So now I don't book with Marriott/SPG anymore. Why would I?
But there are credit cards that will (as of 2019) give you 15 elite qualifying nights per year so Platinum will be "only" 35 nights... not that much different.
The SPG Gold status was about the last useful benefit I got from Amex platinum though so that card is probably dead to me now.
Marriott seems to be running into the same problem as American airline rewards: counting nights and miles, only, doesn't adequately differentiate between high-spend and low-spend nights and miles. So you have to set the nightly rate such that someone staying at your cheapest property can access perks at the most-expensive property. That, in turn, ends up making the perks less valuable for those who frequent your pricy properties. (This is Gresham's Law [1].)
The loyalty programs should have been kept separate, with the benefit of high-value programs getting credit at low-value ones (but not the other way, at least not at parity).
Imagine Marriott has two brands: Fairfield Inn and Ritz-Carlton. They each have a rewards program which grants one free night for every night stayed.
Now suppose, in a fit of idiocy, the rewards programs are made cross-compatible. So a Ritz-Carlton reward night can be spent at Fairfield Inn and vice versa. Where do you think the rewards will be earned? Where do you think they'll be spent? The "bad" (Fairfield Inn rewards) drove out the "good" (Ritz-Carlton rewards).
I accentuated the number of brands, magnitude of their value difference and rewards program juiciness. This was to bring into relief the resulting effect. In reality, these terms--and the effect--are smaller. Still, Gresham's law applies if one treats rewards nights earned at different hotels as different currencies. They've simply, now, been brought into a currency union.
These rewards programs were based on on nights or stays prior to the merger. SPG had no minimum spend requirements, and was widely considered the best hotel rewards program out there. And SPG had "low-end" properties as well, and there was no differentiator. I could earn all my rewards at an Aloft or Element and redeem them at a W or St. Regis.
If anything, Marriott had a higher quantity of "low-end" hotels and unless I'm significantly misremembering, you could always have earned points at the Fairfield Inn and used them at the Ritz-Carlton.
I don't understand what you think changed with this merger in that regard.
>They each have a rewards program which grants one free night for every night stayed.
It's a lot more fair to say for every $1000 spent, you have enough points to redeem a free night. In which case, some people might choose to spend more nights at the cheaper Fairfield Inn, and some might choose to stay fewer nights at the luxury Ritz. The bad money is not driving out the good.
It's true when it comes to qualifying nights, people will try to hit elite night requirements at cheaper properties. But that's not driving out the business for higher-end properties. Especially because award redemption is (mostly) based on how much you spend, not how many nights you stay.
I can see where he was going with the analogy to Gresham's, but maybe another G's law is a better fit:
I also feel like I'm competing among too many people now for upgrades. I'm a rare beast with like more than 200 nights on property this year, and well more than 100 last year. I just wish I felt more appreciated by the company.