# Ratings On Exchange Co.'s by Timesharing Today



## ljane (Sep 14, 2005)

I just received my Sept/Oct issue of "TimeSharing Today".  On the front page of this issue they have listed results from a survey from 537 readers who took their survey.   They were asked to rate exchange companies based on exchange success, customer service and fees, using a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the best.  

The exchange companies and results were: 
Hawaii Timeshare Exchange - 4.2
Trading Places - 4.0
Donita's Dial an Exchange - 3.9
Platinum Exchange - 3.9
Interval International - 3.6
RCI - 2.9
SFX - 2.7

Based on reviews on Tug, I was surprised at the lowest rating going to SFX.
This review has made me reconsider my thoughts on depositing with SFX.
Are there any thoughts on this review, pro or con?

Ljane


----------



## Fern Modena (Sep 15, 2005)

This is a comment on Timesharing Today and their past practices. I know that in the past they have had an annual listing of alternate exchange companies. At one time they would not list an exchange company if it did not advertise with them; therefore their list wasn't truly "independent." Because of their past practices, I view their surveys and lists as not necessarily independent or honest.

This is JMHO, of course. And I haven't seen the article yet, although I'm a subscriber, I'll probably not get my issue till sometime next month (and can't view it online earlier, since the password you need is, guess where? in the issue I don't have).

Fern

[edited on 12/2/05 to add the following--fm]

I have recently been in contact with Ray Jacobs of Timesharing Today, and he assures me that what I'd previously been told is not true, that they formulate their listing solely on the basis of volume of business.  Advertising or not advertising has nothing to do with being on the list.

Fern


----------



## short (Sep 15, 2005)

*Sfx*

I think at one time SFX seemed to like to do things entirely by email and voice mail.  Getting someone on the phone was reportedly difficult.  This don't call me Ill call you type of arrangement can be hard on customer service ratings even if it is more efficient.

Has anyone had any recent experience.  Do they have people who answer the phone if you call during business hours?

Short


----------



## Dave M (Sep 15, 2005)

Fern Modena said:
			
		

> I'll probably not get my issue till sometime next month (and can't view it online earlier, since the password you need is, guess where?  in the issue I don't have).



You can view the Sept/Oct issue online now, Fern. There is always an overlap of a month or so during which the passwords for both the previous and current issues are valid. Thus, you can use the July/August passwords now and should be able to for a few more weeks.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Sep 15, 2005)

SFX is a decent company.  But, their customer service approach is the worst in the industry.  Their customer service is actually good, but the fact that it is difficult to reach a person when YOU want to speak to someone is a turn off to many people....like me. 

6 months ago, I got a person when I called maybe 10% of the time.  This past month it was better, about 50% of the time.  So, maybe they are staffing up customer service with their price increases.

SFX is very good with email.  If you're comfortable with email, they always follow through.


----------



## krisj (Sep 15, 2005)

Even if this was a legitimate survey, with a such a small sample size I'm betting they had VERY few SFX customers, so that sample size would be FAR too small to have any statistical meaning.  Without knowing the SFX sample size, sample selection criteria or seeing how questions were worded I'd place exactly zero credence in those results.

Kris

p.s.  IMHO, even if the entire sample of "readers of Timesharing Today" were surveyed, that would be a totally non-representative sample of the poulation of timeshare owners.

p.p.s. Also remember that since SFX only accepts select resorts, people who own at resorts that they won't accept might tend to hold a grudge?


----------



## Dani (Sep 15, 2005)

I don't know about statistical meaning, but I have never received as poor customer service from an exchange company as I did with SFX.  This is one of the reasons I will not do business with them.  To say that the rep I had was unprofessional is an understatement.

    To be fair to SFX though, that was years ago.  I have no idea what their customer service is like today except for what I have read or heard about.  I would hope that they have changed their ways.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 15, 2005)

There is nothing wrong with the sample size.  Many polls for political campaigns have sample sizes in the same range.

I think some posters have hit upon the reason for SFX's score, although there are many goods things, apparently, about this company.

IMHO, the more significant aspects of the results are 1) that II significantly outscored RCI among the majors, and 2) that except for SFX, the independents substantially outscored the majors.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 15, 2005)

I have seen their charts on exchange companies, and they DID list exchange companies that did not advertise with them in every one I have seen.  What exchange company do you contend they failed to list?

TST compiles a lot of useful statistical information and everything I have seen is completely straightforward.





			
				Fern Modena said:
			
		

> This is a comment on Timesharing Today and their past practices.  I know that in the past they have had an annual listing of alternate exchange companies.  At one time they would not list an exchange company if it did not advertise with them; therefore their list wasn't truly "independent."  Because of their past practices, I view their surveys and lists as not necessarily independent or honest.
> 
> This is JMHO, of course.  And I haven't seen the article yet, although I'm a subscriber, I'll probably not get my issue till sometime next month (and can't view it online earlier, since the password you need is, guess where?  in the issue I don't have).
> 
> Fern


----------



## krisj (Sep 15, 2005)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> There is nothing wrong with the sample size.  Many polls for political campaigns have sample sizes in the same range.




I disagree.  They may have had as few as 5-10 people rating SFX, which is not a valid sample size.  The total sample size of 500 is probably large enough if all they were doing was finding out how many people have used the various companies, but to rate each company you'd need a meaningful sample size for EACH company.

The sample selection is also flawed, as there is no guarantee that the people doing the rating have actually ever personally used the companies they're rating.

Kris

p.s.  I do think the results for RCI vs. II are probably statistically meaningful as there's likely to be a higher % of the sample population who have firsthand experience.


----------



## Fern Modena (Sep 15, 2005)

Ah, but I'd need the last issue, wouldn't I?  I've stopped keeping them since I moved (used to have issues from 1990's), and didn't realize I needed to keep a past issue so the pasword worked.  Oh, well.

Fern



			
				Dave M said:
			
		

> You can view the Sept/Oct issue online now, Fern. There is always an overlap of a month or so during which the passwords for both the previous and current issues are valid. Thus, you can use the July/August passwords now and should be able to for a few more weeks.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 15, 2005)

krisj said:
			
		

> I disagree.  They may have had as few as 5-10 people rating SFX, which is not a valid sample size.  The total sample size of 500 is probably large enough if all they were doing was finding out how many people have used the various companies, but to rate each company you'd need a meaningful sample size for EACH company.
> 
> The sample selection is also flawed, as there is no guarantee that the people doing the rating have actually ever personally used the companies they're rating.
> 
> ...



And would you also concede that. taken as a group, the results of the independents vs. the big exchange companies is also a meaningful result?


----------



## krisj (Sep 15, 2005)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> And would you also concede that. taken as a group, the results of the independents vs. the big exchange companies is also a meaningful result?




Obviously I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing the sample size for the other individual Independents was also too low to give a statistically valid picture of those companies' customer's feelings (forgive my punctuation, but this is possesive 's stuff seems too confusing for my feeble brain today).  You could bundle all of the Independents responses and conclude that overall the people surveyed were more favorable toward the Independents.

I should note that I'd certainly be among those who would rate my satisfaction with the Independents higher than with RCI 

Kris


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 15, 2005)

krisj said:
			
		

> Obviously I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing the sample size for the other Independents was also too low to give a statistically valid picture of those companies' customer's feelings (forgive my punctuation, but this is possesive 's stuff seems too confusing for my feeble brain today).
> 
> I should note that I'd certainly be among those who would rate my satisfaction with the Independents higher than with RCI
> 
> Kris



What I am looking at is that the average rating for the independents, including SFX, is 3.6

Looking at it that way, what we have is:
Independents - 3.7
II - 3.6
RCI - 2.9


----------



## krisj (Sep 15, 2005)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> What I am looking at is that the average rating for the independents, including SFX, is 3.6
> 
> Looking at it that way, what we have is:
> Independents - 3.6
> ...




The numbers probably would be different for an aggregated "Independents" category, since you'd aggregate all of the individual responses for Independents rather than the company-wide scores.  For example, if 1 respondent drove the score for Hawaii Timeshare Exchange but 100 respondents drove the score for Donitas, the aggregated score wouldn't be the average of the scores for the two companies.

Kris


----------



## myip (Sep 16, 2005)

*Sfx*

I really don't like SFX.  I will never deposit another week with them.  I can't talk with anyone -> only voice mail.  I didn't want to put in a request because I only have one specific time that I want to go.  It can be anywhere.  I try to call them to see what is available but they told me to put a request.  The worst part of putting a request is that once it matches.  You have to pay the exchange fees whether you want it or not.  RCI or II have 24 hours cancellation policy.


----------



## Dani (Sep 16, 2005)

myip said:
			
		

> I really don't like SFX.  I will never deposit another week with them.  I can't talk with anyone -> only voice mail.  I didn't want to put in a request because I only have one specific time that I want to go.  It can be anywhere.  I try to call them to see what is available but they told me to put a request.  The worst part of putting a request is that once it matches.  You have to pay the exchange fees whether you want it or not.  Unlike RCI or II , it have 24 hours cancellation policy.



