The Billboard Effect in 2026: Why Your Hotel Should be on All OTAs

If your direct bookings are flat but you keep “seeing” your place on Booking.com and Airbnb, you’re not crazy. A lot of guests first meet you on an OTA, then they search your name on Google, then they decide where to book. Even guests who prefer direct do this, because OTAs feel safer for first contact and comparison. The mistake is thinking that “direct vs OTA” is a moral fight, instead of a visibility system you can control.

Some owners react emotionally and pull out of OTAs, then wonder why their phones stop ringing and their website traffic gets quiet. Others go all-in, then commissions eat the margin and the OTA becomes the only pipeline. The billboard effect sits in the middle: the OTA listing creates awareness, your brand search appears, and your own site either catches that demand or loses it. If this feels uncomfortable, we are not for you.

The Billboard Effect in 2026: Why You Should Show on All OTAs

The plain version: guests use OTAs to reduce risk, not to “betray” you

Most guests don’t land on your website first. They land where they can compare, filter, read reviews, and feel like someone will help if something goes wrong. OTAs are built for that kind of first contact, so they win the discovery moment. Then, if your place looks good, guests do what people always do when they’re about to spend real money: they check you.

That “check you” is usually a Google search for your property name. Sometimes it’s your name plus “Halkidiki” or “Thessaloniki” or “reviews”. That search is a buying signal, not curiosity. If your website shows up cleanly and looks consistent with what they saw on the OTA, you get a real chance at a direct booking.

This is the billboard effect in normal language. Your OTA listing acts like a billboard on a busy road. It doesn’t close the sale by itself, but it puts you in the head of the buyer. If you’re not on that road, fewer people ever get to the point of searching your name.

Why “all OTAs” is not about love, it’s about coverage

When owners hear “show on all OTAs” they assume it means dependency. It doesn’t. It means you want to be present where your guest might start the journey, so you can earn the brand search later. Different markets start in different places, and it changes by season, by country, and even by device.

One German couple might start on Booking.com because it’s familiar. A family from the UK might start on Google Hotels. A younger pair might start on Airbnb because it feels more “local”. You don’t need to guess perfectly. You need coverage, so you’re not invisible at the first step.

And yes, it’s 2026 and people still behave this way. The tools change, the psychology stays the same. If you want a reference point for how brand searches work and why they matter, Google explains the basics of how Search shows results and why relevance signals matter

How owners lose money when they treat OTAs emotionally

There are two common patterns we see in small tourism businesses here, and both burn money in different ways. The first is the “I hate OTAs” reaction. The owner pulls out, blocks availability, or makes the listing so unattractive that it stops converting. Then they stare at their website stats and wonder why direct didn’t magically replace it.

Direct doesn’t rise just because you’re morally right. Direct rises when demand exists and you capture it. OTAs create demand signals, and when you remove yourself from discovery you often remove the very thing that fed your brand searches.

The second pattern is the “let them handle it” surrender. Everything goes through OTAs, the calendar gets messy, messages pile up, and the owner starts discounting because they think volume will fix margin. It usually doesn’t. You end up busy and tired, and still not happy with the bank account.

Both patterns come from the same false idea: that OTAs are either enemies or saviors. They’re neither. They’re a channel with rules, and you need your own system next to it.

What the billboard effect looks like in real operations

Here’s the boring, real version. A guest sees you on an OTA. They like photos, location, and reviews. They are not ready to commit yet, because they don’t know you. So they open a new tab and search your name.

If your brand search result is weak, the guest goes back to the OTA and books there. Not because they want to hurt you, but because it feels safer and faster. If your brand search result is strong, the guest clicks your site, checks if it matches the listing, and looks for a clean way to book. If your site feels messy, slow, or unclear, they go back to the OTA again.

So the billboard effect is not “OTAs give you free direct bookings”. It’s “OTAs create discovery, and then your own presence either converts that discovery into direct or leaks it back to the OTA”. If you want to understand why some clicks leak, it’s worth reading how users react to friction and trust signals in e-commerce. Baymard’s research is blunt about checkout friction and trust issues.

What changes when this is done right

When you treat OTAs as discovery and your website as the closing environment, a few things start to change in a way you can actually feel. Your direct bookings become less random. You start seeing more branded searches in your analytics, more “I found you on Booking” phone calls, and fewer guests asking basic questions that should’ve been answered already.

You also stop panicking when an OTA changes something. If one channel dips, you don’t feel like the whole season is gone. You still care, but you’re not trapped. That emotional shift matters because it changes how you price, how you respond to guests, and how you plan.

There’s another change owners notice after a season or two: you get better guests. Not “richer”, just better matched. Clear direct communication attracts guests who actually read, understand policies, and know what they booked. That reduces chaos, and chaos costs money even when revenue looks fine.

What it does not change (and why some owners get disappointed)

This approach doesn’t remove commissions. If you’re visible on OTAs, you will get OTA bookings. That’s normal. The goal is not zero OTA bookings. The goal is controlled reliance and healthy margin.

It also doesn’t mean guests will book direct just to save a few euros. Most won’t. People don’t switch channels for tiny savings. They switch when they trust you and the direct path feels clean, safe, and consistent with what they already saw.

And it doesn’t fix a weak product. If the photos are bad, if the reviews are poor, if the experience doesn’t match the promise, no channel strategy will save it. Distribution can amplify a good offer or expose a bad one. It can’t invent quality.

Consistency is the quiet lever: the same story everywhere

Owners underestimate how often they lose the direct booking because the guest sees mismatched information. The OTA says one thing, the website says another. Different photos, different room names, different amenities. Sometimes the map pin is slightly off, or the cancellation policy is described in a confusing way. These are small things, but they trigger doubt.

A guest with doubt doesn’t argue with you. They just go back to the platform that feels safer. That’s why consistency is not “branding”. It’s risk reduction. Same name, same basics, same story, same expectations.

This is also where many properties accidentally train guests to stay on OTAs. If your site feels like an afterthought, people assume direct is risky. They don’t say it out loud. They just book where they feel protected.

Profit reality: being full can still mean you’re not making money

In tourism, “we’re full” is often used like proof of success. But full is not the same as profitable. A shop can be full of customers and still lose money if the margin is wrong and the operating cost is chaotic. Accommodation is the same.

Commission is obvious, but it’s not the only cost. There are payment fees, cancellation costs, and the cost of time spent managing platform rules, messages, and last-minute changes. There’s also the hidden cost of pricing pressure. Owners start discounting to keep ranking, then try to “make it up” with volume, and end up exhausted.

When you look at it properly, you realize you don’t need to hate OTAs. You need to understand what each booking really costs you, and what kind of guest it brings. If you’ve never looked at your channel mix like a P&L problem, not a feelings problem, that’s where money usually leaks.

If you want a more technical explanation of how paid and organic visibility can interact with brand demand, Semrush has solid resources on branded keywords and why they behave differently

The risk nobody tells you: OTAs can intercept your brand if you ignore protection

Once you show up on OTAs and people start searching your name, something else happens. OTAs often appear for your brand search, sometimes above your website. That can be organic, and it can also be ads in certain markets. The guest searches your name and sees an OTA result that looks “official enough”, so they click it and book there.

This is not a conspiracy. It’s how search results work when powerful domains have strong relevance signals. If you do nothing, you might be paying commission on guests who were already looking specifically for you.

The fix is not drama. The fix is having a strong brand search presence and a direct path that deserves the click. Sometimes it also means using Google Ads in a defensive way, but only when it makes business sense and only when it’s managed tightly. Google’s own documentation on how ads work and why they appear is worth reading if you’ve been burned by vague explanations:

What owners can do conceptually (without turning this into homework)

You don’t need a marketing degree for this. You need to think like a guest who is about to spend money and wants to avoid regret. The guest sees you on an OTA, then checks you, then decides where to commit. Your job is to make that second step feel stable.

Here’s what “done correctly” tends to include in real life:

• Your listings across OTAs tell the same story: same property name, consistent photos, accurate amenities, and no weird surprises in room descriptions.
• Your website matches what the guest saw first: same tone, same promises, clear location context, and a direct booking path that feels legitimate.
• Your brand search results look owned: the guest can find the official site easily, not a confusing mess of OTAs, maps, and outdated pages.
• Your direct booking experience reduces fear: clear policies, clear contact info, and no “maybe it works” checkout.

