What Would A Proof of Open Booking Look Like?

One can spend considerable time and energy developing specific and detailed reviews of flawed theories and business proposals. Although appreciative comments and note are often the result, it’s important to recognize that this isn’t how business strategies should be developed.

The burden of proof rests with the proponents of new strategies and theories to use adequate and appropriate reasoning, and specific proofs to show that these are valid–not with everyone else to show why they are not.

Open Booking, as presently announced, is an ill-conceived business strategy that rests upon faulty logic, inadequate data, poor research, and a suspension of belief in how the real world operates. Its proponents have, or should have, certain obligations to correct these errors and show how Open Booking then remains a valid business premise.

Absent a much improved business case, the travel community is justified in rejecting Open Booking’s imaginary benefits without further argument. The disinclination of others to spend time refuting unsupported theories gives them no credence whatever.

Here’s a concise outline of how Open Booking must be proven. It’s not unrealistic and doesn’t assume more that a correct application of available evidence.

I’ve also attached a “conclusion” as to how likely we are to ever see any of these points addressed.

1)    Assume the Burden of Proof

Advocates of any theory, business or otherwise, carry the burden of proof which requires them to adequate demonstrate why their ideas are valid.

Statements about Open Booking such as “travelers are booking directly with suppliers and often times spending less money than if they go through a managed program,” or “there have been studies that have validated this but unfortunately, the status quo has swept them under the rug” are irrelevant commentary and establish nothing.
When you make such claims, it’s your job to substantiate them. Produce your evidence or abandon your claims.

Conclusion: The Burden of Proof is troublesome and inconvenient. It’s much more fun to make random, unsupported claims and suggest that people who disbelieve you should know better. The logical basis for Open Booking is so shaky that were unlikely to see a rush to defend it with more that opinion and speculation.

2)    Clearly and Comprehensively State the Proposition

Any business theory requires a detailed, comprehensive statement of what it is and how its proponents expect it to work. For Open Booking, that means more than the vague statements about how everyone is doing it so the result is therefore inevitable. The business proposition needs to be positively defended in order to be valid. Simply because flaws can be identified in the travel management process does nothing to advance the cause of Open Booking–there are other equally choices available.

The case for Open Booking also needs to consider business operations in the real world in detail and discuss how Open Booking affects each of them. A few short PowerPoint presentations do little to advance this discussion.

Conclusion: Building a correct business case is a lot of work, and Open Booking is a moving target that seems to evolve along a new line as soon as someone points out its shortcomings. It’s unlikely that anyone will expend the effort to improve this picture.

3)    Define Specific, Unambiguous Proofs That Your Assertions Are Correct

Once you’ve explained the business case for Open Booking, show us the clear proof-points that demonstrate the theory is valid and worth the effort. Not travelers are booking directly with suppliers and often times spending less money than if they go through a managed program” but how much, how often, under what conditions, and to what degree does this have to be so to offset costs and business risks?

Conclusion: If Open Booking could be substantiated in this way, someone would have tried to do so by now. The fact that proofs and evidence are abandoned in favor of opinion and anecdote is itself a demonstration of Open Booking’s failure.

4)    Use Objective, Comprehensive, Accurate, and Scientifically Correct Data

Forget self-selected surveys, tiny samples, biased questions, and the general lack of controls that infests almost all travel industry research. Produce data that can be defended, use it to establish your proofs, and then your Open Booking business proposition might have some validity.

Conclusion: Almost all travel research is useless and contrived to establish the preconceptions its authors want to perpetuate. This is unlikely to change anytime soon. As best (and this is conceding a great deal) the data in support of Open Booking are ambiguous.

Open Booking’s proofs and research should be straightforward and, if correct, should silence critics when accompanies by a comprehensive business proposition. It’s time this evidence is forthcoming.

5)    Comprehensively Describe How You Did Your Research

What precisely was your sampling methodology? How are your conclusions sustained by the raw data? What is an alternate interpretation of the data and how do you answer that interpretation? What would researchers have to do to replicate your research? Who sponsored your research and what are their and your predispositions?

Conclusion: Real research is transparent, fully explained and disclosed, and replicable. Spurious research sustains one-time conclusions or hides behind a proprietary cloak. This type of transparency and disclosure is very rare in the travel industry and non-existent as concerns Open Booking.

6)    State What You Cannot Yet Prove and How This Affects Your Conclusions

Scientific research acknowledges its shortcomings and identifies what cannot yet be proven as well as what can. It also admits areas where future evidence might disprove the theory. The quality of your interpretation of the evidence in support of your claims is as important as what that evidence specifically shows.

Open Booking lacks a real statement of its comprehensive business case, real proof-points that are offered to establish its validity, scientific evidence sufficient to establish the vague claims made in behalf of it, and a rational analysis of its very real deficiencies.

Conclusion: Open Booking’s proponents are no more likely to improve their process or develop their evidence in this area than they are in any other. Remember, if you are an advocate of Open Booking, you have the responsibility to develop and present your adequate evidence before anyone is obliged to give your ideas credence.

It’s not up to me or anyone else to disprove Open Booking–the burden rests with you. The six areas discussed here should be a minimum expectation.

Open Travel and Industry Mythology

This analysis appeared August 12, 2013 in Cornerstone Information System’s “Insight & Opinion” section.


You may have heard of something called “open travel” or “open booking,” that is about to change corporate travel procurement. It says that travelers will book whatever they want as long as they don’t exceed budgets and fulfill other vague management requirements, such as paying with a corporate credit card.

Travel Management Companies will have to find new roles (no one is quite sure what those might be) and corporate travel managers will see their responsibilities changed, or substantially diminished.

Proponents of this new travel management strategy, which include some substantial travel buyers and data managers, assure us that travelers are buying where the want anyway, so clearly it’s best to make the best of the inevitable.

What’s interesting is that this isn’t new.

Prior to the mid 1980s, when consolidating travel procurement with a few designated travel management companies became popular, it was the default purchasing system–set your budget and let the rest take care of itself.

I’m confident that proponents of “open travel” believe that technology has advanced so much over the last 30 years that the essential management problems that resulted in consolidated travel management are no longer issues.

If we simply wait long enough, smart phones will solve everything–they’ll even change human nature.

Can Less Be More?

There are few analytical reports describing open travel’s effectiveness–those that do exist are contradictory and most are poorly executed(i). As a business strategy, open travel advances several logical fallacies that we should try to avoid:

Hasty Generalization

It doesn’t necessarily follow that because some, even most, travel management programs perform poorly and that they are at odds with new technology, that all such programs must do the same.

It also doesn’t follow that travelers in general will make informed and rational purchasing decisions absent a centrally managed travel program because some travelers appear to do so, for some of their trips, at least some of the time.

Open travel’s proponents need to conclusively demonstrate that the business rules they suggest the industry adopt are not based upon the behavior of a small sample operating under exceptional conditions.

Faulty Dilemma

Because there are clear shortcomings with travel management practice, we are not necessarily left with a “strength through weakness” strategy that allows travelers to book whatever they want as the alternative. There are other choices.

The Big Picture

Centralized travel management exists because it is effective. Vendors extend favorable pricing and other services to purchasers because they believe the benefits exceed the cost.

Part of what vendors presume is that travel managers will influence selection and behavior. Travel programs that consistently deliver such results are those that succeed.

Why would vendors offer similar benefits where buyers stop trying to do these things Control is an essential component of preferred pricing, and open travel is signal for higher prices, not lower.

The mythology of the travel industry asserts that technology allows individuals to find as good or better discounts in the marketplace as are available through managed travel programs.

Again, that’s nothing new, the assertion has been made for as long as there have been centralized travel programs. In practice there are always exceptional situations, but consistently poor discounts are signs of a poor travel programs, not testimonials for open travel.

Technology makes traveler shopping somewhat easier, but it doesn’t make informed buyers or change human behavior. Again with exceptions, travelers do not usually share the management goals of their companies–part of a travel manager’s role is to provide structure for those goals.

A traveler’s agenda is more personal and can always be validated by countless rationalizations and “this time is different” conclusions. There is no lack of creativity in this area.

To expect individual and company goals to align so as to correctly and consistently influence individual traveler behavior is to assume that people will stop behaving like people because they have better smart phone applications and are free to use them.

Open travel is less efficient than centralized travel management, not more. It assumes pricing practices that don’t today exist, people acting in ways they don’t normally do, and, even if these point are granted, that it is the best use of a traveler’s time to research prices and keep sufficiently informed so as to make good decisions.

It’s a theory that assumes much and delivers little.
(i) Unless a study describes a sound methodology, an adequate sample size, and the precise questions it tried to answer, which is almost never the case, it falls into this category. Please see my paper on this topic.