Whatever happened to the old Holiday Inn Concept

[roadman65]

I remember Holiday Inns and Howard Johnson's both had hotels everywhere and pretty much dominated the interstates and big cities. The latter went bankrupt and the remains were acquired by Wyndham Resorts, but the former just scaled back and raised their room rates to three digit's especially on interstates where the market is for one night stops?

Not only that all current Holiday Inns are not original buildings as they sold off their original properties to other chains or developers.  Plus they abandoned the logo they once used and now use only a green capital H from the original Great Sign font.

What happened to the concept that was first their own?  It seems  current locations are only a fraction of their properties they once were so vast.  All of them are now high rises of the ones left and no more two stories ( so it seems)with outside room entrances.

[GaryV]

What happened?  Days Inn, Super 8 and Red Roof undercut them.

[abefroman329]

What happened?  Days Inn, Super 8 and Red Roof undercut them.

Don't forget Motel 6.

I was pleasantly surprised at how nice the Holiday Inn was that we stayed at in Arkansas last weekend.  The free breakfast from the Perkins attached to the hotel was the icing on the cake.

[roadman65]

They could have easily competed with those brands. 

[GaryV]

Don't forget Motel 6.

True.

Motel 6 and Super 8 both got their names from what they charged - $6.00 and $8.88. 

I stayed in them with my parents and family back around 1970. Prior to that we didn't travel that much, but I remember staying in a Holiday Inn in Chicago on Lake Shore Drive near Navy Pier about 1965.

When I got married in 1980, I "splurged" to stay at a Holiday Inn (Holidome) the first night of our honeymoon. After that night we stayed in cabins in the UP.

[abefroman329]

I remember staying in a Holiday Inn in Chicago on Lake Shore Drive near Navy Pier about 1965.

It's still there, though it's a W now and the rooftop revolving restaurant is shuttered.

Motel 6 and Super 8 both got their names from what they charged - $6.00 and $8.88.

If you want to confuse the hell out of someone under the age of 35, tell them that Motel 6 was so budget-conscious, they didn't have a toll-free phone number for reservations.

[roadman65]

I remember staying in a Holiday Inn in Chicago on Lake Shore Drive near Navy Pier about 1965.

It's still there, though it's a W now and the rooftop revolving restaurant is shuttered.

Motel 6 and Super 8 both got their names from what they charged - $6.00 and $8.88.

If you want to confuse the hell out of someone under the age of 35, tell them that Motel 6 was so conscious, they didn't have a toll-free phone number for reservations.

Or that Holiday Inn would have the desk agent find you a room ( even if it was outside the chain)if they were booked up.  This was pre internet days and toll calls were involved to do that.

[NWI_Irish96]

There were three "iconic" Holiday Inns in Indiana that are all long gone.

The first one was attached to the Star Plaza theater in Merrillville at I-65 and US 30. The hotel became a Raddison and then the hotel and theater were closed and torn down.

The second one was at the West Lafayette exit on I-65. Large hotel that was very busy for Purdue football and other campus events. Became a Days Inn and has since been torn down.

The third one was right at the Notre Dame Toll Road exit and was the closest place to campus to say on football weekends. They got over $300/night for rooms and that was back in the 1980s. It's been a couple other brands since and is now a Quality Inn.

[SectorZ]

I remember staying in a Holiday Inn in Chicago on Lake Shore Drive near Navy Pier about 1965.

It's still there, though it's a W now and the rooftop revolving restaurant is shuttered.

Motel 6 and Super 8 both got their names from what they charged - $6.00 and $8.88.

If you want to confuse the hell out of someone under the age of 35, tell them that Motel 6 was so budget-conscious, they didn't have a toll-free phone number for reservations.

I think to this day Disney still has a 407 number to call for info. They waited it out so long that it got to the point that it didn't matter anymore.

[formulanone]

Like everything else, the market changed; other hotel companies offered something more/different, and people liked that. Holiday Inn was one of the first to standardize hotels/motel stays, but there's also a ton of competitors.

For one, many of those original properties are now 40-60+ years old. Each hotel brand has their standards and they're mostly all individually owned; fall behind on the standards (or delay that refurbishing), and owner will slide over to another banner with differing standards. Or just go it alone as an independent.

The transition to fully-enclosed hallways, instead of doors that open to the outside, was another reason to close/sell the old properties. It was easier to sell off the old property and move to an all-new one, than re-design or refurbish the entire hotel. Some folks like it, some do not.

With that, many hotels moved closer to the Interstates. High occupancy / Big Box re-zoning? Closer to the major flows of traffic (the Interstate)? There's some that stay close to their original location(s) out of necessity, such as close proximity to airports, parks, and other well-known points of interest.

Enticing travelers with "free breakfast" reduced the need for an all-day restaurant; after all, when you're now close to other nationally-known restaurants, you can cut down on your staff, food expenses, and kitchen/preparation equipment. Most people are away from their rooms during the lunch hours, and I think the restaurant can be a money pit if not kept up to standards. (I feel the hotel restaurant works well in small towns where there's fewer choices, and still seems to be kept up in "fancier" hotels.)

A logo doesn't last forever; after awhile, it loses it's "zing" because it's so well-recognized. The big distinctive Holiday Inn signs were designed to be ground-mounted, not hoisted 40 feet up in the air. A lot of new municipalities' by-laws would nix a sign with that many flashing lights, colors, and too tall for their standards. Logos are designed to be simpler, though that's been a trend for the last 50+ years. 

[abefroman329]

(I feel the hotel restaurant works well in small towns where there's fewer choices, and still seems to be kept up in "fancier" hotels.)

It also works tremendously well for business travelers, provided meals can be had for less than their meal allowance.

[formulanone]

(I feel the hotel restaurant works well in small towns where there's fewer choices, and still seems to be kept up in "fancier" hotels.)

It also works tremendously well for business travelers, provided meals can be had for less than their meal allowance.

Yeah, that's nice for places with larger concentrations of business travelers (downtown, central business districts, airports, convention centers) but less so for the overnighters and vacationers.

[triplemultiplex]

I think those mid-price range hotels are more profitable for the big chains than budget hotels. Which I think is why they have exploded in number and in brands in the last 20 years.  Customers feel "safer" staying a hotel where one has to get through some sort of lobby or key-card entrance to get to the actual room door verses one that dumps out straight to a parking lot.  (Regardless of any actual statistics in the area about crime.)

Throw some microwaved eggs and a make-your-own waffle at them in the morning and the hotel guest feels like they got their money's worth.  Especially if there was also a pool and a good TV channel lineup.

The thing I noticed about older hotels versus newer hotels in my hundreds and hundreds of nights stayed is how much smaller the rooms in old hotels feel.  The ceilings are lower.  The bathrooms are smaller.  There's rarely more than a cheap desk chair to sit in, so you wind up sitting on the bed.  The HVAC is usually noisier in old hotels, too.
The traveling public generally expects better than that these days so it makes a lot of sense to rebrand, rebuild or repurpose old hotel buildings.

IHG repositioned the Holiday Inn brand to compete with likes of Hilton Garden Inns; hotels where there's an onsite bar/restaurant and some sort of large event space they can rent out to weddings or whatever.  Simultaneously, they launched Holiday Inn Express to compete in the mid-range market with the likes of Hampton Inn, Fairfield Inn and so on.

It seems to have been a good move on the part of IHG because the contemporaries of the old Holiday Inn model have dropped away.  In addition to Howard Johnson, Ramada used to be a big name in the hotel game, but now, they are pretty much gone, if I'm remembering correctly.

[GaryV]

Ramada used to be a big name in the hotel game, but now, they are pretty much gone, if I'm remembering correctly.

Ramada is low to mid range in Wyndham. Generally I'd much rather stay at AmericInn or Baymont, which Wyndham seems to promote as equivalent levels. But it's a step up from Super 8 or Days Inn.

[SP Cook]

Others, IMHO, outdid the original Holiday Inn concept.  While it is correct to say that Holiday Inn was the first "standardized"  motel chain, they really were not all that standard, either in terms of what they offered nor in terms of their prices, as contrasted with really standardized chains like Hampton Inn.  One Hampton Inn is the same as the next as the next as the next; and, while prices will fluctuate due to time and location, its position within the local market is always at the same point.  Holiday Inns, back in the day, varied in amenities and in prices, way more.

[roadman65]

Good point on the outside rooms.  They are much noisier due to people slamming doors to constantly going in and outside for whatever reason. The hallways make it more hard to go constantly outside.  Plus in high crime areas you have derelicts living in the hotels as well as them trying to bum a light or smoke from you, or blasting their music etc.

