The Purchase Price Is Only the Beginning: A Five-Year Approach to Hotel Technology Costs
Every technology proposal a hotel owner receives has a number at the top. It’s rarely the number that matters.
A system priced at $165,000 upfront becomes $285,000 once five years of support are factored in. Same system. Very different conversation. That example, discussed in The Pass Brief’s account of Terence Ronson’s hotel technology approach, illustrates how much the initial figure can leave out. Owners are often presented with the purchase price most prominently, while the ongoing commitments sit elsewhere. Our approach is to bring those commitments into the conversation from the outset.
This is the gap between purchase price and total cost of ownership, and it’s one of the most consequential blind spots in hotel technology procurement. With 2026 budget guidance explicitly urging owners to map full ownership requirements rather than compare sticker prices, the conversation is shifting. Here’s how we build every proposal we send, and how we’d recommend any owner or asset manager evaluate one, whether it comes from us or anyone else.
Start with the guest journey, not the spec sheet
Before any cost conversation, there’s a more fundamental discipline worth borrowing from how the best hotel technology briefs get built: organise around the guest journey, not the technical specification. A briefing book built around how a guest actually chooses, books, stays and reviews a property keeps every stakeholder, from the GM to the ownership group, aligned on what the technology is actually for.
Ronson’s measure of success is blunt and useful: if guests mention the technology in their reviews, it has probably failed. Good technology is seamless and nearly invisible. Guests should write about the beach, the breakfast and the staff. That standard matters here because it shapes what’s worth spending on in the first place. A five-year cost model is only valuable if it’s being applied to the right investment.
In practical terms, that means identifying the experience or operational problem before selecting the product. Faster check-in, reliable connectivity and straightforward room controls are meaningful outcomes. A longer list of features is not necessarily one.
The four-layer model
Once the right investment is identified, we think about hotel technology in four layers, and the order matters. This follows the four-layer approach described by Ronson: cabling, network, systems, then applications and interfaces.
Cabling
This is the foundation, and it’s the layer most vulnerable to cost-cutting under pressure because it’s invisible once walls close. It shouldn’t be. If cabling fails, the services depending on it fail, cloud-based or not. This is never the place to value-engineer away performance, testing or capacity. The saving made before opening can become a much more expensive intervention once rooms are occupied.
Network
Standard equipment sits here, and the brand of switch matters far less than whether it meets the design requirements. This is a layer where sensible cost control is possible, provided capacity, resilience, security, support and compatibility remain intact. An alternative product should be assessed against the same requirements, not simply a lower price.
Systems
This includes accounting, HR, food and beverage, marketing and the property management system itself, all of which need suitable open interfaces so they can actually talk to each other. Every system in this layer needs a named business owner. The front office manager owns the PMS operationally, supported by IT. If a system doesn’t return operational value, it shouldn’t be installed, regardless of how capable it is on paper.
Applications and interfaces
This is what staff and guests actually touch day to day, and it comes last, built on top of infrastructure that’s already sound. Ease of use matters here: a system that requires constant explanation or manual workarounds carries a cost even when its licence looks inexpensive.
Specifying technology in this order, rather than starting with the flashiest guest-facing application and working backwards, helps reduce avoidable redesign, integration problems and cost overruns. It cannot remove every project risk, but it establishes a much stronger starting point.
Hotel Technology Costs: Building the five-year number
Here’s how the real number gets built, using the same representative example.
A system with a $165,000 upfront price becomes $285,000 once five years of support are included. That is an additional $120,000 over the ownership period—approximately 73% above the purchase price.
To translate that into a cost per room, per night, divide the five-year total by the room nights over that period. Be clear whether the calculation uses available room nights or occupied room nights: the latter depends on forecast occupancy. A $220 average room rate can help put the result into commercial context, but it does not determine the system’s cost per room night.
The same discipline needs to be applied across the full technology stack. Each system has its own cost profile, and shared infrastructure should be counted once. Simply multiplying one system’s cost by the number of systems risks producing another misleading headline figure.
