report analysis and findings -...
TRANSCRIPT
Report – Analysis and findings
European capital city tourism
Vienna, January 2012
2 111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
This document shall be treated as confidential. It has been compiled for the exclusive, internal use by our client and is not complete without the underlying detail analyses and the oral presentation. It may
not be passed on and/or may not be made available to third parties without prior written consent from Roland Berger Strategy Consultants. RBSC does not assume any responsibility for the completeness
and accuracy of the statements made in this document.
© Roland Berger Strategy Consultants
Contents Page
Management summary Paris, Amsterdam and Stockholm lead the ranking 3
A. Methodology and sources This study is based on online material, statistical data and expert interviews 5
B. Analysis and evaluation European capitals have been evaluated along a set of seven criteria 10
C. Conclusion City tourism is a key growth driver for the economy and professional strategy development is a key success factor 32
Management summary Paris, Amsterdam and Stockholm lead the ranking
4 111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
European capital city tourism study: Management summary
RANKING
> To allow better comparisons, the cities were split into two clusters: Cluster 1 contains the top ten cities in terms of the number of overnight stays in 2010
> Paris tops the ranking in Cluster 1, followed by Amsterdam, Stockholm, Vienna and Berlin, in that order
> Zurich tops the ranking in Cluster 2, followed by Lisbon and Copenhagen
ANALYSIS
> We use seven criteria to evaluate tourism in capital cities: growth in overnight stays, total number of overnight stays, bed capacity growth, value creation, internationality, accessibility and congresses
> Berlin, Stockholm and Ljubljana saw the highest growth in the number of overnight stays over the last five years
> London and Paris had by far the most overnight stays in 2010; Berlin and Rome came fourth and fifth
> Amsterdam and Lisbon have most overnight stays per inhabitant, followed by Prague
> Amsterdam, Lisbon, Stockholm, Zurich, Vienna, Rome and Copenhagen are the top performers in terms of growth in the number of overnight stays in the last five years and the number of overnight stays per inhabitant
> London and Prague enjoy the longest overnight stays
> Ljubljana is the top performer in terms of growth in bed capacity in the last five years. Tallinn and Istanbul follow in second and third place, a long way behind
> In terms of value creation in the form of revenue per available room, Paris, London and Amsterdam top the ranking. Prague and Madrid come at the bottom end of the ranking
> London and Paris lead in terms of accessibility by air, followed at some distance by Amsterdam and Istanbul
> Vienna hosts the most congresses, followed at some distance by Paris and Berlin
OBJECTIVE
> Tourism to capital cities is a growth driver, outperforming both tourism to countries as a whole and GDP growth
> The study compares the figures for tourism in different European capitals, looking at current status, growth and success
A. Methodology and sources This study is based on online material, statistical data and expert interviews
6 111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
London
Paris
Berlin
Rome
Prague
Vienna
Madrid
Lisbon
Athens
Zurich Budapest
Brussels
Amsterdam
Bratislava
Zagreb Belgrade
Luxembourg
Helsinki
Istanbul
Ljubljana
Tallinn
The study analyzes 24 European cities' success in the area of tourism
Focus cities
Capitals of EU-27 countries
Belgrade, Istanbul, Zagreb and Zurich1)
Cities for which data was out-of-date or insufficient to allow comparisons
24 focus cities
Objective
> The objective of the study is to bench-mark the success of European cities in the area of tourism…
> … and to produce findings on key developments, trends and challenges in the market
Objective and focus cities
Source: Roland Berger
Oslo
Stockholm
Copenhagen
1) Zurich is included as it is more significant for tourism than the capital , Bern
7 111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
The study is based on information from popular databases and interviews with experts
SOURCES > Websites of city tourist boards and marketing agencies
> ECM Benchmarking Report 2011
> Eurostat data on country level
> Intern. Congress and Convention Association (ICCA)
> International Hotel Association (IHA)
> TourMIS, statistical database for city tourism1)
> Berliner Hotelverband
> Deutscher Hotel- und Gaststätten-verband
> Österreichische Hoteliervereinigung
> Wien Tourismus
> Roland Berger experts with relevant project experience
METHOD- OLOGY
1
Gather online material (tourism master plans, etc.)
3
Interview experts on methodology and trends in city tourism
Collect and analyze statistical data
2
Evaluate focus cities along predefined dimensions
4
Derive conclusions
5
> Minor differences in some criteria could not be avoided – accepted for the purpose of this report
> Roland Berger
Methodology and sources
Source: Roland Berger
1) TourMIS data lumps business and leisure together
8 111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
We use a "barometer model" to evaluate and rank cities – Similar approach to the World Economic Forum ranking
EVALUATION OF FOCUS CITIES – BACKUP
Evaluation criteria City
I Overnight stays, CAGR 2005-2010 [%]
II Overnight stays per inhabitant [no.]
Published data
Barometer results
Criteria weighting1)
40%
Calculation
City with the highest value given 100
100
City with lowest value given 0
0
Remaining values interpolated, e.g. E:
(7.0-1.0)/
(13.0-1.0) x 100
= 50
60%
Rank Total barometer results
A 7.3 A 100
B 3.5 B 51
C -0.5 C 0
D -0.4 D 1
E 4.3 E 61
A 6.1 A 42
B 13.0 B 100
C 6.4 C 44
D 1.0 D 0
E 7.0 E 50
1) Indicative only
77 100 x 60% + 42 x 40% =
A:
1
B: 71 2
C: 18 4
D: 1 5
E: 57 3
Source: Roland Berger
4
Evaluation method
9 111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
We group cities into two clusters for the final ranking to ensure we are comparing like with like
EVALUATION OF FOCUS CITIES – BACKUP
Source: Roland Berger
4
Ranking of cities in two clusters
Cluster 1
> London
> Paris
> Berlin
> Rome
> Madrid
> Prague
> Vienna
> Amsterdam
> Istanbul
> Stockholm
Overnight stays, 2010 [m]
48.7
35.8
20.8
20.4
15.2
12.1
11.7
9.7
9.1
6.3
Cluster 2
> Lisbon
> Budapest
> Brussels
> Athens
> Copenhagen
> Zurich
> Oslo
> Helsinki
> Tallinn
> Bratislava
> Belgrade
> Zagreb
> Luxembourg
> Ljubljana
Overnight stays, 2010 [m]
6.2
5.9
5.6
5.4
5.1
3.7
3.3
3.2
2.3
1.4
1.3
1.0
0.8
0.7
COMMENTS
> Interviewees pointed out that cities generally compare their performance to a limited set of other cities
> Their selection of cities for comparison depends mainly on performance, size, maturity of the tourism industry and visitor motivation
> Accordingly, we grouped cities into two clusters for the final ranking
> Data on revenue per available room, average daily room rate and occupancy was only available for the ten cities in Cluster 1 – the clustering means that we can analyze value creation in city tourism for this group at least
B. Analysis and evaluation European capitals have been evaluated along a set of seven criteria
11 111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
Tourism has expanded much faster than the overall economy in Europe in recent years – City tourism has performed best
Development of the tourism industry
Source: ECM, Eurostat, TourMIS, Roland Berger
114
111
112
108
105107106104
104
107106
103
100
102
104
106
108
110
112
114
116
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
108
100 100 100
103
107
GDP of EU-27
Overnight stays in focus countries
Overnight stays in focus cities
COMMENTS
> City tourism suffered less during the economic crisis than expected
> In the crisis year 2009, the GDP of the EU-27 fell 4.3% while city tourism decreased by just 3.5%
> In 2010, GDP recovered slowly while city tourism recovered fast, with overnight stays up 6.8%
> Tourism is a key growth driver for the overall economy. City tourism outperforms the rest of the industry
> We analyze the top cities, their perform-ance, trends and challenges in the report
City tourism, CAGR 2005-2010 [index =100]
12 111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
We analyze the cities along seven different dimensions
COMMENTS
> The different dimensions selected for the evaluation are well balanced
> The growth in the number of overnight stays is used as the key criterion; increasing this figure is the overall goal. The current number of overnight stays is also included as otherwise mature markets would be at a disadvantage
> Due to limited data, revenue per available room is used for Cluster 1 cities only
Dimensions Period
100%
Source: Roland Berger
Evaluation criteria
10
100%
III GROWTH IN BED CAPACITY
2005-2010
VI ACCESSIBILITY 2011
I GROWTH IN OVERNIGHT STAYS
2005-2010
II NUMBER OF OVERNIGHT STAYS
2010
VII CONGRESSES 2009
V INTERNATIONALITY 2010
2010
IV VALUE CREATION 2010
Selected benchmarking criteria
CAGR for bed capacity
Number of direct flight connections
CAGR for overnight stays
No. of overnight stays relative to inhabitants
Number of congresses
Share of European tourists
Share of non-European tourists
Revenue per available room
Weighting cluster 1 [%]
Weighting cluster 2 [%]
15 20
15 20
20 30
10 10
10 10
5 5
5 5
20 n.a.
10
Criteria for all cities Criterion for Cluster 1 cities only
13 111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
Berlin, Stockholm and Ljubljana enjoyed the biggest increase in the number of overnight stays in the last five years
Source: TourMIS, ECM, Roland Berger
Growth in the number of overnight stays, CAGR 2005-2010 [%]
I GROWTH IN OVERNIGHT STAYS
BRA
0.5
BUD
-2.1
BEL
-0.7
LON
-0.5
IST1)
-0.4
LUX1) ATH1)
-5.4
PAR
1.2
PRA
1.5
ZAG
2.4
COP
2.8
OSL
3.3
TAL
3.4
AMS
3.5
BRU
3.6
LIS
3.9
0.1
ZUR
4.1
ROM
4.2
VIE
4.3
MAD
4.4
HEL
4.5
LJU
5.2
STO1)
5.7
BER
7.3
Avg. 2.4
1) 2005-2009 only
14 111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
London and Paris had by far the most overnight stays in 2010 – However, some cities are much bigger than others
Source: TourMIS, ECM, Eurostat, Roland Berger
LJU
0.7
LUX1)
0.8
ZAG
1.0
BEL
1.3
STO1) OSL
6.3 3.3
BRA
1.4
TAL
2.3
HEL
3.2
ZUR
3.7
COP
5.1
ATH1)
5.4
BRU
5.6
BUD
5.9
LIS
6.2
IST1)
9.1
AMS
9.7
VIE
11.7
PRA
12.1
MAD
15.2
ROM
20.4
BER
20.8
PAR
35.8
LON
48.7
Number of overnight stays, 2010 [m]
II NUMBER OF OVERNIGHT STAYS
Inhabi- tants [m]
7.7 3.4 3.2 1.7 0.7 8.8 0.8 0.5 1.7 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 1.2 0.8 0.1 0.3 4.4 2.7 1.2
1) 2009
15 111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
Amsterdam and Lisbon had the most overnight stays relative to the number of inhabitants
Source: TourMIS, ECM, Eurostat, Roland Berger
Istanbul 1.0 Belgrade 1.1 Zagreb 1.3 Ljubljana 2.7 Bratislava 3.2 Budapest 3.4 Madrid 4.7 Brussels 5.3 Helsinki 5.7 Tallinn 5.7 Oslo 5.9 Berlin 6.1 London 6.4 Athens 6.7 Vienna 7.0 Rome 7.5 Stockholm 7.7 Paris 8.2 Luxembourg 9.0 Zurich 9.7 Copenhagen 10.1 Prague 10.3 Lisbon 12.6 Amsterdam 13.0
Avg. 6.4
COMMENTS
> Amsterdam and Lisbon had by far the most overnight stays relative to the number of inhabitants
> The number of inhabitants can be hard to define as it depends on how the area of the city is defined, however it gives the figures more context
> Prague was the best performer in CEE
> Most CEE countries have a below-average number of overnight stays per inhabitant
Overnight stays per inhabitant, 2010
II NUMBER OF OVERNIGHT STAYS
16 111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
STARS – Above-average number of overnight stays per inhabitant and above-average growth > Amsterdam, Lisbon and Stockholm are top performers
HIGH POTENTIALS – Relatively small number of overnight stays but above-average growth > Berlin, Stockholm and Ljubljana have the strongest increase in the
number of overnight stays – Berlin is well on its way to joining the "stars"
> Ljubljana shows positive growth, but current volumes are still low
FOLLOWERS – Above-average number of overnight stays but below-average growth > Paris, Prague & Luxembourg have had below-average growth since
2005 > Athens has the lowest CAGR of the focus cities
LAGGARDS – Below-average number of overnight stays and below-average growth > Belgrade and Budapest risk losing ground to other cities if no action
is taken > Need to identify reasons for poor performance
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
IST
BEL
ZAG
LJU
BRA
BUD
MAD
BRU
HEL
TAL OSL
BER
LON
ATH
VIE ROM
STO
PAR
LUX
ZUR
COP
PRA
LIS
AMS
Amsterdam and Lisbon are the top performers – Large number of overnight stays today and strong growth since 2005
Source: TourMIS, ECM, Eurostat, Roland Berger
CAGR for overnight stays 2005-20101) [%]
Average
Overnight stays per inhabitant, 2010
A B
C D
CONCLUSIONS
A
B
C
D
Current volume and growth matrix
II NUMBER OF OVERNIGHT STAYS
1) 2005-2009 only for Athens, Istanbul, Luxembourg and Stockholm
17 111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
Overnight stays per arrival are low in city tourism – Even small increases here help draw people away from the well-beaten path
Source: TourMIS, ECM, Roland Berger
-1.2 -1.3 -0.4 -1.8 1.5 0.3 -1.1 0.1 1.1 -1.3 -0.6 -1.4 0.8 0.0 -0.8 0.3 0.7 -0.5 -1.5 -0.8 -10.7
1.2
IST2) ZUR
1.7
ZAG
1.7
HEL
1.8
TAL
1.8
AMS
1.8
LUX2)
1.9
BRU2)
1.9
LJU
1.9
MAD
1.9
BRA
2.0
ATH2)
2.1
BEL
2.1
LIS
2.2
VIE
2.2
BER
2.3
PAR
2.4
BUD2)
2.4
ROM2)
2.4
PRA
2.5
LON
2.6
Avg. 2.0
Overnight stays per arrival1), 2010
CAGR 2005-2010 [%]
II NUMBER OF OVERNIGHT STAYS
1) No figures available for Copenhagen, Oslo and Stockholm 2) 2005-2009 only
18 111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
Ljubljana shows outstanding growth rates in bed capacities over the last five years – Good indicator of market trust by private investors
Source: ECM, Roland Berger
Bed capacity, CAGR 2005-20101) [%]
III GROWTH IN BED CAPACITY
-3.0
LON
-2.5
BRU
-0.5
PAR
0.3
LIS
1.6
ZUR
2.3
HEL
2.4
ZAG
2.5
COP
2.8
MAD
3.0
ROM
3.3
LUX
3.4
VIE
3.7
OSL
4.0
PRA
4.5
AMS
4.5
BUD
5.0
BEL
5.3
BRA
5.8
BER
5.9
STO
6.4
TAL
7.0
LJU
11.4
IST
Avg. 3.4
1) No data for Athens; 2005-2009 only for Bratislava, Brussels, Budapest, Istanbul, London, Luxembourg and Stockholm
5 15 106 112 12 34 44 48 83 19 56 6 94 76 27 7 16 17 35 Hotel beds '000, 2010
152 31 213 7
19 111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
MAD VIE
STO AMS
ROM LON
PAR
PRA BER
Paris and London achieve the highest revenue per available room for Cluster 1 cities
Average
Revenue per available room (RevPAR)1)
IV VALUE CREATION (CLUSTER 1 CITIES ONLY)
Source: IHA, STR Global, Factiva, Roland Berger
Average daily room rate [EUR]
Occupancy rate [%]
Avg. daily room rate and occupancy rate, 2010 COMMENTS
> RevPAR is calculated by multiplying the average daily room rate by the occupancy rate
> Paris and London achieve highest RevPAR among Cluster 1 cities, with both the highest room rate and highest occupancy rate
> Clear positive correlation between occupancy rates and room rates
> Prague, Madrid and Berlin have both below-average room rates and below-average occupancy rates – need to examine possible reasons, e.g. oversupply of hotel beds
44
57
60
60
67
82
92
95
122
131
PRA
MAD
IST
VIE
BER
LON
PAR
STO
AMS
ROM
Revenue per available room, 2010 [EUR]
Avg. 81
1) Comparable data available for Cluster 1 cities only; For Istanbul only RevPAR 2009 available
20 111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
STARS – Above-average increase in bed capacity and above-average revenue per available room > Amsterdam, Stockholm are the top performers, with both high
RevPAR and strong capacity growth
CASH COWS – Above-average RevPAR but below-average capacity growth > In London, bed capacity has been falling over the last five years; in
Paris, it remained almost static
QUESTION MARKS – Above-average bed capacity growth but below-average RevPAR > Risk that revenue per available room will fall further as bed
capacities rise > However, if there is sufficient demand for the new capacity,
significant potential for positive development exists
LAGGARDS – Below-average growth in bed capacity and below-average RevPAR > Madrid is below-avg. in terms of both capacity growth and RevPAR > Need to find out why