I can see one reason to sell them, but the needs of the travelers like handicapped persons need the outside lower level for easier access.  IMO the Motel 6 in Piscataway, NJ had the best making lower level rooms outdoors and upper level through the lobby to an inside hallway. You have the best of both worlds there covered.


Fairfield Inns first done that, but later went for a more upscale look and now resemble Courtyard Brand Marriott's family.  Fairfield Brands of Marriot had first two floors outside and third floor within using a standard hotel layout for all properties with a blue roof and same designed outer staircase at the far end.

[roadman65]

Others, IMHO, outdid the original Holiday Inn concept.  While it is correct to say that Holiday Inn was the first “standardized” motel chain, they really were not all that standard, either in terms of what they offered nor in terms of their prices, as contrasted with really standardized chains like Hampton Inn.  One Hampton Inn is the same as the next as the next as the next; and, while prices will fluctuate due to time and location, its position within the local market is always at the same point.  Holiday Inns, back in the day, varied in amenities and in prices, way more.

Hampton got too upscale when Hilton acquired them. For one prices skyrocketed when they took over . Prior to Hilton owning them, they were decent at $48 a night in 1993 considering you get a free breakfast that saves time and money from going to a nearby Bob Evans or Dennys.

Choice Hotels on the other hand  do vary as the one I stayed at in Conway, SC offered a free hot breakfast while the same brand Choice Hotel in Florence, SC did not offer it. In fact I found out the hard way when I got up the next morning and tried to open the lobby doors ( they were using the night windows at the time at 7 am) and confronted by the desk clerk the lobby is always closed.

[kevinb1994]

I think those mid-price range hotels are more profitable for the big chains than budget hotels. Which I think is why they have exploded in number and in brands in the last 20 years.  Customers feel "safer" staying a hotel where one has to get through some sort of lobby or key-card entrance to get to the actual room door verses one that dumps out straight to a parking lot.  (Regardless of any actual statistics in the area about crime.)

Throw some microwaved eggs and a make-your-own waffle at them in the morning and the hotel guest feels like they got their money's worth.  Especially if there was also a pool and a good TV channel lineup.

The thing I noticed about older hotels versus newer hotels in my hundreds and hundreds of nights stayed is how much smaller the rooms in old hotels feel.  The ceilings are lower.  The bathrooms are smaller.  There's rarely more than a cheap desk chair to sit in, so you wind up sitting on the bed.  The HVAC is usually noisier in old hotels, too.
The traveling public generally expects better than that these days so it makes a lot of sense to rebrand, rebuild or repurpose old hotel buildings.

IHG repositioned the Holiday Inn brand to compete with likes of Hilton Garden Inns; hotels where there's an onsite bar/restaurant and some sort of large event space they can rent out to weddings or whatever.  Simultaneously, they launched Holiday Inn Express to compete in the mid-range market with the likes of Hampton Inn, Fairfield Inn and so on.

It seems to have been a good move on the part of IHG because the contemporaries of the old Holiday Inn model have dropped away.  In addition to Howard Johnson, Ramada used to be a big name in the hotel game, but now, they are pretty much gone, if I'm remembering correctly.

I've been to Ramadas for conventions. Didn't like it because the hotel was old and smelled like smoke. Embassy Suites are nice but the one near here is in a bad area of town. Got asked for an e-cigarette and said no. I've also stayed at one in the Chicago area where there were some problems such as the TV not working properly.

Meanwhile, I've had no problems with other hotels such as Holiday Inn and Hampton Inn. Same with Renaissance.

[jeffandnicole]

(I feel the hotel restaurant works well in small towns where there's fewer choices, and still seems to be kept up in "fancier" hotels.)

It also works tremendously well for business travelers, provided meals can be had for less than their meal allowance.

Formulaone summed it up nicely in his description

To add, each company looks at the type of traveler they want to go after, and within that vision, their portfolio of hotels will have different brands catering to difference travelers. The likes of Marriott & Hilton go for business travelers. The likes of other brands go for leisure travelers. There's some crossover - a small company may have to book stays at a Motel 6 to save money.  Marriott and Hiltons have been noticing the trend of travel teams and weekend excursions for youth clubs, and have shifted their advertising to court these groups.

If I were to guess, Holiday Inn simply rebranded and split off some of their hotels to go after a different generation of travelers.

Most people don't care for the old restaurant concept, which was much like a old-time Cafe. Most restaurants attached to hotels are generally chains or more upscale local places that don't rely solely on travelers.

I can see one reason to sell them, but the needs of the travelers like handicapped persons need the outside lower level for easier access.  IMO the Motel 6 in Piscataway, NJ had the best making lower level rooms outdoors and upper level through the lobby to an inside hallway. You have the best of both worlds there covered.

I don't think the Handicap care too much about outside rooms. They still need to go to the front desk to check in, and most first floors aren't level with the parking lot and still require ramps at certain places to access.

[hbelkins]

To me, the concepts of "Holiday Inn" (as I remember them from my childhood) and "Holiday Inn Express" (as they exist now) are reversed.

I always looked up the original HI as upscale lodging, not four- or five-star resorts, but well-known and nicely-appointed. That's what HI Express is now. It's comparable to Hampton in terms of amenities and service at that price point. That, to me, would seem to be what Holiday Inn should be. HI Express should be something less.

[roadman65]

I agree HI Express now is in the three digits per night in tall enclosed buildings like HI.

[Ned Weasel]

Customers feel "safer" staying a hotel where one has to get through some sort of lobby or key-card entrance to get to the actual room door verses one that dumps out straight to a parking lot.  (Regardless of any actual statistics in the area about crime.)

Yeah, customers can be pretty dumb.

The thing I noticed about older hotels versus newer hotels in my hundreds and hundreds of nights stayed is how much smaller the rooms in old hotels feel.  The ceilings are lower.  The bathrooms are smaller.  There's rarely more than a cheap desk chair to sit in, so you wind up sitting on the bed.  The HVAC is usually noisier in old hotels, too.
The traveling public generally expects better than that these days so it makes a lot of sense to rebrand, rebuild or repurpose old hotel buildings.

Why do you need ceilings higher than eight feet?  Are there really a lot of hotel guests who are that tall?

IHG repositioned the Holiday Inn brand to compete with likes of Hilton Garden Inns; hotels where there's an onsite bar/restaurant and some sort of large event space they can rent out to weddings or whatever.  Simultaneously, they launched Holiday Inn Express to compete in the mid-range market with the likes of Hampton Inn, Fairfield Inn and so on.

Actually, Holiday Inn launched Hampton Inn first, and then spun it off (as a company known as Promus Hotels, which got bought out by Hilton, IIRC) and launched Holiday Inn Express.  I think this all happened in the 1980s.

It seems to have been a good move on the part of IHG because the contemporaries of the old Holiday Inn model have dropped away.  In addition to Howard Johnson, Ramada used to be a big name in the hotel game, but now, they are pretty much gone, if I'm remembering correctly.

Ramada got absorbed into Wyndham, just like Howard Johnson.  Actually, both were part of Cendant before Wyndham bought Cendant.

[triplemultiplex]

The thing I noticed about older hotels versus newer hotels in my hundreds and hundreds of nights stayed is how much smaller the rooms in old hotels feel.  The ceilings are lower.  The bathrooms are smaller.  There's rarely more than a cheap desk chair to sit in, so you wind up sitting on the bed.  The HVAC is usually noisier in old hotels, too.
The traveling public generally expects better than that these days so it makes a lot of sense to rebrand, rebuild or repurpose old hotel buildings.

Why do you need ceilings higher than eight feet?  Are there really a lot of hotel guests who are that tall?

I've wondered the same thing.  I suppose I get it if a room is on the first floor which generally has higher ceilings to accommodate a lobby, a multi-use space, maybe a pool, gym or other amenities.  You're probably not going to do a drop ceiling for the first floor rooms.  But I've been in a lot of hotel rooms with 10 foot ceilings, regardless of what floor they are on.

Maybe they think people are bringing Nerf mini-basketball hoops to their hotel rooms to practice their mid-range jump shot?

Or...
A 10 foot ceiling would make it easier to jump on the bed without hitting your head.

[SectorZ]

This thread has reminded me of a particular parody song referencing Holiday Inn

[hbelkins]

My point, perhaps clumsily made, is that "express" denotes a lower level of service. Think "Pizza Hut Express" which doesn't have the full Pizza Hut menu. I've even seen a few "Taco Bell Express" locations.

I wouldn't expect an "express" hotel to offer nicer rooms and a full hot breakfast the way HI Express does. I'd expect an "express" hotel to be basic accommodations and maybe some packaged doughnuts or honey buns as the breakfast, if a breakfast is offered at all. The full-version hotel is the one I'd expect to have a full breakfast.