May 12, 2008
Would you pay $725 for round-trip rail to Leeds, England, an outdoor performance of Shakespeare, and dinner in the train on the return trip?
On the morning of Wednesday, July 9 -- and only on that date -- a train of the Orient Express company will leave London St. Pancras Station on a 2½ hour trip to Leeds, a mid-sized British city about 170 miles to the northwest of London. Passengers will be served brunch en route. Once in Leeds, they will see an outdoor performance of Shakespeare's The Winter's Tale, and will then get dinner in the train on the return trip to London.
For this they will pay a starting price of £345 ($725) per person. Since the British pound now costs at least $2.10 after five-percent commissions to money-changers are factored in, £345 equals $725.
Now assume that you are the editor of a Sunday newspaper travel section in the United States. Would you run an article on this one-time, one-date travel opportunity? Why would you? How many of your readers would give a second's attention to a July 9 trip to Leeds for $725 per person? Would even one such reader be a potential buyer of an afternoon in Leeds, and dinner on a train, for $725? Would any of your readers consider flying to England for such a dubious reward? Even for readers already in London, how many would consider paying $725 per person for afternoon at the theater -- in Leeds? One person? Two? Or none?
Yet this, dear readers, was the announcement made on page two of the May 11, 2008 edition of the New York Times Sunday travel section. It occupies the number one position in the weekly review of travel developments that appears at the very opening of that newspaper's travel discussion. I have not altered a single fact in a notice headlined "Shakespeare in England, in Luxury," and you can also read the actual notice in the online edition the Times.
What sort of foolish day-dreamer would consider this one-time travel opportunity, to Leeds, no less, as worthy of appearing in a serious U.S. newspaper? How much relevance does such a notice have to the travel plans of the newspaper's readers? Again: to how many persons would such a notice be of interest? One person? Two?
The New York Times travel section has now plumbed such depths of absurdity that I, for one, have concluded that this senselessness can't be accidental. The decision to sprinkle the pages of a travel section with references to sky-high travel offerings can only have come about from a directive from on high to do so. It must be part of an effort to attract advertising from the producers of luxury goods, unaffordable to most of us, from swank companies that want their ads to appear in a congenial environment. In writing as they do, I am now convinced that the travel writers and junior travel editors of the New York Times are attempting to execute a policy consciously set down by the Times.
Only people obeying orders could have run an article about a one-time opportunity, on July 9, to take a train back and forth to Leeds, there to see a show, for $725 per person. Either I am right, or travel journalism has gone haywire.
Write and read comments about this post.
For this they will pay a starting price of £345 ($725) per person. Since the British pound now costs at least $2.10 after five-percent commissions to money-changers are factored in, £345 equals $725.
Now assume that you are the editor of a Sunday newspaper travel section in the United States. Would you run an article on this one-time, one-date travel opportunity? Why would you? How many of your readers would give a second's attention to a July 9 trip to Leeds for $725 per person? Would even one such reader be a potential buyer of an afternoon in Leeds, and dinner on a train, for $725? Would any of your readers consider flying to England for such a dubious reward? Even for readers already in London, how many would consider paying $725 per person for afternoon at the theater -- in Leeds? One person? Two? Or none?
Yet this, dear readers, was the announcement made on page two of the May 11, 2008 edition of the New York Times Sunday travel section. It occupies the number one position in the weekly review of travel developments that appears at the very opening of that newspaper's travel discussion. I have not altered a single fact in a notice headlined "Shakespeare in England, in Luxury," and you can also read the actual notice in the online edition the Times.
What sort of foolish day-dreamer would consider this one-time travel opportunity, to Leeds, no less, as worthy of appearing in a serious U.S. newspaper? How much relevance does such a notice have to the travel plans of the newspaper's readers? Again: to how many persons would such a notice be of interest? One person? Two?
The New York Times travel section has now plumbed such depths of absurdity that I, for one, have concluded that this senselessness can't be accidental. The decision to sprinkle the pages of a travel section with references to sky-high travel offerings can only have come about from a directive from on high to do so. It must be part of an effort to attract advertising from the producers of luxury goods, unaffordable to most of us, from swank companies that want their ads to appear in a congenial environment. In writing as they do, I am now convinced that the travel writers and junior travel editors of the New York Times are attempting to execute a policy consciously set down by the Times.
Only people obeying orders could have run an article about a one-time opportunity, on July 9, to take a train back and forth to Leeds, there to see a show, for $725 per person. Either I am right, or travel journalism has gone haywire.
Write and read comments about this post.
Labels: england, new york times
Fifty years ago, 
Arthur Frommer is generally acknowledged to be the nation's foremost travel authority. He is the founder of the
