Do hotels need yet another mega OTA?
14 experts shared their view
Recently, Brian Chesky, the CEO of Airbnb, declared that "hotels as the future of Airbnb." The company is including more hotels on its platform, especially independent and boutique properties in urban locations and destinations with limited home-sharing supply. This latest move aims to fill gaps in availability, attract more travelers.
This is part of Airbnb's "beyond the core" strategy to become an "everything app" for travel. In other words: Airbnb is becoming another OTA. Why?
Recently, Airbnb started charging its short-term rental (STR) hosts 15.5% commission and dropped its guest-facing service fee, mimicking Booking.com. The volume of short-term rental roomnights generated by Booking is already exceeding 85% of Airbnb's volume of roomnights.
Airbnb feels threatened for its core STR business and the above are defensive moves by the company.
The question is: do hoteliers need yet another mega OTA?
Hotels don't need another mega OTA, rather, they need partners who create real value. Airbnb's shift into hotels is less innovation and more defense. With Booking.com dominating STR volume and commissions rising, Airbnb is simply repositioning to stay competitive. But for hoteliers, the real question isn't about another distribution channel — it's about incremental demand.
If Airbnb can't bring new travelers, better economics, or clearer guest ownership, then it's just another reseller in an already crowded ecosystem. What hotels truly need is stronger direct revenue, smarter use of data, and platforms that elevate—not commoditize—their value.
So no, the industry doesn't need another mega OTA. It needs partners who help hotels grow sustainably, not just reshuffle bookings.
To be fair, one could argue Airbnb has already been functioning as an OTA for years.
It facilitates transactions, controls the marketplace, shapes pricing behavior, and now they are onboarding more hotels and aligning its commission structure.
What's changing now is not its identity, but its competitive focus. With hotels officially in the mix and guest fees disappearing, Airbnb is clearly casting its net into Booking's pond, chasing the same hotel roomnights rather than relying solely on home-sharing supply.
And that shift is what matters for hotels.
Because when OTAs compete head-to-head, hotels can benefit—if they maintain controlled distribution and position the right products per channel.
That's exactly when moving beyond static room categories and shifting to dynamic inventory becomes truly powerful: enabling hotels to tailor their product per OTA without losing control or commoditizing their assets.
So the discussion shouldn't be "Is Airbnb an OTA?" It should be: how can hotels use increased OTA competition to their advantage?
I believe we're at the point where it really doesn't matter anymore how many OTAs we have. It's gotten so bad for hotels that it almost can't get any worse — and it barely matters which one of them is draining our margins or taking over our guests. Let them fight for their share of the pie among themselves.
It's our own fault, of course. We allowed them to take control.
But now we're at a crossroads where we can finally start taking back control — of our distribution, our guests, and our profit margins — through AI.
Check out my latest article with the Open Letter to the Industry.
In my view, it's an opportunity, not a necessity.
Today many properties are over-dependent on Booking.com, often getting 60–80% of their online volume there, paying 15–25% commissions. That level of concentration is dangerous: one policy change and your P&L hurts.
Airbnb as an additional intermediary can rebalance this. If it brings similar or lower effective commissions and access to its huge user base, it can help hotels negotiate better terms with existing OTAs and reduce overall customer-acquisition costs. More players usually means more pressure on commissions.
But this only makes sense if hotels keep control of their mix. Airbnb should be one more spoke in the wheel, not a new single point of failure. Direct channels, loyalty, and CRM must remain the strategic priority; as intermediaries are there to fill the gaps in demand and reach new segments.
So: yes, hotels could test it – with clear targets, tight tracking of net RevPAR and cost of acquisition – being careful, however, of falling into the trap of swapping one dependency (Booking) for another (Airbnb).
It really does not matter in the long term, it's a cycle. In the early days, when the market is "created" more OTAs enter the market and hotels initially benefit because there is a commission war to sign up hotels as distributors compete for inventory.
But as the OTA landscape gets busy, their customer acquisition costs explode in bidding wars. And eventually those rising costs get pushed back onto hotels through higher commissions.
Airbnb is entering in a mature market so they need to compete for inventory with the others.
So when more OTAs first lower hotel costs, and later raise them. The cycle goes as: fragmentation to competition to CAC inflation, (passed down to hotels) the weak ones loose, and then consolidation with high costs for hotels.
