Ritson: Marriott faces one of the toughest jobs in branding

Marriott International became the world’s largest hotel group following its acquisition of Starwood earlier this year but it now faces the unenviable task of streamlining its brand portfolio without losing customers.

A few months back, when Marriott International was given government approval to acquire Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide, there was no question that this was the biggest deal in the history of the modern hotel business. Aside from the $13bn (£10bn) price tag, the acquisition turned Marriott into the largest hotel group in the world overnight with more than 1 million rooms worldwide. One in every 15 hotel rooms is now Marriott-operated.

When a clearly delighted Arne Sorenson announced the deal in September, the CEO of Marriott International was quick to highlight the scale and range of the new group that he would lead. “We have got an ability to offer just that much more choice. A choice in locations, a choice in the kind of hotel, a choice in the amount a customer needs to spend,” he told The Associated Press on launch day.

Sorenson was not making an idle boast. The deal means that Marriott operates 30 hotel brands around the world. And these aren’t niche hotel brands you have never heard of. The portfolio includes Sheraton, Westin, The Ritz Carlton, W Hotels and Marriott to name but five.

The theory of brand killing could not be more simple. If you want more profit and stronger brands, you get rid of the weaker ones.

Not so long ago, owning and operating a large portfolio of brands made sense. The bigger the better. But with globalisation and the ever-increasing cost of building and protecting brand equity, the fascination with adding more brands has been reversed in recent years. These days it’s the challenge of learning how to kill a brand and keep a customer, as the famous Harvard Business Review article puts it, that occupies most senior managers.

Compare the brand portfolio of any major organisation today with how it looked a decade ago and, almost without exception, you will see a leaner and less diversified list of brands than was once the case. Everyone from P&G and Coca-Cola to Ford has moved away from multiple brands and sub-brands towards a simpler, more parsimonious brand architecture in which the number of brands is as tight as strategically possible.

READ MORE: P&G nears end of brand cull after beauty deal with Coty

The theory of brand killing could not be more simple. If you want more profit, more focus and stronger brands, you get rid of the weaker ones that compete with your other, stronger offers. Rather than simply kill a few weak and pointless brands on the periphery of the portfolio, the optimum way to approach brand consolidation is to assume you obviously need one brand and then try to make a very good case for having need of a second.

Such is the strategic power of a single branded house that many organisations would be significantly better off sacrificing the versatility and range of multiple brands for the dead-eyed focus and operational efficiencies of a single branded offer.

That logic is all well and good for guys like me who are legends in their own lecture theatres. But try making the case to Marriott that it clearly needs the corporate brand but doesn’t need any of the other brands in the portfolio. We’re talking hundreds of millions in financial brand equity, customer affection, brand heritage and loyalty programmes. The idea of killing a couple of the portfolio of brands that Marriott now owns is a daunting prospect despite the fact that there are clear overlaps in the newly merged portfolio.

The person facing this unenviable challenge is chief brand officer Tina Edmundson. She will have to work out how many brands Marriott actually needs and then how to silently kill the unwanted options and ensure customers are efficiently passed to one of Marriott’s surviving offers.

So far, Marriott, perhaps understandably, has moved slowly and not entirely impressively. Its new corporate website, for example, divides up the hotel portfolio into different categories, including classic luxury (Ritz Carlton or St Regis), distinctive luxury (W Hotels), classic premium (Marriott or Sheraton) and distinctive premium (Westin or Le Meridien). I’m not sure what purpose these arbitrary groupings play but like most category thinking it will mostly serve to get in the way of seeing how customers select hotels.

Categories do not actually exist and they usually blind us to the real structure of customer thinking and competitors – competitors that invariably attack us from outside the category we spent 18 months inventing and outside the rival brands we mistakenly assumed we were up against. One of the main reasons Marriott and Starwood committed to the deal is the stellar growth of Airbnb – a brand that is happily taking a lion’s share of the hotel market without ever considering itself to be a hotel.

READ MORE: How sub-brands are helping Marriott and Best Western target the Airbnb generation

It’s early days and you can be sure that Edmundson is, as we speak, scouring perceptual maps and segmentation charts to ascertain which brands she will kill and which she will keep. It’s certainly one of the biggest jobs in branding right now and also one of the most daunting. Irrespective of where she plans to stay in the months ahead, Tina Edmundson should not plan on getting much sleep.

Hide Comments3 Show Comments
  • AL King 2 Dec 2016 at 2:47 am

    The segmentation (inevitably) is critical here. As long as she nails that then there’s no reason there can’t be a small number of well positioned and highly targeted brands. If she wants me to nail it for her (on a fraction of her salary), I’d do it in a few days.

  • Shanghai61 5 Dec 2016 at 1:16 am

    It’s very likely that the two companies have similarly structured brand portfolios, based on the same segmentation criteria (e.g. price/reason for travel/style etc). Which means a lot of effectively ‘duplicated’ brands after the merger.

    They will still need multiple brands to cover the whole market , but they probably don’t need two brands in each segment.

  • Jeffrey Summers 12 Dec 2016 at 7:34 am

    …and they re failing miserably.

  • Post a comment

Latest from Marketing Week


Access Marketing Week’s wealth of insight, analysis and opinion that will help you do your job better.

Register and receive the best content from the only UK title 100% dedicated to serving marketers' needs.

We’ll ask you just a few questions about what you do and where you work. The more we know about our visitors, the better and more relevant content we can provide for them. And, yes, knowing our audience better helps us find commercial partners too. Don't worry, we won't share your information with other parties, unless you give us permission to do so.

Register now


Our award winning editorial team (PPA Digital Brand of the Year) ask the big questions about the biggest issues on everything from strategy through to execution to help you navigate the fast moving modern marketing landscape.


From the opportunities and challenges of emerging technology to the need for greater effectiveness, from the challenge of measurement to building a marketing team fit for the future, we are your guide.


Information, inspiration and advice from the marketing world and beyond that will help you develop as a marketer and as a leader.

Having problems?

Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3703 or email customerservices@marketingweek.com

If you are looking for our Jobs site, please click here