Blog · Territory, capacity and quota planning · Hospitality
How a hotel group's commercial team builds room-night mix per property by segment from the property management export, sets each property's expected mix from its own comparable set, and lists the properties whose corporate or group share has drifted from where properties like them sit, without ever comparing a resort to an airport hotel.
A regional director looks at RevPAR by property and knows which hotels are behind. What RevPAR does not say is whether a hotel is behind because it has too little corporate business for a hotel of its kind, or because a group account it relied on stopped coming. The reservation export says both. This guide sets out segment mix per property, the comparable set, and the list.
Per property, per quarter:
Segment share = room nights in the segment ÷ total room nights
For each segment in a short group-wide list: corporate negotiated, corporate transient, group, leisure, contract, other.
And the assertion:
total room nights = Σ segments
A reservation with no segment or an unmapped rate code fails it and is listed.
Property and account identifiers only.
From the property master: same type, same market tier, similar size. Four to twelve properties. The expected mix is the median share per segment across the set, computed each quarter from the group's own data. A property is compared to its set, and only its set.
| Property | Set | Corporate share | Set median | Gap in nights | Group share trend |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P-114 | City full-service, tier 2 | 22% | 38% | 4,100 | Flat |
| P-207 | Airport select | 41% | 44% | 600 | −6 pts over 3 qtrs |
| P-088 | Resort | 4% | 5% | 200 | +2 pts |
Property P-114 has a corporate sales gap worth four thousand room nights a quarter against hotels like it. Property P-207 has a small corporate gap and a group business decline that has run for three quarters, which is an account question, not a mix question. Property P-088 is a resort and is doing what resorts do.
| Property | Corporate nights | Corporate revenue | Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| P-114 | 2,900 | $410,000 | $141 |
| Set median | $158 |
Below its set on share and on rate. Two findings, both real, computed separately.
Compared across types. The resort has a corporate gap against the city hotels. It does not.
Rate codes unmapped. Every property maps codes its own way; the group-wide list is the fix, and the failed assertion lists the rest.
Mix read as revenue. Share held, rate lost, nobody notices. Report both.
Set too small. Two properties are not a norm. State the set size and flag sets under four.
Mapped once, the reservation export and the property master produce the mix, the set medians, the gaps and the trends every quarter. Covirage builds this from the exports as they are. The hospitality page describes the setup, and the property penetration guide covers the account-level view that explains a group or corporate decline.
Properties of the same type, market and size within the group's own portfolio: city-centre full-service hotels in secondary markets, say. A resort is never compared to an airport hotel. The set is stated on each property's line.
The market segment or rate code on each reservation in the property management system, mapped to a short list of segments the group uses everywhere. The mapping is written once and applied to every property's export.
No. Mix is room nights by segment. Revenue by segment is reported beside it, because a property can hold its corporate share and lose its corporate rate. Both are computed; neither is derived from the other.