What Investors in Hospitality Often Get Wrong About Selecting an Operator

May 19
6 min read

Updated: May 20

The decision to appoint a hotel operator is frequently treated as a procurement exercise: compare brands, review fee structures, negotiate terms, sign. It follows the logic of vendor selection, which makes sense on the surface because an operator is, in one reading, a service provider. The problem is that this framing misses what the relationship actually demands. An operator does not simply manage a building. They shape the guest experience, set the service culture, determine how revenue is pursued and protected, and become the public face of an asset that the investor cannot easily rebrand or reposition once the agreement is in place. Getting this decision wrong does not produce a minor inefficiency. It produces years of friction, underperformance, and, in the worst scenarios, asset deterioration that erodes the original investment thesis.

Three patterns recur across markets, property types, and investor profiles. They are not failures of diligence in the traditional sense; most investors who make these mistakes have done considerable homework. The errors are structural, rooted in assumptions about what an operator relationship is for and how it functions once the contracts are signed.

The first and most widespread mistake is selecting an operator primarily on brand recognition. A globally known flag carries real advantages, including distribution reach, loyalty programme access, brand-driven demand, and credibility with lenders. None of that is in dispute. What investors routinely underestimate is the gap between a brand’s reputation at the corporate level and the operational reality delivered at the property level. Brand standards define minimums; they do not guarantee excellence. The guest experience at any individual property depends on the regional team, the general manager, the quality of pre-opening support, and the operator’s genuine commitment to that specific asset within a portfolio that may contain hundreds of others. An investor who selects a brand because of what it represents globally, without interrogating what it will deliver locally, is making a decision based on marketing rather than operations.

There is also an emotional dimension to this that rarely surfaces in the analysis. Investors who develop hotels and resorts are almost always well-travelled themselves, and they arrive with a personal history of brands they have admired as guests in cities they remember well. That admiration is real, and sometimes it is well-placed. The risk arrives when an operator chosen for personal resonance does not actually fit the asset’s location, segment, feeder markets, cultural context, or scale. Affinity and alignment are different things, and the two have to be separated deliberately before the shortlist is built.

This is especially relevant in markets where a brand is expanding aggressively. Growth-phase operators are simultaneously onboarding multiple properties, stretching pre-opening teams, and negotiating standards with developers who each believe their project will receive flagship attention. Some will, while many will not. The investor’s role is to understand, before signing, which category their asset is likely to fall into and whether the operator’s regional infrastructure can credibly support the commitment.

There is a longer horizon to weigh as well. A hotel is not built for five years, and the operator chosen today must remain credible in the same market a decade or more later, in regions where market profile, competitive set, and guest mix can all shift substantially over that span. Rapid expansion by a brand in a particular region is sometimes read as a confidence signal. It can be, though it can also mean that pre-opening teams, regional management depth, and training infrastructure are being stretched across more commitments than they can credibly absorb. Worth asking before signing is how the brand structures itself internally to handle growth at scale, because visible expansion only answers half of that question.

The second mistake is underestimating the governance framework that an operator agreement requires. Hotel management agreements are long-duration contracts, typically fifteen to twenty-five years with renewal options, and they govern a relationship where interests are not automatically aligned. Operators earn fees on revenue, which incentivises top-line growth. Owners earn returns on profit, which depends on cost discipline. These two objectives coexist peacefully in strong markets, but they diverge under pressure, precisely when governance matters most.

Investors who focus their negotiation energy on headline fee percentages while giving less attention to performance benchmarks, termination provisions, owner approval rights, capital expenditure governance, and reporting transparency are optimising for the wrong variable. The fee structure matters, but it is the governance architecture that determines whether the relationship will function over a full market cycle. A well-structured agreement protects both parties; a poorly structured one creates misaligned incentives that compound over time, producing disputes that are expensive, disruptive, and often resolved only through asset sale or operator replacement, both of which carry significant cost.

The third pattern is subtler but no less consequential: ignoring cultural fit between the operator’s service philosophy and the property’s market context. Every operator has an institutional culture, a default approach to service delivery, staff management, guest engagement, food and beverage, and design sensibility. That culture was formed somewhere, typically in the operator’s home market or in the segment where they built their reputation. It translates well into some contexts and poorly into others.

