I'm done a couple of unsuccessful searches :-(

Is there any data that indicates how much a hotel pays for a reward point.

(As an aside I once cashed in 10,000 starwood points and the hotel received $80USD - so 0.8cents a point - others had similar information)

The reason I ask is to try to ascertain what a hotel would think 100,000 rewards points offered for a meeting were worth and thereby how much discount could I expect with no points

Thanks

Do you mean "how much does the hotel get paid?" ?
FWIW, at a recent points stay at a 15,000 category CY, the assistant manager told me they would receive $13. The rack was $159 for that night.

I think the $13 for an award stay was the old rate which Marriott compensated a hotel. The new compensation rates are double the old ones, based on accidental charges that I have seen in the past for award stays.

As for how much it costs a hotel to buy a point, they get them at varying rates (depending on the brand). I do not know the exact figure, but they get them for less than a penny a point.

it's confidental and proprietary information....but if you ask a GM he might share it with you (however I would advise against post it in a public forum)

compensation rates vary first by brand and then by specific hotel

I've had several $12-13 charges per night erroneously show up on my credit card for award stays at FI's, SHS and RI's but none in the last 2 years. They were always removed with a phone call. But I think the OP asked the opposite question.

Was $13 per night, it's now $24.

Pts when issued to guests I believe is something around $9 per 1k of points or so I've been told.

I too have wondered about this. Obviously some hotels are going to be more in the business of issuing points and other more in the business of redeeming them. Marriott can't make the rules too unfair or hotels that end up being targeted for a lot of redemption (I would assume Hawaii, Aruba, etc.) would be financially punished.

no matter the rate posted here; why would a hotel want to participate in the rewards portion (other than they have too) if the amount paid is pretty much useless and can't cover costs of having a guest in that room? factor in vacation places like Hawaii and it must be a total loss for the hotel?

why is that? as long as the GM's name and hotel isn't posted.. what is the problem with posting the info?

So a Cat 5 in say Florence Alabama is going to get less than say Kauai Lihue Beach club

why participate? the power behind the Frequent Stay programs is extremely large - why be a part of any major brand if you dont need the power of these programs (there are many examples of independent hotels out there which do quite well without these programs)

1) Posting confidential information is against FT TOS and will be removed

2) As I stated before, there is a standard redemption fee per brand and then there are the unique hotels within each brand

I redeemed 20,000 points at a FS hotel in UK last year and received a bill under my door for �34. The room rate for the night was �130. As I understand other schemes, the hotel receives more on redemptions if it is near capacity, which would make sense. There has to be some kind of differential since the very low redemption payments to hotels would unfairly affect those in the group that are more leisure based and hence likely to bear the full brunt of MR redemptions, so I'd imagine there is some kind of scale applied to redemptions to ensure those hotels dont lose out

As for what they cost the hotel, well, $9 per 1000 seems in a little pricey to me as we can buy them for $12 per 1000. I would think Hotels buy them at half our rate, say $6 per 1000

I won't betray _too_ much of a confidence, but I found from a reliable source that properties pay in the low single-dollar per thousand point range for points (vague enough? )

If the OP foregoes 100k points, then they might expect a price break in the low hundreds of dollars.

That, along with the pittance normally reimbursed to the properties for award stays, makes MR a profit center for Marriott.

Thanks for all the feedback. I'm thinking $3-$4 per 1000 points is pretty close

I did laugh at the above post. It can't be confidential information once it reaches the public domain. So any posting on here by legal definition is no longer confidential.

1) while the assumption that points are cheap is correct, the pricing above is way off

2) I personally feel I have a decent understanding of the laws of our country but am certainly not even close to being a lawyer but I dont believe your argument about confidential and proprietary information no longer being such once it's posted in the public demain would hold up in court - it's kind of like saying it's ok to murder someone because the were dead after the fact so it really wasn't murder in the first place

I'm not a lawyer but let's assume I have some professional expertise in this area :-)

A 'trade secret' has some special protections which apply to it only when kept secret. If publicly disclosed then it is no longer a secret and no longer legally protected. However the circumstances under which the information becomes public are highly-relevant and hence ...

"you are both right" - in the very specific area of trade secrets.

w.r.t. confidential information more generally- it would need to be clearly proven by the party claiming that the information is confidential AND that the person posting was aware of this fact, had received the information with notification and so forth in order for the information to be suppressable. These principles are general, country-specific laws apply of course - including the special protections on free speech in certain countries such as the US first amendment.

This of course doesn't stop lawyers from issung takedown notices etc., even when they have little chance of winning any subsequent case, and for site owners on the internet to remove potentially-infringing content in order to avoid the complications of being involved in an expensive court case.

(let's not even get into the issues about LINKING to content, which causes even more complications, depending on what a judge interprets a link to be.)