Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAO-06-049 - Proposal for a New Tourism Organization - Results of Consultation & Next Steps~- _ _ TC NE ~ ~ Chief Administra tar`s Office Report To: Mayor Carl Zehr and Members of Council Date of Meeting: July 4, 2006 Submitted By: Carla Ladd, CAO Prepared By: Carla Ladd, CAO Ward(s) Involved: All Date of Report: June 29, 2006 Report No.: CAO-06-049 Subject: PROPOSAL FOR A NEW TOURISM ORGANIZATION - RESULTS OF CONSULTATION AND NEXT STEPS RECOMMENDATION: That City Council endorse the creation of a Steering Committee to continue the development of anew Tourism Organization with the Terms of Reference and membership to be as described in Attachment 1: Continuing the Development of a Tourism Organization for Waterloo Region (together with its' appendices) appended to staff report CAO-06-049, dated June 29, 2006, and further That City Council approve funding, not to exceed $7,000 to support the work of the Steering Committee in 2006. BACKGROUND: In May 2006, Councils across the Region supported a proposal for the creation of a new tourism organization as a basis for discussion with the tourism industry. This proposal suggested that the new organization would serve the region, and it would have the following basic characteristics: • It would be responsible for destination marketing and for the coordination of visitor services, • It would serve the area within the geographic boundaries of the Region with provisions to involve others within close proximity to the Region and potential partnerships with nearby communities, • It would be governed by an arms-length, not for profit corporation with a Board of Directors comprised of municipal and tourism industry representatives similar to the CTT model, • It would be jointly funded by the Region, the local municipalities and the tourism industry. Subsequent to consideration of this proposal by Councils, the area CAO's hosted two industry consultation sessions, one in Kitchener on the evening of June 7 and the other in Cambridge in the afternoon on June 8. These sessions were well attended having an approximate total of 90 members from the tourism industry between the two sessions. This report summarizes the industry input on the proposed tourism model and recommends next steps towards the creation of a new tourism service delivery model. REPORT: Industry Consultation Tourism Industry consultations were held to determine general support for a new tourism service delivery model and to gain specific feedback on some key questions around mandate, organization and funding. The format of the sessions included a presentation to ensure information was consistent and a context was created as a base for discussions. The participants were then divided into small groups based on sectoral interest (accommodation, things to do profit, things to do non-profit and services/dining/retail) to discuss specific questions. Both participants and those who were unable to attend, were also encouraged to complete comment sheets expressing their views as a way to capture comprehensive input from the industry. The results of these consultations can be summarized as follows: • There is clear industry support for a new tourism organization, • There was unanimous support for destination marketing being the primary function of a new organization with an emphasis on the development of a brand for the region as the first order of business, • There were differing perspectives about the role of visitor services within the new organization ranging from full incorporation at start-up, phasing it in after the first one or two years of operation, and leaving it as a municipally operated function, • There was support for financial participation by the industry in a new organization however there were several different options discussed including a membership fee (flat fee or variable fee depending on size of organization) and fee for service programs. In addition to these industry sessions and the comment sheets provided by the CAO's, two other tourism related organizations conducted surveys to gather the input of their specific members to the proposal, the results of which were similar those received by the CAO's. Clearly there is interest and support from the industry in moving ahead with a model which would improve tourism in the region. Next steps In order to advance the development of a new tourism organization, the CAO's are recommending the creation of a Steering Committee comprised of representatives from the municipalities as well as the tourism industry. This Steering Committee would be responsible for the further development of recommendations on the following: • Defining the functions of the organization including an assessment of whether Visitor Services should be coordinated or assumed by the organization, • Board Structure and By-laws, • Selection and recruitment of Directors for the Board, • Draft membership and fee structure for Industry participation, • Draft organization structure, administrative and financial requirements. Membership of the Steering Committee would include representatives from the Region and 5 local municipalities currently involved in tourism (Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge, Wilmot and Woolwich) and 6 tourism industry representatives reflecting the range of tourism industry sectors (accommodation, things to do and service/dining/retail), and an appropriate geographic distribution. Given the complexity of creating such an organization, some assistance from experts may be required by the steering committee. Such expertise may include legal assistance in regard to start up procedures as well as tourism marketing expertise, among others. Although specific needs and costs are not known at this time, in order to support the work of the committee, it is being recommended that funding in the amount of $50,000 be made available to ensure their recommendations have a solid basis. In this regard, the CAO's are proposing that these initial costs be shared equally between the Region and the local municipalities. Should municipal Councils support the continued development of a new tourism organization and the creation of a Steering Committee to advance this initiative, the Steering Committee would begin its' work in July and in accordance with the Terms of Reference, seek to make a final recommendation to municipal Councils by late 2006. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Immediate funding to support the work of the Steering Committee is proposed at $50,000 to be shared among the Region and the 5 local municipalities involved in tourism -this would result in a maximum contribution by the City of Kitchener of $7,000. Longer term funding of the new organization is estimated to be approximately $750,000 to be equally shared between the Region, local municipalities and the tourism industry. This would result in a potential contribution from the City of Kitchener in the order of $75,000. Depending on the results of the Steering Committee's work, this may result in current tourism funding being re-deployed or it may require the consideration of some new funds. The matter of funding will be considered as part of the Steering Committee's recommendations and the City's 2007 budget. Carla Ladd, CAO APPENDIX A Report: CA-06-004 lF-~~ FIB ~Ct_~r ~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~~_ f _~'1L-IC: i ; c;. F~~za ~~~~~a~.~~°i~~~~~~ I~~t~~,~s~i;e~~ t.~~r~~~~~1~~~~i~~r r~~~~~~f~~Q~ 4 .r ~,v ._ ^% ~4 t ki ~ ~r ~y . >> ~ i ~t+a Y, ~, ~ ,`'' r',,~ ~~ ~ ~ ~p 4~~ ~.. Docs # 277881 A-2 Report: CA-06-004 Tourism Industry Consultation Sessions Contents of Handout * Presentation * Comment Sheet * Tourism Organization Steering Committee Expression of Interest Form Agenda * Introductions 10 minutes * Presentation 30 minutes * Small Group Discussions 45 minutes * Discussion Summary and Next Steps 30 minutes A-3 Report: CA-06-004 1'[_L~l~1~~1~1 L~~ 1`E:',~tT] .IZ] ,~_ rC-.~ ~%L E_ ~ 1 ~_ ) ~~°~i gnifi_ant Cpp~-~I~uri t;; U,itl~l~c ___ Introc.uctlon ' Bacl<c~rr~urrrl ,- Fr~rrr~ :or-. for ~ re:r I purism Ol,gar~lzatlon ,~ s~t't1 C~':i ~rrtroctuctior~ Prrtpo~aet~ l orris?~i :]ryai~iW~tior~ Frasentati~n c"_ursti~nsi;-,r,~la iz,cati.,n `srr7all grouE~ riisous5iot~s `:unamar}I nF gI-ouF~ ~iiscus~;ior~s Ir'Vra~z-u~r anrf r~ex~:~fieps ~3 ~~ ~ZC=~~~l>~c~ 7 purism is a significant Industry b z "~~i h 1''e'r re'; en Pri-date Sector Indi':idual r~~a:'~,ef'r~:a S~_:rr~e in~orn'ia partnerships x is9 UniCip8litiFS ~~i:ld,~1 ~~~stln,t_Icn nrark.etlr,a Ir~~i.idua~ ;sit _,r ~aivi-_~s LhalEa;~ges Fr~,gmnte.a' apprra"h Y,!~. c~,:er~l'r~ar~;~tin~ ~ rat:;, Lo;: e;.:tNr i;l prc`,I [_ )L fp~;lttll~lliLt; 5igni~`i~er~tra~,^,rth F~UtEritial Lnndnn ,,-erYr:~t ~~ ~1~~'', rnr~ re"'~riie H-,rrllt~n ~#en~r,tnr' _,- r~ior~.~ r~a',~;nue Sigr~iiir~r~nt_ nctentl~f t~ I'r~~rr,~re e,~tErnul pr~fifc ~~nd i~~-acs _nist ,it`r bi,sin, s -ttr: ction ant empln,;e ranrL.ltrrlerlt ~~tential for more °k~~nr~ for our F~_tcit' - ~ot~riti:el fur i''ro°.ind_al ~urCirl ~7'1-~,-1C?li~~. ~~ [~tll'1~,1~~- .``1 L 4~{1C.:~ 199 - f,li:h-ael 1=ollett R~:port to ",',~ 717f)) - ~nurisr~ ~tr:at~gy frrr fhP r.Itles of }itaisetr~r &r~irJ }~',`uterloc ;' dayrr_ ~ lusse~,) 2CrD2 - "Tot~risur Task ~~rrce Rep~rti' iTo~nlsr~ Iad.istn,rT~s.l<. Folce} All recc~nrr~encjrd more cac~rci~?,af°d, :pope .~rtr:~~ -3p(Jrna+_n (i_it~ljr ~,~i'1 pr ,~~~t ~ectrrrf~Jrr~ inp _ __ _ ~I (in~~ ~~~t Tr~tt~ati~ ~: P:'li~nlc~~~l t-~a~Jersh~ir~ P,II r~,~i_~nicip~.litieG v;ant tr irnpru:e ~,II ~;~,;incll-. ~~~F:F.~rtsr~ F~r'in:iFl~ 8~~+':kgrC:ui~~l ReSE2.fGh P~~„io_is -ti_~,~i~- ~tl~+r r.;~~~rnunitie; i'rot7osEC~ Frarns ,:fort:. A-4 Report: CA-06-004 l~i~}~~C);t'~~ ]_rrlts'[~f~1 [_)1'r~~i111i'.11.1~=~1~ functions Godrrn~~nce F-~~indan'~ - PCGC~'SS l'1~ ~~-7~-~~~ec~ "1'~rt~t-isrn f lr:~;ttiti~~tiC~n ~trr~ctzor~~, czr~_d ~c~a~?e Prin~ury ~ oaus - bastinaficn Pvi-~rlcPting "Cc~ardin~te" ~,~isikar Services P:luniripafitl ~s contir~lae to pro ,ride `Jisit~,- Cer,~iCes -could ~'ot~traCt to TG~EYIsrI O,gariL.atio~n - lnltinl srrr~e },~'JatPrloo Ragian P~,tential f~~lt~_ir6 ~artr,erships ~1'r }~_7!=i~,~~{ l i ll_t1`151~7 ~ 13'`~,<lill'1tlr.=)t? ~' tLflC~LfZ~~ Public and Private ~~ector Funding {nltl~k budr~ei a~FprUxlm~trvl $ ~50Y fa S1 [,1r'yr T'roposc~i'1'r~uri~r7z C )l~~ani~~ilic~ii ~roz-~e;'-ric~l~ ce. '!afious of3fions cor~si~4ere~.1 - /~,rt-ns-I~rl~tf~, i~ot-For-Profit Corprsr~~tionn - C1 I f';~odel ,- Laard rriember~~roni Industry and h:1unicipalities 5ir~~ilarto Hemiltnn, Landon, Furlinnton P1'~l~~J(-»~`t~ ~~ Oi~~i'15SI1 ~)1~11t]1'~ltC1(7t7 ~''~Z [1~C~il~C~ f 'f+ ''[i'I Possible P,',adel ~~ai n g~-,~~ E~; ,area r ~~n~e~pa ~ ~~ ~rsu E<: - !n~~~~t~,, T2rr, r: Industr;~ CGntrlb~ation 1,;1-m',~ershigs ar~d'~r ~li~e~r cc,n%rlhutlorr:y ~ee~ f,,r~sr:i~e A-5 Report: CA-06-004 Fte~ on and . rn~niripa'ities Incest ,•GonsultaP:on En~ut ~,-r _ ~fext Steps o-_~~ d ~~ ~__v;. =_~pF~rt Recnrnrnen~i3tlnns fo P~~unlr:ipal Caur:rils Ect~k,ll~Ei',1un ciF~al - Industr,~ `;teE~_i~a Gor~tir~it~ee ~ r i ~ ~ i:i _,_r_ _, Initi~ ~~.- r- --~~~~:i1i-~:=. 1'r(_~~~ iS~d 7 r +~?iis1~1 (lis< <li~~ttir ~I7 ~o"~~~}l~ 1n~rirr .~±cric~~~s/'Prac~~~cr Esfab!sh the cr~,~~ization ^a rd ~t Direcknr~ -1ir~ 8 P,l~nsg~r De,~elo~ a '~rar~i" C~e.elur. a ~~~arl<.eting str~3te3` In lice r-~~~ri:~tinq acti ~i_ies ~~~+at~slt~'' - (~I r.'. ~teer~e~~~ ~ c~n~mi-t: Forr~is T4~I1f~l~ti-'~'OLJ! A-6 Report: CA-06-004 Tourism Industry Consultation Session Notes A-7 Report: CA-06-004 Tourism Industry Consultation Session Comment Sheet Please complete and return this Comment Sheet today so your views can be considered when recommendations concerning the proposed Tourism Organization are made to the Municipal Councils. If you wish to prepare and submit your comments later, please mail, fax or a-mail your responses no later than Friday June 16, 2006 to: Valerie Bradford City of Kitchener Economic Development 200 King Street West PO Box 1118 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 v~lerie.br~clforcl(a~cit~.kitchener.on.c~ Fax: (519) 741-2722 1) What are your current marketing initiatives? (memberships, advertising in specific publications, etc.) 2) What gaps currently exist in the provision of tourism services in this region? 3) Do you support the creation of a new Tourism Organization to provide Destination Marketing Services for Waterloo Region? What about Visitor Services? 4) What products, services and outcomes would you expect from the proposed Tourism Organization? What would provide value to you as a tourism operator? Dogs # z~~asi A-8 Report: CA-06-004 5) How should industry participation and financial contributions be structured? Membership? Fee for service? Annual contribution? 