  FYI, both RCI and II have 24 hour cancellation policies from the time a match is confirmed.


----------



## John Cummings (Sep 16, 2005)

short said:
			
		

> I think at one time SFX seemed to like to do things entirely by email and voice mail.  Getting someone on the phone was reportedly difficult.  This don't call me Ill call you type of arrangement can be hard on customer service ratings even if it is more efficient.
> 
> Has anyone had any recent experience.  Do they have people who answer the phone if you call during business hours?
> 
> Short



I have used SFX exclusively for 9 years. I have always done everything by phone. I deal with specific reps only and have had no problems. If they weren't available when I called, they always called me back within 24 hours. In fact I just got through talking to one of my SFX reps a few minutes ago. She answered the phone when I called.

I wouldn't expect one to have much luck if they didn't call during business hours.


----------



## John Cummings (Sep 16, 2005)

myip said:
			
		

> I really don't like SFX.  I will never deposit another week with them.  I can't talk with anyone -> only voice mail.  I didn't want to put in a request because I only have one specific time that I want to go.  It can be anywhere.  I try to call them to see what is available but they told me to put a request.  The worst part of putting a request is that once it matches.  You have to pay the exchange fees whether you want it or not.  RCI or II have 24 hours cancellation policy.



I have never had to pay an exchange fee to SFX until I agreed to it. I have been using SFX exclusively for 9 years. The procedure they have always followed was to call me when they found a match for my request. They then asked me if I wanted to accept it or not. They also asked me if I wanted to use a bonus week or a regular exchange week  for it. I just got 2 confirmations recently and that is how it was done as it always was before.


----------



## krisj (Sep 16, 2005)

Like John, SFX has always notified us when a week meeting our criteria became available, and we have NEVER been asked to pay an exchange fee unless it was a week we decided we wanted.

Kris


----------



## John Cummings (Sep 18, 2005)

I believe that one of the things going against SFX in this type of a survey is they are fairly picky about what they will accept. Not too many folks are going to be very happy to learn that their timeshare week(s) are not good enough. I believe the the satisfaction index is pretty high for actual members of SFX.


----------



## Dani (Sep 18, 2005)

John Cummings said:
			
		

> I believe that one of the things going against SFX in this type of a survey is they are fairly picky about what they will accept. Not too many folks are going to be very happy to learn that their timeshare week(s) are not good enough. I believe the the satisfaction index is pretty high for actual members of SFX.




  I don't see how that would have anything at all to do with the results.  The results should be from those who are actual members of SFX.   What sense would it make to have non-RCI members giving ratings to DAE and vice-versa?   It seems to me that the results must have come from SFX members just like the results for the other exchange companies. 

  Also, the idea that people are "upset" because SFX wouldn't take their week and are somehow holding a grudge against SFX because of it, is a bit of a reach IMHO.


----------



## krisj (Sep 18, 2005)

I may be wrong, but I seriously doubt that Timesharing Today did any form of real screeing on their survey.  I assume anyone who wanted to could offer responses about any exchange company, without any verification of whether or not they had actually used that company.

Did anyone participate in the survey and know otherwise?

Kris

p.s.  I'm sure that SFX's business model, which at least in the past relied primarily on e-mail and on them calling you when they had a possible match, has been off-putting to many people.  In our experience, it worked really well.


----------



## geekette (Sep 18, 2005)

If they don't publicize how they undertook the survey, then it's all up to speculation.  

I seriously doubt that they qualified the respondents.  Additionally, my current memberships would not take into account past memberships.  How fair is it for someone that hasn't used RCI or II for 9 years to give a satisfaction rating on them?  (just a "for example", John, since you provide a good one).  We just don't know who they asked and what their affiliation(s) are.

As far as doing stuff by phone, it's great if you live in the same time zone, but if you're East and they're West and you frequently have to work late, you're screwed.  give me an "any time" interface.


----------



## John Cummings (Sep 18, 2005)

geekette said:
			
		

> If they don't publicize how they undertook the survey, then it's all up to speculation.
> 
> I seriously doubt that they qualified the respondents.  Additionally, my current memberships would not take into account past memberships.  How fair is it for someone that hasn't used RCI or II for 9 years to give a satisfaction rating on them?  (just a "for example", John, since you provide a good one).  We just don't know who they asked and what their affiliation(s) are.
> 
> As far as doing stuff by phone, it's great if you live in the same time zone, but if you're East and they're West and you frequently have to work late, you're screwed.  give me an "any time" interface.



You are correct. As you notice, I do not comment on either RCI or II as I haven't done business with them for several years. Unlike some others, I really have absolutely no interest in what RCI, II, or any other exchange company is doing. The only exception I will make is when somebody posts the ridiculous cliché that all they are interested in is making money. Then I will defend the company as that is why they are in business.

Surveys, whether legitimate or not, really make no difference to me. Timesharing is just another vacation option and I don't really care what others are doing. SFX works great for me and that is all that matters. Why be concerned about some exchange company unless it affects you directly?


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 18, 2005)

The form for the survey was in the previous issue of the magazine and was open to all subscribers.  It included a lot of other questions besides satisfaction with exchange companies.

Political polling also does not independently qualify respondents on maters other than those in public databases.  Independently qualifying respondents absent a detailed database to select a sample would be very timeconsuming, and I'm not sure a detailed database would be availible for surveys in timesharing.





			
				geekette said:
			
		

> If they don't publicize how they undertook the survey, then it's all up to speculation.
> 
> I seriously doubt that they qualified the respondents.  Additionally, my current memberships would not take into account past memberships.  How fair is it for someone that hasn't used RCI or II for 9 years to give a satisfaction rating on them?  (just a "for example", John, since you provide a good one).  We just don't know who they asked and what their affiliation(s) are.
> 
> As far as doing stuff by phone, it's great if you live in the same time zone, but if you're East and they're West and you frequently have to work late, you're screwed.  give me an "any time" interface.


----------



## krisj (Sep 18, 2005)

Opinion surveys commonly don't prequalify respondents, as everyone has an opinion.

Customer satisfaction surveys, on the other hand, really need to be conducted with an appropriately sized sample of actual customers to have any real meaning.

Kris


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 19, 2005)

This thread reminds me of so many in the past at TUG, where we have a lot of nitpicking on surveys.  The reality is that we don't have a lot of survey companies sitting out there with detailed timeshare owner databases conducting perfectly controlled surveys.  When someone like TST, the Timeshare Beat, Timsharing UK, or others takes the time to put together a survey, it adds to our timeshare knowledge, and I don't think we should be nitpicking it.  If you don't like it, hire JD Powers to run one!

The issues that tend to get raised really go more to margin of error than anyrhing.  Assuming that these surveys have a somewhat higher margin of error than a JD Powers survey, they are still useful in showing general trends.

IMHO one general trend is that RCI has significantly less customer satisfaction than II or the independents.


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 19, 2005)

*Sample 500 out of millions unscientifically and you get meaningless data*



			
				Carolinian said:
			
		

> IMHO one general trend is that RCI has significantly less customer satisfaction than II or the independents.



I would read it to say that of the extremely small (easily less than 10%) of the timeshare owning population who has subscribed to TST and taken the time to reply to the survey (if I recall a number something slightly over 500 or 0.00025% of RCI members if every one of them responded about RCI) they are less satisfied with RCI than II IF they even belong to both and can offer an informed opinion (another unlikely occurrence).  If they don't it simply says that a statiscally meaningless amount of RCI members rated RCI barely below II. As for SFX it is no surprise that the majority of TST subscribers would find them less appealing as for 80% their time doesn't qualify for SFX. So they called or emailed, got told "No" and now downgrade SFX because what they own isn't good enough. SFX's fault?  Nope. 

Remember too that the reason they subscribed might have been due to a problem they had with exchanging (often due to misrepresentation by developers not RCI) and, since over 70% of all exchanges are through RCI, there is a good chance the "problem", as they see it, is with RCI.  It's almost surprising that RCI did as well as it did!  However given the less than tiny sample size the results have virtually no value except to say that those few companies exist and that at least someone had an opinion about them.  Beyond that it really doesn't prove anything one way or another. In a scentific survey they would all fall within the margin of error most likely.  But it is always fun to print lists and see the response.  Don't put any real value on this "poll".


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 19, 2005)

I wonder if some Tuggers who criticize the sample size and pooh-pooh timesharing surveys do the same with political polls.

I remember some years ago when Long Marketing used to run the Long Poll on North Carolina politics.  The professional pollsters turned their nose up at it saying its samples were too small and were not scientificaly drawn.  Funny thing, though, the Long Poll consistently called the close races correctly when the professional pollsters were off the mark.  They all got the slam dunk races right.


