UA-NYC

Highly unlikely if the global ADR is $157 (or $177 on a different site I saw) and most Plat 100s probably 1) have a CC with some free nights and 2) redeem for some nights

http://files.shareholder.com/downloa...4.2017-10K.pdf

because statistics

phltraveler

My point was actually that it would be very easy for members to hit 100 nights and NOT hit $20K spend, in response to the OP of this thread suggesting the highest level remain 100+ nights and require $40K plus spend because 20K wasn't "that much". Neither of us work for Marriott/SPG (unless you have something to reveal? ;-) ) so of course it's going to be based off of nothing but assumption. You were the one that opened with the bet of a steak dinner :-)

I'm not inclined to agree or disagree except to the extent to say that the benefits for the Ambassador level (as listed now) are very minimal. 100% bonus points vs. 75% Plat Premier, Your24 (pending availability), Ambassador (per threads here, is the best thing since sliced bread or useless depending on your ambassador, highly variable). Three or four people does not make an automatic representation of an entire population, that I agree with. My point again was that people with 100+ nights could fall short of revenue requirement.

Marriott did the value calculation on the combined elite pools, they brought an ex-Starwood guy in, they imposed a revenue requirement on the 100+ night pool that did not previously exist. If we assume the combined brain trust of both companies did their math right, they picked a point that optimized the highest elite benefit tier against elites who would feel disenfranchised or enticed to take their spend elsewhere.

My personal experience (as a Marriott LTP who will be grandfathered into LTPP in new program) is that I regularly spent 100+ butt in bed nights for several years and that I would have missed the $20K requirement (with all spending or base room only spending qualifying). Other coworkers stay in NYC or LA/SF area at $350+ a room rate and would have broken through the $20K in less than 60 nights. It varies.

Until we have raw data, we can all bet steak dinners on whether or not something is a problem....

Keyser

actually its 3 or 4 members who have said they will be able to make the spend threshold....all the other ambassador members here are saying they won't....

my 100 nights a year don't come at $60 a night properties....they come in the $150 - $175 range....& keep in mind that these are the most expensive or best spg properties in the areas i travel to....but at this rate i won't make the $20k spend & i know tons of people (about half a dozen in my team alone) who won't make it either....

C17PSGR

I guess will see since I suppose I'm one of the 3 or 4. I travel on corporate rates -- a $155 Marriott and a $85 Fairfield Inn last week, $170 Westin this week, a $209 Gaylord this week, a $165 JW next week ... but I'm still tracking well over $20k for the year unless I'm messing up my calculations. A weekend in Cancun, a trip to London, skews the average way higher than my normal business trips.

Canada101

Those are the same types of rates I (and likely many of us on here) pay and I've not hit USD20K with over 100 nights for the past 6 years based on "eligible spend" (I would or be super close if it was folio spend minus taxes) so based on the five stays you cited, you are averaging what I am averaging for paid stays: $156.80. If you average that on 100 nights, you'd miss USD20K by a touch over USD4K if you do 100 paid nights per year. Any points/free night you stay will obviously push that average rate down. So unless you are spending the additional USD4K in eligible spa services, F&B etc then you aren't on track towards USD20K in qualifying spend. The key word being qualifying. Past experience has demonstrated that there are many conditions which make spend, even significant spend, considered non-qualifying.

Again, to be clear, I'm not trying to suggest that you don't spend USD20K per year. I'm suggesting you may be mistaken that all of it counts as "qualifying" for the purposes of the new Ambassador status requirement.

stant

How many have you seen say they wont? I dont remember it being more than a few. Considering that if a member posts here and is going to have a high likelyhood of having a service snatched away from them after the integration I'd expect 100% of them to complain about it, I dont see THAT many people falling into that category. I mean I wont have a problem with the threshold, and I'm not a suite at the ritz sort of guy, I mainly shop for my clothes at wal-mart for the sake of pete. And still I'll hit $20k easily with 100+ nights

Keyser

lots have said they won't....not just on this thread but in others as well....

at the end of the day it all depends on where you travel....if you are traveling to places where the average hotel rate is around $200 then you will hit the threshold....in north america or europe i don't see this as a problem....in most parts of asia i do see it as a problem....my firm gives me a budget between $350 - $500 a night to spend when i travel for work....the only problem is that the places i travel to rarely have hotel rates that cross $150 a night....for example, later this month i am going to a city that has 3 starwood properties & 1 marriott property....the room rates for the starwood properties are $42, $65 & $74 a night....the marriott property is $78 a night....the hotel that is most convenient for me is the $42 a night property as it is right next to my client's office....but even if i don't stay there & pick the most expensive marriott property, i'm still not meeting the average spend i would need over a hundred nights....

i'm not saying i won't be able to hit $20k spend in a year....i may be able to do it but given the average rates of the places i usually travel to, i would have to stay close to 140+ nights to get there....

UKTraveller4Fun

The original SPG Ambassador program (before the 100 night threshold was set) actually very much took into account the spend within hotels and the types of hotels you stayed in, it was a key part of being invited. The other main thing that might have got someone an invite was if they were considered a gateway to a lot of business! With this in mind the program itself to run and actually be worth something will have a reasonable cost assosiated with it, if they do ti to cheaply then the program and status is not really worth it. You only need to look at the threads on FT to see a lot of people are not huge fans of the current Ambassador program and feel (as I do) that it has generally been getting worse and a shadow of its former self. Hopefully by implementing a spend threshold (which I believe is low alongside 100 nights) the intention is to actually improve the program and thin the ranks slightly over the 2 programs and thus be able to focus more on the people that do qualify.

Maybe if your not spending 20k a year the math simply does not add up and overall those people spending less and doing 100 nights do not generate enough revenue for the cost outlay they intend to spend on the program. I see quite a lot of complaints from people who do 100 nights but may not hit 20k as they do not wish to spend in the hotel while they are there, well maybe the loyalty Marriott are looking for is for guests who do actually spend within a hotel or book in enough varying locations that over 100 nights ir would be difficult not to hit 20k. I agree in Asia there are plenty of places you will get less that $100 per night, but the expectation would be that someone qualifying for Ambassador status also probably travels a lot and would be in other parts of the world where you will probably spend $300 plus per night, maybe spend $ 50-100 on a meal in the hotel at some point etc and if your not doing this then the investment by Marriott in the program simply isn't worth it.

There is also another way of looking at it that doesnt get brought up much, some people will spend 30k and maybe only do 75 nights, should they maybe not get Ambassador more than say the 100 night 15k person? Personally I feel in a few years they will increase the qualification levels, that or the service will slowly continue to drop so the level actually means Your 24 and a Platinum concierge who happens to be named to your account.

Overall I think Marriott have recognised the fact that SPG gave away Ambassador level to easily in the end and as such the scheme became something of a issue to run as the costs associated with it were greater than the rewards it brought to the company unlike the early days. To me the only question is if 20k 1000 nights is enough, a more flexible system might have been better 125 nights and 20k or 100 nights and 30k for instance, maybe even a 75 nights and 40k. I can understand however that Marriott wanted to keep it simple and compared to what they could set I do feel this is very generous for a very top elite tier of the program considering how many hotels people have to choose from.

yosithezet

I know quite a few people with Ambassadors and not a single one that hits USD 20K / year. I know that I won't as I've only ever had 2 years where I hit USD 20K and one of those was a year where I relocated and spent 2 months in a hotel in Singapore.

EuropeanPete

Starwood global ADR was $170 in 2016 and $180 in North America. Looking at the brand by brand break-down, most people who didn't spend a lot of their time in Alofts or Four Points should be comfortably above $200 ADR on room rate alone. Ancillary revenues are something like 10-20%, so (assuming these are included in the Ambassador cap), the global average spend should be at or around $200 a night.

It just doesn't ring true for me that almost nobody is hitting the $20K. Is there a chance that many Ambassador guests on this forum are a skewed US Four Points road warrior selection? Essentially, on average, anyone who either spends a normal amount of ancillary revenue in a hotel *or* who generally avoids the bottom tier of brands will meet the spend requirements.

kaizen7

I guess Starriott dont think its worth the ambassador time to assist people who spend 100 nights at $36 moxies hence the $$ requirements.

On the other hands, they also dont want their ambassadors dealing with people who are not stays frequently (100nights) enough to warrant ambassador even though they book expensive room and exceeding $20k threshold in their 40 nights stays.

broadwayboy

Why so much fuss about Ambassador level anyway? I have yet to experience anything special that mine does for me. It's a great marketing gimmick, but I will gladly pass on trying to achieve this level.

Keyser

by the end of this month i would have crossed 50 nights for the year....4 of them were at a four points property in nyc & another 6 at a four points in singapore....the remaining have been at st regis, luxury collections, westins & high end sheratons in india & dubai....i have yet to pay over $170 a night....starwood's global adr might have been $170 but for someone who has 90% of their stays in asia it is next to impossible to reach $20k spend spread out over 100 nights....

UKTraveller4Fun

Again I think it depends where, the St.Regis and also ones in Malaysia would often be above these and also W Bali for that matter! Hong Kong and Singapore also can easily be above this. I think the fact is if your staying in these locations and only booking the standard rooms rather than maybe booking suites from time to time then the Ambassador service going forward is not the target audience you fall in. FT is often about simply booking the cheapest room and getting upgraded or finding a BRG to bring the rate down a lot and I have no issue with any of that as I do it, but this is only a small portion of who Marriott are looking at with the Ambassador service and it was always intended by Starwood to be aimed at those people who actually do more than the bare minimum or just book standard rooms and never spend within the hotel.

It is fair to say that it favours people in places where hotels are more expensive than say Asia but equally it is certainly quite possible to spend $200 a night in Asia if you stay at the higher end hotels and equally it is possible to spend well under $200 in Western hotels but we all know you will get more for your money generally in Asia, but Marriott has to draw the line somewhere and at 20k it seems a very reasonable line to me, what it means however is if someone wants the service they will have to show loyalty to Marriott with either spending on a certain level of room or spend within the hotels when you are there.

EuropeanPete

Of course that's the problem with averages (especially Means), but if we imagine that Asia is significantly dragging down the global picture, then Europe must be at a much higher level (as the US is only 5% higher than global). I suppose that it's also certain parts of Asia? I don't remember Hong Kong, Singapore or Japan as being particularly cheap.