The chains have a new offer for independent hotels

Nearly half of Marriott's signings across Europe, the Middle East and Africa last year were existing hotels joining. You keep your name, your look and your restaurant. What you hand over is the guest.

by Markus Busch

Read the three pitches next to each other and they say one thing.

Hilton says Curio and Tapestry let an owner keep the individuality and story of her hotel, while plugging into its distribution, its technology and Hilton Honors. IHG tells a Vignette owner she keeps the name, the look and the feel of her property, with her own brand and identity center stage. Its newest collection, launched this year, offers the same bargain in different words. Marriott aims Autograph, Tribute Portfolio and The Luxury Collection squarely at independent hotels.

These are marketing documents and they read like it. But look at what they have stopped asking for.

For forty years the offer ran the other way. A chain arrived with a manual. This is the room, this is the breakfast, this is the sign above the door. The value came from a traveler in Denver knowing exactly what she would get in Dusseldorf. The European hotel that could not comply was told to comply anyway or stay outside. The converted monastery with fourteen room shapes. The family place where the owner's mother still runs the kitchen.

Now Marriott, Hilton and IHG have all built brands whose selling point is that you will not have to. That is a concession, and it is worth sitting with.

Conversion is how the chains grow here now

Marriott opened 170 hotels across Europe, the Middle East and Africa in 2025 and signed more than 230. Nearly half of those signings were conversions, meaning existing buildings taking a Marriott flag rather than new ones going up. Marriott credits its collection brands for the growth.

IHG launched a 21st brand this year. Noted Collection is built for conversions, and the first UK signing, a Hertfordshire estate, was announced on May 14. Hilton's two collection brands each passed 200 open hotels on June 1, Curio across 47 countries.

One limit, because the number gets misread. Marriott's figure covers the Middle East and Africa as well as Europe, so it is not a European number. Those conversions also include hotels leaving one chain for another, and buildings that were never hotels at all. So this does not say half of Europe's independents joined Marriott last year. It says something narrower. The conversion, not the new build, is how a global chain grows in this part of the world now. The collection brand is how it does it.

What the money is actually buying

Every one of these pitches names the same two things. Distribution and loyalty.

That is the product. Not the sign, not the manual, not the breakfast standard. A reservation system that reaches travelers you do not reach, and a loyalty program whose members collect points across thousands of properties.

Here is what that costs you.

A guest who finds you inside Bonvoy is Bonvoy's guest. She earned the points at a Marriott in Frankfurt. She will spend them at a Marriott in Lisbon. She picked you out of the app because you were the Bonvoy option in your town on her dates. She is loyal to the program. The program is loyal to whoever is in it. Next year a competitor down the road joins the same collection and prices better on the Tuesday she wants. The app hands her over, and neither of you did anything wrong.

You hosted her. Someone else banked her.

It is the trade the OTA offers, with better manners. The OTA takes the guest and leaves you the room. The collection takes the guest and leaves you the building. The name, the restaurant, the fourteen room shapes, all of it preserved, because none of that was ever the part it wanted.

The case for signing anyway

There is a version of this hotel for which the deal is right.

Take a property with no distribution beyond one OTA, no way to reach a traveler in Singapore, and an empty November. It is not choosing between independence and affiliation. It is choosing between demand it cannot build alone and rooms that go out unsold. A collection brand answers that. You can read the fees before you sign, which is more than you can say for a commission that grows every time you do well. And the identity concession is real. Nobody is asking you to gut the building.

The mistake is not signing. It is signing without pricing the part that never appears on the term sheet.

What to price before you sign

Four questions, and they are about your property rather than the market.

How much of your business already arrives with nobody in the middle? Direct, repeat, or sent by a guest who stayed and talked about you. That is the number at risk, and most owners have never counted it.

What do your returning guests produce in a year? Not the count. The revenue, and the bookings they brought with them.

What will you pay to host a guest you would have booked anyway? Fees on the reservation, plus the direct booking that now arrives through somebody's app.

And is your demand problem twelve months long or six weeks? A hotel full in July and empty in November has a seasonality problem. A hotel empty in July has a distribution problem. Only one of those is worth trading the guest for.

The chains no longer need to own Europe's hotels, and increasingly they do not want to. Franchise and management fees pay without owning a single building. What grows year on year is the network. The member, the points balance, the app that decides where she sleeps next.

The owner keeps the deed. The chain keeps the guest.

Read also: The chains' growth now comes from hotels that are already open. Yours is on the list. · Hotel brands are winning the economics of direct booking

Enjoying this analysis? Hospitality.today delivers daily insights on hotel distribution, AI trends, and travel commerce — straight to your inbox. Subscribe for free at Hospitality.today →