WorldMark - Relative Use Value

[mtribe]

Perry, I have asked several times about your employee proposal but do not recall ever seeing an implementation plan. You have talked about the lunacy of trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a diffrent result but assuming that this is the best course of action how exactly would worldmark get to that point? Seems to me an inquisitive and analytical BOD, seeking out the best interests of existing owners and maximizing their benefite is the ONLY way for that process to be considered.

 

[PerryM]

I will not argue with you on this, Wyndham will do anything in their power to prevent losing control. I do not argue that we are close to winning this year, I would be shocked if we did but that is no reason not to try.

However I think they are more scared than you might think. They can see unfettered control slipping through their fingers. If the proposed By-law fails and the appeal is upheld owners will be able to communicate for the first time in the history of the club. What will happen with an informed owners base is anyones guess.

And the "amatures do not want to "run their company" (wyndmah) they want to oversee the impact of their company (wyndham) on worldmark the club (a seperate legal organization). It may make it more difficult for them to run their own company and may create more work for them but we will not be running their company nor do we have any business in doing so.

The WM BOD can kick Wyndham out as the contractor - that's a loss of $200,000,000 per year to Wyndham. There is nothing Wyndham won't do to prevent that from ever happening.

The illusion that WM owners are close to gaining one of those 5 positions is well crafted - we are far away from doing so. Wyndham will simply pull out trick after trick to ensure they control that BOD.

I'd bet 80% of all WM owners have little interest in all of this - they are either happy with what they have or are ambivalent about the whole thing.

I'll say it again - until the WM owners want WM employees working for them instead of a contractor's we will never get anywhere. We need our own CEO, VPs, and management working for WM owners - they need to see that we sign their checks.

This should be the #1 item to address and not fighting black helicopters.

 

[PerryM]

Perry, I have asked several times about your employee proposal but do not recall ever seeing an implementation plan. You have talked about the lunacy of trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a diffrent result but assuming that this is the best course of action how exactly would worldmark get to that point? Seems to me an inquisitive and analytical BOD, seeking out the best interests of existing owners and maximizing their benefite is the ONLY way for that process to be considered.

I'm not running for any position at WM and I'm not the one to put together a plan.

If folks don't understand the simple principle of who signs the employees paychecks is where their loyalty lays then they deserve all the tumult that we have now and it will continue for decades.

But honestly I've given up in this quest - WM owners just don't understand this simple principle and the status quo will continue forever. Really, it doesn't matter who is on that WM BOD we are doomed to the faulty operating instructions that the founders left behind as they sold the company.

Those 5 WM BOD have no business running a billion dollar company - a CEO, and a management team is supposed to do this - not a hired contractor. We need to take control of our destiny and not the lowest bidder.

 

[IndigoGypsy]

I've tried explaining this to folks on various chat rooms - I can't compete with the lynch mob yelling "Wyndham sucks" - that seems to be the preferred way to deal with this topic.

Which is why I quit posting about WM issues a long time ago. . . .

But we've decided our money is best spent with Marriott from now on. Just our opinion and not a reflection on anyone.

 

[ecwinch]

Which is why I quit posting about WM issues a long time ago. . . .

But we've decided our money is best spent with Marriott from now on. Just our opinion and not a reflection on anyone.

Completely understandable and I am sure that many have made a similar decision. I have only been an owner less than a year, and I have the same feelings from time to time.

The decision to vote with your feet, stay and just enjoy the vacations, or to try to make some change are all completely acceptable and understandable options for members.

 

[ecwinch]

The problem that apparently will never be solved is the fact that WM outgrew the HOA model 20 years ago. The HOA, run by owners on a part time basis, is fine for a single timeshare resort or condo - the HOA runs everything and meeting once every 6 months is just fine.

WM needs about 200 folks to run 5,000+ condos spread around the world. We pay for those 200 folks now but they have no allegiance to WM but to Wyndham the company that writes their checks.

WM will get nowhere until it signs their paychecks - that's how the world works folks.

I've done all the leg work for you guys - I don't sit around squawking, I find solutions.

In my definition of a Destination Club you will see the many components missing from WM's founding documents and realize that WM is stuck where it is and will never evolve.

Perry, I always love it when someone quotes me, and then just repeats their previous post that I was responding to. Repetition is the key to good comedy, but can be tiresome in debate.

So we turn to the "resistance is futile" logic, because the task is so large, the playing field is so unbalanced, and the enemy is so formidable. Well unfortunately there are numerous examples where success in similar situations has occurred. But when you fail to try your probability of success will always be 0% with no chance of improving.

And your Destination Club "solution" is not a solution for WorldMark. A solution is complete from end to end. This is only an end-state concept. It fails to outline how to execute a path to that solution. If you want to play Moses and led your people to the promised land, you need to outline the path to the promised land. I used to work with someone who offered similar high-level solutions. I would always say "that might look good from 50,000 ft up, but I need a solution that will would work from 5"8 ft up."

While it might be a good alternative, it is not a solution to the current problem. But it is a good opportunity for self-promotion.

 

[ecwinch]

I'll say it again - until the WM owners want WM employees working for them instead of a contractor's we will never get anywhere. We need our own CEO, VPs, and management working for WM owners - they need to see that we sign their checks.

The fallacy in your thesis is the assertion that the person signing paychecks has to be in the same organization. It is an oversimplification. So I offer:

1) in general, employees are responsive to those who control their employment (it is more than just a paycheck), i.e. the management team
2) a contracted work force can be just as responsive as a hired workforce (maybe even more so)
3) a management team works for the CEO
4) The CEO works for the Board
5) The Board works for the owners

Every step of the chain is accountable and responsible to the next, and their employment status should be predicated on their effectiveness, and not their lack of independence. The current model breaks down because 4 & 5 are missing, not because everyone is not a WM employee as you suggest.

And your model is not well supported by how other business operates. A Board of Directors sets policy for the operation of Club, they do not run the Club. That is the responsibility of the mgt team (CEO, COO, CFO, etc). The Board provides oversight to ensure the policy and strategic direction they have set is being executed. Execution is the responsibility of mgt. I agree that it probably is preferable that we have our own mgt team, but you previously dismissed that as an option.

And there are so many other ways to align the goals of a contracted workforce with the goals of the Club. Your model ignores all other possibilities like bonuses, performance options, and sharing of cost savings, etc.

Those 5 WM BOD have no business running a billion dollar company - a CEO, and a management team is supposed to do this - not a hired contractor. We need to take control of our destiny and not the lowest bidder.

You are right. Boards do not run a company, mgt does. So again, your approach is too simplistic. Though you now are seemingly agreeing with my earlier post. I just fail to understand why we need 200+ direct employees for this to work.

Control over the WM BOD is THE most critical item Wyndham has when it runs WM (yes it runs WM). They will do ANYTHING to keep control - we have only seen but a trick or two - wait until they really feel threatened and you will see lawyers and investigators digging into the past of the person challenging them. Oh you won't ever see it in the daylight but it will be done.

I do not disagree. Those with the most too lose will always fight the hardest when the alternative is their potential elimination.

I'd bet 80% of all WM owners have little interest in all of this - they are either happy with what they have or are ambivalent about the whole thing.

Again I will agree. Vote apathy is the biggest hurdle to overcome. We can only do that through effective communication, and unfortunately the Board is now taking steps to greatly inhibit owner comminication.

But none of the above are reasons not to try. Or to not keep trying until progress is made. For even if we would just get some meaningful reform regarding ethics, then this problem is far easier to overcome.

 

[ecwinch]

Here is my description of a Destination Club, the natural successor to timeshares,

Perry - your model has some significant holes, as I am sure others have pointed out. Just to highlight a few the jumped out at me:

Your estimated selling expense is artificially low, and assumes demand creates itself. Timeshares are a supply driven product. For timeshares - supply creates demand, not the other way around. It is the primary problem with the timeshare industry today. The cost to create that demand is too large, and results in immediate depreciation.

So in your model of $14 credits, and a 50 cent sales expense, you SG&A would be approximately 3.5%, vs 25% in almost any sales industry, and the 40% standard in the timeshare industry. You claim a 26% SG&A, you calculate a 3.5%

"Therefore each Point sold results in $14.00 - 25¢ - 25¢ or $13.50 per Point goes to the seller."

And that ignores any related sales overhead (phones, office space, T&E, furnishings, etc).

The second major challenge is that your model is not scalable. It assumes away any operational costs at the resorts, since you only own condo's and not running any resorts. Actually except for the concept of how to form, that aspect is very similar to the Bill Peare WorldMark model. And the lack of scalability is what is creating system stress that WM is enduring now.

Third, I think your model might not be allowable in most states under timeshare laws. Most states do not allow you to sell something that has not been built, so I do not see how regulators would permit "construction points". Early abuses in the industry eliminated that option. And even where developers do something similar today, they sell existing properties with the option to convert into the new property on completion. They do not allow "blue sky" sales.

