Too many copy-cat programs out there says this Cornell University Study.
Research is the key to a better, more individualized program they say. I'd agree. Thoughts?
I'm curious why you forever quote academic surveys to promote ideas. I have always thought these ideas come from people that don't really have a clue. The ideas they spout come from text books, never the real world. the real world is on trip advisor and other sites that are frequented by real people.
For me, a loyalty program rewards me for the loyalty. That comes in the form of points, recognition, and above and beyond perks from time-to-time. that's it.
How do other real people think?????
A good friend, who recently died after a two year battle with Pulmonary Fibrosis. was a graduate of and professor with the Cornell University Hotel School from which this report came.
Moss (that was his nickname) had a long and storied career with the hotel industry (but not with Marriott) and was a VP of Sheraton Hotels, overseeing their entire European operation.
Through Moss I was linked to the Hotel School's research department and I routinely receive their research reports. Hope that you will find the report thought-provoking as I did.
Please don't generalize about all academics. I use tripadvisor as much or more than I use Marriott Insiders, since so many of the places my research takes me doesn't include Marriotts.
And while you didn't accuse me of being clueless, I am an academic, so that could be the inference. Yes, many of my colleagues all over the country may fit that description, but don't count out people like me who had to fight for a college education against parental objections and paid for all 9 years of grad school myself (working 2-3 jobs the whole time - college, grad school and my first six years of teaching , with loans that I have paid back).
In short, I'm a regular person. Maybe I get wonky about ancient or medieval history, but I'm sure we all have something that we care about deeply in our careers.
WOW, are you ever off-base. I was not condemning academics, was simply stating the fact that book-learning is great, but doesn't hold a candle to street smarts. If that idea is offensive, so be it. I can assure you, no offense was intended. I would suspect that most would agree that OUR experiences carry much more weight on a subject than what an academic thinks we should feel. The specific example being criticized was of an academic telling us how we feel about Loyalty Programs. I stand by me remarks.
Dear SS and others,
Yes, I found it an interesting piece (which I hope brought back good memories of your old chum).
And interesting too is the varied response it has elicited here.
Two reflections come to mind:
1. Surely the two data sources mentioned - structured surveys and individual observation are mutually sustaining, rather than exclusive. From the street-wise wisdom of the Damon Runyan-type characters favoured by Shoeman comes insight - a resource which either triggers curiosity about our behaviour, or succeeds in clarifying hitherto mysterious aspects of it. Whichever is the case, "academic" research (which emerges as much from corporate stalwarts such as McKinsey as from Cornell et al) is then needed to determine the extent to which such insight can command broader-based validity - in other words, to what extent can we generalise from the particular (which, I suppose, is the market researcher's Holy Grail).
2. In participating as "insiders", we too are part of a research exercise - the process through which Marriott is endeavouring to do exactly what Cornell recommends: i.e. sharpening the alignment between its market segmentation data and product development. Sometimes, as I read the wide range of opinion and argument offered here, I wonder how Marriott uses this resource, what sense it makes of it and what conclusions it draws from it. Does MR periodically offer any feedback on these points? Its assessments would be fascinating, and perhaps even motivational.
My point, based on my personal experience, is that the two are not mutually exclusive. Without street smarts and common sense I would have never been able to get to the position I am at since I needed every bit of it.
No matter what the profession - hoteliers, academics, lawyers, salesmen, etc., it takes a blend of attributes to make things work.
(Will be out of all email contact until Monday.)
To exclude a whole area of expertise is not wise in my opinion and yes there is a place for local knowledge in any study.
In my experience (not others I will admit) scientific sampling allows a person to understand data and what an answer means--not necessarily what the respondent says.
Fair enough. I can go with that. I understand that both in the military and in the academic world, "going by the book" is the mantra. However, in the business world, and many others for sure, common-sense decisions, oftentimes that are contrary to "the book" are those decisions that separate the great from the good. Just my humble opinion. I will always be a risk-taker, and will also always take the pulse of the street to measure my behavior.
As I read this back to myself, I see that the two camps are not too different. I'm just one who doesn't want to be told how I should feel on a subject, I would rather make that call myself.
Safe travels to All!
Yes being in the cross-hairs is not fun, whether in Asia or Europe. After being apprehended on official USG business I was given a harsh interrogatrion by the locals in a not-to-be-named country, and fortunately let go after what seemed an eternity.
I agree with you that "the book" is irrelevant when confronted with an extreme situation--at that point intuition and street smarts take over.
In my next career out here in Monterey I supervised a scientific study of how people behave in these klinds of extreme circumstances. Both approaches have led to a better understanding of human reliability, and hopefully will lead to a better experience for anyone forced into them.
To see this in reality I'd recommend that you read the Bob and Danya Baer book, "The Company we Keep."
You're right -- we don't disagree. I think it's just word choices. My colleagues sometimes make fun of me when I say me instead of I (despite academic credentials) and the little of my family that still exists thinks I say too many big words. But the point is I did come from a totally normal, totally non-academic background but thanks to a great high school and perseverance I got to do what I do best, research, writing and teaching.
But just like you, I have absolutely no tolerance for 'set ways of thinking' - though I don't think they're exclusive to academics. I am absolutely not PC, and tell my students so. Obviously, I go out of my way not to be insensitive or unpleasant to them, but I never tow a party line. You might be surprised with a lot of my views, but I'm not going to share them in a public forum (any more than I will ever use facebook).