Starwood Update

gmarine · Oct 28, 2009

I spent almost an hour on the phone today with Starwood's VP of Owner Services and Director of Customer Relations. They do seem genuinely concerned about the issue of unhappy owners and were very willing to listen to my complaints and concerns.

I explained all the usual problems with new system and they explained what they feel are advantages of the new system. In the end I suggested that Starwood could possibly consider a compromise.

What I suggested was that Starwood allow owners to either opt in or opt out of the new system. This would appease owners who are not happy with the new system and yet would still allow Starwood to keep the new system in effect.
I also suggested another compromise which would allow owners to utilize a true Request First option. Currently you have to cancel a home resort reservation before making a request. This effectively takes away any chance of getting a desirable home resort reservation if an exchange request is not confirmed. Allowing an owner to retain a home resort reservation only for purposes of Request First would be a great compromise. It would still allow Starwood to implement the new system and would allow owners who wish to fall back on home resort reservations to do so if they wish.

The Starwood VP and Director agreed to look into these possibilities. If Starwood makes either of these changes it would at least show owners that they are considering our feedback.

When I bought my first Starwood timeshare it was because Starwood had a great reputation. That reputation isnt the same anymore. A one bedroom annual 1-52 SDO unit just sold for $1 on EBAY which a few months ago would have been unheard of. Another recently sold for $95. These are now junk, down there with the other $1 timeshares you are lucky to give away. These are STARWOOD units. They used to be the best. This new system is obviously negatively affecting resale prices.

I dont like regretting that I purchased a Starwood product. I truly hope Starwood listens to owners on this and compromises.

RoshiGuy · Oct 28, 2009

gmarine said:
I also suggested another compromise which would allow owners to utilize a true Request First option. Currently you have to cancel a home resort reservation before making a request. This effectively takes away any chance of getting a desirable home resort reservation if an exchange request is not confirmed. Allowing an owner to retain a home resort reservation only for purposes of Request First would be a great compromise. It would still allow Starwood to implement the new system and would allow owners who wish to fall back on home resort reservations to do so if they wish.

Thanks for all the time you have spent following up with Starwood. If they fix the Request First issue, as you mention above, it addresses the most egregious aspect of the new policy.

DeniseM · Oct 28, 2009

I think an easy solution would be to simply rescind the new rules for Voluntary week owners. It would be a relatively easy programming fix for II, because all the voluntary weeks are already in non-SVN Accts.

They could still use the new rules for SVN members, who are basically along for the SVN ride anyway.

Disclaimer - I own both voluntary and mandatory, so I am not just selling out the SVN members.

Personally, I would be willing to give up my "exchanging rights" with my SVN ownership, if I could regain them for my voluntary weeks.

grgs · Oct 28, 2009

DeniseM said:
I think an easy solution would be to simply rescind the new rules for Voluntary week owners. It would be a relatively easy programming fix for II, because all the voluntary weeks are already in non-SVN Accts.

They could still use the new rules for SVN members, who are basically along for the SVN ride anyway.

I absolutely agree with this. SVN members have already agreed to let Starwood control the deposits by virtue of being in the the network--although some may not be aware of this. As jerseygirl pointed out, the new rules in II make sense for SVN owners and are a plus:

http://tugbbs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=809765&postcount=8

Resale, voluntary owners should not be subject to this new system, though.

And, yes, restoring a real request first is imperative; otherwise, it's disingenuous and insulting to even say this is an option.

I also own both SVN & non-SVN Starwood weeks.

Glorian

P.S. Got my 1,000 post when I wasn't paying attention!

Transit · Oct 28, 2009

gmarine said:
I spent almost an hour on the phone today with Starwood's VP of Owner Services and Director of Customer Relations. They do seem genuinely concerned about the issue of unhappy owners and were very willing to listen to my complaints and concerns.

I explained all the usual problems with new system and they explained what they feel are advantages of the new system. In the end I suggested that Starwood could possibly consider a compromise.

What I suggested was that Starwood allow owners to either opt in or opt out of the new system. This would appease owners who are not happy with the new system and yet would still allow Starwood to keep the new system in effect.
I also suggested another compromise which would allow owners to utilize a true Request First option. Currently you have to cancel a home resort reservation before making a request. This effectively takes away any chance of getting a desirable home resort reservation if an exchange request is not confirmed. Allowing an owner to retain a home resort reservation only for purposes of Request First would be a great compromise. It would still allow Starwood to implement the new system and would allow owners who wish to fall back on home resort reservations to do so if they wish.

The Starwood VP and Director agreed to look into these possibilities. If Starwood makes either of these changes it would at least show owners that they are considering our feedback.

When I bought my first Starwood timeshare it was because Starwood had a great reputation. That reputation isn't the same anymore. A one bedroom annual 1-52 SDO unit just sold for $1 on EBAY which a few months ago would have been unheard of. Another recently sold for $95. These are now junk, down there with the other $1 timeshares you are lucky to give away. These are STARWOOD units. They used to be the best. This new system is obviously negatively affecting resale prices.

I dont like regretting that I purchased a Starwood product. I truly hope Starwood listens to owners on this and compromises.

If there isn't an immediate response (like yesterday) to many of the issues concerning Starwood it may be too late because the downhill spiral and snowball effect has started.

RoshiGuy · Oct 28, 2009

DeniseM said:
Disclaimer - I own both voluntary and mandatory, so I am not just selling out the SVN members. Personally, I would be willing to give up my "exchanging rights" with my SVN ownership, if I could regain them for my voluntary weeks.

And I would be quite happy to join SVN and get a chance to book other Starwood resorts. This is how Hilton (HGVC) does it; resale owners are treated just the same as direct purchasers - a much better approach/system IMO.

Politico · Oct 28, 2009

RoshiGuy said:
And I would be quite happy to join SVN and get a chance to book other Starwood resorts. This is how Hilton (HGVC) does it; resale owners are treated just the same as direct purchasers - a much better approach/system IMO.

Agreed either turn the non-SVNunits into SVN weeks, or allow the non-SVN units to opt out of these new changes. I think that would be fair.

l2trade · Oct 29, 2009

Yes, I agree a reasonable compromise would allow owners to opt-in or opt-out of the new system. Let owners decide for themselves if the new benefits outweigh the loss of request-first. At $1 from where we were just a few months ago? Wow! Maybe the resale market is giving us some clues about what owners would want. Thank you so much George for representing all our concerns!

aeroflygirl · Oct 29, 2009

I believe that Starwood might be pleasantly surprised if they issued an invitation to current non-SVN owners to join SVN. If SVO considers taking a positive approach in working with owners there are ways to generate positive cash flow, improve their customer relations and make it a win for all.

Fredm · Oct 29, 2009

aeroflygirl said:
I believe that Starwood might be pleasantly surprised if they issued an invitation to current non-SVN owners to join SVN. If SVO considers taking a positive approach in working with owners there are ways to generate positive cash flow, improve their customer relations and make it a win for all.

I don't know about that. I would need more reason to want to join SVN given how this is going.

I personally don't believe anything will change. But, since we are all just stating preference, my vote would be for non-SVN owners to be able to opt out of the current mess.

Transit · Oct 29, 2009

Dumping a few million more Staroptions into SVN will create more difficulty in making resevations.

ocdb8r · Oct 29, 2009

Transit said:
Dumping a few million more Staroptions into SVN will create more difficulty in making resevations.

Yes and no. I think this would be the wisest move on Starwood's part. They make more money by controlling trading and keeping it internal, which makes them happy. I would be happy for the increased access to the SVN system...and to be honest, despite these recent changes being driven by Starwood, I am not particularly satisfied with the service provided by II.

While there would be more Staroptions in the system, the trading w/in SVN is more evenly balanced than in II. In other words, several times I have ended up with TWO 2bdrms at prime locations in exchange for my single 2bdrm which I split to gain the trades. This sort of benefit would not be possible in SVN the way the point system is set up.

At the end of the day, I think it is much smarter for Starwood to abandon the idea that SVN exclusivity somehow props up retail sales sufficiently to compensate for the long term and consistent revenue they would realize via SVN fees should the system be more open.

In addition, Starwood is going to quickly realize that they too are dependent on the resale market to keep resorts afloat in difficult economic times. Eventually HOA's are going to get in such a bind from defaults, that replacing Starwood may become a necessary reality. The resale market is critical to ensuring smooth revenue in the way of maint. fees, much of which ends up in Starwood's pocket.

l2trade · Oct 29, 2009

aeroflygirl said:
I believe that Starwood might be pleasantly surprised if they issued an invitation to current non-SVN owners to join SVN. If SVO considers taking a positive approach in working with owners there are ways to generate positive cash flow, improve their customer relations and make it a win for all.

No, that would not satisfy me. I do not want to join or pay for SVN. I fundamentally disagree with the formulas required to accommodate for and share the benefits of SVN with legacy SDO 1-52 deeds. IMHO, they are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. I bought knowing that SDO is a voluntary resort. I've studied the deeds and legal contracts. I bought 1-52 for the complete year-round flexibility. I would buy platinum-only at a mandatory resort if I wanted to join SVN.

Plus, letting all of us join SVN may create a bigger inventory management problem for Starwood. It will be difficult to rent a much larger number of legacy (non-seasonal) deeds in this down market while occupancy and revenue numbers are lower. Whenever an SVN member converts their week, Starwood is on the hook for that point value which likely equates to an internal equivalent rent value formula. Yes, this is likely internal accounting 'funny money'. However, it can have a real bottom line impact depending on forecasts versus actuals.

I want to opt-out of this new system for my legacy, pre-Starwood, pre-SVN, 'deed-only' contracts. That would make me happy.

Starwood Update

gmarine

Tug Review Crew: Rookie

RoshiGuy

DeniseM

grgs

TUG Review Crew

Transit

RoshiGuy

Politico

l2trade

aeroflygirl

Fredm

Transit

ocdb8r

l2trade