#1son

after IHG sending me a letter to inform me I was not renewed as RA for 2019, four days later I was sent my new RA membership renewal

so unexpectedly I have stayed at 16 different ICs in 2019 so far

and the IC who has delivered least on RA benefits is IC Rialto Melbourne, a hotel that I have enjoyed in the past. but when I checked in they said you get AUD 50 (about USD 35) per night for mini-bar which of course is not honouring the RA benefits posted right on the IHG website.

I had a few things to drink out of the mini-bar over several days but made it a point to stay under AUD 200 total just to avoid any hassle and sure as hell they just sent me bill for an additional AUD 50 more for mini-bar usage. This just irks me because I need to contact them to remove the charge etc and it is just not worth the aggravation.

just strange how an IC will alienate a good customer over $35?

There have been several ICs that seem to act as though nothing has changed and do not treat RAs as unwelcome guests they must supply extra benefits. IC Sofia and IC Medellin have delivered ;-)

Dave Noble

Did you stay under $50 each night as well as the overall total being under $200 - or was more than $50 spent on a single night?

336

Dave Noble

Given that the website states the benefit to be USD50 per day , I think that it does matter

#1son

in most ICs during 2019, as an RA I have been treated fairly well

I am just interested in hearing from other RAs about which ICs are failing to meet the agreement posted on IHG website

many properties are definitely not treating RAs as well as they did previously and several hotels have not been forthcoming with providing RA welcome letters

DonPedro

IAN-UK

Your argument is enhanced if you consider that the marginal cost to the hotel of a miniature is, in most places, a few dollars: a small price to keep a highly appreciated guest happy.

The minibar price-list of course includes accountants' assessments of overheads, and a very significant margin for profit.

Only if the hotel is somehow convinced the guest would have consumed the goods or services involved, regardless of RA privileges, should "lost revenue" be applied in assessing the cost of RA benefits.

#1son

not really sure if this problem was just staff that were uninformed or the management being stingy? of course the hotel made it right after I complained

there is no question in my mind that the RA benefits had to be changed, free mini bar proved to be too much over the years and certain hotels lost money on RA stays

however it cost hotels nothing to treat RAs well regarding suite upgrades for rooms that would have went unsold, this is what I miss

IAN-UK

The analysis is bizarre.

To support the first propoal you'd need to cost consumption at inflated retail prices, yet for the second you put forward an argument based on marginal or opportunity cost.


I can just about see a hotel losing money because of mini-bar use on a reward stay, where revenue from IHG can be spectacularly low. It might not cover the cost of re-stocking the fridge after a heroic raid on its contents by an RA. But T&C did not oblige hotels to extend the minibar privilege to reward stays.

Land-of-Miles

Doesn't the problem come from some of the pricier properties coming onstream? Consider the cost of a free minibar at the new IC Maldives (if the minibar is anything like that at the St Regis).

IAN-UK

There are two simple ways to assess mini-bar costs. One would be using the hotel's retail mini-bar tariff, the other using the wholesale cost of replacing the artiicles consumed. The first way produces a dramatic figure - we know how easy it is to reach the current $50 limit: the second method would give a much lower total.

My point is that it is not sensible for a hotel to assess the cost of the minibar perk in terms of the retail tariff of the minibar. The replacement cost of, say, spirit miniatures is generally low compared to the price the hotel charges for them. Splits of champagne will be more expensive, but where champagne is offered, its usually as a single item.

The full retail tariff would only be a reasonable approach to costing the perk if the hotel were confident the guest would consume the goodies, regardless of the RA benefit. And I think that might be misplaced confidence. I can only affirm that I'd stock up with cokes from a 7-11 rather than pay $5 for one


Perhaps drinks for stocking mini-bars in the Maldives are particularly expensive: I just don't know. But with achingly expensive room prices it might be difficult to drink yourself into the hotel making a loss on your visit

Land-of-Miles

It is expensive to stock minibars in the Maldives (and some other locations) due to very high local tax rates upon alcohol. The hotels will actually pay these taxes so the cost of the contents will be well above the marginal cost price in the UK.

I do rather suspect that beyond the few locations where local costs are high that hotels are considering their own inflated costs versus cost of provision as a "loss". Take for instance the £60 for one half bottle of Perrier Jouet at the IC PL. I could potentially have 8 other items instead for the allowed £35 so the cost of stocking is actually higher for the 8 items than the one half bottle of fizz (where the marginal cost is probably circa £12). That is I think rather stupid and given that the wine in the IC PL minibar is crap the whole minibar compares very badly to that at the IC O2 (recently back on my potential stay list as the problems I experienced in the past seem to have been ironed out albiet that to get a good room now I have to pay extra).

I do however see the point in the higher taxation locales. In those achingly expensive locations all of the room support and other asks are also achingly expensive so it wouldn't take too much to tip the balance into marginal loss per room, I also think there is something about levelling IC versus Kimpton versus other brands potentially afoot.

In most practical cases I don't really suffer too much loss from the new minibar policy, the IC PL is probably the worst example I have found thus far that has really impacted me. I have never had a stand up row about any minibar consumption to date and mostly where there is a small marginal delta from the daily allowance it has been waived.

#1son

the mini-bars at IC Moscow have a fairly extensive list of contents but in Russia hotels must market their rooms in local currency RUR making it difficult to easily re-price rooms (mini-bar contents) due to Forex fluctuations etc, so when an RA stays there for the equivalent of +/- USD 120 a night and drinks everything in the mini-bar (or takes it home ;-) this made it tough for the hotel to make much of a profit after also supplying the guest with Happy Hour food / drinks and breakfast

on a recent stay at IC Sofia, the corporate rate was EUR 72 and inside the executive suite they gave me was full bottle of quite drinkable local wine, rose bath salts gift, crackers and cheese, chocolates, full bottles of San Pellegrino both still and sparkling + a stocked mini-bar. The hotel also supplied Happy Hour drinks / food and breakfast. Only so much room for the hotel to make a profit.

so I am not "shedding any tears" for IHG hotel operators here but in some instances the former RA benefit of free mini-bar could be a bit extreme IMO

ILS2

...and in those instances, the hotel(s) were fully protected by the T&C at the time to crack down if there were any abusers or maximizers:
Previous T&C:
"Beverages are complimentary from the mini-bar in the Royal Ambassador’s personal room only, and for in-room consumption by member only (benefit excludes non-beverage items)."

The current "benefit" is totally inadequate as it does not address the price differences between different countries. 50$ in Eastern Europe (where most IC still obey by the old T&C anyway) will go a long way, while in the U.S. it's basically worthless (when you add in the creative taxes and restocking fees).

#1son

I think all RAs including myself would agree that the new $50 credit is a joke, particularly with various fees and restocking charges ;-)