European capital city tourism Report – Analysis and findings Vienna, January 2012
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
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
111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
2
Management summary Paris, Amsterdam and Stockholm lead the ranking
European capital city tourism study: Management summary OBJECTIVE
ANALYSIS
RANKING
> Tourism to capital cities is a growth driver, outperforming both tourism to countries as a whole and GDP growth
> 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
> 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
> The study compares the figures for tourism in different European capitals, looking at current status, growth and success
> 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
> 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
> 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 111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
4
A. Methodology and sources This study is based on online material, statistical data and expert interviews
The study analyzes 24 European cities' success in the area of tourism Objective and focus cities Objective > The objective of the study is to benchmark the success of European cities in the area of tourism… > … and to produce findings on key developments, trends and challenges in the market
Focus cities Capitals of EU-27 countries Helsinki Oslo Stockholm
Belgrade, Istanbul, Zagreb and Zurich1)
Copenhagen London
Amsterdam
Berlin Brussels Prague Paris Luxembourg Bratislava Vienna Budapest Zurich Zagreb Ljubljana Belgrade
Cities for which data was out-of-date or insufficient to allow comparisons
Madrid Lisbon
24
Tallinn
Istanbul Rome Athens
focus cities 1) Zurich is included as it is more significant for tourism than the capital , Bern Source: Roland Berger
111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
6
The study is based on information from popular databases and interviews with experts Methodology and sources METHODOLOGY
SOURCES
1
2
3
4
5
Gather online material (tourism master plans, etc.)
Collect and analyze statistical data
Interview experts on methodology and trends in city tourism
Evaluate focus cities along predefined dimensions
Derive conclusions
> Websites of city tourist boards and marketing agencies
> ECM Benchmarking Report 2011
> Berliner Hotelverband
> Roland Berger
> Eurostat data on country level
> Deutscher Hotelund Gaststättenverband
> Minor differences in some criteria could not be avoided – accepted for the purpose of this report
> Intern. Congress and Convention Association (ICCA) > International Hotel Association (IHA) > TourMIS, statistical database for city tourism1)
> Österreichische Hoteliervereinigung > Wien Tourismus > Roland Berger experts with relevant project experience
1) TourMIS data lumps business and leisure together Source: Roland Berger
111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
7
4
EVALUATION OF FOCUS CITIES – BACKUP
We use a "barometer model" to evaluate and rank cities – Similar approach to the World Economic Forum ranking Evaluation method Evaluation criteria I
Overnight stays, CAGR 2005-2010 [%]
II Overnight stays per inhabitant [no.]
City
Published data
A
7.3
B
3.5
C
-0.5
D
-0.4
E
4.3
Barometer Criteria results weighting1)
Calculation
City with the highest value given 100 100
City with lowest value given 0 0
A
100
B
51
C
0
D
1
E
61
A
42
A
6.1
B
13.0
Remaining values interpolated, e.g. E:
B
100
C
6.4
C
44
D
1.0
(7.0-1.0)/ (13.0-1.0) x 100
D
0
E
50
E
7.0
= 50
Total barometer results
Rank
A: 100 x 60% + 42 x 40% =
77
B:
71
2
C:
18
4
D:
1
5
E:
57
3
1
60%
40%
1) Indicative only Source: Roland Berger
111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
8
4
EVALUATION OF FOCUS CITIES – BACKUP
We group cities into two clusters for the final ranking to ensure we are comparing like with like Ranking of cities in two clusters Cluster 1
Overnight stays, 2010 [m]
Cluster 2
Overnight stays, 2010 [m]
> London
48.7
> Lisbon
6.2
> Paris
35.8
> Budapest
5.9
> Berlin
20.8
> Brussels
5.6
> Rome
20.4
> Athens
5.4
> Madrid
15.2
> Copenhagen
5.1
> Prague
12.1
> Zurich
3.7
> Vienna
11.7
> Oslo
3.3
