Industry Notes

Living in Marbella, September has always felt like one of the best months of the year. The sea is still warm. Restaurants are busy, but you can actually get a table. The whole destination seems to exhale after August.

Which is why I think hotels sometimes get the shoulder season slightly wrong. The opportunity goes beyond keeping the pool open for another six weeks.

September deserves more than being marketed as an extended, slightly cheaper version of summer. It can be a better version of the destination for a different luxury traveller.

Someone choosing a Mediterranean stay in September or October may be looking for precisely what August cannot give them. More space. A slower rhythm. Long lunches without the rush. Restaurants that feel local again. Time outdoors, and more connection to the destination itself.

That should affect far more than pricing. It should influence programming, F&B, guest communications, partnerships and the experiences a hotel chooses to put forward. If the guest is coming for a different kind of stay, repeating the summer proposition with a lower rate misses the point.

I would start with what makes that period worth travelling for in its own right. Which experiences become more appealing? Who has the flexibility to come? What would make them choose this property at this time?

The question I would like more Mediterranean hotels to ask is: what is the best version of this destination once peak summer is over?

I have spent most of my career in branding and marketing. I see plenty of recruitment ads for marketing talent and get asked for referrals in luxury hospitality just as often. What I rarely see is a business that has worked out what it actually needs that hire to do.

The job description usually covers everything. Brand, social, PR, partnerships, lead generation, sales, events. All in one hire. As if the title itself is the strategy.

Are you hiring a person, or trying to fix a problem you have not defined yet?

Too often, the brief leaves the important questions unanswered. What is marketing accountable for? What is the business selling, to whom, and why should someone choose it over the place next door? Until that is settled, whoever you hire is working without a clear target, and you are paying for the guesswork.

I would do it the other way round. Look at what is driving the business and what is not. Decide where you want to get to, then work out what marketing has to deliver. That tells you who to hire, or whether you need the hire at all.

Sometimes the answer is an in-house marketer. Sometimes a full team. Sometimes it is one senior person to set the direction before anyone else comes on.

And whoever it is, this is not a one-season fix. You do not turn a brand around in a summer. The direction has to hold beyond the next campaign, or you are back where you started next spring.

Hiring the title first can be an expensive way to discover what the business actually needed.

A list of findings is only the beginning of a useful report. Management needs to understand which observations deserve attention first and what kind of response each one requires.

I would separate straightforward corrections from issues needing further investigation or investment. An inaccurate description can be amended. A recurring handover problem may require a discussion across teams. A change to the physical product needs a different decision altogether.

The report should explain the reason for a priority. Does the issue create significant uncertainty for guests? Does it repeatedly interrupt the journey? Is the proposed action proportionate to the evidence available?

It should also identify what is working well. Improvements can unintentionally remove details that guests value if the assessment focuses only on faults.

An optional management discussion helps clarify these distinctions after the report has been read. The aim is a shared understanding of the findings and sensible next steps. Implementation may involve further support, but the assessment should already give the team something it can use independently.

A two-night stay allows an assessor to encounter more than a single arrival and departure. It can include stayover housekeeping, different dining occasions and several opportunities to observe how communication carries through the visit.

It remains a sample. One room category does not represent every room, and selected restaurants or experiences do not establish how every part of a resort performs across different shifts or seasons.

That is why scope matters. Before a review, I would agree which experiences are most relevant to the management question and what can realistically be assessed within the visit.

The report should identify what was observed and where a finding needs further evidence. A missed request may be worth addressing, but a single incident should not automatically become a claim about the whole team.

The strength of an independent review comes from careful judgement within those boundaries. It can identify useful priorities without pretending to be exhaustive. Wider coverage should be commissioned when the question requires it, rather than implied by the word “review.”

Public guest reviews can reveal useful patterns, but they do not explain every cause behind an experience. I would use them to frame questions for an assessment rather than treat them as a complete diagnosis.

Several comments about slow service may point towards a recurring issue. They may also describe different outlets, periods or circumstances. Before recommending a solution, it helps to understand what those accounts actually have in common.

Positive feedback deserves the same attention. Repeated praise can identify details that matter to guests and should be preserved when management changes the offer or the way a team works.

In an independent review, public feedback provides context alongside direct observation and the client’s brief. Where the evidence points in different directions, the report should say so.

The value lies in distinguishing an observation, a recurring theme and an explanation that still needs testing. That distinction gives management a more useful basis for action than either dismissing online feedback or treating every comment as an instruction.

Arrival begins before the reception desk. Directions, vehicle access, luggage, recognition and room readiness can all shape the first impression, depending on the property and how the guest travels.

I would assess how those interactions connect. Does information provided before arrival reach the people receiving the guest? Is responsibility clear when a room is not ready? Does someone explain what happens next?

Consider an illustrative arrival where every individual is courteous, but the guest repeats the same request at the entrance, reception and concierge desk. The issue may be continuity rather than the quality of any single greeting.

