Simpliflying has taken a look at what airlines are doing with Google Plus and came up with the following findings:

• There are now 70 airlines with brand pages on Google Plus.
• The vast majority of the pages are in English – about 78.5%. But on average, pages in Spanish are “liked” more often.
• The airline with the highest number of “likes” (known as “+1″s) was Mexican low cost carrier Volaris with almost 3000, double that of the second most popular page.
• The most common type of content on Google Plus pages is brand-related (as opposed to sales related on Facebook or customer service related on Twitter).

Opinion is still pretty divided as to the overall value of Google Plus, compared to rival platform Facebook, but certainly those that have managed to harness some kind of value from it are seeing some results.

Matt Rhodes, strategy director at UK-based agency Fresh Networks, for example, believes Google Plus has the ability to change search in fundamental ways over time and the data which Google is capturing and re-serving through its other, connected platforms is becoming a critical element of the social graph which, inevitably, brands will need to understand and utilise better.

Early days, early days.

Anyway, here is an infographic from the Simpliflying team to showcase the results:

Wait. Expedia recently spun off TripAdvisor so perhaps the axes can be sheathed.

OK, the statement about Expedia’s alleged undue influence over Priceline is tongue in cheek, but new research from Citi shows that Expedia was indeed the largest traffic source for Priceline with an 18% referral share in January 2012. And that mark represents increased clout when compared with January 2010 (15%) and January 2011 (16%).

Perhaps Priceline should reconsider throwing all that dough into Google and do a little more advertising on Expedia sites. (OK, the tongue’s wagging again.)

Mark Mahaney, managing director of Internet research for Citi Investment Research & Analysis, says Expedia’s influential role as a traffic referral source for Priceline “highlights the extent of comparison shopping that occurs in the online travel vertical.”

After Expedia, the leading sources of traffic for Priceline in January 2012 were the Kayak network (12%), Google sites (12%), Microsoft sites (9%) and Yahoo sites (6%), according to the Citi’s Annual ‘Net Influence Report.

In turn, Priceline and Orbitz Worldwide acted as a source of Expedia traffic at a pace of 7% and 4%, respectively, while Google sites (16%), Yahoo sites (7%) and Microsoft sites (6%) also chipped in as traffic drivers to Expedia in January 2012, the Citi research shows.

Among other online travel agencies, Orbitz’s top traffic driver was Google (14%), which just edged Expedia (13%) as a traffic source to Orbitz.

Other leading referral sites for Orbitz weren’t even close to Google and Expedia. Yahoo sites referred 5% of Orbitz’s traffic in January 2012, followed by the Kayak network and Microsoft sites, which were responsible for 4% each of the Orbitz traffic.

It is interesting that although Orbitz and Kayak have been at odds during the last couple of years over changes that Kayak made to its advertising practices, which Orbitz alleges violated a contractual exclusivity provision, Kayak has steadily acted as a referral source for Orbitz at a 4% clip over the last three January’s, the Citi research shows.

Citi breaks down Travelocity’s traffic-referral sources as Google sites (12%), Yahoo sites (8%), Expedia (7%), Micrsosoft sites (5%) and Priceline (2%).

Among other leading online sites in the U.S., Southwest Airlines doesn’t look to online travel agencies for referral traffic because the airline refuses to distribute its flights through the OTAs. Citi depicts Southwest’s leading traffic referral sources as Google (16%), Yahoo sites (15%) and Microsoft sites (7%).

When looking at the leading websites in the travel vertical, Google is the most influential source of traffic and has been slowly, but steadily, increasing its referral share from 12% in January 2010 to 13% in January 2011 and 14% in January 2012, the Citi research shows.

In addition to its gains in the travel vertical, Google has also been increasing its influence as a traffic referral source in the finance vertical (13%). But, Google has seen its influence wane somewhat in the media (22%), retail (15%), autos (14%) and health (15%) verticals.

Alongside my Tnooz Predictions 2012, where I pondered whether Apple might cosy up with Kayak, my response was that companies should focus on getting the basics right first (develop a coherent mobile strategy, create mobile optimized versions of their websites) before even worrying about what’s next.

I’m a big advocate for creating native or hybrid apps, depending on the type of engagement you desire with your customer (a topic for a whole other post), but creating a mobile optimized website is pretty much a must these days, considering how much search and browsing is done on mobile devices.

It seems a recent report from L2ThinkTank bears out my view.

The report focuses primarily on luxury brands, which they refer to as the Prestige100 (though I’m not quite sure how Macy’s makes the list – but I digress).

Though the report is limited to luxury brands, it’s my impression that the results are at least directionally applicable to the overall state of mobile maturity across various sectors.

Their research shows that many of these brands are not yet mastering the basics, as indicated by this chart recreated by eMarketer:

So what are the takeaways for the travel sector?

In many ways the results don’t differ much from what I had noted ten months ago in a previous article for Tnooz.

The only companies that fit into the Prestige100 were luxury hotels (one might have thought that carriers such as Singapore Airlines or Emirates, or luxury cruise lines like SilverSea, might have made the cut, but alas, no).

Intercontinental made the “Gifted” class and, as a whole, the “hospitality” segment averaged a score of 86, which falls into the “challenged” category.

The good news is that it puts the hospitality sector as the second highest rated industry, behind retail, but also shows there’s still a long way to go. And I would further speculate that the scores for the non-luxury hotels would come up even a bit lower still.

NB: The report from L2 is available is below:

And then there are the metasearch engines such as Hotelscombined and Kayak looking for a piece of the action.

Of course, online travel agencies (especially Booking.com) are still immensely powerful players and then, most recently, Room Key crash landed on the scene with a promise of multi-brand search utopia.

On the periphery are the startups, such as Room 77, which launched in a blaze of publicity and has since gone on to raise over $10 million in funding from, amongst others, the backers of ITA Software, General Catalyst.

It now turns out that travel expense management giant Concur (also owner of TripIt) was part of the funding round last summer when it took a minority stake in the business, an investment revealed today when Concur announced record results of its first $100 million quarter in revenue for Q4 2011.

Clearly Concur sees something in Room 77 that it feels is worth taking a punt on.

So with 12 months now passed since launch, and having backers with a pretty high pedigree, on both the investment and operational side of the industry, is Room 77 about to start shouting a little louder?

It would appear so.

Founder and chairman Brad Gerstner says: “We think there’s a lot to be done in hotel metasearch – we’re going to out-Kayak Kayak by focusing like a laser ONLY on hotels just like Hotels.com and Booking.com, but better.”

Fighting talk, indeed.

Back over at Concur, CEO Steve Singh is also talking up his company’s profile, referring to Room 77 as the “Zillow of hotel rooms”.

Zillow co-founder and executive chairman Rich Barton also happens to be an investor in Room 77, of course.

Singh says Room 77 would benefit both hoteliers and their customers if its content about individual hotel rooms could be integrated into hotel CRS and property management systems.

“It would allow hoteliers to monetize their properties at a more granular level and push choice to the end customer,” Singh says.

He believes resistance from hotels would “change over time”. He adds: ”I run a business that gets resistance all the time.”

Concur made a relatively small investment in Room 77 and a “more substantive one” in Taxi Magic, which enables business travelers to purchase ground transportation and integrate the expense into the Concur Expense system.

Singh says two things drive Concur’s investments: the ability to create as much content choice as possible for business travelers, and the ability to make it available to customers.

“If we can help foster that kind of innovation, bring it to market and make it available to our customers, then that delivers a tremendous user experience,” Singh says.

The Concur CEO argues that mobile is blurring the lines between corporate travel and consumer tools.

Singh believes corporate travel policies are diverse and he could see business travelers using Room 77 to pick hotel rooms in conjunction with corporate travel policies.

Alternately, he adds, perks outside the parameters of corporate policy could be billed to business travelers’ personal credit cards.

Asked if he could envision a larger investment in Room 77, Singh says: “What guides us is this: if it is innovative and delivers greater choice to end customers, we are interested in developing it.”

NB: Additional reporting by Dennis Schaal.

The 214-page study, Distribution Channel Analysis: A Guide for Hotels, warns that third-party “gatekeepers” such as Google, Facebook and Apple, will expand their influence as “preferred points of entry” when consumers search for hotels and make reservations.

“… It is plausible that upwards of half of the hotel business could ultimately pass through third parties before being delivered to a hotel or brand …” according to the study, which is billed as a special report from the American Hotel & Lodging Association and STR (formerly known as Smith Travel Research).

The study, published by the HSMAI Foundation, was written by Cindy Estis Green and Mark Lomanno. It is geared toward the US market, although many of the interview subjects have global operations.

The study estimates that US hoteliers paid $2.7 billion in online travel agency commissions in 2010, with another $1.3 billion going to traditional travel agencies through global distribution system bookings.

“… The prospect of paying double these costs to a widening array of third-party intermediaries within 3 to 5 years may be shocking, but it is not unrealistic,” the study says.

And, referring to “this emerging new network” of gatekeepers, the authors argue that US hoteliers may end up paying them 10% to 20% of revenue in distribution costs.

The big intermediary brands are coming, and as the study states:

New players, such as Facebook, already in a relationship with Microsoft (active in travel search with Bing), and Apple, possibly in partnership with Kayak (or other meta-search sites, like Room Key, with access to a robust travel inventory), are dabbling in travel and can gain traction quickly due to deep pockets and a high level of consumer adoption. Likewise, large consumer sites like Amazon, eBay or other consumer-savvy retailers as well as media companies who need to expand their traditional reader base like USA Today or The New York Times may well get in the game. It is not clear which business models they will offer and what kind of control a hotel may have to gain visibility and participate cost effectively.

