Antarius

Bingo. Exactly why I like the W. I'm right in their target demographic as well.

By and large, you can draw some broad trends. As in, if you don't have much disposable income, the odds of staying at a JW are pretty low. That said, as you pointed out, the flip side is not true. Just because someone has money doesn't mean they spend it at RCs exclusively.

UA-NYC

I love the W as well - those cheap $200 rooms in Chicago/ATL (which I have stayed in many times) are balanced out in the ADR statistics by the $500+ rooms in SoBe and the like, where the supposed 6-to-a-room-college-kids-w/a-cooler apparently pool their money to hang out.

(And FWIW I have the money to spend leisure-wise but I would never spend it at an RC, the W would be much more likely to get it...)

Beltway2A

I'll echo those comments 100%. The DC property is great, and I when I stayed at the Seattle W on a Luxury Privs rate I thought both the hard and soft product were nice. Oddly, I've never seen a Courtyard participate in the luxury privileges program...

The broader point seems to focus on specific properties and cities instead of drawing broader generalizations about brands. I've never stayed at the W in Atlanta, but I've spent time at both the RC and Aloft in the city. The RC's hard product came in below expectations, but was still a nice property and provided a good upgrade on an FHR rate. The Aloft went above-and-beyond with excellent service-for-price and provided a 7am check-in which I greatly needed that morning. I'm sure someone will be along shortly to make a very specific assertion between my socioeconomic status and a stay at the Aloft.

C17PSGR

I never said that CY is an equivalent property to a W Of course they don't participate in FHR. But ... I probably still spend 40 nights a year in CY/RI/FI because its the best property for miles. Many others do as well.

And ... I completely agree that the experience at a couple of city W's isn't appropriate to draw a broader generalization. However., I think the fact there is only one city W under development in the entire United States supports my view that the concept of attracting wealthy 30-60 y/o (Barry would agree that was the target market) isn't working in business centers.

RevPAR doesn't tell the whole story. And, of course, W's which are concentrated in large cities or expensive resorts will have higher RevPAR than brands which are more geographically diverse. But even in the same market, here are a couple of interesting datapoints that illustrate RevPAR isn't everything -- for example in Houston, the latest RevPAR reports shows the JW has a higer RevPAR than either the Fourt Seasons or the St. Regis (JW Marriott Downtown ($194.28, ranked 29th); Four Seasons Hotel ($183.89, ranked 40th); St. Regis ($182.39, ranked 42nd) These Houston hotels check in among the most lucrative in Texas - CultureMap HoustonI strongly suspect you believe the Four Seasons and St.R. in Houston are more luxurious and attract a wealthier crowd than the JW. Yet, the JW has a higher RevPAR ... so it doesn't tell the whole story.

I agree with your descriptions of many of the W's but the fact is that in Atlanta, Chicago, New York, Hollywood, London, Miami, Scottsdale, -- almost all of which I've stayed at -- the W's are packed with people who wouldn't normally spend $250 a night on a hotel. The staff is used to dealing with folks who are packing a room with a bunch of friends and it leads to service problems. It also often means that the hotel amenities aren't available to hotel guests.

But, that's very different at the other locations you mention. I agree some hotels suffer from service and hard product problems. I think the W brand is shifting toward being a resort oriented brand because the city hotel isn't working economically -- which is why the W West LA (which I like) isn't jumping to invest money in the facility problems, and why they W's in NYC aren't investing either.

bhrubin

You did imply the average income of W guests is lower than that for Courtyard. You're obviously in error--it's obviously reversed.

Ah, you are in error again--considering there already are Ws in almost all of the major metropolitan areas in the USA. For those counting: New York (4), Los Angeles (2 with 3rd coming), Chicago (2), Scottsdale, Houston (1 in development), Philadelphia (coming), Dallas, Austin, Seattle, San Francisco, Boston, Washington, DC, Miami/South Beach (2), Ft Lauderdale, Atlanta (3), New Orleans, & Minneapolis. That's the overwhelming majority of the major urban centers in the USA, by the way. Those are some of the biggest business centers, too.

It's harder to develop in city centers because it's more expensive, and yet there already are Ws in the overwhelming majority of the biggest population and business centers in the USA. Don't see a lot of Editions in those, do you?

We are taking about ADR not RevPAR. But I think either tells the whole story when comparing W and Courtyard. And it still tells most of the tale between W and JW. Sorry, but W is usually a better service experience than JW because the average W is usually a much smaller hotel than the average JW; it isn't even close.

I don't know when you're staying at Ws, but I've stayed at dozens of them over the years--and I've yet to experience people packing them in as you're trying to claim is a usual thing. Your anecdote may have happened, but it hasn't happened often and it certainly hasn't happened to you on all of your stays at even half of those hotels. It is a very poor anecdote that is wildly prejudicial and in no way reflects the overwhelming number of dates at all Ws.

Also, most people are paying more than $250 to stay at W hotels in most locations. What they normally spend, you and I don't know. And it isn't relevant.

Your premise that W doesn't work in a city is just absolutely wrong. The fact that W has already saturated many of the biggest markets in the USA is your first hint. An owner wouldn't be choosing W in Philadelphia (the 5th biggest city in the USA) if the W model weren't so wildly successful. It's one of Marriott's most profitable and growing brands, in fact.

I think you have a prejudice against W, which is fine. But your prejudice doesn't preclude that W is a wildly successful brand--and the very reason why Marriott created Edition in the first place! (Marriott created Edition to compete with Starwood's W. And you don't notice so many new Editions now, do you? All while you see FAR more new Ws being built and opened. Hint, hint.)

