The Latest OD Scam
The Latest OD Scam
Aha, so now they show their true colours. Having just received a renewal invitation from OD they tell me that (from 12th January 2017) if you do not enable "Online Booking" you will have to pay an additional £150 for a year's subs. They're obviously so desperate to get people to sign up that they're prepared to risk losing old customers (owners) by brow-beating them with this latest (and unjustifiable) charge.
Last year I signed up with three new "free to list" (at least for now) sites - Simply Owners, Owner Holidays and The Melrose Directory, and so far have not had a single enquiry. What can we possible do to escape the stranglehold of OD/HA?
Last year I signed up with three new "free to list" (at least for now) sites - Simply Owners, Owner Holidays and The Melrose Directory, and so far have not had a single enquiry. What can we possible do to escape the stranglehold of OD/HA?
Re: The Latest OD Scam
Simple really, if you don't want the imposed terms, don't sign up.Tremewan wrote: What can we possible do to escape the stranglehold of OD/HA?
I also think you need to give the new guys a chance to get up & running rather than expecting immediate returns. OD/HA aren't gonna change, which means the disenfranchised have to.
This time next year Rodney, we'll be millionaires.
Hello COYS you make some fair points - but I think you missed the "so far" in my original post. I have every intention of giving the new players time to make their mark - it's just that it's very frustrating when you see the total f**k up that OD (and other similarly greedy players) have made of the industry.
OD must think they can get away with this added penalty to owners that don't 'behave' as they want us to. But if owners pay this extra, do we think OD will then improve the search result for those properties v ones where owners do exactly what OD want?
I wouldn't bet on it - more likely non-compliant owners (ie, ones that don't want to process bookings and payments through their site) will still come off less favourably in their search results - so no point in paying the extra.
Pursuing alternatives is the only option - albeit a longer term operation.
I wouldn't bet on it - more likely non-compliant owners (ie, ones that don't want to process bookings and payments through their site) will still come off less favourably in their search results - so no point in paying the extra.
Pursuing alternatives is the only option - albeit a longer term operation.
Nope. You'll just be paying more for the privilege of being manipulated.AlisonG wrote:OD must think they can get away with this added penalty to owners that don't 'behave' as they want us to. But if owners pay this extra, do we think OD will then improve the search result for those properties v ones where owners do exactly what OD want?
Maybe they expected an easier ride in forcing their terms & aren't prepared to lose large chunks of 'inventory' from those that refuse. If not, why the sea change from compulsory online booking & payments by xyz date? Far better to squeeze a few more quid from the stubborn resistance & limit their exposure anyway.
One thing puzzles me about the masterplan? If by chance, everybody rolled over & accepted all of the new methodology, how then would the default search hierarchy differentiate between properties?
Random rotation is unlikely, no cash to be made there.
Variable commissions?
Paid placement?
Makes those longer term alternatives look all the more appealing AlisonG
This time next year Rodney, we'll be millionaires.
-
- Posts: 707
- Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 3:50 pm
- Location: Newquay Cornwall
- Contact:
I wonder about this too. Paid placement is one approach. A subjective approach is another ('I like the look of that photo'). The reputation of the listing site has to be maintained, and a first page of caravans won't do that (pace caravan owners). Other possible criteria:COYS wrote: One thing puzzles me about the masterplan?...how then would the default search hierarchy differentiate between properties?
Random rotation is unlikely, no cash to be made there.
Variable commissions?
Paid placement?
- how long the property has been advertised
- how many enquiries
- number of photos
- picture of owners
- links to owner websites/booking
- detailed pricing information
I don't even know whether properties which get a lot of enquiries should go to the top of the list or the bottom of the list!
I also don't know what the overall business criteria should be. Maximise total number of enquiries, or maximise the number of properties which will renew (hence once a property gets a minimum number of enquiries and are likely to renew, you want to boost properties which get no enquiries and may not renew).
I think something for a 3-year deep machine learning research project!
I think also transparency would be useful - no secret hidden algorithms, let everybody see what is necessary to go up in the listings order.
I have a suspicion that the only person who understands the OD algorithm is the programmer who implements it, and changes it every day at their whim.
Some randomness is probably necessary - you want a weighted random order without replacement, to be technical.
Reasonable analysis Nigel, but I was merely making the point that those currently enjoying 'preferential ranking' due to their compliance will merely be in the same tub if every listing decided to toe the line. So in reality these OTA's need to have some dissenters on the books to punish in order to implement the supposed hierarchy in the first place.
I would be mightily pi**ed off if, after jumping through hoops to meet the current all star status (I don't BTW) they then decide to introduce paid placements, tiered subs again etc. etc. on top of everything else.
I would be mightily pi**ed off if, after jumping through hoops to meet the current all star status (I don't BTW) they then decide to introduce paid placements, tiered subs again etc. etc. on top of everything else.
This time next year Rodney, we'll be millionaires.
All excellent considerations.
The OD algorithm is based on; who's properties do we get the maximum revenue from - put those on top, and who is resisting our demands for increased revenue - put those last. Then insert millions of irrelevant properties to punish the latter category.
It's a pretty simple algorithm!
The OD algorithm is based on; who's properties do we get the maximum revenue from - put those on top, and who is resisting our demands for increased revenue - put those last. Then insert millions of irrelevant properties to punish the latter category.
It's a pretty simple algorithm!
It is indeed, but it has a limited shelf life (by area) in my opinion which may be why they haven't yet all rolled out mandatory OLB OLP & BIN across the board. Still too much risk of a sharp drop in 'inventory' from those pesky naysayers.ManxRed1 wrote:All excellent considerations.
The OD algorithm is based on; who's properties do we get the maximum revenue from - put those on top, and who is resisting our demands for increased revenue - put those last. Then insert millions of irrelevant properties to punish the latter category.
It's a pretty simple algorithm!
This time next year Rodney, we'll be millionaires.
I would think once/if everyone gets on to BIN/OLB/OLP the algorithm will be based on (a) which properties make them the most money and (b) which have the most available weeks to make them more money. So high performing properties (in terms of commission for OD) will be at the top of the list until they are fairly full and will then drop down the ranking in favour of others with more availability
@Nigel, excellent analysis. I found it refreshing and illuminating.
I think that in building any algorithm, very high priority should be given to the GUEST EXPERIENCE, and not what owners think they want nor just that which generates revenue. Guests use the website to find their ideal holiday. What is it that is important to them?
That is not an easy question to answer.
I think that in building any algorithm, very high priority should be given to the GUEST EXPERIENCE, and not what owners think they want nor just that which generates revenue. Guests use the website to find their ideal holiday. What is it that is important to them?
That is not an easy question to answer.
** Richard
PIMS: Holiday Rental Management system
They say we learn from our mistakes. That makes me a genius !
PIMS: Holiday Rental Management system
They say we learn from our mistakes. That makes me a genius !
I'd hazard a guess that finding properties in their actual location of choice would be nice, rather than the current trend for 'up to' 50 miles away. It'd be a good start anyhow.e-richard wrote:Guests use the website to find their ideal holiday. What is it that is important to them?
That is not an easy question to answer.
This time next year Rodney, we'll be millionaires.
And so it goes on..... we've just received a second phone call from OD/HA asking why we haven't enabled Online Bookings (they really are panicking now). I asked the guy to justify the penalty charge of £150 on owners who don't toe the line and it's clear that their own staff haven't been properly briefed on the latest bully boy tactics. He said that I'd got it wrong and that it was non-enabling of "Online Payments" that would incur the additional charge. I've just double-checked the renewal invitation they sent me a few days ago and it states the following : "as of 12 January 2017, listings that offer Online Booking will save you £150 compared to the price for listings that don't offer Online Booking". If their own staff don't know what's going on what hope for the rest of us?