Stays and Nights
 

This may have been discussed earlier but could not find it....

Why does Marriott insist on nights rather than stays similar to SPG? It would be good to get the stay option available.

It's been discussed many a time over the years. We would all like that, just as we'd like them to drop the elite qualification for Gold/Plat since it's higher than competitors & they count nights only. They seem to be staying firm with the nights only, as well as the higher levels.

Cheers.

Because nights earn them $$$ not stays. What do you think is more profitable for a hotel- a 3 night stay or three one night stays at the same rate. Think of the amount of cleaning, bill processing and guest interaction at check-in check-out required for one stay pattern vs the other. Why should the less profitable pattern be rewarded more than the more profitable?

Maybe I haven't had enough coffee but why would anyone want elite qualification levels to be measure in stays instead of nights?

The maximum stay:night ratio is 1:1
....but if you have a 3 night stay, you are now getting 1 stay instead of 3 nights, so 33% of what you'd be credited for a night-based system.

I guess if the suggestion here is that Marriott should change to a stay based system --and-- readjust the requirements (say from 75 nights for PLAT to 25 stays), then I guess it could be a good thing but under that circumstance a beneficial change would mean more PLATs and that's certainly something I wouldn't want to see.

Most programs that do stays have an either program, either 30 stays or 50 nights for Gold, for example.

But I don't understand, at all, how someone with 30 stays, but less than 50 nights is as valuable a customer with someone with 50 nights.

Those 30 nights could be more pricey than the 50; shrug.

I think a wise program sets it up to reward both, because people's travel patterns vary.

Similar to some of the airlines offering elite status based on either # of miles or # of segments. Some people do a lot of segments (btw - those are often more expensive than longer mileage trips), so might hit 1K (using UA as an example) doing 100 segments but not have hit 100,000 actual miles. Since UA offers both to qualify for elite, there's more incentive to stick w/ UA than to go w/ an airline that offers status based only on miles (or a hotel chain that offers status only on nights & the nights are significantly more than the rest of the hotel chains).

Cheers.

I agree that segments are often more expensive than long flights. Just booked a same day turn for my husband to fly LA to Monterey and back today, yikes, that was more than he usually pays to go acros the country.

But hotels typically don't charge more per night for shorter stays. They occasionally run long term stay deals but those are pretty infrequent. I'm guessing the run of the mill business traveler whose stays average 3-4 nights doesn't pay any less per night than the one whose stays average 1-2 nights.

The same rules of the game apply to the competitor. So are we saying that the competition should match what Marriott is doing???

As for the stays, they can put in restrictions to get around cases where people do multiple check-ins to get their status.

I would agree that travel patterns vary and they need to look from both sides....

I just do not see any benefit to a hotel chain to reward more stays/fewer nights at the same level they reward they reward more nights. Show me how this kind of traveler is as attractive and maybe I'll buy it.

That's true, and if everyone stayed only one night per stay, chains like Hilton probably wouldn't bother to offer "stays for status" options... it would be nights only.

But many stays are for two nights, or three, or longer. Hilton is trying to motivate stays for that reason, primarily.

But they're also doing it to get business they wouldn't have gotten otherwise.

Let's say that someone is 2 stays short of Hilton Gold status, but 10 nights short of Gold. And let's say that this person has two upcoming stays in late December. Hence, that person is likely to choose Hilton for those two stays rather than SPG or Marriott.

Heck, I'm an example of this myself. I do at least 16 stays with Hilton each year because I want to maintain Gold and I can do it fairly easily with 16 stays, but 36 nights would be too much and I wouldn't bother. Even if I only stay one night per stay, Hilton is getting business they wouldn't have gotten from me otherwise.

There are probably others like me. So Marriott, IMO, is losing business because they don't offer "stays for status".

But then again, Marriott probably gets more nights from me (and more credit card use) because I want to maintain Plat, and if they awarded Plat for stays, I'd earn it much faster.

So who's smartest, Hilton or Marriott? Hard to say. Each one made its decision based on what they deem to bring them the most business. I do know that if Hilton didn't offer "stays for status", I would stay there a lot less often.

I agree with you partially but I am glad that the 75 nights requirement helps to limit the number of Platinum members that Marriott has.

It keep the rewards from getting diluted from too many members like Priority Club has.