Originally Posted by MarkOK

I in fact went years without an Aadvantage account because I didn't bother doing a number of 'simple' things to get one set up

Originally Posted by MarkOK

... I've missed dates to get my daughter to dance rehearsals because I "didn't do a simple quick check on the facebook to get the most recent dates", I've missed awesome deals at Lowes because "I didn't simply open the ad" that week, I in fact went years without an Aadvantage account because I didn't bother doing a number of 'simple' things to get one set up (I tried a few times online, but kept getting an error message that I was already registered. I'd forget about it and carry on, too busy and not caring enough to do it, but then early last year, I finally made the simple call and found that I was getting the error message because someone else with my exact name already had an account and she had to override it). I didn't think it mattered much, but since I recreated my flight history, I've found I'd be 17% on my way to million miler/lifetime gold by now instead of the 3% I currently am. Anyways, calling someone 'disengaged' for not knowing the ins and outs and particulars is a rather bold statement imo. We are all busy, and can't expect everyone to share their free time the same way we do. SPG, quite frankly, doesn't care how often you check your account history compared to someone else.

Originally Posted by MarkOK

I agree that no individual is ever as important as we pretend to be. But if you have said customer on the phone, at that moment in time, the company should treat good customers well. I think that means giving an exception to the law of the land, even if he is throwing a hissy fit DYKWIA argument.

And as for your second comment, you are referring to a luxury of time and projecting how someone should prioritize their time. Do we spend time on FT and elite programs? Yes, we make it a hobby, but we shouldn't expect every elite traveler to check their status-earning all the time and keeping up with every change or lack thereof in these programs. I might know my exact number of nights and points I have to elite status(and lifetime status) with right now, but there are lots of other aspects of my life where I get chastised for not doing some 'simple' thing. -aka- I've missed dates to get my daughter to dance rehearsals because I "didn't do a simple quick check on the facebook to get the most recent dates", I've missed awesome deals at Lowes because "I didn't simply open the ad" that week, I in fact went years without an Aadvantage account because I didn't bother doing a number of 'simple' things to get one set up (I tried a few times online, but kept getting an error message that I was already registered. I'd forget about it and carry on, too busy and not caring enough to do it, but then early last year, I finally made the simple call and found that I was getting the error message because someone else with my exact name already had an account and she had to override it). I didn't think it mattered much, but since I recreated my flight history, I've found I'd be 17% on my way to million miler/lifetime gold by now instead of the 3% I currently am. Anyways, calling someone 'disengaged' for not knowing the ins and outs and particulars is a rather bold statement imo. We are all busy, and can't expect everyone to share their free time the same way we do. SPG, quite frankly, doesn't care how often you check your account history compared to someone else.

Originally Posted by mahasamatman

It's hard to rebuild a bridge that you've already burned down.


I'd say that was true of Gold Passport, but World of Hyatt is driving away top-level elites in droves.

Originally Posted by dunno282

little use in the real world? Not sure what kind of philosophy is in your real world. As an adult, I will absolutely ask/request for rules to be bent but my expectations are not that it is mandatory. Only a child would throw a tantrum because they asked for a FAVOR and didn't get it.

Do you think it's right if your friend asked you for a favor but you said NO and he/she gets mad, blames you and didn't want to be friends with you anymore.

Originally Posted by stant

It doesn't matter what your reactions to a 'no' to your request that the rules be bent in your favor are - the fact is that customers vote with their wallet all the time. and if you are a customer with a big wallet, the logic that 'the rules are the rules' is questionable at best when there is the risk that a vendor might lose your business.

This isn't about how friends interact, this isn't about acting like an adult, this is about the reality of doing business. And some times you *should* do things in business that you might not have to do.

Case in point: In this thread there was a guy who said he just barely missed 100 nights so he didn't have the *right* to ask spg for an exception to keep his ambassador. I think he has the right to ask. they also have the right to say 'no' and he has the right to consider where his next booking will be in light of their response. Thats just my opinion though. My second example: About a year ago I had a dispute over an issue and spg told me 'the rules are the rules' in their response. I said I'd walk and they changed their mind. I stayed a happy customer and they have probably got 100 night from me since that happened. I go out of my way to stay at spg properties, even when they arent the best choice for me. The matter was resolved as a win/win.

My point to all of this? An over reliance on the rules is counterproductive at times. In the real world you need to adapt to various possibilities that might seem to be clear cut in light of the rules, but often times are anything but when considering the bigger picture. Dont forget the whole point to loyalty programs is a structured way of getting special perks to certain customers. Some might call that breaking the rules - or a non elite customer would surely think so when an elite gets a property to overbook and they cant

Originally Posted by stant

Case in point: In this thread there was a guy who said he just barely missed 100 nights so he didn't have the *right* to ask spg for an exception to keep his ambassador. I think he has the right to ask. they also have the right to say 'no' and he has the right to consider where his next booking will be in light of their response. Thats just my opinion though.

Originally Posted by dunno282

like i said in my previous comment. you have every right to ask/request the rules to be bent or threaten to leave. you definitely should do that. just don't put the blame on SPG if they don't though. At the end of the day it's a favor you are asking for. Again with the business stuff. Their "elite" customers are relative to what they consider elite. Maybe a 100 night customer is no big deal to them. You only "just" made it to PLAT100. Maybe their top 10% elites stay over 200 nights consistently. You can't just assume that it's bad business for SPG to not give him an exception. Maybe they've done the math and decided it's not worth it.

Originally Posted by stant

Of course I can assume it is bad for business, both in this context and in general terms. Remember I made that post in reference to a member who stayed 1000 nights - one THOUSAND nights in 3 years. THREE years. With absolutely no inside knowledge of the spg program I will bet you anything you like that such a customer does more business with all but an infinitesimally small number of members. Remember the cost of comping spg100 benefits is essentially nil. It's not like they are going to hire extra ambassadors. But the potential risk if it made the customer walk is significant..

Originally Posted by EuropeanPete

But did they really mean "the rules are the rules" as is being asserted here or "we don't think we want to make an exception in this case", which seems rather more likely?

Originally Posted by kaizen7

333 nights / year

If he book 3 nights stay at 111 different hotels every year then he become nobody in 333 different hotels

If he book 333 nights at 1 hotels each year then he will have better treatment than a LTP Ambassador even without him even joining SPG program

Originally Posted by stant

If someone only makes it to 95% of the threshold they are pretty much the sort of customer you really want, even if they didnt quite cross that mark. Think about it - what sense would it make to give the world to a customer who stays 101 nights a year, and yet alienate one who spends 99 nights?

Originally Posted by dunno282

so basically you're saying that the real qualification to PLT100 is 99, oh but 98 is so close to 99, oh but 97 is so close to 98, oh but 96 is so close to 97, oh but 95 is so close to 96, oh but 94 is so close to 95, oh but 93 is so close to 94, oh but 92 is so close to 93, oh but 91 is so close to 92, oh but 90 is so close to 91, oh but 89 is so close to 90...etc where does it stop? with your logic then all of the people in that range should get PLT100 so they don't alienate ones that are SO close to PLT100. With an increased risk of alienating the PLT100 customers that actually have 100+ nights.

Originally Posted by dunno282

so basically you're saying that the real qualification to PLT100 is 99, oh but 98 is so close to 99, oh but 97 is so close to 98, oh but 96 is so close to 97, oh but 95 is so close to 96, oh but 94 is so close to 95, oh but 93 is so close to 94, oh but 92 is so close to 93, oh but 91 is so close to 92, oh but 90 is so close to 91, oh but 89 is so close to 90...etc where does it stop? with your logic then all of the people in that range should get PLT100 so they don't alienate ones that are SO close to PLT100. With an increased risk of alienating the PLT100 customers that actually have 100+ nights.