Does every W hotel have the worst service out of all the Marriott brands?
#76
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: KHOU/KIAH
Programs: AA EXP | Marriott Bonvoy Titanium| Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 11,219
This sounds about right. The brand is really targeted at Millennials and younger who want a cool, hip hotel and mainly want staff to leave them alone. So the OP first needs to define what is good service to him, besides a room not being ready at check in. Just to say it, I've also found service in Atlanta hotels to be at least less friendly and sometimes poorer than other parts of the country...no idea why, maybe it's just my northern charm .
Finally, the argument about what type of customers stay at which brand is a little crazy. Conflating that to their job, income, or social status is ridiculous. I've probably stayed at every legacy Marriott brand, and most of the legacy SPG brands, so where do I fit? In some places, a Renaissance or Westin is cheaper than a Courtyard or Fairfield Inn. And when I'm traveling for work, I'm staying at the most convenient hotel rather than looking for a certain brand. When I'm on vacation, what I spend on a hotel depends on my plans -- am I spending every day at the beach and pool or it's a city hotel where I'll literally only sleep and shower in the room? All you can really summarize from the data is that the people pay less on average to stay at a CY vs. a JW (etc.). Most people don't look at two hotels and say I'll stay at the more expensive one because I make lots of money -- I wonder what Warren Buffett would think of that...
#77
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: LGA/JFK/EWR
Programs: UA 1K1.75MM, Hyatt Globalist, abandoned Marriott LTT (RIP SPG), Hertz PC
Posts: 21,166
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...)
(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...)
#78
I think a lot of people here aren’t part of the W target audience and don’t know what they’re taking about. W is a LUXURY brand, whether people want to recognize that fact or not. It may not suit the versions of luxury each of us may prefer, but that doesn’t change that it’s a luxury brand. The Atlanta property is known for being subpar...so I’m not surprised it isn’t impressing our OP. The Four Seasons Sydney is horrible, but I doubt that makes everyone think Four Seasons hotels everywhere are as poor. I think we know better. Prejudice is a dangerous thing.
The W Boston is fantastic. The W Washington DC is wonderful. The W Hong Kong is fantastic. The W South Beach is legendary if you like that scene. The W San Francisco is good. The W Seattle is good. The W Los Angeles/W Beverly Hills is a nice one, though I’m not a fan of its HVAC. The W Scottsdale is supposed to be great. The W Chicago City Center and Lakeshore have better service than the JW. The W Mexico City is nice. The W Maldives is legendary for being wonderful. The W Bogota is pretty amazing. Most people I know like the W Barcelona.
The W Boston is fantastic. The W Washington DC is wonderful. The W Hong Kong is fantastic. The W South Beach is legendary if you like that scene. The W San Francisco is good. The W Seattle is good. The W Los Angeles/W Beverly Hills is a nice one, though I’m not a fan of its HVAC. The W Scottsdale is supposed to be great. The W Chicago City Center and Lakeshore have better service than the JW. The W Mexico City is nice. The W Maldives is legendary for being wonderful. The W Bogota is pretty amazing. Most people I know like the W Barcelona.
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.
#79
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: SLC/HEL/Anywhere with a Beach
Programs: Marriott Ambassador; AA EXP 3MM; AS MVP, Hilton Gold, CH-47/UH-60/C-23/C-130 VET
Posts: 5,234
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.
The broader point seems to focus on specific properties and cities instead of drawing broader generalizations about brands.
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.
The ADR rates shown a few posts before are reflective that W average rates are substantially higher than those of Courtyard; it isn’t even close. To be frank, W ADR are also much higher than those of JW. It’s hard to imagine the median income of such W guests being anything than higher.
I think a lot of people here aren’t part of the W target audience and don’t know what they’re taking about. W is a LUXURY brand, whether people want to recognize that fact or not. It may not suit the versions of luxury each of us may prefer, but that doesn’t change that it’s a luxury brand. The Atlanta property is known for being subpar...so I’m not surprised it isn’t impressing our OP. The Four Seasons Sydney is horrible, but I doubt that makes everyone think Four Seasons hotels everywhere are as poor. I think we know better. Prejudice is a dangerous thing.
Perhaps it is prudent to not slam an entire brand out of innuendo and prejudice.
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.
#80
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Southern California, USA
Programs: Marriott Ambassador and LTT, UA Plat/LT Gold, AA Gold
Posts: 8,764
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.
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?
RevPAR 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.
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.
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.
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.)
#81
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: ORD
Programs: UA Silver, Marriott Platinum/LT Platinum, Hilton Gold
Posts: 5,594
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.
#82
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: LGA/JFK/EWR
Programs: UA 1K1.75MM, Hyatt Globalist, abandoned Marriott LTT (RIP SPG), Hertz PC
Posts: 21,166
Occam’s Razor. A BMW is $60k. A Kia is $30k. Which car shopping consumer buying former vs latter, dollars to donuts, is higher income? It’s not that complicated.
More disconcerting is suggesting because one guest doesn’t like like a stereotypical male middle manager traveler that he/she works in a call center, or is sneaking 5 people up to their room. SMH. Plenty of billionaires these days look like casual schlubs. Good for them.
More disconcerting is suggesting because one guest doesn’t like like a stereotypical male middle manager traveler that he/she works in a call center, or is sneaking 5 people up to their room. SMH. Plenty of billionaires these days look like casual schlubs. Good for them.
#83
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: LGA/JFK/EWR
Programs: UA 1K1.75MM, Hyatt Globalist, abandoned Marriott LTT (RIP SPG), Hertz PC
Posts: 21,166
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.
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.
#84
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: ORD
Programs: UA Silver, Marriott Platinum/LT Platinum, Hilton Gold
Posts: 5,594
Occam’s Razor. A BMW is $60k. A Kia is $30k. Which car shopping consumer buying former vs latter, dollars to donuts, is higher income? It’s not that complicated.
More disconcerting is suggesting because one guest doesn’t like like a stereotypical male middle manager traveler that he/she works in a call center, or is sneaking 5 people up to their room. SMH. Plenty of billionaires these days look like casual schlubs. Good for them.
More disconcerting is suggesting because one guest doesn’t like like a stereotypical male middle manager traveler that he/she works in a call center, or is sneaking 5 people up to their room. SMH. Plenty of billionaires these days look like casual schlubs. Good for them.
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.
#85
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: LGA/JFK/EWR
Programs: UA 1K1.75MM, Hyatt Globalist, abandoned Marriott LTT (RIP SPG), Hertz PC
Posts: 21,166
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.
The above has zero relevance in tying into look/manner of dress though. That's just ignorant.
#86
Join Date: Feb 2018
Programs: Bonvoy :Ambassador , ALL :Diamond, Skywards :Silver, Krisflyer :Silver
Posts: 2,803
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
#87
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Southern California, USA
Programs: Marriott Ambassador and LTT, UA Plat/LT Gold, AA Gold
Posts: 8,764
OK everyone, I think we may he getting OT unnecessarily. It wasn’t even @UA-NYC (or me) who first made the inaccurate income comment claiming Courtyard guests make more than W guests; we just responded to show that was almost certainly preposterous.
I think some people herein are not big fans of the W brand and just piled on after the OP shared the poor stay details at the W Atlanta. (I’m not even sure I remember which one, since there are 3 Ws in Atlanta. Chances are good it’s the Midtown one if I had to guess.)
It’s perfectly fine to not like Ws. It just not accurate that all other people (even those who aren’t Millennials) agree. I’m a Gen Xer who can very much enjoy a W. But I’ll still take the St Regis first.
I think it’s also clear that the answer to our OP’s query is NO. Not all Ws are that bad. Most Ws have pretty good service. Every W has better service overall (and certainly better facilities and amenities) than almost any Courtyard. Most Ws have better service than most JWs in my experience, partly because most Ws are a lot smaller than most JWs. That being said, almost all hotels have service lapses when they are near full occupancy. And there always will be outliers that are not good representatives of their brand. The terrible W in Atlanta is right there with the terrible Four Seasons in Sydney as pitiful examples for their brands...but that doesn’t make the brands themselves bad.
