JohnLSU;1052906; said:
Let's not drift from the focus of our discussion or build straw men to knock down, John.
You suggested that "you are an absolute moron if New Orleans, Los Angeles, and Miami aren't on your list of top places to visit in the world." By implication, despite your claim of not wishing to offend, the previous poster was a moron.
I suggested that perhaps you might want to reconsider your baseless and offensive assertion. As evidence, I showed you that none of the cities you mentioned featured near the top of a most widely-known and prestigeous travel destination survey. Clearly, no matter what you think about the survey, the results indicate that a number of knowledgeable travellers don't share your view.
First, you argue that I am defending another poster simply because he is a Buckeye. Did you intend to infer that integrity of my posts depends on the requirements of protecting fellow Buckeyes, or did you consider what you wrote before you hit that send button?
Now, you suggest that I am less than truthful in citing the Conde Nast survey. I'm a marketing professor, John. I'm sure you are aware that all surveys are done with samples, so what is your point? I don't know why you feel it is necessary to call the integrity of other posters into question, which seems to be a pattern to your posts. However, a quick search of Google would have shown you that Conde Nast (also CondeNast) is referred to by more than 400,000 sites and that the survey has every bit of the influence that I suggested it has. It is considered a most important indicator by most international travel destinations, hotel chains, airlines, and other parts of the tourism industry.
Had you searched other travel sites, you would have found similar evidence that New Orleans is not among the top destinations. For instance, National Geographic, hardly a bastion of Yankee or anti-American sentiment, does not even list New Orleans among the top 115 destinations. Their survey of more than 200 worldwide travel experts places weight on environmental sustainability and I need not explain why New Orleans may not score high in such a survey.
So, let's return to your point. World travel destinations? As for history and architecture, why not visit the Louvre and see French architecture in Paris? What about the Acropolis, Victoria Falls, or the Zimbabwe ruins? The national monuments in Washington DC and the Smithsonian and other museums? What about the Great Wall of China or the Tianamen Square in Beijing, the bustling PuDong in Shanghai, or the beaches of Rio de Janiero?
JohnLSU;1052906; said:
Of course, you don't think your bias is affecting your judgment, but it is clear to many of us that it is. The psychology literature is replete with hundreds of studies that show prejudice and all other forms of in-group bias exert their most damaging effects on those who hold biased views, because their prejudices have a pre-cognitive effect on the way they process information. People see what they want to see and its a trap we all have to struggle to avoid every day.
Do you really think that, if we were to set up a table at Easton Mall in Columbus and offer free one week holidays to be taken any time during the next year, that less than half of the people would choose to visit Hawaii during the worst of winter? Do you think that more than 10% would choose New Orleans over Hawaii, Seattle, and Chicago? If so, then I think you don't really understand the US tourism market.
You attempt to build astraw man by suggesting that we must tell people they could only visit Honolulu. People wouldn't just go to Honolulu or New Orleans, they would travel around the surrounding areas, John. That is laughable. That's not what we're discussing and it is not how people behave on vacation.
According to the New Orleans tourism board, in 2000, New Orleans began a marketing program to overcome a seedy image that developed during the 80's and 90's since the beginning of the decade. In 2004, visitors exceeded expectations and tourism authorities thought they were turning the corner, then there was Katrina and the ugly scenes that took place in its aftermath.
The image problem, however was not due to Katrina. It derived from the changing and bifurcated American tourism market. The traditional "empty nester" segment has aged considerably in recent years. They prefer destinations that are peaceful, relaxing, and safe. New Orleans associations with partying, excitement, and rowdy behavior are things they are more likely to avoid than be attracted to. The family market segment, the so-called "echo-boomers", prefer family destinations that have better attractions for their kids. One person's good time is another's horror story and one doesn't have to be a moron to have a different preference.
New Orleans also has failed to cash in on the booming envirotourism trend which is fuelling rising tourism numbers elsewhere.
JohnLSU;1052906; said:
And here we have evidence of the bias I mentioned, John. Where did I say I have a negative image of New Orleans? In fact, I said I liked all the cities you mentioned and that I'd like to be in New Orleans today. How do you know anything about how I feel about New Orleans? I haven't told you. You felt you knew because your bias over-ruled your judgement: "If he isn't with me, he's against me." Then, you posted an argument with a character of your own creation instead of responding to the points I raised with any kind of objective information that might cause me to change my mind.
Here's a book I think you might like. Cialdini. Persuasion. It's a classic.
So, what do I think about New Orleans. I've been there once and enjoyed myself. You might be interested to know that I made a motion for a major American marketing association to hold its annual conference in New Orleans, in order to assist with the rebuilding. The motion failed because no one wanted to go there. It was in trying to make a more acceptable motion that I became so aware of tourism problems in New Orleans.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
