Increasingly disappointed long term owner

[timsi]

Thanks, I have discussed the anticipation availability previously and I see it as different but apparently I didn't word it well. timsi is essentially saying they are not following the rules and stealing high demand reservations. I've seen no evidence of that and I believe that the risk of them doing so would be far greater than the financial benefits.

Those who are close to the developer have repeatedly failed to present a realistic way to book millions of nights each year, especially considering the frequent cancellations and rebookings that come with hotel reservations.

Please don’t twist my words. What I actually said is that if they’re using any resort personnel for their rental business, they should reimburse the resorts. Your claim that you haven’t seen any evidence of inventory issues is fundamentally meaningless since you don’t have access to the process and inventory details.

 

[Dean]

Those who are close to the developer have repeatedly failed to present a realistic way to book millions of nights each year, especially considering the frequent cancellations and rebookings that come with hotel reservations.

Please don’t twist my words. What I actually said is that if they’re using any resort personnel for their rental business, they should reimburse the resorts. Your claim that you haven’t seen any evidence of inventory issues is fundamentally meaningless since you don’t have access to the process and inventory details.

I believe they should use the personnel MVC employs for all bookings both because they are their employees and they are also acting as an owner in some situation. To me this is appropriate as long as they follow the rules in place. Indirectly we may be paying for that but I can't see where it'd make any substantial difference in our fees either way. NONE of us have insider knowledge of the exact operations in all aspects unless we have actually worked for MVC in those areas. Maybe I misunderstood the intent of your posts, so you do not feel they are stealing high demand inventory for rental? I believe your posts have implied otherwise.

 

[timsi]

There are many jurisdictions in which they operate that requires the exchange company to be regularly audited (not a financial audit, but an audit of how the exchange system is actually operated) that provides a check that MVC operates the system fairly.

I’m not sure how much we can rely on such audits when we have no information about them. We don’t know who’s conducting them, if and when they’re happening, or how they’re being done, and we certainly don’t have access to the actual reports. To tie this back to my earlier comments, IF they’re using resort personnel to block inventory for their rental business, then even the toughest inventory audit at the corporate level wouldn’t reveal anything useful since the actual allocation would have already happened before the head office process kicks in.

 

[ocdb8r]

Thanks, I have discussed the anticipation availability previously and I see it as different but apparently I didn't word it well. timsi is essentially saying they are not following the rules and stealing high demand reservations. I've seen no evidence of that and I believe that the risk of them doing so would be far greater than the financial benefits.

Totally agree.

 

[Dean]

I’m not sure how much we can rely on such audits when we have no information about them. We don’t know who’s conducting them, if and when they’re happening, or how they’re being done, and we certainly don’t have access to the actual reports. To tie this back to my earlier comments, IF they’re using resort personnel to block inventory for their rental business, then even the toughest inventory audit at the corporate level wouldn’t reveal anything useful since the actual allocation would have already happened before the head office process kicks in.

Such blocks are not done at the resort level but at the corporate level is my understanding but I have reached out to a couple of contracts as well to get more info.

 

[timsi]

Such blocks are not done at the resort level but at the corporate level is my understanding but I have reached out to a couple of contracts as well to get more info.

It appears you are confirming that they block inventory for their own reservations. Can you please clarify?

 

[timsi]

Sorry in advance if this is a little long. I wanted to provide some background for feedback and discussion.

We own 3 deeded weeks (all platinum, 2 Myrtle Beach, 1 Aruba surf) and 4,000 vacation club points.

The weeks have always worked well, mostly, and continue to. We either use or rent those out on redweek with 100% success rate.

I have found since vacation club has grown that our preferred check-in day with the 13-month window seems sold out instantly when inventory opens. I suspect (can't prove) that bulk diversions to points are somehow causing this. I also find unit preferences (high floor, particular buildings, etc) are much harder to get, being told there is some magic rotation and maybe next year. In the first 10-15 years of weeks ownership, I got the desired check-in day almost every year and we were always satisfied with unit location. In the last 5 or so years, the opposite is always, and I mean always, the case. Early on we traded weeks or lock-offs a couple of times. Since then, we rent weeks were are not using through RedWeek. That works well, though Marriott is also trying to make that more difficult it seems.

Vacation club points are the main disappointment. We purchased points about five years ago to incorporate some excluded resale units and thought the flexible schedule options would be nice (short stays, longer stays, etc). We managed a few trips in the first couple of years (HI-Maui twice, Newport Beach once).

In more recent years, I have been unable to find much interesting or appealing, or much of anything. Newport Beach is always available; we enjoyed it, but we are not really interested in regular visits. Maui was very nice, but we are on the East Coast and won't do that often (for that much travel, we prefer Europe or Asia, where we go, but not with MVC much). We've used it for pulse locations (DC) twice (nice place, but not a great points use).

My regular searches basically show no inventory all the time unless I go deep, deep into the off-season. We are pretty flexible, but not interested in the very off-season inventory for the same reason it is available. I've looked at the specialized trips and cruises, etc. All of these seem to inefficiently convert your maintenance payment into surplus/discount inventory markets. Every single cruise I found (about 5 or 6 tested) was much more attractive when searching discount cruise sites directly. I didn't see any lift above maintenance fees (I think all the cruises were available for less than the points pro-rata maintenance fees), let alone a premium for having joined the program.

I wouldn't even consider turning a week into points now (and never did that). I can't see any reasonable added flexibility to our existing ownership. While good weeks clearly have more utility than than their maintenance fees, I don't see this with points, let along any premium for the up-front membership.

Does anything see this improving? Could I be doing something wrong? Do I need a different search/request approach?

I'm trying to understand whether this is a post-COVID inventory problem or vast overselling and oversubscription of the points system.

For decades, I was a strong advocate for Marriott and encouraged a few people I know to buy (resale platinum weeks thankfully). Now, I just tell anyone who will asks to simply rent what you want through a service like Redweek with their verified reserve-through-redweek option. I met a family in Aruba earlier this year that had the impression points were as easy to use as booking a hotel, even with the constraints of a young child. They were contemplating a loan. I was embarrassed to even be at a Marriott property after hearing how they were trying to mislead these people.

This is increasingly annoying and disappointing for me, but not a hardship. We like to travel a lot and are quite flexible, but at least the points are turning into a dead end. We are still generally happy with the weeks, but the points seem like a scam at this point (I think we paid 35K-40K). I don't mean a weak product; I mean a scam in the full sense.

Is there a realistic way to get valuable usage from these points or is there some aspect of usage that I'm missing?

All feedback or follow-up questions welcome

Thanks in advance,
Dan

There’s been a lot of back and forth on this topic, so I’d like to share my perspective on why we find ourselves inthis situation. I believe the industry originally focused on building resorts, selling them for profit, and managing them for a long-term revenue stream. Mass rentals and reselling existing inventory probably weren’t part of the initial plan. However, over time, they discovered that the real gold mine was acquiring existing inventory for a fraction of the building cost. They also realized that many units owned by individuals often go unoccupied. As developers got more sophisticated, the rules have been consistently adjusted to exploit this opportunity. Take the Vistana situation, for instance, where there are very few ROFR resorts, yet all points programs later developed include ROFR. Specifically referring to Marriott, there seems to be a perceived conflict between their need to grow the bottom line and our desire for the best inventory and booking experience at the lowest annual cost. This is generally not the case with most other products we buy or services we use, where, aside from cost related issues, the only interest companies have is providing the best experience for their customers.

Several factors contribute to this. Over the years Marriott’s rental business has probably grown substantially, with millions of nights sold annually. Owners speculate about whether the developer uses different booking processes or tools than regular owners, and I think this is a reasonable question given their substantial portfolio and booking volume.
Moreover, developers have a vested interest in maximizing rental income by securing the best inventory and prime weeks. Despite calls for transparency, they remain secretive about their operations, which is concerning since they control the booking system without providing insight into how they prioritize bookings or protect owner interests. While some argue there's no evidence of bias, the lack of transparency makes it impossible to exonerate them either. It's widely acknowledged that Interval developer deposits are generally less desirable weeks, hinting at a deliberate selective process. Why should we trust that Interval is an outlier in how they run their business?

