posted 03-23-2003 07:27               

The price of bonus weeks has increased so much that they are approaching the price of Getaways, thus making them almost worthless as a reward for depositing a high trade value week. Bonus weeks used to be had for the price of an exchange, but no more. It appears that II is getting very greedy.

I know that this comment on your pricing policies will not have much effect but here is something that might: I have been using certain independent exchange companies that have lower price bonus weeks without the restrictios that II bonus weeks have and I plan to use them more in the future.

P E H

posted 03-24-2003 06:14               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Segiah:
Craig,

The price of bonus weeks has increased so much that they are approaching the price of Getaways, thus making them almost worthless as a reward for depositing a high trade value week. Bonus weeks used to be had for the price of an exchange, but no more. It appears that II is getting very greedy.

I know that this comment on your pricing policies will not have much effect but here is something that might: I have been using certain independent exchange companies that have lower price bonus weeks without the restrictios that II bonus weeks have and I plan to use them more in the future.

P E H

---

posted 03-24-2003 07:20               

Its supposed to be a bonus week IE at a low price. Usually a bonus is free. A few years ago they were offered for the exchange fee. Its the big increase I'm talking about.

Since II gets them for free, they shouldn't be more than $150. What ever the MF is, II doesn't have to pay it.

P E H

------------------
Jockey Club Las Vegas NV (1BR week 17 & 18)
Hotel De L'Eau Vive New Orleans LA (2BR week 7 & 8)
The Courtyards New Orleans LA (1BR week 5)
Ocean Landings Cocoa Beach FL (1BR week 7)

posted 03-24-2003 10:35               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Segiah:
Gthorson,

Its supposed to be a bonus week IE at a low price. Usually a bonus if free. A few years ago they were offered for the exchange fee. Its the big increase I'm talking about.

Since II gets them for free, they shouldn't be more than $150. What ever the MF is, II doesn't have to pay it.

P E H

---

------------------
Craig Urbine
Vice President
Member Services
Interval International

posted 03-24-2003 13:44            

The change from $199 to $299 (for a 2 bedroom unit) is a 50.25% increase.

What is the rationale for that kind of move?

posted 03-24-2003 20:54               

One way we've been able to get the accomodation certificates to work for us in the past was to use them for long weekends away. But what was a reasonable deal at $199 for 3 or 4 nights is now unacceptable at $299. As a matter of fact, I have a bonus week that is expiring the end of this month. Getting a bonus week used to be a big deal to me and drove what I bought and when I deposited. Now it is a non-issue.

The net result is that I will be doing request first searches more and deposit first searches less (or not at all). I will also be more inclined to deposit with RCI, where my ability to find availability online, especially far in advance, is much better than with II. Sad but true.

I know I am just one person, but it seems to me that there are certainly others in my boat. And while you might get some people to pay an extra $100 for a bonus week, I think you will lose far more in deposits. It doesn't make much business sense to me. Tactical gain, strategic loss.

This is, of course, just my humble opinion.

posted 03-24-2003 21:05               

Well put! I couldn't agree with you more.

posted 03-25-2003 10:32               

Our school district just instituted a full week fall break in October. My first thought was: October = many bonus week opportunities!

Of course, all of this is predicated on the continuation of bonus week offers for us after we are kicked out of Marriott.

posted 03-25-2003 13:19            

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarTN:
Like other aspects of timesharing, if you are travelling non-peak season or can be flexible within 60 days, $299 for 7 nights in a 2-bedroom resort is a great price. I was almost embarrassed when we went to HHI in June last year with a bonus certif. Some friends were considering visiting HHI and asked about condo rates. They had heard $300/night in the summer was usual. I avoided mentioning my costs and told them I would grab any brochures that I saw.

Our school district just instituted a full week fall break in October. My first thought was: October = many bonus week opportunities!

Of course, all of this is predicated on the continuation of bonus week offers for us after we are kicked out of Marriott.

