The freebie debate
The debate about whether journalists and bloggers should accept freebies is so old and hoary that I’m reluctant to bring it up again. But my recent experience in Germany shed a bit of new light on it for me, so tough, back to the well-chewed territory…
For those not in the know, often travel journalists – and increasingly, bloggers – will get hosted free of charge by tourist boards, hotels etc in the hope/ expectation that coverage in certain publications and online outlets will result. Some publications and writers get high and mighty about this, saying they won’t take freebies as it leads to biased coverage. Other writers do take them, and insist that even though they’re accepting the hospitality, it doesn’t influence what they eventually write.
My stance
I stand somewhere in the middle. I no longer go on group press trips (which are usually about herding x number of journalists around on a bus, all covering exactly the same things and with very little if any time to explore independently) but I do accept – and often actively seek – free hotel rooms, tours, attraction tickets etc. As far as I’m concerned, it’s a necessary evil, more about keeping costs down than anything else.
Where I will go against the grain is the issue of bias. Is what I write likely to be biased as a result of accepting hospitality? Yes it is. And any writer that says otherwise is lying to themselves. The key question – and the one that no-one seems to elaborate on as they’re all too busy saying bias is full stop bad and that it doesn’t happen anyway – is “What sort of bias?”
Types of bias
For me, the bias is that if I’ve stayed somewhere for free or done a tour for free, I’m more likely to write about it in some way. This is pretty obvious. I’m less likely to write about something I’ve not experienced. So, yes, I’m more likely to seek to write stories about places and topics where I know I can keep my costs down through hosting. Is that unethical? I’m not sure, but it’s an uncomfortable admission that any writer who does accept freebies should make.
For me, the crucial question is whether not whether something does get coverage but the tone of that coverage. The companies and tourism authorities giving away the freebies aren’t stupid. They know that coverage is far more likely to be positive than negative. The problem comes when this becomes a tacit understanding between host and guest. There are many writers (and I’m sure, bloggers) out there who are quite happy to enter this unspoken pact in order to keep the good life coming. And this is why the whole question of whether to accept comps, FOCS, press trips and famils has come up.
The freebie test
Last week, I found myself put to the test on this front. I was researching a guide to Frankfurt for a newspaper travel section. The tourist board had put me up in what is rated as one of the best hotels in the city. Quite what the deal between the tourist board and the hotel was, I don’t know and I didn’t ask, but it would be fair to assume that all parties would be expecting me to include said hotel in the accommodation section of the guide.
Alas, there was a problem. Or, rather, numerous little problems. The carpets were stained, the maid was knocking on my door expecting to clean my room at 8.20am and then didn’t return by the time I’d got back at 4.30pm, internet access cost EUR22 a day and was excruciatingly slow, breakfast cost EUR32, little bottles of water from the minibar cost EUR7, the towels were thin and paltry rather than big and fluffy… and so on. Nothing in itself was truly awful, but the succession of small things added up to a hotel that is trading on past reputation, is blatantly profiteering at the customer’s expense and has become lazy in catering for its guests. When the (slightly dated and mundane) rooms regularly cost EUR200 a night, this is not good enough. Particularly when I had also inspected other hotels in roughly the same price bracket and they, frankly, were doing a better job.
Best course of action?
There was no way I could honestly recommend the hotel I was being hosted in as one of the best three top end hotels in Frankfurt. So, what does a writer do in this situation? If the answer is to just slip it in anyway as all the other guides do, no-one will pull you up on it and it’ll keep everyone happy, then there is a problem. This, for me, is where the ethical line is crossed.
As far as I was concerned, there was only one thing I could do: leave it out. If I was actually commissioned to review the place rather than pick out three top choices in town, I’d have written a not-exactly-flattering review.
But what about the fact that I was being hosted? How should I deal with the (probably expectant) PR people at the tourist board and, if necessary, the hotel. My solution probably isn’t perfect, but I e-mailed the woman from the tourist board explaining why the hotel would be left out. Unfortunately, I was then collared by one of the management team at check out, who asked how my stay was. I could have just muttered “fine” and sauntered off, but I felt the right thing to do was explain how I felt about the hotel and why I’d not be including it in the story. It was an excruciating couple of minutes, but I still feel it was the right thing to do. To his credit, the chap took it on the chin rather well, admitted to a few of the faults and explained that a substantial refurbishment is on the cards. Good on him – at least he’s aware of the problems and is prepared to deal with them.
