# Should color season designations adjust?



## Carolinian (Aug 9, 2007)

How and when should RCI or others adjust their seasonal color designations?
We all know that things don't stay the same.

My suggestion is to do it annually at the same time the new award status designations come out, or biennially when the new directories come out, probably the latter to miniimize confusion.

I would set the following objective criteria:

Red - periods when demand in the preceding two years has exceeded supply by at least 20%

White - periods when demand in the preceding two years has been between 20% above supply to 20% under supply.

Blue - periods when demand in the preceding two years has been less than 20% under supply.

Run the numbers and assign the periods.  Make it completely objective, not subjective and out of date like it is now.

I would expect several ''all red'' areas would have a bad case of heartburn, while some ''seasonal'' areas will be smiling ear to ear.


----------



## Aldo (Aug 9, 2007)

It's a great idea, but of course as long as RCI continues to manipulate supply by looting the Spacebank, it won't work.


----------



## Mel (Aug 9, 2007)

They should eliminate them altogether, because they are meaningless.  If they were to reassign them, they would have to use 2006/2007 data for the 2009 resort, given the time required to publish the directories.  I also don't think the changes would be as significant as you envision.  Since "season" is only one part of trade power, perhaps the color designations should apply more to individual resorts?

Some resorts in the so-called overbuilt areas might still maintain year-round red, while others might not have ANY red weeks.  I think it would benefit owners in having a better understanding of the value of their weeks, but would also be highly confusing to new timeshare owners.

BTW, the new (August 2007) ARDA statistics related to your signature:

beach 24%
theme park 7%

http://www.arda.org/Content/NavigationMenu2/Research/TimeshareDatashare/August_2007.htm


----------



## "Roger" (Aug 9, 2007)

I agree with Mel.  Just get rid of them.  This is a vestage from the DeHahn era meant to help developers increase sales. (Things weren't always fair back then nor exchanger friendly back then.) 

If trades are based upon points and trading power, make those numbers available.


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 9, 2007)

Mel said:


> They should eliminate them altogether, because they are meaningless.  If they were to reassign them, they would have to use 2006/2007 data for the 2009 resort, given the time required to publish the directories.  I also don't think the changes would be as significant as you envision.  Since "season" is only one part of trade power, perhaps the color designations should apply more to individual resorts?
> 
> Some resorts in the so-called overbuilt areas might still maintain year-round red, while others might not have ANY red weeks.  I think it would benefit owners in having a better understanding of the value of their weeks, but would also be highly confusing to new timeshare owners.
> 
> ...



My signature is based on a recent RCI survey of its members, but even by ARDA's numbers, beachs beat theme parks by better than 3 and a half to 1

The use of season colors for individual resorts rather than resort areas is an interesting idea.  The problem would be setting them for new resorts, but I guess initially that could be an average of the resort area.

More information always helps as long as it is based on objective and published standards, and I don't agree that it would be that confusing to new owners.  It would help everyone have a better idea of real trade power.


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 9, 2007)

The key is objective standards fairly and openly applied.  Objective standards and RCI points are not even in the same ballpark!

What is meant to help developers is any non-objective scheme, whether it be outdated and probably bent season color tables or RCI Point tables.  The same problem exists both places and for the same reason.

Transparency of the process is the key to honesty and integrity.  Transparency of the result is virtually meaningless.




"Roger" said:


> I agree with Mel.  Just get rid of them.  This is a vestage from the DeHahn era meant to help developers increase sales. (Things weren't always fair back then nor exchanger friendly back then.)
> 
> If trades are based upon points and trading power, make those numbers available.


----------



## geekette (Aug 9, 2007)

I think the definition of 'when school is in session' has changed.  Our state has embraced year-round sessions which has altered the vacation break demand period.  The growth in home schooling has also changed this.

I believe that supply and demand based on history is not reliable.  Things change.  Maybe there's a big convention in Location X this year that was never before held there and suddenly the Dog Weeks are super popular.  Ohhh, too bad - they were cast off as Excess Inventory and you can't get there now!

One thing that Carolinian has always said and I agree with:  supply and demand are dynamic.

Season designations are at best generalizing based on outdated data.  I'm not sure I care enuf to say it should be abandoned or not.  I simply don't think Seasons are as accurate in predicting usage as they once were.  I don't know if that is more of a hurt or help to us.


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 9, 2007)

I agree that trade power should not be based on color codes, but on more specific supply/demand data like RCI Weeks does now.

Color codes, however, do give a general idea, and it would be beneficial if that general idea were more objective and accurate than it is now.




geekette said:


> I think the definition of 'when school is in session' has changed.  Our state has embraced year-round sessions which has altered the vacation break demand period.  The growth in home schooling has also changed this.
> 
> I believe that supply and demand based on history is not reliable.  Things change.  Maybe there's a big convention in Location X this year that was never before held there and suddenly the Dog Weeks are super popular.  Ohhh, too bad - they were cast off as Excess Inventory and you can't get there now!
> 
> ...


----------



## "Roger" (Aug 9, 2007)

I guess I'm lost.  Points are bad because they are based on historical usage.  But, then we need a new color system based upon ... historical trends.

Transparency is good, but keeping trading power secret is good.

Colors were used (the deHahn era) to help developers sell timeshares.  They still are used that way.  Get rid of them.


----------



## Aldo (Aug 9, 2007)

It's clearly meaningless currently; some "red" weeks are assigned practically zero trading power anyway.

Best way of all would be a system in which you could examine the trades which will be made available to you BEFORE you decide to deposit the week.


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 9, 2007)

Points are bad because, among other things, they are too often based on insider deals between developers in sales and RCI.  That's because the mechanism for establishing points values is hidden.  When the mechanism is hidden, publishing the result doesn't keep the system honest.

The key to an honest system is transparency in the mechanism for assigning values.  The only way a non-transparent mechanism can be honest is to also make the resulting values non-transparent, because that takes away the incentive for developers to politick RCI for numbers.

Rigged value systems, whether points or colors, are designed to pander to developers.  My suggestion is to at least make the color codes honest by setting an objective mechanism and then do it by the numbers.  Award status is done that way, and the info they provide to resorts backs up the numbers reports.  Color codes could be, as well.




"Roger" said:


> I guess I'm lost.  Points are bad because they are based on historical usage.  But, then we need a new color system based upon ... historical trends.
> 
> Transparency is good, but keeping trading power secret is good.
> 
> Colors were used (the deHahn era) to help developers sell timeshares.  They still are used that way.  Get rid of them.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Aug 9, 2007)

II switched to a demand index.  So every area has a chart that shows how popular the area is at different times.  Supposedly, they no longer have RED, GREEN and YELLOW, according to a very new vacation guide that was SHOCKED, I tell you, absolutely stunned that I would refer to my week 26 in North Carolina's mountains as RED.  "There is no such thing as red in II, where did you hear that your week is RED?" I told her I have owned for 26 years, so I know red from yellow.  She said the website still has the colors, so that must be where I got the idea my week is red,  :hysterical:  but the book has changed to the demand index, which will reflect on the website sometime or another.  :rofl:


----------



## AwayWeGo (Aug 9, 2007)

*All Red, Everywhere, All The Time.*

Shux, if a system ever called for reform, the timeshare-season spectrum is it for sure. 

One effective reform -- not to say the best & fairest reform -- would be to designate _every_ timeshare unit _everywhere_ Red Season 52 weeks a year. 

Sure, trading power would still vary, bigtime.  The main added fairness benefit would be leaving it up to the vacationer to figure out, for example, that February Cape Cod demand is low but sumertime demand at the Cape is high, that summertime in the ski areas is low-demand but wintertime there is high-demand.  Likewise, they don't need to be the sharpest knife in the dishwasher to catch on that even though it's hot in Florida all summer, summertime in other places can be hotter -- that the school vacation calendar has lots to do with the high- & middle- & low-demand seasons all over the Sunshine State. 

In short, making all timeshares all red all the time will erase any developer-planted notion that some hidden secret trade power formula overrides plain old common sense. 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## Mel (Aug 9, 2007)

Transparency in the mechanism for assigning values won't change anything.  RCI can have whatever formula they want - and I suspect they do in fact use a formula.  The problem is that not everybody is going to agree with that formula.

