Michael19887

No one is saying you should be punished. There should be two ways to earn lifetime status - one through base points/years as diamond OR nights/years as diamond. I think $150,000 in spending or 1.5 million base points is reasonable. Marriott goes by total points including promotions and bonuses, which in Hilton's case would be too easy/low of a threshold at 2 million. The additional base points threshold does encourage people to keep spending their money with Hilton and charge things to the room, which is what a loyalty program should be designed to do.

Baze

I was replying to my interpretation of what 380Flyer posted. I read it as it should only be revenue and that they felt the people who stay at low end properties don't spend enough to warrant a lifetime status. And in my 19 years of staying at Hiltons I have spent about the $150K at almost exclusively Hamptons and HGI's due to where I go and what company will pay for.


Edit to add: I don't remember when the base points qualification came into play but I do know it has not been there as long as nights and stays. So how would they account for the missing years of counting revenue?

Chang11

Right on, LTD should be a legitimate benchmark that the only the top 2 or 3% get like the original Diamond Status.

I am a legacy Diamond also, Diamond status since the Diamond program started over 20 years consecutive.

bonoman

Huh? For a business, the revenue model is the *only* model that makes sense.

BlondeBomber

not really--you can have a lot of cash flow and no profit. The profit model makes sense but how does one roll that out in a loyalty program--Hampton A is unprofitable so we will only give you 50% points, whereas Hampton B is really profitable so we will give you 125% points? Whether you are talking nights or revenue as an approximation of profit, only the hotel chain knows what makes sense. We just play the game whatever model they choose to use. Flyertalk helps us play that game better than the average person^

hfly

There are some Hyatt's that I love, in fact in something life 3 of the last five years I have had top status with Hyatt as well as Hilton, that being said:

1) Correct me if I'm wrong, Hyatt has 1/7th the amount of properties that Hilton does, or is it 1/8th, I never get that right. The point being is that Hyatt is a minnow compared to Hilton.

2) Speaking about the geniouses at Hyatt, who announced their new program less than 4 days ago, that does not even come into play for another 4 months or so, is kind of ridiculous, especially when one reads their forum and sees the amount of their top tier elites that are looking to leave now.

As was posted above, those of us that have stayed at Hilton properties over the last 10, 15 or 20 years were NOT doing it because of Lifetime status, as it did not exist - considering the size of the group, the nights and years of Diamond are appropriate, again, the only trick they missed was lifetime spend, as I stated above. Someone posited above that perhaps they are unable to track it, something that although possible, I think they could do, as they were tracking it for $10k and then $12k spending for as long as I can remember.

Michael19887

I find the whining in that thread to be hilarious. The new top tier is significantly better than the top tier before and is arguably the best top tier out there. Upgrade language now confirms suites for all stays when available and includes 4 of their great suite certificates. Also, free parking on award stays is new, and great benefits from the former program like full hot breakfast when no lounge now and the guaranteed 4pm check out remain. It only takes 10 additional nights from the old program, which is equivalent to Hilton's top tier requirement at 60 nights. Hilton should take a close look at Hyatt's program, because some alignment would significantly improve HHonors.

380Flyer

My point is that hotels need to align their lifetime and high tier with the methodologies that airlines such as British Airways, Qantas, Cathay Pacific, etc have employed with different tier points based on service class flown and fare paid within the sub-class.

In Hilton's case, they would reward those that stay at brand's such as Waldorf-Astoria and Conrad with higher level of stay credit versus those that are staying at mid-tier or value for money brands.

Bottom line: reward those that provide quality revenue and align recognition to those in mid-tier and value for money brands.

Skimanant

Or people complaining unfairly because the current model does not suit them, but another does.

1000 nights seems fair to me- rewarding loyalty by nights in bed actually spent at the hotel.

sdsearch

Why? Isn't Hilton based in the USA? So they are copying the methodologies that airlines such as AA, AS, DL, and UA have with lifetime status where it's only earned from raw miles flown on paid trips, not bonuses on such, no factors based on fare paid, no cabin bonuses, etc.

