Dean- While I agree with much of what you say, there are a few things I'd like to comment on. First, the inventory should and I think legally can only be separated according to ownership in the respective systems. In order to make systems equitable the reservations for every unit type and every reservation day should reflect the portion of ownership- so that if there are 25% point owners, then a quarter of the reservations should go to that group for each unit type and reservation day. Logistically, I am sure this will create a bit of a nightmare, and be especially hard for smaller resorts and more limited villa types (at many resorts there may be 20 OF or 3BR villas, spread out over 3,4 or 5 arrival dates each week).
Secondly, to address what I quoted above. I hope Marriott doesn't lose sight of the fact that the more successful points based systems, which most here tout as DVC and HGVC, either don't differentiate or make minimal distinction between how owners acquired their weeks. Not surprisingly, resale values are higher and so is owner satisfaction.
Even Starwood's program, which does distinguish buyers at many of their properties, has had any distinction built in from the onset; that is, at the point of purchase every buyer was aware of their rights and limitations, if any. I have said it before and I will reiterate it- it is one thing for Marriott to enact a new system that creates a distinction between future purchasers and a very different thing to create sub-classes of current owners. The only delineation which I would consider equitable would be to enhance the current distinction- that is, make the transfer of points to the Rewards Program the selling point it once was. That would increase value for current retail owners and would maintain what should currently be the real distinction, but has morphed into a program of limited value to many.
That said, while I would not like it I do not feel it would be unfair for them to create a larger distinction for future purchasers, since people will have the option to buy or not buy as they see fit. However, I do think they should look long and hard at how the voluntary program has decimated the value of many of the Starwood properties and the high rate of owner dissatisfaction and default. Marriott has the power to make the distinction between retail and resale something of real value without being punitive, simply by enhancing the reward point trade value.
Ten to fifteen years ago, when many of these values were set, MF's were considerably less, up front costs were considerably less, and the point cost for travel packages was a whole lot less. Many of those up front incentives practically paid the difference in purchase price. Today, prices of units are much higher, MF's doubled in some cases, travel packages require a lot more points and the only thing that has remained stagnant is the redemption value of the weeks. Even values assigned for current purchases don't reflect the full increases on the redemption side. In reality, since the trade value doesn't change but every other parameter increases, the value of this perk has decreased commensurate to the other increases. A fairer exchange value would be easy to implement, and building in a cost of living factor would help keep the program relevant ten years down the road. Marriott could easily take a positive approach to enhancing developer sales by making it truly a seamless program with owner access to the hundreds of hotels worldwide, with owners getting really good value for their money. After all, Marriott gets a nice timeshare to rent out for thousands of dollars for the week, so shouldn't owners be able to book equivalent accommodation value when trading? THAT would be a win-win program and something that might entice many, even resale owners, to participate in. Then we'd truly be buying pre-paid vacations world-wide- and, after all, isn't that what they are selling?