Points values, as assigned are transparent enough.  RCI tells you what they are willing to give you for your week, as well as what it costs to get what you want.  You compare those and make a decision.  It works the same way when I go to the grocery store.  I have $20 in my pocket, and I want soda.  I can buy 4 12-packs of the soda I like best, I can buy 10 of the store brand.  Either way, I know the price before I give my money to the store.

Yes, a point system should be dynamic, but think about whether you truly want it to change on an hourly basis.  If anything, that will encourage people to wait for the value of their own week to peak before they deposit.  Do you allow the cost of a week to fluctuate once it has been deposited?  Within what limits?  If you allow it to dip below the value given to the depositor, where do you make up the extra points?  If you let it rise above that, who gets those extra points?  

The ideal system would be a commodities-type market.  I have a week, and others that want it can bid for it, and at some point I accept an offer.  Then I use my credits to "buy" another week.  But that has the problem of no guaranteed inventory.  It also means I have to find someone to take my week before I have credits to use, unless you have someone offering something along the lines of futures.  A broker who offers me so much credit for my week, and hopes he can get back that much when he finds someone to take my week.  Maybe someone will eventually take exchanging to that level, but whoever does will need to commit a large pool of weeks to seed the system & set some baseline values.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Aug 9, 2007)

Within a weeks system, the color scheme is not only meaningless, but putrid.  The range of demand is grossly misrepresented by three color tiers.  Further, the whole process of assigning colors to weeks reeks from kowtowing to developers. The history of color scheme has basically devolved into a means to mislead and deceive buyers.  Attempting to patch or cover up the color scheme system is like a sewage treatment plant dispersing a fragrance in the air around the plant to cover up the smell of rotting sewage.

If a weeks system is used, the best approach is to assign a trade power when a week is deposited and let the depositer know what that trade power is.  Then, all weeks in the spacebank should be viewable by the depositer, along with the associated trade power required to complete that exchange. If the exchange company finds it necessary to apply something such as a VEP screen, so be it.  But then let the depositer have the ability to see every exchange available using the VEP of their deposited week if the depositer chooses to run an unfiltered search.

The trade power required to complete the exchange can and should be dynamic.  Just let the depositer be able see what the requirement is.


----------



## e.bram (Aug 9, 2007)

The only reason for color designations is to a;;ow developers sell 20 prime weeks when only 8 exist(either points or weeks) Since RCI work with the developers there is no reason to change.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Aug 9, 2007)

e.bram said:


> The only reason for color designations is to a;;ow developers sell 20 prime weeks when only 8 exist(either points or weeks) Since RCI work with the developers there is no reason to change.



That makes no sense at all.  If a developer wanted to sell more prime weeks than existed, then they would be in favor of eliminating season designations.  Then, they could sell all 52 weeks as prime.


----------



## e.bram (Aug 9, 2007)

BOCA:
You might get away with it in Florida but not in New England. Naive as the developers' customers are you could never sell Maine as 52 red weeks.If the developers could they certainly would.


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 9, 2007)

One suggestion I received by email was to add a ''gold'' season which would be what we usually call ''prime red''.  I think that would be a good addition.  The specifics would be to have gold being weeks with five times as much demand as supply or more.  She also suggested red starting with weeks where supply and demand are equal, and dropping the threshholds for blue and white.


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 9, 2007)

The totality of the system should not encourage rigging of numbers.  An unpublished mechanism to set numbers creates an opportunity for rigging.
A published result creates the motive.  A published result with an unpublished mechanism is the worst of all worlds, as it creates both the incentive to cheat and the opportunity to do so.  Welcome to the numbers racket of RCI Points!

A quasi-monopoly exchange system is not like the grocery store which functions in a competitive market.  If they tell you the price of a soda is $56.25, you can tell them to get stuffed and go to the store down the street.
The other difference is that one entity is telling you how much you receive for what you give as well as what you pay for what you get.  Sort of like the old company town, where the same entity that paid your wages also ran company stores that set the prices of what you bought.  Not a postive situation for those caught in it.






Mel said:


> Transparency in the mechanism for assigning values won't change anything.  RCI can have whatever formula they want - and I suspect they do in fact use a formula.  The problem is that not everybody is going to agree with that formula.
> 
> Points values, as assigned are transparent enough.  RCI tells you what they are willing to give you for your week, as well as what it costs to get what you want.  You compare those and make a decision.  It works the same way when I go to the grocery store.  I have $20 in my pocket, and I want soda.  I can buy 4 12-packs of the soda I like best, I can buy 10 of the store brand.  Either way, I know the price before I give my money to the store.
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 9, 2007)

Cindy-

I think there is some merit to this approach.  I have not looked at the II demand index, but it seems like a good approach as long as it was a supply/demand index and had enough categories but not too many.  Certainly no more than 10.  Exact numbers in the thousands like most points systems are downright silly.  They pretend to be that precise but give so same exact numbers to a broad range of weeks that are quite different at the top and bottom ends.

RCI does have a similar index in its European edition of its Directory, which is now dispersed throughout the directory but in the previous edition was compiled in one place on page 25 where it was convenient.  That index rates each month of the year for various resort areas on the following scale:
4= very good availibility
3= good availibility
2= less availibility / highly demanded
1= limited availibility / very highly demanded.

When you compare this with the seasonal color codes, it is easy to see how outdated those color codes are.

For example, looking at ''red all year'' areas:

Florida has three months that rate 4 and four that rate a 3.  A majority of the year, then has either very good availibility or good availibility - hardly deserving of ''red all year''.  Also it clearly shows that as to timeshare demand, FLorida is, in fact, seasonal.

The Caribbean has one month that is a 4 and three that are a 3.  Again, shouldn't some of this be blue or white?

The Canary Islands rates a 4 for two months and a 3 for ten months.  ''Red all year'' - are they kidding?

On the other hand, some ''seasonal areas'' maybe SHOULD be red all year.

Ireland rates a 1 every month of the year, but on the color codes has blue and white time as well as red.  Switzerland rates a 2 for two months and a 1 for ten months but, it too is assigned blue and white as well as red color seasons.  Israel has all three color seasons, but it rates a 1 for all twelve months.

Owners and developers in overbuilt areas may scream, but I would like to see such tables published by RCI for all timeshare areas worldwide, and break resort areas down a bit more.  For Florida, for example, the southwest coast and the keys are going to have a much better supply/demand ratio than Orlando or Daytona Beach.

For award status, RCI does a credible and objective job in publishing the formula for giving out Silver Crown, Gold Crown, etc. and they do an objective job providing resorts with the raw data for those numbers so everything is on the up and up.  If they put their mind to it, they could do the same for seasons.  They have shown they are able to do such things in a credible manner.







rickandcindy23 said:


> II switched to a demand index.  So every area has a chart that shows how popular the area is at different times.  Supposedly, they no longer have RED, GREEN and YELLOW, according to a very new vacation guide that was SHOCKED, I tell you, absolutely stunned that I would refer to my week 26 in North Carolina's mountains as RED.  "There is no such thing as red in II, where did you hear that your week is RED?" I told her I have owned for 26 years, so I know red from yellow.  She said the website still has the colors, so that must be where I got the idea my week is red,  :hysterical:  but the book has changed to the demand index, which will reflect on the website sometime or another.  :rofl:


----------



## timeos2 (Aug 9, 2007)

*The ideas are right  - too bad they are applied to the wrong systems*



Carolinian said:


> The totality of the system should not encourage rigging of numbers.  An unpublished mechanism to set numbers creates an opportunity for rigging.
> A published result creates the motive.  A published result with an unpublished mechanism is the worst of all worlds, as it creates both the incentive to cheat and the opportunity to do so.  Welcome to the numbers racket of RCI Points!



No matter how many times this ridiculous idea is repeated it won't suddenly become true. No matter how the numbers were originally set once they are published the users get to decide if they are realistic or not. Ideally you would have access to both sides but even the result alone is better than nothing. There isno user choice or valuation involved in the mysterious weeks system.



Carolinian said:


> The other difference is that one entity is telling you how much you receive for what you give as well as what you pay for what you get.  Sort of like the old company town, where the same entity that paid your wages also ran company stores that set the prices of what you bought.  Not a postive situation for those caught in it.



And then to be followed up with an example that fits the secret and arbitrary way the WEEKS system works while trying to say it represent the points system.  This is the worst example of how systems can be manipulated and you, the user, have ZERO input except "I give you my week. Please be kind". It is the ultimate in company store pricing and control. You are correct - not a positive situation for those caught in it. Thats why I largely dropped week for week trades years ago and, except for the ease of unfair upgrades, have to wonder why anyone will still believe in it's worth.


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 9, 2007)

I can see why a published mechanism for setting values would not be popular for those who own in overbuilt areas.  If the mechanism and the underlying data were both published, there would no longer be any ''red all year'' or inflated points numbers for such areas.  Only a secret mechanism can support such blatant pandering to developers.  The Availibility tables in the European RCI directory, as well as Bootleg's posts from what he has seen on the RCI computer, clearly show that neither of these ''results''  of unpublished mechanisms matches reality.

RCI has established transparency on how it assigns award status.  That mechanism works and is fair.  That shows they really can do it.

It is time for transparency in the mechanism of how seasons are set. But, heck, then some of the ''red all year'' areas might emerge as really being blue all year!


----------



## Dani (Aug 9, 2007)

Color designations should adjust more frequently, but they will not because the developers have no interest in this.  There is no interest in telling the public the true worth of the weeks they own.   Telling the truth means less money in the pockets of the developers and that is not going to happen.  The relationship between the exchange company and the developer is symbiotic as one needs the other to make it work. 

Things are so bad that currently all of the Caribbean and So. Cal are red year round.   This is of course ridiculous, but allows the developers to tell the unaware buyer that all red weeks trade the same and also allows them to command more money.     The exchange companies perpetuate this lie, and here we are. 

    Clearly the exchange companies monitor demand as they are constantly changing the trade power and quality ratings of the resorts that we own.  They may even use a system much like you describe internally.  They however have no interest IMHO of creating real, reliable and accurate color designations.


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 9, 2007)

RCI has provided supply/demand Availibility tables in its European version of the resort Directory for some time.  Canary Island developers must have been just as upset about this as Orlando developers would be here, yet RCI did it for Europe.  I wonder if they are more intimidated by Orlando developers?

II has apparently also shifted in this direction.  I wonder if that might also help encourage RCI that way?




Dani said:


> Color designations should adjust more frequently, but they will not because the developers have no interest in this.  There is no interest in telling the public the true worth of the weeks they own.   Telling the truth means less money in the pockets of the developers and that is not going to happen.  The relationship between the exchange company and the developer is symbiotic as one needs the other to make it work.
> 
> Things are so bad that currently all of the Caribbean and So. Cal are red year round.   This is of course ridiculous, but allows the developers to tell the unaware buyer that all red weeks trade the same and also allows them to command more money.     The exchange companies perpetuate this lie, and here we are.
> 
> Clearly the exchange companies monitor demand as they are constantly changing the trade power and quality ratings of the resorts that we own.  They may even use a system much like you describe internally.  They however have no interest IMHO of creating real, reliable and accurate color designations.


----------



## Dani (Aug 10, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> RCI has provided supply/demand Availibility tables in its European version of the resort Directory for some time.  Canary Island developers must have been just as upset about this as Orlando developers would be here, yet RCI did it for Europe.  I wonder if they are more intimidated by Orlando developers?
> 
> II has apparently also shifted in this direction.  I wonder if that might also help encourage RCI that way?



   Is it not the case that resorts, in Europe, like elsewhere still have color designations?  Aren't resorts still sold throughout the world based upon these designations?  The issue is not whether or not a supply/demand index is provided in a book after one has purchased a developer unit.  The damage is already done.  You have bought into the lie by then.


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 10, 2007)

Dani said:


> Is it not the case that resorts, in Europe, like elsewhere still have color designations?  Aren't resorts still sold throughout the world based upon these designations?  The issue is not whether or not a supply/demand index is provided in a book after one has purchased a developer unit.  The damage is already done.  You have bought into the lie by then.



It is a dual system in Europe, but I suspect that developers pass around the directory as part of the presentation, as they do here, so buyers would at least have an opportunity to see the tables.

I strongly believe that RCI should conform its color codes to the information in those Availibility tables.  As it is, they are speaking out of both sides of their mouths.


----------



## "Roger" (Aug 10, 2007)

Just so that everyone knows, there are some hidden pitfalls in this suggestion.  One question that needs to be answered is are Carolinian's proposed numbers intended to be applied to the region (however big or small) or to the individual resort.  There are problems either way:


Region:  Unpopular resorts would be given a deceptive rating that makes them appear better than they are.
Individual resort:  This is more complicated, but the long and the short of it is that any new resort, particularly a new mega resort in sales, would receive a poor number.  There is little evidence that this is not at all in line with the trading power of the resort.  Thus, the color would again be deceptive.

I am trying to keep this posting short.  In order to do so, I have to stay away from an extended discussion of how "supply and demand" should be established.  Maybe that should be come a separate thread.  For now, all that I will say is that, while the colors that Carolinian proposes might help inform people about availability (based upon historic trends -- sorry, couldn't help myself), but would not necessarily reflect trading power.


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 10, 2007)

But, supply and demand are the cornerstones of trading power, so knowing that helps probably more than anything else.  Yes, when you deposit counts.

New resorts would not necessarily receive a poor number.  They would get the regional average.

Anything to update the color seasons and make them more accurate is an improvement over the outdated and downright bent color code designations that apply now.




"Roger" said:


> Just so that everyone knows, there are some hidden pitfalls in this suggestion.  One question that needs to be answered is are Carolinian's proposed numbers intended to be applied to the region (however big or small) or to the individual resort.  There are problems either way:
> 
> 
> Region:  Unpopular resorts would be given a deceptive rating that makes them appear better than they are.
> ...


----------



## bruwery (Aug 10, 2007)

I am so confused.

Most of the posters on this website are people who enjoy timesharing.  So why do we spend so much time complaining about how much the system sucks?  The answer must be that the more we learn, the more we notice the flaws.

Maybe we all need to take a deep breath.  I think the system is great; it works perfectly for me.  I recognize that I own in an overbuilt location, and I don't expect to trade for 4BR penthouses in Maui.

I don't care about color designations.  Scrap 'em.  Assign every week at every resort a point value based on occupancy, updated every year using a three year average.  Publish the data on a website.

How does one obtain the accuracy rates, and ensure that they're accurate?  I have no idea.  I'm not that smart.  It'd probably be too easy to deceptively manipulate the data anyway.  Darn, it sounded good for a moment.

Assuming a system like that could work, though, the next step would be an ARDA rule indicating that developers must make the chart available for perusal when giving sales presentations.  That could work.  I sat through a Starwood presentation once; they make their internal chart available.  If you buy Starwood, you know the value of your week.

All I know is that I just ate a bunch of peaches I froze last August, and a bunch of strawberries that I picked from my garden last night.  They were delicious, timesharing rocks, and life is good.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Aug 10, 2007)

Make it like a grocery store.  I walk into a grocery store with money in my pocket, knowing the value of what I've got.  The store posts prices that tell me what they want for what they've got.  The prices they post can change year-to-year, season-to-season, or day-to-day.  When the expiration date for a perishable item approaches, the price starts going down. 

When I see something I like that is equal to or less than what I've got, I put it in the cart.  I can keep putting things in the cart as long as the total is less than what I've got.  If what I put in my cart is less than what I've got, I can keep the difference.

If I don't see anything I like, I don't take anything and maybe come back another day when the stock is different.

****

To make it work, all the exchange company need do is let me know what value they assign to what I've got, and what value they currently assign to what they've got.  Let them change that value as much as they want, whenever they way, for whatever reason they want.

At that point I don't care what backroom deals the exchange company might have cut with developers, just as I don't care what backroom deals bakeries or dairies might have cut with the grocery store.  If those backroom deals cause the store to put out loaves of bread or bricks of cheese that I think are overpriced,  I don't put them in my cart.  If those deals cause a price reduction, I'm more likely to put them in my cart. Same thing works with developer backroom deals.

*********

It's really not that complicated.


----------



## guy33 (Aug 10, 2007)

*Why do you say that RCI loots the spacebank?*



Aldo said:


> It's a great idea, but of course as long as RCI continues to manipulate supply by looting the Spacebank, it won't work.



I have been a member of RCI for over 15 years and I have never gotten sub-standard accommodations except from my home resort.  I keep reading about some disgruntled people that feel they are not geeting their moneys worth but I think it comes down to two things:

1.  Many people buy where they want to be and don't exchange those valuable weeks.
2.  Many people buy with the intention of exchanging and they are better at it then both you and I.

RCI cannot make weeks available that are not exchanged can they?  You may know something I don't!  (I don't work for RCI, I just want fair answers)


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 10, 2007)

This thread is about the seasonal colors, rather than trading value.

