Do the big brands have a place among the Big Five?

Travel Weekly

13 hours ago

Dorine Reinstein
Africa is about to get a lot more familiar.
Global hotel giants are expanding across the continent and even making moves into safari territory. Marriott plans to add more than 50 properties and over 9,000 rooms by 2027, including six safari properties across East Africa and a Kruger National Park lodge in 2026. Hilton is tripling its African footprint to 160-plus hotels. It's exciting news that shows confidence in African tourism, but will this put Africa on the map for mainstream travelers or risk diluting what makes it authentically special?
"The Marriott brand and its peers expanding into Africa is a double-edged sword," said Justin Huff, managing partner at Embark Beyond, a New York-based travel agency (No. 47 on the Travel Weekly Power List). "On one hand, you have amazing brand equity lowering a prospective guests' apprehension traveling to a remote area; however, the relative sizes of the lodges (number of rooms) and their specific locations are problematic."
Huff explained the environment where safari camps and lodges operate are extremely fragile, in addition to being in very remote locations. He noted that "part of the charm of an African safari is hyperlocal lodge ownership" and warned that large brands' operating procedures can sometimes lead to staff seeming "a bit rehearsed and robotic," compared to independent properties' authentic warmth.
But it doesn't have to be all or nothing, according to Guy Stehlik, the CEO of BON Hotels. "I don't believe this new wave of international investment will destroy authenticity. If anything, it tends to professionalize what's already there," he said. "I strongly believe that professionalism and authenticity can coexist, as long as there's respect for the local story, culture and people."
Karim Cheltout, senior vice president of development for the Middle East and Africa at Marriott International, agreed with Stehlik. He said authentic hospitality comes from people, place and purpose and noted that Marriott is "hiring and training local talent, partnering with regional artisans and suppliers and celebrating culinary and cultural traditions."
Effect on local communities
Conservation and community impact is another concern raised with the expansion of bigger hotel groups onto the continent. "Smaller family-run lodges have direct revenue-sharing agreements with local communities (around 5% to 10% of gross revenue)," Huff explained. "These create real ownership and pride among staff, something much harder for larger brands."
Tourism expert Anna Spenceley suggested the impact will depend largely on how these hotels operate. "If they are a group that favors sustainability and is certified by an independent certification body against a reputable standard, then it should have good local procurement and employment integrated into its operations," Spenceley said.
• Related: Jumeirah expanding into Africa
One area where you might expect these global chains to have a clear advantage is loyalty programs. But the reality in Africa is more complex.
"For our luxury client, Bonvoy would not be a difference-maker," Embark's Huff stated plainly. "Mainstream loyalty programs in Africa are highly problematic, as they apply to hotel-only bookings. Africa is massively complex operationally, and corporate reservations teams lack the experience and know-how to connect the dots with all of the other remote destinations that guests want to experience when they go on safari."
Craig Erasmus, CEO at Mantis, which recently partnered with Accor, echoes this sentiment from his experience: "We all thought, well, you plug Mantis into this amazing global distribution and loyalty platform and it's just going to work. And it does work for certain locations, but for the vast majority of the portfolio, and especially the Safari portfolio, it doesn't work."
Travel advisors' role
This complexity is exactly why the travel trade remains so important for African travel. As Erasmus explained, it's not easy to book Africa direct because of the complexities around land arrangements across different countries.
"Honestly, 80% of our safari-related bookings are coming through tour operators and agents, primarily in North America," he said. "The minute you try and tag on Uganda or Kenya and you have border crossings and flights, you need an expert to help."
Based on several interviews, it seems that U.S. travel advisors still favor the local safari brands.
"Being in the trade, we're honestly not enthusiastically supporting Marriott," said Huff, referring to the company's properties in safari destinations. "If I was in a sales situation where clients were completely insistent, Marriott or bust, I would make it happen for them; however, I would have already presented local alternatives and outlined the benefits of staying there over Marriott."
He added that Marriott offers a great product and client experience, but he compares it to one of the local safari companies opening a palace hotel in Paris.
Houston-based travel expert Linda de Sosa echoed Huff's statements, saying: "For safaris, I will continue to send my clients to Singita, AndBeyond and other specialized safari camps."
All are welcome
Mantis chief Erasmus, meanwhile, says he sees room for coexistence.
"I think the demand is there that you almost need the internationals in addition to the domestic operators to all grow together to actually try and meet that demand," he said. "If you look at typical North American guests, they're coming for anywhere between seven and 10 days. So they're not staying at one property. They may come and stay at a Marriott as the entry point because they're a loyalty member or know the brand, but they're also going to want to visit Safari Lodge destinations.
"Whatever happens, you're always going to be supporting some of the domestic and local brands along the way," Erasmus added.
The key question isn't whether these expansions will happen; they're already underway. It's whether they'll enhance Africa's appeal while preserving what makes it special.
As Stehlik put it: "These global brands should be working with established local hotel groups, not trying to replace them."