The 2026 transient hotel RFP season, which is just wrapping up, did not deliver a dramatic reset, but it did reinforce an important shift for corporate travel programs: the focus has moved from expansion to precision and optimization. Based on Cvent Transient data from the 2026 contract year, this analysis looks at how hotel buyers and their partners behaved in the 2026 season and what that means going forward.
Travel managers continue to focus on where they need coverage and how best to structure their rates; the 2026 data shows that lens being applied with greater precision to program design and hotel partnerships. For hotel suppliers, the same data shows where sophisticated buyers are consolidating, where they are still testing new approaches, and how they are using fixed and dynamic rates together to balance predictability with flexibility.
In this latest Cvent Transient Insider report, we build on last year’s insights, layer in updated data and commentary from our product team, and highlight what matters most for travel managers and hotel partners as they prepare for the next RFP season.
Fixed is still king, and programs are stabilizing
Despite ongoing industry attention on dynamic pricing, fixed rates continue to be the backbone of programs using the Cvent Transient platform. Over the last three cycles, the presence of fixed rates in our tool has remained strong and even edged up, with roughly 85% of accepted corporate rates last year being fixed, slightly up from the year prior. That tells us that cost certainty and budget control remain central for most travel managers using Cvent, even as they look for ways to introduce flexibility where it makes sense.
“From our vantage point, this isn’t about abandoning dynamic rates,” said Brian Sullivan, Vice President of Product Management for Cvent Transient and Cvent Travel. “It’s about mature programs settling into a structure that works—using fixed rates to lock in cost certainty where they have meaningful production and leaning on dynamic only where it genuinely adds value. You can see that discipline in the rate performance: median and average accepted fixed rates for both LRA and NLRA in our system have grown by only about one to two percent, which tells us buyers are doing a good job stabilizing rate growth while still supporting their travelers.”
At the same time, the overall composition of programs is showing signs of stabilization. In previous years, we saw more movement in the balance between fixed and dynamic rates; in the most recent season, that balance was fairly consistent.
Programs with between 30% and 70% accepted fixed rates did decline from 27% to 23%, and those with 40%–60% fixed have leveled off at around 12%, but this is a modest adjustment rather than a dramatic reshaping of the landscape. The data suggests that many mature programs have settled into a structure that works for them and are now making more incremental refinements.
For travel managers, the takeaway is not that fixed and dynamic are in competition, but that the most resilient programs use both in combination. Within Cvent, fixed rates remain the anchor where there is meaningful production and a need for cost containment, while dynamic rates can play an important role in markets where there is limited volume, especially aggressive discounts, or other levers that make dynamic more attractive.
The opportunity for buyers is to seek out those situations where a fixed rate would not add enough value and instead rely on strong dynamic discounts or a blend of both.
Regional reality
Regional differences in rate type acceptance do appear in the data, but they are more nuanced than a simple “fixed versus dynamic” split. Programs accepting properties in North America and Europe are somewhat more likely to accept a higher share of dynamic rates, reflecting brand composition and demand patterns in those markets. In Asia and Latin America, accepted rates remain overwhelmingly fixed, signaling a continued preference for cost certainty when sending travelers into those regions.
It is important, however, not to overstate these regional contrasts. Fixed rate is still king across the Cvent channel. Dynamic usage varies by region, but the underlying tension is consistent: hotels look to dynamic rates to support revenue management flexibility, while buyers lean on fixed rates for predictability and cost containment.
Added Sullivan: “This truly is a market-specific dynamic. Programs are not so much choosing what works as applying the kind of rates that they want and, in some high-demand markets, the rates they can get from suppliers. Each of these engagements is a true microcosm of the push and pull between demand and supply.”
Program sizes: mostly persistent, with targeted changes
Another key finding from the 2026 season is that overall program sizes are relatively stable. When we look at the same accounts across the 2024 to 2026 contract periods, the dominant behavior is persistence: most programs are maintaining their property counts in a given market from one season to the next.
Where changes do occur, compression—reducing the number of contracted properties in a market—is only slightly more likely than expansion. Even that is not uniform across regions. In EMEA, for example, corporations have shown that they are increasing their presence in markets in more instances than they are contracting, showing that some programs are still adding coverage in specific markets where they see a need.
For travel managers, this means program adjustments are becoming more targeted. Buyers are concentrating volume in fewer properties where they believe they can secure better rates and stronger partnerships, but they are doing so cautiously. This is not a wave of wholesale cuts; it is a series of measured, market‑level decisions.
“When you focus on the programs remaining in individual markets, the predominant decision of buyers is to keep the size of their programs intact,” Sullivan explained. “That tells us travel managers aren’t ripping up their programs. They’re making thoughtful changes about the size of their programs at the margins—compressing a little where it makes sense, expanding a little where they need more coverage.”
Within the three core behaviors we track—expansion, persistence, and compression—the vast majority of decisions fall into persistence. Across regions, roughly 48% of market decisions are persistent, compared with about 25% each for expansion and compression.