Your supermarket example is not a valid analogy to timeshare exchanging, in that the market keeps supermarket prices honest through competition.  If one store overprices its items, people will go to the store down the street.  In the quasi-monopoly that is effectively much of timeshare exchanging, most players are not aware of any alternative to the big exchange company their resort is affiliated with.   Also a supermarket only is involved in one end of the transaction, how much the item you buy is worth.  To be comparable to timeshare exchanging they would also have to be in a position to dictate what your money or what you brought into the deal is worth.  A supermarket does NOT assign a value to what you have got. 

Monopolies function a lot differently than a market where there is competition.




T_R_Oglodyte said:


> Make it like a grocery store.  I walk into a grocery store with money in my pocket, knowing the value of what I've got.  The store posts prices that tell me what they want for what they've got.  The prices they post can change year-to-year, season-to-season, or day-to-day.  When the expiration date for a perishable item approaches, the price starts going down.
> 
> When I see something I like that is equal to or less than what I've got, I put it in the cart.  I can keep putting things in the cart as long as the total is less than what I've got.  If what I put in my cart is less than what I've got, I can keep the difference.
> 
> ...


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Aug 10, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> This thread is about the seasonal colors, rather than trading value.
> 
> Your supermarket example is not a valid analogy to timeshare exchanging, in that the market keeps supermarket prices honest through competition.  If one store overprices its items, people will go to the store down the street.  In the quasi-monopoly that is effectively much of timeshare exchanging, most players are not aware of any alternative to the big exchange company their resort is affiliated with.   Also a supermarket only is involved in one end of the transaction, how much the item you buy is worth.  To be comparable to timeshare exchanging they would also have to be in a position to dictate what your money or what you brought into the deal is worth.  A supermarket does NOT assign a value to what you have got.
> 
> Monopolies function a lot differently than a market where there is competition.



Making mountains out of molehills, Steve.

Instead of real money, the exchange company issues you credits, which are the same as the scrip used in the company stores of old.

*****

And it has everything to do with seasonal color designations because the value assigned to a week - and the price people are willing to pay for that week - reflects the season.  By allowing values to change instantaneously you are effectively allowing the seasonal value assigned to the week to change instantaneously.

You get scrip credited to your account when you make a deposit; you see the scrip value for all of the exchange possibilities available to you.  You decide whether or not you want to make the deal.

It's both simpler and fairer then forking over all of your scrip and saying, _"Please sir.  May I have another week??"_


----------



## Mel (Aug 10, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> Your supermarket example is not a valid analogy to timeshare exchanging, in that the market keeps supermarket prices honest through competition.  If one store overprices its items, people will go to the store down the street. .


Actually, no they don't.  If they did, our local major grocery chains would be out of business.  We have two major chains, plus a Walmart Supercenter all in a row.  They all do pretty good business, yet Walmart is cheaper for almost everything, and being a supercenter, there's not much they don't have.


Carolinian said:


> In the quasi-monopoly that is effectively much of timeshare exchanging, most players are not aware of any alternative to the big exchange company their resort is affiliated with.   Also a supermarket only is involved in one end of the transaction, how much the item you buy is worth.  To be comparable to timeshare exchanging they would also have to be in a position to dictate what your money or what you brought into the deal is worth.  A supermarket does NOT assign a value to what you have got.


No, but it's not that different from a barter system.  RCI is not a monopoly, there are plenty of other choices to use your week.  Yes, there is the problem of conversion fees, but the points system gives a much better idea than the color system - and exact representation of what your week will trade for.  This grocery analogy also demonstrates what will happen to the points assigned to a unit over time:

RCI assignes 100,000 points, which encourages 200 people to deposit their weeks.  Only 70 people are willing to "pay" that many points, so the weeks sit in the system until RCI decides to reduce the price.  When they drop it to 90,000 another 40 people accept the price, but it has to drop all the way down to 50,000 before the last units are used.  The following year RCI looks at the total they earned for those 200 weeks, and the distribution of the prices to set a new price for those weeks.  If they don't reduce the price they are setting themselves up to award more points than are redeemed - they have no inventory and still owe 1 million points worth of reservations.

For another resort, they set the price at 50,000 and get 100 units which are taken up very quickly, and they can't satisfy demand.  They raise the value of those weeks in hopes of stimulating more desposits.  Demand will diminish some as the price rises, but will stabilize at some point.  That is where they set the price the following year.  

As I already said, get rid of the color system because it is antiquated.  It worked well in its day, but it is outmoded now.


----------



## "Roger" (Aug 10, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> ...
> New resorts would not necessarily receive a poor number.  They would get the regional average...


My concern was more with the two year old mega resort that has a ton of developer weeks as building is just getting into swing.  I just don't want to go into it, but in the past you said that initial owners should get lower trading power due to the (over)supply of developer weeks.  (Supply and demand?) That, even though, the resort down the street is no better (probably worse), but has no developer weeks, but their owners get higher trade power due to no developer weeks.  (Suppy and demand. They have lower supply.)  I don't want to hold you to that position.  If you have changed it, good.

I don't necessarily agree that something is better than nothing.  The old color scheme was something and it was worse than nothing.  Still, your color scheme is a step in the right direction.  Why not go all the way?

Let everyone know their trade power.  Let what it takes in trade power to get resort Y be known (based upon historical records).   People are entitled to trade X% up (10%??).  If certain timeshares are not be gobbled up, then at 8 months out (the exact number is incidental), you can then trade 25% up.  (Again, the exact number is incidental.)  Nothing can be moved into the rental market until 5 months out.

With a system like this, everyone would know where they stand.  (That what transparency is.)  Even the novice buyer could see the real worth of his or her purchase.  You constant objection is that developers would get a break on their trade value.  That would not be in RCI's interest.  The owners would have too much trade power, while RCI would be left with inventory that fails to move because the trading numbers are too high.  In essence, they would be subsudizing the developers.  (Tell the stockholders that and you'll see lots of action.  No need for a law suit.)


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 10, 2007)

Mel said:


> :
> 
> RCI assignes 100,000 points, which encourages 200 people to deposit their weeks.  Only 70 people are willing to "pay" that many points, so the weeks sit in the system until RCI decides to reduce the price.  When they drop it to 90,000 another 40 people accept the price, but it has to drop all the way down to 50,000 before the last units are used.  The following year RCI looks at the total they earned for those 200 weeks, and the distribution of the prices to set a new price for those weeks.  If they don't reduce the price they are setting themselves up to award more points than are redeemed - they have no inventory and still owe 1 million points worth of reservations.
> 
> ...



You forget that points have been around longer in timesharing than the weeks system.   The very first timeshare was in a points-based mini-system, Swiss-based Hapimag.  Then French developers came up with the weeks concept and it quickly blew points away.  The more recent points systems have only gotten a foothold because either an exchange company (RCI) or a developer (Fairfield, Sunterra, etc.) gave rigged the system to give them an unfair advantage over weeks based owners, mooching off of weeks.  The concept of a multi-developer points system, incidentally came from a former loan shark (or ''tallyman'' as they are known there) in South Africa, which is quite appropriate.

The idea of a points ''market'' as you conceptualize is not realisitc.  RCI rigs and then freezes the points numbers rather than having any significant adjustments. When has RCI done what you suggest with its numbers racket called RCI Points?  NEVER!

But as usual the same little group seems to want to turn this thread into a weeks vs points slugfest.  Why not sticking to the topic of the season color codes and how they can be improved.


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 10, 2007)

On that issue, I look at reality rather than theory.

RCI DOES pander to developers in sales.

Take Barrier Island Station on the Outer Banks.  When RCI was first beta testing GPN (the early name of RCI Points), employees at a staff meeting at Barrier Island were told that if RCI went to points, Barrier Island was going to II.  Why they would share this with staff, I don't know, but they did.  I talked with someone who was at the meeting.

Later after GPN was rolled out, I was talking with someone rather high up in the Barrier Island organization and we spoke about GPN.  He really badmouthed GPN, and one particular complaint was that RCI did not want to give them enough points for Barrier Island Station Kitty Hawk, the only one of their resorts still in developer sales.  He told me that there was a group of Gold Crown developers pushing RCI for the higher point totals they apparently believed they deserved and Barrier Island was involved with them.  He acknowledged that the II option had been batted about.

Then it came out that Barrier Island had taken all three of their resorts into points.  RCI had cried uncle and given them the points they demanded.  In doing so they turned supply and demand on their head in setting point values for the Barrier Island resorts.  BIS Kitty Hawk, the lowest, by far, demand resort on the OBX was given more points than Barrier Island's much higher demand beachfront resorts.  The beachfront resorts were sold out so apparently no one cared about them.

What happened at Barrier Island is but a microcosm of the corruption and power plays invovled in setting RCI Points numbers.  It illustrates that as long as the mechanism for assigning points is hidden, you will likely have a corrupt system.




"Roger" said:


> .
> 
> You constant objection is that developers would get a break on their trade value.  That would not be in RCI's interest.  The owners would have too much trade power, while RCI would be left with inventory that fails to move because the trading numbers are too high.  In essence, they would be subsudizing the developers.  (Tell the stockholders that and you'll see lots of action.  No need for a law suit.)


----------



## Mel (Aug 10, 2007)

No, Hapimag was not the first points program - Kauai Kailani (On Kauai) was first, in 1969.  BUt that's irrelevant.

Nobody is trying to make this a weeks vs. points slugfest except you.  We have pointed out that you want transparency only to a certain degree.  What yu really want is for RCI to redefine their formulas to work the way you want.

We at least have answered your original question - should color seasons adjust - NO, they should be eliminated altogether.  Have you answered the original questions on any of the threads you have tried to hijack?  Some of those very posts were intended to get a sense of what OTHERS here think.

You original concept of how you would like the colors to be determined is very much about trade power, but then you turn and tell Steve this thread is about color designations, not trade power.  Which is it?  If the color designations are to have any meaning whatsoever, they have to be based on trade power.  The problem is that some areas (or at least some resorts in some areas) have far better trade power than you think they should - maybe because they have far higher demand than you realize.

So again, I say no the "seasons" should not be adjusted, rather they should be eliminated, because the trade power allowed within each of the 3 seasons offer too large of a range.  They worked when there wasn't that great of a difference between the top and bottom resorts - the only thing that mattered was location.  That is no longer the case, except perhaps among a  subset of owners.


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 11, 2007)

You seem to disagree with everyone I have ever seen who has written on the subject as to Hapimag being the first timeshare, and as a points-based mni-system.

You acuse others of hijacking threads, but it is the very vocal group of Points advocates that always tries to interject ''weeks is outdated'', ''points is the only worthwhile system'' etc into almost any discussion.

Again in this thread you try to distort others opinions with your spin.  I am not seeking RCI redefining their formulas to work the way I want.  I am suggesting that the color codes are in need of updating, and that updating should be done in an objective manner with a transparent mechanism.

Several people on this thread have made constructive suggestions.  Using availibility tables like in the European RCI directory either as a substitute for the season colors or as a supplement is an excellent one, for example.

I have never said that location was the only driver of demand.  It is the primary driver, and yes there are secondary drivers like resort facilities.

One of the bees in the bonnets of some of those who want to defend everything RCI and everything points is that they own in overbuilt areas and want to continue with systems that do not base trading power on real supply / demand factors for those areas.  Come on.  Bootleg told us that the two resorts with the biggest oversupply in the entire RCI system were BOTH Gold Crowns in Orlando.  According to RCI's Availibility tables, SEVEN (7) months out of the year in Florida have either Very Good Availibility or Good Availibility.  Overbuilt Orlando is the big driver of that.

As I have pointed out the partial transparency of RCI Points is the worst of all worlds as it creates both the motive and the opportunity to corruptly rig the system.  Members are much better protected by either full transparency or a fully opaque system.  Those who support RCI Points are the ones who support transparency only to a certain degree.

A objective system of setting season colors or trading power is a threat to the current status of resorts in overbuilt areas.  I can see why those connected with or owning at resorts in those areas would support continuing to have hidden mechanisms to establish either trading power, points numbers, or season colors.  I say make it open and objective and let the chips fall where they may! 





Mel said:


> No, Hapimag was not the first points program - Kauai Kailani (On Kauai) was first, in 1969.  BUt that's irrelevant.
> 
> Nobody is trying to make this a weeks vs. points slugfest except you.  We have pointed out that you want transparency only to a certain degree.  What yu really want is for RCI to redefine their formulas to work the way you want.
> 
> ...


----------



## PerryM (Aug 11, 2007)

*This is a hoax....*

The title of this thread is “Should color season designations adjust?”.

By its very definition we are NOT talking about a Point based system which does not need season colors.  We are, instead, talking about a barter system (weeks) that needs secrecy and phony seasons to fool customers.

Adjusting seasons just plays into the hands of the exchange and developer who are fooling the customer.  Why on earth perpetuate this hoax?  Shame on anyone who wants to help the exchange company fool their customers.  *This thread is just a ploy to improve upon a hoax.*

Do away with the seasons all together – then the salesreps could start to use other designations like “Smart” for “red”, “Average” for the next color, and “Stupid” for the lowest color.

Isn’t this what the developer is really getting at in a barter (week) system:

This is a “Smart” week to buy.
This is an “Average” week to buy.
This is a “Stupid” week to buy.   (Retard is an ok word too)

I guess IQ scores could replace the above:
Red is now an IQ of 140
Yellow is an IQ of 100
Green is an IQ of 70

*I like “Smart”, “Average” and “Retard” myself.*  I guess you could start to identify each week this way.


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 11, 2007)

Currently the process of establishing seasons is very much like setting point values.  Both are set in secret by an unknown mechanism that is corrupt because it is highly subject to manipulation by developers politicking RCI.  Points needs secrecy in how numbers are conjured up and phony overaveraged periods to fool customers.

Adjusting seasons based on an open, ubjective, and verifiable mechanism does NOT play into the hands of developers and exchange company.  On the contrary, it prevents collusion and manipulation of the results.  The secret mechanism is the principle flaw of both the season colors and the points numbers.  They are too peas in a pod, subject to manipulation for the benefit of developers.  Points needs secrecy of the process of conjuring up points numbers and phony overaveraged periods to perperuate the hoax.

It really mystifies me why those who regularly carry water for anything RCI on these boards are so resistant to opening up the process of setting any values, whether it be color seasons or points numbers, so that they will be open, objective, verifiable, and aboveboard.  They want to complain that seasonal colors are set in the backroom to benefit developers but want to bury their heads in the sand about the very same thing going on with points numbers.  It is more sinister for members in the points setting game.  Color codes do not impact your trading value but points numbers DO.





PerryM said:


> The title of this thread is “Should color season designations adjust?”.
> 
> By its very definition we are NOT talking about a Point based system which does not need season colors.  We are, instead, talking about a barter system (weeks) that needs secrecy and phony seasons to fool customers.
> 
> ...


----------



## PerryM (Aug 11, 2007)

*Kindergartners are best at this...*



Carolinian said:


> Currently the process of establishing seasons is very much like setting point values.  Both are set in secret by an unknown mechanism that is corrupt because it is highly subject to manipulation by developers politicking RCI.  Points needs secrecy in how numbers are conjured up and phony overaveraged periods to fool customers.
> 
> Adjusting seasons based on an open, ubjective, and verifiable mechanism does NOT play into the hands of developers and exchange company.  On the contrary, it prevents collusion and manipulation of the results.  The secret mechanism is the principle flaw of both the season colors and the points numbers.  They are too peas in a pod, subject to manipulation for the benefit of developers.  Points needs secrecy of the process of conjuring up points numbers and phony overaveraged periods to perperuate the hoax.
> 
> *It really mystifies me why those who regularly carry water for anything RCI on these boards are so resistant to opening up the process of setting any values, whether it be color seasons or points numbers, so that they will be open, objective, verifiable, and aboveboard.*  They want to complain that seasonal colors are set in the backroom to benefit developers but want to bury their heads in the sand about the very same thing going on with points numbers.  It is more sinister for members in the points setting game.  Color codes do not impact your trading value but points numbers DO.



Maybe you have swallowed the Purple Kool-Aid that RCI Weeks is trying to become a kinder/gentler monopoly and wants to become more liked - this is baloney.

RCI Weeks is exactly what is always has been - something that can't match apples to oranges and needs to paint the skins to fool everyone into thinking there is something else involved.  Use it as it stands -* playing around with colors is best left for kindergartners*.

RCI Points does not need any of this slight of hand tricks.  I am NOT defending the horrible implementation of it but if something needs our attention and thought it is that system - one based upon transparency and getting RCI out of the business of deciding who gets what reservation.

P.S.
That's really what this difference is all about (Weeks v Points):

*Weeks:* RCI/II decide what reservation you are entitled to 

*Points:* You decide what reservation you are entitled to

Good grief; what could be simpler and more of a choice for the consumer?


----------



## e.bram (Aug 11, 2007)

The assignation and use of the points system is tantamount to the use of color system with an increase in the spectra of colors. It still allows the developers to over sell the prime weeks by assigning the same high point value to prime and subprime values.


----------



## "Roger" (Aug 11, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> ...
> 
> RCI DOES pander to developers in sales.
> 
> ...


Here's what I know about this ....

Carolinian has separately complained that Points 


Panders to the developers
Pays attention to amenities in setting points levels (too much attention in his opinion).
He is correct that the Point levels do pay attention to amenities. I have never seen any place (and there might be an exception somewhere) where a GC gets fewer points than an unranked resort when the two resorts are in close proximaty.  As far as OBX is concerned, this pattern continues.  BIS Duck (unranked) gets 52,500 points for a 2BR that sleeps six.  Kitty Hawk (GC) gets 56,000.  *The fact that these point totals are so close is almost unheard of. * That is probably because (relying on Carolinian's knowledge of OBX) that Duck is actually on the coast, Kitty Hawk is not.

Was Kitty Hawk set too high?  Well, in accordance with supply and demand, 
RCI could have totally misjudged the market; the units are always taken.  

Now looking at Kitty Hawk compared to other east coast Gold Crowns.  While I haven't look all the way up to Maine, in the section of the RCI book that includes the Southeast, 2BR GC sleeps six get a minimum 68,000 (and more typically 75,000 to 85,000). (oops, just double checked and there is one Myrtal Beach that gets 63,000.  Personally, I would rather go to OBX even though its point totals are lower.)  So, just how much did the BIS people get away with with their politicing??????

I far as I can see, the idea that the developers have stolen RCI blind in the Point system is a red herring.  The comparative point totals for OBX versus other east coast markets shows, if anything, that BIS should have politiced more not less.

If Carolinian wants to say that amenities should not count in pointing, that is his privilege and his opinion. Still, call it successful branding, people having stupid preferences, or whatever you like, RCI is having success getting people to take the coast GC's.  (Supply and demand.)


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 11, 2007)

e.bram said:


> The assignation and use of the points system is tantamount to the use of color system with an increase in the spectra of colors. It still allows the developers to over sell the prime weeks by assigning the same high point value to prime and subprime values.



You have hit the nail on the head.  Color codes and RCI Points groupings and values have a WHOLE LOT more in common than either does with the Weeks trading power system.  It is really amusing to watch those who stridently defend anything RCI and anything points try to split hairs on this one.

Color codes have 3 groupings of weeks at each resort, and Points tables have 5. Both are set by hidden and often corrupt mechanisms, but the results of that mechanism in both is then made public (i.e. ''transparent'').  Once set, the values are frozen for long periods on both.  Both overaverage by covering too much ground in each category.  In both, developers put their thumbs on the scales to get result that will help their sales.

The main difference is the wacky exact number concept of Points where on one hand they purport to value your week down to a very precise number and to trade you have to have a precise number value, but on the other hand these overbroad groupings assign the same exact number to very, very different weeks, like giving the same number of points to a mid-August summer red week 32 on the Outer Banks and a mid-October fall white week 43.

Many of the serious flaws of the present color code system are also right there in RCI Points.

It would be nice to bring more objectivity and fairness into the system.


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 11, 2007)

While the Duck BIS resort is oceanfront, and the Kitty Hawk BIS resort is not (it is in the woods behind the Wal-Mart), portions of both towns are oceanfront.

You have flipped my complaint about the way points are set.  They pay too little attention to the single most important factor, LOCATION.  In a beach area, that means being ON the beach.  That is the primary driver of demand. The primary amenity most people look for  in a beach area resort is being on the beach, and no collection of lesser amenities is ever going to come close to that.  Having a lot of bells and whistles at a resort where you have to drive to the beach is merely putting lipstick on a pig.

According to people who have been in the timeshare rental business on the Outer Banks representing a lot of years,  many owners at BIS-Kitty Hawk price their weeks for rental $100 less than the oceanfront resorts but still are usually unable to rent them unless everything on the beach is already rented. BIS-Kitty Hawk is by far the lowest demand resort on the OBX in spite of being Gold Crown.  Now the beachfront Gold Crown, OBBC, is the highest demand resort on the OBX.  What that indicates is that once people get past the primary consideration of location, then perceptions of quality do matter as a secondary driver of demand.  While BIS-Duck for many years was about the same as other beachfront resorts on demand, in recent years BIS-Duck has surpassed the other non-GC beachfront resorts to become a clear second in demand to OBBC.  What RCI has done is assign more points to the least demanded resort in the area than to the second most demanded, and that is either corrupt or stupid and probably both.

From my searches in RCI for the OBX, it also seems in exchanging, the last thing to go out of the inventory most of the time is BIS-Kitty Hawk.

Amenities are a PART of demand, not a factor that should be considered seperately.  By considering it as a seperate factor, RCI double weights it, because it is already considered as a secondary driver of demand.

It is not that award status doen't matter at all, it is simply that it is a secondary consideration for most people, AFTER they get past the location issue.





"Roger" said:


> Here's what I know about this ....
> 
> Carolinian has separately complained that Points
> 
> ...


----------



## "Roger" (Aug 11, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> ...
> You have flipped my complaint about the way points are set.  ....


I have NOT done so.  Read the last paragraph of my post.  (Actually read the whole thing.)  Throughout the entire message, I stress that RCI uses amenities as a key factor in setting points.  GC's will always rank higher than non-GC's in the same area.

What is missing is evidence that BIS successfully politiced to get an over abundance of points.  Their resorts get an abyssmal amount of points compared to other coastal locations from Maryland through Georgia.  If OBX is anywhere near as nice as you claim (and I think it probably is), the explanation for this is probably that Kitty Hawk is not actually on the coast and Duck has gotten some pretty negative comments from time to time with regard to quality (and yet its point total is almost as high as a nearby GC).  Evidence of politicing is missing in the numbers.

As far as the claim that amenities should be less important in pointing, you are entitled to that opinion.  All I can say is that the GC resorts seem to disappear from the list of available options.  (Supply and demand?)


----------



## "Roger" (Aug 11, 2007)

Just a few more numbers concerning how BIS politicing succeeded in getting an oversupply (tongue in cheek) of points...

The number of points for a 2BR sleep 6 at Kitty Hawk is _*less*_ than what would be required for a crossover trade (60,000) to get a 2BR GC in the southern states (both inland and coastal).  (The same would not be true for a sleep 8.)  Heck, they can't even rob and pillage the Weeks system.  How many fewer points did they REALLY deserve. (Said very much tongue in cheek.)


----------



## PerryM (Aug 11, 2007)

*Wrong frequency.....*



e.bram said:


> The assignation and use of the points system is tantamount to the use of color system with an increase in the spectra of colors. It still allows the developers to over sell the prime weeks by assigning the same high point value to prime and subprime values.



*This is ALL nonsense!*

There is no need for colors in a Point system – except to make the printed calendar more eye appealing.

RCI Points and the developer’s sales efforts have nothing in common – if anything the developer despises RCI Points – too easy to compare their bloated timeshare against another bloated one.

Now if you want to address a Point system like WM then yes, Points lets the developer sell an unlimited amount of Christmas dream vacations.  But that’s no different than Marriott making weeks 1-51 ALL Platinum in Maui and selling Christmas, the 4th of July, etc over and over again.


----------



## Aldo (Aug 11, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> .
> 
> You have flipped my complaint about the way points are set.  They pay too little attention to the single most important factor, LOCATION.  In a beach area, that means being ON the beach.  That is the primary driver of demand. The primary amenity most people look for  in a beach area resort is being on the beach, and no collection of lesser amenities is ever going to come close to that.  Having a lot of bells and whistles at a resort where you have to drive to the beach is merely putting lipstick on a pig.



To take this point one step further, if on somewhat of a tangent, have to ever checked into so-called beachfront resort only to find that 90% of the units are indeed on the beach, however, YOUR room only has a view of a concrete wall, or some garbage cans, or, maybe a pool or the garden?

