How Hotels Are Changing: Big Brands vs Independents

 Why Big Brand Hotels Need To Act Like Independents

Contrary to popular belief, independent hotels tend to outperform big brands during times of crisis, and this sentiment spills over into peacetime too. Here is an excellent resource for some figures on this - https://preferrednet.net/media/1296303/independent-vs-brand-hotel-performance-whitepaper.pdf 

IHG CEO Keith Barr said this when asked about post-Covid travel:

Customers are going to want to stay in the biggest branded hotels—this will put headwinds on home-sharing. We will also see weaker brands and independent hotels convert over to the big brands.

It’s easy to see how Keith arrived at that assertion, but it’s not so simple to understand why he was wrong.

At Klinical, we work closely with hospitality brands all over the world from luxury resorts in Ghana to 5-star heritage hotels in London. As we consult, strategise, create and develop, we pick up various insights that help us to stay on the crest of hospitality’s next wave.

Here are just a few things I’ve noticed:

1. Agility
   
   Big brand hotels like JW Marriott tend to have strict regulations over what their properties can and can’t do from a branding and marketing perspective. This may provide some upside via consistency and simplicity but our experience in the field and the latest data demonstrate that travelers are increasingly looking for interesting stays with points of difference. It’s extremely difficult for properties to cater to this change if all of the decision-making power is housed at HQ. 

As well as not adapting to changing demands, the creative assets and marketing materials of big brand hotels can quickly fall way behind their boutique and independent rivals. Again, this is because the chain of command to make changes stretches long and high up to HQ. This creative stagnation shows itself best (or worst) in things like wedding brochures and sales presentations which nobody at the property has been able to update or tweak for fear of contravening the corporate guidelines. 

Indie hotels, on the other hand, can keep a close eye and a poised hand on their brochures, presentations, social media templates, and more. This provides them with a significant competitive advantage. 

2. Authenticity
   
   Often, big brands have a single, universal website for all their hotels, and the individual properties are unable to have their own tailored online presence. Staying at the Marriott in Goa, India is obviously going to be different from staying at the Marriott in Grosvenor Square, London yet they occupy the same website with the same UX, the same tone, the same styling, and more. The varying characteristics and personalities of these locations are stifled, and their stories are left untold.
   
   A counter-argument may be that uniformity provides a customer who knows what he or she wants with the confidence to make a swift booking decision wherever they’re traveling to. It’s like being in a strange country and suddenly seeing the McDonald’s golden arches in the distance - you know you can trust that location to provide sanctity, familiarity, and an antidote to anxiety.
   
   Is that really what people want from their travel experience? A safe bet? The data suggests that people are more experimental than ever, and the desire for difference increases by generation.
   
   This Forbes article about Deflagging is a great read: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbusinesscouncil/2021/06/07/what-does-the-increase-in-hotel-deflagging-mean-for-the-hospitality-industry/ 

My view is that the phrase ‘A Stay With a Story’ will come to characterise the next decade of successful hotel stewardship. The Story in this sense refers to the character and personality of the brand but also the idea that guests will leave with an interesting story to share with their friends and family. Independent hotels are better positioned to accomplish this because of their dexterity, and big brand hotels will need to flatten their structure in order to compete in the same way.

Journalism is not PR

Complaints about language are increasingly common sights on social media. The sensitivity around word choices reaches dizzy new heights every day, and there was one particular outcry that pushed me to dust off this old blog and scribe my thoughts. 

Here's a link - https://www.linkedin.com/posts/laurenpaton_ok-yes-theyve-changed-it-now-but-no-one-activity-7022154355017412608-UVX9?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop 

Yesterday I saw dozens of posts that were bursting with incandescence and demanded the BBC change a headline because it was so offensive. The comments inevitably bleated support, condemning the writer, and riling up other onlookers to contact the BBC to instigate an edit. 

For those of you who haven't clicked the link, the headline reads:

'Jacinda Ardern resigns: Can women really have it all?' 

Now, I could use this post to discuss whether these words are hateful and sexist or not, but that's a bit too obvious and that drum has been banged too many times, to too many deaf ears. Instead, I'd like to focus on the notion that principally, journalists ought to be left alone to write as they wish without fear of a mob forcing a change. 

I'm not opposing criticism of journalistic work nor am I opposing public debate on published materials. I am, however, worried about the idea that readers are able to exert such power over the writer as to edit his or her work so that it suits their taste. Incidentally, the writer of this piece was in fact a 'her' but this is something that slipped the mob's otherwise astute radar, and to those who did notice it didn't seem to make a difference - a crime had been committed as far as they were concerned, and the ecstasy of collective condemnation was far too intoxicating to dilute. 

The biggest problem, of course, as with all of these sensitivity cases is that the publisher (in this case the BBC) buckles to the baying of the crowd. The BBC gave in and immediately edited the piece as per the conditions of the faint-hearted yet frenzied plaintiffs. Apologising, appeasing, pandering - these are the usual response tactics and they only serve to exacerbate the problem which puts more power into the hands of the mob.

Does this mean journalists at the BBC will be frightened to express themselves, and instead write as softly as they can, ensuring they don't step on any delicate toes?

Probably. 

So, you see, with one outcry and one surrender, the quality and value of journalism are decreased.  I have argued recently, mostly with myself, that journalism has become PR because the media is so hyper-aware of political correctness and there's so much fear around being 'cancelled', the content they produce is done not to inform or express, but to please the audience, tick sensitivity boxes, and sell themselves as 'good' per the ever-changing standards, like a quivering peasant at the feet of an administrative overlord. 

We need tougher platforms and publishers who won't just give in and more importantly, won't dilute their content in anticipation of an angry mob - this is crying before you've been hit, it's the capitulation of integrity, like a bully's victim who suffers defeat before a blow has even been struck. 

This is one particular example I've highlighted, but I promise you there have been dozens of these cases on a daily basis for at least the last 5 years. There is much more at stake than most people realise - the entire foundation of western civilisation rests precariously on things like this but that's another topic for another blogpost. We've lost a lot of ground to thugs who don't know how to process thought in a reasonable, rational way but wield massive power and influence over what people are allowed to say and write - even enforcing edits and erasures without the speaker, writer or publisher putting up a fight. Journalism is not PR, it must not soothe the insatiable irritation of these people, instead it must inform at all costs, and inflame if it so chooses.