23 April 2008

Australia tourism income soars

A Reuters report says, so where the "bloody hell" have all the tourists gone?

Well theyÃ¢â¬â¢ve gone to Australia, with the controversial and recently axed Where The Bloody Hell Are You? tourism campaign appearing to have paid off with Australia posting its strongest tourist spending in close to a decade.

Holidaymakers injected A$85 billion ($NZ102 billion) into the A$1 trillion economy in 2006-2007, with overseas visitors accounting for $A22 billion of that, up 9.8 per cent, the Australian Bureau of Statistics said.

The bureau's figures include total consumption, such as meals, drinks and attractions.

"While today's figures are a shining light for the sector, we can't afford to rest on our laurels," Tourism and Transport Forum (TTF) managing director Christopher Brown told local media.

The result was the strongest since 1999 and came in the middle of the A$180 million Where The Bloody Hell Are You? campaign, in which a bikini-clad model asks why overseas visitors haven't come to Australia yet.

The two-year campaign, created by advertising agency M&C Saatchi, was banned in Britain and Canada, and was dropped by the Australian government in February.

The figures showed tourism accounted for 3.7 per cent of Australia's economy and employed 482,800 people. But more recent tourism data has showed signs of weakness from key markets including Japan and Britain.

Overseas arrivals were down 1.2 per cent in February and 0.7 per cent in January.

Tourism Minister Martin Ferguson has flagged a new international campaign presenting Australia for the next three years as a "mature, inviting country".

The sales pitch also hopes to capitalise on the anticipated success of the new historical film epic "Australia", starring Oscar-winning actress Nicole Kidman.

by:The Moel from Reuters

Post your comment

Your Comments (2)

wrong again?

As this commetn is still about, as is the Mole's rejoinder, I feel compelled to comment.

First, I'm not sure when I was wrong last time to warrant a "wrong again" reply.

Which was the comment in which I was wrong last time?

And while I don't necessarily see the Mole as an industry mouthpiece, merely regurgitating industry press releases is not encompassing both sides, which implies a look at issues on both sides, not just statements from those with a vested interest in promoting a viewpoint, regardless of color.

So in general, comments from disinterested parties, such as me and most of your readers should be considered in a different light from comments from interested parties, such as tourism bodies, advertising agencies, etc.

We poor souls merely make our living from actually sending people to destinations, and are aware of actual on the ground client interest.

Tourism bodies and advertising agencies make their money from governments by convincing them that their efforts are working.

Their income doesn't come from actual pax forking over dollars, and if no-one travels, well, they have already been paid.

News is news, checked and edited for accuracy, not press releases.

[The Moel comments - yawn yawn!!]

By Andrew Haffenden, Tuesday, May 6, 2008
what a load of rubbish

Spending is not a criterion to base the success of the WTBHAY campaign on, the criterion is increased visitor numbers from the markets where the campaign ran allowing for the general increase in international tourism from those markets. You also need to consider the lag time between first inspiration to travel to a long-haul destination and actual travel date.

Increases in personal spending power - real in the case of Europe, apparent in the case of the US - accounts for much of the actual spending on vacation.

We're seeing the reverse of that in the US now, where decreased discretionary spending means shorter trips, more economical hotels, less expensive meals and fewer souvenirs.

All the data I've seen indicated the increase in traffic to Australia from mid campaign on was significantly less than the average rise in international tourism.

If you run an advertising campaign during a general surge in traffic, your total increase should be the general increase plus the advertising bump increase.

In Australia's case, from what I've read, the total was less than the general rise.

Just like the bogus headline about decreasing nature-based travel based on data from just US & Japanese parks (for some reason the Spanish data were omitted; perhaps they didn't support the conclusion), blindly publishing spin or incorrect conclusions without editorial oversight is not good journalism, and The Mole should pay a bit more attention to whether it's just a mouthpiece or an information service for the industry. [The Mole Comments - Oh dear Andrew what a pity you have it wrong again - we report news that encompasses both sides of the issue - Of all publications the The Mole can hardly be called an industry mouthpiece.]

By Andrew Haffenden, Wednesday, April 23, 2008