Apr. QotM - Rewards Program for More Points?

[administrator]

Okay, here's a potentially controversial question for our QotM.

As some of you probably already know, nearly every other TS company offers Rewards/Loyalty/Elite programs to their members, so that members who own greater numbers of weeks or points are offered special rewards, perks, etc. (e.g., early check-in, late check-out, special discounts, earlier booking windows, etc.)

Should DVC offer such a program? Should someone who owns, say, only 25 points (obviously acquired via resale) be entitled to the same benefits as someone who owns 1500 points?

Talk amongst yourselves. :)

[TW1]

(as he dons his Nomex suite)

I'll jump in. Yes and no. (how's that for commitment!)

Any business is wise to thank its loyal customers. Disney, as a business, should be no different. Airlines have their mileage programs, supermarkets give you a free turkey, my coffee shop refills me for free every 10th cup, etc. etc. It's why we like certain businesses, we feel recognized and appreciated and it keeps us coming back.

All that DVC needs to keep aware of is the discrepencies associated with ownership and usage. Levels of ownership should not affect the rights and privileges of others. By this I mean the sacred cows of 11 / 7 month windows, booking priorities, room requests, etc. Those shold not be touched.

But if I were DVC I'd spend more on my loyal customers in some ways and less on my others. For instance, I'd be happy to send my loyal customers a coupon to spend at a Disney store, or a 2-for dining coupon, or put flowers in their room on check in day, etc. These little perks do not impact the rest of us, and may keep the more loyal customers happier.

Loyalty programs are smart business. We are starting to see Starbucks institute them for instance, due to the stiff competitive market they are in. But we've also seen loyalty programs backfire, like airline mileage programs that get harder and harder to use and simply make your loyal customers angry.

[DVC Mike]

I think DVC should offer two free Annual Passes every year for those members that own at least 700 points.

Hey, that would include me! :angel:

[AZeno]

We're having a hard enough time keeping our glassware and ceramic mugs, I'm not sure how much leeway there would be for more perks. As with all Disney operating units, DVC would have to be able to show a return on investment for anything that they offered up to members as an added perk.

So if a free set of annual passes would drive you to purchase an additional ownership in DVC they would be all for it (part of current promo), but otherwise, we are a captive audience.

The only thing that might swing that is if we alll started selling off our points in droves, that would certainly get attention, and any an all options to keep us would be on the table.

[Niki]

I know other TS do it, but I don't like it. If a person can afford the high number of points, they probably don't need a free annual pass. I think we should all get greater perks for DVC, regardless of the number of points. Just go back to the perks available when it first began.

[Kynna]

I have no problem with little extras for people spend more $$ at one place. It makes sense.

The glitch is that the thinking behind loyalty programs is to get you to spend your designated dollar with them. Oh I'll walk an extra block to get my coffee where they stamp my card or I'll spend my money at a certain grocery store to get air miles. DVC owners don't have to be convinced to spend their money at Disney especially the owners with LOTS of points.

Truthfully I think the incentives should go to the people who stay at the resorts themselves the most often. If you have 1000 points but rent 800 of them should the people you rent to get flowers in the room?

Some of you may already know from a previous post how I feel that Disney should show more appreciation for those of us who have dedicated our vacation to them for over 40 years.

BTW DVC Mike, they should give you free AP's and take it out of their PR Budget.

[tomandrobin]

My first thought on this was no, I like that there are not different classes of DVC members. At 11 months out, we all can make a reservation. I don't want to see booking windows change, like the Marriott's resorts.

But on the other hand, why shouldn't DVC reward those owners who have made a big financial investment into DVC. Why not set up tiers of owners rewards or discounts based on point ownership? DVC will not get the same returns on a 25 point contract owner as compared to the 1500 point owner. How many trips a year is the 25 point owner going to make to WDW, compared to the 1500 point owner? How much money is the 1500 point owner going to spend on thier multiple trips a year? I see this actually working as a marketing incentive. If you own 400 points, get an additional 25% off AP's or MYW tickets.

I get rewards and perks for almost everything else I have joined based on my loyalty, why not DVC.

[ultramm]

I think DVC should offer two free Annual Passes every year for those members that own at least 700 points.

Hey, that would include me! :angel:I like that as that would include me too:thumbsup:

[nono]

Stock my 'fridge with goodies! :dancingba That would be such a nice surprise! Little note from my guide or the resort manager...

chips & dip
milk
real coffee (!)
couple water bottles
cheese & crackers
bottle of wine

What an impression that would make.


If I were the resort manager though, I'd remind the rewardee not to be a doofus and post it all over the internet what they were receiving, as that is the quickest way to make the ding dang dern perk go away. :innocent:

[mkrbdj]

Loyalty should not be based on the number of points! I've seen many of these points being advertised for rent.

Besides, DVC IS the perk.

Kathy

[emb1963]

I don't think points is an accurate way to judge loyalty because as previously mentioned the possiblity of renting them out. However, if DVC tracked stays by a DVC member then the members who actually use their own points (and spends money at Disney) can be rewarded. Something like 5 straight years of staying 7 days or more a year could yield a free 10 day non-expiring park ticket with park hopping and water & fun options. At this point I get more perks at Disney through AAA and my Disney Visa than through ownership, so anything would be appreciated.

