Tiered Benefits DVC Poll

[DonkeyHoTay]

I voted 'all the same' but it is kind of self-serving as our points are so low that we'd be at the bottom of the barrel. Kind of like the DCL tier system - LOL

Not for nothing, but the DCL tier system is a joke compared to other cruise line loyalty programs. I'm DCL platinum and get free pizza and a towel....

Hope DVD doesn't call DCL for tier system advice.

 

[BeachClub2014]

Just one more way to become a regular timeshare scumbag.
I always thought as DVC to be above that.

Scumbag is a pretty harsh indictment of an entire industry. Are all timeshare companies scumbags? Are all of their salespeople scumbags?

Does anyone honestly believe the nonsense that DVC is a club? DVC was a timeshare on day one. It's a timeshare today, and will be a timeshare tomorrow. Some changes may be for the better, others for the worse. Enhancing a tiered benefit program, which has already existed, doesn't devalue the DVC timeshare or make DVC a scumbag timeshare.

 

[xdan0920]

I have an idea.

A tiered benefit program, BUT....

If you rent your points out more then 1x a year or 2 years in a row. You are pushed out of the program.

 

[Chuck S]

I have an idea.

A tiered benefit program, BUT....

If you rent your points out more then 1x a year or 2 years in a row. You are pushed out of the program.

Why? The people to whom the points or reservations are rented would not be eligible for any of the benefits, only the DVC Owner themselves. And renting is allowed under our contracts. Plus it is probable that any tiered benefit would not be of any real benefit or value, unless they get to a tier of a free AP, which is highly doubtful that would even be considered.

 

[Sandisw]

I have an idea.

A tiered benefit program, BUT....

If you rent your points out more then 1x a year or 2 years in a row. You are pushed out of the program.

Let’s not derail the thread into the topic of renting but related to the topic at hand… whether a tiered benefit program would be something people would want DVD to implement.

Again, benefits have always applied to the owners so rentals wouldn’t play a role.

 

[xdan0920]

Let’s not derail the thread into the topic of renting but related to the topic at hand… whether a tiered benefit program would be something people would want DVD to implement.

Again, benefits have always applied to the owners so rentals wouldn’t play a role.

Well, if the benefits are better booking windows, I think we need to take the landlords into account. Just my opinion.

 

[T00dles]

Just a hypothetical—what if DVC explored website performance as a perk for direct owners?

Booking windows would stay equal, but direct members could be routed through faster CDNs, lower-latency servers, or get priority in backend request queues. Even small tech upgrades—like preloading key assets or optimizing API calls—could give them a smoother, faster experience at 8:00 AM without changing any booking rules.

Seriously doubt it will happen, but might be an interesting way to add value for direct purchases.

 

[Sandisw]

Well, if the benefits are better booking windows, I think we need to take the landlords into account. Just my opinion.

They can’t give any owner at the same resort a better boomking window…the contract and FL timeshare law prevents it.

I don’t even believe they can give indivuals a better booking window for trading based on the way the DVC resort agreement is written.

Now, if DVD wants to give access to their own points to those with more points, that’s up to them.

Basically, the trading window happens after the home resort period is over…and the rules are based on the resort and it’s points and not indivial owners.

Now, the way the trust is written they could make a two tiered set up to allow trust properties to trade between themselves before allowing non trust.

But, outside of DVD giving access to rooms they secured with their points as part of it, I don’t think they can…nor would…implement…a different booking window as part of a benefits program.

 

[Sandisw]

Just a hypothetical—what if DVC explored website performance as a perk for direct owners?

Booking windows would stay equal, but direct members could be routed through faster CDNs, lower-latency servers, or get priority in backend request queues. Even small tech upgrades—like preloading key assets or optimizing API calls—could give them a smoother, faster experience at 8:00 AM without changing any booking rules.

Seriously doubt it will happen, but might be an interesting way to add value for direct purchases.

My guess is that violates the first come, first serve nature of the program.

