For Hotels, There’s No Room Left for Online Travel Agencies(foxbusiness.com)
foxbusiness.com
For Hotels, There’s No Room Left for Online Travel Agencies
http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/05/28/for-hotels-theres-no-room-left-for-online-travel-agencies.html
132 comments
Booking.com is indeed nice, however, the cut they take is quite substantial (in my country it is 18% including taxes) and I believe there is a lot of room for competition. I see bookings from Airbnb being on the rise. What Airbnb charges me is peanuts compared to Booking.com. Perhaps a Hotel might benefit from the marketing but for me that's not the case as most of our customers are climbers who come to climb in Osp and they book whatever is available next weekend. Also what I don't like about Booking.com is that I can either accept cash in person as payment or accept credit cards through them but not both. I absolutely have to accept cash but why do I have to completely give up the safety net of credit cards and being able to charge no-show penalties.
What software do you use to sync Booking.com and Airbnb bookings calendars? I was using http://www.sync.rentals/ but they seem to have reliability issues (or maybe websites don't like them). Anyways I would love not having to write my own tool for this task and it would save me a lot of time.
Business opportunity for someone?
What software do you use to sync Booking.com and Airbnb bookings calendars? I was using http://www.sync.rentals/ but they seem to have reliability issues (or maybe websites don't like them). Anyways I would love not having to write my own tool for this task and it would save me a lot of time.
Business opportunity for someone?
Yes! 15% for marketing, payment and secure booking is not expensive. It is actually very cheap.
And for us consumers services like hotels.com are really a great help, makes bookings fast and constistent. And they are secure; making me not worry about booking a hotel in an unfamiliar country.
And for us consumers services like hotels.com are really a great help, makes bookings fast and constistent. And they are secure; making me not worry about booking a hotel in an unfamiliar country.
The 15% seems fair. I'm not that familiar with the travel industry, how much more is that percentage compared to the commissions paid to traditional travel agencies pre-internet age? There were always,or at least very often, middlemen involved in the travel industry. Is the cut that for example Booking.com takes really that much bigger than travel agents used to take in the eighties?
Traditional travel agencies take approx. the same amount as a commission and do so off of less competitive rates so the consumer ends up paying more. They don't notice because its usually bundled into the price with airfare.
FWIW I have seen it recommended multiple times, including from hosts, that it is polite to ask a host if they have availability via airbnb even with the instant booking enabled. I agree with you but if that message is as widespread as I've assumed it could explain what you see
If hotel chains were managed by sensible, tech-aware people, they wouldn't bother with these expensive, rearguard marketing campaigns. Instead, they'd get together and form an industry working group, and design simple, standard data formats and querying/booking APIs, and then make all their data available through them.
This would make it far easier to build a hotel search engine, which would cause an explosion of competition and innovation in this area. This in turn would undercut the power of the leading agencies, and drive down referral pricing.
But they won't do this. You see the same problem in so many industries. Vendors act like data about their offering is more precious than the offering itself. They make it as hard as possible to build an aggregator, so the aggregation market gets tied up by a tiny handful of players who are willing to invest enough to build a scraping infrastructure. Then they panic that these aggregators have too much gatekeeping power, but rather than encouraging greater competition amongst aggregators, they respond by trying to put the genie back in the bottle.
This would make it far easier to build a hotel search engine, which would cause an explosion of competition and innovation in this area. This in turn would undercut the power of the leading agencies, and drive down referral pricing.
But they won't do this. You see the same problem in so many industries. Vendors act like data about their offering is more precious than the offering itself. They make it as hard as possible to build an aggregator, so the aggregation market gets tied up by a tiny handful of players who are willing to invest enough to build a scraping infrastructure. Then they panic that these aggregators have too much gatekeeping power, but rather than encouraging greater competition amongst aggregators, they respond by trying to put the genie back in the bottle.
I completely agree. To those pointing out the Sabre/Amadeus "debacle", a few benefits as a reminder:
* To innovate, the GDS only think about how the messaging should be differently handled.
* To buy a ticket, an airline/travel agent uses almost the same syntax throughout the world (this is a miracle, when you can't even order cabs in the same manner in the world).
* Airline companies implement similar interfaces (between different GDS) to handle ticket processing. Which is another miracle: think freight handling done with the same messaging protocol.
Now add to the mix modern protocols and you get nice APIs. The hotels CAN be the only one properly consuming the APIs (w/ gorgeous and easy to use platforms), but if they can't do it well, let tech-aware organisations do it.
Instead, these hotels are fighting for breadcrumbs and insulting companies which have done more to facilitate accomodation than any other hotel in the past 40 years.
* To innovate, the GDS only think about how the messaging should be differently handled.
* To buy a ticket, an airline/travel agent uses almost the same syntax throughout the world (this is a miracle, when you can't even order cabs in the same manner in the world).
* Airline companies implement similar interfaces (between different GDS) to handle ticket processing. Which is another miracle: think freight handling done with the same messaging protocol.
Now add to the mix modern protocols and you get nice APIs. The hotels CAN be the only one properly consuming the APIs (w/ gorgeous and easy to use platforms), but if they can't do it well, let tech-aware organisations do it.
Instead, these hotels are fighting for breadcrumbs and insulting companies which have done more to facilitate accomodation than any other hotel in the past 40 years.
Large hotel chain are starting to become tech aware themselves. Why would they let some other company take 30% of their revenue when they can do it themselves now?
That's massive revenue, not "breadcrums". Certainly hotels shouldn't avoid that revenue just because it might "insult" a different company.
That's massive revenue, not "breadcrums". Certainly hotels shouldn't avoid that revenue just because it might "insult" a different company.
That's a weird position.
Frankly the aggregators provide really low value to the hotel as a stakeholder in the process. They demand concessions and commoditize the hotel itself, which is obviously not in the hotel's interest.
This is a classic channel vs direct issue. The only reasons that travel agents and these aggregators exist is that they provided a way to offload inventory or increase demand. Now we have the internet -- so it is easy and cheap for hotels to engage directly with many customers. Why should my local Hilton Garden Inn give 20% of the gross to Expedia?
For the core customers of the business, the hotel can offer more value to the customer (things like online checkin, etc) while cutting out the commission to the middleman. Travel agents still offer value for complex itineraries, destination travel, integration with corporate ERP systems, etc.
Frankly the aggregators provide really low value to the hotel as a stakeholder in the process. They demand concessions and commoditize the hotel itself, which is obviously not in the hotel's interest.
This is a classic channel vs direct issue. The only reasons that travel agents and these aggregators exist is that they provided a way to offload inventory or increase demand. Now we have the internet -- so it is easy and cheap for hotels to engage directly with many customers. Why should my local Hilton Garden Inn give 20% of the gross to Expedia?
For the core customers of the business, the hotel can offer more value to the customer (things like online checkin, etc) while cutting out the commission to the middleman. Travel agents still offer value for complex itineraries, destination travel, integration with corporate ERP systems, etc.
It may be easy to engage the hotel directly, but when you are looking at potentially 20-30 hotels in an area the time the customer spends to check directly each one makes the aggregation a huge value proposition. I use booking.com a lot not because they are so good, but because they are more convenient than searching direct. I use to do motorcycle travels with a group and each day or couple of days we target the next place to go. With such a scenario booking hotels directly is impossible, but booking.com gives me everything in an area filtered by some criteria. I use location and rating as the top factors, price is just a differentiator. What is the hotel answer to that?
PS. Most of the time in my experience the booking.com price was better than direct booking. This is because on booking.com I found some great deals (not picking for, but why not use it?) while the hotels don't want to publish such low prices on their sites. I found out a nice place in Austria where we got by accident for a night, the place and the price were so good we extended the stay (for the same great price), then next year in the same period I checked the "regular" price and it was more than double.
> Now we have the internet -- so it is easy and cheap for hotels to engage directly with many customers.
It's really not.
> Why should my local Hilton Garden Inn give 20% of the gross to Expedia?
Because Expedia has the traffic to actually sell those hotels. Aggregators "are" the market.
It's really not.
> Why should my local Hilton Garden Inn give 20% of the gross to Expedia?
Because Expedia has the traffic to actually sell those hotels. Aggregators "are" the market.
But they have:
* http://opentravel.org/
* http://www.htng.org/
It's all XML based and sometimes it's a bit confused but a lot of hotel booking sites work by forwarding OTA/HTNG schema messages to booking engines (e.g. Siteminder). A heck of a lot of hotels are already bookable through those engines.
* http://opentravel.org/
* http://www.htng.org/
It's all XML based and sometimes it's a bit confused but a lot of hotel booking sites work by forwarding OTA/HTNG schema messages to booking engines (e.g. Siteminder). A heck of a lot of hotels are already bookable through those engines.
Well...
> OpenTravel provides a framework where all companies in the electronic distribution supply chain can work together toward the common goal of creating an accepted structure for electronic transmissions using XML messaging. This enables suppliers and distributors to speak the same interoperability language, trading partner to trading partner.
Had you not explained, I would never imagine this is about hotels.
> OpenTravel provides a framework where all companies in the electronic distribution supply chain can work together toward the common goal of creating an accepted structure for electronic transmissions using XML messaging. This enables suppliers and distributors to speak the same interoperability language, trading partner to trading partner.
Had you not explained, I would never imagine this is about hotels.
I think that's completely wrong. Very few vendors want their product to be commoditized. From the perspective of a hotelier, reducing their property to a few lines of JSON data is a losing proposition. The result will be the same thing we've seen in the airline industry: a race to the bottom, competing only on price, with ever-crappier service and more nickle-and-dime addons.
On booking.com I take in consideration, in this order: user rating, location and features, pictures, price. The user rating is a hard filter (I don't even look below 8.0), the location is a given, the features and photos depend on the hotel, not the agregator, and are much more than a JSON. For example, no Wi-fi or paid Wi-fi in Europe is a deal killer, not a bonus, while a good food selection and hospitable staff is attractive.
Very few vendors want their product to be commoditized. From the perspective of a hotelier, reducing their property to a few lines of JSON data is a losing proposition.
Meh. For that to be true, it would have to be the case that all consumers care only about price. I'm pretty sure that's not actually the case. As long as there are consumers who will pay more for $WHATEVER, there will be a market for $WHATEVER. The point is, you can still price discriminate, even if you make your data available as a simple JSON (preferably JSON-LD) file.
Meh. For that to be true, it would have to be the case that all consumers care only about price. I'm pretty sure that's not actually the case. As long as there are consumers who will pay more for $WHATEVER, there will be a market for $WHATEVER. The point is, you can still price discriminate, even if you make your data available as a simple JSON (preferably JSON-LD) file.
> For that to be true, it would have to be the case that all consumers care only about price. I'm pretty sure that's not actually the case.
The current state of the airline industry makes a pretty strong counter-argument.
The current state of the airline industry makes a pretty strong counter-argument.
Maybe. I can see how if you're only looking at "airlines" (eg, Delta, Southwest, American, etc.) then it might seem that way. But I'd argue that that's a somewhat overly narrow view and that there is still price discrimination in terms of people who charter private jets and what-not. And even among consumer airlines, choice is sometimes dictated by other factors like route availability / timing / etc., and that further complicates the picture.
The barriers to entry are much higher for new airlines than for new hotels. Airlines need far more capital and labor, and getting access to airport gates at most major airports is extremely difficulty. There are also far higher economies of scale in operating airlines than in operating hotels. (In fact, most hotel chains are simply franchises; the properties aren't owned by the brands on the buildings.)
That's why we don't see a lot of competition and innovation in the airline industry.
That's why we don't see a lot of competition and innovation in the airline industry.
I can see counterarguments...
First, standardization & data sharing across a very decentralized industry is hard. How many industries have something like that?
Second, messing around with price & doing complicated, on the fly pricing helps them cut a little extra margin (price differentiation). One price for a regular business customer. Another price for last minute online booking engines. A whopper of a price for the couple deciding to take a date from the bar to a room. This is a low margin industry, largely. These things matter.
Third, they're afraid of commodification. Standardization & informational liquidity are the path to commodification. They like the idea of a travel agent recommendation, not a spreadsheet with a "book now" button.
Second, messing around with price & doing complicated, on the fly pricing helps them cut a little extra margin (price differentiation). One price for a regular business customer. Another price for last minute online booking engines. A whopper of a price for the couple deciding to take a date from the bar to a room. This is a low margin industry, largely. These things matter.
Third, they're afraid of commodification. Standardization & informational liquidity are the path to commodification. They like the idea of a travel agent recommendation, not a spreadsheet with a "book now" button.
So maybe the solution would be to build a decentralized aggregator, where the aggregator send query and user data to each hotel, hotels adds more data, and uses it to send detailed, customized offers. Aggregator assembles page.
And since the job of the aggregator is simple, more competition ?
And since the job of the aggregator is simple, more competition ?
This would reduce the hotel's value proposition to a commodity. It would only work for the most impersonal of hotels, the hotel equivalent of McDonalds, competing on price and standardized features. The kinds of hotel you wouldn't want to stay at, if you had a choice.
I love staying at those hotels. In fact, I wish hotel rooms were commodities that competed on two factors: cleanliness and quietness. Everything else to me is frivolous, as I'm not interested at all in spending any time in a hotel outside of the time it takes me to get ready in the morning and sleep at night.
> In fact, I wish hotel rooms were commodities that competed on two factors: cleanliness and quietness.
A commoditized market has products, by definition, that compete on one factor, price.
If you care about cleanliness, quietness, or other qualitative features being areas of active competition, you don't want a commoditized market.
A commoditized market has products, by definition, that compete on one factor, price.
If you care about cleanliness, quietness, or other qualitative features being areas of active competition, you don't want a commoditized market.
Commoditized market does not mean lack of options or low quality goods. It just means the differences are predefined aka it's X octane gas without lead and a bunch of other things that you don't need to see on the pump.
People don't just buy generic meat they buy Grade A (means something) Prime Rib (means something) Angus Beef (means something).
People don't just buy generic meat they buy Grade A (means something) Prime Rib (means something) Angus Beef (means something).
> Commoditized market does not mean lack of options or low quality goods.
No, but it does mean that goods are perfect substitutes that compete only on price, although it is a condition which in practice is approximated more often than actually attained.
> People don't just buy generic meat they buy Grade A (means something) Prime Rib (means something) Angus Beef (means something).
