Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Study about efectiveness of panoramas in tourism business

Expand Messages
  • Jaume Llorens
    May be.. but user ratings rankings comments and reviews are perceived as the most effective resources... not visual content wich is what tey sell (if I
    Message 1 of 19 , Oct 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      May be.. but user ratings rankings comments and reviews are perceived
      as the most effective resources... not visual content wich is what tey
      sell (if I understand it correctly)..

      Do you know any other investigation.. more neutral.. ?
      Thanks
      j.

      --
      Jaume Llorens i Bach
      Av. Països Catalans, 1-3, 3E. 17820 - Banyoles
      Tels: 972 981 141 / 657 038 339
      http://www.vistes360.com




      Al 01/10/10 19:00, En/na Hans ha escrit:
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
      > <mailto:PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com>, Trausti Hraunfjord
      > <trausti.hraunfjord@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > In the linked forums post you will find a .pdf document with quite
      > good and
      > > up to date info (HotelBusinessSurveyReport2010.pdf).
      > >
      > > http://flashificator.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=8191#p8191
      >
      > That investigation is nothing worth.
      > Check the company.
      > They are a producer of tours themself.
      > http://www.vfmleonardo.com/vbrochure
      >
      > So they have an interest in what they claim in the "investigation"..
      >
      > Hans
      >
      > >
      > > Trausti
      > >
      > > On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Jaume Llorens <jaume@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Hi,
      > > > Do you know any investigation, study, serious survey.. that talks
      > about
      > > > the impact that coud have a full screen spherical panorama or a
      > virtual
      > > > tour over the decision of potential clients to book a hotel or
      > anyother
      > > > tourism bussiness... ?
      > > > Thanks!
      > > >
      > > > jaume
      > > >
      > > > --
      > > > Jaume Llorens i Bach
      > > > Av. Països Catalans, 1-3, 3E. 17820 - Banyoles
      > > > Tels: 972 981 141 / 657 038 339
      > > > http://www.vistes360.com
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      >
      >




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Trausti Hraunfjord
      Worth NOTHING? I find that to be quite a broad statement Hans. What do you base that on? To the best of my knowledge, the people behind the company and the
      Message 2 of 19 , Oct 1, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Worth NOTHING? I find that to be quite a broad statement Hans.

        What do you base that on?
        To the best of my knowledge, the people behind the company and the paper,
        have not been dragged through any courts or press as being liars or
        fraudsters. I have come across NOTHING that would back up what seems to be
        your private and personal opinion of the paper being "nothing worth". But
        then again, you might have access to some information I have not come
        across?

        I agree that it is always good to check the background for any information
        before spreading it further, and I did my own checking when I first came
        across this paper, finding nothing that even remotely supports your
        opinion. Of course you can say that just because the people behind the
        paper happen to provide tours, they can only provide corrupt data worth
        nothing... but unless you have something to back such words up with, it will
        have to be in the "libel/slander" category.

        It is the best report I have come across, but would absolutely be interested
        in other data as well, be that data provided by someone who doesn't use
        Flash... or who doesn't use Java, or who doesn't use either Mac or PC.

        I am sure such people could also be suspect to provide opinions that are
        "nothing worth" based on the equipment and software they happen to use.

        Do you have a more neutral report? Numbers that are more useable than the
        ones in the report I have fallen prey for?

        Anything beyond google analytics statistics for your own sites? Something
        that is based on a broad investigation that this paper surely seems to be
        based on?

        Putting the logic of "they provide tours/have interest in what they claim"
        to the test... a test that anyone can repeat and confirm... or prove to be
        "worth nothing", I did the following

        Using www.google.com I searched for the word "bing". It resulted in "About
        71,700,000 results"
        Using www.google.com I searched for the word "google", and it resulted in
        "About 1,490,000,000 results"

        Oh... darn, google is in the search engine business and clearly their
        numbers are worth nothing.... their numbers claim that "google" is 20,78
        times more frequent than "bing".

        So the next thing I did, to "prove" how biased and unreliable the google
        numbers were, I went to www.bing.com and did the very same search.

        The word "bing", results in 7.460.000 results
        The word "google", results in 223.000.000 results

        ... which translates into "google" being 29,89 times more frequently found
        in their search engine than the word "bing".

        From the looks of it, Google Inc. must have corrupted the Bing results, or
        maybe they have purchased bing, and are providing even more worthless
        numbers than they themselves do.... just to make themselves look better?

