Marriotts new policy

[hipslo]

Again, a very small number resell their weeks

If this is in fact accurate, why is Marriott so threatened by the resale market that they would need to take these sorts of steps? Ok so they lose a handful of sales to a few buyers who discover the resale market and find available resale inventory and make it past rofr. It seems like that ought to be but a drop in the bucket in the overall scheme of things, so why fight what seems like a fairly small problem by taking steps that would seriously (further) devalue resale weeks?

On a somewhat related note -if a particular resort is already sold out, how would there be any rational justification for taking these steps? If Marriott no longer has anything to sell, why would they be at all concerned about competition from resales?

 

[thinze3]

This is starting to excite me!

Legends Edge is part of the Florida Club. That means that all those BeachPlace and Ocean Pointe resale owners just gave me a great a chance to steal their rooms at six months out. Hmm?

I can see it now. I book a 2BR President's Week unit at Ocean Pointe and lock it off. I turn them both in to II and get TWO weeks at Waiohai. I pray that Waiohai still has availability at six months so that I can book my own unit which I bought resale. THREE WEEKS AT WAIOHAI!!

After Charles gets through with Marriott, it is very likely that I'll get some sort of a settlement from the class action suit. Now I have spending money in Hawaii!

Like Dr. Hook says, "I can see it now. Ahh, it's beautiful."

.

 

[Palguy]

If only 5% of owners bought resale and the 95% that bought from the developer have little or no knowledge of resale value, then Marriott can use the ROFR to pick up that 5% at an even cheaper price than they are paying now and sell them to the other 95%. If they are paying 50% of developer price currently for ROFR properties and they can cut the resale prices in half they have in effect increased their markup by 50%. They may just want to drive down resale value to provide cheaper inventory for themselves. After all, once they re obtain the properties they can add back whatever they want to it. And if you want the same privileges as the people that bought from the developer, they could sell it to you, for a price.

 

[hipslo]

If only 5% of owners bought resale and the 95% that bought from the developer have little or no knowledge of resale value, then Marriott can use the ROFR to pick up that 5% at an even cheaper price than they are paying now and sell them to the other 95%. If they are paying 50% of developer price currently for ROFR properties and they can cut the resale prices in half they have in effect increased their markup by 50%. They may just want to drive down resale value to provide cheaper inventory for themselves. After all, once they re obtain the properties they can add back whatever they want to it. And if you want the same privileges as the people that bought from the developer, they could sell it to you, for a price.

I wouldn't think that would go over too well on, for example, a Dateline NBC expose. Though that's probably just wishful thinking....

Though I can understand, perhaps, taking steps to deal with your sales competition, taking those same steps, to the direct detriment of your existing customers, SOLELY to make a profit off of THEIR units, at THEIR expense, without sharing any of that profit with them, seems a much more difficult practice to defend.

 

[divenski]

Wow, what a way to start out the New Year. Haven't seen such an active thread in awhile.

Even though I tend to be skeptical that Marriott will add a 6 month limit for any resale purchases, one thing that gives me pause is the 13 month benefit for multiple week owners. Arguably, this negatively affected all single week owners after they bought their week, but that didn't stop it from being implemented.

I know this potential change is much different, but the 13 month example shows that Marriott feels it has the right to monkey around with the reservation system.

 

[arlene22]

Dave, to clarify: are you saying that there will be a 6 month restriction on reservations at one's home resort? or a 6 month restriction on reservations using the soon-to-be-implemented internal trading system?

 

[Icarus]

An alternate theory?

My latest info....

The sales "rumor" about a six-month restriction on making reservations for owners of resale weeks is no longer a rumor. It comes from Marriott's highest levels. That six-month restriction is the most likely scenario. As I stated earlier, the change would likely grandfather from the new policy those resale weeks as of the date the new policy is announced or implemented.

I can't stress enough that no definitive policy has as yet been decided upon. There are still a number of issues being worked out. When? What are the details? Still being worked on. Ultimately, the actual change might look much different from this six-month proposal, but there will be a change.

However, Sales has been given the advance info that some change is coming so that they can respond to the question we might ask: "Why buy from Marriott when I can buy the same resale week for much less?"

