Speculation About Marriott's New Timeshare Structure [merged]

[m61376]

Sue- IF all resorts were built at the same time (which of course they're not) then I'd agree that purchase price would be a fair evaluative tool. Obviously, resorts are built over time, and while many newer resorts may have more amenities or superior build quality to warrant their higher price structure, the very fact that they are newer and built at a time where inflation, etc., increases cost naturally leads to a higher cost structure.

While it is true that resort costs also increase over initial pre-construction pricing, in part due to inflation but to a large extent due to supply and demand, I'm guessing that a new resort built in the same location and the same build quality as one built ten years ago would have a higher cost, especially if the newer resort was still in active sales. The price structure of resorts in active sales also has to reflect the sales cost- all those developer incentives, low cost trips and freebies have to be paid for. So I am not so sure that sales cost accurately reflects resort quality, although it certainly is one barometer.

That's why I suggested Marriott direct rental rates- they already take into account demand, theoretically at least are an accurate reflection of the market, and should reflect resort quality. It also is a system already functional that reflects all of these factors across the board. Whether it is this valuation or another, I hope they choose this type of evaluative tool which would be more of an objective assessment. Then, as resorts were developed, properties that had better build quality/amenities, etc., would likely rent for relatively more, and could be assigned higher point values based on the real higher value (if any), rather than whatever arbitrary value Marriott sales assigns to the resort so as to entice buyers.

Admittedly, as newer resorts are added I can see the equity in higher point values IF they are truly better- just as people pay more for fancier or better situated hotel accommodations. But just because something is newer doesn't necessarily make it better- sometimes the features of prior locations, or the venue themselves, are sufficient to maintain equal or even higher demand (which would reflect in the price that vacationers are willing to pay rentals for).

I can only hope that Marriott doesn't see the need to reinvent the wheel, or feel that it is ok to artificially skew the numbers as a sales gimmick. The only current objective parameter that just addresses quality and supply/demand issues that I can think of is actually the system that they already have in place- the retail rental market. If they choose to do so, it would be easy to assess new properties to- if property A rents for X dollars, when property B is introduced, what will it's rental rate be? If it will rent for 10% or 20%, etc., more than X, then its point valuation should reflect a similar percentage. That way, the time factor is eliminated and property valuations will truly be what the market perceives as their true value.

 

[SueDonJ]

Ah, at last! Complete agreement between us. This IS a red-letter day.

Really, m, we're saying the same thing. I don't now see Marriott pricing new resorts higher simply because they're newer - it's the higher-quality furnishings and materials that justify the higher prices. I agree with you that there is potential, though, for them to become greedy as Starwood has and artificially inflate point values of newer resorts. Hopefully enough owners will recognize it if it happens and be able to beat them back into submission.

Actually, some think that what happened at Crystal Shores and the newest Hawaii development was exactly what you're saying, that they were over-priced simply because they were newer. As I said, though, having seen Crystal Shores, those prices made sense relative to the other resorts in MVCI's portfolio and the runaway inflated market at the time it was developed. For example, the table/chairs set on SurfWatch's balconies would retail for approx. $900, say. At Crystal Shores, we're talking at least $3,000, probably closer to $4,000, considering that it's a table/chairs set of much better quality as well as two cushioned lounges and an ottoman/table. The whole place is like that - every piece of furniture, every appliance, every plumbing and electrical fixture, etc. is an upgrade. An obvious upgrade. Sadly, though, the economy tanked, further development was halted, and who knows what's going to happen now with those properties. I can't imagine that when the economy recovers Marriott will go right back to the prices that were supported by the formerly-robust economy. But the inventory and set-up are stipulated in the legal docs. Hopefully, Marriott hasn't lost so much that it would be more cost-effective for them to walk away with the project unfinished, because that would be a darn shame. It's a jewel, truly. Probably it's a similar situation at Maui, but at least that development was part of an existing resort - maybe it can be absorbed easier than a brand new resort like Crystal Shores.

