Speculation About Marriott's New Timeshare Structure [merged]

[SueDonJ]

... extra perks (e.g. size/view upgrades at checkin ...

I HATE this idea, hate it hate it hate it! IMO owners should always ALWAYS always be placed into the unit size/type/view that they purchased when they're staying on their owned weeks. Maybe a once every ten years exception when the ceiling in the only unit left caved in the night before, but that's it. You get what you paid for, period, regardless of whether you paid developer or resale dollars.

(This would benefit me, too, I'd love an upgrade to a platinum oceanvista, but I still HATE THIS IDEA. Nothing could be more unfair to other owners. GRRRRRRRR. The thought of it makes me growl.) ...

... After the home resort window has passed, owners of other seasons, views and sizes of units can pick from what's left over after the home resort resrevation window has passed. If you don't need that three bedroom unit, reserve a one or two bedroom unit instead. Want the ocean front rather than ocean view? Borrow points from next year and move up in view for a year. Need a larger unit for a family reunion? Borrow points and reserve a three bedroom unit rather than the one bedroom unit you own. Can't stay 7 nights this year because there is some other obligation or you recently changed your job? Reserve a couple of weekend stays rather than a full weeks stay.

You only hate it because you don't understand it and, mostly because it's all just rumor as of right now. It's easy to hate the idea of something when you don't have any of the details. Generally speaking, the two points based reservations systems we own are much more flexible than what Marriott presently has but, we still have the same rights of unit type, view and season that Marriott offers. The difference is I can move up, move down and change season so much easier with a points based system than I can with Marriott.

No Doug, what I would hate is what I understood Dan to be saying, that owners using their own weeks would/could at the time of check-in be upgraded from what they purchased. I would hate that, hate it HATE it hate it!

What you're saying, I think, is that within a points-based system you can manage your points so that if you want to stay in a unit type/season other than what you purchased, the opportunity is there after the home resort window has passed. I like that! At least I think I do, if any owner is still not given at check-in a unit type which s/he hasn't purchased or managed/reserved in advance. Do your systems unfairly dole out arbitrary upgrades at check-in?

I like the idea of Marriott converting to an internal points system for exchange purposes only, for the reasons you've given. If I stay at my home resort then I get what I purchased, if I want to exchange then the possibilities for unit type/season/length of stay are limited only by the point values assigned to my purchase and the desired exchange. THAT works for me (and doesn't make me growl.)

 

[laurac260]

They will make the resale owners cut the flowers and fluff the pillows.

gosh...as long as I don't have to rub anyone's bunyons, I'm good!

 

[ocdb8r]

One thing that has not been discussed is that point systems typically leech out the ability of owners to "upgrade" units size wise. This has two effects:

1) No longer will those of us with lock-offs be able to game II in order to end up with two 2 bedroom units...and I know some of you don't do this but there are plenty of us traders who make working the II system a fun puzzel and end up with great usage.

2) the possible flipside though is that I think owners of off season weeks will be able to trade up season wise if they are willing to take a smaller unit...and usually with more certainty and predicatbility than in II.

Basically...the points systems remove the ability to leech great units in exchange for a bit more seaonal flexibility.

 

[Stefa]

Very possible. This is probably true for the initial roll out of the product because they already lost the sale. But, for future sales, I can see them making more of a distinction between resale and developer.

I don't know. There are three options for every potential owner: (1) buy direct, (2) buy resale, (3) don't buy. If Marriott implements a points system where they charge resale owners $500-$1000 (or so) to buy in, they still make money off the second option (resales). Therefore they do stand to gain by keeping resales at least somewhat attractive. They do not make money if potential resale buyers choose the third option of not purchasing a Marriott.

The only reason they would have for imposing a substantial penalty on resale buyers would be if they thought they could persuade enough potential resale buyers to become direct buyers. I'm not sure how that would work.

 

[littlestar]

I'm confused by the title of this thread and some of the discussion.

Is this really a case of Marriott "devaluing" someone's timeshare, or Marriott finally placing a quantifiable measure on its timeshares, so that the peak season owners enjoy benefits that the non peak season owners may not enjoy? (e.g. thereby dispeling the old TUG myth that a winter week at Spicebush or Swallowtail could get its owner practically anywhere they wanted to go in the Marriott system).

If anything, it sounds like Marriott may be leveling out the playing field to me, and drawing upon some of the best practices of Disney and the (very) few best practices of Starwood.

Of course, until any of this is communicated by Marriott, it's all speculation.

