There is a Facebook page entitled "BAN ALL Inclusive". It asks: "Why would anyone wish to spend there (sic) holiday in all inclusive holiday in Mallorca!!! It's beautiful here get out of the hotel and enjoy 'your' time on this beautiful island. This was the original destination for the package holiday for millions".
The page hasn't attracted a great deal of liking, which may be because it hasn't been that visible on Facebook. In terms of sentiment, however, there is little doubt that there would be a significant level of liking, but this is not the first type of all-inclusive protest page which has appeared on social media and it won't be the last.
Ban all-inclusive. Question. To whom does one address a demand for all-inclusive to be banned? Second question. Even if a Facebook page were to amass thousands of "likes", what would it achieve? The two questions tie in. A massive level of support for an all-inclusive ban would have to be demonstrated to decision-makers who matter. A talking-shop on the internet among mainly like-minded opponents of all-inclusive achieves nothing other than to reinforce these feelings of opposition.
There are other talking-shops, such as one that the Acotur business association sought to establish last year. They met (very few of them; bar owners, that is), talked for a time, realised that talk was all that would happen and did nothing more. As with talk of bans, protests, of whatever sort (and no one has ever come up with a good one) are pretty pointless.
Even with a massive amount of support for a Facebook page, a ban will never happen. It cannot happen. Just as the market drove the popularity of all-inclusive, so it would have to be the market which would drive a loss of popularity and the eventual demise of all-inclusive. One can argue that the market for all-inclusive wasn't created by customer demand, but that it is an historical argument. Today's tourism market has such demand and it shows no sign of going away or of lessening.
The only stakeholders who matter under a hypothetical all-inclusive banning scenario are those stakeholders without whom there would be no all-inclusive - holidaymakers and tour operators. Other stakeholders matter less and in ever-reducing importance - hotels, local government, town halls.
It is the tour operators who, above all, have the greatest interest. One of them, First Choice, was made into an all-inclusive brand. It was the decision to undertake this branding which inspired a BBC report into all-inclusive in Mallorca two years ago. This has had a recent mention on the Facebook page I have referred to. Its message would still apply, and it was one, as an advisor to the programme, to which I contributed.
In that programme, a First Choice executive had to respond to a question about an advertising slogan which ran - "leave your wallet at home". There was an acceptance that this might not have been the most diplomatic of slogans, but it did of course sum up how all-inclusive is often perceived. This perception is one that tour operators try to modify. They say they offer trips out to local markets and so on, they point to their environmental commitments, they highlight the ecological soundness of their establishments and of local sourcing, they refer to local employment opportunities, but none of this convinces.
Tour operators make a great deal of their social responsibility and of how this operates in destinations, but their arguments are thin. And, one would presume, because tour operators aren't stupid, they know that these arguments are thin. Social responsibility is a broad concept, and acting in a truly responsible fashion does not include transporting people hundreds or thousands of miles only for them to occupy a certain amount of real estate for a fortnight and to do little else. This is one-way parasitic tourism and not the formerly two-way symbiosis between hotel and local community and economy. Its ethics are highly questionable.
To whom are tour operators responsible? Ultimately, to themselves and to their shareholders. Yet, for all that tour operators might be seen as the devil of the piece, they are not alone. Mallorca as a tourist destination is equally at fault.
The Facebook page inadvertently alluded to why Mallorca is at fault. "The original destination for the package holiday for millions." Exactly. And it was the destination for masses because of its cheapness. The island's tourism model is and was, from the 1960s, predicated on mass, but once the real cheapness of early years started to be replaced by less cheapness, by a more questioning approach to spending by tourists, to monetary union and to simple economics, keeping hold of the mass required the introduction of a package which promised or at least hinted at cheapness. And that was the all-inclusive: "leave your wallet at home".
You can't ban all-inclusive because it is the logical outcome of the tourism model. You can't ban it unless that model changes, and that will not happen. Just as a ban will never happen.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
Showing posts with label Ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ethics. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 04, 2013
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Tourismophobia
In research into Mallorca's tourism, no one finding has struck me more powerfully than that from the early '90s which suggested that some 10% of the island's tourism amounted to a net loss. It cost more to accommodate this very low-spend category of tourist than was gained. The cost was an approximation of resources etc. that were required to support it, but if one accepts the finding and that this 10% is now likely to be greater, then are there grounds also for accepting that such non-contribution promotes the existence of "tourismophobia", a hatred of tourism and of tourists?
A socio-ethical dimension inherent to all forms of tourism has been made more evident by all-inclusive tourism. Tour operators blather on about sustainable tourism and disingenuously refer to the sourcing of local produce and provision of local employment that all-inclusives offer (as though other types of hotel don't) but never confront the ethics of what is, for the most part, low-rent tourism and, even where it is higher worth, is a form of foreign occupation that avails itself of a destination while at the same time thumbing its nose at the destination.
The ethics of tourism have long been debated; the economic advantages always outweighing other considerations. However, when a destination becomes like a social-services repository for people transported in with little or no intention of adding to the general economic welfare of a destination, over and above the relatively small welfare created by their package holiday, the ethics debate takes a different turn.
Resources, be they human (and not always well paid), be they natural (the sun, the sea, the water, the environment in general) or be they artificial are drawn upon in satisfying the new mass of tourism, housed in ghettoes, divorced from the local communities and contributing comparatively little to them. The debate, from the point of view of a native of the destination, becomes a question: we give you all this, and what do you give us in return?
Tourism has operated under a system of reciprocity. It is one under which a destination opens its doors, accepts there will be changes if not damage to the environment, culture and way of life, but expects some compensation. Where an equilibrium has existed, as it has (or did) in many of Mallorca's resorts, then any underlying social tensions caused by tourism have been minimal.
The balance has altered, though. More difficult economic times have exacerbated the shifts caused by a market change (that of all-inclusive). They have fuelled a growth in a social phenomenon that is being covered by the Spanish tourism press and which is being taken increasingly seriously - that of "turismofobia".
To the economic argument, one can add a political and an idealistic element. In Mallorca, it is one of a small but vociferous group within mainly the younger generation who adhere to what might be styled Catalano-Luddism, essentially a turning back of the clock to a pre-tourism age and a rejection of a Spanish (Francoist) development, that of mass tourism, which was foisted onto Mallorca in the sixties.
If one ever takes a look at internet comments appended to Spanish press articles about the excesses of tourists in Mallorca, one gets a flavour of some of this phobia. It isn't just that people decry drunkenness, violence or diving from hotel balconies; comments are replete with references to a lack of respect, be it for the environment, the culture or whatever.
"Hosteltur", the Spanish tourism magazine and website, has been tracking this phenomenon for some time. At the end of last year it published a report which, while noting that this phobia was very much one held by a minority, revealed efforts designed to combat its growth. It looked at how in the Canary Islands a "social divorce" in respect of tourism had occurred and at how, in Tenerife in particular, efforts have been made to involve local people in tourism and its promotion and in communicating the benefits of tourism. In Barcelona, a major campaign has been waging to combat negative attitudes.
In Mallorca and the Balearics, however, nothing similar has been attempted, save for a forgotten and ill-funded campaign five years ago which featured a song (yes, seriously, a song) for tourism. No one can remember it. There is an acceptance, though, that the message has to be put across that tourism equates with prosperity.
The problem is, however, and as a consequence of market changes, that tourism is perceived as bringing prosperity to ever fewer numbers. "Tourismophobia" may be a minority social phenomenon, but don't count against it becoming more widespread.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
A socio-ethical dimension inherent to all forms of tourism has been made more evident by all-inclusive tourism. Tour operators blather on about sustainable tourism and disingenuously refer to the sourcing of local produce and provision of local employment that all-inclusives offer (as though other types of hotel don't) but never confront the ethics of what is, for the most part, low-rent tourism and, even where it is higher worth, is a form of foreign occupation that avails itself of a destination while at the same time thumbing its nose at the destination.
The ethics of tourism have long been debated; the economic advantages always outweighing other considerations. However, when a destination becomes like a social-services repository for people transported in with little or no intention of adding to the general economic welfare of a destination, over and above the relatively small welfare created by their package holiday, the ethics debate takes a different turn.
Resources, be they human (and not always well paid), be they natural (the sun, the sea, the water, the environment in general) or be they artificial are drawn upon in satisfying the new mass of tourism, housed in ghettoes, divorced from the local communities and contributing comparatively little to them. The debate, from the point of view of a native of the destination, becomes a question: we give you all this, and what do you give us in return?
Tourism has operated under a system of reciprocity. It is one under which a destination opens its doors, accepts there will be changes if not damage to the environment, culture and way of life, but expects some compensation. Where an equilibrium has existed, as it has (or did) in many of Mallorca's resorts, then any underlying social tensions caused by tourism have been minimal.
The balance has altered, though. More difficult economic times have exacerbated the shifts caused by a market change (that of all-inclusive). They have fuelled a growth in a social phenomenon that is being covered by the Spanish tourism press and which is being taken increasingly seriously - that of "turismofobia".
To the economic argument, one can add a political and an idealistic element. In Mallorca, it is one of a small but vociferous group within mainly the younger generation who adhere to what might be styled Catalano-Luddism, essentially a turning back of the clock to a pre-tourism age and a rejection of a Spanish (Francoist) development, that of mass tourism, which was foisted onto Mallorca in the sixties.
If one ever takes a look at internet comments appended to Spanish press articles about the excesses of tourists in Mallorca, one gets a flavour of some of this phobia. It isn't just that people decry drunkenness, violence or diving from hotel balconies; comments are replete with references to a lack of respect, be it for the environment, the culture or whatever.
"Hosteltur", the Spanish tourism magazine and website, has been tracking this phenomenon for some time. At the end of last year it published a report which, while noting that this phobia was very much one held by a minority, revealed efforts designed to combat its growth. It looked at how in the Canary Islands a "social divorce" in respect of tourism had occurred and at how, in Tenerife in particular, efforts have been made to involve local people in tourism and its promotion and in communicating the benefits of tourism. In Barcelona, a major campaign has been waging to combat negative attitudes.
In Mallorca and the Balearics, however, nothing similar has been attempted, save for a forgotten and ill-funded campaign five years ago which featured a song (yes, seriously, a song) for tourism. No one can remember it. There is an acceptance, though, that the message has to be put across that tourism equates with prosperity.
The problem is, however, and as a consequence of market changes, that tourism is perceived as bringing prosperity to ever fewer numbers. "Tourismophobia" may be a minority social phenomenon, but don't count against it becoming more widespread.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
