I made a mistake, it seems, in sharing a great tip at the April Frequent Traveler University.
In an ‘off the record’ session where folks are asked not to post or write publicly about what’s discussed — I specifically offered up a tip on the understanding that it wouldn’t be publicly disclosed, suggesting that anyone who was uncomfortable with those terms please leave the room – I shared a way to save as much as $600 on tickets to Australia.
The reason the tip was ‘off the record’ is because I believed that, if written about, the opportunity would go away. That’s why I never wrote about it on my blog, though of course sharing such ‘secrets’ is precisely how one gets notoriety and fame in this travel blogging world.
I try hard to share the best ways to earn lots of miles at low cost, how to use those miles with greatest effect, and how to get the best deals on travel.
I have no problem writing about deals that I believe will be short-lived, to give as many people a chance as possible to take advantage of them. But I tend to steer away from those things where I believe the deals won’t last if they get blog exposure.
Brazil has a law that says fuel surcharges cannot be added to tickets departing that country. As a result, airlines usually file higher fares without those surcharges for Brazil departures. Qantas, however, had their fares filed incorrectly — such that any ticket purchased in Brazil priced out without fuel surcharges.
And it’s pretty easy to purchase a ticket in Brazil from the comfort of your computer (and from many other countries as well). You just need to use a country-specific Expedia website, in this case expedia.com.br. Google Chrome has a built-in translate feature.
Using that website (best to buy your tickets with a credit card that does not charge foreign currency transaction fees) you could buy Qantas tickets between any two points without fuel surcharges. You could save about $600, for instance, on Los Angeles – Sydney tickets.
Of the six hundred-plus people in attendance at Frequent Traveler University where I shared this, only one person posted publicly about the deal I shared: Mr. Pickles wrote with joy about sharing a ‘secret’ that he wasn’t supposed to. And now that ‘secret’ is dead.
Unsurprisingly, this trick no longer works — Qantas flights no longer seem to be available on Expedia’s Brazil site.
That said, blaming that blog’s publishing the ‘trick’ for it no longer working would be a logical fallacy — post hoc ergo propter hoc. Just because it stopped working after publication doesn’t mean it stopped working because of publication. It’s suggestive, but not dispositive.
When Airfarewatchdog published the trick of adding a flight to Canada at the end of a United international ticket that deal was killed in a matter of hours. Precisely because the loophole was closed so quickly, I doubted that the publication of the trick could have been the cause (I was skeptical that United IT was that good). What I initially believed to be a logical fallacy in blaming Airfarewatchdog turned out to be true — as I had confirmed to me by folks working for ATPCO which publishes international airfares (and was involved in the fix).
If Mr. Pickles killed the deal he took so much joy in outing, then I feel badly that I shared it in a room where he was present. Everyone else, as far as I’m aware, honored the pledge not to write about this one.
On the other hand, it might have been headed for an end anyway. If his writing about it let anyone take advantage of the deal – despite the request from the person sharing it with him (me) that it not be shared further online — then perhaps it’s for the good.
Without confirmation from the inside which story is true, I have no way to know. But I will continue my approach of sharing most things, things that seem like they’ll have a long shelf life or that seem like very short term opportunities regardless of whether they’re shared, and not sharing things that I believe will be killed once published. And, of course, honoring any commitment that I may make to someone that shares deals with me — if it’s shared with me with the understanding I won’t publish it, I do not write about it.
Update: To be clear, maybe my point was lost, I am not blaming this blogger for killing the deal. In fact I suggested to do so would be a logical fallacy (post hoc ergo propter hoc) — but that I would not have posted it (and did not) and I believe he should have honored the terms under which the technique was shared with him.
- You can join the 30,000+ people who see these deals and analysis every day — sign up to receive posts by email (just one e-mail per day) or subscribe to the RSS feed. It’s free. Don’t miss out!
Kinda silly even suggesting that pickles blog post killed the deal. He posted that 2.5 months ago – and it’s not like his blog that frequently read.
The trick wasn’t going to last forever. It likely just ran its course.
I will say though that the tip, will extremely limited in scope, was by far the most interesting of any of the other four shared. Kudos on that. Just some constructive criticism – I’d either add some tips that are more useful, or I’d just scrap that session. Huge build up with little return
I agree. It most likely was not ended because of the blog post. It ended on August 31st.
Perhaps new fares were loaded correctly at the end of the month?
It also had run its natural course of life.
Low profile blogs, such as the pickles one, may be harder to spot – but once someone does it is so simple to copy/paste & mail Qantas.
If a QF employee eventually looking for a promotion, if an QF shareholder simply blast at Investor Relations, etc, etc.
Some deals are better left unheard of.
To some extent I believe both to be wrong; The one who praised themselves as a presenter at a conference and the guy who tries to improve ranking with their unheard pickle blog.
One ought to know better and the other ought to honor the pledge.
Hopefully it will not happen again.
I doubt that his blog has such a large readership that it killed the deal. Most likely a few greedy folks who heard your presentation booked multiple tickets.
Throw in a few calls to the airline to request special meals or a seat assignment and it was toast.
I doubt that his blog has such a large readership that it killed the deal. Most likely a few greedy folks who heard your presentation booked multiple tickets.
Throw in a few calls to the airline to request special meals or a seat assignment and it was toast.
I certainly don’t blame you for sharing this in a small group.
@Joshua Pickles it is NOT the case that new fares were loaded correctly, Qantas flights are simply not available currently for sale at expedia.com.br
It might be enlightening to look at one’s history of self-promotion before one is absolved of blame.
One blogger blaming another for killing a deal! I LOVE it!!! Hilarious.
Five years ago I complained about blogs killing deals…. I think it was the great Frugal Travel Guy himself who argued that ‘information was meant to be shared’ when I labeled him the original deal killer.
Gary, you know I’m usually a supporter. But you might be a little to high on the horse this time. Think about the ua hkg award mistake. Only a handful got to travel. If you keep that to yourself for a few days, many more would have gotten to go. Me? I’m glad you posted it because that’s how I found out. But to say your knowledge of when to share and when not to share is supreme….. Well. Not sure about that.
As a poster on an AU based frequent flyer program, I can confirm this loophole was discussed at great length and I myself have an upcoming trip that was booked at about half price. These sorts of things have been known for some time and talked about on many sites, so I don’t believe any 1 person can be blamed.
Some fares can still be found on occasion that are a hundred or so cheaper, but not quite the big savings that were found.
I think when Qantas see’s some large increase in fares starting in AUS but booked on a BR site, they’d clue on quickly that something was up.
To be clear, maybe my point was lost, I said that blaming Pickles was a LOGICAL FALLACY (post hoc ergo propter hoc) but that I would not have posted it (and did not) and that I believe he should have honored the terms under which the technique was shared with him.
You can’t conclude that Pickles’s post killed the deal. Maybe it did, maybe it didn’t. Who knows?
You can, however, conclude that Pickles is not an honest or honorable person.
I would also say that you were very naive if you thought that all 600 people in the room would be honest and honorable.
Seth of Wandering Aramean is a good blogger; he writes about travel experiences without flogging credit cards and blowing deals. The blogger responsible for this blog and many others of his ilk, are BAD bloggers. All they are interested in is to make a buck (correction – many bucks) off you, others be damned.
This is a shame. I enjoyed that section, it was quick, there were a few nuggets there. I’m a bit torn though on some of the comments. Is it reasonable to accept 600 people in the room to be honest and honorable? On face value, I’d say no. But, given that we were all brought together by a common interest, and the great majority of us are regular contributors to that community via Flyertalk, Milepoint, and blogging, I think it is reasonable.
I think the point though, is not so much the fact that the deal may be dead, it is rather that someone did indeed post it. It is pretty ironic that included in that post is a “shameless plug” pushing a F2B event. This is unfortunate though.
Also, as to illustrate the restraint – Gary waited until it appeared the deal was dead before commenting. Gary: is it safe to assume you knew about the post before 31 August? If so, I think its admirable that you showed the restraint, knowing that you would’ve pushed more traffic to the post by commenting about it.
Gary’s point is still lost on most posters. His point is not so much that Pickles killed the deal but that he lacks integrity and shouldn’t be trusted.
@Julian, LOL!
If a blogger wants to keep a deal alive and keeps enjoying it, the blogger shouldn’t share it to anyone unless the blogger earns more on sharing it. 😉
A secret is something only one person knows.
The irony of you posting about a blogger ruining a deal is truly off the charts.
I really don’t understand why bloggers feel entitled to blab about deals they have not discovered themselves. If bloggers would actually put time into FDing, find good base fares, find the construction and then post their OWN tricks, cool. No issue. But trying to make money off other people’s work isn’t cool. No matter how much latin you throw at it.
You screwed up. So did Mr Pickleswad.
Here is a public challenge to you:
Will you commit to only share FD deals that you yourself have developed???
@timmer
haha, you realize that literally 95%+ of all deals bloggers write about they don’t find out themselves, right? they just steal them from FT?
Also, i then don’t really get the point of this post. so it wasn’t to blame it on pickles… since it wasn’t his fault it died. i guess it was just to call him out – which is funny, because most bloggers NEVER call out other bloggers (though I wonder if the tone of the post would have been the same if it was a BA blogger).
if it was more cycnical, i’d say that the post was to drum up interest for the next FTU.
either way, i really think the outrage is a bit over the top, considering that pickles did not kill the deal, it wasn’t something that gary found himself, and pickles blog is not that widely read.
but interesting read none the less
If anything you just gave that dickbag more readers, which defeats the purpose of what you care about even more. At least remove the link to his site, I had never heard of him before.
I’m not sure it’s dead. I still see QF flights on Expedia.com.br – admittedly not as wide a range of QF options as on expedia.com.au. I priced the same flights at $2100 on .com.au and $1500ish on .com.br – albeit some of them were QF flights marketed by BA in the latter case. Is it dead?
I think the point to take from all of this is simply–don’t trust anybody that goes by the name of “Mr. Pickles”. You should have gotten all of their blog names beforehand and screened out any with pickles, cucumbers, or any other vegetable in it.
Steve, if you have not heard of Mr. Pickles then you are new to this, he is one of the pioneers in the points and miles —-
At least he had the courtesy to HAT TIP you at the end of his post…..LOL
Mr. Pickles goes back to the days when he was hauling dozens of boxes of dollar coins from the Mint. This was discussed quite frequently on other blogs and forums pre June. Yes, Pickles was in the room and should have honored the cone of silence, or at least cited the dozens of other posts which discuss this rather than trump up the “secrets they don’t want you to know” angle. Still, this smacks of a bit of circular firing squad, like with the HIGC fiasco.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Right.
Seems like some turmoil in the world of travel blogging. TPG is getting shredded(and rightfully so IMO) for his shameless post bitching about flying coach. He’s probably one of the worst and I hope Randy never brings him on to boardingarea.
Gary
Deals come deals go. This thing is bigger than Mr. Pickles or First to Board or the ilk of followers and haters. It is nice that you went through introspection, but i would not focus on such topics, imo, your blog has one of the most influential ones in the FT/MP sphere.
LOL this is hilarious. Bloggers killing deals….I wonder who killed the Avianca 1.27 cpm deal or the Grand Slam or the OD/VR deal or the Hyatt Certificates ???
Surprised you have not talked about CGC. Oh wait, you guys have a contractual agreement with Chase !
The question whether this blogger is the causal link to the end of the deal is so entirely secondary to this post and discussion that it is strange to me it seems to be what anyone wants to talk about.
The main issue is one of ethics. If you agree to receive information under condition that you keep it private, but violate that promise, you have breached a significant trust and you have acted dishonestly. If the blogger in question learned the info from an independent source, or through self discovery, no harm. But if he lied to get info and then broke his word, that is far more significant than who or what caused the deal to end. It is a major integrity flaw.
At the end of the day, his word means nothing and that should be not be forgotten.
Gary, Good latin, wrong fallacy. Your description points directly to that person who subsequently did just as you asked him not to do. You adding that the tip had been ended does too, even if you then step back from that conclusion with your post hoc caution and update.
However, you also caveat your update since you don’t know if it did in fact end due to the pickles post or not. So not post hoc, but more likely the fallacy of the single cause, as you later added. There is also a fallacy of being satisfied with having an explanation, even if it isn’t a correct one, inuria it so happens.
He broke his word. He did the equivalent of turning on his porch light during the bomb sirens at night and breaking the blackout. All the people who feel he did nothing wrong by breaking his word and information of a sensitive nature is meant to be shared should, instead of wrecking price mistakes, just post their full name and social security number to a comment on Mr Pickles blog. After all, sensitive information is meant to be shared, and that blog should be small enough that maybe nobody will see it. Then if their credit is ruined in 2.5 months they can have the comfort of knowing that posting it there can’t be proven to be the cause of their identity theft and such a proof is a logically fallacy.
Frankly, this was shared online over a year before the aforementioned FTU session:
http://millionmilesecrets.com/2012/04/14/low-avios-redemptions/
@Bryce – this was something totally different. MMS posted about flights departing Brazil having no fuel surcharges. This was any flights, between any cities in the world, with no fuel surcharges as long as you booked Qantas via a brazil website.
@waiter I do believe it’s the correct fallacy, “the deal was ended after the blog post therefore it was ended because of the blog post”
The article’s comments are fair enough. Personally I think that in general “deals” that will get killed when publicized were never meant to be “deals” in the first place, but tend to be shady operations that perhaps don’t deserve much shelf life anyway. Ethically it is indeed wrong to publish information that one agreed was off the record.
Seems that some of you haven’t heard of Google alerts. I keep several running on names and trademarks connected to our non-profit. Surely there is an employee at Qantas whose job is to monitor what is being said about Qantas.
Google doesn’t care if the blog has a lot of traffic (at least not for alerts). Its spiders merely report the presence of designated search terms.
It’s not far-fetched at all for Qantas to have read Sir Pickles post and reacted to it.
I was entertained by Mr. Pickels’ presentation at a Chicago seminar run by the Frugal Travel Guy three years ago. At his public urging then, I signed up for Big Crumbs using his account as my referring account. So Mr. Pickels has received a substantial number of small commissions over the past three years as I have utilized Big Crumbs.
After reading about this episode, I am now going to cancel that Big Crumbs account and open a different one that does not include Mr. Pickels. My hope is that this untrustworthy, unethical and irresponsible blogger will no longer profit from my FF activity. Even if he wasn’t responsible for killing this deal, he obviously cannot be trusted.
@Robert Concord – I haven’t read through all of this drivel but how can anyone be certain that Mr. Pickels learned this trick at Gary’s presentation? Maybe he new trick beforehand.
The answer may be in this thread…but, as usual, Gary spent 2x the number of words necessary to make his point and I haven’t read through the 40 comments.
YQ tricks shouldn’t be broadcasted, neither online or offline. It always leads to their end.
MrPickles killed another deal years ago, so I’m not surprised. Thanks a lot.
@mark – because if you read the Pickles article, he actually make a great play of how he was sworn to secrecy but ‘for the benefit of his readers’ he is breaking that confidence.
@Gary:
since you have not responded to my challenge, I assume you refuse it. It is of course, entirely your right. Just like it is my right to warn others about you.
So, you will continue to blab about FT deals you have not discovered or developed. That in my mind puts you on Mr Pickles level of ethics. You may want to consider what company you are keeping.
Timmer1001: You are spot on, Gary’s ethics are as low as Pickles ethics. They are both scum.
Truth #1: Pickles is an idiot.
Truth #2: Gary is a bigger idiot for expecting a room of 600 people to keep a secret.
Pot: Hey Kettle, you look mighty black today.
So ironic that you are posting about another blogger killing a deal when you are one of the worst offenders out there.
@mark He even put a hat-tip to Gary at the bottom of his post.
Also not the first thing from that session to get reposted: http://first2board.com/themrpickles/2013/05/27/secrets-that-travel-bloggers-dont-want-me-to-tell/
timmer and Mark, you are both spot on. A few days ago Gary was seen defending some blogger who exposed the HIGC deal. There are more and more blogs popping up and all they do is repost FT information. If fact according to a blogger this is actually the role of a blogger.
Basically this is a call out for developing honor among thieves, not for ethics or integrity.