Viewpoint: What if higher cost to join?

[GregT]

TUGgers,

I'm presenting the viewpoint that the skim subsidizes the cash cost to participants and I project what the same system would have cost if fully settled in cash.

I definitely do not take the position that skimming is/isn't preferable to cash payment, I'm only presenting a (certainly flawed) analysis. I apologize for the length of this thing.

Some rough assumptions:

1) Currently there are 400,000 owners
2) Assume 20% convert (big assumption) -- 80,000 points enrollees
3) Assume all own 2 weeks or more (another big assumption)
4) For simplicity, everybody pays $199 in annual fees.

That's $16 million in gross annual revenue to Marriott. I'm sure Marriott has to pay something to II for the memberships, assume $20/account), so net revenue of $14 million per year.

This is a corporation with $11 BILLION in annual revenue. These annual fees aren't even a blip to Marriott.

Assumptions continue:

5) Per #2 above, there are 80,000 enrollees
6) Assume that 25% of them are willing to buy 1,000 points at $9.20 (another big assumption)

Now that's $184 million in revenue, plus these points purchasers are sharing the cost burden of the MFs of the unsold inventory.

7) These 80,000 enrollees pay an average of $1,500 to enroll (some blend of $695 and $1995)

This generates $120 million in up-front fees to Marriott.

8) Assume, every one of the 80,000 members redeems their week for points
9) Every member is skimmed 10% of their points value
10) Assume an average points enrolled per member of 8,000

Marriott has just skimmed 800 points worth at least $0.40 each (or $320 per year) for each of 80,000 memberships. That's $26 million per year in skimmed value.


Summary:

Marriott's new system provides annual, recurring (mostly stable) revenues of ~$40M (Skim of $26M and Fees of $14M) from existing owners.

Additionally, sales of 1,000 point packages to the week enrollees could generate of $184M (and there will be other new sales to true new customers) and the up-front fees paid by all 80,000 week enrollees were $120M.

It is clear from these that The Skim vastly exceeds the cash fees paid and these numbers start to become big blips for Marriott.

What if:

My objection has always been the real or perceived extraction of value from the existing, loyal owner who paid for their week (you and me). What if Marriott said it didn't want a hidden cost in the system and "let the owner pay the fully loaded cost of what Marriott needs to earn for the access and benefits of the new system".

If Marriott wanted to do it all with cash fees, and their financial analysis indicated a need for this $40M in recurring revenue to justify the program ($14M net fees plus $26M in Skim) and let's assume (critical assumption) they really did need $300M in up-front money ($184M in add'l sales of 1,000 points to each owner plus the up-front payments of $120M), these same 80,000 owners would have had to pay:

Up-front cost to join: $3,800 ($304 million divided by 80,000 owners)
Annual fee: $500 ($40 million divided by 80,000 owners)

How would we all have reacted to a $4K up-front and $500 annual fee? How would I have reacted?

My error was in thinking that that the introduction of the points system was designed solely to stimulate future sales to new customers and that it's success wouldn't be heavily related to existing customer adoption.

It is possible however that there was no good way for Marriott to introduce a points overlay that met their financial requirements based purely on sales to new owners. I don't feel any better about this disguised tax, but it interests me to have a cash comparison.

Interestingly, if there was no skim, approximately 50% of owners would need to join to generate the same gross revenues (at Marriott's current pricing and if nobody bought new point packages).

I welcome a second set of eyes on this very rough analysis.

Best to all,

Greg

 

[puckmanfl]

good afternoon

I am not a forensic accountant, but I would bet if there was no "skim" 50% would be enroll. The "skim" is where all the angst is and has stirred up the "most" passion. I would bet even Tombo might consider it, if owners received the "average per week in season" in points valuation.

The voting issue and the inventory questions are "real" but the "skim"is the "hot topic" on TUG. I have had 4-5 naive owners call and say "what's up with this?" as if I was secret MVCD operative!!!

I am not saying the other concerns are not important, but as I have said 100 times in the "old" thread, It is about the "CHART" baby as this is what is visible to all.

 

[Dave M]

Here is a contrary view.

