What Exactly Makes a "JW" a "JW"?
 

Sorry if this seems a stupid question, but I really would like to hear what the opinions/answers are as to what makes a JW Marriott different from another Marriott. I have stayed at several JWs (Cancun, Rio, Chicago) and many "regular" Marriotts.

JW is a brand extention originally brought about to compete with Ritz-Carlton (IMO it fits between regular Marriott's and Ritz-Carlton's)

From what I've seen.... usually a destination style hotel with unique decor, higher service and restaurant quality and in upscale neighborhoods. Just my opinion.

I heard it was supposed to be the 'flagship' & has to conform to higher standards than regular Marriotts. I'm not sure on what planet JW was going to compete w/ real RCs (prior to Marriott acquiring them).

Cheers.

which is exactly why MI purchased RZ (originally before JW WAS opened Bill had wanted to honor his father, that's where the name actually came from but it had been decided to move into the Luxury segment short after...)

JW has been around for a while (over 25 years) and probably the original idea was to compete with RZ, but probably they figured out they could be a notch below and still fall into the luxury hotel category.

The first JW Marriott hotel opened in Washington, D.C. in February 1984 as a tribute to JW Marriott Sr., founder of Marriott Corporation, the predecessor to Marriott International.

IMHO JWs are the best value by far when it comes to using points. Not just within the Marriott chain--but across others as well.

Redemption levels are reasonable--but you get MUCH nicer accomodations than you would get at a regular Marriott (or Hilton).

We have had spectacular experiences in JWs--most notably Rio, Shangai, Phuket, Bangkok, Hong Kong, Capri (unfortunately no longer a JW), Costa Rica, San Antonio and Scottsdale....

Does anyone else find it ironic that JWs are supposed to be 'better', but the JW Washington is just a basic biz hotel? I can't think of one thing that makes JWW a JW other than they named it after the founder. IMO they should strip this hotel of that moniker, but due to why it was named that I get why they don't.

Cheers.

That's been my experience at every JW I've stayed at. Granted, I've not stayed at any international JW's, which seem to get rave reviews. But in the U.S. I quite honestly do not see any brand differentiation between JW properties and run-of-the-mill full-service Marriotts.

I doubt that will happen due to its history.

As noted by Soc, the Washington DC JW was built before Marriott decided to make JW a luxury chain segment. I agree that the Washington DC JW would not become a JW today based on JW standards.

FWIW, this discussion seems to come up on FT every few years.