Dear Editor,
The government of Guyana issued a Request for proposal in April/May of 2023 for tourism market representation services in North American markets. The government has set an ambitious goal of reaching 500,000 tourist arrivals by 2025. Tourism is on the rebound from COVID-19; there is a sense of normalcy returning to most destinations, and Guyana is no exception. I submitted an unsuccessful proposal; the process took much longer than was outlined in the request. However, I was informed in late December 2023 that my firm was not selected. For full disclosure, I do not have a consultancy firm; I submitted the proposal as a two-person consortium, with me being the principal consultant. The rationale is that this approach would have allowed me to engage requisite expertise as the need arises. After twenty years as an industry practitioner, I now teach marketing and integrated projects in Toronto at the School of Hospitality and Tourism in one of Canada’s most reputable Polytechnics; the integrated project course is an applied research capstone course that engages with the Polytechnic’s business partners.
I have access to some of the most seasoned professionals in the field. Having seen the RFP, I became excited at the prospect and proffered a proposal; I had nothing to lose by taking a shot at it. A few considerations that fueled my decision were having a thorough knowledge of the Guyana tourism landscape, excellent knowledge of the tourism markets in North America, and access to some of the best resources in the sector. I was driven by the thought that this may be an opportunity to help build capacity within the Government. It also presented the perfect opening to harness the tremendous power of those already promoting Guyana in tangible ways and include them in the campaigns. A foot through the door would have carved out a path to position years of experience, training, and insight to help make Guyana’s tourism development a formidable destination. However, that is water under the bridge. Obviously, a better proposal won, which I do not think is yet public information; there is nothing on the National Procurement website. However, I would like to talk about my approach as was proposed; I also made a few observations from the RFP, which I will expand on only one.
First, the foundation of my proposal lies in gathering pertinent data through the engagement of professional and reputable analytics firms in Toronto and the best-bet US states. Having had the opportunity to work with an analytics firm here in Toronto on a marketing project, I can attest to the miracles they perform; long before Open AI and other AI tools that now proliferate the public domain, these organisations were already utilising the technology and had mastered Potential Rating Index for Zip Markets (PRIZM). I am sure such marketing intelligence within the government ministries responsible for tourism does not exist. My position is that doing the analytics professionally would construct a framework to really understand your prospects and competitors, pinpoint high-potential markets and know how to reach them. It simply takes the guesswork out of the approach. Marketing in 2024 is done differently than in 2019. If the data is properly put together, it will inform on the best travel trade partners to engage, the best travel trade shows to work, and the demographics to go after because of the comprehensive segmentation that was utilised. More importantly, it will provide numerous insights to create effective campaigns virtually and with a mix of traditional approaches. Needless to say, all of this will accurately show the gaps that need to be bridged on the supply side of things. I totally believe that destination marketing should be clear about return on investments, especially when taxpayer dollars are at stake, which brings me to the observation I want to expand on.
In the request for proposal, the government stated, “Currently70% of visitor arrivals are Diaspora travelling from the USA and Canada, the Authority is seeking to engage the average American and Canadian to inspire and motivate visitation to destination Guyana.” I interpret this statement as the overseas-based Guyanese not being part of the target. The RPF is a technical document, so there is nothing to say otherwise. There is no proposed split in the ask. I am still baffled, or maybe not, for what could account for such rationale. I think about market diversification, which leads to asking who the driving force behind the government’s marketing strategy is. Why is there a dire need to put all your eggs in the “average American and Canadian” basket when the overseas Guyanese segment is the most lucrative target? Is it that the policymakers believe that the Diasporic market is in their command? If that is so, then they need to think again. Pound for pound, who spends more money at destination Guyana, the “average American and Canadian” or the average overseas-based Guyanese coming home for a holiday?
Someone may see the need to point out the useless argument that the overseas-based Guyanese do not stay in hotels and fly into the interior. I know this is not based on facts, nor is it true; on the bright side, more expats are accessing the local tourism offerings and visiting remote areas. They spend thousands of foreign dollars in the local markets: Rose Hall, Anna Regina, Port Mourant, Skeldon, Mon Repos, Linden, Bartica and whichever local markets they are close to; they spend in the corner shops socialising, buying groceries and so on, their support to local businesses cannot be overlooked nor undervalued. Is there a more direct way to support your communities and localities? This is tourism!!! Across the global spectrum, alternative tourism is taking root, and even international neoliberal organisations such as the UNWTO and WTTC are pushing it; it was heartening to see Guyana position community-based tourism as a focus, so something seems amiss in the marketing approach, where does the visiting family and relatives segment situates in this equation? The basic logic is that product development is the first pillar of marketing.
Our greatest tourism potential exists where the mass of our population is located. Visiting Family and Relatives (VFR) is a formidable niche in Guyana; the private sector hospitality and tour operators are already benefiting significantly from this segment. This will continue to happen and grow. However, some of our visitors will choose not to do ‘touristic’ things, and nothing is wrong with that; it does not impact the value they bring to the country. For Guyana to come close to realising 200K tourists in two years, the government has absolutely no choice but to go very aggressively after the low-hanging fruit, which is the Guyanese overseas-based market. Many local influencers have created the hype; the interest is there, but the soft infrastructure is not in place to make this a reality. There are some opportunities here, but my gut says there is a disconnect; that is an analysis for another time. In closing, let me be the devil’s advocate: If the marketers can successfully bring 200K new “average North American and European” tourists to the shores in two years, what is the plan to service them? Will adding twenty-five or thirty new hotels to the room stock do the trick? Let us not forget that word of mouth sells but can also do irreparable damage, so meeting and surpassing expectations are critical, and our service culture leaves a lot to be desired. If the government is serious about this number, there must be some high-level behind-the-scenes strategising and planning to make this a reality. The 2024 budget will give insights and tell that story.
Sincerely,
Andre Dukhia
