Post reply

Re: REDWEEKS NEW TIMESHARE EXHANGE PROGRAM (by Redd W.):

Thanks to Ken1193 and to terry314, for your thoughts about my plea for help understanding this "exchange" thing. I guess I see problems for the RedWeek Model if everybody waits to see what is available. Wouldn't that in effect, stop the train in its tracks? I never understood the complications of the Interval International Model either but the mere fact that they claim to have over 2,000 resorts of a better than average class of resort available for exchange at any time would seem to improve the odds of getting a good deal. Or am I missing something with that "assumption" too? Thanks also, Ken, for your point about "float" versus "fixed". I had thought that most purchases of time-shares today purchased float weeks as opposed to fixed weeks since the fixed weeks were so much more expensive. I do understand that many folks decide to purchase fixed weeks in non-red week periods to also keep the purchase price and annual fees down. And I agree that the prime Christmas Week/New Years Week and certain other weeks like Easter Week in the Caribbean and select Spring Break Weeks elsewhere get gobbled up by high-rollers or corporate execs whose only intent is to either rent them or gift them to VIP clients. But my point was that it seems to me that the market for this exchange thing is with those of us who own float weeks. And my further point was that for this Redweek Exchange Model to work, then the float owners must do their homework and book their resorts while the most marketable units are available to be booked. I used the Orlando Market as an example. Believe it or not, some of the resorts in that market claim that some weeks are "redder" than other weeks! I guess only time will tell if RedWeek meets the expectations of time share exchange and carves out a niche for itself that is not now met by the other established players in the field. The Interval International Model is an interesting point to ponder. As I mentioned, I don't know how it actually works, but I do know that their website is fun to browse around in, and RedWeek uses the exact same descriptions of the resorts that are available for inspection at II. I think that the deal involves you paying a membership fee and then paying another fee if you get an exchange that you like. You also pay yet another fee if you choose to change your selection criteria after you have chosen it the 1st time. And every time after that! So it be best to chose the broadest list of acceptable dates and destinations and accomodations the 1st time. You can have them do an exchange for you , sorta "hands-free", which means that you take what they find for you. You trust them to do this as opposed to you doing the searching day after day until you find something you want. My friend and neighbor does this every year, never knowing where he is going, but sorta knowing when he is going! He and his wife are empty nesters now and they enjoy the "mystery" of the process. This probably wouldn't be suitable for families with children. And he often asks for the shoulder seasons, which increases the selection of resorts that come available considerably. Maybe RedWeek should look into this methodology? Another thought is the descriptions of the resorts and the details in the amenities that are offered both on and off site. To me, knowing that the beach is on-site and not "nearby" is often the decision-maker when it comes down to deciding on renting Resort A or Resort B. Ditto for non-smoking. And for a full kitchen with family size frig and stove top. And for elevator access. And for free accessible self-parking. And for having a decent size balcony. And lots of other stuff that we always check-off before deciding on where we want to spend our money. What I am trying to say is that RedWeek already has something that II doesn't have with the Member Reviews section. But it troubles me that so many reviews lack so much detail! Maybe RedWeek could consider some sort of points award as a means of encouraging quality participation by its members and thus moving the desire to exchange by members with members along at a faster pace? Maybe I'm being too cynical? Hmmmm.