No question, Mr. Dog, this is complex and I understand why you are conflicted. But getting something for free does not mean one needs praise it if it does not warrant praise. Beyond that, one might say that ethics would demand that one speak up if others' welfare was being imperiled, even if one were given the cruise gratis.

Take it one step beyond this. Mr. A, in the spirit of being an honorable man, chooses not to speak up about the conditions on the cruise, as his friend Mr. B had comp'ed him the cruise. Some time later, there is a real disaster on the cruise, and one or more passengers is seriously injured. It turns out that the passenger who was injured had been a devoted reader of Mr. A's travel tales on Fodors, and had she known even a bit about the earlier voyage, she would have cancelled.

I saw a post here not long ago by someone who is booked on the Ganges cruise.

Has the other side divulged any of the communication from you and you know that for a fact.

You have two choices, ride the high road and keep mum, or let it all out. Being the the nosy parker that I am, I want all the gory details and swear I will never repeat it to another soul.

If Mr.B. had a wonderful experience would he have shut up or would he have spread the joyous news, again enhancing Mr. A's empire? Would he have felt morally bound not to comment on the cruise because he was not paying? (As an aside, did Mr.A. himself not describe the particular product in less than enthusiastic terms?) Is it morally acceptable for Mr. B., an honorable and admired man, to be silenced by a mere freebie? I think not. His obligation is to his fellow travelers and not to Mr. A. who knows that Mr.B. is a prolific writer of travel adventures. Mr. A. knew exactly what he was doing when he welcomed Mr.B. on board. (Of course if Mr. B. signed a non-disclosure agreement that's an entirely different matter.)

Did Mr. B agree to terms that said, in effect, "if you take this freebie, you only get to say nice things"? I rather doubt it. It's true that some travel writers take freebies, and then only find nice things to say, but I don't think even they are obligated to overlook actual danger, and Mr. B isn't even a travel writer. Presumably Mr. A. comp'ed the trip in the hope of good publicity, but it sounds like he didn't deliver a trip that merited it.

I agree, if the trip had been a fabulous success free praise would have been heaped on Mr A and his trip. But Mr B knows he cannot sell his soul for a freebie, since when has Mr B over looked the truth to his fellow travellers?. Did Mr A make Mr B sign a contract?

Mr A took a chance and he blew it, if it had been me i would have made sure that trip was the best thing ever.... how about those poor saps who paid for a crap holiday/near death experience!!! I would be devastated.

One must look at the offer of the freebie to determine the nature of any obligation that may have arisen. If there was a specific request for Mr. B to report back to Mr. A on the happenings on the trip, then an aura of confidentiality attaches to that report. This is not because it was a freebie, but a condition established prior to the trip. If there was no specific request, but a simple offer of a freebie then no confidentiality attaches and Mr. B is free to report on his findings to whomever he chooses.

I want you to tell all, but in the larger scope of right and wrong, I humbly suggest that the above analysis might provide some guidance.

Mr. Panda, are you saying that if I give you (or sell you) my publicly available product and in return ask you to tell me what you think of it, you have incurred an obligation not to discuss my product with anyone else?

"If there was a specific request for Mr. B to report back to Mr. A on the happenings on the trip, then an aura of confidentiality attaches to that report." Well, I'm no lawyer, but that doesn't make sense to me. Yes, in that case he would be obligated to make a report to Mr. A, but I don't see how it restricts him from making a separate report to other interested parties.

In brief. I'll respond properly later.

In the abstract, we can assume that there was no specific request for reportage. Mr. B would have taken that on as a matter of courtesy. His stated role was simply to jolly everybody along and divert the paying punters from the imminent horrors of the voyage.

Well, that sure didn't work.

"Well, that sure didn't work." - LOL! I can't imagine anyone who knew you expecting it to.

Was asking the unaccompanied ladies to dance also part of your role?

No specific request, tell all with nary a second thought. One assumes Mr. A provides these trips to "punters" for a profit. Therefore, a courtesy of confidentiality does not apply. The hypothetical request for a report did not occur, so sorting out whether that would have brought about an aura of confidentiality is moot.

For example, if the Metropolitan Opera had given you tickets gratis, would you feel constrained to openly report that the Opera stank? Of course not. You would feel free to shout about it.

Well, that will teach you to take a freebie Dogster. That's lesson No. 1.

You are not the type of person who should owe anyone anything or be constrained by a gentlemen's agreement, however vague.

Can you find your e-mails by Googling? If so, I believe Mr. Panda Esq. is correct that the chicken is out of the coup and e-mails are now fair game.

Besides, what if Mr. A has already written about what a disaster his own trip was? It's now public information. The real outrage is that he subsequently reported that all the kinks had been worked out and now everything's hunky dory. You apaprently have some information that this is hogwash. You are doing a public service if you know it's not true. On the other hand, if you have no first-hand knowledge that subsequent trips remain disasters, you can't say that.
Do you want more freebies with Mr. A? Do you fear being black-balled as a paying customer on other trips? Those are different questions.
I say Give 'em Muck.

Let me add:
While I'm disturbed by the freebie part (forgive me, but I know LOTS about this, and it's not pretty), given the lack of credible, honest information about travel I'd hate to see one of our most forthcoming and articulate reporters be silenced.

If information was shared by Mr. A to Mr. B in confidence, in e-mails or private conversations, then that information must always be kept in confidence, regardless of the outcome of the trip. On the other hand, it's not a case of "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas," once the trip was completed unless an agreement to that effect was made in advance, "I'll give you a free trip if you promise not to complain in exchange for said trip." This is a a case for Randy Cohen, the ethics columnist for the NYTimes.

Nobody, alas, has ever given me a free trip, nor are they likely to, but if they had I wouldn't consider that they had thereby bought either a good review or silence. A free trip buys publicity, but if you don't deliver a good trip you shouldn't get a good review.

It's a fascinating conundrum, isn't it? I want to thank you all for your considered input here. Very thoughtful and instructive. I hope you'll forgive me if I don't debate it or clarify further. This is food for serious thought.

I think we all know exactly what I'm talking about - so, at least, this'll explain the mysterious gap in the Dogologue - and, as you'll note, my reluctance to give any hints up until now. It's been just under three months since the trip. I still veer between anger and... err.. anger. lol.

But a good scribe knows to cleanse his soul of vengeance before setting pen to paper. Mr. B still likes the newly-retired Mr. A. But then Mr. B looks at the BS, strategic forgetfulness and the downright lies on a certain website and a part of him rankles.

So, I'm going to think, go through your posts very carefully and decide what to do - if anything.

Of course, the above example is only part of the picture. There was a lot, lot more to conjure with - some of which I don't feel too restrained about discussing. The freebie wasn't a blanket coverage. It was for P. costs only. [I'm avoiding using the 'P' word, Google search being what it is]

Mr. B did pay all the land costs for his 'excursions', for his growing hotel bills during the 'trip' [they grew exponentially as the trip became shorter and shorter]; he did have to tolerate the other passengers [and they him] and hasn't the slightest hesitation in passing comment on any of that.

Nor do I have any hesitation in providing the interesting parts of some of MY E-mails to Mr. A - particularly as they were disseminated widely amongst his staff. I own them. His replies may not be appropriate copy.

I may choose not to provide full disclosure on what I KNOW was actually going on; but anything in the public domain is up for grabs.

It's worth knowing that Mr. A actually 'lost control' [his words]of the company in this unknown country. I owe his partners nothing but a punch in the face. I hate being lied to - and they are Professional Liars. Sub-continental scum.

I don't lie [the cause of much grief in my life]. I don't lie to you and I don't lie to anybody. Ask me a question and I'll tell you what I think, no fear, no favor. I hope you can sense that.

I will omit, however. Gawd, I would've been banned from Fodor's years ago if I provided FULL disclosure of Dogster's adventures in Paradise. But I think there are some areas of life that are my business.



Some would say I've already crossed that line many times - they don't realise just how much worse the omitted information is. lol lol lol.

There is also such a thing as tale-telling. 'Ging-gang-gooly, gooly whatcha, ging gang goo...' sitting round the camp-fire telling a story. Extraneous detail ruins many a trip report in here. Nobody cares what I had for breakfast. Nobody cares how I got there or how I left. Most of the time, I've learnt, nobody even cares where I WAS - they want a story with a beginning, a middle and, if there is one, a big finale.

In a previous life, this is what I learnt. That knowledge served me extremely well.

I know that the Dogologues are a 'never-ending story'. I guess we'll get to the big finale eventually. I suspect it'll be a note sent in by a friend telling you that Dog was boiled alive and eaten by a tribe of Hottentots. Well, top that. lol.

But not yet. I want to be around for the applause... and the royalty cheque. So don't get out the champagne till I tell you.

Yes, it was a big lesson, LA. Never, never, never take a freebie - even without conditions attached. What a bloody minefield. I'll not do that again.

One thing that did rankle me was the loss of my $1000 deposit when, at the conclusion of the awfulness, I cancelled the same trip in March 2010 I was going to PAY for. Not only did they screw it up the first time, but then I was penalised for refusing to do it again on MY $$. But they don't care, nor did they even reply.

If I include that outrage, four nights paid hotels in Kolkata while the boat was broken down, lost bookings and flights in and from Varanasi - where I never actually ended up, that 'freebie' actually cost me about 60% of what the paying punters coughed up. Then I was poisoned in Patna.

Recently I got yet another promotional E-mail from the company. Here is my response:

'Guys, stop sending me this stuff. After that last horrible trip you've lost a good friend and a long time customer - big time. I ain't coming back. Ever, anywhere. So, drop me off your list, please. I don't need any reminders.

Good luck. Goodbye.'


I meant it. Smell those bridges burning?

So the story is starting to unfold...

I do sense that you don't lie - anyone that would describe their priapic condition upon be woken one morning in Kolkata (Complete Works of Dogster, Volume XIV) could never tell a lie.

Did they refund your money for the inaugural trip which you didn't take?

I moved that to the March booking, Marija. Otherwise I would've lost it, just the same. Cancellation = loss of deposit. They are covered every which way. No recourse. No responsibility. They can change the schedule, travel in circles, abandon the routing, screw up in every which way, probably even kill you and there's nothing you can do.

A glimpse at the booking conditions on a certain website reveals all.

Caveat emptor. It's always good to know. It rankles, as I said - but really, I'd willingly pay money NOT to travel on that again. That was my choice.