Luxury Hotels USP by Brand
Apr 18, 2018, 2:07 pm
#16
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: In the air
Programs: Hyatt Globalist, Bonvoy LT Plat, Hilton Gold, GHA Tit, BA Gold, Turkish Elite
Posts: 8,712
I think this is an interesting question by the OP. I'm surprised that nobody has really tried to answer. Let me have a go at a few at least. Obviously I have varying levels of familiarity with these different brands, so I might not always be right:
Park Hyatt: A distinctive Japanese/ Danish influenced style (combined with local style), very white rooms. Also distinctive service style - A combination of some formality but without being stuffy. Perfect for the Millennial generation in my view
Aman: Known for high levels of customer intimacy, with no need to sign for cheques or to ever identify yourself, as well as the prevalence of Butlers everywhere who can handle all a guest's needs. A big focus on excursions/ events/ special occasions
Peninsula: One thing they always seem to mention is their use of in-room technology. I also always think of the doorman in their whites and hats
Como: Known for their bespoke hotel designs (architecure and interiors) and for their partnerships with top end restaurants
Rocco Forte: These hotels scream design and a slightly OTT service style. To me, the hotels epitomise what it must be like to be a billionaire living in Monaco
Six Senses: Spas. And a resort feel - I often get confused with One&Only
Dorchester: I don't know - a good place for high end prostitutes?
Luxury Collection: More often than not the old "Grand" hotel in the city
St Regis: Butler service. Bloody Marys. New York Upper East side vibe - especially in Asia
Rosewood: Solid, modern design. The Four Seasons for the Millenial generation
Taj: Natural home of the Upper Middle Class in whatever location the hotel is based
Park Hyatt: A distinctive Japanese/ Danish influenced style (combined with local style), very white rooms. Also distinctive service style - A combination of some formality but without being stuffy. Perfect for the Millennial generation in my view
Aman: Known for high levels of customer intimacy, with no need to sign for cheques or to ever identify yourself, as well as the prevalence of Butlers everywhere who can handle all a guest's needs. A big focus on excursions/ events/ special occasions
Peninsula: One thing they always seem to mention is their use of in-room technology. I also always think of the doorman in their whites and hats
Como: Known for their bespoke hotel designs (architecure and interiors) and for their partnerships with top end restaurants
Rocco Forte: These hotels scream design and a slightly OTT service style. To me, the hotels epitomise what it must be like to be a billionaire living in Monaco
Six Senses: Spas. And a resort feel - I often get confused with One&Only
Dorchester: I don't know - a good place for high end prostitutes?
Luxury Collection: More often than not the old "Grand" hotel in the city
St Regis: Butler service. Bloody Marys. New York Upper East side vibe - especially in Asia
Rosewood: Solid, modern design. The Four Seasons for the Millenial generation
Taj: Natural home of the Upper Middle Class in whatever location the hotel is based
Apr 19, 2018, 7:11 am
#17
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 102
EuropeanPete, thank you for your input. That's just the sort of thing I had in mind when I first asked.
I think that your descriptions are spot on (I'm not quite sure about the Dorchester but it was a welcome bit of humour nonetheless). Wonderful!
As an aside, is Taj more prestigious than Oberoi or is it the other way around?
I think that your descriptions are spot on (I'm not quite sure about the Dorchester but it was a welcome bit of humour nonetheless). Wonderful!
As an aside, is Taj more prestigious than Oberoi or is it the other way around?
Apr 19, 2018, 7:43 am
#18
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: London, UK
Posts: 163
Is a consistent look actually a USP? I suspect there are certain hotel chains you can pick out a photo of its bedrooms from a random selection but I'm yet to see advertisement that says "Come to any XYZ Hotel as you'll love the consistent black & brass chinese style wardrobes"
There certainly are some where there are trends, as per the Luxury Collection often being in the old "grand hotel" but there are both examples where it isnt and many more examples where the old grand hotel is another chain (particularly when a city has several) which by default doesnt make it a unique selling point at chain level.
I certainly think there are trends amoungst chains, particularly in look/feel/vibe, but wouldnt call them USPs and wouldnt say they are all consistent. All hotels are influenced by their location and their local competition as well as brand ethos etc.
There certainly are some where there are trends, as per the Luxury Collection often being in the old "grand hotel" but there are both examples where it isnt and many more examples where the old grand hotel is another chain (particularly when a city has several) which by default doesnt make it a unique selling point at chain level.
I certainly think there are trends amoungst chains, particularly in look/feel/vibe, but wouldnt call them USPs and wouldnt say they are all consistent. All hotels are influenced by their location and their local competition as well as brand ethos etc.
Apr 19, 2018, 12:06 pm
#19
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Southern California, USA
Programs: Marriott Ambassador and LTT, UA Plat/LT Gold, AA Gold
Posts: 8,764
Here goes. But please note the broad categories listed by our OP are prejudicial to me. I therefore am going alphabetical.
Aman--former top purveyor of remote luxury and service with good to excellent food/beverage, now unused to higher occupancy or the competition from urban 5* hotels and therefore having concomitantly less impressive service levels in its current incarnation.
Banyan Tree--luxury light service with Asian inspired architecture and design that pretends it's as good as Mandarin Oriental, even though it rarely comes close.
Belmond--curated collection of authentic, often historic properties or locations/services offering high levels of service and food/beverage, but with some better than others. At its best, more often than not can compete with the best in the world; at its worst, makes you wonder how it qualifies as luxury.
Capella--rapidly changing property list leaves everyone's heads spinning, but usually high end locally inspired architecture with spacious and well appointed rooms/suites offering nice service and good food/beverage...and probably management fees that are way too ambitious!
Como--curated collection of new and historic properties/conversions that operate at good levels of luxury and service but usually at more affordable rates, often with a more casual elegance rather than any traditional formality as with so many other luxury chains.
Conrad--Hilton's version of JW Marriott, offering watered down affordable luxury hotels and resorts, often with lounges that are very popular and a driving reason for stays at very good value but less than personalized service
Dorchester--curated collection of Older World fancy and formal and usually overly traditional type properties that remind everyone of the Gilded Age and outdated traditions with that era. The total repudiation of all things Millenial...except for the see and be seen artifact.
Fairmont--a luxury chain basking in former glory with watered down service and everything else, not always offering luxury these days
Four Seasons--corporate inspired (and sometimes bland) urban luxury hotels and locally inspired more authentic feeling resort properties in almost every major city and resort destination you can think of, blending usually good service that too often seems to come from a recipe book.
GHM--not necessarily luxury but very well run newer and converted properties with Asian sensibilities at less than luxury price points in various locations.
Grand Hyatt--not luxury, even though they can offer good service, too big and convention/conference style corporate hotels for business
Intercontinental--not luxury, even though the Hong Kong property (soon to be Regent again) suggests otherwise
Jumeirah--luxury hotels that are as grandiose in scale as they are in traditional and too often dated design and unnecessary formality, largely centered around the Middle East and a few other cities favored by the affluent from the Middle East
Kempinski--this is luxury lite with more German efficiency than true luxury service
Luxury Collection--a curated collection of some of the world's best historic luxury hotels and palaces offering the height of service and food/beverage, mixed with newer deluxe 4* properties not always being proper luxury offering watered down luxury experiences but usually excellent food/beverage.
Mandarin Oriental--extremely good hard product builds with Asian inspired modern design that doesn't always have a sense of place and too often pretends it is Aman and Peninsula even as it maddeningly and often stupidly doesn't come close to Banyan Tree. Often feels a bit more stiff and formal.
Oberoi--newer luxury hotels built to mimic a bygone era of British/Indian grandeur, offering very high levels of service with a serious dose of formality largely focused around India and the markets nearby frequented by wealthy Indians.
Oetker--Dorchester without as many high end prostitutes and more geographical diversity
One&Only--luxury resorts pretending to be Four Seasons without quite the consistency in good service or corporate feel
Park Hyatt--luxury hotels focused on modern Asian/Scandinavian simplicity and clean design, often offering very good service and food/beverage but with poor housekeeping and outsourcing issues clouding its good reputation and growing portfolio; its use of points makes some foolishly believe it isn't comparable to FS even though it is
Peninsula--Asian inspired design and style and high technology and excellent service ethos in urban centers, often with a serious dose of formality that is better executed than Mandarin Oriental or Four Seasons or St Regis could accomplish. Usually hits the mark, unlike most. They own and manage their own properties, hence they do it better than almost anyone else.
Raffles--these are luxury?
Ritz-Carlton--corporate and bland luxury properties offering good to excellent service entirely contingent on paying up to their Club Level, which is a very nice lounge offering all day dining/snacks and better concierge and executive services. Not many room categories.
Rocco Forte--these are luxury?
Rosewood--ever expanding curated collection of urban center hotels and resort properties, almost becoming an Aman-ish and Aman-lite collection with good to great service, truly impressive hard products, but even better food/beverage than Aman. Its rapid growth might cause it issues much like Four Seasons...
Shangri-La--Asia's version of JW Marriott and Conrad rolled into one, almost Ritz Carlton lite, all of which have nice Clubs
Singita--curated collection of safari and safari-like boutique properties that allow guests to experience the wild and wildlife in supreme comfort and with extremely high levels of service (and usually food/beverage) even in the most remote locations, with both very traditional and very modern architecture and styles to choose from.
Six Senses--rapidly expanding spa/hotel collection of hotel and resort properties and spas that usually try to combine casual luxury with good service at reasonable rates for their locations.
St. Regis--a Gilded Age inspired modern luxury chain known for its butler service and technology, Peninsula lite in terms of overall consistency, with a few traditional but many more modern inspired new and converted properties.
Taj--Indian luxury operator of many converted historic palaces and unique properties at the highest luxury standard with a less known curated collection of luxury properties around the world with very traditional design/ and even outdated decor.
Waldorf Astoria--Hilton's version of St Regis, with less identity or hallmarks other than good to excellent service, a more formal atmosphere and reputation, and lots of older conversions that don't match up well with the brand.
Aman--former top purveyor of remote luxury and service with good to excellent food/beverage, now unused to higher occupancy or the competition from urban 5* hotels and therefore having concomitantly less impressive service levels in its current incarnation.
Banyan Tree--luxury light service with Asian inspired architecture and design that pretends it's as good as Mandarin Oriental, even though it rarely comes close.
Belmond--curated collection of authentic, often historic properties or locations/services offering high levels of service and food/beverage, but with some better than others. At its best, more often than not can compete with the best in the world; at its worst, makes you wonder how it qualifies as luxury.
Capella--rapidly changing property list leaves everyone's heads spinning, but usually high end locally inspired architecture with spacious and well appointed rooms/suites offering nice service and good food/beverage...and probably management fees that are way too ambitious!
Como--curated collection of new and historic properties/conversions that operate at good levels of luxury and service but usually at more affordable rates, often with a more casual elegance rather than any traditional formality as with so many other luxury chains.
Conrad--Hilton's version of JW Marriott, offering watered down affordable luxury hotels and resorts, often with lounges that are very popular and a driving reason for stays at very good value but less than personalized service
Dorchester--curated collection of Older World fancy and formal and usually overly traditional type properties that remind everyone of the Gilded Age and outdated traditions with that era. The total repudiation of all things Millenial...except for the see and be seen artifact.
Fairmont--a luxury chain basking in former glory with watered down service and everything else, not always offering luxury these days
Four Seasons--corporate inspired (and sometimes bland) urban luxury hotels and locally inspired more authentic feeling resort properties in almost every major city and resort destination you can think of, blending usually good service that too often seems to come from a recipe book.
GHM--not necessarily luxury but very well run newer and converted properties with Asian sensibilities at less than luxury price points in various locations.
Grand Hyatt--not luxury, even though they can offer good service, too big and convention/conference style corporate hotels for business
Intercontinental--not luxury, even though the Hong Kong property (soon to be Regent again) suggests otherwise
Jumeirah--luxury hotels that are as grandiose in scale as they are in traditional and too often dated design and unnecessary formality, largely centered around the Middle East and a few other cities favored by the affluent from the Middle East
Kempinski--this is luxury lite with more German efficiency than true luxury service
Luxury Collection--a curated collection of some of the world's best historic luxury hotels and palaces offering the height of service and food/beverage, mixed with newer deluxe 4* properties not always being proper luxury offering watered down luxury experiences but usually excellent food/beverage.
Mandarin Oriental--extremely good hard product builds with Asian inspired modern design that doesn't always have a sense of place and too often pretends it is Aman and Peninsula even as it maddeningly and often stupidly doesn't come close to Banyan Tree. Often feels a bit more stiff and formal.
Oberoi--newer luxury hotels built to mimic a bygone era of British/Indian grandeur, offering very high levels of service with a serious dose of formality largely focused around India and the markets nearby frequented by wealthy Indians.
Oetker--Dorchester without as many high end prostitutes and more geographical diversity
One&Only--luxury resorts pretending to be Four Seasons without quite the consistency in good service or corporate feel
Park Hyatt--luxury hotels focused on modern Asian/Scandinavian simplicity and clean design, often offering very good service and food/beverage but with poor housekeeping and outsourcing issues clouding its good reputation and growing portfolio; its use of points makes some foolishly believe it isn't comparable to FS even though it is
Peninsula--Asian inspired design and style and high technology and excellent service ethos in urban centers, often with a serious dose of formality that is better executed than Mandarin Oriental or Four Seasons or St Regis could accomplish. Usually hits the mark, unlike most. They own and manage their own properties, hence they do it better than almost anyone else.
Raffles--these are luxury?
Ritz-Carlton--corporate and bland luxury properties offering good to excellent service entirely contingent on paying up to their Club Level, which is a very nice lounge offering all day dining/snacks and better concierge and executive services. Not many room categories.
Rocco Forte--these are luxury?
Rosewood--ever expanding curated collection of urban center hotels and resort properties, almost becoming an Aman-ish and Aman-lite collection with good to great service, truly impressive hard products, but even better food/beverage than Aman. Its rapid growth might cause it issues much like Four Seasons...
Shangri-La--Asia's version of JW Marriott and Conrad rolled into one, almost Ritz Carlton lite, all of which have nice Clubs
Singita--curated collection of safari and safari-like boutique properties that allow guests to experience the wild and wildlife in supreme comfort and with extremely high levels of service (and usually food/beverage) even in the most remote locations, with both very traditional and very modern architecture and styles to choose from.
Six Senses--rapidly expanding spa/hotel collection of hotel and resort properties and spas that usually try to combine casual luxury with good service at reasonable rates for their locations.
St. Regis--a Gilded Age inspired modern luxury chain known for its butler service and technology, Peninsula lite in terms of overall consistency, with a few traditional but many more modern inspired new and converted properties.
Taj--Indian luxury operator of many converted historic palaces and unique properties at the highest luxury standard with a less known curated collection of luxury properties around the world with very traditional design/ and even outdated decor.
Waldorf Astoria--Hilton's version of St Regis, with less identity or hallmarks other than good to excellent service, a more formal atmosphere and reputation, and lots of older conversions that don't match up well with the brand.
Last edited by bhrubin; Apr 19, 2018 at 12:13 pm
Apr 19, 2018, 1:03 pm
#20
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Programs: UA 1K, AA Plat Pro, Marriott Plat, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 1,048
Here are my views:
Aman - Peaceful; the thing I probably most associate with our past and future stays at Amans is quiet (which is why the recent stories of non-buyout events is so concerning)
Belmond - The type of hotel you would see in a Wes Anderson movie; As my wife has commented at a few places, there is almost a feeling of faded opulence at these hotels
Park Hyatt - Contemporary classic (agree with the descriptions above). Solid service, modern decor that feels classic
Four Seasons - Consistent (this really only applies to the city hotels); If you are going somewhere for the first time and you do not have time to do planning, you know what you are going to get at a four seasons hotel
Dorchester - Similar to Belmond, but a step above; old-school glamour
Peninsula - Top service and in-room technology; closest to asian-level service in the US I have found
Taj - Unique Palace hotels
Ritz-Carlton - a stodgy version of the FS (excludes Ritz-Carlton Reserve)
St. Regis - Four Seasons competitor with generally more modern design
Rosewood - While we have had great stays here, I am not sure if they really have a single selling point. Just so different between Mayakoba, New York and London and while you could make the same case for FS between locations, the Rosewood portfolio is much smaller
Aman - Peaceful; the thing I probably most associate with our past and future stays at Amans is quiet (which is why the recent stories of non-buyout events is so concerning)
Belmond - The type of hotel you would see in a Wes Anderson movie; As my wife has commented at a few places, there is almost a feeling of faded opulence at these hotels
Park Hyatt - Contemporary classic (agree with the descriptions above). Solid service, modern decor that feels classic
Four Seasons - Consistent (this really only applies to the city hotels); If you are going somewhere for the first time and you do not have time to do planning, you know what you are going to get at a four seasons hotel
Dorchester - Similar to Belmond, but a step above; old-school glamour
Peninsula - Top service and in-room technology; closest to asian-level service in the US I have found
Taj - Unique Palace hotels
Ritz-Carlton - a stodgy version of the FS (excludes Ritz-Carlton Reserve)
St. Regis - Four Seasons competitor with generally more modern design
Rosewood - While we have had great stays here, I am not sure if they really have a single selling point. Just so different between Mayakoba, New York and London and while you could make the same case for FS between locations, the Rosewood portfolio is much smaller
Apr 20, 2018, 12:16 am
#21
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: OSL
Posts: 2,145
Aman: Private, quiet, authentic, personal service, remote locations (exceptions), unique experiences, understated, unique "When going to an Amanresort, I feel very special and know that I will have a unique experience. The architecture and my room wows me every time, and I feel that I am in a very special place that I would otherwise not have the chance to see. The local employees make sure that I hear about and see and do things that I would otherwise not and I am often surprised. They know me and truly want to give me a warm welcome and personalised lifetime memories during my stay while I can feel at home, relax and unwind not being disturbed by anything."
Four Seasons Resorts: Corporate, expected, know-what-you-get, safe, child friendly. "When I go to a Four Seasons I know what to expect. The architecture and my room is luxurious and very comfortable. Knowing that there is a Four Seasons somewhere, makes me feel that I can go anywhere but still be in a place that feels familiar and safe. I can stay inside the resort all the time and get everything that me and my family need there or venture out and come back "home" even though I am far away. They have a wide range of offers known to suit people like me".
Four Seasons Resorts: Corporate, expected, know-what-you-get, safe, child friendly. "When I go to a Four Seasons I know what to expect. The architecture and my room is luxurious and very comfortable. Knowing that there is a Four Seasons somewhere, makes me feel that I can go anywhere but still be in a place that feels familiar and safe. I can stay inside the resort all the time and get everything that me and my family need there or venture out and come back "home" even though I am far away. They have a wide range of offers known to suit people like me".
Last edited by Musken; Apr 20, 2018 at 12:26 am
Apr 20, 2018, 3:51 am
#22
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 102
Thank you to everyone who has contributed so far. What is the deal with the Dorchester and prostitutes by the way?
Anyway, I think I ought to add my own impressions in order to be fair. I'll only include brands that I have personal experience with.
Aman-- In the past was the very definition of personalization and residential luxury. Best exemplified what it meant to have "a hotel run according to my needs." This would even cut across properties where preferences casually indicated in one would be noted and noticed for your future stays wherever. I suspect these attributes have been watered-down as they've gone more mainstream.
Belmond--Grand luxury hotels that have a lot of history. They often evoke the real or imagined period when travel was only for the glamorous. Hotels will typically have a long list of famous guests and equally "legendary" anecdotes. Actual experience is often standard luxe efficiency coupled with some very good cuisine. Caveat that the fame of the properties draws tourists as well as "once-in-a-lifetime trippers" whose ideas of luxe tend to come from what's presented in the media.
Como--Well-run resorts and hotels that get all the basics right but tend to be a one step and price point down from the leading properties in each location.
Four Seasons--Always the best or second best option wherever found. Very high standards for both hardware and software. Cuisine is another strong point. Hard to fault apart from predictability (especially when it comes to city hotels). Never feels residential though which could be off-putting to some.
Intercontinental--Upscale but not true luxury. Consistent reliable product but never seems to exceed expectations.
Jumeirah--Standard luxury hotels that cater mainly to the Middle Eastern travelers.
Luxury Collection--Grand dame hotels that have been upgraded to meet today's luxury hardware but upscale software standards.
Mandarin Oriental--Calls itself the best wherever it is. Always in fact the second best option for whatever reason (could be location, design, dining options, etc.).
Oberoi--New hotels that compete directly in style and feel with the period authentic palaces of Taj to great success. Often delivers a better soft experience than Taj and is more consistent across geographies.
One&Only--Glamorous resorts where people like to dress up.
Park Hyatt--As good as the Mandarin Oriental without claiming to be the best. Can also provide very good value because of the loyalty program.
