NO Access to trusts pool by enrolled owners (Marriott's response - post #447)

[jerseygirl]

Enrolled members should exercise the legacy system for weekly trades.

Fred -- You know I agree with you 99% of the time, but I think Marriott has created a system where enrolled members with lots of points truly can benefit by using the points system .... all the rest, not so much. Without interference, this would lead to a stalemate of sorts because those who do not benefit would not "seed" the inventory. However, there is interference -- huge interference -- in that Marriott can grab deposits from II, thereby fulfilling the requests of those high point owners. Over time, what's left for the others???? I know Marriott has to substitute other weeks when they pull a deposit, but we all know how that turned out for RCI weeks owners!

JMHO, but I think it's a too simplistic to state that enrolled members should exercise the legacy system for weekly trades (or that non-enrolled members will not be affected). Now, back to agreeing with you on all things timeshare related!

 

[windje2000]

Boca, that is exactly what Marriott has done.
Created a partial week exchange mechanism for legacy owners.
It is an additional option. Enrolled members should exercise the legacy system for weekly trades.

How well it will work remains to be seen. But, it will be directly related to legacy conversions.

Tuggers have put this under a microscope, diced and sliced it, and uncovered the shortcomings. Most of which are distinctions without a difference as a practical matter when using the legacy system.

So, the sales proposition for the 95%+ of legacy owners who do not read TUG is a simple one: keep what you already enjoy, but have the added ability to make partial week reservations/exchanges, potentially save on fees, make travel arrangements, and convert to MRP's (if a resale owner). I think that will sell quite well. It will take couple of year or more for Marriott to get around to all owners. But, over time Marriott will achieve its goal of controlling the whole shebang (or most of it).

I mean, you said you are converting, warts and all. If it has some backhanded appeal to you, how do you think less insightful owners will view the offer?

Pluses and minuses aside, I do think it will be successful for Marriott. And Marriott's success will mean that there will be enough inventory for the system to work well. That will be the bottom line for most.

Marriott is 5 weeks into a multi-year migration. Meanwhile, legacy owners have not surrendered anything, or lost what they had pre-June 20. As I have stated before, that is the biggest take away from this whole thing.

It is not that Marriott has focused too much on creating a partial week exchange/reservation system. It is our obsession with it. Nothing is compelling us to deal with it, except liking to hear ourselves talk:hysterical:

Just curious - how do you think this ends, as regards the quote highlighted?

 

[Fredm]

Just curious - how do you think this ends, as regards the quote highlighted?

I think it ends with a Marriott controlled exchange and reservation system. Or, mostly so.

It is a long term business strategy. This is not a short term scheme to sell dog weeks. It took years to plan and begin implementing.
I believe Marriott has concluded that revenue growth from new product sales has plateaued. Mining the owner base is a long term opportunity to generate recurring revenues with high profit margin. I assume they will also capture more inventory for their rental business than previously.

If successful (and I think they will be) at converting legacy owners, then Marriott has a yet longer term objective. Sell vacant hotel rooms as part of its product offering, in a more robust package. No land acquisition /development/ sales cost
(think of the Asia Pacific program for a clue).
That is why, I believe, MRP's are included for all resale legacy owners. I don't know what form this will take, but have heard snippets that suggest it will be a boon for Marriott because it will also be able to guarantee higher occupancy rates when negotiating its operations management contact with hotel owners. This is not just about the Vacation Club. It's about Marriott's entire enterprise.

Marriott has much latitude in creating flexible value for the invested owner. They are just beginning to shape a delivery system to provide it. Whether owners perceive value is another matter.

By retaining the legacy system intact, owners should not feel threatened by the migration. It became a closed system of opportunity as of 6/20/10. Smart move, IMO. No sense in stirring that pot. Marriott has plenty of time to sell them on a new mouse-trap.

 

[DanCali]

I think it ends with a Marriott controlled exchange and reservation system. Or, mostly so.

It is a long term business strategy. This is not a short term scheme to sell dog weeks. It took years to plan and begin implementing.
I believe Marriott has concluded that revenue growth from new product sales has plateaued. Mining the owner base is a long term opportunity to generate recurring revenues with high profit margin. I assume they will also capture more inventory for their rental business than previously.

If successful (and I think they will be) at converting legacy owners, then Marriott has a yet longer term objective. Sell vacant hotel rooms as part of its product offering, in a more robust package. No land acquisition /development/ sales cost
(think of the Asia Pacific program for a clue).
That is why, I believe, MRP's are included for all resale legacy owners. I don't know what form this will take, but have heard snippets that suggest it will be a boon for Marriott because it will also be able to guarantee higher occupancy rates when negotiating its operations management contact with hotel owners. This is not just about the Vacation Club. It's about Marriott's entire enterprise.

Marriott has much latitude in creating flexible value for the invested owner. They are just beginning to shape a delivery system to provide it. Whether owners perceive value is another matter.

By retaining the legacy system intact, owners should not feel threatened by the migration. It became a closed system of opportunity as of 6/20/10. Smart move, IMO. No sense in stirring that pot. Marriott has plenty of time to sell them on a new mouse-trap.

It is one thing to get owners to enroll, but another to get them to convert to points year after year. I've still been trying to figure out how Marriott benefits under current rules if owners just enroll, but keep using II. I haven't found a compelling way in which they benefit from that so I have concluded in my mind that they will ultimately change the II deposit rules and go the Starwood way, at least for enrolled owners. Do you see it that way or do you believe most enrolled owners will use points, despite the various disadvantages of points vs. II uncovered so far, so Marriott won't care if a minority just uses II and saves on fees?

 

[NboroGirl]

I emailed the Marriott response Dave posted in note #447 to my Marriott contact, who claims enrolled weeks owners have access to the Trust, and he wrote:

Actually the response proves me right

Owners of Marriott Vacation Club weeks who enroll in the points product and elect to exchange for Vacation Club points have access to Marriott Vacation Club Destinations inventory and Interval International exchange inventory.

Destinations Inventory = Trust Inventory

Furthermore as a legacy week owner you will have access to both “legacy week owner’s inventory and trust inventory,” new purchasers only have access to Trust inventory and weeks that traditional legacy week owners convert into Destination Club Points

I want to believe it, and I'm pretty sure he believes it, but why wouldn't Marriott just say so then?

 

[TrapperDog]

By retaining the legacy system intact, owners should not feel threatened by the migration. It became a closed system of opportunity as of 6/20/10. Smart move, IMO. No sense in stirring that pot. Marriott has plenty of time to sell them on a new mouse-trap.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, this isn't correct - it's not a closed system. Trust points owners have access to both inventories, and legacy owners only have access to legacy inventory. My salesman stated that (in an effort to get me to buy points) they expect higher end resort week owners to convert to points in increasing numbers. This means other legacy owners will have a decreasing pool to trade a week for, in the traditional way.

As I mentioned in a different post, my salesman started off the presentation by saying nothing is being taken from you. After he mentioned the above and I pointed out that this is a net loss for me as a legacy owner, even he conceded the point.

 

[DanCali]

I emailed the Marriott response Dave posted in note #447 to my Marriott contact, who claims enrolled weeks owners have access to the Trust, and he wrote:



I want to believe it, and I'm pretty sure he believes it, but why wouldn't Marriott just say so then?

Your rep is right... enrolled weeks owners have "access" to trust inventory, but it's through the exchange company.

The distinction to focus on is "direct access" vs. "access"

The reservation rules and priorities that owners of Marriott Vacation Club weeks enjoyed prior to introduction of the new points program have been maintained. The inventory that owners of the new points product have direct access to at any resort consists of weeks that are actually owned by the Trust. Any other occupancy by owners of the new points product at a resort, is of inventory that owners of weeks have elected to place into the new points exchange program.

Owners of Marriott Vacation Club weeks continue to have access to inventory at their home resort and Interval International exchange inventory, as they have in the past. Owners of Marriott Vacation Club weeks who enroll in the points product and elect to exchange for Vacation Club points have access to Marriott Vacation Club Destinations inventory and Interval International exchange inventory.

So you are right because "points are not points." Trust owners get direct reservation access. Legacy points get access through an exchange company. And he is right because he uses the word "access" which is technically true, but obviously not what you meant. By his interpretation, you also technically have "access" to 3000+ resorts via Interval too...

