Interesting post, and I think you make some good points, but also miss some issues.
Originally Posted by
dulciusexasperis
Today hotels have no choice but to use third party sites,but they do so reluctantly. They can't ignore them as too many people are using them but the hotels aren't getting any benefit from them. The only real benefits are going to the third party sites themselves who make a profit on every booking.
If the hotels weren't getting any benefit, they wouldn't be using them. Even if using the third-party site helps them boost their occupancy by a bit, they are benefitting from it relative to the situation if they didn't use it. Of course they would be best off the entire hotel industry refused to use third-party sites, but that is not within their control.
Also, it's important to distinguish between chain and independent hotels. While chain hotels might have enough name recognition to drive bookings directly to their sites, independent hotels would probably not even be known to their target customers. Without third-party booking sites, they would have to spend money on marketing and outreach, perhaps advertising in guide books or magazines, which would likely cost more.
Originally Posted by
dulciusexasperis
Initially, the hotels treated guests booking through third party sites the same as they treated every other guest. Those days are long gone. Ask any industry insiders (hotel industry insiders, not third party booking site insiders) and they will tell you that third party bookings are treated as inferior to direct bookings. This is done in many ways that a lot of people aren't even aware of. For example, if there are 2 rooms available and 2 guests, one who booked direct and one who booked through a third party site, guess which one gets the room next to the elevator and which one gets the quieter room. Guess which one is more likely to get a free upgrade. There is in fact a whole list of ways in which the hotels have changed how they treat third party booking guests vs. direct booking guests. It's like the common hotel joke, 'all our rooms are the same.' They are never all the same. This is where the question of which way of booking gets you more 'value for money' arises. Hotel industry insiders will tell you that direct bookings will get you better 'value' than third party bookings.
Of course hotel industry insiders will say this. They are not unbiased, they want you to book direct. However, this doesn't match my experience. I have never had any problem with a third-party booking. Granted I'm not the type that will be bothered if my room is next to the elevator, which has happened to me several times regardless of which way I book.
Originally Posted by
dulciusexasperis
So what real advantage to the traveller does a third party site offer the traveller today? The only advantage really is convenience. You can go to one site, see a price for 10 hotels on one page and pick one vs. having to visit 10 individual hotel websites to see each price. That is an advantage but the question is at what point does that advantage outweigh the disadvantages that it also brings?
To me, the big advantage is the loyalty programs. I don't want to be tied down to a particular chain, because not every hotel chain has hotels everywhere. With a third-party program, I don't have to worry about that. For example, hotels.com gives you a free night for every 10 nights booked. For the casual user, this is much simpler and easier than collecting points, worrying about what category hotel you are in, looking for award availability, and so on, and you aren't restricted to Hilton hotels or IHG hotels.
I am not a frequent enough traveler to benefit from hotel program status. If you are, it would change the calculation and probably make loyalty to a chain and direct booking more beneficial.
Originally Posted by
dulciusexasperis
Besides not being treated equally in terms of value for money, there are other disadvantages like, who do you deal with when there is a problem? Or if you are a 'points' collector as many posters here are, you don't get them when you book through a third party. Third party sites booking cancellation policies are rarely as good as the hotel's own policy. Some third party sites require you to pay up front whereas the hotel requires a direct booking guest to pay on departure. There is no shortage of disadvantages that may outweigh any perceived advantages of booking through a third party site.
I've never had those issues. The third party sites I use all have the same cancellation policy as the hotel, and their customer service has been fairly responsive on the rare occasion when there are issues.
Originally Posted by
dulciusexasperis
Change is inevitable as I wrote earlier and third party sites in my opinion no longer offer advantages over booking hotels directly any more. They did 22 years ago, but today it's time to re-examine what is in the travellers best interest. Third party sites have more or less stood still in what they offer us, the hotel industry however has changed in more recent years to offer us more for our money.
Again, I think this depends on specific circumstances. To give an example, frequent business travelers who tend to go to the same locations over and over, and who care about free breakfast and other amenities provided by status, would best book direct. But many leisure travelers, particularly those who like to go to different cities and don't travel enough to obtain status, will be better served by a more flexible third party reward program.
Also, it is important to note that websites that allow comparisons help drive down prices. If the third party sites cannot make a profit, they will shut down, and it will be much harder for people to compare prices. This will result in higher prices across the board, especially at the chain hotels, which no longer have to worry about being undercut by independent hotels, because travelers will not be able to find them.