Abound! The combined Marriott/Vistana integrated exchange program now has a name.

[dioxide45]

I also thought the 40% number was surprisingly high this deep into the DC, but since I didn't capture what his exact words were, I am not 100% sure whether he meant 40% were still unenrolled, or whether he meant that 40% of their vacation reservations were still happening in the legacy weeks system. For example, all three of our weeks are now enrolled, but we've never elected our Waiohai or Maui Ocean Club weeks for Points. We now always elect our Barony week for points. So, how are we counted?

I would love to go back and re-listen to that comment in the Vimeo archive of the presentations, but it would take some time to find it.

From what I can recall when he was speaking, I kind of understood it as 40% have never enrolled. That would make more sense than 40% don't use points. I am sure the percentage that don't use points fluctuates year to year. He mentioned the additional club fee and an enrollment fee as a potential sticking point to enrollment, so that I expect is one reason I suspect it is 40% unenrolled.

On another note: does anyone know if the free enrollment with webinar offer provided free enrollment to those pre June 20, 2010 resale weeks? Or is it just free for those that bought direct prior to June 20, 2010?

Aside from all of that, when they roll out Abound fully and offer full enrollment for Vistana owners will they open up enrollment to all pre June 2010 weeks for free on the MVC side without the need to watch the webinar?

 

[JIMinNC]

From what I can recall when he was speaking, I kind of understood it as 40% have never enrolled. That would make more sense than 40% don't use points. I am sure the percentage that don't use points fluctuates year to year.

That was my initial perception also, but after I thought about it, the 40% number seemed surprisingly high for 12 years on, so I began questioning whether there was some nuance in his statement that I missed.

 

[dioxide45]

That was my initial perception also, but after I thought about it, the 40% number seemed surprisingly high for 12 years on, so I began questioning whether there was some nuance in his statement that I missed.

For the longest time we heard that enrollment was around 40%. I still have a number of 38.4% that was provided to me back in 2012 for the number of weeks enrolled. Certainly initial enrollment out of the 2010 gate would be high but enrollment rates wane over time. There are always owners that see no value in enrollment and the higher fee. They simply use their home resort more than not. Over the course of time there are also resales that are locked out of enrollment (without buying points). So I can see where the 60% of owners enrolled to this point might be fairly accurate.

 

[JIMinNC]

For the longest time we heard that enrollment was around 40%. I still have a number of 38.4% that was provided to me back in 2012 for the number of weeks enrolled. Certainly initial enrollment out of the 2010 gate would be high but enrollment rates wane over time. There are always owners that see no value in enrollment and the higher fee. They simply use their home resort more than not. Over the course of time there are also resales that are locked out of enrollment (without buying points). So I can see where the 60% of owners enrolled to this point might be fairly accurate.

That's a valuable perspective, so maybe the 40% unenrolled does make sense. Weisz did say when they launched points in 2010 they expected points adoption to be much higher than it is, so maybe that's why they are doing free enrollment this time. Given that, maybe they will try to use the Abound launch to also boost enrollment on the MVC side in some way in addition to getting Westin/Sheraton owners into the program.

 

[alexinorlando]

Think about this, if they allowed all resale owners to enroll current and future. Imagine the positive effect it would have company wide.
*More inventory for everyone to play with in full control of Marriott, but essentially fulfilling more in-demand reservations between the owner base
*More engaged ownership base
*would drive the prices of re-sales on all Marriott and vistana inventory, and making the price difference between retail and retail slimmer. Therefore making a retail purchase not look as bad (kind of like Disney)
* More “program fees” collected from all enrolled owners

 

[Steve Fatula]

For the longest time we heard that enrollment was around 40%. I still have a number of 38.4% that was provided to me back in 2012 for the number of weeks enrolled. Certainly initial enrollment out of the 2010 gate would be high but enrollment rates wane over time. There are always owners that see no value in enrollment and the higher fee. They simply use their home resort more than not. Over the course of time there are also resales that are locked out of enrollment (without buying points). So I can see where the 60% of owners enrolled to this point might be fairly accurate.

There's many of those here on TUG as you describe. When we go to DSV every February, basically everyone we talk to is not enrolled. They use 6, 8, 10, 12 weeks to stay the winter out there, they have no need to enroll. Doubt they ever will. There is that segment of owners. I would personally expect 40% unenrolled to be reasonable.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

I heard the deeded enrollment figure at 60% several years ago during an investor call. At the time I was surprised it was so low given the DP program had been running for almost a decade. Are you saying it is only 40% enrolled now? I thought they said that 40% was unenrolled which is consistent with the 60% figure.

The other figure that stood out to me was that only 20% of presentations result in a sale. Maybe not surprising but given they expect to sell to their base perhaps they are rethinking their approach as deeded owners age and sell out to non-DP resale owners who are very savvy buyers but have never been engaged at the corporate level.

 

[JIMinNC]

I heard the deeded enrollment figure at 60% several years ago during an investor call. At the time I was surprised it was so low given the DP program had been running for almost a decade. Are you saying it is only 40% enrolled now? I thought they said that 40% was unenrolled which is consistent with the 60% figure.

The other figure that stood out to me was that only 20% of presentations result in a sale. Maybe not surprising but given they expect to sell to their base they are rethinking their approach as deeded resales rise as owners age and sell out creating non-DP resale owners who are very savvy buyers and not engaged.

It's 40% NOT playing in points. So 60% enrolled/40% unenrolled

 

[SandyPGravel]

You can put a tuxedo on a hobo…but it’s still a hobo

This made me think of Jack from 'Titanic'...then I associated the IT fiasco with the Titanic...Not a good analogy

 

[dioxide45]

I heard the deeded enrollment figure at 60% several years ago during an investor call. At the time I was surprised it was so low given the DP program had been running for almost a decade. Are you saying it is only 40% enrolled now? I thought they said that 40% was unenrolled which is consistent with the 60% figure.

The other figure that stood out to me was that only 20% of presentations result in a sale. Maybe not surprising but given they expect to sell to their base perhaps they are rethinking their approach as deeded owners age and sell out to non-DP resale owners who are very savvy buyers but have never been engaged at the corporate level.

They mentioned 20% closing rate at one point and then later a mid teens. When directly asked by someone representing investors what their closing rate was, they sheepishly declined to give an exact number and said mid-teens. I suspect it is a proprietary metric and they don't want the competition to know that exact number. Mid-teens to twenty percent is actually probably a pretty good closing rate in the industry. In some places it is a one in ten (10%). Thus why they also have a 40-50% marketing cost in all the points they sell.

 

[dioxide45]

Think about this, if they allowed all resale owners to enroll current and future. Imagine the positive effect it would have company wide.
*More inventory for everyone to play with in full control of Marriott, but essentially fulfilling more in-demand reservations between the owner base
*More engaged ownership base
*would drive the prices of re-sales on all Marriott and vistana inventory, and making the price difference between retail and retail slimmer. Therefore making a retail purchase not look as bad (kind of like Disney)
* More “program fees” collected from all enrolled owners

Marriott has an incentive to keep resale prices down though. So they can require inventory pretty cheap via ROFR. Resale prices will rarely make it over 50% of retail. Even on the DVC side they may be 60% at best. They seem to have gone the way of the model of restricting resale usage and using that to buy back cheap. If they can get even 5-10% of those resale owners to later make a direct purchase to enroll the resale week, they are probably ahead.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

That's interesting about mid-teens. Perhaps it is time to rethink their marketing approach since the 40% is clearly not budging and they have done little but offer cold shoulder and expensive price tags to their knowledgable resale buyers who may be inclined to buy add-ons if the price and value was right.

HGVC is starting to attract younger more social buyers by offering selling events with owners and potential owners for private chef dinners and excellent seating and tents at owner areas at concerts instead of impersonal gift cards. This was something they leveraged from Diamond.

 

[dioxide45]

HGVC is starting to attract younger more social buyers by offering selling events with owners and potential owners for private chef dinners and excellent seating and tents at owner areas at concerts instead of impersonal gift cards. This was something they leveraged from Diamond.

Yeah, that program is Michael Flaskey's brainchild and is actually part of a separate company he owns, MF Entertainment. Now that he is no longer with DRI, they markets these events to other timeshare brands. Marriott started selling these VIP events to owners who use DC points to book them. Apparently they are not too bad of a deal value wise but do require a timeshare presentation during the trip. THey apparently have an excellent closing rate. Probably much higher than mid teens.

Encore packages apparently also have good conversion to sales rates and thus why they always offer one after a timeshare sales presentation. There is a better chance you will buy when you come back and they make money selling the package.

 

[rickandcindy23]

I just hope Marriott does not see future dollar signs when they get my ROFR paperwork for my recent resale purchases.

 

[ljmiii]

That's interesting about mid-teens. Perhaps it is time to rethink their marketing approach since the 40% is clearly not budging....

I'm more inclined to believe that the consistency of the 40% unenrolled number hides a constant churn. That the sales of enrolled weeks on the resale market are balanced by those taking MVC up on their hybrid deals and yearly enrollment offers.

I could also believe that this is intentional on MVC's part - that 40% is the outcome of a strategy that keeps resale week prices low (enhancing the value of ROFR) while making a good profit on the hybrid/enrollment deals that keep an acceptable amount of DP inventory for the legacy resorts.

 

[amycurl]

Salesforce. Ugh. Ugh, ugh, ugh.
Our CRM and online registration system is Salesforce-based. All I can say--it's like an never-ending black hole where staff time goes to die.

 

[AlmostRetired]

It's 40% NOT playing in points. So 60% enrolled/40% unenrolled

I administer an II FB group with 12k members and part of a number of other Marriott FB groups. In the 60 percent of enrolled owners, I question how many actually exchange for points which releases inventory for others point members to use. Many owners enroll because they have lockoff units and there is a cost advantage to enrolling your week and paying the club dues if you have a lockoff. Each lockoff that you use as such avoids two II trading fees with I believe is 195 each. The club dues also comes with a corporate II account which avoids the II membership fee. The more weeks enrolled, the bigger the savings,

 

[The Colorado Kid]

ABSCOND (With more of my money) would be a more accurate name for the new program

 

[cacain119]

Do we know yet if resale owners will have access to Abound?

 

[divenski]

It would certainly make sense to have some sort of initial enrollment promotion - at least for the legacy Vistana side - to try to get that inventory into the Abound Exchange. I would expect enrolled DC owners to be automatic since Abound just appears to be a rebranded DC. Since there is no enrollment fee like there was in 2010, I do find it hard to believe they would allow resale owners - either still-unenrolled MVC weeks owners or resale Westin/Sheraton owners - to enroll for free on the same basis as direct owners. They've never shown the inclination to put resale owners on the same basis as direct purchasers. Even in 2010, pre-6/2010 resale owners had to pay a higher enrollment fee than direct purchasers.

Yes, pre-6/2010 resale owners had to pay a higher fee, but overall, it was a modest premium, eg about $1,500 vs $600. That's a lot less than the current retro and enroll schemes which are $10-30K.

The big question is, if there is a new one-time fee, will it be closer to the 2010 fee or the current retro/enroll fees?

It's interesting that 40% of MVC owners have not enrolled, but that doesn't seem to be a big concern to MVC. If it was, one might expect them to make it easier, ie less expensive, to enroll resale weeks.

And thanks for the investor slides. It's really interesting to see the corporate side of the TS business.

 

[dioxide45]

Yes, pre-6/2010 resale owners had to pay a higher fee, but overall, it was a modest premium, eg about $1,500 vs $600. That's a lot less than the current retro and enroll schemes which are $10-30K.

The big question is, if there is a new one-time fee, will it be closer to the 2010 fee or the current retro/enroll fees?

It's interesting that 40% of MVC owners have not enrolled, but that doesn't seem to be a big concern to MVC. If it was, one might expect them to make it easier, ie less expensive, to enroll resale weeks.

And thanks for the investor slides. It's really interesting to see the corporate side of the TS business.

From everything said during the MVW Investor Day webcast, there will be no new fee to join Abound. From what we understand, for Marriott owners there is no change. The Abound name replaces the Destinations Exchange Program name. So Marriott trust point and enrolled weeks owners will autoatmnaily fall under the new Abound. For Vistana owners, they can choose to enroll for free. They said on the investor call "completely additive and no incremental costs to owner". The only change would be the fee structure where Vistana owners who enroll will pay the Abound Club fee instead of their existing VSN fee. This could cost them more, cost them the same or even save them some money.

As for enrollment. I got the impression from the webcast that they were actually disappointed by the enrollment numbers. They expected more owners to enroll. They didn't see the enrollment fee to be as big a barrier to entry that it ended up being. Thus why I think why they are going the no enrollment fee route this time with Abound. They want to try to get as many people into the system as possible to make inventory as fluid as possible.

 

[JIMinNC]

Do we know yet if resale owners will have access to Abound?

The expectation on the MVC side is if your resale week(s) are currently enrolled in the Destination Club, they will automatically transfer to Abound. If you have resale weeks that are not already enrolled or resale Westin/Sheraton weeks, we do not know what your options will be or what you will have to do to enroll and unenrolled resale week. That level of detail was not addressed at the Investor Day.

 

[divenski]

I was more focused on the possible options and costs for resale owners.

 

[Dean]

Yes, pre-6/2010 resale owners had to pay a higher fee, but overall, it was a modest premium, eg about $1,500 vs $600. That's a lot less than the current retro and enroll schemes which are $10-30K.

The big question is, if there is a new one-time fee, will it be closer to the 2010 fee or the current retro/enroll fees?

It's interesting that 40% of MVC owners have not enrolled, but that doesn't seem to be a big concern to MVC. If it was, one might expect them to make it easier, ie less expensive, to enroll resale weeks.

And thanks for the investor slides. It's really interesting to see the corporate side of the TS business.

It looks like they've changed the information online (MVC) related to enrollment back to the original pricing at the time of roll out in 2010 with the same restrictions. My guess is they'll offer free enrollment for those who qualify as a sales tour incentive. It'll likely be similar on the non MVC side though I could see a later cutoff date. They really don't care much about whether the remaining ones enroll for MVC, what they do care about is making money on the ones where they can. Whether they will care more on the Vistana/Westin side to get inventory is an unknown, my guess is they won't since the volume included for points for each resort is not published anyway.

 

[Fasttr]

Re: the 40% number….

Page B2 of the link below says as of 12/31/20, 273,402 owners were enrolled in the exchange program. Do we know how many owners there are in total?

Also, is the 40% enrolled owners, or enrolled weeks. Seems an owner with multiple weeks was more likely to enroll at the beginning vs a single weeks owner. So curious if the # of weeks enrolled is higher than 40%.

http://img.vacationclubsurvey.com/images/MVCIAP/enrollment/Documents/MVCDExchangeProgram_DisclosureGuide_English.pdf