Agents are not the enemy of a safari camp's margin. Undisciplined distribution is.
A strong specialist agent can earn every point of commission. The right partner introduces a camp to a market it could not reach efficiently, assembles complex routing, manages anxious first-time visitors, protects the itinerary when flights fail and brings repeat clients with a high probability of conversion. In that case, commission is an acquisition cost attached to genuine commercial value.
The trouble begins when a camp pays the same commission for business it has effectively generated itself.
A guest discovers the property through the camp's Instagram account, reads its journal, joins its mailing list and messages the reservations team. Then, because the booking process is slow or unclear, the guest asks a familiar travel adviser to finish the transaction. The agent enters at the end, yet receives compensation as though they created demand from the beginning. The camp funded the photography, storytelling and consideration; the intermediary monetised the final mile.
This leakage is easy to overlook because occupancy still looks healthy. Gross revenue lands in the forecast, room nights are sold and the channel appears productive. The damage sits below that line. In mainstream accommodation distribution, third-party commissions commonly fall around 15–25%, while direct acquisition still has costs but is usually materially cheaper. Safari arrangements vary more widely and often justify specialist involvement, so the correct question is not whether commission is high. It is whether the commission purchased incremental demand, useful service or transferred risk.
Four habits cause most avoidable leakage.
The first is treating every trade partner as equally valuable. One agent sends first-time guests from a difficult source market in shoulder season. Another books peak dates that would have sold anyway. A third appears only after the traveller has already contacted the camp. Paying all three on identical terms mistakes booking volume for contribution.
The second is a weak direct path. Many camp websites inspire well and sell badly. Rates are hidden without explanation. Enquiry forms ask too much. Replies arrive a day later with a PDF attachment and no clear next step. The visitor who was ready to buy is pushed towards someone who can make the process feel easier.
The third is fear of channel conflict. Commercial teams sometimes avoid strengthening direct sales because they do not want agents to feel threatened. That is an understandable concern handled badly. A camp can protect its trade relationships without surrendering the guest relationship. Rate parity, sensible account ownership, clear lead-registration rules and direct-booking benefits that add value rather than publicly undercut price can coexist.
The fourth is poor attribution. If the reservations system records only "agent" or "direct", management cannot see who created the demand. Every enquiry should retain original source, first touch, assisted touches, closing channel, travel period, gross value, commission and net contribution. Without that record, a camp negotiates contracts using anecdotes.
The answer is not to drive all business direct. Safari is operationally complex, and many travellers genuinely need an expert to combine camps, flights, permits, transfers and contingencies. One safari trade programme, for example, pays advisers on the land value while excluding flights, transfers, park fees and government levies, an illustration of how a commission base can be defined rather than casually applied to every component.
The better approach is to segment agents by function.
A market-making partner opens audiences the camp cannot access alone. A conversion partner closes qualified demand efficiently. A service partner takes on itinerary work and traveller support. A volume partner helps fill specific need periods. An administrative intermediary merely inserts itself into a booking that was likely to happen anyway. Only the first four categories make a persuasive claim on margin, and even then the terms should reflect the value supplied.
That segmentation changes commercial decisions. Peak-season inventory can be protected for high-net channels. Tactical overrides can reward shoulder-season production instead of habitual volume. Repeat guests can remain attached to the partner who genuinely owns the relationship, while direct leads stay direct. Consortia benefits can be costed. Every account can be reviewed on net revenue, cancellation behaviour, booking window, average stay and displacement, not room nights alone.
The camp must also earn the right to retain direct demand. That means fast human responses, clear inclusions, an itinerary-aware reservations team, trustworthy payment options and a website that moves smoothly from desire to decision. Direct is not free: it requires technology, content, paid acquisition and skilled staff. But those are capabilities the business keeps, rather than a percentage surrendered again on every future booking.
A useful quarterly question for every trade account is simple: what did this partner do that the camp could not have done at a lower cost or with a better guest outcome? If the answer is market access, expert planning, conversion or risk management, protect the relationship. If the answer is "they were copied into the email near the end", the camp is not paying for distribution. It is paying a toll on its own demand.
Written by Vanessa Lumbasio, founder of LV Consulting. She advises airlines, safari camps and travel operators across East Africa on brand, communications and commercial marketing.