Shocker: Hotel consultant switches sides, joins TripAdvisor foe

Now some will say he is really RockCheating.

In some travel tech news that will undoubtedly roil the hotel and travel-tech industries, hotel consultant Robert K. Cole of RockCheetah has abandoned his business -- and some would say his sanity -- and been hired as senior executive vice president emeritus, Hotel Monetization, Western World, for CheckChex.

CheckChex is an infamous reputation management firm, based in the Euro zone and on the Pacific Rim, which infamously has been a thorn in the side of hotel review site TripAdvisor and been on its case over CheckChex's unsubstantiated charges about an avalanche of fake reviews.

CheckChex's most notable accomplishment to date is that it has managed to coax EU authorities to deliver a slap on the wrist to TripAdvisor over trustworthiness boasts that TripAdvisor had abandoned months earlier.

So why is the Cole hiring such a shocker?

Cole has been a strong supporter of TripAdvisor and is on record as saying that its CEO, Steve Kaufer, is the smartest bloke in the travel industry. [You see Cole has just been hired and the American already is awkwardly and somewhat pathetically trying to speak Brit.]

Despite his support of the hotel review site, however, Cole has authored compelling investigative posts on the lengths that black-hat fake review factories will go to in order to slam competitors and he's unearthed many of their tricks.

So what compelled Cole to hitch his Lamborghini to CheckChex?

In an exclusive and insightful interview, Cole answered in a word.

"Boredom," Cole says.

Boredom?

Yes, Cole has reportedly grown bored with all of his sleuthing and investigative labors, especially his work on the best and least-read treatise (7,153 words) on the online travel agency hotel tax issue, Bathing in the Hotel Merchant Tax Quagmire.

Legions of Cole's blog and Twitter followers, as well as his erstwhile hotel clients, grew bored with the tome, too.

So Cole has thrown in the hotel towel and is tithing his fate and paychecks with CheckChex.

He is already in London today, April 1, which is April Fool's Day and a Sunday, not a work day in the UK.

The CheckChex press conference announcing its "get" of Cole is tentatively scheduled for April 2, pending the securing of a field house, Tim Tebow-like, for the press conference.

For the now-landmark "boredom" interview, Cole was reached at Hotel 41, in the shadows of Buckingham Palace. He is staying at the 5-star property in anticipation of the press conference, and may drop in on the Queen to see if she is in the market for some reputation management.

Why did Cole select Hotel 41?

"TripAdvisor hotel reviews," Cole replies smoothly.

Shhh. Don't tell CheckChex.

Hotel Teatro Heeds TripAdvisor

Some in the travel industry, namely Professional Travel Guide and Star Service Online, among others, advise consumers and travel agents, respectively, to disregard consumer-written hotel reviews like those on TripAdvisor and other review sites.

These reviews, the argument goes, are unreliable, fraudulent and dangerous.

But, these companies should know that the hotel industry itself pays very close attention to TripAdvisor, for better or worse.

Heather Turner tweeted the other day about Hotel Teatro, a boutique property in Denver, which leverages TripAdvisor to its advantage.

HotelMarketingStrategies quotes Hotel Teatro General Manager David Craig on how the property uses TripAdvisor reviews.

"We also spend the first portion of every staff meeting reading our newest TripAdvisor reviews aloud to the group," Craig is quoted as saying. "This establishes a forum for recognizing favorable performance and for developing solutions where we have areas of opportunity."

And Craig advises repeat guests, who corresponded with the hotel about their pleasurable experiences: "Thank you for taking the time to relay the details of your experience at Hotel Teatro. I am so glad that you had a wonderful visit. If you’d like to share your experience with others, I encourage you to do so at www.tripadvisor.com."

No word if Craig advises any unhappy guests to do likewise.

However, Hotel Teatro's strategy of paying close attention to what is being said about the property on TripAdvisor, and doubtless in other social media outlets, has helped the hotel achieve its TripAdvisor Popularity Index Rating of #2 out of 148 hotels covered by TripAdvisor in Denver.

Hey, TripAdvisor is very far from perfect.

But, smart companies and astute travelers would be wise to take its reviews into account instead of pretending they don't exist or have no merit.

Priceline on Metasearch, Hotel Reviews and Mobile

My first blog post, Travel Metasearch: Frenzy or Finale? on March 12, took up the question of whether metasearch was "done." (By the way, it's not.)

Priceline.com President and CEO Jeffery Boyd weighed in on the issue at the 2009 Citi Technology Conference last week, arguing that metasearch "didn't live up to the hype."

Boyd has been a persistent metasearch critic, but Priceline long has participated in its advertising channels.

The Priceline CEO conceded that Kayak "has done very well," but he believes its success is more a testament to its user interface and technology than to metasearch having a superior business model when compared with that of online travel agencies.

With all of the OTAs having eliminated flight-booking fees, there now is "no magic bullet" when shopping at 100 websites for airline tickets, Boyd said.

He acknowledged that metasearch represents some threat to OTAs, but the key test for metasearch websites, in general, and for Microsoft's Bing Travel, in particular, will be whether they will be able to continue to deliver qualified leads to OTA advertisers.

On the advertising theme, Boyd said Booking.com, Priceline's Europe-based lodging business, has probably left some money on the table by refusing to initiate a media business and adding a lot of non-hotel products.

Booking.com has avoided these distractions because the upside of expanding hotel inventory for European travelers in Eastern Europe, Asia and North America is so "great" and "important" that dabbling with cross-selling these non-hotel products would be unwise, Boyd said.

Booking.com, Boyd said, doesn't have exclusive hotel deals across-the-board with independent hotels, but in practice it often has exclusive availability for many properties as a distribution channel of choice because of the demand it can generate for a property in far-flung countries and because of the advantages of the retail model.

Turning to other issues, Boyd said travelers' hotel reviews, after they completed a stay at a property, are "an element of social networking that is very helpful," and he sees the scope of reviews expanding with photos and videos that will make them "more engaging."

Looking into his crystal ball, Boyd sees several other areas ripe for increased attention, too.

Trip planning and trip organization, as is the focus of TripIt, is an "open playing field," Boyd said.

In addition, mobile will be among the "most-impactful innovations," Boyd added.

Boyd argued that over time mobile offerings and consumer behavior will change so that some travelers will feel comfortable booking hotels "on the fly" with a mobile device once they arrive at a destination.

He said Priceline and others will introduce technology, which would ensure that travelers would find great inventory and deals once they pick up their bags at a destination airport.

I'll interject here that with the expected proliferation of Wi-Fi on board airlines, shopping for last-minute hotel deals may give on-board entertainment whole new meaning if Boyd is correct that a segment of consumers will be open to very-last-minute hotel offerings. Anyone for Verylastminute.com? Oh, sorry, it already exists.

"I'll get the hotel when I get there," is how Boyd envisions the new -- as yet unproven -- impulse.

But, Boyd has confidence in the shift.

"If you are there ready with a product to support it you will win," Boyd said. "If not, you are going to lose."

RELATED POSTS

TripCase: Sabre's Case for Disruptive Mobile Strategy

Kayak's Hafner Awaits Google Hotels

Where in the World is the Orbitz Hotel Business Model?

Shermans Meter Blends New Hotel Review Cocktail

On Orbitz: Is Flight Metasearch Even Dead-er?

Innkeeper CEO has an In at TripAdvisor

Any smart company should monitor the social-media airwaves and at least listen to its critics.

AT&T, for example, just recycled Seth the Blogger Guy in a YouTube video designed to quell criticism about its delayed MMS service and other iPhone service issues.

In a similar vein, you have to give TripAdvisor some credit at least for reaching out to its critics and making a few tweaks to its hotel-review policies, although the modifications so far haven't been earth-shattering.

Jay Karen, president and CEO of the Professional Association of Innkeepers International, has met periodically with TripAdvisor officialdom and presented the company with a list of pet peeves from his B&B constituency.

Karen won't take credit for any policy changes, but he undoubtedly has had an influence.

The changes have ranged from minor to significant.

For example, TripAdvisor initially permitted hotel reviews up to five years after the guest supposedly stayed at the property. Karen pushed for one year instead.

"They left it fairly liberal from the get-go, because at first they needed to populate their site with reviews," Karen says. "[TripAdvisor President and CEO] Steve Kaufer said this in a meeting with me, but he said now that their site has plenty of reviews, that they certainly could look at that policy. So, they changed it to three years. A step in the right direction, but I think a few more steps would be good."

Of course, the downside in this is that there is no verification of when -- or if -- someone actually stayed at the hotel or inn.

Other changes have been a bit more important.

Earlier this year, Karen suggested and TripAdvisor changed the way it displays Best Deals.

Previously, beneath the display of a property like the Jersey Cape Motel in Cape May, N.J., TripAdvisor might have displayed Best Deals: Jersey Cape Motel, but provided links to intermediaries and other properties that were competitors of the Jersey Cape Motel.

Today, at the suggestion of Karen (and perhaps others), TripAdvisor has changed the display to Best Deals: Cape May. Thus a bait and switch is eliminated and the properties' brands are not being misused.

"Another change that looks to be forthcoming, which I have lobbied for, as well, is for B&Bs to have links on their [TripAdvisor] pages that go back to their own websites," Karen says.

Today, since most smaller properties still are absent from global distribution systems or large online travel companies like Expedia, you'd be hard-pressed to find an advertising link to the Jersey Cape Motel or similar properties on their TripAdvisor pages. Thus, if you want to book that property under review, you'd have to find another way to do it outside of TripAdvisor.

"We’re hoping in early 2010 for there to be a reciprocal link program for B&Bs," Karen said. "This would be a big change for our industry."

Change at TripAdvisor has been a slow-go. That's because TripAdvisor has been unbelievably successful with its current formula despite all the "noise" out there from people like Karen, me and countless others.

Karen acknowledges that TripAdvisor officials have been good listeners, but he likens the pace of change over there to re-positioning an ocean-liner.

Almost everyone in the hospitality industry now acknowledges the importance of TripAdvisor and consumer hotel reviews, and the lodging industry is grappling with best practices.

Perhaps TripAdvisor should convene a blogger/hotel industry summit to move the conversation forward.

However, my best guess is that will not be happening any time soon.

If it weren't handled properly, with all the passion generated on the hotel review issue, the meeting could degenerate into something like one of those healthcare-reform town hall meetings.

Business and democracy -- whether we are talking about hotel reviews and the advertising/media business, or healthcare reform -- can be a noisy thing.

RELATED POSTS

Update on PAII Conversations with TripAdvisor

TripAdvisor Launches Family Vacation Critic in its Own Image

Sherman Meter Blends New Hotel-Review Cocktail

TripAdvisor: The Beat (of Hawaii) Goes On

Sherman Meter Blends New Hotel-Review Cocktail

The travel industry is grappling with a fix for sometimes-suspect hotel reviews, and the latest entity to offer a solution is Shermans Travel, a deal-publisher and media company.

