I wonder if charging resort fee is a good strategy on paper or from an accounting perspective but in reality, it may deter many guests from booking with the hotel and thereby, lower the occupany rate. Unless the said hotel, uh..."resort", are close to 100% occupancy, which many of them aren't right now and far from it (e.g. those two SPG properties in Las Vegas strip), I would question the choice of charging a resort fee.
This just seems like a rather strange tactic and it makes me wonder just how much business sense this makes and whether the hotel management conducted proper analysis on this decision. BTW, Planet Hollywood in Las Vegas which I recently stayed charged resort fees. Although I didn't have to pay for it due to the VIP Weekend Package, I have to say, if I have to pay for it, even if it's only $5, I wouldn't have been happy because absolutely nothing comes free with that fee. Sure, a few bottles of water, big deal. For example, the gym wasn't even free. It costs $25 per visit, just to use treadmill or some weights. What I ended up doing instead, was running up and down the Las Vegas strip for my workout instead since it was only two days anyway.
If you are going to charge "resort fee", make sure there is some value to it. Free use of the gym on-site should be a basic requirement. I have been to hotels where there was no resort fee and no gym on-site that the hotel pays to have guests getting access at a nearby 3rd party gym. Suffice to say, all SPG properties with resort fee should be singled out and blacklist.
Maybe we should compile a blacklist of SPG hotels and make it clear to everyone here that these properties are to be avoided - that may get some people's attention.