A motel room can be a sanctuary. The rooms are small, orderly and spotlessly clean. As a guest enters a motel room the door can be closed behind and act as a barrier from the madness of an increasingly chaotic world.
For an accommodation provider, the contract with a guest is to provide accommodation and related services in return for consideration. Part of the gig is that the accommodation provider should never compromise a guest's right to privacy.
Essentially there is an unwritten rule that an accommodation provider will act with the utmost discretion and respect the concept of "what goes on tour, stays on tour." In return the guest has certain obligations - what goes on between the walls of a motel room is up to the occupant, but this is subject to them acting in a manner that does not cause disturbance to others and not leaving behind an unreasonable mess or wrecking anything!
Guests' privacy is paramount, however sometimes motels can get it wrong.
I see that a motel in Taiwan has broken the rule of discretion after one of its staff members was charged with attempting to blackmail a hapless guest. Those quirky Taiwainese folk from Next Media have kindly provided an animated account of the titivating tale:
Friday, March 9, 2012
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Worship at the altar of consumerism
The New iPad (iPad 3) has finally dropped from the heavens.
"Thou shalt provide for thine self that thou might purchase from Thy Lord Apple.Still don't know what I'll use it for, but I still want one!
Thou shalt purchase from Thy Lord Apple and rejoice"
Source: The Cult of Apple
Are Moteliers Out Of Step?
We were interested to see that a New Zealand Herald article quoting a well known Taradale motelier that alleged that "a disgruntled guest who accused him of lying over a payment dispute arranged for two friends to write bad reviews." On the face of it, this supports sensational claims that TripAdvisor is used as a tool for guests to blackmail and post malicious reviews....Another view could be that the review(s) in this case could have been the harsh consequence of the motelier not disclosing tariff clearly and ineptly dealing with customer complaints?
Unlike many of our fellow moteliers, we side with industry writer and consultant James Hacon that "saw Tourism New Zealand's decision as positive, and said that national tourism agencies across the world were aligning themselves with TripAdvisor. "You just have to look at it on a global scale - it's a hugely growing trend that people are looking at reviews before they travel."
The motel industry needs to distance itself from the imagery of operators that are naive, grumpy old men that are flustered and disconnected with the changes in technology and the demands of today's consumer.
The internet is probably the only free market still in operation, that remains largely untainted by government intervention. On the internet, the beautiful aspects of human nature manifest themselves, and we see individuals and businesses maximising talents and resources for reasons of profit, pleasure, altruism, and mere progress in itself.
Like the internet itself, TripAdvisor's open platform that allows "unverified" reviews to be posted by anonymous users isn't perfect and this a scary proposition for some. Business's online reputations will always be reflected online in one way or another. Businesses are unable to fight against online opinion, as they can never opt-out.
The only option is to actively participate, understand and when necessary, make changes to business practices in response to real-time online feedback. Instead of enabling grizzly old-men, the national trade association should lead education in this area and more importantly strive to change the attitudes of its followers.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Measuring Quality?
Qualmark, "New Zealand's official quality assurance organisation" has had many challenges and numerous barbs thrown at them along the way from the accommodation industry.
While Qualmark offers services to numerous tourism sectors, star grading the accommodation industry is what they are best known for and this is the backbone of their business.
Qualmark's resilience is to be commended. They have endured a major culture change that has included staff losses, a drastic cut in public funding, coping with reluctant shareholders (Government owned, Tourism NZ and privately owned, NZAA) while trying to clip the ticket of high maintenance tourism businesses including the dyslexic personality of the motel sector.
It would seem that the passionate debate and hang-wringing over Qualmark's direction and service delivery has largely subsided - for now. From my observations, the two main camps of accommodation providers either view Qualmark as being irrelevant or see benefits in using their services as a nice-to-have quality control benchmarking system within accommodation marketing groups.
Without a lifeline of corporate welfare imminent, Qualmark's challenge is to sell accommodation providers the benefits of a benchmarking system by offering a robust and compelling product with genuine value. In return, accommodation providers will need to pay a market price. For this to occur would mean a dramatic change of attitude within the various accommodation sectors and there appears to be no one willing to step-up to drive this.
Accommodation operator apathy, New Zealand's geographical spread, small economies of scale and high servicing costs, means that it is unlikely that Qualmark will ever be self-sustaining without a major change of direction.
Meanwhile it Australia, 10,000 properties offset a lot of administration costs and property assessment takes 30% less time. This makes running a star rating system across the ditch more of a viable proposition.
