Don't Believe the Hype Pt. 2--Little Economic Benefit from Olympics
Liberals' attempts to promote B.C. before Games have been flaccid
Report cites declining numbers from 2003-08
http://http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Liberals+attempts+promote+be...
By Vaughn Palmer, Vancouver Sun, November 10, 2009
British Columbia has so far realized few of the promised tourism benefits from hosting the Olympics, according to the independent impact study commissioned by the federal and provincial governments.
"The 2010 Winter Games have not had a measurable impact on tourism's gross domestic product and share of the economy," concluded the PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) accounting firm, which looked at results from 2003 to the end of 2008.
"Hosting of the Games does not appear to have directly drawn a significant number of visitors in B.C. and Canada."
The failure was especially pronounced when the firm compared "anticipated impacts" -- as touted in an earlier study commissioned by the B.C. Liberals back in 2002 -- with impacts over the six-year span.
For the most part, "tourism impacts did not materialize," wrote the accounting firm as it itemized the disappointing results on a line-by-line basis.
The earlier report anticipated that the Games would lead to "more visitors from traditional and new visitor markets." Results in the years covered by the new survey: "No impacts noted. ... The total number of international inbound travellers to Canada declined 22 per cent in the time frame."
Then, too, the Games were supposed to be good for the convention business. Not so far: "The number of attendees to conventions actually declined 40 per cent in the period."
Anticipated: "More facilities to host meetings, more upgrades to existing infrastructure, increased industry capacity and funding for destination marketing." Actual: "No impacts noted." Anticipated: "Diversification of the economy, starting in 2004." Actual: "No impacts."
Even where economic results were favourable, the PwC analysts cautioned against assuming they were necessarily a consequence of Games-related tourism.
There was good growth in domestic tourism. But "the 2010 Winter Games cannot be held responsible," said the study, adding that at most, they were "one of many catalysts that contributed to the turnaround."
Higher occupancy rates in the city's hotels: " There is no direct cause and effect relationship to attribute this growth in hotel activity to the Games." Greater returns from the hotel tax: "There has been little incremental growth that would not have occurred in the absence of Vancouver hosting the Games."
Construction of new hotels: "The fact that many are scheduled to be completed in 2009 suggests that the Games may have played a role in the decision to build them." Development of new resorts: "Resorts are long-term projects, making it difficult to attribute them to the Games."
The most telling findings emerged from the two most important economic indicators, namely jobs and growth. The earlier study had projected that tourism could boost the provincial gross domestic product by as much as $500 million in the pre-Games period alone.
The new study pegs the impact at as little as $1 million and certainly no more than $5 million, meaning the province missed the mark by a factor of 100, maybe more.
The job numbers were equally pathetic. When the Liberals were in the midst of their headiest fantasies about Olympic spinoffs, they projected pre-Games tourism would add as many as "12,000 jobs" to the provincial economy by the end of 2008.
Nope.
Figure no more than 100 jobs, according to the new study, and maybe as few as 25.
Yes, 25 jobs. At that measure, the Liberals could have generated the same economic impact by opening a good-sized fast-food restaurant.
In fairness to the original survey, the authors presumed that the government would launch a major effort to market the province starting in 2002. No such effort was forthcoming.
Part of the problem was the heavy hand of the International Olympic Committee. It blocked all direct efforts to promote Vancouver-Whistler in 2010 until after the 2008 Beijing Summer Games were over.
But there were other obstacles too, as the office of the provincial auditor-general noted three years ago in ringing the alarm bells about the marketing effort or lack of same.
"The estimate of economic benefits from the Games depend upon having a highly effective and coordinated long-term international tourism marketing campaign, beginning in 2003," said the report by the independent financial watchdog.
"We notice, however, that the marketing effort to date has been delayed and uncoordinated, with no central agency taking the lead. Not having a centralized agency, together with not being able to start marketing efforts early, means the maximum economic benefits forecasted by the province back in 2002 may not be achieved."
Nor were they achieved.
Olympic boosters are now staking their hopes for major growth in tourism on all the free publicity in 2010, followed by a multi-year effort to lure visitors to B.C. after the fact.
Maybe. But the pitch will have to be more persuasive than what has gone before. The Liberals say they are determined to capitalize on a once-in-a-generation opportunity to promote B.C. as a tourism destination. But you wouldn't know it from their feeble attempts to date.