For Abound owners, the best trust inventory is key to accessing prime weeks and reducing maintenance fees. However, the trust management isn't independent from the developer, raising questions about perceived conflict of interest. Just look at the Vistana inventory conveyed to the Abound trust. Can anyone honestly claim that it represents Marriott’s best inventory at the time, or at the very least, the average quality of inventory owned by Marriott? How did trust management safeguard owners' interests and fulfil their fiduciary duty (can lawyers clarify if there is one), and was there any resistance if they predominantly received less desirable weeks? If there are no safeguards in place, no fiduciary duty, and the trust routinely accepts whatever is given, are there disclosures made to potential buyers detailing this process and the likelihood of receiving subpar inventory in the future?

The third issue arises from their push to increase the number of sales tour packages sold. While this alone should be reasonable within a system with appropriate checks and balances, recent public statements trouble me. They appear keen to expand the number of sales tours, but simultaneously mention they are not increasing their own inventory. This raises an important question: where will this additional inventory come from? One can speculate they are trying to get more units unreserved by owners, and they seem to believe they are not obliged to compensate resorts for these rooms.
My interpretation of the rules is that they are permitted to book unreserved units 60-0 days before check in without owning the underlying inventory, but they should still compensate resorts for the expenses incurred. This makes sense to me, as these guests consume energy and contribute to wear and tear, among other factors. It is logical to ask the developer to cover these additional expenses, which would not exist if the units remained unoccupied. There's a thread in the Vistana forum alleging that inventory disappears 60 days before check-in, preventing regular owners from booking. If this is indeed the case, it raises questions about why owners no longer have access to these rooms. This concern may seem less relevant to meticulous planners who book 12 months in advance and rarely change, but it is important for all other owners. Having more inventory available 60 days before check-in not only benefits last-minute reservations butalso frees inventory elsewhere, especially when owners have to cancel other existing reservations and use the points for the new reservation.

The last problem is that it is hard for me to understand how our goal to have the best resorts for the lowest MF is attainable when the developer is potentially interested in bigger resort budgets, not smaller.

I used to encourage others to buy resale, but as I’ve learned more, I’ve come to realize that the situation is more concerning than I initially thought—and it isn’t improving. If I can’t even recommend resale, I wonder how people still find value and joy in purchasing directly from the developer.

 

[Dean]

It appears you are confirming that they block inventory for their own reservations. Can you please clarify?

Of course they reserve rental inventory and as pointed out, they have the contractual right to anticipate such inventory that historically they know will be available anyway. They also block inventory for maintenance and refurbishment plans. They also institute minimum stays and possibly specific check in days in some situations. They have weeks or points they own in the system, they have unsold and potentially undeclared inventory, they have breakage inventory not reserved by members, they have inventory from members who are delinquent, they take weeks in as a rental from members, they have points that were exchanged by members for II and they have points exchanged by members for cash type options. I may have even missed some line items for them to reserve.. Most of these go to rental inventory and some to II or promotions. The question isn't whether they reserve for rental but rather whether they follow the applicable rules to secure the reservation and for a given option and who gets the money minus whatever expenses or commissions are applicable. ALL timeshares I know of have a somewhat similar situation. BTW, II also rents some of the weeks they get from members and did well before MVC was involved in their ownership.

 

[Dean]

I used to encourage others to buy resale, but as I’ve learned more, I’ve come to realize that the situation is more concerning than I initially thought—and it isn’t improving. If I can’t even recommend resale, I wonder how people still find value and joy in purchasing directly from the developer.

I don't think I've ever encouraged anyone to buy retail except in very specific circumstances. With MVC this would have been as part of an enrollment package, I can't think of any additional exceptions but maybe there are others. Now that has gotten so expensive that it's difficult to even find a situation where that makes sense. The only retail purchases I've ever encouraged otherwise were for DVC and even those were specialty situations and because the margins between retail and resale was relatively small and for things not reasonably available resale. However, the reality is that without retail, the system's value will erode quickly. I do think there are lots of instances where resale makes sense for the well informed buyer. And we continue to support them if we continue to pay maintenance fees.

 

[SueDonJ]

There’s been a lot of back and forth on this topic, so I’d like to share my perspective on why we find ourselves inthis situation. I believe the industry originally focused on building resorts, selling them for profit, and managing them for a long-term revenue stream. Mass rentals and reselling existing inventory probably weren’t part of the initial plan. However, over time, they discovered that the real gold mine was acquiring existing inventory for a fraction of the building cost. They also realized that many units owned by individuals often go unoccupied. As developers got more sophisticated, the rules have been consistently adjusted to exploit this opportunity. ...

So much of this is just a rehash of many, many posts from you over the years so I'm going to just focus on these leading statements above.

EVERYTHING that Marriott (i.e. every iteration of the company from the day they got into the timeshare business up to and including today) is allowed to do with the timeshares that come under their umbrella is via rights granted them through the original and amended governing docs that were approved by local, state and federal authorities based on timeshare laws. Marriott wasn't the first timeshare company to come into existence and they studied the industry before jumping in. I don't agree that from the outset they didn't consider the possibility of profits for them in rentals, resales, acquisitions of previously-sold intervals, access to intervals unused by owners, and as Dean mentions, access to intervals based on historical usage projections. You can add the rights they gave themselves for onsite sundry stores and restaurants, and at some resorts (like Barony Beach) the income generated by leasing onsite space to outside vendors for spas and the like. I'm sure there are other things that can be added to this list.

My point is, with the majority of these issues the rules didn't require changing after the fact to benefit Marriott. They were baked in from the beginning.

 

[timsi]

Of course they reserve rental inventory and as pointed out, they have the contractual right to anticipate such inventory that historically they know will be available anyway.

The rule you’re referring to merely allows them to assign specific weeks of the calendar to Abound before owners deposit and to rent units from others in case they miscalculated their estimates and need to restore inventory. The rule in question does not grant them any special privileges in booking their own rental inventory; I think you’re conflating the t wo. I have yet to see any compelling argument suggesting that they should have an advantage over other owners regarding inventory bookings, according to any rules. I’m not referring to a particular resort, where rules may have historically favored them, but rather to the system as a whole, including Abound, VSN, all the Vistana trusts, and Vistana resorts.

 

[timsi]

My point is, with the majority of these issues the rules didn't require changing after the fact to benefit Marriott. They were baked in from the beginning.

Many rules have been changed in time and this has been discussed extensively on TUG, other rules did not even exist, like those pertaining to Abound for Vistana. Abound itself (MVC at the time) did not exist when they built most of the resorts. The fact that rules have been vetted by the regulators does not mean that the manner in which they are applied has been completely scrutinized; I believe that is a weak point you have made repeatedly. At the very beginning of my comment I was not even referring to Marriott. In any case, the legality aspect of it was not the point of my comment, but rather why some owners may feel unhappy about Abound.

 

[Fasttr]

 

[Dean]

Many rules have been changed in time and this has been discussed extensively on TUG, other rules did not even exist, like those pertaining to Abound for Vistana. Abound itself (MVC at the time) did not exist when they built most of the resorts. The fact that rules have been vetted by the regulators does not mean that the manner in which they are applied has been completely scrutinized; I believe that is a weak point you have made repeatedly. At the very beginning of my comment I was not even referring to Marriott. In any case, the legality aspect of it was not the point of my comment, but rather why some owners may feel unhappy about Abound.

LOL. You do know that you've elected to participate in a system with an uneven playing field that was intentionally set up to to favor the developer/management company, will change over time and in terms of reservations procedures, generally does not require input at all for such changes.

 

[AlmostRetired]

The document attached was created in 1993 and given to me with my first resell purchased from Marriott in 1995. In week ownership you have and always had options. Now destination points apply to a subset of week owners. If you invested in destination points, you also have options.
At the 10,000 foot view we all know how things work with trading power, how weeks get traded into II, what happens to the weeks that are traded for destination points, what happens to your week if you get reward points, etc. We know with DP's you can get available weeks in the trust or weeks exchanged for DP's. Marriott has always had a systems were benefits are based on how much you own. We were never sure how developer weeks fit into that. With the purchase of II, it muddied the waters more. The closer the view, the more cloudier the view gets and at the 500 foot view we are all clueless. No amount of discussion will convince me otherwise. So I put 100% of my efforts go into understanding the rules and applying them to the basics of using, exchanging into II or renting with the added capability to rent points to get the most of my ownership. My criteria for how happy I am is backward looking at years end at what I got for my yearly cost. I am happier some years more than others. I will divest in some or all of my portfolio if at any point I am consistently unhappy. I can't worry about what is behind the curtain at street view because I never will.

