Big News

[skippytx]

This is the company that provides the scents. People think the VGF scent comes from the Gingerbread house, but it really is added through the ventilation system. https://www.scentair.com

What scent is used at BLT, do you know?

 

[miTnosnhoJ]

I have heard that the scent at Grand Floridian is "Green Clover and Aloe" - https://www.scenthd.com/ScentHD-Green-Clover-Aloe-Cartridge-Refill

It is also quite possible that the actual scent is proprietary.

I don't have this product myself, so YMMV.

I have not stayed at the Contemporary, so the scent is not baked into my brain, but some say it is the same.

 

[chalee94]

I’m just wondering if they are going to figure out a way to keep those members on expiring contracts part of DVC with some sort of incentive program where it’s not a total loss for them.

The total loss is contractual. Buyers know that going in.

The "incentive" for OKW owners was an offer to overpay upfront for points they would not have the opportunity to use for over 30 years. Most of us thought it was terrible - I would have used the money to buy a small add on with points I could use immediately rather than extend my contract at those prices.

Disney doesn't have (or need at this point) that kind of customer service.

(You also seem confused about annual dues - they are not pure profit for Disney but mostly pay to run and maintain the resort.)

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

What scent is used at BLT, do you know?

I have heard that the scent at Grand Floridian is "Green Clover and Aloe" - https://www.scenthd.com/ScentHD-Green-Clover-Aloe-Cartridge-Refill

It is also quite possible that the actual scent is proprietary.

I don't have this product myself, so YMMV.

I have not stayed at the Contemporary, so the scent is not baked into my brain, but some say it is the same.

That is the scent name and what people have been told when they asked about the BLT scent. As I mentioned - it's also reported to be the same one at BC/BCV.

 

[sky2823]

The total loss is contractual. Buyers know that going in.

The "incentive" for OKW owners was an offer to overpay upfront for points they would not have the opportunity to use for over 30 years. Most of us thought it was terrible - I would have used the money to buy a small add on with points I could use immediately rather than extend my contract at those prices.

Disney doesn't have (or need at this point) that kind of customer service.

(You also seem confused about annual dues - they are not pure profit for Disney but mostly pay to run and maintain the resort.)

While many things confuse me, annual dues are not one of them or at least the part where they are allocated towards expenses. How their fuzzy math actually works is a different story as “math can be hard.”

My point as a company you have these customers willing and able to pay on a yearly basis.

You don’t let that go without a fight.

You try and get them in the new car.

Maybe they botched OKW, but at some point the mouse will have dvc members coming off the books every two years. I’m sure the strat planning guys have cost of customer acquisition at top of mind (or should). The mouse already has their hooks into these members most of whom will walk away due to crazy high new purchase prices.

It seems like bad business to let these people walk out the door.

I was just curious if anyone had any creative ideas one what might happen since the OKW debacle as well as contract length keeps coming up as major factors in contract valuation.

I think it will be very unique and interesting to watch these contracts with 10 years left.

Could Disney offer a trade in on a new resort with 10 years left? Could that create a market for these aging contracts as people feel the value of the discount is greater than the price per point on a short term contract. Dunno... but I don’t see them letting these members go gently into the good night

 

[ParkHoppers]

I have heard that the scent at Grand Floridian is "Green Clover and Aloe" - https://www.scenthd.com/ScentHD-Green-Clover-Aloe-Cartridge-Refill

It is also quite possible that the actual scent is proprietary.

I don't have this product myself, so YMMV.

I have not stayed at the Contemporary, so the scent is not baked into my brain, but some say it is the same.

I heard from a bus driver that all resorts will be going to the smell of money after all the recent announcements.

 

[TexasChick123]

I heard from a bus driver that all resorts will be going to the smell of money after all the recent announcements.

 

[Brian Noble]

Disney would never let it sell for $1. They will set a minimum price and use ROFR to prop it up, at least at first while the resort is still in main sales. Once the resort is sold out, it will undoubtable drop lower - but again they still will keep it at some minimum through ROFR. That's why I was projecting $50-70.

Why? The entire point of resale restrictions is to reduce the price of resale contracts. Why would they care if they went too low? After all, there are a half-dozen different timeshare developers whose resales are worth essentially $0, and they still have no problem selling at full freight.

 

[Dean]

Disney would never let it sell for $1. They will set a minimum price and use ROFR to prop it up, at least at first while the resort is still in main sales. Once the resort is sold out, it will undoubtable drop lower - but again they still will keep it at some minimum through ROFR. That's why I was projecting $50-70.

IMO that's best case scenario. There are situations where things could be quite different. Obviously a lot of things have to happen to get to that point whether it be the economy of DVD successful in devaluing the resales. But 10-20 years or more is a long time and a lot can happen.

 

[sky2823]

I think the big difference between Disney and other timeshares is the Park.

It’s not like it’s a timeshare in Cabo and the company only has one building.

Disney owns the whole ecosystem and it’s in their best interest to protect it. A lot can happen, but it’s not in their best interested to have an orphaned resort as it impacts the health of the entire ecosystem.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Why? The entire point of resale restrictions is to reduce the price of resale contracts. Why would they care if they went too low? After all, there are a half-dozen different timeshare developers whose resales are worth essentially $0, and they still have no problem selling at full freight.

The point isn't to reduce the price, is it? The point is to reduce the value.

DVC reducing the price of DVC resale contracts is just begging for people to buy more and stay onsite for less than offsite.

 

[Dean]

The point isn't to reduce the price, is it? The point is to reduce the value.

DVC reducing the price of DVC resale contracts is just begging for people to buy more and stay onsite for less than offsite.

The real goal is to maximize retail sales and minimize resale. They can do that if the price is close enough to make one think about retail or if there are enough differences between resale and retail. Their ideal situation is for one to not be able to sell but think they can or think they never will. Obviously this will never be 100 % but they're moving it more and more with the incremental changes. A DVC II gives them LOTS of options to differentiate between the 2.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

The real goal is to maximize retail sales and minimize resale. They can do that if the price is close enough to make one think about retail or if there are enough differences between resale and retail. Their ideal situation is for one to not be able to sell but think they can or think they never will. Obviously this will never be 100 % but they're moving it more and more with the incremental changes. A DVC II gives them LOTS of options to differentiate between the 2.

Having resale prices near to retails has appeared to be the easiest way to push direct within the current system. And yes, DVCII or whatever it is, opens the most doors.

 

[Dean]

Having resale prices near to retails has appeared to be the easiest way to push direct within the current system. And yes, DVCII or whatever it is, opens the most doors.

But it's not a sustainable method IMO esp as the RTU gets shorter.

 

[DanCio]

The point isn't to reduce the price, is it? The point is to reduce the value.

DVC reducing the price of DVC resale contracts is just begging for people to buy more and stay onsite for less than offsite.

I really feel you hit the nail on the head. I really think Disney has had 1 goal for DVC since day 1, everyone is supposed to "Buy it, Own it forever (well, until contract expires) and NEVER sell it" which leads to "How do we increase value for Direct and reduce it for Resale?" I think all the changes members have experienced have been predicated on that statement and that question.

I don't think Disney ever considered there would be this much Resale activity. After all, it's Disney and who doesn't and wouldn't want to own a piece of the magic until the day they pass away? And with only enough space to build at most 6 to 8 new resorts in total (not all DVC), rather than embrace the Resale market, they are just trying to kill its value by reducing benefits but artificially propping up prices by using ROFR.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

But it's not a sustainable method IMO esp as the RTU gets shorter.

Then the longer RTU they are selling definitely pushes direct.

 

[Bearval]

Having resale prices near to retails has appeared to be the easiest way to push direct within the current system. And yes, DVCII or whatever it is, opens the most doors.

That has not worked for them. What they are going to do now is greatly decrease the value of the product in resale. Most people who buy timeshares do not even consider what the value would be if they wanted to sell, if they did no one would but a time share. Disney will buy back all of the contracts that will allow them to earn the same amount of profit as they would make selling first time direct. I do not see them trying to prop the cost of the resale up near direct pricing, just lowering the value of the product which over time will be greater when new resorts are built and older ones expire. As a corporation, Disney as time on their side and in the long run all resale’s will be for one resort only.

 

[Dean]

Then the longer RTU they are selling definitely pushes direct.

Sure but is it enough. In they view EVERY resale purchased is a lost retail purchase. And that's irregardless of whether the resale buyer says they wouldn't have bought retail.

 

[skier_pete]

The point isn't to reduce the price, is it? The point is to reduce the value.

DVC reducing the price of DVC resale contracts is just begging for people to buy more and stay onsite for less than offsite.

This is exactly right. They want as few people looking at resale as possible. And more particularly - they want people to buy direct at the NEW resorts - not the OLD ones. This is why they raised prices on many of the more popular older resorts. It not only keeps people from wanting to buy there direct, but it helps buoy up resale prices. The one negative is that this makes them make less money on ROFR, but since they don't want to be in the business of selling those resorts - they are OK with that too.

And this is what I don't completely get with the announcement of putting resale at Riviera such that you can only stay at Riviera. In a way - it will keep a lot of people from looking at resale, and it will keep resale prices down such that they can ROFR any contracts while Riviera is still on the market. So it really makes a LOT of sense while they have new sales at the resort.

But then after Riviera is sold out, they don't want to KEEP selling Riviera, so keeping resale prices super low is not in their best interest. It makes me wonder - are they going to change their strategy - and continue to ROFR and sell contracts at the resort even after the resort sells out? The resale market will probably keep the price relatively low. (I am thinking realistically below the lowest of the other WDW resorts at a max, and likely lower than that.) But if Disney says - anything the sells at $80 or less we will buy back and resell at $190. This way (a) they keep the price at $80-90 a point but (b) very few people will want to buy resale contracts if they can get SSR, OKW, or AKV for a few dollars more.

IDK - it seems overly complicated for Disney...they have to have a strategy though...

 

[TexasChick123]

This is exactly right. They want as few people looking at resale as possible. And more particularly - they want people to buy direct at the NEW resorts - not the OLD ones. This is why they raised prices on many of the more popular older resorts. It not only keeps people from wanting to buy there direct, but it helps buoy up resale prices. The one negative is that this makes them make less money on ROFR, but since they don't want to be in the business of selling those resorts - they are OK with that too.

And this is what I don't completely get with the announcement of putting resale at Riviera such that you can only stay at Riviera. In a way - it will keep a lot of people from looking at resale, and it will keep resale prices down such that they can ROFR any contracts while Riviera is still on the market. So it really makes a LOT of sense while they have new sales at the resort.

But then after Riviera is sold out, they don't want to KEEP selling Riviera, so keeping resale prices super low is not in their best interest. It makes me wonder - are they going to change their strategy - and continue to ROFR and sell contracts at the resort even after the resort sells out? The resale market will probably keep the price relatively low. (I am thinking realistically below the lowest of the other WDW resorts at a max, and likely lower than that.) But if Disney says - anything the sells at $80 or less we will buy back and resell at $190. This way (a) they keep the price at $80-90 a point but (b) very few people will want to buy resale contracts if they can get SSR, OKW, or AKV for a few dollars more.

IDK - it seems overly complicated for Disney...they have to have a strategy though...

I’ll throw out a crazy theory here. Maybe, starting with Riviera, they will eliminate ROFR in their contracts. That department must be expensive. Since there will now be a HUGE restriction on resale, the resale value will be significantly lower on Riviera. This way, they can eliminate that department and save a lot of time and money. As you have stated, selling older resorts isn’t the big money maker. They want to sell the new resorts. I’m by no means saying I’ve heard this or it’s happening. I’m just throwing out a possibility, albeit a crazy one.