1. I have no idea what it means to be just a change on the website. Are you saying it means nothing so pay no attention to it? Of course it means something or why is it there? You think some front desk clerk isn't going to point to it, when denying an upgrade?
2. I don't recall much discussion on the board about any unhappiness with the way the current rule was stated. I do recall much discussion when the rule stated "finest available accomodations" without excluding suites. But that's been years ago.
3. The current terms and conditions for elite upgrades state as follows: "Free Room Upgrade: Suites not included; based on room availability at check-in and limited to a Member's personal guestroom. For Residence Inn and TownePlace Suites, upgrades from studio rooms to 1- or 2-bedrooms are not guaranteed. Not available at Marriott Vacation Club." https://www.marriott.com/rewards/terms/elite.mi Notice, there is no limitation as to next highest room category.

But here is the newer language in a separate description of the upgrade benefit (but which is not a part of the terms and conditions): "For Platinum Elite members, the best way is up! So every time you check in, we'll do our best to upgrade you - at no additional charge - to our best-available guest room in the next room category level. Suites are excluded. Not available at Marriott Vacation Club." What was the point of adding the language to the description, but not the T&C's? https://www.marriott.com/rewards/mem...ts/platinum.mi

Yes, I win! :) (I made a bet that probably at some point Marriott's Ministry of Truth will claim this change was caused by numerous requests by members – if it acknowledges the change at all.)

Excuse me, "verbiage on the website" is what I agree to when I make reservations and join Marriott Rewards. That's the most important verbiage there is between me and MR. I don't have access to MR internal documents so don't care much what's there. "Verbiage on the website" is the contract between me and MR. How changing that could be considered something minor?!

he language should be the same in all media and print description of any benefit. Any deviation is going to cause confusion.

Are you claiming that Marriott for years has published "we will upgrade you to the best available room (suites excluded)" on their website, but internally to hotels always said "no, upgrade one category only"?

You cut off the "IME" that was immediately before the statement you quoted, but it still leaves me wondering how you can "absolutely disagree" with what I claimed to be "in my experience." Are we having these experiences together? If not, how can you absolutely disagree with my experience?

If a hotel chain rewards program is causing people so much angst, then perhaps it's time to switch programs.

Sorry, I saw your second IME, but missed your first.

Suggestions that customers who don't like whatever policy is being discussed hit the road, are usually the last bastion of folks who have nothing better to offer, and I 'm surprised you went there. Nevertheless, I'm sure the many folks posting in this thread are grateful as to your concern over their "angst."

I'll trying to be helpful here by explaining that one of the major purposes of FT is so to discuss issues exactly like the issue being discussed in this thread. That is the impact of Marriott's change of language on its website as to a policy of high importance to regular contributors to FT. The tenor of some of the posts seem to change when it was correctly reported here that Marriott's manager in charge of the elite program was flat out asserting that there was no change and reports to the contrary were false, a claim backed up above by Socrates.

Reading different perspectives here, including those one disagrees with, such as yours, is interesting and sometimes educational, and even causes some of us to occasionally re-think our position on something. Telling people to butt out if they don't like whatever the policy being discussed is seems very contrary to the spirit of FT.

It is hard to decide how I feel about a policy when the policy is described in two different ways by the same company.

This is how the language reads in my paper 2011 Gold membership benefits guide (p. 5):

ROOM UPGRADE
Upon check-in, you can look forward to being upgraded to our best-available guest room. Upgraded accommodations are at no additional charge based on availability. Suites are excluded. Upgrades are not available at Marriott Vacation Club. Upgrades from studio to one- or two-bedrooms not guaranteed at Residence Inn and TownePlace Suites.

The new website language is definitely a purposeful change; there is no way it is a mere clarification as "best-available" is worlds apart from "next category"

This is one of those examples (there are several) where I think Marriott's lawyers have taken over and made a policy confusing. The fact is that many properties cheerfully upgrade me to suites whenever they can, usually without me asking. I appreciate this very much but I don't feel entitled to suites - I know that's not an official benefit. That is what I think (and hope) Marriott was trying to dampen - that we not feel entitled to suite upgrades. But much like the weekend breakfast fiasco a couple of years ago (a memo went out and properties took it as an order to stop offering comped breakfast on weekends) this sort of language could be twisted into properties saying "Oh its Marriott policy to not upgrade you to a suite, we'd get in trouble if we did (which is exactly the type of response I got when I asked a few properties why they terminated the free weekend breakfasts for Platinums).

I will continue to come back more to properties that treat me more special than others - I'm just a sucker for that kind of treatment.

I had many times where I was told I was upgraded only to find out it was from 2 queens to a king bed but this has been true in many chains, not just Marriott.

What he said.

On a dif note - I'm not feeling any 'angst' over CJKatl having to pay 50% on a Sat night rather than get it for free if Marriott goes to that methodology vs. the BOGO which allowed him to let his company pick up the Fri night & he got the free night on Sat, costing him nothing, given a lot of us don't have corps picking up our first nights ;) :p :D

Back on this topic - the Marriott folk are speaking out of both sides of their mouths on this one & I applaud ohmark calling them out on it on both this thread & on Insiders.