I wonder if Marriott is sending this out as a feeler to find out what they can get away with. Let's say they end up implementing a restriction that is far less restrictive than the so-called 6-month thing. Maybe it will be 12 months for resale owners, 13 months for developer purchased weeks including any resale weeks prior to the implementation date of the new program and 14 months for owners of more than one week making reservations for 2 consecutive weeks?

Would there be a sigh of relief if they did something like that? From their viewpoint, you would still have the right to reserve at your home resort at the 12-month mark, except that the pool of available weeks will be far more restricted for purchasers on the resale market after the new program is implemented. As with the current 13-month program, developer sold weeks (and maybe resale weeks grandfathered in) would be getting new rights.

Why would they leak this information when they don't even know what they are going to do yet, and why would they leak it to us and the sales force? Clearly it is not being kept internally within the group that is working on the internal trading program, and usually proprietary information is kept internally unless the company has no control over its own information. Maybe they allowed the information to be leaked on purpose.

I have to assume that the management and implementation team for the new internal trading program is not stupid, and if they wanted the information to remain proprietary and confidential until they figured out all the details of the new program, they would have made sure that it wasn't leaked.

Personally, I think this is a far more likely scenario and the leaks are intended to soften the blow to existing owners. But it's still just a smoke screen, in my opinion. At the end of the day, clearly the plan is to reduce the rights of resale buyers to make resale less attractive than it is, and that should have an effect on resale pricing. Depending on the implementation, that could affect any current owner, no matter where the unit was purchased.

So, what is the "evidence"? Well, it's clearly subjective, but I look at this way: For one, Marriott sales have always been about only committing in writing and not providing false verbal information. They were supposed to be "different" than the rest of the industry. Has that policy now changed officially so that sales is now permitted to dangle a new as yet unimplemented program in front of buyers when they ask why they shouldn't buy resale? The rumor even includes a grandfathering clause for anybody that has bought resale prior to the new program being announced or implemented. If, as Dave said from his source, that sales is being given the new information so they can respond to the "why buy at retail instead of at resale" question, but at the same time, the rumor includes the "grandfathering" clause, that makes no sense to anybody considering buying now at resale or retail, but it could make a difference to anybody buying now no matter where they buy. It seems to me that unless the salesperson lies about it and doesn't include the "grandfathering" in their statements, that an informed buyer would ask how that new program would affect them in the (unlikely) event that they want to sell their week on the resale market after the new program is implemented. Of course, in that event, sales can mention Marriott's resale program without mentioning the downsides: No resales at resorts with new sales and the waiting list at resorts that do have resales.

So have at it, folks. What do you think?

-David

 

[sdtugger]

It's probably wise to forget any hope about a class action suit helping resale owners. Most trial lawyers who take these cases get large fees from any settlement and will leave the owners with very little money. It happens all of the time with securities litigation. Besides, Marriott has a legal department that could drag any litigation out for years. Your heirs will probably see a resolution.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point. Marriott will be the big loser in any class action litigation. And, the court will set the legal fees of the plaintiffs attorneys based on result and effort. It is very likely that any settlement and/or verdict would include some kind of injunctive relief (that is a court order or an agreement that Marriott will not do whatever it is that is the subject of the suit). That's all any of the current owners would want to hear.

And, it is a fallacy to suggest that direct purchasers would not be impacted by this change. If resale means any resale, then ALL current owners would be impacted as soon as they tried to resell. Of course, if you keep your unit you will not be impacted. And, with grandfathering that sounds like it will be true for all owners. But, that misses the point. No one purchased their weeks with the understanding that they would lose 95% of their value.

 

[m61376]

David-
I have to agree with both you and the previous poster. This "leak" may very well be a PR "testing of the waters," so to speak.

Contrary to what a few others have posted, any such new policy would be bad for ALL owners, Why would I buy something that would be virtually unsellable, or that would retain little value?

When Marriott gives their sales presentation, especially at new properties, they make a point of talking about how prices keep on going up. How many people on this Board have contentedly mentioned that they bought early on and could sell now at a break even point, or even make a profit, 4 or 5 years down the road. True, timeshares are not an investment. However, when plucking down 30,40,50, $60,000, or more in some cases, one likes to think in terms of it as being some sort of investment and not just a membership in a club. Marriott touts its weeks as being just that- an investment.