 

[Fredm]

It is one thing to get owners to enroll, but another to get them to convert to points year after year. I've still been trying to figure out how Marriott benefits under current rules if owners just enroll, but keep using II. I haven't found a compelling way in which they benefit from that so I have concluded in my mind that they will ultimately change the II deposit rules and go the Starwood way, at least for enrolled owners. Do you see it that way or do you believe most enrolled owners will use points, despite the various disadvantages of points vs. II uncovered so far, so Marriott won't care if a minority just uses II and saves on fees?

I think it's like turning a battleship in a bathtub. The progression will be slow.
I do know that the first step is owner conversions. If owners do not convert they will not use points at all. So, conversions are the key.
Once converted, owners will do what suits them best.
If they never use points (unlikely), then Marriott still gets the annual fee. However, as a long term view, owner needs may change over time. Split week, mid-week, and other alternatives may have an appeal that is not now contemplated. Others will experiment with it. Some will use it actively. Collectively, more inventory enters the system. And it will increase over time.
Also, resale legacy owners may dabble with MRP's. Marriott wins here also.

You say "despite the various disadvantages of points vs. II uncovered so far". It is clear to me that I.I. is preferable for weekly trades. Most of those that convert will see it the same way. Marriott is marketing this to legacy owners as an flexible alternative to weekly trades. Not a substitute. As they should. We are the ones that have chosen to make much of the weekly comparison.

So, sure, Marriott will be pleased as punch if owners just convert. Once they have, the next step is possible. Without it, nothing happens.

I want to be clear. I am not advocating the D-club. Just saying that in my opinion it will be successful. And, much of the analysis is dissecting tree branches, twigs, and leaves. Not looking at the tree. Never mind the forest.

 

[Fredm]

Fred -- You know I agree with you 99% of the time, but I think Marriott has created a system where enrolled members with lots of points truly can benefit by using the points system .... all the rest, not so much. Without interference, this would lead to a stalemate of sorts because those who do not benefit would not "seed" the inventory. However, there is interference -- huge interference -- in that Marriott can grab deposits from II, thereby fulfilling the requests of those high point owners. Over time, what's left for the others???? I know Marriott has to substitute other weeks when they pull a deposit, but we all know how that turned out for RCI weeks owners!

JMHO, but I think it's a too simplistic to state that enrolled members should exercise the legacy system for weekly trades (or that non-enrolled members will not be affected). Now, back to agreeing with you on all things timeshare related!

jerseygirl -- I don't mean to suggest that things will not change over time. They always do. In fact, at some point the impact on I.I.'s internal trade inventory may be such that it will "encourage" some legacy owner holdouts to convert. But, that's a long way off. Most owners will not notice a difference for quite a while, if ever. Again, I am referring to the 95%+ who do not know what you do.

Fact is, change is here.

 

[BocaBum99]

I see it the way FredM sees it. The rest is just implementation detail which will impact how effective the new exchange system will become.

I am going to join only because I want access to the Hawaii inventory. It has to go somewhere. As long as I have access to all options where it is available, I'll get it.

 

[hotcoffee]

Fred -- You know I agree with you 99% of the time, but I think Marriott has created a system where enrolled members with lots of points truly can benefit by using the points system .... all the rest, not so much. Without interference, this would lead to a stalemate of sorts because those who do not benefit would not "seed" the inventory. However, there is interference -- huge interference -- in that Marriott can grab deposits from II, thereby fulfilling the requests of those high point owners. Over time, what's left for the others???? I know Marriott has to substitute other weeks when they pull a deposit, but we all know how that turned out for RCI weeks owners!

JMHO, but I think it's a too simplistic to state that enrolled members should exercise the legacy system for weekly trades (or that non-enrolled members will not be affected). Now, back to agreeing with you on all things timeshare related!

I personally believe that premier and premier plus points owners (or even those near or above 5000 points) will not need to use II to exchange except when they want to exchange into a non-Marriott resort. Given the reality that the Marriott exchange manager can satisfy waitlist requests for their points clients via II, there should be no advantage to high points exchangers to go directly through II.

