Share this:

Concentrating on price promotions runs the risk of initiating a ‘race to the bottom’ in domestic tourism, a deflationary pressure that may, in the medium to long term, reduce the resources available to tourism businesses, especially SMEs, the tourism sector who were the most damaged following the last major recession.  The lack of investment in domestic tourism in this period significantly affected product quality in the sector, as well as having a structural impact – removing diversity of supply from the market and further affecting perceptions of quality in the face of homogenization.

Introducing new competitive pressures in times of recession may help to ensure the survival of the best resourced, but I hope that our state tourism bodies will also be promoting new forms of partnership and supporting product innovation in the domestic tourism sector.  The economic pendulum will swing back eventually, probably some time around or after the 2012 Olympics in London, and if the UK tourism industry is to be able to capitalise on the promotional benefits of this event it will need to maintain its diversity and the huge improvements in quality and destination image made over the last fifteen years.

Share this:

The presentations from the excellent ‘Developing tourist destinations’ seminar held in Aalborg last month will be up on the conference webpages soon along with pictures and I’ll post an update on here when they are available.  In the meantime, you can view my presentation below:

“This paper proposes the development of a memetic framework for analysing and evaluating the Cultural Olympiad of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.  A review of grey literature has revealed five recurring themes or memes (units of cultural transmission) associated with the Cultural Olympiad and the authors predict that they will be transmitted spatially, through planning and delivery processes and between the formal sectors of the Cultural Olympiad.  The paper proposes a methodology which includes a longitudinal study of three UK case studies in the four year run-up to the 2012 Olympics. These case studies (London Borough of Greenwich, Canterburyand Durham) will be the subject of quantitative and qualitative analysis which the authors hope will reveal valuable insights into the frequency, transmission and longevity of the identified memes.  The memetic framework proposed may provide future guidance for the planning and evaluation of public projects both within and outside the Olympic realm.”

 

As has become quite clear now, the levels of resource that China has been able to bring to bear on Beijing 2008 has been astronomical, with most estimates coming at between $36bn-$40bn, around double the amount predicted for London 2012.  In addition to this, the level of control that the Chinese government have been able to exert over the scope and pace of development is something that the vast majority of future host cities will be unable to match and that even China itself may not be able to replicate for future mega-projects as the institutions of civil society and neo-liberalism emerge within its own borders.  Paul Deighton, the Chief Executive of LOCOG, is quoted as saying that London 2012 is more likely to be the model for future games and he is most likely correct.  But how far can the experience of any host city influence future games?  The example of Barcelona 1992 is one the most-often referred to when host cities are looking to emphasise the transformative benefits of hosting the games, but the specific combination of political personalities, economic conditions and strategic vision (if not always strategic planning!) is something that can’t just be taken ‘off-the-shelf’ and implanted elsewhere.  Much of the knowledge transfer between games is taking place through the movement of individuals with experience of Olympics projects between host cities and, although there will always be a vital amount of transferability, the importance of local knowledge is paramount to a successful games.

What London will be observing keenly in Beijing is how they deal with the security situation.  This has two components.  Firstly, explicit terrorist threats such as the one made to Beijing last week and the events in Xinjaing province.  What impact will these events have on security arrangements and the perception of games-time safety by participants and spectators, given that similar threats are likely during 2012?  (I have blogged hereabout the costs of London’s games-time security)  Secondly, how is protest being managed during the games by the Chinese authorities?  Despite the dramatic rise in protest activity in China over the last five years the Chinese government normally responds in a draconian fashion to political protest.  During the games, China has had to adopt a (slightly) more liberal stance on this issue.  The London games is likely to be the first civil-protest games, with activist groups coordinating activity on a broad spectrum of issues.  London will be looking at response-innovations such as defined protest areas and protest permits with a view to minimizing the disruption during the 2012 games.

You can read the AFP story here.

The 29th annual conference of La Sociedad Norteamericana para la Sociologia del Deporte /The North American Society for the Sociology of Sport/La Société nord-américaine de sociologie du sport (NASSS) will be held 5-8 November 2008 at the Curtis Hotel in Denver, Colorado, USA. The theme for this year’s conference is “Sport and Peace/Social (In)Justice.”

This year’s theme, “Sport and Peace/Social (In)Justice,” challenges us to envision sport as a vehicle for social justice and local and global peace. Sport has been used to signify patriotism, escapism, and the core values of both North American and global communities that are embedded with/in both latent and blatant issues of social injustice. In this historical moment, then, sport is implicated within “an amorphous opinion culture, characterized by strong patriotic identification mixed with feelings of practical political powerlessness” (Berlant, 1997, p. 3). As such, sport has been associated with/in such divisive or collaborative practices and rhetorics as, for example, the marginalization of LBGT communities, dispossessed peoples, ethnic and racial “minorities,” people living with disabilities, and feminists. Additionally, sport has become implicated within, for example, issues concerning the environment (e.g., “sustainability” and “greening” movements); issues regarding animal rights, child labor practices, and structural privilege; issues of Native-American mascots/symbols and self-determination; issues of human rights; issues of pedagogical and praxis-oriented natures; issues embedded within ethics and ethical behaviors; and issues involving governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and individuals within the discourses and practices of conflict resolution and sporting practices.

Within the broad-based theme of Sport and Peace/Social (In)Justice, we envision a large number of papers and presentations. We also see the sport/peace/social justice nexus as performative in nature. That is to say, social justice and peace issues within sporting contexts a part of a larger cultural performance which matters. We encourage our community of scholars to engage with these issues, through the thematic lens of “Sport and Peace/Social (In)Justice,” but we also encourage sessions and papers outside of the theme of the conference.

Olympism and Social Justice

This session will share papers and research that examine the philosophy of Olympism and its impact and influence on social justice and social change. Papers that explore the theory and/or the practice of Olympism in and through sport are welcome. This session will aim to address the place of the sporting ideals, principles and standards embodied in Olympism, and the ways in which these ideas work to further social justice and social change throughout the sporting community and within society on the whole.

Contact: Eli A. Wolff, Northeastern University, e.wolff[at]neu.edu