Page 559 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 20 March 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the Canberra Times on Friday, 16 March. It was written by Mr Robert Macklin and was entitled, "Tackling tourist imbroglio at the coalface". Mr Macklin is well-known to the Government and I will touch on that particular matter a little later. This article has done little to progress the debate about tourism management in the ACT; rather, it has sought to open divisions within an industry which is absolutely vital to our economic development.
Mr Macklin inferred that the difficult period the local tourism industry is facing is due, in large part, to the Tourist Bureau's inability to market Canberra in a professional manner. The days are long past that we can simply turn to the Tourist Bureau and blame that organisation for all the ills and troubles of the ACT tourism industry. The bureau has undergone major changes in the last two years which have taken it from the status of a branch within the Department of Territories to a professionally run sales and marketing operation.
An overall marketing strategy has been put in place by the bureau which was not only endorsed by a broad cross-section of tourism industries and business leaders but has also been endorsed by the Australian Tourist Commission and other state tourism bodies. In fact, the New South Wales Tourism Commission has decided to follow suit with a number of the bureau's innovative marketing campaigns, whilst the Australian Tourist Commission has expressed strong interest in many of the bureau's marketing techniques.
At the very heart of the strategy is the bureau's desire to maximise the limited promotional funds it has and at the same time maintain as much flexibility with its marketing as possible. This has seen the development of an in-house advertising and promotional capacity which has enabled the bureau to save many thousands of dollars with its print campaigns, publications, videos and general promotional work. The work being produced by the bureau in-house is equal in its quality and professionalism to that being undertaken by any other tourism authority, and indeed, it has been complimented by many local and interstate advertising agencies. This has not led, as Macklin claimed, to having marketing schemes which have been poorly conceived and executed. He went on to claim that:
The privately owned elements of the industry have been given very little say in the direction this activity would take.
This is absolute rubbish. I will reiterate the bureau's marketing strategy was given - in the first instance - in draft and later as a final document to the tourism industry advisory committee for comment and change, if necessary. Over 20 industry leaders were given the opportunity to take the document and distribute it to all members of their various associations for comment. The fact that there were very few comments at all is, I would suggest, an indication that the industry as a whole felt that the marketing strategy was satisfactory and on target.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .