What's the book corporate America doesn't want you to read? Find out now -- or you could get scammed.

Rooms for $58 a night at the Ritz Carlton Chicago? No way!

August 10, 2010

When Jack Whalen found an unbelievable room rate of $58 a night at the Ritz-Carlton Chicago — and on a holiday weekend, no less — he was thrilled. “This was to have been an anniversary trip, and my wife would love to stay at a high end hotel at a great price,” he says.

But the price, which he found through Travelocity, was unbelievable. Turns out it was a fat finger rate. A Ritz-Carlton employee had misplaced a decimal point, turning $580 rooms into $58 rooms. Oops.

Although Ritz-Carlton tried to make it up to him by offering a discounted, but significantly more expensive rate, Whalen is unhappy.


I decided to take Whalen’s case, and here’s why: From what I can tell, he wasn’t trolling the online discussion groups, waiting for an obvious rate error (in my book, that’s stealing). He found the price by searching Travelocity, fair and square. He also believed the rate to be legitimate, and I’m buying it.

You can get a hotel in Chicago for $58 a night. Just not at the Ritz-Carlton.

Finally, Whalen wasn’t trying to play the media card to get Travelocity or Ritz-Carlton to cave. He just had a question:

I am writing to get your opinion on something. Two weeks ago I was browsing Travelocity and found an outstanding price of $58 a night for a room at the Ritz-Carlton in Chicago Memorial Day weekend 2011.

Yesterday I got a call from Travelocity saying the price was an error, and the Ritz was not going to honor it. Travelocity was not willing to do anything to assist me, other than offer the same reservation for $290 a night.

I was surprised that Travelocity was distancing themselves from this and blaming the Ritz, since I booked the trip through Travelocity and was charged by Travelocity. I called the Ritz directly, and was told the price should have been $580 a night, and not $58. The associate was unsympathetic and also only able to offer the room at $290 a night.

Do you think I have any recourse other than to take my business elsewhere? How can I ever feel safe booking a reservation through Travelocity if they go ahead and cancel my reservation? I do understand the price is very low, but a company like the Ritz, which prides themselves on service, is not willing to honor a price that they themselves input, and it seems very unfair that I suffer from their mistake.

Thanks for any help you can provide.

I put the question to Ritz-Carlton. I had a conversation with a representative by phone and she later followed up with this explanation:

This was an unintentional human rate loading error by our hotel and Travelocity cancelled the reservation at our request.

In acknowledgement of the error and inconvenience, we did extend a generous offer but I cannot comment further on the contents of the letter.

We have provided the name of a senior contact at the hotel who is happy to speak further with Mr. Whalen about the reservation.

Well, let’s go right to that letter then, which Whalen was kind enough to forward to me.

As a result of a rate-loading error, an incorrect rate appeared for the room type you reserved. It was not our intention to offer the room for the rate of $58, which is substantially lower than any other rate offered at our hotel or at any comparable hotel in Chicago.

We regret that we did not catch the error sooner. In recognition of the inconvenience our error has caused you, we wanted to offer another option of 50% off any of our available room categories below the Executive Suite level that you requested. So, if the moderate room is listed for $375, you would receive it at $187.

If you would like to take advantage of this offer, I would be happy to confirm your booking at the new rate.

That’s not a bad offer.

I’d take it. Ritz made an honest mistake, and has offered a discounted rate to make up for it. If the tables were turned — if they’d put a decimal point in the wrong place when they charged Whalen’s credit card — I’m sure they’d be quick to fix it. (After all, we’re not talking about an airline, here.)

But fat-finger rates, as regular readers of this site know, are an endless source of controversy. If you think Ritz and Travelocity should have given Whalen the room at $58 a night, please speak up. The comments are open.

(Photo: OZ in OH/Flickr Creative Commons)

Christopher Elliott is the author of Scammed: How to Save Your Money and Find Better Service in a World of Schemes, Swindles, and Shady Deals. Critics have called it “eye-opening” and “inspiring” — it’ll “grab your attention and won’t let go.” Order your copy now on Amazon, Barnes & Noble or iTunes.