I think some people herein are not big fans of the W brand and just piled on after the OP shared the poor stay details at the W Atlanta. (I’m not even sure I remember which one, since there are 3 Ws in Atlanta. Chances are good it’s the Midtown one if I had to guess.)
It’s perfectly fine to not like Ws. It just not accurate that all other people (even those who aren’t Millennials) agree. I’m a Gen Xer who can very much enjoy a W. But I’ll still take the St Regis first.
I think it’s also clear that the answer to our OP’s query is NO. Not all Ws are that bad. Most Ws have pretty good service. Every W has better service overall (and certainly better facilities and amenities) than almost any Courtyard. Most Ws have better service than most JWs in my experience, partly because most Ws are a lot smaller than most JWs. That being said, almost all hotels have service lapses when they are near full occupancy. And there always will be outliers that are not good representatives of their brand. The terrible W in Atlanta is right there with the terrible Four Seasons in Sydney as pitiful examples for their brands...but that doesn’t make the brands themselves bad.
#89
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: ORD
Programs: UA Silver, Marriott Platinum/LT Platinum, Hilton Gold
Posts: 5,594
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.
The above has zero relevance in tying into look/manner of dress though. That's just ignorant.
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?
OK everyone, I think we may he getting OT unnecessarily. It wasn’t even @UA-NYC (or me) who first made the inaccurate income comment claiming Courtyard guests make more than W guests; we just responded to show that was almost certainly preposterous.
I think some people herein are not big fans of the W brand and just piled on after the OP shared the poor stay details at the W Atlanta. (I’m not even sure I remember which one, since there are 3 Ws in Atlanta. Chances are good it’s the Midtown one if I had to guess.)
It’s perfectly fine to not like Ws. It just not accurate that all other people (even those who aren’t Millennials) agree. I’m a Gen Xer who can very much enjoy a W. But I’ll still take the St Regis first.
I think it’s also clear that the answer to our OP’s query is NO. Not all Ws are that bad. Most Ws have pretty good service. Every W has better service overall (and certainly better facilities and amenities) than almost any Courtyard. Most Ws have better service than most JWs in my experience, partly because most Ws are a lot smaller than most JWs. That being said, almost all hotels have service lapses when they are near full occupancy. And there always will be outliers that are not good representatives of their brand. The terrible W in Atlanta is right there with the terrible Four Seasons in Sydney as pitiful examples for their brands...but that doesn’t make the brands themselves bad.
I think some people herein are not big fans of the W brand and just piled on after the OP shared the poor stay details at the W Atlanta. (I’m not even sure I remember which one, since there are 3 Ws in Atlanta. Chances are good it’s the Midtown one if I had to guess.)
It’s perfectly fine to not like Ws. It just not accurate that all other people (even those who aren’t Millennials) agree. I’m a Gen Xer who can very much enjoy a W. But I’ll still take the St Regis first.
I think it’s also clear that the answer to our OP’s query is NO. Not all Ws are that bad. Most Ws have pretty good service. Every W has better service overall (and certainly better facilities and amenities) than almost any Courtyard. Most Ws have better service than most JWs in my experience, partly because most Ws are a lot smaller than most JWs. That being said, almost all hotels have service lapses when they are near full occupancy. And there always will be outliers that are not good representatives of their brand. The terrible W in Atlanta is right there with the terrible Four Seasons in Sydney as pitiful examples for their brands...but that doesn’t make the brands themselves bad.
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!
#90
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: SLC/HEL/Anywhere with a Beach
Programs: Marriott Ambassador; AA EXP 3MM; AS MVP, Hilton Gold, CH-47/UH-60/C-23/C-130 VET
Posts: 5,234
I think some people herein are not big fans of the W brand and just piled on after the OP shared the poor stay details at the W Atlanta. (I’m not even sure I remember which one, since there are 3 Ws in Atlanta. Chances are good it’s the Midtown one if I had to guess.)
It’s perfectly fine to not like Ws.
It’s perfectly fine to not like Ws.
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.