Oxon Flyer

I remember someone posting that, if you’re an ‘old’ person type who expects an executive lounge, then you’re most definitely not in the demographic that the W brand seeks to attract ....

UA-NYC

itsaboutthejourney

OP had me thinking this thread was going to be interesting until this zinger:

LOL

I don't laugh to demean the Fairfield stayer, but marketing and branding realities are that the customer profile of a Fairfield differs greatly from a W. I don't think your average Fairfield customer would be comfortable or aspire to a W, nor would a W customer look to a Fairfield when in a market without a W. That separation is fine, it's why we have brands, price points, limited service vs full service, etc. Looking at brand extensions and aspirational loyalty I'd say that the road warrior who stays at a Fairfield in a small market may be building up points for the family vacation at a Marriott, Sheraton or potentially a JW in Tel Aviv, Cabo or Brisbane.

C17PSGR

Interesting. Are you suggesting the Starwood board had bad info on that? My recollection from the data pre-merger and in the presentation to shareholders was that Starwood management believed their most loyal customers were spending 40 percent of their annual nights in limited service properties where Starwood didn't have a presence.

And ...why do you think Marriott has been able to accelerate the growth of the higher end Starwood brands so much faster than Starwood could?

When you're in small markets where the choices might be Hampton Inn, Residence Inn, Fairfield, Holiday Inn Express, etc., where do you normally stay? Curious where you believe those "W customers" stay in small markets.

C17PSGR

Check your bias

I think the typical demographic at urban W's like the W Leicester Square are likely there sharing rooms for a Hen//Stag party and can't typically afford to stay at a hotel with an executive lounge

But ... I think one of the reasons Marriott has been able to jumpstart the growth of the W brand is they've recognized this. If you look at the new W's opening there's a clear refocus of the brand to locations that are in holiday locations. The Bonvoyist who prefers to avoid the Ws in London or Atlanta in favor of a business property with an executive lounge is likely the right demographic for the W Vieques, W Costa Rica, and/or W Aspen.

UA-NYC

3rdworldresident

GoldenItalianBoy

but I'm just 35 y.o.
Yes, that might seem strange, but I prefer classical style-full service hotels rather than modernity and design (moxy, W, Aloft, etc.).

Chacun à son goût ^

C17PSGR

Pricing is different than REVpar as a W can only discount so far, even if low occupancy.

I actually like some W's. Since 1/1/18, I've had over 200 actual nights in Bonvoy (or pre-Bonvoy MR/SPG)properties and probably 20-25 of those nights have been in W's - Leicester Square, Atlanta Midtown, Union Square, Seattle, Scottsdale, Miami, South Beach, Minneapolis, West LA and probably a couple of others I'm forgetting. I've considered the Ws in Doha, Hong Kong, and Singapore but the JW and Marriott properties there are much better located.

But .. other than the aspirational locations such as Costa Rica, Punta Mita, or Koh Samui, actually have folks on FT who like them? (I've given good reviews of the MSP, Union Square, West LA properties)

Taking a quick look at three that I've been in located in business centers - Leicester Square, Atlanta, Seattle. Looking at a random weekday in August where there aren't any hen parties/stag does ... all three are all lower than the places that I might alternatively stay. The Seattle W and Seattle Ren are a 10 minute walk apart and ring the business center. The Ren is a "Premium" rather than "Luxury" brand -- yet it has a 10 percent higher rate than the W. Plus only 73 percent (75 percent of plat or higher) of guests at the Seattle W hotel "recommend" it while 91 percent of guests (95 percent of plat or higher) recommend the Ren. For Leicester Square, the Marriott Grosvenor Square, again a Premium rather than Luxury Brand is a 20 percent higher rate than the Leicester Square W. 89 percent (92 percent of plat or higher) recommend the Grosvenor Square while only 69 percent (67 percent of plat or higher) recommend the W. In Atlanta, the W Midtown is around the corner from the Ren Midtown. Again,the Ren Midtown is 10 percent higher than the W. For the W Midtown, only 56 percent (48 percent of plat or higher) recommend the property while 85 percent (86 percent of Plat or higher) recommend the Ren.

