SansSerif

I never imagined that I'd find myself in a position to defend OMAT and other popular BA bloggers. In the quantity vs. quality debate, I prefer the latter. I also abhor click bait titles and listicles, though I see the benefits of both. I too crave original content over the same Cadillac/inconsequential "deal" articles reblogged into eternity.

And yet, here I am, defending OMAT and company.

On the issue of Ben not having a "real" job and making a living off writing (perhaps pretentious) reviews of first class cabins:

Really? Shouldn't we be applauding someone who's been able to build up the brand and audience necessary to siphon a real income off blogging and traveling the world? Regardless of whether you think that's ideal or respectable or ethical, wouldn't you at least admit that's rare?

What is a "real" job anyways? A mindless 9-5 endeavor where you work 100% of the time to create exactly nothing at the end of the day? Or some 8-4am Wall-street hellhole that we now practically expect the best and brightest of our youth to slave through only to escape to some obligatory MBA program down the road?

It seems that many OMAT critics look down on capitalizing on the opportunity (through annoying referral links, banner ads, or otherwise) to make a living off a personal passion. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Sure, it might be foolish to assume that Ben and others can continue doing this forever. After all, every entrepreneurial venture has a finite lifecycle - we can't all be 3M, especially when what we are "creating" is as superfluous as blogposts.

But given what I've read online, credit card affiliate relationships can be quite lucrative, and I fully expect the most popular and savvy travel bloggers to save up this excess revenue for a rainy day - or perhaps even a future venture.

On the issue of "unethically" taking advantage of airline loopholes:

84fiero, thank you for linking me to the UA incident. I didn't know about it, and I'll agree that it goes against the grain of what's viewed as an "acceptable" use of airline certificates. In my current and limited understanding, Ben re-used e-certificates for upgrades on United Airlines.

But my first reaction wasn't disdain or to crucify Ben for what may very well have been an unethical practice.

My first reaction was pride. I was proud that someone had figured out how to "game" the system in his or her favor. That's what these "miles and points" blogs are for, right? I wish I could say that I wouldn't have done the very same thing given his position - but I probably would have. I don't know what that says about my personal values and whatnot, but there you go.

My second reaction was disgust - not for Ben, but for United Airlines. How does a Fortune 100 company, in this day and age, not have the sufficient IT infrastructure to detect and proactively prevent this kind of behavior? It's shameful that a company that serves so many customers every single day not see this gaping loophole until such an incident comes to light on the blogosphere.

In fact, United Airlines should be thanking Ben for drawing attention to the issue. Many companies pay "consultants" to attempt to hack their system and pinpoint the weakness.

On the issue of "tone" and quality of writing:

As far as OMAT goes, I'll defer to the critics on this one. Someone mentioned Kim Kardashian and other celebrity figures as a means of comparison - and I'd say that's a fair assessment (in the very limited scope of frequent flyer blogging).

I'm not a fan of references to Fifty Shades of Grey, etc. to further writing. And it's not a style I'd employ myself.

But I, perhaps generously, assume that this appeals to some audience out there. And for that reason, I assume that this audience will continue to subscribe to OMAT, et al. And for that reason, I understand why the incessant pop culture references and controversial tone are a good thing.