> Amsterdam
9.7
> Helsinki
3.2
> Istanbul
9.1
> Tallinn
2.3
> Stockholm
6.3
> Bratislava
1.4
> Belgrade
1.3
> Zagreb
1.0
> Luxembourg
0.8
> Ljubljana
0.7
Source: Roland Berger
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
111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
9
B. Analysis and evaluation European capitals have been evaluated along a set of seven criteria
Tourism has expanded much faster than the overall economy in Europe in recent years – City tourism has performed best Development of the tourism industry City tourism, CAGR 2005-2010 [index =100]
COMMENTS
116
> City tourism suffered less during the economic crisis than expected
114
114
> In the crisis year 2009, the GDP of the EU-27 fell 4.3% while city tourism decreased by just 3.5%
112
112
111
110 108
108 106 104
104
102
103
100
106
107
107
106
107
105
108 104
103
100
2005
2006
2007
Overnight stays in focus cities
2008
2009
2010
> 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 performance, trends and challenges in the report
GDP of EU-27
Overnight stays in focus countries Source: ECM, Eurostat, TourMIS, Roland Berger
111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
11
We analyze the cities along seven different dimensions Evaluation criteria Dimensions
Selected benchmarking criteria
Period
Weighting Weighting cluster 1 [%] cluster 2 [%]
I
GROWTH IN OVERNIGHT STAYS
CAGR for overnight stays
20052010
20
30
II
NUMBER OF OVERNIGHT STAYS GROWTH IN BED CAPACITY
No. of overnight stays relative to inhabitants
2010
10
10
CAGR for bed capacity
20052010
15
20
IV
VALUE CREATION
Revenue per available room
2010
20
n.a.
V
INTERNATIONALITY
Share of European tourists
2010
5
Share of non-European tourists
2010
5
III
10
5
VI
ACCESSIBILITY
Number of direct flight connections
2011
15
20
VII
CONGRESSES
Number of congresses
2009
10
10
100% Criteria for all cities Source: Roland Berger
Criterion for Cluster 1 cities only
> The different dimensions selected for the evaluation are well balanced
10
5
COMMENTS
100%
> 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 111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
12
I
GROWTH IN OVERNIGHT STAYS
Berlin, Stockholm and Ljubljana enjoyed the biggest increase in the number of overnight stays in the last five years Growth in the number of overnight stays, CAGR 2005-2010 [%] 7.3 5.7
5.2
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.2
4.1
3.9
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
2.8
Avg. 2.4
2.4
1.5
1.2
0.5
0.1 -0.4 -0.5 -0.7 -2.1
-5.4 BER STO1) LJU HEL MAD VIE ROM ZUR LIS BRU AMS TAL OSL COP ZAG PRA PAR BRA LUX1) IST1) LON BEL BUD ATH1) 1) 2005-2009 only Source: TourMIS, ECM, Roland Berger
111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
13
II
NUMBER OF OVERNIGHT STAYS
London and Paris had by far the most overnight stays in 2010 – However, some cities are much bigger than others Number of overnight stays, 2010 [m] Inhabitants [m]
7.7 4.4 3.4 2.7 3.2 1.2 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 48.7
35.8
20.8 20.4 15.2 12.1 11.7
9.7 9.1
6.3 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
LON PAR BER ROM MAD PRA VIE AMS IST1)STO1) LIS BUD BRU ATH1) COP ZUR OSL HEL TAL BRA BEL ZAG LUX1) LJU 1) 2009 Source: TourMIS, ECM, Eurostat, Roland Berger
111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
14
II
NUMBER OF OVERNIGHT STAYS
Amsterdam and Lisbon had the most overnight stays relative to the number of inhabitants Overnight stays per inhabitant, 2010 Amsterdam Lisbon Prague Copenhagen Zurich Luxembourg Paris Stockholm Rome Vienna Athens London Berlin Oslo Tallinn Helsinki Brussels Madrid Budapest Bratislava Ljubljana Zagreb Belgrade Istanbul
1.3 1.1 1.0
3.4 3.2 2.7
Source: TourMIS, ECM, Eurostat, Roland Berger
4.7
7.0 6.7 6.4 6.1 5.9 5.7 5.7 5.3
8.2 7.7 7.5
Avg. 6.4
9.0
10.3 10.1 9.7
13.0 12.6
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
111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
15
II
NUMBER OF OVERNIGHT STAYS
Amsterdam and Lisbon are the top performers – Large number of overnight stays today and strong growth since 2005 Current volume and growth matrix CAGR for overnight stays 2005-20101) [%] 8 BER STO 6 MAD HEL VIE LIS LJU ZUR ROM 4 OSL AMS BRU COP TAL 2 ZAG PRA PAR BRA IST LON LUX 0 BEL
