# Worldmark-too good to be true?



## akbmusic

We have starting doing research for our second timeshare purchase and thought we would give points a try. From everything we have seen, we like Worldmark the best. The maintenance fees seem lower than other points systems, there appears to be tons of resorts/lots of flexibility, the ability to do internal exchanges and exchange with both RCI and II. Overall it appears to be the best value for the money. Growing up I was always told that if something was too good to be true, it probably was. So, what are the downsides to Worldmark?


----------



## LLW

akbmusic said:
			
		

> We have starting doing research for our second timeshare purchase and thought we would give points a try. From everything we have seen, we like Worldmark the best. The maintenance fees seem lower than other points systems, there appears to be tons of resorts/lots of flexibility, the ability to do internal exchanges and exchange with both RCI and II. Overall it appears to be the best value for the money. Growing up I was always told that if something was too good to be true, it probably was. So, what are the downsides to Worldmark?



If you look around the forum on www.wmowners.com , you will find a lot of existing information and opinions on WM - the good, and the bad  . I have been a WM owner since 2002, and am sold on it - constantly thinking of buying more. You will find many more WM enthusiasts on WMO. Hope it will be able to help you. And do ask more specific questions after you have reviewed what is there.


----------



## melschey

akbmusic said:
			
		

> We have starting doing research for our second timeshare purchase and thought we would give points a try. From everything we have seen, we like Worldmark the best. The maintenance fees seem lower than other points systems, there appears to be tons of resorts/lots of flexibility, the ability to do internal exchanges and exchange with both RCI and II. Overall it appears to be the best value for the money. Growing up I was always told that if something was too good to be true, it probably was. So, what are the downsides to Worldmark?


The only real downside that I can think of is that WM has a higher resale value that many other point options, so it is more expensive to get into. 

I feel there must be a good reason why so many people are willing to pay more for WM.

We have been very happy owners since 1993 and there is nothing I want them to change.

The one worry is what changes TrendWest/Cendant might be able to make, as we don’t have an independent BOD, all but one board member are employees of TrendWest/Cendant and their is some concern that they could make changes to benefit Cendant and to club members detriment. So far these worries have not come to pass but you never know what might happen in the future.


----------



## spatenfloot

You should read this thread for more info.
http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8862&highlight=worldmark


----------



## Steve

*It's not all roses...*

I've seriously considered purchasing WorldMark credits several times.  Here are a few of the key negatives in my view:

1)  Trendwest is increasing the credit values required for many of the new resorts.  In some cases, such as Orlando, it's a 10% premium (ie, 11,000 credits for a 2 bedroom red week vs. 10,000).  In other cases, such as New Orleans and San Francisco, it's a whopping 50% premium.  This new 'trend' from Trendwest is likely to continue, and it devalues the credits of WorldMark owners.

2)  Trendwest is not only NOT fighting local communities who try to subject WorldMark resorts to Transit Occupany Taxes (TOT), they are actually encouraging communities to levy this tax in some cases.  If you look at the WorldMark resort listings on their website, you'll find that most of the newer resorts in California (and some other areas) require TOT to be paid by owners who reserve at these locations.  This is NOT a good deal for WorldMark owners.  As an owner, you already pay property taxes as part of your maintenance fees.  Now you also have to pay TOT as if you were renting a hotel room for the night.

3)  Trendwest is building and/or expanding in a lot of low cost locations where there is little demand.  This allows Trendwest to increase their profits while providing a lot of units that sit vacant much of the year.  A few examples of this include Galena, Illinois, Grand Lake, Oklahoma, and Bear Lake, Utah.  All of these locations are isolated and offer relatively little to do even in high season...and they all have very long off seasons when there is vitually no demand.  The continued expansion in areas such as these dilutes the trade power of all WorldMark owners...but it produces handsome profits for Trendwest.  It should be noted that WorldMark is currently obligated to accept resorts wherever Trendwest decides to build them.

Now that Cendant, the parent company of RCI, owns Trendwest, it has become more and more focused on making a profit for the shareholders and less and less on customer service.  Just ask any longtime WorldMark owner about the new Iris reservation system or the merging of functions with Fairfield.

Just a little food for thought since you specifically asked for negatives.  I'm not anti-WorldMark...and I may even purchase some credits some day. But I wouldn't jump in without at least looking at the whole picture realistically.

Steve


----------



## allenke

Steve,

    What you say is true - part of what I see as the downside of Cendant purchasing Trendwest.   I will have to say  though, that there are many resorts already in the system that are very worthwhile vacation opportunities where the credits have been established fairly and can not be changed (unless we as owners vote to increase them and why would we ever do that!).  

Ken


----------



## cotraveller

The Cendant issue is not a major thing with most owners.  If you do a search here on the TUB bbs for WorldMark I think you will find a lot more positive comments than negative.  The vast majority of WorldMark owners seem to be very happy with their ownership.


----------



## CaliDave

I read mostly positives when it comes to Worldmark.

The only negatives I have observed is.. Worldmark is a notch down from the top hotel chains as far as quality.
WM doesn't pick the best locations when buying or building. The Maui location isn't right on the beach. The Las Vegas location isn't on the strip. 
The new Indio location isn't close to Palm Springs.
The Oceanside location isn't on the beach and is too close to the RR tracks. 

While all these are great cities and areas, they seem to pick the least desirable land to build on


----------



## RichM

Being happy with my WorldMark membership is unrelated to my concerns over Cendant's gradual changes.  I will continue to remain happy unless the Cendant factor starts to detract from my ability to vacation as I have in the past.

___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




      - www.wmowners.com


----------



## PerryM

*$1.70 is too cheap!*

Steve did a good job pointing out the “cons” of WM ownership – I whole heartedly agree with them.

But like most complicated things in life the “pros” must be weighed against the “cons”; when it comes to WM the pros far outweigh the cons  – at lest to this owner who owns a boat load of them.

Flexibility is the key word with a point based system and WM certainly has flexibility.  The things one can do with WM credits will make a Marriott owner cry.  I’m not saying that the Marriott owner has an inferior product, quite the reverse, but Marriott can’t hold a candle to the flexibility given to a WM owner.

We just cancelled a number of reservations 30 days before check-in and “rolled them forward” to next year.  The Marriott owner can’t even think of something like this.

Want to check in on a Wednesday or check out on a Monday?  No problem with WM.

Want to spend just 4,000 credits (about $160 in maintenance fees) and exchange into many Marriotts at the 59-day II mark – no problem.

Most of our week long vacations at WM’s are actually 8 days.  In Kihei, for instance, the jets now leave at 11 PM so we tack on an 8th day and therefore can stay up until 8 PM before heading to the airport.  (Incidentally the walk from your villa to the beach in Kihei is no further than the walk at BeachPlace Towers and they have to cross a much busier road).

Imagine, adding an 8th day with no problems to make your vacation flow better – eat your hearts out Marriott.

TW has so cheated the WM owners with just charging $1.70 per WM credit that they have no recourse but to buy bankrupt condos in the middle of corn fields.  Hopefully TW will get a kick in the pants and start to charge $2.50 per credit or 15,000 WM credits for a 2BR in prime season.


----------



## RichM

PerryM said:
			
		

> Hopefully TW will get a kick in the pants and start to charge $2.50 per credit or 15,000 WM credits for a 2BR in prime season.



I would think most (existing) owners would prefer the former over the latter.

IMO, the "exchange rate" between credits and dollars (purchase price) should increase to reflect inflation and the rising costs of acquisition and construction.   A week will always be a week, prime season will always be prime season, and 2 bedrooms will always be 2 bedrooms, therefore the value in credits should remain constant, even for new units.

__________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




      - www.wmowners.com


----------



## PerryM

*Deflation*

From my calculations a 2BR condo in a “hot’ resort area located in a prime position costs about $350,000 each (when bought in a large quantity or built from scratch as a large project).  Multiply that by 4 = $1,400,000 sales to TW.

