While this ranks way down on the list of things that matter in the world, I’m now quite invested in the answer to this, based on a reader’s research up until this point. Let me explain.
In this post:
What’s wrong with the MOMO products from W Hotels?
OMAAT reader Chris recently stayed at the W Hotel Amsterdam, and said he noticed how watery the MOMO shampoo was. Initially he thought that maybe a previous guest had diluted it, but then he got a replacement bottle, and had the same problem. So he wondered if the hotel was playing games in order to save some money, or what.
What’s awesome is that he didn’t just wonder what the answer to the question is, but he also actually investigated further. So he bought a bottle of the MOMO shampoo from Marriott’s online store, had it delivered to his home, and… the product had exactly the same issue he found at the hotel.
He even shared the below video comparing the products. On the left is the shampoo bought from Marriott’s store, while on the right is the same shampoo bought directly from Davines, which produces the MOMO products.
Out of curiosity, I asked Chris if he could share the ingredients labels for the two bottles. You can find those below — based on a cursory glance they look very similar, though some terms being used do differ. If I’m missing anything obvious, please let me know.
Chris commented the following:
This whole thing strikes me as astonishingly poor quality control from Marriott for one of their most premium brands; are we really saying nobody at Marriott has noticed this widespread and systemic issue? Or have they noticed, and just don’t care?
Chris also pointed out how while both bottles say “made in Italy,” the product intended for W Hotels additionally references a UK-based company named Angel Consulting, so one wonders what their involvement is in this.
I don’t have a strong theory here, but I’m curious…
As I said at the beginning of the post, this is hardly the most important topic in the world, but I sure am now invested in the answer as to what’s going on here. I love how Chris took his experiment so far that he even ordered the same product through two separate channels to see how they compare.
Based on the above video, there’s simply no denying that almost anyone would want their shampoo to look more like what’s on the right, than what’s on the left, as the latter looks mighty watery.
That raises the question of what’s going on here. Is the shampoo really formulated to be that watery? This doesn’t seem like a fluke, since this is how the shampoo was on-property and via the online store.
If this is in fact formulated differently, is the primary difference just that the one for W Hotels is watered down? If so, that’s a very strange way to go about coming up with a special formula…
Bottom line
W Hotels has a partnership with MOMO for bath products. In theory that’s a good brand, but an OMAAT reader reports how the formulation seems a bit off. He found it was so watery at the W Amsterdam that he decided to order a bottle from Marriott’s online store, only to find the same problem. Meanwhile if you buy the product direct, it doesn’t have that problem.
Anyone have a theory as to what’s going on here?
The brand is not Momo, it’s Davines that you can find in many salons. Momo is the product line
https://ca.davines.com/products/momo-shampoo?_pos=1&_sid=fb585b59b&_ss=r&_gl=1*qo61g3*_up*MQ..*_gs*MQ..&gclid=CjwKCAjwnN3OBhA8EiwAfpTYegt73-whUkibfK1_CznY_Y3Vb6lWYi50ISmI8Y9icGMWgjwHTqn7kBoCuewQAvD_BwE
At first glance, there are should be 6 surfactants (cleansing/foaming ingredients) in the hotel version and 11 in the direct version. You can get a good experience by using just a few surfactants, but using more can help fine tune the foam properties further.
The surfactant blend in the hotel version is on the expensive side of hotel toiletries and could be used in a premium drugstore shampoo, but the direct version is probably more...
At first glance, there are should be 6 surfactants (cleansing/foaming ingredients) in the hotel version and 11 in the direct version. You can get a good experience by using just a few surfactants, but using more can help fine tune the foam properties further.
The surfactant blend in the hotel version is on the expensive side of hotel toiletries and could be used in a premium drugstore shampoo, but the direct version is probably more expensive as a few of the surfactants used are rather niche. I don't recall seeing Sodium Methyl 2-Sulfolaurate, Disodium 2-Sulfolaurate, Lauramidopropylamine Oxide or Myristamidopropylamine Oxide before. Using more ingredients also increases the costs of managing more stock keeping units and expiry dates.
Thank you for this post. I recently stayed at the W Nashville and all of the Momo bath products were very watery and I wondered what was going on. I noticed the housekeeping cart had a squeeze bottle (like you might see in a kitchen for icing or finishing oil) filled with shampoo. So they were clearly squeezing addition shampoo into the in-room pump bottles to refill them rather than replacing them when empty. So,...
Thank you for this post. I recently stayed at the W Nashville and all of the Momo bath products were very watery and I wondered what was going on. I noticed the housekeeping cart had a squeeze bottle (like you might see in a kitchen for icing or finishing oil) filled with shampoo. So they were clearly squeezing addition shampoo into the in-room pump bottles to refill them rather than replacing them when empty. So, I thought housekeeping must have added water to the squeeze bottles to make it easier to refill the shampoo bottles. I don't stay in W hotels very often anymore so I'm fascinated to learn this is a wider issue with the W Momo formulation.
I actually like real Momo products so I'm disappointed that they would allow their products to be downgraded like this. And interesting to hear Molton Brown does not allow their products to be downgraded - I wonder if there are others. Excellent story.
Canopy Paris Eiffel Tower, we actually saw housekeeping put water in the bottles. All were the bottles in our bathroom were thin.
Not all hotels do it, but certainly this one needs to be pointed out, they were charging €600 a night and doing this.
What a shame.
Are there any rules are there any controls anymore.
This is a genuinely unique and fascinating blog post and I actually feel more knowledgeable and yet dismayed for knowing it. I had zero idea posh brands were selling their brand names to be packaged on soapy slop on hotels. And we’re all falling it. Good on Molton Brown for refusing too.
I really miss W hotel's BLISS toiletries. The MOMO are awful. Like a Motel 6.....
I've noticed this with Le Labo products at Park Hyatt and Diptiqye on Qatar Airways. They are very much NOT the real thing. You'll notice this most when you apply the body lotion of either product - all fragrance and nothing remotely close to moisturising!
So, whatever happened to The "BLISS" Products that were offered at "W" Hotels worldwide?
Starwood sold Bliss World (for a nice profit) in January 2010, it was bought by Steiner Leisure Limited. Likely just in time before Marriott began to mismanage the W brand and its focus become less about spas and cult Bliss products and more about Pepsi and sourcing bathroom products from China with licenses to use well known brand names on them.
I used to collect the Le Labo products from various different Edition Hotels back in the day when individual small bottles were provided to use on future work travel trips. One day combined a couple of the bottle of body wash, only to notice that all 3 had a different gel - one clear, one milky coloured and one white. All apparently the same product....
Clearly the real products don't make their way to hotels, just generic gel with a scent added.
In cosmetic items, ingredients are listed from the most common first to the least common last. Assuming this normal convention is followed, these are indeed different product products. For the non-dermstologists reading this see https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-labeling-regulations/summary-cosmetics-labeling-requirements#:~:text=The%20ingredients%20must%20be%20declared, Label%20Warnings
I uploaded the labels with an explanation of why I was comparing them. This is what Gemini said. Long but interesting.
TLDR; hotel version is less substantial
Based on the ingredient labels you provided, there are significant differences between these two products that would result in very different textures and thicknesses.
The primary difference lies in the surfactants (the cleansing agents that create foam). The thickening power of the surfactants in the retail...
I uploaded the labels with an explanation of why I was comparing them. This is what Gemini said. Long but interesting.
TLDR; hotel version is less substantial
Based on the ingredient labels you provided, there are significant differences between these two products that would result in very different textures and thicknesses.
The primary difference lies in the surfactants (the cleansing agents that create foam). The thickening power of the surfactants in the retail version is much stronger than that of the surfactants used in the hotel version.
Here is a breakdown of why the hotel shampoo feels watery and the retail shampoo feels thick:
Retail Version (Bottom Image: Substantial, purchased at a store)
This version contains surfactants that are excellent at creating a thick, rich product, especially when combined.
Sodium C14-16 Olefin Sulfonate: This is a very strong, effective cleanser and foamer that, while slightly controversial because it can be stripping for some, is excellent at providing a substantial, thick texture and copious foam.
Sodium Cocoyl Isethionate: A primary mild surfactant often called "baby foam." When formulated well, it contributes a distinct, luxurious, creamy thickness.
Betaine and Sarcosinate: The combination of these surfactants makes it easy to thicken the product using just a small amount of salt (Sodium Chloride).
In short, the basic building blocks of the retail formula naturally build viscosity (thickness).
Hotel Version (Top Image: Watery)
The hotel version uses a different set of surfactants that are much more difficult to thicken into a rich gel, leading to a thinner consistency.
Sodium Lauroyl Sarcosinate: This is the primary surfactant in this version. While it is a gentle cleanser, it is notoriously "salt-thinning," which means adding salt can sometimes make it thinner instead of thicker. Achieving a thick gel with sarcosinates often requires complex formulation techniques.
The other surfactants (Cocamidopropyl Betaine and Cocoyl Glucoside) are very common and mild but, in this specific blend, are clearly not creating a high viscosity.
Essentially, the ingredients used in the hotel version have a lower inherent thickening capability than those used in the retail version.
This confirms your suspicion that despite being marketed as the same brand and "kind" of shampoo (MOMO), these are entirely distinct formulas.
I have always been leery of using the products in the shower/bathtub as I feel they could be compromised....spitting into them, urinating into them, putting something malicious into them, etc. I take my own toiletries on all my trips.
Gary, sigh. Quit the FOMO. And, stop cosplaying as a woman on this website.
Sorry, I meant FUD. Not FOMO. There has never been a case of spitting, urinating, or anything in bath products at hotels. Take your own toiletries if you want, but don't spread FUD that there is greater than epsilon risk of using spitted-in or urinated-in shampoo. Plus, even if urinated in, >99.99% chance you and your hair are no worse for wear.
This is a surprisingly interesting topic.....I rolled my eyes at first, but am now sold. And, I agree that the original poster did a great job with the comparison. My guess here is that Marriott has licensed a "lesser", more watered down version of the shampoo. Why? Well. mostly to save money. But also, given the amount of product that gets wasted every day at a large property, there is some logic to this.
