Don’t Just Visit

Read the campaign story

TripAdvisor’s Don’t Just Visit advertisements launched in May 2014, according to the company’s July announcement. The work contrasted the benefit of using the service for planning with things that can go wrong without preparation. The argument was about the quality of the experience, rather than simply reaching a destination.

The company extended the idea through an August 2014 short-video contest in the United States, France and Australia. Participants were invited to make their own versions of the advertising premise. This is treated as a continuation of the original campaign. The announcement establishes the invitation and rules, not proof that planning through the service produced better trips or that submitted work caused additional bookings.

Editorial interpretation: a destination can be desirable while a particular booking is unsuitable. That distinction gives a planning service a role between aspiration and purchase. The campaign mechanism asks the audience to consider the experience behind a familiar place name. A useful adaptation would help people articulate their needs and inspect relevant details, rather than implying that one platform can remove every uncertainty associated with travel.

Editorial interpretation: inviting audience-made versions turns a simple contrast into a reusable storytelling grammar. However, openness should not become a reason to demand unpaid creative labour or broad rights without explanation. A smaller team can commission a few clearly scoped contributions instead of staging a public competition. The important strategic question is whether another person can express the core idea accurately, not how many submissions the organiser can collect.

Separate attraction from suitability

Identify the details that make an option right for a particular purpose: access, timing, facilities or other practical needs. An inspiring image should lead to those details rather than replace them. In a prototype, ask people to explain why an option fits a fictional brief. This tests whether the communication supports a decision instead of merely increasing enthusiasm for the destination or category in general.

Use disappointment carefully

A negative example can make a planning benefit concrete, but it should not exaggerate danger or shame people who made a reasonable choice with limited information. Keep the problem ordinary and proportionate. Show what information would have helped, and acknowledge that uncertainty remains. The desired response is a useful check before deciding, not anxiety that only the advertiser can supposedly resolve for the audience.

Give contributors a fair, bounded brief

If external creators interpret the campaign, define payment, credit, permitted reuse and approval steps before work starts. Make the task achievable without expensive travel or access to private customer stories. Review submissions for misleading claims and third-party rights rather than assuming audience-made content is automatically authentic or safe. A few well-supported interpretations can teach more than a large contest whose incentives reward spectacle over accuracy.

A small test for another brief

Proposed adaptation: commission two short fictional stories for a local venue directory, each contrasting an attractive listing with a practical fit question.

Measure whether viewers identify the relevant fit question and locate the information needed to answer it. Ask about confidence separately from accuracy, and review whether the dramatic contrast encourages useful scrutiny or unwarranted certainty about the directory’s recommendations.

Stop if the story implies guaranteed satisfaction, fabricates testimonials or requires contributors to reveal private experiences or surrender unclear rights.

• Pay creators a fixed fee and agree limited reuse rights.
• Use invented venues, licensed assets and no real customer reviews.
• Provide the same factual checklist after both story versions.