B
CONCLUSIONS
– Above-average number of overnight stays per inhabitant and A A STARS above-average growth
-2
B C
BUD
-4
D 0
ATH 1
2
3
4
C D
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Overnight stays per inhabitant, 2010
1) 2005-2009 only for Athens, Istanbul, Luxembourg and Stockholm Source: TourMIS, ECM, Eurostat, Roland Berger
> 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 belowaverage 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 belowaverage growth > Belgrade and Budapest risk losing ground to other cities if no action is taken > Need to identify reasons for poor performance Average 111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
16
II
NUMBER OF OVERNIGHT STAYS
Overnight stays per arrival are low in city tourism – Even small increases here help draw people away from the well-beaten path Overnight stays per arrival1), 2010 CAGR 20052010 [%]
-1.2 -1.3 -0.4 -1.8 1.5 2.6
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.4
0.3 -1.1 0.1
2.3
2.2
2.2
1.1 -1.3 -0.6 -1.4 0.8
2.1
2.1
2.0
0.0 -0.8 0.3
0.7 -0.5 -1.5 -0.8 -10.7
Avg. 2.0
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.7 1.2
LON PRA ROM2) BUD2) PAR BER
VIE
LIS
BEL ATH2) BRA MAD LJU BRU2) LUX2) AMS TAL
HEL ZAG ZUR IST2)
1) No figures available for Copenhagen, Oslo and Stockholm 2) 2005-2009 only Source: TourMIS, ECM, Roland Berger
111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
17
III
GROWTH IN BED CAPACITY
Ljubljana shows outstanding growth rates in bed capacities over the last five years – Good indicator of market trust by private investors Bed capacity, CAGR 2005-20101) [%] Hotel beds '000, 2010
5
15 106 112 12
34
44
48
83
19
56
6
94
76
27
7
16
17
35 152 31 213
7
11.4
7.0
6.4
5.9 5.8
5.3 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 3.7 3.4 3.3 3.0 2.8 2.5 2.4 2.3
Avg. 3.4
1.6 0.3 -0.5 -2.5 -3.0
LJU TAL IST BER BRA STO BUD AMS PRA OSL VIE LUX ROM MAD COP ZAG HEL ZUR LIS PAR BRU LON BEL 1) No data for Athens; 2005-2009 only for Bratislava, Brussels, Budapest, Istanbul, London, Luxembourg and Stockholm Source: ECM, Roland Berger
111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
18
IV
VALUE CREATION (CLUSTER 1 CITIES ONLY)
Paris and London achieve the highest revenue per available room for Cluster 1 cities Revenue per available room (RevPAR)1) Revenue per available room, 2010 [EUR]
Avg. daily room rate and occupancy rate, 2010
PAR
Average daily room rate [EUR]
131
LON
122
180
AMS
95
160
ROM
92
140
STO
82
VIE
60
BER
60
MAD PRA
ROM AMS
STO
100
VIE
MAD 80
PRA
BER
60
57 44
LON
120
67
IST
PAR
Avg. 81
50
55
60
65
Average 1) Comparable data available for Cluster 1 cities only; For Istanbul only RevPAR 2009 available Source: IHA, STR Global, Factiva, Roland Berger
70
75 80 85 90 Occupancy rate [%]
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 111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
19
IV
VALUE CREATION (CLUSTER 1 CITIES ONLY)
Increasing bed capacity is not always a sign of good prices and occupancy levels Revenue per available room (RevPAR) and changes in bed capacity CONCLUSIONS
Revenue per available room, 2010 [EUR] 140
B
130 120 110
– Above-average increase in bed capacity and above-average A A STARS revenue per available room
Paris
London
100
Rome
90
B Amsterdam Stockholm
80 70
Vienna
60
Madrid Berlin
50 40
Prague
D
30 -3
-2
-1
0
Statistical correlation
C
Istanbul
C D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Bed capacity, CAGR 2005-20101) [%]
> 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 belowaverage 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 belowaverage RevPAR > Madrid is below-avg. in terms of both capacity growth and RevPAR > Need to find out why
1) 2005-2009 only for Istanbul, London and Stockholm
Source: ECM, IHA, STR Global, Roland Berger
111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
20
V
INTERNATIONALITY
Share of international overnight stays indicates the diversification of a city's tourism markets – Significant differences between cities Share of inbound overnight stays, 2010 [%] 96
94
20
13
90 18
90 5
86 17
86
81
79
21 23
Avg.
