In support of fixed weeks...

[BocaBum99 Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close BocaBum99]

Yes, you read the thread correctly. Today, I was thinking about fixed weeks and reflecting on the arguments that Carolinian and others have put forth over the years about them.

I think the best benefit of fixed weeks is the certainty of what you own. No matter what happens in the timesharing world, you own your week. That certainty is important to many people and great for people who want to go to the same place every year.

All of the exchange concepts that I have been promoting are based on the assumption that owners want to exchange. And so, I have been proposing methods of exchange that would optimally map exchangers.

I can see the benefit of an exchange company concept that focuses exclusively on the needs of fixed week owners who occasionally want to exchange their weeks. In that model, your primary objective is to use your week. If an offer gets presented to go elsewhere for exchange, then great. If not, then they'll use their own week.

If I were going to create that exchange company, I would also include whole condo owners who would like to exchange a week as well. Because if they get a good exchange offer, they take it. Otherwise, they just use or rent their week. I believe this would be needed to make the market large enough to support a business. (side note: I say this because I believe other exchangers will naturally prefer and migrate over time to an exchange company that caters to people who primarily want to exchange what they own).

The biggest problem I see is that an exchange company focused on owners who actually want to exchange would make more sense for shareholders. Can you imagine someone creating a business plan for building an exchange company whose target market was people who really don't want to exchange? Nobody would invest in it.

Given this line of reasoning, I think I understand why fixed week owners would feel like exchange companies are not meeting their needs. It's because it is not in their best interest to do so. In this light, it makes absolutely no sense for an exchange company ever to feel obligated to the blue fixed week owner that wants to exchange. Especially if that resort has a huge majority of owners who only want to use their own weeks or deposit with other exchange companies. The resort owners aren't committed to the exchange company. Why should the exchange company be committed to creating value for that resorts poor value weeks by subsidizing it? If such a resorts business plan was based on the exchange company subsidizing it, then it was a flawed business plan.

So, there are absolutely benefits to fixed week owners who own the best weeks. They can use their weeks whenever they want. And, they can choose to use exchange their week with any exchange company. That power of choice is very nice. Just be ware that that power of choice means less committment to the exchange company and don't be surprised that they give higher priority to others who actually do intend to exchange with them.

[Carolinian Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close Carolinian]

The reason exchange companies would want to pay attention to the interests of blue, white, and pink owners, as well as ''red'' owners in overbuilt areas, whose weeks have similar supply/demand characteristics, is that this is where the volume is, and volume builds revenue from membership fees and exchange fees. A much smaller percentage of prime week owners participate in exchanging than non-prime owners because most of the prime week owners bought from the beginning in order to use their week rather than exchange it. Dumping on the non-prime owners is not going to make prime owners start exchanging, but it will drive off the non-prime owners.

[funtime2 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close funtime2]

The part that I like best about my week of ownership is that I can arrive on day 1 or later, but don't have to worry about ridged time schedule. I know to some this would be a waste of vacation days, but with a 3 year old and a 15 year old - things do not always go as planned. With a week reserved I can use as much or as little according to what else is going on with our family.

[love2fly Member Find all posts View Profile Close love2fly]

another problem

The biggest problem I see is that an exchange company focused on owners who actually want to exchange would make more sense for shareholders. Can you imagine someone creating a business plan for building an exchange company whose target market was people who really don't want to exchange? Nobody would invest in it.

RCI collects a membership fee from people regardless how often they exchange, so your new venture can succeed if they follow the same model, provided you can convince people it is beneficial to buy a membership

I think another problem will be no inventory of weeks to swap.

[timeos2 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close timeos2]

A few comments

The method for the prime weeks owner who wants the occasional exchange to equal value exists - its called SFX. The low time owners don't get to play as they cannot bring the value to the table in a weeks only trade.

Your note that the "intent to trade" is key is right on. The points based systems get the owner to commit their time to at least three years of trade. That means there will be activity and income for the system. It also means that the lower time owner, who gets less credit than the high time depositor, knows that inventory will be there and they can do what is necessary to obtain it (combine years, rent points, whatever) unlike the uncertainty of a posible deposit on the weeks side. The system has known value for all participants.

Finally I see a big problem with the whole ownership time taking part in any vacation system. It is the same problem that including private homes in trades would bring. While the accomodations certainly would be adequate for day to day living most are not resorts thus lacking all the amenities the resort model provides. There are some motel or apartment conversions in the existing exchange systems that suffer from that lack of onsite services. They don't meet the expectations of a timeshare resort owner. The value is greatly decreased because of that even to the degree of offsetting an otherwise great location.

[Carolinian Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close Carolinian]

This combining weeks (and therefore m/f's) makes points unattractive for buying off season time. From the points tours I have taken (as opposition research), the points peddlers do not even push such a concept although they do briefly mention it. They know that dog won't hunt. What they push for buying off-season points weeks is 9000 point crossover trades into the Weeks 45-day window.

The method for the prime weeks owner who wants the occasional exchange to equal value exists - its called SFX. The low time owners don't get to play as they cannot bring the value to the table in a weeks only trade.

Your note that the "intent to trade" is key is right on. The points based systems get the owner to commit their time to at least three years of trade. That means there will be activity and income for the system. It also means that the lower time owner, who gets less credit than the high time depositor, knows that inventory will be there and they can do what is necessary to obtain it (combine years, rent points, whatever) unlike the uncertainty of a posible deposit on the weeks side. The system has known value for all participants.

Finally I see a big problem with the whole ownership time taking part in any vacation system. It is the same problem that including private homes in trades would bring. While the accomodations certainly would be adequate for day to day living most are not resorts thus lacking all the amenities the resort model provides. There are some motel or apartment conversions in the existing exchange systems that suffer from that lack of onsite services. They don't meet the expectations of a timeshare resort owner. The value is greatly decreased because of that even to the degree of offsetting an otherwise great location.

[T. R. Oglodyte Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close T. R. Oglodyte]

The part that I like best about my week of ownership is that I can arrive on day 1 or later, but don't have to worry about ridged time schedule. I know to some this would be a waste of vacation days, but with a 3 year old and a 15 year old - things do not always go as planned. With a week reserved I can use as much or as little according to what else is going on with our family.

I don't understand. Why wouldn't a lloating week system that has a veriety of check-in days werk for you?

It seems to me that a flexible system is one that would allow you to vary the check-in day to match your arrival day and travel plans. It's the rigid system that only alllows use weeks to start on a given day.

[taffy19 Gold Contributor Find all posts View Profile Close taffy19]

It also means that the lower time owner, who gets less credit than the high time depositor, knows that inventory will be there and they can do what is necessary to obtain it (combine years, rent points, whatever) unlike the uncertainty of a posible deposit on the weeks side. The system has known value for all participants.

How can everyone get an exchange to a resort of very high demand even if they save their points for several years? Oregon coast in the summer comes to mind. Once the resort is full, it is full while some of the less popular resorts are standing half empty. The people who bought on the coast in OR, still have the first pick. Is this true?

This is what we were told at FF in Waikiki Beach that people, who bought there, can go every year, if they want to. Reason is that they paid more money to buy there.

People, who buy at less popular destinations may also want to exchange to Waikiki Beach and there are many more resorts away from Waikiki Beach, so more members may be competing than there is space in this resort. What is different here from a week-based system? I assume that both are waiting in line too.

The math doesn't add up to me.

[T. R. Oglodyte Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close T. R. Oglodyte]

How can everyone get an exchange to a resort of very high demand even if they save their points for several years? Oregon coast in the summer comes to mind. Once the resort is full, it is full while some of the less popular resorts are standing half empty. The people who bought on the coast in OR, still have the first pick. Is this true?

This is what we were told at FF in Waikiki Beach that people, who bought there, can go every year, if they want to. Reason is that they paid more money to buy there.

People, who buy at less popular destinations may also want to exchange to Waikiki Beach and there are many more resorts away from Waikiki Beach, so more members may be competing than there is space in this resort. What is different here from a week-based system? I assume that both are waiting in line too.

The math doesn't add up to me.

\
The math adds up when the point values for the high demnad weeks are high enough to moderate demand for those weeks, while the point values for offseason weeks are low enough to make those attractive.

In the weeks system, since you only get one week regardless of what you deposit, people tend to put in their request for the highest demand week they can get, then wait around for it to come through. And if you are the owner of a primo week, there is less incenetive to deposit it because your chances of getting a comparable trade are less.

