Gosh, i've been saying this forever!!!! Resale purchasers are just a little blimp on the Marriott radar. This is the group who wants to spend the least on a purchase and thinks with their heads, not emotions. This is NOT the group any luxury sales organization will target!
Their business decisions are not meant to PUNISH any group of consumer. They are developing new products that will encourage sales. In this development process, they will target those who have a history of spending $30K, $50K or greater, more than once. This isn't done out of "good will" or loyalty...this is the group that supports the timeshare division and they are coming up with new ways to get this group to spend more/again. Wouldn't you do the same?
If their new model means they generate lots of money for the division, but Mary in NJ won't get all of the $8K she spent on her timeshare when she sells, well, thats the cost of doing business and it's an easy decision for them. Their shareholders demand these kinds of decisions. To think that the group who spends the least is entitled to something (protection from devaluation, program discount) is being naive and a little narrow minded. Look at the greater picture.
IF resale buyers were only resale owners then it might make sense for Marriott to dismiss them as an important corporate concern. What you (and perhaps even Fletch, although I respect his opinion greatly) miss in your logic and statements is that many, perhaps even most, resale owners also own one or more developer weeks. Many bought resale because that better suited their needs at the time. HOWEVER, I have said this before but I think it is worth underscoring- ALL owners, whether or not they have bought all their units from the developer or one or more resale, are Marriott customers. They have decided to enter into an on-going relationship with Marriott- they pay thousands of dollars in MF's on an on-going basis, spend money at their properties, and many (even resale owners) have developed a brand loyalty. As you commented, when Marriott begins to further develop its product they will want a happy consumer base to sell to. I believe resale owners are part of that "group that supports the timeshare division;" again, many have already bought through the developer and all candidates for future direct purchases.
Admittedly, there are those resale buyers who have only and will only buy resale, but I think the majority of resale buyers would buy direct if the right opportunity came along. Many formerly direct buyers have felt that resale purchases made more sense to them over the past few years because Marriott wasn't offering enough up front incentives and the pricing was too high. Offer the 300-500K up front points and perhaps a little more realistic pricing and I think many more people would go the developer route; convenience of purchase and wanting to buy into the next new resort will win out if the dollar differential isn't too big.
I may be wrong, but I don't think the majority of resale owners are only bargain hunters in general. My guess is that most people who are shelling out thousands of dollars in MF's and taking multiple weeks of vacation every year have discretionary income. Many probably have nice cars and nice homes. Many, if not most, have the discretionary income to be a developer customer if Marriott introduces their next property right. Many have before, and if not antagonized, may likely buy that way again. While I bought resale, I know I would have bought direct under the right circumstances, as many of you have in the past. I wasn't willing to pay 15K for 150K points and for the privilege of trading a unit for points which didn't make sense to me with MF's in excess of $1000, but I know I could have and would have bought direct if the incentive and pricing were right.
To address your second paragraph- it is not Mary in NJ that bought her unit resale for 8K that stands to lose the most if Marriott punishes the resale market. It is the developer buyer who bought that unit for 25 or 30K who suddenly finds that his/her needs have changed and finds the value of their purchase decimated by a company that has set out to destroy the inherent value of their property. So everyone loses, except perhaps Marriott. Over the long run, does that make for a happy and loyal customer base?
I think as Marriott develops their new program (which may very well undergo changes from what was posted, if my source was correct in that they are far from certain even about releasing it [which may or may not be the case, of course]) resales will need to be considered in two groups- current resale owners and future resale buyers. Current resale owners already have made their purchase, so their benefit to Marriott is only as an audience for future purchases; they are also valued as supporting the brand, paying MF's, perhaps owning one or more direct purchases as well, and spending money at Marriott properties. I still maintain that if Marriott penalizes this group they have only the thousand here and there from those owners that opt into the new program as a "reward" for doing so, but it would incur a cost of perhaps alienating a significant portion of owners (although only 7% of sales are resales, what is the percentage of resale owners, since many resale owners are direct purchasers as well?).
Whether or not direct purchasers think that resale buyers should receive the same benefits is not the issue here, nor should it be. The fact is that current resale owners bought into a system where they were told that they would enjoy the same ownership rights and privileges as all other owners, except that they couldn't trade for points. Those who felt the point option wasn't worth the extra money saved some bucks and bought resale. And, while only the right of unit use is delineated in the ownership documents, everyone- direct and resale- bought in with the understanding that there was an exchange system which could change over time, and given the way it was sold every purchaser had the natural expectation that all owners would be treated equally wrt their unit usage (reserving at their home resort or exchanging). It is human nature to expect rights, once given, to be retained- and that's why I think it is only equitable that Marriott continue to treat all current owners the same wrt unit usage (and, I know the 13 month rule has been discussed ad nauseum, but again- right or wrong- at least it was applied across the board and, as Dave pointed out in another post, was in the original documents of most, if not all, resorts).
Future resale buyers is a different entity. Obviously, creating a schism between developer and resale purchasers and benefits makes the developer product more attractive, so I can see that this is a viable business decision. OR- they can take the high road- like DVC, for example- and just make a better product that retains its value just because the product is perceived as being so good. Keep the value of resales up and the price difference becomes minimal. Throw in some up front incentives and people will buy developer IF they aren't saving tens of thousands of dollars by buying resale. In essence, that's what DVC has done. And, yes, one can argue that they have the parks- but they also have non-park properties. They wouldn't be embarking on their project at Ko'Olina and going head to head with Marriott if they didn't think their business model could support it.
I think many people, when considering such a purchase, consider more that just the bottom line. Convenience is a big factor too. So if Marriott worked to sustain the value of their properties it would be a win-win all around. People would buy direct if the price difference was small because direct purchases are easier and perceived to be safer transaction, there is the perception of an intangible benefit, and excitement is created when you feel you own something that retains its value- and that promotes sales. Again, Marriott can learn from the DVC model, and they can learn what not to do from Starwood. That would be the best way to get any of their owners to spend more again.
One last food for thought- I think most buyers- whether or not they feel there is retained value- once the purchase is made don't actively consider the monetary value of their ownership but the vacation and family value; the intangible value is what ownership is all about for most people. That's what makes us pay our MF's and spend money at Marriott's properties ($$'s spent at their restaurants, booking activities through their concierges, playing in their casinos, spa treatments, marketplace purchases, etc.). The real cost of ownership is the MF's, which over the years can exceed the purchase price (regardless of how the purchase was made). That's the biggest issue in my book. Alienate the owners and you start getting large scale defaults on MF's- and guess who gets to make up the difference? THAT'S everyone's problem (and, again, look next door to Starwood's issues if you think that's an over-dramatization).
I'd hate to think that any owners would take perverse pleasure in penalizing any other owner. To take it one step further- rather than feeling smug that resale owners are getting their just deserves, so to speak, they should recognize that it actually is bad for them as well, should they ever want or need to sell.
