Joseph Greff : And then within that royalty line item, can you remind us maybe you talked about it and I didn’t catch it. What the composition within that royalty line is between the higher RevPAR intensive chain scale segment brands versus the lower ones. I don’t know if you want to look at it on the first quarter or last 12 months? Or how do you see that for this year, but just to give us some proportionate weighting related to those segments that have better growth, that would be helpful.
Scott Oaksmith: Yes. If you look at our overall portfolio, 82% of that in hotels is our revenue-intensive brands. It’s actually a little bit stronger when you look in terms of rooms. It’s 87% of that. So the lion’s share of our royalties are generated from our revenue-intensive brands. So most of the growth will be coming from there. We’ve talked about the 2% target for the revenue-intense brand growth. Overall portfolio for the U.S. will be positive. We do expect the Econo Lodge and Rodeway to be slightly negative for the year. So most of that revenue intensity will come through there, which is obviously where we want to grow stronger RevPAR, a stronger number of rooms per hotel and a higher effective royalty rate for those brands. So we feel good about the way we can grow those brands to really drive our overall royalty revenue.
Patrick Pacious: Joe, it’s important to look at the pipeline, too, because while 82% of the system today is revenue-intense, over 90% of the pipeline is revenue-intense. So it speaks to the sort of future growth that, that trend is going to continue here.
Scott Oaksmith: And I think the last thing I would just add, as we’ve talked about in the past with our revenue-intense strategy, it’s not just between the brands, it’s within the brands, too. So despite the fact Econo Lodge and Rodeway may decline in overall number of units, the royalty contribution of them should be relatively flat as we’re bringing in on hotels that are generating 20% higher revenue than the ones we’re exiting. So while the absolute number of hotels may be declining, the royalty contribution is not.
Joseph Greff : Actually, one final question or maybe a comment. Are you guys thinking at all to disclose and guide similar to your peers? And just in terms of net rooms growth, and I don’t know if it’s an absolute RevPAR, but just to kind of validate some of the targets that you set for your peers, it’s a much more straightforward way of disclosure. And to be honest if you changed your disclosures or is this probably beneficial in your best interest to do it, but I don’t know if you’ve given got any thought to that, but that’s all for me.
Scott Oaksmith: It’s something that, I know we’ve talked about this in the past, Joe, and we’ll continue to look at that. But of switching as we’ve started to talk more about our pipeline and number of rooms and starting to talk more about the system as international — full global system as our international continues to grow. So we’ve given out guidance on a number of units, so we’ve stayed with that for now. But something we’ll take under advisement as far as guiding to more on our rooms growth on a global basis on a go-forward basis.
Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Patrick Scholes from Truist Securities.
Charles Patrick Scholes: My first question, then I’ll have a follow-up question. Pat, would you completely rule out trying again for Wyndham and sort of lay out a scenario here. Let’s say Wyndham stock a year from now is still hovering at $75. And we all know they’ve laid out a plan sort of in defense to your proposed acquisition to organically get their stock at least to $90 or above. But hypothetically, if the stock was still at $75 a year from now, would you try again for Wyndham? Or because of concern — hovering concerns around FTC and Department of Justice and all that, would that not be something you would be interested in, in that scenario? I’m just trying to see if it’s something at this point you would completely rule out if that were the case, say, a year from now?
Patrick Pacious: Yes, Patrick. I mean, I think if you look at the press release we put out when we pivoted away from trying to acquire the business, the strategic rationale still makes sense. So that’s really a question for the Wyndham shareholders to answer. I think the other aspects you mentioned around regulatory, as we said in our press release, we felt very confident about the progress we were making on that front. So this is more back to — we really got no price discovery, and we had laid out a $90 offer, we felt that was a full premium value for the value that could be created. And you don’t see a lot of opportunities to create over $2 billion in value creation for shareholders on both sides. And so it’s really a question, I think, which should be answered by the Wyndham shareholders in the future.
Charles Patrick Scholes: Okay. I did not hear a definitive no in there. My next question, a little bit more straightforward here. On your earnings, it looks like your other revenue line was up materially year-over-year. Can you talk about what drove that? I think it was up 55% year-over-year. I know in the past, when we’ve seen outsized growth that’s from termination fees. Just a little bit more color on that and then expectations for that revenue line item for the rest of the year.
Scott Oaksmith: Yes. So to your point, that line item has various revenue streams, including termination awards, which were — there was one larger termination award that we received during the quarter. We would expect that line item to be up kind of in the mid-single digits for the year. So a little bit of timing on the recognition of some revenue in the first quarter compared to the rest of the year.
Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Alex Brignall from Redburn Atlantic.
Alex Brignall: The first one, just on the reimbursed revenue and cost dynamic. It’s slightly different. IHG has had something slightly similar in that quarter, but it is a slightly different methodology to some of your peers in terms of the accounting for other fee types and suggest that you’re not going to be running that line item to breakeven. Is that going to move into a different line in terms of where you account for those revenues. And the revenues or the kind of permanent gains, the $8 million to $10 million a quarter that you talked about, do they come into your guidance of mid-single-digit royalty rate increases because you’re kind of [indiscernible] permanent net revenue that you got to keep?
Scott Oaksmith: Yes. In terms of presentation, we talked about this a little bit since the acquisition of Radisson just because of the way our contracts were structured a little differently, some of the fees were treated differently. They’ve been in that other revenue. Once we get a full year behind us, we do expect in Q1 of 2025 to be able to break out those line items into separate categories where we’ll get back to the traditional presentation of where other reimbursable revenue equals — that line item is truly just the reimbursable line items. But due to some of the accounting requirements and consistency of where it’s reported in the financials there in that line item. So we do expect in Q1 to break those out. Those are ancillary revenue streams that are not royalty related.
So there will be a separate earnings stream for us that will be outside of the royalties that we earn, but they certainly will be dependent on the ability for us to continue to grow our scale, add more services that improve the operations of our franchisees to be able to grow those in the future. So we’ll be more on the non-RevPAR-related growth vectors that we have, which actually plays into the versatility of the business to be able to grow not only through unit growth and RevPAR but through other value-added services that we can provide to our franchisees.
