That’s how conference producer and host Phil Wolf, CEO of PhocusWright, described this next session at the the Travel 2.0 conference. He said it was one of the sessions he was most looking forward to, and also said it could be called “reverse yield management,” which I found fascinating. No doubt about it, Web 2.0 and Travel 2.0 fans, airfare search has entered a whole new phase.
One of the main reasons I trekked to Hollywood this week to cover the conference was to hear Minneapolis-based Flyspy do its first sneak-peak pitch — a limited coming-out, as it were, within its chosen vertical.
Robert Metcalf, the founder and visionary behind chart-based Flyspy, was invited a few weeks ago by the event’s producers to introduce his service at this high-profile annual gathering of online and traditional travel execs. He told me he had to think about it for a while, but ultimately decided, even though it’s still early (the site isn’t quite in full beta release yet), that it was just too tempting an opportunity to miss — to get the kind of reaction he could get here.
Robert Metcalf is a very experienced software architect and developer of complex web sites. [He’s shown on the right in the onstage photo.] He describes Flyspy, which he’s been planning and developing very quietly for almost three years now, as the hardest problem he’s ever tackled. “The way airfare data works, it’s just a very, very complex system. When I got into it, I couldn’t believe it.” But now he feels all the hard work is paying off. He describes Flyspy as an “intelligent, at-a-glance airfare search engine.” [See sample Flyspy chart, which illustrates the frequent peaks and valleys of airline pricing, and just how volatile certain routes can be.] He said his main benefit is a “dramatic reduction in fare search time” because of his unique charting approach. The site provides actual, real-time flight data, not historical or predictive data as two other well-funded startups do (and to whom he says he’s often erroneously compared). That would be FareCompare and Farecast, respectively — firms that were also invited to speak in this session (though mysteriously the latter didn’t show). Another key difference I learned with these two sites compared to Flyspy: you can’t actually book a ticket at either.
Though in limited alpha mode, Flyspy has already been discovered and reported on this year by TechCrunch, Wired.com, and Fast Company, and others, and I’ve written about it here previously myself. “It just seems to resonate with people,” says Robert. You can find links to previous coverage at Flypsy’s “About” page.

Robert says that Flyspy’s approach provides “market clarity and market transparency,” resulting in “high customer confidence.” What he’s learned from a significant amount of feedback he’s already received from his site’s users is that searching and booking on Flyspy eliminates buyer’s remorse. “We allow the consumer to really understand the market for trips they’re planning and their various options. And that results in a positive transaction instead of a negative one.” In other words, it takes away that nagging, uncertain feeling we’ve all had: “If only I’d had more time to search, I know I could’ve found a better fare.” Time is the valuable commodity today, and Flyspy addresses that consumer need head-on, he says.

Flyspy’s Value Proposition
In his presentation, Metcalf said decision-making time is much faster and search much simpler with Flyspy than with all the other sites — whether you’re comparing to the old-line “Travel 1.0” sites (often called The Big Three), the airline sites themselves, or the newer so-called Travel 1.5 “meta search” sites. I guess that makes Flyspy a genuine Travel 2.0-era search site. Metcalf said Flyspy requires only one search, not many, to get the full picture — which is a major time differential. The number of data points on one of his charts would require 240 searches elsewhere. And Flyspy has the “most Google-like interface” of all the airfare search sites, he says. It’s really dead simple for the consumer.

Partners Lining Up Before Launch
Toward the end of his talk, Metcalf took the opportunity to announce that Flyspy has several partnerships in place, even before the company officially launches. Well, he didn’t actually name who they are — just hinted broadly. These strategic relationships include:
1) A leading business magazine, where Flyspy will be a regular feature in the travel section of their web site
2) A frequent flyer web site with 15 million page views/month
3) A leading blog platform with 50,000 blogs and 18 million visitors/month
4) A leading online CRM solution with 500,000 users, where Flyspy will be the sole travel partner
5) A major daily newspaper (circulation 600,000) wherein Flyspy charts will be featured weekly
6) An industry publication with a monthly circulation of 80,000
After this session, I grabbed a shot of airline pricing transparency expert Nelson Granados (left) with Robert Metcalf. Nelson is an associate professor at Pepperdine University, where Flyspy is a case study this semester in two of his MBA classes. He previously held a similar position at the Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota, and has also worked for Northwest Airlines.

In my interview with Robert Metcalf at lunch following the session, I learned he was approached at the conference by several firms that are interested in licensing Flyspy’s data, and also by at least one major, brand-name site that would like to feature Flyspy as its exclusive airfare search partner. “I’m very glad I came to the event,” he said. “I met a lot of great contacts and intend to follow up.”
Watch for another post soon recapping this high-energy conference. As I learned here, travel is the world’s largest industry. But the latest iteration of the Internet seems to be breathing new fire into it…
Tags: online travel, PhocusWright, Travel 2.0, Web 2.0, Flyspy, Robert Metcalf, Minneapolis, airfare search
How can one not be enthusiastic after reading this update I received a few days ago from the event producers?
except via my own personal experiences as an avid user of these services for my frequent personal and business travel. I’m especially looking forward to the talk to be given by Rob Metcalf, founder of Minneapolis-based
Angel investors are banding into networks at an increasing rate, especially in the Upper Midwest, and they’re getting a lot more savvy, I learned at a conference sponsored by
They appear to be out in front of a trend, meeting the market need to fill the infamous “gap” between very early-stage funding and traditional VC funding. It’s a gap many entrepreneurs have been more than frustrated with in recent years as they attempt to attract capital to get their ventures off the ground. And it’s the angels — increasingly smart bands of these angels — that are stepping up to fill that gap.
Miller said that Midwest Wireless began in 1990 with a handful of employees and a single tower in New Ulm, MN [one of my favorite towns, where the oldest brewery in the state, Schell’s Beer, still flourishes]. By the end of the ’90s, the company had 4700 towers. It made its first acquisition in 1996, a wireless company in Rochester, MN. By the year 2000, it had 234 employees and 110,000 customers and made another acquisition — this one for $165M — which expanded the company’s service area into Iowa and Western Wisconsin. By 2003, Midwest Wireless made a big bet: it switched over to CDMA technology, which Miller implied was a big challenge for the fledgling firm, but one they survived. By the end of 2003, his firm had grown to 507 employees and 356,000 customers, revenues had expanded to $179M, and it had made a second Iowa acquisition by the end of that year. Fast forward to the end of 2005, when the company had reached 636 employees and 440,000 customers, and $264M in revenues.
Turns out Sevin Rosen, with a 30-year history in the venture capital business, is throwing in the towel on its latest fund and declaring the VC model is broken.
The sleezy entertainment industry goons need to back off and let innovation bloom. And they will, because there aren’t any deep pockets there to sue yet. The question instead, though (as the article says), is the huge amount of capital it will take to keep YouTube going. The boys at Sequoia have already thrown in $11.5 million — but that’s just the beginning of what this thing will need. Try $2 million a month, some say, just to run the service. Wow, do they need ad revenues — fast! Meantime, how much more will the VCs bet? Well, don’t think they (and their friends) can’t pour it on — and will. Yet there are those already predicting YouTube’s demise….read 
Recent Comments