Prepare a hotel pre-arrival email in Migma around the guest's current reservation, then test what happens when that reservation changes. The useful question is not only whether the email looks welcoming. It is whether the arrival date, property, instructions, and next action still match the stay the guest expects.
This guide is published by Migma for hotel marketing and guest-communication teams. It provides an original change-review sequence and fictional test cases. Brevo's hotel email marketing guide supplies the wider campaign context; the workflow below narrows the problem to pre-arrival accuracy. Sources were checked on October 15, 2026.
Before drafting: approve the guest facts
Start with a brief containing the property name, arrival and departure dates, applicable check-in guidance, a verified contact route, and the booking-management destination. The reservations owner should approve those facts. Do not ask the designer to infer a room promise from an old promotional page.
Review the property identity and voice in Migma's brand context. For a hotel group, make the actual property explicit. Shared branding does not mean every property has the same parking entrance, front-desk hours, or transport directions.
Keep sensitive booking details in the systems that need them. The creative brief can use fictional examples while the implementation owner verifies data mapping in the appropriate environment. Do not add an access code to an example merely to make it look realistic.
At design review: make the arrival task easy to find
Lead with the information the guest needs for this stage of the stay. A pre-arrival message may confirm the relevant date and explain where to find current arrival instructions. A promotional upgrade should not hide the practical help the reader opened the email to find.
In Migma, ask for one clear primary action and a visible support route. Review the email with long property names and longer translated place names, even when the current campaign is English. A narrow preview can reveal whether the date and button remain easy to scan.
Use absolute dates in approved examples when relative language could become stale. “Your stay begins on October 22” is less dependent on the time of opening than “See you tomorrow.” This is an editorial recommendation; choose wording that matches the actual scheduling and reservation data available to your team.
After a date change: revisit the whole message
Imagine a fictional guest moves an arrival from Thursday to Saturday. Updating the date in the first paragraph is not enough if the email still describes Thursday's shuttle, an expired dining option, or a check-in link tied to the old reservation state.
Review every time-dependent claim. Ask the reservations owner which data is current at the moment the message is prepared and whether the sending workflow checks again before dispatch. The design team should record the expected content, while the technical owner verifies how that state reaches the sending platform.
Brevo's guide describes campaigns around guest stages and booking-related timing. That does not establish the behavior of a particular hotel's integration. Do not claim a native Migma connection to the hotel's property-management system, or assume a date change automatically reschedules every message.
Before dispatch: rehearse changed and cancelled stays
Use a small acceptance sheet with fictional bookings. The sending owner should decide how to run these tests without changing real guest reservations or sending unapproved messages.
| Booking scenario | Content review question | Evidence to request |
|---|---|---|
| Arrival moves later | Have dates and time-specific instructions changed together? | Destination draft and recorded current booking state |
| Reservation is cancelled | Does the pre-arrival send stop? | Observed workflow exclusion, not just removed copy |
| Guest moves to another property | Do address, contact route, and imagery match that property? | Correct mapped template and verified destinations |
| Booking data is incomplete | Does the workflow hold or use approved neutral content? | Agreed handling of missing required facts |
| Guest already checked in | Is the pre-arrival message still appropriate? | State decision and expected exit or replacement |
These scenarios are proposed checks, not claims that a platform performs them automatically. A polished preview cannot prove the cancelled guest was excluded. Keep the audience decision and the creative review as separate acceptance records.
In the final message: inspect the destination journey
Use Email Preflight on the creative and review its findings. Then inspect the message in the actual sending destination. Verify the subject, preview text, dates, property identity, action label, and support details together.
Where the handoff uses HTML, Migma's export options provide the reviewed creative. The implementer must adapt it to the supported platform format and test any variables. Export does not send the email, update a reservation, or establish that the operational workflow is enabled.
Follow the primary link in an authorized test message. Confirm that it reaches the expected booking route without exposing another guest's information. If the link expires or requires sign-in, the reservations team should approve a helpful fallback and support path. Do not promise that every recipient will reach an identical screen.
If instructions change after sending: use an owned correction process
An email already received may still contain the earlier instructions. Do not describe a new design version as though it rewrites every guest's inbox. Decide who owns any necessary correction and which guests need it, based on the material change and the hotel's communication process.
Keep correction copy clear about what changed. For the fictional date move, the relevant message might explain the new arrival details and point to the current booking page. It should not repeat unrelated offers or create a second, contradictory version of the stay.
Have the authorized owner choose and approve the correction action. This guide is a content-review process, not permission to send a campaign or change a guest record.
After the stay: improve the reusable brief
Bring confirmed findings back into the next Migma design brief. If guests could not find the property's entrance, review the clarity of that instruction. If a cancelled booking received a reminder, investigate the workflow state rather than adding a sentence asking cancelled guests to ignore it.
Create the pre-arrival email in Migma with the reservations owner's facts beside it. Review a realistic changed booking before accepting the template. A useful hotel email makes the next step easier for the guest whose plans exist now, not only the guest described in the original draft.
Frequently Asked Questions
Should a pre-arrival email change when the guest changes dates?
Review all time-dependent content, including instructions and destinations, and have the sending owner verify eligibility and timing. Changing one date in the design does not prove the workflow was rescheduled.
Does this guide assume a native Migma hotel-system integration?
No. Migma is used for creative preparation and review. The reservations and implementation owners must verify the actual booking-data connection and destination workflow.
What should happen to a cancelled booking in the test plan?
The expected behavior is to stop an obsolete pre-arrival send. Request observed workflow exclusion; removing a sentence from the template does not establish that the guest is excluded.
Can a new design version fix an email already received?
Do not assume it updates an existing inbox message. The authorized communication owner should assess the change and approve any necessary correction with current instructions.