Shermans Travel believes it has found a credible formula in its new Sherman Meter Rating.

This new beta test of the Sherman Meter Rating closely follows the move by professional-review website Oyster Hotel Reviews to require consumers to use Facebook Connect if they want to pen hotel reviews. Oyster feels having consumers shed their anonymity will lead to more reliable reviews.

And, the context for the Oyster.com and Shermans Travel review experiments is months of controversy about the usefulness of user-generated content in general, and hotel reviews on TripAdvisor.com, in particular.

In its announcement, Shermans Travel gets a little carried away in its hype for the Sherman Meter, billing it as a "proprietary meta-search tool."

It may be proprietary, but it is not a metasearch tool in the sense that you cannot compare reviews from various sources in grid-like fashion.

But, still the Sherman Meter indeed offers a hedge against review manipulation by hotels, and it is a useful contribution to the debate.

The Sherman Meter rates hotels by aggregating consumers' reviews from sites like TripAdvisor, Yelp and Yahoo Travel; tosses in "professional" critiques from Concierge, Frommer's and Fodor's; sprinkles it all with its own expert assessments; and comes up with a percentage of positive reviews with a corresponding color code.

If the Sherman Meter is green, then the reviews generally are positive. Yellow means the reviews are mixed, and red points to negative reviews.

Darren Frei, editorial director for ShermansTravel.com, tells me that the aggregated user reviews, the professional reviews and Shermans' own expert reviews get "roughly equal weight in our proprietary algorithm."

Hence Sherman has figured out a way -- however imperfect -- to hedge against hotel industry/pr/marketing gamesmanship.

That's because Shermans utilizes the "wisdom of the masses" in sometimes hundreds or even more than 1,000 consumer reviews from a variety of websites for a particular property; the opinions of the professional or guidebook crowd; and also Shermans' own staff-formulated reviews, with the latter being "a qualitative evaluation independent" of the Sherman Expert Review displayed on the website, Frei says.

Given that Shermans Travel -- which publishes deals, provides a travel search engine and has a print magazine -- likely makes most of its money in the media/advertising business, is there an advertising bias in the Sherman Expert reviews?

Frei says: "All of Sherman's Expert Reviews are selected and managed by our in-house editorial staff, which evaluates and edits hotel reviews without input from the advertising department."

So, what are the results?

I just spent the last eight hours or so checking out the Shermans Meter for a variety of properties and found similar patterns.

Let's consider, for example, the Waldorf-Astoria in New York City.

The Sherman Meter assesses 1,310 user reviews from a variety of websites, "professional reviews" [more on this later] from Fodor's and Frommer's [Concierge doesn't rate the Waldorf], and the opinions of Shermans' own experts, and gives the Waldorf a 76 percent, or green, rating.

Incidentally, the Sherman Expert Review for the Waldorf is descriptive, but neutral and doesn't really tell me whether the wallpaper is pealing or whether I am guaranteed to get a Brangelina sighting.

Independent of Shermans Travel, TripAdvisor, using 1,051 traveler reviews of the Waldorf, gives the property four stars and a 72 percent TripAdvisor Traveler Rating, in the same ballpark as the Shermans Meter.

Then we arrive at the so-called professional reviews.

It turns out that Concierge.com doesn't rate the Waldorf.

Fodor's rating actually isn't a professional rating. Instead Fodor's provides a 3.4 "member rating," meaning the Fodor's rating turns out to be another consumer-review compilation.

However, I found the Fodor's Review of the Waldorf valuable because, unlike Sherman's Expert Review, at least the Fodor's Review offered pros and cons about the property, including Fodor's opinion that the "rooms [are] not contemporary; very public lobby includes loads of tourists hoping for Brangelina sighting."

And, I have problems with the Frommer's review methodology and the fact that the Shermans Meter gives it substantial weight.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that Frommers.com, which features Arthur Frommer periodically railing against user-generated content, doesn't post negative reviews. Its hotel ratings are: 0 stars (recommended), 1 star (highly recommended), 2 stars (very highly recommended) and 3 stars (exceptional).

Thus, there are no reviews of hotels that are not recommended. Where is the credibility in that?

Frommer's rates the Waldorf three stars [its highest rating], or exceptional, and is lone among the above review sites to do so.

And, the actual Frommer's Review of the property, like Sherman's Expert Review, is descriptive, but neutral and not very insightful.

Meanwhile, Oyster.com, which relies on journalist reviews and just added consumer reviews using Facebook Connect, gives the Waldorf four stars out of five, and doesn't yet offer a consumer comment about the hotel.

Like Fodor's -- and unlike Shermans and Frommer's -- Oyster.com at least serves up some pros and cons about the Waldorf, including its opinion that the property has a "top-notch gym and spa (among New York's best)."

So, where does this leave us?

Shermans, with its mix of consumer, professional and its own expert reviews on the Waldorf, has the same overall view of the Waldorf as TripAdvisor does, despite all the allegations about TripAdvisor's suspect consumer reviews.

TripAdvisor doesn't come out looking so bad, although I know I am discussing merely one, large, well-known property. (And, it is easier to manipulate rankings for smaller hotels.)

The expert reviews offered by Fodor's and Oyster are cool because at a minimum they are unafraid to ruffle some feathers.

And, Frommer's review stands out as the questionable one in the crowd because Frommer's stands alone in its assessment that the Waldorf is exceptional.

