• The TUGBBS forums are completely free and open to the public and exist as the absolute best place for owners to get help and advice about their timeshares for more than 27 years!

    Join tens of thousands of other owners just like you here to get any and all Timeshare questions answered!
  • TUG is asking for recent reviews of older resorts, earn a free year membership!

    Read more here
  • TUG has now saved timeshare owners more than $18,000,000 dollars just by finding us in time to rescind a new Timeshare purchase! A truly incredible milestone!

    Read more here: TUG saves owners more than $18 Million dollars
  • Follow the TUG Member Banner as it travels the world on vacation with Timeshare owners! Also sign up to get the banner sent to you so you can submit a photo of your vacation with the banner to share with TUG! Banner Thread
  • Sign up to get the TUG Newsletter for free! Join tens of thousands of other owners who get this every week! Latest resort reviews and the most important topics discussed by owners during the week!
  • Our official "end my sales presentation early" T-shirts are available again! Also come with the option for a free membership extension with purchase to offset the cost!

    Read more Here
  • A few of the most common links here on the forums for newbies and guests!

Still Not Sure of 1 in 4 Rationale

Joe L

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
233
Reaction score
0
Points
226
Location
Queens, N.Y.
From FAQ..Ask RCI:

Typically, the one-in-four year rule applies to an account, not to an individual. If you send a guest to a one-in-four year resort, you will not be able to visit that resort yourself for four more years.

The "One-in-Four Year" guideline, as well as geographic area restrictions, are common among resorts still active in sales. The resorts want to maximize their exposure to new audiences of potential owners.

Am I missing something here? Doesn't the use of a guest certificate still expose the resort to new audiences if it is not the same guests going every time? If I give a guest certificate to someone one year and I go the following year, it is a new audience.
 

PerryM

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,282
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Be afraid – be very afraid

You can almost hear Igor (RCI) slavishly answering his master’s orders (developers) “Yes Master!”

There is no doubt about it RCI is slavishly following the orders of their master – the developers. Any doubt who RCI works for? You don’t see II doing this.

RCI Points has none of this foolishness – it’s the dinosaur Week system that imposes this crazy restriction on the timeshare owners. This should be your official warning to look at RCI Points if you haven’t.

The problem with this insane rule (which a good Week member must follow) is that there are cases reported here where the front desk wants to void a reservation made by RCI when their 1 in 4 rules is violated.

There are region wide policies that keep you from exchanging into the resort down the road (Florida has this) and the 1 in 4 rule at a specific resort.

So how should you protect yourself? Just look at the horror stories of RCI canceling reservations due to their bungling incompetence and don’t leave out the resort’s incompetence too.

I personally would contact the resort and ask the manager to personally review the reservation that RCI has made (if there is a 1 in 4 rule or Florida rule) If a guest has checked into the same 1 in 4 resort within the last 4 years I have the feeling that the developer could get snotty and void the reservation. I’d ask for a letter to be written indicating that all is ok and pray that RCI doesn’t void the reservation on its own.

Hopefully, owners with much more experience with this will answer this thread.

I remember checking into OLCC several years ago and the family ahead of us had a similar problem with the 1 in 4 rule – the manager got involved, the wife was crying, the kids looked sad but we checked in and went on our way – I don’t know how it turned out but I did hear the dreaded “1 in 4 rule” barked out by the belligerent teenybopper checking them in.
 

Dani

TUG Lifetime Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2004
Messages
1,639
Reaction score
1
Points
348
Location
New York City
PerryM said:
You can almost hear Igor (RCI) slavishly answering his master’s orders (developers) “Yes Master!”

There is no doubt about it RCI is slavishly following the orders of their master – the developers. Any doubt who RCI works for? You don’t see II doing this.
While II does not have a 1 in 4 rule, they certainly pander to the developers by having geographical restrictions which prevent owners from trading back into the same area where their resort is located. Take a look at the Terms and Conditions for Membership at II. Look at paragraph 6 under the section entitled Exchange Procedures and Priorities. A member may not trade back into Orlando, Aruba, Cancun, Hawaii, Las Vegas as well as a very long list of other areas.
 

timeos2

Tug Review Crew: Rookie
TUG Lifetime Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2005
Messages
11,183
Reaction score
3
Points
36
Location
Rochester, NY
II is far more restrictive than RCI even without 1 in 4

Dani said:
While II does not have a 1 in 4 rule, they certainly pander to the developers by having geographical restrictions which prevent owners from trading back into the same area where their resort is located. Take a look at the Terms and Conditions for Membership at II. Look at paragraph 6 under the section entitled Exchange Procedures and Priorities. A member may not trade back into Orlando, Aruba, Cancun, Hawaii, Las Vegas as well as a very long list of other areas.
Dani - You are very much on target. While II has no 1 in 4 they enforce a far more restrictive regional block that defines pandering to their choosen few developers that effectively blocks any access to the top players that RCI won't allow. Add in the extra fees they permit and II isn't looking very attractive as an alternative. There are much better options than II if quality is your goal that do not paly all these silly restriction games to favor the developers.
 

PerryM

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,282
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Heavy hands

Dani,

This is yet another great reason to own WM credits – there are no restrictions on us – we can blissfully exchange into anything in II with just the exception of Marriott’s 24 day window and I believe there are a few other resorts with time restrictions too.

As a WM owner I can also use RCI, but am subject to the wacko developer imposed insanity of 1 in 4 rules. About the only thing we worry about on a regular basis is VEP.

