It found that backpackers constituted a heterogeneous group with respect to the diversity of rationales and meanings attached to their travel experiences.

I found that statement to be one of the most crucial that applies to working with backpackers. At . . . → Keep Going: Backpackers as a Community of Strangers]]> I was doing some research for my research design paper and in the process came across an article entitled Backpackers as a community of strangers: the interaction order of an online backpacker notice board (freely accessible PDF). Apart from piquing my curiosity as an interesting read, it seemed vaguely related to the issues surrounding buzz/currency and use of travel guides, etc.

It found that backpackers constituted a heterogeneous group with respect to the diversity of rationales and meanings attached to their travel experiences.

I found that statement to be one of the most crucial that applies to working with backpackers. At the same time, it’s probably one of the ones least considered by those marketing to backpackers. There is no one thing that ‘backpackers’ like. There may be certain similarities and tendencies but so often I’d hear “backpacker special” and couldn’t think of anything I’d want to do less!

The article went on further to state:

Backpacking differs from the generic idea of tourism or ‘the tourist’ because the backpacker is expected to court risks purposively rather than to avoid them (Giddens,1991: 124). It is important to note here the difference between acceptable and avoided risks. Acceptable risks are those that are self- imposed and ‘controlled’ by the individual as distinct from avoided risks that are imposed by others (Reith, 2003).

I think this is one of the crucial distinctions that places backpackers firmly among allocentric tourists and contributes to the tourist v. traveller debate.  I think in many cases the backpacker (myself included) chalks up some degree of risk to the name of exeprience rather than as a negative.

All in all a good read. Wish it fit my paper slightly better. I didn’t come away empty handed though, found a wonderful article about the characteristics surrounding backpacker enclaves. Now I just need to sit down and do the analysis of the article. Procrastination is a wonderfully horrid thing.

On a mostly unrelated note, Networth IQ: track, share and compare net worth. I just signed up for it after reading about it  and it seems interesting to play with. I already have an idea of the figures from Quicken but I think I’ll play some with this too.

In an article on the trustworthiness of Travel 2.0 (stemming from this MSNBC column), the authors mention the change from the days of the printed guidebook being king to the power of word of mouth. They state a five year change, but on a personal level I think word of mouth, or website, goes back at least four years. I used the reviews feature to help choose a hostel in Prague, a city I’d never been to. Normally, I’d also ask friends and/or . . . → Keep Going: Travel 2.0]]> Is there anything not called 2.0 these days? I think it’s especially annoying when it’s not new.

In an article on the trustworthiness of Travel 2.0 (stemming from this MSNBC column), the authors mention the change from the days of the printed guidebook being king to the power of word of mouth. They state a five year change, but on a personal level I think word of mouth, or website, goes back at least four years. I used the reviews feature to help choose a hostel in Prague, a city I’d never been to. Normally, I’d also ask friends and/or family, however at the time I didn’t know anyone who had been there. Does that mean everyone was? Of course not, but in no way do I think this is as cutting edge as the article makes it seem.

One of the benefits of this word-of-mouth marketing is that, by its very nature, it’s more up to date than any guidebook can ever hope to be.I found some of the same argument to be true for brochures found at a CVB. Because the lead time is so long for the guidebooks, there’s substantial room for inadvertent error where places, prices, exhibits, owners, etc. change. And then of course there are the facts that go uncorrected from one edition to the next, but that’s a horse of a whole ‘nother color.

One of the points that I agree wholely with is:

Or maybe you’re looking for something more personal. Maybe you’re looking for people with similar interests, a sense of community, or even someone to share an upcoming adventure with.

I love speaking with like-minded individuals because their preferences, whether positive or negative, might be more likely to be in line with my own than those of the general public. However, that argument doesn’t necessarily exclude guidebooks, it just pays to look for the guidebooks geared toward your own type of travel. I’ll never forget being on the upper deck of the Yasawa Flyer and looking around at the sea of Lonely Planets. There’s a reason it’s known as a backpacker bible.

The article’s POV is a nicely well-rounded one, but it doesn’t reveal anything earth shattering. Don’t accept everything you hear (or read) at face value but use it as a basis for learning more. In that sense, it’s a lot like Wikipedia. Will I buy a Lonely Planet for Prague? Probably not. I’ll get enough info through school and on the web. Plus, I’ve been there before. I have a basis to work from, but if I were going to an unknown location, I probably still would to get a feel for the place.

It brings about an interesting question, how much of word of mouth marketing is marketing? My gut says no, but the experts say otherwise. This issue is certainly something that comes up in Emanuel Rosen’s The Anatomy of Buzz, but it’s not something a company can control, which presents challenges in and of itself. Successful business people try to respond to “buzz” when they can, such as in responses to a post (see Hostel Advantage’s response to my review) and or on eBay. However, they can only respond to what they see. No one can ever hope to hear or see all the discussion, but should they want to?

I think the true power of buzz lies in the fact that it gets people’s attention. It doesn’t always matter how it’s being discussed. Just the fact that it is being discussed makes people curious. Non travel related examples are the success of the DaVinci code in the face of the criticism from various parties and the hulabaloo over the Chcolate Jesus. In both cases, the voices of the critics were some of the best free marketing around, but due to the cost of traveling to a destination, I wonder if the same applies to travel. Would people really risk spending money just to ‘test’ a critic’s opinion?