Walk down any major avenue in Manhattan and you will see the same names again and again: Courtyard, Residence Inn, Fairfield, Moxy. They all belong to one company. At 1717 Broadway, a single building holds two hotels — a Courtyard by Marriott on the lower floors and a Residence Inn by Marriott above. When it opened in late 2013, it was billed as the tallest dedicated hotel building in North America.

Marriott’s then-CEO Arne Sorenson described them as ‘two distinct products that appeal to two different kinds of stays.’ Yet both are sold through the same Marriott app and the same loyalty program. The pattern repeats across Midtown: multiple Courtyards, a Fairfield, a SpringHill Suites, more Residence Inns, three Moxys, plus a Westin, a Sheraton, a W, an Aloft, an Element, and a Renaissance. All under one corporate roof.

This is not a Marriott quirk. Accor has more than 45 brands, Hyatt lists 36, Marriott more than 30, Hilton 28, Wyndham 25, IHG 21, and Choice 22. Together, the seven large global groups carry roughly 200 brands. Few people inside or outside the industry can name them all, according to skift.com.

So why do these companies keep inventing new labels? The answer, as Skift’s analysis suggests, has less to do with what travelers ask for and more to do with a quarterly growth metric: net unit growth. Each new brand gives a hotel group a fresh way to add properties to its pipeline without cannibalizing existing ones. It is a way to show investors steady expansion, quarter after quarter.

For the traveler, the result is a confusing landscape. Two hotels in the same building, with different names, but the same app, the same points, and often the same staff. The distinctions between brands can be subtle — a slightly different lobby design, a different breakfast menu, a different target guest. But the underlying product is often similar.

This brand proliferation also affects where and how hotels get built. Developers can pick a brand that fits a specific site or market segment, which helps groups expand into neighborhoods that might not support a full-service flagship. It is a flexible strategy, but it also means more signs, more logos, and more fine print for guests trying to figure out where they are actually staying.

Skift’s take is blunt: the roughly 200 brands across the big hotel groups make more sense as an answer to a quarterly growth metric than to anything travelers asked for. The industry has effectively been ‘eaten’ by the logic of net unit growth — the need to keep adding rooms, properties, and brands to satisfy Wall Street.

For visitors to Brazil, this trend matters too. The same global groups operate here, and the same brand math applies. You may book a hotel in São Paulo or Rio and find a name you have never heard of, only to discover it is part of a familiar loyalty program. The upside is more choice and more points; the downside is that the brand on the door tells you less and less about what to expect inside.

As the industry continues to multiply brands, the smart traveler learns to look past the logo. Check the amenities, read recent reviews, and compare the actual room photos. The brand name is no longer a reliable shortcut — it is just one more data point in a crowded field.

Skift’s reporting reminds us that the hotel business is driven by metrics as much as by hospitality. The next time you see two hotels in one building, remember: it is not a quirk of architecture. It is a strategy, and it is working — at least for the companies that count the brands.