Revenue disaggregation disclosure

A single blended revenue line hides the fact that rooms, F&B, management fees and franchise royalties carry very different margins, risk profiles and recognition timing; without disaggregation, analysts and lenders cannot assess which drivers are sustainable, so investors misprice the business and covenant/ratio analysis becomes unreliable.

Are revenue streams with materially different margins, risk profiles, or recognition timing (e.g., owned-outlet sales vs. franchise royalties, rooms vs. F&B, management fees) currently reported as a single blended revenue line rather than disaggregated? Has management identified the categories (type of good/service, geographic region, timing of transfer, sales channel) that best depict how revenue is affected by economic factors, consistent with how performance is reviewed internally? Would disaggregating revenue meaningfully help users understand the trend and quality of recurring versus one-off revenue?

1. List every distinct revenue stream generated (e.g., rooms, F&B, spa/other services, management fees, franchise royalties) and identify the pattern of transfer applicable to each (point in time vs over time) before deciding on disaggregation categories.
2. Identify how the CODM (chief operating decision maker) actually reviews revenue internally, by outlet type, geography, brand, owned-vs-franchised, or channel, since disaggregation categories must reflect real internal reporting, not a generic template.
3. Map each revenue stream to the chosen disaggregation categories, ensuring every material stream (including franchise/royalty income) is captured somewhere and none is left in an unlabeled 'other' bucket.
4. Select the level of granularity that depicts how economic factors (seasonality, competition, contract type) affect the amount, timing and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows, not so granular it obscures the story, not so broad it hides risk differences.
5. Reconcile the disaggregated categories to total revenue reported on the face of the income statement and, where segments are disclosed, to segment revenue.
6. Reassess the categories at least annually, or when the business model or CODM reporting changes (e.g., new owned-vs-franchised mix, new service line).

Disaggregation is a presentation exercise, not a remeasurement of revenue already recognized under each stream's own model; the amounts allocated to each category equal the revenue already measured (transaction price allocated to satisfied performance obligations) for that stream. The key measurement judgment is selecting the categorization basis, by nature of good/service, geography, market/channel type (owned vs franchised), contract duration, or timing of transfer (point in time vs over time), and applying it consistently period over period so trend comparisons remain meaningful.

Disaggregated revenue table in the notes (or face of income statement) by chosen category (e.g., rooms/F&B/other; owned/franchised; by geography); reconciliation of disaggregated categories to total revenue and to reportable segment revenue where segments exist; description of the basis used to select categories and how it relates to information reviewed by the CODM; qualitative discussion of how each category's revenue and cash flows are affected by economic factors; consistency of categories with prior period or explanation of any change.

• Disclosing a single blended '
• revenue'
• line with no breakdown by channel or stream
• choosing disaggregation categories that do not align with how the CODM actually monitors the business (e.g., disclosing by legal entity instead of by service line)
• omitting franchise/royalty revenue from the disaggregation entirely or burying it in '
• other income'
• failing to reconcile disaggregated totals back to the income statement revenue figure
• changing categories year to year without explanation, breaking comparability.