...This is a surprisingly interesting topic.....I rolled my eyes at first, but am now sold. And, I agree that the original poster did a great job with the comparison. My guess here is that Marriott has licensed a "lesser", more watered down version of the shampoo. Why? Well. mostly to save money. But also, given the amount of product that gets wasted every day at a large property, there is some logic to this.
And, the makers/marketers of MoMo get reduced price advertizing as the diluted product will still display most of the qualities of the more expensive product. Maybe some guests might like it and puchase some of the (even better) real thing.
The answer is right on the bottle: La Bottega. They are a contract manufacturer and distributor who licenses luxury brand names (Diptyque, Etro, Santa Maria Novella, Malin+Goetz, etc.) and produces hospitality-format versions of those products for hotels. (Read: Cheaper) La Bottega is half owned by the PE firm Three Hills Capital Partners.
This is the correct answer. La Bottega, HD Supply, and Sysco Guest Supply are some of the market leaders in hotel amenities and other supply products (paper products, pens, towels, etc). The W's Momo shampoo is manufactured by La Bottega, and the "real" version is manufactured by Davines.
To one of the different comments, most of these companies manufacture most their personal care products in-region (rather than China), so it is likely that the...
This is the correct answer. La Bottega, HD Supply, and Sysco Guest Supply are some of the market leaders in hotel amenities and other supply products (paper products, pens, towels, etc). The W's Momo shampoo is manufactured by La Bottega, and the "real" version is manufactured by Davines.
To one of the different comments, most of these companies manufacture most their personal care products in-region (rather than China), so it is likely that the W Amsterdam's Momo products are made somewhere in the EU.
Why would a luxury brand agree to that kind of licensing? The hotel setting has to be a huge channel for the acquisition of new customers and you surely don't want their first impression to be anything less than stellar.
Because short term profits. You license and make a chunk of change without doing anything. You convert some hotel guests who aren't price sensitive and aren't picky about their bath products, and you don't convert the more savvy/harder to please audience. Existing users (who pay for the actual retail product) probably won't meaningfully change their behaviour.
Oh, and did I mention money?
Same issue with Malin+Goetz. I wrote them to complain the Le Meridien version was not the same consistency or scent as their retail products. Shockingly, a M+G rep called me and explained that the Marriott 'licensee' uses a different formulation that may be less expensive to produce but also needs to have a longer shelf life due to the way they distribute to hotels.
Most of the Marriott stuff from Sysco is produced in China too.
The first product listed is "water" which in my book explains why the shampoo is very liquid...
This is true for almost all shampoos, high-end and low-end.
"Angel Consulting"
The word "consulting" gives it away. This is certainly a cost-of-production saving measure.
Good guess but no. Angel Consulting is merely acting as the UK RP, as mentioned on the label.
A UK Responsible Person (UK RP) is a legally required entity based in the UK for placing cosmetic products or medical devices on the Great Britain market. They ensure compliance with safety regulations, maintain the Product Information File (PIF), handle product notifications via the SCPN system, and must have their details on the product label.
I bring my own "tar" shampoo , which is better than any hotel shampoo .
I've mentioned this before, but when I was working for a soap company, it was common knowledge that the hotels are merely paying for the logo/appearance and signature fragrances from the high-end companies like Momo. The actual product bases that are used are bulk produced (usually in China) and simply white-labeled and drop shipped to the hotels.
Yes, that’s correct. But some companies - such as Molton Brown - have declined a branding only deal and insist on their “genuine” product in the hotel bottles. But, really - how many people are going to notice this? This is in the intersect of attention to detail, staying in a hotel long enough to notice/care and not bringing their own hair/beauty products. That’s a small intersect (mostly male) vs the large marketing fee on offer
Did you try asking Marriott for an explanation?
Thank you for posting stuff like this. Name and shame!!
So, a while back, you posted about the service carts having gallon jugs of slosh, instead of what the label inside the rooms list. It would definitely appear that hotels are lying about the contents of the shampoos.
Hyatt does this with Le Labo. All of the Park Hyatt Le Labo stuff is made in Malaysia by what appears to be some sort of third party called "Woleco Hotel Supplies". "Real" Le Labo is typically made in the USA.
Though the hotel Le Labo stuff seems to generally be of a decent quality compared to the "Real" stuff, in other words I don't see too much difference with it than the stuff I have bought direct.
Pure speculation/opinion, not claims of fact: Marriott licensed the brand, "Angel Consulting" value engineered it into something super cheap to buy in the millions of gallons, W now gets to pretend it is offering a luxury product when it is selling something far less than that. Seems like a pretty risky bet for a "luxury" amenity brand-who is going to buy your real product when they've only been exposed to an authorized but lower quality "knock-off"?
May of the Acca Kappa bar soaps are made in China, and are labelled as such.
I'm at a Marriott at the moment, and they (not Marriott, but the manufacturer) has *drilled holes* that run the length of the teeny bar soaps, so really, a "bar" of soap is good for one use.
The cheapening of hotel amenities marches on apace.
Bonvoyd again!
At least there still providing bar soap. So many hotels now want you to take the risk of using only bath gel in community bottles in the shower.