New Integration: Resamare Joins the Globick Ecosystem
Globick continues to expand its connectivity ecosystem with a new integration with Resamare, a reservation and operations management platform for leisure and outdoor activity providers.
Resamare combines online booking, inventory management, reseller connectivity and day-to-day operational tools in a single system, helping operators streamline sales, distribution and customer management.
Through this integration, Globick connects directly to Resamare's platform and extends its capabilities into a broader global distribution ecosystem, making its network of outdoor activity operators accessible to global travel distributors through a single API connection.
Another step towards a travel experiences ecosystem where supply and distribution connect faster, scale easier and grow together.
“Resamare has built a strong operational platform for outdoor and leisure activity providers, with a clear focus on simplifying reservation management and distribution. By integrating with Globick, they extend these capabilities into a broader global distribution ecosystem, enabling more scalable connectivity between operators and international demand channels.”
— Xavi Boixeda, CEO at Globick
<1% versus 12% - The Hidden Cost of Availability Errors
What 45 days of real booking data reveal about connectivity infrastructure
Less than 1% versus 12%. That's the gap we see between the best and worst suppliers on our platform when it comes to one specific failure: a booking that gets rejected because the availability was no longer real. At Globick, connectivity is our whole business, so this is the kind of number we pay close attention to — and the kind worth explaining. Availability errors metric gets surprisingly little attention, despite shaping revenue, customer experience and operational load.
The industry loves to celebrate how many products are connected, how many suppliers are live, how many destinations can be sold. But what actually matters is simpler:
Can the booking be completed?
Over the last 45 days we analyzed booking performance across the Globick platform to understand one of the industry's most common and costly problems: availability-related booking failures. The results are a useful benchmark, and they point at a topic that deserves far more attention: the quality of connectivity infrastructure.
As always, supplier names and commercial details are anonymized. The goal isn't to criticize anyone. It's to share real operational data that can help the whole industry improve.
The invisible problem behind failed bookings
Every connectivity professional knows this scenario. A customer searches for an activity. Availability appears to exist. They go to checkout. The booking is sent to the supplier. The supplier rejects it, because the inventory is already gone.
To the customer, that feels like a broken promise. To the distributor, it's lost revenue. To the supplier, it's an avoidable support ticket and a dent in trust.
This is what we call an availability error. Unlike a technical outage or a configuration bug, it doesn't mean the booking system is broken. It means the availability shown to the customer no longer matched reality by the time they tried to book.
The system worked. The information was stale.
The benchmark: how often do availability errors happen?
Across the period we analyzed, availability errors hit roughly 1 in 22 booking attempts — a platform-wide rate of 4.63%.
That number alone is worth pausing on. One in twenty-two is not a rounding error. At scale, it's thousands of travelers who thought they had booked something that wasn't really there.
But the platform average hides the real story. The moment we split the data by how the inventory reaches us, the picture changes completely.
Not all connectivity models behave the same
At a high level, the industry runs on two models.
Direct contracting. The product is contracted directly with the operator who runs the activity. Whoever sells it is sourcing availability from the party that actually owns and controls the inventory, with no commercial layer in between.
Intermediated contracting. The product is sourced through one or more commercial intermediaries — aggregators, resellers, bedbanks — who sit between the operator and the seller. These intermediaries do a lot of valuable work: product aggregation, commercial contracting, supplier onboarding, customer service, content curation, distribution reach.
These services create enormous value. Honestly, much of the tours and activities ecosystem simply could not function without them — they are what let a small distributor sell a global catalogue, and what let a local operator reach markets it would never touch alone. The industry needs them.
But every extra layer is one more place where inventory information has to stay in sync. And that's where it gets interesting.
The difference is significant
Here is the availability error rate for each anonymized supplier, colored by model.
The pattern is not subtle. Intermediated suppliers run availability error rates from about 1% up to roughly 12%. Direct connections mostly sit under 2%.
Rolled up, the gap is stark.
Table 1 — Availability error rate by connectivity model
Availability failures were roughly 5.6 times higher when an intermediary layer sat between the distributor and the original inventory source.