Now there are 3 ways for TW to recoup its money:
1)	Charge $1.70 and make each 2BR cost 15,837 credits ($1,400,000/52/$1.70)
2)	Charge $2.70 per WM credit for 10,000 credits ($1,400,000/52/10000)
3)	Increase the number of credits needed to stay in a 2BR in prime season to 12,000 and increase the price charged to new members to $2.25 (a combination of #1 and #2)

Unfortunately TW has decided to keep the price at $1.70 for 10,000 credits in a 2BR in prime and that means they can only spend $221,000 per condo. ($1.70 * 10,000 * 52)/4

And that’s exactly what TW is doing buying bankrupt condos in the middle of Illinois corn fields.  This is a form of deflation that can only go on so long.

I personally would like them to “upgrade” their image (kind of like the US car manufactures after making a generation of substandard cars).  There is no reason why WM can’t attract folks who will spend the $2.70 or $27,000 for a 2BR on the ski slopes, on the beach, or right in the heart of Vegas.

TW/WM’s image of the “Wal-Mart” of the timeshare industry is slipping – who the heck wants vacation in the mid-west?  All right, there are a few folks who have a burning desire to visit Oklahoma and not Hawaii.

The “theory of equals” means that TW can easily charge 15,000 credits for a 2BR in a 5 star resort at a 5 star destination and everyone’s credits will work just fine.  Have only 10,000 credits?  No problem, rent 5,000 more at 5¢ each or borrow from next years usage and go today.

To those WM owners who want the new members to pay for years of run away real estate prices for new construction – that’s like wanting the “rich” to pay your taxes (the bottom 50% of tax payers pay 3% of the federal taxes).  Everyone should pull their own weight.


----------



## somerville

Everything I have read indicates that Worldmark is a good program, especially for those living in the western half of the US.  The too good to be true part has not yet happened, but personally, I would be concerned as to how much longer maintenance fees will stay low now that Fairfield/Cendant has taken over control.


----------



## LLW

somerville said:
			
		

> Everything I have read indicates that Worldmark is a good program, especially for those living in the western half of the US.  The too good to be true part has not yet happened, but personally, I would be concerned as to how much longer maintenance fees will stay low now that Fairfield/Cendant has taken over control.



I believe that as long as Trendwest is developing and selling credits, there is an incentive for them to keep maintenance fees low to attract new customers. I expect them to keep pace with inflation, however, unlike in the old days when there could be no increase for more than one year.


----------



## spatenfloot

Perry seems obsessed with the Galena, IL resort.


----------



## CaliDave

spatenfloot said:
			
		

> Perry seems obsessed with the Galena, IL resort.



I don't blame him. I'd be furuious if my resort ownership bought a very low demand property. It dilutes the ownership and makes it harder to reserve prime weeks. 
If you use WM only to trade, it probably doesn't matter. At least for now.. If they keep going down this road, it could definately affect trading power.


----------



## Paula4910

"Las Vegas location isn't on the strip" isn't exactly true.  It IS on the strip but south of the Mandalay Bay, but not very far.  True, it is not in the HEART of the strip but the resort is beautiful and persoanlly, we like the location.


----------



## akbmusic

*Thanks for the replies!*

We are still in the researching stage (unless some deal comes up that you just can't pass up!  ). This gives me some places to start and some more reading/investigating to do!


----------



## Fern Modena

Sorry, but its a misrepresentation to say that the Las Vegas resort is "on The Strip."  On Las Vegas Blvd, yes, but not "On The Strip." General consensus is that "The Strip" ends at Russell Road, immediately south of Mandalay Bay.  

Some people/businesses are now beginning to call the area where WorldMark, Cancun, Grandview and the new South Coast Casino are "South Strip."  Make that _way South.

_Fern (a Vegas Valley Local)




			
				Paula4910 said:
			
		

> "Las Vegas location isn't on the strip" isn't exactly true. It IS on the strip but south of the Mandalay Bay, but not very far. True, it is not in the HEART of the strip but the resort is beautiful and persoanlly, we like the location.


----------



## Judy

*Which Las Vegas resort?*

Worldmark has two resorts in Las Vegas,"Worldmark Las Vegas" and "Worldmark on Spencer Street".  Which one are you all talking about?  (I've never been to Las Vegas.  Sorry for my ignorance).


----------



## RichM

They're talking about WordlMark Las Vegas which is on Las Vegas Blvd.  WorldMark Vegas on Spencer Street is on Spencer Street, obviously.

___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




      - www.wmowners.com


----------



## boaterkathy

Originally Posted by spatenfloot
"Perry seems obsessed with the Galena, IL resort."




			
				CaliDave said:
			
		

> I don't blame him. I'd be furuious if my resort ownership bought a very low demand property. It dilutes the ownership and makes it harder to reserve prime weeks.
> If you use WM only to trade, it probably doesn't matter. At least for now.. If they keep going down this road, it could definately affect trading power.



The Galena area is very popular, second only to Chicago in Illinois. It would NOT be low demand if TW would market to the midwestern area more.  There is a LOT to do around Galena, but quite a few owners won't even give the area a try.   They just bad mouth it, when they haven't ever been there, and know nothing about it!


----------



## CaliDave

I'm sure Galena is exciting if you're vacationing from Iowa.


----------



## CaliDave

Paula4910 said:
			
		

> "Las Vegas location isn't on the strip" isn't exactly true. It IS on the strip but south of the Mandalay Bay, but not very far. True, it is not in the HEART of the strip but the resort is beautiful and persoanlly, we like the location.



I don't even think you can say it's on the strip.
"The strip" is not the name of the street. Yes, it's on LV blvd, but IMO , not on the strip. 
I googled several maps of the LV Strip. They start and end with Stratosphere and Mandalay Bay.


----------



## boaterkathy

CaliDave said:
			
		

> I'm sure Galena is exciting if you're vacationing from Iowa.



Dave, that was entirely uncalled for and extremely narrow minded!


----------



## CaliDave

I think the point Perry and others are making is.. 
Galena is not a top tourist destination. WM should be buying high demand locations. If you were to see the Top 1000 vacation destinations in the world, there is no way Galena would be anywhere on that list. I doubt it would make the top 1000 in the US. 
I had never heard of Galena before WM bought a resort there.
I just looked on Expedia. Galena doesn't even have a Hilton, Marriott, Hyatt or Starwood Hotel. So why would anyone think a timeshare would do any better? Galena has 5 hotels on Expedia.. They are all 2 star .. sounds like a prime vacation destination to me. 

WM is doing a disservice to the 1000's of owners that are expecting resorts in top locations. 
Eventually this will affect trade power at RCI and II. RCI & II give top trading power to WM credits.. in turn WM will give RCI and II , 1000's of low demand Galena weeks to the exchange companies. Sounds like disaster wating to happen for WM owners.


----------



## boaterkathy

CaliDave and I have settled our differences off the main board, but I just wanted to reply to a couple more things.  There are no huge hotel chains in Galena, because it is not that type of an area.  Accomodations run more in the line of condos, bed and breakfasts, and other smaller hotels and motels.
The area does have a lot to offer, though.   
Check out this site from USA today......10 most beautiful places in America!

http://www.usaweekend.com/03_issues/030518/030518springtravel.html

My own stomping grounds along the Upper Mississippi are number 3!!  

I realize that not everybody is going to travel to this area for a vacation, but if they tried it, they might actually love it.  I know I wonder about a few of the other destinations that WM has, but I am not going to say anything negative until I have checked them out myself.


----------



## melschey

boaterkathy said:
			
		

> CaliDave and I have settled our differences off the main board, but I just wanted to reply to a couple more things.  There are no huge hotel chains in Galena, because it is not that type of an area.  Accomodations run more in the line of condos, bed and breakfasts, and other smaller hotels and motels.
> The area does have a lot to offer, though.
> Check out this site from USA today......10 most beautiful places in America!
> 
> http://www.usaweekend.com/03_issues/030518/030518springtravel.html
> 
> My own stomping grounds along the Upper Mississippi are number 3!!
> 
> I realize that not everybody is going to travel to this area for a vacation, but if they tried it, they might actually love it.  I know I wonder about a few of the other destinations that WM has, but I am not going to say anything negative until I have checked them out myself.