In the points system, a person can make a decision to go for a less valued week because they may be able to get two weeks in trade instead of one. So there are fewer people waiting in line for the highly demanded weeks. On the other side, there is more incentiive for the primo week owners to deposit their weeks instead of using them - and to accept lesser vavlue weeks in return - because they can get more value for their deposit. They may be able to stay two or three weeks at some locale. So there is an incentive for them to place their week in the exchange pool that they wouldn't otherwise have.

We have some good friends who converted their RCI weeks ownersships into Points and couldn't be happier. Their situation has changed so they take less freqeuent vacations but are interested in some higher demand locations, such as Mexico in winter and Hawaii in summer. When they tried to make arrangements in Weeks they had to put in ongoing requests, then scarmble to finish travel arrangements when something would come through.

In Points they are generally able to call up as soon as they know the travel dates that will work for them and find a suitable exchange while they are on the phone without needing to put in a search. They can't fathom why I haven't converted to Points.

[timeos2 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close timeos2]

we have a winner!

Wow Steve. You nailed it perfectly and you aren't even a "pointer". That is about as clear as anyone can make the diffference and why the system works.

[Carolinian Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close Carolinian]

Points is really a form of price fixing. Too often point totals are rigged to the advantage of certain owners and disadvantage of others. Owners in overbuilt areas tend to be overpointed, so I can see why they are such loud supporters of points - it simply comes down to self interest.

[timeos2 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close timeos2]

Oh - the corrected version

Weeks is really a form of price fixing. Too often weeks values, unknown to the owners, are rigged to the advantage of certain owners and disadvantage of others. Owners in areas with highly seasonal use patterns tend to be overvalued, so I can see why they are such loud supporters of weeks - it simply comes down to self interest. Since over 70% of all weeks are not top value it is a large and vocal self interest group that controlled exchanges until the mini-systems came along. The minis exposed the problems and moved the best to points with RCI Points not too far behind. As occurred in the minis those who benefitted most from the old system - the poor value weeks - are now crying foul faced with equal trades rather than free upgrades at the expense of the high end owners.

[taffy19 Gold Contributor Find all posts View Profile Close taffy19]

Wow Steve. You nailed it perfectly and you aren't even a "pointer". That is about as clear as anyone can make the diffference and why the system works.

Yes, they are all good reasons for flexibility but not for people who want to go mainly to certain areas often. I am talking about going to a beach area on the West coast or in Hawaii or on the Northern East coast where there are not too many resorts, I believe.

Traveling shorter times is only attractive if you happen to live close by the resort. Flying is too expensive and driving is getting expensive too. Then it is perfect but some of the week-based resorts also have split week stays. I know that the Marriott has this possibility and other hotel chains too and I know of one coastal resort that lets you split your week to 4-3 or 3-4 or 2-2-3 or 3-2-2 so long it makes up one F, S, S, M, T, W, T of a week and not two week-ends. This may be the only difference with a point-based system where you can always travel the week-ends, IF there is availability. Everything is dependent on availability unless you use a fixed week/fixed unit at your home resort because then it sits there waiting for you but you have no flexibility. Both systems are good as people have different wishes.

I still like to know how the resort handles more demand than supply in the prime season? The point-based system must have disappointments too because people do not get their requested exchange either.

[tonyg Goomba & Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close tonyg]

Both the weeks and point system have resorts which are given more trading power or points than they are worth. Politics didn't change any- RCI just added a points system.

[timeos2 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close timeos2]

points don't liimit choices they increase them

Yes, they are all good reasons for flexibility but not for people who want to go mainly to certain areas often. I am talking about going to a beach area on the West coast or in Hawaii or on the Northern East coast where there are not too many resorts, I believe.

Except for the most highly seasonal areas even when I want to return to a resort/area often the flexibility and ability to pick specific use dates outweigh the knowledge that I'll get a specific week and /or unit. For the resorts or areas that are so limited in either availability or quality of accomodations then there can be a case for a fixed week but they are the exception. We even prefer our weeks resorts to be float in most areas.

EDITTED TO ADD: If an owners main goal is to go to the same resort(s), same locations, same units, etc almost all the time then fixed weeks are perfect for them and they really have very limited need to be involved in trading methods at all. They certainly aren't a good fit for paying extra for points. In fact they don't even need to belong to RCI/II and could just use one of the no membership fee services when they need it or a rare occasion.