Originally Posted by
CPRich
Pretty much what I said.
Yes, it may be a win for "some" when 62% of properties changing value went down. In an election, that's known as a landslide.
If you're looking to find a specific niche of a small percentage of properties where there's a negative impact and use that to support a pre-defined conclusion of "every year without fail, overall, our points are being devalued", you can.
A factual analysis of the data does not support that conclusion. But when you've already decided the outcome, there's really no point in discussing.
People do not stay system wide. They stay in a few cities. Or a few regions. Or perhaps even a few continents. But what do your overall stats matter if most of the reductions are in South American if one never stays in South America? The reality is that you can crow all you want about 62% - but it is a meaningless number to everyone. Your election analogy is a poor one. We all live with whomever is elected. But 62% is absolutely meaningless when some of us only stay in the US. What is the US %? Others only stay in South America. What is the South America %? And then - within those areas... some of us only stay at Westins/LM/Sheraton and never stay aLoft/4P etc. And for some it's the opposite. So you and Marriott can continue to "factually" say 62% all day long. But this factual stat is misleading. It does not represent the stay patterns of many. You are quoting numbers for an academic world - which is simply not representative of the real world and many stay patterns.