Originally Posted by
Marathon Man
Are you certain? I wonder if they just marketed to people who looked like travelers--business or not.
Perhaps somewhat....but my guess is that the first persona they defined as a member of the target audience for U.S. airline marketing campaigns immediately post-deregulation was a white male in his 40's, upper-middle-class, married with kids, traveling extensively for business and occasionally taking the family on vacation. Not to say there weren't other personas/demographics: I'm just saying that in 1980 or so that was likely the most prominent one.
Clearly FFP marketing today is more complicated and seeks to reach a much more diverse audience.
In my opinion--and I think only starwood still does this--I think paying for the flight with a bunch of cash or a bunch of miles should be the same thing. With limited exceptions, you can call the hotel chain and book a room with either means.
This is how it should still be...
OK, I'm kind of with you on Starwood, although I'm still a bit cranky about their recent devaluation. But anyway, the hotel programs evolved a bit after the airlines, and they
did collectively take one step closer to linking their points to revenue. The earning side is revenue-based, but the redeeming side isn't. Culturally/ethically, we're all still okay with that - companies allow employees to keep their hotel points.
How would the airlines accomplish this? Well, what we need is another marketing genius to surface that alters policy for the next 25 years!
My only fear is that the new genius might develop a system that I can't exploit as much as this one.
Let's face it: there's still a ton of room in the current system to achieve value simply by knowing the game well. By knowing how and where to look for award seats and routing, I'm still getting the seats I want to the places I want. (Granted, I avoid the peak tourist spots during peak seasons for many reasons including lack of award seats.)