The majority of the WM resorts on the west coast would not be considered destination resorts in my opinion.
Places like Depoe Bay, Gleneden, and Discovery Bay have no resorts like  Marriott and such, but are very hard to get into.  

What makes it work is we have a large number of drive to resorts in desirable locations and Trend West actively markets the sale of credits on the west coast.

I can see two problems with Galena the first is that TrendWest is not even trying to sell credits in the Galena area, instead they are selling the credits generated by Galena mainly on the west coast and guess what the people buying those credits are planning on using them to get into places like Depoe Bay not Galena. TrendWest should try to sell credits in the area of the resort that generates those credits.

Second drive to resorts should be close to other drive to resorts. A destination resort like Orlando presents no problem as people will fly there, however not many people will fly a great distance to visit Galena.

I am not knocking Galena it looks like a desirable resort in a good location, if there  were a few other resorts close by and if TrendWest would actively try to sell the credits  generated by resorts such as Galena in the area that generates them instead of selling them on the west coast


----------



## cotraveller

> My own stomping grounds along the Upper Mississippi are number 3!!
> 
> I realize that not everybody is going to travel to this area for a vacation, but if they tried it, they might actually love it.


Now Kathy, don't go pushing Galena too much.  It will become way too popular and those of us who like it there will have a hard time getting reservations when all those outsiders start arriving.   



> Second drive to resorts should be close to other drive to resorts.


This is a chicken and the egg problem.  When the first WorldMark resort opened in Oregon there were no others nearby either.  Or the first one in Utah, Colorado, or any other new area.


----------



## melschey

cotraveller said:
			
		

> This is a chicken and the egg problem.  When the first WorldMark resort opened in Oregon there were no others nearby either.  Or the first one in Utah, Colorado, or any other new area.



True, but TrendWest still tried to sell the credits on the west coast not somewhere else. My main gripe is not the Galena Resort, it is that TrendWest is not trying to sell the credits in the Galena area, instead they are selling the credits generated by Galena mainly on the west coast.


----------



## roadsister

melschey said:
			
		

> True, but TrendWest still tried to sell the credits on the west coast not somewhere else. My main gripe is not the Galena Resort, it is that TrendWest is not trying to sell the credits in the Galena area, instead they are selling the credits generated by Galena mainly on the west coast.


Could I ask if you *know * they are not selling credits in that area or in that part of the midwest?


----------



## PerryM

*No vacancies – not!*

I just looked up Galena, Branson, Lake Of The Ozarks, and Grand Lake and for January, February, March, and April only about 10% of the available units are reserved for 2006.  That’s 90% empty.

Ok, so who the heck wants to visit snow blown cornfields during that time – no body that’s what the vacancies say.  There is 1/3 of the year wasted.

Well I did the same with May, June, July, and August and its about the same – a ghost town.  Another 1/3 or 2/3's of a year wasted.

September, October, November, and December faired no better – about 90% vacancies.  That's another 1/3 or 3/3's of a year wasted - why is that an entire year?

Let’s face it the WM Midwest destinations are a disaster – well to us owners.

TrendWest and Cendant, however, found building and buying bankrupt condos in cornfields have made them a fortune!

So if folks buying WM credits aren’t going to vacation in Midwest cornfields just where are they vacationing?  Maui, South Lake Tahoe, Steamboat, Whistler, Orlando and other hot destinations is where those new credits are being used.

Thus in lies the problem with cornfield condos – they sit empty and their credits are being used in already oversold resorts and the problem is just getting worse.

Think TW will stop this addiction to buying bankrupt cornfield condos?  Just like a drug addict they need help – in the form of an independent WM board.

Does anyone here think that the WM board of directors gives a whit about us owners?  What we are witnessing here is as close to malfeasance as a company can get – bordering on criminal in my mind.


----------



## ladycody

> I just looked up Galena, Branson, Lake Of The Ozarks, and Grand Lake and for January, February, March, and April only about 10% of the available units are reserved for 2006. That’s 90% empty.
> 
> Ok, so who the heck wants to visit snow blown cornfields during that time – no body that’s what the vacancies say. There is 1/3 of the year wasted.
> 
> Well I did the same with May, June, July, and August and its about the same – a ghost town. Another 1/3 or 2/3's of a year wasted.
> 
> September, October, November, and December faired no better – about 90% vacancies. That's another 1/3 or 3/3's of a year wasted - why is that an entire year?
> 
> Let’s face it the WM Midwest destinations are a disaster – well to us owners.


I know this is an old thread...but found it and got irked. 

No...maybe Galena isnt the top location for many WM owners...but then again...neither are many of the locations that_ I _ utilize.  I use Seaside, Eagle Crest, Gleneden, Leavenworth and plan on using many others in my drive-to range(including McCall, Lake Chelan, and the Running Y)...and NONE of them are properties I would have thought of traveling to when I lived in Massachusetts.  Most of them have lots of availability except for their highest seasons (Lev at Xmas and Coast in midsummer). 

The concept of WM revolves around providing both _flexiblity and drive-to resort options_ for it's owners.  So, as someone else said...it's not the Galena resort that is a mistake...it simply needs to be marketed to those that could/_would_   use it as a drive-to location.

Yes...a few more prime destinations would be welcome...but again...this club has _never_ been geared to those who have tons of money.  Yes...some owners are more than comfortable...but TW is _predomininantly_ geared for middle-class america...which is why those drive-to's are so appealing to so many buyers.  

I frankly cant _afford_ to fly _every_ time I want to get out of town.  TW provides me with a multitude of nearby locations that I can get away to without spending $1500 on airfare for my family.  And I can get away 4 or 5 times a year between my credits, bonus time, and inventory specials!!!  When I choose to go somewhere else...I can pick some of our other locations or trade.  Even then...I dont expect my Kihei resort to be the Grand Wailea...I expect it to be a home-away-from-home on a beautiful Island in Hawaii.  

While I think some consideration, of course, needs to be made with regards to resort placement...I that if someone wants high end resorts like Disney or Marriott's and they want them all to be in destination locations that the world is familiar with...that's ok...but they oughta go _buy_ Disney or Marriott... so they could be happy with their options.  Doesnt that make sense?  

I wouldnt have been _able_ to buy WM at $30,000 for my current ownership.  I (and others like me) are who they are marketing to....and it makes TS ownership usable and affordable for me....and I thank them for it.  

The problem is that they need to start focusing sales in the areas where they build the resorts and get that drive-to percentage of owners to utilize resorts like Galena and LOTO and Branson to compensate for the lack of fly-ins.  I'd use them if they were drive to's for me!!!   In Arizona...we have resorts that have loads of availability (Big Pine and Rancho Vistoso and Bison Ranch).  I know a ton of people in the Pheonix area who are familiar with those areas and would _love_ to have drive-to timeshare ownership there... but they've never even _heard _ of TW.  There is no sales office in the pheonix area...just overgard and tuscon.  So I dont think it's the resort locations...it's that they're too restricted on where they market and sell those resorts.

Anyway...WM works for me.  (Sorry...kinda got on a rant there.)


----------



## JudyS

I believe that the Galena resort is one of the closest timeshares to where I live.  So, you'd think I'd be a prime person to market it to.  However, when I've looked into tours of Worldmark properties (with discounted stays), they were not offered to people in my state.  So, I have to agree that Worldmark is not marketing this property to people near it.

Perry, does Worldmark actually let you see how much of a resort is booked?  That's impressive.

Boaterkathy, I'd be interested in Galena tourism information, if there's any on the web. 



			
				allenke said:
			
		

> ... that there are many resorts already in the system that are very worthwhile vacation opportunities where the credits have been established fairly and can not be changed ....


But, if WM acquires a lot of low-demand resorts, and sells points based on the ownership of those resorts, won't it get harder & harder to book the high-demand resorts?


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

JudyS said:
			
		

> ..
> But, if WM acquires a lot of low-demand resorts, and sells points based on the ownership of those resorts, won't it get harder & harder to book the high-demand resorts?


Precisely the point.

Let's review the situation again.  Bear in mind that Trendwest establishes the number of available points it can sell from the inventory it builds.  Building a resort creates points for TW to sell.

Worldmark has some high demand resorts in popular locations - those resorts are fully booked and could accept more reservations.  So, based on demand that is the place where new resorts should be added.

But it's more expensive to build resorts in those locations.  So  TW maximizes its profits by building resorts in less popular locales.  If they can produce the same number of points for sale at less cost, it's clear which direcion they should go.

So, as Perry points out, what happens is that demand for the popular locales increases, making it harder to reserve at those locations.  Meanwhile, the newer resorts, that were the source of the new points inventory, remain unoccupied.

I can't see the situation getting any better - and it will undoubtedly get worse.   At some point, WM owners will find that reserving places such as Maui will be like Club Intrawest members trying to reserve in Whistler during prime ski season.


----------



## cotraveller

Don't forget that in recent years new WorldMark resorts have also been announced, opened, or significantly expanded in such low demand areas as Las Vegas, Anaheim, Solvang, Yellowstone, San Francisco, Seattle, etc., etc.  Unfortunately, you tend to hear a lot about the negatives some perceive and little about the positives.


----------



## Bill4728

There are many TS companies which have a concentration of resorts in certain area. Worldmark has mostly west coast, FF east coast, Hilton has Hawaii, LV and Florida. For any of these companies to expand to other areas of the country is tricky. They have to build resorts in areas were most of their current members may not be interested in vacationing. But these companies want to grow and become national so building in a place like Galena is a start.  

For them to build there and not market there is the real problem.  TW should be marketing in IL and AZ and they don't seem to be. Opening resorts in an area where our current owners may not wish to go isn't smart unless you (TW) find new owners who do wish to visit those areas.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

Bill4728 said:
			
		

> ...  For them to build there and not market there is the real problem.  TW should be marketing in IL and AZ and they don't seem to be. Opening resorts in an area where our current owners may not wish to go isn't smart unless you (TW) find new owners who do wish to visit those areas.


Now that's the hooker that suggests they are building in those locales because they are cheap places to produce inventorty to sell.  If they were building those units to truly expand their geographic coverage, they would be marketing them locally - within drive time of the resort.

As long as TW builds in the Midwest but markets the newly created Points in the West (where there will not be much demand for those properties), it looks as if it's just a cheaper way to generate Points inventory to sell.


----------



## spatenfloot

T_R_Oglodyte said:
			
		

> As long as TW builds in the Midwest but markets the newly created Points in the West (where there will not be much demand for those properties), it looks as if it's just a cheaper way to generate Points inventory to sell.



TW is not currently building or acquiring properties in the Midwest so that isn't it.  The Galena resort was supposed to be part of a drive to area with Wisconson Dells but things did not work out.

Besides, what is desirable as a vacation destination depends on the person.  Not everyone wants to visit the Oregon coast but it is pretty popular with most current owners because they live nearby and like the proximity.  Some people love the Galena area.  TW can't market it as a drive to destination without more resorts, and the west coast owners don't want more resorts in that area because they want to go to CA and OR.  You can't have it both ways.

Anyway, I think the new Yellowstone resort will be very popular.


----------



## spatenfloot

JudyS said:
			
		

> Perry, does Worldmark actually let you see how much of a resort is booked?  That's impressive.


At the end of the owner's education manual is a chart showing occupancy for all resorts for the entire year. You can access it from the WM website.


----------



## boaterkathy

JudyS said:
			
		

> I believe that the Galena resort is one of the closest timeshares to where I live.  So, you'd think I'd be a prime person to market it to.  However, when I've looked into tours of Worldmark properties (with discounted stays), they were not offered to people in my state.  So, I have to agree that Worldmark is not marketing this property to people near it.
> Boaterkathy, I'd be interested in Galena tourism information, if there's any on the web.



Hi Judy, Here are some websites on Galena.  Also if you go to the WorldMark 4M page, there are reviews and activities etc. listed for the resorts. On the WM main page you can look at the resort section which shows pictures, too.  You can read about some of the things to do in Galena and in the area.  Lots of golf courses(high rated ones),ski area and alpine slides, spas, tons of unique shops, wineries in area, Mississippi river probably a half hour away, Gambling within a half hour, National Mississippi River Museum and Acquarium a half hour away........85% of the buildings in the town of Galena are on the national register of historic places. (a few things about Galena)

WM website - http://forums.trendwest.com/ubb-threads/ubbthreads.php?Cat=

http://www.villageprofile.com/illinois/galena/galena1.html 
http://www.galenachamber.com/ 
http://galena.com/ 
http://www.granthome.com/ 
http://www.galena.org/ 
http://www.chestnutmtn.com/ 
http://www.cityofgalena.org/ 
http://www.tripadvisor.com/AllReviews-g36022-Galena_Illinois.html  (This has        some articles that you can link to also.)
http://www.eagleridge.com/ 

Hope these are some help. These are mainly for Galena.   Dubuque, Iowa, is about a half hour away where you will find the Gambling, Mississippi River Museum, etc.

*


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

spatenfloot said:
			
		

> Besides, what is desirable as a vacation destination depends on the person.  Not everyone wants to visit the Oregon coast but it is pretty popular with most current owners because they live nearby and like the proximity.  Some people love the Galena area.  TW can't market it as a drive to destination without more resorts, and the west coast owners don't want more resorts in that area because they want to go to CA and OR.  You can't have it both ways..


I'm not arruing that at all.  The question is occupancy vs demand.  As Perry posted, the resorts have large vacancy. So, while there are undoubtedly people who love the Galena area, there is not enough demand for Worldmark Galena to come close to filling the resort.  

Taht would bie OK if TW were just getting into the area and was in the early stages of a marketing program to increase local occupancy.  From earlier posts, TW is not doing so.

Now put a bit of deduction to work here.  Why would TW build a resort in an area where they don't have a presence and then not pursue an active marketing program to fill that resort?


----------



## mtngal

From what was said at the last annual meeting, Trendwest did try to establish a sales office in Chicago, but ran into regulatory problems with the state.  Will they go back to trying to open a sales office there or not, who knows?

Personally, I'd love to visit Galena, and I wish that Trendwest would open a sales office in Chicago and build more resorts in the mid-west (maybe Michigan UP or ???) so that I could visit that area again some day (on the other hand, if they did sell in Chicago, I'd never be able to get into Galena).  I also wish they would open a sales office either in New York or New England and put some resorts in Boston, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine and places like that - I'd reserve 13 months out to go east to see the fall colors.

By the way, my favorite resort is Bass Lake, and I don't see any Hiltons, Marriotts or Hyatts there, either.  It really is different strokes for different folks - I hope that WorldMark never really tries to go head to head with Marriott because I like it the way it is, a comfortable, affordable, flexible way of traveling with lots of places close to outstanding scenery and national parks.


----------



## gobajanow

I've owned a measly 6000 credits with WM for 6-7 years and I love it. About every other year we plan a weeklong vacation and book 13 months in advance (Coral Baja, Monterrey, South Shore...)
In between we use alot of Bonus Time. I was often able to get Pismo Beach and visit my student at Cal Poly as well as Monterry as a stopover on the way down, my student in LA was able to get many nights at Dolphins cove when she was between apts or dorms as well as spending a day or two on several occasions at Big Bear with friends, the San Francisco location was great for several SF seminars , my Berkeley grad student often went to Windsor with friends for Napa wine outings and absolutely loved it each time, I love Windsor for quick getaways and the youngster loves the heated year round pool which made a great New Years celebration, midweek I've been able to nab Reno and Tahoe to extend our ski trips, Clear Lake and Angels camp were fun and often available (loved the caving at Angels camp).
This summer I'm extending my stays in Cabos (Pueblo Bonito) by scoring two days at Coral Baja, last summer for a Cabo family reunion I  was able to get several different nights to fill in gaps the relatives had by booking Coral Baja, Oceanside was a great stopover on the drive to Cabo and also a great place to spend a few days for Boogie Boarding and Lego land, Rosarito Beach has been a fun place for  a day or three and also a stopover on the drive down Baja,  Reno gave a great place for my friends and I to help out with the presidential campaign last November and drive people to the polls, Las Vegas was fabulous, etc...
Wm flexibility has changed my life.
A great way to use WM is to book with RCI w/in 45 days of trip and ANY accomodation only cost us 3000 credits (think it has gone up?).
Very happy with Worldmark!


----------



## PA-

mtngal said:
			
		

> From what was said at the last annual meeting, Trendwest did try to establish a sales office in Chicago, but ran into regulatory problems with the state.  Will they go back to trying to open a sales office there or not, who knows?
> 
> Personally, I'd love to visit Galena, and I wish that Trendwest would open a sales office in Chicago and build more resorts in the mid-west (maybe Michigan UP or ???) so that I could visit that area again some day (on the other hand, if they did sell in Chicago, I'd never be able to get into Galena).  I also wish they would open a sales office either in New York or New England and put some resorts in Boston, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine and places like that - I'd reserve 13 months out to go east to see the fall colors.
> 
> By the way, my favorite resort is Bass Lake, and I don't see any Hiltons, Marriotts or Hyatts there, either.  It really is different strokes for different folks - I hope that WorldMark never really tries to go head to head with Marriott because I like it the way it is, a comfortable, affordable, flexible way of traveling with lots of places close to outstanding scenery and national parks.




There's a right way and a wrong way to expand into a new area.  The right way is to build a resort that has universal appeal, so that has immediate demand from existing owners.  And you build a sales center at that resort with universal appeal, so that you can invite nearby residents to attend a presentation.  As those nearby residents buy into the club with dreams of visiting hawaii, california and Florida, you begin to build drive-to locations for them.  Then they wind up using their credits locally, as they realize they can't afford to fly cross country every year.

You don't do it the other way around.  Can Trendwest recover, and build enough resorts in the midwest to build a customer base in the midwest that will utilize their local resorts?  Certainly.  But it won't mean that was the right way to do it.  There have been many years of underutilization.

Bass Lake may be your favorite resort, but that doesn't mean you would have bought into WOrldmark if they didn't have the coastal resorts and others near you that you had heard of, like Palm Springs and Las Vegas, etc.

Jim Pappas, as part of his campaign platform for the BOD last year, proposed a system of rewarding Trendwest based on utilization of new resorts.  Perhaps a better way is to let Trendwest build wherever they want, but only allow them to sell the credits as they're used.  So if the demand is truly for 10 units, let them put 10 units into Worldmark inventory and let them wait 5 years or more to put the rest into inventory (and get the corresponding credits to sell).  That'll change their priorities in a hurry.

As long as Trendwest runs the Worldmark board, nothing will change.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

mtngal said:
			
		

> By the way, my favorite resort is Bass Lake, and I don't see any Hiltons, Marriotts or Hyatts there, either.  It really is different strokes for different folks - I hope that WorldMark never really tries to go head to head with Marriott because I like it the way it is, a comfortable, affordable, flexible way of traveling with lots of places close to outstanding scenery and national parks.


I get the sense that you're missing the point.  The OP ackowledged that WM has a lot of resorts, the convenience of the system, ec.  He wanted to know the hiddien warts, if you will. And one of the hidden warts is that TW leads WM by the nose, and how TWls interests are not the same as owner interests.  

And one aree where this gap shows is how and where TW is electing to build additional resorts.

The issue is not how desirable or nice the resorts or locales might be, or if WM provides enjoyable vacation experiences for particular individuals.  The issue is vacant units, and that TW is adding resorts that sit vacant because there is not enough demand to fill the resort.  That can only mean that more points are being sold from that resort than are being used to trade back into that resort.  

The logical corrollary is that there are resorts for which fewer points have been sold than are being used to trade back into those units.  IF TW were respoinding to member demand, it would build more resorts or expand existing resorts in those locales, to bring ponts generated vs points used into balance for those locations.

But TW is not doing that - it is building resorts with low occupancy in areas where it is cheaper to build.  It is then using its sales program to sell those points in existing areas (West Coast) where there is low demand for the new resort, and high demand for the resorts that are already highest demanded.

In the end members pay the price in greater difficulty securing reservations in the high demand resorts.  

As a person who enjoys the resorts that are not highly demanded, you absolutely should be thriilled with Worldmark.  TW is building resorts in places you want to visit, and there is little demand for reservations for those properties.  You can probably visit those places almost any time by using the last minute reservation policy.  You couldn't have it any better.


----------



## cotraveller

While the Trendwest expansion plans will not fit the mold that all would postulate as a better way, there is no arguing with their success.  From a start of 2 units in 1989 they have built a system which now comprises over 4400 units in around 60 locations supported by a base of 231,000+ owners.  The resorts are consistently highly rated, overall occupancy rates are consistently high, and maintenance fees are consistently among the lowest in the industry.

As for Galena, even though it does have low occupancy, it is a small resort and places less of a burden on the system than some of the larger west coast resorts such as Windsor which also have low occupancy.  As mtngal pointed out, local politics stopped the expansion in the Galena area, not Trendwest.  I doubt that those plans have been abandoned, just delayed.

In the meantime, some of the Galena units are used to fulfill exchange requirements with RCI and II.  Some see that as a negative since when they have a Galena unit to trade with they complain about low trading power.  Others see it as a positive, since it means that fewer desirable coastal properties are being used for exchanges.  It’s like that old saying, you can’t please all of the people all of the time.  But the track record has been and continues to be pretty good.  San Francisco, Seattle, Solvang, Victoria, Yellowstone, . . .


----------



## RichM

I think it will be very interesting to see the credit values for Yellowstone and Anaheim.  I'm disappointed that Indio is at 11K for a 2BR red season as I don't see the justification.  I'm still aghast at the 30K per week rate for the 4BR Presidential - as long as someone is willing to book it WITH CREDITS, then it's not such a big deal.  However, if it's continually booked on Bonus time or Inventory special, then it's a huge burden on other resorts to have 1 unit that accounts for 3-4 "average" units having their representative credits used elsewhere.

I can't imagine what Anaheim will be at with all the demand there.  It will have 4BR Presidentials, too.

___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




      - www.wmowners.com


----------



## mtngal

PA- said:
			
		

> Bass Lake may be your favorite resort, but that doesn't mean you would have bought into WOrldmark if they didn't have the coastal resorts and others near you that you had heard of, like Palm Springs and Las Vegas, etc.


Let's see, when I bought, I bought BECAUSE of Bass Lake - it was one of 2 resorts I really wanted to visit.  The other was Eagle Crest, though I still haven't managed to go there yet.  Next on my list at the time was Discovery Bay (haven't been there, either).  Las Vegas, Monterey, Big Bear, Oceanside, Angels Camp didn't exist yet.  So your assumption that coastal resorts attracted me to WM is wrong (and Palm Springs leaves me totally bored).


----------



## melschey

spatenfloot said:
			
		

> and the west coast owners don't want more resorts in that area because they want to go to CA and OR.  You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Anyway, I think the new Yellowstone resort will be very popular.



As a West coast owner I feel that TW can build all the resorts they want in the midwest as long as they market the points for those resorts in the Midwest. 

