Originally Posted by
C17PSGR
I never said that CY is an equivalent property to a W
Of course they don't participate in FHR. But ... I probably still spend 40 nights a year in CY/RI/FI because its the best property for miles. Many others do as well.
You did imply the average income of W guests is lower than that for Courtyard. You're obviously in error--it's obviously reversed.
And ... I completely agree that the experience at a couple of city W's isn't appropriate to draw a broader generalization. However., I think the fact there is only one city W under development in the entire United States supports my view that the concept of attracting wealthy 30-60 y/o (Barry would agree that was the target market) isn't working in business centers.
Ah, you are in error again--considering there already are Ws in almost all of the major metropolitan areas in the USA. For those counting: New York (4), Los Angeles (2 with 3rd coming), Chicago (2), Scottsdale, Houston (1 in development), Philadelphia (coming), Dallas, Austin, Seattle, San Francisco, Boston, Washington, DC, Miami/South Beach (2), Ft Lauderdale, Atlanta (3), New Orleans, & Minneapolis. That's the overwhelming majority of the major urban centers in the USA, by the way. Those are some of the biggest business centers, too.
It's harder to develop in city centers because it's more expensive, and yet there already are Ws in the overwhelming majority of the biggest population and business centers in the USA. Don't see a lot of Editions in those, do you?
RevPAR doesn't tell the whole story.
We are taking about ADR not RevPAR. But I think either tells the whole story when comparing W and Courtyard. And it still tells most of the tale between W and JW. Sorry, but W is usually a better service experience than JW because the average W is usually a much smaller hotel than the average JW; it isn't even close.
I agree with your descriptions of many of the W's but the fact is that in Atlanta, Chicago, New York, Hollywood, London, Miami, Scottsdale, -- almost all of which I've stayed at -- the W's are packed with people who wouldn't normally spend $250 a night on a hotel. The staff is used to dealing with folks who are packing a room with a bunch of friends and it leads to service problems. It also often means that the hotel amenities aren't available to hotel guests.
I don't know when you're staying at Ws, but I've stayed at dozens of them over the years--and I've yet to experience people packing them in as you're trying to claim is a usual thing. Your anecdote may have happened, but it hasn't happened often and it certainly hasn't happened to you on all of your stays at even half of those hotels. It is a very poor anecdote that is wildly prejudicial and in no way reflects the overwhelming number of dates at all Ws.
Also, most people are paying more than $250 to stay at W hotels in most locations. What they normally spend, you and I don't know. And it isn't relevant.
But, that's very different at the other locations you mention. I agree some hotels suffer from service and hard product problems. I think the W brand is shifting toward being a resort oriented brand because the city hotel isn't working economically -- which is why the W West LA (which I like) isn't jumping to invest money in the facility problems, and why they W's in NYC aren't investing either.
Your premise that W doesn't work in a city is just absolutely wrong. The fact that W has already saturated many of the biggest markets in the USA is your first hint. An owner wouldn't be choosing W in Philadelphia (the 5th biggest city in the USA) if the W model weren't so wildly successful. It's one of Marriott's most profitable and growing brands, in fact.
I think you have a prejudice against W, which is fine. But your prejudice doesn't preclude that W is a wildly successful brand--and the very reason why Marriott created Edition in the first place! (Marriott created Edition to compete with Starwood's W. And you don't notice so many new Editions now, do you? All while you see FAR more new Ws being built and opened. Hint, hint.)