2012 London Olympics
2012 London Olympics: ETOA versus Visit Britain
The European Tour Operators Association (ETOA) believes that the 2012 London Olympics will cause considerable damage to the city’s tourism industry and that the event could cost the British capital to lose as much as US$2.4 billion. That is if the London Olympics followed the pattern of the last summer Olympics, which was held in Beijing, China.
In Monday’s (November 9, 2009) sports tourism conference at the ongoing 2009 edition of the yearly-held World Travel Market, Mark Howell from Visit Britain and Susan Iris from the Canada Tourism Commission weighed in on the European Tour Operators Association's assessment of the benefits of Olympics to tourism.
Watch the below YouTube video to hear their response:
Comments
David Tarsh has hit the nail on the head. I've experienced from a first hand planning perspective the Sydney, Beijing and soon London games.
Exempting top sponsors who receive room blocks, as well as officially appointed tour operators who are granted tickets and rooms, booking rooms in and around the Olympic period outside of a city-wide block is an art, not a science. There may be rooms to be had in advance outside of these blocks, but at a steep price.
(Affordable) rooms sans tickets always come onto the market too close in to operation for individuals to really intelligently plan for such an important visit.
I also agree with the audience participant who said the focus for the destination needs to be on the 'after'. A comprehensive marketing plan that addresses a destination immediately upon conclusion of the games is strategic to re-igniting normal tourism in the city and should already be designed.
Don't forget that leading up to the games the rates are also building incrementally and annually which is another deterrent to visiting in advance. This makes the period just after a wonderful opportunity for the destinations to reap and sow their unique value proposition at that specific time and attract significant incremental tourism numbers.
Piggybacking off years and millions of dollars/pounds of advertising and promotion can be enormously effective to filling cities and rooms in the post-Games period. Where hotels and marketing organizations were too focused on the period of the run-up to and the Games themselves (often keeping rates too high for too long) versus on the day after the Games close is where significant opportunity has been wasted. This need not be the case.
Mark's response to ETOA's report misses the reason for the Olympics' tourism problem entirely. His answer suggests London is different because it is London and it is accessible as a short haul destination.
However, whether it is long haul or short haul is irrelevant to the problem of market distortion in hotel accommodation. If one's trip is long enough that one needs to stay overnight one needs a room and Mark failed to address is the problem over block booking of hotel accommodation and what this does to deter all regular tourist business.
The problem stems from the organisers block booking rooms far in advance and usually block booking way more rooms than they need.
This creates a false expectation in the minds of hoteliers, who, convinced that they will be full, demand inflated rates and guarantees.
As a result, regular operators can't contract accommodation as they would normally (because prices are too high or conditions punitive) and as a consequence they can't afford to engage.
News of high room rates always leaks out and consumers who then stay away owing to the fear (real or imaginary) that the city will be crowded and excessively expensive.
Only much closer to the games does it become apparent that too many rooms have been penciled. The consequence is that the accommodation is actually not needed and much is dumped at the last minute.
For as long as this issue is not properly aired and real accommodation supply and demand is not rigorously assessed, tourism will fall victim to the Games.
Post new comment