        No Hans. I think that you are only expressing your opinion, based on
        nothing but... your opinion. I do however look forward to you providing
        supporting evidence of your words, or - if you can't, then at least
        admitting this being only your opinion.

        Until then, it would be welcome to have some other more valid surveys
        presented.

        Trausti




        On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Hans <hans@...> wrote:

        >
        > That investigation is nothing worth.
        > Check the company.
        > They are a producer of tours themself.
        > http://www.vfmleonardo.com/vbrochure
        >
        > So they have an interest in what they claim in the "investigation"..
        >
        > Hans
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Fernando Costa Pinto
        Once again I am with you Trausti . The study seems good . I never heard about a study ordered/made by someone not interested in the area. I am sick and tired
        Message 3 of 19 , Oct 1, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Once again I am with you Trausti .
          The study seems good .

          I never heard about a study ordered/made by someone not interested in the
          area.
          I am sick and tired of false moral, the most abundant European product.

          Fernando
          Salvador Bahia
          Brazil

          On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Trausti Hraunfjord <
          trausti.hraunfjord@...> wrote:

          >
          >
          > Worth NOTHING? I find that to be quite a broad statement Hans.
          >
          > What do you base that on?
          > To the best of my knowledge, the people behind the company and the paper,
          > have not been dragged through any courts or press as being liars or
          > fraudsters. I have come across NOTHING that would back up what seems to be
          > your private and personal opinion of the paper being "nothing worth". But
          > then again, you might have access to some information I have not come
          > across?
          >
          > I agree that it is always good to check the background for any information
          > before spreading it further, and I did my own checking when I first came
          > across this paper, finding nothing that even remotely supports your
          > opinion. Of course you can say that just because the people behind the
          > paper happen to provide tours, they can only provide corrupt data worth
          > nothing... but unless you have something to back such words up with, it
          > will
          > have to be in the "libel/slander" category.
          >
          > It is the best report I have come across, but would absolutely be
          > interested
          > in other data as well, be that data provided by someone who doesn't use
          > Flash... or who doesn't use Java, or who doesn't use either Mac or PC.
          >
          > I am sure such people could also be suspect to provide opinions that are
          > "nothing worth" based on the equipment and software they happen to use.
          >
          > Do you have a more neutral report? Numbers that are more useable than the
          > ones in the report I have fallen prey for?
          >
          > Anything beyond google analytics statistics for your own sites? Something
          > that is based on a broad investigation that this paper surely seems to be
          > based on?
          >
          > Putting the logic of "they provide tours/have interest in what they claim"
          > to the test... a test that anyone can repeat and confirm... or prove to be
          > "worth nothing", I did the following
          >
          > Using www.google.com I searched for the word "bing". It resulted in "About
          > 71,700,000 results"
          > Using www.google.com I searched for the word "google", and it resulted in
          > "About 1,490,000,000 results"
          >
          > Oh... darn, google is in the search engine business and clearly their
          > numbers are worth nothing.... their numbers claim that "google" is 20,78
          > times more frequent than "bing".
          >
          > So the next thing I did, to "prove" how biased and unreliable the google
          > numbers were, I went to www.bing.com and did the very same search.
          >
          > The word "bing", results in 7.460.000 results
          > The word "google", results in 223.000.000 results
          >
          > ... which translates into "google" being 29,89 times more frequently found
          > in their search engine than the word "bing".
          >
          > From the looks of it, Google Inc. must have corrupted the Bing results, or
          > maybe they have purchased bing, and are providing even more worthless
          > numbers than they themselves do.... just to make themselves look better?
          >
          > No Hans. I think that you are only expressing your opinion, based on
          > nothing but... your opinion. I do however look forward to you providing
          > supporting evidence of your words, or - if you can't, then at least
          > admitting this being only your opinion.
          >
          > Until then, it would be welcome to have some other more valid surveys
          > presented.
          >
          > Trausti
          >
          >
          > On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Hans <hans@... <hans%40nyberg.com>>
          > wrote:
          >
          > >
          > > That investigation is nothing worth.
          > > Check the company.
          > > They are a producer of tours themself.
          > > http://www.vfmleonardo.com/vbrochure
          > >
          > > So they have an interest in what they claim in the "investigation"..
          > >
          > > Hans
          > >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Roger Howard
          On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Trausti Hraunfjord
          Message 4 of 19 , Oct 1, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Trausti Hraunfjord <
            trausti.hraunfjord@...> wrote:

            >
            >
            > Worth NOTHING? I find that to be quite a broad statement Hans.
            >
            The study has some value as long as you're clear what it represents. It does
            not explore actual ROI/effectiveness of virtual tours and other aspects of
            hotel; it explores the perceived effectiveness by those surveyed.

