ganeshran Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 And yet Cleartrip started charging Rs 100!!! for convenience fee. 20 was still fine, but when you start charging man-marzi ka amount, then you have to question the ethics side of it. That is just redistributing the costs under various heads to make ticket costs lesser. I guess they show a lower cost for each plane ticket and then jack it up once the customer proceeds to the billing screen. Since most people compare the initial costs, this increases the chances of people going for their site compared to MakeMyTrip etc.
The Outsider Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 There is no argument about the economics part of the convenience. Which is why I pay 20Rs, instead of paying for the fuel and time to get the same ticket. Allow me to repeat, we already pay for the convenience through various channels. Then why another 'tax'. As I said, my question was about 'fairness' of the practice - since the business itself gets benefited by providing online sales. Or perhaps they should just name it to something more tolerable. By tagging it as 'convenience fee' it feels like being cheated. As I wrote above, it's also about who benefits more. Sure the theater can reduce their labor cost by a certain amount - not that much though because they still need to have someone to distribute the purchased tickets and Railways can't even do that because they are government employees who can't just be laid off in the name of cost cutting. But, from my perspective the primary benefit is to the customer. Let's say you are going to watch a movie in a theater 10 km away. In Delhi that's about a half hour drive each way in the morning and another Rs. 100 for gas. The theater on the other hand saves maybe 2 minutes of transaction time per customer, which is nothing given the labor costs in India.
akshayxyz Posted June 20, 2012 Author Posted June 20, 2012 It's the way you look at it - as I said earlier. It's pretty difficult to quantify exactly who is it difficult for. One factor you are discounting is the "time". Due to online bookings queues are reduced and it helps people book their tickets (in person) faster. The theatre may think of even cutting their labor force. Now' date= that makes for a win-win deal. It's convenient for the customer AND the business. It's not about the theatre being full or not - the convenience fee is not just convenient to the customer but also the business. I already mentioned an example. PVR Forum have replaced one window counter with two touch-machines - which were already there for quite some time. Besides, adding some technology/website/machines will always add some costs initially. But why charge specific category of customers? Especially when, that is the category you would want to grow to cut your operating costs (window counter)?
The Outsider Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 It's the way you look at it - as I said earlier. It's pretty difficult to quantify exactly who is it difficult for. One factor you are discounting is the "time". Due to online bookings queues are reduced and it helps people book their tickets (in person) faster. The theatre may think of even cutting their labor force. Now' date=' that makes for a win-win deal. It's convenient for the customer AND the business. It's not about the theatre being full or not - the convenience fee is not just convenient to the customer but also the business.[/quote'] I am not discounting time. In fact that's the crux of the argument. An average movie goer might spend an hour to purchase tickets in person beforehand whereas the theater is saving only 2-4 minutes per transaction and obviously the time value of an average movie goer is going to be much higher than the person the theater will employ to run the transactions in person.
Crookbond Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 As I wrote above, it's also about who benefits more. Sure the theater can reduce their labor cost by a certain amount - not that much though because they still need to have someone to distribute the purchased tickets and Railways can't even do that because they are government employees who can't just be laid off in the name of cost cutting. But, from my perspective the primary benefit is to the customer. Let's say you are going to watch a movie in a theater 10 km away. In Delhi that's about a half hour drive each way in the morning and another Rs. 100 for gas. The theater on the other hand saves maybe 2 minutes of transaction time per customer, which is nothing given the labor costs in India. Not just 2 minute transaction time - swipe charges and makes way easy for other customers leading to better customer experience. If the customers get early in a theatre, there are higher chances to buy things like popcorn and soda. There's a cascading effect. IMHO, I would make it 60-40 benefit ratio in favor of the customer.
ganeshran Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 ya labour costs also play a major role. In the US businesses would prefer people to deal online because the wages there are high. For e.g. Dell BPOs servicing US laptop customers ship every replacement part (except motherboard and processor) to them and the rep (in India or Philippines) instructs them on phone how to replace it. In contrast in India, Dell sends two people to your home even for replacing a keyboard or a disk drive. One guy delivers the part and takes back the defective one, and the other is an engineer who actually does the replacement. The theater owners have a lesser incentive to make people chose online booking since offline labour costs are not that high
akshayxyz Posted June 20, 2012 Author Posted June 20, 2012 As I wrote above, it's also about who benefits more. Sure the theater can reduce their labor cost by a certain amount - not that much though because they still need to have someone to distribute the purchased tickets and Railways can't even do that because they are government employees who can't just be laid off in the name of cost cutting. But, from my perspective the primary benefit is to the customer. Let's say you are going to watch a movie in a theater 10 km away. In Delhi that's about a half hour drive each way in the morning and another Rs. 100 for gas. The theater on the other hand saves maybe 2 minutes of transaction time per customer, which is nothing given the labor costs in India. A true 'baniya' businessman will never let customer benefit more than itself :), which is why they are passing on the technology cost (or any cost) to customer. But the unfair part is, targeting a select category of customer - which they would ideally like to grow.
akshayxyz Posted June 20, 2012 Author Posted June 20, 2012 Not just 2 minute transaction time - swipe charges and makes way easy for other customers leading to better customer experience. If the customers get early in a theatre' date=' there are higher chances to buy things like popcorn and soda. There's a cascading effect. IMHO, I would make it 60-40 benefit ratio in favor of the customer.[/quote'] good point. And as I earlier said - the cases of impulsive buying of tickets, which can not be cancelled later - just because it is available online, and some customer is in the mood at that moment.
Crookbond Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 And let me add the discussion is not whether labor costs are high or not. Even if it saves some cost, it is still some cost.
akshayxyz Posted June 20, 2012 Author Posted June 20, 2012 ya labour costs also play a major role. In the US businesses would prefer people to deal online because the wages there are high. For e.g. Dell BPOs servicing US laptop customers ship every replacement part (except motherboard and processor) to them and the rep (in India or Philippines) instructs them on phone how to replace it. In contrast in India, Dell sends two people to your home even for replacing a keyboard or a disk drive. One guy delivers the part and takes back the defective one, and the other is an engineer who actually does the replacement. The theater owners have a lesser incentive to make people chose online booking since offline labour costs are not that high That can not be the only parameter. IMO many young crowd buy tickets just for because of the convenience part. Personally, many times if I happened to be at window counter, and if the queue is more than 15-20 ppl long, I cancelled the plan, and sometimes never watched that movie again.
Crookbond Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 'Customer Experience' is the keyword here. Companies like Apple are successful because they create such a great 'experience' to users.
ganeshran Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 The amount of money being saved matters a lot because the larger it is, the incentive for businesses to invest money upfront to save it is higher. If someone told a PVR owner that you can save 100 bucks by investing 10 bucks on your website, he would readily agree. If that number was a 10 rupee investment to save 2-3 bucks, he would drag his feet around.
The Outsider Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 Not just 2 minute transaction time - swipe charges and makes way easy for other customers leading to better customer experience. If the customers get early in a theatre' date=' there are higher chances to buy things like popcorn and soda. There's a cascading effect. IMHO, I would make it 60-40 benefit ratio in favor of the customer.[/quote'] I didn't quite get the above.
Crookbond Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 Lets say a movie theatre in US saves 2$ and in India saves 1$. I see no reason why Indian movie theatres should charge 70 cents a "convenience" fee. They are still saving 1$. The theatre can't say - "Hey, you know what? In US they save 2$, so I will increase it by 70 cents man."
ganeshran Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 That can not be the only parameter. IMO many young crowd buy tickets just for because of the convenience part. Personally, many times if I happened to be at window counter, and if the queue is more than 15-20 ppl long, I cancelled the plan, and sometimes never watched that movie again. Like I said, it depends on the approach. Meru takes an approach where it incentivises online booking so it can eventually make money out of it by cutting telephone reps. PVR and IRCTC would rather pass the cost to the customer till they see a tangible financial benefit from cutting the charges.
Crookbond Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 I didn't quite get the above. There are other perceived benefits to other customers apart from the customer in question. It helps create a better movie experience and increases ticket sales. Classic page from the Apple book of marketing.
The Outsider Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 A true 'baniya' businessman will never let customer benefit more than itself :), which is why they are passing on the technology cost (or any cost) to customer. But the unfair part is, targeting a select category of customer - which they would ideally like to grow. Currently, they have no incentive to make the experience more customer friendly. The equation of convenience is so lop sided against the customer that for a new movie, most customers will pay the extra charge to be assured of a seat and avoid making two trips.
Crookbond Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 Like I said, it depends on the approach. Meru takes an approach where it incentivises online booking so it can eventually make money out of it by cutting telephone reps. PVR and IRCTC would rather pass the cost to the customer till they see a tangible financial benefit from cutting the charges. If Meru is incentivizing they are going out of their comfort zone and that's good. However, it shouldn't be mandatory on the others to incentivize because incentivize or NOT you are still earning more bucks than usual.
ganeshran Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 Lets say a movie theatre in US saves 2$ and in India saves 1$. I see no reason why Indian movie theatres should charge 70 cents a "convenience" fee. They are still saving 1$. The theatre can't say - "Hey' date=' you know what? In US they save 2$, so I will increase it by 70 cents man."[/quote'] Flawed logic. The Indian theater owner's decision is not influenced by the US. They take individual decisions based on their profitability. If the US theater saves 10$ by making people book online (by spending $1 on the website), they will more likely encourage people to buy online. If the Indian theater saves 10cents by making people people book online( by spending the same $1 on the website), they will drag their feet around and try to pass the cost on to the customer.
The Outsider Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 'Customer Experience' is the keyword here. Companies like Apple are successful because they create such a great 'experience' to users. I am an Apple "fanboy" as one might say, but Apple has one of the shoddiest customer service experiences. If something does go wrong with your Apple device you are going to have a harrowing time. A friend's screen on his MacBook started flickering 10-15 days after the one year warranty ran out and Apple did not do sh!t about it and put the blame on him for not purchasing the extended warranty.
Recommended Posts