Opinions on "Luxury Travel" vs. "Rustic" Luxury Travel

[jashermd]

Hello,

I don't put much stock in rankings and take the lot of them with a hefty serving of salt (whether TripAdvisor, Conde Nast, T&L or other) but even so I'm amazed by some of the places which come out on top at TripAdvisor. The top-ranked place in Venice is a rather dark and dingy little flat with dated decor -- presumably highly ranked for its low price rather than spectacular service or accommodation. It seems that many TripAdvisor members are more interested in getting the best bargain rather than the best value for money (which is *not* the same thing, though many people confuse them).

I agree that 'luxury' is an extremely over-used term -- many hotels now start their room categories with 'luxury' rather than 'standard', ascending through 'superior' and 'premium' (or some such). This probably does contribute to distorted expectations from travellers, particularly those who are not well-travelled enough to realise that a standard room by any other name is still a standard room.

There certainly is some ridiculous whining on TripAdvisor (if you can't stand dust and dirt, for heaven's sake stay in your hermetically sealed suburban bubble and do not go on safari!) but in some cases the criticisms are quite legitimate. If a hotel markets itself as a luxury property and doesn't provide the appropriate levels of service, I'd like to know.

Everyone has their own standards, of course, which can make for some interesting conversations. I frequently recommend Singita, Londolozi, and Mala Mala when I post on TripAdvisor as they offer the most exclusive game-viewing experience, and recently one of the travel agents who posts there accused me of being spoiled by being able to stay in these places 'when most people don't know the difference anyhow'. His view was that as most people don't have enough experience to know the difference and their trip to SA is probably a once in a lifetime experience, it was fine for them to go to mediocre places -- my view was that if it's a once in a lifetime trip there's more reason (not less) to go for the best.

Interestingly, there was even a bit of this (in a lighthearted humorous way) on the 'What makes a real five star hotel?' thread, re some of us having overly high standards...

Cheers,
Julian




Message Edited by jashermd on 03-02-2008 06:59 PM

[kyshel]

I am limited by my time online because we're overnighting in Panama on the way back from Ariau' Towers and I can tell about rustic and luxury all in one experience (as soon as I get time to finish my blog) so much to say--stand by, please!!

[bonniejoy03]

Oh Kyshel...don't leave us in suspense! How was Ariau? Did you see the piranhas? pink dolphins? How was the "Tarzan" room. Can't wait to hear.

[disneygal]

Kyshel, I'm also looking forward to your report! To echo jashermd's comments, I'm learning to disregard many trip reports, especially those on TA. In the past, I booked a couple of "one night on my way" rooms based on those reports and been quite disappointed. Hotels with very high rankings were mediocre at best. Some of those reports are from poeple who haven't been anywhere else. Of course you can have an awesome vacation at a lousy hotel - just having the week off from work makes it a great time. And don't get me started about all the glowing honeymoon trip reports! But I want some info. to help me make a decision. There's a Seinfeld episode where Elaine says "give me something I can use". That's the reason I value the information from this community of experienced travellers.

To the topic at hand, I agree with the previous comments. If you're in a remote location, maybe having running water or electricity is luxury. As long as the information presented is accurate, I know what I'm signing up for, if I decide to go. It's all part of the experience. If one is looking for a Four Seasons, then go to a Four Seasons.