 

[timsi]

LOL. You do know that you've elected to participate in a system with an uneven playing field that was intentionally set up to to favor the developer/management company, will change over time and in terms of reservations procedures, generally does not require input at all for such changes.

Your cynical comment sums it up well. If this is the prevailing attitude, I question how customer-centric they really are and how far they've strayed from that over time. They seem entrenched in a model where building new villas is very limited, focusing on extracting more revenue from existing resorts. It would benefit them to listen totheir members and return to a point where existing owners happily refer their loved ones.
It appears to me that even some of the presumably better-informed owners, who may understand at a higher level that the deck is stacked against them, refuse to believe just how bad it might be. I think the company really needs a paradigm shift.

While some may believe they're helping, I see it as contributing to the issue. Perhaps the tinfoil hats are sitting too low, obscuring their vision.

 

[Dean]

Your cynical comment sums it up well. If this is the prevailing attitude, I question how customer-centric they really are and how far they've strayed from that over time. They seem entrenched in a model where building new villas is very limited, focusing on extracting more revenue from existing resorts. It would benefit them to listen totheir members and return to a point where existing owners happily refer their loved ones.
It appears to me that even some of the presumably better-informed owners, who may understand at a higher level that the deck is stacked against them, refuse to believe just how bad it might be. I think the company really needs a paradigm shift.

While some may believe they're helping, I see it as contributing to the issue. Perhaps the tinfoil hats are sitting too low, obscuring their vision.

I don't see that as cynical, I see it as reality, really a given. One we all knew or should have known going in BEFORE buying. That statement applies to ALL timeshares I've ever had knowledge of. Some are more benevolent than others but it's the reality.

 

[ocdb8r]

Your cynical comment sums it up well. If this is the prevailing attitude, I question how customer-centric they really are and how far they've strayed from that over time. They seem entrenched in a model where building new villas is very limited, focusing on extracting more revenue from existing resorts. It would benefit them to listen totheir members and return to a point where existing owners happily refer their loved ones.
It appears to me that even some of the presumably better-informed owners, who may understand at a higher level that the deck is stacked against them, refuse to believe just how bad it might be. I think the company really needs a paradigm shift.

While some may believe they're helping, I see it as contributing to the issue. Perhaps the tinfoil hats are sitting too low, obscuring their vision.

So what exactly is your agenda? What are you proposing? Because thus far it seems like TUG is simply an outlet for you to b***h and whine about MVC for the past 2.5 years and pick fights with other owners who are sufficiently satisfied with their ownership to continue and/or try to maximize the best they can. As a consumer you can choose to purchase and consume the product or not. Given your posts seem to imply you're still an owner, you are either realizing some value from the ownership or choosing to continue as an owner simply so you can complain about the system, processes and product here on TUG. I simply don't get it.

 

[jp10558]

Specifically referring to Marriott, there seems to be a perceived conflict between their need to grow the bottom line and our desire for the best inventory and booking experience at the lowest annual cost. This is generally not the case with most other products we buy or services we use, where, aside from cost related issues, the only interest companies have is providing the best experience for their customers.

This is absolutely not true. Plenty of companies - especially in the software space, but more and more in the "can I make it a subscription" space do this. Think of BMW subscription to seat heaters as an example, or Adobe Creative Cloud. Hell, let me point towards the other long thread on passing on Credit Card fees, delivery company fuel surcharges and more.

Plenty of companies squeeze current customers as much as possible for no benefit and apparently make a lot of money doing so.

 

[SueDonJ]

Your cynical comment sums it up well. If this is the prevailing attitude, I question how customer-centric they really are and how far they've strayed from that over time. They seem entrenched in a model where building new villas is very limited, focusing on extracting more revenue from existing resorts. It would benefit them to listen totheir members and return to a point where existing owners happily refer their loved ones.
It appears to me that even some of the presumably better-informed owners, who may understand at a higher level that the deck is stacked against them, refuse to believe just how bad it might be. I think the company really needs a paradigm shift.

