Originally Posted by
stimpy
As someone who's been with IC since before IHG existed, I can say that it was a very short period where they published any stay count minimum. That period coincided with the global economic crisis and I think it was a temporary reaction to try and drive business. But stay totals were never there before and perhaps they no longer exist now. And as I've stated before, revenue was previously a component and may very well be in fashion again.
I agree it can be annoying for people who are trying to maintain status in multiple programs and the agents on the phone are no help. But I guess that IHG just doesn't care about people who are trying to maintain status in multiple programs. They probably don't amount to a hill of beans from where the CFO sits.
Totally agree, IHG RA status benefits can't cope with increase in RA numbers caused by publising 60/20/3 minimum requirement that no doubt led to 100's of IHGers doing just enough extra IC/IHG paid nights to qualify as RA. These extra RAs no doubt took percentage above 1% leading to increased renewal targets.
Keeping 1% numbers opaque prevents those with enough hotels nights each year to obtain multiple brand elite status staying just absolute minimum IHG RA nights to obtain this great status.
I have limited sympathy for RAs trying to requal on the minimums of 60/20/3, which IC night wise might be 1 3week holiday or trip per year, but 60/30/3 or 60/40/3 shows commitment to IC.
I personally think IC night stay totals should really be given greater weight, eg 75/20/3 is not as worthy of RA status as 60/40/3 guest. RA status should reward commitment to actually staying at the IC brand