What we are complaining about is generating cheep points in the MidWest 
and then selling the points in Washington, Oregon and California instead of marketing them in the MidWest. The  result is that it is harder to get into our popular west coast resorts while the midwest resorts set largely vacant. Anyone that looks at the WorldWark vacant night grid can see that this is true.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

melschey said:
			
		

> What we are complaining about is generating cheep points in the MidWest
> and then selling the points in Washington, Oregon and California instead of marketing them in the MidWest. The  result is that it is harder to get into our popular west coast resorts while the midwest resorts set largely vacant. Anyone that looks at the WorldWark vacant night grid can see that this is true.


Yep.  the points sell for the same price, regardless of whether it's an Iowa cornfield or beachfront Maui.  But the deveopment cost is less in Iowa.  I.e., more profit for TW.


----------



## cotraveller

melschey said:
			
		

> As a West coast owner I feel that TW can build all the resorts they want in the midwest as long as they market the points for those resorts in the Midwest.
> 
> What we are complaining about is generating cheep points in the MidWest
> and then selling the points in Washington, Oregon and California instead of marketing them in the MidWest. The  result is that it is harder to get into our popular west coast resorts while the midwest resorts set largely vacant. Anyone that looks at the WorldWark vacant night grid can see that this is true.


I just looked at the vacant night report.  Considering just the Oregon and California resorts of Eagle Crest, Running Y, Angels Camp, Clear Lake, Windsor, and Big Bear there were 81,166 vacant nights in 2004.  You can book any one of those resrots for the coming summer months right now, they are not full or overcrowded.  

I don't see how you can lay the blame for the crowded conditions at "_our popular west coast resorts_" on resorts that are opened in other areas. There are far more vacant nights generated on the west coast than elsewhere just due to the fact that there are more WorldMark resorts on the west coast than elsewhere.  It's a fact of life in a multiple resort points based system that some resorts are going to be extremely popular and hard to book, especially during the prime seasons.


----------



## RichM

Of Eagle Crest, Running Y, Angels Camp, Clear Lake, Windsor, and Big Bear, Angels Camp is the worst performer with 29,806 of those 81,166 vacant nights (in 2004).  Based on vacant nights vs. # of units (assuming one week of unaccounted vacancy for "maintenance"), Angels Camp had a vacancy rate of 41.63%.  Windsor, a long-standing Inventory Special location, came in second with 20,569 vacant nights, or 28.44%.  Clear Lake is next at 26.4%, then Klamath Falls at 25.32%, then Big Bear at 20.1%, then Eagle Crest at 12.81%

Also, none of the resorts you included in your sample are coastal resorts. All are inland resorts and three (Big Bear, Angels Camp and Running Y) are harder to get to during some times of the year due to snow.

Now lets look at the midwest resorts:

Grand Lake: 10,200 nights or 45.22%
LotOzarks: 12,774 nights or 49.56%
Branson: 9,984 nights or 34.43%
Galena: 12,983 nights or 65.94%

Two of them are very close to 50% vacant with Galena almost 2/3rds vacant. 

Let's look at the top 10 most vacant:

1. Galena 
2. Lake of the Ozarks 
3. Bison Ranch 
4. Grand Lake 
5. Pinetop 
6. Angels Camp 
7. Victoria 
8. Branson 
9. Windsor 
10. Clear Lake 

4 in the Midwest
2 in Arizona
3 in California (non-coastal)
1 in Canada

If you look at the actual, popular summer destinations: Depoe Bay, Oceanside, Seaside, Gleneden, Monterey Bay, you find a total of 11,154 vacant nights of which only 336 are in June-Sept.  That's an overal vacancy rate of 5.2% and only a 0.16% vacancy rate from June to September.

___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




      - www.wmowners.com


----------



## cotraveller

Ah yes, statistics and numbers are such fun.  You can use them to draw almost any conclusion depending on how you present them.  Here are the 2004 vacant night numbers for the top 10 most vacant resorts you listed.  Pardon the formatting, I didn’t take the time to set it up pretty.

Bison Ranch -  7,314
Branson - 9,984
Galena	- 12,983
Grand Lake - 10,200
Lake of the Ozarks -12,774
Pinetop - 9,129
Total - - - - 62,384

Angels Camp - 29,086
Clear Lake - 8,318
Victoria - 5,450
Windsor - 20,569
Total - - - - 63,423


From that, I see that the 4 west coast resorts generate more vacant nights that the other 6.  So the conclusion is that we should stop building on the west coast since the existing resorts there are under utilized.  

A more reasonable conclusion is that no matter where new resorts are located, oceanfront resorts will be the most popular.  If you want to go to the ocean every summer and be guaranteed that you can stay in your timeshare resort there, a points based system is probably not your best choice.  You are competing with all the other owners who want to do the same thing.  A fixed week at a fixed oceanfront location is the best way to guarantee that.

Rather than looking at the WorldMark resorts I cannot visit because they are continually booked, I prefer to look at all the other places that I can go.  When a new WorldMark resort opens, wherever it is located, I see it as an opportunity to visit a new area, not as a detraction from those that already exist.  East to west, north to south, there should be limits, no restrictions.  It is one of the nice features of a growing points based system which is continually expanding, both within areas where it already has a presence and beyond to new areas.


----------



## ladycody

> A more reasonable conclusion is that no matter where new resorts are located, oceanfront resorts will be the most popular.



Of course they will...but that doesnt negate the reality that someone from Illinois is _far_ less likely to utilize west coast resorts than someone on the west coast who can be there in a 2-3 hour drive. 

Again... there are of course owners who can afford to hop a plane every time they want to get away..but many WM owners buy because they _cant_ afford that.  I _wouldnt_ have bought if Oregon didnt have as many drive-to properties as it did for me.  I still _would _ have bought if they'd had _no_ drive-to's on the coast and the properties were instead in portland, hood river, etc.  Those resorts in CA and HI and Fiji etc are great and I plan to use them in the future...so they're a _part_ of why I bought...but it's the ability to travel comfortably without needing to spend airfare that sucked me in.   

Boottom line...they market on the west coast to a ton of people that dont have the money to fly regularly but the credits they're selling were_ developed _ in the mid-west...which requires a flight.  It just doesnt make sense.

As a result,  I believe they should market & sell the credits _where they're developed_.  For the most part...it would ensure that those credits would be utilized in that given area more regularly.  With TW...one of it's primary selling features _is_ the drive to resorts...but they create credits in one area and then sell them in an area that wont utilize them as drive to (which means less overall utilization of the resort).   

That doesnt mean they should _stop_ selling in CA, OR, and WA...only that they should sell the credits _developed _ in that region _to that region_ and sell the credits _developed_ in the _mid-west _ in the midwest.

JMHO


----------



## cotraveller

Remember the old fast food commercial?  Parts is parts.  Or in this case, credits is credits.  Unlike some other points based timeshare organizations, WorldMark credits are not associated with any one resort.  There is no distinction between a credit purchased in California and one purchased in Illinois.  

I purchased in Colorado, but I did not purchase Colorado credits.  The fact that I purchased in Colorado does not guarantee me a winter week at Steamboat Springs during the height of ski season.  The WorldMark credits I purchased give me the right to book any resort in the WorldMark system, at any time, *subject to availability*.  Every other owner, regardless of where they live or where they purchased, has that same right.  It’s a major feature of the system, a major selling point of the system.  Whether it is a 1-1/2 hour drive to Estes Park or a 3-1/2 hour flight to Orlando is irrelevant.  All WorldMark owners have an equal right to book any of the WorldMark resorts.

To reiterate the point that has already been made several times in this thread and elsewhere, it was reported that the Midwest expansion effort ran into unforeseen political obstacles.  Politics change, political obstacles come and go.  My original estimate was that it would take 10 years before we saw Galena become as popular as any of the other seasonal resorts.  It opened in the fall of 2003, we have 7-1/2 years to go.  In the meantime, I (and some other owners who live or travel in the Midwest) have a nice resort to use with little competition from all the west coast owners.


----------



## BocaBum99

What this analysis of the data demonstrates is that WorldMark owners are showing a stronger desire to go to coastal resorts.  So, it should follow that more units should be built in coastal areas.