---

Mary,

Your comments are exactly what II is hoping for --- unfortunately I suspect they will continue raising the Bonus Week prices (for no cost reason) until your type of opinion changes.

posted 03-25-2003 13:59               

I do not feel the need to justify our pricing. At the current rate, the fee is less than an average maintenance fee. We need to replace the weeks taken from the system. Remember, owners of the weeks redeemed under these programs want an exchange in return. The financial model needs to support the goals of everyone with a vested interest.

posted 03-25-2003 19:42               

When you can split a Marriott lockoff for $75 and have two deposits that have a life of 2 years and can be used in prime time for $79 exchange fees, I wonder why II felt they could put through such an outragious increase for bonus weeks.

Is II losing touch with its customer base? All sellers 'should' feel the need to justify their pricing to their customers or run the risk of losing them.

Brian

quote:

---

Originally posted by CraigU:
We believe the bonus week offers are fair. As you can see from the responses, the value is subjective. It is an individual choice to participate or not.

I do not feel the need to justify our pricing. At the current rate, the fee is less than an average maintenance fee. We need to replace the weeks taken from the system. Remember, owners of the weeks redeemed under these programs want an exchange in return. The financial model needs to support the goals of everyone with a vested interest.

---

posted 03-26-2003 03:13               

Regarding your statement of not being in touch, we obviously have the ability to judge the success of these promotions. It is not financially advantageous to offer these weeks at the lower prices.

We are well aware that some members may choose not to participate. On the flip side, many members find great value in the program as is. I made the statement I didn't need to justify the pricing because someone is going to "punch holes" in the logic no matter how sound it may be.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pwrshift:
Craig...I thought bonus weeks were provided as a token incentive to get 'prime weeks' deposited from those II members who unfortunately don't have a lockoff or the option of splitting their week. Let's face it, those owners get a crappy week for a bonus week unless they take a week nobody else wanted within a 59 day period. A week in Atlantic City for $299 in late November is not my idea of a 'bonus'. With all the restrictions on Bonus Weeks I have had to let several go unused and nobody wins when that happens.

When you can split a Marriott lockoff for $75 and have two deposits that have a life of 2 years and can be used in prime time for $79 exchange fees, I wonder why II felt they could put through such an outragious increase for bonus weeks.

Is II losing touch with its customer base? All sellers 'should' feel the need to justify their pricing to their customers or run the risk of losing them.

Brian

---

------------------
Craig Urbine
Vice President
Member Services
Interval International

posted 03-26-2003 06:33            

quote:

---

Originally posted by CraigU:
We believe the bonus week offers are fair. As you can see from the responses, the value is subjective. It is an individual choice to participate or not.

I do not feel the need to justify our pricing. At the current rate, the fee is less than an average maintenance fee. We need to replace the weeks taken from the system. Remember, owners of the weeks redeemed under these programs want an exchange in return. The financial model needs to support the goals of everyone with a vested interest.

---

As I expected the II response is pointing to the "fairness" of the Bonus week prices and totally disregards the fact that they have increased the price by 50% in an economy where inflation is at best 3%.

Don't be suprised that they continue to increase the prices every year at more than the rate of inflation until they reach the point where bonus weeks become totally worthless.

posted 03-26-2003 10:49               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thinking:
As I expected the II response is pointing to the "fairness" of the Bonus week prices and totally disregards the fact that they have increased the price by 50% in an economy where inflation is at best 3%.

Don't be suprised that they continue to increase the prices every year at more than the rate of inflation until they reach the point where bonus weeks become totally worthless.

I agree with Brian on his comments about justifying the pricing -- Craig, its obvious that II has no rationale for the huge increase other than quick profits --- there's nothing wrong with that from a purely business perspective as I realize II has a goal to be profitable. However, many companies also realize that you run risks in pushing such dramatic price increases on your customers. Usually companies will at least add some value to the product at the same time they increase prices --- I'm not seeing that in II's case.

---

------------------
Craig Urbine
Vice President
Member Services
Interval International

posted 03-26-2003 14:00            

Except that there are probably people who made a purchase decision based partly on the point that they could get a bonus week if they do trade their week --- the old "two weeks for the price of one".

Regardless of whether the Bonus Week is still a good buy at $299 for a restrictive week, it is an absolute fact that II raised the price by 50% with no added increase in value to the buyer.

posted 03-26-2003 14:11               

Let's say Billy is a grade school kid who gets an idea to facilitate other kids with swapping their brown bag lunches. Alice will trade her apple today for a sandwich tomorrow. Billy agrees, and charges her a nickel for the service. The next day, Johnny uses Billy to trade a sandwich for a future juice box. Billy charges Johnny a nickel, promises a juice box later, and gives Alice the sandwich. Billy now has ten cents and hopes that another kid will pay him another nickel to trade for the apple - and he's thrilled with his new business model. A week goes by, and he still has the apple. He also knows he owes Johnny a juicebox. Should Billy sell the apple before it spoils? How much should he charge for it? Can he use the proceeds to buy a juice box for Johnny and still make a profit? Should he even make a profit on selling if he is in the trading business?

I know that is WAY over simplified, but I think Billy has the right to sell the apple for whatever he thinks he can get for it. If he doesn't sell it, he is stuck with rotten fruit. However, he will probably sell more "old" apples at 50 cents each rather than a dollar.

As for me, it better be a VERY SPECIAL apple if I'm now paying 50% more than I did last year. I would be interested to see if II will have more apples than revenue at the end of the year!

posted 03-26-2003 18:12               

quote:

---

Originally posted by seenett:
I think I understand both sides of this. If I ran a company, I would want to squeeze as much revenue as I could from my operations - that's why I would be in business in the first place. OTOH, as a customer, I too wonder why there has been a 50% price jump in a product the supplier neither paid for nor produced.

Let's say Billy is a grade school kid who gets an idea to facilitate other kids with swapping their brown bag lunches. Alice will trade her apple today for a sandwich tomorrow. Billy agrees, and charges her a nickel for the service. The next day, Johnny uses Billy to trade a sandwich for a future juice box. Billy charges Johnny a nickel, promises a juice box later, and gives Alice the sandwich. Billy now has ten cents and hopes that another kid will pay him another nickel to trade for the apple - and he's thrilled with his new business model. A week goes by, and he still has the apple. He also knows he owes Johnny a juicebox. Should Billy sell the apple before it spoils? How much should he charge for it? Can he use the proceeds to buy a juice box for Johnny and still make a profit? Should he even make a profit on selling if he is in the trading business?

I know that is WAY over simplified, but I think Billy has the right to sell the apple for whatever he thinks he can get for it. If he doesn't sell it, he is stuck with rotten fruit. However, he will probably sell more "old" apples at 50 cents each rather than a dollar.

As for me, it better be a VERY SPECIAL apple if I'm now paying 50% more than I did last year. I would be interested to see if II will have more apples than revenue at the end of the year!

---

posted 03-27-2003 16:19               

IMO those restrictions remain the problem with your Bonus Weeks ... and using them now will cost us 50% more! Why didn't II 'give a little more' in order to get more 'from' us...such as changing the 'good for only 12 months' restriction, expanding the months in which they can be used, or allowing guest certificates for them? We only wanted a fair exchange from II ... a 'value added' to make us feel better about the price increase. Your like it or lump it attitude is of concern to me as one of your members.

This year I won't deposit prime-time 'non-lockoff' weeks with II for a $299 bonus week. I haven't be able to use all the former $199 bonus weeks I've received in the past because of all the restrictions.

II wants prime week deposits or you wouldn't offer bonus weeks for them. Do you really think a 50% price increase with no added value is the way to do it? Few people get excited about a late November week in Atlantic City (for example)...and trying to get a summer Marriott Grand Ocean week within 59 days with a bonus certificate is impossible and you know it.

Few businesses could increase prices 50% and survive, as customers get angry and find other routes.

Brian

quote:

---

Originally posted by CraigU:
I don't think the areas offered on the grid are "crappy". The second invalid statement is weeks within 59 days are those no one else wants. Actually, the recent trend is for short notice travel. There are prime weeks available during flexchange.

Regarding your statement of not being in touch, we obviously have the ability to judge the success of these promotions. It is not financially advantageous to offer these weeks at the lower prices.

We are well aware that some members may choose not to participate. On the flip side, many members find great value in the program as is. I made the statement I didn't need to justify the pricing because someone is going to "punch holes" in the logic no matter how sound it may be.

---

posted 03-27-2003 20:37               

If someone wants to start a new thread about the value or non-value of bonus weeks, I would invite them to do so.

Bev