Affiliation with RCI or II --- or both...

[theo]

I haven't had any involvement (or interest) in "exchanging" our timeshares for at least a decade now and no longer even maintain any exchange company memberships. Nonetheless, a current discussion in another forum has prompted me to ask the question below of you folks more involved or interested in the "exchange game".

RCI will affiliate itself with any resort anywhere, regardless of its' quality; that's always been true and no one would likely dispute that fact.
Lower tier RCI resorts might have lower RCI ratings, but mere affiliation with RCI is obviously very easy for any resort to attain.
II, otoh, has historically always been more discriminating and there are certainly many RCI-affiliated resorts with which II would never consider or allow II affiliation.

So, with the above observations in mind my question is simply this --- Why would a resort which is already affiliated with II not choose to also have an (easy to obtain) affiliation with RCI too in order to be dual affiliated?

Is it a cost issue? Image preservation? Sheer laziness? Something else? Your informed thoughts are invited and would be appreciated.

I'm prompted to wonder about this with a specific example in mind. A small, independent timeshare place I know in downeast Maine (no, we don't own there and never did) is (and has always been) only II affiliated. It's certainly a nice enough place, even if not located where we prefer to be. Being "seasonal", it seems to struggle financially.
I am prompted to wonder if adding easily attained RCI affiliation wouldn't be of some help, although maybe not. A resort obviously doesn't see a dime from exchange fees paid to any exchange company, but my thought was that the place I'm thinking of is nice enough that maybe pleasantly surprised exchangers might consider (affordable and seemingly always available) resale purchase there after discovering the place via exchange. Maybe I'm just missing something in this thought process, I dunno.

 

[tschwa2]

It seems like resorts don't go out of the way to become dual affiliated. It happens because they switch and give their main backing to the new company. The fact that they were already associated with the other and members can now chose either is just a coincidental benefit. Larger developer controlled groups that switch seem to have back room deals that they see as benefiting the sales side of the resort. Maybe the resort will get a higher trade value or rating in exchange for excess developer deposits.

On the other hand it might not be worth explaining to the current owners the reason for the switch or the benefits of the new exchange company or dual affiliation especially if the owners seem satisfied at what they have. I don't know if there is any cost involved for the HOA's but at the very least there would be additional paperwork and possibly inspection and ratings requirements that hoa's don't care to deal with as they already have an exchange company that they feel comfortable with.

I am currently in a 15 unit resort in an area where this is the one and only time share. It is affilliated with II only. I see a summer exchange available every 2-3 years and year long I see about 4 exchanges (none currently for the next 2 years). I don't think most owners belong to II even off season owners. I doubt the HOA wants to go through the trouble of enrolling in RCI.

 

[FLDVCFamily]

The reasons probably vary by resort, but image might come into play with at least some of them.

 

[SueDonJ]

If it's the Management Company that's entered into a contractual, exclusive agreement with an exchange company, such as what happens with Marriott/Starwood/etc, then the individual resorts/BOD/HOA under those umbrellas may not have the choice to also affiliate with other exchange companies. Owners pay the exchange company dues/fees but enjoy the benefits of any preference within the owned system.

Although, owners under those umbrellas always have the choice to individually join any exchange companies completely at their own cost/risk.

The big players, again Marriott/Starwood/etc, also may change exchange company affiliations. Generally when that happens, the resorts which were included in the original affiliation agreement can become dual-affiliated upon the subsequent agreement. Under the Marriott umbrella there are several resorts, the oldest in the portfolio, which retained their RCI affiliation so became dual-affiliated when Marriott switched from RCI to II.

 

[Bwolf]

IIRC, Pollard Brook, long before it had the InnSeasons affiliation, had an exclusive arrangement with II. No RCI. They were a bit snooty about it, claiming II was the superior exchange company. I believe this deal with II required Pollard Brook to affiliate only with II. Over the course of time, the leadership became disenchanted with II. Now Pollard Brook has an RCI affiliation (exclusive for new sales, I think).

 

[mdurette]

IIRC, Pollard Brook, long before it had the InnSeasons affiliation, had an exclusive arrangement with II. No RCI. They were a bit snooty about it, claiming II was the superior exchange company. I believe this deal with II required Pollard Brook to affiliate only with II. Over the course of time, the leadership became disenchanted with II. Now Pollard Brook has an RCI affiliation (exclusive for new sales, I think).

I trade into Pollard Brook a lot. I have noticed that inventory via RCI is much, much more than II. Most likely developer stuff gets dumped into RCI and II is only owner deposits.

 

[Bwolf]

I trade into Pollard Brook a lot. I have noticed that inventory via RCI is much, much more than II. Most likely developer stuff gets dumped into RCI and II is only owner deposits.

Good points. Dennis owns a lot of units. They surely go to RCI. II gets owner's fixed-week, fixed-unit and a few of the "points" sold before the switch to RCI. There must be some deposit by owners into RCI. I cannot gauge how much.

 

[MichaelColey]

I don't have any informed thoughts, just speculation. But I would suspect that it usually boils down to one of two things:

1) Some sort of consideration received for exclusivity. (Why most restaurants--at least in the past--only served Coke or Pepsi, but not both.)
2) Complacency. No doubt, it's easier to only work with one exchange company.