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:

1. Is Flybe aware of the law concerning inclusive pricing and opt-out extras?
2. If so, can you explain how Flybe’s website complies with it?
3. 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?
4. 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?

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.

As some of my regular readers may be aware, I recently spent two months travelling around Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Fiji and Singapore. I was on a somewhat whistlestop round-the-world trip, and I primarily did it because I had a number of commissions for various clients in the UK and Australia.

Blogging gig

But I also managed to find myself with a regular blogging gig. Which, for someone who still sees himself as an old school print journalist with an online arm, was veering into uncharted territory.

This was particularly the case as I wasn’t writing for a traditional publication – be it paper, magazine or online travel site. I was writing for the website of a company that specialises in selling round the world flight tickets.

I’ll not go into the full financial arrangements or Roundtheworldflights.com’s reasons for wanting the blog content. Suffice to say, we both came to a deal that we were happy with and thought was beneficial to both parties.

Ethical grey line

However, this meant that my feet were rather close to an ethical grey line. Essentially, this was corporate work. Would I be veering too close to PR and compromising my independence and integrity? It was something I was a little uncomfortable with.

Compromise?

It was, therefore, a surprise to feel less compromised than I normally do. When I’m pitching and writing articles for my usual clients there are a number of hidden pressures. Negative stories are nigh on impossible to sell, so I am always looking for the positive spin. I’m rarely able to write freely about what I found most interesting, as there needs to be a strong focus on a certain angle or storyline. I write with the readers – many of whom won’t share my mindset or tastes – in mind.

In short, the level of constraint in writing a normal commissioned travel article is surprisingly high. This is not necessarily a bad thing – editors need to focus their content on their readership and give a reason to pick up rather than just letting writers blather on.

Corporate constraints

But surely writing blog posts for a company like I’ve just done is likely to have even more restrictions and limitations? Surprisingly, for me, this wasn’t the case. This is partly because Roundtheworldflights.com wanted me because my style and mindset fitted the company, rather than me having to adapt to fit the company tone.

We came to the arrangement because they liked my writing and voice; it wasn’t a case of me adapting it to the needs of their company. The guidance was also remarkably hands off – too. I was trusted to find the most interesting things to write about, and then write about them.

Freedom

To me, this was a thoroughly enjoyable, almost unprecedented level of freedom. Some posts were hardly about travel at all – one on Singapore veered into social comment, whilst others were slices of whimsy about sheep love and ridiculous fibreglass animals.

Other posts were on topics I could never get away with writing about for my usual clients. Which newspaper travel section is going to take a piece on running a gauntlet of heroin addicts in Vancouver, for example? Which web portal will eschew the usual top ten list for a rambling account of doing joyous nothing?

It was odd. I actually had more freedom and independence to write about what I liked, and arguably more integrity as I wasn’t leaving out the bits I’d usually have to discard. And from all the feedback I’ve had, most people reading the blog have enjoyed this factor.

Utilising content

In coming years, I can see more companies following this avenue of promotion. It makes sense in many ways – bringing in traffic, inspiring potential customers, unique identity, humanising a company and matching products to audience – to enhance a website with plenty of well-written content. The key is making sure that writer and company are a good match. And, from a writer’s perspective, feeling that you’re able to take the gig without compromising your integrity and reputation elsewhere.

Do you think writing for a corporate site compromises a journalist’s independence and integrity? Share your thoughts below.

My previous post – Bloggers vs Journalists: Why bloggers are second class citizens – seems to have stirred up quite a debate.

There are a few things that have been brought to my attention since that I thought I should add. First of all (and somewhat going against my argument), it seems as though the budget Dubai article that raised my ire was commissioned. Well, accepted for publication at least.

The article in question has now been taken down by the Amateur Traveler site – possibly because so many people poured scorn on it. As Robert Cole points out – the piece in question can (temporarily) still be seen in the Bing cache.

InterContinental Hotels

Secondly, I said the article was clearly the result of a junket hosted by InterContinental Hotels. A bit of further investigation (and a hat tip goes out to Shaney Hudson here), shows that the only traces of the author’s previously published work are to be found on the InterContinental Hotels Priority Club site. There, the author is described as: “a dedicated Platinum Ambassador member & The Community Ombudsman who travels worldwide & is an IHG brand expert.”

Conflict of interests

I can’t say for sure that she got her hotels for free in Dubai, but there is a clear, undisclosed conflict of interests here. It’s fine to put a little factbox at the bottom of a piece suggesting Hotel X or Hotel Y as a place to stay when you’ve stayed there. It’s another thing entirely to present the hotels of a group you’ve got a clear relationship with as the only budget options within a destination and refer to them continually throughout what is supposed to be a well-researched destination guide.

Poor editing

This was a case of desperately poor writing. But more importantly – and again this goes against my argument somewhat – it was a case of desperately poor editing. Chris Christensen of Amateur Traveler decided to put the article up, probably knowing how bad it was. It’s also difficult to understand why the obvious conflict of interests wasn’t highlighted.

Independent publishing on the web

Now here’s why I think my point is still valid. Chris of Amateur Traveler freely admits that the site is something he does in his spare time. He has set the site up as an independent publisher – but an independent publisher with none of the traditional high ‘old media’ publishing costs. Anyone can set up a site similar to Amateur Traveler.

He doesn’t make enough from the site to quit his full time job, and is clearly reliant on people submitting guest posts for free. Chris hasn’t been selected and paid to run the site because he’s the best qualified person to do so. There was no competition for the role – he has done it himself as a hobby, because he can.

Checks and balances

Again, this comes down to checks and balances. There are more in ‘old media’ journalism, and excreta such as the Budget Dubai post are less likely to slip through the net. Such pieces are less likely to be commissioned in the first place, and they’re more likely to be ‘spiked’ (ie. Not run at all). Chris should have been brave enough to respond to the author and say: “Thanks for your contribution, but I’m not running it – it’s awful.”

Lower standards?

When the writers aren’t paid, the editors aren’t paid and the publishers can set up what they like at minimal cost, running it as a hobby, then the average standard is likely to drop. I repeat what I said in the previous post – there is some brilliant blogging out there, but it is largely drowned out by the tidal wave of detritus. There are too many people shouting, and very few have anything to say.

Rule of thumb for bloggers

So I’d like to propose something to my fellow bloggers (yes, I am one, as uncomfortable as I may be with the title at times). Before you publish something, ask yourself this: “Am I adding anything new or useful here? Or am I merely contributing to the wash of pointless noise?”

A crude analogy

Anyone can whop their genitals out onto the coffin at grandma’s funeral – it doesn’t mean that they should. And doing so doesn’t make them a Chippendale.

Difference between bloggers and journalists

A few weeks ago, the ever-excellent Matthew Teller hosted a debate on his blog about the difference between bloggers and journalists.

It’s something of a hoary old debate, but some excellent points were raised. Key amongst these are that journalists get edited and bloggers – by and large – don’t.

A platform for all

My personal view is that the title – blogger, writer, columnist, journalist – doesn’t matter. Everyone should be judged on the quality of what they write. What the blogosphere changes is the number of people given a platform. Anyone can set up a blog and spout off about what they like. Sometimes this leads to brilliant writing, useful information dissemination and must-read insight.

Dull writing

More often than not, alas, it leads to turgid, generic wordblather that could just as easily have been turned out by a trained dolphin picking out random excerpts from tourist board press releases. Some of the bloggers who do this are inexplicably popular – largely, I suspect, because there is an informal network of similar bloggers indulging each other in relentless cross-promotion.

But this isn’t necessarily a failure of blogging as a medium – there’s enough turgid, generic wordblather printed in traditional newspapers and magazines to turn the Amazon into a barren plain.

One of the worst travel guides you’ll ever see

The real problem comes when material is published on blogs that is so outrageously awful that it becomes misleading. For example of this, look no further than this execrable piece on doing Dubai on a budget. It is written by someone who managed to spend US$10,000 in a week and a half – and that’s including getting free accommodation most of the way due to her clearly being on a junket sponsored by Intercontinental Hotels. Not that there is any disclosure of this junket – it’s just obvious from the fact that the only hotels mentioned as budget accommodation options are owned by Intercontinental Hotels.

Straight from the guidebook?

Most of the other information, if not ripped straight out of someone else’s guidebook, may as well have been. The author rarely offers any indication that she has actually been to Dubai, and when she does, the true horrors emerge.

