Talk:TourRadar

Observer "award"
Could you expand on your edit summary? I'm not convinced that your logic is sound for three reasons: (1) notability is our standard for determining whether a given topic warrants its own article, and has no bearing on article content; (2) while the claim that TourRadar's conduct was the "worst customer service" is indeed an opinion, the bulk of the content added is not opinion but fact; and (3) there's no prohibition on Wikipedia articles containing opinions cited to reliable sources (such as The Observer), in fact they frequently do. If your concern is that the opinion is framed as though it were a real award, I think that's fair enough, and would be happy to reword it to avoid giving that impression, but I can't see any good reason why the content wouldn't belong in the article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)  Thank you for starting a discussion. Just to set the scene, I work in the travel industry, but not with TourRadar or any of its associated companies. (Not even the same country). My concern of notability is not that this happened, but that it has happened to hundreds or thousands of other travel agents around the world. There’s no significance in mentioning this one only. TourRadar is a basically a travel agency. The product they provide is a booking service from tour operators and other suppliers. TourRadar would have paid these suppliers at the time of booking, and would have to wait for any refund from the tour operators to be returned before they can refund. If a passenger does a credit card charge-back, it is normal and justified for the agent to challenge it as the agent has already provided the service that was paid for, ie, the booking being made. It’s not the fault of an agent that the trip does not go ahead, and the passengers complaint should be against the tour operator. The Observer article is no different from others happening around the world, and shows the media’s lack of understanding of the travel agent’s role in booking travel. Media attacks like this are very frequent, world wide, and have been happening since covid started. There’s nothing to indicate this has only happened to TourRadar, or that the Observer’s article is worthy of any special mention.--Dmol (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to me on this. I appreciate the clarity and perspective, but at the same time your argument isn't really grounded in any policy or guideline. With some rare exceptions, we don't write articles based on what we know, but on what reliable sources say. In this case, the fact that the Observer not only wrote about TourRadar's behaviour in July but then returned to it, identifying it as an especially egregious example, in December, very strongly suggests it ought to be mentioned in the article. Ultimately WP:VNT comes into play: it may not be the case that TourRadar is in any way unique, but the fact that the Observer has treated it as such means we can too. (On the actual facts of the case, I'm sure you have a greater understanding of it than I do, but it seems to me what you've missed is that TourRadar distinguished itself by telling customers that their efforts to obtain a refund from their card issuer would disqualify them from receiving a credit note in the event their claim was unsuccessful – which would seem to be punitive rather than necessary; the company would bear no additional risk by offering credit notes to those customers). I suppose the most important question, moving forward, is whether there is any way this could be worded or presented that you'd find acceptable? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you get back to me on this, especially my last question? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My main comment here would be that it is not "an especially egregious" example, as this type of writing is common among the media worldwide and easily found in other examples. The company DOES carry additional risk (ie, cost) if they had to offer a credit note when they themselves are not getting a refund to pass on to the passengers. I really can't think of any suitable way of wording this, but I think it would be best to generalise it and say they have, like other agencies, faced media attacks for not refunding money that they themselves do not have. --Dmol (talk) 10:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think I could support wording like that, which contains two separate claims not backed up the sources cited. More generally, though, I think there's still a misunderstanding here (I think you're misunderstanding me, but it could also be that I'm misunderstanding the source or the source is misunderstanding TourRadar's practices). It would be true that, but whether the credit note is offered doesn't seem to be determined by whether the company gets a refund to pass on or not. Rather, whether the credit note is offered seems to be determined by whether the customer applies for a refund. All customers whose holidays were cancelled were offered credit notes; the offer was rescinded not only in cases where a refund was received by the customer, but also in cases where a refund was requested but not granted. The central issue is not their but their making credit notes conditional on the customer not requesting a refund (which, again, is something different than making credit notes conditional on the customer not receiving a refund). It's really not at all an issue of whether the money is there or not. Do you think a third opinion would be useful here? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

3O Response: Since the sources don't have a lot of the specifics on this, perhaps the best we can do is to describe the general state of the industry to give context? We should also include TourRadar's (brief) response. How about something like: In 2020, when the tour industry was in crisis due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on tourism, (I like the more-specific link and think that's generally verifiable without a citation.) The Observer gave TourRadar one of eight awards for the year's "worst customer service". TourRadar's employees had told a customer whose holiday was cancelled due to travel restrictions to agree to a credit note instead of a refund, then, after she claimed a refund through her credit card issuer, threatened to hold her responsible for cancelling her holiday and attempted to pressure her into dropping her claim. TourRadar stated that it had only provided "recommendations". (cite the two Guardian/Observer articles) Many in the travel industry were offering credit notes (cite July Observor article) and travel bookers were themselves awaiting refunds from overseas tour operators and their vendors. (cite Travelpulse, an industry magazine). TourRadar usually makes bookings three to twelve months in advance, and had been working with each tour operator to honor a credit system. (cite PhocusWire, an industry magazine). What do you think, is that a little more balanced? This is a non-binding third opinion, but I hope it helps! – Reidgreg (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Reidgreg. I think this looks good, generally. The additional sources are a good idea. The only issue may be that by writing more than a couple of sentences on this we run into WEIGHT issues, as it makes it look more as though this is one of the main things TourRadar is known for, when it probably isn't. what do you think? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)