OP, I'm not sure I follow your logic. Do I understand you correctly, that since Hilton has devalued points, your staff will be even more pleasant to guests? Therefore, devaluing points is, in a sense, a good thing?

If I have missed something, please explain.

My question is related entirely to the logic of the argument. I am usually still a very appreciative Hilton customer. I do not stay at Hiltons as often as I did in the past, but that has to do partly with simply wanting to branch out (and Priceline is fun!), so please take my question not as a criticism of Hilton but only as a question concerning the logic.

I would think, in reference to your reasoning, that a motivated staff would be already in place. There are a few clear exceptions regarding some (few?) Hilton properties in which clerks evidently give or deny upgrades based on their whims. Apparently Hilton has had no monitoring system in place to ensure that all properties comply with the upgrade promises of the Gold and Diamond programs. With the exceptions of this problem, which I assume does not impact most Hiltons, in general, I can't see that devaluing points could be seen as an opportunity in the way that you suggest, to compensate for the loss of point value. If the staff is already doing well, how can it improve that much?

Even if a staff became more diligent, wouldn't this change be unquantifiable? And how much change could it make, anyway, to a guest's appreciation of the hotel? Beyond a certain level of courtesy, any more smiling or commendable service would surely go unnoticed? Travelers generally just want to get a key and get to their room. They are tired and don't care how smiling a clerk is. The room is already unchangeable, so I don't see your point.

(I mean this courteously,as I do still like Hiltons, and I hope it doesn't sound otherwise. I am questioning only the logic of the post.)