While some may believe they're helping, I see it as contributing to the issue. Perhaps the tinfoil hats are sitting too low, obscuring their vision.

There you go again, insinuating that only the people who agree with you are knowledgeable about the reality of timeshares, and the rest of us are either willingly ignorant or willing to repeatedly vomit up whatever rotten product Big Bad Marriott forces down our throats as we ask, "please sir, may we have another?"

You couldn't be further from the truth.

I and many other TUGgers have been with Marriott for a long time, know how to get what we want/need from our ownerships, and are obviously happy enough to remain as owners. Others not so much, the premise on which this thread was started, and that's okay too. From the day I started reading TUG, before purchasing any timeshares, it's been a mix of the same. In those days there were two major complaints: the first, that as each new resort came online the pricing was so much higher that the company simply couldn't be sustained; and the second, that if the Marriott Rewards allotments for intervals didn't increase along with the requirements for MR stays then that devaluation would eventually sink the company's timeshare business. Neither of those suppositions has EVER come true despite product pricing continuing to rise on a regular basis and Bonvoy allotments remaining the same as the day an interval is purchased. These days, of course, the complaints have expanded commensurate with the expansion of inventory/products and all the various usage options. But the company isn't in danger of imploding any more today than it was on the day I started reading TUG.

Marriott relies on owner referrals to generate sales. Yep, true, same as any other timeshare company. But it's also been true that TUG is not and never has been the place to find a majority ownership extolling blind worship of the company or the product. The extent of any referrals I've ever made to people goes something like this: "Timeshares are a niche product that require an ongoing financial commitment that's ever-increasing. I love the way we are able to vacation at Marriott timeshares! But be warned that I spend a lot of time on a website devoted to timesharing in order to make the best of what we own. And it's work! You have to learn which product will suit your needs/wants, you have to be able to book high-demand inventory as soon as it becomes available, you have to know how to find what your options are and how to make them happen. If you have the time and the money - because the best products that give you the most options are expensive - then look into it. But don't believe at face value everything that you hear in a sales presentation, and even if you know what you want don't buy it at first opportunity during a sales presentation - there is a robust timeshare resale market that might work for you so look into that, too." I don't think anybody would call that a rousing endorsement of any timeshare company or product, certainly not the one I've chosen to own! Yet many other owners share it and we haven't managed to bring about the company's downfall yet.

I always feel badly for people who post to TUG that their enjoyment of their timeshares is waning and they're beginning to think about getting out. Not because I think they shouldn't, or because I think they're wrong to feel the way they do, or because I disagree with any negative perceptions they've newly developed about the companies with which they've chosen to do business. Their feelings are legitimate for them, so who am I to tell them they're wrong?!?! No, what makes me feel badly about them is that they're closing a chapter in their lives that formerly gave them joy - and that's sad no matter the particulars.

But that's not how you, @timsi, approach TUG. You barrel in to so many threads with your divisive rhetoric about timeshares and timeshare companies and people who like timeshares and everything timeshare-related under the sun, and you insult the people who don't agree with you despite some of what you believe being wrong. The latest example of that is your commentary about Marriott beginning its timeshare business not realizing all the ways that they could monetize it and profit off of it, then at some later point having the lightbulb go off when they decided to become less altruistic (as if altruism were ever a company objective) and screw owners over. That's just wrong! Nobody who looked into the company before purchasing the product could logically come away with that impression!

So sure, you keep using TUG to write your diatribes against the timeshare companies when you lately come to realize what others have pragmatically (NOT cynically) known all along. We'll play your game and sometimes eventually get riled up enough to join it. But for once and for all, will you PLEASE stop insulting the people who think differently from you?!

 

[timsi]

But for once and for all, will you PLEASE stop insulting the people who think differently from you?!

The tunnel vision here is quite astonishing. Perhaps you overlooked the tinfoil hat that followed my comment, which was clearly directed at me. That seems like an insult, don’t you think? Oh, but wait—you actually liked that comment! So, before you start throwing stones, maybe take a moment to look around you.

 

[Huskerpaul]

So sure, you keep using TUG to write your diatribes against the timeshare companies when you lately come to realize what others have pragmatically (NOT cynically) known all along. We'll play your game and sometimes eventually get riled up enough to join it. But for once and for all, will you PLEASE stop insulting the people who think differently from you?!

The reason I have had @timsi on ignore for over a year now. Adds nothing and only tears down. I don't see any of their response, just other posters getting annoyed. Just ignore the troll under the bridge and they will go away. My TUG experience has been all the better for it!

 

[gerryburguera]

There you go again, insinuating that only the people who agree with you are knowledgeable about the reality of timeshares, and the rest of us are either willingly ignorant or willing to repeatedly vomit up whatever rotten product Big Bad Marriott forces down our throats as we ask, "please sir, may we have another?"

You couldn't be further from the truth.

I and many other TUGgers have been with Marriott for a long time, know how to get what we want/need from our ownerships, and are obviously happy enough to remain as owners. Others not so much, the premise on which this thread was started, and that's okay too. From the day I started reading TUG, before purchasing any timeshares, it's been a mix of the same. In those days there were two major complaints: the first, that as each new resort came online the pricing was so much higher that the company simply couldn't be sustained; and the second, that if the Marriott Rewards allotments for intervals didn't increase along with the requirements for MR stays then that devaluation would eventually sink the company's timeshare business. Neither of those suppositions has EVER come true despite product pricing continuing to rise on a regular basis and Bonvoy allotments remaining the same as the day an interval is purchased. These days, of course, the complaints have expanded commensurate with the expansion of inventory/products and all the various usage options. But the company isn't in danger of imploding any more today than it was on the day I started reading TUG.

Marriott relies on owner referrals to generate sales. Yep, true, same as any other timeshare company. But it's also been true that TUG is not and never has been the place to find a majority ownership extolling blind worship of the company or the product. The extent of any referrals I've ever made to people goes something like this: "Timeshares are a niche product that require an ongoing financial commitment that's ever-increasing. I love the way we are able to vacation at Marriott timeshares! But be warned that I spend a lot of time on a website devoted to timesharing in order to make the best of what we own. And it's work! You have to learn which product will suit your needs/wants, you have to be able to book high-demand inventory as soon as it becomes available, you have to know how to find what your options are and how to make them happen. If you have the time and the money - because the best products that give you the most options are expensive - then look into it. But don't believe at face value everything that you hear in a sales presentation, and even if you know what you want don't buy it at first opportunity during a sales presentation - there is a robust timeshare resale market that might work for you so look into that, too." I don't think anybody would call that a rousing endorsement of any timeshare company or product, certainly not the one I've chosen to own! Yet many other owners share it and we haven't managed to bring about the company's downfall yet.

I always feel badly for people who post to TUG that their enjoyment of their timeshares is waning and they're beginning to think about getting out. Not because I think they shouldn't, or because I think they're wrong to feel the way they do, or because I disagree with any negative perceptions they've newly developed about the companies with which they've chosen to do business. Their feelings are legitimate for them, so who am I to tell them they're wrong?!?! No, what makes me feel badly about them is that they're closing a chapter in their lives that formerly gave them joy - and that's sad no matter the particulars.

But that's not how you, @timsi, approach TUG. You barrel in to so many threads with your divisive rhetoric about timeshares and timeshare companies and people who like timeshares and everything timeshare-related under the sun, and you insult the people who don't agree with you despite some of what you believe being wrong. The latest example of that is your commentary about Marriott beginning its timeshare business not realizing all the ways that they could monetize it and profit off of it, then at some later point having the lightbulb go off when they decided to become less altruistic (as if altruism were ever a company objective) and screw owners over. That's just wrong! Nobody who looked into the company before purchasing the product could logically come away with that impression!

So sure, you keep using TUG to write your diatribes against the timeshare companies when you lately come to realize what others have pragmatically (NOT cynically) known all along. We'll play your game and sometimes eventually get riled up enough to join it. But for once and for all, will you PLEASE stop insulting the people who think differently from you?!

Eloquent exposé. Or more accurately, touché.

My family has found a lot of value reading this forum. Some posters are more valuable than others in terms of their contributions, but some seem to be downright disgruntled. We have seen the MVC diminish is quality over our 20+ years of ownership, but Tuggers many times offer workarounds and tips for continuing to enjoy the weeks we own. To all who make valuable contributions to this forum, we thank you. You guys are a great read.