Market Share Test

(1) Online Travel Booking Sites (Consolidators) Ranking1 2 3 4

Expedia Travelocity Priceline Orbitz

Traffic

Visits

Monthly Visits 44,012,920 37,774,389 36,598,177 27,104,442Monthly Uniques 15,960,823 13,297,720 14,801,353 11,929,307Avg. Visits per Unique 2.76 2.84 2.47 2.27Passers-by 57% 57% 59% 61%Regulars 43% 43% 41% 38%Addicts 0% 0% 0% 1%Passers-by 26% 27% 29% 32%Regulars 72% 71% 70% 67%

Addicts 2% 2% 1% 1%

Demographics

GenderMale 44% 44% 44% 45%Female 56% 56% 56% 55%

Ethnicity

White 77% 79% 77% 78%African American 9% 8% 11% 9%Asian 4% 4% 4% 4%Hispanic 8% 7% 7% 7%Other 2% 1% 1% 1%

Age

18-24 11% 9% 12% 11%25-34 22% 22% 23% 21%35-44 20% 20% 21% 19%45-54 19% 19% 20% 18%55-64 17% 18% 15% 17%65+ 11% 12% 9% 12%$0-$30K 12% 12% 12% 12%$30-$60K 20% 30% 31% 30%$60-$100K 35% 35% 35% 34%$100K+ 23% 23% 22% 24%No College 40% 38% 39% 39%College 42% 44% 43% 42%Grad. School 17% 18% 17% 18%No 72% 74% 70% 74%

Yes 28% 26% 30% 26%US 75.0% 86.5% 90.0% 89.5%China 7.6%Canada 2.0% 2.5% 2.5% 2.1%UK 1.9% 1.0% 0.8% 0.9%India 1.1% 1.4% 0.8% 0.9%Germany 0.7% 0.6%South Korea 0.6%SpainMexicoAustralia

Belgium

Site Characteristics

Bookings X X X XMembership X X X XSocial NetworkingGuides X X X XName your Price XOpaque ReservationsFlexible Travel X

Last Minute Deals X X X X

Audience Composition

Share of Visits

HouseholdIncome

Head ofHouseholdEducation

Children 6-17 in Household

Origins &Destinations

Users - Country of

Origins (Top 5)

Ranking5 6 7 8 9 10

CheapTickets Hotwire Hotels.com OneTravel TravelNow LowestFare Average26,263,997 16,221,186 14,059,285 1,452,589 874,767 184,202 20,454,59512,878,336 7,125,182 6,946,071 975,663 678,857 124,780 8,471,809

2.04 2.28 2.02 1.49 1.29 1.48 2.09 63% 62% 62% 75% 80% 73% 64.9%37% 38% 38% 25% 20% 27% 35.0%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.1%35% 33% 34% 52% 62% 50% 38.0%64% 66% 65% 48% 38% 50% 61.1%

1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0.9%42% 43% 44% 42% 44% 42% 43.4%58% 57% 56% 58% 56% 58% 56.6%72% 74% 79% 77% 78% 70% 76.1%12% 13% 10% 11% 10% 13% 10.6%

4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 6% 3.9%10% 7% 7% 8% 8% 9% 7.8%

1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1.2%15% 9% 11% 13% 10% 11% 11.2%21% 21% 24% 18% 19% 20% 21.1%19% 20% 22% 21% 21% 21% 20.4%19% 20% 19% 20% 21% 19% 19.4%17% 19% 15% 18% 18% 17% 17.1%10% 12% 9% 11% 12% 11% 10.9%14% 11% 11% 13% 12% 15% 12.4%32% 31% 30% 30% 32% 32% 29.8%33% 35% 35% 32% 35% 33% 34.2%21% 23% 23% 24% 21% 20% 22.4%42% 39% 40% 41% 44% 41% 40.3%41% 43% 44% 42% 41% 42% 42.4%16% 17% 16% 16% 15% 16% 16.6%70% 73% 69% 72% 70% 72% 71.6%

30% 27% 31% 28% 30% 28% 28.4%86.8% 91.3% 63.7% 69.0% 50.3% 82.3% 78.4%

7.6%2.9% 3.0% 3.2% 5.9% 2.1% 2.9%1.6% 0.8% 3.3% 5.2% 1.9%0.9% 0.5% 1.9% 12.8% 2.4% 2.5%1.1% 0.4% 5.4% 1.6%

0.6%5.9% 5.4% 5.6%1.9% 2.3% 0.5% 1.6%

1.3% 1.3%

1.1% 1.1%X X X X X XX X X X X X

X X X X X X

X

X X X X X X

First

Second

Third

Fourth

ANALYSIS

• There is a large amount of comparison shopping that occurs within the Travel category, with nearly 44% of Travel website visits going to another Travel website in May 2006. The Travel category is more competitive than online retail: In May 2006, 38% of visits to Shopping & Classifieds websites went to another Shopping & Classifieds website.

• Search engines are the largest source of traffic for Travel websites: In May 2006, search engines accounted for 27.6% of all upstream traffic to the category.

• The Travel category is highly competitive, with nearly 44% of Travel website visits going to another Travel website in May 2006. In comparison, 38.4% of Shopping & Classifieds category visits went to another Shopping & Classifieds website in May 2006, demonstrating that there is even more comparative research occurring in the Travel industry versus online retail.

• Agencies sent 59.1% of downstream traffic to other Travel websites in May 2006, demonstrating that users were conducting price comparison research.

• Transport websites sent 51.1% of downstream visits to other Travel websites in May 2006, again demonstrating the large amount of comparison shopping that occurs within the industry.

• Although there are dozens of Consolidator websites, over 95% of the traffic is concentrated in the top 7 sites, and over 90% among the top 5. The top 7 are: Expedia, Travelocity, Priceline, Orbitz, CheapTickets, Hotwire, Hotels.com.

• One reason to explain the difference between the top and bottom 5 sites is by comparing visitor loyalty: for the top 5 sites, there are 2.48 visits per visitor per month; for the top 7, the average is 2.24; for the bottom 3, the average is 1.42.

• There is not a noticeable difference in the demographics of the visitors to the sites. The majority of visitors are caucasian, pretty well represented by different age groups, have household income of over $60K, and have some college education.

• The overwhelming majority of all the users to the sites are from the US, averaging 85% of all users for the top 5 sites and 71% for the bottom 5 sites. There is a significant drop off from US to the remaining top 4 countries, dropping to 4% for the second country of origination, and less than 1% to the 5th country.

• There are very few distinguishing characteristics between the top 10 sites in terms of services offered, with brand recognition playing the biggest difference between the sites.

• However, Priceline and Hotwire do have distinct business models: Priceline offers “Name your Price” pricing, which they originated; and Hotwire offers deep discounts on Hotels and Car Rentals in “Opaque Pricing”.

• In terms of annual trends, there is a distinct seasonality in traveling, with a higher number of trips in summer than winter time, which affects the traffic to all the sites.

• Among all the sites, CheapTickets is the only site that shows noticeable drop in traffic during the course of the year, decreasing from 17 million visitors per month in March 2007 to 10 million visitors in March 2008.

TRENDS














DEMOGRAPHICS

22%

18%18%

13%

13%8%7%

1%0%0%

Monthly Visits: ~204M

Expedia Travelocity Priceline Orbitz CheapTickets

Hotwire Hotels.com OneTravel TravelNow LowestFare

19%

16% 17%

14%

15%8%8%

1%1%0%

Monthly Uniques: ~84M



Exp

edia

Tra

velo

city

Pric

elin

e

Orb

itz

Che

apT

icke

ts

Hot

wire

Hot

els.

com

One

Tra

vel

Tra

velN

ow

Low

estF

are

0%

2000%

Female MaleGender

Exp

edia

Tra

velo

city

Pric

elin

e

Orb

itz

Che

apT

icke

ts

Hot

wire

Hot

els.

com

One

Tra

vel

Tra

velN

ow

Low

estF

are

0%

2000%

Other Hispanic Asian African American White

Ethnicity

Exp

ed

ia

Tra

velo

city

Pri

celin

e

Orb

itz

Ch

ea

pT

icke

ts

Ho

twir

e

Ho

tels

.co

m

On

eT

rave

l

Tra

velN

ow

Lo

we

stF

are

0%

2000%

65+ 55-64 45-54 35-44 25-34 18-24

Age Exp

ed

ia

Tra

velo

city

Pri

celin

e

Orb

itz

Ch

ea

pT

icke

ts

Ho

twir

e

Ho

tels

.co

m

On

eT

rave

l

Tra

velN

ow

Lo

we

stF

are

0%

2000%

$100K+ $60-$100K $30-$60K $0-$30K

Income

Exp

ed

ia

Tra

velo

city

Pri

celin

e

Orb

itz

Ch

ea

pT

icke

ts

Ho

twir

e

Ho

tels

.co

m

On

eT

rave

l

Tra

velN

ow

Lo

we

stF

are

0%

2000%

Grad. School College No College

Education Exp

ed

ia

Tra

velo

city

Pri

celin

e

Orb

itz

Ch

ea

pT

icke

ts

Ho

twir

e

Ho

tels

.co

m

On

eT

rave

l

Tra

velN

ow

Lo

we

stF

are

0%

2000%

Yes No

Children in HH














Exp

ed

ia

Tra

velo

city

Pri

celin

e

Orb

itz

Ch

ea

pT

icke

ts

Ho

twir

e

Ho

tels

.co

m

On

eT

rave

l

Tra

velN

ow

Lo

we

stF

are

0%

2000%


Education Exp

ed

ia

Tra

velo

city

Pri

celin

e

Orb

itz

Ch

ea

pT

icke

ts

Ho

twir

e

Ho

tels

.co

m

On

eT

rave

l

Tra

velN

ow

Lo

we

stF

are

0%

2000%

Yes No

Children in HH














USER ORIGINATION

19%

16% 17%

14%

15%8%8%

1%1%0%




Exp

edia

Tra

velo

city

Pric

elin

e

Orb

itz

Che

apT

icke

ts

Hot

wire

Hot

els.

com

One

Tra

vel

Tra

velN

ow

Low

estF

are

0%

2000%


Ethnicity

Exp

ed

ia

Tra

velo

city

Pri

celin

e

Orb

itz

Ch

ea

pT

icke

ts

Ho

twir

e

Ho

tels

.co

m

On

eT

rave

l

Tra

velN

ow

Lo

we

stF

are

0%

2000%

$100K+ $60-$100K $30-$60K $0-$30K

Income

Exp

ed

ia

Tra

velo

city

Pri

celin

e

Orb

itz

Ch

ea

pT

icke

ts

Ho

twir

e

Ho

tels

.co

m

On

eT

rave

l

Tra

velN

ow

Lo

we

stF

are

0%

2000%

Yes No

Children in HH

Exp

edia

Tra

velo

city

Pric

elin

e

Orb

itz

Che

apT

icke

ts

Hot

wire

Hot

els.

com

One

Tra

vel

Tra

velN

ow

Low

estF

are

0%

2000%

Belgium Australia Mexico Spain South Korea Germany India UKCanada China US

UserOrigination

Exp

ed

ia

Tra

velo

city

Pri

celin

e

Orb

itz

Ch

ea

pT

icke

ts

Ho

twir

e

Ho

tels

.co

m

On

eT

rave

l

Tra

velN

ow

Lo

we

stF

are

0%

2000%

Yes No

Children in HH

(2) Online Airlines Only Sites Ranking1 2 3

Southwest AA Delta

Traffic

Visits

Monthly Visits 41,175,450 20,196,080 15,833,223Monthly Uniques 9,337,321 5,633,807 5,156,756Avg. Visits per Unique 4.41 3.58 3.07Passers-by 50% 54% 55%Regulars 50% 46% 45%Addicts 0% 0% 0%Passers-by 20% 22% 24%Regulars 78% 72% 73%

Addicts 2% 6% 3%

Demographics

GenderMale 47% 45% 45%Female 53% 55% 55%

Ethnicity

White 82% 74% 81%African American 8% 9% 9%Asian 3% 4% 3%Hispanic 6% 11% 5%Other 1% 2% 2%

Age

18-24 8% 9% 9%25-34 19% 19% 20%35-44 17% 19% 19%45-54 18% 19% 19%55-64 20% 20% 20%65+ 18% 14% 13%$0-$30K 11% 11% 11%$30-$60K 29% 27% 29%$60-$100K 35% 35% 35%$100K+ 25% 27% 25%No College 38% 34% 35%College 44% 44% 44%Grad. School 18% 22% 21%No 77% 78% 77%

Yes 23% 22% 23%US 98.3% 85.0% 88.5%ChinaCanada 0.4% 1.5% 1.3%UK 0.1% 2.0% 0.8%India 0.1% 1.0%Mexico 0.2% 1.0%Puerto Rico 0.9%Germany 1.4%JapanItalyDominican Republic

South Africa


Airline Bookings X X XHotel Bookings X X XCar Rentals X X XVacations Bookings X X XEntertainment Bookings X X XFreq. Flier Membership X X XSocial NetworkingGuidesFlexible Travel X X X

Last Minute Deals X X X


Share of Visits

HouseholdIncome




Users - Country of

Origins (Top 5)

Ranking4 5 6 7 8 9 10

NWA US Air United JetBlue Continental Alaska Virgin Average11,528,844 11,268,918 10,091,651 9,241,178 8,973,053 3,938,798 297,491 13,254,469

3,093,017 3,336,645 4,180,560 4,048,752 2,972,064 1,215,189 127,893 3,910,2003.73 3.38 2.41 2.28 3.02 3.24 2.33 3.15 52% 54% 61% 65% 55% 54% 69% 56.9%47% 46% 39% 35% 45% 46% 31% 43.0%

1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.1%21% 73% 31% 35% 74% 24% 36% 36.0%74% 23% 67% 64% 25% 73% 64% 61.3%

5% 4% 2% 2% 2% 3% 0% 2.9%44% 44% 44% 43% 46% 43% 48% 44.9%56% 56% 56% 57% 54% 57% 52% 55.1%87% 84% 81% 71% 74% 87% 76% 79.7%

6% 8% 5% 11% 8% 1% 10% 7.5%5% 3% 7% 5% 5% 6% 9% 5.0%1% 4% 5% 12% 11% 5% 3% 6.3%1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1.5%7% 7% 8% 12% 9% 8% 10% 8.7%

17% 18% 19% 20% 20% 19% 18% 18.9%19% 18% 19% 18% 19% 19% 17% 18.4%20% 20% 19% 18% 19% 20% 20% 19.2%21% 22% 20% 17% 19% 21% 17% 19.7%16% 15% 15% 15% 14% 13% 18% 15.1%10% 11% 11% 12% 11% 12% 11% 11.1%27% 27% 27% 28% 28% 29% 24% 27.5%35% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34.4%28% 28% 28% 26% 27% 25% 14% 25.3%34% 36% 32% 37% 34% 37% 29% 34.6%44% 43% 44% 43% 44% 46% 44% 44.0%22% 21% 24% 20% 22% 17% 27% 21.4%79% 79% 78% 75% 78% 78% 80% 77.9%

21% 21% 22% 25% 22% 22% 20% 22.1%77.9% 93.6% 89.3% 93.9% 80.5% 92.7% 59.5% 85.9%

0.9% 1.3% 7.2% 1.4% 2.7%3.1% 1.6% 1.4% 1.2% 1.2% 3.5% 1.7%

0.6% 1.1% 0.3% 1.7% 26.8% 4.2%1.0% 0.5% 2.3% 1.0%

0.8% 0.7%1.6% 1.3%

0.4% 0.6% 0.8%10.8% 1.2% 1.5% 4.5%

0.4% 0.4%0.5% 0.5%

1.8% 1.8%X X X X X X XX X X X X X XX X X X X X XX X X X X X XX X X X X X XX X X X X X X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X

First

Second

Third

Fourth

Fifth

ANALYSIS

31%

15%

12%9%

9%8%7%7%

3%0%


Southwest AA Delta NWA US Air United JetBlue

Continental Alaska Virgin

Sou

thw

est

AA

Del

ta

NW

A

US

Air

Uni

ted

JetB

lue

Con

tinen

tal

Ala

ska

Virg

in

0%

2000%

Female MaleGender

So

uth

we

st

AA

De

lta

NW

A

US

Air

Un

ited

JetB

lue

Co

ntin

en

tal

Ala

ska

Vir

gin

0%

2000%

65+ 55-64 45-54 35-44 25-34 18-24

Age

So

uth

we

st

AA

De

lta

NW

A

US

Air

Un

ited

JetB

lue

Co

ntin

en

tal

Ala

ska

Vir

gin

0%

2000%


Education

• The top 10 airline websites attract 132 million visitors per month which is about 70 million visitors per month less than that of the top Consolidator websites, which attract 204 million visitors.