Right. "Meat" isn't even approximately a commodity. A particular cut and grade might be approximately a commodity (though makers will actively seeking to decommoditize it by building brands; no one wants to sell into a commodity market, since basic economics mean that competitive factors will drive market prices in such a market down to producer costs and eliminate profits.)
No, but it does mean that goods are perfect substitutes that compete only on price, although it is a condition which in practice is approximated more often than actually attained.
> People don't just buy generic meat they buy Grade A (means something) Prime Rib (means something) Angus Beef (means something).
Right. "Meat" isn't even approximately a commodity. A particular cut and grade might be approximately a commodity (though makers will actively seeking to decommoditize it by building brands; no one wants to sell into a commodity market, since basic economics mean that competitive factors will drive market prices in such a market down to producer costs and eliminate profits.)
[deleted]
[deleted]
Safety as well!
I don't think that would be the case at all. People choose hotels based on price, location, amenities, and reviews. Making it easier to compare vacancy listings isn't all of a sudden going to make the customer seeking a 4 star hotel, choose a $50/night motel because of the price differential.
I no longer travel frequently for business, but when I was a consultant I was constantly traveling around the US and staying in various hotels. I would say that to a large extent, I always saw them as just commodities. I only had one or two pet issues that occasionally cropped up, but 99% of the time I didn't care a lick about the "brand" of the hotel, nor did I want to.
Maybe it's different for recreational travelers, but for at least one business traveler my hotel room was just a place to park my clothes and stuff during the day, and to sleep at night. As long as the AC worked, and the bed was anything close to reasonable, the rest was moot.
Maybe it's different for recreational travelers, but for at least one business traveler my hotel room was just a place to park my clothes and stuff during the day, and to sleep at night. As long as the AC worked, and the bed was anything close to reasonable, the rest was moot.
And this is the fundamental issue with the traditional hotel industry, and why AirBNB has found a successful niche. When I travel with my family, I care greatly about the space I will be in. I desire a living room space, multiple bedrooms, a kitchen, maybe even an outdoor or backyard space, and I don't want to pay to rent two attached hotel rooms at twice the price.
Hotels seem to aim their products at their primary customers (business travelers), and the product they sell is designed to primarily meet their needs. They compete on non-room amenities (bar quality, workout rooms, etc.) and on loyalty points, which frequent business travelers can use to make personal trips to vacation destinations. None of these things have any value to a family that makes 1-2 trips a year.
AirBNB does target my needs, with detailed pictures of exactly the space I'll be living in, diverse housing options, with many of the amenities that I desire above. I also care a lot less about cleanliness when I'm traveling with family. Yes, I want clean sheets, towels and other personal items. However, I don't care about a little dust in the kitchen cabinets, some spots on the windows, aging/peeling paint, or a few spiderwebs in the corners. My kids are going to make a mess no-matter what, and I certainly don't clean my home to hotel-standards every night.
I have seen a few mainline hotel chains offer family-focused properties (The Hyatt House in Anaheim is one.) However, the family-focused ones aren't that common. An AirBNB apartment I can rent almost anywhere.
Hotels seem to aim their products at their primary customers (business travelers), and the product they sell is designed to primarily meet their needs. They compete on non-room amenities (bar quality, workout rooms, etc.) and on loyalty points, which frequent business travelers can use to make personal trips to vacation destinations. None of these things have any value to a family that makes 1-2 trips a year.
AirBNB does target my needs, with detailed pictures of exactly the space I'll be living in, diverse housing options, with many of the amenities that I desire above. I also care a lot less about cleanliness when I'm traveling with family. Yes, I want clean sheets, towels and other personal items. However, I don't care about a little dust in the kitchen cabinets, some spots on the windows, aging/peeling paint, or a few spiderwebs in the corners. My kids are going to make a mess no-matter what, and I certainly don't clean my home to hotel-standards every night.
I have seen a few mainline hotel chains offer family-focused properties (The Hyatt House in Anaheim is one.) However, the family-focused ones aren't that common. An AirBNB apartment I can rent almost anywhere.
I am currently a traveling consultant, and I now care very much about staying at Hilton properties because I have Diamond status and get better rooms at lower prices and free Wi-Fi. I know I could stay anywhere else and expense these expenses, but why would I?
Yeah, I guess once you get to that level with a given brand then it comes more of an issue. I never had enough points with any given property to get enough perks to really make me care. And since the company I worked for took care of all the hotel bookings / payments / etc. anyway, there was no real friction for me to pay for wifi or something when it was needed.
The one place where I do feel some brand loyalty, is actually on the airline side, where I have a strong preference for Southwest. And that was even more true back when I still had elite status with them and got free early-bird boarding. That was something I actually cared about since my company wouldn't pay for early-bird, seat upgrades, and the like.
The one place where I do feel some brand loyalty, is actually on the airline side, where I have a strong preference for Southwest. And that was even more true back when I still had elite status with them and got free early-bird boarding. That was something I actually cared about since my company wouldn't pay for early-bird, seat upgrades, and the like.
Plenty of people choose McDonalds for the reliable consistency of the experience. Sure, it's a mediocre hamburger, but you're virtually guaranteed it won't be a horrible one.
The same thing is appealing for hotels, IMO.
The same thing is appealing for hotels, IMO.
> they'd get together and form an industry working group, and design simple, standard data formats and querying/booking APIs, and then make all their data available through them
Are you familiar with SABRE/AMEDEUS? The flight industry did exactly this and it's been a disaster for them. Heck, they even handle hotel bookings as well.
Are you familiar with SABRE/AMEDEUS? The flight industry did exactly this and it's been a disaster for them. Heck, they even handle hotel bookings as well.
I don't know this domain. Can expand on why is it a disaster for the flight industry ?
Airlines aren't paying 15% commissions to the GDS systems. They pay a few dollars per flight segment.
If it's a disaster, it's a much smaller one.
If it's a disaster, it's a much smaller one.
> pay a few dollars per flight segment
per query/booking/inventory update
The airlines own the GDSes but carriers are a commodity now.
per query/booking/inventory update
The airlines own the GDSes but carriers are a commodity now.
>The airlines own the GDSes
Huh? Sabre is owned by TPG and Silverlake.
Airlines would like lower fees, but it's not as bad as hotels. They have shed most commissions over the years.
Huh? Sabre is owned by TPG and Silverlake.
Airlines would like lower fees, but it's not as bad as hotels. They have shed most commissions over the years.
really?
every single airline uses a common messaging format for reservations, routing and itinerary generation BECAUSE of SABRE/Amadeus and doesn't have to roll their own systems to do it.
please tell me how this is disastrous.
every single airline uses a common messaging format for reservations, routing and itinerary generation BECAUSE of SABRE/Amadeus and doesn't have to roll their own systems to do it.
please tell me how this is disastrous.
Ok
Airlines can't publish their inventory because they agreed to only allow GDSes access to that data.
Getting access to the GDSes as a small startup is extremely difficult, and the obvious value-add (searching many possible trips) is punished by the pricing structure.
Airlines can't publish their inventory because they agreed to only allow GDSes access to that data.
Getting access to the GDSes as a small startup is extremely difficult, and the obvious value-add (searching many possible trips) is punished by the pricing structure.
