Failed tourism campaign

Autopsy before spending half a year of EUR 6 million ad campaign of the Bulgarian resorts towards themselves Bulgarian consumers of tourism services. Argued that the expenditure of these funds is pointless for several reasons:

„First, the Bulgarians know very well their country’s charms … (they) do not need to appear again and again and on their behalf “
Second, because „home resorts are not competitive (because of) congestion, poor infrastructure, nemarlivo service, all at a price not worth it.
And third, because it is the work of the tourism business to meet the costs to improve its deteriorating image.
Last week President / now former / the State Agency for Tourism in resignation that will increase the number of Bulgarian tourists at home resorts, what makes this campaign a failure. Despite the draw millions in advertising, the product remains familiar with the low quality and mass Bulgarians prefer to spend your vacation abroad. Perhaps it will be the result of such advertising for foreign tourists, because the whole market depends on many other factors that are beyond the scope of the influence of anyone.
But, on the one hand, I hope this case can serve as a lesson in management who do not carefully assess the costs that they do. It was clear that the Bulgarian tourism has more serious problems of lack of advertising, and that just throwing money to conceal the problem will not allow it.
This case, on the other hand, is a very good example of how „antikrizisnoto“ spending money from the state does not work. If spending had positive effects would result in more tourists resorts, it would be and where there is no crisis. Instead to spend the money taken by the Bulgarian taxpayers and business, they could be left in their hands to spend and invest. This in itself stimulate the economy and is a good antikrizisna measure.
And last but not least, I hope this case to convince the entrepreneurs in the tourism industry of the need to improve the quality of service rendered. Then they themselves, not the taxpayer must allocate resources to improve the image of the sector, because they bear responsibility for the deterioration, and they would benefit from its improvement.

––––––––––––––––– ––––––––––

Velin Peev, IME