On the eve of the Beijing Olympic Games and with London 2012 on the horizon, the European Tour Operators Association released data furthering its assessment that the Olympics hurt rather than help tourism in the host country (see report, Page 48). Senior Editor Michelle Baran interviewed ETOA Executive Director Tom Jenkins about the findings.
Q: How does this report differ from the one released in 2006?
A: In 2006, we only had very partial data from the Athens Olympics available. And Athens was genuinely atypical. It was the first capital city since Seoul, [South Korea], and it was the first Olympic Games to be held in an alpha tourism destination. So, what was going to happen in Athens was going to be very interesting from a tourism point of view, which is why we decided to issue this new release.
Q: How did it advance your original findings?
A: Firstly, Sydney has more or less ceased to be an Olympic story now. It's a good eight years since the Olympics were there. And the interesting thing we found with Sydney, and I think we made this explicit in the report, is that after a while the Olympic effect wears off. And Australia is now marching in time with New Zealand.
Q: When you say "the Olympic effect," you're referring to the negative impact of the Olympics on tourism?
A: Yes, the apparent negative impact. Australia has taken a severe beating. And I don't know whether that's entirely due to the Olympics. One thing's for certain: The Olympics never really helped Australia.
Q: How do you know that the data are directly attributable to the Olympics?
A: We're just saying, [for example], "How has Greece done in comparison to its leading competitors?" And the answer is, it hasn't done particularly well. Our central message, I suppose, is not, "This is terrible." It isn't. But it isn't good.
Q: What is your agenda in all of this, as a European tour operator organization?
A: Our primary concern is to ensure that the truth is told and that sensible information is disseminated. In the run-up to the Games, there's plenty of enthusiasm; wild, patriotic assertions are made; desperately hopeful assumptions are jumped upon. But very little cool thinking takes place. And real damage is caused by that.
Q: How should the Games be marketed?
A: The basic problem is that the process of "winning" a Games for a destination is based on hyperbole, basically. This enthusiastic exaggeration of the benefits that will accrue from the Games is carried forward quite often into the planning stage. And this is a mistake, because the Olympics can be, should be, a wonderful party. But like all parties, its principal aim is to have fun. And when it's over, it's over. You clean up, you pay the bills and you get on with the rest of your life. And there's no point in telling everyone what wonderful things will flow from hosting this party.
Q: Do you think the Games should no longer bounce from one host city to the next?
A: I don't think the tourism problems associated with the Games are sufficient to reorganize how Games are allocated or organized. All I'm pleading with people is to stop saying that there is a huge benefit from hosting the Games. It's not a tourism event. It's a sporting event. Tourism should be taken seriously, and it should be spared being visited with false promises of bounty.
Q: Who stands to gain when the Games come to town?
A: [Suppliers] should make a killing during the Games. Their ability to charge is intimately related to demand. No doubt that during the Games, demand in the city is high. But, the guys going to the Games aren't regular tourists. They're not taking sightseeing tours, they're not going to the theater. They're sports fans.
Q: All of this doesn't necessarily explain why there is a slump in tourism surrounding any Olympic Games.
A: There are all sorts of theories. The conventional wisdom is that most cities overbuild capacity, which they fill during the Games. But, there is a momentum to demand. You need customers coming into your premises, leaving and going home and telling everyone what a nice time they had. There is a sort of conveyor belt of satisfied customers begetting future demand. And if you suppress customers for a season, you break that conveyor belt. It takes time for the marketing effort to regain momentum. And that is the principal reason for a post-Games slump.
Q: So, how do you explain Athens, which experienced a post-Games surge and then a slump?
A: Athens was very peculiar. Athens built no extra capacity. As ever, during the Olympic year, the tourists stayed away. After the Games, demand came back in very quickly the following year. So, it's an atypical event, Greece and Athens. They look slightly counterintuitive. But I think that it was mainly due to the fact that Athens didn't increase capacity, so it didn't have an Olympic boom of occupancy.
Q: What will be, then, the adverse effects of the Games in London?
A: We've yet to talk about London, in reality. All I know is that if London is going to show a tourism benefit from hosting the Games, it will be unique. And how it goes about doing so is a question which we are all interested in.