Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
Skip to search.
 

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 19 , Oct 1, 2010
      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 2 of 19 , Oct 1, 2010
        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 3 of 19 , Oct 1, 2010
          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 4 of 19 , Oct 1, 2010
            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 5 of 19 , Oct 1, 2010
              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 6 of 19 , Oct 1, 2010
                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 7 of 19 , Oct 11, 2010
                  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 8 of 19 , Oct 11, 2010
                    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 9 of 19 , Oct 11, 2010
                      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 10 of 19 , Oct 12, 2010
                        --- 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 11 of 19 , Oct 12, 2010
                          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 12 of 19 , Oct 12, 2010
                            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 13 of 19 , Oct 12, 2010
                              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 14 of 19 , Oct 12, 2010
                                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.