[2020] Disney on ii

[bnoble]

many (with one or multiple contracts) find themselves in a given year wanting to change things up.

Sure, but this isn't why they are buying. And DVC (as with any timeshare developer) is primarily concerned about the buying, not the using.

I don't have a dog in the fight; I have several weeks that are dual-enrolled and that used to be great at getting DVC exchanges back when they were in II. So, if they went back it would be no skin off my nose. I saw the reason why DVC moved to RCI in the first place--it appears to have been to have access to the latter's much better developed rental channels during the Great Recession. It's less clear why they would move back. My money says they won't but I've definitely been wrong before.

 

[littlestar]

I for one hope they stay in RCI since I’m picking up an RCI trader LOL. If they go II I’ll have to get an II trader since I’m sure Orlando resorts would be restricted from seeing DVC inventory much like the restriction in RCI now.

Buy some resale DVC points if you find a deal on some and it won’t matter which exchange company DVC is with. Plus you get a crack at booking the DVC’s that never show up in RCI.

 

[CPNY]

Buy some resale DVC points if you find a deal on some and it won’t matter which exchange company DVC is with. Plus you get a crack at booking the DVC’s that never show up in RCI.

I’m going the trader route first. Then I think I’d lean toward exactly what you just said. A small contract, like 100 or 150 points. Go every two years at DVC and stay Marriott getaways the other times I want to go.

 

[ocdb8r]

Sure, but this isn't why they are buying. And DVC (as with any timeshare developer) is primarily concerned about the buying, not the using.

I think we're just on different pages as to how the timeshare model works and motivations of developers. I know "sales" are the flashy side of the business model (and certainly provide some big upfront returns), but the long-term management fee commitment is just as important. Using is important to sustain and improve margins on those management fees - it's all the transactional changes that generate income for this side of the business (reserving, guest certificates, splitting weeks, exchanging....etc) along with revenues generated on-site.

I guess if I believed DVC didn't care at all about ability to exchange, they wouldn't bother with any affiliation at all. Given they have chosen to affiliate with at least one external exchange company (and in fact have changed that affiliation twice), I am more interested in their motivations on why they'd choose one over the other. To me, whether external exchanging is important or not (or even its relative importance) is a moot point. Some part of DVC made the call to affiliate with RCI and I'm most focused on what influenced their choices.

DVC has never mined exchangers for tours, I could agree with this if they put ANY effort toward getting them to tour but they don't.

I admit I haven't noticed much on-site pressure to tour as someone exchanging in, however, I have had several reports of friends getting hit up by DVC AFTER they exchanged in via RCI (via various forms of marketing). Disney has always had a more relaxed sales approach, but I can't believe they don't data mine exchangers as potential prospects.

 

[ljmiii]

I think we're just on different pages as to how the timeshare model works... Using is important to sustain and improve margins on those management fees - it's all the transactional changes that generate income for this side of the business (reserving, guest certificates, splitting weeks, exchanging....etc) along with revenues generated on-site.

I would more guess that you and bnoble have had different timeshare experiences. Mine are that...

DVC doesn't charge for any of those things except exchanging.
MVCI doesn't directly charge for any of those things. II does if you own unenrolled weeks or trade outside of MVCI.
HGVC is charge free if you use or rent your home weeks (which I do) but does charge lots of fees for owners who use points.
I have read that other timeshare systems are more 'fee happy'...but really know nothing other than what TUGgers have posted.

"on-site revenue" varies similarly. My home DVC resorts - BCV and BLT - don't have any DVD on-site revenue streams other than extra cleanings (and I'm not sure DVD and not WDW Co. sees that money). Similarly, my HGVC at HHV doesn't have revenue (other than maybe parking...but again I'm guessing Hilton and not HGVC gets the money since it's their parking garage). My MVCI Waiohai does (which may be why they keep messing with the store/restaurant/fitness areas).

I guess if I believed DVC didn't care at all about ability to exchange, they wouldn't bother with any affiliation at all...

The ability to exchange is just a marketing tool to sell DVC...they don't care if anyone uses it. II vs RCI doesn't matter to DVD except insofar as which organization pays them more for the ability to have II or RCI members 'trade in' to WDW.

I admit I haven't noticed much on-site pressure to tour as someone exchanging in, however, I have had several reports of friends getting hit up by DVC AFTER they exchanged in via RCI (via various forms of marketing). Disney has always had a more relaxed sales approach, but I can't believe they don't data mine exchangers as potential prospects.

I would guess that RCI exchangers receive neither more nor less DVC literature than other DVC and WDW hotel guests. But that is only a guess.

 

[Dean]

I think we're just on different pages as to how the timeshare model works and motivations of developers. I know "sales" are the flashy side of the business model (and certainly provide some big upfront returns), but the long-term management fee commitment is just as important. Using is important to sustain and improve margins on those management fees - it's all the transactional changes that generate income for this side of the business (reserving, guest certificates, splitting weeks, exchanging....etc) along with revenues generated on-site.

I guess if I believed DVC didn't care at all about ability to exchange, they wouldn't bother with any affiliation at all. Given they have chosen to affiliate with at least one external exchange company (and in fact have changed that affiliation twice), I am more interested in their motivations on why they'd choose one over the other. To me, whether external exchanging is important or not (or even its relative importance) is a moot point. Some part of DVC made the call to affiliate with RCI and I'm most focused on what influenced their choices.

DVD does care about exchanging as I'm sure the contracts with RCI (and II before) are such that that there are savings to DVD based on volume or at least a minimum threshold. They've pushed exchanging far too much over the years in the weekly member meetings, on DCL and in their literature for them not to. The reality is the exchange setup of DVC is horrible. While it's nice to have options, having options that are so one sided are just not reasonable. We could discuss the Disney Collection, DCL, etc which I've looked at and discussed with DVC upper management over the years. One of the differences for DVC over most any other timeshare situation is that the points are liquid. One can EASILY rent out for a true market price and that is the benchmark for comparisons IMO. I do not believe that a member should EVER join with exchanging with DVC or any cash options in mind as part of their usage plan though it's good to have some back up options if you get stuck.

I admit I haven't noticed much on-site pressure to tour as someone exchanging in, however, I have had several reports of friends getting hit up by DVC AFTER they exchanged in via RCI (via various forms of marketing). Disney has always had a more relaxed sales approach, but I can't believe they don't data mine exchangers as potential prospects.

I've been a member of DVC since 94 and participated on DVC BBS before there was an internet. I don't ever recall anyone being actively sought out based on the way they got the reservation or at check in. The ASA's in the lobby will sometimes try to strike up a conversation and one may get a welcome email or even a phone call. But none of these come from sales. Personally I think their lack of effort in this area has hurt the members far more than helped them. It's very possible to be far more aggressive than they have and still be professional. I know some like the LOW pressure but the reality is there is a downside that most people don't realize.

 

[bnoble]

I would more guess that you and bnoble have had different timeshare experiences.

As it happens, I am a Wyndham owner, which does tend to nickle and dime owners with transactional fees. But, I also believe very strongly that Wyndham cares much more about selling more points than they do generating more transaction revenue. They do care about management contracts, because the management fee is based on a percentage of annual costs, and not their own cost basis. You can see how much they care by (for example) observing the recent shenanigans around the KBV management contract. But, the management fees are still small potatoes compared to new point sales. The latter accounts for more than 75% of the revenue for vacation ownership segment in 2019Q3 ($663M out of $858M). And, importantly, new point sales *also* increase the ongoing revenue stream derived from management fees for future quarters.

 

[Dean]

I think we're just on different pages as to how the timeshare model works... Using is important to sustain and improve margins on those management fees - it's all the transactional changes that generate income for this side of the business (reserving, guest certificates, splitting weeks, exchanging....etc) along with revenues generated on-site.

Those are certainly things that RCI cares about but none of them add real income to any system I know of. On the resort side the fees are in place mainly to control costs and let those that use them to pay to play. Some companies care about exchanges as fresh meat, DVD has never done that actively. I'm certain that DVD does assume a certain % of those exchanging in will buy and that's one of the reasons for the regional block I'm sure. With DVC the rooms will be used by someone whether it be the owner, a renter, an exchanger or a cash guest so the "butts in the seats" philosophy does not apply for WDW or any DVC resort other than maybe HHI or VB.

 

[ocdb8r]

This is why this Board is amazing...CAUGHT nearly two years before the announcement. ;-)

Bumping this thread in case any interesting insight based on what was seen before II removed.

 

[rickandcindy23]

A foreshadowing. I am so excited about this changeover to II. I am also somewhat disappointed that Wyndham will no longer work for DVC because there is not much I really love in RCI. I need to learn to love it. I have a lot of points left after Wyndham's rule changes that I must deposit.

 

[Dean]

I might have missed it scanning through but the regional block before for DVC with II was 45 miles rather than 30 with RCI, not that it makes much difference due to lack of resorts in that additional distance that I can think of.

 

[bnoble]

I need to learn to love it.

Here's another good use for a Wyndham owner: RCI is very efficient for smaller units in high-point locations like Austin, San Francisco, or NYC.