Things that cost €30 million

kippy

dvpower wrote: »

You could make a similar arguement about any form of advertising or even marketing in general. No one can look into the future, but we should at least take seriously the opinions of people like Tourism Ireland - it would be deeply cynical to write them off simply as spoofers.


This is a bit of a strawman. No one really thinks that people would make a decision purely based on the fact that their head of state has visited. Its much more of a soft sell - the hundreds of foreign journalists, producing lots of nice colour pieces that will push Ireland into contention as a possible destination.

Okay, if tourism Ireland want to make a link between the recent visits and any increase in tourism without taking into account other factors - they are indeed spoofers. If they actually release a number or a percentage of visitors that arrived as a result of these visits without taking into account other factors they are spoofers.
I dont care if they are the Tourism people - they simply CANNOT say for a fact that any trends in tourism over the next while are as a result of the visits.

Strawman - are you serious - nice colour pieces about a president and queen visiting a country......
I'll bet there were very few articles actually outlinning the reasons why Ireland is a better tourist destination now than it was 2-3 years ago - which is really what the tourists want to see.
As I said, they can see what they want and read what they want about Ireland online anyway - its a changed image we need and a very strong message to tourists that we are a better place to come to.

Monty Burnz

later10 wrote: »

Combat Poverty Agency (2009) Submission on Supplementary Budget 2009. Dublin: CPA.

30,000,000/ 20,000 = 1,500

So that is a per year figure? So if just 50 people got jobs out of this and worked for 30 years, then we are in profit?

later12

Monty Burnz wrote: »

So that is a per year figure?

Yes, of course.

So if just 50 people got jobs out of this and worked for 30 years, then we are in profit?

Only if you assume that without the Queen's visit they would otherwise be unemployed for 30 years.

Monty Burnz

later10 wrote: »

Only if you assume that without the Queen's visit they would otherwise be unemployed for 30 years.

Is that any sillier than any of your assumptions? Like the one that your putative 1500 would only be unemployed for a single year?

later12

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Is that any sillier than any of your assumptions?

Yeah, come on, your assumption was pretty daft.

Like the one that your putative 1500 would only be unemployed for a single year?

I didn't say that 1,500 would be unemployed - I am not referring to people, but a cost. I am saying that €30m is the *cost* of 1,500 on the dole for a year. In fact, I said it to you...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72288187&postcount=146

Between lost taxes and unemployment aid, the visits' security cost is the approximate equivalent of 1,500 job losses for one year. How many jobs will it, in itself, create in the next year?

GSF

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/29/us-ireland-tourism-idUSTRE74S0FT20110529

Internet searches by potential visitors from Ireland's two main overseas markets surged by almost 200 percent for some tourist spots included on the royal itinerary, according to Hotels.com, a leading provider of worldwide hotel accommodation.

The website said searches last week by UK tourists for the county of Tipperary, where the Queen visited the Rock of Cashel, a medieval national movement that attracts thousands of tourists each year, nearly trebled compared to a year ago.

Searches by U.S. tourists for Cork -- the last stop of the Queen's four-day trip -- doubled. Interest also jumped at home, with 225 percent more Irish tourists thinking of visiting Kildare, where the Queen spent an afternoon in the heartland of Irish horse-racing.

early days but there certainly is increased tourism interest post the recent visits.

This story is also being picked up by UK media which itself will have a further benefit

Fremen

Just thought I'd point out that tourism is associated with an economic multiplier effect. This means that if one Euro of income is generated from tourism, the economy will grow by more than one Euro.

I've only been able to find estimates for increased European government spending (rather than tourist income), but the multiplier for that is estimated to be 1.5 to 2.

Let's assume a multiplier of 1.5. If the government could encourage an extra €20 million in tourism, that would lead to growth of €30 million in GDP, and their investment would be matched 100%. It's really not a bad deal.

later12

The efficiency, or multiplier of tourist spending is not in doubt at all. Nobody is suggesting that tourism is a bad thing. We should encourage tourism imports efficiently.

Just in relation to the multiplier effect, for what it is worth though, we do have to take consumer behaviour into account when calculating the multiplier, and as we know consumer confidence is low based largely on external and political factors as opposed to purely a domestic wages situation, and people seem to be saving rather than spending.

kippy

Just an update I read today of the cost involved.
These guys don't appear to be able to make a budget and stick to it for ANYTHING.

The cost of the visits of the Queen and President Obama is almost twice as high as initially estimated it was revealed today.

Justice Minister Alan Shatter told a Dáil Committeetoday that the final bill will now be €36m.

Just a few weeks, ago Minister Shatter had thought the final bill might be around €20m.



Read more: http://breakingnews.ie/ireland/bill-for-obama-and-queen-visits-almost-double-original-estimate-512496.html#ixzz1RuQ5DNWJ

Godge

later10 wrote: »

The efficiency, or multiplier of tourist spending is not in doubt at all. Nobody is suggesting that tourism is a bad thing. We should encourage tourism imports efficiently.

