The term “single supplement” often sparks confusion and frustration among solo travellers. Many perceive it as a penalty for traveling alone and the reality doesn’t prevail.
Where has the perception of the ‘single supplement’ gone astray? I’ve seen comments on social media along the lines of ‘discrimination against solo travellers.’
It’s a very real issue that is largely unaddressed by the industry and yet it could be argued that it was the industry that created the issue in the first place.
For some solo travellers, it’s understood and not an issue; tours and travel packages are regularly promoted on the basis of sharing a room, so if you take the room to yourself, there’s a surcharge because you’re no longer sharing the cost of the room – a significant component of any tour package.
The Origins of the Single Supplement Issue
The single supplement issue is a byproduct of how the travel industry has traditionally promoted prices.
Most tour packages are designed with double occupancy in mind. Decades ago, when solo leisure travel was far less common, the ‘single supplement’ for solo travellers wasn’t much of an issue. It meant pricing on a twin share basis made sense.
However, as the landscape of travel has evolved and solo travel has become more prevalent, the single supplement has come under scrutiny.
This confusion is evident in the debates that often arise on social media. I see the frustration with comments on our own digital ads. Statements like ‘why are solo travellers discriminated against’ – they’re not comments about us, but our solo traveller ads bring out these remarks and discussion.
Debunking the Perception of Penalty
If we had the platform to educate every solo traveller that felt discriminated against, we’d share with them that it is not about charging more but rather about the fixed cost of a hotel room in a tour package.
When two people share a room, the cost is divided, making it cheaper per person. In contrast, a solo traveller bears the full cost of the room alone, leading to the perception that they are paying more. It will be a higher price as it is only one person in the package.
To simplify, think of it like hiring a car: you pay a set price for the car, regardless of how many people are in it. If you have two or three people sharing, the cost per person drops, but the total cost of the car remains unchanged.
The Challenge for Travel Companies
There are ways the travel industry can mitigate this perception of a penalty. Reframing how the price is offered can ease a lot of the angst and also misunderstanding around what the ‘single’ or ‘solo supplement’ represents.
We can flip the pricing model when assisting solo traveller clients. How about not adding in an extra line for the single supplement? Rather, present the package with their own room (not sharing), then offer a discount option for those willing to share.
There’s no good reason to present a price for sharing – it’s not relevant if you want your own room.
This approach can help shift the narrative from “paying extra” to “saving by sharing.” There is the chance it can reduce the negative connotations associated with the term ‘single supplement’.
Additionally, it’s important to refute the believe that solo travellers pay double on a tour cost.
I’ve seen too many social media posts from solo travellers along the lines that they are forced to pay double (cruising aside).
Touring packages include various components – accommodation, meals, sightseeing, guide fees, etc – and the supplement usually only increases the price by around 20-25 per cent as a guide – it doesn’t double the cost of a tour.
The Pitfalls of “No Single Supplement” Claims
Another area where confusion arises is with “no single supplement” claims. While some companies may offer this, it’s essential to understand what it may mean. There may be some implications, so it’s important to review this claim.
Often, these claims mean the solo traveller will receive a smaller or less desirable room, such as a room with a single bed or a less favourable location in the hotel.
In some cases, the offer may be limited, with only a few rooms available on a tour. Otherwise, it may involve being matched with a roommate.
Additionally, some companies may use the “no single supplement” claim as a marketing tactic, not displaying the shared cost because they don’t offer it.
It’s crucial for travellers to understand these nuances. For me, an annoyance when the ‘No Single Supplement’ claim is not transparent or misleading on the truth of the offer.
The single supplement is a reflection of traditional pricing models, not a punishment for solo travellers.
By rethinking how we present and communicate these costs, the travel industry can help dispel myths and reduce the negative perceptions surrounding the costs for joining a tour alone.
Imagine the day when all touring prices flip to show the cost in your own room, and then share and save! We do – it has to start somewhere.
