Using a Bow Tie to Make Optimal Marketing and Technology Investments
The Croatians are credited for inventing the cravat which then evolved into the bow tie, but as successful as they have been in pushing Dubrovnik and the Dalmatian Coast as a tourist destination in recent years, they haven’t yet used the bow tie to try and explain consumer purchase behaviour in the travel industry. In recent months I’ve been thinking about two upcoming conference presentations I am due to give in May, first in Miami and then in Bangkok, and how best to explain my thesis that airlines can maximize return on investment by putting more focus on the time between ticket purchase and flight departure. I’ve decided to refer to this as the Bow Tie Model.
Late last year I asked a colleague to trawl through all of the bookings created in one month using aggregate data from the approximately 80 airlines using the Amadeus e-Retail internet booking engine. My question was this: Tell me the average number of days between purchase and date of departure. I also asked this same question for products that would typically be referred to as ancillary revenue. The results were as follows:
- Air: 44.1 days
- Hotel: 41.7 days
- Rental Car: 19.4 days
When I presented these results at the Ancillary Revenue Airline Conference in Budapest in November 2008, I referred to it as the Late Buy – Early Buy Continuum (slides, audio). The purpose was to show that airlines focusing solely on website cross sell were not targeting passengers at the most likely point of purchase. In short, unless you are considered a destination website for non air content, you will not be optimizing ancillary revenue just by adding hotels, rental cars and destination content to airline.com. The disparity in timing of purchase between air and non air became even more apparent when looking at international travel and online redemption of frequent flyer travel. Using one major airline to illustrate this point, we found the average days prior to departure for purchase of air tickets was 76 and 82 days respectively. “Destination content” from a tiny sample size came in at 24 days prior, but due to low volumes, ineffective marketing, measurement being on days to consumption and not departure of first air segment etc, I’d recommend totally ignoring this number. When done properly I would expect to see an average of around 7 days for this category of product.
So how did the Late Buy – Early Buy Continuum evolve into the Bow Tie Model? And why is it relevant to direct sales channel managers within an airline? Part of the answer lies in this diagram:
Attend any conference on travel industry innovation, and the majority of start-up companies present will be competing in the phase from the moment a person decides they may want to travel somewhere up until the point in time when the decision is made on where to purchase the flight. Apart from an endless supply of start-ups, you also have established metasearch sites, destination guides, trip blogs, photo sharing sites, opinions from friends and family, and even government tourism boards all competing to influence the consumer’s purchase decision. Google research found that the average traveller spends 6.7 weeks searching the web and performs 8.1 travel related searches before booking. Over time the range of influences is narrowed down, a destination is chosen, and a flight is purchased. At the exact point of buying the flight there are no other influence factors, and immediately thereafter the destination is committed and a whole new phase begins, with an ever widening source of influence factors coming into play regarding the chosen location, right up to the point at which the person arrives at the airport to board the plane. This is this phase where influence translates directly into dollars.
The final part of the above diagram is shaded grey, as one challenge for the airline is to bring forward as much of this passenger expenditure as possible into the phase between air ticket purchase and day of departure. In-flight sales compete with airport duty free and cause excess inventory to be carried on board. Purchases made when the passenger arrives at their chosen destination yield no ancillary revenue to the airline. For these two reasons, and the fact that on board sales is not my area of expertise, I will not address these two phases any further.
This model is still very much a work in progress, but I intend to continue working with existing and new airline customers to fill out the different phases with hard numbers to back up these assertions. It is becoming clearer to me by the day that in an environment of financial belt tightening and increased scrutiny on ROI attached to marketing and technology innovation, that an airline putting a heavy investment focus on trying to be a leader at the point of “inspiration” is missing the point; especially when so many more agile competitors, including competitors without a direct revenue objective already dominate. The smart and successful airlines will be the ones investing in more effectively selling at the points where they have much better information than anyone else; this is during the booking flow and especially once the passenger name record has been created.
May 2009 Update: Most numbers above have been updated, so please refer to the new data.
April 17, 2009 at 7:35 am
Is this “drawing a long bow”, heheh? Sorry – I make a meaningless comment but I just wanted to get the pun in!
April 17, 2009 at 11:40 am
Wow, Martin, I was with you until the last paragraph. Why should airlines cede all of that inspiration time before the booking flow to their motley crew of non-airline competitors? Airlines have a lot of power and a lot of tools to inspire with. Admitting defeat and leaving all of that inspiration time to other inspirers seems, well, self-defeating. Great post, though. It’s original and very thought-provoking.
April 17, 2009 at 11:57 am
Dennis, I definintely appreciate any questions of the type you pose, as it forces me to ensure my logic is sound. I’m not saying airlines give up completely at the point of inspiration, but I am totally convinced that what it would cost an airline to be a leader in that space, and what sort of return on investment one would get from that leadership position, is nowhere near as attractive as a leadership position in innovation when it comes to getting a cut of the travel budget the passenger commits *after* they have purchased the air tickets. For the airline with unlimited budgets, go for leadership in all the above phases, but unfortunately none of the airlines I know fit into that category, and they have to be extremely selective about where they invest.
April 17, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Yes, I’ll concede there aren’t too many airlines around with unlimited budgets:)
April 17, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Fascinating! Not sure my gut tells me it’s totally plausible, but it’s very thought provoking.
April 17, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Great work on the model. We see from the services we run that sign ups definitely peak towards departure day, backing up the theory that people are more and more likely to spend as departure day approaches. Interesting though I don’t think the only trick is for airlines to bring forward revenue, but to also open up new communication channels allowing them access to the extra departure day and ‘On Vacation’ revenue they are currently not able to access.
April 17, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Martin – to me the part of the diagram you’ve shaded in grey indicates where mobile has a role to play in extending the ancillary sales window and helping airlines grab a share of impluse spend in destination.
Airlines already have the booking data, so they’re in a great position to provide personalised travel information by mobile. And, if the content is good people will visit the site time and again when they’re away … creating many new customer touchpoints and ancillary sales opportunities.
April 17, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Darren and Bryan, I agree that mobile services to target travellers whilst at their destination has a lot of promise. I wrote about something similar once before:
There are so many opportunities in ancillary revenue that revolve around selling the passenger/customer what they want rather than just selling things that used to be “free” but it all comes down to where is the low hanging fruit for airlines; this is clearly where most of the immediate attention should be focussed. In my opinion that low hanging fruit lies between ticket purchase and departure, but some might be able to make a credible argument that other phases are equally as attractive for airline investment.
Sean, I’m sufficiently happy just to get people thinking and talking on this subject. Earlier today I walked to a different floor in the office and one guy was already drawing his version of my model to show me how he thought it should look. Hopefully people are equally engaged when I expand on this subject with real airline examples at the upcoming conference presentations I am booked for.
April 18, 2009 at 11:21 pm
Martin
Very interesting post and great to meet you. Have posted a link to this story from the BOOT
http://tims-boot.blogspot.com/2009/04/martin-colling-bow-tie-travel.html
April 19, 2009 at 8:47 am
Very thought provoking for people from start-up world..
/r
April 20, 2009 at 2:59 am
wow
thank you for review best site
good job
🙂
April 20, 2009 at 4:40 am
Hi Martin,
I came across this blog through Tim Hughes note and found it original and thought provoking. The biggest challenge for airlines in my opinion is the amount of bandwidth/ resources that the smartest guys in a company devote to the search, shop buy problem and the planning process. The senior leadership of airlines have focused on the transportation problem and have to deal with several issues fuel hedging, network negotiation, labour issues etc that the consumer total travel issue is always just a budgeted problem. That needs to change but as you currently identified that airlines have great opportunity once the trip is booked la destinationl finalized!..great post
April 20, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Hello Martin –
lots of good topics covered here. I totally agree with your comments but I don’t fully get the chart. Anyway, I’d be happy to share more stats to get you going with your idea.
For sure, our average prebooking window (days before consumption) is 25-30 days in Q2-Q3-Q4, while it’s in the 40-50 days range in Q1. This fits nicely with your analysis and with 2 points from my pres at the first arac conference:
1. airlines have a fantastic advantage to capture a large share of wallet for the simple reason that after all the months spent by consumers in pre-planning and comparing zillions of sites, air is usually the first booked component so the airline is the first of all players to know that a decision has been reached. (we’re not speaking about pacakged holidays of course). Add to this the fact that they also have data about the destination chosen and some demographics (family or couple etc). Moreover, in general airline brands are trusted. So their suggestions and ancillary services have a strong change to resonate positively with their customers.
2. Marketing 101, a sale is the right product (and price) for the right customer at the right time. If you show users all possible products to buy ala Ryanair, it dilutes everything (I can explain why Ryanair doesn’t care about this dilution). Instead a smart approach would be to push accomodation closely linked with flight (these are the 2 critical components because of yield management), only later bother user with local transport (rental car, shuttles or cabs). Local experiences are different because they play a key role in the decision making phase, so they should be pushed pre-booking to sell the flight, and post-booking to sell the experience.