NEWS 4
YOU NEED TO KNOW
5 STORIES HOT
Thud! Direct-mail resurgence spurs ‘doormat battle’
Richard
Lee Hayhurst
lee.hayhurst@travelweekly.co.uk
Amid this January’s barrage of TV and online travel advertising, direct-mail is enjoying a renaissance, according to industry experts.
Panellists at last week’s Cim
Travel Group Question Time said the battle today was as much for ‘share of doormat’ as ‘share of voice’ online and on other media. Richard Bowden-Doyle, Neilson
executive chairman, said: “We are starting to see significant divergence in the effectiveness of
old-fashioned direct marketing and e-marketing. “I know one very well-known
travel business whose objective is ‘share of doormat’.” Julia Lo Bue-Said, Advantage managing director, agreed, saying the consortium invests in direct marketing for agency members. “We use our customer data to
drive that. We do see increased conversions. It absolutely does work,” she said. Tim Williamson, Responsible
Travel’s marketing and content director, said targeted marketing was not just the domain of the big boys. The former Tui customer
director said the infrequent nature of holiday-booking was a challenge and he slammed travel for filling people’s inboxes with a “wall of generic spam”, which he summarised as “all shite”. Asked for his opinion on turn-
of-year TV campaigns, particularly the high number from online firms, Williamson said: “It’s good to see online brands recognise they need an offline audience.” But he added: “I’m always
Bowden-Doyle:
‘Direct marketing is effective’
slightly embarrassed by travel ads.” He picked out Thomas Cook’s ‘dancing boy’ ad for its failure to ram home its brand message. Williamson said travel ads are
often “beautiful films with a logo stuck on the end”, adding: “I would not say that’s a good advert.” Bue-Said said the message was important but campaigns such as Cook’s did create a lot of noise and
excitement about holidays. ❯ Travel Weekly Business, page 112
5 Court dismisses Onur Air appeal
Ian Taylor
ian.taylor@travelweekly.co.uk
Turkish carrier Onur Air had its appeal against a High Court ruling that it pay £3.64 million to the liquidator of Goldtrail Travel dismissed last week.
The Appeal Court ruled against the appeal application after Onur Air failed to make a series of payments into court as security against the £3.64 million and costs. The court decided: “Onur
chose not to comply with those conditions with a view to avoiding them entirely.” Tour operator Goldtrail went
into administration in July 2010 owing £33 million. Refunding Atol-protected customers and repatriation cost the Air Travel Trust fund more than £20 million. Liquidator PwC brought a double claim for repayment of funds paid to Goldtrail owner Abdulkadir Aydin, who disappeared from the UK, against Onur and a second group of
6
travelweekly.co.uk 28 January 2016 The High Court refused leave to
“The court is faced with a party that has decided not to comply”
defendants – Phil Wyatt, Magnus Stephensen, Halldor Sigurdarson and Black Pearl Investments. In 2014, the High Court
found Onur and the Black Pearl defendants had “dishonestly assisted” Aydin, finding both liable for repayments and costs.
appeal, but this was granted by the Appeal Court. However, last week, Lord Justice
Patten ruled that having laid down the conditions for the appeal in June 2015, “the court is faced with a party that has decided not to comply”. Patten said: “The court should give effect to its previous orders by dismissing the appeal.” The appeal of Stephensen, Wyatt and Sigurdarson against their liability for £1.4 million of Goldtrail funds remains to be heard.
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