Some of your other ideas are innovative and interesting. But I think the issues above out-weigh them, with scalability being the biggest issue.

 

[PerryM]

Well I could go on and on but what's the use? WM owners want Wyndham to run the place, no WM employees, and want to bellyache - I sure can't change their minds.

Check back in 5 years and you will see my predictions are true - status quo and some WM owners enjoying themselves by hating Wyndham. I'm sure I won't be able to convince anyone then that a WM without WM employees is nothing more than Wyndham with employees.

I'm bowing out of this since no one is going to change their minds.

If anyone has questions on my Destination Club plan you can join there and enter the debate since it has nothing to do with Wyndham.

Until this topic is brought up again in a few days....

If anyone has specific questions just PM on this matter - I'm off to another chat room and something more lively.

 

[mtribe]

The fallacy in your thesis is the assertion that the person signing paychecks has to be in the same organization. It is an oversimplification. So I offer:

1) in general, employees are responsive to those who control their employment (it is more than just a paycheck), i.e. the management team
2) a contracted work force can be just as responsive as a hired workforce (maybe even more so)
3) a management team works for the CEO
4) The CEO works for the Board
5) The Board works for the owners

Every step of the chain is accountable and responsible to the next, and their employment status should be predicated on their effectiveness, and not their lack of independence. The current model breaks down because 4 & 5 are missing, not because everyone is not a WM employee as you suggest.

And your model is not well supported by how other business operates. A Board of Directors sets policy for the operation of Club, they do not run the Club. That is the responsibility of the mgt team (CEO, COO, CFO, etc). The Board provides oversight to ensure the policy and strategic direction they have set is being executed. Execution is the responsibility of mgt. I agree that it probably is preferable that we have our own mgt team, but you previously dismissed that as an option.

And there are so many other ways to align the goals of a contracted workforce with the goals of the Club. Your model ignores all other possibilities like bonuses, performance options, and sharing of cost savings, etc.



You are right. Boards do not run a company, mgt does. So again, your approach is too simplistic. Though you now are seemingly agreeing with my earlier post. I just fail to understand why we need 200+ direct employees for this to work.



I do not disagree. Those with the most the lose will always fight the hardest when the alternative is their potential elimination.



Again I will agree. Vote apathy is the biggest hurdle to overcome. We can only do that through effective communication, and unfortunately the Board is now taking steps to greatly inhibit owner comminication.

But none of the above are reasons not to try. Or to not keep trying until progress is made. For even if we would just get some meaningful reform regarding ethics, then this problem is far easier to overcome.

Fantastic post Eric

 

[mtribe]

Well I could go on and on but what's the use? WM owners want Wyndham to run the place, no WM employees, and want to bellyache - I sure can't change their minds.

Check back in 5 years and you will see my predictions are true - status quo and some WM owners enjoying themselves by hating Wyndham. I'm sure I won't be able to convince anyone then that a WM without WM employees is nothing more than Wyndham with employees.

I'm bowing out of this since no one is going to change their minds.

If anyone has questions on my Destination Club plan you can join there and enter the debate since it has nothing to do with Wyndham.

Until this topic is brought up again in a few days....

If anyone has specific questions just PM on this matter - I'm off to another chat room and something more lively.

You are missing your own point 80% of owners are unaware or apathetic. If there were a way to communicate I bet the number would be far more balanced.

 

[ecwinch]

Well I could go on and on but what's the use? WM owners want Wyndham to run the place, no WM employees, and want to bellyache - I sure can't change their minds.

Check back in 5 years and you will see my predictions are true - status quo and some WM owners enjoying themselves by hating Wyndham. I'm sure I won't be able to convince anyone then that a WM without WM employees is nothing more than Wyndham with employees.

I'm bowing out of this since no one is going to change their minds.

If anyone has questions on my Destination Club plan you can join there and enter the debate since it has nothing to do with Wyndham.

Until this topic is brought up again in a few days....

If anyone has specific questions just PM on this matter - I'm off to another chat room and something more lively.

You are right, there is no sense in going on when you only want to respond at posters, and not address the points they make. You did fail to change my mind, but only because you failed to address the holes in your thesis I outlined. I am influenced by facts and objective evidence, not 15 minute sound bites, or ideas that are a mile wide and an inch deep. But I appreciate you trying.

And I do appreciate you sticking around for a few posts, and not doing a drive by post. I always learn something and your posting style is entertaining. You make some good points, and I hope your 5 year prediction is incorrect. It is a 100% certainity if we fail to try.