Dave Noble

I agree that that is the aim from the scheme but most people I know don't make hotel choices based on schemes

htb

We're turning in circles, which seems to confirm that "incremental cost" means something else for you than it's supposed to mean.

HTB.

Dave Noble

There is more than the additional cost of providing breakfasts to those that have no reason to be given it - there is the loss of income from those that are paying for it now that would start getting it for free

That loss of income PLUS the extra cost to provide free meals in the restaurant and handling the higher number of guests will have to be recovered elsewhere - such as by increasing the price of breakfast or room rates

It is not just the cost of giving it away that matters - the loss of income from sales also matters.

I also have trouble seeing a great issue on breakfast - when travelling on business the travel allowances I get are there to cover the costs of things like meals

htb

You forgot to deduct the LOSS of revenue due to bookings that go elsewhere. Or the PLUS in additional bookings due to the policy change.

Life isn't simple.

HTB.

Land-of-Miles

It is impossible to quantify those numbers, whereas it is quite easy to quantify revenue loss due to a shift in policy.

Those currently staying elsewhere due to lack of free breakfast and those who might be prepared to stay if free breakfast is offered will also probably tend to sit towards the lower end of the revenue quality spectrum.

I typically find IHG properties (with admittedly the odd exception most typically IC Properties), tend to be far cheaper than equivalent Starwood and Hilton full service properties (these are the 3 chains I usually choose from).

If the cost of a typical full service Hilton or Starwood stay with free breakfast is rather more than the cost of a typical IHG full service stay even after paying for free breakfast (which I tend to find is the case) then how much real revenue loss is there likely to be from those who currently stay at other properties (but still hit Spire) because of their free breakfast policy?

vexorg

No, you still misunderstand. Suppose the cost of putting on breakfast for non-elites is �2000, and they need 100 paying guests to cover that at �20 a head. That covers staff, kitchen, etc.

If free breakfast was offered to elites then the additional raw material cost (food) may be only �50 as it's all bulk bought. So the increase in cost (loss) to the hotel is a few % more of the total breakfast cost.

Free for all costs the hotel �2000, making it free for elites only an additional �50 cost. Big difference.

The real difference here is, if they sell the breakfast to elites, say 50 at the hotel, then that's another �1000 (well, �950) profit. And even if only half take it up (as some of us may refuse because it's not free ), then it's still �500 extra profit.

So, most profit is greed to a point. And if it did genuinely keep the room price down then that is fine by me. But I seriously doubt it is, as the incremental cost shows that the true saving is only a few �s

Baze

Well, the short and simple answer to the title of this thread is: It is not difficult, they just choose not to do it.

IHG has 10's of thousands of elites and I don't see them running away in droves because they don't get a free breakfast. Don't you think IHG would change it if they detected it was causing droves of elites to leave?

scubaccr

It is never going to just be a minimal incremental cost at larger hotels which know for a non-free breakfast that only nn% of guests will partake breakfast so cater accordingly with regards to setup such as.... amount of food prepared, size of breakfast area and number of tables, number of restaurant breakfast staff.

For the larger city center hotels that experience high business volume stays, and large number of top elites ech day, not only will hotel have small incremental cost of raw ingredients for extra breakfasts, but also incur extra costs such as ... need larger eating area with more tables, more service staff with related wages, loss of breakfast income from those guests whos companies pay for breakfast if taken.

Unlike evening dinner, breakfast table usage is condensed time period with more guests wanting to eat at the same time. Whilst I can wait 30mins for b/f table on Sunday morning, I cant wait Mon-Fri or Id be late to work.

For smaller non central hotels, with low elite footfall, cost to hotel would be less .... just extra raw ingredients cost and loss of small amount of paid breakfast income.

Nickolash27

Not going to get into a debate here, as it's OT, but for the record this statement is completely wrong.

MXM135

I agree that IHG has deliberately chosen to not offer free breakfast to elites by choice. I believe that there may be millions of elites in IHG Rewards Club. There are 3 elite levels in IHG Rewards Club - Gold, Platinum and Spire and all of them are too easy to obtain. The acquisition of an IHG Rewards credit card gives platinum status and many got Spire in error during last year's conversion. In addition, points earned on credit card spend is considered elite qualifying so you don't even need to stay at a hotel to obtain elite status.

The hotel owners and IHG know this so they focus on drawing guests through offer lots of points, Point Breaks, and the ease of getting free nights.

Free breakfast has never been a defined benefit for Priority Club, Crowne Plaza Preferred, Six Continents Club, Ambassador Programme or IHG Rewards Club. IHG ha sbeen open about what benefits you get from the program, and if one doesn't like the benefits being provided go to the program that gives you what you want.

mxm135

vexorg

If they were doing it for the good of humanity then it would run at zero profit and about �3 for breakfast. But they are not, and it's about profit, and profit is needed under capitalism, excessive profit is greed. I'm sure the directors of IHG could survive on less, fat cats have a problem with lower salary.

It's a nasty truth that most don't like facing up to, especially as a "fair" system is seen as communism, another tag many don't like.

And it's all very on topic, this is the core of why they don't give free breakfast. Kind of hard to argue when you fail to see the main reason for the answer.

Nickolash27

Making a link between breakfast profit and directors' salaries is quite a leap. You're certainly right about "hard to argue". There would be a lot of education needed to make it a reasonably equal intellectual discussion. Anyway, looking forward to my "free" breakfast at a IC club lounge tomorrow.

Dave Noble

people have a choice of hotels to stay at, whether it be IHG, another chain, or (shock horror) independant hotels with no schemes. If the hotels rates are too high for its location/quality, people will not stay there.

There is nothing at all wrong in making profits

Trying to associate charging for breakfast as illegal profiteering seems risible to me

beachmouse

Not everyone out there places breakfast as 'most important meal of the day' either. I'm one of many people who aren't much of a breakfast eater. If my travel needs are met by a HIX or SBS, I'll grab a coffee and pastry from them in the breakfast area; if it's another IHG property type, I'll usually rather get the same from a coffee shop down the way for $5 or so rather than try to find something in the hotel proper.

Free wifi for elites (and later club level) was exciting for me because I'll use it a lot at night; my least favorite meal of the day becoming gratis is much less of a perk because the croissant/bagel/coffee down the way is probably better than what the hotel serves anyway.

vexorg

I never said illegal, more like immoral. I'm quite sure those that run and gain from the breakfast charge at the top would get along quite happily without that extra money. That's why I would put it as excessive in terms of profit.

I have no problem with them charging what they like for breakfast (it's my choice to accept or not), but let's not kid ourselves on the truth behind it.