Skip to main content

Revenue management for a new century

There are some businesses that have an unusual problem. They sell commodities that have a value up to a certain point in time, but that value drops to zero after that moment. A classic example is an airline's inventory. The value of an airline seat drops to zero at the moment the check-in closes. The realization of this simple fact changed the way airlines sold seats in the 1980s and 1990s, pumping up revenue significantly. How does this knowledge make you money? Because with the right systems, as time runs out, you can sell off the seat that won't go at full price much cheaper and provided you cover the incremental costs of carrying the passenger, then you are still making extra profit.

I bring this up, because it struck me there was a new, more interesting possibility that could easily be made available to push up profits even further. I was buying a railway ticket online and, as you can see, the system generously offered to bump me up to first class for a suitable extra bit of cash. Now here's the interesting bit. I am too tight to pay what it was asking - but I would have paid something extra to get a first class seat. The chances are that the train will travel with lots of empty first class seats. They usually do. So why not let the customer say what they would pay for an upgrade. Let's say I was prepared to pay £7. With a suitable algorithm, the system could decide whether or not to accept my offer. If it did, the the rail company would still benefit. And I'd be happy too. Win-win.

In principle a haggling system could also be applied to buying a seat in the first place, but it could be brought in painlessly by starting with upgrades, a situation where you already have the customer and it's just a matter of seeing how much you can get out of them. But remember this isn't a case of the nasty company squeezing the customer for every last penny - because the customer benefits too, getting something they would like at a cheaper price. As a customer I want haggling.

It's interesting that it is only now, decades after computer booking systems were introduced, that they are getting clever enough to cope with that oldest of human negotiating tools, haggling. I think the technology could be made to work now. It's just a matter of a company having the guts to give it a try.

Comments

  1. The only other variable the company has to consider is annoying the passenger paying full whack for hi/her seat. Here is the point they both recover operating costs and make the maximum margin. The passenger is paying not to travel with others so the algorithm must take the potential huge loss of losing this passenger into consideration. Which is why airlines often fly Business half empty rather than sell the seats cheaper at the gate etc.
    But I do wonder if effectively introducing an extra class in trains (as originally run in Victorian times)in between first and standard could utilise the droves of empty seats, which could use your solution , while leaving first class to the TV stars, Chancellors of Exchequer and NHS bureaucrats.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Interesting point, Andrew, but I think we've all got used to the fact that everyone pays different amounts (e.g. for advanced tickets) now. And for that matter, who goes around the cabin asking 'How much did you pay?' I don't think it is an argument against haggling.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope