Services

Media Kit

Newsletter

September Special

“I’m not Lisa, my name is Julie.”

So sang country and western chanteuse Jessi Colter in the 1970s to a man who was having a hard time distinguishing between an old and a new girlfriend. Sometimes we feel like singing a variation of “I’m not Lisa” to tour operators who miss out on leads we send them because they think they’re spam. When we receive a traveler request for more information about a particular tour host, we forward it under the e-mail heading “Traveler Request from Cultural Travels.” We think that’s pretty clear, but would welcome suggestions from any of you as to how we might make it clearer (send them to sheri@culturaltravels.com or call her at 888-443-8687). We certainly understood why people fret about spam – an item on ZDNet News in late August said that – yikes – 36% of all e-mail is now junk. Still, we figure that since we’re not forwarding porn, anti-itch remedies or “Make millions in your spare time!” gimmicks, we’re not spam – (or Lisa).

A warning about advertising on cluttered sites

A recent survey of 3,000 Internet users by BURST!Media reports that a large majority of Internet users – 63% – say they have low tolerance for more than two ads per page on a web site (33% said their tolerance stops at more than one ad). Thirty-six percent say they immediately leave sites that appear cluttered with ads, and almost 70% say that even if they stay, they pay less attention to the ads. The report also found that 58% of those surveyed hold companies whose ads appear on cluttered web pages in less regard. BURST!Media concludes – and rightly so – that advertising on too-busy sites can backfire. That’s why we like to remind people that Cultural Travels bans clutter, pop-ups and other distractions from its web site. Always has, always will.

Would you like to be included in an upcoming issue of The Cultured Traveler?

Let us know about what makes your company suited for a specific theme. Submit an article for publication. Enter your Trips for all the world to search. 

Here is our Editorial Calendar for the next 3 months.

Check out our Submissions link for Writers Guidelines!

Yes, U.S. Net’s near saturation, but the glass is half full

An Irish firm (Nua.com) reports that almost 10% of the earth's population has access to the Internet, with 581 million people worldwide able to get to the Web. Of that number, 183 million are in the U.S. and Canada, a figure that indicates almost total penetration of the English and French-speaking population of North America. Is this near saturation a bad thing? Maybe if you’re a PC or modem seller, but certainly not if you’re a product or service provider. Think about this the same way you would a stretch of Interstate highway. There’s a difference between Sunday drivers and commuters. One group is just goofing around, taking in the sights. The other has a destination and an economic purpose. The trick is to remember that Sunday on the Internet is coming to an end and Monday (and Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday) is waiting in the wings.

Tsk, tsk, playing fast and loose with language

Somebody has to guard the integrity of the English language, so it might as well be us.
London-based Small Luxury Hotels of the World (SLH) says that 80% of 300 American travelers it recently surveyed at various airports worldwide believe it’s important for hotels to protect the environment. Even though “environment” is never defined, there’s nothing to quibble with there. Then comes a series of non sequiturs: “70% are willing to pay as much as $150 more for a two-week stay in a hotel with a ‘responsible environmental attitude.’" What does that mean? Or, “Americans believe that hiring hotel employees who live locally (57%) will help communities improve their environment.” What does that mean? That Indiana hotels shouldn’t hire Kansans who commute to work? Or, “Popular to American travelers are hotels that look after wildlife (64%) and are sensitive to marine life (46%).” Does this mean no fish on the menu? Nobody will ever know, because SLH ain’t telling.

From their own lips, Part 6,001

We never fail to marvel at the contempt in which the ad industry holds people as long as the money pours in. Case in point, media observer David L. Smith’s comments last Monday defending pop-up ads and quoting liberally from a horse’s mouth about just what dandy things they are. The horse in this case is Safa Rashtchy, an analyst at US Bancorp, who said “For advertising to be effective, it has to be intrusive.” Then he offers the obligatory “tut-tut,” saying, “Obviously, there is a fine line beyond which advertising may alienate consumers, and we believe the online advertising industry is still experimenting with different levels of intrusion to find the right balance.” No kidding. Then the capper: Smith defends Rashtchy’s cynicism by asking, “After all, what’s more intrusive than a TV spot?” To which we answer, “What’s less effective? Ever hear all those toilets flushing or those tapes fast-forwarding whenever a TV spot comes on?”