 

[m61376]

I haven't seen the Marco project so I can't comment. It is interesting, though; we were discussing on our last trip whether there exists a real market for even higher end timeshares- the 80K+ range. Even if the economy hadn't tanked, I am not so sure that there would have been sufficient demand in that location for timeshares at that price, even with those amenities. Of course, the brain trust at Marriott felt there was.

I haven't looked- are the units renting for values commensurate with their sales price? I wonder what rates the market supports, compared to other properties in other locations.

 

[SueDonJ]

That was my first visit to Marco Island so I can't compare the new stuff there now to what it may have looked like before. But all up and down the beach we saw new building construction or rehabs, mostly high-rise condos but some obviously vacation rentals, that appeared to be suffering the exact same fate as Marriott's property there - all geared toward a certain demographic, all high-quality, all begun at the apex of a booming economy and probably all now with developers realizing huge losses. The real estate mags were full of 40-50-60% price reductions in the unfinished buildings. It drove home the point for us that Marriott was not alone in thinking that the economy at the time of planning would support those pricing structures in that area.

We had the same conversation you did while walking that beach. That $70K+ price point is a tough market for timeshares, especially in this economy but during a strong one, too. If folks can afford to sink that much into a single week for a certain vacation lifestyle, presumably they could afford to travel in style in ways other than timesharing and maybe wouldn't want to limit or commit themselves to one resort. Anyway, I'd agree that the target market for those $70K+ timeshares would have been much more limited than what Marriott had been used to up to the point where the economy tanked. And now? All bets are off, I'd guess.

I like your idea of pricing various weeks to see where Crystal Shores fits in. I just tried the first weeks of June and July with no availability for rental so no prices showed up. I'll try a few more tomorrow and see where it leads ...

 

[m61376]

For Crystal Shores a night in May the prices ranged from 537.90 to 625.90, including taxes, a night in August about $90 less per room. Interestingly, a mid December room was as low as 353.90. Christmas week the rooms range from 669.50-757.90, again including taxes. A mid- March room goes for 856.90-911.90.

So, while the amenities there may be ultra plush, and perhaps it would command more money in a different locale like the Caribbean or Hawaii, it's rental rates reflect that Crystal Shores is no more appealing than at least some of the other properties, and at least at certain times less appealing even. Contrast the same night in late December for the same size accommodations at the Aruba Ocean Club, and the price is $1446.12 including taxes; the SC is sold out for that date. The mid May night is 529.20-594 (depending on view) at the SC and in the similar range at the OC, so at certain times of the year Crystal Shores is similar in value However, an August night is 567-631.80 at the SC and over a hundred dollars a night less at Crystal Shores. Rates for mid-March are in the same price range at both locales.

My assumption from this is that Crystal Shores may have remarkably plush amenities, and might command a higher rental rate in a more exotic location, but since rental rates reflect market demand, the property should not command a higher point value just because it is newer and perhaps even has nicer amenities. I think point valuation has to reflect the villa quality and the location, and it is likely that some properties which may not be as nice structurally, still deserve higher point allocations because they are in a more desirable location. Ok- I know this isn't real estate- but the old rule for real estate still applies: "location, location, location...."

BTW, Sue, it's funny that you had a similar conversation about a higher end timeshare market. I kinda feel like you seemed to imply that you did- that there reaches a point that the people who would buy can afford to book suites and villas as they want them and may not want to be bogged down with the hassles and/or if they want a vacation place to frequent will just buy a condo there. While the villas at Marco may be over the top, I am just not sure the market pool cares to spend thousands more for those amenities.

 

[JimIg23]

I agree with the recent posts about value tied to rental prices and quality. Although, cost of the TS, regardless of these issues, I think will be a factor. I think that TSs they are selling for 70k will be more points than one that sells for 40k, regardless of rental rate. Otherwise, you cant justify the cost.

Trying to look at a positive, one potential benefit (if points and MFs have no home resort) is that you are no longer tied to a resort that is aging and which value goes down significantly. You may have to add on with a point package (maybe they will allow it?) but it may be worth it if the buy-in is not crazy.

Another issue will be multiple weeks and EOYs. Lets say you have 3 EYs and 2 EOYs and converts to points. Will the owner have 5 separate point accounts or will they be pooled?

 

[SueDonJ]

... My assumption from this is that Crystal Shores may have remarkably plush amenities, and might command a higher rental rate in a more exotic location, but since rental rates reflect market demand, the property should not command a higher point value just because it is newer and perhaps even has nicer amenities. I think point valuation has to reflect the villa quality and the location, and it is likely that some properties which may not be as nice structurally, still deserve higher point allocations because they are in a more desirable location. Ok- I know this isn't real estate- but the old rule for real estate still applies: "location, location, location...."

I'm not surprised at all that Aruba prices are consistently higher; like you say, it's the location. As well, Aruba's "seasons" don't fluctuate nearly as much as those in Florida and Hilton Head. It's pretty much a year-round destination, isn't it?

I am surprised, though, that Hilton Head and Marco Island prices are as close as they are. I wonder if we need to take into consideration that MI has been much more severely depressed than HH in this economy? HH is pretty much established - of course they're feeling some effects of the overall reduced travel industry, but I think there is a strong base of return visitors who are still visiting (maybe with a few days shaved off their usual week-long stays.) MI, though, is not established at least as far as we could see, it's more like that area overall has been caught in transition. I'd expect that when the economy rebounds and the transition is complete, we'll see higher prices there. Or at least, if the economy hadn't tanked and the transition had been completed, prices would have to be higher to support the influx of developer dollars that we observed.

... BTW, Sue, it's funny that you had a similar conversation about a higher end timeshare market. I kinda feel like you seemed to imply that you did- that there reaches a point that the people who would buy can afford to book suites and villas as they want them and may not want to be bogged down with the hassles and/or if they want a vacation place to frequent will just buy a condo there. While the villas at Marco may be over the top, I am just not sure the market pool cares to spend thousands more for those amenities.

Definitely. Crystal Shores and the other MVCI resorts at that price point were perhaps too ambitious even during a robust economy. The timesharing lifestyle just doesn't seem to fit that group of folks who can afford to absorb that budget hit without financing. (I'm sure Marriott is perfectly happy to provide financing for anyone who wants to buy a timeshare, but that's our personal benchmark - if we had to finance, we wouldn't buy.)

 

[kjd]

The area here in and around Marco Island has been in a severe downturn almost bordering on a depression. The tourist season this year is pretty good under the circumstances. Early results are that tourism is only down
.10% compared to last year. (Which was pretty good considering everything that has happened)

While relatively the same number of winter visitors are here this year they are spending less per person. The county is basing next year's budget on a 12% decrease in property values for next year. Two banks on Marco have already failed. All of this is not good news for the Crystal Shores development which at the moment is at a standstill.

However, the Marco Marriott remains one of the best and most profitable hotels in the Marriott system. Their $500+ a night room rental during the good economic times made Crystal Shores prices look reasonable.

There is another consideration that affects Marco and possibly Aruba. I think Marco more-so but most people haven't thought of it in this way. That is, the strong interest that foreign visitors have in being on the beach. A lot of Europeans visit Marco every year. They love the beach and being on an island. Their money is worth about 50% more than your money. A $70,000 price tag for a CS timeshare is not the same to them as it is to you. They come here with their entire family and they spend a lot of money while they are here. They are good for our economy.

Many of them think they are in paradise because they can't buy at home what they can buy here. To that extent there are more people than you think who will buy a $70,000 timeshare week. Marriott hasn't been successful by being foolish. I'm sure they know the timeshare market better than most.

 

[SueDonJ]

I never thought about that, kjd, how much foreign visitors might be willing to invest. Interesting. Hmmmm.

Everything we saw at Marco Island made me think Marriott wasn't far off the mark, if at all, with the original prices for that area. It really did appear that timing was everything, and that if the economy had stayed strong CS would have a chance to succeed as planned. I hope your area rebounds the way it needs to, to support Crystal Shores. Because it really is a gorgeous resort and I'd love to exchange into there again. BTW, we checked out the Marriott hotel there, too. Very nice place.

{edit} Well, geeze, that sounds selfish, doesn't it? Of course I hope your area rebounds for all the important right reasons! Being able to go to Crystal Shores isn't one of those.

 

[m61376]

My price comparisons were not meant as to whether Marriott was justified in asking the prices they were for the Marco units (obviously, at some point they thought the market would bear it I'd imagine), but as a basis for a theoretical discussion on how point values can or should be assigned (not that we have any real input into it anyway). We had gotten into a discussion on whether newer resorts with more amenities that cost more up front were worth more points; the flip side is that older resorts may be almost as nice, may enjoy a better location adding to their value, and that at least part of the price difference is due to the time factor (and inflation). Adding to purchase cost for older resorts are all the MF's owners have been paying over the years, which included financing refurbishment, so the true "cost" is much higher than the developer pricing.

The likelihood is that if the same quality structure was built next to a property that was built ten years ago, Marriott would be charging considerably more today because of increased costs of development, including increased marketing fees. Does that make the newer resort worthy of a higher point valuation, especially considering the "new" resort won't be new in six months?

Sue's assessment of the rental prices for the HH properties and Crystal Shores is interesting. If the rental market reflects that valuation of both areas is approximately the same, perhaps due to the more attractive location of the HH properties, which counterbalances the more luxurious accommodations of the Marco property, would it be equitable for Marriott to assign a higher valuation (and thus a higher cost for trading into) the Crystal Shores property?

I am curious what others' thoughts are on this. To me, if the market valuation of the two properties is comparable, then I don't think it would be fair for Marriott to assign a higher point value, which of course would be done in part to stimulate sales. While it may make it attractive to the Marco buyer, that means the HH owner, who owns a unit that the market otherwise equates equivalently, won't be able to trade in like for like (size/length of stay).

I can understand the limitations of a system where all Platinum units are deemed equivalent, all Gold units, etc., but I'd like to see a system where there is no objective factor which determines how point values are assigned, which reflects real market forces (ie. demand).

 

[SueDonJ]

... The likelihood is that if the same quality structure was built next to a property that was built ten years ago, Marriott would be charging considerably more today because of increased costs of development, including increased marketing fees. Does that make the newer resort worthy of a higher point valuation, especially considering the "new" resort won't be new in six months?

Sue's assessment of the rental prices for the HH properties and Crystal Shores is interesting. If the rental market reflects that valuation of both areas is approximately the same, perhaps due to the more attractive location of the HH properties, which counterbalances the more luxurious accommodations of the Marco property, would it be equitable for Marriott to assign a higher valuation (and thus a higher cost for trading into) the Crystal Shores property?

I am curious what others' thoughts are on this. To me, if the market valuation of the two properties is comparable, then I don't think it would be fair for Marriott to assign a higher point value, which of course would be done in part to stimulate sales. While it may make it attractive to the Marco buyer, that means the HH owner, who owns a unit that the market otherwise equates equivalently, won't be able to trade in like for like (size/length of stay).

I can understand the limitations of a system where all Platinum units are deemed equivalent, all Gold units, etc., but I'd like to see a system where there is no objective factor which determines how point values are assigned, which reflects real market forces (ie. demand).

I want to hear other opinions, too, this is all very interesting and not only for how it relates to a possible points exchange system.

But about that, it's still my opinion that demand shouldn't be the only factor for alloting points. I do think that side-by-side properties which have different quality furnishings and amenities shouldn't be valued the same for exchanges.

As far as Marco Island, I'll be shocked if those weeks are allotted less or equal points than weeks at the established oceanfront resorts. Somehow the way CS has been impacted to such a large degree by the economy should be part of the equation. When/if the economy rebounds and the resort/area are completely built out, there's no doubt that it will be a superior product. Existing HH properties simply won't compare. Truthfully, if what I own gets me enough points to exchange a week at HH for a week at CS, I'll think those owners are being shortchanged. (There is another thread about the new Oceana Palms which makes it sound similar to CS - that's another one I would expect to be allotted more points, along with the newer Hawaii development.)

 

[Transit]

My price comparisons were not meant as to whether Marriott was justified in asking the prices they were for the Marco units (obviously, at some point they thought the market would bear it I'd imagine), but as a basis for a theoretical discussion on how point values can or should be assigned (not that we have any real input into it anyway). We had gotten into a discussion on whether newer resorts with more amenities that cost more up front were worth more points; the flip side is that older resorts may be almost as nice, may enjoy a better location adding to their value, and that at least part of the price difference is due to the time factor (and inflation). Adding to purchase cost for older resorts are all the MF's owners have been paying over the years, which included financing refurbishment, so the true "cost" is much higher than the developer pricing.

The likelihood is that if the same quality structure was built next to a property that was built ten years ago, Marriott would be charging considerably more today because of increased costs of development, including increased marketing fees. Does that make the newer resort worthy of a higher point valuation, especially considering the "new" resort won't be new in six months?

Sue's assessment of the rental prices for the HH properties and Crystal Shores is interesting. If the rental market reflects that valuation of both areas is approximately the same, perhaps due to the more attractive location of the HH properties, which counterbalances the more luxurious accommodations of the Marco property, would it be equitable for Marriott to assign a higher valuation (and thus a higher cost for trading into) the Crystal Shores property?

I am curious what others' thoughts are on this. To me, if the market valuation of the two properties is comparable, then I don't think it would be fair for Marriott to assign a higher point value, which of course would be done in part to stimulate sales. While it may make it attractive to the Marco buyer, that means the HH owner, who owns a unit that the market otherwise equates equivalently, won't be able to trade in like for like (size/length of stay).

They may not have to assign a higher point value to this property.They may just need to keep it in line with other top properties. If Marriott just keeps the points inline with other top Marriott properties they would instantly have access to a steady stream of proven potential buyers attending owner updates.Keeping the points inline with other top resorts would allow Crystal Shores to be obtainable to their best customers- Owners.

 

[Twinkstarr]

I never thought about that, kjd, how much foreign visitors might be willing to invest. Interesting. Hmmmm.

Everything we saw at Marco Island made me think Marriott wasn't far off the mark, if at all, with the original prices for that area. It really did appear that timing was everything, and that if the economy had stayed strong CS would have a chance to succeed as planned. I hope your area rebounds the way it needs to, to support Crystal Shores. Because it really is a gorgeous resort and I'd love to exchange into there again. BTW, we checked out the Marriott hotel there, too. Very nice place.

{edit} Well, geeze, that sounds selfish, doesn't it? Of course I hope your area rebounds for all the important right reasons! Being able to go to Crystal Shores isn't one of those.

Besides Europeans, Marco Island/Naples is a still a big snowbird location for the I-75 corridor population(and that includes Canadians, who cross over at Windsor/Detroit). The society editor of The Toledo Blade spends a few weeks down there every spring to report on the locals.

My Marriott salesperson told me of 2 couples from my area(NW Ohio) that went together and bought 4 plat weeks together.

 

[m61376]

But about that, it's still my opinion that demand shouldn't be the only factor for allotting points. I do think that side-by-side properties which have different quality furnishings and amenities shouldn't be valued the same for exchanges.

As far as Marco Island, I'll be shocked if those weeks are allotted less or equal points than weeks at the established oceanfront resorts. Somehow the way CS has been impacted to such a large degree by the economy should be part of the equation. When/if the economy rebounds and the resort/area are completely built out, there's no doubt that it will be a superior product. Existing HH properties simply won't compare. Truthfully, if what I own gets me enough points to exchange a week at HH for a week at CS, I'll think those owners are being shortchanged. (There is another thread about the new Oceana Palms which makes it sound similar to CS - that's another one I would expect to be allotted more points, along with the newer Hawaii development.)

But I'd also expect two side by side properties with different quality amenities and furnishings to be valued differently. I would venture to guess the fair market rentals at Oceana Palms are different from those at Ocean Pointe to reflect this difference, just as A Ritz is priced higher than a Marirott even when they are next to each other.


The point I was making is that if two comparable properties were erected at different times, just because one may have a higher price tag because it is newer doesn't mean it should command a higher valuation.

Clearly the Marco property enjoys amenities other places do not. But I don't think you can blame the economy for singling out the Marco property. I think Naples hasn't enjoyed the same appeal as other destinations and, while your HH properties may not be as luxurious, they have perhaps more location appeal and the two factors balance each other out, which is reflected in similar rental rates. Marriott needs to base its valuations on market realities- and not what a location may or may not be like if/when the surrounding area becomes a more attractive tourist destination.

Now, if there was a Crystal Shores equivalent at HH, for example, I'd agree that would be a different caliber and should merit a higher evaluation, just as I'd expect Oceana Palms to have a higher valuation, because it is a more luxurious property sharing the same basic location as Ocean Pointe, but not just because it costs more. Sometimes location balances out or even trumps the "wow" factor.

 

[SueDonJ]

I guess I'm not saying this clearly enough. IMO, Marco Island and Hilton Head are comparable areas, and, Crystal Shores and the Hilton Head resorts are not comparable properties. But because the economy is currently impacting Marco Island to a greater extent than Hilton Head, Marriott is not able to currently command higher rental rates for the superior product at MI. This is why I don't think only demand or rental rates should be considered, because then you're allowing a temporary outside influence to determine a permanent value.

If Marco Island was as completely established as Hilton Head and the two areas still garnered similar rental rates for Marriott resorts despite Crystal Shores' superior product, then I would agree with you that Crystal Shores' higher price should not by itself translate to higher point values. My thought is that when the halted development all over Marco Island is completed, Marriott will then be able to demand higher rates - the product is simply that much superior. So, if a points system is figured out before that completion, somehow consideration must be made to what the finished product was expected to be, and will be at some point.

I guess simply, Naples is in transition right now but will be in demand when the economy rebounds. I love Hilton Head, it's my favorite place in the world. I don't feel the same about Marco Island. But I still can't deny that Marco Island's location is pretty much equal to Hilton Head's as far as beach access, restaurants, area activities, etc. MI beats HH for climate, hands down. The similarity in rental rates has to be because of the not-fully-developed/established differences between the two areas, and that's temporary.

 

[Transit]

I guess I'm not saying this clearly enough. IMO, Marco Island and Hilton Head are comparable areas, and, Crystal Shores and the Hilton Head resorts are not comparable properties.

These properties are not comparable areas at all. Marco will be at full occupancy year round and is a much more upscale property. HHI's real demand is summer plat season only.

 

[bobcat]

These properties are not comparable areas at all. Marco will be at full occupancy year round and is a much more upscale property. HHI's real demand is summer plat season only.

I know that Sept. and Oct. on HH are also busy. People who are retired and people who like that season. Do not count out these two months.

 

[Whirl]

I want to hear other opinions, too, this is all very interesting and not only for how it relates to a possible points exchange system.

But about that, it's still my opinion that demand shouldn't be the only factor for alloting points. I do think that side-by-side properties which have different quality furnishings and amenities shouldn't be valued the same for exchanges.

As far as Marco Island, I'll be shocked if those weeks are allotted less or equal points than weeks at the established oceanfront resorts. Somehow the way CS has been impacted to such a large degree by the economy should be part of the equation. When/if the economy rebounds and the resort/area are completely built out, there's no doubt that it will be a superior product. Existing HH properties simply won't compare. Truthfully, if what I own gets me enough points to exchange a week at HH for a week at CS, I'll think those owners are being shortchanged. (There is another thread about the new Oceana Palms which makes it sound similar to CS - that's another one I would expect to be allotted more points, along with the newer Hawaii development.)