Increasing bed capacity is not always a sign of good prices and occupancy levels
Revenue per available room, 2010 [EUR]
Statistical correlation
Bed capacity, CAGR 2005-20101) [%]
A B
C D
CONCLUSIONS
A
B
C
D
Revenue per available room (RevPAR) and changes in bed capacity
IV
Source: ECM, IHA, STR Global, Roland Berger
VALUE CREATION (CLUSTER 1 CITIES ONLY)
1) 2005-2009 only for Istanbul, London and Stockholm
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Amsterdam Rome
London
Paris
Vienna
Madrid Berlin
Stockholm
Istanbul
Prague
21 111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
Share of international overnight stays indicates the diversification of a city's tourism markets – Significant differences between cities
Source: TourMIS, ECM
Share of inbound overnight stays, 2010 [%]
V INTERNATIONALITY
20 13
1817 21
23
39
1929
1822
29
914
287
2414
10 35
41
7072
BRA
57
50
PAR
63
34
COP
65
51
BEL
66
57
ROM ATH
70
41
IST LIS
74
52
ZAG
75
57
ZUR
77
48
VIE
77
59
LON
79
40
AMS
81
58
BRU
86
65
BUD
86
69
TAL
90
85
5
PRA
90
72
LUX
94
81
LJU
96
76
OSL BER
41
31
STO HEL
54
40
MAD
54
31
Non-European inbound European inbound Total inbound (split between European and non-European not available)
55
19
Avg.
1) Including Istanbul, Rome, Stockholm and Oslo, for which the split between European and non-European was not available
711)
22 111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
London and Paris are by far the most accessible cities in Europe for tourists arriving by air
Source: Roland Berger
16222324
2829
4365
7880
9396
111111
118129130
146153
168176
205292
301
Ljubljana Oslo Tallinn Zagreb Luxembourg Budapest Helsinki Lisbon Athens Prague Copenhagen Berlin Stockholm Vienna Zurich Brussels Madrid Rome Istanbul Amsterdam Paris London
Belgrade Bratislava Avg. 110
COMMENTS
> Low-budget airlines with more affordable tickets have been a crucial growth driver in city tourism
> The increasing significance of accessibility by air is a risk factor for cities not located close to international hubs
> Apart from offering tax incentives, it is difficult for cities to increase the number of flight connections they have
Number of direct flight connections1) [flight schedule for summer 2011]
VI ACCESSIBILITY
1) Destinations connected with at least one direct flight per week
23 111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
Vienna is the clear leader in congress tourism in Europe, followed by Paris and Berlin
VII CONGRESSES
No. of congresses hosted1), 2009
Source: ICCA
101213
252635
505657
697375
8083868787
9898102103
129131
160
ZAG LUX BEL LJU OSL BRA TAL HEL ZUR ROM BRU ATH IST LON PRA BUD MAD AMS LIS STO COP BER PAR VIE
CAGR '04-'09 [%]
7.0 1.5 6.6 4.9 4.4 -0.2 0.5 1.8 9.0 6.4 4.7 0.3 23.3 0.4 0.4 15.5 1.6 20.1 -5.2 0.0 0.0 -0.7 5.4 3.9
1) Most recent year with comparable data is 2009
24 111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
A significant correlation exists between the number of congresses hosted and the number of overnight stays
Source: TourMIS, ECM, ICCA, Roland Berger
> In 2010, for the third year in a row, Vienna hosted the largest number of congresses
> Other CEE capitals have a very small number of both congresses and overnight stays
> The correlation reveals that congresses are a strong driver of tourism
Statistical correlation
Correlation between congresses and overnight stays, 2009
VII CONGRESSES
COMMENTS
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
HEL
ZUR