• Although there is less of a oligopoly among the top 10 airlines as was with Consolidators, the top 5 airlines account still account for 75% of all visitors (100 million visitors), and 66% of all uniques per month (26 million).

• Similar to Consolidators, one reason to explain the difference between the top 5 and bottom 5 airline sites, is through visitor loyalty: for the top 5 sites, there are 3.63 visits per visitor per month; for the bottom 5, the average is 2.66.

• Overall, visitors to airline booking sites are more loyal than to those of Consolidators. For the top 10 Consolidators, the average number of visits per visitor is 2.1; for airlines, it is 3.15. This is confirmed by comparing the share of visits by Addicts between the sites, which for the top 10 airlines sites is over 3%, while for Consolidators is less than 1%.

•This difference in loyalty, is explained partially by the monopoly position of certain airlines in their hubs. For example, Northwest Airlines has the highest rate of repeat visitors and percent addicts of any of the sites (3.73 and 5% respectively). The reason for such customer loyalty is the fact that NWA has a near monopoly status in its hubs in Minneapolis, Memphis and Detroit. In this case, there is little reason for the customer to shop around, and so the site of choice for airline tickets remains NWA.

• As was the case with the Consolidators, there is not a noticeable difference in the demographics of the visitors among the airline sites. However, there is a slight difference between the demographics of airlines versus that of consolidators: the visitors of Consolidator websites tend to be slightly younger, wealthier, and be more educated than that of airlines visitors. It is important to note that the difference is quite small, but it could suggest that users of Consolidator sites are in general more web-savvy.

• Even more so than the Consolidator visitors, the overwhelming majority of all the users to the airlines sites are from the US, averaging 89% of all users for the top 5 sites and 83% for the bottom 5 sites, and almost 86% for the top 10 sites. As would be expected, the airline with the lowest percentage of US visitors is Virgin Atlantic, where only 60% of visitors are from US.

• As was the case with Consolidators, there are very few distinguishing characteristics between the top 10 sites in terms of services offered.

• In terms of annual trends, there is a distinct seasonality in traveling, with a higher number of trips in summer than winter time that affects all the sites.

• For most parts, the traffic levels for all the sites remain quite stable during the year. However, JetBlue shows a small jump in visitors during January & February of 2008, which could have been the result of curiosity visitors, given JetBlue’s negative publicity.

TRENDS

So

uth

we

st

AA

De

lta

NW

A

US

Air

Un

ited

JetB

lue

Co

ntin

en

tal

Ala

ska

Vir

gin

0%

2000%


Education

• The top 10 airline websites attract 132 million visitors per month which is about 70 million visitors per month less than that of the top Consolidator websites, which attract 204 million visitors.

• Although there is less of a oligopoly among the top 10 airlines as was with Consolidators, the top 5 airlines account still account for 75% of all visitors (100 million visitors), and 66% of all uniques per month (26 million).

• Similar to Consolidators, one reason to explain the difference between the top 5 and bottom 5 airline sites, is through visitor loyalty: for the top 5 sites, there are 3.63 visits per visitor per month; for the bottom 5, the average is 2.66.

• Overall, visitors to airline booking sites are more loyal than to those of Consolidators. For the top 10 Consolidators, the average number of visits per visitor is 2.1; for airlines, it is 3.15. This is confirmed by comparing the share of visits by Addicts between the sites, which for the top 10 airlines sites is over 3%, while for Consolidators is less than 1%.

•This difference in loyalty, is explained partially by the monopoly position of certain airlines in their hubs. For example, Northwest Airlines has the highest rate of repeat visitors and percent addicts of any of the sites (3.73 and 5% respectively). The reason for such customer loyalty is the fact that NWA has a near monopoly status in its hubs in Minneapolis, Memphis and Detroit. In this case, there is little reason for the customer to shop around, and so the site of choice for airline tickets remains NWA.

• As was the case with the Consolidators, there is not a noticeable difference in the demographics of the visitors among the airline sites. However, there is a slight difference between the demographics of airlines versus that of consolidators: the visitors of Consolidator websites tend to be slightly younger, wealthier, and be more educated than that of airlines visitors. It is important to note that the difference is quite small, but it could suggest that users of Consolidator sites are in general more web-savvy.

• Even more so than the Consolidator visitors, the overwhelming majority of all the users to the airlines sites are from the US, averaging 89% of all users for the top 5 sites and 83% for the bottom 5 sites, and almost 86% for the top 10 sites. As would be expected, the airline with the lowest percentage of US visitors is Virgin Atlantic, where only 60% of visitors are from US.

• As was the case with Consolidators, there are very few distinguishing characteristics between the top 10 sites in terms of services offered.

• In terms of annual trends, there is a distinct seasonality in traveling, with a higher number of trips in summer than winter time that affects all the sites.

• For most parts, the traffic levels for all the sites remain quite stable during the year. However, JetBlue shows a small jump in visitors during January & February of 2008, which could have been the result of curiosity visitors, given JetBlue’s negative publicity.

DEMOGRAPHICS

31%

15%

12%9%

9%8%7%7%

3%0%




24%

14% 13%

8%9%

11%10%8%

3%0%




Sou

thw

est

AA

Del

ta

NW

A

US

Air

Uni

ted

JetB

lue

Con

tinen

tal

Ala

ska

Virg

in

0%

2000%

Female MaleGender Sou

thw

est

AA

Del

ta

NW

A

US

Air

Uni

ted

JetB

lue

Con

tinen

tal

Ala

ska

Virg

in

0%

2000%


Ethnicity

So

uth

we

st

AA

De

lta

NW

A

US

Air

Un

ited

JetB

lue

Co

ntin

en

tal

Ala

ska

Vir

gin

0%

2000%

65+ 55-64 45-54 35-44 25-34 18-24

Age

So

uth

we

st AA

De

lta

NW

A

US

Air

Un

ited

JetB

lue

Co

ntin

en

tal

Ala

ska

Vir

gin

0%

2000%

$100K+ $60-$100K $30-$60K $0-$30KIncome

So

uth

we

st

AA

De

lta

NW

A

US

Air

Un

ited

JetB

lue

Co

ntin

en

tal

Ala

ska

Vir

gin

0%

2000%


Education

So

uth

we

st

AA

De

lta

NW

A

US

Air

Un

ited

JetB

lue

Co

ntin

en

tal

Ala

ska

Vir

gin

0%

2000%

Yes No

Children in HH

So

uth

we

st

AA

De

lta

NW

A

US

Air

Un

ited

JetB

lue

Co

ntin

en

tal

Ala

ska

Vir

gin

0%

2000%


Education

So

uth

we

st

AA

De

lta

NW

A

US

Air

Un

ited

JetB

lue

Co

ntin

en

tal

Ala

ska

Vir

gin

0%

2000%

Yes No

Children in HH

USER ORIGINATION

24%

14% 13%

8%9%

11%10%8%

3%0%




Sou

thw

est

AA

Del

ta

NW

A

US

Air

Uni

ted

JetB

lue

Con

tinen

tal

Ala

ska

Virg

in

0%

2000%


Ethnicity

So

uth

we

st AA

De

lta

NW

A

US

Air

Un

ited

JetB

lue

Co

ntin

en

tal

Ala

ska

Vir

gin

0%

2000%

$100K+ $60-$100K $30-$60K $0-$30KIncome

So

uth

we

st

AA

De

lta

NW

A

US

Air

Un

ited

JetB

lue

Co

ntin

en

tal

Ala

ska

Vir

gin

0%

2000%

Yes No

Children in HH

Sou

thw

est

AA

Del

ta

NW

A

US

Air

Uni

ted

JetB

lue

Con

tinen

tal

Ala

ska

Virg

in

0%

2000%

South Africa Dominican Republic Italy Japan Germany Puerto Rico Mexico

India UK Canada China US

So

uth

we

st

AA

De

lta

NW

A

US

Air

Un

ited

JetB

lue

Co

ntin

en

tal

Ala

ska

Vir

gin

0%

2000%

Yes No

Children in HH

Sou

thw

est

AA

Del

ta

NW

A

US

Air

Uni

ted

JetB

lue

Con

tinen

tal

Ala

ska

Virg

in

0%

2000%

South Africa Dominican Republic Italy Japan Germany Puerto Rico Mexico

India UK Canada China US

(3) Online Hotel Only Booking Sites Ranking1 2 3

Hilton Marriott

Traffic

Visits

Monthly Visits 9,275,782 9,227,009 8,673,787Monthly Uniques 4,786,940 4,489,250 5,028,529Avg. Visits per Unique 1.94 2.06 1.72Passers-by 66% 66% 69%Regulars 34% 34% 31%Addicts 0% 0% 0%Passers-by 39% 37% 43%Regulars 61% 61% 56%

Addicts 0% 2% 1%

Demographics


Ethnicity


Age


Yes 30% 29% 31%US 77.5% 79.2% 57.0%China 2.3%Canada 2.8% 2.8% 3.4%UK 3.3% 2.8% 9.8%India 1.1% 1.6%Germany 1.1% 1.5%Japan 2.4%France

Italy


Bookings X X XMembership X X XSocial NetworkingGuides X X XSpecial & Packages X X X

Last Minute Deals X X X

Intercontinental Hotels


Share of Visits

HouseholdIncome




Users - Country of

Origins (Top 5)

Ranking4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Choice Starwood Hyatt Radisson Wyndham Accorhotels Average6,401,456 3,212,070 3,070,215 1,878,358 1,212,775 811,419 161,556 4,392,4433,086,956 2,004,362 1,889,915 1,170,103 883,472 632,732 93,151 2,406,541

2.07 1.60 1.62 1.61 1.37 1.28 1.73 1.70 64% 72% 73% 74% 79% 79% 77% 71.9%36% 28% 27% 26% 21% 21% 23% 28.1%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.0%35% 48% 48% 49% 60% 60% 49% 46.8%64% 52% 51% 49% 40% 40% 51% 52.5%

1% 0% 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0.7%47% 46% 45% 44% 43% 43% 56% 46.3%53% 54% 55% 56% 57% 57% 44% 53.7%90% 89% 79% 77% 85% 78% 71% 82.0%

6% 4% 11% 10% 7% 12% 16% 9.0%1% 2% 4% 5% 2% 2% 4% 2.8%3% 4% 5% 7% 5% 6% 7% 5.0%0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0.9%7% 8% 10% 11% 9% 10% 6% 8.6%

17% 20% 23% 24% 23% 22% 18% 21.2%20% 21% 22% 24% 25% 23% 22% 22.6%19% 21% 19% 19% 20% 22% 23% 20.4%19% 19% 15% 14% 15% 15% 19% 16.6%16% 12% 9% 8% 8% 8% 13% 10.4%10% 11% 9% 9% 9% 9% 12% 9.5%33% 31% 25% 25% 29% 27% 26% 27.4%37% 35% 35% 37% 39% 39% 32% 36.8%20% 22% 30% 29% 23% 26% 31% 26.5%42% 42% 33% 34% 37% 37% 32% 36.2%43% 43% 46% 46% 46% 45% 47% 45.3%15% 15% 20% 20% 16% 18% 21% 18.0%72% 70% 72% 71% 68% 70% 77% 71.0%

28% 30% 28% 29% 32% 30% 23% 29.0%86.9% 58.1% 60.2% 65.1% 54.0% 86.0% 5.4% 62.9%

2.6% 2.5%3.1% 5.8% 4.2% 3.1% 4.2% 2.8% 3.6%1.5% 5.7% 3.1% 2.7% 6.5% 2.3% 8.2% 4.6%1.5% 3.1% 5.0% 1.3% 2.3%0.6% 3.9% 3.9% 4.4% 16.9% 4.6%

3.1% 2.8%8.1% 21.3% 14.7%

0.9% 6.5% 3.7%X X X X X X XX X X X X X X

X X X X X X XX X X X X X X

X X X X X X X

First

Second

Third

Fourth

Fifth

Best Western

21%

21%20%

15%7%7%4%3%2%0%

Monthly Visits(~44M)

Hilton Marriott Intercontinental Hotels Choice Best Western

Starwood Hyatt Radisson Wyndham Accorhotels

Hilt

on

Ma

rrio

tt

Inte

rco

ntin

en

tal H

o-te

ls

Ch

oic

e

Be

st W

est

ern

Sta

rwo

od

Hya

tt

Ra

dis

son

Wyn

dh

am

Acc

orh

ote

ls

0%

2000%

Female MaleGender

Hilt

on

Ma

rrio

tt

Inte

rco

ntin

en

tal H

ote

ls

Ch

oic

e

Be

st W

est

ern

Sta

rwo

od

Hya

tt

Ra

dis

son

Wyn

dh

am

Acc

orh

ote

ls

0%

2000%

65+ 55-64 45-54 35-44 25-34 18-24

Age

Hilt

on

Ma

rrio

tt

Inte

rco

nti

ne

nta

l H

ote

ls

Ch

oic

e

Be

st

We

ste

rn

Sta

rwo

od

Hy

att

Ra

dis

so

n

Wy

nd

ha

m

Ac

co

rho

tels

0%

2000%


Education

21%

21%20%

15%7%7%4%3%2%0%

Monthly Visits(~44M)



20%

19%21%

13%

8%8%5%4%3%0%

Monthly Uniques(~24M)