I completely agree. I own few Hilton Head MArriott weeks and we are going to CS this summer. WE visited MArco Island last summer and stayed at the Marriott hotel. We absolutely loved it there and quite frankly, I think we would be ecstatic to pull off an exchange EVERY year for our Barony week. I am hoping we enjoy CS as much as the hotel. We had beautiful gulf front rooms and the on site amenties are great....not sure we will like CS as much as the hotel because of the lack of room service and on site restaurants, but we will see. My kids are small, so the walk down to the hotel along the beach is pretty major. IT would be nice if you could charge hotel purchases to your room at CS ( any chance that is the case?).

 

[SueDonJ]

These properties are not comparable areas at all. Marco will be at full occupancy year round and is a much more upscale property. HHI's real demand is summer plat season only.

Um, I think that's what I said, didn't I? The properties are not comparable, Crystal Shores is a "superior product" to any Marriott timeshare on Hilton Head; and Marco Island's climate beats HH's, "hands down." For purposes of this thread topic, I'm convinced that Crystal Shores weeks should be allotted more exchange points than any Hilton Head weeks.

But when it comes to quality beaches, local attractions, restaurants and activities, the areas/locations are equal. Many folks think that Hilton Head is enjoyable any time, not just during the hot and humid Platinum season.

 

[m61376]

I guess I'm not saying this clearly enough. IMO, Marco Island and Hilton Head are comparable areas, and, Crystal Shores and the Hilton Head resorts are not comparable properties. But because the economy is currently impacting Marco Island to a greater extent than Hilton Head, Marriott is not able to currently command higher rental rates for the superior product at MI. This is why I don't think only demand or rental rates should be considered, because then you're allowing a temporary outside influence to determine a permanent value.

If Marco Island was as completely established as Hilton Head and the two areas still garnered similar rental rates for Marriott resorts despite Crystal Shores' superior product, then I would agree with you that Crystal Shores' higher price should not by itself translate to higher point values. My thought is that when the halted development all over Marco Island is completed, Marriott will then be able to demand higher rates - the product is simply that much superior. So, if a points system is figured out before that completion, somehow consideration must be made to what the finished product was expected to be, and will be at some point.

I guess simply, Naples is in transition right now but will be in demand when the economy rebounds. I love Hilton Head, it's my favorite place in the world. I don't feel the same about Marco Island. But I still can't deny that Marco Island's location is pretty much equal to Hilton Head's as far as beach access, restaurants, area activities, etc. MI beats HH for climate, hands down. The similarity in rental rates has to be because of the not-fully-developed/established differences between the two areas, and that's temporary.

Admittedly I am not that familiar with the areas as you are, but my impression from talking to friends (although I could be wrong) is that Naples was not the vacation destination that HH was even before the recession, so I am not sure that the lesser demand for the area is just a byproduct of the economy affecting Marco more than HH. Especially since it is not an outside influence that is unique to the area (as, for example, a hurricane or other event) that would naturally impact one area over another, I'm not sure it is fair to evaluate Marco based on the possibility at some point in the future the location will develop into a superior vacation destination.

I think resorts should be evaluated as to their quality and the appeal of the surrounding areas. Location plays a very large part in the demand formula. If, as another poster suggested, Marco is a high demand year around destination then its rental prices should reflect it. Coupled with its superior furnishings, it should be able to command one of the highest rental rates in the Marriott system. But it doesn't despite its amenities. Other locations clearly have a stronger destination appeal, and people prefer other locations. In reality, rental rates reflect the overall market; they reflect the demand of a particular property, taking into account its amenities and its location.

To be a crown jewel in the portfolio the resort has to have both quality and location, otherwise one may simply balance the other. Just as hotel rental prices reflect the current market and are not set on an idealized vision of the property, so should timeshare valuations. They should not reflect what might be IF at some point it the future the area revitalizes (in which case adjustments can be made as appropriate), but what is today.

Perhaps a bit simplistic- but when you buy a house you may pay a lot more for the same model in a neighboring town, or even more for a smaller house in that location. But you pay the current market rate, based on the current property values- not because one area may have suffered more in this economy and not based on the potential of the neighborhood to revitalize. Some people are thrilled to buy the best house in an area and others prefer to live in a smaller home in a different neighborhood. But, in reality, the price- the market- reflects the property value, and reflects a conglomeration of many different people's perspectives.

So- while you and others as well may feel that Marco and HH are equivalent areas, and since the Marco property seems to be indisputably superior, if enough people felt that the areas were comparable I would think that the market (ie. prices people are willing to spend to stay there) would be higher and not comparable as you said they were.



Personally, if Marriott develops a program I hope the values it sets reflects real market values and not arbitrary values or wishful thinking. The reality is that certain areas will always have a higher demand and they may need to build resorts at other locations with a lot more bells and whistles just to be comparable.

 

[SueDonJ]

I completely agree. I own few Hilton Head MArriott weeks and we are going to CS this summer. WE visited MArco Island last summer and stayed at the Marriott hotel. We absolutely loved it there and quite frankly, I think we would be ecstatic to pull off an exchange EVERY year for our Barony week. I am hoping we enjoy CS as much as the hotel. We had beautiful gulf front rooms and the on site amenties are great....not sure we will like CS as much as the hotel because of the lack of room service and on site restaurants, but we will see. My kids are small, so the walk down to the hotel along the beach is pretty major. IT would be nice if you could charge hotel purchases to your room at CS ( any chance that is the case?).

Oh, no, and that was disappointing. I was hoping to be able to charge our room for a pedicure at the hotel spa and a dinner at the hotel but no dice, although we did get the bonus points for using our Marriott VISA at the hotel. It just makes it easier to sign the slips as you do things and see it all in one statement.

We ate at and liked CS's one restaurant, Stilts; it was pretty good considering it was on property. (If anyone is interested in more details about Crystal Shores, this thread has some pics and notes from our trip last November.)

 

[Transit]

I know that Sept. and Oct. on HH are also busy. People who are retired and people who like that season. Do not count out these two months.

For speculation of what a points chart may look like Sept /Oct would most likely be less points Than peak summer weeks.There will be some real bargain point weeks at those HHI resorts.

 

[SueDonJ]

m, I think what you're missing is that Marco Island was in transition to become a superior beach vacation destination when the economy tanked. Developers were pouring money into the place like crazy, many more than just Marriott, and it is as if a "perfect storm" did hit at exactly the wrong moment. Although Naples was a sleepy old-style Florida destination at one time, that was changing. It's my feeling that the transition was interrupted but it will continue at some point when the economy rebounds, and then Marco Island will be a completely different place than what it used to be.

I understand what you're saying about the economy affecting everything, but circumstances dictated that some places were hit harder than others. Marco Island is one of those places. It would be unfair for Marriott to not acknowledge that in a points exchange system.

{edit} Take your house example and current market rates - it's as you say, home prices are determined by the current market conditions and values. If Crystal Shores was completed and the area wasn't in transition, then as I said before I would agree that the rental rates could be a valid determining factor to allot similar points to CS and the HH resorts despite the superior product at Crystal Shores. But unlike a house price which fluctuates with the market upon each sale (or refinancing,) I'm guessing that Marriott will be looking to allot exchange point values on a permanent basis. But the rental rates at Crystal Shores cannot be thought of as permanent until the transition period is complete. That why I think that what is expected to happen in the area as soon as the market rebounds should be considered.

 

[SueDonJ]

For speculation of what a points chart may look like Sept /Oct would most likely be less points Than peak summer weeks.There will be some real bargain point weeks at those HHI resorts.

Oh, I agree, the Hilton Head April/May/Sept/Oct Gold weeks should be allotted less points than the June/Jul/Aug Platinum weeks. I don't know, though, if you could call Gold weeks "bargains" - maybe the Silver and Bronze?

 

[bobcat]

Oh, I agree, the Hilton Head April/May/Sept/Oct Gold weeks should be allotted less points than the June/Jul/Aug Platinum weeks. I don't know, though, if you could call Gold weeks "bargains" - maybe the Silver and Bronze?

We are very lucky. We live on the Southern Coast. There are more things to do here then any timeshare we ever stayed at. So we do not need a Platium week. We have Gold. I still say, we will keep our Gold Barony and use it every year Labor Day week as we have in the past.