There are many hotel search engines out there already, and I don't really understand why new search engines would pick up meaningful market share. The priceline and expedia web properties (Booking.com, priceline.com, KAYAK, Expedia.com, Hotels.com, Hotwire, Travelocity, trivago, etc.) have pretty decent customer loyalty, a lot of app downloads, and highly optimized customer acquisition and conversion.
Couldn't you have said the same thing about Agoda, Kayak, and Momondo? All of the other Priceline and Expedia/TripAdvisor properties are from before the 2001 bubble. Most in the mid to late 90s. The three newer companies I mentioned all came in the mid 00s. And the latter two acquired for good money.
Hipmunk came around this decade. But no clue on how good the acquisition is. Trip.com and HotelTonight are the last two properties I know off the top of my head and they were also founded this decade. Both seem to be doing decently.
I guess maybe you're right and now there isn't room anymore. But if things could come out 5 to 7 years ago, we could see some more pop up.
Hipmunk came around this decade. But no clue on how good the acquisition is. Trip.com and HotelTonight are the last two properties I know off the top of my head and they were also founded this decade. Both seem to be doing decently.
I guess maybe you're right and now there isn't room anymore. But if things could come out 5 to 7 years ago, we could see some more pop up.
The difference is vs the '00's is the big sites have 1) scale (= operating leverage and the best deals with hotel chains and better SEO), 2) years' of data and testing (which leads to higher conversion and an ability to pay more for inorganic traffic than newcomers), and 3) organic traffic (which subsidizes inorganic traffic).
HotelTonight fills a niche but I think the market they play in is pretty small.
HotelTonight fills a niche but I think the market they play in is pretty small.
But yeah I mean, wasn't that all true, albeit to a lesser extent, by 2005-2006, when the 3 mid-00 companies were fully launching?
I agree, HotelTonight fills a specific niche and maybe that's what we'll see more of. A few sites filling niches. Trip.com itself also has to do some more superficial than substantial features to try to differentiate itself.
And maybe Hipmunk was always more hype than actually being big with it being a YC company and by a reddit co-founder.
I agree, HotelTonight fills a specific niche and maybe that's what we'll see more of. A few sites filling niches. Trip.com itself also has to do some more superficial than substantial features to try to differentiate itself.
And maybe Hipmunk was always more hype than actually being big with it being a YC company and by a reddit co-founder.
Expedia is ~5x larger that it was in the mid-aughts and Priceline is ~10x larger and each has the benefit of a decade's worth of data. So if the barriers were not insurmountable then, I think they are now.
“There had been this perception that to get the best price, you book through a different channel than going direct,” he said. “That’s never actually been the case.”
Yeah, that's a load of crap. I always start with an aggregator, and if I find a place that I like, I check their website as well. Unless they're cheaper or offer some major perks, I book through the 3rd party site. Of the last 5 hotels I've booked, going through a 3rd party site has been a better deal 4 of those times.
Yeah, that's a load of crap. I always start with an aggregator, and if I find a place that I like, I check their website as well. Unless they're cheaper or offer some major perks, I book through the 3rd party site. Of the last 5 hotels I've booked, going through a 3rd party site has been a better deal 4 of those times.
A few months ago I booked a hotel for a trip. I checked the 3rd parties, found a hotel and then tried to go direct. HHonors claims the best prices online if you're logged in--it was the same as the booking third party (Groupon Getaways via Expedia), except Groupon gave 10% back in Groupon Bucks.
I arrived at the hotel, they noted my HHonors basic membership and mentioned I wasn't receiving points due to booking with third party. I said I got the room for 10% less than their best online rate and their response was that I should have called bookings to talk to them. So now there's even more hoops to jump through to book direct? No thanks.
I arrived at the hotel, they noted my HHonors basic membership and mentioned I wasn't receiving points due to booking with third party. I said I got the room for 10% less than their best online rate and their response was that I should have called bookings to talk to them. So now there's even more hoops to jump through to book direct? No thanks.
I called a Hilton once after seeing the same place cheaper on HotelTonight, the woman said she couldn't match the rate... So I got it for the "impossible" to match rate (and the hotel paid a commission for the privilege!).
Price matching is great when it works, but infuriating when you can't actually back it up. It should all be automated, I can't imagine someone at Hilton is manually setting HotelTonight prices and not telling anyone.
Price matching is great when it works, but infuriating when you can't actually back it up. It should all be automated, I can't imagine someone at Hilton is manually setting HotelTonight prices and not telling anyone.
Hilton is setting the distressed inventory price algorithmically and offering it to the GDS (or directly to HT), and no one local is empowered to override. You pay HotelTonight, They pay for your room with their corp MasterCard, and everyone is happy.
Some processes and business practices are super hard to change.
Some processes and business practices are super hard to change.
I know how HotelTonight works, but since they advertise matching the lowest price they should empower anyone doing booking to match the lowest price.
My mistake. I agree.
They are right.
Hotels will almost always match lowest rate because they care much more about having low vacancy and not having to pay booking.com for your reservation. And you won't sacrifice points or chances at upgrades.
Booking.com is a good way of finding low prices that hotels will match.
Hotels will almost always match lowest rate because they care much more about having low vacancy and not having to pay booking.com for your reservation. And you won't sacrifice points or chances at upgrades.
Booking.com is a good way of finding low prices that hotels will match.
Hotel aggregators are best places to find low prices not booking.com. It's possible that Expedia family of sites have better deals which you won't see on booking.com. So TripAdvisor and Trivago are better.
Disclosure: Used to work at TripAdvisor.
Disclosure: Used to work at TripAdvisor.
Many hotels have contracts which ensure they can't undercut 3rd party resellers. The trick we used back in the day was to offer the same price on the hotel website while bundling in a bunch of freebees such as wine/dinner etc.
That explains my recent experience.
I booked for a noticeably (~10%) cheaper price directly through a hotel website, but I wasn't able to get just a room. I had to book a package which included free tickets to a nearby tourist spot.
I booked for a noticeably (~10%) cheaper price directly through a hotel website, but I wasn't able to get just a room. I had to book a package which included free tickets to a nearby tourist spot.
Exactly this. Working at a brand name travel aggregator (sadly now just a brand of someone else) this was always the gotcha for the hotel chain. We get a deal on your certain count of rooms and you can't undercut our price for the same class of rooms. In exchange for 15-30% we send you business. There are kinds of deals possible including us buying rooms from you and then reselling them ourselves (too risky really) or agreeing to buy inventory you haven't sold for today. I don't know the ins and outs of each type of deal, but for smaller hotels its great, for bigger chains its a pain, and for bigger chains with aggressive managers of certain hotels who ignore corporate rules, a tricky gambling act. In the end the price is too high for big chains, but the ease for consumers to compare is great. Same problem with airlines somewhat, they don't want aggregators but the general public wants to compare prices, and to accommodate them the airlines cheat on pricing (low ball the aggregate price and then charge for all sorts of stuff later - i.e. Spirit). With airlines its much harder to compare prices then with hotel rooms.
The workaround (which I didn't see explicitly mentioned in the article) is that loyalty rates aren't included in those contracts. That is why the hotel chains are trying to push loyalty account signup and their own websites.
This is my experience too. After doing this for a while, I concluded that there's no point going to the hotel's website to check prices anymore, I just book on the aggregator now.
