|
Google, Macthing, Search & Travel
Existe una pregunta reguladora que I THINK GOOGLE considera
fundamental en el 2006, a saber: ¿Que es Matching? O dicho de otro modo:
¿qué es el Emparejamiento? Y más aún, ¿qué implica y cuales son sus consecuencias?
"Matching is a process of checking two
or more search phrases, words or portions of search phrases to determine if
they canonicaclly represent the same input despite being different string."
US 7,007.014 B2 , 8-33.
Por ejemplo, con la canonicalization, la palabra
"muchoviaje" se reforma en su forma canonica "viajes" u "ofertas de viajes".
I THINK GOOGLE estimo que la aplicacion de la Teoria del macthing fue verderamente
madura a finales del año 2005. Y que esta madurez search fue condicion suficiente
para poder diferenciar como significativa la diferencia entre 2 tipos de Users
conceptuales 2006:
"Those who browse for travel (“lookers”)
and those who use sites to purchase travel products (“bookers”)."
La diferencia entre LOOKER & BOOKERS dió luz a la diferenciacion
search economica entre Online Travel Busines Agencies o Agencias
de Viajes Internet (hibrido empresarial) y los Metabuscadores
o Travel Search Engines (TSEs), con modelo parasitario puramente Internet.
Desde el año 2000 hasta el 2006 I THINK GOOGLE detecto una suerte
de sobresaturacion de Tecnicas de emparejamiento o Matching. Por ejemplo, al
observar la primera pagina de un Julio 2006 en una busqueda online travel business
able-to-conversion, generalmente encontramos los mismos portales. Con todo,
esta Sobresaturacion de Matching no fue en general consistente con un Plan de
Marketing Internet y un analisis search-estadistico, que deberiamos presuponer
como algo habitual en el mercado online travel business. Es bien sabido que
los textos - en tanto criterios de ranking - idealmente, deben estar orientados
a los diferentes tipos de emparejamiento de los Motores, a saber, el
exacto, el de steamming o el fundado en logica difusa . Sin embargo,
una breve revision del escenario 2006 nos hace asumir que es fracamente dificil
encontrar un portal coherente con decisiones definidas por Business Analytic
Intelligence. En general, todos ellos se encuentran en una suerte de Edad de
Piedra Analitica.
Al analizar los webs, advertimos que su Search Marketing esta
basado en cierta ansiedad y en comportamientos web incomprensibles e incluso
infantiles. Su progresion competitiva es ascendente aparentemente. Proporcionalmente
a su inversion en afiliados, SEO indoors o patrocinados - directos o cruzados
a traves de dominios espejo - y Page Rank Backlinks, sus activos digitales son
discutibles. Dada esta situacion, resulta dificil de entender la hegemonia de
Google frente a Yahoo! en el 2006 y el mercado español. Y la extincion de buscadores
locales. Si bien Google es ideal para Marketers SEO, Yahoo! presenta las carecteristicas
adecuadas para Marketer Tradicionales apoyados con Agencia de Marketing Externas.
Motores como Noxrtum o Quaero se intuyen como posibles alternativas.
Sin embargo, los humanos realmente no quieren encontrar ni quieren
buscar. Psicologicamente es mucho mas probable querer ser encontrado que la
accion de buscar. De hecho, en nuestro uso de los Motores de Busqueda, no encuentran
nada mas alla de lo que han querido encontrar. Resuena contradicctorio pero
los humanos no encontramos nada: todo humano esta pre-ordenado computacionalmente,
a saber, linguistica y logicamente y todo resultado esta de antemano predispuesto
para su solicitud de resultados.
Es decir:
toda frase de matcheo implica
logicamente una conversión concreta, toda busqueda implica un resultado. O dicho
desde un punto de vista Search económico: toda feature es un producto search
económico.
En el 2006 los resultados corresponden generalmente a busquedas
de 2 palabras con una palabra stop. Un ejemplo en "viajes+a+
turquia". Los resultados de Google estan sobresaturados de una
misma respuesta. Sin embargo, añadiendo AGOSTO, VERANO o DESCUENTOS, nuevos
resultados acontecen sorprendentemente. La busqueda se refina, se recuperan
nuevos datos, existe mas informacion disponible, mas eliminacion de informacion
general por aumento de informacion concreta. En efecto, este es el poder de
las palabras, que son como tesoros privados pues cada palabra esconde una fuerza
propia y especial.
Si hemos de considerar la Batalla, listamos los destinos y localidades
referentes de conversion:
DESTINOS TOP 1O
LOCALIDADES TOP 1O
Europa |
Croacia |
Madeira |
Hoteles Spa |
Viajes por Europa + Vuelo |
Andalucía |
Fines de semana
Balnearios en Madeira |
Verano |
Hoteles en Candanchu |
Dice un marketer online travel business:
"
GOOGLE TRAVEL DOES NOT EXIST ... JUST AS WELL ... "
La reflexion nace de la situacion estadistica del 2005 ante
la pregunta:
"ARE CONSUMERS USING TRAVEL SEARCH ENGINES?"
Ante de proseguir, subrayamos: Google Travel es inevitable.
La Teoria de Features= Productos es inevitable y en ella reside la practica
invisible del Totalitarismo Digital.
"The report featured an extensive survey of U.S. shoppers
and statistically showed who used search engines for travel research, including
differentiating between those who browse for travel (“lookers”) and those
who use sites to purchase travel products (“bookers”):
-
Online Leisure Travel Lookers: 22%
-
Online Leisure Travel Bookers: 50%
-
Online Business Travel Lookers: 13%
-
Online Business Travel Bookers: 35% "
In a research report released in April 2005, London based EyeforTravel
noted:
“The TSE market is still small and does not have a significant
impact on the industry today.” However, the report also said: “The TSE market
is growing on a par with the [online travel agency] market. The total market
size of TSEs for the year 2004 was $1.3 billion, and is expected to grow at
the rate of 35% a year to $1.8 billion in 2005.” EyeforTravel
claims TSE revenues derived from paid links to travel sites
are divided thusly:
¦ Airlines: 43% ¦ Hotels: 22% ¦ Car rentals/ground transportation/rail:
35%
In May 2005, New York City-based Hitwise, an online competitive
intelligence service that monitors 25 million Internet users a day, stated
that among TSEs, Kayak had shown the largest six-month increase in market
share, up 6,019% between Oct. 204 and April 2005 – not surprising considering
the "beta" version launched in late 2004. Hitwise claimed that during the
same six-month period, market share for Yahoo FareChase rose 659%; Mobissimo
rose 350%; and Cheapflights rose 56%. It seems apparent that in years to come,
the current TSEs, with their emphasis on price above all, will be viewed as
bare-bones and one-dimensional. Diane Clarkson, an analyst for JupiterResearch,
released a report in June 2005 that noted: “For consumers, TSEs’ current value
lies primarily in price-based comparison shopping. Differentiation and increasing
consumer value will require enriching content, expanding product assortments,
and possibly implementing customer relationship management.”
¦ Business Tensions The world of TSEs is one of complex
payment structures and acronyms built around CPCs (cost per clicks), CPMs
(cost per impressions), CPAs (cost per actions), PPCs (pay per clicks), CACs
(customer acquisition costs), and CTRs (clickthrough rates). For consumers,
this alphabet soup means money is changing hands based on their online travel
buying habits, specifically how they shop and where they shop. Clearly incentives
for working with TSEs differ among travel suppliers (such as airlines) and
integrated online travel agencies (such as Expedia, Orbitz, or Travelocity).
The EyeforTravel research report, for example, notes TSEs currently refer
transactions worth $780 million to direct suppliers (with airlines commanding
the largest share at $561 million).
The report says a "comparatively lesser amount" is referred
to online travel agencies. Little wonder EyeforTravel concludes: “TSEs are
considered both competitor and marketing tool by other travel players.” Now,
just as some shoppers are using TSEs to obtain a comprehensive overview of
possible shopping options, there is evidence that travel companies have qualms
about being linked. By early 2005, travel sites — including the Big Three
of Expedia, Orbitz, and Travelocity — began airing concerns about the TSE
market. In an article in The Wall Street Journal in March, Michelle Peluso,
the CEO of Travelocity, was quoted saying: “We continue to evaluate them all
[TSEs], but we’re still not convinced that any of them are good for consumers,
suppliers, or us. We see these engines as commoditizing travel at a time when
we’re working hard with suppliers to go in the opposite direction.” In the
same article, Steven McArthur, president of Expedia North America, said, “Our
view is that anyone that aggregates travel is a competitor in one way or another.”
In a January article in The Los Angeles Times, Kendra Thornton,
a spokeswoman for Orbitz, said: “We are in the process of reevaluating our
relationship with SideStep and Kayak and all other travel search engines.”
For consumers, a key issue is determining which travel suppliers are included
in a TSE’s mix. For example, JetBlue’s
flights are listed in Kayak, Mobissimo,
QIXO, SideStep, Yahoo FareChase, and other search sites, even though the carrier
is absent from many popular travel sites. And some travel companies don’t
wish to be included in any sites but their own, particularly Southwest Airlines,
notorious for fighting not to be included in leading travel sites. Yet BookingBuddy
has found a solution of sorts: it allows users to input itineraries and then
select Southwest.com from a drop-down bar. Southwest doesn’t object to this
arrangement, BookingBuddy told WebWatch. Which raises the question: If TSEs
allow search by specific airlines, hotel chains, car rental firms, or cruise
lines, why not surf directly to the branded site maintained by such companies
and shop directly? One simple but nonetheless vital justification for the
existence of TSEs is the consumer’s ability to input search parameters and
itinerary details only once, and then link back and forth between a variety
of travel sites. As elementary as it sounds, this simple practice may keep
some TSEs alive.
¦ How they do business At WebWatch’s online travel conference
in Dallas, TSE executives asserted their business models allow for free usage
by consumers and no payment at all from certain travel suppliers. To which
Cheryl Rosner, then president of Hotels.com (now Expedia Corporate Travel
President), responded,
“Call me crazy, but I think you guys have to get paid at
some point for something. You can’t just be sitting out there saying, ‘I’m
just going to get out there and aggregate and acquire traffic for all of my
suppliers for free, because this is an altruistic or philanthropic venture
that we’ve undertaken.’”
JupiterResearch’s Clarkson recognizes the challenges: “Without
the participation of all or most major online travel agencies, TSEs are not
comprehensive. However, online travel agencies that participate are at a disadvantage
because their service fees may render them noncompetitive.” [Indeed, after
searching for a flight on AOL Pinpoint Travel, WebWatch was linked to Northwest
Airlines’ own site, where a message appeared: “Reminder: You don’t pay service
fees when you purchase at nwa.com.”] Clarkson also spells out why some travel
suppliers — particularly airlines — may be wary of TSEs, because “displaying
products based on price will heighten consumers’ price sensitivity.” She says
this is particularly important for “traditional airlines,” since their fares
are being displayed next to those of low-cost carriers. Even so, Brian Barth,
the CEO and founder of SideStep, believes TSEs are here to stay. “We’re going
to be living in an environment with all three: bricks-and-mortar travel agencies,
online travel agencies, and search. Privately, [travel suppliers] will say
this is the future. But that doesn’t mean they’ll speed it along either.”
¿Desea saber mas?
-
Search Travel 2005 PDF
-
Intensidad
Search en Travel
Gracias.
I THINK GOOGLE.COM
|
