Speculation About Marriott's New Timeshare Structure [merged]

[SueDonJ]

True and past heated debates here has had lots of folks post the actual verbiage from the CCRs and as far as I remember they all stipulated the multiple weeks had to be at THAT home resort.

Marriott extended that to ANY Marriott resort and what they giveth they can taketh.

Not true, Perry, that every CCR stipulates the concurrent/consecutive weeks must be at the same resort. I believe Davidvel has posted that Shadow Ridge's docs contain that more restrictive language, but both SurfWatch's and Barony Beach's do not.

By broadening the scope to allow for 13-mo reservations of any owned weeks, they're still following the CCR's because no deeded rights are being taken away - Shadow Ridge owners, for example, can still book their consecutive/concurrent owned weeks at 13 mos. But if they were to change the current implementation and limit the reservations system-wide to consecutive/concurrent weeks only at the same resort, they would be in violation of the CCR's at SurfWatch, Barony, and others with similar language that do not limit the reservations to the same resort.

 

[m61376]

...
Yes, I realize that Marriott's goal is to enhance profits - but I also realize that the best way for them to do this is by maintaining the policy they've been using for decades - KEEPING THEIR CUSTOMERS HAPPY (and that includes all the people on this thread who have paid a premium to participate in the Marriott brand (even if you bough resale like I did -you still paid more to have a "Marriott" timeshare).

So instead of believing that Marriott is out to trick us or take unfair advantage of us with the new program, I think the successful executives at Marriott realize that the BEST way to succeed is with a WIN-WIN situation for everybody. You can call me naive, you can call me stupid - but we have no concrete reason to believe I'm wrong....
Fortunately we will all have our answer very soon now. I for one am expecting to be one of the many WINNERS in the new program because I think the last thing Marriott wants is an unhappy customer base.

And by the way, can somebody please tell me what Marriott's "AP program" is. It sounds like it may be a cornerstone for Marriott's new point system so I'd love to hear a quick explanation. You don't have to sugar coat it - I'm not afraid of change!

Best wishes,
Dave

Dave-
In general, I wholeheartedly agree. I think Marriott will try to do right by its customers, and that public relations are very important to them. That's why I am confident that resale owners will be included, so as not to alienate that current customer base (many of whom are also direct purchasers).

That said, what Marriott considers a great program may not be what you are I consider great. Since it is basically a closed system, someone's better trade is generally balanced by someone's less than desirable one. The AP program is the Asia Pacific program, and if you search this thread alone for "Asia Pacific" you'll see lots of references. If you carefully look at the way they've valued units in that program and the $5000 per week cost to join, you'll understand why many (?most) people might not be thrilled. A Plat. Phuket owner would get enough points for perhaps 4 days in Hawaii in a similarly sized unit, even a Waiohai owner wouldn't have enough for a week in Ko'Olina, and a Ko'Olina owner wanting to exchange via II into another resort group during a peak period (not necessarily a holiday week, but any week rated at a TDI of 120 or above) would not have enough points to make the trade into a similarly sized unit (for example, you couldn't get a prime week at one of the Cancun resorts in a 2BR by trading in your 2BR Ko'Olina, let alone the 1 BR for 2BR trades many have grown accustomed to).

 

[PerryM]

Not true, Perry, that every CCR stipulates the concurrent/consecutive weeks must be at the same resort. I believe Davidvel has posted that Shadow Ridge's docs contain that more restrictive language, but both SurfWatch's and Barony Beach's do not.

By broadening the scope to allow for 13-mo reservations of any owned weeks, they're still following the CCR's because no deeded rights are being taken away - Shadow Ridge owners, for example, can still book their consecutive/concurrent owned weeks at 13 mos. But if they were to change the current implementation and limit the reservations system-wide to consecutive/concurrent weeks only at the same resort, they would be in violation of the CCR's at SurfWatch, Barony, and others with similar language that do not limit the reservations to the same resort.

I'm confused; I don't believe I've ever seen ANY Marriott's CCR's intertwined with another resort - why would they do such a thing and who gave them that ability?

Maybe I'm wrong and the language exists linking one Marriott resort to another - I just don't remember ever seeing such a document.

 

[DanCali]

Yes, I realize that Marriott's goal is to enhance profits - but I also realize that the best way for them to do this is by maintaining the policy they've been using for decades - KEEPING THEIR CUSTOMERS HAPPY

Marriott customers are pretty happy with the current system... a change is really not necessary - that's what stinks here.

 

[SueDonJ]

I'm confused; I don't believe I've ever seen ANY Marriott's CCR's intertwined with another resort - why would they do such a thing and who gave them that ability?

Maybe I'm wrong and the language exists linking one Marriott resort to another - I just don't remember ever seeing such a document.

It isn't that the governing docs for one resort link to any other - each resort has its own set of docs established by Marriott as the Developer, and the language in all such docs is not uniform across all resorts.

But, Marriott also acts as the Management Company for each MVCI resort, and it's under that umbrella where reservation procedures, etc. are implemented uniformly across all resorts. As long as any management practices do not prohibit any rights stipulated in even one resort's CCR's, then Marriott can and does adopt uniform practices. Thus, at Shadow Ridge (and other resorts where the 13-mo rule is written to apply to only consecutive/concurrent weeks at the same resort) the Reservation Procedures are expanded to give those owners the same ability to use the 13-mo rule at separate resorts, as is found in the CCR's of other resorts such as SurfWatch and Barony Beach, etc.

This is loosely related to why I always question when you say that Marriott only "cleans the toilets" at your and other sold-out resorts. The position that Marriott holds as Manager with every MVCI resort gives them much more power than simple janitorial service, by virtue of the Management Agreements which are a component of the CCR's.

 

[PerryM]

It isn't that the governing docs for one resort link to any other - each resort has its own set of docs established by Marriott as the Developer, and the language in all such docs is not uniform across all resorts.

But, Marriott also acts as the Management Company for each MVCI resort, and it's under that umbrella where reservation procedures, etc. are implemented uniformly across all resorts. As long as any management practices do not prohibit any rights stipulated in even one resort's CCR's, then Marriott can and does adopt uniform practices. Thus, at Shadow Ridge (and other resorts where the 13-mo rule is written to apply to only consecutive/concurrent weeks at the same resort) the Reservation Procedures are expanded to give those owners the same ability to use the 13-mo rule at separate resorts, as is found in the CCR's of other resorts such as SurfWatch and Barony Beach, etc.

This is loosely related to why I always question when you say that Marriott only "cleans the toilets" at your and other sold-out resorts. The position that Marriott holds as Manager with every MVCI resort gives them much more power than simple janitorial service, by virtue of the Management Agreements which are a component of the CCR's.

Well, Marriott has every right to say "Show me where you can do this" I don't think 13 month reservations using different resorts can be found in writing. Maybe a newer addition to an older Marriott might interlock those two but I doubt all Marriotts now and forever are covered anywhere. Marriott can then just enforce the CCRs and lock out owners who don't join their new scheme.

I'm not saying they are going to do this but if I were Marriott that would be a great carrot and stick all built into one.

 

[SueDonJ]

Marriott customers are pretty happy with the current system... a change is really not necessary - that's what stinks here.

Isn't that a matter of opinion? I would say that I'm a "satisfied" customer, because I'm getting exactly what was promised by Marriott, but it's certainly possible for me to be happier especially with exchanges. If they roll out something that lets me get equal exchange value for my HHI 3BR weeks, which have until now only successfully gotten me 2BR weeks because of limited 3BR availability, then I'll be happy. (And if they don't, I will continue to be satisfied.)

As well, Fletch has stated here that while he was a Marriott employee the number one complaint of owners was II. Sure, most TUG members love the current Marriott/II system because they know how to work it to get consistent trade-ups, but TUG members aren't a majority of the MVCI ownership.

 

[PerryM]

Marriott customers are pretty happy with the current system... a change is really not necessary - that's what stinks here.

400,000 families kicking in $100 each is $40,000,000 to pay for a new Point exchange system - that makes sense.