Fred's attitude is a good one.  But, he is clearly settling for what is available rather than going where he would normally choose to go all things being equal.


----------



## roadsister

You bring up a good point about one of the resorts, Angels Camp.....I could not figure out why they were expanding it so soon as you could almost always get bonus time there WITHOUT the extra buildings...now with those extra units it's very easy to stay there anytime of the year....Angels Camp is BELOW the snow line.


----------



## cotraveller

BocaBum99 said:
			
		

> What this analysis of the data demonstrates is that WorldMark owners are showing a stronger desire to go to coastal resorts.  So, it should follow that more units should be built in coastal areas.
> 
> Fred's attitude is a good one.  But, he is clearly settling for what is available rather than going where he would normally choose to go all things being equal.


I agree, we need more beach front resorts in Florida, Myrtle Beach, Cape Cod, Wisconsin (had to get a Midwest beach in there although it's on Lake Michigan, not the ocean ), Mexico, Carribean, and many other beaches I haven't visited and therefore am not familar with.  Some inland locations along the way (for the continental resorts) would also be nice so we could take a coast to coast road trip staying at WorldMark resorts.

As for settling for what is available you are making two assumptions.  First, that it is impossible to get those hard to book resorts, which it is not, and second, that I only travel to WorldMark resorts, which I do not.  WorldMark has expanded my travel opportunities, not placed any limits on those opportunities.  It's a big beautiful world, I've seen a lot of it and have a lot more to see.


----------



## RichM

cotraveller said:
			
		

> Ah yes, statistics and numbers are such fun.  You can use them to draw almost any conclusion depending on how you present them.  Here are the 2004 vacant night numbers for the top 10 most vacant resorts you listed.  Pardon the formatting, I didn’t take the time to set it up pretty.
> 
> Bison Ranch -  7,314
> Branson - 9,984
> Galena	- 12,983
> Grand Lake - 10,200
> Lake of the Ozarks -12,774
> Pinetop - 9,129
> Total - - - - 62,384
> 
> Angels Camp - 29,086
> Clear Lake - 8,318
> Victoria - 5,450
> Windsor - 20,569
> Total - - - - 63,423
> 
> 
> From that, I see that the 4 west coast resorts generate more vacant nights that the other 6.  So the conclusion is that we should stop building on the west coast since the existing resorts there are under utilized.



This is why I tried to use percentages.  Angels Camp and Windsor represent a total of 402 units, combined.  Add in Victoria and Clear Lake and you're up to 529 units.  After correcting your transposition of the vacant nights at Angels Camp, it's a total of 64,143 vacant nights.


Galena, Lake of the Ozarks, Bison Ranch, Grand Lake, Pinetop and Branson represent a total of only 374 units, but had a total of 62,384 vacant nights.

So, in the top 10:

California+Canada = 529 units and 64,143 vacant nights or 121.25 nights/unit
Midwest+Arizona = 374 units and 62,384 vacant nights or 166.8 nights/unit

So, 38% more vacant nights per unit.



			
				BocaBum99 said:
			
		

> What this analysis of the data demonstrates is that WorldMark owners are showing a stronger desire to go to coastal resorts. So, it should follow that more units should be built in coastal areas.
> 
> Fred's attitude is a good one. But, he is clearly settling for what is available rather than going where he would normally choose to go all things being equal.



I agree.  Here are the top 20 LEAST vacant:

 1. Monterey Bay 
 2. Pismo Beach 
 3. Dolphin's Cove 
 4. San Francisco 
 5. Palm Springs 
 6. Depoe Bay 
 7. Schooner Landing 
 8. Rosarito 
 9. Las Vegas 
10. The Canadian 
11. McCall 
12. Orlando 
13. Gleneden 
14. Ocean Shores 
15. Oceanside Harbor 
16. South Shore 
17. Las Vegas Spencer St. 
18. Maui-Valley Isle 
19. Kona 
20. Maui-Kihei 

The vacant nights/unit range from 0.9 for Monterey (only 33 units) to just 15.5 for Maui.  

That's pretty good and far better than Galena that has 55 units and a whopping 236 vacant nights/unit.  That means that each unit sits empty for a total of almost 8 months per year.

In my opinion, TW should concentrate on building locations similar to the top 20 least vacant as that's where the demand seems to be.

___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




      - www.wmowners.com


----------



## RichM

roadsister said:
			
		

> You bring up a good point about one of the resorts, Angels Camp.....I could not figure out why they were expanding it so soon as you could almost always get bonus time there WITHOUT the extra buildings...now with those extra units it's very easy to stay there anytime of the year....Angels Camp is BELOW the snow line.



That makes no sense.  Why add more units when (in 2004) there were 149 vacant nights with the existing 200 units?

There's a vacant lot behind the Oceanside resort - I'd rather see them buy up that lot and add more units there.

We've got a fabulous new(er) resort in Vegas and an older one and both are under a 4% vacancy rate.  Perhaps we don't even have ENOUGH units there yet?  

Why add more units to one of the top 10 most vacant resorts? That's ridiculous.
___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




      - www.wmowners.com


----------



## ladycody

> I purchased in Colorado, but I did not purchase Colorado credits. The fact that I purchased in Colorado does not guarantee me a winter week at Steamboat Springs during the height of ski season. The WorldMark credits I purchased give me the right to book any resort in the WorldMark system, at any time, subject to availability. Every other owner, regardless of where they live or where they purchased, has that same right. It’s a major feature of the system, a major selling point of the system. Whether it is a 1-1/2 hour drive to Estes Park or a 3-1/2 hour flight to Orlando is irrelevant. All WorldMark owners have an equal right to book any of the WorldMark resorts.



I understand all that but it doesnt negate the fact that _you _ are more likely to utilize the Colorado resorts (for bonus time or IS if nothing else) than _I _ would be(living in oregon).  So having you as an owner and having you near those resorts will help keep those units occupied in the event of low occupancy periods...which at least helps defray a bit of the expense of having them there.  What happens when the midwest has low occupancy...they sit empty because the owner base is on the coast for those resorts too.  That's all I'm saying.


----------



## BocaBum99

ladycody said:
			
		

> I understand all that but it doesnt negate the fact that _you _ are more likely to utilize the Colorado resorts (for bonus time or IS if nothing else) than _I _ would be(living in oregon).  So having you as an owner and having you near those resorts will help keep those units occupied in the event of low occupancy periods...which at least helps defray a bit of the expense of having them there.  What happens when the midwest has low occupancy...they sit empty because the owner base is on the coast for those resorts too.  That's all I'm saying.



I think these are some good insights.  So Trendwest needs to get busy selling those Galena units to those midwestern customers.


----------



## cotraveller

ladycody said:
			
		

> I understand all that but it doesnt negate the fact that _you _ are more likely to utilize the Colorado resorts (for bonus time or IS if nothing else) than _I _ would be(living in oregon).  So having you as an owner and having you near those resorts will help keep those units occupied in the event of low occupancy periods....



Another assumption that leads to the wrong conclusion.  The Steamboat Springs resort, the only Colorado resort at the time we became owners, was a non-factor in our decision to purchase.  The Colorado mountains are not a destination for us, they are our back yard.  A day trip or a visit to friends, yes, but we seldom go to a Colorado resort or hotel. We've spent many more nights at resorts outside of Colorado than we have in state.  We save the Colorado resorts for the out of state visitors who help keep our state green  .


----------



## PA-

cotraveller said:
			
		

> While the Trendwest expansion plans will not fit the mold that all would postulate as a better way, there is no arguing with their success.  From a start of 2 units in 1989 they have built a system which now comprises over 4400 units in around 60 locations supported by a base of 231,000+ owners.  The resorts are consistently highly rated, overall occupancy rates are consistently high, and maintenance fees are consistently among the lowest in the industry.
> ....



If sales numbers is the measure of success, does that mean Fairfield is a better system than Worldmark?

Obviously, all us owners who aren't leaving Worldmark yet believe that it is worth owning, including myself.  That doesn't mean we can't point out the flaws to new prospects doing their research.  The question, in my mind, is "is worldmark getting better or worse?".

I believe that:

1 - In general, more resorts, whereever built, is a good thing.  However, new resorts AREN'T free; they dilute our ownership in the existing resorts.  When the new resorts are built in places like Oklahoma, and brought in at outrageously high point values and VERY low occupancy rates, that's a bad thing.  Don't forget, the occupancy rates that Worldmark publishes don't show the whole picture.  The published occupancy doesn't seperate owner's using them at full credit values vs. the resorts being rented out for business meetings.  Last summer, when I was in OK, the resort was empty a month in advance, but was full when I got there.  They said they had rented the resort to a business group for a sales meeting.

2 - Satisfaction rates are on the decline.  They used to claim a 98% rating, last year I believe they showed a 91% rating.  Even those numbers are deceptive, since it only includes those that stayed at a resort and filled out the card.  It doesn't include the huge numbers of people that don't stay in a resort during the year.  If you ask the 25% of owners who were pressured into a sale that NEVER used their credits and lost them during a year, the numbers would be different.

3 - Yes, Worldmark will continue to build some resorts in desirable areas, like Yellowstone.  But they are overstating the credit values for all resorts more and more all the time.  You watch, I'll bet they'll call Yellowstone RED season for most of the year.  Just look at the calendar for Estes Park.  That's another way they're diluting our ownership.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that Worldmark is all bad, just that it is on a downhill path.  I believe that Cendant running the Worldmark board is a very bad thing.  If you feel otherwise, you should be happy because it will be that way forever, I'm afraid.  With Cendant counting the votes, it's not likely to change.


----------



## ladycody

I just wanted to say, for those who are considering WM... I _dont_ think WM is on a downhill path.  I think it's a wonderful club with a wonderful future. It simply needs, like most companies (or families for that matter) at various points in their development, a bit of tweaking to ensure that it _doesnt_ go downhill.   It's growing rapidly and people have to expect to travel through a bit of a learning curve.  I'm looking forward to being an owner in WM's future.

Edited to add:
It's all a matter of checks and balances.  We've all done things that sounded like a good idea and then discovered "oops...didnt work the way I planned."  In _any _ business, or in _any_ TS company, there will be decisions made at an executive level that may need rethinking.  As owners..._regardless_ of whom you own with, it's our job to help keep things flowing.  That might mean communicating about maintenance issues, voting in a way that helps the company move forward in the right direction, or making our voices heard on any given issue.  Those in charge are not omnipotent.  You cant buy a house and then take no ownership of it's maintance or growth....not unless you're willing to suffer the consequences of inaction.  

So regardless of where you place your money...keep an eye on the company and excercise your voice as an owner.


----------



## roadsister

ROADSISTER said:
			
		

> You bring up a good point about one of the resorts, Angels Camp.....I could not figure out why they were expanding it so soon as you could almost always get bonus time there WITHOUT the extra buildings...now with those extra units it's very easy to stay there anytime of the year....Angels Camp is BELOW the snow line.]





			
				RichM said:
			
		

> That makes no sense.  Why add more units when (in 2004) there were 149 vacant nights with the existing 200 units?
> 
> There's a vacant lot behind the Oceanside resort - I'd rather see them buy up that lot and add more units there.
> 
> We've got a fabulous new(er) resort in Vegas and an older one and both are under a 4% vacancy rate.  Perhaps we don't even have ENOUGH units there yet?
> 
> Why add more units to one of the top 10 most vacant resorts? That's ridiculous.
> ___________________
> WorldMark Owners' Community -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - www.wmowners.com


Rich,
THAT is what I said....Angels Camp was already easy to get into bonus time because they had so many empty units....with the second phase they built there you are almost guanteed a unit any time of the year.  Not sure what you were reading.


----------



## melschey

RichM said:
			
		

> In my opinion, TW should concentrate on building locations similar to the top 20 least vacant as that's where the demand seems to be.
> 
> ___________________
> WorldMark Owners' Community -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - www.wmowners.com



Or at least they should market the credits in the place they are generated. What bothers me about places like Galena is that TW is not trying to market the credits there? Galena looks like a fine drive to resort but I am not going to fly from the west coast to visit it. TrendWest should market the credits in the Galena area instead of marketing them mainly on the west coast.

Galena isn’t even seasonally popular;

According to the 2004 vacant night grid Galena had the following unused nights
January-1432		February-1296		March-1450		April-1322		May-1260
June-1050		July-810		August-783		September-1054	October-175
November-1071	December-1275

Considering that this resort only has 55 WM units this is a very underutilized resort. Also this report doesn’t tell us how many nights were booked using credits. I know I wouldn’t use credits to book Galena when it is so easy get on bonus time or Inventory special. I am afraid that most of the credits generated by Galena are used at other more popular resorts.

My favorite resort is Depoe Bay and I don’t need a vacant night grid to tell me it is a lot harder to get in there now, but for comparison here is the grid for Depoe Bay  

January-395	February-45	March-17		April-15		May-40
June-1		July-10	August-4		September-24		October-12
November-15	December-9

Also consider that Galena only has 55 units and Depoe Bay has 114 units


----------



## RichM

roadsister said:
			
		

> Rich,
> THAT is what I said....Angels Camp was already easy to get into bonus time because they had so many empty units....with the second phase they built there you are almost guanteed a unit any time of the year.  Not sure what you were reading.



Faye - not sure what you were reading... I was agreeing with you.  Perhaps you were too shocked that I agreed with you and missed it 

___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




      - www.wmowners.com


----------



## roadsister

RichM said:
			
		

> Faye - not sure what you were reading... I was agreeing with you.  Perhaps you were too shocked that I agreed with you and missed it
> 
> ___________________
> WorldMark Owners' Community -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - www.wmowners.com



LOL - pretty funny!


----------



## sandra kraft

We just returned from a week at the Las Vegas resort.  First off, let me say we are big fans of the strip - for about three days.  It was very refreshing to have seven days not on the strip.  Worldmark provides shuttle service to Monte Carlo every hour (10 am-1:15 am).  This worked great for us.  Also shuttle service to Von's, a large grocery store every morning and stops at the outlet mall if desired.

The grounds and pools were wonderful, even though the week there was on the cool side.  The staff was friendly and helpful.  We will definitely return; it worked for us.

We have been extremely happy with our Worldmark ownership.  We did not buy Worldmark when we made our purchase, we bought the options the trades allowed and we have not been disappointed.  Have actually stayed at very few Worldmark resorts, but traded successfully many times.


----------



## Judy

sandra kraft said:
			
		

> We did not buy Worldmark when we made our purchase, we bought the options the trades allowed and we have not been disappointed.  Have actually stayed at very few Worldmark resorts, but traded successfully many times.


----------



## ladycody

Glad I wasnt the only one confused by that...  ...so...what's it mean?


----------



## Smooth Action

*I think I got it*

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandra kraft
We did not buy Worldmark when we made our purchase, we bought the options the trades allowed and we have not been disappointed. Have actually stayed at very few Worldmark resorts, but traded successfully many times. 

_________________________________________________________________



Let see now.........I think she said we originally (DID BUY) WorldMark for it's  TRADEING POWER with RCI and II and so far they have just about  successfully traded all of their wonderful Worldmark credits (except that one little time in Las Vegas) for fantastic vacations at other timeshares like Royal Sands or Marriot.    Worldmark works for them.

And oh yes...She gives Worldmark's Las Vegas location a great big BU-Ya  ...cause .. (even though they love the Las Vegas Strip) it's sometimes  just so refreshing to get away from all that heck-tic brightness, noise and hustle of the Strip, and just relaxed (on a cold day) by the WorldMark Pool  or enjoy a romantic shuttle ride to where the action is.


Smooth Action


----------



## Miss Marty

*Bumped*

Any new information for 2007-2008
Please post in new vacant report thread


----------