77 19
39
77 29
75 18
74
72
70
22
70
66 9
29
65
63
14 28
76
81
711) 57 7
24
85 72
54
69
65
54 14
19 41
41 10
59
58 40
48
57
52
57 41
51
50 34
31
40
35
55
31
LJU LUX PRA TAL BUD BRU AMS LON VIE ZUR ZAG LIS IST ATH ROM BEL COP PAR BRA MAD HEL STO BER OSL Non-European inbound
European inbound
Total inbound (split between European and non-European not available)
1) Including Istanbul, Rome, Stockholm and Oslo, for which the split between European and non-European was not available Source: TourMIS, ECM
111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
21
VI
ACCESSIBILITY
London and Paris are by far the most accessible cities in Europe for tourists arriving by air Number of direct flight connections1) [flight schedule for summer 2011] London Paris Amsterdam Istanbul Rome Madrid Brussels Zurich Vienna Stockholm Berlin Copenhagen Prague Athens Lisbon Helsinki Budapest Luxembourg Zagreb Tallinn Oslo Ljubljana Bratislava Belgrade
29 28 24 23 22 16
43
65
80 78
96 93
130 129 118 111 111
153 146
176 168
205
301 292
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
Avg. 110
1) Destinations connected with at least one direct flight per week Source: Roland Berger
111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
22
VII
CONGRESSES
Vienna is the clear leader in congress tourism in Europe, followed by Paris and Berlin No. of congresses hosted1), 2009 CAGR '04-'09 [%]
7.0 -0.7 1.5 5.4 6.6 3.9 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 0.0 160 131 129 103 102 98
98 87
87
86
83
80
75
73
69 57
56
50 35
26
25 13
12
10
VIE PAR BER COP STO LIS AMS MAD BUD PRA LON IST ATH BRU ROM ZUR HEL OSL TAL LJU BEL BRA LUX ZAG 1) Most recent year with comparable data is 2009 Source: ICCA
111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
23
VII
CONGRESSES
A significant correlation exists between the number of congresses hosted and the number of overnight stays Correlation between congresses and overnight stays, 2009 COMMENTS
Overnight stays (m) 48
LON ROM
12
MAD
BER
PRA
10
IST
8 ZUR
BRA
4
LUX BEL ZAG
2
OSL LJU
0 0
10
20
30
TAL 40
Statistical correlation
Source: TourMIS, ECM, ICCA, Roland Berger
BUD
BRU
VIE AMS
LIS
ATH
6
> In 2010, for the third year in a row, Vienna hosted the largest number of congresses
PAR
> 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
STO COP
HEL 50
60
70
80
90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
No. of congresses 111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
24
VI+VII ACCESSIBILITY & CONGRESSES
Good accessibility by air is a prerequisite for being a successful congress location Correlation between direct flight connections and congresses1) COMMENTS
No. of congresses 160
VIE
140
PAR
BER
120
COP
100
LIS BUD
80
PRA ATH
60
HEL ZUR
OSL
STO
AMS
MAD BRU
IST ROM
LON
0 0
20
40
Statistical correlation
60
> 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
40
TAL BEL LJU BRA 20 LUX
> A significant correlation is found between flight connections and number of congresses
ZAG
> Additional connections above 180 do not correlate with a significant increase in congresses Flight connections
80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320
1) Number of direct flight connections [flight schedule for summer 2011]; most recent year with comparable data on congresses is 2009 Source: ICCA, Roland Berger
111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
25
Paris and Amsterdam score best – Rome, Stockholm, Berlin and Vienna follow, neck and neck Results of the ranking1)
1 2
Paris Amsterdam
1
6
Rome
2
7
London
3
8
Madrid
3
Stockholm
4
Vienna
9
Prague
4
Berlin
10
Istanbul
1) Cluster 1 cities Source: Roland Berger
111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
26
BACKUP
Paris and Amsterdam score best – Stockholm, Vienna and Berlin follow, neck and neck Evaluation of Cluster 11) – barometer (100 = best performer) Overnight stays, CAGR
Overnight stays per inh.
City/weight [%]
20
10
15
20
5
52)
15
10
TOTAL
1 Paris
22
60
31
100
45
64
96
68
62
2 Amsterdam
51
100
79
59
81
46
53
32
61
3 Stockholm
80
56
87
44
0
n.a.
11
36
51
4 Vienna
61
50
69
26
74
31
16
100
50
4 Berlin
100
42
94
18
0
0
7
66
50
6 Rome
60
54
66
55
59
n.a.
35
0
49
7 London
0
44
0
90
77
100
100
15
48
8 Madrid
62
31
62
15
27
48
28
20
38
9 Prague
26
78
78
0
100
28
0
19
33
10 Istanbul
1
0
100
19
62
n.a.
39
12
31
Evaluation criteria
Bed capacity, RevPAR CAGR
Non-domestic share
Non-Eur. share
Accessibility
Congresses
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 Source: Roland Berger
111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
27
BACKUP
The barometer is based on the results of the evaluation Evaluation of Cluster 1 – summary of results Evaluation criteria
Overn. stays, CAGR [%]
Overn. stays per inh. [no.]
Bed capacity, CAGR [%]
RevPAR [EUR]
Non-domestic share [%]
Non-European share [%]
Accessibility [no. dir. flights]
Congresses [no.]
City/weight [%]
20
10
15
20
5
5
15
10
1 Paris
1.2
8.2
0.3
131
62.9
28.4
292
131
2 Amsterdam
3.5
13.0
4.5
95
80.9
23.1
205
98
3 Stockholm
5.7
7.7
5.3
82
40.9
n.a.
118
102
4 Vienna
4.3
7.0
3.7
67
77.3
18.8
129
160
4 Berlin
7.3
6.1
5.9
60
40.9
9.9
111
129
6 Rome
4.2
7.5
3.3
92
70.0
n.a.
168
69
7 London
-0.5
6.4
-2.5
122
79.0
38.7
301
83
8 Madrid
4.4
4.7
3.0
57
54.4
23.8
153
87
9 Prague
1.5
10.3
4.5
44
90.3
17.9
96
86
10 Istanbul
-0.4
1.0
6.4
60
71.5
n.a.
176
80
Source: TourMIS, ECM, ICCA, Roland Berger
111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
28
Zurich wins the Cluster 2 ranking ahead of Lisbon and Copenhagen Results of the ranking1)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Zurich
1
Lisbon
2
Copenhagen
3
Brussels Ljubljana Helsinki Tallinn
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Oslo Budapest Athens Luxembourg Zagreb Bratislava Belgrade
1) Cluster 2 cities Source: Roland Berger
111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
29
BACKUP
Zurich, Lisbon and Copenhagen top the ranking for Cluster 2 cities Evaluation of Cluster 21) – barometer (100 = best performer) Evaluation criteria
Overnight stays, CAGR
Overnight stays per inh.
Bed capacity, CAGR
Non-domestic share
Non-European share
Accessibility
Congresses
City/weight [%]
30
10
202)
5
52)
20
10
TOTAL
1 Zurich
90
75
36
69
100
88
51
73
2 Lisbon
88
100
32
64
69
49
95
69
3 Copenhagen
77
78
40
49
38
73
100
68
4 Brussels
85
36
17
84
65
100
68
67
5 Ljubljana
100
14
100
100
62
5
17
62
6 Helsinki
93
40
37
31
37
48
49
57
7 Tallinn
83
40
70
90
0
9
27
52
8 Oslo
82
42
49
0
n.a.2)
6
43
46
9 Budapest
31
20
55
85
50
38
83
45
10 Athens
0
49
n.a.2)
58
100
59
70
43
11 Luxembourg
52
68
44
98
34
21
2
42
12 Zagreb
73
2
38
67
56
10
0
38
13 Bratislava
56
18
61
37
10
5
3
34
14 Belgrade
44
0
0
51
17
0
16
18
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 Source: Roland Berger
111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
30
BACKUP
The barometer is based on the results of the evaluation Evaluation of Cluster 2 – summary Evaluation criteria
Overnight stays, CAGR [%]
Overnight stays per inh. [no.]
