The Great Non-Debate: Tourism spend

Oh no, here we go again; the headline-grabber of tourism spend being up and likely to reach record levels. Why does this garbage refuse to be ignored? It’s difficult to do so, if the statistics office and tourism ministry insist upon shoving it down people’s throats.

The facts, such as they are, are these. Tourism spend in the Balearics during April was up by 35%. For the first four months, it rose by 7%.

If you weren’t paying attention before, let me remind you how this spend statistic is arrived at. The process of information gathering is by questionnaire; some 100,000 interviews at airports, ports and border crossings across Spain being conducted annually. Just think about this for a moment, and how thinly spread the exercise is.

Of the information that is gathered, only two of its five categories actually relate to spend on things other than accommodation, transport and the tourism package. There is, for example, no specific provision for spend in shops; just for restaurants and excursions. On-the-ground spend is limited, therefore, to 40% of the overall statistic (transport can include local spend, but equally it means spend on flights).

The good-news story of the increased spend is not all it seems anyway. An average spend per tourist of 866 euros is still some way lower than what used to be a more regular figure that was quoted, of plus-900. And, as ever, there is a huge discrepancy between what the statistics suggest and the reality.

Various bodies, those representing restaurants and other sectors of the so-called complementary offer, have been quick to point out that this spend is not translating into tills rolling over. Well, it wouldn’t, if much of it is skewed towards things other than the complementary offer.

One has to be careful where the statistics that these bodies produce are concerned as well. When they say that some establishments are suffering 50% falls in revenue, this doesn’t mean that all establishments are (5% appears to be an average). Nevertheless, there has been evidence to suggest that genuine and quite dramatic declines in revenue have been experienced.

The shops are probably the worst-affected sector of the lot, especially the souvenir shops. Yes, there are too many of them, just as there are too many bars and restaurants, but time was when over-supply didn’t really matter. It isn’t only the shops flogging siurells and what have you, but also those selling “different” stuff. One shopowner I know well was suffering an 80% loss at stages of last season, and he is not someone inclined to lapsing into BS.

The blame is, of course, directed at all-inclusives. The restaurant and other bodies have called for a debate within Balearic society to be opened to consider the increase in all-inclusives and the effect they have.

What on earth have they been doing for the past ten years? The trend was clear ages ago, and what precisely would this debate achieve, other than to reiterate everything that has been said about all-inclusives, time and time again? The organisations recognise the power of the tour operators, but still they want a debate. Well, let them. It won’t do much good.

The other great power in the tourism game, the hotels, defending themselves of course, say it is better to have tourists rather than lose them altogether. Which is fair enough, but they are also complaining that tourists aren’t spending money. And why would that be, do you think?

One of the elements of the tourism spend statistic should be looked at especially closely – the tourism package. This doesn’t exclusively mean all-inclusives, but how much are they a factor in this part of the spend (and others) and how much is the on-arrival upgrade to all-inclusive a factor?

To get a handle on spend by all-inclusive tourists, you need to refer back to the research TUI have done in Turkey, the research which revealed that, behind the tour operator’s assertion as to the benefits of all-inclusives, a mere 11% of spend found its way into the local community.

For the tourism spend statistics to ever be more than irrelevant, they need to be more precise and focused, but logistics as well as political expediency will mean that they won’t be. It is the headline of 35% up that is all you are meant to know, not what the figures really represent.

Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.

Spend, Spend, Spend: Tourists and their money

I was waiting at the head of what became a lengthening queue at the local tabacs. All I wanted to do was hand over my euro for “The Bulletin” (and, yes, I pay for my copy). I could have just plonked the coin down on the counter and cleared off, but the wait promised to be productive, more so than that of the Guardia officer who wasn’t prepared to tarry long in his quest for a pack of 20.

The queue developed because of Brit tourists, wristband wearing and cleaning the place out of cigarettes. The whole exchange was fascinating to observe, right down to the production of a sealed brown envelope with its bung of snout spondulicks. When finally all the booty was assembled on the counter, out came the calculator. “Nine hundred and four euros,” said the girl. The envelope was emptied of its folding notes.

Nine hundred euros, thought I. There’s a convenient amount. Where had I heard nine hundred euros, more or less, mentioned before? If I had forgotten, which I hadn’t, I was to find out when thumbing through the newspaper. Tourism spend. The average spend per stay. It’s always in the 900 region, a bit more. 900 euros on Super Kings and whatever else being handed over to the tobacco companies. 900 euros worth of fags being carted back to the all-inclusive. I wonder what else the Brits had been spending their money on, if anything.

The statistics on tourism spend come from something known as Egatur (“Encuesta de Gasto Turístico” – the tourist expenditure survey). The information it provides, so the blurb goes, “makes it possible to ascertain with a greater degree of precision the volume of tourist expenditure by foreign visitors”. Moreover, it can “improve strategic knowledge of variables regarding fundamental expenditure and tourist behaviour by visitors from other countries”.

These are bold claims for information that the casual reader of it in the press is often disinclined to believe, especially when it shows an upward trend.

What the tourism spend stats are not are exact figures. They are an estimation. They are arrived at through questionnaire-based interviews at border road crossings, airports and ports. A minimum of just over 100,000 interviews are conducted annually, the majority of them at airports (and this is nationally, by the way, not just in Mallorca). When the national statistics office speaks of “fundamental expenditure”, what it is referring to are five key components which contribute to total tourist spend. Of these, two, spend in restaurants and on excursions and “others”, amount to a third of the total. The rest comprises spend on accommodation, transport and the tourism package.

The tourism spend stats are also not, therefore, indications of what is actually being spent on what. Take the tobacco. Unless this is included under “others” (and I don’t think for one moment that it is), then where is this spend in the equation, or that in other shops, come to that? And what of that in the chemists? Spend on mosquito-bite treatment alone must run into the many thousands.

The collection of data is also reliant on the interviewee giving accurate numbers. They are more than likely also to be estimations. Come on, how many of you can say precisely how much you spend on restaurants? Unless you are one of a small breed who writes all expenditure down in a diary, then you can’t be 100% certain. It is just this sort of exact data capture that tourism spend surveys should require, but it is just this sort of exact data capture that isn’t being conducted. And where higher spend is registered, to what extent does this reflect an increase in prices? If it does, then any increased spend is not necessarily one in real terms. Just to take an example, has the IVA rise been discounted in figures since 1 July which suggest an improvement in tourism spend?

Much time and many column inches are devoted to the various statistics, but in truth, and God knows I have spent a sadly large amount of time myself over the years discussing them, they really aren’t of any great consequence. Certainly not when it comes to providing an accurate picture of activity in the resorts. The value of the tourism spend statistics, such as it is, lies in the contribution to a calculation of overall economic performance. As for “fundamental expenditure”, yes that on restaurants and excursions is fundamental, but so also, for many tourists, is that over the counter in the tobacconists.

Tourism spend statistics? Ignore them.

Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.