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 19, 2005)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> I wonder if some Tuggers who criticize the sample size and pooh-pooh timesharing surveys do the same with political polls.
> 
> I remember some years ago when Long Marketing used to run the Long Poll on North Carolina politics.  The professional pollsters turned their nose up at it saying its samples were too small and were not scientificaly drawn.  Funny thing, though, the Long Poll consistently called the close races correctly when the professional pollsters were off the mark.  They all got the slam dunk races right.



There is a BIG difference between a properly conducted poll (as most political polls are, paid or not) and a "mail in a page from our magazine if you feel like it and we'll print the totals".  This is in no way a valid poll but simply a collection of responses from about 500 individuals. Take it for what it's worth. It's the same as what gets posted here on TUG. No one should (or does) claim it has validity beyond a simple statement of opinion.  The numbers involved and the method of collection cannot result in any type of usable data to rank the companies listed. Has TST today stated that it is a scientifically valid poll? No. And they won't because it isn't.  It is interesting but beyond that holds no real value to "prove" anything.


----------



## John Cummings (Sep 19, 2005)

I agree 100% with John. Not only is the poll invalid but it doesn't really matter. If people are not happy with their exchange company, I would hope they would change companies.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 19, 2005)

Another interesting result is to compare results on how easy it is to get an exchange in the RCI and II systems.  I wish there was also an aggregate figure for independents reported, but there is not.

The results:

easy -  II 42%  ;  RCI 26%
somewhat difficult  -  II 40% ;   RCI 33%
very difficult  -  II  11%  ;  RCI  28%
impossible  -  II  7%  ;  RCI  13%

88% of II members said they planned to renew their membership compared to only 71% of RCI members surveyed.


----------



## geekette (Sep 19, 2005)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> Another interesting result is to compare results on how easy it is to get an exchange in the RCI and II systems.  I wish there was also an aggregate figure for independents reported, but there is not.
> 
> The results:
> 
> ...



Well, see, here again, we're just throwing out a question and not considering the numerous other factors.  Are we comparing ANY exchange or one person's very difficult Resort XXXX with 2 br, weeks A or B only against another persons "get me anywhere warm next Feb" ?   I can't put much stock in this one either.

I'm not trying to nitpick, I'm just saying, it don't hold water.   The renewal piece at the end is closer, tho, cuz at least that would be YES or NO on Do you plan to renew - not a lot of hidden factors there.


----------



## luana (Sep 19, 2005)

*Timeshare Today Survey*

It was interesting to read the first post. After many years of timeshare ownership and trading, I currently use only HTSE and Trading Places, the two top rated exchange companies. What I've learned over the years is to choose exchange companies with inventory where you want to travel.

Apparently others have had the same experience as I have with SFX; they were happy to grab my high demand week when I offered it to them, but getting a trade back into that resort was most difficult! Their customer service was the very worst I've experienced!


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 20, 2005)

geekette said:
			
		

> Well, see, here again, we're just throwing out a question and not considering the numerous other factors.  Are we comparing ANY exchange or one person's very difficult Resort XXXX with 2 br, weeks A or B only against another persons "get me anywhere warm next Feb" ?   I can't put much stock in this one either.
> 
> I'm not trying to nitpick, I'm just saying, it don't hold water.   The renewal piece at the end is closer, tho, cuz at least that would be YES or NO on Do you plan to renew - not a lot of hidden factors there.



I would think that any subjective factors you mention would tend to balance themselves out between the exchange companies.

TST has done these surveys before, and one thing I would like to see (maybe in the next edition) is some historical data from past surveys to see the trends for RCI and II.  That would be most illuminating, and I can probably guess the direction of changes.


----------



## geekette (Sep 20, 2005)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> I would think that any subjective factors you mention would tend to balance themselves out between the exchange companies.
> 
> TST has done these surveys before, and one thing I would like to see (maybe in the next edition) is some historical data from past surveys to see the trends for RCI and II.  That would be most illuminating, and I can probably guess the direction of changes.



I agree with you that this would happen with a large sample that presumably included Tuggers and non-Tuggers, and a good assortment of memberships among the biggies and indies.  Be nice if it was limited to people with 10 years of experience.   My weiny 3 years doesn't mean crap because I haven't done enuf business with even 2 exchange companies to have helpful input.   

History would be great to see, alongside a timeline that shows major events (ie, Cendant buying RCI, independent X starting, etc).  Trends with context.


----------

