Related Articles

One Comment

  1. 1

    VegasDan

    I think that the Scoop is on the right track but is missing the larger point. Its not that the income qualifier is too low, its that the arbitrary qualification system that the industry has used for the last 40 years is wrong. Having a large income is not equal to having the ability nor the propensity to buy the product – just as having a low “income” is not equal to somebody having an inability to buy the product. EG: Two couples. One is in their mid to late 30s, has an income of 90k, married ad two kids. Number two has a fixed income of 25k, married and are in their sixties and have a bunch of grandkids. Who would you want to tour? Well you wouldnt normally get a choice as the younger couple with the 90k income is the “qualified” couple – so thats the tour you would get and the retired couple would be politely refused to tour.

    What those arbitrary qualifications dont tell you is this: The 90k mid 30s couple spends 100k a year, has their house in a short sale or foreclosure and one of their jobs is on the line. Worse still, they rarely travel and have little interest in securing a lifetime of vacations. Now, the older “unqualified” couple have a fixed income of 25k a year; but, their house is owned free and clear, as is their car, they travel 6 – 7 times a year and have retirement accounts in the high six figures. Now, let me ask you again, who is the more desirable couple?

    The industry needs to adopt a smarter way of selecting tours – not based on ideology of who the market8ing director thinks is a good tour, but based on hard math, data and science. The technology exists out their today – casinos have been using is for years. I dont want a qualified tour; I want a tour that has a high propensity to buy my product.

Comments are closed.

Copyright InsideTheGate.com. All rights reserved.