Good luck. Hyatt's Diamond treatment is terrible in comparison to RA. I'm Lifetime SPG too and while I very much like Ritz Carlton's (booking through FHR) and Luxury Collection hotels, I get more value from IC and RA. And I'm at an LHW hotel now for a lengthy stay (because it's the only choice) and again I get far more value with IC. IC RA delivers in value so that's where I will continue to steer the bulk of my business.

Did you even understand my post...at all? I would have, too, but since I was "downgraded", I will not. The comparison for me personally is not all of that vs. RA, but all of that vs. AMB. Good luck.

Sorry, I didn't see the word downgraded and there are others here who did renew RA but seem unhappy about the program anyways. If the hotel that you did 100 nights at doesn't value you, then sure it makes sense to avoid that hotel. But if you can make good use of the RA program at multiple IC's, it would make sense to try to regain it. But we all have our different travel patterns. I was just making the point that if you are accustomed to RA treatment you are going to be very disappointed with Hyatt, etc.

Well, they say they do value me, but they haven't done anything (yet) to get in touch with corporate (not sure if they could do anything). I actually diverted 60 nights to Hyatt last year due to all this uncertainty regarding IC requalification; also, didn't travel for a few months due to the birth of our daughter. So I "only" had about 40 IC nights which counted, plus I think about at least 10 more should have counted but weirdly came back as "non-qualifying stay" or "overlapping stay" (I never follow up on this kind of stuff). On top of that, I had a couple of club rooms booked for a week at my regular IC hotel, but I canceled and moved to an LHW hotel because they promised me a birthday dinner reservation in their top floor restaurant, then canceled on a short notice. I was annoyed. (I also booked about 30 nights for employees at the same IC hotel.) So there are a few reasons why I didn't do more, but they know I normally do more nights with them. I basically only stay at ICs within IHG, so I had perhaps a couple of Indigo or CP nights on top, nothing else.

I have been Hyatt Diamond for over 10 years (about 2/3 of the way towards Lifetime), so I am well aware of the differences. (I'm also Hilton Diamond and have been for over 10 years, but I think this might be the year that I finally drop that.)

My personal trade-off is:

1) in the city I primarily travel to, the Hyatt is a bit nicer than the IC, and a bit closer to where I need to travel to. Yes, so far I used to get suites in the IC, but most of the time, I am traveling by myself, so it doesn't make a big difference there.

2) Also, as posted above, I am going for Hyatt Lifetime. So, spending 80+ nights at the IC while not getting RA benefits while being uncertain if that is even going to be enough, foregoing Hyatt Diamond/Globalist, not building towards Hyatt Globalist Lifetime doesn't make sense to me.

In essence, IHG needlessly drove away someone who would give them at least 80-100 nights per year, but who will now never come back, because the opportunity cost of having stays with significantly reduced benefits while being totally uncertain where the goalpost is and while losing status with other chains is just too high. I might even do it if I knew for instance, it's 60 IC nights at 3 different ICs. But making that effort without knowing if it's going to be enough - no. So the uncertainty really is the deal breaker.

P.S.: I also never received my RA package last year.

That's absolutely the essence of it. Great treatment in return for substantial business. A transactional relationship.

It starts to get weird when IHG nurtures a customer for over ten years on a solid 40-60 direct IC stays each year - but suddenly kicks him (me!) out of the programme YET expects the 40-60 nights to continue.

"...we value your devotion to our hotels. Please rest assured, we shall monitor your stays so that we can welcome you back as a Royal Ambassador"

Well, good luck with that ! :D

(And devotion is just a tad over the top)

Upon asking Manila about RA, they also wrote that the AMB year will remain rolling as it is, and only RA will be calendar year.

Adds a lot to the confusion.

I was told today that they now apply a certain algorithm to judge over individual cases. From pulling together all information I received it is something similar to

EQP * IC Nights
-—--------------------------- = personal qualification score
Top 10% average IC nights

They will compare your personal qualification score against a set value. If your score is better, you will qualify. Even if this appears to be somehow transparent, the opaque number still is the average number of IC nights, the top 10% (clearance not one percent) do stay with IC. The algorithm take in both, general group turnover and IC nights.

the message from IHG is they want 100% of your business to be an RA

you cannot just change brands once you reach a certain threshold

trying to maintain elite status at several chains will be "hard work", you will need to travel the majority of the year ;-)

IHG has handled the RA renewal process like real clowns but I think they might have the right strategy with the new plan as it demands an extreme loyalty, like it or not

Hi Flying Lawyer....I'm no numbers guy but just to check, that is essentially:

Spend x IC Only Nights
--------------------------
Av No. IC Only Nights

That sounds like it's for Ambassador program only and essentially RA renewal criteria.

Does it mean there is another equation for 'other brands within IHG' ?

Not to pry too much but possible give us a flavor of the source of the data?

Is that a correct assumption or am I misunderstanding. Thanks for what seems like the first clear model.

Question is: what is the goal of your strategy?

RA is a very good program, no doubt about that. And it is good to limit the number of people who participate and force those who are in to be loyal to the brand.

But the main problem is: demand (of loyalty) is linked to delivery (of service).

Changing the rules: fine.
Telling someone "sorry you won't make it under the new rules": also fine.
Not communicating at all (while you have ongoing business together): not acceptable.

The source was SLC pretty much high up the chain of command. From what I understand your overall group spend is relevant and the number of your IC nights. This is divided by the number of nights the top 10% members stay in average.

This makes overall spend relevant and the number of IC nights. So a low overall spend can be compensated by a high number of IC nights and to a limited extend the number a low number of IC nights can be compensated by a high overall spend. IC nights will however be the most important factor.

i can totally understand being pissed off, in light of the business you've given them.

i'm a big fan of the RA program, but a few years back, when there were issues in China over booking the 5K point breaks nights and on selling by brokers and others, i beleive they did a general audit.

i believe i got caught up in that audit, and then accussed of utilising too many BOGO's when IHG are the ones that accept and process them, it's their call to accept, not the customer's to impose. this was at a single property in China.

the first step by the IHG police was to close the account, i had 2.3 m points in the account, i told them i wld sue, and they reopened the account straight away, but they revoked my RA.

this was the year i had paid for 104 IC suite nights, inc 95 employee.

i was incredibly pissed, and vowed to never set foot in another IC. but the issue was, i really enjoyed RA, really liked the treatment at the properties, really liked the people, i really liked everything about RA, and IC, just not the nasty inappropriate response, and action by their compliance dept out of Salt Lake.

my faith was restored after contact with Ruth Negus' office in the UK, and the marketing dept won over, they made me RA again within months.

after that i was sent four or five RA packs, over several months, all with BOGO's, and luggage tags, and of course the points, not kidding, i have retained all the letters.

i sent copies of all the letters to Ruth Negus, via a contact, in her office, with a letter regarding the entire mishandling of my account, including them sending me four or five RA packs, i believe that may have lead to them choosing a third party to disseminate the RA packs.

they have some totally inappropriate compliance dept police that fight their marketing people, Michael Lawyer in Salt Lake i believe is far more valuable to IHG's competitors, just shouldn't be in that role, ex Amex guy, they are so good at customer service, pretty clear why they let him go. it is problematic, and you can see it in their culture, especially with the Makati customer service solution ( if you cld call it that), which can be completley hit, or miss. just depends on which Miss you speak with.

if was you, and you like everything about RA with the exception of IHG compliance, or those making decisions as to whether you shld be RA, i wld send a letter to Ruth with the business you've given them. always much better dealing with the UK.

two points, the property can sponsor RA for you, you cld ask the GM, Sales & Marketing Director, or Director of Rooms.

if you never received your pack, i'd ask for it now^ that's not unreasonable at all.

you're in the UK Ian, why not drop Ruth Negus a line, and tell her how you feel, what business you've contributed over the past decade.

i repeat, the UK, are far more reasonable to deal with^

Many thanks for that, is interesting.

have to say whilst it might not be as definitive as we would like (and I would personally prefer a definitive answer for selfish reasons) it does sort of make sense and I suspect how I got renewed this year.....a medium tally of nights...think about 55 IC and 82 ish in total but a lot of spend 250k EQP.

As you say though, nights is still the driver. But not mention of other IHG brand nights and the value..or not? Cheers