Originally Posted by
craigthemif
One post doesn't prove that it has been "established".
Fair enough. I asked my original question (that the "established" post was a response to) genuinely not knowing. Would welcome other informed responses.
Originally Posted by
craigthemif
I don't believe for a second that OTAs pay the cost of BRGs. The power balance is totally in favour of the OTAs in general, with their 50+% market share for hotel rooms and 20+% commissions. Any serious dent to their bottom lines from BRG fines would see them pull the branded chains, and simply sell the thousands of independent hotels. Most brand-sensitive guests are booking direct anyhow...
In this scenario it would only be a serious dent to their bottom line if they routinely undercut the chains' own pricing, which AIUI (or at least, also in the same scenario) contractually they aren't supposed to do.
Originally Posted by
craigthemif
If Marriott (or the other chains FWIW) aren't paying the cost of BRGs, then they would simply approve most claims. They don't.
*If* it's true that the cost is borne by the OTA, the individual agents still may not realize that and may be acting out of a belief they are defending the company somehow by being zealous.
I'd also be wary of extrapolating from a personal success rate or even the FT success rate (which surely has reporting bias in the statistical sense) to the overall success rate.