Quote:
On the last line of Standard+ is this:
Standard + Extended Stay Executive Residency Homewood Suites Hyatt House Residence Inn | Element
.
The chart treats "suites" and "extended stay" as separate categories. Sort of hair-splitting I know.Originally Posted by sdsearch
What do you mean it doesn't? On the last line of Standard+ is this:Standard + Extended Stay Executive Residency Homewood Suites Hyatt House Residence Inn | Element
.
One thing I've always found peculiar about these hotel brand lists and charts. Because the bulk of hotels/motels, both by brand count and property count, in this world are limited-service brands, they seem to go out of their way to both stratify them down to ridiculous levels of granularity *and* bend over backwards to make them all seem nicer than they are.
When I think of a "standard" hotel, I think of a plain vanilla Hilton or Marriott. But this chart uses the "standard" language all the way down to a freaking Comfort Inn, leaving the impression that a typical Marriott is one step away from luxury. Then at the luxury level, they give no such granular treatment, leaving us to believe a Conrad is in the same realm as a St. Regis. Of course the truly top luxury hotels aren't even on here because they aren't part of these large multi-brand programs.
Sometimes I think these charts are intended more for prospective investors in hotel properties than they are for guests. They're hesitant to call anything a budget motel...which makes me almost morbidly curious enough to book a HotelF1. But not quite enough to give up a night that could otherwise be spent in a wine country B&B or something similar...
Quote:
One thing I've always found peculiar about these hotel brand lists and charts. Because the bulk of hotels/motels, both by brand count and property count, in this world are limited-service brands, they seem to go out of their way to both stratify them down to ridiculous levels of granularity *and* bend over backwards to make them all seem nicer than they are.
When I think of a "standard" hotel, I think of a plain vanilla Hilton or Marriott. But this chart uses the "standard" language all the way down to a freaking Comfort Inn, leaving the impression that a typical Marriott is one step away from luxury. Then at the luxury level, they give no such granular treatment, leaving us to believe a Conrad is in the same realm as a St. Regis. Of course the truly top luxury hotels aren't even on here because they aren't part of these large multi-brand programs.
Sometimes I think these charts are intended more for prospective investors in hotel properties than they are for guests. They're hesitant to call anything a budget motel...which makes me almost morbidly curious enough to book a HotelF1. But not quite enough to give up a night that could otherwise be spent in a wine country B&B or something similar...
I don't think you can even use "Standard" as a category anymore -- for my late roadtripping-from-the-1940s-till-the-2010s grandfather Motel 6 was a "Standard" hotel -- you got a bedroom, bathroom, and TV, everything else was unnecessary and thus exceeding the standard. According to my wife a Hilton Garden Inn is a "Standard" hotel because in addition the the forgoing they have food service, while my grandmother on the other side would label Waldorf/Conrad as "Standard" and anything else unworthy of stepping foot in (presumably for the bell service but I've never gotten a clear answer). Suites vs. Extended Stay is a more clear delineation, at least until hotels started getting away with shotgun suites, Jr. Suites, etc (Suites = 2 distinct rooms [areas in the case of a Jr/Shotgun], true cooking facilities not expected; Extended Stay = May have more than one room (though a significant majority of the HWS rooms I've been in are studios) but definitely have cooking/sustenance facilities beyond a typical hotel room)Originally Posted by pinniped
The chart treats "suites" and "extended stay" as separate categories. Sort of hair-splitting I know.One thing I've always found peculiar about these hotel brand lists and charts. Because the bulk of hotels/motels, both by brand count and property count, in this world are limited-service brands, they seem to go out of their way to both stratify them down to ridiculous levels of granularity *and* bend over backwards to make them all seem nicer than they are.
When I think of a "standard" hotel, I think of a plain vanilla Hilton or Marriott. But this chart uses the "standard" language all the way down to a freaking Comfort Inn, leaving the impression that a typical Marriott is one step away from luxury. Then at the luxury level, they give no such granular treatment, leaving us to believe a Conrad is in the same realm as a St. Regis. Of course the truly top luxury hotels aren't even on here because they aren't part of these large multi-brand programs.
Sometimes I think these charts are intended more for prospective investors in hotel properties than they are for guests. They're hesitant to call anything a budget motel...which makes me almost morbidly curious enough to book a HotelF1. But not quite enough to give up a night that could otherwise be spent in a wine country B&B or something similar...
Limited Service/Focused Service/Full Service/Extended/Luxury is a much more useful delineation but even that falls apart in some ways
Quote:
I never heard of that brand, but looking at the Google/TripAdvisor ratings of them, it seems Accor is trying to beat out Knights Inn for the "consistently worst brand of a major chain" award.Originally Posted by pinniped
They're hesitant to call anything a budget motel...which makes me almost morbidly curious enough to book a HotelF1. But not quite enough to give up a night that could otherwise be spent in a wine country B&B or something similar...
Quote:
I've vaguely heard of HotelF1 (in a European context) but the Google snippet for them is enlightening (all ellipses from Google) "Discover hotelF1... a dormitory room, discover all the possibilities that the new low ..." Originally Posted by lowfareair
I never heard of that brand, but looking at the Google/TripAdvisor ratings of them, it seems Accor is trying to beat out Knights Inn for the "consistently worst brand of a major chain" award.
(I also didn't realize that KnightsInn was still a going concern, so I may be a little out of touch)
Quote:
My one and only stay at Knights Inn was top notch. Lexington, Kentucky for the UT-UK football game in '92. About 30 bucks, room slept 8 guys, bathtub held at least 4 cases of Keystone Light. Didn't earn any miles or points though...what a ripoff!!Originally Posted by lowfareair
I never heard of that brand, but looking at the Google/TripAdvisor ratings of them, it seems Accor is trying to beat out Knights Inn for the "consistently worst brand of a major chain" award.
Quote:
(I also didn't realize that KnightsInn was still a going concern, so I may be a little out of touch)
Knights Inn was recently divested out of Wyndham over to the Red Lion group.Originally Posted by lincolnjkc
I've vaguely heard of HotelF1 (in a European context) but the Google snippet for them is enlightening (all ellipses from Google) "Discover hotelF1... a dormitory room, discover all the possibilities that the new low ..." (I also didn't realize that KnightsInn was still a going concern, so I may be a little out of touch)
Guys, I'm sorry for not being part of this conversation, but I think y'all might have a point.
Quote:
This is starting to become an issue as it is harder for a hotel to properly explain the value prop to the consumer, even frequent travelers. It causes confusion and makes it difficult to live up to expectations (if someone thinks that aloft has free breakfast but confused it with element, that will be unnecessary negative marks against that hotel after the stay).
Unfortunately, every major company is now doing it. Hilton has added several brands in the past few years, same with IHG and Hyatt.
Emphasis on major company. This is protection of market share and ensuring smaller companies don't get a toehold.Originally Posted by lowfareair
Yup, this is why Marriott has 30 brands. If they said the Delta brand will shutter and hotels will become Marriott/Sheraton/Four Points, they may still have some hotels that can't become any due to competition clauses with nearby existing Marriott/Sheraton/Four Points.This is starting to become an issue as it is harder for a hotel to properly explain the value prop to the consumer, even frequent travelers. It causes confusion and makes it difficult to live up to expectations (if someone thinks that aloft has free breakfast but confused it with element, that will be unnecessary negative marks against that hotel after the stay).
Unfortunately, every major company is now doing it. Hilton has added several brands in the past few years, same with IHG and Hyatt.
Marriott, Hilton, and IHG can all make a case to a new owner interested in building/owning a hotel that they can offer "just the brand for you!" They can also offer massive reservations and points systems. Keeps the little guys like Sonesta, Red Lion, Choice, Wyndham, etc. little.
Quote:
Marriott, Hilton, and IHG can all make a case to a new owner interested in building/owning a hotel that they can offer "just the brand for you!" They can also offer massive reservations and points systems. Keeps the little guys like Sonesta, Red Lion, Choice, Wyndham, etc. little.
Why involve those brands in this?Originally Posted by DenverBrian
Emphasis on major company. This is protection of market share and ensuring smaller companies don't get a toehold.Marriott, Hilton, and IHG can all make a case to a new owner interested in building/owning a hotel that they can offer "just the brand for you!" They can also offer massive reservations and points systems. Keeps the little guys like Sonesta, Red Lion, Choice, Wyndham, etc. little.
Quote:
The question was why do the big companies have so many brands? I provided my take on the answer.Originally Posted by Will Stonehocker
Why involve those brands in this?
Quote:
Thats okay. And a Hampton Inn with only suites is a rare species.Originally Posted by DenverBrian
The question was why do the big companies have so many brands? I provided my take on the answer.