Stayntouch’s comparison of cloud and on-premise property management systems explains why the ownership model matters. On-premise deployments can bring server, cooling, hardware refresh and local support costs, while cloud subscriptions shift some of those responsibilities to the provider. Both approaches still require scrutiny of implementation, training, integrations and payment processing. The relevant question is what the particular contract includes, rather than whether “cloud” automatically means cheaper.
The lesson generalises well beyond any single system: year-one sticker price is not total cost of ownership. A complete five-year model has to include:
Licensing or subscription costs across the full term, including agreed annual increases.
Implementation, integration and staff training, including training for replacement staff.
Hardware refresh cycles and infrastructure upgrades.
Ongoing maintenance, support and security patching.
Downtime and business continuity exposure.
Data migration, contract exit and replacement costs where applicable.
Separate committed expenditure from estimates and risk allowances. Owners should be able to see what is contractually fixed, what depends on usage and what could change if the property’s requirements grow.
Token Cost Per Guest: a new line for a new category
AI-enabled systems need their own version of this discipline because they don’t always fit neatly into a traditional licensing model. Some AI services charge by tokens—the units of text or other data a model processes—while others package usage into subscriptions or charge per interaction. The underlying usage cost can therefore scale differently from a flat software licence.
This is where Ronson’s proposed metric, Token Cost Per Guest, becomes useful. If an AI deployment costs the equivalent of one dollar in tokens for every guest it touches, has the value generated—in labour saved, upsell revenue or faster service - actually justified that dollar?
Token expenditure is only part of the answer. A useful companion measure is the full AI service cost per guest served, including integration, monitoring and the staff time needed when the system cannot resolve a request.
This is precisely the kind of question the wider industry is now grappling with publicly. Skift’s reporting on hotel AI returns describes executives moving from measuring success in hours saved to asking where the benefit appears on the P&L. Time saved only becomes a financial return when the business can put that capacity to productive use or reduce an actual cost.
TFSF Ventures’ hospitality AI ownership-cost framework similarly identifies costs beyond the initial build: integration labour, training and change management, infrastructure and exception handling. A five-year model for AI should treat this the same way it treats any other system: establish the full cost picture alongside the expected value, before committing.
Value engineering, done properly
Every owner eventually asks whether a proposal can be value engineered down. That’s a legitimate question, as long as the cheaper option still delivers the functionality and compliance the business actually needs.
It’s also where common procurement traps live. Ronson’s examples include product substitutions, missing components, shrinking warranties and proposals losing their detail as negotiations progress. These are precisely the issues our proposal reviews are designed to identify:
The quiet product swap, where a part number changes mid-negotiation to something subtly different.
Components disappearing from a proposal to shave a small amount off the device cost.
Warranties shrinking from a year to six months without clear notice.
A detailed, 25-page proposal returning as a one-page summary once the deal is close to signing.
End-of-life products offered without written long-term support commitments.
Scope shrinking, buying fewer access points or devices than the property actually needs.
A lower price should come with a clear explanation of what changed. Revised equipment schedules, warranty terms, exclusions and support commitments should remain visible through to the signed agreement.
These compromises may not be obvious in a year-one total. Their consequences can emerge across the following five years. A cost model alone will not catch them: it needs to sit alongside a documented, like-for-like technical and commercial review.
Concluding Notes
The purchase price on any hotel technology proposal is the beginning of the conversation, not the end of it. Every system we specify is considered against full lifecycle cost from the outset, because that is what tells an owner what they’re actually committing to. It also makes a fair comparison between proposals possible, including a fair comparison against ours.
Before signing anything, ask for the five-year total cost of ownership. Ask what’s included in year one versus what continues after. Ask who owns each system, what happens when it needs to scale, and which assumptions could change the forecast.
The upfront number was never the whole number. Twenty-eight years of delivering these projects globally has taught us that owners who ask these questions early, of us or of anyone else, are better placed to avoid expensive surprises later.
Comments