Tagged as: , , , ,

111 comments

← Older Comments
  • The original MikeZ

    @Carver

    If I’d been confirmed at $58, I’d certainly balk at $290 (5x the original price). From what we’ve seen, it doesn’t even sound like the OP was aiming for $58/night — he just stumbled upon it and took advantage of it. And was confirmed and then went unnoticed for two weeks. Sorry, but in my book, R-C took way too long to act — and instead of contacting him directly (as world-class SOP dictates), they just canceled his reservation.

    It’s not simply a question of whether he’ll be a repeat customer. It’s how a world-class operation treats EVERY customer, not just the ones most likely to return.

    I’ve stayed in fancier joints than the R-C, but not on my own dime… so it’s unlikely I’d return to any of them on my own dime. I doubt any of them considered whether I’d be a return customer or not — when I was there, I was treated like royalty. And that includes other R-C properties.

    The question of PR value is very simple: a good public image is built brick-by-brick. Look at how many people have responded here and opined that R-C didn’t handle this well. Has R-C “ruined” its reputation? Of course not. But this is a company whose stated values include, “I own and immediately resolve guest problems.” And in this case, actions spoke louder than words.

    My final word: It’s easy to criticize but more valuable to be constructive. So how would I have handled this? I’d have contacted the OP directly (rather than delegate to Travelocity) and said, “look, we blew it, but although we can’t honor multiple nights at $58, we do want your anniversary to be as special as you’d hoped. So we’ll honor this rate for your anniversary night but must respectfully quote additional nights at the lowest rate we offer our best customers, $290 [or whatever best rate they can offer]. We look forward to the opportunity to welcome you for your special weekend.”

    As I said, opportunity lost. But perhaps a lesson gained for those who really do care about customer service. IMHO.

    YMMV, and that’s cool, too.

    PS: Happy Anniversary, Whalens.

  • Johannes

    The difference in the rate, as so many “readers” of this article noticed, is not the difference between the $58 rate he got through Travelocity and the $187 50% discounted rate for the MODERATE ROOM that he was offered by the Ritz. Read the reply from the Ritz again:

    “we wanted to offer another option of 50% off any of our available room categories below the Executive Suite level that you requested. So, if the moderate room is listed for $375, you would receive it at $187.”

    He wanted an Executive Suite at $58, which is normally priced at $580. Per the OP, they offered the same room to him at $290, or, as the Ritz offered him, the moderate room for $187. The hotel, as so many “careful” readers noted, is not sucking up $129/night (difference between the discounted $187 and the $58 paid by OP), they would – with an exec suite – be eating $522, the difference between the advertised price of the suite and what the OP paid Travelocity. Notice the difference is NOT ~$100 as so many of you have mentioned. Just because the Ritz is big and has a lot more money than Mom’s Inn down the street doesn’t mean that they should have any more obligation to eat their error.

    Money aside (many also mentioned that it’s not a money thing), the Ritz is a very high end establishment; you wouldn’t get a suite at $58/night at this particular location for that room no matter what kind of crazy voodoo you work on hotwire/priceline…. Businesses make mistakes because of human error; shoulda coulda woulda put software systems in place (and hopefully they will in the future) but what they offered the OP is fair. $290/night for the exec suite at the Ritz is still a really good deal, especially given how important the occasion (wedding anniversary) is, the OP could still have a great experience at a heavily discounted rate.

    If the Ritz said “sorry, we screwed up but you’re a dummy for believing we have such low rates, so you’re SOL,” then I’d say total fail on their part. But they said sorry, we made a mistake, here’s 50% off. If the OP can’t afford any of the rooms at 50% off ($187 for the moderate room is a very good price for that location during that time or even most times) then he probably won’t be a returning customer and Ritz isn’t gonna worry about losing him after their gesture of goodwill.

    People and companies make mistakes, and as a gesture of goodwill, many will give you some kind of special discount to make up for it. Don’t expect them to bend over backwards and give you something that really, you should have known was too good to be true.