Maybe if Airbnb brings new customers? But that is unlikely...
Do hoteliers need another distribution channel? Strictly speaking, the landscape is already fragmented. However, do we need a viable competitor with the clout to challenge the existing duopoly? Absolutely.
From a strategic perspective, reach is currency. The fundamental theory of distribution dictates that extending reach invariably drives sales velocity. Unlike niche players, Airbnb possesses the scale and global footprint to offer genuine reach, not just incremental noise.
More importantly, the Airbnb ecosystem has cultivated a distinct clientele conditioned to seek "experiences" rather than commoditized room inventory. The interesting dynamic will be seeing if this specific customer demographic carries that "experience-first" mindset into hotel bookings. For lifestyle and independent hoteliers, this presents a unique merchandising opportunity to showcase narrative over attributes to an audience we might not currently be capturing.
While the market is flooded with smaller players, the entry of a third "mega" player disrupts the status quo. It creates friction at the top of the funnel, which historically creates leverage for asset owners. If Airbnb successfully pivots, it provides a massive new shelf for our inventory to a potentially different psychographic of traveler. In the battle for occupancy, a solid new channel with real power doesn't hurt.
Quite frankly, this is a useless question. Hotels aren't the reason new OTAs emerge, so neither Airbnb nor any other OTA could care less about what hoteliers think.
Instead of wasting time on something we can't control, wouldn't we be better off talking about what we can do, what we are in control of, in spite of these big players?
Hoteliers should move past debating Airbnb's identity crisis and focus on the strategic opportunity. Airbnb is a significant distribution channel that commands the attention of a desirable market: the design-conscious, younger traveler who prioritizes local, authentic, and experiential stays. The days of Airbnb being a budget-sensitive option are long over.
Hotels should view this platform as a high-funnel customer acquisition tool:
- Access the Airbnb-First Audience: Airbnb's users are often platform-loyal, starting their search there. Listing provides exposure to a demographic that might otherwise never encounter your hotel.
- Facilitate the Conversion: When presented with a professionally managed, beautifully designed hotel, this experiential-seeking audience could convert away from private homes. This happened to me recently when searching for a stay in Kalk Bay, where a boutique hotel's unique aesthetic successfully captured my booking.
- Ensure Product Fit: Before listing, hoteliers must honestly assess their offering. The Airbnb audience prioritizes local, unique character; anything that closely resembles big chain standardization or lacks a distinct aesthetic will not work on this platform.
The real question for hoteliers is not whether we need another OTA, but how we can strategically leverage this specific platform to expose our differentiated, "off-brand" product to this valuable and hard-to-reach demographic.
The novelty of Airbnb has worn off. Short-term rentals has become a mainstream, commoditized product.
This is the reason why Airbnb needs hotels to reinvigorate its product line, and ultimately its bottom line.
Another reason is that Airbnb is mimicking its main rival Booking.com. Why? The volume of short-term rental roomnights generated by Booking is already exceeding 85% of Airbnb's volume of roomnights. Airbnb feels threatened for its core STR business and these are all defensive moves by the company.
This is why Airbnb is becoming another boring OTA and is venturing into hotels, local experiences, why not air?
The only difference is that Booking and Expedia have mastered the science of being boring OTAs. Plus, they have amassed huge 200 plus million member loyalty programs, while Airbnb has none.
For many independents hotels - the main target of Airbnb - the direct vs indirect (OTAs, bedbanks, etc.) online booking ratio is negative 1:3 to 1:4 and even 1:5, i.e. only 20% of bookings are direct. Why do the independents have such an overdependence on the OTAs? Systemic underinvestments in talent, technology and digital marketing are the main reasons.
So, no, hotels do not need another mega OTA.
I think the market has already reached saturation, not only because there are too many intermediaries, but also because their underlying models have become practically indistinguishable. Any new entrant could still find space in narrow client segments or particular travel subcultures, though even there, we are witnessing a gradual leveling that limits the potential impact of yet another large OTA.
The real question is no longer whether we need an additional marketplace, but whether the entire distribution structure remains aligned with how people will search and transact in the future.
