Blog · Wallet share and penetration · Hospitality
How a hotel group's sales team measures production against negotiated corporate rate agreements from the reservation export: room nights consumed per account per property against the volume the agreement was priced on, the accounts under-producing and the properties they are not using, the accounts over-producing whose rate is now too low, and the list for the annual RFP season.
A hotel group's national sales team negotiates rates against promised volume. Twelve months later the reservation export says what each account actually produced, at which properties, on which rate codes. This guide sets out production against commitment per account and per property, the leakage to other codes, and the two lists that go into the RFP season.
Per account, per property, per agreement year:
Production = room nights on the negotiated rate code Commitment = room nights the agreement was priced on Production share = production ÷ commitment Leakage = room nights by the account's travellers on other rate codes
Per account:
Property spread = properties with production ÷ properties in the agreement
Account identifiers only.
Σ accounts' production = room nights on negotiated codes, per property
A negotiated rate code with no agreement on file fails it and is listed; those are expired agreements still bookable, and they are their own leak.
Agreement year to date, nine months.
| Account | Committed | Produced | Share | Properties in agreement | Used | Leakage nights | List |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2207 | 4,000 | 1,100 | 28% | 12 | 3 | 900 | Under: leakage and spread |
| 4471 | 1,500 | 3,400 | 227% | 6 | 6 | 40 | Over: rate review |
| 9034 | 2,500 | 2,100 | 84% | 8 | 7 | 120 | On track |
| 1187 | 800 | 90 | 11% | 4 | 1 | 10 | Under: dormant account |
Account 2207 promised four thousand nights, produced a quarter of that on the rate, and its travellers booked nine hundred more nights on public rates at hotels where the agreement applied. That is a travel-programme compliance conversation with the account, and a commercial one about the rate if production does not follow. Account 4471 brings more than twice what its rate was priced for.
| Account 2207 | Committed | Produced |
|---|---|---|
| City A, two hotels | 1,600 | 900 |
| City B, three hotels | 1,200 | 200 |
| Seven others | 1,200 | 0 |
The account uses the group in one city. The RFP conversation is about the other eleven properties, and the sales manager for each knows which account to ask about.
Production without commitment. Every account looks like a volume; nobody knows against what.
Leakage invisible. The reservation's company field is not carried and the travellers' public-rate bookings are lost.
Expired codes bookable. The assertion catches them.
Over-production ignored. The best accounts keep the cheapest rates.
Mapped once, the reservation export and the agreement file produce production, share, leakage and spread per account every month, and the two lists before the RFP season. Covirage builds this from the exports as they are. The hospitality page describes the setup, and the property penetration guide covers the spread measure in depth.
The RFP response or the rate agreement: the expected room nights per year, per property where stated, that the rate was priced against. It is recorded per account on the agreement file, with the date, and it is the denominator.
Common. A corporate traveller books on a public rate or a travel agent rate at a hotel where the agreement applies. The report shows production on the negotiated code and production from the same account's travellers on other codes, where the reservation carries the company, and the second is the leakage.
Because the rate was set for the committed volume. An account that brings double is a good account paying a rate priced for half the business, and the RFP is the moment to either raise it or trade it for property spread. The list says which accounts, with the numbers.