As a small, on-ground operator with strong background in curating locally rooted experiences, I often wonder how international travel curators make this choice. From the outside, it seems many prefer starting with established DMCs or the big names.
Is it because of structure and reliability? Or simply better pricing and ease of scale?
Smaller operators often bring deeper local insight, flexibility, and more rooted experiences; but what actually drives someone to take that first step and work with them?
What builds enough confidence to experiment and give a smaller, locally rooted partner a chance over a larger name following a more standard approach?
Do you see value in this, or is it something you approach cautiously?
Hi Sayali - from a UK and European perspective, the key consideration are the travel sellers liabilities under the Package Travel Regulations (UK) / Package Travel Directive (EU) - the differences are minimal, despite Brexit.
Under both, if a Travel Curator sells, or offers for sale a Package (which would include any combination of Flight or Transport plus Hotels), and the supplier is from outside the UK / EU the Travel Curator takes on the Performance responsibility and is called the Organiser.
The Organiser's Performance responsibility includes: - Return to the UK / EU if the trip is not delivered as promised at the earliest opportunity and no extra cost (where the Package is sold with flights) - A single point for all claims the traveller may have, even if they can't themselves get the same protection from the supplier for the claims e.g., Health and Safety issues in a hotel - Compensation for parts of excursions promised but not delivered - Assistance in urgent situations
Therefore, those with Performance responsibilities strongly prefer proven suppliers that can meet their risk management needs, or they buy via intermediaries who take that responsibility for them.
This is incredibly helpful. Thank you for laying it out so clearly.
It really puts into perspective why trust and proven reliability become non-negotiable, especially when the Performance responsibility sits entirely with the organiser. From the outside, it’s easy to assume the preference for larger or more established suppliers is purely commercial, but this makes the risk lens much clearer.
It also raises an interesting point for smaller, on-ground operators like us; how do we better demonstrate reliability and consistency in a way that aligns with these frameworks, especially in destinations like India where experiences are more nuanced and less standardised?
I’d be keen to join your webinar and understand this in more depth.
I think it depends a lot on the tour operator, their volume and product positioning, existing DMC partnerships (especially in the case of a mature destination like India), and so forth.
Whilst the smaller local operators like yourselves often have the more innovative, positive impact product and service with a personal touch, some buyers need more reassurance that their partners have the capacity to handle some volume. We're now seeing some tension between value and volume as sustainable tour operators want to focus more on value - slowing down, engaging more with local communities, delivering more positive impact on the ground; but the industry has been generally set up for volume over the past few decades.
It's also often operationally easier to work with a bigger DMC who can coordinate all ground arrangements rather than individually contracting smaller local suppliers.
Daniel also has great points re the European regulatory context - great for the consumer, but they can be restrictive for the supply side.
You’ve explained this so well, and I completely agree with the tension between value and volume that the industry is currently navigating.
I can also understand why larger DMCs offer operational reassurance, especially in a destination as layered as India.
From a buyer’s perspective, having one consolidated partner naturally simplifies coordination and reduces perceived risk.
At the same time, one thing I’ve consciously worked on as a smaller operator is reducing the complexity often associated with coordinating multiple local suppliers.
I’ve built a strong on-ground team that can manage operations and troubleshooting seamlessly, so my B2B partners don’t have to worry about coordination challenges.
Many smaller operators today are also adopting better systems and communication tools to improve transparency and reliability.
We’re actively trying to bridge that trust gap, but I think we still need international curators willing to take that initial leap of faith with locally rooted operators.
+ 359 others joined this month
Comments
A question I’ve been thinking about lately.
As a small, on-ground operator with strong background in curating locally rooted experiences, I often wonder how international travel curators make this choice. From the outside, it seems many prefer starting with established DMCs or the big names.
Is it because of structure and reliability?
Or simply better pricing and ease of scale?
Smaller operators often bring deeper local insight, flexibility, and more rooted experiences; but what actually drives someone to take that first step and work with them?
What builds enough confidence to experiment and give a smaller, locally rooted partner a chance over a larger name following a more standard approach?
Do you see value in this, or is it something you approach cautiously?
Would love to hear your thoughts.
Hi Sayali - from a UK and European perspective, the key consideration are the travel sellers liabilities under the Package Travel Regulations (UK) / Package Travel Directive (EU) - the differences are minimal, despite Brexit.
Under both, if a Travel Curator sells, or offers for sale a Package (which would include any combination of Flight or Transport plus Hotels), and the supplier is from outside the UK / EU the Travel Curator takes on the Performance responsibility and is called the Organiser.
The Organiser's Performance responsibility includes:
- Return to the UK / EU if the trip is not delivered as promised at the earliest opportunity and no extra cost (where the Package is sold with flights)
- A single point for all claims the traveller may have, even if they can't themselves get the same protection from the supplier for the claims e.g., Health and Safety issues in a hotel
- Compensation for parts of excursions promised but not delivered
- Assistance in urgent situations
Therefore, those with Performance responsibilities strongly prefer proven suppliers that can meet their risk management needs, or they buy via intermediaries who take that responsibility for them.
I'll be running a Webinar on the UK Travel Trade in June which covers this: www.linkedin.com/events/7454454089192759296/
Thanks,
Daniel
Hi Daniel,
This is incredibly helpful. Thank you for laying it out so clearly.
It really puts into perspective why trust and proven reliability become non-negotiable, especially when the Performance responsibility sits entirely with the organiser. From the outside, it’s easy to assume the preference for larger or more established suppliers is purely commercial, but this makes the risk lens much clearer.
It also raises an interesting point for smaller, on-ground operators like us; how do we better demonstrate reliability and consistency in a way that aligns with these frameworks, especially in destinations like India where experiences are more nuanced and less standardised?
I’d be keen to join your webinar and understand this in more depth.
Appreciate you sharing this.
Thank you.
Great question Sayali!
I think it depends a lot on the tour operator, their volume and product positioning, existing DMC partnerships (especially in the case of a mature destination like India), and so forth.
Whilst the smaller local operators like yourselves often have the more innovative, positive impact product and service with a personal touch, some buyers need more reassurance that their partners have the capacity to handle some volume. We're now seeing some tension between value and volume as sustainable tour operators want to focus more on value - slowing down, engaging more with local communities, delivering more positive impact on the ground; but the industry has been generally set up for volume over the past few decades.
It's also often operationally easier to work with a bigger DMC who can coordinate all ground arrangements rather than individually contracting smaller local suppliers.
Daniel also has great points re the European regulatory context - great for the consumer, but they can be restrictive for the supply side.
Hi Emily,
You’ve explained this so well, and I completely agree with the tension between value and volume that the industry is currently navigating.
I can also understand why larger DMCs offer operational reassurance, especially in a destination as layered as India.
From a buyer’s perspective, having one consolidated partner naturally simplifies coordination and reduces perceived risk.
At the same time, one thing I’ve consciously worked on as a smaller operator is reducing the complexity often associated with coordinating multiple local suppliers.
I’ve built a strong on-ground team that can manage operations and troubleshooting seamlessly, so my B2B partners don’t have to worry about coordination challenges.
Many smaller operators today are also adopting better systems and communication tools to improve transparency and reliability.
We’re actively trying to bridge that trust gap, but I think we still need international curators willing to take that initial leap of faith with locally rooted operators.
Really appreciate your perspective on this.