However, we WM owners can just use the 60+ resorts in WM and peacefully enjoy a vacation without the heavy hand of the exchange company.

I am reminded how the airlines have routinely punished their customer over the years and secretly snicker at their flailing around bankruptcy courts – they brought it upon themselves.

I guess while attending MBA classes I missed the ones that dealt with punishing your customers; kind of glad I cut class that day.

What goes around comes around and someday the belligerent manner the exchange companies treats their members is going to haunt them and their stock holders.
 

Carolinian

Guest
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
9,431
Reaction score
3
Points
273
Location
eastern Europe
The 1-in-4 rule was concocted by developers to try to make people buy at the resort if they wanted to come back regularly, rather than trade in.

One byproduct is reducing demand, therefore hurting the trading power of their members. This is a rule for resorts still in developer sales, or associated with such a resort. I would NOT buy at a resort with such a rule, as it is anti-member, and shows an attitude of trampling over the interests of members.

The best way around this rule - USE THE INDEPENDENT EXCHANGE COMPANIES, as none of them have such rules for their exchangers.
 

Mel

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
1,882
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Connecticut
On the surface, I can see where this restriction could hurt trade power, but on a macro level it doesn't. Many of the resort with this restriction are in areas with multiple resorts, and many of the people requesting exchanges request by area, not specific resorts. Those requests still qualify as demand for the resort in question, even if you can't be confirmed into that resort.

As for hurting owners, I wonder if it really does:

first, it means anyone staying at my resort o a regular basis is an owner at that resort, and is more likely to care more about that resort than a non-owner (who in turn cares more than someone who doesn't own a timeshare at all).

second, it means there is a bit more availability for me as an internal exchanger - when I return to the area where my resort is, I want to stay in my home resort, not somewhere else.

If units were sitting empty because of this rule, then yes I would agree that trade power is reduced by it, but that's not often the case. These restrictions are mostly in place in areas that either have a large number of resorts (Orlando) and/or have great demand. In the case of the former, the demand for the area brings enough people in to nullify any trade power issues caused by the rule - and if people really want to stay at that one resort over all the others, they buy there. In the other areas, if people want to visit that area more frequently, again they must buy there. Yes, it is a double edged sword, in that exchangers exposed to more resorts are less likely to stay in love with that first one, but developers also know that you're much more likely to make the sale on the first try anyway.

What really confuses me is the restrictions on some of the Mexican resorts where members are restricted from internal trades to other resorts run by the same developer. That combines with 1-in-4 for outsiders significantly reduces the number of eligible exchangers. I suspect in that case they are trying to encourage use of their rental pool, which brings management even more income.

The vicinity restriction I suspect are less effective - because it is just as easy to own a resort from a different area to trade in. It does, however, keep me from trading into another area Orlando resort as a place to sleep, but spend my days at my home resort - thus producing no residual income for that other resort, through use of their amenities and shops.
 

CaliDave

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
2,008
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Location
Southern California
PerryM said:
You can almost hear Igor (RCI) slavishly answering his master’s orders (developers) “Yes Master!”

There is no doubt about it RCI is slavishly following the orders of their master – the developers. Any doubt who RCI works for? You don’t see II doing this.

RCI Points has none of this foolishness – it’s the dinosaur Week system that imposes this crazy restriction on the timeshare owners. This should be your official warning to look at RCI Points if you haven’t.
You are saying RCI take orders from developers.. and to stop this you are saying to buy into points?
Points can have even more foolishness. If the developers have all the power with RCI, then the developers can have an effect on how many points their resort gets.

You don't think RCI can or does play games with the point values for specific areas? You don't think they bow down to developer pressures when it comes to assigning points?
 

PerryM

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,282
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Lazy developer

The best and worst case of 1 in 4 rule is Orange Lake Country Club (OLCC).

Here the lazy developer decided to make ALL weeks fixed as to usage and location. So when you buy an OLCC week you own a specific week, in a specific building. This was initially a great deal for the first buyer. Imagine picking out your building and then a condo, like top floor, and then New Years week 52. You buy this for life – what a deal.

However after a few weeks of sales all the good weeks are gone and then the good buildings and then the condos leaving junk. High pressure sales takes care of the junk until the building and all weeks are sold out.

Now the lazy developer decided that if an owner wanted to come at some other time well that just wasn’t his problem – dump it on RCI. OLCC is the largest supplier of weeks in RCI.

Well there is an absolute hoard of OLCC in RCI – a glut. The lazy developer then decided to limit access to the glut of weeks by the 1 in 4 rule. If it weren’t for the 1 in 4 rule you could literally live at OLCC 52 weeks a year on exchanges.

When I used to follow OLCC many weeks expired unused all the time – even holiday weeks. Instead of someone who loved OLCC on their last exchange using the week it expired empty.
 

CaliDave

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
2,008
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Location
Southern California
Mel said:
first, it means anyone staying at my resort o a regular basis is an owner at that resort, and is more likely to care more about that resort than a non-owner (who in turn cares more than someone who doesn't own a timeshare at all).

second, it means there is a bit more availability for me as an internal exchanger - when I return to the area where my resort is, I want to stay in my home resort, not somewhere else.
I completely agree, thats why I don't complain about my resorts 1-4 rule. If I can't use my week, I trade back in through RCI and if the 1-4 helps with avaliabilty, I'm all for it.
If there is a resort that I want to stay at more than 1-4, I would typically try to buy at that resort.
 
Top