Focus On Quality Tourists, Not Quantity, Urges PM Abhisit

[cbc]

Just arrived home in chiang mai from another trip to bangkok.Seems that the taxis at the airport CHIANG MAI are getting worse then those in BKK ! I was asked if i wanted a taxi meter and when i asked how much to hillside 3 i was told 200 baht.They thought i was a tourist and when i told them i lived here for three year's now,two of the driver's just looked at each other and smiled.They knew they were caught especially when there were three newly arrived tourists sitting nearby and listening to the conversation.They quoted another price of 150 baht and i walked away and took a red taxi for 80 baht.Wonder why the tourist number's are declining.

I n regards to quality tourists,i see TAT stated they will focus on the middle east tourist well,those are mainly the people i see now in BKK as tourists and,they do nothing but try and bargain.Gripe and do not want to pay 50 baht for a pair of sandals.These are the quality tourists they want to attract wow.Also,they are very rude in their actions and speaking.Quality ?I don't think so.

I

[IAMHERE]

A good start might be taking a bulldozer through places like Pattaya. Round up all the bargirls on the streets. Quality tourists don't flock to Thailand for ladyboys and the sex industry.

I think the Thai's are defining 'quality' as money spent per tourist rather than western morals broken per tourist.

[Oberkommando]

The Western tourists from the UK and elsewhere are discovering new places. No shortage of them in Cambodia, Viet Nam and even Laos.

Thailand is too expensive for what it offers and too dangerous (the most dangerous tourism destination for Britons according to the FCO) and people are slowly finding that out and going elsewhere.

They are being replaced by lower spending nationalities from other countries, which will sustain the tourism industry temporarily until it eventually collapses due to poorly thought out policies and interference of out of touch politicians such as Abhisit.

[Oberkommando]

It's just another regurgitation of a failed Thaksin policy.

Nothing to see here.

The Thais massively over-value the attraction of their country when it comes to tourism. Attempting to explain the realities of shifts in global spending power and other minutiae as it related to the tourism industry is futile. As is trying to explain that Thailand does not have the infrastructure to attract the real big spenders.

Thailand should focus on the sleaze and seediness it is renowned for, attempting to change the branding of the product (into something far from reality) this far down the track could have disasterous effects, as it almost did the first time around under Thaksin, until a military coup and airport takeovers did it for him.

[Tiffer]

Get with the programme!

All countries with the possible exception of Nepal, Bhutan etc have a very eclectic mix of visitors.

The PM did not say exclude budget tourism.

The objective is to focus resources on higher end tourism which in turn supports ancillary and auxiliary services and there is NOTHING wrong with that.

Arguably the budget end can take care of itself and when all is said and done an NTO is simply a facilitator.

If you want to see the wealth spread... how about getting on to the TAT to develop better quality regional information... discuss

[Steely Dan]

I am curious how the Thais plan to assess the quality of foreigners; should be an interesting evolution

Perhaps a 'quality' tourist is one who actually makes it back for the return trip more or less in one piece as oppose to spontaneously dying as some Chiangmai hotel guests have tended to do recently.

[KKK]

If the govt. want more money spent by Tourists, they can start the ball rolling by charging the same prices for all at National Parks and all other govt. operated facilities....farangs are not stupid when it comes to a two price operation......and i don't want to hear about...".but Thai people are poor and that is the reason"....try telling all the Thai Tourist that roll up at these venues in their Mercedes and BMW's, that they are poor

Oh but they are (poor)

It doesn't matter how rich a Thai you are every Farang is always richer in their Thai eyes. Comparing Farang to Thai the Farang is the rich one and the Thai poor. There are no money trees in Asia they only grow in Farangland.

[Chupup]

If I assume the PM is more western than Thai, since he was born and educated in the west, it follows that his outlook and thought process are more western. Now, since he is not your average Thai, he is expressing a more focussed aspiration for his country. I can bet there is NOT ONE leader in the West who would be happy with a certain type of tourists that seem to flock to Thailand in droves. Similarly, the PM is aware of a longer term image problem if the entrenched view is that Thailand is a low cost sex tourist destination. So what is wrong with trying to clean up the industry? The success or failure of his stated aspiration is unknown, but as I said can't blame him for stating an aspiration.

Also, the PM is able to recognise white trash when he sees/smells/hears it...unlike the average Thai who may think all farangs are rich and well-educated. So which leader wouldn't want to minimise white trash from arriving and worse still, setlling here and breeding?

[/quot

So when are YOU leaving

[MAJIC]

Here we go again,it's Talk up the Tourism Figures once again.

And surely 585 Million Baht Tourist Revenue should be 585 Billion Bahts?

In order to attract Quality Tourists a lot of hard work needs to done:

No more Political Instability,

No more Redshirts holding the Country to Ransom.

No more Jet Ski ,Tuk Tuk Mafia Scams etc etc.

No more higher Pricing double standards for Foreigners,

No more Airport Taxi Scams.

No more Visa connected,Stupid Flexible Rules, Problems.

No more Racialism.

I could go on..................

But Quality of Tourists,is always commensurate with what appeals to individuals standards,and expectations.

But I doubt they will ever get it.

Edited March 3, 2011 by MAJIC

[Oberkommando]

No more Redshirts holding the Country to Ransom.

Arguably more tourists were affected by the yellow shirts, as they shut down most of the country's major airports.

Just thought you shouldn't mention one without the other, especially given the effects on tourism.

In fact, the government claims 15.8 million people came last year, record numbers apparently, so the red shirts mustn't have had that much of an effect on tourism.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Oberkommando

[ginjag]

My post # 277 in the Subarn/bkk thread also covers this thread, I tried to explain my idea on this posh end is not the big answer on tourism problems.

[Ricardo]

It's just another regurgitation of a failed Thaksin policy.

Nothing to see here.

The Thais massively over-value the attraction of their country when it comes to tourism. Attempting to explain the realities of shifts in global spending power and other minutiae as it related to the tourism industry is futile. As is trying to explain that Thailand does not have the infrastructure to attract the real big spenders.

Thailand should focus on the sleaze and seediness it is renowned for, attempting to change the branding of the product (into something far from reality) this far down the track could have disasterous effects, as it almost did the first time around under Thaksin, until a military coup and airport takeovers did it for him.

Spot On !

Thailand attracts package-holiday sun-and-sand-and-sex tourists, the top-end of the market goes to the Caribbean or Maldives or other flavours-of-the-month, the TAT should spend its money marketing to what works, not trying to claim the country offers the Elite/hi-so experience which it so rarely does.

And those tourists first visit here as backpackers on their gap-year, happy memories of a fun trip will bring them back with their families, a decade later ... unless they recall the rip-off taxi/jet-ski mafia or the off-putting visa-rules.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Ricardo

[Chupup]

I guess it all depends what "quality tourists" are. I do not think that low budget is low quality. I generally think that "low quality" tourist would be those of low morals, low respect and low humanity. These simply erode away at the thai culture, demeaning the locals and not contributing anything more that dirty money to thailand. 5 stars billionaires are not likely to enrich the thai culture either, lazing in poolside lounge chairs. You'd think that Back Packers, familiies and the budget consious traveller would be a good target for Thailand.

The issue is that Thailand fails as a quality destination. Public tranportation is horrific and at times dangerous. There are pockets of quality, but one has to wade through vast cesspools to get to them. Service is poor in most places save the 5 star resorts. Finally the overall reception of tourists here is not one of mutual benefit (aka quality) but extortion (take any money you can get an run, dam_n the consequences or long term effects).

Steps to the PM's goal:

• target quality tourists (meaning those who seek good value, and are repectful to the locals)
• offer a quality experience.
• clean up the beaches, and transportation
• treat tourist with respect that they choose to spend thier hard earned holiday budgets in Thailand rather than walking wallets processed though an turnstyle.

