when you look at the others, Hyatt 50, SPG 50, Hilton 60 , and 75 Ritz, Ritz is the only straight up one category high end brand, similar to Intercon, the other groups include their sub brands like IHG do for Rewards Club.

so that may well be the magic number, if you consider say an ADR of USD175, and apply say a 75-85 night threshold, that equates to USD13-15K. reasonable numbers.

Calendar YTD comparing my qualifying points total compared to number of stays I am averaging circa $270 a night across all IHG brands

that wld be 55 nights. not out of range.

i spend more on IC nights too, but i expect, as many have mentioned previously, you'd have quite a few corporates on corp rates with lower ADR's, and also a bunch of RA's that book the lowest price point, bringing that RA ADR average down, and enjoy the upgrade.

i wouldn't be surprised if the night number is 85, and the dollar number is c 15K as you suggested. I can't imagine it being less than say USD10K.

that wld be 57 nights @ USD175 ADR.

Total profit of a tier is
number of members of that tier x profit per member of that tier

A revenue based selection criteria will increase the profit per member of that tier. That will increase the total profit of that tier.

But a revenue based selection criteria will most likely decrease the number of members of that tier. That will decrease the profit of that tier.

The question is: Will the impact of the higher profit per member be higher or lower than the impact of the lower number of members?

Plus: With a revenue based selection criteria you make the qualifying rules more clear and more rational. Clearness and economic rationality lowers the emotions of a loyalty program. A loyalty program with less emotions is less successful.

And: The guests, who are RA now, maybe for years, but can not be qualify to RA again, will be disappointed, but attracted by the still stay based loyalty programs of IHG's competitors. Most of them will be able to get the top tier of that loyalty programs. If they change, they have to focus on their new loyalty program to qualify for the top tier. That means, that they will decrease their nights at IHG brands. OK, that will increase the emotions of the former RA for IHG, but when I said, that a loyalty program with less emotions is less successful, I meant positive emotions.

Btw: The upgrade t&c of IHG encourage RA to choose cheaper rooms. At some IC it doesn't matter if a RA book the cheapest or the most expensive room: He will get the same room. If IHG wants more profit per member, why do they have a rule like that?

Your maths understanding above is in my view is unrealistic and so far out of whack it beggars belief, very few RA's yearly hotel stay profiles will be 60nights-plus 100% at IC's.

Your view coloured as you are in the very fortunate position of being able to stay so much (all the time) in IC locations and also booking premium non entry level rooms. At the low end of RA qualification the opposite is true, less IC nights are possible, and those IC nights need to be at lower room categories in lower priced locations.

IHG still want to give top 1% of Ambassadors RA status, and your above $13-15k figures would decimate RA ranks including myself. Any revenue qualification bar will be set to keep RA numbers at 1% so you really need lto consider the low end of qualification for RA guest revenue amounts.

At the low end, a not insubstantial number of RAs do qualify with minimum mix of 20x $125-150 IC and 40x $80-120 non-IC ($2500-3000 + $3200-4800 ) equals minimum spend of RA in a $5700-7800 range.
(And it could well be done even cheaper 20x $100 IC's + 40x $60 HIE = $4400 only, by a real minority of RA's)

Maybe an RA just in top half RA by revenue would be 60/40/3 profile with a wider range of IC locations and rates , fleshed out with some cheaper CP/HI nights eg
20x $150, 10x $200, 10x $300 IC's and 20x $80-150 non-ICs, giving $8000 IC spend and $2000 non-IC spend.

My own IHG stay profile averages 80-100/30-35/6-8, eg 30night IC spend $10k (10x $150 = $1500, 10x $300 = $3000, 10x $550 = $5500 )
cheapest IC's Berlin, Budapest, Bucharest, Bangkok £100-£175 ($140-245)
medium IC's Singapore, London/Paris low season, £200-£300 ($280-420)
costly ICs HK, London, Amsterdam, Paris £300-£450 ($420-630)

Where IC is cheap, eg KUL/SIN/BKK , I book pricier club rooms. Paris-LG/London-PL I book mostly classic/superior rooms. I only make 30-35 IC nights as I will stay at IC's when on vacation or 3-4night weekend break trips to destinations like Budapest.


If you set revenue bar much above $8k IC spend, the number of RAs could likely be halved.

If bar of IC only revenue is set much above $10k then I will have to seriously consider dropping RA and not staying with IHG at all, and no way do I believe I fall into the bottom 25% by IC/IHG spend value of the 1% RA pool that IHG corporate can probably afford to lose.
Without RA I would switch stays to hotel chains where I will get lounge each night, Hilton, Marriott, so IHG will lose most of my usual IHG nights, both IC and non-IC chain

My reading of the document was that they were still in the thought process.

Be careful here. Customers booking more expensive hotels or more expensive rooms within particular hotels are not necessarily the most profitable customers. A lower priced hotel can be very profitable for various reasons (such s cheap labor or cheap reasl estate prices) while one that is much more expensive can make much less money net of costs.

This could be quite good news for me.My Hilton Diamond status comes complimentary from BA as part of my Gold Guest list status.

If IHG moves down the road of RA renewal based on pure IC spend,I will be able to renew based on staying at nice IC's where I wish to stay.I will then be able to ditch my stays at crappy Holiday inns where I do not get free breakfast,nor much else despite the promises from Spire,and move them to equally crappy Hiltons where I do get free breakfast as a Diamond.

I wonder how much RA's spend at HI's,and if IHG care,but will they risk the revenue loss,or will they bring in added requirements in addition to spend in IC's?

In my recent conversations with IHG Corporate, I did not get the impression that the RA program was going to take such a radical turn. They did state that changes were being considered and some changes were made this year regarding qualifications.

I think it is premature to start speculating where the program will go.

mxm135 :)

IHG income is tied to revenue not profitability. IHG wants revenue maximisation not property profit maximisation.

$8k is way too low I can do that in less than 20 IC nights.

My experience too is that RA rewards buying non base rooms like no other programme. It recognises and encourages room upsell which makes it smarter than any other frequent guest scheme on the street.

Speculation is - I am afraid - a very common thing with Royal Ambassador status.

I do not see any relevant news telling us that things have changed.

I do not like the latest rumours, there are simply not enough ICs in the places I travel

after being an RA for the past 8 years or so, IHG will very likely lose 95% of my business if I fail to re-qualify strictly due to new revenue-based criteria

surely IHG must be aware of this risk and not be overly concerned about losing a few long-time RAs

lucky you

having thought about it, they've probably just done the right thing, given the timing of it.