Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: IETF 104 Registration and Hotel Reservations Openo

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

Because that deal is not on offer.   The hotel is trying to create market
conditions that favor them, and they don't offer a deal that doesn't
sustain those conditions.  You can argue that agreeing to these conditions
is stupid, but not agreeing to them may result in the hotel not being
willing to host the conference, or may result in the IETF paying a hefty
premium.   Remember that the IETF is not negotiating from a position of
great power here, and so we can't really set the terms.   We can try, and
of course if you want to volunteer to work on this I'm sure your help would
be appreciated, but when all's said and done, the results of the
negotiation are never going to be that the IETF gets everything we asked
for.

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 10:28 AM Christian Hopps <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> OK, so why not have the requirement that the hotel must lower the IETF
> rate for all attendees to any lower rate they subsequently advertise?
>
> Thanks,
> Chris.
>
> Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> writes:
>
> > It might help to re-frame it.   What's going on here is that the hotel is
> > trying (intentionally or accidentally) to sweeten their deal.   They get
> > the IETF to agree to a room rate, and agree to hold the price in the
> > presence of market fluctuation.   Effectively the IETF has now purchased
> > some futures at a particular price, and the hotel is now competing
> against
> > the IETF on that price, and they have nothing to lose because if the IETF
> > doesn't sell all its rooms, the IETF takes the loss, not the hotel.
>  This
> > is particularly exacerbated by the fact that the hotel was selling
> > different rooms at different prices, whereas if you take the IETF rate
> you
> > just get whatever room you get, which is probably what's left over after
> > all the premium rooms are sold, since those rooms were being sold at
> about
> > the IETF rate.
> >
> > So yeah, it looks like you're losing out, but you really aren't the
> victim
> > here.
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 9:59 AM Christian Hopps <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Why not KISS? IETF should negotiate a fair rate that is worth what we
> will
> >> be paying *upfront*, and leave it at that.
> >>
> >> Notwithstanding the complex turns of logic presented on this thread, it
> >> just feels wrong for me to find a better deal only to have IETF come in
> >> take it away from me.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Chris.
> >>
> >> Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal) <[e-mail]> writes:
> >>
> >> >> On Jan 6, 2019, at 12:24 PM, Lou Berger <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Obviously we can't change existing contracts, but we can stop asking
> >> that the "no lower rates offered" clause be inserted in future
> contracts --
> >> again, it is my understanding (which of course can simply be wrong) that
> >> this clause was first added to hotel contracts by the IETF, specifically
> >> the IAD at that time.
> >> >>
> >> >> Lou
> >> >
> >> > I’m not sure I agree with you in this.  The purpose of the clause is
> to
> >> say “the IETF negotiated rate is the lowest that the hotel will offer
> >> during the meeting window.”  In other words they are agreeing negotiate
> one
> >> rate with the IETF as part of our overall meeting contract and agreeing
> to
> >> also not then go and negotiate a undercutting rate with some travel web
> >> site for instance.
> >> >
> >> > One big part of this is intended to make sure the ietf rate is the
> best
> >> rate across its whole block.  Another big part related to the first is
> that
> >> ietf attendees do not need to worry they there was a better deal that
> they
> >> missed because they didn’t spend a couple
> >> > of hours on other travel sites, or a better deal because the booker
> >> early or waited.
> >> >
> >> > Being consistent for the whole IETF room block is an important part of
> >> this negotiation.   While a hotel may offer a couple of rooms at a
> discount
> >> they certainly aren’t doing that for any number of rooms as big as the
> ietf
> >> block which can be (simplified general numbers here)   600 rooms at say
> 6
> >> nights for a total of 3600 room nights that are available to IETF
> attendees
> >> all for the same price.
> >> >
> >> > This is as opposed to what I’ve seen on many hotel booking sights
> where
> >> the price changes up or down each night and you are
> >> > competing against every other customer to grab the cheapest rates
> before
> >> they are gone. Or you get a cheap first or last night and pay more for
> all
> >> the others.
> >> >
> >> > This is very different to the ietf rate which is the same for every
> room
> >> night for every attendees and is the same if you book as soon as
> >> registration opens or if you book just before arriving.
> >> >
> >> > The ietf gets a consistent and good rate for all its rooms and all
> times
> >> of booking. That’s a huge benefit for ietf participants, especially
> those
> >> that have to wait to get approval before booking their travel.
> >> >
> >> > Opposed to that consistency is the kind of room pricing that places
> like
> >> PriceLine engage in. Sure some individuals can get some deals
> occasionally,
> >> but it’s one thing to compete against the open market especially if you
> >> don’t have a particular goal of staying in a specific meeting hotel -
> it is
> >> an entirely different thing to pit IETF attendees against one another to
> >> edge out each other for a better room rate while leaving the scraps to
> >> those willing to pay the full rack rate when the supply gets low (which
> is
> >> a real and painful part of playing the hotel pricing market place).
> >> >
> >> > So I don’t agree removing the clause is in the best interest of the
> ietf
> >> community.  It requires the hotel to act consistently with all IETFers
> who
> >> book a room at the hotel and it says that they do not need to waste time
> >> > hunting across the hotel discount sites looking for a better deal -
> >> because they have already got the best deal to be found on those sites.
> >> >
> >> > I will add that the IETF main mailing list is not the place to debate
> >> ietf meeting hotel practices. That belongs on [e-mail] which
> is
> >> the working group for meeting venue stuff.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Regards
> >> > Glenn
> >>
> >>
>
>