Spending By Holiday Rental Tourists

Statistics, as we know, can be used to prove anything, and when it comes to tourism statistics, there is no measure more open to interpretation than that for tourist spending. Depending on where one stands on a particular argument, however, the spending stats can be called upon to provide useful support, even perhaps by those who would normally call the stats into question.

The Egatur survey of tourist spending is primarily a tool designed to give the Bank of Spain data for calculating the balance of payments. In this respect it does need to  be pretty accurate, despite people often not believing it. A reason for questioning it is that it can seem as if it doesn't correspond with the realities of some resorts. How often does one hear someone complain that no one's spending any money, yet Egatur insists that spending is going up?

The survey isn't and cannot be totally comprehensive, but one has to accept that it is a reflection of variance in the tourism market: not all resorts are the same, not all tourists are the same. But there is one significant ingredient in Egatur that can skew the spending statistics: the cost of the holiday. If this is a package holiday, bought from a foreign tour operator, then much of this spending element never touches the destination. Take away the package and factor in direct bookings, and a more realistic figure is attained; realistic in terms of what goes into local economies.

Egatur does, therefore, seek to reflect the different types of holiday, and the latest survey provides some ammunition for the pro-holiday rentals lobby. Again, not all of the spending is in the destination, if the rentals booking is, say, made via a foreign agency, but for the most part it will be. And where Egatur is concerned, it doesn't distinguish between the nature of rentals - they could be legal, they could be illegal, they could be ones made under the terms of the tenancy act.

Anyway, the survey shows that tourists who last year stayed in holiday rental accommodation (which falls under what Egatur broadly defines as the "rest of the market") spent almost 24% more than tourists who stayed in hotels. The average spend per tourist in non-hotel accommodation was 1,295 euros, and it increased by 20% over 2016. Another survey, the Frontur one that measures foreign tourist arrivals, offered some symmetry in this regard: there was a 20% rise in foreign tourists staying in holiday rentals.

The figures are for the whole of the country, but they clearly tell a story where the Balearics are concerned. Importantly, Egatur (and Frontur) are about as independent as one can get in measuring tourism performance. There are no agendas, which isn't always the case with studies that emanate from rival factions in the rentals argument, most notably the Exceltur alliance for touristic excellence and the Aptur holiday rentals association. Egatur, while noting that spending by tourists in hotels increased by ten per cent, does provide greater support for the Aptur stance than Exceltur's.

As I say, the stats can prove what you want them to, but here - despite the questions that surround the Egatur methodology - is some evidence of what many have long argued: holiday rental tourists spend more.

The Carelessness Of Facts

When I was at school, a general edict was that one could under no circumstances ever use "nice" or "a lot of". To use them on their own carried enough risk as it was. To have combined them, not that one did, would probably have resulted in an invitation to attend the headmaster's study. Only now, with the safety of many years' distance, dare I mention "a nice lot of". Thwack!

"Nice" might therefore have fallen by an etymological wayside, had it not been for "have a nice day". Nice, were it truly ever in danger of lexicological Dodoism, has been rejuvenated. Even test cricketers can be nice, as they are known to "play nicely". Ask Michael Vaughan, if you don't believe me. Ask him what it means, and he'll probably tell you that, erm ... .

There was much to be said for that edict. Meaningless is carelessness. Or put it another way, meaningless is anything you want it to mean, and the carelessness is the consequence of this meaninglessness. It is what the person on the receiving end takes to be the meaning. "A lot of people don't use the word nice." God, really? How many is a lot? Hundreds, thousands, millions? It all depends on interpretation and will almost invariably be wrong. That's careless.

This preamble is by way of introducing you to the following: "European families are seeking to cancel their holidays in Spain." What one can say of this is that it at least abides by the edict. But the absence of anything even vaguely quantifiable may well lead the person on the receiving end to conclude that "a lot of" European families are seeking to cancel and to make a mental note that this lot runs into the thousands or millions, when it might only be the odd hundred (if any). Not quantifying the number presupposes that there is a lot. And to compound this is the fact that "foreign tour operators" are saying this. How many of them are there? Two? Twenty? One hundred and twenty? One has no idea, but apparently they are all saying the same thing: exactly the same words. I don't think so.

The terrorist attacks will clearly deter some people. It is important, though, to know how much is the some who finally choose to indeed cancel. Only armed with actual numbers will we have any idea as to what impact the attacks have had. And, as importantly, where has been affected. I still find it hard to believe, as said two days ago, that the Balearics will be affected, but then those foreign tour operators ... blah, blah, blah.

What we have at present, in addition to the unquantified European families, includes Ada Colau, Barcelona's mayor, saying that there have been "very few" hotel cancellations in the city. So, there haven't been a lot of them. But how few is very few? Meanwhile, the president of the hoteliers' guild in Barcelona, Jordi Clos, says a reaction (a negative one) will soon be seen. He didn't wish to make a prediction and quantify the fall. What might it be? Very few, a few, some, a fair number, or a lot? We are left to wallow in vagueness and attempt to apply meaning to the meaningless. And in the process, there can be carelessness from misinterpreting this vagueness. One would be to over-emphasise the impact, the other would be to underestimate it and wrongly fail to apply remedial and preventive measures.

We are fed a constant barrage of facts that have little or no quantifiable meaning, but even when a quantity is offered, we can be forgiven either for not believing it or for shrugging our shoulders with a bewildered or indifferent so-what. I give as examples all the tourist spending stats. According to these, spending is up, then along comes an association like Acotur and says it isn't. Between twenty and thirty per cent of tourist businesses (bars, shops and so on, but not hotels) say spending is down. So, which do we believe? It will largely depend on what we want to believe. The fact is that the facts are usually elusive. We never get a true picture or one that we genuinely feel we can believe.

But if we want to get a feel for the state of the tourism economy, there are some very hard facts, and they have nothing to do with spending or terrorism. They are to do with prices. Look at examples of these and I defy anyone not to conclude that bookings for 2018 may be affected, and not in a positive way. But by how much? A lot? A bit?

I have a "fact" related to this, which I shall leave hanging for now, but it is somewhat startling. I shall share it tomorrow. Is it a lot? Yes. Is it nice? No. Whatever nice means.

The Annual Excursions' Lament

In the early 1930s, the Fomento del Turismo (Mallorca Tourist Board) organised island coach excursions which left its central Palma building at a quarter past nine in the morning. For eleven pesetas, tourists could choose from a small selection of excursions: one to Valldemossa, Miramar, Deya, Soller and Puerto Soller; another to the Caves of Drach (with concert) and the Caves of Ham; or there was Pollensa, Puerto Pollensa and Formentor. For an extra two pesetas, there was a trip to the Caves of Arta and Cala Ratjada.

One can only imagine the somewhat perilous nature of excursions using coaches of their time on mountain roads. At least they were more comfortable than stage coaches; once upon a time, they were all there were. Another positive would have been the absence of traffic. No hacking along twisty, narrow roads only to be confronted by a pelaton of cyclists and a queue of hire cars. The primitive coach operators, one presumes, derived profit from these excursions. They certainly wouldn't have had to contend with town hall bylaws on parking. There wasn't a trip to Sa Calobra, but nowadays the operators have to reserve parking in advance or incur a whopping charge, courtesy of Escorca town hall.

The nature of excursions has of course changed. The Tramuntana mountains, for instance, give rise to the island tour, one that combines coach with boat, tram and train in taking in Sa Calobra and Soller. Essentially, though, some of the excursions are much as they were in the 1930s. Some forty years later, the ladies of Coronation Street went to Valldemossa, though it required Hilda to remember the name of the place when Emily was writing a postcard to send back home. The current-day Valldemossa trip has run into similar issues as with Sa Calobra: saturation by coach, saturation by tourist. How very different things are in this regard from the 1930s.

The range of excursions available today includes these old faithfuls. And rightly so. Nevertheless, the Balearic association of travel agents suggests that new life needs to be bred into excursions. Innovation is required. The sale of excursions (by travel agents) has apparently slumped by 50% since 2011.

One hears this lament on a regular basis. A year ago, the association said that there had been a 40% decline over four years: 800,000 lost customers. Only one in three of all tourists was booking an excursion. This said, the association indicated that certain excursions were still holding up. They included the Caves of Drach, the island tour and Valldemossa: the old faithfuls.

A year on, and the percentage has risen by ten points: there's simple maths for you. Now, though, the emphasis has shifted towards a need for excursion innovation, while familiar reasons for the decline in the sale of excursions are still being cited: lower tourist spending power and the proliferation of hire cars.

Innovation may indeed be a factor, though one can point to certain operators who are innovative not just in their products but also in their selling, with a strong emphasis on social media. As with any business, innovation should be a given, but sadly it would seem as if it isn't.

There are of course the other factors. For some years, all-inclusives have been the principal target of the agents and of the attractions' association. The number of all-inclusive places, which rose during the crisis, has dented business. But this number is now falling as hotels and tour operators themselves adopt new products. All-inclusive remains a factor, but does it explain what the travel agents say is the unexpectedly high fall in demand this year? Some agents are reporting falls in sales of 20%.

An excursion, as with mostly all tourist spending, is a discretionary purchase. Holidaymakers' budgets will determine the purchase (or not). Add new costs to this budget and there is a further element in guiding the purchasing process. Is it fanciful, therefore, to suggest that the tourist tax is influencing the sale of excursions?

Lamenting lower tourist spending power flies in the face of what the Egatur surveys of spending suggest is the case: spending is going up. But who really believes this? The statistics are, by the very nature of how they are arrived at, not an accurate reflection of in-resort realities. And these realities include the cost of the holiday itself, which has gone up and which - as one can already see with prices being quoted for 2018 - will be going up further. It's not that there is a "cheap" form of tourism; it's that holidaymakers have forked out so much before they even get here. 

Expect, therefore, to hear more lamenting from the travel agents next year. Oh how they must wish things were like the 1930s, when the only tourists were wealthy and unconcerned by prices. Eleven pesetas, with hindsight, sounds very cheap.

*The video is a short one (sixty seconds) of Valldemossa in 1930.