Comments on: Why is the BBC flexing media muscle in the travel market? http://www.donaldstrachan.com/archive/2009/02/why-is-the-bbc-flexing-media-muscle-in-the-travel-market/ Politics, Travel, Media, and occasionally the Politics of Travel Media Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:59:05 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Donald http://www.donaldstrachan.com/archive/2009/02/why-is-the-bbc-flexing-media-muscle-in-the-travel-market/comment-page-1/#comment-12 Donald Sat, 21 Feb 2009 09:59:16 +0000 http://www.donaldstrachan.com/archive/?p=133#comment-12 Thanks for stopping by, Lara. I've never worked for LP myself, and generally have a good impression of them viewed from the outside (e.g. I heard their author fees were better-than-average?). As for whether sitting inside the BBC will change much about LP's culture, I'm not sure. A commenter at the place the piece was run originally <a href="http://www.donaldstrachan.com/archive/2009/02/why-is-the-bbc-flexing-media-muscle-in-the-travel-market/#comments" rel="nofollow">said</a> dealing with the BBC, as a "small-guy", was virtually indistinguishable from working with a Murdoch company... In fact, he marginally preferred Murdoch. As you said, my main point is about the BBC: what is it <i>for</i>? Not for this, I suggest. Thanks for stopping by, Lara. I’ve never worked for LP myself, and generally have a good impression of them viewed from the outside (e.g. I heard their author fees were better-than-average?). As for whether sitting inside the BBC will change much about LP’s culture, I’m not sure. A commenter at the place the piece was run originally said dealing with the BBC, as a “small-guy”, was virtually indistinguishable from working with a Murdoch company… In fact, he marginally preferred Murdoch.

As you said, my main point is about the BBC: what is it for? Not for this, I suggest.

]]> By: lara dunston http://www.donaldstrachan.com/archive/2009/02/why-is-the-bbc-flexing-media-muscle-in-the-travel-market/comment-page-1/#comment-7 lara dunston Fri, 20 Feb 2009 04:33:31 +0000 http://www.donaldstrachan.com/archive/?p=133#comment-7 Great piece. Couldn't agree more. I once wrote for Lonely Planet (co-authored 25 books over 4 years with my husband) but stopped writing for them for a tonne of reasons. While the argument you've presented wasn't one of them, now that I write for Footprint, Rough Guides and DK, and understand and appreciate how they operate, I better see LP's unfair competitive advantage over those guides, and now Wanderlust with the magazine. LP should benefit enormously from BBC's digital expertise - LP have sunk millions into their website over recent years, but it's always failed - aside from Thorn Tree, which is a beast of its own - they've never been able to grasp the potential of digital, and have exploited their own content in a way that hasn't been smart at all. When I see content I wrote years ago come out in stories in newspapers under my by-line and yet it's simply been lifted from our guides, and not only have bad selections been made, but it's out-dated, a questions of ethics arise for me regarding their relationships with writer. For one, using old outdated content impacts our credibility as writers if readers (and editors) are imagining it's recently been written by us and they recognized it's old and bad. Secondly, they are in effect competing with us in our marketplace by giving away content presented as our articles to publications we occasionally write for - why would an editor accept a pitch for a story by me on Buenos Aires nightlife and pay me for it when Lonely Planet can simply lift it from my book and give it to him for free. What's more frustrating is that while millions are spent on websites and taking losses on the new magazine, writers are still getting paid lousy fees (so I hear). And even though I no longer write for them, I'm still trying to get paid for destination videos my husband and I presented for Lonely Planet TV 3 years ago... I can't imagine that some of those unfair and ethical practices would sit well with the BBC... or the UK government. Great piece. Couldn’t agree more. I once wrote for Lonely Planet (co-authored 25 books over 4 years with my husband) but stopped writing for them for a tonne of reasons. While the argument you’ve presented wasn’t one of them, now that I write for Footprint, Rough Guides and DK, and understand and appreciate how they operate, I better see LP’s unfair competitive advantage over those guides, and now Wanderlust with the magazine.

LP should benefit enormously from BBC’s digital expertise – LP have sunk millions into their website over recent years, but it’s always failed – aside from Thorn Tree, which is a beast of its own – they’ve never been able to grasp the potential of digital, and have exploited their own content in a way that hasn’t been smart at all.

When I see content I wrote years ago come out in stories in newspapers under my by-line and yet it’s simply been lifted from our guides, and not only have bad selections been made, but it’s out-dated, a questions of ethics arise for me regarding their relationships with writer. For one, using old outdated content impacts our credibility as writers if readers (and editors) are imagining it’s recently been written by us and they recognized it’s old and bad. Secondly, they are in effect competing with us in our marketplace by giving away content presented as our articles to publications we occasionally write for – why would an editor accept a pitch for a story by me on Buenos Aires nightlife and pay me for it when Lonely Planet can simply lift it from my book and give it to him for free.

What’s more frustrating is that while millions are spent on websites and taking losses on the new magazine, writers are still getting paid lousy fees (so I hear). And even though I no longer write for them, I’m still trying to get paid for destination videos my husband and I presented for Lonely Planet TV 3 years ago… I can’t imagine that some of those unfair and ethical practices would sit well with the BBC… or the UK government.

]]>