6) Other comments: Thank you for your comments. We would also like to know some general information about your business: Industry Sector: Accommodation (Hotels, Motels, B&B's, Conference Centres) Shopping Dining Services (Relocation, Specialty, Media, Transportation) Things To Do -Profit Things To Do -Not for Profit Number of Employees Annual Operating Budget Annual Marketing Budget Optional: Name: Business Name: Business Address: Please Note: The information provided on this comment sheet will be summarized and used in preparing a report to the Municipal Councils. Information identifying individual businesses will not be included. A-9 Report: CA-06-004 Tourism Organization Steering Committee Expression of Interest Form If the Municipal Councils approve moving forward with a process to establish a new Tourism Organization, a Steering Committee may be formed to direct this process. It is anticipated that the Steering Committee would meet several times in the July to December period. If you would you be interested in participating on the Steering Committee, please provide the following information: Name Organization/Business Name Position Industry Sector Phone and Email Mailing Address City/Province/Postal Code Relevant Skills and Knowledge Please provide names of other individuals who might be appropriate for the Steering Committee: You may submit this information today, or send by Friday June 16, 2006 to: Valerie Bradford City of Kitchener Economic Development 200 King Street West PO Box 1118 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 v~lerie.br~clforcl(a~cit~.kitchener.on.c~ Fax: (519) 741-2722 Dogs # z~~asi APPENDIX B Report: CA-06-004 SUMMARY OF TOURISM CONSULTATION FOCUS GROUPS Tourism in Waterloo Region Session 1 -Wednesday, June 7t" Council Chambers, Kitchener City Hall Tourism Focus Group -Accommodation Sector Question #1 - Do you support the creation of a new Tourism Organization to provide Destination Marketing Services for Waterloo Region? What about Visitor Services? a) 100% in support for region-wide marketing organization b) Group felt it important that marketing efforts need to be backed up by excellent, consistent visitor services across the re ion Visitor Services to be part of the organization Current Service is: ^ Laid back ^ Can visitor services be delivered at a consistent level under current arrangement? ^ Provincially -operated Visitor Centres are managed the same, regardless of location ^ Current locations of K-W Tourism centres (both) are not good ^ Professionalism of current visitor services is not good -not polished -not appropriate measurements and benchmarks used. - location of facility -entrance to community - quality of space - professional ^ Website is not good ^ Lets change the way we do things ^ SOTA package was much more professional - KW brochure put together in a rush ^ Should have invitin visitor information centres at every entrance to region ^ Would like new tourism organization to include a focus on visitor information and services ^ * Should put marketing and visitor services together -they belong together - equally important Question # 2 -What products, services and outcomes would you expect from the proposed organization? What would provide value to you as a tourism operator? What would provide value to you? ^ Support individual operator's current marketing efforts ^ Create awareness of Waterloo Region ^ Encourage longer stays e.g. daytrips -weekends ^ Create awareness of location and proximity to major markets e.g. G.T.A. Docs #: 297926 B-2 Report: CA-06-004 ^ Will take time to achieve ^ Improve networking among industry ^ Cross promotions ^ Encourage local tourism -visiting friends and relatives market ^ Create a successful, user-friendly website with good linkages ^ Develop abrand-tourism identity for Region of Waterloo ^ Realize that we need to include neighbouring destinations such as Guelph, Stratford etc. -partnerships with awn rr destination that makes sense Question # 3 -How should industry participation and financial contributions be structured? Membership? Fee for Service? Annual Contribution? Funding Model ^ *Would like to have one organization (body) to contribute to instead of current multiple e.g. Cambridge - KW Tourism -Stratford - etc.* ^ Graduated scale based on size? ^ Have some fee for service initiatives as appropriate ^ Does proposed budget for destination marketing seem attainable Yes -provided they don't have to continue to contribute to multiple groups Tourism Focus Group -Miscellaneous Question # 1 - Do you support the creation of a new Tourism Organization to provide Destination Marketing Services for Waterloo Region? What about Visitor Services? Yes ^ Destination marketing - a big job ^ Municipalities/services doing visitor services ^ By definition, visitor services is more visitor services follows DM (Destination Marketing) -everything that comes after DM ^ * Concerned most about visitor services coordination -need strategic approach - whether start at individual process -portal approach www. ^ * Needs long-term plan to bring visitor services into centralized function ^ Facilitate development of services -find gaps, encourage, inspire, development ^ VISION! ^ Annual planning ^ Be external voice -trade shows ^ Be "internal voice" - Intranet to Ontarians ^ Creating partnerships locally ^ Get buy-in/participation from industry ^ Demonstrate results ^ Massages that extend the stay Question # 2 - What products, services and outcomes would you expect from the proposed organization? What would provide value to you as a tourism operator? What would provide value to you? ^ Visitor Centre -visible, attractive, centrally located ^ Materials from DM (Destination Marketing) that could be used by destinations/services for customers Docs #: 297926 B-3 Report: CA-06-004 ^ Media buying power ^ * Brand -bringing outside marketing agencies to help ^ Marketing campaign -strategy, materials "Be the voice", inspire the vision ^ * Phased approach, coordinated efforts of VS (visitor services) ^ Consist hours of operation ^ Same message materials ^ Training for staff -knowledge of the whole Region Question # 3 - -How should industry participation and financial contributions be structured? Membership? Fee for Service? Annual Contribution? ^ Affordability -need specialized packages ^ Advice on how to spend marketing budget ^ Membership -all members equal fee. Dollars assessed by classification ^ Fee for service programs Tourism Focus Group -For Profit Sector Question # 1 - Do you support the creation of a new Tourism Organization to provide Destination Marketing Services for Waterloo Region? What about Visitor Services? There