Talk:Revenue management
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Revenue vs. yield management edit
Revenue Management and Yield Management are inherently different. Yield Management is under the wide umbrella of Revenue Management since YM focuses specifically on inventory, especially when that inventory is perishable (e.g. hotel rooms and airline seats) --User:clecraw 11:30, 23 November 2010
A page called Revenue Management exists and a page called Yield management exists. --Dajanes 13:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I would like to mention that Revenue Management also has a lot of downsides. In many industries it leads to heavy overpricing. For example in the airline industry it leads to heavily overpriced tickets on certain routes as it utilizes a strong information asymmetry in the market. A critical article giving an example could be found here [[1]].
--05:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC) In response to the comment above, the downsides of revenue management are proportionally balanced by an upside. Market softness or lack of demand has led to the increased availability of inventory (e.g. airline seats, hotel rooms)at discounted prices. However, in any discussion around pricing, any claim of over- or under-pricing must be verified against a market related benchmark and not simply the airline's or hotel's published/Rack rate. The price has a direct correlation to the amount the market is willing to pay at that time. Duncan Bramwell [2]
"Developing industries" - buzzwords and jargon edit
The section is full of buzzwords and industry jargon, that should be cleaned up and rephrased by an unbiased topic expert. Just to name one glaring example: "has incredible benefits, and many companies are rushing to develop their own revenue management capabilities" is not encyclopedic, not even close. Similar problems taint the entire section's tone. Also, any claims of success, quality, improvements, etc. should not be sourced to involved authors and lobbyists, but need independent expert sources. The reliance on possibly involved sources just adds to the problem of a biased presentation of facts. Note for clarity: the information is not necessarily false, but it is not presented from an "uninvolved observer's point of view" as required by WP:NPOV. GermanJoe (talk) 08:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)