However, this fact should not adversely affect weeks owners who continue to exchange through II because Marriott will have to satisfy II searches when II satisfies their searches. So, it should be a wash: one Marriott week out of II and one Marriott week into II. Given that all points searches in II are Request-first, I would suspect that it will turn out to be a lot of Request-first <==> Request-first type trades between II and Marriott. Still, this benefits weeks owners as much as points owners.

The only thing that will hurt weeks owners exchanging through II would be when and if the number of enrollments becomes enough that II deposits begin diminishing.

 

[Fredm]

Unfortunately, this isn't correct - it's not a closed system. Trust points owners have access to both inventories, and legacy owners only have access to legacy inventory. My salesman stated that (in an effort to get me to buy points) they expect higher end resort week owners to convert to points in increasing numbers. This means other legacy owners will have a decreasing pool to trade a week for, in the traditional way.

As I mentioned in a different post, my salesman started off the presentation by saying nothing is being taken from you. After he mentioned the above and I pointed out that this is a net loss for me as a legacy owner, even he conceded the point.

I referred to a legacy owner who does not convert is playing in a closed system. You took it to the points comparison of exchange members to points owners.

 

[pipet]

It is one thing to get owners to enroll, but another to get them to convert to points year after year. I've still been trying to figure out how Marriott benefits under current rules if owners just enroll, but keep using II. I haven't found a compelling way in which they benefit from that so I have concluded in my mind that they will ultimately change the II deposit rules and go the Starwood way, at least for enrolled owners. Do you see it that way or do you believe most enrolled owners will use points, despite the various disadvantages of points vs. II uncovered so far, so Marriott won't care if a minority just uses II and saves on fees?

This is what I wonder, too. How long did it take before Starwood did that?

 

[windje2000]

I think it ends with a Marriott controlled exchange and reservation system. Or, mostly so.

It is a long term business strategy. This is not a short term scheme to sell dog weeks. [Selling inventory is a big first step in whatever they are planning] It took years to plan and begin implementing.
I believe Marriott has concluded that revenue growth from new product sales has plateaued. [Agree] Mining the owner base is a long term opportunity to generate recurring revenues with high profit margin. [Agree] I assume they will also capture more inventory for their rental business than previously.

If successful (and I think they will be) [What's your definition of success?] at converting legacy owners, then Marriott has a yet longer term objective. Sell vacant hotel rooms as part of its product offering, in a more robust package. No land acquisition /development/ sales cost
(think of the Asia Pacific program for a clue).
That is why, I believe, MRP's are included for all resale legacy owners. [Interesting observation - hadn't thought of that]I don't know what form this will take, but have heard snippets that suggest it will be a boon for Marriott because it will also be able to guarantee higher occupancy rates when negotiating its operations management contact with hotel owners. This is not just about the Vacation Club. It's about Marriott's entire enterprise.

Marriott has much latitude in creating flexible value for the invested owner. They are just beginning to shape a delivery system to provide it. Whether owners perceive value is another matter. Agree

By retaining the legacy system intact, owners should not feel threatened by the migration. [Why not - The question is how will it change long term?] It became a closed system of opportunity as of 6/20/10. Smart move, IMO. No sense in stirring that pot. Marriott has plenty of time to sell them on a new mouse-trap.

This plan is like a league where baseball teams keep the ground rules a secret from the players, never publish a box score and the umpires are team employees.

I'm guess I'm just not so keen on Marriott (or anyone for that matter) wearing so many hats, all of which have revenue potential.

Development Company
Sales Company
Management Company
Reservation agent
Exchange Company
Trust Manager
Rental agent
Resale Company

There are lots of inherent conflicts when one wears all those hats. Particularly when there's no transparency. Mining the customer base translates to drilling into my bank account.

I historically accorded Marriott as much of a presumption of integrity and fair dealing as one can reasonably award a business. Now I'm somewhere beyond 'trust but verify' and heading towards 'If they say the sky is blue look out the window.'

Marriott might well take heed of your sage advice.

 

[Fredm]

This plan is like a league where baseball teams keep the ground rules a secret from the players, never publish a box score and the umpires are team employees.

I'm guess I'm just not so keen on Marriott (or anyone for that matter) wearing so many hats, all of which have revenue potential.