Hilt

on

Ma

rrio

tt

Inte

rco

ntin

en

tal H

o-te

ls

Ch

oic

e

Be

st W

est

ern

Sta

rwo

od

Hya

tt

Ra

dis

son

Wyn

dh

am

Acc

orh

ote

ls

0%

2000%

Female MaleGender

Hilt

on

Ma

rrio

tt

Inte

rco

ntin

en

tal H

ote

ls

Ch

oic

e

Be

st W

est

ern

Sta

rwo

od

Hya

tt

Ra

dis

son

Wyn

dh

am

Acc

orh

ote

ls

0%

2000%

Other Hispanic Asian African American WhiteEthnicity

Hilt

on

Ma

rrio

tt

Inte

rco

ntin

en

tal H

ote

ls

Ch

oic

e

Be

st W

est

ern

Sta

rwo

od

Hya

tt

Ra

dis

son

Wyn

dh

am

Acc

orh

ote

ls

0%

2000%

65+ 55-64 45-54 35-44 25-34 18-24

Age

Hilt

on

Ma

rrio

tt

Inte

rco

ntin

en

tal H

ote

ls

Ch

oic

e

Be

st W

est

ern

Sta

rwo

od

Hya

tt

Ra

dis

son

Wyn

dh

am

Acc

orh

ote

ls

0%

2000%

$100K+ $60-$100K $30-$60K $0-$30KIncome

Hilt

on

Ma

rrio

tt

Inte

rco

nti

ne

nta

l H

ote

ls

Ch

oic

e

Be

st

We

ste

rn

Sta

rwo

od

Hy

att

Ra

dis

so

n

Wy

nd

ha

m

Ac

co

rho

tels

0%

2000%


Education

Hilt

on

Ma

rrio

tt

Inte

rco

nti

ne

nta

l H

ote

ls

Ch

oic

e

Be

st

We

ste

rn

Sta

rwo

od

Hy

att

Ra

dis

so

n

Wy

nd

ha

m

Ac

co

rho

tels

0%

2000%

Yes No

Children in HH

Hilt

on

Marr

iott

Inte

rcontinenta

l H

ote

ls

Choic

e

Best

Weste

rn

Sta

rwood

Hyatt

Radis

son

Wyndham

Accorh

ote

ls

0%

2000%

Italy France Japan Germany India UK Canada ChinaUS

UserOrigination

Hilt

on

Marr

iott

Inte

rcontinenta

l H

ote

ls

Choic

e

Best

Weste

rn

Sta

rwood

Hyatt

Radis

son

Wyndham

Accorh

ote

ls

0%

2000%


UserOrigination

20%

19%21%

13%

8%8%5%4%3%0%




Hilt

on

Ma

rrio

tt

Inte

rco

ntin

en

tal H

ote

ls

Ch

oic

e

Be

st W

est

ern

Sta

rwo

od

Hya

tt

Ra

dis

son

Wyn

dh

am

Acc

orh

ote

ls

0%

2000%


Hilt

on

Ma

rrio

tt

Inte

rco

ntin

en

tal H

ote

ls

Ch

oic

e

Be

st W

est

ern

Sta

rwo

od

Hya

tt

Ra

dis

son

Wyn

dh

am

Acc

orh

ote

ls

0%

2000%

$100K+ $60-$100K $30-$60K $0-$30KIncome

Hilt

on

Ma

rrio

tt

Inte

rco

nti

ne

nta

l H

ote

ls

Ch

oic

e

Be

st

We

ste

rn

Sta

rwo

od

Hy

att

Ra

dis

so

n

Wy

nd

ha

m

Ac

co

rho

tels

0%

2000%

Yes No

Children in HH

Hilt

on

Marr

iott

Inte

rcontinenta

l H

ote

ls

Choic

e

Best

Weste

rn

Sta

rwood

Hyatt

Radis

son

Wyndham

Accorh

ote

ls

0%

2000%


UserOrigination

Hilt

on

Marr

iott

Inte

rcontinenta

l H

ote

ls

Choic

e

Best

Weste

rn

Sta

rwood

Hyatt

Radis

son

Wyndham

Accorh

ote

ls

0%

2000%


UserOrigination

ANALYSIS DEMOGRAPHICS

21%

21%

20%

15%

7%7%4%3%2%0%


Hilton Marriott Intercontinental Hotels Choice Best Western Starwood Hyatt RadissonWyndham Accorhotels

Hilt

on

Mar

riott

Inte

rcon

tinen

tal H

otel

s

Cho

ice

Bes

t Wes

tern

Sta

rwoo

d

Hya

tt

Rad

isso

n

Wyn

dham

Acc

orho

tels

0%

2000%

Female MaleGender

Hilt

on

Ma

rrio

tt

Inte

rco

ntin

en

tal H

ote

ls

Ch

oic

e

Be

st W

est

ern

Sta

rwo

od

Hya

tt

Ra

dis

son

Wyn

dh

am

Acc

orh

ote

ls

0%

2000%

65+ 55-64 45-54 35-44 25-34 18-24

Age

Hilt

on

Ma

rrio

tt

Inte

rco

ntin

en

tal H

ote

ls

Ch

oic

e

Be

st W

est

ern

Sta

rwo

od

Hya

tt

Ra

dis

son

Wyn

dh

am

Acc

orh

ote

ls

0%

2000%


Education

• The top 10 hotels websites attract about 44 million visitors and 24 million unique visitors per month. Overall top 10 Hotel websites attract160 million fewer visitors, and 60 million fewer uniques per month than Consolidator websites.

• Even more so than Consolidators and Airlines, the top 4 hotel chains dominate the percentage of visitors who visit hotel websites: Hilton, Marriott, Intercontinental, and Choice hotels attract 33 million visitors (75% of total) and 17 million uniques (72% of total). In case of hotels, there is a strong correlation between the size of the hotel chain and traffic levels. In this case, the 4 chains with the most locations have the highest traffic levels.

• In addition to the number of hotels, the 2nd factor that impacts the traffic is customer loyalty, although the impact of loyalty is significantly less than that of Consolidators and Airlines. In the case of hotels, the top 4 chains average 1.94 visits per visitor, while the bottom 6 average 1.54 visits per visitor. However, overall loyalty to the hotel sites is significantly less than that of Consolidators and Airlines (1.75 vs. 3.15 for airlines & 1.75 vs 2.09 for consolidators), This is at least partially due to the fact that no single hotel chain enjoys the type of monopoly that airlines enjoy in their hub markets.

• The above observation is reinforced by the fact that almost none of the visitors to the hotel sites can be considered addicts; that is in stark contrast to the Airlines sites, where almost 3% of visitors are classified as addicts.

• As was the case with the Consolidators and Airlines, there is not a noticeable difference in the demographics of the visitors among the Hotel sites. The main exception to this rule is that of AccorHotels, which is attracted by more men, more people who are non-Caucasian, and are slightly older than the other chains. In general though, the Hotel site visitors are slightly less wealthy and have lower college education levels than airline sites.

• Unlike Consolidator and Airline sites, the visitors to the Hotel sites are not overwhelmingly from the US (62% vs. 85% for airlines and 78% for consolidators). This is impacted significantly by AccorHotels, where only 5% of visitors are from US, but even without that outlier, the average US user percentage is about 64%, still significantly less than Airlines and Consolidators.

• There are very few distinguishing characteristics between the top 10 sites in terms of services offered.

• Similar to Consolidators and Airlines, there is a distinct seasonality in traveling, with a higher number of trips in summer than winter time that affects all the sites.

• For most parts, the traffic levels for all the sites remain quite stable during the year, with consistent ranking and patterns across all sites.

TRENDS

Hilt

on

Ma

rrio

tt

Inte

rco

ntin

en

tal H

ote

ls

Ch

oic

e

Be

st W

est

ern

Sta

rwo

od

Hya

tt

Ra

dis

son

Wyn

dh

am

Acc

orh

ote

ls

0%

2000%


Education

• The top 10 hotels websites attract about 44 million visitors and 24 million unique visitors per month. Overall top 10 Hotel websites attract160 million fewer visitors, and 60 million fewer uniques per month than Consolidator websites.

• Even more so than Consolidators and Airlines, the top 4 hotel chains dominate the percentage of visitors who visit hotel websites: Hilton, Marriott, Intercontinental, and Choice hotels attract 33 million visitors (75% of total) and 17 million uniques (72% of total). In case of hotels, there is a strong correlation between the size of the hotel chain and traffic levels. In this case, the 4 chains with the most locations have the highest traffic levels.

• In addition to the number of hotels, the 2nd factor that impacts the traffic is customer loyalty, although the impact of loyalty is significantly less than that of Consolidators and Airlines. In the case of hotels, the top 4 chains average 1.94 visits per visitor, while the bottom 6 average 1.54 visits per visitor. However, overall loyalty to the hotel sites is significantly less than that of Consolidators and Airlines (1.75 vs. 3.15 for airlines & 1.75 vs 2.09 for consolidators), This is at least partially due to the fact that no single hotel chain enjoys the type of monopoly that airlines enjoy in their hub markets.

• The above observation is reinforced by the fact that almost none of the visitors to the hotel sites can be considered addicts; that is in stark contrast to the Airlines sites, where almost 3% of visitors are classified as addicts.

• As was the case with the Consolidators and Airlines, there is not a noticeable difference in the demographics of the visitors among the Hotel sites. The main exception to this rule is that of AccorHotels, which is attracted by more men, more people who are non-Caucasian, and are slightly older than the other chains. In general though, the Hotel site visitors are slightly less wealthy and have lower college education levels than airline sites.

• Unlike Consolidator and Airline sites, the visitors to the Hotel sites are not overwhelmingly from the US (62% vs. 85% for airlines and 78% for consolidators). This is impacted significantly by AccorHotels, where only 5% of visitors are from US, but even without that outlier, the average US user percentage is about 64%, still significantly less than Airlines and Consolidators.


• Similar to Consolidators and Airlines, there is a distinct seasonality in traveling, with a higher number of trips in summer than winter time that affects all the sites.

• For most parts, the traffic levels for all the sites remain quite stable during the year, with consistent ranking and patterns across all sites.

DEMOGRAPHICS

21%

21%

20%

15%

7%7%4%3%2%0%



20%

19%21%

13%

8%8%5%4%3%0%



Hilt

on

Mar

riott

Inte

rcon

tinen

tal H

otel

s

Cho

ice

Bes

t Wes

tern

Sta

rwoo

d

Hya

tt

Rad

isso

n

Wyn

dham

Acc

orho

tels

0%

2000%

Female MaleGender

Hilt

on

Mar

riott

Inte

rcon

tinen

tal H

otel

s

Cho

ice

Bes

t W

este

rn

Sta

rwoo

d

Hya

tt

Rad

isso

n

Wyn

dham

Acc

orho

tels

0%

2000%


Hilt

on

Ma

rrio

tt

Inte

rco

ntin

en

tal H

ote

ls

Ch

oic

e

Be

st W

est

ern

Sta

rwo

od

Hya

tt

Ra

dis

son

Wyn

dh

am

Acc

orh

ote

ls

0%

2000%

65+ 55-64 45-54 35-44 25-34 18-24

Age

Hilt

on

Ma

rrio

tt

Inte

rco

ntin

en

tal H

ote

ls

Ch

oic

e

Be

st W

est

ern

Sta

rwo

od

Hya

tt

Ra

dis

son

Wyn

dh

am

Acc

orh

ote

ls

0%

2000%

$100K+ $60-$100K $30-$60K $0-$30KIncome

Hilt

on

Ma

rrio

tt

Inte

rco

ntin

en

tal H

ote

ls

Ch

oic

e

Be

st W

est

ern

Sta

rwo

od

Hya

tt

Ra

dis

son

Wyn

dh

am

Acc

orh

ote

ls

0%

2000%


Education

Hilt

on

Ma

rrio

tt

Inte

rco

ntin

en

tal H

ote

ls

Ch

oic

e

Be

st W

est

ern

Sta

rwo

od

Hya

tt

Ra

dis

son

Wyn

dh

am

Acc

orh

ote

ls

0%

2000%

Yes No

Children in HH

Hilt

on

Ma

rrio

tt

Inte

rco

ntin

en

tal H

ote

ls

Ch

oic

e

Be

st W

est

ern

Sta

rwo

od

Hya

tt

Ra

dis

son

Wyn

dh

am

Acc

orh

ote

ls

0%

2000%


Education

Hilt

on

Ma

rrio

tt

Inte

rco

ntin

en

tal H

ote

ls

Ch

oic

e

Be

st W

est

ern

Sta

rwo

od

Hya

tt

Ra

dis

son

Wyn

dh

am

Acc

orh

ote

ls

0%

2000%

Yes No

Children in HH

USER ORIGINATION

20%

19%21%

13%

8%8%5%4%3%0%



Hilt

on

Mar

riott

Inte

rcon

tinen

tal H

otel

s

Cho

ice

Bes

t W

este

rn

Sta

rwoo

d

Hya

tt

Rad

isso

n

Wyn

dham

Acc

orho

tels

0%

2000%


Hilt

on

Ma

rrio

tt

Inte

rco

ntin

en

tal H

ote

ls

Ch

oic

e

Be

st W

est

ern

Sta

rwo

od

Hya

tt

Ra

dis

son

Wyn

dh

am

Acc

orh

ote

ls

0%

2000%

$100K+ $60-$100K $30-$60K $0-$30KIncome

Hilt

on

Ma

rrio

tt

Inte

rco

ntin

en

tal H

ote

ls

Ch

oic

e

Be

st W

est

ern

Sta

rwo

od

Hya

tt

Ra

dis

son

Wyn

dh

am

Acc

orh

ote

ls

0%

2000%

Yes No

Children in HH

Hilt

on

Mar

riott

Inte

rcon

tinen

tal H

otel

s

Cho

ice

Bes

t W

este

rn

Sta

rwoo

d

Hya

tt

Rad

isso

n

Wyn

dham

Acc

orho

tels

0%

2000%

Italy France Japan Germany India UK Canada China US

Hilt

on

Ma

rrio

tt

Inte

rco

ntin

en

tal H

ote

ls

Ch

oic

e

Be

st W

est

ern

Sta

rwo

od

Hya

tt

Ra

dis

son

Wyn

dh

am

Acc

orh

ote

ls0%

2000%

Yes No

Children in HH

(4) Online Car Rental Only Sites Ranking1 2 3 4

Enterprise Budget Avis Hertz

Traffic

Visits

Monthly Visits 5,644,407 5,397,666 3,825,220 3,405,750Monthly Uniques 3,260,225 2,880,088 2,184,511 1,927,781Avg. Visits per Unique 1.73 1.87 1.75 1.77Passers-by 65% 64% 70% 65%Regulars 35% 36% 30% 35%Addicts 0% 0% 0% 0%Passers-by 41% 38% 44% 40%Regulars 59% 61% 56% 60%

Addicts 0% 1% 0% 0%

Demographics


Ethnicity


Age


Yes 28% 27% 27% 27%US 90.5% 87.1% 76.3% 77.6%Canada 4.5% 4.1% 4.9% 2.5%UK 1.8% 1.1% 2.4% 2.1%India 0.2% 0.6%Germany 0.8% 1.2%Australia 0.5% 5.1%Spain 1.6%Italy 1.5%MexicoPuerto RicoGuatemalaThailand

Brazil


Bookings X X X XMembership X X X XSocial NetworkingGuides X X X X

Last Minute Deals X X X X


Share of Visits

HouseholdIncome




Users - Country of

Origins (Top 5)

Ranking5 6 7 8 9 10

Alamo Thrifty Dollar National Advantage Payless Average2,799,715 1,249,467 1,240,211 909,072 238,052 140,011 2,484,9571,369,511 664,517 668,296 574,094 162,364 88,999 1,378,039

2.04 1.88 1.86 1.58 1.47 1.57 1.75 64% 66% 66% 76% 77% 71% 68.4%36% 34% 34% 24% 23% 29% 31.6%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.0%37% 39% 39% 51% 56% 51% 43.6%62% 59% 61% 49% 44% 49% 56.0%

1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.4%49% 49% 49% 51% 49% 51% 48.5%51% 51% 51% 49% 51% 49% 51.5%77% 72% 69% 77% 73% 69% 72.6%12% 15% 14% 13% 12% 12% 13.7%

4% 4% 6% 3% 3% 7% 4.3%5% 7% 9% 6% 10% 10% 7.5%2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1.9%8% 7% 9% 6% 9% 9% 9.0%

19% 20% 20% 18% 23% 20% 20.9%19% 20% 20% 21% 20% 20% 20.2%19% 21% 21% 21% 21% 20% 19.9%20% 20% 20% 22% 19% 19% 19.0%15% 12% 10% 12% 8% 12% 11.0%10% 10% 11% 9% 12% 13% 11.2%27% 28% 29% 25% 28% 29% 28.2%36% 36% 35% 36% 34% 31% 34.6%27% 26% 25% 30% 26% 27% 26.0%38% 38% 39% 35% 34% 36% 37.0%44% 45% 43% 45% 46% 44% 44.5%18% 17% 18% 20% 20% 20% 18.5%76% 74% 73% 74% 74% 75% 73.7%

24% 26% 27% 26% 26% 25% 26.3%80.1% 83.5% 83.5% 83.4% 80.8% 87.4% 83.0%

2.8% 7.6% 3.8% 4.8% 4.4%2.4% 0.6% 1.7% 1.3% 1.7%

1.0% 2.0% 1.0%2.3% 0.9% 1.0% 1.2% 2.7% 1.4%

0.7% 2.1%1.6%1.5%

1.6% 0.7% 0.5% 1.1% 1.0%0.4% 0.4%0.2% 0.2%

0.4% 0.4%

0.3% 0.3%X X X X X XX X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X

First

Second

Third

Fourth

Fifth


23%

22%

15%

14%

11%5%5%4%1%1%


Enterprise Budget Avis Hertz Alamo Thrifty Dollar NationalAdvantage Payless

En

terp

rise

Bu

dg

et

Avi

s

He

rtz

Ala

mo

Th

rifty

Do

llar

Na

tion

al

Ad

van

tag

e

Pa

yle

ss

0%

2000%

Female MaleGender

En

terp

rise

Bu

dg

et

Avi

s

He

rtz

Ala

mo

Th

rifty

Do

llar

Na

tion

al

Ad

van

tag

e

Pa

yle

ss

0%

2000%

65+ 55-64 45-54 35-44 25-34 18-24

Age

En

terp

rise

Bu

dg

et

Avi

s

He

rtz

Ala

mo

Th

rifty

Do

llar

Na

tion

al

Ad

van

tag

e

Pa

yle

ss0%

2000%


Education

• The top 10 hotels websites attract about 180 million fewer visitors per month when compared to Consolidator websites (204 million for consolidators vs. 24 million for hotels). As is obvious from the above analysis then, the top 10 Consolidator sites have more visitors per month than the top 10 airlines, hotels, and car rental sites combined, making them far more important on the online travel marketplace than any other group. The primary reason for their importance is that they take advantage of the power of the Internet by giving visitors multiple choices along a number of categories.

• Please note that in all these cases, Consolidator sites are not the same as referral sites, such as Kayak, Sidestep or Travelzoo. These sites, although very popular, do not allow for booking on the sites themselves, but rather act merely as a place where visitors can compare prices across Consolidators, Airlines, Hotels and Car Rental company sites. The Consolidator sites also do not include search engines, such as Google Travel or Yahoo Travel.

• Similar to the other categories, the top 5 car rental sites dominate the percentage of visitors who visit these websites: Enterprise, Budget, Avis, Hertz, and Alamo attract 33 million visitors (88% of total) and 17 million uniques (79% of total).

• Unlike hotels and airlines, customer loyalty does not seem to play a key role in traffic patterns between the top and bottom 5 sites. The average visits per visitor for the top 5 is 1.83, and for the bottom 5 is 1.67. Furthermore, loyalty to car rental sites is also significantly less than that of the other three categories.

• Although demographic differences between the sites is more pronounced than those between the other 3 travel categories, the differences are still not significant to merit analysis. Certain sites do attract more men than women, have lower Caucasian visitors ratios, and have higher education levels, but overall the similarities far outweigh the differences.

• Similar to Consolidator and Airline sites, the visitors to the Car Rental sites are overwhelmingly from the US (83% vs. 85% for airlines and 78% for consolidators). Furthermore, there is no discernable difference in this category between the top and bottom 5 sites, all attracting about 80+% of their visitors from the US. However, there is a difference in the 3-5 origination countries between the top and bottom 5 countries. The bottom 5 sites have visitors from countries outside the large triad of Germany, UK and Canada, which is where the visitors to the top 5 websites originate from.


• Similar to other travel categories, there is a distinct seasonality in traveling, with a higher number of trips in summer than winter time that affects all the sites. For most parts, the traffic levels for all the sites remain quite stable during the year, with consistent ranking and patterns across all sites.

TRENDS

En

terp

rise

Bu

dg

et

Avi

s

He

rtz

Ala

mo

Th

rifty

Do

llar

Na

tion

al

Ad

van

tag

e

Pa

yle

ss

0%

2000%


Education

• The top 10 hotels websites attract about 180 million fewer visitors per month when compared to Consolidator websites (204 million for consolidators vs. 24 million for hotels). As is obvious from the above analysis then, the top 10 Consolidator sites have more visitors per month than the top 10 airlines, hotels, and car rental sites combined, making them far more important on the online travel marketplace than any other group. The primary reason for their importance is that they take advantage of the power of the Internet by giving visitors multiple choices along a number of categories.

• Please note that in all these cases, Consolidator sites are not the same as referral sites, such as Kayak, Sidestep or Travelzoo. These sites, although very popular, do not allow for booking on the sites themselves, but rather act merely as a place where visitors can compare prices across Consolidators, Airlines, Hotels and Car Rental company sites. The Consolidator sites also do not include search engines, such as Google Travel or Yahoo Travel.

• Similar to the other categories, the top 5 car rental sites dominate the percentage of visitors who visit these websites: Enterprise, Budget, Avis, Hertz, and Alamo attract 33 million visitors (88% of total) and 17 million uniques (79% of total).

• Unlike hotels and airlines, customer loyalty does not seem to play a key role in traffic patterns between the top and bottom 5 sites. The average visits per visitor for the top 5 is 1.83, and for the bottom 5 is 1.67. Furthermore, loyalty to car rental sites is also significantly less than that of the other three categories.

• Although demographic differences between the sites is more pronounced than those between the other 3 travel categories, the differences are still not significant to merit analysis. Certain sites do attract more men than women, have lower Caucasian visitors ratios, and have higher education levels, but overall the similarities far outweigh the differences.

• Similar to Consolidator and Airline sites, the visitors to the Car Rental sites are overwhelmingly from the US (83% vs. 85% for airlines and 78% for consolidators). Furthermore, there is no discernable difference in this category between the top and bottom 5 sites, all attracting about 80+% of their visitors from the US. However, there is a difference in the 3-5 origination countries between the top and bottom 5 countries. The bottom 5 sites have visitors from countries outside the large triad of Germany, UK and Canada, which is where the visitors to the top 5 websites originate from.


• Similar to other travel categories, there is a distinct seasonality in traveling, with a higher number of trips in summer than winter time that affects all the sites. For most parts, the traffic levels for all the sites remain quite stable during the year, with consistent ranking and patterns across all sites.

DEMOGRAPHICS

23%

22%

15%

14%

11%5%5%4%1%1%


Enterprise Budget Avis Hertz Alamo Thrifty Dollar NationalAdvantage Payless

24%

21%

16%

14%

10%5%5%4%1%1%


Enterprise Budget Avis Hertz Alamo Thrifty Dollar

National Advantage Payless

En

terp

rise

Bu

dg

et

Avi

s

He

rtz

Ala

mo

Th

rifty

Do

llar

Na

tion

al

Ad

van

tag

e

Pa

yle

ss

0%

2000%

Female MaleGender Ent

erpr

ise

Bud

get

Avi

s

Her

tz

Ala

mo

Thr

ifty

Dol

lar

Nat

iona

l

Adv

anta

ge

Pay

less

0%

2000%


En

terp

rise

Bu

dg

et

Avi

s

He

rtz

Ala

mo

Th

rifty

Do

llar

Na

tion

al

Ad

van

tag

e

Pa

yle

ss

0%

2000%

65+ 55-64 45-54 35-44 25-34 18-24

Age En

terp

rise

Bu

dg

et

Avi

s

He

rtz

Ala

mo

Th

rifty

Do

llar

Na

tion

al

Ad

van

tag

e

Pa

yle

ss0%

2000%

$100K+ $60-$100K $30-$60K $0-$30KIncome

En

terp

rise

Bu

dg

et

Avi

s

He

rtz

Ala

mo

Th

rifty

Do

llar

Na

tion

al

Ad

van

tag

e

Pa

yle

ss

0%

2000%


Education En

terp

rise

Bu

dg

et

Avi

s

He

rtz

Ala

mo

Th

rifty

Do

llar

Na

tion

al

Ad

van

tag

e

Pa

yle

ss

0%

2000%

Yes No

Children in HH

En

terp

rise

Bu

dg

et

Avi

s

He

rtz

Ala

mo

Th

rifty

Do

llar

Na

tion

al

Ad

van

tag

e

Pa

yle

ss

0%

2000%


Education En

terp

rise

Bu

dg

et

Avi

s

He

rtz

Ala

mo

Th

rifty

Do

llar

Na

tion

al

Ad

van

tag

e

Pa

yle

ss

0%

2000%

Yes No

Children in HH

USER ORIGINATION

24%

21%

16%

14%

10%5%5%4%1%1%


Enterprise Budget Avis Hertz Alamo Thrifty Dollar

National Advantage Payless

Ent

erpr

ise

Bud

get

Avi

s

Her

tz

Ala

mo

Thr

ifty

Dol

lar

Nat

iona

l

Adv

anta

ge

Pay

less

0%

2000%


En

terp

rise

Bu

dg

et

Avi

s

He

rtz

Ala

mo

Th

rifty

Do

llar

Na

tion

al

Ad

van

tag

e

Pa

yle

ss

0%

2000%

$100K+ $60-$100K $30-$60K $0-$30KIncome

En

terp

rise

Bu

dg

et

Avi

s

He

rtz

Ala

mo

Th

rifty

Do

llar

Na

tion

al

Ad

van

tag

e

Pa

yle

ss

0%

2000%

Yes No

Children in HH

Ent

erpr

ise

Bud

get

Avi

s

Her

tz

Ala

mo

Thr

ifty

Dol

lar

Nat

iona

l

Adv

anta

ge

Pay

less

0%

2000%

Brazil Thailand Guatemala Puerto Rico Mexico Italy Spain Australia GermanyIndia UK Canada US

En

terp

rise

Bu

dg

et

Avi

s

He

rtz

Ala

mo

Th

rifty

Do

llar

Na

tion

al

Ad

van

tag

e

Pa

yle

ss

0%

2000%

Yes No

Children in HH

(5) Online Restaurant Booking Sites Ranking1 2 3 4

restaurant OpenTable Zagat RestaurantRow

Traffic

Visits

Monthly Visits 1,921,675 1,159,378 194,128 38,983Monthly Uniques 1,111,444 732,279 137,242 25,681Avg. Visits per Unique 1.73 1.58 1.41 1.52Passers-by 72% 77% 81% 93%Regulars 28% 23% 19% 7%Addicts 0% 0% 0% 0%Passers-by 45% 52% 61% 82%Regulars 55% 45% 39% 18%

Addicts 0% 4% 0% 0%

Demographics


Ethnicity


Age


Yes 24% 21% 20% 23%US 97.1% 93.4% 88.9% 89.7%China 1.5% 4.8%Canada 0.7% 2.2% 1.2% 1.3%UK 0.5% 1.5% 2.3%India 0.2% 1.2%Australia 0.3% 0.7%Germany 0.6%Japan 0.4%

Austria 1.4%


Bookings X X X XMembershipSocial Networking X X X XReviews X X X XMenus X X X X

Guides X X X X


Share of Visits

HouseholdIncome




Users - Country of

Origins (Top 5)

Ranking5 6 7 8

iseatz DinnerBroker RestaurantReservations Average19,126 12,778 8,734 1,268 419,50912,139 7,429 3,647 899 253,845

1.58 1.72 2.39 1.41 1.67 92% 81% 93% 78% 83.4%

8% 19% 7% 22% 16.6%0% 0% 0% 0% 0.0%

85% 67% 88% 49% 66.1%15% 33% 12% 45% 32.8%

0% 0% 0% 5% 1.1%41% 47% 36% 49% 42.6%59% 53% 64% 51% 57.4%81% 88% 87% 81% 84.3%

9% 5% 6% 8% 6.5%3% 3% 2% 4% 3.6%5% 3% 2% 6% 4.4%2% 1% 3% 1% 1.2%4% 7% 6% 14% 8.8%

14% 20% 19% 22% 20.6%12% 23% 23% 21% 19.6%18% 18% 24% 19% 18.6%28% 18% 14% 15% 18.3%24% 14% 14% 9% 14.1%16% 11% 13% 14% 11.9%30% 21% 36% 32% 27.4%31% 37% 36% 32% 33.5%23% 31% 14% 22% 27.1%36% 41% 42% 40% 36.3%44% 40% 38% 43% 43.1%20% 19% 20% 17% 20.6%84% 80% 75% 70% 77.6%

16% 20% 25% 30% 22.4%97.4% 94.7% 96.2% 84.8% 92.8%

2.8% 3.0%1.9% 2.8% 0.4% 2.3% 1.6%0.3% 0.1% 0.5% 1.3% 0.9%0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3%0.1% 0.1% 0.3%

0.1% 0.4%0.9% 0.7%

1.4%X X X X

X X X XX X X XX X X X

X X X X

First

Second

Third

Fourth

Fifth

CulinaryMenus 57%

35%6%1%1%0%0%0%

Monthly Visits

(~3.3M)


iseatz DinnerBroker CulinaryMenus RestaurantReservations

rest

au

ran

t

Op

en

Ta

ble

Za

ga

t

Re

sta

ura

ntR

ow

ise

atz

Din

ne

rBro

ker

Cu

lina

ryM

en

us

Re

sta

ura

ntR

ese

rva-

tion

s

0%

2000%

Female Male

Gender

rest

au

ran

t

Op

en

Ta

ble

Za

ga

t

Re

sta

ura

ntR

ow

ise

atz

Din

ne

rBro

ker

Cu

lina

ryM

en

us

Re

sta

ura

ntR

ese

rva-

tion

s

0%

2000%

65+ 55-64 45-54 35-44 25-34 18-24

Age

res

tau

ran

t

Op

en

Ta

ble

Za

ga

t

Re

sta

ura

ntR

ow

ise

atz

Din

ne

rBro

ke

r

Cu

lina

ryM

en

us

Re

sta

ura

ntR

es

erv

a-ti

on

s

0%

2000%


Education

57%

35%6%1%1%0%0%0%

Monthly Visits

(~3.3M)



55%

36%7%1%1%0%0%0%

Monthly Uniques

(~2M)



rest

au

ran

t

Op

en

Ta

ble

Za

ga

t

Re

sta

ura

ntR

ow

ise

atz

Din

ne

rBro

ker

Cu

lina

ryM

en

us

Re

sta

ura

ntR

ese

rva-

tion

s

0%

2000%

Female Male

Gender

resta

ura

nt

OpenTable

Zagat

Resta

ura

ntR

ow

iseatz

Din

nerB

roker

Culin

ary

Menus

Resta

ura

ntR

eserv

a-tions

0%

2000%


Ethnicity

rest

au

ran

t

Op

en

Ta

ble

Za

ga

t

Re

sta

ura

ntR

ow

ise

atz

Din

ne

rBro

ker

Cu

lina

ryM

en

us

Re

sta

ura

ntR

ese

rva-

tion

s

0%

2000%

65+ 55-64 45-54 35-44 25-34 18-24

Age

rest

au

ran

t

Op

en

Ta

ble

Za

ga

t

Re

sta

ura

ntR

ow

ise

atz

Din

ne

rBro

ker

Cu

lina

ryM

en

us

Re

sta

ura

ntR

ese

rva-

tion

s

0%

2000%

$100K+ $60-$100K $30-$60K $0-$30K

Income

res

tau

ran

t

Op

en

Ta

ble

Za

ga

t

Re

sta

ura

ntR

ow

ise

atz

Din

ne

rBro

ke

r

Cu

lina

ryM

en

us

Re

sta

ura

ntR

es

erv

a-ti

on

s

0%

2000%


Education

res

tau

ran

t

Op

en

Ta

ble

Za

ga

t

Re

sta

ura

ntR

ow

ise

atz

Din

ne

rBro

ke

r

Cu

lina

ryM

en

us

Re

sta

ura

ntR

es

erv

a-ti

on

s

0%

2000%

Yes No

Children in HH

rest

au

ran

t

Op

en

Ta

ble

Za

ga

t

Re

sta

ura

ntR

ow

ise

atz

Din

ne

rBro

ker

Cu

lina

ryM

en

us

Re

sta

ura

ntR

ese

rva

tion

s

0%

2000%

Austria Japan Germany Australia India UK Canada China

US

UserOrigination

rest

au

ran

t

Op

en

Ta

ble

Za

ga

t

Re

sta

ura

ntR

ow

ise

atz

Din

ne

rBro

ker

Cu

lina

ryM

en

us

Re

sta

ura

ntR

ese

rva

tion

s

0%

2000%


US

UserOrigination

rest

au

ran

t

Op

en

Ta

ble

Za

ga

t

Re

sta

ura

ntR

ow

ise

atz

Din

ne

rBro

ker

Cu

lina

ryM

en

us

Re

sta

ura

ntR

ese

rva

tion

s0%

2000%


US

UserOrigination


57%

35%6%1%1%0%0%0%

Monthly Visits: ~4.1M

restaurant OpenTableZagat RestaurantRowiseatz DinnerBrokerCulinaryMenus RestaurantReservations

rest

aura

nt

Ope

nTab

le

Zag

at

Res

taur

antR

ow

isea

tz

Din

nerB

roke

r

Cul

inar

yMen

us

Res

tau-

rant

Res

erva

tions

0%

2000%

Female MaleGender

rest

au

ran

t

Op

en

Ta

ble

Za

ga

t

Re

sta

ura

ntR

ow

ise

atz

Din

ne

rBro

ker

Cu

lina

ryM

en

us

Re

sta

u-ra

ntR

ese

rva

tion

s

0%

2000%

65+ 55-64 45-54 35-44 25-34 18-24

Age

rest

au

ran

t

Op

en

Ta

ble

Za

ga

t

Re

sta

ura

ntR

ow

ise

atz

Din

ne

rBro

ker

Cu

lina

ryM

en

us

Re

sta

u-ra

ntR

ese

rva

tion

s

0%

2000%


Education

• The online restaurant reservations industry is not nearly as developed as the other travel-related industries discussed so far, and there are in fact only 2 sites with any type of traffic volumes that approach sites discussed above: restaurant.com and OpenTable.com.

• There are a number of reasons for this, among them:

o Restaurants are for most part local establishments that do not require the global reach of Internet.

o The price point for restaurant dining is lower than that of other travel-related activities, making the overhead associated with centralized booking systems ($1/reservation) less attractive.

o The large restaurant chains have their own online reservation systems, making the need for an independent centralized booking site less appealing.

o Only a few major cities in the world have the type of restaurants that have the brand recognition that could take advantage of the marketing power of an online reservation systems.

• Having said that, the top two sites account for 80% of traffic to all 8 sites. In fact, past the top two, the traffic drops dramatically.

• The primary drivers behind the traffic for these two sites are their underlying number of restaurants they represent (OpenTable) and breath of additional information and their brand name (Restaurant.com). Brand loyalty plays a very small role as an overall traffic driver, with 0% addict visitor, and visits/visitor ratios of less than 2 across all sites with the possible exception of CulinaryMenus.com

• There is very little in difference in the demographic make up of the visitors to these sites, and they are all dominated by visitors from US, where over 92% of all visitors are from the US.

• In an anomalous trend, the yearly trends are very choppy for some of the larger sites (restaurant.com), and much more stable for the smaller sites. Overall, OpenTable has shown a steady increase in visitors, which is directly related to the number of restaurants they serve.

TRENDS

rest

au

ran

t

Op

en

Ta

ble

Za

ga

t

Re

sta

ura

ntR

ow

ise

atz

Din

ne

rBro

ker

Cu

lina

ryM

en

us

Re

sta

u-ra

ntR

ese

rva

tion

s

0%

2000%


Education

• The online restaurant reservations industry is not nearly as developed as the other travel-related industries discussed so far, and there are in fact only 2 sites with any type of traffic volumes that approach sites discussed above: restaurant.com and OpenTable.com.

• There are a number of reasons for this, among them:

o Restaurants are for most part local establishments that do not require the global reach of Internet.

o The price point for restaurant dining is lower than that of other travel-related activities, making the overhead associated with centralized booking systems ($1/reservation) less attractive.

o The large restaurant chains have their own online reservation systems, making the need for an independent centralized booking site less appealing.

o Only a few major cities in the world have the type of restaurants that have the brand recognition that could take advantage of the marketing power of an online reservation systems.

• Having said that, the top two sites account for 80% of traffic to all 8 sites. In fact, past the top two, the traffic drops dramatically.

• The primary drivers behind the traffic for these two sites are their underlying number of restaurants they represent (OpenTable) and breath of additional information and their brand name (Restaurant.com). Brand loyalty plays a very small role as an overall traffic driver, with 0% addict visitor, and visits/visitor ratios of less than 2 across all sites with the possible exception of CulinaryMenus.com

• There is very little in difference in the demographic make up of the visitors to these sites, and they are all dominated by visitors from US, where over 92% of all visitors are from the US.

• In an anomalous trend, the yearly trends are very choppy for some of the larger sites (restaurant.com), and much more stable for the smaller sites. Overall, OpenTable has shown a steady increase in visitors, which is directly related to the number of restaurants they serve.

DEMOGRAPHICS

57%

35%6%1%1%0%0%0%



55%

36%7%1%1%0%0%0%



rest

aura

nt

Ope

nTab

le

Zag

at

Res

taur

antR

ow

isea

tz

Din

nerB

roke

r

Cul

inar

yMen

us

Res

tau-

rant

Res

erva

tions

0%

2000%

Female MaleGender

resta

ura

nt

OpenT

able

Zagat

Resta

ura

ntR

ow

iseatz

Din

nerB

roker

Culin

ary

Menus

Resta

u-ra

ntR

es

erv

ations

0%

2000%


rest

au

ran

t

Op

en

Ta

ble

Za

ga

t

Re

sta

ura

ntR

ow

ise

atz

Din

ne

rBro

ker

Cu

lina

ryM

en

us

Re

sta

u-ra

ntR

ese

rva

tion

s

0%

2000%

65+ 55-64 45-54 35-44 25-34 18-24

Age

rest

au

ran

t

Op

en

Ta

ble

Za

ga

t

Re

sta

ura

ntR

ow

ise

atz

Din

ne

rBro

ker

Cu

lina

ryM

en

us

Re

sta

u-ra

ntR

ese

rva

tion

s

0%

2000%

$100K+ $60-$100K $30-$60K $0-$30KIncome

rest

au

ran

t

Op

en

Ta

ble

Za

ga

t

Re

sta

ura

ntR

ow

ise

atz

Din

ne

rBro

ker

Cu

lina

ryM

en

us

Re

sta

u-ra

ntR

ese

rva

tion

s

0%

2000%


Education

rest

au

ran

t

Op

en

Ta

ble

Za

ga

t

Re

sta

ura

ntR

ow

ise

atz

Din

ne

rBro

ker

Cu

lina

ryM

en

us

Re

sta

u-ra

ntR

ese

rva

tion

s

0%

2000%

Yes No

Children in HH

rest

au

ran

t

Op

en

Ta

ble

Za

ga

t

Re

sta

ura

ntR

ow

ise

atz

Din

ne

rBro

ker

Cu

lina

ryM

en

us

Re

sta

u-ra

ntR

ese

rva

tion

s

0%

2000%


Education

rest

au

ran

t

Op

en

Ta

ble

Za

ga

t

Re

sta

ura

ntR

ow

ise

atz

Din

ne

rBro

ker

Cu

lina

ryM

en

us

Re

sta

u-ra

ntR

ese

rva

tion

s

0%

2000%

Yes No

Children in HH

USER ORIGINATION

55%

36%7%1%1%0%0%0%



resta

ura

nt

OpenT

able

Zagat

Resta

ura

ntR

ow

iseatz

Din

nerB

roker

Culin

ary

Menus

Resta

u-ra

ntR

es

erv

ations

0%

2000%


rest

au

ran

t

Op

en

Ta

ble

Za

ga

t

Re

sta

ura

ntR

ow

ise

atz

Din

ne

rBro

ker

Cu

lina

ryM

en

us

Re

sta

u-ra

ntR

ese

rva

tion

s

0%

2000%

$100K+ $60-$100K $30-$60K $0-$30KIncome

rest

au

ran

t

Op

en

Ta

ble

Za

ga

t

Re

sta

ura

ntR

ow

ise

atz

Din

ne

rBro

ker

Cu

lina

ryM

en

us

Re

sta

u-ra

ntR

ese

rva

tion

s

0%

2000%

Yes No

Children in HH

rest

aura

nt

Ope

nTab

le

Zag

at

Res

taur

antR

ow

isea

tz

Din

nerB

roke

r

Cul

inar

yMen

us

Res

taur

antR

eser

vatio

ns

0%

2000%

Austria Japan Germany Australia India UK Canada China US

rest

au

ran

t

Op

en

Ta

ble

Za

ga

t

Re

sta

ura

ntR

ow

ise

atz

Din

ne

rBro

ker

Cu

lina

ryM

en

us

Re

sta

u-ra

ntR

ese

rva

tion

s

0%

2000%

Yes No

Children in HH

(7) Online Social Networking Sites Ranking1 2 3

MySpace Facebook Flickr

Traffic

Visits

Monthly Visits 2,321,964,417 1,060,434,100 60,347,904Monthly Uniques 47,664,905 35,270,111 17,429,488Avg. Visits per Unique 48.71 30.07 3.46Passers-by 23% 32% 69%Regulars 58% 56% 30%Addicts 19% 12% 1%Passers-by 1% 3% 28%Regulars 26% 34% 47%

Addicts 73% 63% 25%

Demographics


Ethnicity


Age


Yes 54% 59% 35%US 66.5% 41.3% 38.4%ChinaCanada 7.5%UK 4.2% 9.6% 4.9%India 3.6%Germany 3.5% 5.0%Mexico 2.4%Italy 2.3% 3.1%Turkey 3.5%South Africa 3.1%ThailandPeruPortugalIndonesiaPhillipinesMalaysiaSingaporeEgyptIranBrazilPakistanJapanArgentinaSpain


Share of Visits

HouseholdIncome




Users - Country of

Origins (Top 5)

Chile


BookingsMembershipSocial Networking X X XGuidesFlexible Travel

Last Minute Deals


Users - Country of

Origins (Top 5)

Ranking4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Hi5 Friendster Tagged Orkut LinkedIn multiply fotolog Average30,629,072 22,173,172 18,933,338 15,508,012 8,081,349 5,577,365 2,130,713 354,577,944

5,738,909 1,300,847 5,026,441 392,729 4,378,811 794,972 901,592 11,889,8815.34 17.05 3.77 39.49 1.85 7.02 2.36 15.91 35% 49% 58% 29% 79% 73% 31% 47.8%52% 44% 39% 56% 20% 25% 52% 43.2%13% 6% 2% 14% 0% 2% 17% 8.6%

2% 6% 14% 2% 49% 19% 2% 12.6%24% 39% 46% 29% 43% 29% 20% 33.7%

74% 55% 40% 69% 8% 52% 78% 53.7%45% 49% 36% 52% 48% 49% 52% 47.2%55% 51% 64% 48% 52% 51% 48% 52.8%42% 39% 43% 45% 80% 70% 59% 60.2%29% 4% 38% 5% 8% 5% 6% 12.6%

7% 50% 3% 27% 6% 19% 6% 13.1%21% 5% 15% 18% 5% 5% 28% 12.4%

1% 2% 1% 5% 1% 1% 1% 1.7%36% 26% 42% 28% 9% 21% 35% 30.6%25% 39% 21% 33% 28% 20% 23% 24.7%19% 16% 16% 20% 24% 21% 18% 18.5%13% 10% 12% 10% 19% 18% 14% 13.9%

5% 6% 6% 6% 13% 12% 6% 8.0%2% 3% 3% 3% 7% 8% 4% 4.3%

26% 23% 22% 23% 11% 21% 27% 19.8%37% 33% 42% 35% 23% 33% 36% 33.5%23% 27% 24% 25% 35% 28% 22% 27.9%14% 17% 12% 17% 31% 18% 15% 18.8%54% 30% 58% 36% 24% 42% 52% 43.6%36% 54% 34% 39% 48% 42% 35% 40.9%10% 16% 8% 25% 28% 16% 13% 15.5%48% 70% 43% 69% 76% 69% 54% 58.1%

52% 30% 57% 31% 24% 31% 46% 41.9%6.4% 8.8% 16.0% 4.3% 62.2% 20.5% 29.4%

7.2% 3.6% 5.4%7.5%

5.3% 6.0%8.5% 38.3% 5.1% 13.9%

2.6% 3.7%13.0% 11.7% 9.0%

2.7%3.5%3.1%

14.2% 5.8% 10.0%5.9% 5.9%5.7% 5.7%

34.9% 23.4% 29.2%18.8% 12.9% 15.9%11.8% 11.8%

5.3% 5.3%5.5% 5.5%5.1% 5.1%

44.4% 3.9% 11.9% 20.1%3.2% 3.2%2.0% 2.0%

26.0% 26.0%22.0% 22.0%

65%

30%2%1%1%1%0%0%0%0%

Monthly Visits

(~3.5B)

MySpace Facebook Flickr Hi5 Friendster Tagged Orkut LinkedIn

multiply fotolog

MyS

pa

ce

Fa

ceb

oo

k

Flic

kr

Hi5

Fri

en

dst

er

Ta

gg

ed

Ork

ut

Lin

ked

In

mu

ltip

ly

foto

log

0%

2000%

Female MaleGender

MyS

pa

ce

Fa

ceb

oo

k

Flic

kr

Hi5

Frie

nd

ste

r

Ta

gg

ed

Ork

ut

Lin

ked

In

mu

ltip

ly

foto

log

0%

2000%

65+ 55-64 45-54 35-44 25-34 18-24

Age

MyS

pace

Fac

eboo

k

Flic

kr Hi5

Frie

ndst

er

Tag

ged

Ork

ut

Link

edIn

mul

tiply

foto

log

0%

2000%


Education

16.7% 16.7%

X X X X X X X

First

Second

Third

Fourth

Fifth

65%

30%2%1%1%1%0%0%0%0%

Monthly Visits

(~3.5B)


multiply fotolog

40% 30%

15%5%1%4%0%4%1%1%



multiply fotolog

MyS

pa

ce

Fa

ceb

oo

k

Flic

kr

Hi5

Fri

en

dst

er

Ta

gg

ed

Ork

ut

Lin

ked

In

mu

ltip

ly

foto

log

0%

2000%

Female MaleGender MyS

pa

ce

Fa

ceb

oo

k

Flic

kr

Hi5

Frie

nd

ste

r

Ta

gg

ed

Ork

ut

Lin

ked

In

mu

ltip

ly

foto

log

0%

2000%


MyS

pa

ce

Fa

ceb

oo

k

Flic

kr

Hi5

Frie

nd

ste

r

Ta

gg

ed

Ork

ut

Lin

ked

In

mu

ltip

ly

foto

log

0%

2000%

65+ 55-64 45-54 35-44 25-34 18-24

Age MyS

pa

ce

Fa

ceb

oo

k

Flic

kr

Hi5

Frie

nd

ste

r

Ta

gg

ed

Ork

ut

Lin

ked

In

mu

ltip

ly

foto

log

0%

2000%

$100K+ $60-$100K $30-$60K $0-$30KIncome

MyS

pace

Fac

eboo

k

Flic

kr Hi5

Frie

ndst

er

Tag

ged

Ork

ut

Link

edIn

mul

tiply

foto

log

0%

2000%


Education MyS

pace

Fac

eboo

k

Flic

kr Hi5

Frie

ndst

er

Tag

ged

Ork

ut

Link

edIn

mul

tiply

foto

log

0%

2000%

Yes No

Children in HH

MyS

pace

Fac

eboo

k

Flic

kr

Hi5

Frie

ndst

er

Tag

ged

Ork

ut

Link

edIn

mul

tiply

foto

log

0%

2000%

Chile Spain Argentina Japan PakistanBrazil Iran Egypt Singapore MalaysiaPhillipines Indonesia Portugal Peru ThailandSouth Africa Turkey Italy Mexico GermanyIndia UK Canada China US

UserOrigination

40% 30%

15%5%1%4%0%4%1%1%



multiply fotolog

MyS

pa

ce

Fa

ceb

oo

k

Flic

kr

Hi5

Frie

nd

ste

r

Ta

gg

ed

Ork

ut

Lin

ked

In

mu

ltip

ly

foto

log

0%

2000%


MyS

pa

ce

Fa

ceb

oo

k

Flic

kr

Hi5

Frie

nd

ste

r

Ta

gg

ed

Ork

ut

Lin

ked

In

mu

ltip

ly

foto

log

0%

2000%

$100K+ $60-$100K $30-$60K $0-$30KIncome

MyS

pace

Fac

eboo

k

Flic

kr Hi5

Frie

ndst

er

Tag

ged

Ork

ut

Link

edIn

mul

tiply

foto

log

0%

2000%

Yes No

Children in HH

MyS

pace

Fac

eboo

k

Flic

kr

Hi5

Frie

ndst

er

Tag

ged

Ork

ut

Link

edIn

mul

tiply

foto

log

0%

2000%

Chile Spain Argentina Japan PakistanBrazil Iran Egypt Singapore MalaysiaPhillipines Indonesia Portugal Peru ThailandSouth Africa Turkey Italy Mexico GermanyIndia UK Canada China US

UserOrigination

ANALYSIS

65%

30%2%1%1%1%0%0%0%0%

Monthly Visits: ~3.5B

MySpace Facebook Flickr Hi5 Friendster Tagged OrkutLinkedIn multiply fotolog

MyS

pace

Fac

eboo

k

Flic

kr Hi5

Frie

ndst

er

Tag

ged

Ork

ut

Link

edIn

mul

tiply

foto

log

0%

2000%

Female Male

Gender

MyS

pa

ce

Fa

ceb

oo

k

Flic

kr

Hi5

Fri

en

dst

er

Ta

gg

ed

Ork

ut

Lin

ked

In

mu

ltip

ly

foto

log

0%

2000%

65+ 55-64 45-54 35-44 25-34 18-24

Age

MyS

pa

ce

Fa

ceb

oo

k

Flic

kr

Hi5

Fri

en

dst

er

Ta

gg

ed

Ork

ut

Lin

ked

In

mu

ltip

ly

foto

log

0%

2000%


Education

• Social Networking sites are some of the most popular sites on the Internet, and their growing popularity has resulted in an explosion in their numbers. Although even the smallest of these 10 sites have traffic numbers that dwarf some of the larger travel sites in this analysis, they are nonetheless extremely small when compared to the two biggest social networking sites under analysis: MySpace and Facebook, which are by some estimates in the top 5-10 sites of all Internet sites, attract over 2 billion visitors a month in the case of MySpace, and over 1 billion in the case of FaceBook. Combined, these two sites receive over 95% of all visitors of the top 10 Social Networking sites.

• The most important reason for their huge traffic numbers is customer loyalty. MySpace has a visits per visitor ratio of over 48, Facebook’s is 30. Orkut, a hugely popular SN site in Brazil that is run by Google has a very large ratio of 39, while the next closest site in terms of customer loyalty is Friendster at 17. The remaining sites average about 3.97 visits per visitor, which is very good compared to Travel related sites, but significantly less than the four mentioned about.

• This loyalty is also reflected in the percentage of traffic that comes from addicts: o For the top 10 sites, the addict volume make up 54% of all traffic; o For the top 5 the addict average is 58%, o For the top 2, the average is 63%; and o For mySpace, it is an amazing 73%.

• Unlike the travel and restaurant sites, the demographics of Social Network sites do differ from each other, which is reflective of their core strategy and audience. Social Network sites are by definition driven by commonality among their visitors, and the sites tailor their sites to attract certain demographic groups; for example:

o MySpace: Younger, more media savvy, less college educated (because of age), and more Caucasian. o Facebook: Originally a social network sites for college students, this is reflected in a demographic characteristics that is slightly older than MySpace, more college educated, and more wealthy. o LinkedIn: A professional networking site, their demographic characteristic is much older than the top 2 sites, more wealthy, more college educated, and less ethnically diverse.

• The demographic differences are also reflected in the visitor origination patterns. Unlike the travel sites, the visitors for the top 10 social network sites are not dominated by the US. However, it is important to point that for the top 3 sites, the US’ share of visitors is the largest of all representative countries, representing 66%, 43%, and 38% of all visitors for MySpace, Facebook, and Flickr respectively. However, these percentages are still much lower than those associated with Travel sites.

• Of the remaining 7 sites, the top origination country is quite diverse: Thailand for Hi5; Indonesia for Friendster; US for Tagged; Brazil for Orkut; Indonesia for Multiply; Argentina for Fotolog. Furthermore, there are also a very diverse group of countries that round out the top 5 for these sites.

• In terms of trends, all the major sites have held their own during the course of the year. The two major exception being LinkedIn which saw a significant jump in July 2007, and Tagged, which experienced a dramatic drop in the same period.

TRENDS

MyS

pa

ce

Fa

ceb

oo

k

Flic

kr

Hi5

Fri

en

dst

er

Ta

gg

ed

Ork

ut

Lin

ked

In

mu

ltip

ly

foto

log

0%

2000%


Education

• Social Networking sites are some of the most popular sites on the Internet, and their growing popularity has resulted in an explosion in their numbers. Although even the smallest of these 10 sites have traffic numbers that dwarf some of the larger travel sites in this analysis, they are nonetheless extremely small when compared to the two biggest social networking sites under analysis: MySpace and Facebook, which are by some estimates in the top 5-10 sites of all Internet sites, attract over 2 billion visitors a month in the case of MySpace, and over 1 billion in the case of FaceBook. Combined, these two sites receive over 95% of all visitors of the top 10 Social Networking sites.

• The most important reason for their huge traffic numbers is customer loyalty. MySpace has a visits per visitor ratio of over 48, Facebook’s is 30. Orkut, a hugely popular SN site in Brazil that is run by Google has a very large ratio of 39, while the next closest site in terms of customer loyalty is Friendster at 17. The remaining sites average about 3.97 visits per visitor, which is very good compared to Travel related sites, but significantly less than the four mentioned about.

• This loyalty is also reflected in the percentage of traffic that comes from addicts: o For the top 10 sites, the addict volume make up 54% of all traffic; o For the top 5 the addict average is 58%, o For the top 2, the average is 63%; and o For mySpace, it is an amazing 73%.

• Unlike the travel and restaurant sites, the demographics of Social Network sites do differ from each other, which is reflective of their core strategy and audience. Social Network sites are by definition driven by commonality among their visitors, and the sites tailor their sites to attract certain demographic groups; for example:

o MySpace: Younger, more media savvy, less college educated (because of age), and more Caucasian. o Facebook: Originally a social network sites for college students, this is reflected in a demographic characteristics that is slightly older than MySpace, more college educated, and more wealthy. o LinkedIn: A professional networking site, their demographic characteristic is much older than the top 2 sites, more wealthy, more college educated, and less ethnically diverse.

• The demographic differences are also reflected in the visitor origination patterns. Unlike the travel sites, the visitors for the top 10 social network sites are not dominated by the US. However, it is important to point that for the top 3 sites, the US’ share of visitors is the largest of all representative countries, representing 66%, 43%, and 38% of all visitors for MySpace, Facebook, and Flickr respectively. However, these percentages are still much lower than those associated with Travel sites.

• Of the remaining 7 sites, the top origination country is quite diverse: Thailand for Hi5; Indonesia for Friendster; US for Tagged; Brazil for Orkut; Indonesia for Multiply; Argentina for Fotolog. Furthermore, there are also a very diverse group of countries that round out the top 5 for these sites.

• In terms of trends, all the major sites have held their own during the course of the year. The two major exception being LinkedIn which saw a significant jump in July 2007, and Tagged, which experienced a dramatic drop in the same period.

DEMOGRAPHICS

65%

30%2%1%1%1%0%0%0%0%

Monthly Visits: ~3.5B


40%30%

15%5%1%4%0%4%1%1%



MyS

pace

Fac

eboo

k

Flic

kr Hi5

Frie

ndst

er

Tag

ged

Ork

ut

Link

edIn

mul

tiply

foto

log

0%

2000%

Female Male

GenderM

ySpa

ce

Fac

eboo

k

Flic

kr

Hi5

Frie

ndst

er

Tag

ged

Ork

ut

Link

edIn

mul

tiply

foto

log

0%

2000%


MyS

pa

ce

Fa

ceb

oo

k

Flic

kr

Hi5

Fri

en

dst

er

Ta

gg

ed

Ork

ut

Lin

ked

In

mu

ltip

ly

foto

log

0%

2000%

65+ 55-64 45-54 35-44 25-34 18-24

Age

MyS

pa

ce

Fa

ceb

oo

k

Flic

kr

Hi5

Fri

en

dst

er

Ta

gg

ed

Ork

ut

Lin

ked

In

mu

ltip

ly

foto

log

0%

2000%

$100K+ $60-$100K $30-$60K $0-$30KIncome

MyS

pa

ce

Fa

ceb

oo

k

Flic

kr

Hi5

Fri

en

dst

er

Ta

gg

ed

Ork

ut

Lin

ked

In

mu

ltip

ly

foto

log

0%

2000%


Education

MyS

pa

ce

Fa

ceb

oo

k

Flic

kr

Hi5

Fri

en

dst

er

Ta

gg

ed

Ork

ut

Lin

ked

In

mu

ltip

ly

foto

log

0%

2000%

Yes No

Children in HH

MyS

pa

ce

Fa

ceb

oo

k

Flic

kr

Hi5

Fri

en

dst

er

Ta

gg

ed

Ork

ut

Lin

ked

In

mu

ltip

ly

foto

log

0%

2000%


Education

MyS

pa

ce

Fa

ceb

oo

k

Flic

kr

Hi5

Fri

en

dst

er

Ta

gg

ed

Ork

ut

Lin

ked

In

mu

ltip

ly

foto

log

0%

2000%

Yes No

Children in HH

USER ORIGINATION

40%30%

15%5%1%4%0%4%1%1%



MyS

pace

Fac

eboo

k

Flic

kr

Hi5

Frie

ndst

er

Tag

ged

Ork

ut

Link

edIn

mul

tiply

foto

log

0%

2000%


MyS

pa

ce

Fa

ceb

oo

k

Flic

kr

Hi5

Fri

en

dst

er

Ta

gg

ed

Ork

ut

Lin

ked

In

mu

ltip

ly

foto

log

0%

2000%

$100K+ $60-$100K $30-$60K $0-$30KIncome

MyS

pa

ce

Fa

ceb

oo

k

Flic

kr

Hi5

Fri

en

dst

er

Ta

gg

ed

Ork

ut

Lin

ked

In

mu

ltip

ly

foto

log

0%

2000%

Yes No

Children in HH

MyS

pa

ce

Fa

ceb

oo

k

Flic

kr

Hi5

Fri

en

dst

er

Ta

gg

ed

Ork

ut

Lin

ked

In

mu

ltip

ly

foto

log

0%

2000%

Chile Spain Argentina Japan Pakistan Brazil Iran EgyptSingapore Malaysia Phillipines Indonesia Portugal Peru Thailand South AfricaTurkey Italy Mexico Germany India UK Canada ChinaUS

MyS

pa

ce

Fa

ceb

oo

k

Flic

kr

Hi5

Fri

en

dst

er

Ta

gg

ed

Ork

ut

Lin

ked

In

mu

ltip

ly

foto

log

0%

2000%

Yes No

Children in HH

(8) Online Event Ticketing Sites Ranking1 2 3 4

TicketMaster StubHub Tickets.com TicketWeb

Traffic

Visits

Monthly Visits 28,428,304 4,627,844 2,915,635 927,901Monthly Uniques 13,217,709 2,377,581 1,616,185 668,094Avg. Visits per Unique 2.15 1.95 1.80 1.39Passers-by 62% 75% 68% 78%Regulars 38% 24% 32% 21%Addicts 0% 1% 0% 1%Passers-by 34% 45% 42% 57%Regulars 64% 47% 56% 39%

Addicts 2% 8% 2% 4%

Demographics


Ethnicity


Age


Yes 57% 36% 34% 30%US 92.3% 92.4% 75.7% 92.6%PolandCanada 1.8% 2.7% 1.7% 2.1%UK 1.2% 0.5% 12.4% 1.1%India 0.4%Germany 0.5% 0.5% 1.8% 0.7%Italy 0.6%ThailandMexico 1.2%Australia 2.1%SingaporeHong Kong

Hungary


Share of Visits

HouseholdIncome




Users - Country of

Origins (Top 5)

Ranking5 6 7 8 9 10

TickCo Tix BrownPaper CityPass inticketing TicketLeap Average680,655 315,112 95,168 86,175 41,352 15,903 3,813,405600,631 215,379 65,627 65,677 36,395 11,457 1,887,474

1.13 1.46 1.45 1.31 1.14 1.39 1.52 88% 74% 61% 79% 78% 80% 74.3%12% 26% 39% 21% 22% 20% 25.5%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.2%75% 53% 57% 61% 58% 65% 54.7%25% 46% 43% 39% 42% 35% 43.6%

0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.7%45% 43% 43% 44% 47% 36% 44.1%55% 57% 57% 56% 53% 64% 55.9%86% 89% 76% 82% 74% 99% 84.1%

6% 6% 7% 5% 8% 0% 5.5%1% 1% 9% 5% 2% 0% 2.5%6% 3% 7% 7% 13% 1% 6.7%1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 0% 0.9%

15% 10% 10% 9% 15% 7% 12.7%23% 19% 24% 27% 24% 21% 25.1%22% 18% 19% 28% 23% 20% 22.1%21% 24% 19% 18% 19% 21% 19.4%13% 16% 21% 10% 12% 14% 12.6%

7% 11% 8% 8% 7% 18% 8.0%12% 11% 14% 12% 22% 14% 13.1%32% 33% 35% 34% 39% 36% 32.9%34% 33% 27% 32% 22% 32% 32.4%22% 23% 24% 21% 16% 17% 21.2%41% 45% 31% 35% 35% 39% 38.9%44% 40% 45% 46% 47% 42% 43.9%15% 14% 23% 19% 17% 18% 16.5%64% 71% 80% 66% 75% 78% 69.7%

36% 29% 20% 34% 25% 22% 32.3%87.1% 89.7% 92.1% 68.1% 87.0% 84.4% 86.1%

0.1% 0.1%3.0% 2.1% 4.4% 12.2% 3.4% 1.1% 3.4%1.2% 2.1% 2.6% 3.7% 0.2% 2.8%0.8% 1.8% 6.2% 2.3%0.8% 0.1% 0.7%

6.3% 3.5%0.6% 1.0% 0.8%

0.3% 0.8%2.1%

0.1% 0.1%0.4% 0.4%

0.1% 0.1%

First

Second

Third

Fourth

Fifth


75%

12%8%2%2%1%0%0%0%0%


TicketMaster StubHub Tickets.comTicketWeb TickCo TixBrownPaper CityPass inticketing TicketLeap

Tic

ketM

aste

r

Stu

bHub

Tic

kets

.com

Tic

ketW

eb

Tic

kCo

Tix

Bro

wnP

aper

City

Pas

s

intic

ketin

g

Tic

ketL

eap

0%

2000%

Female Male

Gender

Tic

ketM

ast

er

Stu

bH

ub

Tic

kets

.co

m

Tic

ketW

eb

Tic

kCo

Tix

Bro

wn

Pa

pe

r

City

Pa

ss

intic

ketin

g

Tic

ketL

ea

p

0%

2000%

65+ 55-64 45-54 35-44 25-34 18-24

Age

Tic

ketM

ast

er

Stu

bH

ub

Tic

kets

.co

m

Tic

ketW

eb

Tic

kCo

Tix

Bro

wn

Pa

pe

r

City

Pa

ss

intic

ketin

g

Tic

ketL

ea

p

0%

2000%


Education

• The top 10 online ticketing sites attract about 38 million visitors and 18 million uniques monthly. The online ticketing market is dominated by one company: TicketMaster, which attracts 75% of all visitors and 70 % of all uniques. StubHub and Tickets.com round out the top 3 and attract an additional 12% and 8% of the visitor traffic respectively. The bottom 7 sites attract the remaining 5% of visitor traffic, which makes online ticketing an extremely top-heavy industry, just as was the case with Consolidators, Airlines, Hotels, and Car Rentals.

• Although TicketMaster has a higher visits/visitor ratio than any of the other sites at 2.15, the difference is not significant enough to explain their extreme monopolistic position in this industry. The average ratio for the remaining 8 sites is 1.45. In this case, the biggest driver for traffic is representation of TicketMaster by venues and events. TicketMaster is the sole ticket processor for most of the entertainment venues in the US, and they also have exclusive relationshiops with promoters, managers, and booking companies. These monopoly relationships allow TicketMaster not only attract the most visitors to its online ticket sites, but to also charge monopoly prices for its services.

• There is one site in this top 10 list that is considered a green business: InTicketing, which adopts such sustainable practices as using soy ink with hemp/flax ticket stock, tree-free envelopes, bio-diesel and hybrid event vehicles, and the first ticketing agency to develop tree planting initiatives - resulting in the planting of hundreds of thousands of trees since its inception. Although small when compared to the top three sites in this list, inTicketing does nonetheless attract over 40,000 visitors per month.

• The demographic characteristics of the visitors to the ticketing sites are more diverse than the travel sites about, with demographics of the visitors being influenced substantially by the type of shows and events the ticketing sites sponsor and manage. The customer segmentation among the ticketing sites is again influenced greatly by the near monopoly power of TicketMaster. With TicketMaster dominating the overall industry, the remaining sites have to specialize in niche events, thereby greatly affecting the demographics of their core visitor group.

• In terms of visitor origination, the overwhelming majority of visitors are from the US, averaging 86% for all the sites, and over 90% for the top two (92.3% for TicketMaster, and 92.4% for StubHub).

• There are two outliers in the user-origination trends. Ticket.com's US visitor ratio if 75%, with an additional 12% from UK. For inTicketing, the US visitor ratio is 68%, with another 12% from Canada. This is another example of niche marketing in a monopoly industry.

• The visitor trends for the last 12 months shows a steady volume for majority of the top 10 sites, with only CityPass showing a major drop in traffic during the past year in the August. BrownPaperTickets and CityPass both pick up traffic during the first couple of months of 2008.

TRENDS

Tic

ketM

ast

er

Stu

bH

ub

Tic

kets

.co

m

Tic

ketW

eb

Tic

kCo

Tix

Bro

wn

Pa

pe

r

City

Pa

ss

intic

ketin

g

Tic

ketL

ea

p

0%

2000%


Education

• The top 10 online ticketing sites attract about 38 million visitors and 18 million uniques monthly. The online ticketing market is dominated by one company: TicketMaster, which attracts 75% of all visitors and 70 % of all uniques. StubHub and Tickets.com round out the top 3 and attract an additional 12% and 8% of the visitor traffic respectively. The bottom 7 sites attract the remaining 5% of visitor traffic, which makes online ticketing an extremely top-heavy industry, just as was the case with Consolidators, Airlines, Hotels, and Car Rentals.

• Although TicketMaster has a higher visits/visitor ratio than any of the other sites at 2.15, the difference is not significant enough to explain their extreme monopolistic position in this industry. The average ratio for the remaining 8 sites is 1.45. In this case, the biggest driver for traffic is representation of TicketMaster by venues and events. TicketMaster is the sole ticket processor for most of the entertainment venues in the US, and they also have exclusive relationshiops with promoters, managers, and booking companies. These monopoly relationships allow TicketMaster not only attract the most visitors to its online ticket sites, but to also charge monopoly prices for its services.

• There is one site in this top 10 list that is considered a green business: InTicketing, which adopts such sustainable practices as using soy ink with hemp/flax ticket stock, tree-free envelopes, bio-diesel and hybrid event vehicles, and the first ticketing agency to develop tree planting initiatives - resulting in the planting of hundreds of thousands of trees since its inception. Although small when compared to the top three sites in this list, inTicketing does nonetheless attract over 40,000 visitors per month.

• The demographic characteristics of the visitors to the ticketing sites are more diverse than the travel sites about, with demographics of the visitors being influenced substantially by the type of shows and events the ticketing sites sponsor and manage. The customer segmentation among the ticketing sites is again influenced greatly by the near monopoly power of TicketMaster. With TicketMaster dominating the overall industry, the remaining sites have to specialize in niche events, thereby greatly affecting the demographics of their core visitor group.

• In terms of visitor origination, the overwhelming majority of visitors are from the US, averaging 86% for all the sites, and over 90% for the top two (92.3% for TicketMaster, and 92.4% for StubHub).

• There are two outliers in the user-origination trends. Ticket.com's US visitor ratio if 75%, with an additional 12% from UK. For inTicketing, the US visitor ratio is 68%, with another 12% from Canada. This is another example of niche marketing in a monopoly industry.

• The visitor trends for the last 12 months shows a steady volume for majority of the top 10 sites, with only CityPass showing a major drop in traffic during the past year in the August. BrownPaperTickets and CityPass both pick up traffic during the first couple of months of 2008.

DEMOGRAPHICS

75%

12%8%2%2%1%0%0%0%0%



70%

13%9%4%3%1%0%0%0%0%



Tic

ketM

aste

r

Stu

bHub

Tic

kets

.com

Tic

ketW

eb

Tic

kCo

Tix

Bro

wnP

aper

City

Pas

s

intic

ketin

g

Tic

ketL

eap

0%

2000%

Female Male

Gender

Tic

ketM

aste

r

Stu

bHub

Tic

kets

.com

Tic

ketW

eb

Tic

kCo

Tix

Bro

wnP

aper

City

Pas

s

intic

ketin

g

Tic

ketL

eap

0%

2000%


Ethnicity

Tic

ketM

ast

er

Stu

bH

ub

Tic

kets

.co

m

Tic

ketW

eb

Tic

kCo

Tix

Bro

wn

Pa

pe

r

City

Pa

ss

intic

ketin

g

Tic

ketL

ea

p

0%

2000%

65+ 55-64 45-54 35-44 25-34 18-24

Age

Tic

ketM

ast

er

Stu

bH

ub

Tic

kets

.co

m

Tic

ketW

eb

Tic

kCo

Tix

Bro

wn

Pa

pe

r

City

Pa

ss

intic

ketin

g

Tic

ketL

ea

p0%

2000%

$100K+ $60-$100K $30-$60K $0-$30K

Income

Tic

ketM

ast

er

Stu

bH

ub

Tic

kets

.co

m

Tic

ketW

eb

Tic

kCo

Tix

Bro

wn

Pa

pe

r

City

Pa

ss

intic

ketin

g

Tic

ketL

ea

p

0%

2000%


Education

Tic

ketM

ast

er

Stu

bH

ub

Tic

kets

.co

m

Tic

ketW

eb

Tic

kCo

Tix

Bro

wn

Pa

pe

r

City

Pa

ss

intic

ketin

g

Tic

ketL

ea

p

0%

2000%

Yes No

Children in HH

Tic

ketM

ast

er

Stu

bH

ub

Tic

kets

.co

m

Tic

ketW

eb

Tic

kCo

Tix

Bro

wn

Pa

pe

r

City

Pa

ss

intic

ketin

g

Tic

ketL

ea

p

0%

2000%


Education

Tic

ketM

ast

er

Stu

bH

ub

Tic

kets

.co

m

Tic

ketW

eb

Tic

kCo

Tix

Bro

wn

Pa

pe

r

City

Pa

ss

intic

ketin

g

Tic

ketL

ea

p

0%

2000%

Yes No

Children in HH

USER ORIGINATION

70%

13%9%4%3%1%0%0%0%0%



Tic

ketM

aste

r

Stu

bHub

Tic

kets

.com

Tic

ketW

eb

Tic

kCo

Tix

Bro

wnP

aper

City

Pas

s

intic

ketin

g

Tic

ketL

eap

0%

2000%


Ethnicity

Tic

ketM

ast

er

Stu

bH

ub

Tic

kets

.co

m

Tic

ketW

eb

Tic

kCo

Tix

Bro

wn

Pa

pe

r

City

Pa

ss

intic

ketin

g

Tic

ketL

ea

p

0%

2000%

$100K+ $60-$100K $30-$60K $0-$30K

Income

Tic

ketM

ast

er

Stu

bH

ub

Tic

kets

.co

m

Tic

ketW

eb

Tic

kCo

Tix

Bro

wn

Pa

pe

r

City

Pa

ss

intic

ketin

g

Tic

ketL

ea

p

0%

2000%

Yes No

Children in HH

Tic

ketM

ast

er

Stu

bH

ub

Tic

kets

.co

m

Tic

ketW

eb

Tic

kCo

Tix

Bro

wn

Pa

pe

r

City

Pa

ss

intic

ketin

g

Tic

ketL

ea

p

0%

2000%

Hungary Hong Kong Singapore Australia Mexico Thailand Italy Germany India

UK Canada Poland US

Tic

ketM

ast

er

Stu

bH

ub

Tic

kets

.co

m

Tic

ketW

eb

Tic

kCo

Tix

Bro

wn

Pa

pe

r

City

Pa

ss

intic

ketin

g

Tic

ketL

ea

p

0%

2000%

Yes No

Children in HH

(9) Online Green Sites Ranking1 2 3 4

TreeHugger IdealBite TheGreenGuide EarthEasy

Traffic

Visits

Monthly Visits 2,093,481 230,840 147,181 146,542Monthly Uniques 1,388,381 169,226 117,895 128,920Avg. Visits per Unique 1.51 1.36 1.25 1.14Passers-by 77% 80% 87% 87%Regulars 23% 20% 13% 13%Addicts 0% 0% 0% 0%Passers-by 45% 53% 70% 75%Regulars 48% 43% 30% 25%

Addicts 7% 4% 0% 0%

Demographics


Ethnicity


Age


Yes 24% 21% 21% 30%US 60.9% 76.0% 71.2% 73.3%Australia 2.7% 2.2% 3.2% 2.8%Canada 4.2% 3.2% 5.0% 6.2%UK 5.7% 4.5% 1.4% 3.3%India 3.6% 4.4% 3.1%Pakistan 4.0%RomaniaPhillipinesTaiwan

China


Share of Visits

HouseholdIncome




Users - Country of

Origins (Top 5)

Ranking5 6 7 8 9 10

Lime GroovyGreen SustainLane Responsible Travel ecosherpa Average145,542 60,625 22,807 16,685 11,601 2,740 287,804117,803 48,961 18,958 13,552 7,304 2,216 201,322

1.24 1.24 1.20 1.23 1.59 1.24 1.30 88% 84% 86% 97% 86% 91% 86.3%12% 16% 14% 3% 14% 9% 13.7%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.0%73% 64% 67% 94% 67% 83% 69.1%27% 35% 32% 6% 33% 17% 29.6%

0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1.3%43% 60% 49% 36% 43% 54% 45.4%57% 40% 51% 64% 57% 46% 54.6%82% 89% 89% 82% 70% 89% 85.9%

8% 2% 4% 2% 9% 3% 4.5%3% 3% 4% 4% 15% 1% 4.1%6% 2% 2% 7% 4% 7% 3.8%1% 4% 1% 5% 2% 0% 1.7%

12% 7% 6% 9% 13% 3% 7.8%19% 16% 18% 24% 19% 19% 20.7%20% 11% 18% 16% 24% 23% 19.2%18% 19% 21% 17% 21% 29% 20.6%16% 33% 24% 21% 16% 17% 20.3%15% 14% 13% 11% 7% 9% 11.2%17% 24% 17% 26% 13% 27% 18.9%34% 34% 33% 33% 30% 46% 34.8%29% 23% 31% 30% 29% 22% 28.0%20% 19% 19% 11% 28% 5% 18.3%45% 24% 35% 38% 29% 32% 34.4%41% 62% 48% 46% 45% 48% 47.5%14% 14% 17% 16% 26% 19% 18.0%71% 82% 78% 80% 66% 56% 73.7%

29% 18% 22% 20% 34% 44% 26.3%76.4% 69.4% 74.9% 70.3% 16.3% 53.6% 64.2%

5.5% 13.6% 0.2% 55.0% 10.7%1.9% 2.4% 5.0% 4.0%4.9% 3.5% 10.0% 2.8% 35.8% 12.6% 8.5%3.0% 1.9% 2.9% 23.9% 8.4% 11.7% 7.0%

4.0%0.8% 0.8%0.2% 1.2% 0.7%

0.3% 0.3%

3.3% 3.3%

First

Second

Third

Fourth

Fifth

Alternative Consumer

ANALYSIS

73%

8%5%5%5%2%1%1%0%0%


TreeHugger IdealBiteTheGreenGuide EarthEasyLime GroovyGreenAlternative Consumer SustainLane

Tre

eH

ug

ge

r

Ide

alB

ite

Th

eG

ree

nG

uid

e

Ea

rth

Ea

sy

Lim

e

Gro

ovy

Gre

en

Alte

rna

tive

Co

nsu

me

r

Su

sta

inL

an

e

Re

spo

nsi

ble

Tra

vel

eco

she

rpa

0%

2000%

Female Male

Gender

Tre

eH

ug

ge

r

Ide

alB

ite

Th

eG

ree

nG

uid

e

Ea

rth

Ea

sy

Lim

e

Gro

ovy

Gre

en

Alte

rna

tive

Co

nsu

me

r

Su

sta

inL

an

e

Re

spo

nsi

ble

Tra

vel

eco

she

rpa

0%

2000%

65+ 55-64 45-54 35-44 25-34 18-24

Age

Tre

eH

ug

ge

r

Ide

alB

ite

Th

eG

ree

nG

uid

e

Ea

rth

Ea

sy

Lim

e

Gro

ovy

Gre

en

Alte

rna

tive

Co

nsu

me

r

Su

sta

inL

an

e

Re

spo

nsi

ble

Tra

vel

eco

she

rpa

0%

2000%


Education

• The top 10 Green Sites provide a variety of services and information to help their visitors make more sustainable life-style choices. What these sites have in common is that they all allow individuals to purchase green products and services, and to provide them with the background guides on sustainable living and consumerism. In addition, the majority of the sites offer blogs and activism opportunities.

• Overall these 10 sites attract 2.8 million visitors and 2.0 million uniques per month, a significant traffic volume given the breath of green sites, and the fact that none of these sites are owned by corporations. Surprisingly, this list is again dominated by one site, Treehugger.com, which attracts 73% of the total visits, and 70% of total uniques, which amounts to over 2 million visitors and 1.4 million uniques. Those are significant traffic numbers and it gives Treehugger a top 2,000 Internet ranking.

• Of the top 5, the remaining 4 sites attract an additional 23% of visitors and 20% of uniques, bringing the total visitor share of the top 5 Green sites to 96% of visitors and 90% of uniques.

• Similar to Ticketing sites, customes loyalty cannot explain the difference in these visitor-share numbers, with Treehugger having only a slightly higher visits per visitor ratio than the remaining 9 sites (1.51 for Treehugger versus 1.28 average for the remaining nine sites).

• Although it is difficult to ascertain what is contributing to these high traffic numbers for Treehugger versus the other sites, there are a couple of hypotheses:

o Given lack of significant marketing dollars and corporate backing, and given the grassroots nature of online green movements, it would seem that reputation and word of mouth would play a very important role in driving traffic volumes for Green sites.

o It may also be that the online Green market is very dynamic and we are witnessing the current top Green site, which may change in the future. This is partially evident when looking at the visitor trends during the past year. Lime.com lost over 90% of its visitor traffic during the course of the year, dropping from an average of 1.4 million visitors per month to 145 thousands.

• In terms of demographic make up, there is a wide range of characteristics, again signifying niche markets in an otherwise dynamic industry:

o A much wider gender ratio than any of the other categories under analysis.

o A more diverse age and income groups, ranging from younger and less well- off characteristics of ResponsibleTraveler to older, higher income visitors to AlternativeConsumer.

o Overall, visitors to Green sites seem to be better educated than visitors to other categories under analysis here.

• Furthermore, the visitors to these 10 Green sites are mostly from 5 countries. As is the case with the Travel sites, majority of visitors are from US, followed by Australia, Canada, UK and India. ResponsibleTravel is again an anomaly, where majority of users are from Australia, rather than US.

