MikeBOS

Please forgive me if this has been discussed previously...I tried searching but with no luck.

I am in the process of making a decision between Starwood, Hyatt and Marriott for the upcoming year. I will likely have 25-35 stays in whichever program I choose (translating to Gold at Marriott, Diamond at Hyatt and Platinum at Starwood). I do have a preference for more upscale hotels, and my job permits me wide discretion in where I stay.

I have pretty much figured out the equivalents in each program -- e.g. Marriott == Sheraton/Westin (somewhere in between for most) == Hyatt, Courtyard == Four Points, Grand Hyatt == Westin (roughly), Park Hyatt == St. Regis (almost).

I am, however, completely confused about Renaissance. I have stayed at several Renaissance hotels (St. Louis, Gatwick, and a few others I can't remember), and can't discern any consistent difference between them and a garden-variety Marriott. What is the intended market for each chain? Is Renaissance supposed to be more upscale than Marriott, or vice versa? There is nothing on the Marriott web site that even hints at the answer.

Any comments would be much appreciated. If, in fact, the average Renaissance is nicer than the average Marriott, that would be a plus for me. But I honestly can't tell the difference.

bdschobel

My understanding (and our Marriott-connected friends can probably elaborate) is that Renaissance is supposed to be roughly equivalent to Marriott, but with more "individuality." In other words, Renaissance hotels are less "cookie-cutter" than Marriotts. Personally, I tend to like them more.

Bruce

dbuckho

Similar to Marriott branded properties, you will find a big difference between the new ones (recently built or restored) vs. ones from earlier decades. From a stay at the Pere Marquette in New Orleans right before Katrina, I would compare the new positioning somewhere towards a W, but brighter and less hip wanne be/attitude. In terms of the actual room comfort, it was ok, but not any nicer than better Marriott properties I have stayed at. I have found some of the international properties (like Tokyo Ginza) to be quite nice.

I found a press release from Marriott circa 2001 that describes what they were/are going for:
http://www.hotel-online.com/News/PR2...nceDesign.html

Renaissance Hotels, Resorts and Suites, an upscale full-service lodging brand of Marriott International, Inc. (NYSE: MAR), is further refining its brand positioning to provide properties with uniquely expressive design, a new level of "Savvy Service" and restaurants serving contemporary local cuisine that appeal to both hotel and local customers.

Horace

In 1997, Marriott acquired the Renaissance Hotel Group — consisting of former Stouffer and Ramada Renaissance hotels, as well as Ramada International, but not Ramadas in the U.S. It was a way to quickly double Marriott's international presence. (Marriott no longer owns Ramada International.)

With the Renaissance properties, Marriott wound up with a brand that was similar to their core "Marriott Hotels & Resorts" brand, but less consistent. Marriott turned the lack of consistency into a strength by stressing their individuality and distinctiveness. Many newer Renaissance properties, such as the Renaissance Hollywood Hotel, have stylish designs that are far different than typical "boring" Marriotts.

MikeBOS

Thanks...these answers are all helpful.

Judging from the few Renaissance hotels that I've stayed at, it's hard to see how they're more individual than a typical Marriott, but I guess I'll take it on faith.

Horace

The individuality and stylishness of Renaissance is likely to evolve and improve over time, especially as new properties open and older properties are eliminated or thoroughly refurbished.

The Renaissance Chancery Court in London (which was added after Marriott acquired Renaissance) was great! It was anything but a cookie-cutter Marriott.

On the other hand the Renaissance in Springfield, Illinois (which was part of the initial acquisition) was tired and shabby. It's no longer a Renaissance. It's now the Abraham Lincoln Hotel.

cyberdad

Building on Horace's comments...

The first Ren I stayed at after the acquisition was La Defense in Paris. It reminded me more of a Holiday Inn or a Days Inn than a Marriott. Nothing really wrong with the place...just totally undistinguished IMHO.

On the other hand, as has already been alluded to, the Chancery Court in London positively blows away most Marriotts.

I'd put it this way....overall quality, value, and service tends to be comparable, but more variations at Rens. Truly apples and oranges in many cases....different, but hard to classify one as typically better than the other.

Marriott taking over the brand was the best thing that happened to Ren. Before that, in my experience, most of them were pretty awful.

