Slashdot Mirror


Google Works With Hotels To Hurt Travel Competition (wsj.com)

An anonymous reader shares a WSJ report: More than 100 million Americans are expected to travel during the holidays, and many will search for lodging online. But travelers may unknowingly pay more and fail to see all of their options because some major hotels have ganged up with Google to undercut competition (The link may be paywalled). Online travel agencies like Expedia, Priceline and Travelocity have replaced brick-and-mortar agents by offering consumers more choice and convenience at a lower price. These OTAs purchase inventory from wholesalers and then market rooms at a discount to consumers in addition to flights, rental cars and travel packages. Many also have agreements with companies like American Express, Costco and Delta to market their inventory. OTA websites let travelers sift through hotel offers based on price, brand, location, amenities and guest rating, among other search filters. OTAs earn a roughly 20 percent commission from hotels for each reservation they book, which covers their cost of marketing, inventory acquisition, customer support and payment processing. As hotels get squeezed by Airbnb and home rental sites, they have begun complaining that OTAs are eating into their profits. Several major hotels are now trying to use Google as a counterweight, while Google is exploiting its search dominance to steer consumers to its travel service. Some 60% of travelers begin trip-planning on Google.

20 of 129 comments (clear)

  1. oh, i see by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 2, Informative

    But travelers may unknowingly pay more and fail to see all of their options because some major hotels have text.

    Someday Slashdot will develop a publishing system that let's you edit articles in draft mode ...

    1. Re:oh, i see by nospam007 · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Literally the worst. I hate hotels that have text - they hide all sorts of extra fees in there."

      I agree texts are the worst. If you don't pay attention, you'll get eaten by a grue.

  2. OTA not always the best deal by olsmeister · · Score: 5, Informative

    I often get better pricing booking directly through the hotel company website. I just did that an hour ago and got a better price that way than what Expedia was offering.

    1. Re:OTA not always the best deal by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Better yet, call or show up at the hotel and offer cash. Works nicely for independent places -- they'll still need an ID and/or card for security, but they're willing to negotiate if you cut some of their costs (swipe, consolidator fees) out of the equation by paying cash.

    2. Re:OTA not always the best deal by AvitarX · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Don't forget better cancelation policy and more likely to be upgraded as perks for booking through the hotel itself.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    3. Re:OTA not always the best deal by known_coward_69 · · Score: 2

      Same with buying tickets directly from the airlines. I'll use Kayak as a guide and then buy the ticket straight from southwest or delta. I always get a better fare class and a lot of times i'll get a better seat on delta for the same price.

    4. Re:OTA not always the best deal by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A number of the big chains give you pretty big penalties for not being a member of their rewards club. For example, free WiFi for all members of the rewards scheme, even if you've never stayed with them before. A few I've stayed in offer access to a lounge with complimentary snacks and coffee (and, less often, beer) for members of the loyalty club, again with no requirement to actually stay there regularly. I have a small collection of hotel loyalty cards that I never use (I've never been asked to present one, I just log in and book with my account and it's automatically associated) because you always get a better deal if you're a member. I don't really understand why - most of them need your name, address, and credit card number when you book, so it's not like also giving them a single-use email address makes it easier for them to track me.

      Smaller hotels will often give you a better rate if you email / call and ask. I've had pretty good luck just saying 'we're only able to pay this much for accommodation, can you come close?' Most of the time, they will (and will also do useful things like give a flat rate per night, rather than a cheap rate some nights, and charge and a more expensive one others, which makes the expenses people happier).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:OTA not always the best deal by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2
      The difference is, I seem to get most of the benefits for the big hotel chains' schemes simply by being a member. I periodically get emails about how great it is that I have blue status with Hilton's HHonors scheme (threshold: 0 nights per year), and the benefits of a higher status are few and far between.

      In contrast, with United's MileagePlus I get basically nothing for simply being a member, but when I got silver status I got free economy plus (read: more legroom) seats at check in and free checked bags on domestic US flights (not very useful), when I got to gold I got economy plus at booking time, lounge access (really nice at Heathrow and Ataturk, pretty crappy in most US airports) and more free checked bags. If I ever make it to Platinum (I hope not to, as flying enough in one year to make gold was too much - and no one seems to want to pay for me to fly everywhere first class, which is about the only way it would be tolerable) I'd get a bunch more stuff. This means I do have an incentive to fly with United (or with other Star Alliance airlines).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:OTA not always the best deal by dszd0g · · Score: 2

      Paying cash doesn't cut the fees out of the equation, it just lowers the fees. Most businesses that deal with cash have to pay their bank a cash processing fee, but from my understanding it's around 0.003% which is less than the fees for debit ($0.21 + 0.05%) and credit cards (1.4%-3.5%). Someone who deals with this professionally is welcome to correct my numbers if I got them wrong.

      --
      This message is encrypted with Quad ROT-13 to protect the author's copyright under the DMCA.
    7. Re:OTA not always the best deal by whoever57 · · Score: 2

      The big advantage of buying direct from the airline is what happens if you need to change the flight. You deal with the airline directly instead of some (probably incompetent) third party.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    8. Re:OTA not always the best deal by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Cash works for places that rent rooms by the hour... not so much when you are traveling for other situations. Can you imagine not booking a room in Vegas during a major conference? Can you imagine driving 13 hours to the shore (pick any shore you care to visit) and then explaining to your family that you're going to have to sleep in the car? I think this is dangerous advice.

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    9. Re:OTA not always the best deal by Idarubicin · · Score: 2

      ...I just log in and book with my account and it's automatically associated) because you always get a better deal if you're a member. I don't really understand why...

      If one books through a third-party/reseller/OTA, the hotel pays a hefty commission - typically on the order of 20% - to the OTA. If I pay $100 through Expedia or Booking.com, the hotel only gets $80. If I book direct with the hotel for the Special Members-Only Price of $90, the hotel gets to keep all $90. In addition, they get my contact info and track my spending habits for marketing purposes, and they encourage me to check their website first in the future. Between those factors, then, they want customers to sign up and book directly, and they really want it to become an ingrained habit.

      Perhaps the biggest reason for the special member pricing, though, is that many agreements between hotels and OTAs contain "rate parity" clauses that prevent hotels from offering rates lower than the OTA's price to the general public. Creating a members-only rate lets hotels circumvent these sorts of restrictions, as OTA contracts generally allow rate-parity exceptions for offers to members of "closed groups".

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    10. Re: OTA not always the best deal by Miamicanes · · Score: 2

      > Room's just a place to sleep.

      If you're an extrovert, maybe.

      If you're an introvert, your room is your refuge. Your clean place to shit. The place you go to recharge *your* batteries. So... it matters quite a bit.

      Having a room that's literally adjacent to your primary intended activity means you can go there for 5-15 minutes whenever you feel like it (or to grab a 25c can of Diet Pepsi that you bought at a grocery store from the room's refrigerator, instead of getting ass-raped and paying resort-level prices for 3oz of actual beverage hiding behind a quarter-pound of ice cubes).

  3. be careful what you ask for by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The whole premise was that hotels wanted help to move their excess inventory of rooms. Now that there's an ecosystem around collecting and marketing that inventory, the hotels have decided they want to claw back more control (and profit) from the process. I'm not sure I see the issue here. Why not just stop selling rooms at a discount to these 3rd parties and become better at selling the capacity themselves?

    shrug

    1. Re:be careful what you ask for by bws111 · · Score: 2

      Because many people use the OTAs. If a hotel doesn't sell any rooms to the OTAs then those people never even see the hotel as an option. 'Getting better at selling capacity themselves' is exactly what they are doing now.