The study further contends that channel vendors “are unlikely to bring meaningful incremental demand into any US marketplace in the near term.”

And the primary source of new hotel demand in the US come from an influx in visitors from India, China and other international markets, the study says.

And, while major hotel brands are expanding in markets such as China and India, “third parties with marketing savvy and substantial budgets” are focusing on tapping into their inbound potential, the study says.

And this, the study suggests, will further entrench intermediaries as “crucial players in the consumer hotel selection process.”

And, speaking of demand generation, the study raises questions about the billboard effect, which is the theory that a brand’s presence on OTA sites such as Expedia creates incremental demand for the hotel’s own website.

The billboard effect theory was most prominently espoused in 2009 and 2011 studies by the Cornell Center for Hospitality Research.

But, the AH&LA and STR study faults the Cornell research for failing to prove cause and effect between a brand’s presence on Expedia.com and increased bookings on brand.com. The AH&LA and STR study notes:

The more comprehensive April 2011 study of 1,720 hotel bookings does not give any credit to the other seven to eight travel websites visited by consumers in the run-up to each booking, nor does it evaluate email, offline advertising, banner ads or any other commonly used promotional vehicles, each of which may create the effect of an added ‘billboard’ on a travel shopper’s path.

No one doubts, however, the current clout of the OTAs, especially during recessionary periods. The AH&LA and STR study estimates that OTAs accounted for 11% of room nights and 7.7% of US hotel revenue in 2010.

So, with hotels’ frenemies at the OTAs still forces to be reckoned with, and with the likes of Facebook, Apple, Google and other gatekeepers fast-emerging on the scene, what is a hotel to do?

The study offers several strategies for hotel managers or owners — none of which on the surface sound promising as a means of stemming the tide.

Among the recommendations:

• Manage the hotel’s most beneficial channel mix;

• Manage your channel mix against the competition, and compare channels in terms of shifting share, their fees and how they encourage consumer engagement;

• Invest in sustainable channels which enhance customer retention;

• Conduct systematic channel audits to ensure they are reaching the customers that they are supposed to be targeting.

• And, safeguard your pricing, brand and inventory, and “price smart.”

There is a certain helplessness creeping in around online hotel distribution which is worrying hotels in Europe and worldwide.

In recent weeks, Germany’s market leader HRS increased commission fees by more than 15 %, just two months after acquiring Hotel.de, the number three in the German market.

Simultaneously the screws were tightened in a frightening manner as rate- and availability-parity clauses applicable throughout all (!) online and offline distributions channels were inserted into the terms and conditions.

Now we are not talking only about last room availability, but we are confronted with anytime-access to the entire hotel inventory, a veritable product-parity.

Since then there has been increased murmurings in the discussion forums and chat rooms of the hotel industry.

For the sake of fairness, it should be mentioned that HRS also announced an automatic GDS-connection via Amadeus for HRS hotels, including a flat fee.

This particular booking portal’s power and the eventual dependency of hotel businesses on it raise fundamental questions.

Why couldn’t the hotel industry oppose these mechanisms of online distribution in time, and why did it leave the increasingly one-sided booking conditions in place?

At least in Europe the cause lies in the conditions of the market, where a constantly narrowing oligopoly on the side of the supplier faces a fragmented hotel sector.

As a consequence, unfair market practices are established which the hotel industry can barely defend itself. In economics this effect is known as The Prisoner’s Dilemma.

What is the way out?

Sure, every hotel has a whole lot of homework to do to strengthen its direct bookings via its own website.

Hotel associations inform their members and give a wide variety of help with direct-booking strategies, hotel reviews, content, customer loyalty, context and search engine optimization.

The development of a booking system belonging to the hotel industry is hardly the tool of choice due to the market and painful experiences of the past, no matter how promising new approaches, such as RoomKey, may sound.

And also Google will not incorporate the heroic epic of the so-called White Knight into its repertoire.

But how can the markets be held open in the medium and long term?

The hotel industry must have a vital interest in preventing monopolies in the growing markets of online travel agents, hotel review sites and search engines.

For this the barriers to entry for third parties such as agencies, app-developers, booking service providers, channel managers, online-merchants, search engines, think tanks outside the industry, garage startups and any other market participant, must be kept as low as possible.

This enables real and latent competitive pressure to be generated though alternatives, which sustainably prevents monopoly rents from being siphoned.

This allocation of industry know-how must be perceived and organised as a public good, the use of which is accessible to the general public at a low cost, or for free.

Why don’t we, as an industry, combining our knowledge and expertise, build a comprehensive hotel database – a worldwide Hotelwiki?

It would include unique global identifiers, address data, GPS-coordinates, photos, videos and in particular deep links to the favourite booking page of each hotel would have to be added and inserted there.

This project could be cast in the shape of a foundation. Or it could be built up from already existing industry initiatives such as Dothotel, HEDNA, HFTP, HTNG, OpenTravel Alliance, RoomKey or TTI, you name it.

Who takes the lead is secondary in the end. We need this industry’s joint show of strength – worldwide, undistorted, neutral.

It’s time for a Hotelwiki!

NB: This is a guest article by Markus Luthe, CEO of the German Hotel Association.

NB2: Images via Shutterstock.

The last few weeks haven’t been great for Google, especially for its operations in Africa.

On Friday 13 January, no less, Kenyan local listings site Mocality, ultimately owned by South African multinational Napsers, dropped a huge piece of detective work that appeared to show sales agents for Google’s Getting Kenyan Business Online programme cold-calling Mocality clients with fraudulent claims of a partnership.

Launched in September 2011, GKBO is essentially a free site builder, though domain upgrades from KBO.co.ke are available for a fee.

Pundits have claimed there’s no revenue here to justify underhand or illegal activity, but of course GKBO is a market share play for Google’s data and location services – the package has Google Analytics and a verified Places listing baked in – and there’s potential for search advertising revenue down the line from the businesses they bring to the web.

This is a long game.

Sub-Saharan Africa’s middle classes are swelling, which means more consumers, more prosperous SMEs, more internet connections, more searches. And there is, as Oxford Internet Research Institute fellow Dr Mark Graham recently pointed out in the Guardian, a global north-south content deficit.

The internet simply has far less information on it about the south. There’s money in filling some of those gaps – in the words of Ghanaian tech entrepreneur Herman Chinery-Hesse, “every aspect of underdevelopment requires a business”.

Mocality filled them by riding Kenya’s M-PESA mobile money service to build a business database; Google is ostensibly filling them by riding the need for a cheap, reliable web presence. The question now is whether it illegally used Mocality’s name to give that approach some momentum.

Google’s European VP for product and engineering Nelson Mattos issued an apology to Mocality on Google+ late on Friday 13, and Mocality boss Stefan Magdalinski has updated his original post to say that G’s sub-Saharan boss Joe Mucheru has been in touch.

But publicly the company has conceded little. Internal investigations continue, and some commenters on tech sites have argued that Mocality’s log files and call recordings could simply point to clever confidence tricksters faking Google IPs.

Even if that proves to be the case, the Western Goliath versus African David narrative will be a tough one to reverse.

And it gets worse for the folks at Mountain View, because the same week saw Google extend the beleaguered programme, rolling it out in Ghana under the Get Africa Online banner.

GKBO appears to herald a continent-wide strategy, and that leaves Google with some serious reputation-cleansing to do – particularly with Mocality now making noises about legal action.

All this is particularly pertinent to the tourism sector in Ghana, where Google has scored a high-profile agreement with the Ghana Tourism Authority (GTA). The two have had a relationship for some time, with Google’s country office helping GTA to optimise its own website.

According to GTA director of research, statistics and information Nana Dwum Barima, 100 businesses have expressed an interest since an initial stakeholder meeting and launch event last week, with 30 committing to register for the service – 1% of the partnership’s official 3,000 target.

Barima expects the project to capture mainly downstream businesses, which could prove a boon to travellers.

West Africa’s low internet penetration, limited leisure tourism and volatile business environment mean official, MSM and UGC profiles for small hotels and restaurants are thinly spread and frequently outdated.

Where they do exist, they’re often dominated by business travel and expat tastes – hence Lonely Planet’s users collectively rating a pizza restaurant and an Irish theme pub among the five best things to do in Accra. They aren’t – I’ve checked.

In the coming weeks GTA will be holding stakeholder meetings through regional offices, and is looking at organising radio discussions across Ghana’s 10 regions.

Barim says GTA believes it can reach 5,000, but that will depend, of course, on how seriously the Mocality affair dents its technology partner’s African ambitions.

NB: This is a guest article by Nathan Midgley, a freelance writer and web editor based in Accra, Ghana.Nathan Midgley. Follow him on Twitter.

NB2: Image via Shutterstock.

I have learned many things as a chronicler of the digital media industry over the last decade plus.

But one of the definitive items is this: you will always be proven wrong about any prognostication on Yahoo, not because what you said wasn’t the path Yahoo took, but that it didn’t take any.

Unless of course Yahoo’s procrastination was your prognostication.

With a brand new CEO now at the helm, Yahoo’s choice on running-while-standing-still has run out. That much is sure.