TRENDS

Tre

eH

ug

ge

r

Ide

alB

ite

Th

eG

ree

nG

uid

e

Ea

rth

Ea

sy

Lim

e

Gro

ovy

Gre

en

Alte

rna

tive

Co

nsu

me

r

Su

sta

inL

an

e

Re

spo

nsi

ble

Tra

vel

eco

she

rpa

0%

2000%


Education

• The top 10 Green Sites provide a variety of services and information to help their visitors make more sustainable life-style choices. What these sites have in common is that they all allow individuals to purchase green products and services, and to provide them with the background guides on sustainable living and consumerism. In addition, the majority of the sites offer blogs and activism opportunities.

• Overall these 10 sites attract 2.8 million visitors and 2.0 million uniques per month, a significant traffic volume given the breath of green sites, and the fact that none of these sites are owned by corporations. Surprisingly, this list is again dominated by one site, Treehugger.com, which attracts 73% of the total visits, and 70% of total uniques, which amounts to over 2 million visitors and 1.4 million uniques. Those are significant traffic numbers and it gives Treehugger a top 2,000 Internet ranking.

• Of the top 5, the remaining 4 sites attract an additional 23% of visitors and 20% of uniques, bringing the total visitor share of the top 5 Green sites to 96% of visitors and 90% of uniques.

• Similar to Ticketing sites, customes loyalty cannot explain the difference in these visitor-share numbers, with Treehugger having only a slightly higher visits per visitor ratio than the remaining 9 sites (1.51 for Treehugger versus 1.28 average for the remaining nine sites).

• Although it is difficult to ascertain what is contributing to these high traffic numbers for Treehugger versus the other sites, there are a couple of hypotheses:

o Given lack of significant marketing dollars and corporate backing, and given the grassroots nature of online green movements, it would seem that reputation and word of mouth would play a very important role in driving traffic volumes for Green sites.

o It may also be that the online Green market is very dynamic and we are witnessing the current top Green site, which may change in the future. This is partially evident when looking at the visitor trends during the past year. Lime.com lost over 90% of its visitor traffic during the course of the year, dropping from an average of 1.4 million visitors per month to 145 thousands.

• In terms of demographic make up, there is a wide range of characteristics, again signifying niche markets in an otherwise dynamic industry:

o A much wider gender ratio than any of the other categories under analysis.

o A more diverse age and income groups, ranging from younger and less well- off characteristics of ResponsibleTraveler to older, higher income visitors to AlternativeConsumer.

o Overall, visitors to Green sites seem to be better educated than visitors to other categories under analysis here.

• Furthermore, the visitors to these 10 Green sites are mostly from 5 countries. As is the case with the Travel sites, majority of visitors are from US, followed by Australia, Canada, UK and India. ResponsibleTravel is again an anomaly, where majority of users are from Australia, rather than US.

DEMOGRAPHICS

73%

8%5%5%5%2%1%1%0%0%



69%

8%6%6%6%2%1%1%0%0%

Monthly Uniques: ~2.0M


Tre

eH

ug

ge

r

Ide

alB

ite

Th

eG

ree

nG

uid

e

Ea

rth

Ea

sy

Lim

e

Gro

ovy

Gre

en

Alte

rna

tive

Co

nsu

me

r

Su

sta

inL

an

e

Re

spo

nsi

ble

Tra

vel

eco

she

rpa

0%

2000%

Female Male

GenderT

reeH

ugge

r

Idea

lBite

The

Gre

enG

uide

Ear

thE

asy

Lim

e

Gro

ovyG

reen

Alte

rnat

ive

Con

sum

er

Sus

tain

Lane

Res

pons

ible

Tra

vel

ecos

herp

a

0%

2000%


Ethnicity

Tre

eH

ug

ge

r

Ide

alB

ite

Th

eG

ree

nG

uid

e

Ea

rth

Ea

sy

Lim

e

Gro

ovy

Gre

en

Alte

rna

tive

Co

nsu

me

r

Su

sta

inL

an

e

Re

spo

nsi

ble

Tra

vel

eco

she

rpa

0%

2000%

65+ 55-64 45-54 35-44 25-34 18-24

Age

Tre

eH

ug

ge

r

Ide

alB

ite

Th

eG

ree

nG

uid

e

Ea

rth

Ea

sy

Lim

e

Gro

ovy

Gre

en

Alte

rna

tive

Co

nsu

me

r

Su

sta

inL

an

e

Re

spo

nsi

ble

Tra

vel

eco

she

rpa

0%

2000%

$100K+ $60-$100K $30-$60K $0-$30K

Income

Tre

eH

ug

ge

r

Ide

alB

ite

Th

eG

ree

nG

uid

e

Ea

rth

Ea

sy

Lim

e

Gro

ovy

Gre

en

Alte

rna

tive

Co

nsu

me

r

Su

sta

inL

an

e

Re

spo

nsi

ble

Tra

vel

eco

she

rpa

0%

2000%


Education

Tre

eH

ug

ge

r

Ide

alB

ite

Th

eG

ree

nG

uid

e

Ea

rth

Ea

sy

Lim

e

Gro

ovy

Gre

en

Alte

rna

tive

Co

nsu

me

r

Su

sta

inL

an

e

Re

spo

nsi

ble

Tra

vel

eco

she

rpa

0%

2000%

Yes No

Children in HH

Tre

eH

ug

ge

r

Ide

alB

ite

Th

eG

ree

nG

uid

e

Ea

rth

Ea

sy

Lim

e

Gro

ovy

Gre

en

Alte

rna

tive

Co

nsu

me

r

Su

sta

inL

an

e

Re

spo

nsi

ble

Tra

vel

eco

she

rpa

0%

2000%


Education

Tre

eH

ug

ge

r

Ide

alB

ite

Th

eG

ree

nG

uid

e

Ea

rth

Ea

sy

Lim

e

Gro

ovy

Gre

en

Alte

rna

tive

Co

nsu

me

r

Su

sta

inL

an

e

Re

spo

nsi

ble

Tra

vel

eco

she

rpa

0%

2000%

Yes No

Children in HH

USER ORIGINATION

69%

8%6%6%6%2%1%1%0%0%

Monthly Uniques: ~2.0M


Tre

eHug

ger

Idea

lBite

The

Gre

enG

uide

Ear

thE

asy

Lim

e

Gro

ovyG

reen

Alte

rnat

ive

Con

sum

er

Sus

tain

Lane

Res

pons

ible

Tra

vel

ecos

herp

a

0%

2000%


Ethnicity

Tre

eH

ug

ge

r

Ide

alB

ite

Th

eG

ree

nG

uid

e

Ea

rth

Ea

sy

Lim

e

Gro

ovy

Gre

en

Alte

rna

tive

Co

nsu

me

r

Su

sta

inL

an

e

Re

spo

nsi

ble

Tra

vel

eco

she

rpa

0%

2000%

$100K+ $60-$100K $30-$60K $0-$30K

Income

Tre

eH

ug

ge

r

Ide

alB

ite

Th

eG

ree

nG

uid

e

Ea

rth

Ea

sy

Lim

e

Gro

ovy

Gre

en

Alte

rna

tive

Co

nsu

me

r

Su

sta

inL

an

e

Re

spo

nsi

ble

Tra

vel

eco

she

rpa

0%

2000%

Yes No

Children in HH

Tre

eHug

ger

Idea

lBite

The

Gre

enG

uide

Ear

thE

asy

Lim

e

Gro

ovyG

reen

Alte

rnat

ive

Con

sum

er

Sus

tain

Lane

Res

pons

ible

Tra

vel

ecos

herp

a

0%

2000%

China Taiwan Phillipines Romania Pakistan India UK Canada Australia US

Tre

eH

ug

ge

r

Ide

alB

ite

Th

eG

ree

nG

uid

e

Ea

rth

Ea

sy

Lim

e

Gro

ovy

Gre

en

Alte

rna

tive

Co

nsu

me

r

Su

sta

inL

an

e

Re

spo

nsi

ble

Tra

vel

eco

she

rpa

0%

2000%

Yes No

Children in HH

Eco Retail Analysis Eco Retail Venue

New York City

The City BakeryPriti Organic SpaEnvironment FurnitureClay Organic Spa and GymGominycKaightMoo ShoesWhiskers Holistic Pet CareJohn Masters OrganicsGiggleGardenia OrganicGreen Apple CleanersEkovaruhusetOrganic Avenue4th Street Food Co-opBazaar de la PazABC Carpet & HomeVivavi3RlivingSodafine BoutiquePark Slope Food Co-opGo Green Inc.

Los AngelesRa Organic Spadtox Day SpaRecessThe Little SeedAll Shades of GreenAvita Co-opUndesigned by Carol YoungGreen RohiniNAU

www.organicrush.com Organic RushKellygreenLivingreenBoom

Global Chains or World PartnersPatagoniaSmith and HawkenLushFood Cooperative Orgs.

www.thecitybakery.com/index2www.pritiorganicspa.comwww.environment-furniture.comwww.insideclay.comwww.gominyc.comwww.kaightnyc.comwww.mooshoes.comwww.1800whiskers.comwww.johnmasters.comwww.giggle.comwww.gardeniaorganic.comwww.greenapplecleaners.comwww.ekovaruhuset.sewww.organicavenue.comwww.4thstreetfoodcoop.orgwww.basaardelapaz.comwww.abchome.comwww.vivavi.comwww.3rliving.comwww.sodafine.comwww.foodcoop.comwww.gogreeninc.com

www.raorganicspa.comwww.dtoxdayspa.comwww.recess-la.comwww.thelittleseed.comwww.allshadesofgreen.comwww.avitastyle.comwww.undesigned.comwww.greenrohini.comwww.nau.com

www.kellygreendesign.netwww.livingreen.comwww.boomusa.com

www.patagonia.comwww.smithandhawken.comwww.lush.comwww.niany.com/food.coop

http://www.thecitybakery.com/index2

http://www.pritiorganicspa.com/

http://www.environment-furniture.com/

http://www.insideclay.com/

http://www.gominyc.com/

http://www.kaightnyc.com/

http://www.mooshoes.com/

http://www.1800whiskers.com/

http://www.johnmasters.com/

http://www.giggle.com/

http://www.gardeniaorganic.com/

http://www.greenapplecleaners.com/

http://www.ekovaruhuset.se/

http://www.organicavenue.com/

http://www.4thstreetfoodcoop.org/

http://www.basaardelapaz.com/

http://www.abchome.com/

http://www.vivavi.com/

http://www.3rliving.com/

http://www.sodafine.com/

http://www.foodcoop.com/

http://www.gogreeninc.com/

http://www.raorganicspa.com/

http://www.detoxdayspa.com/

http://www.recess-la.com/

http://www.thelittleseed.com/

http://www.allshadesofgreen.com/

http://www.avitastyle.com/

http://www.undesigned.com/

http://www.greenrohini.com/

http://www.nau.com/

http://www.kellygreendesign.net/

http://www.livingreen.com/

http://www.boomusa.com/

http://www.patagonia.com/

http://www.smithandhawken.com/

http://www.lush.com/

http://www.niany.com/food.coop

North American Expansion CitiesUS CitiesAnn Arbor, MIAustin, TXBoston, MABoulder, COBurlington, VTChicago, ILMiami, FLMinneapolis, MNOlympia, WAPhiladelphia, PAPortland, ORSan Francisco, CASanta Cruz, CASeattle, WA

Canadian CitiesVancouver, BCMontrealToronto

Product/service Address

Green Bakery and Sustainable Food Products 3 West 18th St.Organic Nail Salon 35 East 1st St.Sustainable Furniture 876 BroadwayOrganic Spa and Fitness Center 25 W. 14th St.Eco-Boutique 443 E 6th StEco-Boutique 83 Orchard St.Vegan Footwear and Accessories 78 Orchard St.Organic Pet Products and Care 235 East 9th St.Salon, spa and organic beauty products 77 Sullivan St.Baby Products 120 Wooster St.Florist & Emporium 526 Hudson St.Organic Dry Cleaners 92 Greenwich Ave.Organic and Fair Made Clothing 123 Ludlow St.Organic Clothing, Food and Lifestyle Products 101 Stanton St.Organic Food Cooperative 58 East 4th St.Sustainable Furniture and recycled home products 2662 Broadway Carpet, Home, and Fair Trade and Eco Home Goods 888 BroadwayFurniture and Design Center 644 Manhattan Ave. 2nd FloorEco-friendly Products 276L Fifth AvenueEco-friendly Clothing and accessories 119 Grand St.Organic Food Cooperative 782 Union St.Eco-friendly Cleaning and Building Supply 485 Atlantic Ave.

Organic Spa 119 N San Fernando Blvd.Organic Spa 3206 Los Feliz Blvd.Organic Nail Salon 8408-B Beverly Blvd.Organic Baby Products and Bedding 219 N. Larchmont Blvd.Green Design Center and Store for an Eco-Friendly lifestyle 3038 Rowena AvenueClothing and Accessories 8213 W. 3rd. St.Clothing 1953 1/2 HillhurstClothing and Accessories 13327 Ventura Blvd.Clothing and Accessories 8500 Beverly Blvd. Space 724

960-962 Mission Street South PasadenaDesign and Home 4008 Santa Monica Blvd.Building Materials and Design Furnishings 10000 Culver Blvd.Furniture 3239 Helms Avenue

Outdoor gear and natural productsSustainable home goodsOrganic and handmade beauty productsUS and Global database of food cooperative organizations

City State Zip Phone

New York NY 212.366.1414New York NY 10003 212-254-3628New York NY 10003 212-780-0051New York NY 10011 212-206-9200New York NY 10009 212-979-0388New York NY 10006 212-680-5630New York NY 10002 212.254.6512New York NY 10003New York NY 10012 212.343.9540New York NY 10012 212-334-5817 New York NY 10014 646.688.5753New York NY 212.206.6236New York NY 212.673.1753New York NY 212.334.4593New York NY 10003 212.674.3623New York NY 212.662.6601New York NY 10003 212.473.3000Brookyln NY 11222 718.233.9033 or 866-848-2840Brooklyn NY 11215 718-832-0951Brooklyn NY 718.230.3060Brooklyn NY 11215 718.622.0560Brooklyn NY 11217 718.625.0260

Burbank CA 91502 818-848-4772Los Angeles CA 90039 323-665-3869Los Angeles CA 90048 323.782.9919Los Angeles CA 90004 323-462-441Los Angeles CA 90039 323-665-7454Los Angeles CA 90048 323-852-1716Los Angeles CA 90027 323-663-0088Sherman Oaks CA 91423 818-981-0023Los Angeles CA 90048 310-358-0600

960-962 Mission Street South Pasadena CA 91030 626 799 8099CA 90029 323-660-1099

Culver City CA 90232 310-838-8442Los Angeles CA 90034 310-202-1697

Email Contact name Year founded Years in operation

N/A Oct. 2005 2.5

[email protected] N/A 2003 [email protected] N/A Aug. 2006 [email protected] N/A 2001 7

[email protected] 1-800-495-8577 2002 6

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 2004 4

Mar. 2007 12006 1.5

[email protected] 2008 1 month? ?

[email protected] ? ?N/A Apr-03 1

Jun-05 2 [email protected] Sept. 2007 7 months

1-877-454-5628 [email protected] ?

Sept. 2007 7 months1-866-966-1319 ?

via website 310-202-1288 ?

[email protected]@environmentfurniture.com

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]@dtoxdayspa.com

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]











Franchise # of locations Store type

2, 1 in Los AngelesN 1 indyY Los Angeles, Costa Mesa & 2 in Ireland

N 1 indyN 1 indyN 1 indy

N 5 indy/chain

Y 3 in NYC, going nationalY 1 in Stockholm, SwedenN

N internet operated, this is just a showroom indyN 2 indy/chain

N

N 1 indyN 1 indyN 1 indyN 1 indyN 1 indyN 1 indyN 1 indyN 1 indy? 5 ?N 1 indyN 1 indy

3 ?N 1 indy

Market Share Test

Documents

Transcript of Market Share Test