Originally Posted by
MSPeconomist
I also want to say that I consider it extremely unfair that someone with 100 Starwood nights, regardless of spend, is immediately assigned an Ambassador while those on the MR side are not, plus we are subject to the yet-to-be-clarified $20,000 revenue requirement.
Unfair? Hardly.
Anyone with Marriott 100+ nights before the Starwood acquisition will be doing vastly better with benefits once the new loyalty program begins--regardless of the Ambassador benefit.
Starwood members deserve the benefits for the SPG program they chose. Starwood people with 100+ nights chose to stay with Starwood and get to reap the benefits for Starwood. It's also a lot harder to accumulate 100 nights with the smaller SPG portfolio. Yes, even with the 3 nights earning possible for 3 rooms, especially with the 10 nights earned from a simple meeting at any Marriott!
Marriott members deserve the benefits for the MR/RC program they chose. Marriott people with 100+ nights chose to stay with Marriott and get to reap the benefits for Marriott as is! You get to enjoy the Starwood perk of an Ambassador once the new loyalty program begins.
There's nothing unfair about that whatsoever. In fact, you win in that Marriott is starting the new program in August--which gives you the chance to get the SPG Ambassador product that you had no chance to get otherwise until 2019.
Originally Posted by
MSPeconomist
I also got stiffed on the Ambassador experiment and I responded by voting with my feet and shifting 100+ nights to Hyatt, where I've been treated very well and have had a Private Line Agent > My Hyatt Concierge for almost a decade.
You above complained about how you didn't get the Marriott version of an Ambassador and are so happy with your Hyatt Concierge. You chose to stay with Hyatt instead of Starwood or Marriott. So enjoy what you chose. If that Hyatt Concierge was so amazing, it's hard to understand why you're so upset you didn't get and can't yet get the Marriott Ambassador any sooner.