# So you think the mini's aren't a big player?



## timeos2 (Oct 5, 2007)

As has been speculated here a few times, but often dismissed, the "mini-systems" that so many resorts are part of are hurting RCI/II.  This weeks streettalkblog  says what anyone watching already knew.  Most newer resorts and many that may be older but part of a mini such as Wyndham, Sunterra, Bluegreen, etc are sapping the life out of the third party exchange companies.  Not only do they get exclusive inventory and control but they usually work out deals to limit what can even be deposited to II/RCI.  

RCI has acted with RCI Points to try to combat this while II seems, so far, to be oblivious. Once Marriott goes solo that may spell the end of the old big two.  Ignore the trend at your own risk.


----------



## Bootser (Oct 5, 2007)

timeos2 said:


> Ignore the trend at your own risk.



I guess I don't understand, in the scenario you outlined, what is my risk by being an RCI or II member.


----------



## "Roger" (Oct 5, 2007)

... that 90% of the resorts that you want to trade into are tied up in mini-systems so that you have no (realistic) chance of going to any of them.

I am not saying that we (or you) have reached this point yet, but it is worth evaluating the various mini-systems to see whether any of them offer you a range of timeshares that you would like to go to plus easier access to them because most trades occur within the system.


----------



## bnoble (Oct 5, 2007)

It is already the case for Wyndham.  At the moment, Wyndham controls *all* of their UDI unit deposits---not the owners.  Prime time at in-demand locations is not being deposited.  Some of the hottest resorts (e.g. Bonnet Creek) aren't deposited _at all._  BC is not deposited even during Orlando's deadest-of-the-dead September period---instead, the units were offered to regular owners at a modest points discount.  For whatever reason, Wyndham is no longer relying on exchange traffic to get warm bodies on tours in some of its newest resorts.  

Some of the Wyndham owners have really been crying in their beer over this---our points deposits are given "average" trading power across all deposited units, and the trade power seems to have dropped with this new Wyndham-chooses policy.  The flip side, though, is that prime inventory that used to be deposited into exchanges and made accessible to others is now used only by owners or their lessees.


----------



## sage (Oct 5, 2007)

I agree with this to an extent.

I own with Accor Premier Vacation Club (APVC) in Australia. Along with Wyndham, they are our big 2 timeshare companies.

We are points based and can get anything in our pool of resorts + a range of hotels in the Asia/Pacific region. Trouble is, most people that want to exchange INTO APVC can't easily get our resorts through II. These include Lake Crackenback, Novotel Palm Cove, Twin Waters, Sydney and Melbourne. I feel this is because of high member demand and the reluctance to give over prime properties to members outside our club. 

I have also been told we can book a week then rent it out however the restrictions placed on us would make it a nightmare. These include name changes can't be made after a certain date & a hefty point penalty system for doing so & for cancelling. This also prevents  people from snapping up prime summer and holiday weeks to use as rentals.

On the other hand, we still get great exchanges through II. The thing that blows me away is when I view my exchange listings with II. APVC has given II a 3 bedroom summer week at one of our hardest to get resorts (week before Christmas - prime time but not high demand) so we could exchange 
into a 1br Polo Towers. This was during FLEXCHANGE but how can they justify giving up a 3br high demnd week when they could easily rent it to members at a nominal fee. 

I know they are trying to protect the interst of the owners by keeping as many of the trades internal BUT having a company like II gives us so much more flexibility. So I really don't see the demise of the big exchange companies as there is always demand for other resorts. As the saying goes "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence"

Gillian


----------



## JoeMid (Oct 5, 2007)

sage said:


> The thing that blows me away is when I view my exchange listings with II. APVC has given II a 3 bedroom summer week at one of our hardest to get resorts (week before Christmas - prime time but not high demand) so we could exchange
> into a 1br Polo Towers. This was during FLEXCHANGE but how can they justify giving up a 3br high demnd week when they could easily rent it to members at a nominal fee.
> 
> I know they are trying to protect the interst of the owners by keeping as many of the trades internal BUT having a company like II gives us so much more flexibility. So I really don't see the demise of the big exchange companies as there is always demand for other resorts. As the saying goes "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence"
> ...