Besides the industry-mystifying choice of ex-PayPal president Scott Thomson, there’s a lot of movement on disposing off its Asian stakes, part of its “trying to unlock the value” of its assets.

And it looks like it is happening soon: now there’s a M&A wish-list as part of “a tax-efficient asset swap with Alibaba and Softbank,” according to a report in Bloomberg this week.

The list includes the likes of WebMD, Weather Channel and AutoTrader. Previously, other names like Hulu and Bankrate have also been thrown around.

All which seem very random, only being considered because their size may fit what all parties need in terms of size of transaction to close the swap-deal. And that they’re conveniently part-owned by private-equity firms, all of which happen to want to part-buy Yahoo as well.

But let’s step back a bit. What does Yahoo want to be when it, well, gets born again?

Nostalgia

Back in 2005, when Yahoo was trying to reinvent itself under Terry Semel, I suggested that it buy Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia — back when Martha mattered — as a way to double down on women’s media and lifestyle play, a huge market, and more importantly, a unifying plan.

We all know how that and subsequent attempts went.

With the Asian sell-offs, it will have around $10 billion or more in cash, and why not use it for transformative acquisitions to help build around a theme? What could that theme be, large enough for Yahoo to continue to be one of the largest Internet players in the world?

Here’re my humble suggestion for Yahoo: start by redefining yourself as the “people-powered listings business”.

And it won’t be a stretch: after all, Yahoo started as a listings layer on top of the web, with its directory service, which curated everything interesting to “surf” at that time.

Why not go back to that theme, and stretch it to the users?

What that means is instead of investing everything in expensive original content (which it needs to do in certain verticals like news, sports, finance, if only as a glue that holds everything else together) or tech (a losing battle in face of Google, Facebook, take-you-pick-startup), use your users to help build the next version of Yahoo.

Let them curate the real world, through reviews and ratings of these listings. This isn’t a small vertical business, this is a huge intelligence layer over the world that Yahoo, with its money and users, can piece together better than almost anyone can.

And there’s a perfect and newly independent giant waiting for Yahoo (or anyone else, for that matter) to start with: TripAdvisor, fresh from its spinoff from Expedia.

User generated opportunity

TripAdvisor is about a $630 million (2011 estimates) revenue business, about $3.5 billion market cap, top-line revenue growth of over 30% over the past several quarters and at least 50 percent operating margin, so those numbers themselves paint a big story.

It has a huge repository of user-gen content that actually works and leads to transactional and advertising
opportunities, and has a big worldwide footprint and potential.

It also plays into the two biggest growth “sectors” for anyone in digital: mobile and social, and TripAdvisor, in its own messy way, has done a lot in both.

Of course there’s the small matter of trying to convince Barry Diller, who continues to be TripAdvisor (and indeed Expedia’s) largest shareholder, but when has Diller ever shied away from a large M&A deal?

Another adjacent, people-powered listings business is Yelp, smaller than TripAdvisor, and private, and Elevation Partners, its major private equity shareholder, would be happy to do a deal, anything that will make its much-panned portfolio and exits look better.

Yelp’s numbers are less readily available, but it is viewing an IPO, according to a November report by WSJ.

Revenue estimates for Yelp are around $100 million in 2012, and the IPO is expected to value it anywhere between $1 billion to $2 billion. Yelp is TripAdvisor’s cousin, with potential to be joined at the hip when put together with TripAdvisor, exact same philosophy in the transaction+advertising mix.

An expansion on that theme would include listings (and resulting transactions) businesses which could use that reviews layer added to them: HomeAway in the TripAdvisor-adjacent vacation rentals business, and OpenTable with its Yelp-adjacency.

Further down the line, real-estate listings business could be added to the mix, which would make companies like Trulia and Zillow attractive targets for Yahoo.

A global web layer

All of this also helps Yahoo forge a path independent of the other better-positioned internet giants like Google and Facebook and even similarly-troubled ones like AOL.

Almost all of these and smaller startup players are better at tech, Yahoo will never win that game in Silicon Valley or outside.

And every large media and every tech-trying-to-be-media company will continue to build content assets, and chip away at the media ad dollars, with the resultant downward ad pricing pressures that all of us are aware of.

This plan leverages its user base, still the second largest in the world, to build its future.

It allows Yahoo to be the utility layer of the world, a daily use across all forms of digital delivery, online and mobile, and at the nexus of every large internet trend: be a platform, and leverage local, social and mobile (there, I finally used that buzz phrase!).

It can continue to focus on content assets that build on top of those listings and reviews assets, as a loyalty driver.

NB: This is a guest article by Rafat Ali, an entrepreneur, journalist and founder of paidContent. Ali is currently working on his new still-in-development-startup Skift, a travel intelligence company.

NB2: Disclosure – Ali is a shareholder in Yahoo.

NB3: Image via Shutterstock.

It surprises me that many hoteliers do nothing with review sites. Even if all the reviews are positive, there should still be some level of management response.

There are many other issues around how hoteliers engage with review platforms and with guests who may leave a review of a hotel, whether it is positive or negative.

So here are 17 mistakes I have found hotels often make with regards to review sites:

1. Not showing that you care

If a review has potential to be damaging to your reputation, somebody on your management team should respond to it.

A response should be written thoughtfully, carefully and intelligently… so that everyone who goes on to read it will get the impression you run a thoughtful, careful, intelligent business.

People want to see that you care. They want to know that if they have a problem, somebody at the hotel will seriously attend to the matter.

Another important thing, research from TripAdvisor shows that 71% of travelers believe management responses matter.

2. Hiding

People don’t like this. If you are going to write a response, put your name to it, and your title. When you don’t put a name on your management response, what you have written isn’t as authentic and human as it could be.

Your management response simply won’t mean as much. It shows that you are not 100% committed to your customers, whether that is the reality of the situation or not.

In summary, you weaken their trust and increase their skepticism when you hide behind a company facade.

3. Inadequate proofreading

It only takes one careless error to convey in some readers’ minds that the management at your hotel is not well-educated. Something as simple as using “their” instead of “there” can set that impression.

4. Using overly complicated words

Don’t take it too far with trying to impress the readers with your vocabulary. It isn’t helpful. Use conversational English.

5. Attacking the review writer

This is risky. Taking on a defensive tone, belittling the writer, accusing them of being dishonest, blaming them for the problem…

Though it may be tough to do, it’s better to take the high road with not even a hint of these elements being in your writing.

If somebody says there was a bug in their room, and you say it’s their fault for leaving the door open, it’s not going to go over well with a lot of travelers who go on to read that response.

Keep the tone of your response cordial. If the tone is too aggressive or comes across as immature, you could scare away potential guests.

6. Failure to deal with a seriously negative accusation in a review

If somebody says you have bed bugs, and you don’t respond, this probably will be severely damaging.

If you are certain it is a malicious, fraudulent post, then use your capability with the review site’s management tools to report it and to request its removal.

If the review has any chance of being accurate, then be completely transparent about how you are addressing the situation.

7. Failure to respond to positive reviews

You shouldn’t respond to every positive review. But do respond from time to time to show readers that you care about what people think, that you appreciate their comments, and take a moment to plug a few benefits connected with staying at your hotel.

8. Responding with a boiler plate response

If you write the same basic response over and over again, you will come across as kind of stupid, shallow and insincere.

You need to mix it up. Make each response unique. Show that you understood what they said.

9. Permitting a low number of reviews

In the minds of travelers, a small number of reviews compared to other nearby hotels could mean “beware” in their minds, unless your property is brand new. And if you have old reviews on the first page, those are stale.

Their value is questionable, because they don’t represent the current conditions at your hotel.

10. Asking guests to write reviews through the hotel’s wireless network

If you are asking people to join TripAdvisor for the first time, and they go on to write a very positive review from your IP address, this could cause you problems.

TripAdvisor might begin to think your reviews are being concocted by staff members, and this could lead to punishment by TripAdvisor, such as “red flagging” and a downgrade of your ranking.

Other review sites could react similarly.

11. Not taking full advantage of the visual content you can upload to a review site

Upload all of the photos and video you can. VERY FEW hotels are uploading any video content. A good video presentation could be very helpful.

Try to take advantage of Google’s special interior photography for businesses, where the 360 degree “street view” camera comes into your hotel. Check out this example of a bar.

Currently, Google is providing this service for free. If you can get in on this deal, it’s one extra free marketing tool that your local competitors might not have.

12. Failing to ask for positive reviews

Anytime you let an extremely satisfied guest walk out of the hotel without asking for a review on a specific review site, you are letting opportunity slip right through your fingers.

Extremely satisfied guests, especially those who are first-time visitors, are the most likely to follow-through and write a positive review for you.

13. Ignoring the potential of other review sites, besides TripAdvisor

Yes, TripAdvisor is dominant when it comes to hotel reviews, but you should be making efforts to raise your visibility on Yelp and Google Places too.

Devices with advanced voice recognition technology, like the Apple iPhone’s Siri, will become more advanced and widespread — soon.

People will be curious which hotel Siri, or Google’s upcoming system, will recommend, and they will say to their next generation iPad, Apple television or smartphone: “I’m going to be in Boston next week. And I want a hotel room for less than 200 bucks a night. Which one should I stay at?”

These new voice assistants will comb through Yelp and Google Places and make recommendations based largely upon reputation.

It’s going to be revolutionary. If you want your hotel to be highly likely to be recommended by these devices, you need to take steps now to position yourself for it by getting a dominant quantity of positive reviews on Yelp and Google Places.

Even if the voice recognition revolution is slow to come, there are still a lot of Yelpers out there and plenty of people hit Google up for travel info. It would be a good idea to establish a strong reputation on these sites.

Besides Google Places and Yelp, look for other review sites that might benefit you, like HolidayCheck, a popular site with Europeans.

14. Provoking a sudden flow of 5 star reviews on Yelp by people who are brand new to Yelp

Yes, it’s a good idea to encourage a strong reputation on Yelp, but you need to be careful about who you are asking to post a review there.

If suddenly you begin getting 5 star reviews from people who have just signed up for Yelp, you are in danger of having all of those new reviews taken away from you.

It is better to ask for reviews on Yelp from established Yelpers. (Yelp is tricky.)

15. Blocking access to managers and failure to head off negative reviews at the pass

A lot of hotels seem to have drawbridges around their managers, where the pathway to them is blocked.

It’s better to encourage guests to complain to someone in authority so that problems can be addressed.

If you don’t make it easy for dissatisfied guests to complain, they will make you pay for it with passionate, in-depth negative reviews and negative buzz, and they will gladly spread it around in attempts to reap some satisfaction out of the situation.

The average Facebook user has 130 friends. Do you really want the occasional dissatisfied guest telling 130 people, or more, how much you sucked?

Make yourself available to intercept those problems before they become damaging problems.

16. Asking for positive reviews on more than one review site

By adding complexity to your request for a positive review, you lessen the chances of getting any review.

If you are going to ask your customers for reviews on multiple sites, you’re probably asking for too much. Make it simple. Pick one review site and ask for nothing else.

And if you ask for a positive review and a Facebook “like” and a newsletter sign-up, your request has too much clutter and probably will result in getting nothing for your efforts.

17. Posting fraudulent reviews

This is risky. My gut feeling is that only a few hotels, here and there, are attempting this, for example, in the US. If you do get caught, you could receive some embarrassing attention.

Your ranking will probably be shot to bits by the operators of the review site, and if your hotel is in the US, you might even be prosecuted and fined by the FTC (Federal Trade Commission).

Why risk all that trouble? Just ask your most satisfied guests for the favor of a 5 star review.

NB: This is a guest article by Ed Ryder, a word-of-mouth strategist at OutRivalReputationManagement.

NB2: Download Ryder’s Review Trigger Cards to make asking for positive reviews easier.

NB3: Image via Shutterstock.

But just like most up-and-coming technologies, there is much confusion as to what it all really means and how it can help make the customer experience better and lead to more sales.

This article is meant to serve as a technical primer and will show some of the potential future applications across the travel ecosphere.

Big Data 101

The term “Big Data” is often applied in several ways, but it is quite self-explanatory. Big data just means “a lot of data” – that is, datasets that are beyond the capabilities of a typical database in terms of size, workload and overall cost — and the technologies that enable the extraction of meaning from it.

So where might we encounter a lot of data in travel?

A prime example would be the analytics logs of an online travel agency. For years, analytics tools have enabled companies to keep track of conversion funnels, detailed demographic statistics, and other pertinent information such as which pages convert the best, have the highest bounce rates, etc.

These reports are then used to optimize sites to ensure the best possible conversions. But in the era of big data, companies are gathering and paying attention to much more data than seemed possible just a few years ago.

For example, some sites are now gathering the detailed mouse movements of customers in real time as they move around pages.

This generates literally millions of coordinates and data points for every user, allowing companies unparalleled insights into what users are doing when they’re on a page.

Just a few years ago, storing the amount of data required for projects like this would’ve been prohibitively expensive.

These days, the proliferation of cheap storage as well as distributed file systems that allow storage across dozens (or hundreds) of commodity computers enables the cheap and efficient storage of petabytes of data without massive cost.

As storage technology improves, the costs of keeping every last byte of data for later analysis will keep going down.

Big data analysis, MapReduce and the extraction of meaning

Having all this data is nice, but the real value lies in the extraction of meaning from it. Big data tools such as MapReduce, based on technology originally invented at Google, enable easy discovery of common trends in data and the action upon those trends.

This is more easily demonstrated by an example:

Imagine you had an Excel spreadsheet of every hotel in the world and wanted to find the ones most commonly described as “awesome”. [NB: Ed - Are you sure? ]

The raw data you have might look something like the following:

Hotel Name, Review
—————————–
“Hotel A”,”Miserable experience”
“Hotel B”,”Awesome pool!”
“Hotel C”,”Liked it”
“Hotel B”,”Awesome restaurants”
“Hotel A”,”Loved it”
“Hotel C”,”Awesome experience”
“Hotel B”,”Boring”

Even though we’re only showing a few records here for simplicity, this spreadsheet would have hundreds of thousands of rows.

With MapReduce, you could write a function that maps each hotel name and creates a group of reviews for each name that is commonly discovered.

In the above example, “Hotel B” occurs 3 times, so the Map function would create a collection resembling something like this:

“Hotel B”:”Awesome pool!”, “Awesome restaurants”, “Boring”

Already, the map function has helped us find every review for “Hotel B”. But we’re not done yet — we’ll let the Reduce function do its job.

This function lets us perform any type of analysis we want on the collection that Map created for us. In our case, we wanted to find only reviews containing the word “awesome.” Reduce would contain computer code that did this:

“If the review contains the word awesome, increment an internal counter by 1″

This internal counter would essentially act as a score, or number of times the word “awesome” appeared for a given collection. In our example, “Hotel B” would come out on top with 2 “awesome” reviews, “Hotel C” would come out with 1, and “Hotel A” with 0.

So what did we accomplish in the above example? We found commonality in raw, unstructured data and then analyzed it for a business purpose.

While simple, this is the raw power of MapReduce and similar technologies: Extracting meaning when there previously wasn’t any.

The amazing part of this is that MapReduce can analyze billions – or trillions – of data points and find patterns in them. All on clusters of commodity hardware, and at a cost that even a startup can afford.

Can you see the potential yet?

State of Big Data in travel

The ability of big data technology to enable us to find intelligence in vast amounts of data presents a clear, massive opportunity to reshape the way consumers are marketed and sold to in travel.

It’s not a question anymore that those companies with ongoing big data projects are at the forefront of an entirely new way to sell travel to customers.

Emmanuel Marchal, currently at big data storage company Acunu, and a former-director at LikeCube, a company that leveraged big data for consumer travel sites and was later acquired by TimeOut, spoke with me briefly about the current state of Big Data in the travel industry:

• Big data applications are moving from profiling to true personalization. For example, true personalization would enable a site to recommend a specific hotel to a specific traveler based on their specific wants, needs, and previous purchase patterns, rather than a generic set of recommendations based on the type of traveler.
• True personalization is the main driver and “holy grail” of all big data efforts in travel.
• OTAs and other sellers of travel now see their big data efforts as “must haves” rather than “nice to haves”
• 2009 was the year of talking about it. 2010 was the year of starting big data projects. 2011 was the year of the prototypes. Will 2012 be the year these efforts finally see broad implementation?

In addition to personalization, efforts such as Hopper (NB: Disclosure – Hopper CEO Fred Lalonde is chairman of Tnooz) are demonstrating another prime example of how big data can empower consumers.

Large scale analysis of data related to places combined with natural language processing (NLP) enable search queries such as “nearby beach vacations under $500″. While this represents a combination of technologies, they all are enabled by the application of big data processing.

Into the future

While personalization is surely a holy grail, there are literally thousands of potential uses of big data in travel.

Geo-fencing, the process of knowing when a traveler is near a certain attraction or vendor, is starting to emerge.

An example of this is the recently launched Foursquare Radar feature, which alerts you when you are near a place you at one time wanted to be reminded of.

This technology is pure big data: gathering your coordinates in real time via your mobile phone’s GPS and realizing when you are in a certain boundary.

Enabled across millions of consumers, the amount of data gathering and processing required for efforts like this were unthinkable just a few years ago.

Think about it: how many GPS coordinates do you generate in a given day? The potential of geo-fencing to marketers is nothing short of amazing.

Image data processing: Billions of photographs representing petabytes of storage are uploaded to the internet every day.

Photo sharing apps such as Instagram might seem a great way to share moments with friends, but the true value behind these startups lies in the data they’re collecting on the backend. Each photo generates a mountain of data that, with further analysis, reveals a host of information on the user uploading it.

Color, the much maligned startup that debuted with a stratospheric valuation before even launching their product, surely wowed its investors with the potentials behind all the data it was hoping to collect.

In travel, the startup Jetpac is already using these image processing methods to put a different spin on the social travel concept.

Recently acquired by eBay, the startup Hunch represented one of the finest examples of finding commonality in previously disparate forms of data.

Their API and publicly available test tool allows anyone to find out things like “People who prefer Subaru cars also prefer to stay at 5 star resorts 40% of the time” (this is not a real example!).

While these types of correlations might seem questionably useless, imagine the power of putting these concepts to use when you’re trying to market and cross-sell a traveler.

Taste Graphs turn knowing “something” about your customer into knowing a lot of other things about that customer. The use and application of these Taste Graphs is sure to become much wider in the coming year in everything from online retailers to, you guessed it, travel.

To sum it all up, big data isn’t an amazing new magic box you’ll be able to buy from a vendor.

Big data merely sums up the concept that we each generate billions of data points every day and that with the economically viable application of technology, we can be sold to better than ever before.

Are you ready?

NB: Image via Shutterstock.

Who and what are you (including personnel and backgrounds)?

We are a startup company based in southern Germany. Our first product was the German job search engine Opportuno. Opportuno has been launched in 2007 as a bootstrap with some radically new features (at the time) like advanced deep-web crawling and a user interface called “Instant View”, which can be seen as an early anticipation of what is now known as Google Instant.

Opportuno is still our main product. It is profitable and allows us to allocate resources to new ventures.

We started to work on cartographic hotel finders in 2009, mainly because we were unhappy with existing travel websites.

In 2010, we launched our first hotel finder called Hotelprise in Germany, which allowed us to build up knowledge and experience in the travel industry.

In December 2011, we launched HotelMaps, our first project with international focus.

Founders:

• Andreas Bogen – prior to founding Opportuno, Andreas worked for a global strategy consulting firm. Focus areas of his consulting work include innovation and growth as well as marketing for high-tech companies. Earlier in his career, Andreas worked for four years as a project and account manager in an international online agency. Andreas holds an MBA from the University of Cambridge, UK.
• Micheal Bogen – Michael is an experienced software engineer, specialized in large scale database applications and advanced web technologies. His prior work experience includes consulting and software development in the public and banking sector and database development at Oracle. Michael studied computer science in Germany and the USA.

What financial support did you have to launch the business?

HotelMaps has been financed using free cash flow from our initial product, Opportuno.com.

What problem are you trying to solve?

It always bothered us that most hotel reservation and travel websites look and feel like they were designed ten years ago.

Overloaded with information and advertising, they show little focus on the user. Above all, we think the implementation of maps has often been neglected. A tiny map with dots marked with A, B, C and a corresponding table is not what we consider a user friendly solution.

This is particularly odd considering that the location is probably the most important information when booking a hotel, along with the room rate and category.

Describe the business, core products and services?

We built our hotel finder entirely on maps. Different from other recently launched map based hotel websites such as Hipmunk or Google’s own Hotel Finder, we want to show prices and star ratings directly on the map.

Since this is not possible with off-the-shelf solutions for Google maps, we had to develop an entirely new framework on top of Google maps.

Our technology allows us to put the most relevant information first. Each hotel icon on the map is marked with the room price and star rating. In areas where hotels are close together, icons are grouped into clusters to avoid overlaps.

Room rates and star ratings are permanently visible on the map, allowing the user to scan the most relevant information at a glance.

More than 200,000 hotels worldwide are available via HotelMaps. Once the user enters travel dates and hotel requirements, HotelMaps sources real-time room rates and availability data from more than 30 major travel sites and displays the best prices directly on the map.

Filters for price and ratings can be applied using sliders, which instantly change the results on the map.

Who are your key customers and users at launch?

• Customers: OTAs and booking websites
• Users: Travelers looking for hotels – both for business and vacation

Did you have customers validate your idea before investors?

Yes.

What is the business AND revenue model, strategy for profitability?

We are a metasearch engine similar to Hipmunk, Trivago or Kayak. Thus we follow the same business model: our revenues are provisions from OTAs, which means we are profitable as long as our long term traffic acquisition costs stay below revenues.

SWOT analysis – strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats?

Strengths:

• We have developed a technical solution that cannot be copied overnight
• We are a small and flexible team, and we can adjust quickly to a changing environment

Weaknesses:

• We do not have celebrity investors or the financial resources of a huge corporation

Opportunities:

• We do have a USP in a huge and growing market

Threats:

• Google as a competitor
• Google as a search engine/ traffic source
• Google as the provider of Google Maps

Who advised you your idea isn’t going to be successful and why didn’t you listen to them?

Most people actually like the idea and believe it will find its fans. Once a user is used to map-based search, it is hard to go back to the clogged tables of conventional hotel finders.

The main criticism we hear is that Google will dominate our market soon, leaving little room for small innovators.

What is your success metric 12 months from now?

Important metrics for success are, among others, the number of visits and the conversion rate. However, we do not publish specific target values or long-term goals. After all, one of our strengths is our flexibility.

NB: TLabs Showcase is part of the wider TLabs project from Tnooz.

If you merely enter “JFK to LA” into the Bing search box, then Bing’s auto-suggest feature produces its own Bing Travel result as the first suggested query, like this:

And, if you select that first link, as many users would, it takes you directly to Bing Travel — and thus it bypasses all other sponsored and organic results on the traditional Bing search results page.

Even Google, which has been lambasted by critics, including some US Senators, for the preferential and self-serving way it handles flight search, doesn’t go as far as Bing does in skewing flight results in its own favor.

If you enter “JFK to LAX” into the Google search box, Google Instant immediately produces Google Flight Search results above all organic results, but at least Google also shows organic results on the first screen from Kayak and Expedia, for example. Google handles the flight query like this:

If Bing users ignore the auto-suggestion of navigating directly to Bing Travel and select the “JFK to LAX” query, then Bing displays Bing Travel results as an Instant Answer (as it does for shopping, local, movies, weather and stock quotes) above all other organic results.

Bing’s Instant Answer for flights is similar in some ways to Google’s Flight Search results on their respective search results pages, although Google’s offering is tilted much heavier toward airline websites than is the Bing Travel solution.

Bing Travel flights, which is powered by Kayak, offers results from online travel agencies and airlines while Google Flight Search has shut out OTAs and other metasearch companies, such as Kayak.

Still, Bing, with its auto-suggestion of Bing Travel as the first query, is taking the biasing of flight search results to new levels — even one-upping Google in this regard. With Bing you can bypass the search results page altogether and navigate directly to Bing Travel while Google at least delivers users to a Google search results page, where they can view other companies’ results, too.

Still, Bing has escaped much criticism for the preferential way it treats flight — and other — search results, probably because of Bing’s relatively low search-market share.

And, FairSearch, which has led the protest against Google’s search engine practices, is quick to criticize Google’s practices and its “monopoly power,” but doesn’t seem to be particularly incensed over how Bing processes flight-search results.

Fair or unfair?

It should be pointed out that Microsoft, which operates Bing, is a key member of FairSearch.

On the Bing issue, FairSearch states:

Only Google has the monopoly power in search to tilt the market in an unfair way by steering consumers to its own services and away from all alternative, competing providers, depriving consumers of the benefits that flow from a truly competitive market.

It’s a well established principle of antitrust law that some tactics that are illegal when employed by a dominant power in a market are not when employed by a company that lacks that power in a market controlled by another party. If Google was not the dominant power in search and search advertising, and already found to have monopoly power by authorities who enforce antitrust law, it would not be the subject of scrutiny and investigations around the world.

What’s at stake in online travel is whether Google will be allowed to use its monopoly power in search and search advertising to unfairly get a leg up in that space rather than compete on the merits and give its own search engine users the choice between what Google has to offer and what sites like Kayak, Expedia and Travelocity have to offer.

Consumers win when they get to pick winners and losers, not Google.

And, when pressed again about its silence about Bing’s practices, FairSearch adds: “FairSearch has been focused on the threat to consumers and a well-functioning free market from Google’s abuse of its monopoly power in search and search advertising since day one. If Google lacked monopoly power, it would not have the ability to unfairly distort the market in ways that limit consumer choice and deprive them of the benefits that a free market brings.”

However, despite Bing’s Teflon (nonstick) status so far, the way Bing positions flight search queries and results certainly wouldn’t escape the attention of the US Federal Trade Commission, which is investigating Google’s practices.

Despite Bing’s relatively weak sway in the market, it’s only a matter of time before things heat up for Bing, as well.

Google declined to comment on the issue, and Microsoft didn’t  immediately respond to a request for comments.

In early 2011, OpenTravel gave the go ahead to a new project to produce a car rental ontology, building upon components donated by Avis Budget Group.

This was constructed by Thematix, a member of the Open Travel Alliance. The OpenTravel specification can be used to more easily build software that is interoperable with disparate travel systems.

But what does this mean for the wider travel industry? How do XML schema and ontologies connect? Why does it matter? Should you care?

Who will benefit when the schema and ontology are linked?

Think about a conversation in which both parties have a vocabulary of 200 words – it’s going to be a pretty limited discussion.

This is typically the case when computers talk to each other or to humans. People, on the other hand, can invent vocabularies and use the constructive principles of natural language to communicate just about anything.

To do this, they need both grammatical rules for constructing sentences (the syntax) as well as methods for encoding and decoding meaning (the semantics).

XML is like the syntax of a natural language – it tells you where the nouns, verbs and adjectives go, but does not help you make sense of the combinations of words.

When you add ontology to XML messages, you can make sense of the “words” that are the XML content using the syntax supplied by the XML.

Suddenly, you can have any conversation you like without having to change the syntax of the language.

When the conversation is between a traveler and a computer, the traveler benefits from greater freedom to express what they are looking for.

The seller, whose offers are mediated by the computer, benefits because the buyer is more satisfied (repeat business) and the margins are greater (customer demand, improved management of inventory).

Every buyer wants to deal with an understanding and helpful person, but this is expensive and there are not enough of them to go around. Talking with computers is efficient – they never get tired or make mistakes, and they are consistent.

People have to provide the computer with “person-like understanding” and creating this understanding via programming is very labor intensive.

Semantic technology is a shortcut. It allows people to tell computers what words and phrases mean. A “green car” is one that “seats four people and has city EPA mileage estimates of greater than 30 MPG”.

The definition of “green car” allows the car rental company to search its available inventory for a car meeting these criteria.

To learn more about Ontologies, view this primer.

What exactly does this mean for me, and what do I need to do to maximize value?

As a travel buyer, I get more freedom to express what I want and the reasons and conditions for the trip; e.g., family vacation with young children, romantic get away, sight seeing with lots of baggage, college reunion, stress free business trip with golf bags, etc.

I want to tell you what I want, need, desire so you can “unpack” implicit requirements and persuade me that you have the best package.

This fundamentally shifts the burden back to the travel supplier to sell me, rather than merely array the goods so I can buy them off of a price matrix.

This requires a vocabulary for content so that the computers can understand what I am saying.

As a seller of travel services or products, I need to commit to continually improving the ability of my computers to understand and respond to the requests from prospects and buyers.

It means backing up my advertising and merchandising content with vocabulary and understanding for my computers, and expanding the power of the knowledge base with reasoning.

In the beginning, success will be measured by stripping out irrelevant choices, and over time, learning what the words mean relative to final purchase.

Where can this be applied on the Travel Roadmap: Dreaming, Researching, Booking, Experiencing, Sharing?

The Travel Roadmap refers to a process that a traveler goes through when traveling. It starts with “Dreaming”, which entails forming ideas and gathering general information, perhaps serendipitously, to help formulate a goal.

“Researching” involves assembling information and plans that will help fulfill a goal. “Booking” is the implementation of a plan. “Experiencing” and “Sharing” happen during and after the travel, and involve the role of information in helping enhance and share the trip.

Dreaming and Researching are strongly coupled, at least online. Translating a dream into a research activity is all about words.

Pictures tend to be too literal – how can I tell whether a photograph of a handsome man lounging at a beach refers to any beach or the specific beach where the photograph was taken?

Words are explained by their ontology and construction – “a beach” and “that beach” mean quite different things in the context of a conversation.

Sharing is also a language activity. What words do I use to describe a travel experience and encourage others to have my experience, or be jealous of it?

Some of these words are value-descriptive: “fabulous”, “breathtaking”, “enriching”. Other words are found in the Dream/Research cycle: “resort”, “luxury”, “Hawaii” “surf and scuba.”

Taken together, these words enable others to convert their dreams into bookings by providing an effective starting point for the research activity.

When will this become really valuable?

We are in a position now where there are first mover advantages with consumer benefits powerful enough to create sustainable competitive advantage and lasting market share gains.

As with any first mover advantage, fast deployment with iterative improvement is the name of the game. Offering a new paradigm and transforming the interaction into one with more value and meaning will generate higher levels of satisfaction.

Many consumers are aching for more relevance and a spot-on recommendation; they are not asking for more choices that are largely out of band in the first place.

As with many technologies, there will be many ways to define and implement at your core site, cooperatively with trading partners and agents, and to explore alternative activities to broaden the scope via long tail key words, for example.

This investment is not without risk, nor should it be a singular IT or eCommerce implementation.

It is essential to carefully align your marketing strategy, product and content with your eChannel (internet, mobile, voice, etc.) support for the Research phase of the Travel Roadmap.

It is also essential to monitor how your buyers (potential and actual) respond to your eChannel capability and how they respond to the travel services you provide them.

In particular, you should consider engaging a monitoring service with the capability of digesting blogs, Twitter feeds, Facebook and Google+ postings for material about your brand and services.

Why should I care?

The travel services industry is in the midst of a major transformation to direct eChannel (internet, mobile, voice, etc.) interactions for Research, Booking Experiencing and Sharing.

Such transformations always create opportunity for growth by enterprises that fully engage them.

For those companies already using XML Schema, the addition of Ontology and semantics is the next logical step for improvements to the user experience and relevance of results, both within the booking engine and on search engines like Bing, Google and Yahoo!.

This technology is already being applied in many ways, by many sectors particularly Retail, Health Care, and Government, and is being deployed in Finance and Entertainment.

How do I proceed and how do I sell it to management?

How you proceed is dependent upon the role your company plays in the travel industry, and what your current eChannel strategy and capabilities are.

There are also other pesky issues such as planning cycles, development budgets, state of existing architecture, and other strategic imperatives.

Regardless, if you are a travel provider with strong eChannel capability and revenue dependencies, you will have a strong case for investment in Ontology and Semantics for revenue, competitive, and technical reasons. A logical first step would be to propose a limited scope pilot.

If your eChannel capability is not strong or represents only a small portion of revenue, it would make the most sense to partner with a complementary provider whose eChannel capabilities are stronger; work with them to test a few alternatives and enhancements to your interactions.

This technology is disruptive and is leading the next phase of travel buying and selling; management needs to know.

NB: This is a guest article by Jim Rhyne, a partner at US-based Thematix.

NB2: Image via Shutterstock.

In late 2010, we interviewed 650 destination marketing organizations to determine what they had in the way of tools for delivering web content to visitors.

By tools, we mean utilities such as interactive maps, itinerary builders, or calendars of events. We also asked about organizational tool selection processes and who operated new tool purchases after they were acquired. Tnooz published our inventory – Rough Guide to Tourism Websites and Technology – in January 2011.

Among our findings were stories that destination marketers told us about why they succeeded or failed. These anecdotes added context to our raw numbers. They also helped us understand the importance of organizational dynamics throughout acquisition processes.

As we teased out our data, we found that resources made less impact than we originally estimated. While funding directly impacted the number and sophistication of the tools that a DMO could afford, it had little to do with overall satisfaction or success in reaching organizational goals.

As it turned out, dissatisfaction surrounded peripheral issues to funding such as vendor and technology lock-in, inadequate staffing and institutional inertia brought about by policies and oversized egos.

Merging our factual inventory with these organizational anecdotes revealed a five-tiered break-down based on the numbers of tools, their types, and the organizational dynamics affecting their selection, implementation, and day-to-day management.

Empowered by what we observed, we spent a year building a comprehensive web framework.

In anticipation of its launch, we revisited our data to see if anything changed while we bent over the grindstone. Our re-visit involved an inventory of 60 websites that we surveyed earlier.

Our methodology consisted of comparing what we saw over a year ago with what we observed today.

Our findings showed us that changes were few when viewed through the lens of predictable change. While the technology paradigm shifted slightly, organizational positioning within the technology market remained fairly rigid.

In effect, organizations remained in their original class. What changed was what constituted a class.

For example, in our original survey, 54% of all respondent websites lacked interactive mapping functions. Now, 50% of those have interactive maps and itinerary building capacities.

Another 35% have Google maps that merely show POI locations, but not the spatial relationships between or among points of interests. None benefited by using their new functions to drill down into user preferences or spatial activity landscapes.

In the absence of harnessing the true essence of technology, the most poorly outfitted classes are still the most poorly outfitted.

The difference being that they now are at the bottom with features that more equipped organizations had a year and a half ago. At the other end of the spectrum, the rich didn’t get much richer.

Of the 16% that had mobile phone apps when we originally surveyed, none has added newer features such as media consumption on many screens, as articulated by Claude Benard in his Tnooz Predictions 2012.

Our observations show us that many organizations added phone apps moving into a higher class based on the number of capacities that they offer.

On a less encouraging note, our observations suggest that the state of technology is flat and the vision for media consumption on many screens is simply that – a vision moving forward for Google and Apple, but not trickling down to designated marketers.

Our observations are particularly true for Capacity Under Performers, Technology Prisoners, and Widows and Orphans.

1. Capacity Under-Performers

According to our findings this group comprised 55% of all organizations that failed to offer contemporary, industry-ready tools.

Today the class still comprises slightly over 50% and despite having added some capacities, it still lags behind because the definition of industry-optimal has shifted like a carrot on a stick to include smart devices, true interactivity, and data mining.

2. Technology Prisoners

Technology prisoners were those that were reluctant or incapable of changing course.

Included in this class were those that offered full capacity sets, but were burdened by onerous, long-term contracts for tools that have long-since passed their technological prime.

Technology prisoners are also well-meaning pioneers that made early and costly commitments to technologies that are now limited in their abilities to expand to accommodate new smart applications and advanced database queries.

Also mired among Technology Prisoners are organizations managed by individuals who justify or protect historical decisions for personal reasons.

Obviously, a simple 60-site web inventory can’t replicate the anecdotal information that we originally gathered, but we can see that little has changed in terms of the outward interfaces of these ego-driven organizations. Since this is the case, we have little reason to believe that managerial inertia isn’t still affecting progress in a negative way.

3. Widows and Orphans

These small organizations need new technology and efficiencies but lack finances and/or staffing. Our survey showed that 36% of our original respondents fell into this class.

Today, the number remains the same despite some improvements in services. Given the fall in price of adding interactive mapping 25% of our original widows and orphans can now afford them.

We can see, however, that most of these additions are not a database driven solution. We can also see that most of our widows and orphans still don’t have content management solutions (CMS) or evidence of customer relationship management technologies (CRM).

What to do next?

As we revisit this break-down, we must acknowledge limitations in the market. To do otherwise, ignores fundamental facts – positioning is relative to structures and resources in the industry, more than it is due to other factors.

