Bangkok Goes Global To Woo Back Tourists

[Nisa]

High end or low end, each has their place. What about the middle bracket tourist who I suspect is actually the most common? The low end are disparagingly referred to as back packers, yet typical backpackers are usually students, students who as adults will be middle and high end tourists. If they are discriminated against as students they will think twice about returning as high end adult tourists.

If you look at the tourist "hot spots" around the globe they all started off as backpacker venues then gradually went up market, the same applies to Thailand.

You can argue that a high end tourist spends ten times more than a low end tourist, but there are a hundred low end tourists to every high end one, Fly into BKK from Europe and Business and First Class is half full, economy class is packed.

Agree. That is why countries want to lure more high end travelers because they simply spend more. It is no different than a Vegas casino. Everyone has there place but 1 whale customer is equal to a great many mom and pop weekend gambler. This is why they aggressively go after earning the high roller business. On the other hand they couldn't survive without the small time folks either because there will always be more of them. But bottom line is, be it a tourist or a gambler, the higher end folks are going to be worth considerably more economically.

[ginjag]

High end or low end, each has their place. What about the middle bracket tourist who I suspect is actually the most common? The low end are disparagingly referred to as back packers, yet typical backpackers are usually students, students who as adults will be middle and high end tourists. If they are discriminated against as students they will think twice about returning as high end adult tourists.

If you look at the tourist "hot spots" around the globe they all started off as backpacker venues then gradually went up market, the same applies to Thailand.

You can argue that a high end tourist spends ten times more than a low end tourist, but there are a hundred low end tourists to every high end one, Fly into BKK from Europe and Business and First Class is half full, economy class is packed.

Agree. That is why countries want to lure more high end travelers because they simply spend more. It is no different than a Vegas casino. Everyone has there place but 1 whale customer is equal to a great many mom and pop weekend gambler. This is why they aggressively go after earning the high roller business. On the other hand they couldn't survive without the small time folks either because there will always be more of them. But bottom line is, be it a tourist or a gambler, the higher end folks are going to be worth considerably more economically.

What I believe anterian has said is you cannot do without all the types, but he did also say about future Backpackers -many end up being Elite tourists, he also said there are 100 low end to every one elite type, are you still sticking to your better for the economy lot, yes you are, this post confirms you really didn't get the gist of what anterian said, but initially agreed, then switched back to your original stance--amazing. Taking Pattaya No 1 tourist venue, look who is on the beach, who is at the bars, at the nightspots, in food establishments, on transport, car hire, cinemas, and shopping they also spend at Central plaza's. 31 years here I am not aware that elite tourists are better. they contribute a great deal, but you would lose most discussions on your stance. Give us some of your google stats to prove me wrong ??

[Nisa]

Ging you need to grow some thicker skin and stop getting so emotionally stuck on arguing with me and believing any post here was directed at you.

The bottom line is if you could have 1 tourist come to your country then clearly you would pick a high-end individual with lots of disposable income over a budgeted low end traveler if your goal is improving the country and people financially. This is why countries, that can, go after the highend traveler ... they without any doubt what-so-ever bring more economically than an equal number of low budget tourists.

It isn't about number of tourists, it isn't about the past, it isn't about saying lower end tourists don't have their benefits ... but simply about getting more high-end tourists here would be better economically for Thais and the country as a whole because 1 for 1 a high-end tourist spends considerably more money and helps employee more Thais. I don't believe I ever indicated that lower end travelers had no place or should be discouraged from coming. I really cannot see how anyone could rationally argue that a lower-end traveler is more valuable to the country and people economically than a high-end visitor AND that was the point.

Edited January 4, 2012 by Nisa

[anterian]

Ging you need to grow some thicker skin and stop getting so emotionally stuck on arguing with me and believing any post here was directed at you.

The bottom line is if you could have 1 tourist come to your country then clearly you would pick a high-end individual with lots of disposable income over a budgeted low end traveler if your goal is improving the country and people financially. This is why countries, that can, go after the highend traveler ... they without any doubt what-so-ever bring more economically than an equal number of low budget tourists.

It isn't about number of tourists, it isn't about the past, it isn't about saying lower end tourists don't have their benefits ... but simply about getting more high-end tourists here would be better economically for Thais and the country as a whole because 1 for 1 a high-end tourist spends considerably more money and helps employee more Thais. I don't believe I ever indicated that lower end travelers had no place or should be discouraged from coming. I really cannot see how anyone could rationally argue that a lower-end traveler is more valuable to the country and people economically than a high-end visitor AND that was the point.

No it is not the point. The low end traveler, the backpacker, is the advance guard, the scout. Look at Ibiza, Bermuda, Pattaya, Phuket, Phi Phi, all opened up by backpackers. Go upmarket, drive them out with high prices and they move on to somewhere new, and the high end tourist eventually follows for the "Colour".

Case in point Khaosan road, a few years ago a backpackers paradise, cheap hotels, cheap food and drink, impossible to walk the road without being jostled. Hundred of Thais made a good living there.

Then they built expensive hotels, clubs and restaurants, now you can stroll unimpeded down the road, it is no longer a tourist attraction. So now a few Thais are employed in these hotels and restaurants compared to the hundreds that worked in the road.

A tourist authority that prefers high end tourists has lost its roots and will die. China realised this several years ago.

[geriatrickid]

High end or low end, each has their place. What about the middle bracket tourist who I suspect is actually the most common? The low end are disparagingly referred to as back packers, yet typical backpackers are usually students, students who as adults will be middle and high end tourists. If they are discriminated against as students they will think twice about returning as high end adult tourists.

If you look at the tourist "hot spots" around the globe they all started off as backpacker venues then gradually went up market, the same applies to Thailand.

You can argue that a high end tourist spends ten times more than a low end tourist, but there are a hundred low end tourists to every high end one, Fly into BKK from Europe and Business and First Class is half full, economy class is packed.

Please do not include backpacker kids in the low end category. They are not "low end". Believe it or not, those backpackers spend far more than the Jetstar/AirAsia/Bunga Bunga tour group travelers. You highlighted some of the reasons why the backpackers are important. Also to be included are that these kids leave a much more "responsible" footprint whether it be social or environmental or ethical. Backpacker kids are for the most part good people that have worked hard to save up for their "experience of a lifetime" or at least in their 20 or so odd years of life. I try whenever possible to be as kind and supportive of these kids, because for the most part they are almost always happy, polite and well behaved (except for age related silliness, which we were all guilty of). I'd take 100 backpacker kids over 100 2* package guests from Brisbane sitting in a Bangla Road bar all day, in all their sketchy glory.

[ginjag]

Ging you need to grow some thicker skin and stop getting so emotionally stuck on arguing with me and believing any post here was directed at you.

The bottom line is if you could have 1 tourist come to your country then clearly you would pick a high-end individual with lots of disposable income over a budgeted low end traveler if your goal is improving the country and people financially. This is why countries, that can, go after the highend traveler ... they without any doubt what-so-ever bring more economically than an equal number of low budget tourists.

It isn't about number of tourists, it isn't about the past, it isn't about saying lower end tourists don't have their benefits ... but simply about getting more high-end tourists here would be better economically for Thais and the country as a whole because 1 for 1 a high-end tourist spends considerably more money and helps employee more Thais. I don't believe I ever indicated that lower end travelers had no place or should be discouraged from coming. I really cannot see how anyone could rationally argue that a lower-end traveler is more valuable to the country and people economically than a high-end visitor AND that was the point.

You may have a valid point there nisa-yes on average1 to 1 the odds are in the elite favour, but numbers we are discussing as well. You are unreal to think I get emotional-re arguing with you Ha Ha. again you are at it again, you rub people up the wrong way by your suggestions, This time I get emotional, you are trained to anylise people. come off it, I am not arguing with you, I put my experience to work to explain why. Most facilities here are for the NORMAL traveller. If you want to change that you will have to alter the whole set up. Elite types -their places are limited to pre arranged bookings-pre paid, whoever gets the money is anyones guess. The difference is money--into the economy-direct-from your high enders...into local business at the other end. Thailand get this local monies fed through the chain-propping up families that the state has difficulties with, hence my stand on the lower end. benefits Thailand more indirectly. Hope you now can see my meaning-not to argue or name call--o.k.

[geriatrickid]

Just what is a premium tourist anyway, someone who flies in first class, stays in a 5* hotel and hires a limousine and chauffeur rather than a taxi.

So the airline makes money, the foreign run hotel makes money, the foreign hire company makes money, but what do the Thais get? A low wage and tips if they are lucky.

Now contrast the average tourist, he stays in a budget to 2* hotel, usually run by Thais, he eats in Thai restaurants and roadside stalls. He uses Buses, tuk-tuks, taxis, in fact everything he spends goes into Thai pockets.

Your math is off. The higher end hotels have higher staff to guest ratios and tend to purchase higher quality Thai products for use in their restaurants. Their linens and supplies are of higher quality. Thy decorate using Thai themes and Thai handicrafts. The chef at the Meridian does not buy the cheapest produce on sale. The cost of that produce benefits everyone up the chain of supply. The staff at the higher end hotels also receive much better pay and benefits than do the staff at the 2* hotels. Do you think those cheap hotels provide health insurance or housing? The higher end hotels invest in staff training. The tax revenue generated from a high end guest exceeds the tax revenues generated by several visitors staying in 2* rooms. Higher end visitors are more likely to visit quality thai restaurants and to purchase the tours to sites or to go shopping and purchase goods and services. I would even venture that the gratuities and tips the higher end person gives exceed the net take from a budget visitor. Low end visitors are welcome in Thailand, but the pricing is such that they are only welcome in low season when only the Indians are here.

You rather missed, or avoided my main point. A hotel or restaurant is in the business of making profits, with an international hotel chain like the Meridien most of these profits do not stay in Thailand.

geriatrickid............

What does this say 20% high end elite types spend, In my experience very wealthy do not spend recklessly--or for a better word freely, not like the 80% of the regular holiday punters, packers, expats, that go into marts-downtown markets, trains buses, rental-self drive. Can you be honest with a straight answer instead of contradicting all.=== if you argue that the high end tourist is the way forward, and spends most, how much do you really think they spend in total in 1 year, compared to the other end -majority.???????????????? I think your answer to Anterian, is WAY OUT -you have missed the boat. If Thailand is putting this style forward as they spoke about many times ,wanting high end tourists, it is showing now-yes at the moment, by not encouraging good spending tourists, and not getting rid of scams and corruption-and silly Immigration laws. You like Thailand should update and get real.

No, what it says is that I can do the math and you cannot. The first false assumption made is that the profits made by a large chain do not stay in Thailand. You do not know how large hotel chains operate in Thailand do you? You cite the Meridien Group, part of the publicly traded Starwood Group. Take the Plaza Athenee which he Meridie Group signed a management contract with. The Plaza is now the Meridien flagship hote, but Merdien does not own the property it is paid a fee for the provision of services such as international reservations, branding, and management. The ownership of the property remains with the local investors. Once the management fee is paid,typically a flat fee plus a percentage, then the remaining profits stay with the local owners. Almost all the large hotels in Bangkok are affiliated or brand relationships, not outright ownerships.

Do your research before you claim that I am out of date. I suggest you look at the reports issued by credit card companies. Here's what Visa has to say;

Visitors from and to various destinations have different spending habits. e.g. Tourists from Hong Kong typically spend more on clothes than anyone else, Electronics are the leading consumer items for visitors to Singapore and Japan. In Thailand, accomodation is major expenditure for visitors from the UK and the USA. Australians and Indians are at the lower end of the scale. Did you even know that the USA and the UK visitors are considered the most profitable class of foreign visitors, while the Swedish, who might be plentiful, generate far less profit per visit than someone from the USA?

Did you know that the one item that generates a significant expenditure by visitors to Thailand is education? Probably not. (It is also the same in Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and Singapore.) These countries also generate the highest spend amount per transaction on education. Did you know that education is big business in Thailand? Bet you thought that students were low end. However, a foreign student, has to pay some nice fees, accomodation and living expenses. A Chinese foreign student will spend more per capita than any junketeer. Did you know that some of Thailand's hospitals have some lucrative service arrangements with some of the Gulf states for general medical care as well as addiction treatment facilities. The money made on a few of these visitors outstrips a planeload of junketeers. Did you know that Thailand generates a nice profit from its "hosting" services for foreign intelligence and military agencies? The numbers are not reported directly, but the USA is extremely generous. A visit from one naval vessel will pump more money into the local Phuket economy than a weeks worth of junketeers arriving on their budget packages.

I think it is you that needs to get with it because you have only looked at one component of "higher end" and certainly do not demonstrate an understanding of spending characeristics. I wonder how so many expats can run a business in Thailand when they do not understand the economic environment. Doesn't anyone subscribe to the reports from their respective governments, business associations or trade groups? I'm not coming up with this stuff, it's all out there from the people that live it every day and know their trades.

[Samuian]

could this widely used phrase be regaded as an overstatement in this issue: สมน้ำหน้า - "serves you right" or "in your face"....?

[anterian]

I'm rather losing track of who is arguing with whom As I have said before, it should not be a case of high end versus low end tourist, each contributes to the economy.

As to students we are confusing two categories, you seem to be discussing students here for education (God help them ), I am discussing students visiting here on vacation or as part of a gap year tour.

You are talking about medical tourism, and that I assume includes dental, but this faces fierce competition from other nearby countries and is easily disrupted by the sort of events that seem to feature every year in Thailand. There is also the claim that medical tourism is detrimental to the locals as it absorbs skilled practitioners from the public services.

Backpackers are your bread and butter, they are not frightened of by riots, floods or other calamities. High end tourists are your cake, they are fickle and easily frightened away.

You can quote analyses by Visa et al, I just use my eyes and my common sense.