Starwood sues Hilton in battle of 'lifestyle hotels'
Filed under: Company News
On Thursday, Starwood Hotels and Resorts sued Hilton Hotels, including two former employees who now work for the massive chain. Starwood's claim is that Hilton has stolen confidential information that it intended to use in the launch of its new Denizen "lifestyle hotel" chain. Traditionally, hotels have tried to offer a relatively generic experience. The basic hotel room, ideally, contains all the comforts of home with none of the personality. Clean sheets, boring furniture, inoffensive art and relatively soft towels give the weary traveler a blank slate that is neither challenging nor confusing, offering him or her a safe place to rest.
The "boutique" market, however, replaces generic blandness with distinctive personality. In this approach, hotels are transformed into luxury experiences, in which travelers relax into a plush lifestyle that is idiosyncratic. In many ways, the hotel becomes the destination.
Boutique hotels have done quite well in recent years, spawning an emergent "branded boutique" or "lifestyle hotel" market. In this formulation, large chain hotels combine their economies of scale with the personality of boutique hotels, spawning a seemingly contradictory mass-produced personality. On a basic level, these unique personalities are composed of numerous infinitely replicable details: things like certain types of furnishings, a certain quality of bed linens, and so forth.
Starwood is one of the world leaders in lifestyle hotels, and has invested millions of dollars in the development and testing of their brand. Its argument seems to be that Hilton's theft represents not just the swiping of secrets or imitation of preferences but, in a very real way, the theft of a personality.
If the courts rule in Starwood's favor, it could suggest a newly emergent perspective about what, exactly, can be trademarked. In the grand scheme, a proprietary identity may be the agglomeration of the devilish little details.
Why is Oprah going to cable? Hint: It's nothing to get teary about
Kisses from Hershey: Candymaker may court Cadbury with $17 billion bid
D-Day for Harry Reid: Can he wrangle 60 votes for Senate health reform bill?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
4-18-2009 @ 10:05AM
mike said...
Starwood and all of the hotels that make Starwood are far better hotels that offer more...why bother staying anywhere else...have you stayed at a W Hotel recently...or a Westin....Simply the best.
Reply
4-17-2009 @ 3:03PM
Jessica said...
I have been to both and had pleasurable experiences. When traveling I plan to use both Hilton and Starwood Hotels. Also Holiday Inn's and Suites are on the luxury rise.
Reply
4-17-2009 @ 3:28PM
mary said...
looks like paris is gonna get less to spend this year.
Reply
4-17-2009 @ 4:13PM
Lindsey said...
Paris has her OWN money now, due to all the products she has endorsed & put out into the market. So she's not going to even care...
4-17-2009 @ 4:17PM
TJ said...
Mary
blackstone owens hilton now so it really don't effect paris. Conrad Hilton sold out about a year and half ago for several billions of dollars
Reply
4-17-2009 @ 4:31PM
karen said...
Starwood hotels & resorts offers guests a far better experience.. Hilton made a big mistake messing with Starwood.
Reply
4-17-2009 @ 4:48PM
edwin said...
we love starwood---stay all the place at starwood locations
Reply
4-17-2009 @ 5:06PM
dan said...
This is so lame...."They stole our idea for decorating" or whatever. People have the right to work and if Starwood could not keep their employees and the employees went to Hilton, their ideas went with them. It is the people that make the company, not the copany which makes the people. Starwood lost some key people and those people's creative ideas are THEIRS to whomever they work for, which is Hilton right now. These people have the right to work and heaven knows there are enoug people who need work right now. Starwood only has the past efforts of their creativity and ideas, Hilton has them now and if they are smart, in the future as these people obviously have some great ideas. Starwood is being a sore loser - they should have paid them what they were worth and they would not have looked elsewhere!
Reply
4-18-2009 @ 2:41PM
Bob said...
Dan,
Based on your penchant for shabby spelling, it would be a stretch to presume that you know anything about intellectual property rights. If the employees who left Starwood were not traitors, that would be one thing. But while they were employees of Starwood, they were given the task to develop, expand on or otherwise implement the ideas of their employer and not disseminate the specific information to another company.
In one sense, that's called loyalty. Look up the meaning when you get a chance.
If the other company, Hilton in this case, said to the former Starwood employees, "We want you to come up with a 'better' paradigm than Starwood is known by the entire world to be using," that would probably be fair game.
It sounds more like the disgruntled former Starwood employees felt that they should have had rose petals laid at their feet for coming up with an idea that they were paid to come up with in the first place. They signed over the rights to their intellectual property when they were employed and those rights now belong to Starwood – like it or not.
4-17-2009 @ 5:08PM
Marie said...
No one could boast about a hotel product the way you do if you weren't employed by Starwood.
Have you heard about the armed robbery at the Westin in Boston? They don't offer their guests a very safe stay.
As far as making reference to Paris...she has nothing to do with Hilton Hotels so.
Reply
4-20-2009 @ 8:44AM
Sid Brown said...
I am a past associate of both Starwood and the former Sheraton Corporation! I am somewhat bias in my opinion but certainly can't see Hilton mentioned in the same sentence. The Starwood brand is not only superb but quite unique! Any company that values the voice of the customer is always going to be a head of the pac. The assets are without question, much better than Hilton and the experience and the memories take a back seat to no other hotel company! Starwood should continue to proceed with their brand identity and stay in the face of the customer as they have over the past few years. Number one is a great position to be in! Continue to remain nimble.
Reply
4-18-2009 @ 2:57PM
GK said...
Give me a safe, clean, basic room at a reasonable price. I sleep there not admire the furniture. I prefer to spend my money doing things outside the hotel.
Reply
4-18-2009 @ 4:51PM
Ron said...
Exactly correct. A hotel room is just that. A place to stay while you are visiting that particular city for 3whatever reason you are there, not someplace to admire the furniture or the wall decorations or even the lavatory facilities. Give me the basic Radisson or Holiday Inn. If I am in Anaheim, I am there to visit Disneyland and I guarantee that I am in the park from the minute it opens to the minute it closes. If I return to the hotel it is only for a quick lunch or to put my purchases in my room then it is back to the park. I would not be able to tell someone what was on the wall of my room because I am not interested in any of that.
4-18-2009 @ 7:29PM
zumpie said...
Sorry, but Starwood is hardly pioneering in the "lifestyle/boutique" hotel market, it began almost 30 years ago with Kimpton or Morgan's---depending on who you believe. And they both routinely disparage STARWOOD as idea stealing and "evil big box chain".
Plus, none of these hotels really do anything particularly different. Aside from (presumably) a better hotel restaurant (which you expect at an upscale property---and Kimpton's are actually madly mediocre) and a free yoga mat to borrow for your stay, none of these hotels do anything special.
As to the decor, "hotel chic" is now so overstaurated that there are budget chains with the look, in addition to a line from Macy's. Plus it's a minimalist look, that could be easily recreated by putting fewer things in your own bedroom. Actually, the look is more passe to generic than trendy or unique at this stage.
I'd only fault Hilton for starting a boutique chain so late in the game---but they do have 2 luxury brands (Conrad and Waldorf Astoria). They'd actually do better to look at THOSE hotels than try and replicate something as goofy and overrated as "W" or Kimpton.
And for the record, yes I do work in hospitality and yes I DID work for a boutique brand. Trust me, all spin and marketing, NO real substance.
Reply
4-18-2009 @ 6:06PM
Cristy said...
I love a well-written article, but this one was too much. The author spent more time telling us - with FAR TOO MANY FANCY WORDS, abstract ideas and innuendo - about the "lifestyle" and such, but never really said what was REALLY stolen or what the two employees may or may not have done. This article was painful to read!!! Sorry. Just my two cents.
Reply