If a technology heaven does exist for destination marketers, it is one in which every group has an equal chance of making it to the promise land. In this case, the promise land is where 650 organizations told us we could find it. It is a place where marketers find:

• Expert intelligent systems that learn who the traveler is and how to configure visitor experiences based on individual affinities or preferences.
• E-newsletters to inform prospective visitors of events, specials, or “hot deals”. (We think that QR codes would have fit this bill if they were around at the time of our survey)
• Online shopping and advertising to offset the rising cost of site creation and management.
• Tools that manage and record itineraries, traveler reviews, events, personalized travel itineraries, and maps for the purpose of facilitating destination-specific planning.

Given advancements in smart technology, we might add the following:

1. Using technology to enhance experience at point of contact

In another contribution to Tnooz, I called this “what-else-marketing” that employs newer technologies such as smartphones, social media, and QR codes to increase commerce at the POP (point of purchase or geographic location of the visitor, within the destination marketplace, at any point in time).

“What-else-marketing” harnesses the spontaneity of the journey in that it links physical world objects and opportunities to visitors at the street level in real time.

2. Recognition of personalization

Personalization, to me, means replacing the current destination-marketing model that is a mile wide and an inch deep with tailored communications that are a mile deep and an inch wide.

In this way, destination marketers can serve highly differentiated constituencies or affinities by compiling and utilizing the emergent properties of travel in the same way that an ornithologist might utilize the characteristics of singular birds to understand the behavior or affinities of flocks.

3. Use of multi-channel technology

In our way of thinking, technology isn’t about adding features. It’s about building frameworks that facilitate multiple visualizations in the same way that a user can use a menu to select multiple displays or print options.

To talk about new entry points such as smartphones, tablets, and e-books requires a wholesale re-evaluation of tools as a concept.

Moreover, if destination marketers are to remain relevant in the face of advances in multi-channel technologies made by Internet giants like Facebook, Google, and Apple, they must look beyond the simple addition of tools or capacities and start to invest in systems that are “all-tool”” and “all channels” simultaneously.

Summing up

In order to attain the aforementioned goals, we need to shift gears from tool counts to mission-based accomplishments.

None of these things is going to happen at the level of destination marketing without taking the vertical costs of invention and turning these flat against the democratic and universal needs of destination marketers of all sizes and capacities.

In other words, if marketers leave invention to billionaires like Apple or Google, they are sunk because no matter how flush they are with funds they can never hope to keep pace.

What the industry needs is a system that collapses the lengthy and costly assembly line into a simple and easy-to-use box that feeds highly specific individual and organizational content into one end and spits it out to any screen at the other.

This system needs to be infused with feedback loops—both longitudinal and real-time—that add traveler preferences, profiles, opinions, and experiences as emergent properties of a system that outputs to “screens” of all types.

To look to other solutions, to keeping adding tools as separate workstations on the destination marketing production line is the type of linear thinking that will never accomplish a holistic view or a multi-screened future.

NB: This is a guest article by Mark Mattson, a former university professor who writes agile software solutions for the travel industry through TravelTools, a service for destination marketers.

NB2: Mattson is about to launch a proprietary WordPress plugin that is a multi-channel and multi-screen solution that simultaneously runs DMO websites, interactive maps, smart phones, pads, e-newsletters, itinerary builders, HD kiosks, QR code integrations, and HDTVs from a single administrator panel and database.

NB3: Image via Shutterstock.

Here some of the hot topics of next year:

• Google Hotel Finder
• Metasearch and rate parity
• OTA commission levels
• Direct sales

It is a frantic time in the hospitality sector and in some respects it’s hard to figure out where to start for many hoteliers, but let’s focus on potentially the most disruptive and new of the quartet listed above.

Google Hotel Finder

A major development that will almost certainly impact the balance of the distribution world is the continued roll-out of Google Hotel Finder.

Google has developed its own metasearch tool as a counter move to Bing’s acquisition of Farecast, now called Bing Travel (remember that?).

In any case, Google recently started testing Google Hotel Finder ads above the regular Google Ads in search results.

Of course, this is inevitably causing mayhem and concern in the industry. In some respects, Google is effectively outmaneuvering metasearch sites such as HotelsCombined, Kayak and Trivago in one simple step.

Google Hotel Finder compares rates from major OTAs, which are paying a premium to show up feature in the service.

So, no, the OTA will not lose out on volume, but one could conclude that in the initial stages it will be a consolidation of volume to the larger OTAs, at least until Google has integrated more regional and local channels.

But what impact does this have on hotels? There are a few angles to consider here.

First of all, location has become even more important. Is your hotel situated within the preset parameters of your market according to Google Hotel Finder?

For New York, London and Paris the settings are quite all-encompassing, but in Amsterdam, Google Hotel Finder is curiously focused on the city center.

But what else should hotels consider when it comes to Google Hotel Finder? Reviews, is certainly one.

Over the last few years, Google has started collecting reviews from other websites to determine popularity and value of a hotel property.

Moreover, it has been collecting guest reviews also through Google Places (formerly known as Google Local Business Center). A mix of the reviews determines a hotel’s user rating, a tool by which consumers can also sort the hotels.

As suspected, reviews which are shown on the hotels page are only the ones from Google Places. For the other sites there is a smaller reference at the bottom of your hotel listing with the number of reviews.

Google does not even show a score for these other websites, which is something we admire from Trivago’s hotel listings.

Yes, hoteliers, Google is clearly on a mission to build the undisputed platform for hotel search. It will use the industry for as long as it needs to in order to get its own initiatives off the ground, but will then quietly move them into the background.

So in your efforts to gain traveler reviews and good guest scores, we now have to look beyond TripAdvisor, Oyster, Zoover, Vinivi,HolidayWatchdog, VirtualTourist, Yelp, etc.

Google Places and Google Hotel Finder have, almost overnight, gained huge significance in the area of hotel reviews.

Just imagine the impact on the demand and sales of  hotel when Google launches Hotel Finder into pole position for all hotel searches worldwide if a property is listed as #1 on the preset sort order, such as Hotel de Londres in San Sebastian.

Google will show not only OTAs, but also wholesalers, giving hoteliers a chance to secure reservations through less costly and preferred channels.

Properties will also have to press their representation companies to develop an interface with Google Hotel Finder, especially as it lists the hotel website URL.

See the example below of the Plaza Athenee Hotel in New York.

Of course, listing your website URL and phone number is currently free on Google Places, but we would not be surprised if Google introduced charges in the near future.

In any case it is very important to have the hotel account set up properly in Google Places – it will ensure a property appears in universal search results and Google Maps.

Metasearch and rate parity

Many hotels are trying to maintain a rate parity strategy on OTAs to level the playing field and create transparency for consumers.

However these efforts are being torpedoed by wholesalers publishing net rates at low mark-ups online.

We see wholesalers distributing package rates and net rates at low mark-ups directly and through affiliates that are listed on metasearch sites like Kayak, Trivago and HotelsCombined.

Here is a random date for a search in London on Trivago:

Hotels need to make sure they have their distribution well under control across all channels, online and offline.

Wholesalers are great channels, but hotels have to impose rules on the low net rates they offer and enforce them strictly, otherwise a strategy of rate parity might just be counter effective.

Increasing commissions/distribution costs

Another challenge hotels will be facing in 2012 is the increasing cost of distribution.

Quite a number of OTAs have raised their commissions from 12% to 15% in major destinations (which represents a 25% increase in cost, by the way), which will come straight from the bottom line of the hotel.

Many OTAs have also launched preferred programs for hotels to show up higher in the sort order of their own search results.

Commissions vary from 18% to 20%, and in some cases even 25%. Hotels have to be careful not to simply drive up costs while at the same time become reliant, or even dependent, on OTAs.

Keep in mind, their only mission is to grow in terms of global revenue, and that is not always in the best interests of a hotel.

We have seen some OTAs asking for high fixed allotments, another sign they are trying to penetrate hotels and the market as far as possible.

This happens when they can’t particularly grow any further geographically, but are pressed by shareholders for growth each year.

Frankly, unless we all start opening hotels on the moon in the next few years, the only way some agencies can grow is by getting a higher commission or control more of the inventory in a hotel.

So our advice is to be careful and develop alternative sales channels.

Direct sales

Nevertheless, we are seeing hotels becoming more aware each day of how they depend too much on OTAs, wholesalers and other third party distributors.

The rising cost of distribution and the advantages of direct sales is something hoteliers are starting to understand more profoundly. Therefore we foresee a shift or rather a re-shuffle in the distribution mix in hotels in 2012.

Hotels are willing to invest more in SEO, SEM, SMM and mobile marketing as a result of the increasing costs of distribution. There is a concerted effort to push direct sales, either through their own websites or call centers.

NB: Visit the Xotels blog for more tips and guidance, including a 2012 Marketing Plan for Hotels.

As we now know, Google is testing a version of its Comparison Ads format for online hotels.

These ads are currently only visible to a subset of Google search users in response to relevant queries such as “Las Vegas hotels”, and appear as the first ad at the top of the search engine results page.

Notably, the ads are integrated with GOOG’s recently launched Hotel Finder service via a “Book hotels” button.

Test shows Google is prioritizing its own hotel service

It is no secret that Google has been ramping up its focus on the travel vertical over the past year, following the acquisition of ITA Software, the launch of Google’s Flight Search and Hotel Finder products, and various innovations in how it displays organic listings for flight and hotel queries (displaying flight times, showing hotel rates, integration with Google Maps, etc)

This latest test of Comparison Ads is noteworthy because it provides a clue into how Google may change how it prioritizes/organizes paid search listings for hotels.

The most striking takeaway from these test ads is that Google is placing its own service/listings above all other content on the page, including other paid search listings from advertisers.

Latest, but likely not the last, Google innovation in travel search

It’s important to note that this is just a test. Google often tests new ad formats against a sub-set of its user base, and it’s unclear whether this Comparison Ad format for Hotels will be more widely adopted.

If deployed more widely, this type of ad unit could pose risks to the major OTAs (such as Priceline, Expedia and Orbitz, in the US alone) primarily in two key areas:

• Higher ad pricing
• Potential eventual disintermediation.

The first point is an issue of online “real estate”: if Google favors/prioritizes its own services, listings for the OTAs will be less prominently displayed.

In order to remain visible, OTAs may be required to bid more aggressively to ensure they rank highly in Google’s paid listings (reducing their advertising ROI, all else equal).

On the second point, Google’s Hotel Finder does not process hotel bookings itself and currently provides links to both OTA’s and hotel direct websites for actual bookings.

If Google changes its approach here and opts to either process bookings or bypass the OTAs and connect users directly with the hotels (as Google has starting doing with Flights, see discussion below), Google’s decision to prioritize its own travel listings would be a real threat.

Disintermediator or Lead Generator?

The key question is whether Google will remain a high-volume source of qualified leads for OTAs or whether it will dis-intermediate them?

Asked another way, will Google look to connect/integrate more directly with travel suppliers (particularly hotels) in order to improve its search results/ads and, more importantly, close the loop on a given travel transaction?

By funneling more transactions directly to travel suppliers, Google could disintermediate the OTAs.

This strategy would be, in some ways, analogous to what Google has pursued with e-tailers via tools such as Merchant Center, which risks disintermediating “middle men” like comparison shopping websites.

On one hand, building out/integrating a global network of hotels would take time (particularly in the fragmented International hotel space) and would not likely be popular with either regulators or Google’s travel advertisers.

On the other hand, Google is one of the few companies with the resources and will to tackle large projects such as this. Additionally, we would not be surprised to see a CPA-based ad offering evolve from Google’s various innovations in travel search.

Success defined by conversion rates – Priceline better positioned

Given Google’s importance in the online travel ecosystem (a recent Google/Compete survey estimated that around 25% of online hotel shoppers were referred by a Google search), this is clearly an area to monitor.

The company has repeatedly stated that it does not intend to process travel bookings itself, but it’s important to note that Google’s Flight Search metasearch service currently excludes OTAs from participating and links directly to airline sites for bookings.

Pursuing a similar strategy for hotels would not be easy for Google (for the reasons cited above) and would not be assured of success in our view, either (for either consumers or travel suppliers).

Evaluating success will come down to which channel can “convert” travel shoppers better, the supplier-direct channel or OTAs, and we believe that, particularly for International hotels, the OTAs will remain the optimal monetization channel for quite some time.

Nonetheless, we expect OTA investors to remain focused on this potential risk.

Within this context, we view Priceline as relatively better protected given its lower exposure to the US hotel market (which has a more sophisticated supplier-direct online channel than International markets) and Booking.com’s leading international brand and rapidly growing footprint of 170,000 direct hotel relationships.

NB: This is a guest article by Tom White, an analyst on internet and interactive entertainment for equity research at Macquarie Capital.

NB2: Image via Shutterstock.

A search for a hotel in some country markets now sees a new box appear at the top of the page titled “Comparison Ads”, featuring direct links to options on Hotel Finder, the search giant’s foray into a hotel search system elsewhere.

Initially only seen in the US, users in a number of countries are now seeing the Hotel Finder tool in search results.

The ire is expected to come from those bidding on keywords to get placement in pay-per-click results either in premium slots at the top of the page or in the existing sidebar.

The format and title being used, Comparison Ads, was originally only for users looking for financial services products such as mortgages and insurance.

Google said in February 2010 that it would consider using Comparison Ads for travel products, but other events appeared overtook it when the ITA Software acquisition kicked in during the summer of 2010 (finally approved in April this year).

Tnooz’s source, a hotelier in Las Vegas, says:

“The implications are many, especially to meta search competitors such as Kayak, but of course to OTA’s like Vegas.com and Expedia. In competing with us for clicks traffic in paid search, calling it an ‘Comparison ad’, Google is pushing users towards its Hotel Finder property.

“I see CPC’s increasing and there will probably be a CPA model once they push enough traffic to this property. Google Places already negatively impacted our clicks share and now Google is competing directly with advertisers? I think it’s extremely reckless and evil.”

A Google official says the company has been testing “interactive promotional ads that link to Hotel Finder over the last few months” and confirms that the ads are appearing across English-speaking markets at present.

Google’s move will validate what the likes of Expedia have been saying in recent weeks, suggesting that what the search giant does in the hotel space is potentially where the greater returns are for the company.

Download the free apps, tell Alfred where you like to go to dinner on a weeknight and where you like to dine for lunch, and then the mobile personal assistant, based on your location and whims, will make dinner and lunch recommendations locally and when you travel.

The same goes for your nightlife options and Alfred enhances his pesonalized recommendations as you go along and provide the app with more information.

Afred then shows you photos of its recommended local spots, such as Marino’s Fine Foods, replete with reviews and the reason the recommendation is there, such as “Because you like Esca.”

Clever Sense had this to say on its website today about its acquisition by Google:

“Today, we are excited to join Google and start a new chapter in curating the world around us! Together with the Google team, we will accelerate our efforts toward this shared vision. Google helps local businesses connect with potential customers, and it worldwide presence can bring the value of Clever Sense to a much larger audience

Discovering local information is extremely important to both users and businesses, and the acquisition of Clever Sense will benefit both.”

The acquisition fits nicely with Google’s mobile proclivities, emphasis on Google Local and Google Places, and evolution in the travel vertical.

A Google spokesperson says it will maintain and support the app.

“The Clever Sense team is at the forefront of developing a recommendation engine that connects the online and offline worlds by delivering personal and sophisticated information to users at the right time, the right place and within the right context,” the Google spokesperson says. “By combining their technology and expertise with our team and products, we’ll be able to provide even more people with intelligent, personalized recommendations for places to eat, visit and discover.”

Clever Sense, based in Mountain View, California, attracted this line-up of investors, and is about two years old.

Starting January 3, Visit Florida, in partnership with Convention & Visitors Bureaus in the state, will get premium placement on Google platforms for targeted tourism ads.

The online ads will be co-branded between the CVBs and Visit Florida and will run on the Google display network, YouTube and Google’s AdMob mobile platform. Participating CVBs so far include the Palm Beach County Convention & Visitor Bureau, the Greater Miami Convention & Visitors Bureau, the Orlando/Orange County Convention & Visitors Bureau and the Florida Keys & Key West Tourist Council.

Under the program, Visit Florida provides matching dollars for the CVBs’ advertising spend, which enables them to get ad placements that they wouldn’t otherwise be able to afford, says Will Seccombe, chief marketing officer at Visit Florida.

Google provides scale for the ads and its destination marketing expertise at a “pretty exciting” price point, says Sarah Travis, head of travel, Google online sales.

Unlike Visit Florida, Google doesn’t contribute any advertising dollars for the program.

Co-op advertising is traditionally a print phenomenon where retailers or manufacturers provide advertising materials to business customers and help foot the advertising costs.

“Travel seems like a natural place for some of these offline dollars to move online,” says Travis, adding that such co-op advertising will be a focus for Google as it expands the program to other destinations in 2012.

Travis says the co-op program in travel marks the first time Google has embarked on such a comprehensive programs across its multiple ad platforms.

Seccombe of Visit Florida says the initiative will drive traffic to VisitFlorida.com, although the individual partners will control their own brand messages.

While the first phase of the Visit Florida co-op advertising program focuses on CVBs, a second phase, slated to run from April to June 2012, is geared to expand to hotels, attractions and airlines servicing the state, officials say.

These services have all been good, but they are much like getting travel advice from a white-shirted accountant. Good, solid, reliable information but very flat and uninspiring.

What makes you want to go to a place to begin with? When you have chosen a place – what makes you want to explore further? The inspiration phase of leisure trip planning research has been by far the hardest for tech-based services to master.

Google has announced (and started sending out Beta invites to) a new service, known as Schemer, which attempts to compete in this gap.

Effectively it is local destination ideas based on tips from your (Google+) friends, celebrities (oh yes!) and professional destination content producers (ie. travel writers).

It uses content with the likes of Zagat, the review service it purchased in September this year.

From first look there doesn’t seem to be any commercialising of these experiences (nothing has an obvious price or is bookable) but it is as yet unlaunched and booking would be easy enough to add on later.

The travel industry companies most at risk from this move by Google are the 30 or so nascent person to person (P2P) tour guide marketplaces (that I reviewed back in September).

Many of these P2P services are based on individuals providing and consuming interesting destination experiences together.

With Google already having a Google+ social profile acting as the central glue, Schemer could move into this P2P tour guide area as the user could essentially see who it is booking from (and build trust).

Tie that in with Google Checkout and you have a powerful combination which most existing P2P tour guide marketplaces would struggle to compete with.

The second group of companies at risk from this move by Google is, well, everyone else.

If destination research moves to starting at Google Schemer rather than Google Search, then Google will be able to pitch flights, hotels and other travel services, without having to necessarily work within the confines of their existing web properties.

We are a long way from this though, of course – the service is yet to fully launch

Here is a walk-through by a writer from TheNextWeb:

And Google’s own, rather peculiar introduction to the service: