Originally Posted by
CPRich
But, but...
No, picking a subset of properties that one person may be interested in does not support a "devaluation travesty" claim for an entire program. "Based on my specific needs, I suffer an impact" is accurate - branding the entire program is not. (I also suspect any program change in history had negative impacts to some person with some specific needs subset. That's not how one should evaluate "program changes", IMHO)
I could just as easily say "St Regis SF - down from 90K to 60K; W Bali - down from 90K to 60K - this new program saves me 1/3 of my points - Hallelujah!!!"
The real way to do this would be to determine the impact based on the total actual award bookings across the two patterns, which is of course an impossible analysis for us to perform. I think that the net decrease in SPG Cat 6 and Cat 7 properties undermines posters' arguments about this being a devaluation of aspirational properties.