And yet these very inferior rooms, lacking even a view of of the beach, tend to have the same trading power and color codes as the actual beachfront rooms, do they not?


----------



## BocaBum99 (Aug 11, 2007)

I like the season designations.  It makes the book much more colorful.  To me, I just use it to figure out roughly what the high demand season is in the area I am travelling.  If it's high demand, that means more crowds.  Off season means less crowds.  I don't use it to determine trading power.  Trying to use the seasonal designations to denote trading power seems a waste of time and energy.  It seems so much easier just to publish a point or trading power value.

As far policking in timesharing, that's just a fact of life.  Whoever has the most power, gets the most benefits.  That's the way it is everywhere.


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 11, 2007)

"Roger" said:


> Just a few more numbers concerning how BIS politicing succeeded in getting an oversupply (tongue in cheek) of points...
> 
> The number of points for a 2BR sleep 6 at Kitty Hawk is _*less*_ than what would be required for a crossover trade (60,000) to get a 2BR GC in the southern states (both inland and coastal).  (The same would not be true for a sleep 8.)  Heck, they can't even rob and pillage the Weeks system.  How many fewer points did they REALLY deserve. (Said very much tongue in cheek.)



Another casulty of the calcified numbers in RCI Points!  They did their deal before one of those rare changes when RCI modified the crossover grids.  Now their number is frozen.  It is SOOOO much better to just let values adjust with ever changing supply and demand, like the more flexible Weeks exchange mechanism.

And that means the more popular BIS DUck resort owners in points are really screwed, since they have even lower values, thanks to the developer wanting bigger numbers where he was still selling.


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 11, 2007)

RCI when it uses amenitities seems to forget that far and away the most important amenity (and, yes, it is listed in the RCI directory as an amenity) is the beach itself.  No combination of man-made amenities is going to touch that in importance to demand with most people going to a beach area.

I remember many disscussions over the years about So Cal timeshares in which the TUG experts on that area said to buy a standard beachfront resort as they had the trading power hands down over a Gold Crown that was off the beach.  Now that was in the Weeks system where there was no reason to monkey with trading power since it is hidden, and a system based on supply and demand.  The rental market behaves the same way on the OBX.  People want to be on the beach, not in the woods behind Wal-Mart.  The last time  I looked at both the TUG and Redweek ratings (and it has been a while), BIS Duck had a higher rating than BIS Kitty Hawk, so all things considered, the consensus is in favor of the unrated resort on the beach.

RCI is pandering to developers in overwieghting secondary demand factors.  I guess that is because it is cheaper for a developer these days to add the bells and whistles instead of buying that very expensive oceanfront location.

The lowest demand resort in an area should NOT have the highest number of points, yet that is exactly what RCI Points did with the BIS resorts.  Neither should one of the two resorts with the biggest oversupply in the entire RCI system (Vacation Village at Parkway) have high point values, yet it does.







"Roger" said:


> I have NOT done so.  Read the last paragraph of my post.  (Actually read the whole thing.)  Throughout the entire message, I stress that RCI uses amenities as a key factor in setting points.  GC's will always rank higher than non-GC's in the same area.
> 
> What is missing is evidence that BIS successfully politiced to get an over abundance of points.  Their resorts get an abyssmal amount of points compared to other coastal locations from Maryland through Georgia.  If OBX is anywhere near as nice as you claim (and I think it probably is), the explanation for this is probably that Kitty Hawk is not actually on the coast and Duck has gotten some pretty negative comments from time to time with regard to quality (and yet its point total is almost as high as a nearby GC).  Evidence of politicing is missing in the numbers.
> 
> As far as the claim that amenities should be less important in pointing, you are entitled to that opinion.  All I can say is that the GC resorts seem to disappear from the list of available options.  (Supply and demand?)


----------



## PerryM (Aug 11, 2007)

*What's that smell?*



Carolinian said:


> RCI when it uses amenitities seems to forget that *far and away the most important amenity (and, yes, it is listed in the RCI directory as an amenity) is the beach itself*.  No combination of man-made amenities is going to touch that in importance to demand with most people going to a beach area.
> 
> I remember many disscussions over the years about So Cal timeshares in which the TUG experts on that area said to buy a standard beachfront resort as they had the trading power hands down over a Gold Crown that was off the beach.  Now that was in the Weeks system where there was no reason to monkey with trading power since it is hidden, and a system based on supply and demand.  The rental market behaves the same way on the OBX.  People want to be on the beach, not in the woods behind Wal-Mart.  The last time  I looked at both the TUG and Redweek ratings (and it has been a while), BIS Duck had a higher rating than BIS Kitty Hawk, so all things considered, the consensus is in favor of the unrated resort on the beach.
> 
> ...



I remember taking a timeshare sale tour 7 years ago on Maui and we were never allowed to leave the sales gallery  - we had a great view of the ocean from the tiny table.  Well, of course, we were there for the free gift and left in a hurry.

A few days later we were driving S Kihei road and stopped by the same resort - I believe it was the Kamaole Beach Club 
(I could be wrong)

Anyway we were kind of new to Maui and wanted to walk the beach - we found it very hard to get by the swimming pool but eventually made it to the beach.  Then we discovered that there are two types of beaches in Maui - swimming beaches (like in front of the WM or Marriott or Westin) and NON-swimming beaches like this resort sat in front of.

The smell of rotting seaweed was enough to make you want to barf.  I remember then looking up the resort in the II book and it said "Beach".

Then to make it even better we went back to the office since we were thinking of a "Worst Case" exchange to this place and a fellow came in the door with his family.  They were in swimming cloths and had beach chairs in their hands.  He asked:

"Where is the beach?  One that doesn't stink."  The lady behind the counter pointed south and said "About 3 miles that way".

Not all beaches are created equal.


----------



## "Roger" (Aug 11, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> Another casulty of the calcified numbers in RCI Points!  They did their deal before one of those rare changes when RCI modified the crossover grids.  ...


I'm not even going to bother reading the rest.  Just so everyone else knows, the numbers for BIS Duck have been modified since they were first established.  So much for this explanation.


----------



## Mel (Aug 11, 2007)

The difference between the colors/seasons and points, is not just that they move from 3 groupings to 5.  It is that they move to a numerical system, where those 5 grouping mean different things within a resort.

The problem with the current system, as Carolinian points out, is that someone new to timesharing assumes that all 2BR red weeks are treated equal.  They are not.  Even assuming you are looking at what would wualify as red under Carolinian's suggested model, you would still have some red 2BR units that wouldn't have enough trade power to get into some others.

The idea behind points is not only to differentiate differnt timeframes within a resort or resort area, but give a mechanism to compare the demand for that resort or area with the demad for other resorts.  The color systems both RCI and II use are about seasonality, not about trade value - they can give you a sense of relative demand within a given resort, based on the colors of different weeks (and not even always that,  as certain weeks like Thanksgiving seem to assigned the wrong color).

When a resort or area appears to have the wrong color designation, who is hurt?  Carolinian assumes that Orlando sould have had some weeks designated blue or white at some point.  But does it really hurt anyone to leave them red?  It does'n't hurt anyone trading in, because they feel great trading their blue and white weeks to get there.  The only people it might hurt are the owners of those very same weeks, and new buyers - but I don't feel sorry for those new buyers because either they are spending big $$ on a developer purchase, and somehow think they are getting the same thing (compared to the top priced unit) for a lower price, if they buy a lower demand week?  If they're buying resale, they've done some research, and should already know the difference between a peak week and a shoulder week.

Does giving my week 40 in Orlando "red" status improve the trade power at all?  No!  It is what it is.

Even in areas like Hawaii, which clearly deserves red all year, there are still high- and low-demand periods.  Using the points charts, even if I'm trading in the weeks system, I can look to see which weeks are more likely to be available for exchange.  And if I were to use points,  I would be able to see the full list of resorts I would qualify for, if there is a deposit.  

I suppose, if we have to keep color designations, I would like to see it expanded to 9 color codes, dividing each of the existing colors based on availability - Bright red is high demand and low availability, deep red is high demand and high availability... bright while is low demand, low availability, grey is low demand, high availability.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Aug 11, 2007)

The whole concept of trading power is arcane and should be made extinct.  All trading power does is prevent some exchangers from equal access to all weeks.  The AG should investigate the restaint of trade issues related to this black list.

All hidden trading power does is allow developers to sell dog weeks as prime weeks.