What scares me is that in seasonal locations, if you make it not worth owning Marriott Bronze and Silver weeks, how many lower season week holders will bail out - leaving the gold and platinum owners to pick up the difference on fees? In a way, bronze and silver subsidize the higher season weeks's maintenance fees. Marriott sales may not care, but I sure do since I own Gold. I want silver and bronze to have something worthwhile to them so I don't get hit with their fees, too. Let's face it, Marriott maintenance fees are not cheap. If I owned multiple Hilton Head platinum weeks, I'd be worried about just how high my fees could go if the lower season week owners decide it's not worth it.

My Disney fees have only increased about 3 to 4 percent a year - better track record than my Marriott, actually.

 

[rthib]

I don't know. There are three options for every potential owner: (1) buy direct, (2) buy resale, (3) don't buy. If Marriott implements a points system where they charge resale owners $500-$1000 (or so) to buy in, they still make money off the second option (resales). Therefore they do stand to gain by keeping resales at least somewhat attractive. They do not make money if potential resale buyers choose the third option of not purchasing a Marriott.

How does Marriott make/or lose any money on a resale (other than the transfer fee).

If Buyer B or Resale owner A owns unit Marriott will still get a MF from one of them. When Unit goes from A to B, Marriott still gets same MF.

 

[Latravel]

Basically...the points systems remove the ability to leech great units in exchange for a bit more seaonal flexibility.

That's what I would miss with a new points system. We know the system well enough that it is sort of a game to get the best trade possible while using all the tricks we've learned. I'm not sure I want to give that up.

On the otherhand, there has to be some process for Marriott to unload last minute cancellations.

 

[Stefa]

How does Marriott make/or lose any money on a resale (other than the transfer fee).

By charging an additional fee if the resale buyer wants to belong to the points system. (At this time there is no points system, so this is all hypothetical.)

 

[SueDonJ]

Basically...the points systems remove the ability to leech great units in exchange for a bit more seaonal flexibility.

That's what I would miss with a new points system. We know the system well enough that it is sort of a game to get the best trade possible while using all the tricks we've learned. I'm not sure I want to give that up.

On the otherhand, there has to be some process for Marriott to unload last minute cancellations.

My worry is that we won't have anything like an AC - II sure does make it worthwhile to deposit tiger traders if you're lucky enough to take full advantage of the AC limitations. I think of an AC as II's way of turning my non-L/O unit into one.

 

[winger]

...

On the otherhand, there has to be some process for Marriott to unload last minute cancellations.

Yes, MVCI can still DUMP excess inventory into the II system. Having a points system does NOT mean they will severe ties to II, b/c not all MVCI owners will choose to participate in the points system

 

[SueDonJ]

What scares me is that in seasonal locations, if you make it not worth owning Marriott Bronze and Silver weeks, how many lower season week holders will bail out - leaving the gold and platinum owners to pick up the difference on fees? In a way, bronze and silver subsidize the higher season weeks's maintenance fees. Marriott sales may not care, but I sure do since I own Gold. I want silver and bronze to have something worthwhile to them so I don't get hit with their fees, too. Let's face it, Marriott maintenance fees are not cheap. If I owned multiple Hilton Head platinum weeks, I'd be worried about just how high my fees could go if the lower season week owners decide it's not worth it.

This is definitely a concern for both resale and developer weeks, but it's a concern already in place. How much more of an impact would an internal points exchange system actually have on these weeks compared to the II system that's in place now? Off-season weeks now don't have much trade power associated with them, do they? Something is making those owners think it's worth it to hold onto them now - what is it if it's not trade power?

 

[ocdb8r]

My worry is that we won't have anything like an AC - II sure does make it worthwhile to deposit tiger traders if you're lucky enough to take full advantage of the AC limitations. I think of an AC as II's way of turning my non-L/O unit into one.

I agree that this would also be another loss...doubtful that you would get any sort of bonus week with an internal points system.

That's what I would miss with a new points system. We know the system well enough that it is sort of a game to get the best trade possible while using all the tricks we've learned. I'm not sure I want to give that up.

I agree...I have been plenty happy with the trades I have been able to complete with my unit. Contrary to what some may believe I get many prime season trades into an upgraded unit...and NOT just last minute flexchange. I can typically get a 2bdrm in Platinum or gold season easily with my 1 bedroom (either by requesting a 2bdrm only resort or regular checking of II for a bulk bank) and can get another 2 bedroom with my studio, although usually in flexchange. That said I DO have to be somewhat flexible; it would be great to have more certainty in reserving a specific week as a point system might allow....it's all about tradeoffs.

