# Interval eliminating 5-star, going to new ranking system ...



## ondeadlin (Aug 29, 2007)

... at least according to my newsletter from Eagle Point:



> INTERVAL INTERNATIONAL UPDATES
> Interval International recently announced it was changing the way it ranked resorts so that the transparent. Their goal is to exchange people into resorts of similar quality and experience. They the 5 star moniker and will subsequently rank all resorts in a 4 level system, Platinum, Gold, Silver is very sensitive to the importance of the exchange system to the Eagle Point owners of which over Interval International on a regular basis. With an eye to the changes proposed by Interval International exchangers into the resort, the Board and management strongly support updating the facilities.



Going to be a lot of talk about which properties fall into which categories if true.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Aug 29, 2007)

This is old news.  I talked to a vacation guide at II a few months ago and she said, "how do you know your week is red, because there is no such thing as colors in II anymore."  I told her I know what is red and what is yellow/green.  She queried, "Oh, you saw it on the website, which has not changed."  I thought it was a stupid conversation.  

The grids in the II guide are pretty accurate for seasons and demand.


----------



## ondeadlin (Aug 29, 2007)

Actually, Cindy, I just got off the phone with an agent at II that I've used for a few years now and developed a relationship with. She said this will be a major revamping with RESORTS put into clear categories and then weeks put into SUB categories. 

She said she wasn't sure if it would happen in 2008 or 2009.

Makes me wonder if it's the precursor for a points system.


----------



## tashamen (Aug 29, 2007)

This was discussed here on TUG a few months back: http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45159&highlight=interval+star


----------



## PeterS (Aug 29, 2007)

To me this seems like II needs to tread lightly here...

There are some areas that have nothing but standard level resorts but even by II's demand chart, some of the weeks are very high demand and even warrant an AC. How do they deal with them?

Some areas are known for their hunting and fishing and all the resorts are "rustic" but the hunting and fishing seasons are very valuable...

I see an area like the Poconos getting killed on quality, but the owners of the prime ski weeks that are used to getting decent trading (not tiger but decent)are going to switch to renting if II downgrades the resorts first and worries about the weeks second...

It will be interesting...

Pete


----------



## timeos2 (Aug 29, 2007)

PeterS said:


> To me this seems like II needs to tread lightly here...
> 
> There are some areas that have nothing but standard level resorts but even by II's demand chart, some of the weeks are very high demand and even warrant an AC. How do they deal with them?
> 
> ...



Hopefully they will deal with the quality issue with the new designations - not demand or trade value.  That is one of the reasons the 5* has been so worthless as it didn't apply consistently to quality or demand so it was a basis of nothing.  

A low demand time resort can still have the quality for Gold Crown or whatever they call it. As you note a non-top quality resort may have a high demand time and so have a high trade valueh but that shouldn't be reflected in quality rating.  

Twice in one week I think II is doing something right assuming they are actually addressing the problem and not simply screwing things up more.


----------



## Dave*H (Aug 29, 2007)

> INTERVAL INTERNATIONAL UPDATES
> ... Their goal is to exchange people into resorts of similar quality and experience. ...


I understand exchange companies do this to avoid complaints from high quality resort owners who might trade into lower ranked resorts, but I've always found this type of limitation annoying.  A 5-star, 8 bdrm platinum plus week in Branson is worth nothing to me since I have no desire to go there.  I would be far more interested in a low rated holiday studio ski week.  I would consider this to be a trade up, not a trade down.  Others wouldn't.  The value of a week is individual thing.  These types of limitations basically protect uninformed users from themselves, and only limit options for everyone else.


----------



## Bwolf (Aug 29, 2007)

Well said, Dave_H.


----------



## Mel (Aug 29, 2007)

Sounds an awful lot like RCI's VEP system - but more transparent.  RCI keeps their VEP numbers hidden so nobody gets offended by their resort's relative rating (even though in reality we all know where we stand).  Will II restrict trades more than one level down?  How about up?

It doesn't really sound like a prelude to points, but it could be.  What it does sound like is a move toward a series of grids which may become even more confusing for the average consumer.  As most new resorts are likely to be in the top tier of quality rankings, it can only help sales - I can see it now.  You need to have a Tier 1 resort to trade into another tier 1 resort.  You need a 2BR to trade into a 2BR unit.  Plus you need a top demand resort/week to trade into top demand.  No suggestion that a top demand resort and week at a tier 3 quality resort should still qualify for a lesser-demand resort or week at a Tier 1 resort.


----------



## Kagehitokiri (Aug 29, 2007)

great news, now people cant call the properties "5 star" like theyre mobil-rated.


----------



## Didomyk (Aug 29, 2007)

Mel said:


> As most new resorts are likely to be in the top tier of quality rankings, it can only help sales - I can see it now.  You need to have a Tier 1 resort to trade into another tier 1 resort.  You need a 2BR to trade into a 2BR unit.  Plus you need a top demand resort/week to trade into top demand.  No suggestion that a top demand resort and week at a tier 3 quality resort should still qualify for a lesser-demand resort or week at a Tier 1 resort.



Mel,

I see you own in Kissimmee. OK, we all know that Orlando-Kissimmee area is overbuilt and that resort quality ranges from 1 to 5 (on a hypotetical 1 -5 scale). Are you suggesting that most Orlando resorts are likely to be in the top tier, if so why ? Resort amenities and unit comfort level are far from equal. Add to this advantages in location, a perceived value of brand name and other factors. There is, of course, a seasonal demand factor. July 4th, X-mas holidays weeks, etc. are far more valuable than October weeks. To sort this out will be a nightmare. 
And, furthermore, would this new system put an end to the regional block in Orlando and other areas which was designed to protect "quality" resorts from being overwhelmed by the owners of the "cheaper" creations (however defined) ?


----------



## Ekaaj (Aug 29, 2007)

ondeadlin said:


> INTERVAL INTERNATIONAL UPDATES
> Interval International recently announced it was changing the way it ranked resorts so that the transparent. Their goal is to exchange people into resorts of similar quality and experience. They the 5 star moniker and will subsequently rank all resorts in a 4 level system, Platinum, Gold, Silver is very sensitive to the importance of the exchange system to the Eagle Point owners of which over Interval International on a regular basis. With an eye to the changes proposed by Interval International exchangers into the resort, the Board and management strongly support updating the facilities.



I just have to ask, b/c this kind of thing bugs me.  Did you copy and paste the entire update, or are there lines missing somewhere?  It's hard to understand what they are saying - you can get the gist of it, but there are either lines and words missing, or someone at II has incredibly poor grammar.

Just curious...


----------



## Kagehitokiri (Aug 29, 2007)

> newsletter from Eagle Point


 so that resort might be to blame for writing problems


----------



## Dean (Aug 29, 2007)

Dave_H said:


> I understand exchange companies do this to avoid complaints from high quality resort owners who might trade into lower ranked resorts, but I've always found this type of limitation annoying.  A 5-star, 8 bdrm platinum plus week in Branson is worth nothing to me since I have no desire to go there.  I would be far more interested in a low rated holiday studio ski week.  I would consider this to be a trade up, not a trade down.  Others wouldn't.  The value of a week is individual thing.  These types of limitations basically protect uninformed users from themselves, and only limit options for everyone else.


II really hasn't used the 5* system for years in a practical sense.  I believe what resorts you can trade into have been governed mostly by the QRS of your timeshare compared to the others you are looking at.  The don't want you to trade up or down too much. 

As for the idea that you know more what you want than II does, I'd say yes and no.  II will tell you that they get people all the time who tell them they want to trade down in resort qualify.  That the member knows X resort is not the same qualify and they guarantee they will not complain about that issue.  Then they still complain all the time because it was worse than they thought it would be.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Aug 29, 2007)

ondeadlin said:


> Actually, Cindy, I just got off the phone with an agent at II that I've used for a few years now and developed a relationship with. She said this will be a major revamping with RESORTS put into clear categories and then weeks put into SUB categories.
> 
> She said she wasn't sure if it would happen in 2008 or 2009.
> 
> Makes me wonder if it's the precursor for a points system.




Check the most recent II resort directory, the hard copy.  The colors are gone and the demand grids are there.


----------



## Dean (Aug 29, 2007)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Check the most recent II resort directory, the hard copy.  The colors are gone and the demand grids are there.


The colors are not gone, they are simply moved to the index listings as they were in the previous years version.


----------



## Carol C (Aug 30, 2007)

Mel said:


> Sounds an awful lot like RCI's VEP system - but more transparent.  RCI keeps their VEP numbers hidden so nobody gets offended by their resort's relative rating (even though in reality we all know where we stand).



Interval already has an internal ranking system, and it's not all that transparent either. They just don't publish it. I've called and gotten the Letter and Number associated with a few Interval-affiliated resorts I own or was considering buying. Just call and ask.


----------



## dougp26364 (Aug 30, 2007)

Dave_H said:


> I understand exchange companies do this to avoid complaints from high quality resort owners who might trade into lower ranked resorts, but I've always found this type of limitation annoying.  A 5-star, 8 bdrm platinum plus week in Branson is worth nothing to me since I have no desire to go there.  I would be far more interested in a low rated holiday studio ski week.  I would consider this to be a trade up, not a trade down.  Others wouldn't.  The value of a week is individual thing.  These types of limitations basically protect uninformed users from themselves, and only limit options for everyone else.



I don't believe it will be set up as a limitation but only to give exchangers a better idea of the quality of resort they're exchanging into. By giving resorts a tiered designation based on quality you'll have a better idea what you're getting only as far as quality goes. Demand may not have anything to do with it. 

I personally don't like being limited based on what an exchange company thinks I might or might not enjoy. I see this as a way to take the blinders off so I can make my own decisions about what/where I'm willing to exchange into. I also see this as a way to encourage resorts to keep their facilities up to date rather than allow them to become worn and tired. Something that has happened at one of the resorts we own at. If owners saw their resorts quality ranking falling, they may be more inclined to pressure their HOA/BOD to maintain their resort and maintain their own investment. 

I might not like how a couple of the resorts I own at will be ranked but so long as it's a fare ranking then I'll be OK with it. I guess this is why one of our resorts rather aggresively pushed for a pretty large SA to bring the resort back up to standards.

In the long run I think this will help me better understand what my choices are and what I can expect. In some area's I'd be more willing to give up a few creature comforts of the truely great resorts for a location I want to trade into (ski week vs Branson) but other times it's important to know that the resort I'm considering an exchange into does come close to the one sitting right next to it.


----------



## dougp26364 (Aug 30, 2007)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Check the most recent II resort directory, the hard copy.  The colors are gone and the demand grids are there.



You know something, I hadn't noticed that the red, yellow and white times were missing from the resort pages. I guess I never paid them much attention anyway and always wondered what people would think if the seasons ever changed from one color to another.

In the past, developers have been able to sell inferior weeks by stating that their location was all red time, so all weeks would have the best trade power. I guess now it will be harder for them to say that since I.I. isn't providing that distinction anymore. 

Since some resorts are going to get knocked down from their "5 star" status and recieve something more in line with what they really provide maybe it will encourage developers to do a better job in developing their resorts and maintaining those same resorts. I don't think they'd want let sales slide just because they allow some of the resorts in their system or branded with their name slide in quality.


----------



## nanette0269 (Aug 30, 2007)

I'm fairly new here and still not confident I know all the basic ins and outs....but a question:

If, for example, Starwood can select which weeks it can bank, regardless of the members' unit location/week....I'm assuming that all Starwood weeks would be of equal value in Starwood's eyes (and hence the owners' "bankability" of their unit into II).  What happens if II disagrees?  lets say that Starwood SDO is less a prime property than Breckenridge?  If you own Breckenridge, and want an exchange into II, and Starwood deposits SDO instead...are you screwed?

Or, would II have to view all Starwood mandatory properties on an equal playing field?


----------



## Dean (Aug 30, 2007)

Carol C said:


> Interval already has an internal ranking system, and it's not all that transparent either. They just don't publish it. I've called and gotten the Letter and Number associated with a few Interval-affiliated resorts I own or was considering buying. Just call and ask.


Actually they have two Besides the 5* or not rating.  The QRS I referenced above and a letter grade (ABC) which they seem to be very reluctant to talk about at all.  I've had luck getting the QRS components on my resorts and it's been hit or miss on other resorts.  I don't have any problems getting the letter grades for MOST resorts but I have an indirect option and those that answer the phone haven't been much help in this area.

We had this discussion a couple of times with Craig on the old II board.  It is my opinion that not only should resort quality be transparent but so should both trade power power of a given week AND the combo (week plus resort) should be transparent as well.  So should the info on the destination resorts and where the cutoff's are whether you can trade to a given resort option with a given deposit or not.  A well run points system can do this but does have some other issues, more issues if not done well.


----------



## Dean (Aug 30, 2007)

nanette0269 said:


> I'm fairly new here and still not confident I know all the basic ins and outs....but a question:
> 
> If, for example, Starwood can select which weeks it can bank, regardless of the members' unit location/week....I'm assuming that all Starwood weeks would be of equal value in Starwood's eyes (and hence the owners' "bankability" of their unit into II).  What happens if II disagrees?  lets say that Starwood SDO is less a prime property than Breckenridge?  If you own Breckenridge, and want an exchange into II, and Starwood deposits SDO instead...are you screwed?
> 
> Or, would II have to view all Starwood mandatory properties on an equal playing field?


I can't speak for Starwood but have been able to figure out what happens with DVC.  Any system where II makes a commitment before knowing exactly what they're getting likely follows much the same characteristics of DVC.  That is generically assigned trading power.  That means you'll get some sort of average trade power based on the resorts and weeks normally given as a whole.  This system has good and bad points and is likely the only way to handle a request first option on a points system where the resort and week are not designated prior to the match.  But it does mean that your chances of getting those top choices during peak times are pretty much out the window unless it's a short notice exchange or there is some type of internal trade.  Unfortunately when this is the setup, it also applies to deposit first options in most cases.  And that is the rub.  The trade off is likely reasonable for request first but not for deposit first UNLESS you are giving up a lessor week and trying to trade up.  With DVC you can't even pick your week at the present time, I don't know about Starwood.


----------