Peninsula--Best or second in each location (as with the Four Seasons). Takes pride in technology and PenCities/PenAcademy that creates one-of-a-kind in-house arranged experiences for the guests. Often has a great sense of local character but is limited by its small portfolio.
Raffles--Singapore is special, the definitive grand dame experience. The rest are indistinguishable from Luxury Collection or even Intercontinentals.
Ritz-Carlton--Third best option in terms of service after FS and Mandarin perhaps. Portfolio seems rather boring.
Rocco Forte--Design-oriented reliable hotels.
Shangri-La--Cookie-cutter upscale hotels that do very well with the basics but are egregiously poor with anything that requires a personal touch. It's essentially the same hotel or resort no matter what location (offering the same dining options as well as even the same scent in the common areas). Unexciting but useful when one wants something familiar. A solid choice for business executive travel.
Six Senses--Glamorous resorts where people like to dress down.
St. Regis--Luxury Collection with contemporary hotels and more sophisticated software.
Taj--Jaw-dropping Indian Palaces and some other properties that should actually be spun off to a different brand.
Anyway, I think I ought to add my own impressions in order to be fair. I'll only include brands that I have personal experience with.
Aman-- In the past was the very definition of personalization and residential luxury. Best exemplified what it meant to have "a hotel run according to my needs." This would even cut across properties where preferences casually indicated in one would be noted and noticed for your future stays wherever. I suspect these attributes have been watered-down as they've gone more mainstream.
Belmond--Grand luxury hotels that have a lot of history. They often evoke the real or imagined period when travel was only for the glamorous. Hotels will typically have a long list of famous guests and equally "legendary" anecdotes. Actual experience is often standard luxe efficiency coupled with some very good cuisine. Caveat that the fame of the properties draws tourists as well as "once-in-a-lifetime trippers" whose ideas of luxe tend to come from what's presented in the media.
Como--Well-run resorts and hotels that get all the basics right but tend to be a one step and price point down from the leading properties in each location.
Four Seasons--Always the best or second best option wherever found. Very high standards for both hardware and software. Cuisine is another strong point. Hard to fault apart from predictability (especially when it comes to city hotels). Never feels residential though which could be off-putting to some.
Intercontinental--Upscale but not true luxury. Consistent reliable product but never seems to exceed expectations.
Jumeirah--Standard luxury hotels that cater mainly to the Middle Eastern travelers.
Luxury Collection--Grand dame hotels that have been upgraded to meet today's luxury hardware but upscale software standards.
Mandarin Oriental--Calls itself the best wherever it is. Always in fact the second best option for whatever reason (could be location, design, dining options, etc.).
Oberoi--New hotels that compete directly in style and feel with the period authentic palaces of Taj to great success. Often delivers a better soft experience than Taj and is more consistent across geographies.
One&Only--Glamorous resorts where people like to dress up.
Park Hyatt--As good as the Mandarin Oriental without claiming to be the best. Can also provide very good value because of the loyalty program.
Peninsula--Best or second in each location (as with the Four Seasons). Takes pride in technology and PenCities/PenAcademy that creates one-of-a-kind in-house arranged experiences for the guests. Often has a great sense of local character but is limited by its small portfolio.
Raffles--Singapore is special, the definitive grand dame experience. The rest are indistinguishable from Luxury Collection or even Intercontinentals.
Ritz-Carlton--Third best option in terms of service after FS and Mandarin perhaps. Portfolio seems rather boring.
Rocco Forte--Design-oriented reliable hotels.
Shangri-La--Cookie-cutter upscale hotels that do very well with the basics but are egregiously poor with anything that requires a personal touch. It's essentially the same hotel or resort no matter what location (offering the same dining options as well as even the same scent in the common areas). Unexciting but useful when one wants something familiar. A solid choice for business executive travel.
Six Senses--Glamorous resorts where people like to dress down.
St. Regis--Luxury Collection with contemporary hotels and more sophisticated software.
Taj--Jaw-dropping Indian Palaces and some other properties that should actually be spun off to a different brand.
Last edited by TheBrownPrince; Apr 20, 2018 at 4:04 am
Apr 20, 2018, 5:22 am
#23
formerly known as deathscar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Programs: Virtuoso | Four Seasons Preferred Partner | Rosewood Elite | Hyatt Prive - and more
Posts: 2,096
EuropeanPete, thank you for your input. That's just the sort of thing I had in mind when I first asked.
