January 30, 2013 at 5:54 p.m.
Want to make sense of tourist figures? You do the math
Numbers prove the total expenditure of Bermuda’s tourists has dropped
In 1987, Bermuda's Tourism Industry had 10,040 hotel beds and a tourist throughput of 631,308 tourists with 477,871 air and 153,437 cruise-ship arrivals. [Bermuda Report, 2nd Edn, 1989]. In 1987, the Government reported that these 631,308 visitors spent $468,200,000 in Bermuda. That's fact, not opinion.
Nineteen years later, in 2006, Government reports that Bermuda had 299,000 air arrivals (178,000 fewer air) and 336,300 cruise arrivals (183,000 more cruise) for a total 635,300 visitors [Facts and Figures 2007, Dept of Statistics]. These visitors were serviced by a hospitality group offering just 6,065 beds - 40 per cent less than the 10,040 beds available in 1987. The Government reports that these 635,300 visitors spent some $454,200,000 in Bermuda. That, again, is recorded fact, not opinion.
Facts not opinions
Consider a person earning $39,000 a year in 1987. Twenty years later (in 2007), with no promotions and still doing exactly the same job, that person would be earning about $78,000 a year. The loaf of bread that was on the supermarket shelf at $1.95 in 1987, would, in 2007, cost $4.50. Similarly, a 'leckalight bill of $100 a month in 1987, would, in 2007, have grown to about $200 a month. What's more, you know that since 1987, real estate prices and rents have rocketed upwards. These are facts, not opinions. You can take the time to do your own research, but all you will do is confirm each of those facts - and much more.
So you know that what $468,200,000 could do in 1987; would need twice as much, around $940,000,000, in 2007. Fact, not opinion.
In 2006, Government's reported tourist arrivals were marginally higher than in 1987. The difference was +3,992. So dollar for dollar - in terms of buying power - 2006's tourist total of 635,300 should have provided the same buying power - dollar for dollar - as did the 631,308 of 1987.
But 2006's reported tourist spending was only $454,200,000. Fourteen million less - in absolute dollar amount - than the $468,200,000 that tourists spent in 1987. For tourist spending in 2006 to EQUAL that of 1987, and given the twenty-year rise in costs and prices, the total spent in 2006 would have had to be in the region of $945,000,000. This is fact, not opinion.
So in terms of money actually spent - more correctly value received - in Bermuda, the total income from 2006's recorded 635,300 tourists was actually DOWN by more than 50%, when compared to the total income from 1987. This because a 1987 dollar bought twice as much as a 2006 dollar. Or, looked at another way, a 2006 dollar was only worth 50c when compared to a 1987 dollar. Again, fact, not opinion.
How come, then, that what's sometimes touted as 'bumper' tourist arrival numbers turn out to produce so little real value or result?
When Tourism's counters count tourists, do they record - as a tourist - every person who comes to Bermuda, even if that person is a businessman making his twentieth business flight - that year - into Bermuda? Or a Mum and Dad coming out to visit a son or daughter who has landed a high-paying job in Bermuda, and who will stay in their son's rented apartment or house? Do they count - as tourists - those businesspeople who fly in to sign a multi-million dollar insurance contract and who fly out as soon as the ink has dried? All of these questions are answerable, but no one has answered - YET!
I've finished. It's your turn. You must answer these four questions:
Is Bermuda's income from tourism rising or falling? What trend do you see?
Of the 336,300 cruise arrivals + 299,000 air arrivals of 2006, how many were tourists of the kind who came in 1987?
Now, in August 2008, at what should be the peak of Bermuda's tourist season, what do your eyes tell you about Bermuda's real tourist numbers?
As an intelligent citizen, are you given enough information to arrive at honest conclusions?
So, fire up your brain cells and - for yourself - get the answers for those four questions.[[In-content Ad]]
Comments:
You must login to comment.