TRIP
#Thank you, <UNK>.
Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining our call.
As we discussed in our prepared remarks last night, we continued to make progress on our long-term growth initiatives and to building more durable direct relationships with hotel shoppers on our platform.
Reallocating marketing dollars to brand-building channels has contributed to softer top line results but we believe this is the best path towards driving profitable revenue growth over the long term.
In Non-Hotel's, strong momentum continues, particularly in Attractions and Restaurants, products that deepen traveler engagement with our platform.
We are investing to further broaden our marketplace, to grow bookable supply and to improve the product experience, helping more travelers throughout more moments of every trip.
In both segments, we have a lot more work to do but we play the long game and remain focused on building for the long term.
<UNK>.
Thanks, Steve, and good morning, everyone.
Reigniting our near-term hotel revenue growth has proven more challenging than we expected this quarter and this year, but our product and marketing initiatives continued to deliver early positive signs and we're optimizing our marketing mix for maximum long-term benefit.
Our television advertising investment was the primary driver of Q3 operating expense growth year-over-year.
The prudent expense management as well as continued strength in our Non-Hotel segment has enabled us to maintain our 2017 adjusted EBITDA expectations.
Across our business, we will continue to strike an appropriate balance between growth and profitability as we aim for long-term shareholder value creation.
With that, we'll open it up for your questions.
<UNK>, the mobile question.
Yes, we did see deceleration.
Actually throughout Q3 and in October, we saw flattish overall shopper growth.
It is a continuation of relative outperformance of mobile shopper growth and underperformance of desktop shopper growth.
So that's a trend that continues and is underlying that overall trend.
In terms of your second question and cost structure between Hotel and Non-Hotel, so what we see is that the cost structure is quite comparable in terms of the line items of sales and marketing, tech and content and general admin in terms of the structure of the P&L.
So not that much different.
What we've seen this year is scale benefits in the Non-Hotel business.
We're particularly growing faster on our TripAdvisor platforms for Attractions, for instance, but also for Vacation Rentals, which has allowed us to be more efficient with our marketing spend this year compared to other years, and its overall scale benefits actually that is driving most of the margin expansion in that segment this year.
Yes, <UNK>.
The other lines see a continuation of trends more or less.
The Non-Hotel sees into Q4 a very similar growth trends as we've seen throughout the year.
Early in the year, we said we would expect similar growth in '17 as we did in '16.
That still holds.
So not much movement in other lines from Q3 to Q4 in terms of relative growth rate.
It's really the click-based and transaction that's the big difference.
Yes.
So we've seen in the other Hotel revenue, we've seen deceleration, negative growth rates in the first half.
We're happy to see that turn around again in Q3 again and, the trend into Q4 will likely not be too dissimilar from Q3.
Yes.
As we think about 2018, clearly on the top line side, as we highlighted in our prepared remarks, we'll enter 2018 with the headwinds that we've seen on the top line in our core auction that we have described.
So that will be a headwind moving into the New Year.
We continue to think about our marketing budget as an increase of TV spend but a gradual increase of TV spend is next year but a reallocation of less efficient paid marketing spend as well.
So all in all, we're going to balance the two aspects of our marketing mix.
And then overall, we'll take a very prudent look at our other expenses as well in the Hotel segment.
In Non-Hotel, we expect to continue progress on both the top and bottom and we'll continue to grow that business as we have over the last quarters and years.
Yes, <UNK>.
To start with the mobile monetization, indeed, again, year-on-year RPS growth on mobile monetization.
The partner bid downs did have an impact on mobile as well but we were still able to grow revenue per shopper year-over-year.
And the cause of that is the continued focus from our product teams on mobile and mobile monetization.
It's been a big push for us in parallel to all the other initiatives that we have going on.
Particularly on mobile web, we've seen very impressive wins.
As you know, in Q2, we kicked off a new site experience, which was a cross desktop and mobile, and we were happy to have seen very nice wins on the mobile side.
On the marketing budget and how we have seen it evolve.
Can you please restate the question.
I don't have the full question.
Yes.
Thank you.
Thanks for specifying.
It's across a number of different channels.
So it's not a specific channel that we have identified.
We have become a little bit more sophisticated in the attribution of our different channels to the downstream booking.
We have, as you know, managed the whole portfolio of performance-based marketing more or less to breakeven.
