“If you stop to think about it, there are very few
benefits in your life for which you can take sole credit” - Gary Smalley -
The
Timeshare Industry has long given lip service to the idea of change. We bemoan our public image and talk about
a new public relations plan, we deplore the high cost of marketing and condemn those who would regulate our efforts,
we scratch our collective heads and wonder how we can improve our lot, our penetration into the markets and/or
our profitability.
Sydney J. Harris must have had the Timeshare Industry in mind when he said: "Our dilemma is
that we hate change and love it at the same time; what we really want is for things to remain the same but get
better." It is because of this attitude that we continually trim the limbs in our attempt to
reshape the canopy and never get down to the roots for fear that we will get our hands dirty. What
is the root problem we need to address? In my opinion that issue is the adverse relationships we
have established in every situation.
Example: Marcus Buckingham has on several occasions addressed the Timeshare Industry. He has been
a keynote speaker at an ARDA National Conference, a Workshop Leader at ARDA’s Leadership Conference and
the Cover Story in the January 2002 issue of Developments. In that publication he stated: “The people
who stick with the kind of caveman idea of, if I get you into my cave and hit you with my club enough times, you’ll
buy it. The only reason they’ll lose is because it cost so damn much to get somebody into that cave, and that bat
is very expensive.”
Example: In the April/May issue of Development Spyro Kourtis, President of The Hacker Group
stated in the article ‘The Rules of the Game are Changing’: “18,000,000 telemarketing calls are generated
each day” and “With 97 percent of surveyed Americans saying that they dislike unsolicited
telemarketing calls, it is clear that the system has been abused.”
Mr. Kourtiss was partly right. It is my contention that it is the people who have been abused not the
system. We are all aware that our Legislators are intent on addressing this issue because they are expert at
playing the percentages and 97% to 3% is clear to even the most inept of our elected officials. Because of our
total commitment to adverse relationships we are expending untold energy figuring out how to get around the DNC
edicts. Currently we are hanging our hats on ‘permission based’ loopholes
both in telemarketing and in e-mail spamming. In the long run we will alienate those few permittees because we
just don’t have the will or time to begin nurturing them. They are what we have and we will squeeze every last
drop out of them before they throw up their hands and say: You Win!”
The latest industry numbers indicate a 16% increase in sales between
2001 and 2002 and many experts are projecting similar results in 2003. I am sure that those in the development,
sales and marketing segments consider that to be a major win following
the setbacks caused by the 9/11 disaster. These numbers came without any significant change in
how we solicit leads, make appointments or present the product. If the industry had a win then the general
public had a lose.
From all reports the industry is experiencing a dramatic increase in sales volume from in-house programs, owner
reloads, referrals, conversion from weeks to points and resales. Those who have had satisfactory results from ownership
after the sale dominate these segment sales. The majority of that satisfaction came from the actual use of the
product as it was delivered by Resort Management & Operations and/or the achievement of an exchange that proved
that benefit was not just so much smoke and mirrors. I have no actual research to rely upon, however I would bet
the farm (if I had one) that well over 80% of the non-owners that we touch continue to have negative perceptions
about the industry and their number is growing at 4 to 1 over those who actually buy some kind of timeshare plan.
For these reasons I believe that what is occurring is actually a lose-lose. The industry is rapidly reducing the qualified prospects in our marketplaces and
dramatically increasing those who scorn our concept and us. I contend that without significant change occurring,
which greatly diminishes the lose-lose / win-lose
and greatly enhances the win-win, the Law of Diminishing Return will
soon begin to eat away at our yields. It is well known that one discontented client spreading damaging opinions
will do more harm than a hundred satisfied clients can overcome by saying good things.
If we as an industry could begin the process of changing from promoting
antagonistical relationships to the development of mutually beneficial
relationships we could achieve significant impacts. If we could find ways to generate leads, set appointments and
make sales presentations that were not offensive we would soon find the market coming to us. Instead of being enticed
by high cost premiums and OPC outlets at the ball game or mall.
To achieve this we need to understand the advantages of win-win situations. The basic is that with win-win
both parties will have needs that must be satisfied in order for the relationship to work. If we gain an understanding
of the consumers' needs then we can begin to develop Marketing & Selling techniques that will lead to relationships
that will work. If our egos require that we develop product based on
what we want to sell and marketing & selling techniques designed to convince the consumer that they actually
need our product, we will always have a win-lose or a lose-lose and never a win-win situation. If we can allow both the industry and the consumer to identify true needs and the
differences, we can begin to understand how to deal with them and move steadily toward relationships that work.
The perfect example of this was a situation can be found on the Conflict Resolution Network web.
‘There are two people in a kitchen. There is only one orange remaining and both of them want it. What would
you expect as the solution? Compromise is one option. They might cut it in half and each gets half. Let's
assume that's what they do. One person now goes to the juicer and starts squeezing herself a rather too small orange
juice. The other, with some difficulty, begins to grate the rind of the orange to flavor a cake. Had they discussed
needs rather than heading straight to solutions, they could have both had the equivalent of a whole orange. With
the determination to use a win/win approach, two sets of needs can frequently dovetail together.’
Final Thought
The old ‘if I could would you’ technique is ideally suited to the development of a win-win. Even when
trust between the parties is very limited, the win-win approach can be effective. If there's some doubt
about the other person keeping their end of the bargain you simply make the agreement reciprocal. "I'll do
X for you, if you do Y for me." X supports their needs, Y supports yours.
This approach could produce a mutually beneficial solution:
“Now that I understand your actual needs
let’s see if I have something
for sale that will allow you to move closer toward satisfying them.”
This approach may not produce the same result:
“The product that you now own is outdated and rapidly
becoming
obsolete. My firm has developed the solution to your problem.
Trust me when I say: ‘for an additional small investment, you can ...’
The industry’s current attitude is that in order for us to effectively
market and sell our product we must do some things that a lot of people dislike. We must place people in situations
where we maintain the upper hand and we must, by whatever method, increase our net closing ratio to offset the
ever-increasing cost of marketing. This attitude clearly indicates that for me (the industry) to win you (the consumer) must lose.
Example:
The April/May 2003 issue of Developments magazine contained a new column titled ‘Industry Trendsetters’. If you receive a
copy of Developments or
can borrow a copy turn to page 60 and discover how one of the industry leaders is using excess inventory to open
the doors to permission marketing.
The May/June 2003 issue of TimeSharing
Today contains ‘An open letter to: The Board of Directors of the
Owner Association and the Owners at ........... [a resort affiliated with the 'Industry Trendsetter’ firm]’.
If you receive a copy of TimeSharing Today
or can borrow a copy turn to page 8 and discover what one owner thinks about the innovative approach being applied
to convince resort owners to convert to the 'Industry Trendsetter’ firms points program.
I don’t pretend to know all the facts that lay behind these two situations.
From the accounts contained in the articles, the first clearly indicates an Industry Win
and the second clearly indicates a potential Consumer Lose.
Does it always have to be that way? Isn’t it more beneficial to (at
least) work toward achieving a Draw?
