How to treat Ctrip's big data "killing"?

Ctrip doesn't have to stop any more. Recently, some netizens questioned Ctrip's use of big data to "kill" and adopt different pricing strategies for different mobile phones and different users, resulting in problems such as "different prices in the same room". In other words, different people may search for different prices of the same hotel room.

This statement is really shocking. Under normal circumstances, when we book a hotel on Ctrip, we will only compare the prices of different hotels, not the prices between different users. Unless several people book the same room together, it is possible to find the difference. Everyone has different sensitivity to price. Some people may think that the price in 400 yuan is too high for the same room type, and some people may accept it easily. Therefore, if Ctrip secretly adopts this differentiation strategy, it is indeed possible to gain more economic benefits invisibly.

In response to questions from netizens, Ctrip responded that the price difference seen by netizens may be different due to the date, payment method, early date, cancellation policy and different suppliers. These explanations are not unreasonable. Of course, the price may be different on different dates, which goes without saying. Is breakfast included or not? The price is different. This netizen may not understand. There are also different suppliers, and the prices are really different. However, the netizen obviously refers to the quotation of the same room type at the same time, while Ctrip evades the core issue with normal factors that may lead to price differences.

Not to mention whether Ctrip has a "real hammer" in using big data to kill, the key is that with the support of big data technology, this differentiation strategy is really easy to achieve. Each user's reservation and consumption records are stored in Ctrip, so it is easy to judge the user's consumption ability. The more consumption records, the more accurate the analysis results will be. Therefore, no matter how real the netizens question, the possibility of "killing" exists.

This raises a question: Is there any way for users to stop Ctrip from doing so? In contrast, Ctrip, which has big data convenience and platform advantages, is a strong side, and it is difficult for users to obtain evidence even if they are really "killed". However, Ctrip has a high degree of moral hazard. Once discovered by users, users are likely to "enter the customs" without hesitation and abandon Ctrip. After all, it is intolerable to deceive users with this trick.

In fact, Ctrip's advantage as a platform has become smaller and smaller. Not only has the price advantage of booking hotels been lost, but the service content of the platform has become more and more complicated, and the user experience has become worse and worse. I have met more than once, booking a hotel in Ctrip, and the price is higher than the hotel. Booking a hotel on Ctrip often requires a full deposit, but in fact, the deposit is not for the hotel, but for the Ctrip account, and users have to pay another deposit when they go to the hotel. Ctrip used this time difference to estimate that a lot of money was deposited. It can do a lot of things with this money, but it may also have certain financial risks. This is also a noteworthy place.

Therefore, I don't want to accuse Ctrip of really killing people with big data, but this incident reminds consumers that this possibility does exist. At the same time, this also reminds Ctrip to strengthen self-reflection, whether there are similar loopholes in product design, and whether there are cases where products are too complicated and users don't buy them. When the user stickiness of a platform becomes worse and worse, even the most loyal users may turn away. As a user who has used Ctrip for more than 15 years, I have this consideration now.

Source: qianjiang evening news.