If you're trying to understand why RCI does what they do, you have to look at it from their perspective. I can't expect them to act in MY best interests. But if I can understand their perspective and use it to my advantage, I benefit.You, as usual, look at it from RCI's perspective.
Hi,
I searched for Bootleg and it appears his last post was in 2006. While it appears he had some great information in that timeframe does that really matter today?
If you're trying to understand why RCI does what they do, you have to look at it from their perspective. I can't expect them to act in MY best interests. But if I can understand their perspective and use it to my advantage, I benefit.
NO IT DOESN"T MATTER ANYMORE to anyone but Carolinian!! What you used to be able to exchange for in 2006 with what deposit doesn't matter anymore. Trading bands used to matter in 2006, but don't anymore. Bootleg's 5 year old "inside information" is irrelevant now. For the most part how RCI USED to do things doesn't matter anymore.
I USED to be able to buy a gallon of gas for 99 cents and it was full service. They USED to check my oil, wash my windshield, check the air in my tires, and check the water level in my radiator. So what. It NOW costs about $4 a gallon and you will NOW have to pump your own gas, check your own tire pressure, oil level, etc . To moan about how much better it WAS in the good old days is a waste of time. Nostalgic? Yes. Valuable in today's world? Nope.
How to use RCI today, what to own, when to exchange, and how to exchange is dynamic and ever changing. Most of us here on TUG are sharing information to learn how to best use RCI AS IT EXISTS TODAY, not complaing that it isn't how it used to be. It will never be how it used to be again.
Bootleg does not post here anymore. Bootleg probably does not work for RCI anymore. Heck bootleg might be deceased by now. Puff the magic dragon no longer frolics by the sea. Elvis is dead, Johnny Carson is no longer the host on the Tonight show. LP records are gone. So are 8 tracks and cassettes and VHS. No reason to moan and complain that johnny was better than Jay, that LP records were much more fun to play than cd's, that Elvis was better than Justin Beiber, or any other things one likes better in the past than how it is done in the present. Unless you have access to time travel, how it use to be is simply history, it is not useful in todays world.
In life and in business change happens. You either learn to adapt to change or you die. Most of us are adapting and enjoying the positive changes RCI has made. Some refuse to accept and adapt, and instead simply complain and wish for "RCI's good old days" that are gone and NEVER coming back.
If you're trying to understand why RCI does what they do, you have to look at it from their perspective. I can't expect them to act in MY best interests. But if I can understand their perspective and use it to my advantage, I benefit.
If you're trying to understand why RCI does what they do, you have to look at it from their perspective. I can't expect them to act in MY best interests. But if I can understand their perspective and use it to my advantage, I benefit.
I concede all of the substantive points in all of your posts. Here they are:I guess you concede the substantive points in my post then, since you do not try to refute them.
Seriously, though.Carolinian said:
[*]Disney, by the way, belonged to II. While it irritated some Disney owners who were also TUGGERs, Disney would not allow its owners to trade directly. They had to trade through a Disney agent. The reason? They did not want one of their owners to have a Bill Rogers experience. They would only allow their owners to trade into resorts that their agents found on an approved list. They did not trust the Exchange companies to protect their owners' interests.
While Carolinian speaks fondly of the Crystal DeHaan era, personally I am glad that it is a thing of the past. Why?
I could go on, but this should be enough. I for one do not miss the early years of timesharing. As far as I am concerned, DeHaan did not create the fairest system yet to have existed.
- Start by reading Bill Roger's statement as to why he started TUG (found here). He traded a GC/5 star resort for an absolute dump. That was in 1993 during the DeHaan years. He did not consider his experience to be unique. He notes that he found many timesharers had learned not to trust the Exchange companies to give them a fair trade. Bill always considered the Reviews section to be the heart of TUG. He let others start and manage the bulliten board. Bill's thinking was that with reviews timesharers could protect themselves from the unfair trades that the exchange companies would try to foist on you. Again, that was in the pre-Cendant era.
- My early experience confirms what Bill had to say. My first trade (GC Hawaii) was into a converted motel that reminded me of a church basement. Actually, as far as the bathroom went, it was far worse. All the cauking (applied with triple thickness) was the color of rust (from corrosion seeping onto the cauking). Taking a shower was icky. Carefully step over the gunk and shower. This experience was what led me to search out for help and I found TUG.
- At the time that I bought, the reputation of timesharing was in the dumpster. I met some people who had owned and they were embarassed to admit it. They would sort of lower their head and say that their experiences trading were poor.
- The exception proves the rule. I did meet three owners who were reasonably happy about timesharing. One was a woman who surprised me by saying that she did own a unit. When asked why I hadn't known about this before, her response was that she did not want her fellow managers to think she was dumb. As to why she had a more positive outlook, she attributed to the fact that she owned Fairfield (now Wyndham) Points. She said that working within what we now call a mini system and the use of points guaranteed that she would be treated more fairly.
