InterContinental Hotels: Priority Club & Inter-Continental Ambassador - Product Suggestion: Royal Ambassador Leisure Member

I have no idea whether anyone in ICHG Marketing lurks here so indulge me.

If I were a stick of Blackpool rock and you were to cut me in half what would be written through the middle would be “Marketeer with a weird mind” all the way through.

What I find frustrating about ICHG and indeed all of the hotel groups is how little they seem to want to engage with and understand what some of their more effluential leisure customers would really like from them. If they took the trouble both they and their customers would benefit. But I don't think that any or many of them get it.

We travel a lot. Often to the same places. Sometimes we go so often we think about buying a property. We made that mistake a few times ….. in fact we have a property in Nice if anyone is interested. Having bought it … we found we preferred Cannes …... Funnily enough mrs uk1 and I also spend time in Vienna and had considered having a place there … but we use the IC. We also have stays in Singapore. But we could go there much more often if the ICHG were more leisure friendly.

ICHG are quite content to see their RA's place many of the referral certs they give them on ebay and of course people buy them. ICHG seem to tolerate the practise although they could stop it if they wanted to. But they aren't prepared to take that cash themselves and sell certificates - and perhaps they shouldn't. I don't know. But perhaps they should think about a hybrid RA membership for leisure customers that they should sell. They need leisure customers. Business customers also need the leisure customers because increasing occupancy is good for all.

What I want is for them to sell me what I might call “Royal Ambassador Leisure” membership. Perhaps it could be around $350 per year. But they will get the cash not someone else. What I'd like for that is something along the lines of the current RA membership ie minibar, upgrades etc but perhaps with the following features.

1. A special booking rate for “Royal Ambassador Leisure” members roughly equivalent to the current Friends and Family rate.

2. Happy to accept a restriction on how far ahead they can be booked ie say 14 days or longe. In other words something that protects their business customer revenue.

3. Happy for a minimum stay criteria say 3 nights for reasons as stated above.

4. Happy to accept that perhaps one of the nights must be a weekend night - again to protect business revenue.

5. A minimum of a double level guaranteed upgrade ie what it says on the booking is the rate for the rooms you book but what is shown at booking is the actual upgrade room or suite you will get. In other words, a guarantee with no surprises or disappointments. What you book is what you will get.

6. The opportunity of perhaps making two bookings on that rate per stay so you can bring family.

7. A store and leave facility. I'd like to buy some stuff I always need for example my pillows and leave them there for my stays. I use to have this facility in a couple of places we use to regularly stay in and it makes your suite your home.

8. Actually quite happy to ditch the weekend cert. Lower rates for each night would be better.

I think that this type of offer would give them revenue and occupancy that they don't currently get. I'd possibly spend say 8 long weekends per year in each of both Cannes and Vienna. We'd also have extended stays in Singapore. I know some will say "you might make RA for those stays" but as you know that's an uncertain route and actually it isn't quite what we need. Wouldn't it be great if they offered a "Royal Ambassador Leisure" member concierge service to smooth all your bookings and arrange limo transfers etc. ..... oh I'm fantacising now ......

Would this idea be attractive to anyone else or is it just me drinking too much?

Very attractive idea, and one I would certainly consider buying if offered. ^

Given how programs are taking away benefits these days and basically watering down elite tiers, you're asking for alot for $350 vs the current Ambassador at $200.

For $150 more you're asking for the minibar benefit (granted, some hotels are including this 'benefit' these days at rates $50-75 more per night over the lowest rate). Keep in mind that RA has some high qualification standards and even a RA referral in CC will run >$500.

If anything, this tier would probably be priced closer to $500+. But we can only dream. The double upgrade would just cause them to create even more levels of room categories. That is one game that cannot be beat 100% of the time.

I actually started with $500 in mind.

Wouldn't it be a bold and helpful move if they reversed the booking so that you chose the room or suite you required and they reversed the process and produced the room or suite you needed to purchase.

Mini-bar is minimal cost - but I'd see this programme as a way for IC to increase occupancy and get a fairly meaty fee for what could drag some fairly meaty revenue.

This would also give them a self-evident highly attractive segment to package and market up-market offers to. Not effected by corporate budget cuts etc. Would have thought it a dream group to own.

I cannot see any sanity to this at all. There is an Ambassador membership and a fairly small pool of Royal Ambassadors

Anyone wanting better rooms can actually just book them up front and many hotels already offer discounted rates for bookings > 14 days in advance with advance purchase rates

Start adding a large pool of people with such benefits and can see very strict policies starting to be enforced by hotels on what they do provide rather than many being fairly generous in relation to what they offer

As far as a friends/family rate type thing, the friends and family rate already exists together with its restrictions

If wanting to pay less for hotels, there are plenty of other options

I wouldn't have expected anything else from you Dave:p

Ideas like this are protyped and tested first and then scaled to an optimum level. Your fears therefore are misplaced.

I guess this illustrates the difference between an engineer and marketeer?:)

I wouldn't have expected anything else from you Dave:p

Ideas like this are protyped and tested first and then scaled to an optimum level. Your fears therefore are misplaced.

I guess this illustrates the difference between an engineer and marketeer?:)

I think it illustrates the difference between someone wanting a scheme designed around their own wants to someone looking at it

I think that Ambassador does what it aims at and Royal Ambassador rewards those who stay a lot ; I do not see any reason to create a RA status for those that can't earn it. If wanting a higher category, then as an Ambassador member book accordingly since 1 category is guaranteed. If IHG finds a big issue with sales of certs, rather than such a scheme, perhaps just scrap the referral cert scheme

To me, the optimum level is the status quo

To me, the optimum level is the status quo

That could be an excellent motto for the Conservative Party :D:D

I agree with the status quo (although I would prefer that they establish and publicize the RA criteria every year based on last year's "top 1%").

I think it illustrates the difference between someone wanting a scheme designed around their own wants to someone looking at it

To me, the optimum level is the status quo

Well .... obviously I'm illustrating a gap based on my own viewpoint. But you are not "looking at it" because you want no "changes" based purely on your own viewpoint. In summary - your opinion is "As an RA I don't want anyone else getting this in case I get less".

I don't frankly see why you have to see this as an alternative. It isn't. The status quo will be maintained as much as it currently is. The suggestion is based on a need for a different group of people - "leisure" not "business" people who are traveling and qualifying for RA based on someone elses expenses and most regularly at different times and with largely completely different needs. It's simply a different programme not an alternative. That was the point of my post. But to describe an idea as insane because you are scared that someone else may get something you might have got if they weren't there is just rude and selfish.

If I were to characterise the opinion I have seen you express through what seems like the majority of your 15000+ posts you tend to post when someone else expresses dissapointment with service they have received. I don't recall ever seeing much sympathy for others who simply received what was on the pack. To paraphrase a large number of your posts your mantra is that members have nothing to complain about so long as they receive what is on the packet. Fair enough. And you say that so long as you receive what's on the pack then you personally are happy and if you receive more then you are simply happier. Well - great.

If you continue to receive what's on the pack then you will be maintaing the "status quo". Your beef has nothing whatsover to do with the group of people I was describing - and perhaps you shouldn't be so selfish.

I fully recognise I'm wasting my time as I'd be astonished if you adjusted an opinion on something simply because someone else tries to explain an idea from a different viewpoint to your own. But I promise you that there is enough room to satisfy both sets of travelers and that there is a very small group who'd love the idea. That is the group of needs I was exploring and it is a group whose business ICHG will never fully enjoy unless they are targetted with an alternative programme.

So stop fretting :)

I agree with the status quo (although I would prefer that they establish and publicize the RA criteria every year based on last year's "top 1%").

There is absolutely no logic whatsoever in not posting the criteria. There is no commercial risk in being clear but they are losing meaty customers by failing to publish criteria.

If I were to characterise the opinion I have seen you express through what seems like the majority of your 15000+ posts you tend to post when someone else expresses dissapointment with service they have received. I don't recall ever seeing much sympathy for others who simply received what was on the pack. To paraphrase a large number of your posts your mantra is that members have nothing to complain about so long as they receive what is on the packet.

