FYI, re: Marriott

For those of you applauding Marriott’s decision to stop offering pornographic movies as part of the entertainment offerings in hotel rooms, a quick note. I hate to burst your bubble, but this wasn’t any sort of moral victory at play. People don’t pay for porn anymore, they get it for free over the internet. So Marriott stopped paying its entertainment provider a premium rate under its contract for porn. It was a sensible business decision. If people (lonely businessmen) still paid for porn, Marriott would still offer it. Again, apologies for this dose of reality. We now return you to your regularly scheduled blog. Below is a humorous picture to lighten your day.



  1. I think it is reasonable to infer from this post that Steve likes porn.

  2. Fiddlesticks. Matt Evans’ faith moved mountains, in this instance.

  3. I admit this is a sop to Matt.

  4. “People don’t pay for porn anymore, they get it for free over the internet.”

    Wait. Wait. There’s *porn* on the *internet*? You mean the thing that makes the e-mail also has the porn? I refuse to believe it.

  5. You better believe there’s porn on the internet jimbob. Why just yesterday (yes, on the Sabbath!) I was looking at some amazing chocolate chip brownies on Tastespotting that has to be illegal certain parts of the country.

  6. Don’t even get me started on ruin porn, that stuff is WAY out there.

  7. But did Marriott pay tithing on the profits from it?

  8. theres not even a reason to pay for porn on the internet anymore, unless you’re not tech savvy.

  9. It seems it has everything to do with Romney wanting to run in 2012 and not have the pesky issue of being tied to a company that makes a profit from selling porn.

  10. My understanding (I won’t divulge how I’ve come to this understanding:-) is that porn on hotel TVs still generates big bucks despite the more cost-efficient ways of accessing it described by Steve, so I think Marriott still deserves a pat on the back for this late-in-the-game gesture.

  11. I guess that’s possible, but it seems like you’d get more bang for your buck (no pun intended) either using the free wi-fi or even paying for it at cheaper places.

  12. Best headline connected with this story:

    “Mitt Romney Prevents Traveling Businessmen from Abusing Themselves”

  13. I thought the new decision was ony for NEWLY built Marriott hotels, not those currently operating.

  14. True story, when I was an adolescent all the kids would talk about finding porn mags by the creek that ran behind our neighborhood. The creek as a source of porn was so well established that one of our teachers advisors, in a lesson about temptation, used a porn mag laying next to the creek as an example of Satan laying snares for young men. Armed with this information I spent hours scouring the banks of the creek for a nudie mag. Despite my repeated and feverish attemps I never once stumbled on even a lingerie catalogue. So excuse me if I’m skeptical about the existence of free porn on the Internet!

  15. I think Steve’s short post here is apropos precisely because some news stories have immediately connected it to a possible Romney run in 2012. It’s not that Steve is a fan of porn or is against eliminating porn in Marriott hotels — it’s just (1) a dose of realism for those who might think that Mormonism can somehow call the shots in a company like Marriott, just because a key leader in the company happens to be Mormon and (2) it is worthwhile to point out that this is a business decision by the board of Marriott and is not tied to any Romney aspirations in 2012.

  16. nat kelly says:

    As a hotel front desk agent (not for Marriot, however), I can verify that quite a few folks still order the uber-expensive TV porn, despite it being so much cheaper to just purchase an internet day-pass. (I could tell lots of other pretty shocking stories about the general use of hotels for the carrying out of ‘sexual perversions’, but that might be a bit of a threadjack.)

    Of course, I don’t know if it’s more or less common than it used to be, and I pretty much think most hotel companies are run by the devil (sorry Marriott), so money is probably really what is driving the decision.

    Filthy pursuit of lucre…..

  17. nat kelly says:

    Also, can’t find a link right now, but Marriott was coming under particular heat because they didn’t just offer p0rn, they offered the really controversial stuff – movies showing stars having sex without protection, etc. They’ve been under boycott from a number of groups related to advocating for sex workers because they show this unsafe p0rn. I’m guessing that had something to do with it as well.

  18. “Marriott was coming under particular heat because they didn’t just offer p0rn, they offered the really controversial stuff – movies showing stars having sex without protection, etc.”

    Not to derail a thread about corporate financial decisions by talking about pr0n, but if this is “controversial” stuff, then one would be hard pressed to find pr0n that wasn’t controversial. 99% of pr0n depicts people having sex without protection.

  19. Sidebottom says:

    Do you have citations for this or is it your own speculation, Steve? The hypothetical business transaction where Marriott pays an entertainment provider a premium for a porn package doesn’t match standard industry practice.

    In a typical arrangement the content providers pay installation and capital costs for the hotel’s entertainment network. The hotels get their cut from the provider plus a bunch of free tvs without any significant investment or risk. The money flows from the content provider to the hotel – not the other way around.

    For historical perspective, Omni hotels pulled the plug on porn in 1999 to the tune of $1M/year in increased equipment costs and lost entertainment revenues. It’s hard to know what penalty Marriott’s paying for their decision, but it can’t be better than financially neutral.

    In-room entertainment providers like LodgeNet, on the other hand, are suffering substantial losses to free internet content.

  20. Rigel Hawthorne says:


    For awhile, the major irrigation canal was a source of porn in my hometown. (The desert community had no natural creeks) Some of the high school boys would hang out there and leave their mags under the water. If they sunk to the bottom, you could see the blurry images at the canal bed from a position over the small railroad bridge that crossed. I discovered this when I found small fragments of pages (that had been soaked then dried) with obscene cartoons in the small cement irrigation ditch behind our house. This led to an investigation of that particular ditch back to its larger source.

%d bloggers like this: