The Internet has allowed opinionated critics to rate accommodation options by offering the benefit of their wisdom and insight. Global travel sites such as: TripAdvisor, TravelPost and IgoUgo that are complimented by popular social networking platforms such as Facebook and Twitter aggregate popular opinion. Everybody can now be a critic and the general public are more than forthcoming to offer their opinions.
In New Zealand, Travelbug.co.nz and Ezibed.com are two examples of sites that collect direct customer feedback that can be considered by prospective guests before making an accommodation booking.
Guest online reviews are written by legions of "anonymous" people. Should we be concerned that they have no formal training and some reviewers could possibly be holding unusual bents or grudges? And what about possible influence by the operators themselves?
Qualmark New Zealand is New Zealand tourism's official quality agency and grade tourism product including accommodation of providers that choose to pay their license fee. Trained assessors are contracted to roam the country with clipboards, evaluating accommodation in 3-4 hour stints using an exhaustive list of criteria. The star gradings are a credible comparison between other accommodation options that have also been assessed by Qualmark.
There has been questions raised about the the cost to the New Zealand taxpayer and the limited amount of properties that are willing to subscribe to Qualmark. Are Qualmark focused on what consumers really want? Is their further risk of political influence, especially after the recent forced introduction of their environmental criteria?
Some larger hotel chains have used internal rating systems for many years. Probably the best example of self rating in its rawest form can be seen on wotif.com where accommodation providers have the option to self-rate their quality level alongside those that use Qualmark ratings. On the face of it this would appear to open up an opportunity for abuse. After all, operators are ranked on the site according to their ratings.
In practice however this works remarkably well, with most operators inherently aware that they will face the wrath of the consumer if they overstate their quality level. There are some exceptions and generally if operators get it wrong, wotif can either pull the listing or encourage re-assessment of the published grading based on customer initiated feedback (ie complaints!).
The accommodation rating business appears to be well covered, however there has been the recent launch of a new company that has a goal of "becoming the premier source for independent, professionally produced and in-depth hotel reviews." Oyster Hotel Reviews, is the new kid on the block and has a new way of rating and reviewing accommodation.
Oyster Hotel Reviews plans to establish create a large database of independent reviews compiled by trained journalists employed as full-time employees, not independent contractors. Each review will be about 2,000 words, accompanied by candid photographs. OK, the site has yet to fully cover the globe, however the journalistic review model is interesting and different.
So what is the preferred model that will endure by delivering the consumer the most easily assessable, widely used and credible way of quality assessing accommodation choice?
- Is it the TripAdvisor model that allows the actual users of accommodation to rate their experiences?
- Is it the accommodation operator self-rating model?
- Is it a government subsidised central planning model using contractors?
- or..is it the new Oyster Hotel Review model that employs travel journalists?
Will TripAdvisor further grow to dominate this space or will there be other players that will take up the opportunity?
We have had a tip off from industry insiders that there will be further moves by at least two major accommodation reselling businesses commonly used by New Zealand operators that will indroduce customer reviews to their offerings - the rating war looks like it may get crowded - watch this space!
