"The blogs you will find on BoardingArea are the best of the best, the cream of the crop, the cat’s meow… you get the idea. Each blog in the BoardingArea network has been hand selected by our team for its quality of content, its timeliness and, last but not least, for its entertainment value."

Meow

I think some of their cats might have distemper...

or maybe 9 lives --- err 9 reasons I like the Chase sapphire card"

Beating a cat that just won't die? :eek:

Not all the bloggers read this thread. I have no doubt about the fact that not all bloggers read this thread.

There isn't much for the FT-birthed miles/points bloggers to gain from engaging further in posting on FT in this thread, no less so when their posting elsewhere is where the money is.

I find the complaints about a lack of transparency over the commercial relationship between boardingarea.com and its hosted bloggers to be sort of amusing given private sector business-to-business/customer relationships as memorialized in contract aren't generally subject to being considered public records. And I say that as someone who thinks it is useful to understand the business of those supplying "information" but realizing that not all information is readily available in the public domain.

Some of the criticism of boardingarea.com reminds me of the dynamic of abusive individuals looking for any and every excuse to try to justify their abuse of a target/victim and continuing the abuse by the means available. Beating the proverbial cat with 9 lives is better or worse than beating a dead horse?

Aw there he is. Smoochies.

Pretty outrageous to say Boarding Area is a victim of abuse. How lucky it is to have such noble defenders.... coming into restart attacks days after they died down by impugning the motives of people who had substantive criticism. This cat was dead, you brought it back.

Thanks as always for your valuable perspective.
But I agree, there should be more transparency in corporate consumer relationships.

I never realized how apparently nefarious and dastardly my blog is.

No one has used those terms. They have described blogs as:
-poor quality content
-focused on quantity over quality
-poorly written
-lacking in sufficient disclosures about conflicts of interest
-relying on unsophisticated customers to make a buck

Actual specific, substantive critiques- Not strawman terms like "dastardly." I think many blog writers on BA don't even understand what a conflict of interest is. The quality of writing makes me skeptical that anyone is cunning.

Absolute tone-deafness.

Boardingarea.com bloggers who fail to accept the editorial dictatorship of all critical consumers are in a life and death battle between good and evil. Well, not really.

Consumers of content generally get what they deserve. Can't say that consumers of miles/points-related content are generally an exception.

Interesting anti-consumer argument from someone who has in their profile "Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting."

I think this is an important post, though, as it shows an ideological basis for the consistent defense of blogs and abusive belittling of people who dare critique them. You think that there should be no protection of consumers from marketing masquerading as content, and that criticism of marketing is inappropriate.

For some of us, that is antithetical to deeply, and sincerely, held values. Constantly attacking the motivations of people who hold values that conflict with yours.

It is unclear why you think marketing devices used to sell credit cards should be exempt from criticism, yet airlines' frequent flyer programs or hotels should not be. If you think criticism or discussion of blogs and the marketing practices they engage is inappropriate, coming into a forum dedicated to that and consistently attacking people who dare to share their thoughts, critiques, seems like an unproductive use of your time. Bullying people to get them to stop speaking seems like a strange practice for someone who rants against "editorial dictatorship."

It's not an anti-consumer argument. It's a sad fact that consumers who don't care enough to get informed and do what it takes to avoid getting fleeced and/or at least get engaged in pursuing more pro-consumer legislation/regulation implemented get what they deserve.

If someone keeps reading junk and enriching those who produce such content, they are not part of the solution to the proliferation of that kind of content. Same goes for other content. The audience for the content is the reason the market for the content is as _____ as it is. The audience sadly gets what it deserves.

I think ultimately it's a bit of the Dunning-Kruger effect taking place. It takes a certain amount of expertise to develop the "many of these blogs are just marketing credit cards" mindset. A lot of people get value from people recommending these cards and don't really care about any sort of ulterior motives behind it and are happy as a clam using the points they get to take some cool trips.

I have never really been big into the credit card game for my own accounts, but I've found the blogs that cover the credit card game to be somewhat useful. Did I like the blogs better when they weren't as heavily into the credit card game? Yes. Do I read less of the blog entries because of the credit card angle? Yes.

Actually, the argument "you get what you deserve" and blaming unsophisticated consumers for not being sophisticated , and saying that it's their fault for not lobbying is inherently anti-consumer. The point of consumer protection is to protect consumers who lack the knowledge to protect themselves.

The reason BA has garbage is because there is money to be made off of garbage, and because garbage purveyors aren't held accountable by industry standards.

Whilst credit cards in the US are handed out confetti to anyone with a pulse, irrrespective of credit background or even employment, you are going to get sites aimed at the lowest common denominator. Common sense.