SVO to II observation

[ocdb8r]

So, I just went through the "Please deposit my RESERVED week into II" drama AGAIN with SVO. It's never a dull moment with them. I stuck to my guns and eventually got what I needed. An interesting observation:

The SVO manager I talked to made it clear that SVO believes they are being helpful with this II deposit management. In some ways he had a valid argument - Why deposit a July 4th week when the II trading power is the same as a July 11th week? Holding it back for owners and depositing the July 11th week means you get strength in II and more owners can utilize the holiday week. He also said that they try to deposit only what an owner would need for a specific trade (i.e. if the owner is only trying to get into a weak resort, why deposit a powerful trade). Again....makes SOME sense.

The problems:

1) We (at Tug) all want the most powerful week because we're all trying to get the most for our money....AND that IS our right as non-SVO owners (to reserve a week and have it deposited)

2) We don't all know how powerful of a week we need OR the power rankings used by II. The TDI is useful but I'm not sure I buy that it's accurate or 100% follows what II internally uses.

3) SVO doesn't even follow the processes laid out by the supervisor I spoke with. I made it clear that I am not so picky as to need a specific week, but I do want one in the highest Travel Demand Index period...

My point: If I want to reserve the July 4th week because I might want to stay there, and then I decide in March I don't want to stay there, I want to deposit a high demand week, I have the RIGHT to do that. It's not acceptable to get the answer in March that there are no more high demand weeks left to deposit (which is surely what I would be told). I "acted" on my reservation rights at the 12 month window to secure a good week, there is no justification for being punished for changing what I want to do with that week. It was made clear they want people to deposit as early as possible...or suffer with weaker week.

At least I appreciate that some of the THINK they are helping the system overall.

 

[Politico]

Totally agree with you. This is where there is a disconnect between SVO and the owner. SVO believes it's acting for the greater good, but the non-SVN owner gets screwed (at least a bit). I have yet to hav e to go through this, but I am planning on sticking to my guns. Glad you won out.

 

[Fredm]

The comments made by the SVO manager may be the story that they are sticking to, but it's baloney. It is also insulting.

Advice for Starwood:

- Leave the marketing responses on the sales floor, or risk losing credibility with the owner base.

- A non-SVN owner either does, or does not, have legitimate control of their reserved week. Do not try to obtain marginal advantage by withholding it unless, or until, pressed.

- An SVN owner is subject to SVN member rules. Among them is the substitution of an owners reservation when an I. I. deposit is the use-year election. Be clear about this, and the reasons for it, including the potential benefit to Starwood.

- Starwood really needs to fix this issue of I.I. deposits. It has been poorly managed, and has the potential to undermine the entire program.
Half-baked 'policy" regarding an owner I.I. deposit will inevitably lead to perceptions of inequity, and suspicions of improper motives, however incorrect they may be.

The issue of perception is extremely important when it comes to deposits of an owners use-week. It is not sufficient to simply point at the SVN member rules as justification for it. Why? Because its necessity is not intuitively obvious. Quite the contrary. It appears as if a straightforward issue is made to be obtuse.
For example, an owner understands the purpose of a 4 month reservation preference period, like it or not. Beyond this window, they forfeit the ability to make a home resort reservation without competing with others in the overall system, first come, first served. Clearly, those owners have surrendered any priority for the remaining unreserved weeks. These weeks are available to all in the system who may wish to reserve them. Obviously, Starwood is then able to allocate the unreserved weeks to those who apply. Straightforward.

Those owners who did make a reservation within the preference period understand that they can have others occupy it in their stead. Either as a gift, or for monetary compensation. It is their ownership use-week for which annual upkeep fees have been paid. These owners know that it is not Starwood's concern who physically occupies the reservation. They also know that its proper occupancy remains the owners responsibility. Straightforward.

So, it is not obvious why Starwood takes the opportunity to substitute the owners reservation when it would be submitted for a trade. It seems as if it is done because it can be. It is not straightforward. It is also not clear, or transparent, what its ultimate disposition is.

It does not help matters when an owner is given the response as reported here. I mean, really. An owner deposit does not assume that the owner knows what they wish to trade it for. That decision need not be made for a couple of years.

 

[James1975NY]

In my experience, there is truth behind the direction SVO is taking with the deposits. Having said that, how much truth and how much concern for the owners ability to use the 4th of July week for actual usage and not deposit is determined by the actual resort that you own.

Where do you own?

 

[Ken555]

Well said, Fred.

 

[Fredm]

Well said, Fred.

Thanks, Ken.

I must be getting a bit touchy in my old age.
I guess I find it offensive because the interaction is business related, and should be trustworthy.

I admit to a bias against schemes that hijack timeshare weeks, like this does.
I truly take Starwood at their word. The disclosure documents clearly inform that the disposition of these weeks are at Starwood's sole discretion. There is no requirement that they be made available to other owners.
I don't particularly care for such a set up, but I believe them. They may do whatever they wish with inventory acquired by substitution. They structured it that way, I assume, to be able to benefit from it. I trust the motive.

Having become resigned to accept this practice, it is all the more irksome when I hear it represented on behalf of the "greater good". Especially so, when the reasons given do not accurately relate to how the process works. The very definition of "adding insult to injury"!

 

[SDKath]

Take a worse deposit so someone else can enjoy a better week??? WHAT??? :hysterical:

That is ridiculous. If I was feeling cheritable, I would send Starwood money as a donation, not give up my right to get the best week I possibly can under the rules and regulations that govern resale owners.

K

 

[James1975NY]

Take a worse deposit so someone else can enjoy a better week??? WHAT??? :hysterical:

That is ridiculous. If I was feeling cheritable, I would send Starwood money as a donation, not give up my right to get the best week I possibly can under the rules and regulations that govern resale owners.

K

Perhaps I overlooked the resort that is in question here but let me share this.....

If the concern for depositing a 4th of July week versus the week after is at Sheraton Desert Oasis, I would agree that both would trade close the same (if any difference).

If you are talking about a 4th of July week versus the week after at Sheraton Mountain Vista or Sheraton Broadway Plantation, I would agree with the frustration.

Does this make sense?

 

[Politico]

Perhaps I overlooked the resort that is in question here but let me share this.....

If the concern for depositing a 4th of July week versus the week after is at Sheraton Desert Oasis, I would agree that both would trade close the same (if any difference).

If you are talking about a 4th of July week versus the week after at Sheraton Mountain Vista or Sheraton Broadway Plantation, I would agree with the frustration.

Does this make sense?

You are missing the larger point that SVO cannot have control over non-SVN weeks. Nada; can't happen; not possible. Yet, somehow Starwood has the gall to claim it does and will not relent unless and until you get the right supervisor on the line.

It doesn't matter if it's "a close trade". SVO has no business telling an owener of a non-SVN what he or she can deposit into II. So, let's just get that issue squared away.

 

[Ken555]

SVO has no business telling an owener of a non-SVN what he or she can deposit into II. So, let's just get that issue squared away.

Exactly.

James, if you know this isn't true, please inform us. Otherwise, I just don't understand why you defend SVN on an issue that is spelled out in the owners documents to the contrary.

 

[ocdb8r]

I own at SBP and according to II's TDI most of the prime summer weeks all trade the same (highest possible TDI). Now, as I said before, I don't believe that the TDI is a true showing of trading power.

I agree with the general sentiment of the thread. As a non-SVN owner we have the RIGHT to deposit whatever week we are able to reserve. There is no ambiguity about it in the contracts. In fact, most of my argument this last time I had to go through the process was about how the supervisor was NOT making an exception for me (as he repeatedly said). Fairly quickly he agreed to resolve the situation but I was livid that he kept referring to it as an "exception."

The reality is that it looks like it's going to take escalating to a supervisor to get this done BUT if you stick to your guns it should work out.

I mainly started this thread because after all the huffing and puffing on the phone I settled down and tried to realize where these people are coming from. I don't agree with it, but at least there is some logic to it.

 

[Fredm]

Take a worse deposit so someone else can enjoy a better week??? WHAT??? :hysterical:

That is ridiculous. If I was feeling cheritable, I would send Starwood money as a donation, not give up my right to get the best week I possibly can under the rules and regulations that govern resale owners.

K

Katherine,

Voluntary resale owners have the good end of this deal. Those that bought from Starwood are SVN members regardless, and have no control, period. They don't even get to argue.
My beef is with the baloney explanations given for the substitution. They should at least be honest. Not assume they are speaking with idiots who can be given any feel good response to shut them up.

 

[James1975NY]

Exactly.

James, if you know this isn't true, please inform us. Otherwise, I just don't understand why you defend SVN on an issue that is spelled out in the owners documents to the contrary.

I am not interested in defending SVO nor am I interested in bashing them (I am not Nodge or the anti-Nodge :hysterical. I just read the posts and try to share my knowledge when I feel it may benefit the members of this group. In this case, I feel there can be something learned about trading power. There are plenty of occasions where I have opinions that are against what SVO is doing. In fact, I too support the fact that SVO should not have any control over telling an owner what they can deposit. In fact in previous posts (not this thread), I had already made the comment that if an owner (non-SVN) is able to reserve the week, they should be able to deposit the week.

I am 99.9% sure that Starwood does not have the right to tell a non-SVN member what week they have to deposit.

SVN has made it clear that they have the right to select weeks appropriate to the owners needs and within what is available and I get why they need to be able to do this.

Does anyone know which resort the OP is referring to? To me this is an important part of the discussion.

 

[Ken555]

I am 99.9% sure that Starwood does not have the right to tell a non-SVN member what week they have to deposit.

Excellent.

SVN has made it clear that they have the right to select weeks appropriate to the owners needs and within what is available and I get why they need to be able to do this.

The concern is strictly regarding non-SVN ownership.

Does anyone know which resort the OP is referring to? To me this is an important part of the discussion.

Why would this matter? I'm confused. Either a non-SVN owner has the right to exchange their week, or not. What difference does it make which resort they own at?

 

[James1975NY]

Excellent.



The concern is strictly regarding non-SVN ownership.



Why would this matter? I'm confused. Either a non-SVN owner has the right to exchange their week, or not. What difference does it make which resort they own at?

To me it matters because If the deposit is for a property such as SDO, I dont see a difference in trade value from a 4th of July week versus the week after and I would feel confident in supporting SVO's take on it.

Having said that, I still believe it is the owner's right to be able to make that choice.

I am just trying to see the entire picture by gathering all of the facts. This way I can make a conclusion as to whether or not SVO is negatively impacting the owner's ability to maximize the use of their timeshare (which I beleive is what they are being accused of).

 

[Ken555]

To me it matters because If the deposit is for a property such as SDO, I dont see a difference in trade value from a 4th of July week versus the week after and I would feel confident in supporting SVO's take on it.

Having said that, I still believe it is the owner's right to be able to make that choice.

I am just trying to see the entire picture by gathering all of the facts. This way I can make a conclusion as to whether or not SVO is negatively impacting the owner's ability to maximize the use of their timeshare (which I beleive is what they are being accused of).

You previously said

I am 99.9% sure that Starwood does not have the right to tell a non-SVN member what week they have to deposit.

James,

I respect your point of view. However, it seems you want to ride the fence on this issue based on your own viewpoint of each deposit. Either SVO has the right to deposit any week they choose for a non-SVO owner, or they don't. Trade value may be Starwood's rationale for insisting on their ability to change the week deposited - assuming they are valued similarly. The problem with this argument is that according to the governing documents, per others who have reported here in the past, SVO just doesn't have that right.

So, again, I ask you: why are you/SVO trying to cloud the issue with trading value? And, why do you think there's any conclusion to be made? Either the documents say it or they don't. I haven't seen them myself, but if they do then there's just nothing to discuss, and SVO is trying to get something they have absolutely no right to get - the ability to deposit a different week than the non-SVO owner has reserved.

