SVO email re: II and RCI Assignments

[tschwa2]

For several years now SBP has made non SVN members pre-pay MF to both designate for exchange and to reserve a week. Lots of resorts do it in this day and age and the only thing that bothered me was that SVN members at the resort could reserve w/o pre-paying. I was told the BOD made the change to discourage delinquencies. I always asked to see the data that showed that non SVN members were more likely to not pay and use and if Starwood was covering the expenses for the SVN members who did. The BOD always ignored my requests.

 

[RLG]

Do I have to pre-pay 2013 fees to reserve a week at my home resort? Why should I have to prepay to "assign" my week to II

There's an important difference between making a home resort reservation versus assigning to Interval. A home resort reservation will be most likely not have been used by the time an owner defaults on his maintenance. It's very likely, however, that he would have already completed his Interval stay long before his maintenance is due.

I like this change if it reduces the astronomical default rate that we're all paying for.

 

[jarta]

RLG, ... "There's an important difference between making a home resort reservation versus assigning to Interval. A home resort reservation will be most likely not have been used by the time an owner defaults on his maintenance. It's very likely, however, that he would have already completed his Interval stay long before his maintenance is due."

I agree completely. IMO, those timing differences contributed to the recent change. Salty

 

[LisaRex]

Do I have to pre-pay 2013 fees to reserve a week at my home resort? Why should I have to prepay to "assign" my week to II (especially when Starwood gets involved if I try to actually confirm an exchange)?

Prior to this rule change, you could deposit your 2013 week into II on 1/1/12, exchange it for a 2012 week, enjoy that week, then renege and not pay 2013 MFs when they are due.

You cannot pull this off at your home resort because rules are already in place to prohibit it. (If you want to use your 2013 week in 2012, you have to pre-pay your MFs.) Since MFs are due PRIOR to your travel dates, Starwood has the ability to simply lock you out if you don't pay your MFs. The notable exception to this are the first few weeks of the new year, prior to when MFs are due. For example, if 2013 MFs are due on 1/15/13, I could theoretically reserve and use the first 2 weeks of the year, then renege on paying my MFs. But that's a very narrow window, and I wouldn't be surprised if they closed that loophole as well.

 

[jarta]

There are questions regularly asked on TUG as to how early the II deposit can be made. Don't you think some TUG guests or lurkers can read the answers to the questions and put 2 and 2 together to figure out what Lisa posted in paragraph 1 of her post?

But, that timing opportunity no longer exists - not to say that any TUG members ever acted upon it. Salty

 

[jimmyjoe1]

This new rule is unnecessary! all they needed to do was ensure that 2013 weeks traded for use in 2012 would need to be paid for BEFORE the 2012 weeks were used. This blanket policy will keep trades from being accomplished going forward.
Jim M

 

[grgs]

This new rule is unnecessary! all they needed to do was ensure that 2013 weeks traded for use in 2012 would need to be paid for BEFORE the 2012 weeks were used. This blanket policy will keep trades from being accomplished going forward.
Jim M

While it would be nice, I think this would be a bit complicated for Starwood to implement. It would require that Interval notify Starwood when a trade is completed; otherwise, how would Starwood know to bill you for the mf. It's much easier (for them) to just have the owner pre-pay the mf when the deposit into Interval is requested.

I expect it will slow down the deposits into Interval. I tried to make a reservation this morning with an SDO unit, when I couldn't get it, I was all set to deposit into Interval, but then remembered I'd have to pre-pay the MF. Since I didn't have a specific trade in mind, I held off on the deposit.

Glorian

 

[DeniseM]

This new rule is unnecessary! all they needed to do was ensure that 2013 weeks traded for use in 2012 would need to be paid for BEFORE the 2012 weeks were used. This blanket policy will keep trades from being accomplished going forward.
Jim M

You are assuming that there is a connection/communication between II and Starwood that doesn't exist.

It would be extremely cumbersome to get a confirmed exchange with II, and then have to pay your MF immediately (within the 24 hr. cancellation period.)

This would open up a huge can of worms and give Starwood and II the opportunity to make more mistakes than they do already - it's not feasible.

In the long run, I think there will be more availability for Starwood owners, because it will eliminate the looky-lous.

You have to pay the MF sooner or later, so I don't think that it's that big of a deal.

 

[Beefnot]

I can't even reserve, let alone assign, my non-Starwood TS without paying that year's MFs. Welcome to the 21st century.

 

[hypnotiq]

As someone new to the Starwood system, I would have some definite suggestions for the system(which I already shot off in a polite email to them, hopefully they actually use the feedback).

I recently deposited my 2013 UY for SBP for External Deposit on mystarcentral (MSC).

Based on all the stuff I've learned on TUG, I knew I was gonna have to prepay my 2013 MF fees.

After I completed the process. I was never prompted to pay (nor given a message) on MSC that I needed to pay my 2013 MF for the External Deposit request. I even checked out my acct balances on MSC and it showed I owed $0.00. Not understanding fully how everything worked, I just figured I'd wait a couple days and see what happens. I could have called but it wasnt urgent and I figured it would work itself out.

Well it did, kind of.

2 days later (yesterday), I received a message on MSC from a rep @ SVO that said they were sorry they could not honor my external exchange request because my 2013 MF's had not been paid and told me how I could pay them online. I paid them immediately and then called SVO and made sure their system is up to date. They said that it was and that my External Deposit request was now good. II still shows pending on my reservation, so hopefully the weekend will have helped me not miss out and everything will be confirmed tomorrow when they talk to SVO.

Anyways, my point to this all is (yes, after all this rambling I have a point )

Websites can be design so that they are smart enough to figure this stuff out to avoid 1) a lot of manual work and 2) confusion from happening 3) unhappy customers.

MSC can easily detect that you are depositing your 2013 UY (or whatever future year). It can also look at your account and know whether or not you have paid your MF fees. If you haven't, it simply makes you pay your MF fees as part of the External Deposit request, thus saving the SVO rep from sending me messages days later and me having to go back and do it later.

I pretty much worded the above statement a bit beter and passed it along as a suggestion to SVO.

-Nico

 

[jarta]

Nico, ... The emailed notice about prepayment of MF for II deposits went out the beginning of last week effective 3/21. Many TUG members have not even received the notice.

Today is 3/25. It takes a little time to reprogram computers to implement a change like this. How about giving Starwood a weekend to get it done?

Maybe calling Owner Services is the better option - for a while. Starwood seems to have an inadequate online system. (I actually think Starwood prefers to keep the online system that way to encourage owner contact with a real person who can provide full service.) Anyway, Owner Services should be able to take a CC payment of the MF and arrange for the II deposit all in one call.

Your email will probably end up with those emails sent by the others who prefer efficient online contact over phone calls to a representative - the circular file (wastebasket). Salty

 

[hypnotiq]

First, I wasn't upset, not even remotely. I was just saying there is a better way of doing things for efficency sake.

However, I will say that it is poor form to implement a change before the systems are setup to do handle it.

I'm a programmer by profession and I know how easy it is to stage something to go live @ a specific time. If its not implemented now its because it likely wasn't thought about or something they arent going to implement. Since SBP was already setup for pay first before deposit, its not like the concept is new to SVO, so thats why I lean towards, its just not gonna happen.

And I fully expect my suggestion to go by the way of the bit basket because that its SOP for most places when it comes to improving their websites. If they did the actual work of investigating, they'd find out the improvements would save them money in the long run. But no one wants to do that...

 

[jarta]

Nico, ... As a programmer, you and Starwood work at cross purposes. Starwood likes personal service through personal interaction; you are trained to provide efficient solutions that seek to avoid personal interaction.

Just a different way of doing things. But, Starwood controls the system it uses.

I think ignoring the online system at the expense of concentrating on personal service is dumb. But, I don't control Starwood either.

Nevertheless, when I call Starwood I get excellent service. That's why I am, overall, happy calling and speaking to a real person. Old fashioned? Maybe, but if an explanation carries on to other issues, they can be straightened out then and there. Online doesn't usually provide an option to connect to an actual person. Menu choices can't solve everything.