Development Company
Sales Company
Management Company
Reservation agent
Exchange Company
Trust Manager
Rental agent
Resale Company

There are lots of inherent conflicts when one wears all those hats. Particularly when there's no transparency. Mining the customer base translates to drilling into my bank account.

I historically accorded Marriott as much of a presumption of integrity and fair dealing as one can reasonably award a business. Now I'm somewhere beyond 'trust but verify' and heading towards 'If they say the sky is blue look out the window.'

Marriott might well take heed of your sage advice.

By George! We agree.

 

[hotcoffee]

I emailed the Marriott response Dave posted in note #447 to my Marriott contact, who claims enrolled weeks owners have access to the Trust, . . . .

I want to believe it, and I'm pretty sure he believes it, but why wouldn't Marriott just say so then?

What the points salespeople are saying is that Marriott will satisfy reservation requests from any available inventory. At this point it would appear that what they are not saying is exactly when that will happen. When I called the VOA on the 26th, I talked at length to her about the various inventories. I knew exactly what was in the Trust based partly upon what the Multisite Public Offering document says is there plus what some of the TUGGERs who have analyzed the room designators have posted here. I spent over an hour making my reservation due partly to some "oops" type snafus and partly because I was pumping her about what she was able to see regarding the Trust. I came away convinced that she was not able to move anything out of the Trust into the Exchange inventory right there over the phone.

I then contacted my points specialist to inquire why she was not able to do that. His explanation was that Marriott has a department that will handle moving inventory around to satisfy exchange requests. In order for that to have happened, I would have had to allow my reservation request to be put on the waitlist. So, the VOA cannot (at least as of now) move inventory around. All she can do is match your request against what is currently in the exchange inventory and help you with ideas as to how to get what you what. That explanation sounds plausible. That makes the Marriott's exchange company similar to II in that you will need to do the equivalent of a search (i.e., be waitlisted) in order for Marriott to find something that will meet your request.

Some (if not most) of the points specialists at Marriott read TUG and are aware of what is being debated here, and they still insist that internal exchange requests can be fulfilled from the Trust inventory when necessary.

 

[hotcoffee]

. . .
I'm guess I'm just not so keen on Marriott (or anyone for that matter) wearing so many hats, all of which have revenue potential.

Development Company
Sales Company
Management Company
Reservation agent
Exchange Company
Trust Manager
Rental agent
Resale Company

There are lots of inherent conflicts when one wears all those hats. Particularly when there's no transparency. . . .

Did you notice how many times this phrase (or something functionally equivalent) appears in the various legal documents:

"Exchange Company [or Program Manager; or Developer; etc.] reserves the right . . . ."

They have that type of phrase in all of the documents for just about everything. In other words, they can do anything they want, any time they want, and in anyway they want, and don't have to ask anyone's permission. As far as I can see, there is nothing in the documents that is legally binding that says they cannot change any of their reservation rules should they decide to change them.

 

[pipet]

They have that type of phrase in all of the documents for just about everything. In other words, they can do anything they want, any time they want, and in anyway they want, and don't have to ask anyone's permission. As far as I can see, there is nothing in the documents that is legally binding that says they cannot change any of their reservation rules should they decide to change them.

People have pointed out that Marriott had some leeway to change things with the weeks system, but the difference was that a lot more of us trusted Marriott to do the right thing. While there are some who are still counting on this, there are a lot more who no longer see Marriott in the same light.

 

[puckmanfl]

good afternoon...
I think we can all agree that access to trust inventory is an exchange company for legacy point players but a reservation system for trust players!!! The problem is to access trust inventory it is a "deposit" first but a request first for trust players.

I am not sure I trust them enough to actually convert (give up) my week, take the "skim" and hope they do the right thing. MVCD could equalize the playing field, by permitting wait listing with the collateral of a legacy week which would be converted to points upon finding a match. After all it is an exchange company, it doesn't matter if the unit of barter is points or a week that immediately is converted to points!!!

With this system, the only access to new resorts if thru "deposit" first. (converting a week to points) and losing it...and hoping for trust inventory. I do this in II but their motive is to make exchanges for $$$, not to promote sales (trust points) and exchanges. There is a clear conflict of interest with the mother company. They may not use it but the perception is real!!!

