26338 The Internet & Ecommerce 2010/11 - Feedback on Assignment Part 1

First of all, most of you did this first part of the assignment extremely well. The comments below don’t
indicate that there were significant problems, they just collect together some observations I would make. The
problems, where there were any, came usually from failing to answer the assignment as set (particularly in
question A and question D).

General comments

A handful of you simply did last year's tasks - do read the briefing. You can't get many marks if you don't
include the items asked for. QA doesn't ask about looks, does ask for structure diagram and formal
evaluations. QB does not ask for profiles and does ask for personnas. QC doesn't have 3 phases, it has 5. QD
doesn't ask to replace in-shop service with online/community development. It does as for the content for an
IN-STORE kiosk to be listed. QC is for many of you the strongest section, so after doing it go back and improve
QB. Not surprisingly, for many of you QD is the weakest.

However, I suspect that if you are disappointed with your grade it will be because the content lists in all the
sections were simply not developed far enough – it isn’t that you fundamentally misunderstood anything (with
a few exceptions). Remember that the purpose of this is to be the analysis from which we will implement a
specific website. To see what I mean by ‘undeveloped’, imagine that the rule for part two, next semester, was
‘you can only include on the website what you have listed in your analysis report’. Many of you would have
almost empty websites. Luckily that isn’t the rule, and all of you can plug gaps in your content by referring to
the exemplars when they are available on eBridge. I urge you all to use these, and to do Practice Task 3 on
Page 63 of the workbook within the first week of the semester.

Balance of length is important; you could have seen that on the feedback grid included in the handbook. So
for every 2 pages in (say) QA, you need to have 2 pages in B, and in C, and in D. Many of you allowed one or
two sections to dominate your report; that lost you marks not only in the weaker sections but also takes the
marks off the stronger ones because of the unbalanced nature of the work.

When you write in any question (as many, many of you did) “eg content item, content item” or “content item,
content item, ...”. Then you are saying “this list is incomplete, finish it off for yourself.” In other words saying
to Travellary “I know you are paying me to do the analysis, but I can’t be bothered (or don’t have the skill) to
finish the job, you do the work and finish it off for yourself”.

Some of you perhaps don’t grasp the role of appendices to a report. An appendix isn’t in the word count, and
it isn’t in the marking. So don’t put content that you want me to read into an appendix – because I didn’t read
it. Some of you put better lists into your appendix than were in the reports!

QA Best Practice Ecommerce Analysis (see the appendix for suitable comparators)

Actually this one seems to have been a problem for a number of you, when it is intended to be easily earned
marks. QA is a very simple task (and we have practiced the process for doing it during the classes), it requires
that you;

1. Find lots of relevant sites (this is the only tricky bit, since they need to be niche booksellers operating
in the same niche as Travellary – Expedia, Co-operative Travel, Virgin Holidays & the like will NOT do);
2. Evaluate (and evaluate means ‘judge against criteria’: it is your choice which criteria);
3. Pick the best three (this means they have high scores, a site with 25 out of 60 will NOT do)
4. List ALL the actual content of those three sites (and next to every item specify which site(s) that item is
in)
5. List the navigation items used by those three - and this means the actual menus they use, the actual
search criteria, the actual links. It DOES NOT mean the arrangement of these on a page;
 6. Provide a diagram of the actual site structure of those three; it must show how many pages make up
the site and how those pages are organized. It is a danger signal if there is no mention of the two key
aspects BOOKING and PAYMENT.

So after step 2 you’re really just acting as a reporter, there’s no need to supply justification (that’s just
padding) just the lists, and the second list MUST include a diagram. Your job is simply assembling from the
work of others, from those people who created those excellent sites. You do not need to explain WHY these
sites contain these features. In this question you’re not giving preferences, your beliefs, or ideas that are not
provided in the excellent sites that are our comparison. All your own ideas come in the next three questions.

The required Headings are important; I’m checking that you know the difference between site content and site
structure. An explicit link to a formal evaluation is important (because that’s the justification for each point).
And in fact a formal evaluation and the headings are specified as required in the assignment brief, so it’s very
clear you’re going to lose marks if you don’t include them. A printout of the home pages (which many if you
put it) is not a useful extra, nor is it useful to put in a description of the sites which many of you also did.

Don't put generic words in – and example is "homepage provides a link to all sections". Of course, but the
crucial information on WHAT all the sections ARE is missing. Other examples of these pointless generics are
"the use of separate pages"; "sleek design"; "simple navigation"; "good structure"; "enticing pictures";
"comprehensive info". Of course, but what structure, what info, what navigation specifically. And please
ignore design for now.

Despite all the support materials; including the opportunity to send me a draft list after tutorial one, far too
many if you use these sorts of words. These are all true, but since they are so vague (eg we have no idea what
info to put in) they are completely unhelpful as instructions to act on. This vagueness is disappointing because
EVERYONE of you had the chance to submit a draft of this section after Tutorial 1 to make sure you understood
how specific you needed to be – and I received only 5 (out of 60 of you!) – all the rest of you threw away that
opportunity to improve your grades.

QB Target Market Ecommerce Analysis

This question caused few of you any difficulties. Some didn’t personalise the personas (and you DON’T need
profiles and personas – do read the question), but any weakness was usually in a poor choice of categorisation
or one that wasn’t complete. Too few of you put yourself into the shoes of someone in a category (to help
with this is why you are asked for at least one persona per category).

Quite a few of you have some key categories missing. I didn’t mind much what people call them but you have
to separate (because they have additional or specific requirements) the following (I was disappointed that the
‘adventure’ aspect got lost – and yet this is the core of their provision):

• All customers.
• New customers (these are not necessarily new travellers, which some of you got muddled on).
• Groups of travellers.
• 60+ (but still very adventurous types – some of you placed all of these as disabled!).
• Outdoor/sport/thrill/danger seeking types.
• Ecological/non-destructive/humanitarian/volunteering concerned types.
• Cultural/Historical/Social event/festival goers.
• (Solo travellers is a possible category)
List content items for each - justifications (and even explanations usually) are not needed - use those wasted
words to list more content items. Even excellent answers did tend to leave out the planning & itinerary
building tools and the interactive (self-managed) prep stuff.

In this question a few of you (generally those with weaker answers in other ways) used headings from previous
year’s questions – why? It is always worthwhile reading the question again before submission to make sure
that you are actually providing what’s asked for.

QC Stage-of-Relationship Ecommerce Analysis

In question C you have to show the general requirements by stage, and list any extra needs at each stage by
customer categories if relevant (and it normally is). This section was generally very well done – if anything was
missing it was the customer-managed tools to do their own preparing, their own planning, their own ‘what-if’
thinking. You want to fully exploit ecommerce – not just make this a ‘brochure’. There is perhaps too little x-
selling and up-selling in some phases (and just downright selling beyond phase 1) in some.

Some of you missed out the within-group communication & planning tools (for EVERY phase), and a handful of
you simply ignored categories completely.

QD On-premises support analysis

One of the reasons why many of you have gained your lowest marks for QD is because it is simply too short
despite it having the same value in terms of marks as the other sections. Another reason is that you simply
answered last year’s question. Do note that the question says ‘on-premises’ – this means ‘in the shop’.

The main reason, which is more troubling, is about placing yourselves into the shoes of users. This is not a
brochure (again) – it should deal with the sort of mulling-over questions, the what-if planning try outs and
then all the problem-solving tools customers would want to use. It is inappropriate to focus on the payment
system. Kiosk exists for ideas generating when you don't want to be rushed by staff. For problem solving
when you don't want to look a fool. And for speed when you just want to check something. So all about tools.

APPENDIX – Comparator websites (look at ALL of them at the start of semester 2 for ideas)

These are the sort of sites that will do as comparators (AT LEAST 2 of your 3 must be of this type):
www.adventurecompany.co.uk
www.adventuresportsholidays.com
www.dragoman.com
www.exclusiveescapes.co.uk
www.exodus.co.uk
www.explore.co.uk
www.footprint-adventures.co.uk
www.gapadventures.com
www.gapyearforgrownups.co.uk
www.imaginative-traveller.co.uk (.com is same)
www.intrepidtravel.com
www.keadventure.com
www.kirkerholidays.com
www.kumuka.co.uk (.com is same)
www.neilson.co.uk
www.oasisoverland.co.uk
www.onthegotours.com (esp for groups)
www.responsibletravel.com
www.seasons.co.uk
 www.tailor-made.co.uk
www.tourdust.com
www.transun.co.uk
www.tucantravel.com
www.wildfrontiers.co.uk
www.worldexpeditions.co.uk
www.worldwideholidays.co.uk

The following are general (not niche) travel firm – they are not suitable to be any of your 3, though look at
them for ideas for QB and QC. I repeat, by all means browse them for some ideas but they WILL NOT DO FOR
QA:
www.virginholidays.co.uk
www.co-operativetravel.co.uk
www.kuoni.co.uk
www.barrheadtravel.co.uk
www.newmarketholidays.co.uk
www.expedia.com
www.trailfinders.com

The following are all interesting as having a partial cover to our niche (there will be many others); no more
than ONE of your 3 can come from any of these types.

Single destination only:

www.selectiveasia.com
www.telltaletravel.co.uk
peakoutdoor.co.uk
www.uniqueholidaysltd.com
Property rental only:
www.oneoffplaces.co.uk
www.absolute-escapes.com
Flights only:
www.flightcentre.com
About luxury rather than adventure:
www.itcclassics.co.uk
www.annscott.co.uk
www.sandals.co.uk
www.destinology.co.uk
About age rather than adventure:
travel.saga.co.uk

Then we have those that are simply web-based BROCHURES. These are not actually ecommerce. Ask yourself -
where's the commerce? Can you buy? These can't be one of your 3 but they are excellent for ideas generation
- especially for phase 1 of the business relationship of course. So they shouldn’t be used for AQ – but you
should all look at them for ideas for QB and QC:
www.activitiesabroad.com
www.audleytravel.com
www.blacktomato.co.uk
www.discover-the-world.co.uk
www.greentraveller.co.uk (assembling links to other firms, so an online mag rather than brochure)
www.iexplore.com
www.oattravel.com
www.originaltravel.co.uk