But if you dig deeper, there is some less efficient spend across multiple channels.
And so we've been pulling back on that versus what we had planned initially in the year, which is a further impact on our revenue growth.
We do believe there is more scope for efficiency optimization in our paid marketing.
We are continuing to do that in Q4.
And going into the next year, we do see further scope for more efficiency on the performance-based channel.
I had a couple of questions.
Just wanted to clarify this but the fact that you have pulled back on some of the performance ad channels, is that having a more pronounced effect on desktop traffic versus mobile.
And then I had a follow-up.
Yes, <UNK>.
It indeed has had a disproportionate effect on desktop.
Our ability to spend on performance-based marketing is a direct function of the revenue per shopper that we can achieve.
And as we discussed, we saw pressure on revenue per shopper in desktop but we were able to increase revenue per shopper on mobile.
So the relative impact has been more significant on desktop.
Okay.
And then can you just comment on the dynamics between the fact that your partners might be looking for higher ROI or they might have moved their ROA targets when they advertise with you.
And at the same time you are able to improve some of the monetization on mobile hotel shopper.
What's the interplay between the 2 in terms of when advertisers are bidding a bit different targets and when you're also solving for increasing monetization.
Yes.
Being able to improve monetization is, of course, a plus.
It allows us to lean into paid marketing, be more competitive either on Google or with retargeting.
And so despite partner bid downs, our improvements there allow us to expand marketing spend on mobile.
<UNK>, this is Steve.
With regard to the bid downs, we've run this auction for so many years.
There's always a fair amount of volatility month-to-month or quarter-to-quarter.
In this particular case, I think you've seen some of our partners comment on increasing marketing efficiencies and they don't seem to be publicly commenting on an ever-declining direction, but rather, they've tightened their efficiency to afford to do some other things which presumably makes sense for their business model.
So as we have always done, we take into account the new landscape and we forecast our future plans based upon a status quo of the current bid levels.
To your second question, <UNK>, revenue per shopper and the impacts on marketing, broadly defined.
Two things I'd like to highlight.
Our revenue per shopper year-on-year was negative 11%.
We bid separately for traffic on desktop and on mobile.
The total was down 11%.
Mobile RPS was up.
Desktop was down but actually less down than the 11%.
So the 11% is, to a significant degree, also driven by the mix shift between the lower monetizing mobile traffic.
So in the meantime, we are improving our product quite significantly.
One of the things that we called out is that if you look at in the quarter, the year on year performance of the economic value the underlying leads bring that we provide to our partners, that has been improving.
So the decline that we've seen on desktop revenue per shopper has been largely driven by these partner bid downs.
So while these partner bid downs have happened, we've also made significant strides in positive development.
And as we think about our marketing budget ---+ the performance-based marketing budget and, to some extent, the TV budget as well, as we look at ROAS, ROAS is going to be impacted by our projections for revenue per shopper.
And our projections for revenue per shopper are a function of what we expect the external environment to do, obviously, how our partners behave but also what we believe we can improve over time in terms of the underlying economic value of our shoppers.
Sure, Mike.
Thanks.
This is Steve.
I would not lump all of our partners into the ones that are currently looking for higher ROI, and the partners that I've had the chance to speak to are all quite appreciative and interested in buying more and more traffic on the part of TripAdvisor.
So I think we are an excellent partner for our hotel and OTA clients.
We provide a very flexible bid mechanism, a flexible downstream kind of conversion funnel for them.
And when we are able to measure the lead, the quality of the clicks that we send down to our partners, they have become more effective.
In other words, they convert better than they did before, and that's direct work on our side to better qualify the traveler to be ready to book this hotel before we send them downstream to a hotel or an OTA.
So we're kind of doing all the things that we can on our side to make ourselves a better partner.
And I don't detect any reluctance on the part of partner hotels or OTAs to invest in the meta channel in general.
And so again, you should, of course, be asking them.
But when it comes to the overall health of meta as a channel, it still serves a very important function for travelers, and OTAs and hotels still recognize that.
It's a very important channel for them to tap into the type of demand that we bring to the table.
<UNK>, this is <UNK>.
Indeed, year-on-year in the third quarter, our expenses in Hotel were flat other than for the additional TV expenditure.
We're striking a balance between, on the one hand, investing enough for growth, on the other hand, adjust to the headwinds that we are encountering.
So we're actively striking that balance between revenue growth and EBITDA.
We don't believe we're underinvesting in tech and content.
If you look at what we've been doing over the last year, we've made some substantial investments in the product, both on desktop and on mobile to get ready for our brand campaign and our focus on price comparison as a key value proposition for our users, and on mobile just to make sure that we keep improving that monetization.
So we believe we have an appropriate level of investment there, and we're balancing future expense growth against our bottom line objectives as well
And then this is Steve.
I'll take the second question on Vacation Rentals.
So from our perspective, we're really aiming to make sure that, that alternative lodging category is well represented on TripAdvisor.
So we have about 800,000 properties.
That's a pretty darn good mix.
Having said that, of course, we're open to change as well.
We'd love to have even more than that and more different types available globally.
To the question of why not a meta, I'm not sure that consumers are looking for the price comparison feature within a particular property more than the ability to find the widest range of properties, and that's why we do continue to grow our supply while making sure everything that's on our site is of high quality.
So again, I think it's fair to say that it's important for our travelers.
It doesn't have to be and we're making no claims that we will become bigger than some of the other guys but it does aid, clearly, our travelers' desire to have that alternative lodging choice on our site.
Sure.
This is Steve.
I mean the best things we see from the TV ad relate to how many people are searching for TripAdvisor, when they come to TripAdvisor, how we see their behavior being more what we're looking for than kind of our on average customer.
So when they come and they've seen the TV ad, they're more likely to book.
They're more likely to go through the hotel shopping experience and actually consummate the transaction either on TripAdvisor or downstream on our client sites.
So the goal, to remind folks, about TV was really to present TripAdvisor as a place where not only can you read reviews, but you can do your price comparison research and understand how TripAdvisor can save you money, not, to the specifics of your question, to help us generate more Instant Bookings whereby we might be able to have a credit card but to really change the perception.
So I couldn't honestly tell you right now whether we are generating more saved credit cards from the TV campaign because it really wasn't the target of our branding exercise.
Sure.
This is Steve, Nat.
We run an auction.
There's 2 big players up there.
With the 2 big players, of course, there's several brands within them when any one player feeds down, by mathematical definition, share shifts to the other players in the auction.
I can't be telling you anything we don't know.
You'd have to look kind of market by market.
When a single player changes their bids, it's in aggregate.
So it's somewhat difficult for another partner to know exactly what they can and cannot do in response.
So you should think of it as share shift, yes, but I wouldn't think of necessarily a big corresponding change on the part of the other client.
Yes.
I appreciate the question, but we really aren't able to talk about specific brands in our discussions.
Yes.
In terms of growth rates, clearly, the faster growers are Attractions and Restaurants.
So in terms of growth, they are driving the growth in the segment.
In terms of relative sizes, I don't want to be too specific in breaking it out because we haven't broken it out, but Attractions is the largest of the 3 components, with the other 2 smaller.
But that's the order of magnitude but I'm not going to go in more detail in breaking out as a percentage.
Thanks, <UNK>.
This is Steve.
The TV campaign is very much focused around educating folks on price comparison around hotels.
Looking at a conversion lift in the Non-Hotel category from the initial brand awareness, next to impossible for us to tell in part because those components on TripAdvisor are growing so strong all by themselves.
So we just have a lot of goodness happening in that Attraction, Restaurant category.
In terms of Non-Hotel inventory trends, we continue to grow both on Restaurants and Attractions in particular.
And Attractions, the bookable products, up 30-plus-percent year-on-year.
The overall Attractions listing, growing as well.
And when you look back a couple of years, the bookable supply is up 5x.
So the marketplace concept has really worked for us.
We continue to grow in all regions of the world and we love it.
It's the classic marketplace model where as we had more to the supply match to the TripAdvisor demand that we already have, it continues to grow.
I think our TripAdvisor sourced bookings for the Attraction category was up 100% year-on-year in Q3.
So we're just seeing really nice signs of that whole trip life cycle coming together, and you see that in the numbers, in that other Hotel business growth.
So <UNK>, do you want to add anything.
I think we're good there.
Thanks.
All right.
Well, thanks, everyone, for joining the call.
I want to thank our employees around the globe for their continued hard work and we look forward to updating everyone next quarter.
Thank you very much.