Your independent evaluation of trade value has no merit in this case - and neither does mine. It's just not relevant. Again, either SVN has the right to change a non-SVO reserved week during a deposit, or they don't. In certain circumstances, you (& I) may think SVO gave a non-SVO owner a better week than the one they originally reserved, and other times the opposite may occur.

FWIW, this rule wouldn't affect me either way (based on my current ownership). My SVR weeks are fixed, and the others are in SVN (though I could have a good argument about my WMH week, if I wanted to, since they gave me SVN membership as a mistake - but I'm not complaining, since they keep depositing great spring weeks for me in exchange for my summer ownership).

I just don't like seeing posts that try to imply there's a question in a black and white issue like this one. This issue shouldn't even be a question for us. It should be clear what rights SVO has and what rights the owners have. It's this type of inability to know for certain which gives SVO more leverage than they should have against their owners who aren't as informed as us. Even the concept that it's okay to you that they should have this right - assuming the trade value was similar to their reserved week - make me shudder. They aren't in SVO, they don't pay fees to SVO, SVO is a club which has explicitly excluded them from membership, yet the owner is supposed to allow them to abuse their ownership like this? I just don't get it that this is okay with you, or anyone.

Ken

 

[James1975NY]

This will be my last post on this issue as I have repeatedly stated I do not believe Starwood has the ultimate say in what can be deposited for non-SVN owners (and that is as clear as I can put it).

I ALSO strongly believe that Starwood has a responsibility to its owner base to insure ease of use. Part of this responsibility is to maximize the inventory and if that means SUGGESTING to an owner that a alternate deposit is used (and why), then they should do that.....but AGAIN, Starwood should not be forcing the decision.

For my purposes only, I am curious as to the home resort in question so that I can better understand and assess if Starwood is acting in the best interest for the OP or if they are just ignorant and are using a canned response in handling the objection of the OP. You can stop trying to sell me on another direction because I trust my deduction, thought process and experience with Starwood more than yours.

 

[ocdb8r]

This will be my last post on this issue as I have repeatedly stated I do not believe Starwood has the ultimate say in what can be deposited for non-SVN owners (and that is as clear as I can put it).

I ALSO strongly believe that Starwood has a responsibility to its owner base to insure ease of use. Part of this responsibility is to maximize the inventory and if that means SUGGESTING to an owner that a alternate deposit is used (and why), then they should do that.....but AGAIN, Starwood should not be forcing the decision.

For my purposes only, I am curious as to the home resort in question so that I can better understand and assess if Starwood is acting in the best interest for the OP or if they are just ignorant and are using a canned response in handling the objection of the OP. You can stop trying to sell me on another direction because I trust my deduction, thought process and experience with Starwood more than yours.

James, I posted above that I own at SBP.

 

[James1975NY]

James, I posted above that I own at SBP.

And with that.....the 4th of July week is absolutely a better week to trade. BY FAR!

I did read that you were able to get the week you wanted deposited correct?

 

[Ken555]

This will be my last post on this issue as I have repeatedly stated I do not believe Starwood has the ultimate say in what can be deposited for non-SVN owners (and that is as clear as I can put it).

I ALSO strongly believe that Starwood has a responsibility to its owner base to insure ease of use. Part of this responsibility is to maximize the inventory and if that means SUGGESTING to an owner that a alternate deposit is used (and why), then they should do that.....but AGAIN, Starwood should not be forcing the decision.

For my purposes only, I am curious as to the home resort in question so that I can better understand and assess if Starwood is acting in the best interest for the OP or if they are just ignorant and are using a canned response in handling the objection of the OP. You can stop trying to sell me on another direction because I trust my deduction, thought process and experience with Starwood more than yours.

Thanks for clarifying the matter, James. I'm glad you finally made it clear why you wrote what you did earlier, and this makes sense to me. We're all here to learn from each other, and put in the correct light your posts are informative. Let's just try to keep everything in perspective in future, please.