Michelin, a name synonymous with culinary excellence and a beacon for food enthusiasts around the globe, has recently ventured into a new domain with the launch of its hotel rating system, the Michelin Key. This move marks a significant expansion of Michelin’s influence from the gourmet dining scene to the broader hospitality industry. We compared the professional ratings from the Michelin guide, with those of guests to see how they stack up.
Michelin Enters Hotel Reviews
Given Michelin’s historic impact on restaurants, where a single star can transform an establishment’s future and success, it’s exciting to speculate on this new system’s potential effects on hotels. One can’t help but wonder what the future holds.
Will the hotels awarded a Michelin Key experience a significant rise in demand and be able to increase their rates dramatically? And how will this impact the dynamics between prestige, price, and preference in the hotel industry?
As a global leader in hotel reputation management we have data on the guest perception of hotels which becomes the hotel’s reputation. Guest ratings are more subjective than professional ratings and we wanted to compare how the two stack up. To do this we used our industry standard index, the GRI.
Key Takeaways
Complementary Insights – Michelin Keys and guest feedback offer a holistic view of a hotel’s offerings, combining expert objectivity with personal guest experiences.
Dynamic vs. Static Analysis—While Michelin’s professional reviews provide a snapshot of quality based on rigorous, consistent criteria, guest reviews offer ongoing feedback.
Driving Industry Standards—The Michelin Key system and guest reviews play a critical role in elevating hospitality standards.
Future Prospects – Integrating Michelin’s authoritative reviews with the broad spectrum of guest feedback opens up new avenues for transparency, quality assurance, and innovation in the hotel industry.
Objective Analysis vs. Subjective Insights
We analysed the Michelin Keys against the Guest Review Index for Paris and found it presents an intriguing picture of the hospitality landscape. Although an inverse relationship was identified between the number of Michelin keys and the GRI, with 3-key Michelin Hotels scoring a yearly GRI of 94.60% against 95.15% for 2-keys and 95.25% for 1-key hotels, this divergence wasn’t deemed statistically significant.
Furthermore, only a fraction of Michelin Keys hotels, specifically 12 out of 39, were featured in the top 50 list based on their yearly GRI performance. The best among the 3-key category, the Four Seasons Hotel George V, Paris, only managed to secure the 15th position, trailing behind Hotel Lutetia, a 2-key establishment that clinched the 4th spot. This indicates a complex relationship between luxury ratings and guest satisfaction.
Our comparison also sheds light on the operational scale and guest experience, particularly the average number of rooms across different categories of Michelin Keys hotels and their GRI scores. Notably, 1-key hotels, with an average of 40 rooms, were the only group to have a lower-than-average room count compared to the city’s benchmark of 57 rooms, suggesting a preference for smaller, boutique settings which is aligned with the Michelin Keys Award’s emphasis on exceptional guest experiences in boutique hotels.
This trend contrasts with the higher room averages in 3-keys (124 rooms) and 2-keys (140 rooms) categories. Moreover, the optimal number of rooms for achieving peak GRI scores is around 70, reinforcing that a moderate scale may facilitate a higher quality of service and guest satisfaction. This is further supported by the observation that the top-rated hotels by GRI significantly outperform the average GRI scores across all star categories, underscoring the importance of guest reviews in assessing hotel performance.
Key findings from our analysis.
- Inverse Ratio of Michelin Keys vs Guest Ratings, GRI Analysis: Benchmarking the Michelin keys against the yearly GRI for Paris generated an inverse ratio, though the divergence is not statistically significant. Indeed, the 3-key Michelin Hotels achieved a slightly lower yearly GRI (94.60%) when compared to the 2-key Michelin Hotels (95.15%) and the 1-key Michelin Hotels (95.25%).
- Michelin’s Finest Fall Short: Only a Quarter of Top Key Hotels Reach Top 50 GRI Rankings. Only 12 Michelin Keys hotels (out of 39) made it to the list of the top 50 hotels based on their yearly GRI performance. The best Michelin 3-keys ranked only 15th (Four Seasons Hotel George V, Paris), ranking lower than the best 2-keys Michelin. Hotel Lutetia holds the fourth spot.
- Focusing on Boutique, But In Paris the Hotels are Above Average in Room-Count. The Michelin Keys Award guideline pointed out that the focus was on boutique hotels that are capable of offering exceptional guest experiences. Of the 12 Michelin Keys hotels in the top 50, only the 1-key (40 rooms on average) showed a lower-than-average number of rooms (57). The average number of rooms for the 3-keys was 124, and 2-keys was 140. As expected, the median number of rooms for the best 5-star Hotels was fairly low (50 rooms) and higher than the 4-star hotels median (38) and the median 3-star (26).