Meanwhile, there's raveable, which slices and dices 1,469 user reviews of the Waldorf and analyzes what might seem like a morass of complexity and transforms it into some clear and effective metrics.

raveable outlines its methodology here.

Instead of having to wade through 1,469 reviews and murky star ratings, raveable gives the Waldorf an overall rating, plus ranks the property on its service, the rooms and value. It also outlines where the Waldorf stands not only when measured against all other New York City hotels, but also evaluates its stature amongst the other four-star hotels (49th of 62).

The question then becomes: Would travelers rather rely on the opinions of admittedly seasoned experts on Frommer's, unvetted consumer reviews displayed on TripAdvisor, concise analysis of consumer reviews on raveable, journalists' critiques on Oyster.com, or Shermans sometimes-flawed mix of user reviews, professional reviews and its own experts?

The jury is out.

And, consumers likely will vote with their feet -- or their browsers.

RELATED POSTS

TripAdvisor Launches Family Vacation Critic in its Own Image

TripAdvisor: The Beat (of Hawaii) Goes On

Hotel-Review Dilemma: Expedia's TripAdvisor Gives Notice, Expedia.com Mum, But...

Update and Flashback: The Truth About TripAdvisor and Professional Reviews

On TripAdvisor, Oyster and Professional Hotel Reviews: My Totally Reasonable Solution

TripAdvisor vs. Kayak: Paid Reviews Don't Float My Boat

Monday's Travel InsideOut

It’s all in the family at Travelzoo. CEO Holger Bartel announced that the deal-publisher and metasearch company will sell the assets of its money-losing Asia-Pacific division to Ralph Bartel, who controls Travelzoo. So it may be that Ralph and the board decided to sell the division to Ralph, which buffs up Travelzoo stock and takes this money drain off the books of the public company.

e-tid.com: Travelzoo plans Asia Pacific sale:
Deals publisher Travelzoo is to sell its Asia Pacific division to focus on its European, North American and Fly.com operations.

For the twelve months ended 30 June 2009, the Asia Pacific division reported revenues of approximately $1.5m and an operating loss of about $7.8m. Read more

-----

I think I know why Oyster.com, the website featuring journalists’ hotel reviews, began requiring travelers to post reviews through Facebook Connect while TripAdvisor abstains from such a policy. See if you agree?

Dennis Schaal Blog: Why Facebook Connect Fits Oyster.com Strategy: TripAdvisor lives and dies by its traveler-written hotel reviews and the advertising money it takes in from the ads positioned "around the rails" of those reviews, while Oyster.com's business is based on journalist-written hotel reviews. Read more

-----

Social justice it ain’t. The better term might be social-networking injustice. That’s what happened apparently when a thief stole a laptop and then boasted about the heist on the victim’s Facebook account. No big travel angle here for me, but lots of travel afficianados are interested in Facebook, Twitter and the gang.

Mashable: Thief Brags About Stealing Laptop on Victim’s Facebook Account: Talk about adding insult to injury: a burglar who has stolen a laptop and other properties from a woman’s house has later logged into the victim’s Facebook account and bragged about the deed, complaining that the TV in the victim’s house wasn’t good enough to steal. Read more

-----

Apparently a passenger bill of rights law is not a slam dunk for the travel industry so industry groups and pundits will gather in Washington, D.C., Sept. 22 to discuss the issue. Maybe they should meet on a tarmac at Reagan National Airport instead to ensure a proper environment for the discussions? Just sayin'.

Eventbrite: Examining a Market Failure?: On Tuesday, September 22, 2009 consumer groups and travel industry organizations will conduct a Stakeholder Hearing in the Hart Senate Office Building regarding airline passenger rights. The purpose of the hearing is to examine passenger safety-related problems such as extended ground delays. Desired outcomes from the hearing include a better understanding of passenger safety problems; best practices from the EU in the area of passenger rights regulations; and the potential efficacy of proposed Congressional solutions. Experts representing all sides in this debate have been invited to participate in this hearing. Read more

-----

Stock picker Jack Hough steps away from the pack enamored with online travel stocks, and places Priceline.com among three popular stocks that he believes will disappoint.

SmartMoney: 3 Popular Stocks Priced to Underperform: I like Priceline.com, but no more than I like Expedia (EXPE: 22.12, -0.65, -2.85%), Orbitz 3 Popular Stocks Priced to Underperform (OWW: 4.74, +0.08, +1.71%), Hotwire and the rest.
Read more

-----

CruiseOne, the cruise agency franchisor, is taking steps to make it easier to attract new franchise owners. It sounds like a nice installment on future agency relationships.

Travel Weekly: Franchise now, pay later, says CruiseOne: CruiseOne, the cruise agency franchisor based in Fort Lauderdale, rolled out a financing plan for prospective franchise owners.

Under the program, new "Level One Franchise Owners" would pay $2,500 toward their initial franchising fee rather than pay the full fee of $9,800 up front, and CruiseOne finances the remaining cost of the franchise. The new franchise owner then pays in 24 monthly installments. Read more

-----

It looks like the woes of the hotel industry, plus the unattractiveness -- to say the least -- of mortgage-backed securities are a foundation for less development of new hotel projects.

Reuters.com:Data shows US hotel projects fell further in July: NEW YORK, Aug 14 (Reuters) - The number of U.S. hotel projects in development fell 26 percent in July, another illustration of how the financial woes of the industry have curbed growth, Smith Travel Research data showed this week. Read more


Travel InsideOut is a Dennis Schaal Blog daily feature. Get a thorough-going look at the day's travel industry top and tangentially interesting stories. Feel free to comment on them below.

Travel InsideOut is Copyright (c) 2009 by Dennis Schaal. All rights reserved.

Why Facebook Connect Fits Oyster.com Strategy

I have some additional thoughts about what I see as the positive step that Oyster.com took when it began requiring that its consumer reviews be penned through Facebook Connect.

It's great that Oyster.com's user-generated content won't be created anonymously and this adds to review credibility.

However, using Facebook Connect is a limited solution because so many potential review writers don't use Facebook or even other social-media websites.

From a business perspective, that's OK for Oyster.com while it wouldn't work necessarily for businesses like TripAdvisor.

That's because TripAdvisor lives and dies by its traveler-written hotel reviews and the advertising money it takes in from the ads positioned "around the rails" of those reviews, while Oyster.com's business is based on journalist-written hotel reviews.

Unlike websites like Professional Travel Guide, which sees professional reviews as the end-all and be-all, Oyster.com is smart enough to know that it has to dabble in consumer-written hotel reviews and social media.

But, if Oyster.com doesn't attract a fraction of the user-generated content that TripAdvisor does when Oyster.com mandates vetting through Facebook Connect, then Oyster.com will have to live with that.

Oyster.com's differentiation in hotel reviews is through its journalist-written reviews.

And, that differentiation has a lot to do with the, well, differences between Oyster.com's and TripAdvisor's hotel review policies.

That is not to excuse TripAdvisor from its obligation to do more to ensure the credibility of its own reviews.

But, from a business standpoint, this may explain some of the differences between the two approaches.

Consumer Hotel Reviewers Have to be Seen to be Believed at Oyster.com

With all the controversy about fake hotel reviews, Oyster Hotel Reviews, the new website featuring professional reviews by journalists, began requiring consumers to use Facebook Connect if they want to rant or rave about a hotel.

The Oyster Blog unveiled the new policy in a post, You’ve Gotta Be Seen to Be Heard: Oyster Hotel Reviews introduces Facebook Connect.

"To ensure all user comments are consistent with Oyster’s standard of providing high-quality, authentic information, we require all commenters to log in through Facebook Connect to submit feedback," the company wrote. "The way we see it, if you’re willing to attach your identity to your commentary, you’re willing to stand behind what you say."

"We’re building a community of sincere and credible hotel evaluations drawn from the experiences of our own hotel experts and from you," Oyster added. "No anonymous mudslinging; no PR propaganda."

Oyster's policy is a great step in the right direction in trying to ensure the credibility of reviews.

Is it a panacea?

No.

Can hotels or others still game the system?

Yes.

Does requiring travelers to use Facebook Connect serve as a bit of a deterrent to casual review-writers who might otherwise trash a hotel for no good reason behind the veil of anonymity?

Sure, it does.

But, this is not tamper-proof.

Consumers, or hotel employees, can easily sign up for fake or misleading Facebook accounts: They merely need to provide name, e-mail address, password, sex and birthday.

And, consumers posting reviews on Oyster.com need not have stayed at the property they are reviewing as is required on Priceline.com and some other websites.

Priceline, for example, only solicits reviews from customers after they've completed their stay at the property, and I respect this policy.

But Priceline customers still post reviews semi-anonymously.

With Priceline's user reviews, you have to take the word of "John" or "Sara," with no link to a profile or clue about who these people really are unless they decide to provide some detail in the review.

Oyster's stipulation that consumers writing reviews do so through their Facebook accounts does provide a level of credibility, and that's great.

So when Kim-Marie Evans writes on Oyster.com that the W New York Times Square doesn't "seem to deep clean the rooms, given that it's somewhat of a party hotel, I wish it were more thoroughly cleaned," we sort of know where she is coming from.

And, kudos to Oyster for going this route because consider all of the SEO (search engine optimization) benefits and stickiness attributes, which advertisers love, that Oyster is sacrificing.

Granted that Oyster has just launched consumer hotel reviews through Facebook Connect, but Evans' review of the W New York Times Square is the only user review about the property that Oyster has posted.

In contrast, the thousands of reviews that TripAdvisor can attract are a major factor in its not reforming its review-writing requirements despite all of the guff.

TripAdvisor, with its freewheeling-review policies (no proof of stay required and the ability to write anonymous critiques) has 443 reviews of the W New York Times Square.

The SEO lords at Google, Yahoo and Microsoft love this wealth of content, as do TripAdvisor's advertisers, because it adds to the user experience and attracts consumers who are deep into the trip-planning process.

TripAdvisor, too, can take this review bonanza and slice it and dice it for use on the websites of its subsidiaries like Family Vacation Critic. TripAdvisor gets more SEO love for doing so.

Oyster, of course, is not the first to use Facebook Connect as an entryway into user-generated content.

TechCrunch, for example, uses Facebook Connect as one of its several alternatives for leaving a comment on its website.

"Enter your personal information to the left, or sign in with your Facebook account by clicking the [Facebook Connect] button below," TechCrunch states.

So, in sum, congratulations to Oyster for using its pearly whites and putting some teeth into its new consumer-review policy.

The policy isn't a 100 percent solution (few are), but the hotel-review writing issue is evolving and steps like Oyster's will help.

RELATED POSTS

TripAdvisor Launches Family Vacation Critic in its Own Image

TripAdvisor: The Beat (of Hawaii) Goes On

Hotel-Review Dilemma: Expedia's TripAdvisor Gives Notice, Expedia.com Mum, But...

