Worldmark-too good to be true?

[T_R_Oglodyte]

What we are complaining about is generating cheep points in the MidWest
and then selling the points in Washington, Oregon and California instead of marketing them in the MidWest. The result is that it is harder to get into our popular west coast resorts while the midwest resorts set largely vacant. Anyone that looks at the WorldWark vacant night grid can see that this is true.

Yep. the points sell for the same price, regardless of whether it's an Iowa cornfield or beachfront Maui. But the deveopment cost is less in Iowa. I.e., more profit for TW.

 

[cotraveller]

As a West coast owner I feel that TW can build all the resorts they want in the midwest as long as they market the points for those resorts in the Midwest.

What we are complaining about is generating cheep points in the MidWest
and then selling the points in Washington, Oregon and California instead of marketing them in the MidWest. The result is that it is harder to get into our popular west coast resorts while the midwest resorts set largely vacant. Anyone that looks at the WorldWark vacant night grid can see that this is true.

I just looked at the vacant night report. Considering just the Oregon and California resorts of Eagle Crest, Running Y, Angels Camp, Clear Lake, Windsor, and Big Bear there were 81,166 vacant nights in 2004. You can book any one of those resrots for the coming summer months right now, they are not full or overcrowded.

I don't see how you can lay the blame for the crowded conditions at "our popular west coast resorts" on resorts that are opened in other areas. There are far more vacant nights generated on the west coast than elsewhere just due to the fact that there are more WorldMark resorts on the west coast than elsewhere. It's a fact of life in a multiple resort points based system that some resorts are going to be extremely popular and hard to book, especially during the prime seasons.

 

[RichM]

Of Eagle Crest, Running Y, Angels Camp, Clear Lake, Windsor, and Big Bear, Angels Camp is the worst performer with 29,806 of those 81,166 vacant nights (in 2004). Based on vacant nights vs. # of units (assuming one week of unaccounted vacancy for "maintenance"), Angels Camp had a vacancy rate of 41.63%. Windsor, a long-standing Inventory Special location, came in second with 20,569 vacant nights, or 28.44%. Clear Lake is next at 26.4%, then Klamath Falls at 25.32%, then Big Bear at 20.1%, then Eagle Crest at 12.81%

Also, none of the resorts you included in your sample are coastal resorts. All are inland resorts and three (Big Bear, Angels Camp and Running Y) are harder to get to during some times of the year due to snow.

Now lets look at the midwest resorts:

Grand Lake: 10,200 nights or 45.22%
LotOzarks: 12,774 nights or 49.56%
Branson: 9,984 nights or 34.43%
Galena: 12,983 nights or 65.94%

Two of them are very close to 50% vacant with Galena almost 2/3rds vacant.

Let's look at the top 10 most vacant:

1. Galena
2. Lake of the Ozarks
3. Bison Ranch
4. Grand Lake
5. Pinetop
6. Angels Camp
7. Victoria
8. Branson
9. Windsor
10. Clear Lake

4 in the Midwest
2 in Arizona
3 in California (non-coastal)
1 in Canada

If you look at the actual, popular summer destinations: Depoe Bay, Oceanside, Seaside, Gleneden, Monterey Bay, you find a total of 11,154 vacant nights of which only 336 are in June-Sept. That's an overal vacancy rate of 5.2% and only a 0.16% vacancy rate from June to September.

___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -

- www.wmowners.com

 

[cotraveller]

Ah yes, statistics and numbers are such fun. You can use them to draw almost any conclusion depending on how you present them. Here are the 2004 vacant night numbers for the top 10 most vacant resorts you listed. Pardon the formatting, I didn’t take the time to set it up pretty.

Bison Ranch - 7,314
Branson - 9,984
Galena - 12,983
Grand Lake - 10,200
Lake of the Ozarks -12,774
Pinetop - 9,129
Total - - - - 62,384

Angels Camp - 29,086
Clear Lake - 8,318
Victoria - 5,450
Windsor - 20,569
Total - - - - 63,423


From that, I see that the 4 west coast resorts generate more vacant nights that the other 6. So the conclusion is that we should stop building on the west coast since the existing resorts there are under utilized.

A more reasonable conclusion is that no matter where new resorts are located, oceanfront resorts will be the most popular. If you want to go to the ocean every summer and be guaranteed that you can stay in your timeshare resort there, a points based system is probably not your best choice. You are competing with all the other owners who want to do the same thing. A fixed week at a fixed oceanfront location is the best way to guarantee that.

Rather than looking at the WorldMark resorts I cannot visit because they are continually booked, I prefer to look at all the other places that I can go. When a new WorldMark resort opens, wherever it is located, I see it as an opportunity to visit a new area, not as a detraction from those that already exist. East to west, north to south, there should be limits, no restrictions. It is one of the nice features of a growing points based system which is continually expanding, both within areas where it already has a presence and beyond to new areas.

 

[ladycody]

A more reasonable conclusion is that no matter where new resorts are located, oceanfront resorts will be the most popular.

Of course they will...but that doesnt negate the reality that someone from Illinois is far less likely to utilize west coast resorts than someone on the west coast who can be there in a 2-3 hour drive.

Again... there are of course owners who can afford to hop a plane every time they want to get away..but many WM owners buy because they cant afford that. I wouldnt have bought if Oregon didnt have as many drive-to properties as it did for me. I still would have bought if they'd had no drive-to's on the coast and the properties were instead in portland, hood river, etc. Those resorts in CA and HI and Fiji etc are great and I plan to use them in the future...so they're a part of why I bought...but it's the ability to travel comfortably without needing to spend airfare that sucked me in.

Boottom line...they market on the west coast to a ton of people that dont have the money to fly regularly but the credits they're selling were developed in the mid-west...which requires a flight. It just doesnt make sense.

As a result, I believe they should market & sell the credits where they're developed. For the most part...it would ensure that those credits would be utilized in that given area more regularly. With TW...one of it's primary selling features is the drive to resorts...but they create credits in one area and then sell them in an area that wont utilize them as drive to (which means less overall utilization of the resort).

That doesnt mean they should stop selling in CA, OR, and WA...only that they should sell the credits developed in that region to that region and sell the credits developed in the mid-west in the midwest.

JMHO

 

[cotraveller]

Remember the old fast food commercial? Parts is parts. Or in this case, credits is credits. Unlike some other points based timeshare organizations, WorldMark credits are not associated with any one resort. There is no distinction between a credit purchased in California and one purchased in Illinois.

I purchased in Colorado, but I did not purchase Colorado credits. The fact that I purchased in Colorado does not guarantee me a winter week at Steamboat Springs during the height of ski season. The WorldMark credits I purchased give me the right to book any resort in the WorldMark system, at any time, subject to availability. Every other owner, regardless of where they live or where they purchased, has that same right. It’s a major feature of the system, a major selling point of the system. Whether it is a 1-1/2 hour drive to Estes Park or a 3-1/2 hour flight to Orlando is irrelevant. All WorldMark owners have an equal right to book any of the WorldMark resorts.

To reiterate the point that has already been made several times in this thread and elsewhere, it was reported that the Midwest expansion effort ran into unforeseen political obstacles. Politics change, political obstacles come and go. My original estimate was that it would take 10 years before we saw Galena become as popular as any of the other seasonal resorts. It opened in the fall of 2003, we have 7-1/2 years to go. In the meantime, I (and some other owners who live or travel in the Midwest) have a nice resort to use with little competition from all the west coast owners.

 

[BocaBum99]

What this analysis of the data demonstrates is that WorldMark owners are showing a stronger desire to go to coastal resorts. So, it should follow that more units should be built in coastal areas.

Fred's attitude is a good one. But, he is clearly settling for what is available rather than going where he would normally choose to go all things being equal.

 

[roadsister]

You bring up a good point about one of the resorts, Angels Camp.....I could not figure out why they were expanding it so soon as you could almost always get bonus time there WITHOUT the extra buildings...now with those extra units it's very easy to stay there anytime of the year....Angels Camp is BELOW the snow line.

 

[cotraveller]

What this analysis of the data demonstrates is that WorldMark owners are showing a stronger desire to go to coastal resorts. So, it should follow that more units should be built in coastal areas.

Fred's attitude is a good one. But, he is clearly settling for what is available rather than going where he would normally choose to go all things being equal.

I agree, we need more beach front resorts in Florida, Myrtle Beach, Cape Cod, Wisconsin (had to get a Midwest beach in there although it's on Lake Michigan, not the ocean ), Mexico, Carribean, and many other beaches I haven't visited and therefore am not familar with. Some inland locations along the way (for the continental resorts) would also be nice so we could take a coast to coast road trip staying at WorldMark resorts.

As for settling for what is available you are making two assumptions. First, that it is impossible to get those hard to book resorts, which it is not, and second, that I only travel to WorldMark resorts, which I do not. WorldMark has expanded my travel opportunities, not placed any limits on those opportunities. It's a big beautiful world, I've seen a lot of it and have a lot more to see.

