@adelphi_sky wrote:I think Chase could also cut off their nose to spite their face. The CSR was driven by these same users. The whole UR program was also a winner even before the CSR came on the scene. You change that, you run the risk of losing a large population that you just won over.
Oh, I have no doubt that would run the risk of losing a large population they just won over, insofar as the "credit card travel hacker" population is large. My point is that they wouldn't mind losing that population because it is a population, they have decided, is costing them too much. I doubt Chase ever intended to be bankrolling high-end vacation packages for relatively new customers who have used their more expensive products for only a short period of time.
@adelphi_sky wrote:Remember, this generation isn't as brand loyal as their parents. They will respond negatively because there ARE other options out there. They realize that banks aren't necessarily for their best interest and if the benefits stop, they move on. Look at how many people started jumping ship from the AMEX Platinum until Amex was forced to up its game? Now is not the time to start removing benefits just as other card issuers are upping their game to better compete. Again, Chase runs the risk of massive customer loss if this change goes bad. The current UR program made the $450 AF for the CSR worth it. Remove the one thing that makes having the CSR worth it, and you reverse the popularity you created last year.
Yup, and once again my point is that the popularity they created last year is what Chase would like to reverse, at least among "travel hackers." Chase created the CSR to compete with the Amex Platinum, not to fund vacation packages for customers who are admittedly not loyal. They may have succeeded a bit too much and that success is costing them more than they would like.
You are also absolutely right that there ARE other options people can go to, but as Irish noted at the beginning of this thread, none of them provide this type of... shall we say... game-a-bility with their lineups. Chase is calculating, correctly, that this specific advantage will not be available anywhere else their customers can move to.
The only thing I would disagree with you about is that Chase runs the risk of "massive customer loss". Travel hackers may be 'massive' enough to cost Chase enough to make them consider these changes, but I doubt they are numerous enough to cost Chase "massive" loss in total number of customers they serve. I do think people overestimate their power as the "online travel [hacking] community."
At the end of the day, this is not about loyalty. No one should expect it to be. Not Chase, and not consumers. It's about competition. Chase is merely removing a competitive advantage no one else in the market provides and one it sees as costing too much, and making the bet that there are still enough remaining advantages it will fish out the travel hackers without much of a "mass exodus."