JBord

I'm still not sure how this is "obvious". Average revenue is obvious, average income of guests is not obvious. I'd be surprised if Marriott knows how much I make -- salary, commission, investment income, etc. so they couldn't accurately report on this.

Your other points are valid, but we need to stop trying to equate the cost of a hotel room, or the revenue per person (room rate + spend at property) with someone's income or wealth -- which are different things that are important when you look at spending habits.

When we have this conversation in a thread, people are basically implying that because they stay at a W and someone else stays at a CY, they make more money than that person. There's really no correlation. It's not even true that a CY costs less than a W in every market...at least based on my personal experience.

And when you look at other income, the correlation can be even weaker. When I'm working, I tend to stay at CY's buy a drink at the bar and eat breakfast at the crappy cafe in the hotel. When I'm at vacation, I'm very likely to stay at a much nicer hotel or resort, but I do NOT eat at the hotel. Part of vacation for me is trying local bars and restaurants, often paying much more than I would at the hotel.

I'm also of the mind that just because I can afford something doesn't mean I should buy it. For an upcoming weekend getaway, I'm staying at a Fairfield Inn. I'm going to be gone both of the days from breakfast until bed time. I see no point in paying twice as much for the other hotels in this city.

Way too many factors to equate where someone stays to their income.

UA-NYC

UA-NYC

Fun challenge - see if one can find a single CY base level room that is pricing higher than a single W base level room in the same city, any city, any day of the year...should be interesting.

Was thinking Chicago in January, as both Ws are a bit less prime location-wise than the CYs in River North...but I checked a random Wednesday and the W Lakeshore is still $30 more than the CY.

JBord

Again, you're stating an observation that applies some of the time as if it were fact. I know plenty, plenty, plenty of people who buy BMWs that can not afford them and should not own them. I'm sure you do too. I know some millionaires that drive around in 14 year old Honda's. Until you get to billionaire level, we all make choices about where we spend our disposable income. I might buy a BMW and you might buy a boat.

I agree with your second paragraph completely. It's not a one way street. Those saying that a group of 20 somethings partying in a W hotel room can't afford better are no more accurate than trying to guess incomes of those who stay in FI's. By the way, you've completely blown your initial premise of BMW vs. Kia just by writing this second paragraph.

So your condescending statement "it's not that complicated" is actually totally wrong. It is complicated, because you're trying to make a direct correlation between a person's income and choice of hotel, and there are literally dozens of other factors that go into this decision.

UA-NYC

Data >>> anecdotes. Sure, some lower income people buy BMWs, and some multi-millionaires buy Kias. Just like occasionally a 21 year old ASU student may rent a room at the W Scottsdale and bring up a cooler and 5 of his/her closest friends (as much of a far, far outlier as that may seem). But data is also not the plural of anedcotes. Your average BMW owner probably has a higher income than your average Kia owner. No need to overthink things. Just like your average guest who has a means to be staying in a $300 a night hotel room, ceteris paribus, probably has greater means than one staying in a $150 a night room.

The above has zero relevance in tying into look/manner of dress though. That's just ignorant.

kaizen7

I believe Marriott did positioned W brand along those StR RC and LuxCol (and some of W have price to match those hotel)

As for the W brand itself ..... I would say the closest competitor outside Marriott universe for W will be Sofitel SO (not sure if Hyatt and Hilton have similar style)
Luxury yet funky and also cool and hip but not display too much aristocratic luxury like StR and less formal .... doubt the dtaff will be saying "my pleasure" that often

bhrubin

acrophobia

JBord

So your theory is you can't tell a person's income by the clothes they buy, but you can by the hotel room they buy?

I like your use of "probably" in explaining the "data".

All you can tell from the data is that not all high income people stay at W's and not all low-income people stay at CY's. The average revenue is based on price, not income or social class. I agree that data rules, but you haven't cited any. You're making what you believe is a reasonable guess. The same as the person who guessed that CY guests make more money that W guests. There's no data available to back either one.

Marriott does not know the income or the net worth of their guests. I'd actually suggest the latter is more relevant than the other anyway. How can this data be available if they don't have it?

I agree with quite a bit of this. But I'm a little tired of threads that devolve into SPG is greater than Marriott and vice versa. The fake "income" argument from either side here is annoying. Responding to someone's absurd comment about income with an equally absurd opposite comment doesn't make sense to me, but maybe I'm just missing the point.

I hope I'm not offending either of you, because that's not my intent. I've read posts from both of you in other FT forums and generally respect your points of view. But these income posts just continue the SPG vs. Marriott sniping, which has nothing to do with the OP's post about W's. The reality is simply that maybe the W is not the best brand for the OP -- there are plenty of others to try though!

C17PSGR

I like W's I agree they have been service and higher rates than CY's (although $30 isn't much for Chicago ...)

But having the experience in life of knowing people who work in call centers, knowing people who are Harvard MBA's working in global consulting firms, knowing senior execs and board members, and knowing trust funders ... as well as talking to people staying there, its pretty clear to me that a responsible financial advisor would advise the typical guest at many -- but not all -- W's to stick with the Kia. And ... that's part of the service inconsistency issue. For example, while staying at a W recently and asking for a late checkout while walking back into the hotel, I received the standard "I'm sorry sir but we're fully committed" even when they obviously weren't, didn't really check, and didn't seem to care about elite status (it was listed as a resort so the guarantee didn't apply) . In contrast, the GM had emailed me earlier to ask about my stay (I hadn't raised any issues -- he was checking in because I was Ambassador) so I emailed him back and he immediately approved the late checkout.

Like all properties, they are highly dependent on whether they have an engaged GM.