3 ms·

This article is largely incomprehensible and seems strongly biased. Having said that, I don’t quite see how consumers are being hurt. The issue only seems to be

This article is largely incomprehensible and seems strongly biased. Having said that, I don’t quite see how consumers are being hurt. The issue only seems to be with very targeted search queries such as “Hilton Houston” where Expedia, etc. ageeed voluntarily not to show ads and smaller ones are allegedly somehow blocked by Google. But: if one searches for such a specific term, a customer will almost always be harmed by booking through an OTA. Most hotel chains guarantee the lowest rates on their websites plus offer benefits such as points that you wouldn’t receive when booking through an OTA. Someone has to pay for the 20% cut - and it’s not the OTA

bkor 9y ago
> Most hotel chains guarantee the lowest rates on their websites To be clear: My response is not about OTA vs Google. It's OTA vs hotel. Various OTAs used to have clauses in their contracts prohibiting this. See e.g. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ad48f831-75c3-4832-960e-c378fe53e30a https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ad48f831-75c3.... They made them switch terms. Before that it was pretty much impossible for a hotel to offer a lower rate through their website. Consumers were being hurt (by OTAs) due to not being able to offer lower rates in their own website. It only changed after EU stepped in. Nowadays you see that you can book directly with the hotel, immediately become a member for free and immediately get a discount for that booking. Before the lowest rate was usually via the OTA. Then obviously people will book via the OTA.
- thesumofall 9y ago
  This is certainly correct except some little semantics: they were prohibited to publish lower rates but could absolutely publish the lowest rate on their website (basically the same as for the OTA with the highest leverage). By bundling in benefits such as points, hotels are also stretching those clauses to their limits. Edit: ... and let me say: I’m absolutely in favor of the ruling you cited
- fjsolwmv 9y ago
  Why are customers helped by driving OTAs out of business?
Spooky23 9y ago
Try to use that rate guarantee. Most exclude “aggregators” and other deal sites.

bkor 9y ago

> Most hotel chains guarantee the lowest rates on their websites To be clear: My response is not about OTA vs Google. It's OTA vs hotel. Various OTAs used to have clauses in their contracts prohibiting this. See e.g. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ad48f831-75c3-4832-960e-c378fe53e30a https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ad48f831-75c3.... They made them switch terms. Before that it was pretty much impossible for a hotel to offer a lower rate through their website. Consumers were being hurt (by OTAs) due to not being able to offer lower rates in their own website. It only changed after EU stepped in. Nowadays you see that you can book directly with the hotel, immediately become a member for free and immediately get a discount for that booking. Before the lowest rate was usually via the OTA. Then obviously people will book via the OTA.

thesumofall 9y ago
This is certainly correct except some little semantics: they were prohibited to publish lower rates but could absolutely publish the lowest rate on their website (basically the same as for the OTA with the highest leverage). By bundling in benefits such as points, hotels are also stretching those clauses to their limits. Edit: ... and let me say: I’m absolutely in favor of the ruling you cited
fjsolwmv 9y ago
Why are customers helped by driving OTAs out of business?

Spooky23 9y ago

Try to use that rate guarantee. Most exclude “aggregators” and other deal sites.