An independent review can follow that sequence without assuming which department is responsible for the gap. Observing the guest’s experience is the beginning of the assessment; understanding why it happened may require further discussion.

The practical recommendation should make the handover clearer. Who needs which information, at what moment, and who takes responsibility for the next step? A polished welcome becomes more convincing when the guest does not have to coordinate it.

A guest comparing rooms needs to understand what changes when the price changes. Names and floor areas can help, but they may leave the practical difference between categories unexplained.

I would look for the details that affect the intended stay. Is there a separate living area? Does the terrace offer privacy? Are the views different? Can the room accommodate the party comfortably in the configuration shown?

The photographs and text should answer the same question. If several categories use similar images, a guest may struggle to see why one is more suitable, even when the distinction is meaningful on property.

This is a good subject for a focused digital review because the problem can sit between product knowledge, content and the booking engine. The team may understand the differences perfectly while the guest sees only names and prices.

The recommendation should identify the missing explanation rather than simply ask for “better copy.” Helping guests choose a suitable room begins with making the actual differences understandable before they commit.

A seasonal review should include what the hotel is promising online. When facilities, hours or experiences change, the guest-facing information needs to remain aligned with what can actually be delivered.

For an Ibiza property, I would compare the offer presented for the intended travel dates with the arrangements planned for that period. Are outdoor facilities available? Which restaurants will operate? Are activities shown in the imagery included in the guest’s season?

The same check belongs in booking information and pre-arrival communication. Updating one website page does little if a package description or confirmation continues to suggest something different.

This does not require presenting the quieter season as a compromise. It requires explaining its actual proposition clearly. A different rhythm, smaller dining selection or changed activity programme can still make sense for the intended guest.

An independent review can identify where outdated promises remain between channels. The aim is to let guests choose the experience being offered for their dates, with enough information to arrive prepared rather than surprised.

A prompt, polite response can meet a service standard while leaving the guest’s question unresolved. Timeliness and tone matter, but they do not tell the whole story.

Consider an illustrative enquiry from a family choosing between two room categories. The reply arrives quickly and includes a booking link. It does not explain the sleeping arrangements or whether the advertised photographs show the configuration available for their dates.

The interaction has been handled. The decision has not been made easier.

This is where a guest journey review can complement a standards assessment. It follows whether the guest received the information needed to proceed, and whether the next interaction carries that understanding forward.

I would avoid treating every incomplete answer as a training issue. The room descriptions may be unclear, the information may be difficult for the team to access, or responsibility may be split.

The useful assessment connects the observation to those possible causes without pretending a single exchange proves which one is responsible. It gives management a question worth investigating.

Before commissioning a new hotel website, I would establish which questions the current one fails to answer. A visual refresh and a clearer offer may both be needed, but they are different pieces of work.

Can a guest distinguish the room categories? Understand what the rate includes? Find the restaurant they saw on social media? Move from an experience description to a relevant booking route?

These questions help turn a broad feeling that the website “is not working” into a useful brief. Some findings may call for new navigation or a different booking interface. Others may require a paragraph, a clearer label or better selection of existing photographs.

An independent digital review can help management separate those priorities before committing to implementation. It should identify visible uncertainty and explain where further analytics or testing would be needed.

The outcome is a more informed decision about what to change and who should change it. A redesign should respond to a defined problem. Otherwise, a hotel risks paying to present the same unanswered questions more attractively.

A translated version of a Dubai hotel website can be grammatically accurate and still leave an international guest uncertain. Translation preserves words. It does not necessarily explain the arrangements behind them.

I would review whether the information supports a decision without requiring local knowledge. Can guests understand dining times, airport transfers, room occupancy and access to wellness facilities? Are familiar internal terms being used for packages that a first-time visitor has never encountered?

A phrase such as “spa access included” may need a further sentence. Does it mean the thermal circuit, the gym, a treatment or access during particular hours? The right explanation depends on the actual offer.

For hotels in Dubai, this is a practical way to assess communication through the eyes of an intended international audience. It is also a useful brief for the existing marketing team.

The question is whether someone unfamiliar with the property can confidently plan a stay. Correct language is necessary. Clear meaning is what makes that language useful.

A hotel’s room-booking journey tells only part of the story. Someone considering dinner, a spa treatment or a day by the pool arrives with different questions from someone planning a stay.

For a Marbella property seeking local guests, I would start by examining those routes separately. Can a non-resident establish whether they are welcome? Is access explained? Can they see availability, understand the atmosphere and make a reservation without first navigating accommodation offers?

Consider a restaurant beautifully photographed on the hotel website, but with no clear information about external bookings or parking. The venue may be ready to receive local guests while the online journey leaves them uncertain.

This is a useful question for an independent review because responsibility can sit across several teams. Marketing presents the offer, reservations answers enquiries and the restaurant receives the guest.

The assessment should follow that entire route. A property can communicate its hotel proposition clearly and still make its other experiences unnecessarily difficult to choose.