This doesn’t really suprise me. What I find interesting is the huge gap between how most Americans see themselves and how we are seen by the rest of the world. I’m reminded of the stories (jokes?) about how European visitors expected to cowboys and shoot outs on every corner in every town in the 1950s. I think most Americans see themselves as open, welcoming etc. And that’s how they (we) really are. I’ve sensed that many of the people I’ve talked to about this are a little hurt by the realization that many in the world dislike and fear us. (My response to this is that it’s the Bush Administration that’s the problem and that people outside the US can’t see past that to good hearted every day Americans.)
I’m curious if C&F folks outside the US think that this article accurately reflects how the world sees the US these days.
US tourism ‘losing billions because of image’
By Amy Yee in New York
Published: May 8 2005 18:53 | Last updated: May 8 2005 18:53 in the Financial Times - www.FT.com
The US is losing billions of dollars as international tourists are deterred rom visiting the US because of a tarnished image overseas and more ureaucratic visa policies, travel industry leaders have warned.
“It’s an economic imperative to address these problems,” said Roger Dow, chief executive of the Travel Industry Association of America, tourism’s main trade body, which concluded its annual convention this weekend in New York.
Mr Dow stressed that tourism contributed to a positive perception of the US, which spread across to business. “If we don’t address these issues in tourism, the long-term impact for American brands Coca-Cola, General Motors, McDonald’s could be very damaging,” he said.
The plea echoed that of other industry trade organisations which say bureaucratic visa procedures and stringent security after the September 11 terrorist attacks have deterred business travellers and foreign students. “The idea has gotten out that we’ve pulled in the welcome mat,” said Rick Webster, the association’s director of government affairs.
The number of international visitors last year rose 12 per cent, compared to 2003, to 46.1m, according to the US Commerce Department. They spent $93.7bn, or 17 per cent more than their counterparts the previous year. However, US market share of foreign visitors is still down 38 per cent since 1992, according to the TIA. The number of global travellers has grown by 2 per cent to 770m since 2000, but US market share has not kept pace. “Our piece of the pie has shrunk by 5m visitors,” said Mr Dow.
The weak US dollar has boosted the number of international visitors, but given favourable currency rates for many foreigners, those numbers should be far higher.
“The weak US dollar is masking some of the problems,” said Mr Webster. “And the dollar won’t remain weak forever.”
Mr Dow said rising anti-Americanism has created a feeling that the US is inhospitable and difficult to visit. “There’s a perception of ‘Fortress America’ that is much worse than it really is,” he said. Mr Dow added that more competition from other destinations such as Australia, South Africa, Spain and Asia had siphoned off tourism to the US. The TIA urged US policymakers to facilitate various security measures. An October 26 deadline that requires some foreign passports to have biometric facial-recognition technology is unrealistic and must be extended, according to the TIA.
It also wants problems resolved with the US-Visit programme, an initiative requiring photos and fingerprints of some visitors, which is scheduled to be in place at land borders and ports-of-entry by end the end of the year.
Why should they be higher? No historical data available to back up this editorial comment, or another reporter too lazy to do the homework to back up the (misguided) point? Or did the reporter DO the homework and the historical data didn’t support the headline?
I think IrTradRU? is right on this one. I believe the Financial Times is run by a huge conglomerate of liberals and approved by the Democrats. I understand that all articles for the paper are proofed by the Democratic Committee on Media Oversight (DCOMO). And the numbers in this article are obviously skewed since the Travel Industry Association is another known left-wing organization with ties to Ted Kennedy and Jane Fonda.
Give us a break, IrTrad. Not everything is Bush-bashing, right-wing bashing by leftist reporters. The article simply states concerns of people in a particular sector of our economy (tourism) who believe they are hurting due to security measures and the view held by many around the world that we’d prefer nobody came to visit. I’m afraid I can’t see the bogeyman you’re seeing here.
My response to this is that it’s the Bush Administration that’s the problem and that people outside the US can’t see past that to good hearted every day Americans.
Since the last election, it cannot be argued that Bush doesn’t have the consent of a majority of Americans. Being warm and welcoming to insiders doesn’t preclude being hostile to people you define as outsiders.
The uncomfortable truth is that Bush gets away with the abuses he does because a slim majority of the public wants him to do those things.