Couldn't have put it better myself

[MAJIC]

No more Redshirts holding the Country to Ransom.

Arguably more tourists were affected by the yellow shirts, as they shut down most of the country's major airports.

Just thought you shouldn't mention one without the other, especially given the effects on tourism.

In fact, the government claims 15.8 million people came last year, record numbers apparently, so the red shirts mustn't have had that much of an effect on tourism.

And would you happen to have the figures,for cancellations and also those that changed their minds,especially with the many warnings not to go to Thailand,from their Embassy?

For all we know it could have been 18 Million,had the Redshirts Demonstrations been cancelled?

Just a thought.

Yes the Yellowshirts are a smaller part of the problem,but how far do you want me to go back?

[sydneyjed]

If the Qantas budget airline Jetstar wasn't flying direct into Phuket they would be even more stuffed than they already are!!The 10/15 tuk tuk thugs who stabbed the 3 Australian guys last weekend has gone down like a bad dose of the clap in the media here...'Quality Tourists =Quality Hosts' for starters!!!TAT at the present moment are living in 'cuckoo land'!

No more Redshirts holding the Country to Ransom.

Arguably more tourists were affected by the yellow shirts, as they shut down most of the country's major airports.

Just thought you shouldn't mention one without the other, especially given the effects on tourism.

In fact, the government claims 15.8 million people came last year, record numbers apparently, so the red shirts mustn't have had that much of an effect on tourism.

[Awohalitsiktoli]

It's just another regurgitation of a failed Thaksin policy.

Nothing to see here.

The Thais massively over-value the attraction of their country when it comes to tourism. Attempting to explain the realities of shifts in global spending power and other minutiae as it related to the tourism industry is futile. As is trying to explain that Thailand does not have the infrastructure to attract the real big spenders.

Thailand should focus on the sleaze and seediness it is renowned for, attempting to change the branding of the product (into something far from reality) this far down the track could have disasterous effects, as it almost did the first time around under Thaksin, until a military coup and airport takeovers did it for him.

Spot On !

Thailand attracts package-holiday sun-and-sand-and-sex tourists, the top-end of the market goes to the Caribbean or Maldives or other flavours-of-the-month, the TAT should spend its money marketing to what works, not trying to claim the country offers the Elite/hi-so experience which it so rarely does.

And those tourists first visit here as backpackers on their gap-year, happy memories of a fun trip will bring them back with their families, a decade later ... unless they recall the rip-off taxi/jet-ski mafia or the off-putting visa-rules.

I feel like if the government, real estate nuts, and other assorted basket cases get their way, the country (at least the fun part of it) will be destroyed. Many expats lived in Thailand for years not really wanted to see a lot of changes because things were fine. The new breed seems to want to change everything, saying things like "bulldoze the place." I think they new breed are mostly real estate nuts who invested in a bad dream and are frustrated/angry because the dream did not become a reality.

The only way the dream will become a reality for them is to destroy it all and start over: destroy the sanook culture, destroy people's livelihoods (non-rich expats and Thais alike). I do not think they care about Thailand at all. I think they only care about themselves and their castles in the sky and wish everything that offends them (i.e., reality) would go away so they can finally be happy.

They apparently believe the following: Take away the scumbag backpackers and happiness will follow. Take away the 99% of restaurants that cater to the non-rich and happiness will follow. Take away the 99% of hotels and bungalows that cater to the non-rich and happiness will follow. Take away the scumbag retirees who moved here years ago and now must live off of their small pensions and happiness will follow. Tear down all of the old buildings and replace them with new skyscrapers and happiness will follow. Get rid of the bars, girls and massage parlors and happiness will follow, etc., etc.

It must be a sad life to believe these things and to want to destroy everything that came before. If they get their wish, the economy will be in total ruin and the masses will surely rise up and take appropriate action. Beware of what you wish for, you just might get it!

