As a professional in what we call the "hospitality industry," I'm often conflicted when I experience the service industry from the other side of the counter.
On one hand, I find that I am an exceptionally good customer, sometimes too much so. At restaurants, I practically bus my own table after finishing my meal, wiping the table down and stacking the dishes at the end of the table. At hotels, I find myself picking up stray litter off of the floor without thinking twice. I am extraordinarily forgiving of the little mistakes that can make the average customer cringe (Got my room type wrong? It happens. Brought the wrong appetizer? That can be fixed.).
But on the other hand, I am utterly intolerant when I see service employees goof on the basics: listening, being respectful, paying attention, working to meet and exceed the customer's needs, and immediately apologizing and offering a solution(s) when things go wrong (as they inevitably will at some point). Notice how all of those "basics" involve the customer. It is the service person's job to focus on the customers, and to get that wrong is a bad sign.
Even then, for the most part, I am exceptionally tolerant of the little mistakes. I am, for example, forever asking for extra ranch (or ketchup, or honey mustard, or .... does anyone understand how a shot glass of a condiment meets the needs of the average diner?), and 75% of the time the "extra" portion fails to arrive when the food does. Either the server wasn't listening or didn't bother to check when the food came out. But it's not going to bother me...unless the food is cold, the drinks aren't refilled, other parts of the order were missed, and so on.
We toss around the phrase "the hospitality industry" too much now. Literally, it means hotel, restaurant, and attractions businesses. Yet I know a number of retail outlets, real estate agents, and various other service providers who are in the hospitality business--and quite a few restaurants, hotels, and attractions that are decidedly not.
Hospitality is a frame of mind, an attitude, and a way of life--not an industry. Hospitality is making "please," "thank you," "sir," and "ma'am" a part of your daily vocabulary; yielding the right-of-way to another vehicle; allowing someone with six items to go ahead of you at the grocery store; stopping to listen to people and genuinely responding to them. We're never going to be perfect at it, but true hospitality professionals work at it all day, every day. Hospitality doesn't stop at a workplace doorway. Hospitality doesn't clock out.
That's why those who are truly in the hospitality business know that they have to hire hospitable people, train hospitable movements and actions, and behave hospitably themselves. It's also why when I went to a local restaurant on the intercoastal waterway this weekend and stood waiting for 30 minutes while the hostess talked about her personal life with her coworkers and the managers ignored her behavior, I knew we were in for a forgettable experience. They are in the industry, but they didn't have the attitude.
And wouldn't you know, they forgot the extra ranch.
Scott
Do you have similar experiences with hospitality? Let us know at hgimayfaire@gmail.com!
Our experienced management staff is always glad to answer questions about hotels, flights, restaurants, or any related aspects of travel and tourism--leave a comment, tweet us at @hgimayfaire, or email us at hgimayfaire@gmail.com!
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Thursday, February 10, 2011
The Future of Hotel User Review Sites
It's been a while--thanks for checking back in on us again! We were in San Francisco for a brand conference and came back to a paperwork tornado, but we're glad to be back in the saddle again.
One of the most prominent topics at the Hilton Garden Inn conference was social media (how appropriate!) and its uses and relevance in 2011 and forward. While the general consensus is that Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare, and the like can be tremendously helpful in marketing hotels, opinions on how to use those channels and who should be using them vary widely. Just in the past two weeks, we have heard opinions ranging from "every hotel needs to have a Facebook for business page and a Twitter account" to "Facebook is necessary, Twitter is not" to "Facebook and Twitter are time hogs--only use Facebook ads and monitor any chatter on social media" (I even saw an article recently that claimed Twitter was much more vital to hotel marketing than Facebook). Clearly, the jury is still out. For retail outlets, restaurants, and local service industries, the power of social media has been well-documented, but hotels are still trying to define the role of social media in marketing and sales, and that conversation may continue for some time.
There is one thing that everyone agreed on, though: online user reviews and ratings have become an enormous part of our business, to the point of obsession. Trip Advisor has long been the big kid on the block when it comes to lodging reviews, and hotels could check once or twice per month for any additional reviews on Expedia, Orbitz, Hotels.com, and Priceline. Recently, though, a number of other review sites have jumped in and threatened to change the game for Trip Advisor, creating an enormous headache for hoteliers (and restaurateurs) along the way.
With Yelp!, Kayak's TravelPost, HotelMotelReviews.com, Hotel-Rankings.com, Zoom and Go, and Google Reviews/Places now in the mix (and a host of similar but smaller sites), travelers have a plethora of sources to choose from when seeking user feedback on destinations. The flip side of the coin, of course, is that business owners must watch, monitor, and respond to dozens of sites offering reviews rather than just a few. Hotel brands are scrambling to develop sophisticated social media monitoring software, but the task is enormous. Hoteliers are assigning staff members the task of spending hours per week scouring all of the review sites for feedback and responding to all reviews. Hotel sales forces are trying to adjust to a world in which there are actual ratings systems and decide whether they help or hurt.
The proliferation of these sites can be exciting or frustrating depending on your needs, but historical evidence suggests that two of these sites will establish themselves as dominant and push the others out.
The best frame of reference is the search engine explosion of the mid-1990s. As search engine technology was new, developing, and highly lucrative, a ridiculous number of search engines burst onto the scene, each one generating significant buzz for new and different features. Lycos, Excite, Altavista, Hotbot, WebCrawler, and Yahoo all offered slightly different services, but the general public saw them all as search engines, and by the early 2000s most were extinct as Google began taking over the search engine market and Yahoo arose as its only true competitor.
