An OTA commission isn't a "cost" — it's an allocation

There isn't an accommodation operator alive who doesn't wince at the OTA (online travel agency) commission rate. Rakuten Travel, Jalan, Ikkyu, Booking.com, Expedia — roughly 10–18% vanishes from revenue for each channel. Looking at that number alone, it's tempting to leap to "OTAs are exploitative; let's switch to direct."

But shift the view a little. If OTAs didn't exist, what would it have taken to win that booking? A multilingual booking site, a payment system, ad operations, exposure to travellers around the world. Weigh the cost of building all that yourself, and the commission is "the outsourced cost of sales and marketing." The problem isn't that the commission exists, but whether you're designing its allocation yourself.

"Which OTA, showing what, and how" is strategy

Domestic and international OTAs differ in their users, how they search, and their price sensitivity. Placing the same plan, shown the same way, on Rakuten Travel and Booking.com is like building the same shelf in a Kyoto department store and a Paris select shop. Give each channel a role. Let OTAs handle first meetings with new guests, and invite them into a direct relationship from the second stay. Treat the commission as the price of that first meeting.

Raising the direct-booking share is the right goal, but get the order wrong and it fails. Cut OTAs off abruptly and exposure drops, occupancy falls, and you scramble to discount — a vicious cycle. First build a reason to book direct (official-site-only perks, the best inventory, careful communication before and after the stay), and keep using OTAs as the entrance. When a flow of "discover on the OTA, return through the official site" forms, the commission starts working as an investment.

Stop hating the commission and make an allocation sheet. Which channel, what percentage, for what role. When you can explain that in your own words, OTAs become the sales staff of your property.