50% 0ff owners rental

[DeniseM]

the svown50 is on;y good for 3 nights.

i booked xmas week next year at orlando for $85 per night for the 2 br.

cancun studio for $60 per night.

only 3 coupons have posted waiting for my other 6.

this is a great promo.

That's amazing! Are you adding the nights onto a one week stay?

 

[DeniseM]

Just utilized ours to book 3 nights at the princeville villas-$205 a night for the one bedroom premium in january(studio is $140 and 2 bedroom $329). For reference the best available rate on spg is $309 in the 1 bedroom premium for those nights. Pleasantly surprised that this is such a great coupon!

GREAT deal!

 

[Robert D]

DeniseM, ... Apology accepted. Glad to see you figured out there are two separate certificates, both of which can be used.

50% off the hotel rack rate is probably not worthless, but not as great a deal either as the SVO owner rate certificate. Certainly it depends on the way you travel or the level of the hotel you want to reserve at. Four Points in Kansas City at the airport - not so good; Danieli in Venice in the summer - not so bad - especially if you have an elite level that entitles you to an upgrade.

50% off the SVO owner rate is pretty sweet. Using nodge's own figures, it's a savings of almost $150 per day at WKV. ... eom

I've never found a 50% of rack rate deal on hotel rooms to be worth much of anything, especially since they are capacity limited. You can get 50% using an entertainment discount at a large number of high end hotels on an "as available" basis which excludes times when the hotel's occupancy is high. In most major cities, I've done much better than that on Priceline where I can usually get rooms for 40-70% of the best available rate on the hotel's website(which is a lot less than rack rate). I've haven't used the entertainment 50% off discount in years because of Priceline and doubt that I'd use this SW certificate. In defense of SW, all of the big hotel chains offer this type of discount from time to time and it's usually not worth much.

Don't know about the TS certificate, maybe it is worth something.

 

[Troopers]

I'll take the SPG 50% off coupons. They certainly have value at Cat 6 or 7 hotels.

Bump.

I'll pay $5 for it.

 

[nodge]

Horses and their Asses

And, despite what you and nodge say, both have value. The figures nodge posted prove that. It's just that he obscures the value in his ramblings. I tried to illustrate the value by using nodge's own numbers.

[...]

Facts do matter - apparently except here (where if the facts are posted it's called back-pedaling). ... eom

Hey Jarta,

[Off-topic/rude remark deleted.]

FWIW, my data is 100% genuine and accurate. My "ramblings" are attempting to find a meaningful distinction as to why for one of my data points the SVOWN50 rate was 50% off the rack rate and for the other data point the SVOWN50 rate was 50% off the SVO Owner's rate. I think I posted a meaningful distinction (the cheaper rate is only available in cases where resorts have tons of availability) that you are free to challenge or debate.

What "facts" do you have to challenge this theory (which by the way was actually suggested by the SPG agent I spoke to, not by me) that the SVOWN50 rate being 50% off the SVO Owner's rate is extremely limited to cases when the resort has tons of availability? While this may indeed be a deal for some, SVO didn't burden anyone with this limitation when it offered it as an inducement to get owners to pre-pay their maintenance fees. In fact, it sort of suggested that this lower rate would be available whenever the SVO Owner rate is available, which is clearly not the case based even on my limited data. Pointsjunkie's data (deals on always undersold Cancun and Orlando) and sb2313's data (Kauai in January) support the SPG agent's theory.

Your posts here so far have been completely silent regarding this issue. Instead, you have elected to bully our moderator and belittle me.

[Off-topic/rude remark deleted.]

Whoa Boy!

-nodge

Oh Yeah . . .

50% off the SVO owner rate is pretty sweet. Using nodge's own figures, it's a savings of almost $150 per day at WKV. ... eom

The posted 50% Off the SVO owner rate at WKV is $419/night which is over $200/night more than an available AAA rate for the night I check in March (peak season at WKV)

$140/night was for a studio at WKORV in January (non-peak season in Maui).

You being a 5 star elite and all certainly know the difference between WKV and WKORV don't you?

For someone asking . . . .

Do facts matter here? ... eom

You’d think you’d get that fact right. –n

 

[jarta]

Well, Denise?

 

[jarta]

nodge,

Here's what I posted first:

"That means that for WKOVR, the:

Best Available Rate = $360
AAA rate = $288
SVO Owner Rate = $280
50% SVO Owner Rate = $140

So, how is the certificate worthless? And, just how is an unemployed attorney going to make money on that class action suit for deceptive advertising? Do facts matter here? "

And, yes, I mistakenly later posted that it was WKV that the figures applied to. It was WKORV. Mea culpa.

The point is this. The SVO certificate is not worthless. Other posters, sb2313 and pointsjunkie, have since posted about their satisfied experience in making reservations. Denise has said sb2313 got a great deal using the certificate. Troopers is looking for someone to sell him a certificate. lol! Did you read those posts? ... eom

 

[DeniseM]

OK - let's get back on track here, folks. Let's debate the issues and not make it personal.

 

[nodge]

The point is this. The SVO certificate is not worthless.

Hold your horses there Jarta!

The data speaks for itself.

I don't think the SVO 50% off certificates are worthless for everyone. It's just that my own investigation, complete with real live data/facts and my real live travel schedule, indicates that they ARE worthless to me.

Moreover, the available data suggests that the "worth" of these certificates is far more limited (3 day limit / use limited only to times when there is "tons" of availability at a particular resort despite the normal SVO Owner Rate still being available) than SVO led people to believe when they were used to induce prepayment of maintenance fees two months ago. Although not as clear-cut of a case as I earlier indicated, like it or not, this is the stuff that consumer protection lawsuits are made of. If SVO planned to impose these limitations on these certificates, it had a duty to tell us what those limitations were before we took action in reliance on SVO's offer.

You're backing the wrong horse on this one.

-nodge

 

[jarta]

nodge, ... "The data speaks for itself ... the available data suggests that the "worth" of these certificates is far more limited (3 day limit / use limited only to times when there is "tons" of availability at a particular resort despite the normal SVO Owner Rate still being available) than SVO led people to believe when they were used to induce prepayment of maintenance fees two months ago."

I consider what pointsjunkie posted as additional available data. She said:

"i booked xmas week next year at orlando for $85 per night for the 2 br."

Perhaps your available data is faulty or not complete. ... eom

 

[nodge]

I consider what pointsjunkie posted as additional available data. She said:

"i booked xmas week next year at orlando for $85 per night for the 2 br."

Perhaps your available data is faulty or not complete. ... eom

Yep, no question. $85/night is a good deal . . . if you want to go to Orlando for no more than 3 days (unless you own multiple weeks like only 10%-20% of us do) between Christmas and New Years and know your travel plans more than a year out. If not, this deal isn’t so good, especially if you planned on staying a week and end up paying retail for the extra nights.

Now speaking of those 80%-90% single week owners that were induced to pre-pay their maintenance fees in reliance on this offer, what if they did so thinking that they could get half-off the SVO owner rate whenever the SVO Owner rate was offered, and they had planned to go to Orlando between Christmas and New Years next year for a whole week?

What in this original text of SVO's offer would lead them to believe this couldn’t happen? Where does it say that the offer is limited to 3 days only? Where does it say that the availability schedule under this deal is different and more limited than other available SVO owner rate plans? Most importantly, why weren’t these limitations published with the original offer?

So yes, once again, Jarta, good deals can be found under this promotion, especially for the super diligent pre-planners among us. But, and again you still fail to dispute it, those deals are far less than promised by SVO when it used it as an inducement to get many of us to act.

-nodge

Hope I'm not rambling too much for you.

 

[James1975NY]

Yep, no question. $85/night is a good deal . . . if you want to go to Orlando for no more than 3 days (unless you own multiple weeks like only 10%-20% of us do) between Christmas and New Years and know your travel plans more than a year out. If not, this deal isn’t so good, especially if you planned on staying a week and end up paying retail for the extra nights.

Now speaking of those 80%-90% single week owners that were induced to pre-pay their maintenance fees in reliance on this offer, what if they did so thinking that they could get half-off the SVO owner rate whenever the SVO Owner rate was offered, and they had planned to go to Orlando between Christmas and New Years next year for a whole week?

What in this original text of SVO's offer would lead them to believe this couldn’t happen? Where does it say that the offer is limited to 3 days only? Where does it say that the availability schedule under this deal is different and more limited than other available SVO owner rate plans? Most importantly, why weren’t these limitations published with the original offer?

So yes, once again, Jarta, good deals can be found under this promotion, especially for the super diligent pre-planners among us. But, and again you still fail to dispute it, those deals are far less than promised by SVO when it used it as an inducement to get many of us to act.

-nodge

- Starwood is making attempts to improve on their HOA collections.
- Regardless of when the are due, they will be due.
- They presented an offer to promote early payment. It looks good to some, some it does not.

What is the problem?

 

[jarta]

nodge, ... I don't think there is anything I could say that would ever satisfy you that there is actual value in the certificates. So, have a nice evening. ... eom

 

[LisaRex]

- Starwood is making attempts to improve on their HOA collections.

I saw an ebay ad for WKORV this past weekend for a 2 bdrm unit for $9600, IIRC. (Can't find the ad anymore so I'm assuming it sold.) It didn't list the view but did indicate that past due MFs of $1700 were due upon closing.

Not sure if this was an agent or Starwood, but I'm hoping that more people will offer fire sales to get rid of their units vs. just not paying the MFs. At this point $10k is better than $0, which is what our units will be worth in a few years if MFs continue to climb.

The downside is that as the prices for the villas drop, there is even less incentive for folks who are past due to pay up. An owner who was delinquent in '09 will owe $5k to reinstate their rights to use their week in '10. At some point it will cost more to catch up than the villa is worth, which means that we owners who covered delinquencies won't get anything back.

 

[James1975NY]

I saw an ebay ad for WKORV this past weekend for a 2 bdrm unit for $9600, IIRC. (Can't find the ad anymore so I'm assuming it sold.) It didn't list the view but did indicate that past due MFs of $1700 were due upon closing.

Not sure if this was an agent or Starwood, but I'm hoping that more people will offer fire sales to get rid of their units vs. just not paying the MFs. At this point $10k is better than $0, which is what our units will be worth in a few years if MFs continue to climb.

The downside is that as the prices for the villas drop, there is even less incentive for folks who are past due to pay up. An owner who was delinquent in '09 will owe $5k to reinstate their rights to use their week in '10. At some point it will cost more to catch up than the villa is worth, which means that we owners who covered delinquencies won't get anything back.

It is definitely getting more difficult to sell the SVO properties with the higher maintenance fees without having a borderline ridiculous price these days. I just hope that the owners will realize a positive impact on the maintenance fees as more able paying owners are in place.

 

[DanCali]

I saw an ebay ad for WKORV this past weekend for a 2 bdrm unit for $9600, IIRC. (Can't find the ad anymore so I'm assuming it sold.) It didn't list the view but did indicate that past due MFs of $1700 were due upon closing.

Not sure if this was an agent or Starwood, but I'm hoping that more people will offer fire sales to get rid of their units vs. just not paying the MFs. At this point $10k is better than $0, which is what our units will be worth in a few years if MFs continue to climb.

The downside is that as the prices for the villas drop, there is even less incentive for folks who are past due to pay up. An owner who was delinquent in '09 will owe $5k to reinstate their rights to use their week in '10. At some point it will cost more to catch up than the villa is worth, which means that we owners who covered delinquencies won't get anything back.

Is it a "fire sale" or are they being smart and facing reality? $10K is definitely better than zero and if you believe MFs will continue to rise at excessive rates then the trend is pretty clear. There is no reason to wait and see what happens when a truck hits you - it's safer to just step aside...

