According to STR, hotels spend an average of 2.5% of room revenue on marketing. For a property running a $100 average daily rate, that equates to $2.50 per occupied room. In an environment where a single targeted click can cost $3 or more, without any guarantee of a booking, it raises an important question: is the issue really budget size, or how that budget is being used?
NB: This is an article from L’Orangerie Group
Subscribe to our weekly newsletter and stay up to date
Across paid search, retargeting, metasearch, and OTA channels, hotels routinely pay to convert guests who had already made the decision to book them. Consider a family planning a spring break trip to Myrtle Beach. They discover a hotel through organic search or word of mouth, visit the website, and mentally select it as their top choice. However, like most travelers before booking, they continue comparing options. Days later, when they return to book, they click on a paid ad, metasearch listing, or OTA link for the same hotel and complete their reservation.
In this case, the marketing channel receives credit for driving the booking, even though the guest had already chosen to stay at the hotel. At the same time, competitor hotels appear alongside the property throughout the booking journey, forcing hotels to continually pay to defend demand they had already earned.
This is relatively common and one of the most significant and underexamined attribution problems in hotel marketing.
Why Attribution Models Miss the Full Picture
Most hotel marketing performance is measured through attribution models that assign credit for a booking to a specific marketing channel. In most cases, last-click attribution is used, which gives full credit to the final interaction before the reservation is completed. As a framework for reporting purposes, it’s practical, but using it as a reflection of guest booking behavior is sometimes misleading.
Travelers rarely book immediately after discovering a hotel. Instead, they research across multiple devices, consult travel companions, return to OTA listings, and revisit the hotel’s own website multiple times before committing. A guest who first encounters a property on a mobile device and completes the booking a week later on a laptop (or whose spouse finalizes the reservation) will almost certainly be attributed to whichever channel appeared last, regardless of where the actual decision was made.
The result causes performance reports and analytics to significantly overstate the effectiveness of paid channels. Campaigns appear to generate strong returns when they may primarily be intercepting guests who had already chosen the property. The marketing did not create the demand; it simply captured it at a cost.
This gap between reported attribution and actual demand generation has a name: recycled demand. And it is costing hotels more than most sales, marketing, and revenue managers realize.
The Recycled Demand Trap
Recycled demand refers to bookings that appear to be credited to marketing channels but originate from guests who had already selected the property. It most often appears in branded search, retargeting, metasearch, and OTA placements; channels designed to capture guests already considering the property.
As competitors surface throughout the booking journey, hotels feel compelled to remain visible, creating a defensive marketing cycle. The result is sustained spending to secure bookings that may have occurred anyway. High conversion volume can look like growth, but in many cases it simply reflects demand the hotel already owns.
What Hotels Should Be Asking Instead
The question is not whether to invest in digital channels – that is clearly essential to drive revenue. However, all digital marketers should know the difference between the channels that create demand and the ones that collect it.
This distinction has meaningful implications for how hotels evaluate performance, allocate budget, and measure success. Attribution data and platform reporting are still useful but they cannot, on their own, distinguish between revenue that is truly incremental and revenue that would have materialized regardless. When that distinction is missing, optimization efforts risk reinforcing the wrong behavior and rewarding channels that intercept intent rather than channels that build it.
The best frame for incremental bookings is whether the share of bookings attributed to a given channel would have occurred without it. By answering that question, it can change how hotels allocate their budgets and how their direct booking strategies should be prioritized.
As guest journeys grow more complex as digital competition intensifies, this clarity seems essential for online booking success. In today’s digital ecosystem, knowing the difference between owning demand and paying for it may be one of the most important advantages a hotel can have.