It's because a hotel will charge you as much as they think you'll want to pay. So the price changes if you look twice or through a different channel.
Try checking from your phone while it is disconnected from your personal network.
Try checking from your phone while it is disconnected from your personal network.
[deleted]
It has become ridiculous with these booking sites. When you google a small hotel, often the first many results are hotels.com, bookings.com, tripadvisor.com etc. and the hotel itself is down to spot 3, 4, 5 or even lower.
There is a place for the booking sites, especially for exploring several hotels at a time. And they do offer some reviews and comparisons that can be useful. Sometimes, they also offer the cheapest price but usually it is just as cheap to call the hotel itself or book through its website. And it really feels good to pay the hotel that offers the services, instead of some tech company in the US.
There is a place for the booking sites, especially for exploring several hotels at a time. And they do offer some reviews and comparisons that can be useful. Sometimes, they also offer the cheapest price but usually it is just as cheap to call the hotel itself or book through its website. And it really feels good to pay the hotel that offers the services, instead of some tech company in the US.
I used to work a part time job doing hotel reservations for a small hotel a few years ago. Back then about 35-40% of their bookings were made through booking.com, and although I didn't know the actual cut booking.com took, I know it wasn't small. The hotel was always keen on trying to convert their booking.com or other third party customers into direct customers.
We were always instructed, depending upon predicted or actual demand of course (we had someone dedicated to trying to predict demand by populating a spreadsheet with prices), to be willing to haggle with someone that is dealing directly with the hotel if we felt it necessary to sell. I would always recommend that you deal directly with the hotel, especially if you think demand is low. Also, showing up just before the hotel reception closes and swaps to the night shift porters is a great time (10-11pm) as hotel staff are particularly vulnerable to haggling. At that time of night we just want to sell for covering staff wages/fixed costs.
Downside of showing up at the last minute is you can easily be ignorant of local market conditions and show up at 10pm when every bed in the area is occupied due to some local event that you were ignorant of.
We were always instructed, depending upon predicted or actual demand of course (we had someone dedicated to trying to predict demand by populating a spreadsheet with prices), to be willing to haggle with someone that is dealing directly with the hotel if we felt it necessary to sell. I would always recommend that you deal directly with the hotel, especially if you think demand is low. Also, showing up just before the hotel reception closes and swaps to the night shift porters is a great time (10-11pm) as hotel staff are particularly vulnerable to haggling. At that time of night we just want to sell for covering staff wages/fixed costs.
Downside of showing up at the last minute is you can easily be ignorant of local market conditions and show up at 10pm when every bed in the area is occupied due to some local event that you were ignorant of.
> I would always recommend that you deal directly with the hotel, especially if you think demand is low. Also, showing up just before the hotel reception closes and swaps to the night shift porters is a great time (10-11pm) as hotel staff are particularly vulnerable to haggling. At that time of night we just want to sell for covering staff wages/fixed costs.
This sounds great for someone interested in haggling, but if I don't want to bother with it(actually, if I'm specifically averse to it as I want to plan my vacation costs in advance), why should I go to the hotel directly instead of using booking.com?
This sounds great for someone interested in haggling, but if I don't want to bother with it(actually, if I'm specifically averse to it as I want to plan my vacation costs in advance), why should I go to the hotel directly instead of using booking.com?
Even on the phone and sometimes months in advance you can easily haggle a 10-35% discount if demand is low. Especially if you agree to pay in advance on a non-refundable basis. We had price lists updated daily looking ahead 1-2 years.
Honestly, that's great if you're in the US and trying to book within the country, but once you start thinking internationally, calling becomes a headache, especially if you're traveling to countries where not everyone speaks English very well.
And when I'm on a trip, the last thing I want to do is hope for the best at finding a hotel the day I arrive!
And when I'm on a trip, the last thing I want to do is hope for the best at finding a hotel the day I arrive!
I definitely appreciate your sentiment and agree, that I don't want to be fighting for a room when I'm on vacation - but with regards to the language barrier, where there's a will, there's a sale.
In all my experience abroad, as long as there is some effort made to communicate, language has never been an issue when it came to prices and sales. Sometimes this means we pass a calculator back and forth with different prices until we agree, but as long as there's an effort and money to be made, people are fairly open to alternative means of communication, even in remote nowhere locations.
In all my experience abroad, as long as there is some effort made to communicate, language has never been an issue when it came to prices and sales. Sometimes this means we pass a calculator back and forth with different prices until we agree, but as long as there's an effort and money to be made, people are fairly open to alternative means of communication, even in remote nowhere locations.
I'd argue that tripadvsor.com would be more useful to me than the direct hotel website as I'd see more neutral outlook of the hotel compared to the hotels website itself. I know, the reviews are not 100% neutral given neutral experiences usually don't end up in reviews - only really positive or negative do but it's still useful than not having any opinions which would be the case on hotels website.
Also, the travel websites give the important details, amenities, nearby attractions, restaurants, public transit in the same format across all the hotels so I don't have to fiddle with each and every travel's website in a different way based on what their UX designer decided to do. Also, wayyy more photos on travel websites.
Disclosure - I used to work at TripAdvisor.
Also, the travel websites give the important details, amenities, nearby attractions, restaurants, public transit in the same format across all the hotels so I don't have to fiddle with each and every travel's website in a different way based on what their UX designer decided to do. Also, wayyy more photos on travel websites.
Disclosure - I used to work at TripAdvisor.
Yeah, it seems like nobody has ever tried booking a hotel from a direct channel before.
Customers don't want to go through the hassle of "discovering" a half-baked website filled w/ pretty little quirks.
This worsens the user experience by a ton, I find.
Customers don't want to go through the hassle of "discovering" a half-baked website filled w/ pretty little quirks.
This worsens the user experience by a ton, I find.
Booking.com is an absolutely atrocious website. It's full of very pushy marketing that tries to convince you that every hotel is almost fully booked and the entire world is about to place a reservation. Not to mention the weird push-style notifications.
That said, the 24 hour cancellation policy is really useful since some of the listed hotels wouldn't otherwise offer it.
That said, the 24 hour cancellation policy is really useful since some of the listed hotels wouldn't otherwise offer it.
I had a very interesting experience with booking.com. I found a hotel room, it said something like "Only one left". So, I quickly booked and by the time I entered the payment details the room was taken. Ok, so I went back to search for alternative, and it showed the same room again. I tried to book it again, and it simply went through. I actually stayed at that hotel in the end. It looks like some really weird algorithms are at work.
It's possible they use a queue system similar to the one used for concerts. Once you select a room/ticket, it gets held for a few minutes while you check out (and taken off the public market). So you can have a situation where there's no room, but someone else fails to complete the reservation and it becomes available again.
There can be an interesting interaction between booking.com and the hotel's own booking - I mean, booking.com doesn't know how many such rooms the hotel has available, it only knows how many such rooms the hotel has reserved for booking.com that may be booked at any time without a feedback from the hotel.
The hotel wouldn't put all their rooms there because they also have other channels (that also need to promise the customer that they'll get the room, inform the hotel afterwards, and the room must be available), and they don't want to risk overbooking. On the other hand, if they get a booking and see that all their booking.com rooms are taken, they'll likely assign another room or two to booking.com if they have them available.
