In The Mix: The new all-inclusive concept

Word coming from the tour operators gathered at the ITB travel fair in Berlin is that there is a noticeable recovery in terms of bookings to the Balearics. Another word is that Turkey, as has been previously noted here, has limited capacity and will also see prices rising this year. All of which seems like good news, to which can be added word locally from some hotels, to the effect that bookings are indeed buoyant. This summer may witness healthy occupancy numbers and plenty of tourists passing through the airport, but the key issue is whether these tourists will be spending.

There is a further word emanating from Berlin. And that word (or words if you prefer) is all-inclusive. The level of all-inclusive bookings is set, according to one source, to rise to around 50 per cent, something that is likely to send tremors of fear coursing through the nervous systems of bar and restaurant owners. It's that spending thing. However, there are yet more words. "Nuevo concepto." New concept. The nuevo concepto is a concept that is referred to often. Even I use it when referring to things I do. Nuevo concepto is part of the everyday Spanish lexicon of business. There is now a move towards creating a new concept of all-inclusive. The idea isn't really new as it has been one that I, and others, have wondered about for several years. What this new concept would mean would be the inclusion of bars and restaurants within the all-inclusive system. While I may have wondered about such inclusion, I have never explored it as a serious option. In theory it sounds good, but in practice?

The tour operators do at least seem to get the idea that tourists, despite their opting for all-inclusive, do not necessarily want to stay within the confines of their hotel. That they do is the result of the fact that they have already paid. It is this that has created the all-inclusive ghettoes and a ghettoised, bunker mentality among tourists who have little incentive to leave the hotel. It's perfectly understandable. But these same tourists do not want their resorts stripped of the atmosphere generated by bars and the rest, which is the long-term, logical conclusion of all-inclusive that forces exclusion of these businesses and ultimately closure.

The new concept would, therefore, be a mixed offer. One such basis would be that the hotels continue to provide half board whilst embracing the guest in a system of all-inclusive which would enable the guest to enjoy the convenience of all-inclusive outside the hotel, thus bringing a benefit to the guest and to bars and restaurants. It all sounds very sensible. But.

Why are the tour operators coming up with this now? And indeed why is it that it seems to have fallen to the tour operators to raise it? Are the tour operators demonstrating hitherto unseen altruism towards bars and restaurants affected by all-inclusive? Possibly. There may be another reason. Depending on the hotel, the standard of what is on offer via all-inclusive can vary. Some of it is poor. Service can be slow, the food is not necessarily great, the drinks are local and not international brands. None of this is really the hotels' fault. In the Bellevue interview last summer, I got an insight into this. The hotel would like to do more, but physically it is difficult. Physically and financially.

Opening up the all-inclusive offer to outside concerns may address the standard issue, but it raises all manner of questions. Could these bars and restaurants actually cope? Might their standards suffer? How would they be recompensed, when and by whom? Would all bars and restaurants be involved or might it be only a select few? This latter question could be a minefield. Let's say restaurants "tender" for a contract with a hotel. What might this tender actually involve? "Incentives" maybe? Might it be the bigger, long-established restaurants that get the business, or those which already have aggressive marketing procedures linked to individual hotels? If only certain establishments were to benefit, the minefield would explode with the fury of those excluded.

Why would the hotels do any of this? Only if the tour operators tell them to. They, the tour operators, do not want low standards. But, and again it depends on the hotel, the whole point of some all-inclusive is that it is cheap. Restaurants would need to be paid. The consequence might well be an increase in price, though not in all instances. The hotel might be able to reduce some overheads directed at what is currently less-than-brilliant service or quality. It would also not be forced into making the sort of investment required to convert to full-on, higher-grade all-inclusive.

Ultimately, such a mixed all-inclusive offer would demand a collective responsibility on behalf of different parties, especially the hotels. I would take some convincing. In that interview with Bellevue, the notion of responsibility to local businesses, grown fat on the back of the hotel in the good old days before all-inclusive, was dismissed. Only if the hotel (and I'm talking of any hotel, not just singling out Bellevue) can see a business case in terms of lower costs but similar or increased profit levels, despite the transfer of some income to outside bars and restaurants, would the mixed offer work. Even then, there would be questions. If the hotels retained half board, which traditionally many have offered anyway (so this should not be contentious), what about things like all those free "Cokes" for the kids. One of the strongest arguments in favour of all-inclusive is the convenience factor. Would guests then be forced to leave the hotel grounds in order to water the children?

The mixed all-inclusive is an idea well worthy of exploring, and it would need a great deal of exploring. But it could, say could, be a remedy. And could, say could, be the salvation for not just bars and restaurants but also whole resorts. This has a long way to run though.


Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.