KRSW

I also think they're making a mistake by trying to do a Sheraton / Sheraton Grand thing. There are already too many brands in the now-Marriott portfolio.

hockeyinsider

Legacy Starwood's Sheraton 2020 strategy certainly envisioned Sheraton as having more flexible brand standards to accomodate subpar properties, including conversions (re-flaggings).

Post-acquisition, Marriott's Delta brand seems to be the dumping ground for both re-flaggings and new-build properties with owners who don't want to built and outfit a property to the standards of the other full-service brands; namely Marriott, Westin, and Renaissance.

pinniped

I don't know why, but putting "Grand" in the title feels really dated. I think of it as an old-timey way to say something is big but not necessarily of high quality, like something one of those huge buffet restaurants would use. And maybe it's because Hyatt also uses it, and Grand Hyatts are just Hyatts to me. (Park Hyatts being more of the "quality" brand.)

Anyway, probably the least of Marriott's concerns. I don't actually see many Grand Sheratons in practice.

ehallison

That looks pretty awful for a sports bar. I've stayed at a Holiday Inn Express that had a nicer sports bar.

pinniped

I see an Elysian tap.

If there's Space Dust coming out of that, then you all are wrong and this is a great sports bar. I mean, it looks like it has one TV. And they probably put sports on it. Pool table...that's kinda sportsy. Bartender, another Space Dust please!!

hockeyinsider

Marriott International can change brand logos, but getting properties to use the right branding is difficult when a majority of the properties are managed by third-party management companies.

Here's an example of a third-party management company, Spire, using three different Marriott logos:



The logo for the Marriott Los Angeles Burbank Airport Hotel is based on Marriott's pre-2014 logo:

itsaboutthejourney

That M is so dated and tacky. To me, it represents a lot of what I think about Marriott: stuck in the past, un-innovative, traditional, uninspiring, afraid of change, low-tech, aesthetics not important.

Oxon Flyer

There's something about this new Sheraton logo that's not quite right. On screen, the image is prone to 'dance' on the eyes, particularly when scrolling, and it looks a bit like one of those optical illusions where you see blocks of shading in the white areas where there isn't anything.

cmd320

Honestly at this point I would rather they stay stuck in the past. When Marriott chooses to innovate we get gems such as Fresh Bites room service.

pinniped

There was a point in time where I would have said Marriott's greatest strength was consistency. High quality, well-trained staff, and a sort of traditional aesthetic but one that always lived up to a certain standard. By contrast, many other brands like Hilton and Sheraton were quite variable - you didn't know exactly what you were going to get when you tried out a new property. Stuff worked well at Marriott, and on the rare occasion it didn't someone solved the problem quickly and professionally.

I was willing to make the trade-off for most of my stays: the style is a little boring, but stuff works. Customer service, the loyalty program, the quality of the properties themselves.

The problem is that when the systems, service, and loyalty program are in shambles, boring and traditional starts to feel like outdated, broken, and unprofessional. Now in 2019, I look at Hilton as the one that has stepped its game up with both aesthetic and technology, and has a customer service function that isn't a complete trashfire, thus leaving Marriott in the dust.

hockeyinsider

This is getting off-topic, but Marriott's flagship Marriott brand isn't even consistent anymore. You have some properties, particularly outside North America, that are a throwback to when Marriott was genuinely upscale. Full-service restaurants, room service, shoe shine, doormen, a real concierge; you name it. Then you have the considerable number of properties here in the United States that aren't different from a limited-service Courtyard property, except for a bar-slash-casual restaurant that serves food off a menu.

Owners and developers don't seem willing to invest in genuinely full-service Marriott properties because they can make as much or more money with a limited-service brand, thanks not only to high labor costs but also to high staffing turnover because, unlike other countries, hospitality in the United States is more of a low-wage "job" as opposed to a career.

Personally, I put the blame on Marriott allowing most of its properties, across all brands, to be managed by third-party management companies. I find Marriott-managed properties to almost always be better.

iflyjetz

^ I wrote way back in ~2012 when Arne took over as CEO that Marriott started to go downhill when Arne took over as Marriott's President and COO back in May 2009. Before that, Bill Marriott and his team watched all properties to make sure they were consistent - even if some found it boring. I was happy with boringly consistent - I knew exactly what I was getting when I booked a stay at any Marriott family property. Heck, it wasn't even a secret as to how to contact Bill Marriott's secretary personally on any customer issue.
I had been booking away from Hilton after Blackstone raped the company; based on your comments, I'll have to give them a closer look.