The Culture, Media and Sport Committee Inquiry into Tourism. Narrative response on behalf of British Destinations.
1. British Destinations. We are a trade Association representing the interests of major Destinations in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and previously in Scotland. We have been doing so in various guises since 1921. Much has changed in the intervening 93 years but in living memory, at least, many of the apparently important issues remain surprisingly familiar.For example, dipping randomly into our records we find adozen of the matters raised at our 1959 AGM and conferenceare still exercising the minds of the industry today, including: changes to British Summer Time, staggering school holidays and above all the need for robust, well-resourced national tourism structure to address inherentmarket failure issues in both the domestic and international markets. This a full 10 years before the 1969 Tourism Act and the eventual creation of our much loved, vital but increasingly under resourced and all too often meddled with framework of National Tourist Boards.
2. Introduction. We applauding your timely intervention but are concerned at the scale and breadth of the questions, mostof which we feel maybe worthy of their own3,000word responsesandsome,singly or combined,even their owninquiries. This is not meant as acriticism, aswe accept the need to start the process by addressing asmany potentialheadline issuestogether, if any are to be addressed at all. We merely wish to make the pointthat ifyou are forced to aska goodnumber of by necessity shortbut far-reaching questions and those answeringby necessity thenrespond with very short concise answers, don’t betoo surprised if what you get is someoverlysimplistic, seemingly contradictory views on what arevery complex,often competingtourism issues;issuesthatwhilstincreasingly recognised arestill not yetthat commonlyunderstood.
2.1.We needed to say this at the outsetbecause past experience shows that well intended actions born out of a broadknowledge of the symptoms, rather than a detailed understanding of the underlying context and the range of causes,has served to create solutions in tourism that move problems around orcorrect somethingsbut atthe expense of others of equal or greater importance. Essentially itcan result in a rob Peter to pay Paul approachto strategy andcan spawns what we regarded as sticking plastertourism policies.
2.2. Arguably this is illustrated by the number of times VisitEngland has been reversed in and out VisitBritain and the two have undergone radical reorganisations. Over much the same period their combine core funding has been more than halvedand yet to our minds the central issues to be addressed by or between the two organisations have not themselves significantly changed, or at least notto the degree that justifies regular, radical reorganisation or cuts in funding of this magnitude. It has resulted in great change and granted always in some “improvement” in the latestspecific areas of immediate concern. Yet today we are still left pondering the core issues of how weand they might best support UK domestic, domestic outbound and international inbound tourism,of which two of the threeare without doubt thedirect and essential functions of these two organisations. Instead of moving tourism deckchairs around, whilst occasionally taking the odd chair away, it is time to sit downand identify what are the real problems, what amongst them is the consequence of genuine market failure and what thereforetruly warrantsand,critically can only be resolved by Government initiated intervention. In doing this it is absolutely vital that we recognise that true market failure is seldomeradicated but more often merely masked or mitigated. A lack of current symptomstherefore is often simply an indication of the ongoingsuccessof an intervention and not a signal that it is no longer justified.
2.3.We are taking the unusual step of presenting a narrative response, covering all 10questions most in some detail. As a consequence our comments are well in excess of the recommended 3,000 word limit. However we hope that you will still accept the response, have time to read it and that you find the observations, rather than facts, that it contains helpful in framing your inquiry. We would welcome the opportunity to give further brief written or verbal evidence on any or all of issues addressed below if it is of assistance to you:
3. Question 1. Encouraging tourism outside London and the few other heavily visited cities to other parts of the United Kingdom.
3.1. Summary:If there is an issue, it is about the greater dispersal of inbound international tourism and not domestic tourism.We are uncertain that this is a pure market failure issue, nor are we totally convinced that,even if it is,that it is a failing that can be resolved at a worthwhile scale and/or toan acceptable cost benefit ratio. We shouldnotbe considering dispersal purely for dispersals sake,nordoing it at public expense if it is at significant risk or predictable cost to the established “honey pot” locations within the UK. Dispersal like much else in the arena of international tourism is primarily about marketing or promotional activity and not about other tourist boardfunctions,for example that ofencouraging appropriate product development.
