Was doing my routine browse of CNN.com this morning to see what’s going on in the world since my news exposure is limited to that and 1010Wins reports on my drive to school and that article caught my attention.

The only physical association I’d ever made with Arthur/Avalon/Camelot was Glastonbury Tor even though Tintagel is . . . → Keep Going: Travel: Legends]]>

Generations of visitors, including writers such as Dickens and Tennyson, have traveled to Tintagel to see the place reputed to be a cornerstone of the Arthurian legend. For today’s visitors, its natural splendor may be just as rewarding.: King Arthur’s legend lives on at Tintagel

Was doing my routine browse of CNN.com this morning to see what’s going on in the world since my news exposure is limited to that and 1010Wins reports on my drive to school and that article caught my attention.

The only physical association I’d ever made with Arthur/Avalon/Camelot was Glastonbury Tor even though Tintagel is said to be perhaps the most familiar. The Tor seems far and away to draw visitors in search of a quest of a more pagan nature whereas the article seems to suggest that Tintagel might

Don’t let it be forgot / That once there was a spot / For one brief shining moment / That was known as Camelot!

I think the spot matters far less than the legend that lives on after it.

For me, I think the only legend questing I’ve ever done is Salem and that’s not so much legend as history gone crazy in fiction. But I have been to the castle in Segovia where a good chunk of the movie was filmed, although I didn’t know it prior to the guide telling us. Does that count?

Google turns up a million + links for travel to Glastonbury, 275,000 for Tintagel and one million + for Camelot. The camelot results show just how diluted the Camelot brand has become.

I wonder how much of a fan you have to be to travel to one or more of those sites…

I looked at this distinction as a part of my research paper, and while it applies in some circumstances, it’s less applicable in others. When both are traveling for a short period of time, I don’t think there’s much of a distinction. Neither is getting much of an understanding of the host environment, its culture or the people. It’s what I prefer . . . → Keep Going: Tourist/Traveler and Experiential Travelling]]> As is becoming more and more common lately, Timen at in my All Stars and I seem to be sharing a brain cell. This time, it seems to be about the distinction between a tourist and a traveler.

I looked at this distinction as a part of my research paper, and while it applies in some circumstances, it’s less applicable in others. When both are traveling for a short period of time, I don’t think there’s much of a distinction. Neither is getting much of an understanding of the host environment, its culture or the people. It’s what I prefer to call an overview – you get a taste of the country. Hopefully, this taste is enough to draw you back for a longer visit if time and finances allow. This was exactly the case on my first trip to Australia: three weeks led to eleven months.

Over the course of a longer trip is where the distinction can become more obvious. I think there’s a difference, I’m just not certain whether traveler/tourist adequately covers it. What I see as the difference is between psychocentric and allocentric travelers. Do I think all allocentric travelers need to seek out every experience? No, of course not. As Litvin pointed out when he sought to revisit Plog, there are factors that pull people at either end toward the middle.

What is important to recognize is the different goals the groups are striving for. There’s a huge difference in a visitor’s view of a country if he or she has spent time interacting with the locals or if he or she has ‘seen it’ from the inside of an air-conditioned tour bus. There’s nothing necessarily good or bad about either, it’s all about personal preference.  I definitely agree with Timen and the sentiments at The Lost Globe that each person thinks he or she is doing it the ‘right way’. It’s human nature.

Personally, I think there’s something special to be gained by truly seeing a country. While I wouldn’t go to the extremes that the authors did in Cold Beer and Crocodiles and The Roads to Sata (Travel Reading), I think the authors saw a lot more than the average traveler did because of the means of travel. It ties back to personal preference – this was what they wanted to gain from their trip. I wanted to see Australia at a more indepth level than plane travel would allow, so I went for Greyhound because I had time time to spare. I really need to dig up and import some of those old posts: there were some gems. My general thoughts on the experiences connected with traveling.

Speaking of experiences, I can’t wait to read Knockabout Girl, which I just got on a bookring last night. Anyone want to find me a 25th hour in the day to get more reading done?

People are looking, perhaps, for escapism, or affinity, or any number of other motivators, and it’s a matter of providing assurance to the potential customer that Canada can deliver experiences matching their desires

I think this attitude is crucial to successful tourism product development and/or destination marketing. A tourist doesn’t go to <insert destination here> because of that place’s name, they go because they associate that destination with a certain experience.

This is especially at the forefront of the realization that a destination cannot be everything to everyone. Not everyone wants to go to . . . → Keep Going: Tourism Experiences]]> From Tourism Magazine via the Tourism Research Blog

People are looking, perhaps, for escapism, or affinity, or any number of other motivators, and it’s a matter of providing assurance to the potential customer that Canada can deliver experiences matching their desires

I think this attitude is crucial to successful tourism product development and/or destination marketing. A tourist doesn’t go to <insert destination here> because of that place’s name, they go because they associate that destination with a certain experience.

This is especially at the forefront of the realization that a destination cannot be everything to everyone. Not everyone wants to go to New York City, if an urban vacation with theatre, museums, shopping, etc. is not what they’re after. It’s a drain on valuable resources to try and attract the customer who is not seeking the experience that a particular destination can offer.

Destinations that can offer a wide range of experiences, such as New York City, Rome, or Sydney are at an advantage over others who have more specialized offerings. Neither is right or wrong, or better or worse, it just depends on keeping the right segment(s) in mind. Oh dear god, marketing is following me into Tourism Product Development.

On a completely unrelated note, Prague is a go! There are some minor details still to be sorted, namely my being in Australia when the paper is due, but I’m 98% certain this summer will start out in Europe.

Four weeks, six credits. Woohoo. Classes run 28 May – 22 June, but I’m not sure exactly when I’m flying in. This confirmation had me looking at the photos from the last trip. It will be nice to experience the city at a time when it’s warmer and there are hopefully more tourists about. I’m also hoping to make some other side trips, most of which are still TBD.

See: it’s all about the experiences I’m after. Cultural & Heritage Tourism and Sports Tourism Development in interesting locations. This summer’s location just happened to be Prague. It’s not so unrelated after all!