Sunday, July 12, 2009

Meta-search vs Online Travel Agents: the three main differences and why they matter

The Kayak vs Bing litigation PR war and my post last week on TripAdvisor and fraud reviews turned me to thinking about the differences between Online Travel Agents (OTAs) and meta-search companies. There are plenty of similarities. The base similarities around look and feel - both are about consumers finding the flight, hotel, cruise etc that they need. Then there are the base differences around business model - OTA's are retailers that charge cards and supply services, meta-search customers are media companies trading in eyeballs, clicks and page views. But there are three deeper differences that I have been tracking and want to discuss:

Difference 1 - The Customers Are Different

While both OTAs and Meta-search are about linking bookers with suppliers, they do it by focusing on different customers. The OTA (the retailer) owes their livelihood to the punter, to the customer. The person they get their money from is the consumer making a booking. The meta-search company owes its livelihood to the advertiser, to the supplier. They get their money from the click buyers, suppliers and media companies that buy the eyeballs looking for travel. I concede that there is cross over as many OTAs have large media/partner marketing businesses. But this does not change the dynamics of this difference. If you believe that to "follow the money" reveals the truth then the difference in where the money comes from for each business and therefore who the customer is for each business is significant.

Difference 2 - The Marketing Levers Are Different

Both businesses are websites, both participate in organic and paid search, each operates off-line brand campaigns and online affiliate networks but there is a critical part of the marketing funnel (assuming we still believe there is a marketing funnel) that is very different between the two models. The front end of the funnel for both are similar but it is in the management of repeat customers and customer loyalty (the back of the funnel) that the two businesses are very different. OTAs build loyalty through deal hunting, sales, customer service, customer contact and building unique product. Put another way, by looking to own the entire customer experience of booking travel. Associating themselves in the mind of the consumer as the whole travel experience and only person that can be trusted. Since meta-search companies are not the ultimate destination, they need to build retention through convincing consumers that only meta-search can provide the best price. A one dimensional way of retaining customers that can be very powerful if you get it right but hard to execute on. OTAs focus on owning the customer to bring return visits, whereas meta-search focuses on a (hopefully) repeatable series of "wow, check out that price" moments.

Difference 3 - the size of the prize

With OTAs and meta-search being in different businesses (retail vs media) they are actually competing in markets that are very different in dynamics and most important in size. Let me use the US market as an example of this.

PhoCusWright estimate the size of the US online leisure/unmanaged travel travel market for 2008 was around US$95 billion in their latest US Online Travel Overview Update. This is the market that the OTAs are fighting for against other OTAs and supplier direct.

The Internet Advertising Board (along with Pricewaterhouse Coopers) issue every year an Internet Advertising Revenue report. In their March 2009 report (PDF copy here) they cited the 2008 online advertising spend in the US as US$23.4 billion. On page 12 of the report (again PDF here) they say Leisure Travel as a category was responsible for 6% of the spend - or US$1.4 billion. That is the meta-search battle zone.

There is no clearer indication of the difference between two businesses than evidence that they are chasing different pots of money. The OTAs are fighting with suppliers and each other for a $95 billion dollar market. The meta-search companies are fighting with Google, the portals and other meta-search groups for a $1.4billion dollar market.

To be fair, the IAB report does not fully track affiliate commissions and CPA deals. They track three classifications - Search, Display and Classifieds. Within that they are tracking cost per click inside Search and lead generation payments. But in all likelihood they are understating the size of the market for meta-search. However, even if you double or triple the leisure online travel market measurement it is still only a fraction of the size of the market for sales of online travel. Which make sense. The advertising market for an industry has to be smaller than the industry itself.

I don't raise any this to say that retail is better than media. If I did I would have to find a way to combat the argument that media should have a much higher gross and net margin than retail. Instead I raise these to highlight that the CEOs of meta-search companies and OTAs are looking at very different things when they are planning and executing in terms of customers, marketing channels and the markets they are chasing. If you agree they are looking at different things then you agree they are very different businesses.

Though different business, the interdependence is clear. Good meta-search has the power to shift share away between the OTAs and to supplier direct. Similarly the OTAs have the power of offering discounts and sales to direct customers that meta-search cannot match.

It is a great battle to watch (and be a part of). But in watching (and joining) this battle we need to know the differences if we want to set the right tactics and strategies. What to do you think? Between OTAs and meta-search which one is Rocky and which one Hulk Hogan?

Hat tip and thanks to Steven Gong from Wego.com (funnily enough a meta-search company) for answering my tweet for online advertising market size with a link to the IAB report.