Absolutely.. whining that one received exactly what they were entitled to, unsurprisingly elicits no sympathy

Regardless, IHG provides benefits that can be purchased and benefits that can be earned; because someone cannot earn status is no reason to sell it to them. imo; those staying on leisure stays/booking in advance/being happy to not be able to cancel already have the option at many hotels to book at cheaper rates than the flexible rate

It is no more selfish to not want it changed than it is for someone to want changes that specifically aimed at providing benefits to them



There is absolutely no logic whatsoever in not posting the criteria.

Yes there is; by making it by invitation rather than specific criteria means that they can adjust criteria at will and can even have differing criteria from region to region; it also helps reduce ( I suggest ) cases of "done the x nights/spent $Y, now going to go and stay elsewhere"

There is no commercial risk in being clear but they are losing meaty customers by failing to publish criteria.
They simply reserve the right to refuse membership to anyone.

They simply reserve the right to refuse membership to anyone.

Yes - I thought about this aspect of not publishing criteria a bit.

There's largely three groups of relevant people in the current scenario.

1. Those that would like to spend their cash and qualify to become RA. But as they don't know the criteria there's a degree of uncertainty and potential dissapointment and so a very high number (imho) who will simply not bother and patronise another group perhaps with slightly less of an offer but more certainty over qualification. ICHG lose these customers.

2. People that have qualified. Once they have they are already qualified they are likely to devote as much as their spend as possible to ICHG. So the effect of publishing the criteria is neutral in the period they are members but places a degree of uncertainty over whether they will requalify. Again a possible loss to ICHG.

3. The other group are those that are either given or buy a referral cert. I suspect that very few of these requalify under their own steam and are therefore possibly irrelevant to the argument.

ICHG seem to want to preserve the notion of "our top 1% of customers" but if they simply changed this slightly and added the word "approximately" then this would release them to simply publish a set of criteria they could review every few years. This would qualify a few harder hitters but they could then review the criteria in a year or two if they wanted.

I think there is no gain for being secretive but a considerable potential loss.

While I'm all for transparency at qualification criteria, another level at the Ambassador program doesn't make much sense for me.

There already are leisure stay rates of weekend and long stay variety. Along with the regular AMB, the only difference would be a one level upgrade (kind of a wash at some leisure properties with view/floor distinguishing categories) + benefits like mini bar etc. Not really big of a deal if you book to get club access for example. All for a lower price - where's the deal for IHG ?

I'd very much rather see a guaranteed club access/breakfast and extension of the benefits to award stays for the regular RA program. Maybe also throwing a bone for the occasional other IHG brand stayer, with some benefits extending in that territory.

Well as a "Marketeer with a weird mind" you probably shouldn't forget that exclusivity tends to make products more attractiv rather than unattractive.

Exclusive clubs hardly ever tend to make their criteria for membership known to everybody. Reaching a VIP level with any service provider makes people feel special and that's what you want to achieve. And to have many more strive to reach that level and than feel rewarded when they finally get to it. The Hyatt Courtesy Card is given out on completely unknown criteria (at least from what I have gathered about it so far) and I don't think that many FT members would therefore consider it an unattractiv top-tier level.

Your "marketeer" idea of a Leisure RA seems completely unreasonable from my "accounting" point of view.
Just a few examples:

- Based on your idea a mere 26 "Leisure RA's" that book a 14 day vacation each could easily block a properties top suite category for a whole year whilst only paying for a category 2 levels below (oh and I forgot that that rate should also be on a F&F level). That could possibly mean that a customer that would pay full price for the top-level rooms for 14 day would need to be turned away.

- Capacity in prime leisure locations: I would assume that prime leisure locations like Bora Bora would be in extrem demand from "Leisure RA's". How would you like to sort that problem without having a huge amount of unhappy leisure RA's who all will whine that their status is completely useless as they can't use it cos the category of room they want (which would of course be the top-level with only paying 2 levels less + adjusted to a F&F rate) is hardly ever available. I can hear people scream "Fraud" already...

And the list goes on and on...

If you want to target a new group of customers with a new marketing idea it's vital to keep in mind that you don't scare all other groups of customers away.

Good points. Some of the detail in the initial idea is improvable- although I still see the opportunity as being large and something along the lines I suggest as a possible opportunity.

