regarding SSR; however, some of your bigger items are features that have recently been added (along with furnishings, in the refurb, that finally are worthy of a deluxe resort, even if plain). DS is relatively new compared to the resort. Cheaper point charts only exist cause they created the preferred and standard views 2 years ago. So hopefully these features change the perception of SSR for many.

As for the two entrances and 2 feature pools I’m not sure that’s unique more just a necessity because of its massive size and sprawling area, so for some that’s a knock and for some it’s a plus. As for the monorail i don’t disagree it doesn’t have its problems but SSR is uniquely different than all DVC resorts (sans OKW) not just those on the monorail line.

 

[crvetter]

They need to change the seasonal charts before going down this road, otherwise I do not see how DVCMC could claim they are upholding their fiduciary duty.

This is a season specific studio problem for the most part. Feb-Sept the 7 month window does not have as many issues. The vast majority of newer owners, specifically retail are looking to save points, simply due to contract size limitations (read price).

While I agree they should modify the seasons. It’s careful to note that DVCMC is responsible for the home resort point charts and BVTC is responsible for the 7 month non-home resort point charts. DVCMC has an obligation to create point charts considering home resort booking behaviors. However, BVTC has a right to create point charts that follow the behavior they have no obligation to do such.

But yeah modifying the seasons is something I’d like them to actually do. Of course it will suck for me since I travel during the low point season. Though it could modify behavior enough to make trading easy if the BVTC point charts are seasonally adjusted as well.

 

[Madame]

While I agree they should modify the seasons. It’s careful to note that DVCMC is responsible for the home resort point charts and BVTC is responsible for the 7 month non-home resort point charts. DVCMC has an obligation to create point charts considering home resort booking behaviors. However, BVTC has a right to create point charts that follow the behavior they have no obligation to do such.

But yeah modifying the seasons is something I’d like them to actually do. Of course it will suck for me since I travel during the low point season. Though it could modify behavior enough to make trading easy if the BVTC point charts are seasonally adjusted as well.

Thank-you for clarifying the difference. Could/should DVCMC challenge on our behalf, any point value changes BVTC were to make with a seasonal shift instead? I guess maybe the better question is would they bother, as I don’t see them acting in our interests at all without being forced.

 

[CarolMN]

Thank-you for clarifying the difference. Could/should DVCMC challenge on our behalf, any point value changes BVTC were to make with a seasonal shift instead? I guess maybe the better question is would they bother, as I don’t see them acting in our interests at all without being forced.

How would you define "our best interests"? No matter what they do (or don't do), there will be Members who are negatively impacted. Even the smallest change will be opposed, often loudly and frequently. The supply of the more popular villas/times will always be less than the demand unless there are very drastic changes. It's hard to perfectly balance those given the system limitations.

For example, I see no reason to adjust the seasons. So what if some weeks or booking categories fill faster than others? Except for some viilas/nights at SSR , the Poly bungalows & possibly the CCV cabins, it isn't causing a lot of other times / villas to go unbooked. It just takes longer for those villas/nights to fill. A seasonal adjustment won't change that. Those viilas/ nights will still go unbooked. (They adjusted weeknight points upward and weekend nights down because they were ending up with a lot of unbooked weekend nights. That's no longer the case).

As someone who bought where she wants to stay, I see no value in changing the seasons such that I pay more to make 7-month booking easier for non-home resort owners, especially those who pay less in maintenance fees.

JMHO. YMMV.

 

[Ms.Minnie]

How would you define "our best interests"? No matter what they do (or don't do), there will be Members who are negatively impacted. Even the smallest change will be opposed, often loudly and frequently. The supply of the more popular villas/times will always be less than the demand unless there are very drastic changes. It's hard to perfectly balance those given the system limitations.

For example, I see no reason to adjust the seasons. So what if some weeks or booking categories fill faster than others? Except for some viilas/nights at SSR , the Poly bungalows & possibly the CCV cabins, it isn't causing a lot of other times / villas to go unbooked. It just takes longer for those villas/nights to fill. A seasonal adjustment won't change that. Those viilas/ nights will still go unbooked. (They adjusted weeknight points upward and weekend nights down because they were ending up with a lot of unbooked weekend nights. That's no longer the case).

