Originally Posted by CanadaDH

You know it's still possible to book direct, on the hotel website, and still have a TA earn a commission from the hotel, right? A TA is able to make a booking on my behalf, using any promotion available to me direct, booking on the hotel website, and just record their TA number on the booking screen. Same thing if the TA books directly with in-house reservations on behalf of a client. So, even through a direct channel, the hotel can end up paying.



The hotels still have an incentive to offer benefits to people who book through agents. Like it or not, there are a number of travellers, often high spend travellers, who regularly use an agent. Maybe they don't like planning their own vacations or don't have the time to do so or want the advice that an agent provides? Maybe they're booking for business and are required to use a particular agent? Maybe the agent is good at negotiating a custom deal for a client at a hotel? Maybe the agent has a great relationship with a res manager? Regardless of the reason, there is a sizeable segment of the market using TAs.

If the hotel didn't offer benefits to the guest or a commission to the agency, then the agent is never going to book their client in that hotel/chain. The hotels would be losing business if they essentially cut off (full service, not OTA) Travel Agent bookings from benefits or commissions. So, maybe it costs them a bit of their profit, but they must have done the calculation, that the incremental business, even with a commission and guest benefits paid, is still better than losing the business entirely.

Therefore, I would make the distinction between the typical OTA customer, who's looking for some cheap vacation, scouring internet sites, and booking the best deal vs. the group of people using full service agents, and who may still have loyalty to certain brands. Using a TA booking channel doesn't mean a guest isn't loyal.