Channel mix analysis — where the revenue comes from

The November P&L report is on Adam’s desk. “Daniel, something doesn’t add up. We paid Booking.com about EUR 9,300 in commission last month — that’s over EUR 110,000 a year, and that’s just one channel. Why don’t we drop them?”

Daniel pulls out another report — the full channel mix. “Because if we cut Booking loose, our occupancy would fall 30-35% within months. Yes, the commission is ~EUR 112,000 a year — but the revenue Booking brings is ~EUR 745,000. The net revenue is ~EUR 633,000, which is indispensable. The question isn’t ‘do we drop Booking,’ it’s ‘how do we shift the mix’ so we depend on them less.”

This dialogue is the heart of channel-mix analysis. A hotel never stands or falls on a single channel — it changes through a ratio evolution. And the basis of that evolution is the monthly channel-mix analysis.

In lesson 6 we introduced the channels, and in lesson 21 the “channel” became one of the main segmentation views in the four-lens system. Now we go deeper: how do we analyze the channel structure monthly and annually? What makes a healthy channel mix, and when should you worry about a given channel shift?

Channel-mix analysis is a measure of a hotel’s distribution health — a mature organization reviews it monthly, and it underpins strategic decisions (a new OTA contract, a direct-marketing budget increase, terminating a wholesale contract).

What channel-mix analysis looks at

Classic channel-mix analysis shows 6 dimensions per channel:

1. Revenue — room revenue per channel
2. Room nights — nights sold per channel
3. Gross ADR — average room rate, before commission
4. Commission cost — the OTA, GDS, wholesale commission
5. Net ADR — gross ADR minus commission
6. Mix share — the channel’s share of total revenue

A concrete monthly example — Hotel Peaqplus City’s November channel mix:

Channel	Room nights	Revenue	Gross ADR	Commission	Net ADR	Mix share
Booking.com	620	EUR 62,000	EUR 100	15%	EUR 85	34.2%
Expedia	180	EUR 20,700	EUR 115	18%	EUR 94	11.4%
Direct (own web)	320	EUR 36,800	EUR 115	3%	EUR 112	20.3%
Corporate (negotiated)	260	EUR 22,100	EUR 85	0%	EUR 85	12.2%
Group (group contract)	180	EUR 14,040	EUR 78	0%	EUR 78	7.7%
GDS	40	EUR 4,400	EUR 110	10%	EUR 99	2.4%
Wholesale	80	EUR 5,360	EUR 67	30%	EUR 47	3.0%
Walk-in + phone	108	EUR 15,660	EUR 145	0%	EUR 145	8.7%
Total	1,788	EUR 181,060	~EUR 101	~11%	~EUR 91	100%

This is a rich table — a mature RM reads at least 5 strategic messages from it immediately.

Reading the 6 dimensions

1. Mix share — balanced or dependent?

Mix share says what percentage comes from a given channel. Hotel Peaqplus City:

• OTA total (Booking + Expedia) = 45.6%
• Direct = 20.3%
• Corporate = 12.2%
• Walk-in + phone = 8.7%
• Group = 7.7%
• Wholesale = 3.0%
• GDS = 2.4%

In a healthy city-centre 4-star, the OTA share runs at 35-50%, direct at 20-30%. Hotel Peaqplus City fits healthily: OTA at 45.6% (a touch high, but still acceptable), direct at 20.3% (an adequate minimum, but raisable).

2. Net ADR — what we actually “see”

The gross vs. net ADR gap measures the commission cost. Hotel Peaqplus City sees an average EUR 101 gross ADR, but only ~EUR 91 net — and the commission makes a significant difference per channel:

• Direct: gross EUR 115 → net EUR 112 (only EUR 3 cost)
• Booking.com: gross EUR 100 → net EUR 85 (EUR 15 cost = 15%)
• Expedia: gross EUR 115 → net EUR 94 (EUR 21 cost = 18%)
• Wholesale: gross EUR 67 → net EUR 47 (EUR 20 cost = 30%)

Wholesale is a classic problem here: low gross and high commission = the lowest net ADR (EUR 47). That’s why in lesson 6 we noted: wholesale is good for low-season fill, but dangerous if too large a share goes through it. We cover this in depth in lesson 43 (Distribution costs and net ADR).

