Allegory of the Megarenter

[Eric B]

There once was a timeshare company that sought to increase its sales by developing extra special benefits for its customers. Eventually, the timeshare company realized that it could sell even more timeshares if it allowed some of its customers to rent out their time skirting the rules they had set up for the extra special benefits - thus were born the Megarenters, a class of people who became skilled in the art of working the system. They were symbiotic with the timeshare company and provided new customers for the sales team while making use of the excess capacity in the system at no cost for marketing to the timeshare company.

Around that same time, Old-timer bought enough timeshares there to be at the peak of the special benefits.

Over the years, the timeshare company hired some consultants and realized that they could make additional profits themselves by renting the excess capacity. Thus was born Extra Holidays. The timeshare company realized they needed to get rid of the Megarenters, so the timeshare company froze and audited many accounts of folks that they identified as being those types of people. Old-timer cheered and laughed because he wasn't a Megarenter and the actions taken by the timeshare company didn't effect him negatively; heck they may well have resulted in freeing up more inventory for him to book with his special benefits.

Several years later, the timeshare company realized they hadn't done enough to rid the world of the scourge of the Megarenter, so they again updated the rules for their special benefit program. This time the changes included enforcing an old rule that had been written out of the rule book to the benefit of hybrid owners with resale points (those nasties). (They hadn't seen any reason not to write it out or the rule book since they were never enforcing it anyway - that would have been too hard for their meager accounting systems, but those are better now so this is a fabulous idea to improve performance.) Old-timer cheered and laughed because he wasn't a hybrid owner and the actions taken by the timeshare company didn't effect him negatively; heck they may well have resulted in freeing up more inventory for him to book with his special benefits.

Years later, the timeshare company hired more consultants and determined that allowing continued use of the special benefits for customers that were no longer purchasing timeshares from them did not align with the purpose of those as incentives to drive sales. The timeshare company then implemented a change that only granted the special benefits to customers that had purchased their timeshares in the last 20 years. Old-timer cheered and laughed, then realized his purchase was 30 years ago - the changes would greatly effect him.

Old-timer moaned about the changes to the timeshare company, saying "I've followed all the rules, you can't change these them on me! I have a vested interest in the special benefits!" The timeshare company patiently explained that the only immutable rule was the one that says they can change the rules anytime without notice on their whims. The timeshare company also explained that their experience over the years with making changes to the program was that the customers that weren't effected would mostly cheer and laugh at the misfortune of the folks that lost out. The whole reason for the special benefits in the first place was to drive sales, and Old-timer wasn't buying, so there was nothing he could complain about - change is the only certain thing. Over the years they had paid more for the benefits out of their sales and marketing budget than he had paid for his timeshare in the first place.

The End. If you wind up being a member of a disfavored class of customers of the timeshare company, remember how you felt when it was someone else and remember the purpose of the special benefits.

 

[Cyrus24]

It will be the GC’s that go next and that old timer who bought points at the current equivalent of less than $60/1000 will no longer be able to share bike week with buddies, who only pay him with favors. He never rented, lol, and now, he too, has been impacted.

We all need to be careful with what we wish for and be more considerate to the ones impacted along the line for any of us could next be part of the disfavored class.

 

[rickandcindy23]

I do think this could happen to the average VIP owner that bought with the idea given by the salespeople that the years you cannot use all of your points yourself, you can always rent prime weeks. After all, you have 15 guest certificates (per million of VIP Platinum ownership).

 

[Free2Roam]

When we bought in 1998 I recall asking the sales person... if this is so great for rentals, why are you trying to sell this stuff? Why not just make money as a vacation rental company? I can't recall his answer, but I'd guess it was because the rental business wouldn't provide $11k+ in upfront revenue per customer (approx. cost of our 1st contract of 154k points... supposedly from a foreclosure offered after we declined the 1st few offers.)

We didn't buy to rent... we saw value in using it for family vacations. We purchased another retail contract in 2002 and acquired a few resale contracts over the past 10 years. When I hear friends and colleagues discuss how much they spend on a week long vacation, I know we've gotten our money's worth over the years. But at today's prices, with the various options for vacationing, I wouldn't make that purchase now.

 

[VacayKat]

I do think this could happen to the average VIP owner that bought with the idea given by the salespeople that the years you cannot use all of your points yourself, you can always rent prime weeks. After all, you have 15 guest certificates (per million of VIP Platinum ownership).

Yes! It is the ‘those who live in glass houses should not throw stones’ approach to life. Kindness, compassion, and understanding are virtues completely lacking in today’s world. Any one can become a victim of timeshare company policys.

 

[rickandcindy23]

When we bought in 1998 I recall asking the sales person... if this is so great for rentals, why are you trying to sell this stuff? Why not just make money as a vacation rental company? I can't recall his answer, but I'd guess it was because the rental business wouldn't provide $11k+ in upfront revenue per customer (approx. cost of our 1st contract of 154k points... supposedly from a foreclosure offered after we declined the 1st few offers.)

We didn't buy to rent... we saw value in using it for family vacations. We purchased another retail contract in 2002 and acquired a few resale contracts over the past 10 years. When I hear friends and colleagues discuss how much they spend on a week long vacation, I know we've gotten our money's worth over the years. But at today's prices, with the various options for vacationing, I wouldn't make that purchase now.

You can buy Marriott and have higher-quality vacations overall. Marriott is actually not as expensive to get to the highest level. I know some would argue, but I have researched and will do that, but not for rental purposes. We travel 20 weeks a year in retirement. I just like the Marriott/Westin/Sheraton brand better than any other brand. I can get inventory I want by buying where I want to go. I would take almost any Marriott over anything Wyndham has in Orlando because I love the Marriott quality and the comfort of the beds, and the nice big bathtubs are exceptional. After trying the jetted tubs at BC, I was underwhelmed after mopping the floor of water. The tubs are too shallow to have jets. It's been a while since we have stayed there, but we go again in January. We also like the quieter pool experiences at Marriott over BC.

 

[jebloomquist]

Many aspects of the mega-renter controversy seem to be present in most discussions. One that seems to me to be most important, but only mentioned in passing, is that mega-renters book and hold reservations within 10 months for an extended period of time, and then cancel them if not rented. This deprives other owners from booking reservation in a timely fashion while they were being held, but never eventually used by the mega-renter.

The major solutions to this, in one form or another, have been to kill the mega-renter, the ownership, and the account simply because the Wyndham by-laws prohibit renting. I have no idea what the unintended consequences would be of a massive exodus of these accounts. I will leave that to others.

I am looking for a solution that calms the waters without being a Wyndham police-state.

How would this work? 1) Guest certificates that have been granted by developer purchases could be placed upon a reservation anytime. 2) Any purchased guest certificate must be placed on a reservation no more than 30 days after the reservation was made. Any reservation held more than 30 days could not be guested with a purchased guest certificate. My understanding is that many mega-renters purchases 10s and even 100s of guest certificates. If this seems too lenient on the mega-renter, reduce the guesting time to 7 days, maybe even 1 day.

It seems to me that this would be easier and gentler for Wyndham to administer than that of an accusatory police-state.

 

[Manzana]

I think a nice change to the GC issues would be a friends and family list. this would allow for needed known guests on a list but not allow for renting to strangers. I know this has been brought up before a little give with the take would be nice.

 

[tschwa2]

How would this work? 1) Guest certificates that have been granted by developer purchases could be placed upon a reservation anytime. 2) Any purchased guest certificate must be placed on a reservation no more than 30 days after the reservation was made. Any reservation held more than 30 days could not be guested with a purchased guest certificate. My understanding is that many mega-renters purchases 10s and even 100s of guest certificates. If this seems too lenient on the mega-renter, reduce the guesting time to 7 days, maybe even 1 day.

It seems to me that this would be easier and gentler for Wyndham to administer than that of an accusatory police-state.

The problem with this is because of the fee and the fickleness of non timeshare owning families, many owners wait to put guest certs on reservations. You have an idea of who will be going but last minute your brother can't make the vacation but your sister in law and kids still want to go or your parents were going to join you but they have a doctor's appointments so you don't know if you are going to cancel or if they can come so you don't want to use that guest certificate before you know for sure.

I would think that allowing you to use 1-20 above your allotted guest certificates at $99 and then another 1-20 at $500 per guest certificate and no additional ones beyond that would probably do it.

Also requiring the Credit card left for incidentals/ security deposit to be required to be the one on the reservation or guest cert would cut down on renters who live in a popular area like Wisconsin Dells or Orlando from meeting people at the resort and checking in their non family renters.

 

[VacayKat]

Many aspects of the mega-renter controversy seem to be present in most discussions. One that seems to me to be most important, but only mentioned in passing, is that mega-renters book and hold reservations within 10 months for an extended period of time, and then cancel them if not rented. This deprives other owners from booking reservation in a timely fashion while they were being held, but never eventually used by the mega-renter.

The major solutions to this, in one form or another, have been to kill the mega-renter, the ownership, and the account simply because the Wyndham by-laws prohibit renting. I have no idea what the unintended consequences would be of a massive exodus of these accounts. I will leave that to others.

I am looking for a solution that calms the waters without being a Wyndham police-state.

How would this work? 1) Guest certificates that have been granted by developer purchases could be placed upon a reservation anytime. 2) Any purchased guest certificate must be placed on a reservation no more than 30 days after the reservation was made. Any reservation held more than 30 days could not be guested with a purchased guest certificate. My understanding is that many mega-renters purchases 10s and even 100s of guest certificates. If this seems too lenient on the mega-renter, reduce the guesting time to 7 days, maybe even 1 day.

It seems to me that this would be easier and gentler for Wyndham to administer than that of an accusatory police-state.

One significant problem to the guest certificate solution being bandied about is that if you put a GC on a reservation and have to change it, you lose that GC. For my family vacation at Christmas, I think I have now lost 6 GC because family members just can't get their poop in a group. Until Wyndham recognizes that GC should be returned to the account if they aren't used for an actual vacation any changes to the GC policy will be extremely upsetting to me.

A problem with the idea that mega-renters are those who book at 10 months and cancel is that you've got folks like me who do that as well. I double booked Labor Day because I just wasn't sure where the temperature would be best or where the fires/smoke would be least. And it's Labor Day weekend so I booked a very long way out. If I have the points to hold the reservation because I might use it, I do. I release it whenever I am 100% sure I won't be using it. Anyone who has enough points probably employs this strategy for high demand times/locations. And if they have the points and don't use this strategy, they're being silly.

 

[troy12n]

One significant problem to the guest certificate solution being bandied about is that if you put a GC on a reservation and have to change it, you lose that GC... Until Wyndham recognizes that GC should be returned to the account if they aren't used for an actual vacation any changes to the GC policy will be extremely upsetting to me.

You know very well that if they allowed Guest names on a GC to change without a penalty then Mega Renters will simply resort to attaching a GC to a reservation, putting a bogus name on it as a "placeholder", holding onto the (dozens of) reservations and then just changing the name on the GC when it finally rents.

Wyndham knows this, and isn't that stupid.

Truth be known, that's probably what is happening a lot now with entire resorts being booked out for event weekends by a single mega renter or two. The opportunity cost of having dozens of prime reservations which they can then use to manipulate the market price for the event (Bike Week, Mardi Gras, Daytona 500, etc) outweighs the $99 fee they have to spend twice.

Another thing that probably isn't openly discussed

 

[paxsarah]

that's probably what is happening a lot now with entire resorts being booked out for event weekends by a single mega renter or two.

This is not possible, unless Wyndham isn’t enforcing the 10 unit/20% limit.

 

[jebloomquist]

The problem with this is because of the fee and the fickleness of non timeshare owning families, many owners wait to put guest certs on reservations. You have an idea of who will be going but last minute your brother can't make the vacation but your sister in law and kids still want to go or your parents were going to join you but they have a doctor's appointments so you don't know if you are going to cancel or if they can come so you don't want to use that guest certificate before you know for sure.

I would think that allowing you to use 1-20 above your allotted guest certificates at $99 and then another 1-20 at $500 per guest certificate and no additional ones beyond that would probably do it.

Also requiring the Credit card left for incidentals/ security deposit to be required to be the one on the reservation or guest cert would cut down on renters who live in a popular area like Wisconsin Dells or Orlando from meeting people at the resort and checking in their non family renters

I appreciate that my suggestion may not solve all reasonable issues. Compromises can be made.

My idea attempted to distinguish the guesting value between developer and resale points, and to stop the massive holding of reservations for months at a time hoping for a rental. Any owner who uses 20 guest certificates beyond what has been allocated is probably using resale points to make reservations. I suggest that a vast majority of reservations made by mega-renters use resale points. I realize that making my suggestion will disturb owners with primarily resale points who want to guest such large non-deciding families. That is a problem to somehow be solved by the family.

Don’t get me wrong. If Wyndham were to implement some of my suggestions, I would be shooting myself in the foot. I am just hoping that Wyndham uses a “not invented here” policy and will stay away from my occasional suggestion.

 

[VacayKat]

You know very well that if they allowed Guest names on a GC to change without a penalty then Mega Renters will simply resort to attaching a GC to a reservation, putting a bogus name on it as a "placeholder", holding onto the (dozens of) reservations and then just changing the name on the GC when it finally rents.

Wyndham knows this, and isn't that stupid.

Truth be known, that's probably what is happening a lot now with entire resorts being booked out for event weekends by a single mega renter or two. The opportunity cost of having dozens of prime reservations which they can then use to manipulate the market price for the event (Bike Week, Mardi Gras, Daytona 500, etc) outweighs the $99 fee they have to spend twice.

Another thing that probably isn't openly discussed

Alright, let's try this a different way.

WYNDHAM has identified and is in the process of eliminating these so called megarenters. That is about to be over and done with. This is NOT about mega-renters any more because they'll be long gone before any of these suggested policy changes are even considered. So take a step back, and think about owners, owners like you, like me and like everyone else who has given their hard earned money to a greedy corporation called Wyndham through sleazy salespeople. Now that you're actually thinking about people like you, how about you consider the following question:

Do you ACTUALLY promote policy changes that screw over the regular owners trying to do the right thing by putting a GC on a reservation as soon as it is booked only to have to use additional GC every time that reservation changes because of scheduling challenges or because the reservation gets canceled entirely and they're out that GC completely? Or are you saying that regular owners should NOT put GC on reservations until they are sure that plans won't change and hold as many reservations in their name hoping that Wyndham just doesn't notice? Or perhaps you're saying that Wyndham deserves to have multiple $99 fees for a single actual usage of a guest checking into a resort?

 

[troy12n]

Do you ACTUALLY promote policy changes that screw over the regular owners trying to do the right thing by putting a GC on a reservation as soon as it is booked only to have to use additional GC every time that reservation changes because of scheduling challenges or because the reservation gets canceled entirely and they're out that GC completely? Or are you saying that regular owners should NOT put GC on reservations until they are sure that plans won't change and hold as many reservations in their name hoping that Wyndham just doesn't notice? Or perhaps you're saying that Wyndham deserves to have multiple $99 fees for a single actual usage of a guest checking into a resort?

I think because the change would have such a high likelihood of being abused, I would not support it...

Would I have a problem if such a program existed where Owner Care could make an exception on a case-by-case basis? No. Because if it was being abused OC could see it and just deny the request

Just like ALL these changes, you can thank the people abusing the system for it

 

[tschwa2]

I think being able to put 2 names on a single guest cert would be helpful and wouldn't really help mega renters out all that much. Sometimes it's just a case of you don't know who will arrive first or the main plan is for one friend to go but if they can't your brother called dibs.

 

[dgalati]

There once was a timeshare company that sought to increase its sales by developing extra special benefits for its customers. Eventually, the timeshare company realized that it could sell even more timeshares if it allowed some of its customers to rent out their time skirting the rules they had set up for the extra special benefits - thus were born the Megarenters, a class of people who became skilled in the art of working the system. They were symbiotic with the timeshare company and provided new customers for the sales team while making use of the excess capacity in the system at no cost for marketing to the timeshare company.

Around that same time, Old-timer bought enough timeshares there to be at the peak of the special benefits.

Over the years, the timeshare company hired some consultants and realized that they could make additional profits themselves by renting the excess capacity. Thus was born Extra Holidays. The timeshare company realized they needed to get rid of the Megarenters, so the timeshare company froze and audited many accounts of folks that they identified as being those types of people. Old-timer cheered and laughed because he wasn't a Megarenter and the actions taken by the timeshare company didn't effect him negatively; heck they may well have resulted in freeing up more inventory for him to book with his special benefits.

Several years later, the timeshare company realized they hadn't done enough to rid the world of the scourge of the Megarenter, so they again updated the rules for their special benefit program. This time the changes included enforcing an old rule that had been written out of the rule book to the benefit of hybrid owners with resale points (those nasties). (They hadn't seen any reason not to write it out or the rule book since they were never enforcing it anyway - that would have been too hard for their meager accounting systems, but those are better now so this is a fabulous idea to improve performance.) Old-timer cheered and laughed because he wasn't a hybrid owner and the actions taken by the timeshare company didn't effect him negatively; heck they may well have resulted in freeing up more inventory for him to book with his special benefits.

Years later, the timeshare company hired more consultants and determined that allowing continued use of the special benefits for customers that were no longer purchasing timeshares from them did not align with the purpose of those as incentives to drive sales. The timeshare company then implemented a change that only granted the special benefits to customers that had purchased their timeshares in the last 20 years. Old-timer cheered and laughed, then realized his purchase was 30 years ago - the changes would greatly effect him.

Old-timer moaned about the changes to the timeshare company, saying "I've followed all the rules, you can't change these them on me! I have a vested interest in the special benefits!" The timeshare company patiently explained that the only immutable rule was the one that says they can change the rules anytime without notice on their whims. The timeshare company also explained that their experience over the years with making changes to the program was that the customers that weren't effected would mostly cheer and laugh at the misfortune of the folks that lost out. The whole reason for the special benefits in the first place was to drive sales, and Old-timer wasn't buying, so there was nothing he could complain about - change is the only certain thing. Over the years they had paid more for the benefits out of their sales and marketing budget than he had paid for his timeshare in the first place.

The End. If you wind up being a member of a disfavored class of customers of the timeshare company, remember how you felt when it was someone else and remember the purpose of the special benefits.

That is why its important to swing from both sides of the plate!

 

[dgalati]

Many aspects of the mega-renter controversy seem to be present in most discussions. One that seems to me to be most important, but only mentioned in passing, is that mega-renters book and hold reservations within 10 months for an extended period of time, and then cancel them if not rented. This deprives other owners from booking reservation in a timely fashion while they were being held, but never eventually used by the mega-renter.

The major solutions to this, in one form or another, have been to kill the mega-renter, the ownership, and the account simply because the Wyndham by-laws prohibit renting. I have no idea what the unintended consequences would be of a massive exodus of these accounts. I will leave that to others.

I am looking for a solution that calms the waters without being a Wyndham police-state.

How would this work? 1) Guest certificates that have been granted by developer purchases could be placed upon a reservation anytime. 2) Any purchased guest certificate must be placed on a reservation no more than 30 days after the reservation was made. Any reservation held more than 30 days could not be guested with a purchased guest certificate. My understanding is that many mega-renters purchases 10s and even 100s of guest certificates. If this seems too lenient on the mega-renter, reduce the guesting time to 7 days, maybe even 1 day.

It seems to me that this would be easier and gentler for Wyndham to administer than that of an accusatory police-state.

The canceled reservations always come back at the 15-20 day period. I have found out last minute availability for at least a one bedroom are available at 15 days.

 

[Braindead]

This is not possible, unless Wyndham isn’t enforcing the 10 unit/20% limit.

Most mega renters have several accounts. 5 accounts get you 50 units. Have 2 mega renters working in tandem gets you 100 units.
Point managers with access to 100 accounts like AM1 has brought up you get the whole resort

 

[jebloomquist]

The canceled reservations always come back at the 15-20 day period. I have found out last minute availability for at least a one bedroom are available at 15 days.

I hope that there is more to the story than just this. What's to stop a mega-renter with unlimited reservation/cancellation privileges from booking and then cancelling every reservation that they can, knowing that they need not hold them, Wyndham will be tightly holding reservations for them to gobble up with a VIP discount at the 15 to 20 day mark? This sounds like a mega-renter dream plan to me.

 

[Ty1on]

The canceled reservations always come back at the 15-20 day period. I have found out last minute availability for at least a one bedroom are available at 15 days.

I think the real reason you are seeing last minute at 15-20 days is owners cancelling while they can still get their points back. I think while this may include megarenters, it isn't a megarenter phenomenon per se.

 

[dgalati]

I think the real reason you are seeing last minute at 15-20 days is owners cancelling while they can still get their points back. I think while this may include megarenters, it isn't a megarenter phenomenon per se.

Its the mega renters that are bottom feeding during the 60 day discount window. Last minute rental posters openly call it out "reservation to be canceled if not rented". This takes inventory and ties it up for them to shop the rental. At the 15 day mark its given back if not rented. Owners can cancel at the 15 day mark also but its more common for the last minute rentals some owners use to turn a profit.

 

[Ty1on]

Its the mega renters that are bottom feeding during the 60 day discount window. Last minute rental posters openly call it out "reservation to be canceled if not rented". This takes inventory and ties it up for them to shop the rental. At the 15 day mark its given back if not rented. Owners can cancel at the 15 day mark also but its more common for the last minute rentals some owners use to turn a profit.

You do this a lot. You take a fact, "megarenters advertise that they will cancel if not rented," and project and magnify that fact as if it represented the entire population of activity, "All last minute availability is due to megarenters cancelling reservations they couldn't rent."

EVERYONE is subject to the 15 day cancellation rule. EVERYONE. If you think only Megarenters are cancelling at 15 days, then I think you have an unhealthy obsession with them.

 

[dgalati]

You do this a lot. You take a fact, "megarenters advertise that they will cancel if not rented," and project and magnify that fact as if it represented the entire population of activity, "All last minute availability is due to megarenters cancelling reservations they couldn't rent."

EVERYONE is subject to the 15 day cancellation rule. EVERYONE. If you think only Megarenters are cancelling at 15 days, then I think you have an unhealthy obsession with them.

I benefited from these cheap rentals but I never said "only Megarenters". Maybe your obsessed with negative posts about mega renters or just my posts about them?

 

[Ty1on]

I benefited from these cheap rentals but I never said "only Megarenters". Maybe your obsessed with negative posts about mega renters or just my posts about them?

"Its the mega renters that are bottom feeding during the 60 day discount window."

We can all read English pretty well, and even without the benefit of the context of your countless other posts beating this drum, by omission you are insinuating here that the megarenters and only the megarenters, are the source of 15 day availability. I'd venture to predict that if we could see the stats, you would find that a simple majority of last minute cancellations aren't made by megarenters.