Why should they be higher? No historical data available to back up this editorial comment, or another reporter too lazy to do the homework to back up the (misguided) point?
See Adam Smith, An Enquiry into the Wealth of Nations, book 1 for a brief explication of the effect of price upon demand.
The effect of exchange rates upon tourism is a well understood phenomenon.
Irtrad, in reading your posts in other political threads, you’ve made this a big point about the supposed liberal media bias. Your use of the word “another” throughout this post made it another obvious complaint about the left-wing media.
My first thought about the story is the built-up effect of travel restrictions post 9/11. I know its hard for foreign musicians to come here.. are tourist s put through more rigors as well?
As the Euro gets stronger and stronger, I can’t imagine that we won’t have more visitors. It will be interesting to see what the statistics are at the end of this summer.
Oh, goodness, please do regale us with it all, since the author saw the need not to even reference it.
He was writing in the Financial Times, for Pete’s sake. I think the author was entitled to assume that his readers would have elementary economic literacy.
Tourism is discretionary spending, in that it’s a luxury. No one NEEDS to go to disneyland the way they need to buy food every day.
Discretionary spending is elastic. Elastic demand is highly price sensitive. When prices go up, demand falls. When prices become more affordable, people buy more of that good.
The US has seen an enormous drop (20%) in the price of inbound tourism. However, no commesurate increase in demand has been seen.
The readers of the Financial Post could be expected to understand the author’s argument as it stood. This is economics 101 stuff. You’d learn this in the first week of a high school economics course.
The author is simply pointing out that tourism business did not meet industry expectations. That’s what it means when people say that the # of visitors “should” be higher: they expected more. That isn’t an editorial comment any more than reporting that the Dow fell today.
Nor is it the author’s job to compute those industry expectations. The industry projects these things. Perhaps you doubt those projections, and I guess it wouldn’t be the first time an industry was way off. But it isn’t a screw-up on the part of the reporter.
And the projections are exactly the point - what were they, and why not include that information? And given that, how does the reporter come to the conclusion that it must be “bad image” and not just soft economic conditions?
He is, after all, writing in “the Financial Times, for Pete’s sake”. I guess my expectations were indeed a bit too high.
I certainly hope not. I heard some really ridiculous stories from the teachers at Irish Arts Week. It’s a miracle that the festival wasn’t simply cancelled, like that other one in Boston.
I know I’d never visit a country for business or pleasure if I had to do what some of them did. Not out of principle, mind you: I just couldn’t provide the insane levels of documentation or meet those crazy deadlines (I don’t even know where my grandparents’ birth certificates are.) And even if I could do all that crap, I don’t think it’d be worth trying if they’d just revoke my visa at the last second anyway for no reason.
They’re also ticked off at those biometric passports. The real slap in the face is that the USA demanded the EU start using biometric passports, but we wouldn’t dare impose the same thing on our own citizens.
I think the author of this thread was looking for responses from people outside the U.S. Obviously as Americans we can’t reliably comment on how non-Americans feel about our country, or on the reasons that foreign tourists are not coming. I’d like to hear their reasons from them, not from Americans.
Anyone? Anyone?
People who report the day’s financial news usually don’t provide citations to satisfy people who suspect the paper might be wrong or lying. If Intel’s Q3 revenue does not meet expectations, they’ll just tell you. They won’t provide you with any means to independently verify this.
I don’t think it is at all unusual for the paper to simply tell me the NASDAQ closed down 10 points or that it rained yesterday, without showing their work in case I suspect malfeasance at the newspaper.
And given that, how does the reporter come to the conclusion that it must be “bad image” and not just soft economic conditions?
This is something I never liked about financial news: people are always quick to slap an “obvious” cause on any number. If stocks go down, they’ll tell you it’s because of Intel’s announcement or IBM’s layoffs or anything else they read about that happened that day. But how do they know that’s the cause?
I think the reduced tourism revenue is less about “image” and more about the insane visa problems that people encounter coming to the US.
There are few non-Americans who will post to these threads any more, I’m afraid. In the past there have been instances of some folks feeling they were being pelted with Americrap if they dared to post anything seen as critical of the U.S. and its policies.
OK< I give up - what are YOU talking about?