    2. Re:be careful what you ask for by robo1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I work for a hotel company. It's not really excess inventory. We sell on Expedia, Travelocity, Orbitz, Booking.com, etc just like we do on our own site. It's all the same inventory. Now if it's getting close in and we have unsold inventory we might sell on Hotwire or Priceline. In the industry these are referred to as "opaque" since you don't know what hotel you are getting until it's booked. We would much prefer to sell on our own site and sometimes offer discounted rates since we don't have to eat the fees. The OTA sites force rate parity which prevents us from selling a room on Expedia cheaper than say Booking.com. This even gets down to the room type level so we can't sell 1 & 2 bedrooms on Expedia, but only 1 bedrooms on Booking.com. They have automated systems to enforce this and send out warnings. We can usually get away with selling discounted rooms on our own site though. I always laugh when I see a trivago add since for the most part they all will have the same rate anyway. Expedia has pretty much taken over everything. They have HomeAway, VRBO, Hotels.com, Hotwire, Orbitz, Travelocity, trivago. I usually tell people to shop around and find something you like, then go to the hotel site and see if you can get the same or better rate.

  4. F'in PARKING? by fluffernutter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I registered a hotel stay on one of those sites now. A very nice hotel but downtown, and valet parking came as part of the 'bundle'. The front desk refused to give this to us. They said we didn't have the right text in our record. We fought and lost. We talked about what we wanted to do and decided we didn't have much of a choice and took their 5% off 'sucks to be you' deal plus paying for valet parking. When I stood in line to get our room, I heard the exact same argument happening at another booth. I guess if I really wanted to raise a stink I should have pulled aside the other person and stood there waiting as our group got bigger, but I was there for vacation with my family.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  5. Not a fair article to Google by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maybe the searchers trust Google to have what they need, Plain and simple. I do and can enter gibberish and expect Google to produce. An example a movie I've see once and no clue of it's name, input: movie beach ball monster - results, top (first) hit was it: "Dark Star", which youtube had available (I didn't say it was a good movie).

    Would the other search engines done as well? I've no clue, I have only used Google cause it's working for me.

    Just another day with the need for another story.

  6. I don't see how this hurts competition? by v1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is it just my imagination or are they confusing "hurts competition" with "lowers retailer margin"?

    They're creating a race to the bottom, and then complaining about their falling margins. That's going to be the result when you play that game. I suppose you might look at it as "bad for competition" if you're a vendor looking for better margins, and ultimately it may end up driving some vendors out of the market and lowering competition, but in a free market economy a Race to the Bottom will usually fix itself. Sometimes it crashes the market a bit hard and it takes awhile to rebound, but when it does, the remaining vendors are usually more careful to avoid a repeat occurrence.

    And as for their handing out blocks of inventory for resale, that's just another angle they're trying to exploit to squeeze a little more out of their inventory. Iin the case of hotels, those few vacant rooms every day, they're just playing the "half of something is better than all of nothing" game, and the resellers getting their margin is usually okay as long as they're not selling at a loss. If they're stupid and dumping larger than necessary blocks of rooms to the resellers, which is then resulting in a drop in traditional direct sales, that's their own fault for overdoing it. It's no different than using sales to attract customers, and making the mistake of making too many, too frequent, or too heavily discounted sales. Don't DO that, the customers will take advantage of it and the outcome is your own fault. If you don't know how to play that game, you shouldn't be playing it at all, not complaining when you lose.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  7. Re:Then stop using wholesalers by ranton · · Score: 2

    If hotels stopped selling to wholesalers then they wouldn't have this problem.

    But they would have a different problem. If they aren't listed by the OTAs, then they are invisible to many potential customers. 80% of something is better than 100% of nothing.

    They are paying 20% of their gross to outsource their marketing, which is likely cheaper than the cost of doing their own publicity and promotions.

    Which is why they have nothing to complain about. They are paying 20% for marketing, which isn't some egregious amount. If Google was being accused of dropping a hotel chain from their service if they also advertised with another search engine, or for having their own direct to consumer sales, that would be anti-competitive. But currently they are just charging for marketing.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke