by Georges Panayotis
After a period of portfolio cleanups, hotel groups are back in the battle with a new wave of hotel brands that symbolize a more segmented approach and a will to remain focused on the specific expectations of guests. The brand is returning full force as an element of differentiation and recognition in marketing, but is that enough?
A hotel brand brings core values that should go far beyond any fine advertising campaign. It can only come to life and become legitimate if it succeeds in finding its legitimacy and creating the right combination between the product and the women and the men who make it live, and the clientele who must find the experience they are looking for there.
The concept is, undoubtedly, the easiest to elaborate, even if hotel groups are currently tempted to absorb products developed outside of their research center by start-ups. Careful observation of behavior and the arrival on the hotel market of new, complex-free generations are naturally driving innovation in commercial accommodations. Marketers have all the ingredients it takes, and have just to vary the dosages to create an original blend -more or less sophisticated-, blending contemporary design, available services, sustainable growth, responsible building, renewed F&B, user-friendly technology, shared conviviality or preserved intimacy… on paper, the concept is quickly ready to live and to be sold to investors who want to embark on a new journey.
What remains is to give it consistency in real life and that is where Operations come in. Their mission is to transform a promise into a reality delivered by actors who are trained and inhabited by the brand. Like Apple’s success in its stores and Nespresso’s in its boutiques, the brand’s values should be driven by personnel who are both actors and ambassadors. Training has always been a “core business” for hotel groups. It is all the easier when personnel are part of the “family”, recruited, followed and accompanied in the different stages and jobs by seminars, internships, modules, at corporate schools and universities. Does this remain so when development depends on franchisees that are not as available?
Asset light could become the enemy of the corporate culture and the reinforcement of brands. Weak Capexes have not facilitated the supply’s renewal or any true maintenance that goes beyond cosmetic touch ups. As chains rely on franchisees, the responsibility for product updates and upgrades has fallen back into their hands, in some cases without them realizing the full scope of the work to be done. In the same way, the current trend towards “multi-brand” franchise investors adds an additional layer of difficulty to the symbiosis between the local personnel in control and the brand values that need to be embodied and delivered.
The client will make no mistake. The experience is authentic or it isn’t. It is not enough to respect procedures and follow exactly what’s written in the Book. It is impossible to feign personalization since interaction with guests is increasingly part of the game. The relationship that aims to develop loyalty around a brand is woven out of many details on a daily basis, including the production of service that goes beyond formal ties and enters the realm of sharing. Even if digital technology helps, the tools for relation-based marketing will not be able to provide some universal response. They are only tools at the service of the brand seeking the “Best workers” to manage them well.
Thus the question arises regarding how success can be shared when the franchisees are those that have nourished and enriched the brand locally. Do they have any right to be involved in the marketing strategy being designed at headquarters? This is clearly an important question for hotel groups both in terms of giving their brand credibility and developing customer loyalty, while avoiding falling into the trap of banalization -thanks to their employees and franchised partners. They are the ones who make the brand live and make the customer experience a success.
