Gone are the days when only hotel managers and some destination marketers would bemoan authentic customer rating platforms like Tripadvisor & Co. as a potential threat to their business. Think again, more and more of these platforms have quietly added other subjects as well. It is not a matter of hotels and destinations anymore.
Would you like an example? You might know the Austrian crystals company Swarovski. More than 700.000 saw their visitor attraction Kristallwelten Crystal World in Tyrol last year – including me twice (my pics).
Their brochure and website quote CNN saying: "As beautiful as one of the Seven Wonders of the world." Not quite in line with the opinions visitors have posted on Tripadvisor: Only 11 have reviewed their experiences online, but the message is pretty dramatic. Opinions range from "tourist scam" to "waste of time" – and what really made me laugh: "I had expected displays of how crystals were formed or how they are turned into jewellery and objects of desire. What I got was bizarre and consisted of: a zebra in a stiletto (yes, really!)".
If you are in charge of a tourist attraction, reviews like these are exactly what you should be looking for. Could there be a grain of salt in them? Are all 11 reviewers just plain wrong? Could these reviews be a chance to set things straight or develop new strategies? This is the subject of a speech I am going to give for 200 directors and managers of tourist attractions next week.
.
.
I started to include (independent) review results ( from http://www.meetingreviews.com ) on the home page of our Meeting Centers. Authentic, transparent and not being afraid are the key motivations.
See widgets on: http://www.meetingplazamaarssen.nl & http://www.seats2meet.com
Hi Karin,
The Swarovski example is excellent and something I’ve been looking for. I have already used it in a presentation. I also found a review on the Frommers website, also raving about it.
It also brings into question the (fragile) role of mass media. They have traditionally ‘defined’ the top attractions in a destination (the head of the tail). But based on what? After reading the reviews on Tripadvisor, I would think twice about visiting this attraction.
Will social media replace this traditional role mass media as played. Tripadvisor is already publishing ‘best offs’ based on consumer ratings, often with surprising results.
Cheers,
William
Hi William,
Thanks for your feedback. However, it is not an easy issue. The Chrystal World does attract more than 700.000 visitors every year. Its reputation is excellent. I visited twice last year.
The first time I did not have to pay and I was absolutely thrilled. I was expecting arts and lofty ideas (by the Austrian artist in charge Andre Heller). I was so impressed that I even got something in their large store. And I had not been a fan of glass before. Then they relaunched the place and I went again in December.
This time I had to pay myself. The shuttle was already 8,50 Euros, not including the entrance which was another 9 Euros. I was absolutely flabberghasted! But I was still looking forward to seeing the new concept and the Tribut to India exhibit. Nevertheless, the former was not very impressive (to me) and the latter was somehow provincial and a real let down (just a couple of tv-screens showing reruns of taped Indian ceremonies, TV is more exciting).
The shop is even more breath taking now (designed by Sir Terence Conran, wow!). While I was going through its racks a young American guy asked me: So this is real Chrystal? And I said, yes. When I should have said: It s real Swarovski, but still glass!
And that is the goal of that place. It is not about being a tourist attraction in the first place. It is about building the notion of their glass being a real treasure.