• The TUGBBS forums are completely free and open to the public and exist as the absolute best place for owners to get help and advice about their timeshares for more than 30 years!

    Join Tens of Thousands of other Owners just like you here to get any and all Timeshare questions answered 24 hours a day!
  • TUG started 30 years ago in October 1993 as a group of regular Timeshare owners just like you!

    Read about our 30th anniversary: Happy 30th Birthday TUG!
  • TUG has a YouTube Channel to produce weekly short informative videos on popular Timeshare topics!

    Free memberships for every 50 subscribers!

    Visit TUG on Youtube!
  • TUG has now saved timeshare owners more than $21,000,000 dollars just by finding us in time to rescind a new Timeshare purchase! A truly incredible milestone!

    Read more here: TUG saves owners more than $21 Million dollars
  • Sign up to get the TUG Newsletter for free!

    60,000+ subscribing owners! A weekly recap of the best Timeshare resort reviews and the most popular topics discussed by owners!
  • Our official "end my sales presentation early" T-shirts are available again! Also come with the option for a free membership extension with purchase to offset the cost!

    All T-shirt options here!
  • A few of the most common links here on the forums for newbies and guests!

Summit Watch Presentation

kds4

TUG Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
1,803
Reaction score
401
Points
293
Location
USA
Resorts Owned
Marriott Weeks and DC Points
A resort can be booked only by its owners. Vistana (and by association MVC) cannot give access to other owners to an inventory it does not own.

But let's think about this in a mirror. MVC decides to give the Vistana owners access to the DC points without any fair exchange agreement or without the Vistana owners buying DC points. How would that actually work?

No question that Vistana owns/manages inventory of its owners. However, if MVCI now owns Vistana (which it does), why would you not think MVC now owns/manages (by extension) all that Vistana owned/managed pre-acquisition? The unanswered question is how MVCI plans to leverage both inventories/trusts to enhance their profitability.
 

Dean

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
9,909
Reaction score
3,583
Points
648
Agreed. MVCI didn't make this acquisition to maintain the Vistana status-quo. I think any belief that there won't be visible changes in the operation of the Vistana program (other than maintaining any existing usage rights) is unrealistic. Even the MVCI program has evolved drastically for MVCI owners just in the 10 years I have been a part of it. While no developer should be able to directly diminish anyone existing ownerships, they can definitely control criteria/access to any future evolution/enhancements and some of those 'enhancements' could appear to indirectly diminish ownerships (such as when weeks owners balked at having to compete with points owners when trying to make floating week reservations within their owned season).
More accurately the management company has to provide the contractual obligations which are often far less than the options currently or potentially available. To truly understand the options one would have to poor through the legal paperwork of each resort and system. And even then contractual options in a POS can almost alway be changed and are almost always dramatically slanted to the MC/developer's favor.

A resort can be booked only by its owners. Vistana (and by association MVC) cannot give access to other owners to an inventory it does not own.
See above. They would have significant flexibility to access inventory they own or control and to disband any non contractual arrangements currently in place even if paid for by the member. I doubt they will completely and immediately but the focus will almost certainly be to entice those system to pay some type of $$$ amount to participate which almost certainly means reducing their current options to some degree at least over time.

But let's think about this in a mirror. MVC decides to give the Vistana owners access to the DC points without any fair exchange agreement or without the Vistana owners buying DC points. How would that actually work?
There are lots of options but I can think of several easy ones. First, they could get owners to sign up for the DC for a fee and it'd work just like the current DC system where if you elected DC points, an equivalent amount of inventory would be available to the DC and not to the rest of the former system. You could have a crossover system that would work similarly but it would not have the same access at the same time to the other DC system, much like the Explorer collection is now or more like Disney's Buena Vista Trading Company has worked historically. And of course any inventory they control they could throw to the DC and again, that would not be available to the other system. And of course they could disband any current system that is not contractually guaranteed and locked in and push them to the DC which I could see them doing over time but likely not right away. But since reservation systems are normally not protect, this gives lot's of latitude. And for any system where access to non home resorts is subject to availability, one could end up with limited options.
 

DannyTS

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2018
Messages
5,753
Reaction score
3,076
Points
348
More accurately the management company has to provide the contractual obligations which are often far less than the options currently or potentially available. To truly understand the options one would have to poor through the legal paperwork of each resort and system. And even then contractual options in a POS can almost alway be changed and are almost always dramatically slanted to the MC/developer's favor.

See above. They would have significant flexibility to access inventory they own or control and to disband any non contractual arrangements currently in place even if paid for by the member. I doubt they will completely and immediately but the focus will almost certainly be to entice those system to pay some type of $$$ amount to participate which almost certainly means reducing their current options to some degree at least over time.

There are lots of options but I can think of several easy ones. First, they could get owners to sign up for the DC for a fee and it'd work just like the current DC system where if you elected DC points, an equivalent amount of inventory would be available to the DC and not to the rest of the former system. You could have a crossover system that would work similarly but it would not have the same access at the same time to the other DC system, much like the Explorer collection is now or more like Disney's Buena Vista Trading Company has worked historically. And of course any inventory they control they could throw to the DC and again, that would not be available to the other system. And of course they could disband any current system that is not contractually guaranteed and locked in and push them to the DC which I could see them doing over time but likely not right away. But since reservation systems are normally not protect, this gives lot's of latitude. And for any system where access to non home resorts is subject to availability, one could end up with limited options.
But they sell the inventory they own, don't they? And they rent it in the meantime, don't they? What would exactly be left to rent and sell if it was offered to the Vistana owners?
 

Dean

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
9,909
Reaction score
3,583
Points
648
But they sell the inventory they own, don't they? And they rent it in the meantime, don't they? What would exactly be left to rent and sell if it was offered to the Vistana owners?
They could charge them a fee to enroll. They could sell them inventory to enroll (Vistana, MVC Trust, etc). It could work just like it does now within the MVC where they sell weeks for areas that aren't in the trust, resale weeks and trust points. So basically put yourself in the seat of one who owns weeks at a MVC resort that they acquired after the applicable cutoff date.
 

DannyTS

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2018
Messages
5,753
Reaction score
3,076
Points
348
They could charge them a fee to enroll. They could sell them inventory to enroll (Vistana, MVC Trust, etc). It could work just like it does now within the MVC where they sell weeks for areas that aren't in the trust, resale weeks and trust points. So basically put yourself in the seat of one who owns weeks at a MVC resort that they acquired after the applicable cutoff date.
I see. And now let's look back at the initial scenario. Why would the DC owners get that Vistana inventory for free?

Let's be clear, I do not care if MVC owners access the inventory that Vistana owns. I do not have access to it anyways, they rent it, they sell it, in theory it does not change a thing for me.
 

JIMinNC

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,879
Reaction score
4,429
Points
599
Location
Marvin, NC (Charlotte) & Hilton Head Island, SC
Resorts Owned
Marriott:
Maui Ocean Club
Waiohai Beach Club
Barony Beach Club
Abound ClubPoints
HGVC:
HGVC at Sea World
But they sell the inventory they own, don't they? And they rent it in the meantime, don't they? What would exactly be left to rent and sell if it was offered to the Vistana owners?

For MVC, the only true unsold weeks are probably those in Aruba, St Kitts, Europe, and maybe an oddball or two that were either never sold or have since been reacquired through ROFR, buyback, foreclosure. In the US, all unsold/reacquired inventory supposedly goes into the Trust since weeks aren't sold any more. Once that inventory goes into the Trust, MVC as manager does have some latitude to project usage and rent, deposit to II, and possibly other uses for inventory not booked by Trust owners. The CCRs give them considerable latitude in this I believe.

I guess Vistana still sells weeks in some resorts? Or do they? If they do, they would have true weeks inventory that the developer (now MVW) controls. The developer/manager would probably also have the same latitude with the VSN Flex trusts as they do with the DC Trust.
 

Dean

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
9,909
Reaction score
3,583
Points
648
I see. And now let's look back at the initial scenario. Why would the DC owners get that Vistana inventory for free?

Let's be clear, I do not care if MVC owners access the inventory that Vistana owns. I do not have access to it anyways, they rent it, they sell it, in theory it does not change a thing for me.
They may not but I think the most likely scenario is not for free but that they've already paid for it in one way or another by becoming a member of the DC by giving $$$ to Marriott previously. They'd likely get access to the Vistana inventory that goes into the DC/Trust points system included with what they already have. Of course Marriott continues to try to sell to those and unenrolled members and they'd likely use this as a hook to get additional participation. It sounds like your position is they should have to pay again to get access to the system they already belong to. In this scenario it's really no different than if they add MVC resorts like Pulse.
 

JIMinNC

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,879
Reaction score
4,429
Points
599
Location
Marvin, NC (Charlotte) & Hilton Head Island, SC
Resorts Owned
Marriott:
Maui Ocean Club
Waiohai Beach Club
Barony Beach Club
Abound ClubPoints
HGVC:
HGVC at Sea World
I see. And now let's look back at the initial scenario. Why would the DC owners get that Vistana inventory for free?

It depends on how they set it up. If they set up another layer on top of the existing DC and VSN networks for exchanges, then I think both sides would have to pay for access in some fashion to that "New Exchange Company."

But if, as some people have been told in sales presentations, they decide to just use the existing DC Exchange as the vehicle for those cross-brand exchanges, then current MVC DC Trust and enrolled owners have already paid to be a part of that exchange system. VSN owners have not, so they would have to pay to join.

Think of it like this...you can pay a one time fee to join II. Once you pay that fee, you get access to any timeshare company's inventory that gets deposited into II. Then, lets say two years from now, HGVC or DVC decides to leave RCI and move their inventory to II. Current II owners probably wouldn't have to pay a second fee to join II again to access that HGVC or DVC inventory. Think of the DC as an exchange company sort of like II, but only for brands owned by Marriott Vacations Worldwide (currently only Marriott Vacation Club and Ritz Carlton participate). Once you pay to join that exchange company, you get access to any and all inventory that gets deposited to that exchange company. If Westin and Sheraton would be added to the DC, then those owners would have to pay to join the exchange company that MVC and Ritz owners are already members of.
 

DannyTS

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2018
Messages
5,753
Reaction score
3,076
Points
348
urrent MVC DC Trust and enrolled owners have already paid to be a part of that exchange system. VSN owners have not, so they would have to pay to join.

MVC owners paid to be part of the Marriott system. The Vistana owners paid to be part of the Vistana internal trading system. The developer inventory (both MVC and Vistana) belongs now to the MVW stockholders (VAC on NYSE) not to the MVC trust owners. My sense is that MVW will do what is best for the stockholders not for the trust holders.
 

Dean

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
9,909
Reaction score
3,583
Points
648
MVC owners paid to be part of the Marriott system. The Vistana owners paid to be part of the Vistana internal trading system. The developer inventory (both MVC and Vistana) belongs now to the MVW stockholders (VAC on NYSE) not to the MVC trust owners. My sense is that MVW will do what is best for the stockholders not for the trust holders.
The reality is the various systems are not on equal footing. The other systems are joining with the Marriott system. As I noted previous it was an acquisition not a merger. I think it’s dramatically likely they will base this on the destination club system and therefore members of the destination club will have access to any applicable inventory And I think it’s equally likely members of the other systems will have to pony up to participate.
 

DannyTS

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2018
Messages
5,753
Reaction score
3,076
Points
348
The reality is the various systems are not on equal footing. The other systems are joining with the Marriott system. As I noted previous it was an acquisition not a merger.
I think that if they will chose to treat condescendingly 1/3 of the owners they are deemed to fail as a program and as a company. I have no indication though that it will happen and I have reasons to believe that they will make sure to nurture a big happy family.
 

JIMinNC

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,879
Reaction score
4,429
Points
599
Location
Marvin, NC (Charlotte) & Hilton Head Island, SC
Resorts Owned
Marriott:
Maui Ocean Club
Waiohai Beach Club
Barony Beach Club
Abound ClubPoints
HGVC:
HGVC at Sea World
MVC owners paid to be part of the Marriott system. The Vistana owners paid to be part of the Vistana internal trading system. The developer inventory (both MVC and Vistana) belongs now to the MVW stockholders (VAC on NYSE) not to the MVC trust owners. My sense is that MVW will do what is best for the stockholders not for the trust holders.

No question they will, and should, do what is best for stockholders. But since 60% of all new MVW sales come from existing owners, they still need happy owners to keep the sales coming in. They want us to buy DC Trust Points and Flex Points so they will want to make the program as attractive as possible so we will buy more.

I have no idea how they will set up any kind of integrated system, but if it is just allowing VSE owners to join the DC, I can't see how they can charge DC owners to join the same exchange system again, any more than II could charge an existing II member again if DVC moved to II. If Marriott develops a whole new program, we'll all have to pay.
 

DannyTS

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2018
Messages
5,753
Reaction score
3,076
Points
348
No question they will, and should, do what is best for stockholders. But since 60% of all new MVW sales come from existing owners, they still need happy owners to keep the sales coming in.
This is precisely why they will not alienate 1/3 of the ownership base (Vistana plus Hyatt). 250,000 is a large enough number and it has a significant impact to their balance sheet.
 

JIMinNC

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,879
Reaction score
4,429
Points
599
Location
Marvin, NC (Charlotte) & Hilton Head Island, SC
Resorts Owned
Marriott:
Maui Ocean Club
Waiohai Beach Club
Barony Beach Club
Abound ClubPoints
HGVC:
HGVC at Sea World
This is precisely why they will not alienate 1/3 of the ownership base (Vistana plus Hyatt). 250,000 is a large enough number and it has a significant impact to their balance sheet.

No question. That is why I think:

1) VSN/Hyatt will stay in place, more-or-less as-is, for internal booking within those programs -- at least for the immediate foreseeable future.
2) Whatever "integrated product" is introduced will be an option
3) The structure of the integrated program will determine what buy-in might be required and from whom. They have multiple paths they could take.
4) We will all have to wait to find out.
5) Number 4 above will not stop TUGgers from speculating.
 

DannyTS

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2018
Messages
5,753
Reaction score
3,076
Points
348
3) The structure of the integrated program will determine what buy-in might be required and from whom. They have multiple paths they could take.
do you think they will prefer enrollment to the new program of a large number of owners through a minimal fee (easy and fast in my opinion) or they will favor enrollment through the sales dept (more tedious but certainly preferred by their sales dept)
 

JIMinNC

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,879
Reaction score
4,429
Points
599
Location
Marvin, NC (Charlotte) & Hilton Head Island, SC
Resorts Owned
Marriott:
Maui Ocean Club
Waiohai Beach Club
Barony Beach Club
Abound ClubPoints
HGVC:
HGVC at Sea World
do you think they will prefer enrollment to the new program of a large number of owners through a minimal fee (easy and fast in my opinion) or they will favor enrollment through the sales dept (more tedious but certainly preferred by their sales dept)

As I said in one of the other threads, I think it depends on whether they prioritize participation rates in any new program (presumably to foster the improved long-term benefits an integrated product would have on sales) or they prioritize short term sales numbers.

When they set up the DC, they made enrollment of existing weeks reasonable/easy, which generated a lot of participation and fairly rapid acceptance of the program. It didn't take that long until people could actually use the program to go places they wanted to because owners elected to participate. If they want to get a lot of inventory availability into any new or overlay system, I think they will take the same approach. I also think that will yield the best long term results for the company and shareholders.

If instead they say that they want to sell as much as they can in the very short run, and use smoke and mirrors, they'll require expensive points buys to participate, and use the limited inventory they control to allow the sales reps to accurately claim "you can book Westin/Sheraton/Marriott" if you buy this. But when people actually try to book, they will be disappointed. I hope they are smart enough to see that would not be the way to build a healthy long-term program.
 

Dean

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
9,909
Reaction score
3,583
Points
648
I think that if they will chose to treat condescendingly 1/3 of the owners they are deemed to fail as a program and as a company. I have no indication though that it will happen and I have reasons to believe that they will make sure to nurture a big happy family.
The next year should be fun. First we get to speculate over and over then we get to get everyone's reaction over and over. I agree with Jim, it's likely the systems will stay someone intact at least early on with some type of crossover. I think that crossover is almost certainly going to be tied to the DC system and that at the higher levels will have access without any action. I think that some type of fee on the other side is a guarantee, see below. If you see that approach as condescending, so be it. for the current DC owners they could just integrate those resorts or they could do it like the Luxury Collection where you have to be a higher level owner. The former is easier to manage, the latter more costly but gives the opportunity for sales to get to a higher level. IF they take that route I'd expect it to be at executive or above.

do you think they will prefer enrollment to the new program of a large number of owners through a minimal fee (easy and fast in my opinion) or they will favor enrollment through the sales dept (more tedious but certainly preferred by their sales dept)
My personal guess is they will do a lot of both but tied to sales presentations mostly. To me the real questions are how much it will cost, who will be eligible without an actual purchase and what type of access each group will have to the other inventory. But I do not think the fee will be minimal, likely no lower than the current cash fee for qualifying members to enroll on the MVC side and I do not think they will offer free enrollment to do a tour but they might offer a reduced cost to do so.
 

ocdb8r

TUG Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
1,543
Reaction score
754
Points
473
...I think that crossover is almost certainly going to be tied to the DC system and that at the higher levels will have access without any action. I think that some type of fee on the other side is a guarantee, see below. If you see that approach as condescending, so be it...

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

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.

To me the real questions are how much it will cost, who will be eligible without an actual purchase and what type of access each group will have to the other inventory. But I do not think the fee will be minimal, likely no lower than the current cash fee for qualifying members to enroll on the MVC side and I do not think they will offer free enrollment to do a tour but they might offer a reduced cost to do so.

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.
 

Dean

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
9,909
Reaction score
3,583
Points
648
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

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.
If you're referring to my posts I think you've misread my intent, I apologize if it came across that way. OTOH there is a reality check that it is not simply a merger and it's likely that those in the DC (at least higher levels) will have options without additional costs, if that opinion comes across as such, so be it. They can't take the contractual inventory but they can change the non contractual options, one would have to pour through the POS of each resort & system to even start to understand that information. I don't think for a second that everyone is going to have all they had before plus additional but I could be wrong. As a minimum there is the risk of reduced inventory to both sides. I think they'll be worrying about getting others to pay in one way or another, not what % do so other than as it relates to profit.
 

JIMinNC

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,879
Reaction score
4,429
Points
599
Location
Marvin, NC (Charlotte) & Hilton Head Island, SC
Resorts Owned
Marriott:
Maui Ocean Club
Waiohai Beach Club
Barony Beach Club
Abound ClubPoints
HGVC:
HGVC at Sea World
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.
 

ocdb8r

TUG Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
1,543
Reaction score
754
Points
473
If you're referring to my posts I think you've misread my intent, I apologize if it came across that way.

Nope not at all. Wasn't referring to your posts and I think they've been very balanced. In general, this specific thread has been fairly balanced, but here, like the other larger thread, there are undertones of "MVC bought you and they'll do as they please with the programs - why would anyone be so stupid to think differently".

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.

That was one of the predicates in this thread (see #3 in the original post, and Steve A's follow up of his understanding) - and the only reason I actually posted here vs the other thread. The implication was clear that SVN owners would not be able to access anything in the DC without purchasing DC points (but that DC owners would be given access to SVN resorts). I have no doubt this is what the Salesperson said, so in no way trying to impute Steve A's statement...but then others piled on to say this is what they had heard and that it sounded reasonable (and this had also been stated in other threads previously). As always, the typical caveats when listening to a salesperson apply and I have no doubt that if pushed a salesperson could twist this statement to have meant "they will have to buy DC points or otherwise enroll in the system".
 

Dean

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
9,909
Reaction score
3,583
Points
648
Nope not at all. Wasn't referring to your posts and I think they've been very balanced. In general, this specific thread has been fairly balanced, but here, like the other larger thread, there are undertones of "MVC bought you and they'll do as they please with the programs - why would anyone be so stupid to think differently".
Thanks you made me nervous because the written word can be so unforgiving esp when there isn't total agreement. I do think Marriott is going to want people to be a little nervous (real or imagined) that they'll need to pony up to have good options whether it be non DC Marriott owners to buy points or DC Marriott members to add on to get to a certain level or for the other systems to get access to the DC or even to keep all of their same options (even if it's not true they'll lose them).
 

JIMinNC

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,879
Reaction score
4,429
Points
599
Location
Marvin, NC (Charlotte) & Hilton Head Island, SC
Resorts Owned
Marriott:
Maui Ocean Club
Waiohai Beach Club
Barony Beach Club
Abound ClubPoints
HGVC:
HGVC at Sea World
That was one of the predicates in this thread (see #3 in the original post, and Steve A's follow up of his understanding) - and the only reason I actually posted here vs the other thread. The implication was clear that SVN owners would not be able to access anything in the DC without purchasing DC points (but that DC owners would be given access to SVN resorts). I have no doubt this is what the Salesperson said, so in no way trying to impute Steve A's statement...but then others piled on to say this is what they had heard and that it sounded reasonable (and this had also been stated in other threads previously). As always, the typical caveats when listening to a salesperson apply and I have no doubt that if pushed a salesperson could twist this statement to have meant "they will have to buy DC points or otherwise enroll in the system".

I see you logic now, but I didn't read that as Steve A asserting that he thought MVC would have unfettered access to all SVN inventory. In sales-speak, access to SVN could mean access to one week at one resort. I tried to read between the lines and concluded that what the sales person was trying to say, or what the OP was trying to describe, was basically the same thing as what others have reported being told at MVC presentations - rightly or wrongly - that SVN owners would have to pay to access the DC but MVC owners were already members, so they would have automatic access to whatever inventory finds its way into the DC from SVN. That might only be a few weeks initially, but it technically is access to weeks from Vistana - just not very many. In all of these threads, the reports are second-hand, and the sales rep may not of explained it well or the listener may have interpreted the statement incorrect. That's always a risk unless you hear the words yourself.
 
Last edited:

ocdb8r

TUG Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
1,543
Reaction score
754
Points
473
Thanks you made me nervous because the written word can be so unforgiving esp when there isn't total agreement. I do think Marriott is going to want people to be a little nervous (real or imagined) that they'll need to pony up to have good options whether it be non DC Marriott owners to buy points or DC Marriott members to add on to get to a certain level or for the other systems to get access to the DC or even to keep all of their same options (even if it's not true they'll lose them).

It will be very interesting to see. While I think MVC Salespeople will certainly want to capitalize on people being nervous about protecting their existing investment, I think MVC overall is likely more concerned with creating a product that they can sell as having true value. One of the things that comforts me in all of this discussion is that I was around and a Marriott weeks owner when the DC rolled out. There was a similar level of concern throughout the whole process (both in the speculation before and in the analysis after rollout) and at the end of the day I think the DC program has satisfied the majority of the MVC population (even in the sense that those that didn't/don't participate are still happy). Very few of the biggest concerns haven't really materialized (inventory wasn't hoarded only for DC points owners, exchanges for trust points owners and "enrolled week" owners seem to work fairly seamlessly and many still pick up decent trades in II as an alternative to the DC program). I ended up leaving MVC not because of the program but because I fell in love with the dual 1 bedroom lock-off option that was standard at almost all SVN resorts (sadly, newer resorts have moved away from this). I welcome an opportunity to gain back access to MVC via my SVN weeks, even if I have to pay a (reasonable) enrollment fee.
 

DannyTS

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2018
Messages
5,753
Reaction score
3,076
Points
348
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.

I will respectfully disagree with this point. While I agree that, depending how they structure it, the access to Vistana can be limited in the first year or the second but if successful, it should no longer be a factor after that. Now how much is that going to be worth for just a year or 2? If the Vistana owners are asked to pay hundreds if not thousands of dollars for access to MVC and MVC owners nothing for access to Vistana, that is a clear unbalance even if you were right about the very beginning of this program.
IMO the cheaper for both sides to have access, the more successful the program will be. If MVC owners get if for free and the Vistana owners have to pay a steep price, the gift to the MVC owners will be worth next to nothing because they will not have access to anything. Of course it will be beneficial to the sales people, but we are talking about owners here.

Additionally, we are a bit stuck with the name of the program. Maybe it is going to be DC. But what if they decide to name something else!(Beyond DC ? lol .How about Beyond VSN?). How can then the MVC owners claim they were already in?

I understand that people compare this to previous MVW acquisitions. But lets be clear here, they bought ILG for 4.6 billion dollars. This has nothing to do with previous takeovers and will not be treated the same way because of the relative size of the 2 entities. As I said before, the 250,000 Vistana and Hyatt owners have to perceive this as fair.
 
Last edited:
Top