The worst bits

A couple of sample paragraphs:

“Lunch and other dinners can be eaten at McDonalds, Kentucky Fried Chicken (very popular in Dubai), and other cheap eateries. I have made it a tradition to eat at international McDonald’s around the world.”

And…

“Try to visit the poor areas of Dubai like the town of Deira to people watch and take photos. As any place, Dubai has non wealthy areas known as the slums.”

Is this really budget Dubai?

Both stagger me. So the way to enjoy Dubai on a budget is to eat a Big Mac and take pictures of poor people in ‘slums’? (Incidentally, having been to Deira, I can safely say that whilst standards of housing are lower, ‘slum’ in the sense that any normal person would know it – ie. Mumbai, South African townships – is way off the mark.)

What we essentially have here is a writer who can’t stick to a budget herself, writing what masquerades as a guide to doing a destination on a budget. She has clearly done little independent research, she shows no insight and she continually slips in completely out-of-context mentions for companies that have given her free stuff. It’s an appalling piece of at best misleading and at worst deceitful writing, and should never have been published.

Second class citizens

But because it’s a blog, it can be published. And that, in a nutshell, is why bloggers are likely to remain as second class citizens in comparison to commissioned journalists unless something changes rather drastically.

It’s fine when it comes to spouting opinion – everyone’s entitled to their own. But when it comes to presenting information and guidance, then it is logical to defer to someone who has been commissioned and paid – by someone who is, in turn, hired and paid to do the commissioning and editing. This is not to say that a blogged guide can’t be better than one in a newspaper – often it can – but that when a commissioned journalist has had a guide accepted and edited, more checks and balances are in place.

Not bad for a blog

It was telling that when I Tweeted criticising this article, I was told by someone whose views I respect that I was being a bit harsh. My correspondent said that it wasn’t too bad ‘for a blog post’, although obviously it was unacceptably poor as a commissioned article.

My response was “Why should there be any difference?” Why shouldn’t a guide be exacted to the same scrutiny whether published on a blog, in a newspaper or in a book?

How to repair a Yamaha FJR1300A

Alas, everyone can blog, whether they know what they’re talking about. I could make my next blog post an 800-word guide to repairing a Yamaha FJR1300A motorbike if I wanted to. That I don’t know what I’m talking about is irrelevant – I CAN do it.

The web is full of people writing things because they can and they’re entitled too. Little thought is paid to whether they should do so or can genuinely offer a useful slant/ insight. And this is the stumbling block that all good bloggers face – your work and medium is denigrated by the millions who don’t know when to shut up.

It’s an innovation that has, largely, slipped under the radar. But it could have a big impact on how the travel industry deals with social media. I’ve a feeling that Amazon may have just changed the game.

Amazon affiliate program

For those who haven’t a clue what I’m talking about, forgive me: you might not have seen it. Only those with websites who are signed up to the Amazon affiliate program are likely to have done so.

New Share on Twitter feature

This website is signed up to Amazon affiliates (quick everyone – look at the box on the right and go and buy lots of things), and in the last couple of weeks, Amazon has launched a new feature. When I’m logged in and on the Amazon.co.uk, there is a little toolbar across the top of the screen. Recently, a new button has been added – ‘Share On Twitter’.

Tracked links

When you click on it, it opens up Twitter with a small blurb about the product and a shortened link. The key thing is that link is tracked and attached to the affiliate account. If anyone buys something as a result of clicking on that link, I get a small commission. These links can be obviously transferred to Facebook etc.

Implications for travel industry

All very nice, but how does it apply to travel? Well, just imagine what could happen if hotel booking engines, air lines, car hire companies and tour companies – all of whom already use conventional affiliate programs – started offering the same thing.

Make money from recommendations

If someone was looking for something cool to do in Cape Town, a cheap flight to Australia over the Christmas period or a romantic hotel in Tuscany, I could suggest something, used the tracked link and potential make money from my recommendation.

Possibilities for travel experts and enthusiasts

Suddenly, everyone becomes a potential travel agent – and a potential travel agent that can make some money. This, I feel, is a game-changer. There are some incredible possibilities for travel companies, journalists, bloggers and everyday travel enthusiasts alike. This could be the way that Twitter finally makes money as well.

