Light & Nimble, but good?
I recall meeting Britanny Laughlin, co-founder of Gtrot back at the 2010 Web 2.0 Expo. Gtrot at that time was focused on helping students coordinate their Spring Break trip and other excursions. They had all of their development work done off-shore in Buenos Aires, and the functionality of the site was very basic. It had integration to Facebook to handle the social network and travel sites to handle hotel and transport booking.
Even at that time, Gtrot had quite a bit of public presence despite their flimsy offerings. I recall my advice at the time was for them to look into content and offering suggestions once people decided where they were going. To me, the business model of generating referral fees to travel agencies was too shallow and there wouldn't be much return visits. Rather, if you had more information about the locations chosen and links to friends that have been there before, it becomes a platform to facilitate discovery and discussion.
I wanted to mention Gtrot mainly as an example of a "Lean Startup." They initially kept it very simple, with a MVP of allowing users to book trips together by simply linking Facebook and a travel service like Kayak. Their programming was done by a contracted third party to keep costs down. They brought on Britanny as a marketing co-founder back at the beginning of 2010 to focus on building the brand.
Honestly, I basically wrote off Gtrot after their next revision of Nov. 2010 since it simply linked in Foursquare functionality but did not offer much content. But it was their next step.
Since then, they had another huge release around Aug. 2011 and the entire business model has changed. Gtrot now has one of the most user-friendly UIs making a website feel more like a mobile app, where everything is a button. But more importantly, they have backed off the focus on helping groups book and reserve their trips and instead have focused on facilitating discussion and discovery of the places people are going or have been. The service now helps users look at various places, attractions, and services in different cities and save them to their itineraries and suggest them to friends.
Frankly, I still don't know how useful a site this is, since I could easily do the same thing on Tripadvisor. I understand the appeal of a simple UI, but I need more text to read and understand the places mentioned. If this has been what the market and users have told them in changing their focus, I wonder if there was something lost in translation.
Started 2008 from business plan competition at Harvard Business School.
First version integrated with Facebook and travel booking service to help students plan and book their trips. Limited functionality and appeal. Main marketing push was to target college campuses. Work is done off-shore in Buenos Aires. No technical co-founder.
Nov. 2010 - revision integrating Foursquare and beginnings of offering services/information once people are in the cities they are visiting. Still not really useful, as there is not any additional functionality above Foursquare, so why would users use Gtrot vs. Foursquare directly. Main focus still on booking and coordination of trips.
Aug. 2011 - Huge revision. Very easy-to-use UI but information is limited by that. Gtrot is now about city discovery and helping friends communicate where they want to go and ask for suggestions about cities they plan on visiting.
The newer monetizing effort is through deals. They hope to drive daily deals of the city people are visiting and earn those commission fees. But again, why would I not just simply goto Groupon and check for deals?
As you can see, Gtrot has definitely stayed quick on their toes, continually changing their business. I don't know if that's really a good thing since they are now so different from their original focus that one wonders if they even know what their end goal is anymore. Also, a successful "Lean Startup" is gauged on how well they listen to customer feedback and enhance their offerings. In this case, it seems that after getting feedback that their main focus was weak and simplistic, they did not only add new functionality, they changed their plans in whole.
Would I use their service now? I doubt it. Yes, they have consolidated services like Facebook, Foursquare, and daily deals, but I could easily access each of those individually and be better off for it. It's simpler for me to check out deals on Groupon or LivingSocial than through their site. It's quicker for me to check-in using Foursquare than through their app. I can see where my friends are more easily on Facebook. Without any original content or novel service, why would I use Gtrot?
Simple fixed UI may be easy to use, but it severely restricts usefulness. I don't need a simple listing of places in a city sorted by type. There are plenty of other services that do something similar (ie. TripAdvisor, Yelp) that have more information and unique content. If all I can do is look what places there are and where they are located on a map, I'd use other services.
I don't even know if they still help with booking/reservations now. Their pitch and profile has changed to "city discovery." That space is very overdone with all of the travel-related sites and publications existing.
They did get $1M in funding last year, and I don't see why. Their offering has not only not improved, but I feel might have gotten even weaker. Yes, their UI is attractive initially, but its shallowness will cripple them.
I understand the need to listen to customers and alter their product offerings to get more inline with their wishes. But that works if they believe in the main purpose of your service and are looking for additions, tweaks, changes. When the feedback challenges you enough to change your entire business model and goal, it's time to step back and really re-plan.
It is impressive how Gtrot has maintained a fairly public presence despite their product. That signifies the prowess of Britanny in being the face of the company and getting out there to push the brand. The problem with Gtrot is in their product. Without a true look as to where they can really add value to users' lives and experiences, they are doomed to fail.
