|
Posted Jun 18, 2010
Some forms of simplicity are pure genius. Therein lies the lesson for all you travel managers who wrestle with travel policy issues. After all, it’s not changing the words in the policy that matters – it’s changing people’s behavior. Let’s learn from Starbucks how a simple chalkboard can be the centerpiece of a massive campaign to change people’s behavior.
Posted Sept 25, 2009
In speaking with a colleague today, I learned that one of his clients does not have a T&E preferred supplier program in place for airlines, hotels or ground transportation. In fact, this company spends millions on travel and allows their travelers to buy tickets from any place of their choosing. They have no travel policies. Their employees look up the typical trip cost estimates in their travel database and use it as a guideline when booking trips. With the estimated trip costs in hand, they are free to book their travel any way that they choose. When they return, if their trip was less than the estimated cost, they may bank the additional "credit" for their next trip.
Posted Sept 17, 2009
Many people believe that having a systematic travel approval system increases control. For example: Software is used for the travelers to submit a request to travel; the request is routed to the manager, cost center manager, etc. Another: Your online booking tool requires formal approval before the reservation is queued for ticketing.
Posted Aug 5, 2009
Found this courtesy of TechCrunch and a blog called Hacking Netflix. It's a way different take on corporate policy, from an Internet company I have patronized for years. Actually, my family dumped cable TV because of Netflix. What's noteworthy for travel management pros?
Posted Apr 23, 2009
We have heard it a million times. Organizations that are willing to pay a little extra can ensure that their travelers arrive at their destinations refreshed and ready to conduct business. Others risk losing out by having tired, frustrated and generally irritated employees. They won't be at the top of their game, and their competition will have the advantage. Executives for the San Francisco Giants have examined this delicate balance and decided that extra travel expenses are worth the attempt at winning more games.
Posted Mar 6, 2009
Posted Jan 23, 2009
Congrats to NetApp for taking No. 1 on Fortune's list of the 100 best companies to work for. We recently profiled NetApp here in Procurement.travel, regarding how travel fits in with the people-friendly culture. Here's a related excerpt from Fortune on its Feb. 2 issue: "Typical of its down-to-earth management ethos, NetApp early on ditched a travel policy a dozen pages long in favor of this maxim: 'We are a frugal company. But don't show up dog-tired to save a few bucks. Use your common sense.' "
Posted Jan 1, 2009
Happy New Year.
Just posting to let you know that the December issue of Procurement.travel has been published online. Click here for Mary Ann's summary of what's inside, including features on AstraZeneca, Bank of America and Procter & Gamble; a commentary from United Airlines; a cover story on the relationship between job satisfaction and travel policies; and an update on the U.S. government's e-gov initiative in travel.
Posted Oct 29, 2008
My view is that many have not and it’s hardly surprising. The market has completely changed due to the trend towards commoditised pricing brought about by company procurement departments and fired up by no-frills competitors. In addition, their agents have changed their role to such an extent that they are far less dependent on airlines for income and are primarily focused on bringing value and cost reduction to their corporate paymasters.
In my experience, the majority of the major legacy carriers remain introvert in their strategy and avoid thinking outside the box or their comfort zone. OK, most have moved away from the dictatorial "My way or no way" approach as a result of corporations taking the second option, but a lot still think that the customer and their agent should fit in with the way they want to operate. After all, they still control the product offering and the rules under which agents have to work. But they seem blind to the fact that the corporations are now calling the shots, not the traveller who they blatantly woo direct. You only have to look at their advertisements and particularly Web sites where the traveller is urged to book direct regardless of company policy or buying strategy.
I would recommend to airlines that they totally review their modus operandi with the corporate travel supply chain. They need to segment this market in a far more considered way and create individual strategies for each type. A simple example would be to invest in their sales teams by paying higher salaries to bring onboard experienced negotiators that corporations can identify with. So many times, I heard buyers say that they end up talking to an un-empowered, pre-programmed sales rep that does not understand the rationale around senior level buyer/seller negotiation. I feel sorry for these sales people who must get eaten alive on a daily basis as they are probably the least influential people in their own company. It is a strange scenario really, when you consider just how high the stakes are in these discussions.
The need for greater innovation in airline selling has never been more necessary than it is now. I think they will need to look further than simply copying the low cost airline model of attractive basic price with an ever growing number of add-ons as is happening now. I would argue that the thinking travel buyer would far prefer using a legacy carrier as part of a total travel management strategy than fragmenting their control with the likes of Ryanair and EasyJet--who do not even share the same objectives. I am sure there are solutions out there that would enable a corporate to get a lower price in exchange for giving airlines more overall revenue.
I do not think anyone is benefiting from the current kamikaze approach to selling in the corporate sector. Airlines are not making money, corporations (through aggressive commodity purchasing techniques) are squeezing so much out of a low-profit business that they run the risk of killing off their suppliers and subsequently future choice. And the low cost carriers are watching it all happen with barely concealed glee. I think all parties need a loud wake-up call before it is too late--starting with the airlines who really do need to focus more on sales and give their sales divisions far more say in company strategy.
Posted Aug 1, 2008
|
