November 2011 Archives

Some notes on our story about Kwikchex's second ASA submission regarding TripAdvisor.

There's a sense, in our comment piece of this morning, of a new-school maverick being forced to pull its socks up and play by the old rules. I'm a little uncomfortable with that, as the old ways aren't perfect. The fact is they demonstrably don't prevent amateurism, error or falsehood, and the models they were designed for and uphold denied the average consumer a voice for most of publishing history - hence the popularity of TripAdvisor in the first place.

I suspect that TripAdvisor will at worst get an affordable fine and have to make a few changes around reputation management for listed businesses, which it is in the process of doing anyway (whether those moves have been triggered by the ASA submissions is a matter for speculation). Far from seriously damaging or destroying TripAdvisor, these cases seem likely to refine it.

In truth refinement is the giant's problem - what the 'new vs traditional' reading misses is that the core TripAdvisor product itself is now rather traditional. It represents a first, heavily consumer-focused wave of UCG reviews, and a cursory glance at the online travel news pages shows that a clutch of new businesses have spotted and are attempting to address its main percieved weakness: roughly, having taken us from a position of imbalance to a position of equal and opposite imbalance, where a formerly disempowered public become disproportionately powerful.

So I don't see all this as a question of whether what TripAdvisor seeks to do is right - what it seeks to do is give consumers a voice, and that is unarguably right. For me the key question is how well TripAdvisor does it, and that's about being more of an online business, not less. Does it have the best content filters? Is it the best at flagging up when a review has been challenged, or is particularly old? Is it the best at verification? Is it the best at eliciting and displaying responses from the businesses concerned?

[On the subject of the last question, I remember reading research that indicated consumers respond positively to negative reviews with honest, professional replies posted alongside - take that with a pinch of salt until I can find and verify, but I can say anecdotally that it chimes with how I respond.]

Far from uncovering a flaw in the online world, this story uncovers potential flaws in TripAdvisor that the online world is rather cleverly and industriously addressing.

When the PR coinage 'thrillaxing' surfaced on Twitter, I was right there with the outraged counter-punners. Undeterred, iExplore's PR team called and offered me a video the following day. Okay, I said, and dutifully watched it.

Cue more sniffiness? Here's the thing: I now strongly suspect that at some point in the genesis of this campaign, somebody sat in a brainstorm and pointed out that activity can be a better cure for stress than idleness, and that as a message that has the potential to stand out.

That's actually a decent starting point. Bread-and-butter travel industry comms overwhelmingly equates relaxation with keeping very still on a beach/sun lounger/massage table, and markets accordingly. Plenty of businesses offer alternatives, but they market from a similarly literal angle - you cycle across a mountain range because you're the active type, not because you need to switch off. It's obvious. Isn't it?

So while it requires some excavation, there's an attempt here to think counter-intuitively. It's just a shame it was translated into yet another instance of light-research-and-a-ropey-pun collateral, and that the pun was... that.