Hotel buyers preparing for 2027 are entering negotiations with an increasingly mixed set of rate options.
Business Travel News’ latest hotel survey found that 63% of travel managers and procurement executives expect their organizations to spend more on hotels in 2026 than they did in 2025, while only 53% expect booking volume to increase. Another 27% expect booking volume to remain flat. The difference suggests higher room rates are contributing more to rising hotel spend than increased travel alone.
At the same time, buyers say hotel suppliers are pushing harder for dynamic pricing. BTN defines a dynamic rate as a set percentage discount from a hotel’s best available published rate on a given day. Several buyers surveyed by BTN said they were receiving dynamic offers even at properties where their organizations provide significant room volume.
For travel managers, that creates a more complicated sourcing question for 2027. A company does not necessarily need one pricing model across its entire hotel program. Recent industry research points instead toward a mix of fixed, dynamic, consortium, and other preferred rates. These six considerations can help travel managers decide where each rate type belongs.
GBTA’s 2026 Evolution of Managed Hotel Programs study shows how quickly the mix is changing. Among the 258 travel managers surveyed, 49% said their programs had increased the number of dynamic discounts, compared with 17% that had increased fixed rates. GBTA found that fixed rates remain the foundation of most managed programs, but buyers increasingly combine fixed rates in high-volume markets with dynamic discounts in secondary or less predictable locations.
A dynamic discount can make sense when a company wants managed-program coverage but lacks enough consistent volume at a particular hotel to support a stronger fixed-rate negotiation. Because the discount follows the hotel’s published rate, companies can establish an ongoing corporate discount without setting one nightly price. GBTA says this model can extend program coverage into markets where fixed rates are less viable and respond more readily to fluctuations in demand.
That flexibility comes with a tradeoff. When the hotel’s best available rate rises during a high-demand period, the discounted corporate rate rises with it. A company retains its percentage discount but has less price certainty than it would with a fixed rate.
BTN’s findings show buyers are pushing back on that tradeoff in markets where they believe their volume should earn something stronger. FCM Consulting data cited by BTN found that 27% of first-round hotel rate proposals for 2026 were dynamic. Many were later converted to fixed rates during negotiations, which FCM said showed buyers still had negotiating leverage where travel volumes were strong. Ultimately, 23.5% of accepted hotel program rates were dynamic, up from 22% in 2025.
Fixed, or static, negotiated rates tend to make the strongest case where an organization can demonstrate steady, concentrated demand.
Christopherson has long advised travel managers to start hotel sourcing with their actual booking patterns: where travelers stay, which properties they use, and where future business may shift. Concentrating hotel spend can increase negotiating power, while a discounted rate at a property travelers rarely book provides little practical value.
Christopherson also recommends negotiating directly with heavily used hotels. A concentrated booking pattern gives a property a clearer reason to compete for the organization’s business and can support better rates and terms.
“A fixed rate should have the volume behind it to justify the negotiation,” said Stacie Prusha, Christopherson’s supplier relations director. “If travelers consistently stay at a property and the company can show meaningful room nights, that gives us something concrete to take to the hotel. In a market with lighter or unpredictable demand, a dynamic or consortium rate may give the program better coverage.”
Availability also belongs in the discussion. GBTA found last-room-availability rates remain more common than non-last-room-availability rates, while BTN’s survey found buyers increasingly frustrated by the difficulty of securing LRA alongside static agreements.
A good fixed rate has limited value if travelers cannot access it on the dates when demand is highest. For that reason, travel managers should consider price and availability together when comparing offers.
The nightly rate is one part of a corporate hotel agreement.
Christopherson recommends evaluating last-room availability, cancellation terms, parking, breakfast or dining discounts, and hotel prepayment processes during negotiations. These details can reduce costs or traveler friction even when another property appears to offer a lower nightly rate.
Christopherson’s own hotel research reinforces that point. Travel managers surveyed ranked rates and location as their top hotel-selection considerations, followed by policy flexibility, traveler experience, and amenities.
A straight comparison between a fixed rate and a dynamic discount can therefore miss part of the picture. A slightly higher fixed rate with breakfast, parking, or more favorable cancellation terms could produce a lower total stay cost. An aggressive rate at a poorly located property may also struggle to attract travelers, reducing compliance and weakening the volume the company can bring back to the negotiating table next year.
“We want to know that travelers will use the hotel, and what is most important to them, then determine what the stay is actually going to cost,” explained Prusha. “The lowest number on the RFP is not automatically the best deal for the program.”
Not every hotel market warrants a client-specific negotiation.
For companies that lack enough volume to negotiate their own rates in every destination, additional rate programs can help fill the gaps. Christopherson clients can layer consortium rates alongside their own negotiated hotel agreements, giving travelers broader access to corporate-friendly pricing in markets where a direct negotiation may not make sense.
Christopherson’s hotel program brings these sources together with other available hotel content.
The company’s hotel white paper found that 58% of surveyed organizations did not use consortium rates in addition to their direct negotiations, suggesting many programs may have an opportunity to broaden coverage without negotiating every property individually.
This layered approach can keep direct sourcing focused on markets where the organization has enough volume to pursue stronger terms, while consortium and other preferred rates provide coverage elsewhere.
The strongest rate strategy for 2027 will likely look different from one city to the next.
In a high-volume market with predictable demand, a fixed negotiated rate may provide stronger pricing and greater budget certainty. A dynamic discount may work better where volume hasn’t yet been established or in markets where rates fluctuate regularly. Consortium rates can provide broader coverage in lower-volume destinations.
Travel patterns should also be revisited during the year rather than only during the annual RFP cycle. Christopherson advises travel managers to use increased volume as negotiating leverage when booking patterns change. If travelers end up booking significantly more room nights than forecast at a particular property, there may be an opportunity to renegotiate rather than waiting until the following year.
That approach may be especially useful heading into 2027. BTN reports that hotel rates are still expected to rise next year, although forecast increases in most regions are relatively modest. Industry consultant Neil Hammond told BTN that the environment could therefore become somewhat more favorable for buyers.
The work continues after a rate is accepted.
Christopherson’s 2025 survey found that 45% of respondents wanted more help with rate auditing and 41% with rate re-shopping, while another third cited challenges with GDS rate loading and hotel selection.
The same research found that 82% of travel managers participate in hotel sourcing, yet only 25% describe themselves as “very confident” negotiators. Christopherson’s findings point to data as part of that confidence gap: benchmarking, negotiated-rate utilization, and market comparisons give buyers more evidence to use in supplier discussions.
Travel managers therefore need to know more than what was negotiated. They need to know whether the rate was loaded correctly, whether travelers can see and book it, how often they use it, and whether it remains competitive with other available rates.
Christopherson offers a premium hotel sourcing service that combines real-time data analysis with supplier relations expertise and monthly rate audits. Reporting then connects spend and rate performance so the results can inform future negotiations.
That measurement can also change the rate mix over time. A fixed rate that rarely attracts traveler volume may no longer justify the negotiation. A dynamic rate that consistently performs well could deserve a larger role. A property that gains significant room nights during the year may become a candidate for a direct agreement.
For 2027, the more useful question may be less about choosing between static and dynamic pricing across the board and more about where each type of rate earns its place in the program. Travel managers that understand their volume, traveler behavior, total stay costs, and rate performance will have stronger evidence for deciding what to negotiate and where.
Ready to build a hotel sourcing strategy around your travel patterns, preferred markets, and program goals? We’d love to help.
► You’ll also like: How Nielson turned a reactive hotel program into a real-time data-driven advantage
We’ve curated some articles to keep you updated on all things Christopherson Business Travel.