[mikayla73]

I think I am on the fence about it, but if they ever did, I think that the loyalty rewards shouldn't be based on the # of points, but rather how often you yourself use them (not rented or used buy others).

As someone above mentioned, you could have 1500 points and be renting out all most all of them. That person owns a lot of points, but they are not really using them and showing their loyalty to Disney. Or maybe they are trading their points out to II all the time, they still have gobs of points, but they aren't really using them "at" Disney. Of course Disney would still benefit from that person trading out their points by a cash reservation that is replacing that person.

One of the ways customers show loyalty is repeat business. They could do something like after using XXX amount of points, you get a coupon for a 2 for 1 dinner, a t-shirt, a free 30 min massage, or a fridge full of goodies as someone else mentioned. This way everyone, no matter the amount of points, could earn the benefits. They could level them, kind of like they do the movie reward points thingy they do. Like after using 350 points you get the 2 for 1 da t-shirt, at 400 you get a 2 for 1 dinner, etc. Or even offer a choice at each level. The person can "cash in" for a benefit when they get to whatever level benefit they would like, then they start counting up again.

Granted it may take some people longer than others, but you are not excluding anyone. The person with less pts may be super loyal and take all of their yearly trips to Disney, but they can't afford the 1500 pts. Or they know that they can only ever take 2 trips/yr. So why would they want a huge amount of points that they'd never be able to use, even with banking. I don't think they should miss out on opportunities and benefits because of that. I also think this way they are really rewarding loyalty and not just #'s.

I also don't think they should mess with the booking windows, booking priorites, room requests or anything along those lines. I think that should remain the same for everyone. They should truely be extras that have nothing to do with the perks all DVC members receive.

Just my .02

[jimmytammy]

I dont think having more points than the guy down the street merits special treatment. We just added on for a 4th time and getting real close to the 500 mark(never thought I would be saying that), but I dont feel it sets me apart from folks who own in the 100s.

[dubaker]

Personally, I feel Disney should reward all DVC members w/ discounted park tickets.

[HookedOnWDW]

I don't think that the rewards should be based on points. I think they should offer additional discounts. I think a discount on tickets would be great. Many of us can only afford to take 1 trip a year, or every other year. And, my guess would be that it would be for a week. Which means an annual pass doesn't make any sense for us. However, I would love to receive a discount on any ticket over 4 days.

The other thing I would love to see would be some incentive or discount on the dining plan. Especially, when "free dining" is offered. I'm fine with paying something, I just think that we could be offered a discounted price.

Just my .02.

[lins]

This is my first post... I am a new member as of last week, not new to Disney just to this
wonderful board.
I personally like that everyone is treated fairly by Disney as far as the booking window is concerned. everyone is equal 11 months out! I like that. We own lots of points, not quite a 1000. but close.
Someone else suggested to go back to the Perks the way they used to be. It would be great for ALL DVC members to get little "treats" from Disney.
I would like to see all of the properties maintain them the way they are supposed to be. change out the "blue" art on the walls, regrout the showers, replace the torn curtains, but that is probably on another thread.

bottom line- Disney can do something for all DVC members. not sure of what it should be.
Thanks for all your great ideas and thoughts.

[tomandrobin]

This is my first post... I am a new member as of last week, not new to Disney just to this wonderful board.

Welcome to MouseOwners!!

Tom

[tomandrobin]

As someone above mentioned, you could have 1500 points and be renting out all most all of them. That person owns a lot of points, but they are not really using them and showing their loyalty to Disney. Or maybe they are trading their points out to II all the time, they still have gobs of points, but they aren't really using them "at" Disney. Of course Disney would still benefit from that person trading out their points by a cash reservation that is replacing that person.

I also don't think they should mess with the booking windows, booking priorites, room requests or anything along those lines. I think that should remain the same for everyone. They should truely be extras that have nothing to do with the perks all DVC members receive.

Two things here to comment here. First, renting of member points is allowed by Disney. In fact, a 1500 point member who rents thier points and makes 5 reservations to 5 non-DVC members, will make more money for Disney then the original owner. If the original owner used all 1500 points, he would have an annual pass. He probably would not do the DDP. He would buy all the t-shirts and other Disney junk on every trip, like the 5 rental families. The renters would all more then likely be buying park tickets. And best of all for Disney, its a free marketing tool for potential new DVC owners.

Second, I absolutely 100% agree that booking windows, room requests, etc should never be changed or altered to favor larger point owners. The reservation system is actually very fair to everyone as it is currently setup. To change it, would be very disheartening.

[Lisa]

My initial response was yes, but then ...what? who?

I do think that those in the small point ownership amount, say, under DVC's minimum or maybe 100pts, have some restrictions on their ownership. The cost of their benefits is very large in relation to their ownership. Why should a person owning a 25 point contract paying ~$100 in dues get the $100 AP discount for his/her family and all the restaurant discounts and the publications, etc. Maybe their aren't that many in the category so it really doesn't matter too much, or they are worth the cost because they will buy more in the future.

Incentive on the upper end would be nice, but how many points is that? I'm thinking anything over 450! (that's my number) Then with many of the big point owners you run into issues that you would not be rewarding their personal use but the initial purchase. Is that what you want to do?