is strong support for a new tourism organization. The Group strongly felt the organization should be responsible for both Destination Marketing and Visitor Services. Question # 2 - What products, services and outcomes would you expect from the proposed organization? What would provide value to you as a tourism operator? What would provide value to you? The Group wants to see more visitors, staying longer in the Region, particularly more overnight stays. They would expect the new organization to attend trade shows, attract conventions, undertake outside promotion, and do new publications. There was a feeling that the new organization could get residents to spend more time in their own community and could help get local tourism operators to help each other. The Group felt strongly that the new organization needed to develop a brand and marketing strategy as fop priorities. Question # 3 - -How should industry participation and financial contributions be structured? Membership? Fee for Service? Annual Contribution? The Group agreed that the new organization should have a base membership fee, graduated depending on the size of the member organization and distinguishing between non profit and for profit operators. Members should be able to buy certain services on a fee for service basis. Non members should be able to buy services as well but at a premium rate. Docs #: 297926 B-4 Report: CA-06-004 Session 2 -June 8, 2006 Holiday Inn, Cambridge Tourism Focus Group -For Profit & Not for Profit Sector Question # 1 - Do you support the creation of a new Tourism Organization to provide Destination Marketing Services for Waterloo Region? What about Visitor Services? • 9 in favour -majority agrees • Visitor Services -very definitely linked to DM • yes to organization • destination marketing & visitors services Question # 2 - What products, services and outcomes would you expect from the proposed organization? What would provide value to you as a tourism operator? What would provide value to you? • more visitors generated • strong media message (family tours), contacts • stronger message in market place • sport & convention bids will be stronger • co-coordinated collaterals & distribution Question # 3 - -How should industry participation and financial contributions be structured? Membership? Fee for Service? Annual Contribution? • yes to 250K from industry • accountable for overhead costs • want fee structure tied to the new organization • hotel tax another source of funds Tourism Focus Group -Not for Profit Sector Question # 1 - Do you support the creation of a new Tourism Organization to provide Destination Marketing Services for Waterloo Region? What about Visitor Services? • unanimous support • Stratford had employees doing both VS & DM; now union staff will do VS in new Not-for-Profit organization • Cambridge location gets a lot of visitors • may be best to take `bite size' chunk of DM first & figure out how that filters down • if different municipalities each run own VS locations, there could be different standards of services • do need same marketing message, rolling inventory of product, good external presence, website (then people wouldn't need to come into a VS centre) • do need 1 phone number to call Docs #: 297926 B-5 Report: CA-06-004 • key is to get DM organization up & running, then they can develop business plan & figure out future additional responsibilities Question # 2 - What products, services and outcomes would you expect from the proposed organization? What would provide value to you as a tourism operator? What would provide value to you? • under 1 umbrella, smaller organizations (and remote from cores and not for profits) should get more exposure • better cross-marketing • developing stronger partnerships (ex accommodation with activities or profit and not-for-profit) to maximize enjoyment experience for visitors • higher traffic • brand that says `there's something for everyone' in the Region • the entire area becomes the `product' • we are so diversified, we provide an experiential experience • attraction guides -with one marketing group, would expect 1 guide • a brand is important but doesn't necessarily have to be a logo; a phrase would do o Inventory what we have & find way to communicate o Don't homogenize; don't try to fit into one picture (look at Toronto brand) • organizations without large funds to spend on higher membership level are getting cut out of being included in marketing (need to have the data/information) • can put together non-traditional packages; do the organization footwork & price point info for visitors so they have the info upfront • this Region is diverse -provides options for all interests, abilities Question # 3 - -How should industry participation and financial contributions be structured? Membership? Fee for Service? Annual Contribution? • small organization &not-for-profit cannot pay as much as large/for profit; but don't want to be cut out or minimized just because they can't afford more expensive membership options • one organization will have stronger bay with provincial publications • should be some level of membership to show commitment (graduated or by sector) plus fee for service/pay your own way as long as fair/accessible to small operators • D.M. fee would be future source of revenue; Niagara Falls puts it on hotel/food/parking o this could be viewed by visitors as just another tax; people may have limited tolerance Tourism Focus Group -Miscellaneous (NFP sector quests) Question # 1 - Do you support the creation of a new Tourism Organization to provide Destination Marketing Services for Waterloo Region? What about Visitor Services? If `done right' a very positive and good thing Helps raise the profile of the Region, local arts (we are anon-entity outsider this area) Docs #: 297926 B-6 Report: CA-06-004 Visitor Services to work with locals and outsiders, but clearly a good idea to have a DMO to attract outside visitors/tourists. Most tourism activities are accessed/used by visiting friends and relatives Frustration experienced when putting together proposals to attract large events (e.g. sports -minor hockey) -information about the region is all over the place, and sometimes none at all. A `one stop' for VS and tourism info is preferable. Ideally, the new org would include both services (VS and DM). Otherwise leads to confusion, overlap and issues not being tended to (who's responsible, and delivers misc. pieces) DM and vis services should be incorporated together from the start (not unanimous) Different levels of vis. Services is obvious in area municipalities. Undesirable/bad idea, and sends a confusing message Visitor services area `different animal.' Gaps in that service area need to be examined closely, and separately/distinctly from the DMO Visitor services -the front lines. A `fulfillment' role coordinated by the DMO, and providers of information also coordinated by the DMO. A `body is needed that puts the pieces of the puzzle together efficiently. Visitors arrive with a range of intentions Visitor services should be standardized Confusion around what visitor services is/means. Concerns about current and future municipal competition for visitors. A DMO is worth pursuing region wide. An overall coordination is needed recognizing that that there are various points to be dealt with within the organization Overall agreement that a Tourism Organization is worth supporting and pursuing Don't lose the concept now that interest, and momentum is there. Continue to look at where, when, and how Visitor Services will fit into the DMO construct. Needs further discussion/clarification. Question # 2 - What products, services and outcomes would you expect from the proposed organization? What would provide value to you as a tourism operator? What would provide value to you? Desired products and services include a mechanism that helps put `bums in seats' Ensure that the region is represented in a way that accurately reflects what we are, what we do, what we have Project the image of the region -very important Develop a brand DMO's should create messages, and provides central/co-ordinate print pieces. The DMO should to assist in improving and identifying cross-marketing, opportunities, and related information and services for `members' DMO to have a 2-pronged attack -develop and produce a realistic and marketable brand, use the brand to bring people here. DMO to coordinate the communication of the brand and image (more than just developing a brand, but an effective communications strategy around it). Keep door open for potential/future products -packaging of information and products for sale (tickets, tours packages, etc.) DMO should be a central clearing-house of information, inventory of product, and possible a central website and/or portal for tourism and visitor Services information. Ensure region is marketed for experiences and events Docs #: 297926 B-7 Report: CA-06-004 Ensure the universities and college are captured (many visitors are here visiting students) The DMO needs to understand each facet of the industry One org with 3 divisions (example only) a central DMO (marketing and brand development), planning and products (events coordination, special services, packaging events, etc.), visitor services (drop in, operations) -one contact number for all divisions Question # 3 - -How should industry participation and financial contributions be structured? Membership? Fee for Service? Annual Contribution? NFP's have no ability to pay at same level as for-profit organizations Some NFP's use outside agencies to provide services otherwise paid for by customer (room booking paid by hotels) NFP's are the ones who provide much of the product visitors are looking for (to go to), or attend once they are here (theatre, events, galleries) A tiered system of contribution may be better received by NFP's versus the same formula as the for profit industries. Tangible results from participation in the DMO are needed to warrant budget increase/reallocation DMO could take percentage of booked packages that generates revenue for industry when NFP's are included (DMO gathers NFP portion/contribution) Early knowledge of costs/budget expectations is preferable (not adjusted annually) One fee for all services (DM and visitor) - do not separate. DMO should explore the hotel/accommodation premium General willingness to explore how and at what reasonable level NFP's can contribute recognizing the disparity with broader for-profit industry. Define membership categories and benefits Membership should be tied to voting rights Annual membership, but provide options/opportunity to purchase/participate in shopping list of other products and services Non-members should also buy products and services Possible association membership categories (e.g. B&B's pay into their assoc. that has a membership with the DMO) Tourism Focus Group -Accommodation Sector Question #1 - Do you support the creation of a new Tourism Organization to provide Destination Marketing Services for Waterloo Region? Should Visitor Services be included There was unanimous support for this. There was a fair degree of debate around the issue of Visitor Services. There is widespread support for a universal, high-quality visitor service function available throughout the region, regardless of where it is accessed. It was agreed that such a consistency of service is best achieved if delivered by the same agency. However, there was some concern that this might be too large a task for the new region-wide organization to take on initially, and some members of the group felt that it would be better for the new organization to focus initially on the marketing and attraction efforts, Docs #: 297926 B-8 Report: CA-06-004 and merely coordinate the visitor services function, which could continue to be delivered as they currently are. The members that held this view, felt that the ultimate goal would be to have Visitor Services also the responsibility of the new region-wide group, and work towards achieving this goal over perhaps a three year period. Other members of the group felt strongly that Visitors Services was too important to leave out of the picture, and should be taken on initially by the new group. Important to guide visitors around Region once they arrive, to prolong their stay. The same information should be available, regardless of which visitor information kiosk they stop at. There was some discussion as to where the centres should be located - at entry points to Region? That then lead to a discussion as to what exactly was meant by Visitors Services, and the fulfillment piece, etc. One of the participants (Larry Martin from Best Western St. Jacobs) felt he was already doing a good job of distributing marketing materials. Question #2 -What products, services and outcomes would you expect from the proposed organization? What would provide value to you as a tourism operator? - development of a good website with appropriate linkages - branding - establish associations with other areas to co-market -Stratford, for example, but not always necessarily close by -could be places such as Ottawa, etc. if it seemed appropriate - encourage networking among local tourism operators - cross-promotions and marketing initiatives - encourage local residents to visit location sites and attractions with their friends and relatives - work with motor coach operators to develop packages - encourage sport tourism - development of a good tourism map of Region, indicating various attractions Question #3 -How should industry participation and financial contributions be structured? - no appetite among this group for hotel tax! - Support for membership model, with fee structure based on size of operation, and recognition that non-profit organizations frequently do not have the same promotional budgets as for-profit - Strong desire for a single body to pay a membership fee to, with one tourism guide, regardless of how Visitor Services are delivered initially - Some support for different levels of membership, equating with different levels of service - Would like to see opportunities to buy into special promotional initiatives, as appropriate to specific businesses/attractions, at additional cost to participants. Non-members could participate, but rates charged would be higher, to encourage membership Docs #: 297926 ATTACHMENT 1 Report: CA-06-004 Continuing the Development F r n, ~, ~ ` ~ _, ti ~ 1=,~ a Of a Tourism Organization ~.:, r~ ,-~ -~ For Waterloo Region ~.~ ~ ~ ~` ~~^ ,' `f?` f ' r~ ~~ ~fi` ~" ~ b f ~~ ~~ Y ~`U:1~ Tl~i, r.:E•t_~~t ]i~I~ f~e+~i'r ~,i~rrarec ac~l eti~]-~-u~~} •~,'-11.; ~~:1ur'ic,ipal ~~1~icfAr{rnini;~-~ti~:c= ~__ , ,_ ~~ ~'I I' `~it,~_~~ _`~,1~.rl,a~~~ ~~ji~sll ~ 1Ga~c°31.x; 1 - /~ ¢~ _ %%~ /~ s:~~t~az~;°ir; 1'>~~~t~I ~~tl~~~i pis?~atc~ ~.Icr'~ Ij~,~t~ErLr ~ _.. _ L~21i'~ "~t11[~1t11 t ~ir1,: E)7~'[:1 i ~ ~ I 1{ ~~ { l~icl' `~~.li?~ir~l~,I ~ti.~t~~i~i~er I_Ifi. U~ ~~lC~l~ll°l ~~ !~' ! J~ ~ lr / I`l ~_~ l :ll t ~`': M i t t 311' c=' Cl ~"- _, i_ i1=~" _~i~"LI1Clt: [r:~f1' ~ '-}~~I~U~I- ~;a~',11~h1~~ ~Jt 0~ IIII'~f~C ~, Fr' "" -'~F'"i t ' i 77 ;t `,1C:7i!]" r a'_S]L}lI1~I`'' r~~[~!' ~71I'i"Tl,>.C~TI~ 17~~'~ _~4~~I31111'~i ~Cii'u ( t:l cC .`il~~ .y~~:lllt 9~=,tiGI1 'C ~Jlll~'t~' -- Continuing the Development of a Tourism Organization for the Waterloo Region A-3 Report: CA-06-004 Continuing the Development Of a Tourism Organization For Waterloo Region 1.0 Background Tourism is a significant industry in Waterloo Region. Recent Statistics Canada data indicate that in 2004 this Region attracted almost 2.4 million person trips, which generated $390 million in revenue, supported 3,200 jobs and contributed $5 million in total municipal taxes. While this economic activity is significant, it has been declining in recent years. It also lags behind comparable municipalities (e.g. Hamilton and London) which have municipally-supported tourism destination marketing organizations (DMO). Currently the 3 cities and 2 of the Townships provide tourism-related services such as destination marketing and/or visitor services. There are several issues associated with the current approach, including the following: • The current approach is fragmented with no overall brand or marketing strategy; • The community has a low and fragmented external profile; • The community has lower levels of tourism activity and revenue than comparable municipalities. There is a consensus within the tourism industry and municipal administration in Waterloo Region that there is a need and opportunity to improve the delivery of tourism services, particularly destination marketing, in this community. Given the significance of this issue to the Region and to all of the Local Municipalities, the municipal Chief Administrative Officers developed a proposal to create anew Tourism Organization for Waterloo Region. The new organization, which was described in the document `A Discussion Paper Regarding Delivery of Tourism Services in Waterloo Region', would have the following essential characteristics: • It would be responsible for destination marketing and for the coordination of visitor services. Each of the local municipalities would continue to be responsible for the provision of visitor services. • It would focus on marketing tourist destinations/services within Waterloo Region, with provisions for including destinations in close proximity to the Region, and provisions for future partnerships with other tourism organizations in nearby communities; • It would be governed by an arms length not-for-profit corporation with a Board of Directors comprised of municipal and tourism industry representatives (similar to Canada's Technology Triangle Inc. (CTT)); and • It would be funded jointly by the Region, the local municipalities and the Tourism Industry. A-4 Report: CA-06-004 Based on previous proposals prepared by the Tourism industry, and on a review of similar organizations in other communities, a reasonable budget estimate for the organization would be in the order of $750,000 to $1.0 million per year. The proposed funding model for an initial budget of $750,000 per year would include equal contributions from the Region, the local municipalities and the Tourism Industry ($250,000 each). In early May, 2006, Regional Council and all Local Municipal Councils endorsed this proposal in principle as a basis for further consultation with the Tourism industry. 2.0 Tourism Industry Consultation 2.1 Consultation Process Listings of tourism industry operators, owners or other stakeholders were compiled by KW Tourism and Cambridge Tourism with input from other sectors and Local Municipalities. In total, about 500 invitations were extended to attend consultation sessions held on June 7 at Kitchener City Hall, and June 8 at the Cambridge Holiday Inn. A total of approximately 90 people attended the two sessions. At each session, there was a presentation summarizing the need for a new organization, and the proposed concept; this was followed by small group discussions. Participants were grouped according to the following industry sectors, to ensure that the potentially differing viewpoints of each industry sector would be captured: -Accommodation (hotels, motels, B&B's, conference centres) -Shopping -Dining -Services (relocation, specialty, media, transportation) -Attractions -Profit -Attractions -Not for Profit There was a good balance among the groups, with a total over the two sessions of 26 participants from the Accommodation sector, 26 from the Attractions-Profit, 18 from Attractions- Not for Profit, and 15 from other sectors. Comments were recorded within each group and brought back to a wrap-up session with the larger group. Each participant was also asked to complete an individual comment sheet (see Section 2.3), and to indicate whether they were interested in participating in a possible Steering Committee which might be formed to continue the development of the Tourism Organization. The Information Handout package for the consultation sessions is included in Appendix A to this report. It was also distributed electronically to all of the tourism contacts. 