I have no affiliation with B&B.com other than a user of their site and the options they provide, however I for one am appalled at how some of you have responded to Eric, who took the time to respond to your posts.
YES he may not have said what we wanted to har "ok guys I am giving you all a free year / $50 featured property dollars / discounting the comm" - but he did take the time to reply, and their was very little courtesy considering the time he took to reply to each issue.
This is a GHASTLY representation of Innkeepers, we are all suffering, we all have increased costs and we can only make decisions about those things in our control.
Why - after your replies to the time he has taken, do you think he would make one little bit of effort.??
This is HORRIBLE and I for one am embarrased. Feel free to reove my sign in priviledges from this site if I perhaps do not fit in with the wrath and anger I see here..
agoodman1963 said:
I have no affiliation with B&B.com other than a user of their site and the options they provide, however I for one am appalled at how some of you have responded to Eric, who took the time to respond to your posts.
I took a LOT of time to take a long, hard look at his claims... a logical, unemotional look.
Eric did not respond.
I mentioned in another post that it would be nice to have a response to my comments (which I'd like to think were logical and unemotional).
No response.
ag said:
Why - after your replies to the time he has taken, do you think he would make one little bit of effort.??
I don't. That is, I don't think he'll make an effort or change his business model. Why should he? He's welcome to run his business any way he sees fit, as we've discussed in the past.
This is only one of several threads about b&b.com's GC program, online res program, and membership levels. I have a great deal of respect for B&B.com for coming on this forum and taking the beating we've given them, and have said so several times before. I don't feel I have anything to apologize to them for.
When either John or Eric come here and make claims, it is generally my task as logical, relatively unemotional, self-appointed spokesperson for the itty bitty B&B's of the world, to take apart their arguments piece by piece, hold them up, turn them around and inside out, and see what's left. When they're right, I acknowledge that. When I disagree, I say so and explain, with examples, why I think differently. When they make outrageous claims I call them on them. It's just what I do.
I have said, and will continue to say, that if b&b.com really wanted to serve the B&B industry instead of having 7000 member inns they'd have 14,000, or even more. They'd find a way to be such an integral part of the business that the natural course for any new B&B would be to sign up with Google local and then with b&b.com. But that is not the case. I've been in business a year now and still haven't signed up with them. (Cost is a big factor, but not the only one...)
There are a LOT of threads here (and going back a while on the old About forum) on this topic... a lot of history involved. This thread did not happen in a vacuum, either... there was another thread happening concurrently with this one and there were arguments and comments that bridged back and forth.
I don't think Eric has a bruised ego from emotional innkeepers hurting his feelings with their vented anger... he's told us many times that it's all business, all about ROI.
And this site is, above all, an innkeeper site, a place to vent and share advice and ideas. Some have thought no vendors should be allowed here at all. I say, let 'em come! (If they're brave enough.) They're coming into "our" territory... we're not owned by any directory or organization and are free to express the opinions that each of us holds. As you've seen, some are pretty free about expressing those opinions!
What I find to be a shame is that the ones who express their opinions the strongest seem to be the least tolerant of other's strongly expressed opinons. But that's a natural tendency we all have... to find fault in others which we most possess in ourselves.
=)
Kk.