That is a highly oversimplified version of events, of course, as buy-outs and technology creep swallowed most of them and others were casualties of bad business decisions, but nonetheless, the same promises to happen with the consumer review sites. The most agile, adaptable sites who can also transition into offering other related services will survive; the others will eventually either fall by the wayside or be absorbed into the eventual winners.
So, which sites will prevail? Until all of the likely contenders have emerged, there is no way to predict the outcome. Our suspicion is that we haven't seen the last of the review sites and apps yet, and given that Google entered the search game relatively late and now reigns as the undisputed king of search engines, we should wait to make any judgments as to who will survive. Each of the review sites offers variations on the theme, which will make the evolution of the growing genre interesting to watch. TravelPost claims to be stepping into Trip Advisor's territory because TA has been compromised and reviews are less authentic than ever before, a legitimate but overrated gripe that has been gaining particular traction in Europe; trying to dethrone TA on that basis, though, will be a monumental task. Yelp! goes beyond the hotel/restaurant model original to TA and encourages reviews of any type of establishment. The issue for Yelp! will be that Google is also entering that space with their Places feature, and their capital and manpower will allow them to grow and adapt the service more quickly than Yelp!, we suspect. The other sites are variations on Trip Advisor, for the most part, trying to carve out their own spaces by focusing locally or on niche markets
For the moment, though, we're betting on Trip Advisor to survive, though the best play they have is to buy out Yelp at some point in order to compete on a more level playing field with Google. Google, meanwhile, came to the app game a little behind, publishing their Places app less than a month ago, and they are going to have a much more difficult road making Google Places the ubiquitous ratings app with Yelp! and TA already established and downloaded.
But who would bet against Google?
Ever use a review site? What do you like and not like about them? Let us know at hgimayfaire@gmail.com!
Our experienced management staff is always glad to answer questions about hotels, flights, restaurants, or any related aspects of travel and tourism--leave a comment, tweet us at @hgimayfaire, or email us at hgimayfaire@gmail.com!
One of the most prominent topics at the Hilton Garden Inn conference was social media (how appropriate!) and its uses and relevance in 2011 and forward. While the general consensus is that Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare, and the like can be tremendously helpful in marketing hotels, opinions on how to use those channels and who should be using them vary widely. Just in the past two weeks, we have heard opinions ranging from "every hotel needs to have a Facebook for business page and a Twitter account" to "Facebook is necessary, Twitter is not" to "Facebook and Twitter are time hogs--only use Facebook ads and monitor any chatter on social media" (I even saw an article recently that claimed Twitter was much more vital to hotel marketing than Facebook). Clearly, the jury is still out. For retail outlets, restaurants, and local service industries, the power of social media has been well-documented, but hotels are still trying to define the role of social media in marketing and sales, and that conversation may continue for some time.
There is one thing that everyone agreed on, though: online user reviews and ratings have become an enormous part of our business, to the point of obsession. Trip Advisor has long been the big kid on the block when it comes to lodging reviews, and hotels could check once or twice per month for any additional reviews on Expedia, Orbitz, Hotels.com, and Priceline. Recently, though, a number of other review sites have jumped in and threatened to change the game for Trip Advisor, creating an enormous headache for hoteliers (and restaurateurs) along the way.
With Yelp!, Kayak's TravelPost, HotelMotelReviews.com, Hotel-Rankings.com, Zoom and Go, and Google Reviews/Places now in the mix (and a host of similar but smaller sites), travelers have a plethora of sources to choose from when seeking user feedback on destinations. The flip side of the coin, of course, is that business owners must watch, monitor, and respond to dozens of sites offering reviews rather than just a few. Hotel brands are scrambling to develop sophisticated social media monitoring software, but the task is enormous. Hoteliers are assigning staff members the task of spending hours per week scouring all of the review sites for feedback and responding to all reviews. Hotel sales forces are trying to adjust to a world in which there are actual ratings systems and decide whether they help or hurt.
The proliferation of these sites can be exciting or frustrating depending on your needs, but historical evidence suggests that two of these sites will establish themselves as dominant and push the others out.
The best frame of reference is the search engine explosion of the mid-1990s. As search engine technology was new, developing, and highly lucrative, a ridiculous number of search engines burst onto the scene, each one generating significant buzz for new and different features. Lycos, Excite, Altavista, Hotbot, WebCrawler, and Yahoo all offered slightly different services, but the general public saw them all as search engines, and by the early 2000s most were extinct as Google began taking over the search engine market and Yahoo arose as its only true competitor.
That is a highly oversimplified version of events, of course, as buy-outs and technology creep swallowed most of them and others were casualties of bad business decisions, but nonetheless, the same promises to happen with the consumer review sites. The most agile, adaptable sites who can also transition into offering other related services will survive; the others will eventually either fall by the wayside or be absorbed into the eventual winners.
So, which sites will prevail? Until all of the likely contenders have emerged, there is no way to predict the outcome. Our suspicion is that we haven't seen the last of the review sites and apps yet, and given that Google entered the search game relatively late and now reigns as the undisputed king of search engines, we should wait to make any judgments as to who will survive. Each of the review sites offers variations on the theme, which will make the evolution of the growing genre interesting to watch. TravelPost claims to be stepping into Trip Advisor's territory because TA has been compromised and reviews are less authentic than ever before, a legitimate but overrated gripe that has been gaining particular traction in Europe; trying to dethrone TA on that basis, though, will be a monumental task. Yelp! goes beyond the hotel/restaurant model original to TA and encourages reviews of any type of establishment. The issue for Yelp! will be that Google is also entering that space with their Places feature, and their capital and manpower will allow them to grow and adapt the service more quickly than Yelp!, we suspect. The other sites are variations on Trip Advisor, for the most part, trying to carve out their own spaces by focusing locally or on niche markets
For the moment, though, we're betting on Trip Advisor to survive, though the best play they have is to buy out Yelp at some point in order to compete on a more level playing field with Google. Google, meanwhile, came to the app game a little behind, publishing their Places app less than a month ago, and they are going to have a much more difficult road making Google Places the ubiquitous ratings app with Yelp! and TA already established and downloaded.
But who would bet against Google?
Ever use a review site? What do you like and not like about them? Let us know at hgimayfaire@gmail.com!
Our experienced management staff is always glad to answer questions about hotels, flights, restaurants, or any related aspects of travel and tourism--leave a comment, tweet us at @hgimayfaire, or email us at hgimayfaire@gmail.com!
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
"Save our Summers" Essential to Tourism Industry
As the new legislative session gets underway in states across the country, "Save our Summers" and similarly-titled organizations nationwide will begin anew the battle to prevent the school year creeping towards the beginning of August. In most states, those efforts will be supported by tourism industry councils and championed by the Hotel & Motel Association, the Restaurant Association, and various retail associations.
Compelling arguments exist on both sides of the debate. On the side of extending school beginning and ending dates: the pressures of the No Child Left Behind law, the struggle (particularly in years such as this one) to find space for make-up days because of snow and other issues that cause cancellation, and the timing of exams. Generally, though, states keep the same instructional guidelines of 180 days or 1,000 hours of instruction. Other issues are scheduling vagaries that can be resolved by creating exceptions (districts in North Carolina, for example, may apply for a waiver based on the number of snow/cancellation days in the previous year) to the firm dates set by law.
Groups in favor of preventing school creeping too far into August on one side and June on the other speak typically of families' need to spend summer vacations together and the value of experiences such as summer camp. The North Carolina Save Our Summers lists a variety of reasons why summer vacation is valuable to children and parents alike here.
Conspicuously absent from that list is the economic impact of shortening summer break. While most of the states with active Save Our Summers organizations are more traditional tourism-heavy states such as Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia, states such as Kentucky, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and others have also heavily invested in the campaign to return to a more "traditional" school year. Kentucky, Alabama, South Carolina, and Texas commissioned independent studies to determine how much the state economy was impacted by early August school start dates, and the results ($187 million, $260 million, $180 million, and $332 million respectively) are striking--especially when one considers that each of those studies was conducted over 5 years ago.
Shortening the summer makes parents and children pare down the activities they can participate in because of time restraints, and that means that some portion of the economy is bound to lose. Whether families cut out summer camps, family reunions, or family vacations, the economic impact is huge--and most of that impact cannot be rescheduled and recouped in other months.
The tourism and travel industry has the most to lose with shortened summers, to be sure, but not because of "cheap labor," as the Asheville Citizen-Times so delicately alleged. Truncated summers means less travel, less consumer spending, less tax dollars generated for the states (and perhaps increased taxes to make up for that shortfall--South Carolina estimated a shortened school year would lead to $8.3 million in lost tax income).
Support your state-level Save Our Summers organization (find a short list here, or Google your state and "save our summers"); there is a lot more riding on this than you may realize.
Are you a parent, hotelier, or restauranteur? What do you think of these developments? Let us know at hgimayfaire@gmail.com!
Our experienced management staff is always glad to answer questions about hotels, flights, restaurants, or any related aspects of travel and tourism--leave a comment, tweet us at @hgimayfaire, or email us at hgimayfaire@gmail.com!
Compelling arguments exist on both sides of the debate. On the side of extending school beginning and ending dates: the pressures of the No Child Left Behind law, the struggle (particularly in years such as this one) to find space for make-up days because of snow and other issues that cause cancellation, and the timing of exams. Generally, though, states keep the same instructional guidelines of 180 days or 1,000 hours of instruction. Other issues are scheduling vagaries that can be resolved by creating exceptions (districts in North Carolina, for example, may apply for a waiver based on the number of snow/cancellation days in the previous year) to the firm dates set by law.
Groups in favor of preventing school creeping too far into August on one side and June on the other speak typically of families' need to spend summer vacations together and the value of experiences such as summer camp. The North Carolina Save Our Summers lists a variety of reasons why summer vacation is valuable to children and parents alike here.
Conspicuously absent from that list is the economic impact of shortening summer break. While most of the states with active Save Our Summers organizations are more traditional tourism-heavy states such as Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia, states such as Kentucky, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and others have also heavily invested in the campaign to return to a more "traditional" school year. Kentucky, Alabama, South Carolina, and Texas commissioned independent studies to determine how much the state economy was impacted by early August school start dates, and the results ($187 million, $260 million, $180 million, and $332 million respectively) are striking--especially when one considers that each of those studies was conducted over 5 years ago.
Shortening the summer makes parents and children pare down the activities they can participate in because of time restraints, and that means that some portion of the economy is bound to lose. Whether families cut out summer camps, family reunions, or family vacations, the economic impact is huge--and most of that impact cannot be rescheduled and recouped in other months.
The tourism and travel industry has the most to lose with shortened summers, to be sure, but not because of "cheap labor," as the Asheville Citizen-Times so delicately alleged. Truncated summers means less travel, less consumer spending, less tax dollars generated for the states (and perhaps increased taxes to make up for that shortfall--South Carolina estimated a shortened school year would lead to $8.3 million in lost tax income).
Support your state-level Save Our Summers organization (find a short list here, or Google your state and "save our summers"); there is a lot more riding on this than you may realize.
Are you a parent, hotelier, or restauranteur? What do you think of these developments? Let us know at hgimayfaire@gmail.com!
Our experienced management staff is always glad to answer questions about hotels, flights, restaurants, or any related aspects of travel and tourism--leave a comment, tweet us at @hgimayfaire, or email us at hgimayfaire@gmail.com!
