New RA qualifying criteria based on IC Revenue
 

Excellent News:

New Royal selection criteria is based on revenue not just stay
behaviour
• Only InterContinental stays will count towards Royal
qualification
• Multi location stays to avoid qualification for long term stayers
• Changes will be phased in

New RA qualifying criteria based on IC Revenue
 

IHG is going to change RA criteria. The new criteria will be based on amount of payments not just number of stay. And only IC stays will count towards RA qualification. Multi properties still required.

Also they will define clear policy of upgrade and Club access.

Some of this change seems to be already adopted.

hope you're right,how reliable is the source? maybe they listened, or have just done what the airlines are doing....adopting revenue models^

Sent: September 10, 2015 12:58:20 PM
Subject: Re 482643417 RA Status Nights v Revenue


Hi .....,

hope you've had a great summer.

had a very nice stay in Miami, thank you for your assistance. Mike Kovensky, the Sales Director looked after us.

would it be possible to forward this correspondence to your colleague, Ms Ruth Negus.

it would be much appreciated.

Thanks,


-----------------------------------------------------


Dear Ms Negus,


In calendar year 2013, i paid for 404 IC suite nights (279, and 125 for an employee) previous years averaged 150 nights.

Royal Ambassador status renewed in mid 2014, not withstanding not only meeting the qualifying threshold of 60 total IHG nights, minimum 20 IC nights, minimum three IC properties, the 60/20/3 criteria, in 2013, but well exceeding it, by 100's of nights.

I pay for multiple higher yielding suites each night to accommodate my immediate family when staying with IC, average spend is c. USD800 a night, including ancillary spend, restaurants, gift shops etc not billed to the folio.

Is there an avenue to RA status via revenue?

For example, a person who spends an average of say USD75 a night for 40 HI nights, 20 IC nights at say USD150, equates to total revenue of USD6K, gains RA status, whereas YTD i have spent c. USD14K directly billed to folio, and additional c. USD4K for direct restaurant/gift shop etc spend, USD18K revenue v someone who generates say USD6K revenue, but achieve no RA status.

With IHG/InterContinental i'm facing a disincentive to pay for higher yielding multiple suites v the other hotel programs, based on this Nights v Revenue/Margin criteria.

I would really appreciate seeing total revenue being included say as a tandem alternative criterion to qualify for Royal Ambassador status.

I believe it would be more equitable, and mutually advantageous for IHG, and it's loyal customers.

Appreciate your consideration.

Thanks.

Yes, I coincidentally saw the document about it on web.
You can find by Google.

Yes, Raynyanfunifuni's information is true. I got same information from very reliable source on June.

Interesting that they require multiple IC hotels. What about someone on a contract, spends 150 nights in 1 IC spending $30K and they don't get RA. Seems short sighted to me. I'll never get there but been thinking about this as I have friends who may.

FYI. I'm Re-Qualified Spire RA on End of May.2016(until 2017 June).
Stay count is IC40/HIEX14/CP3/HI10 = 67 Paid stays and 5 different ICs.

According to document, Multi location stays required to avoid long term stay guests. It is quite make sense that 150 nights in 1 IC spending $30K cannot get RA.

What is wrong with long term guests? I don't get it. You say "it is quite make sense", why does it make sense. Please explain IHG's reasoning for this.

FSP is not just for single hotel, but for enhance the value of "Hotel Chain".
It's a same logic that recently many Airlines trying to exclude the "Millage runner".

All the airlines did was add a dollar requirement. Sure hope no one I know gets a long term assignment and has to stay in one hotel. Even at a high rate. They will get screwed and not get any benefits. Seems a hotel would love to have someone there for a long time at a high rate. Maybe it makes sense to you but it sure doesn't to me.

IHG focus on targeted enrollment of "HIGH VALUE GUSTS". Royal criteria based on revenue not just stays such as paid F&B and higher cost room.

Someone who spends $200 per night 5 nights a week for 30 weeks a year isn't high value? I never said or meant to imply they stayed 150 nights straight. I get the stays and nights thing it is the 3 different IC's I don't get.

i've had years with 250 + nights at the one property, and no problem renewing.

It depends. If a company arranges a special long term price with the hotel for a set of employees, that means the employee or hotel guest really had no choice in the matter. In that case, what loyalty is there?

However if an individual negotiates a long term stay, then part of the negotiation can include RA level benefits or better. That individual is choosing the IC over other hotels and is guaranteeing a fixed set of weekly or monthly revenue to the hotel.

In the company case, they only care about the cost. In the individual case, they care about how well the hotel treats them.

67/40/5 interesting data point

Lets not over complicate things. Just stick to my 5 nights a week for 30 weeks a year at $200 per night. And lets say my person is an independent contractor not affiliated with any company that my negotiate a rate. They chose the IC because they wanted to stay there for whatever reason, they like IC, it is right next to the company they will be consulting with whatever, non of that has any bearing on my question, why do they require multiple IC's.

But as Tim O'Brien just noted, it seems to not be a hard and fast requirement which would make sense as it is an invitation only status.

i'm guessing the multiple IC requirement is just to satisfy their franchisees, ie they share in the revenue/profitability, and have to also wear the costs for the mini bar benefits etc

Thank you very much Raynan. A little googling turned it up for me. This document is nice to see mainly because it confirms what I thought all along was true and what various IC staff have hinted to me over the years. It's funny, but this document will make sure I stay loyal to IC hotels because it affirms that they really see the value in us RA's.

