“What can I do to get them to honor this rate?”

@ Liz – “I sympathize with the customer who couldn’t afford the higher rate–after all, he came in early to save money on airfare–and I understand why he would want Marriott to save him the hassles of moving.”
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
By the time that you add the extra night of the hotel at $ 194 ($ 169 room rate plus $ 25 in taxes); a minimum of $ 40 for the extra day IF he is renting a car; $ 100 for the meals ($ 10 for breakfast; $ 15 for lunch and $ 25 for dinner x 2 individuals); a minimum of $ 10 for the extra day IF he is parking his car at the airport and etc., it is a good possibility that he is not going to save any money by flying in one day early depending upon his actual expenses for meals, drinks, rental car, taxis, airport parking and etc. for this extra day.

I also agree that the title of this post is misleading. At no point was this guest ever going to be “dinged” with anything. At first, the hotel was going to charge him the normal rate for a night that was not part of the wedding block – ie, they were going to operate under standard business practices and not give out a discount they were under no obligation to give. They ended up giving the discount (we can debate why or whether Chris’s intervention was appropriate) in the end. Calling it a price jump would be like me going to Subway, ordering a $5 footlong, asking if I can have it for $3, and then when they tell me no, calling it a 67% price jump. It just doesn’t make sense.

Enough of that nonsense…now onto the actual discussion at hand…

I can completely understand why Christopher is feeling a bit beseiged here. He’s just trying to be a good customer advocate…and he’s been assaulted in here for it.

On the other hand, I do understand some of the points made in here. Some of them were made unnecessarily strongly, but there’s some validity there. Specifically:

1. Should Christopher go to battle for everyone who asks him, even if they’re not actually entitled to what they’re asking for? Or is this an abuse of his undeniable power to get things done?

2. The title of this article is undeniably rather alarmist and not wholey accurate in describing what actually transpired.

Here’s my take. First of all, Christopher did NOT exert any actual pressure on Marriott to “give in”. He made it clear that even HE didn’t think that they needed to…and I’m sure he conveyed that to Marriott. Marriott was well within their rights to not lower their price…and if that’s the decision they’d made, I’m confident Christopher would have written about it in such a manner as to not condemn them for that decision. He’s a good enough journalist to do that, and I’m sure his contacts at Marriott know that.

But the fact is that they DID decide to lower their price for this customer…so Christopher was ABSOLUTELY right to write about it. Businesses often do things that cost them money, for the good publicity. What do you think corporate charitable contributions are all about? I’d be willing to bet that factored at least somewhat into their decision.

Businesses also make decisions sometimes to help people just out of the goodness of their hearts! Did anyone think about that? Maybe they just wanted to do a nice thing for a couple of people who are young, not wealthy, and devote their lives to teaching our nation’s children?

Do I think that this was an abuse of his power, watering down his considerable influence so that people with REAL complaints might not get to benefit from it in the future? NO! I think he elected to help a young couple who were simply asking for help. I have no problem with them asking him, and I have no problem with him asking Marriott. This needs to be viewed as what it really was: an act of charity, on BOTH their parts. Kudos to Christopher for his innate humanity – and to whomever it was at Marriott who decided to do the charitable thing, even though they didn’t have to…regardless of what their motivation was.

As for the title – Christopher, that’s really my only complaint about this article (if you can even call it that). I suspect you wouldn’t have gotten such friendly (and unfriendly) fire if you’d titled it a bit more accurately. But hey, you’re a journalist – writing attention-grabbing headlines is part of the job! I get that. This one though…a leeeetle bit over the top, dude. ;-)

Wish I could jump in to help you in your advocacy efforts! I strongly believe in what you are doing. Unfortunately I’m already working more than a full-time job so no time. I’ll just hang back here and watch in admiration.

As for the rest of you…take a chill pill! Christopher is the closest thing we have to a knight in shining armor working on our behalf. You sure you want to attack him like this?

Hey Chris,
Thanks for helping out the small guy. I don’t understand why everyone is so snippy about this. You deserve credit for helping somebody out. Keep up the good work and the good writing.

I don’t understand why everyone is so snippy about this.

One potential problem is this can give some folks the arguably unrealistic expectation the vendor can bend their rules for a given situation, especially if it’s not warranted. Then if the customer doesn’t get what they want from the vendor after practically exhausting it with them, they might turn to a “consumer advocate” like Chris.

It’s good of Chris to advocate, more so that Marriott essentially “give in” for whatever reason. Now what about those in a similar situation who didn’t find Chris to “advocate” for them for, again, essentially the same thing but for their own scenario?

BTW, Chris, I’m actually thinking of putting up my own blog for this sort of thing. I’m just concerned it might compete with yours and take many of your commenters away. :P

@Arizona

You’re making alot of assumptions with scant facts. The article doesn’t tell us what the OP did or didn’t do. Making it up is useless.