3. How much the hotel loses to commission

The total commission cost for Hotel Peaqplus City in November:

• Booking: EUR 9,300 (15% × 62,000)
• Expedia: EUR 3,726 (18% × 20,700)
• Direct: EUR 1,104 (3% × 36,800)
• GDS: EUR 440 (10% × 4,400)
• Wholesale: EUR 1,608 (30% × 5,360)
• Total: EUR 16,178 in one month

Annually that’s ~EUR 195,000 — in an 80-room hotel, commission cost is the 3rd-largest expense after labour and property upkeep.

Channel-mix analysis is a strategic tool: can that ~EUR 195,000 be cut? Raising the direct share by +5 pp (about 20% → 25%) means a ~EUR 15,000 annual commission saving — plus the guest relationship (email, CRM, repeat) becomes the hotel’s.

4. Revenue-weighted channel analysis

Mix share is only one metric. A more mature analysis looks from three angles:

Channel	Room-nights share	Revenue share	Net revenue share
Booking.com	34.7%	34.2%	32.0%
Expedia	10.1%	11.4%	10.3%
Direct	17.9%	20.3%	21.6%
Corporate	14.5%	12.2%	13.4%
Group	10.1%	7.7%	8.5%
Walk-in + phone	6.0%	8.7%	9.5%
GDS	2.2%	2.4%	2.4%
Wholesale	4.5%	3.0%	2.3%

The room nights vs. revenue vs. net revenue are three different “mix shares” — a channel can be low on room-nights share but high on revenue share (e.g. walk-in: just 6.0% of nights but 8.7% of revenue, from the high ADR), or the reverse (wholesale: 4.5% of nights but only 2.3% of net revenue, from the low ADR + high commission).

The net revenue share is the true market position — it’s what counts for the owner’s pocket.

Healthy vs. dangerous channel mix

A hotel’s channel mix can be dangerous in several ways. A few classic patterns:

Danger 1: OTA over-dependence

If a hotel’s OTA share is 65%+, that’s strong OTA dependence — the OTA can, at any time:

• Raise the commission (Booking 15% → 18%).
• Downrank the hotel (citing content score, response time).
• Impose new terms (mandatory Genius / Preferred programs).

Hotel Peaqplus City’s OTA share is 45.6% — stable middle. A hotel at 65% is in a risk position.

Danger 2: Low direct

If the direct share is below 15%, the hotel isn’t standing on its own brand strength. The guest knowledge (email, CRM data) belongs to the OTA, not the hotel. A 5-10% direct share is a strategic problem.

Hotel Peaqplus City’s direct share is 20.3% — an adequate minimum, but 30%+ is the goal (covered in lesson 49).

Danger 3: Single-channel dominance

If one channel comes in at 50%+ (e.g. only Booking.com), the hotel relies on a single channel. If Booking.com or the hotel-Booking contract hits a problem, the hotel sees a dramatically falling occupancy within 30 days. Diversification (several channels between 15-25%) is the basis of risk reduction.

Danger 4: Wholesale overweight

If wholesale comes in at 10%+ and the hotel isn’t a seasonal resort, that’s dangerous. Wholesale’s low ADR + high commission = drastically low net ADR, and it displaces the higher-paying channels (displacement, lesson 5).

Hotel Peaqplus City’s wholesale share is 3% — under control.

Danger 5: Corporate monopoly

If a single corporate account gives 15%+ of occupancy, the hotel ends up in an exposed bargaining position with that company. A mature RM organization builds several corporate accounts so none dominates.

Hotel Peaqplus City’s corporate negotiated share is 12.2% — spread across several accounts (Acme, BankX, and 5 others). A stable position.

Trend analysis and time-series

A single monthly channel-mix analysis is just a snapshot. The real value is in the trend.

Hotel Peaqplus City’s last 6 months, OTA-share and direct-share trend:

Month	OTA share	Direct share	Note
June	52%	18%	High leisure season, OTA-strong
July	54%	17%	Peak leisure
August	50%	20%	Stabilizing
September	47%	22%	Corporate returns, direct strengthens
October	46%	21%	Stable
November	45.6%	20.3%	Current

Two readings:

• The OTA share fell 52% → 45.6% over the 6 months. That’s a positive trend — the hotel is less OTA-dependent, with direct + corporate compensating.
• The direct share rose 18% → 20.3%. That’s slow but positive — the hotel is successfully building its own channel.

A trend chart like this is a standard part of the monthly GM report. The Peaqplus Dashboard module shows it automatically, in time-series form (3, 6, 12-month lookback).

Channel-mix and segment-mix overlap

In lesson 21 we saw: channel and market segment overlap but are not identical. Hotel Peaqplus City’s Booking.com segment breakdown:

Market segment on Booking.com	Share within Booking.com
Transient leisure	72%
Transient business	20%
Transient occasion	8%

Booking.com is predominantly a leisure channel — transient business is only 20%. That’s an important point: if the hotel wants to grow the corporate share, it shouldn’t look on Booking.com but through GDS, direct corporate contracts, and sales activity.

The Peaqplus Dashboard module for channel analysis

The Peaqplus Dashboard module is the central surface for channel-mix analysis. A few concrete capabilities:

• Daily, weekly, monthly, annual channel-mix view — for a given period it shows the 6 dimensions across every channel instantly.
• Time-series trend charts — 3, 6, 12, 24-month lookback (the OTA-, direct-, wholesale-share trend).
• Net revenue analysis — gross vs. net ADR and revenue per channel, with the commission cost transparent.
• Anomaly flagging — if a channel deviates dramatically from expectation (e.g. the Booking.com mix share jumps +8 pp), the module flags it.

A concrete daily situation: at the Monday meeting Adam asks: “How much did we pay Booking.com last quarter?” The Peaqplus Dashboard module gives a report within seconds: “Q3 (Jul-Sep): EUR 28,940 commission on Booking.com, 1,920 bookings, 18,060 room-nights.”

In lesson 43 (Distribution costs and net ADR) we cover this more deeply — the advanced-level channel-profitability analyses.

Back to Adam’s question

Adam’s question at the start of the lesson was: “why don’t we drop Booking?” Now Daniel can answer with the analysis’s number system. The full annual breakdown for Booking.com (extrapolated from the November figures):

• Annual revenue on Booking.com: ~EUR 745,000
• Annual commission cost: ~EUR 112,000 (15%)
• Net annual revenue: ~EUR 633,000

“Adam, you can’t replace that ~EUR 633,000 of net revenue overnight. The people who go to Booking.com now wouldn’t all move to direct if we cut Booking loose — some would go to a competitor hotel. Our estimate is we’d lose 45-55%, which would mean a ~EUR 280,000-340,000 annual net-revenue drop.”

“So what’s the solution?” — Adam asks.

“Raising the direct share from 20.3% to 28-30% over the next 12 months. That naturally lowers the Booking share, because part of the bookings shifts toward our own channel. Concrete actions: member-rate activation, a stronger Google Hotel Ads presence, a loyalty program. Estimated annual commission saving: ~EUR 25,000-30,000 — and the guest relationship becomes ours too (email, CRM, repeat).”

Adam nods. “So not against Booking, but for direct.”

“Exactly. Booking has to be part of the mix — but down from 45.6% to 35%, with direct up from 20% to 30%. It’s a 12-month strategy, not a one-day decision.”

This is the point of channel-mix analysis — not a snap decision, but a ratio evolution. In lesson 49 (Loyalty, direct booking and building your own channel) we walk through the concrete actions too.

Key takeaways

• Channel-mix analysis shows 6 dimensions per channel: revenue, room nights, gross ADR, commission cost, net ADR, mix share.
• Net ADR is the true market position — the gap between gross ADR and commission cost is often dramatic (e.g. wholesale: gross EUR 67 → net EUR 47).
• Healthy mix principles: OTA 35-50%, direct 20-30%, no channel over 50%. A healthy hotel is diversified.
• Dangerous mix patterns: OTA over-dependence (65%+), low direct (below 15%), single-channel dominance, wholesale overweight (10%+), corporate monopoly (one account at 15%+).
• Read the channel mix in trend, not as a snapshot — and the mix isn’t a daily decision but a 12-month ratio evolution.