Influence of Travel Programs
 

I always thought that I wanted to go the New Zealand someday, but after watching a travel program on TV the country now seems extremely boring to me. As a result, I scrapped it from my bucket list.
In contrast, the same travel program also showed an episode in New South Wales (Australia) which looked very appealing to me. I am now much more interested in going to Australia.
I never knew that travel program could be that influential, at least in my perception.

Do you have the same experience?

Travel programs have increased my interest in a destination, at least to the point I looked into them a bit more than previously. They have never turned me away.

Decent travel programs these days are so rare that no, they really don't influence me. I think they definitely would had there been some good ones.

No, I wouldn't choose, or not choose, a destination simply because of one show (or book, article, etc).

Usually those shows tend to paint a very rosy picture of a place though, sometimes overselling it.

What was it about the things it covered in NZ that turned you off? And what about NZ caused you to have initially placed it on your bucket list?

For one, NZ (especially North Island) looked more like a retiree colony than anything else. Mostly flat lands, some hills, small town feel. Lots of emptiness, barren. Far from an outdoor paradise that I imagined.
South island looked a bit more interesting, but then again most towns were tiny (horrible nightlife I presume).

Is not nightlife that springs to mind when one thinks of NZ.
But as outdoor things to do and related activities it is second to none on the whole planet earth.

I second this. NZ is one of my favorite places. The south island, in particular, is one of the most stunning places I've ever been seen. But, it's definitely for those people who love the outdoors and outdoor activities. It's not for someone who is looking for great shopping, nightlife, or museums, etc.

As for travel programs, I generally don't watch them, because they typically seem to focus on the touristy stuff. I have visited a few places based on non-travel programs that I've seen that features a particular destination.

Once you know how those programs are funded and produced -- the greased palms, the trade-out deals, etc. -- you won't find them very influential anymore. Most ain't exactly objective journalism. Bourdain's CNN series is the current prominent exception, but that's not exactly a travel program. I don't know what it is.

New Zealand isn't second to none. The fjords in Norway are simply bigger and more magnificent.
It isn't just about the nightlife but the fact you cannot find food after 8pm. That realm puts a downer after a long day hiking.

I don't find Norway appealing either ;)
I guess certain travel program are targeted to a certain audiences. Clearly, I was the wrong target for the travel program I was watching.

If the show gave you the impression it's "mostly flat" that's misleading. The more rural environment is a feature, not a bug for some. So if it's nightlife and cities you like, NZ wouldn't be the place for you.

Nothing says you have to like any particular place. I would just say it never hurts to get more breadth of information before deciding, if it were me.

Just curious, what program was it?

I don't know either, but Bourdain is entertaining, whatever category it is. I have only caught bits and pieces of his CNN series, but I have enjoyed his previous shows.

Wow, I just came back from a 10 day road trip on the North Island, and I can tell you that it's certainly not flat or barren. It was beautiful, green, and textured with a range of geological features and flora that astounded me. I wish I'd had more time there, and I haven't even managed to fit in the South Island yet....that will have to be another trip.

Travel shows as such don't do anything for me. But documentaries do have an influence - after the latest series of Micahel Portillo's European rail journeys Israel has shot up my list and a certain corner of Poland has become even more desirable. The main factor in my travel bucket list seems to be the Trip Report forum here on FT.

I don't want to make this thread about NZ necessarily. More interested in hearing your experiences watching a travel-related TV program/documentary that featured a country or area you thought: wow, I have to go visit! Or mmm...not so sure.

How's the tropical scenery in Norway? Cuz it sure is nice in NZ's Northland.

How are those Norwegian wines?

Before 8pm NZ food is amazing. Nothing too elaborate, mind you. But for abundant quantities of local fresh vegetables, venison, lamb, fish, seafood you will be hard pressed to not eat well in NZ.

I guess I will have to adjust my opinion after seeing this online:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/membe...worm-caves.jpg

http://www.waitomo.com/Glowworm-Cave...orm-caves.aspx

Please resize. These massive photos distort the screen which is really annoying.

Done.

Thank you!

I grew up with Micheal Palin's Around the World in 80 Days and Pole to Pole. I think they embedded the desire to go to a number of places, most of which I've done by now.

Like someone else mentioned I quite like Bourdain's current series as he comes across as genuine and appreciative of the same combination of people, food and scenery as I do.

I'm going echo the opinion that New Zealand's North Island is spectacular. Between Maori culture, glow worm caves, zorbing, the best indian food I've ever had (in a corner shopping mall in Hamilton, no less), earthquakes ... just amazing. Auckland wasn't particularly spectacular, but the rest of the drive down to Wellington was so good. I wish I'd spent more than the 7 days I did.

That said, Australia's big cities are pretty good in their own right, but it's not the vast expanse of nature and 'Wow' that New Zealand is.

I find literature is a much more powerful tool in choosing where to travel. The more I find that the people and the culture interest me, the more I want to visit the country. There are some travel programmes which are ok (Michael Palin's mentioned up-thread is one), the vast majority are as vacuous as a glossy brochure.

I don' think Michael Palin's programmes are travel shows - not in the traditional sense anyway. They're more about experiencing and documenting than 'hey everybody follow me'.

You should read Danziger's Travels by Nick Danziger. One of my favourite 'travel' books.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Danzigers-Tr.../dp/0586087060

To the OP's broader point, the main things I get from most travel programs are:

(1) Entertainment value or as travel pr0n - i.e., well done shows with good video can be purely fun to watch and enjoy the sights and sounds.

(2) They sometimes pique my interest in a destination I wasn't aware of or hadn't been thinking of. Mind you, I'm not making a decision based on a show, but it can be a starter for me to further research.

spent tons of time in norway, and it doesnt detract from the stunningness of the nz landscape. both the rugged south and the rolling north island. of especial interest is the uniqueness of the flora that constantly reminded me of geologic textbook sketches of the paleozoic.

eating wasnt a problem either neither in availability and quality. in fact, some of the best eating in the world. a bit expense - but you get what you pay for.

the hype is justified

That reminds me of a book I read a long time ago: "The Mark of the Horse Lord" by Rosemary Sutcliff. It got me interested in Celtic and Roman Britain. As a result I made a backpacking trip to Hadrian's Wall and Dunadd Fort.

Not particularly sophisticated but recently I did watch the Canadian series "Waterfront cities of the world"/"Port d'attache".
Made me want to visit few places and definitely enlarge my to-do list.

agreed, I've always enjoyed Bourdain's stuff - seems more honest than some of the pure travel fluff.

Though I prefer the older rougher around the edges Bourdain shows to the newest one.