[MNMickeyWorldMom]

I like the idea of a rewards program. Maybe a percentage off tickets based on how many points you have with a limit. Say maybe 5 or 10% off for every 100 points you have up to the first 500 points. There would definitely have to be a limit, but this way, everybody gets the rewards based on how many points they have, and the professional renters (who more than likely have more than 500 points) don't get excessive rewards.

I don't like the idea of only rewarding for stays by the owner. We usually take people with us every year, and get them their own rooms. We're still using the points, but in this scenario, we would only get credit for using a portion of our points even though we're not renting (because we don't charge our friends and family to come with us).

[TrvlPrincess]

:boohoohoo:crymeariv I felt Terrible!!!

we are just signing our 25 pts contract,
so, because we cannot afford more points should we have
worse treatment than others?
There are poor people in the world too!
are their Dreams worthless?

It was so hard to convince my husband to enter into DVC!

I want to thank the members that looked after the lowly (like us just with 25 points.) If we could, we hava a zillion points but for some of us that is the tops.
Poor people Have Dreams too!!:worried:

[emb1963]

:grouphug: Sorry TrvlPrincess, your dreams aren't worthless! Maybe this is why there isn't a rewards program? What is considered fair for all DVC members? We as a group have many different opions on it and each one seams to have a fatal flaw. But one thing is for sure, nobody wants the reservation windows to change based on point ownership. So that fact alone makes everyone's dreams worthwild!:kickingco

[TrvlPrincess]

Thank you for your kind words Beth and Jeanette,
for me becoming a member even if it is one point is a dream! just getting "In" the club with all the big owners is a dream come true and getting notified about things and getting my member card and to be said "Welcome Home" it is awesome.

I will have to bank and borrow and every 3 years or so have my vacation, or transfer points from another member, but I am grateful that Disney still gives us "Perks" even if we own 25 points!!! They are the hardest to get too!

In the parks or the Resorts there is something for every budget, items from $3 -to hundreds of dollars, accomodations from 80+ to thousands but all the lowly and poor and the rich enjoy Disney. Regardless of their wallets all have dreams,

Dreams that have come true. Such as owning 25 points!!!

Thanks again for your kind words. For me becoming a member is a HUGE thing!!:worried:

[Kynna]

I think I am on the fence about it, but if they ever did, I think that the loyalty rewards shouldn't be based on the # of points, but rather how often you yourself use them (not rented or used buy others).

As someone above mentioned, you could have 1500 points and be renting out all most all of them. That person owns a lot of points, but they are not really using them and showing their loyalty to Disney. Or maybe they are trading their points out to II all the time, they still have gobs of points, but they aren't really using them "at" Disney. Of course Disney would still benefit from that person trading out their points by a cash reservation that is replacing that person.

One of the ways customers show loyalty is repeat business. They could do something like after using XXX amount of points, you get a coupon for a 2 for 1 dinner, a t-shirt, a free 30 min massage, or a fridge full of goodies as someone else mentioned. This way everyone, no matter the amount of points, could earn the benefits. They could level them, kind of like they do the movie reward points thingy they do. Like after using 350 points you get the 2 for 1 da t-shirt, at 400 you get a 2 for 1 dinner, etc. Or even offer a choice at each level. The person can "cash in" for a benefit when they get to whatever level benefit they would like, then they start counting up again.

Granted it may take some people longer than others, but you are not excluding anyone. The person with less pts may be super loyal and take all of their yearly trips to Disney, but they can't afford the 1500 pts. Or they know that they can only ever take 2 trips/yr. So why would they want a huge amount of points that they'd never be able to use, even with banking. I don't think they should miss out on opportunities and benefits because of that. I also think this way they are really rewarding loyalty and not just #'s.

I also don't think they should mess with the booking windows, booking priorites, room requests or anything along those lines. I think that should remain the same for everyone. They should truely be extras that have nothing to do with the perks all DVC members receive.

Just my .02


Love It!!!!!!!! :iagree:

I don't think any incentive program is really intended to exclude people and no one should take it personally. It's about appreciating people who choose to spend their disposable income with them rather than someplace else. I will NEVER be in the position to have 700 points but have no issue with incentives being offered to them. Just like I don't get offended when Volkswagon didn't offer me heated seats in my Golf. I am a Volkswagon owner but I bought an inexpensive model because that is what I can afford.

[Daitcher]

Two things here to comment here. First, renting of member points is allowed by Disney. In fact, a 1500 point member who rents thier points and makes 5 reservations to 5 non-DVC members, will make more money for Disney then the original owner. If the original owner used all 1500 points, he would have an annual pass. He probably would not do the DDP. He would buy all the t-shirts and other Disney junk on every trip, like the 5 rental families. The renters would all more then likely be buying park tickets. And best of all for Disney, its a free marketing tool for potential new DVC owners.



I want to highlight this and commend you on posting this opinion however unpupular.

Renting is good for Disney. They should encourage it not restrict it. We've seen in this very thread posters wanting a perk for large point owners yet somehow cutting out those who rent. That is CRAZY. Those who rent have done much more for Disney than a normal owner. I rented a couple of reservations per year for abour 12 years. Over that time, maybe 30 rentals total, 4 people who stayed on my points ended up buying DVC. They won big time thanks to my rentals. Renters pay dues just like everybody else. Lets treat them with the respect they deserve.