Look at the luxury car market. Everyone knows and accepts that cars depreciate in value as soon as the tires hit the road. Higher end cars, generally speaking, retain their value better and depreciate less, and buyers depend on that when making a purchase. If they keep the car for a set period of time, that factors into their annualized cost. On a similar basis, if Marriott severely restricts the useage of a unit to resale buyers (much akin to Perry's analogy of a resale car buyer only being allowed to use the car on certain days of the week), the retained value will sharply decline. That means that the annualized cost of any week I buy from Marriott will sharply increase, because the retained value becomes minimal.

So, when deciding whether or not to purchase a unit for $30,000, let's say for argument's sake, the nightly costs would look something like this:
Assume the same 10 year useage that salespeople like to tout as a "break even" point (actually, they broke it down to 7-10 years for me, at least):
initial outlay: 30,000
value at the end of 10 years (who knows, but with such onerous restrictions I would think that the value would plummet to maybe 25%, but it could even be less in a lot of locations where season really makes a difference): 7,500
10 year cost in initial outlay: 22,500, or $2,250/year
Lost opportunity of investment cost @ a conservative 5%/year: $1500/year
Annual MF's: ~$1000
Annualized cost: 2250 + 1500 + 1000 = $4750 per week.

WHY WOULD ANYONE BUY?

I know I read Bill's threads on HCC over the past year with a lot of interest. The big downside to joining the club was that it was an unsecured investment, and I couldn't rationalize plucking down that sort of money just to join a club. I liked the security of feeling that I owned something. I know there are many others who share my sentiments. Buying into something that, by virtue of their rules, will make that purchase have very limited value, will make buying a Marriott timeshare like buying into a destination club, but one with high upfront fees relative to properties offerred.

So, as far as I am concerned, it is more than just bad for resale buyers, it is bad for all buyersd and owners. No one can just be smug and say "I'm never going to sell." Life evolves and lifestyles and needs change.

If Marriott is testing the waters it behooves us to make cogent arguments as to how this would impact ALL owners and prospective buyers. How many of those who bought from the developer would have bought if they knew that if they wanted to sell down the road they'd get little back? Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd venture to guess that a lot of people would have rethought their purchases.

 

[CMF]

Sales Rep. at Grande Vista

Will anyone volunteer the name of a veteran sales rep at Grande Vista that they trust? I want to buy them a cup of coffee.

Charles

 

[Dave M]

Dave, to clarify: are you saying that there will be a 6 month restriction on reservations at one's home resort? or a 6 month restriction on reservations using the soon-to-be-implemented internal trading system?

I tried to avoid ambiguity.

Reservation (which is what I posted about) = booking your home resort week.

Exchange = trading the use of your week for a week elsewhere, whether through Marriott's internal exchange system, through II or through an independent exchange company.

 

[Dave M]

David-
I have to agree with both you and the previous poster. This "leak" may very well be a PR "testing of the waters," so to speak.

Although the details of this plan are far from finalized, one thing I can guarantee is that testing the waters is not what this is about. I believe I have posted the reason that Sales was given this info before the details have been finalized.

Also, I disagree that "any such new policy would be bad for ALL owners." The reservations process will improve for some owners. Ultimately, there will be a lot of owners who will have a better shot at reserving the week of their choice.

Yes, resale values will likely be adversely impacted, but it's hard to tell exactly what market forces will do to values. And I believe most owners are more concerned about how the program works than what resale values are. I'm one of those. I have no plans to ever sell any of my weeks. But I worry every year about whether I'll be able to reserve my first-choice weeks.

Perhaps more importantly, keep in mind that TUG is a tiny blip on the Marriott map. There are perhaps fewer than 5,000 of Marriott's 300,000+ owners who even know that TUG exists. And probably fewer than 1,000 owners know how to tweak the Marriott system because of TUG. When Marriott eventually announces that it will be easier for owners who bought from Marriott to make reservations, I'm guessing there will overwhelming appreciation for the change. Not here at TUG, but Marriott doesn't - and shouldn't - cater to TUG owners.

Lastly, Marriott is in the business of selling timeshares. Anything that makes it easier to make that initial sale is something Marriott should consider. This change will give Sales another selling point. Will declining resale values counter that? Be realistic. Resale values have always been substantially below Marriott's prices. The typical Marriott purchaser doesn't have a clue about the resale market. So even if resale values tank, there's no reason to believe that this change would adversely impact most decisions as to whether or not to buy from Marriott.

 

[hipslo]

Also, I disagree that "any such new policy would be bad for ALL owners." The reservations process will improve for some owners. Ultimately, there will be a lot of owners who will have a better shot at reserving the week of their choice.

If existing owners are to be grandfathered, and if the new program is effective in essentially shutting down the resale market (other than through Marriott), how would the reservations process improve for some owners, who you say would have a better shot at reserving their weeks of choice?

 

[saturn28]

Although the details of this plan are far from finalized, one thing I can guarantee is that testing the waters is not what this is about. I believe I have posted the reason that Sales was given this info before the details have been finalized.

Also, I disagree that "any such new policy would be bad for ALL owners." The reservations process will improve for some owners. Ultimately, there will be a lot of owners who will have a better shot at reserving the week of their choice.

Yes, resale values will likely be adversely impacted, but it's hard to tell exactly what market forces will do to values. And I believe most owners are more concerned about how the program works than what resale values are. I'm one of those. I have no plans to ever sell any of my weeks. But I worry every year about whether I'll be able to reserve my first-choice weeks.

Perhaps more importantly, keep in mind that TUG is a tiny blip on the Marriott map. There are perhaps fewer than 5,000 of Marriott's 300,000+ owners who even know that TUG exists. And probably fewer than 1,000 owners know how to tweak the Marriott system because of TUG. When Marriott eventually announces that it will be easier for owners who bought from Marriott to make reservations, I'm guessing there will overwhelming appreciation for the change. Not here at TUG, but Marriott doesn't - and shouldn't - cater to TUG owners.

Lastly, Marriott is in the business of selling timeshares. Anything that makes it easier to make that initial sale is something Marriott should consider. This change will give Sales another selling point. Will declining resale values counter that? Be realistic. Resale values have always been substantially below Marriott's prices. The typical Marriott purchaser doesn't have a clue about the resale market. So even if resale values tank, there's no reason to believe that this change would adversely impact most decisions as to whether or not to buy from Marriott.

I own both resale weeks as well as weeks purchased from Marriott. If all that Marriott does is restrict resale owners from booking at their home resort to 6 months in advance, personally it wouldn't bother me. I know a lot of people who post on here seem to be so concerned about getting one of the high demand weeks for trading, but personally I have been able to get good trades with whatever week I have deposited.

I may not get a bonus week with my deposit, but even if I did I own enough weeks that I probably wouldn't use it anyways. In addition, the bonus weeks are not like a regular deposit costing $89. The price to use a bonus week can be as high as $299 for a two bedroom. That is still a good deal but when you own more than one week why would I use that bonus week before one of my regular weeks to trade. So for me its not a big deal.

The fact that prices may fall a bit because of the restriction is probably true. However, once the price reaches the new level and people become aware of what they can still do by buying resale I think the price will stabilize and may even rise a bit. Then it will be business as usual. People will still be able to buy and sell resale and the market will continue at the new price levels. So, I think all the speculation is probably worst than the reality will be if this happens.

 

[PerryM]

Where's the round filing cabinet?

Say I owned a Platinum Week at Summit Watch – I can’t go weeks 51 & 52 but I can go the week of Sundance and Week 7 (President’s Week). Say I owned 4 Platinum weeks and used to lock in 2 Sundance and 2 President’s Week, used one an rented the others for mega bucks.

My Platinum Week is worth about $28k to me just about anytime I want to sell it.

Marriott now implements the 6 months reservation policy on resales. The guy I would sell the week to can NO LONGER get Sundance or President’s week but week 1 or 2 in Park City and that’s it.

Anyone here want to say that my week is still worth $28k?

Of course not, its worth a fraction of that – say half of it or $14k.

Now I need some cash and list the week at 14k and find a buyer – 10 minutes later I get the ROFR and Marriott steps in and snaps up the week for $14k and it sells it for $50k this afternoon. This is worthy of a 3rd world dictator’s tactics. Marriott would have to dump the ROFR instantly to make this work.