One of the biggest concerns that current weeks owners have (presumably the 75% to 80% that Marriott predicts will not join the program and will want to use their weeks the way we have in the past) is that points owners will use their points 12 and 13 months in advance to reserve the very best weeks at our home resorts. Although I have put forth an explanation as to why I don't think that can happen, imagine the free-for-all that would occur if we had parity in points - the same number required as we would receive for a comparable week's stay at our home resort and within the Marriott timeshare system.

If that were to happen, many more weeks owners would enroll, just as you suggest; perhaps even a majority of weeks owners. However, since there would now be parity in points, we could all trade our weeks to Marriott for Club points and be on the phone at 13 months or 12 months and vie for the best weeks in the entire system. And since we would all be giving up our weeks, that means there would be many more weeks available to points owners and to us as enrollees to make those reservations - at the expense of the remaining weeks owners who want to book their weeks at their home resorts the old way. Not good for any of us who don’t enroll!

Thus, I believe Marriott's "skimming" was a brilliant move to help make this system work.

First, the program wasn't designed for those of us who are weeks owners. But we can ignore it and use our weeks the old way if we so choose. No problem.

Second, the skimming makes it very unlikely that more than a very few weeks owners will enroll, trade for points and suffer the loss in value by trying to reserve the weeks that we as weeks owners want to reserve at our home resort.

Third, although the points program is aimed at new Marriot timeshare buyers, those buyers won't be able to reserve the weeks we want unless the weeks come from unsold Marriott inventory, weeks that current owners trade for Marriott Rewards points (not Club points) or the few weeks that current owners trade to Marriott for Club points).

Thus, new points buyers will be presumably be happy (or they shouldn't buy) and we as current owners should be happy because we can use our weeks as we always have with just about the same competition for reserving weeks as in the past.

If the system works, why should I care if this new "benefit" (the points system) isn't perfect for me and if Marriott makes a ton of money from it. (That's what Marriott is supposed to do - make tons of money!) I can ignore the new system or enroll and make use of those benefits that make sense for me.

 

[hipslo]

Here is a contrary view.

One of the biggest concerns that current weeks owners have (presumably the 75% to 80% that Marriott predicts will not join the program and will want to use their weeks the way we have in the past) is that points owners will use their points 12 and 13 months in advance to reserve the very best weeks at our home resorts. Although I have put forth an explanation as to why I don't think that can happen, imagine the free-for-all that would occur if we had parity in points - the same number required as we would receive for a comparable week's stay at our home resort and within the Marriott timeshare system.

If that were to happen, many more weeks owners would enroll, just as you suggest; perhaps even a majority of weeks owners. However, since there would now be parity in points, we could all trade our weeks to Marriott for Club points and be on the phone at 13 months or 12 months and vie for the best weeks in the entire system. And since we would all be giving up our weeks, that means there would be many more weeks available to points owners and to us as enrollees to make those reservations - at the expense of the remaining weeks owners who want to book their weeks at their home resorts the old way. Not good for any of us who don’t enroll!

Thus, I believe Marriott's "skimming" was a brilliant move to help make this system work.

First, the program wasn't designed for those of us who are weeks owners. But we can ignore it and use our weeks the old way if we so choose. No problem.

Second, the skimming makes it very unlikely that more than a very few weeks owners will enroll, trade for points and suffer the loss in value by trying to reserve the weeks that we as weeks owners want to reserve at our home resort.

Third, although the points program is aimed at new Marriot timeshare buyers, those buyers won't be able to reserve the weeks we want unless the weeks come from unsold Marriott inventory, weeks that current owners trade for Marriott Rewards points (not Club points) or the few weeks that current owners trade to Marriott for Club points).

Thus, new points buyers will be presumably be happy (or they shouldn't buy) and we as current owners should be happy because we can use our weeks as we always have with just about the same competition for reserving weeks as in the past.

If the system works, why should I care if this new "benefit" (the points system) isn't perfect for me and if Marriott makes a ton of money from it. (That's what Marriott is supposed to do - make tons of money!) I can ignore the new system or enroll and make use of those benefits that make sense for me.

If this view were accurate, it would mean that there would be very little inventory available to points at the most popular, sold out resorts. If marriott truly thought that this would be the case, how could they legitimately tell potential points purchasers that they could potentially use their points at all of those great resorts? The new program would seem to be a setup for failure.

 

[DanCali]

Here is a contrary view.

One of the biggest concerns that current weeks owners have (presumably the 75% to 80% that Marriott predicts will not join the program and will want to use their weeks the way we have in the past) is that points owners will use their points 12 and 13 months in advance to reserve the very best weeks at our home resorts. Although I have put forth an explanation as to why I don't think that can happen, imagine the free-for-all that would occur if we had parity in points - the same number required as we would receive for a comparable week's stay at our home resort and within the Marriott timeshare system.

If that were to happen, many more weeks owners would enroll, just as you suggest; perhaps even a majority of weeks owners. However, since there would now be parity in points, we could all trade our weeks to Marriott for Club points and be on the phone at 13 months or 12 months and vie for the best weeks in the entire system. And since we would all be giving up our weeks, that means there would be many more weeks available to points owners and to us as enrollees to make those reservations - at the expense of the remaining weeks owners who want to book their weeks at their home resorts the old way. Not good for any of us who don’t enroll!

But that's not necessarily the case.

For example, NCV Platinum received 3475 points. The average of the season is 3706. Booking weeks in the season ranges from 2900 points to 4700 points. If Marriott would have given everyone the average of their season, (at NCV and elsewhere), it is still more expensive to book the summer weeks - that does not change. Moreover, the could have given NCV owners 3706 points (the average of the season) while adjusting the 4700 and 2900 numbers up and down respectively to keep the average at 3706 and make it equivalently expensive to get summer weeks as it is now.

The issue owners have is what is perceived to be fair. There would have been a lot less complaints if it cost 5000 points for a summer week and 2500 for a fall week, as long as owners got the average of the season...

 

[Dave M]

You are helping make my point. The more "fair" those points values are makes it more unfair for the 75%-80% of current owners who presumably will not enroll, as I explained above. And there is no need for them to enroll to enjoy what they already have.

 

[DanCali]

You are helping make my point. The more "fair" those points values are makes it more unfair for the 75%-80% of current owners who presumably will not enroll, as I explained above. And there is no need for them to enroll to enjoy what they already have.

I'm not sure we're 100% agreeing on this one...

There are two separate issues...

1) How many points do people get?

2) How hard/expensive is it to get the week you want with points?

The fact that owners did not get the average of their season is likely perceived by some as tantamount to point stealing - and we refer to it as "skimming". It is perceived to benefit Marriott directly in various ways (e.g. renting weeks/days/points etc). Give owners the average of their season and that concern goes away.

The second issue is expensive it is to get a prime week. Your argument, if I understood correctly, was that if owners had more points because they got the average of their season it will be easier for them to book prime weeks. My answer was that (i) prime weeks are already more expensive the way the system is currently set up and (ii) you can adjust the points table to make prime weeks even more expensive and low demand weeks less expensive (if that was necessary for inventory management based on anticipated supply and demand) while still giving owners the average of their week. One has nothing to do with the other. I just don't need to feel Marriott is stealing my points.

 

[BocaBum99]

If this view were accurate, it would mean that there would be very little inventory available to points at the most popular, sold out resorts. If marriott truly thought that this would be the case, how could they legitimately tell potential points purchasers that they could potentially use their points at all of those great resorts? The new program would seem to be a setup for failure.

I couldn't agree with you more. Marriott wanted to charge Weeks owners more MF in the system and they figured that this was the best way to do it. Skim off 7-10% of their points given them an effective MF increase to participate in the program.

 

[BocaBum99]

Here is a contrary view.

One of the biggest concerns that current weeks owners have (presumably the 75% to 80% that Marriott predicts will not join the program and will want to use their weeks the way we have in the past) is that points owners will use their points 12 and 13 months in advance to reserve the very best weeks at our home resorts. Although I have put forth an explanation as to why I don't think that can happen, imagine the free-for-all that would occur if we had parity in points - the same number required as we would receive for a comparable week's stay at our home resort and within the Marriott timeshare system.

If that were to happen, many more weeks owners would enroll, just as you suggest; perhaps even a majority of weeks owners. However, since there would now be parity in points, we could all trade our weeks to Marriott for Club points and be on the phone at 13 months or 12 months and vie for the best weeks in the entire system. And since we would all be giving up our weeks, that means there would be many more weeks available to points owners and to us as enrollees to make those reservations - at the expense of the remaining weeks owners who want to book their weeks at their home resorts the old way. Not good for any of us who don’t enroll!

