TPU "inflation"... is it RCI or resort thinking boosting required TPUs?

[tombo]

You said that very well, Brian.

I was one of those who was frustrated with SFX for a long time, then I started dealing with one person there, and my opinion changed 180 degrees.

This is another problem I have with SFX. With RCI/II it is a fair playing field. Any member of either exchange company (RCI/II) can get online and search for exchanges with equal chance of getting the week they want. There is no favoritism or special reps who help certain members.

In SFX if a member has a good relationship with the right SFX person (as many others here on TUG have detailed in the past) they can get access to inventory not available to other members who don't have the same relationship. I understand how you like it now that you have established ties with an SFX employee who gets you things you couldn't get before, but not all SFX members get to deal with that person, and for most the frustration does not go away.

In RCI/II you and myself are competing for weeks on an even, fair basis. With SFX you have a huge advantage. Why would I deposit my weeks with SFX when you get better exchanges than I can with the same deposit simply because you know who to call, and when you call they know you? Answer, I won't.

 

[Carolinian]

(Responding to your post [in response to Margariet] about a TimeshareForums moderators action on her post)

Pre-moderation on boards for exchange company reps is not at all uncommon. When TUG had an Ask RCI board, that was heavily moderated, with sometimes entire questions being removed. There is always a danger in such situations of someone with a chip on their shoulder running off the reps. Maybe I am biased as a TS4MS moderator myself, but I think there is softer moderation there than existed at TUG on the Ask RCI board. While there is a legitimate reason for such moderation on that type of board, I know that I myself largely quit bothering to read the Ask RCI board when I saw several of what I thought were legitimate questions asked by others disappear into the ether. Also on the boards for exchange company reps, what might be considered a personal insult is judged much more broadly. I have not seen Syd delete anything from posts on that basis, except when someone was attacking an exchange company rep. And instead of removing the entire comment, Syd left the substance of what Margariet had to say, just removing the barbs she threw at the exchange company rep.

Your message was far from professional. You made 4 insults in that message which makes it very unprofessional. Your post was edited to remove the insults. The remainder of your post is there. You were simply asked to be more civil in your postings. The same type of moderation happens on TUG.

By the way, an SFX representative had nothing to do with the editing of your post. It was a TS4Ms moderator who did it.

Regarding the need for pre-moderation, that only happens in the exchange company forums. That policy was instituted after a number of problem posts requiring its implementation.

 

[heathpack]

As the person who ignited the current firestorm of bad blood between Mark at SFX and TUG, I would just like to say that I had no issue with the rep I was working with at SFX. Like many others suggested, I was in contact with one particular rep and I was happy with the one exchange I made.

My negative comment for SFX is the cost of their bonus weeks in my particular scenario. Because of the nature of my job, because I am typically flying on FF tix, and because my main other mode of vacationing is on a charter sailboat we own, I must book all travel except weekend trips about a year out. Additionally, the SFX inventory that I am most interested in is NYC, London, and Grand Mayans and these are all subject to upgrade fees. Now don't go putting words in my mouth, these are nice locations and I did not say an upgrade fee is an outrage. All I am saying is that the upgrade fee exists and that is must be factored in when I try to assess the usefulness of the SFX bonus week. With the new Lifestyle Week program, the cost of bonus weeks used on my timeframe went up, making this an even worse value for me unless I get into the really close-in booking window, in which case they become cheap enough for me to use for a weekend trip. However, SFXs inventory in the places I can easily drive for a weekend would be hit-or-miss (Palm Springs, Scottsdale, Sedona, San Diego- I'm really not interested in So Cal beach off season, I could just go spend the weekend on my sailboat in the off season for charters) compared to II. I know Mark commented that the average price of a bonus week went down with the new program, but the average cost is not what any individual will experience.

Compounding the cost issue for me with SFX is a quirk with the way Hyatt trades in II vs SFX. Basically, I must always give SFX more of a deposit than I ever need to give II to obtain the same thing. If I give SFX a diamond 1BR unit, that costs me 1450 points, that will get me a 1BR unit in SFX or a 2BR if I am willing to pay for an upgrade or Platinum membership. However, if I deposit 1300 points in II, I am entitled to a 2BR red week. So I have been looking for some way to justify the additional expense I incur with SFX and the two possible ways would be: SFX can get me something that I want but can't get through II -OR- they offer me an enticing bonus.

Yes, SFX can get me NYC or London, but they tell me I have to be willing to accept a hotel room/studio, and if I am going to do that I can just use hotel points for a free stay. So that leaves us with the Grand Mayans, are they worth it to me? Probably not, I can get some other nice Mexico or Grand Luxxe through II.

So that brings us back to the bonus weeks. For my usage, the costs of these add up and becomes *comparable* to a rental. I never meant to imply that they were *literally* rentals (yes, I know that I did in fact say they were rentals, and that is my fault for not making it clear that I was speaking metaphorically). The goal of my post was not to spread lies or damage a person's business, it was to offer an analysis of the SFX bonus weeks program. Mark's response over-yonder was extremely off-putting to me and I cannot honestly see working with SFX in the future. However, I do think it is worth setting the record straight as to what I was actually talking about when I wrote my original post in the other thread.

H

 

[Carolinian]

That beats the institutionalized unlevel playing field at RCI where they put their thumb on the scales thanks to developer politicking and overpoint some resorts with relatively weak supply / demand curves and underpoint others with very strong supply / demand curves.

This is another problem I have with SFX. With RCI/II it is a fair playing field. Any member of either exchange company (RCI/II) can get online and search for exchanges with equal chance of getting the week they want. There is no favoritism or special reps who help certain members.

In SFX if a member has a good relationship with the right SFX person (as many others here on TUG have detailed in the past) they can get access to inventory not available to other members who don't have the same relationship. I understand how you like it now that you have established ties with an SFX employee who gets you things you couldn't get before, but not all SFX members get to deal with that person, and for most the frustration does not go away.

In RCI/II you and myself are competing for weeks on an even, fair basis. With SFX you have a huge advantage. Why would I deposit my weeks with SFX when you get better exchanges than I can with the same deposit simply because you know who to call, and when you call they know you? Answer, I won't.

 

[heathpack]

That beats the institutionalized unlevel playing field at RCI where they put their thumb on the scales thanks to developer politicking and overpoint some resorts with relatively weak supply / demand curves and underpoint others with very strong supply / demand curves.

An unlevel playing field is an unlevel playing field, IMO, regardless of the underlying justification for it. I have no issue with an unlevel playing field, am willing to invest the time to learn where I can obtain my greatest advantage.

It is all the same to me: learn to play II's game or RCI's game or SFX's game. Whatever game works is the game I'm willing to play. That's part of what TUG is all about- learning to use these various timeshare exchange scenarios- isn't it?

H

 

[rickandcindy23]

This is another problem I have with SFX. With RCI/II it is a fair playing field. Any member of either exchange company (RCI/II) can get online and search for exchanges with equal chance of getting the week they want. There is no favoritism or special reps who help certain members.

In SFX if a member has a good relationship with the right SFX person (as many others here on TUG have detailed in the past) they can get access to inventory not available to other members who don't have the same relationship. I understand how you like it now that you have established ties with an SFX employee who gets you things you couldn't get before, but not all SFX members get to deal with that person, and for most the frustration does not go away.

In RCI/II you and myself are competing for weeks on an even, fair basis. With SFX you have a huge advantage. Why would I deposit my weeks with SFX when you get better exchanges than I can with the same deposit simply because you know who to call, and when you call they know you? Answer, I won't.

I love RCI and II. I don't even care if RCI increases TPU's (Original Topic), because I believe it is truly based on demand. [We could actually increase demand on TUG with a concerted effort to place requests for certain areas to help one another. :ignore: Could be a fun new game for some of us.]

Knowing a rep/ contact at SFX is beneficial because you can remind that person what you are looking for. It's not about preferential treatment, it's about communcating with someone and getting the assurance they are working on it. Just entering an ongoing request with SFX felt futile. Communcation is the responsibility of the member, in my opinion. SFX is still looking for your match, but you have to call and check on it.

It's actually the same with II and RCI. Sometimes a call nets a result that an ongoing search will not.

 

[Carolinian]

If your resort is overpointed, you don't really need to learn anything to take advantage of the situation. On the other hand, if it is underpointed, then nothing you can learn can help you get a fair shake. Resorts still in developer sales tend to be the ones most often overpointed, while sold out resorts, especially those not connected with big national management companies tend to be the ones most likely to be underpointed.

An unlevel playing field is an unlevel playing field, IMO, regardless of the underlying justification for it. I have no issue with an unlevel playing field, am willing to invest the time to learn where I can obtain my greatest advantage.

It is all the same to me: learn to play II's game or RCI's game or SFX's game. Whatever game works is the game I'm willing to play. That's part of what TUG is all about- learning to use these various timeshare exchange scenarios- isn't it?

H

 

[Margariet]

Margariet,
I'm not so sure they were referring to you.

You're right! They were only referring to themselves! If people on another forum can get so emotional and hysterical about my posting on this forum which I thought was pure informative and not pointed to anyone than they have a problem! And calling me accusing and insultive is pretty hilarious! Some people identify themselves too much with their company! :hysterical: I think no one will even understand what I am talking about, I can hardly remember it myself! :zzz: