posted 04-29-2005 13:21               

I guess there are plenty of people looking for Orlando despite the number of units there. Why else would a smart and profitable company like Marriott be building there rather than on a beach somewhere? If the demand was really the same they would be building elsewhere. They built where people want to go and are willing to buy.

posted 04-29-2005 13:54               

First, the ability to profitably sell timeshare intervals in a region is largely unrelated to the exchange value that results. Orlando is special, from a sales & marketing perspective, in that such a broad range of families visit at least occasionally. As a result, there is a constant stream of prospects for timeshare sales. Orlando is a destination that many, many families go to at least once. This results in a rich environment to prospect numerous first-time or rare visitors, often on one of their rare excursion vacations. This attractive prospecting environment, out of proportion with annual demand, is why the area is overbuilt.

Second, weak trading power and no trading power are not synonomous. Many uninformed owners of Orlando area timeshares successfully trade, after being forced into flexibility, without ever knowing that they suffer from weak trading power. They just don't get the better places or better times. Any place or time that has unused inventory is easy to trade into, even from Orlando.

posted 04-29-2005 15:09               

The Florida numbers are as follows:
Jan. - 2; Feb. - 1; March - 1; April - 2; May - 3; June - 2;
July - 3; Aug. - 3; Sept. - 4; Oct. - 4; Nov. - 3; Dec. - 4

In comparision, the South Africa numbers are as follows:
Jan. - 3; Feb. - 1; March - 3; April - 2; May - 1; June - 1;
July - 3; Aug. - 3; Sept. - 1; Oct. - 2; Nov. - 2; Dec. - 1

South AFrica has five 1's compared to Florida's two 1's.
South Africa has no 4's compared to Florida's three 4's.

posted 04-29-2005 15:41               

I have found that II weights things diferently than RCI particularly in the supply arena. To them a Marriott is a Marriott.

posted 04-29-2005 17:02               

1. Ownership demand from folks who want to buy & keep Orlando timeshares.

2. Exchange demand from folks who want to get reservations at Orlando timeshares through trades, using timeshare weeks or "points" that they own at other locations.

So if the Marriott folks (for example) determine there's still plenty of ownership demand for Orlando timeshares, then they'll keep on building'm & selling'm irrespective of how much or how little exchange demand there might be through RCI, II, SunTerra, FairField, SFX, direct exchange, mox nix. That is to say, Marriott & the rest are mainly interested in meeting that ownership demand, even if their high-pressure, arm-twisting sales representatives talk up trades as a way of getting buyers to fork over money for new Orlando timeshare weeks & "points."

In my case (well, The Chief Of Staff's & mine), we decided we'd like to own a nice Orlando timeshare week, so we bought 1 (used, of course -- or as it's referred to here on TUG, "resale").

So far, we have never once put up our Orlando timeshare week for exchange. Shucks, to the best of our knowledge, RCI doesn't even know we have it. We just go there ourselves & have a nice time.

Plus, twice (so far) we've used a timeshare week we own in a location w-a-y far from Orlando to exchange into nice Orlando timeshare resorts.

So just within our little family unit, we represent a tiny sliver of both previous ownership demand & current/future exchange demand for Orlando timeshare resorts.

What we haven't figured out (yet) is all the ins & outs of timeshare "points." But that's another story.

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.

------------------
Through the sycamores the Cadillacs are gleaming, and the bankers on the Wabash shout Hooray! -BRC.

posted 04-29-2005 18:23               

In the Caribbean, Sint Maarten is overbuilt, but there is no timeshare at all on the neighboring upscale island of St. Barths. In the exchange world, a timeshare on St. Barths would be light years ahead of one one on Sint Maarten on supply/demand factors. For developers, however, the much greater tourist flow, giving potential customers, on Sint Maarten means that it is the island with all of the developer attention. Sint Maarten is a great island, and I love the fact that it is overbuilt so that it is easy to trade into. And I'll just have to be content with the boat trip over to St. Barths.

posted 04-29-2005 19:05            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AwayWeGo:
In my case (well, The Chief Of Staff's & mine), we decided we'd like to own a nice Orlando timeshare week, so we bought 1 (used, of course -- or as it's referred to here on TUG, "resale").

