OTA rate disparity: strategy, risks and best practices

Since the end of rate parity clauses, confirmed in 2024 by the Court of Justice of the European Union, hoteliers have regained full freedom: they can now display different prices between their direct website and OTAs.

On paper, it’s a victory. In operational reality, however, it’s a balancing act.

Because the issue is no longer legal. It is strategic.

The theory: “I recover my commission”

Many hoteliers reason this way: “If I sell 15% cheaper on my website, I recover the OTA commission.”

The logic is understandable, but it overlooks an important point: there is no commission unless there is a booking.

Applying a strong and permanent rate disparity (+15%, +20%, sometimes +30%) can have side effects that are often underestimated:

• Loss of visibility

• Lower positioning in rankings

• Decrease in volume

• Reduced acquisition opportunities (no Billboard effect driving traffic to your website)

Because we often forget that an OTA booking is also, very often, a first encounter with a guest who may never have heard about your property otherwise.

However, in situations of rate parity, the “theory” of Revenue Management runs into practical reality. While we are revenue experts and strongly committed to methodology and structured approaches, we cannot ignore the commercial reality: today, a significant share of guests booking through Booking or Expedia automatically benefit from pricing advantages (Genius, One Key, etc.). In practice, even with “official” parity, your property may already appear cheaper on these platforms. In other words, theory meets reality.

Rate disparity: neither good nor bad but contextual

Rate disparity is neither good nor bad in itself. It becomes risky when it is applied uniformly, without taking market conditions into account.

If your hotel can genuinely sell at X +20%, then why not fully assume it across all channels?

If your website has sufficient visibility and you want to acquire more direct customers, you can close OTA rate codes during key periods toward the end of the pick-up phase or even from the start of the sales window.

Work on the product, the perceived value, the conditions and the services included. The issue is not only the displayed price but the overall consistency of your positioning.

Our recommendation #1 – Manage rate disparity strategically 

You shouldn’t rob Peter to pay Paul (sacrificing volume to improve net ADR). Rather than applying a single gap throughout the year, we recommend a differentiated strategy depending on the period.

During peak season or on high-demand dates, when demand clearly exceeds supply, a rate disparity of around 10-15% can be justified. OTA visibility remains strong and competitive pressure is lower.

On the other hand, during low season or open periods, when the market is in a situation of oversupply, limiting the disparity to around 5% maximum allows you to:

• Offset the impact of OTA loyalty programs

• Stay competitive in the market

• Preserve volume

• Without fully giving up the direct booking advantage

In other words: protect margin when the market allows it, and protect volume when the market requires it.

In practice, many hoteliers opt for a simpler solution: applying the highest disparity across the entire calendar to avoid multiplying configurations. This is understandable. But operational simplicity should not lead to commercial underperformance.

Our recommendation #2 – rate disparity is only one lever among others