With all this talk of being "demoted" fromMM status 1P, it makes me wonder. WHn you are the VP of a division, and then they create an exec VP, yet you keep all of your roles and benefits, are you really being demoted? Now the example isn't completely fair, as some of the benefits have been changed at 1P, which, is clearly within the terms of the program, you know this, but choose not to present this fact, only one charged side. Lifetime status isn't really lifetime status when the program in it's basic rules says it can be changed at any time, and the courts have upheld such a clause (the thread on the dude last week who sued to get his expired miles back, lost, then appealed and lost.) If there are legit things you have lost, that were advertised as being lifetime (and I believe there are,) then concentrate on those, vs some claim to rights to being #2, when you are now #3.

I would concentrate on your benefits lost, then using the word "demoted" as they didn't demote you, they just made a higher level. I bought the BEST phone out there a few years ago. It is no longer the best as better phones have come out. That in itself didn't demote my phone, only created a higher level phone. Use terms that are more appropriate, concentrate on the facts, not an emotive term that holds little truth. People that read complaints for a living respect that. I know in my role as a CSR, I hear complaints all the time. I want to know the facts so I can evaluate the complaint, not a loaded statment with words that don't fit the situation.

Charged words work good on a jury of peers (FT) but not so well on a judge. Target your audience. Those phrases go over well on FT, but not as well to someone who knows the facts and is neutral. The content is good, but the delivery is poor.