Instead of a new front end that repeats the same logic, what the sector truly lacks is a set of robust data back ends and large reservoirs of ARI designed to feed AI models. My take is that the next interface for travel will be conversational, meaning agents will need standardized, open, machine-readable layers to orchestrate demand without friction.
In this perspective, another mega OTA adds little. We need mega containers of structured travel data that can serve as the operational spine.
That is where I would place my two cents.
"Do hoteliers need yet another mega OTA?" Perhaps the real question is whether hotels can afford to turn away ready-to-book travellers.
This isn't Airbnb's first move into hotels. We became their first hotel technology partner in 2018 because they recognised early that traditional hospitality supply represented an opportunity. And, with regulatory restrictions tightening in core markets, Airbnb increasingly has more demand than their STR inventory can accommodate.Here's what matters for hoteliers: the vast majority of Airbnb users go straight to the platform without comparing options elsewhere. These aren't guests hotels are losing to a competitor—they're guests hotels couldn't guarantee being able to reach otherwise. It's additional demand, or a chance for hotels to compete with STR inventory in its own backyard.
And that matters particularly now. Our Changing Traveller Report recently revealed that OTAs have overtaken search engines as travellers' primary hotel research starting point, while 88% have the same or stronger desire to travel next year. This growing appetite becomes especially relevant when Airbnb's audience—experience-seekers drawn to unique stays—aligns naturally with what independent properties offer.
So, the real question isn't whether hotels need another OTA. It's whether they're positioned to capture demand where it exists.
I feel Airbnb's move does not create a new problem — it exposes an existing one.
Whether it's Booking, Expedia, or now Airbnb, large intermediaries dominate because they offer a frictionless, trusted, personalized shopping environment at scale. If a guest can browse thousands of options, compare transparently, and check out in seconds, they will keep gravitating toward OTAs — regardless of how many exist.
Another mega-OTA doesn't fundamentally change the economics of hotel distribution. Hotels will continue to face high acquisition costs, increasing commoditization and unauthorized rate distribution unless they focus on direct channels.
Airbnb entering the mix only concentrates even more consumer attention into a handful of platforms.
So… Do Hotels Need Another OTA?
No. But hotels do need what OTAs consistently provide: superior merchandising, seamless UX, transparent comparison, and an ability to convert undecided travelers at scale.
Instead of fearing another mega-OTA, the industry should interpret this as a signal:
your distribution strategy cannot be built on resisting intermediaries; it must be built on making the direct channel as competitive. If hotels modernize their direct channels and use intermediaries strategically rather than reactively, the rise of another OTA becomes a manageable shift instead of a threat.
Related article by Chinmai Sharma
The current OTA distribution landscape is fairly limited in respect to competition, with two groups sharing the lion-share of reservations in the USA and Europe. In this duopoly, the OTAs will eventually reach a market position which allows them to dictate commission and pricing to independent hotels.
In a free-market economy, another competitor would be welcome and present opportunities for hotels. It will not lessen the reliance on OTAs, but at least prevent the current market-makers from dictating their terms.
If Airbnb is positioning itself to expand its hotel portfolio, remove guest fees, and increase commissions, hoteliers face an important question: does this new channel drive incremental guests, or simply reshuffle existing demand at a higher cost of acquisition?
From what I see in the market, Airbnb’s traveler base does skew younger, more experience-driven, and more international. That presents opportunities for independent and boutique hotels, especially those seeking greater visibility or efficient guest acquisition. When used strategically, Airbnb can help fill shoulder nights in urban markets, diversify mix, and reach travelers unlikely to book through traditional hotel distribution funnels.
But the strategic risk is one the industry knows well. If Airbnb begins delivering the same high-intent, price-shopping customers as other OTAs, its value becomes transactional, while commission pressure rises. That dynamic already erodes margin across the industry, and adding another powerful intermediary only magnifies it. The real test will be whether the platform can sustain incremental demand at scale.
The fundamentals remain unchanged. Hotels should rigorously test incremental demand, protect rate integrity, negotiate terms with discipline, while continuing to invest in direct booking channels, loyalty programs, and first-party data. Airbnb’s evolution doesn’t fundamentally redefine distribution, it simply introduces another intermediary that must be managed with clear guardrails and a sharp understanding of demand quality.
Revenue Optimization
Your content on Hospitality Net?
Hospitality Net membership explained