The hotel wouldn't put all their rooms there because they also have other channels (that also need to promise the customer that they'll get the room, inform the hotel afterwards, and the room must be available), and they don't want to risk overbooking. On the other hand, if they get a booking and see that all their booking.com rooms are taken, they'll likely assign another room or two to booking.com if they have them available.
> Sometimes, they also offer the cheapest price but usually it is just as cheap to call the hotel itself
Apparently, hotels that use booking.com as a sales channel sign a contract that prevents them from charging less for the same rooms on other sales channels.
In Germany and France this practice has been banned. (In Germany by a judgement of the Bundeskartellamt and the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf)
Apparently, hotels that use booking.com as a sales channel sign a contract that prevents them from charging less for the same rooms on other sales channels.
In Germany and France this practice has been banned. (In Germany by a judgement of the Bundeskartellamt and the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf)
> it is just as cheap to call the hotel itself
Only if it's in the same country.
> book through its website
For some hotels, booking via website is often half-baked web app that's full of bugs, doesn't accept certain inputs, etc. Simply because webdev isn't the hotel's main activity. Reviews on the hotel's website are usually non-existent or only positive.
I mean, I hate the booking sites as well, but they are often "less bad" solution than booking directly.
Only if it's in the same country.
> book through its website
For some hotels, booking via website is often half-baked web app that's full of bugs, doesn't accept certain inputs, etc. Simply because webdev isn't the hotel's main activity. Reviews on the hotel's website are usually non-existent or only positive.
I mean, I hate the booking sites as well, but they are often "less bad" solution than booking directly.
I'm considerably more sketched out at the thought of entering my credit card information on a half-baked local hotel website than going through Priceline or Booking.com. Even some of the bigger hotel chains have a terrifying booking experience - it wasn't all that long ago that I last nooped out of a plain HTTP booking process...
International calls (to fixed lines) are not expensive these days.
For people who have had their contract for a while, they still are. You can't get a new phone contract that gouges you on international calls, but you can keep your old one.
It really depends on the country from which you are calling and country to which the call connects.
"instead of some tech company in the US."
Booking.com is Dutch.
Booking.com is Dutch.
Why is that their fault, but not Google's? Blame the search engine for bad results, not the sites.
And it really feels good to pay the hotel that offers the services, instead of some tech company in the US."
Most of the times I booked through booking.com it was "cash on arrival", so these sites are nothing more than ads. I think the problem is travel agencies, that book bulk of rooms to rent them later (just a guess, can't read the article itself due to paywall).
Most of the times I booked through booking.com it was "cash on arrival", so these sites are nothing more than ads. I think the problem is travel agencies, that book bulk of rooms to rent them later (just a guess, can't read the article itself due to paywall).
> Most of the times I booked through booking.com it was "cash on arrival", so these sites are nothing more than ads.
Expensive ads. Cash on arrival does not mean that the hotel does not pay a sizable commission. Roughly in the range as the cut iTunes, Play, Steam take for transactions that, unlike hotel service, create zero cost beyond the initial investment. Occasionally, hotels might even offer you a cheaper room if you cancel your reservation, to get out of that obligation. Maybe some sites are much cheaper, but the big ones like booking.com take everything they can, and they can take a lot.
Expensive ads. Cash on arrival does not mean that the hotel does not pay a sizable commission. Roughly in the range as the cut iTunes, Play, Steam take for transactions that, unlike hotel service, create zero cost beyond the initial investment. Occasionally, hotels might even offer you a cheaper room if you cancel your reservation, to get out of that obligation. Maybe some sites are much cheaper, but the big ones like booking.com take everything they can, and they can take a lot.
> but the big ones like booking.com take everything they can, and they can take a lot.
You mean, take as much as is offered? The hotels are free to let the rooms sit idle & refuse the bookings; they wouldn't pay these commissions if they didn't make business sense.
A $100/night room that's empty generates $0 and costs $10-20 (amortised staffing and maintenance costs, insurance, permits, etc.)
A $100/night room filled with a 30% commission generates $70 & nets ~$50.
I think that most hotel managers would not list their preferences as: direct booking & ~$80 > empty & $0 > booking site & ~$50.
You mean, take as much as is offered? The hotels are free to let the rooms sit idle & refuse the bookings; they wouldn't pay these commissions if they didn't make business sense.
A $100/night room that's empty generates $0 and costs $10-20 (amortised staffing and maintenance costs, insurance, permits, etc.)
A $100/night room filled with a 30% commission generates $70 & nets ~$50.
I think that most hotel managers would not list their preferences as: direct booking & ~$80 > empty & $0 > booking site & ~$50.
iTunes charges 30%. Booking.com charges us 15%. 15% is a bargain considering they are an amazing source of customers who would have never found us otherwise.
Most of the times I book private apartments (I hate hotels), so I have to deal with their owners directly. None of them has complained yet that I've book through booking.com or offered an alternative way, so I assume the situation is not as dire as other commenters try to imply.
> these sites are nothing more than ads
You got it: they're traffic funnels that you pay per conversion.
You got it: they're traffic funnels that you pay per conversion.
> Most of the times I booked through booking.com it was "cash on arrival", so these sites are nothing more than ads.
I can confirm this. I believe the hotels only pay a monthly fee for listing and that's all.
I can confirm this. I believe the hotels only pay a monthly fee for listing and that's all.
Not true. We pay a percentage of the reservation cost to Booking.com each month. TripAdvisor on the other hand, charges a yearly fee for an enhanced listing, no fee for the standard listing. So those pay on arrival bookings -- we get an invoice from Booking.com each month for those. Nothing on booking.com to my knowledge is pre-pay -- Booking never actually charges the guest's card. But we still get the invoice.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Is it really all just about price? I am rather price insensitive. Usually stay for about $150/night but I don't mind paying up to $300.
But I could never book via anything then booking.com
Without it, how do I know the pros and cons of a hotel? Every hotel site will tell you they are great. But not if they are next to a noisy street, that the staff is unfriendly and that the rooms are much smaller then one would expect from the images.
But I could never book via anything then booking.com
Without it, how do I know the pros and cons of a hotel? Every hotel site will tell you they are great. But not if they are next to a noisy street, that the staff is unfriendly and that the rooms are much smaller then one would expect from the images.
It's not unreasonable to use a site like Booking.com or Hotels.com to get an overview of hotels in an area, then once you've narrowed it down to two or three choices, to go directly to those hotel sites and check prices. Yes, it's going to take you a little more time, but you'll sometimes find better deals, particularly if you're willing to take a few minutes to sign up for a loyalty program or two. Arguably, if you sign up with one of the companies that own a dozen brands or so, like IHG, Hilton or Marriott, you're likely to have a choice of a half-dozen hotels or more that accept that single reward program. And I've noticed friendlier, more responsive customer service as "Watts, [Loyalty Program Name] Member" than as "Watts, Guy who Prepaid on Hotels.com" often enough that I don't think it's my imagination. (And as another commenter mentioned below, sometimes you get kinda suboptimal rooms if you're booking through an aggregator. They're making less money off you and they know it.)
sometimes you get kinda suboptimal rooms if you're
booking through an aggregator. They're making less
money off you and they know it
Example: I just checked the Ritz-Carlton in Berlin. And on booking.com it's clearly stated that Wifi is free. So I would expect I can rely on that. On the Marriot website the hotel, it's written in the small print that you have to pay extra for wifi. So I would expect them to fuck me over and bill some outrageous €25 per day or something for wifi.