ROM
BRU
ATH
Overnight stays (m)
LON
PRA
BUD
MAD
AMS
LIS STO
COP
BER
PAR
VIE
48
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
No. of congresses
IST
ZAG
LUX BRA
BEL
LJU TAL
OSL
25 111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
Good accessibility by air is a prerequisite for being a successful congress location
Source: ICCA, Roland Berger
Statistical correlation
Correlation between direct flight connections and congresses1)
ACCESSIBILITY & CONGRESSES
> A significant correlation is found between flight connections and number of congresses
> The analysis shows that fewer than 60 direct flight connections means insufficient accessibility and congress numbers are significantly lower
> From 60 to 180 connections, the criterion of accessibility is met – most successful congress destinations fall into this group
> Additional connections above 180 do not correlate with a significant increase in congresses
COMMENTS
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320
No. of congresses
Flight connections
ZAG LUX
BRA BEL
LJU
TAL
OSL HEL ZUR ROM BRU
ATH IST
LON PRA BUD MAD AMS LIS
STO COP
BER PAR
VIE
1) Number of direct flight connections [flight schedule for summer 2011]; most recent year with comparable data on congresses is 2009
VI+VII
26 111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
Paris and Amsterdam score best – Rome, Stockholm, Berlin and Vienna follow, neck and neck
Source: Roland Berger
Results of the ranking1)
2 Amsterdam
3 Stockholm
4 Vienna
1 Paris
4 Berlin
6 Rome
7 London
8 Madrid
9 Prague
10 Istanbul
1
2
3
1) Cluster 1 cities
27 111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
Paris and Amsterdam score best – Stockholm, Vienna and Berlin follow, neck and neck
Source: Roland Berger
Evaluation of Cluster 11) – barometer (100 = best performer)
1) Top 10 cities in terms of absolute number of overnight stays 2010 – clustering enables better benchmarking 2) Where the non-European share was not available, the criterion's percentage weight was distributed equally among the other criteria for calculating the total result
TOTAL
62
61
51
50
50
49
48
38
33
31
Evaluation criteria
City/weight [%]
1 Paris
2 Amsterdam
3 Stockholm
4 Vienna
4 Berlin
6 Rome
7 London
8 Madrid
9 Prague
10 Istanbul
Overnight stays, CAGR
20
22
51
80
61
100
60
0
62
26
1
Overnight stays per inh.
10
60
100
56
50
42
54
44
31
78
0
Non-domes-tic share
5
45
81
0
74
0
59
77
27
100
62
Non-Eur. share
52)
64
46
n.a.
31
0
n.a.
100
48
28
n.a.
Bed capacity, CAGR
15
31
79
87
69
94
66
0
62
78
100
Accessi- bility
15
96
53
11
16
7
35
100
28
0
39
Congresses
10
68
32
36
100
66
0
15
20
19
12
RevPAR
20
100
59
44
26
18
55
90
15
0
19
BACKUP
28 111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
The barometer is based on the results of the evaluation
Evaluation of Cluster 1 – summary of results
BACKUP
Source: TourMIS, ECM, ICCA, Roland Berger
Evaluation criteria
City/weight [%]
1 Paris
2 Amsterdam
3 Stockholm
4 Vienna
4 Berlin
6 Rome
7 London
8 Madrid
9 Prague
10 Istanbul
Overn. stays, CAGR [%]
20
1.2
3.5
5.7
4.3
7.3
4.2
-0.5
4.4
1.5
-0.4
Overn. stays per inh. [no.]
10
8.2
13.0
7.7
7.0
6.1
7.5
6.4
4.7
10.3
1.0
Non-domestic share [%]
5
62.9
80.9
40.9
77.3
40.9
70.0
79.0
54.4
90.3
71.5
Non-European share [%]
5
28.4
23.1
n.a.
18.8
9.9
n.a.
38.7
23.8
17.9
n.a.
Bed capacity, CAGR [%]
15
0.3
4.5
5.3
3.7
5.9
3.3
-2.5
3.0
4.5
6.4
Accessibility [no. dir. flights]
15
292
205
118
129
111
168
301
153
96
176
Congresses [no.]