 

[RichM]

Ah yes, statistics and numbers are such fun. You can use them to draw almost any conclusion depending on how you present them. Here are the 2004 vacant night numbers for the top 10 most vacant resorts you listed. Pardon the formatting, I didn’t take the time to set it up pretty.

Bison Ranch - 7,314
Branson - 9,984
Galena - 12,983
Grand Lake - 10,200
Lake of the Ozarks -12,774
Pinetop - 9,129
Total - - - - 62,384

Angels Camp - 29,086
Clear Lake - 8,318
Victoria - 5,450
Windsor - 20,569
Total - - - - 63,423


From that, I see that the 4 west coast resorts generate more vacant nights that the other 6. So the conclusion is that we should stop building on the west coast since the existing resorts there are under utilized.

This is why I tried to use percentages. Angels Camp and Windsor represent a total of 402 units, combined. Add in Victoria and Clear Lake and you're up to 529 units. After correcting your transposition of the vacant nights at Angels Camp, it's a total of 64,143 vacant nights.


Galena, Lake of the Ozarks, Bison Ranch, Grand Lake, Pinetop and Branson represent a total of only 374 units, but had a total of 62,384 vacant nights.

So, in the top 10:

California+Canada = 529 units and 64,143 vacant nights or 121.25 nights/unit
Midwest+Arizona = 374 units and 62,384 vacant nights or 166.8 nights/unit

So, 38% more vacant nights per unit.

What this analysis of the data demonstrates is that WorldMark owners are showing a stronger desire to go to coastal resorts. So, it should follow that more units should be built in coastal areas.

Fred's attitude is a good one. But, he is clearly settling for what is available rather than going where he would normally choose to go all things being equal.

I agree. Here are the top 20 LEAST vacant:

1. Monterey Bay
2. Pismo Beach
3. Dolphin's Cove
4. San Francisco
5. Palm Springs
6. Depoe Bay
7. Schooner Landing
8. Rosarito
9. Las Vegas
10. The Canadian
11. McCall
12. Orlando
13. Gleneden
14. Ocean Shores
15. Oceanside Harbor
16. South Shore
17. Las Vegas Spencer St.
18. Maui-Valley Isle
19. Kona
20. Maui-Kihei

The vacant nights/unit range from 0.9 for Monterey (only 33 units) to just 15.5 for Maui.

That's pretty good and far better than Galena that has 55 units and a whopping 236 vacant nights/unit. That means that each unit sits empty for a total of almost 8 months per year.

In my opinion, TW should concentrate on building locations similar to the top 20 least vacant as that's where the demand seems to be.

___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -

- www.wmowners.com

 

[RichM]

You bring up a good point about one of the resorts, Angels Camp.....I could not figure out why they were expanding it so soon as you could almost always get bonus time there WITHOUT the extra buildings...now with those extra units it's very easy to stay there anytime of the year....Angels Camp is BELOW the snow line.

That makes no sense. Why add more units when (in 2004) there were 149 vacant nights with the existing 200 units?

There's a vacant lot behind the Oceanside resort - I'd rather see them buy up that lot and add more units there.

We've got a fabulous new(er) resort in Vegas and an older one and both are under a 4% vacancy rate. Perhaps we don't even have ENOUGH units there yet?

Why add more units to one of the top 10 most vacant resorts? That's ridiculous.
___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -

- www.wmowners.com

 

[ladycody]

I purchased in Colorado, but I did not purchase Colorado credits. The fact that I purchased in Colorado does not guarantee me a winter week at Steamboat Springs during the height of ski season. The WorldMark credits I purchased give me the right to book any resort in the WorldMark system, at any time, subject to availability. Every other owner, regardless of where they live or where they purchased, has that same right. It’s a major feature of the system, a major selling point of the system. Whether it is a 1-1/2 hour drive to Estes Park or a 3-1/2 hour flight to Orlando is irrelevant. All WorldMark owners have an equal right to book any of the WorldMark resorts.

I understand all that but it doesnt negate the fact that you are more likely to utilize the Colorado resorts (for bonus time or IS if nothing else) than I would be(living in oregon). So having you as an owner and having you near those resorts will help keep those units occupied in the event of low occupancy periods...which at least helps defray a bit of the expense of having them there. What happens when the midwest has low occupancy...they sit empty because the owner base is on the coast for those resorts too. That's all I'm saying.