On the otherhand, there has to be some process for Marriott to unload last minute cancellations.

I think they will continue to offload last minute cancellations in II, however I think there will be fewer. To clarify, I think Marriott will continue to allow use of II but most prime week owners will move to Marriott's internal scheme as it will offer more flexibility for them and likely more equitable trades.

 

[SueDonJ]

Yes, MVCI can still DUMP excess inventory into the II system. Having a points system does NOT mean they will severe ties to II, b/c not all MVCI owners will choose to participate in the points system

In the short term, yes, at least until the current agreement between MVCI and II is scheduled to expire. But this is why I was asking about the MVCI/II contract earlier. Isn't it possible for them to enter into an agreement under different terms with II or a different exchange company?

 

[ocdb8r]

This is definitely a concern for both resale and developer weeks, but it's a concern already in place. How much more of an impact would an internal points exchange system actually have on these weeks compared to the II system that's in place now? Off-season weeks now don't have much trade power associated with them, do they? Something is making those owners think it's worth it to hold onto them now - what is it if it's not trade power?

I think there is a subset of bronze/silver week owners that uses those weeks for flexchange trades into great locations/seasons...much of that would disappear in a points system and therefore those owners might be more likely to just ditch the weeks. However, I think this is likely a much smaller group of people than we think here on tug...those of us THAT proficient in trading are the minority.

What you might gain on the flipside are owners willing to buy 2 silver weeks on the cheap and pay the double maint. fees in order to combine their points to get a good week somewhere else. You'd be surprised at how many look only at initial investment and not the continuing maint. fee cost.

 

[ocdb8r]

In the short term, yes, at least until the current agreement between MVCI and II is scheduled to expire. But this is why I was asking about the MVCI/II contract earlier. Isn't it possible for them to enter into an agreement under different terms with II or a different exchange company?

For sure this is a possibility, but I think as several posts have demonstrated, MVCI still NEEDS an outlet like II. There will be owners who want to trade outside Marriott at times AND it serves as a good location to dump last minute inventory. As mentioned, there will also be some owners who feel II meets their needs better than MVCI's internal system and may stick there. Surely once they put their system into place the relationship with II will change, but I think it will still be there.

 

[littlestar]

This is definitely a concern for both resale and developer weeks, but it's a concern already in place. How much more of an impact would an internal points exchange system actually have on these weeks compared to the II system that's in place now? Off-season weeks now don't have much trade power associated with them, do they? Something is making those owners think it's worth it to hold onto them now - what is it if it's not trade power?

I can't speak for every off season owner, but back when I used to own silver, I was able to trade via II back into almost any season in overbuilt areas pretty easily (Orlando) and I used flex change in II for some great trades into peak times. But it's probably safe to say the majority of the time my up trades were the equivalent of going from silver to gold season.

I'm saying that seasonal locations need ALL their owners to pay fees and I hope Marriott doesn't kick the lower seasons in the teeth if they roll out a new system because Platinum and Gold will ultimately make up the difference if those lower seasons become undesirable.

 

[SueDonJ]

For sure this is a possibility, but I think as several posts have demonstrated, MVCI still NEEDS an outlet like II. There will be owners who want to trade outside Marriott at times AND it serves as a good location to dump last minute inventory. As mentioned, there will also be some owners who feel II meets their needs better than MVCI's internal system and may stick there. Surely once they put their system into place the relationship with II will change, but I think it will still be there.

Oh, I definitely agree that the affiliation with an exchange company is a necessary selling point for developer inventory. Like Dan said, those "thousands of resorts worldwide" make a difference. I'm just questioning why anybody would expect the MVCI/II agreement as it stands now to remain in place if an internal points system is implemented - Marriott would stand to gain more converts by revamping that arrangement so as to remove the familiar from some holdouts.

 

[SueDonJ]

I can't speak for every off season owner, but back when I used to own silver, I was able to trade via II back into almost any season in overbuilt areas pretty easily (Orlando) and I used flex change in II for some great trades into peak times. But it's probably safe to say the majority of the time my up trades were the equivalent of going from silver to gold season.

If they assign point values according to the relative saturation of an area and seasons, as well as resort/unit size/view type, and reduce point requirements during an equivalent flexchange period, couldn't they effectively incorporate most of those Silver/Bronze shortcomings?