The pact
This to me is the pact that you really should be making if, as a writer, you accept free stuff. It’s not the unspoken agreement to provide fluffy, glowing coverage that matters; it’s the responsibility to stand up and explain yourself in situations where your integrity would be compromised by fulfilling that unspoken agreement. And if you’re not prepared to do that, you should think long and hard about whether you’re doing the right job.
Tags: blogging, freebies, hotels, marketing, PR, tourist boards, Travel Writing
The negative impact of cruising
In the past, I have been somewhat critical of cruising. As a form of tourism, I believe it is extremely damaging, not only to the environment, but to the culture of the places the gigantic floating resorts visit and the experience of the unfortunate souls who happen to be in the same place when the ship docks.
Put simply, when an enormous ship docks in a small place, it all becomes about servicing that ship, even if the inhabitants of it have no real interest in said place.
But recently I have changed my mind; cruising is not the most obnoxious, blatantly intrusive and damaging form of tourism.
One Sunday in the Peak District
The other weekend, my good lady and I decided to head out to the Peak District and go for a walk. Before I’m called up for hypocrisy, yes, we drove. Tip of the iceberg etc. Live with it…
On the way to Cromford, we got snared up in a traffic jam. This was partly due to daytrippers such as ourselves, but largely due to a staggeringly huge bikers’ rally that seemed to be converging on Matlock Bath and Cromford.
The jams were, for the most part, caused by those delightful chaps on bikes heading round the side of the cars, then accelerating faster when the lights changed so that ten or 20 bikes would get through for every car, leaving an enormous tailback of frustrated drivers.
As we passed through Matlock Bath, the whole village was overrun. All the parking spots – and vast swathes of pavement that clearly weren’t parking spots – were taken up with bikes. Essentially, a few groups of bikers had decided to get together and completely overwhelm a delightful part of the world with a cacophony of engine noise and pollution.
Motorists vs cyclists
In doing so, they somehow managed to combine all the things that motorists hate about cyclists (flagrantly disobeying road rules, arrogant assumption of precedence) and everything that cyclists hate about motorists (noise, pollution, reckless endangering of others, arrogant assumption of precedence).
Obnoxious tourism
I really struggle to think of a more obnoxious form of tourism. I’ve absolutely no objection to anyone owning a motorbike and using it to explore the country (or indeed world). What I object to is a group deciding that they all going to converge on one tiny place that is clearly ill-equipped to deal with the influx, making furious noise* and thoroughly ruining the experience of anyone else who happens to be in the same place at the time.
I don’t like enormous tour buses, but at least that means they all travel in the same vehicle. Biker rallies ensure that thousands travel on their own, in an environmentally outrageous manner that directly impacting on the experience of others. There comes a point where having a hobby is no longer a positive thing. If you really have to make yourself feel better by conspiring to overrun a small village in order to meet people who like the same form of transport as yourself, can I suggest that you develop a penchant for buses?
*Actually, whilst I claim not to object to the ownership of motorbikes, I do believe noise reduction on them should be enforced by law. Sorry Harley owners, if that suddenly makes your machine less impressive, but tough shit.
Tags: cruising, cycling, driving, motorbikes, Peak District
Dear café, sandwich shop or deli,
If your level of expertise is such that you are trying to sell me A) a panini rather than a panino, B) some paninis rather than some panini or – god-forbid – C) some panini’s, then I’m probably not going to be impressed by the standard of your bloody toasted sandwich.
Regards,
David Whitley
On a guided tour, the quality often derives from the people you’re with. Get a good bunch, and you’ll have a great time. On the other hand, there are some people you most definitely don’t want to be mixing with. And if you get all of these ten on your bus, then you’re doomed…
ONE – Kamikaze Driver
He’s driven this route hundreds of times before and is so bored of it that he tackles it like a maniac. Completely sure of his own abilities, he veers across the road, overtakes on blind corners and careers around hairpin bends in a way that prompts visions of newspaper headlines about horror crashes.
TWO – The Complainers
They don’t go on holiday to enjoy themselves. They go in order to nitpick at every little thing, from the comfort of the seats to a minute deviation from the promised itinerary. They only consider it to have been a successful holiday if they manage to get a discount at the end. And if that means making everyone else’s life a misery, then so be it.
THREE – Disinterested Teen
Somehow they’ve ended up on the wrong holiday. They’re not in the slightest bit interested in learning about the place they’re visiting, and the iPod headphones have gone in from the moment the key turned in the bus’ ignition. The entire trip, therefore, will be punctuated by contemptuous yawns.
FOUR – The Watch Losers
They must have lost their watches, surely? What other reason would there be for them arriving back at the bus so consistently late at every stop, despite specific instructions to be back for a certain time. And as a result, most of the rest of the tour guide’s commentary consists of apologies for not getting much time at the key sites and begging people to be back when the clock strikes a certain hour.
FIVE – Mrs Weak Bladder
The bus has been in motion for a whole fifteen minutes before Mrs Weak Bladder sidles up to the driver to make a request. Cue a detour so that she can visit a public convenience, and an increasingly revised schedule based largely around toilet stops rather than attractions of interest.
SIX – The Photo Freaks
They have to get a photograph of absolutely everything, whether it’s a run-down shop or a meandering pigeon. And they have to get it from absolutely every angle. This, of course, means that you’re constantly treading on eggshells, trying to get out of the shot.
SEVEN – The Group Photo Freaks
You’re never going to see any of the people on the bus again. You don’t even like most of them. But you’re still going to have to grin and bear the losers that insist on taking group photos at every stop along the way. And, of course, once one person wants a group photo, everybody does. This ensures that you’re stuck in the same pose with a rictus grin for at least 30 minutes every day.
EIGHT – The Sleazy Tour Guide
He’s only in the job for one reason – and that’s to crack on to any unsuspecting hottie that may wander onto his bus. From the word go, his sole focus is getting into the delightful young lady’s knickers, and if any of the other passengers feel ignored, then tough luck.
NINE – The Newbie Tour Guide
He’s just been employed by the company, and he’s not even done a practice run of the route yet. He’s not quite sure where the hotels are, his knowledge comes from the few scraggy sheets of paper in front of him, and his commentary displays all the character of a frightened schoolboy who has just wet his pants.
TEN – The Lairy Lads
Wahey! They’re on holiday! So everyone’s got to have lots and lots of fun. Alas, their idea of fun generally consists of obnoxious bellowing, bullying anyone that might care for a quiet moment to themselves and a permanent state of drunkenness.
Yesterday, I received a truly staggering press release. The sheer number of words for a topic that no-one will ever write about makes it something of a beauty that ought to be cherished.
In fact, it’s so good, I thought I might share it. The PR’s name has been left off, but everything else is verbatim. Enjoy…
Hanjin Group Opens Navoi Cargo Terminal in Uzbekistan
◎ Korean Air held a ceremony to celebrate the opening of Navoi Cargo Terminal on August 12.
◎ With 1.46 million square feet of space and 100,000 tons of yearly capacity, the new cargo terminal features state-of-the-art facilities.
◎ The Navoi Cargo Terminal is part of Hanjin Group’s ‘Navoi Project’ to grow Navoi as a logistics hub of Central Asia.
◎ Korean Air will expand its cargo network by adding new routes from Navoi this year.
SEOUL, Korea (August 12, 2010) – Hanjin Group, the global comprehensive logistics group comprising air, sea and land transport, is speeding up the project to create a Central Asian logistics hub with the new cargo terminal at Navoi International Airport in Uzbekistan.
On Thursday August 12, senior management of Korean Air, a core subsidiary of Hanjin Group, and Uzbekistan officials gathered at Navoi International Airport to celebrate the opening of the Navoi Cargo Terminal. Among the hundred guests present at the ceremony are Mr. Chang Hoon Chi, President and COO of Korean Air, Mr. Dae Wan Jun, Korean Ambassador to Uzbekistan and Mr. Valeriy Tyan, Director General of Uzbekistan Airways and Head of the Uzbekistan Aviation Administration.
