In Calvia they have been rearranging the deckchairs while taking care not to slip on the red herrings trawled on to the deck. Tourism minister Jaime Martínez met with representatives of the tourist business associations and promised control of all-inclusives. A promise to control all-inclusives? Shouldn't such a promise be being greeted with fanfares in the media and spontaneous flash mob dancing in the streets?
Martínez was pow-wowing with the CPTB, the Balearics confederation of tourist business associations, an organisation belatedly formed in the hope that the good ship Complementary Offer, years ago holed below the surface by the icebergs of all-inclusive, can now be hauled into dry dock, patched up and sent off again to navigate its way through party boats and the pool parties and lakes of cheap alcohol in the grounds of the Clubs Allinclusivana. It was a ship that never sank but ran aground, idling on the rocks of the tourism sector, languishing in the shallows of its complacency and incapable of unifying its many disparate components - all the different tourist business associations - as a powerful tug to drag it back onto the high seas of battle with the hoteliers. As much as blame can be assigned to lack of regulation, to tour operator designs, to hotelier compliance and to tourist demand, so the complementary offer has to accept blame for all-inclusives as well. Years ago, its numerous associations with their own agendas and their own justifications for existence failed spectacularly in establishing a lobby to confront the highly professional one of the hoteliers and an organisation with one or two interlocutors to communicate with the regional government.
Even now, this confederation appears to be less than the sum of its parts. Who actually does its talking? The contrast with the hoteliers is great. Vázquez and de Benito; they are the hoteliers' federation. The tourism ministry and any other stakeholder in the tourism industry knows who they are dealing with. The complementary offer?
And so to the meeting in Calvia and to the presence of the usual complementary offer suspects angling to have their photos taken so as to show that they are doing something, which generally amounts to no more than a chinwag. But, they can point to success. The minister's promise. Ah yes, the promise of control. Which is precisely?
Martínez says that there will be a register of hotels with an all-inclusive offer. This, one presumes, is what he was talking about a couple of months ago when he referred to an "analysis of the incidence" of all-inclusive. I've got news for him. Go on the internet, and you can register those hotels with ease. You might not get all the on-arrival upgrades, you might not get exact numbers of all-inclusive places that are optional, but you can get a pretty decent idea of the incidence. This said, it shouldn't be necessary. A tourism minister should already know and have long known what the incidence is. The need for a register confirms the ministry's ineptitude. It should damn well have this information anyway.
But having got the register, then what? How does it amount to "rigorous" control as it has been styled? It sounds like an exercise in information gathering without specified objectives. Hence, the deckchair rearrangement, a move that suits both ministry and confederation. Both can appear to be being proactive when the truth is that they have taken two decades to react.
One of these rigorous controls will, where Calvia is concerned, stop all-inclusive guests from taking food and drink off hotel premises. And how is this news? When the 2012 tourism law was enacted, this prohibition was something highlighted by the tourism ministry as one of its measures to tackle all-inclusives. Why are they now talking about Calvia? It's in the law; it is meant to be applied across the Balearics. So why isn't it?
The 2012 law also contains provisions that require all hotels to submit quality plans. Again, the ministry suggested that these plans would act as a means of elevating standards and service and so be a further measure to tackle all-inclusives. But the law did not stipulate what was expected of these plans or indeed what the outcomes would be once they were submitted, whenever this might be.
There is colossal legislative procrastination in the Balearics, and the tourism law is a prime example. The tourism decree that was issued last December fleshed out aspects of a law that had been approved two and a half years previously, but it failed to say anything about all-inclusives or to add to the demand for quality plans or the provision for out-of-hotel food-and-drink prohibition. So, in the absence of clear objectives, clear requirements for plans, clear implementation of law, we are left with the deckchairs.
Showing posts with label Complementary offer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Complementary offer. Show all posts
Thursday, February 26, 2015
Friday, September 12, 2014
Holiday Lets Confusion And Challenges
When Balearics' tourism minister Jaime Martínez said that there was consensus regarding holiday let legislation envisaged in the new tourism decree, we knew that he was talking nonsense. Confirmation of this has come from the non-hotel complementary offer of tourist attractions, restaurants, clubs and retailers which met at the Chamber of Commerce on Tuesday and which today will present its challenges to the decree. These will include a demand that owners of private apartments be allowed to commercialise these apartments as tourist accommodation and advertise them as such through promotional channels such as websites.
The complementary offer also wants movement in two other areas - all-inclusive and hotels' secondary activities. On the first it is calling for minimum quality standards and a minimum period during which all-inclusive can be offered. This latter provision would tackle what does happen in some hotels whereby daily all-inclusive can be obtained. As far as minimum standards are concerned, Martínez has alluded to their introduction without as yet specifying what they might be. On secondary activities, such as having a club or restaurant that is open to the general public, the complementary offer wants a ban placed on keeping these activities going when hotels are otherwise closed, and so is insisting that there be a specific licence which allows them to keep going.
There has been a good deal of other news about the holiday-let situation over the past few days. A detailed study of the situation across Spain by Barcelona-based lawyers Iuristax suggested that the differences in regulation in the various regions of the country could be harmful to the Spanish economy. Their reasoning is quite simple: the different regulations lead to a lack of clarity and to a rise in confusion. Without a harmonised approach there are bound to be discrepancies in control and quality, and these could do a great deal of harm, leading to tourists choosing to opt for alternative destinations having had less than satisfactory experiences.
This lack of harmony was going to be evident from the moment that the national government handed responsibility for regulation to regional governments. It was a strange thing to have done, given, as I have pointed out previously, that residential tourism was identified as a strength of Spanish tourism in the national tourism plan drawn up by the current Spanish Government. The consequence of this is the chaos of different regulatory systems.
From the national confederation for hotels and tourist accommodation (CEHAT) has come a finding that demand for holiday lets is greater among Spanish tourists than foreign visitors. While hoteliers might view this finding with concern, it should also be taken as an indication that the domestic tourist market, which has been in the doldrums for a few years, is genuinely recovering. It was up by around 10% in August.
And coming back to the chaos of different systems, in the Community of Madrid, the association of tourist apartment businesses is taking the regional government to court over its regulations. Moreover, the national competition commission has now got involved. It is studying the text of the Madrid regulations and is seeking detailed explanations from the government. This in itself could be an interesting move. The competition commission has, thus far, stayed out of the holiday-lets arguments. If it becomes more closely involved, it might just make certain regions act rather differently.
The complementary offer also wants movement in two other areas - all-inclusive and hotels' secondary activities. On the first it is calling for minimum quality standards and a minimum period during which all-inclusive can be offered. This latter provision would tackle what does happen in some hotels whereby daily all-inclusive can be obtained. As far as minimum standards are concerned, Martínez has alluded to their introduction without as yet specifying what they might be. On secondary activities, such as having a club or restaurant that is open to the general public, the complementary offer wants a ban placed on keeping these activities going when hotels are otherwise closed, and so is insisting that there be a specific licence which allows them to keep going.
There has been a good deal of other news about the holiday-let situation over the past few days. A detailed study of the situation across Spain by Barcelona-based lawyers Iuristax suggested that the differences in regulation in the various regions of the country could be harmful to the Spanish economy. Their reasoning is quite simple: the different regulations lead to a lack of clarity and to a rise in confusion. Without a harmonised approach there are bound to be discrepancies in control and quality, and these could do a great deal of harm, leading to tourists choosing to opt for alternative destinations having had less than satisfactory experiences.
This lack of harmony was going to be evident from the moment that the national government handed responsibility for regulation to regional governments. It was a strange thing to have done, given, as I have pointed out previously, that residential tourism was identified as a strength of Spanish tourism in the national tourism plan drawn up by the current Spanish Government. The consequence of this is the chaos of different regulatory systems.
From the national confederation for hotels and tourist accommodation (CEHAT) has come a finding that demand for holiday lets is greater among Spanish tourists than foreign visitors. While hoteliers might view this finding with concern, it should also be taken as an indication that the domestic tourist market, which has been in the doldrums for a few years, is genuinely recovering. It was up by around 10% in August.
And coming back to the chaos of different systems, in the Community of Madrid, the association of tourist apartment businesses is taking the regional government to court over its regulations. Moreover, the national competition commission has now got involved. It is studying the text of the Madrid regulations and is seeking detailed explanations from the government. This in itself could be an interesting move. The competition commission has, thus far, stayed out of the holiday-lets arguments. If it becomes more closely involved, it might just make certain regions act rather differently.
Friday, August 01, 2014
The Decline In Tourist Satisfaction
Tourism, it is an obvious thing to say, is nothing without tourists. Ah yes, tourists; all too often, it seems, the last people that certain elements of the tourism industry pay any attention to. Gadeso, the Mallorcan research organisation, has to be praised for being something of a rarity. It actually surveys tourists. Hears what tourists have to say. There should be very much more of this questioning and listening. Gadeso's is one survey. Its results can be disputed, but they are nonetheless worthy of attention. They don't make for very good reading.
The Gadeso survey of tourist satisfaction is limited, this much has to be said. The number interviewed is only 400, but the organisation is confident that the number is representative and that the margin of error from its results is no more and no less than 5%. The headlining part of the latest is that satisfaction continues its downward creep. Year after year, overall contentment with Mallorca slips. Not greatly by any means, but it slips all the same.
If you go through the survey, there are winners and losers as far as tourists are concerned. The biggest losers are the hotels and the complementary offer, i.e. the non-hotel sector. The biggest winners are agrotourism, rural hotels and residential private accommodation. The hoteliers will hate the fact that the latter of these has a higher satisfaction rating. They should also hate the fact that were it not for these three sectors of the industry, satisfaction with Mallorca would be very much lower. Agrotourism and rural hotels beat regular tourist hotels by almost two points out of ten.
The complementary offer, split into five components for the purpose of the survey, fares just as badly as the hotels. The greatest satisfaction is reserved for services on beaches and for recreational activities, though both of these show a downward trend. It is gastronomy, used here in a general way to refer to bars and restaurants, that shows one of the largest falls in satisfaction. Put alongside an overall rating of only three out of ten for the price-to-quality ratio for the complementary sector, you begin to get an appreciation of why satisfaction with bars and restaurants is in decline. It's all about price.
Indeed, it is price which is probably the most significant finding. The hotels, despite dissatisfaction in other ways, rate pretty well when it comes to the price-quality ratio, but Gadeso concludes that this is largely because of all-inclusive. Price is the prime motivation for coming to Mallorca. It rates almost 16 percentage points above sun and beach in second place. Yet, this seems curious when there appears to be dissatisfaction with prices in bars and restaurants. It isn't curious when you throw all-inclusives into the mix, and of those in the survey who had booked all-inclusive in Mallorca, almost 60% had done so for the first time this summer. Price, price, price.
This doesn't necessarily mean that these tourists will be returning. All-inclusive package holidaymakers say that it would depend both on the resort and the characteristics of the hotel, and what is meant by these characteristics is that some hotels simply don't seem to have made adequate preparation for offering all-inclusive. There is also the question as to where they are located. The intention among tourists to be repeat visitors to Mallorca has fallen by four percentage points over the past two years. The intention to be repeat visitors to the same tourism zone is as low as 16.4%. Why? The nature of many resorts, i.e. their maturity and/or obsolescence. It might seem perverse that all-inclusive holidaymakers should care that much about the state of the resorts, given the assumption that many don't go out of the hotel grounds, but they do.
There are other findings which should make the island's tourism industry take note. Levels of cleanliness are considered to be deficient. Levels of acoustic contamination - noise, in other words - are too great. And, cutting to the bone of the notion that Mallorca is a destination for cultural tourism, cultural facilities are found to also be deficient. As Gadeso says at the start of its report that there is "the necessity to improve our product". It's hard to argue with the statement.
The Gadeso survey of tourist satisfaction is limited, this much has to be said. The number interviewed is only 400, but the organisation is confident that the number is representative and that the margin of error from its results is no more and no less than 5%. The headlining part of the latest is that satisfaction continues its downward creep. Year after year, overall contentment with Mallorca slips. Not greatly by any means, but it slips all the same.
If you go through the survey, there are winners and losers as far as tourists are concerned. The biggest losers are the hotels and the complementary offer, i.e. the non-hotel sector. The biggest winners are agrotourism, rural hotels and residential private accommodation. The hoteliers will hate the fact that the latter of these has a higher satisfaction rating. They should also hate the fact that were it not for these three sectors of the industry, satisfaction with Mallorca would be very much lower. Agrotourism and rural hotels beat regular tourist hotels by almost two points out of ten.
The complementary offer, split into five components for the purpose of the survey, fares just as badly as the hotels. The greatest satisfaction is reserved for services on beaches and for recreational activities, though both of these show a downward trend. It is gastronomy, used here in a general way to refer to bars and restaurants, that shows one of the largest falls in satisfaction. Put alongside an overall rating of only three out of ten for the price-to-quality ratio for the complementary sector, you begin to get an appreciation of why satisfaction with bars and restaurants is in decline. It's all about price.
Indeed, it is price which is probably the most significant finding. The hotels, despite dissatisfaction in other ways, rate pretty well when it comes to the price-quality ratio, but Gadeso concludes that this is largely because of all-inclusive. Price is the prime motivation for coming to Mallorca. It rates almost 16 percentage points above sun and beach in second place. Yet, this seems curious when there appears to be dissatisfaction with prices in bars and restaurants. It isn't curious when you throw all-inclusives into the mix, and of those in the survey who had booked all-inclusive in Mallorca, almost 60% had done so for the first time this summer. Price, price, price.
This doesn't necessarily mean that these tourists will be returning. All-inclusive package holidaymakers say that it would depend both on the resort and the characteristics of the hotel, and what is meant by these characteristics is that some hotels simply don't seem to have made adequate preparation for offering all-inclusive. There is also the question as to where they are located. The intention among tourists to be repeat visitors to Mallorca has fallen by four percentage points over the past two years. The intention to be repeat visitors to the same tourism zone is as low as 16.4%. Why? The nature of many resorts, i.e. their maturity and/or obsolescence. It might seem perverse that all-inclusive holidaymakers should care that much about the state of the resorts, given the assumption that many don't go out of the hotel grounds, but they do.
There are other findings which should make the island's tourism industry take note. Levels of cleanliness are considered to be deficient. Levels of acoustic contamination - noise, in other words - are too great. And, cutting to the bone of the notion that Mallorca is a destination for cultural tourism, cultural facilities are found to also be deficient. As Gadeso says at the start of its report that there is "the necessity to improve our product". It's hard to argue with the statement.
Wednesday, May 07, 2014
A Complement Of Complementary Offer
Some months after it was first spoken of, Mallorca's complementary offer of restaurants, attractions, clubs and other non-hotel businesses is to finally have one unified organisation. The "Confederación de Patronales Turísticas de Balears" will come into being on Friday. Its first president will be Antonio González, director of the Palma Aquarium and president of the association of tourist attractions (AMAT).
The significance of this new organisation shouldn't be underestimated. If the various sectors of the complementary offer combine, and do so in a co-ordinated and co-operative fashion, they will represent a major power block to rival that of the hotel lobby. Their coming-together will eliminate the fragmentation that currently exists among the complementary offer and create an altogether stronger mix than the diluted one that is at present shared out among other groupings.
There are bodies which represent the complementary offer, but the trouble is that there are simply so many of them. These other bodies, such as the restaurant division of CAEB, the Balearics business confederation, or the tourist businesses association Acotur, aren't about to be done away with, but the new confederation should be more powerful. It will, hopefully, not get mired in the sort of in-fighting which has afflicted CAEB recently. Indeed, its founding is partly in response to arguments that CAEB was too close to the hotel sector. It will also hopefully have more clout than Acotur, an association which appears to be little more than a Pepe Tirado one-man band that creates much publicity but not a lot else.
González is probably the right person to head this confederation. Since becoming president of AMAT over two years ago, he has made that association very much visible than it previously was, and he has had much to say that has resonated with most of the complementary offer. He has been particularly critical of all-inclusive hotels, for example.
On being named president in March 2012, González said that "at present the Mallorcan complementary offer does not have the importance or carry the weight that it should do". He saw the need not just for a more muscular tourist attractions association but also a powerful complementary offer association. He deserves credit for having pushed for the new confederation.
González says that it is not the intention for the confederation to be a "counter-power" to the hotels but for it to facilitate communication with the regional government. However, a counter-power is almost certainly what it will be, given that the complementary offer has so many issues which run counter to hotel activities and to government policy.
Moreover, he took over as president of AMAT at a time when the complementary offer was shafted by the hotels over the 2012 tourism law. There had been a form of accord between the two sides, one that was meant to have represented a unified front in discussions with the tourism ministry. The complementary offer was perhaps a bit naïve. It thought it was getting somewhere with the hotels in there having been tentative agreement for higher quality standards for all-inclusives (something which could have stopped some hotels offering AI). But when it came to a key part of the tourism law - the provision of so-called secondary activities inside hotels - the hoteliers bit the government's hand off and stuck two fingers up at the complementary offer. And little or nothing came to pass where AI was concerned, apart from the wholly ludicrous, unenforceable and largely irrelevant legislation which is supposed to prevent guests taking food and drink off hotel premises.
The secondary activities, by which one means the likes of restaurants, shows, concerts, etc. open to the general public, are now taking on greater significance. They also blur the lines between the hotels and the complementary offer and so potentially make the new confederation's task that bit more complicated. As an example, Cursach, which as a club owner is part of the complementary offer and a member of AMAT, is moving into hotel operations in Magalluf. It is doing so, thanks to the provision under the tourism law. Other businesses might also sense opportunities to become more intimately associated with hotels (Katmandu in Magalluf is another example).
But other businesses will not have opportunities - the Aquarium couldn't just be relocated to the grounds of a hotel, for instance. González's task will not be straightforward, but secondary activities are an issue which is potentially as important and divisive as all-inclusives or indeed holiday lets. The complementary offer has expressed its concerns over government policy on rentals. The new confederation, with its greater power, might just manage to get more of an ear of government on these.
The confederation's founding is long, long overdue, begging a question as to why it has taken so long. But, better late than never. Hopefully.
The significance of this new organisation shouldn't be underestimated. If the various sectors of the complementary offer combine, and do so in a co-ordinated and co-operative fashion, they will represent a major power block to rival that of the hotel lobby. Their coming-together will eliminate the fragmentation that currently exists among the complementary offer and create an altogether stronger mix than the diluted one that is at present shared out among other groupings.
There are bodies which represent the complementary offer, but the trouble is that there are simply so many of them. These other bodies, such as the restaurant division of CAEB, the Balearics business confederation, or the tourist businesses association Acotur, aren't about to be done away with, but the new confederation should be more powerful. It will, hopefully, not get mired in the sort of in-fighting which has afflicted CAEB recently. Indeed, its founding is partly in response to arguments that CAEB was too close to the hotel sector. It will also hopefully have more clout than Acotur, an association which appears to be little more than a Pepe Tirado one-man band that creates much publicity but not a lot else.
González is probably the right person to head this confederation. Since becoming president of AMAT over two years ago, he has made that association very much visible than it previously was, and he has had much to say that has resonated with most of the complementary offer. He has been particularly critical of all-inclusive hotels, for example.
On being named president in March 2012, González said that "at present the Mallorcan complementary offer does not have the importance or carry the weight that it should do". He saw the need not just for a more muscular tourist attractions association but also a powerful complementary offer association. He deserves credit for having pushed for the new confederation.
González says that it is not the intention for the confederation to be a "counter-power" to the hotels but for it to facilitate communication with the regional government. However, a counter-power is almost certainly what it will be, given that the complementary offer has so many issues which run counter to hotel activities and to government policy.
Moreover, he took over as president of AMAT at a time when the complementary offer was shafted by the hotels over the 2012 tourism law. There had been a form of accord between the two sides, one that was meant to have represented a unified front in discussions with the tourism ministry. The complementary offer was perhaps a bit naïve. It thought it was getting somewhere with the hotels in there having been tentative agreement for higher quality standards for all-inclusives (something which could have stopped some hotels offering AI). But when it came to a key part of the tourism law - the provision of so-called secondary activities inside hotels - the hoteliers bit the government's hand off and stuck two fingers up at the complementary offer. And little or nothing came to pass where AI was concerned, apart from the wholly ludicrous, unenforceable and largely irrelevant legislation which is supposed to prevent guests taking food and drink off hotel premises.
The secondary activities, by which one means the likes of restaurants, shows, concerts, etc. open to the general public, are now taking on greater significance. They also blur the lines between the hotels and the complementary offer and so potentially make the new confederation's task that bit more complicated. As an example, Cursach, which as a club owner is part of the complementary offer and a member of AMAT, is moving into hotel operations in Magalluf. It is doing so, thanks to the provision under the tourism law. Other businesses might also sense opportunities to become more intimately associated with hotels (Katmandu in Magalluf is another example).
But other businesses will not have opportunities - the Aquarium couldn't just be relocated to the grounds of a hotel, for instance. González's task will not be straightforward, but secondary activities are an issue which is potentially as important and divisive as all-inclusives or indeed holiday lets. The complementary offer has expressed its concerns over government policy on rentals. The new confederation, with its greater power, might just manage to get more of an ear of government on these.
The confederation's founding is long, long overdue, begging a question as to why it has taken so long. But, better late than never. Hopefully.
Wednesday, August 07, 2013
Fourteen Years Of Silence: Holiday rentals
In February 2011 a news story that did the rounds dealt with a visit paid by inspectors from the Balearics tourism ministry to an apartment in Santa Ponsa. It was occupied by Russian tourists who had booked the apartment via a British website and had paid 4,500 euros for a fully equipped flat with various services including the use of a private pool. The inspectors went to a different apartment, one that had been advertised on the internet as a "luxurious" property, and there a British couple was renting it for 820 euros. Then they went to another apartment, this time in Illetes, where a family of five was paying 6,000 euros for two weeks rental. The inspectors didn't bother going to a house in Santa Ponsa about which German tourists had posted a review on the internet. The tourists' experience of the house couldn't have been better. They spoke about it as though it were a hotel and gave it a glowing recommendation.
The first of these inspections was the one that really drew the attention. The owners were liable to a fine of 30,000 euros. The apartment, as with the other properties, was being offered for rent illegally.
It is important to look at the date. February 2011. Almost a year and a half before the new tourism law in the Balearics was passed. It is also important to bear in mind what was explained at the time. The infractions that the inspectors had discovered, all of them in fact during 2010, contravened Article 72.3 of the general tourism law. The previous law. This stated that "the publicising, contracting or commercialisation of establishments, activities or businesses which do not have the required tourist authorisations" will be considered serious infringements of the law.
The 2012 tourism law merely reinforced what already existed in Balearics legislation. There are plenty of people who will know that this was the case, but to gauge the reactions in the wake of the reform of the national tenancy act, you might think that penalising owners of private accommodation was somehow new. It most certainly is not.
This reform strengthens the hand of the regional government but it doesn't fundamentally alter a situation that has obtained for years. But only now, or so it seems, are strong voices of opposition to the government's stance being raised by bodies other than owners themselves.
Much as I applaud the Chamber of Commerce having weighed in to the debate, I have a question: where has it been all these years? And the same question applies to the restaurant sections of the business association CAEB and of the small to medium-sized businesses organisation PIMEM. It also applies to the Balearics wing of the PSOE socialist party. Where have any of them been and why have they not raised stronger objections in the past?
And the past is worth taking into account. When was Article 72.3 set in legislative stone? The answer is 1999. The law was passed a couple of months before the elections that year; elections that saw PSOE form its first ever government in the Balearics. So, let's ask another question. Why did PSOE, if it is now against the stance on private accommodation, not seek a reform of this part of the tourism law during either its 1999-2003 or 2007-2011 administrations? Take note: the actions of the tourism inspectors were in 2010, when PSOE was in power.
There's a further question. 26 September 2006 was a not unimportant date in the history of Mallorca's rental accommodation. It was the deadline by which properties had to be registered as either tourist or residential lets. There was a category of accommodation which couldn't be registered as tourist lets. Private apartments. Why did PSOE not raise an almighty fuss about this at the time?
Political opportunism probably explains why PSOE has now jumped on the bandwagon in opposing the government's position, but this doesn't explain why business associations have seemingly been so mute in the past.
Better late than never, but business, other than the highly organised hotels, has failed until relatively recently to show its muscle in anything like a co-ordinated and assertive fashion. Where holiday rentals are concerned, the penny has finally dropped and made a loud clanging noise of the damage that can be caused to businesses that form the non-hotel complementary offer. Previous silence can probably be attributed to indifference, complacency or lack of organisation. The noise now can be attributed to an awful realisation that members' interests could be harmed. It's a welcome noise, but why has it taken so long for it to be made?
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
The first of these inspections was the one that really drew the attention. The owners were liable to a fine of 30,000 euros. The apartment, as with the other properties, was being offered for rent illegally.
It is important to look at the date. February 2011. Almost a year and a half before the new tourism law in the Balearics was passed. It is also important to bear in mind what was explained at the time. The infractions that the inspectors had discovered, all of them in fact during 2010, contravened Article 72.3 of the general tourism law. The previous law. This stated that "the publicising, contracting or commercialisation of establishments, activities or businesses which do not have the required tourist authorisations" will be considered serious infringements of the law.
The 2012 tourism law merely reinforced what already existed in Balearics legislation. There are plenty of people who will know that this was the case, but to gauge the reactions in the wake of the reform of the national tenancy act, you might think that penalising owners of private accommodation was somehow new. It most certainly is not.
This reform strengthens the hand of the regional government but it doesn't fundamentally alter a situation that has obtained for years. But only now, or so it seems, are strong voices of opposition to the government's stance being raised by bodies other than owners themselves.
Much as I applaud the Chamber of Commerce having weighed in to the debate, I have a question: where has it been all these years? And the same question applies to the restaurant sections of the business association CAEB and of the small to medium-sized businesses organisation PIMEM. It also applies to the Balearics wing of the PSOE socialist party. Where have any of them been and why have they not raised stronger objections in the past?
And the past is worth taking into account. When was Article 72.3 set in legislative stone? The answer is 1999. The law was passed a couple of months before the elections that year; elections that saw PSOE form its first ever government in the Balearics. So, let's ask another question. Why did PSOE, if it is now against the stance on private accommodation, not seek a reform of this part of the tourism law during either its 1999-2003 or 2007-2011 administrations? Take note: the actions of the tourism inspectors were in 2010, when PSOE was in power.
There's a further question. 26 September 2006 was a not unimportant date in the history of Mallorca's rental accommodation. It was the deadline by which properties had to be registered as either tourist or residential lets. There was a category of accommodation which couldn't be registered as tourist lets. Private apartments. Why did PSOE not raise an almighty fuss about this at the time?
Political opportunism probably explains why PSOE has now jumped on the bandwagon in opposing the government's position, but this doesn't explain why business associations have seemingly been so mute in the past.
Better late than never, but business, other than the highly organised hotels, has failed until relatively recently to show its muscle in anything like a co-ordinated and assertive fashion. Where holiday rentals are concerned, the penny has finally dropped and made a loud clanging noise of the damage that can be caused to businesses that form the non-hotel complementary offer. Previous silence can probably be attributed to indifference, complacency or lack of organisation. The noise now can be attributed to an awful realisation that members' interests could be harmed. It's a welcome noise, but why has it taken so long for it to be made?
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Welcome To The Hotel Mallorca
Two months ago I wrote a piece entitled "Burying The Hatchet". I concluded by suggesting that the hatchet could, despite having been buried, just as easily be dug up again. And so it has been.
In truth, the hatchet wasn't ever buried, not where Carlos Delgado was concerned at any rate. The peace that had broken out between hoteliers in the Balearics and the complementary offer was intended to demonstrate that these two warring factions could create a unified front in the tourism sector. Perhaps the complementary offer - the bars, restaurants, clubs and what have you - were hoping that by appearing to be on the same side as the all-dominating hotel sector, the real enemy where it was concerned, tourism minister Delgado, might look more favourably upon it.
The hatchet had been brandished because of that part of the new tourism law which plans to grant hotels the opportunity of providing secondary activities in their grounds. By secondary activities, one means pretty much anything that is currently offered outside these grounds, which would, and this has really caused the complementary offer to engage in its war dance, be open to the general public. The secondary activities are the domain of the complementary offer; the way things are going, or the way the new tourism bill is going, there won't be an offer that complements hotels for much longer.
While the complementary offer is putting its warpaint on in seeking to encircle the wagons of the tourism ministry, its hoped-for cavalry in the form of the hotel sector has clearly forgotten that it came to some sort of agreement with the bars and restaurants back in February. I didn't think this new-found friendship would last and nor indeed has it.
When it became clear that Sheriff Delgado was intent on crashing through the saloon doors of the nearest bar or restaurant and firing from both hips an inducement to the hotels of making available 30% of their areas to new activities designed to fill further the hotels' safes, it was an offer the hotels couldn't refuse. What were they supposed to do? Say thanks very much, but we would rather our friends from the complementary sector didn't have to concern themselves with such new competition? If the bars, restaurants and so on had believed this, then they had been labouring under a serious misapprehension that suddenly the hotels were being co-operative and altruistic. These are, after all, the same hotels that have spent the past however many years being distinctly unco-operative by going all-inclusive.
The hotels have of course bitten Delgado's hand off. They are attempting to appear to still be on speaking terms with the complementary sector by pointing out that it is only 30% of their areas that might become buffets, discos, rock concerts, sports facilities, and God knows what else. They also say that there will still be restrictions in place that limit their activities by comparison with less regulation elsewhere, such as in competitor tourist destinations. The complementary sector will doubtless be reassured. Or not.
And of course it isn't, which is why it has gone over Delgado's head and demanded to see the Marshall, i.e. President Bauzá, and tell him that his underling is about to break with years of tradition and with a balance of hotel and complementary offer that has existed since mass tourism first settled in the old wild west, east, south and north of Mallorca.
The hotels are being disingenuous. 30% can equate to an awful lot of passing trade attracted by a buffet at an absurdly low price which a hotel might, as an example, wish to offer. And the price could well be low, that much lower than an outside restaurant could offer, because to provide this buffet would require only minimal additional cost. And 30%, depending on how large a hotel is, can mean an awful lot of space and therefore an awful lot of customers who aren't staying at the hotel.
To make things even more ducky where the complementary offer is concerned is the fact that hotels are going to be given the go-ahead for staging beach parties through new beach clubs. Another foul is being called, especially by the outside club sector, and that good old stand-by of the environment is being invoked as a way of trying to prevent these parties. There will be damage to dunes and so on, a concern that had probably never occurred to the clubs previously but which now suits them to express.
This is the new tourism law, therefore. Its passage is still not guaranteed, but it is doubtful to get much more by way of re-drafting. And when it is passed, Mallorca becomes one big hotel. Welcome to the Hotel Mallorca, such a lovely place ... .
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
In truth, the hatchet wasn't ever buried, not where Carlos Delgado was concerned at any rate. The peace that had broken out between hoteliers in the Balearics and the complementary offer was intended to demonstrate that these two warring factions could create a unified front in the tourism sector. Perhaps the complementary offer - the bars, restaurants, clubs and what have you - were hoping that by appearing to be on the same side as the all-dominating hotel sector, the real enemy where it was concerned, tourism minister Delgado, might look more favourably upon it.
The hatchet had been brandished because of that part of the new tourism law which plans to grant hotels the opportunity of providing secondary activities in their grounds. By secondary activities, one means pretty much anything that is currently offered outside these grounds, which would, and this has really caused the complementary offer to engage in its war dance, be open to the general public. The secondary activities are the domain of the complementary offer; the way things are going, or the way the new tourism bill is going, there won't be an offer that complements hotels for much longer.
While the complementary offer is putting its warpaint on in seeking to encircle the wagons of the tourism ministry, its hoped-for cavalry in the form of the hotel sector has clearly forgotten that it came to some sort of agreement with the bars and restaurants back in February. I didn't think this new-found friendship would last and nor indeed has it.
When it became clear that Sheriff Delgado was intent on crashing through the saloon doors of the nearest bar or restaurant and firing from both hips an inducement to the hotels of making available 30% of their areas to new activities designed to fill further the hotels' safes, it was an offer the hotels couldn't refuse. What were they supposed to do? Say thanks very much, but we would rather our friends from the complementary sector didn't have to concern themselves with such new competition? If the bars, restaurants and so on had believed this, then they had been labouring under a serious misapprehension that suddenly the hotels were being co-operative and altruistic. These are, after all, the same hotels that have spent the past however many years being distinctly unco-operative by going all-inclusive.
The hotels have of course bitten Delgado's hand off. They are attempting to appear to still be on speaking terms with the complementary sector by pointing out that it is only 30% of their areas that might become buffets, discos, rock concerts, sports facilities, and God knows what else. They also say that there will still be restrictions in place that limit their activities by comparison with less regulation elsewhere, such as in competitor tourist destinations. The complementary sector will doubtless be reassured. Or not.
And of course it isn't, which is why it has gone over Delgado's head and demanded to see the Marshall, i.e. President Bauzá, and tell him that his underling is about to break with years of tradition and with a balance of hotel and complementary offer that has existed since mass tourism first settled in the old wild west, east, south and north of Mallorca.
The hotels are being disingenuous. 30% can equate to an awful lot of passing trade attracted by a buffet at an absurdly low price which a hotel might, as an example, wish to offer. And the price could well be low, that much lower than an outside restaurant could offer, because to provide this buffet would require only minimal additional cost. And 30%, depending on how large a hotel is, can mean an awful lot of space and therefore an awful lot of customers who aren't staying at the hotel.
To make things even more ducky where the complementary offer is concerned is the fact that hotels are going to be given the go-ahead for staging beach parties through new beach clubs. Another foul is being called, especially by the outside club sector, and that good old stand-by of the environment is being invoked as a way of trying to prevent these parties. There will be damage to dunes and so on, a concern that had probably never occurred to the clubs previously but which now suits them to express.
This is the new tourism law, therefore. Its passage is still not guaranteed, but it is doubtful to get much more by way of re-drafting. And when it is passed, Mallorca becomes one big hotel. Welcome to the Hotel Mallorca, such a lovely place ... .
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
MALLORCA TODAY - Complementary offer slams Balearics' tourism law
The complementary offer (bars, restaurants, nightclubs etc.) has criticised once again the changes to the Balearics' tourism law that will permit so-called secondary activities inside hotel grounds, i.e. those that are typically offered outside hotels. There are concerns with other aspects of the law as well, such as the organisation of beach parties.
The complementary offer and the hotels were meant some time ago to have arrived at some sort of accord in respect of the new law. This doesn't seem to have occurred, which probably comes as no great surprise.
See more: Diario de Mallorca
The complementary offer and the hotels were meant some time ago to have arrived at some sort of accord in respect of the new law. This doesn't seem to have occurred, which probably comes as no great surprise.
See more: Diario de Mallorca
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
MALLORCA TODAY - Tourism law amendments re condos and hotel activities
Ongoing discussions between various parties and the Balearic Government have led to one firm amendment to the proposed new law, i.e. that hotels which opt to become condohotels will be obliged to stay open for six months of the year and not eight months. This is quite a shift in emphasis, as the government was making much of the fact that condos would help to help with combatting off-season problems.
Meanwhile, the complementary offer (bars, restaurants etc.) are carrying on talks with the hotels over the latter being able to offer secondary activities that might conflict with those provided by businesses outside hotels. The complementary offer want this to only be possible for hotels which are open 320 days a year. Previously, it was said that the two sides had arrived at a consensus in moving the new tourism law forward, but it is hard to see how the hotels will agree to this demand.
Otherwise, there is agreement on the prohibition of food and drink being taken off of hotel premises and that if it were to be then hotels would not be held liable. There will be a reliance on information posters to tell guests not to take food and drink out, but this provision in the new law seems very difficult to impose. Who will stop guests doing so? How can they be stopped? If they didn't stop, would they (the guests) be thrown out of the hotel? Would the police be involved? It sounds unworkable and likely to create problems.
Meanwhile, the complementary offer (bars, restaurants etc.) are carrying on talks with the hotels over the latter being able to offer secondary activities that might conflict with those provided by businesses outside hotels. The complementary offer want this to only be possible for hotels which are open 320 days a year. Previously, it was said that the two sides had arrived at a consensus in moving the new tourism law forward, but it is hard to see how the hotels will agree to this demand.
Otherwise, there is agreement on the prohibition of food and drink being taken off of hotel premises and that if it were to be then hotels would not be held liable. There will be a reliance on information posters to tell guests not to take food and drink out, but this provision in the new law seems very difficult to impose. Who will stop guests doing so? How can they be stopped? If they didn't stop, would they (the guests) be thrown out of the hotel? Would the police be involved? It sounds unworkable and likely to create problems.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Burying The Hatchet: Tourism law
Idioms and colloquialisms cross cultures and languages. "To bury the hatchet" originates from America, and it found its way into common usage thanks to the tomahawk of the Iroquois Indians being literally buried as a gesture of the ending of hostilities.
The Spanish also bury the hatchet, though being Spanish, they do it in a different language: "enterrar el hacha". The hacha has been buried by the tourism sector, which had been at war over proposals contained in the regional government's draft tourism law. The war had been waged between the hotels and the so-called complementary offer sector, most notably the restaurants and entertainment/nightclub providers, and the burying of the hatchet is intended to demonstrate a united front in the tourism sector, albeit that the complementary offer is still decidedly hacked off with the tourism minister Carlos Delgado. Hacked off it may be, but hacking him to pieces is no longer an option, if it ever was.
What had agitated the complementary offer in particular was the fact that hotels might, under the new law, have ended up becoming "total" hotels, offering pretty much everything that is available outside their walls or grounds, to the competitive disadvantage of the wider tourism sector, be it restaurant, disco or whatever.
The hatchet buried, the peace pipe is due to be passed around at future pow-wows between the hotels and the complementary offer as they form their alliance against (or is it with?) the Great White Chief, namely Delgado. Against or with is a good question to pose, as the the fact is that the hotels will probably still end up being "total" hotels, if they so wish. There seems to be have some acceptance by the hotels that the "secondary activities" that the law would permit have to be limited so as not to cause unfair competition. But how limited might limited be? For how long will this ending of hostilities last? You wouldn't bank on the ceasefire being broken, and broken quite quickly, by the hotels.
It is not as if the hotels have previously shown that they are that well-disposed to accommodating the complementary sector by limiting what could be described as unfair competition. There have certainly been noises from the hoteliers that are far more conciliatory, but the history of the all-inclusive does not act as a great example for a future, more co-operative approach.
The complementary offer has been keen to press for standards of quality when it comes to all-inclusives. This may sound like the restaurants and the other components of the complementary offer are like turkeys in North American forests voting for Christmases of the Iroquois hoteliers with their axes, but the acceptance of the need for greater standards is about all the complementary offer has in its defences. By pressing for greater quality, it hopes that some hotels will be unable to comply with standards and so have to abandon all-inclusive.
The hotels are said to be broadly in agreement with this, but for it to stick would require more than just a broad agreement. It would need to be in black and white with many an i dotted and t crossed and enshrined in law. The draft tourism law is currently mute on the subject. Redrafting in order to embrace this quality standard would take forever. It is hugely doubtful whether it could even be drafted as law. But if it weren't, then how could it ever be made to stick? Moreover, standards that are currently meant to be met seem to have typically been given the ok by tourism ministry inspectors when it is highly questionable as to whether they have been met.
It may be in the hotels' best interests for there to be high quality standards, but there are the interests of others, i.e. different classes of tourists and of course the tour operators. The latter also want the highest of standards, but tourism comes in all shapes and sizes with all sorts of sizes of wallet. To insist on standards of quality that would be beyond some hotels runs the risk of putting these hotels out of business.
The government is determined to raise quality as a means of raising tourism competitiveness. This is laudable, but the practicality is another issue. I can think of hotels that would seriously struggle to be able to meet standards of service that might be contemplated. Ultimately, the hoteliers, as a group, will defend its members, regardless of what peace accords are arrived at with the complementary offer. The hatchet may have been buried, but it can just as easily be dug up again.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
The Spanish also bury the hatchet, though being Spanish, they do it in a different language: "enterrar el hacha". The hacha has been buried by the tourism sector, which had been at war over proposals contained in the regional government's draft tourism law. The war had been waged between the hotels and the so-called complementary offer sector, most notably the restaurants and entertainment/nightclub providers, and the burying of the hatchet is intended to demonstrate a united front in the tourism sector, albeit that the complementary offer is still decidedly hacked off with the tourism minister Carlos Delgado. Hacked off it may be, but hacking him to pieces is no longer an option, if it ever was.
What had agitated the complementary offer in particular was the fact that hotels might, under the new law, have ended up becoming "total" hotels, offering pretty much everything that is available outside their walls or grounds, to the competitive disadvantage of the wider tourism sector, be it restaurant, disco or whatever.
The hatchet buried, the peace pipe is due to be passed around at future pow-wows between the hotels and the complementary offer as they form their alliance against (or is it with?) the Great White Chief, namely Delgado. Against or with is a good question to pose, as the the fact is that the hotels will probably still end up being "total" hotels, if they so wish. There seems to be have some acceptance by the hotels that the "secondary activities" that the law would permit have to be limited so as not to cause unfair competition. But how limited might limited be? For how long will this ending of hostilities last? You wouldn't bank on the ceasefire being broken, and broken quite quickly, by the hotels.
It is not as if the hotels have previously shown that they are that well-disposed to accommodating the complementary sector by limiting what could be described as unfair competition. There have certainly been noises from the hoteliers that are far more conciliatory, but the history of the all-inclusive does not act as a great example for a future, more co-operative approach.
The complementary offer has been keen to press for standards of quality when it comes to all-inclusives. This may sound like the restaurants and the other components of the complementary offer are like turkeys in North American forests voting for Christmases of the Iroquois hoteliers with their axes, but the acceptance of the need for greater standards is about all the complementary offer has in its defences. By pressing for greater quality, it hopes that some hotels will be unable to comply with standards and so have to abandon all-inclusive.
The hotels are said to be broadly in agreement with this, but for it to stick would require more than just a broad agreement. It would need to be in black and white with many an i dotted and t crossed and enshrined in law. The draft tourism law is currently mute on the subject. Redrafting in order to embrace this quality standard would take forever. It is hugely doubtful whether it could even be drafted as law. But if it weren't, then how could it ever be made to stick? Moreover, standards that are currently meant to be met seem to have typically been given the ok by tourism ministry inspectors when it is highly questionable as to whether they have been met.
It may be in the hotels' best interests for there to be high quality standards, but there are the interests of others, i.e. different classes of tourists and of course the tour operators. The latter also want the highest of standards, but tourism comes in all shapes and sizes with all sorts of sizes of wallet. To insist on standards of quality that would be beyond some hotels runs the risk of putting these hotels out of business.
The government is determined to raise quality as a means of raising tourism competitiveness. This is laudable, but the practicality is another issue. I can think of hotels that would seriously struggle to be able to meet standards of service that might be contemplated. Ultimately, the hoteliers, as a group, will defend its members, regardless of what peace accords are arrived at with the complementary offer. The hatchet may have been buried, but it can just as easily be dug up again.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
Friday, December 23, 2011
MALLORCA TODAY - Complementary offer rejects tourism law reform
In reaction to the proposal under the reformed tourism law that bars, restaurants and other businesses that comprise the "complementary offer" could extend their activities (see article: "Two Pints Of Lager And A Three Piece Suit"), business associations have been swift to condemn the proposal, suggesting that tourist areas would become like Chinese bazars and that there would be chaos.
Two Pints Of Lager And A Three Piece Suit
Yet more from the brave new world of the reformed tourism law. It is not just a law for the hotels, insists the brave new(ish) tourism minister. It is a law that will also help the "complementary offer", the bars, the restaurants, the clubs, the shops. And how might it help exactly? Carlos Delgado has a scheme whereby bars, for example, would be able to sell clothing. What the shops make of the idea, who knows, but one would doubt that they will be over enamoured of it. What will the shops be able to do? Sell beer on draught?
This proposal seems to imply that various businesses which form the complementary offer will be able to provide each other's services and products. It would need to be fleshed out and made clearer, but, as examples, a restaurant, one presumes, might be able to have a deli counter or a bar might be able to flog more clothing than the bar-promotional T-shirts that they currently do.
One reason, indeed the main reason it would seem, for this proposal is to give the complementary offer a means of combatting a loss of business brought about by all-inclusives. In principle, it may have some merit, but isn't there a slight flaw? All-inclusives mean less being spent outside the hotel. Why should a bar go to the trouble and expense of stocking up with shorts and flip-flops, when they probably wouldn't sell them.
A consequence of this might be that the different businesses end up engaging in price wars. Good for the consumer, the consumer that exists, that is, but not necessarily good for individual businesses. More to the point, though, is that the proposal smacks of putting the cart of trying desperately to find a way to compensate for the impact of all-inclusives before the horse of actually doing something about all-inclusives. The problem is, of course, that there is very little that can be done about all-inclusives.
In purely practical terms, would a bar, especially a bar that isn't that big, give up some space that can generate cash through bums on seats in the hope that they might coin in more from flogging clothes or cans of baked beans? The proposal sounds like a sop to the complementary offer that has seen little by way of anything else to emerge from the tourism law reform, and a sop that would be unlikely to achieve much.
Still, you can't blame the government for trying something different, and maybe the proposal might in fact work. If nothing else, it would offer a bar or restaurant the opportunity to diversify if it wished to.
Minister Delgado says that "structural reforms", such as this one, within the tourism sector will help to boost the economy as a whole. Some of the reforms probably will achieve this, but there are structural problems within the sector, of which the growth in all-inclusives is one. All that the government can come up with is to let bars sell clothes and prohibit the taking of food and drink off hotel premises. The latter reform, designed, it is said, to help bars by stopping all-inclusive guests wandering the streets with plastic glasses of lager, will achieve almost nothing, other than to provide the hotels with a massive headache when confronted by uppity tourists who are determined to go walkabout with free Saint Micks in their hands.
If the government really wanted to help bars and so on, why doesn't it do something about all the restrictions and procedures that the bars have been saddled with over the past few years? The proposal does refer to "entertainment", so maybe it is envisaged that there will be some relaxation in respect of music licences or limiters. The government might also look at making gaming legal in bars and at creating the possibility for self-employed workers to actually be able to gain a category of business activity that would enable bars to take them on as bar staff for short periods without all the hassle of entering into contracts and the expense of paying social security. But then, I suppose, there would be a hue and cry about taking away fixed-contract workers.
As much as changing market conditions have made life more difficult for bars, so have all the rules. The government seems content to make life easier for the hotels by changing the rules, so why doesn't it do so for other sectors?
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
This proposal seems to imply that various businesses which form the complementary offer will be able to provide each other's services and products. It would need to be fleshed out and made clearer, but, as examples, a restaurant, one presumes, might be able to have a deli counter or a bar might be able to flog more clothing than the bar-promotional T-shirts that they currently do.
One reason, indeed the main reason it would seem, for this proposal is to give the complementary offer a means of combatting a loss of business brought about by all-inclusives. In principle, it may have some merit, but isn't there a slight flaw? All-inclusives mean less being spent outside the hotel. Why should a bar go to the trouble and expense of stocking up with shorts and flip-flops, when they probably wouldn't sell them.
A consequence of this might be that the different businesses end up engaging in price wars. Good for the consumer, the consumer that exists, that is, but not necessarily good for individual businesses. More to the point, though, is that the proposal smacks of putting the cart of trying desperately to find a way to compensate for the impact of all-inclusives before the horse of actually doing something about all-inclusives. The problem is, of course, that there is very little that can be done about all-inclusives.
In purely practical terms, would a bar, especially a bar that isn't that big, give up some space that can generate cash through bums on seats in the hope that they might coin in more from flogging clothes or cans of baked beans? The proposal sounds like a sop to the complementary offer that has seen little by way of anything else to emerge from the tourism law reform, and a sop that would be unlikely to achieve much.
Still, you can't blame the government for trying something different, and maybe the proposal might in fact work. If nothing else, it would offer a bar or restaurant the opportunity to diversify if it wished to.
Minister Delgado says that "structural reforms", such as this one, within the tourism sector will help to boost the economy as a whole. Some of the reforms probably will achieve this, but there are structural problems within the sector, of which the growth in all-inclusives is one. All that the government can come up with is to let bars sell clothes and prohibit the taking of food and drink off hotel premises. The latter reform, designed, it is said, to help bars by stopping all-inclusive guests wandering the streets with plastic glasses of lager, will achieve almost nothing, other than to provide the hotels with a massive headache when confronted by uppity tourists who are determined to go walkabout with free Saint Micks in their hands.
If the government really wanted to help bars and so on, why doesn't it do something about all the restrictions and procedures that the bars have been saddled with over the past few years? The proposal does refer to "entertainment", so maybe it is envisaged that there will be some relaxation in respect of music licences or limiters. The government might also look at making gaming legal in bars and at creating the possibility for self-employed workers to actually be able to gain a category of business activity that would enable bars to take them on as bar staff for short periods without all the hassle of entering into contracts and the expense of paying social security. But then, I suppose, there would be a hue and cry about taking away fixed-contract workers.
As much as changing market conditions have made life more difficult for bars, so have all the rules. The government seems content to make life easier for the hotels by changing the rules, so why doesn't it do so for other sectors?
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Not Being Paid A Complement
The title of this article contains a deliberate mistake. Complement is wrong; it should be compliment.
The so-called complementary offer, by which one normally means bars, restaurants and clubs, is a complement to the primary element of the tourism industry, the hotels. It completes the industry, but by perception, if not by definition, it comes down the industry food chain and is considered subordinate. As a consequence, it fails to be paid a proper compliment, or so it claims.
Palma town hall's efforts to up its tourism game by bringing together different bodies from the industry haven't gone down well with the restaurant associations of either CAEB, the Balearics business confederation, or PIMEM, the small to medium-sized businesses association. They feel as though have been ignored.
The fact is that they probably have been ignored. And ignored for different reasons. One is that they don't sing with anything like a unified or co-operative voice, and not just in Palma. Two, and following on from this, they don't have a collective organisation with the clout that demands to be paid attention to and which can command some lobbying space of the type that the hotel sector can. Three is that other parts of the industry, the hotels in other words, look upon the restaurants, to put it bluntly, as parasitic and incapable of or unwilling to actively involve themselves in promotion efforts. Four is that, as a group, they simply lack the financial muscle to make themselves important players in helping to drive the tourism industry.
CAEB and PIMEM are doing something about the first two, combining their respective associations for restaurants, bars and entertainment in order to try and give themselves a voice which will be listened to. But why haven't they done this before?
Firstly, because the different associations themselves have their own agendas. CAEB and PIMEM aren't the only ones. There is also, for example, Acotur, the tourism businesses association. These organisations occupy similar territory, duplicating or contradicting each other as the case may be. Secondly, restaurants in mostly any town or resort you care to mention function with their own interests to the fore. Co-operation has generally been absent, except where powerful and small groups of owners work together for their own benefit. Thirdly, and this is the unpalatable truth, the hotels have a point; the restaurants have been parasitic. They have done well simply by being there, but now, thanks to all-inclusives, heightened competition, economic crisis, the rules have changed, and the restaurants have been marginalised.
This sounds like a damning indictment of the complementary sector, but the lack of compliment paid to them stems also from a peculiar ambivalence shown to the restaurants.
The Spanish hotel confederation wants the new national government to make changes to help the tourism industry. One of these is a reduction in IVA, and the example is cited of how such a reduction in France has helped the restaurant sector. Not the hotels, the restaurants.
So, what has this to do with attitudes towards Mallorca's restaurants? Something very significant, and that is that the French tourism industry is very different to Spain's. France doesn't have anything like the concentration of resorts that Spain and Mallorca have. It has resorts, but there is little that is comparable. It does have all-inclusive hotels but not like Spain or Mallorca do.
A reduction in value added tax to boost French restaurants was not simply a case of being helpful. It was a recognition of the central role of restaurants within the tourism industry. France's restaurants are not complementary. It's the other way round; the hotels are. The French don't need to bang on about gastronomy, because everyone knows about the cuisine, and given the nature of the French tourism industry, the restaurants are absolutely essential.
A reduction in IVA might make some difference to Mallorca's restaurants, but not much. What would make a difference would be were they not treated as the tourism industry's doormats. But because they have never had that position of centrality, as they do in France, they are in a position of weakness, which is why they get ignored and why there is an ambivalence towards them.
Yet, gastronomy is meant to be one of Mallorca's strengths. Maybe it is, but without an attitudinal shift on behalf of other players in the tourism industry, it won't be. The restaurants have brought much of this ambivalence on themselves, but while the hotels continue to dominate the industry, a situation that will not change, they can't expect to ever be more than complementary or to be paid their rightful compliments.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
The so-called complementary offer, by which one normally means bars, restaurants and clubs, is a complement to the primary element of the tourism industry, the hotels. It completes the industry, but by perception, if not by definition, it comes down the industry food chain and is considered subordinate. As a consequence, it fails to be paid a proper compliment, or so it claims.
Palma town hall's efforts to up its tourism game by bringing together different bodies from the industry haven't gone down well with the restaurant associations of either CAEB, the Balearics business confederation, or PIMEM, the small to medium-sized businesses association. They feel as though have been ignored.
The fact is that they probably have been ignored. And ignored for different reasons. One is that they don't sing with anything like a unified or co-operative voice, and not just in Palma. Two, and following on from this, they don't have a collective organisation with the clout that demands to be paid attention to and which can command some lobbying space of the type that the hotel sector can. Three is that other parts of the industry, the hotels in other words, look upon the restaurants, to put it bluntly, as parasitic and incapable of or unwilling to actively involve themselves in promotion efforts. Four is that, as a group, they simply lack the financial muscle to make themselves important players in helping to drive the tourism industry.
CAEB and PIMEM are doing something about the first two, combining their respective associations for restaurants, bars and entertainment in order to try and give themselves a voice which will be listened to. But why haven't they done this before?
Firstly, because the different associations themselves have their own agendas. CAEB and PIMEM aren't the only ones. There is also, for example, Acotur, the tourism businesses association. These organisations occupy similar territory, duplicating or contradicting each other as the case may be. Secondly, restaurants in mostly any town or resort you care to mention function with their own interests to the fore. Co-operation has generally been absent, except where powerful and small groups of owners work together for their own benefit. Thirdly, and this is the unpalatable truth, the hotels have a point; the restaurants have been parasitic. They have done well simply by being there, but now, thanks to all-inclusives, heightened competition, economic crisis, the rules have changed, and the restaurants have been marginalised.
This sounds like a damning indictment of the complementary sector, but the lack of compliment paid to them stems also from a peculiar ambivalence shown to the restaurants.
The Spanish hotel confederation wants the new national government to make changes to help the tourism industry. One of these is a reduction in IVA, and the example is cited of how such a reduction in France has helped the restaurant sector. Not the hotels, the restaurants.
So, what has this to do with attitudes towards Mallorca's restaurants? Something very significant, and that is that the French tourism industry is very different to Spain's. France doesn't have anything like the concentration of resorts that Spain and Mallorca have. It has resorts, but there is little that is comparable. It does have all-inclusive hotels but not like Spain or Mallorca do.
A reduction in value added tax to boost French restaurants was not simply a case of being helpful. It was a recognition of the central role of restaurants within the tourism industry. France's restaurants are not complementary. It's the other way round; the hotels are. The French don't need to bang on about gastronomy, because everyone knows about the cuisine, and given the nature of the French tourism industry, the restaurants are absolutely essential.
A reduction in IVA might make some difference to Mallorca's restaurants, but not much. What would make a difference would be were they not treated as the tourism industry's doormats. But because they have never had that position of centrality, as they do in France, they are in a position of weakness, which is why they get ignored and why there is an ambivalence towards them.
Yet, gastronomy is meant to be one of Mallorca's strengths. Maybe it is, but without an attitudinal shift on behalf of other players in the tourism industry, it won't be. The restaurants have brought much of this ambivalence on themselves, but while the hotels continue to dominate the industry, a situation that will not change, they can't expect to ever be more than complementary or to be paid their rightful compliments.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Battlefield: Hotels go on the all-inclusive offensive
There we were thinking that some new model of all-inclusive might be on the horizon, one that embraces bars and restaurants into the system. We might have been thinking this; the tour operators might have been suggesting it. The hotels don't seem in any mood to go along with it. This is the impression formed by statements from heads of hotel associations in Menorca and Ibiza; there has not been a similar statement from Mallorca, only ones that are more veiled in their sympathy with views in other Balearic islands.
The other impression is that the hotels are going on the offensive in defending the all-inclusive offer. Or perhaps this does all tie in with the tour operators' mixed-offer all-inclusive (discussed on 12 March) in that positions are being adopted, with the hotels taking an assertive high ground from which they might be seen as the good guys in admitting outside bars and restaurants into their all-inclusive "club". The tour operators are demanding an increase in all-inclusive while at the same time wanting the so-called "complementary offer" to be a part of it. The hotels, seen as the villain in the all-inclusive piece, seem to want to play hardball.
The picture of bars and restaurants being painted by the hotels is one of complaining and of a failure to do anything to attract tourists. It is the hotels, so the argument goes, that assume all the risk and that make the effort; the complementary offer is being challenged to step up to the plate in attracting tourists. Moreover, the hotels' line is that they have every right to challenge incentives such as happy hours and "menus" (presumably they mean menus del día) offered by bars and restaurants. This challenge comes and has come in the form of all-inclusive.
We seem to be heading to a state of all-out war between the hotels and the complementary sector. The hotels, in addition to all-inclusive, have been moving ever more into the territory once secured by the outside businesses - more entertainment, TV (Sky and football), even Sunday roasts. Entertainment may actually be cut back this summer as a way of reducing costs, but in mostly all other ways the hotels are attacking the complementary offer. This war could be a precursor to some truce or negotiated settlement, e.g. the mixed-offer all-inclusive, but what the hotels are angling at is that it should not be they alone who assume the costs and risks of marketing to get tourists to come in the first place.
The hotels are overstating the case; they are but one aspect of promotion. Nevertheless, they have a point when accusing bars and restaurants of only complaining and apparent inaction. And ever more, the complementary sector is seen as leeching off of the efforts made by the hotels. But this growing antagonism can also be seen as the result of shifting circumstances: economic conditions, stronger competition from other destinations and so on. For years, there was a symbiotic relationship between the two. This has gone or is going. It might only return if the tour operators are genuine in wishing to establish the mixed-offer.
One could accuse the hotels of being disingenuous. They are, together with government, town halls and tour operators, the frontline assault forces in tourism promotion. Clearly they are, and they know it, hence the possible disingenuousness. They are also, generally speaking, far better resourced than businesses in the complementary sector. (It might also be noted that some hotel groups run their own outside restaurants.) Their self-interests are served by co-operation, such as in being parts of local hotel associations which conduct their own marketing, but at least they do engage in co-operation. Does the complementary sector act in a similar way? Self-interest is even more extreme here. Do bars and restaurants band together to push a resort? Well, do they? I'm unaware of this happening. Where co-operation does exist, it tends to be as a means to kick against something - all-inclusives, the latest regulation. Negative rather than positive. And when something comes along which might require some co-operation, such as with the estación náutica concept in Alcúdia, self-interest comes to the fore; what has ever happened to this idea?
The hotels have thrown down the gauntlet. To quote, in translation, from yesterday's "Diario", the president of the Menorcan hoteliers says: "we do not see any effort at any time by the restaurant sector to bring tourists to the Balearics." There is, in all of this, a horrible sense of bitching and bickering as the great edifice of tourism threatens to collapse around the hotels and as all the supply that has risen around them also tumbles and falls. Yet for the hotels to attack the complementary sector is - though they wouldn't admit this - the consequence of their being beholden to the muscle of the tour operators; the reverse of the situation that once used to exist, a situation that used to allow for mutually beneficial co-existence with the complementary sector. The hotels are, therefore, going on a bullying offensive while simultaneously they are being rendered less potent by the masters of the industry - the tour operators. They are hitting out at the weakest link in the whole tourism supply chain, because it suits them to be able to try and cling to a power that is diminishing in a market that has changed fundamentally; they are less the victims of the all-inclusive war initiated by the tour operators than the complementary sector, but they are victims nonetheless, clutching at the spoils of war and abandoning their one-time compatriots in the bars and restaurants. Lines drawn for the battlefield.
QUIZ:
Battlefield. Love is a ... . Great, great song from the 80s. Video that goes from the naff ("you leave this house now...") to the also great.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
The other impression is that the hotels are going on the offensive in defending the all-inclusive offer. Or perhaps this does all tie in with the tour operators' mixed-offer all-inclusive (discussed on 12 March) in that positions are being adopted, with the hotels taking an assertive high ground from which they might be seen as the good guys in admitting outside bars and restaurants into their all-inclusive "club". The tour operators are demanding an increase in all-inclusive while at the same time wanting the so-called "complementary offer" to be a part of it. The hotels, seen as the villain in the all-inclusive piece, seem to want to play hardball.
The picture of bars and restaurants being painted by the hotels is one of complaining and of a failure to do anything to attract tourists. It is the hotels, so the argument goes, that assume all the risk and that make the effort; the complementary offer is being challenged to step up to the plate in attracting tourists. Moreover, the hotels' line is that they have every right to challenge incentives such as happy hours and "menus" (presumably they mean menus del día) offered by bars and restaurants. This challenge comes and has come in the form of all-inclusive.
We seem to be heading to a state of all-out war between the hotels and the complementary sector. The hotels, in addition to all-inclusive, have been moving ever more into the territory once secured by the outside businesses - more entertainment, TV (Sky and football), even Sunday roasts. Entertainment may actually be cut back this summer as a way of reducing costs, but in mostly all other ways the hotels are attacking the complementary offer. This war could be a precursor to some truce or negotiated settlement, e.g. the mixed-offer all-inclusive, but what the hotels are angling at is that it should not be they alone who assume the costs and risks of marketing to get tourists to come in the first place.
The hotels are overstating the case; they are but one aspect of promotion. Nevertheless, they have a point when accusing bars and restaurants of only complaining and apparent inaction. And ever more, the complementary sector is seen as leeching off of the efforts made by the hotels. But this growing antagonism can also be seen as the result of shifting circumstances: economic conditions, stronger competition from other destinations and so on. For years, there was a symbiotic relationship between the two. This has gone or is going. It might only return if the tour operators are genuine in wishing to establish the mixed-offer.
One could accuse the hotels of being disingenuous. They are, together with government, town halls and tour operators, the frontline assault forces in tourism promotion. Clearly they are, and they know it, hence the possible disingenuousness. They are also, generally speaking, far better resourced than businesses in the complementary sector. (It might also be noted that some hotel groups run their own outside restaurants.) Their self-interests are served by co-operation, such as in being parts of local hotel associations which conduct their own marketing, but at least they do engage in co-operation. Does the complementary sector act in a similar way? Self-interest is even more extreme here. Do bars and restaurants band together to push a resort? Well, do they? I'm unaware of this happening. Where co-operation does exist, it tends to be as a means to kick against something - all-inclusives, the latest regulation. Negative rather than positive. And when something comes along which might require some co-operation, such as with the estación náutica concept in Alcúdia, self-interest comes to the fore; what has ever happened to this idea?
The hotels have thrown down the gauntlet. To quote, in translation, from yesterday's "Diario", the president of the Menorcan hoteliers says: "we do not see any effort at any time by the restaurant sector to bring tourists to the Balearics." There is, in all of this, a horrible sense of bitching and bickering as the great edifice of tourism threatens to collapse around the hotels and as all the supply that has risen around them also tumbles and falls. Yet for the hotels to attack the complementary sector is - though they wouldn't admit this - the consequence of their being beholden to the muscle of the tour operators; the reverse of the situation that once used to exist, a situation that used to allow for mutually beneficial co-existence with the complementary sector. The hotels are, therefore, going on a bullying offensive while simultaneously they are being rendered less potent by the masters of the industry - the tour operators. They are hitting out at the weakest link in the whole tourism supply chain, because it suits them to be able to try and cling to a power that is diminishing in a market that has changed fundamentally; they are less the victims of the all-inclusive war initiated by the tour operators than the complementary sector, but they are victims nonetheless, clutching at the spoils of war and abandoning their one-time compatriots in the bars and restaurants. Lines drawn for the battlefield.
QUIZ:
Battlefield. Love is a ... . Great, great song from the 80s. Video that goes from the naff ("you leave this house now...") to the also great.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
