Online travel sales stay stable in France

by Tom Johansmeyer on

Despite a dismal global travel market, the online sector in France is still stable. A new report by PhoCusWright says that online leisure and unmanaged business travel activity will gain three percentage points this year, edging up to 33 percent of the total French travel market. Online bookings are projected to stay flat, but the overall travel market is forecasted to shrink by 8.7 percent, which is why online’s share of the pie will go up.

Carroll Rheem, director of research at PhoCusWright, says, “French consumers have adjusted their travel habits in line with the nation’s relatively modest recession in 2009 and French suppliers have suffered less than those in other large leisure market destinations like Spain and Italy.”

In France, traditional airlines have led the total market decline, expected to fall 14 percent this year. Hotels, on the other hand, are only likely to decline 6 percent. The online travel agency market continues to be fragmented. Growth will slow down considerably this year, but the online travel agencies will still gain some play from passengers looking for bargains.

Rheem continues, “In uncertain economic times, consumers need to feel confident that they are getting the best value for their money.” Additionally, Rheem says, “Online travel agencies are certainly benefiting from this trend, but competition between them is also extremely fierce. The line between ‘traditional’ and online travel agencies is murky, and French OTAs must compete in a multichannel landscape.”

Europeans complain about U.S. travel fees

by Tom Johansmeyer on

Extra fees charged by airlines, the “new normal,” are so popular that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has gotten into the game. And, bitching about these fees is equally popular, prompting the European Parliament to sound off like its members are Ryanair passengers with full bladders and no coin for the slot.

At issue is a planned $10 charge for Europeans coming to the United States. The European Parliament calls the charge unfair, saying it amounts to a new visa restriction. Enrst Strasser, a lawmaker from Austria, says that the requirements for entry under the Obama administration are even harder than they were under the previous (U.S.) government and that for us is a contradiction that we in the European Parliament cannot accept,” Austrian lawmaker Ernst Strasser told Napolitano during a special hearing with her. “We really have to insist on our European values, that European data protection laws and European civil liberties also have to be taken account of.”

Janet Napolitano, Homeland Security Secretary, calls the fee reasonable, since the United States doesn’t have an agency for travel and tourism, “unlike many of your countries,” she said of the European states. The $10 fee would be used to “fund and help tourists and travelers who wish to come to the United States.” Since budgets are constrained at both federal and local levels, Napolitano feels this is a reasonable move.

The money has to come from somewhere, and if Washington has to choose between taxing Americans and taxing everyone else, who do you think wins? Napolitano may not be an elected official, but her boss sure is. There’s a pretty clear need for travel-related revenue in D.C., and the government needs to invest in promoting visits from overseas. When people cross a border to come here, that’s a net inflow of money into the United States.

Despite European objections, the numbers suggest that this isn’t a bad idea. Foreign spending in the United States has fallen for the past year, with drops becoming particularly severe last spring and continuing without reprieve. From August 2008 to August 2009, spending by visitors from other countries fell 21 percent, marking the fourth consecutive month of declines worse than 20 percent.

When it’s time to pass the hat, nobody wants to reach into his pocket.

UK online bookings to grow this year

by Tom Johansmeyer on

Yes, you read that correctly – online bookings are expected to finish higher in the United Kingdom this year! Even in this dismal economy – which has been particularly brutal for the travel industry – the web guys have something to celebrate. Sure, the forecast is only for 3 percent, but that beats the losses being posted elsewhere.

Travel industry research firm PhoCusWright’s new study puts the amount spent on leisure and unmanaged business travel (i.e., employee picks for himself) at £17.1 billion for 2009, comprising 45 percent of all bookings for the year in the UK. So, a hefty portion of the industry over there is seeing some growth.

Meanwhile, the overall UK travel business is expected to shrink by 8.9 percent this year, with gross bookings dropping to around £37.6 billion. So, the online world is holding its own while the rest of the market gets spanked. For the near-term, PhoCusWright says, the “outlook is bleak.” The UK travel business should reach 2007 levels in 2012 (ouch).

“British travelers have had to cope with currency devaluation on top of the recession, and both have driven significant changes in travel patterns,” says Carroll Rheem, director, research at PhoCusWright.

The situation isn’t as bad at home, though. Rheem continues, “The blow to domestic travel has been relatively soft while the fall-off in U.K. visitors to the Mediterranean has been significant.”

Airline websites beat other suppliers in the digital space, the research firm says, picking up more than half of direct online sales in the UK. Hotel company sites are expected to grow with the market, and tour operators are forecast to have the biggest wins (in terms of growth rate) on the web. They’ve invested heavily in marketing to bring customers online, according to Peter O’Connor, PhoCusWright’s market analyst, U.K. and France. “Selling a combination of pre-packaged, dynamically packaged and decoupled travel components, their share of U.K. online direct travel is expected to increase through 2011,” he says. Even with the jump for tour operators, though, online travel agencies are going to lead growth for all online channels in the UK.

It’s not time yet to celebrate an end to the travel recession; that will only come when the bigger recession has been resolved. Nonetheless, it’s great to see some hope in any part of the travel business. It means that people are getting on planes and heading either to old favorites or new experiences. Let’s hope that next year the stats are higher in the UK and everywhere else.

Free press travel: necessary … and certainly not an evil

by Tom Johansmeyer on

The blogosphere has been heating up over the issue of ethics and “swag.” There’s plenty of free stuff flowing through the media industry. At Gadling, obviously, the big one is travel, but gadgets, books, liquor, cigars and other products are often supplied for use in writing a story. The Federal Trade Commission has made what was a debate into a legal issue by requiring disclosure by bloggers when they receive these freebies (Gadling already requires this, so no changes will be necessary here). The issue is not only contentious, but it’s emerging unevenly. In the end, it’s the readers who will be impacted.

The FTC rule requires disclosure only by bloggers – traditional media outlets will not be affected, despite the fact that they receive plenty of swag … and that we (the bloggers) learned it from them. If the goal is to help the consumer make an informed decision, this rule will only “help” blog readers and leave consumers of traditional media exposed.

Beyond the question of fairness, though, there’s a greater issue: practicality. Especially in the travel space, the trips and gear provided by hotels, restaurants, manufacturers and their publicists is a vital part of how we can provide more than mere reblogs of “man pukes on a plane.” Original travel content comes at a cost. Travel writers need to be out on the road to be effective, and even 12 months of discount travel can add up quickly. For readers interested in luxury and upscale experiences (and there are many here and at Luxist, where I also write), it would be impossible for impoverished bloggers to deliver first-hand accounts of these destinations.

It can be tough to understand the role that comp’ed travel can play in an operation such as Gadlings – or that of any other publication that covers travel. So, to help clarify the issues involved, here are 10 factors that help make sponsored press trips effective.

1. Boots on the ground make a difference
You can do a lot using other people’s information. Press releases, websites and interviews can provide plenty of insights on what it’s like to visit a particular destination. And, most travel writers, especially when faced with the prospect of daily deadlines, use these resources regularly. But, there’s no substitute for feeling the sand between your toes, breathing the mountain air or smelling a Seoul subway during rush hour (not bad, just very different from New York). If travel writers need to pay for these trips, there won’t be nearly as many … which means that readers lose the on-the-ground observations that make a hotel or city or flight come to life.

2. The money has to come from somewhere
There are three parties that could conceivably pay to send a writer to cover a destination: the writer, the publication or the destination. Contrary to popular belief, travel writing (or any other form of blogging or journalism) really isn’t a road to riches. We do it because we enjoy it. So, paying to take a trip could cost at least as much as we’ll make writing about it. Now, the publications could pay. But, if you haven’t noticed from the number of magazines closing, media companies are about as wealthy as their writers. They can’t afford to have travel writers out on the road frequently. Hell, some of them can’t even afford to have travel writers at all. Finally, there are the PR agencies and the destinations themselves. They realize that they’re taking a risk when they pay to send a reporter on a press trip (they could wind up with a shitty story). But, they generally have the resources to commit to the effort. So, do the math – where can the money come from?

3. An awful trip will be noticeable
If a travel writer has a truly miserable experience on a press trip, you will notice it in the writing. I can tell you I’ve never been pressured to deliver a positive story. I do tend to highlight what interests me or what I think would interest you, simply because that’s what I figure interests you. If you’re heading to Paris, for example, you probably want to know what to look for – what’s fun and exciting. The reason these trips often contain positive information is because nobody I know plans a trip around misery. But, if there is something that warrants your attention – that happens to be negative – the travel writer will probably make sure you’re aware of it.

4. Objectivity isn’t really the point
Travel is inherently subjective. I look at the type of trips Kraig Becker enjoys and wonder if he was dropped on his head (or fell on it on one of those excursions). And, I’m sure the backpack-and-hostel crowd looks down its collective nose at the luxury trips that I usually prefer. The travel writer’s job is to cover the destination fairly and accurately … which is much easier if you’re actually there. As long as you’re honest, it doesn’t matter who writes the check. Disclose who paid for it for good measure, so the readers can make the call for themselves.

5. Informed comments keep travel writers honest
Gadling has hundreds of thousands of fact-checkers: you. And, we make it easy for your voices to be heard. If you have a particular knowledge about a destination and disagree with the writer’s take, you can let him or her – and the other readers – know how you feel. Our articles are really the openings of conversations. Some openings don’t lead to much talking, while others do; the choice belongs to each reader. But, the mechanism is in place to keep the system smooth.

6. Desk reporting should be disclosed
It’s always interested me that desk reporting doesn’t have to be disclosed. If I go to a resort and write about it, I need to tell you if the resort picked up the tab. Meanwhile, a reporter at another publication who writes about the same place and has never been there doesn’t need to disclose a damned thing. If you follow the advice of the latter, you’re making a decision based on someone who’s only seen the walls of a cubicle. The information that that reporter used probably came from a press release or an interview with an executive from the resort being covered. If a sponsored press trip compromises reliability, desk interviews should raise big, frenetically waved red flags. It might make sense to see a bit more of the following: “This story was written from a press release and a short phone conversation with the resort’s managing director. I’ve never been there and have no plans to go. So, act on this story at your own risk.”

7. PR agencies and destinations know the deal
Any publicist who thinks it’s possible to buy a good story is a moron. If they weren’t worried, they would actually enjoy press trips. Instead, the PR folks organizing these things are always stressed out, making sure that a herd of reporters gets to the right place at the right time, ensuring that rooms are in order and so on. When something does go wrong, damage control is immediate. If the story were already paid for, they wouldn’t care.

8. The “best foot forward” problem
Unless travel writers were to go undercover, there’s always the opportunity for a hotel or attraction to go the extra mile for a writer. We know it happens, and we (at least I) assume our readers realize this, too. We try to cut through this to see how things really operate, but a well-run hotel, for example, won’t be able to do too much extra for visiting media. If it specializes in high-touch treatment, for example, they can’t really go extra high-touch for us. The things that bother me most – waiting in line behind an idiot intent on giving his life’s story at the front desk – don’t go away when you’re on a press trip. When restaurants close, they close – even for us. Hotels don’t have special, fluffier bathrobes for travel writers, and a few extra mints on the pillow won’t change the tone of a story.

9. Press trips are work
It’s pretty easy to perceive press trips as free, extended parties. There’s plenty of liquor flowing, the food is great and the accommodations are spectacular. Well, this is generally true (depending on the trip), but there’s a lot of work wrapped around this. In my experience, travel writers don’t get much sleep – after the day’s festivities are done, we actually get down to the business of cleaning up our notes, filing stories (from the road or on unrelated topics) and catching up on e-mail. We format photos, mess with video and try to keep track of the information being fed to us through a fire hose. Sleep is the first luxury to be sacrificed. It’s the nature of the beast. Press trips can be fun, but there’s also a considerable amount of effort involved.

10. The writer asks questions, hides and breaks the rules
Even though this is at least implicitly discouraged on some trips, the better travel writers will push the envelope. If I see something that interests me, I’ll excuse myself. If I’m told that’s not an option, I’ll raise hell until it becomes an option. I ask questions, and I know I’m not alone. At one restaurant, on a press trip, I wanted to interview the chef. The publicist wasn’t moving quickly enough for me, so I barged into the kitchen, interrupted the chef and got my interview. And, I know I’m not alone. When something doesn’t interest me, I skip it. Sometimes, I “accidentally” get lost. The better press trips, though, realize that travel writers can be like this, and they involve the loosest of agendas so we can wander around and cover what we want.

As you can see, I’m a pretty ardent supporter of free press trips, but I can see both sides of the issue. If you’re inclined to leave a comment, I’d appreciate your thoughts on this. It is a serious issue for the travel writing community, as it is for our readers. How do you feel about it?

[Photos via Migrant Blogger]

International visitor spending down 20%, misses $10bn mark

by Tom Johansmeyer on

Visitors to the United States from other countries spent a mere $9.6 billion in July, down almost 24% year-over-year, according to data from the Department of Transportation. Currency exchange rates continue to make a recession even more … ummm … recessed(?) for the travel business. So, we’re looking at nine consecutive months in which tourists from overseas just aren’t plunking down the cash they did last year.

The price paid to travel – called “passenger fare receipts” – plunged 26% from July 2008 to July 2009, with only $2.1 billion spent to get from Point A to Point B and back. This is the lowest level reached for passenger fare receipts in two years. Travel receipts – i.e. the purchase of travel-related goods and services – amounted to $7.5 billion for the month. This is the cash spent on food, lodging, entertainment gifts, and it’s down 23% year-over-year.

The fact that July was the ninth month in which international tourist spending fell masks an even greater problem: this trend has been gaining momentum. In November 2008, foreign visitor spending was off 4% from November 2007. By January 2009, the year-over-year change fell to -6% and -10% in February. May, June and July all posted travel export declines of worse than 20%.

For the year so far, travel exports (same thing as spending by foreign visitors) has reached $69.2 billion – a decline of 17% relative to the same period last year. What’s this mean? People visiting the United States have spent $13.9 billion less than they did last year.

But, in the spirit of fairness, we’re spending less when we leave the United States. American travel imports are down almost 13%. We’ve spent $8.3 billion less than we did last year. But, we still shelled out a total of $57.5 billion in “support” for the local economies we’ve visited in 2009. The United States is still sitting on an $11.7 billion trade surplus in the travel space – but the balance is $5.7 billion less favorable than it was last year.