---

Actually, all timeshares are "used" even if purchased from the developer. The only time it wouldn't be would be if you were the very first people to occupy a unit immediately after a timeshare opened up.

So, I think the term resale is the more appropriate one.

posted 04-29-2005 19:11            

quote:

---

Originally posted by timeos2:
I guess there are plenty of people looking for Orlando despite the number of units there. Why else would a smart and profitable company like Marriott be building there rather than on a beach somewhere? If the demand was really the same they would be building elsewhere. They built where people want to go and are willing to buy.

---

posted 04-29-2005 20:15               

quote:

---

Originally posted by ACCfan:
As the other posters eloquently put things, I don't think it has anything to do with people looking to buy in Orlando. It's just that Orlando has a huge tourism population coming through it which provides a long steady stream of potential unsuspecting buyers. Remember, 99% of timeshare buyers are not TUGers and they typically buy out of emotion and have really no idea what they're buying.

---

No doubt people get talked into timeshares (although I still am amazed that anyone can part with $10K or more without research) but regardless of that they buy into areas or resorts they enjoy. Like Disney they may find as the years go by they don't enjoy it as much as they once thought they would as tastes do change but the original desire comes from at least a general like and desire to return to the area. There isn't and most likely never will be a shortage of people that would enjoy going to Orlando or more southern Florida areas. Thats why a well maintained timeshare in Orlando or south will most likely always have a reasonable demand despite the rising number of total units. That demand is also nearly constant year round. Other areas have high but limited seasonal demand but few can really say they have 30-35 weeks of high demand as Orlando and southern FL resorts do. It is an easy sell. Now is it worth $20-30 even $35K or more to purchase? Not to me no matter what company sells it. But a nice resale at a good resort in FL will always have a use or trade demand. I can't say that for very many places. I think points values reflect that better than a simple week for week trade can. But I could be wrong. So could RCI, Disney, Fairfield, Sunterra and all the others that feature FL as their major locations and a points based system as the vehicle to obtain it. When the building stops we'll know it is in fact overbuilt. Until then the money in FL could have gone somewhere else but didn't. That speaks volumes. People, timeshare knowledable or not, buy where they like the area and the resort. They also trade to those same places.

posted 04-29-2005 20:24               

quote:

---

Originally posted by timeos2:

No doubt people get talked into timeshares (although I still am amazed that anyone can part with $10K or more without research) but regardless of that they buy into areas or resorts they enjoy. Like Disney they may find as the years go by they don't enjoy it as much as they once thought they would as tastes do change but the original desire comes from at least a general like and desire to return to the area. There isn't and most likely never will be a shortage of people that would enjoy going to Orlando or more southern Florida areas. Thats why a well maintained timeshare in Orlando or south will most likely always have a reasonable demand despite the rising number of total units. That demand is also nearly constant year round. Other areas have high but limited seasonal demand but few can really say they have 30-35 weeks of high demand as Orlando and southern FL resorts do. It is an easy sell. Now is it worth $20-30 even $35K or more to purchase? Not to me no matter what company sells it. But a nice resale at a good resort in FL will always have a use or trade demand. I can't say that for very many places. I think points values reflect that better than a simple week for week trade can. But I could be wrong. So could RCI, Disney, Fairfield, Sunterra and all the others that feature FL as their major locations and a points based system as the vehicle to obtain it. When the building stops we'll know it is in fact overbuilt. Until then the money in FL could have gone somewhere else but didn't. That speaks volumes. People, timeshare knowledable or not, buy where they like the area and the resort. They also trade to those same places.

---

posted 04-29-2005 20:27               

quote:

---

Originally posted by dan_hoog:
I think this demonstrates two things:

First, the ability to profitably sell timeshare intervals in a region is largely unrelated to the exchange value that results. Orlando is special, from a sales & marketing perspective, in that such a broad range of families visit at least occasionally. .

---

43,000,000 + in 2003 with more expected in 2004. (number taken from a publicity ad from the FL Convention Bureau).

frenchieinme

posted 04-30-2005 05:28               

The purpose of the charts is to help RCI members plan their vacation requests by showing the net availibility in the overall RCI system, not just demand from Europe.

Did you overlook Bootleg's comments in an earlier thread on the two resorts with the biggest excess of supply over demand being in Orlando????? He has direct access to RCI computers as an RCI employee.

posted 04-30-2005 06:49               

John, do you deny that Orlando is an easier exchange than most other areas during RED season? If you compare the average RED season in Orlando with the average RED season week elsewhere, I've found it easier to find availability in Orlando. This is because there are lots of timeshares, not because there is no demand.

posted 04-30-2005 13:52               

It is up to the exchange company to figure out the proper value for points so they don't get too many deposits in without enough requests out. Apparently Orlando can support high point values as there are plenty of requests in despite the overall number of units. If that demand falls the points value will also go down. The point value for the majority of time in colder and more seasonal areas is lower since they can't give more points to those resorts if no points requests come in for them at high levels. They can move the inventory at lower points values so thats what they get. Points is the ultimate supply/demand process as it is really detiremined by the users. Too high they don't use an area or resort - too low and there are too many requests for available units. RCI sets the bar where they think it will be equal and adjusts if use patterns prove them wrong. It is the same process, but in the open, that VEP tried to do in secret. And it leaves the users with the power to control how they use their paid for vacation time.

As many have noted here which system is best - weeks or points - depends on how you want to use what you own. As for a designation like "overbuilt" it is often used to justify other arguments usually involving trade or point values. There is no blanket answer to trade or demand values. Each system and each resort gets what the exchange company feels will work to keep things in balance. But the consumer ultimately decides by trading in or not at the levels they set. It's only overbuilt if units sit empty the majority of the time. Thats not Orlando (yet).

posted 04-30-2005 14:42               

quote:

---

Originally posted by timeos2:
RCI sets the bar where they think it will be equal and adjusts if use patterns prove them wrong.

---

Another suspicion confirmed, possibly.

When the professional timeshare sales guys were giving us the RCI "points" hard sell out in Las Vegas last year, we pressed them on the matter of whether those "points" charts they were showing us would hold up, or instead whether what looked OK at the time might not look so good after a year or so.

We were concerned about "points" inflation -- starting out with a bunch of "points" that would be good for reservations this year but that might be too few later on, so that we'd have to keep buying more & more "points" in order to get reservations at any resort where we'd actually like to stay in the years ahead.

The sales guys said not to worry about "points" inflation. If the "points" needed for a peak-demand reservation at a particular resort went up, they said, then the "points" it takes for an off-peak reservation at that same resort would go down -- guaranteed.

But if timeos2 is correct (& I dare say he is), then it sounds like the adjustments RCI makes in the "points" charts may or may not square with what the high-pressure sales guys claimed is "guaranteed" -- that is, "points" to get reservations at high-demand resorts might well go up while "points" for reservations at so-so resorts might to down, just to equalize the use pattern & demand.

At this point (no pun intended), The Chief Of Staff is closer to the end of the diving board than I am -- with neither of us quite ready to take the plunge into timeshare "points."

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.

posted 04-30-2005 14:51               

quote:

---

Originally posted by timeos2:
Each system and each resort gets what the exchange company feels will work to keep things in balance. But the consumer ultimately decides by trading in or not at the levels they set. It's only overbuilt if units sit empty the majority of the time. Thats not Orlando (yet).

---

Well this is also a TS rental company. This company can keep developers in Points sales happy by allowing high points values in Orlando resorts. Orlando owners will be happy to trade out because they'll see a trade up. Points owners elsewhere will hesitate to use their points for Orlando. They are seeing a trade down. All weeks not filled by other points owners are now excess inventory to be funneled into rentals. They won't sit empty that's not Orlando yet.

posted 05-01-2005 11:26               

quote:

---

Originally posted by AwayWeGo:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by timeos2:
[b]RCI sets the bar where they think it will be equal and adjusts if use patterns prove them wrong.

---

We were concerned about "points" inflation -- starting out with a bunch of "points" that would be good for reservations this year but that might be too few later on, so that we'd have to keep buying more & more "points" in order to get reservations at any resort where we'd actually like to stay in the years ahead.