A luxury resort operator whose service model was refined in the Maldives or the Caribbean may struggle to adapt that model to an urban lifestyle hotel in Southeast Asia, where the guest profile, competitive set, and cultural expectations differ fundamentally. A European heritage brand accustomed to formal service standards may feel out of step in a market that values warmth, flexibility, and informality. These mismatches do not always surface during the courtship phase, when both sides are presenting their best version of the future. They surface months into operations, when the general manager is struggling to recruit staff who fit the brand’s culture, when the food and beverage concept feels imported rather than authentic, and when guest reviews consistently note that the experience does not match the expectation set by the brand name on the building.

The mismatch is particularly visible in emerging markets, where international brands sometimes import templates that fit their home markets more comfortably than the destinations they are entering. Room features end up calibrated for one guest profile while the actual feeder markets carry a different one. Food and beverage programmes lean on cuisines and service formats that the local audience does not prioritise. Training systems built around a single labour culture meet local hiring norms, communication patterns, and management hierarchies that operate on different logic. A well-known example is Ritz-Carlton’s early years in Singapore, where integrating the brand’s service culture with the local talent pool required sustained recalibration before the property settled into its rhythm. Brand strength, on its own, rarely dissolves local context.

Cultural fit is difficult to evaluate through documents and presentations alone. It requires site visits to the operator’s existing properties in comparable markets, honest conversations with owners who have worked with that operator in similar contexts, and a realistic assessment of whether the operator’s institutional DNA is compatible with the asset’s intended positioning. Investors who skip this step because the brand name feels like sufficient reassurance are making the same error described in the first pattern, simply at a different level of the relationship.

These three mistakes share a common root: they all treat operator selection as a transaction rather than a partnership decision. The transaction mindset prioritises credentials, brand equity, and deal terms. The partnership mindset asks harder questions about operational commitment, structural alignment, and long-term compatibility. Both mindsets involve rigorous analysis, but they weigh different variables and they produce different outcomes.

The starting point tends to be the same for almost all investors who are early in this process, or who are reconsidering an existing operator relationship. Before comparing brands or negotiating fee structures, it helps to ask what the asset actually needs to become, and whether the operator's culture and governance framework can credibly deliver that over a full market cycle. The brand on the building is what the guest sees, but what determines whether the investment performs is, in fact, the relationship behind it.

References

Al Tamimi & Company. (2018, January 3). Hotel operator selection process: Some guidance for developers. Retrieved from https://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/hotel-operator-selection-process-some-guidance-for-developers/

Hotel Development Guide. (2019). How to choose a hotel operator. Retrieved from https://hoteldevelopmentguide.com/how-to-choose-a-hotel-operator/

Schlup, R. (2004). Hotel management agreements: Balancing the interests of owners and operators. Journal of Retail & Leisure Property, 3(4), 331–342. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.rlp.5090188

Hodari, D., Turner, M. J., & Sturman, M. (2017). How hotel owner-operator goal congruence and GM autonomy influence hotel performance. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 61, 72–82. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0278431916304467

Turner, M. J., & Guilding, C. (2010). Hotel management contracts and deficiencies in owner-operator capital expenditure goal congruency. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 34(4), 478–507. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/47696097_Hotel_Management_Contracts_and_Deficiencies_in_Owner-Operator_Capital_Expenditure_Goal_Congruency

Beals, P., & Denton, G. A. (2005). The current balance of power in North American hotel management contracts. Journal of Retail & Leisure Property, 4(2), 129–145.

Perret, S., & Martin, C. (n.d.). Hotel management contracts in Europe. HVS. Retrieved from https://hvs.com/article/7993-hotel-management-contracts-in-europe

Malouf, H. (2020, September). Evolution of hotel management agreements and rise of alternative agreements. HVS. Retrieved from https://www.hvs.com/article/8899-evolution-of-hotel-management-agreements-and-rise-of-alternative-agreements

Pucciarelli, A. J. (2023, October 5). What's negotiable in hotel management agreements? HospitalityNet. Retrieved from https://www.hospitalitynet.org/opinion/4074702.html

Farrer & Co. (2024, June 26). Hotel management agreements: What could go wrong? Retrieved from https://www.farrer.co.uk/news-and-insights/hotel-management-agreements-what-could-go-wrong/

Koc, E. (2021). Cross-cultural aspects of tourism and hospitality: A services marketing and management perspective. Routledge. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343172927_Cross-Cultural_Aspects_of_Tourism_and_Hospitality_A_Services_Marketing_and_Management_Perspective

Sucher, W., & Cheung, C. (2015). The relationship between hotel employees' cross-cultural competency and team performance in multi-national hotel companies. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 49, 93–104. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0278431915000808