Things that cost €30 million

RDM_83 again

Its nice too see this thread.

In terms of the Queens visit what I don't understand is why the 1st 3 days are in Dublin* and in particular sites around the Northside, its these segments of the trip that involve the massive security costs and commercial disruption, if she was visiting more rural sites costs would be lower and the beneficial exposure would be the same in my eyes (lots of nice panoramic helicopter shots of somewhere like Glendalough for example) I can only see the Rock of Cashel fitting this category. Dublin is the default entry point to Ireland for most visitors so its attractions would be widely known.

Any negative imagery involving violence will probably stick in people minds than the positives.

If I was in charge of this level of money and had to spend it on social costs I'd subsidise some sort of outdoor sporting event highlighting Irelands natural beauty (u don't need to go to NZ for scenery)

In reality the money should be spent combating Dublins anti-social aspects that are extremely obvious to any visitor and may even benefit other people than just Garda paypackets.


*Does anybody know if while visiting TCD she will be shown the small battered plaque in memory of someone that was killed fighting the 1916 rebels, its fairly well hidden.

later12

bamboozle wrote: »

final point, do you expect people in Dublin Airport with counters and questionnaires for the next 12 months to determine how many tourists have travelled here on the back of the queens visit?

No, for one thing that's not how we gauge the tourist industry, but nevertheless...

as i originally stated, if your concern is the potential waste of 30m look no further than the Seanad as this is the annual cost of running it.

Perhaps I haven't fully explained... I'm not on a one man mission to raise or save €30m. I'm also aware that much of this money will already have been allocated and there is no question of anything changing on that front.

I'm just pointing out the futility of what we have done, to my mind, without any evidence to the contrary that suggests that this was a clever way to spend €30m. For all of our talk about austerity and respecting the taxpayer, we seem very willing to part with a significant amount of money for no apparent evidence that it would not be better spent elsewhere. As the old saying goes, a fool and his money are easily parted, and I do think it is appropriate here. I don't see a big commercial windfall for us arising out of this event, I do see the possibility of some negative coverage, and the fact that this threat in itself was apparently not even considered speaks volumes.

later12

RDM_83 again wrote: »

*Does anybody know if while visiting TCD she will be shown the small battered plaque in memory of someone that was killed fighting the 1916 rebels, its fairly well hidden.

Is that the one at the back of the Moyne institute/ far side of college park?

mlumley

Just for your information the visits are expected to bring in €120 million in revenue from tourists. That is a 3/1 gain. So should we trun that away?????

later12

mlumley wrote: »

Just for your information the visits are expected to bring in €120 million in revenue from tourists. That is a 3/1 gain. So should we trun that away?????

Are you sure you're not confusing that with what would arise from separate marketing campaigns?

The Royal Wedding in London brought in €120m, I would be extremely surprised if this visit in itself brought in anything close to that. As always, I'm willing to be proven wrong.

monkeybutter

And you always are

astrofool

later10 wrote: »

MS, Intel, Google and so on, are all private companies who work on the basis of profit, why would they be watching Obama's travel itinerary in Western Europe? It just doesn't make sense that this would cause them to set up shop or expand here. Why not actually do something more practical with the €30m and spend this money incentivising business to establish here with start-up grants instead?

They're here for stable profit.

Why is it stable? Because our tax rate won't change (we hope ), and because the US isn't going to slap extra taxes on the companies under the guise of Ireland being an offshore account.

Things that help that, are things like the leader of the country coming to visit and talking to our politicians, and then him making politico statements on Ireland being a friend to the US.

It sends out a message.

That message is likely worth more than €30m once all is said and done.

Intel, Google, Microsoft were all visited by politicians during the last election, American multinationals in Ireland will be on the agenda of talks for the visit.

MS Ireland, Google Ireland, Intel Ireland will all be following Obama's visit, and basing key investment decisions over speeches he makes in this area.

later12

monkeybutter wrote: »

And you always are

you just joined this site last thursday, apparently......

bamboozle

later10 wrote: »

No, for one thing that's not how we gauge the tourist industry, but nevertheless...

Perhaps I haven't fully explained... I'm not on a one man mission to raise or save €30m. I'm also aware that much of this money will already have been allocated and there is no question of anything changing on that front.

I'm just pointing out the futility of what we have done, to my mind, without any evidence to the contrary that suggests that this was a clever way to spend €30m. For all of our talk about austerity and respecting the taxpayer, we seem very willing to part with a significant amount of money for no apparent evidence that it would not be better spent elsewhere. As the old saying goes, a fool and his money are easily parted, and I do think it is appropriate here. I don't see a big commercial windfall for us arising out of this event, I do see the possibility of some negative coverage, and the fact that this threat in itself was apparently not even considered speaks volumes.

by this event are you talking about the Queen's visit or Obama's, initially you were talking about both. Either way you dont see any uplift to the economy, most of the experts in tourism do so i'll gladly side with them.

http://www.newstalk.ie/2011/news/1visit-by-queen-would-boost-tourism-says-ceo91/
Willie Walsh on newstalk

http://www.businessandleadership.com/marketing/item/30080-tourism-ireland-looks-to-ca
tourism Ireland

later12

astrofool wrote: »

That message is likely worth more than €30m once all is said and done.

But why? All I'm seeing is lofty prose about symbolism and friendship and what things 'signify', where are the figures, where is the evidence to suggest that these two visits will be worth more than €30m? I'd take simple deductive reasoning at this point.

RDM_83 again

Yeah thanks thats the one, last time I saw it was an undergrad and it was very decrepit but must have done it up

astrofool

The average team within any large multinational based here will bring more than €30m to the exchequer.

The Ireland division (which has it's own leader in Ireland) will compete with China, Poland, UK, France, India etc. to have that team in Ireland.

In the decision making list are lots of factors, existing infrastructure for that company, ability to attract employees, track record of that divsion, taxes paid on that division, overall sentiment for the country.

Having Obama visit will positively effect the sentiment, and increase any chance we have of any single division to be set up in Irelan. If one single division is set up (or even expanded, or even stays instead of leaving), in even one of the large multinationals, we'll be quids in.

And that's without factoring in increased tourism, or increased international presence.

Ultimately, if you want a balance sheet with the costs of Obama on the one hand, and the gain due to his visit you won't get it, it doesn't exist, and wouldn't exist unless we had a parallel universe to test the effect of him not visiting on.

later12

again, this is a fact free zone. I just don't buy into the notion that sentiment for the country can change so dramatically during one 24 hour stopover to the extent that MNCs decide to locate or expand here on foot of it. That we benefit so dramatically out of Obama going to Moneygall for a day seems extremely far fetched.

If it were a trade mission, I would give this some weight. But it isn't. Most of his (very considerable) entourage will be going straight to London apart from his immediate entourage and security personnell.

Also, with all of these state visits going on in so many different countries, it's a wonder why we're going to stand out for anything in particular, much less anything particularly positive, because the protests are an inevitability.

astrofool

later10 wrote: »

again, this is a fact free zone. I just don't buy into the notion that sentiment for the country can change so dramatically during one 24 hour stopover to the extent that MNCs decide to locate or expand here on foot of it. That we benefit so dramatically out of Obama going to Moneygall for a day seems extremely far fetched.

If it were a trade mission, I would give this some weight. But it isn't. Most of his (very considerable) entourage will be going straight to London apart from his immediate entourage and security personnell.

Also, with all of these state visits going on in so many different countries, it's a wonder why we're going to stand out for anything in particular, much less anything particularly positive, because the protests are an inevitability.

Working in a multinational myself, and seeing some of the decision making processes, I can say it will definitely have a positive experience (unless his visit doesn't go well of course ).

problemchimp

later10 wrote: »

again, this is a fact free zone. I just don't buy into the notion that sentiment for the country can change so dramatically during one 24 hour stopover to the extent that MNCs decide to locate or expand here on foot of it. That we benefit so dramatically out of Obama going to Moneygall for a day seems extremely far fetched.

If it were a trade mission, I would give this some weight. But it isn't. Most of his (very considerable) entourage will be going straight to London apart from his immediate entourage and security personnell.

Also, with all of these state visits going on in so many different countries, it's a wonder why we're going to stand out for anything in particular, much less anything particularly positive, because the protests are an inevitability.

Pretty much a glorified Shannon stop over.

Nijmegen

Visits by the Queen of England and the President of the United States generally get a lot more airtime than most other heads of states visiting somewhere, unless it's Putin or someone.

Anyone who thinks that the €30 million spent policing the events in the coming two weeks is wasted money is closing their ears to all opinion of tourism agencies (not just in Ireland) and marketeers.

Brand awareness and a positive story are the key to selling people on an idea.

Heck, I choose holiday locations - like many of us - based on whimsicle things that cross our minds. I spoke to a colleague about her honeymoon in Barbados one year, and myself the missus - thinking of a summer holiday - went to the same spot. One off the cuff conversation.

Why do we spend so much advertising on foreign TV? Showing images of the misty isle?

And as any marketing professional will tell you, marketing dropped into non-advertising - like news segments - is extremely powerful.

later12

Nijmegen wrote: »

Visits by the Queen of England and the President of the United States generally get a lot more airtime than most other heads of states visiting somewhere, unless it's Putin or someone.

Anyone who thinks that the €30 million spent policing the events in the coming two weeks is wasted money is closing their ears to all opinion of tourism agencies (not just in Ireland) and marketeers.

These estimates tend to relate to advertising drives, whereby ads will be taken out that have basically nothing to do with the Queen. They will just happen to be running them at a time when Ireland is in the news.

Lets just hope Ireland is in the news for the right reasons, and these advertising campaigns are not cancelled out.

Nobody is actually suggesting - or are they - that the visit is, in itself, going to cause an influx?

Also - what foreign tourism agencies are you referring to?

And as any marketing professional will tell you, marketing dropped into non-advertising - like news segments - is extremely powerful.

Powerful to the tune of €30m? Because it would have to be that powerful for us to even begin to, perhaps, go into the black on the visit.

Nijmegen

later10 wrote: »

These estimates tend to relate to advertising drives, whereby ads will be taken out that have basically nothing to do with the Queen. They will just happen to be running them at a time when Ireland is in the news.

Lets just hope Ireland is in the news for the right reasons, and these advertising campaigns are not cancelled out.

Nobody is actually suggesting - or are they - that the visit is, in itself, going to cause an influx?

Also - what foreign tourism agencies are you referring to?

Powerful to the tune of €30m? Because it would have to be that powerful for us to even begin to, perhaps, go into the black on the visit.

Ok later10, you're right, no state visit, ever, justifies the cost. It's just that governments send their heads off on trips year round to give them something to do. They say they lead to closer commercial, diplomatic, tourism and so forth, but you know what, they're probably wrong. Them, the marketing people who invest money in them, the enterprise and trade bodies that sponsor them... They're all wrong.

Happy now?

later12

I'd be happier if you actually answered the question.

This thread has quite a logical basis, if I may suggest so, I just want to know if the cost to the taxpayer has a return that can be measured in terms of a corresponding income.

I don't have much time for nationalism, pomp, trumpets, queens, fairies, brass bands and wreath laying ceremonies. These things have cost the planet more in not just monetary terms, but human terms, and belong elsewhere. So leaving aside all of the trappings of nationalism and the symbolism of this visit - is it worth it or not? does it make sense on an intellectual level or not?

kippy

Personally, based on the amount of security, the cost and the lack of almost any commoner actually being within an asses roar of the queen, I'd have been happy if the whole visit (and indeed that of Obama) was kept on the down low and was something we only heard about after the fact.

The actual benefit to the country based on increased tourism is extremely intangible and almost impossible to back up/prove. Nowadays people have plenty access to view scenic shots of Ireland, nay every single street on the country via something like google street view/youtube/tripadvisor etc as well as the usual stuff that is on the TV before they come here. Years ago without the internet, people really only had TV to review a countries scenery and what it had to offer, so TV time and stuff like this was important in getting the visitors who had no link with the country to come here.
Ultimately we have to package the country as a cheap/friendly accessible country to tourists that has plenty cheap/accessible attractions, where you'll remain safe. I don't see how either visit will portray that notion.
Just remember, whatever about NOT effecting tourist figures from a positive standpoint if anything goes wrong on either standpoint it WILL put people off.


I for one have NEVER based my holiday choices on where the Taoiseach/President has visited - NEVER.

problemchimp

Nijmegen wrote: »

Visits by the Queen of England and the President of the United States generally get a lot more airtime than most other heads of states visiting somewhere, unless it's Putin or someone.

Anyone who thinks that the €30 million spent policing the events in the coming two weeks is wasted money is closing their ears to all opinion of tourism agencies (not just in Ireland) and marketeers.

Brand awareness and a positive story are the key to selling people on an idea.