Before anyone jumps to conclusions: this is not an argument against intermediaries. They solve real business problems. They accelerate distribution, they simplify contracting, they help suppliers reach markets they'd never access alone. The data isn't saying intermediaries are worse. It's saying something more precise: every additional commercial step the inventory passes through is another point where its availability can drift out of sync, and that demands a great connectivity infrastructure..
First, a quick word on caching
To understand why extra layers cause trouble, you need one simple concept: caching.
A cache is just a saved copy of information so you don't have to ask for it every single time. When a customer searches for an activity, the platform doesn't call the supplier live for every result — that would be slow and would bury the supplier under millions of requests. Instead it keeps a recent copy of "what's available" and shows that.
The catch is obvious once you say it out loud: a saved copy is only as good as the last time you updated it. The longer ago you refreshed, the more likely reality has moved on — a slot sold out, a price changed, a session got paused. That gap between the saved copy and reality is exactly where availability errors come from.
So every layer between the supplier and the customer typically keeps its own cache, refreshed on its own schedule. More layers means more copies, each potentially a little out of date. The problem usually isn't that anyone is doing a bad job — it's that keeping many copies in sync is genuinely hard.
Which brings us to the trade-off at the heart of every connectivity platform.
The cache paradox
Caching isn't optional — it's the only way to keep search fast and keep suppliers from being buried under requests. But it forces a three-way trade-off that no platform fully escapes.
Table 2 — The cache triangle
The catch is that pushing on one corner usually pulls on the others. More caching means faster searches and lower cost — but a higher risk of stale inventory. Less caching means better accuracy — but more API calls and higher operating cost.
Connectivity architecture is, at heart, the art of balancing these three forces. Nobody gets all three for free.
Four ways to cache availability
Most availability caches can be described along two dimensions: what you cache, and how often you refresh it. That gives four common approaches.
Dates only + fixed refresh is the simplest. You store available dates and refresh on a fixed clock — every hour, every six hours, every day. Easy to build, cheap to run, but a thinner customer experience and more live supplier requests.
Dates only + progressive refresh keeps the cache lightweight but makes the refresh dynamic: a slot tomorrow gets checked every few minutes, the next week every hour, anything beyond a month once a day. It puts resources where volatility actually is, and it's far more efficient than a flat clock.
Dates + sessions + prices + fixed refresh makes the choice of refresh frequency unforgiving. Refresh too rarely and all that detailed information goes stale fast, since sessions and prices change more often than dates do. Refresh too often and you flood the supplier with requests, losing the very efficiency the cache was meant to provide — at the extreme, a high-frequency refresh costs almost as much as having no cache at all. With a fixed clock there's no good answer: the same frequency is always too slow for near dates and wasteful for far ones.
Dates + sessions + prices + progressive refresh is the most sophisticated. You store a lot of commercial information and refresh it intelligently based on how volatile each date is. More engineering, more monitoring — but in our experience the best balance of performance and accuracy by a wide margin.
The last line of defense
No matter how advanced your cache gets, one principle should stay non-negotiable: validate availability in real time, immediately before creating the booking.
A cache is a prediction. A booking is a commitment. Those are not the same thing.
Even the best cache can't perfectly predict the moment inventory changes. Bookings land. Capacity shifts. Operators pause products or adjust manually. Real-time validation right before the booking is the safeguard that protects customers, suppliers, distributors and support teams from a failure that was entirely preventable. Skip it, and you're betting customer experience against cache accuracy — rarely a good trade. It's exactly how a supplier that could sit at 1% ends up closer to 12%.
What the industry should measure
We've gotten very good at measuring growth: connected suppliers, connected products, API calls, revenue, transactions. We pay far less attention to the metrics that decide whether a booking actually works:
- Booking success rate
- Availability error rate
- Inventory synchronization latency
- Availability freshness
These don't look as impressive on a slide as product counts. But a platform with fewer suppliers and higher booking reliability can deliver more real value than a giant catalogue that can't be trusted at checkout.
What we learned
The takeaway isn't that direct connectivity is superior, or that intermediaries should be avoided. Both are essential parts of a healthy distribution ecosystem, and intermediaries in particular create value that the industry genuinely could not replicate without them.
The real lesson is simpler: what separates a 1% supplier from a 12% one is investment in connectivity infrastructure. Cache architecture matters. Refresh strategy matters. Real-time validation matters most of all. None of these come for free — they take engineering time, monitoring, and a deliberate commitment to treat reliability as a feature, not an afterthought.
