As I wrote in the three-part series on search – Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, I have long felt that search was akin to an unnatural act and one that left the customer dissatisfied. 

I also said that the failure of the travel industry in its own right to address its deficiencies in search would open the door to Google to come in and change the way search is addressed. And while this was not necessarily a bad thing for the consumer, it would change the dynamics of the travel industry.

In those three articles, I wanted to evangelize the concept of natural search. This did not mean that navigation to specific elements of travel was a bad thing, but the overly explicit nature of search in travel has been too long constrained by – in my opinion – a GDS-like process.

In my view, the convergence of some key factors would drive change in from conventional search to natural search.

· The consumer-facing conventions make it possible.

· Loosely-coupled technology through mash-ups breaks the bonds of the supply controllers who held sway far too long over travel.

· It also makes it far easier to make everything work – less dependency on making sure the tightly choreographed ballet of interlocking pieces actually functions. Banish the word “seamlessly”. But don’t drop the word fast.

· Geo-location – mapping is finally ubiquitous.

· The line between mobile and fixed position makes the definition between the two largely irrelevant.

· The supply side has better infrastructure and processes (not to mention better technology) to support Natural Search.

· The Cult of Individualism is a natural state and a natural act.

Over time, the GDS-based model has shown itself to be a false prophet for the consumer’s need for access to information. As a result, the GDS-imposed workflows in search/shop became the highly constrained standard because it was necessary in order to get access to the final mile of the transaction namely the price/book/ticket.

Search and Shop outside of the GDS model suffered from a lack of trust. The various attempts by meta-search companies such as Kayak resulted in a permanent time delay of salient information.

Thus you, the consumer could never shop in a trusted mode. And suppliers wondered why consumers didn’t have loyalty and trust?

With Troogle, several of these elements are now consistent and the results can be very different and trustworthy. This in my view is what the Google management team meant when they said they were “… building something that the industry has never seen before.”

At the WIT Conference this year, I will expound on this subject and illustrate what I believe will be a way to address this.

But I think I made it abundantly clear that if Google had a mind to, they would use some of their clout (and considerable cash pile) to address the subject and hurry the process along.

Commercially you have to ask why would Google plonk down $700 million in cash for ITA.

1. Could it be for their revenue and commercial basis? If that was the case, then the transaction would be up there with Sabre’s purchase of GetThere at $757 million at the height of the Internet boom. So no, not that alone – but over time Sabre was able to dominate a sector.

2. If it was for the technology alone, I am sure that someone could replicate this for a lot less money. And indeed in my opinion at least one company has.

3. Could it be for their Intellectual Property? ITA has a considerable number of important patents that I have previously stated could be very tough for the industry to challenge. Not that they should not be challenged but that the clout of Google and its legal team would make it hard for the relative minnows in travel to stomp up the cash for a protracted legal challenge.

4. Could it be for their Hotel and/or Needlebase technology? Hardly – try and play with it. It’s nice but hardly makes a dent in $1-2 million let alone that number of zeros.

5. Could it be for their customer base? Very important – but not perhaps in the way you may think. ITA provides assured access backed by both technical and commercial service agreements that ensure that the data they provide is current. With Virgin Atlantic now joining the group of QPX users – the spread of Full Service carriers is broadening considerably. Yes there is a nice value to this one.

6. Could it be the value of disintermediating several players in travel? Ah, now you are talking. Consider the annual revenues for legacy GDSs and that number is big and very fat and ripe for diverting Google’s way.

7. Could it be for eliminating meta search players with better solutions? This is an obvious answer. Yes but not the prime one.

8. Could it be for filling the holes in some Machiavellian plan to dominate the travel industry? Time will tell the answer to that question.

9. Does it match Google’s vision of the world? Absolutely!

The correct answer is, of course, all of the above, and many more I have not outlined here.

Now the challenge is how to deal with the whole notion of the travel process from ideation through to sale. The world just changed, and you and I have to change with it.  

Featured image credit (Polygonal World Map with spot ligts effect): Ockra/iStock