Should II/DVC Implement a 1 in 4 or Similar Rule on Exchanges?

[dioxide45]

I know that 1 in 4 or similar exchange restrictions are not popular but given the increased popularity and difficulty with II DVC exchanges in II, should they implement a 1 in 4 rule? Perhaps it is 1 in 4 for each resort, or 1 in 4 across the system? Thoughts?

 

[josegm888]

So you rather they decrease generating value to interval members because some members have issues getting what they want? Sounds backwards to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bnoble]

It's not that hard. There are still weeks--including at least one 2BR--sitting in open inventory. Most of the complaining has been around ongoing searches that are not matching when it seems like they should. And the only reason we know they should, is that they do show up in open inventory, however briefly. I don't personally care either way, because I decided to just buy where I wanted to stay so I don't have to play the exchange game anymore.

In any event, the 1-in-4 restrictions are not to spread the wealth for inbounds; they are meant to give more fresh meat to the sales maw and/or convince exchangers that if they want to stay there regularly, they should own there. Disney doesn't really do much in terms of pushing sales to inbounds, presumably because they don't really have to.

 

[jp10558]

Personally, I'm against the whole 1-in-whatever restrictions. If you're participating in an exchange program, then do so. I don't really understand what the whole idea accomplishes in reality except potentially unused weeks. If you're worried about others getting a chance to exchange into a location, I'm not sure how much this would free stuff up - for some reason the OGS isn't matching. It's either a bug, which this won't fix, or you don't have enough trade power, which this won't fix. The only thing that might fix it is adjusting your trade power up for some locations if you haven't exchanged into there in X years, but even then - how does II adjudicate "ties" right now?

 

[Dean]

1 in 4 is not for the benefit of the member but rather for the resort system to ensure a larger body of fresh meat.

 

[dioxide45]

So you rather they decrease generating value to interval members because some members have issues getting what they want? Sounds backwards to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We're getting what we want. After July we will have been to every DVC resort that they regularly deposit. Just asking out of simple curiosity. As we've been to all the resorts, or will be soon, some may say that perhaps I am more about pulling the ladder up after I've been there done that.

 

[chriskre]

That will not stop people from getting DVC if they really want it.
Just like when they were in RCI people will maintain several accounts to get it if they really want it.
It’s still cheaper than owning DVC outright especially these days with points being in the 100s resale and 200s direct.

I know people that had several accounts just to get units in key west that had a 1 in 4 so imagine DVC.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jp10558]

1 in 4 is not for the benefit of the member but rather for the resort system to ensure a larger body of fresh meat.

I just question the benefit of bringing in exchangers as a sales opportunity. I don't thing DVC especially needs exchangers to make sales. I don't know much about II, but in RCI I see it as pretty stupid actually. First from what I can tell, most exchangers are more savvy than the average sales prospect about Timeshares anyway - many never go outside their system or home resort. The savvy people are unlikely to buy from a developer again anyway. OTOH, when an exchanger is there the resorts often get resort fees, plus some of the exchange fee. Second it does provide value in sales to show RCI exchanges, so they have to deposit what their owners deposit. For HOA / Developer owned weeks, it seems to me they'd be better off trying to sell them to people outside the system at a low rate with the required presentation, vs hoping they can convince a somewhat savvy exchanger to go to a optional presentation. If they really think they're trying to get fresh meat.

But what's stupider IMHO is I just wonder about the places that have this limit but also are always showing up in last calls - these people aren't exchanging in anyway, they're buying the last call. Maybe they get slightly more for the Last Call but I question if it's enough to matter vs exchange, and neither is likely more or less a sales prospect I wouldn't think. I guess I don't really know - is it better or worse to have units empty in general for a timeshare?

 

[gravityrules]

Don't resorts that have 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 restrictions on exchanges also apply these restrictions to Getaways/Extra Vacations/Last calls? I think that is how Breckenridge Grand Vacations properties work in II.

 

[Dean]

I just question the benefit of bringing in exchangers as a sales opportunity. I don't thing DVC especially needs exchangers to make sales. I don't know much about II, but in RCI I see it as pretty stupid actually. First from what I can tell, most exchangers are more savvy than the average sales prospect about Timeshares anyway - many never go outside their system or home resort. The savvy people are unlikely to buy from a developer again anyway. OTOH, when an exchanger is there the resorts often get resort fees, plus some of the exchange fee. Second it does provide value in sales to show RCI exchanges, so they have to deposit what their owners deposit. For HOA / Developer owned weeks, it seems to me they'd be better off trying to sell them to people outside the system at a low rate with the required presentation, vs hoping they can convince a somewhat savvy exchanger to go to a optional presentation. If they really think they're trying to get fresh meat.

But what's stupider IMHO is I just wonder about the places that have this limit but also are always showing up in last calls - these people aren't exchanging in anyway, they're buying the last call. Maybe they get slightly more for the Last Call but I question if it's enough to matter vs exchange, and neither is likely more or less a sales prospect I wouldn't think. I guess I don't really know - is it better or worse to have units empty in general for a timeshare?

That was the point, other resorts using this (like Mx) generally do so from a sales perspective not to "be fair" to exchangers even though it's often framed this way. I can't say how their sales are going and we have seen a subtle shift in their sales approach now touring members more readily, they have not shown an interest in actively pursuing exchangers for sales. Personally I think they could have and should have and that it can be done tastefully. I also believe that the membership has suffered because of this failure in terms of lost resorts and internal opportunities.

 

[Danlop88]

What about limiting DVC exchanges to around 4 times per year max? I’m sure there are owners who hold extra timeshare ownerships mainly to exchange into DVC.

A better solution would be if the OGS worked properly for Disney inventory.

Having to check at 2 a.m. for several days hoping to catch a drop really is not ideal.(did it) I feel like the average timeshare owner has a very low chance of getting these exchanges unless they already know exactly how the system works.

 

[rickandcindy23]

Savvy members are TUG members. I tell my family and friends about TUG, and we have all figured out when the drops will occur.

Yesterday morning I was adding a guest name to a Bonnet Creek unit I rented that starts today. I was in a bit of a panic doing that. I was scrambling to find the information for the guest on Koala, found the guest name/info, changed the guest name, and it took at least 45 minutes of my time to get that done. (Koala rented something two days before the start date, which is amazing.)

Then I saw on TUG that the DVC drop happened, and I was kicking myself for missing it because I really wanted a couple of units for 11/7 and 11/14. I did get one bedrooms at SSR for us, but I needed two bedrooms for our son's family. They will be fine at Bonnet Creek in a three-bedroom presidential I booked months ago. Still, they would rather have Disney.

 

[bnoble]

There's a chance that they come back off of one-day holds. Keep checking for the next few days.

 

[SherBear801]

I honestly wouldn’t mind if they limited it to 1–2 reservations per account each year. I don’t need eight reservations every drop — or even over the course of a year. 1 in every 4 years seems a little harsh.

 

[rickandcindy23]

Turns out that my son likes Bonnet Creek better and doesn't care about DSS. I wonder if he is really genetically related to me. Did I bring the wrong kid home from the hospital 47 years ago.

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

I know that 1 in 4 or similar exchange restrictions are not popular but given the increased popularity and difficulty with II DVC exchanges in II, should they implement a 1 in 4 rule? Perhaps it is 1 in 4 for each resort, or 1 in 4 across the system? Thoughts?

I'd rather they just crack down on the commercial renting that we know is happening, since renting of any sort of exchanges are already barred by the rules.

 

[liacee]

Turns out that my son likes Bonnet Creek better and doesn't care about DSS. I wonder if he is really genetically related to me. Did I bring the wrong kid home from the hospital 47 years ago.

I actually like Bonnet Creek better too! It's just cheaper for me now to exchange into Saratoga than to rent Bonnet Creek and pay all the parking fees.