Posts Tagged ‘tourism initiatives’
NZx: a collective difference
Naumai
A recent night sky experience has led us to reflect on the collective difference in NZ inc. By this we mean what are the unique selling points and subsequent tourism products of the region or place?
A quick search of night sky tours found at least seven “planetarium” , over fifteen “tours”, and at least 24 local astronomical societies that operate observatories on a few nights each month. We are certainly not decrying our night sky experiences. New Zealand is one of the best places in the world to see the night sky. The fact that the world’s largest Dark Sky Reserve and the world’s only Dark Sky Sanctuary on an island can be found here support this.
Another search could just as easily find different versions of essentially the same product, from zip-lines to jet boat tours, repeated throughout Aotearoa.
We first commented on the wider issue in 2011 and again in 2012.
We are a small country with a wide range of differentiation (landscape, culture, food, wine etc) between regions. Our collective differences are potentially our strength.
One can only hope that the Provincial Growth Fund recognises this when making it’s deliberations.
There are hints that perhaps the rise in international visitor numbers is starting to slow. We must continue to grow, differentiate and create points of difference in our tourism product.
These should be regionally based, unique and reflect the culture and stories of that place. Not simply repeats of a similar experience found elsewhere in the country.
How many night sky experiences do we need?
Ka kite ano
Owaka in the Catlins, and it’s famous teapot collection
NZx: May 29th – a taxing question
Naumai
If you’re are linked into tourism, in any form, you will be aware that there are a number of key issues facing the industry ahead of increasing visitor numbers. There have been many calls for increased funding for the sector, both at national and regional levels, to address infrastructure and conservation related issues arising from tourism.
Good summaries of the issue can be found here and here.
Currently international tourism remains New Zealand’s largest export earner and it was responsible for a fifth of earnings from all exports of goods and services. Tourism accounted for 5.6 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) and directly employs 230,793 people or 8.4 percent of the workforce. Currently the Government receives $1.5b in GST from international visitors, with a further $1.8b collected from domestic visitors.
The tourism leaders report (2016) suggests a National Tourism Infrastructure Levy be created comprising of a 2% national bed levy across the accommodation sector and a $5 increase to the border levy which would raise $65 million per annum from the industry.
Treasury’s view on any new tax is not supportive suggesting “that (there is no evidence) a border or bed tax meets the burden of proof for departing from BBLR (broad-base low-rate) principles”.
The latest in a myriad of comments on the tax issue come from Minister of Tourism, Kelvin Davis, who while at TRENZ, was forthright in saying the future is in a “levy on international visitors”.
Of course whichever side of the debate you support, the issue becomes more complex with TLA’s pushing and in some cases implementing “bed” tax. Currently Auckland, Wellington, Queenstown , Dunedin and Hawkes Bay are all pushing for, discussing, or in Auckland’s case legislating for, such a tax.
At the time of writing Rakiura/Stewart Island is the only destination to use a similar mechanism (visitor levy fee) although other entities such as Milford Sound Development Authority include a levy in all passenger cruise fees.
The key ingredient missing in the discussion is the major risk of an uncoordinated approach to fixing both infrastructure and conservation based issues. We have previously discussed the risks to tourism of uncoordinated approaches to sustainability and a social license to operate.
One thing a visitor (international or domestic) does not need is an arrival levy/tax and then varying provincial “bed” taxes – none of which are either consistent, efficient to administer or designed to solve the myriad of different issues specific to different places that make up New Zealand/Aotearoa.
Ka kite ano
NZx: November 26th Sustainable tourism
Naumai
It was heartening, if with a strong sense of deja vu, to see the tourism industry (re) start a process to ensure economic, environmental, host community, and visitor satisfaction and engagement, drive the future of sustainable tourism in New Zealand.
We have of course been here before with initiatives such as Green Globe and Environmental Plans. These initiatives, while driven locally, had a global context and more importantly measured success towards publicly stated goals. Poor decision making and lack of integration resulted in a lost opportunity for the industry and the weakly positioned environmental initiative in the form of the original Qualmark.
You can read more about this current sustainable tourism initiative here: http://sustainabletourism.nz/assets/Uploads/FINAL-TIA-SUSTAINABILITY-BOOK-17.0-web-spreads.pdf
In a sense there’s nothing really new here. The approach is the industry’s response to rapid growth, increasing public concerns about international visitor numbers, effects of tourism on local communities and the environment and ensuring tourism businesses are economically successful. All sensible and admirable goals – if not a little overdue.
Over the years such initiatives have been met with initial support, particularly amongst the larger tourism entities – check out the current list of supporters here. Many other entities will undoubtedly sign up, driven by a mixture of opportunity, marketing push/pull, desire to stay ahead of the pack and some through genuine commitment.
As Fonterra has found their nearly tw0 year old public relations campaign has meet with mixed reaction. Some see through it as typical pr speak , while others believe it has a role to play in ensuring the dairy industries future in an increasingly skeptical New Zealand.
While not suggesting the campaign is no more than tourism’s version of pr speak it will take more than this initiative to make a difference. More needs to be done with both Central Government and Local Government to ensure all parties commitments are in alignment.
Of course it is local communities that drive a lot of input into both forms of Government. We have previously commented on tourism social license to operate in previous blogs.
The 14 commitments are big on the right words but light on measuring and reporting on success, other than financial.
Hopefully this tourism initiative will be both sustainable, wide reaching and effective!
Ka kite ano
Cruising Piopiotahi /Milford Sound
NZx – September 30th : how to boost your social license to operate
Naumai
Last month we looked at some views on why NZ tourism needs to develop it’s social license to operate.
As previously noted, there are many definitions of how to obtain and maintain a social license to operate. At the micro level it’s about the concept of a project achieving ongoing approval of the local community and other stakeholders. That may be formal through processes such as the RMA or the DOC concession process or informal such as access agreements.
At the macro level it is how industry sectors work at a national level along similar lines, and particularly how they influence government.
The opportunity to achieve a social license to operate can be seen as an overall outcome. There is no rule book which defines the process, a method, tools or ways to achieve such an outcome.That is both an advantage and disadvantage.
Gavin Shepherd in the Te Awamutu Courier argues, that for the farming sector, “long-term profits on farm are more linked to these social perceptions than efficiency in production or scale at all costs”.
Dan Ormond, formerly partner at Ideas Shop, notes that, along with knowledge of who your market is and its size, “all aspects of engaging with stakeholders and developing sustainable business practices need to be communicated well in order to keep your business’s social license to operate”.
So how do we achieve such a license?
There seems to be general agreement on the following processes:
- identify key stakeholders (people affected by the project/sector) and continue to review these
- gain social acceptance based around legal, social,and cultural norms – both formal and informal
- gain credibility based on accurate and transparent information and importantly delivering on promises and representations that have been given
- gain trust from the local or national community based on being accountable, collaborative and sharing experiences
- deliver extensive and wide ranging communications across all channels that integrate all of the above.
In terms of a tourism perspective we note Taleb Rifai, Secretary-General, World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) comments that “globally tourism is today the 3rd largest export industry in the world after chemicals and fuels. Last year alone, 1.235 million travellers crossed international borders in one single year. By 2030, this 1.2 billion will become 1.8 billion”. Globally tourism has sustainable development as a key plank in all its 5 pillars:
- Economic: yielding inclusive growth;
- Social: bringing decent jobs and empowering communities;
- Environmental: preserving and enriching the environment and addressing climate change;
- Cultural: celebrating and preserving diversity, identity, and tangible and intangible culture, and
- Peace: as an essential prerequisite for development and progress.
As an aside the UN General Assembly declared 2017 as the International Year of Sustainable Tourism for Development. Who knew?
In NZ tourism faces some political issues and community fears. As Professor Chris Ryan noted immediately after the election, all major parties played lip service to developing integrated tourism policy. This remains an ongoing challenge for the industry but should not deter Tourism Aotearoa , Tourism New Zealand local Regional Tourism Organizations and tourism operators doing more in this space.
Regular snapshots of how NZ communities view tourism show a trend towards less acceptance at the current and particularly the projected levels of international tourism.
In summary, achieving and maintaining a social license to operate is a dynamic, long-term, holistic and vitally important process for both key industry sectors and individual operators. The difference being primarily the scale of the input.
As social scientist Kate Brooks states “Any industry, that operates, particularly using common resources like water or land, forests, has to concern themselves with social license to operate issues. It’s like somebody saying I want to come in and use your front yard (for my own profit).”
Ka kite ano
Cruise ship passengers Whangara Marae
NZx – August 22nd: A social license to operate
Naumai
Continued growth in New Zealand tourism is raising questions over it’s social license to operate. As Tourism Aotearoa states ” Tourism will only achieve our Tourism 2025 aspirational goal if we maintain and enhance our social licence to operate. We are encouraging tourism operators to recognise the importance of growing their businesses in a way which balances the economic, social and environmental impacts.”
There is no widely accepted definition of a social license to operate (SLO). However a recent paper by the Sustainable Business Council suggests key attributes include:
Ka kite ano
Just what is tourism’s social license to operate in NZ?
NZx – May 30th: alternative facts
Naumai
The recent public debate (which is full of alternative facts) about Auckland’s proposed bed tax highlights the gaps between local and central government funding, and the lack of understanding as to how tourism adds benefits and costs to all aspects of the New Zealand economy.
Many people have a view on the tax but only a few reflect the facts. Tourism Industry Aotearoa, Chief Executive Chris Roberts says the commercial accommodation sector receives just 9% of the total visitor spend in Auckland source (Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment).
“The original targeted rate proposal was for 330 commercial property owners to pay the full cost of Council tourism and event promotion. The cost of that promotion is currently shared by every ratepayer in Auckland, residential and commercial.
“It is still not the fair share that Mayor Goff repeatedly talks about. The small targeted group receives around 7-8% of the total visitor spend in Auckland, and yet is being asked to pay 50% of promotion and event support.”
We note that in 2014 international and domestic visitors spent $ 66 million per day in New Zealand communities. Thats a fact.
Shamubeel Eaqub also believes the plan offers no clear alignment between costs and benefit. You can read his original article here http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/93272191/shamubeel-eaqub-bed-tax-reveals-local-government-flaws
With 2017 being an election year , one assumes there will soon be a large amount of alternative facts in circulation. Tourism will need to make sure it’s voice is united, clear and more importantly heard.
Ka kite ano 
NZx March 25th: the pace of change
Naumai
There is no doubt that the pace of change in New Zealand tourism is continuing to grow: everywhere you look there are more visitors out there experiencing what NZ has to offer. A recent trip to the West Coast confirmed that. Even a site like Oparara http://www.karameainfo.co.nz/oparara-basin/ was very busy.
Some of the tourism issues have or are being well debated. Issues such as freshwater, overcrowding at key sites, climate change and visitor levy’s are all part of the current “conversation”.
On a broader level, but very closely aligned with increasing tourism, a number of issues were highlighted last year by Jan Wright, Commissioner for the Environment. Wright raised four key issues: climate change, slow progress in marine protection, lack of trees on unstable hill country, and concerns over the future of our wildlife.
She made the interesting point that environmental issues, rather than separate domains (air, land, marine, climate and fresh water), should form the basis of the shared story. This more holistic approach makes common sense.
Wright’s comments reflect the split in the key debates, and lack of an holistic approach, being canvassed over NZ tourism, the environment and business.
Mayor Goff’s accommodation tax being one such initiative.
A wider, holstic example is the recent study identifying Rakiura’s Port Pegasus for a potential new salmon farming enterprise http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/news/90883538/Stewart-Island-chosen-for-possible-new-aquaculture-project . This central-government funded programme involves Ngai Tahu, the Department of Conservation, the Ministry for the Environment, the Ministry of Primary Industries and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. Sorry – where is tourism in that mix? Its unbelievable that tourism opportunities are currently heavily restricted in Pegasus yet an industry with doubtful environmental credentials is being supported.
NZ tourism is entering a sensitive phase, particularly in regard to the potential effects on local communities of such growth and the shutting out of potential added value tourism opportunities.
Ka kite ano
Malcolm
Visitors on Rakiura/Stewart Island
NZx September 19th: Authentic
Naumai
One of the challenges for attractions is to keep the visitor experience fresh and alive. Regular change and emotional connection is a necessity of designing successful visitor experiences.
While Tilden’s https://prezi.com/s1qrbgvpu7ik/tildens-principles-of-interpretation/ principles of interpretation were written in the late 1950’s they still apply today.
Without provocation the visitor experience risks being compromised and becoming purely a source of information – after all interpretation (the art of sharing stories and experiences) is not information!
Visiting the indigenous Tjapukai Cultural Centre in Cairns recently was case in point. There has been some attempt to use Tildens principles, particularly in the areas of reveal and age related experiences. Unfortunately the low point came when we were served “authentic” bush tucker – at a table complete with porcelain plates and in cups made in China. The damper was more like commercial bread. This was probably an attempt to placate potential food safety concerns, but it may also be an attempt to cater to the large wholesale group demands.
Whichever it was definitely not an authentic experience, and did little to provocate our thinking on indigenous foods!
Visiting Tjapukai ten years ago was a highlight of the Queensland experience. We were emotionally moved but this time the sanitized experience left us cold.
Ka kite ano
indigenous food at Tjapukai Aboriginal Cultural Park
NZx 27th October:Integrated
Naumai.
One of the advantages of living in a relatively small country is the opportunity to integrate our delivery of visitor experiences and opportunities.
This opportunity was seized upon by various tourism initiatives over the years, including the development of Green Globe 21, Qualmark and the gradual upgrading of i-site services.
While some of these various integrated initiatives are now in place, the same cannot be said of the development of visitor experiences throughout the country.
Travelling around with a group of savvy international visitors, one soon (re) discovers that many of our visitor experiences are essentially copies of other experiences, in other parts of the country. Just how many bungy jumps, jet boat rides, marae visits, small ship cruising and conservation experiences do we need?
All the research suggests that integrated, themed experiences are what visitors seek, remember and recommend.
What we seem to have lost is the ability to develop or re-develop new visitor experiences that are different to anything else on offer. Good attractions do just this, re-developing their core business every 2/3 years. They know the importance of attracting new and repeat business, and standing out from the crowd.
All too often small businesses pour scarce resources into marketing instead of the product development phase. If they don’t get the theme, the visitor experience and the “offer” right early on they typically struggle to survive.
Many of our smaller visitor experiences then struggle financially, partly because they can’t make an impact in a crowded marketplace. A trend emerging is the conglomeration of many of the smaller entities into one overall business unit, while perhaps retaining the smaller brands for a “point of difference”.
Perhaps visitor experience operators should look integrating their key themes and visitor “offer”. The key focus should be on developing a visitor experience “offer” that no one else can.
Ka kite ano
Malcolm