我在Travolution上看过这样一条有趣的新闻：汤姆逊假日在确认了他们网站的问题后，将损失“固定”为150万英镑（300万美元）。这是个很好的标题，但我不相信这数字是真的。
1、这个数目可能是内部产生的，来自投资回报率指标，而不是实际预订。以我与大型旅游公司合作的经验来看，每次改进都必须计算投资回报率。当你考虑不到时（因为它只是可用性的小小调整），你制定一个投资回报率返回值，至少包括改进所需成本。理想的话投资回报率指标应该能符合实际期望，不过通常并不能。
2、他们可以肯定的是，对于这些大型的、多渠道公司来说，放弃一笔交易只是放弃了某条“渠道”：客户可能最终通过电话预订（而不是根本没有在他们公司预订）。
不管怎样，原则是好的：对放弃预订进行评估（以及通过调整设计来解决这些问题）对于交易量（和减少呼叫中心压力）来说是有积极意义的。我不是在反对这个原则，只是对标题的数字作为“事实”公布之前如何计算有争议。
这让我想到了另一件事……我今天收到了一封来自一位资深业内人士的电子邮件：
唉，在线预订酒店是非常困难的。我这样说，某种程度上是在开玩笑，因为我在酒店技术和网络分销方面有好几年经验。
所以当我发现Lygon Arms网站没什么可用性时有些失望。知道一些关于合同/服从之类的内容，我检查了一下聚合器。Superbreak在Google排名首位。他们具备一定的可用性，但是在一些走向末路的东西上。
因此，我打电话给连锁中心办公室。在电话上他们说，他们肯定有可用性和好的速率。为什么经过十来年的网络分销，酒店业如此混乱!?!?!?!?
昨晚我测试了另一个有名的乡村旅馆。网站的预订引擎崩溃了，所以我无法获取速率。它是由一个主流PMS系统供应商（译者注：PMS=Property Management System，物业管理系统）支持的。酒店主一定在盈利，比如说1500到2000万英镑。然而他们很少能想到，他们提供客户面对的物业（网站）是我昨晚看到的乱七八糟的东西。我相信，酒店在物业（物理）上投资巨大，但他们不重视客户在物理体验之前的东西……他们正越来越虚拟化，需要满意的在线服务。
他们会有真正了不起的酒吧、餐厅和客房，却让办公室前台墙壁上不涂灰泥、地面只有砂浆层、墙角放着水泥搅拌机？我不这么想。
网站前台要检查、修饰，像对待办公室前台一样勤加照顾。
原文出处：Musings on travel ecommerce 作者：Alex Bainbridge
原文：
Lost bookings through usability issues - assorted rants!
from Musings on travel ecommerce by Alex Bainbridge
I read with interest the news, via Travolution, that Thomson Holidays have “fixed” £1.5 million (3 million USD) worth of “lost bookings” after having identified issues with their website. It makes a good headline - but I am not convinced that this is a real number.
1.This number is probably generated, internally, from a ROI metric rather than actual bookings. From my experience at working with large travel companies every development has to have an ROI calculation - and when you can’t think of one (as it is a minor usability tweak) you devise an ROI return value that would at least cover the development cost of making the change. Although ideally the ROI metric should match actual expectation…. often it doesn’t…..
2.Can they be sure that an abandoned transaction wasn’t just a “channel” abandonment - as with these large, multi-channel, companies - it could just be that the customer has booked over the phone in the end (rather than not booking at all with their company)
Anyway, the principle is sound - evaluating abandonment (and tweaking design to address these issues) can have a positive benefit to transaction volume (and reduce strain on call centres). I am not arguing with the principle - just how the headline number is calculated before being published as “fact”.
Which brings me to another area…… here is an email I received today from a senior industry insider….
Blimey, booking a hotel on line is very difficult. I say this tongue in cheek to some extent, because I have some years experience in hotel technology and web distribution.
So with some disappointment I find The Lygon Arms website has no availability. Knowing a little about contracting/yielding etc, I check an aggregator. Superbreak are top in Google. They have availability but at something approaching Rack.
So i call the chain central res office. They say on the phone they DO have availability and some good rates. Why after a decade of web distribution is the hotel industry such a shambles!?!?!?!?
I tried another well known country house hotel last night. The web booking engine crashed, so I couldn’t get rates. It’s supplied by a mainstream PMS supplier. Yet the hotel owner… and they must be turning over say £15-20m… think so little of their customer facing property (web) that they serve up the drivel I saw last night. I am sure this property invest hugely in their property (physical) and yet they don’t appreciate that before a customer can get to be physical… they are increasingly virtual and need to be wowed by their online service
Would they have a really amazing bar, and restaurant, and rooms, but leave the front office with no plaster on the walls, a bare screed floor and cement mixer standing in the corner? i don’t think so.
Web front ends should be checked, polished, and attended to as diligently as front offices.
收藏
推荐
评论(0条)