I would respectfully disagree that calling a travel ombudsman is in any way a lack of personal responsibility. That is exactly what an ombudsmen is for. The OP wanted a lower rate, he got a lower rate. Because he didn’t choose the route that you would have does not suggest that he doesn’t have personal responsibility. It just means that he’s whiny and self entitled.

@others

Chris does have an excellent point. Its easy for us to sit here and criticize the cases that Chris chooses to advocate for and/or write about. He’s been doing this for a long time and he deserves the benefit of the doubt. Anyone who reads his blog knows that if he feels that the customer is wrong, he’ll point it out.

Somewhere along the line, some of us got into our heads that Chris’ only function is to right wrongs; that he should only help a consumer who’s been aggrieved. But that’s not what an ombudsman only does. He’s a mediator between parties to come to a resolution that everyone is happy with. As someone, (I believe LeeAnne) mentioned, sometimes travel providers bend the rules simply to generate some cheap publicity. Consider, in this case, the Marriott generated a lot more than $100 worth of free publicity. Based on the posts, Marriott came off looking really good to nearly all of Chris’ numerous readers.

I’m sure that all of us have had the rules bent when we didn’t necessarily deserve a break. The difference is that we’re experienced travelers and can advocate for ourselves. For others, there is Chris.

My $0.02

Let me clue some of you people in on just exactly what happened here. I know that some of you are very experienced travelers, but there is a reason that this OP got what they wanted, even if they didn’t go about it in the nicest of ways.

I’m a former night auditor for a hotel. Basically my job has three essential parts to it as it relates to the rest of the hotel’s operations:
1) Do everything in my power to make the hotel as full as possible before the end of the day;
2) Charge as much as I can for every room and every service provided;
3) Do everything in my power to make sure the hotel is full as possible before the end of the day.

OP contacts the hotel and wants to add another night for his stay. The hotel ALREADY has his business, he’s locked in! It’s time to wring some cash out of this dude! So the hotel quoted him the higher price for the room. The hotel can afford to do that because this guest is already locked in. The guy asks for a lower rate. The WORST thing that the hotel can do is say no, and they did, because somebody felt they could get him to pony up another $300, and if they didn’t, somebody else will. That’s all fair game in a capitalism market. The guest felt that his back was against the wall, and not knowing what to do, he reached out for help, and that’s fine as well.

Suffice it to say, Chris Elliott knows who he needs to talk to and what he needs to say in order to help this guest out. You’re assuming that he “brought down the hammer” and threatened them with bad publicity if they didn’t cave in. You’d be 100% wrong. Chris doesn’t have to do anything like that. In fact, all he probably needed to do was contact the sales manager or revenue manager and bring it to their attention.

Remember the three rules of my job as a night auditor? Well, being in the hotel’s position, #1 and #2 got done – but it didn’t get the hotel another night’s revenue. A phone call from Chris probably alerted somebody that there was an extra day of revenue to be had at virtually no extra cost to the hotel. Or, there’s the NEW worst case scenario to the hotel — that Chris could advise the customer to move their entire reservation over to a much more affordable property in order alleviate their financial situation. Chris doesn’t have to threaten the hotel with this action, or even mention it. A good sales or revenue manager will recognize both when an opportunity is to be made, and when an opportunity could be lost.

The hotel made the RIGHT decision here. At the very least, they could have been $299 poorer and held their ground on the rate. At the very worst, they could have no only lost that $299, but an additional $845 if the guest had canceled their reservation altogether and taken their business to another hotel, once Chris wised them up. And they could have also upset whoever set up the rate, ruined their wedding because a favorite uncle wasn’t at the hotel with them, which would have made things miserable for the staff. Have you ever dealt with a moody newlywed? I have. It’s not fun, people, bad mojo!

So that’s the bottom line here – somebody at the hotel realized that $169 with no hassle was better than $0 and LOTS of hassle. And if I was in charge of the hotel when Chris called me, it would have been a no-brainer. I would have played hardball at first, because I wanted the extra money. But as a hotel representative, I have the option of being flexible and working in the best interest of my guests, and at the end of the day, extending the rate as a courtesy to one guest is within my realm if it keeps their business.

@ Pete & @ Phoenix Justice
I’m with you. Keep up the great work Chris!

Lee anne, I am sorry that you did not approve my analogy. In a sense we are the consumer of goverment services which are paid for the goverment that is funded by our taxpayer dollars. There does not seem to be as much anger towards Congress which spends billions of our money on these services. So in the scheme of things, big deal a guy gets a break on a hotel room for one night. Perhaps you did not agree with my examples. That is your right. On the other hand I did not agree with your comment that families be given more leeway on carry ons as opposed to business travelers who according to you can pack more efficiently. Y ou have a tendency to get quite personal on issues you feel strongly about. You lack objectivitey.The business traveler provides more revenue for the airlines than the leisure flyer

Chris … I’ll volunteer to help you out on any case where a business has wronged a consumer. Please don’t call for cases like this.
My concern is more for diluting your influence and time that might keep you from helping the truly wronged. It was also more of a statement on your position within the media that a simple phone call or email from you might exert an unintended influence.
You’ve got my email address …

Barbie, the only thing on this blog I really feel strongly about is that you are a blight in this forum. There you go again, blathering on about CONGRESS! What does that have to do with the price of beans in Jamaica?

Whether I agree with most of the folks on this forum or not, at least I’m having the same conversation they’re having!

I know you’re trying desperately to keep up and appear to be participating…but you’re not. You’re just spewing nonsense. Most people probably just roll their eyes and stop reading your drivel after a few words. But I find you offensive, especially when you start in with your xenophobix crap, as you did in the Vegas thread a few days ago.

@LeeAnn: Thanks for showing some humanity. Sometimes the holier-than-thou postings here — especially from Joe Farrell and his ilk — are downright disheartening. Regarding barbie45′s comments: What else would you expect from plastic!

@ John F.: Sorry, but $41K is not a lot of money. And how many teachers actually make the high end of your scale, which I presume is for public schools. As in my home state of Connecticut, teachers at some private schools make considerably less than their public-school counterparts. Maybe Moore is a member of that contingent. Regardless, I make considerably more than $41K and still budget carefully when I travel.

@ Chris: I don’t always agree with you, but thanks for giving a damn!

Arizona Road Warrior, do you by any means own a travel agency?In quite a few cases you seem to believe a travel agency is a miracle worker. Unless you are a high profile customer you will probably land up with worst agent available. Several years ago I purchased a package tour to Turkey with a virtuosa agency. The agent was pathetic with her lack of knowledge of Turkey. For example she told me Just take about a 100.00 cash. Well even in Istanbul there were very few ATMS, I spent quite a bit of money on taxis just to find one. My fiance wanted to pay my trip with his credit card. She wanted him to email all the details of his credit card even the code on back of card. That was a brilliant suggestion for security .She gave me so much incorrect information, it was pathetic. This was one of the best travel agents in West Palm Beach.After much complaining about her fee the owner of the agency refunded the service charge.

@ Phoenix Justice: I have no issue with the guy asking for the rate for his early arrival. I wouldn’t have had a problem if Chris had done the article and suggested that the guy call back and speak to the manager. But when Chris called, that’s what I have an issue with because of Chris’s stature…he is National Geographic’s travel advocate; his columns are on MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post and 50 other newspapers and sites that carry his columns…that’s got to have an impact on a travel provider without ever having to explicitly say if you don’t cooperate you’re going to look really bad in my article.

If Chris had instructed Preston on what to do and left it at that then that would have been great – teach them how to handle things, that’s wonderful. But stepping in and doing it on his behalf is just wrong. This didn’t require mediation, this wasn’t a dispute, there wasn’t a problem other than the guy didn’t want to pay the rate he was offered.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

@ Paulette Baker – “@ John F.: Sorry, but $41K is not a lot of money. And how many teachers actually make the high end of your scale, which I presume is for public schools.”

$ 41,000 is the starting salary (no experience) at the school that Preston Moore works at while the top salary is $ 80,000+. There was a link to the Norfolk school district listing the salaries for the teachers in that district. Since Preston and his girlfriend are both teachers…they have a minimum combined income of $ 82,000 (assuming that they are in their first year of teaching).

As a side note to your comments that teachers don’t make that much money, how about the 660 NYC teachers that are sent to the ‘rubber room’ everyday in NYC while still earning their salaries?

One NYC teacher was banned from the classroom in 2001 for lewd comments and glances made to junior high school students at his school. For the past nine years this teacher goes to sit in a room where he freely conducts his personal real estate and legal consulting business while earning over $ 100,000 a year but the conditions in his teacher union contract forbid the NYC Department of Education to fire him. His current pension is at $ 80K a year and it is increasing every year.

Another teacher, 60-year-old man, has a decades-long record of molesting preteen students and actually impregnated a student (he married the 16-YO…started the ‘relationship’ with her when she was 13). He has been hanging out in the “rubber room” for seven years, currently earning $ 94,000 a year…like the other teachers in the ‘rubber room’, the NYC DOE can’t fire him.

:::sigh::: And what does barbie’s excruciatingly detailed story about her trip to Turkey and taxis and credit cards etc. have to do with ANYTHING being discussed in here? Nothing, of course. Just more mindless drivel – as usual.

Anyway, back to the actual discussion: I disagree completely with those who feel that Christopher overstepped his bounds and exerted unreasonable pressure on Marriott. Once again, he did a NICE THING for someone! Have you people never heard of that? Is that a concept that is just beyond your comprehension?

And it was the right move for Marriott, too. Naysayers, if you missed it you should scroll back up and read Kevin Field’s excellent post. He explains exactly WHY it was in Marriott’s best interest to make that decision, from a business perspective.

While I’m a bit taken aback by all the hostility towards Christopher over his simple act of kindness, I’m confident that he knows that there are enough fans out here who appreciate his work to not be discouraged.

@Arizona Road Warrior I couldn’t agree more with your last post. Chris should definitely have told the OP waht to do and if it didn’t work then go to another hotel. This kind of intervention seems to me to be a waste of Chris’ time, although he apparently didn’t think so. Handled as you suggest, there would have been no need for this article or for all the comments.

Sarah Di – all I can say is – DITTO! Thanks for hitting the nail on the head.

Count me as a regular reader who doesn’t quite get what the fuss is about. I think Chris made it pretty clear that Marriott would have been entirely within its rights to refuse. There’s nothing wrong with a little negotiation.

@ Joe Farrell: You come off as sounding like a rude, arrogant and judgmental person. Of course, if would be hard for me to say, since all I know of your are your posts, which are sometimes like this one. I get you no agreeing with Marriott, but there’s no excuse for the verbiage you’re throwing around.

@ Chris: I don’t get why you’ve been getting flack for this. You stated flat out that this was a case where the hotel wasn’t doing anything wrong and didn’t owe the customer anything. I would be upset, too, if I were in Preston Moore’s position. Granted, I probably wouldn’t contact Chris, but I would try to negotiate, which is really all that Moore wanted and all that Chris did. Chris, I’m not surprised that you contacted didn’t have the manners to reply; people’s posts tell a lot about their character. Keep on doing what you’re doing Chris, and ignore the self-important, belligerent people who get a rise out of trying to knock people down.

Barb, what pissed me off was what you posted in the thread about the students who were planning a volunteer trip to Mexico. Go read the comments there and you MIGHT get an idea as to why I, and so many others, find your very presence here to be so unpleasant. If you can comprehend it.

Your posts in this particular thread weren’t offensive in and of themselves – they were just nonsensical. Which is simply annoying. But your posts in that other thread…they were offensive. They offended me as a parent, and as a person who believes in the importance of charitable efforts to help those less fortunate. You clearly don’t.

I find you to be insufferable, and truly wish you would go away.

As a reader of yours from the beginning I have to say your actions to this traveler were kind, you helped this guy out. I’m not surprised, you are a nice guy looking out for the little guy,
I do think that listing some options, in addition to outright help would have given a broader range of help to all of your readers, and helped this traveler to help himself on his next trip..
Here’s what I would have suggested,
1-Call the property directly-not the 800# if you are not successful at first wait till closer to the date of the event and call again. If they have space available you have a better chance of getting this rate.
2-Do a web search and see if there is a less expensive property nearby, often hotels are clustered, spend the first night at the less expensive property.
3-Use hotwire or priceline and stay at a hotel near the airport and transfer the next day, generally inexpensive hotels can be found.
Thanks for all of the years of excellent travel advice and help, and teaching all of us to be better travelers..

For what it’s worth, I think there are a few underlying currents that are coming together to bother some (obviously not all) of Chris’s readership about the way he handled this case.

The first ties back to a suggestion I made a while ago (not that I think it was the spark for this, but…) that Chris be more clear about when he believes the Person With A Problem (PWAP) has a justifiable complaint that should be addressed by the travel provider, and when he thinks that the provider is well within its rights, but might be persuaded to do something to assist a traveler. In this post, we see an example of what I was talking about: Chris made it clear that the PWAP shouldn’t expect the cheaper wedding rate for a non-contracted night. As many people have posted, had he suggested a course of action for the PWAP to follow (Contact the property directly, ask to speak to the sales manager, explain your predicament, and ask them to extend the rate to your earlier arrival), I doubt anyone would have been upset. To provide a nice resolution to the post, he could have asked the PWAP to follow up with the results, which probably would have been the same in any case.

But – intervening in a case like this, even if he’s sometimes been turned down before, undeniably creates the specter for the hotel of bad publicity if a happy resolution isn’t found. It’s going to skew the results some of the time; perhaps that’s a good thing, perhaps not, but pretending it doesn’t happen isn’t useful. And I think what bothers a lot of people, even subconsciously, is that over time, this is going to result in a double standard at the travel providers: if the PWAP is calling on his own behalf, stonewall or try to squeeze money out of him, but if Chris or someone like him gets involved, settle and settle fast. With the predictable result that such requests for special consideration won’t be decided on the merits of the case, but on the power of the requestor to generate bad publicity.