The Balinese economy was devastated by the October nightclub bombings.
In the wake of the terrorists, Bali lost an estimated US$5 billion in revenue. After the attack, which claimed almost 200 lives, Bali was a deserted island. Within 10 days, most hotels, restaurants and tourism enterprises lost 95 per cent of their business. Eight months on, Bali is rebuilding.
According to recent reports, visitors are returning. Bargain basement deals are helping. And while business is still around half what it was before the attack, things are looking up. Many travel-related businesses have used the time wisely to renovate and upgrade their security arrangements.
Countries like Australia still issue travel advisories warning their citizens against visiting Bali. (But then Australia also cautions its citizens against visiting the UK for reasons of personal security.) In spite of that, airlines like Qantas and Garuda, which slashed flights after the bombings, are now increasing them.
And the brightest news of all concerns a new airline, Air Paradise. On February 16, Air Paradise launched seven return flights a week between Melbourne and Perth and Denpasar. In its first five days in business it received 2,000 bookings.
Significantly, Air Paradise is owned by Wiranatha Kadek who also owned the ill-fated Paddy's Bar, which was destroyed by the first blast. Kadek owns dozens of tourist-related businesses in Bali and employs thousands of people. Rather than cancel plans to start his airline, Kadek pushed ahead regardless. We can draw courage from him. Especially when we remember that Kadek and the Balinese don't have the kind of financial resources that Hong Kong, Singapore or China can draw on.
And while we're talking about tourism, here's a fascinating story from Bermuda. When Bermuda's Department of Tourism launched its new campaign, there were more than a few red faces. And they weren't the suntanned faces of wealthy American tourists being targeted by the ads, but those within the department itself.
The ads featured lush tropical scenes, one of which - a lithe model languorously disporting herself on a beach - caught the eye of a local photographer.
It turned out he had first seen that shot when it was published in the February Travel and Leisure. And guess what: it was Hawaii. It gets fishier.
The campaign also included a photo of a diver swimming amid a school of barracuda. You guessed it: barracuda don't swim off Bermuda. As usual, the advertising agency shouldered the blame. It seems the photos were stock shots, which the agency said were designed to "create an emotion".
Well, they certainly did.
More on the subject of photography stimulating the wrong kind of emotion ... According to reports, the British advertising watchdog authority has banned a fast food restaurant's new campaign. Advertised as "steak in ciabatta with chargrilled peppers, onions and a black pepper mayo", what viewers saw on TV wasn't allegedly what they got at their local outlet. Consumers complained that the sandwich seen in the ad was "thicker and better filled" than the real one. One viewer alleged that the steak was also smaller than the one he had seen on TV.
Did the camera lie? Apparently the contents of the sandwich were the same in the studio as they are in the shop, but a proportion of the toppings had been moved to the edge of the product for filming in order to be "visible to viewers".
An art director legitimately enhancing a product, or Big Business misleading a consumer?
Well, it all depends on your interpretation, but the implications are scary.