  • mrs ellenoy

    I had a much smaller situation with Best Buy – a few days after Valentine’s Day, I picked up a DVD advertised at a really low price that expired on VD (which I did not notice). When it rang up at a higher price, I mentioned the display. The sales guy said that they would honor the sale price since the display was still up, even though had I read the fine print, I would have seen that the offer had expired.

    So yay Best Buy, and suck it, Ritz-Carlton. That’s bad PR, and very little skin off of their noses.

  • Carver

    @The original MikeZ

    We’re mixing concepts.

    Customer service doesn’t relate to how to treat someone who is trying to cheat you. Which is, I suspect, how the Ritz sees it.

    True, the Ritz may have generated some negative publicity. But I still maintain that they wouldn’t have generated any positive publicity by honoring the rate because it would have been a non-story.

    And hotels always consider the likelihood of you being a repeat customer when they determine whether to extend a courtesy to you or not. That’s why they have frequent guest programs (euphemistically called loyalty programs) Additionally, that’s why master billed accounts often don’t get credit in these programs.

    In determining how much of a courtesy to extend, it appears to me (admitted I am speculating), that the Ritz offered a cheap rate, but one that was in line with the regular pricing structure. Since the OP didn’t bite, the Ritz wrote him off as someone who is most likely to get the $58 rate and never show up every again.

    From that perspective, he’s not really a customer.

  • Carver

    @The original MikeZ

    We also have to consider that had the OP not complained to Chris or a similiar person, there would have been no negative publicity. So the likelihood of detriment to the Ritz was minimal at the time of the turn down.

    @ Mrs Ellenoy

    That’s a very different story. At one point Best Buy intended to sell the DVD at that price. At no time did the Rtiz intend to sell the room at 90 percent off.

  • Jenifer

    Human error or not – the room was advertised for a specific amount and it should be honored. Remove the adv. as soon as the mistake was noticed, but honor the purchase made.

    Keep it simple.

  • Jerry

    I’m with the customer in this case. The Ritz made a bona fide offer of a room at $58 per night and the OP accepted it and the Ritz (via Travelocity) confirmed it, only to cancel the reservation when their error was discovered. The contract was made and if he didn’t show, he’d be charged the $58. Once they discovered the error, the website should have been corrected but the OP was entitled to enforce the contract.

  • Robin

    I also booked the Ritz with Travelosity during this $58 special. WHAT A DEAL! But after getting cancelled, I ended up accepting the 50% rate on their moderate room. I am sympathetic with their mistake, but they probably should have honored the $58 rate.

  • Robin

    Does anyone out there know how many of us signed up for the $58 rate? Just curious…Travelosity sure wouldn’t tell me, but they did say that the rate was also offered on the Four Seasons website.

  • Stephen Liss

    They should honor the deal. Otherwise, there will be a tremendous incentive for sleazy or desperate business to bait and switch. They made the offer and he accepted it on their terms. That’s a contract. They wasted his time (time spent researching the trip, forgoing alternatives) and shouldn’t be able to treat his time as a free good. If they don’t like it, maybe they should be a bit more meticulous about how data gets loaded into systems that their customers rely on.

  • Rlednum1

      I do believe the Ritz
    should have owned the complaint as they tell their staff at they’ve each day in
    the 15 min pre work “line-up” as they call it. One of the “12
    Ritz-Carlton Service Values” states there is no negotiating at the Ritz
    when it comes to solving customer problems. What is more each and every one of
    the Ritz employees are empowered to handle any problems on the spot and can
    spend up to $2000. dollars for said complaint.

    So although Jack got a good deal at $189.00 I don’t believe
    the manager of the Chicago Ritz was living up to the high standards set down by
    the “12 Service Values”; moreover this few hundred dollars was well
    within the employee $2000. discretionary budget to fix the problem himself.

    So although Jack got a good deal at $189.00 I don’t believe
    the manager of the Chicago Ritz was living up to the high standards set down by
    the “12 Service Values”; moreover this few hundred dollars was well
    within the employee $2000. discretionary budget to fix the problem himself.

← Older Comments

Previous post:

Next post: