CEO of Marriott Statements About Hotel Fees Customers Loathe | Hacker News Reader

CEO of Marriott Statements About Hotel Fees Customers Loathe

inc.com

94 pointswalterbell54 comments

The CEO is also ignoring that a lot of the original hotels to impose "resort fees" were also actual resorts. Offering a diverse range of services.

Whereas there are Marriott hotels that offer no services at all and still have the gall to charge a resort fee. I'm talking inner-city hotels with no pool, no gym, paid internet, and a fee for printing/faxing.

It might sound melodramatic but it should actually be illegal. If the fee isn't optional it should be part of the price (ditto for "fees" on Cable/Internet/Cellphone providers).

Agreed. And I really feel like it is already legal, it just hasn't been litigated by the right people yet.

False advertising / bait and switch are illegal.

It's one thing to advertise a certain price, then have an optional upcharge for additional services. It's false advertising to advertise one price and then charge the customer something else.

Imagine if a store had candy bars for a dollar, but then charged a "candy convenience fee" of $5 upon checkout. (government fees like bottle fees are acceptable imo).

Uber Eats and most of the food delivery services are guilty of this as well. They will advertise a low fee for delivery. Then when you checkout, you see the advertised delivery fee, then an additional "service fee" that can be 2 to 3 times the delivery fee.

I have even noticed the service fee being higher on deliveries that they are offering "free delivery" for. I can't believe that isn't false advertising. Where is the ftc?

A bottle recycling “fee” is actually a deposit, because you’re expected to get it back upon return. A “fee” is something you don’t get back.

Depending on where you live. I live in Canada and my region you don’t get all your deposit back.

Then it's not a deposit.

The government calls it a deposit. The law that collects it and refunds it refers to it as a deposit. The charge on my receipt says deposit. The refund I get back is called deposit refund.

Except when I buy a can of Cola I pay 10 cents deposit. When I return it I get 5 cents deposit refund.

In CA they charge a bottle fee for plastic water bottles. If you can return those for a refund, I am unaware of it.

Exact same thing on Postmates and it drives me crazy: https://imgur.com/iWMyOUZ

I don't mind paying a delivery fee or tipping the driver. I do however take issue with pretending that there is no delivery fee despite that clearly being an outright lie. Not that I'm overly inclined to do so (at the current fees), but it also makes it nearly impossible to compare pricing & shop around -- because you aren't going to see the actual delivery fee ("service fee") on a "Free Delivery" order until you're at the very end of the checkout/confirmation process.

It's obviously not very ethical, though it's unclear to me if it's illegal or not. It probably should be illegal though, and they should have to declare "cost = $0 delivery + XX% service charge" or similar IMO.

This just reminded me to cancel postmates unlimited. I was very annoyed they had a large service fee after lying about free delivery.

Canceling was very easy (a credit to postmastes). They even had a "why are you canceling option" that said "because I am still being charged a fee on my order." Which I selected of course.

Haha, sounds like the process was: "A: do you think it will pass - what if people start going away because of the fees? B: Don't worry, let's try it and we can ask them if it's because of fees if they cancel. If people start churning, we turn it off for a bit, then back on in a couple of weeks - half of the chums won't even notice it!"

in germany it is illegal to advertise any other price than what the consumer will end up paying. that includes taxes and fees and also deposits.

i don't know if that extends to hotels as well or just consumer goods.

Even in the original case it’s dishonest. There a borderline area where it’s something that nearly everyone is going to want, like when an airline charges for both checked and non-checked bags, but in the case where the consumer can’t opt out at all there’s no gray area. That’s part of the cost and should be displayed as such everywhere.

I stayed at a place once that had this resort fee. They had a nice indoor pool, spa, etc. But I couldn't choose to opt out. I paid for access to the pool and other services via the resort fee whether I intended to use them or not. So it doesn't just need to have "resort" stuff, those things need to be optional. Otherwise it's just the price of the room.

The argument is disingenuous. No one is complaining about hotels rolling the paddle boat rental into the room cost. If Marriott wants to move to a more inclusive model, that’s perfectly fine. The issue is that if it’s a mandatory part of the cost then it should be a part of the main advertised price.

It’s in my opinion unfortunate that tax is listed separately in a lot of places but at this point that’s water under the bridge. But for money that’s going directly to the vendor (also looking at you telecoms) it’s inexcusable.

“Free nights” from rewards programs also sometimes require the payment of the resort fee, even when some of the items included in that fee (like internet access) are also included in your status level.

Most of the terms and conditions of the various reward programs out there (Hilton included -- I'm a Hilton Lifetime Diamond) specifically exclude resort wifi from their "benefits."

I'm thankful that Hyatt isn't like that. Wifi and all the benefits of status in their program persist even on award nights. In fact, they wave the "resort fees" for all stays if you are their top tier. So at least they don't anger their best customers with this.

We have this new trend over the past couple of years in Seattle restaurants to charge a flat 20% “service fee”. The fine print says “service fee” actually goes to business, not the staff. But the claim is they pay the staff a proper wage (and provide 401ks, etc.). Which sounds good to me, how it should be everywhere. But in that case they should just increase the prices 20% and remove the tipping option. This middle of the road thing labeled a “service fee” feels like a trick.

its certainly a trick to show the wrong price when you are deciding on the menu.

How serendipitous! I was just complaining about this exact issue in Seattle (literally in the next tab over.)

The 20% charge seems to be engineered to reduce tips while providing no actual information about the treatment of the employees.

I went to an amazing vegan restaurant and there was a note on their menu saying they add 20% to the cost and they take care of their employees. I had no idea whether to tip or not (decided to tip), and what 'retained by the owner' but 'paid out to staff as benefits and a fair wage' meant.

I'd MUCH rather have the menu say, "Our prices reflect paying our workers a strong wage, we encourage you not to tip." (See Molly Moons, a local ice cream shop that eliminated tipping: https://www.mollymoon.com/tipfree) To the point that I'm unlikely to return to businesses that pull this 'service fee' shenanigans.

I'd MUCH rather have the menu say, "Our prices reflect paying our workers a strong wage, we encourage you not to tip."

Yes, and I'd go even further because all phrases like "tipping is optional" are now firmly established as lies that you're expected to recognize as such. Just say "we do not accept tips" and eliminate the tip line.

How are you going to "remove the tipping option"? Are you going to chase me down the sidewalk to return the cash I leave on the table for your employee? You'll look awfully foolish doing that, and I don't think your employee will thank you.

Tips are still accepted at these restaurants but they note that they’re not expected or required because there’s an automatic “service fee”.

I had dinner in Seattle last week and the waiter did not mention the 20% service fee. The way the bill was delivered in a suspiciously folded manner, one would have had to dig through to find where it was printed. I tipped 20% on top of what I thought was the dinner bill and didn't connect the dots until the next day. I called the restaurant and addressed it privately but I do wonder how many people are blindly taken advantage of by what could be considered an analog dark pattern and never catch it.

I went to a local "mom and pop" type of restaurant and the food was subpar yet expensive. I look at the bill and they had a 20% surcharge plus a line for tip. Its a family business so they should not need for a surcharge or a tip. Just roll everything into the menu price. I could have let it slide if not for the food being crap.

Fees like this are illegal in the UK. Which hasn't stopped some American hotel operator trying to charge them anyway:

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/donald-...

I don't think this chain is very big, so hopefully this guy's crooked practices won't affect too many people!

Either he's ignorant, or he thinks the target audience are morons. Either way, it's not good, but I think the second possibility would make him a bullshitter, and that should not be allowed to go unanswered in civil discourse.

The reason I say that is because the metaphor does not work. There are in fact airlines who do not charge baggage fees, there are in fact travelers who don't take baggage. In the case where there's a baggage fee and a traveler with baggage, paying the fee means you get to take your bag. You do get something for the fee, even if you don't like that the airline charges extra for it.

Meanwhile, you get nothing for a resort free. If you refuse to pay, you're refusing the entire transaction. If this CEO is broadcasting bullshit, then he's a bullshitter. It'd be better if he's just ignorant about what he's saying, everyone's an idiot about something or other. But to be a bullshitter? That's bad for the brand to hire. Makes it stink. And I don't care to stay at a Marriott as much as I did before reading this.

> Either he's ignorant, or he thinks the target audience are morons.

He’s the CEO of a company for which this policy results in probably hundreds of millions of dollars in profit. He’s doing what he can to defend the golden goose.

Another big one is the "Surprise! Valet-only + parking garage" fees.

shrug The whole shady passing-fees-to-willing-consumers thing is just business. I can appreciate T-Mobile creating their identity about not doing this (final price, taxes and fees included). All the other hotels do it too. Restaurants use tipping, etc.

With the Age of the Internet has come greater visibility and accountability. Twitter-like outbursts can go viral creating damaging PR. I can see society slowly moving towards consumer friendly practices and upfront total costs. We'll get there.

Sometimes you can make it your business (T-Mobile), sometimes regulation is required (airline fares including all mandatory taxes and fees).

Disclaimer: TMO customer

> The whole shady passing-fees-to-willing-consumers thing is just business.

Advertising one price and charging another looks like textbook fraud to me...

Edit: I guess we could take free market ideas to their limit, and allow companies to differentiate themselves on whether they conduct fraud and other crimes as well.

There is certainly lots of incentive for many businesses, especially those that don't rely on repeat business, to do things this way. I imagine things will gradually get worse until lawmakers step in and require full prices up-front (as they have in Australia, for example).

I'm actually really surprised these have made an in-road at business focused hotels (which they have). Working at a large company, we have to book through a corporate travel agency that enforces all sorts of travel policies, negotiated rates, etc. on the booking. Yet, I've occasionally seen resort fees even then. You'd think that the travel agency and policies would wise up and include that in the calculation.

Stayed in a Marriott last year on business and was really blindsided that they’d take this tactic and not get blacklisted with the companies.

Why don’t people fight back through review website (tripadvisor, booking, hotels.com, etc.) by giving only 1* to hotel using this kind of scam? Online reputation is critical in the hospitality business (when not completely rigged)

I experience the same contempt I feel for hotel fees when getting slammed with various sales taxes (only at checkout) when travelling around the US.

In my home country of Australia, retailers are required to advertise (to consumers) with all taxes/fees included.

Right, but then the government gets away with hiding taxes. VAT and sales taxes are generally taxes on the end consumer, so it stands to reason that the end consumer (who probably votes in elections) should know when they're paying these taxes.

Would you prefer it if income taxes were similarly hidden (i.e. when you negotiate your salary, you're negotiating the net amount you will receive after taxes)?

Honestly, yes. That would be pretty useful for budgeting.

If these fees are so consumer-unfriendly (I agree they are deceptive!), instead of getting angry at the chains, why don’t the major aggregators (Expedia, HotelTonight) just decide to roll resort fees into the displayed nightly rates?

That would need regulation - customers will prefer the cheaper price in general, so nobody wants to inflate the price shown beyond requirements.

Imagine you're Expedia, and you want to make this consumer friendly change.

Now, on your website, all the hotels seem to be more expensive.

Nobody will understand the intricacies of why, and they'll simply book somewhere else where hotels are "cheaper".

We need regulation so these fees appear industry-wide.

An aggregator could offer a checkbox to include fees or make users otherwise aware of that fact. Would definitely differentiate that aggregator for me!

These fees are not necessary available in the different API use to build these aggregator websites. The time they are, they are often stored in a blob of text that need to be parsed. Same situation exist for cancellation policies.

Agoda used to have this feature: you could display "quoted" price or "total" actual price per day. One reason I switched to Agoda; this behaviour of booking.com or Expedia, where you're told one price, and then when you want to reserve it it suddenly goes up, is really annoying.

I recently stayed at boutique hotel in Boston, the Hotel Commonwealth, that pulled the same thing on me -- a per-night "destination charge" that included a bunch of things I didn't use except for in-room wifi which was advertised as included. I left them a scathing review and won't go back. I hope that enough people voting with their wallets will change this, but I'm not optimistic.

