[ 2021 ] Major Change to Wyndham VIP Program in Email 7/19/2021 [MERGED]

[55plus]

A contract is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it, and that's based somewhat on supply and demand.

 

[Jimag]

A contract is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it, and that's based somewhat on supply and demand.

I can't argue with that. Just curious, what would you have said if every time Wyndham made changes to the VIP program your status and benefits were not preserved? The arguments being advanced are that Wyndham can at any time make any change to the VIP program without regard to the impact on a member's status or benefits. All I say is the ability to act by fiat is tempered by the requiring Wyndham to act in good faith, fairness, and equity.

 

[55plus]

Agree... I remember when Wyndham made a change to the VIP program. My VIP Platinum ownership lost something that some would consider a value. As I recall all we lost unlimited GCs, which didn't impact us, so I can't argue. I can't think of a time going on 30 years since we owned we gained something from a change, however, many resorts were added over the years. So, in a way we did gain something of value. I figure I'm ahead by gaining access to all the many added resorts over the years. That's how all us original Fairfield overs should feel. I guess one could say, I'm a OG (original gangster) in the Wyndham system.

 

[Jimag]

Agree... I remember when Wyndham made a change to the VIP program. My VIP Platinum ownership lost something that some would consider a value. As I recall all we lost unlimited GCs, which didn't impact us, so I can't argue. I can't think of a time going on 30 years since we owned we gained something from a change, however, many resorts were added over the years. So, in a way we did gain something of value. I figure I'm ahead by gaining access to all the many added resorts over the years. That's how all us original Fairfield overs should feel. I guess one could say, I'm a OG (original gangster) in the Wyndham system.

 

[troy12n]

I can't argue with that. Just curious, what would you have said if every time Wyndham made changes to the VIP program your status and benefits were not preserved? The arguments being advanced are that Wyndham can at any time make any change to the VIP program without regard to the impact on a member's status or benefits. All I say is the ability to act by fiat is tempered by the requiring Wyndham to act in good faith, fairness, and equity.

Pure speculation, but Wyndham knows to tread on this aspect VERY lightly...

Timeshares, in general already have a HORRIBLE reputation for shrewd tactics and downright dishonesty. Wyndham, seems to be making some effort to change that, at least when it comes to their brand.

Ripping out benefits VIP's paid for would definitely not be in their best interest. And would not be a good look for "the brand"... so I do not see that happening. That's why they have always grandfathered in the benefits when they changed the VIP program. I guess with the exception of unlimited GC's at the Platinum level. Which was another step i'm sure to try to discourage mega renters that didn't work.

Leveraging VIP benefits on resale contracts is clearly something that was never allowed as a codified right. As many others have pointed out, this was actually spelled out in the directory at one point. But it was something Wyndham allowed... for whatever reason, or at the least, looked the other way. For a long time.

That time is over, and you can't with a straight face say that this is something that you didn't think would end, and that somehow you are now cheated out of a benefit... paying pennies on the dollar for points and leveraging the VIP benefits for years (or for however long you did it) was a loophole at best. Technical or otherwise. You got your use, owners have to take the time to decide whether to cut your losses and make a decision about what to do with their resale points. As this isn't a fight that can be won.

 

[Jimag]

Pure speculation, but Wyndham knows to tread on this aspect VERY lightly...

Timeshares, in general already have a HORRIBLE reputation for shrewd tactics and downright dishonesty. Wyndham, seems to be making some effort to change that, at least when it comes to their brand.

Ripping out benefits VIP's paid for would definitely not be in their best interest. And would not be a good look for "the brand"... so I do not see that happening. That's why they have always grandfathered in the benefits when they changed the VIP program. I guess with the exception of unlimited GC's at the Platinum level. Which was another step i'm sure to try to discourage mega renters that didn't work.

Leveraging VIP benefits on resale contracts is clearly something that was never allowed as a codified right. As many others have pointed out, this was actually spelled out in the directory at one point. But it was something Wyndham allowed... for whatever reason, or at the least, looked the other way. For a long time.