I'm not sure you can 'trust' what it says was exchanged.... whenever I make an exchange it shows a 4BR Sunterra Wk56 or Wk57.


----------



## John Cummings (Oct 6, 2007)

bnoble said:


> It is already the case for Wyndham.  At the moment, Wyndham controls *all* of their UDI unit deposits---not the owners.  Prime time at in-demand locations is not being deposited.  Some of the hottest resorts (e.g. Bonnet Creek) aren't deposited _at all._  BC is not deposited even during Orlando's deadest-of-the-dead September period---instead, the units were offered to regular owners at a modest points discount.  For whatever reason, Wyndham is no longer relying on exchange traffic to get warm bodies on tours in some of its newest resorts.
> 
> Some of the Wyndham owners have really been crying in their beer over this---our points deposits are given "average" trading power across all deposited units, and the trade power seems to have dropped with this new Wyndham-chooses policy.  The flip side, though, is that prime inventory that used to be deposited into exchanges and made accessible to others is now used only by owners or their lessees.



Wyndham, took over the management of one of my timeshare resorts this year. After they took over, it became very difficult to reserve a prime summer week. I had owned this resort for 18+ years and never had a problem reserving a prime summer week including many July 4th weeks. I had been planning on selling this timeshare and Wyndham pushed it over the top. They were not my primary reason for selling but they certainly made me move on it very quickly. Fortunately I was able to sell it very quickly at a good price.


----------



## dougp26364 (Oct 6, 2007)

I think with anything there has to be a balance. When one side goes to far (RCI renting exchange inventory for example) the other side is going to react to protect it's interests. 

I feel the timeshare will always need some sort of external exchange company. I don't see I.I. or RCI going anywhere. They may become smaller players in the grand scheme of things but they will always be needed. 

Eventually a balance will be struck, if it already hasn't. Mini-systems will have to give something of value to receive something of value. Members won't continue to increase holdings in mini-systems if they don't continue to grow or if they can't obtain reasonable exchanges through either I.I. or RCI. One of the top reasons buyers give for their purchase is the ability to exchange. If that ability is gone, a major reason for buying goes with it. The mini-systems are going to have to play ball with the external exchange comanies to some degree and both hold some degree of power over the other.


----------



## bnoble (Oct 6, 2007)

> Members won't continue to increase holdings in mini-systems if they don't continue to grow or if they can't obtain reasonable exchanges through either I.I. or RCI.


I'm not as sure about this.  Depends on the size of the mini, but you could easily imagine an eastern-US Wyndham owner or western-US WorldMark owner who never, ever needed to go outside their own system, given only the resorts currently available.  They provide significant diversity already.

For that matter, I've always wondered how much FSP inventory was put into external exchange for owner exchange requests---either RCI or II.  Wyndham can track this number, as they handle all of the deposits directly.  It can't capture the independents, but it would still be interesting to know.


----------



## tomandrobin (Oct 6, 2007)

As a Starwood owner, I have been very happy using thier internal exchange system. With the new resorts they are adding, I am not sure when we might exchange outside of the Starwood resorts.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 6, 2007)

My experience is that it's hard to justify using an exchange company to visit your target destinations when there's a mini that has resorts in those locations.

With the mini, you don't have to worry about whether an exchange is going to come through.  You can make your reservation and proceed with travel plans.

If the mini is points based, you can also usually juggle the unit size, number of days, and check-in days.


----------



## bnoble (Oct 6, 2007)

I'd agree, *except* for areas that are over-deposited.  I can almost always get a week in Orlando for exactly the dates I need, and a resort that is acceptable, for a total cost of about 40% of an in-system reservation.  The mini may eventually discount the points reservation, but only last-minute, the discount is not as generous, and by that time the more desireable units are booked.