This would become such a huge class action lawsuit as to make Marriott’s lawyers smile since they will be spending many more billable hours on the job for the next 10 years. It wouldn’t take much to find 12 folks from Utah to find Marriott guilty of unscrupulous and predatory business activities. I wouldn’t be surprised if the auditors and lawyers cover their butts and issue warnings to the marketing guys that this half baked idea needs to be filed in the round filing cabinet today.

P.S.
Over a 40 year period just about EVERY unit at EVERY Marriott is going to be sold - that's a lot of business for the lawyers; bless their hearts.

P.P.S.
ARDA reports that of all timeshare transactions 7% are resale. All this for that 7% Marriott? Are you nuts?

 

[timeos2]

As far as the resale folks on this board are concerned I have noticed that there is a great amount of gloating about how wise they were for purchasing resale instead of us dummies who bought direct. They often counsel posters to buy resale. Owners buy at their own peril and cannot assume that changes will never be made. We may very well end up with two classes of MVCI ownership.

It's probably wise to forget any hope about a class action suit helping resale owners. Most trial lawyers who take these cases get large fees from any settlement and will leave the owners with very little money. It happens all of the time with securities litigation. Besides, Marriott has a legal department that could drag any litigation out for years. Your heirs will probably see a resolution.

This merely points out that what you buy - big doallar retail or more reasonable resale - is a base right to ownership. Anything you or the Marriott (or any other) developer feels they maintain control of is fair game for change and may (will) be used to squeeze more money out of you later. Today resale buyers get 6 months while retail get 13 - tomorrow 3 week owners get 17 and all others get 6. Once the door opens to such one sided manipulation look out - they feel you bought in and they can play all you want with what should be your use rights. If this does go through, as now seems likely, Marriott has slipped below Wyndham for respect of owners rights and value. At least there was no smoke and mirrors with DVC. They say from the start they cntrol it all and you buy only a RTU what they decide to give you. Here Marriott supposedly sold you deeded rights but now, nope, they have near total control and your deed has virtually no meaning. They change the rules to fit their wishes and serve sales.

It make me feel better and better about not currently ownong any Marriott - now I am less likely to ever buy more. It also make me feel MUCH better about the accidental concentration of directly owner controlled resorts our portfolio is heavy with as they offer the security of deeded rights - including reservation/use rights in those deeds - as well as no ROFR, as that means people who care about the resorts - not sales profits - call the shots. They could care less how you bought as the Associations get ZERO from sales and work only to make the ownership experience as good as possible. What a great change form this type of near total Developer to benefit only their bottom line. Owners be damned.

 

[Dave M]

If existing owners are to be grandfathered, and if the new program is effective in essentially shutting down the resale market (other than through Marriott), how would the reservations process improve for some owners, who you say would have a better shot at reserving their weeks of choice?

As I said,

Ultimately....

 

[urple2]

This has been an interesting thread, especially with me just getting into the Marriott world of timesharing. ( hopefully soon. Have not had the best of luck with trying to close on a Marriott)

Even though I surely don't want any timeshare I own to devalue, I look at it as merely a vehicle to get me a cheaper vacation in the long run, then shelling out thousands of dollars for a one week stay. If what I purchased gets me to places I like and a break even point within a reasonable time, I look at it just like others have used as their analogy,buying a car then selling it.

Whatever does happen,this Site and the people within will be a big help to all of us on getting the best value out of our timeshare,whether we bought from the Developer or resale.

I bought Wyndham timeshares resale for what I thought was cheap, and they now sale for half that amount now. The interesting thing is they did very little to differentiate from the resale buyer but still the value has tanked.
Even so, I have already got more than my investment out of these for the vacations had.

It's great reading on here and very much in appreciation for all the info and knowledge shared.

 

[Icarus]

I believe I have posted the reason that Sales was given this info before the details have been finalized.

This is what you said, Dave:

However, Sales has been given the advance info that some change is coming so that they can respond to the question we might ask: "Why buy from Marriott when I can buy the same resale week for much less?"

And you also said:

As I stated earlier, the change would likely grandfather from the new policy those resale weeks as of the date the new policy is announced or implemented.

And together, that gives retail sales no current advantage over buying a resale unit right now. Am I missing something?

Also, I disagree that "any such new policy would be bad for ALL owners." The reservations process will improve for some owners. Ultimately, there will be a lot of owners who will have a better shot at reserving the week of their choice.

Yes, resale values will likely be adversely impacted, but it's hard to tell exactly what market forces will do to values. And I believe most owners are more concerned about how the program works than what resale values are. I'm one of those. I have no plans to ever sell any of my weeks. But I worry every year about whether I'll be able to reserve my first-choice weeks.

I don't think I used the word ALL in all caps, but ok. Situations change. I never planned on selling my KBC unit either. I think you should be concerned about the resale value of your unit and your ability to sell it relatively quickly in the event life changes. I hope it doesn't change for you, but you never know, Dave. I didn't plan on moving to Kauai after I bought a KBC timeshare. I didn't plan on a storm drain problem costing me over 2k in MFs and SAs last year either. And I didn't plan on getting divorced either (but that had nothing directly to do with the sale of my unit). But life goes on.

Lastly, Marriott is in the business of selling timeshares. Anything that makes it easier to make that initial sale is something Marriott should consider. This change will give Sales another selling point. Will declining resale values counter that? Be realistic. Resale values have always been substantially below Marriott's prices. The typical Marriott purchaser doesn't have a clue about the resale market. So even if resale values tank, there's no reason to believe that this change would adversely impact most decisions as to whether or not to buy from Marriott.

I guess it remains to be seen if this change affects resale values or not. I think it might. Not everybody agrees with your view here. I don't. At a good property, what is a fair resale price? Well, to me, it removes the marketing and sales costs from the equation, and what you are left with is close to what I would personally consider a fair resale value for a top notch resort. I think my assumption is that the resale has the same ability to reserve the week that they own as anybody else does, because without that, the value is diminished if you want to reserve a specific week for whatever reason you want that week.

I disagree that taking rights away from current owners is the right thing to do. Once you start down that path, where does it end? (The "rights" that I refer to is the ability to sell your unit with the current rights that you enjoy and expected as part of your purchase, no matter where you purchased it .. excluding the right to trade for MR points.)

Thanks for responding with your opinion.

-David

 

[Eric]

Whatever rule they change, MVCI will have their butts covered so please stop sounding uninformed as a class action law suit will never happen. Companies like Westgate and others jerk their customers around alot more and they don't exacly make headlines with lawsuits. Yes, I will bet on that.
Does that mean one pissed off lawyer owner won't file a suit ? probably not but it will never get to any big level.

Say I owned a Platinum Week at Summit Watch – I can’t go weeks 51 & 52 but I can go the week of Sundance and Week 7 (President’s Week). Say I owned 4 Platinum weeks and used to lock in 2 Sundance and 2 President’s Week, used one an rented the others for mega bucks.

My Platinum Week is worth about $28k to me just about anytime I want to sell it.

Marriott now implements the 6 months reservation policy on resales. The guy I would sell the week to can NO LONGER get Sundance or President’s week but week 1 or 2 in Park City and that’s it.

Anyone here want to say that my week is still worth $28k?

Of course not, its worth a fraction of that – say half of it or $14k.

Now I need some cash and list the week at 14k and find a buyer – 10 minutes later I get the ROFR and Marriott steps in and snaps up the week for $14k and it sells it for $50k this afternoon. This is worthy of a 3rd world dictator’s tactics. Marriott would have to dump the ROFR instantly to make this work.

This would become such a huge class action lawsuit as to make Marriott’s lawyers smile since they will be spending many more billable hours on the job for the next 10 years. It wouldn’t take much to find 12 folks from Utah to find Marriott guilty of unscrupulous and predatory business activities. I wouldn’t be surprised if the auditors and lawyers cover their butts and issue warnings to the marketing guys that this half baked idea needs to be filed in the round filing cabinet today.

P.S.
Over a 40 year period just about EVERY unit at EVERY Marriott is going to be sold - that's a lot of business for the lawyers; bless their hearts.

 

[PerryM]

Whatever rule they change, MVCI will have their butts covered so please stop sounding uninformed as a class action law suit will never happen. Companies like Westgate and others jerk their customers around alot more and they don't exacly make headlines with lawsuits. Yes, I will bet on that.
Does that mean one pissed off lawyer owner won't file a suit ? probably not but it will never get to any big level.

