Digging into J.D. Power’s 2025 Guest Satisfaction Benchmark

J.D. Power recently released its 2025 North America Third-Party Hotel Management Guest Satisfaction Benchmark Study, with Atrium Hospitality, Crescent Hotels & Resorts, and Columbia Sussex and Davidson Hospitality Group recognized among the leading operators. The study evaluated companies with more than 14,000 branded rooms under management during the observation period of May 2024 through May 2025.

When studies like this make headlines, it’s worth asking: what do these rankings really tell us? And just as important, what don’t they tell us? Let’s dig in.

Our background is in data-rich consumer market research, where best practices in collection and analysis are paramount. For over two decades, we’ve applied that discipline to hospitality guest feedback at scale. That history shapes how we look at benchmark studies like J.D. Power’s — with an appreciation for what they can illuminate, and an eye for where the methodology sets natural limits.

‍

What This Benchmark Study Is Designed to Do

At their core, studies like J.D. Power’s serve as reputational spotlights. They are built to:

• Drive press coverage. Rankings generate headlines, creating visibility for top performers in both trade and mainstream outlets.
• Reassure owners and investors. Third-party validation signals that a management company is operating at a high standard.
• Support business development. Strong placement can help attract new ownership groups or contracts seeking proven operators.
• Bolster internal morale. Recognition affirms the work of teams delivering guest experiences across dozens of properties.

Those are meaningful functions, and the companies recognized in 2025 should be proud. But it’s equally important to understand what these benchmark studies aren’t designed to do.

‍

The Methodology—Details That Shape Interpretation

• Observation window: stays from May 2024 through May 2025.
• Sample size: 5,022 guest responses specific to branded hotels managed by the largest third-party operators.
• Inclusion criteria: companies with more than 14,000 branded rooms under management.
• Dimensions measured: guest room; hotel staff service; value for price paid; check-in/check-out; hotel facility; food & beverage; hotel connectivity.
• Redesign caveat: The study was redesigned for 2025, so scores are not comparable to prior years—this year sets a new baseline.

‍

Sector-Level Findings from 2025

• Food & Beverage: On-property dining incidence rose to 77% (from 73% in 2024), but satisfaction declined in food quality, cleanliness, presentation, and ambiance.
• Facilities upkeep: Satisfaction fell for exterior/grounds and for amenities like pools, fitness centers, and laundry.
• Staff service & guest room: Both were steady, holding at levels comparable to 2024.

‍

Why the Results Are Directional, Not Diagnostic

Two structural features matter when interpreting this benchmark study:

1. Sample spread vs. portfolio scale. The 5,022 responses are distributed across many large operators, each managing tens of thousands of rooms. Even with balanced sampling, that often yields only a few hundred responses per company over a year. The study is good for relative ranking at the macro level, but not fine-grained enough to isolate causes by brand, region, or property.
2. Composite scoring & redesign. J.D. Power’s 1,000-point index reflects weighted dimensions across the stay. Without published Ns and variance, there’s no way to calculate confidence intervals or judge whether close score gaps are statistically significant. Add in the 2025 redesign, and year-over-year comparisons are off the table.

‍

Practical Interpretation

• The spread between the top-ranked operator and the next tier is wide enough to credibly suggest a lead at the macro level.
• The differences within the next cluster of operators are small enough that they may or may not be statistically distinguishable — without Ns and variance, we simply don’t know.
• The safest approach: treat clear top-tier separation as meaningful, and treat close clustering as functionally comparable until further data emerges.

‍

Brief Context: Reviews & Guest Experience Surveys

For operators, it helps to see benchmark studies as one part of a broader ecosystem of guest feedback:

• Online reviews. Reviews play a central role in shaping traveler choice — prospective guests rely heavily on them when deciding where to book. But they often reflect only the most extreme experiences, positive or negative, rather than the full spectrum of guest sentiment.
• Guest experience surveys. Surveys provide a more representative view, capturing feedback from a broader share of guests. Best practice is to use independent platforms, rather than surveys embedded in PMS or marketing systems, because independent collection tends to encourage more candid responses and delivers a clearer, less biased picture of guest satisfaction.

‍

Closing Thought

The 2025 benchmark study shines a valuable spotlight, especially in highlighting F&B and facilities upkeep as pressure points. That’s not just a J.D. Power finding—we’ve seen the same themes emerge in surveys we run for a significant number of our clients. When food quality, dining experience, and facilities maintenance slip, guests notice quickly.

The real power of the benchmark study is as a conversation starter—a signal to ask sharper questions of your own guest data, at the property and departmental level, using tools built for diagnosis.

How are you interpreting this year’s findings? We’d love to hear your perspective and compare notes.

‍