Thus, I believe Marriott's "skimming" was a brilliant move to help make this system work.

First, the program wasn't designed for those of us who are weeks owners. But we can ignore it and use our weeks the old way if we so choose. No problem.

Second, the skimming makes it very unlikely that more than a very few weeks owners will enroll, trade for points and suffer the loss in value by trying to reserve the weeks that we as weeks owners want to reserve at our home resort.

Third, although the points program is aimed at new Marriot timeshare buyers, those buyers won't be able to reserve the weeks we want unless the weeks come from unsold Marriott inventory, weeks that current owners trade for Marriott Rewards points (not Club points) or the few weeks that current owners trade to Marriott for Club points).

Thus, new points buyers will be presumably be happy (or they shouldn't buy) and we as current owners should be happy because we can use our weeks as we always have with just about the same competition for reserving weeks as in the past.

If the system works, why should I care if this new "benefit" (the points system) isn't perfect for me and if Marriott makes a ton of money from it. (That's what Marriott is supposed to do - make tons of money!) I can ignore the new system or enroll and make use of those benefits that make sense for me.

Dave,

With all due respect, your argument makes no sense. If Marriott's goal was to protect weeks owners, all they had to do was create a rule that weeks owners cannot use points to trade back into their own resort. It's as simple as that and from a programming point of view trivial to implement.

However, if they did that, they wouldn't be in effect increasing the maintenance fees on each and every Weeks owner who participates by the amount of the skim.

In my approach, weeks owners are competely protected. And, they get full value of points for exchanging internally to other resorts.

In the Marriott approach, they steal points from current owners thereby increasing their fees outside of the direct fees that they are stating in the program. It truly is a hidden fee.

The issue for Marriott is that owners here caught it and now they have a PR issue.

 

[rsackett]

I think because it is not spelled out as an exchange fee and seems like Marriott was trying to hide this or think people would not notice is what has people upset.
On one hand Marriott states "your annual fee of covers all internal Marriott trades", but then takes a bit of your points to pay for it bothers people.
I think it would have been fairer for Marriott to say, "All II Marriott exchanges are covered by your annual fee, all points trades cost $xx per trade", and adjust the fee accordingly. If you have a week that costs 4000 points to get and Marriott gives you 93% of that amount that results in 280 points Marriott kept. If those points are worth $0.40 (Marriott's number) in maintenance fees that is a dollar value of $112. This seems like a high exchange charge, in addition to your yearly fee, if you went for one exchange (a 7 day week). If you did 7 one day exchanges this would not seem so bad. This is why I think Marriott would have been better off giving full value in point to weeks owners and charged a small fee per exchange.

Ray

This was from a previous thread on the points skim.

I still think that the $169/$199 fee does not cover all the expences of splitting up a weeks uasge. The "skim" is Marriotts way of recouping that cost. I think it would have beeen better to give everyone the average usage in points for their season and said the yearly fee covers X points trades per year and any points trades above that will be $YY fee. I think people would have found this to be more fair. You could use points to get back to back weeks at your home resort EOY this way, and someone that want to work their way down the east coats to Marco one noght at a time in timeshares woul pay extra for all that extra cleaning.

Ray

 

[DanCali]

I still think that the $169/$199 fee does not cover all the expences of splitting up a weeks uasge. The "skim" is Marriotts way of recouping that cost.

What expenses? What does "breakage" even mean?

Didn't weeks go unused in the weeks system? Did we pay extra for it?

Didn't weeks get broken in the old system (anyone could split weeks and create a Wed-Wed week)? Did we pay extra?

If MFs are paid and owners choose to let their weeks go unused how does anyone lose besides the owners themselves losing the value of their MFs? If anything there is less maintenance and less wear and tear...

The skimming is there for Marriott to make a quick buck, not to compensate owners for something that doesn't merit compensation. Unless they pay us in points for broken weeks - how do WE benefit from the skimming?

 

[rsackett]

What expenses? If I change to points and rather than take my time as 7 nights in a row, I stay 7 times for one night each thare are 6 extra check-ins and cleanings. What does "breakage" even mean? No Idea.

Didn't weeks go unused in the weeks system? Yes Did we pay extra for it? No

Didn't weeks get broken in the old system (anyone could split weeks and create a Wed-Wed week)? How did you do this? Did we pay extra?

