I knew an operator years ago who ran a 280-key resort property in a drive-to leisure market. Good bones, decent location, but occupancy had been sliding for three straight quarters. He came into an ownership meeting with this big idea... bundle the room, the breakfast, the pool cabana, and a dinner credit into one price. "Guests want simplicity," he said. "They want to know what they're spending before they get here."

He wasn't wrong about that. But here's what actually happened. The guests who booked the bundle were the same guests who were already coming... they just paid less per visit because the package discounted everything 15-20% below what they would have spent à la carte. The incremental guests (the ones who weren't coming before) trickled in, sure. But they were the lowest-value visitors in the building. They ate every meal on the voucher, redeemed every inclusion, and spent almost nothing beyond the package. RevPAR went up slightly. Total revenue per guest went down. And the F&B team was stretched thin servicing a volume of prepaid covers that crushed their ability to deliver quality to anyone.

That's the movie I see playing when MGM rolls out bundled all-inclusive packages at Luxor and Excalibur starting April 6. Two nights, six meals, show tickets, a roller coaster ride, parking... all for $330 plus tax. The pitch is "over $400 in savings." And look, the math on that consumer value proposition is probably real. A couple spending $135 on the room, $400 on meals, $170 on drinks over two nights at normal Strip prices... yeah, $330 bundled is a deal. But that's the guest's math. The operator's math is different, and it's the operator's math that keeps the lights on.

Here's what I'd be asking if I were sitting across the table from MGM's revenue team. First... what's the cannibalization rate? How many of these bundle buyers were already going to book Luxor or Excalibur anyway, and now they're just locking in a lower effective spend? Second... what's the margin on those six meal vouchers redeemable across five different properties? Because routing prepaid covers to MGM Grand and Mandalay Bay F&B outlets means those kitchens are absorbing volume at a fixed reimbursement rate. Someone's P&L is taking the hit. Third... this is direct-channel only. Not on OTAs, not on Marriott's platform. That tells you exactly what this is. It's not a product innovation. It's a customer acquisition play designed to pull bookings away from third-party channels and into MGM's own ecosystem. Smart? Maybe. But call it what it is. And fourth... Las Vegas visitation was down 6.5% year-over-year as of May 2025, with what one analyst described as "severely abnormally midweek weakness" concentrated at budget-tier properties like Luxor and Excalibur. MGM's own Q4 2025 Las Vegas EBITDA was down roughly 4%. When a company bundles aggressively at its value tier during a demand downturn, that's not pioneering a new model. That's trying to buy occupancy.

The Conrad at Resorts World already launched a premium all-inclusive add-on at $150 per person per night earlier this year, which at least targets a luxury guest with higher ancillary spend potential. MGM going the opposite direction... bundling cheap at the value tier... tells me they're chasing heads in beds, not spend per guest. And once you train the Las Vegas mid-market traveler to expect everything bundled at $165 a night, good luck unwinding that expectation when demand recovers. I've seen this movie. The bundle is easy to launch. The rate integrity is brutal to rebuild.

I knew a food and beverage director once who had a phrase he used every time ownership pushed him to bump menu prices. He'd say "there's a difference between charging what something's worth and charging what you think you can get away with." The first one builds a business. The second one works exactly once.

That's what I thought about when I saw what's happening at some of these properties right now. Twenty bucks for a Nespresso pod at a Grand Hyatt. A hundred and eighty dollars for two cocktails and two waters at a show venue inside an MGM property in Vegas... and that includes a $25 "admin fee," which is my new favorite euphemism for "because we can." Look, I understand ancillary revenue. I've managed the P&L. I know what F&B margins look like and I know how hard it is to move the needle when your labor costs are running 35% and your food costs are climbing. But there's a line between smart ancillary capture and treating your guest like an ATM with legs, and we blew past that line somewhere around the time someone decided a pod of coffee that costs $0.70 wholesale should retail for twenty dollars. The math on that markup would make a pharmaceutical company blush.

Here's what nobody in the corporate revenue optimization meeting wants to hear: this stuff doesn't exist in isolation. A guest doesn't experience the $20 coffee pod as an independent transaction. They experience it as a data point in a running calculation that goes something like this... "The room was $389. Parking was $55. The resort fee was $45. And now they want twenty bucks for coffee I make at home for thirty cents." That calculation has a tipping point, and when you hit it, you don't get a complaint. You get something worse. You get a guest who checks out, leaves a three-star review, and books the boutique independent down the street next time. You never see the damage because it doesn't show up on this month's revenue report. It shows up in next year's repeat booking rate. This is what I call the Price-to-Promise Moment... every stay has one moment where the guest decides the rate was worth it or it wasn't. A $20 coffee pod at 6 AM before a business meeting is not that moment. It's the anti-moment. It's the second the guest decides they got played.

What's telling is that MGM's own CEO admitted last fall that aggressive pricing (his words, not mine) had alienated customers. He specifically referenced $12 Starbucks coffee on property. Said they'd "lost control of the narrative." They did price corrections. And now we're seeing $180 for two drinks at a show venue. So either the corrections didn't reach every outlet, or the definition of "corrected" is more generous than I'd use. Meanwhile, Hyatt is pulling back loyalty benefits and moving to a five-tier award pricing system that's going to cost members more points for the same rooms. So the message to your best, most loyal guests is... we're going to charge you more for the room AND more for the coffee once you get there. That's a bold strategy. I've seen it before. It doesn't end well.

The real problem is structural. When you go asset-light (which Hyatt is aggressively doing... 80% of earnings from fees is the target), you're collecting management and franchise fees whether the guest comes back or not. The owner eats the repeat-booking decline. The brand collects the same percentage. So who exactly has the incentive to protect the guest relationship? The brand will tell you they do. But the brand isn't the one who decided to charge $20 for a coffee pod. That decision was made at property level, by someone trying to hit a margin number, probably one that was set by an asset manager or an owner who's trying to cover the franchise fees, the loyalty assessments, the reservation fees, and the PIP debt. Everyone in the chain is rational. And the guest still pays $20 for coffee. That's the machine working as designed. Which should terrify every owner reading this, because the machine is designed to extract, not to build loyalty.