Bill Marriott's Blog comments on SpinOff

[timeos2]

I agree wholeheartedly. While we have exchanged into one of the 'other' timeshare models due to location, my preference is the Marriott and other high-end hotel resorts and I am willing to pay for it. To each his own. Neither is right or wrong.

Ingrid

To make my stance as clear as possible I fully understand, appreciate, and even took part in the name brand and upper scale timeshare experience. We LOVE it! My list of all time favorite 5 resorts has at least 2 and maybe up to 4 Marriott's. They are second to very few in the initially more popular priced timeshare world.

But as you say it comes at a cost. That cost we refuse to pay, while many pay it and get their value out in enjoyment. I sincerely feel that is great, it is a good value to them and that's the bottom line.

My harping on owner vs developer control is (hopefully) to minimize that premium paid even by those owners. I truly feel that the amenities and quality doesn't require the homage in massive dollars that the big names demand. With just a little owner push they may bring the true value received more in line with the costs.

A quality resort or system will never come cheaply no matter who holds control. But I want the best value for every dollar spent by putting as much as possible into the resorts - not going as profit to brand "XXX" forever. Just because the Marriott, Hilton, Hyatt, etc name is on the door doesn't mean you have to pay forever to keep the quality.

In no way meant to be condescending - only to point out where perhaps improvements to an already great system can be found and perhaps with a corresponding reduction in cost that could even lead to better resale value.
Can a non-name system/resort be as good or better than the "names"? Of course. Are the names at least one way to have a fighting chance of an upscale and more consistent experience? Absolutely. There is still no need to pay a penny more than necessary or to be taken advantage of simply to get that extra edge. Value will always be the name of the game.

 

[EducatedConsumer]

Geez. It's tricky to agree with someone, but dislike the utterly pompous way the point is made. The criticism leveled against you was that you were being overly broad. I think that's fair. There must SURELY be pockets of opportunity SOMEWHERE in the timeshare universe. Still, I think you were close to the truth. But why drag in the resume? Can't the points stand on their own?

Point well stated and well taken.

 

[dioxide45]

I think the brands are what helps maintain the quality level. Can an independent timeshare resort get the same quality for less? Absolutely. However you have to have a very dedicated HOA board and an owner base that is also willing.

If a Marriott resort (or any brand) was to be "de-branded" I would expect that it wouldn't be long before the owners and the HOA started to cut corners to keep costs down and MF increases in check. The brand demands a level of quality, once that is brand is dropped, there is a lot of effort required by everyone to keep that same level of quality. After a number of years what owners bought in to would no longer exist at the same level that it did when they bought.

 

[gnorth16]

Geez. It's tricky to agree with someone, but dislike the utterly pompous way the point is made. The criticism leveled against you was that you were being overly broad. I think that's fair. There must SURELY be pockets of opportunity SOMEWHERE in the timeshare universe. Still, I think you were close to the truth. But why drag in the resume? Can't the points stand on their own?

Agreed.

At least I got the detailed reply I was looking for!

FWIW, I know I am not going to win an argument with a "behaviorist". :ignore:

 

[pwrshift]

Looks like Marriott has been editing out negative posts on this blog. Poor show, Bill. Hide the truth.

 

[SueDonJ]

Looks like Marriott has been editing out negative posts on this blog. Poor show, Bill. Hide the truth.

No surprise there, they did the same thing back when Bill first blogged about both the DC and the spin-off. If I had a blog I'd probably delete the stuff I didn't want on there, too.

 

[SueDonJ]

To make my stance as clear as possible I fully understand, appreciate, and even took part in the name brand and upper scale timeshare experience. We LOVE it! My list of all time favorite 5 resorts has at least 2 and maybe up to 4 Marriott's. They are second to very few in the initially more popular priced timeshare world.

But as you say it comes at a cost. That cost we refuse to pay, while many pay it and get their value out in enjoyment. I sincerely feel that is great, it is a good value to them and that's the bottom line.

My harping on owner vs developer control is (hopefully) to minimize that premium paid even by those owners. I truly feel that the amenities and quality doesn't require the homage in massive dollars that the big names demand. With just a little owner push they may bring the true value received more in line with the costs.

A quality resort or system will never come cheaply no matter who holds control. But I want the best value for every dollar spent by putting as much as possible into the resorts - not going as profit to brand "XXX" forever. Just because the Marriott, Hilton, Hyatt, etc name is on the door doesn't mean you have to pay forever to keep the quality.

In no way meant to be condescending - only to point out where perhaps improvements to an already great system can be found and perhaps with a corresponding reduction in cost that could even lead to better resale value.
Can a non-name system/resort be as good or better than the "names"? Of course. Are the names at least one way to have a fighting chance of an upscale and more consistent experience? Absolutely. There is still no need to pay a penny more than necessary or to be taken advantage of simply to get that extra edge. Value will always be the name of the game.

Thanks, John, I appreciate that you answered the criticism. You make a valid point that perhaps the big bad developers don't have to take as much of a profit at our expense as they do, but the problem is that they hold the power to set their profit margins and we really are not in a position to push them to take less. As developers they wrote the governing docs with built-in protections for their management services. Their trump card is that they are free to sever the management contracts with each of their resorts arbitrarily and immediately, which in Marriott's case they've done at a few resorts when owners pushed too far.

It simply comes down to, if we want the brand name-associated benefits then we have to pay the price set by the brand name holder. Quite honestly, if I ever find myself feeling like I'm not getting the usage value I want out of the cost they're charging me, then that's when I'll walk away (with the full understanding that I'll be suffering a financial loss by doing so.) Fighting them is a losing battle because even if the owners manage to gain a small measure of success, it will most surely result in some sort of usage sacrifice.

Anyway, thanks again for your thoughts. I know you weren't responding directly to my post, but I did hope that you would take that in the spirit it was written, which was hopeful for a mutual respect.

 

[SueDonJ]

I think the brands are what helps maintain the quality level. Can an independent timeshare resort get the same quality for less? Absolutely. However you have to have a very dedicated HOA board and an owner base that is also willing.

If a Marriott resort (or any brand) was to be "de-branded" I would expect that it wouldn't be long before the owners and the HOA started to cut corners to keep costs down and MF increases in check. The brand demands a level of quality, once that is brand is dropped, there is a lot of effort required by everyone to keep that same level of quality. After a number of years what owners bought in to would no longer exist at the same level that it did when they bought.

I agree completely. The thought of a majority ownership controlling my resorts' management is actually frightening to me because there's no doubt that cost-reducing measures would be the driving force of any majority. Happy people don't rise up and mobilize, which leaves the doors wide open for the unhappy people to gain the power. Nothing makes timeshare owners more unhappy than the feeling that they're paying too much for their timeshares.

I actually like that Marriott has a high-quality brand standard and the power to force that standard upon the resorts which carry the name. There's a guarantee of usage value with that, and for me usage value is more of a priority than cost reductions. I'll happily accept a certain percentage increase of MF's every year if it means that our vacations will continue to be as wonderful as they've been so far.

 

[timeos2]

I agree completely. The thought of a majority ownership controlling my resorts' management is actually frightening to me because there's no doubt that cost-reducing measures would be the driving force of any majority. Happy people don't rise up and mobilize, which leaves the doors wide open for the unhappy people to gain the power. Nothing makes timeshare owners more unhappy than the feeling that they're paying too much for their timeshares.

I actually like that Marriott has a high-quality brand standard and the power to force that standard upon the resorts which carry the name. There's a guarantee of usage value with that, and for me usage value is more of a priority than cost reductions. I'll happily accept a certain percentage increase of MF's every year if it means that our vacations will continue to be as wonderful as they've been so far.

Sue - In at least one case I know of a completely owner controlled resort has taken an early nineties style resort and taken it to a fresh look & current style. In fact a few (very few) owners have from time to time said it's becoming too stylish, but overall the changes & upgrades have been appreciated. All paid for by those owners.

I shudder to think what the cost would have been to accomplish the work had we been saddled with $1m /year management fees as we were under developer control. Instead we cut costs for management to around $340k and that quarter of a million PER YEAR has gone to improving the resort, not a corporate bottom line. To me that's the way it should be.

 

[SueDonJ]

Sue - In at least one case I know of a completely owner controlled resort has taken an early nineties style resort and taken it to a fresh look & current style. In fact a few (very few) owners have from time to time said it's becoming too stylish, but overall the changes & upgrades have been appreciated. All paid for by those owners.

I shudder to think what the cost would have been to accomplish the work had we been saddled with $1m /year management fees as we were under developer control. Instead we cut costs for management to around $340k and that quarter of a million PER YEAR has gone to improving the resort, not a corporate bottom line. To me that's the way it should be.

No doubt, John, it's possible things could happen exactly the way you say at independent timeshare resorts where the ownership base is solid, dependable and well-established. It's even possible that a resort formerly developed and managed by one of the big name players could ultimately re-invent itself as a successful independent resort that maintains a high level of quality. In fact several formerly-Marriott resorts have done just that.

But there are other considerations when determining whether or not there is usage value in paying the management fees to a big name player. I have no doubt that if either Marriott severed a management contract or the ownership at a Marriott resort could muster the votes necessary to vote Marriott out (a daunting task in and of itself which would probably result from warring ownership factions, IMO,) the owners would lose access/status to the associated customer loyalty Marriott Rewards program, extensive network of affiliated resorts, the high rating and internal preference in II, and Marriott's DC internal exchange program. Those are the sacrifices I wouldn't want to make.

I know that extrapolated Marriott's 10% management fee is a humongous amount of dollars and they could probably "suffer" a lesser amount fairly easily. But if I condense the extrapolated figure down to what it actually costs me for all of the benefits associated with a Marriott-named resort, I'm only - ha! - paying +/- $100 annually per week for those benefits. Eh, I can deal with that.

And quite honestly, I don't want to have to be that much of a watchdog for my timeshares. Knowing that Marriott has built-in protections that make it nearly impossible for warring and/or minority ownership factions to cause a mutiny gives me a sense of security. As long as I don't see blatant mismanagement and obscenely escalating costs from Marriott (which the TUG community helps me to monitor,) then I'm okay with being in Marriott's clutches.