I actually think they've been better the past few years in some areas including smoking, but there is certainly room for improvement. The crazy thing is that if they're fair and consistent, satisfaction will almost certainly go up in the long run.
IIRC the minimum buy in was 230, then 210, then 190, then 150. They were right to direct you to the 2 BR since five 3 and over shouldn't be allowed for OKW or BWV given the true occupancy of those resorts.
If it is they’d better lower their price per point because the majority still can’t purchase 5-7 nights in a 2 or 3 bed retail. We couldn’t, so we bought resale. With the new chart we’ll get 2 six night vacations in a 2bd for our 470 points.
The framing of this idea originally wasn't just to push people into two bedrooms. It was broken down, at the time, that 230 points will buy you 1 week in a 2BR, but it could also buy you three weeks in studio (during low season), or four days in a GV (at high season). The point being that the new reallocation doesn't really honor the original intent, as even back in 1991, their was enough of a spread that if one chose to, they could stay much longer in a studio.
I take it differently. The reasons for the minimums was simply to sell the most points to the most people as possible, simply profit. There was not a week that was exactly 230 points then but there were options that were 229 points. OKW had no dedicated smaller units and the 5 in a 1 BR wasn't technically allowed. I do remember when the OKW studio increased from 69 to 80 for adventure. Those discussions make these reallocations threads look tame. You had snowbirds who'd bought to use for a month or more at a pop and they'd just lost 1/2 week yearly. That would have been back on the Prodigy Boards before AG invented the internet. Sales tactics are what they are and are often not based on the true flavor of the information. For example, a couple of the points systems that have EOY points as well as Every Year points use the tactic that you should buy EY if you have EOY and should buy EOY if you have EY. And they manage to present it in a way that quite a few will bite. Personally I separate out the system and the sales process almost completely, they way I often put it is you have to be able to hold your nose related to sales to participate in a timeshare and what includes Disney though less than most. As long as sales isn't actually inaccurate, it's probably fair game. Their job is to sell, plain and simple and the minimums were simply a reflection of trying to sell the most points to the most people for the least cost. Basically they'll take the information they know about you and about sales and the system in general and manipulate you. The good ones are some of the best in the world at reading people and using that info against you. They put the con in the phrase "con artist", even at Disney. The difference between Disney and SOME other timeshare sales people is that are are generally above board and technically accurate, that's not necessarily true with SOME of the other companies. But even then we've seen many reports of sales staff that crossed over the line becoming inappropriate, it just happens less with Disney than SOME other companies. But Disney is not the only company I could say that about, there are other good companies where sales are usually very appropriate.
I just noticed the VB point chart changes for 2019. I never noticed a discussion here last year about them.
AG = Al Gore?
AG yes. I suspect we'd disagree on the honesty issue. Taking the available information about the system, resort, you, travel habits and the like and using it to convince you to buy is appropriate even if it's not realistic or guaranteed. Heck they could even pull out the 2019 charts and use it knowing the 2020 charts were different and I'm not sure that'd be inappropriate. If they told you it could never change or similar, then that would be inaccurate. Whether it was dishonest would depend on whether they knew it was inaccurate or not. They might even give an answer that was technically accurate but led you to believe something different and legally that'd be OK. For example they might say something like the total points for the year couldn't change and leave it at that. That might lead you to believe something that wasn't completely true but their statements were accurate. Even if they knew it wasn't right for you and was contrary to what you told them your goals were, it still wouldn't be dishonest unless they made truly inaccurate statements. While I do feel there has been a shift over the years in terms of integrity of the DVC sales staff, I don't think they were ever as "good" as some thought or as bad as some think now. It is and always has been, "buyer beware" and it should be.
If just examing the legality of it, then yes. As long as they are willing to associate their brand with that type of manipulation...
That really is the only standard from a legal and technical standpoint. I do agree that a big picture approach is best long term but I tend to disagree with the masses here on what that long picture standard is. I don't agree that they've routinely deviated from that and even the system changes in approach are small but I do feel we've seen a mild erosion over the years. Regardless, even if they are trying to put themselves in your shoes, they really can't. It's no different than when we here give people information/advice about buying, home resort, number of points and the like. We could never know all of the intricacies that one needs to make a true and complete decision. OTOH and IMO, Disney has left TONS of sales on the table where they could have a much higher standard AND more sales. For example, they don't actively mine those who stay on cash or exchanges and they don't actively explore adding on for existing members with a few exceptions of course. I recall a story from many hears ago about a couple that toured and were never asked to buy. They actually wanted to but since the salesperson never asked or suggested they buy, they assumed they didn't qualify for some reason. In the sales world, that's just wrong. And I feel a certain amount of pressure to buy on a sales tour is not only appropriate but should be routine. The reality is that more sales helps the membership in a number of ways.
Not with the number of small contracts they are/were selling. The smaller contracts lead to more costs just due to room turnover & cleaning.
Going forward they'll likely sell more points per contract with this change for new members. And they might sell add ons as well but I sincerely doubt that was the goal, small potatoes in their world. And those with only smaller contracts trying to make do might sell if DVC no longer works for them, that's OK too from a system standpoint. The buyer might be adding on or DVD might take it ROFR. Having less small contracts is good from a management cost standpoint but the only difference it really makes at this point is in terms of higher fees for smaller contracts compared to less total contracts but larger ones. They were likely already competing for smaller units so I don't see any system disadvantages here and maybe some advantages since they'll take less units since the points won't got as far for studio & 1BR.
Same for the 2010 limitation on using points for cash options, it better defined the issue and protected people from themselves.