Alas, there are even more opportunities for spammers too but, good or bad, Amazon has come up with something very, very interesting here.

A while back, I weighed in with my thoughts on how the internet is supposedly killing travel journalism. At the bottom, I made a small point which I didn’t think too much of at the time, but I am increasingly coming to think may be important.

Travel companies as publishers

Here it is again: “I can also see travel companies such as airlines, hotels and tour operators further branching out into publishing on their websites.”

Travel content on travel company sites

In recent weeks, I have stumbled across more and more travel companies that have blogs and travel content on their sites, over and above the standard destination guides. Bing Travel, Kayak and Vtravelled are obvious ones, but quietly other companies, booking engines and online tour agencies are doing the same.

Viator, Roundtheworldflights and Skyscanner

I’ve written a few pieces for Viator’s blog, for example. Mark Eveleigh is writing a blog on Roundtheworldflights.com. Skyscanner’s at it as well. I’m sure there are plenty of other examples of this that are largely flying under the radar, but the important thing is that very little of this content is obvious PR puffery. The companies are investing in pretty good quality material from writers with a distinct voice.

Drawing people to a website

This is a trend I can only see increasing. It’s about drawing people to the site, and not just when they’re about to book something. If people are visiting the site to read a good story, then it’s going to stick in the mind when it does come to booking time. It’s a way of sticking a company’s head out above a large, broadly similar crowd.

Social media influence

Social media plays a big part too. People are not that likely to put a flight deal on their Facebook page or retweet a hotel sale price. But they will do this for an article which entertains them or grabs their interest. The meritocratic power of social media means that the RT Effect won’t work for PR puffery – it needs to be something that genuinely captures attention and is worth reading in its own right.

Power of retweets

And, if a company wishes to harness the power of retweets and status updates in this way, it needs to have a good writer or two on board to create the content. Generic guides and promotional fluff are not enough.

New market for writers

For writers – particularly those with reasonable web savviness, a Twitter presence and a distinctive voice – this is a potentially lucrative new market. Companies are beginning to see good writing as a way of gaining credibility, brand recognition, traffic and gravitas. In effect, they are paying to have their own star columnists, much like newspapers have always done. And this is a phenomenon I think we’re going to see a whole lot more of.

——————————

In-no-way-related public service announcement

@mrdavidwhitley is available for weddings, travel blogging, features with a twist and bar-mitzvahs.

Jeremy Head has written a characteristically interesting post on whether travel content that has been paid for by a company can ever be objective.

As part of the debate, he references Matthew Teller’s proposal about PR agencies and tourist boards paying travel writers for articles rather than the publications they are published in.

How travel writers can earn money: an idea

Reading through, I was struck by a compromise. It’s not one I’m 100% comfortable with, but I’m playing Devil’s advocate. It goes a little like this:

-          The PR company, hotel, tour operator or tourist board hosts the travel writer on their visit. This happens already, and is no great secret.

-          The travel writer then writes a small article or blog post for the PR company’s website sharing his thoughts on the trip and the destination.

-          For doing this article/ blog post, the travel writer is paid a fee by the PR company.

-          The travel writer then tries to sell – or chooses to give away – a separate story to one of the publications he or she writes for. As he or she would do normally.

-          In the article for Publication X, the writer and publication should still disclose that the writer was the guest of the tourist board. (Sadly, too few publications make such disclosures).

PR companies and selective hosting

PR companies tend to be rather selective about who they host on group or individual press trips anyway. They will rarely provide flights, accommodation, meals, activities etc for a writer who has not got a commission.

Separate commissions

Under the above scenario, very little changes from an ethical perspective. The commission to write for the company blog and the commission to write for Publication X are entirely separate. How the writer goes about obtaining commission X is a matter of personal choice.

Is it worth writing for Publication X for free in return for getting the assistance that allows the writer to gain material that he can possibly sell elsewhere – as well as the fee for writing for Company X’s blog? Perhaps.

Reducing cost of a trip

Some writers already use a variation of this, myself included. I have a couple of outlets that don’t pay very much, but it’s useful to write for them so that I can obtain assistance from tourist boards. I’ll get a very small fee from the low-paying outlet, but writing there allows me to keep the cost of my trip down and earn good money writing about it for other outlets.

Problems with the compromise

Potential problems with my suggested scenario? Well, there are a few:

-          PRs decide that the travel writers are middlemen and cut them out. But would travel editors accept copy straight from a PR?

-          Would this suck even more money out of the market for travel writers, ensuring that NO publications pay for travel content?

-          Would this take us even further down the road where the only places being written about are the ones with a hefty marketing budget?

-          Well, it just doesn’t seem quite right, does it? I really don’t like the idea of giving away any work for free, irrespective of the benefits that can be gained from it elsewhere.

Writers, PRs, editors… what do you think? Feel free to share your thoughts below by leaving a comment.

Jeremy Head has written a fascinating piece on the new travel technology news service, Tnooz.com. He goes through the fears that many travel writers are facing about the internet taking over from print. To put it in a nutshell, where will travel writers get their money from in the future?

Comments from Times Online Travel editor

Perhaps even more interesting are the comments underneath the piece from Times Online travel editor Steve Keenan. Steve openly concedes that he no longer has a budget to pay freelancers for content – something that is intriguingly at odds with his employer’s new philosophy that journalism has value and should be charged for.

Free content

Steve says he is getting extra content from guide book authors who want to cadge a free flight or hotel, or destination-based amateurs. He also claims that the current freelance travel journalism model is “a defunct model from the 20th century.”

Days of old-style travel journalism are gone

This quote particularly strikes hard: “Like the miners, the steelworkers, the hot metal machinists and potters, the days of freelance journalists earning £800 for writing up five-day trips to Chile as serious professional travel journalism are gone.”

It’s fair to say that a lot of travel writers are not going to like hearing this from a travel editor. But is he right?

Arrogance of travel journalists

Well, I suspect partly. There is an awful lot of arrogance in my profession – there’s a common air of “nobody could possibly write this as well as me – I’m a travel journalist.” It’s one I’ve never liked.

I thoroughly agree with Steve’s between-the-lines hint that newspaper travel sections are largely full of waffly, dull shite. Somewhat ironically, The Times is one of the worst offenders for the ‘what me and me charming kids did on holiday in our charming Greek villa’ school of travel writing.

Sustainable model?

Frankly, you don’t need any qualifications, society memberships or previous publishing credits to write a good guide or narrative travel piece. Whether relying on people working for free or other kickbacks is a sustainable model is another question – after all, there’s no use in the freebies if no-one’s paying anyone to write.

Internet as an opportunity

As for the internet, I still like to think of it as an opportunity rather than a profession-killer. Most of my earnings come from writing for the web – partly because I’m very good at coming up with hundreds of ideas for top ten lists.

Future of travel writing on the internet

But I’m not sure that this list-style writing is the future of the internet either. I’ve already discussed how travel guide book authors can apply their skills to making a profitable website, but I also believe we’re about to enter a major stage in the internet’s evolution. Paid-for content is on the way. No-one really knows whether paywalls, subscription charges or micro-payments will work, but it’s clear that news organisations can’t continue to just pump out everything they do for free.

Paid for sites need to do something different

No-one knows what’s going to happen, and no-one knows what effect this is going to have on the type of content that is on the web. My suspicion is that the free sites will have more of the same, while the paid-for sites will have to do something very different. There will have to be a reason to subscribe, or pay per article – and no-one’s going to do that for SEO-friendly lists.

A middle way

In an ocean of ranting, largely undiscerning user generated content mixed with bland PR puffery, something will have to give. There will need to be a middle way, and I suspect people will eventually be happy to pay for trustworthy guidance, informed opinion, strong editorial control and knowledgeable discernment. I’m not saying this isn’t available with user generated content, but that it is lost amongst the shouting.

Travel companies becoming publishers

I can also see travel companies such as airlines, hotels and tour operators further branching out into publishing on their websites. Some will see the value of good writing and strong information as a compliment to their brand, and will pay good money to have it alongside their booking engines. I’ve found Vtravelled.com interesting in this respect – it’s loosely linked to Virgin Atlantic, and the site has commissioned me to write almost old-fashioned narrative pieces on the likes of Montserrat and Dominica.

Future for travel journalism on the internet

Whether Vtravelled will succeed, I don’t know, but I suspect we’ll see more sites with the same ‘invest in good writing as a brand-enhancing niche’ attitude popping up. But I am – like everyone else on this subject – just guessing.

There certainly is a future for travel journalism on the internet. We just don’t know what it will be yet. A lot will depend on whether the general population does agree with Mr Murdoch (in the paywall sense, not the get travel content for free sense) that journalism has value.

If you go into a tourist information office, you are generally looking for advice on what to do, where to go etc. It would be a bad tourist information office that just told you to look at all the leaflets and brochures that are scattered around the room.

Tourism authority websites

And yet this is what many websites run by tourism authorities do. There are some good ones out there, but most fall into the same trap. Put simply, they provide too much information, and not enough guidance.

Brand over common sense

Take my own local tourism authority’s website, for example. First of all, Yorkshire South’s site falls into the classic trap of using brand over common sense. Nobody says they’re travelling to Yorkshire South; nobody searches for Yorkshire South when coming to the area. Yet nowhere on the homepage does it mention any destinations within the area or even say where Yorkshire South is.

Lists without filters or guidance

Then we get to the major problem – one that is common to many tourist board websites. Go to the ‘attractions’ part of the site, and all you get is a list of 126 attractions. There’s no order to them, no way of filtering out things that may not be of interest to you and no guidance on what is most worth seeing.

Poor descriptions

The two-line descriptions are clearly the first couple of sentences from a longer piece of bumf provided by the attraction itself. Many of the attractions listed are random churches and they’re mixed in with generic things such as cinemas and wildly general listings for large areas such as ‘The Peak District National Park’.

What is a website’s job?

Now is the Yorkshire South site doing its job? Well, if that job is providing all the information available to prospective visitors, then yes. However, if the job is to entice visitors to the area, then help them decide what to do and see, it is a miserable failure.

Human response

Any sane human being looking at that site will see a list of 126 unsorted, unfiltered and uneditorialised things spring up and say: “Sod this for a bucket of frogs.” Only the truly nerdy are going to bother sifting through it. Those contemplating coming to the area may just go elsewhere; those definitely coming will look elsewhere for their information.

Tropical North Queensland

Another example comes from an area I visited recently. The Tropical North Queensland site takes far too long to load up due to the ill-advised photo slideshow at the top. Then when you click on Things To Do And See, it just brings up another link to click on – why not go straight through rather than creating unnecessary work?

Useless restaurant phone numbers

At the bottom of the page (under ‘Hungry?’) are a number of restaurant selections. None have the area/ state dialling code in front – which is useless to anyone who is outside the state or using a mobile phone.

Great Barrier Reef

I could nitpick on hundreds of these things, but the major problem again comes down to too much information and zero discernment.  The Things To Do And See section is at least broken down into categories, but click on the Great Barrier Reef section and what comes up? A list of 61 unsorted things that have a vague relation to the Great Barrier Reef. Is Johnny Tourist going to sift through that to pick which reef trip he does? Of course not.

Lack of filters

Again, the descriptions come from the top of releases by the companies involved. There’s no saying which is best, or even which is most suitable for certain sectors of the market. What this section needs is either specific recommendations or a series of tickable and untickable filters that narrow down the options. The more the merrier – filter by price, by cruise/ flight, by length of trip, by whether it’s suitable for families or non-swimmers, whether it’s a large boat or small, whether snorkelling equipment is provided, whether it departs from Cairns or Port Douglas. Etcetera, etcetera.

Recommendations or clutter-clearing tools

This is the sort of thing that tourist board websites are seriously lacking. It’s all very well providing information on every single thing to do and see in an area, but it just creates a maze for the visitor.

If I’m reading, I am looking for things that are good for ME to do. I either need to be pointed in the right direction by discerning, editorialised recommendations or have the tools made available that enable me to clear the clutter and narrow down on what’s relevant. I’m not going to look through each one of the 61 Great Barrier Reef options individually in order to make a decision.

Opinion as well as information

Until tourism authority websites start catering for the needs of their visitors, rather than pandering to the desires of the tourism operators who all want an even slice of the pie, there will always be a role for travel agents and travel journalists. Travellers need opinion as well as information; they need to be able to sort what is good and what is suitable from what they regard as the chaff.

A good tourist board site?

A good tourist board site has filters, it has suggested itineraries, and it specifically writes product descriptions tailored to the web. Alas, these are few and far between.