CG

Since you can transfer ClickRewards into Starwood points and earn points with the Starwood Optima, its possible that a person could have hundreds of thousands of points, gotten comped gold through one of the promotions, and never actually stayed at a Starwood property. I think this makes the number of points even less practical as a guage for rewarding customer loyalty.

TrojanHorse

I'm don't know about this balance thing, it is a liability to Starwood. Just like vacation at work. If you accumulate its a liability to the company. Starwood can't issue loans with the points banked so they don't get any benefits if it was like cash in a bank.

Those will smaller balances are more likely to leave Starwood for another chain, in this day and age, you can get comped instantly so status would not be a hinderance. Those with low balances (yes me) need the stays/pts to build it up again. Hence the upgrade to induce me to keep returning over and over again.

ILTE_Miles

Nope. A member w/ a large balance is more ABLE to redeem points for an instant reward--but that does NOT necessarily mean more money to the hotel--it can mean just the opposite. The amount of $ that a property receives from SPG for a member's award stay (i.e. the per night rate), for example, is often less than what they would have received had the guest paid for their stay (even if at a significantly discounted rate).

I recently stayed at a property for which I was undecided as to whether I would make all days but the first an award stay--the criterion was to be what kind of room & service was obtained the first night--if I didn't think it justified the expense, I would be redeeming points for the other nights, & the hotel would definitely be making less $, as a result (those who know how much $ hotels make for the award stays know that this tends to be true [& while the hotels may make less $ from an award stay, there is an overall gain by Starwood & the hotels in the program that more than offsets the reality]). The lack of blackout dates & capacity controls for award stays are compelling aspects of the SPG program (what would be the point of having an award redemption program for which blackout dates & capacity controls effectively render awards unobtainable [or otherwise require planning many months in advance]?--other chains can perhaps shed light on the rationale behind that aspect of their respective programs, but in the meantime, they won't be getting the business of many who value those "practical use" aspects of award redemption...).


BUT--this just isn't the same...an important distinction is the fact that a bank account balance is not created by a customer "spending" $ at the bank--nor is a Starpoints account balance purely created by expenditures at Starwood properties (if you've got a Starwood AmEx card, you could spend $ everywhere BUT a Starwood property, yet accumulate a hefty Starpoint balance).

The only true Starwood-relevant aspect that can be gauged by inspection of a Starwood account is that of a SPG member's general participation in the program--a program which INCLUDES affiliated partners. And I don't think folks should be deemed less allegiant to Starwood for availing themselves of affiliated partner Starpoint earning or redemption options. In addition, while a LOW balance PLUS a high lifetime balance could perhaps be argued by some to be indicative of a form of program participation & allegiance that indicates satisfaction (e.g. use of award stays at Starwood properties)--what if the member's account exists as a repository for Starwood AmEx-garnered Starpoints, & is set up such than a direct deposit to an airline account exists?--what if this same person never uses their points for award stays, & never maintains a Starpoint balance, yet stays at Starwood properties on business for many nights of the year?--are they to be deemed less worthy of an upgrade due to their Starpoint use preference?

The bottom line is that there is no way for the generic sum of Starpoints to indicate much of anything specific--and thus, I completely disagree w/ its being used to discriminate among guests--it simply doesn't form a valid, consistent means by which to interpret a single quality (let alone whether that quality justifies discrimination among guests).

Part of the SPG program's appeal is its flexibility--I don't think anyone who chooses to utilize it in whatever method best benefits them for a given timeframe should be punished if that choice happens to not equate w/ the judging criteria used by a property to further discriminate among guests.

There are already multiple levels defined for even the officially-designated-as-top tier of the SPG program. To add further discrimination is unnecessary--even if supposedly resorted to as a kind of "coin toss" to determine who among 2 same-program-status levels is to get a specific room. It's difficult to determine an ultimately fair means by which to address such a situation--does one go by # of overall nights? # of overall stays? overall revenue? If so, for what timeframe? what if the # of stays is low but the # of nights is high? what if the # of nights is low but the revenue is high? Perhaps the Starpoints could conveniently (though unfairly, in my opinion) be resorted to as a kind of "tiebreaker" in some circumstances, but a Starpoint balance is potentially multivariate in origin & its existence at all doesn't formulate a fair means by which to "compare" totals between guests.


A "lesson" that is indirectly being "taught" when Starpoint balances are used as a factor in determining upgrades, is one of "earn 'em, but don't use 'em"--i.e. to be awarded a much coveted upgrade, it is best for one to cripple their overall participation in the program--Starpoints are to be used as currency for "bribery", not as currency for awards.

I find this to be ridiculous, & a negative strike against the program.

I am allegiant to Starwood--& in many ways--but I resent being "told"--even indirectly, as a form of quasi-extorted "compliance" in a side-game of upgrade lotto--that to skew odds in my favor for upgrades, it is best that I essentially forfeit the right to use the points I earn.

Starwood, that sucks.

PLangian

Full disclosure: I have a six figure Starwood balance, will stay 30 plus times at Starwood properties this year. However, the majority of my point accumulation comes via the AMEX card and ClickRewards.

Unused points are the dream of any award program administrators...it goes back to the profitability of Travelers Checks,,,the amount of unused and never to be redeemed checks is in the billions!

Starwood makes out just fine when they "sell" their points to AMEX and ClickRewards and Diners Club and so on, and they do even better when THOSE POINTS GO UNUSED.

Therefore, your most valuable (read profitable) Preferred Guest accounts are those with HUGE unused balances, espicially when those balances were accumulated by another source other than Starwood (i.e. AMEX, ClickRewards, DC).

Regardless, I think the question was asked in the "All things being equal" vain, it's a pretty easy thing for a desk clerk to pull up balances of two platinums and give the better room to the one with the largest balance. However, I am limited to a truly educated response to this because I am unaware of what ALL information the average desk clerk has.

For instance, do they have a record when KISS and I destroyed our suites in the St. Regis New York on the 2000 tour?

Yankees98a

Starwood Lurker,
"I was surprised to learn that the number of Starpoints in a member’s account"

Is it better to have more points or less?

BoSoxFan45

Ummmm.... Maybe it's because you're a Yankees fan, but I find that question preposertous. If you were a hotel, which one would you favor? Someone whose account reflects much time and money spent at Starwood properties, or someone who is a status comp with 300 points total? Clearly its better to have more.

I understand that total account balance is obviously a weaker way to discern loyalty than total LIFETIME points earned.

Mockery concluded. Go Oakland. And welcome to FT

Shareholder

Not only Lifetime points earned, but like most airline programs, points earned through room nights and excluding bonuses and other points sources. The current approach would appear to penalize regular Starwood PG members by watering down to total with these non-hotel stay related points, as well as penalize those who have actually cashed in points for stays as it would not reflect the 100K or more poiints already used for rewards through the period of one's membership.

For those who live outside the USA, it is a further discriminatory measure, since Starwood does not have an affinity credit card available to us.

MatthewClement

Okay, time for my full disclosure. Around 150 nights with Starwood this year, and a four-figure Starwood balance. I will *earn* a six-figure Starwood balance before transferring my points to an airline program, based on hotel spend alone. Assuming your stays are two nights each on average -- 60 hotel nights -- who is the more valuable customer to Starwood, and thus deserves the upgrade? (okay, at 60 hotel nights, you deserve your fair share of upgrades, too! )

I'm making an assumption about your number of room-nights just to make the point -- high points balance doesn't necessarily equal a "better" or "more valuable" guest. YTD points represents a better measure in my mind.

Starwood Lurker

Yankees98a, I too was surprised that this was a factor in so many of the hotels I surveyed for this thread. I agree with Shareholder that what should count the most is lifetime earnings, but I need to be sure that this number is not being faxed to them as well. I'll have a better idea when I return from New Orleans later this month.

Best regards,

William R. Sanders
Specialist, E-Communications Department
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide

[email protected]

thesilb

Actually, Starwood has a wonderful brochure which does exactly this as to Hawaii Starwood properties. It is an all-inclusive book which includes Westin, Sheraton, W and Luxury and has color-coded maps of each exact room type and where it is located in the hotel. It's fabulous. It would be fantastic to get one of these for the entire world. I'd pay money for it!



[This message has been edited by thesilb (edited 10-08-2001).]

rocky

So where do you stay in New Orleans, William? We;re expecting a full hotel report when you get back.

[This message has been edited by rocky (edited 10-08-2001).]

Starwood Lurker

I'll be at the W New Orleans on Poydras from October 17 - 20 on this trip, but believe it or not, since I've been a Starwood employee, I have not been to New Orleans, so I don't have much to offer as comparison. I will be visiting with representatives from all of our downtown properties when I am there, however.

If anyone in the area would like to meet me at the W for a drink at Whisky Blue on either Thursday or Friday afternoon, send me an e-mail and we'll discuss it.

Best regards,

William R. Sanders
Specialist, E-Communications Department
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide

[email protected]

rocky

... and my conference in New Orleans that weekend just got canceled.

New Orleans is a great town to visit. If you're eating on Starwood's dime, I would highly recommend going to Commander's Palace. No, wait, that might result in more outrageous phone rates.

[This message has been edited by rocky (edited 10-08-2001).]

Starwood Lurker

Sorry, you won't be there rocky. The trip is on my dime, but I'm still going to Emeril's and NOLA's while we're there. Probably will do Stroud's Shady Oaks on the way down as well.

(look for a moderator to move this to FT Dining... )

Best regards,

William R. Sanders
Specialist, E-Communications Department
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide

[email protected]

MatthewClement

Talk about Murphy's Law -- 108 nights at the W New Orleans, and I won't even get the chance to buy William a drink!

Have a great time. For what it's worth, I like Jacques Imo's for dinner.