Travel 'experts', whether they are travel writers, guidebook authors, travel bloggers, tour guides, travel agents, hoteliers etc, are also 'real' travellers in my mind. Yet publishers and travel sites are frequently pitting the two against each other. Sure, the travel experts sometimes get special treatment and they can rarely shut themselves off from the act of reviewing, even when they're on holidays, but the fact is that they do take holidays and do travel like 'normal' people too. I book my flights and hotels online. I have to negotiate local transport like you do. I eat as many bad meals as I do good ones, and I also get allocated my share of crappy hotel rooms too. Yet increasingly the opinions of the experts - the people who stay in hundreds of hotel rooms a year, catch scores of flights, and talk to thousands of other travel experts and travellers - that is, the people who make it their business to accumulate vast travel experience and knowledge and develop skills at discernment - seem to be increasingly undervalued and overlooked in favor of the opinions of 'real' people. One example is the hotel reviews in Budget Travel (a magazine I love, by the way), such as this one which states that "Online reviews generally praise the hotel as an affordable gem with a fun, unique theme" and "Reader Dawn recommends Franklin Feel the Sound, where she stayed in June 2009. She writes that the Franklin exceeded her expectations and was excellent value". Frankly, unless I know who these online reviewers were and have more information about them and Dawn, I don't care what they think. I want to know how much hotel experience they've had, how many hotels in Rome they've checked into and inspected, and how many hotels they've stayed at fullstop, so I can then determine what their idea of "affordable" or "unique" is, and how different their expectations may be to that of other travellers. You see, travel experts know these things. What do you think?
By Lara & Terry*
If you've just joined us, this continues from the previous post so read this first.
So, why would these three places now get glowing reviews in an updated guidebook? What do they have in common? The answer: all of these places do excellent public relations. And when you read the reviews it’s quite easy to tell that the writer hasn't set foot in any of the places, or if the person did, they were blindfolded. A quick search on Google revealed that many of the reviews of the restaurant we left out of our edition use the same language to describe the chef, the preparation of the food, and the cuisine itself. It’s not a coincidence. It’s simply a recycled press release. And to the writer in a hurry on a tight budget, the 'general consensus' is enough to tick it off for inclusion and write the review from the establishment’s website, a press release, or other lustrous reviews.
In this particular city, we had tried all the restaurants we put in the first edition of that book, as we’d been regular visitors to the city for years. And on subsequent visits we used our local industry contacts (hotel staff, chefs and so on) to identify new places to try. But what we found most interesting from our guidebook test were the other reviewers’ responses to the restaurants we didn’t think were very good. When we discussed this with our informed local contacts in the restaurant or hotel business they almost unanimously said: “I can never understand why foreign writers think that place is so good!” One famous chef we recently interviewed knows exactly what we’re talking about. He told us that one dish that was on his menu for only a couple of months a few years ago keeps appearing in 'reviews' of his restaurant in travel guidebooks and articles. He blames one high-profile magazine article (which has since appeared on the internet) for this and is bemused by diners coming in and asking for the dish! The mention of this dish is his benchmark for judging whether the writer has even looked at his menu.
And this is why buying a guidebook is such a lottery. If you’ve been to a city before and you’re looking to buy a guidebook on it for another trip, look for a review of a hotel or restaurant you know. Is it in there? Good. Does the review make it sound remotely like the place you know? Yes? Excellent. If it doesn’t list it or it describes it in a way that’s not like the place you know, leave the book on the shelf.
Just as an aside, we were relieved to find that our names aren’t mentioned at all in the current incarnation of that first book we originally authored. It’s somewhat petty of the publishers, seeing our content was original, but considering the state of the current edition, we’re actually grateful!
Pictured? One hotel in Northern Italy that in no uncertain terms lives up to its eco-friendly credentials, Vigilius Mountain Resort. This is a photo of our room. We actually stayed there. Do you trust us?
By Terry* and Lara
Sometimes when you visit a restaurant or stay at a hotel recommended by a guidebook, and it’s either nothing like you expected or you’re wondering what the fuss is about, don’t worry, the problem probably doesn’t lie with you. It’s quite likely the fault of a lazy reviewer. When we recently revisited an Italian city we’ve written extensively about, we dropped into a couple of bookshops to thumb through the latest guides to see what insightful new content had been created on the city. Our little test is to look for reviews of places we know intimately and see whether the writers know their stuff and/or whether we are simpatico with their thinking.
In this particular city (which shall remain nameless), we know one hotel extremely well, having had several lengthy stays there while researching the city. So we know about this certain hotel’s marketing gimmick and claims to being an “eco-friendly” hotel, which have little foundation. We mentioned this in our review of the property for a book on the city several years ago. Indeed, we wrote the review from our room there! But in an updated edition of that book, the new review by another author essentially reflects the hotel’s press release rather than the reality - that would have been revealed by a quick inspection and a couple of well-chosen questions. In the same guidebook, flicking through to the eating section, we noticed that a couple of well-known restaurants we were told we “had to” include in the book now get glowing reviews. One, we’d been able to convince the editor to leave out of our edition, as our meals had been ordinary and stupidly expensive. The other, we gave an average review; we had to include it because it had such a high profile. On both counts, we argued our case strongly. By doing so we felt we were doing the right thing by the readers.
This is how we approach our reviewing. If our readers are going to a destination and only have a couple of days to spend there, we obviously want them to have the best experience possible. If we’re going to send them to a so-called “eco-friendly” hotel that isn’t very eco-friendly at all, we’ll tell them why: because it’s a clean, decent-value hotel in an expensive city, despite its disingenuous eco-claims. If we think a restaurant doesn’t warrant inclusion, we’ll leave it out. And if we think another restaurant is very average but has to be included because of its high-profile chef and famous investors, we’ll reluctantly put it in, write a critical review, and leave it up to the reader to decide whether they want to spend their hard-earned cash there or go to another restaurant we wholeheartedly recommend instead. When writing reviews and labouring over these issues, we always ask ourselves: would we recommend the place to our friends? And would we be happy to go there with them?
The photo? It's the funky lobby of Qamardeen Hotel again, in Dubai. And no, they're not paying us, we just love this property and think it's one of Dubai's most stylish, best value, and yet, bafflingly, most underrated hotels.
* Terry is my co-author and husband, who occasionally blogs for Cool Travel Guide.
