Ironic from the sloganeering politician who’s all sizzle and no steak.

Thanks for sharing your insights.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thr...

‘PRs’ is perfectly acceptable and has been in common use for many years, particularly in the UK.

If this is how they deal with customers when things go wrong, that’s a real warning sign that undermines confidence and affects trust in the Marriott brand. This company is trying to weasel out of responsibility for money they took on their platform and now leaving their customers high and dry.

Marriott’s customer communications - phone and email - have been contradictory, confused, and frankly well beneath the standard expected of a global hospitality brand. This debacle deserves a reputational setback.

Beware: think twice before paying in advance for a Marriott reservation.

This never should have happened. Either someone at Marriott was asleep at the switch, or the company knowingly took reservation money with an affiliate teetering on bankruptcy. Where was the oversight, and where is the accountability now?
www.cnn.com/2025/11/11/b...

"Relative to providing few arguments, providing many arguments might lead the target to question why the source is providing so many arguments and whether the source might have an ulterior motive, hidden agenda, or desire to change the target's mind."

Audience perception of your expertise helps, but their awareness of your agenda hurts. This might help explain why PR people tell their clients to communicate three (3) key messages plus supporting proof points - and no more.