Static vs Dynamic: Why Hybrid Hotel Programmes Are Here to Stay

At both the GBTA and BTA conferences this year, one topic repeatedly surfaced: what does a modern corporate hotel programme actually look like?

Is it built on the certainty of fixed rates, or the flexibility of dynamic pricing? The answer, as both buyers and hoteliers admitted, is increasingly somewhere in between.

Buyers want stability, hotels want flexibility

From the buyer side, the preference for fixed rates remains strong. GBTA’s latest research shows that 79% of buyers “always” or “often” negotiate fixed rates for their programmes, compared to 47% who do so for dynamic discounts. At the BTA conference, one panelist highlighted that 55% of corporates still prefer fixed rates, though 42% are open to dynamic – provided there’s more transparency in how those rates are set.

For hotels, it’s a different story. Dynamic pricing allows them to align with market conditions, protect margins in high-demand periods, and reduce the resource burden of maintaining static agreements. As one GBTA panellist put it, “the 80/20 rule is alive and kicking – fixed rates for critical markets, dynamic for the long tail.”

The re-shopping dilemma

Complicating matters is the rise of re-shopping technology. At the BTA event, a hotelier warned that if corporates increasingly cancel and rebook at the last minute to secure cheaper rates, hotels will inevitably push back with stricter cancellation policies. So what helps the travel buyer in the short term may create friction – or higher costs – down the road.

This is where the value of a balanced programme comes in. Fixed rates offer budget predictability, but dynamic discounts can help corporates capture savings when markets soften. The challenge is knowing where each works best.

The overlooked lever: distribution costs

What struck me during these discussions is that one factor rarely gets mentioned: distribution cost. Hotels often lean toward dynamic pricing not only because it aligns to demand, but because broad distribution through third parties eats into margins.

If the industry can create lower-cost, more transparent ways for hotels to distribute corporate content, hotels may well become more open to offering fixed rates again – especially in markets where certainty benefits both sides. This is where ecosystems like mysa’s aim to play a role: by reducing the cost and friction of connectivity, they give hotels more room to commit to value-based agreements.

The hybrid reality

The reality is that until hotels can distribute more directly to the corporate market and reduce costs, hybrid is here to stay. Fixed rates remain the cornerstone of managed programmes, but dynamic discounts will continue to grow – not as a replacement, but as a complement.

For corporates, the task is not to choose one over the other, but to use data and benchmarking to decide where each strategy applies. For hotels, it’s about transparency and trust – providing corporates with the confidence that dynamic truly delivers value, and recognising the long-term benefit of stability in preferred partnerships.

And for both? It’s about remembering that the real goal isn’t just a rate on a page, but a programme that balances cost, traveller experience, and partnership.

So where does this leave us?

The GBTA and BTA debates made one thing crystal clear: the industry isn’t arguing static versus dynamic anymore – it’s working out how to make hybrid work smarter for both sides. The data tells us corporates still lean on fixed rates, hotels still prize flexibility, and yet everyone agrees the middle ground is where the future lies.

At mysa, we’re asking the next question: what if the friction in distribution is the real unlock? If reducing costs and improving transparency is what finally lets hybrid evolve into something more strategic, who wouldn’t want to explore that?

Curious to see what a hotel programme could look like when distribution isn’t the blocker? We’d love to connect!