This QOTM: I do feel large point owners deserve extra perks. Why not reward your most loyal owners? Don't strip away the rights of the small point holders but add some perks for the big guys (I'm not one by the way).

If they don't want to go this route how about rewarding us all? My other Timeshare makes you feel like a valued owner. They have free taco parties, free welcome parties with prizes, beer and soda, happy hour specials for 2 hours everyday, when you check in they have a greeter at the door handing out cold bottles of water,etc. You feel valued. I wish DVC would do this. With DVC, as soon as you buy you feel like just another number. Wasn't always that way.

[Kynna]

The point I was trying to make about perks for renters is that things like on site perks should only be available to owners. I don't think that perks that are intended to show appreciate owners should be offered to non owners staying on rented points. They can do whatever marketing they want to convince people to buy in to DVC but something dedicated to show appreciation to owners needs to be exclusive to owners. Renters and their families are not SUPPOSED to get DVC discounts either. I know it happens but it’s not supposed to. So no, a member’s only express line should be for members and their guests. If I rented points to family or gave them away I would expect them to have the same privileges. They didn't buy in!

Also out of curiosity if there were some serious privleges would the resale value of larger contracts go up?

DH Said he would start a coop with a bunch of people, buy 3000 points and all be treated like royalty with CM's hand feeding us grapes:scratchch!

[AFMom]

:boohoohoo:crymeariv I felt Terrible!!!

we are just signing our 25 pts contract,
so, because we cannot afford more points should we have
worse treatment than others?
There are poor people in the world too!
are their Dreams worthless?

It was so hard to convince my husband to enter into DVC!

I want to thank the members that looked after the lowly (like us just with 25 points.) If we could, we hava a zillion points but for some of us that is the tops.
Poor people Have Dreams too!!:worried:


I know what you're saying - but I think we need to keep something in perspective..... No one who can afford to buy into DVC (for any number of points!) and go to WDW can be considered poor!:laughing: Well - maybe "financially distressed" due to the amount of money we spend at WDW!:3dglasses
We started with 100 points and now have 250 - and that's as many as we'll ever have (and I do rent points to pay our maintenance fees right now). But I think the big guys (maybe the 1000 plus club) should get some kinda kudos! Even just cooler room keys, buttons, a hat, etc.

[NYDVC]

I know what you're saying - but I think we need to keep something in perspective..... No one who can afford to buy into DVC (for any number of points!) and go to WDW can be considered poor!:laughing: Well - maybe "financially distressed" due to the amount of money we spend at WDW!:3dglasses
We started with 100 points and now have 250 - and that's as many as we'll ever have (and I do rent points to pay our maintenance fees right now). But I think the big guys (maybe the 1000 plus club) should get some kinda kudos! Even just cooler room keys, buttons, a hat, etc.

becareful what you say....we started with 230, went to 350 and said thats all...now we are at 650!!!! a little here....a little there adds up!!! :Pokepoke:

[AFMom]

Oh Rich! I know - and I'm so afraid of how tempted I'll be with the GCV opening up for sales. But we really can't afford more Disney trips anyway - or more points for that matter!

[Blue&Gold]

There are poor people in the world too!
are their Dreams worthless?


No, but can we be serious? Simply put, a low point (define that however you will) owner incurs nearly the same overhead cost as a large point owner---otherwise Disney wouldn't put a limit on the size of minimum contract. Honestly, I'm a little surprised you are getting past ROFR on a contract that size unless you are paying a significant premium that Disney isn't willing to swallow.

Please don't construe this as in any way personal, but a 25 point ownership probably produces a net loss in operating expenses for DVC (not big corporate Disney mind you, I mean the "Club"---which means all of us---which in reality means the other owners are subsidizing things like annual mailings, the monthly magazine, etc.).

The question wasn't whether small owners should be penalized---rather whether larger stake owners should be rewarded. To that I wholeheartedly say yes... First priority should be to maintain and UPGRADE the perks/benefits of all owners and the quality of the resorts. Secondly, a modest "reward" program---maybe at the II "break points" of 160 and 270 point multiples. What could be wrong with throwing a few "magic fastpasses" in the direction of people willing to commit significant amounts of money?

[carolina_yankee]

:boohoohoo:crymeariv I felt Terrible!!!

we are just signing our 25 pts contract,
so, because we cannot afford more points should we have
worse treatment than others?
There are poor people in the world too!
are their Dreams worthless?

It was so hard to convince my husband to enter into DVC!

I want to thank the members that looked after the lowly (like us just with 25 points.) If we could, we hava a zillion points but for some of us that is the tops.
Poor people Have Dreams too!!:worried:
TrvlPrincess - your dreams aren't worthless, and congratulations on being able to achieve one of them!

I don't think the question of perks is how to take away from the owners of fewer points, but how to reward those who hold much larger points.

As to B&G's comment about losing money on smaller point holders, I'm not sure that's true, or else DVC would have structured the program in such a way that it would be much harder to get 25 point contracts. Besides, many of those 25 point holders become larger point holders over time.

Now, to the Question: I wouldn't advocate tinkering with the way the program works. Booking privileges screw it up for the rest of us, check-in privileges screw up room assignments. If a 500 point owner and then 160 point owner get there at the same time, should I be told to wait an hour to get into my room, so the check-in CM can give it to the 500 point owner (assuming we both had requested same general type of room/view)?