- 2-keys Surpass 3-keys with Higher GRI Scores, Besting Even Top 1-key Properties. A GRI of 95.70% (the score the 10th best hotel achieved) means that the property must notch up a staggering 97% of positive reviews overall and limit the number of neutral reviews to less than 2% and negative ones to less than 1%. It is therefore interesting to notice that a 2-key property got a GRI of 97%, whereas the best 3-keys only posted a GRI of 95%, below even the best 1-keys with a GRI of 96.40%
- The GRI shows that the ideal number of rooms hovers around 70 (indeed, 73 rooms yielded a GRI of 98.8%, the highest in Paris, 64 rooms a GRI of 96.0%, the 5th highest value, and 76 rooms a GRI of 95.5%, the 8th highest).
- The best hotels in the top 50 achieved a significantly higher GRI than Paris’s average index. The average 2023 GRI for the 5-star hotels in Paris was 86.7%. In comparison, the average for the 4-star hotels was 85.2% and 81.3% for the 3-star hotels.
- Out of the 10 best hotels ranked by the GRI, 8 are 4-star hotels, and only 3 are 5-star. This aligns with the higher expectations that a five-star hotel categorisation brings, which the hotel may find harder than a 4-star to live up to.
- The average number of reviews for the best 50 hotels in Paris is fairly high, at 461, which provides the GRI with more nuanced and detailed feedback than any mister guest can give.
Understanding the Global Review Index
The Global Review Index™ (GRI) is a widely recognised online reputation score used in the industry. It is calculated using a unique algorithm that considers review data from over 140 online travel agencies (OTAs) and review sites covering more than 45 languages. The system aggregates all reviews from various sources, making it difficult to manipulate compared to relying on a single platform.
Comparing Professional and Guest Reviews
Both professional reviews like the Michelin Key and guest reviews compiling the Global Review Index offer valuable insights. They serve different purposes and come with their own strengths and limitations. Professional reviews provide a reliable, objective assessment based on consistent criteria, offering a snapshot of a hotel’s quality at a specific time. Guest reviews, meanwhile, offer a dynamic, evolving picture of a hotel’s performance, reflecting the diverse experiences of its visitors. Together, they provide a comprehensive overview that can help travellers make informed decisions and help hotels drive improvements.
Professional reviews, such as the Michelin Keys, are based on consistent and specific criteria, ensuring reliability and consistency that travellers can rely on. These evaluations are carried out by experts who deeply understand the hospitality industry, ensuring ratings are based on a comprehensive analysis of what a hotel offers. The objectivity and uniformity of these reviews enable travellers to compare hotels on a like-for-like basis, making informed decisions about where to stay.
On the other hand, guest or user reviews like the Global Review Index™ provide a more subjective perspective. These reviews are influenced by individual experiences and expectations—what the hotel promised versus what was delivered. While this personal insight can be valuable, it introduces variability that can make comparisons more challenging. A guest’s perception of a hotel can be significantly influenced by their personal preferences and expectations, which may not align with those of other travellers.
Synergy of Expertise and Experience
One of the strengths of professional reviews is their consistency across different hotels. This uniform approach ensures that each hotel is evaluated against the same standards, providing a fair and level playing field. However, a potential downside is that these reviews capture a hotel at a specific time. For example, a hotel’s prices might increase by more than 25% following a favourable rating, which may not reflect the current value or quality of service.
Guest reviews, conversely, offer a continuous flow of feedback, providing insights into how a hotel’s service and offerings evolve over time. This can be particularly useful for tracking improvements or declines in quality and gauging whether a hotel is living up to the expectations set by its ratings. If a hotel increases its rates without enhancing its services, guest reviews can highlight this discrepancy, offering a real-time perspective that professional reviews might miss.
However, the subjective nature of guest reviews comes with its own set of challenges. The Global Review Index (GRI) rating of a hotel can be heavily influenced by the personal experiences of individual guests, making it difficult for other travellers to discern the typical experience. Without knowing the preferences and expectations of the reviewers, it can be challenging to determine how relevant their feedback is to one’s own decision-making process.
Conclusion
The introduction of the Michelin Key review system heralds a promising evolution in hotel evaluations, merging the esteemed tradition of Michelin’s professional assessments with guest feedback’s dynamic and personal insights. This novel approach offers a multi-dimensional perspective on hotel quality, marrying objective expert analysis with the nuanced experiences of a global traveller community.
As the hospitality industry continues to navigate changing consumer expectations and preferences, the synergy between these two types of reviews emerges as a pivotal tool for ensuring service excellence and guest satisfaction. The future is full of possibilities, and we’re excited to see what unfolds.
Further Reading
