sbm12

Some have suggested to me this is not the case. Still shady behavior IMO.

nsx

One blogger (not VFTW) told me recently that only indirect links to sponsored credit card offers were allowed: e.g., a single link to a page containing offers for several different cards. I was puzzled because ....... Plus had blanked out that single link, leaving a compelling article with nothing to click!

PWMTrav

I'm not quick to criticize Gary, but come on now. Top post today is "post in the comments for a chance to win some AA swag!" AA's PR machine is giving him stuff to give away. No wonder he trusts them. I would too if they handed me things - even just to give away, it drives blog traffic, which makes him money. Can't be too critical now, can we?

EDIT: The prize donor is actually Citi, but still, the prizes are AA lounge passes and miles.

kokonutz

He must be desperate for page views. First he posted like 15 posts in 3 days, and now a Randy Petersen-esque 'gimme clicks' contest.

I've tuned VFTW out as a result.

PWMTrav

I like Gary and I like VFTW, but what I don't like is when these blogs become an extension of an airline's damage control department. It may not have been his intent, but sandbagging frequent flyer sentiment because Citi threw some AA-related swag his way to give to his readers is insulting.

Then again, it must not be that insulting, because the thread has 600+ "entries" in the comments.

I won't drag Randy into it - overall, BA is a great business model and I give him a lot of credit for it. Ultimately, what people do with the platform is up to them.

Example: I think Ben does a great job with OMAAT. Yeah, there's some credit card promotion, but it's at least served up with mostly original content. To me, that's fine, make your money - but build out some kind of brand based on writing objectively and not cleaning up affiliates' messes. I mean, it's pretty well documented that Ben loves LH and Hyatt, but when his experience sucks, he tells you about it. There will still be a link to the Chase Hyatt, even when he tells you to put that stay on your SPG card. I'll get off my soapbox, but be a resource, you know?

nsx

What's insulting is seriously suggesting that Gary's articles could be influenced by goodies that he can give to readers.

I do agree that Ben does an outstanding job. Like Gary he could be a success at almost anything, so we are lucky that he prefers to serve us.

lwildernorva

Based on his long history and his resulting proven crediblity, yes, insulting; based on recent trends, not so much. Of course, Gary has control over which impression ultimately prevails, but if I were advising him, I might have suggested that perhaps right now isn't the best time to push free AA stuff, no matter who provided it to him. There can be a definite impression of damage control and that might be true even if VFTW hadn't initially missed the full impact of this story.

I understand, however, that there's a balancing act here. In the absence of issues regarding the credibilty of a blog, it's nice that Gary generally passes along to his readership the fair amount of swag he undoubtedly receives.

PWMTrav

I don't think that's too insulting. At least of the blogs that I read, his is the only one that went softer on the way the recent changes were handled, and now he's the one with a bunch of stuff to give away. I doubt that he went soft in order to get stuff to give away, but I think he got stuff to give away because he took it easy on them and others didn't.

Maybe I worded my original thought poorly - I don't think he took it easy on AA in order to get stuff and give it away. I do think he has the opportunity to give stuff away because he took it relatively easy on them, though. And he's choosing to do it. He could say no and stay out of the mix, after all.

PWMTrav

Definitely, and as I said up front, I like Gary and I read VFTW. But if my opinion mattered, I'd suggest that appearances count for something and it looks kind of bad to at least a subset of his loyal readers if he's giving away donated AA swag after taking it easy on them on the changes. As I said, I worded it poorly - I don't think he took it easy on them so as to continue to get stuff. I'd guess from the other side, though, that Citi/AA solicited a blogger with a softer stance to give away some prizes though. Again, not suggesting that was Gary's motivation. He could have said no, though.

I acknowledge there's a balancing act between not pissing off your readers and not pissing off your corporate contacts - Gary was one of the only (if not the only) person to get an interview with an actual decisionmaker at AA following the changes. That's important to readership to keep that kind of access. At the same time, the timing/appearance is distasteful (to me,anyway).

dhammer53

Looks like they (AA) got to Ed too.

Anyone read pizzainmotion? http://pizzainmotion.com/2014/04/24/...ecent-changes/

dh

nsx

I could have written much the same about the people I've talked to at Southwest. The difference is that Southwest has made fewer and much less egregious violations of customer trust. Its a matter of how importantly they treat loyalty. At crunch time do they walk their talk?

oliver2002

Since everyone is rubbing shoulders in SEA this week, expect more blog reports like that.

GUWonder

Can't say I'm surprised.

While some are worried about a HHonors Gold status hand-out and it's potential corrupting influence or the appearance of a corrupting influence and a potential conflict of interest, my experience informs me that the real concern should be the following: the interest of some persons to protect/maintain/build access to "information"/social(-"climbing"?) relationships. This concern is not just a miles/points blog issue -- rather it's a part of a broader miles/points issue in general that involves various forums too.

Where are the Seymour Hershs of the miles & points world?

oliver2002

I doubt the adjustments in the loyalty industry will ever come close to the massacre of My Lai.

That said, every one likes to say they have contacts to the movers and shakers of the loyalty world. The movers and shakers do like to listen what the community has to say, especially if you make valid points. They may take the time to explain what & why they are doing, but I'm sorry to say what we do is on the fringe of the mainstream loyalty program user. Fighting for the cause of 0,009% is probably a lost cause.

GUWonder

Indeed, even as mAAsacre was the term was used to reference AA's elimination of redemption opportunities. [But that SE Asian theater was not what I was referencing.]

Indeed. But fighting for disclosure that doesn't get filtered or disappeared by the "managed" because a supplier (or their legal team) wants it disappeared or is "concerned"/"fearful" (of who knows what) is far from a lost cause.

Let's just say I won't cry if a bunch of corporate communications from/to some airline loyalty programs management figures and their staff get disclosed on something like an Icelandic version of Wikileaks dedicated to the industry's shenanigans.