Is Australia a friend or foe of NZ tourism?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is Australia a friend or foe of NZ tourism?
NZPA
Is Australia a friend or foe of NZ tourism?
04 June 2004
Australia, described as the sleeping giant of tourism promotion, is stirring from its slumber with the launch of a massive new marketing campaign. Maggie Tait asks whether New Zealand tourism will be swallowed up in our biggest competitor's awakening yawn.
New Zealand's greatest tourism competitor Australia has just launched a mammoth marketing campaign that could impact on business here - whether it's negatively or positively is yet to be seen.
British travel operators have varying views over what the impact of the four-year $A360 million ($NZ407 million) world-wide marketing campaign will be. In Britain, Australia has already started running a $A6 million two-week long television advertising push.
The campaign, tag-lined Australia: A Different Light, aims to update Australia's international image using celebrity personalities such as songstress Delta Goodrem and cricket legend Richie Benaud who talk about their country's attractions.
In London managing director of direct selling travel company Quest Travel Dave Simmons told reporters Australia had to be taken seriously.
"Australia is a sleeping giant that is about to be reawakened ... I think they are going to be a real threat as far as clawing back into the market place quite aggressively."
He said Australia had recent boosts off the back of the Olympics and the Rugby World Cup which it could build on.
"There's certainly no scope for complacency. Other markets like Australia are fighting back very strongly."
Mr Simmons said Tourism New Zealand had been doing a good job and its 100% PureNZ campaign had been, and continued to be, effective. The brand approach was working and it was something Australia had picked up on its new campaign.
"It's a very, very competitive market place. The obvious competitor is Australia and I think probably the biggest compliment Tourism NZ can get is that Australia is without question using Tourism NZ as a bench mark...they are constantly looking over their shoulders at what the New Zealanders and Tourism NZ are doing."
Last year, Australian Tourism Minister Joe Hockey said the 100% PureNZ Campaign was the best in the world, as industry bosses contemplated their new Brand Australia campaign.
While Australia has arguably got its act together later than New Zealand, it has the advantage of bigger spending power and has tourism boards at federal and state levels.
Australian boards could put money into joint ventures with operators and not just its brand, which is where New Zealand focused its resources.
"Some of the tourism destinations that New Zealand competes with put a lot of money into the market place...
"New Zealand doesn't do that, understandably, with the limited resources they have available to them," Mr Simmons said.
Nevertheless tourism operators tended to put their efforts into markets where they got support.
"They will look and take a decision based upon where they think they can get tourist board funding coming in."
TNZ chief executive George Hickton said New Zealand had to direct its resources where it could be most effective.
One solution was better funding.
"We'd always like more money it's fair to say.
"We've always maintained our job is to get the brand up there and that's really what we focused on for the past few years rather than in joint marketing because we think that's the trade's responsibility."
Mr Hickton said Australia was forced to spend big because they have a declining tourism market.
"But that is a bit of a worry that they are in a sense subsidising some of the trade's marketing efforts and that will encourage the trade to focus more on Australia than New Zealand."
James Bell, sales and marketing director for another British operator, Turquoise, says while the new advertising would help Australia, more was needed.
"I think they have been in somewhat disarray for some time and I think certainly a stronger message and more consistent message will certainly help them."
However, he said New Zealand was "leaps and bounds" ahead with product. The Australian market contained far too many large resorts, which were not now in vogue, while New Zealand had a plethora of accommodation options from campervans to high quality lodges.
"People don't want to go stay in a large hotel. They want that smaller experience ... I think it (Australia) has got quite a long way to go on the product side of things."
He said Australia was finally aiming at the more affluent and discerning clientele that New Zealand had been targeting in recent years.
Specialist Holiday Group head of marketing for long-haul Andrew Chapman thought the campaign would do well for Australia but could also benefit New Zealand.
"I think it will only impact positively because it will certainly bring people's attention more to that region ...
"About 12-15 percent of our clients will go to both countries."
He said after having a glimpse of each country, visitors would then plan to return to one to see it more fully - sometimes it would be Australia but other times New Zealand would be the winner.
Mr Hickton agreed and said in the past New Zealand had benefited from Australia's popularity.
"We've certainly had that experience in the past where people wish they had given more time to the New Zealand leg of any dual destination holiday.
"The biggest concern I would have is that we must ensure as much as possible we are seen to stand alone and that people do see us as a mono (single) destination and not an add on to Australia."
Maggie Tait visited London as a guest of Tourism New Zealand and Air New Zealand.
===========================================
Is Australia a friend or foe of NZ tourism?
04 June 2004
Australia, described as the sleeping giant of tourism promotion, is stirring from its slumber with the launch of a massive new marketing campaign. Maggie Tait asks whether New Zealand tourism will be swallowed up in our biggest competitor's awakening yawn.
New Zealand's greatest tourism competitor Australia has just launched a mammoth marketing campaign that could impact on business here - whether it's negatively or positively is yet to be seen.
British travel operators have varying views over what the impact of the four-year $A360 million ($NZ407 million) world-wide marketing campaign will be. In Britain, Australia has already started running a $A6 million two-week long television advertising push.
The campaign, tag-lined Australia: A Different Light, aims to update Australia's international image using celebrity personalities such as songstress Delta Goodrem and cricket legend Richie Benaud who talk about their country's attractions.
In London managing director of direct selling travel company Quest Travel Dave Simmons told reporters Australia had to be taken seriously.
"Australia is a sleeping giant that is about to be reawakened ... I think they are going to be a real threat as far as clawing back into the market place quite aggressively."
He said Australia had recent boosts off the back of the Olympics and the Rugby World Cup which it could build on.
"There's certainly no scope for complacency. Other markets like Australia are fighting back very strongly."
Mr Simmons said Tourism New Zealand had been doing a good job and its 100% PureNZ campaign had been, and continued to be, effective. The brand approach was working and it was something Australia had picked up on its new campaign.
"It's a very, very competitive market place. The obvious competitor is Australia and I think probably the biggest compliment Tourism NZ can get is that Australia is without question using Tourism NZ as a bench mark...they are constantly looking over their shoulders at what the New Zealanders and Tourism NZ are doing."
Last year, Australian Tourism Minister Joe Hockey said the 100% PureNZ Campaign was the best in the world, as industry bosses contemplated their new Brand Australia campaign.
While Australia has arguably got its act together later than New Zealand, it has the advantage of bigger spending power and has tourism boards at federal and state levels.
Australian boards could put money into joint ventures with operators and not just its brand, which is where New Zealand focused its resources.
"Some of the tourism destinations that New Zealand competes with put a lot of money into the market place...
"New Zealand doesn't do that, understandably, with the limited resources they have available to them," Mr Simmons said.
Nevertheless tourism operators tended to put their efforts into markets where they got support.
"They will look and take a decision based upon where they think they can get tourist board funding coming in."
TNZ chief executive George Hickton said New Zealand had to direct its resources where it could be most effective.
One solution was better funding.
"We'd always like more money it's fair to say.
"We've always maintained our job is to get the brand up there and that's really what we focused on for the past few years rather than in joint marketing because we think that's the trade's responsibility."
Mr Hickton said Australia was forced to spend big because they have a declining tourism market.
"But that is a bit of a worry that they are in a sense subsidising some of the trade's marketing efforts and that will encourage the trade to focus more on Australia than New Zealand."
James Bell, sales and marketing director for another British operator, Turquoise, says while the new advertising would help Australia, more was needed.
"I think they have been in somewhat disarray for some time and I think certainly a stronger message and more consistent message will certainly help them."
However, he said New Zealand was "leaps and bounds" ahead with product. The Australian market contained far too many large resorts, which were not now in vogue, while New Zealand had a plethora of accommodation options from campervans to high quality lodges.
"People don't want to go stay in a large hotel. They want that smaller experience ... I think it (Australia) has got quite a long way to go on the product side of things."
He said Australia was finally aiming at the more affluent and discerning clientele that New Zealand had been targeting in recent years.
Specialist Holiday Group head of marketing for long-haul Andrew Chapman thought the campaign would do well for Australia but could also benefit New Zealand.
"I think it will only impact positively because it will certainly bring people's attention more to that region ...
"About 12-15 percent of our clients will go to both countries."
He said after having a glimpse of each country, visitors would then plan to return to one to see it more fully - sometimes it would be Australia but other times New Zealand would be the winner.
Mr Hickton agreed and said in the past New Zealand had benefited from Australia's popularity.
"We've certainly had that experience in the past where people wish they had given more time to the New Zealand leg of any dual destination holiday.
"The biggest concern I would have is that we must ensure as much as possible we are seen to stand alone and that people do see us as a mono (single) destination and not an add on to Australia."
Maggie Tait visited London as a guest of Tourism New Zealand and Air New Zealand.
===========================================
Join Date: May 2004
Location: round 'ere
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Throwing dollars at marketing campaigns doesn't guarantee an increase in tourist revenue, certainly New Zealand has had it's fair share of marketing flops on the way to the top.
The New Zealand and Australian tourisim products, as a whole, are markedly different. It seems to me New Zeland has a unique combination of tourist destinations wheras Australia has in fact copied the Hawaii/Mediterranian resort style beach-front product.
This means Australia is competing directly with closer, thus cheaper products from the US and Europe.
Certainly an increase in tourisim in Australia will marginally benefit tourisim in New Zealand provided the increase comes from people who would not normally venture into the South Pacific.
But with New Zealand's reputation as a tourist destination firmly in place, increased tourisim in Australia can do it no harm.
The New Zealand and Australian tourisim products, as a whole, are markedly different. It seems to me New Zeland has a unique combination of tourist destinations wheras Australia has in fact copied the Hawaii/Mediterranian resort style beach-front product.
This means Australia is competing directly with closer, thus cheaper products from the US and Europe.
Certainly an increase in tourisim in Australia will marginally benefit tourisim in New Zealand provided the increase comes from people who would not normally venture into the South Pacific.
But with New Zealand's reputation as a tourist destination firmly in place, increased tourisim in Australia can do it no harm.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what Ive seen of the tourists that travell from far afield (ie Europe and the US) most seem to treat the 2 countries the same ie - 2 weeks in the West Island and Two in the East. The others are of the type who went to Aussie a few years ago and found out there was another country next to it they had never heard of so return some years later.
In my most unexpert opinion I would say there is not a great competion in tourism and any attention the campaign brings to this part of the world can only be good for both?
In my most unexpert opinion I would say there is not a great competion in tourism and any attention the campaign brings to this part of the world can only be good for both?