Beware of the Disposition Effect!

Here is an example of the SAME unit (WKORV 2BR IV Dlx) being put up for auction by a persistent seller over and over again, and how the value (as measured by the highest bid) has declined in less than 3 months:

On Sep 29: $13,600

On Oct 11: $12,700

On Oct 29:$11,600

On Nov 8: $9900

On Dec 13: $8100

All these auctions are after owners were notified of the new tax situation, while the last one is after new MFs became public (it's listed with old MFs, but new MFs are in the Q&A).

It's only a "fire sale" today if the units end up being worth more down the road...

 

[nodge]

What is the problem?

Starwood sought pre-payment of fees from us owners that are not legally due until next year. As an inducement to make that happen it offered owners "free" discount certificates if they prepaid. In doing so, it triggered an obligation to comply with the "free" offer statutes of each state where it solicited us.

I only Googled Oregon's law, but assume each state has a similar statute as Oregon's:

ORS 137-020-0015 Misleading Use of "Free" Offers and Rebates

[...]

"All material terms, conditions and limitations of a 'free' offer must be set forth clearly and conspicuously in any advertisement in close proximity to the 'free' offer. Disclosure of the terms of the offer, referenced by an asterisk and placed in a footnote at the bottom of the offer is not clear and conspicuous. Likewise, if the offer is on the internet, reference to the material terms, conditions and limitations of the offer by use of a hyperlink or only disclosing them during the checkout process is not clear and conspicuous. The definition of 'clear and conspicuous' set forth in OAR 137-
020-0020 has been incorporated by this rule and should be reviewed before advertising any 'free' offer to ensure compliance. The complete offer, including all terms, conditions and limitations, must be fully explained to the consumer before the transaction is consummated . . .." [Emphasis added]


Can we not agree that a 3 day limit and limits on availability are indeed "terms, conditions, and limitations" of this deal that are missing from SVO's solicitation?

If so, can we not also agree that SVO's solicitation of this deal violates Oregon's (and probably most other states') consumer protection laws?

Maybe ARDA will lobby all of the states' legislators to remove these laws from the books. Until then, is it really too much to ask that the company that we all have given thousands of dollars to and are expected to keep giving thousands of dollars to in the form of "maintenance fees" over the years at least comply with the law when seeking money from us?

-nodge

 

[jarta]

nodge, ... ""All material terms, conditions and limitations of a 'free' offer must be set forth clearly and conspicuously in any advertisement in close proximity to the 'free' offer."

There is no "free" offer. There is an offer to be awarded two types of 50% off certificates if you make an early payment. Nothing is given for "free." Nothing about the certificates is stated by Starwood to be for "free." The word "free" does not appear anywhere in anything Starwood put out about the certificates. By paying early, you do not pay less in the end. By not paying early, you do not end up paying more in the end.

Here is what the Department of Justice for the State of Oregon says are examples of a "free" offer:

"The complete offer, including all terms, conditions and limitations, must be fully explained to the consumer before the transaction is consummated and the consumer must be given a meaningful opportunity to reject the offer before committing to the transaction. Examples of violations of this section include, but are not limited to:

1. A consumer shopping for an engagement ring is told he would receive a fully paid “free” vacation for two to Mexico with the purchase of a diamond ring that costs over $10,000.00. No other information is given the consumer. The consumer and his new bride are, in fact, flown to the destination for free. However, the new bride and groom are booked into a dirty, unsafe and uncomfortable hotel with poor food. Once there, the new couple is told that if they check out they will not be able to use their return tickets. The consumer is given the choice of staying in the miserable accommodations or paying an exorbitant “upgrade” fee to get into a reasonable hotel;

2. An electronics store advertises a “free” 3-day Caribbean Cruise for two with the purchase of a complete home entertainment center package. The advertisement fails to clearly and conspicuously disclose that the consumer must purchase his/her own airfare through the cruise company, that there are many blackout dates when the cruise is not available and that the price of a cruise with additional days is at a cost that is 50% more than the price of a comparable cruise.

3. A computer software company, through television advertisements, offers two “free” compact discs [CDs] of educational software. The advertisements do not disclose that the consumer must actually accept delivery of three CDs in order to get the “free” offer. If, within 15 days, the consumer does not mail back the third CD that is not “free,” the consumer is billed $79.95, the total regular cost of three CDs.

All three examples may be violations of paragraph (2)(a)(D) because they are deceptive and misleading."

http://www.doj.state.or.us/hot_topics/pdf/oar_1370200015.pdf

These are examples of the type of behavior you say Starwood has engaged in? Are you serious? It looks like there is a real problem in your analysis. I can only repeat what James asked: "What is the problem?" ... eom

 

[nodge]

"There is no "free" offer . . ..

Examples of violations of this section include, but are not limited to:"

Where to start, where to start. . . . How exactly is a "free vacation" to Mexico different from a "free" discount certificate for use at an SVO resort in Mexico and other places?

The last time I checked a contract required offer, acceptance and "consideration." I think we can both agree that SVO offered to give the certificates if owners prepaid by certain dates and owners accepted that offer by actually paying prior to the posted dates.

So the difference you appear to be hanging your hat on over the cited examples is the "consideration" element of the consumer contract.

Even a first year law student knows that "consideration" need not be the payment of money. For example, prepayment of that money before it is due is also "consideration" worthy of establishing this element of a contract. The fact that the money would ultimately be due later anyway is irrelevant.

So, SVO gives away free discount coupons to owners in exchange for those owners paying something early, a consideration worthy event. That's somehow way different from Oregon's posted examples which are expressly "not limited to" the posted situations where companies advertise free stuff in exchange for a consumer paying for other stuff, which is also a "consideration" worthy event? Your distinction is meritless at best.

Oh yeah, you've also failed to justify or explain why your beloved and trustworthy SVO failed to inform anyone of the limitations at issue until AFTER everyone prepaid. I wait with baited breath to see the patented Jarta spin applied to justify that one.

-nodge

Yah know, there can be times in a man's life when he is just plain wrong, and no amount of bullying, doublespeak, pomposity, arrogance or browbeating will change that. But, you are certainly welcome to keep trying if you like especially for the sake of preserving SVO's reputation no less. Sheesh.

 

[jarta]

nodge, ... "How exactly is a "free vacation" to Mexico different from a "free" discount certificate for use at an SVO resort in Mexico and other places?"

I suggest you contact the Oregon authorities concerning your complaint and let us all know when they file the suit against Starwood for deceptive advertising that you are urging.

The only time Starwood used the word "free" was in the lottery to determine the winners of the "free" trips and the million Starpoints. The word "free" was not used in connection with any certificates. And, that's how a "free" vacation to Mexico differs from an award of a discount certificate.

Your discussion of legal contract terms is irrelevant. There is a contract. If you pay early and don't get the certificates, you could sue in contract to get the certificates issued to you. However, the Oregon statute does not apply to every contract. It only applies to contracts advertised as including a "freebie" that end up costing consumers more money than they reasonably thought.

It's the "free" that turns out not to be "free" that is the target of the statute. The certificates are not advertised as being "free." You pay early; you pay a certain amount and get the certificate. You pay on time; you pay the same amount but don't get the certificate. The consumer pays the same either way. (I don't think Starwood will be locking anyone in a filthy room, charging them for air fare home from Mexico or only unlocking the door to the filthy room if they stay more than 3 days in a paid-for upgrade. But, who knows what your next "available data" in a discussion with a nameless Starwood employee will turn up.)

BTW, your interpretation of "free" would mean that no coupon for half off on a loaf of bread could be placed in a Thursday newspaper in Oregon. I don't live in Oregon, but I doubt that's the way the statute you seem so familiar with is interpreted.

Again, what is your problem? ... eom

 

[DeniseM]

It appears that this thread is on a downward spiral and we should agree to disagree...