Monday, March 8, 2010
Promoting Travel to the US Again
Some years ago the US Department of Commerce had a budget to promote international travel to this country. However, during the Clinton administration that program was cut and the responsibility shifted to the travel industry rather than our Federal government. I suspect the rationale for such a cut was that people were dying to come here anyway so why spend the money that did not directly have a local constituency here. From what I understood the industry initiative didn't work as well, and then 9/11 came along followed by massive and burdensome changes in security and visa regulations for international visitors to say nothing of many new fees. The net result was a significant drop on international arrivals and the economic impact they have.
Please click on the title of this post and read the news release. Do you think this new approach will work? Why or why not? Is the fee structure fair and/or appropriate? Will "educating" potential visitors work? Feel free to and any other comments you have.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe anytime private and public sectors get together on a common cause it's a good idea. The fact that the private sector is willing to invest millions of it's own money lets the government know they are willing to invest in their own future. This also lets the American people know that the travel industry is not asking for a handout put have come up with a viable solution that benefits everyone.
ReplyDeleteI am a little confused about the $10 fee every two years for those that don't require visas. That appears to be a logitistical nightmare to me. Will it show on someone's passport that the fee was paid two years ago. I would think a $10 fee for everyone entering the United States would make it easier to keep track of. Why wouldn't the assess that fee to everyone. For those getting visas especially for the first time, they should be assessed the fee along with the fee of the visa. I think it's outstanding to know that the government realizes how important tourism is to the economic environment of our country. This is a huge accomplishment for the industry as a whole. I did notice that our senator from Texas declined it which really doesn't surprise me but it does. Texas is a huge draw for foreign travelers and our numbers are down in the last two years. But maybe she was so concerned about running for governor she didn't think it would matter.
I believe the purpose of this act will help immensely. Whenever I speak with people from other countries it's amazing to me how much they take to heart what they see on American television. I believe a campaigne where we really dedicate time to explaining fact from fiction and actually promoting the country as a destination will help a lot. Scare tactics have been a large part of our news broadcast since 9/11 whether its intentional or not it's what's perceived by the outside audiences that make people fear a destination. The country could use some good press. And whether you voted for Obama or not or even like him or not, I believe his presence in some of the adds could do wonders. The world is curious and has admiration for him as a person and he could be an outstanding ambassador to promote the country. To me this is the perfect time to encourage people to visit America. I can't wait to see what kinds of things they come up with. It's also a good time to promote within and encourage Americans to visit their own country. Its a great value at this time and people still need downtime especially in this economy.
The new approach would certainly helped the United States in recovering some of the tourists that they have lost but I don’t think this nation will be able to recuperate the tourists that have been lost. Even without the strict travel restrictions created after the terrorist attacks in 2001, many tourists were already struggling with obtaining a visa to the United States. A bank statement is required to obtain a visa to the United States but that wasn’t just to ensure that there is sufficient funds to travel but it is required in order to make sure that those tourists will not overstay their visa and work illegally in the United States. Another issue that could hinder this travel promotion act is the global economy. Without a better economy, traveling to the United States would be very costly for anyone and there are other options closer to home that is more affordable.
ReplyDeleteAs for the fee structure, it is always appropriate as long as taxpayer’s money is not involved. The reason for this is that not all taxpayers benefit from this act and those who benefits the most from this should be responsible for the program. By involving the private sector in funding this act, it allows the private sector to provide more feedback and shares the burden to those who benefits from the tourism act.
The plan to educating potential visitors will definitely generate an interest in considering the United States as a potential tourism destination for an individual but it may not generate actual visitors. Even though there is an interest in visiting the United States, there are numerous barriers that will exclude many of the interested individuals from traveling to the United States. Geographically, the United States’ tourism attractions are very far apart from each other and it is impossible for tourists to cover all the attractions in one trip. That is a big factor when tourist selects a destination since they would prefer to cover as much as possible.
Homeland security is one of the most imperative aspects of the tourism industry. I completely agree that 9/11 had a major impact on international travel because of the gruesome events that threatened our security. The part of the bill I do agree with is that United States needs to implement a platform to educate foreign travelers about our safely improved security system. Travelers should be aware that since the attacks and other security issues, drastic measures were taken to secure our country, not only for international matters, but even for our sake as well. I do have my doubts of investing more money hence, adding to our astronomical deficit. I’m not sure that just “educating” potential visitors and collecting these small fees would be as effective to cover the bill, but, it will increase awareness. We are still in the midst of war creating the U.S to be a definite target, resulting in hesitation to travel. I still don’t think tourism will have the needed increase to recover the money funding this bill.
ReplyDeleteI think that the concept is a good idea; however, I’m not sure if it will work to the extent that they are hoping for. After reading the article, I did some further research on the bill. One of the reasons I think it will work is that it is a separate entity from the government. This non-profit organization is going to be run by a board of directors who will be made up of people from all segments of the tourism industry. I think that since it is being run this way, it will help the program to succeed. The reason that I think it has a potential to fail is that the organization has no legal way to collect the fees. The program is also restrictive. In the bill, it speaks about all the hoops that they have to jump through in order to get approval for different things. For example, they are required to give annual reports to Congress that contains all sorts of information. Also, they have to get clearance for decisions from the Secretary of State, Secretary of Commerce and Secretary for Homeland Security.
ReplyDeleteThe fee structure seems fair, although I’m not sure why they are not charging those who apply for a visa as well. What this group is saying for those not coming on a visa is that we want you to come and we want to charge you more to do so. Not only that, I don’t understand why they plan to only collect the fee every two years. What happens to the person who pays the fee, but then ends up not traveling overseas? Will that be noted in their record or will they have to pay again should they end up coming? Also, how is the exchange rate going to be handled? For someone from Mexico for example, that $10 is a lot of pesos. However, to someone in the UK, it’s not that much.
Personally, I think the more education the better. You can never go wrong with informing people about the procedures and guidelines. In addition, by educating potential overseas travelers there is the opportunity to clear up some misconceptions about the United States. Providing better education about traveling to the U.S. is one of the best steps the tourism industry can take in attempting to gain more overseas travelers.
The tourism industry took a major hit after 9/11 and it never had the opportunity to even really begin a comeback when the economy began its drastic downtourn. In a declining economy, people begin tightening their purse strings and the first expenses to go are luxury expenses, such as leisure travel. Now, the international lesiure travel industyr in our country has to negate not one major setback, but two.
ReplyDeleteI think this combine public/private venture will prove to be a great jumpstart program for the travel industry. The first step to encouraging international travelers is education. People need to be educated on the safety initiatives the United States has taken and to be reassured that with this heightened awareness travel is safer in the US that ever before. Explanation of travel rules and regulations must also be addressed. The rules seem to always be evolving and changing and it can be confusing to Americans, so it can potentially be overwhelming for a traveler from a foreign country.
I believe the fee structure is fair, although I am confused as to how the 2-year fee will work and how it will be monitored. However, the plan to not involve taxpayers money is a refreshing change and greatly appreciated by taxpayers!
I am not confident that this plan will completely rejuvenate the tourist economy, but teh combined effort and marketing will definitely bring a more focused, and hopefully postivie, boost to the international travel industry in the United States.
Good reactions. I share some of your skepticism as to its success. The last private sector take-over of this failed miserably and at least this one has some Federal $ behind it albeit a tax on the visitors we are hoping to attract.
ReplyDeleteI fully understand the security issues but wonder how effective our reactionary policies are when in balance with disincentives for international travelers to visit us. Perhaps we can explore this issue more in later discussions - sire to be an engaging topic.