2.2 Industry Consultation Results A compilation of the discussion notes from each of the small group discussions is provided in Appendix B. The key messages from the questions discussed by each of the small groups are summarized below. a) Do you support the creation of a new Tourism Organization to provide Destination Marketing Services for Waterloo Region? What about Visitor Services? A-5 Report: CA-06-004 In both consultation sessions, and from all industry sectors, there was essentially unanimous support for a new Tourism Organization that would be fully responsible for Destination Marketing. There was more variability of opinion about responsibility for Visitor Services. Many participants agreed with the proposal that the new organization initially take on only `coordinating' Visitor Services. This approach would give the new organization time to focus on Destination Marketing, as a more manageable piece of work. However, many other participants stated that the new organization should be responsible for both Destination Marketing and Visitor Services from the beginning, that `fulfillment' of the demand created by marketing is too important to be fragmented, and that `coordination' could be more difficult to achieve than `direct delivery' of Visitor Services. Without a single organization being responsible for both Destination Marketing and Visitor Services, there could be confusion, overlap, or gaps in service. It was noted that currently the local municipalities provide different levels of Visitor Services, and that sends a confusing message. Location of Visitor Services facilities is also important, and may not be optimal under the current structure. It appears that there is a continuum of tourism services, and that at this point, it is not clear how much of that continuum the new organization should attempt to cover. Further research and discussion is needed to identify all of the functions that need to be delivered, and how best to structure the organization(s) to deliver them. This work could be assigned to the Steering Committee, leading to a more detailed proposal. b) What products, services and outcomes would you expect from the proposed organization? What would provide value to you as a tourism operator? The desired outcome was consistent among all groups: generate more visitors to the area, who stay longer, and know about multiple things to do while they are here. Specifically, the following products and services were mentioned: -a brand, or `tourism identity' for Waterloo Region; not homogenized and not necessarily a logo; respect the diversity of attractions and things to do -a marketing campaign, including strategy and communications materials -a single Visitor Services publication (attraction guide) that covers the entire area -a single phone number, with knowledgeable, fully-trained staff to provide complete information about the area -a strong, user-friendly, fully-functional website -when coordinating Visitor Services, consideration of appropriate locations, consistent hours of operation, display of materials -a single source of current information, product inventory -media buying power and coordination of advertising; a Destination Marketing organization will be able to buy into provincial publications and media campaigns 294870 Continuing the Development of a Tourism Organization for the Waterloo Region 5 A-6 Report: CA-06-004 -attend trade shows -attract conventions and sporting events by packaging accommodations, attractions, dining, etc. -support cross-promotion, networking, and stronger partnerships among tourism operators -create non-traditional tourism packages based on the diversity of experiences available here -coordinate events, special services, promotions, etc. -provide training and research support to tourism operators -equity in representing all component of the tourism industry; recognize that smaller operators, cultural and not-for-profit organizations, and those in rural areas all contribute to the attractiveness of the area, but often get limited exposure due to limited funds. c) How should industry participation and financial contributions be structured? Membership? Fee for Service? Annual Contribution? Again, there was general consensus across the industry groups that it should be possible to budget for $250,000 from the Industry, as proposed, if it is structured as a combination of membership and fee for service. The following refinements were suggested: -have only one organization collecting membership fees even if Destination Marketing and Visitor Services functions remain separate (currently both Cambridge and KW Tourism charge membership fees, and some operators are members of both, in addition to organizations external to the region) -create a fee scale based on size, and recognize that not-for-profit groups have more limited marketing funds that for-profit operators, so tailor fee schedule accordingly -consider possible association membership categories, for example B&B's belong to an association, which would have the membership in the Tourism Organization -there could be a base fee that is equal for all members, plus an additional sliding fee -if there are different membership categories, there may have to be different benefits associated with each -membership should be linked with voting rights -there should also be fee-for-service programs, such as special advertising supplements -non-members should be able to buy services as well but at a premium rate -once tangible results and products are offered by the Tourism Organization, the industry will be more willing to reallocate existing marketing dollars to the new initiatives; also 294870 Continuing the Development of a Tourism Organization for the Waterloo Region 6 A-7 Report: CA-06-004 some services currently purchased from outside agencies (such as room bookings) could be shifted to the new organization to generate more income. There is an interest in exploring a Destination Marketing Fee, which already exists in some areas such as Toronto and Niagara Falls, and is being considered in other areas such as London and Stratford. This is a fee, charged voluntarily by some industry sectors such as Accommodation, with the proceeds directed to supporting the Destination Marketing Organization. All of the jurisdictions where it is being charged or is proposed already have Destination Marketing Organizations in place. This is something that could be considered in future, but should not be a priority in establishing the Tourism Organization for Waterloo Region. 