The same can be true for "pink" time, when the mini wants prime-season points, but units are more likely available via leveraged exchange.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 6, 2007)

bnoble said:


> I'd agree, *except* for areas that are over-deposited.  I can almost always get a week in Orlando for exactly the dates I need, and a resort that is acceptable, for a total cost of about 40% of an in-system reservation.  The mini may eventually discount the points reservation, but only last-minute, the discount is not as generous, and by that time the more desireable units are booked.
> 
> The same can be true for "pink" time, when the mini wants prime-season points, but units are more likely available via leveraged exchange.



Yeah - that's a good caveat.  In areas with abundance of supply, you can always do better by exchanging.  Or renting.

But if you want to travel in areas where there isn't an oversupply, getting in through a mini is much easier than exchangng.


----------



## dougp26364 (Oct 6, 2007)

bnoble said:


> I'm not as sure about this.  Depends on the size of the mini, but you could easily imagine an eastern-US Wyndham owner or western-US WorldMark owner who never, ever needed to go outside their own system, given only the resorts currently available.  They provide significant diversity already.
> 
> For that matter, I've always wondered how much FSP inventory was put into external exchange for owner exchange requests---either RCI or II.  Wyndham can track this number, as they handle all of the deposits directly.  It can't capture the independents, but it would still be interesting to know.



I supose I'm thinking more along the lines of unintentionally joining a mini such as what happened with us when DRI purchased Sunterra. I don't believe we'd have ever purchased into Sunterra on our own as we were not that happy with the quality of their resorts compared to other resorts we have been able to exchange into.

Thinking in terms of our Marriott ownership, I think perhaps you are correct. I can see us staying within the Marriott system for many years with the diversity of resort locations and the quality they maintain. 

Timeshare has changed a lot in the short 9 years we've been involved. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next several years to come.


----------



## Carolinian (Oct 8, 2007)

"Roger" said:


> ... that 90% of the resorts that you want to trade into are tied up in mini-systems so that you have no (realistic) chance of going to any of them.
> 
> I am not saying that we (or you) have reached this point yet, but it is worth evaluating the various mini-systems to see whether any of them offer you a range of timeshares that you would like to go to plus easier access to them because most trades occur within the system.



Come on! Count the minis in  the RCI directory.  No matter what percentage of their own weeks they trade within themselves, they are a SMALL percentage of the overall number of resorts in RCI.

Their weakness is in the very term used to describe them.  You have a MINImal choice of resorts by staying within a mini-system.

Now where the minis absolutely would be a huge threat to exchange companies is if most of them got together and exchanged among themselves.  That might finally reach critical mass.  Of course it would need a major European player like Hapimag involved to have any decent coverage on the other side of the pond, and it is not Hapimag s style to have much connection with anyone else.  And you also have to remember that the minis owned by Wyndham are not likely to cut the throat of their sister company RCI.


----------



## geoand (Oct 8, 2007)

Can't disagree with Carolinian on the issue of mini's are mini's.  I fail to see how the mini's have much effect on RCI, etc.

I am a member of a mini and must admit that in the 12 years I have owned TS, I have only used RCI once to obtain a trade.  I have not visited all of the choices I have in my mini and have not become bored with any of the places I have gone to within my mini.  I have never had to wheel and deal to get my choices, nor have I had to sweat it out as to whether or not I will get my choice.  Don't know if that is because I am in the mini or not.  Just know that it works.


----------



## lawren2 (Oct 8, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> Now where the minis absolutely would be a huge threat to exchange companies is if most of them got together and exchanged among themselves.



Hmmm like VRI buying ORE perhaps? If they ever get that in-house system off the ground I would be entertained for years within that system!



> And you also have to remember that the minis owned by Wyndham are not likely to cut the throat of their sister company RCI.



Funny thing. The first 2 resorts I bought were old Glen Ivy Resorts (John knows what I'm talking about and I know he is referring to a third resort in that system) that were managed by .... RCI Mgmt. And I could in-house no fee exchange for nothing without using RCI. If I deposited them they would priority pull the sister resorts and they still do. They are now FF, uh Wyndham resorts, and I still can in-house for nothing if I choose to do so.


