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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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.