Oprah in Australia

Quote:

---

THATS why we are paying $3m. to get $100m. worth of free publicity in the states.

---

For a start, it's not free, is it? Second, how do you even come up with a number like that? Plucked out of the air I suspect. Finally, how does the "$100m worth of free publicity" translate into actual revenue in Australia? You can't tell me, nobody knows. They're still trying to work out if we broke even on World Youth Day.

$3m is small potatoes, hardly even worth raising an eyebrow over. But it's just one example of a government busily fiddling while Rome burns. Assuming we do reap all these benefits eventually, how much of the money that comes into the country through tourism will go towards the infrastructure that the government should be spending on? I'm sure the Melbourne family who lost their little boy last year as a direct result of under-funding in our local hospital will be thrilled to hear that local businesses and tourism operators will have a bumper year next year.

The trouble with infrastructure spending, (with all the goodwill in the world and the socialist deliberations behind well meaning thinkers), is that cash has to be generated within a society to pay for it.

Hospitals just don't get built or run without capital, neither do schools or the NBN on any Government paid or operated section of the community.

The money to pay from all these comes from taxes and Government investments.

And taxes are generated through business operations that generate profits, as well as taxes on employment itself and the GST. A bumper year would be great for taxes and infrastructure spending.

One industry that generates huge taxes through the GST, employee contributions and taxes on company profits is the service industry and the travel industry is a huge section of this.
Anything that can increase sales will generate GST and profits that will ultimately enable us to build the hospitals we need.

If we all sit and wait for things to happen in this world, we will all regress back to a subsistance lifestyle and there will be no services of any kind except those provided by soothsayers and medicine men.

Regards
Greg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

For a start, it's not free, is it? Second, how do you even come up with a number like that?

$3m is small potatoes, hardly even worth raising an eyebrow over. But it's just one example of a government busily fiddling while Rome burns.

---

See Monty Python "What have the Romans ever done for us ? -apart from roads, sewerage, bathing, writing...er money. Yair what have the Romans ever done for us ?"
If I could get a dollars worth of petrol for three cents I'd be happy to call it free petrol.
Its true that the numbers are not precise they are generalised for public discussion. However we do have a lot of Austrade people counting visitors and dollars spent and free air time in the USA etc. Thats how we know that the "shrimp on the barby" campaign worked and the "where the bloody hell are ya" campaign didn"t. The second one was so obviously going to fail. Ordinary Americans hardly swear at all and are quite shocked by public swearing (No they don't watch gangsta rap).

Quote:

---

One industry that ...

---

Well yes but tourism's contribution to GDP has nearly doubled in the last 10 years but I don't see any improvements to infrastructure - quite the opposite. Ten years ago we had a fully operational surgical hospital. Today it is nothing more than an emergency department and nursing home.

It all sounds good in theory, but I remain sceptical until one person comes forward and is able to say "the $200m we spent last year on tourism promotion has increased the net worth of the Australian economy by x". All the nice statements about GST and employee tax contributions mean diddly squat if we don't see some tangible benefit to the country as a whole.

Maybe part of the problem is that more tourism translates to more migration, which just puts more strain on the infrastructure. Do we really want Oprah Winfrey's audience (2% of the US population, mostly women over 55) retiring here? :)

Quote:

---

If I could get a dollars worth of petrol for three cents I'd be happy to call it free petrol.

---

Call it want you like, I'll bet the owner of the servo will still want his $1.80 for a tank full though.

You've lost me with the Life of Brian reference? Are you saying tourism has brought us all those things? I suppose indirectly it was the original tourists who brought them. The locals rue the day they let them in :)

Regarding the advertising campaigns, unless you stand there with a clipboard and interview every person who walks through the turnstile and ask them why they came, you'd have no way of knowing how well an ad worked. The advertising industry has struggled for years to prove that it's methods actually work. In some industries it's probably relatively easy, but I suspect tourism is not one of them. You can't just look for a correlation in arrivals - there may be other factors. Currently half the world is in the grip of economic depression - arrivals must be down, does that reflect poorly on our promotion campaign?

I know this much: I've been overseas a number of times and I have never chosen a destination based on an ad. I suppose it might put the suggestion in your head if your casting about for ideas. I think most people who come here will have "always wanted to go down under".

It's all about brand awareness, it can be quantified and shown to have intrinsic value to growth.

But part of my beef with this whole thing, "Ohh, you are rich so you are important, let us shut down parts of a major city so you can walk the streets", as they :bowdown: and kiss :bartmoon:

:minigun: to that mentalaity to which 'we' now pander to. :~

Quote:

---

It's all about brand awareness, it can be quantified and shown to have intrinsic value to growth.

---

Yes I understand that, but I'm sceptical about how that applies to a country in terms of tourism. I know the marketeers want us to think of the country as a "brand" and tourism as a "product". It makes the whole business sound so much more credible, doesn't it? Maybe they'll do an episode of The Gruen Transfer on it :D

I'm just as sceptical myself. I give my clients outcomes based on experience, never pull something out of your :bartmoon: as people aren't dumb.

The real winner is Oprah - her brand and her show, not Australia.

They probably will, the CEO from GPY&R will agree to it, the bloke from Ogilvy won't. I agree on the later probable. Spending client money is good so long as you can quantify and justify.

This discussion about the Oprah tour has me fascinated. I was aware that she is coming "down under" with a plane load of her viewers, as to when she is coming and where she is going I have no idea, I don't care. Apparently the government (Australian/NSW?) is tipping in some money ($3 mill?) and this has angered some Forumites as they cannot see any return for the money spent. Does the money the Government spend on the arts generate a profit - probably not, should the Government stop funding the arts - no. Just because you can't see a tangible benefit doesn't mean there isn't one. Consider the Australian National Gallery's 1973 AU$1.2 million purchase of Blue Poles, remember the stink that caused, worth close to $200 mill. now.

The money spent on Blue Poles or other such acquisitions by galleries has a much greater measure on return for expenditure. :2tsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waldo

The money spent on Blue Poles or other such acquisitions by galleries has a much greater measure on return for expenditure. :2tsup:

---

I'll ask if Silent won't, prove it.

That's a bit of a stretch Grumpy John, comparing Oprah Winfrey to The Yarts!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grumpy John

I'll ask if Silent won't, prove it.

---

You did yourself: "Australian National Gallery's 1973 AU$1.2 million purchase of Blue Poles, remember the stink that caused, worth close to $200 mill. now."

They could sell it tomorrow and build a new hospital! We can't sell Oprah Winfrey to the highest bidder, more's the pity. Maybe China would like her.

Grumpy, you can easily measure ROI in a gallery to the exhibitions they hold and compare footfall on previous exhibitions.

Pompei, The Titanic, Entombed Warriors etc. Did you go to any? If so, why and why not at another time when they had the usual stuff on display, for example coming up in April 2011 is 'Tutankhamun and the Golden Age of the Pharaohs', a returning exhibition I saw in Brisbane in '88, of which I will be going to.

I wasn't comparing people/art, I was comparing dollars spent and the public's reaction to the spending. Someone will always object to how the Government spends our money and if the Government listened and acted on all those objections nothing would ever get done. If it were Nelson Mandella coming for a lecture tour (health permitting) would you be objecting so loudly?