Cheers.

This stinks! What I dislike most is the ridiculous claim by Marriott that 'nothing changed'. Most other chains are trying to enhance the Elite experience and Marriott continues to go the other way. So far I have 15 mights with Hilton this year (compared to only 10 for all of 2011) and 10 with Marriott ... with a lot more travel in the 2nd half of the year I can see myself to rebook some 20-30 nights from Marriott to Hilton.
I'll see if my upgrades change over the coming months; if that is the case I'll move my business away from Marriott. The combination of no more EEOs and this downgrade makes Marriott very unattractive.

Add me to the list of those who are confused now.

So are you saying that Marriott has always (at least for the last few years or more) had an internally only defined upgrade policy of one room category and they have just now (only because of complaints on FT) modified part of their publicly listed rules to match that?

Or are you saying that internally they still have no "one room category" upgrade limit and that someone has erroneously added that text to a webpage?

Now I do understand that you have access to internal documentation and that can sometimes tie your hands a bit and limit what you can and can't say. But I am truly confused by the comments directly from Marriott saying that nothing has changed. No publicly published rules and T&Cs on upgrades that I know of has ever stated anything about a single category upgrade limit. So either Marriott has been giving hotels one set of rules and their Rewards members a different set. Or there is no single category upgrade rule. In which case, Marriott should be quickly onto fixing the website to get it back to what has always (i.e. for the last few years) been the publicly listed rule of "best non-suite room available."

The people that have posted on this thread are a who's-who of my favorite Marriott forum people. A lot of great people who have shared their Marriott wisdom with us unwashed masses. I find it distressing that so many are gnashing their teeth, as am I, over this policy change. That said, to the topic at hand.

A while ago, I started a thread about moving to another hotel chain. I was disappointed with Marriott's less generous loyalty program ... but that darned LIFETIME STATUS bauble kept me going. I now see that lifetime status at a chain that has decided to monetize every aspect of their client base is not a benefit.
Where did things go wrong with Marriott? Is this due to Arne Sorenson taking the reins of Marriott? I don't know. I'm thinking that Marriott started to take a different direction once he reached the position of President and COO (May 2009). More than a couple 'nicities' that I enjoyed have been hard to come by since then. My fave was Bonus Bucks/Extra Euros/Premium Pounds - now extinct. Others have decried the death of BOGOs. And weekend breakfasts for elites. In the last 3 years, it's felt like Marriott has tried to extract maximum dollars from customers while offering less and less in return. That works in the short run but kills the brand in the long run.

Other hotel chains will work at not only getting, but also keeping your business.
I moved to Marriott from Starwood. I loved FS Starwoods (St Regis, Westin, W) but wanted LIFETIME status once my heavy traveling was done. So what did Starwood do? They announced lifetime status requirements this year. I've stayed at 3 Starwoods this year for the first time in ~6 years. Felt good; I'm impressed with the new Starwood. And I just got comped Gold; I'll be Plat before the end of this year but it was very nice to be comped gold after being gone for so long.
I also did a Hyatt Diamond challenge late last year. One word for Hyatts: AWESOME. I'm very happy with their level of service. I would recommend Hyatt to any MR member who stays at FS Marriotts. They're a bit thinner on properties but the level of service is a cut above.

I can't speak for Hilton or the other chains but it seems like the others are trying to get your business, whereas Marriott's current approach seems to be wringing as many dollars out of their customers. It's a shame. It's painful for me to watch such an iconic brand name implode.

Folks, there are other choices out there. I know it's very hard to leave Marriott but nothing will change until many vote with their feet.

It's interesting about 1 cat. room upgrade policy because when we checked in at several Marriott properties in Germany, this is was we were told, 'you are a Gold member and you will be upgrade to next cat. room you booked'.

I thought it contradicts with the 'best available room' term, but I guess there must be some corporate guidelines about 1 room cat. upgrade.

I'm certainly not a big fan of the 1 cat. upgrade because if hotels decides to exercise the right, then we might not get CL room, but rather like Hilton - you get a regular room with CL access. To me it's a downgrade.

1) I find no changes to the SOP
2) It's a common theme
3) there is no reference to "next highest room category" in the SOP

(sorry for the short answers - sick today)

I'm sorry but I'm not sure how you "win".....I'm not anything official for MI here (as stated in my signature)...in fact I'm retired from the company, and have been for quite some time now.....if your bet requires you to have an official answer from MI I'd be happy to put you in touch with them so you can find out if you won or lost the bet

No, not if your are a MR Gold member and are comparing that to Hilton Gold. Hilton has diluted Gold further and does not require Concierge Lounge access if you are not on the Concierge floor. All it requires is that you are given breakfast as a Gold and the hotel can put you on a regular floor and deny you access to the lounge and only provide you breakfast. Although a hotel may disregard the above and upgrade you to the CL, it very well does not have to do so.

The Marriott change is not welcome but we will see what it really means in practice. However, even with the change, CL access is guaranteed to Golds and above, provided the lounge is open. That is still different from Hilton's new formulation, at least in respect to Gold members. However, Diamond members are always guaranteed CL access, even if not on the Concierge floor.

that is not what I stated and that is also not accurate

not at all what I'm saying - the point I tried to get across was the SOP and all internal websites had not changed (to further clarify nothing internal makes any reference to number of room categories)

Which only proves that we each look at benefits through our own cranky, warped, self interested prism. Although, Sharon, I'm crushed to now know for sure that in your mind, your needs trump mine. :( (Where is the sarcastic heart crushed icon when it's needed?)

For the record, I've been dealing with the BOGO loss by not staying the extra night and have, so far, survived. No angst on that. Actually, I don't think I've been anywhere in the past eight months that I wanted to stay an extra night. (Although I do have Chicago next month...)

Marriott devalues again
 

Is Marriott Devaluing Their Elite Upgrade Benefits Even More? - View from the Wing

http://boardingarea.com/blogs/viewfr...its-even-more/

People on Facebook dug up some archives to show the changes. Here's the benefits page from June last year:

http://web.archive.org/web/201106231...nefits/gold.mi

And that's the current one:
http://www.marriott.com/rewards/member-benefits/gold.mi

No response from Marriott social media team to that. :)

You might want to check out the http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/marri...e-revised.html thread.

Thanks hhoope01

Must have missed that.

So, if I'm hearing this correctly, all of the information published on the public website, and the materials distributed to members every year, actually don't define anything. They're just words and the real T&C's are on internal SOP and websites that none of us have access to.

Can someone official from Marriott please let us know how we can find out what benefits we are actually entitled to and what T&C's apply to our membership? Assuming we are members. And that status really exists.

Apparently we're all just living in the Marriott Matrix.

EDIT:
To be accurate, I did check the program T&C's at http://www.marriott.com/rewards/terms/elite.mi and don't see anything regarding a next room category. The Wayback Machine doesn't have anything more recent than Feb 2010 so it's hard to compare with relatively recent data. Anyone have a recent copy of the actual T&Cs, not the overview page that are subject to (I assume, it doesn't actually say it) the T&C's?

At the same time, the T&C's don't actually say anywhere what your get. If the T&C only says "suites not included, based on availability and for personal use" - not included in what? what's based on availability? The only place that the benefit is actually described is in the overview page. Which I think we show has changed.

Club Level is excluded in Ritz Carlton.

Viks, can you point us to this discussion on Facebook so that we can add to the dialogue? Perhaps provide a link? I found a post on the Marriott Rewards FB page but the archive reference you mention isn't there.

You must have caught that in the few minutes between posting and editing - I had to scroll up to see the context.

Strange, I don't see the links on FB anymore. Anyway they were posted yesterday here:
https://www.facebook.com/marriottrew...54370601244259

I browsed to a newer version of the archived page than was posted on FB (was from 2010 IIRC).

Off-topic:

Of course we all look at things through our own prisms, although I don't categorize mine as cranky & warped. If you do yours, well that's up to you ;) :p :D

Nor did I say my needs trump yours, just I don't have much sympathy when someone complains about a loss of benefit that costs him nothing & that he might have to ante up a bit if he actually wants to stay somewhere. Shrug.

On topic:

I think Marriott is talking out both sides of its mouth on this one. Of course it's a change.

Cheers.

not at all what I'm saying - for years there's been a debate about the exact meaning of the phrase and wording as posted on the website.....my post was just to say it was my personal believe that it appeared to me that this might have been (get my point :D) an attempt to clarify things as many hear for years have felt it to be confusing

Then I'm not quite sure it is having the desired outcome. Changing "some" of the publicly viewable rules (but not all of them) AND then saying that nothing has changed AND then not providing ANY more info just doesn't seem to be the best way to clarify things. :confused:

+1.

Cheers.

socrates, not to jump on you, because you owe us nothing and have always bent over backwards to be helpful....

but Marriott, in the form of either Marriott Corporate, the Marriott Concierge, the Marriott Insider and/or MichelleL need to GET CONSISTENT and inform their customer what we are and are not entitled to, and what their hotels are and/or are not required to provide us....and let us KNOW IT CLEARLY and KNOW IT NOW.

And then put it on their website and in their promotional materials and pass it along to their hotels and make sure that EVERY HOTEL is held to that standard.

I would have thought that this was covered in Hotel Management 101 but apparently not.

Just my opinion.......

to be clear...MI has made no public statement - I posted my personal view which unfortunately seems to be clouding the things even further

Deleted by poster

ok maybe my fever isn't 100% gone yet....

(Deleted by poster)

MR has posted several times on Facebook that nothing has changed; they try to say the same on Marriott Insiders. I guess that counts as a public statement.
Their statement is so obviously not true that I'm really baffled what's going on.

The only debate was if suites are included and that was resolved years ago. "Best available room" is best available room, nothing confusing about that. I hope they are not trying to pass this massive change as a "clarification".