Guestmob: A New Level of Stupidity for Hoteliers?

This morning, we saw a FB posting from a good friend about a new website, Guestmob.com. Guestmob claims to offer prices "20-50%" lower than Kayak by pitting hotels "against each other for the right to fill empty hotel rooms"

Consumers enter the site and pick a destination and dates par usual, and then offered a selection of hotels grouped by star quality and neighborhood. Sound familiar to Hotwire or Priceline? Yes, except the hotel name and brands are exposed. As are the retail prices for these hotels.

Next, a consumer selects the area and star level they want to stay in and is taken to a confirmation page showing the selection of hotels that Guestmob will later solicit (like a mini RFP) for the consumer's stay:

3 days before arrival, Guestmob lets the consumer know which hotel has "decided" to let them stay.

Hoteliers: downward rate spiral, anyone? Haven't we seen this movie?

Lets dive a little deeper, however...

First, we doubt that all of these hotels are actually participating in this platform. We kinda doubt that the distribution hawks over at Marriott have embraced a less opaque version of Priceline when they don't even participate in Hotwire. As for the other brands listed throughout the site, good for Guestmob if they have really signed up these chains but we think they are probably shills.

Second, Guestmob is listing competing OTAs and their "pricing." We imagine that the OTAs will probably find this rather distasteful for obvious reasons.

Finally, for hotels that actually are participating in Guestmob, I ask one question: WHAT ARE YOU THINKING?

Hotels have been complaining for years about OTA margins and the lack of consumer brand loyalty. Opaque sales are an important revenue management tool but no one in the industry is particularly excited about growing the segment.

And yet, we still have hoteliers who apparently are seemingly not bothered by ANY of these issues and are willing to give street cred to what may be a very destructive model. Wow.

New Front on the Old Hotel Chains vs. OTAs Battle: Occupancy Taxes

It appears that a new front is opening in the ever tumultuous relationships between the large hotel chains and the online travel agencies (OTAs).

The major OTAs are currently pressing for legislative relief for future occupancy tax claims by states, counties and municipalities through a proposed bill known as the "Internet Travel Tax Fairness Act" or ITTFA. For those of you interested in a reprise of the old Schoolhouse Rock Saturday morning "how does a bill become law" cartoon, the initial draft of the bill is posted here

Interestingly, the American Hotel and Lodging Association's (AHLA) take on the bill is radically different from that of other smaller, regional hotel associations.

AHLA, which represents all the large chains, has come out as a vigorous opponent of this bill to say the least. AHLA offers a detailed description of their opposition to this bill which is centered on concerns that local hoteliers will see an increase in taxes or, worse yet, be stuck with the entire tax bill. As an aside, AHLA offers that the bill is "written in such a way that it may also exempt the payment of any occupancy tax on rooms booked through online travel companies." We don't believe this is the actual intent of this bill by the OTAs (call us naive, but this simply does not square with what the OTAs are trying to accomplish) whether you agree with that goal or not.

On the other hand, the California Lodging Industry Association (CLIA,) which represents "individually owned lodging properties," has just come out in favor of ITTFA. In a recent press release, CLIA declared that they would fight "with their Online Travel Company friends" to support this legislation.

So, why the disparity in thinking within the hotel industry?

For starters, independent hotels utilize the OTAs in very different ways from the large chains. Independent hotels do not (generally) have the powerful global brand recognition of the large chains much less the global sales forces and loyalty programs such as Hilton HHonors, Marriott Rewards and SPG. As such, they depend on the OTAs for distribution reach - reaching consumers that would not have ever probably stayed with these unaffiliated properties.

Many independent hotels have become much more aggressive in developing their own consumer web business, both directly and via the OTAs. New tools that distribute inventory, develop and implement SEO and SEM strategies, etc. have made these efforts much easier for small hoteliers. The web has become a great equalizer between branded and un-branded hoteliers' ability to reach consumers.

The chains have responded by offering their distribution services for hire - witness the launch of the Autograph brand from Marriott and the resurgence of Starwood's Luxury Collection. HC colleague George Roukas highlights these efforts and the reasons behind them here in a recent article in Hospitality Upgrade magazine.

It will be interesting to see where this bill ends up - the stakes are high.

New York State Attempts Fuzzy Math in Latest Occupancy Tax Skirmish

The current budget under debate in Albany includes an interesting twist in the ongoing OTA lodging tax fight. The proposed budget contains language that attempts to compute the occupancy tax on the retail rate by simply multiplying the net rate by 120% and applying the tax rate on this amount.

Yes, you read that right. This simpleton proposal assumes that all OTA deals are created equal and that the mark-up is always 20%. If passed, this will certainly will make future hotel/OTA negotiations easy! Doubt it.

Pay Now or Pay Later: A New Choice at Priceline - And the Next OTA Battleground?

Priceline.com has begun including "pay-at-checkout" inventory alongside traditional, "pay-in-advance" merchant model hotel inventory at select hotels. Priceline has developed a jazzy new logo and tagline: “Pay When You Stay” to highlight this option.

Users are then given the option of paying upfront or at time of booking when they click to select the hotel.

And this isn't a matter of simply including traditional agency inventory sourced via a Global Distribution System (GDS) such as Sabre or Travelport. This stroke of genius is actually the latest convergence of booking.com inventory with Priceline.com non-opaque (i.e. Travelweb) inventory.

Booking.com's rapidly expanding inventory base within North America now enables Priceline to offer multiple sources of inventory with multiple payment options for the same hotel. At the same time, as more hotels roll out, Priceline has removed one of the largest perceived negatives to booking with an OTA - upfront payment.

The gap between supplier.com and online travel agencies continues to close. First booking fees fall, then change and cancel penalties disappear and now this latest game-changer.

Irony - San Diego CVB: Expedia "Partner of the Year" While City Sues Expedia Over Occ Taxes

Expedia Media Solutions (the media arm of Expedia Inc.) yesterday announced that the San Diego Convention and Visitors Bureau had named Expedia.com "Partner of the Year." According to the press release, the San Diego CVB was recognized as "a top advertising partner and major sales channel for San Diego hotels."

The press release continues:

"'As a promotion partner, Expedia not only grew San Diego's room nights year-over-year by 26 percent, but in these tough economic times they were able to grow revenue by 11 percent – exceeding ROI estimates and generating a significant return on investment of 125 to 1,' said Joe Terzi, President and CEO of the San Diego CVB. 'Serving many different consumer segments—from families booking a summer vacation to individuals arranging a quick weekend getaway—Expedia gives us a highly effective way to share San Diego's message to a broad audience of travel shoppers and potential visitors.' "

Hmmm. Interesting that the CVB is so enthusiastic given that the City of San Diego is one of the many municipalities currently suing Expedia and the other major online travel agents. An administrative hearing has been held on the case but before any decision was rendered, the Judge in the similar Anaheim case rendered her opinion in favor of the the OTAs.

And just how does the San Diego CVB receive most of its funding? You guessed it, occupancy taxes. According to the CVB's own website, "the majority of funding is derived from San Diego Tourism District Assessment Funds." Again from the CVB's own website, the current transient occupancy tax is 10.5% in the City of San Diego. There is also an additional 2% occupancy tax levied for the San Diego Tourism Marketing District. If you enjoy reading tax code, here is the actual language from the City of San Diego's municipal code.

Anyone who has been following the ongoing saga of the tax lawsuits against the OTAs knows that the issue is if the taxes above are levied on the net or wholesale rate actually charged by the hotel to the OTA or the marked-up, retail rate sold by the OTA.

So now we have an interesting situation: The very agency (the CVB) charged with promoting San Diego (whose funding comes from the occupancy taxes in question) is holding out an OTA (Expedia) as a great partner. At at the same time the city of San Diego is suing Expedia et al for non-payment of occupancy taxes that largely fund the CVB!

So, San Diego (and other cities) which is it?

Orbitz Re-Tunes the Flight Matrix

In the first significant change to the Orbitz flight results matrix in as long as we can remember, Orbitz has taken a less is more approach.

Traditionally, Orbitz has returned a myriad of flight options using the power of ITA to build numerous multi-carrier and multi-leg trips. While flights from New York to Boston via Buffalo may have been not only scenic but cheaper (and resulted in a few extra frequent-flyer miles) the results may have been overwhelming for some consumers.

Orbitz, at least in certain market/fare combinations, has now changed the display to initially reflect only nonstop pricing:

The result is a faster return of the most relevant flights. Messaging allows users to drill down deeper into additional flights should they care to explore other options:
Orbitz CEO Barney Harford commented via email that the new format was part of "a relentless focus on speed" for the site. He continued, "The rest of the site is also getting a lot faster, but it is not as immediately recognizable; this is a very visible example."

Orbitz For Travel Agents Pays 10% Commissions

Orbitz has launched a new platform for traditional travel agents which enables them to book stand-alone hotel rooms as well as vacation packages. This matches (for hotel only anyway) agentaccess, a program which hotels.com has offered to the agency community for some time.

The Orbitz for Agents platform offers a 10% commission to agents on stand-alone hotel bookings and 4% on packages which include air and hotel or car and hotel.

And, in an effort to sign up agents, the first 500 agents to register will be paid 12% commissions.

So now we have Orbitz, partially owned by Travelport, pushing agents to book outside of the GDS. And Orbitz is offering a strong economic incentive (at least for the 1st 500 agents) to do so. But will agents abandon their beloved green screens in large numbers? I doubt it - but plenty of small, independent agents may be interested.

And what of suppliers? It gives you some clue as to the level of margins Orbitz (and Hotels.com) are able to extract from hotels if they are able to not only match the industry standard 10% rate but still cover the other costs associated with the merchant model (e.g. credit card fees, fraud, customer care etc) which are normally borne by hoteliers under the agency model.

And it is a good move for Orbitz. Orbitz has a choice to drive incremental bookings - they can pay an agency 10% or Google. Stands to reason they already pay Google enough so this is an interesting way of lowering reliance on paid search.

Orbitz does allow for agents to add their own service fees - could this be the distribution model of the future in the hotel industry much as it has become the standard for airlines? Wait and see..

OTAs Prevail Against Anaheim: Court Calls Prior Rulings "Logical Fallacy"

The major Online Travel Agencies today notched a huge win in Anaheim, California where a judge threw out a $21,326,881.30 ruling against Expedia, Travelocity, Priceline, Orbitz and their related subsidiaries with a strongly worded rebuke to the Anaheim City Hearing Officer's earlier findings.

This case was originally heard by the City's Hearing Officer who made the determination that the OTAs did, in fact, operate hotels under Anaheim's definition. The Hearing Officer originally found that each OTA is both "the proprietor" and the "managing agent" of every hotel in the City of Anaheim. Wow. As such, the Hearing Officer found that the OTAs owed the princely sum of ~$21M covering back taxes, fines, interest and, no doubt, extra donuts for the office.

We'll get the whole decision up shortly for reading on your next flight but here are the highlights:
The big take away is that the judge who decided this case will also be presiding over several other similar cases currently in various stages of litigation in California. These include cases in Los Angeles, San Diego and a particularly nasty one in San Francisco where the OTAs have already paid significant damages in order to even have the right of appeal under the City's "Pay to Play" rules. (Note: Anaheim had this rule as well but the OTAs were able to get it overturned.) While no one can predict how a judge will rule and each case is obviously different, this judge clearly understands the issues at hand.


The ruling states "OTCs do not control and run hotels. The Hearing Office's factual findings list several functions performed by OTCs with the respect to resale of hotel rooms" including marketing functions, determining mark-ups etc. The Court correctly determined that "none of these facts comprise incidents of control of a hotel or give the OTCs the right to run the business of a hotel. The hotel control the production of the product sold, the quality of production, the channels of distribution of the product and the pricing of the product." This discussion of Marketing 101 and the " Four Ps" reminds me of my first marketing class in college - sounds as if the Judge may have taken a similar class along the way.

In one of the stronger worded sections, the judge concludes that the Hearing Office that it is "a logical fallacy to conclude, as the Hearing Officer apparently did, that because a hotel operator is responsible for collecting rent and taxes from [guests], any entity that collects rent and taxes from a [guest] must be an operator [and be liable for the occupancy tax] " The footnote explains it more clearly still: "Principles of formal logic demonstrate that when the statement 'if A then B' is a true statement, it is incorrect to conclude that the converse 'if B then A' must be true. Yet the Hearing Officer accepted this reasoning." Ouch. Basic logic, right?

However, the judge clearly leaves the door open for the City to base an occupancy tax on the total amount paid by the guest for the hotel room if the law was drafted (as New York City has attempted to do) and constructed to facilitate such a tax. "There seems to be no reason why such a tax scheme could not be drafted and considered." But before Anaheim goes off to re-do the tax wording, consider the Courts further discussion in regards to the City's position that times had changed (with the advent of the merchant model) and that the taxation laws should simply morph to fit the times: "where a taxing agency has not anticipated a new revenue opportunity, the court may not act to fill what might be perceived as a 'gap' in tax coverage. Creation of a larger tax rate or larger tax base requires voter approval pursuant to Proposition 218. California Proposition 218 states that "A taxing methodology must be frozen in time until the electorate approves higher taxes"

This ruling came down to carefully interpreting the current tax laws on the books. Clearly, opportunities exist for taxing authorities to adjust those laws (at least outside of California) to change with the times - but a go-forward tax is a far cry from a huge retroactive tax from the OTA's perspective.