AmyHuang
The future of Lonely Planet
I've only just learned today that Tony and Maureen Wheeler will be (or have?) selling off the last remaining shares they have in the Lonely Planet empire. The well known guide book will be in the hands of the BBC.
In the article Lonely Planet: the best thing to happen to travel, or the worst? by Ben Groundwater from Sydney Morning Herald, while reporting on this 'news' he also discussed whether the guide book series has been a blessing or hell for many travellers.
He says the following:
"That's a bit glib, admittedly, and it skirts around a few issues. The biggest one of which is: Does the Lonely Planet "ruin" destinations?
Yeah, it does. If by "ruin" you mean contribute to changing the things you once loved about a place.
Check out any of the "secret" beaches and "untouched" villages mentioned in the LP. Sure, they might have been secret and untouched when the author visited, but after a couple of years in the book they'll be crawling with tourists."
Now, while that's true, I will stand by Lonely Planet for being great guidebooks. We all have to remember that what he has said about Lonely Planet 'ruining' places because they have been mentioned in the book, applies to all travel writing. Just because Lonely Planet is the most popular guidebook series and more people use them than other brands does not make them the demons behind paradises lost. Every travel writer has a dillemma. They need to write to earn a living, and they are constantly under pressure to write something someone else hasn't written about. However by writing about these places, by letting the public know about these hidden gems - makes them not hidden anymore.
Essentially, its the travellers that ruin places, not guidebooks.
Also - many people forget that guide books are meant to 'guide', not dictate. The article also mentions that every cafe/hostel mentioned in Lonely Planet gets filled with foreigners wielding the Lonely Planet. However, from how I see it, listing places out are suggestions that these businesses are out there, showing the travellers that there are the different styles of businesses that suits all travellers. There is a thing called the Internet now, that a traveller can easily check what else is on offer and not completely reliant on the guidebook. The guidebook has given you a guide, now you go and really find out what it's like.
I've personally used various different guidebooks and have tested a few of the guidebooks for the same region. As far as guidebooks go, Lonely Planet still has the best possible information available for travellers.
Either way, I am glad the BBC will be the owner of Lonely Planet, because I have always been a fan of the travel/nature documentaries made by the BBC and I do hope they'll manage the guidebooks just as well as how Tony and Maureen started it.
The Lonely Planet series of guidebooks has gone from one roadtrip guide to a guide that is for absolutely everywhere
In the article Lonely Planet: the best thing to happen to travel, or the worst? by Ben Groundwater from Sydney Morning Herald, while reporting on this 'news' he also discussed whether the guide book series has been a blessing or hell for many travellers.
He says the following:
"That's a bit glib, admittedly, and it skirts around a few issues. The biggest one of which is: Does the Lonely Planet "ruin" destinations?
Yeah, it does. If by "ruin" you mean contribute to changing the things you once loved about a place.
Check out any of the "secret" beaches and "untouched" villages mentioned in the LP. Sure, they might have been secret and untouched when the author visited, but after a couple of years in the book they'll be crawling with tourists."
Now, while that's true, I will stand by Lonely Planet for being great guidebooks. We all have to remember that what he has said about Lonely Planet 'ruining' places because they have been mentioned in the book, applies to all travel writing. Just because Lonely Planet is the most popular guidebook series and more people use them than other brands does not make them the demons behind paradises lost. Every travel writer has a dillemma. They need to write to earn a living, and they are constantly under pressure to write something someone else hasn't written about. However by writing about these places, by letting the public know about these hidden gems - makes them not hidden anymore.
Essentially, its the travellers that ruin places, not guidebooks.
Also - many people forget that guide books are meant to 'guide', not dictate. The article also mentions that every cafe/hostel mentioned in Lonely Planet gets filled with foreigners wielding the Lonely Planet. However, from how I see it, listing places out are suggestions that these businesses are out there, showing the travellers that there are the different styles of businesses that suits all travellers. There is a thing called the Internet now, that a traveller can easily check what else is on offer and not completely reliant on the guidebook. The guidebook has given you a guide, now you go and really find out what it's like.
I've personally used various different guidebooks and have tested a few of the guidebooks for the same region. As far as guidebooks go, Lonely Planet still has the best possible information available for travellers.
Either way, I am glad the BBC will be the owner of Lonely Planet, because I have always been a fan of the travel/nature documentaries made by the BBC and I do hope they'll manage the guidebooks just as well as how Tony and Maureen started it.
