Re:Marriott refused to host Uyghur conference, citing “polit...
by ethagknight on Friday November 19, 2021 @11:48AM
(#29279208)
Right direction but still not accurate correct: most Marriott "properties" are just Marriott-licensed not even managed. Marriott sets the standards for operation and provides access to its booking system, corporate accounts, rewards system, and some marketing. The actual business operation is a lot smaller than most people outside of hospitality realize.
According to a recent SEC filing, they own 20 properties internationally, lease another ~40. They manage 2,149, and franchise 5,493.
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0001048286/0...
Re:Marriott refused to host Uyghur conference, citing “polit...
by binaryblitz on Friday November 19, 2021 @11:40AM
(#29279092)
This is actually true for a lot of hotel brands. It's more of a franchise situation.
Re:Marriott refused to host Uyghur conference, citing “polit...
by camjohnson26 on Friday November 19, 2021 @11:51AM
(#29279245)
It doesn’t matter. By licensing its name Marriott is taking responsibility for everything these hotels do, along with the risks associated with that. This kind of event was foreseeable, and the corporation completely failed to avoid the situation by providing training on these sensitive issues ahead of time. I don’t see any reason to cut them slack given how suppressed the Uyghur genocide has been by corporations in general out of fear of China, and allowing Marriott to deflect responsibility by blaming everything on local management is exactly what they would want.
Also note that their apology doesn’t explicitly condemn the hotel’s behavior, it just says that they’re providing training. Definitely riding the fence.
It usually doesn't matter, but on policy questions there can sometimes be some friction between owner preferences & Marriott corporate preferences.
Usually this is over things like "Your food and service isn't up to Marriott quality, because you're under investing." But I imagine politics is also a sensitive point too. Regardless, Marriott corporate usually wins, as a hotel-without-the-Marriott-name prints less money.
Edit: Although in this instance, from the scarce details, it sounds like it was divergence from corporate policy by local management. Which, if you're putting management teams in ~7,900 properties, is probably a thing that happens.
Basic summary: https://marketrealist.com/2014/10/why-marriotts-hotels-have-...
Marriott Intl page for franchisees: https://hotel-development.marriott.com/