Travelblather

I spotted the launch issue of the new Lonely Planet Travel magazine on the shelves today.

Frankly I'm pretty underwhelmed by this. BBC Worldwide bought a 75 per cent stake in Lonely
Planet for £89.9m last year – a move which has angered some of the
BBC’s commercial rivals, who claim Worldwide is entering into
territories that are not linked to the BBC’s core public service remit. And I'm in total agreement.

Why is BBC Worldwide launching a travel magazine? How can that be within its remit and how can that be fair competition? Interestingly there's a box at the bottom of the contents page that states that BBC Worldwide is the commerical arm of the BBC and that profits are ploughed back into the programme budget. So clearly there's already some sensitivity there.

Don't get me wrong - I'm a huge fan of the BBC, but this seems completely wrong. I write regularly for excellent independent travel magazine Wanderlust. A small business that has been built carefully and with great passion over more than a decade, it recently celebrated its 100th issue. This is no mean feat in what has been an increasingly difficult climate for print magazines generally. Wanderlust has concentrated on building a loyal readership by creating a product that really works for them - and advertisers know this and support the magazine. It seems completely unfair that the BBC can compete with them like this.

Lyn Hughes the Founder and Editor in Chief of Wanderlust has already made her views clear on the issue describing BBC Worldwide as an 'out of control juggernaut'.

I know that many of Wanderlust's readers are subscribers. Having browsed the launch issue of Lonely Planet Travel Magazine I saw little that would tempt a reader away for now. The editor is former deputy editor of the BBC's Top Gear magazine Peter Grunert so hardly a heavyweight travel editor and a surprising choice in this respect. The cover is also pretty uninspiring too. But the LP brand is massively influential and with the deep pockets of BBC Worldwide behind it there's surely money to invest in the product.

According to Media Guardian the magazine will compete with Conde Nast Traveller and The Sunday Times Travel magazine. But I disagree. The Lonely Planet brand is far, far closer to the independent travellers who read Wanderlust than the more upmarket ones who read these two titles particularly Conde Nast.

I wonder if Lonely Planet advertises much in Wanderlust? And I wonder if Wanderlust will take ads from the company now? Difficult call for Wanderlust going forward. Do they ignore this new competitor and focus on doing an even better job or do they kick up some noise about it? 

I have a vested interest as I've done some TV work in the past. But I keep wondering why exec producers aren't commissioning travel TV these days.

Remember Holiday and Wish You Were Here?

People are talking about bringing back Top of the Pops - which I'd suggest won't work as there is sooo much competition from YouTube and MySpace - but what about holiday shows?

It seems that nowadays if you're commissioning travel, you have to have either:

1) A celeb to front the show.... Ewan McGregor and Charlie Boorman being obvious ones. The first show they did Long Way Round didn't get commissioned by the BBC. They did eventually get it broadcast on Sky but I seem to remember there was little interest from the mainstream terrestrial broadcasters. Wind the clock forward a few years and Charlie is getting commissions to go solo to places. Lovely guy, but not the most passionately interesting of presenters in my opinion. And not the sort of traval normal people do

2) Some kind of hard core specialisation.... Amazon with Bruce Parry being the ultimate example. Awesomely experienced, brilliantly passionate presenter who really IS the show. You could argue the fantastically talented Ray Mears fits in here too. Again... hardly the sort of travel normal holidaymakers can aspire to.

3) Branded shows... I'm thinking The Rough Guide to series. Which I found rather uninspiring. I don't like the list format very much. A bit... lazy, but at least there's breadth there AND it's within the reach and aspiration of normal holidaymakers. Why they couldn't use real Rough Guide users instead of presenters I don't know. Missed a trick there I'd say. Of course the BBC now owns Lonely Planet... I keep waiting for the first Lonely Planet TV show. It can't be far away can it?

Holidays are a major part of most people's lives. We plan them, we spend big chunks of our cash on them, we get excited weeks before we go, we take pics whilst away and talk about them to our mates when we are home.

Travel is inspiring and exciting by its very nature. Far more so than say - doing some DIY. But look at the avalanche of me-too DIY shows we've been stuck with over the last decade...

Why is there no travel for travel's sake on TV?

I've done some bitching about PR recently. So here's something totally positive. The guys at Travel PR really know the industry and their clients. AND they understand the media outlets they are talking to.

They just sent me a really smart Press Release - their list of new travel phrases for 2009. Quirky, interesting and obviously the product of some creative thinking and time.

So.. we all heard the phrase 'Staycation' over the summer until we were sick of it. Here are a few more of their ideas. Some of them I think are absolutely spot-on:

• Me-esta mē-esta, n. a holiday devoted to
  ‘me-time’; a fiesta or celebration of all things me-related esp. pampering,
  good food, relaxing, indulging.
• Learney lûr’ni, n. a learning
  holiday/journey in which the participant acquires a new skill.
• Hag Weekend hag wēk-end, n. like a
  hen or stag weekend but for new divorcees, permanent spinsters or bachelors.
• Sparty spar’ti, n. a spa break to celebrate
  a particularly special occasion esp. birthday, anniversary or hen weekend.
• Chillaxing chi’laks’ing, v. achieving
  ultimate relaxation and plenty of rest; a focus on leisurely activities.
• Voluntourism vol-en’toor’izm, n. tourism involving
  a volunteering element esp. giving something back to the community.  
• Tanniversary tan-i-vûrs’e-ri, n. a holiday
  taken in a warm and sunny climate to celebrate an anniversary.
• Choo-string travel choo-string trav’l, n.
  sophisticated travel that would typically be expected to come with a hefty
  price tag but is surprisingly economically conscious.

I wonder if more people will be taking 'Weekend Broke's this year (my rather spurious attempt at a new phrase). Staying at home to save money for one big summer holiday - rather than jumping on a low cost flight to somewhere they're never heard of but fancied visiting because 'the flights were so cheap'?

So.. what's your suggestion for a new Travel Phrase?

Here's Travel PR's client list - they work for a whole bunch of genuinely innovative, smart tour operators and airlines.

As a journalist I get a lot of Press Releases bunging up my in-tray. To be fair my email address has found its way onto quite a few databases over the years - despite the steps I've taken to try and avoid this.

I often get the feeling that PR execs sit at their desks and pump out releases totally focussed on THEIR CLIENT and completely forgetting the people they are sending them to. It's not dissimilar to a company churning out its products and not giving thought to what their customers really want. Companies that get too self-obsessed like this usually go to the wall (unless they are Banks or large US automobile concerns and then they get bailed out - which is in my opinion pretty criminal.) Just look at the hole GM is in now.

I've been receiving almost daily releases from a company called rel="nofollow" a href="http://www.topposition.co.uk/"
target="_blank">Top Position. What's interesting is that the company has its foundation in Search Engine Optimisation. The releases actually come from the 'SEO department'. They are stuffed full of hyperlinks to their client's website. They are ALWAYS MARKED URGENT. Yesterday I got one that started: I rang newsdesk and was asked to send this over to
you.

1) I HATE being sent emails with the High Importance marker on them if they aren't.Who are you to judge if it's urgent? I emailed the sender and asked to be taken off their mailing list. Even her reply was marked High Importance. I mean how VAIN!

2) SEO experts maybe - but PR experts too? Well if they were they wouldn't draw such attention to the fact that they are pumping out their releases for SEO purposes by  marking them from the SEO dept. Presumably this also means they are only interested in on-line media outlets. 

3) PR isn't just about hiring a bunch of 'journalists' (their word not mine) and buying a few lists of media outlets - and hey presto pumping out releases. Despite my inherent dislike of PR I accept that those agencies that are experts in their field can do a good job. But they take time to understand the editors and writers they are communicating with and try to offer stories and ideas that will not just benefit their client, but also work for the media outlet they are approaching. And to do this well you almost need to craft a different idea for each individual newspaper, magazine or website.

4) The email starting 'I rang newsdesk and was asked to send this over to you...' is completely dishonest. And to send this kind of email to all and sundry regardless of whether you have had prior contact is fraud. Maybe I should contact the Direct Marketing Assocation or the ASA?

5) Despite several emails and a phone call (during which I was assured I would be taken off the email list) I am still receiving their emails.

So.. question.

What is Top Position trying to do? I'd suggest just keep a client paying their bills - as clearly the company doesn't give the slightest bit of care and thought to the media outlets they are bombarding.

And if that's PR in the 21st century, can you see why journalists like me are beginning to hate it.

(I thought long and hard about linking to the Top Position website. Last thing I want to do is give them a nice link from here, but in the spirit of openness in blogging I decided I would. I plan to leave it there for a week and then disable it.)

If you wanted to see an immediate effect of the recent downturn in the economy then take a look at the latest (UK) edition of Esquire magazine. I subscribe and I got the new issue (Jan 09) through the door today. It's over a third thinner than the previous few months. It numbers just 160 pages.

I checked issues for October and November which I still had hanging around - 235 and 262 pages. That is a HUGE reduction in page count - over a third. And that means a huge reduction in ad revenue, massive.

If you wanted a clear indicator that we're in a recession right now, the number of pages in print media is a clear indicator of the scale of the problem. It doesn't look good.

[Also rather surprising. I couldn't find a website for the UK edition of Esquire magazine. Remarkable]