Since January 2009, Hanjin Group has been managing Navoi International Airport hand in hand with the Uzbekistan government to develop Navoi as the logistics hub of Central Asia and to facilitate Korean companies’ entry into the market. Hanjin’s ‘Navoi Project’ includes modernizing airport facilities, expanding global air cargo network and constructing the advanced logistics complex.
“The new Navoi Cargo Terminal has been designed based on the Korean Air’s state-of-the-art cargo terminals at Incheon International Airport which leads the global cargo industry by setting very high standard. The Navoi Cargo Terminal is set to become the center of the modern day “Silk Road” with its advanced airport infrastructure,” Mr. Chang Hoon Chi, President and COO of Korean Air said.
“Korean Air will spare no effort in supporting the growth of Navoi into Central Asia’s best logistics hub, expanding global network and practicing aggressive marketing strategies as Korean Air participates in the airport management,” he added.
With construction underway since December 2008, the newly unveiled Navoi Cargo Terminal has been developed as part of the project to modernize airport infrastructure for Uzbekistan. The new terminal, with total floor space of 160,382 square feet on a 1.46 million square feet site, is designed to handle 100,000 tons of cargo a year and features state-of-the-art facilities such as refrigerated warehouses and quarantine stations. The Navoi Cargo Terminal’s capacity will be upgraded to process up to 500,000 tons of cargo a year as global cargo demand increases.
The Navoi Cargo Terminal has been successfully completed thanks to the consistent support and technological know-how of Korean Air, which is the number one commercial air cargo carrier in every aspect from construction, operation and ground handling. Uzbekistan officials, including Mr. Rustam Azimov, First Deputy Prime Minister of Uzbekistan, has visited Korean Air’s cutting-edge cargo terminals at Incheon International Airport a number of times. Impressed very much by the success of Incheon, Mr. Azimov had ordered to design and build the Navoi Cargo Terminal jointly with Korean Air.
By opening the new fuel storage tank which can store sufficient fuel for 27 B747-400 jumbo freighters, all core infrastructure for Navoi International Airport to become a logistics hub will be set up in stages.
As part of efforts to develop Navoi, Korean Air has been operating its cargo flights from Incheon to Milan and Brussels via Navoi Airport seven times a week since 2008. Also, direct cargo flights from Navoi to Deli, Mumbai, Bangkok and Frankfurt have been flying nine times a week since last year. With the new Navoi Cargo Terminal now available, Korean Air will add its cargo routes from Navoi to Istanbul, Dubai, Almaty(Kazakhstan) and Dacca(Bangladesh) this year.
Hanjin Group has been conducting a variety of projects to create Navoi as a logistics hub of Central Asia. Hanjin Transportation Co., Ltd. has co-established ‘Eurasia Logistics Service’ with one of the local ground transport companies and has been strengthening the ground network of Central Asia. Eurasia Logistic Service will cooperate with Korean Air’s cargo terminal and air cargo network, and establish a land transport network in Central Asia.
Also, Hanjin Group is currently constructing a residential complex in Uzbekistan for foreign investing companies to be located in the Free Industrial-Economic Zone, enhancing convenience of workers by providing accommodation and other facilities. As a first step, a 71,042 square-foot hotel with various facilities for business and leisure is planned to open this September.
-Ends-
About Korean Air:
In 2009, Business Traveler magazine honored Korean Air for the fourth consecutive year as having the “Best Transpacific Business Class” and ranked it “The Best Airline in Asia” for three consecutive years; TTG Asia rated it as the Best North Asian Airline; the carrier was named the 2009 winner of the Global Travel Catering Distinction Award by Pax International magazine; World Traveler magazine rated it has having the world’s best inflight service; readers of Travel & Leisure magazine said it is one of the world’s top 10 international airlines, and readers of Conde Nast Traveler magazine voted it has having one of the world’s top five business classes.
Korean Air, with a fleet of 132 aircraft, is one of the world’s top 20 airlines, and operates almost 400 passenger flights per day to 117 cities in 39 countries. It is a founding member of the SkyTeam alliance, together with its thirteen members, offers its 395 million annual passengers a worldwide system of more than 13,000 daily flights covering 898 destinations in 169 countries. The alliance celebrated its 10th anniversary in June 2010.
More on Korean Air’s programs, routes, frequency and partners is available at www.koreanair.com.
Tags: PR, Press Releases
Close encounters of the guidebook kind
This morning, I had what I thought was an extraordinarily encounter. Guide book writers may be more acquainted with it than I am. But, to me, it just didn’t make sense.
I am currently in Bath, researching a city guide for a major Australian newspaper. As part of that, I need to recommend hotels to stay at, and to be able to recommend hotels, I need to at least have a look at them.
Dukes Hotel in Bath
One hotel that has had generally favourable write-ups in guidebooks and web sources is the Dukes Hotel. And as I was going past it, I thought I should pop in and have a quick peek if possible. At the reception desk, I was met by a middle-aged chap who was on the phone. As soon as he finished his call, I explained what I was doing and politely asked if it was possible to have a brief look at one of the rooms.
His response was: “I’m afraid I’m the only one here, and I can’t leave reception.”
Fine, I replied. Would it be possible to get a key and go up for a quick look myself so that I don’t have to trouble the busy man on reception?
I expected him to either acquiesce, ask if I could come back at a less busy time or say there weren’t currently any rooms unoccupied. What I got was a stern face, arms crossed and a firm “No” with a shake of the head. There wasn’t even an attempt to accommodate what was frankly a fairly reasonable request.
The costs of not being in guides
So I left the Dukes without seeing any rooms. It’ll not be going in my guide. This may not be such a big deal to the management at the hotel, but what if I was writing for the Lonely Planet (it is included in the current edition of Lonely Planet’s England) or another major guide that clearly drives an awful lot of business their way? One intransigent bulwark on the front desk could cost them an awful lot of money in the long run.
Customer requests
This may seem like a journalist moaning away with no relevance to the actual customers of the hotel, but think about it. What does this say about the standards of service at the hotel? If someone called down about a problem in their room, would he go up and deal with it or state that he can’t do anything about it because he can’t leave reception? If I was a potential customer walking in and asking to see a room as they needed somewhere to stay for the night, would that request be turned down?
No can do
As it happens, the only thing I can accurately say about the hotel based on experience is that a no-can-do attitude permeates and that I’d not recommend it to anyone on this basis. This may be ridiculously unrepresentative, but you have to go with what you know, don’t you? I may have arrived unannounced at what may have been an inconvenient time, but the fact that there was not even an attempt to assist speaks volumes about service standards at this particular hotel. And at between £139 and £219 a night, I suspect most guests would expect more than a defiant “no” when asking for something.
Tags: guidebooks, hotel, marketing, Travel Writing
A unique August?
In my Twitter feed yesterday, I kept encountering a rather interesting stat. @JJ_Lin (me neither…) had this to say: “INTERESTING FACT ABOUT AUGUST 2010. This August has 5 Sundays, 5 Mondays, 5 Tuesdays, all in one month. It happens once in 823 years.”
I don’t follow this chap, but I picked up on his Tweet because a few people who I do follow – and greatly respect – retweeted it. The ‘interesting fact’ seemed instantly dubious to me, so I checked it out. Of course, I was right – August has five Sundays, five Mondays and five Tuesdays every time August 1st falls on a Sunday. It last happened in 2004, and due to leap years, it will next happen in 2021.
Retweeting without fact checking
What is interesting is the number of people who chose to retweet this without even checking that it was true. As @DailyInfoOxford said when this was brought to their attention: “Thanks for the correction! Shows the perils of retweeting without fact checking.”
Defamation law
On this occasion it was trivia. But what if the snippet being retweeted was blatantly defamatory? What if it said, for example, that Keith Chegwin boils rats alive and eats one for breakfast every day? (Which, I should add, he doesn’t).
I last studied media law at least ten years ago, but as far as I can tell, anyone who retweeted that would have libelled Keith Chegwin. Cheggers could rightfully sue every single one of them.
Everyone’s a publisher
It is commonly said that everyone is writer these days. But it’s not true – with blogs, Twitter, Facebook and the like, everyone is a publisher. The world has fragmented into millions – if not billions – of tiny one-man media outlets. But the old media laws still apply, and that makes things very interesting.
Everyone has the ability to publish, but very few have the media law knowledge to keep them on the right side of our surprisingly stringent defamation laws. More to the point, they don’t have editors above them with superior media law knowledge and expensively-assembled legal teams that would put the kybosh on anything defamatory before it goes to print (or online).
A publisher’s responsibility
With the right to publish comes the responsibility of publishing. A lot of people don’t understand this until it’s too late. I know, for example, one blogger who had to settle out of court for comments published beneath a post on his site – he hadn’t himself libelled, but he published the libel of another person. And then we can go closer to home. My last post – about Flybe’s website – was a bit of a departure for this blog. Usually I just moan; this time I was outright accusing a company of sharp practice.
Before allowing that to go online, I really had to check my facts and the relevant laws. I had to carefully word every sentence and err on the side of caution where necessary. I’m as sure as I can be without hiring a team of lawyers that what I have written is fair comment, truthful and watertight. But, while I’m extremely grateful to all of those who RTed my tweet that drew attention to the blog post, it does worry me. How many of them had actually checked things out before hitting send? Few, I suspect.
Strings attached
One day, someone will take umbrage at a libellous statement being spread across Twitter like wildfire and decide to sue every single person who published it. It’ll either lead to a change in the law, or a much-needed realisation that the freedom to say whatever you like in the public domain has important strings attached.
UPDATE
Yesterday evening, I was reminded of an example of someone facing legal trouble over a Tweet. It wasn’t libel – but a Doncaster man was convicted of threatening to blow up a plane. Story here. It also appears as though someone has been taken to court for alleged Twitter libel as well – after a seemingly innocuous comment about her apartment.
Budget airline add-on fees
When it comes to budget airlines, Ryanair is the traditional whipping boy. People love to hate Ryanair, and automatically assume that it is the worst airline for underhand practices and add-on fees.
The truth, however, is that Ryanair has largely eliminated many of its naughtiest habits. Yes, it charges a fortune to check in bags, get a boarding pass at the airport or pay with anything other than an obscure prepaid Mastercard, but at least the website does things the right way. You have to opt in for any additional extras rather than opt out, and prices are quoted with taxes and charges inclusive.
Flybe web booking system
Fellow budget airline Flybe, alas, is merrily engaging in practices that Ryanair can no longer get away with. Recently, I had the ‘pleasure’ of booking flights with Flybe, and came across all manner of dirty tricks. These are detailed in full, with screenshots, here.
Opt outs and non-inclusive pricing
To summarise, however, Flybe quoted without taxes and charges inclusive – these were only added when a particular flight was selected. Flybe also assumed that passengers would be travelling with a 20kg bag – I actively had to opt out of this to avoid the £9.99 surcharge. After this, I was left hunting for the option to remove the preselected seat. The method of doing this – and avoiding the £6 preselected seat charge – is extremely (deliberately?) unclear.
Flybe’s ‘complete transparency’
That Flybe gets such an easy ride over this is incredible. The shameless contempt for the customer shines through, despite a laughable and oft-repeated statement on the site saying: “Flybe is committed to complete transparency regarding how we charge for our flights.”
Legal questions
Flybe’s booking process is undoubtedly cynical and aimed at squeezing as much money out of non-web savvy customers as possible. But, more interestingly, is it legal? Let’s have a look at the European Union Air Service Regulations, shall we?
EU regulations on inclusive pricing
Regulation 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and Council became law in 2008 (full text in PDF format here). Amongst the more salient passages is this one: “Customers should be able to compare effectively the prices for air services of different airlines. Therefore the final price to be paid by the customer for air services originating in the Community should at all times be indicated, inclusive of all taxes, charges and fees.”
EU regulations on opt-out extra charges
And here’s another one: “Optional price supplements shall be communicated in a clear, transparent and unambiguous way at the start of any booking process and their acceptance by the customer shall be on an ‘opt-in’ basis.”
Legal or illegal?
I’m not a lawyer, but something’s not quite right here, is it? Either Flybe has found some fiendish loophole that ensures its website just about complies with the regulations on a technicality, or Flybe is blatantly flouting the law. And if it is somehow within the letter of the law, then it is most certainly miles outside the spirit of it.