I don't know if they originated in Las Vegas but Vegas heartily adopted resort fees a decade ago and now the maximums are nearing $40/night. Frommer's travel guide aggregates the information [1] so tourists can make an informed decision about total cost.

Although a clearly critical article [2] suggests the fees are to blame for lower attendance in Vegas, the Review Journal article they cite [3] has a much more balanced view and suggests other contributing factors such as unfavorable exchange rates and twelve states recently legalizing gambling. Regardless, the RJ article still mentions "MGM Resorts CEO Jim Murren told Wall Street analysts during the company’s earnings call on Aug. 2 that his company was forced to cut Las Vegas hotel room prices during the second and third quarters to draw leisure travelers because conventions didn’t fill enough rooms."

I can only speak for myself but I stopped going to Vegas a decade ago as I'm not really the target audience; except for poker I don't gamble. From my perspective you can only see so many Cirque Du Soleil shows and I've done all the touristy stuff around like hiking the canyons, visiting their museums and seeing the Grand Canyon. Vegas has some great food and I wouldn't mind dropping in to Lotus of Siam to see if they're still good or even Baby Stacks for some adobe rice but otherwise I don't miss the place. These days it's cheaper and more convenient to spend a weekend in New Orleans. Those resort fees will easily pay for or at least heavily subsidize a nice meal in New Orleans.

[1] https://www.frommers.com/tips/hotel-news/all-the-las-vegas-h...

[2] https://viewfromthewing.boardingarea.com/2019/04/03/las-vega...

[3] https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/casinos-gaming/some-l...

I was linked to this consumer advocacy website earlier today around a different matter (to do w/ airlines), but I think they put this well as part of their values page https://www.elliott.org/our-values/

   promotes honesty, fairness and respect between companies and customers.
  ...
  For companies - Honesty means that the price a company displays should be the price its customers pay — no tricks. Customers have the right to know what’s included — and not included — when an offer is initially made.
  ... (under 'Our causes')
  Killing junk fees. Whether it’s a mysterious “access” fee on your cell phone bill or a “convenience” fee on your ticket, we stand opposed to meaningless junk fees that line the pockets of companies.

I don't stay in hotels. Is this an issue of pull vs. push pricing?

I rented a van just now. Hidden somewhere was a 1p per mile AdBlue charge.

I don't want to pay that. It was not quoted to me originally.

If I were paying in cash I could just not pay it and it'd be their move.

Credit cards and the associated bureaucracy make that way more hassle than it's worth.

There is a simple and clear statement in Russian law about exactly this situation. Article 1102 of civil code "unlawful enrichment".

It they insist or somehow twist your arms, it is article 16 of consumer code "invalidity of contract terms that infringe the rights of the consumer". I am sorry don't you have some kind of parallel law in your country?

It, very very simply, states "you absolutely can choose what to buy and what not to buy from seller and if somehow you can not, seller pays you difference".

> I am sorry don't you have some kind of parallel law in your country

The fact that they're getting prosecuted for it indicates that the law exists, it was just extremely poorly/slowly enforced.

It's a combination of regulatory capture and the intentionally making these organizations toothless by Republicans as part of their pro-business, regulation budgeting platform. What they claimed would happen is that businesses would lower prices, and if you look at advertised prices they probably claim a win, it's all the hidden prices that are a problem and those fall under regulatory groups that are underfunded or run by people who disagree with their intended mandate, for example Scott Pruitt being put in charge of the EPA, or John Bolton in any organization that deals in diplomacy.

Remember, both Hilton and Marriott do not own any hotels these days.

Their entire mission in life is to build a set of brand standards that their hotel franchises use, and then ensure that the owners of those franchises can obtain maximum profit from the Marriott and Hilton customer base. Resort fees are just another...step down that road.

Which chains own their hotels?

21C hotels own all of their hotels. That's the only one that I know of right now, but, I don't follow that much of the travel industry -- only the hotels that I stay in are the ones that I really look at.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com