Should the Freddies methodology be changed?
 

I don't know, but when Southwest can win "program of the year" after imposing capacity controls on its reward seats and taking away bonus credits, something is very wrong.

The fact that they also came in 3rd for "best elite program" -- when they don't really even have an elite program -- also leads me to wonder.

Capacity controls started in mid-February 2006, whereas the Freddie voting is based on 2005. The online booking bonus died in 2005, and that was a major devaluation. My best guess is that the other programs deteriorated in value even more rapidly than Southwest's, and that Southwest's program pre-2005 was very generous to short-haul flyers so it had some value cushion. Check out the Freddies thread in the Southwest forum for other observations, some of which may be new to you.

I don't give a s**t for the Freddie's anymore. How can TAP Air Portugal an SN Brussels win all the European categories? TAP wins for best website, but it really sucks! Try click on the Business Class link, and ... nothing happens.
FT is the forum where you find information about who's good and who's not. Not Freddie...

I certainly agree with that one......... ^

Oh, please. They announced the change in August. It's really twisted logic to think that impartial voters said "Boy, that really sucks. But since it doesn't go into effect until 2006, I'll vote them best program for "2005." :)

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/fligh...-rewards_x.htm

I think a reasonable person would say that their selection as "top program" after a year of reducing benefits is strange.

I understand this, and you are not alone. In the past, programs have often announced devaluations just after the Freddie voting for this reason. I wouldn't want us to encourage that sort of gamesmanship, not when making changes on a calendar year basis is much more favorable to us (for purposes of choosing which program to focus on in a given year).

Second, in the case of the capacity controls announced in August, we had no information by the time of Freddie voting about how tight the capacity controls would be. Then there was a programming error making the availability ridiculously tight for the first two weeks or so. By next year's voting, we will have excellent data on Southwest's capacity controls. So far, availability looks a lot better than for domestic saver awards on other airlines.

So if you voted for the 2005 Freddies based on that August announcement, you were voting based on a 2006 change the effect of which you did not know. That's a vote based on fear, not fact. Next year's vote will be fact-based, win or lose.

I didn't expect Southwest to win, and I doubt they did either. But the other programs are getting worse every year (some inflation, but mostly worse redemption), so you can win even if your program is worse than the year before.

Agreed -- ALL the ff programs seem to be getting somewhat less lucrative, especially regarding redemption. But I think I can objectively say that Southwest's program took the biggest dive last year. As you know from moderating the WN board, many loyal Southwest fliers have been very unhappy with these changes (and I can't blame them when it takes twice as many flights to earn a ff ticket!). It just doesn't make sense in light of this outburst of legitimate disappointment that WN would win best program. Somehow the Freddies are not reflecting the pulse of the "true" ff community. That's why I've suggested they might need a new methodology.

Absolutely correct. That's why I didn't expect Southwest to win this time. Perhaps Southwest far so far ahead the year before that the big dive still left it in first place, or perhaps people unfamiliar with the demise of the online booking bonus voted for Southwest based on outdated information. The primary reason is probably not knowable, but I wouldn't jump to blaming the voting methodology, especially when the margin of random chance exceeds the gap between first and second place.

OK, then what about them finishing 3rd in best elite program when they don't even have one? :)

I guess some would argue that their "companion pass" is an elite benefit, but it's so difficult to obtain (100 flights in a year!) and of fairly limited benefit (they make you designate only one companion, and it's cumbersome to change it), that I can't believe "real" WN travellers are salivating over it.

I have platinum and gold elite status on CO and US and while the benefits aren't always fantastic, they are real and achievable (upgrades, companion upgrades, significant bonus miles, special check-in and boarding priority, elite seating, free lounge access on int'l flights, elite telephone lines, upgraded award availability, fee waivers, comparable alliance benefits, etc.). I don't think anyone could objectively say that "companion pass" is in that league. Indeed, if WN offered some of these real perks, I'd be happy to go for "elite" on their airline, too!

So something remains rotten in Denmark about these results.

The 3rd place for elite could have been a protest vote against devaluation of legacy elite programs (fewer upgrades, for one thing). I can't think of another good explanation for the result.

Incidentally, in the era of double credit (just ended last month for SWABIZ customers), companion passes were quite common. 50 flights was do-able. By the end of 2007, CP's will be pretty rare.

Companion Passes are used, IIRC, an average of 4 times per year. Four free trips (even if the holder is traveling on an award) is a reasonably good perk. Yet top level elite status on a legacy carrier is more useful to most people, primarily (in my opinion) if it can break loose award seats for redemption.

That someone was trying to "fix" the vote, or (charitably) at least encourage individuals to vote mindlessly on WN's behalf?