Perhaps one of the issues that makes my suggestion difficult to accomodate and see as "different" is the use of the title Royal Ambassador Leisure. I'm not bothered about the idea of excusive clubs at all - that only generally matters to people that are unsuccessful and aspirational and but like to pretend. ;) It's just a club you can buy to get some mutually beneficial benefits. If I'd been clever enough to call it something entirely different is might have prevented some reactions constantly comparing it or seeing it as a rival to the current programme.

I agree there is a potential issue with the top suites but I don't believe for the normal suites and mini-suites that are already pretty inexpensively available and available in reasonable number.

Ensuring it isn't overpowering is quite simple. You restrict the number for a while to a see how it runs before you increase.

Good points .... thanks.

You are more than welcome! I love creative ideas!

In this case however I think one needs to consider if there really is a market segement that you can open for IC with a product like this or if it would bring more trouble than revenue.

I for one do believe that many RA's are technically already in the Leisure RA segment you defined. They spent a lot of nights - often through business related travels- at IC properties with which they obtain regular RA status. Many then use their status that they obtained through business related travel for their leisure travels e.g. to get to a top-level room at leisure locations for less than the regular asking price through upgrades. That's where your high revenue all year round customers (regular RA's) would be in direct competition for the best rooms with the new market segment of the "Leisure RA" or whatever you would like to call it. Reduced capacity and competition for the best rooms can easily lead to unhappy customer in both segments than and drive away business instead of generating more.

I think that a concept like the one you suggest only makes sense if IC would operate a substantial number of large capacity hotels in leisure destinations that you struggle to fill all year round.

With the benefits you suggest and the reality of the current IHG hotel portfolio I would price a product like the "Leisure RA" in the price range of 2000-3000 USD minum per year in order to minimise the impact and to maximise the revenue.

There most definitely is a market segment. I agree it could be small. I don't know how big. I'm one and I've met a few others. It's a possibly a small segment - hence it could be both attractive to ICHG on a marginal costing/revenue basis for times when some properties find occupancy tough and not be disruptive to the business segment.

I also say that as a person who has been guiding both a six star (so called) cruise line - independently owned and very independently managed by a single bloke with attitude - who agrees with me against his own management team that there is blue sky above heavy discounting for quality. And coincidently also a cruise travel agent who is clueless about how to add value to what is becoming a decreased cruise sale commision of around 5% plus matching marketing funds etc. So there's a niche for people with time and cash. Edited to add as it makes no sense without the comment: And many of the cruises leave from places like Istanbul, Athens, Nice, Rome etc ie all IC locations.

The one element I'd pick to counteract (in my mind) the complete misunderstanding that somehow RA's are the unbridled Royalty worth as much as many delude themselves into thinking is that a lot of them gain RA from very low corporate rates as well as company rebates etc. The gap between leisure customers and corporate customers isn't great as many non-corporates might presume. And of course they cancel at the last moment and often leisure customers pay whether they arrive or not sometimes. In fact it's possible that leisure customers often pay more than many RAs per night.

I'm thinking about how you increase their (leisure customers) visits. And also as we know, business travellers are lonely and drink the mini-bars dry and leisure customers have wives who nag and tell them not to drink any more because they want to go out and they don't want you to snore. It's the great unwashed like I was and to a degree are who are running their own businesses that pay full rates - and I think leisure is somewhere in between.

What seeded this idea was both me and my pillows and things, and a year or so ago I met an old mate on the same flight to Cannes via Nice from Heathrow. Highly successful CEO prone to funny hats and jolly japes. He had an expensive appartment on the Croisette and I was in the Carlton. We met up. He complained about how much time and cash it was costing him for what was 20 to 30 nights in his appartment and he saw my suite at the Carlton. I explained the RA scheme. He was speechless. He said he would pay double and sell his flat. I didn't have the heart to tell him about the flat I was stuck with in Nice because I now knew I preferred Cannes - but that's a different self-disclosure.

There is a small market for people that don't want the obligation of a second home - or homes - have worked out because of their maturity where they like to visit regularly - but would like to have a scheme that feels a bit like the RA programme but for which they pay would be prepared to pay an up front fee. The details in my mind are fuzzy and flexible but I know it's there and there is a market for which ICHG could fill their pockets and provide a targetted product and help fill the hotels when business customers are largely back at home.

I totally understand what you mean but as I said with your "wish list" of perks we are talking about a membership fee in the region of 2000-3000 Dollars rather than 350-500.

The "Ultimate Access" level of the Leading Hotels "Leaders Club" is kind of the thing you have in mind for IC only with even more perks. That programm offers free continental breakfast for two, guaranteed availability in participating hotels, guaranteed upgrade at time of booking (but suites remain in the discretion of the hotel), free internet access, priorty for early-check/late check-out considerations, 1 free night after 5 stays booked via the Club - and this is priced at a yearly fee of 1200 USD. Add the perks you have in mind and you'll be in the price range I mentioned. I yet have to meet somebody who purchased the "Ultimate Access" by the way.

I do agree that leisure customers pay more per night sometimes. But the heavy discounted company rates you are talking about do not just appear out of nowhere but they are based on the amount of revenue a company generates. So the overall yearly spent of a "business travel" RA on discounted rates may well be higher. Besides that - a leisure traveller who spends as much time at IC's as you envisage would probably qualify as an RA anyway

Perfectly understand the Corporate rate algorithm - I'm sure many of us was one once. But it isn't simple. The cost of product provision is identical - it just promises volume at a highly knocked down revenue.

A the actress said to the bishop - I think we've agreed there's a market - we're now just haggling about the price.:D

I think UK1 is a little bit frustrated because he spends out of his own pocket and doesn't get anything, when others stay frequently on other people's $$ and get it all.....

I kind of feel the same way - my work pays, but I can't exactly just say..'oh I'd like the IC HK on my next stop'...they give me a limit and I rarely can stay at an IC. So..I won't make RA. Even when I travel on my own dime, I can't make RA, and I do that about 30-50 nights a year, maybe half of those in IC's. I'm not going to keep spending and spending and spending to make RA only to not get it, so yes, I'd LOVE the requirements to be posted. I travel all over China, and most frequently not to the big cities, so I'm stuck in a CP or a HI. If they'd just make some sense out of it, then I'd be a lot happier.

I think this is a reasonable idea. I'd sign up

I think UK1 is a little bit frustrated because he spends out of his own pocket and doesn't get anything, when others stay frequently on other people's $$ and get it all.....

I think this is a reasonable idea. I'd sign up


Thanks - yes - saying frustrated is putting it stronger - I feel slightly differently to that.

IC currently have in many ways the worst of all worlds. They don't publish the RA criteria and the criteria is based on nights occupancy not revenue. So many RAs spend considerably less in hotels than I have done. IC get some of my revenue but could get triple.

And all this baloney about it being by "invitation" ie sort of "conferred as an honour" is rubbish and a part of the hoodwink. Basically it isn't an OBE or knighthood or an invite from the Queen to a Garden Party at Buck House for g*d's sake. :) It is a commercial transaction where one side is asking the other side to commit themselves to loyalty and spending without that other side knowing when they will get the return they seek. It's sort of barmy.

They have a criteria and when you meet it you're in. There's no taking soundings off of other members. No "black balls". No committee meetings to discuss character. People can buy it on ebay; give them and receive them; and when you meet the unpublished criteria - you're in. If IC published the criteria they would earn more money I promise! What IC don't currently have is this great big lump of potential customers that they'd love to acquire but don't because those customers want the certainty of eaning RA when they meet the criteria either through the current scheme with whatever nights formula it is - or even better as in my scheme through purchase directly to IC.

So far as the current scheme goes - nothing to stop the criteria changing regularly to end up with the 1% or so. And yes it would make the criteria tougher because they'd be more people in the pool competing to be within the top 1% if the criteria were published. And if it were revenue at least the people in the pool were spending the most money rather than staying the most nights which is entirely different.

But back to my idea which is a different thing to RA. An entirely different scheme aimed entirely at Leisure customers perhaps even staying exclusively in ICs. To repeat it - I used the term "Royal Ambassador Leisure" to give a feel as to what the benefits might be like but it's a different scheme with different customers largely staying at different times.

Thanks again.