10
131
98
102
160
129
69
83
87
86
80
RevPAR [EUR]
20
131
95
82
67
60
92
122
57
44
60
29 111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
Zurich wins the Cluster 2 ranking ahead of Lisbon and Copenhagen
Source: Roland Berger
Results of the ranking1)
1 Zurich
2 Lisbon
3 Copenhagen
4 Brussels
5 Ljubljana
6 Helsinki
7 Tallinn
8 Oslo
9 Budapest
10 Athens
11 Luxembourg
12 Zagreb
13 Bratislava
14 Belgrade
1) Cluster 2 cities
1
2
3
30 111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
Zurich, Lisbon and Copenhagen top the ranking for Cluster 2 cities
Source: Roland Berger
Evaluation of Cluster 21) – barometer (100 = best performer)
City/weight [%]
1) Top 11-24 cities in terms of absolute number of overnight stays 2010 – clustering enables better benchmarking 2) Where bed capacity CAGR or the non-European share was not available, the criterion's percentage weight was distributed equally among the other criteria for calculating the total result
Evaluation criteria
TOTAL
1 Zurich 73
2 Lisbon 69
3 Copenhagen 68
4 Brussels 67
5 Ljubljana 62
6 Helsinki 57
7 Tallinn 52
8 Oslo 46
9 Budapest 45
10 Athens 43
11 Luxembourg 42
12 Zagreb 38
13 Bratislava 34
14 Belgrade
30
Overnight stays, CAGR
90
88
77
85
100
93
83
82
31
0
52
73
56
44
10
Overnight stays per inh.
75
100
78
36
14
40
40
42
20
49
68
2
18
0
5
Non-domestic share
69
64
49
84
100
31
90
0
85
58
98
67
37
51
52)
Non-European share
100
69
38
65
62
37
0
n.a.2)
50
100
34
56
10
17
202)
Bed capacity, CAGR
36
32
40
17
100
37
70
49
55
n.a.2)
44
38
61
0
20
Accessi- bility
88
49
73
100
5
48
9
6
38
59
21
10
5
0
10
Congresses
51
95
100
68
17
49
27
43
83
70
2
0
3
16 18
BACKUP
31 111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
The barometer is based on the results of the evaluation
Evaluation of Cluster 2 – summary
BACKUP
Source: TourMIS, ECM, ICCA, Roland Berger
Evaluation criteria
City/weight [%]
1 Zurich
2 Lisbon
3 Copenhagen
4 Brussels
5 Ljubljana
6 Helsinki
7 Tallinn
8 Oslo
9 Budapest
10 Athens
11 Luxembourg
12 Zagreb
13 Bratislava
14 Belgrade
Overnight stays, CAGR [%]
30
4.1
3.9
2.8
3.6
5.2
4.5
3.4
3.3
-2.1
-5.4
0.1
2.4
0.5
-0.7
Overnight stays per inh. [no.]
10
9.7
12.6
10.1
5.3
2.7
5.7
5.7
5.9
3.4
6.7
9.0
1.3
3.2
1.1
Non-domestic share [%]
5
76.7
73.7
64.8
85.8
95.6
53.7
89.7
34.8
86.4
70.1
94.4
75.4
57.5
65.8
Non-European share [%]
5
29.0
21.6
14.1
20.7
19.8
13.8
4.8
n.a.
17.0
29.1
13.0
18.3
7.3
9.0
Bed capacity, CAGR [%]
20
2.3
1.6
2.8
-0.5
11.4
2.4
7.0
4.0
5.0
n.a.
3.4
2.5
5.8
-3.0
Accessibility [no. direct flights]
20
130
80
111
146
23
78
28
24
65
93
43
29
22
16
Congresses [no.]
