Flagship species are used to promote conservation and tourism. Africa’s famous ‘Big Five’, have become marketing flagships that fundraisers and tourism promoters emulate on other continents, choosing regional groups of species for marketing campaigns. Selections can be based on characteristics identified as appealing: colour, size, or behaviour, but this approach may overlook unique flagships or homogenise seelctions. Polling the public to reveal existing preferences for animals may identify suitable species more directly. We used questionnaires with tourists in the Peruvian Amazon to identify existing biases for species suitable for tourism and conservation marketing. Without a species list, preferences were expressed at inconsistent taxonomic levels. The response ‘monkeys’ (infraorder Simiiformes) was highest ranked, followed by ‘jaguar’ (Panthera onca), ‘Amazon dolphin’ (Inia geoffrensis), ‘sloths’ (suborder Folivora), ‘caiman’ (subfamily Caimaninae) and ‘birds’ (class Aves). When ranking species from a preselected shortlist, jaguar, Amazon dolphins, and sloths (represented by Bradypus variegatus) remained popular, while vote splitting within higher taxonomic levels, in particular monkeys, made room in the top rankings for green-winged macaw (Ara chloropterus) and anaconda (Eunectes murinus). When asked about their willingness to pay for excursions or donate to conservation, tourists were overwhelmingly more likely to quote larger figures to see or conserve jaguars than any other species, but results for other species were more homogenous. Important species for tourism in rainforest regions are often from diverse taxonomic groups; monkeys may be represented by 8-14 species at single sites in Amazonia, birds by several hundred species. A big five strategy obscures this diversity. Similarly, using physical characteristics as selection criteria underplays diversity and can overlook popular taxa. A strategy of polling the public to identify regional flagships more directly identifies salient species for marketing and is especially useful where budgets are limited, but diversity may trump the Big five approach in megadiverse areas.