Increasing demand is what should increase trading power, and anything that does so will be reflected in the demand numbers.[\quote] If that is the case, then ALL resorts in ALL seasons should start with the same base number. But if we go that route, then where does that lead us? Right back to what we have now. These numbers RCI publishes will be one of two things:
1) A base number which will be modified by a trade/demand factor - in which case, most people will not in fact be given this exact number of points when they deposit, nor pay this exact number for their exchange (the big difference between this system and RCI Points).
or 2) An average number - based on what an owner can generally expect to get for depositing a week 1 year out. But again, the actual number will fluctuate based on supply and demand.
In either case, if RCI wants to encourage certain deposits (for whatever reason, whether to use for exchanger of their own rentals), the points at time of deposit will go up. If they want to dicourage deposits (because they will be stuck with the week), the actual points will go down.
With either of the above systems, it would be in the best interest of the HOA to find out what their members experience, and publish their own information - RCI says your week will be worth about 50,000 points if you deposit it one year out, but the experience of our owners has been a bit less (or maybe more).
People are getting out of timesharing because of the changes in RCI, and the economy has added to that. Back before the economy tanked, I was talking with someone who had been in the timeshare resale business for a long time and she told me that years ago no one mentioned complaints with RCI as their reason for selling, but in the last few years it had become a common comment. Diverting exchange deposits to rentals, which you approve of, is what soured a lot of people on RCI. This new exchange regime will do more of that. The situation at Cruisin's resort will be more common that you want to believe, but at least their owners have an out in being dual affiliated with II.
People are getting out mostly because of the economy - people who couldn't really afford timeshares bought products they didn't understand. And yes, many of them bought because of RCI, but we also have a newer generation of owners that never understood that the exchange company was distinct from their resort. Sure, the developers and their sales staff are at fault, and RCI has allowed it to happen, but that doesn't make it RCI's fault. Look at the numbers that have been posted in some of the other discussions - RCI puts inventory into the exchange system that is not from member deposits, at a rate greater than what is taken out for rentals. That is not "diverting" exchange deposits - which I never approved of. If those non-member weeks are segregated, perhaps those peak week owners will be hurt even more, as they will no longer be able to exchange into the newest resort, because the developer controlled inventory won't be in the exhchange pool.
Yeah, I have been crossing swords with the same set of people, largely, since GPN (now RCI Points) was first rolled out. I remember some of those early discussions, like when I pointed out that the language RCI's rep used in the TUG chat moderated by Fern on GPN (now RCI Points) back when they first rolled it out meant that RCI intended to rent out timeshare weeks to the general public. The true beleivers jumped me then and said I was wrong. Well, time has shown who was right, and it wasn't the true beleivers.
Unit size and number of bathrooms are not things factored into trading power. They are things used to group different unit types when are then evaluated for trading power.
Yes they are factors - which should show up as part of the supply/demand curve. The idea of publishing the numbers is to give owners a sense of what their week is worth. If unit size and number of bathrooms are not factored into trade power, then do you think RCI should or should not factor those into points values? Why should they factor in unit size (which drives supply/demand, but is not a factor in trade power) when setting point values, but not unit quality, or resort location?
I do not want to drive RCI out of business. On the contrary, I want to see them adopt policies that will give them a solid basis for a fair business that , we can depend on. That would, in fact, grow their business.
Then why do you keep suggesting that everyone should abandon RCI for the other exchange companies. You do in fact want RCI driven out of business.
The red herring, Roger, is your attempts to compare RCI with a retail business which it is not. RCI is a quasi-fiduciary middleman which facilitates exchanges. Its customers provide its product, which it then provides to other customers. Any comparison to a straight retail business, where the business buys a product from a producer for cash or makes it themselves and then sells it to customers is a completely different situation and totally irrelevant.
RCI is a business, just like Walmart of any retail establishment. Their fiduciary responsibility is to the shareholders, not the members. RCI is not a cooperative, though that type of exchange company might be a great idea. If you don't like the idea of Walmart, how about my local used book store. People trade books in to the store, and get credit for those books, which they then spend to buy other books. Not a perfect match, because they don't pay a "fee" to trade. Instead, they get half credit for their deposits, which they can then cash out or use to buy other books - in essence deposit two books, get one back and use no cash.
Say I deposit a hardback copy of a Harry Potter book, and he decides he can probably sell it for $10, then I get $5 in my account. But if he has 10 copies already, he might only offer me $4, because her might have to lower the price of the books in order to sell them. Do I really need to see his formula to decide if I want $4 for my book?
As to RCI not being able to provide the formula and data, the fact is that they already do so on award status. They print brochures that give the exact formula of what is needed for GC, SC, and hospitality status. In fact I provided one to TUG some years ago and it was put up on the TUG advise section. They also provide all of their resorts with the data that goes into the formula monthly. Since they provide that formula, why in the heck do you try to defend them for not providing the formula on trading power? The data will be extensive, but they already have to maintain it for their own purposes anyway, so why not share it online? By providing the trading power numbers, their ''trade secret'' defense is already in the gutter.
And I suppose KFC telling people what the spices are in their recipe (to avoid allergy problems) without identifying the amounts is giving up their right to a trade secret too?
If your argument about developers were true, then RCI is shooting themselves in the foot big time, as their new exchange regime would set off a stampede of developers to II. No, RCI will protect its developers in sales, and who will get screwed in the process will be the sold out independent resorts, which RCI is no longer getting a boatload of new members from. Roger, I could turn your arguments around and say that you care nothing for the independent sold out resorts. Cruisin cited a specific example and there will be a lot more of those when this hits the fan.
So RCI either loses boatloads of existing loyal members, or doesn't get the new ones - perhaps they have learned that those new members will shortly convert to "existing members" and that they can't afford to lose either. The same can be said of your argument - if they put the needs of the developers before their own, they're shooting themselves in the foot.
Of course, much of the ''trading up'' in the old system was illusory, either last minute trades when what once was a better trade has become distressed merchandise or overbuilt areas or time that should never have been red at all like hurricane season in the Caribbean.
And who says that trading up will be any different? RCI will reduce the points allocated to a given week when it is deposited less than a year out. The cost to me, as an exchanger will be whatever they gave to the owner. If I deposited a full year out, I can afford to trade for something better than what I put in. That's the same as it is now.
I honestly don't expect this new system to be that much different than what is available now, in terms of trade power. The difference will be the incentive to not grab the best of whatever is available when you exchange. In this economy, many many of those "middle class" owners won't want to pay extra to stay at the "high class" resorts. Right now it doesn't cost them anything extra, so why not? The same applies to that bigger unit, or the resort on the beach.
This new system is all about manipulating the behavior of members - by rewarding those who do what RCI needs, and providing a disincentive to keep them from doing what RCI doesn't want.
It will be interesting to see how RCI handles onging seraches going forward - whan we place an oigoing search, will we be able to say how many points we're willing to spend, or will we have to commit the whole value of a specific week? That may in itself answer the question of who will get those top weeks as exchanges.
