That $12m/yr might be added revenue, but it's hard to see how it could represent added profit (as claimed in the article). Say Expedia earns $200 profit per tr

That $12m/yr might be added revenue, but it's hard to see how it could represent added profit (as claimed in the article). Say Expedia earns $200 profit per transaction (total WAG, but intended to sound high). Then $12e6 means 60,000 people a year - or 165 people a day - were failing to complete their transactions because they thought "company" meant "bank name". Similarly, $500 profit per transaction means 66 people a day were thrown off by an input field that's actually pretty common on the web. Neither of those seems even vaguely plausible to me. Take another tack. According to this article (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69R56X20101028 http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69R56X20101028), Expedia had $177m net income this past quarter. That's framed as a big jump from the past, but say they make 4 x $175m or $700m a year. Before this change, they would have made $688m per year. So 12/688, or 1.7%, of their customers were being thrown off by the "company" field? I find that hard to believe. If, on the other hand, that $12m is added revenue, then (taking the article's $6.89b revenue per quarter figure) we have 0.044% of their customers failing to complete due to this problem. That sounds a bit more plausible.