            What this means in a nutshell:

            1. Good news if you're selling to people represented by this survey. In
            other words, there appear to be a sizable number of hotel professionals who
            perceive VT's as effective in their business.
            2. Somewhat useless in actually arguing that VT's *are* effective on an ROI
            basis. Meaning, for skeptical customers not prone to groupthink (in other
            words, those who won't be convinced merely because their peers consider such
            a product effective) this paper has little evidence to convince them
            otherwise. The larger the organization, in my experience, the more likely
            they are to want quantitative data on the effectiveness of a marketing tool.
            Advertisers expect this, as they are all about quantitative results. Small
            and mid-sized business operators are more likely to go on perception - the
            cool factor - and VT's, 360s, and other new media have always been that
            shiny object they can't put down.

            I've seen more serious studies about ROI of panoramas and object VR in
            certain markets, and even then the results were somewhat ambiguous and more
            often than not poorly interpreted by people looking to promote their content
            businesses on the basis of the studies. Do individuals users *say* they like
            interactive content more than static - to a point (there are diminishing
            returns)... does it actually increase sell-through? Less clear - marginally
            at least, yes. Does it increase engagement time (how long people linger)?
            Sure, but that seems largely proportional to the amount of time it takes to
            experience the content, and not an increase in interest in the object or
            service being sold.

            I realize I had a bit of an outburst this morning on the list, so this is my
            effort to return to my (usually) measured, objective tone :)

            -R


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Roger Howard
            ... As long as the study is properly understood for what it represents, I see no reason to doubt the results or the methodology. But that proper interpretation
            Message 5 of 19 , Oct 1, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Jaume Llorens <jaume@...> wrote:

              >
              >
              > May be.. but user ratings rankings comments and reviews are perceived
              > as the most effective resources... not visual content wich is what tey
              > sell (if I understand it correctly)..
              >

              As long as the study is properly understood for what it represents, I see no
              reason to doubt the results or the methodology. But that proper
              interpretation is key.

              > Do you know any other investigation.. more neutral.. ?
              >
              Ummm, yes.

              Organizations that don't have a vested interest in the outcome are the
              ethical standard for neutral studies. I'm not saying no interested party can
              perform a neutral study, but I am saying that those without a financial
              interest in the stakes are more likely to promote the results regardless of
              their implications. Put another way, businesses perform research and studies
              all the time, and since they are pursuing facts that will impact their
              business they do, of course, tend to want to perform accurate tests. What is
              less common is a business *promoting* or *publishing* a report that calls
              into question the quality, effectiveness, or benefits of their
              product/services. Whereas organizations - universities, groups like Consumer
              Reports that represent the *buyers* of a service or product, and others
              whose primary stake is in the unvarnished truth - are more likely to promote
              and publish a study regardless of outcome.

              In short, if I'm a buyer of a service, if the service is worthless I like to
              know and share this information; if the results are positive I *also* like
              to know and share this information.

              If I'm a provider of a service, if a study demonstrates that service is
              worthless I'm unlikely to publish that, but extremely likely to publish it
              if the results are positive.

              This is 101 stuff.


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Bostjan Burger
              Hi, I did that in 2004/2005 for museums and tourism. Museums are in English and tourism only in Slovene language. It is very close corelation. ...
              Message 6 of 19 , Oct 1, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi,

                I did that in 2004/2005 for museums and tourism. 'Museums' are in English and
                'tourism' only in Slovene language. It is very close corelation.