10
57
98
103
73
26
56
35
50
87
75
12
10
13
25
C. Conclusions City tourism is a key growth driver for the economy and professional strategy development is a key success factor
33 111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
City tourism strategies are available online for just 7 of the 24 capital cities in the study
Source: City tourism strategies, Roland Berger research
1) It is assumed that if a city has a professional tourism strategy, it also makes it available online
Tourism strategies available online1)
BERLIN 2011
HELSINKI 2011
LISBON 2011-2014
LJUBLJANA 2007-2013
VIENNA 2010-2015
LONDON 2009-2013
AMSTERDAM 2009-2012
Tourismuskonzept Berlin
Helsinki's tourism strategy
Turismo de Lisboa strategic marketing plan
Strategic development and marketing plan
Tourismuskonzept 2015
London Tourism Action Plan
Strategic marketing & communication plan
> SWOT > National/
international benchmarks
> Visitor structures, market segments
> Strategic targets and actions
> Strategic targets > Tasks > KPIs
> Vision and ambition
> Objectives > Positioning/
branding: markets, segments, products
> Implementation programs
> SWOT > Quantitative and
qualitative objectives
> Positioning, branding, selling proposition
> To-do's, responsi-bilities, timing
> Balanced scorecard: objectives, KPIs, actions
> Strategic framework with regional targets
> Strategic priorities > Action plan/timing
> Trends and key success factors
> Markets and com-petitors
> Targets, positioning and image
> Actions and stakeholders
> Marketing concept
> SWOT > Tourism product
development > Strategy and
objectives > Marketing tools > Financial
framework
34 111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
Cities with a professional tourism strategy show stronger growth in the number of arrivals and overnight stays
4.2 Cities publishing a tourism strategy2)
1.9 Cities not publishing a tourism strategy
ARRIVALS
OVERNIGHT STAYS
4.0 Cities publishing a tourism strategy2)
1.7 Cities not publishing a tourism strategy
COMMENTS
> Only 7 of the 24 focus cities publish a tourism strategy online
> Berlin, Lisbon, London and Vienna had professional tourism concepts even before 2005; for Ljubljana, the first document available is from 2007; for Amsterdam and Helsinki, the year the first document was published is not available
> Cities publishing a tourism strategy show stronger growth in the number of arrivals and overnight stays
> Publishing the strategy is essential for successful communication with stakeholders
> Developing and communicating a professional strategy is an area with a large upside potential for most cities in the study
Growth of tourism – CAGR 2005-20101) [%]
Source: TourMIS, Roland Berger research
1) Luxembourg 2005-2009, Athens 2005-2007, Rome arrivals 2005-2009, Istanbul overnight stays 2005-2009
2) Amsterdam, Berlin, Helsinki, Lisbon, Ljubljana, London, Vienna
Impact of a professional tourism strategy
35 111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
> Capital city tourism significantly outperforms GDP development both in times of crisis and recovery
> There is a negative correlation between bed capacity growth over the last five years and RevPARs, except in Amsterdam and Stockholm
> There is a clear correlation between the number of congresses hosted by a city and the number of overnight stays
> 60 flight connections appears to be the minimum required to attract a significant number of congresses
> A surprising number of capital cities do not publish a tourism master plan – only 7 out of the 24 focus cities do publish such a plan
> Cities with a published tourism master plan have growth rates in arrivals and overnight stays of around twice as much compared to those not publishing a plan
> Capital city tourism is a key driver of growth and should be exploited accordingly
Conclusions (1/3) – Capital city tourism is a key growth driver
36 111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
> In general, cities should publish better data – professional, focused and up-to-date statistics are not universally available
> Some cities that have a large number of overnight stays compared to the number of inhabitants need to manage potential friction between local residents and visitors – marketing tourism within the country itself is increasingly important to keep local residents happy and prevent them feeling like they are living in a zoo
> Many cities are trying to encourage repeat visits and attract tourists away from the city's main attractions to other parts of the city
> Developing infrastructure is a key element in the strategies of successful cities
> Changes in bed capacity are a measure of the success of the city's image and trust by investors – however, excessive growth generally results in low RevPAR for hotel operators and can threaten the survival of their business
Conclusions (2/3) – Growth needs to be managed well in order to be sustainable
37 111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
> On average, 29% of overnight stays relate to domestic tourism, 55% to other European visitors and 19% to non-European visitors
> The share of non-European guests is a good indicator for the city's global attractiveness and resistance to local/regional crises – diversification of visitors
> The organizational structures for managing city tourism vary – Berlin has a highly professional DMO1): a public private partnership with a significant share of funding generated by profit-oriented activities
> The main barriers to cities developing a tourism strategy are the uncoordinated involvement of a large number of stakeholders, too little responsibility assigned to the relevant body, excessive political influence and self-satisfaction regarding current performance
> Capital city tourism offers a large upside potential in most European countries
Conclusions (3/3) – Coordination and professional management is a key success factor
1) Destination Marketing Organization
impact! that creates
It's character