That’s why I didn’t vote because I simply see no legal way, outside of DVC giving owners OTU points they own to use during the home resort period, to make booking benefits better based on number of points one owns.

 

[Genie+]

If DVD figured pulling the cream out of the system to rent commercially is enough of a benefit for those high point owners, they could make a system where tiers are tied to the amount of qualified points used personally.

 

[Brian Noble]

It's probably enough to restrict it to stays made exclusively on developer-bought points. Wyndham does this---resale and developer points are split, and only bookings made with all-developer points can take advantage of any applicable VIP upgrades/discounts/extra housekeeping/etc.

The bulk of most commerically-rented points are likely to be resale, because the cost basis is lower.

 

[tomandrobin]

I have been a member long enough to remember Jim Lewis had promised to roll out a tired benefit system, but end up getting fired because Aulani. Then Claire Bilby who replaced Jim also was going to implement the tiered system. I distinctly asked here about on a DVC member cruise during a Q&A session. She left within a year after that meeting and the talk of tiered benefits disappeared.

 

[DanCali]

I see I'm in the short side of this poll, at least so far. I'm actually very surprised this hasn't already been done and a long time ago at that. It's genius from a marketing perspective and it costs them virtually nothing once implemented. "If I could just make that next tier, then I could have xyz." Seems like a no-brainer to me. They side-saddled it with the non-direct v. direct barriers and pretended no one was actually riding. It's actually pretty foolish they haven't done this already if you look at it through clear glasses.

I agree with you. This is part of the playbook for any timeshare developer, especially if they choose to devalue their product on the resale market and have a subset of owners who resist buying direct because of that.

Suppose that RIV contracts will eventually sell in the $80s or lower (as suggested by this post which may be just an aberration as of now). How will they get an informed owner who know about resale, and already has 150+ direct points, to buy RIV (or the next shiny but restricted resort) direct for $220+? They have access to all current benefits, they have access to all the new resorts, so what else is left? "Status" has worked for a long time for airlines and hotels, and other timeshare companies do it as well.

I'm not sure earlier booking windows would be legal per se (and wouldn't be popular with other owners too) but things like (i) ability to bank closer to the end of the use year (ii) longer life for banked points, (iii) dedicated phone line including for for member cruise bookings (iv) 2pm checkin with a "subject to availability" asterisk that makes the benefit meaningless, and (v) 12pm checkout with a "subject to availability" asterisk that makes the benefit meaningless (vi) extra discount on cash rates (with limited inventory).... are all relatively costless things that could incentivize those "hard to convince" owners to make another direct purchase.

Don't give them any ideas.

They don't need ideas from here. Here is what Vistana offered owners in their now defunct Elite Owner program (that program was killed after the company was gobbled up by Marriott Vacation Club)

https://vistana-web-static.s3.amazo...ts/vistana_elite_privileges_benefit_chart.pdf

And here are the kinds of things Marriott Vacation Club currently offers their owners who accumulate points:

https://marriottvacationsworldwide.com/common/cms/mvc/pdfs/owners/Owner-Benefit-Level.pdf

 

[Brian Noble]

How will they get an informed owner who know about resale, and already has 150+ direct points, to buy RIV (or the next shiny but restricted resort) direct for $220+?

You don't.

And, you don't need to, because (a) most prospective buyers are uninformed---even if they are current owners---and (b) for those that are, FOMO is a thing, and restrictions will do the job. Guide: "Sure, you could buy more resale points if you truly love Riviera, and don't need to stay anywhere else. Ever. But, we can give you a monthly payment of only $X, and then your points would be good everywhere."

There will be a few who won't fit into either category, but they weren't going to bite when resale was $110, either.

From where I sit, tiers are not meant to combat resale. They are meant to capture incremental discretionary money and time. They are not competing against resale so much as they are competing against the semi-annual ski trip, or going with family to the Outer Banks, or whatever.

 

[DanCali]

You don't.

And, you don't need to, because (a) most prospective buyers are uninformed---even if they are current owners---and (b) for those that are, FOMO is a thing, and restrictions will do the job. Guide: "Sure, you could buy more resale points if you truly love Riviera, and don't need to stay anywhere else. Ever. But, we can give you a monthly payment of only $X, and then your points would be good everywhere."

I agree with most of what you said but the second argument (restrictions will do the job on informed buyers) only goes so far. It may work when RIV resale is $110. But what is it was $80? Or $50? We don't really know where the bottom is yet....

At a resale price like $50 I suspect many of those informed buyers would rather buy 4x100 resale points at 4 different restricted resorts than buy 100 direct unrestricted points. At that point things like tiered benefits or points washing (probably a much stronger incentive) can probably incentivize more direct sales from that group of owners.

I actually had a sales rep at Westin/Marriott who wrote me a thank you note because a referral from me made several direct purchases from him while "enrolling" - aka "washing" - 5 deeded resale weeks into the system with each purchase (and that person also referred others to him to do the same). So these types of offers can generate a substantial incremental sales.

 

[Brian Noble]

There is a number at which it won’t for any given person. But if the market rate goes down that means there are fewer buyers to begin with. Mission accomplished.

 

[Sandisw]

I agree with most of what you said but the second argument (restrictions will do the job on informed buyers) only goes so far. It may work when RIV resale is $110. But what is it was $80? Or $50? We don't really know where the bottom is yet....

At a resale price like $50 I suspect many of those informed buyers would rather buy 4x100 resale points at 4 different restricted resorts than buy 100 direct unrestricted points. At that point things like tiered benefits or points washing (probably a much stronger incentive) can probably incentivize more direct sales from that group of owners.

I actually had a sales rep at Westin/Marriott who wrote me a thank you note because a referral from me made several direct purchases from him while "enrolling" - aka "washing" - 5 deeded resale weeks into the system with each purchase (and that person also referred others to him to do the same). So these types of offers can generate a substantial incremental sales.

The thing is that if VLL comes out with them, you will then have 3 WdW resorts with them and one DL resort.

Start having more restricted resorts and it may be enough to sway those to direct…not to mention we inch closer to the popular 2042 resorts expiring

The other unknown is how it will react when it is sold out and there are no incentives. It could stop any free fall…

Many of us predicted $100 or below right out of the gate for resale and it’s taken 5 years to get to an average around $110 ish?

So, who knows….it will be interesting to watch!!

 

[Girlstar30]

Now that my fomo for lounges and member events has dissipated, all resale is just making more and more sense and betting on people getting scared and prices going down seems fun

 

[DanCali]

The thing is that if VLL comes out with them, you will then have 3 WdW resorts with them and one DL resort.

Start having more restricted resorts and it may be enough to sway those to direct…not to mention we inch closer to the popular 2042 resorts expiring

The other unknown is how it will react when it is sold out and there are no incentives. It could stop any free fall…

Many of us predicted $100 or below right out of the gate for resale and it’s taken 5 years to get to an average around $110 ish?

So, who knows….it will be interesting to watch!!

5-6 years is hardly enough to establish a bona fide "market price" in the resale market for a new resort. The resort is not even sold out yet. The oldest deeds are barely 6 years old and you had a lengthy pandemic in the middle where nobody was buying anything. It needs more time to establish a "proper price".

In my opinion, on average about 50% of the value of a contract comes from the "home resort advantage" and about 50% comes from the flexibility to book other resorts. For small resorts like VGC and BCV the value of the "home resort advantage' is probably higher than 50%. For large resorts and those easier to trade into like OKW, SSR, AKV the value of the home resort advantage is probably lower than 50% - and much of the value comes from the ability to use those points at other resorts.

