By: David J. Wardell

© 1997 By: David J. Wardell.  Reproduction or redistribution in any form without written permission is strictly prohibited.

I do sympathize with some of Mr. Schaeffer's views and also with what I sense is his frustration. The industry is awash with products that don't work, concepts that are announced but never implemented, and overall technology smoke and mirrors to such a degree that one wonders how customers ever make informed decisions.

It's less clear that the trade press can provide a remedy. Over the years I've written numerous product reviews in these pages--not all of them complementary. Even the mostly negative ones usually ended-up being quoted by suppliers as PR material, based largely upon the premise that you can put whatever "spin" you want on unfavorable commentary.

The type of technically detailed, incisive product follow-up that many people want is fairly rare both in the travel industry and beyond. Software reviews in PC magazines, for instance, are usually superficial, occasionally dismissive, and rarely follow-up on product commitments from all but the most visible and vocal manufacturers.

Independent testing works somewhat better in the computer industry. Here various products are subjected identical tests and compared against benchmarks, with the results tabulated and commented on by reviewers. Even so the criteria selected for the tests are themselves not always incisive and the conclusions can be ambiguous.

In travel, however, independent testing rarely produced anything meaningful. Often the tests were so poorly conceived and executed that they served only as more effective smoke-generating machines.

Aside from the issue of who pays for independent testing, a more serious problem is that most travel developers are far more interested in reviews of products other than their own. Surprising as it sounds, getting access to adequate technical information sufficient to do proper testing or even write an acceptable review is usually time-consuming and difficult.

Travel system buyers are not blameless, as truly "staring the devil in the face" as far as technology is concerned requires abandoning many of their cherished views:

• Bigger is not better and the largest agencies or those making the most noise do not always have superior products.
• Decisions made to buy into the latest round of travel technology fads are often inappropriate and resulted in a waste of time and resources.
• A big name developer or marketing company has little to do with the success of the product.
• Most (not all) travel technology products function far below the developer's promises and the buyer's expectations.

You can see that the buyer's motivation to have product decisions and system strategies proven wrong is usually not great and can be a significant career-dampening move.

Rather than advocate a revival of independent testing, I would suggest that much of the burden of calling their competitors to account for their technology product commitments can be borne by agencies and trade groups--a role many had assumed in the early days of travel automation.

Although the various segments of the travel industry, including the trade press, all have a role in separating fact from fantasy, unfortunately there is no policeman capable of keeping PR honest.