Travel blogs are a far more honest and trustworthy source of information than 97.62% of what you read in print magazines or the travel sections of newspapers, the supposed bastions of real travel writing.
Put another way, when was the last time you saw a negative review of a hotel in Travel and Leisure or read an article in Conde Nast Traveler telling you to not go to a place?
There may be odd examples of such critical writing here and there, but generally you never see anything negative in any traditional travel publication.
Why is that the case? Money, of course.
Print publications live and die with advertising (and to a lesser extent actual copies sold) and potential advertisers are obviously companies that want everyone to travel. As as result, the only thing they want to see is unceasingly positive, cheerleading pieces that encourage people to spend money on their products, whether that be airline tickets, hotel rooms, tours or whatever.
There is no financial interest in full and complete honesty in print. Setting aside books for a moment, which don’t exist on the same business model, newspapers and magazines are conduits for advertising dollars. They exist to provide the space to put advertisers together with the people they seek to convince to open their wallets. To be clear, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this business model.
But given the realities of what ends up getting printed, it is more than a bit misguided to think that travel bloggers are somehow less ethical and more easily bought off than those that get published in print.
Pure and simple B.S.
I have written more than my fair share of critical posts about places, including ones like The Absurdity of Monaco, but I am far from the only blogger who is willing to cast a critical eye at a tour company, or food in a region, or sometimes, just about everything in an entire country…
- Adventurous Kate’s post, about a sponsored trip no less: Adventurous Kate Gets Shipwrecked in Indonesia
- Lauren of Never Ending Footsteps in Why I Hated My Time in China.
- Nomadic Matt takes a stand in Why I’ll Never Return to Vietnam.
- Ayngelina Brogan was Underwhelmed by the Food in Argentina.
You may quibble about the writing in any of these posts, but regardless of your opinion about the technical prowess of any of us, there is zero doubt that if anyone made a pitch to one of the many travel print publications with a piece expressing any of these negative viewpoints, the rejection would be quickly forthcoming. And the rejection would be simply based on the fact that the content is less than 100% flattering.
Print magazines and newspapers don’t want readers to consume anything that might, in any small way, make them second guess any possible upcoming travel expenditure. More importantly, the advertisers (the Wizard of Oz characters behind the curtain pulling the levers) really don’t want anything negative printed in any publication they spend their ad dollars in.
The corruption in print isn’t that their writers do or don’t accept press trips (though some do), but that the print editorial bias is so unfailingly positive as to call into question whether you can believe anything that is published there in the first place. That corruption of content is far more pervasive and systematic, because it goes to the entire underlying business model of print.
For me, I’ll take the honesty, openness and forthrightness of a good travel blog any day of the week. At least I know that bloggers are more than willing to talk about both the positives and the negatives of places.
I like that sort of ethics. How about you?
Image: Lara604
I definitly agree with you that bloggers can have a great ethic. Of course some people will write articles just to get more money, but I think most of the bloggers really enjoy doing it and if they do it it to be more free to tell whatever they want to tell.
It’s Conde Nast Traveler – unless “Nest” is a joke?
Just a typo
Absolutely right !
For f@#*’s sake, can we all just acknowledge that there is very little difference between travel writers and travel bloggers and lay this silly playground sniping to rest?!
Michael, I know you’re on a mission to establish travel bloggers as the hot new thing for DMOs to work with, and you know I support you in that both publicly and privately. But the truth is that many of us straddle both fields, and all of these lumped generalizations are COMPLETE AND UTTER SHITE!
Here’s a fact from someone who’s been writing about travel in MAJOR publications (1-3 million readers) for over a decade now: If a freelance outlet edits negative opinions out of my story, I can/do choose not to work with them. In other words, I have just as much editorial control over my freelance stories as I do over my own website.
We, as an industry, are wasting time debating this senseless crap when we should be all about the business at hand: Working to become better writers, networking, mastering the constantly-evolving field of social media and organizing in a way that will move our entire community forward. Yes, I realize that stirring the pot gets you lots of traffic and everyone loves a good Internet flame-fest, but I don’t think it’s accomplishing anything productive.
Bret,
I totally agree with you on the inconsistency of the travel writer vs travel blogger debate, especially when it comes to press trips. I’m researching the subject because I’m still not sure press trips are a good investment for either a travel blogger or a travel writer. You aren’t forced to write good reviews, but that’s what agencies/companies expect you to do, otherwise they won’t invite you anymore.
I’m with you on the “Working to become better writers” philosophy, but more and more often it seems that the focus is on the-more-press-trips-the-better, especially in Italy.
Whoa you can make money travel blogging! Could have fooled me. Haha just kidding. I do think it is why blogging has become so popular because we all tell it like it is. It’s why I am not rushing to go back to Marrakech.
Aren’t you just saying what has already been said a dozen times? That there are oh so many similarities between bloggers and print writers?
Just as there is blindingly positive diatribes in mags there are shills on blogs.
Uninformed crap gets run in magazines and newspapers (link to a doozy below) and ignorant crap gets a run on blogs.
Just as there are sponsored posts on some blogs, there is advertorial in some mags.
Just as papers inflate their circulation figures, bloggers buy followers.
Just as writers take freebies there are bloggers on junkets.
Just as some writers eschew press trips, there are some bloggers who refuse them.
Just as there are bloggers talking about the pros and cons there are print writers doing the same — here re links to two about Bali that I found in a couple of minutes of searching:
http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/bali-why-bother-20111024-1mfiz.html
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2062604,00.html
Ethics — whose ethics?
You’re stuck obsessing over an imagined difference of the platform — it is irrelevant.
It’s the writing that matters and it is the writing — not the platform — that contributes greatly to a successful pitch.
I do agree though that professionalism is important :)
The issue isn’t ethics, it’s credibility. Professionalism comes into play, too: I’ve read too many “sponsored posts” that gush more than a press release from a PR firm.
Also, it’s pretentious to talk about the “profession” of travel blogging. Most blogs are the online equivalent of zines, which were the homebrew equivalents of magazines in the ’70s, ’80s, and early ’90s. To borrow a phrase from Seinfeld, there’s nothing wrong with that, but claiming that “Travel blogs are a far more honest and trustworthy source of information than 97.62% of what you read in print magazines or the travel sections of newspapers, the supposed bastions of real travel writing” is just plain silly.
I think we all know that in every industry there are publications and individuals that are straight down the line and do things ethically at all times, those who cross the line occasionally and those that will happily do whatever it takes to get ahead, by whatever measure they choose to use and regardless of the ethics of the situation.
There is no inherent difference between publication mediums in the travel space when it comes to ethics – it is always an individual and editorial choice.
Yet another travel blogger mouthing off about the travel writing “industry” …
As someone who works for a company outsourced by a large print media company I read things like this and instantly know one of two things. The blogger is looking to stir up numbers within their own niche. The blogger is lost in the blogosphere world with their fellow friends pumping up their reputations.
Is both such cases we simply don’t pay attention to them. As a researcher I read a lot of travel blogs (and print), there’s a huge difference, and so there should be.
I don’t see print media writing articles about why they are less corrupt than bloggers, or why they are better, or why they need to do this or that. There’s a reason for that.
Of course travel bloggers like to do this quite often as it stirs up controversy within their niche and makes them look like the righteous few. Again within their own niche … only.
I like sites like travelllll.com and do expect to see things like this here, even if I don’t like it. For the few travel bloggers out there looking to break into mainstream I really wouldn’t go down the travel writer vs travel blogger route as it looks amateurish and as if you have a chip on your shoulder for not being taken seriously.
As to ethics … there’s doubt in any industry. Google got caught out recently. It will happen again. Like it’s been said above — get over it. Stop rehashing things that have been said before. Write something original!!!
I feel that as long as the blog mentions in a footnote whether or not a trip/meal/excursion has been comped, then readers can come to their own conclusion on how truthfully the experience has been conveyed. If a trip has been comped, then I will go into more detail for the positive parts and still mention – but not dwell on the negatives.
For the record: Travelfish.com does not allow its writers to accept any freebies, not even a beer, and this is mentioned on their site so readers know that all reviews and blogs only contain honest content.
I suppose that publications accepting sponsored trips are not different to travel agents promoting resorts etc that offer the highest commission.
Transparency, ethics, integrity, incentives apply to both. Ditto Dave. It’s an editorial choice.
” If a trip has been comped, then I will go into more detail for the positive parts and still mention – but not dwell on the negatives.”
For me, there’s no difference if I’ve been comped or have paid the bill. Why? Because I’m a professional. Business travel is business travel, regardless of who’s paying the expenses.
For example, my wife and I recently published in-depth coverage of a cruise that we paid for ourselves. We’ve also run quite a few reviews of cruises that were comped, either individually or as press cruises. Anyone who can find a difference between our “paid” and “comped” cruise stories is smarter than I am (or, more likely, has a more active imagination).
Side notes:
- The author of this article fails to understand why newspapers and magazines don’t publish many “negative” travel stories. The real reason is quite simple: Readers are interested in hearing about places or experiences that they’re likely to enjoy, so it doesn’t make sense to waste space on articles that are built around the theme “Elbonia is boring, so let us bore you by describing the boring aspects of Elbonia.”
- The notion that all travel writers are Michelin Red Guide inspectors is foolish. Most of us don’t take trips with scoring checklists in hand. It isn’t about scoring, it’s about describing experiences. Also, surprises (both bad and good) are part of the adventure. A Michelin inspector might be horrified to have a cat hop up on the table in a restaurant, but when I was young and single, I always enjoyed dining at the Alamo Texas Chili House in New York City, where I could count on having the house cat as company. And if I’d been writing about the Alamo Texas Chili House, I would have written about the pleasure of having a purring cat on my table, not about searching for cat hairs in my food.
Durant said: “For me, there’s no difference if I’ve been comped or have paid the bill. Why? Because I’m a professional. Business travel is business travel, regardless of who’s paying the expenses.”
Of course when an organisation knows you are coming, they are so ethical that they would make sure you didn’t get preferential treatment, just in case you gave them an inaccurate review?
There is a reason people buy the Michelin Red Guide and writers like Simon Calder don’t accept comped travel and it’s related to the travel consumer.
This is NOT an issue about travel bloggers and other travel professionals.
John, as I said before, most travel writing isn’t about reviews.
In any case, “preferential treatment” can go only so far. If a hotel is so-so, a cruise ship is jam-packed, or a city is boring, “preferential treatment” isn’t going to change things. I don’t know any professional travel writer who’d be naive enough to gush about the Rat & Roach Hotel just because the management provided a bowl of fruit or a bottle of wine at check-in.
Case in point: A few years ago, I was on a press trip that involved an overnight stay at a five-star hotel in Switzerland. The hotel made a big deal of its high-tech features, such as a PC in every room. The PC in my room didn’t work, and when I told the receptionist, he said “Yes, we know” or words to that effect. I mentioned that in my article about the hotel. Why? Because it was relevant in a story about a high-end hotel that was selling a high-tech experience. The fact that the room was being comped by someone (either the hotel or the national tourist office) didn’t enter my mind and was beside the point in any case.
One more thought about “preferential treatment”: It isn’t unusual for hotels to give upgrades, when available, to paying guests in the hope of getting favorable reviews on TripAdvisor, Booking.com, Venere, etc. That’s happened to me quite a few times (I pay for hotels more often than not). By the same token, I’ve been on press trips where the management stuck me in a tiny single room. Comps don’t always mean “preferential treatment,” especially when the hotel manager regards comps as nuisances that are being imposed by corporate higher-ups.
Durant, reviews are not Simon Calder’s main output either.
I have read many cases where the invited guest did not get preferential treatment. Michael’s post highlights a few and I remember Karen Bryan’s video review of a hotel room that fits your examples. That was not the point I was making. It is simply that an organism changes its behaviour when it knows it is being observed. As you point out it can also give the comped guest a worse experience than a paying customer, but should we automatically assume that the problems are down to a rebellious hotel manager? The hospitality industry is charged with looking after all of its guests. As you point out,it should be irrelevant who is paying the bills.
I know when I read about problems encountered on a comped trip, I wonder how an ordinary consumer would have been treated and start to imagine what else would have been wrong. There is a way of reading articles produced as a result of a comped trip, just as there is a way of getting some value out of TripAdvisor reviews. When someone writes a review gushing about them getting upgraded to an “Executive Suite” I discount that review for two reasons. Firstly because I prefer rooms with a smaller carbon footprint than a big rooms. I want to know about the room I would be staying in. Secondly, for the reasons you imply.
The upgrade scenario can be a real pain. I have always wanted to drive a Mk 2 Twingo, but whenever I booked one at a car hire company, I got upgraded to a Clio or Golf!
John: We’re getting a bit off-topic here, given that this article’s lead was “Travel blogs are a far more honest and trustworthy source of information than 97.62% of what you read in print magazines or the travel sections of newspapers, the supposed bastions of real travel writing.” Does anyone but the author seriously believe that unsupported claim? I don’t, especially after reading endless posts here and elsewhere about topics such as how bloggers can score press trips, marketing partnerships between DMOs and bloggers, and the sale of editorial text links.
This is either flimsy linkbait or more bias, self-important, nonsensical debate from the usual suspects. And I’m sure Wendy Perrin would be delighted to hear her writing is dishonest and untrustworthy.
Sober up.