Two points. One is you are absolutely correct that the chain values the fact that a regular guest at the Park Lane will spend x number of dollars at other IC's. They even break it down by region.

But regarding the mini-bar, what I've learned is that is such a tiny expense that it is insignificant in the overall cost of the scheme.

You are very welcome. This document also have in Spanish, Chinese, and Japanese version. I have all of them.

odd thing about this document, is it refers to "revenue, and not just Stays", when it's never been about "Stays", it's been about "Nights".

unlike Hilton (30 stays/60 nights/120K points), and say Hyatt (25 stays/50nights) for example

http://intercontinental-70thcelebrat...Ambassador.pdf now http://viewfromthewing.img.boardinga...Ambassador.pdf

You've got to love clueless Web design companies.

If you go to http://intercontinental-70thcelebrations.co.uk and View Source, you'll see the following links:

http://intercontinental-70thcelebrat...k_Toolkit.pptx

http://magazine.intercontinental.com...l-life-issue-1

No change on this thread expected: desperate searches for the magic numbers, disappointment expressed because the service centre staff didn't give the "right" answer, calls for less opacity, probably calls for inclusion of IHG-wide stays, etc etc.

Could we get a link please if this is public domain, or at the very least an outline of criteria?

I think this could be very positive.

Hopefully, they'll set a $ spend target. It's difficult to see how it would work otherwise.
I've no issue spending more time in IC's and less in HIX, HI and CP simply to make up the numbers.

The only things that have leaked are the documents on this page - there's no hard criteria mentioned so far.

I have no problem with these changes as long as the requirements are made public. Making it revenue based without giving a target would be cruel.

Only I can say that you can find by Google, since "©︎2016 IHG CONFIDENTIAL" on the document. It's so regrettable LL and some people paste the URL in public. We should be moderate to handle this kind of matter. Coz it was very easy to find on google.

I tried various search terms on Google and didn't find it until someone posted the link.

What is also interesting in the context of my posts upthread is that they appear to want to drive up revenue by better leveraging the scheme, which IMHO means more transparent and less opaque qualifying criteria. Something like >$20k spend, >25 nights and minimum 5 IC's would I think be appropriate.

If the revenue threshold is too high, it begins to negate the benefits of RA. I.e if we're coerced into booking higher-end room categories, there is often no scope for upgrades past a certain room category.
That said, they seem to be trying to sort something with lounge access.

I think what some people may be missing is that this PPT is a sales and marketing presentation to the owners and managers of all the IC's in the world. What you are not seeing is the feedback from that group.

i don't disagree, but of course the difference now, is seeing it published on their internal document, that they are phasing in the revenue model, and it's all about IC revenue, and nothing to do with the other brands that used to make up 2/3rds of the 60 night criterion.

A significant departure from the previously published criteria 60/20/3, and a great call^

i think that's exactly what it is, revenue, without disclosure of a number.

there's no difference between discussing it, and posting it.

if you think about the numbers, other groups for example 50/60 night threshold, and say apply an average daily rate of USD175, then that wld place it more in the 10K on room spend only, then there's F&B, Gift and other ancillary spend, that augments the room revenue. i find on average i spend c 50% more on F&B etc, so 10K on room usually equates to c 15K total spend.

I think it's interesting that Ambassadors average on 9 IC nights per year. Perhaps the adjusted qualification criteria might not be so ridiculous..;)

You have always been beating a self interested drum on this revenue aspect

However it shuld still be that IHG keep the term "qualifying stay rates" for IC nights+stays, then IHG still won't count any of your personally non-qualified negotiated stay spend. Neither do IHG count the revenue of you booking 2x rooms per night.

There is no point counting deeply discounted revenue nights.

As an aside, interesting figures tby IHG, that your average Ambassador makes only 6-10 nights at IC's ! ? But then realistically $200/6nights ie $33/night is worth it for upgrade savings as one gets $200 savings PLUS back. 6x Amb IC 1-cat upgrade nights is at least break even on your $150/200 outlay.

I have absolutely no issue wth a purely total IC revenue qualification for RA.

It will be far cheaper and less onerous on my IHG/IC total stays and spend/nights to retain RA status on spend, at costlier IC hotels.

I can eaily make 20nights paid qual rates at IC's London-PL, Paris-LG, Amstel
that cost far more than 60nights in a low priced USA/China city IC hotel, and qualify as the top 1% on spend on 20 IC nights alone

I can then instead of a forced staying in not so great CP/HI/HIE to reach 60 IHG nights, use those 40x spare nights to keep my Hilton HHD status , OR, even put 40nights of IHG CP/HI/HIE stays towards a new program like Hyatt/SPG/Marriott

My IC spend remains the same, but IHG as a whole brand lose out as I no longer book the non-IC hotels to requal as RA!

Regarding the AMB numbers, isn't it true that for the larger corporate contracts that they hand out a bunch of AMB membership cards to execs? And maybe those execs simply don't stay often at IC's. If that is true, it might skew the numbers a bit.

I was looking at the overall profit slide and trying to come up with a formula to figure out how many RA's there are in the world, but I guess we'd need a bit more information for that.

The funny thing is that even though they talk to the issue of RA's only being the most loyal, they pitch even more strongly that they would like a whole lot more RA's because look at the revenue they bring in! Like all hotel chains, the marketing people want more and more top level elites. But the hotels that host the most top level elites will complain about the cost and hassle of everyone wanting a suite upgrade.