Forum proposal: Spas
 

I love taking spa trips and I am apparently not alone. Two recent studies show that spa-goers have no intention of reducing their spa spending this year despite the economy.

I realize we have city forums where people can ask about spas in certain cities, and that we have hotel forums where members can discuss the spa services at hotels within that chain, but I don't see that as truly serving members who put spas as their top priority. I might plan a trip to South Carolina for a special spa, but it's highly unlikely I'm going to plan a trip to South Carolina and then ask for spa recommendations, for instance. Our current structure does not suit people who travel for spas. (And spas make up a large portion of travel spending - $250 billion globally last year - and that's not expected to drop this year.)

Currently, The Grand Wailea has a fantastic spa deal where for $298 two people can get lunch, each have a 50-minute massage, and experience several other parts of the spa. I would not think to look in the hotel forum for this, but would certainly consider booking a trip to Maui if I saw this posted in a spa forum.

None of the spas I know of at hotels are exclusive to their guests, and often are independently owned from the hotel, so the case could be made they don't really belong in the hotel forums.

Also, there are so many independent spas that there is really currently no place to post reviews or deals and such for on FlyerTalk. You could post them in the city forum, but I'm not going to look in each city forum to find out about a great spa. I only look in the Hawaii forum if I have a question about a trip I'm already planning. Having the Maui spa deal there would do me no good since it alone would cause me (will cause me) to plan a trip. And while I may sound odd in that sense, the studies show people will travel to a destination for the sole purpose of visiting a great spa.

I see potential for threads on different spa treatments, especially where they can be so different in places such as Malaysia with the skin-eating fish; for spa deals at hotels and day spas; for reviews on spas in and out of hotels; for reviews on schools that offered inexpensive treatments from students; for different spa customs throughout the world; and those are just off the top.

I hope TalkBoard will consider adding a forum on what is a growing part of the travel market.

I'm going to be honest here, l'etoile, I'm not sure I see a need for a Spa forum yet. I don't know all that much about the demographics of the spa frequenting guest, but my assumption (though I coud be completely wrong) is that it's mostly women. Would a dedicated thread in the Women's Trave forum or the Luxury Hotels cover the need until more demand is there to warrant a stand alone forum?

Stats I find say 29 percent of spa clients are men, so I do think it's something that could be relevant to FT. You can just look at the money hotels have put into spas to see the relevance to travel in general.

In any event, while I think a dedicated forum would be good for FT, it's not a bad fallback suggestion to keep a thread in the women's forum, and it's something I can certainly take care of. ;)

... and I am sure Kokonutz will take care of it for The Men's Forum.... :D

Opening Pandora's box
 

I really struggle to see what makes going to a spa any different from any other activity one might wish to partake in in a different location.

Sure, some people will travel with the sole purpose of going to a particular spa. But is that not true of any activity or interest? Keen golfers will travel to go to a great golf course. Surfer dudes will travel to a place where they can catch the best wave. Architectural buffs will travel to places rich in architectural treasures. Beach bums will look for the best place to roast. Hardcore party people will travel to places solely based on the nightlife there. Naturists will want to know the best destinations to get their kit off , etc...

Does that mean that we should have a forum for each and every activity or interest that enjoys a core group of enthusiasts (and, incidentally, eviscerate destinations fora in the process)?

FT cannot be everything for everybody. Let it do what it does best and leave other things to be dealt with other sites.

+1.

I know quite a few FTers who visit spas.

I could be convinced that there is an un-met need for this forum.

Golfers have their own websites. Surfers, too, I'll bet. Art history and architecture buffs, maybe. Spa goers, I really doubt it. I'm interested in hearing from other FTers about this.

So? Is it the role of FT to be a general repository for all niche interests that do not have their own dedicated site elsewhere?

As to Spiff's comment, sure there are quite a few FTers who visit spas. But I am sure that there also are quite a few FTers who regularly go to art exhibitions, who are interested in architecture, who like clubbing and dance music, who like opera, who like golfing, who like white-water rafting, etc..

Does that mean that we should have fora for travel and spas, travel and art exhibitions, travel and architecture, travel and opera, travel and clubbing, travel and golfing, travel and extreme sports, etc...?

Where do you draw the line? When FT reaches 999 extra fora, we stop? or do we keep on creating an unlimited number of fora as long as there are a few dedicated enthusiasts on FT?

And what do you do with regional fora once you have given every conceivable type of activity its own home? Do you abolish them?

The problem is, it comes down to a fundamental decision about how information is organised on FT. Outside of airline programmes - do we do it by region or do we do it by type?

Historically, we've done it geographically. So if you have a question about golfing in Scotland, you go ask the UK & Ireland forum, and they do what they can to help.

When the casino question was raised, this exact issue was highlighted - that this would be the first board to 'break' that geographical organisation, and have a board organised by interest - creating the problem that if I want to ask a question about gambling in Las Vegas, do I ask it on the Las Vegas forum or on the casino forum question. As a result, the forum premise was revised after some of us on TB at that time said we couldn't vote for it on those terms, and instead it became more focussed on gambling related programmes and less about gambling generally.

My view is that the problem with organising forums by interest rather than geographically, is that there are an infinite number of interests/hobbies. And to have both geographical and interest forums just leads to confusion about where questions should be posted. So if you go down creating a spa forum, I bet the next forum request would be golf (people travel to play golf). Then wildlife watching (people travel to do that). Then diving. Then shopping. Then fishing. Then afternoon teas. Then sci-fi conventions. Then museums and art galleries. Then movie going. Then baseball. And so on ad infinitum, so long as there are groups of people on FT whose personal interests do not yet have a forum and so they feel excluded. As TB are you prepared to say 'this interest is worthy, this interest is not worthy', meaning people will get upset with you? And what will you say to those who hang out in the destination forums, as those get more and more watered down.

At which point we've got 712 forums which only 5-10 people ever participate in, and with search still rubbish, it becomes impossible to find anything about your destination unless you are willing to check about 40 different forums.

I would say the Dining forum was the first to break the geographical organization. I would liken a spa forum to the Dining forum. It's become an essential part of travel much as dining has. I would say it's not like most other activities as anyone can visit a spa, and spas within hotels are becoming increasingly popular, especially among business travelers. We did give a go at an activities forum (forget the exact name), but it did eventually get removed for lack of interest.

Hmmm. Everyone has to eat. Not everyone has to spa. (And I say that as a regular spa attendee! :o :D)

And the rule in dining is that location specific threads get moved to the appropriate destination forums. So to carry the analogy from your opening post further, a spa review for a particular spa would be moved onto the appropriate destination forum. So actually, what you are asking for is breaking away from how dining works.

As to 'anyone can spa' - well I'm afraid that anyone can golf, anyone can wildlife watch etc etc etc. Most activities can be carried out by anyone if they have the time and inclination - it's just that not everyone does.

Understand that I have no particular objection to a spa forum per se - it's the principle this creates that I have a real problem with, and the fact that the arguments that you are advancing are applicable to so many other activities, that to go down this route has the potential to mark a major change in how FT is organised - and in the long term, not for the good either, as information gets fragmented across multiple forums.

Agree and are opinions I've long held when the topic was debated with special interest fora creation such as travelling with pets. I still fail to see how a forum for every niche and demographic serves FT and it's mission. Sure FT has grown beyond it's original borders but to me that doesn't have to mean abandoning its core purpose.

I also think there needs to be a formal policy on new forum traffic so that when new forums are created there is some way to meaure the relative popularity of a forum and shutter it should it fail to meet a minimum traffic flow threshold. I know some here don't like applying useage metrics but having many lightly used forums IMHO doesn't serve FT either. However YMMV.

The Dining forum is specifically for topics which are not geographically specific. If you eliminate location-specific issues, I fear that a spa forum will become a small puddle rather than a large pool.

Your own argument " spas within hotels are becoming increasingly popular, especially among business travelers" points towards a location-specific rationale: your business traveler is interested in a spa in the location where her business takes her, not on another continent.

If we go back to your OP, what you describe the forum as being for is not spa as an integral part of travel but a forum for individuals who put spas as their priority, who travel for spas. The argument that "spas is an essential part of travel" (assuming the argument to be well-founded) does not justify a forum specifically for people who travel for spas.

Once you allow a forum specifically for people who travel for spas, how could you then possibly deny a forum for people who travel for any other particular activity or interest?

It seems to me that "traveling with" type topics are different from "traveling for" type topics: there are only a few sensible "traveling with" topics and they are necessarily and inherently closely linked to the act of traveling itself. There are virtually no limits to "Traveling for" type topics and the risk of hyper-fragmentation for the latter is particularly severe.