Originally Posted by
platbrownguy
I'm with you on the dishonesty here arising from the use of the junior suite bedroom photo in marketing your room type.
But the use of "suite" to describe rooms that we don't generally think of as suites isn't that new or uncommon. Even within the Bonvoy brands, consider the various Fairfield Inn "and Suites" properties where the "suite" just has a small sitting area in addition to the bed. There are Courtyard "suites" set up the same way. And I think outside of Bonvoy, particularly at low-end roadside motels, there are plenty of "___ inn & suites" where the suite just has a sitting area (or even a jacuzzi tub in the bedroom, how romantic). I stayed in an "Executive King Suite" at the TWA Hotel that was just a regular sized hotel room, but the couch made it a "suite" compared to their normal rooms.
So while the grievance about how the room you reserved was marketed makes sense, I don't think the mere presence of "suite" in the room title on its own is ever sufficient to imply that you're getting a separate bedroom from the living/sitting area.
So using photo from the junior suite, calling it a suite, charging more for the room, and using executive (usually higher in the pecking order then junior) in the title isn’t enough? What is enough then?
It’s literally a tiny bit bigger king room mostly due to a useless hallway. If the hotel doesn’t even consider the room a suite on its own systems is that enough?
Honestly surprised that so many think this is fine. It actually explains a lot about why Marriott does what it does. They might be right that consumers don’t care enough about the multitudes of small things they shaft customers on. Breakfast will soon just be a coupon for a muffin and cup of water. Upgrades not happening is fine. Elite benefits don’t matter. People will just keep giving Marriott properties money.