 

[hotcoffee]

One question that does come to mind is what happens if they are unable to meet a waitlisted requested prior to the desired travel day? II deposits can last for two years. I cannot recall if anything has been published about what happens if they cannot satisfy a waitlist request. Ideally, they should give you some type of compensation. Since the points will expire at the end of the Use Year, it does not sound like they can give you a second year to find something.

I do know that, according to someone at Marriott that I spoke to early on (forgotten who), they supposedly will be more liberal in allowing banking when a waitlist search fails. In other words, even if past the banking deadline, they supposedly will allow banking of points that would have otherwise been lost due to a failure in satisfying the request. We'll have to wait to see if that happens.

 

[jerseygirl]

jerseygirl -- I don't mean to suggest that things will not change over time. They always do. In fact, at some point the impact on I.I.'s internal trade inventory may be such that it will "encourage" some legacy owner holdouts to convert. But, that's a long way off. Most owners will not notice a difference for quite a while, if ever. Again, I am referring to the 95%+ who do not know what you do.

Fact is, change is here.

I agree Fred, change is here. But, legacy owners can do something about it -- they can move their exchange inventory elsewhere so Marriott can't get their hands on it. I think I'll send a resume to SFX -- they're fools not to jump all over this -- yesterday!

 

[jerseygirl]

I personally believe that premier and premier plus points owners (or even those near or above 5000 points) will not need to use II to exchange except when they want to exchange into a non-Marriott resort. Given the reality that the Marriott exchange manager can satisfy waitlist requests for their points clients via II, there should be no advantage to high points exchangers to go directly through II.

I think we're saying the same thing. I too agree that there's no need for those with a large number of points to use II directly, but IMO they're going to need Marriott to use II for them. That's where I would revolt if I were a legacy owner without a large number of points -- I would find another exchange company to do business with. Unless I felt I was getting a fair shake, I wouldn't provide the inventory necessary for this to work the way it's intended.

However, this fact should not adversely affect weeks owners who continue to exchange through II because Marriott will have to satisfy II searches when II satisfies their searches. So, it should be a wash: one Marriott week out of II and one Marriott week into II. Given that all points searches in II are Request-first, I would suspect that it will turn out to be a lot of Request-first <==> Request-first type trades between II and Marriott. Still, this benefits weeks owners as much as points owners.

I don't disagree here either, I would just be worried about what Marriott chooses for the substitutions. As I mentioned earlier, we all know how "substitutions" turned out at RCI!

The only thing that will hurt weeks owners exchanging through II would be when and if the number of enrollments becomes enough that II deposits begin diminishing.

Can't agree here ... but I do hope you're correct as I hate it when big companies do stuff like this to loyal customers ....

 

[Fredm]

I agree Fred, change is here. But, legacy owners can do something about it -- they can move their exchange inventory elsewhere so Marriott can't get their hands on it. I think I'll send a resume to SFX -- they're fools not to jump all over this -- yesterday!

Go girl!! Just be careful. Some around here will want your head for screwing with their exchange prospects.

"Analysis" can take a decidedly self-serving bent once the steam has vented.

 

[ilene13]

SFX

I agree Fred, change is here. But, legacy owners can do something about it -- they can move their exchange inventory elsewhere so Marriott can't get their hands on it. I think I'll send a resume to SFX -- they're fools not to jump all over this -- yesterday!

I do not know anything about SFX but I just went on their website and their directory lists most of the Marriott timeshares. I'm assuming they get into the directory because someone who owns their has joined their program. I may be wrong. Has anyone used it?

 

[jerseygirl]

I've used SFX several times. The plus side is a generous bonus week program. The huge negative is the lack of online search capability (not a big deal for some, but I don't always have a destination in mind -- there's a great big world out there I still haven't seen!).

SFX is not nearly as robust as II ... but that could change, imo, if they created online search capability and rolled out preferential trading programs (e.g., Marriott to Marriott, Starwood to Starwood, Hilton to Hilton, etc.). It would take time, of course, but they're nuts if they don't do something QUICKLY to attempt to capitalize on the current Marriott situation (as well as the Starwood situation). It's time someone created a fully transparent exchange program that makes its money the old fashioned way -- performing fair exchanges!