The sales guys said not to worry about "points" inflation. If the "points" needed for a peak-demand reservation at a particular resort went up, they said, then the "points" it takes for an off-peak reservation at that same resort would go down -- guaranteed.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Alan - I hate to say any timeshare salesperson may have been speaking in facts (perhaps it was an off day) but the total points assigned for all participating resorts is fixed. So if one goes up another must come down. Fairfield has used that system for nearly two decades and the amount of change is minimal but does occur. The one place you do see increases is for the newer resorts. They tend to be bigger, better and in desirable locations so the points to get 7 days there may in fact be more than what an owner will get for 7 days at 20 year old Lake Lovely, Mn. That owner needs to get more points, use more than one weeks worth or just go to resorts that are at the same point level as their home resort. What his time is worth doesn't change but what he may want (who doesn't want the latest & greatest resort?) may be at a higher cost than his older, less equipped resort. That isn't inflation but represents the higher costs of building new resorts.

As for rentals they do muddy the water badly. I am no fan of rentals no matter what system they may come from. If it were up to me all weeks and points would be used solely for timeshare units. No cruises, airfare, car rentals, etc that gives an excuse to anyone to rent timeshare weeks rather than let owners use them. But thats what some people want and the big companies are very happy to give it to them (at a steep cost). I don't see a value in non-timeshare products using my prorated purchase cost & annual fees but I certainly can't make the rules. If all the Orlando space is being used to grab timeshares elsewhere and then as rental units for the echange companies then I agree something is seriously wrong. I don't really think thats happening.

posted 05-01-2005 11:42               

On the OBX, the last resort built (BIS_Kitty Hawk) was off the beach, because oceanfront property had gone up so much. Since then, Peppertree/Equivest bought a site for a new timeshare (that never got built after the company was bought by Cendent) and that, too, was well off the beach. A couple of years ago, Fairfield was hunting for a site for a new OBX timeshare, and where they were looking was also off the beach.

This trend is true in non-beach locations as well. The older London timeshares are bang in central London. The newest, however, is a Gold Crown way out in the Docklands (read ''boondocks''). Any knowledgable traveller would MUCH rather be in Kensington than way out in the Docklands, no matter how many extra bells and whistles they put on out there.

As a general rule, it is the older timeshares that tend to be the ''location'' resorts.

posted 05-01-2005 16:53               

The fact is...there is no explanation. It does not make sense, but it works for the people making money.

People sell in the places where people buy. I don't think most people who buy timeshare in Orlando have a clue about trading power. And if they did it wouldn't matter. People buy based on need or greed.....either I want it....or I need it. And that is what Sellers prey on.

This website happens to have a following of many people who agree about timeshare, but the reality is that there are many people who buy it who never chance upon the facts.

posted 05-01-2005 19:39               

quote:

---

Originally posted by nthc:

People sell in the places where people buy. I don't think most people who buy timeshare in Orlando have a clue about trading power. And if they did it wouldn't matter. People buy based on need or greed.....either I want it....or I need it. And that is what Sellers prey on.

This website happens to have a following of many people who agree about timeshare, but the reality is that there are many people who buy it who never chance upon the facts.

JMHO,
cindy

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by timeos2:
It's only overbuilt if units sit empty the majority of the time. Thats not Orlando (yet).

---

You have to agree with these two statements. Most people buy because gee whiz that was nice, had a great time, wife and kids had fun etc. No analytical thoughts here. It's just a place people want to be.

A report was just released and published in our local paper that Florida continues to enjoy strong population growth. By the year 2011 Florida will surpass New York as the 3rd most populas state. Again, people just want to be part of the area.

Now,if you are buying multiple timeshares you might take other needs and wants into consideration but for that fisrt one many people want there little piece of Orlando.

posted 05-02-2005 18:37               

I guess if we look at Hilton Head winter, The area is overbuilt. You could probably double the amount in the summer, just have to tear them down in the winter. (maybe tahts a new market---inflatible villas!).

Simple fact is, nogthing is overbuilt until the market says that it is overbuilt.