The OTA Mix Creep
Your 300-room downtown hotel has seen OTA share rise from 22% to 34% of room nights over 18 months while direct web share fell from 19% to 13%. Total occupancy is flat at 79% and ADR is up 3%. The OTA commission averages 17%. Your CRS/booking engine conversion rate is 1.9%, versus an industry benchmark you believe is closer to 3%. The marketing team proposes a $60,000 annual increase in paid search and metasearch spend to 'buy back' direct share. The CFO is skeptical and wants proof the spend pays back. The revenue manager notes that OTA bookings skew to longer length of stay and higher ancillary spend.
1. Build the economic case for or against the $60,000 direct-channel investment.
Read the worked answer
Frame it as a commission-avoidance and lifetime-value question, not a share question.
Step 1 - Size the prize. Each room night shifted from OTA to direct saves roughly 17% commission minus direct cost of acquisition. If the average room rate is, say, $210, commission avoided is ~$35.70 per room night, less direct booking cost (paid search CPC/conversion, loyalty cost) of perhaps $12–18, for a net saving of ~$18–24 per shifted night.
Step 2 - What shift does $60,000 need to produce? At ~$20 net saving per night, break-even requires ~3,000 shifted room nights per year, or ~8.2 per day, or about 2.7% of the 300-room base. That is a modest, achievable shift - but only if conversion improves.
Step 3 - Fix conversion first. At 1.9% vs a ~3% benchmark, the booking engine is leaking. Moving to 2.6% conversion on the same traffic yields ~37% more direct bookings with no added media spend. Improving the funnel is cheaper than buying traffic into a leaky funnel.
Step 4 - Weight the OTA value honestly. OTA nights skew longer-stay and higher ancillary spend, so the true commission cost is partly offset by incremental ancillary contribution and by billboard/brand exposure. Do not credit the full 17% as pure loss on nights that would not have come direct.
Recommendation: fund a staged test - fix conversion and rate-parity/visibility issues first (low cost, high certainty), then deploy paid search against a measurable incremental-direct KPI with a 6-month payback gate. Approve the $60k only against a conversion-improvement milestone, not as a blanket share-buying exercise.
2. The OTA rep offers a 'preferred partner' placement for a 2-point higher commission. How do you evaluate it?
Read the worked answer
Value it on incremental net revenue, not placement optics. A 2-point commission increase on, say, 34% of 300 rooms × 365 nights × 79% occupancy × $210 ADR is a real cost: ~29,500 OTA room nights × $210 × 2% ≈ $124,000 per year in added commission. For that to pay, the placement must generate enough incremental room nights that would not otherwise have been booked - and those nights must be genuinely incremental, not shifted from direct or from your own brand.com.
Ask the rep for evidence of lift (impression-to-book, incremental room nights in comparable markets), and structure a limited test with a measurable incremental KPI. If the incremental nights are mostly cannibalized from existing demand, you are simply paying more for the same business. The judgement trap is treating 'better placement' as free marketing; it is a price increase on a distribution channel.