I obviously don't know, but it seems more likely than "protest voting" -- especially when folks had more reason to "protest" against WN than anyone else this year!

That's certainly possible, but I didn't hear anything about such an effort other than the now-customary web site links to get out the vote.

Other unexpected results in my opinion were the strong showing by Choice (yes, their promos have excellent value, but the product is weak) and the complete shut-out of Hilton from the top 5 places.

Yes, the Freddies have some strange methodology. Overhaul needed.

I still amazed (after all these years) that Diners Club still wins any awards. Their annual fee is high; and, they charge to transfer points. I'm still amazed by this. :confused:

Why wouldn't all those DC members switch to the *wood Amex card? It's free the first year; then $30 a year. With the Starwood Amex card, you can transfer your points to many airlines. 20,000 points = 25,000 airline miles, except UA.
Seems like a much better deal to me.

I was scratching my head about this category as well. All the complaints I've heard about DC lately and they win first place. And even worse is the Mariott Visa got second place. I hear the Mariott CC is one of the worst out there (with the exception of charging actual Mariott stays to it). The SPG Amex is far superior to either of the above cards IMHO and the HH Amex is not far behind that.

^ Totally agree. I do not understand for the life of me why Diner's Club remains in the top five. A yield of less than 1 FF mile per dollar, plus a high annual fee. The only value that DC has really delivered in the past few years is for people who tend to trash rental cars. :) And you could kind of argue that the primary-insurance feature is outside the scope of the Freddies and Club Rewards.

Marriott moving into #2...while I don't agree (like you, I'd go SPG-HH as my 1-2), I think they've made a unique offering and are rightfully the top Visa/MC product out there for people who use Marriott on a semi-frequent basis. It's the annual recurring benefits that make this card valuable: the free night certificate plus the crediting of 15 room-nights to your account. This is better than the standard "you're Silver as long as you hold the card" rule in that it brings Gold status down to 35 "real" room-nights, which is more in line with other programs' comparable levels.

For someone with no use for Marriott, I would guess that either the US Airways card with no fee, 1.5 miles/$, and a quasi-elite status (you can use F check-in, I think) or the United card that earns up to 10k or 15k(?) EQM's per year would be tops for an MC/Visa.

Randy theorized that the voters for DC were the DC cardholders who remained after the changes. Namely, those members for whom DC still represented a good value. With airline partnerships curtailed this year, there won't be a 10th win for DC next time.

At the risk of sounding un-democratic, I'd probably respect the Freddies a lot more if a small, independent board of voters selected them.

We, the great unwashed masses of the traveling world, cannot handle the responsibility. We proved that pretty loud and clear this year.

I'm being serious: it's not that we're stupid, it's simply that we don't interact with all of the programs. There were...what...20 hotel programs listed and probably even more airline programs listed for most geographies? I'll admit it: when I vote, I'm completely and exclusively comparing SPG, MR, and HH. For airlines, I'm comparing UA, US, and AA. I'm totally ignorant of anything that, say, Kimpton Hotels or Alaskan Airlines does.

I know the "value vote" is intended to counter any advantage that a massive program has vs. a little one. But even that is a somewhat arbitrary number. How can I assess the value of a Marriott Travel Package on a scale of 1 to 10 if I have no idea what 15 of the other 20 programs would give me across that same number of stays/nights? I mean, I think it's a 9. Or is it an 8? You think it's a 10? Who's right? We both are? What was your methodology to determine it was a 10? Mine to determine it was a 9? :confused:

Instead, I'd rather see a board do the voting. That's how most prestigous award are done...sometimes it's a large board (e.g., the Heisman or the Oscars), sometimes it's a small one (Hall of Fame Veterans' Committee). But in any case, letting Joe Sixpack vote is usually a bad thing.

We simply can't handle it.

Does DC still provide int'l lounge privileges? That was a good benefit, but now that the various alliances provide that free to mid-tier elite members, it's less useful.

Personally, it's been awhile since I've had a DC card (I think I signed up for a promo about 5 years ago). Surprised they haven't even solicited me since the change to Mastercard. I've got the Starwood AMEX card and, other than the modestly annoying $30 annual fee, I'm quite happy with it (although I now charge my gas & groceries to one of those new 5% rebate cards).

Yes. If you use them a lot, or if you use the rental car primary insurance a lot, $95 is still a good deal. Otherwise it's just an overpriced Mastercard. The voters were pretty clearly heavy users of the car insurance and lounges.

I'm surprised they haven't solicited me, either. Oddly enough, I don't get anything from Citibank, while I'm barraged by every other bank on the planet with credit card offers.

I had Diner's for years, as they were our primary corporate card. I used the card extensively for both biz and personal expenses - about $60k a year - because at the time I felt Club Rewards was the best thing going. I had to fly several different airlines at the time, and enjoyed being able to do small "top-off" transfers at the time I needed to redeem an award.

Then our company switched everything over to Amex, and Diner's Club converted all existing accounts over to personal Montage cards, with a one-year free extension for both the card itself and membership in Club Rewards. But by then, the conversion fee effectively drove the redemption under 1-to-1. At the end of the free year, I would have been willing to pay the fee for the mainline Diner's card (Montage doesn't have primary rental car insurance), but DC refused to allow me to do that. My credit report was fine and I had 8 years of history and probably $250k in total spend with DC, but they expected me to pay for the Montage card. So I switched to SPG Amex and looking back I can't believe I didn't do it years earlier.

I just have to, uh, be as careful with rental cars as I am with my own car. ;)

I have the impression that there is a big group of voters who like to see some changes in their favourite programme. Let me come up with an example:

SPG won almost everything until 2005 and almost nothing in 2006. The main “change” in SPG was a slowdown in targeted promotions. PC was next to nothing until 2005 and won big in 2006. The main “change” in PC was the possibility to enrol in a lot of targeted promotions for everyone and referrals for “Royal Ambassador”. It would not a big surprise if PC will slow down as these freebies are too costly. I guess voting will go down the hill.

As a very frequent WN flyer (every week) I'm still trying to figure out what "executive level". The CP? That is crap. They offer greyhound of the sky service. I like the frequency of the awards I used to get, but with single credits, it is so-so. Whomever voted for that one for WN was intoxicated at best. The Freddies are a joke.

The methodology has been questioned in the past as being too susceptible to manipulation by folks who want to "game the system".

Because it is not the numbers of folks who vote for a given program as the "best" that is determinative, but rather the "value" the voters who selected that program give it, a program that a few think is truly "best" can win if those few give it automatic "10s" while the more popular programs are honestly graded. This has led in the past to "organized" attempts to vote a particular program "in" by giving it inflated values, or to punish a program by selecting it as the "best" but awarding value grades of "1" (one year Randy threw out a bunch of such votes on the grounds that someone who honestly thought a program merited a value of "1" could hardly honestly think it was the "best").

I understand Randy's concern. If you're truly trying to recognize quality, you can't simply count noses; that translates into a popularity contest and you might as well tally memberships and give the award to the program with the most active members. On the other hand, the current methodology does indeed lend itself to gaming.

And it is difficult for the travelers to have the base to honestly determine how a given program compares to all others out there, since a frequent traveler usually doesn't survey all of the programs every year, but rather concentrates on a few in order to achieve elite status.

I'm not sure where the answer lies, but it may be in some combination of the "users" verdict (votes of the travelers) and the expert panel evaluation, perhaps where experts evaluate (say) the five programs that the voters choose as their most favorite in each category.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I do agree the question merits consideration.

Some sort of hybrid approach could work. Voters can to filter, experts render the final decisions. I like it...

As for the obvious next question "Who should make up the expert panel and when would they convene to make final decisions?", my obvious next answer is "A bunch of Flyertalkers, gathered at a Do, a few beers deep into a Saturday evening." That was easy! Problem solved! :D

It's a popularity contest that allows ballot-box stuffing. As long as you keep this in mind, and don't try to assign anything meaningful to the awards, it is what it is.

Frequent traveler programs mean too many things to too many different people.

While the Freddies certainly make little-to-no sense to me now, I'm fairly confident that, after any overhaul, they would make the same or less sense than they make to me now.

For me, the Freddies are just a reminder to take a personal look at my various programs. Honestly, I don't look heavily into Freddies results anymore; the way I hear of results is in a forum when someone spouts off about them. And I seem to tend to agree with the spout-off.

This is a good point: particularly when I look through the "Best Awards" choices for voting, I think "Wow...I didn't know that was available!" The net result was there there are a couple of new hotel programs that I have at least signed up for, subscribed to newsletters, etc. Always good to know what else is going on besides your "old faithful" programs.

This illustrates the weakness in the methodology. Single issue voters will rate their single programs highly. Voters who have experience with multiple programs will be more judicious in their rankings. As a result, less experienced and qualified voters have greater weight in Freddie selection.

Thus the nonsense about LUV having the best elite program.

Actually, you do not have to fly 100 segments. Southwest counts all credits, not just flights, toward the companion pass. So you can put a lot of charges on your Southwest VISA, get lots of hotel and car credits, transfer points from Diners Club, or any other way of getting credits and they all count toward the 100 points for the CP.