Update and Flashback: The Truth About TripAdvisor and Professional Reviews

On TripAdvisor, Oyster and Professional Hotel Reviews: My Totally Reasonable Solution

TripAdvisor vs. Kayak: Paid Reviews Don't Float My Boat

TripAdvisor Launches Family Vacation Critic in its Own Image

TripAdvisor, with an assist from its Cruise Critic brand, this week quietly launched Family Vacation Critic, which adds into the TripAdvisor Media Network another hotel review site and advertising/media business.

As with TripAdvisor, people can write reviews of "family-friendly hotels" without any proof that they have stayed at the property.

Family Vacation Critic represents a crafty move by TripAdvisor because some of the content of Family Vacation Critic amounts to a repackaging of TripAdvisor content -- and some of the repackaging is a carbon copy.

For example, if you look up Bishop's Lodge Resort & Spa in Santa Fe on TripAdvisor, you'll see that it gets a 3.5 TripAdvisor Traveler Rating.

If you scroll down and examine the traveler reviews by trip type, you'll see that 22 are family oriented reviews. And lo and behold, the review at the top of the heap is entitled: Beutiful (sic) lodge with a great view and very relaxing enjoyable time with family.

You know where I'm going with this, right?

You'll find a snippet of the same review on Family Vacation Critic if you scroll down the page a bit.

It's just a snippet of the review -- that's important.

Because when you click on that review to read more of it on Family Vacation Critic, it links you back to TripAdvisor.com.

So what TripAdvisor has done with Family Vacation Critic is launch a site that will bring it extra eyes/traffic, bring it new advertising/media revenue from the new site, and drive more visitors to TripAdvisor.com itself to bolster its traffic and advertising dollars there.

Family Vacation Critic's terms of use give it relatively free-wheeling use of user-written reviews. It's unclear to me whether reviews written on Family Vacation Critic can be posted on TripAdvisor.com, but I am betting they can. The terms state: "You hereby grant Family Vacation Critic the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display any message or photo posted or uploaded to Family Vacation Critic's forum or in our published user reviews (in whole or in part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or later developed."

So TripAdvisor basically is leveraging its existing relationships with hotels, adding some family oriented content to Family Vacation Critic to take advantage of a hot travel sector, and segmenting existing reviews and content from TripAdvisor.com to increase its already substantial footprint.

Sure, there are seemingly unique features on Family Vacation Critic, and the site is only in beta and will evolve.

For example, a Deals tab on Family Vacation Critic offers direct booking on the hotels' websites.

TripAdvisor doesn't have a Deals tab per se. Perhaps the Family Vacation Critic Deals tab will lead to a similar positioning on TripAdvisor.com.

After all, deal publishing and "deals" are hot, with existing entrants like Travelzoo and new entrants like getaroom.com and Voyij.com.

Family Vacation Critic undoubtedly will be an effective way for TripAdvisor to slice and dice its content, and to continue its impressive growth.

TripAdvisor: The Beat (of Hawaii) Goes On

Jeff Tucker of the Beat of Hawaii blog has done some great reporting on the TripAdvisor hotel-review issue.

Tucker reported last month that TripAdvisor was posting warning notices next to the displays of hotels that were suspected of gaming the review system. (It turns out that TripAdvisor had been doing this for several years, but Tucker put it all together.)

And yesterday the Beat of Hawaii disclosed that many of those warning notices had disappeared.

Tucker counted almost 100 such warning badges in June, but found only a little more than a dozen in his latest tally.

I, too, have written about this issue extensively, and see that one hotel that I focused on, the Radisson Hotel Fort Worth - Fossil Creek, still carries a warning next to its display on TripAdvisor.

Tucker points out that Hotel Renew in Hawaii went from zero (it had a warning badge) to hero (there is no warning notice anymore and it currently is rated No. 2 of 101 Honolulu hotels) on TripAdvisor.

I don't expect TripAdvisor to disclose its one-on-one dealings with hotels, but it would be nice to get some input on whether the removal of so many warning badges represents a change in policy, righting a wrong or progress of some sort.

I don't expect TripAdvisor to greatly alter its hotel-review policy because it would hurt its advertising/media business by diminishing the number of reviews and would possibly blunt its growth tear internationally.

But, some sort of process to verify whether review writers actually stayed at the property in question would be, well, a badge of honor for TripAdvisor.

Update: TripAdvisor posted a comment on the Beat of Hawaii blog about TripAdvisor's practices.

It states: "There have not been any recent changes in our warning badge policy or implementation. As we’ve said before, these warnings appear on less than a fraction of 1% of the properties on TripAdvisor, and the exact number fluctuates over time. Each of the penalty notices has an expiration date; the duration that a notice is posted is based on both the nature of the violation and owner cooperation in resolving problem issues. When a notice expires, it comes off of the site.

"As a user-generated content site, we are highly committed to maintaining content integrity and providing transparency for travelers — that’s why we implemented the red badge system. We feel it provides both a heads up to travelers, and a strong disincentive for properties who consider trying to manipulate the system.

"Thanks. We appreciate your interest in TripAdvisor, and in our mission of helping travelers plan and have the perfect trip."

I then asked TripAdvisor what happens when a notice expires, but the issues have not been resolved.

TripAdvisor told me that "if the property still isn’t playing by the rules, then the red badge warning stays up."

So, then, in TripAdvisor's view, the problem with fake reviews must have been scaled back to miniscule dimensions.

We'll see.

On TripAdvisor, Oyster and Professional Hotel Reviews: My Totally Reasonable Solution

I've been giving the following idea a lot of thought because of all the noise in the marketplace about the integrity of TripAdvisor's hotel reviews, its efforts to police them and the entry of new players, like Oyster.com, with its reviews by journalists sneaking anonymously into hotels.

