Would you join a lawsuit against DVC to stop/revert the 2020 reallocation?

[4luv2cdisney]

Could you tell me what year that Product Understanding Checklist is from. The latest one I have, which is for AKV, is from 2008, and it has the same language as the one from BWV.

Rather than helping DVC, that actually adds more fuel to our argument. As to all resorts that used the original Product Understanding document, which would appear to be at least AKV and before, the applicable declarations and agreements have not changed or been amended in any of the relevant extent. DVC claimed, via the original Product Understanding document, that it believed its right to make a point change was limited to seasonal change. Making a later change to what your language is would actually be considered an admission that DVC knew that the the Product Understanding document was a critical document that stated what it actually intended before, and now it is trying to assert a new meaning, which it cannot possibly do for any purchasers that received the old Product Understanding document.

Mine from BWV in 2017 describes the offset.

 

[crvetter]

Could you tell me what year that Product Understanding Checklist is from. The latest one I have, which is for AKV, is from 2008, and it has the same language as the one from BWV.

Rather than helping DVC, that actually adds more fuel to our argument. As to all resorts that used the original Product Understanding document, which would appear to be at least AKV and before, the applicable declarations and agreements have not changed or been amended in any of the relevant extent. DVC claimed, via the original Product Understanding document, that it believed its right to make a point change was limited to seasonal change. Making a later change to what your language is would actually be considered an admission that DVC knew that the the Product Understanding document was a critical document that stated what it actually intended before, and now it is trying to assert a new meaning, which it cannot possibly do for any purchasers that received the old Product Understanding document.

Do you have a screenshot of the section specific to AKV? I would be interested to see how much of the wording was off. Mine was for CCV, as the shot I showed you simply says the cost of a Use Day may change. Doesn't say a word about how or what will be changed to rectify that offset. I can say confidently in the sales process it was ambiguous in a sense that it would be within a Vacation Home Type. Know with 20/20 hindsight I'm pretty confident the wording was ambiguous on purpose.

In the following post https://www.disboards.com/threads/w...020-reallocation.3726101/page-7#post-60078170 what they attached does specifically state they may adjust across Vacation Home Types. They labeled it as a Multi Site POS but every Resort POS (original didn't comb through all the amendments; don't have the time) does not contain the explicit language "in any other Vacation Home". That text is simply omitted. I'll have to check what my multi-site POS says, which I just got in November.

 

[crvetter]

Mine from BWV in 2017 describes the offset.

Would you mind sharing that sentence? I'm curious how different mine is. Again attached is what mine said:

 

[4luv2cdisney]

Would you mind sharing that sentence? I'm curious how different mine is. Again attached is what mine said:View attachment 375903

I can grab it later for exact wording, but doesn't yours go on to say more? Mine has more after that describing it further.

 

[crvetter]

I can grab it later for exact wording, but doesn't yours go on to say more? Mine has more after that describing it further.

Mine does not go on further to say how a "reallocation" would work only state that one could happen for a give use day. However, it does have the language in the POS just not the Product Understanding Checklist

 

[drusba]

Do you have a screenshot of the section specific to AKV? I would be interested to see how much of the wording was off. Mine was for CCV, as the shot I showed you simply says the cost of a Use Day may change. Doesn't say a word about how or what will be changed to rectify that offset. I can say confidently in the sales process it was ambiguous in a sense that it would be within a Vacation Home Type. Know with 20/20 hindsight I'm pretty confident the wording was ambiguous on purpose.

In the following post https://www.disboards.com/threads/w...020-reallocation.3726101/page-7#post-60078170 what they attached does specifically state they may adjust across Vacation Home Types. They labeled it as a Multi Site POS but every Resort POS (original didn't comb through all the amendments; don't have the time) does not contain the explicit language "in any other Vacation Home". That text is simply omitted. I'll have to check what my multi-site POS says, which I just got in November.

Here is a copy of the top portion of first page of the Product Understanding document for AKV, see par. 9. From seeing some other posts elsewhere, it is beginning to appear that the change to your version first occurred with VGF.

 

[crvetter]

Here is a copy of the top portion of first page of the Product Understanding document for AKV, see par. 9.
View attachment 375911

Interesting. I’ll post mine later tonight. It looks vastly different for Copper Creek.

 

[Bing Showei]

From Disney's Saratoga Springs Resort Product Understanding Checklist
Rev. 12/2016

11. Each DVC Resort Vacation Home is assigned a nightly Vacation Point value, which varies depending upon the season of use, location and the size of the Vacation Home and other factors. The number of Vacation Points required to reserve any specific night in a particular Vacation Home may change based on seasonal demand.

• The total number of Vacation Points required to use all Vacation Homes during each calendar year through January 31, 2054 can never increase unless more Vacation Homes are added to the plan, except for normal variations which occur in the calendar from year to year.

• If Vacation Points for one specific night increase, it will be offset by a decrease on another night or nights, except for normal variations which occur in the calendar from year to year.

• Reallocation cannot exceed 20% per calendar year, except under limited circumstances.

[Bolding is as it appears in the document.]

 

[Dean]

First, thank you for taking the time to share this conversation.

Would you be able to find out in the next call if there is any way, without compromising proprietary information, they can share broader data that supports the assertion that 1BR book up much faster than 2BR? This flies in the face of what members have regularly observed and reported when booking. Just now, checking for the first week of July, across all the WDW resorts, it's clear that 1BRs are more readily available at 5.5 months out.

Can someone who can understand/accept the Disney position that 1BRs are MUCH more popular explain to me how to reconcile this? I'm honestly asking. It feels a lot like, "Who ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes."

My guess, and it's just a guess, is they didn't truly believe the 1 BR were more popular than the 2 BR but that they felt it would be if they simply increased studios and decreased 1 BR so they were being proactive. I suspect, if they play through with the communications, they'll change the answer slightly at some point. But the other possibility and variable is the point I've made earlier, that having one unit available doesn't automatically translate directly to demand.

From Disney's Saratoga Springs Resort Product Understanding Checklist
Rev. 12/2016

11. Each DVC Resort Vacation Home is assigned a nightly Vacation Point value, which varies depending upon the season of use, location and the size of the Vacation Home and other factors. The number of Vacation Points required to reserve any specific night in a particular Vacation Home may change based on seasonal demand.

• The total number of Vacation Points required to use all Vacation Homes during each calendar year through January 31, 2054 can never increase unless more Vacation Homes are added to the plan, except for normal variations which occur in the calendar from year to year.

• If Vacation Points for one specific night increase, it will be offset by a decrease on another night or nights, except for normal variations which occur in the calendar from year to year.

• Reallocation cannot exceed 20% per calendar year, except under limited circumstances.

[Bolding is as it appears in the document.]

Which, as written, clearly allows the change in question, a reallocation across the resort. And clearly the other information is that restrictions are to the full villas only.

 

[crvetter]

Interesting. I’ll post mine later tonight. It looks vastly different for Copper Creek.

Attached. Removed Personal Information

 

[Bing Showei]

But the other possibility and variable is the point I've made earlier, that having one unit available doesn't automatically translate directly to demand.

I would expect that if there is greater demand for something, it will be less available and vice versa, but you’re seeing some other way to interpret that observation.

Can you expand on this idea, Dean? This is where I’m stumped in terms of the logic/reasoning.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Attached. Removed Personal Information

Wow - that's incredibly open ended. And no limits at all.

 

[crvetter]

Wow - that's incredibly open ended. And no limits at all.

Well the POS is identical to all others so it’s still limited as others. But my point is they aren’t very clear like they used to be. It’s deliberately misleading. I might bring this up in my follow up call I have scheduled.

 

[DizneyLizzy]

Just an observation it is possible that they are slowly trying to flip the seasons? Perhaps this was the moves that could be done to maximize that effort while keeping them below the legal requirements of how much they can change points. After my call I wondered if that was their goal. I wouldn't be too surprised, if everyone tries during the fall why keep that cheaper than the summer which is super easy to book.

My upcoming 5 night June trip in a BLT one bedroom standard (which was easily booked at 7 months...as was a BLT standard studio for FWIW) would be 29 points more in June of 2020. So no, they’re definitely not trying to flip the seasons.

 

[Dean]

I would expect that if there is greater demand for something, it will be less available and vice versa, but you’re seeing some other way to interpret that observation.

Can you expand on this idea, Dean? This is where I’m stumped in terms of the logic/reasoning.

All you see on DVC is whether there is 1 unit available, not how many. If there are 100 units and 99 of them go quickly bu the last one slowly (or is booked and later canceled) you won't get an accurate picture. Or if both are available and one type has 5% and the other 50% available, you won't see that either. DVCMC has a vast amount of very detailed data available to them across resorts, days of the week, times of the year, villa type, different years; etc. They're not stupid and they're not going to set themselves up. And I think we all agree that an increase in the studios and a decrease in the 2 BR are both reasonable so I'm reminded of one of the 2 Meatloaf songs I actually like ("2 out of 3 aint bad)". One of my systems actually shows how many of each villa type is available and since some of the resorts have different types of 1 BR and 2 BR, and some quite a variation, it shows each type separately. I just booked this morning a 2 night stay leading into a cruise with this company and a search showed me two different 2BR types and about 5 different 1 BR types and the total availability for each along with the total points for the dates specified. It also gives a description including whether it has 2 doubles or a King in the second, square footage and whether it has a jetted tub or not. I booked the 2 BR dedicated with 2 king rather than the larger L/O that had 2 doubles and more square footage since it was cheaper and there are only 2 couples.

 

[4luv2cdisney]

Mine does not go on further to say how a "reallocation" would work only state that one could happen for a give use day. However, it does have the language in the POS just not the Product Understanding Checklist

From Disney's Saratoga Springs Resort Product Understanding Checklist
Rev. 12/2016

11. Each DVC Resort Vacation Home is assigned a nightly Vacation Point value, which varies depending upon the season of use, location and the size of the Vacation Home and other factors. The number of Vacation Points required to reserve any specific night in a particular Vacation Home may change based on seasonal demand.

• The total number of Vacation Points required to use all Vacation Homes during each calendar year through January 31, 2054 can never increase unless more Vacation Homes are added to the plan, except for normal variations which occur in the calendar from year to year.

• If Vacation Points for one specific night increase, it will be offset by a decrease on another night or nights, except for normal variations which occur in the calendar from year to year.

• Reallocation cannot exceed 20% per calendar year, except under limited circumstances.

[Bolding is as it appears in the document.]

The wording on mine is like @Bing Showei except 2042 vs 2054 for BWV

 

[Bing Showei]

All you see on DVC is whether there is 1 unit available, not how many. If there are 100 units and 99 of them go quickly bu the last one slowly (or is booked and later canceled) you won't get an accurate picture.

This would be true if we were looking at any given single day. But when you look at a date range and you observe that date range with some regularity (which others on this board have done much more carefully than I have and have come to the same conclusion), you can get a decent read for how quickly a room category becomes unavailable by judging availability surrounding your date range.

Your scenario of one room giving the impression that there is more availability than another is technically possible, but again, you would have to operate within a very narrow scope of observation for that to be plausible. When you look at an availability chart at any given period, you can see, plus or minus a few weeks, what sort of affect overlapping bookings will have. For there to be only a single 1BR room available that could skew the perceived observations of abundant availability, that single bedroom would have to make multiple two week runs (skier_pete's method of determining availability) of constant availability. The observations we are making show clearly that over multiple two-week observations, there is lower demand for 1BRs than 2BRs at almost every resort.

Our methodology is not perfect. It's can't touch what Disney has access to. But it would take a remarkable (and we're talking truly magical, at this point) statistical anomaly to trick us, season after season, year after year, for our observations of availability to be so skewed by the potential difference in room numbers that you are describing. I feel like the simplest explanation is the most likely one. That the reason it looks like there are more 1BRs available than 2BRs is because there are more 1BRs available than 2BRs.

If you believe that if it's in the POS it's legal, and if it's legal, then it's ethical, then why are you resistant to accepting that maybe there actually isn't a greater demand for 1BRs, but that Disney is instead acting (within their legal rights) to goose the lockoff premium to increase breakage for profits by increasing both studios and 1BRs? It would be completely within their rights to do exactly that.

 

[4luv2cdisney]

Attached. Removed Personal Information

that is certainly brief. Mine is 3 full pages. 20 sections. Although the last section is quite lengthy as it is all related to me purchasing a small contract.

 

[Dean]

This would be true if we were looking at any given single day. But when you look at a date range and you observe that date range with some regularity (which others on this board have done much more carefully than I have and have come to the same conclusion), you can get a decent read for how quickly a room category becomes unavailable by judging availability surrounding your date range.

Your scenario of one room giving the impression that there is more availability than another is technically possible, but again, you would have to operate within a very narrow scope of observation for that to be plausible. When you look at an availability chart at any given period, you can see, plus or minus a few weeks, what sort of affect overlapping bookings will have. For there to be only a single 1BR room available that could skew the perceived observations of abundant availability, that single bedroom would have to make multiple two week runs (skier_pete's method of determining availability) of constant availability. The observations we are making show clearly that over multiple two-week observations, there is lower demand for 1BRs than 2BRs at almost every resort.

Our methodology is not perfect. It's can't touch what Disney has access to. But it would take a remarkable (and we're talking truly magical, at this point) statistical anomaly to trick us, season after season, year after year, for our observations of availability to be so skewed by the potential difference in room numbers that you are describing. I feel like the simplest explanation is the most likely one. That the reason it looks like there are more 1BRs available than 2BRs is because there are more 1BRs available than 2BRs.

If you believe that if it's in the POS it's legal, and if it's legal, then it's ethical, then why are you resistant to accepting that maybe there actually isn't a greater demand for 1BRs, but that Disney is instead acting (within their legal rights) to goose the lockoff premium to increase breakage for profits by increasing both studios and 1BRs? It would be completely within their rights to do exactly that.

Just looking online over time gives you information but not a complete picture. It also doesn't tell you when the rooms actually book up or who has to settle for options that were not the top on their list. DVCMC has access to all of that information and more. Actually I don't believe the 1 BR are more in demand than the 2 BR which is whey I suspect they misspoke. But I do believe that the studio and 1 BR are a set and the increasing studios and decreasing 1 BR doesn't help 2 BR and may actually make their availability worse. I do not believe it's their intent or their right to purposefully try to generate breakage inventory for profit but one doesn't preclude the other. They could make the change for the right reasons AND general more breakage both. Frankly I don't believe this change will general more breakage as I believe that increased 2 BR bookings will offset much or all of the potentially freed up rooms. And as I've said before, if I did believe that was the case I wouldn't play in their sandbox. I have no problems separating out sales and usage but when I feel I can't trust them from a management standpoints, I'm out. I can't see why anyone would want to play otherwise long term who felt otherwise.

 

[skier_pete]

I had a call today from someone in the Regulatory affairs office, V. was leading the call and there were 3 more people in the room; I feel honored (the website I've created might have drawn attention). *

They told me that (brace yourself) demand for 1BR is much higher than 2BR (and of course studios, but she never spoke about one being in higher demand of the other). She told this like if they're flying off the shelves. So the lockoff premium has to re-balance this.

Good on you for getting someone to talk to you.
(1) I think the data we are collecting would prove this to be at least moderately false to completely false.
(2) In particular - this is COMPLETELY untrue at resorts like BWV, where all 2BR are lock-offs. The 2BR go identical to the studios. 1-Bedrooms remain much longer. This also applies to Kidani. I would suggest pointing this out to them - for what it's worth.
(3) Other resorts the data we have collected is less than complete. I do have to say at SSR it may actually prove the 2BR are more available than 1BRs, but this so far seems to be the only resort. I wish we had complete data - I would suggest sharing it with them- because it is undoubtable that they would be surprised that any individual would bother to collect such data. (Or would be able to.)

This would be true if we were looking at any given single day. But when you look at a date range and you observe that date range with some regularity (which others on this board have done much more carefully than I have and have come to the same conclusion), you can get a decent read for how quickly a room category becomes unavailable by judging availability surrounding your date range.

Your scenario of one room giving the impression that there is more availability than another is technically possible, but again, you would have to operate within a very narrow scope of observation for that to be plausible. When you look at an availability chart at any given period, you can see, plus or minus a few weeks, what sort of affect overlapping bookings will have. For there to be only a single 1BR room available that could skew the perceived observations of abundant availability, that single bedroom would have to make multiple two week runs (skier_pete's method of determining availability) of constant availability. The observations we are making show clearly that over multiple two-week observations, there is lower demand for 1BRs than 2BRs at almost every resort.

Our methodology is not perfect. It's can't touch what Disney has access to. But it would take a remarkable (and we're talking truly magical, at this point) statistical anomaly to trick us, season after season, year after year, for our observations of availability to be so skewed by the potential difference in room numbers that you are describing. I feel like the simplest explanation is the most likely one. That the reason it looks like there are more 1BRs available than 2BRs is because there are more 1BRs available than 2BRs.

If you believe that if it's in the POS it's legal, and if it's legal, then it's ethical, then why are you resistant to accepting that maybe there actually isn't a greater demand for 1BRs, but that Disney is instead acting (within their legal rights) to goose the lockoff premium to increase breakage for profits by increasing both studios and 1BRs? It would be completely within their rights to do exactly that.

I agree with these comments. We have not completely fleshed out the data analysis - but the WAY we are taking the data suggests that 2-BDs are either slightly less available than 1-BDs, or are significantly more available. I will also admit the data doesn't say how many are available, but it indicates what fractions of days have ZERO availablity, and that is telling in terms of popularity. Disney has more detailed data than we do - but the data is strong enough that when complete I would have a hard time not believing it is an indication of availability.

And ugh to "it's legal so it's ethical".