Hoteliers, do you still not understand why your rooms can sell at different prices? Trivago explains it—again
Some adverts manage to lodge a brand in the consumer’s mind. Then there are those which, having achieved that, decide to keep hammering home the same idea until you start wondering whether the aim is to sell a product or test the limits of human patience. In my view, Trivago now belongs to the latter category.
For years, we have been seeing variations on the same scene: two people staying at what appears to be the same hotel, apparently enjoying the same things, but paying different prices. One booked without much thought, while the other, being more savvy, compared. The moral: if you do not compare, you could be paying more. The advertising concept is simple, memorable and, from a marketing perspective, I admit it has worked extraordinarily well.
My issue is not that Trivago compares prices. That is what a metasearch engine is for. Nor do I question the fact that the same hotel may appear at different rates across different channels; it happens and is part of the complexity of hotel distribution. What makes me uncomfortable is the systematic simplification of a far more complex reality until it becomes almost a caricature: it makes it seem as though hotels set prices at random and only sufficiently clever consumers discover where the good rate is hidden.
And beyond being tiresome, I find that unfair to the hotel industry. Because behind the price of a room, there is not someone throwing numbers into the air before opening the Front Desk. There are demand forecasts, inventory, distribution costs, segments, commercial terms, restrictions, promotions, room types, cancellation policies, loyalty programmes, source markets, booking windows and a revenue management strategy trying to sell a perishable product whose value literally disappears every midnight.
Perhaps that is why, whenever I come across one of those adverts again, I have an odd feeling. As a hotelier, I fully understand the business behind it. As a marketing professional, I admire the fact that a company has managed to explain its value proposition in a few seconds. But as someone who has spent many years trying to explain that price, value, channel and profitability are not the same thing, I feel a powerful urge to reach for the remote control.
The problem is not comparing prices. The problem is portraying the hotel industry as though hoteliers were idiots
Let us start by acknowledging something important: Trivago is not a conventional OTA, but fundamentally a metasearch engine. Its role is to aggregate offers from different booking websites, including OTAs, hotel chains and independent hotels, so that users can compare them and then book on the relevant website. The Spanish version of the platform currently presents its proposition with messages such as saving up to 40% and comparing prices from hundreds of websites.
Your hotel already generates the data. HotelGEX turns it into decisions.
A platform built from real hotel operations to connect guests, Customer Journey, operations, Revenue, F&B, Groups & Events and Management within one intelligent context.
So far, there is absolutely nothing to object to. Price transparency benefits consumers and requires hotels to professionalise our distribution. It would be absurd to argue otherwise.
What becomes interesting is when we analyse the advertising narrative.
For years, it has used an extraordinarily powerful formula: same hotel, same experience, different price. Earlier campaigns have even explicitly pitted two guests staying at the same property against each other, paying different amounts because one used Trivago to find a better deal.
And this is where the first problem arises.
Two bookings at the same hotel are not necessarily the same product.
They may relate to the same property, even the same room type, and yet have entirely different commercial conditions. Those of us who work in hotel revenue management every day know that comparing only the final figure can conceal much of the reality.
A room at €180 may include free cancellation up to 24 hours before arrival. Another at €165 may be non-refundable. One may include breakfast. Another may not. One may allow amendments. Another may be linked to a mobile promotion, a loyalty programme, a closed-user-group rate, a specific campaign or particular stay conditions.
That is why I have long insisted on something I consider essential to understanding modern distribution:
a comparable price does not always mean a comparable product.
And there is a second issue that is even more important.
The consumer sees price.
The hotel must see price, acquisition cost and profitability.
Our work does not end when we manage to sell a room. A serious revenue management strategy must also factor in the channel through which we sell it and the efficiency of its commission structure. The hotel’s financial objective cannot be limited to maximising gross revenue; it needs to understand how much money actually remains after securing that booking.
That is why we should talk far more about Net ADR, acquisition cost, TRevPAR, GOPPAR and guest profitability, and spend far less time celebrating every booking simply because it appeared in the PMS.
The paradox becomes particularly interesting when we examine how the metasearch engine itself works economically.
In its financial reports, Trivago explains that its advertisers participate primarily through CPC —cost per click— models and also through CPA —cost per acquisition—. Under the CPC model, advertisers bid for clicks, and those with higher bids generally secure better positions and more referrals. Under CPA, the advertiser pays a percentage when the referral ultimately converts into a booking.
In other words, the platform that teaches consumers to look carefully at how much they pay is built, quite logically, on a marketplace where distributors also pay to compete for that consumer.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
It is advertising.
It is distribution.
It is business.
But it is worth remembering because it helps us understand something that often disappears behind the simplicity of the advert: the order in which we see things online does not spontaneously arise from nature, either.
And the figures help illustrate the scale of that ecosystem.
In 2025, Trivago generated €548.9 million in revenue, of which €532.9 million came from Referral Revenue. In other words, approximately 97% of its revenue came from its referral activity. In addition, during that year it spent €418.2 million on advertising, 21% more than the previous year.
There is another figure that is even more revealing for any professional interested in hotel distribution.
In 2025, approximately 34% of Referral Revenue came from brands belonging to one major distribution group, and a further 40% from brands belonging to another major group. Combined, around 74% came from just those two major intermediary ecosystems.
This does not invalidate the service the metasearch engine provides. But it should make us reflect on something far deeper than the advert.
The real business of hotel distribution is not simply selling rooms. It is controlling demand, capturing the traveller’s attention and monetising their booking decision.
And hotels have an enormous responsibility in this.
Because for years, we have allowed third parties to become far better than us at explaining to guests how to book a room.
We talked about categories, superior rooms, side views, supplements and cancellation policies.
They talked about something much simpler:
“Do not pay more.”
Marketing 1 – Hoteliers 0.
The problem is that this simplification ends up creating some dangerous ideas in consumers’ minds:
- “There is a correct price hidden somewhere.” Not necessarily. There are different prices associated with different terms, segments, timings and channels.
- “The cheapest rate is always the best purchase.” Not at all. A ten-euro difference can disappear entirely when you compare breakfast, cancellation, amendments, included services or payment terms.
- “Booking directly with the hotel has no advantage.” This is probably the message that should concern us most. The direct channel can allow for a simpler relationship, smoother pre-arrival communication, greater potential for personalisation and, depending on the property’s commercial strategy, additional benefits.
- “If another guest paid less, I have paid too much.” This idea completely ignores how revenue management works. Two customers can buy the same airline seat at different prices without anyone considering that the airline has done anything improper. In hospitality, we still have to explain the exact same principle time and again.
- “Comparing prices is the same as comparing value.” And this is probably the most important mistake. Price is a number. Value is the relationship between what you pay and what you receive.
That is precisely why I believe hoteliers should stop being angry exclusively at these campaigns and start asking ourselves why they work so well.
Because they do work.
Very well.
Trivago closed 2025 with 19% revenue growth, while in the first quarter of 2026 it increased revenue again by 15% year on year, to €142.9 million. The company attributed part of that performance to traffic growth generated by its continued brand investment.
So, while we complain that the advert oversimplifies our profession, millions of consumers understand its message perfectly.
Perhaps we should learn something from that.
If Trivago has made price the protagonist, we need to make value the protagonist again
For many years, hotel distribution strategy has been overly focused on one question: what price are we selling at?
I would add four more:
Who are we selling to? Through whom? How much does it cost us to acquire that booking? And how much value do we generate throughout the relationship with that guest?
Because selling a room for €200 directly and selling it for €200 through an intermediary does not necessarily produce the same financial outcome.
Nor do two guests paying €200 necessarily have the same value to the hotel.
One may stay for one night, consume no additional services and disappear forever. Another may stay for three nights, dine, use the spa, return six months later and recommend the hotel to others.
Both initially appear in our report with an ADR of €200.
But economically, they are entirely different guests.
This is where I believe the hotel industry needs to evolve from an almost exclusive obsession with Room Revenue towards a much broader view of Customer Profitability.
That means working on several principles which I consider essential:
- Defend the direct channel through value, not merely through discounts. If our only strategy for securing direct bookings is to be ten euros cheaper, we are competing on exactly the ground dominated by intermediaries. Hotels have something far more powerful: we know the product, control the experience and can build a direct relationship with the guest.
- Explain our rates better. It is not enough to display €185. We must explain why that rate may be better: flexibility, breakfast, parking, an upgrade subject to availability, better terms, credit for certain services, or any benefit consistent with our positioning.
- Measure the real cost of distribution. A room sold should not be assessed solely by its ADR. We need to include commission, advertising costs, discounts, loyalty costs and any incentive used to acquire that booking.
- Train our teams in distribution and revenue. The Front Desk should not automatically respond to “It is cheaper online” with a resigned “Then book online.” That moment is an extraordinary commercial opportunity to understand which rate the guest is seeing, check the terms and explain our value proposition.
- Build a relationship that survives the first booking. The real success of the direct channel is not getting someone to book once on our website. It is ensuring that, once they know us, next time they do not need to ask anyone where to book.
This is also where one of the major strategic opportunities for independent hotels emerges.
Major platforms have enormous audiences, extraordinary advertising budgets and a traffic-acquisition capability that we can hardly replicate. Trying to compete head-on against them would be unwise.
But we have something they can never fully have:
we are the hotel.
We know the room.
We know the destination.
We know the team.
We know which table has the best view.
We know which guest is celebrating an anniversary.
We can resolve an issue without sending the guest through three contact centres.
We can recognise those who return.
And, above all, we are the ones who ultimately have to deliver the promise others sell.
That is our competitive territory.
That is why, when I see the advert again showing two happy guests in the same hotel and discover, with enormous suspense, that one paid less than the other, I no longer get too angry.
Well.
A little, yes.
After so many years, I think even my television knows perfectly well how a comparison site works.
But I try to take away a professional lesson: if a company has spent years building a value proposition around a phrase that any consumer understands in seconds, perhaps hotels should ask ourselves whether we are explaining our own proposition with the same clarity.
My first recommendation would be to review today how your hotel appears on its own website, on metasearch engines and across the main channels. Do not look only at whether the price matches. Check the room type, board basis, cancellation, taxes, terms, promotions and the product actually being offered. Nominal parity is of little use when what is being compared is not exactly the same.
My second recommendation would be to calculate regularly how much each channel actually leaves you. Not merely how much it invoices. Revenue without acquisition cost is incomplete information. When you factor in commission, marketing, promotions and the guest’s subsequent behaviour, some seemingly excellent bookings cease to be so, while others that appeared less attractive start to become extraordinarily profitable.
And my third recommendation would be not to try to beat intermediaries by becoming a smaller version of them. Be better at being a hotel. Build product, reputation, service, relationships and genuine reasons to return. Because we can debate forever over who offers the room five euros cheaper, but the truly interesting competitive advantage begins when the guest stops simply looking for where it costs less to sleep and starts looking for where they want to stay again.
This article ends here. The archive does not.
Lead Hospitality brings together 986 English articles published since 2008: years of experiences, decisions and lessons you can keep exploring.