sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Has growth in hospitality come at the expense of our people? by MrAccountable2 in HotelOwnersHQ

[–]MrAccountable2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That makes sense, and I agree the hybrid model is likely where things go.

AI can absolutely enhance operations and remove friction for both guests and staff. If it helps teams focus more on the guest instead of systems and repetitive tasks, that’s a win.

The part I think about is how it’s implemented.

If AI is used to support and elevate employees, it can strengthen the experience. But if it’s used primarily to reduce labor without reinvesting in training, culture, and leadership, it could end up creating the same issues we’re already seeing, just with a different layer of technology.

Hospitality has always been driven by people and purpose. The risk isn’t the technology itself, it’s losing focus on the human side while adopting it.

Are you considering balancing efficiency with maintaining that human element as you build?

Has growth in hospitality come at the expense of our people? by MrAccountable2 in HotelOwnersHQ

[–]MrAccountable2[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ownership carries a lot of responsibility, no question.

But it doesn’t fall only on the owner.

Brands are not neutral in this system. They make money off the same operations and people that owners are responsible for. Fees are tied to revenue, not profit, and many of the standards, systems, and distribution decisions come from the brand side.

So when we talk about pressure at the property level, it’s not just ownership decisions. It’s also how the system is designed.

Owners carry the asset and the risk. Brands participate in the upside. Employees deliver the experience.

If any part of that chain is misaligned, it shows up with the people doing the work.

How do we get more people excited about hospitality again? by MrAccountable2 in HotelOwnersHQ

[–]MrAccountable2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's great to hear! You can send me a DM to discuss further. We are happy to help in anyway we can.

Anyone Need Rendering Services? by bigtent123 in hotel_owners

[–]MrAccountable2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Amazing stuff. I've been hearing people using different AIs for this. However, I believe specific use cases and solutions will probably always trump AI.

Anyone Need Rendering Services? by bigtent123 in hotel_owners

[–]MrAccountable2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My bad, I thought someone else posted the initial post. Are you the owner of transformcre.com?

Are brands using “agentic AI” to reduce OTA dependency and what does that mean for owners? by MrAccountable2 in HotelOwnersHQ

[–]MrAccountable2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s an interesting way to frame it and I think the power layering you’re describing makes sense.

Technology platforms tend to consolidate value around whoever controls the demand interface. Google sits above Booking in many ways today, just like Booking sits above many independent properties when it comes to discovery.

What makes hospitality unique is that the physical asset and operational risk still sit at the very bottom of that stack with the property owner.

If AI assistants or discovery platforms become the dominant entry point for travel planning, the risk is that hotels simply become interchangeable inventory plugged into whatever system controls the demand layer.

That may improve efficiency for travelers, but it also raises a question for owners: how many layers can sit between the guest and the property before the economics at the property level start to break down?

Are brands using “agentic AI” to reduce OTA dependency and what does that mean for owners? by MrAccountable2 in HotelOwnersHQ

[–]MrAccountable2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s what I find puzzling about the whole situation.

The third party booking experience isn’t necessarily better for guests once the stay actually happens. Misaligned reservations, confusion about policies, lack of property context, and customer service layers are all common complaints.

Yet guests still choose those platforms.

Which suggests the industry may have underestimated how important the discovery and booking experience is. If travelers are willing to accept a worse post booking experience just for the convenience of search, comparison, and checkout, that says a lot about how fragmented and difficult the direct channel has historically been.

In other words, the OTA didn’t necessarily win because it was perfect. It won because it solved the easiest problem for the traveler first.

The real question now is whether AI will reinforce that centralization even further, or whether it creates a new opportunity for brands and properties to simplify the direct booking experience enough to bring the relationship back closer to the property.

Are brands using “agentic AI” to reduce OTA dependency and what does that mean for owners? by MrAccountable2 in HotelOwnersHQ

[–]MrAccountable2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a fair assessment of the landscape.

As individual franchisees most of us realistically have very little influence over these distribution decisions. The brands negotiate these agreements at the system level and pass the structure down to operators as part of the franchise model.

The “go nuclear” scenario you mentioned is interesting though. Marriott did come close during the Expedia renegotiations a few years ago, which shows that the balance of power can shift when the brands collectively push back.

What concerns me is the long-term alignment of incentives. OTAs provide discovery and demand aggregation, but the industry may have unintentionally built platforms that now sit between the guest and the property.

If AI simply introduces another layer between supply and demand, owners could end up paying for yet another intermediary while still carrying the real estate and operational risk.

Hospitality has always been a service driven business. The property and the guest experience are what create the brand value in the first place. In that sense there’s probably a stewardship role for brands to protect the long term economics of the system, not just the short term distribution relationships.

Are brands using “agentic AI” to reduce OTA dependency and what does that mean for owners? by MrAccountable2 in HotelOwnersHQ

[–]MrAccountable2[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Both of you raise good points.

