Eastbay1K

And now, I can't get that song out of my head (you know, the one written by Roger Waters, et al.) ♫Shine on you crazy Titanium .. you reached for that upgrade too soon, you cried like a loon ...♫

magendim

For SPG Platinums, yes it has been degraded/devalued. Platinum was the SPG top tier that got almost everything - SNAs, Lounge, Welcome Gift/Breakfast, Late checkout, etc, including generous upgrades. Now platinums are two tiers down from the top so those folks will be hearing a lot of "you already have a nice room" when inquiring about upgrades. The fact is Marriott butchered the best hotel loyalty program and is trying to throw enough scraps out to keep the lower tier members coming.

CCIE_Flyer

Wasn't there P75 and P100 above P50?

magendim

Those were not additional tiers above Platinum, you just got more perks when you hit 75 and 100 nights. For instance, you got Your 24 & additional points at 75 nights and an ambassador assigned at 100 night. I was mainly a Starwood guy over the years but stayed at Marriott as my second choice since we had a lot of corporate room blocks at Marriott. Hands down, SPG was the better and more generous program in almost every way and I've found recognition at Marriott, particularly in the US, was always pretty apathetic. I even had a number of hard core Marriott colleagues defect to SPG when they saw the perks I was getting compared to them and needing less nights to get them.

Concerto

Well, not just the name, but the whole package. If it's presented attractively with enough earning and burning, as well as status gaining, options then that would be a good motivation to join up and give it a go. If the overall program is attractive then it's definitely worth a try. As for the name, it will probably change in time if it ends up being hated so much. The name is just a name, the content of the program is what matters.

When SWISS International Air Lines began back in the early 2000s, I almost bought a table lamp with the square logo and red theme because I liked it so much. They were flogging them at the ticket desks at the time. But no, spending too much time in the air did not mean that I wanted to be permanently reminded of sitting on a plane back home. I think at home it's good to get away from all this, because we are on the road enough as it is. As I said, if the overall program package is good, I will join up. If not, I won't bother, and you can all go on squabbling about it if that's what rocks your boats.

margarita girl

magendim

This merger reminds me of the CO/UA merger. All the lousy aspects of CO (like their website/ticketing system) were steamrolled upon UA since CO and that a'hole Smisek were running the show. They only cared about their bottom line and could care less about customer service.

Dr. HFH

I said the same thing when the AA rebranding started. No one is making a decision on which flight to purchase based on how the planes are painted; so it doesn't matter. Because of that, I'm not sure that spending tens of millions of dollars on rebranding while the airline was going through bankruptcy was the best use of its limited assets, given that the rebranding almost certainly didn't produce any additional revenue.

Other than giving us FTers something to kibbitz about, the name isn't going to matter in the long (and short, probably, too) run.

PHLGovFlyer

All true . I still don't want to trade those titanium bits for gold

HMPS

"Oy-WAY" !

uxb

I already hear that as a future "Titanium" member. SNAs will be the way forward in re: upgrades.

GoPhils

JBord

It's actually kind of the opposite. UA acquired CO, and all those lousy aspects of CO. In this case, Marriott acquired SPG, and for the most part has integrated it into the Marriott program, while adding a few of the SPG perks, such as SNA's and an easier-to-obtain lifetime status program.

People seem to forget what made the UA-CO deal so horrendous. When one company acquires another, you expect the acquired company to integrate into the program. It was a total shock when CO was acquired and then all it's systems and policies were implemented at UA -- it resulted in a case where none of it's customers were happy, regardless of whether they were legacy UA or CO. In our case, legacy Marriott customers have had few changes, and the ones they've had are largely positive.

It's interesting to see how one's perspectives change as a customer depending on what side of the acquisition you were on. In most industries you see it with employees, but not often customers.

orca15

OTOH:

I kind of like "Bonvoy." And the merger gave me a chance to get a lifetime top tier, and many more hotels to spend and earn. I never used SW much before, there was always a MR or HH nearby, now I can and still earn points in one of my primary accounts. Finally,they can call it "Lifetime Bronze" for all I care, as long as the FDC knows what it means.

Kacee

While it was technically an acquisition by UA based on the relative stock valuations, in truth it was a CO takeover. That's why Jeff Smisek became CEO of the new entity (and quickly replaced virtually all former UA senior management with CO cronies). And CO's management kept the far inferior CO reservation system (SHARES) over UA's (Apollo) purely to save money. We're still paying the price for that decision.

So I think the analogy to what Marriott has done to SPG does have some relevance.