Adding further documentation to the debate, the Chris Elliott blog even found a hotelier and a former restaurateur who bear witness to the alleged manipulation of their TripAdvisor rankings.

So I have revisited the question and have totally abandoned my former advice that consumers would be prudent to consult hotel reviews from an array of sources, including fellow consumers, journalists, guide books and professional-ratings services.

My new mantra? If you want to figure out if a hotel is worth staying at, then trust me only!

I look at it this way: I have impeccable taste (according to me) and my situation is consistent with the demographics of virtually every traveler.

After all, I am a male; single; divorced (therefore formerly married); I have kids; at one juncture I didn't have kids; I once was in my 20s; my parents are grandparents (so I know their travel issues); I know women who have executed fantastic girls' getaways; I have heterosexual and gay friends; and I have lived in Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Israel and Germany.

I drove a yellow cab in New York City so I know the hotel space from that angle, as well.

In the 1980s, I worked as a nachtportier at the Palace Hotel in Berlin and therefore, coupled with my journalism experience, I am an expert reviewer on all matters regarding lodging.

So, obviously, TripAdvisor's user-generated content has absolutely no worth even though there may be dozens or even hundreds of reviews about a property to balance questionable reviews, and despite the fact that even some of TripAdvisor's critics concede they often consult its reviews before stepping out.

Guidebooks? Forget about them. They add nothing.

Ratings services? They all have axes to grind and little information.

Oyster.com and its review by journalists? Not even worth a look because the scribes are paid experts and probably have crazy deadlines.

So, before you take a trip, if you want to find out if the hotel you plan on booking is a flea trap or a five-star wonder, my advice is to look at things in a totally one-sided manner.

Read my hotel reviews only.

Radisson's Scarlet E-Mail From TripAdvisor Content Integrity Team

The Radisson Fort Worth-Fossil Creek, and reportedly a few dozen other hotels, are in the line of fire, having received a dreaded e-mail from the TripAdvisor Content Integrity team.

The result? In scarlet letters, TripAdvisor posted a warning next to the hotel's display advising consumers that the property, or people associated it, may have tried to manipulate its TripAdvisor Popularity Index.

Here's the e-mail that the TripAdvisor Content Integrity team sent to the hotel.

"To Whom It May Concern,

Evidence has come to our attention which establishes that you and / or others in your organization have submitted material with intent to manipulate your listing and position on TripAdvisor by submitting positive reviews of your own property. This is official notification that your property is now being actively monitored by TripAdvisor for suspicious activity on our website.

TripAdvisor serves as an important source of travel information, which users rely on to be the unbiased opinions of travelers. The reliability of our content is integral to our business. TripAdvisor takes attempts to undermine the integrity of our content very seriously, and in turn, have a procedure in place for penalizing businesses who choose to make such attempts. Please discontinue any attempts to subvert our system immediately.

We ask that you respond to this email to acknowledge receipt of this notice.

Thank you.
xxxx [name deleted]
TripAdvisor Support Team"

Here is the hotel's reply, from the rooms division director:

"To WHOM IT MAY CONCERN,

I am very sorry about this misleading information, I only respond to the reviews that come on the website. We have been advising our guests to enter your site and make a review, either negative or positive. We would like feedback regardless if it is positive or negative to fine-tune the property. I will also keep an observation here and make sure this doesn't happen on property. Thank you for your concerns and information that you have provided for us to be aware of.

Thank you,

xxxx [name deleted]

Rooms Division Director

Radisson Fort Worth - Fossil Creek

2540 Meacham Boulevard

Fort Worth, Texas 76106"

And, the hotel's general manager, David Michel, told me: "We did start soliciting our guests to visit and comment on TripAdvisor, unaware that it was not acceptable. We will discontinue this practice."

"We are unaware of any attempts by anyone at the property to submit reviews on our own property," Michel said. "Hope this clarifies our position."

Actually, TripAdvisor is OK with properties soliciting guest reviews as long as the hotels don't advocate for positive reviews, don't incent their guests to write glowing reviews, and don't pressure them to remove negative reviews.

The Elliott blog had a nice interiew today with TripAdvisor founder and CEO Steve Kaufer in which he defends the practice of maintaining these warning notices alongside allegedly offending hotels instead of just removing the entire listing.

Kaufer said: "We’ve been posting the warnings since 2006. We view our red badge and rating drop as the best punishment for properties trying to manipulate the system. A couple of people have asked why we don’t drop these properties from the site entirely. We think the red badge is a better punishment, and provides more information to travelers so they can make the most educated and informed decisions before they book. We also wouldn’t want hotels with very poor traveler reviews to use such a banning on the site as a loophole to get out. That’s exactly what poorly run properties want — to be taken off TripAdvisor."

I'm not totally convinced about the policy to retain the display of offending properties, but I see Kaufer's point.

At any rate, all of the guff that TripAdvisor has taken over the last couple of weeks, with the argument that its manipulation notices finally amount to an admission that TripAdvisor is a sham, is misguided.

Instead, give TripAdvisor credit for going after the bad guys and having its Content Integrity folks flag hoteliers who may play fast and loose with the rules.

Hotel-Review Dilemma: Expedia's TripAdvisor Gives Notice, Expedia.com Mum, But...

The dilemma about the user-generated hotel-review model hits home at Hotel Renew, a 3.5- to 4-star property (depending on who's rating you use) in Honolulu.

Expedia Inc.'s TripAdvisor flags Hotel Renew for alleged manipulation of travelers' reviews, as I noted in previous posts.

TripAdvisor, which doesn't require proof that the reviewer actually stayed at the hotel, displays the hotel despite questioning the integrity of a portion of the 544 reviews, gives it a rating of 4.5 out of 5, and ranks the property #2 of 102 Honolulu hotels.

Meanwhile, Expedia.com, which requires, an Expedia-booked and completed stay at the property before authorizing a guest review, offers just 35 reviews of Hotel Renew, or just 6.4 percent of the 544 reviews that TripAdvisor offers.

Expedia.com displays no information about whether Hotel Renew allegedly played fast and loose with Expedia.com's review system and rates the property a 4.7 out of 5. Expedia.com has a contractual relationship with Hotel Renew. As an Expedia Special Rate property, Hotel Renew offers Expedia.com a net rate for Expedia.com's merchant-model business.

There could be many totally justifiable reasons that Expedia.com provides no notice about Hotel Renew allegedly gaming the review system, including the possibility that Expedia.com's tighter review requirements headed off any such hanky-panky.

And Expedia Inc.'s Hotels.com, which requires a completed stay prior to review-writing, rates Hotel Renew 4.0 out of 5 and offers just 38 reviews.

And, here's an industry-oriented review of Hotel Renew from Professional Travel Guide, a sister company of Travel Weekly, which I write for.

So, TripAdvisor, with its more loosey-goosey review requirements, gets a depth of content that Expedia.com and Hotels.com would die for.

And, that richer content translates into more advertising revenue for TripAdvisor, which is riding this model for global expansion, because 23 million consumers navigate to TripAdvisor for trip planning -- and often trip-booking through TripAdvisor's advertisers.

The dilemma for TripAdvisor is how to maintain the stickiness of its websites and all of that great content without undermining its integrity to consumers and worth to advertisers. TripAdvisor needs to avoid another controversy like the one that engulfed its subsidiary, Cruise Critic, regarding Royal Caribbean and the Royal Champions.

One option would be to ban the display of hotels that are caught incenting guests or enticing employees to write fraudulent reviews.

And, for consumers, here's a real issue: Would you put more stock in 544 reviews of a property, knowing that some of them are cooked, or would you give more weight to a couple of dozen reviews, knowing that at least the reviewers stayed at the hotel?

I don't think the answer is necessarily a slam dunk for the Expedia.com and Hotels.com model because hoteliers can manipulate this system, too, although not as readily.

It all points again to how complex travel planning and booking are these days: Does an online consumer need to spend all day getting professional advice or reading user-generated hotel reviews of various origins to figure out where to stay?

Are travel agents an answer?

Corporate Responsibility Advice to Royal Caribbean and Cruise Critic

From a corporate responsibility perspective, here's my advice to Royal Caribbean and Cruise Critic regarding the Royal Champions episode: Come clean.
I have read the statements from the cruise line and Cruise Critic, and read the interview with Royal Caribbean's Bill Hayden.
In short, Royal Caribbean is accused of contacting active, online-cruise reviewers, getting their contact information from Cruise Critic, and then wooing them and seeking to manipulate their writing in ways subtle and not-so-subtle.
What is blatantly missing in all of this in the aftermath of the disclosures is any admission of wrongdoing on anyone's part, other than Cruise Critic saying that "at this time, we have decided that it is not in Cruise Critic’s best interest going forward to contact members on behalf of Royal Caribbean or any other cruise line."
From my days in dealing in crisis communications as an editor-in-chief of a corporate responsibility magazine, I can tell you that the best approach in these types of situations is to let it all hang out, admit where you screwed up and let us know how you plan to reform your ways in the future.
Has Cruise Critic done such favors for advertisers and major travel companies in the past? Was it pressured to do so by anyone? Was there any internal debate about it? Were any privacy policies violated?
And, will Royal Caribbean end any involvement with the Royal Champions? Does it admit that it was wrong to try to manipulate the social-media airwaves in such a manner?
I say to both companies: We'd respect you a lot more if you if you conduct some internal reviews of your behaviors, publish the results openly, and let us know what steps you are taking to ensure that this kind of thing won't happen again.

Reviewing Review Policies on TravelPost and TripAdvisor

Lost in the Royal Champions' controversy, in which Royal Caribbean organized and wooed this group of frequent cruise-reviewers, is the fact that a lot of review websites these days incentivize reviewers to pen their opinions.
As I wrote here a few days ago, I oppose the practice of review compensation.
Now, as it turns out, Kayak-owned TravelPost, in its quest to give TripAdvisor a run for its media dollars, is aggregating and posting user reviews from some sites that compensate their reviewers.
To its credit, Travelpost itself doesn't compensate people who write reviews for TravelPost. And, neither does TripAdvisor pay reviewers.
But, TravelPost is partnering with sites, including IgoUgo, Epinions.com, and BedandBreakfast.com , that compensate reviewers to varying degrees.
IgoUgo offers reviewers Go Points from American Airlines and Amazon; Epinions provides a revenue share; and BedandBreakfast.com makes reviewers eligibile for a $1,000 gift card.
TravelPost provides a way for consumers to filter in or out the source of TravelPost reviews.
But TravelPost, which says it values transparency, should provide explicit information for consumers about the review policies of its partners.
In that way, consumers would be able to make up their own minds about whether they should read or disregard reviews from incentivized critics.
It would only enhance TravelPost's reputation if it does so.