[bonobo]

Now we have the same situation as a couple of years ago when the Governor of TAT said it would aim at quality tourist that stays at the bigger resorts(which means that the country side that is very depending in new incomes especially now with the prices going up). Who gains the money from that??? Why not aim at a bigger market and make it easier for the backpacker to come(they are traveling all around the country and if not spending a lot but still ...)

I have a friend who is a manager at the Banyan Tree in Phuket, exactly the type of place that caters to the high-end tourist. In talking with her one day, she told me that many of the guests there first came to Thailand as students, living on the cheap. But they formed a positive opinion of Thailand, and now that they have money, they come back with their families.

[Sabrinus]

Too little too late.....

As a quality statement from a major Airline once said.... When the service is bad, and the customers are not happy at all, they just go quite, be very polite and never ever come back.....

The world moves quick these days and I really do Love Thailand for what it stood for, but as usual the business shift to tourism to quick, too greedy and not good enough. Many people I speak to would rather spend their money visiting China, Cambodia, and now Lao is becoming big as they just do not want in your face 5 star treatement with smily faced 'slaves' nodding their heads all the time. - STEPFORD SIAM ? -

Bon chance et al.....

Edited March 3, 2011 by Sabrinus

[Chupup]

Get with the programme!

All countries with the possible exception of Nepal, Bhutan etc have a very eclectic mix of visitors.

The PM did not say exclude budget tourism.

The objective is to focus resources on higher end tourism which in turn supports ancillary and auxiliary services and there is NOTHING wrong with that.

Arguably the budget end can take care of itself and when all is said and done an NTO is simply a facilitator.

If you want to see the wealth spread... how about getting on to the TAT to develop better quality regional information... discuss

Tiffer.if the p m did not exclude budget tourists why the quote " watch my lips, no more cheap charlies ", get with the program

[MRDave]

Maybe more Tourists would come to Thaland if they didn't get ripped off by the Thai government and Thai people at every opportunity, as for quality I think their meaning is quality =big spenders, well I tend to find people with more money tend to spend less.

This is because they tend to be tight which is how they got their money in the first place. A low quality monger like myself managed to spend over £9000 on my first trip. As for bulldozing Pattaya what types of drugs are you on? People go to Pattaya for a reason kill that off and watch it become a ghost town and many Thai families starve to death.

How long did your first trip last?

jb1

Nine weeks though I paid for a friend as I was flush after my house sale.

Last trip for 2 months I only spent £3000 everytime I come I learn more but I tend to go out most nights and have a Lady

[EyesWideOpen]

How many men who initially came here for the sand, sea and sXX are now sending money to support Thai girls they met in bars? I'd like to know the ammount transfered to Thailand from overseas every year. The men who send this money would not have been considered as "quality tourists" but I'm sure now make up for a good chunk of the GDP.

Right, like the govt. really cares if bargirls are making money; the pm is working for his investors and with remarks and policies like that its no wonder the divisions we are dealing with now exist and are boiling

I love Thailand's sort of double faced attitude towards farang tourists. One level says , hey, they are only 7 % of GDP, so we can take them or leave them. After all, WE are Thailand. Then when it looks like tourism is not doing well, the government barks orders to TAT to magically bring in more tourists..... Too funny. What I would LOVE to know is how many billion of baht are being sent to Isan by low quality tourists to support bar girls families and drunken uncles. That support is a direct outcome of the sex industry. I can assure you that when the high quality tourist checks out of his 5 star hotel and heads back to his home country, he is not sending one baht to Thailand. No money in Isan equals hungry and angry people heading to Bangkok to shift things around. Side note.....Thailand has one of the highest per capita ownership of Mercedes Benz cars of any country in the world, excluding bizarre middle east countries floating in oil....

[kuffki]

Is there s secret backpacker society who communicate with each other? and i really doubt any country is dying to have the backpackers, while countries tolerate it they certainly do not wish for it.

@kuffki

Secret society? Yes. It's called social networking!

Many countries welcome backpackers.

You're invited to my next lecture of tourism devolpment...

I am sorry but i would have to pass on a lecture of tourism development from a backpacker, much prefer to listen to lectures from educated, successful people who have travelled in class, not on the back of the horse with 1 backpack. But thank you for the offer anyhow.

PS. Could you may be point out countries who welcome backpackers and openly say so, a link would be great! Thanks in advance once again

@kuffki

Ah kuffki... if you came to one of my lectures you would have the option of joining in with undergraduate or postgradraduate students.

I am sure you would enjoy interacting with this published lecturer who is highly educated (as I imagine you are) and who has travelled to 30+ countries for business development (as I am sure you have) and who can ride a horse

The only stumbling block is that 30 years ago I did fit the sterotype of "backbacker". I wonder would be comfortable in such company?

Oh yes. In order to address your question, can you clarify your understanding of "backpacker" so that we can proceed accordingly

Not that it has anything to do with the thread but yes i have travelled through 30 plus countries and am fluent in 2 languages( as in native speaker fluency) and i am well enough educated(i hope 2 degrees, diploma and few certificates is enough to be considered highly educated)

Backpacker in my opinion is someone who does not have a penny to his name and sets to travel by staying in the cheapest hotels possible, sharing room with 10 others, eating the cheapest food possible and really not having a cent to his name to enjoy the country.In my opinion not only it is far from being enjoyable but hardly productive since there is no money to do or experience anything.

[bonobo]

If I assume the PM is more western than Thai, since he was born and educated in the west, it follows that his outlook and thought process are more western. Now, since he is not your average Thai, he is expressing a more focussed aspiration for his country. I can bet there is NOT ONE leader in the West who would be happy with a certain type of tourists that seem to flock to Thailand in droves. Similarly, the PM is aware of a longer term image problem if the entrenched view is that Thailand is a low cost sex tourist destination. So what is wrong with trying to clean up the industry? The success or failure of his stated aspiration is unknown, but as I said can't blame him for stating an aspiration.

Also, the PM is able to recognise white trash when he sees/smells/hears it...unlike the average Thai who may think all farangs are rich and well-educated. So which leader wouldn't want to minimise white trash from arriving and worse still, setlling here and breeding?

Some local leaders in the West sure seem to like this type of tourist.Check out the various communities in Texas and Florida who try to get the students there for spring break for what is basically a round-the-clock party. Go to the Spain's resort towns in the summer. And what is Carnival now but one huge excess-themed party? And what about Vegas' official motto?

There is a place for the wild and crazy, and as long as there are willing buyers and willing sellers, as long as the peace can be kept and laws not broken, then who the heck cares? I am not fond of the Pattaya scene myself as my tastes are a little less blatant, even if except for the drinking, the core might be the same. My solution is not to go there instead of advocating it getting razed.

I think Vegas does a pretty good job of controlling the madness, and maybe Pattaya can do a better job at that, but that doesn't mean that Pattaya and the like should be shut down, denying all those people their livelihood. I think it is silly for the government to advertise it as a family destination, but it does have its place in the total tourist scene.

[thaimate]

Ilove Pattaya ,and have done for over 20 years ,but you have as much chance of attracting"quality" hi so punters as i have of getting a call from Billy Piper(my dream girl) asking me to fly over to give her one tonight.

its what it is ,package tours and cheap end kiss me quick tourists.

the jet ski scammers ,hookers ,baht bus mafia and the corruption at the top ensure it.

[BKK03]

I think that I am being ostracized, and will have to carefully develop future budgets so as not to lose my social status as a tourist in Thailand.

[bonobo]

Not that it has anything to do with the thread but yes i have travelled through 30 plus countries and am fluent in 2 languages( as in native speaker fluency) and i am well enough educated(i hope 2 degrees, diploma and few certificates is enough to be considered highly educated)

Backpacker in my opinion is someone who does not have a penny to his name and sets to travel by staying in the cheapest hotels possible, sharing room with 10 others, eating the cheapest food possible and really not having a cent to his name to enjoy the country.In my opinion not only it is far from being enjoyable but hardly productive since there is no money to do or experience anything.

If we are comparing to see whose is biggest, I have been to over 100 countries, have a Ph.D., (but while I speak 4 languages, I am only native fluent in one, so you have me beat there.) And I work here, doing my small part to improve the Thai economy. Not that means anything, as who cares a fig, but only in response to your post as you seem to infer that gives your views more credence.

And 30 years ago, I was a backpacker, mostly in Europe, but a little in Asia, to include Thailand. While I may have shared rooms with others I met, I also went to museums, local cafes, parks, and anywhere which took my fancy. I did not stay at posh hotels, which, to be honest, are the same in most countries. But I met the most eclectic and diverse group of people I have ever had the honor of meeting.

And today, coincidently, as my business partner and I were trying to decide what to do around a trade show in Dusseldorf we will attend in May, I made the decision, based on my backpacking days, to have four of us go to Florence for 4 days and Nice for 2 days. And this time, yes, we will be staying in nice places, spending more money.

[warfie]

I think the prime minister has it wrong - but I imagine he is a 5 star traveler. Once I saw a documentary on TV showing how backpackers and the "thrifty" tourist actuallly help the local economy out more than the 4-5 star traveler. This was because the frugal trourist would get a room at a B&B or a small locally runned hotel than staying at a place that would be owned by some big corporation or international company., Next, the food would also be purchased from some "ma and pa" runned restaurant than at some chain hotel or restaurant. Also, the program I watched brought out how the young traveler is usually into learning about the culture more than the older traveler. So I always thought Thailand had it correct - to attract both kinds of tourists... (and when there were political problems in Thailand, who were the first establishments to suffer? - the international hotel chains.

Hmmm, how do backpackers help the economy? They stay in small cheap hotels who do not pay taxes

They eat in small cheap places, who do not pay taxes

They shop in small cheap shops who do not pay taxes,

So how do they help the economy? considering that hotel chains, retail chains, malls and larger food chains all pay taxes and employ people.

They put cash directly into the hands of the people who need it the most.....

[somtampet]

If the govt. want more money spent by Tourists, they can start the ball rolling by charging the same prices for all at National Parks and all other govt. operated facilities....farangs are not stupid when it comes to a two price operation......and i don't want to hear about...".but Thai people are poor and that is the reason"....try telling all the Thai Tourist that roll up at these venues in their Mercedes and BMW's, that they are poor

Oh but they are (poor)

It doesn't matter how rich a Thai you are every Farang is always richer in their Thai eyes. Comparing Farang to Thai the Farang is the rich one and the Thai poor. There are no money trees in Asia they only grow in Farangland.

So what about the chinese,korean,indians,iranians,russians they arent farangs

[animatic]

The could just relax and welcome anyone willing to

pay their way and abide by the laws.

Might mean sending off a few million currently here,

but then again they can do short time.

Edited March 3, 2011 by animatic

[animatic]

Now we have the same situation as a couple of years ago when the Governor of TAT said it would aim at quality tourist that stays at the bigger resorts(which means that the country side that is very depending in new incomes especially now with the prices going up). Who gains the money from that??? Why not aim at a bigger market and make it easier for the backpacker to come(they are traveling all around the country and if not spending a lot but still ...)

I have a friend who is a manager at the Banyan Tree in Phuket, exactly the type of place that caters to the high-end tourist. In talking with her one day, she told me that many of the guests there first came to Thailand as students, living on the cheap. But they formed a positive opinion of Thailand, and now that they have money, they come back with their families.

This is a pretty much standard way for life long fans of Thailand to act. But it seems their formative stages are to be stifled early on, just because the don't pay enough. So who will lose? Well the whole Thai populace for one, and no doubt succeeding generations who don't get the money from their return visits. But is it typical for Thais to have long term vision and not live for the moment viewpoints?