I'm saying that seasonal locations need ALL their owners to pay fees and I hope Marriott doesn't kick the lower seasons in the teeth if they roll out a new system because Platinum and Gold will ultimately make up the difference if those lower seasons become undesirable.

Yep, completely agree.

 

[dioxide45]

One thing that has not been discussed is that point systems typically leech out the ability of owners to "upgrade" units size wise. This has two effects:

1) No longer will those of us with lock-offs be able to game II in order to end up with two 2 bedroom units...and I know some of you don't do this but there are plenty of us traders who make working the II system a fun puzzel and end up with great usage.

You seem to think that those "upgrading" are harming the current system. That is far from the case. I have upgraded through II using a 1BR and studio units in to 2BR units. However these were far from upgrades over all. Sure we got larger units, but we had to sacrifice some things. Trading a peak week for an off peak travel time. Traveling on short notice. Just because one is upgrading in unit size doesn't mean the trade isn't equal overall.

We are ultimatly absorbing inventory that other people don't want or can not use. In that I think we are performing a service to the overall system. Full resorts means more money for the developers, HOAs and II.

 

[dioxide45]

If they assign point values according to the relative saturation of an area and seasons, as well as resort/unit size/view type, and reduce point requirements during an equivalent flexchange period, couldn't they effectively incorporate most of those Silver/Bronze shortcomings?

The problem that Marriott has now and in any attempt to move to a points system is that they have very long seasons at some of their resorts. With their seasons at NCV for example, they have said that a July week is worth the same as an early October week. They are both Platinum season, but we all know they are not the same.

Can Marriott really assign different point values to these two weeks? If they do, then those silver/bronze owners won't be able to travel in those low season times. If they do have lower point values, they just threw their entire season system out the window.

 

[dougp26364]

No Doug, what I would hate is what I understood Dan to be saying, that owners using their own weeks would/could at the time of check-in be upgraded from what they purchased. I would hate that, hate it HATE it hate it!

What you're saying, I think, is that within a points-based system you can manage your points so that if you want to stay in a unit type/season other than what you purchased, the opportunity is there after the home resort window has passed. I like that! At least I think I do, if any owner is still not given at check-in a unit type which s/he hasn't purchased or managed/reserved in advance. Do your systems unfairly dole out arbitrary upgrades at check-in?

I like the idea of Marriott converting to an internal points system for exchange purposes only, for the reasons you've given. If I stay at my home resort then I get what I purchased, if I want to exchange then the possibilities for unit type/season/length of stay are limited only by the point values assigned to my purchase and the desired exchange. THAT works for me (and doesn't make me growl.)

One of the points based systems I own allows owners to upgrade, depending upone their loyalty (level) they have with the company. For instance, we have enough points that we are Silver Elite. That allows us two upgrade but, we have to pay $99 for each upgrade if one is available. Platinum Elite members get ulimited upgrades and don't pay a fee. The trick is, the upgrade has to be available. It's only available when those owners aren't occupying those weeks. If it's not available then there isn't any upgrade.....even if one is Platinum Elite. At least that's how I understand it.

Now if I own an ocean view and if Marriott doesn't specify view when exchangers exchange in and if an ocean front unit is available, who do you think deserves the ocean front unit? Someone who paid full price and bought directly from Marriott, someone who is a Marriott owner but purchased resale or maybe someone who purchased a week for $1 off E-bay and pays $300/year for some un-rated resort in an over developed section of the country? Personally, I'd like to see the upgrades in view go to Marriott owners who own at that resort long before someone who exchanges in from an outside system.

The best example I can give you is from my own experience. We own at Ocean Pointe and I can recognize an ocean front unit based on the sleeping capacity and the unit description on the confirmation. One year we exchange for points and I used a lessor resort to exchange back into Ocean Pointe and I was careful to choose (online exchange) an ocean front unit. So there I was, techniquely an outside exchanger, sitting in an ocean front unit while Marriott owners staying on their own time didn't have the option to be upgraded to the view I was enjoying.

I NEVER see Marriott taking away an owners view that they paid for. Neither of the points based systems allow that unless I want something different than what I purchased. If a better view is available, I would rather see a Marriott owner (resale or developer purchase really doesn't matter to me) with the great view than someone who's exchange in from an outside system. If those upgrades are based upon some set of guidelines developed by Marriott than so be it. I can see someone who owns 6 Platinum weeks getting preference over someone who owns one bronze week, but only for exchanges. The bronze week owner deserves the unit and view that he paid for even if a 6 week Platinum owner trades into the bronze owners resort and season.

Remember, it's all speculation. Nothing has happened and nothing has been announced. To guess at what Marriott will eventually present is really just wasted energy and, we've wasted a lot of time and energy since 2006.

 

[SueDonJ]

The problem that Marriott has now and in any attempt to move to a points system is that they have very long seasons at some of their resorts. With their seasons at NCV for example, they have said that a July week is worth the same as an early October week. They are both Platinum season, but we all know they are not the same.

Can Marriott really assign different point values to these two weeks? If they do, then those silver/bronze owners won't be able to travel in those low season times. If they do have lower point values, they just threw their entire season system out the window.

For logistical reasons I wouldn't expect different weeks within the same season/resort to be assigned different point values, regardless of holidays or traditional high demand. But if Marriott needs to change season designations so that its rumored internal exchange system will run smoother, that change should apply across the board and not just for exchanges. That's assuming, of course, that Marriott has a contracted right to change season designations at an established resort.

The other thing that may be an impediment to holiday/high demand weeks being assigned a point value higher than others within the same season, is if Marriott does intend to adopt Starwood's recent practice of choosing which weeks are deposited when owners request an exchange. If Marriott arbitrarily assigns a higher point value to a holiday week, then an owner will be able to choose that specific week to deposit. If all weeks within a season are equal then Marriott can pick the week to deposit, keeping the traditional in-demand week for owner or internal exchange use.

 

[DanCali]

Can Marriott really assign different point values to these two weeks? If they do, then those silver/bronze owners won't be able to travel in those low season times. If they do have lower point values, they just threw their entire season system out the window.

I don't believe ths is possible... Deeded weeks are in most cases assigned randomly and people are told by Marriott salespeople they are "for deeding purposes only". Can you imagine the outcry from all the retail buyers who paid full price for NCV weeks deeded 36-50? That's a class action waiting to happen... Moreover, the NCV deeds actually specify the actual season you own.

 

[ocdb8r]

I don't believe ths is possible... Deeded weeks are in most cases assigned randomly and people are told by Marriott salespeople they are "for deeding purposes only". Can you imagine the outcry from all the retail buyers who paid full price for NCV weeks deeded 36-50? That's a class action waiting to happen... Moreover, the NCV deeds actually specify the actual season you own.

I agree...there is no way they are going to adjust the seasons when they implement the point system. The problems at NCV (and other resorts with season problems) have and will continue to be there...Marriott has found some way to manage it thus far and I don't know why a points system would make it any worse.

 

[SueDonJ]

One of the points based systems I own allows owners to upgrade, ... and, we've wasted a lot of time and energy since 2006.

Wasted energy? It's just thinking out loud, is all. :hysterical:

Doug, your experience with exchanging back in to your home resort is how I expect Marriott to work now, how Marriott says it will do things with the II system currently in place (at least at the two resorts where I own, and at a few others where owners have confirmed it.) When owners are staying at their home resorts using their owned weeks, they should ALWAYS be placed into the unit type/size/view that they purchased. ALWAYS. No exceptions. (Except for that once every ten years caved-in ceiling thing, which hardly ever happens anyway. ) But if owners visit their home resorts on anything other than an owned week (exchange, Getaway, AC, cash rental, etc.) then the stated reservation system gives them priority over all other guests EXCEPT for the owners using their own weeks who are placed first into what they purchased. Whew. That does mean that an outside exchanger may get an oceanfront unit while a gardenview owner using his/her own week sits way up the back of the resort sulking over the unfairness of it all. But that's not unfair to me - that's the rules being applied uniformly. What would be unfair is if two or more equal owners have reserved their own weeks for use at their home resort, they all arrive on the same day, and only one is chosen for an upgrade at check-in. Boo hiss boo.

It's too many words to say, owners staying at their home resorts using their purchased weeks should ALWAYS be placed into the unit type/view/size that they purchased. Exchanging is a whole different kettle of fish with a whole different set of rules, whether you're talking about exchanging today within II's system or any system that might be in place in the future.

What I envision as a perfect Marriott internal points exchange system is one where the owners' right to occupy their purchased unit/week remains exactly as it is now, but a DVC-type points system can be elected for exchanges. Point values can be determined based on resort/unit size/season/view/location (in whatever order, and including whatever else I'm missing,) and applied to exchanges subject to only the maximum points assigned to ownership. {Edit - Oh yeah, and availability.} Add in length of stay options, banking and borrowing, waitlists ... that would make me a very happy camper.