in a nutshell: describe the various Marriott brands
Oct 18, 2017, 8:34 pm
#61
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,875
Funny to hear all the stereotypes/generalizations. What makes a RI a RI for example? Because the Central Park RI has none of those (NYC). Though it looks fabulous.
Oct 20, 2017, 7:01 am
#62
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 2005
Programs: Delta Diamond, Marriott Ambassador & Lifetime Titanium, Hertz President's Circle, United Silver
Posts: 6,334
For the life of me, I can't tell you what a Renaissance hotel is now and what separates it from a flagship Marriott hotel.
As for Delta, my impression of the U.S.-located Delta hotels are that many are re-flags of older buildings. For example, I stayed at what is now the Delta in Norfolk, Virginia, a few months back before it was re-flagged. It was an older Marriott located in basically an office park/industrial park. If I had to guess, I would say 1980s or 1990s construction. While it needed a good refreshing -- it looked like a Marriott circa 2006 -- the staff was exceptional in every respect, right down to how they handed your credit card back to you (Japanese-style).
Years ago, I always thought of Renaissance hotels as a step above a flagship Marriott hotel. Today, corporate Marriott is marketing Renaissance as what I call "corporate boutique." The problem is that many, if not most, of the existing Renaissance hotels will never really be boutique-esque, no matter how extensive the redecorating of the interior. It's lipstick on a pig, basically.
With that said, the new Renaissance hotels like the Renaissance in midtown Manhattan and the Renaissance at the Place de la Republique in Paris are really, really nice and totally fit the direction corporate Marriott is taking the brand. The same is true for exceptional flagship Marriott properties like Buffalo, Guyana, Kigali, Georgetown and other new-build or totally renovated properties.
It would seem these aren't just my thoughts. I had a really good discussion with the general manager of the Renaissance in Kuala Lumpur, who has been with Marriott for years. He said that most general managers and owners are confused because there are too many brands with no real difference. It's only worse now with Starwood because of brands like Sheraton that are totally lost. The problem is corporate Marriott just wants as many hotels as possible under as many brands as possible because that equates to more revenue through franchise/licensing fees and management fees.
As for luxury and premium brands, I honestly think the J.W. Marriott brand, on the whole, is an excellent value and does a better job providing a consistent experience of amenities and services. Much more so than Ritz-Carlton.
Corporate Marriott basically needs to do what IHG and Best Western did a few years back and deflag the owners and franchisees of the worst properties -- most of which are Sheraton or flagship Marriott. IHG finally realized that some of those old Holiday Inn properties just needed to go. No amount of redecorating could make a 1960s or 1970s building appealing in the 21st century.
As for Delta, my impression of the U.S.-located Delta hotels are that many are re-flags of older buildings. For example, I stayed at what is now the Delta in Norfolk, Virginia, a few months back before it was re-flagged. It was an older Marriott located in basically an office park/industrial park. If I had to guess, I would say 1980s or 1990s construction. While it needed a good refreshing -- it looked like a Marriott circa 2006 -- the staff was exceptional in every respect, right down to how they handed your credit card back to you (Japanese-style).
Years ago, I always thought of Renaissance hotels as a step above a flagship Marriott hotel. Today, corporate Marriott is marketing Renaissance as what I call "corporate boutique." The problem is that many, if not most, of the existing Renaissance hotels will never really be boutique-esque, no matter how extensive the redecorating of the interior. It's lipstick on a pig, basically.
With that said, the new Renaissance hotels like the Renaissance in midtown Manhattan and the Renaissance at the Place de la Republique in Paris are really, really nice and totally fit the direction corporate Marriott is taking the brand. The same is true for exceptional flagship Marriott properties like Buffalo, Guyana, Kigali, Georgetown and other new-build or totally renovated properties.
It would seem these aren't just my thoughts. I had a really good discussion with the general manager of the Renaissance in Kuala Lumpur, who has been with Marriott for years. He said that most general managers and owners are confused because there are too many brands with no real difference. It's only worse now with Starwood because of brands like Sheraton that are totally lost. The problem is corporate Marriott just wants as many hotels as possible under as many brands as possible because that equates to more revenue through franchise/licensing fees and management fees.
As for luxury and premium brands, I honestly think the J.W. Marriott brand, on the whole, is an excellent value and does a better job providing a consistent experience of amenities and services. Much more so than Ritz-Carlton.
Corporate Marriott basically needs to do what IHG and Best Western did a few years back and deflag the owners and franchisees of the worst properties -- most of which are Sheraton or flagship Marriott. IHG finally realized that some of those old Holiday Inn properties just needed to go. No amount of redecorating could make a 1960s or 1970s building appealing in the 21st century.
Last edited by hockeyinsider; Oct 20, 2017 at 7:18 am