Coral Bay
internal data pack

# Coral Bay Resort — Internal Data Pack

*Section 003-1 exercise asset · Everything the property can put on the table for the channel-mix assignment · **Fictional property. Realistic numbers, realistic gaps.***

---

## How to use this

This is the **internal evidence class** for the channel-mix assignment. It is what the GM could assemble from the PMS, finance and the commercial team in an afternoon.

Paste it into your AI tool at **Gather**, after the external search, under the heading *our own numbers*. Everything below is available to you. What is **not** here is not an oversight: three things are missing on purpose, and they are listed at the end.

**Property:** Coral Bay Resort. 180 rooms, 4-star beach resort, mid-luxury and family-forward. Segments run roughly 60% regional leisure, 30% mid-week corporate, 10% long-stay wellness. Currency is USD. Figures are the trailing twelve months unless stated.

---

## 1. Volume, rate and revenue by channel

Total room nights sold: **47,000**. Blended ADR **USD 241**. Total room revenue **USD 11.32m**. Occupancy 72%.

| Channel | Room nights | Share | ADR | Room revenue | Share of revenue |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| OTA | 22,560 | 48% | 244 | 5.50m | 48.6% |
| Direct web | 8,930 | 19% | 267 | 2.38m | 21.1% |
| Direct voice and email | 3,760 | 8% | 281 | 1.06m | 9.3% |
| Corporate and contracted | 6,580 | 14% | 205 | 1.35m | 11.9% |
| Wholesale and tour series | 4,230 | 9% | 176 | 0.74m | 6.6% |
| Walk-in | 940 | 2% | 295 | 0.28m | 2.5% |

### Three-year trend, share of room nights

| Channel | This year | Last year | 3 years ago |
|---|---:|---:|---:|
| OTA | 48% | 41% | 33% |
| Direct web | 19% | 23% | 27% |
| Direct voice and email | 8% | 10% | 12% |
| Corporate and contracted | 14% | 15% | 16% |
| Wholesale and tour series | 9% | 9% | 10% |
| Walk-in | 2% | 2% | 2% |

Blended ADR is broadly level across the three years. The shift is in **where** the business comes from, not what it pays.

---

## 2. What each channel costs, as currently recorded

| Channel | Recorded cost | Annual value | What the figure covers |
|---|---:|---:|---|
| OTA | 17.0% of room revenue | 936,000 | Platform commission only. Nothing material is excluded. |
| Direct web | 3.1% of room revenue | 74,000 | Booking engine, payment fees, metasearch bids |
| Direct voice and email | not separately costed | — | Reservations salary sits in Rooms payroll, unsplit by channel |
| Corporate and contracted | 9.0% of room revenue | 121,000 | TMC and GDS fees |
| Wholesale and tour series | 22.0% off rack, contracted | — | Already reflected in the 176 ADR above |

### OTA commission by platform

| Platform | Share of OTA nights | Commission rate |
|---|---:|---:|
| Platform A | 60% | 15.5% |
| Platform B | 33% | 19.0% |
| All others | 7% | 21.0% |
| **Blended** | **100%** | **17.0%** |

---

## 3. Direct-channel spend, as recorded in the marketing ledger

These lines are recorded separately from the 3.1% above and are **not currently allocated to any channel**.

| Line | Annual | Notes |
|---|---:|---|
| Booking engine, payment fees, metasearch bids | 74,000 | This is the 3.1% figure |
| Digital agency retainer | 30,000 | Manages paid search, social and the booking-engine front end |
| Paid search and paid social | 38,000 | Excludes metasearch, which sits in the line above |
| Content and photography | 12,000 | Refreshed on roughly an 18-month cycle |
| E-commerce headcount, 0.5 FTE loaded | 26,000 | The person who runs the direct channel |
| Member-rate discount given on direct bookings | 34,000 | Average 1.4% off the direct rate |

**Nobody has added these together.** Some of the spend also produces voice and email bookings, so attributing all of it to direct web overstates the direct-web cost by an unknown amount. That is why the commercial team quotes 3.1% and treats anything higher as arguable.

---

## 4. Booking characteristics by channel

| Channel | Average length of stay | Median lead time | Cancellation rate | No-show rate |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| OTA | 2.6 nights | 21 days | 18% | 2.1% |
| Direct web | 3.4 nights | 34 days | 9% | 0.7% |
| Direct voice and email | 4.1 nights | 47 days | 6% | 0.4% |
| Corporate and contracted | 2.1 nights | 12 days | 11% | 1.6% |
| Wholesale and tour series | 3.8 nights | 66 days | 4% | 0.2% |

---

## 5. Channel by segment

Share of each segment's room nights arriving on each channel.

| Segment | Share of house | OTA | Direct web | Direct voice | Corporate | Wholesale |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| Regional leisure | 60% | 62% | 22% | 5% | 0% | 8% |
| Mid-week corporate | 30% | 18% | 11% | 6% | 61% | 3% |
| Long-stay wellness | 10% | 46% | 25% | 21% | 2% | 6% |

Long-stay wellness carries the highest ADR and the longest stays, and nearly half of it currently arrives through an OTA.

Rows exclude walk-in and so do not total 100%. This table is cut from a different PMS report than Section 1 and reconciles to it within about two per cent.

---

## 6. Guest identity by channel

| Channel | Identified as returning guest | Confidence in the match |
|---|---:|---|
| Direct web | 34% | Good. Email and profile match reliably |
| Direct voice and email | 51% | Good |
| Corporate and contracted | 68% | Good |
| OTA | 11% | **Poor.** Many OTA bookings arrive with masked or aliased email, so the true repeat share is higher than 11% by an unknown margin |

---

## 7. Source markets, top six

| Market | Share of room nights | OTA share within that market |
|---|---:|---:|
| Domestic | 31% | 39% |
| Singapore | 17% | 54% |
| Australia | 12% | 61% |
| South Korea | 9% | 66% |
| United Kingdom | 7% | 43% |
| Germany | 5% | 47% |

---

## 8. Website and booking engine

| Measure | Trailing twelve months |
|---|---:|
| Sessions | 214,000 |
| Booking-engine conversion rate | 1.9% |
| Sessions from branded search | 38% |
| Sessions typed or bookmarked | 22% |
| Sessions from organic non-branded search | 14% |
| Sessions from metasearch | 12% |
| Sessions from paid social | 9% |
| Sessions from referral and other | 5% |

Sixty per cent of website sessions arrive from branded search or a typed address. Those visitors already knew the property's name before they arrived.

---

## 9. Two natural experiments we did not design

**The metasearch pause.** Metasearch bidding was switched off for three weeks in February to preserve cash. Direct web bookings fell 22% during the pause and did not return to the prior run rate for a further two weeks. Nobody isolated whether the OTA listings or the metasearch bids had been doing the work.

**The Platform A visibility campaign.** The property joined an accelerator programme on Platform A from June to August last year, raising the commission on those nights to 20%. OTA room nights rose 9% year on year in that window. Direct web room nights fell 4% in the same window. A rate-parity change was made in the same month, so the two effects cannot be separated.

---

## 10. What is deliberately not here

Three things, and the difference between them matters.

**1. Cross-channel attribution. Genuinely absent.**
We cannot tell whether a guest who booked direct first saw the property on an OTA. There is no tracking, the OTAs do not supply the data, and it cannot be reconstructed from anything above. This is the single most decision-relevant capability the property does not have, and no amount of analysis of this pack will produce it.

**2. A fully loaded direct acquisition cost. Absent, but derivable.**
Section 3 gives you every component. Nobody inside the property has added them up. If you do, note what the total does to the comparison in Section 2, and note also why the answer is a range rather than a number.

**3. A controlled channel test. Never run.**
The property has never held one channel constant and varied another. Section 9 has the two closest things, and both are confounded. Any claim that shifting X% of OTA volume produces Y of profit is, on this evidence, an estimate rather than a finding.

---