This is not about being fancy. It’s about removing reasons to go back to the OTA tab.

When “show on all OTAs” is a bad fit

There are cases where broad OTA coverage is not the right move, at least not right now. If your operation can’t handle more inquiries, more message volume, and more calendar complexity, adding channels will create chaos. Chaos leads to mistakes, and mistakes lead to refunds, bad reviews, and staff burnout.

It’s also a bad fit if you’re not willing to keep information consistent. Owners sometimes want to “test” different stories in different places, or they forget to update one channel when something changes. That usually breaks fast. Guests notice, and platforms punish inconsistency in their own ways.

And it’s a bad fit if you want direct bookings but refuse to invest attention into your own foundation. OTAs cannot replace a proper website and booking path. If your plan is “we’ll just send them to WhatsApp”, you’ll lose a lot of the guests who might have booked direct, because it feels improvised. Some will do it, many won’t, and you’ll never know how many you lost.

The balance mindset: OTAs are a channel, not a boss

The healthiest owners we work with don’t worship OTAs and they don’t boycott them. They treat them like roads that bring traffic. Then they make sure their own property has a real front door.

That means they watch channel mix, not because they love spreadsheets, but because they like sleeping at night. They know which OTAs bring which type of guest. They know when they’re overexposed. They know when they’re hiding and starving their own demand. They accept trade-offs and stop chasing perfect.

This is also where skepticism helps you. If you’ve been burned by “experts”, good. You should be cautious. The difference is whether you use that caution to build a system, or to freeze and do nothing.

A small story we’ve seen too many times

A boutique property in Halkidiki reduced OTA presence because commissions felt insulting. Website traffic didn’t grow, it dropped. They thought direct would “replace” it, but there was no discovery feeding the funnel anymore, and brand searches softened. By mid-season they were discounting direct just to fill gaps, which made the whole decision pointless.

Another owner did the opposite. They were visible everywhere, always full, always answering messages. At the end of the season, they were shocked how little stayed after costs. They had revenue, but not profit, and the operation felt like constant firefighting. In both cases the fix wasn’t a trick. It was balance, consistency, and a direct path that could actually close.

How you tell if the billboard effect is working for you

You don’t need perfect analytics to see signals. You need a few simple observations that you can trust. If you start seeing more guests who say they “found you on Booking and then checked your website”, that’s the effect. If your website is getting more searches for your exact property name, that’s the effect. If you’re getting more direct inquiries that already know your basics, that’s the effect too.

If none of that is happening, it usually means one of three things. Either you’re not visible enough on the discovery channels your market uses, or your brand search presence is weak, or your website doesn’t earn trust when they land. It’s rarely more complicated than that, even if people try to sell it like magic.

Ahrefs has a straightforward explanation of branded vs non-branded search intent and why it matters for demand capture

Boundaries that keep you safe (and keep us sane)

If you want to use OTAs without being used by them, you need a few non-negotiables. Not “best practices”. Boundaries. Without them, you’ll drift into dependency or chaos.

We don’t run social media campaigns as a substitute for this. We also don’t do “optimization” while other agencies still have access and can change things behind the scenes. That setup always ends in blame games, and owners pay for it twice. And we’re not here to teach competitors how we work, so we keep the focus on outcomes and system behavior, not step-by-step recipes.

The boundary on your side is simpler. You need to be willing to maintain one consistent truth across channels, and you need to care about your own direct foundation. If you only want OTAs to do everything, you’re choosing dependence, even if you don’t call it that.

What to do next, in business terms

The decision isn’t “OTAs yes or no”. The decision is whether you want controlled distribution that supports direct, or uncontrolled distribution that slowly trains guests to stay on platforms. One path gives you leverage over time. The other path makes you busy, then nervous, then discounted.

If you want, we can look at three things together for 2026: your current OTA mix, what shows up when someone searches your property name, and whether your direct booking path feels safe to a first-time guest. Then we’ll set a realistic plan to use OTAs as discovery without letting them own your demand.

Not sure where to start? Contact our local team for friendly, personalised advice and to arrange a meeting in person.

No shortcuts. No noise. Data analysis. Use only what works.