Well, we're just a little over a week away. I think it is a bit surprising that there hasn't been any official preview announcement. I would have expected an e-mail marketing blast- "in just 2 weeks Marriott will introduce major enhancements to your ownership" or the like. Yet mums still the word.
IF Perry is right about the MF's, then I would foresee Branson owners balking, especially if they receive substantially lower point valuations. I think the average Marriott owners will believe whatever Marriott promotes wrt "ease of making reservations wherever and whenever" but I do think in this economy especially cost of joining, MF's and what they are getting relative to everyone else will be a big consideration for people. I'm not so sure that most owners are unsophisticated enough just to go with the flow, and their scrutiny will increase with the membership fee.
A program akin to the Asia Pacific program, forgetting about the 5K nut to crack, I think will be a hard sell here. Maybe I am wrong, but those Platinum Manor Club, Orlando, Branson, etc. week owners like getting their 2BR exchanges into other premium weeks like Hawaii, ski weeks, Aruba, summer HH and NCV, Plat. Caribbean weeks, etc.. In the AP program even a Waiohai owner couldn't exchange for a Ko'Olina unit in a like for like basis (size/length of stay) unless they borrowed or added points from elsewhere. I'm not so sure that owners of what they consider great weeks are going to be smiling after they see the value Marriott puts on their weeks. I think Marriott is going to need to be able to convince folks that the valuations make sense, because IF Marriott embraces the same type of wide point variability as in the AP program I think a lot of owners are going to be turned off because they are certain their week should have been awarded more points.
Several methods for awarding points have been suggested. IF they are simply tied to the number of reward points a week can trade for, then owners at older resorts (many of which have been refurbished, and all of which have been maintained, at the expense of the owners) will likely feel slighted because you could have higher demand and premium weeks valued lower just because they are older. For example, are the reward point valuations currently given for developer owners trading in their weeks at the HH resorts all the same? The same argument can be made if they are tied to the initial pricing; inflation shouldn't determine valuations. If they are made pretty uniform across the board (as I believe HGVC mostly does) then people who shelled out 40-80K for a week are going to resent getting the same or similar points as people who bought less expensive weeks. The only reasonable method I can see that reflects market demand (which is what the points value should reflect) is if the point valuations are based on average rental rates for the season, which Marriott can easily calculate. IF they do that, then I think people would, perhaps grudgingly in some cases, have to acknowledge that at least Marriott was objectively ascribing values. I can't think of any other objective reflection of market demand (and isn't value a reflection of market demand?). The only other reflection of market demand is, or course, purchase price- but that also reflects the time of sale, where rental reflect relative demand across the board in the same frame of time.
Maybe I am wrong, but I think most owners will look at two things very carefully- what it will cost them (which means the fee to join and how it will impact their MF's) and what it will get them (and the number of points assigned is a biggie here). And Marriott has the daunting task of convincing those that fall at the short end of the stick, or get less than they thought they should (which, given human nature, will likely be many if not most people) that they are, in fact, getting their fair share.