Intertwining MVCI with all kinds of Marriott services is something just not needed - I don't remember folks here demanding the ability to turn in their week and get 7 days at a Marriott somewhere.

This new system is for Marriott's benefit and we are to pay for it - thanks a lot Marriott.

 

[SueDonJ]

Well, Marriott has every right to say "Show me where you can do this" I don't think 13 month reservations using different resorts can be found in writing. Maybe a newer addition to an older Marriott might interlock those two but I doubt all Marriotts now and forever are covered anywhere. Marriott can then just enforce the CCRs and lock out owners who don't join their new scheme.

I'm not saying they are going to do this but if I were Marriott that would be a great carrot and stick all built into one.

No, none of the CCR's specify that different resorts can be reserved using the 13-mo concurrent/consecutive reservation rule. But not all of them specify that the weeks must be at the same resort, either. The reservation system in place now does not violate any CCR's even though it is less restrictive than what's in the CCR's at some resorts such as Shadow Ridge. A problem would come in if Marriott as the Management Company adopted a MORE restrictive system than what's in some CCR's such as SurfWatch or Barony Beach.

If they were to enforce the particular CCR's at each of the individual resorts, they would no longer be able to implement system-wide management procedures such as the reservation procedures, because the resorts all have different CCR's. When you call you're not calling the resort direct, you're calling MVCI Owner Services. I can't imagine that Marriott will change to a resort-specific management style, not when it can implement policies that are less restrictive than individual resort CCR's while not actually in violation of any of them.

 

[PerryM]

Isn't that a matter of opinion? I would say that I'm a "satisfied" customer, because I'm getting exactly what was promised by Marriott, but it's certainly possible for me to be happier especially with exchanges. If they roll out something that lets me get equal exchange value for my HHI 3BR weeks, which have until now only successfully gotten me 2BR weeks because of limited 3BR availability, then I'll be happy. (And if they don't, I will continue to be satisfied.)

As well, Fletch has stated here that while he was a Marriott employee the number one complaint of owners was II. Sure, most TUG members love the current Marriott/II system because they know how to work it to get consistent trade-ups, but TUG members aren't a majority of the MVCI ownership.

People complain about something - if you had to find something "wrong" with the Marriott system I'd bet most Marriott employees blame II, the state governments, federal government, crazy Caribbean governments.

Then there's that damn tooth-fairy too - anyone but Marriott.

I have no doubt that the new exchange system will replace II as the #1 complaint - then what?

If the owners #1 complaint was II it took 20 years to figure this out?

 

[PerryM]

Warning; Document Dump ahead...

No, none of the CCR's specify that different resorts can be reserved using the 13-mo concurrent/consecutive reservation rule. But not all of them specify that the weeks must be at the same resort, either. The reservation system in place now does not violate any CCR's even though it is less restrictive than what's in the CCR's at some resorts such as Shadow Ridge. A problem would come in if Marriott as the Management Company adopted a MORE restrictive system than what's in some CCR's such as SurfWatch or Barony Beach.

If they were to enforce the particular CCR's at each of the individual resorts, they would no longer be able to implement system-wide management procedures such as the reservation procedures, because the resorts all have different CCR's. When you call you're not calling the resort direct, you're calling MVCI Owner Services. I can't imagine that Marriott will change to a resort-specific management style, not when it can implement policies that are less restrictive than individual resort CCR's while not actually in violation of any of them.

As you say this is ALL up to Marriott to pick and choose what they want to define as "current policy" that is best for the new exchange system of theirs; if their going to make changes its going to be like one of those Friday night document dumps that politicians love to play.

 

[DanCali]

If they roll out something that lets me get equal exchange value for my HHI 3BR weeks, which have until now only successfully gotten me 2BR weeks because of limited 3BR availability, then I'll be happy.

And if the skim some cream off the top in the form of high demand weeks in the process that's a small price to pay...?

And likewise if the resale value of your VOIs drops 20%-40%?

A large drop in resale value is a pretty big price to pay for some extra flexibility in booking. If resale prices do drop this is a true cost of the new system, folks.

Note that the can enhance the program without penalizing resale buyers. If they need to penalize future resale buyers to sell it, this costs everyone.

 

[SueDonJ]

As you say this is ALL up to Marriott to pick and choose what they want to define as "current policy" that is best for the new exchange system of theirs; if their going to make changes its going to be like one of those Friday night document dumps that politicians love to play.

Yep. And if what they can manage to do gets me a 2BR plus a few days in a 1BR, or a true 3BR, or two 2BR in something similar to II's Flexchange, or four different 1BR using something similar to II's Short-Stays ... in exchange for my 3BR, then I will be happy. If they go even further and let me choose views then I will be over the moon.

I do agree with you, though, that there isn't any need to extend beyond resort stays into hotel stays or airline tickets or any other doohickeys that are already covered by Marriott Rewards.

 

[SueDonJ]

And if the skim some cream off the top in the form of high demand weeks in the process that's a small price to pay...?

I don't know that they will skim off the top. That's something that we can discuss if it actually happens.

But it's not necessarily a bad thing IMO if whatever they do allows more owners to be able to actually stay at their home resorts during high demand weeks, as opposed to what happens now where owners scoop up those weeks with no intention of occupying them in order to maximize their exchange value in II's system.

And likewise if the resale value of your VOIs drops 20%-40% (because you already assume the value is zero, even though it's not)?

A large drop in resale value is a pretty big price to pay for some extra flexibility in booking. If resale prices do drop this is a true cost of the new system, folks.

This is an argument that you're having with the voices in your head, not with me. One last time, I haven't ever said that the weeks I purchased have zero value, and I would expect that if a new internal exchange system is implemented, resale values will drop only in an amount equal to the differential in prices between adding a developer-direct and an external-resale week to the new program.

 

[DanCali]

I would expect that if a new internal exchange system is implemented, resale values will drop only in an amount equal to the differential in prices between adding a developer-direct and an external-resale week to the new program.

I would expect the same. Are you ok with this?

A I said before, they can enhance the program without penalizing resale buyers. Penalizing resales would be just to help sales, which personally I couldn't care less about even if I do opt to join the system. If they do feel the need to penalize future resale buyers to sell it, this costs everyone - including retail buyers.

 

[SueDonJ]

I would expect the same. Are you ok with this?

A I said before, they can enhance the program without penalizing resale buyers. Penalizing resales would be just to help sales, which personally I couldn't care less about even if I do opt to join the system. If they do feel the need to penalize future resale buyers to sell it, this costs everyone - including retail buyers.

But what's to be "okay" about? If Marriott charges external resale weeks more to join the system than developer-direct weeks, it will be because they can. I just don't get the "penalize" angle - why wouldn't we expect Marriott to go after revenue from a source that's not been available to them to this point?

The only way I would consider that they were penalizing resale buyers is if they charge initiation fees on a sliding scale basis so that the buyer's purchase price plus fee equals or is greater than the price of a developer-direct purchase. (Say a week costs $12K direct, resale buyer pays $7K, Marriott charges $5K or more to get access to the new system.) But that's not going to happen, I don't think. Resale buyers will still be paying less than direct although a seller will probably have to absorb the price differential for the initiation fee - what's that been guessed at, $1K?

Would you rather that Marriott roll this out as similar to the MRP-exchange option which is not available at all to purchasers on the external resale market? (I'd guess that if Marriott had thought about it way back when, they may have considered an initiation fee for that program, too, for resale buyers.) This way the option is available to all owners, and Marriott taps a new revenue stream at the same time.

You know what I find interesting? There's a thread here about some week or other going for $12K on eBay - looks to be a huge bargain considering the responses in that thread. Everybody's so excited that somebody got a great deal, aren't they? But nobody has mentioned that the lowest price ever for this specific week represents a devaluation, or that the seller's investment should be protected somehow. It's not that I expect it to be mentioned because that's how timeshares work, but I just find it a little bit funny that some folks want to have things both ways depending on whether they are resale market sellers or buyers.

 

[DanCali]

Would you rather that Marriott roll this out as similar to the MRP-exchange option which is not available at all to purchasers on the external resale market?

Here is what I would rather see - I would rather they charge nobody to join. Sell it as a great enhancement free for all owners to join. Then charge a $109 annual fee (like Starwood) which would include unlimited exchanges based on the number of points you have in that year (like Starwood).

With my Starwood week, I have 148K points a year which I can use for as many internal exchanges as I want/can. My $109 fee covers them all. The only caveat is I pay a housekeeping fee of $35-$75 (depending is 1BR, 2BR, or 3BR) if I make for than 2 exchanges (2 are covered for a 2BR lockoff)

If all 400K owners join that's over $40MM a year in revenue... Maybe not all will join but if it's a great program and it's free to join it will sell itself (even without incentives). Marriott gets its revenue and we don't lose resale value.

How is that for a win-win proposition?

 

[NboroGirl]

Got the letter about discontinuing EOY

I just got my email from Marriott this afternoon declaring the end of the EOY sales, showing the discounts for the EOY units. "Every Other Year Special Ends June 16, 2010." I was psyched because I thought it was THE notice, but it turned out to only be about the EOYs.

 

[PerryM]

The Vomit Comet takes off next week...

Yep. And if what they can manage to do gets me a 2BR plus a few days in a 1BR, or a true 3BR, or two 2BR in something similar to II's Flexchange, or four different 1BR using something similar to II's Short-Stays ... in exchange for my 3BR, then I will be happy. If they go even further and let me choose views then I will be over the moon.

I do agree with you, though, that there isn't any need to extend beyond resort stays into hotel stays or airline tickets or any other doohickeys that are already covered by Marriott Rewards.

There is no doubt that Point systems are far more flexible than week systems - I love Point systems.

Points have problems too:

• Far more complex than weeks
• Salesreps oversell ALL holiday weeks
• Developer establishes the currency (Points) and can tinker with it

Now if Points is used not just for exchanges but to sell timeshares we have conflicts between a simple Points exchange system and really a sales system that does exchanges.

Marriott is taking a perfectly good timeshare program and turning it upside down NOT for our benefit but for theirs and we are expected to pay for all of this.

In essence, Marriott has sold out most of their resorts and made huge profits and now wants to do it all over again.

Hopefully next week we can digest what Marriott is about to vomit up.

 

[SueDonJ]

Here is what I would rather see - I would rather they charge nobody to join. Sell it as a great enhancement free for all owners to join. Then charge a $109 annual fee (like Starwood) which would include unlimited exchanges based on the number of points you have in that year (like Starwood).

With my Starwood week, I have 148K points a year which I can use for as many internal exchanges as I want/can. My $109 fee covers them all. The only caveat is I pay a housekeeping fee of $35-$75 (depending is 1BR, 2BR, or 3BR) if I make for than 2 exchanges (2 are covered for a 2BR lockoff)

If all 400K owners join that's over $40MM a year in revenue... Maybe not all will join but if it's a great program and it's free to join it will sell itself (even without incentives). Marriott gets its revenue and we don't lose resale value.

How is that for a win-win proposition?

Sounds good but I'd be shocked if Marriott implemented this without initiation fees for existing owned weeks, whether or not they're developer-direct or external resales, and whether or not the initiation fees are different according to direct v. resale. The revenue stream for conversions (perhaps not the right word if this turns out to be an overlay system for exchanges only) is just too lucrative for Marriott to pass up.

In Starwood do you pay the $109 annual fee even if you don't exchange that year?

 

[Fredm]

In Starwood do you pay the $109 annual fee even if you don't exchange that year?

Yes, the fee is mandatory. But, it does include annual membership to I.I., under a master I.I. membership. I.I. deposit rules are not very owner friendly. Let's hope Marriott does not take that route.

 

[DanCali]

Sounds good but I'd be shocked if Marriott implemented this without initiation fees for existing owned weeks, whether or not they're developer-direct or external resales, and whether or not the initiation fees are different according to direct v. resale. The revenue stream for conversions (perhaps not the right word if this turns out to be an overlay system for exchanges only) is just too lucrative for Marriott to pass up.

In Starwood do you pay the $109 annual fee even if you don't exchange that year?

Yes, you pay $109 as long as your unit is part of SVN (Starwood Vacation Network) regardless of whether you exchange or use the home resort. Resale units from most resorts are not part of SVN (with the exception of the few original "mandatory resorts", where resale owners get the ability to exchange internally). As Fred mentioned, that fee also includes a corporate II account.

Moreover, the $109 fee applies only to the 1st VOI. The 2nd is around $35 and there are no additional fees from the 3rd and beyond. Own 10 VOIs and pay less than $150 a year (and ever increasing MFs) for unlimited exchanges until you exhaust your points... If MFs were more stable and they didn't have the voluntary resorts (many of which have zero resale value) it'd be a great system.

 

[EducatedConsumer]

Marriott is taking a perfectly good timeshare program and turning it upside down NOT for our benefit but for theirs and we are expected to pay for all of this.

...................

Hopefully next week we can digest what Marriott is about to vomit up.

All of this speculation (74 pages of it!).......conjecture.......negativity........and not one substantive detail has been formally released by Marriott.

I'm at a loss to understand why those who think so little of Marriott do business with Marriott.

 

[DanCali]

All of this speculation (74 pages of it!).......conjecture.......negativity........and not one substantive detail has been formally released by Marriott.

I'm at a loss to understand why those who think so little of Marriott do business with Marriott.

Because Marriott timeshare sales and Marriott timeshare management may as well be two different entities as far as I'm concerned.

Sales, Resort Management, and Exchanges do not necessarily belong under the same roof.

I've never been to a Marriott timeshare sales presentation but I've seen enough other ones to know what I'm not missing...

That said, the Starwood and Marriott resorts are great. I'm happy to pay them the management fee as long as it's fair and reasonable and I don't feel increases are excessive. I don't need or want them to sell me the timeshare or to manage my exchanges.

This new points system is nothing more than the sales organization trying to take control of things they have no business doing.

 

[PerryM]

Final oblivion - the Marriott reality show starting next week

All of this speculation (74 pages of it!).......conjecture.......negativity........and not one substantive detail has been formally released by Marriott.

I'm at a loss to understand why those who think so little of Marriott do business with Marriott.

I own 1 resale Gold week at Summit Watch - over the past 5 years I've parlayed it into many trips to Maui over Presidents week, Christmas week at MountainSide and Christmas week at Summit Watch.

Some say I did way too well and its about time I was put in my place.

I learned the Marriott and II way of reserving and exchanging timeshares and played by THEIR rules - they would not let me change them to benefit me even more.

Now Marriott is about to tell us "You know those 20 year old rules you bought under and used all those years - well they are dead and we have come up with another set of rules that benefit us tremendously and you will have to guess how you will do".

I don't like what Marriott is about to do and I'll have to figure out how to use my Marriott ownership starting next week.

Marriott is about to enrich their stockholders at my expense.

Some here find no problem with that, I do. Some even are surprised that this is how timeshare developers do it so no big deal - good grief.

Can I do anything about it? Of course not but I won't go quietly into oblivion just to enrich a stockholder.

How long until Marriott changes the rules again? 5 years, 10 years, 20 years or is it whenever they need more profit and have the ability to just change the rules to benefit themselves.

It's bad enough that our country's laws change on a dime to favor one American over another, I just find it revolting that Marriott wants to do the same to me.

P.S.

Marriott started the rumors - go blame them. Send an eMail to the head honcho. Blaming those of us scared out of our minds does no good. Show us how it's done...

Look at the new iPhone 4, someone let the cat out of the bag by leaving a prototype in a bar and the rumors started. Whose fault was that? Today ol' Steve blew the presentation by not realizing everyone in the room was consuming bandwidth while he stumbled and bumbled around trying to find bandwidth.

If you ask me the rumors were much better and insightful than the actual news.