All hands on deck at Orbitz today as it looks to diffuse the impact of an article in the Wall Street Journal which suggested Apple Mac users are charged more for hotels.
The article claims the online travel agency is serving hotel search results to Mac users with sometimes a 30% markup compared to PC users.
Whilst Orbitz does not dispute claims that different content is served to customers based on the operating system of the device they are using, CEO Barney Harford has come out strongly and slammed the WSJ for the article, saying it is “nonsense that we’d charge Mac users more for the same hotel”.
Research by Orbitz has found that Mac users are 40% more likely to book four or five star hotels compared to PC users, Harford says.
The CEO even turned to Twitter yesterday, in an attempt to play down the article.
In a statement today, adds:
“That [is] just one of many factors that determine which hotels to recommend a given customer as part of our efforts to show customers the most relevant hotels possible.”
The WSJ is giving the “wrong impression” to readers, Harford says. He goes on to criticise the paper for initially putting the vast majority of the story behind its usual paywall, “so the world is reacting to a confusing headline”.
“The WSJ is steering users to pay more to be able to read the full article and understand what’s actually happening.”
Inevitably, since Harford’s statement was released the WSJ has removed the subscription paywall and the article is now available in full.
The information Orbitz has gleaned about the buying habits of certain types of computer users allows it to, after receiving search queries and forming results, “personalise that list by taking into account factors such as whether we see that the user using a Mac or a PC”, according to a recent article Harford authored for USA Today.
Related posts:
About Kevin May
I wonder if the same Orbitz guy that “warned me” and insisted I contact them before writing anything, I wonder if that guy talked to the WSJ? I bet they would have taken the article down had he struck fear into em.
Surely, Harford going so far as to hit the “war path” – will see a retraction soon. LOL
Great story.
Phil
This whole thing is funny as biasing your results based on what operating system someone is using is so rudimentary! There are much cleverer ways of using data about your customers to bias results to essentially provide better results or just results that are more likely to get the user to click Book.
It was actually obvious that this was about ordering and biasing but much of the tech press turned it into ‘big data’ being used for nefarious means.
Hilarious! Not surprised Orbitz aren’t happy, it’s shown they are just scraping the surface of what they could be doing in the way of personalisation and biasing.
Try reading the article again, including Barney’s quote: “That [is] just one of many factors that determine which hotels to recommend a given customer as part of our efforts to show customers the most relevant hotels possible.”
They’d be daft not to factor this in as part of their algorithm. It looks like they can walk and chew gum at the same time.
It does sound like WSJ owes Orbitz an apology for misleading the consumer to think that they could be charged more for the same product when that isn’t the case. Sounds like either this was poorly explained or understood. I can’t imagine that WSJ was trying to be nefarious here. Inept maybe, but not nefarious…right?
Do we all have attention deficit syndrome? Did no one here actually read the WSJ article. It made it very clear that it was simply an altered presentation of the same data. It was the “other media” covering the WSJ story that distorted the article.
And yes, Orbitz should be embarrassed at the primitiveness of their personalization.
Finally, in the spirit of any publicity is good publicity, I must need to write better, but mis-leading headlines!
If the “other media” is getting it wrong, its usually a good idea to consider the source. The very first sentence of the article isn’t even entirely accurate and that is likely by design. Most readers probably aren’t going too much deeper than “..Mac computers spend as much as 30% more a night on hotels, so the online travel agency is starting to show them different, and sometimes costlier, travel options than Windows visitors see.”
At this point in the evolution of online travel, most OTAs have more sophisticated algorithms than just what type of computer is being used. It can be one of many variables factored into how a site determines the right list of hotel search results to show a consumer. Some of this information was included after the article but even then its not clear how the additional information supports or refutes what has already been digested by the reader.
All that being said, let this be a lesson to travel companies that It may be a good idea to keep your techies away from reporters. IJS
reposting this comment from another article, as it’s relevant…..
This is very curious.
I have ranted a bit on the idea that Apple fans are mindless consumers, because they spent too much for inferior tech, but my friends have since convinced me that Apple is simply the tech brand as fashion for the affluent. If it’s a luxury brand, then there is simply nothing wrong with what Orbitz is doing. People target yacht owners, rolex watch owners, lamborghini owners, etc. There is absolutely nothing wrong with knowing your market and demographic, and then going after them. That’s simply marketing. The idea behind affluent luxury seekers is that they are savvy, they know what they want, and they buy it.
Of course, one might question whether one who is branded as affluent or luxury seeking would actually be using a site like Orbitz, looking for cheap rates. It doesn’t make much sense to me.
But this is a double edged sword for Apple. If Apple doesn’t comment, their brand gets owned in a way that is dangerous…. it gets aligned with the 1% stuff, and starts losing equity as a fashion brand, and not tech brand.
BUT… if Apple gets involved in Orbitz’s marketing strategy – aren’t they simply validating the fact that Apple users aren’t smart enough to know how to spend their money? Basically, “We intervene, as our users are too stupid to know they are going to spend more”? I mean…. if it’s an affluent, luxury brand, then let your users make their own choices on their own accord, let them be savvy luxury seekers. If Apple butts in, they are basically validating that their users are mindless consumers.
I really hope this starts to make Apple users question what Apple as a brand says about them, the users.