It is the usual story that repeats itself: in the role of David and Goliath this time we find the so-called OTAs (online booking agencies) such as Booking and Expedia, who dominate the online travel market, and hoteliers, who find showcases and opportunities in these portals but who complain about the limitations of competition in favor – as often happens – of the web giants. "The clause that prevents hotels from charging lower rates on their site harms the little ones", he complains Federalberghi. "We offer visibility to everyone and services that small hoteliers could not afford", replies from Booking. But who is right? Let's start from the beginning.
The lawsuit began exactly one year ago: on 7 May 2014 Federalberghi informed theCompetition and market authority (and the French and Swedish associations do the same) the so-called “Most Favorite Nation Clauses”i.e. the clauses which bind the accommodation facilities not to offer their hotel services at better prices and conditions through other online booking agencies and, in general, through any other booking channel, including hotel websites. The Antitrust therefore opens the investigation against the US groups Priceline (which controls the Dutch company Booking), and Expedia (founded in '96 under the aegis of Microsoft): while the latter - which in Italy have a much lower market than the portal Booking.com – stalled, Priceline well in advance of the deadline (July 2015) spontaneously presented its commitments in December 2014 for a "good compromise", as it defines it Andrew D'Amico, Regional Director for Italy.
On 21 April, the Authority accepted the solutions proposed by the Dutch portal, and the same did the bodies of France and Sweden: yes to the so-called "parity rate" (the possibility of publishing different prices), but only on other OTAs and not on the accommodation facility's website. The pronouncement can be challenged at the Tar ("We are evaluating with our lawyers", he reveals Alexander Nucara, General Manager of Federalberghi) but in the meantime the case leaps to European level. In fact, if Booking claims that "the decisions of the bodies of Italy, France and Sweden have been approved by the EU Commission", Federalberghi considers this thesis "groundless" and invokes the case of Germany: "In Germany a judge has established the complete parity rate, with a final sentence".
While waiting for Brussels to standardize the regulation with a regulatory intervention, however, there are other aspects to make the matter even more complicated. First of all, what Nucara defines as an "absolutely anti-historical" solution in the age of the internet and online bookings (according to data provided by the French Antitrust Authority, 93% of customers now use the web to organize a trip): the possibility, offered by the Antitrust-Booking agreement and valid – like all the others – from next July 1st, to offer discounts on offline channels. That is, customers who send an email, call the reception or go in person to the agency or hotel. "So according to the Antitrust, if a customer from Australia contacts me using Booking, I have to tell him to call me or send me an email: an obvious complication for the consumer".
In addition to a possible impropriety towards the portal. “There's no need to wage war – D'Amico explains -: as far as we're concerned, Booking and hotels are partners, not rivals. The various channels are just more solutions for the customer, who will choose the one that suits him best". The return to offline is therefore not an encouraged solution, even if in fact in some countries many consumers have learned not to disdain it: again the French Antitrust points out that it is true that 93% look for the offer online, but it is also true That only 66% actually book online, perhaps preferring to contact the structure directly. However, if this aspect was included by Booking itself in the agreement, the portal based in the Netherlands would instead see the possible circumvention of the non-total parity rate as an impropriety on the part of the hoteliers, in fact very possible through a technicality that few have noticed, "and that Booking took good care not to specify in the email that it invited to the hotels after the agreement with the Guarantor Authority", Nucara denounces. In fact, the agreement provides for the total “parity availability”, i.e. the full freedom for hotels to establish the number and type of rooms to be put up for sale on the portals, without the obligation to grant preferential conditions to OTAs. In other words, a hotel can put standard rooms on Booking and economy rooms on its website, thus applying - in fact - lower prices, even if (in theory) commensurate with a different quality of the service offered.
"We will focus on this", announces Federalberghi, which in the press release issued on 21 April also invites consumers "to be smart". “This attitude would be incorrect – replies D'Amico -: the services offered by Booking are an advantage precisely for small and medium enterprises. We offer instant visibility from the moment of registration and then a series of free web marketing services, not to mention translation and assistance in 42 languages. This means that the Ostuni agritourism can communicate with Chinese or Russian customers even without having the skills or investing to obtain them. We also have an app and recently launched the new app "Booking Now", for quick last minute bookings”.
“All – continues D'Amico – in exchange for only one transaction fee, which is on average 16,8% in Italy and which has also decreased slightly in recent years”. Commissions, another area of dispute. According to Federalberghi, these would in fact reach almost 30% "according to a perverse mechanism - Federalberghi argues - for which you pay more to have a better position, but you do not choose the position but only the structure to pass in front of. It practically becomes an auction, and only by raising the stakes a lot can one be very clearly visible”. “This is only partially true – let Booking know -: it is true that the commission can rise to 20-30%, but only and exclusively by choice of the hotelier. All the services are still offered to those who pay less". "And shouldn't the role of the Antitrust be precisely that of protecting the little ones, those who cannot afford to 'buy' a better position?" counters Nucara, who also recalls the giant's golden affairs Priceline, listed at Nasdaq and which closed 2014 with a turnover of 8,44 billion dollars (approximately 7,7 billion euros, +23% on 2013), with a profit that in the last quarter alone reached almost half a billion dollars. Instead, during the year, they were 346 million total bookings made on Booking.com worldwide (+28%) for a value of over 50 billion dollars.
The last diatribe is instead on a rather unpleasant theme, that of the so-called brand jacking: typing the names of the hotels directly on the search engine (Google, for example), very often the first answers refer to the Booking portal. “Booking buys advertising on hotel search keywords – says Nucara -. This practice, unlike the others which are simply anti-competitive, in our opinion is really an abuse". “That's not the case – replies D'Amico -: this formula offers only one more opportunity to the hotelier, avoiding him having to invest in web marketing. Moreover, it is precisely for small hotels that it is more convenient to be identified with Booking, an internationally recognized and trusted brand". Waiting for developments (and the decision on Expedia), from next July 1 the situation will be this: "get smart", as Federalberghi invites, or continue to use a fast and reliable platform such as Booking? The choice, as always, is up to the consumer.
