They stopped "general status matching" in mid-Sept - see http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/hyatt...11-10-a-8.html post 311. Since then, prior to the announcement in this thread, they seemed to do a pretty steep challenge (also see the last few posts in the referenced thread after post 311).

To a certain extent I do agree. However, lets take the hypothetical customer who annually spends 10 nights in NYC (say Andaz Wall St), 10 nights in DC (at PH DC), 10 nights in Chicago (at PH Chicago), 10 nights in Paris (at PH Vendome), and 10 nights in London (at HR Churchill). If this customer for example wanted to switch to Hyatt from SPG due to Paris (and their experience at the PH Vendome) with a goal of staying at the other properties listed (not really a stretch since I think most would agree that those properties are superior to the SPG properties in the same cities), this customer may not be able to get a status match since 10 nights at PH Vendome probably doesn't even register with the property (or many of the other properties either). Hyatt may have lost out on 50 annual nights at high priced properties if the customer isn't willing to go through the regular qualification process without a status match against SPG Platinum and they couldn't get a property to "sponsor" a status since the stays aren't "significant" enough.

In my own case, I've been a Diamond for 7 years on a "challenge" to DL Platinum members at the time and requalifying the regular way since. However, even though lately I've been at about 40 stays / nights annually, I would be hard pressed to get a property to "sponsor" a status for me since my travel patterns are quite variable (only exception might be my local HR where I do my mattress runs). Before the "loss" of the PH SF, that was probably the only other property that might have been willing to "sponsor" my status. In many locations, I choose Hyatt only because I have status with them and love "some" of their properties even though many of them (particularly domestic ones) have many other "equivalent" properties around that are with other hotel companies.

Unless, other hotel companies take this approach, I anticipate that Hyatt will resume "status matching" (perhaps with more stringent requirements than before). Otherwise, they may find their elite Diamond numbers eroding. Although, I suspect that they may have more Diamonds than targeted right now due to the DMTRIAL program that was early-terminated in May.

I doubt that this policy is going to stick for more than a year or two at most:

1. Corporate doesn't have as much to gain from customers dealing more with a hotel's local sales team instead of central booking channel it owns;

2. Corporate may want to make sales deals with corporate clients and/or TMCs that come with elite status matches in order to get that business.

3. Corporate may again want to keep in the running with competitors who maintain a parent-run status match option to win business (no less so if/once the budget/projections tied to Diamond numbers is no longer under threat of being busted).

ah, I missed that as well. Thanks Peter.

-David

^^^

I'd love to see what really caused this.

My hunch - and I don't think any reps here would even have heard or know this if it even was the reason - is the 'sharing' between Starwood, Hyatt, and some other hotels on 'verifying status' finally clicked as an issue. Oh crap we are seriously violating privacy policies. Is this even legal?? - what should we do?

Ok - its easy. There's lots of fraud on ebay with photo shopping, we can't verify with other programs, alright - lets stop the matching until we figure this out.

I'm the first one to admit that I gravitate toward 'conspiracy theories' quickly but this seems like a plausible reason for why this occurred.

Even if its not the reason, someone in the programs for the hotels should have known that sharing membership information isn't the right thing to do..... Especially with the large push on privacy policies over the last few years.

Given that the 4 e-certs deposited instantly, I can understand if Hyatt did stop this practice completely. I imagine that individual cases would continue to be assessed on a case by case basis by Hyatt and individual properties. I doubt Hyatt would turn a potential member away with 100+ stays.

I have my doubts that Hyatt's sharing of customer information with Hyatt competitors was intentional, corporate policy and that such data sharing is the driver behind the series of changes this year applicable to acquiring Diamond status.

Very good summary & it would be my take on it as well.

Cheers.

Unfortunate decision personally :(.

There's a very simple fix for that. As part of your status match request you fill out an agreement that states you give whomever permission to verify your status with other chains. Other chain that verifies is just complying with your own request. (Roughly what happens with a background check.) So sorry, not buying your conspiracy theory.

Perhaps it is just poor English, but I'm reading this to mean that there is some program which doesn't include just Hyatt and that Hyatt GP is no longer participating in that program. If Hyatt GP was no longer offering status matches then I would expect it would be worded differently.

OK, here's a stupid question: Isn't status matching and tier matching the same? If not, how are they different?

It isn't the word tier vs status I thought was odd. It is that they aren't participating in the program. In what program aren't they participating? The program continues but without their participation? Who is left participating?

Shouldn't the be saying that they are no longer offering tier matches?

yosithezet is making the distinction between what has been described as a program, as opposed to status matches. For example, SPG, Hyatt and Hilton may have "Tier Matching Program" that requires each to share and verify data. Perhaps they have opted out of this, but may still consider status matches individually, or sponsored by properties as part of the sales pitch process.

I sent a PM to the OP asking for a clarification.

Although, I think it means that there is currently no status match available from GP. But there might be exceptions from individual properties.

-David