A Tale of Two Casinos -- Twice Over

Tale Number 1 

Hospitality: "Treatment, reception or disposition"  (A nod of appreciation to the folks at Merriam-Webster)

They call it the Hospitality Industry. Hotels, restaurants, and other kinds of service provided to people -- the paying customers -- who are being hosted by these companies.

In the vast majority of cases, the idea that simple things count is at the fundamental heart of any of these businesses, and ought to directly reflect the degree of commitment the company has in this regard. Few of them survive once that level of courtesy is lost. When a guest is made to feel unwelcome -- or worse, treated as an annoyance -- the entire plan collapses and they are soon out of business. It can be something very minor which, despite the efforts of many others, is the one thing that drives away that customer and encourages them to mention it to others. Word of mouth goes in two directions.

This is a tale of two such companies. Twin behemoths of the Las Vegas Strip, and two of their properties. On one side we have the MGM Grand, owned by MGM Resorts International, an impressive property in both size and facility, but which may be inhospitably drowning in its own size.  On the other is the Paris Las Vegas, a charming though equally sizable competitor which knows well that a smile and friendly wink will go far towards landing repeat business. Paris is owned by MGM's crosstown rival Caesars Entertainment.

As I write this, and as you may have surmised, I am on vacation in Las Vegas, looking at our final day of checkout and the long drive home. The trip has been a momentous one in many ways - most importantly because of the wedding of my brother-in-law to my now sister-out-law, the event which drew us here in the first place.

During the course of the weekend I've had the opportunity to experience the customer service of a large number of businesses in the Vegas area. This being a tourism-driven town one would expect that, of all places, we would be at ground zero for a solid customer service experience, yes? The truth of the matter is not quite so cut and dried.

At the moment, we are firmly ensconced at the Paris Hotel and Casino, an excellent property essentially in the middle of the shifted-south-since the-eighties Strip. It's quite a nice room, though fairly standard for midrange Strip properties, with a few nice amenities. We didn't start here, however.

Our weekend began with a rather brutal encounter with indifference and ineptitude on the part of the MGM Grand check-in procedures. No nicer way to put it. Despite the wide smile and helpfulness of the Front Desk staff, we - upon attempted check-in - descended down a rabbit hole of promises, failures and generally unacceptable procedures that at long last - a full half hour after the "guaranteed" check-in time (itself an hour and a half after the first of three, countem' three, "escalations to management" we were promised by the hotel's customer service staff) - yielded a different room and a ten minute wait in the corridor for security to let us in when our keys would not open the door. (I will note, in all fairness, that the MGM Bell service impressed us with a prompt and courteous delivery of our luggage. That much, at least, scored a ten out of ten.)

None of this would be more than generally annoying had it not been for the four times my wife and I explained that were there to attend a wedding in the MGM chapel at 4:30. Again, bear in mind the guaranteed 3pm checkin. It wasn't until the hotel customer service agent responded to my fourth call - at 3:20 - with some testiness that I reached the breaking point. Far from recognizing that the hotel was actively doing us a disservice, somehow this had morphed into our inconveniencing them.

Flash forward an hour, we are now safely in our room, but feeling distinctly uncharitable towards the MGM. We contact hotels.com, the agency we booked through, and inquire whether or not we could change hotels and receive a refund of our unused nights.

Night and Day. Operator Alex dutifully listened to our issues, thought it was a valid point. Placing me on hold, he contacted the hotel to verify the issues, coming back online a few moments later to let me know they had agreed to the refund. No fuss, no muss, and a general concern with getting the situation corrected. Alex made detailed notes in the hotels.com database, instructed us to recontact them the next morning after we had checked out and they would process the refund.

After hanging up, we again booked a hotel through the hotels.com website, this time the Paris, a property we have wanted to try for some time. Checkin was immediate and smooth. Valet and bell service were prompt with securing the car and delivering our luggage to the room. A completely different customer service experience than we'd had at the Grand. Though a slightly higher cost for what admittedly is a lesser room (standard versus suite), the experience and convenience of a well-run property far outweigh any benefit of the larger room. As opposed to the "inconvenience" and endlessly hollow escalations, we simply received courteous treatment and an efficient operation.

Out of adversity comes opportunity. Had the Grand staff given us an indication they were dealing with us as patrons, our day would have gone far differently. We've stayed at this property repeatedly in the past and never had anything like this happen, so perhaps it was a fluke.

But I would guess it isn't. Even upon checkout, when the desk customer service person noted we were leaving two days early, his response was more an embarrassed silence than any sort of sincere apology. He mumbled his regret, but looked as if he would prefer to talk about virtually any other topic at that point. A desk manager, clearly within earshot of our conversation, actively moved away. This isn't the behavior of a happy or engaged staff. This isn't the hallmark of a world class hotel --it's a churn and burn approach which will cost MGM repeat business. Perhaps their occupancy rate is high enough they simply don't care. But I do. And I'm happy to spend my own money elsewhere, and did. If you're headed for Vegas any time soon, you might do well to avoid the northeast corner of Tropicana and The Strip.
--------------------------------------------

Tale Number 2

The soon to be shuttered Sahara

On a separate but related note, we visited two properties which could not be further apart in both experience and ambiance, the Sahara and the Cosmopolitan. More to the point, one is at the end of its illustrious life, while the other is the just-birthed darling of the Strip.

Due to be shuttered in the next couple of weeks, visiting the Sahara was a sad echo of bygone days. It was opened in 1952 and marked the beginning of an era that would see a dramatic growth in the desert. Within a few years The Stardust, The Riviera, the Tropicana and other storied hotels would join the Sahara. It was the era of the Rat Pack, and the Sahara was among the favorites. Now seemingly alone at the north end of the Strip, the Sahara has fallen on very hard times, and is now slated to close on May 16th. The virtually empty casino and its subdued staff lent the place a funereal air which, given its past, makes for a sad ending to such a storied property. A few stragglers and quiet diehards still wander her casino, every once in a while stopping to play a round or two at a table game, or drop a few bucks in the slot machines. You can feel the end of an historic site, a place where kings of entertainment and money once strode...but its passing is marked neither with a bang nor with a whimper, but with a gasp.

Poolside at the Cosmopolitan

This contrasts greatly with the vibe and vitality of the Strip's newest hotel, the Cosmopolitan, which easily out-glitzes the Palms and all other trendy Vegas sites. The employees are fun, talkative, friendly and enthusiastic. Highly recommended as either an afternoon visit (we played the slots,  little roulette and craps), a quick nosh (the food and service at the Overlook Cafe were excellent), or an extended stay. Glitz, glamor, and -- as their advertising line puts so well -- "just the right amount of wrong".

The Cosmopolitan succeeds where, in my opinion, Aria -- another recently opened hotel and casino -- fails in in scope and scale. Aria feels like a huge, albeit gorgeous, big-city hotel which includes a casino. Very cold and domineering. The Cosmo works hard to enclose you in its womb, breaking up the lines and making you feel like you're in a much more intimate place. Long strands of crystal and glass (and a bit of plastic) give the room warmth, and even the largest parts of the hotel are broken up and made to feel a bit more snug than are the CityCenter buildings. It's a question of Times Square versus the hot new discotheque downtown. Both are high energy, but one overwhelms while the other attracts.

There's a feeling you get when something just clicks, and the Cosmo clicks well, but a bit of a sense of humor. Always a welcome relief when you're out scouting some fun.