Now, I understand that some people (or at least their employers) are paying a good chunk of money to the airlines. For instance, prices are quite high on many North American routes as well as on intercontinental flights between the US and Europe. And they have to pay those dear prices even though the airlines are bringing down their costs by a percentage point or two each year.
At the very lest, you expect some recognition in return for loyalty to a certain airline or alliance. And it's frustrating if the recognition you get (say, as *G) is poor and not what it used to be.
I think part of the explanation is the increased market power of airlines. They can afford to devalue your *G status as the customer has fewer alternatives! What can you do? Nothing really, perhaps hope that regulators will change their views about the monopoly power of airlines and, particularly, their joint ventures.
On the other hand, I don't think that is the full story. There are also markets where a *G is cheaper than it ever was. I know, now somebody is gonna chime in and say "but *G with program XYZ used to be so much easier" but that doesn't refute my point. If you're based in certain parts of Eastern Europe, *G can be had dirt cheap. If you're based in certain parts of Asia, OWS and OWE can be had dirt cheap. To those who got their *G so easily, my answer would be "you get what you pay for". If people want lower and lower prices, lower than what is to be expected based airlines' efficiency gains, you need to cut costs somewhere. No surprise *G benefits aren't exempt from cost-cutting measures.
In conclusion, I am of two minds about this. I can understand some users in markets with high prices are upset about deteriorating *G benefits. But I also think there are other markets which are competitive and in which prices are cut aggressively (as that seems to be what the customer wants). If you are in the latter type of situation, there's less reason to be upset the recognition is devalued. You get what you pay for.