GoCubs

If there is a choice between a Ren and a Marriott in a destination, I tend to favor the Ren. In Chicago, for example, the Ren is much nicer and stylish than the Marriott. Across the board, usually they are decorated more nicely and the rooms look less like your typical standard hotel room. As has been mentioned, they're not as hip as a W, but they have some character. The service - and this just might be a coincidence that we've encountered - also tends to be better at the Rens.

keeton

The Ren's have a bit more variation in their style and amenities than the full service Marriotts, but I have come to appreciate the general high consistency of the full service Marriotts, particularly when travelling on business. There are quite a few Ren properties that do not have Concierge Lounges, for example.

When I stay at a Ren, I always investigate it first, something I don't feel I need to to do with a Marriott.

jsporing

I agree. As someone else mentioned the Hollywood Ren is very stylish. I have stayed at the LV Ren several times last year and was the first Mar prop I saw with the plasma TVs in the rooms. And while the Ren in Times Sq is not as 'hip', I still find the service and location very good--much better than the sister across the street (Marquis).

Now if I get a choice I will probably choose Ren over a regular Marriott.

Fripp

I am in the process of making a decision between Starwood, Hyatt and Marriott for the upcoming year. I will likely have 25-35 stays in whichever program I choose (translating to Gold at Marriott, Diamond at Hyatt and Platinum at Starwood).




I thought it took 50 stays to be Gold at Marriott. 25 to be silver.

Rigmutt

Nights, not stays. If the OP is going to have 25+ stays, then if some or most are more than 1 night each, he may easily hit Marriott Gold.

hotelfanatic

If you are not sure of your stay durations, then I would go with either *wood or Hyatt where you will achieve their highest status. There are other factors to consider like what your plans look like for 07. Such as - will you be able to take advantage of the status achieved this year? Or where you plan to take vacation using the points.

MikeBOS

Yes, I know. There's not a clear winner here...I will likely have 25-35 stays, maybe 50-65 nights total. Some of the consensus opinions so far:

- Marriott is hardest to qualify for top tier with short stays. I am assuming I would make Gold, not Plat on Marriott.

- Free breakfast is of low value to me, since I am traveling on business almost all the time and wouldn't pay for it anyway...this eliminates one point in favor of Hyatt and Marriott (for me at least).

- Upgrades *are* important, and the consensus seems to be that Hyatt is most generous with the upgrades, followed by SPG then Marriott at the levels I'm talking about.

- Free travel accumulated is also important, as is the ability to use it in places where I'd want to go on vacation. It seems easiest to earn on Marriott and Hyatt, easiest to use on Starwood (no blackout dates or capacity controls, and lots of nice high-end properties at fairly reasonable point levels).

- Ability to get a guaranteed room when sold out is also an issue (I stay often in SF, where conventions cause everything to be booked on a regular basis, maybe one week a month). Marriott loses here because I wouldn't get the benefit as a Gold, but would get it with Starwood and Hyatt.

But probably the most important consideration is the quality of the properties I'd be staying in (hence my original question about Renaissance), and there's definitely no clear winner there. It seems like there's a lot of variation across all of them.

I guess the good news here is that I won't make a "wrong" choice, since they're all so close. It sure would be nice, though, if it were clearer what the "right" choice is.

pinniped

I'm active in all of the big three programs (less active in Hyatt), and I've found that each of them has their strengths/weaknesses in terms of redeeming for free travel. Starwood most definitely does blackout and capacity-control their award rooms by a couple of different mechanisms. But they have an advantage in that you can do short weekend stays in decent hotels at reasonable point levels, whereas Marriott and Hilton are set up primarily around the 7 and 6 night vacation awards. And SPG is linked to the best credit card in the industry, so you can accrue a huge point balance fairly quickly - even without hotel stays. (My strategy is to stay at Marriott and use SPG Amex as my primary card - thus diversifying across the two programs.)


True...but I will say that I have pretty good trust in Marriott that when I'm going to a full-service Marriott or Renaissance, it's going to be pretty good. I don't *quite* have the same confidence level when I'm going to a strange Hyatt, Hilton, or Sheraton, although I do with Westin and W.

I seem to recall that SF was a very solid Hyatt city. 3-4 pretty good hotels to pick from. Maybe this will help guide your choice, although I'm sure Marriott and Starwood have good hotels there as well.