That investment is rarely visible from the outside, and it's easy to underestimate. We dug into exactly how much it costs to build and maintain connectivity properly in a rare, data-driven look at the true cost of API integrations — worth a read if you want to understand what's really behind a reliable booking flow.
The industry's next competitive advantage probably won't come from connecting more products. It'll come from making sure the products already connected can actually be booked.
Because connectivity isn't measured by how many activities appear on a screen. It's measured by how many bookings reach the supplier and stick. And increasingly, reliability is the most important feature of all.
This benchmark reflects aggregated, anonymized data observed across the Globick platform over a 45-day period. We share it because the tours and activities industry has too little public, real-world data on connectivity performance — and you can't improve what you can't see.
A Rare, Data-Driven Look at the True Cost of API Integrations
In the tours & activities space, APIs are the backbone of how supply gets distributed. Which means that, sooner or later, every travel distributor ends up building its own connectivity layer.
Some choose to do it internally. Others rely on external solutions. Both paths exist in the market.
What is less often discussed is the real cost structure behind building and operating those API integrations over time.
The Visible Costs of API Integrations
When teams evaluate a new API integration, the focus is usually on a few well-defined phases.
What is often overlooked is that each of these phases actually involves dozens of small tasks, iterations and dependencies.
1. Development
This is not just “building the integration”.
It includes:
- Understanding and interpreting API documentation (often incomplete or inconsistent)
- Mapping data models to your own system
- Finding functionality gaps and remove blockers
- Adapting existing architecture and previous integrations
- Handling edge cases, errors and exceptions
- Building, testing and validating end-to-end flows
In practice, this is a sequence of iterations, not a linear process.
2. Supplier Relationship
Beyond technical work, each integration requires continuous coordination with the provider:
- Getting access to documentation and sandbox
- Managing questions, clarifications and inconsistencies
- Assessing the quality and completeness of testing data
- Iterating based on feedback during certification
This is operational work that sits between product, tech and external teams.
3. Certification & Go-Live
Reaching production is not a single step:
- Passing formal certification processes
- Re-testing in production (sandbox data is often limited or unrealistic)
- Fixing real-world issues post-launch
And importantly: Performance in production depends heavily on efficient design, coding quality, caching strategies and architectural decisions
4. Cloud & Infrastructure
This is also part of the visible cost, though often underestimated.
Each integration adds:
- Processing load
- Storage
- Multiple environments (sandbox + production)
And in production, costs are not only volume-driven, they depend on how efficient your architecture is.
These are expected costs. They go into planning, budgeting, and timelines.
The Overlooked Costs of API Integrations
What is less visible at the beginning is what happens after integrations are live.
This is where APIs become ongoing operational systems.
1. Maintenance & Evolution
APIs change continuously: new versions, deprecated endpoints, and functional updates required by suppliers.
Let’s share some real data : based on our experience at Globick managing multiple integrations, this translates into an average of ~24 maintenance tasks per API, per year, and each of these tasks requires analysis, development, testing and deployment.
This is how that average looks in practice:
- For restech A, we handled 38 maintenance tasks over 2 years
- For restech B, 88 tasks over 3 years
- For restech C, 126 tasks over 4 years
- And for restech D, 64 tasks over 4 years
Different providers, same pattern: a continuous stream of work that doesn’t stop after go-live.
2. Monitoring & Control
APIs don’t fail loudly. They fail silently: availability mismatches, pricing inconsistencies, booking errors… Maintaining reliability requires continuous monitoring, debugging, fixing…
This is ongoing operational overhead.
3. Opportunity cost
Every hour spent building and maintaining integrations internally is an hour not invested in product, growth or commercial capabilities. This is rarely modeled but it’s one of the most relevant costs at scale.
4. The Cost of Getting It Wrong
There is another cost that is rarely quantified, but often far more impactful: the cost of a poorly built integration. APIs don’t just fail technically—they fail commercially. Inefficient caching strategies, slow response times or inconsistent availability can directly impact conversion rates. Even a small drop, such as a 2% decrease in conversion due to latency or inaccurate data, can translate into significant revenue loss at scale. Unlike infrastructure or development costs, this impact is not always visible in dashboards, but it accumulates silently over time. In many cases, the revenue lost due to suboptimal integrations can outweigh the cost of building them properly in the first place.
What Does This Actually Cost?
Let’s translate this into a simple, realistic scenario.
Where the numbers come from
We assume a company that already has a platform in place to manage integrations and a minimum experienced team composed of 1 developer and 1 product / key account profile, 2 people dedicated full time to the job. For this exercise, we’ll use a €60K as the total company cost per person per year, taking Spain as a reference point — a reasonable midpoint between higher-cost markets (such as the US) and lower-cost ones (such as eastern Europe).
We also assume the company plans to implement full-featured integrations.
For each API integration, we assume the following effort distribution:
Effort per API
| Component | Effort Description |
| Development | ~6 weeks + 20% additional time (inefficiencies and project management) |
| Supplier coordination & sandbox certification | ~30% of development time |
| Production go-live & certification | ~20% of development time |
| Maintenance & evolution | ~96 hours/year per API (24 tasks × 4h per task on average) |
| Monitoring & control | ~10% of annual development cost |
| Cloud & infrastructure | ~€400 per API/month (including sandbox + production environments) |
Cost per API
| Cost Component | Year 1 (rounded €) | Recurring ( rounded € / year) |
| Development | 10K€ | — |
| Supplier coordination & sandbox certification | 3K€ | — |
| Production go-live & certification | 2K€ | — |
| Maintenance & evolution
(for a single API) |
14K€ | 14K€ |
| Monitoring & control | 1K€ | 1K€ |
| Cloud & infrastructure | 5K€ | 5K€ |
| Total per API | 35K€ | 20K€ |
What This Looks Like at Scale
Once you scale this model, the numbers add up quickly.
A company managing 25 API integrations over a 5-year period is looking at a total cost of over 2,8M€
With 10 integrations, that still means around 1,2M€ over the same period.
Even with just 5 integrations, the total cost is already close to 600K€.
This is not an edge case.
This is what happens when API integrations become part of your core operations.
What Does This Mean in Time?
If we translate these costs into time, the distinction between building and running integrations becomes clear. For the initial phase, a single API integration typically takes around 8 to 10 weeks end-to-end when combining development, supplier coordination and go-live. For a team handling multiple integrations sequentially, this means roughly 1.5 to 2 integrations per quarter. At scale, building 10 integrations would take close to a full year of continuous work for a small dedicated team, while 25 integrations could extend to 2+ years. Once live, the dynamic changes completely: maintenance becomes an ongoing operational load. Each API requires around 12 working days per year (~96 hours), meaning that 10 integrations already consume 4–5 months of work annually, and 25 integrations require the equivalent of more than a full-time person dedicated exclusively to maintenance. In other words, building integrations is a finite effort—but running them is a permanent one.
“Will Standards and AI development Solve This?”
Partially.
Standards like OCTO or tools like Claude Code or other agentic developments can improve efficiency, especially in the early stages.
From all the chapters laid out before, development and maintenance would be the most benefited from standardization and/or agentic development.
Let’s assume:
- ~50% reduction in development effort
- ~25% reduction in maintenance effort
The overall impact is meaningful, but limited.
Across the full cost structure, this typically translates into ~15–20% total cost reduction.
Why?
Because a large part of the cost does not disappear:
- Monitoring
- Infrastructure
- Supplier-driven changes
- Impact assessment to the current platform
- Ongoing operational work
- and many others
In other words: Standardization and AI can improve how integrations are built, but they don’t fundamentally change the cost of running them over time
Final Thought
APIs are not a one-time project. They are an operational system that grows with your business.
And as the number of integrations increases:
- Complexity compounds
- Costs become structural
- Speed slows down
The real cost is not in building the first API integrations. It’s in running them at scale.
New Integration: bookingkit Expands Globick’s Attractions Supply
Globick continues to expand its connectivity ecosystem with a new integration with bookingkit, a leading booking and ticketing platform for attractions in Europe.
Through this integration, bookingkit connects directly to Globick’s integration hub, enabling its network of attractions to reach global travel distributors through a single API connection — with real-time availability and consistent booking flows.
