Building trust through restricted information: a case study of the hotwire.com air redesign

Melissa Matross Senior Manager, User Experience mmatross@hotwire.com
Trust is critical for any successful relationship. " A users willingness to spend time, data and money on a web site".
Brands she trusts - Nordstrom, Target, American Express, Apple.
Common elements: Service, Focused experienced, quality.
Hotwire is owned by Expedia, falls to one extreme - price sensitive customers who love travel and have no loyalty.
Business model: Opaque booking model. Suppliers have excess inventory and do not want to expose those prices to their loyal customers.
Air product conceals: Flight times, duration, number of stops, carrier. Savings of 30%. Core business model. Left with some level of distrust.
They have tried to overcome this distrust through:
Education
Testimonials
Direct comparisons
Putting work on the user does not help build trust.

When presented with a choice between opaque and retail more than 2/3 of the users chose opaque.

Dedicated customers were overwhelmed by options and did not find them useful. Tracked number of searches and purchase.

Users that indicated flexibility up-front were able to find lower priced alternatives and were more likely to purchase with hot wire.
1) Opaque = distrust.
2) shopping for travel = distrust & work.
3) competitor offering more data/options = more work & responsibility.
4) their users are more flexible than they know, if cost is lower.

Goals for redesign
Improve access to opaque inventory
Provide users with expected fare results while exposing them to lower fare alternatives
Present the trade-offs to the users
Improve user experience

Users were open to a series of trade-offs
Small - connections, schedule, carrier
Medium - changeability, alternate dates (leave on the 12 - 16), alternate airports
Large - products, destinations, flexible dates (any time in April)

Started to think about this as a travel agent. Simplified planning experience, knowledge, best recommendations.

Changed the interface to show the options and the impact of those changes, rather than just presenting the options. Gave them in terms of small, medium, large trade-offs. Gave more information about the opaque option, while still concealing what needed to be concealed. Gave and easy back option as well.

Layer only appears if there is a different alternative with a lower price.
Use this layer as a seducible moment - introduce the customer to lower price alternatives. Called it the speed bump model, wanted the user to pause and consider.

Limited choice - only 3 -5 best options. Give them 4 options - what they asked for, and 3 options based on trade - offs above.
Small trade-offs are always presented - opaque option and non-opaque options.
Anchoring & Framing - anchor on the exact choice, framed by the options.
User is able to understand the entire pricing context.
Did two usability studies: one as a low fi prototype, one as QA environment. Very positive reaction to the layer, very positive reaction to the search result.

Result
10% - 20% increase in alternate searches
50% - 55% higher opaque purchase rate for engaged customers.
10% - 20% increase in conversion
Garnered industry attention and good PR

Did these changes improve trust? Yes.

What is next?
Continue the model.
Positive feedback and conversion improvement.
Extending this model to the hotel and car searches.
Extending the model to other changes.

What can you do?
Understand what users really want, and what they say they want.
Need to understand what they say and what they do.
Understand how they make decisions and present trade-offs appropriately.
Identify what makes your offering unique.
Take risks.
Have fun.