I was always under the impression if your ambassador ended july and you qualifed in say oct that your status ended the following july but my july passed
I called and they said my status ends october.
So. Got the full 12 months. I only have 40 nights so far and not a lot planned so i will be interested to see if others got the full 12 months after qualifying into their amb year.

It seems that IHG may be running into trouble with this rather short notice in the change for qualification for RA. I can not either get a reply fro the head of Ambassador by Email or phone. Thankfully I can Achieve Platinum very quickly with Marriott and SPG who are merging and offer as good if not better choice of properties and locations.

Qualification for RA has always been 'By invitation' although a few years ago, they published a qualification criteria of 60/20/3.

This criteria was removed more than a year ago and IHG has no obligation to disclose the criteria for the invitation.

mxm135 :)

the 60/20/3 was still being shown in the early part of this year, I checked. Also in early June ambassador service said that the criteria was being changed not it has been changed. As I am sure you know trying to hit a moving target is difficult. Where as Marriott SPG and Hilton all have specifics

This sadly hasn't bothered IHG too much up to now.

I agree that opaque qualification criteria are counter productive. If the new criteria requires significant spend at IC's it is surely better to publish and also to give transition options for those caught by the change at the end of their year.

Finally call centre staff should be clear on the criteria rather than using the opaque structure to end calls more quickly.

wouldn't Lifetime RA be good, for the most loyal customers.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/inter...l#post26923681

+1

Given there has been some speculation in this thread, and elsewhere, in terms of what revenue thresholds may be required for RA.

I was reading over the IHG document, and if you believe the mantra IHG corp is indoctrinating its franchisees with, then active members of IHG Rewards, and the Ambassador Program, including Royal Ambassadors, are as of 2013 FY, spending the following on a mean basis:

IHG Rewards Club Elites (active) average spend per annum c. USD1K

Ambassadors average spend per annum c. USD3K

Royal Ambassadors average spend per annum c. USD8.8K

So in revenue terms exclusively, not profit:

An average RA is equivalent to approx nine active IHG Rewards Club Elites; and three Ambassadors.

An average Ambassador is equivalent approx three active IHG Rewards Club Elites.

If the average spend of USD8.8K for RA's is reasonably accurate, then applying some sensitivity analysis, say by 10% either way, it's reasonable to suggest:

If they wish to increase RA numbers by lowering the revenue required, i believe USD8K wld have to me the absolute minimum threshold, so as to not flood the program with RA's.

If they wanted the number of RA's to remain consistent with current numbers, then the threshold would likely be say USD9K, adjusted for inflation annually.

If they want to increase the hurdle, then say USD10K.

I think it's USD 9 or 10K or 60 nights (maybe a few more IC than the previous 20), i guess data points to follow will assist in clarifying.

Nice summary, Tim. I expect an increase in the the qualifying threshold, but if RA is to be achieved exclusively through RA, then this will make re-qualification a lot simpler. ^

IHG makes more from revenue doesn't it under the franchise model? IHG simply takes a % rake of revenue and supplies any additional services (like points) where they are not part of the revenue % linked to revenue too.

From a short term IHG perspective more franchisee revenue directly equals more IHG profit.

Are tthose figures not directly linked to IC? They represent member average spend at IC properties not all IHG properties surely? So unless we understand the average spend at non IC properties too the IC spend figure alone tells us very little.

To be honest, the most interesting part of that presentation was not the absolute levels of spend but the INCREMENTAL spend generated once someone because Ambassador or RA.

From an IHG viewpoint, more RA's the better as people spend more once upgraded. It is a one-way win for them. For the hotels they trade off incremental spend vs the cost of the benefits so swelling the ranks is less of a win.

my read is the spend is across all IHG properties. The document is a communication, and a sell to the franchisees, and they'd want to be inflating the figures, no deflating them, in their effort to promote Ambassador sales.

i don't disagree, from IHG's perspective, if it wasn't for pushback from the properties, they'd probably love to flood the market with RA's to get that spend up, just like Hilton with their Diamonds. i believe lounges are pretty busy at some Hilton properties, which is a problematic result, diminishing that privilege for the true elites.

interestingly, we're seeing IHG up the anti for RA, it's a trade off with the properties, you can tell some properties really get behind the Program, and see its benefits for their operation. and then you see properties that you can tell want to deliver the absolute bare minimum requirements, that are clearly not into the Program, and possibly even resent it in some respects.

i was down in Costa Rica two years back, and after two glasses of wine in the lounge, they wld charge?

In its sell, IHG maintain the cost of delivering services is only 33%, delivering 66% return. must be skewed on the room component, because returns in the hospitality industry, are normally limited at c 33%, with costs between 65% and 85%, excluding function business, that can be more profitable.

A glass of wine costs a lot different in different markets. And of course room revenue is different in different markets. For instance wine and alcohol are heavily taxed in some places like Singapore. So blanket policies will always be criticized by accountants in such markets.

The spends are way too low to be across all IHG.

I read this as the average IC spend only this is targeted at their IC Franchisees only and other IHG spend would be irrelevant to the audience and Question 1 on the list from IC franchisees. This is a PPT and thus designed to be talked over with Q&A and the audience wouldn't be stupid.