Marriott is threatening to close a Bonvoy Ambassador member’s account, after they complained about several of the brand’s hotels. They’ve let him know that they don’t want complainers – they want customers who will accept degraded brand standards and continue handing over at least $23,000 a year.

• Marriott requires at least 100 nights in their hotels and $23,000 spend a year to maintain Ambassador status.

• This customer has spent over $200,000 with Marriott in the past few years.

• And the guest has lodged several complaints – for instance,
  
  • about a hotel that claims not to be a resort to avoid the program’s restaurant breakfast requirement while imposing a resort fee and having resort in their name.
  • receiving a room downgrade from a basic booked king to double beds – he claimed Marriott’s bed type guarantee (and every room type at the hotel was bookable on their website at the time of check-in).
  • about finding a used dildo by the side of the bed when he entered his room on check-in at a different property.
    
  • prior guest’s hair all over the bathroom and bed
    
  • a valet dinged up his car – they offered 10,000 points.

He’s regularly checked into moldy and unclean rooms, but he kept staying at Marriott, figuring every other option was at least as bad. But after complaining the most recent time to his Ambassador after an especially appalling stay, his assigned Ambassador Services agent flagged his account for review by Loyalty Program Risk.

Loyalty Program Risk contacted him, and let him know that his complaints cover 9% of his total lifetime nights with Marriott and they threatened to close his account.

They did not defend the downgrade, the dildo, or the disavowal of breakfast. Instead, they concluded that the frequency with which their hotels failed to deliver was his fault.

• I’ve reviewed the email correspondence. Marriott marked them as confidential.
  
• They essentially accused him of defrauding properties (though did not make this explicit).
  
• The emails were unsigned, and offered no avenue for follow up or appeal.

It seems interesting that Marriott is willing to fire guests, but not the hotel owners that degrade the brand.

The Ambassador member has several million Bonvoy points in their account. He’s also a Hyatt Globalist and is moving most of his business there. He has cancelled his Marriott co-branded Chase and American Express cards.

Eleven years ago the Supreme Court handed down Northwest v. Ginsberg, the case of ‘the Rabbi who complained too much’. Northwest Airlines had fired this Platinum member as a customer and closed their account, taking away points and benefits, because they determined he wasn’t a profitable customer. They were handing him too much compensation. Northwest, of course, offered a poor product in many cases and preferred to hand out points than perform cosmetic maintenance.

The case didn’t resolve who was right or wrong – it determined that the Rabbi’s lawsuit against Northwest was pre-empted by the Airline Deregulation Act (that frequent flyer programs were a rebate on the price of a ticket, states can’t regulate airline prices, and commonlaw claims about good faith and fair dealing are state level causes of action).

So who is really at fault when a customer is so disserviced that they complain, the chain compensates them, and the compensation adds up?

• The customer for not accepting the product as-is?
  
• The travel provider for offering a consistently subpar product?
  
• The travel provider for choosing to offer the compensation?

My take here is that Marriott consistently underdelivers. And when an Ambassador member complains they do try to offer compensation – but do very little to rectify the underlying problems at their hotels. So a frequent guest encounters frequent problems. That’s on the chain, which has been degrading its brand. That’s unfortunate.

I’m reminded how United Airlines used to have cards onboard for flight attendants to hand to customers experiencing problems. These were pre-printed compensation cards and listed problems like ‘broken reading light’. As a company they’d decided it was cheaper to offer compensation than maintain their cabins. Marriott has decided it’s cheaper to fire customers than make hotels deliver on their former brand promises.

Marriott is no longer a hotel company. It’s a booking platform. Marriott’s real customers aren’t the guests. Bonvoy members are the product they sell to hotels (owners sometimes refer to program members as leads).

And if they’re willing to fire an Ambassador customer who tussles with a hotel over benefits, can a Gold or Platinum expect better?