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Delta Quietly Enters Online Booking War
Last week we wrote about American Airlines' escalating battle with Online Travel Agencies (OTAs) and its potential effect on internet travel booking. American has truly waded into a full-scale war now that former offshoot Sabre, a prominent GDS (Global Distribution System) has obscured American's listings in its sytem and increased the fees American pays to Sabre for exposure to travel agents. American has sued Sabre and earned a temporary injunction, travel agents are beginning to fear the worst, and the industry as a whole has its eye squarely on the building tension between American and, as it turns out, the entire travel-booking industry.
American's push has been all about control. The company would like to control the entire booking experience from start to finish to provide their passengers with a "customized travel experience" by funneling all web traffic to their own website. Ultimately, though, the chief concern for American is cost; with increasing demands for profits after three years in recession, American is looking to save the cost of the percentage of each ticket that OTAs generate and even perhaps save or reduce the costs paid to the GDS systems to be listed in their databases.
Delta, meanwhile, is moving in the same direction, although they have done so with little fanfare. Delta has slid in under the radar with a few subtle moves that, while they garnered some news coverage, basically registered as a small footnote to the nasty struggle American now finds itself in. Starting with the smaller OTAs, the airline has quietly been cutting ties with various online booking sites for the last six months in the hope of shifting market share to their own website. They have, however, maintained their relationship with the larger OTAs (Expedia, Orbitz, Travelocity, Priceline), and these less noticeable moves have the advantage of being less noticeable to the consumer. Delta compares its new policies to Apple selling iPhones and iPads through Best Buy, an apt comparison as it emphasizes the "big box store" mentality that allows them to work with a smaller group of distributors to control the customer experience while at the same time achieving maximum exposure.
Will Delta's recent moves result in the same sort of complete abandonment of OTAs that it seems American is heading towards? Maybe, but it certainly will not be with the same sort of acrimony and gamesmanship that has erupted in the battle over American's fares. Before we know what Delta's next move may be, we will probably see one or more of the remaining major carriers enter the fray as well, and the tactics they use will tell us more about the direction as a whole.
The public battle playing out over American's tactics means that travelers are keenly aware of American's actions; regardless of how the airline tries to spin their move towards independence from the OTAs, it will no doubt be perceived by the majority of consumers as a calculated move to reduce their own fees and boost their profit that will result in a more complicated and less transparent process to comparison shop for airfares. Taking away the convenience of booking through OTAs and regular travel agents (through the GDS), means consumers are destined to waste time searching for the best rate or not including American in their search at all. The point for American is to drive travelers to their brand website, wow them with their "customized travel experience," and increase brand loyalty; if consumers never visit their website, though, the plan backfires.
Delta's plan looks brilliant by comparison. They are making cuts slowly and in smaller places, enabling them to: a) carefully track production, b) slowly funnel more bookings to their website and the larger OTAs rather than doing so en masse, c) stay under the radar and not alarm consumers, and d) watch the American fracas from afar and gauge the success or failure of those efforts while contemplating their next move.
While American failed to anticipate the level of pushback if they went after the big fish first, Delta has used the news feed from American to take a different route to the same result: smart, stealthy, and, ultimately, effective. Delta is poised for big changes, but they have shown the ability to make them in measured and thoughtful steps. While we don't believe this bodes well for travelers, the landscape of air travel is likely to be forever altered over the next year.
Scott
Are you a frequent flier on either airline or a bargain fare shopper? What do you think of these developments? Let us know at hgimayfaire@gmail.com!
Our experienced management staff is always glad to answer questions about hotels, flights, restaurants, or any related aspects of travel and tourism--comment below, tweet us at @hgimayfaire, or email us at hgimayfaire@gmail.com!
American's push has been all about control. The company would like to control the entire booking experience from start to finish to provide their passengers with a "customized travel experience" by funneling all web traffic to their own website. Ultimately, though, the chief concern for American is cost; with increasing demands for profits after three years in recession, American is looking to save the cost of the percentage of each ticket that OTAs generate and even perhaps save or reduce the costs paid to the GDS systems to be listed in their databases.
Delta, meanwhile, is moving in the same direction, although they have done so with little fanfare. Delta has slid in under the radar with a few subtle moves that, while they garnered some news coverage, basically registered as a small footnote to the nasty struggle American now finds itself in. Starting with the smaller OTAs, the airline has quietly been cutting ties with various online booking sites for the last six months in the hope of shifting market share to their own website. They have, however, maintained their relationship with the larger OTAs (Expedia, Orbitz, Travelocity, Priceline), and these less noticeable moves have the advantage of being less noticeable to the consumer. Delta compares its new policies to Apple selling iPhones and iPads through Best Buy, an apt comparison as it emphasizes the "big box store" mentality that allows them to work with a smaller group of distributors to control the customer experience while at the same time achieving maximum exposure.
Will Delta's recent moves result in the same sort of complete abandonment of OTAs that it seems American is heading towards? Maybe, but it certainly will not be with the same sort of acrimony and gamesmanship that has erupted in the battle over American's fares. Before we know what Delta's next move may be, we will probably see one or more of the remaining major carriers enter the fray as well, and the tactics they use will tell us more about the direction as a whole.
The public battle playing out over American's tactics means that travelers are keenly aware of American's actions; regardless of how the airline tries to spin their move towards independence from the OTAs, it will no doubt be perceived by the majority of consumers as a calculated move to reduce their own fees and boost their profit that will result in a more complicated and less transparent process to comparison shop for airfares. Taking away the convenience of booking through OTAs and regular travel agents (through the GDS), means consumers are destined to waste time searching for the best rate or not including American in their search at all. The point for American is to drive travelers to their brand website, wow them with their "customized travel experience," and increase brand loyalty; if consumers never visit their website, though, the plan backfires.
Delta's plan looks brilliant by comparison. They are making cuts slowly and in smaller places, enabling them to: a) carefully track production, b) slowly funnel more bookings to their website and the larger OTAs rather than doing so en masse, c) stay under the radar and not alarm consumers, and d) watch the American fracas from afar and gauge the success or failure of those efforts while contemplating their next move.
While American failed to anticipate the level of pushback if they went after the big fish first, Delta has used the news feed from American to take a different route to the same result: smart, stealthy, and, ultimately, effective. Delta is poised for big changes, but they have shown the ability to make them in measured and thoughtful steps. While we don't believe this bodes well for travelers, the landscape of air travel is likely to be forever altered over the next year.
Scott
Are you a frequent flier on either airline or a bargain fare shopper? What do you think of these developments? Let us know at hgimayfaire@gmail.com!
Our experienced management staff is always glad to answer questions about hotels, flights, restaurants, or any related aspects of travel and tourism--comment below, tweet us at @hgimayfaire, or email us at hgimayfaire@gmail.com!
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Beach Communities Rebranding Efforts Revisited
We promised on Wednesday that we would review some of the feedback from our article on the beach communities' efforts at re-branding. Before we do, though, we recommend that you read the editorials from the Triangle Business Journal and the Star News on the subject.
The editorial in the Star News was expressive of most of the opinions that we have been hearing since the blog was published. particularly the last paragraph: "They shouldn't look at the Wilmington name as a hindrance but rather as a hook to lure tourists to their accommodations and attractions once they discover the many faces of the Cape fear Coast. After all, Wilmington has many things going for it, it doesn't have a beach." The TBJ editorial was more flippant (blurb, actually--we're not sure two sentences and a sarcasm chaser really count as an editorial) and perhaps too dismissive of the attraction of our beach towns, but nonetheless on point.
Most of the comments we received on the posting were very positive: "insightful," "hit the nail on the head," and "I like the way you think" were the most quotable of the positive comments, which far outnumbered the negative. But there were those who disagreed with our stance, and they made their feelings known. We got one phone call and one message defending the beaches' position, and there was quite a bit said/written that we would like to address. Both raised some fine points; we will not reveal the names or information of anyone who contacted us, and we would like to emphasize that we welcome all comments, positive or negative, as we believe that there needs to be an active dialogue about this situation and everything that surrounds it. With that, we respond:
1. The beaches are not trying to separate themselves, they just want to remove "Cape Fear Coast" from the logo and marketing materials, since the term Cape Fear Coast has proved to be an ineffective and less-than-memorable marketing tool.
If that was indeed the case, we wouldn't be having this conversation--we'd be pitching the idea together. Outside of this immediate area, "Cape Fear Coast" is a head-scratcher, a label that means virtually nothing. We would fully support removing the Cape Fear moniker...but that's not what the beaches are asking for: "elected officials in Carolina Beach, Kure Beach and Wrightsville Beach approved a joint resolution seeking more effective representation of their areas and asking tourism officials to phase out the term "Cape Fear Coast" as the official logo and instead use each individual name of the beach towns (Star News)."
Using the individual names of the beach towns is bulky, impractical, and territorial. Until that request is dropped, we see this resolution as a deliberate affront to the CVB, downtown Wilmington, and the rest of greater Wilmington and New Hanover County.
2. "Wilmington Cape Fear Coast CVB" makes the beaches an afterthought (or a "day trip" or a "sideshow", according to who is speaking). The city is marketed better than the beaches.
No need to repeat ourselves here. Jealousy and in-fighting are not going to help us take share from Myrtle Beach and the Outer Banks; all we're doing here is trying to shift business from one side of the county to the other.
3. The beaches are the reason why Wilmington is a destination. Hilton Garden Inn Mayfaire wouldn't exist without Wrightsville Beach.
First, we are fairly confident that our hotel would still exist; after all, Wilmington is home to several major corporations, historic sites, talented local chefs, a vibrant downtown, a high-quality institution of higher learning, and eclectic shopping, art scene, and entertainment. Indeed, it is precisely because of that diversity of interests and attractions that Wilmington/Cape Fear Coast/New Hanover County (call it what you will for the time being) should be able to compete with other regional destinations, not because we have beaches. We have one of the biggest tourist beaches in the country 90 miles to our south--standing toe to toe with Myrtle and fighting hand-to-hand seems like a poor plan. Rather, we should be able to say we have such incredible diversity that we have all of the benefits of all of the surrounding destinations in one county--and why argue over where to vacation when you can do it all at once?
The sad part, though, is that making the claim that the beaches are the reason why Wilmington/New Hanover County is a destination both proves and emphasizes our original point. The resolution, though made with good intentions, was crafted and passed by those with a vested interest in their towns; therefore, the resolution is inherently territorial and, if enacted, a serious impediment to marketing Greater Wilmington as a destination. The proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing: self-promotion disguised as effective marketing.
Let us hear from you! Next post on Tuesday, January 11.
Comments? Questions? Email us at hgimayfaire@gmail.com.
The editorial in the Star News was expressive of most of the opinions that we have been hearing since the blog was published. particularly the last paragraph: "They shouldn't look at the Wilmington name as a hindrance but rather as a hook to lure tourists to their accommodations and attractions once they discover the many faces of the Cape fear Coast. After all, Wilmington has many things going for it, it doesn't have a beach." The TBJ editorial was more flippant (blurb, actually--we're not sure two sentences and a sarcasm chaser really count as an editorial) and perhaps too dismissive of the attraction of our beach towns, but nonetheless on point.
Most of the comments we received on the posting were very positive: "insightful," "hit the nail on the head," and "I like the way you think" were the most quotable of the positive comments, which far outnumbered the negative. But there were those who disagreed with our stance, and they made their feelings known. We got one phone call and one message defending the beaches' position, and there was quite a bit said/written that we would like to address. Both raised some fine points; we will not reveal the names or information of anyone who contacted us, and we would like to emphasize that we welcome all comments, positive or negative, as we believe that there needs to be an active dialogue about this situation and everything that surrounds it. With that, we respond:
1. The beaches are not trying to separate themselves, they just want to remove "Cape Fear Coast" from the logo and marketing materials, since the term Cape Fear Coast has proved to be an ineffective and less-than-memorable marketing tool.
If that was indeed the case, we wouldn't be having this conversation--we'd be pitching the idea together. Outside of this immediate area, "Cape Fear Coast" is a head-scratcher, a label that means virtually nothing. We would fully support removing the Cape Fear moniker...but that's not what the beaches are asking for: "elected officials in Carolina Beach, Kure Beach and Wrightsville Beach approved a joint resolution seeking more effective representation of their areas and asking tourism officials to phase out the term "Cape Fear Coast" as the official logo and instead use each individual name of the beach towns (Star News)."
Using the individual names of the beach towns is bulky, impractical, and territorial. Until that request is dropped, we see this resolution as a deliberate affront to the CVB, downtown Wilmington, and the rest of greater Wilmington and New Hanover County.
2. "Wilmington Cape Fear Coast CVB" makes the beaches an afterthought (or a "day trip" or a "sideshow", according to who is speaking). The city is marketed better than the beaches.
No need to repeat ourselves here. Jealousy and in-fighting are not going to help us take share from Myrtle Beach and the Outer Banks; all we're doing here is trying to shift business from one side of the county to the other.
3. The beaches are the reason why Wilmington is a destination. Hilton Garden Inn Mayfaire wouldn't exist without Wrightsville Beach.
First, we are fairly confident that our hotel would still exist; after all, Wilmington is home to several major corporations, historic sites, talented local chefs, a vibrant downtown, a high-quality institution of higher learning, and eclectic shopping, art scene, and entertainment. Indeed, it is precisely because of that diversity of interests and attractions that Wilmington/Cape Fear Coast/New Hanover County (call it what you will for the time being) should be able to compete with other regional destinations, not because we have beaches. We have one of the biggest tourist beaches in the country 90 miles to our south--standing toe to toe with Myrtle and fighting hand-to-hand seems like a poor plan. Rather, we should be able to say we have such incredible diversity that we have all of the benefits of all of the surrounding destinations in one county--and why argue over where to vacation when you can do it all at once?
The sad part, though, is that making the claim that the beaches are the reason why Wilmington/New Hanover County is a destination both proves and emphasizes our original point. The resolution, though made with good intentions, was crafted and passed by those with a vested interest in their towns; therefore, the resolution is inherently territorial and, if enacted, a serious impediment to marketing Greater Wilmington as a destination. The proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing: self-promotion disguised as effective marketing.
Let us hear from you! Next post on Tuesday, January 11.
Comments? Questions? Email us at hgimayfaire@gmail.com.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
The Battle Over Online Travel Booking
The holidays are over, and it's back to business as (more or less) usual at the Hilton Garden Inn Mayfaire! A lot has happened since the last entry, and we want to address all of it in due time. We had quite a few comments on our post about the beach communities' "rebranding" efforts, and we're going to sort through those and thoughtfully summarize and revisit on Friday. And we have a few really good questions coming up for next week. For now though....
Timeliness is everything. And over the holidays an official brouhaha broke out between the airlines and the Online Travel Agents (OTAs) as American Airlines pulled all of its flight listings from Orbitz.com, Expedia showed the solidarity of the OTAs (or was it a preemptive move on their part?) by obscuring American's listings on its site, and the three remained in "negotiations" while other online booking sites tried desperately not to get dragged into the fray.
While we have discussed Priceline and the "opaque" OTAs at some length in a past blog post, one of the most frequent questions we get is about the OTAs and how they work, and what a gorgeous segue American Airlines handed to us.
Online travel agents, including Expedia, Orbitz, Priceline, Hotels.com, CheapTickets.com, Booking.com, and a few notable others, are essentially brokers. These sites negotiate contracts with hotels, airlines, and rental car companies to take a "booking fee" for every reservation that is booked on the site. So if, for example, you pay Expedia $500 for a hotel room in New York City, it is likely that Expedia pays the hotel $400-$420 for your room, the remainder being their commission. These fees are determined largely by negotiating power (United likely pays a smaller percentage than, say, JetBlue, as it is a larger carrier with more flights). Typically, these fees are higher than those of "traditional" or "brick-and-mortar" travel agents because the OTAs provide a universal platform that will attract greater numbers of viewers/buyers than a traditional travel agent, even in a large network, can.
Therein lies the rub. Hotels, airlines, and rental car agencies are, by utilizing the OTAs, sacrificing higher rates for an increased volume of business, and the shell game begins: airlines will set a maximum percentage of flights allowed to be sold through an OTA, try to drive increased traffic to their own websites through advertised specials that offer a lesser discount than the OTAs but promise greater ease of use, and generally try any way possible to minimize the effect of the OTAs while relying upon the volume provided by them. It may seem paradoxical, but the advantage of using OTAs is they can generate large amounts of business, the drawback is that because of their commissions companies try hard to reduce their impact.
