8 ms·

Amazing how much hay can be made by dropping a single word: “A Marriott refused” vs “Marriott refused”. The text of the article makes it clear that there is n

Amazing how much hay can be made by dropping a single word: “A Marriott refused” vs “Marriott refused”. The text of the article makes it clear that there is no evidence that Marriott as a corporate entity had anything to do with this, ans a corporate spokesperson actually denied that this was policy and as much as said that the local hotel manager screwed up.

ncallaway 5y ago
There's just as much evidence in the article that it was Marriott as a whole refusing. The original rejection email specifically said: "We consulted the whole matter with our corporate management" > "Thank you very much for your visit today. Unfortunately, I have to inform you that we are not able to offer the premises. We consulted the whole matter with our corporate management. For reasons of political neutrality, we cannot offer events of this type with a political theme. Thank you once again for your time and understanding."
- meragrin_ 5y ago
  Was that hotel franchised or owned by Marriott? If it was franchised, the "corporate management" is obviously not Marriott.
  - hugh-avherald 5y ago
    My read of that quote is that even if it's a franchised hotel, the franchisee had been told by Marriott Hotels & Resorts, not that it had consulted internally. It does not make much sense for a single hotel to be so worried about wider damage to the brand.
    - meragrin_ 5y ago
      > My read of that quote is that even if it's a franchised hotel, the franchisee had been told by Marriott Hotels & Resorts, not that it had consulted internally. If they meant Marriott, I would think they would explicitly say Marriott since it gives them an out for the blame. If it wasn't a Marriott decision, it would be dumb to explicitly say Marriott but they know they have a good chance to dodge blame with just the generic "corporate management". > It does not make much sense for a single hotel to be so worried about wider damage to the brand. It does make sense if the franchisee has multiple hotels with some of them being in China. Don't know if that is the case, but it could be.
- mikestew 5y ago
  And not but two lines below what you quoted was corporate's response, which doesn't match what the local hotel was saying: "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.'" IOW, it sounds like the local hotel said to themselves, "it's late, and I don't need this shit right now. Tell them 'corporate' says we can't do it."
  - ncallaway 5y ago
    I acknowledge there’s a dispute there, but I’m not going to uncritically accept the statement from Marriott’s spokesperson on this issue. I’m not saying they’re lying, but I also think it would be naive to simply assume that their statement is definitely true.

ncallaway 5y ago

There's just as much evidence in the article that it was Marriott as a whole refusing. The original rejection email specifically said: "We consulted the whole matter with our corporate management" > "Thank you very much for your visit today. Unfortunately, I have to inform you that we are not able to offer the premises. We consulted the whole matter with our corporate management. For reasons of political neutrality, we cannot offer events of this type with a political theme. Thank you once again for your time and understanding."

meragrin_ 5y ago
Was that hotel franchised or owned by Marriott? If it was franchised, the "corporate management" is obviously not Marriott.
- hugh-avherald 5y ago
  My read of that quote is that even if it's a franchised hotel, the franchisee had been told by Marriott Hotels & Resorts, not that it had consulted internally. It does not make much sense for a single hotel to be so worried about wider damage to the brand.
  - meragrin_ 5y ago
    > My read of that quote is that even if it's a franchised hotel, the franchisee had been told by Marriott Hotels & Resorts, not that it had consulted internally. If they meant Marriott, I would think they would explicitly say Marriott since it gives them an out for the blame. If it wasn't a Marriott decision, it would be dumb to explicitly say Marriott but they know they have a good chance to dodge blame with just the generic "corporate management". > It does not make much sense for a single hotel to be so worried about wider damage to the brand. It does make sense if the franchisee has multiple hotels with some of them being in China. Don't know if that is the case, but it could be.
mikestew 5y ago
And not but two lines below what you quoted was corporate's response, which doesn't match what the local hotel was saying: "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.'" IOW, it sounds like the local hotel said to themselves, "it's late, and I don't need this shit right now. Tell them 'corporate' says we can't do it."
- ncallaway 5y ago
  I acknowledge there’s a dispute there, but I’m not going to uncritically accept the statement from Marriott’s spokesperson on this issue. I’m not saying they’re lying, but I also think it would be naive to simply assume that their statement is definitely true.