• The TUGBBS forums are completely free and open to the public and exist as the absolute best place for owners to get help and advice about their timeshares for more than 30 years!

    Join Tens of Thousands of other Owners just like you here to get any and all Timeshare questions answered 24 hours a day!
  • TUG started 31 years ago in October 1993 as a group of regular Timeshare owners just like you!

    Read about our 30th anniversary: Happy 31st Birthday TUG!
  • TUG has a YouTube Channel to produce weekly short informative videos on popular Timeshare topics!

    Free memberships for every 50 subscribers!

    Visit TUG on Youtube!
  • TUG has now saved timeshare owners more than $23,000,000 dollars just by finding us in time to rescind a new Timeshare purchase! A truly incredible milestone!

    Read more here: TUG saves owners more than $23 Million dollars
  • Sign up to get the TUG Newsletter for free!

    Tens of thousands of subscribing owners! A weekly recap of the best Timeshare resort reviews and the most popular topics discussed by owners!
  • Our official "end my sales presentation early" T-shirts are available again! Also come with the option for a free membership extension with purchase to offset the cost!

    All T-shirt options here!
  • A few of the most common links here on the forums for newbies and guests!

Arriving Guest Information [merged]

dougp26364

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
14,664
Reaction score
3,458
Location
Kansas
Resorts Owned
Marriott Grand Chateau
Marriott Shadow Ridge
Marriott Ocean Pointe
Marriott Destination Club Points
Hilton Grand Vacation Club Las Vegas Blvd
Grand Colorado on Peak 8
Spinnaker French Quarter Resort Branson
I've had similar pitches at multiple MVC sales presentations. The sales people even mentioned they do this themselves and often help their owners to rent their weeks/points. Perhaps some of the greatest offenders are the MVC sales staff. Will MVC crack down on them?
I’ve always thought there was more story than substance when a salesman tells me how they’re doing this themselves. Just another lie to get us to buy.
 

jwalk03

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
May 3, 2016
Messages
4,152
Reaction score
3,266
Location
Ohio
I've had similar pitches at multiple MVC sales presentations. The sales people even mentioned they do this themselves and often help their owners to rent their weeks/points. Perhaps some of the greatest offenders are the MVC sales staff. Will MVC crack down on them?

The number of sales people who are actually owners is likely 1/100th of the ones that CLAIM they are owners. They all CLAIM to be big time owners with huge portfolios they rent and make money and vacation all the time and on and on. It’s all a damn lie- just another part of the sales pitch.
 

DanCali

TUG Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Messages
4,633
Reaction score
1,930
Resorts Owned
Vistana, Marriott, DVC
Fair enough, what is your solution to ensure that property rights are maintained and that those who need to rent their property can do so on a non-commercial basis? The 30 day rule seems extreme to me and likely won’t solve the problem as my guess is that those who rent commercially likely have repeat customers who will rent well in advance.


I think the 30-day rule is stupid and does nothing but aggravate owners. Nobody should have to stress out about adding a name to a reservation 5 days before the checkin date whether it's a weeks or points reservation. It'd be much better if they allowed online name changes like in the Vistana system.

That said - I think we all need to remember that Abound is an exchange and has rules. Once you trade your deeded week for points, you don't have the same "property rights" as you did with your week. And whatever the Abound rules are this morning, they are subject to change this afternoon. Quite a few here probably have "excess portfolios" until they retire and, in my view, the safest way (not necessarily the most profitable one) to manage that is to rent out deeded week reservations. And even if one argues that both weeks and points rentals are allowed and are just subject to the "commercial use" clause - it looks very different if someone rents out their deeded 4-5 weeks versus trading all those 4-5 weeks for 20,000-25,000 points, and then renting out 10-15 five-night reservations. Which case do you think they are more likely to go after?

What's going on with Abound reservations is not dissimilar to what's been going with Vistana and Staroptions reservations for a long time (I know you are active on that board too). But the Vistana thing is limited to a handful of more relatively "expensive" resorts that involve air travel (WKJORV/N, WSJ, and HRA) so there is a limit to who can play that game and how much. You have to own quite a bit at other locations and book longer reservations at those handful of resorts to make it work, since nobody is flying to Maui for 3 nights. With MVC, if you take a closer look, the phenomenon seems much worse due to the large number of high-demand properties within driving distance for many, and the ability to book deeply discounted 2-5 night stays, and even more so at 60-days out.
 

sponger76

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2022
Messages
1,750
Reaction score
1,173
Location
Texas
With MVC, if you take a closer look, the phenomenon seems much worse due to the large number of high-demand properties within driving distance for many, and the ability to book deeply discounted 2-5 night stays, and even more so at 60-days out.
Even though still against the commercial use rules and not something I would do myself (I have never rented a booking, and never will unless extenuating circumstances prevent me from occupying one that I had intended to use for myself or friends/family), I have much less of a problem with people booking discounted stays within 60 days to rent out. At that point, it's kind of obvious you aren't preventing other owners who were making a reasonable effort at advance planning from getting those same stays.

Like you, I have zero problem with owners renting out fixed weeks. You are not depriving anyone else, because the only one who would have had access to it is you. I think we do differ in that I have more of a problem than you do with booking a prime week using a floating week ownership with the sole intent of renting it out. At that point, you are in competition with and therefore depriving owners in the same season who may have wanted to actually stay in that time frame and now are relegated to the dregs of that season.

It's a tough dilemma, and a double-edged sword. I do like the additional flexibility that floating weeks and points provide, but it does lead to more of the angst that comes from not being able to reserve a prime week only to see it being rented out for $$$ on sites like Redweek. The only way to prevent that is to go back to only fixed weeks, but I think that ship has long sailed, and most people do want something not quite that restrictive.
 

sponger76

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2022
Messages
1,750
Reaction score
1,173
Location
Texas
I think the 30-day rule is stupid and does nothing but aggravate owners. Nobody should have to stress out about adding a name to a reservation 5 days before the checkin date whether it's a weeks or points reservation. It'd be much better if they allowed online name changes like in the Vistana system.
I agree 100%. I'm fine with them making you acknowledge those caveats they list, but then go ahead and confirm the name change automatically all the way up to check-in. Then if MVC decides it's a commercial use booking they can go ahead and cancel and proceed from there.

With MVC, if you take a closer look, the phenomenon seems much worse due to the large number of high-demand properties within driving distance for many, and the ability to book deeply discounted 2-5 night stays, and even more so at 60-days out.
Even though still against the commercial use rules and not something I would do myself (I have never rented a booking, and never will unless extenuating circumstances prevent me from occupying one that I had intended to use for myself or friends/family), I have much less of a problem with people booking discounted stays within 60 days to rent out. At that point, it's kind of obvious you aren't preventing other owners who were making a reasonable effort at advance planning from getting those same stays.

Like you, I have zero problem with owners renting out fixed weeks. You are not depriving anyone else, because the only one who would have had access to it is you. I think we do differ in that I have more of a problem than you do with booking a prime week using a floating week ownership with the sole intent of renting it out. At that point, you are in competition with and therefore depriving owners in the same season who may have wanted to actually stay in that time frame and now are relegated to the dregs of that season.

It's a tough dilemma, and a double-edged sword. I do like the additional flexibility that floating weeks and points provide, but it does lead to more of the angst that comes from not being able to reserve a prime week only to see it being rented out for $$$ on sites like Redweek. The only way to prevent that is to go back to only fixed weeks, but I think that ship has long sailed, and most people do want something not quite that restrictive.
 

DRH90277

TUG Member
Joined
May 3, 2015
Messages
1,049
Reaction score
814
Location
So Cal to N Carolina
Resorts Owned
Marriott: Ocean Watch, Newport Coast, Grand Chateau, Custom House, Timber Lodge, VCP's.
Even though still against the commercial use rules and not something I would do myself (I have never rented a booking, and never will unless extenuating circumstances prevent me from occupying one that I had intended to use for myself or friends/family), I have much less of a problem with people booking discounted stays within 60 days to rent out. At that point, it's kind of obvious you aren't preventing other owners who were making a reasonable effort at advance planning from getting those same stays.

Like you, I have zero problem with owners renting out fixed weeks. You are not depriving anyone else, because the only one who would have had access to it is you. I think we do differ in that I have more of a problem than you do with booking a prime week using a floating week ownership with the sole intent of renting it out. At that point, you are in competition with and therefore depriving owners in the same season who may have wanted to actually stay in that time frame and now are relegated to the dregs of that season.

It's a tough dilemma, and a double-edged sword. I do like the additional flexibility that floating weeks and points provide, but it does lead to more of the angst that comes from not being able to reserve a prime week only to see it being rented out for $$$ on sites like Redweek. The only way to prevent that is to go back to only fixed weeks, but I think that ship has long sailed, and most people do want something not quite that restrictive.

Marriott can figure out a way to "isolate and neutralize" these serious commercial users without intimidating a lot of families who just want to use the product they bought. If families are at fault, it is probably limited to renting so they can pay the maintenance fees.

These are interesting posts but seem to gravitate towards our supposed obligation to not use too much of the product we purchased. Some might call this social engineering.

Is this really necessary? Do I really need to feel guilty when I go to the grocery store and buy 4 apples and leave only 2 for someone else to buy?
 
Last edited:

sponger76

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2022
Messages
1,750
Reaction score
1,173
Location
Texas
Marriott can figure out a way to "isolate and neutralize" these serious commercial users without intimidating a lot of families who just want to use the product they bought. If families are at fault, it is probably limited to renting so they can pay the maintenance fees.

These are interesting posts but seem to gravitate towards our supposed obligation to not use too much of the product we purchased. Some might call this social engineering.

Is this really necessary? Do I really need to feel guilty when I go to the grocery store and buy 4 apples and leave only 2 for someone else to buy?
Not if you or your family are going to eat them. But if you're jointly entitled with others to some of a barrel of apples to feed your family and you take the best and, instead of eating them, sell them to others who aren't part of that apple barrel ownership, leaving the other owners just the wormy ones to feed their families, there's a problem.

I have ZERO problem with you USING all of the product you purchased. If you own 52 weeks, stay in timeshares for 52 weeks. You purchased the ability to vacation a week at a time (or more/less if you are using points) at these resorts. But what you did NOT purchase was a vacation rental business. I dare you to show me the contract that says you did.
 
Last edited:

DRH90277

TUG Member
Joined
May 3, 2015
Messages
1,049
Reaction score
814
Location
So Cal to N Carolina
Resorts Owned
Marriott: Ocean Watch, Newport Coast, Grand Chateau, Custom House, Timber Lodge, VCP's.
Not if you or your family are going to eat them. But if you're jointly entitled with others to some of a barrel of apples to feed your family and you take the best and, instead of eating them, sell them to others who aren't part of that apple barrel ownership, leaving the other ownsers just the wormy ones to feed their families, there's a problem.

I have ZERO problem with you USING all of the product you purchased. If you own 52 weeks, stay in timeshares for 52 weeks. You purchased the ability to vacation a week at a time (or more/less if you are using points) at these resorts. But what you did NOT purchase was a vacation rental business. I dare you to show me the contract that says you did.
Interesting you jump to the idea of me renting out a ton of units - not so. Our rentals are infrequent and usually only to help a bit with maintenance fees. I cannot imagine wanting to try to profit from anything timeshare - a small time miserable business it would be.

One other point, MVC has starved the Trust inventory to the extent that it's hard to get good reservations anymore. Is the Trust being starved by these commercial renters or is it a natural consequence of selling lots of points against an already stressed inventory? Considering this, I suspect some owners are also undermining the Abound inventory by not depositing their owned enrolled weeks because of their inability to get point reservations.

The best sign of MVC's commitment to countering the rental revolution they have created would be to have them stop their sales personnel from touting rentals as a reason to buy (and showing people how to do it with handouts). Sales is also advising people to enroll weeks so they can use the points to acquire vacation rentals - crazy stuff.