So, American makes their power play. The gist of the move from American's point of view is that they have developed a more accurate real-time booking system that keeps up with rate changes, extra fees, and value added features with no time lag, and they are convinced that their system is better for consumers, so they want OTAs to adapt to their system. Meanwhile, the OTAs, which use the Global Distribution System (GDS), argue that adapting their systems to fit each airline's reservations model will unduly tax the system and take away from the ability to list flights, suppressing the ability for travelers to shop competitively and driving rates upward (travel alert!).
Ultimately, it all comes down to this:
Timeliness is everything. And over the holidays an official brouhaha broke out between the airlines and the Online Travel Agents (OTAs) as American Airlines pulled all of its flight listings from Orbitz.com, Expedia showed the solidarity of the OTAs (or was it a preemptive move on their part?) by obscuring American's listings on its site, and the three remained in "negotiations" while other online booking sites tried desperately not to get dragged into the fray.
While we have discussed Priceline and the "opaque" OTAs at some length in a past blog post, one of the most frequent questions we get is about the OTAs and how they work, and what a gorgeous segue American Airlines handed to us.
Online travel agents, including Expedia, Orbitz, Priceline, Hotels.com, CheapTickets.com, Booking.com, and a few notable others, are essentially brokers. These sites negotiate contracts with hotels, airlines, and rental car companies to take a "booking fee" for every reservation that is booked on the site. So if, for example, you pay Expedia $500 for a hotel room in New York City, it is likely that Expedia pays the hotel $400-$420 for your room, the remainder being their commission. These fees are determined largely by negotiating power (United likely pays a smaller percentage than, say, JetBlue, as it is a larger carrier with more flights). Typically, these fees are higher than those of "traditional" or "brick-and-mortar" travel agents because the OTAs provide a universal platform that will attract greater numbers of viewers/buyers than a traditional travel agent, even in a large network, can.
Therein lies the rub. Hotels, airlines, and rental car agencies are, by utilizing the OTAs, sacrificing higher rates for an increased volume of business, and the shell game begins: airlines will set a maximum percentage of flights allowed to be sold through an OTA, try to drive increased traffic to their own websites through advertised specials that offer a lesser discount than the OTAs but promise greater ease of use, and generally try any way possible to minimize the effect of the OTAs while relying upon the volume provided by them. It may seem paradoxical, but the advantage of using OTAs is they can generate large amounts of business, the drawback is that because of their commissions companies try hard to reduce their impact.
So, American makes their power play. The gist of the move from American's point of view is that they have developed a more accurate real-time booking system that keeps up with rate changes, extra fees, and value added features with no time lag, and they are convinced that their system is better for consumers, so they want OTAs to adapt to their system. Meanwhile, the OTAs, which use the Global Distribution System (GDS), argue that adapting their systems to fit each airline's reservations model will unduly tax the system and take away from the ability to list flights, suppressing the ability for travelers to shop competitively and driving rates upward (travel alert!).
Ultimately, it all comes down to this:
Thursday, December 23, 2010
A Dangerous Game: Territorialism in Wilmington's Tourism Industry
Today's post was supposed to be answering the stockpile of questions we have from readers. But the best laid plans of mice and men, as Steinbeck said, often go awry, and recent news stories in the Star News, Wilmington's local paper, caught our eye--and we promise (promise, promise) that we will catch up on your questions next week.
Shannan Bowen, Star News' intrepid hospitality reporter, featured articles each of the last two days about the beach towns (Wrightsville, Carolina, and Kure Beaches) and their ongoing battle with the Wilmington CVB to re-brand the beaches and separate them from the CVB for marketing purposes. The articles describe the beach communities' fight to rebrand themselves and the response from a marketing expert.
This is territorialism run amok. The local town governments want to attract more visitors to their beaches, but they are doing so to the detriment of the entire area, and to their own detriment, which makes the whole mess even more frustrating.
The beaches are requesting a full re-branding, which would involve dropping the "Cape Fear Coast" portion of the CVB's logo and marketing materials and adding each of the beach names to the logo. All of the beaches already have their own websites, which link from and to the main Wilmington CVB page, and their own apportionments of county occupancy taxes for marketing purposes, but the new measures would effectively separate the beaches from the rest of the Wilmington community.
First, allow me to address the inherent biases that we have here. Each of the beaches and historic Wilmington already receive a portion of the county's occupancy tax dollars for their own marketing efforts which are managed by the CVB but directed by advisory committees from these localities. The actual amount (some of which is spelled out in the second of Shannan's articles) apportioned to the county destination marketing fund, which markets the greater Wilmington area as a whole, is $548,000. The collective amounts apportioned to the localities is over $1 million. The amounts dedicated to marketing communities from funds that belong to the county are already disproportionate, but the fact the the $548,000 allocated to the destination marketing fund by definition also markets the beaches and Historic Wilmington means that major portions of Wilmington are left out of the equation almost completely. Those in the UNCW area or "midtown" or Landfall/Mayfaire are left to ask "where are our marketing dollars, "where are our marketing advisory committees," and "why are our tax revenues going to market everyone but us?" All are legitimate questions, and questions that the county should tackle sooner rather than later.
The larger issue, however, is what will be the effect of these proposed changes and the continued pacification of the municipalities as they push ever-harder for seperate funds and treatment? As mentioned in the Star News article, Judy Randall of Randall Travel Marketing asserts that research indicates that "most people vacationing in the area refer to the area collectively as 'Wilmington'," a finding echoed by many outside of the beach communities. The effect of splitting off the beach communities, re-branding the area, and continuing to siphon off dollars from county occupancy taxes to the localities will be confusing travelers and diluting the purchasing power of the CVB's marketing dollars.
Our neighbor to the south, Myrtle Beach, is our most direct competition; they are better-funded than our CVB is, they consistently earn awards as a beach destination (currently the #1 "fun and sun" destination in America on Trip Advisor), and they are blocking Wilmington's path to being the destination that we ultimately want to be. Check out their website: they do not market themselves as Myrtle Beach, Pawley's Island, Surfside Beach, Murrell's Inlet, etc., etc. Click on the "About Us" header at the top of their website and read the very first line: "The Myrtle Beach Area Convention and Visitors Bureau is a non-profit organization that is the only officially recognized marketing organization for the Myrtle Beach Area known as the Grand Strand which represents the following areas:" This is not a city/area/destination stuck on battling over identity. They have banded together to form the strongest possible alliance of destination spots, and they market with panache and with an enormous war chest that is not diluted by expensive legislative nods to their beach communities. (We will acknowledge that they no longer use Grand Strand except as an occasional modifier to shorten wording--we have no objection to dropping "Cape Fear Coast" from the marketing materials as long as something strong and unified stands in its place.)
As a premiere east coast travel destination, we cannot allow ourselves to be drawn into a battle that divides our loyalties, our dollars, and our message. We must understand that New Hanover County and its associated localities and destination sites are in a fight over tourist dollars not against each other but against those to our north and south: Myrtle Beach, Charleston, the Outer Banks, Savannah, Virginia Beach, and so on. The greater Wilmington area has a better combination of cultural and historic sites, pristine beaches, family fun, educational institutions, historic downtown, military history, local restaurants and businesses, and fantastic people than any of those locations. We should come together, find a single voice as a community and destination, and trumpet our strengths--not divide ourselves in so many ways and show our weakness.
Scott
Comments? Questions? Email us at hgimayfaire@gmail.com.
Shannan Bowen, Star News' intrepid hospitality reporter, featured articles each of the last two days about the beach towns (Wrightsville, Carolina, and Kure Beaches) and their ongoing battle with the Wilmington CVB to re-brand the beaches and separate them from the CVB for marketing purposes. The articles describe the beach communities' fight to rebrand themselves and the response from a marketing expert.
This is territorialism run amok. The local town governments want to attract more visitors to their beaches, but they are doing so to the detriment of the entire area, and to their own detriment, which makes the whole mess even more frustrating.
The beaches are requesting a full re-branding, which would involve dropping the "Cape Fear Coast" portion of the CVB's logo and marketing materials and adding each of the beach names to the logo. All of the beaches already have their own websites, which link from and to the main Wilmington CVB page, and their own apportionments of county occupancy taxes for marketing purposes, but the new measures would effectively separate the beaches from the rest of the Wilmington community.
First, allow me to address the inherent biases that we have here. Each of the beaches and historic Wilmington already receive a portion of the county's occupancy tax dollars for their own marketing efforts which are managed by the CVB but directed by advisory committees from these localities. The actual amount (some of which is spelled out in the second of Shannan's articles) apportioned to the county destination marketing fund, which markets the greater Wilmington area as a whole, is $548,000. The collective amounts apportioned to the localities is over $1 million. The amounts dedicated to marketing communities from funds that belong to the county are already disproportionate, but the fact the the $548,000 allocated to the destination marketing fund by definition also markets the beaches and Historic Wilmington means that major portions of Wilmington are left out of the equation almost completely. Those in the UNCW area or "midtown" or Landfall/Mayfaire are left to ask "where are our marketing dollars, "where are our marketing advisory committees," and "why are our tax revenues going to market everyone but us?" All are legitimate questions, and questions that the county should tackle sooner rather than later.
The larger issue, however, is what will be the effect of these proposed changes and the continued pacification of the municipalities as they push ever-harder for seperate funds and treatment? As mentioned in the Star News article, Judy Randall of Randall Travel Marketing asserts that research indicates that "most people vacationing in the area refer to the area collectively as 'Wilmington'," a finding echoed by many outside of the beach communities. The effect of splitting off the beach communities, re-branding the area, and continuing to siphon off dollars from county occupancy taxes to the localities will be confusing travelers and diluting the purchasing power of the CVB's marketing dollars.
Our neighbor to the south, Myrtle Beach, is our most direct competition; they are better-funded than our CVB is, they consistently earn awards as a beach destination (currently the #1 "fun and sun" destination in America on Trip Advisor), and they are blocking Wilmington's path to being the destination that we ultimately want to be. Check out their website: they do not market themselves as Myrtle Beach, Pawley's Island, Surfside Beach, Murrell's Inlet, etc., etc. Click on the "About Us" header at the top of their website and read the very first line: "The Myrtle Beach Area Convention and Visitors Bureau is a non-profit organization that is the only officially recognized marketing organization for the Myrtle Beach Area known as the Grand Strand which represents the following areas:" This is not a city/area/destination stuck on battling over identity. They have banded together to form the strongest possible alliance of destination spots, and they market with panache and with an enormous war chest that is not diluted by expensive legislative nods to their beach communities. (We will acknowledge that they no longer use Grand Strand except as an occasional modifier to shorten wording--we have no objection to dropping "Cape Fear Coast" from the marketing materials as long as something strong and unified stands in its place.)
As a premiere east coast travel destination, we cannot allow ourselves to be drawn into a battle that divides our loyalties, our dollars, and our message. We must understand that New Hanover County and its associated localities and destination sites are in a fight over tourist dollars not against each other but against those to our north and south: Myrtle Beach, Charleston, the Outer Banks, Savannah, Virginia Beach, and so on. The greater Wilmington area has a better combination of cultural and historic sites, pristine beaches, family fun, educational institutions, historic downtown, military history, local restaurants and businesses, and fantastic people than any of those locations. We should come together, find a single voice as a community and destination, and trumpet our strengths--not divide ourselves in so many ways and show our weakness.
Scott
Comments? Questions? Email us at hgimayfaire@gmail.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)