Ridiculous or not? A $20-a-night fee to “guarantee” a non-smoking room

Editor’s note: I’ve changed my Wednesday feature, “That’s ridiculous!” to make it more interactive. Now you can vote on whether a new fee or practice is — or isn’t — ridiculous. By the way, if you’ve seen something outrageous that you’d like to nominate, please send me an email.

When Teri Salmons clicked on the MGM Grand’s website to reserve a room recently, she found an “unbelievable” new fee.

Next to options for early check-in ($20) and late check-out ($20) she saw a $20 per day fee for “guaranteeing” a non-smoking room.

That’s right. You have to pay extra if you want to stay away from the smoke.

“Most hotels are either all non-smoking these days, or at least the majority of their rooms are non-smoking,” says Salmons, a Baltimore-based consultant. “What will they think of next — pay toilets?”

I asked MGM about the fee, and a representative promised to “check” into it. I never heard back from her. The website is equally forthcoming, indicating only that its “Non Smoking Room Guarantee” promises, “For $20 per night guarantee a non smoking room.”

Las Vegas resorts have always been a little fee-crazy, particularly when it comes to those amorphous mandatory “resort fees” tacked to your daily room rate. But has the MGM Grand gone too far this time?

Without getting sidetracked with a debate about smoking in hotels –- a practice I believe should be illegal — here’s the problem: In typical Sin City logic, the MGM fee punishes good behavior and rewards your vices. Instead of paying extra to smoke in your room, you’re being asked to shell out more to be shielded from cancer-causing fumes.

By the way, knowing Vegas hotels like I do, I can’t say the “guarantee” means much. I’m willing to bet you’ll still catch an occasional whiff of cigarette smoke in your non-smoking room.

Vegas hotels are a lot like super-discount airlines, such as Spirit and Allegiant. They try to lure you in with a low price, but then sock it to you with extras like resort fees, energy surcharges and now, non-smoking room guarantees.

But before railing against these resorts for their customer-hostile practices, let’s take a little time-out to think about how we got here. Hotel guests – people like you and me – indicated through our purchasing behavior that we cared about a low price, first and foremost. So hotels gave us artificially low “base” rates of $69 a night, minus the mandatory resort fee and the “I’d-rather-not-asphyxiate-tonight” guarantee of a smoke-free room.

Vegas hotels might argue that we did this to ourselves.

I’m not sure if I buy it, though. I think just because we want the lowest rate doesn’t also mean we want to get hammered by fees.

Hotels should offer their guests non-smoking rooms by default, and they should reward them for not puffing away in their rooms, if not punish them for lighting up. That’s how the rest of the world does it.

Better yet, smoking should be banned in hotels. Wisconsin and Michigan already have taken that path, despite loud protests from smokers’ advocates. More will inevitably follow.

Should the MGM Grand extinguish this fee, or is it well within its rights to charge non-smokers for the right to breathe clean air?

A survey of more than 1,000 readers suggest an overwhelming majority of you think it’s ridiculous.

Wow, that’s some response. I’d love to know who those 33 people were who voted for “not ridiculous.” Care to come forward in the comments?

“Ridiculous or not?” is a new weekly column that highlights the most absurd, customer-unfriendly and downright illogical practices of the travel industry. Got a story to share? Please email me and don’t forget to include your full name, city and contact information.

  • Carver

    @Mike Z

    *Informed* people know that different casinos attract different clientele. Vegas Strip Casinos have fewer smokers and great ventilation. Go to an Indian reservation in Arizona. I was at one with my family. The smoke was so thick and hazy that I had to wait outside by the bus stop.

  • Dawn

    While the consumer is price-sensitive to room rates, we also know how to do simple math. What adds insult to injury is that MGM’s “nonsmoking” fee is in addition to their mandatory resort fee, such that you are now looking at paying $40 more a night than the published room rate.