If MFs are paid and owners choose to let their weeks go unused how does anyone lose besides the owners themselves losing the value of their MFs? If anything there is less maintenance and less wear and tear...

The skimming is there for Marriott to make a quick buck, not to compensate owners for something that doesn't merit compensation. Unless they pay us in points for broken weeks - how do WE benefit from the skimming? Owners do not benifit from skimming. Marriott uses the money/points/whatever to pay for their operating costs and pockets the rest.

See my thoughts in RED above.

Ray

 

[DanCali]

Didn't weeks get broken in the old system (anyone could split weeks and create a Wed-Wed week)? Did we pay extra?

See my thoughts in RED above.

Ray

In regards to split weeks, I believe most if not all Marriott resorts allow you to split a week into two separate stays for a $75 fee. So, for example, I could split a stay at NCV or MGC into Fri-Mon and Mon-Fri. Given this, you can book those back to back creating a Mon-Mon week. At other resorts it may come out to a Tue-Tue week or Wed-Wed week, depending on the resort. Not sure how many owners did this, but it's a creative way to save on airfare to some places.

As for extra housekeeping costs etc - why not charge the people who book more than two stays (or 1 stay if they own a dedicated 1BR or 2BR) extra housekeeping fees? Why should 400,000 owners (or the 80,000 projected to enroll) pay for the few who stay one night at a time? It's a lot more transparent and fair... I can't believe I am citing Starwood as a model developer, but that's how they do it.

 

[GregT]

All,

Back to the original question in this thread:

If Marriott wasn't skimming, and they were charging $3,800 to join and $500 for the annual fee, would you view the new system more favorably than with the implicit cost from skimming plus the explicit cost of the up-front and annual fee?

Best to all,

Greg

 

[DanCali]

All,

Back to the original question in this thread:

If Marriott wasn't skimming, and they were charging $3,800 to join and $500 for the annual fee, would you view the new system more favorably than with the implicit cost from skimming plus the explicit cost of the up-front and annual fee?

Best to all,

Greg

I think you are looking at it wrong and puckmanfl alluded to that...

You need to consider the elasticity of demand. Prices don't change in a vacuum...

Higher prices lower demand so at the prices you quote very few would join. However, it is possible that without the skim, (=lower price) many more people would join and Marriott may make even more money than they would if the skim. For example, if 60% of owners joined if there was no skim, Marriott would make more money without the skim...

This is along the same lines on how lower taxes can increase tax revenues - but we'll leave that to a different BBS...

In the case of Marriott - I think they underestimated the consumer backlash from skimming because it's just hard to explain and justify.

 

[rsackett]

....As for extra housekeeping costs etc - why not charge the people who book more than two stays (or 1 stay if they own a dedicated 1BR or 2BR) extra housekeeping fees? Why should 400,000 owners (or the 80,000 projected to enroll) pay for the few who stay one night at a time? It's a lot more transparent and fair... I can't believe I am citing Starwood as a model developer, but that's how they do it.

This is what I was proposing above, except rather than call it a "house Keeping charge", I was calling it an "Exchange fee". I think that would have been much more fair.

Ray

 

[scrapngen]

It seems to me that everyone is giving an either/or scenario. Either skim or the current set-up.

Instead, why couldn't everyone join for a slightly higher fee base to buy into the program. Then give everyone a reasonable (non-skim) value for their weeks. Then, here's what I would envision as a way to cover more of the costs. Have an annual fee that covers a minimal amount of trading, lock-offs, etc. It will be paid whether you use at your home resort or convert to points. (as it is now) BUT, if you do more than "x" number of trades or stays, have an additional fee - whether it is called housekeeping, extra trades, whatever. This way, those that make several short stays, or many trades pay more, and the little guys or those who don't trade just pay the annual fee. Maybe the additional fees don't kick in until 4 separate stays, and 4 lock-offs, 4 trades. I don't know, but surely to have a small, additional fee for the heavy user would be ok to most. Even those premium ultra premier folks could see that they are still getting VIP treatment, yet their usage would be higher and need a larger fee to cover it?? As several people have said, many systems have charges for more stays to handle those extra costs.

Why should everyone have to bear equal skim for those special people who do a lot of trading, or short stays?? Also, the skim doesn't allow the little people to trade across to an equivalent resort. For the people who have several weeks, losing a little here and there isn't a big deal, as they can make it up in the fee savings and by stretching. But to a one or two week owner that annual fee is either equivalent or an addition to what they are currently paying, and the loss of days cannot be easily made up by moving points around.

Guess I'm saying the same as the above posts, I'm just a slow typer.

 

[jerseygirl]

I can't believe I am citing Starwood as a model developer....

Say it isn't so!

 

[scrapngen]

All,

Back to the original question in this thread:

If Marriott wasn't skimming, and they were charging $3,800 to join and $500 for the annual fee, would you view the new system more favorably than with the implicit cost from skimming plus the explicit cost of the up-front and annual fee?

Best to all,

Greg

I would still find it not reasonable for me to join. However, I would not feel that Marriott was trying to pull the wool over our collective eyes. If people had to pay that much to belong, then if they had a better chance of getting prime weeks (and still having to pony up the points) I'd see it as something they are paying extra for. Just as I payed a premium to get my fixed week over a float week. I would not be as concerned that the playing field was now seriously favoring those who switch to points, as I'd also see that the cost was more, just like the MF's will be more for the new strictly points buyers. I would think it was more in keeping with the Marriott name for quality and customer service and care. And I would be glad that they allow the non-direct purchasers a chance to also buy into the program. I would be less concerned about the resale value of my week.

 

[DanCali]

Say it isn't so!

I feel much happier about my Starwood ownership these days. I guess it's all relative...

I bought Marriott to diversify - I'm glad I now have Starwood so I am more diversified. Who would have guessed after 4-5 years of rumors Mariott would come up with this @$#&^$!

 

[ArtsieAng]

If this view were accurate, it would mean that there would be very little inventory available to points at the most popular, sold out resorts. If marriott truly thought that this would be the case, how could they legitimately tell potential points purchasers that they could potentially use their points at all of those great resorts? The new program would seem to be a setup for failure.

Very true....Even considering weeks that may be turned in for MRP's/rentals, there would be very little inventory for point owners, outside of bronze/silver weeks. I'm guessing that the prime weeks at most resorts have already been sold to week owners, and that fewer of those are given to Marriott to rent, or turned in for MRP's.

How is Marriott going to fulfill the request for prime weeks from point owners?

Also, how would week owners be impacted by any future resorts? Will they be locked out of exchanging into future resorts?

 

[tombo]

good afternoon

I am not a forensic accountant, but I would bet if there was no "skim" 50% would be enroll. The "skim" is where all the angst is and has stirred up the "most" passion. I would bet even Tombo might consider it, if owners received the "average per week in season" in points valuation.

The voting issue and the inventory questions are "real" but the "skim"is the "hot topic" on TUG. I have had 4-5 naive owners call and say "what's up with this?" as if I was secret MVCD operative!!!

I am not saying the other concerns are not important, but as I have said 100 times in the "old" thread, It is about the "CHART" baby as this is what is visible to all.

Yes I would consider converting if they were up front with fees, expenses and points. If my week/season rents for 5000 points, and if Marriott gave me 5000 points when I deposit it, and if they charged 3500 points to rent a one bed room lock off and 1500 for the studio side allowing my 5000 points to reserve a one bed room week and a studio week in any resort Marriott deems to be a 5000 point per week resort/season, yes I would probably join. There are other troubling things like loss of voting rights that could preclude me converting, and I would be hesitant to convert if they didn't guarantee in writing that if the points charged to reserve my week were ever increased/decreased that the points I received when I deposited my weeks into points would be adjusted equally, but I would probably join if I felt like I was not giving up value for sure now, and with their ability to change points values at any time, possibly losing value in the future.

Charge me a set dollar amount per internal exchange because if I want to exchange I can come up with cash, I can't come up with additional points unless I BUY MORE. It is extortion to make sales for Marriott forcing you to buy more points to be able to continue to do what you ave always done! It is not giving you what Marriott deems your week is worth when you deposit it. If I want to use my week in points to exchange for like for like weeks, or exchange for lock-offs in like for like weeks and Marriott gives me enough points to do so, but they charge me a REASONABLE fee to exchange, great.

If Marriott charged $100 CASH for a weeks xchange, and additional $70 for locking off, additional fees for less than 7 day stays to cover additional houskeeping costs, great. Everyone knows what it costs to exchange, to split off, to stay less than 7 days etc, it is not hidden while announcing to all that it is FREE. FREE IS A LIE. It costs less to exchange and lock-off through II than it costs more to pay Marriott $165 a year and get skimmed when you deposit your week, and agin when you reserve a lock-off. Plus you have access to additional cash when you want to exchange, lock off, or stay less than 7 days. You don't have access to additional points when you decide to be "FLEXIBLE".

One last thing, the wording is hard to verify and Marriott on the phone won't confirm or deny it, but the way I read it if you convert, pay your annual fee of $165 to Marriott, don't deposit your week into points and instead use II to exchange, you still have to pay the II exchange fee. I am waiting for the first owners who convert to exchange their week using II to be sure, but call your sales rep, aske them in a presentation, try to get it in writing that is is free to exchange if you don't deposit your week into points and instead exchange through II, and I bet you won't get it in writing. If you have to pay $165 a year to be in points combined with the fact that your points won't get you like for like exchanges after the skim(s) so you refuse to deposit your week for points, and if when you exchange your week in II you still owe the $109 exchange fee plus $165 annual fee to Marriott instead of only $89 to join II, please explain to me any possible reason there is to convert.

So in summarry if Marriott gave owners the exact number of points the week they deposit is worth according to Marriott's own usage charts (both 7 days and as a lock-off) while charging reasonable up front fees, it could have been a great program. As it is Marriott steals points you rightfully deserve to receive every year on every week deposited for points, and exchanging using points is simply a huge rip-off to existing owners benefiting nobody but Marriott.

 

[puckmanfl]

good morning...

Well said tombo!!!

There is a page on the MVCD website, "Explore the benefits" where you click on "new fee structure". They give 3 WEB examples of internal trading. One is where an enrollee uses his week the old fashioned way. The owner takes a two bedroom, locks off and trades both thru II (no points) This page clearly states this is ALL covered in the $165/199 fee...

Please understand that I have to enroll as I am a "trader" that very rarely stays at my Home Resort (exception 2011 mega Hawaii trip). I do save some $$$ doing my trades this way, but I am concerned about loss of II inventory to trade the old fashioned way!!!

Even if there is no "raiding" of II weeks by MVCD, it is clear that deposit of weeks for MR points is a bigger part of the "game" than any of us realized. My Guru says about 30%-40% of owners will do this with at least one week. Many of the "uptrades" to the primo weeks have come from MVCD deposit of those weeks in the II pool (they keep some for rental as well). These weeks deposited for MR points will now go to points!!

 

[GregT]

Tombo,

I agree, that is an excellent synopsis and viewpoint. That's a program we could have all gotten excited about. I remain puzzled and perplexed by Marriott's election to do the skim, it still doesn't feel right.

Puckman,

It does sound like it makes sense for you -- also remember that I expect a vibrant points rental market will emerge so you will be able to take advantage of renting points that are needed. So just being enrolled may present possibilities, especially if they introduce an Open Season concept at some point. Let's assume you can get a unit for 1,000 points that normally is reserved for 4,000 points. It is very possible that you could rent those 1,000 points for $400-$500 from some other owner and get the Open Season reservation and not even have had to redeem your enrolled weeks in the first place (I think this would work, but lots of assumptions here).

Best to all,

Greg

 

[Art]

Dave

Right, as always.

Everyone wants to make it easier to take someone else's week without acknowledging that such a process will make it easier for someone to take his week. No matter how much people on TUG boast about wonderful trades there are a awful lot of people who are content to stay at the timeshares they own. Check the show of owner hands at the welcome breakfast, especially during prime season.

Believe me, the fear that somehow owners will somehow be pre-empted from reserving their own weeks is real. Just go over to the Yahoo OP Owners newsgroup and see read the posts from owners who are accustomed to reserving 4, 6, 8 or more weeks at their home resort and are worried about losing that. Gradually, the message is getting through to those owners - do nothing and thing will stay as they are.

As an editorial comment, I think a lot of the negative thoughts about the Destination Club are a matter of our naturally greedy mindset, i.e., a new process is bad unless I personally gain from it. It must be unfair if I don't benefit, or someone else (Marriott) benefits while my situation is unchanged.

Art