System and method for matching an offer with a quote

• US 20040210513A1
• Filed: 04/23/2004
• Published: 10/21/2004
• Est. Priority Date: 08/25/2000
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: Expedia Inc. (Expedia Group, Inc.)
• Original Assignee: Expedia Inc. (Expedia Group, Inc.)
• Inventors: Bogdanovic, Maja, Hector, Clair, Widjaja, Sendi, Harford, Barnaby Merrick
• Granted Patent: US 7,672,883 B2
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 705/37
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/02 Reservations, e.g. for tickets, services or events
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/025 Coordination of plural reservations, e.g. plural trip segments, transportation combined with accommodation
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 20/10 specially adapted for electronic funds transfer [EFT] systems; specially adapted for home banking systems
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 30/0601 Electronic shopping [e-shopping]
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 30/0611 Request for offers or quotes
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 30/0613 Third-party assisted
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 30/0625 Directed, with specific intent or strategy
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 30/0635 Processing of requisition or of purchase orders
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 40/00 Finance; Insurance; Tax strategies; Processing of corporate or income taxes
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 40/04 Trading; Exchange, e.g. stocks, commodities, derivatives or currency exchange
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 50/188 Electronic negotiation
• CPC Class Codes: Y10S 707/99933 Query processing, i.e. searching

Abstract

Described is a system and method that satisfies offers from customers with quotes from suppliers in a way that increases the likelihood of achieving an acceptable match. The system of the present invention is configured to receive from a customer an offer for a product. The system queries in parallel multiple suppliers for rate quotes on the desired product. Each of the suppliers is ranked according to the lowest rate quoted by each supplier. The supplier quoting the lowest rate is selected as the winner of the offer. The system may then evaluate any other rate quotes provided by the winning provider. The system may satisfy the customer'"'"'s offer with the winning provider at a higher rate (if one was provided) than the winning rate quoted, up to the customer'"'"'s offer (perhaps adjusted for a reasonable profit). In this way, even though the provider provides low rate quotes to win the offer, the provider may still realize a much higher rate for the goods or services by quoting additional, higher rate quotes as well.

Claims

1. A computer-implemented method of matching an offer for a product with a supplier, comprising:

receiving the offer from a customer machine;

obtaining at least one quote for the product from each of a plurality of suppliers and obtaining at least two quotes from one supplier in the plurality of suppliers, a first quote from the one supplier being lower than a second quote from the one supplier;

identifying a qualifying quote for the product from each of the quotes obtained from the plurality of suppliers;

comparing the qualifying quotes from each of the quotes obtained to identify a most-preferential quote of the qualifying quotes;

if the offer exceeds the most-preferential quote, matching the offer with the supplier corresponding to the most-preferential quote; and

evaluating any other quotes provided by the supplier corresponding to the most-preferential quote.

2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the offer includes a price and a description of the product.

3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the product is a travel service.

4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein, in case the one quote is the most-preferential quote, evaluating any other quotes comprises matching the offer with the second quote from the one supplier.

5. The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the one quote is the lowest quote made by the one supplier.

6. The computer-implemented method of claim 4, further comprising negotiating a purchase of the product from the supplier corresponding to the most-preferential quote.

7. The computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein negotiating the purchase of the product from the supplier includes making a reservation for a travel service provided by the supplier at a value corresponding to the second quote.

8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein comparing the qualifying quotes from each of the quotes obtained includes calculating a value above which a particular quote is not economically viable and excluding quotes above the calculated value.

9. A computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions, comprising:

receiving from a customer machine an offer representing a value that the customer is willing to exchange for a product;

receiving a set of quotes from each of a plurality of suppliers to provide the product, and receiving at least two quotes from one supplier in the plurality of suppliers, a first quote from the one supplier being lower than a second quote from the one supplier;

ranking each supplier in the plurality of suppliers according to the value of at least one quote in the set of quotes received from each supplier;

selecting a highest ranked supplier from the plurality of suppliers;

matching the offer from the customer with the highest ranked supplier; and

evaluating any other quotes provided by the supplier corresponding to the most-preferential quote.

10. The computer-readable medium of claim 9, wherein the value of the one quote includes a price for the product.

11. The computer-readable medium of claim 10, wherein the value of the one quote includes a quality rating associated with the product quoted by the supplier.

12. The computer-readable medium of claim 9, wherein the value of the one quote includes a quality rating associated with the product quoted by the supplier.

13. The computer-readable medium of claim 9, wherein, in case the one quote is the most preferential quote, matching the offer with the second quote from the one supplier.

14. The computer-readable medium of claim 9, wherein the product includes a characteristic having a rating, the offer identifying an acceptable rating value and wherein the quote received from each supplier identifies the rating of the product being quoted by that supplier.

15. The computer-readable medium of claim 14, wherein the product includes a travel service and the characteristic includes a quality of the travel service.

16. A computer-implemented method for matching an offer for a product with a supplier, comprising:

receiving the offer from a customer machine, the offer identifying a price and a minimum acceptable quality for the product;

calculating a first value based on the offer that reflects a desired margin;

obtaining at least one quote for the product from each of a plurality of suppliers, each quote identifying a price for the product that a corresponding supplier is ready to accept, each quote also having a rating for the quality of the product being quoted by the corresponding supplier;

selecting one quote from each of the suppliers;

for those suppliers for which the one quote provided is below the first value, ranking those suppliers based on the rating associated with the product being quoted by the supplier; and

selecting a most preferentially-ranked supplier as the match for the offer.

17. The computer-implemented method of claim 16, further comprising:

calculating a second value, based on the offer, above which a quote for the product is not economically desirable; and

for those suppliers for which the one quote provided is between the first value and the second value, ranking those suppliers based on the cost associated with the corresponding quote.

18. The computer-implemented method of claim 16, wherein obtaining at least one quote includes obtaining at least two quotes from one supplier in the plurality of suppliers, a first quote from the one supplier being lower than a second quote from the one supplier;

and, in case the one quote is the most-preferential quote, matching the offer with the second quote from the one supplier.

19. The computer-implemented method of claim 16, wherein quotes having higher ratings are ranked at a higher level of preference.

20. The computer-implemented method of claim 19, wherein quotes having the same ratings are ranked in descending order of preference according to the cost associated with each quote.

21. The computer-implemented method of claim 17, further comprising selecting a quote provided by the most preferentially-ranked supplier as the quote that satisfies the offer.

22. The computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the quote that satisfies the offer comprises the lowest quote provided by the most preferentially-ranked supplier.

23. The computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the quote that satisfies the offer comprises a quote provided by the most preferentially-ranked supplier other than the lowest quote provided.

24. The computer-implemented method of claim 23, wherein the quote that satisfies the offer comprises the highest quote provided by the most preferentially-ranked supplier.

25. The computer-implemented method of claim 23, wherein the quote that satisfies the offer comprises the highest quote provided by the most preferentially-ranked supplier that is still below the first value.

26-31. -31. (Canceled)

32. A computer system for satisfying offers with quotes, comprising:

an electronic travel agent, including;

a web server component configured to interface with a customer machine over a network connection and receive from the customer machine an offer for a product, the offer identifying a price for the product and a minimum quality rating for the product;

a travel server component configured to obtain from each supplier in a plurality of suppliers, at least one quote to provide the product at a price and at a particular quality rating;

a sorter component configured to rank the plurality of suppliers according to one quote provided by each of the plurality of suppliers with preferential rankings being awarded based on the quality rating associated with the corresponding quote; and

the electronic travel agent being further configured to match the offer with a most-preferentially ranked supplier and to negotiate a purchase of the product from the most preferentially-ranked supplier.

33. The computer system of claim 32, wherein the sorter component is further configured to rank the suppliers based first on the quality rating associated with the corresponding quote and second on the price associated with the corresponding quote.

34. The computer system of claim 32, wherein the electronic travel agent is further configured to negotiate a purchase of the product from the most preferentially-ranked supplier at a higher price than the price associated with the one quote provided by the most preferentially-ranked supplier.

35. The computer system of claim 34, wherein the higher price is the price associated with another quote provided by the most preferentially-ranked supplier.

36. The computer system of claim 32, wherein the sorter component is further configured to calculate a value, based on the offer, above which it is not economically practical to match the offer with a supplier.

37. The computer system of claim 36, wherein the sorter component is further configured to discard those suppliers that do not provide a quote below the calculated value.