Choice Words: All-inclusives

Is this the end of tourism choice? Quite the reverse. It is the choice of the tourist and of the market that has led First Choice to limit choice. To the all-inclusive.

First Choice has made a fair old splash with its announcement that from 2012 it will only offer all-inclusive. The splash has caused waves in the British press and locally. There was even a debate on Five Live. It was one in which all the old arguments were tossed around, as though the advantages and disadvantages of all-inclusive were suddenly a new area for discussion. It is far from new. What is, is what “Travel Weekly” headlined by saying is a “bold and shrewd” move.

This bold and shrewd move is, of course, marketing-led. It is designed, in the words of TUI, to “differentiate the First Choice product from Thomson and its competitors”. First Choice becomes the first “mainstream holiday company offering a completely all-inclusive portfolio”. In other words, what TUI is doing is to create an all-inclusive brand, i.e. First Choice. It has also said that hotels which are unable (and also perhaps unwilling) to go along with the all-inclusive offer will be shifted to the Thomson programme.

This latter bit is important, because, amidst the hype and what is doubtless a gnashing of teeth in Mallorca amongst bar and restaurant owners, is the fact that hotels to which First Choice gives primacy on its website at present are mainly already all-inclusive only. There may be hotels which are not exclusive to the company that will become so and which will go the full all-inclusive route, but until one knows how many (or any) additional hotels are actually affected, it is difficult to arrive at a complete picture.

I have previously drawn into question quite how all-inclusives fit with policies of so-called tourism sustainability. TUI (and this means both First Choice and Thomson) has made much of its commitment to this vague concept. With this in mind, it is instructive to learn how TUI is spinning the First Choice move. From a press release in “Travel Weekly”, therefore, I quote:

“We have been working with experts to see how we can increase the benefits of all-inclusive to local communities and putting in practices to do this.” “We are doing a lot of work … to increase communications whilst they (tourists) are on holiday, encouraging them to use local services.” “We are also setting up excursions that will enable customers to get a real taste for the destination they are visiting.”

This verges on the risible. When all else fails, invoke some anonymous “experts”. Who are they anyway? Encouraging tourists to use local services? Of course, and so undermine the very principle of all-inclusive. Setting up excursions? This is the biggest laugh of the lot. First Choice and other tour operators sell excursions. They always have done. The real taste? What do you think? Pirates?

To be fair to First Choice, they are right when they also say that “it is a myth that people do not go out of the hotel just because they’re on an all-inclusive holiday”. Yes, but how many actually debunk this myth and what do they do once out of the hotel? All-inclusives, perversely, want people to go out, because most of the hotels can’t cope and they’ve got their money already, thanks very much.

First Choice is bigging up its new offer with the bottom-line of a five hundred pound saving. This itself is a marketing-driven myth, as it depends on how drunk and how fat you want to get, but savings can, nevertheless, be derived; and these are one of the big attractions. Yet, the spin goes on. “With differentiated product, we will move further away from customers choosing tour operators based on cost alone, which is unsustainable.” Clearly they are and clearly a five-hundred quid saving is in fact unimportant; nothing to do with cost alone.

The good news may be that the First Choice offer will not be that significant. For now. It is further down the line that counts, and whether other operators decide to follow suit. What would be nice, though, would be for the tour operators to be less obfuscatory and to not hide behind the spin of sustainability.

Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.

The Death Of The Hen: Diversification in Mallorca

“Mallorca vive una fantasía: el turismo no volverá a ser la gallina de los huevos de oro.”

I wouldn’t normally reproduce a newspaper headline, especially not one in Spanish, but this one deserves reproduction. If you do the native, then you’ll understand. If you don’t, you might get the drift. If the drift is not with you, then: “Mallorca is living a fantasy: tourism will not return to be the hen with golden eggs”.

The headline came from the “Diario” two days ago. The words are those of Jerry Mander, a “guru” and the director of the International Globalization Forum. He, along with other worthies, gathered together in Alaró the other day, in a meeting organised by Camper, the Inca footwear company. As befits a coming together of those with sound credentials of a “sustainable” nature, there was a fair bit about sustainability, that mantra of current-day tourism. But the key message, the key conclusion was that the island’s future lies in a diversification of its economy.

I should nominate myself as a guru. I couldn’t tell you how many times I have referred to the need for economic diversification on this blog over the years. The Balearic Government, some while back, looked to set in motion a so-called innovation and development plan (largely forgotten about), but otherwise I have, and I don’t wish to sound immodest, felt like a lone voice. You just never hear about economic diversification, or not in a way that addresses the subject seriously. Yet the need has been obvious for years.

Mallorca lives its fantasy because many of the people who live in Mallorca occupy a fantasy world – the absence of being in the real world, as I said two days ago. Perhaps it is something to do with the illusion or delusion of a “paradise island”, lulling them into a false sense of security.

Mander’s statement is, of course, inaccurate. Tourism hasn’t gone away. But the implication is that it will not return on the scale that it once was. Moreover, it cannot be grown in any meaningful way; there just aren’t the resources on a small area of land. It’s that sustainability again, but this time in terms of the environment. Even if it were to be grown, more hotels, more golf courses, more this and more that, who would come?

Forty or more years ago, Mallorca set itself on a strategic path to economic transformation through tourism. Its old industries, agriculture most obviously, were shunted into the background. Those attending the Camper meeting seem to think that there is a need for some going back to the future. But is agriculture really a solution? It is one that smacks of the idyllic meeting the more wacky end of economics. It wouldn’t represent diversification either. It has never gone away, just, in certain instances, such as almond-growing, been surpassed by superior technology and productivity elsewhere.

The general conclusion – that of diversification – is undeniably true, even if there might be disagreement as to the precise road-map for that diversification. What is staggering, though, is that the subject is even being discussed, as in being discussed now. It should have been on the table years ago.

Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.