Why do Elements only earn 1/2 points?
 

I used to love staying at Element Hotels (especially the Element Harrison in New Jersey - it was so easy to take PATH to the WTC!), however, I refuse to stay at them now since earnings have been slashed in half.

Why was this done? What rationale does Marriott have to do this?

Is Element similar to Residence Inn/Towneplace? Those only earn 1/2 points as well. But I agree, not worth paying to stay there for half points.

Marriott has a very long tradition of this sort of nonsense. It's why even after years and years of Plat status, I was still several hundred thousand points shy of legacy LTPP. I've spent years of my life in Residence Inn and TPS properties, and only had half points to show for it. Now they've done it to Element as well, which is indeed the SPG equivalent of TPS in my estimation. I suppose they chose to do this so as to equal the playing field between the legacy TPS properties and the incoming Element properties. Of course what they should've done was to move in precisely the opposite direction, and I consider this to be one of the greatest fails of the integration from a decision-making perspective.

Because Marriott decided it does.

I'm afraid there's not much more than that.

Competition!

Because Element is considered an "extended stay" category hotel (like Residence Inn & TownPlace), and many hotel programs give half the points at extended stay hotels as at "regular" hotels. It's not just Marriott, same thing for IHG at Candlewood Suites and StayBridge Suites, same thing for HIlton at Home2 Suites and one or two other brands. (I'm not familiar enough with Hyatt's program to know if they have extended stay brands and if they earn half there too.)

And it's nothing new. This multi-program trend of earning half the points at extended stay hotels has been going for at least two decades. (I have no idea therefore who started it.)

It's just that Starwood used to be an exception to this trend, but now they've merged into Marriott which has long been part of this trend. So if the only program you used to use is Starwood, I can see why it may seem strange to you. Me, I ran into it at IHG and Hitlon years before I ever stayed at any Starwood or Marriott property.

What he said...

And as noted, it's not specific to MAR. My guess (and it's only that) is that 2 decades ago the extended stay properties were less expensive so half the points & it's just continued (even though pricing is now dynamic).

Cheers.

...but of course 1/2 the price (or cheaper price) just means 1/2 the points awarded naturally :confused:

This company is a joke

Does anyone actually use an Element for an extended stay? The ones that I have stayed at have all been $200+ per night.

Yes, I practically lived in the Element Doral, FL (Miami) for the better part of a year. My stays were often measured in weeks, and were usually only broken by long weekends home or trips elsewhere. The rate fluctuated wildly with the normal/expected FL high/low season cycle, but my client was footing the bill (and it was generally cheaper than the TPS I'd been staying at before switching teams to SPG). I'm just glad all that went down prior to the points earnings getting halved (although in the future, if the past is any indication, I'll still choose comfort and convenience over points tally).

Again (and I'm certainly not speaking for MAR!), but I think way back the prices were less for long term stays so points were less. I just talked to my friend who works at limited service & asked about this. He said he has multiple people staying for multiple months at a time & their long-term rate is $99/night, so perhaps that's why MAR decided on 5pts vs 10pts for the lesser rate for extended stay properties (which also include free brekkie, wifi, etc, for everyone). He said individual rates for really short stays can be more like what we're used to wrt rack rate, but that a lot of stays at extended properties are, well, extended stays & cheap rates. (I also think he's starting to get annoyed w/ me asking every time something comes up on FT & I ask for clarification, but so far he's indulged me in answering).

Cheers.

I can't really answer "why" Marriott and other programs limited extended stay property earnings to 1/2 the rate of the other brands. But I've always just "assumed" it was because as an extended stay property, once someone has chosen where they will be staying (for an extended period), Marriott doesn't have as much a need to "entice" them to keep staying there. Most people will not want to move from one apartment to another just for some points.

Also, I thought Starwood limited the length of stay to something like 60 or 90 days where points could be earned? If someone's stay lasted longer than that, they wouldn't get points for that stay. Marriott has never had length of stay limits like that. I've known people who've stayed more than a year in an RI and got all the points from it (with not having to check-out for a night or 2 and then check back in anywhere in there.) So maybe both had their "limits" (one was number of points earned, the other the number of nights for a stay). And guessing that the original premise for extended stay hotels was, well, for extended stays, then on actual real extended stays, Marriott's approach might provide more points for folks than the old Starwood approach. (Unless someone played the check-in/out for a night or 2 during the stay, which most non-FTers probably wouldn't do.)

And I'm guessing that most FTers probably don't fit the true "extended" stay mold, and as such, we aren't necessarily the target audience. Thus it might make sense for most of us to see other, non-extended stay brands, as more appealing for earning points.

That may be the difference then, as I stayed 5 months in a Residence Inn, and got both points (at half value) and nights (at full value) for that time. They settled up the bill every $1000, so my status changed with the times, even though I hadn't officially checked out. So if you were really long term stay, you'd keep earning no matter how long you were there.