I think that your descriptions are spot on (I'm not quite sure about the Dorchester but it was a welcome bit of humour nonetheless). Wonderful!
As an aside, is Taj more prestigious than Oberoi or is it the other way around?
I think that your descriptions are spot on (I'm not quite sure about the Dorchester but it was a welcome bit of humour nonetheless). Wonderful!
As an aside, is Taj more prestigious than Oberoi or is it the other way around?
Last edited by chinmoylad; Apr 20, 2018 at 5:28 am
Apr 20, 2018, 8:09 am
#24
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: IAD/DCA
Posts: 31,797
this thread especially (vs past comparisons of brand quality) would probably be most effective if one only describes brands one is positive about rather than negative
see Musken's post, as always very well said
judging based on a few can be effective to eliminate USP, but less effective when making assumptions about then stereotyping all the other properties
this is an example of one of the things i was thinking >
rosewood owner is buying lots of hotels, before current owner >
raising whether single USP really has anything to do with overall / choice
(i guess if one spends all their time at pool and does not do anything else?)
BT mayakoba opened extremely well >
https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/luxu...l#post26782928
BT also had madivaru for example
O&O is adding africa safari lodges
again after ownership change
FS has their elephant camp
management change include >
i could be wrong, but i think most here focus on reputation of quality, not what the reputation of a brand is with the masses, corporations, etc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique...ng_proposition
"proposition must be one the competition cannot or does not offer"
how many things apply to every single property of brand?
having 'best' of brand is better than having all 'average'
see Musken's post, as always very well said
judging based on a few can be effective to eliminate USP, but less effective when making assumptions about then stereotyping all the other properties
this is an example of one of the things i was thinking >
Is a consistent look actually a USP? I suspect there are certain hotel chains you can pick out a photo of its bedrooms from a random selection but I'm yet to see advertisement that says "Come to any XYZ Hotel as you'll love the consistent black & brass chinese style wardrobes"
There certainly are some where there are trends, as per the Luxury Collection often being in the old "grand hotel" but there are both examples where it isnt and many more examples where the old grand hotel is another chain (particularly when a city has several) which by default doesnt make it a unique selling point at chain level.
I certainly think there are trends amoungst chains, particularly in look/feel/vibe, but wouldnt call them USPs and wouldnt say they are all consistent. All hotels are influenced by their location and their local competition as well as brand ethos etc.
There certainly are some where there are trends, as per the Luxury Collection often being in the old "grand hotel" but there are both examples where it isnt and many more examples where the old grand hotel is another chain (particularly when a city has several) which by default doesnt make it a unique selling point at chain level.
I certainly think there are trends amoungst chains, particularly in look/feel/vibe, but wouldnt call them USPs and wouldnt say they are all consistent. All hotels are influenced by their location and their local competition as well as brand ethos etc.
Rosewood's pool service is their competitive difference from other high-end brands, significantly better, at each of the three Rosewood resorts where I've stayed, than at any of the several dozen Four Seasons and Aman resorts I've visited. But pool service can only get you so far--the overall service and personalized guest experience at Rosewood pales in comparison to what you get at most Four Seasons and Amans. (I've never once been called by my name at any of the Rosewoods, for example.) So for overall experience, yes, Four Seasons and Aman typically outpace Rosewood. But Rosewood's pool experiences trump others'.
(i guess if one spends all their time at pool and does not do anything else?)
https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/luxu...l#post26782928
BT also had madivaru for example
O&O is adding africa safari lodges
again after ownership change
FS has their elephant camp
management change include >
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique...ng_proposition
"proposition must be one the competition cannot or does not offer"
how many things apply to every single property of brand?
having 'best' of brand is better than having all 'average'
Last edited by Kagehitokiri; Apr 20, 2018 at 2:53 pm
Apr 21, 2018, 1:37 pm
#25
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: BKK
Posts: 6,741
Oberoi more consistent, also better resorts. Taj rule the palace world; when Taj gets it right oh my do they ever get it right! Everything else Taj can be a real mix - very inconsistent brand. Taj also 'suffers' from far too large a brand mix (Vivanta etc). I use 'suffers' because that's what makes them money.
