Hotel Website vs App Revenue

of one

Hotel Websites vs App Revenue

There are no solid figures that strongly show the breakdown between the website revenues and the native app revenues of the specified Sunseeker Resort's competitors. This could be due to the ongoing digital transformation on the part of the companies or the travelers' wariness in booking through mobile phones. Based on a mobile travel trend survey, 51% of the respondents' book accommodations on their websites and 49% via mobile apps. Around one in three Expedia bookings were done through mobile devices.


The following are some of the helpful findings from relevant sources that can give a partial picture of the revenues from websites versus from native apps:


  • Based on a mobile travel trend survey, 51% of those surveyed book their accommodations using websites. Meanwhile, the other 49% book via mobile apps.
  • Only 23% of those who are traveling for pleasure strongly believe that they will obtain the same accommodation data on their smartphones versus their personal computers (PC).
  • Based on an eMarketer prediction, online travel-related revenue from mobile will rise to more than 40%.
  • According to a report from Smart Insights, the conversion rates for the travel sector is around 2.4% on desktop websites. However, the conversion rate is lower on mobile websites at just 0.7%.
  • Between mobile apps and mobile websites, the conversion rate is five times more when using the former due to the more streamlined app look.
  • Globally, the following booking breakdown was obtained: 40% — desktop; 33% — mobile web; and 27% — mobile app.



  • Approximately $1.7 billion in gross bookings are made annually through Marriott International's mobile app.
  • Both the hotel chain's website and its mobile apps have progressively expanded in 2018.
  • Marriott's digital approach is all about developing an easy-to-use and streamlined online booking journey.

MGM Grand

  • MGM's media-attributed revenue rose by 30% with a 10% efficiency growth. This includes the revenue from its digital media channels such as its website and mobile apps.
  • The hotel chain aims to further transform its digital capability.
  • MGM's online platform enables its visitors to experience a quality digital journey.


  • Users can book their accommodation online through Expedia's mobile app and company-branded websites.
  • Expedia's brands have developed new mobile sites and mobile apps that continue to gain favorable reviews and download frequencies.
  • Some of the company's brands are gaining more online traffic through mobile than through PCs.
  • In 2017, around one in three bookings were done through mobile devices.
  • Over 590,000 properties were added to the company's booking websites.
  • In the first quarter of 2017, Expedia's online visitors purchased around $16.1 billion worth of bookings.
  • This is an increase of 8% as compared to the same quarter in the previous year.
  • Travelers also extended their stays by 15% more in the properties that they reserved.
  • Expedia's focus on mobile investments has propelled this increase.
  • Travelers who are using the company's app have gone back to the booking site "twice as many times" as the typical users.
  • Around 45% of Expedia's digital traffic is concentrated on its mobile platforms.


We started our search by looking for directly available figures that strongly show the split between website revenues and native app revenues of Sunseeker Resort's competitors: Marriot, MGM Grand, and Expedia. We looked for this data in various hospitality related resources such as Hotelogix, Hospitality Net, and Revinate; digital marketing sites such as Hubspot, Ad Exchanger, Strategy Online, Martech Today; and other relevant sites. Based on this search approach, we were not able to obtain solid figures covering the sales split between the three competitors' websites and their apps. What was found were mostly partial statistics regarding their digital channels in general. There were also some old data points that are still relevant given that these were referenced to prove some of the current statistics.
We then looked for the sources of revenues of the specified competitors on their websites; in annual reports; press releases such as those from Cision, Business Wire, and similar; business publications such as Inc, Forbes, Business Insider, and the WSJ, with the intention of identifying relevant information on where these accommodation reservation sites get most of their bookings. However, what we found from these sources were mostly their revenue data and other financial figures. We also found some partial breakdown of revenues from digital sources in general.
We also broadened the scope and checked for the digital revenue statistics of other similar-sized hotel booking sites. We hoped to find these figures on the websites and annual reports of these other similar-sized hotels. Based on this strategy, we also were not able to find any relevant statistics that would enable us to infer the revenue from various digital channels. What we found were some general information on the digital channels that these companies are using.
We then tried to determine if there are industry standards or best practices on the portion of the hotel or booking sites' revenues that should come from websites and digital apps. We looked for this information in hotel industry associations such as the American Hotel and Lodging Association, the Luxury Hotel Association, and the International Society of Hotel Associations. However, we were not able to find any related information on these sites that highlight the best practices on digital revenue portioning. What we found was more general information about the digital channels that are being used by the industry.
We can infer that the reason why statistics on the revenue split is not available might be due to the in-progress digital transformation on the part of the companies or the travelers' wariness in booking through mobile phones. Furthermore, there might not be enough data from hotel room providers that is made public.