See, I'd probably assume that the hotel's own site has the information right and it's Booking.com's information that's wrong--which may or may not be correct. :) Either way, though, I wouldn't assume that people who book on Booking.com get free wifi and people who book on the Marriott site have to pay; it's much more likely that one or the other site is incorrect: either the wifi is free or it isn't. (Or like Hilton, it's always free if you're a member of their rewards program.)
As for reviews, maybe? Hotels have to care in (ahem) aggregate, sure, and it's probably true that more people see reviews on travel sites than on Yelp or Foursquare (although it's sometimes interesting to compare). But if you're a hotel loyalty program member, then they have incentive to make you want to think well of their hotel brand.
Anecdotally, I've never gotten bad service from booking from Hotels.com; it's not like the hotel staff goes out of their way to be difficult or anything. But I've noticed that I'm more likely to get a room right by the elevator when I book with them, while I've noticed that booking as a Hilton Honors member seems to be fractionally more likely to get me a free upgrade, or a welcome note from the manager at a hotel that didn't give me one two years before when I booked on the third party site. All anecdotal, possibly coincidental? But still something I noticed.
As for reviews, maybe? Hotels have to care in (ahem) aggregate, sure, and it's probably true that more people see reviews on travel sites than on Yelp or Foursquare (although it's sometimes interesting to compare). But if you're a hotel loyalty program member, then they have incentive to make you want to think well of their hotel brand.
Anecdotally, I've never gotten bad service from booking from Hotels.com; it's not like the hotel staff goes out of their way to be difficult or anything. But I've noticed that I'm more likely to get a room right by the elevator when I book with them, while I've noticed that booking as a Hilton Honors member seems to be fractionally more likely to get me a free upgrade, or a welcome note from the manager at a hotel that didn't give me one two years before when I booked on the third party site. All anecdotal, possibly coincidental? But still something I noticed.
I'd probably assume that the hotel's own site has the
information right and it's Booking.com's information
that's wrong
In my experience it is easier to change details of the stay if you book directly with the hotel rather than a third party site, but I could see other benefits outweighing that. Not for me though.
What is the best priced 3rd party service currently?
I use hotels.com because I find it has the lowest price usually, plus you effectively get 10% off since every 10 bookings you receive a credit worth the average of your previous 10 night stays.
But I wonder if theres a better booking service out there than this for someone who books a lot of hotels.
In the last month I've used hotels.com twice because it was lower than booking directly.
In SF: Hotels.come was $180/night, hotel's website was over $300/night.
In Copenhagen: Hotels.com was $120/night, the hotel's website was over $180/night.
I'm not sure why these places are running sales on hotels.com, and not on their direct website. I try not to book on hotels.com because hotels have a reputation for giving those travelers the worst rooms (double beds vs. king bed, next to elevator, unrenovated rooms). However, it's hard to say "no" to 30%+ off.
In SF: Hotels.come was $180/night, hotel's website was over $300/night.
In Copenhagen: Hotels.com was $120/night, the hotel's website was over $180/night.
I'm not sure why these places are running sales on hotels.com, and not on their direct website. I try not to book on hotels.com because hotels have a reputation for giving those travelers the worst rooms (double beds vs. king bed, next to elevator, unrenovated rooms). However, it's hard to say "no" to 30%+ off.
TripAdvisor/Trivago - compare the rates there. Mentally apply the loyalty discounts and pick whichever is the cheapest. Also, I may be biased here as I used to work at TripAdvisor but I personally prefer their UI to booking/priceline. Expedia is okay too and I have heard good things about Trivago.
I pretty much just use them as well now, and for the same reason as you.
The base issue is that the fees that agencies/aggregators like booking.com are (IMHO outrageously) high, in the 15% (a minimum that I believe very few hotels pay) up to 25%-30%.
On average, it is something like 18%-20%.
To have a term of comparison, in the old times when travel agencies existed, the fee was more in the 5%-10% range.
Small hotels must submit to them to have any visibility on the net, and (I believe it depends on countries, in some the clause has been deemed as invalid) the contract states that the hotel must not expose to the net (on its own site) a price that is lower than the one on the aggregator.
Hotel chains might have the visibility and resources to bypass this perverse mechanism, and even if they pay the lowest fee of 15%, in times of low margins every fraction is important.
To have a term of comparison, in the old times when travel agencies existed, the fee was more in the 5%-10% range.
Small hotels must submit to them to have any visibility on the net, and (I believe it depends on countries, in some the clause has been deemed as invalid) the contract states that the hotel must not expose to the net (on its own site) a price that is lower than the one on the aggregator.
Hotel chains might have the visibility and resources to bypass this perverse mechanism, and even if they pay the lowest fee of 15%, in times of low margins every fraction is important.
But consider that there's basically zero chance that I (as a typical user) will book a hotel if it's not listed at booking.com. Just because I must read real guests' impressions of the hotel to avoid the ones with bad Wi-fi. That's much more valuable service than what travel agencies provide, so it makes sense it costs more.
Maybe we are talking of two different kinds of travel/hotel agencies.
Once upon a time there were travel agents that put their name (and face) upfront to the customer, guaranteeing when they recommended (and booked in behalf of) a given hotel (or vector/transport), they usually knew (from direct experience or from "verified" reports) the qualities of the suggested hotel or travel arrangement.
And - just for your interest - the "real" adjective when talking of guests impressions reported on booking.com (and much, much worse than that on tripadvisor) is something that needs to be attributed with more than a pinch of salt.
Once upon a time there were travel agents that put their name (and face) upfront to the customer, guaranteeing when they recommended (and booked in behalf of) a given hotel (or vector/transport), they usually knew (from direct experience or from "verified" reports) the qualities of the suggested hotel or travel arrangement.
And - just for your interest - the "real" adjective when talking of guests impressions reported on booking.com (and much, much worse than that on tripadvisor) is something that needs to be attributed with more than a pinch of salt.
>the "real" adjective when talking of guests impressions reported on booking.com (and much, much worse than that on tripadvisor) is something that needs to be attributed with more than a pinch of salt.
I have personally reviewed every single hotel I stayed in, and none of my comments were removed or altered in any way. Which I sadly cannot say about HN.
(I have a suspicion that the overall hotel rating might be fake, and I rarely pay attention to it, but in my experience the reviews are spot on)
I have personally reviewed every single hotel I stayed in, and none of my comments were removed or altered in any way. Which I sadly cannot say about HN.
(I have a suspicion that the overall hotel rating might be fake, and I rarely pay attention to it, but in my experience the reviews are spot on)
> The base issue is that the fees that agencies/aggregators like booking.com are (IMHO outrageously) high, in the 15% (a minimum that I believe very few hotels pay) up to 25%-30%. On average, it is something like 18%-20%.
Don't overlook the value of a known cost. The alternative is to buy a bunch of advertising that may not result in any bookings (travel related CPC ads are expensive).
Don't overlook the value of a known cost. The alternative is to buy a bunch of advertising that may not result in any bookings (travel related CPC ads are expensive).
When the "Hilton" hotel is actually a franchisee, aren't the aggregators and the "hotel chain" basically in the same business?
It's structured differently, but you still have a company with a (multi-)national brand presence funneling customers to independently owned hotels in exchange for a cut.
In a future where everyone books through hiltonhonors.com and spgdirect.com instead of booking.com, will the actual hotels make more money, or will the chains just start capturing more of that value for themselves?
It's structured differently, but you still have a company with a (multi-)national brand presence funneling customers to independently owned hotels in exchange for a cut.
In a future where everyone books through hiltonhonors.com and spgdirect.com instead of booking.com, will the actual hotels make more money, or will the chains just start capturing more of that value for themselves?
I have, more than once, booked an apartment through booking.com which were not available by any other easy to find means. It is quite curious but it is what it is.
Anyone have insight on where GSA's published per diem rates[1] fair in the gamut of hotel pricing? Seems to be the pre-tax lower bound of decent 2/3 star hotels.
[1] https://www.gsa.gov/portal/category/100120
[1] https://www.gsa.gov/portal/category/100120
My experience has been that you can almost always find decent three star hotels at normal rates for under 125-150% of the GSA published rate. The exceptions tend to be when there's a major event that causes exceptional demand.
I agree, and that has been my experience as well.
I tend to use GSA's published rates as a benchmark to vet reasonable cost when shopping around. It's typically the case that I can find lodging accommodations that are appreciable less expensive, but they're almost always at establishments of questionable quality.
I tend to use GSA's published rates as a benchmark to vet reasonable cost when shopping around. It's typically the case that I can find lodging accommodations that are appreciable less expensive, but they're almost always at establishments of questionable quality.
Note that many hotels, including rather nice chains, have much reduced government rates (so do airlines).
Additionally, while I don't know for the GSA, for my state there's a waiver if there's a defensible reason you need to stay at a nicer hotel.
Additionally, while I don't know for the GSA, for my state there's a waiver if there's a defensible reason you need to stay at a nicer hotel.
I had a really bad experience recently with Travelocity. I needed to change dates for a stay in SF, which ended up being very costly in addition to being a hassle. I was forced to cancel the stay as well as pay the entire cost for the stay, and there was no way to do it online. I had to sit on the phone with a Travelocity agent who called the hotel to "negotiate" (which did nothing but waste time), then they started telling me about some Travelocity deal involving coupons, etc. It was confusing in addition to being a waste of time and money.
I would probably just book directly these days. Hotels seem to have had it with dealing with the aggregators.
I would probably just book directly these days. Hotels seem to have had it with dealing with the aggregators.
It seems like since aggregators prices have gone up across the board.
There used to be the $19.99 best western in Mississippi but now you cant touch anything for under 50. Flipping through the BW directory was very enjoyable.
It was quite fun to grab that $14.99 holiday inn room " great rate" because i was an 800 number expert.
We still go to a dinky place in Maine off the grid ($39 off season with dogs/$89 in).. I hope they never sell.
There used to be the $19.99 best western in Mississippi but now you cant touch anything for under 50. Flipping through the BW directory was very enjoyable.
It was quite fun to grab that $14.99 holiday inn room " great rate" because i was an 800 number expert.
We still go to a dinky place in Maine off the grid ($39 off season with dogs/$89 in).. I hope they never sell.
These types of news articles about prospects often are driven by an ulterior motive.
When the job market is saturated:
There's a desperate shortage / skill gap of programmers, truckers and pharmacists. Go join this trade school for 16k! The economy is going to hell in a hand basket if we don't churn out 1000 new Javascript programmers every 12 weeks!
When travel agencies want cement their dominance and pour cold water on new competition:
Things are full, really! Don't bother applying Y Combinator as an online travel agency. You're just wasting your time and won't be able to generate any VC or get a single hit to your website! It's futile for... reasons!
When the job market is saturated:
There's a desperate shortage / skill gap of programmers, truckers and pharmacists. Go join this trade school for 16k! The economy is going to hell in a hand basket if we don't churn out 1000 new Javascript programmers every 12 weeks!
When travel agencies want cement their dominance and pour cold water on new competition:
Things are full, really! Don't bother applying Y Combinator as an online travel agency. You're just wasting your time and won't be able to generate any VC or get a single hit to your website! It's futile for... reasons!
> Lol
Who is this comment addressed to? The article doesn't make these claims, and you didn't reply to another comment.
Who is this comment addressed to? The article doesn't make these claims, and you didn't reply to another comment.
Perhaps AirBnB should open up to Hotels and that way all Hotels and BnBs can live in one place for a far better customer experience.
yes, let's put everything in one bucket like with Facebook, Amazon, Google, PayPal... you see, that does not solve all problems ;)
There are already search sites that will check both hotels and AirBnBs.
Any chance we could get the link changed to this non-paywall one? Same content it appears...
Paywall bypass link: https://m.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Fa...
Curious how this got a downvote. Apparently WSJ employees read HN lol.
Perhaps because the link got changed to a non-paywall version hosted by Fox Business...
I posted this long before they did that.
alexphilips(2)
Booking.com has been amazing for us. They take 15% but it is completely worth it. We don't have "a name" nor do I have time to invest in the relentless SEO content marketing necessary to differentiate us when people search "hotels in the Luberon" or "Provence hotels." Since we are a very small place (just 3 suites,) it's an unprofitable use of my time to be generating blog content and engage in full-court-press inbound techniques -- so unless you are a chain or happen to be featured by travel writers, good luck being discovered via inbound searches.
We do have a website and a good direct booking system, but we probably get 3 bookings per year directly from our website yet between Booking.com and cross-listing on AirBnB, we are completely booked through most of the season. Our booking software is integrated with Booking.com and AirBnB so we are able to have all of our channels coordinated with a minimum of work. If one considers Booking.com as a lead-generation system, 15% is a huge value. I would easily spend far more if I were marketing directly through ads. Our TripAdvisor page is free -- we haven't paid the yearly €799 fee for an enhanced listing but TripAdvisor still is great for us since we have 4.5 stars.
Guests from Booking.com are far less work than from AirBnB or direct. AirBnB customers seem to still not understand what Instant Booking means -- we get almost daily inquiries of "do you have availability for some date" -- yes, obviously that's why you are able to instant book! AirBnB guests tend to want to have long conversations while Booking.com people just book and show up with a minimum of fuss. We also have a very liberal cancellation policy, unlike many places in the region -- we found that just letting people cancel whenever they want works out fine in the long term because are area is high demand so cancellations don't really cost us anything because we quickly get rebooked during peak season. So everyone is happy. In terms of taxes -- our prices have all of that included.
My point is that sites like Booking.com and AirBnB have made our business -- we essentially incur no marketing costs. So we love Booking.com! It honestly doesn't matter one bit of you book directly with us or via Booking/AirBnB -- our prices take our costs into account so you aren't "hurting" us if you book through a third party. We are just glad to welcome any guests however they find us. The big chains probably get hurt the most by third party booking sites because they are already spending money on marketing and have name recognition, where for ultra-small-timers like us, you probably would never have heard of us without those third party sites.
The short version: third party sites add huge value to our business -- they get to do the hard work of marketing us while we can focus on the guest experience.