Roland Berger European Capital City Tourism 20111130

Report Analysis and findings
European capital city tourism

Vienna, November 2011
2 European_Capital_City_Tourism_FINAL.pptx
This document shall be treated as confidential. It has been compiled for the exclusive, internal use by our client and is not complete without the underlying detail analyses and the oral presentation. It may
not be passed on and/or may not be made available to third parties without prior written consent from Roland Berger Strategy Consultants. RBSC does not assume any responsibility for the completeness
and accuracy of the statements made in this document.

Roland Berger Strategy Consultants
Contents Page
Management summary
Paris, Amsterdam and Rome lead the ranking 3
A. Methodology and sources
This study is based on online material, statistical data and expert interviews 5
B. Analysis and evaluation
European capitals have been evaluated along a set of seven criteria 10
C. Conclusion
City tourism is a key growth driver for the economy and professional strategy
development is a key success factor 32
Management summary
Paris, Amsterdam and Rome lead the ranking
European capital city tourism study: Management summary
RANKING
> To allow better
comparisons, the cities
were split into two
clusters: Cluster 1
contains the top ten cities
in terms of the number of
overnight stays in 2010
> Paris tops the ranking in
Cluster 1, followed by
Amsterdam, Rome,
Stockholm, Berlin and
Vienna, in that order
> Zurich tops the ranking
in Cluster 2, followed by
Lisbon and Copenhagen
ANALYSIS
> We use seven criteria to evaluate tourism in capital cities: growth in overnight stays, total
number of overnight stays, bed capacity growth, value creation, internationality, accessibility
and congresses
> Berlin, Stockholm and Ljubljana saw the highest growth in the number of overnight stays
over the last five years
> London and Paris had by far the most overnight stays in 2010; Berlin and Rome came fourth
and fifth
> Amsterdam and Lisbon have most overnight stays per inhabitant, followed by Prague
> Amsterdam, Lisbon, Stockholm, Zurich, Vienna, Rome and Copenhagen are the top performers
in terms of growth in the number of overnight stays in the last five years and the number of
overnight stays per inhabitant
> London and Prague enjoy the longest overnight stays
> Ljubljana is the top performer in terms of growth in bed capacity in the last five years. Tallinn
and Istanbul follow in second and third place, a long way behind
> In terms of value creation in the form of revenue per available room, Paris, London and
Rome top the ranking. Prague and Berlin come at the bottom end of the ranking
> London and Paris lead in terms of accessibility by air, followed at some distance by
Amsterdam and Istanbul
> Vienna hosts the most congresses, followed at some distance by Paris and Berlin
OBJECTIVE
> Tourism to capital cities
is a growth driver,
outperforming both tourism
to countries as a whole
and GDP growth
> The study compares the
figures for tourism in
different European
capitals, looking at current
status, growth and
success
A. Methodology and sources
This study is based on online material, statistical data and
expert interviews
London
Paris
Berlin
Rome
Prague
Vienna
Madrid
Lisbon
Athens
Zurich Budapest
Brussels
Amsterdam
Bratislava
Zagreb
Belgrade
Luxembourg
Helsinki
Istanbul
Ljubljana
Tallinn
The study analyzes 24 European cities' success in the area of
tourism
Focus cities
Capitals of EU-27 countries
Belgrade, Istanbul, Zagreb and
Zurich
1)

Cities for which data was out-of-date
or insufficient to allow comparisons
24
focus cities
Objective
> The objective of the
study is to bench-
mark the success of
European cities in the
area of tourism
> and to produce
findings on key
developments, trends
and challenges in the
market
Objective and focus cities
Source: Roland Berger
Oslo
Stockholm
Copenhagen
1) Zurich is included as it is more significant for tourism than the capital , Bern
The study is based on information from popular databases and
interviews with experts
SOURCES > Websites of city
tourist boards and
marketing agencies
> ECM Benchmarking
Report 2011
> Eurostat data on
country level
> Intern. Congress
and Convention
Association (ICCA)
> International Hotel
Association (IHA)
> TourMIS, statistical
database for city
tourism
1)

> Berliner
Hotelverband
> Deutscher Hotel-
und Gaststtten-
verband
> sterreichische
Hoteliervereinigung
> Wien Tourismus
> Roland Berger
experts with
relevant project
experience
METHOD-
OLOGY
1
Gather online
material (tourism
master plans, etc.)
3
Interview experts
on methodology
and trends in city
tourism
Collect and analyze
statistical data
2
Evaluate focus
cities along
predefined
dimensions
4
Derive
conclusions
5
> Minor differences
in some criteria
could not be
avoided accepted
for the purpose of
this report
> Roland Berger
Methodology and sources
1) TourMIS data lumps business and leisure together
We use a "barometer model" to evaluate and rank cities Similar
approach to the World Economic Forum ranking
EVALUATION OF FOCUS CITIES BACKUP
Evaluation criteria City
I
Overnight
stays, CAGR
2005-2010 [%]
II Overnight
stays per
inhabitant
[no.]
Published
data
Barometer
results
Criteria
weighting
1)
40%
Calculation
City with the highest
value given 100

100
City with lowest
value given 0

0
Remaining values
interpolated, e.g. E:
(7.0-1.0)/
(13.0-1.0) x 100
= 50
60%
Rank
Total barometer
results
A 7.3 A 100
B 3.5 B 51
C -0.5 C 0
D -0.4 D 1
E 4.3 E 61
A 6.1 A 42
B 13.0 B 100
C 6.4 C 44
D 1.0 D 0
E 7.0 E 50
1) Indicative only
77
100 x 60% +
42 x 40% =
A:
1
B: 71 2
C: 18 4
D: 1 5
E: 57 3
4
Evaluation method
We group cities into two clusters for the final ranking to ensure we
are comparing like with like
EVALUATION OF FOCUS CITIES BACKUP
4
Ranking of cities in two clusters
Cluster 1
> London
> Paris
> Berlin
> Rome
> Madrid
> Prague
> Vienna
> Amsterdam
> Istanbul
> Stockholm
Overnight stays,
2010 [m]
48.7
35.8
20.8
20.4
15.2
12.1
11.7
9.7
9.1
6.3
Cluster 2
> Lisbon
> Budapest
> Brussels
> Athens
> Copenhagen
> Zurich
> Oslo
> Helsinki
> Tallinn
> Bratislava
> Belgrade
> Zagreb
> Luxembourg
> Ljubljana
Overnight stays,
2010 [m]
6.2
5.9
5.6
5.4
5.1
3.7
3.3
3.2
2.3
1.4
1.3
1.0
0.8
0.7
COMMENTS
> Interviewees pointed out that cities
generally compare their performance
to a limited set of other cities
> Their selection of cities for comparison
depends mainly on performance, size,
maturity of the tourism industry and
visitor motivation
> Accordingly, we grouped cities into two
clusters for the final ranking
> Data on revenue per available room,
average daily room rate and
occupancy was only available for the
ten cities in Cluster 1 the clustering
means that we can analyze value
creation in city tourism for this group at
least
B. Analysis and evaluation
European capitals have been evaluated along a set of
seven criteria
Tourism has expanded much faster than the overall economy in
Europe in recent years City tourism has performed best
Development of the tourism industry
Source: ECM, Eurostat, TourMIS, Roland Berger
114
111
112
108
105
107
106
104
104
107
106
103
100
102
104
106
108
110
112
114
116
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
108
100 100 100
103
107
GDP of EU-27
Overnight stays in focus countries
Overnight stays in focus cities
COMMENTS
> City tourism suffered less during the
economic crisis than expected
> In the crisis year 2009, the GDP of the
EU-27 fell 4.3% while city tourism
decreased by just 3.5%
> In 2010, GDP recovered slowly while city
tourism recovered fast, with overnight
stays up 6.8%
> Tourism is a key growth driver for the
overall economy. City tourism
outperforms the rest of the industry
> We analyze the top cities, their perform-
ance, trends and challenges in the report
City tourism, CAGR 2005-2010 [index =100]
We analyze the cities along seven different dimensions
COMMENTS
> The different dimensions
selected for the
evaluation are well
balanced
> The growth in the number
of overnight stays is used
as the key criterion;
increasing this figure is
the overall goal. The
current number of
overnight stays is also
included as otherwise
mature markets would be
at a disadvantage
> Due to limited data,
revenue per available
room is used for Cluster 1
cities only
Dimensions Period
100%
Evaluation criteria
10
100%
III
GROWTH IN
BED CAPACITY
2005-
2010
VI
ACCESSIBILITY 2011
I
GROWTH IN
OVERNIGHT STAYS
2005-
2010
II
NUMBER OF
OVERNIGHT STAYS
2010
VII CONGRESSES 2009
V INTERNATIONALITY
2010
2010
IV
VALUE CREATION 2010
Selected benchmarking
criteria
CAGR for bed capacity
Number of direct flight
connections
CAGR for overnight stays
No. of overnight stays
relative to inhabitants
Number of congresses
Share of European tourists
Share of non-European tourists
Revenue per available room
Weighting
cluster 1 [%]
Weighting
cluster 2 [%]
15 20
15 20
20 30
10 10
10 10
5 5
5 5
20 n.a.
10
Criteria for all cities Criterion for Cluster 1 cities only
Berlin, Stockholm and Ljubljana enjoyed the biggest increase in the
number of overnight stays in the last five years
Source: TourMIS, ECM, Roland Berger
Growth in the number of overnight stays, CAGR 2005-2010 [%]
I GROWTH IN OVERNIGHT STAYS
BRA
0.5
BUD
-2.1
BEL
-0.7
LON
-0.5
IST
1)

-0.4
LUX
1)
ATH
1)

-5.4
PAR
1.2
PRA
1.5
ZAG
2.4
COP
2.8
OSL
3.3
TAL
3.4
AMS
3.5
BRU
3.6
LIS
3.9
0.1
ZUR
4.1
ROM
4.2
VIE
4.3
MAD
4.4
HEL
4.5
LJU
5.2
STO
1)

5.7
BER
7.3
Avg. 2.4

1) 2005-2009 only
London and Paris had by far the most overnight stays in 2010
However, some cities are much bigger than others
Source: TourMIS, ECM, Eurostat, Roland Berger
LJU
0.7
LUX
1)

0.8
ZAG
1.0
BEL
1.3
STO
1)
OSL
6.3
3.3
BRA

1.4
TAL
2.3
HEL
3.2
ZUR
3.7
COP

5.1
ATH
1)

5.4
BRU
5.6
BUD

5.9
LIS

6.2
IST
1)

9.1
AMS
9.7
VIE
11.7
PRA
12.1
MAD

15.2
ROM
20.4
BER
20.8
PAR
35.8
LON
48.7
Number of overnight stays, 2010 [m]
II NUMBER OF OVERNIGHT STAYS
Inhabi-
tants [m]
7.7 3.4 3.2 1.7 0.7 8.8 0.8 0.5 1.7 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 1.2 0.8 0.1 0.3 4.4 2.7 1.2
1) 2009
Amsterdam and Lisbon had the most overnight stays relative to the
number of inhabitants
Istanbul 1.0
Belgrade 1.1
Zagreb 1.3
Ljubljana 2.7
Bratislava 3.2
Budapest 3.4
Madrid 4.7
Brussels 5.3
Helsinki 5.7
Tallinn 5.7
Oslo 5.9
Berlin 6.1
London 6.4
Athens 6.7
Vienna 7.0
Rome 7.5
Stockholm 7.7
Paris 8.2
Luxembourg 9.0
Zurich 9.7
Copenhagen 10.1
Prague 10.3
Lisbon 12.6
Amsterdam 13.0
Avg. 6.4

COMMENTS
> Amsterdam and Lisbon had by
far the most overnight stays
relative to the number of
inhabitants
> The number of inhabitants can
be hard to define as it depends
on how the area of the city is
defined, however it gives the
figures more context
> Prague was the best performer
in CEE
> Most CEE countries have a
below-average number of
overnight stays per inhabitant
Overnight stays per inhabitant, 2010
STARS Above-average number of overnight stays per inhabitant and
above-average growth
> Amsterdam, Lisbon and Stockholm are top performers
HIGH POTENTIALS Relatively small number of overnight stays but
above-average growth
> Berlin, Stockholm and Ljubljana have the strongest increase in the
number of overnight stays Berlin is well on its way to joining the
"stars"
> Ljubljana shows positive growth, but current volumes are still low
FOLLOWERS Above-average number of overnight stays but below-
average growth
> Paris, Prague & Luxembourg have had below-average growth since
2005
> Athens has the lowest CAGR of the focus cities
LAGGARDS Below-average number of overnight stays and below-
average growth
> Belgrade and Budapest risk losing ground to other cities if no action
is taken
> Need to identify reasons for poor performance
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
IST
BEL
ZAG
LJU
BRA
BUD
MAD
BRU
HEL
TAL
OSL
BER
LON
ATH
VIE
ROM
STO
PAR
LUX
ZUR
COP
PRA
LIS
AMS
Amsterdam and Lisbon are the top performers Large number of
overnight stays today and strong growth since 2005
CAGR for overnight stays 2005-2010
1)
[%]
Average
Overnight stays per inhabitant, 2010
A B
C D
CONCLUSIONS
A
B
C
D
Current volume and growth matrix

1) 2005-2009 only for Athens, Istanbul, Luxembourg and Stockholm
Overnight stays per arrival are low in city tourism Even small
increases here help draw people away from the well-beaten path
Source: TourMIS, ECM, Roland Berger
-1.2 -1.3 -0.4 -1.8 1.5 0.3 -1.1 0.1 1.1 -1.3 -0.6 -1.4 0.8 0.0 -0.8 0.3 0.7 -0.5 -1.5 -0.8 -10.7
1.2
IST
2)
ZUR
1.7
ZAG
1.7
HEL
1.8
TAL
1.8
AMS
1.8
LUX
2)

1.9
BRU
2)
1.9
LJU
1.9
MAD
1.9
BRA
2.0
ATH
2)
2.1
BEL
2.1
LIS
2.2
VIE
2.2
BER
2.3
PAR
2.4
BUD
2)
2.4
ROM
2)

2.4
PRA
2.5
LON
2.6
Avg. 2.0

Overnight stays per arrival
1)
, 2010
CAGR 2005-
2010 [%]
1) No figures available for Copenhagen, Oslo and Stockholm 2) 2005-2009 only
Ljubljana shows outstanding growth rates in bed capacities over the
last five years Good indicator of market trust by private investors
Source: ECM, Roland Berger
Bed capacity, CAGR 2005-2010
1)
[%]
III GROWTH IN BED CAPACITY
-3.0
LON
-2.5
BRU
-0.5
PAR
0.3
LIS
1.6
ZUR
2.3
HEL
2.4
ZAG
2.5
COP
2.8
MAD
3.0
ROM
3.3
LUX
3.4
VIE
3.7
OSL
4.0
PRA
4.5
AMS
4.5
BUD
5.0
BEL
5.3
BRA
5.8
BER
5.9
STO
6.4
TAL
7.0
LJU
11.4
IST
Avg. 3.4

1) No data for Athens; 2005-2009 only for Bratislava, Brussels, Budapest, Istanbul, London, Luxembourg and Stockholm
5 15 106 112 12 34 44 48 83 19 56 6 94 76 27 7 16 17 35
Hotel beds
'000, 2010
152 31 213 7
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
PRA
BER
MAD
VIE
STO
AMS
ROM
LON
PAR
Paris and London achieve the highest revenue per available room
for Cluster 1 cities
Average
Revenue per available room (RevPAR)
1)
IV VALUE CREATION (CLUSTER 1 CITIES ONLY)
Source: IHA, STR Global, Factiva, Roland Berger
Average daily room rate [EUR]
Occupancy rate [%]
Avg. daily room rate and occupancy rate, 2010 COMMENTS
> RevPAR is calculated by
multiplying the average daily
room rate by the occupancy
rate
> Paris and London achieve
highest RevPAR among
Cluster 1 cities, with both the
highest room rate and highest
occupancy rate
> Clear positive correlation
between occupancy rates and
room rates
> Prague, Madrid and Berlin
have both below-average room
rates and below-average
occupancy rates need to
examine possible reasons, e.g.
oversupply of hotel beds
71
87
90
91
94
118
127
139
149
171
PRA
BER
MAD
VIE
IST
STO
AMS
ROM
LON
PAR
Revenue per available room, 2010 [EUR]
Avg.
114

1) Comparable data available for Cluster 1 cities only; For Istanbul only RevPAR 2009 available
STARS Above-average increase in bed capacity and above-average
revenue per available room
> Amsterdam, Stockholm are the top performers, with both high
RevPAR and strong capacity growth
CASH COWS Above-average RevPAR but below-average capacity
growth
> In London, bed capacity has been falling over the last five years; in
Paris, it remained almost static
QUESTION MARKS Above-average bed capacity growth but below-
average RevPAR
> Risk that revenue per available room will fall further as bed
capacities rise
> However, if there is sufficient demand for the new capacity,
significant potential for positive development exists
LAGGARDS Below-average growth in bed capacity and below-
average RevPAR
> Madrid is below-avg. in terms of both capacity growth and RevPAR
> Need to find out why
Increasing bed capacity is not always a sign of good prices and
occupancy levels
Revenue per available room, 2010 [EUR]
Statistical correlation
Bed capacity, CAGR 2005-2010
1)
[%]
A B
C D
CONCLUSIONS
A
B
C
D
Revenue per available room (RevPAR) and changes in bed capacity

IV
Source: ECM, IHA, STR Global, Roland Berger
VALUE CREATION (CLUSTER 1 CITIES ONLY)
1) 2005-2009 only for Istanbul, London and Stockholm
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Amsterdam
Vienna
Berlin
Madrid
Istanbul
London
Paris
Prague
Rome
Stockholm
Share of international overnight stays indicates the diversification of
a city's tourism markets Significant differences between cities
Source: TourMIS, ECM
Share of inbound overnight stays, 2010 [%]
V INTERNATIONALITY
20
13
18
17
21
23
39
19
29
18
22
29
9
14
28
7
24
14
10
35
41
70
72
BRA
57
50
PAR
63
34
COP
65
51
BEL
66
57
ROM ATH
70
41
IST LIS
74
52
ZAG
75
57
ZUR
77
48
VIE
77
59
LON
79
40
AMS
81
58
BRU
86
65
BUD
86
69
TAL
90
85
5
PRA
90
72
LUX
94
81
LJU
96
76
OSL BER
41
31
STO HEL
54
40
MAD
54
31
Non-European inbound European inbound Total inbound (split between European and non-European not available)
55
19
Avg.
1) Including Istanbul, Rome, Stockholm and Oslo, for which the split between European and non-European was not available
71
1)
London and Paris are by far the most accessible cities in Europe for
tourists arriving by air
16
22
23
24
28
29
43
65
78
80
93
96
111
111
118
129
130
146
153
168
176
205
292
301
Ljubljana
Oslo
Tallinn
Zagreb
Luxembourg
Budapest
Helsinki
Lisbon
Athens
Prague
Copenhagen
Berlin
Stockholm
Vienna
Zurich
Brussels
Madrid
Rome
Istanbul
Amsterdam
Paris
London
Belgrade
Bratislava
Avg. 110

COMMENTS
> Low-budget airlines with more
affordable tickets have been a
crucial growth driver in city
tourism
> The increasing significance of
accessibility by air is a risk
factor for cities not located
close to international hubs
> Apart from offering tax
incentives, it is difficult for cities
to increase the number of flight
connections they have
Number of direct flight connections
1)
[flight schedule for summer 2011]

VI ACCESSIBILITY
1) Destinations connected with at least one direct flight per week
Vienna is the clear leader in congress tourism in Europe, followed
by Paris and Berlin
VII CONGRESSES
No. of congresses hosted
1)
, 2009
Source: ICCA
10
12
13
25
26
35
50
56 57
69
73
75
80
83
86 87 87
98 98
102
103
129
131
160
ZAG LUX BEL LJU OSL BRA TAL HEL ZUR ROM BRU ATH IST LON PRA BUD MAD AMS LIS STO COP BER PAR VIE
CAGR
'04-'09
[%]
7.0 1.5 6.6 4.9 4.4 -0.2 0.5 1.8 9.0 6.4 4.7 0.3 23.3 0.4 0.4 15.5 1.6 20.1 -5.2 0.0 0.0 -0.7 5.4 3.9
1) Most recent year with comparable data is 2009
A significant correlation exists between the number of congresses
hosted and the number of overnight stays
Source: TourMIS, ECM, ICCA, Roland Berger
> In 2010, for the third year in a
row, Vienna hosted the largest
number of congresses
> Other CEE capitals have a very
small number of both
congresses and overnight stays
> The correlation reveals that
congresses are a strong driver
of tourism
Correlation between congresses and overnight stays, 2009
VII CONGRESSES
COMMENTS
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
HEL
ZUR
ROM
BRU
ATH
Overnight stays (m)
LON
PRA
BUD
MAD
AMS
LIS
STO
COP
BER
PAR
VIE
48
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
No. of congresses
IST
ZAG
LUX
BRA
BEL
LJU
TAL
OSL
Good accessibility by air is a prerequisite for being a successful
congress location
Source: ICCA, Roland Berger
Correlation between direct flight connections and congresses
1)

ACCESSIBILITY & CONGRESSES
> A significant correlation is found
between flight connections and
> The analysis shows that fewer than
60 direct flight connections means
insufficient accessibility and
congress numbers are significantly
lower
> From 60 to 180 connections, the
criterion of accessibility is met
most successful congress
destinations fall into this group
> Additional connections above 180
do not correlate with a significant
increase in congresses
COMMENTS
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320
No. of congresses
Flight connections
ZAG
LUX
BRA
BEL
LJU
TAL
OSL
HEL
ZUR
ROM
BRU
ATH
IST
LON PRA
BUD
MAD
AMS LIS
STO
COP
BER
PAR
VIE
1) Number of direct flight connections [flight schedule for summer 2011]; most recent year with comparable data on congresses is 2009
VI+VII
Paris and Amsterdam score best Rome, Stockholm, Berlin and
Vienna follow, neck and neck
Results of the ranking
1)
2
Amsterdam
3
Rome
4
Stockholm
1
Paris
5
Berlin
5
Vienna

7
London
8
Madrid
9
Prague
10
Istanbul
1
2
3
1) Cluster 1 cities
Paris and Amsterdam score best Rome, Stockholm, Berlin and
Vienna follow, neck and neck
Evaluation of Cluster 1
1)
barometer (100 = best performer)
1) Top 10 cities in terms of absolute number of overnight stays 2010 clustering enables better benchmarking
2) Where the non-European share was not available, the criterion's percentage weight was distributed equally among the other criteria for calculating the total result
3) Berlin's score is 49.25, Vienna's 49.16
TOTAL
61.6
60.6
51.6
51.5
49.2
49.2
45.4
38.6
32.9
31.8
Evaluation
criteria
City/weight [%]
1 Paris
2 Amsterdam
3 Rome
4 Stockholm
5 Berlin
5 Vienna
3)
7 London
8 Madrid
9 Prague
10 Istanbul
Overnight
stays, CAGR
20
22
51
60
80
100
61
0
62
26
1
Overnight
stays per inh.
10
60
100
54
56
42
50
44
31
78
0
Non-domes-
tic share
5
45
81
59
0
0
74
77
27
100
62
Non-Eur.
share
5
2)

64
46
n.a.
2)

n.a.
2)

0
31
100
48
28
n.a.
2)

Bed capacity,
CAGR
15
31
79
66
87
94
69
0
62
78
100
Accessi-
bility
15
96
53
35
11
7
16
100
28
0
39

Congresses
10
68
32
0
36
66
100
15
20
19
12
RevPAR
20
100
56
68
47
16
20
78
19
0
23
BACKUP
The barometer is based on the results of the evaluation
Evaluation of Cluster 1 summary of results
BACKUP
Evaluation
criteria
City/weight [%]
1 Paris
2 Amsterdam
3 Rome
4 Stockholm
5 Berlin
5 Vienna
7 London
8 Madrid
9 Prague
10 Istanbul
Overn. stays,
CAGR [%]
20
1.2
3.5
4.2
5.7
7.3
4.3
-0.5
4.4
1.5
-0.4
Overn. stays
per inh. [no.]
10
8.2
13.0
7.5
7.7
6.1
7.0
6.4
4.7
10.3
1.0
Non-domestic
share [%]
5
62.9
80.9
70.0
40.9
40.9
77.3
79.0
54.4
90.3
71.5
Non-European
share [%]
5
28.4
23.1
n.a.
n.a.
9.9
18.8
38.7
23.8
17.9
n.a.
Bed capacity,
CAGR [%]
15
0.3
4.5
3.3
5.3
5.9
3.7
-2.5
3.0
4.5
6.4
Accessibility
[no. dir. flights]
15
292
205
168
118
111
129
301
153
96
176
Congresses
[no.]
10
131
98
69
102
129
160
83
87
86
80
RevPAR
[EUR]
20
171
127
139
118
87
91
149
90
71
94
Zurich wins the Cluster 2 ranking ahead of Lisbon and Copenhagen
Results of the ranking
1)
1
Zurich
2
Lisbon
3
Copenhagen
4
Brussels
5
Ljubljana
6
Helsinki
7
Tallinn
8
Oslo
9
Budapest
10
Athens
11
Luxembourg
12
Zagreb
13
Bratislava
14
Belgrade
1) Cluster 2 cities
1
2
3
Zurich, Lisbon and Copenhagen top the ranking for Cluster 2 cities
Evaluation of Cluster 2
1)
barometer (100 = best performer)
City/weight [%]
1) Top 11-24 cities in terms of absolute number of overnight stays 2010 clustering enables better benchmarking
2) Where bed capacity CAGR or the non-European share was not available, the criterion's percentage weight was distributed equally among the other criteria for calculating the total result
Evaluation
criteria
TOTAL
1 Zurich 72.7
2 Lisbon 68.7
3 Copenhagen 67.9
4 Brussels 66.8
5 Ljubljana 62.3
6 Helsinki 57.2
7 Tallinn 51.9
8 Oslo 45.9
9 Budapest 44.8
10 Athens 42.8
11 Luxembourg 42.3
12 Zagreb 37.9
13 Bratislava 34.4
14 Belgrade
30
Overnight
stays, CAGR
90
88
77
85
100
93
83
82
31
0
52
73
56
44
10
Overnight
stays per inh.
75
100
78
36
14
40
40
42
20
49
68
2
18
0
5
Non-domestic
share
69
64
49
84
100
31
90
0
85
58
98
67
37
51
5
2)

Non-European
share
100
69
38
65
62
37
0
n.a.
2)

50
100
34
56
10
17
20
2)

Bed capacity,
CAGR
36
32
40
17
100
37
70
49
55
n.a.
2)

44
38
61
0
20
Accessi-
bility
88
49
73
100
5
48
9
6
38
59
21
10
5
0
10

Congresses
51
95
100
68
17
49
27
43
83
70
2
0
3
16 18.3
BACKUP
The barometer is based on the results of the evaluation
Evaluation of Cluster 2 summary
BACKUP
Evaluation
criteria
City/weight [%]
1 Zurich
2 Lisbon
3 Copenhagen
4 Brussels
5 Ljubljana
6 Helsinki
7 Tallinn
8 Oslo
9 Budapest
10 Athens
11 Luxembourg
12 Zagreb
13 Bratislava
14 Belgrade
Overnight stays,
CAGR [%]
30
4.1
3.9
2.8
3.6
5.2
4.5
3.4
3.3
-2.1
-5.4
0.1
2.4
0.5
-0.7
Overnight stays
per inh. [no.]
10
9.7
12.6
10.1
5.3
2.7
5.7
5.7
5.9
3.4
6.7
9.0
1.3
3.2
1.1
Non-domestic
share [%]
5
76.7
73.7
64.8
85.8
95.6
53.7
89.7
34.8
86.4
70.1
94.4
75.4
57.5
65.8
Non-European
share [%]
5
29.0
21.6
14.1
20.7
19.8
13.8
4.8
n.a.
17.0
29.1
13.0
18.3
7.3
9.0
Bed capacity,
CAGR [%]
20
2.3
1.6
2.8
-0.5
11.4
2.4
7.0
4.0
5.0
n.a.
3.4
2.5
5.8
-3.0
Accessibility
[no. direct flights]
20
130
80
111
146
23
78
28
24
65
93
43
29
22
16
Congresses
[no.]
10
57
98
103
73
26
56
35
50
87
75
12
10
13
25
C. Conclusions
City tourism is a key growth driver for the economy and
professional strategy development is a key success factor
City tourism strategies are available online for just 7 of the 24 capital
cities in the study
Source: City tourism strategies, Roland Berger research
1) It is assumed that if a city has a professional tourism strategy, it also makes it available online
Tourism strategies available online
1)
BERLIN
2011
HELSINKI
2011
LISBON
2011-2014
LJUBLJANA
2007-2013
VIENNA
2010-2015
LONDON
2009-2013
AMSTERDAM
2009-2012
Tourismuskonzept
Berlin
Helsinki's tourism
strategy
Turismo de Lisboa
strategic marketing
plan
Strategic
development and
marketing plan
Tourismuskonzept
2015
London Tourism
Action Plan
Strategic marketing
& communication
plan
> SWOT
> National/
international
benchmarks
> Visitor structures,
market segments
> Strategic targets
and actions
> Strategic targets
> Tasks
> KPIs
> Vision and
ambition
> Objectives
> Positioning/
branding: markets,
segments,
products
> Implementation
programs
> SWOT
> Quantitative and
qualitative
objectives
> Positioning,
branding, selling
proposition
> To-do's, responsi-
bilities, timing
> Balanced
scorecard:
objectives,
KPIs, actions
> Strategic
framework with
regional targets
> Strategic priorities
> Action plan/timing
> Trends and key
success factors
> Markets and com-
petitors
> Targets,
positioning and
image
> Actions and
stakeholders
> Marketing concept
> SWOT
> Tourism product
development
> Strategy and
objectives
> Marketing tools
> Financial
framework
Cities with a professional tourism strategy show stronger growth in
the number of arrivals and overnight stays
4.2
Cities publishing a
tourism strategy
2)

1.9
Cities not publishing
a tourism strategy
ARRIVALS

OVERNIGHT STAYS

4.0
Cities publishing a
tourism strategy
2)

1.7
Cities not publishing
a tourism strategy
COMMENTS
> Only 7 of the 24 focus cities publish a tourism
strategy online
> Berlin, Lisbon, London and Vienna had
professional tourism concepts even before
2005; for Ljubljana, the first document
available is from 2007; for Amsterdam and
Helsinki, the year the first document was
published is not available
> Cities publishing a tourism strategy show
stronger growth in the number of arrivals and
overnight stays
> Publishing the strategy is essential for
successful communication with stakeholders
> Developing and communicating a professional
strategy is an area with a large upside
potential for most cities in the study
Growth of tourism CAGR 2005-2010
1)
[%]
Source: TourMIS, Roland Berger research
1) Luxembourg 2005-2009, Athens 2005-2007, Rome arrivals 2005-2009,
Istanbul overnight stays 2005-2009
2) Amsterdam, Berlin, Helsinki, Lisbon, Ljubljana, London, Vienna
Impact of a professional tourism strategy
> Capital city tourism significantly outperforms GDP development both in times
of crisis and recovery
> There is a negative correlation between bed capacity growth over the last five
years and RevPARs, except in Amsterdam and Stockholm
> There is a clear correlation between the number of congresses hosted by a city
and the number of overnight stays
> 60 flight connections appears to be the minimum required to attract a significant
> A surprising number of capital cities do not publish a tourism master plan
only 7 out of the 24 focus cities do publish such a plan
> Cities with a published tourism master plan have growth rates in arrivals and
overnight stays of around twice as much compared to those not publishing a plan
> Capital city tourism is a key driver of growth and should be exploited accordingly
Conclusions (1/3) Capital city tourism is a key growth driver
> In general, cities should publish better data professional, focused and up-to-date
statistics are not universally available
> Some cities that have a large number of overnight stays compared to the number of
inhabitants need to manage potential friction between local residents and
visitors marketing tourism within the country itself is increasingly important to keep
local residents happy and prevent them feeling like they are living in a zoo
> Many cities are trying to encourage repeat visits and attract tourists away from the
city's main attractions to other parts of the city
> Developing infrastructure is a key element in the strategies of successful cities
> Changes in bed capacity are a measure of the success of the city's image and trust
by investors however, excessive growth generally results in low RevPAR for
hotel operators and can threaten the survival of their business
Conclusions (2/3) Growth needs to be managed well in order to be
sustainable
> On average, 29% of overnight stays relate to domestic tourism, 55% to other
European visitors and 19% to non-European visitors
> The share of non-European guests is a good indicator for the city's global
attractiveness and resistance to local/regional crises diversification of visitors
> The organizational structures for managing city tourism vary Berlin has a highly
professional DMO
1)
: a public private partnership with a significant share of funding
generated by profit-oriented activities
> The main barriers to cities developing a tourism strategy are the uncoordinated
involvement of a large number of stakeholders, too little responsibility assigned to
the relevant body, excessive political influence and self-satisfaction regarding current
performance
> Capital city tourism offers a large upside potential in most European countries
Conclusions (3/3) Coordination and professional management is a
key success factor
1) Destination Marketing Organization
impact!
that creates
It's character

Roland Berger European Capital City Tourism 20111130

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Roland Berger European Capital City Tourism 20111130

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Report Analysis and findings

European capital city tourism

Вам также может понравиться