I don't find this approach condescending at all. What I do find condescending are the posts that:
a) assume MVC has the ability to just open a path for DC owners to access SVN inventory without some sort of reciprocity (whether that be via an enrollment fee or free); other than developer owned inventory, MVC has no right to give DC members access to SVN resorts. Other than in Mexico, where a couple of new resorts are in development, developer owned inventory is very low. Even where it exists it is often held in one of the trusts which also restricts what they can do with it. While a agree as the manager of the trust they likely have some flexibility, it's not a simple as just opening any developer owned inventory to DC owners; and
Here may be where the disconnect is...I don't recall anyone suggesting that MVC will open a path for DC owners to access SVN inventory without reciprocity. You are of course correct that they can't do that, except for the limited inventory they control. What I have read are suggestions that they might require SVN owners to pay to join the DC, whereas MVC owners won't be asked to pay to join again to access the SVN inventory that makes its way into the DC. I have no idea if that will happen, but there is a plausible, logical reason that they
could take that approach:
1) MVC owners are already members of the DC
2) On day 1 of such a notional arrangement, when the first SVN owner joins the DC and elects their week for DC points, that first owner would have access to
every MVC week/night available in the DC Exchange, and that's a lot of weeks/nights. They would get real value.
3) The situation is reversed for current MVC DC owners, as in the example noted in #2 above, on that theoretical day 1, while the SVN owner would have access to tens/hundreds of thousands of MVC intervals, the 400,000 or so MVC owners would have access to exactly one Vistana week. On day 1, they would get little to no value, until more SVN owners decide to participate. It would be really hard for MVC to charge for that. If they wanted to be able to charge MVC owners, they would need to set up a way for MVC owners to join SVN, so they also would get immediate access to all available SVN inventory. That would be something that I'm sure MVC owners would be asked to pay for if they wanted it - and we should.
So, think of it this way - if what MVC sales offices are telling MVC owners is the true direction, SVN owners would be getting immediate access to
all MVC inventory as soon as they elect to play in the DC, whereas MVC owners would only get access to the SVN inventory that those owners decide to commit to the DC. Looked at that way, the MVC sales offices are promoting a solution that, in the short run, has far more to benefit SVN owners than it does for MVC owners. SVN gets access to everything on Day 1. MVC owners have to wait to see benefits until participation by SVN owners increases to a more significant level.
b) the repeated posts with the underlying tone of "MVC bought SVN, get over it and accept it....they will do what they want and you will accept it." Reality or not, this undertone is condescending and does nothing to advance any discussion. It completely ignores the value SVN owners bring to the table. MVC didn't buy SVN/ILG to get access to some leftover developer inventory scraps...they bought it to EXPAND their customer base. They sure as hell aren't going to do that with the sort of attitude some have advocated in these threads.
I agree 100%. I don't like the "we bought you" tone either, but as I noted in a thread on the Vistana forum, it is a fact that 10 of the top 11 executives of Marriott Vacations Worldwide are from the MVC side. They absolutely won't do anything that they think will alienate the SVN base, it brings too much value, but I do think the management structure could lead to the solutions they choose having a greater likelihood of looking more like legacy MVC than ILG.
I think this all depends on what tact MVC decides to take. Any system they create requires uptake to be successful; low participation by either side will severely limit matched exchanges. I suspect (and hope) just like when the DC launched, they will offer fairly competitive "enrollment" rates to existing members in an effort to quickly build a big user base. This allows the system to succeed and creates longer term value through the (certain) ongoing fees relating to using the system and the ability to increase margins on it later down the line (just as they did with the DC). If the system is indeed DC centric (which I agree could be the case), I also wouldn't be surprised if there is little to no fee for existing DC owners to participate (and this wouldn't offend me either)...but in this case I would expect them to be REALLY incentivizing SVN owners to participate.
I agree. Because of what I noted above, if they use the DC and allow SVN owners full access to all DC inventory, then they need rapid uptake by SVN owners, or MVC owners get the short end of the stick with little VSN availability.