LOL some really crushed feelings here! Sad that some can't even directly reply.

If the defense of Arne/Marriott is that they need to cherry-pick, curate, and deceptively ask and report to get to 90% positive favorability, but still then it's a legit 90%!!! - then that says a lot.

Data? I haven't seen any data which indicates that he's wrong, only skepticism. I'm hardly defending him. His results may all be fabricated. But AFAIK, no one has any actual data to support that theory.


My point exactly.

Why do you think anyone's feelings are crushed? Because some of us don't agree with you?

Actually, you are the one who isn't replying directly to any posts that offer a logical argument against your opinion. What post is this in response to? Same with several of your other responses. If you're replying to my sample poll, you misunderstood. While it's very possible Marriott cherry picked questions, my point is that there's a long list of improved benefits for many elite members. And further, your (or others) defense of the "worse" loyalty program can't be citing things that aren't related such as IT issues or customer service performance and wait times.

It seems you're guilty of the crimes you accuse others of, whether it's not directly replying to posts or avoiding using facts to substantiate your opinion.

Personally, I don't see myself as a defender of Marriott, and certainly not of the CEO. I just think some of these posts need to be balanced, rather than just dominated with the opinions of a small group of dissatisfied customers. I suppose most people who have such blind hatred assume that they must be in the majority, and can't comprehend that others don't see things the way they do.

In the end, you and I probably agree that most corporate surveys that are used for marketing or interview purposes are skewed. But why vehemently attack this one of many? Because it makes you feel better to call everyone else stupid if they don't dislike Marriott as much as you?

There are many pros to this merger. There are many increased benefits.

There are many cons to this merger. There are many decreased benefits.

it is the definition of a true mixed bag, with feelings that run the gamut.

The point remains - a 90% preference rate just doesn’t happen. Anywhere, in any type of data. That is basically unanimous. The only way to get to that number is to curate and cherry pick your sample population and ask leading and biased questions.

Reporting that type of “data” would get any reputable insights or survey firm pretty much blackballed. It’s not reality.

It just further shows that Mr. Noise Around The Fringes isn’t really in touch.

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.fly...d7896856f.jpeg

8:1...Right...

I agree with every thing said here and I've been very happy with the off peak redemptions I've done and some of the other changes (though the it issues are really aggravating). I have mixed feelings about the whole merger... but I'm not dealing with any of that when I truly believe that it makes no sense that 90 % of people prefer things since the merger. I've been outside in public areas and I barely ever see 3 people agree on anything

And this is false. You can get 8:1 consensus on a lot of things - is the sky blue, is the earth round, is Hitler a bad human. You can also easily get 8:1 with leading questions or directed questions such as "are you happy with the off-peak redemptions in the new program vs how it was before". So it is possible. And you can freely argue that 8:1 is massaged data, which it almost certainly is. But that doesn't mean Arne lied.

heck, even for all the IT complaints (which are entirely deserved), Marriott is still better than the clownshow at spg that managed to get hacked for FIVE years and not know. Start a line of questioning with the hack and voila, 8:1 magically happens.

And it is also clear that this thread wasn't intended for discussion or counterpoints.

No way you get 8:1 on all three of those with a representative sample of Americans.

1) To me, the biggest advantage of the new program is footprint. That alone makes it more worthwhile to me than both programs

2) Ultimately, the most important determination is if hotel owners continue to select Marriott brands for their new developments. Hotel owners continue to sign up for new Marriott brands, and most hotel owners indicate they are seeing more Marriott members in their hotels (including new ones)

At the end of the day, hardcore loyalty members aren’t that important, and SPG was a small program to begin with - the average business traveler who has a Marriott Bonvoy number seems to be happy

Even with all that said, 8:1 seems high

This is very important to note. Most of the members are not high level elites. Sometimes elites think that their 75 stays weights their opinion as the same as 15 general members, or whatever number you want to use. But that's just not the way it works in these surveys. And that's why the 8:1, while unlikely if measured 100% objectively, is actually possible. The rank and file member, as well as many elites, see a larger footprint, more choice, better benefits, and aren't experiencing issues with Marriott. In fact, I fall into that camp as a Titanium.

The people who are unhappy, while certainly important in terms of individual revenue and loyalty, would be a fairly small percentage of a survey that fairly represented all program members. I've asked some of my colleagues, a mix of elites and non-elites that use Marriott for work travel, and not one of them is unhappy. I didn't ask them to compare to the old program (maybe I will now!), but I can't find a single one that has the contempt for Marriott that I see on FT. And just to disclose, the company had a contract with SPG previously, so prior to the merger, they were all SPG members/elites...I joined the company after the merger so it's interesting to hear their perspectives on both.

Guess you've never done polling/surveying before.

I don't know - the sky is not blue more than half the time where I spend my time. Over half the world would say sky is more grey than blue.

Problem with surveys is that question sets can be written (manipulated) to elicit the answer one wants


Qualitative research harder to manipulate. Marriott I know for a fact prefers quant surveys over qualitative

Or maybe I know how to write questions that get the answers I want?

Had they surveyed me, I would have noted a slight preference for post-merger Marriott Dumbname to pre-merger Starfraud Preferred Guest.

I have lifetime SPG/Dumbname Gold and hit Platinum some, though not all, of my years in SPG.

I found SPG's marketing claims never matched the reality. Starfraud routinely overpromised and underdelivered.

I recognize and assume that all travel industry loyalty programs are going to mislead me, attempt to weasel out of providing benefits, and offer a loyalty "currency" that will do nothing but devalue over time. SPG devalued. MR devalued. HH devalued. AA devalued. DL devalued. Avios devalued... Do you see a trend here?

So, why, given all that, do I think Marriott Dumbname is slightly better than pre-merger SPG?
1) Property footprint
2) Property quality in the midrange space (Courtyards are typically decent. Pre-merger SPG really had nothing competitive)
3) Property quality in the high-end space in smaller cities (great Autograph Collection properties in places like ICT)
4) Property quality in the core brand (the number of tired, dumpy old Marriotts is smaller than the number of tired, dumpy old Sheratons)
5) Property footprint

All of this is from the perspective of someone who hardly ever stayed in Marriott Rewards properties pre-merger.

Factual clarification per my prior posted link - SPG was not a "small program"...inbound ratio of MR:SPG was 2.5:1.

Your source for this alleged fact?

Take the 1972 Presidential election. Nixon took 96.8% of the electoral votes. And won 98% of the states (96% if you count the District of Columbia). Or how about the 1984 election? Reagan won 97.6% of the electoral votes, and, the same as in 1972, 98% of the states (96% if you count the District of Columbia). And in an election, you have no concern about the wording of the question potentially skewing the results. What is an election if not a measure of people's preference?

Just a couple of months ago, more than 93 per cent of respondents to a British Columbia government survey said that they want permanent daylight savings time.

In a recent survey conducted by Bloomberg, 99.6% of more than 5,000 Tesla Model 3 customers surveyed said that the vehicle was a pleasure to drive.

In a survey conducted earlier this year by Vertiv and 451 Research of major telecom operators, more than 90% said that they believe that 5G will result in higher energy costs.

Do I need to keep going?


I bet that if you check, you'll also find that GM and Ford have raised prices over the same period of time. How about gasoline for your vehicle? And the cash price of hotel rooms. Do you see a trend here?

I do see a trend. Snark that proves my point.

If a travel provider is going to reward me with points of dubious and eroding value, I may as well prefer the program that at least gives me a wide footprint and broad choice of generally decent properties.

My travel takes me to lots of places that, pre-merger, had zero or few SPG options. To now be able to stay in a property like the Ambassador in ICT or the Raphael in KC (granted there were SPG choices pre-merger in KC, but none particularly good) and earn a few points along the way is a big benefit to me. And in places like, say, BTL, SHV, TVC and other small cities where I have to travel, I've gone from having zero SPG options to multiple Dumbname ones.

Dollar bills have constantly eroding value, too.

What's your point, Dr. Non Sequitur?

My point is that while you complain that the Marriott currency (Bonvoy points) has constantly eroding value, find me a currency that doesn't have constantly eroding value. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Ok. But macroeconomic inflation seems rather meta for this board. If I had a choice of taking my reward in Bonvoy points or greenbacks, I'd probably choose dollars. But no such choice exists. Not directly at least.

Bonvoy points have constantly eroding value. Just like HHonors points and AAdvantage miles. Devaluation seems to be a major bone of contention for many on this board. I'm simply pointing out that Marriott is likely no better and no worse than its hotel competitors (and airlines). They all devalue. So, despite devaluation, it's possible for the big picture of what Marriott offers vs. what SPG used to offer to still favor the new Marriott program.

Citing the electoral college as representative of the will of the people...truly SMH. Unbelievable.

OK, I can see your point. Knock out all the election examples. How about the non-election examples?

• Just a couple of months ago, more than 93 per cent of respondents to a British Columbia government survey said that they want permanent daylight savings time.
• In a recent survey conducted by Bloomberg, 99.6% of more than 5,000 Tesla Model 3 customers surveyed said that the vehicle was a pleasure to drive.
• In a survey conducted earlier this year by Vertiv and 451 Research of major telecom operators, more than 90% said that they believe that 5G will result in higher energy costs.

Where does that leave your assertion that:

This thread is closed as the discussion has moved into OMNI territory. If anyone wants to continue the discussion they can start a thread there.

hhoope01
Marriott Bonvoy Co-Moderator