Hospitality eBusiness Strategies

HeBS digital Blog

Archive for the ‘Direct Online Channel’ Category

It’s Official: The Dumbest Hotel Distribution Idea!

Tuesday, June 28th, 2011

By Max Starkov

The following article is Max Starkov’s latest contribution to the “Successful eMarketing” blog on HOTELS magazine’s website.

In my previous articles I have argued that certain hotel distribution ideas and channels are not only detrimental to the hotel industry from a pricing and branding perspective, but simply do not make any economic sense.

In my Hotels magazine blog article “Another Look at Flash Sales Sites and Whether They Should or Should Not Play a Role in Hotel Distribution,” co-written with Adam Kirby, I argued that Flash Sale sites like Groupon, Living Social, SniqueAway, etc. are recessionary phenomena and that the steep discounts of 65%-75% paid by hoteliers did not make any economic sense; that these flash sales sites are being used only by desperate and misinformed hoteliers.

And in my recent Hotels magazine article “Can Hoteliers Take Back the Initiative from the Online Travel Agencies (OTAs)?” I argued that since 2008, OTAs had increased their market share in hotel distribution by nearly 45% and as a result, revenue leaked from hotels to the OTAs in the form of abnormally high merchant commissions had reached $5.4 billion in 2010 alone (HeBS Research). Read more in HeBS’ recent article “Déjà Vu: The Billion Dollar ‘Leakage’ Continues to Drain the Hospitality Industry.”

It is obvious that the above distribution channels are against the fundamental principles of hotel distribution. The main focus and priority for any hotelier should be to sell as much inventory via the most cost-effective distribution channels that can potentially generate the most bookings, while preserving rate parity and price erosion.

Dumb and Dumber, Anyone?

Back in 2010, in the height of the Flash Sales craze when I believed that the industry had reached the very bottom of the “pseudo-innovative distribution idea pit,” another even more damaging and far dumber distribution idea began to take hold: an auction site called Off & Away (www.offandaway.com).

Off & Away, founded by former Amazon.com and travel industry executives, is an auction site “focused on offering exceptional travel experiences to its customers in new, fun and unique ways”(company information). Travel consumers buy packages of $1 bids to use on the auctions; for every bid, the price goes up by $.10 and up to 15 seconds is added to the clock. Last user to bid before the time runs out wins a big-ticket hotel stay.

Participating hotels, typically luxury and boutique hotels and resorts, come up with exclusive and unique packages, usually based on suite accommodations and two-night stays, ranging from $1,250 – $3,000 and above.

So what is wrong with Off & Away?

The business model of Off & Away is flawed from the start. For one, all auctions start from zero dollars and the bid price goes up by $.10 with every bid. In other words, for a $2,000 luxury suite package, you need 20,000 bids at $.10 to reach the face value of the package. The problem is that only a handful of bidders participate in each bid (50-70 as per Off & Away’s own information) and as a result the final price ends up to be 90%-99% below face value!

Case Studies from the “Innovative Distribution Idea Hell”

The following case studies from recent Off & Away auctions from across the country speak for themselves. The ultimate record belongs to Fairmont Miramar Hotel & Bungalows in Santa Monica—the final discount was 99.6%!

What were these hoteliers thinking? Were they hoping to somehow achieve a better final price compared to what they can get from a Flash Sale site like Groupon or Living Social, or an OTA like Expedia? Compared to Off & Away, distribution via any Flash Sale site or an OTA looks like the smartest thing on the planet.

Did we mention that some of these hoteliers participate in Off & Away auctions more than once? And that with every consecutive auction they are making significantly less than the first time?

Or maybe hoteliers appreciated the increased exposure and maybe thought that that was where the value of the Off & Away promotion was?

Let’s examine the results from a typical Off & Away campaign (company information):

  • Off & Away Daily marketing Email Blast: 21,000 recipients
  • Open rate: 20% i.e. 4,260 people
  • Click-Through-Rate: 7% i.e. 298 people
  • Off & Away Website visitors during the 3-day auction: 29,000 (this is the whole website) i.e. less than 10,000/day
  • Unique Visits to the Property Auction Page: 1,500
  • Unique bidders: 70

Where is the additional exposure? 70 unique bidders? 1,500 visitors to the property auction page? 298 email recipients? The own website of any of the properties from the above case studies receives 10,000 – 20,000 unique visitors per month. Each of these hotels receives more clicks from their email marketing blasts. So just imagine, not taking into consideration for a moment rate parity concerns and commitments, that the hotel announces a three-day 95% discount sale on its own website. Couple this with promotions to the hotel’s own email list and social media audiences. At least 1,500 unique visitors to the hotel own website will see this three-day promotion. If we add email recipients, and the word-of-mouth and social media effect, we could easily expect this exposure to double and triple.

In my view, the “increased exposure” via Off & Away does not provide any meaningful benefits to the hotel. On the contrary, such an exposure is a serious “brand killer” and “rate parity destroyer.” How would a luxury hotel “convince” the travel consumers that a $300-$500 rate per room/night is a good value, when in the same time the hotel is giving away two-night luxury suite packages for below $50-80? How would the hotel justify its demand to the OTAs for lower merchant commissions (e.g. from 25% to 20%) when it is ready to provide discounts of 90% and up to a site like Off & Away?

Based on the above analysis, I am ready to declare it official: this is by far the dumbest hotel distribution idea!

In addition to the obvious reason that selling your hotel via Off & Away or a Flash Sales site like Groupon is the “lazy man’s approach” to distribution, some hoteliers assume that selling through these sites is “free” and provides additional “exposure.” As discussed, the damages to the hotel price and brand integrity are far more severe than many hoteliers realize, and far outweigh any perceived or advertised benefits.

The bottom line for hoteliers: stay focused on the direct online channel. Hoteliers must carefully employ ROI-centric initiatives including website redesign, website optimization and SEO, SEM, email marketing, online media and sponsorships, mobile marketing and proven social media initiatives.

Click here to read the entire article on HOTELSMag.com, and decide for yourself whether sites like Off & Away make sense as part of your hotel’s distribution strategy.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • email
  • PDF
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • MySpace
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • LinkedIn

The Good and (Very) Bad News in the Online Distribution Channel

Friday, October 1st, 2010

The following article is also Max Starkov’s latest contribution to the “Successful eMarketing” blog on HOTELS magazine’s website.

Since the beginning of the current economic downturn, we have argued that in these difficult times, when travel supply outweighed travel demand by far, the online channel was the only distribution channel that could generate incremental revenues in hospitality.

In the first half of 2010, what was the good news in the distribution channel in hospitality?

Online travel distribution continued to dominate the hotel distribution space and proved to be the only consistently growing channel even during the recession:

  • In Q2 2010, Internet bookings for the top 30 hotel brands increased by 1.7% over the same period of 2009 and reached 52.4% of the total brand CRS bookings (eTRAK Report).
  • Share of GDS travel agent reservations dipped to one of its lowest points of only 21.8% of total brand CRS reservations. Clearly, there was a shift from the traditional, intermediary-dependent GDS channel  to the online channel.

What was the bad news in hotel distribution?

Typical of economic times, when travel supply outweighs demand, travelers are shopping around and hoteliers are more susceptible to discounting and working with the online travel agencies (OTAs). Hoteliers lost market share to the OTAs – the top 30 hotel brands did that to the tune of 7.8 basis points – in just two short years since Q2 2008. Consider the following:

  • In Q2 2010, only 67% of the online bookings for the top 30 hotel brands came from the direct online channel (i.e., the major hotel brands own websites: Marriott.com, Hilton.com, etc.), while 33% came from the indirect online channel (the OTAs), according to an eTRAK Report.
  • In comparison, in Q2 2009, 70.1% of all CRS online bookings came from the brand website, while 29.9% came from the OTAs (eTRAK).
  • There is a significant increase of OTA contribution, compared to Q2 2008, when 74.8% of all CRS online bookings came from the brand website and only 25.4% of the online bookings came from the indirect online channel (OTAs)

Why did it happen? During the recession, many hoteliers surrendered to the temptations of the indirect channel, resulting in a significant shift from the direct online channel to the indirect online channel (OTAs). Many hotel companies, including some major hotel brands, have been accommodating the OTAs with bigger discounts, unique promotions (24-hour sales) and, thus, jeopardizing their direct online channel and destroying years-worth of achievements such as rate parity, best rate guarantees and more.

As a result of this shift from direct online channel to the OTA channel, including the 7.8% loss in market share to the OTAs experienced by the top 30 hotel brands, revenue leaked from hotels to the OTAs in the form of abnormally high merchant commissions will reach $5.4 billion in 2010 alone. Read more in my recent article Déjà Vu: The Billion Dollar ‘Leakage’ Continues to Drain the Hospitality Industry.

Here are some of HeBS’ findings for Q2 of 2010, based on the latest eTRAK benchmark report, surveys and industry data from PhoCusWright, ARC and HeBS’ own research.

The shift from offline/traditional channel to online channel is permanent:

  • 52.4% of overall CRS bookings for the top 30 hotel brands come from the online channel, which is an increase of 1.7% vs. Q2 2009 when online channel contribution was 50.7%.
  • As a reminder in Q2 2008 online channel share was 47.4% (eTRAK Report).
  • 45% of hotel bookings in 2010 will be via the Internet (direct + indirect online channels) (HeBS).

GDS channel share is in steady decline:

  • GDS travel agent contribution to the total CRS bookings of the top 30 hotel brands declined to 21.8% in Q2 2010 from 22.7% in Q2 2009. This contribution was 27.6% back in Q2 2008 (eTRAK).
  • In retrospect, back in 2006, GDS CRS reservations constituted 31.3% of total CRS bookings for the top 30 brands (eTRAK, industry data).
  • Travel agency share from the total travel market in the U.S. dropped from 41% in 2006 to 33% in 2009 (PhoCusWright).
  • U.S. travel agency locations have been decreasing at an average rate of 4% every year and their number has declined from over 35,000 in 1995 to less than 15,405 in June 2010 (ARC, HeBS).

The voice channel contribution Is decreasing:

  • In Q2 2010, voice channel contribution to the total CRS reservations of the top 30 hotel brands declined by 3% compared to Q2 2009 and amounted to 25.7% of total brand CRS bookings (eTRAK).
  • The voice channel is in decline for the sixth consecutive year (HeBS). Back in 2006, the voice reservations constituted 31.3% of total CRS bookings for the top 30 brands (eTRAK).

The bottom line for hoteliers: focus on the direct online channel

Hoteliers do not have many options when considering other non-OTA distribution channels. In our view, the only viable option to drastically reduce reliance on the OTA channel is for the industry to embrace the direct online channel.

Many hoteliers claim they cannot afford to market themselves via the Internet and that is why they resort to the OTAs since their services are “free.” Many industry case studies, including HeBS’ own, clearly show that the OTA channel not only is not “free,” but is in average 10 times more expensive than the direct online channel. This confirms why focusing on the direct online channel provides meaningful savings that go straight to the bottom line.

In economic downturns, a comprehensive direct online channel strategy can help hoteliers continue to generate much needed incremental revenues and out-smart their competition.

Hoteliers need a robust direct online channel strategy, accompanied by adequate marketing funds to be able to take advantage of the steady growth in the Internet channel and shift from offline to online bookings in hospitality due to declining GDS and voice channels. Hoteliers must carefully employ ROI-centric initiatives, including website redesign, website Web 2.0 optimization and SEO, search engine marketing, social marketing, mobile marketing, email marketing and proven online display advertising initiatives.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • email
  • PDF
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • MySpace
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • LinkedIn

Not All Internet Bookings are Created Equal

Thursday, April 15th, 2010

Proof in Numbers that Hoteliers Should Invest in the Direct Online Channel

by Max Starkov

Dramatic Shift from Offline to Online Distribution

The Internet distribution channel has undoubtedly become the most important distribution channel in hospitality. Last year, 54.2% of overall CRS bookings for the top 30 hotel brands came from the Internet channel, which constituted a remarkable increase of 6.6% vs. 2008. HeBS estimates that 45% of hotel bookings in 2010 will be via the Internet (direct + indirect online channels).

The other two traditional distribution channels, GDS and Voice, have experienced steady declines over a number of years.  Here is the eTRAK data for hotel bookings via the CRS of the top 30 hotel brands:

  • GDS hotel bookings declined by 3.7% vs. 2008, and constitute 23.6% of total CRS bookings in 2009 vs. 27.3% in 2008. Back in 2006, GDS CRS reservations constituted 31.3% of total CRS bookings for the top 30 brands. GDS share has decreased by 24.6% from 2006 to 2009, when it was reported at the 23.6% level.
  • Voice channel hotel bookings declined by 2.9% in 2009 vs. 2008, and now constitute 22.2% of total CRS booking in 2009. The Voice Channel is in decline for the 6th consecutive year (HeBS). Back in 2006, voice reservations constituted 31.3% of total CRS bookings for the top 30 brands. Voice Reservation share decreased to 25.1% in 2008 and 22.2% in 2009.

Direct vs. Indirect Online Channel Dynamics

HeBS estimates that for the hospitality industry in North America, direct online channel contribution in 2010 will be 60% vs. 40% for the indirect online channel.

How did the top 30 hotel brands do in the direct online channel in 2009? eTRAK reports that 70.9% of online CRS bookings came from the direct online channel (i.e. the major hotel brands’ own websites), while 29.1% came from the indirect online channel (the Online Travel Agencies—OTAs like Expedia, Orbitz, Priceline, etc).

This constitutes an increase of the contribution from the OTAs compared to 2008, when 75.2% of online bookings came from the direct online channel, while 24.8% came from the OTAs. Compare this to 2007, when the direct channel contributed 76% of CRS Internet bookings.

In other words, since 2007 we have witnessed a significant shift from the direct to the indirect online channel and an increase in the OTAs’ market share. This is a serious setback for the hospitality industry and a return to the old bad practices of the post 9/11 era.

Typical of economic times such as the present, the hotel industry (similar to post 9/11) has again “succumbed to the devil” in the face of the major OTAs. Since mid-2008 travel supply has outweighed demand and hoteliers have been more susceptible to panic, resulting in deep discounting and embracing of the OTAs.

How are the other travel sectors fairing in Internet distribution?

Here is an overview of the Direct vs. Indirect Online Channel utilization in the main travel sectors:

Direct Indirect
Hospitality: Top 30 Hotel Chains
Source: eTRAK
70.9% 29.1%
Hospitality: Overall for the Industry
Source: HeBS
60.0% 40.0%
Airlines: Jet Blue 95.0% 5.0%
Airlines: Overall for the Industry 68.0% 32.0%
Car Rental 68.0% 32.0%
Cruse Lines
Source: PhoCusWright
39.0% 61.0%

It becomes obvious from the above table that hospitality is lagging behind the airline and car rental sectors as far as direct online channel practices are concerned.  Please read more our detailed analysis on why OTAs need hotels for their survival more than ever in my recent blog article: Online Travel Agencies (OTAs): Will They Survive the Removal of Airline Ticket Booking Fees?

Not All Internet Bookings are Created Equal

Why should hoteliers care where their Internet bookings come from? The following case study clearly illustrates the cost effectiveness of the direct online channel:

Case Study 1: Cost per Booking in the Direct vs. Indirect Online Channel

  • Direct Online Channel (Hotel Website): $12.92 per booking

(Cost per booking via the hotel’s own website, including website hosting and maintenance fees, marketing spend, campaign management fees, and Omniture analytics. Based on 530,000+ bookings in 2009 via hotel websites from HeBS’ hotel client portfolio)

  • Indirect Online Channel (Online Travel Agency-OTA): $107.57 per booking

(Based on average 2009 ADR in NYC = $215.14 and 2 night LOS = $430.28 x 25% OTA commission)

Difference between the cost of a Direct Online Channel and Indirect Online Channel booking = 8.3 times!

It is far more cost effective to sell your rooms via the direct online channel compared to the OTA channel (indirect online channel). On an annualized basis, just imagine what this difference in distribution cost constitutes for a typical New York City 200+ room hotel:

Case Study 2: How to Add Half a Million Dollars to the Bottom Line

With a 77.2% average occupancy rate, an ADR of $215.14 in 2009 (STR), and 45% of bookings being made via the Internet (industry average 60:40 direct vs. indirect online ratio):

  • Cost of Direct Online Channel Distribution: 7,608 bookings x $12.92 = $98,295
  • Cost of Indirect Online Channel Distribution: 5,072 bookings x $107.57 = $545,595

(Calculation based on a hypothetical NYC hotel of 200 rooms @ 77.2% average occupancy rate = 56,356 roomnights/2 nts average stay = 28,178 bookings total, of which 12,680 are Internet bookings (45% of total bookings).  Direct online bookings = 7,608 (60%) and Indirect Online Bookings = 5,072 (40%) )

If the hypothetical 5,072 OTA bookings are instead made via the direct online channel  at $12.92 each, the bulk of the OTA distribution cost, namely $480,065, would go directly to the hotel’s bottom line ($545,595 – $65,530, i.e. 5072 bookings x$12.92). This is nearly half a million dollars added to the bottom line. Name one hotelier who would not have liked that in 2009!

Naturally, we do not envision a scenario where 100% of Internet bookings are made via the direct online channel. The OTAs and other players in the indirect online channel do play a needed role in certain areas of the travel planning and purchasing process e.g. dynamic packaging (air+hotel+car+tour) for leisure destinations. Even in pre-Internet years, approximately 25% of all hotel bookings in the U.S. came via the indirect channel (travel agents, tour operators, etc)

Now, 15 years after the advent of the Internet distribution channel, the most cost efficient distribution and marketing channel ever, the indirect channel contribution should not be higher than 25%. On the contrary, due to dramatic changes in travel consumer behavior, and the inherent demand to deal with the “manufacturer” of hotel and travel products (i.e. travel suppliers like hotels, airlines, car rental companies, etc.), we should be witnessing  a decline in the indirect channel contribution. What we should not be seeing is the current industry average of a 40% OTA contribution.

Just imagine the cost savings if 5%, 10%, 15%, 20% or more bookings are shifted from the indirect to the direct online channel!

In addition to being the most cost effective distribution channel, the direct online channel provides long term benefits and competitive advantages:

  • Reduces dependence on OTAs and expensive traditional distribution channels
  • Prevents brand and price erosion
  • Cross-Channel / Multi-Channel marketing and customer engagement
  • Allows the hotel to “own” the customer
  • Builds brand loyalty
  • Engages customers pre-, during, and post-stay

Why Don’t Hoteliers Invest More in the Direct Online Channel?

Having completed the above cost analysis, we should all ask ourselves: why aren’t hoteliers investing more in the direct online channel?

There are many reasons for that, including the obviously erroneous one that selling through the OTAs is “free”. Our analysis proves that is not the case.

Independent hotels are overwhelmed by this rapid shift from offline to online distribution and often fail to compete for their fair share of the market. The main reason is the lack of understanding that Internet marketing is not an expense, but an investment with immediate returns at very high ROIs (Return on Investment). Another reason is the perception that cutting-edge Internet marketing services and technologies are out of reach and accessible only to large hotel chains.

Franchised properties believe that the major hotel brands “take care of the Internet” for them, thus they miss serious local revenue generating opportunities.

The following case study, based on HeBS’ hotel client portfolio for which HeBS provides full-service Internet marketing services and direct online channel strategy advice, clearly shows that investments in the direct online channel pay off handsomely:

Case Study 3: Return on Investment (ROI) from the Direct Online Channel in 2009

Total Room Nights Booked: 530,605

Total Revenue Generated: $63,900,305

Total Marketing Spend: $2,004,093

Return on Ad Spent (ROAS): 3088% (31:1)

Cost of Website and Campaign Management: $2,729,893

Return on Investment (ROI): 2,240% (22:1)

Just compare the above ROAS and ROIs to any other return from any other marketing activity!

Hoteliers can successfully compete for their fair share of revenues to be made from the online channel by investing in the direct online channel, and by embracing best practices and new Internet marketing technologies and formats:

  • Website Re-Design
  • Web 2.0 Optimizations & Applications
  • Search Engine Optimization (SEO)
  • Search Engine Marketing (SEM)
  • Email Marketing
  • Strategic Linking
  • Display Advertising
  • Online Sponsorships
  • Social Media + Social Marketing
  • Mobile Web + Mobile Marketing

The Bottom Line: Invest in the Direct Online Channel

Hoteliers need a robust Direct Online Channel Strategy, accompanied by adequate marketing funds, to be able to take advantage of the steady growth in the Internet channel and the shift from offline to online bookings in hospitality (due to declining GDS and voice channels). Hoteliers must carefully employ ROI-centric initiatives including website redesign, website optimization and SEO, paid search, email marketing, online display advertising and sponsorships, mobile marketing and proven social media initiatives.

Even in this economy, you should not decrease or eliminate your hotel Internet marketing budget. The Internet, and especially the direct online channel, is the only growth channel for hoteliers and the only “light at the end of the tunnel” in this environment. As indicated above, even in these difficult times we see significant ROAS and ROIs from the Internet marketing campaigns we run for our clients.

Market researchers envision growth rates in online travel as high as 11% in 2010 as projected by eMarketer.  The online channel, and especially the direct online channel, provides hoteliers with the only viable option for any growth during these trying economic times.

Any comments? Case Studies? We would appreciate your input.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • email
  • PDF
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • MySpace
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • LinkedIn

Yet Another Confirmation on Why the Internet is the Only Growth Channel in Hospitality 2009-2010

Wednesday, August 5th, 2009

By Max Starkov

The latest eTRAK Q1 2009 report on hotel bookings by channel confirms yet again that today the online channel is the only growth channel in hospitality. In these difficult times, when travel supply outweighed travel demand by far, Internet bookings for the top 30 hotel brands increased by a remarkable 6.3% in Q1 2009 vs. Q1 2008 (eTRAK).

The increase in Internet bookings comes at the expense of the GDS and Voice Channels, both of which have been in decline for many years now.

Here are some of HeBS’ findings based on the latest eTRAK benchmark report, surveys and industry data from PhoCusWright, ARC and HeBS’ own research.

GDS Channel Is in Steady Decline:

  • GDS hotel bookings via the CRS of the top 30 hotel brands declined by 4.5% Q1 2009 vs. Q1 2008, and constitute 24.8% of total CRS booking in Q1 2009 (eTRAK).
  • GDS reservations for the top 30 hotel brands declined by 2.3% for the full 2008 vs. 2007 (eTRAK).
  • Back in 2006, GDS CRS reservations constituted 31.3% of total CRS bookings for the top 30 brands. GDS share has decreased to 24.8% in Q1 2009.
  • Travel Agency Share from Total Travel Market in the U.S. dropped from 41% in 2006 to 33% in 2009 (PhoCusWright).
  • U.S. Travel Agency Locations have been decreasing at an average rate of 4% every year and their number has declined from over 35,000 in 1995 to less than 17,500 in January 2009 (ARC, HeBS).

The Voice Channel Contribution Is Decreasing:

  • Voice channel hotel bookings via the CRS of the top 30 hotel brands declined by 1.9% in Q1 2009 vs. Q1 2008, and constitute 24.1% of total CRS booking in Q1 2009 (eTRAK).
  • Voice reservations declined by 2.8% for the full 2008 vs. 2007 (eTRAK).
  • The Voice Channel is in decline for 6th consecutive year (HeBS). Back in 2006, the voice reservations constituted 31.3% of total CRS bookings for the top 30 brands. Voice Reservation share has decreased to 24.1% in Q1 2009.

The Shift from Offline to Online Channel is Permanent:

  • 51.1% of overall CRS bookings for the top 30 hotel brands come from the online channel, which is an increase of 6.3% Q1 2009 vs. Q1 2008 (eTRAK).
  • 60% of leisure and 40% of business travel will be booked online in the U.S. this year (PhoCusWright).
  • 45% of hotel bookings in 2009 will be via the Internet (direct + indirect online channels) (HeBS).

Direct vs. Indirect Online Channel Dynamics Follow the Economy:

Typical of economic times such as the present, when everybody is shopping around and hoteliers are more susceptible to discounting and working with the OTAs, we are witnessing a slight shift from the direct online to the indirect online channel in Q1 2009:

  • In Q1 2009, 74% of the online bookings come from the direct online channel (i.e. the major hotel brands own websites), while 26% come from the indirect online channel (the Online Travel Agencies-OTAs) (eTRAK).
  • There is a slight increase of OTA contribution, compared to Q1 2008, when 76.8% of the online bookings come from the direct online channel, while 23.2% came from the OTAs.
  • In 2008, as a whole the direct channel contributed to 75.2% of CRS Internet bookings vs. 76% for 2007, mainly due to a disastrous for the travel industry Q4, 2008.

Here is a summary of the eTRAK most recent reports on hotel bookings by channel:

bloggraph

The Bottom Line: Focus on the Direct Online Channel

The growth of the Internet channel for the top 30 hotel brands is not an isolated phenomenon. HeBS reports steady increases in direct online channel bookings across its hotel client portfolio.

Even in dire economic times like these, characterized by sharp declines in travel demand, a comprehensive ROI-centric Internet marketing strategy can help hoteliers continue to generate much needed incremental revenues and out-smart their competition.

Hoteliers need a robust Direct Online Channel Strategy, accompanied by adequate marketing funds to be able to take advantage of the steady growth in the Internet channel and shift from offline to online bookings in hospitality due to declining GDS and voice channels. Hoteliers must carefully employ ROI-centric initiatives, including website redesign, website optimization and SEO, paid search, email marketing, online display advertising and proven social media initiatives.

Even in this economy, you should not decrease or eliminate your hotel Internet marketing budget. The Internet, and especially the direct online channel, is the only growth channel for hoteliers and the only “light at the end of the tunnel” in this environment. Even in these difficult times we see “Return on ad spend” (ROAS) as high as 3500% from Internet marketing campaigns we run for our clients.

Market researchers provide various projections for the growth of the online travel channel in 2009 and 2010, from a small decline as reported by a travel research company, to growth rates as high as 10.5% in 2009 and 11% in 2010 as projected by eMarketer. These optimistic projections are supported by the leading e-Commerce research company, which declares that overall U.S. online sales will increase by 11% in 2009 and by another 9% in 2010. HeBS believes that online travel, having always been the most dynamic and fast-growing segment of the overall online marketplace, will experience similar growth rates. Whatever the case might be, the online travel channel, and especially the direct online channel, provides hoteliers with the only viable option for any growth during this recession.

About the Author and HeBS:

Max Starkov is Chief eBusiness Strategist at Hospitality eBusiness Strategies (HeBS). HeBS is an award-winning, full-service Internet marketing and Direct Online Channel Strategy firm, strictly dedicated to the hospitality and travel verticals. Having pioneered many of the “best practices” in hotel Internet marketing and direct online distribution, HeBS specializes in helping hoteliers profit from the direct online channel and transform their websites into the hotel’s chief and most-effective distribution channel, establish interactive relationships with their customers, and significantly increase direct online bookings and ROIs. Visit us online at www.hospitalityebusiness.com

A diverse client portfolio of over 500 top tier major hotel brands, luxury and boutique hotel brands, resorts and casinos, hotel management companies, franchisees, independents, and CVBs has sought and successfully taken advantage of HeBS’ hospitality Internet marketing expertise. Contact HeBS consultants at (212)752-8186 or info@hospitalityebusiness.com.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • email
  • PDF
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • MySpace
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • LinkedIn

2008 Hotel Booking by Channel (Based on the Top 30 Hotel Brands)

Monday, April 6th, 2009

TravelCLICK’s  eTRAK 2008 study of central reservation system (CRS) bookings shows Internet reservations are up by 1.6% from 2007 and travel agent bookings are down by 5.3%. Voice reservations are up by 3.7%, presumably from the proliferation of cell phones; however, total electronic reservations are down by 3.7%.

As for the sites people are using to book, brand sites dominate the category with just over 75% of total online reservations. Merchant sites came in second, with sites such as Expedia and Travelocity being used for about 10% of reservations, while Opaque sites like Priceline followed just behind, claiming 9% of reservations. Retail sites, like Hotel Reservation Services LTD, were used least frequently, with just over 5% of 2008 online reservations.

Essentially, these findings reinforce our belief that a hotel’s Website is its most important branding tool and revenue generator. The site must convey (and convince the guest of) the hotel’s main selling points. It must define very clearly the hotel’s value proposition. It has to provide clear differentiation of the hotel product vs. OTAs and the comp set. It also must be user-friendly and booker-friendly to encourage online bookings. It has to be Web 2.0 and customer-interactivity friendly to encourage return visits and boost loyalty.

In a world where travel agents do less of the hotel’s bidding, the property’s Website must be personal enough to sell itself as the ideal fit for each interested party. And in today’s economic environment, Website optimization and fine-tuning are both simple and affordable measures to take to increase revenue.

Reservation Sources for Major Hotel Brands

CRS Hotel Bookings

Share of CRS Reservations
Full Year 2008

Share of CRS Reservations
Full Year 2007

Percent Growth/Decline
Full Year
2008 to 2007

Internet

47.0%

45.4%

1.6%

GDS Travel Agent

27.0%

32.3%

-5.3%

Total Electronic

74.0%

77.7%

-3.7%

Voice

26.0%

22.3%

3.7%

Total for CRSs

100.0%

100.0%

0.0%

Internet Source Breakdown for Major Hotel Brands

Internet Bookings

Share of Internet CRS Reservations Full Year 2008

Brand Sites (1)

75.1%

Retail Sites (2)

5.3%

Merchant Sites (3)

10.6%

Opaque Sites (4)

9.0%

Total Internet

100.0%

Explanations:
(1) Brand Website: Website where distribution is operated and managed by the brand (e.g. The Marriot’s website).
(2) Retail Website: Third-party distributor where the hotel lists inventory at the same price that it is sold to the consumer and hotel pays distributor agreed upon commission (e.g. HRS, Bookings, Venere in Europe).
(3) Merchant Website: Third-party distributor where the hotel provides inventory to the site at a net rate. The merchant marks up the rate by an agreed upon percentage. The consumer pays the merchant at the gross rate and the merchant site pays the hotel the net rate (e.g. Expedia/Hotels.com, Travelocity and Orbitz).
(4) Opaque Website: Third-party distributor that enables customers to choose a fare or rate without knowing the brand of the supplier until after the item is purchased (e.g. Priceline).

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • email
  • PDF
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • MySpace
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • LinkedIn