BBH flicks the bird
We have been following media reports of the inaugural New Zealand Backpacking Conference with interest. The backpacker sector seems to be in good heart and has bucked the recession by attracting reasonable numbers to conference along with PM/Minister of Tourism John Key, Tourism NZ chief George Hickton and Tim Cossar head of the Tourism Industry Association.
During a conference presentation , Mark Dumble one of the directors of BBH (Budget Backpacker Hostels NZ Ltd) dared to take a swipe at Qualmark NZ, by labeling its quality benchmarking system as flawed and inconsistent.
While Dumble's comments may appear self-serving, BBH have successfully cornered the Backpacker sector with the majority of operators choosing the BBH quality rating system above Qualmark NZ. Guests that stay at a BBH property can rate their overall experience by responding to a simple question: "On a scale of 1 to 10, how much did you enjoy staying at each of the Backpacker Hostels you've used in New Zealand?"
Every year the responses are collated into a percentage rating to enable future guests to determine the "quality" of the experience of BBH rated accommodation. From what we can see the system is simple but very effective.
As an alternative, Qualmark NZ contract trained assessors to evaluate Backpackers in 3-4 hour stints every year using an exhaustive list of criteria. The star gradings allocated are a credible comparison between other accommodation options assessed by Qualmark, however the majority of Backpacker operators choose not to take part.
Qualmark NZ Ltd, a publicly funded Tourism NZ adjunct (with a minority shareholding by the AA) was originally set up to benchmark quality levels in the accommodation sector. This was to give consumers an easy way to compare options available by ranking accommodation businesses on the quality of services and amenities offered.
BBH has long been a thorn in Qualmark's side by not abiding to its self-appointed official doctrine. A prickly George Hickton hit back at Mark Dumble's discouraging comments by claiming it was unfair to compare a consumer-rated scheme with an accreditation system such as Qualmark. Hicton's disregard for guest feedback is interesting.
Across all accommodation sectors there have been regular claims that Qualmark are not consistent in applying their assessment criteria. We are unable to comment specifically on the Backpacker sector, however within our own Service and Self Contained sector (that includes motels) we believe that Qualmark's assessment consistency performance has been relatively good.
However, there are other concerns common to all accommodation sectors. Qualmark NZ have been accused of focusing more on measuring back office bureaucracy within a tourism business rather than guest demands. There has been questions raised about the the cost of Qualmark to the New Zealand taxpayer and the limited amount of accommodation properties that are willing to subscribe. Are Qualmark focused on what consumers really want? And Is their further risk of political influence, especially after the recent forced introduction of their politically correct environmental criteria?
One common area of concern that should be of more interest to BBH is that Tourism New Zealand have stated that they will only market Qualmark rated tourism product off-shore. This means that Tourism New Zealand that has a majority shareholding in Qualamark NZ Ltd will only allocate taxpayer funding to promote tourism product that has been licensed by its own "accreditation system." Does this sound like a conflict of interest?
There will never be a perfect system that measures quality, however you have to admire the plucky and independent, BBH by their relative success within the Backpacker sector against the larger, publicly funded institution, Qualmark NZ.
13 *** Post a Comment ! ***:
Long before Qualmark entered the market there was BBH.
This organisation alone has raised the standards for hostels to the point where they are now , recognised as amongst the best in the world. Let’s give credit where it is due.
Its a hugely important market. The strength of BBH lies in the fact that whatever the rating it must be published and it is customer generated.
This is not the case with Qualmark. It’s criteria may well be more suited to bigger establishments.
BBH represents 350+ hostels offering 12,000 beds to world travellers. They are largely small to medium sized and very diverse places.
Small hostels are vastly popular with a very significant and different part of the Free and independent market amongst all ages.
Imposing “quality” standards as they exist today doesn’t acknowledge the importance of the authentic experience that so many people have and want. This is what has built the reputation of small hostels over many years.
Many BBH hostels overcome a multitude of Qualmark compliances because the owners take great personal interest in their guests and that is what they want.
Many stunning smaller hostels might earn a 1 or 2 star rating according to today’s Qualmark criteria. Would this enhance the industry? I doubt it. It may have exactly the opposite effect.
We need to think carefully about how we capitalise on the best of both systems.
Josh BBH also has a web site where “critical” comment and ratings are posted on a daily basis. This often closely reflects the annual rating and acts as a constant monitor. This is not currently achieved through Qualmark.
WE need an amalgum of both systems and far more representation of the small bakpacker operators
Mark and Eric are so entrenched in their rating system that they fail to comprehend that the BBH and Qualmark systems are fundamnetaly different. The BBH rating system is purely subjective and based on a 1 night survey from 1 years recollections of the individuals staying in a BBH hostel on the lucky night, it’s a feel good survey and can be wrought with inaccuracies The Qualmark rating is a tick and flick totally objective measurement, you either meet the conditions or not. It would be hardly surprising to see a 5 star rated business get a low BBH rating and vice versa. Each measures a different component of the business and you either want one or the other, or both and leave it up to the customer as to which one they use to help them make their selection. It would extremely difficult to develop an accurate rating system that measures both the subjective and objective components of a business. Personally I see no reason why the 2 systems cannot coexist.
This was not intended to be an attack but a point of clarification to Josh regarding lessons that Qualmark could learn from BBH. BOth sysems have a lot to offer if we look at them without predudice.
Mark and Eric do have a point, but they are essentially arguing over whether two completely different rating systems are better than each other.
I was on the original panel of 4 people that set up the AAA hostel ratings in Australia with the NRMA/AA 18 years ago and it is still a valid system as it scores on FACILITIES and QUALITY of properties. This is the same basis as the Qualmark system, and indeed how all HOTELS are rated world-wide through the star rating system – with some variations in criteria for hostel suitability.
As we know however, hostels are about so much more than just the basic facilities – and no rating can account for “ambience”, atmosphere or good or bad hostel management – so Mark and Eric have a more relevant rating system by customers.
They should both be acknowledged and I am not sure why they are even having a dispute.
Hey Josh
It is not necessary for BBH or even Qualmark to measure 'Health & safety, Evacuation plans plus many other things'....whatever these many more things are.
This is the job of the Council in pproviding Resource consent, the trained professionals who provide yearly building consents and the fire brigade isn't it. Well it is here anyway
To stand up at the meeting and Eric's first words were that from being in the business from the start ie back in 1974 - he knew everything... that shows how BBH is so closed minded! Not only did they attack Qualmark but took pot shots at YHA... as a BBH hostel owner sitting next to the CEO of YHA you can imagine how far in the seat I was sitting... how unprofessional could they be - the stage was set to sell BBH and what it offers to the Backpacking market and they missed the opportunity.
If they are to survive in the following years they need to not only embrace technology but be open to suggestions from the many hostel owners that actually pay their subscriptions- they will find many of the BBH hostels owners that ARE seeing BBH as purely a marketing tool will swap to another competitor in the future that offers a better service and system in a heat beat....
I think in the future you will find more hostels having both the BBH rating and Qualmark, - after this meeting I have finally made up my mind to go with both, it would be nice to think they both have their position in the market.
Proponents of the Qualmark system are ever eager to point out that the assessment system is different to a customer satisfaction rating system.
We won’t dispute that.
We DO maintain that potential guests are far more interested in whether a place is actually people friendly than in counting coat hooks. It’s suggested that Qualmark measures “legal requirements, health & safety, evacuation plans plus many other things”. These are functions of local body legislation, properly covered by requirements for building warrants of fitness, evacuation plans etc.
What we oppose is increasing pressure from TNZ to participate in Qualmark or risk gradual exclusion from tax-payer funded TNZ activities. Already, non-Qualmarked businesses are relegated to the bottom of TNZ web-site search lists in favour of the 15% of Qualmarked (but sometimes much less popular) operations.
It is not Qualmark that has been responsible for the very high overall standard of NZ backpacker style accommodation. Rather, it has been BBH’s public notice of the accommodations that travellers enjoy using the most. Over the last two decades, customer satisfaction ratings have become all pervasive. There is almost no popular internet based tourism service that doesn’t try to measure it. Public opinion polls of one sort or another decide everything from which TV programs are aired, to who governs the country. New generation mobile equipped travellers won’t leave home without it.
We have no wish to denigrate the Qualmark process. We’re sure it’s very good in parts. But we maintain that THE single most important measure of travellers’ accommodation, is just how much travellers enjoy staying in it. If we promote places that travellers just tolerate rather than really enjoy, and then describe them as “Top Rated”, then we’re all dog tucker, and the work BBH has done over two decades is trashed.
In New Zealand Tourism, BBH is somewhat unique. We have data collected over many years that gives us the confidence and authority to question the practice of our national Tourism body. We suspect that there are operators in other sectors who are less than delighted with Qualmark, but have nowhere to turn to question it. For them it’s only a compulsory marketing advantage. Or is that “avoidance of a marketing dis-advantage”?
BBH is motivated only to promote high standards of hospitality and honesty in our own particular sector of NZ Tourism.That’s not entirely altruistic – we just think that those qualities are our best insurance. We have found our rating system to be the perfect tool to encourage and promote those standards. Our results DO conflict with those produced by Qualmark. It’s a fact.
If Qualmark is so beneficial to those who pay for it’s stars, then it should be able to make its own way under it’s own steam, without tax-payer subsidy and especially without TNZ’s pressure. It seems somewhat disingenuous of Mr Hickton to advise us to sit down with Qualmark and TNZ to devise a solution. We’ve done that since Qualmark made it’s first moves into our sector. Our most recent communication with TNZ in June this year met with only a repetition of the establishment hard line.
Much is made of how much Australia envies NZ Qualmark. It needs to be said here that over the years, BBH has many times had to decline pleas to move into Australia – and UK and Germany too.
BBH would be happy to coexist alongside Qualmark as everyone seems to want us to do. Everyone except TNZ that is. They seem to want everyone Qualmarked or out of the game.
All we ask is that TNZ recognise BBH as a reputable and ethical force for good, to be allowed to participate in TNZ activities without discrimination. And that includes (but isn’t necessarily limited to) an equitable listing of BBH rated properties on TNZ web-sites and i-site shelves. Then we can quietly get back to promoting the best backpacker style accommodation in the world as we’ve been doing for the past quarter of a century.
mark/eric should wake up, the bbh rating is totally flawed with so many holes in, it scrap the survey I HAD A couple stay then left and filled in a survey , then come back however there rating and comments never showed up on paper sent to me and a person who rated and comment ed again this one I THINK THE hostel concerned never sent in and as for fixing get your head out of the toilet as it does and is happening , and this year nobody complain will they did but didn't make it on to the system I WONDER WHY???? (i KNOW WHY) LIKE ALOT OF OTHER PEOPLE WILL LEAVE BBH JUST FED UP
The saying goes an old dog never changes its spots.
BBH is simply a marketing tool. Fool Stop. You don't see yellow pages, lonely planet or the local advertising rags having space or input at top level.
If BBH dropped out of the system tommorrow would it be missed. I doubt it.
Its just another leach on the funds of hardworking individauls that are too inhibited to move outside the square it case it affects their income.
Good arguments on both sides.
BBHNZ get with the times, stop saying you "know it all" and your "18 - 20 years experience" is everything. If many of YOUR customers (you know the people who PAY you the money for a service) are saying its not right, maybe it isn't!!! Don't you think??
BBHNZ is just a marketing tool with no backbone to put their money where their mouth is and actually DO anything for the industry.
BBHNZ promotes standards!! Where????
Indeed, if Qualmark is "so beneficial to those who pay for it’s stars," then it should stand up without tax payer funding. That then would put it in DIRECT competition with BBHNZ. Would it not??
IF BBH has been asked to venture off shore why has it not?? That would be a fantastic opportunity to extend the business!! Or perhaps the business is doing just fine as it is!!
I do not understand "reputable and ethical force for good" and why TNZ needs to recognise this. and why TNZ needs to allow BBHNZ Ltd to "participate in TNZ activities without discrimination. And that includes (but isn’t necessarily limited to) an equitable listing of BBH rated properties on TNZ web-sites and i-site shelves." BBHNZ does not represent anyone. or if they do then it is a representation of guests based purely on BBHNZ Ltds online and once yearly survey. So TNZ I would think are saying just that, you dont actually represent businesses so why should we allow you opportunities beyond the normal.
It is difficult to justify all of these groups, organisations, clubs associations and the rest. As a business owner the amount of money needed to belong and have a voice is pretty high. NZbackpack.Com have started something that WILL make a difference so long as those in the industry have their say and listen to others. THEN work TOGETHER towards a solution. It is early days still and much does need to be done. Lets get on with doing, stop defending our positions and move forward together. For those who are entrenched or cannot see the benefit or in what ever other way want to disguise their unwillingness to work together, it is possible you will be left behind in the move forward, may get left out of the amazing opportunities available either now or in the near future.
Lastly isn't it sad when we cannot or dare not put real names to posts. Perhaps we fear too much..
Another hostel owner, Fed up, Outside the Square and Round Hole & Square Peg:
Thank you for sharing your opinions with us, if not your identities.
I'm sure TNZ will find your support invaluable.
Eric Foley
BBH NZ
I have been a Qualmark Motel member since it's inception, and built a Qualmark 5 star Campervan Park which opened in 2000 and is still rated by most guests as best in NZ. I am constantly amazed that the so little emphasis is placed on customer satisfaction by Qualmark. (Qualmark usually rates this as less than 10% of the total score). I do not know of any business anywhere in the world that would be successful if they operated on the principle that customer satisfaction was only worth 10%. This is a complete contradiction to the Tourism NZ 2015 plan which rates total customer satisfaction as the prime objective. I completely agree that Qualmark has totally lost the plot and any and every activity which wants to cough up the $'s now gets the Qualmark Endorsed sticker.
Post a Comment