4 ms·

Marriott decided to avoid poking the bear by stepping on the proverbial mouse. From a business perspective, it makes perfect sense, but moralistically, it does

Marriott decided to avoid poking the bear by stepping on the proverbial mouse. From a business perspective, it makes perfect sense, but moralistically, it does not. It is very disappointing that even I, as an Asian individual living in Canada, am disincentivized from expressing even my own opinion on China and HK/Taiwan, etc. due to the perceived threat of "consequences" from a government whose reach I cannot easily quantify.

simonh 5y ago
The management of this Marriot Hotel did yes, but it's encouraging that Marriot's corporate management immediately overruled the Hotel on this and apologised to the group. Marriot do have a spotty history on such issues, but I think we should commend them when they attempt to do the right thing. Yes this shouldn't have happened in the first place, but given that it did they do seem to be doing their best to make it right. I'm not going to post this reply to every single other comment ragging on 'Marriot' here, which is all but one top level comment, but come on people. Read the article. Oh, and now that top level comment that was actually informed and provided useful context is getting downvoted into oblivion. We can do better than this.
- majou 5y ago
  Thanks. It's easy to give into a pessimistic spiral; I always wanted these kinds of issues to become well-known, but it seems like the response is often some kind of "yeah, figures.", foregoing the conclusion. In a similar, but lesser vein; John Cena's apology video didn't once mention what he was apologizing for, and still got lots of flak from mainland Chinese because of that. It was plain to everyone involved what the video was aimed to do, but it's the kind of fence-walking that we miss.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  Side note for those who don't know: most Marriott properties are Marriott-managed, not Marriott-owned. 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-specific-ownership-structure/ https://marketrealist.com/2014/10/why-marriotts-hotels-have-... Marriott Intl page for franchisees: https://hotel-development.marriott.com/ https://hotel-development.marriott.com/
  - binaryblitz 5y ago
    This is actually true for a lot of hotel brands. It's more of a franchise situation.
  - ethagknight 5y ago
    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/0001048286/000162828021002433/mar-20201231.htm#i89d1b9e9f3f84b88ad458af651fd058f_25 https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0001048286/0...
  - codechicago277 5y ago
    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.
- AlstZam 5y ago
  Maybe I'm too pessimistic but at first I only see a big corporation (with an history) putting the blame on the local management. Maybe it's due to my bad English, but I'm not able to find any sign of actual "overrule" of this decision. Is the WUC was finally accepted at this Hotel?
- hartator 5y ago
  > it's encouraging that Marriot's corporate management immediately overruled the Hotel on this and apologised to the group. Where are you seeing this?
  - colejohnson66 5y ago
    Maybe not overruled, but called out: > The Marriott spokesperson clarified in a statement to Axios that hosting the conference would not have violated any "political neutrality" policy, and said the reference to "corporate management" in the email referred to "hotel-level management." > "We are working with the hotel team to provide additional training and education on our longstanding practices of inclusion," she said.
enriquto 5y ago
> From a business perspective And that is our fault, to a great extent. By "we", here I mean citizens of western countries that put up with this bullshit. When one of "our" companies engages in this shameful authoritarian appeasement we should boycott them to oblivion. If we fail to do so, we are enabling this behavior. There's not much that we can do about human rights abuses in other countries. But there's a lot that we can do in our own countries to local companies that participate or validate the abusers. In that particular case, it would be feasible for Austrian people to stop all Marriott operations on the whole country, with a targeted human-rights campaign.
- skeeter2020 5y ago
  >> When one of "our" companies engages in this shameful authoritarian appeasement we should boycott them to oblivion. What's the difference between what you're promoting and the knee-jerk cancel culture that's as bad as what it punishes? I like to think we can influence and change behaviours without "boycotting companies into oblivion", even if that was realistic or likely. There's a large distance between your aggressive post on the internet and an entire country of people coordinating a campaign against specific business.
  - jjeaff 5y ago
    Just because some cancel culture is knee-jerk does not mean all attempts to cancel someone or something is necessarily wrong.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  I believe sustaining such a boycott is nearly impossible if you don't have the news-media on your side. This is because you need to convince the average, not particularly engaged citizen to join in the boycott. And, after the initial outrage you need media attention keep the boycott relevant in people's minds. I don't sense our news-media wants to fight this fight.
- Aunche 5y ago
  Westerners have this outdated view that they have enough economic leverage to pressure China into doing what they want. Hollywood, the NBA, and Marriott actually have negative leverage over China because they are American exports that the CCP doesn't particularly care about. They would much rather their population consume Chinese media and stay in Chinese hotels anyways, so they're more than happy to find an excuse to kick them out. Pressuring these companies to take a stand about China and get kicked out will not only do absolutely nothing in helping the Uyghurs, it will hurt our domestic economy and help theirs. Nike and Apple do have some leverage that the government can work with. However, American imports tend to be intermediary goods, so doing so would mutually damage both sides. We barely have enough on the table to negotiate trade, so no politician is going to enter a war of attrition for humanitarian reasons, especially if it's one that they have been preparing for, and we have not.
throw38473 5y ago
There are lots of people afraid to say what's on their minds for fear of getting cancelled.

simonh 5y ago

The management of this Marriot Hotel did yes, but it's encouraging that Marriot's corporate management immediately overruled the Hotel on this and apologised to the group. Marriot do have a spotty history on such issues, but I think we should commend them when they attempt to do the right thing. Yes this shouldn't have happened in the first place, but given that it did they do seem to be doing their best to make it right. I'm not going to post this reply to every single other comment ragging on 'Marriot' here, which is all but one top level comment, but come on people. Read the article. Oh, and now that top level comment that was actually informed and provided useful context is getting downvoted into oblivion. We can do better than this.

majou 5y ago
Thanks. It's easy to give into a pessimistic spiral; I always wanted these kinds of issues to become well-known, but it seems like the response is often some kind of "yeah, figures.", foregoing the conclusion. In a similar, but lesser vein; John Cena's apology video didn't once mention what he was apologizing for, and still got lots of flak from mainland Chinese because of that. It was plain to everyone involved what the video was aimed to do, but it's the kind of fence-walking that we miss.
ethbr0 5y ago
Side note for those who don't know: most Marriott properties are Marriott-managed, not Marriott-owned. 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-specific-ownership-structure/ https://marketrealist.com/2014/10/why-marriotts-hotels-have-... Marriott Intl page for franchisees: https://hotel-development.marriott.com/ https://hotel-development.marriott.com/
- binaryblitz 5y ago
  This is actually true for a lot of hotel brands. It's more of a franchise situation.
- ethagknight 5y ago
  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/0001048286/000162828021002433/mar-20201231.htm#i89d1b9e9f3f84b88ad458af651fd058f_25 https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0001048286/0...
- codechicago277 5y ago
  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.
AlstZam 5y ago
Maybe I'm too pessimistic but at first I only see a big corporation (with an history) putting the blame on the local management. Maybe it's due to my bad English, but I'm not able to find any sign of actual "overrule" of this decision. Is the WUC was finally accepted at this Hotel?
hartator 5y ago
> it's encouraging that Marriot's corporate management immediately overruled the Hotel on this and apologised to the group. Where are you seeing this?
- colejohnson66 5y ago
  Maybe not overruled, but called out: > The Marriott spokesperson clarified in a statement to Axios that hosting the conference would not have violated any "political neutrality" policy, and said the reference to "corporate management" in the email referred to "hotel-level management." > "We are working with the hotel team to provide additional training and education on our longstanding practices of inclusion," she said.

enriquto 5y ago

> From a business perspective And that is our fault, to a great extent. By "we", here I mean citizens of western countries that put up with this bullshit. When one of "our" companies engages in this shameful authoritarian appeasement we should boycott them to oblivion. If we fail to do so, we are enabling this behavior. There's not much that we can do about human rights abuses in other countries. But there's a lot that we can do in our own countries to local companies that participate or validate the abusers. In that particular case, it would be feasible for Austrian people to stop all Marriott operations on the whole country, with a targeted human-rights campaign.

skeeter2020 5y ago
>> When one of "our" companies engages in this shameful authoritarian appeasement we should boycott them to oblivion. What's the difference between what you're promoting and the knee-jerk cancel culture that's as bad as what it punishes? I like to think we can influence and change behaviours without "boycotting companies into oblivion", even if that was realistic or likely. There's a large distance between your aggressive post on the internet and an entire country of people coordinating a campaign against specific business.
- jjeaff 5y ago
  Just because some cancel culture is knee-jerk does not mean all attempts to cancel someone or something is necessarily wrong.
BitwiseFool 5y ago
I believe sustaining such a boycott is nearly impossible if you don't have the news-media on your side. This is because you need to convince the average, not particularly engaged citizen to join in the boycott. And, after the initial outrage you need media attention keep the boycott relevant in people's minds. I don't sense our news-media wants to fight this fight.
Aunche 5y ago
Westerners have this outdated view that they have enough economic leverage to pressure China into doing what they want. Hollywood, the NBA, and Marriott actually have negative leverage over China because they are American exports that the CCP doesn't particularly care about. They would much rather their population consume Chinese media and stay in Chinese hotels anyways, so they're more than happy to find an excuse to kick them out. Pressuring these companies to take a stand about China and get kicked out will not only do absolutely nothing in helping the Uyghurs, it will hurt our domestic economy and help theirs. Nike and Apple do have some leverage that the government can work with. However, American imports tend to be intermediary goods, so doing so would mutually damage both sides. We barely have enough on the table to negotiate trade, so no politician is going to enter a war of attrition for humanitarian reasons, especially if it's one that they have been preparing for, and we have not.

throw38473 5y ago

There are lots of people afraid to say what's on their minds for fear of getting cancelled.