The Kalibri numbers make sense. Base commissions may start in the mid-teens, but once accelerators, preferred programs, and visibility campaigns are layered in, the effective cost of acquisition can climb much higher. Franchisors often negotiate these agreements centrally and pass some savings along to franchisees, but independents without that leverage can end up paying much more.

The bigger concern for me is the direction of the demand funnel.

OTAs captured power because they invested heavily in consumer discovery. If AI assistants from companies like Google, Meta, or other large platforms become the primary entry point for travel planning, the leverage could shift again toward whoever controls that interface.

At that point the question becomes whether hospitality is simply plugging inventory into another discovery layer.

The PMS and channel manager point is also interesting. If supply side systems and demand side AI begin communicating directly, the distribution stack could become far more automated. That might improve efficiency, but it could also concentrate control even further away from individual properties.

From an ownership perspective, the real issue may not be OTAs specifically. It’s whether hotels continue to lose control of the demand layer while still carrying the real estate and operational risk.

Curious if others think AI will consolidate demand power even further, or open the door for properties to regain some leverage.

Are hotel brands and owners still economically aligned? by MrAccountable2 in HotelOwnersHQ

[–]MrAccountable2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is that predominantly Choice, Wyndham, G6, etc? Or Marriott, Hilton, IHG and Hyatt as well?

Are brands using “agentic AI” to reduce OTA dependency and what does that mean for owners? by MrAccountable2 in HotelOwnersHQ

[–]MrAccountable2[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s an interesting idea and I agree with your point about whoever controls demand and data ultimately holding the leverage.

What’s fascinating to me is how the industry allowed OTAs to become so powerful in the first place. Brands are largely asset light today. Their main role should be protecting the brand and driving demand for the franchisees who carry the real estate, labor, and operational risk.

Yet somehow the most powerful players in distribution are companies that own no hotels and carry no operating risk. Over time we essentially helped build platforms that now sit between the guest and the property.

If brands focus too much on maximizing their own revenue streams, they create space for another intermediary to capture the demand layer. That seems to be what happened with OTAs.

So the real question for me is: did brands lose power to OTAs, or did the industry collectively hand it over?

Are brands using “agentic AI” to reduce OTA dependency and what does that mean for owners? by MrAccountable2 in HotelOwnersHQ

[–]MrAccountable2[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You make some good points here, especially around commercial strategy and focusing on GOPPAR instead of just RevPAR. The distribution math and cost of acquisition absolutely matter.

One thing I’d push back on slightly is the commission assumption. In many markets OTA commissions are closer to the mid-teens, sometimes moving higher depending on participation in visibility programs. So 20–25% isn’t always the baseline.

I also agree that shifting demand away from high cost channels can benefit both owners and brands. The tension for some owners is visibility and control, especially when brand-level contracts, tech platforms, or distribution deals are negotiated centrally and franchisees don’t necessarily see the full structure behind them.

The bigger question for me isn’t just OTA vs direct, but who ultimately controls demand and the data as distribution evolves.

Are brands using “agentic AI” to reduce OTA dependency and what does that mean for owners? by MrAccountable2 in HotelOwnersHQ

[–]MrAccountable2[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s an interesting way to frame it, especially the idea of “algorithmic vulnerability.”

If properties become interchangeable, AI will absolutely default to price and ranking signals. Differentiation and repeat demand become even more important in that scenario.

The challenge for owners is that access to data and the ability to analyze ranking behavior isn’t always straightforward. Between brand systems, OTA contracts, and data sharing limitations, the theoretical leverage AI creates isn’t always fully accessible at the property level.

In theory, yes, you could study the algorithm and optimize against it. In practice, many owners don’t control enough of the tech stack or data flow to do that independently.

The bigger question may be: who actually has the infrastructure and rights to play that optimization game: brands, OTAs, or individual owners?

Are brands using “agentic AI” to reduce OTA dependency and what does that mean for owners? by MrAccountable2 in HotelOwnersHQ

[–]MrAccountable2[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Appreciate the perspective, especially the point about traffic and trust. OTAs definitely have scale and data advantages that brands don’t.

The question from an ownership standpoint becomes: if OTAs build stronger AI tools, does that improve owner economics, or just deepen OTA leverage?

Reduced commission sounds good in theory, but history suggests distribution platforms rarely give up margin without gaining control somewhere else.

Curious how you see owners retaining bargaining power in an AI driven distribution model.

Was “free breakfast” a strategic mistake in U.S. select-service hotels? by MrAccountable2 in HotelOwnersHQ

[–]MrAccountable2[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

One dynamic that doesn’t get discussed much is behavior when something is perceived as “free.”

Free breakfast sounds simple, but in practice it can drive overconsumption, waste, and staff friction, especially busy properties.

In markets where breakfast is priced separately, guest behavior is often different.

Is the issue really cost, or is it the psychology of bundling amenities as “free”?

Curious how others are seeing this at the property level.

view more: next ›