Heck, I choose holiday locations - like many of us - based on whimsicle things that cross our minds. I spoke to a colleague about her honeymoon in Barbados one year, and myself the missus - thinking of a summer holiday - went to the same spot. One off the cuff conversation.

Why do we spend so much advertising on foreign TV? Showing images of the misty isle?

And as any marketing professional will tell you, marketing dropped into non-advertising - like news segments - is extremely powerful.

Would you choose your family holidays based on where President McAleese has been on state visits or would value for money be more important?
Do you think the average family in Barnsley would choose their holidays in rip off Ireland because the Queen made a state visit here?

later12

problemchimp wrote: »

Would you choose your family holidays based on where President McAleese has been on state visits or would value for money be more important?

Indeed. i would love to have someone measure what difference at all President McAleese's state visit to Spain made recently, either in economic terms or in terms of people having followed her there on holidays as a result. From the coverage it appeared that she just went around meeting a lot of Irish ex pats in places like Barcelona. I can't imagine that this visit, in itself, is going to make much of a difference to the people of Britain, apart perhaps, from a snippet on the news that is hopefully not on the news for the wrong reasons, and at best quickly forgotten

Nijmegen

problemchimp wrote: »

Would you choose your family holidays based on where President McAleese has been on state visits or would value for money be more important?
Do you think the average family in Barnsley would choose their holidays in rip off Ireland because the Queen made a state visit here?

There's a fundamental science to how marketing works.

But to boil it down, you repeat a message at a customer time and time again, over many mediums and with different levels of intensity. And eventually some of them buy.

I spend a couple of million on marketing every year, and would like to think I know a bit about it. And the Queen's visit, translated into marketing terms, is a primer. You prime an audience and I daresay the Irish tourism board in London has campaigns ready to run in the UK in the coming weeks as people decide on a location for a summer break.

The move to Cork is really smart, showing that Ireland is about more than just Dublin and the stag weekend.

You prime the audience to think of Ireland. Then you hit them with repeated specific ads.

Bord Failte's own report on prospects for 2011 states:

Britain: Presents a significantchallengebut increasing Ireland’s share of the British market is essential if we are to return to real growth.

It's a priority area.

Nijmegen

later10 wrote: »

Indeed. i would love to have someone measure what difference at all President McAleese's state visit to Spain made recently, either in economic terms or in terms of people having followed her there on holidays as a result. From the coverage it appeared that she just went around meeting a lot of Irish ex pats in places like Barcelona. I can't imagine that this visit, in itself, is going to make much of a difference to the people of Britain, apart perhaps, from a snippet on the news that is hopefully not on the news for the wrong reasons, and at best quickly forgotten

The President's visits, which I've been on, are primarily trade missions. She's accompanied by the IDA, Enterprise Ireland, etc, and a lot of businesspeople.

They have a measurable impact.

I remember one I was on recently, when I was doubled up with a CEO who they sat at the same table as the President. He was, this CEO of a billion euro company, so chuffed at it it was funny. We then took him up to a small IDA briefing with just four of us there. He didn't even know the population of Ireland. The IDA people led on talk of Ireland as a place to do business.

Three weeks later we went back to meet his board. Now his company is thinking of making an investment in Ireland. For all those nasty tax reasons, but they'll employ Irish workers if they do and contribute to our recovery.

That's the value of a state visit with the President.

later12

Again, you just point black refuse to engage with the questions, and for some reason which no doubt you will now clarify, appear to view this coverage as being only positive, apparently ignoring the Murdoch/ tabloid industry's particular preoccupation with what are (bannably on here) known as 'scum' in those outlets.

Also, I'm going to ask you again what foreign tourism agencies are you referring to? And on what evidential or logical basis, if you do not think this €30m could be used more efficiently in marketing campaigns, do you not think so? Taking into consideration the danger that protests and any trouble will be covered extensively in the media.

later12

Nijmegen wrote: »

The President's visits, which I've been on, are primarily trade missions. She's accompanied by the IDA, Enterprise Ireland, etc, and a lot of businesspeople.

They have a measurable impact.

I remember one I was on recently, when I was doubled up with a CEO who they sat at the same table as the President. He was, this CEO of a billion euro company, so chuffed at it it was funny. We then took him up to a small IDA briefing with just four of us there. He didn't even know the population of Ireland. The IDA people led on talk of Ireland as a place to do business.

Three weeks later we went back to meet his board. Now his company is thinking of making an investment in Ireland. For all those nasty tax reasons, but they'll employ Irish workers if they do and contribute to our recovery.

That's the value of a state visit with the President.

Oh dear oh dear.

You mention a measurable impact and then go and give an anecdote. Do they have a quantitatively assessable impact or not?

kippy

Nijmegen wrote: »

The President's visits, which I've been on, are primarily trade missions. She's accompanied by the IDA, Enterprise Ireland, etc, and a lot of businesspeople.

They have a measurable impact.

I remember one I was on recently, when I was doubled up with a CEO who they sat at the same table as the President. He was, this CEO of a billion euro company, so chuffed at it it was funny. We then took him up to a small IDA briefing with just four of us there. He didn't even know the population of Ireland. The IDA people led on talk of Ireland as a place to do business.

Three weeks later we went back to meet his board. Now his company is thinking of making an investment in Ireland. For all those nasty tax reasons, but they'll employ Irish workers if they do and contribute to our recovery.

That's the value of a state visit with the President.

Look,
Trade missions, whatever you want to call them have a very specific target and I have no doubt, that done correctly, with the right people on it, targeting the right people, they are beneficial. Indeed the visit of BO and the Queen may have an impact on that level. I wouldn't argue with that in the slightest. Difficult enough to back up (ie you can say that this happened as a result of the trade mission but would it have happened anyway?) but I am specifically querying whether this TV time that Ireland will get as a result of the two visits coming up will have any tangible benefit in regards to tourism. I think the benefit to tourism is completely overstated and comes from a time when people didnt have as much information available to them as they do today.
Something negative happening on these visits will have an impact, I know that.


Now, back to this particular point. The leaders of our country have been on countless trips abroad, some no doubt branded trade missions, others surely were something else. No matter what they were called, they never never never have once stuck in my mind or "primed" me for any trips to those countries and never will to be honest.
Maybe I am different for the other 300 odd million US and british people that will be watching the various leaders visit Ireland.

monkeybutter

later10 wrote: »

you just joined this site last thursday, apparently......

Long time listener, first time caller

Nijmegen

later10 wrote: »

Oh dear oh dear.

You mention a measurable impact and then go and give an anecdote. Do they have a quantitatively assessable impact or not?

What do I look like, the IDA? An anecdote based on experience without the backing of all the facts and figures that Barry O'Leary could probably cite off his head. Ok. I let you down later10, I'm sorry.

You're looking for numbers that it would take a professional working in government to provide, and refuse to listen to arguments made by people who know their marketing and the activities of state visits without being deeply involved.

Ok. Then don't post on boards.ie, submit a request to the relevant agencies asking for their justification on an ROI basis, line by line.

This is a discussion board, not a review panel.

Nijmegen

kippy wrote: »

Look,
Trade missions, whatever you want to call them have a very specific target and I have no doubt, that done correctly, with the right people on it, targeting the right people, they are beneficial. Indeed the visit of BO and the Queen may have an impact on that level. I wouldn't argue with that in the slightest. Difficult enough to back up (ie you can say that this happened as a result of the trade mission but would it have happened anyway?) but I am specifically querying whether this TV time that Ireland will get as a result of the two visits coming up will have any tangible benefit in regards to tourism. I think the benefit to tourism is completely overstated and comes from a time when people didnt have as much information available to them as they do today.
Something negative happening on these visits will have an impact, I know that.


Now, back to this particular point. The leaders of our country have been on countless trips abroad, some no doubt branded trade missions, others surely were something else. No matter what they were called, they never never never have once stuck in my mind or "primed" me for any trips to those countries and never will to be honest.
Maybe I am different for the other 300 odd million US and british people that will be watching the various leaders visit Ireland.

You must be right. Would you like a job as my new Marketing Director? Because clearly we've been doing it wrong all these years, working off of the principals of marketing and sales when we could have spent our money much more efficiently, instead of wasting it on efforts liking integrated marketing campaigns with priming involved.

I think the people here saying the €30m can't be justified are trying to prove a negative, and want the kind of facts and figures that it's best go ask a professional agency involved for, not punters on a general discussion board.

All I can add to this discussion is my experience in business, marketing, and with the IDA. For the figures, go talk to the professionals deeply involved in this effort.