Leaving Hotel Upselling to Chance

[elementor-template id="246307"] In hospitality, price is never just a number. It is a strategic statement, an implicit trade-off and an economic promise. That is why I am so concerned when I see pricing decisions treated as though they were an almost automatic reaction. When the mistake of leaving upselling to chance appears, the damage rarely arrives all at once. More often, it gradually seeps into the P&L: a narrowing margin, an operation compensating for what the strategy fails to define, and a sense of intense activity with returns that are far too modest. I like to stress something I consider fundamental: in Hospitality, the truly expensive mistakes are not always the most visible ones. They are often the ones that seem reasonable, even those justified by phrases that sound sensible in a meeting. That is where this mistake becomes dangerous. In my experience, this happens when additional sales depend on one person’s individual talent. And when that becomes normalised, the hotel begins making tactical decisions to correct a problem that is actually strategic. The price is changed, the team is put under pressure, a promotion is redesigned or more sales are demanded, yet the root cause remains untouched. That is why it is worth pausing, looking at it honestly and putting it in order. Not to dramatise it, but to turn it into an advantage. Because when a hotel corrects a structural error, it does not improve just one metric: it improves the quality of its future decisions.

Why this mistake destroys higher-quality revenue

When I observe the mistake of leaving upselling to chance, I do not see it simply as an isolated bad practice. I see it as a symptom. It usually indicates that the hotel has not translated its strategy effectively into specific decisions, or that it has done so but does not support it with discipline. That gap is costly because it forces the hotel to compensate through effort, discounting, urgency or control for what should have been resolved in the design. In business terms, this mistake affects several layers at once. It impacts pricing, because any strategic inconsistency ultimately shows up in the price the market is willing to accept. It also impacts operations, because teams have to absorb promises, rhythms or expectations that were not properly thought through. And it naturally affects hotel profitability, because every repeated misalignment eventually becomes a cost or lost revenue. What is most delicate is that this type of mistake is often concealed behind seemingly reassuring indicators. Occupancy may be healthy, guest feedback may be acceptable, and there may even be a sense of control. But when you go down to the P&L and compare it with the quality of the business acquired, uncomfortable questions emerge. Are we filling the hotel well? Are we serving the guest who truly makes sense for us? Are we protecting a price that is consistent with the experience? Are we using our resources where they generate the most value? At that point, it is worth moving beyond generic language and focusing on specific signals. These are some of the most common manifestations I tend to find once this mistake has taken hold:

– Rates move quickly, but without a stable, clearly communicable logic. – Sales, reservations and management interpret pricing through different frameworks. – Volume decisions are mixed with margin decisions. – The hotel ends up selling a great deal, but monetising less than it could.

None of these signs, in isolation, proves the problem. But when they accumulate, they reveal a very clear pattern. The hotel is not effectively managing the relationship between its value proposition, the right guest and its financial performance. And that misalignment can never be fully resolved through greater commercial intensity or more operational pressure.

How I would correct it to restore control, margin and commercial judgement

Correcting this mistake does not mean launching a major initiative and expecting everything to change through enthusiasm. In my experience, a more measured approach works better: diagnose precisely, intervene in a small number of high-impact areas and sustain the correction long enough for the system to learn. When I work on problems of this kind, I usually focus on four actions. They are simple to formulate, but demand considerable consistency in execution:

1. Design a pricing architecture and set of rules The team needs a framework. I would define rate bands, opening and closing criteria, discount limits, segment priorities and channel-cost analysis. Without rules, revenue management becomes an ongoing tactical conversation. 2. Assess revenue alongside acquisition cost I would review each rate alongside its commission, sales effort, likelihood of cancellation, average length of stay and associated spend. A price in isolation tells us little; well-interpreted net revenue tells us a great deal. 3. Connect revenue management with positioning The best pricing is not the most aggressive; it is the most consistent with the value proposition. If the price contradicts the brand or the experience, the market will notice before we do. 4. Establish review discipline I would hold short but demanding meetings, with fewer opinions and more useful questions. What is coming in, what margin does it leave, what risk are we taking on, what opportunity are we leaving out? Commercial control improves when the conversation improves.

When a hotel corrects the mistake of leaving upselling to chance, it does not merely reduce a source of leakage. It also gains clarity. And clarity is worth a great deal of money in this business because it improves the quality of small decisions—the ones that ultimately shape the year’s results. We sometimes think profitability depends above all on external factors: the destination, the season or demand behaviour. Of course, all of that has an influence. But I have seen too many hotels in similar circumstances achieve very different results to ignore the importance of internal design. That is why I always return to the same idea: in Hospitality, the advantage is not always created by those who make the most noise, but by those who organise their model more effectively. And few things bring as much order as identifying an error such as leaving upselling to chance early enough and correcting it rigorously.