3.2. Dispersal isunlikely to benefit the bulk of the UK individual businesses to a noticeable degree, nor will make a significant impact on all destinations, let alone all places. If it is to be done, and we do not discount its value as an adjunct to domestic tourism, it would need to be done with additional, new public funding and notat the expense of support to domestic tourism, which is the mainstay of the majority of tourism business, in most of the UK’s destinations. VisitBritain’s role, using its current or increased core resources,remains to bring international leisure and businesses visitors to Britain. Dispersal to destinations beyond Londonwithin Englandshould be a funded role for VisitEngland, as it already iswithinthe other home nation’s boards. Wherever practical, VisitEngland should try to conduct this new activity with, or via VisitBritain’s existing networks.
3.3. We view committed, current and past UK visitor as the key target markets for dispersal messaging and the relatively large pool of current visitors to London as potentially the most fruitful market place. Although London, as the iconic, emblematic British Destination, is aslikely to benefit from repeat and dispersal promotionalactivity conducted in London for the rest of the UK,we consider it naive to assume that London’s tourist businesses and London’s promotional agencies will willingly embrace and participate in any proactive dispersal marketingefforts conducted in London, or amongst its committed, current or past customer base.This friction should be acknowledged and built in to any dispersal strategy, rather than ignored.
3.4. There are a raft of issues and measures that singly or combined would improve the UK’s general competitivenessand thus increase the potential pool of international customers that might then be persuaded to disperse further afield. Most are tactical in nature but if applied or, in some cases, if they are not applied, they will have a major strategic impacts. For example, correctly addressing UK airport capacity and location issues representsa major opportunity;failures to address them correctly or to address them in sufficient time to create the required new capacity in the right place(s) are major threats.
4. The contextto question 1:We are puzzled by this question, since we believe that the critical issue it means to address is the popularity of London and a few subsidiary “honey pot” cities, places and attractions as international destinations, as opposed theirgeneral popularity as destinationfor bothinternational and domestic tourism. London, or more accurately central London, plus some of its gateway suburbs and the other honey pots are not to our knowledge markedly more popular within the domestic market, relative to their size and therefore their tourism capacity, than any of the other UK destinations. What sets them apart as honey potsis the additional inbound,international tourism they attract and especially therefore London whichalways has, does now and almost certainly always will receive the lion’s shareof the UK’s inbound business and leisure tourism. The benefit of this is not purely in terms of increase numbers. International leisure and business tourists do often spend more per head, per holiday, just as the British often spend more per head per trip when abroad. This is a function, in part, of the type and the nature of any overseas holiday taking, but it also reflect the fact that the world market place is infinitely larger than the domestic equivalent and there is far more opportunity to target far more of the more affluent, if that happens to be yourbusinesses’ principal market. Overseas visitors are by no means all affluent and they do also offer potential opportunities for most, but not all types ofpopular UK tourism provision.
4.1.There are of course a significant number of “other places” in the UK that get relatively few tourists of any kind, but that is because they are not established destinations, never have been and probably never should be.Consequently they have no real social or economic dependence upon tourism and for that reason, let alone the disproportionately high cost of creating an international tourism product and then establishing a marketablebrand;they should be consciously discounted from this debate. Any thought thatplaces with no real current domestic, let alone international tourism appeal might suddenly become the next must see international destination is frankly a nonsense; albeit that there are always the occasional, often small scale niche opportunities, even in the most unlikely locations. However, exceptions to general rulesshouldbe accommodated on an as needs be basis withinour national tourism strategies and policies and not used to calibrate them.
4.2.London, for historic reason, through ongoing hard work and through the occasional significant refresher events like the London Games has achievedand maintains an iconic status in the international tourist market. London is not just iconic but in many markets it is also emblematic of Britain and everything British and vice versa. The world over, most international visitors, given the opportunity,will choose to visit the key national icons, in this caseLondon first and then other lesser iconic, honey pots,potential, but not necessarily, second. Then in all likelihood, if not proactively encouraged, some other country’s iconic destination,well before other places in Britain they, andto be frank many domestic tourists,are unaware of. This rule of thumb applies both to the typical overseas touring holiday and the patterns of annual holiday taking. For many London, Paris, Berlin is currently a farmore likely tour itinerary or subsequent holiday wish list than say London and any combination of British towns and cities. The happy coincidence of being a relatively small and compact country and our proximity to the rest of continental Europe; a majorpositive in attracting European tourists from what is in consequence a familiar market, can be a major disadvantage for UK when trying to gain and then retain travellers from more distant markets.If you can physically take in three European capitals in three days, then don’t be overly disappointed if that is precisely what some people choose to do.
4.3. London’s iconic status is not of course simply made, maintained and reinforced by the excellent work of VisitBritain and others in tourism but it’s ingrainedand reinforced almost everywhere.Bond never visits M in Norwich, international fashion houses don’t proclaim themselves to be of Birmingham, New York and Paris, nor do nervous international businessmenflickto the business pages to seehow the Sheffield Stock exchange is doing. The aspiration to encourage, we assume more international leisure and business visitors and then spread them more widely is laudable, but it needs to be developed in the knowledge that replicating London’s success, let alone replicating London and its portfolio of world classcultural and historic attractions is not something that can be easily or quickly achieved, if it at all. Nor will the additional business generatednecessarily benefit every place or every tourism business across the UK and seldomever to the degree that they will then see sufficient commercial return to justify them then contributing to itscosts.Even where the promised return justifies investment it is almost always a chicken and egg process; marketing needs funding to make it work and to have worked before ittruly proves its worth.
4.4. Since the bulk of money spent by international visitors to the UK is essentially external new revenue, the clear winners from additional inbound tourism is not the tourism industry as a whole but the UK economy, the UK Government’s tax take and a small number of often large businesses, like international carriers and to a lesser degree UK based inbound travel operators, whosemain business purpose are inextricably linked to international travel. For that reason any “campaign” should be resourced principally by the UK Government and, as now, partnered largely by those relatively few direct,usually larger corporate beneficiaries.It should of course be recognised that who actually partners and the willingness to contribute is directly related to hardnosed commercial negotiation informed by the actual benefit offered at the time and not on some speculative or theoretical debates beforehand. This hardnosed commercial reality is well illustrated by the much greater enthusiasmto partner in response to and during ashort-term crisis;a degree of willingness thatquickly wains with improving conditions and that is seldom if ever matched at othertimes.
4.5.Any thought that the “private sector” in general or as a whole will pay should be abandon as the nonsense which it is. Moreover, we should also recognise that for the vast majority of individual businesses in the tourism industry and most destinations outside London and the few other established honey pots, international tourism is largely or totally unimportant. Domestic tourism is their principal economic driver and whilst many would say,“yes please” to efforts to encourage a few more international visitors the answer would be a resounding,“no thanks” if you were to add the caveat that it would have to come at a cost to support forthe domestic market. Therefore,not only should any effort to grow international tourism outside London be largely funded from the public purse,if it is done at all, it need to be done with new and additional resource and not by the more traditional method of reallocating priorities and moving already scare resources from othermore vitaltourism tasks.
4.6.Given the scale and known difficulties of dispersing international tourism we believe that the primary targets audiences has to be those who are already familiar with Britain;essentially by default those already committed to come, those who are here and those that are known to have visited very recently. For all practical purposes this means those travelling to or from and those physically here in the UK are, theoretically at least,the most easily reached. Key partners are the carriers, major suppliers, for example car hire and inbound tour operators, secondary icons or honey pots and those attractions and places where we may already have some limited traction, for example: certain historic houses, some English Heritageproperties orniches like the Lake District and the appeal to the Japanese market of Beatrix Potter.
4.7.We do also have concerns around the nature of these partnerships and the current match funding and target arrangements. Partnering with and contributing to promotional activity that directly supports the marketing efforts of a few major commercial businesses, like those mentioned in the previous paragraph flies in the face of, rather than addresses the critical market failure issues experienced by the tourism industry as a whole. The “usual suspect” partners who are willing and able to take part and thus contribute the target for match funding set by Government, are often the very same, relativelyfew that have the resource and the reach to communicate effectively with either domestic or internationalcustomers directly themselves. Generic, nonpartisan promotion of places and the essence of English/Welsh/Scottish/Irish tourism and not of a particular products and services is what is required toaddress the critical market failures in tourism.
4.8.Traditionally the role of coordinating such activity with an international audience would fall to VisitBritain as the international experts; however, we feel that their role and focus should be to continue to bring tourist to the UK in the largest numbers possible. Indeed we would argue that the nature of the typical value and volume targets set of them make this all but inevitable, since pursuit of the harder to reach, in preference to low hanging fruit would be almost suicidal given the nature of the current priorities (targets) gifted to them. The role of greater dispersal outside London amongst those that have been persuaded by VisitBritain, should now fall to VisitEngland, just as it already falls to a greater degree to Visit Wales, the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and Visit Scotland in those home nations. VisitEngland wouldof course need to continue to work very closely with VisitBritain,preferably using VisitBritain’s existing data sources and expertise and networks abroad rather thanhaving to replicate them.