# M Private Residences



## smbrannan (Sep 25, 2007)

Anybody have an opinion on M Private Residences?

They seem to be using the same equity model as Bellehavens, which I like.

But the price of their 15 day membership is higher, which I'm not so keen on.

But they have locations in London and in Whistler, which I like.

Anyone have any experience with this Canadian outfit??


----------



## GOLFNBEACH (Sep 25, 2007)

I know nothing about them except they have one of the worst websites I have seen in the DC industry.

http://www.mprivateresidences.com/


----------



## pwrshift (Sep 25, 2007)

Because they are Canadian, and so am I, they were of interest to me.  Called twice, left message, and also emailed 2 of their execs ... not one reply.  I got the impression it is a very small low-budget basement type operation.  They didn't even send literature and were never there to answer the phone.  Too bad, eh?

Brian


----------



## smbrannan (Sep 25, 2007)

pwrshift said:


> Because they are Canadian, and so am I, they were of interest to me.  Called twice, left message, and also emailed 2 of their execs ... not one reply.  I got the impression it is a very small low-budget basement type operation.  They didn't even send literature and were never there to answer the phone.  Too bad, eh?
> 
> Brian



Hmmm....

I got an email response within 24 hours.  And an offer to meet with their "Regional Membership Director" (whatever that means) when he is in town next week.


----------



## smbrannan (Sep 25, 2007)

GOLFNBEACH said:


> I know nothing about them except they have one of the worst websites I have seen in the DC industry.
> 
> http://www.mprivateresidences.com/



What's wrong with the website?  Maybe my standards are lower but it seemed well organized, and provided enough info to pique my interest.  That's what the website is supposed to do, isn't it?

S


----------



## GOLFNBEACH (Sep 26, 2007)

smbrannan said:


> What's wrong with the website?  Maybe my standards are lower but it seemed well organized, and provided enough info to pique my interest.  That's what the website is supposed to do, isn't it?
> 
> S



Very few pictures of the properties, floor plans require opening up Adobe, no membership plan or pricing information, poorly laid out and designed, no testimonials, no videos...I could go on and on.  Compare it to any of the major players and you will see.


----------



## Steamboat Bill (Sep 26, 2007)

I agree that the web site is pretty weak compared to the competition.


----------



## TarheelTraveler (Sep 26, 2007)

Believe it or not, the website is actually far better now than it was a year or so ago.  I rememer being intrigued by the equity aspect, but thought that the website and house photos were so bad, I didn't bother calling them.  I called Bellehavens and Crescendo instead.


----------



## LTTravel (Sep 26, 2007)

TarheelTraveler said:


> Believe it or not, the website is actually far better now than it was a year or so ago.  I rememer being intrigued by the equity aspect, but thought that the website and house photos were so bad, I didn't bother calling them.  I called Bellehavens and Crescendo instead.



DC's should realize that web sites are VERY important as an impression to the potential members. Sure, they can be costly (but they can be outsourced to India for much cheaper prices-no joking friends of mine do this) but the web site and photos of the homes are critical in impressing potential members. They may think that it is not money well spent but they are more important an cheaper that those 20 pound catalogs.


----------