- The other two exceptions were people who owned Marriotts. Personally, while I thought that Marriotts were nice, I thought that you could get better deals on top rated timeshares that had much lower maintenence fees than Marriott. When I asked these two owners (separately) about this, both of them (one grabbing my arm in order to consul me) advised "Well, at least if you own a Marriott and trade for a Marriott, you know that you will get a fair deal." The clear implication was that neither RCI nor II gave you that guarantee.
- Speaking of Marriotts, in my opinion, what began to improve the perception of timesharing at least somewhat was when Marriott, Hyatt, Hilton, and Disney entered the field. It is not my opinion, but fact that Disney, for one, would never use the word "timeshare" because of the reputation it had acquired during the deHaan years.
- Disney, by the way, belonged to II. While it irritated some Disney owners who were also TUGGERs, Disney would not allow its owners to trade directly. They had to trade through a Disney agent. The reason? They did not want one of their owners to have a Bill Rogers experience. They would only allow their owners to trade into resorts that their agents found on an approved list. They did not trust the Exchange companies to protect their owners' interests.
(Maybe some day I should also post a reminder about how Orlando has historically traded. Not now however.)
I concede all of the substantive points in all of your posts. Here they are:
Seriously, though.
As for your ''Quantitative Easing'' analogy, I don't agree at all. You're comparing apples to bicycles.
As for the changes creating a shortage of high-value weeks, I had the same concerns. I haven't seen it as an issue, though. I've gone some incredible trades and they appear to be even more plentiful than before. Now that things are transparent, there's additional incentive to deposit the best possible weeks, so I think the supply of high quality weeks has gone up even more than the demand.
Since most of your ownerships are in two of the most overbuilt locations in US timeshare, I am sure you do enjoy the new system and locking in trades up from dime-a-dozen locations with lots of excess supply into the undervalued hard to get times/areas. Whether the new system is all about where one owns and it is clear to see where your bread is buttered from where you own.
I used the often-touted advice of owning where you would want to go. Six of my seven timeshares are in places where I go regularly. My exchanges have largely been back into the areas where I own, except depositing prime weeks and exchanging into off-season weeks.Since most of your ownerships are in two of the most overbuilt locations in US timeshare, I am sure you do enjoy the new system and locking in trades up from dime-a-dozen locations with lots of excess supply into the undervalued hard to get times/areas. Whether the new system is all about where one owns and it is clear to see where your bread is buttered from where you own.
I own a two bedroom KO at Plantation Resort of Myrtle Beach, a medicore resort at best.
A spilt deposit of two - a one bedroom and a hotel unit for week 26 in 2012. Guess what!!! The TPUs scored are 50 and 39, i.e. a total of 89 for a MF of $604 per year.
Did I just win the bingo???
Why must you attack people for owning what they own, or taking advantage of the opportunities to get good TPU values? We didn't set up the system. We're only trying to get the most value of it we can. Why is that so horrendously evil to you?
What Carolinian writes off as a tempest in a teapot -- "a lot of gab about one issue" -- is what brought down his favored Crystal deHaan system.
When Disney, Hilton, Hyatt, Marriott entered into timesharing (oops -- vacation ownership -- don't use that other word because of its prior associations), they recognized that if they were going to succeed, they needed to introduce more fairness than what could be found in the deHaan system. The natives were restless.
Three of them chose points (with Disney taking the extra step of not even allowing their own members to trade into the larger system without going through their representatives). Marriott chose a set of different levels of ownership. On top of these steps, all of these systems had resorts of fairly uniform quality (which would help ensure fairness within their respective systems). Those were the decisions of professional marketers.
Meanwhile, II tried to bolster its image by becoming the company of big brand names -- names that you could trust. RCI tried a series of stop gap measures (VEP ratings, more and tighter levels of trade restrictions, etc.) but eventually settled on points. SFX branded itself as the company that would give the owners of prime weeks fair trades by refusing to deal with anything but prime weeks.
No, the Crystal deHaan era is not going to come back. It stunk. Contrary to what Carolinian suggests, it was not a business model that could stand the test of time. Timesharing had the most unsavory reputation when it existed -- yes, even worse than now.
I used the often-touted advice of owning where you would want to go. Six of my seven timeshares are in places where I go regularly. My exchanges have largely been back into the areas where I own, except depositing prime weeks and exchanging into off-season weeks.
With RCI, where you own is one factor, but WHICH WEEK YOU DEPOSIT makes a much bigger difference.
I think so! :rofl:lolibeachgirl: "what's a KO?" I think a KO is a fat-fingered LO (Lock off).
Week 52 may be better for that reason. It seems to always get the higher value, since it'll either encompass Christmas or New Year. Week 51 and 26 and 27 can vary.Very true. I own an Orlando week 51. When that includes Xmas, it gets 55-56 TPU. When it falls before Xmas (like this year) it gets 20! Same resort; same unit.