In contrast, W Koh Samui has 94 percent recommendation, W Punta Mita has 91 percent, W Costa Rica has 92 percent, W Panama has 88 percent, Brisbane has 97 percent, Amman has 94 percent. The difference is that these properties aren't drawing the sneak a cooler into the room crowd. And, their rates are lower than the urban locations but I'm confident that the income/net worth of a guest at the Koh Samui is higher than Atlanta Midtown.

But, I think Marriott and developers understand this which is why they are focusing the new W properties on destinations, not cities.

I also think some people here seriously underestimate (and look down upon ...) the number of mid six figure executive and professionals driving a rented Camry into the Coeur d'Alene Springhill Suites, the CY in Worcester Mass, the Residence Inn in Boise, the CY in Tallahassee, etc. The Starwood management team didn't -- they caught the problem but couldn't build out limited services brands fast enough to satisfy investors. The Marriott team hasn't -- they realize there are lots of people staying at an FI with the disposable income to travel to aspirational properties around the world, which is why they have been able to accelerate the growth in development.

Horace

I agree.

Another way to look at this is that hotel companies developing a new select-service hotel — such a business hotel in a suburban office park or the "best hotel" in a smaller city unable to support a full-service hotel — have far more often chosen Marriott brands (Courtyard, Springhill Suites, FairField, and more recently AC Hotels and Moxy) than Starwood brands (Aloft, Four Points).

I agree that there are "people staying at an FI with the disposable income to travel to aspirational properties."

In addition, there are plenty of folks who like to stay at "premium" full-service brands (Marriott, Renaissance, and similar), but move up or down in the food chain, based on location and what the choices are. I belong to that category. For example, visiting wine regions in California, we stayed at the Lodge at Sonoma Renaissance Resort & Spa, Courtyard Paso Robles, and SpringHill Suites Temecula Valley Wine Country. Hotel choices are limited in Paso Robles and Temecula; although there are a few higher-end properties nearby (although not from Marriott), the Marriott select-service properties served us well — and there were no Starwood properties at all.

Ripley62

Antarius

I'm am one of many that I know that do not fit this split market theory above. If I can stay at a W or ilk, I do, but there are only a limited number of Ws, primarily clustered in large cities. there isn't a W in Dickinson, ND.. so then what?

The reason I moved from SPG to Marriott prior to the merger was footprint. I do not see how having more options is a bad thing, especially when people need to travel to smaller cities.

Adelphos

I think this misunderstand the entire point of hotel brands - brands are designed to fit local market dynamics and hotel owner needs, not customer demographics. Fairfields are built in any given location rather than Ws because the pricing power of the market demands a certain room product, service level, etc. If a "W customer" finds him or herself in that type of market, he or she may be best served by choosing a Fairfield over the locally available Best Western or whatever. Similarly if a "Fairfield customer" that is a traveling salesman of some sort wants to take his family to Chicago or London or whatever, he or she may be able to use points at a W. You are right that a W customer would usually chose a W in markets where the two coexist - the entire point of Fairfield is that many, many more markets exist globally that can support a Fairfield than can support a W, and you may find yourself in those markets.

Adelphos

Edition started slowly, but seems to have gained some momentum recently with new hotels announced. I've stayed in and seen a few Edition properties and much prefer them to W - the lobby bars are better, restaurants tend to be better, etc. Some of this could just be that Edition is a bit of a fresher concept. Also, remember that W itself is a tiny brand. 69 hotels and 31 hotels in the pipeline over 20 years. In contrast Moxy has 44 hotels and 96 pipeline hotels after five or six years. Autograph Collection has 169 hotels and 81 pipeline properties, also after a few years. Edition may be lucky to hit W numbers eventually, but both brands are kind of niche.

KRSW

These guys do: https://hotel-development.marriott.com/

Flipping through the PDFs on the Brand pages is interesting....and sometimes laughable.