What I love about being on my side of the table is the possibility of reshaping things – including my own perspective when needed.

 

To stand there, I first had to confront my own fears – the quiet ones that tell you to stay in line, avoid risk, and not challenge what the industry considers “standard”.

 

Only two people know that I dedicated all of 2024 and half of 2025 to making this work for me, and to letting my intuition lead without asking myself questions like, “Do you know what you are doing?”

 

I had to take responsibility for myself, for my ideas, and for the projects I chose to build.

 

All of this demands clarity, discipline, and the acceptance that the outcome – good or bad – is always mine to carry.

 

But it also gives me something no traditional role ever could: the freedom to question the structure instead of functioning inside it.

 

I have never had the attitude of an employee. I have always spoken my thoughts, always had ideas, and I have always analysed the world around me.

 

Relationships are what I analyse the most – and the older I get, the clearer it becomes that Luxury Quests, from the B2B perspective, is entirely about relationships.

 

 

---

While working on Luxury Quests – a project whose final shape I definitely did not see on the day I paid for its domain – I learnt that whatever comes my way, even a single comment, is a lesson or a new path to follow or analyse.

 

Everything that appears brings clarity to something I was already uncovering.

---

 

 

This article was not supposed to exist.

 

It was not in the publishing plan, and for sure it was not in my daily agenda for November 18th.

 

However, one comment under ‘Rethinking the path to Luxury Traveller’ made me stop and change my plans.

 

Instead of replying in a second – guided by a fight-or-flight instinct or that sharp, social-media-driven reflex – I sat on my palms and asked myself a simple question:

 

What is this comment really saying?

 

The comment was this (not changed):

“The direct-to-traveller model makes complete sense when your properties have a clear story and positioning.

The B2B circuit is exhausting and often inefficient.

Where I’d add some nuance is that for truly discerning HNW clients, the right advisor still adds value; not as a distributor though, but as a timing and logistics strategist. I feel that the problem isn’t intermediaries; it’s lazy ones who prioritise commission over client fit.

Your approach works brilliantly for experience-led properties with strong digital presence”.

 

At first glance, it sounds balanced and thoughtful.

 

But the structure beneath it reveals something deeper – something that reflects the core dysfunction of our industry.

 

And that is why this article now exists.

The central statement here is not neutral, however, I may trust that it was written with a good intention and revealed its meaning by hazard.

 

Still, it assumes that:

·        intermediaries fail because they are “lazy”,

·        commission is their primary driver,

·        a DMC becomes valuable only under the eye of a “right advisor”,

·        someone else must ensure the client’s fit, timing, and accuracy.

And when you look closely at the logic behind these assumptions, you see a closed system where one belief feeds the next, and none of them breaks the cycle.

 

First: “intermediaries fail because they are lazy”.

 

If you believe that a DMC is naturally unmotivated or unreliable, you automatically position yourself above them.

 

It justifies supervision.

It justifies correction.

It justifies stepping in before anything even happens.

 

And if they are truly “lazy”, why do you choose them to work for you? There should be logic behind your decisions, right?

 

And if you still choose them, is that not simply disrespect shown towards your business partners?

 

Because they are your business partners, am I right?

 

Second: “commission is their primary driver”.

 

If you assume someone is lazy, you also assume they can be controlled through money (“primary driver”).

 

Commission becomes a behavioural tool, not compensation and not gratitude.

 

This reinforces the idea that the DMC needs to be managed rather than trusted.

 

And does this not mean that you treat the payment to your partner as something entirely discretionary – something dependent on your final judgement of their work?

 

And does it not also imply that a DMC should not be “money-driven” in the first place?

 

Even though they love their work – and I truly believe they do – should they be expected to work for free?

 

Everyone works for money.

 

The only difference is that the person commissioning the service feels entitled to charge for their time, their advice, their effort, while quietly denying that same right to the partner delivering the full operational reality on the ground.

 

This happens because, from the commissioner’s perspective, money becomes a behavioural tool, not a fair exchange between two professionals.

 

Third: “a DMC becomes valuable only under the eye of a ‘right advisor’”

 

If supervision is the starting point, then an “advisor” is no longer an advisor – he becomes the adult in the room.

 

The DMC becomes “useful” only when someone else frames their work, redirects their focus, or edits their decisions.

 

And what does this really say?

 

That local expertise has value only after it is filtered through someone who stands above it?

 

That the person who lives in the destination, understands the terrain, carries the operational risks, and speaks the local language is still not considered capable of deciding what is right for their own product?

 

Because if their value appears only under supervision, then you are not collaborating with a partner – you are correcting a subordinate.

 

You are not asking for expertise – you are asking for obedience.

You are not co-creating – you are approving.

In this logic, the so-called “advisor” does not advise.

 

He replaces judgement with his own. He replaces regional knowledge with a template. He replaces the DMC’s voice with his narrative of what “fits the client”.

 

And in this structure, the DMC is no longer an expert – he becomes an operator of someone else’s ideas.

 

Not because he lacks competence, but because the system never allows him to use it.

 

Finally: “someone else must ensure the client’s fit, timing, and accuracy”.

 

If you believe the DMC needs oversight, then of course, someone else must take control of the client, the timing, and the details.

 

This removes the DMC from the centre of their own product and turns them into an executor of someone else’s vision.

 

And this is the loop:

·        if you assume they are lazy, you control them;

·        if you control them, you remove their ownership;

·        if you remove their ownership, the quality becomes fragmented;

·        if the quality becomes fragmented, you blame the DMC;

·        and if you blame the DMC, you confirm your initial belief that they are lazy.

 

A perfect circle.

A self-fulfilling narrative.

A structure that keeps repeating itself – not because people fail, but because the system expects them to.

 

This is not nuance. This is vertical thinking.

This is the belief that the person on the ground is a child who must be managed.

 

If you start from this assumption – even unconsciously – you create a dynamic where:

·        a DMC is never trusted with autonomy,

·        a hotelier expects instructions from above,

·        an agent believes they are the final editor of the local story.

 

And once you frame someone as a subordinate, you inevitably begin to treat them like one.

 

Worse: when people are treated like children, they eventually start behaving like children.

 

They lose initiative. They wait for permission. They stop owning the product. Not because they are incompetent, but because the system is designed to keep them at the bottom.

 

And what is even worse, the system believes its own narrative – and teaches every new participant that it is true.

For decades, luxury travel has rested on a silent hierarchy: Agent → Hotelier → Agent → DMC

 

Knowledge travels down. Instructions travel down. Approval travels down.

Money travels down, but only when someone “above” decides it is earned.

 

And trust me – I was once on the property side, watching the big names of this industry appear in my inbox.

 

The same people who now smile on social media with a glass of Moët in hand, standing next to their Reps and DoSMs (never with their ground handlers), were asking me to confirm the quality of the services delivered by DMCs… and then sometimes deciding not to pay for those services for trivial reasons.

 

And I am definitely not naïve enough to believe that the money “saved” – the money withheld from the DMC – was ever returned to the client.

 

We all know this is what travel insurance is for.

 

This is not a partnership model. This is a compliance model.

 

A structure designed to be efficient only for the person at the top.