2.3 Individual Comments from Tourism Industry All members of the Tourism Industry were also asked to comment individually on the proposal. A total of 60 individual comments have been received, again representing the range of industry sectors. Support for a new Tourism Organization was virtually unanimous, with 97% in favour. Most agree that the organization should ultimately be responsible for both Destination Marketing and Visitor Services, but there are differing views on how that should be accomplished, as illustrated in the following quotes: -"Ideally visitor services to be integrated into it, otherwise it continues to be fragmented and disjointed from the users' perspective" -"Both Destination Marketing and Visitor Services are important, and the overlap between the two necessitates one organization overseeing both" -"Visitor Services should be included, but it will likely be too ambitious in the beginning and will impede the focus for the new organization. A plan should be set for phasing it in." -"Visitor Services should be local". Individual comments with respect to the range of products and services expected from the new organization were very similar to the comments at the consultation session. Membership fees, which reflect the relative size of the organization, and the sector (profit or not for profit), are acceptable to the industry. In addition, fees for specific services are anticipated. The individual comments are available separately. The wealth of information provided in these responses will provide useful input to the Steering Committee. In addition to the Industry consultation initiated by the municipal CAO's group, the `Retail Hospitality and Tourism Cooperative' circulated a survey to obtain further industry viewpoints. Although detailed analysis of this survey is not yet available, initial results do confirm that a majority of respondents support the formation of a new Tourism Organization for Waterloo Region. A-8 Report: CA-06-004 3.0 Steering Committee Formation It is proposed that a joint municipal-industry Steering Committee be established on a temporary basis to support the initial stages of establishing a Tourism Organization. The proposed Terms of Reference for the Steering Committee are provided in Appendix B. They would be finalized and accepted by the Committee at its first meeting. The primary function of the Steering Committee would be to develop recommendations on a range of topics, including: -Functions of the organization, including an assessment of whether Visitor Services should be coordinated or assumed by the organization, what would be included in coordinating Visitor Services, how a future transition to a combined organization would be undertaken, and related issues; -Board Structure and By-laws; -Selection and recruitment of Directors for the Board; -Draft organizational structure and administrative requirements; -Draft job description for the lead staff member of the new organization; -Draft membership and fee structure for Industry participation; -Initial products and services; -Approach and estimated cost for conducting a branding exercise; -Draft initial budget. The Steering Committee membership would reflect the proposed `public-private partnership' model of the new Tourism Organization. The Region and the five Local Municipalities who currently provide tourism services would be represented by their CAOs, and the Tourism Industry would be represented by members from a variety of industry sectors. The proposed Industry members applied through a Nomination process that was available to all 500 organizations on the invitation list. The Steering Committee consists of individuals with a range of experience and skill both related to their organization, and the tourism industry. As well, the Steering Committee members reflect a regional distribution, and the inherent diversity of various segments and interests associated with tourism and visitor services. A-9 Report: CA-06-004 The proposed Steering Committee members are as follows: Name Or anization Munici al Re resentatives Mike Murra Re ion of Waterloo Don Smith Cit of Cambrid e Carla Ladd Cit of Kitchener Simon Farbrother Cit of Waterloo Grant Whittin ton Townshi of Wilmot Peter Simmons Townshi of Woolwich Tourism Industry Representatives Geoff Eisenbrau Cambrid e Holida Inn Leah Landriault K-W S m hon Dou Wilson Win s of Paradise Mark Bin eman Bin emans Larr Blundell K-W Oktoberfest Jenn Shantz St. Jacobs Countr Municipal staff may be called upon to provide resources to the Committee. This could include organizing and taking notes for meetings, establishing contacts with the Province or other tourism organizations, and providing advice on legal or human resource matters. In addition, the Steering Committee may need to engage assistance from experts in the fields of tourism marketing, the creation of public-private not-for-profit organizations, and possibly other matters. A budget of $50,000 is suggested for these initiatives. It is proposed that these initial costs be shared equally between the Region and the Local Municipalities. Next Steps If all of the Councils support continuing the development of a Tourism Organization, it is expected that the Steering Committee would meet frequently over the next six months to undertake the work outlined above and detailed in the Terms of Reference. Separate work may be needed to draft by-laws for the organization and undertake other legal matters. A Report and Recommendations from the Steering Committee, including budget implications would be prepared for consideration by the Region and Local Municipal Councils by late 2006.