Olympic Aspirations for Tourism

The Olympic issues at the heart of tourism

At the time of writing this article, London 2012, Britain’s Bidding Company for the Olympic Games, was awaiting the announcement of the initial shortlist of the bidding cities on May 18th 2004. It seems a foregone conclusion that London’s bid will go forward, in fact, it is acknowledged to be very strong, even by the other competitor cities, but it is very likely that we will have to await until July 5th 2005 for the announcement of the chosen location.

The Government, the Mayor of London, the Greater London Authority and the London Development Agency have given strong backing to London 2012, the company formed to submit the bid.

In the summer of 2003, The Tourism Society held a discussion meeting and then an open ‘Think Tank’ exercise to evaluate the tourism-related issues of the Games. These discussions identified the following concerns:

• Preparation of a comparative assessment of the tourism attributes of the competitor bidding cities
• An accurate assessment of additional tourism facilities required
• London’s and Britain’s image as a tourism destination
• Meeting the accommodation requirements
• Sustainability and after-uses for the tourism facilities constructed for the Olympics
• Visitor information services and welcome
• Skills and manpower needs, including volunteer recruitment and management
• Maximising the London ‘gateway’ role for Britain
• Transportation efficiency and quality
• Global marketing, branding and media liaison arrangements
• Reviewing the cost burden and negative implications for tourism businesses
• Optimising value for customers and gains for the tourism industry.

Considering the tourism appeal of competitor bidding cities

Whilst all contributors to the Think Tank acknowledged the value of this, it was not a matter that was formally accepted by London 2012, or any entity associated with the bid process, as the Olympic Charter for Bidding Cities contains an article (14) under which The cities must refrain from making any comment, spoken or written, or portrayal of any nature, likely to tarnish the image of a rival city or be prejudicial to it. In a spirit of fair play, any comparison with other cities is strictly forbidden.

An assessment of additional tourism facilities required, their sustainability and post-Olympic use

Many additional facilities are required for Britain and London to host the Olympics. These are mainly:

• sports facilities
• an Olympic Village
• media facilities
• an access/transport infrastructure linked with the main venues.

The unavoidable problem for these locations is the sustainability (and hence viability) of the newly-created facilities. Past experience shows that even where they remain viable, it has often been at low-margin prices to attract demand, which may be drawn from other pre-existing facilities which decline.

The evidence of recent Games is that ordinary tourism demand during the period surrounding the Games is deterred, so the visitors involved in the Olympics are not additional to normal tourism volumes. The Olympics are an exceptional event in terms of the scale of participants engaged in a single, complex, co-ordinated activity. In all other respects, the volume of tourists (participants, spectators and others) involved in, and attending, the Games is no more than the total in London on any day during the busiest times of the year.

The capacity of required hospitality facilities (accommodation and catering) is most directly influenced by the proportions of tickets allocated to spectators from other countries, and to a lesser extent by the proportion of UK resident spectators who are not within day trip distance and therefore stay overnight.

However, for all potential ticket allocation mixes, the available accommodation and catering capacity is more than adequate to meet the required demand – although it is envisaged that some new facilities will be incorporated in the major development area of the Lee Valley, sufficient to meet increased local demand in the post-Games period (see the section ‘Meeting the accommodation requirements’ below).

London’s other tourism facilities and services are undergoing a thorough review under the direction of the Mayor, with new strategies and policies being administered by the London Development Agency, many through Visit London. This review looking forward to the Olympics is to check what would be required of London to provide exemplary facilities to tourists and then to ensure that these standards are met before 2012.

It is likely, therefore, that although some high-capacity visitor information and other liaison services will be required at Olympic venues temporarily (in some instances involving the relocation and augmenting of resources), in other respects the established facilities, to a large degree dedicated to Olympic use for the period, will meet the need.

The key conclusion of the preliminary assessment of tourism-specific facilities required to host the Olympic bid is that they should be permanent – to service London’s established and evolving tourist needs – and hence sustainability of new tourism facilities created for the Olympics will not be a major issue.

London’s and Britain’s image as a tourism destination

London, Britain and the United Kingdom are globally-recognised tourism destinations. Both London and Britain are very successful in attracting all main types of tourism: business tourism, due to the links of the City of London, the reputation of longestablished British companies – some operating since the industrial revolution, some regarded internationally as a bridgehead to the EU – and because of London’s extensive airline route links.

VFR tourism to Britain is strong due both to the large number of British emigrants who maintain links with their homeland and overseas relatives visiting their UK-based cousins, both of these reflecting Commonwealth links and other allegiances, such as allies in war.