Peter Blackwell, is known in New Zealand in his role as GM of AA Tourism and is heading changes to the accommodation star rating system in Australia by AAA Tourism that came into effect from July 2011.
In difficult economic times, AAA Tourism's new star rating system in Australia was overhauled to focus on three core categories of cleanliness, facilities and quality/ condition. Minimum requirements were dumped and replaced with a percentage score for each of the three core areas that are weighted towards the final star rating.
While Qualmark offers services to numerous tourism sectors, star grading the accommodation industry is what they are best known for and this is the backbone of their business.
Qualmark's resilience is to be commended. They have endured a major culture change that has included staff losses, a drastic cut in public funding, coping with reluctant shareholders (Government owned, Tourism NZ and privately owned, NZAA) while trying to clip the ticket of high maintenance tourism businesses including the dyslexic personality of the motel sector.
It would seem that the passionate debate and hang-wringing over Qualmark's direction and service delivery has largely subsided - for now. From my observations, the two main camps of accommodation providers either view Qualmark as being irrelevant or see benefits in using their services as a nice-to-have quality control benchmarking system within accommodation marketing groups.
Without a lifeline of corporate welfare imminent, Qualmark's challenge is to sell accommodation providers the benefits of a benchmarking system by offering a robust and compelling product with genuine value. In return, accommodation providers will need to pay a market price. For this to occur would mean a dramatic change of attitude within the various accommodation sectors and there appears to be no one willing to step-up to drive this.
Accommodation operator apathy, New Zealand's geographical spread, small economies of scale and high servicing costs, means that it is unlikely that Qualmark will ever be self-sustaining without a major change of direction.
Meanwhile it Australia, 10,000 properties offset a lot of administration costs and property assessment takes 30% less time. This makes running a star rating system across the ditch more of a viable proposition.
Peter Blackwell, is known in New Zealand in his role as GM of AA Tourism and is heading changes to the accommodation star rating system in Australia by AAA Tourism that came into effect from July 2011.
In difficult economic times, AAA Tourism's new star rating system in Australia was overhauled to focus on three core categories of cleanliness, facilities and quality/ condition. Minimum requirements were dumped and replaced with a percentage score for each of the three core areas that are weighted towards the final star rating.
While Kiwi accommodation providers seem to be reasonably nonchalant about recent modest tweaks in Qualmark's star rating systems, our Aussie cousins seem to be bristling for a fight after a major shift in their quality rating criteria.
We received an email from an Australian accommodation resort manager in Noosa that exposes some of the accommodation industry's reaction to AAA Tourism's new star rating system:
The AAA assessors are currently in Noosa and the new criteria are proving to be very tough or very subjective depending on the assessor's view. Most 4.5 star resorts are being told they are not up to standard despite the fact they have historically always passed the previous inspections. This is not a matter of sour grapes, the new assessment system just doesn't have it right.
In our case we are currently #1 on Trip Advisor for Speciality Lodging in Noosa... if we were not delivering 4.5 Star standards our reviews would reflect it. Yet it seems customer satisfaction is not a consideration AAA factors into the assessment.
Noosa managers as meeting with Peter Blackwell to express their concerns on March 5th.
I wonder how that meeting went? A link to an article in the Noosa News HERE makes interesting reading.
Guest review based systems such as TripAdvisor are becoming increasingly more relevant as a means for the travelling public to compare options and for accommodation providers to benchmark their performance in real-time.
It may be ironic to some that AA New Zealand with a 40 percent shareholding in Qualmark have embarked upon their own guest review program. However official industry-speak is that online customer reviews are not a threat to the concept of recognised national assessment schemes that rely upon annual physical assessment from trained assessors. It is considered that online reviews and official star rating schemes can co-habitat well together and as if to prove this point, in a significant gesture, Tourism New Zealand have now included TripAdvisor reviews on their website.
It's debatable if online reviews and schemes that require a physical annual inspection are comparable. Both methods rank properties largely by the quality on offer, however the main difference would appear to be that online reviews measure a consumer's experience in context with the tariff they paid.
If one methodology of measuring quality will fail, it will be the customer that will decide.
If I was to put money on it, I'd suspect that more and more consumer decisions will be based on a real-time ranking on websites such as TripAdvisor rather than a property's annual star rating by a government adjunct.
If one methodology of measuring quality will fail, it will be the customer that will decide.
If I was to put money on it, I'd suspect that more and more consumer decisions will be based on a real-time ranking on websites such as TripAdvisor rather than a property's annual star rating by a government adjunct.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Travelbug Launch New Mobile Website
It seems that all research is pointing towards more and more travellers turning to their mobile devices to not only research accommodation and travel options, but to make bookings. While mobile devices are being used by upwardly mobile, on-the-go-travellers there is also a trend for these devices to be used by consumers using WiFi at home while lounging on the couch. The screens of smartphones and tablets are increasingly driving last-minute travel inspiration.
Overall mobile channel bookings have increased four-fold between 2008 and 2010 and it's likely that this phenomenal rate will continue. To support this theory, Google have predicted that mobile will overtake PCs as the most common web-access device by 2013.
With a rapid increase of mobile browsing, are accommodation providers keeping pace at the same rate by ensuring that their online content is accessible to mobile users? We say probably not.
While it is probably cost prohibitive for most accommodation providers to create, market and maintain their own mobile app, it's probably more cost effective for operators to consider optimizing their websites for mobile along with using booking engines that are mobile-enabled.
In order to expose inventory to the masses, accommodation providers are becoming more reliant upon third party providers with better economies of scale that are able to list bookable accommodation options on either mobile apps or mobile websites.
It is interesting to contemplate if travel information is better delivered via mobile apps or mobile websites (another option is to use both!). Apps only work on the phones they are designed for, while mobile websites can be designed to work on any device with a web browser. The iPhone, the Palm, the new BlackBerry, and Google's Android phones all support an open source framework used on mobile websites.
Mobile websites have a mass market appeal for content and can now be designed to look and feel like a native app. A mobile app can provide a more intuitive experience by utilizing many of the embedded features of the mobile device. An app's appeal is that it can become front-of-mind by living on the screen of a device and the functionality is familiar to the user. The main disadvantage is that an app is restricted by usage of a particular device and operating system.
It is interesting that Jasons and AA Travel websites/booking engines are currently not mobile enabled and they have gone down the track of appealing to mobile browsers by producing mobile apps for Apple device users (Android will follow soon).
Wotif have gone down a different pathway - they launched a mobile site some time ago and so far have neglected to launch a mobile app.
We see that TradeMe owned TravelBug have also bypassed producing a mobile app for now and have recently launched a mobile website. Our first impressions are that the site functions very well with a user experience similar to an app. Our friends at Travelbug have sent us some interesting facts to support their launch:
Traffic to travelbug.co.nz is growing at over 50% in 2012 (vs a year ago) which is good, but visits from people using smartphones are up a whopping 466%
While it’s old news that mobile is “an opportunity” for travel websites, growth rates that large show this opportunity turning into reality, so that’s why we’ve moved quickly to take advantage
We can also see that bookings made on Travelbug by mobile users have a much shorter lead time: 50% of mobile bookings are for tonight/tomorrow night: travellers on the go needed (and deserved!) a better booking experience for last minute bookings
The mobile site allows travellers to search for accommodation near them utilising a nifty geo-location feature (or via standard region-based searches)
Of all mobile traffic to Travelbug, Apple iPads have the lion’s share with 53% of all mobile traffic coming via the iPad; iPhones are #2 with 22%
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Will TripAdvisor Offer Verified Reviews?
It was determined that TripAdvisor's open platform that allows "unverified" reviews to be posted by anonymous users did not 100 percent safeguard against fake reviews.
While TripAdvisor has made subtle changes to its advertising to satisfy the ASA decision, the site remains an open forum that can be accessed by anyone and continues to be used by more people researching accommodation decisions than any other website.
As the gnashing of teeth amongst accommodation providers continue, the public continue to visit the site, use the collective reviews to determine accommodation decisions....and seem to value what they find as they keep coming back for more.
In a significant new move, it is interesting to see that TripAdvisor are now packaging their review platform to Online Travel Agencies (OTAs) that wish to outsource guest review services.
EasyToBook.com is the first cab off the rank and have replaced their own in-house guest review system by outsourcing this function to TripAdvisor.
After a guest has stayed at accommodation booked via the EasyToBook.com website, a co-branded follow-up email is sent directing customers to complete a review of the property in the usual way. The verified guest reviews will be featured on the accommodation provider's listing on EasyToBook.com and mirrored on TripAdvisor.
Does this mean that potentially, TripAdvisor could highlight on their website, reviews sourced from a growing list of OTA clients as "verified"?
