Free Technology Newsletters
» All 33 InfoWorld Newsletters
Technology & Business Daily
 
InfoWorld
 
   

Hilton's Suite Surrender of Fair Use Rights

By Ed Foster, Section The Gripelog
Posted on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 08:33:37 AM PDT
Want to use the TV in your hotel room to play your own DVDs? Well, if you do so in some Hilton chains, don't be surprised if you find yourself accused of criminal behavior, copyright infringement, and violating a contract to which you weren't ever a party.


"Here's an interesting twist on how the new copyright laws are affecting us," a reader wrote a few weeks ago. "I recently stayed at a Embassy Suites in Nashville to attend an anime conference being held in that hotel. Per my usual habit when staying at a hotel, I packed a Playstation 2 with some anime DVDs to watch on the television in my room. Well, when I tried to play my DVDs that night, I found the inputs to the TV had been disabled, and they had some protective sleeves to prevent their hotel cable feed from disconnection. No big deal I thought; I called the front desk to ask them how I could play my legally purchased DVDs on their television. Their answer was I couldn't, and it was illegal for me to disconnect their On Command system from the TV to prevent me from copying their programming."

Since the reader just wanted to share some of his anime collection with a few friends who were also attending the conference in the hotel, it hardly seemed like a situation where the Embassy Suites staff couldn't find some way of accommodating him. "The presence of the sleeves is why I called the front desk in the first place," the reader wrote. "I suppose I could have just disconnected them anyway and hooked up my Playstation without anyone else being the wiser, but I was trying to be a good guest and do things in the approved fashion. But they insisted on deliberately misconstruing my request into an attempt to commit a crime and that it was illegal for me to unhook the On Command system, which I had not done."

Angry and frustrated after a long day, the reader decided to checkout of the Embassy Suites that night, even though it was almost midnight and he faced a two-hour drive home. But to add injury to insult, Embassy Suites refused to honor their "unconditional 100% Satisfaction Guarantee" even though it clearly states that if "guests are not completely satisfied, they are not expected to pay for the night."

While the reader was obviously far from completely satisfied, Embassy Suites insisted on charging him for the night anyway. "They claim I had the room too long not be charged, since I checked in early afternoon, parked my bags, and attended the convention," the reader wrote. "I only discovered I couldn't use their television when I came back to my room around 11:00 PM. How was I supposed to know before then that they wouldn't let me disconnect their system and wouldn't be willing to provide me a TV with unblocked DVD inputs?"

The reader called Embassy Suites guest services the next day to complain both about being treated like a criminal for wanting to play his perfectly legal DVDs and being charged for the night. "They refused to honor their unconditional guarantee," the reader wrote. "When I asked for a name up the food chain I could complain to, they told me to write Stephen Bollenbach, the president of Hilton Hotels. So I did. It's been over a month now - no word from anyone at Hilton."

Even before he wrote the Hilton president, though, the reader did receive an e-mail from the management of the Embassy Suites in Nashville in response to his complaints. Far from being apologetic or even hinting the situation could have been handled differently, the message continued to emphasize the illegality of unhooking the On Command system because it would "enable guests to copy new release movies before they are released to the public, violating copyright laws." And the message concluded:

"If you had checked out when you first arrived, we would have been happy to release you from your room, but you actually stayed in the room for nearly 8 hrs, so we are unable to refund your room. There is no 100% guarantee, because this was not an issue that we mishandled or misinformed. This was a legal issue, binding for us both."

Of all the many levels on which the reader was disappointed by Embassy Suites in this experience, the most disturbing was this attitude that whatever duty the hotel contractually owes On Command is somehow also legally binding on him. "Their staff claims that it is illegal for them to unhook the On Command system," the reader wrote. "Regardless of whether it is actually illegal or merely a violation of contract, I did not ask for them to do that, and their implication that I was somehow trying to circumvent copyright law is very galling. In fact, the television in the room did have inputs to allow DVD players to connect, however - as I found out when I actually tried to use them, they were disabled."

While we don't know for sure why Embassy Suites disabled the composite ports on the TV, it's a very good bet it had nothing to do with piracy and everything to do with a desire to force customers to purchase in-room entertainment via the hotel's system rather than bringing their own. And, sure, if that's the way Hilton/Embassy Suites wants to treats its customers, they "legally" have the right to do so. But what kind of 100% satisfaction guarantee would charge a customer for a night's sleep he didn't get if he finds that arrangement unsatisfactory? One thing for sure - if I'm ever scheduling an anime conference, it won't be in booked in the Embassy Suites Nashville South/Cool Springs hotel. After all, the reader (check-in date April 21, confirmation number 86310353, should Stephen Bollenbach or anyone else from Hilton care to finally check in on this) at this point has nothing to show for his stay except a room charge and an accusation of piracy.

--------------------

Post your comments about this column below or write me directly at Foster@gripe2ed.com. To receive this column every week in my free e-mail newsletter, please go to my subscription page and follow the instructions to opt-in for the EdFoster mailing list.

< Reader Voices: Paid Support | An Invite to a Symantec Bash >


Display: Sort:
Hilton's Suite Surrender of Fair Use Rights | 110 comments (110 topical) | Post A Comment
15 years ago...[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#1)
by dw17 on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 09:18:29 AM PDT

About 15 years ago I was a student manager for a sports team at a university...we needed to watch game tapes in our hotel room...preparation or review, I cannot remember.

Same issue, the connections were protected...however, a quick call to engineering resulted in the cables being disconnected for us to hook up the VCR.

I guess we could have copied movies...but we were a bit busy...

Seems that polices are getting tighter...better question would have been, can you ENABLE the DVD inputs?  That cannot violate the rules against copying movies...since you cannot copy using the INPUTs...

[ Reply to This ]



Copying Hotel TV Movies[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#18)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 12:43:36 PM PDT

Even with the cable connections sealed, what's to keep somebody from copying movies by pointing a camcorder at the TV screen? Sure, quality is rather putrid, but it might still be good enough for someone who is really determined to rip off that movie. What's next? Memory-blocking drugs to keep people from blabbing to their friends about secret plot details? And if you can remember how bad a movie was, you won't want to pay to see it again.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Guess it doesn't mean what it says...[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#2)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 09:23:52 AM PDT

What I can find online about the guarantee states this: "Embassy Suites Hotels offers an unconditional 100% Satisfaction Guarantee at all of its hotels. The unprecedented guarantee assures that guests will receive high-quality accommodations, clean, comfortable surroundings and friendly, efficient service. If guests are not completely satisfied, they are not expected to pay for that night."

If it's truly unconditional as they claim, I don't see how they can refuse to honor this. I think they must not know the meaning of unconditional. Even worse they state "There is no 100% guarantee, because this was not an issue that we mishandled or misinformed". So now they claim there is a condition that invalidates their "unconditional" guarantee. This speaks volumes.

I can't help you a lot, but I can do this. I will never stay at Embassy Suites again. They've lost my business.

[ Reply to This ]



Forgot one thing. Did you use a credit card?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#6)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 09:56:36 AM PDT

If you paid with a credit card rather than cash, do a chargeback.

If Embassy Suites doesn't contest the chargeback, then you have your money back. If they do contest it, you have their own 100% unconditional guarantee as your response.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Another option[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#24)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 03:18:26 PM PDT

Another option is to take Hilton to Small Claims court. While it might not be worth the actual time and effort you spend in a financial sense, winning on priciple might make it all worthwhile.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Unconditional guarantee - only response[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#38)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 11:34:57 AM PDT

Chains and large corporations feel that they can market lies: see "unconditional guarantee" and then, when necessary, fall back on more deception (read: fine print: "we didn't mishandle...blah, blah, blah.) Well, I don't have the money to buy the all the chains and large corporations and fire the idiots in charge, but I do have the right to withhold my money. So, I vote by telling people these stories, and then not using their products or services. The only way to make these companies listen is to withhold money. Nothing else matters to them. But, the only way it will work, is if all of us who are fed up with being lied to, do it. I am--what about you?

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


I think the bed may have been lumpy[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#3)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 09:25:24 AM PDT

Or at least, that's what I would have told management the next morning to force them to honor the 100% satisfaction guarantee. He certainly didn't watch his DVDs after a 2 hour drive home.

[ Reply to This ]


Words Mean Things[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#4)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 09:42:33 AM PDT

"Unconditional" has a very narrow and specific meaning. Even a person who is the product of public education can define that word with little to no prompting. Since Embassy Suites has elected to redefine the word as it applies to its satisfaction policy, several other words come to mind immediately - fraud & class-action lawsuit are at the top of the list. I am not a fan of frivolous litigation but this is far from frivolous. It's downright abusive and fraudulant. I can see a line of lawyers a block long lining up to take this case on, as they should. Unless Embassy Suites is challenged on its actions, it will continue to take advantage of its guests as early and as often as possible. Too bad they couldn't learn a little something about arrogance from the Enron decision. That's what got Lay and Skilling in the end.

[ Reply to This ]


I can see their point[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#7)
by JimB on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 09:56:46 AM PDT

Although from a customer satisfaction POV they should have refunded the money, I can see how, after 8 hours they can say that there was no disatisfaction since the room was kept for a full business day.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Full business day or not[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#8)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 09:59:57 AM PDT

It says unconditional, that is without conditions. If they don't want to honor a guarantee without conditions then they should call it something else.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Sue them[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#45)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 12:43:46 PM PDT

"If you had checked out when you first arrived, we would have been happy to release you from your room, but you actually stayed in the room for nearly 8 hrs, so we are unable to refund your room. There is no 100% guarantee, because this was not an issue that we mishandled or misinformed. This was a legal issue, binding for us both." Ah, but they did not say that until AFTER they refused to honor their own agreement. You should sue them. Here is a similar case, an actual one on the books. A car dealership advertised that at a golf tournment if you got a hole in one on the 8th (or whatever) hole, you won a free car. This was a 9 hole course and they were playing 18 holes by going over the course twice. The guy got a hole in one on the 17th tee, in other words the second time around on the 8th hole. They would not give him the car saying if was the 17th tee, not the 8th tee. He said it was the 8th hole that was the 8th tee and the 17th tee, therefore he should get the car. The court decided that the guy wins the car. Why? Because such advertised agreements are construed against the the party making the statement, and car dealer here, who said the 8th hole, not 8th tee, wins the car. Same for you. They can't entice you into the hotel with an unconditional guarantee that pull out the rug from under you. Besides, they were so mean to you in accusing you the way they did, that they did not treat you nicely AS GUARANTEED BY THE GUARANTEE, and for that alone you should get your money back. Sue them. If they are smart they will settle quickly and you will get your money back and perhaps more, depending on how you word the complaint.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


full business day?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#9)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 11:15:56 AM PDT

He had a hotel room, not a conference room or office space. You rent a room for the night, not for a business day.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Still tough to fill[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#17)
by foxyshadis1 on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 12:33:21 PM PDT

Many hotels don't close the business office until 1 or 2 am anyway, if they aren't 24 hours, so they can often fill a room even if a guest leaves in the evening, but it's hardly guaranteed. (Wonder if they did in his case?)

Maybe they should have worked out a partial refund, but it sounds like he's mostly galled about being accused of being a pirate and lectured at by everyone from local management to the top brass just for wanting to play a DVD. I'd be pissed off too, but then I'd never stay at a Hilton in the first place.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



They have no point[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#13)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 11:45:03 AM PDT

What if one stays in their hotel in a room that has no air conditioning during a summer stay? If they stay all night in that hotel because no other rooms in town are available, does that mean they are satisfied? NO! They just didn't have a choice. Give him the refund!

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


What part of this don't you understand?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#22)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 01:34:49 PM PDT

"If guests are not completely satisfied, they are not expected to pay for that night."

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Bull[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#31)
by whiteknight on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 08:54:17 AM PDT

This response is totally wrong! I can be dissatified at any point during my stay for any reason I choose to give - noise, bad bed, bad smell, discovering vermin in my room, or discovering an unusable amenity in my room. Doesn't matter one iota how long I stayed!

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Words and contracts[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#23)
by Red Rat on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 02:29:50 PM PDT

There really are two issues here. Of course the writer and other commentators are correct, Embassy/Hilton should not use the word "unconditional" in their advertising. They obviously applied a condition after the fact. They deserve to be castigated for such a broad statement of a guarantee. On the other hand, they may have point with regard to the TV set and its hook-up. I don't know the arrangements of Hilton/Embassy with the cable provider but it may well be that the TV set does not belong to the hotel, but may actually belong to the cable service provider, perhaps some form of lease arrangement (there would be obvious tax breaks for the hotel). In effect, they may well have a contract that does not permit tampering with the TV and its connections. If they do, they may well be within their rights in saying that is something they can do nothing about. However, all that being said, they should not be out blathering about "unconditional" guarantees--I am surprised that their lawyers did not warn them about such advertising.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Not a Contract for the Customer[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#26)
by Ed Foster on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 09:17:37 PM PDT

Well, even if that were true, you'd still be talking about a contract to which Hilton's customer is not a party. We could imagine that Hilton might also have a contract with CBS, say, where it agrees to prevent room guests from watching NBC programs, and Hilton might have some primitive method of making it hard to get to NBC with their television set. But if a guest finds a way to get to NBC on Hilton's TV anyway, is the guest guilty of a crime for violating a contract he or she knew nothing about? -- Ed

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


It is a contract if the Hotel makes it one[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#28)
by wantobe on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 02:56:33 AM PDT

If the Hotel has a contract with a provider that disallows something and the guest circumvents the restrictions the hotel has in place to prevent it, then the guest could very well be guilty. Of what, I'm not sure (IANAL), but something.

In your example, if I'm not supposed to watch NBC and I, unaware of that, turn the TV dial to NBC and watch it, them I'm not at fault. But if I physically remove the filter (or whatever) from the TV in order to watch NBC, I've made an unauthorized alteration to the TV. I don't need to know the details of the hotel's contract with a provider, it's enough to know the hotel has the filter in place, which implies I'm not to watch that channel.

In the writer's case, I don't think he did anything wrong, but if he had purposefully tried to circumvent the restrictions the hotel put in place, especially after the hotel staff informed him of the restrictions, then he would have been subject to a lot of trouble. At least, that's the way I would look at it. Still, they should (at this point) honor the money-back guarantee, as the guest was obviously unsatisfied.


Rob Miles
--
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary and those who don't.
[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Only if the hotel guest signs a contract[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#95)
by ekuns on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 04:50:42 PM PDT

If the hotel has nothing in their contract with the hotel guest that says the hotel guest is not allowed to remove filters, then there is nothing legally binding on the hotel guest to prevent them from removing the filters. You can't be a party to a contract that you did not sign.

Also, the writer did nothing wrong because the writer didn't DO anything!



[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Reply to This[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#198)
by Anonymous User on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:41:04 AM PDT

Reply to This

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Potential Future Article[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#29)
by srynas on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 06:10:27 AM PDT

The poster stated "...but it may well be that the TV set does not belong to the hotel, but may actually belong to the cable service provider, perhaps some form of lease arrangement." This raises the issue of the use of "Leasing" and/or "Licensing" as a means of avoiding customer support.  

For example, many years ago (when modems where in style), the manufacturer of the modem professed an inability to fix the modem based on technology licensed from the old AT&T. I finally found a person at the old AT&T responsible for the code who said that AT&T was no longer responsible since they had leased or licensed it to yet another company. The modem manufacturer of course went
bankrupt and I was left with an expensive useless product.

Though I have not had a repeat experience, is there any indication that companies may be claiming that they cannot provide customer assistance based solely on the issue of "leased" or "licensed" technology from another company even though it is used by their product???????

PS: One reason for my comment and the hotel theme of this article is that hotels use this type of excuse with parking at a hotel, which is conveniently managed by another company under lease so that the desk clerk can tell you that the hotel can't help you with any parking issues that you may have.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Future Article II[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#53)
by srynas on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 02:35:38 PM PDT

A few posts down (Regarding TV in Room), a poster said that he is a manager in hotel business. He said "Regardless on if the reader is satisfied with the stay or not, the hotel cannot provide compensation for something that they are contractually bound by (and thus legally bound by)."

This is exactly my fear, that business will voluntarily elect to enter into contracts that in theory bind them so that they can turn to the customer saying how they would like to "help" but unfortunately they are bound by this third party contract that screws the consumer.


[ Parent | Reply to This ]



File a Credit Card Dispute[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#5)
by MrsPost on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 09:54:16 AM PDT

Sounds easy enough. You were forced to pay for a service you didn't receive. File a dispute with your credit card company and let them fight it out.

[ Reply to This ]


In defense of the hotel[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#10)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 11:18:03 AM PDT

Don't stay at Hilton anymore. Complain widely and loudly. But asking for a free stay in these circumstances is pushing it, in my opinion. Yes, a really customer savvy place might have given you a break, but in my opinion you are being petulant, though I know you and many others will disagree. I do not think this is an issue upon which to wage a consumer rights battle. Save your powder, as the saying goes. I may be the only one here to have this opinion. So thanks for letting me sound off. Feel free to blast me--nicely.

[ Reply to This ]


Not in defense of the hotel[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#12)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 11:42:47 AM PDT

If they had a conditional guarantee and he violated one of the conditions, I would agree with you. But they claim to have an unconditional guarantee. There is no room for wiggle room there. What Hilton did was to add conditions to their unconditional guarantee after the fact. If they don't want to honor an unconditional guarantee, they shouldn't offer it.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Agreed 100%[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#15)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 12:15:21 PM PDT

They claim an unconditional 100% satisfaction guarantee and they derive the financial benefits of having made that claim. If they are allowed to add conditions upon this guarantee after the fact and get away with it, they're reaping the rewards without assuming any of the risk. It's hard for me to see this as anything but dishonest and fraudulent.

I think the customer acted very responsibly in this matter. The customer attended his/her conference and wasn't in the room most of that time. Furthermore the customer didn't stay in the room all night, he/she checked out at midnight at (I'm guessing) considerable inconvenience to themselves, within a very few hours of discovering the issue, and even part of that limited time in the room was spent trying to resolve this very issue. Even if Embassy Suites didn't offer this guarantee, it would probably behoove them to offer the customer his/her money back, or not charge for the night, as a courtesy, but they do have this guarantee. To not honor it under these circumstances is shameful.

When you really think about though, all of these facts are really moot. The bottom line is that the customer wasn't satisfied and, under the terms of the guarantee as advertised, should get his/her money back. The guarantee was unconditional. By definition they have no wiggle room whatsoever. Embassy Suites, be honest, honor your own commitment, just give him/her the refund.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



run in[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#11)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 11:18:44 AM PDT

I had a like situation in a Hampton Inn, (Sarasota, FL) about a year ago. I wanted to hook up my portable DVD player to watch a movie that I had brought from home. The response from the management of the hotel was "that is revenue for us". Lost my business ever since.

[ Reply to This ]


Hampton Inn[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#78)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 02:08:51 PM PDT

We stay at a Hampton Inn in Cortland, NY a couple of times a year to go skiing. They not only have DVD players in the rooms but have a decent selection of DVD's for it patrons to borrow (as in for free).

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Hampton Inn[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#82)
by sconeu on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 08:33:59 AM PDT

Interestingly, Hampton Inn is part of the Hilton family of hotels.

--
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the United States of America.
[ Parent | Reply to This ]



There is a technical reason you can't disconnect..[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#14)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 12:12:30 PM PDT

The "security", such as it is, in the OnCommand system, relies on only the OnCommand Remote being able to work the Hotel TV. The hotel has a great number of stations feeding the TV, and your Remote selects the proper one for the operation you are trying to perform.

For instance, if you want to watch a PPV movie, the core system commands a central player unit to start up, assings it a station and then switches your TV to that station so you can watch your movie. The whole system isn't even scrambled.

It isn't the TV they want to stop you from using, it is the line coming out of the wall. If you clipped a generic TV (or a USB TV-Tuner) onto the line, you could watch pretty much anything somebody else in the hotel was watching. (I doubt you could order a PPV, but you could watch any PPV somebody else had ordered.)

I remember there was an article linked by Slashdot a while back about the whole thing.

That said, they still should have honored their Guarantee and refunded the money.

SirWired

[ Reply to This ]



Let me edit that somewhat....[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#16)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 12:15:28 PM PDT

The system relies on only being able to hook the special TV to the cable. It doesn't have anything to do with the remote.

As a side note, there are functions used by housekeeping that you can access with enough persistance. These functions let the staff keep the front desk updated on which rooms are ready or being worked on.

SirWired

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Sophistry[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#81)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 07:46:54 AM PDT

Claiming there's a "technical" reason is pure sophistry. There's a profit-motive reason and possibly a liability (to a claim of breach of contract) reason, from what's been described, but there is nothing that makes unhooking the things and hooking up a DVD and making all of this work technically infeasible whatsoever.

Please do not hand the lawyers, the fatcats, and their golfing buddies on the legislature and senate victory on a silver platter by letting them control the language of debate and call a limitation they chose to create a "technical" limitation rather than a "legal" or a "gratuitous profit-motivated" one or something else more honest.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#295)
by maderikapapa on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:00:11 PM PDT

出会い出会い系サイト出会い喫茶出会い掲示板ナンパ出会いカフェ人妻出会い無 009;系サイト優良出会い系攻略 完全無料。アダルトビデオアダルト動画アダルトアニメアダルト画像アダル 488;サイト無料DVDアダルト風俗サンプル無料風俗優良アダルトサイト比較海 806;。人妻画像人妻パラダイス知合い人妻援護会人妻コレクション風 439;告白。熟女画像東京熟女掲示板動画熟女ビデオおまんこオナニーエロ画像エロフラッシュアニメ 456;ロ動画エロゲームエロ漫画無料エロサイト。エッチ画像エッチ動画エッチ小説写真エッチ 450;ニメエッチ0930。セックスアナルセックス画像セックス動画セックスフレンドスワッピングSEX写真セックスボランティセ 483;クス体位東京セックス仕方 SEX。おっぱい画像おっぱい村長おっぱい楽園掲示板お 387;ぱい命おっぱいゲーム。巨乳動画巨乳画像アイドル巨乳 522;示板風俗。セフレ募集セフレ掲示板セフレ画像掲示板セフレの作り方出会い無料素人セフレ。童貞狩りエロ漫画童貞狩り童貞喪失童貞オークション素人童貞逆援不倫パートナー不倫出会い人妻不倫不倫を楽しみたい方にはお薦め 154;妻画像など満載出会いサイトを楽しむならココ無料出会いで一緒に遊ぼう出会いはLOVEアゲインで決まり

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Shoulda used American Express[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#20)
by eljefe99 on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 12:54:05 PM PDT

I've had 2 similar problems in the past and American Express, with very little effort from what they told me, got my money back and pretty much scared the sh*t out of the vendor that wanted to keep it. I don't believe VISA or Mastercard can or will do this. You simply write a letter stating the problem and what the vendor told you. Once they understand the issue, the power they can bring to bear for a cutomer is totally awesome.

[ Reply to This ]


send a note to the property owner[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#25)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 05:47:12 PM PDT

Taken from Flyertalk.com, this has been my hilton experience as well: "...My personal take on the "reasonable expectation" aspect of the unconditional guarantee is that it is completely irrelevant. I say that as HHonors Diamond of many years who has never once taken up Hilton on its promise. It has been offered to me a couple of times without any prompting on my part and thats the way it should work, i.e. the guest should never have to fight for fulfillment of this promise..." If I were this guy, I'd fire off an email mentioning the online discussions to john.hammons@jqh.com and cc to lou.weckstein@jqh.com, scott.tarwater@jqh.com and john.shulte@jqh.com John Q. Hammons Hotels & Resorts 300 John Q. Hammons Pkwy. Springfield, MO 65806 Phone: (417) 864-4300 E-mail: john.shulte@jqh.com (maybe PR?) www.jqhhotels.com John Q. Hammons, Chairman of the Board Lou Weckstein, President Scott Tarwater, SVP

[ Reply to This ]


FlyerTalk Thread[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#30)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 08:52:05 AM PDT

I am the OP of the FlyerTalk thread, which is posted in the Hilton forum and is typically read by frequent guests at Hilton HHonors properties and probably some corporate Hilton lurkers as well. For those interested, the thread can be found here: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=565913

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#300)
by maderikapapa on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 03:01:44 AM PDT

出会い出会い系サイト出会い喫茶出会い掲示板ナンパ出会いカフェ人妻出会い無 009;系サイト優良出会い系攻略 完全無料。アダルトビデオアダルト動画アダルトアニメアダルト画像アダル 488;サイト無料DVDアダルト風俗サンプル無料風俗優良アダルトサイト比較海 806;。人妻画像人妻パラダイス知合い人妻援護会人妻コレクション風 439;告白。熟女画像東京熟女掲示板動画熟女ビデオおまんこオナニーエロ画像エロフラッシュアニメ 456;ロ動画エロゲームエロ漫画無料エロサイト。エッチ画像エッチ動画エッチ小説写真エッチ 450;ニメエッチ0930。セックスアナルセックス画像セックス動画セックスフレンドスワッピングSEX写真セックスボランティセ 483;クス体位東京セックス仕方 SEX。おっぱい画像おっぱい村長おっぱい楽園掲示板お 387;ぱい命おっぱいゲーム。巨乳動画巨乳画像アイドル巨乳 522;示板風俗。セフレ募集セフレ掲示板セフレ画像掲示板セフレの作り方出会い無料素人セフレ。童貞狩りエロ漫画童貞狩り童貞喪失童貞オークション素人童貞逆援不倫パートナー不倫出会い人妻不倫不倫を楽しみたい方にはお薦め 154;妻画像など満載出会いサイトを楽しむならココ無料出会いで一緒に遊ぼう出会いはLOVEアゲインで決まり

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


I let them know[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#27)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 09:33:52 PM PDT

I sent a feedback email to their press and media contact letting them know of this board. According to the autoreply email, the media contact is out of the office until Wednesday, but is checking email periodically. I found the quote on the autoreply to be interesting. It was:

It has been, and continues to be, our responsibility to fill the Earth with the Light and Warmth of Hospitality. --Conrad N. Hilton"

He's probably rolling in his grave at their current understanding of, and display of, "the Light and Warmth of Hospitality". What a joke!

[ Reply to This ]



Regarding TV in Room[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#32)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 10:59:08 AM PDT

I am a manager in the Hotel Business and I have at one time worked for the Hilton Corporation. I would have to say that I agree completely with the company on this one. Regardless on if the reader is satisfied with the stay or not, the hotel cannot provide compensation for something that they are contractually bound by (and thus legally bound by). In every hotel that I have worked for the "on demand" system has the same restrictions. This is NOT for piracy reasons but for entertainment reasons. Hotels sign a contract specifically saying that the on demand service is the "cable company" and thus is the exclusive service offered. Because of that exclusivity, the guest gives up all right when he signs the registration card upon arrival. It is a contract with the "landlord" that specifically outlines the justifications for his stay. If the reader stayed at my hotel I would inform him of the same information that this Embassy did. On a personal note, I honestly have no sympathy for this reader. It is his fault that he didn't get all the information prior to his stay. If showing his movies was this important then he needs to do his diligence and make sure that the hotel fits his needs before holding it responsible. Why must consumers put the blame on the product if it isn't exactly as expected. If you have specific expectations, MAKE THEM KNOWN. We cannot read your mind and we cannot give you satisfaction for not being able to meet expectations that we had no idea about. By the way. As an FYI to anyone staying at a Hilton, Marriott, Hyatt or any other major chain hotel you will experience similar issues with the TV's. Most of these hotels have similar agreements (in fact the On Demand contract is a Hilton corpoarte contract) and will not allow for any game system or DVD player to be hooked up.

[ Reply to This ]


Open up a dictionary[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#33)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 11:24:57 AM PDT

"Hotel Manager": what part of "unconditional 100% Satisfaction Guarantee" do you not understand?

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Missing the point[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#34)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 11:26:43 AM PDT

That's all well in good, but you're missing the point. What does the word "unconditional" mean to you? To me, and probably most anyone except apparently hotel management, it means "NO CONDITIONS". If Hilton does not want the guarantee to apply to dissatisfaction with the TV entertainment arrangement, then they need to specify that as an exclusion and NOT call the guarantee unconditional. IANAL, but my guess is Hilton's interpretation of unconditional would constitute fraud.

Honestly, I could not care less what the reason was for the OP's dissatisfaction. I personally don't spend time in a hotel room watching TV (except maybe to catch the weather) and would never leave a hotel for the reason he did. However, Hilton _claims_ they will not charge you if you are dissatisfied for _any_ reason. Not for any non-contractual reason, but _any_ reason. They didn't live up to their guarantee.

The other, mostly ignored, issue here is that Hilton, at all levels, kept trying to accuse (implicitly or otherwise) the OP of trying to infringe copyrights. If the OP's post is accurate, he didn't ask them to disconnect anything; he just asked how he could watch his own DVDs. Jumping from that request to copyright infringement accusations is a heck of a big leap and certainly not customer friendly. A simple: "Sorry our contract with the cable provider doesn't allow that" would have been sufficient explanation without antagonizing the customer.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Ridiculous[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#59)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 11:12:57 PM PDT

Even if they could not unhook the TVs from the cables in the rooms, surely they could have dredged up an old, normal TV for him to hook his DVD player up to, without endangering the stupid DRM on the hotel feed he wasn't using anyway? Have they forgotten, incidentally, how crucial repeat business is in the entire hospitality sector? Hotels, restaurants, you name it -- if they tick off all their would-be return customers, they invariably go out of business fairly quickly.

As for the suggestion that the reader should have researched the hotel and gone elsewhere, if you'll recall, he didn't pick the hotel -- a convention picked the hotel. He had to go where the convention was to be with the people he intended to show movies to. Of course, you may have a point that something like an anime convention may need to make a better choice of hotel given that bringing in and displaying their own video content is necessary to their activities...

And that's leaving aside the meaning of "unconditional guarantee". To a corporate lawyer, I suppose, it's "as weak a guarantee as we can get away with". :P

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



B.S.[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#35)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 11:29:18 AM PDT

Using your logic, the customer have to specify that there should be TP and towels in the bathroom and the hotel has not obligation to provide them if he didn't ask before he signed the registration card. Just because you think it is standard practice for most hotels to disable the normal features found on most TV's thoughout the world, that doesn't mean the customer should have known. What a load of BS. Time for you to find a new field. You have lost the ability to satisfy customers because you can no longer put yourself in their shoes.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Logic[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#41)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 11:49:01 AM PDT

Regardless of the unconditional GTD, which I have not made a comment to, the logic behind my post clearly exists. If the TP in the bathroom was important enough for the guest to check out in the middle of the night then they should MAKE SURE that TP is provided. In this case, a reasonable person would make sure of a aspect of their stay meets what they require. If they don't make sure of their nessacities, the product supplier shouldn't be held responsible for consumer idiocy.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


No need[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#43)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 12:02:39 PM PDT

Well I think you did bring the guarantee into it in the "hotel cannot provide compensation for something" part. That said, I see your point, but the unconditional guarantee really absolves them of the need to do so, doesn't it?

By offering this, isn't Hilton trying to say "Stay with us and don't worry about anything. If we can't satisfy you, then we won't charge you."

What incentive does the customer have to do what you suggest under these circumstances? Now if there is no guarantee, then what you suggest is a smart thing for the customer to do.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Logic?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#50)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 01:22:18 PM PDT

Your "logic" is basically "caveat emptor", which is fine, but irrelevant, since most of the outrage here is that Hilton refused to honor their publicly advertised policy.

Or are you saying the OP should have asked: "Do you plan to honor your guarantee or are you just lying?"

You really should post the hotel(s) that you manage, so if anyone here happens to stay there they at least know that they need to ask you if you are lying about any of your publicly advertised policies.

This kind of attitude is why the service industry seems to be going downhill. You somehow feel justified in screwing anyone who didn't know what the right questions were to ask.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



That's against the spirit of the clause[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#69)
by LasVegan on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 09:21:01 AM PDT

I would treat the "unconditional guarantee" offer as a claim by the hotel that there's no need to worry about the little things, that they will be ok or at least made right if a problem is discovered.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Yeah, right.[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#77)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 10:29:57 AM PDT

So whenever you stay overnight at a hotel, being an informed hotel manager, do you ask the front desk when you make reservations: Does this room have a bed? Does the bed have a mattress? Does the room have a door on it? Does the door have a lock on it? Does the room come with a bathroom? Do the sink and toilet in the bathroom work? Is electricity supplied to the room? The list can go on, and I suspect everyone else has gotten the point by now.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


The problem is in the wording of their policy[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#37)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 11:33:26 AM PDT

I don't have a problem with the Hotel not providing the ability for him to hook up his video player to the Hotel TV. I have a problem with the wording in their satisfaction guarentee - It they do not mean unconditional - they should not advertise it as so.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


What a load[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#39)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 11:35:11 AM PDT

Let me guess you went to goverment schools didn't you? The inability to understand the word unconditional just cooks my brain.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


I think you're missing the point[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#40)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 11:37:38 AM PDT

You say they "the hotel cannot provide compensation for something that they are contractually bound by", but this really misses the point.

For me the issue is simply them living up to an unconditional guarantee. If they want some exclusions on their guarantee, then just don't offer an unconditional guarantee. Nobody made them offer that kind of guarantee, yet they chose to do so for some reason. They must think it benefits them to do so or they wouldn't.

Either decide you want the benefit that offering an unconditional guarantee gives you and honor it without fail or decide that offering that brings up situations for which you're not willing to compensate the customer and don't offer it.

In a situation where an unconditional guarantee is offered, the only response to a customer asking that it be enforced should be "Yes Sir/Ma'am". If it is unconditional, then absolutely nothing else matters by definition. Doesn't matter whether the customer's expectations are reasonable or not. Unconditional means just that. Nothing else matters. Period. Anything besides honoring it immediately is adding conditions and making it something other than unconditional and simply a lie for marketing ga