This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2012


Analysis


reviews, albeit carried on their own websites rather than third-party ones (see panel, right). The reason is that the chains believe potential guests will have more faith in the legitimacy of their online reviews, given that they will be restricted to travellers who have definitely stayed in the hotel under review. Some hotels further limit reviews to members of their loyalty schemes, arguing that this helps other business travellers as these reviews will typically be more focused on guests who know the chain well. Cynics, however, argue that such reviewers are more likely to be favourable. Others, notably Four Seasons, provide direct access on their websites to uncensored reviews carried on Facebook, Trip Advisor


“Social media and online reviews are here to stay and hoteliers must embrace online traveller feedback,” suggested Trust You chief executive and co-founder Benjamin Jost.


CHOICES, CHOICES But technology is going faster and further in giving buyers and travellers more choice in booking rooms. Leading Hotels of the World, which represents upmarket properties in most major cities, is reportedly working on a booking tool to allow buyers and travellers to choose actual rooms when booking, not just a general category or grade. This could be launched on LHW’s new website, due to be unveiled later this year. Other new sources of hotel data include start-ups such as Oyster.com


Some chains provide direct access on their websites to uncensored reviews, as this appears more transparent to potential guests


and Twitter. The reasoning is that this appears more transparent to potential guests, with the hotel confident of receiving more positive reviews than negative ones. Online reputation management, moreover, is increasingly seen as vital to the hospitality sector. Last month analytical consultancy Trust You agreed a deal with Trip Advisor to gain access to its online hotel reviews in real-time to provide its clients – ranging from Accor and Marriott to Movenpick and the Ritz in London – with instant data on what was being said about their hotels.


(backed by the Travel Channel), which utilises specialist writers to personally visit hotels and review them – an opposite strategy to the user-generated Trip Advisor review model. Yet for all the emergence of new ways of finding out about hotel rooms, some things never change: a recent survey by Hotelschool The Hague, a hospitality management university, found that 70 per cent of travellers rated room cleanliness as the most important factor they sought when choosing a hotel room – and the one they were most likely to complain about online if their room was found to be less than spotless. ■


THE INSIDERS


WHEN A BOSTON-BASED member of the Starwood Preferred Guest (SPG) loyalty scheme flew into Heathrow in July this year, he stayed at Starwood’s Sheraton Heathrow located close to the airport. The business traveller, known as ‘Luca69’, enjoyed his stay, giving the hotel a five-star rating, commenting: “Neat hotel, clean, renovated, excellent service and very nice staff.” A month earlier another SPG member also stayed at the hotel – but with widely different results. ‘EMPS’ gave the hotel a one-star rating with the comment: “There are major problems with this hotel – it is not the quality I have come to expect from Starwood.” Two very different views of the same hotel, from two travellers who clearly care enough about staying with Starwood to make their views known online. But the difference to most user-generated hotel


reviews is that both were published and are openly available on the SPG website under an innovation launched last year by Starwood, which, like many hoteliers, had become uncomfortable with online reviews published on other user-generated sites which could be open to manipulation. Hence its decision to publish on its own website unedited reviews from guests who it could confirm had actually stayed at the hotel concerned. Marriott has launched a similar scheme for members of its Marriott Rewards loyalty scheme, called Marriott Rewards Insiders. Again, only those guests who have actually stayed in a Marriott property (checked against booking confirmations) can rate and review a hotel. IHG brand Holiday Inn is also piloting an online guest review scheme. Yet not all chains are following this strategy of


using reviews from verified guests. Four Seasons, for example, is prepared to gamble that potential guests should be allowed to make up their own minds based on reviews posted on Trip Advisor, Facebook and Twitter. On its website, hotels carry a ‘Reviews at a Glance’ link to those websites – for example, Four Seasons Hampshire has had 336 reviews on Trip Advisor, with an average rating of 4.5 out of 5, along with over 3,200 followers on Twitter and over 1,700 ‘likes’ on Facebook.


Time for Something Completely Different


36 Stanbrook Abbey, Worcester Spitbank Fort, The Solent Plas Rhianfa, Anglesey Carberry Tower, Edinburgh 6 Stunning Venues unique • historic • iconic • spectacular Set your own agenda and mix business with pleasure in your very own castle, chateau,abbey or fort. Perfect for memorable meetings, unique conferences, directors’ retreats. www.clarenco.com • 01494 682 682 ...amazing retreats in spectacular locations Kinnettles Castle, Dundee Ackergill Tower, Wick


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128