In APAC, Latin America, and North America, compression edges out expansion by around one to three percentage points (for example, 30.2% compression vs. 27% expansion in APAC), while in EMEA the pattern is essentially balanced, with expansion (25.5%) and compression (25.1%) nearly identical. Taken together, this reinforces that most buyers are making measured, incremental adjustments rather than wholesale changes to their footprints.
For buyers, the practical implication is to balance rate ambitions with availability realities. It is possible to compress too far. Sullivan adds: “Certainly, as a rate strategy, including fewer properties within a market comes with risk in markets with little availability. Corporations must balance the desire to drive a better rate with fewer properties with the ability to actually have that rate available when it is time for their travelers to book.”
For hotels, the message is that staying on a buyer’s short list in these markets increasingly depends on demonstrating both rate value and dependable availability, not just brand presence.
Negotiations are concluding faster
The 2026 data also shows a clear shift in how quickly negotiations are concluding. While most bids still go to at least one round of negotiation, a growing share are being resolved within one or two rounds compared with the prior year. Bids completed within one round now account for a larger percentage of bids than they did in 2025, and more bids are concluding by the end of the second round, as well. More specifically, across the 2026 season, around 92% of bids went to at least one round of negotiation, roughly half went to two or more rounds, and about 12% went to three or more.
In simple terms, more negotiations are finishing faster.
There are differences by region and sourcing model. Properties in Latin America and North America tend to see more negotiation rounds than those in Europe and APAC, and programs sourced through TMCs often have more required rounds than self‑service corporate programs. But across the board, the pattern is that travel managers and suppliers are reaching decisions more quickly than they did a year ago.
“Obviously, it is always good for travel managers to be intentional about where they invest negotiation effort,” said Sullivan. “Buyers should ensure that the benefit they get from each round reflects the time invested in obtaining that benefit. And for hotels, the opportunity is to come to the table with strong opening proposals and clear boundaries around flexibility, so that both sides can move confidently toward a decision without dragging the process out.”
What travel managers should do next
Taken together, these trends reinforce the importance of a data‑driven, market‑by‑market approach to transient program design.
First, travel managers should continue to build rate strategy at the market level instead of relying on broad global rules. Fixed rates remain critical in markets with concentrated spend, predictable demand, and the need for tight budget control. Dynamic rates can be a powerful complement in markets with lower production, strong brand leverage, or aggressive discounts, especially when they are monitored closely against published rates and traveler booking behavior.
Second, program changes should be guided by both rate and availability data. Buyers should identify where they have already compressed their presence in markets and ensure that traveler patterns and occupancy levels support those decisions. In high-demand locations, it may be worth maintaining more properties to ensure travelers can actually access negotiated rates during peak periods.
Third, negotiation strategies should recognize the reality that value is being captured selectively across bid negotiations and even within individual negotiations. Travel managers can and should focus on deeper negotiations on a smaller number of high‑impact hotels and markets that will drive overall program savings and traveler benefit, while simplifying or shortening negotiations elsewhere.
How hotel partners can respond
Hotel suppliers are a critical part of the story.
In markets where programs are compressing, hotels that want to remain a part of preferred programs need to show how they contribute to a reliable, high‑performing program—through rate quality, availability, and consistency of traveler experience. Where buyers are open to dynamic structures, hotels can strengthen their position by clearly explaining how discounts will behave over time and how they will protect corporate customers when markets tighten.
As negotiations trend toward fewer rounds, hotels that arrive with thoughtful opening proposals and clear, well‑communicated guardrails on flexibility will be better aligned with buyers who are trying to reduce low‑value negotiation cycles. The objective is to reach sustainable agreements quickly, without sacrificing the long‑term health of either the program or the property.
Ultimately, both sides are working toward the same outcome: a transient program that is reliable for travelers, predictable for corporate budgets, and sustainable for hotel performance.
How Cvent supports the ecosystem
These findings sit within a broader ecosystem that includes travelers, corporate buyers, TMCs, and hotel suppliers. Because Cvent works with both sides of that ecosystem and has deep visibility into RFPs, rates, and program structures, the Cvent Transient and Cvent Travel products are uniquely positioned to help align their objectives in the corporate travel space.
“Because we sit in the middle of the ecosystem, we can see both sides of the conversation in a way very few organizations can,” Sullivan said. “By surfacing trends around rate mix, program stability, and negotiation behavior and coupling that with context from product experts and customer feedback, our goal is to bring that visibility back to the market in a way that helps corporate buyers and hotel partners align on what really matters: reliable coverage for travelers, predictable budgets for companies, and sustainable performance for properties.”
Cvent Transient Insider is the channel through which we share these findings. We will continue to use the blog to deliver updated seasonal analysis, advanced trend views, and “Ask the Experts” perspectives so that the entire ecosystem can move toward smarter, more data‑driven transient programs that create value for every stakeholder involved.
