Speculation About Marriott's New Timeshare Structure [merged]

[dougp26364]

I never meant to imply, btw, that Fletch left because of what he heard about this new program- just that it appears that perhaps he and some of his co-workers did not like the directions that Marriott was going; it was my impression that this may have factored into his decision from something he had posted, unless I misinterpreted his comment.

Nevertheless, I think you missed the point I was making. Since what I was told was quite a bit different than Fletch's information, it may indicate that Marriott is reconsidering the program that they were anticipating rolling out. Since they developed the Asia Pacific points program, it is quite possible and even likely that that was a precursor to their overall points program. I don't know what success it has been met with, but I am guessing that perhaps its reception wasn't what Marriott expected, given the global economic downturn. So, Marriott MAY be reconsidering whether or not to institute a points based program at all (which jives with what I was told) and/or may be reconsidering the details of any future program.

And, I agree- it will be impossible to develop a program that everyone feels is equitable. Hey, the program we currently enjoy isn't equitable to everyone, but it is the program people bought into. So losers in the new program who may have done much better with the old program will be particularly affected. As Doug pointed out, only lower season owners who bought strictly to trade or primarily to trade will potentially be hurt; if you bought to use, regardless of season, you'll always have something nice to fall back on. But the real problem here is Marriott sold many of these units by dangling the ability to trade into other properties at perhaps more convenient vacation times. Of course, this was never written down, but the sales were made based on this understanding. To a large extent many of these customers have managed to get where they wanted to go making perhaps inequitable trades, but they have been relatively happy owners and they have continued to pay their MF's. My concern- and if you look at Starwood's problems I don't think it is a doomsday type forecast, but a realistic concern- is what happens when those lower season owners can no longer get what they consider equitable trades? What happens if even "lesser" Platinum week owners can no longer get trades to Hawaii, ski weeks, the Caribbean, etc.? Will there be widespread defaults?

The flip side is what DanCali has been pointing out- exchange is an equal sum system. IF lower season owners simply don't join the new system and continue using II, then there won't be the extra time that higher season owners could potentially reserve (for a higher season owner to potentially get 2 weeks, for example, it means that 2 single week owners also have to participate). So a top heavy system may make for great internal exchanges among the premium units (that is, until the next premium or next more premium unit that Marirott creates as a sales tool, comes along).

Despite all the doom and gloom here (and, admittedly, I've contributed ) I think this is a good discussion. People like Doug and others have pointed out many of the benefits that a point system can potentially infer. Others have pointed out many of the pitfalls. If I was a betting person (which, actually, I am not), I'd lay odds that somewhere in Marriottville might be perusing this thread and others like it. Although I'm not the same conspiracy theorist as Perry is, I tend to believe that these rumors were released for a reason- to get people used to the idea and likely to get feedback, so they can reconsider program parameters as needed before releasing, so hopefully they will release (IF they decide to ultimately release one) a program with the fewest glitches. I'm guessing they recognize that the Asia Pacific program wasn't what they thought it would be (and I understand that the Ritz points program was a big problem, from what I've heard) and that's why I think they've been treading slowly. I don't think they've been just dangling this idea out for 4 years or so just to annoy people; I think they've wanted to create a program but just recognize that it's very hard to superimpose a program over something that is very functional and that people bought into. It is one thing to buy into something with your eyes open; it is far different to have something changed after you've made a purchase based on a set of rules that you thought would be long lasting. No one likes something forced down their throats, and Marriott has to make darn sure that not too many customers choke on it.

Some of the posters here are right- this could be a fabulous system- since people are pontificating:
- create a system where all owners, regardless of how they purchased, are treated equally for reservations at their home resort and exchanges.
-resale owners currently can't exchange for Marriott Reward points. Create a more equitable exchange for timeshare to reward points (perhaps akin to the incentive offered in the Asia Pacific program to program adopters for the first number of years, but make it long term). Continue only allowing retail buyers to enjoy that perk- that was a perk that always created the difference, so it would be fair to all. Make it the perk it once was- good for sales, good for buyer satisfaction.
-continue with home resort preference.
-tie the point allotment to some entity which conveys relative trade value. Marriott already has this figured out- they change different rates to rent their units depending on location, size, view, time of year, etc. Take the average rack rental rates for each season and use that to formulate the basis of point allotment. As a new resort is released- allocate points based on the relative rental rates of those weeks to the rental rates of others during that time frame (in five years from not rental rates at all resorts will presumably be higher; any new allocation should be based on where the new resort falls on the scale relative to other older resorts). Thus, newer properties only get their fair share of points- they'd truly have to be "better" to receive a lion's share, and not just as a sales tool (like Fletch implied that they were apt to do with Marco). So older premium resorts retain their trade value over time.
-since home resort advantage is retained, MF's remain resort dependent as they are now, and not point dependent as in the Asia Pacific program

Just a thought here but, if Marriott puts all it's existing inventory into any new internal exchange system they come out with, it will kick start the system in a significant way. My guess is there will be a good number of lower season weeks that Marriott can supply to their new system, giving higher season owners the opportunity to trade down to stretch their usage while also giving those that own lower seasons the ability to obtain equitable exchanges.

FWIW, those that own lower season usually have to work at it to trade up. We've made serveral good trades with our silver season studio week but, it's never been into really high time areas and, it's been into over developed areas. There will be some give and take. That studio unit might not have enough points to get something larger, even in shoulder or off season. But, it could be added to our one bedroom Platinum lock-off and make that unit exchange even better.

We are in the position where we own enough timeshare weeks that being able to combine and exchange up using two units benefits us more than a mediocre exchange with the studio unit and a decent exchange with the one bedroom unit.

 

[m61376]

Just a thought here but, if Marriott puts all it's existing inventory into any new internal exchange system they come out with, it will kick start the system in a significant way. My guess is there will be a good number of lower season weeks that Marriott can supply to their new system, giving higher season owners the opportunity to trade down to stretch their usage while also giving those that own lower seasons the ability to obtain equitable exchanges.

FWIW, those that own lower season usually have to work at it to trade up. We've made serveral good trades with our silver season studio week but, it's never been into really high time areas and, it's been into over developed areas. There will be some give and take. That studio unit might not have enough points to get something larger, even in shoulder or off season. But, it could be added to our one bedroom Platinum lock-off and make that unit exchange even better.

We are in the position where we own enough timeshare weeks that being able to combine and exchange up using two units benefits us more than a mediocre exchange with the studio unit and a decent exchange with the one bedroom unit.

I would assume that Marriott would likely only dump the less popular weeks into the new system that it owned, if any at all. Those units that it hasn't sold, or those units that usage reverted back to Marriott for the year, are generally offered as rentals. If the property has a high rental rate I doubt Marriott would be so benevolent as to add it to the pool- but you might be right that they might add the units that they are less likely to fully rent anyway. It's a good point and it could help jump start the system.

As you pointed out, there can be some good ways to benefit from a points system even from lesser week owners. One of the real issues I foresee, though, is not discontent from owners or 3 BR's such as yourself combining the smaller portions perhaps, but from lesser week owners who need to combine 2 whole owned week to get a week at a better location. All of a sudden their cost per night has just doubled, because they are paying double the MF's. An argument can be made for assigning MF's according to point values as in the Asia Pacific program, but I think that's a logistical nightmare to superimpose upon a week based system with independent HOA's setting MF's.

 

[SueDonJ]

... As you pointed out, there can be some good ways to benefit from a points system even from lesser week owners. One of the real issues I foresee, though, is not discontent from owners or 3 BR's such as yourself combining the smaller portions perhaps, but from lesser week owners who need to combine 2 whole owned week to get a week at a better location. All of a sudden their cost per night has just doubled, because they are paying double the MF's. An argument can be made for assigning MF's according to point values as in the Asia Pacific program, but I think that's a logistical nightmare to superimpose upon a week based system with independent HOA's setting MF's.

DVC's system has m/f tied to points owned, but each resort has its own point values. IOW, it "costs" more points to stay at the newer resorts or during high seasons or in the larger units, etc... (Plus, their points are extremely devalued when they exchange out into Disney hotels, Disney Cruise Line, or other timeshares.) Those owners have no problems understanding and working with a system wherein the amount of points they have in their home resort may not get them a "like for like" exchange.

Marriott owners already know when they're trading up, don't they? Isn't it understood that certain resorts may not have the exchange power to pull certain other resorts, and that trading up can only happen in certain circumstances such as low seasons or flexchange? Why would it be any more difficult for owners to acknowledge similar exchange limitations in a new points exchange system? Especially if point reductions are integrated for low season and flexchange-like availability? That would be no different than the exchange limitations already in place in II's system!

I keep seeing "like for like" here but it's not stated anywhere that an owner is guaranteed that from either Marriott or II. If it happens to be the way that any owners' exchanges have worked out thus far, well, that's just luck. Most TUGgers who manage to trade up recognize that as a bonus, as is seen in all the posts where somebody is excited about a great trade and several folks congratulate the OP. As well, most TUGgers recognize that trading down is a necessity at times, as is seen in all the posts questioning whether a certain resort has the trade power to pull another, or for example, in the posts where folks say they're giving up a bedroom to get to that great Hawaii resort.

So, m, if "like for like" isn't guaranteed from either Marriott or II, and most TUGgers recognize that "like for like" doesn't happen more often than not, then why do you think that Marriott should be responsible for making sure that it will happen in a new points exchange system? I don't think that Marriott is under any obligation to roll out a program that is more equitable than what's available now with II, certainly.

But of course if by "like for like" what you really mean is "week-for-week," that's a different story. But I still don't see that Marriott is obligated to a "week-for-week" exchange system because, again, there is no stated requirement for that. If a new points exchange system offers more exchange value to all of the owners who have consistently been trading down, while at the same time it's a selling feature for newer resorts where point values will of course be higher, it's a no-brainer.

As far as owners of the older resorts/low seasons not liking that their exchange value may not be high enough to pull what they've been able to pull thus far, and the possibility that they'll default because of it? If otherwise responsible owners who are not debilitated by this poor economy choose to use a new exchange system as a reason to default, I'd say they're just looking for an excuse and they'd probably find another one just as flimsy if this new system isn't rolled out. No particular exchange guarantees have ever been stated by Marriott or II, and informed owners know that.

 

[dougp26364]

I would assume that Marriott would likely only dump the less popular weeks into the new system that it owned, if any at all. Those units that it hasn't sold, or those units that usage reverted back to Marriott for the year, are generally offered as rentals. If the property has a high rental rate I doubt Marriott would be so benevolent as to add it to the pool- but you might be right that they might add the units that they are less likely to fully rent anyway. It's a good point and it could help jump start the system.

As you pointed out, there can be some good ways to benefit from a points system even from lesser week owners. One of the real issues I foresee, though, is not discontent from owners or 3 BR's such as yourself combining the smaller portions perhaps, but from lesser week owners who need to combine 2 whole owned week to get a week at a better location. All of a sudden their cost per night has just doubled, because they are paying double the MF's. An argument can be made for assigning MF's according to point values as in the Asia Pacific program, but I think that's a logistical nightmare to superimpose upon a week based system with independent HOA's setting MF's.

Once again we're both at the point of speculation. Marriott might.......or might not......kick start the program. In the short run it's probably more profitable to attempt to rent those unit. In the long run, if they want people to sing the praises of how great their new system is they'll put a good majority of those units into the exchange pool boosting availability. It sort of depends on your view of Marriott as a friend or the evil empire.

Maybe the down economy is the perfect time to start a program like this. With the economy down and hotel rentals being off, putting inventory into such a program for a couple of years might not hurt as much.

 

[m61376]

So, m, if "like for like" isn't guaranteed from either Marriott or II, and most TUGgers recognize that "like for like" doesn't happen more often than not, then why do you think that Marriott should be responsible for making sure that it will happen in a new points exchange system? I don't think that Marriott is under any obligation to roll out a program that is more equitable than what's available now with II, certainly.

But of course if by "like for like" what you really mean is "week-for-week," that's a different story. But I still don't see that Marriott is obligated to a "week-for-week" exchange system because, again, there is no stated requirement for that. If a new points exchange system offers more exchange value to all of the owners who have consistently been trading down, while at the same time it's a selling feature for newer resorts where point values will of course be higher, it's a no-brainer.

As far as owners of the older resorts/low seasons not liking that their exchange value may not be high enough to pull what they've been able to pull thus far, and the possibility that they'll default because of it? If otherwise responsible owners who are not debilitated by this poor economy choose to use a new exchange system as a reason to default, I'd say they're just looking for an excuse and they'd probably find another one just as flimsy if this new system isn't rolled out. No particular exchange guarantees have ever been stated by Marriott or II, and informed owners know that.

I never said that there was a stated requirement for any type of exchange. My point is that heretofore owners are accustomed to trading like for like- meaning the same size and the same number of days. True, because of resort quality or season (demand factors), they may have had to compromise on size. Of course, Marriott is under no legal obligation to continue this.

However, people bought into a program with a certain expectation and have been enjoying certain privileges. Like it or not, many salespeople strongly inferred that people could buy a lesser season perhaps for less money and trade for where they really wanted; while I would never recommend this as a course, there have been many owners that bought under those assumptions and have made their ownership work for them. While it is true that Marirott has no obligation to allow such transactions to continue, nor to fashion a program with similar accommodations, there is a risk when a new system with a new set of rules is either superimposed on or replaces what was. It is one thing when people make an informed decision to make a purchase and quite another when the rules are changed midstream.

I am not saying that it can't be done- just pointing out some of the risks in doing so. You mention DVC. People bought into a points system and points were allocated at the time of purchase according to unit size/season/resort, etc.. People pay MF's according to the points owned. Given Marriott's current system, I don't see how they could refashion the MF system such that owners would pay a MF per point (since that would create a whole other problem). I think that's where the big issue lies. Owners of lesser season weeks are going to be very unhappy if they can only get a few days at a more desirable resort, yet are paying those high MF's. As MF's rise the issue becomes worse. Look at what is happening with Starwood resorts- as more owners find they aren't getting enough value out of their ownership to pay the MF's, the default rate increases and that, in turn, leads to increased MF's to cover the deficits. So, while Marriott doesn't have to create a system where all owners are content, if the new system (IF there is a new system) leads to a lot of discontented owners, it could be a big issue for everyone.

And, yes, while realize that the natural tendency is for new resorts to have higher point values, admittedly that concerns me, because it is an area ripe for abuse. Look at the outcry over reward point devaluation, which was just a perk of ownership. Imagine in five years that same type of devaluation with timeshare points, which would be intrinsic to ownership. Will you really be ok with only getting 4 or 5 days in the future at a comparably located and basically comparable property, just because it's newer (or because Marriott needs to allocate more points to enhance sales), when you're paying $1000-1500+ annually in MF's?

 

[hipslo]

Can't decide whether I should care about any of this?

I have been diligently trying to keep up with this thread, but I have to admit, its beginning to make my head spin. So, I'm trying to figure out whether or not I even have a dog in this fight. Maybe someone could enlighten me. Here's my situation:

I currently own four platinum units at Mountainside in Park City, all purchased resale. Every year since I have owned these units, which is now four or five years, using the 13 month reservations window, I have successfully reserved the four consecutive weeks after president's week. Also every year, I have rented out three of these four weeks, sometimes back to Marriott, sometimes to friends/ co-workers, and sometimes via one of the online listing sites. I've never had any trouble renting for what I consider to be reasonable amounts (though what I consider reasonable is typically less than what a lot of folks list these weeks for). My family and I have used the fourth week to take a ski trip each year when the kids (ages 7, 10 and 13) are out of school for spring break.

I would like to continue this usage pattern for the forseeable future. I have no interest in exchanging. Eventually, when the kids are grown and out of the house, and I am able to retire (or semi-retire), my wife and I would like to spend those four consecutive weeks in Park City skiing each winter. Kind of like having a ski condo in Park City, except that I am not paying for anything more than I actually anticipate using.

So, how closely do I need to be following any of this? I have followed what I understand to be the cardinal TUG rule - I have purchased where I desire to use. My multiple week ownership has allowed me to reserve the weeks I actually wish to use, as well (there are plenty of "dog" weeks in the platinum season at Mountainside). I have no interest in exchanging, and do not anticipate that I will ever be interested in exchanging.

Thoughts?

 

[SueDonJ]

... And, yes, while realize that the natural tendency is for new resorts to have higher point values, admittedly that concerns me, because it is an area ripe for abuse. Look at the outcry over reward point devaluation, which was just a perk of ownership. Imagine in five years that same type of devaluation with timeshare points, which would be intrinsic to ownership. Will you really be ok with only getting 4 or 5 days in the future at a comparably located and basically comparable property, just because it's newer (or because Marriott needs to allocate more points to enhance sales), when you're paying $1000-1500+ annually in MF's?

Why wouldn't I be okay with it? It's similar to the system that I have bought into in which older resorts lose their trade power as newer ones open, and in which exchange use may not be equal to home resort use. When we bought we were told to expect less value in trades, that exchanging would be most successful if we accepted a 2BR in exchange for our 3BR, so why should similar future devaluations surprise me? Exchanging isn't our first priority, though. For some owners it is, but IMO that's even more reason for those folks to completely understand the limitations that could be placed on their ownership.

Speaking of MRP devaluation, didn't you argue that it was something that should have been expected based on hotel trends, and that a devaluation was something direct buyers would just have to accept because they had no guarantee of future value? You did, and you were entirely correct! But the same is true with exchanging - Marriott is under no obligation to continue the exchange system as it exists now, and owners will just have to accept whatever changes are made. (For the record, some of us didn't join in the outcry or rail against Marriott for that MRP devaluation because we knew it could happen, although we have used it as proof of Marriott devaluing an ownership. But it's curious that when it's been pointed out as proof, you've chosen to not see it that way. Have you changed your mind? )

Plus I just don't understand why you keep bringing M/F's into this - they're set according to costs for running a resort based on things like physical location, local energy surcharges, county taxes, etc. It takes more than high M/F for a resort to be considered a premium exchange property. That's why I asked before if folks look at M/F as an indicator of exchange success now. If they don't, which I don't think they do, then why would they in any new exchange system?

 

[SueDonJ]

... So, how closely do I need to be following any of this? I have followed what I understand to be the cardinal TUG rule - I have purchased where I desire to use. My multiple week ownership has allowed me to reserve the weeks I actually wish to use, as well (there are plenty of "dog" weeks in the platinum season at Mountainside). I have no interest in exchanging, and do not anticipate that I will ever be interested in exchanging.

Thoughts?

I don't think it's necessary to follow ANY thread about this rumored new exchange system! For some of us it's a way to think out loud, for others it's a way to prepare for the worst (or the best,) for some it's simply the thread that they opened when their fingers wanted to start typing ...

There isn't anything to be learned here about how any of our ownerships will be impacted because Marriott hasn't released any details. Until and unless they do, your guesses about all this claptrap are as good as anybody else's.

But if an announcement is made that a new system is being rolled out, whenever it's made, the threads on TUG will be worth their weight in gold. That's when we all should sit up and ask questions, brainstorm and try to figure out what's what. The more voices in the discussion then, the better off we'll all be.

 

[hipslo]

I don't think it's necessary to follow ANY thread about this rumored new exchange system! For some of us it's a way to think out loud, for others it's a way to prepare for the worst (or the best,) for some it's simply the thread that they opened when their fingers wanted to start typing ...

There isn't anything to be learned here about how any of our ownerships will be impacted because Marriott hasn't released any details. Until and unless they do, your guesses about all this claptrap are as good as anybody else's.

Understood. But, I guess what I was really asking is, for those of you who seem to like to speculate, how likely do you think it is that a new system would have any impact on the sort of usage pattern I describe? While you say "your guess is as good as mine", I think that there are quite a few of you whose guesses are likely to be quite a bit better than mine. I dont know the first thing about points systems or exchanging, and dont have the same intuitive feel that many of you seem to have as to what Marriott "would", or "might", or "could", or "would never" or "they'll get sued if they" do.

 

[Transit]

Just another speculation but a platinum week now may not be a platinum week in the new system.Same for gold and silver.Adjustments could go up or down depending on real past performance. I would imagine many adjustments on units/seasons for a points system to be implemented.

 

[SueDonJ]

Understood. But, I guess what I was really asking is, for those of you who seem to like to speculate, how likely do you think it is that a new system would have any impact on the sort of usage pattern I describe? While you say "your guess is as good as mine", I think that there are quite a few of you whose guesses are likely to be quite a bit better than mine. I dont know the first thing about points systems or exchanging, and dont have the same intuitive feel that many of you seem to have as to what Marriott "would", or "might", or "could", or "would never" or "they'll get sued if they" do.

Oh. Hmmm. Well, most important is that any new exchange system will be voluntary - whatever the terms and changes may be, owners will most likely have the option of not joining and simply continuing to use their week(s) as they do now.

My guess is that the owners who use their own weeks as you do will be the least likely folks to be affected by a new internal exchange system, especially if it's an overlay system because home resort usage shouldn't be adversely affected by that type of system. So the way you use your weeks, staying at your home resort or renting out your excess weeks privately, probably wouldn't have to change.

If a system gets rolled out that requires an owner to convert from a deeded week to deeded points with a home resort priority, I would still expect that home resort usage wouldn't be affected to a great extent. But, I think that type of system opens the door for changes in the reservation system and/or Marriott rental program for those owners who do join the new system, so there your ownership could be slightly impacted if Marriott integrated new reservation/rental rules into the new system.

If a system gets rolled out that requires a total conversion to a points program with no home resort priority, I have no idea. I'll be right beside you counting on Doug's expertise if that's the choice we'll be looking at.

 

[m61376]

Why wouldn't I be okay with it? It's similar to the system that I have bought into in which older resorts lose their trade power as newer ones open, and in which exchange use may not be equal to home resort use. When we bought we were told to expect less value in trades, that exchanging would be most successful if we accepted a 2BR in exchange for our 3BR, so why should similar future devaluations surprise me? Exchanging isn't our first priority, though. For some owners it is, but IMO that's even more reason for those folks to completely understand the limitations that could be placed on their ownership.

Speaking of MRP devaluation, didn't you argue that it was something that should have been expected based on hotel trends, and that a devaluation was something direct buyers would just have to accept because they had no guarantee of future value? You did, and you were entirely correct! But the same is true with exchanging - Marriott is under no obligation to continue the exchange system as it exists now, and owners will just have to accept whatever changes are made. (For the record, some of us didn't join in the outcry or rail against Marriott for that MRP devaluation because we knew it could happen, although we have used it as proof of Marriott devaluing an ownership. But it's curious that when it's been pointed out as proof, you've chosen to not see it that way. Have you changed your mind? )

Plus I just don't understand why you keep bringing M/F's into this - they're set according to costs for running a resort based on things like physical location, local energy surcharges, county taxes, etc. It takes more than high M/F for a resort to be considered a premium exchange property. That's why I asked before if folks look at M/F as an indicator of exchange success now. If they don't, which I don't think they do, then why would they in any new exchange system?

Actually, I am not changing my opinion to suit the situation. Devaluation over time for reward points happens in every program, simply because reward points are normally proportional to fees paid. Since the majority of reward points are given and redeemed for hotel stays, and those prices increase, it naturally follows that the redemption cost would increase- hence point devaluation.

However, when talking about timeshares and a timeshare point system it is a distinct entity, as opposed to trading in for reward points which is part of a much bigger system. What I mean is this- the issue of reward points has to be considered from the overall reward point program, of which timeshares being traded in for points is a small fraction of the business. So the business decisions have to be based on the reality that every reward point program devalues over time, for the reasons discussed. Since over time hotel stays generate more reward points, the cost to purchase a stay must naturally increase over time.

A timeshare point system is different from a rewards point system, since only timeshares are being valuated and traded. What you are redeeming (ie- points representing timeshare use) will have appreciated as much as what you are using them to buy (timeshare use). So, in reality, there is no intrinsic need for a timeshare point system to devalue, as long as the properties are maintained. While it is true that a newer resort may be larger or have more amenities, or be in a more desirable location, and if so should have a higher point value (just as certain properties today will have a higher point value), just because it is new or because the developer needs to promote sales the point value should not be higher. In fact, Starwood made a mistake in doing just that, so that some of the most desirable locations could not exchange into other properties, and later had to reallocate more points to those properties because of the issues it created.

I am just pointing out that there exists the potential for excessive evaluations of new resorts as a sales tool, which could make it impossible for current owners even at premium properties to exchange into future developments (at least for same size/length of stay).

I think you are totally misunderstanding what I'm saying about MF's. Of course they are not a barometer of exchange success; I never said they were. What I am saying is that there are a few issues associated with MF's. One is will owners of lesser weeks who can no longer get an equivalent exchange (size/length of stay) and theoretically have to use 2 weeks or portions thereof, be upset over having to pay basically two MF's for possibly a one week exchange (the MF's of their two units being given up for exchange)? IF owners don't feel they are getting adequate value from their annual expenditure (MF's). the default rate might increase.

The second issue is how will MF's be assessed? Many point programs charge per point, so that owners of fewer points pay less. Others continue to charge per property. IF what Fletch has heard comes to fruition and there is no home resort advantage and/or IF the program (IF there is a program) follows the Asia Pacific program, will MF's be assessed per point (and thus vary between seasons) or will they remain stable across each resort like they do currently? There are ramifications of each scenario, and that's the issue I was getting at when bringing up MF's. Certainly MF's have nothing to do with exchange success (if they did, all units in a given resort would have the same value regardless of week, since the MF's are uniform across the board; clearly that's not the case).

While owners are at Marriott's mercy, as you aptly point out, it is also to Marriott's benefit to keep their customers happy. It is true that "owners will just have to accept whatever changes are made" to use their Marirott weeks, BUT Marriott also recognizes that they have competition, and if I don't like what they enact, I can take my business elsewhere (as can everyone else), so they have a vested interest here.

 

[GregT]

I have been diligently trying to keep up with this thread, but I have to admit, its beginning to make my head spin. So, I'm trying to figure out whether or not I even have a dog in this fight. Maybe someone could enlighten me. Here's my situation:

So, how closely do I need to be following any of this? I have followed what I understand to be the cardinal TUG rule - I have purchased where I desire to use.

Hipslo,

I think you're in great shape (and of course I'm speculating). I think that, IF Marriott comes out with a points based system (and I think they will), that three types of properties will be deposited -- none of which will devalue your ability to use your valuable deeded properties: 1) current unsold inventory will be deposited into the points pool 2) whatever Marriott chooses to ROFR (which will have to be low priced for Marriott to risk their precious cash) and 3) existing, comparable owners at your home resort that choose to give up their deeded properties in exchange for entry into the points system. Only #3 is a true competitor to your ability to continue to maximize usage of your property, and most multi-week owners at your property aren't going to contribute them all to the points-system and give up their 13 month advantage.

I think those of us with deeded properties will continue to have the benefits we've enjoyed and that it will be the rare owner who gives up their deeded Platinum property in exchange for points exchangeable into the unknown pool of what's out there.

I think that's the missing point from our discussion here -- I think deeded properties -- especially in sold out or smaller resorts -- will have an intangible value that may result in stable (but never increasing) resale value. I personally would like to retain Marriott deeds to the properties I wish to visit often.

I continue to think Marriott is just doing this to try and establish a recurring stable revenue stream from annual dues to participate in the points program -- and converting their existing, unsold inventory is the best way to do that, coupled with converting as many existing owners as possible into the program.

Good luck, and enjoy your property!

 

[SueDonJ]

... While owners are at Marriott's mercy, as you aptly point out, it is also to Marriott's benefit to keep their customers happy. It is true that "owners will just have to accept whatever changes are made" to use their Marirott weeks, BUT Marriott also recognizes that they have competition, and if I don't like what they enact, I can take my business elsewhere (as can everyone else), so they have a vested interest here.

Your argument is that they should do their best to appease the lesser-invested owners who have taken advantage of II's system to upgrade what they own, so that they don't default on M/F when their weeks do not get them similar value in future trades. But if we're going to assume that Marriott's best interests lie in keeping their customers happy, doesn't it logically follow that their focus should be on increasing the value of the product for those customers who have consistently traded down when exchanging, and are most likely venting their frustrations? Regardless, though, their objective with any new internal exchange system will be to stimulate sales. The newer resorts with upgraded amenities will always number fewer than the established resorts, and an exchange product like II's current offering that doesn't allow owners at the newer resorts to obtain exchange value similar to their home resort will be a colossal flop at reaching that objective. Simply, Marriott needs to address the needs of potential customers if they want to stimulate sales, not pander to the owners who might default on Silver weeks at 15yo resorts.

There's another thing about the "keeping customers happy" issue. As you say, the MRP exchange option for MVCI direct purchases is a very small subset of the overall Marriott Rewards membership. The contract language for that option, although it does stipulate certain amounts at the time of purchase, does not prohibit Marriott from amending (or discontinuing) that option at any time. If they were as concerned with keeping customers happy as you seem to think they should be, it would have been a very simple matter for them to amend the amount of MRP's given for MVCI week exchanges at the same time that the overall program redemptions have been adjusted. They chose not to do that which allowed a certain membership group to feel that their ownership was devalued. There isn't any reason to think that they won't make the same choice in the future to devalue in other ways the ownership for any other certain group. Especially if at the same time, they can increase the ownership value for those in the group which Marriott considers more likely to contribute further to their bottom line.

 

[dougp26364]

I have been diligently trying to keep up with this thread, but I have to admit, its beginning to make my head spin. So, I'm trying to figure out whether or not I even have a dog in this fight. Maybe someone could enlighten me. Here's my situation:

I currently own four platinum units at Mountainside in Park City, all purchased resale. Every year since I have owned these units, which is now four or five years, using the 13 month reservations window, I have successfully reserved the four consecutive weeks after president's week. Also every year, I have rented out three of these four weeks, sometimes back to Marriott, sometimes to friends/ co-workers, and sometimes via one of the online listing sites. I've never had any trouble renting for what I consider to be reasonable amounts (though what I consider reasonable is typically less than what a lot of folks list these weeks for). My family and I have used the fourth week to take a ski trip each year when the kids (ages 7, 10 and 13) are out of school for spring break.

I would like to continue this usage pattern for the forseeable future. I have no interest in exchanging. Eventually, when the kids are grown and out of the house, and I am able to retire (or semi-retire), my wife and I would like to spend those four consecutive weeks in Park City skiing each winter. Kind of like having a ski condo in Park City, except that I am not paying for anything more than I actually anticipate using.

So, how closely do I need to be following any of this? I have followed what I understand to be the cardinal TUG rule - I have purchased where I desire to use. My multiple week ownership has allowed me to reserve the weeks I actually wish to use, as well (there are plenty of "dog" weeks in the platinum season at Mountainside). I have no interest in exchanging, and do not anticipate that I will ever be interested in exchanging.

Thoughts?

IMHO, nothing said here matters. Right now, I really don't care about it. Nothing changes until Marriott rolls out a new program. Until then, as far as I'm concerned, it's all speculation and heresay.

There is absolutely NO WAY to determine if any new program will benefit or hurt owners until there is actually a new program to examine. I agree with Perry that Marriott has been irresponsible in allowing their sales team to lead people on by telling them a new program is coming out and alluding to the idea that resale buyers will find themselves left wanting. That's just a salemans ploy and not a very proffesional way to act. You can't throw dirt without losing a little ground. So long as the salemen keep throwing dirt, Marriott will continue to lose ground.

So as far as I'm concerned there is nothing to worry about. Even if there was, what could I do about it? Complain to Marriott about something that doesn't exist? I'll wait and see what Marriott does. If I don't like the program, I won't join. If it's of benefit to me I'll take it under consideration before giving them any more money. I'm not going to worry about something that hasn't happened yet.

 

[dougp26364]

Just another speculation but a platinum week now may not be a platinum week in the new system.Same for gold and silver.Adjustments could go up or down depending on real past performance. I would imagine many adjustments on units/seasons for a points system to be implemented.

I doubt it. Owners paid a premium for seasons. Because of that Marriott would face legal challenges should they try to move owners to a lower season. Could they move owners into another, higher season? Maybe, but if they moved my Silver Ocean Pointe week to Gold I'd still want access to the same weeks my Silver season had when I bought it. Those weeks are why I bought that season in the first place.

If they tried to move me to Gold and changed the seasons to the same as Oceana Palms, some of my Silver season weeks would fall into Oceana Palms Gold season but some would fall into Oceana Palms Platinum season. We travel to S. Florida in either Nov. or Dec. depending on our schedule. I would have to have access to the same weeks or I'd challange their notion that I was being upgraded.

It's a very rare thing to move an owner from one season to another. I can't think of any intstance where anyone has ever been downgraded and I can only recall a converstation where HGVC moved owners from the few bronze weeks at one of their resorts into silver season weeks. Even this I'm not certain of as my memory isn't always the greatest.

 

[SueDonJ]

Just another speculation but a platinum week now may not be a platinum week in the new system.Same for gold and silver.Adjustments could go up or down depending on real past performance. I would imagine many adjustments on units/seasons for a points system to be implemented.

I doubt it. Owners paid a premium for seasons. Because of that Marriott would face legal challenges should they try to move owners to a lower season. Could they move owners into another, higher season? Maybe, but if they moved my Silver Ocean Pointe week to Gold I'd still want access to the same weeks my Silver season had when I bought it. Those weeks are why I bought that season in the first place. ...

I agree with Doug, I don't think there is any room at all for Marriott to finagle with the seasons. Timeshare laws require, for one thing, that each owner be assigned one week/unit to coincide with the season/configuration that they've purchased and will be assigned when reserving their home resort usage. If any season changes were to be made after the Timeshare Declaration legal papers are filed by the developer, it would throw the strict accounting of weeks/units all out of whack and the developer into a legal hot mess.

 

[dougp26364]

I suppose they could put in a stipulation that, to join the internal points system, you would have to agree to a new seasonal designation. While this might work in moving people from a lower season to a higher season, I'm sure it wouldn't work in reverse. For us, if they followed Oceana Palms gold season for Ocean Pointe, it wouldn't work. Sometimes we like to go there in November, which was Gold season for Oceana Palms, but sometime we prefer a December week, which if I remember correctly was Platinum for a couple of Silver weeks.

But, I could see some owners agreeing to be bumped up in season. The thought would be that they were getting that more valuable week without having to pay for it. If they agree in writing to change their week, then Marriott could do this.

Of course this would potentially create a reservations nightmare trying to keep two seperate seasonal calenders fro the same resort for two different groups of owners. It's a headache I don't see them wanting to take on unless they're convinced this new program will be so great, everyone wants to convert. That would mean they didn't think about owners like us to bought a low season specifically because the calender for that season worked for us.

 

[m61376]

Your argument is that they should do their best to appease the lesser-invested owners who have taken advantage of II's system to upgrade what they own, so that they don't default on M/F when their weeks do not get them similar value in future trades. But if we're going to assume that Marriott's best interests lie in keeping their customers happy, doesn't it logically follow that their focus should be on increasing the value of the product for those customers who have consistently traded down when exchanging, and are most likely venting their frustrations? Regardless, though, their objective with any new internal exchange system will be to stimulate sales. The newer resorts with upgraded amenities will always number fewer than the established resorts, and an exchange product like II's current offering that doesn't allow owners at the newer resorts to obtain exchange value similar to their home resort will be a colossal flop at reaching that objective. Simply, Marriott needs to address the needs of potential customers if they want to stimulate sales, not pander to the owners who might default on Silver weeks at 15yo resorts.

There's another thing about the "keeping customers happy" issue. As you say, the MRP exchange option for MVCI direct purchases is a very small subset of the overall Marriott Rewards membership. The contract language for that option, although it does stipulate certain amounts at the time of purchase, does not prohibit Marriott from amending (or discontinuing) that option at any time. If they were as concerned with keeping customers happy as you seem to think they should be, it would have been a very simple matter for them to amend the amount of MRP's given for MVCI week exchanges at the same time that the overall program redemptions have been adjusted. They chose not to do that which allowed a certain membership group to feel that their ownership was devalued. There isn't any reason to think that they won't make the same choice in the future to devalue in other ways the ownership for any other certain group. Especially if at the same time, they can increase the ownership value for those in the group which Marriott considers more likely to contribute further to their bottom line.

Yes- Marriott has to keep their best customers happy. But you are totally missing my point- I am not saying that Marriott has to gear a program towards keeping lesser season owners happy at all costs, even at the expense of more invested owners, but that one of the dangers in any potential program is that some owners may become disenfranchised- and that is a real pitfall that could result in a lot of unhappy owners and an increase in delinquencies (which impacts everyone). It is just a theoretical discussion- like all the rest of this discussion in this thread.

And, yes, again you are right- Marriott can legally make all sorts of changes that "could" basically make anything but usage of our home resort a moot point. You have reiterated that over and over again that there are all sorts of caveats that allow Marriott to make subtle and even broader changes. I just don't get your point to underscoring that repetitively. Just because they can, doesn't mean they will, and certainly doesn't mean that it would be in anyone's best interests- even theirs.

They did devalue a perk of ownership when they devalued the rewards points program. Even though I acknowledged that was a necessary byproduct of any such program, I did also criticize Marriott for not having reevaluated the points they awarded for timeshare exchanges, and mentioned that it should have a built in appreciation factor. In a similar fashion, any points assigned to timeshares in a timeshare points program will likely be devalued over time as new resorts come on board IF Marriott decides that's the best way to stimulate sales. Hey- they develop Cancun, and build similar units to let's say any of the other premium properties. But in order to sell it they assign it the highest point value- even though owners in Maui or elsewhere paid a lot more and have much higher MF's on an annual basis. True- it's a valuable sales tool. But if your Plat. HH week can only trade in for 5 days instead of a week because Marriott inflated the value as a sales tool, maybe you'd think it was ok but I'm guesting there are many people who wouldn't. That's an example of what I feel is a potential risk with a points program IF the developer wants to be greedy (and since it appears that this is being introduced at least in part as a sales tool, I think it is a potential issue).

Maybe you feel that Marriott should simply continually address the needs of potential customers- that's fine, and you are entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine- that if you dry up the current customer base with dissatisfaction, you narrow the future customer base. That's why I think Marriott needs to develop something that appeals to a broader base of its customers, and can't simply dismiss half of its owners with a program that won't be appealing to them.

Time will tell....

 

[m61376]

While they certainly cannot change the legal designation of a deeded week, they can evaluate it either higher or lower when assigning points. For example, there is a chance that owners at resorts with excessively long seasons will be awarded fewer points than they would otherwise enjoy, since I would expect the point valuations to reflect an average valuation of all the weeks in the season. On the flip side, Silver weeks at Ocean Pointe, like Doug owns, may garner more points because the timing correlates to higher seasons at Oceana Palms and the resorts are a mile apart.

Of course, the fact that Oceana Palms is newer and Marriott wants to promote sales there will likely factor into the equation. Not to reiterate my post above, that's a potential issue in any possible new program- how Marriott manipulates the market, so to speak. While I am not saying that Doug's silver week should get enough points to trade for similar size/length of stay at a Gold Oceana Palms week (although I could understand an argument that they should have similar valuations because they include many of the same weeks in the same locale), a Gold Ocean Palms week shouldn't garner enough points to trade into a Plat. Ocean Pointe week. I guess that's a simple but good example of how Marriott could change the value without changing the legally proscribed seasons.

 

[Transit]

I agree with Doug, I don't think there is any room at all for Marriott to finagle with the seasons. Timeshare laws require, for one thing, that each owner be assigned one week/unit to coincide with the season/configuration that they've purchased and will be assigned when reserving their home resort usage. If any season changes were to be made after the Timeshare Declaration legal papers are filed by the developer, it would throw the strict accounting of weeks/units all out of whack and the developer into a legal hot mess.

You guys are still thinking in terms of your deeded weeks which will remain what you bought plat,gold,ect. When a points system is set up your week will have a points value. What ever value Marriott decides your unit is worth in points is what you will have to work with. If Marriott does this there will be a points chart and seasons available at resorts most likely will not line up with what is a plat/gold/silver seasons now.The resort i'm interested in is Marriott legends edge. It has a huge Plat season. I don't see a October plat week needing the same amount of points as weeks 24-30. I would imagine that when a points chart comes out it will be broken down into 3 or 4 levels from a high season to a low season and not all high seasons at every resort will match what is now plat. This is not a negative view but a realistic speculation of what we may see when the points charts do roll out.Take a look at other points charts from Hyatt,Starwood ,and DVC to get an idea of what the Highest and lowest points resorts/seasons may look like.

 

[Transit]

While they certainly cannot change the legal designation of a deeded week, they can evaluate it either higher or lower when assigning points. For example, there is a chance that owners at resorts with excessively long seasons will be awarded fewer points than they would otherwise enjoy, since I would expect the point valuations to reflect an average valuation of all the weeks in the season. On the flip side, Silver weeks at Ocean Pointe, like Doug owns, may garner more points because the timing correlates to higher seasons at Oceana Palms and the resorts are a mile apart.

Of course, the fact that Oceana Palms is newer and Marriott wants to promote sales there will likely factor into the equation. Not to reiterate my post above, that's a potential issue in any possible new program- how Marriott manipulates the market, so to speak. While I am not saying that Doug's silver week should get enough points to trade for similar size/length of stay at a Gold Oceana Palms week (although I could understand an argument that they should have similar valuations because they include many of the same weeks in the same locale), a Gold Ocean Palms week shouldn't garner enough points to trade into a Plat. Ocean Pointe week. I guess that's a simple but good example of how Marriott could change the value without changing the legally proscribed seasons.

I missed this post but was basically saying the same thing.

 

[m61376]

Frank- hmmm....your post brings up an interesting point, which I hadn't considered. Since all weeks are considered the same within a purchased season, Marriott would have to denote equal value to every owner of a given resort during the same season.

However, according to your analysis, Marriott could charge different point values to reserve a week, irregardless of whether those weeks fall into the same season they were originally sold under. I expect that Marriott's "charge" for reservations will reflect demand, so they could re-evaluate their original season valuations on the "charge side."

Thus, while I was really thinking about values between different but similar resorts because of the resort age factor, theoretically a Platinum owner of a resort such as NCV, which has a very long Platinum season and thus owners there "may" get less points IF the points reflect the average demand for the entire season, could theoretically not get enough points if they wanted to trade into the most premium weeks in the season.

That may be over-thinking what will happen, but it is an interesting question.

 

[SueDonJ]

You guys are still thinking in terms of your deeded weeks which will remain what you bought plat,gold,ect. When a points system is set up your week will have a points value. What ever value Marriott decides your unit is worth in points is what you will have to work with. If Marriott does this there will be a points chart and seasons available at resorts most likely will not line up with what is a plat/gold/silver seasons now.The resort i'm interested in is Marriott legends edge. It has a huge Plat season. I don't see a October plat week needing the same amount of points as weeks 24-30. I would imagine that when a points chart comes out it will be broken down into 3 or 4 levels from a high season to a low season and not all high seasons at every resort will match what is now plat. This is not a negative view but a realistic speculation of what we may see when the points charts do roll out.Take a look at other points charts from Hyatt,Starwood ,and DVC to get an idea of what the Highest and lowest points resorts/seasons may look like.

I think we agree, Frank. It's just that I was looking at it from the point of view of how many points will be assigned according to what's owned, and you're looking at it from the point of view of how many points will be required to make a reservation. I agree with you that there is definitely an opportunity for the reservation calendars to reflect historical trends for high demand weeks.

So let's say all Platinum/2BR/oceanview owners at XYZ resort would be assigned 5,000 points, but the calendar for points reservations would reflect historical trends for relative demand within that established season. That would be okay only if the highest point value for a 2BR/oceanview during any of those weeks in the original platinum season do not exceed 5,000 points, which would guarantee that all owners would still have access to all of the inventory stipulated in the original deeds. This could mean added value for the owners who reserve weeks other than holiday/high demand weeks at lower point costs. IMO, owners would consider this option.

Any other points conversion options which would prohibit owners from reserving any weeks/units that are currently available to them by virtue of their existing deeds, would require that owners accept new deeds stipulating the new terms. I suppose it's possible that some might choose to devalue their own weeks in such a way, if it works for their intended usage and saves them money in the long run, but would it be cost-effective for Marriott to go through all the legal rigamarole for the benefit of only a few? I dunno.

 

[Stefa]

I think we agree, Frank. It's just that I was looking at it from the point of view of how many points will be assigned according to what's owned, and you're looking at it from the point of view of how many points will be required to make a reservation. I agree with you that there is definitely an opportunity for the reservation calendars to reflect historical trends for high demand weeks.

So let's say all Platinum/2BR/oceanview owners at XYZ resort would be assigned 5,000 points, but the calendar for points reservations would reflect historical trends for relative demand within that established season. That would be okay only if the highest point value for a 2BR/oceanview during any of those weeks in the original platinum season do not exceed 5,000 points, which would guarantee that all owners would still have access to all of the inventory stipulated in the original deeds. This could mean added value for the owners who reserve weeks other than holiday/high demand weeks at lower point costs. IMO, owners would consider this option.

Any other points conversion options which would prohibit owners from reserving any weeks/units that are currently available to them by virtue of their existing deeds, would require that owners accept new deeds stipulating the new terms. I suppose it's possible that some might choose to devalue their own weeks in such a way, if it works for their intended usage and saves them money in the long run, but would it be cost-effective for Marriott to go through all the legal rigamarole for the benefit of only a few? I dunno.

I don't know how easily such a system could be implemented, but Marriott could make an exception for using your home resort/week. The could still (potentially) have a higher point value for some weeks but allow owners to reserve those weeks if they own that particular view/season/size even though they are not alloted enough points to get said week via trade.