What a booking site actually costs you

A booking platform can be very good at introducing a guest to a property they have never heard of. It can also be an expensive way for a returning guest to book the place they had already decided to visit.

Those are two different jobs. A sensible direct-booking plan separates them before anybody quotes for a new website.

The question is not, “Can we leave the platforms?” For many independent properties, the honest answer is no. The useful question is: which bookings needed the platform to create demand, and which bookings simply used it because the direct route was harder?

Start with statements, not an industry average

Do not begin with a commission percentage from an article. Begin with the amount that actually left your business.

Take the last twelve months and record, by platform:

1. gross booking value;
2. commission actually charged;
3. payment, promotion or programme fees;
4. taxes charged on those fees;
5. refunds, cancellations and adjustments; and
6. the final amount received.

Contracts, programmes and tax treatment vary. Your own statements are the source. If a tax entry is unclear, ask your accountant to explain that entry rather than applying somebody else’s calculation to your property.

Now calculate the effective acquisition cost:

Total platform costs divided by completed booking value from that platform.

That gives you a real percentage for completed stays, not a headline rate that may leave out other charges.

Mark the bookings that were already yours

Go through a manageable sample. Last season is usually enough to see a pattern. Mark bookings where the guest:

• had stayed before;
• came through a previous guest or a known referral;
• contacted you on Instagram, WhatsApp or the phone before booking elsewhere;
• searched for the property’s name rather than a general destination; or
• was already attending a wedding, event or retreat connected to you.

This is not a claim that every marked guest would have booked direct. It is a list worth investigating.

Ask a few returning guests why they used the platform. The answers tend to be practical: the direct price was unclear, availability could not be checked, payment felt uncertain, the phone was not answered, or the platform’s cancellation terms were easier to understand. Each answer points to a different fix. None of them is solved by “make the website nicer.”

Put a value on the addressable part

Use three numbers you can defend:

• completed booking value from guests who were already aware of you;
• the effective platform cost on those bookings; and
• the share you could reasonably make direct after fixing the actual obstacle.

Be conservative with the third number. If there is no evidence, use a low case, a middle case and a zero case. A proposal should still make sense when the optimistic case is removed.

Then compare the annual avoidable cost with the full cost of the direct channel: design and build, booking or payment software, support, content updates, payment fees, staff time and any work needed to keep availability accurate.

That comparison is the business case. “More direct bookings” is not.

What the platform is still earning

A platform may be providing discovery, reviews, payment handling, cancellation rules, customer support and a familiar place to compare options. Those things have value. A direct channel has to earn trust in its own way and cannot pretend the platform contributed nothing.

That is why a good direct-booking site usually sits beside platforms. It gives somebody who already wants the property a clear, trustworthy alternative. It does not ask the property to switch off a source of new demand.

What a useful direct route must do

A visitor should be able to answer, on a phone and without hunting:

• Is this right for the dates and group I have in mind?
• What will it cost, and what is included?
• Is the information current?
• What happens if plans change?
• Who receives my details and payment?
• What is the next step, and when will somebody reply?

Sometimes the answer is a live booking engine. Sometimes it is a carefully structured enquiry that your team can answer quickly. Adding a booking engine to a property that cannot keep availability current can create a worse problem than the one it replaced.

The right route depends on how the business actually operates. Our Hospitality page explains how we examine that customer journey without pretending every property has the same leak.

The test before a rebuild

Before signing anything, run four checks:

1. Search for the property by name on a phone. Is the official route obvious?
2. Try to find the current offer, terms and next step without using prior knowledge.
3. Send a test enquiry after hours. Confirm where it goes and when it is seen.
4. Ask a returning guest to book the way they naturally would, while you watch without helping.

If the direct route fails one of those checks, there is a specific problem to solve. If it passes all four and guests still prefer the platform, a new site may not be the answer.

That is a useful result too. The aim is not to prove that you need a booking site. It is to find out what the current route is costing, and whether changing it is worth more than it costs.

Related: What an over-designed website costs you in enquiries and CJAX Labs services.