Hospitality Magazine: Do we have too many sub-brands in a hotel group?
Jul 16, 2015, 3:59 pm
#16
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: IAD/DCA
Posts: 31,797
3,576 above is not "right now"
accor numbers were hard to find
all numbers above quoted direct from official financial/etc documents on official websites
so they were bigger, presumably bigger than IHG too
although wyndham and choice are massive for franchise
accor numbers were hard to find
all numbers above quoted direct from official financial/etc documents on official websites
so they were bigger, presumably bigger than IHG too
although wyndham and choice are massive for franchise
Last edited by Kagehitokiri; Jul 16, 2015 at 4:20 pm
Jul 23, 2015, 2:07 am
#17
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Brexile in ADB
Programs: BA, TK, HHonours, Le Club, Best Western Rewards
Posts: 7,067
What I don't understand is what all these hotel brands mean.
I thought Hilton was the top of the mass market brands of the Hilton group of brands, and Doubletree by Hilton was a cut price brand.
But then at Christmas stayed in a awful Hilton, followed by a much nicer Doubletree.
Now the pricing made it seem like the doubletree should have been the lesser brand.
I thought Hilton was the top of the mass market brands of the Hilton group of brands, and Doubletree by Hilton was a cut price brand.
But then at Christmas stayed in a awful Hilton, followed by a much nicer Doubletree.
Now the pricing made it seem like the doubletree should have been the lesser brand.
Aug 11, 2015, 12:59 pm
#18
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 67
I think to understand this one has to go back and see how it evolved. The big "modern" chains were a creature of the 20th century. By the 1970s and 80s, they had matured to the point that continued growth called for some new strategies. There are only so many full service Hiltons you can open in any given city. But come up with a different kind of hotel offering -- one that appeals to a different segment of the market -- and you have room to grow. Holiday Inn did this organically when it started its more upscale Crowne Plaza chain in the early 1980s.
The other way to grow is through acquisition, and this sometimes brings together groups of hotels that hold a different set of promises to the traveller. And a good way to deal with that is to maintain different brands.
My earliest recollection of the branded house in hotels was in the mid-80s. In 1987, a now matured Marriott expanded through acquisition by acquiring Residence Inn and kept the branding to differentiate what was a unique product offering compared to its full service hotels: A hotel with a full kitchen designed for extended stays.
Fairfield Inns similarly, was developed by Marriott in the late 80s to compete with the more budget oriented chains. And we saw an explosion of similar activity by Marriott and other chains, each new brand designed to go after different segments of the markets in which each company operated.
By the 1990s, the hotel companies came to realize that many of these sub-brand properties were cheaper to construct and operate. So while there may be less prestige associated with owning a Hilton Garden Inn, it could make for a better investment. But are there too many of these sub-brands?
While each of the major hotel chains can explain to you the differences between each of their brands, I suspect most consumers cannot. Since there is some cost associated with maintaining individual brands, there probably is a case to be made that a few could be collapsed into each other. But at the same time, there are some key points of differentiation and you're never going to see, for example, Residence Inn be folded into Courtyard. They're ultimately aiming to offer a different product,
The other way to grow is through acquisition, and this sometimes brings together groups of hotels that hold a different set of promises to the traveller. And a good way to deal with that is to maintain different brands.
My earliest recollection of the branded house in hotels was in the mid-80s. In 1987, a now matured Marriott expanded through acquisition by acquiring Residence Inn and kept the branding to differentiate what was a unique product offering compared to its full service hotels: A hotel with a full kitchen designed for extended stays.
Fairfield Inns similarly, was developed by Marriott in the late 80s to compete with the more budget oriented chains. And we saw an explosion of similar activity by Marriott and other chains, each new brand designed to go after different segments of the markets in which each company operated.
By the 1990s, the hotel companies came to realize that many of these sub-brand properties were cheaper to construct and operate. So while there may be less prestige associated with owning a Hilton Garden Inn, it could make for a better investment. But are there too many of these sub-brands?
While each of the major hotel chains can explain to you the differences between each of their brands, I suspect most consumers cannot. Since there is some cost associated with maintaining individual brands, there probably is a case to be made that a few could be collapsed into each other. But at the same time, there are some key points of differentiation and you're never going to see, for example, Residence Inn be folded into Courtyard. They're ultimately aiming to offer a different product,
Aug 11, 2015, 5:54 pm
#19
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,692
My earliest recollection of the branded house in hotels was in the mid-80s. In 1987, a now matured Marriott expanded through acquisition by acquiring Residence Inn and kept the branding to differentiate what was a unique product offering compared to its full service hotels: A hotel with a full kitchen designed for extended stays.