Google Hotel Feeds vs Meta Catalog vs Criteo Catalog

All three move travel inventory into advertising/discovery surfaces, but they are not the same contract. Google Hotels centers hotel identity, price/availability and landing-page accuracy; Meta and Criteo catalog models emphasize item identity plus event/ad matching.

Comparison matrix

The common core: identity

source property/product
   -> canonical identity
   -> platform-specific catalog/feed ID
   -> event identity
   -> landing/conversion

If feed IDs and event IDs do not resolve to the same canonical entity, match quality falls.

Google distinction

Google Hotels uses property mapping, price freshness, availability and landing-page totals as part of the consumer comparison experience.

The feed is therefore more than an advertising creative source.

Meta/Criteo distinction

Catalog systems depend heavily on consistent identity between catalog items and browse/detail/booking events.

Stale catalogs or mismatched event IDs reduce ad relevance, break attribution and can retarget the wrong entity.

Architecture recommendation

Do not use one platform-specific ID as your core domain identity.

CanonicalProperty/Product
  -> GoogleHotelId
  -> MetaCatalogItemId
  -> CriteoCatalogItemId

Manage these relationships through explicit mapping.

Measurement

Track catalog/feed coverage, rejected-item ratio, stale-item ratio, event-to-catalog match, landing URL validity, price mismatch and attribution coverage.

Checklist

• Is canonical identity independent from platform IDs?
• Are event IDs reconciled with catalog IDs?
• Are price and content freshness measured separately?
• Are rejected items reason-coded?
• Is landing URL health monitored?
• Are platform schemas isolated in adapters?