| Journal: TWUK | Section: |
| Title: | Issue Date: 05/06/00 |
| Author: | Page Number: 13 |
| Copyright: Other |
The Government is doing the industry no favours with itspolicy of launchingand funding a myriadof attractions,unfairly competing with those already established
STEVE PRICE
IMAGINE you are a tour operator and all of a sudden the Government – through the auspices of the Lottery Heritage Fund – sets itself up as a competitor in your marketplace.What would you do? What would be your reaction? Disbelief? Dismay? Probably more. Are we talking fantasy tour-operating league here or reality?The simple fact of the matter is that exactly the same situation is currently happening in the attractions market.A myriad of lottery-funded attractions have been launched over the last few years and many continue to be developed.The Government is currently funding huge amounts of attractions, opening them with an alarming regularity, with most having little or no real chance of success.As an example, the Earth Centre in South Yorkshire was seemingly developed on a wing and a prayer. Something in the region of £30m was ploughed into an attraction that explained the earth-shattering benefits of recycling tin cans. With typical inefficiency, no- one ever bothered to ask the end user of their likely purchasing potential. A recent straw poll suggested that probably less than 2% of local people asked would be bothered to go and visit such an attraction – not exactly a high turnout. The cynical view is that attractions work backwards -Êfirst they establish what money they need, then predict the target visitor numbers and usually achieve 20% of their projections. Of course, the biggest potential financial failure is the Millennium Dome, which the Government has been asked to bail out to the tune of another £29m. No-one seemed to have the necessary marketing planning for such a major attraction. Let’s face it, it took Disneyland Paris three years to get itright. The Government expected the New Millennium Experience Company to wave the magic wand within 12 months. Perhaps if the target numbers had been more sensible, the criticism levelled at the management and marketing teams would have been somewhat reduced.While real taxpayers’ money may not be used in funding these white elephants, commonly known as attractions, in reality such funding is competing in a very unfavourable way against private-sector attractions which have been trying to build their businesses over the course of several years, not several months. These businesses intend to be around for some time, not just one year and it is therefore hugely unfair that lottery-funded attractions should have such financial backing in this market.
IMAGINE you are a tour operator and all of a sudden the Government – through the auspices of the Lottery Heritage Fund – sets itself up as a competitor in your marketplace.What would you do? What would be your reaction? Disbelief? Dismay? Probably more. Are we talking fantasy tour-operating league here or reality?
The simple fact of the matter is that exactly the same situation is currently happening in the attractions market.
A myriad of lottery-funded attractions have been launched over the last few years and many continue to be developed.
The Government is currently funding huge amounts of attractions, opening them with an alarming regularity, with most having little or no real chance of success.
As an example, the Earth Centre in South Yorkshire was seemingly developed on a wing and a prayer.
Something in the region of £30m was ploughed into an attraction that explained the earth-shattering benefits of recycling tin cans.
With typical inefficiency, no- one ever bothered to ask the end user of their likely purchasing potential.
A recent straw poll suggested that probably less than 2% of local people asked would be bothered to go and visit such an attraction – not exactly a high turnout.
The cynical view is that attractions work backwards -Êfirst they establish what money they need, then predict the target visitor numbers and usually achieve 20% of their projections.
Of course, the biggest potential financial failure is the Millennium Dome, which the Government has been asked to bail out to the tune of another £29m.
No-one seemed to have the necessary marketing planning for such a major attraction. Let’s face it, it took Disneyland Paris three years to get itright.
The Government expected the New Millennium Experience Company to wave the magic wand within 12 months. Perhaps if the target numbers had been more sensible, the criticism levelled at the management and marketing teams would have been somewhat reduced.
While real taxpayers’ money may not be used in funding these white elephants, commonly known as attractions, in reality such funding is competing in a very unfavourable way against private-sector attractions which have been trying to build their businesses over the course of several years, not several months.
These businesses intend to be around for some time, not just one year and it is therefore hugely unfair that lottery-funded attractions should have such financial backing in this market.
“Funding is competing in a very unfavourable way against private-sector attractions”