I’ve been waiting for a site like Oyster for a long time. I’ve seen a few attempts at the concept, but Oyster really nails it.
Oyster gives you a real look at a hotel. The more hotels you stay at the more you realize that the photography presented on the hotel’s site rarely matches up with the reality available at the hotel location.
For example, here’s what The Superior Room at the Lucerene in NYC really looks like. Everything from the what’s on the dresser to the type of phone to the bedside clock to the plastic cups in the bathroom. There are 96 photos in total of a single hotel room. All the details are there.
If you’re still not sold, check out Oyster’s Photo Fakeouts section. This is where they compare marketing shots with actual shots. No models, no perfect lighting, no crops, no just-right angles — this is what it really looks like when you’re standing there.
Here’s what the pool at this hotel in Jamaica really looks like. Here’s a more realistic shot of another pool at a hotel in Hawaii. While we’re on the topic of pools, check out this crop at the Sofitel hotel in LA.
This fakeout at the Hyatt Regency in DC is criminal. Color me sad shows what this room in Vegas really looks like. Details like this matter when you are paying big bucks for a room.
There’s a ton more to explore on Oyster. The site is really well done — one of the best executed sites I’ve seen in a long time. They get all the little things right. It’s fast, clear, and easy to get around. The photos are big and easy to browse, the copywriting is generally excellent too. It’s a model.
max
on 23 Apr 10Conceptually, I’m with you. The execution can use a little work however:
http://j.imagehost.org/0580/img.png (doesn’t recognize ‘Seattle’ as a city)
Tim
on 23 Apr 10Cool, I think someone should do this with fast food as well. Not for a business, just for fun. Compare what the food looks like on the menu/commercial to what it actually looks like when you open up the bag. Maybe it would encourage the fast food companies to prepare their food better.
Tim
JF
on 23 Apr 10Tim: See “Fast Food: Ads vs. Reality”
Eytan Seidman
on 23 Apr 10@Max
Thanks for taking a look at Oyster. You definitely found one of our warts that we are not pleased with. We are still adding hotels and the way in which we handle “no results” could use a lot of improvement. Look for changes to this within the next couple of days.
Tyler
on 23 Apr 10I thought the Photo Fakeouts section would be fun, but instead I found it to be a disappointing exercise in Professional Photographer vs. Some Guy With a Point and Shoot.
Don’t get me wrong, there were a few clearly misleading photos, but most of them were just a difference in photography skills.
Lauro
on 23 Apr 10misleading photos from both sides, the most close gear to the human eye is a 50mm lens on a full frame camera, learn how to expose manually, because some fotos with windows are clear misleading
Lauro
on 23 Apr 10A tripod is a fear game to use or the hotels need urgent evacuation.
Don’t get me wrong, your service is a necessity for travelers and i will use some day
Elie Seidman
on 23 Apr 10The pro photog vs point and shoot is a critique people – particularly those with some photography background – bring up. But all of the photos on the site were taken with a Nikon D700 and some of the best and most expensive lenses Nikon makes. I think that a fairer way to represent what’s happening is that we are not trying to make the places look special. We show you what’s there and great places look great on Oyster and bad places look bad. There are many many hotels that look fantastic on Oyster because they are, in fact, fantastic.
James
on 23 Apr 10I too found the photo fakeouts to be a fakeout in itself. So a laptop is not present as standard in a hotel room, the amateur photos are a bit more washed out than the pro photos, a hotel rooftop by night light looks different by day, and not everyone has a wide angle lens. Well bowl me over.
Lee
on 24 Apr 10I thought all ads and marketing pieces represented reality… Thanks for the wakeup call. Next you’ll tell us that everything in wikipedia is not true… Jk.
@JF as designers we often use stock to represent what is there in the best light. Haven’t you done this in the past when you were still “forced” to do web design for clients.
Over all it is a great resource for evaluating hotels. I’ve been duped once or twice. I see the use of stock photography far less criminal then photoshopping the capital bldg a half mile closer to a hotel… Any other designers out there feel the same?
Paul
on 24 Apr 10I think most people will accept that hotels are always going to present themselves in the best light. However, it’s refreshing to really see the tricks the hotels and the photographers they’ve commissioned are getting up to.
@lee that shot of Capitol hill could easily be achieved with a telephoto lens. No photoshop required.
Mark
on 25 Apr 10It would be nice to see a date reference for the photography. Also curious how they keep track of these hotels and their update schedules.
Mathew Patterson
on 26 Apr 10Obviously you expect hotels to present their rooms in the best possible light, but they do themselves a disservice in some cases.
When your customer turns up and is disappointed because the room looks much less impressive than in the photo, that can colour the whole experience for them.
Some of the examples are blatantly misrepresenting the facilities, others are just showing things in their ideal state. There is a difference.
John
on 27 Apr 10Very well done. What I find most interesting is how it illustrates how so many treat the hotel as destination vs. the destination itself. When I travel I spend as little time in the hotel as possible and beyond wifi and hot water could care less about the amenities.
It would be nice if they could add more commentary on the neighbourhood. Some hotels overstate their location and streetview isn’t available everywhere.
Jason C.
on 28 Apr 10Jason, I’m surprised that you didn’t notice the giant thing missing from Oyster.com: A revenue stream to pay for all that pretty content (and the nice cameras that Ellie mentions). They have no business model. At all. Period. I’d love to hear an Oyster rep explain how the few pennies they get from a booking transaction will pay them enough to support the content creation on the site. The multiple rounds of layoffs Oyster has had speak to its difficult situation, as does its traffic. I’m all for seeing a great new travel resource - especially one with content as good as Oyster’s - but I’d prefer one that has an idea about how it can make money at launch, rather than one that depends on the kindness of Bain & Co or another investor.
This discussion is closed.