37 ms·

Is it really all just about price? I am rather price insensitive. Usually stay for about $150/night but I don't mind paying up to $300. But I could never book

by TekMol 9y ago

Is it really all just about price? I am rather price insensitive. Usually stay for about $150/night but I don't mind paying up to $300. But I could never book via anything then booking.com Without it, how do I know the pros and cons of a hotel? Every hotel site will tell you they are great. But not if they are next to a noisy street, that the staff is unfriendly and that the rooms are much smaller then one would expect from the images.

chipotle_coyote 9y ago
It's not unreasonable to use a site like Booking.com or Hotels.com to get an overview of hotels in an area, then once you've narrowed it down to two or three choices, to go directly to those hotel sites and check prices. Yes, it's going to take you a little more time, but you'll sometimes find better deals, particularly if you're willing to take a few minutes to sign up for a loyalty program or two. Arguably, if you sign up with one of the companies that own a dozen brands or so, like IHG, Hilton or Marriott, you're likely to have a choice of a half-dozen hotels or more that accept that single reward program. And I've noticed friendlier, more responsive customer service as "Watts, [Loyalty Program Name] Member" than as "Watts, Guy who Prepaid on Hotels.com" often enough that I don't think it's my imagination. (And as another commenter mentioned below, sometimes you get kinda suboptimal rooms if you're booking through an aggregator. They're making less money off you and they know it.)
- TekMol 9y ago
  sometimes you get kinda suboptimal rooms if you're booking through an aggregator. They're making less money off you and they know it I would expect the opposite. When you book via an aggregator and they provide bad service you can fight back via a bad review. When you book directly you are completely at their mercy. Example: I just checked the Ritz-Carlton in Berlin. And on booking.com it's clearly stated that Wifi is free. So I would expect I can rely on that. On the Marriot website the hotel, it's written in the small print that you have to pay extra for wifi. So I would expect them to fuck me over and bill some outrageous €25 per day or something for wifi.
  - chipotle_coyote 9y ago
    See, I'd probably assume that the hotel's own site has the information right and it's Booking.com's information that's wrong--which may or may not be correct. :) Either way, though, I wouldn't assume that people who book on Booking.com get free wifi and people who book on the Marriott site have to pay; it's much more likely that one or the other site is incorrect: either the wifi is free or it isn't. (Or like Hilton, it's always free if you're a member of their rewards program.) As for reviews, maybe? Hotels have to care in (ahem) aggregate, sure, and it's probably true that more people see reviews on travel sites than on Yelp or Foursquare (although it's sometimes interesting to compare). But if you're a hotel loyalty program member, then they have incentive to make you want to think well of their hotel brand. Anecdotally, I've never gotten bad service from booking from Hotels.com; it's not like the hotel staff goes out of their way to be difficult or anything. But I've noticed that I'm more likely to get a room right by the elevator when I book with them, while I've noticed that booking as a Hilton Honors member seems to be fractionally more likely to get me a free upgrade, or a welcome note from the manager at a hotel that didn't give me one two years before when I booked on the third party site. All anecdotal, possibly coincidental? But still something I noticed.
    - TekMol 9y ago
      I'd probably assume that the hotel's own site has the information right and it's Booking.com's information that's wrong There is nor right or wrong. If they advertise their rooms with free wifi on booking.com they are legally bound to offer free wifi when you booked via booking.com
draw_down 9y ago
In my experience it is easier to change details of the stay if you book directly with the hotel rather than a third party site, but I could see other benefits outweighing that. Not for me though.

by TekMol 9y ago

chipotle_coyote 9y ago

It's not unreasonable to use a site like Booking.com or Hotels.com to get an overview of hotels in an area, then once you've narrowed it down to two or three choices, to go directly to those hotel sites and check prices. Yes, it's going to take you a little more time, but you'll sometimes find better deals, particularly if you're willing to take a few minutes to sign up for a loyalty program or two. Arguably, if you sign up with one of the companies that own a dozen brands or so, like IHG, Hilton or Marriott, you're likely to have a choice of a half-dozen hotels or more that accept that single reward program. And I've noticed friendlier, more responsive customer service as "Watts, [Loyalty Program Name] Member" than as "Watts, Guy who Prepaid on Hotels.com" often enough that I don't think it's my imagination. (And as another commenter mentioned below, sometimes you get kinda suboptimal rooms if you're booking through an aggregator. They're making less money off you and they know it.)

TekMol 9y ago
sometimes you get kinda suboptimal rooms if you're booking through an aggregator. They're making less money off you and they know it I would expect the opposite. When you book via an aggregator and they provide bad service you can fight back via a bad review. When you book directly you are completely at their mercy. Example: I just checked the Ritz-Carlton in Berlin. And on booking.com it's clearly stated that Wifi is free. So I would expect I can rely on that. On the Marriot website the hotel, it's written in the small print that you have to pay extra for wifi. So I would expect them to fuck me over and bill some outrageous €25 per day or something for wifi.
- chipotle_coyote 9y ago
  See, I'd probably assume that the hotel's own site has the information right and it's Booking.com's information that's wrong--which may or may not be correct. :) Either way, though, I wouldn't assume that people who book on Booking.com get free wifi and people who book on the Marriott site have to pay; it's much more likely that one or the other site is incorrect: either the wifi is free or it isn't. (Or like Hilton, it's always free if you're a member of their rewards program.) As for reviews, maybe? Hotels have to care in (ahem) aggregate, sure, and it's probably true that more people see reviews on travel sites than on Yelp or Foursquare (although it's sometimes interesting to compare). But if you're a hotel loyalty program member, then they have incentive to make you want to think well of their hotel brand. Anecdotally, I've never gotten bad service from booking from Hotels.com; it's not like the hotel staff goes out of their way to be difficult or anything. But I've noticed that I'm more likely to get a room right by the elevator when I book with them, while I've noticed that booking as a Hilton Honors member seems to be fractionally more likely to get me a free upgrade, or a welcome note from the manager at a hotel that didn't give me one two years before when I booked on the third party site. All anecdotal, possibly coincidental? But still something I noticed.
  - TekMol 9y ago
    I'd probably assume that the hotel's own site has the information right and it's Booking.com's information that's wrong There is nor right or wrong. If they advertise their rooms with free wifi on booking.com they are legally bound to offer free wifi when you booked via booking.com

draw_down 9y ago

In my experience it is easier to change details of the stay if you book directly with the hotel rather than a third party site, but I could see other benefits outweighing that. Not for me though.