That time is over, and you can't with a straight face say that this is something that you didn't think would end, and that somehow you are now cheated out of a benefit... paying pennies on the dollar for points and leveraging the VIP benefits for years (or for however long you did it) was a loophole at best. Technical or otherwise. You got your use, owners have to take the time to decide whether to cut your losses and make a decision about what to do with their resale points. As this isn't a fight that can be won.

I only have the last two iterations of the VIP program rules. This is the second time someone has responded to my posts by referring to an earlier directory that explicitly disallowed VIP benfits to resale points. Would it be possible to post a screenshot of the earlier VIP program rules or at least post an excerpt of those rules. It would be much appreciated.

 

[Jimag]

Pure speculation, but Wyndham knows to tread on this aspect VERY lightly...

Timeshares, in general already have a HORRIBLE reputation for shrewd tactics and downright dishonesty. Wyndham, seems to be making some effort to change that, at least when it comes to their brand.

Ripping out benefits VIP's paid for would definitely not be in their best interest. And would not be a good look for "the brand"... so I do not see that happening. That's why they have always grandfathered in the benefits when they changed the VIP program. I guess with the exception of unlimited GC's at the Platinum level. Which was another step i'm sure to try to discourage mega renters that didn't work.

Leveraging VIP benefits on resale contracts is clearly something that was never allowed as a codified right. As many others have pointed out, this was actually spelled out in the directory at one point. But it was something Wyndham allowed... for whatever reason, or at the least, looked the other way. For a long time.

That time is over, and you can't with a straight face say that this is something that you didn't think would end, and that somehow you are now cheated out of a benefit... paying pennies on the dollar for points and leveraging the VIP benefits for years (or for however long you did it) was a loophole at best. Technical or otherwise. You got your use, owners have to take the time to decide whether to cut your losses and make a decision about what to do with their resale points. As this isn't a fight that can be won.

You said: "Leveraging VIP benefits on resale contracts is clearly something that was never allowed as a codified right."

It's becoming quite clear that there are no VIP program "codified" rights. If the only thing restraining Wyndham from making changes to the VIP program negatively affecting VIP members is self interest, it becomes easy to question the real value of making a direct purchase with an eye to attaining VIP status.

 

[troy12n]

You said: "Leveraging VIP benefits on resale contracts is clearly something that was never allowed as a codified right."

It's becoming quite clear that there are no VIP program "codified" rights. If the only thing restraining Wyndham from making changes to the VIP program negatively affecting VIP members is self interest, it becomes easy to question the real value of making a direct purchase with an eye to attaining VIP status.

Which ties back to "reputation", which impacts future sales...

If they screw over an entire generation of existing VIP owners, that word will get out. Sales will be impacted. That's what's stopping companies from doing stuff like that.

 

[bnoble]

it becomes easy to question the real value of making a direct purchase with an eye to attaining VIP status.

From where I sit, it was easy for a very long time.

Which ties back to "reputation", which impacts future sales...

I'm not sure that matters all that much. In general, the reputation of timeshare is slightly below used car sales, yet here we are.

 

[raygo123]

It's not a matter of owe in a narrow sense. It's a matter of running the program (maintaining a relationship) in good faith.

When Wyndham recently changed the rules regarding VIP levels existing VIP members were grandfathered under the new rules. Apply the reasoning that Wyndham has absolute authority to change VIP program terms by fiat at any time means they did not need to grandfather existing VIP members under the new rules. Think about this and what it means if Wyndham were to add additional VIP levels and juggle VIP benefits sometime in the future and decided not to grandfather existing VIP members to preserve their status and benefits.

What is the real value in purchasing ownership interests that confer VIP status, if it is a purchase that can be reneged at any time?

Once again, I say it is a matter of fairness and equity.

There is no such thing as good faith. If you have ever gone to a update Wyndham will deny their existance. The ONLY PLACE I have ever heard that resale points get VIP benefits is here Facebook and other owners. Because Wyndham could not control the use of resale points does not mean they liked it.n good faith would have to first take place by owners not taking advantage of the loophole.

Sent from my Lenovo TB-X103F using Tapatalk

 

[Jimag]

Two commenters have referred to early VIP program rules that specifically precluded resale points from receiving VIP benefits as distinguished from conferring VIP status. Could someone who has a copy of those rules please post them?

It would be much appreciated.

 

[paxsarah]

Two commenters have referred to early VIP program rules that specifically precluded resale points from receiving VIP benefits as distinguished from conferring VIP status. Could someone who has a copy of those rules please post them?

It would be much appreciated.

Page 345 of the 2014-15 owner directory (linked in this post):

 

[Jimag]

There is no such thing as good faith. If you have ever gone to a update Wyndham will deny their existance. The ONLY PLACE I have ever heard that resale points get VIP benefits is here Facebook and other owners. Because Wyndham could not control the use of resale points does not mean they liked it.n good faith would have to first take place by owners not taking advantage of the loophole.

Sent from my Lenovo TB-X103F using Tapatalk

What technological advance has enabled Wyndham to control the use of resale points now? And, please stop referring to it as a loophole. The term has a negative connotation. What we are talking about is not underhanded. The program rules clearly stated what points would confer VIP status. The rules could, but do not, differentiate between resale and directly purchased points once VIP status is attained. Those are the current rules. It is not a loophole. It is reasonable to conclude that, when Wyndham established the rules, the concern was with establishing the requirements for attaining the different levels of VIP status not with how different points owned by a VIP member would be treated.

Page 345 of the 2014-15 owner directory (linked in this post):
View attachment 37962

Thanks. The last bullet is interesting. It would preclude VIP benefits from a booking using a guest certificate unless the VIP member is present. That would include family members not on the contract. I hope no one thinks that is still in effect.

 

[Eric B]

Thanks. The last bullet is interesting. It would preclude VIP benefits from a booking using a guest certificate unless the VIP member is present. That would include family members not on the contract. I hope no one thinks that is still in effect.

That last bullet actually refers to the VIP benefits that are pertinent to the stay itself, not the reservation. It used to include the mid-week tidy and still includes the early check in. The restriction is continued in the current version of the directory the same way. It wouldn't include the issuance of a guest certificate using the VIP allotment because that is done before the stay; the use of a guest certificate is not a VIP benefit.

 

[paxsarah]

It used to include the mid-week tidy and still includes the early check in.

Probably also still the newspaper at the time this was published.

 

[troy12n]

What technological advance has enabled Wyndham to control the use of resale points now?

Maybe not a technical advance, but a change in how the front-end website is able to query the back end database, which stores all the details about the contracts.

None of us know for sure, but for whatever reason, Wyndham chose to not build into their system a way to discriminate which points to take from a particular contract.

Perhaps it was not cost effective to do so. None of us know, and it would be foolish to speculate. But the point is, they are doing it now...

And, please stop referring to it as a loophole. The term has a negative connotation. What we are talking about is not underhanded.

It IS a loophole. Period. Intent is immaterial. But while we are talking about intent... most people who exploited the loophole bought their resale points with the express intent of exploiting the loophole to leverage VIP benefits on points they were really not entitled to.

It was wrong, you know it was wrong, call it a loophole, or free ride, or gaming the system or some other term you may find offensive (which I really don't care...), but the free ride is over.

So keep on talking about underhandedness... and too bad if you think the term has a negative connotation. It probably should. Especially in the context of how mega renters exploited the loophole to the extreme to make profits for themselves, while freezing other owners out of prime bookings...

It really tires me how some of you are trying to legitimize your past activity.

My neighbor has a habit of leaving his front door unlocked, and his windows and garage door open all weekend. He's been doing it for years. Every once in a while, someone might come by and borrow a soda out of his garage fridge. He didn't care much, wasn't worth the effort for him to close the door.

One day, someone took 2 sodas, and he had enough... he closed the garage door.

His neighbors expecting free sodas, who felt entitled to the free benefit they have been enjoying for years confronted him about it.

He gave them the finger, and walked away...

This is what Wyndham is doing.

 

[WhiskeyJack]

So a previous 2014-2015 owner directory had a provision in it limiting VIP benefits to developer purchased points. However as has been pointed out by Jimag and others the current owner directory does not have this provision. The current owner directory is what matters as it replaced the previous one and is what all Wyndham members are currently operating under. Since this provision is not in the current owner directory then I don't believe it is appropriate for Wyndham to retroactively apply a change preventing resale points from using VIP benefits. Yes they have the right to make any changes they want going forward but the issue I have is with them applying this retroactively to your current use year. The complimentary points are likely being offered as a counter to offset the loss of points that will result as a result of this retroactive change, but I am very skeptical they will be a true equal offset.

 

[Jimag]

What technological advance has enabled Wyndham to control the use of resale points now? And, please stop referring to it as a loophole. The term has a negative connotation. What we are talking about is not underhanded. The program rules clearly stated what points would confer VIP status. The rules could, but do not, differentiate between resale and directly purchased points once VIP status is attained. Those are the current rules. It is not a loophole. It is reasonable to conclude that, when Wyndham established the rules, the concern was with establishing the requirements for attaining the different levels of VIP status not with how different points owned by a VIP member would be treated.

Thanks. The last bullet is interesting. It would preclude VIP benefits from a booking using a guest certificate unless the VIP member is present. That would include family members not on the contract. I hope no one thinks that is still in effect.

Maybe not a technical advance, but a change in how the front-end website is able to query the back end database, which stores all the details about the contracts.

None of us know for sure, but for whatever reason, Wyndham chose to not build into their system a way to discriminate which points to take from a particular contract.

Perhaps it was not cost effective to do so. None of us know, and it would be foolish to speculate. But the point is, they are doing it now...




It IS a loophole. Period. Intent is immaterial. But while we are talking about intent... most people who exploited the loophole bought their resale points with the express intent of exploiting the loophole to leverage VIP benefits on points they were really not entitled to.

It was wrong, you know it was wrong, call it a loophole, or free ride, or gaming the system or some other term you may find offensive (which I really don't care...), but the free ride is over.

So keep on talking about underhandedness... and too bad if you think the term has a negative connotation. It probably should. Especially in the context of how mega renters exploited the loophole to the extreme to make profits for themselves, while freezing other owners out of prime bookings...

It really tires me how some of you are trying to legitimize your past activity.

My neighbor has a habit of leaving his front door unlocked, and his windows and garage door open all weekend. He's been doing it for years. Every once in a while, someone might come by and borrow a soda out of his garage fridge. He didn't care much, wasn't worth the effort for him to close the door.

One day, someone took 2 sodas, and he had enough... he closed the garage door.

His neighbors expecting free sodas, who felt entitled to the free benefit they have been enjoying for years confronted him about it.

He gave them the finger, and walked away...

This is what Wyndham is doing.

I understand your perspective very well. I would share it, if I were concerned with making direct sales for Wyndham, but I'm not. I am concerned with my ownership and by extension the ownership of other members.

From a sales perspective, I would question the continued existence of the PIC program as well as the corporate Telesales program. Ending those initiatives would close other "loopholes" from a sales perspective would it not? The only problem with ending them is that it would run counter to other corporate interests.

 

[troy12n]

I understand your perspective very well. I would share it, if I were concerned with making direct sales for Wyndham, but I'm not. I am concerned with my ownership and by extension the ownership of other members.

You seem to think I care about Wyndham's sales. I don't. I am using the examples of why I think they are doing it, and that's to promote/preserve sales. Not because I really care if they sell or not.

I care about preserving my ownership as well. The benefits I paid full price for. Not the ones I bought second hand for pennies on the dollar... you got benefits for something you shouldn't have

From a sales perspective, I would question the continued existence of the PIC program as well as the corporate Telesales program. Ending those initiatives would close other "loopholes" from a sales perspective would it not? The only problem with ending them is that it would run counter to other corporate interests.

PIC is not a loophole, it's a codified part of the Club Wyndham system. And requires a full price retail purchase. Wyndham gets something (inventory they can put into RCI, and hence profit) for it. Unlike you leeching VIP benefits you didn't pay for.

A loophole is an undocumented, underhanded way to get a benefit you didn't pay for... no matter how you slice it or try to justify your cheating the system for as long as you have. You should just be happy you got to do it for whatever timeframe you did, and pack your bags and go home, not cry about it like a sore loser... it's really unbecoming.

 

[T-Dot-Traveller]

Maybe not a technical advance, but a change in how the front-end website is able to query the back end database, which stores all the details about the contracts.
None of us know for sure, but for whatever reason, Wyndham chose to not build into their system a way to discriminate which points to take from a particular contract.
Perhaps it was not cost effective to do so. None of us know, and it would be foolish to speculate. But the point is, they are doing it now...

It IS a loophole ......

For the purposes of this TUG thread I would suggest the term-" knothole"
As in ; "Wyndham has plugged that knothole "

Or as in -"the moderator put a cork in that knothole ........"

 

[dgalati]

I understand your perspective very well. I would share it, if I were concerned with making direct sales for Wyndham, but I'm not. I am concerned with my ownership and by extension the ownership of other members.

From a sales perspective, I would question the continued existence of the PIC program as well as the corporate Telesales program. Ending those initiatives would close other "loopholes" from a sales perspective would it not? The only problem with ending them is that it would run counter to other corporate interests.

@55plus wasn't the only one emailing Micheal Brown! This sounds like when I started calling out the abuse on resale points being used with VIP benefits and discounts. The only difference is the PIC program was listed in the member directory as a benefit.. Unlike resale points that were never a benefit or spelled out as one. It was also in members directory that resale points could not be used with VIP benefits. Unfortunately Wyndham omitted the language and some VIP owners called me out on my statement that it was a loophole. Some were so sure that it was a benefit same as cancel and re book. Wyndham decided that both were costing way to much to let the abuse continue.

 

[55plus]

@55plus wasn't the only one emailing Micheal Brown! This sounds like when I started calling out the abuse on resale points being used with VIP benefits and discounts. The only difference is the PIC program was listed in the member directory as a benefit. Unlike resale points that were never a benefit or spelled out as one. It was also in members directory that resale points could not be used with VIP benefits. Unfortunately Wyndham omitted the language and some VIP owners called me out on my statement that it was a loophole. Some were so sure that it was a benefit same as cancel and re book. Wyndham decided that both were costing way to much to let the abuse continue.

I never complained about VIPs benefiting from using resale points, that was you and only you. My emails were thanking Wyndham after implementing the changes that stifle renting, which I turn freeing up primetime reservations so those who use their for personal use can actually book a reservation during those timeframes.

 

[troy12n]

I never complained about VIPs benefiting from using resale points, that was you and only you. My emails were thanking Wyndham after implementing the changes that stifle renting, which I turn freeing up primetime reservations so those who use their for personal use can actually book a reservation during those timeframes.

I still can't get over the moochers and freeloaders here playing the victim card, it's really outrageous

 

[Eric B]

I still can't get over the moochers and freeloaders here playing the victim card, it's really outrageous

You might consider popping for the $15 to support TUG and its mission of providing a member-supported forum for sharing information on using timeshares, then.

 

[troy12n]

You might consider popping for the $15 to support TUG and its mission of providing a member-supported forum for sharing information on using timeshares, then.

But I need that money to buy GC's...