Hotels blame OTAs. Commission is the villain. Visibility is the excuse. Distribution is the justification. But commission isn’t the real threat.
Dependency is.
Let’s Talk Numbers
Let’s stop talking emotionally. 100 rooms. 70% occupancy. €180 ADR. That’s roughly €4.6M in annual room revenue. If 60% comes via OTAs, that’s about €2.7M controlled by third parties — and €540,000–€675,000 in commission. That hurts. But it’s not the biggest loss.
The biggest loss is this: you didn’t build a reusable asset.
Revenue without data is temporary. Assume just 20% of those OTA guests return next year — that’s roughly €540,000 in repeat revenue, if you owned the relationship, controlled communication, and could segment and time correctly. But you don’t. So you reacquire them. At full acquisition cost. Again. And again.
A Structural Weakness, Not a Marketing Gap
Every year without owned guest data means acquisition costs reset, margin shrinks, predictability disappears, and negotiation power weakens.
Full occupancy hides the fragility. Data ownership exposes it.
The Divide
Two types of hotels are emerging: distribution-dependent hotels and relationship-driven hotels. The first compete on visibility. The second compete on relevance.
One rents growth. The other compounds it.
The Uncomfortable Question
How many of your guests can you reach tomorrow — without paying anyone? If the answer is “not enough,” you don’t have a channel issue. You have an ownership issue.
This Month’s Insight
Commission is a cost. Dependency is a strategy failure. And strategy failures compound.