I think if you are gold, you are gold. The only differentiation that a hotel should make would be if a particular gold or diamond member was a frequent guest at that particular hotel. Obviously, I would expect that guest to get the upgrade instead of me if there was only one upgrade available.

Bingo. Folks talking about prioritization within status levels should be careful what they wish for, lest they end up turning this into a revenue-based system.

If Hilton doesn't want to convey the benefits of status to holders of that status, then it shouldn't give out that status to that customer. As a consumer, knowing what I am getting enables me to make informed choices about the products I select. Therefore I am in favor of more transparency, clarity, and consistency in the administration of Hhonors benefits, not even more power being given to properties to do as they see fit or play by unspoken rules.

Some HHonors Diamonds are going to be worth more than others and CRM activities are going to use the information. To argue differently is to ignore commercial reality. On the SPG forum, Starwood Lurker has spoken to upgrade ranking directly:


http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/starw...e-upgrade.html

Wow, I am envious of SPGers here and don't see how anyone with an understanding of using CRM data to drive property revenue could disagree. The program should be designed to upgrade guests within tiers that generate the most revenue, have the most nights, and spend money on high margin items on property. Keep them happy and coming back to spend more. Hilton would be missing a huge opportunity to drive revenue if they did not track customers that spend money on high ticket items like room service, bar tabs, spas, etc. SPG gets this. Unless I am missing something, the HHonors terms and conditions don't even say that a diamond member should be upgraded over a gold. I certainly think as a diamond on spending, nights, and credit card that I should get that upgrade over a credit card gold.

It is of course possible for a diamond making it on stays / nights to spend less than a gold, even a proper nights-in-beds gold. This is the careful-what-you-wish-for bit. In a straight revenue-based reward system some of today's diamonds would have to stand aside for some of today's golds.

Yep. And what if you took your clients out to dinner at the restaurant in the hotel next to your office every week at $500? Would you make Diamond then? What about for planning a wedding? Just more to consider.

Very true, and I do agree that Diamonds should always receive upgrades over gold, but I do think that the hotels should do at least something to distinguish amongst the diamond and gold members rather than time of check-in, and it should be based on some combination of CRM data. I hope in that example the high revenue gold would at least hit diamond on base points before nights/stays. Also, I imagine that a high revenue or nights in bed gold would hope there is some system in place to help them get the upgrade in a tie breaker situation over someone who recently opened a credit card and hasn't spend many nights or dollars with Hilton.

Random data point - At the Waldorf Astoria NYC, they average 200 (!!) diamonds a night. They don't even upgrade golds (http://www.tripadvisor.com/FAQ_Answe...s_Members.html) to attempt to accommodate as many of the diamonds as they can. They do diamond upgrades at check-in ONLY. They will not assign an upgrade in advance even the night before or day of, only at check-in. As a result, someone with 1,000+ lifetime nights with Hilton could end up in the room type booked while someone who opened a credit card and manufactured $40K in spending and has never stayed with Hilton scores the one suite left, because they arrived 30 minutes earlier. I just don't think that is fair, but seems like I may be alone in this one . I get the argument that a diamond is a diamond, but with SO MANY diamonds, no one is elite. Also I am not trying to knock WA NYC by pointing this out as I love staying there and have always gotten great upgrades but am trying to provide an example.

I am not advocating for a straight revenue system, but rather for asking the hotels to consider (not just Canopy, across chains) a somewhat consistent combination of CRM data (whatever combination of lifetime nights, nights in year, lifetime revenue, miscellaneous revenue, etc.) to distinguish amongst members within the tiers for upgrades.

I understand what you're saying, but part of the issue here is that that line of reasoning only works well in the context of looking at existing membership - people who have these histories. The problem comes up when you start talking about membership growth - attracting new members or poaching from competitors. Then this becomes a barrier and deterrent.

If you're a young professional starting out or a loyalist of another chain thinking about jumping over, do you really want to hear that even after you do all of your stays and earn what they say you're going to get, you'll still be pushed down the ladder by folks of the same status who have been spending for years? Why even start then, you'd rather just go with a program who treats all its elites somewhat equally. I doubt anyone has the patience to build up, what, 10 years of "lifetime spend" so they can be treated like a diamond. Does Hilton really want overt barriers to entry in its program that are that high?

Preferential upgrades based on year of service or differentiation based on how you earned status would completely turn off any new incoming elites from the program. If you want to reward "years of loyalty", do it with lifetime status... but we've seen HHonors lack of interest in this.

We will have to agree to disagree, because I think not having lifetime status or some other system to distinguish does turn off incoming elites from the program. I'm not going to be traveling all of my career, and I wish I had started in a program years ago that will continue to recognize my long term loyalty when my travel does back off, whether because it is a slow year, I move to a different career or when I retire. None of my co-workers stay with Hilton, as they are seeking out lifetime status and Platinum Premiere at Marriott. Hilton loses stays because of this.

It also doesn't seem to stop new incoming elites to SPG, Hyatt, and Marriott that all already do this through the lifetime status and other measures. SPG has the 50/75/100 program and Marriott has the Platinum Premiere program. Marriott evaluates all of their plats through a proprietary formula that they don't disclose and rewards the top 1% (I think) with this tier. It comes with added benefits and my co-workers with this status have scored consistently great upgrades. The lack of lifetime status is a big gap in the HHonors program, and it is unfortunate that they haven't done it yet.

Hilton actually already has something in place called the "guest value rating", where everyone is ranked from one to three stars on a combination of factors. The hotels can see it in every OnQ profile, but I was told by a friend who worked at a DT that it isn't used.

So, clearly, your coworkers are seeking a program that awards loyalty through lifetime status... as such, Hilton should join the club to try to capture some of the folks avoiding or fleeing due to lack therof. This was my point exactly...

These programs are different from tier-within-tier that you're proposing in that they really only establish an added top tier for the absolute highest level folks... this is rarely going to impact, for example, a Platinum that's been around for only 2 years, because there are so few people at this higher level.

If you started differentiating within EVERY tier, especially based on HOW status was earned, you're going to start impacting a lot of guests... arguable some of the ones you're interested in encouraging to build loyalty and earn up to a higher tier. How granular do you want to take it? Should a 2-year Gold on Stays get an Exec Floor upgrade over a 10-year credit-card Gold? Should a Family with CC Gold that has spent a week at a particular beach property twice a year for the last decade get beat out for an upgrade by a Fast Track Gold on their 5th stay ever? There's too much to take into consideration beyond just the top 1% if you're going to slice every Elite Tier into 5 different sub-tiers (I would assume you'd want CC, Fast Track, Stays, Nights, Base Points in that order?).

So you want ALL of the factors above to be distilled down into a 3-Star rating, and then for the property to balance that rating within each tier along with length-of-stay, property-specific loyalty, and room availability? I think you're overestimating the time available for and workload priority given to processing upgrades by hotel staff. I get the feeling that it's MUCH more off-the-cuff than that, with status, length-of-stay, and property-specific loyalty being the main driving factors... IF they're even processed ahead of time, otherwise it's completely in the hands of the agent at the front desk when you check in to look at availability & status to make a judgement call.

The three star rating already exists and is visible to the property when you check in. The front desk clerk can see it. I'm advocating that Hilton needs to do SOMETHING to better recognize members with years of loyalty - whether it be introduce lifetime status (what I prefer), an additional tier above diamond like the platinum 50/75/100 program at Starwood, or if Hilton never does either of those two, at least ask hotels to review whatever combination of lifetime nights/stays data they deem reasonable when allocating upgrades.

You have changed your argument. I don't think many people would have a problem with Hilton having an analog to Concierge Key, Global Services, Marriott Premier, etc. If a whale shows up at a property, then yeah they should get special treatment.

Your original argument however was that Hilton should be individually determining on a customer-by-customer basis within the existing tiers what benefits they want to extend right when that customer walks in the door. I and others were arguing that this would confuse and deter customers and discourage loyalty.

Not true, my argument all along and what drove my original comment was that there is nothing in place to prevent a credit card diamond from getting an upgrade over a 1,000 night diamond. Lifetime status (my preference) would solve this, or an equivalent to Marriott premiere would solve this. Since neither of those exist, reviewing lifetime nights when assigning upgrades is the next best solution, and that is where we have to agree to disagree. I do not think that all else equal and one upgrade is available, a newly minted credit card diamond with 40k in manufactured spend should have the same chance to that upgrade as a 1,000 night lifetime diamond. Others said a diamond is a diamond, and it shouldn't matter if they've ever spent a night in Hilton because it would discourage new members.