Buzz words in the cultural tourism industry
Like in the IT with Web 2.0. and Web 3.0 (sure there will be a 4.0.), the tourism industry has its own buzz words. Not that the definitions are empty of meaning or that the change processes don’t happen – it is just that I believe that they are created not to mark a new model, but to serve as re-branding of old concepts and make them look new.
Which would be great if this helps the citizens of the hosting destinations increase their revenue from tourism and improve their quality of life. Is this really the case in the tourism? In Web 2.0. the ROI of social networking is still unclear as a mass effect – it’s useful for niche projects and advertising. How buzz words and new tags on cultural tourism impact the ROI for cultural destinations?
The definition for creative tourism(see UNESCO site) is: “Creative tourism is travel directed toward an engaged and authentic experience, with participative learning in the arts, heritage, or special character of a place, and it provides a connection with those who reside in this place and create this living culture.” Greg Richards, who defined cultural tourism in 1996, is also one of the authors of the creative tourism definition. His definition is to the point, clear and brilliant. His research is detailed and comprehensive.
What is not clear yet is what is the ROI of such re-branding and buzz words. Let’s take the European Capital of Culture (ECOC) program. The last year, 2007, it was Luxemburg. Richards, in his final report says: “Generating tourism was not a main aim of the ECOC, however it was an important objective of the cross-border programme, which aimed to ‘promote the Greater Region as tourist destination through culture’.
The cost of the program came with a price tag of 45 millions of euros, which money came mostly from the Luxemburg Government, the city of Luxemburg government and the EU. Only 8% came from income from the events and private sponsorship. As a result: the tourism to the city of Luxemburg grew with 7%. The economic effect – a total expenditure both by foreign and local visitors – around 57 millions of Euros. So what was the point? With the same amount of investment in advertising, the city of Luxemburg, even not proclaiming itself as Cultural Capital of Europe for 2007, the effect would be the same, or maybe even better.
There is not similar research yet published for the “Creative Cities” program, or the Cultural Corridors – programs known only to few researchers in the field. But I doubt that these program have a greater impact that the European Capitals of Culture program.
Raising awareness to a destination has its economic reward, re-branding it several times with different names – I doubt it. Specially when the private business, the local citizens and the tourists don’t have a clue about some of the programs, such as the Cultural Landscapes of UNESCO, the Cultural Corridors in South East Europe and many others.
So what we should do, if we want to promote a city or a place as a cultural destination? Re-brand it as a “creative city” or promote it as part of a UNESCO Cultural Landscape? It would be nice, as the icing of the cake, but the main activity should concentrate in the good old practices of selling the experience and the emotion of the place, not only attach to it the European tags and buzz words.