While some may see TripAdvisor's new service as a reaction to the flak they have received about questionable reviews, this may only be a small part of the rationale.
OTAs that have launched guest review systems in order to assist quality control and boost accommodation buying decisions have found that maintaining these platforms take a lot of ongoing resource. While OTAs are experts at showcasing and selling room inventory, they are less proficient at entering conversations with the public and suppliers about customer feedback issues. Outsourcing this function seems to make a lot of sense.
From TripAdvisor's point of view, by offering a new service they can continue building their vast empire by canabilising potentially competing review systems and have the opportunity to clip the ticket along the way...
Monday, February 27, 2012
Hypocricy Part 2
Oh dear...Greenpeace celebrity mouthpiece, Lucy Lawless appears to have been more than happy to follow the money by making a song and dance about the noble virtues of Shell in this 1990's TV commercial...
Hypocricy?
What does an aging actress that has spent a lifetime jetting about the world perusing a film career get up to between scripts?
The Malicious Web Review
Last week's front page story of a disgruntled motel guest leaving what was described as a "malicious" web review on TripAdvisor still seems to be the focus of discussion amongst moteliers.
As reported the New Zealand Herald, the story goes like this:
A party of four arrive at a motel just before midnight,
after raising motelier they are quoted $195.00 and agree to stay,
upon check-out the guest disputes that they should pay the tariff as previously agreed and claim that they should be paying $160.00 that the motel allegedly advertises on AA Travel's website,
a heated altercation ensues,
the guest walks after refusing to sign credit card receipt and threatens to post a bad review on TripAdvsor.
Soon after the following review on TripAdvisor appears:
Accommodation providers can empathise with the motelier in this unfortunate situation. Receiving a review like this can be heartbreaking and have real consequences on further business prospects.
After this story broke the usual knee-jerk howling from accommodation providers soon commenced. The loudest cries were quick to place the blame with TripAdvisor as the bad guy in this story and solely responsible for sullying a hapless motel's reputation.
Instead of attacking TripAdvisor's open feedback platform, maybe the focus should have been directed towards the factors that contributed to the altercation between the motelier and the guest.
The guest claimed that the motel was advertising on the AA Travel website for $160.00 and convinced himself that this was the price that the motelier should have quoted for his party of 4. What he didn't immediately appreciate was that the tariff of $160.00 was for 2-persons with additional persons charged accordingly - this is a common industry standard.
The graphic above captures what a prospective guest would see on the AA Travel website. After a cursory glance, can we assume that the One Bedroom Unit above would be $160 for 4-persons?
If the prospective guest hovers over or clicks the tick box on the arrival date to make a reservation, the breakdown of the tariff is revealed - Do the AA need to review how they display tariff in their client listings?
Ignoring the possible confusion that the AA Travel website may present to some, tariff doesn't necessarily have to be the same over all sales channels. In fact, tariff and the terms and conditions of a reservation can vary across dozens of sales channels that a motel lists inventory. Ironically in this case, the motel's tariff listed on the AA Travel website would have been $200.00. So in fact, the guest that was originally offered and accepted a tariff of $195.00 got a deal that was slighter better than advertised.
In this case the guest may have thought that they had a valid query by questioning the tariff. OK, I realise that when there had been an offer and acceptance, the customer would be expected to seal the deal with consideration (ie payment) and this should be the end of the matter, regardless what advertised offers may be on other channels. However the public are permitted to raise objections (silly or otherwise) and if these aren't satisfied then like it or not they will use the internet to vent. More than ever it is up to the business owner to respond quickly and appropriately at the time when a customer raises concerns.
Unfortunately we will never know how the conversation went in the motel reception at check-out. On the face of it, the guest's objection should have been easily dispatched.
Was the motelier somewhat taken-back by being second-guessed by a disorganised guest that arrived late and wasn't able to catch up on enough sleep the night before? Did the motelier get annoyed by a guest trying to negotiate a better tariff, after acceptance of tariff before his stay? Did this well-travelled guest feel that by arriving late, the few hours spent in the motel room simply wasn't good value? Or did this guest that usually travels on a company expense account feel hard done by with the impost of paying for accommodation from his own funds?
We will never know what really went down, however there is an onus on the motelier to provide guest satisfaction - even if a guest is an arrogant dickhead that checks-in at midnight, agrees to pay a quoted tariff and then upon check-out assumes an entitlement to pay a lower tariff that they misinterpret from an an online listing discovered during their stay.
While the guest is holding his ground by refusing to pay the motel and delete the revenge TripAdvisor review, on a positive note, some of the motel's previous guests have been prompted to post reviews on TripAdvisor of their own experiences after reading the front page New Zealand article. And like most others, the latest reviews reconfirm that the motel and its operators provide a comfortable and positive experience for wary travellers.
As reported the New Zealand Herald, the story goes like this:
A party of four arrive at a motel just before midnight,
after raising motelier they are quoted $195.00 and agree to stay,
upon check-out the guest disputes that they should pay the tariff as previously agreed and claim that they should be paying $160.00 that the motel allegedly advertises on AA Travel's website,
a heated altercation ensues,
the guest walks after refusing to sign credit card receipt and threatens to post a bad review on TripAdvsor.
Soon after the following review on TripAdvisor appears:
“Do not stay,continue on elsewhere”
Stayed for Waitangi weekend to attend a wedding. Owner is not friendly or helpful and was dishonest with pricing. Charged credit card with disputed amount and without permission and does not give you any paperwork. Rooms are very basic and for same price can get much better 15 minutes down in the road in tauranga. Take a miss - you have been warned!
Room Tip: No good room, go for another motel
Stayed February 2012, traveled with friends
After this story broke the usual knee-jerk howling from accommodation providers soon commenced. The loudest cries were quick to place the blame with TripAdvisor as the bad guy in this story and solely responsible for sullying a hapless motel's reputation.
Instead of attacking TripAdvisor's open feedback platform, maybe the focus should have been directed towards the factors that contributed to the altercation between the motelier and the guest.
The guest claimed that the motel was advertising on the AA Travel website for $160.00 and convinced himself that this was the price that the motelier should have quoted for his party of 4. What he didn't immediately appreciate was that the tariff of $160.00 was for 2-persons with additional persons charged accordingly - this is a common industry standard.
If the prospective guest hovers over or clicks the tick box on the arrival date to make a reservation, the breakdown of the tariff is revealed - Do the AA need to review how they display tariff in their client listings?
Ignoring the possible confusion that the AA Travel website may present to some, tariff doesn't necessarily have to be the same over all sales channels. In fact, tariff and the terms and conditions of a reservation can vary across dozens of sales channels that a motel lists inventory. Ironically in this case, the motel's tariff listed on the AA Travel website would have been $200.00. So in fact, the guest that was originally offered and accepted a tariff of $195.00 got a deal that was slighter better than advertised.
In this case the guest may have thought that they had a valid query by questioning the tariff. OK, I realise that when there had been an offer and acceptance, the customer would be expected to seal the deal with consideration (ie payment) and this should be the end of the matter, regardless what advertised offers may be on other channels. However the public are permitted to raise objections (silly or otherwise) and if these aren't satisfied then like it or not they will use the internet to vent. More than ever it is up to the business owner to respond quickly and appropriately at the time when a customer raises concerns.
Unfortunately we will never know how the conversation went in the motel reception at check-out. On the face of it, the guest's objection should have been easily dispatched.
Was the motelier somewhat taken-back by being second-guessed by a disorganised guest that arrived late and wasn't able to catch up on enough sleep the night before? Did the motelier get annoyed by a guest trying to negotiate a better tariff, after acceptance of tariff before his stay? Did this well-travelled guest feel that by arriving late, the few hours spent in the motel room simply wasn't good value? Or did this guest that usually travels on a company expense account feel hard done by with the impost of paying for accommodation from his own funds?
We will never know what really went down, however there is an onus on the motelier to provide guest satisfaction - even if a guest is an arrogant dickhead that checks-in at midnight, agrees to pay a quoted tariff and then upon check-out assumes an entitlement to pay a lower tariff that they misinterpret from an an online listing discovered during their stay.
While the guest is holding his ground by refusing to pay the motel and delete the revenge TripAdvisor review, on a positive note, some of the motel's previous guests have been prompted to post reviews on TripAdvisor of their own experiences after reading the front page New Zealand article. And like most others, the latest reviews reconfirm that the motel and its operators provide a comfortable and positive experience for wary travellers.
Friday, February 24, 2012
We'll Be Back!
The small but perfectly formed team at Motella are slowly reforming after a wee break. There is a renewed sense of urgency within the darkened walls of the Motella secret lair as we remove the remnants of the the Xmas decorations, crank up the computers and line up new targets for this year's volley of blog posts.
The year has started without us and there is lot's to talk about. We'll be back real soon...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)