The kinds of perks that wouldn't mess with the program would be things like unlimited fast passes, discounts on MYW tickets, a free DDE card, larger discounts on tours and shows, perhaps even preferred viewing for parades or shows. These are things Disney offers already in one form or another - they are just expanding to them to include the larger customers.

Now, on the other hand, what about stockholders? Disney took a lot of hose perks away. Why should a larger DVC owner get a perk that a stockholder who has sunk a similar (or larger) amount of money into the company doesn't? I don't buy the rate of return argument on that question, either. Many DVC owners can sell at a profit, and they are certainly getting 50 years of vacations for a very good price.

Dirk

[Kynna]

Now, on the other hand, what about stockholders? Disney took a lot of hose perks away. Why should a larger DVC owner get a perk that a stockholder who has sunk a similar (or larger) amount of money into the company doesn't? I don't buy the rate of return argument on that question, either. Many DVC owners can sell at a profit, and they are certainly getting 50 years of vacations for a very good price.

Dirk

Not to be little Miss contrary but as a Stockholder I don't expect extras. The whole point of owning stock is because I hope it will make a profit. (Grant it I get a kick out of it too!)

There is more of an emotional investment in DVC where I am willing to spend the money so that my little girls grow up feeling like Disney is a second home. Often people buy more points because they are so excited about it they want to share the Disney Experience with friends and family. I've seen it said so many times don't think of DVC as an investment, do it because you LOVE Disney.

I've seen a lot of number crunching and I understand that is part of the equation. (Pun intended). But there is a sort of "high" people get when they buy in that little niceties can help maintain throughout being an owner. If the current trend continues where some owners start feeling second class to cash ressies I predict a problem for those of us who view our DVC purchase as a commitment rather than strictly a financial decision.

[administrator]

Now, on the other hand, what about stockholders? Disney took a lot of hose perks away. Why should a larger DVC owner get a perk that a stockholder who has sunk a similar (or larger) amount of money into the company doesn't? I don't buy the rate of return argument on that question, either. Many DVC owners can sell at a profit, and they are certainly getting 50 years of vacations for a very good price.

Dirk

I think you are equating financial investment with emotional/personal investment, and that is a mistake. You purchase stock because you believe a company is going to perform well, not because you expect to receive perks from it. (As an example, stockholders of Berkshire Hathaway, Warren Buffett's company, receive nothing but a whopping 5% off coupon to a furniture store following their annual meeting; it's a throwaway. The only thing they really expect from BH is a significant ROI.)

Realistically, why don't shareholders receive perks? Easy answer: Length of investment and ease of release from investment. Right now, I could easily purchase 50000 shares of Disney stock simply because it's a good performer. Based on its performance, I plan to sell this stock if the price increases by $5.00. Who knows when that will happen? It could happen tomorrow. Remember -- I'm not really dedicated to Disney -- I'm just dedicated to its performance. Think day trading.

Anyway, it could take a week for Disney to get me in the system and months for Disney to get me out of the system -- time during which I could take advantage of perks that I shouldn't be receiving.

When you become a shareholder, you enter into a financial relationship with a business -- no more, no less. That relationship is not one that (like DVC -- which is hard to get out of) is based on customer service, guest relations, or anything like that.

That's why shareholders shouldn't be receiving perks.

[Blue&Gold]

As an example, stockholders of Berkshire Hathaway, Warren Buffett's company, receive nothing but a whopping 5% off coupon to a furniture store following their annual meeting; it's a throwaway. The only thing they really expect from BH is a significant ROI.

Ahhh... But the Nebraska Furniture Mart is almost like a Theme Park itself!

[KevGuy]

Many DVC owners can sell at a profit

Dirk

I don't think so unless you bought in years ago, like over 5 years. No one at SSR is gonna make a profit in the near future imo especially if you bought direct from Disney.:goldfish:

[Daitcher]

I don't think so unless you bought in years ago, like over 5 years. No one at SSR is gonna make a profit in the near future imo especially if you bought direct from Disney.:goldfish:



ITA with you.

I bought SSR points in 2002. If I sold those points right now I'd be losing money. I'm hoping the tipping point will be in the next few years because I'd like out. I'm not going to cut off my nose to spite my face to get out though. I'm still waiting for at break even at the least before I do sell. It wasn't an investment to us but at the same time why not try to sell at a higher point?

As for the stock discussions you DO get perks for being a large owner. I hold several Eaton Vance products. Because I have this "realtionship" with that company I can buy their holdings free of commision. This saves me 1-2% and when we are talking bigger numbers that is huge, so their are advantages offered to those that are willing to put large amounts of money with one company. Why shouldn't DVC offer some sort of perk to the large point owners?

Dave's tips of the day: Buy the Eaton Vance Traditional National Muni. It pays a return of 5.15% Federal tax free. So in my case since I live in the great state of Texas with no state tax, it is completely tax free. It has been an incredible performer as well. It has swelled considerdably since I purchased it. Check out the new Barclays Preferrred stock also. It pays a dividned of 8.15% !!!!!!! That is HUGE for a company rated that highly.



DAVE

[Starr W.]

ITA with you.

I bought SSR points in 2002. If I sold those points right now I'd be losing money. I'm hoping the tipping point will be in the next few years because I'd like out. I'm not going to cut off my nose to spite my face to get out though. I'm still waiting for at break even at the least before I do sell. It wasn't an investment to us but at the same time why not try to sell at a higher point?

As for the stock discussions you DO get perks for being a large owner. I hold several Eaton Vance products. Because I have this "realtionship" with that company I can buy their holdings free of commision. This saves me 1-2% and when we are talking bigger numbers that is huge, so their are advantages offered to those that are willing to put large amounts of money with one company. Why shouldn't DVC offer some sort of perk to the large point owners?

Dave's tips of the day: Buy the Eaton Vance Traditional National Muni. It pays a return of 5.15% Federal tax free. So in my case since I live in the great state of Texas with no state tax, it is completely tax free. It has been an incredible performer as well. It has swelled considerdably since I purchased it. Check out the new Barclays Preferrred stock also. It pays a dividned of 8.15% !!!!!!! That is HUGE for a company rated that highly.



DAVE


American Funds also gives a discount on commissions too, more you own the greater the discount. :clappingh

[carolina_yankee]

I think you are equating financial investment with emotional/personal investment, and that is a mistake.

When you become a shareholder, you enter into a financial relationship with a business -- no more, no less. That relationship is not one that (like DVC -- which is hard to get out of) is based on customer service, guest relations, or anything like that.

That's why shareholders shouldn't be receiving perks.

In general, I agree - the point I was trying to make was the shareholders DID receive perks in the past, which they no longer do. I suspect partly because of the emotional investment issue - I'm sure those $100 framed shares of Disney stock are pretty popular, and they would allow the purchaser to the discount perks and such stockholders use to get.

Anyway - I probably should have left that part out - my main point was that I don't think large pointholders should get perks that detract from the way the system currently works for any DVC member, but it would be nice if they still got something of value like ticket discount, magical FastPasses, free DDE card, or something.

Dirk

[carolina_yankee]

I don't think so unless you bought in years ago, like over 5 years. No one at SSR is gonna make a profit in the near future imo especially if you bought direct from Disney.:goldfish:

True - but I think that still qualifies as "many." I don't think anyone who bought after the Friends and Family promotion ended in early 2006 stands much of a chance of making a profit, at least for awhile, though. That promotion got us points at $83 per point, which is about what SSR appears to be selling at now - if you're lucky.

Overall, though, I think it's possible SSR owners are still in the minority of total owners - but likely not for long. Just guessing, though.

Dirk

[Daitcher]

American Funds also gives a discount on commissions too, more you own the greater the discount. :clappingh



Exactly correct. I just used an example that I currently hold. This is as it should be, IMO. Nothing wrong with taking care of your best customers.



DAVE

[KevGuy]

Maybe a stepped program of additional benefits ie: the more you own the more you get in terms of perks would work. Just food for thought.:magnify:

[OttawaWendy]

One problem that is being missed in the discussion of impact of DVC owners (i.e. people buy tickets, buy food, buy souvenirs etc.) is that this spending doesn't benefit DVD or DVC, it benefits the Walt Disney Company and whichever subcorporation owns WDW. So if there are perqs to be thrown at higher users, the cost can't come from DVD or DVC. That's the difference between this situation and the higher-tier benefits I get from my business hotels.

By the way, the comment that the 25 point owner is almost a net-loss is ridiculous. Very few of our costs for DVC are one-per-member (i.e. the newsletter) and most (housekeeping, member services etc.) are essentially costs that increase with escalating use. And the cost for the newsletter is mostly static costs to produce the first unit (i.e. writing, producing) and the incremental costs of each additional newsletter are minimal (postage and printing one extra copy).

[Daitcher]

One problem that is being missed in the discussion of impact of DVC owners (i.e. people buy tickets, buy food, buy souvenirs etc.) is that this spending doesn't benefit DVD or DVC, it benefits the Walt Disney Company and whichever subcorporation owns WDW. So if there are perqs to be thrown at higher users, the cost can't come from DVD or DVC. That's the difference between this situation and the higher-tier benefits I get from my business hotels.

By the way, the comment that the 25 point owner is almost a net-loss is ridiculous. Very few of our costs for DVC are one-per-member (i.e. the newsletter) and most (housekeeping, member services etc.) are essentially costs that increase with escalating use. And the cost for the newsletter is mostly static costs to produce the first unit (i.e. writing, producing) and the incremental costs of each additional newsletter are minimal (postage and printing one extra copy).



I disgaree with this entire post.

You are splitting hairs about who owns what. Guess what, it is all one big pot whether it is DVC/DVD/WDW or Disney. It is all reported on the same profit/loss statements at the end of the year. In fact DVC has pumped up the bottom line quite a bit and it has been shown to share holders. Also these perks don't have to cost anythiung. Give the large point holders unlimited fast passes for their stays, it costs nothing. There are many other "free" ways to make them feel valued and give others incentive to buy more Disney.

Small point owners do cost more and IMO they should not be entitled to the same perks as a large point holder. A small point holder of say 25 points is paying roughly $110 a year in dues. That $110 in dues does not cover the costs associated with that member, it just doesn't. There have been many folks fleecing Disney by buying small contracts like this just for the perks. Think about it, they get the AP discount as well as other perks of ownership just like a large point holder. AP discount alone covers the cost of the dues. Throw in other discounts like that same owner getting the DDE discounts and you have an owner taking advantage of the system. In a very short time they are making money off of Disney. They use those points along the way, get the perks and shortly thereafter they sell making a profit. There is a reason DVC has a minimum buy in and not all of it relates to trading either.


DAVE

[OttawaWendy]

I'm not splitting hairs. The point of tiered or increasing member benefits in travel reward programs is to encourage loyalty because loyalty influences the profits of the party offering the rewards. I don't want DVC (i.e. my membership dues) to pay for additional perqs (which is short for perquisites, by the way, so "perks" is not a correct spelling) because DVC is not getting increased profit from the increased use of these benefits. DVD might be (but it is pretty limited). WDC most certainly is.

DVC is not owned by WDC, and the profits are not rolled together. The costs of DVC are pro-rata shared by the members, so it matters to us.

Likewise, the 25 point member isn't costing DVC significantly more per point. The benefits you cite (i.e. AP discount, DDE) are not paid by DVC.

[Blue&Gold]

...pay for additional perqs (which is short for perquisites, by the way, so "perks" is not a correct spelling)...


Better tell DVC to stop using that awful "K" spelling!

(Link to the "MemberPerksLandingPage")

http://dvc.disney.go.com/dvc/member/justForMembers/justForMembersLanding?id=newMemberPerksLandingPage

Ooops, I'm being ridiculous again.

So what would you consider the break-even point if it isn't 25 points (which Disney has mandated as the smallest add-on contract)? I assume you agree that there must be a break-even point?

[tomandrobin]

DVC is not owned by WDC, and the profits are not rolled together. The costs of DVC are pro-rata shared by the members, so it matters to us.

Disney Vacation Development, Incorporated, a fully owned subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney_Company) incorporated in Florida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida), owns and manages the Disney Vacation Club (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_Vacation_Club)'s operations.

[Daitcher]

Disney Vacation Development, Incorporated, a fully owned subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney_Company) incorporated in Florida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida), owns and manages the Disney Vacation Club (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_Vacation_Club)'s operations.



Thank you for posting this. You saved me a tremendous amount of time.

Wendy, if DVC isn't owned by WDC then why are they allowing DVC to use the title DISNEY Vacation Club? :innocent:


DAVE

[nono]

Uh, and the shortened form of perquisite is perK...sorry folks, don't be thinkin' you'll be winning some Scrabulous games with perq... :magnify: not even in the SOWPODS or TWL dictionary (for Canadian spellings).

What am I talking about?

From wikipedia:
SOWPODS is a term used to refer to the word list used in tournament Scrabble in all English-speaking countries except the USA, Canada, Thailand and Israel, which use the American Tournament Word List or TWL.

Now back to the thread.

[carolina_yankee]

Wow - you learn something every day!!

In defense of Wendy (since I don't speak Canadian), is it possible "perq" is an accepted abbreviation for perquisite and "perk" has become its word through etymological evolution? (Wow, never though I'd say that, either).

Dirk

[nono]

Wow - you learn something every day!!

In defense of Wendy (since I don't speak Canadian), is it possible "perq" is an accepted abbreviation for perquisite and "perk" has become its word through etymological evolution? (Wow, never though I'd say that, either).

Dirk

I was speaking strictly from a scrabble/scrabulous viewpoint...perq would be a good scoring word, but it isn't legal. Always on the hunt for more q words, and one that is at the end of the word positively makes a scrabulous player :drool:.

And yes, I believe Dirk that etymological evolution is at work here. Sorry Wendy, I wasn't attacking you, just squashing any other hopeful scrabblers who got a little "perky" when seeing your post.

[greenban]

As a 'large' point owner, I would say yes...

But being an amphibian (Dual Life), and a Disney Fan before my DVC fanness, I would say no. Disney always seemed to be egalitarian, but now it seems, 'special' people get special deals, rewards and services, I wish it wasn't so, or that the trend wasn't increasing.

So overall, no. But if there are benis for more points, I would not refuse them out of principal either!

-Tony

BINGO Buqshas or Qabalah if you are 'U' less, pun intended, :)

[OttawaWendy]

I was speaking strictly from a scrabble/scrabulous viewpoint...perq would be a good scoring word, but it isn't legal. Always on the hunt for more q words, and one that is at the end of the word positively makes a scrabulous player :drool:.

And yes, I believe Dirk that etymological evolution is at work here. Sorry Wendy, I wasn't attacking you, just squashing any other hopeful scrabblers who got a little "perky" when seeing your post.

Yeah, I'm sure that is right (people have trouble correctly pronouncing perquisites, so it gets shortened in conversation to the sound "perk" and over time, the short form becomes used so frequently that people forget "perk" is a short form of another word, and start using it in writing. Because they don't know the word perquisite, it is natural that the spelling of the sound would be perk). I'm also sure that neither perq nor perk (in the definition of benefit) is a word, because the real word is perquisite (although maybe evolution has overtaken me here). I play scrabble so I'm with you on the q word with no u.

Substantive point 1 - DVD may own DVC in the legal sense (I actually didn't know that, so thanks for correcting me) but my point in the practical sense is that if there are going to be benefits for higher users, they have to be paid for by the company/organization that is getting the benefit of their high use. So if there are perqs/perks being thrown about, they shouldn't be paid for by members dues. That's my key point.

Substantive point 2 - In response to the question about where the break-even point is (do smaller point owners cost DVC/DVD money?), take a look at this site: http://www.mouseowners.com/AnnualDuesOverview.html which gives an overview of a typical year of costs.

I think this proves my point. The vast majority of member costs are absolutely fixed (i.e. legal and audit, maintenance), or tied to use (i.e. housekeeping, front desk and administration, member services) and so a proportionate breakdown by point seems totally fair. Only a few costs (i.e. member activities, at $0.15 per point) are even somewhat based on the number of members.

I don't know enough about the accounting to really say where the "breakeven" point would be, but I think it is quite low. By extension, I think the 25 point member is "paying their share". We own the standard 150 point contract (which probably is slightly less than the average but right in the broad middle, I assume), but I don't want people with small contracts to feel that they have second-class status as owners. I believe that most, if not all, smaller point members are so because they either can't afford or don't want more points, not because they are trying to rip off the broader Disney by getting a lot of indirect (i.e. not paid for through member dues) member benefits.

I would also point out that if there were many "per member" costs, it was open to DVD to have a maintenance fee structure which reflects that (i.e. you could have a payment structure in which every owner paid $50 per year, plus $x per point, totalling to the same amount for all owners).

[ilphil]

Hmmm, it seems a number of people favor "rewards" for those with lots of points...as long as they have enough to to qualify.

I think we all are getting rewards for our DVC membership, high quality accomodations at an excellent cost. Those that are fortunate enough to have a large number of points get to take advantage of that more often than those with a minimal number of points.

There is a price associated with any company's rewards program whether it is a higher interest rate or increased fees/costs. As a wise man once said, "there is no free lunch".

We originally bought in at 190 pts in 2003 ands did a 50 pt add-on last year. With our daughter starting college in the fall (heavy sigh) any further add-ons are on hold for a while.

So, in the spirit of my first comment I guess a rewards program is fine...as long as it's for those with more than 239 pts. :innocent:

[pycees312]

well i know with my other timeshare worldmark, they have a tiered program now.. and there are plenty of owners not happy about this at all.. in thier case earlier buyers bought what they thought were large amounts of points and now the new resorts being built require alot more points to use and the new buyers automatically are entereed into this new tier program at higher points.. for example the avergage owner was supposedly about 6-8 thousand credits. Now people are buying in at 15-20 thousand.. with dvc earlier buyers had the best deal and may have more points then those buying these days... it can get messy....

[Daitcher]

[QUOTE=ilphil;146151]Hmmm, it seems a number of people favor "rewards" for those with lots of points...as long as they have enough to to qualify./QUOTE]




This is false.

I have seen many people here against this that ARE large point holders. I'm for it and I am NOT a large point holder any longer.

I'd like to believe that people posting here have answered with honesty and integrity, not some self serving response.


DAVE

[rlcarmichael]

I think DVC should offer two free Annual Passes every year for those members that own at least 700 points.

Hey, that would include me! :angel:

FOUR passes.

:chillpill

Some people are taking this too seriously. Starting to feel like that other board that will remain nameless.

I'm actually more concerned with the changes that seem to be taking perks away such as adding reservation fee on top of premium points charge for non DVC resorts, cutting discounts, etc.

I'd be willing to bet that DVC members spend more per day than an average visitor, and we come back more often. What is wrong with rewarding loyal customers? They wouldn't even miss a ten percent on merchandise and food! So they make $2 profit on that $0.25 cent cup of soda instead of $2.25.

[kevin]

I am going to ramble on about this subject. DVC membership is something special in the hearts of all it's members regardless of how many points owned. The Disney experience is just as special to those starting out as it is to those of us who are a little further along, In this regard we are all equal. Regardless of how many points I own I am also a stock holder in the Disney Corporation and as such I expect certain things in return such as dividends on profit. The best way to ensure this, has been through out the years, to provide it's guests with the best experience possible. DVC members as such are the modern base upon which Disney Parks grow and so pull in new and non DVC members. Perks are great if you get them. Being told "Welcome Home" with sincerety, and being treated as an old friend and valued guest by all Cast Members to me is much more important. With out this Disney is nothing more than a 6 Flags with more Land.
Sorry for rambling
Kevin

[rlcarmichael]

Well stated. :clappingh

I have a friend that I am looking for a small contract for. It is all that he and his wife need. Enough for a studio, lower season 6-7 nights a year

We have bought based on our "needs" considering us and our two grown kids who are also on the deeds.

I personally have no problems with "perks" - businesses do it all the time to reward their best customers. Disney does it with on site guest with Extra Magic Hours. Airlines do it with free flights and upgrades. DVC members get them with 25 points or 2,000.

[JimP]

Generally... I would say NO.

I would be OK with perks that do not distract from other owner's experiences. An example would be discounted passes.

I would not be OK with perks that impact other members... such as earlier booking windows.

/Jim

[glypnirsgirl]

Did I just miss the May Q of M? I have been on the lookout for it, but I have not seen it.

Elaine