----------



## timeos2 (Oct 8, 2007)

*A great example of why RCI/II are toast to the mini's*



geoand said:


> Can't disagree with Carolinian on the issue of mini's are mini's.  I fail to see how the mini's have much effect on RCI, etc.
> 
> I am a member of a mini and must admit that in the 12 years I have owned TS, I have only used RCI once to obtain a trade.  I have not visited all of the choices I have in my mini and have not become bored with any of the places I have gone to within my mini.  I have never had to wheel and deal to get my choices, nor have I had to sweat it out as to whether or not I will get my choice.  Don't know if that is because I am in the mini or not.  Just know that it works.



You just answered your own question. RCI can't get trades into your resort if you / the resort isn't making deposits as all the inventory is in use within the "mini".  As you state there is very limited need to go outside your group thus very little need for RCI/II. That is the whole point. You just backed it up with a great example.  

As for European locales, etc, the mini's can get those as needed, which isn't the majority of the time, with the loose affiliation most have with RCI/II. It's a non-issue for the mini's and doesn't degrade the value they offer to their owners.


----------



## "Roger" (Oct 8, 2007)

Actually geo, you are totally *disagreeing *with Carolinian.  

For twelve years, no one outside of your mini has had access to your unit.  You traded within the system, because you had easy access to all the units within your system; those of us on the outside did not have the same easy access. All these interior trades have kept people who belong to RCI, but not to your mini, shut out from the same trades. 

As the minis continue to grow, not only is this going to continue, but more so.  Less and less access for those on the outside.

Maybe this will help.  There has been a great deal of excitement on these boards over the fact that Disney Vacation Club is expanding into California and Hawaii (with probably more to come).  Does anyone believe that this will make it easier for an outsider to get a Disney unit at Disney world?  No way.  Before, when someone who belonged to DVC wanted to trade for somewhere different, they deposited into II.  That made those units available to the general II public.  Now, many of these people will be trading _within Disney_ for the California and Hawaii units.  (If you don't believe that, why are the DVC owners getting so excited about the Disney expansion?)  When they do that, units at Disney World that used to be available to II members will never see the light of day.

Finally, with regard to Carolinian's comment that owners of a mini system have MINImal choice, I am astounded.  For years, he has complained that RCI Points members have access to the full range of both RCI Points units *and* RCI Weeks units, but Weeks owners are restricted to just the Weeks deposits.  Who has more minimal choice?  The same is true for any mini system.  Those within the mini-system have easy access to units within the system, and, are no worse off than any other member of RCI or II with regard to access to the units in the exchange companies at large. 

Ignore the changes that are occurring in the timeshare world at your own risk.


----------



## PA- (Oct 8, 2007)

Ignore the trend at your own risk?  What does that mean.  What exactly are we supposed to do?  

I don't care if II and RCI go bye-bye, assuming the minis get big enough to fill my needs.  I'll just use Worldmark, and find a friend with FF and not worry about RCI.  The more expansion among the minis, the less you need RCI or II.

The biggest losers in the mini-systems success have been, and will be, the owners of the old stand-alone unbranded timeshares.  3 or 4 years ago, people used to find "tiger-traders" among these modestly priced timeshares with low maintenance fees.  I haven't seen that type of discussion in years.


----------



## littlestar (Oct 8, 2007)

"Roger" said:


> Actually geo, you are totally *disagreeing *with Carolinian.
> 
> As the minis continue to grow, not only is this going to continue, but more so.  Less and less access for those on the outside.
> 
> ...



I believe you are right that the Oahu DVC will make an impact on less II deposits of DVC for that island. A lot of members want to trade out for Hawaii - I've read many a post of DVC members trying to get Marriott's KoOlina. Of course, if DVC members want to go to Maui, Kauai, or the big island, they're still going to need to trade out through II, though. I'm wondering if Marriott's Newport Coast will be blocked for DVC members to trade to through II once the Grand California DVC comes on board. 

We own with DVC, Marriott, and a VRI managed resort. I like the fact that we own mini's, but I also like the extra options with II, too.


----------



## lawren2 (Oct 8, 2007)

PA- said:


> The biggest losers in the mini-systems success have been, and will be, the owners of the old stand-alone unbranded timeshares.  3 or 4 years ago, people used to find "tiger-traders" among these modestly priced timeshares with low maintenance fees.  I haven't seen that type of discussion in years.



Some of us still own them and the lucky ones of us ended up in a mini-system.  

There are plenty of other options for the stand-alones other than RCI and II. I'm having a lot of success with them too. It most cases it is a matter of planning vacations in regions where they get supply.

I got a call from RCI the other day, right before I canceled my membership, asking for my 2008 weeks. Sorry they were deposited with another exchange company. That felt very staisfying.  

So between Independents, Direct Exchanges, Buying to Use and mini-systems RCI is beginning to pay for their mistreatment of members.


----------



## dougp26364 (Oct 8, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> Come on! Count the minis in  the RCI directory.  No matter what percentage of their own weeks they trade within themselves, they are a SMALL percentage of the overall number of resorts in RCI.
> 
> Their weakness is in the very term used to describe them.  You have a MINImal choice of resorts by staying within a mini-system.
> 
> Now where the minis absolutely would be a huge threat to exchange companies is if most of them got together and exchanged among themselves.  That might finally reach critical mass.  Of course it would need a major European player like Hapimag involved to have any decent coverage on the other side of the pond, and it is not Hapimag s style to have much connection with anyone else.  And you also have to remember that the minis owned by Wyndham are not likely to cut the throat of their sister company RCI.




I started looking at our vacation plans for 20096 and compared them to what we've done this past year (2007). In 2007 we made a total of 7 exchanges through I.I. and none through RCI. 2 of those exchanges were AC's given to co-workers. In 2008, if my pre-planning is halfway accurate, the most we'll exchange into I.I. will be 2 units even though we'll be visiting as many non-owner resorts as with our 2007 exchanges. 

At a minimum of $139/exchange, if only 10% of the members cut out 5 exchanges a year that's could be a significant sum of income lost. Keep in mind that two of those exchanges were AC's given to co-workers that generated around $300 of exchange income rather than the standard $139. 

Furthermore, I am contemplating allowing my I.I. personal membership to expire should Marriott form it's own mini system. That's another loss of $89/year. Again, if only 10% of current membership allows their membership to expire or non-renew it would be a significant amount.

At this point, I will allow my personal RCI membership to expire. We will, of course, be maintaining our corporate account through HGVC but I can only see two future exchanges using that resort. Otherwise, it will remain in system with Hilton. 

Furthermore, both mini's we're involved with control what invenrtory either exchange company see's. Just because I deposit and exchange outside the mini does not mean that the most desirable resorts and the most desirable weeks in that mini system will be deposited into either exchange company. The quality of deposits for exchange could very easily go down within the major exchage companies. That would make them less desirable to current membership as desirable depsosits will decline. Haven't we aleady been seeing that with RCI but blaming it on RCI renting out the most desirable weeks/locations?


While "mini's" might not be nearly as large as the big two, if they take even a small percentage of owners out of the system it will have a major impact on the bottom line of those two. Imagine any company experiencing a 10% decline in a growth oriented field with the resulting loss of that income. Wall street would consider that to be devistating to their bottom line.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 8, 2007)

"Roger" said:


> Finally, with regard to Carolinian's comment that owners of a mini system have MINImal choice, I am astounded.



Yeah - that's an old canard that he keeps throwing out.  He seems to keep pretending that people who join minis no longer have access to exchange companies.  One time previously, just to show how absurd this claim, I challenged him to cite one specific example of how my being a member of Raintree Vacation Club resulted in a single example of me being unable to exchange into a resort I was previously able to exchange into.

I'm still waiting for the example.


----------



## Bill4728 (Oct 8, 2007)

PA- said:


> The biggest losers in the mini-systems success have been, and will be, the owners of the old stand-alone unbranded timeshares.  3 or 4 years ago, people used to find "tiger-traders" among these modestly priced timeshares with low maintenance fees.  I haven't seen that type of discussion in years.



Yes, I couldn't agree more. Stand alone TS will not be able to trade into these minis much longer.


----------



## geoand (Oct 9, 2007)

timeos2 and "Roger"

My post is proof positive that I can't write worth a ding dong!  Thank you for clarifying my words. 

My only agreement was that minis are minis.


----------



## Carolinian (Oct 9, 2007)

"Roger" said:


> Finally, with regard to Carolinian's comment that owners of a mini system have MINImal choice, I am astounded.  For years, he has complained that RCI Points members have access to the full range of both RCI Points units *and* RCI Weeks units, but Weeks owners are restricted to just the Weeks deposits.  Who has more minimal choice?  The same is true for any mini system.  Those within the mini-system have easy access to units within the system, and, are no worse off than any other member of RCI or II with regard to access to the units in the exchange companies at large.
> 
> Ignore the changes that are occurring in the timeshare world at your own risk.




There you go again with your tactic of setting up a straw man to knock it down.

The issue I have raised about the minimal choices is NOT and never has been about those who trade with mini plus exchange company. They still do NEED the exchange company to do that, contrary to your argument that exchange companies are dinosaurs.  My comment is about those legions who you seem to think are out there in the brave new world of mini timesharing who use ONLY minis.  Those are the ones with the MINImal choices. 

Most minis are very weak in Europe and the Caribbean, and anything other than domestic.  Even then, they seem to have only a particular nitch in domestic exchanges.  Yes, that is by definition MINIMAL!


----------



## Lisa P (Oct 9, 2007)

littlestar said:


> I'm wondering if Marriott's Newport Coast will be blocked for DVC members to trade to through II once the Grand California DVC comes on board.


That would really surprise me.  DVCers have always been permitted to request exchanges into some HHI Marriotts, even though there is a DVC resort on HHI.



"Roger" said:


> ...Disney Vacation Club is expanding into California and Hawaii (with probably more to come).  Does anyone believe that this will make it easier for an outsider to get a Disney unit at Disney world?  No way.  ...Now, many of these people will be trading _within Disney_ for the California and Hawaii units. ... units at Disney World that used to be available to II members will never see the light of day.


On one hand, what you say makes sense.  OTOH, current DVC buyers tend to be largely people who want to return to WDW most years.  I think that a greater expansion beyond the southeast will appeal to more buyers who want variety and a lot of destinations.  Also, with the simple increase in DVC membership (seen with more SSR buyers too), I don't think the overall number of deposits to II will decrease.  I think we'll continue to see more DVC deposits from the quieter periods at the quieter DVC resorts and a stabilizing or decrease in DVC deposits at their more popular resorts and times.

IMO, this is what happens with the mini-systems.  We use the sister resorts within our preferred-purchased system for reservations we really want.  Then we don't have to worry about trade power, planning problems, wondering IF we'll get our confirmation.  For other locations, we'll continue to trade externally and pay a fee to do so.  For outsiders, this means they can trade into a mini-system resort fairly readily at certain times but NOT at the most popular resorts in the most popular times.  I think the bigger the mini-system gets, the more likely it is that this happens.  And DVC will likely be the same way:  growing easier to trade into during relative offseason, growing harder to trade into during prime times, especially in larger units.


----------



## "Roger" (Oct 10, 2007)

Lisa,

You present a plausible scenario -- the growth in the total membership of Disney will keep the number of Disney deposits stable (or, even result in an increase).  Yes, current owners might be more prone to go to the new resorts rather than depositing with II, but that is balanced off by there being more units and more owners in the total pool. As you say, however, the good weeks will be taken by the members.  II will not see them.

Then again, there is a third possibility -- that we are both right.  Over the short term, your scenario plays out.  As the options within Disney (or any mini system increase) there is less and less need for members to go outside the system.  Given the priority arrangements and the lower exchange fees, over the long term, the number of deposits (good weeks or not as good weeks) go down.  A well managed mini-system should be able to make the off weeks as attractive to its own members as the most sought after weeks.  (Lower fees, lower point costs, etc.)

I am not a big time timeshare exchanger, but my limited experience would favor this third possibility.  With a number of mini-systems, I used to see the non-prime weeks available (confirming your scenario).  As time goes on, I am seeing fewer deposits of any sort from many of the mini-systems.


----------