But, you have every reason to express your preference for better online. Try calling Starwood next time. You might get to like it. And, I bet it will still work better than online. Salty

 

[hypnotiq]

I said in my original post that I called SVO to confirm things so I have talked to SVO desk.

And I will probably say its the best customer service I've received from any company on the phone in a very long time. The girl was humming and chipper and very helpful (could have been that it was 30mins to quitting time LOL).

My original post wasn't meant to come off as a complain but merely a post to inform others (who are either new like me or new to the new procedure) to not expect the online system to take care of MF as part of the process and you have to proactively go and it.

There's no reason they can't have both great customer service and a good online experience.

We can ALL agree that at least their website isn't like RCI's.

 

[Ken555]

For those who don't know, most companies prefer to have their website systems working prior to any change of product in large part in order to lower their labor costs in the long run. Starwood has had years to get their plans and procedures in place with their business partners for the major change of requiring MF paid in advance of external deposit. Based on their past history of failed promises (online reservations?) I have absolutely no hope that this process will change in the near future. Hopefully, they'll realize that the labor cost and customer opinion of this process will encourage them to simplify and automate the system so that it is easier to use and not cause the confusion it does today. But, given that SVN & II work in a niche market without much outside pressure for advancement, it's clear they work on their own time table. At this point I'd rather be pleasantly surprised with any positive changes to their website rather than discouraged (again and again) as has happened in the past.

 

[Beefnot]

It can get real easy if you have to prepay your MFs before making a reservation.

 

[jarta]

Ken, ... "Based on their past history of failed promises (online reservations?) I have absolutely no hope that this process will change in the near future. Hopefully, they'll realize that the labor cost and customer opinion of this process will encourage them to simplify and automate the system so that it is easier to use and not cause the confusion it does today."

You are in the computer business. You also design systems to bypass human contact. You may have a bias in favor of using online contact.

There are advantages and disadvantages for both systems: online and in person. Less service is not better service - for either system. Computers are cheaper. They are also impersonal and rigid by design. People are expensive. They can also think and react differently as situations change while discussion occurs.

I think that your hoped for realization is not in the cards. I think Starwood believes that many more people like calling and getting a warm body who can provide full service. There aren't many companies that still provide that type of service. Starwood is in a service industry. So, the changes you hope for in the online system will be slow to occur - if they do at all.

Also, Starwood runs its own shop. If you don't like the Starwood online system, you can even be old-fashioned and call!

If you go online, for most companies, you are faced with all manner of forms that answer no questions and canned, one size fits all, FAQs. There is no give and take with human beings as there is in the free-wheeling discussions here on TUG.

If you call, for most companies, you now get a one size fits all menu system that sometimes leads you in a circle.

When you call Starwood, you get a living, breathing person on the other end. Not everyone is upset about that alternative still being made available by Starwood.

But, it's OK if you prefer computer systems to people. Salty

 

[Beefnot]

Why cant their be both? Why is it either or?

 

[hypnotiq]

Ken, ... "Based on their past history of failed promises (online reservations?) I have absolutely no hope that this process will change in the near future. Hopefully, they'll realize that the labor cost and customer opinion of this process will encourage them to simplify and automate the system so that it is easier to use and not cause the confusion it does today."

You are in the computer business. You also design systems to bypass human contact. You may have a bias in favor of using online contact.

There are advantages and disadvantages for both systems: online and in person. Less service is not better service - for either system. Computers are cheaper. They are also impersonal and rigid by design. People are expensive. They can also think and react differently as situations change while discussion occurs.

I think that your hoped for realization is not in the cards. I think Starwood believes that many more people like calling and getting a warm body who can provide full service. There aren't many companies that still provide that type of service. Starwood is in a service industry. So, the changes you hope for in the online system will be slow to occur - if they do at all.

Also, Starwood runs its own shop. If you don't like the Starwood online system, you can even be old-fashioned and call!

If you go online, for most companies, you are faced with all manner of forms that answer no questions and canned, one size fits all, FAQs. There is no give and take with human beings as there is in the free-wheeling discussions here on TUG.

If you call, for most companies, you now get a one size fits all menu system that sometimes leads you in a circle.

When you call Starwood, you get a living, breathing person on the other end. Not everyone is upset about that alternative still being made available by Starwood.

But, it's OK if you prefer computer systems to people. Salty

Against my better judgment, Ill continue this circular conversation...:ignore:

There is a reason and a need to have both.

Well designed systems will create more efficient means of doing common tasks while reducing the overall costs of support for that company. The rigidness is not in the computer. It's in the architect(s) who build the software. Great architects ask the right questions in order to build a system that uses logic to handle given scenarios.

For example. SVO spent 15 mins worth of a CSR's time between the email that was sent to me and the subsequent call I had to make to SVO. Something that could have easily been avoided and would have been unnecessary if they properly architected the website to handle it. Now extrapolate that out by all the calls that could have been solved the same way.

Owners and shareholders should be in favor of this because the less $ spent on CSR's handling easy situations that could have easily be solved by having a well architected website to handle the common tasks
:whoopie:

I think Starwood believes that many more people like calling and getting a warm body who can provide full service. There aren't many companies that still provide that type of service. Starwood is in a service industry. So, the changes you hope for in the online system will be slow to occur - if they do at all.

How do you arrive at this conclusion that they think that? Also, I would argue that full service == live person. Maybe to you that means a live person. To me, that means a fully functional website that allows me to do common tasks without having to pick up a phone to complete the task. Neither one of us is right or wrong.

However, from a cost standpoint, Starwood has a responsibility to its shareholders and owners to do things in a cost effective manner.

The bottom line with too many companies is that the website is an after thought and never well thought out. They throw it together after the fact and nurse it along because someone up top doesn't understand enough about what is needed and doesn't want to make the investment towards improving things. Higher up front cost will net longer term savings.

 

[jerseygirl]

However, from a cost standpoint, Starwood has a responsibility to its shareholders and owners to do things in a cost effective manner.

We, the owners, pay for the current inefficient reservation services. Check your maintenance fee invoice.

I've never done the math to verify that Starwood gets its 10% management fee on top of those charges, but I suspect yes ... which benefits the shareholders.

 

[jarta]

Nico, ... We are stuck in an unproductive computer loop. lol!

We can discuss this forever. But, why continue? Right or wrong, smart or dumb, expensive or cheap, efficient or inefficient, Starwood emphasizes delivery of its reservation services through people. Salty

 

[sail27bill]

Just an Update--

I received a second e-mail from Starwood apologizing for the above listed e-mail. Apparently they had sent the posted e-mail out a day early (the 20th and not the 21st) ahead of the official notification, which thus inadvertently gave me (and some others) a full day heads up in advance of the change. Although I am glad about the heads up, makes you wonder about the goof up.

Still am okay with the change, although not happy about pre-paying a year in advance, but I do like Starwood's customer service, so I guess it is what it is. I do like trading in II, so sigh, another thing to get used to.

Anita

 

[KACTravels]

My question is, how do you pay future maintenance fees if they haven't been assessed yet?

My two cents on the computer vs telephone support: I enjoy speaking with a human being too, but I live on the west coast and it is inconvenient for me to plan vacations during work hours.

 

[Beefnot]

My question is, how do you pay future maintenance fees if they haven't been assessed yet?

My two cents on the computer vs telephone support: I enjoy speaking with a human being too, but I live on the west coast and it is inconvenient for me to plan vacations during work hours.

You pay current year's MFs for the future reservation, and just true up the diff prior to the reservation. Other TS have it figured out.

 

[siesta]

My question is, how do you pay future maintenance fees if they haven't been assessed yet?

id guess: pay the previous years amount, if there is more owed come MF time, you will owe the remainder. And a refund or an applicable credit if Mf decreases.

But you raise an excellent point. If the point of this is to prevent "deadbeat" owners from defaulting, what if the owners paid their MF, traded and used their week. Then a year down the road find out when MF time comes around they owe more or even a SA, what says they cant default then. At that point they would have used week, and still owed.

I guess it just minimizes the potential loss.