Moreover, London and Britain are prime destinations for leisure tourism, being particularly rich in cultural and heritage assets. On the whole, London’s image is comparatively good and robust, although it has been dented at times by industrial unrest and disruption, IRA terrorism, and the perceptions in source markets of CJD, FMD crises etc. Despite this, London (and Britain) is generally seen as a safe, secure, and healthy place.

It’s also worth remembering that London is becoming increasingly cosmopolitan, which is contrary to tourists expectations of experiencing the intrinsic character of the destination.

Meeting the accomodation requirements

Meeting the accommodation requirements Accommodation will have to be provided for:

• the ‘Olympic family’: athletes, team support members, officials, etc
• the media
• sponsors and related entities
• spectators
• staff (including volunteers).

Estimates of accommodation requirements can be made, with reasonable accuracy, with information from the IOC (International Olympic Committee), the proportion of tickets allocated to international visitors and the records of recent Games. The full range of accommodation to be considered includes:

• hotels
• self-catering accommodation: apartments, furnished flats
• guesthouses, B&Bs
• hostels
• holiday parks
• homes (for VFR guests and if a Home Stay scheme is introduced)
• university accommodation (the Games will be held during school holidays)
• rented private houses.

In this context, it is also important to recognise that:

• Some Games events will be held in other locations (eg football in four other cities, sailing in Weymouth, Dorset).
• Many competing teams arrive early and seek pre-Games training camps where sports training facilities are available during aclimitisation. This could benefit several UK city locations which can provide such facilities.
• The expectation is that London will have 200,000 hotel bedrooms by 2012. In this respect, London is very well placed to meet the capacity need within normal commercial accommodation, so the level of demand met by exceptional provision will be lower than in other locations.

Quality and price

The assurance of quality is a key issue. By 2012 the current trend towards inspected and quality standard-assessed accommodation will have progressed, and is highly likely to be either a statutory requirement or a matter of trade association/tourist board requirement.

Average hotel rates had to be stated in the submission document. There will be a temptation to optimise earnings during the relatively short and intense period of the Games. The organising committee will have to guarantee the provision of rooms for specific categories of guests, as required by the IOC. As these will be contracted in advance, the pricing issue is primarily of concern in respect of rooms used by the general public and other groups, such as the guests of sponsors.

Other cities have recognised the need to prevent profiteering from vulnerable visitors. The capacity in and around London of established and exceptional accommodation should minimise this but a scheme of accreditation to adhere to good value price bands may be beneficial. The Sydney experience and that of other events should be analysed in relation to this issue. The opportunity to offer lower-priced alternatives to hotels, through licensed serviced accommodation and university accommodation, will go some way to counter perceptions of London being a high cost venue for all spectators.

In addition, a real opportunity exists in organising a licensed Home Stay scheme. This would have particular appeal to spectators and other visitors from developing countries, and priority could be given to potential hosts who can most easily accommodate guests from their own ethnic group who may not speak or understand English well. Such visitors might feel more comfortable with hosts of their own cultural background.

This would have the additional benefits of dispersing visitors more widely around London and involving more residents in the welcome to London. A proposal is being considered to give such Home Stay guests free travel on London transport (or specified Olympic Transport Authority) on presentation of a Home Stay pass, valid either only for days when they have event tickets, or throughout their stay. The Home Stay scheme would require prior inspection of homes, training of hosts, contracts and insurance, agreed prices and minimum periods of stay. Sydney successfully operated such a scheme.

Information services and visitors' welcome

Britain and London will be hosts to the Olympic participants, officials and close associates, the global media representatives, and the spectators.

The continual improvement of information services for visitors to London to an exemplary standard is a priority within the Mayor’s Tourism Strategy and the LDA’s programmes. The ultimate aim is not just to meet the expressed need for information, but to recognise the potential of information to enhance every tourist’s visit. This will be based on the collation and distribution of unbiased, comprehensive and quality assured information from a virtual information hub – a fully functional online network for London businesses and visitors, linked to London’s Destination Management System.

This network will be under development continuously over the years leading up to the Games and will address the information needs of Olympic visitors. It will function alongside the Olympic Information Service about the Games that will be created by the organisers. At the time of the Games, it will be essential to ensure that this service is available to Olympic guests wherever they are, eg digitally and interactive via TV or Internet, and at homes of participants in the Home Stay scheme.

A warm, open and friendly welcome should be an integral part of the visitor welcome. This is a primary goal of the Olympic hosting programme. The challenge for Britain here is to overcome its outdated reputation of being a cold and reserved nation. Being open and welcoming does not, however, come naturally to many Brits.

The Welcome Host range of tourism training courses should address this issue. The evidence of recent Olympics shows that hosting the Olympic Games evokes a great sense of community pride in the host population. The Welcome Host training should aim to strengthen this attitude and help to enhance tourists’ enjoyment of their visit to Britain and the reputation of the country.

Skills and manpower needs

Whilst the permanently-established tourism facilities in London are adequate for the needs of the Olympics, there is an ongoing, indeed worsening, skills deficit in main industry sectors, especially in hospitality (hotels and restaurants/catering). Overcoming this skills deficit is a priority if the industry is to meet the growing demand for service quality and value, and to improve the comparative status of London as a tourist destination.

The requirements are well recognised by the industry, as evidenced by the establishment of the Sector Skills Council. Moreover, the leading employer associations, especially BHA, are engaged in initiatives with their membership. The needs are being addressed by educational establishments and the Learning and Skills Councils.

The characteristics of a career in the related industries and the evolving labour market under EU regulations will affect the pace with which this problem can be addressed.

Skills shortage is not an Olympics-related problem. However, recent Olympics provided a focus and acted as a magnet, drawing new entrants to the industry and calling back suitably experienced people for short term employment. The industry must assess and quantify training needs, and communicate them to the educational, training and other parties involved. Such an analysis will also be the basis for planning for special assistance from the agencies and government departments concerned.

The role of volunteers

The Olympics require a long build-up period but a relatively short burst of intense activity, extending from the pre-Games period, through the actual Olympic Games and the Paralympics which follow immediately after.

During this period, there are exceptional organisational and administrative requirements, at multiple venues concurrently. There are also Hosting tasks, of Welcome, Liaison and Information. These are well suited to be performed by volunteers, which also builds a genuine involvement and commitment with the host community. This would also prevent drawing employed staff away from associated industries.

It is usually relatively easy to attract the necessary number of volunteers: drawn from enthusiastic residents who are not normally employed, from students (the 2012 Games will be held during the summer vacation period), and many people choose to take holidays from their normal employment in order to participate as a volunteer. The multi-cultural nature of the Olympic Games provides many opportunities to involve residents from various ethnic groups, with particular language skills and cultural understanding.

From a tourism viewpoint, the manpower and skills needs for tourism-related volunteers must be evaluated and integrated with the overall human resources planning evaluation.

Maximising the London ‘gateway’ role for Britain

It is inevitable and unavoidable that the tourism demand associated with the Olympic events, including the Paralympics, will be concentrated around the main location. It is a characteristic of all bidding cities that other cities and regions within the host country (in London’s case, Britain) may express concern and resentment that this will be at their cost, both in terms of the focus of regeneration and capital costs of new developments around the Games location, and in terms of negative impact on tourism demand.

The evidence from other Games, especially Sydney in 2000, showed that apart from the period surrounding the Games, when tourist volumes and expenditure are diverted, and may fall in aggregate, there is a relatively massive net tourism gain, for both leisure and business tourism, in the two years leading up to the Games and for several years thereafter. This gain is not focussed just on the Games’ location, but on the whole country.

The evidence from other Games, especially Sydney in 2000, showed that apart from the period surrounding the Games, when tourist volumes and expenditure are diverted, and may fall in aggregate, there is a relatively massive net tourism gain, for both leisure and business tourism, in the two years leading up to the Games and for several years thereafter. This gain is not focussed just on the Games’ location, but on the whole country.

The Mayor of London and the LDA are committed in their tourism strategy to a new proactive gateway role, involving active programmes with the tourism agencies of other The key requirement of all temporary staff and volunteers, especially, is that they must be fully trained, efficiently organised, and entirely reliable as a part of the Olympic workforce. English regions and with the national boards of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The LDA will sponsor a working group of all interested parties to determine and implement actions that can be taken to promote Britain’s tourism attributes to Olympic participants and spectators.

Transportation efficiency and quality

Transport issues are being addressed as a major topic within the bid submission. This is reflected in an extract from the GLA supporting statement:

“On a peak day, 150,000 spectators are expected to travel to the Olympic Zone in East London for the morning session (125,000 of these from or through central London). Most of these spectators are expected to catch public transport to enable the roads to carry competitors. In addition to these improvements in transport infrastructure, there will need to be unprecedented management of transport in London. This is likely to include the establishment of an Olympic Transport Agency to manage public transport capacity and traffic flow within London. In addition to road closures, parking restrictions and temporary lanes for transporting Olympic athletes, Londoners will need to be persuaded to change their travel habits. The success of the Sydney Olympics was helped by the fact that people stayed off the [roads] because they changed their work habits for the duration of the Games. A similar campaign is anticipated for London. Although the reduction in traffic may not be as dramatic in London, as it is already the case here that only 50% of daily trips are made by car, compared to 70% in Sydney.”

Assuming the efficient operation of adequate services is achieved (covering capacity, punctuality, flexibility, cleanliness, safety and affordability), the requirements of spectators during the Games are primarily related to guidance and information on, for example, how to get from place to place, how to purchase tickets, etc. This is a fundamental requirement of information services which, currently, are met by a transport-specific information and ticketing service.

This will require the Olympic Transport Authority’s information services to be integrated with, or work with, the information and welcome services established under the tourism banner. Whilst Olympic-specific transportation arrangements are the most important element, it is essential that the disruptive effect on normal services is minimised, and that normal tourism services are not curtailed, but rearranged in an appropriate, well-publicised manner. The availability of free or subsidised transport to ‘satellite’ accommodation locations may be necessary to facilitate their convenient use. This worked well for the Sydney Games.

An analysis of potential provision related to accommodation clusters must be undertaken. Special terms for the use of public transport over the Games period will no doubt be agreed, perhaps giving free use to volunteers, for example. Moreover, possible concessions for guests using dispersed Home Stay accommodation and perhaps more distant university halls of residence should be considered.

The use of public transport for the Games presents an unprecedented opportunity to familiarise visitors with the opportunities to explore Britain using such services following the Games, or during future visits.

Marketing and media liaison

It is evident that marketing and media liaison activities are the critical elements in the hosting of the Olympics. Evidence from recent Games show how critical the role was of tourism-related marketing and media activity for tourism in the host countries.

VisitBritain has the lead responsibility, network and long experience in promoting the attributes of Britain. VisitEngland will add a national marketing dimension to it, while Visit London and other Regional Boards and RDA’s will need to co-ordinate their resources to convey co-ordinated messages and deliver targeted marketing programmes.

The degree of media interest in advance, as well as during the event, will be intense, but tourism-focussed media programmes will not be of primary interest. The locational, cultural and heritage connotations of the location have, however, become a main part of the story of every Games, and have added to the multi-dimensional character of the Olympics.

The goal of Olympics-related media and marketing is one of image enhancement of the Games location; in this instance London, England and Britain. In this respect, the task facing VisitBritain is much more than an extension of its long-established destination marketing of London, England and Britain. For long-term tourism benefits to be realised, absolute synergy must be sought from the outset between the Olympic/sporting/event branding and the national reflection of the brand.

The opportunities for partnership working are extensive, as the Games attract a number of very powerful players, all wishing to optimise their investment, participation and associations with this global event. Primary partners will include: major UK businesses and organisations, the IOC, Olympic sponsors, major international broadcasters and other media.

VisitBritain must lead tourism initiatives, working closely with the Mayor of London, the LDA, Visit London and other regional interests to ensure that a co-ordinated programme is achieved.

Market research

The co-ordinated programme of pre/during/post-Games activity must be monitored and evaluated to provide usable data, not only on actual Olympics-related business (which is important but of limited long-term value) but of awareness and intentions in source markets, changes in awareness, motivation and holiday patterns evolving in response to Olympic images and products.

Facilities

The provision of media-servicing facilities is an integral and key element of the bid. It is not apparent that any additional facilities are required to address the tourism aspects, but rather that tourism-relevant messages and imagery should be woven into the media services. VisitBritain should play a leading role in this respect and facilitate familiarisation visits and fact-finding in the run-up to the Games.

Need for funds

Whilst detailed estimates will vary, it is certain that between 50% and 75% of the net benefit of staging the Games, measured over a 7-10 year period, will accrue through tourism. The price of ‘getting it right’ is great. This demands co-ordinated action and investment on a scale which the diverse tourism industry – with so few major players – cannot generate by voluntary contributions alone. It is, therefore, essential that the government commit adequate additional public funds to the marketing and media programmes for tourism, via VisitBritain.

Reviewing the cost burden and downside issues for tourism businesses

Host locations of recent Olympics and other major international events all report very significant operational difficulties resulting from the period of exceptional demand and trading, which is addressed in anticipation by increased provision and temporary facilities, in many cases resulting in lower revenue and higher costs during the period surrounding and during the event.

Despite exceptional – often near 100% – accommodation and catering occupancy during the actual Games, this is a period of fluctuating demand, disrupting established patterns of business. Normal customers deliberately stay away from overcrowded venues. Much accommodation is reserved long in advance at fixed rates. Ancillary spend per person on food and drink is generally lower than normal, with people snacking while engaged at events or en route; only exceptional volume drives short-term turnover.

The maximum occupancy situation – perhaps involving a higher than usual proportion of non-English speaking guests – will place premium demands on staff, especially those with language skills. Staff shortages lead to financial incentives being offered to staff to change employer, thus raising costs and breaking the continuity of teams just when it is most needed.

It is usual for many sponsored events and promotions to be scheduled to coincide with the main events, which can further disrupt normal trading and margins. Businesses are also expected to contribute to local environmental improvements and services for visitors.

A key question is the extent to which central or local government may seek to raise additional funds for the Games from business taxation. An increase in business rates has already been proposed, but not yet quantified.

In the run-up to the Games, many services and trades are at a premium as specialists are required to focus on the completion of Games-related facilities, generally with the payment of enhanced rates, bonuses etc. This has a knock-on effect on the tourism industry, which will also wish to carry out substantial maintenance and upgrading activities prior to the Games.

The negative impact of the Games can be minimised by:

• forward planning by tourism industry bodies, associations and tourist boards
• recognition of potential problems by trade associations, tourist boards and government
• long-term marketing and promotional planning extending from two years prior to the Games to two years after the event
• agreement of a Tourism Olympic Charter to fair trade, pricing etc
• communicating to the wider public the impact on local services of the pressures of the Games, while at the same time clarifying that other areas are open for business and it’s a good time to visit
• staff loyalty incentives to minimise poaching
• exceptional incentives for approved costs incurred (eg on upgrade investment), to minimise net cost in the affected period.

Co-ordination – an ‘Olympic Tourism Forum’?

The Sydney experience is very relevant in this respect. Despite the existence of organisations coordinating tourism activities, an Olympics Tourism Forum was created, with the following sub-committees:

• Sponsors
• Branding/positioning
• Media/publicity
• Capacity/access
• Regional dispersion
• Packaging/distribution
• Visitor services/information
• Service quality
• Welcome/hosting
• Day tours/attractions
• Food/beverage/entertainment
• Visitor shopping.

A similar structure of committees will no doubt be needed for London. An Olympic Tourism Forum should be established after the bid is successful, with endorsement from the government, the Mayor of London/GLA/LDA and Visit London, British Olympic Association and the Olympics Organising Company.

Finally – are we likely to succeed?

The IOC’s selection process for the venue of the 2012 Games is precisely defined, with the intention of scrupulous fairness, to overcome the vote-fixing allegations of earlier years, but even so there is room for uncertainty.

In January 2004, detailed technical questionnaires were submitted by the bidding cities (Paris, Leipzig, New York, Moscow, Istanbul, Havana, London, Madrid and Rio de Janeiro – in the order of their presentations in the final process). The IOC is due to announce its shortlist on May 18th 2004. The IOC may decide, however, not to eliminate any bidders at this stage, although Havana, Moscow and Istanbul are the candidates most likely to be dropped.

In November 2004, Candidature Files have to be submitted by each city to the IOC. Between February and March, 2005, the IOC evaluation committee will visit the candidate cities and deliver their report to IOC members, in advance of the date for the final election of the 2012 venue on July 5th 2005, during the IOC meeting in Singapore.

It is not easy to be entirely objective, but currently the general consensus is that Paris and London are the strongest contenders. New York may be technically weaker, both in its submission and proposed facilities, and the North American continent has been awarded the Winter Olympics in 2010, in Vancouver. Rio has quite strong backing in non-aligned countries. Meanwhile, the process of bidding has already forced the pace of many projects in London. These include the planning of the main Olympic sites in the Lee Valley, just east of the centre of the capital, and improvements to road, rail and other infrastructure services.

The Olympic bidding process forces a spotlight on our own strengths and weaknesses. To successfully stage the Games, not just our sporting infrastructure, but our tourism facilities will have to be the best in the world. The economic evidence from Sydney shows that the national benefit from hosting the Games is in tourism, both before and for years after the event.

Britain’s tourism needs the Olympics. Maybe then our politicians (of all parties) will finally appreciate the value of this industry, for today’s and future generations.

About the author

Ken Robinson is an independent tourism consultant, specialising in strategic aspects of tourism development, management and marketing. He is a past Chairman of The Tourism Society and chairs its independent ‘Think Tank’. He was awarded the CBE for services to tourism in 1997.