One of the most attractive features of country tourism is, in marketing terms, the fact that something “authentic” and “traditional” is sold. Facing the usual unpersonal and standarized treatment of the hotels, country estates sell another form of relation with tourists, based in a larger interaction with the environment and farm work, besides the access to “typical” plates -in the argentinean case, the asado- and local people.

Even so, there are different types of offerings in the rural tourism. In one side, we have the establishments far away from urban centers, where tourists spend several days aknowledging farm work, talking and interacting with the owner of the country and his employees. In the other side, there are rural establishments closer to the big urban centers, particularly Buenos Aires, where visitors are guided into one or two days tours, and where waiters sing zamas, chacareras, chamamés and other ‘folk’ music genres -in a truly irritating mix to the followers of the historic evolution of these musical traditions- and then they serve the famous asado.

The most emphatic supporters of rural tourism usually punish this last variant, considering it a low quality proposal, that actually damages the entire sector.

According to what Manuel Espil states in his work “An approximation to value of the authentic in rural tourism” -a paper made to approve my communication and travel seminar at the University-, only in Argentina, there are 900 establishments that provide services related to rural tourism. For many country estate owners, this new activity has been a good alternative to diversify income, given the low rentability of agricutlural and stock breeding activities. As I already stated in a previous entry, tourism has grown substantially in Argentina, more as a response to the crisis of traditional forms of production than as a part of a planning process of an economic activity related to services. At least, that’s my hypothesis.