    My family is actually in the process of shopping for hotels for a trip to Las Vegas this summer. I have stayed at the MGM previously and very much enjoyed it, but when I saw the $20 non-smoking fee on MGM’s website I instantly crossed it off my list because I thought it was so ridiculous. I think we are actually going to end up booking one of the Bally’s properties, which don’t charge this fee OR resort fees. At the end of the day, some of the nicer Bally’s properties (e.g. Paris) end up being cheaper than some of the lower end MGM/Mirage properties (e.g. Excalibur) just because it doesn’t charge these additional fees.

  • Steve H

    Your comment that the default should be non-smoking makes sense not just because the majority of the population does not smoke and finds the aftermath of smoking distasteful but also because the costs to the hotel is higher for rooms that are smoked in: cigarette burns to tables, bedding and carpet, the chance of a fire being started, the need for ashtrays and the higher frequency of having to clean and air out the rooms after heavy smokers have been there. If anything, either from catering to the larger portion of the population or the costs of maintaining rooms for smokers, hotels should, if anything, charge smokers more (we already do that for life insurance).
    As for the real issue, hotels finding new ways to extract revenue from customers, Chris is correct: we’ve made clear that our bottom line as customers is price. Having said that, hotels, airlines and others that are unbundling what had been considered an integral product makes us look like chumps. What’s going to be next at MGM? Unless you pay an additional $10 a day, the staff will grimace when encountering you and not smile?

  • jb

    The $20 fee is to *guarantee* a non-smoking room, not to request one (and most likely actually end up in one). From the screen shot, it looks like you are still able to request one via your reservation the way you always could. So saying that it costs an extra $20 per night to be able to stay in a non-smoking room is a bit ingenuous.

    That being said, $20 extra *per night* seems a little steep for a guarantee of something that you can most likely get for free just by asking my noting your preference.

    What I would find interesting is if they would only take a certain number of these guaranteed options. Also, how often does a current customer with non-smoking preference end up in a smoking room?

  • Tia

    @BillC – While the one page says “Non Smoking Room Guarantee for $20.00/night (average),” there is a hyperlink for more info which says “Non Smoking Room Guarantee: For $20 per night guarantee a non smoking room. $20.00/night”

    What I find interesting is the description for the West Wing King Rooms: “The West Wing was created for guests who are looking for a non-traditional smoke-free hotel room experience. Each recently renovated room is a showcase in contemporary design, with a king bed, flat screen TV’s, DVD player, Bose Cd player and bathroom TV. The West Wing offers a quiet unique experience to guests who prefer style to more typical Vegas accommodations. All rooms feature high speed internet access. Maximum occupancy 2. All West Wing accomodations [sic] are smoke free and have one king size bed.”

    This description is listed on the reservations page. No mention of the West Wing being smoke free on the link from the “Hotel” page on the main page (http://www.mgmgrand.com/hotel/west-wing-rooms.aspx).

    They still have the $20 non-smoking room guarantee fee listed on the reservation page, but if the West Wing is designated smoke free, why would they charge the fee?

  • MeanMeosh

    While I think the fee is a bit over-the-top, it IS fully and prominently disclosed, which is something, I guess. Not sure I understand what the “guarantee” is, though, and frankly, I doubt it’s worth paying for in any case. I’ve been to Vegas many times, the MGM included, and have never had an issue with a non-smoking room request not being honored. In any event, seeing as the MGM is the only hotel currently charging this type of fee, if it offends you that much, you have plenty of other places to choose from in Vegas – including the various Bally’s resorts, which as an added bonus don’t charge resort fees, either.

    Chris – I do have to take issue with one thing you said, though:

    “Vegas hotels might argue that we did this to ourselves.

    I’m not sure if I buy it, though. I think just because we want the lowest rate doesn’t also mean we want to get hammered by fees.”

    Sorry, but when we as consumers demand the lowest base rate and nothing else, you ARE asking to get whacked by extra fees. Businesses aren’t charities, regardless of the wishes of those on the left. You push back against base rate increases, and the hotel is going to have to get the money from somewhere, which is exactly what allows a la carte pricing and resort fees to proliferate. And, people keep paying the fees, despite the complaining. In other words, we’re getting exactly what we’re asking for.