As a thought exercise - I think RIV is comparable to VGF in many ways (level of luxury, rack rates, both studios and 1BRs sleep 5, convenience to parks etc), and if it was unrestricted, I suspect their resale prices would be very similar. But I wouldn't be surprised if RIV eventually ended up at about 50% of VGF mostly because of the restrictions, and maybe the slightly higher dues help drag it to that area too. On a similar note, I suspect Vero contracts would be at less than $20/pt today if they were good only at a single resort. You'd have a lot more of them on the market, and a lot fewer potential buyers. The fact they can be used at WDW, DL, and Hawaii adds to their value quite a bit, even with those high dues.

When thinking about an all- (or mostly-) restricted DVC world the big question tome is what the prevailing resale prices of those resorts will be. I think you can cut most current resale prices in half - the contracts would be a lot less flexible, and that would be reflected in the price. Maybe some smaller resorts with high demand (like the VGC and BCV of today) will fare slightly better. In that world, I don't think an informed buyer who knows the direct purchase loses 75% right off the bat, will buy direct just because of the FOMO factor. Personally, I'd take 300+ restricted resale points (across 2-4 resorts) for the same price as 100 direct points any day.

Conversely, in that same world, if they offered to wash some of those resale points (and/or if there was a tiered benefit system where there was meaningful benefit to more than 150 direct points), that may indeed sway me, or least cause me to think about it seriously. But as for the restrictions themselves - the more they destroy resale value, the less I'd be inclined to go direct just because of the upfront capital loss, even if it's "just on paper".

 

[Sandisw]

5-6 years is hardly enough to establish a bona fide "market price" in the resale market for a new resort. The resort is not even sold out yet. The oldest deeds are barely 6 years old and you had a lengthy pandemic in the middle where nobody was buying anything. It needs more time to establish a "proper price".

In my opinion, on average about 50% of the value of a contract comes from the "home resort advantage" and about 50% comes from the flexibility to book other resorts. For small resorts like VGC and BCV the value of the "home resort advantage' is probably higher than 50%. For large resorts and those easier to trade into like OKW, SSR, AKV the value of the home resort advantage is probably lower than 50% - and much of the value comes from the ability to use those points at other resorts.

As a thought exercise - I think RIV is comparable to VGF in many ways (level of luxury, rack rates, both studios and 1BRs sleep 5, convenience to parks etc), and if it was unrestricted, I suspect their resale prices would be very similar. But I wouldn't be surprised if RIV eventually ended up at about 50% of VGF mostly because of the restrictions, and maybe the slightly higher dues help drag it to that area too. On a similar note, I suspect Vero contracts would be at less than $20/pt today if they were good only at a single resort. You'd have a lot more of them on the market, and a lot fewer potential buyers. The fact they can be used at WDW, DL, and Hawaii adds to their value quite a bit, even with those high dues.

When thinking about an all- (or mostly-) restricted DVC world the big question tome is what the prevailing resale prices of those resorts will be. I think you can cut most current resale prices in half - the contracts would be a lot less flexible, and that would be reflected in the price. Maybe some smaller resorts with high demand (like the VGC and BCV of today) will fare slightly better. In that world, I don't think an informed buyer who knows the direct purchase loses 75% right off the bat, will buy direct just because of the FOMO factor. Personally, I'd take 300+ restricted resale points (across 2-4 resorts) for the same price as 100 direct points any day.

Conversely, in that same world, if they offered to wash some of those resale points (and/or if there was a tiered benefit system where there was meaningful benefit to more than 150 direct points), that may indeed sway me, or least cause me to think about it seriously. But as for the restrictions themselves - the more they destroy resale value, the less I'd be inclined to go direct just because of the upfront capital loss, even if it's "just on paper".

I was really relating it to the notion that we are far enough into things to have a general idea that so far, it’s done better than many of us predicted it ever would.

I am the opposite as I went in not caring or expecting any level of resale value..

The value is in its use and if I have to spend more to access more resorts that might come along that I want to stay at, then I would see the direct price as value.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out but in terms of the topic thread, I think tiered benefits, if they were to occur, will be things that they can offer with ease and not ones that can be seen as potentially an issue..like booking windows.