I am in favor of an exchange system where everyone has acess to every week.  The week they deposit is worth a certain amount.  The week they want is worth a certain amount.  The difference between those values should be paid to the owner whose week is worth more.  

Season designations should be kept.  They are NOT a substitution for trading power or value of a week.  It should only denote relative demand for the region so that off season travellers know when to avoid the crowds.


----------



## JLB (Aug 11, 2007)

Speaking of changing color designations, the first week we bought, which was in Orlando, was Week 23, at the time the last week before red started.  We bought it specifically hoping it would turn read, and it did almost immediately.

But, that didn't change a thing.  It was still a horrible trader.

Anyone who knows knows the color designations don't mean much.


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 12, 2007)

It would appear that the group of Gold Crown developers that this BIS leader referred to that was pushing RCI for more points for GC's in the early days of GPN (the early name for RCI Points) succeeded in getting a political deal with RCI to give seperate consideration to award status, in addition to the extent it already appeared in the formula as a secondary driver of demand, in effect double weighting it.  That seems to have corrupted the computation of numbers throughout the RCI Points system.

The numbers at these resorts have always had the second highest demand resort on the OBX, BIS-Duck, given fewer points than the lowest demand, by far, resort on the OBX, BIS-Kitty Hawk.  That is a broken system.




"Roger" said:


> Here's what I know about this ....
> 
> Carolinian has separately complained that Points
> 
> ...


----------



## e.bram (Aug 12, 2007)

Does any points promoter think that 3 dog weeks is worth as much as 1 Prime week for trade. That is not the case for resales.


----------



## JLB (Aug 12, 2007)

Sorta what I asked RCI early on in our timesharing, if we could give them more than one of our crappy weeks to get one good vacation.  Of course, since our first purchases were retail we were not told they were crappy weeks, and there was no Internet, so it took several years to even get to that point, to know enough to even be able to ask something like that.

It never made sense that the answer was NO.  It still doesn't, although I heard from a certain source that it has been considered, using a week, a week plus $, or multiple weeks, to trade up.



e.bram said:


> Does any points promoter think that 3 dog weeks is worth as much as 1 Prime week for trade. That is not the case for resales.


----------



## PerryM (Aug 12, 2007)

*Bow Wow*



e.bram said:


> Does any points promoter think that 3 dog weeks is worth as m
> 
> uch as 1 Prime week for trade. That is not the case for resales.




Good grief e, you miss the whole point of Points (Sorry, that was a pun) i.e. there is no more a need to compare “dog” weeks against “Prime” weeks – that concept belongs with Fred Flintstone and the dinosaurs.


*Let’s review Points 101:*
The Point is simply a currency like a US Dollar Bill.  I can’t remember the last time a clerk, at a store, refused to take my Dollar Bill because it was doggy looking.

Let’s base our Points on US Dollars – rental dollars to be more specific.

We call the “Dog” resort and find out that the “Dog” week is worth $500 in rental income.  We deposit our 3 “Dogs” into the Point system and get 1,500 Bow Wow Points. (That's the name of the exchange company: Bow Wow)

Now we go shopping and find our Prime week – it costs 2,000 Bow Wow Points.  We turn in our 1,500 Bow Wow Points and throw in $500 and go on vacation.

Simple as pie.

I don’t know what the exchange (rental) value has to do with resales – let me know what you mean and I’ll then clarify.

Hope this helps.

P.S.
Bow Wow now offers "Borrowing" and instead of throwing in $500 we simply borrow 500 Bow Wow Points from next year's usage to get our 2,000 Bow Wow Points.  Simple.

Or, we "roll forward" our 1,500 Bow Wow Points to next year, visit the Dog Museum here in St. Louis, and next year have 3,000 Bow Wow Points and claim our 2,000 Prime unit and turn in 1,000 Bow Wow Points for airline tickets.  Simple.

P.P.S.
Notice that I, me, get to decide what to exchange into - not the stinking exchange company deciding for me.  Bow Wow!


----------



## e.bram (Aug 12, 2007)

Looks like yhe fictional Bow Wow Exchange company is a "dog" too.A dog week will not rent for a $0.01. Even for a penny it would take thousands of dog weeks to  approach the $1000.00 a decent week might be worth. Assigning  a dog week even 100 points would overpoint it and this is cause of the eventual collapse of the point system. Nobody will deposit prime weeks even for multiple dog weeks that can be rented from RCI and II for $200.00 with no exchange.


----------



## PerryM (Aug 12, 2007)

*Ok, Points 102...*



e.bram said:


> Looks like yhe fictional Bow Wow Exchange company is a "dog" too.A dog week will not rent for a $0.01. Even for a penny it would take thousands of dog weeks to  approach the $1000.00 a decent week might be worth. Assigning  a dog week even 100 points would overpoint it and this is cause of the eventual collapse of the point system. Nobody will deposit prime weeks even for multiple dog weeks that can be rented from RCI and II for $200.00 with no exchange.



The great thing about basing a currency on reality is that you can build companies/nations on it.  

Bow Wow is also a timeshare rental company - big time.  They know that when they quote 500 Bow Wow Points for a unit they can actually get $500 in rental for that week - they do it all the time.  If they have any doubts they will lower the offering and notify you why the discrepancy - you decide what to do then.

Why?  Simple - folks want choices.  Bow Wow has a super web site where you are enticed into thousands of gifts in exchange for your Bow Wow Points.  These are not overblown prices but if you want a Plasma TV they quote what it would cost at Sams for instance 1,900 Bow Wow Points - you pay the shipping charges.

Rental cars, airline tickets, lift tickets at ski resorts - it doesn't matter to Bow Wow.  Heck they will make your maintenance fee payments if you want too.

Their membership fee? $0.

Cost to use Bow Wow? $0.

Their charge to use their system - 7% of your deposit.  So our owner with 3 "Dogs" deposits 1,500 Bow Wow Points and 105 Bow Wow points are removed leaving 1,395.  Remember you can simply add $1 for each Bow Wow Point in the future.

That's what any company can offer 3 million timeshare owners.  Bow Wow!


P.S.

Forgot the biggest feature:

*The timeshare exchange and rental site are one in the same!!!!!*

When a unit is deposited into Bow Wow, those that are timeshare members (no cost to register, but must register units owned) see the inventory for 7 days before the rest of the world does.

That means there is no sneaky way for the company to cheat - after 7 days the world can rent those units from Bow Wow for US dollars versus Bow Wow Points.  (7% handling fee to non members)

Incidentally Bow Wow Points make a great Christmas gift since you can sell them, rent them, exchange them.  All the stupid rules that current exchange companies use now are out the window.

Bow Wow!


----------



## BocaBum99 (Aug 12, 2007)

e.bram said:


> Does any points promoter think that 3 dog weeks is worth as much as 1 Prime week for trade. That is not the case for resales.



The way resort developers sell Blue weeks in weeks resorts is also borderline criminal.  

If a prime week is worth more than 3 dog weeks, then the prime week owner should pay at least 3 times the dog week maintenance fees per year.

If a prime week owner pays $800 for maintenance fees and a blue week owner pays the same $800, that blue week owner is subsidizing the prime week owners vacations every year.

This is one of the contributing factors to some weeks having negative value.

It is on this issue that point systems are FAR superior to weeks systems.  If a blue week is indeed worth 1/3 the value of a prime week, its point value can be set at 1/3 the value of the prime week.  If maintenance fees are based on points owned, then that is a much fairer method of allocating maintenance fees.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Aug 12, 2007)

e.bram said:


> Looks like yhe fictional Bow Wow Exchange company is a "dog" too.A dog week will not rent for a $0.01. Even for a penny it would take thousands of dog weeks to  approach the $1000.00 a decent week might be worth. Assigning  a dog week even 100 points would overpoint it and this is cause of the eventual collapse of the point system. Nobody will deposit prime weeks even for multiple dog weeks that can be rented from RCI and II for $200.00 with no exchange.



You are flatly wrong about prime vs non-prime weeks.  If there is a rental market in the area, there aren't any hotels or motels that rent for $1000 per week in the prime season and then $1 per night in the off season.  If that were true, they would be out of business.  So, your numbers aren't based on any facts.  Just your bias and singlemindedness to prime weeks.  

It is true that some seasonal resorts are closed in the off season.  If a resort can make money only being open in the prime season, then so can a timeshare.  If a timeshare is in such an area, the resort should be closed in the off season as well and only weeks in the prime season should be sold.


----------

