Don't bet on getting the credit posted. A long time ago, I declined the USA Today and got no credit for my stay. I wasn't going to raise a fuss over a 75 cent credit.

I see the availability of the WSJ as a plus for Marriott since Hilton never offers it at limited service properties and Hyatt only has it at some full service properties. For those guests who like reading the WSJ in paper form, it is nice to know that almost every Marriott property has one.

Anyone ever actually ask for the 50 cent daily folio credit if you decline the paper? I always laugh when I see that on the key envelope or checkin folio. Maybe now if we say no paper on our profile we'll get 50 cents automotically? LMAO!

I was told they have to do this as they are contractually obliged something due to the rate they get on papers and being a delivery service, not a retailer or something like that.

Potential Age Gap?
 

My guess here is that there is an age gap and that the disappointed respondents thus far are probably older than myself and my co-workers.

As someone who grew up with the internet, I view newspapers as containing yesterday's news with limited reporting, and accordingly have no interest in reading them. Not only do I not want it at my door, I find it annoying and environmentally wasteful and never bother to pick it up. I also take very little time to eat breakfast and generally do so on the go. No time to even read the paper in the morning if I wanted to. I think this trend is backed by all of the recent financial struggles of all newspapers and circulation cuts.

That said, my parents (in their upper 50's) still read their paper everyday and probably would be very annoyed by this decision if they traveled for business like I do.

Out of curiosity, how old are the people who actually still want the paper at their door every morning?

I am 27 years old and most of my co-workers are in their mid 30's or below, and few and far between read the paper when traveling. I read all of my news via the internet by checking my iGoogle page during various downtime during the day.

Not trying to say this in a "get with the times way", as I recognize that different people have different habits and there is nothing wrong with either way. Just curious if age/different time period habits is the driver of different opinions here.

Nail, meet hammer.

This same phenomenon occurred a few years ago with the linen change programs at hotels. Baby boomers were aghast - "how can you not change my sheets every day?" Gen Yers were delighted - "thank you for not changing my sheets every day! Much more environmentally friendly!" (Yes, it also saves the properties money.)

Today, baby boomers are aghast at not having a newspaper at their door every morning; GenYers are saying "Great! I never read that anyway! Less newsprint in landfills!" (Yes, it also saves the properties money.)

(Yes, I'm generalizing - I'm certain there are some baby boomers who support these kinds of initiatives and some GenYers who don't.)

Pretty easy - opt in or out on your profile.
I, for one, prefer handling the newspaper during the morning constitutional. It's really not good if the electronic equipment slips into the wrong places.
So quite like the X & Y'ers, us BB's can multi-task and do things 'on the go'.

Baby boomer here

Want paper ( although I dont get one at home except on Sun and read all my news online :) )

Dont want linens changed daily.

that is the funniest thing i've read all day!

I too prefer an actual paper.......(end of baby boom boomer here....."29-ish") and i don't care if the sheets are changed every day, but if i am there for a week they better get changed at least once!

BTW....today i woke up at a SHS and what was not outside, but ALL THE WAY UNDER my door, halfway into the living room??? USAT (and the bill, which really made it well past halfway!)

They have signs up all over (desk, elevators) spinning it as saving the environment....come on, tell it like it is....they are saving money first, trees second. (not sure whether this hotel delivers papers themselves or if the paper guy does it...)

I subscribe (pun intended) to a quite different view. In most cases, the immediacy of the web reporting often takes a back seat to investigation, impact and perspective. It's not "yesterday's news" if it takes a day to collect all of the facts. Big stories are usually edited several times through the course of the day (or night). The printed story is often the culmination of those "drafts."

Yes, Google News and the like are excellent aggregators but they fail when it comes to composition and editorial judgment. They do a great job doing what they do: collecting content. Newspapers do a great job at what they do: gathering the facts, reporting the story and relating content.

In my experience, the web is poor purveyor of long-form journalism. Investigative reporting, serial stories and magazine articles are poorly served via the web (e.g., try to read The New York Times Magazine on an iPhone).

The web can offer several versions of the same story. A newspaper offers related stories that share a common interest or audience.

One is not better than the other. They are complementary. Excluding either only limits one's perspective.

I submit that the recent financial struggles have more to do with declining ad (both display and classified) revenue.

There's more than just "news" in the newspaper. ;)

As far as immediate source of news goes, TV/Radio left newspapers in the dust well before you (and I) were born.

I read newspapers for 1) features, 2) business and 3) advertising. Trying to do the NY Times crossword or a 5-star Sudoku online is really tedious.

Newspapers have the advantage of being portable, not having to wait to boot up or page to load and infinitely more easy to handle in the bathroom.:D Newsprint can be easily recycled and is biodegradable if you don't so there isn't much of an environmental impact.

What Internet feature that is killing newspapers is not news, but Craigslist. Classified ads are (or were) a huge revenue stream which helped finance the news operation of most dailies and that has all but dried up.

And yes, I'm a boomer...and worked for a newspaper.:cool:

As someone in the under 30 group (for another 5 more months), I like having an actual newspaper to read. Does this make me old fashioned? Perhaps, but I have been reading the WSJ on a regular basis for almost 20 years, so old habits die hard. I like looking at a paper during breakfast when I am by myself, and it is a good break from reading a screen. As an analog object, it benefits me when I don't have internet access (when my connection goes down or I'm not with my laptop) or when the power is out.

I read a lot of stuff online for my work, but nothing will substitute a good paper (for me, the WSJ and to a lesser extent, the Washington Post). I also like reading actual books and cannot see the Kindle (or another electronic book reader) ever replacing most physical books for my personal needs. Also, some books are better in the physical format (when you have photos and charts/tables over two consecutive pages or when you need to rapidly flip through a book to find a source).

Well, let's see if this actually works...
I personally find it bothersome to have a newspaper at my door everyday, so I checked the "No newspaper" in my profile a while back. Yet I still get it every morning...
Asking the front desk to stop the delivery makes it stop though - but then what is the point of the profile in the first instance?

So if Marriott properties cannot manage NOT delivering a newspaper based on profile preferences, no wonder they have issues honoring the actual prefered choice...:rolleyes:

Thanks. :D I couldn't help it. The previous comments by the Gen X/Y'er about multi-tasking and reading on the go made me think that he/she thought this idea of electronic-multi-tasking-on-the-go is light years ahead of sitting on the can and reading the paper.

I'm surprised at some of the comments. Someone said they find it 'bothersome' that a paper is delivered in error to their room? Sheesh.

I'd be lost without either one. As dayone said, they're complementary.

Unfortunately, here in Detroit, the full newspapers (the News and the Free Press) are published and home-delivered only on Thursday, Friday, and Sunday. Much smaller editions are published other days, but not home-delivered. The scandal that cost Kilpatrick his job as mayor and some jail time only came to the fore because of the dogged pursuit of the story by both newspapers. Very doubtful that internet media would have produced the same results.

If most of the papers (I realize not all) didn't give their content away for free on the web this would bother me more. But since most do I don't care quite as much.

I'd like a paper to be available to be sent up at FS properties (to be slid under my door) if I call and request it, because sometimes I don't want to pay for the HSIA.

years ago as I was being transferred around I went to the habit of reading papers online, before then I read the paper daily regardless of which city I lived in....the advantage this gave me was I was not able to once again read the News (and occasionally the Freep) plus a few others....some papers have decent business sections (News) and some have eh sections (could name a few but I wont)...but in this example I was able to read how our Hometown Mayor messed things up without living in the Metro area....I dont believe I missed a thing by reading it on the internet however the real question (which you do mention) is if the print media can make a profit in cyberspace