 

[BocaBum99]

I understand all that but it doesnt negate the fact that you are more likely to utilize the Colorado resorts (for bonus time or IS if nothing else) than I would be(living in oregon). So having you as an owner and having you near those resorts will help keep those units occupied in the event of low occupancy periods...which at least helps defray a bit of the expense of having them there. What happens when the midwest has low occupancy...they sit empty because the owner base is on the coast for those resorts too. That's all I'm saying.

I think these are some good insights. So Trendwest needs to get busy selling those Galena units to those midwestern customers.

 

[cotraveller]

I understand all that but it doesnt negate the fact that you are more likely to utilize the Colorado resorts (for bonus time or IS if nothing else) than I would be(living in oregon). So having you as an owner and having you near those resorts will help keep those units occupied in the event of low occupancy periods....

Another assumption that leads to the wrong conclusion. The Steamboat Springs resort, the only Colorado resort at the time we became owners, was a non-factor in our decision to purchase. The Colorado mountains are not a destination for us, they are our back yard. A day trip or a visit to friends, yes, but we seldom go to a Colorado resort or hotel. We've spent many more nights at resorts outside of Colorado than we have in state. We save the Colorado resorts for the out of state visitors who help keep our state green .

 

[PA-]

While the Trendwest expansion plans will not fit the mold that all would postulate as a better way, there is no arguing with their success. From a start of 2 units in 1989 they have built a system which now comprises over 4400 units in around 60 locations supported by a base of 231,000+ owners. The resorts are consistently highly rated, overall occupancy rates are consistently high, and maintenance fees are consistently among the lowest in the industry.
....

If sales numbers is the measure of success, does that mean Fairfield is a better system than Worldmark?

Obviously, all us owners who aren't leaving Worldmark yet believe that it is worth owning, including myself. That doesn't mean we can't point out the flaws to new prospects doing their research. The question, in my mind, is "is worldmark getting better or worse?".

I believe that:

1 - In general, more resorts, whereever built, is a good thing. However, new resorts AREN'T free; they dilute our ownership in the existing resorts. When the new resorts are built in places like Oklahoma, and brought in at outrageously high point values and VERY low occupancy rates, that's a bad thing. Don't forget, the occupancy rates that Worldmark publishes don't show the whole picture. The published occupancy doesn't seperate owner's using them at full credit values vs. the resorts being rented out for business meetings. Last summer, when I was in OK, the resort was empty a month in advance, but was full when I got there. They said they had rented the resort to a business group for a sales meeting.

2 - Satisfaction rates are on the decline. They used to claim a 98% rating, last year I believe they showed a 91% rating. Even those numbers are deceptive, since it only includes those that stayed at a resort and filled out the card. It doesn't include the huge numbers of people that don't stay in a resort during the year. If you ask the 25% of owners who were pressured into a sale that NEVER used their credits and lost them during a year, the numbers would be different.

3 - Yes, Worldmark will continue to build some resorts in desirable areas, like Yellowstone. But they are overstating the credit values for all resorts more and more all the time. You watch, I'll bet they'll call Yellowstone RED season for most of the year. Just look at the calendar for Estes Park. That's another way they're diluting our ownership.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that Worldmark is all bad, just that it is on a downhill path. I believe that Cendant running the Worldmark board is a very bad thing. If you feel otherwise, you should be happy because it will be that way forever, I'm afraid. With Cendant counting the votes, it's not likely to change.

 

[ladycody]

I just wanted to say, for those who are considering WM... I dont think WM is on a downhill path. I think it's a wonderful club with a wonderful future. It simply needs, like most companies (or families for that matter) at various points in their development, a bit of tweaking to ensure that it doesnt go downhill. It's growing rapidly and people have to expect to travel through a bit of a learning curve. I'm looking forward to being an owner in WM's future.

Edited to add:
It's all a matter of checks and balances. We've all done things that sounded like a good idea and then discovered "oops...didnt work the way I planned." In any business, or in any TS company, there will be decisions made at an executive level that may need rethinking. As owners...regardless of whom you own with, it's our job to help keep things flowing. That might mean communicating about maintenance issues, voting in a way that helps the company move forward in the right direction, or making our voices heard on any given issue. Those in charge are not omnipotent. You cant buy a house and then take no ownership of it's maintance or growth....not unless you're willing to suffer the consequences of inaction.

So regardless of where you place your money...keep an eye on the company and excercise your voice as an owner.

 

[roadsister]

You bring up a good point about one of the resorts, Angels Camp.....I could not figure out why they were expanding it so soon as you could almost always get bonus time there WITHOUT the extra buildings...now with those extra units it's very easy to stay there anytime of the year....Angels Camp is BELOW the snow line.]

That makes no sense. Why add more units when (in 2004) there were 149 vacant nights with the existing 200 units?

There's a vacant lot behind the Oceanside resort - I'd rather see them buy up that lot and add more units there.

We've got a fabulous new(er) resort in Vegas and an older one and both are under a 4% vacancy rate. Perhaps we don't even have ENOUGH units there yet?

Why add more units to one of the top 10 most vacant resorts? That's ridiculous.
___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -

- www.wmowners.com

Rich,
THAT is what I said....Angels Camp was already easy to get into bonus time because they had so many empty units....with the second phase they built there you are almost guanteed a unit any time of the year. Not sure what you were reading.

 

[melschey]

In my opinion, TW should concentrate on building locations similar to the top 20 least vacant as that's where the demand seems to be.

___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -

- www.wmowners.com

Or at least they should market the credits in the place they are generated. What bothers me about places like Galena is that TW is not trying to market the credits there? Galena looks like a fine drive to resort but I am not going to fly from the west coast to visit it. TrendWest should market the credits in the Galena area instead of marketing them mainly on the west coast.

Galena isn’t even seasonally popular;

According to the 2004 vacant night grid Galena had the following unused nights
January-1432 February-1296 March-1450 April-1322 May-1260
June-1050 July-810 August-783 September-1054 October-175
November-1071 December-1275

Considering that this resort only has 55 WM units this is a very underutilized resort. Also this report doesn’t tell us how many nights were booked using credits. I know I wouldn’t use credits to book Galena when it is so easy get on bonus time or Inventory special. I am afraid that most of the credits generated by Galena are used at other more popular resorts.

My favorite resort is Depoe Bay and I don’t need a vacant night grid to tell me it is a lot harder to get in there now, but for comparison here is the grid for Depoe Bay

January-395 February-45 March-17 April-15 May-40
June-1 July-10 August-4 September-24 October-12
November-15 December-9

Also consider that Galena only has 55 units and Depoe Bay has 114 units

 

[RichM]

Rich,
THAT is what I said....Angels Camp was already easy to get into bonus time because they had so many empty units....with the second phase they built there you are almost guanteed a unit any time of the year. Not sure what you were reading.

Faye - not sure what you were reading... I was agreeing with you. Perhaps you were too shocked that I agreed with you and missed it

___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -

- www.wmowners.com

 

[roadsister]

Faye - not sure what you were reading... I was agreeing with you. Perhaps you were too shocked that I agreed with you and missed it

___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -

- www.wmowners.com

LOL - pretty funny!

 

[sandra kraft]

We just returned from a week at the Las Vegas resort. First off, let me say we are big fans of the strip - for about three days. It was very refreshing to have seven days not on the strip. Worldmark provides shuttle service to Monte Carlo every hour (10 am-1:15 am). This worked great for us. Also shuttle service to Von's, a large grocery store every morning and stops at the outlet mall if desired.

The grounds and pools were wonderful, even though the week there was on the cool side. The staff was friendly and helpful. We will definitely return; it worked for us.

We have been extremely happy with our Worldmark ownership. We did not buy Worldmark when we made our purchase, we bought the options the trades allowed and we have not been disappointed. Have actually stayed at very few Worldmark resorts, but traded successfully many times.

 

[Judy]

We did not buy Worldmark when we made our purchase, we bought the options the trades allowed and we have not been disappointed. Have actually stayed at very few Worldmark resorts, but traded successfully many times.

 

[ladycody]

Glad I wasnt the only one confused by that... ...so...what's it mean?

 

[Smooth Action]

I think I got it

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandra kraft
We did not buy Worldmark when we made our purchase, we bought the options the trades allowed and we have not been disappointed. Have actually stayed at very few Worldmark resorts, but traded successfully many times.

_________________________________________________________________



Let see now.........I think she said we originally (DID BUY) WorldMark for it's TRADEING POWER with RCI and II and so far they have just about successfully traded all of their wonderful Worldmark credits (except that one little time in Las Vegas) for fantastic vacations at other timeshares like Royal Sands or Marriot. Worldmark works for them.

And oh yes...She gives Worldmark's Las Vegas location a great big BU-Ya ...cause .. (even though they love the Las Vegas Strip) it's sometimes just so refreshing to get away from all that heck-tic brightness, noise and hustle of the Strip, and just relaxed (on a cold day) by the WorldMark Pool or enjoy a romantic shuttle ride to where the action is.


Smooth Action

 

[Miss Marty]

Bumped

Any new information for 2007-2008
Please post in new vacant report thread