                :) Bostjan


                ________________________________
                From: Jaume Llorens <jaume@...>
                To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Fri, October 1, 2010 5:53:40 PM
                Subject: [PanoToolsNG] Study about efectiveness of panoramas in tourism business


                Hi,
                Do you know any investigation, study, serious survey.. that talks about
                the impact that coud have a full screen spherical panorama or a virtual
                tour over the decision of potential clients to book a hotel or anyother
                tourism bussiness... ?
                Thanks!

                jaume

                --
                Jaume Llorens i Bach
                Av. Països Catalans, 1-3, 3E. 17820 - Banyoles
                Tels: 972 981 141 / 657 038 339
                http://www.vistes360.com






                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Bostjan Burger
                I posted that once - here is a link to my study: http://www.burger.si/MuzejiInGalerije/VirtualRealityMuseumsOfSlovenia.pdf , which is now 6 years old. I did
                Message 7 of 19 , Oct 1, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  I posted that once - here is a link to my
                  study: http://www.burger.si/MuzejiInGalerije/VirtualRealityMuseumsOfSlovenia.pdf ,
                  which is now 6 years old. I did same study for Show Caves in my country (we
                  have here quite a number of show caves among over 10.000 other caves...) - it
                  was a very positive reaction and number of visitors increased. Even Mr. Arthurc
                  Clarke saw my virtual tours of caves in the year 2000 and wrote in that time
                  "the best example what to do on the Internet". And consider that the quality of
                  VRPs in that time was realy bad comparing to nowadays technology. On the other
                  hand and as an example: an Israeli tourist agency found my web site and started
                  using it as a promotion for their tours - the number of Israeli visitors had
                  increased one year later for 900% - ok it is a statistic but it is and indicator
                  about the positive use of VRPs in tourism.

                  Bostjan



                  ________________________________
                  From: Bostjan Burger <si_lander@...>
                  To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Fri, October 1, 2010 11:09:22 PM
                  Subject: Re: [PanoToolsNG] Study about efectiveness of panoramas in tourism
                  business


                  Hi,

                  I did that in 2004/2005 for museums and tourism. 'Museums' are in English and
                  'tourism' only in Slovene language. It is very close corelation.

                  :) Bostjan




                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • prague
                  I have to agree with Hans on this one. Any study about product/industry X, sponsored by people involved in product/industry X, is worthless by definition.
                  Message 8 of 19 , Oct 11, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I have to agree with Hans on this one. Any study about product/industry X, sponsored by people involved in product/industry X, is worthless by definition.


                    --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Trausti Hraunfjord <trausti.hraunfjord@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Worth NOTHING? I find that to be quite a broad statement Hans.
                    >
                    > What do you base that on?
                    > To the best of my knowledge, the people behind the company and the paper,
                    > have not been dragged through any courts or press as being liars or
                    > fraudsters. I have come across NOTHING that would back up what seems to be
                    > your private and personal opinion of the paper being "nothing worth". But
                    > then again, you might have access to some information I have not come
                    > across?
                    >
                    > I agree that it is always good to check the background for any information
                    > before spreading it further, and I did my own checking when I first came
                    > across this paper, finding nothing that even remotely supports your
                    > opinion. Of course you can say that just because the people behind the
                    > paper happen to provide tours, they can only provide corrupt data worth
                    > nothing... but unless you have something to back such words up with, it will
                    > have to be in the "libel/slander" category.
                    >
                    > It is the best report I have come across, but would absolutely be interested
                    > in other data as well, be that data provided by someone who doesn't use
                    > Flash... or who doesn't use Java, or who doesn't use either Mac or PC.
                    >
                    > I am sure such people could also be suspect to provide opinions that are
                    > "nothing worth" based on the equipment and software they happen to use.
                    >
                    > Do you have a more neutral report? Numbers that are more useable than the
                    > ones in the report I have fallen prey for?
                    >
                    > Anything beyond google analytics statistics for your own sites? Something
                    > that is based on a broad investigation that this paper surely seems to be
                    > based on?
                    >
                    > Putting the logic of "they provide tours/have interest in what they claim"
                    > to the test... a test that anyone can repeat and confirm... or prove to be
                    > "worth nothing", I did the following
                    >
                    > Using www.google.com I searched for the word "bing". It resulted in "About
                    > 71,700,000 results"
                    > Using www.google.com I searched for the word "google", and it resulted in
                    > "About 1,490,000,000 results"
                    >
                    > Oh... darn, google is in the search engine business and clearly their
                    > numbers are worth nothing.... their numbers claim that "google" is 20,78
                    > times more frequent than "bing".
                    >
                    > So the next thing I did, to "prove" how biased and unreliable the google
                    > numbers were, I went to www.bing.com and did the very same search.
                    >
                    > The word "bing", results in 7.460.000 results
                    > The word "google", results in 223.000.000 results
                    >
                    > ... which translates into "google" being 29,89 times more frequently found
                    > in their search engine than the word "bing".
                    >
                    > From the looks of it, Google Inc. must have corrupted the Bing results, or
                    > maybe they have purchased bing, and are providing even more worthless
                    > numbers than they themselves do.... just to make themselves look better?
                    >
                    > No Hans. I think that you are only expressing your opinion, based on
                    > nothing but... your opinion. I do however look forward to you providing
                    > supporting evidence of your words, or - if you can't, then at least
                    > admitting this being only your opinion.
                    >
                    > Until then, it would be welcome to have some other more valid surveys
                    > presented.
                    >
                    > Trausti
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Hans <hans@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > >
                    > > That investigation is nothing worth.
                    > > Check the company.
                    > > They are a producer of tours themself.
                    > > http://www.vfmleonardo.com/vbrochure
                    > >
                    > > So they have an interest in what they claim in the "investigation"..
                    > >
                    > > Hans
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                  • Trausti Hraunfjord
                    Too many people project their own values upon others... thinking everyone else must be like they are themselves. There ARE actually honest people around. It
                    Message 9 of 19 , Oct 11, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Too many people project their own values upon others... thinking everyone
                      else must be like they are themselves.

                      There ARE actually honest people around. It may sound naive, but it still
                      holds true. Not everyone is dishonest.

                      I would not in my wildest dreams accuse Bostjan of providing pimped up
                      (worthless) data, as it seems that others are doing BY DEFINITION, just
                      because he happens to have his fingers in the panoramic world.

                      "Guilty until proven guilty".... is that how we are supposed to view
                      everyone and everything?

                      I wonder how some people buy a camera:
                      Mr. Distruster: "What about this one?"
                      Seller: "That's an excellent pro camera, and you will be very happy with it
                      for sure. Here, have a look at the user manual, all the great options are
                      listed there!"
                      Mr. Distruster: "The darn manual is worthless by definition, because the
                      producer provides it... furthermore; a camera company was involved in making
                      this camera, and therefore it is worthless. Show me something else
                      please!".
                      Seller: "We have these pencils and a block of white paper... no camera
                      company was involved in the making of those elements...."
                      Mr. Distruster: "Great! Finally! Why didn't you just show me this to begin
                      with, rather than wasting my time?"

                      .... and just for the record: Those who claim that no numbers, services,
                      opinions or products are valid because "x" is involved in this or that way,
                      are asking for the same treatment of their own products/reports/opinions.

                      Trausti



                      On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 11:24 AM, prague <360cities@...> wrote:

                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > I have to agree with Hans on this one. Any study about product/industry X,
                      > sponsored by people involved in product/industry X, is worthless by
                      > definition.
                      >
                      >


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Scott Witte
                      ... Wow. this shouldn t be so controversial. It is prudent to be skeptical of any study by /anyone/. Don t automatically accept it at face value. But just
                      Message 10 of 19 , Oct 11, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On 10/11/2010 11:24 AM, prague wrote:
                        > I have to agree with Hans on this one. Any study about
                        > product/industry X, sponsored by people involved in product/industry
                        > X, is worthless by definition.
                        Wow. this shouldn't be so controversial. It is prudent to be skeptical
                        of any study by /anyone/. Don't automatically accept it at face value.
                        But just because the study is done by someone involved in the industry
                        doesn't make it "worthless." Evaluate the methodology, and understand
                        what was actually studied.

                        VFMLeonardo isn't really involved in producing virtual tours etc. They
                        really don't care where they come from as long as they can host them.
                        They offer a service to produce rich media primarily so it gets done and
                        they can get the hosting contract. And if you look at what they are
                        /really/ pushing it is video. That is the most bandwidth demanding and
                        where they make more money. But their studies don't look only at video.

                        So, why are they doing studies like this? They know rich media is
                        effective, but there are very few studies to confirm this for skeptical
                        clients. So what are they to do but be proactive and conduct their own.
                        If you look at the studies in depth you will see the methodology is
                        good. And there is nothing to contradict them. In fact the few other
                        studies out there only confirms what VFM found. So it is the best we
                        have to work with.

                        In this case it wasn't the actual effectiveness of virtual tours and
                        other rich media that was studied. It was the /opinions/ of those who do
                        or would use them. That is still valuable. Their real finding was that
                        many hotel clients weren't planning to add the rich media they
                        themselves thought would be most effective, primarily because getting
                        their heads around how to produce and deploy such media was difficult.
                        Therein is your selling opportunity (and VFM's). We know how to produce
                        the tours and perhaps how to deploy them. VFM knows how to deploy them
                        and can get them produced for you as well.

                        Just so nobody misses it let me reiterate: This study primarily shows
                        you the selling opportunity for various rich media including 360 virtual
                        tours.


                        --
                        Scott

                        <http://www.scottwitte.com>
                        <http://www.tourdeforce360.com>
                        414.345.9660
                        Member, IVRPA



                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Hans
                        ... Sorry but that is absolutely not true. VFM Leonardo produces virtual tours. In some cases it may be from media provided by the clint/ hotel but in most
                        Message 11 of 19 , Oct 12, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Scott Witte <scottw@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > On 10/11/2010 11:24 AM, prague wrote:
                          > > I have to agree with Hans on this one. Any study about
                          > > product/industry X, sponsored by people involved in product/industry
                          > > X, is worthless by definition.
                          > Wow. this shouldn't be so controversial. It is prudent to be skeptical
                          > of any study by /anyone/. Don't automatically accept it at face value.
                          > But just because the study is done by someone involved in the industry
                          > doesn't make it "worthless." Evaluate the methodology, and understand
                          > what was actually studied.
                          >
                          > VFMLeonardo isn't really involved in producing virtual tours etc. They
                          > really don't care where they come from as long as they can host them.
                          > They offer a service to produce rich media primarily so it gets done and
                          > they can get the hosting contract. And if you look at what they are
                          > /really/ pushing it is video. That is the most bandwidth demanding and
                          > where they make more money. But their studies don't look only at video.

                          Sorry but that is absolutely not true. VFM Leonardo produces virtual tours.
                          In some cases it may be from media provided by the clint/ hotel but in most cases I guess they produce the whole tour together with their 2 partners
                          Here are the main products
                          http://www.vfmleonardo.com/vbrochure
                          Read also the testimonials
                          http://www.vfmleonardo.com/testimonials

                          And here are the production partners.
                          http://www.vfmleonardo.com/visual-content-production

                          One thing, what was the conclusion of the investigation. It says Video is the most effective and used media.
                          And what is it Leonardo focuses on, exactly video production.

                          That smells.
                          There is no problem steering an investigation in the "right direction" by a company who want certain answers.
                          It is just about putting the questions the right way and asking the clients who gives the "right" answers.

                          The answers in this investigation are given already when you ask them.
                          And it is not because the investigators try tho cheat in some way.
                          You are simply unconsciously asking the right questions.


                          Hans


                          >
                          > So, why are they doing studies like this? They know rich media is
                          > effective, but there are very few studies to confirm this for skeptical
                          > clients. So what are they to do but be proactive and conduct their own.
                          > If you look at the studies in depth you will see the methodology is
                          > good. And there is nothing to contradict them. In fact the few other
                          > studies out there only confirms what VFM found. So it is the best we
                          > have to work with.
                          >
                          > In this case it wasn't the actual effectiveness of virtual tours and
                          > other rich media that was studied. It was the /opinions/ of those who do
                          > or would use them. That is still valuable. Their real finding was that
                          > many hotel clients weren't planning to add the rich media they
                          > themselves thought would be most effective, primarily because getting
                          > their heads around how to produce and deploy such media was difficult.
                          > Therein is your selling opportunity (and VFM's). We know how to produce
                          > the tours and perhaps how to deploy them. VFM knows how to deploy them
                          > and can get them produced for you as well.
                          >
                          > Just so nobody misses it let me reiterate: This study primarily shows
                          > you the selling opportunity for various rich media including 360 virtual
                          > tours.
                          >
                          >
                          > --
                          > Scott
                          >
                          > <http://www.scottwitte.com>
                          > <http://www.tourdeforce360.com>
                          > 414.345.9660
                          > Member, IVRPA
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                        • Trausti Hraunfjord
                          Looking at it from that angle, I might agree, but still... I would not brand the paper as worthless. It has answers to questions... be that the right
                          Message 12 of 19 , Oct 12, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Looking at it from that angle, I might agree, but still... I would not brand
                            the paper as worthless. It has answers to questions... be that the "right
                            questions" or not... it is more than what can be found most places.

                            Obviously I, or anyone who has anything to do with panoramas or video or
                            other media related material, be capable of ordering or standing behind a
                            survey or investigation into the market, since it would make the results
                            worthless... We can't even bring statistics from our own websites, because
                            after all, we are in this business, and our numbers would be very suspect :)

                            Maybe that is the reason why there are no "valid" numbers for our field
                            anywhere... because our local bakery and hamburger stands are probably never
                            going to order an independent investigation into the panorama market.

                            We can be sceptical all that we want, and disagree with the video part, or
                            some other parts... When I read the paper the first time, I didn't agree
                            with all the findings, but it is seemingly the best and most up to date
                            paper available, and we should at least be able to use it as an indication
                            of what people think of the different media.

                            Trausti



                            On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 3:00 AM, Hans <hans@...> wrote:

                            >
                            > There is no problem steering an investigation in the "right direction" by a
                            > company who want certain answers.
                            > It is just about putting the questions the right way and asking the clients
                            > who gives the "right" answers.
                            >
                            > The answers in this investigation are given already when you ask them.
                            > And it is not because the investigators try tho cheat in some way.
                            > You are simply unconsciously asking the right questions.
                            >
                            > Hans
                            >


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Paul Fretheim
                            What does effectiveness mean in the context of this study?
                            Message 13 of 19 , Oct 12, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              What does "effectiveness" mean in the context of this study?
                            • prague
                              doesn t matter. if you re involved, you re biased, whether you think you are or not. the study may be interesting and useful for sales but it cannot be
                              Message 14 of 19 , Oct 12, 2010
                              • 0 Attachment
                                doesn't matter. if you're involved, you're biased, whether you think you are or not.

                                the study may be "interesting" and "useful for sales" but it cannot be regarded as "impartial" or "unbiased".

                                --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Trausti Hraunfjord <trausti.hraunfjord@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > Too many people project their own values upon others... thinking everyone
                                > else must be like they are themselves.
                                >
                                > There ARE actually honest people around. It may sound naive, but it still
                                > holds true. Not everyone is dishonest.
                                >
                                > I would not in my wildest dreams accuse Bostjan of providing pimped up
                                > (worthless) data, as it seems that others are doing BY DEFINITION, just
                                > because he happens to have his fingers in the panoramic world.
                              • Scott Witte
                                ... Maybe it is a matter of perspective, but to me you are demonstrating my point. Tour content is primarily produced by others, whether by official partners
                                Message 15 of 19 , Oct 12, 2010
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  On 10/12/2010 3:00 AM, Hans wrote:
                                  > Sorry but that is absolutely not true. VFM Leonardo produces virtual
                                  > tours.
                                  > In some cases it may be from media provided by the clint/ hotel but in
                                  > most cases I guess they produce the whole tour together with their 2
                                  > partners...
                                  Maybe it is a matter of perspective, but to me you are demonstrating my
                                  point. Tour content is primarily produced by others, whether by official
                                  partners or by freelancers they may hire or they will take content
                                  supplied by their clients. Where VFM makes it's real money is the
                                  hosting. It is an ongoing stream of revenue. Everything else is there to
                                  get to that end result though I'm sure they make some profit along the
                                  way. That is how they described it in an email some years ago.

                                  But, this is really all missing the point from my perspective. I don't
                                  wish to belabor it any more. Take from the study what you can of value.
                                  Use it to help you in you business if you wish. VFM certainly will. And
                                  if anyone chooses to reject it out of hand, that is their choice.

                                  Personally I think VFM's 2005 double blind study done with Omni hotels
                                  was far more useful for the purpose of proving effectiveness. Although I
                                  feel VFM itself didn't fully understand their results. This current
                                  study is more effective in identifying the selling opportunity. I found
                                  something I can use and am thankful VFM made the study generally available.

                                  One final thought. The study as reported is certainly not perfect. It
                                  would have been more revealing, for instance, to see separate results
                                  from those who had deployed rich media vs those who planned to. Actual
                                  experience vs. hoped for results may have been more revealing from my
                                  standpoint. At the same time, those results may have been too
                                  fragmented. Not all hotels use all the rich media at the same time and
                                  would therefor have a basis to compare one against the other.

                                  --
                                  Scott Witte

                                  <http://www.scottwitte.com>
                                  <http://www.tourdeforce360.com>
                                  414.345.9660
                                  Member, IVRPA



                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.