kcaluwae

Just read the complete thread and I'm a bit surprised nobody brought up Moxy hotels.

I think they're going after the same market segment but Moxy looks a lot more stylish. Same ideas of connectivity, shared tables and smaller rooms but not the colorful screaming logos and phrases on the walls. Personal taste but from what I've seen of Moxy so far I would prefer this over Tru.

Moxy is currently mainly being rolled out in Europe, first US hotels planned end of 2016. Tru only seems to have plans in US right now...

sdsearch

Without naming a location, Hilton's mention of $90-$100 is garbage. $90-$100 in midtown Manhattan would be ridiculously low; $90-$100 in Phoenix in the summer would be ridiculously high.

What I bet is more likely that they meant (but didn't want to say it that way) is that it'll be price competitive with La Quinta, Comfort Inn, Microtel, etc. Check those brand's prices in downtown Chicago in the summer; I doubt they're $100/night, but I also would bet that they're still way cheaper than even a Hampton, let alone any other exiting HH brand.

Friendly Traveling Deathmerchant

From this thread, I've gathered:

Hotel is for millennials, but millennials are not impressed.

But the redeeming factor: MATTRESS RUN FODDER!




TDM

dtremit

I agree with your suspicion -- but those brands largely don't exist in downtown Chicago, because the economics just don't work. And when they do, the prices don't end up being significantly cheaper than major brands. Looking at Manhattan in the summer (where those brands exist), I can get a Ramada cheaper than an Econolodge, and the Doubletree Metropolitan at the same rate as the Comfort Inn in Times Square.

I think Hilton wants you to think about trendy Tru hotels in trendy cities, but I'd wager that 80% of the signed deals to build them are interstate-adjacent, across the cloverleaf from a Comfort Inn.

Or in other words: they're where all the cheap Hampton Inns were before they kicked them out of the chain!

storewanderer

I'm a millennial and this does not appeal to me at all. No desk? What is that lobby? It looks like a McDonalds. It just sounds cheap and tacky. As a millennial this format is somewhat offensive; is this really what we supposedly like? I don't think so. Maybe I'd stay here for $69 a night. Or go to Priceline Opaque and go find a Courtyard or HGI for $50 a night plus 25% Priceline fees. That sounds better.

Probably the reason I only stayed at a Home 2 Suites one time. It wasn't a bad stay by any means but it just wasn't for me. I didn't like the feel of it. It felt cheap. It felt classless.

Cymro

Not a millennial but not much older, either.

Agree with the skepticism around the rates, but also the 'cheery' colors are a bit too kindergarten for me.

The UK-style Hampton Inns are a bit brighter and simpler than the latest US ones, and would provide a happy medium, maybe with a bit more color but a lot less 'cutesy'.

I mean sure, it's absolutely fine if my only interest is arriving at 11 p.m. for a 6 a.m. flight the next day, but lots of other places can do that and probably for less.

arlflyer

Actually, FWIW I did look and was surprised to see a La Quinta right downtown.


That much is correct - when I did a search, said LQ was asking $300/night for a random weekend in June!


I'm not so sure about that. Hilton would really have to mess up its demographic targeting to end up there. Its target audience is urban.


Just ignoring the in-your-face aspects of the branding - the name, the colors or phrases on the floor, whatever - what I'm really just seeing here is a modernized version of the sorts of hotels that exists all over in Europe and Asia and have for a long time. Small, simple, budget rooms for travelers wanting to get into the big city but not willing/able to shell out the big bucks. This, at its core, is not a new concept.

As discussed upthread, I think that this is Hilton looking forward and saying "What is our biggest existential threat in the next 10 years?". And it's seeing that threat to be airbnb, couchsurfing, etc. So this is its first shot across the bow at that competition. It may not be a perfect execution, but in my mind this is what they're trying to react to.

dtremit

Their target customer is urban, but the prototype hotel design clearly speaks to suburban build-outs. You don't build hotels that look like this in downtown areas:

IsleOfMan

I don't get the idea that this is aimed squarely at urban crowd, though it may be trying to bring a bit of what is conceived as urban design to suburban locations.

One thing I just noticed that, as a movie and home theater enthustias that travels with 10-12 unwatched movies and tv shows on my PC or tablet at any given time, is that the rooms will have 65" TVs. This in particular might actually grab some of my business, especially if there are connectivity ports near the "multi function chair" (and everything else isn't terribly executed). In a room this size, a 65" TV won't feel much different than my 100" screen in my theater room.

u600213

Not a millennial but am a HH Diamond and have to follow per-diem policies so I would consider these if geographically suitable. But... I need a desk. I guess I can request a folding table and if necessary, a chair from room service. We'll see.

3Cforme

There was another reference I saw and now can't remember - the build guidelines, maybe? - that spoke to 55" TVs, not 65". Yes, 65" in a 250 sq ft room could be excessive. (But I have found some 42" TVs in alofts recently, and wow, do they look tiny.)

jefftiger

I'm a boomer, so I'm way outside of the target demographic. That said, the rendering of the room looks pretty appealing to me. Last year, I stayed at a number of Ibis hotels in France and Switzerland. The Tru room reminds me of a larger version of the more modern Ibis rooms (like at the Ibis Centre Nations in Geneva). If the price is reasonable, I'd consider staying at a Tru.

I guess the question is: does Hilton want me to think (big) Ibis or Ibis Styles when I see a Tru. Is this the sort of brand that they're trying to compete with?

AMBurns1512

I'm a millennial and think that these hotels could be a refreshing take on Hiltons, but I agree that they are aimed at maybe families and younger guests. I'm a research student so if I'm away visiting such and such research centre and there is one nearby then I'll certainly try it and see how it is, as price is a factor for many students. The only issue would be the desk - if I have some work to be getting on with I really do need a desk. I would definitely try them though to see how they are.

Points Scrounger

It's basically Home2Suites without the ensuite kitchen. No desk wouldn't bother me as far as sitting at one, but I like them to spread my stuff out. It'd have to be cheap(er) for me to try one; I'm assuming they'll earn fewer points like H2S.

Nirvana91

I'm a millennial and I like the concept. I'm also HH Diamond and although I like a nice suite or luxury hotel just as much as the next guy, for the majority of my travels the reality is that I am usually out and about and not in the hotel much. I'm usually fine with HGI, so if Tru can offer a lower price point while still being clean and comfy (and in a walkable city center location), I'd definitely be down.

I also like Aloft hotels as well, which I think is in conflict with many on this board/thread. YMMV.