Bed capacity, CAGR [%]
Non-domestic share [%]
Non-European share [%]
Accessibility Congresses [no. direct flights] [no.]
City/weight [%]
30
10
20
5
5
20
10
1 Zurich
4.1
9.7
2.3
76.7
29.0
130
57
2 Lisbon
3.9
12.6
1.6
73.7
21.6
80
98
3 Copenhagen
2.8
10.1
2.8
64.8
14.1
111
103
4 Brussels
3.6
5.3
-0.5
85.8
20.7
146
73
5 Ljubljana
5.2
2.7
11.4
95.6
19.8
23
26
6 Helsinki
4.5
5.7
2.4
53.7
13.8
78
56
7 Tallinn
3.4
5.7
7.0
89.7
4.8
28
35
8 Oslo
3.3
5.9
4.0
34.8
n.a.
24
50
9 Budapest
-2.1
3.4
5.0
86.4
17.0
65
87
10 Athens
-5.4
6.7
n.a.
70.1
29.1
93
75
11 Luxembourg
0.1
9.0
3.4
94.4
13.0
43
12
12 Zagreb
2.4
1.3
2.5
75.4
18.3
29
10
13 Bratislava
0.5
3.2
5.8
57.5
7.3
22
13
14 Belgrade
-0.7
1.1
-3.0
65.8
9.0
16
25
Source: TourMIS, ECM, ICCA, Roland Berger
111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
31
C. Conclusions City tourism is a key growth driver for the economy and professional strategy development is a key success factor
City tourism strategies are available online for just 7 of the 24 capital cities in the study Tourism strategies available online1)
AMSTERDAM 2009-2012
BERLIN 2011
HELSINKI 2011
LISBON 2011-2014
LJUBLJANA 2007-2013
LONDON 2009-2013
VIENNA 2010-2015
Strategic marketing & communication plan
Tourismuskonzept Berlin
Helsinki's tourism strategy
Turismo de Lisboa strategic marketing plan
Strategic development and marketing plan
London Tourism Action Plan
Tourismuskonzept 2015
> SWOT > Tourism product development > Strategy and objectives > Marketing tools > Financial framework
> 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, responsibilities, timing
> Balanced scorecard: objectives, KPIs, actions > Strategic framework with regional targets > Strategic priorities > Action plan/timing
> Trends and key success factors > Markets and competitors > Targets, positioning and image > Actions and stakeholders > Marketing concept
1) It is assumed that if a city has a professional tourism strategy, it also makes it available online Source: City tourism strategies, Roland Berger research
111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
33
Cities with a professional tourism strategy show stronger growth in the number of arrivals and overnight stays Impact of a professional tourism strategy Growth of tourism – CAGR 2005-20101) [%]
COMMENTS
ARRIVALS
> 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
Cities publishing a tourism strategy2) Cities not publishing a tourism strategy
4.2 1.9
OVERNIGHT STAYS Cities publishing a tourism strategy2) Cities not publishing a tourism strategy
4.0
1.7
1) Luxembourg 2005-2009, Athens 2005-2007, Rome arrivals 2005-2009, Istanbul overnight stays 2005-2009 2) Amsterdam, Berlin, Helsinki, Lisbon, Ljubljana, London, Vienna Source: TourMIS, Roland Berger research
111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
34
Conclusions (1/3) – Capital city tourism is a key growth driver
> 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
111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
35
Conclusions (2/3) – Growth needs to be managed well in order to be sustainable > 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
111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
36
Conclusions (3/3) – Coordination and professional management is a key success factor > 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 1) Destination Marketing Organization 111129_Europ Capital City Tourism_final.pptx
37
It's character that creates impact!