As someone who bought where she wants to stay, I see no value in changing the seasons such that I pay more to make 7-month booking easier for non-home resort owners, especially those who pay less in maintenance fees.

JMHO. YMMV.

Very well said. I couldn't have said it better.

 

[crvetter]

How would you define "our best interests"? No matter what they do (or don't do), there will be Members who are negatively impacted. Even the smallest change will be opposed, often loudly and frequently. The supply of the more popular villas/times will always be less than the demand unless there are very drastic changes. It's hard to perfectly balance those given the system limitations.

For example, I see no reason to adjust the seasons. So what if some weeks or booking categories fill faster than others? Except for some viilas/nights at SSR , the Poly bungalows & possibly the CCV cabins, it isn't causing a lot of other times / villas to go unbooked. It just takes longer for those villas/nights to fill. A seasonal adjustment won't change that. Those viilas/ nights will still go unbooked. (They adjusted weeknight points upward and weekend nights down because they were ending up with a lot of unbooked weekend nights. That's no longer the case).

As someone who bought where she wants to stay, I see no value in changing the seasons such that I pay more to make 7-month booking easier for non-home resort owners, especially those who pay less in maintenance fees.

JMHO. YMMV.

While agree there will always be a vocal minority always impacted by a change (I'd be negatively affected by a seasonal shift). However, if we look at the booking patterns at 11 months (ignore the resort trading) it is very clear that mid-September through January (and race weekends) have no reason to fall mostly within in the cheapest seasons. The seasons are supposed to be balanced to DVC demand and personally I don't feel like they are in balance anymore. They were set essentially when OKW was opened to line up with WDW's seasons and haven't been adjusted (if they have it's been marginally). So actually by ignoring seasons I feel that DVCMC is really falling short of their duty with the point charts. The Home Resort Point Charts are supposed to consider only home resort booking patterns and that summer is largely open for most rooms (with large inventory) at 7 months and DVC Peak season (cheapest points) they aren't--suggests there is a disconnect for the home resort booking. It's just that season adjustments (for me) would be more appropriate for Studio issues (within the fall) then the desire to increase the lockoff premium (by raising studios and 1 beds), which was one of their arguments for the original 2020 point charts.

Perhaps there are no real winners with the season adjustment by the data IMO suggests that DVCMC should be following through with their obligation to adjust based on demand (which is uniquely different than usage, which seems to be what you referring to).

 

[Fred M]

As someone who bought where she wants to stay, I see no value in changing the seasons such that I pay more to make 7-month booking easier for non-home resort owners, especially those who pay less in maintenance fees.

⬆ THIS!!

 

[Sandisw]

That differentiation of owners already exists. Most explicitly, it exists at Riviera where owners are certainly not all treated equally.

If what you’re suggesting is that we shouldn’t support the idea of ranking resorts because it creates a class system of owners, you should also support that one should not buy Riviera because it embodies the resale restrictions perfectly and creates a class system of owners. Disney is saying under no uncertain terms, “Behold. The new DVC.”

In terms of slippery slopes, different 7-month charts would have nothing on the resale restrictions which are the most slippery of slopes. It fundamentally alters the product most people bought into and changes the product like no other restriction before.

Personally, as an SSR owner who trades out regularly, charts that look at how a resort behaves relative to other resorts in the system to determine trade value would adversely affect me and my family. The impact on my family’s ownership would be disproportionately higher than it would to a VGF, BLT, or BWV owner. But it would be a less dishonest attempt to address imbalance in the system than the wholesale devaluation of ownership interest across the board for every Disney timeshare owner.

I would take those charts in a heartbeat over the resale restriction. But I’m probably rare in that way. The beauty of the resale restrictions is that it separates the haves and have nots in a way that everyone, the exact moment it was implemented in January, was a “haves.”

It doesn’t matter a lick whether I think there is a 7-month problem. All that matters is that this is the position of DVD and the sales guides in justifying the resale restrictions. The only justification they have for the resale restrictions is that the 7-month issue is real and they’ll do whatever they need to to address it. This includes devaluing ownership value wholesale.

I understand what you are saying in that Disney has decided with resale restrictions to make two tiers of members. But this was not done to improve membership but rather as a marketing tool to keep people buying direct. The key is that people know the rules when they buy since every restriction that has come out has always grandfathered in current members.

What we are talking here has to do with using membership and I don’t agree that the fact that a resort is smaller and harder to get into thAt is enough of a reason to give those owners more trading power, If VGF was triple its size, it would be easier to get.

As mentioned, other than the fall, there really is no big 7 month booking problem, other than people not liking their choices. So they want to see a system put in place to increase those chances by preventing other owners from having an equal shot. To make a change like this would, IMO, be like adding restrictions and not grandfathering people in.

Now, they will do what they want, and just like I always have, will roll with it. I own enough points to not be impacted. And if it really did come to pass, I’d pick up more points at SSR to compensate because this type of system would diminish resale value there.

I just don’t see this as benefiting the system as a whole. Having said thst, seeing what is happening with the new restrictions with RIV..both resales being bookable only there, and L14 resale being only bookable at L14, I think they are changing the product as they go forward to slowly get to a more tiered booking system

 

[Madame]

How would you define "our best interests"? No matter what they do (or don't do), there will be Members who are negatively impacted. Even the smallest change will be opposed, often loudly and frequently. The supply of the more popular villas/times will always be less than the demand unless there are very drastic changes. It's hard to perfectly balance those given the system limitations.

For example, I see no reason to adjust the seasons. So what if some weeks or booking categories fill faster than others? Except for some viilas/nights at SSR , the Poly bungalows & possibly the CCV cabins, it isn't causing a lot of other times / villas to go unbooked. It just takes longer for those villas/nights to fill. A seasonal adjustment won't change that. Those viilas/ nights will still go unbooked. (They adjusted weeknight points upward and weekend nights down because they were ending up with a lot of unbooked weekend nights. That's no longer the case).

As someone who bought where she wants to stay, I see no value in changing the seasons such that I pay more to make 7-month booking easier for non-home resort owners, especially those who pay less in maintenance fees.

JMHO. YMMV.

Regardless of the 7 month window, there is an imbalance in the system concerning seasons. Some would win and lose there as well. It should happen in order to better balance the system and could result in a loosening of the 7 month window.

Instead they created the 2020 point chart, because a lot of members would be angry with a seasonal shift. Obvious problems should be fixed first, no? The result might resolve more than one problem without gutting the entire system.

 

[CarolMN]

While agree there will always be a vocal minority always impacted by a change (I'd be negatively affected by a seasonal shift). However, if we look at the booking patterns at 11 months (ignore the resort trading) it is very clear that mid-September through January (and race weekends) have no reason to fall mostly within in the cheapest seasons. The seasons are supposed to be balanced to DVC demand and personally I don't feel like they are in balance anymore. They were set essentially when OKW was opened to line up with WDW's seasons and haven't been adjusted (if they have it's been marginally). So actually by ignoring seasons I feel that DVCMC is really falling short of their duty with the point charts. The Home Resort Point Charts are supposed to consider only home resort booking patterns and that summer is largely open for most rooms (with large inventory) at 7 months and DVC Peak season (cheapest points) they aren't--suggests there is a disconnect for the home resort booking. It's just that season adjustments (for me) would be more appropriate for Studio issues (within the fall) then the desire to increase the lockoff premium (by raising studios and 1 beds), which was one of their arguments for the original 2020 point charts.

Perhaps there are no real winners with the season adjustment by the data IMO suggests that DVCMC should be following through with their obligation to adjust based on demand (which is uniquely different than usage, which seems to be what you referring to).

We will have to agree to disagree. (I'm OK with that and truly appreciate different points of view. Gives me the opportunity to consider changing my mind).

That said, I do not believe a seasonal shift will change demand( or usage) enough to notice. Members will still want studios for Food & Wine and the Holiday Activities, etc. There will still not be enough for everyone who wants them. The "winners" will just pay more.

IMO, the required points for fall would have to be raised to a ridiculous amount to change demand. Those who want to visit in the fall are not suddenly going to shift to the summer due to cost (at least not enough of them to make a noticeable difference). I sure wouldn't!

FWIW, I couldn't think of a good reason to justify the increased lockoff premiums either, especially at BWV, which has no dedicated 2 bedrooms and only 6 GV.