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

90 days is enough for Wotif for now

Back in January Wotif moved their booking window from 28 days to 90 days. Itself and extension of their original 14 day window. At the time Wotif said they were working toward launching a full 365 day back end. Now in a story from TravelToday (PDF will open on link) comes word that 90 days is enough. The quote attributed to Wotif Group CEO Robbie Cooke in the article is
"[Wotif if are] unlikely to launch the 12-month window in the next 12 months but would instead turn its attention to 'more exciting projects'"
More exciting could refer to the new air engine they have launched over at Lastminute.com.au (wholly owned by Wotif). Functionality soon to be expanded to the Wotif brand. Or it could mean that going 365 in the back end was very very hard to do. As I said back in January the current Wotif front end design does not support an easy migration to year round inventory. It would involve having to put in place new date based search functionality. I also imagine it was very hard to convince hotels to load a years worth of rates in the back end. Once you start looking beyond a few months hotels have to be much more careful with fair/event/seasons/peak period dates/ close outs etc it becomes very hard to ask hotels to manage the extranet without expensive inhouse database support.

On the extension to 90 days, Cooke is claiming a 7% uplift in sales (according to TravelToday)

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

TripAdvisor needs to move to a "no stay, no say" approach to reviews to protect brand and online reviews generally

TripAdvisor - Hotel ReviewsExpedia's TripAdvisor is claiming more than 20 million reviews on their site. In addition they have been on a steady and apparently unstoppable campaign to buy niche review sites in areas such as Cruise, holidays, airline seats and vacation rental. You'll find the latest list of everything they have bought here. As a result (and as predicted here) they have morphed from a destination site to an online advertising network and meta-search company called (unsurprisingly) the TripAdvisor Media Network.

While that has been going on in the background, the front end of TripAdvisor looks like an Onlnie Travel Agency site with tabbed header, a search widget middle left, deals and promos in the the C column and content and search help below the fold. Clearly a move to compete directly with the OTAs in drawing in consumer loyalty and repeat business.

Despite all the changes, the heart of TripAdvisor is the reviews. The dedication of the user base to write detailed, descriptive, useful and Google friendly content to attract lookers and bookers. This all ties to the baseline of the TripAdvisor band and their tag line - "get advice from real travellers". Unfortunately stories are coming out about possible flaws in TripAdvisor's mechanism for ensuring that reviews are only written by "real travellers".

Just recently the Times in the UK ran a piece called "Who's really writing the reviews on TripAdvisor". The story quoted one hotelier as saying "the system is laughably easy to manipulate....I was even approached by PR first offering to write my reviews for me." Newsweek also covered the story in their article "TripAdvsor tries to respond to fake hotel reviews". In that story journalist Sean O'Neil noted that he did not understand why "TripAdvsor didn't duplicate Amazons "Real Name" feature, which offers third-party verification that a reviewer is the person he or she claims to be".

The question is not whether or not their are fake reviews on TripAdvisor - clearly there are. The question is how many are there and what influence do they have in hotel rankings, especially in smaller destinations. Consumer Travel uber Blogger Chris Elliott put the question best in his story "Does TripAdvisor hotel manipulation scandal render the site completely useless".

The official word from TripAdvisor (care of Elliott's post) is that they have a zero tolerance for fake reviews (they call it fraud) and a three methods for policing this policy. Quote -

"1. Every review is screened prior to posting and a team of quality assurance specialists investigate suspicious reviews

2. Proprietary automated tools help identify attempts to subvert the system

3. Our large and passionate community of more than 25 million monthly visitors help screen our content and report suspicious activity"

An example of this approach can be seen on the entertaining TripAdvisor We're Not Making This Up Blog (in the post called "Exactly") where an irate hotel DOS is complaining that all of the reviews he is writing for his own hotel are being pulled down.

What is missing is independent confirmation that the customer actually stayed in the hotel. My view is that these three steps are not enough. Technology and human review will simply not be enough to screen out the "gamers". The only way to be truly clear of fraud is for TripAdvisor to move to a "no stay, no say" rule. A means of verifying that the person writing the review has stayed at the hotel. This could be achieved though a combination of approaches such as a feature like the Amazon Real Name service, using the enormous amounts of transaction and searching data that the Expedia Inc empire collects, drawing on information from advertising partners and other verification mechanisms.

The counter view is that this would be too hard for TripAdvisor as they do not do any of the bookings, that is left to the advertiser. While there is some truth to that argument, between the data collected by TripAdvisor on click behaviour, information provided by advertisers and information from what must be a massive Expedia Inc privacy killing data warehouse, there is (I am sure) more than enough data available to TripAdvisor to verify. I would not be cheap or easy to do, but in my opinion necessary

What do you think - should TripAdvisor move to a "no stay, no say" rule or is the fraud so small that it doesn't need to?

If you are looking for more commentary on this story also check out
As always I close with confirmation that Expedia owns TripAdvisor. Other than searches for my name, Google searches for "who owns TripAdvisor" is my number one source of search traffic.

Monday, July 6, 2009

Rakuten looking to Taiwan and Korea for expansion

Looks like it is Japan week here are the blog. Not sure if it is because the market is entering a new phase or because I am planning a trip there for next week and am spotting more stories. Earlier in the week it was some general market statistics from iMedia Asia. Yesterday Japan's number one online travel company Rakuten caught TechCrunch's attention. Today we have another story about Rakuten - this time on their international expansion plans. Here is a link to a Google translated Japanese language story on Rakuten called "Rakuten Travel, the second half will focus on international expansion - increase in overseas bases, and strengthen customer inbound transportation"

Couple of highlights:
  • This year's expansion push will be Beijing, Hong Kong, Korea and Taiwan;
  • In Taiwan will be selling inventory through Taiwanese player Eztravel. [BOOT note - EzTravel is part owned by Ctrip - who in turn used to be, but are no longer, part owned by Rakuten. But back in 2007 Rakuten sold out of Ctrip and in 2008 announced further plans for pushing into China ; and
  • To enter the US market through setting up an office in Hawaii "next month". [BOOT note - we presume this is for inbound only].
The Google translation of the article makes for challenging reading but Rakuten is making their intentions clear and are making expansion a priority.

Sunday, July 5, 2009

TechCrunch on Rakuten

Just last week we were talking here on the BOOT about the Japanese online travel market. Then over the weekend TechCrunch published a very detailed and interesting profile of Rakuten called "Japan’s Rakuten: Can The Biggest E-Commerce Site You Never Heard Of Become a Threat for Amazon Globally?". The post discusses Rakuten's full ecommerce spectrum and (as per the title) their challenge to Amazon. We here in BOOT land have spoken often about how Rakuten Travel is probably biggest online travel player in Asia and one of the biggest in the world. Online travel sales for Rakuten are in the $2billion range, beating out Ctrip, Wotif, AsiaRooms or any of the Asian interations of the big four Expedia (including eLong), Travelocity (including Zuji), Priceline (including Agoda) and Orbitz (including HotelClub).

TechCrunch article is good reading, as is their CrunchBase profile page for Rakuten.

BOOT joins 21st Century with groundbreaking URL strategy

Dear Readers,

Finally the BOOT has gotten off the lazy boy relaxation approach to marketing with a ground breaking URL marketing strategy. After battling with GoDaddy for about an hour I managed to secure http://www.thebusinessofonlinetravel.com/. I even manage to figure out how to do a redirect to the blogger address. One day I may even generate the courage to migrate the blog to Wordpress/SquareSpace, host the thing on some dedicated servers and get really serious.

Will be back soon with some posts as well including an Interview with Ram Badrinathan of PhoCusWright, seat reviews for JAL and Cathay business class, a business traveller tip on how to eat on a plane and industry thoughts on branding, meta-search and more

best

Tim

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Good Japan market stats from iMedia Asia hide unfortunate market challenges

Andy Radovic of Outrider has a nice high level piece over at iMedia Asia on the Japanese search market. Called "Searching for travel, the Japan way", it is the BOOT Recommended Read of the week. Paints a very positive picture of online travel in Japan - which is fair and true. When discussing Japan it is important to know that the success of online travel in Japan is despite the fact that the online travel market has not one but two hands tied behind its back.

Firstly the two main airlines - ANA and JAL - still make it virtually impossible to conduct a search query that includes results for both carriers on domestic routes. This has crippled any efforts by intermediaries to sell air in Japan and led to the focus by the major online intermediaries (Jalan/Recruit and Rakuten) on accommodation.

Secondly I have been reliably informed that there are very strict laws on the requirements for disclosure to consumers about the cancellation policies on package sales. When I last investigated this the cancellation policy for a package tour had to be explained to a customer. That is that it had to happen over the phone or face to face rather than a consent online. If this law is still in effect, then it eliminates the "hands free" sale of group tours online. That is the sale of group tours/travel without the intervention of a sales person.

[above assumes my knowledge of JP market is still up to date - please let me know if I am out of the loop]

thanks to Hyougushi over a flickr for the photo