You and I should be able to eat the apples we buy and be happy. All the best.
 

sponger76

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2022
Messages
1,750
Reaction score
1,173
Location
Texas
Is the Trust being starved by these commercial renters or is it a natural consequence of selling lots of points against an already stressed inventory? Considering this, I suspect some owners are also undermining the Abound inventory by not depositing their owned enrolled weeks because of their inability to get point reservations.
I think it's a number of things. Large commercial renters may indeed be booking a lot of prime reservations with the intent of renting. In addition, if a lot of individual owners are doing the same thing, in aggregate you get the exact same result. As far as weeks owned by the trust, it has never been great because when the trust was created pretty much all the prime weeks at existing resorts were sold, leaving MVC only with the off-season weeks to transfer into it. Not MVC's fault, just a natural consequence of creating the trust well after they had started off selling actual weeks. ROFR of high-value weeks, as discussed previously, is not a good investment from MVC's point of view.

As such, barring the development of new resorts, Abound is indeed dependent upon weeks owners electing their weeks for points. And yes, some owners might not elect for points because they feel they won't get good reservations in return. But I think just as important is that: 1) Many simply like their owned resorts and use the weeks that way, which I can't blame them for. 2) Many may feel they can get better value by renting either renting those weeks or trading via II. I can't blame the re: II, and as far as renting, I actually don't have a problem if it's a fixed week; floating weeks I feel differently, but that's just my take.

The best sign of MVC's commitment to countering the rental revolution they have created would be to have them stop their sales personnel from touting rentals as a reason to buy (and showing people how to do it with handouts). Sales is also advising people to enroll weeks so they can use the points to acquire vacation rentals - crazy stuff.
This is something I can 100% agree with you on. Despite the get out of jail free clause about not relying on verbal assurances, I think it is basically criminal to allow salespeople to do this. The question is, how do we get that practice to end? I'll admit I don't have anything close to a good answer. From what I've read here on TUG, any lawsuits that have been filed and not just threatened on the internet don't seem to have had an effect.
 

sponger76

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2022
Messages
1,750
Reaction score
1,173
Location
Texas
You and I should be able to eat the apples we buy and be happy. All the best.
Agreed. I don't think people should own more timeshare than they can reasonably use, and if I get to that point, I'll start to divest some. It's the same way with other goods. I try not to purchase more apples than my family could actually eat before they spoil, and I have better things to do than try to run an apple-selling business on the side, even if just to offset the cost of the apples I do eat myself.
 

dioxide45

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Lifetime Member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
50,538
Reaction score
22,000
Location
NE Florida
Resorts Owned
Marriott Grande Vista
Marriott Harbour Lake
Sheraton Vistana Villages
Club Wyndham CWA
MVC prohibits "commercial use". Does anyone know what it means exactly?
They don't, this allows them to define it at will and if an owner objects, their only option is expensive litigation. Win for Marriott!
 

BreakingAway

TUG Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
129
Reaction score
81
Resorts Owned
Marriott Monarch at Sea Pines (1)
Marriott Grande Ocean (4)
I think Marriott sold more product than they can provide. Now they are trying to claw back as much of the product as they can from those they had previously sold the product and limiting the alternative uses of the product. On this forum, we seem to accept that it is ok for sales persons to lie because we know they lie. I do not think it is ok.
 

VacationForever

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Messages
17,003
Reaction score
12,058
Location
Somewhere Out There
I think Marriott sold more product than they can provide. Now they are trying to claw back as much of the product as they can from those they had previously sold the product and limiting the alternative uses of the product. On this forum, we seem to accept that it is ok for sales persons to lie because we know they lie. I do not think it is ok.
There is no such thing as "Marriott sold more product than they can provide." Marriott can only sell to what are listed in the trust and deeds that they sold. We are not talking about Manhattan Club issue here.
 
Last edited:

sponger76

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2022
Messages
1,750
Reaction score
1,173
Location
Texas
I think Marriott sold more product than they can provide.
I don't think that's anywhere close to being accurate. When selling weeks, they did not sell more weeks than the resorts actually had.

For the Abound (formerly Destination Club) trust, when selling points, all of those points are backed by actual weeks that were transferred into the trust. The problem is that many of the weeks in the trust are ones that nobody wants to book. So the points backed by those lower tier weeks are competing with everyone else for the better stays in Abound, whether they are trust weeks or owner-elected weeks.

It's the same problem with floating season weeks. Let's say MVC sold a season as 5 weeks (say, all 4 weeks in February and the first week of March) and the resort has 10 units, all the same size/value. So they sold 50 floating weeks, ostensibly all with the same value. Now, let's say that for some reason, everyone really wants to stay at this fictional resort the first week of February, and wants to avoid the later weeks, especially closer to that first week of March. Maybe the first week of February has some awesome annual festival that people like to attend, but by March the place is a ghost town due to seasonal rains starting to make the place muddy. So you've got 50 weeks owners all (or mostly) trying to book the 10 stays available the first week of February. The first ten owners to reserve will be happy, at least for that particular year. Some of the rest might eventually give in and book the second or third week of February, but everyone is trying to avoid the fourth week of February and especially the first week of March. The ones who only have those as their choices feel like their purchase was worthless. But MVC didn't sell more product than they can provide. It's just that most people don't really want parts of the product they actually bought. In their mind, they all somehow think they bought just the first week of February.
 

davidvel

TUG Member
Joined
May 9, 2008
Messages
8,362
Reaction score
5,318
Location
No. Cty. San Diego
Resorts Owned
Marriott Shadow Ridge (Villages)
Carlsbad Inn
MVC prohibits "commercial use". Does anyone know what it means exactly?
See THIS POST for the full language found in the underlying governing document for weeks (this policy apparently applies to weeks as well.) Here is a snippet:
1686248774631.png
 

BreakingAway

TUG Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
129
Reaction score
81
Resorts Owned
Marriott Monarch at Sea Pines (1)
Marriott Grande Ocean (4)
I don't think that's anywhere close to being accurate. When selling weeks, they did not sell more weeks than the resorts actually had.

For the Abound (formerly Destination Club) trust, when selling points, all of those points are backed by actual weeks that were transferred into the trust. The problem is that many of the weeks in the trust are ones that nobody wants to book. So the points backed by those lower tier weeks are competing with everyone else for the better stays in Abound, whether they are trust weeks or owner-elected weeks.

It's the same problem with floating season weeks. Let's say MVC sold a season as 5 weeks (say, all 4 weeks in February and the first week of March) and the resort has 10 units, all the same size/value. So they sold 50 floating weeks, ostensibly all with the same value. Now, let's say that for some reason, everyone really wants to stay at this fictional resort the first week of February, and wants to avoid the later weeks, especially closer to that first week of March. Maybe the first week of February has some awesome annual festival that people like to attend, but by March the place is a ghost town due to seasonal rains starting to make the place muddy. So you've got 50 weeks owners all (or mostly) trying to book the 10 stays available the first week of February. The first ten owners to reserve will be happy, at least for that particular year. Some of the rest might eventually give in and book the second or third week of February, but everyone is trying to avoid the fourth week of February and especially the first week of March. The ones who only have those as their choices feel like their purchase was worthless. But MVC didn't sell more product than they can provide. It's just that most people don't really want parts of the product they actually bought. In their mind, they all somehow think they bought just the first week of February.
Let me clarify. What I mean by product is not just the widget but the function that the widget performs for the buyer as promised. I am aware that Marriott has the points in the trust to sell. But they are selling undesirable points gathered from low demand locations and times that owners are using to reserve desirable locations and times. Examples are this product provides “flexibility” to reserve where you want to when you want to. Another example is that with this product provides access to more inventory when you buy more points to move up each status tier to gain that access. When buyers bought more “product”than they could use to reserve for places and times they and most everyone else wanted to travel, the owners rented some to try to salvage something to cover their enormous costs. So now Marriott blames the owner and tries to claw back the promises they knowingly and deliberately made to sell the product.
 

sponger76

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2022
Messages
1,750
Reaction score
1,173
Location
Texas
Let me clarify. What I mean by product is not just the widget but the function that the widget performs for the buyer as promised. I am aware that Marriott has the points in the trust to sell. But they are selling undesirable points gathered from low demand locations and times that owners are using to reserve desirable locations and times. Examples are this product provides “flexibility” to reserve where you want to when you want to. Another example is that with this product provides access to more inventory when you buy more points to move up each status tier to gain that access. When buyers bought more “product”than they could use to reserve for places and times they and most everyone else wanted to travel, the owners rented some to try to salvage something to cover their enormous costs. So now Marriott blames the owner and tries to claw back the promises they knowingly and deliberately made to sell the product.
Well, you can't wave a magic wand and make all inventory turn into prime weeks at prime locations, so what do you propose? Only sell enough points to cover the prime weeks in the trust, and not allow owners of non-prime weeks to elect them into Abound? Then what, shut down the resorts and send the employees home with no pay during off-peak times since nobody wants to own or pay MFs for them? That's just as fanciful as the magic wand idea.

The only way to completely satisfy all owners is to have enough prime inventory to cover every single person's desire. But with a finite number of rooms and resorts and the existence of days in the year when less people want to go but resorts need to keep operating, that simply isn't possible from either a business or physical standpoint.
 
Last edited:

vol_90

TUG Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2018
Messages
575
Reaction score
618
Resorts Owned
Marriott Phuket Beach Club, Grand Chateau, Canyon Villas, Abound & Asia Pacific Points
Let me clarify. What I mean by product is not just the widget but the function that the widget performs for the buyer as promised. I am aware that Marriott has the points in the trust to sell. But they are selling undesirable points gathered from low demand locations and times that owners are using to reserve desirable locations and times. Examples are this product provides “flexibility” to reserve where you want to when you want to. Another example is that with this product provides access to more inventory when you buy more points to move up each status tier to gain that access. When buyers bought more “product”than they could use to reserve for places and times they and most everyone else wanted to travel, the owners rented some to try to salvage something to cover their enormous costs. So now Marriott blames the owner and tries to claw back the promises they knowingly and deliberately made to sell the product.
Well said. Basically what is being done today is Marriott advertising / selling what they call a premium product with access to prime resorts, locations and times but the underlying product consists of low demand Palm Desert July / August, Branson winter, Park City Summer, etc. points inventory. This puts more and more pressure on the overall prime inventory impacting customer satisfaction.
 

BreakingAway

TUG Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
129
Reaction score
81
Resorts Owned
Marriott Monarch at Sea Pines (1)
Marriott Grande Ocean (4)
Well, you can't wave a magic wand and make all inventory turn into prime weeks at prime locations, so what do you propose? Only sell enough points to cover the prime weeks in the trust, and not allow owners of non-prime weeks to elect them into Abound? Then what, close the resorts during off-peak times since nobody wants to own or pay MFs for them? That's just as fanciful as the magic wand idea.

The only way to completely satisfy all owners is to have enough prime inventory to cover every single person's desire. But with a finite number of rooms and resorts and the existence of days in the year when less people want to go but resorts need to keep operating, that simply isn't possible from either a business or physical standpoint.
My proposal is that Marriott quit selling magic wands that they say will get you reservations wherever and whenever you want. They sell the fantasy that the more points you buy the more powerful the magic wand becomes. They should offer product for what it is without the promise that it is magical. But that would reduce sales.
 

altiste1

TUG Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2020
Messages
214
Reaction score
179
Resorts Owned
Marriott Willow Ridge
Marriott Phuket Beach Club
Wyndham Bali Hai
My proposal is that Marriott quit selling magic wands that they say will get you reservations wherever and whenever you want. They sell the fantasy that the more points you buy the more powerful the magic wand becomes. They should offer product for what it is without the promise that it is magical. But that would reduce sales.
Agreed. Of course, this most reasonable solution is more fanciful than a working magic wand: have the timeshare salesmen tell the truth about their inventory. Yeah, right.
 

sponger76

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2022
Messages
1,750
Reaction score
1,173
Location
Texas
My proposal is that Marriott quit selling magic wands that they say will get you reservations wherever and whenever you want. They sell the fantasy that the more points you buy the more powerful the magic wand becomes. They should offer product for what it is without the promise that it is magical. But that would reduce sales.
They're not selling magic wands, they're selling a tool that has the potential to get you an end result. I could sell you a Bowflex and tell you it can help get you shredded. But unless you use it correctly, you'll still look the same and all you'll get out of it is an oddly shaped laundry rack. Bowflex marketing doesn't have to tell you about all the time and pain you have to put in to get that gain, and they don't have to. The only difference here is that with a Bowflex you're not forced to compete against other Bowflex owners to get in shape.
 
Top