In a series of pieces, Michael "The Metropolitician" Hurt has recently taken Korea's tourism promoters to task for their lack of success in promoting Korea as a tourist destination. In essence, Hurt argues that building a successful Korean tourism brand will require that Korean promoters overcome what he calls their "ethnocentric myopia." That is, as Hurt puts it, Koreans tend not to know what foreigners like about Korea and, worse, don't know that they don't know this. As a result, promotional campaigns for Korean tourism tend to tout things such as breakdancers, Korean celebrities that no one outside of Korea knows, and factories producing cars or semiconductors - none of which is likely to persuade a family in Michigan to forego that trip to the Great Wall of China in favor of Gyeongbuk Palace in Seoul.
Despite his frustration, Hurt - who is a member of what he calls the "mostly-symbolic" Presidential Commission on Nation Branding - clearly sees potential in Korea as a tourist destination and feels that, if done right, a tourist promotion campaign is worthwhile. While I agree with almost all of Hurt's criticisms of the current campaigns, I'm skeptical of his optimism for future improvements.
Before proceeding, however, I should note that I find Korea to be a fascinating country and my family and friends who've visited all seemed to enjoy themselves. That said, the aspects of South Korea that attract me - such as its relations with North Korea and its recent economic development - are precisely those things which the Korean tourism authorities do not want to emphasize. After all, who wants to visit a recently-poor country that could find itself embroiled in a nuclear war at any time? There aren't many of us.
But anyway...
What if Korea simply has no comparative advantage in tourism? That is, what if tourists simply will never come to Korea in any great number (i.e. not enough to make the investment in tourism promotion pay for itself), regardless of how much money the Korean National Tourism Organization (KNTO) spends and no matter how well-designed (say, by Hurt's standards) the campaign may be? And, other than on the basis of pride, why should this matter?
Even countries that do attract large numbers of tourists (such as the United States) do not attract them equally to all areas. For example, millions of people travel to Colorado each year to ski or hike; millions of others to famous cities like New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles; still others head for the beaches in Florida or the casinos of Las Vegas. But very few tourists ever bother with Oklahoma City, or Portland, or Pittsburgh. This doesn't mean that the latter are bad places - in fact, folks who live there seem to enjoy their hometowns very much - but they simply are not tourist meccas, and probably never will be.
Why should the globe be any different? Just as certain areas within countries have an edge in attracting tourists, so too will certain countries have an edge over other countries. Isn't it enough to know that Korea has a strong economy, a good and rising standard of living, and an ever-improving quality of life? Is there anything wrong with Korea being the "Portland" of the world, as it were?
Of course, tourist attractions can be created where none before existed. Witness Disneyland, the casinos of Vegas, the golf courses of Arizona, or the Great Wall of China (which, ironically, was built to keep "tourists" out). These places lure tourists who, absent those attractions, never would have visited. But it is neither the job nor the competency of the KNTO, or of the government in general, to try to design and build tourist attractions (not that the government doesn't try). The KNTO can only promote what already exists.
All of which likely sounds a tad defeatist - as though I'm saying the KNTO should just close up shop - which is not my intent. I simply worry that when government projects do not succeed, the answer is too often to simply dump more money into them. Not enough tourists coming to Korea? Double the budget! I would simply like to know what exactly is the maximum amount that the KNTO is willing to spend on its tourist promotion campaigns, a point beyond which it would not go even if the money were available. At what point do we say, "Korea just isn't a tourist destination?"
Despite his frustration, Hurt - who is a member of what he calls the "mostly-symbolic" Presidential Commission on Nation Branding - clearly sees potential in Korea as a tourist destination and feels that, if done right, a tourist promotion campaign is worthwhile. While I agree with almost all of Hurt's criticisms of the current campaigns, I'm skeptical of his optimism for future improvements.
Before proceeding, however, I should note that I find Korea to be a fascinating country and my family and friends who've visited all seemed to enjoy themselves. That said, the aspects of South Korea that attract me - such as its relations with North Korea and its recent economic development - are precisely those things which the Korean tourism authorities do not want to emphasize. After all, who wants to visit a recently-poor country that could find itself embroiled in a nuclear war at any time? There aren't many of us.
But anyway...
What if Korea simply has no comparative advantage in tourism? That is, what if tourists simply will never come to Korea in any great number (i.e. not enough to make the investment in tourism promotion pay for itself), regardless of how much money the Korean National Tourism Organization (KNTO) spends and no matter how well-designed (say, by Hurt's standards) the campaign may be? And, other than on the basis of pride, why should this matter?
Even countries that do attract large numbers of tourists (such as the United States) do not attract them equally to all areas. For example, millions of people travel to Colorado each year to ski or hike; millions of others to famous cities like New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles; still others head for the beaches in Florida or the casinos of Las Vegas. But very few tourists ever bother with Oklahoma City, or Portland, or Pittsburgh. This doesn't mean that the latter are bad places - in fact, folks who live there seem to enjoy their hometowns very much - but they simply are not tourist meccas, and probably never will be.
Why should the globe be any different? Just as certain areas within countries have an edge in attracting tourists, so too will certain countries have an edge over other countries. Isn't it enough to know that Korea has a strong economy, a good and rising standard of living, and an ever-improving quality of life? Is there anything wrong with Korea being the "Portland" of the world, as it were?
Of course, tourist attractions can be created where none before existed. Witness Disneyland, the casinos of Vegas, the golf courses of Arizona, or the Great Wall of China (which, ironically, was built to keep "tourists" out). These places lure tourists who, absent those attractions, never would have visited. But it is neither the job nor the competency of the KNTO, or of the government in general, to try to design and build tourist attractions (not that the government doesn't try). The KNTO can only promote what already exists.
All of which likely sounds a tad defeatist - as though I'm saying the KNTO should just close up shop - which is not my intent. I simply worry that when government projects do not succeed, the answer is too often to simply dump more money into them. Not enough tourists coming to Korea? Double the budget! I would simply like to know what exactly is the maximum amount that the KNTO is willing to spend on its tourist promotion campaigns, a point beyond which it would not go even if the money were available. At what point do we say, "Korea just isn't a tourist destination?"
5 comments:
I'm not sure how I feel about this. I do agree that Korea Tourism's efforts are a bit out of touch, and that they're trying to promote Korea to foreigners without really considering what foreigners are interested in, but I still think that Korea has a chance to do well with Tourism. They just need to change their game plan a bit.
I agree that the KNTO has not marketed Korea well, and that Korea has the potential for increased tourism. Given the Asian competition for tourist dollars (SE Asia's beaches, China's enormity, India's spectacle, etc), however, I worry that Korea is destined to be overlooked by the pleasure traveler. That said, as the economy continues to grow, Korea will likely get more business travelers (like Singapore).
In addition, I wish I knew the KNTO's definition of a successful marketing campaign. For instance, if Samsung ramps up its overseas promotions of Everland, it will be able to track, to some extent, how many visitors those ads are bringing in and how much they're spending on average at Everland. Does the KNTO have any way to determine whether their ads are paying for themselves? After all, if the ads are not bringing in more money (via tourist dollars) than they cost, why bother?
Finally, I am skeptical of the KNTO's ability to competently market Korea, as marketing isn't generally a core competency of governments. I'd like to see more private sector involvement in this area. In fact, I suspect that sites like yours stand to do as much as any KNTO campaign in terms of promoting Korea as a tourist destination.
Thanks for reading and commenting.
Thanks for writing back. I, too, wish I knew what they consider a successful marketing campaign. I know (or think I know) that a lot of it is basically quantitative. Show them that numbers after campaign are bigger than those before it, and it'll be considered a win. What they base those numbers on, though, is beyond me.
I have a buddy who works for KNTO. He has wonderful ideas about how to market the country (specifically Seoul), but ya see...he's young. He says that the office (or at least the underlings) all know that giving a small neighborhood of Seoul a slogan and a mascot is not going to bring tourists into the country. Time will tell if he's able to drink enough soju with his seniors to get his ideas across. God bless his liver.
I feel like Seoul would do well to attract the...more rugged, outdoorsy, yea even eXtreme, high-adventure tourists. It's a whole country of extreme: foreigners wake up and have some mild oatmeal with toast and some orange juice to drink but in Korea you gotta roll out of bed and get some kimchi jjigae in ya - EXTREME! Climb up to the top of Soraksan - EXTREME! Be the first on ANY bus at Seoul Station - EXTREME! How many rounds of soju can you handle?! EXTREME!!
I dunno...maybe there's a reason I don't work for the KNTO.
I am, however, from Portland. Truly not a huge tourism town. It's pretty, though. Damp, yes, but pretty.
Dear Mr. Blackmer,
I am journalist writing about Korea's efforts at attracting tourists and I'd be most interested in getting in touch with you about your friend at the KTO. Please feel free to contact me at john.power@heraldm.com. Needless to say, anonymity would be assured if preferable to you or your friend.
Regards,
John Power
Post a Comment