Blog homeI have done my fair share of “consulting” in the past. I even might describe myself as an ecommerce consultant from time to time (including on this blog!) - however mainly my client work has been as an external contractor (with the main difference between a consultant and a contractor being who owns the intellectual property to work undertaken on behalf of a client - consultants do - contractors don’t - the 2nd difference being a few hundred dollars on the day rate)
One of the best ways of generating new business as a consultant is to tell someone they have a problem - because naturally people then want to pay to get their problem solved. This is why I am not very good at consultant marketing because I really don’t like to tell people about problems they are already probably aware of - also I consider it a bit patronising for me to say “did you know you could do this better” - as there is probably a valid reason why they haven’t done it that way in the first place….
As a consultant I tend to get brought in when someone needs a solution - not when someone wants to know if they have any problems or not. Besides, currently I limit myself to a maximum of 1 day a week doing consulting with the rest of my time solving my own business challenges - not other people’s problems!
Sometimes I see other consultants raising this whole “you have a problem, pay us to fix it” and I cringe. The name for this is FUD - raising fear, uncertainty and doubt. Today I read FUD in this weeks Travel Weekly (4th Jan 08 edition).
The consultant who wrote the Travel Weekly article was the Chief Executive of Logan Tod - an ecommerce consultancy with a handful of travel industry clients (UK). I quote:
Typically for every 100 visits to a travel website only one or two result in a booking
OK - so far so good. This is a factual statement that is probably about right. If you do your analysis against unique visitors over a month (rather than visits over a month) your conversion percentage could be higher - but this is standard numbers for a “travel website” (no indication if this is a holiday, a commodity or transport product - or leisure or business travel - so quite a general statement as indicated by the word typically)
However, it is the next sentence that wound me up!
Companies cannot allow this situation to continue, especially when part of the solution is so simple
What?! This makes it sound like everyone with a simple flip of a switch can solve the problem! That must be the power of consultants! Where is this switch? :)
Is low booking conversion really a problem?
One reason why companies can let this situation continue is that conversion is the WRONG measure. Frankly I only care about whether the customer / user, on an individual site visit, achieved their goal when they first arrived on the site. Very few visits to a travel website set out with a goal of buying a product. Many users just want to check availability, undertake destination research, find the customer service contact details etc….. a low booking conversion doesn’t immediately indicate that there is a critical issue with the performance of a website…..
A second reason that I don’t like booking conversion as a metric is that the modern trend on travel websites is to provide more information - and sometimes even community features (like a forum, blog etc) - and this will make your conversion percentage fall. However, I would prefer to convert 2% of 30,000 visits than 4% of 10,000 visits. I wrote about this previously
Should every travel website search like Kayak.com?
See Kayak.co.uk for a modern search interface that works better than almost everything else in the industry
Of course, the Travel Weekly article is right - many travel websites can do with a bit of improvement here or there - however I wouldn’t describe the redesign process as simple. Neither would I describe the search process on Kayak.com as the desired design outcome for every single travel website.
For example niche travel companies may want to NOT have a website that looks like they have spent a hundred thousand dollars on it (Kayak will have cost a lot more than that!)….. because maybe the customer is looking for a local operator with specialist knowledge - and customers correlate small companies with having the best product knowledge.
One mistake that I have seen medium sized travel companies make online is to try to make themselves look like a large travel dot com - and end up getting into trouble when they compete with the big beasts - so there are good reasons not to look like Kayak!
If you want to be notified next time something is published sign up for email alerts or subscribe to the RSS feed. Thank you for reading!
Hi Alex,
You make some good points on my article - thank you for reading it and taking the trouble to comment.
The point of the article was in fact not that there is a single switch, but that search is a core function of any travel site: “Site search will be the number one area of focus for many businesses, simply because a visitor to a website has to be able to find the perfect holiday, villa or flight to buy it. To convert buyers into browsers it is essential that on-site search performs, not only at finding a holiday that meets the visitor’s criterion but that also guides the visitor to a suitable compromise when the exact match is not available.”
I’m sure you agree that search is an unloved area that can have a real business impact. As you point out visitors have many different objectives and if your search is not up to speed you disappoint many people.
Thanks once again
Matthew
Hi Alex & Matthew
I haven’t read the article I’m afraid so can only comment on my own experience.
Yes, search is important. However there are any number of other factors that would appear to back up Alex’s point:
1. High popularity of search can be an indicator that the your website navigation isn’t working. For example, users on travel sites can use keyword search as a last resort measure when they can’t find a suitable destination for their holiday by browsing through more accessible links on the page. By looking at search logs you can find out what people are trying to access but can’t easily find. (Hint - they will be destination names!)
2. Fixing a site’s search algorithm will not help if you don’t have the content to convert buyers. Many user tests I have seen show that there is simply not enough suitable and easily accessible content about the product to enable conversion on most popular travel sites (inc Expedia!). My fave example is the *tiny* photos that Thomas Cook use on their search results page (would like to show an example but their site seems to be down, duh!)
3. Search can be fiddly for users. Alex mentions Kayak.co.uk. I have seen sites including Kayak, Dohop and Expedia fail dismally with users just because the user interface controls are too tricky for users to even complete the search form successfully. Simpler browsing style interfaces may work better for some types of users with certain goals.
It is true to say that searching on a travel site is a core requirement but the more salient point is that you need to understand your users’ goals and motivations and then go and meet them with the most appropriate functionality. This is not something an agency can do with a site re-design or user test. It is a continuous process of improvement that will typically need dedicated skilled resource.
Cheers
DJ