Questions for Flybe
At time of publishing, I had contacted Flybe three times to ask for a comment. I am yet to receive a response despite allowing a full working day for a response. I’m still keen to give right of reply – and get to the bottom of why Flybe’s website is as it is. So, if Flybe’s PR team is reading this, perhaps you could answer these questions:
- Is Flybe aware of the law concerning inclusive pricing and opt-out extras?
- If so, can you explain how Flybe’s website complies with it?
- Is it fair comment to say that the Flybe website is designed to be deliberately confusing and push customers into taking optional extras they do not need?
- Is Flybe prepared to change its website booking system to comply with the spirit as well as technicalities of the European Union Air Service Regulations. If not, why not?
Tags: airlines, budget airlines, Flybe, online travel, pricing
As someone who makes a living from travel, I’m probably supposed to be a lot more open-minded and tolerant than I am. But, alas, I am often driven by utterly pathetic reasoning. There are some places that I avoid going to, but I’m almost ashamed to say why. There’s a high chance that by ditching my excuses and opening my eyes to a different way of doing things, I’d really enjoy myself and learn something valuable.
However, I’m not cool and never will be – so, for now, I’m prepared to stick to my pitiful logic. I’d sooner confess to my uncool hang-ups rather than ignore them because I feel that I really ought to. And here they are…
1. I’ll have to send off for a visa
I’m very protective of my passport, and often need to go jaunting off somewhere at relatively short notice. Therefore I hate having to post it off for an undisclosed period so that some bureaucrat can stick a bit of paper in it. And, in my head, having to send off for a visa equates to a series of jobsworth encounters on the ground. I’ll go elsewhere thanks.
2. I can’t get a drink very easily
I like booze. Partaking in it is a nice way to spend an evening. A bottle of wine over a meal, whilst not an absolute must, is pleasant. Similarly, I like a beer on a terrace of a summer’s evening, and occasionally a night on the tiles.
And, this is why I have a knee-jerk reaction that says: “Avoid Islamic countries.” There’s something awfully seedy about being confined to hotels if I want a drink, and I like to be able to have a social drink without feeling like a leper.
3. I’ll probably get hassled
If I’m regularly going to be surrounded by people trying to sell me things/ offer their services as a guide/ ask me for money, then I’m not going to like it. Sorry Egypt, India and Jamaica – you’ve fallen down the list.
4. I’ll have to spend time in a big Asian city
I just don’t get the appeal of big Asian cities, which is weird as I really enjoy big European cities, would love to go to Buenos Aires and Rio De Janeiro and could happily live in Cape Town or Sydney. I know there’s more to them than traffic, street food and temples, but I just see dirt and noise without that edge of excitement. And thus, if it means I have to spend time in Bangkok to get to parts of Thailand I’ll undoubtedly enjoy, I’ll think twice.
5. There’s nothing to do
I have a relaxation threshold of approximately twelve minutes. I don’t care how beautiful the beaches are – if there’s nothing else I can do or explore, then I’m going to go stir crazy.
6. I can’t get around by train
Despite the fact that I spent three weeks driving across Australia in May, I generally hate driving. Especially in cities or along dodgy country roads that I don’t know. Trains, on the other hand, are a wonderful way to get around. I can switch off, take in the view or read a book while someone else does the hard work. I’ll happily go out of my way to use public transport rather than rent a car, and if most of the things I’d want to see can’t be accessed by public transport, then I’ll go somewhere else where they can.
7. It’s not a new country
This is the most childish of the lot. I shamelessly tick countries, and would thus sooner head to Kosovo than any of the 49 US states I have not been to, even though I know I’d almost certainly enjoy the latter more. For similar reasons, I’ll probably try to go to Manama before Montreal, the Faroe Islands instead of the Greek Islands and Baku ahead of Borneo. I really need to get over this, don’t I?
Do you have any similar reasons that make you avoid certain places? Well, try confessing by leaving a comment. Go on – it’ll be cathartic.
Tags: Asia, city travel, driving, on the road, train travel, trip planning, visas
As Jeremy Head rightly points out in his new post, there is so much destination guide content festering on the internet that much of it becomes interchangeable. Why, in essence, should you go to one site’s guides above another’s?
Many websites – be they for hotel, airlines or generic travel companies trying to build their own brand – go down the travel guide route. All seem to do much the same thing; the sort of material that you’d find in a guidebook, only in a more condensed form. In essence, they’re trying to satisfy a web audience with a scarcely altered print format.
In print, the sameness doesn’t matter too much. You generally just buy one guidebook – and you go with the one that’s most up to date or that you trust the brand of. On the web, your site has to stand out. And thus the content has to be distinctive – but how to make it so?
A few good suggestions are gathering under the comments on Jeremy’s post, but I think two things are key…
Stop trying to appeal to everyone
Most guides try to offer something for everyone; they try to cover the range of options and tastes as best as they possibly can. And this is what leads to them becoming generic – they’re not written from the perspective of a particular segment of the target audience.
To make something distinctive, I think you need to identify what that target market is – be it businessmen, foodies, golfers, art buffs or parents with kids. I’d argue that there is one target market that is scandalously undercatered for – the traveller with a reasonable budget that just wants somewhere decent to stay whilst enjoying their break. These people are often made to feel left out by guides, which insist on calling rooms for under £100 a night “budget”, concentrating on ‘hip’ cocktail bars where a drink costs a day’s wages and only really going into detail about the town’s high end restaurants. These travellers – who don’t want to stay in a hostel, but want a decent place to stay for between approximately £40 and £80 a night – make up a significant percentage of the market, but are often made to feel like tight-fisted freaks.
A guide concentrating on that sector of the market, that focuses on the good rather than the cool and the value for money rather the cheapest or most lavish, would be distinctive. It could list and review scores of hotels in the £40 to £100 bracket rather than a token one or two, and it could include those pleasant terrace restaurants where the food is reasonable and the views are nice – the ones that are often left out because they’re not cool enough.
That’s one way of doing it. The other is to have numerous pages of the guide concentrating on particular niches. What are the best places for those businessmen, foodies, golfers, art buffs or parents with kids?
Stop trying to avoid offence
When I read a guide, I want to know the bad things. They put the good things in perspective. Objectivity is the last thing I want – opinion is a vital component of a guide.
You can usually tell when a guidebook writer hasn’t stayed at a hotel or eaten at a restaurant. If they have, they usually mention something specific or one of the negatives about the place. No-one ever writes anything negative about something they haven’t experienced themselves – a feisty opinion is more likely to draw attention and see the writer/ researcher caught out in the long run. Thus, a smattering of brutally frank one-liners helps build trust.
It also, on a more cynical level, builds page views. I know when Ninemsn commissioned a series of Insider Guides, it was always the Where Not To Go pages (such as this one for Darwin) that were in the most viewed list.
Alas, it’s an easy option to paint everywhere and everything on the OK-to-wonderful scale. Highlighting negatives gets peoples backs up. Hotels and restaurants complain and cause hassle, tourist boards are less inclined to give support when coverage isn’t likely to be glowing and local people start getting overdefensive.
But to be distinctive, you need to piss a few people off. Trying to stand out on the web is like trying to be a stand up comic – you can’t rely on jokes that nobody is offended by, because no-one will come to see you. Be brave; break a few eggs to make the omelette.
Part of this comes back to identifying the audience you’re writing for. When you’re writing for everyone, there’s always that nagging doubt that your opinion of a place won’t match that of people with completely different mindset and budget. You can’t say that the ‘hip’ cocktail bar is full of tossers because a number of such tossers will be reading your guide. Once you’ve decided who you are aiming at, you can tailor the criticism. A £30 shabby two star might seem like a palace to backpackers, but it’s a poor option for that unheralded group I was speaking about earlier – they’d be better off in the reasonable chain four star that you can get for £15 more. Whether the two star is a bargain upgrade from a dorm or a down-at-heel slum depends entirely on your perspective. A guide publisher needs to decide what that perspective is first – and then tell writers to adopt it and be warts-and-all in their coverage.
Tags: bars, destinations, guides, hotels, online travel, restaurants, travel media, Travel Writing