Again, my opinion.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

There is plenty unique about it, it is huge. It has 2 feature pools and 2 quiet pools, it has 2 entrances, it is a short walk to the largest choice of restaurants on property (DS) and off property. The points charts to stay there are on the low side for DVC, so you get more for your money. If you bring a car, you can park it at your villa and not have to walk a 1/2 mile to it. Maybe if Disney built the Monorail to it like they planned on it might be unique enough for some, I’m glad they didn’t because I’d rather ride in a crowded clean bus than a empty monorail that stinks of dirty diapers. We just stayed at VGF for a week, lots of monorails, they all stunk. I can’t believe this is the main transportation system for WDW’s premier resorts, it’s a disgrace. Maybe in 10 years when they get new ones they won’t stink.

Don’t want to get off topic, but I never heard they planned to run the monorail to SSR.
That certainly would have made SSR very special imo, but that is truly news to me.
I remember there was boiler plate language for an easement, but that’s a far cry from planning to build it.

 

[Madame]

We will have to agree to disagree. (I'm OK with that and truly appreciate different points of view. Gives me the opportunity to consider changing my mind).

That said, I do not believe a seasonal shift will change demand( or usage) enough to notice. Members will still want studios for Food & Wine and the Holiday Activities, etc. There will still not be enough for everyone who wants them. The "winners" will just pay more.

IMO, the required points for fall would have to be raised to a ridiculous amount to change demand. Those who want to visit in the fall are not suddenly going to shift to the summer due to cost (at least not enough of them to make a noticeable difference). I sure wouldn't!

FWIW, I couldn't think of a good reason to justify the increased lockoff premiums either, especially at BWV, which has no dedicated 2 bedrooms and only 6 GV.

Again, my opinion.

But the summer and spring break points are so high because of traditional demand.... The point cost reflects demand. If demand doesn't factor in they need to flatten the charts.

 

[crvetter]

We will have to agree to disagree. (I'm OK with that and truly appreciate different points of view. Gives me the opportunity to consider changing my mind).

That said, I do not believe a seasonal shift will change demand( or usage) enough to notice. Members will still want studios for Food & Wine and the Holiday Activities, etc. There will still not be enough for everyone who wants them. The "winners" will just pay more.

IMO, the required points for fall would have to be raised to a ridiculous amount to change demand. Those who want to visit in the fall are not suddenly going to shift to the summer due to cost (at least not enough of them to make a noticeable difference). I sure wouldn't!

FWIW, I couldn't think of a good reason to justify the increased lockoff premiums either, especially at BWV, which has no dedicated 2 bedrooms and only 6 GV.

Again, my opinion.

I agree with all your points actually. However, where I disagree is your assertion that because you feel the seasonal shift won't change travel patterns broadly nothing should happen with the point charts. Regardless if the demand is changed large enough or not doesn't negate the fact DVCMC is supposed to be balancing points based on demand and currently they are out of balance. This is simply their charge in the management agreement we have with them. However, I do think eventually a seasonal shift of more points to F&W, Holiday Activities (essentially Fall Frenzy) eventually will lead to a demand balance simply because more points will be burned during those times, so eventually people that travel then will start to run out of points. Taking myself for an example I bought enough points for a 9 day trip in the highest season because I always wanted to take a 9 day trip during the fall and if they ever rebalanced I would likely still have enough, but because my travel isn't actually during the highest season I get in a 9 day trip and 4 day trip in the Fall Frenzy. If they balanced the demand I would lose my 4 day trip.

 

[keishashadow]

7 month availability at BWV is gone for popular times before the 7 month windows even opens.

News flash, BWV standard studio availability often has ‘walked’ before the 11 month window commences for dates I’ve checked.

 

[Heather07438]

I'm not an owner, just a potential buyer planning to purchase OKW or BWV resale or Reflections direct within the next 12-18 months. Point balancing interests me, especially if the +/-'s help owners. Not blanket adjustments to resorts, only fine tuning specific room categories at certain resorts that are the highest/lowest percentiles of demand. Most charts would have few or no changes.

I'm not familiar enough to make a precise list, following are rough examples to get the idea across of where changes could have merit (seasons are another consideration)-
**A point deduction incentive to book the under-utilized rooms, those that are consistently the last room options left to choose from after the rest are booked:
1,2 & 3BR villas at Aulani & HH ?
OKW 1BR, SSR, or AKL Savannah view
and/or any specific rooms that are usually the leftovers
**A point increase premium for high demand rooms that are consistently the first to be booked at the 7 month mark:
AKL – Concierge and Value rooms
OKW – Grand Villas (near Hospitality House)
BWV – Grand Villas and Standard view rooms
BLT – Standard view rooms
GFV – Studios

Even if I bought at OKW or SSR this could be acceptable to me. It's possible I'm overlooking something but this still looks good to me at the 7 month mark. I can choose to stretch my points in a low demand room, or I could splurge and pay a bit extra for a high demand room (like BW standard). But why don't I mind paying extra? The increase will result in better availability. The reason those high demand rooms have people diving over each other to book is because currently they're popularly seen as the best relative point value. That means they are under-represented point wise.
Rooms that are over-represented points wise are the left overs.
What would be the negative in having these balanced more accurately? It would change booking habits because there would not be this small inventory of the BEST point usage. If it's worth it to an owner, they'll use the points. When an owner wants to stretch their points, now there are more options.

A room is high demand for a reason, it's seen as the best point use. Even it out so all rooms have a more equal perception of cost/value. Is this not what the charts are supposed to do in the first place?

 

[Sandisw]

I'm not an owner, just a potential buyer planning to purchase OKW or BWV resale or Reflections direct within the next 12-18 months. Point balancing interests me, especially if the +/-'s help owners. Not blanket adjustments to resorts, only fine tuning specific room categories at certain resorts that are the highest/lowest percentiles of demand. Most charts would have few or no changes.

I'm not familiar enough to make a precise list, following are rough examples to get the idea across of where changes could have merit (seasons are another consideration)-
**A point deduction incentive to book the under-utilized rooms, those that are consistently the last room options left to choose from after the rest are booked:
1,2 & 3BR villas at Aulani & HH ?
OKW 1BR, SSR, or AKL Savannah view
and/or any specific rooms that are usually the leftovers
**A point increase premium for high demand rooms that are consistently the first to be booked at the 7 month mark:
AKL – Concierge and Value rooms
OKW – Grand Villas (near Hospitality House)
BWV – Grand Villas and Standard view rooms
BLT – Standard view rooms
GFV – Studios

Even if I bought at OKW or SSR this could be acceptable to me. It's possible I'm overlooking something but this still looks good to me at the 7 month mark. I can choose to stretch my points in a low demand room, or I could splurge and pay a bit extra for a high demand room (like BW standard). But why don't I mind paying extra? The increase will result in better availability. The reason those high demand rooms have people diving over each other to book is because currently they're popularly seen as the best relative point value. That means they are under-represented point wise.
Rooms that are over-represented points wise are the left overs.
What would be the negative in having these balanced more accurately? It would change booking habits because there would not be this small inventory of the BEST point usage. If it's worth it to an owner, they'll use the points. When an owner wants to stretch their points, now there are more options.

A room is high demand for a reason, it's seen as the best point use. Even it out so all rooms have a more equal perception of cost/value. Is this not what the charts are supposed to do in the first place?

Just remember that one has to balance a resort with the existing points. So, if you want to raise the points on say those high demand rooms, you have to balance it at the resort with lowering it somewhere else.

You can’t just charge more for certain room types or charge less, without making it balance within that resort.

Take just BLT..SV studios are popular but if you are going to raise the points there to possibly impact demand, it would bring them close to both LV and TPV..if you are going to do that, then there would not be a need for the different views.

DVC is supposed to adjust charts, when necessary to address imbalances at home resort times. I personally think that the first step is to shift the seasons.

For example, you make Fall Magic season values and it could cut down somewhat on walking. However, people that want to visit during that time are still going to visit, but having to spend more may only be able to visit less nights, which in turn could allow for more people to get rooms at 11 months.

 

[CarolynFH]

...
having to spend more may only be able to visit less nights, which in turn could allow for more people to get rooms at 11 months...

Yes, and ironically a concern regarding the rescinded 2020 points charts - making people use up their points on fewer nights could increase breakage and give Disney more nights to sell for cash.

 

[Heather07438]

You can’t just charge more for certain room types or charge less, without making it balance within that resort.

I was overlooking that the entire pool at 7 months can vary and is in constant flux, so it might be impossible to balance increases/decreases there.