If, in my example I can show that Marriott, who is NOT on the HOA at Summit Watch, changed their sales techniques and their computer reservation system that cost me big bucks reselling the unit. That would not be hard to prove.


Marriott is impeading my ability to resell my property and it doesn't take a genius to see its to benefit Marriott over the owners at the resort.

I just don't think is will take much for hundreds of lawsuits to pop up instantly.

Maybe Marriott has envied FF/Wyndham over the years and wants resale prices 15% of current sales prices. If so a new CEO of Marriott timeshares is needed.

 

[AwayWeGo]

Do Premium Timeshare Brands Deliver Premium Timeshare Experience ?

At Home Depot recently, I bought a (new, closeout) basic model dishwasher as a replacement for my brother's defunct dishwasher. I got it installed OK. It works. I took the deadster out to Mt. Trashmore. No problem.

Before settling on the basic-model closeout, I asked the store guy whether the midrange model that costs 3 times more than the basic model gets the dishes 3 times cleaner. He paused a half-beat then said that the more expensive models have more convenience features but they all get the dishes equally clean.

That, plus the recent TUG-BBS back & forth over Marriott timeshare policies & prices & ROFR (i.e., ROFL) got me to wondering whether something similar applies to timeshares, challenging some of my own operating assumptions.

For example, I contend that there is no such thing as a new timeshare & so therefore it is senseless to pay new prices for non-new timeshares. Apparently some of the timeshare companies are trying mightily to change that -- not by making ever-nicer & fancier & more spacious & better furnished timeshares, but by revising the rules & regulations so that people who buy new are on a value-added 1st class track & resale buyers aren't -- resale = 2nd class citz. in effect.

That being the case, is it a wiser market response for me (as consumer) to see the light & pay big bux for 1st class access within a premium timeshare system on the 1 hand? Or on the other hand to subtract all consideration of tracks & classes, etc., & stay away from the premium timeshares altogether, spending my timeshare bux instead on resales at high-quality non-premuim timeshares?

Would my full-freight Marriott timeshare vacation be 20 times more enjoyable than my vacation at a high-quality independent resale timeshare? If so, I can whip out my checkbook & pay 20 times more for Marriott than for a high-quality independent resale timeshare. If not -- if the extra money buys more sizzle but no more steak & no better steak -- then why should I do it? For the prestige of the premium brand name?

To this point, all our timeshare ownership is resale at non-premium timeshares. Some of our timeshare vacations have been in our own deeded high-quality non-premium units -- & were outstanding. Other timeshare vacations we've taken have been at other people's timeshare units on exchange -- ranging from premium (HGVC) to no frills (TaraNova ImperiaLakes). Even so, I cannot honestly say that the top-name premium timeshare experience was twice as good as the base model -- though maybe that's because I haven't gone on enough timeshare vacations yet (but I'm working on it).

By contrast, I can attest via years of (amateur) experience that the top-quality premium quality horns are superior where it counts to the no-name el cheapo models. It's not automatic, however. Paying 10 times more does not guarantee I'll get 1 that plays 10 times better. And there are some humble "student" model horns out there that play as well as some premium-price "professional" horns if not better. But that's not automatic, either.

At this point, I have pretty much figured out the horn biz. It's going to take a while longer to master the timeshare biz. (Meanwhile, don't get me started on the dishwasher biz.)

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​

 

[CMF]

You are always right Dave.

Although the details of this plan are far from finalized, one thing I can guarantee is that testing the waters is not what this is about. I believe I have posted the reason that Sales was given this info before the details have been finalized.

Also, I disagree that "any such new policy would be bad for ALL owners." The reservations process will improve for some owners. Ultimately, there will be a lot of owners who will have a better shot at reserving the week of their choice.

Yes, resale values will likely be adversely impacted, but it's hard to tell exactly what market forces will do to values. And I believe most owners are more concerned about how the program works than what resale values are. I'm one of those. I have no plans to ever sell any of my weeks. But I worry every year about whether I'll be able to reserve my first-choice weeks.