You seem to be comparing hotel lifetime status with airline annual status.

Airlines have completely different requirements for annual status vs lifetime status. (As do hotels!)

Sisosig

Now for some armchair economics: asume 5% of total guest revenue is flowing towards the loyalty program. How many W=A properties do exist worldwide? 25? 30? Maybe one should add 30 Conrads. What is the cost of the average night? $300? $450?

How many Hampton properties exist worldwide except in China? 2000? What is the cost of the average night at Hampton? $100 $150?

Which type of guest would be worth more to the program?

380Flyer

Hilton is a global hotel chain but it just happens to be based in the USA where it was established.

Airline and hotel loyalty programs have similar structure and thus for an airlines lifetime, it is based in the same principles as the annual accrual criteria where you get more tier points for flying upfront and lesser when flying on discounted tickets.

The same should be applied for hotels where one gets lesser stay/night credits for staying at value for money brands - i.e. Hampton Inn

Skimanant

Some people just wont give up, and need to look beyond their own needs.

Its not comparable to a flight. Different brands offer different levels of surroundings, quality, service etc which reflect the price.

An economy ticket is an economy ticket, with different fare structures and algorithms created by airlines to maximise sales. It's the same plane and product (yes, you pay more for Business etc). A Hampton is not the same as a WA. You pay your money and take your choice.

Hilton is rewarding for loyalty, in other words how many stays and how long with them. Staying 1000 nights at any rate is more loyal than staying less nights at a higher rate. This gives people something to aspire to. It's about loyalty, not buying the status.

Hilton have got it right.

Michael19887

Hilton is not rewarding loyalty, they are rewarding spending and revenue generation. They reward the guests that contribute most to their bottom line. You can do this by spending 20 nights in a Hampton Inn at $100.00/night; or 1 night at Conrad Maldives for $2,000.00. Both guests generate $2,000.00. The annual earnings treats these two guests the same way (1 racks up base points, 1 racks up nights) and the lifetime program should be structured the same way as well. Regardless, one can't just "buy the lifetime status" - it takes a lot of time or loyalty as you say to generate 10 years of diamond status. Triggers should be 10 years as diamond and 1,000 nights; or 10 years as diamond and 150,000 base points.

janetdoe

Why do you assume you know more about what drives profitability across the HHonors chains than the folks at Hilton?
A) Right. Every industry should model their loyalty programs based on what the airlines have done. Because the airlines are so consistently profitable year-to-year and all their loyal customers love them.

B)How on earth do you know that one room night in the Waldorf-Astoria in NYC is more profitable or has a better ROI, or any other number of metrics of "quality revenue", than a room night at a Hampton outside Kansas City? Yes, WA may charge 5x as much, but I have to imagine the rent, upkeep, union labor, doormen, housekeeping, room service staff, etc in NYC costs a lot more than a suburban acreage with a single night clerk and a pot of coffee in the lobby. Probably more than 5x.

And you have to go a step further than the profitability of the individual property. How much does the Hilton corporation receive in its pocket from the franchisee for each Hampton night that is credited to HHonors? It is significantly less than the amount of money Hilton receives for each WA guest that credits to Hilton? It could be that the Hilton Corporation sees less revenue per night from a WA stay. After all, if WA was so profitable in and of itself, they wouldn't have needed to be sold to Anbang, would they?

Food for thought... if you want an analogy to the airline industry, most of the US domestic airlines bleed money on their routes to Hawaii. They keep the routes simply because they are used as aspirational destinations for their loyalty programs. I suspect it could be entirely possible that Hilton kept the WA management as a loss leader. They want the consultant road warriors who are spending 200 nights a year at Hampton to have an aspirational brand to use their reward points.

I honestly have no idea how the Hilton profitability model works, but I'm certain it's a bit more complicated than cash flow from room revenue coming in.