What if there were no DMO?

I saw an interesting op-ed column in the Pacific Daily News over the weekend that suggested that the Guam Visitors Bureau should be disbanded and the money used to build a museum.

Of course, without a DMO promoting a destination, who would ever discover the museum?

That's the common retort when somebody suggests redirecting DMO money into capital projects, ain't it? But, the writer of this opinion column lays the gaunlet down when he says "the GVB doesn't influence a potential visitor's decision to come to Guam. If they ever have, then they have lost it."

Of course they do...don't they? But, with visitation flat and/or dropping...how can one prove it to the hoi polloi?

Just another example of why all Destination Marketing professionals need to measure both productivity AND intent to travel as motivated by our marketing. And a bunch of other proofs...or attacks like this one will become more common.

Comments

[JEB]

Here we go again!
One problem DMOs face is that in many destinations anyone from local janitor to bank president thinks they could do a better job at marketing their place than the DMO. In times when visitor arrival figures are flat that often leads to these calls for abolishing the whole organization. Shortsighted to say the least, but playing devil's advocate, I have to say that in certain cases it would not make a difference. Why? Because too many DMOs are underfunded to begin with and can hardly make a dent in the market or gain share of voice. When statistics show that in many cases only a small minority of visitors have had contact with a DMO or were influenced by a marketing activity placed by it prior to visiting, that gives ammunition to those critics who question the whole model. Why would an otherwise sane member of the Swiss government call for a symbolic one swiss franc contribution to the national DMO of the country that has just come out on top of the WEF global rankings of tourism competitiveness!