Originally Posted by
TinDrum
Erin,
Thank you for posting the above list - much appreciated.
However, my understanding of any Best Rate Guarantee program is that the hotel makes good when another site offers a lower rate for the same room, that can be booked by the general public.
How does it (or should it) matter that the competing site is "authorized" or not to offer the lower rate? So long as a lower rate can be booked elsewhere for the same room, the guarantee should be honored - don't you think so? Otherwise, this guarantee claim is a total farce.
Hilton guests have no means of knowing, in real time, which sites are authorized and which not. So in my opinion, imposing such roadblocks is just another way of evading a genuine claim.
Other comparable chains (e.g SPG, IHG etc) do not fall back on such an "authorized site" excuse to deny claims.
So why can Hilton not be more honest? Of course, there are many guests who do not care about this because someone else (e.g. their employers) are picking up the tab. But I for one, when faced with this kind of deception, have always managed to find some other hotel which does not engage in this chicanery. Ergo, entirely Hilton's loss.
TD
I don't want to waste my time to BS with those Hilton people anymore - They just insist their position and they have to insist the position under what their managers told them although they knew it doesn't make any sense. What do you mean by "unauthorized"? It's the issue between Hilton and your own distribution channel, and to consumers, those channels are just indifferent. They probably collected all data on BRG cases and did statistics on the websites where the honored cases come from, and just decided to define those OTAs as "unauthorized". Can you even justify this using any parts of your terms and conditions, except the statement that it's "unauthorized" after the consumer booked the hotel.
The BRG terms and conditions existed before their consumer book hotels, and it's those t&c induced customers to make their reservation. Hilton simply said - No, despite your claim meets every requirements in the T&Cs, we are not honoring anymore this simply beceause we said so. LAMO - Hilton guys are just making up additional terms to the contract after it is effective.
I have a suggestion for Hilton - knowing that they're already shameless in terms of BRG - why not just define all the OTAs in the world as "unauthorized"? This is way better than letting hilton's staff spending months to collect the data and decide which websites to block further and to be reflected in their "evolving policy". What hilton did is effectively modifing a contract after all terms are confirmed and the cobtract is signed, without the other party's consent.
I wonder if one day someone will ever take Hilton to competition bureau and department of justice for their misleading, false and fraudulent advertisement to the general public.