For bookingkit operators, this means expanding into international sales channels without adding operational complexity. For distributors, it simplifies connectivity and provides access to structured, reliable attractions supply through a single connection.
Another step forward in building a more connected, scalable and efficient experiences distribution ecosystem.
“Our integration with Globick allows bookingkit-connected attractions to access a wide network of global travel distributors through a single connection. This significantly reduces integration effort while ensuring real-time synchronization and a reliable, scalable distribution setup.”
— Lars Krösen, Head of Connectivity at bookingkit
New integrated partner: Dome Consulting joins Globick’s ecosystem
Globick continues to expand its connectivity ecosystem with a new integration with Dome Consulting, a technology company with more than 25 years of experience exclusively dedicated to the tourism industry and highly specialized in Destination Management Companies (DMCs).
Through this integration, Dome Consulting connects with Globick’s integration hub, enabling DMCs to broaden their distribution reach and connect with new demand sources across multiple markets and platforms — without adding technical complexity.
For DMCs working with Dome Consulting, this means increased visibility, greater diversification of sales channels, and a more scalable way to adapt to changing market dynamics. For distributors, it simplifies connectivity and adds high-quality, professionally managed DMC supply through a single connection.
Another step forward in building a more connected, flexible, and scalable experiences distribution ecosystem.
“This integration reinforces our commitment to empowering DMCs by opening access to new and diverse distribution channels. By connecting with Globick’s ecosystem, DMCs working with Dome Consulting can broaden their reach, increase visibility, and diversify their sales strategy across multiple markets and platforms.”
— Antonio Nieto, CEO at Dome Consulting
Globick Integrates Ibis Technology to Expand Operator Distribution
Globick continues to grow its connectivity ecosystem with a new integration with Ibis Technology, the most complete tourism business solution in New Zealand and Australia.
Through this integration, Ibis Technology connects with Globick’s integration hub, enabling tourism operators to quickly expand their distribution across OTAs, wholesalers and international resellers — with minimal technical effort.
For operators, this means broader reach and faster access to new sales channels. For distributors, it simplifies connectivity and adds valuable tours and activities supply through a single connection.
“Our customers seek industry partnerships that add real value in an impactful way. That’s why we are so pleased with Ibis’s new partnership with Globick. It means that very quickly our tourism operators can connect to OTAs, wholesalers and overseas resellers, expanding their outreach with minimal effort.”
— Matt Hirst, RevOps at Ibis Technology
Another step forward in building a more agile, scalable and connected experiences ecosystem.
Globick Integrates Clorian Ticketing to Expand Access to Venue
We’re pleased to announce a new integration with Clorian Ticketing, a leading platform offering advanced, fully customizable white-label solutions for managing ticket sales for venues and events.
Through this integration, Globick connects directly to Clorian ticketing's platform, giving OTAs and distributors a faster and more reliable way to access venue inventory — with real-time availability, consistent data and smooth booking flows.
For Clorian, the partnership extends the reach of their venues into new international markets and sales channels. For distributors, it reduces technical overhead and adds high-quality cultural and entertainment content through a single connection.
Another step toward a more agile, scalable and connected experiences ecosystem.
“For Clorian Ticketing, the integration with Globick means continuing to expand the reach of our distribution network and providing our customers with access to new international markets and sales channels. This collaboration allows us to boost the visibility of our venues’ offerings and strengthen a more agile and competitive distribution ecosystem.”
— Toni Masó, COO at Clorian
Globick Integrates Tour2B to Accelerate Supplier Connectivity
We’re pleased to announce a new integration with Tour2B, the all-in-one solution for tours, activities and attractions.
Through this partnership, Tour2B’s new inventory management technology now connects seamlessly with Globick, enabling faster and more scalable connectivity to Third-Party suppliers. Travel sellers can connect once and access a growing network of operators with real-time availability, accurate content and frictionless booking flows.
This collaboration reinforces our mission to simplify the technical complexity of managing supply across different systems and to keep building a stronger, smarter and more connected experiences ecosystem.
“Tour2B’s new management and inventory technology is complemented by an integration hub that allows us to connect products and distribution, and our partnership with Globick enables us to accelerate integrations with the industry’s leading players.”
— Toni Mesquida, CEO & Founder at Tour2B