  • Mike Z

    @ Carver, The original story was specifically about a Vegas hotel and vegas hotels were specifically mentioned. Also, in both yours and Tom’s posts, you both specifically mention Vegas multiple times. Indian casinos have not been mentioned at all until you brought them up in your response.

    I have never been to an Indian casino but have been to thenm in Chicago and in Vegas many multiples of times.

  • Jesse

    Welcoming city it is but also wants all of your money…every hotel has a casino and chances are the less money we spend on hotels, more money we spend on casinos making us come back.

    More revenue from rooms?

  • Arizona Road Warrior

    @ Margery – “But, back to hotels. Casino hotels are fearful of alienating their smokers, even though smokers are now in the minority.”
    - – - – - –
    The best customers (i.e who gambles the most $$$$) of the Las Vegas casinos are Asians and there is a large percentage of them that are smokers especially the ones that live outside of the US. I have made four trips to China in the past ten years and I don’t think that I have seen a Japanese or Chinese businessman that doesn’t smoke.

    If smoking was banned, these customers will fly somewhere else to gamble than flying to Las Vegas.

  • Arizona Road Warrior

    @ Carver – “Vegas Strip Casinos have fewer smokers and great ventilation. Go to an Indian reservation in Arizona. I was at one with my family. The smoke was so thick and hazy that I had to wait outside by the bus stop.”
    - – - – - – -
    I agree..the ventilation at the Las Vegas casinos (especially the casinos on the strip) are very good. It has probably been seven or eight years that we went to a casino in Arizona because of the poor ventilation, lack of ventilation, etc…too much smoke.

  • Arizona Road Warrior

    @ Carver – “It might be helpful to look at it from the hotels’ point of view. They are businesses and like most business they cater to their customers in such a way to bolster the bottom line.”
    - – - – - – - -
    I agree. It seems like some of the commenters think that it is a constitutional right to stay at the MGM. If the MGM wants to have these fees, it is their rights. It is your right to take your business somewhere else. There are other casino hotels and regular hotels in Las Vegas that you can get a non-smoking rooms without a fee.

    @ Carver – “Marriott, Westin, and others went smoke free because the customers demanded it.”
    - – - – - – - -
    That is why I have been staying at Marriott brand hotels for years.

    @ Carver – “Vegas however, has a large international clientele from parts of the world were smoking is acceptable.”
    - – - – - – - -
    …and this clientele is their most profitable group of customers.

    @ Carver – “I suspect that Vegas hotels have a much higher percentage of requests for smoking rooms than other hotels.”
    - – - – - –
    You are correct…especially the casino hotels.

    @ Carver – “And given its reputation as a conference city, I suspect that percentage of people requesting non-smoking rooms flunctuates greatly making it harder to set aside non-smoking room.”
    - – - – - – -
    You are correct.

    I have stay at several hotels (casinos and non-casinos) for business (mostly trade shows) and personal (weekends). I have stayed over 1,000 nights at hotels and I have found the hotels in Las Vegas ESPECIALLY the casino hotels to operate different than 99% of the hotels outside of Las Vegas.

  • Jim

    If it was any other city besides Vegas, I’d say it was ridiculous. But it’s Sin City so the normal rules don’t apply. You smoke, you drink, you gamble, you get a hooker. It’s just the way it is. Why not punish people for not indulging their vices? It’s not Disneyland.

  • Carver

    @Mike Z

    Most of the generalities in the post were directed at Vegas hotels. However, the Arizona Casino is mentioned purely as one example that I have from personal knowledge and it was a particularly egregious one.

    The point remains that as many posters have stated, Vegas is also known as “Sin City” and it is heavily associated with certain “sins”. These include drinking, gambling, smoking, and prostitution.

    As Arizona correctly states, smoking is acceptable in many cultures, particularly in Asia. Vegas attracts a large number of Asian businessmen, the vast majority of whom smoke.

  • Flyer

    I’m kind of split here.. I do agree that the hotel does have a segment of their clientele who are smokers and that catering to the customer demographic is part of being competitive.. but.. I’m also aware that there is a cost to that.. smoke does damage to materials.. be that higher cleaning costs, faster degradation and the like.. plus you do have to consider there is, or could be an issue with second-hand smoke by staff who must clean or otherwise be in these rooms..

    I also agree that tobacco is, for today at least, a legal product when purchased by qualified individuals… and unless local, county or state laws say otherwise, you do have some right to smoke indoors.. I may not personally agree with it, but I do respect what the local laws say on the matter.

    To me.. I’d tend to want to do the reverse.. Charge a premium to those who want a smoking room.. This is not to overtly penalize smokers, but as a reflection of the incrementally higher costs of having and maintaining a smoking eligible room over that of a smoke-free room.

    Again, I agree that there is a percentage, perhaps quite large, who come to Vegas and do smoke.. and I’m OK with that as it’s not an overtly illegal thing.. and I do think that the hotels do need to be consumer-aware of this trend and do their best to accommodate it…. but I also think that they have every right to price their product in a manner that reflects the costs, or added costs as the case may be, to provide that service in a smoking eligible atmosphere.

  • Eric

    I’d like to see what the hotel does if they don’t have a smoking room, or the previous guest in your room lit up the night before and the management didn’t catch them.

    I also think a single $20 fee might be OK, but $20 per night is outrageous. After you’re already checked in, it doesn’t cost the hotel one red cent to “guarantee” you the smoke-free room, but they still want to soak you for $20 a night?

  • http://margerywilson.com Margery

    Non-smokers are much more likely to care about getting a smoke-free room (understatement), so MGM is marketing for success. There are more non-smokers than smokers, even in Vegas. Personally, their approach doesn’t feel so much like an opportunity to pay a fee for preference as much as a gun to my head. (“Pay the fee or suffer the consequences.”)

  • http://margerywilson.com Margery

    @Arizona Road Warrior, According to Gary Loveman, the CEO of Caesar’s Entertainment (Harrah’s, Ballys, etc) “older women are the most lucrative demographic of all.” When it comes to casinos and smoking ALL areas of the US cater to smokers in casinos and casino hotels. Research and experience has shown that establishments do not suffer when they limit smoking, despite the outcry that always comes before any ban. Research and experience has also shown that bans have not caused significant diaspora of smokers to other venues.

    It is ironic that add-on fees are usually marketed with the “why should you pay to subsidize a service you don’t need?” which would make MGM’s stance one where smoking is the standard and non-smokers are being asked to pony up for…what? A non-carcinogenic room? (The effects of second hand smoke are well known, and current research is now pointing out hazards of “third hand smoke” — the residues left by cigarette smoke. See http://nyti.ms/yDba)

  • Deborah

    Crazy. One motel owner I spoke to said they SAVED a bundle when they banned smoking because the furnishings lasted longer. They had smoking and non-smoking rooms, but found that they had to renovate the smoking rooms to some degree every two years whereas the non-smoking rooms were still in great condition which what made them decide to ban smoking.

    Health is a basic right, not smoking, This is so crazy. I will be boycotting them.

  • Erica

    this site says it all:

    http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/02/08/researchers-raise-concerns-about-%E2%80%98thirdhand-smoke%E2%80%99/
    ~ California Researchers Raise Concerns About ‘Thirdhand Smoke’

  • Thomas

    I love Vegas, It’s one of the few venues in the US where smokers have rights. During Superbowl weekend, I was sitting at one of the bars in the Bellagio. A couple from the NE came in with 3 kids and sat next to me. The woman asked me to put out my cigar. The barmaid told her that if she didn’t like it, perhaps she should go to a different bar, and children were not allowed in the bar area.

    GOD I LOVE VEGAS !!!!!!!!!!

  • Joe

    I would be in favor of paying $20 FOR a smoking room! I would pay it like I said multiple times before. I don’t agree with the $20 Non smoking room, but I would pay extra to get one.

  • MichelleLV

    This is crazy and I’m embarrassed (not shocked) that this hotel policy is in my city. Next they will try to charge a fee to guarantee a clean room. Unfortunately gamblers are smokers and drinkers so the hotels will always cater to their wants. Casinos do not filter the smoke for the benefit of non-smokers. They know that keeping the air fresh keeps gamblers fresh and on the floor. Same reason there are no windows, or clocks on the casino floor. It is to keep patrons gambling. Considering the casinos keep my city a float I’m all for profit and tourists, but I think it is ridiculous to charge for a non-smoking room.

    Dawn- Bally’s is a great hotel. Paris is connected (my favorite casino and buffet) to it. It is also centrally located on the strip. Last time I checked they did not charge a resort fee. The rooms are large, and the ones I stayed in have a mini-fridge. I recommend this hotel or Paris to my family and friends.

  • BucksterSF

    Crazy.

  • BucksterSF

    @Deborah – chill

  • NancyP

    Today my daughter was diagnosed with full-blown asthma, so this conversation is no longer academic at my house. Second-hand smoke will harm her and we need to avoid it.

    I book hotel rooms several times each year and I can assure God and everyone that I don’t think I should have to pay for the privilege of booking a nonsmoking room. Why? Smokers are at more risk for falling asleep with lit cigarettes. Cleaning costs are higher in smoking rooms, and the possibility of ash damage to linens and furnishings also exists. Asthma sufferers cannot tolerate smoky rooms/furnishings. Even in a casino with nonsmoking rooms, the likelihood of secondhand smoke seeping up to your floor on a weekend is quite high, at least from my experience – a truly unpleasant prospect for a nonsmoker.

    I would rather take my business elsewhere – out of town, out of state, out of country, if necessary – than be forced to pay for the privilege of sleeping in a smoke-free room. Why? Because most federal, state and corporate employees can work in smoke-free areas. Why should I pay to inhale smoke that government workers are entitle to avoid? The answer is simple: I should not pay for this privilege. There are so very many places to stay, in Las Vegas and elsewhere, that allow smokers a certain block of rooms and nonsmokers a completely different block. It’s not rocket science; it’s good business.

    Sorry, MGM Grand, but I’m not playing. I didn’t watch my grandparents die from smoking-related illnesses in order to pay to avoid second-hand smoke.

  • Arizona Road Warrior

    @ Margery – “According to Gary Loveman, the CEO of Caesar’s Entertainment (Harrah’s, Ballys, etc) “older women are the most lucrative demographic of all.”
    - – - – - – - -
    He is referring to the numbers of customers NOT revenue generated per customer\gambler or profit margin per customer. He is talking about the ‘grandmas’ playing the slot machines. How many ‘grandmas’ does it take to drop $ 1 MM that a whale might drop in a day or two. I still stand by my statement that Asians are the best customers (based upon the amount they gambled; revenues generated and their gross profit margin) based upon the information that I have. As a side note, Mr. Loveman decided to stay out of Macau (the coastal Chinese city where casinos are legal) where the Las Vegas Sands and Wynn Resorts are making more revenue in Macau than they do from their casinos in Las Vegas.

  • Kim

    I voted not ridiculous. As a former smoker, I would have paid the extra $20 to avoid the hassle of not having a smoking room. Now the same thing applies to a non-smoking room. Hotels have always said that these requests are subject to availability. How did the hotel know who would prefer a non-smoking room versus who has asthma and requires it? They’ve found a way to determine for whom this is a higher priority. They make money and have fewer unhappy people at the check-in desk.

  • Scott S

    Sorry, but this is ridiculous; breathing clean air is a right, not the other way around. Next time I go to Vegas, I will patronize a hotel that charges for the privilege of smoking in the room, not one that charges for a room that does NOT smell like smoke.

  • barbie45

    Chris I believe that the putting this in your blog is ridiculous If you are not satisfied with MGM’ s policy dont go there simple. All this does is perpetuate a useless dialogue between smokers and non- smokers. No laws have been broken. No one has been wronged. The whole topic was ridiculous. There are far more serious issues to write about.

  • Janet

    The Rio is the smokiest hotel in Las Vegas. I had to stay there for a convention and their ventilation is horrible. Even tho I had a “non smoking” room, my belongings and suitcase smelled like an ashtray when I came home. Any fee for a non smoking room is ridiculous, especially since I have never been in a room in LV that was totally smoke free.

  • DJP

    First off in anything the fee should be charged to smokers because of the long term affects the smoke has in the room in terms of extra costs for maintanence.

    Such a fee of charging some $20 to ensure they do not have a smoking room can be challenged legally under the ADA. I have severe asthma so there is no way I can be in a smoking room.

    If I ever am charged such a thing by a hotel I will file a lawsuit against them.

  • Steve

    A few thoughts come to mind here.

    One is that it’s not hard to see why Las Vegas is struggling. Adding on fee after fee is hostile to customers, and it’s doubly hostile at properties where the vast majority of their revenue comes from gambling, not hotel stays. I imagine most people who stay at the MGM Grand spend more money in the casino than their room costs. (Yes, some gamblers get comped, but plenty don’t).

    Another is that the fee is totally ridiculous. It’s amazing to me how corporations feel free to insult consumers. It would be bad enough if the MGM Grand imposed an extra fee for booking a non-smoking room, but as it stands, they’re telling the customer “go ahead and book a non-smoking room…but if you want to actually hold us accountable for securing your reservation, cough up more money.” It’s unconscionable. (And I guess the courtesy of early check-in without a fee is going by the wayside, too…when we stayed at New York-New York last year, we checked in early for no fee. But since both hotels are owned by the same company, I imagine the new early check-in fee applies there, too).

    The third is that I am wholeheartedly, 100% opposed to laws requiring businesses to prohibit a legal activity (smoking) on their premises. Everyone saying that you hate or can’t stand smoking rooms, there’s a simple solution: stay only at properties that ban smoking or will guarantee you non-smoking rooms at no extra cost. Plenty of hotels voluntarily do so already (I believe the entire Marriott chain is 100% non-smoking now, correct?). Vote with your wallet instead of voting to restrict the freedoms of business owners to run their properties as they see fit.

  • Kevin

    Wow,
    I see a lot of people thinking that they have the right to breath clean air in a hotel room. ACTUALLY, that is a private business and you really don’t have that right. I’m not saying that they can poison your room or anything, but a hotel has the right to run their business the way they want to and if they don’t want YOUR business, they can price it that way. You do have the right to go elsewhere with your business.

    Secondly, I’ve seen several posts about how it costs MORE to maintain smoking rooms than non. That is completely false if their business model caters to smokers. If they have to leave rooms empty specifically because they are Non-Smoking rooms, then that is lost revenue for them.

    The cost for the room is roughly $100/Night. The additional $20/Night tells me that their business model caters to smokers instead of non-smokers, but in order not to specifically exclude anyone, they offer Non-Smoking rooms that they expect to be empty 20% more frequently than smoking rooms.
    Of course, that’s giving them the benefit of the doubt. they could also simply believe that Non-Smokers are more willing to pay up for a Non-Smoking room then smokers are for a smoking room…

  • Bill___A

    I think it is beyond ridiculous.

    You know, a Hampton Inn in Tukwila, WA tried to charge me $5 extra for a non smoking room once. It was a long time ago. I didn’t stay in that hotel. Moreover, this one attempt at charging $5 cost the Hampton Inn chain at least $30,000 in lost business.
    I know that Las Vegas tries to be “different” but this is truly unacceptable even for them.
    I think I should get to charge them $500 every time I see them not enforcing the smoking in the few “non smoking” areas that they do have.

  • Bill___A

    I think it is beyond ridiculous.

    You know, a Hampton Inn in Tukwila, WA tried to charge me $5 extra for a non smoking room once. It was a long time ago. I didn’t stay in that hotel. Moreover, this one attempt at charging $5 cost the Hampton Inn chain at least $30,000 in lost business.
    I know that Las Vegas tries to be “different” but this is truly unacceptable even for them.
    I think I should get to charge them $500 every time I see them not enforcing the smoking in the few “non smoking” areas that they do have.