Perhaps more importantly, keep in mind that TUG is a tiny blip on the Marriott map. There are perhaps fewer than 5,000 of Marriott's 300,000+ owners who even know that TUG exists. And probably fewer than 1,000 owners know how to tweak the Marriott system because of TUG. When Marriott eventually announces that it will be easier for owners who bought from Marriott to make reservations, I'm guessing there will overwhelming appreciation for the change. Not here at TUG, but Marriott doesn't - and shouldn't - cater to TUG owners.

Lastly, Marriott is in the business of selling timeshares. Anything that makes it easier to make that initial sale is something Marriott should consider. This change will give Sales another selling point. Will declining resale values counter that? Be realistic. Resale values have always been substantially below Marriott's prices. The typical Marriott purchaser doesn't have a clue about the resale market. So even if resale values tank, there's no reason to believe that this change would adversely impact most decisions as to whether or not to buy from Marriott.

No one will realize how bad the modification may/will be than us. The less knowledgeable masses may never now what they had or what may be taken away. Most [an understatement] people don't know we exist. And, Marriott can do what ever it wants to.

But, I'm making it my hobby to do whatever I can to make sure that Marriott does the RIGHT thing.

I don't feel bad for those that willingly and happily said goodbye to their money when they bought for Marriott. But I do feel bad for the folks that [in their own opinion] made poor decisions and wished they had bought resale. They should get something more for their money than me. I'm sure that Marriott can think of a way to entice or compensate retail buyers that will not be a detriment to the resale minority.

Charles

 

[PerryM]

I've got it!!!

I think I know what is happening.

The same genius that cooked up the Florida Club is now running Marriott Timeshares!

The Florida Club is a whopping flop and that's all that is needed to change the complete Marriott way of doing business. Just implement the Florida Club within each Marriott and allow resellers to belong at no charge!

Ta Dah........

 

[Dave M]

Marriott is impeading my ability to resell my property and it doesn't take a genius to see its to benefit Marriott over the owners at the resort.

I just don't think is will take much for hundreds of lawsuits to pop up instantly.

I generally agree with your comments, Perry. But my guess is that there will be only a few lawsuits and they will go nowhere. Here's an analogy, which you can say (accurately) is different, but there are similarities....

My favorite airline enticed me way back in 1981 to be loyal to it by offering me FF miles for flying with them. They told me I could use 15,000 of those FF miles for a free ticket. Oops! They arbitrarily increased the requirement to 20,000 miles and then again to 25,000 miles. They also reduced the number of free seats available, especially on the convenient flights for which I am most likely to want such free tickets. Thus, the value of the FF miles I had already earned was significantly devalued and I could no longer use them as effectively as previously.

Result? There was a single successful lawsuit in the 1980s and it was successful only because American and other airlines had not given sufficient notice of the changes to the program rules. Subsequent lawsuits over other devaluations have gone nowhere. The key to the airlines' successful defense was that their program rules clearly stated that they could change any of the terms of the program or even the very existence of the program at any time.

How does that impact the forthcoming reservation restriction? Several points:

1) Just as with the airline programs, Marriott says it can change its program rules at any time. It has made numerous changes over the years, some with an outcry from this forum, but none that failed when it came to Marriott's legal right to make such changes. As just one example, when Marriott disenfranchised (to a certain extent) single week owners by adding the 13-month reservation policy, there was no successful action against Marriott.

2) Nowhere in any of the Marriott materials is there any written guarantee that Marriott won't take actions that adversely impact the value of what we own. In fact, Marriott, just like the airlines, takes frequent action that affect our timeshare value and other actions that devalue the Marriott Rewards points that we own. Life goes on.

3) Marriott undoubtedly has the best legal minds that money can buy looking at every aspect of this forthcoming change. And no matter how incensed we might get about the change, the task of anyone who believes that Marriott will be ordered by a court to pay for adversely impacting our resale value will be to prove that those legal opinions that Marriott is getting are flawed. Yes, a lot of people will likely be unhappy. But none of those here who claim what Marriott is doing can't be legally supported has done 1% as much legal research on the issue as Marriott has.

As for who is likely to be successful in a possible legal battle on this issue, I would give overwhelming odds to Marriott. I think its wishful thinking to suggest otherwise.