Just in relation to the multiplier effect, for what it is worth though, we do have to take consumer behaviour into account when calculating the multiplier, and as we know consumer confidence is low based largely on external and political factors as opposed to purely a domestic wages situation, and people seem to be saving rather than spending.

Eh, the tourists come in from abroad, so consumer confidence in Ireland is irrelevant to their spend.

later12

No, in economics, increased activity in the tourist economy is usually correlated with increased activity in the domestic economy amongst the natives.

I'm just saying that we can have reason to question whether the multiplier will be observed to the same extent in an economy as unstable as Ireland's, when consumer sentiment is still weak, and where there is presently a strong affinity to hoarding cash.

Monty Burnz

The value of the publicity for Guinness alone has been guestimated at 20 million euros...

later12

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The value of the publicity for Guinness alone has been guestimated at 20 million euros...

Oh there may have been a benefit to Guinness, although there are no figures to support this. Pity about the 400 job losses though, which, should these workers find themselves receiving state assistance, is likely to be worth about €8m of a loss to the Irish state

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/ireland-did-its-bit-for-guinness-but-diageo-responds-with-job-cuts-2658148.html

Monty Burnz

later10 wrote: »

Oh there may have been a benefit to Guinness, although there are no figures to support this. Pity about the 400 job losses though, which, should these workers find themselves receiving state assistance, is likely to be worth about €8m of a loss to the Irish state

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/ireland-did-its-bit-for-guinness-but-diageo-responds-with-job-cuts-2658148.html

Here we go again. Perhaps with the 20 million in free publicity, they will be able to hire/retain more staff than they otherwise would have? Or do companies advertise with no expectation of making the investment back, just to keep advertising execs in coke and hookers?

later12

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Here we go again. Perhaps with the 20 million in free publicity, they will be able to hire/retain more staff than they otherwise would have?

I don't see what's difficult about this. Guinness are removing 400 jobs from the Irish economy, taking out 8 million euro directly, as well as costing the exchequer more in unemployment assistance.

Look at Guinness pre and post visit, where are the jobs?

Monty Burnz

later10 wrote: »

I don't see what's difficult about this. Guinness are removing 400 jobs from the Irish economy, taking out 8 million euro directly, as well as costing the exchequer more in unemployment assistance.

Look at Guinness pre and post visit, where are the jobs?

Do you expect to see a difference immediately?

Perhaps they were planning to let go another 1000 workers, who have now kept their jobs? There you go. 1000 jobs saved.

(it makes as much sense as your 'show me the money' argument)

kippy

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Do you expect to see a difference immediately?

Perhaps they were planning to let go another 1000 workers, who have now kept their jobs? There you go. 1000 jobs saved.

(it makes as much sense as your 'show me the money' argument)

As I mentioned in earlier posts on this thread, the problem with this type of thing (the whole justification of spending 36 million) is that the actual results of the spending are incredibly hard to measure. Yet certain people will attempt to explain certain things that happen as a result of these visits, completely ignoring other, possibly more important factors.
Personally I believe 36 million euros is a crazy amount of money to have spent on these charades - and I don't doubt that any increase in visitors this year will be as a result of these visits, as opposed to cheaper holidays and potential currency fluctuations.
In your example there - it is very difficult to put any events at Guinness down to these visits. Be they positive or negative events.

ei.sdraob

€5-7 million more in "stimulus spending for solicitors", courtesy of NAMA :rolleyes:

kippy

ei.sdraob wrote: »

€5-7 million more in "stimulus spending for solicitors", courtesy of NAMA :rolleyes:

Solicitors fees? 5-7 million euro. Shocking waste of money.

ei.sdraob

yeh

The costs of the proceedings taken by Mr McKillen in the High Court and in the Supreme Court, which must now be paid by the State, are being estimated at between €5m-€7m.

How long can 7 million keep Roscommon Hospital open for :P

later12

kippy wrote: »

As I mentioned in earlier posts on this thread, the problem with this type of thing (the whole justification of spending 36 million) is that the actual results of the spending are incredibly hard to measure. Yet certain people will attempt to explain certain things that happen as a result of these visits, completely ignoring other, possibly more important factors.
Personally I believe 36 million euros is a crazy amount of money to have spent on these charades - and I don't doubt that any increase in visitors this year will be as a result of these visits, as opposed to cheaper holidays and potential currency fluctuations.
In your example there - it is very difficult to put any events at Guinness down to these visits. Be they positive or negative events.

Agree absolutely. Irish tourism stats may pick up this year (we won't fully know until 2012-13) but it would be wrong to draw unsafe causal relationships. I think most people would agree that it is ludicrous to suggest that the Queen's visit caused a 400 man job loss at St James's Gate, yet that is exactly the sort of bizarre correlation=causation conclusion that will be drawn should any pick up in tourism imports be observed. competitiveness, CPI/HICP, and an improving European economy relative to our own, will be gleefully overlooked.

Monty Burnz

Total straw-man nonsense. Do you think the positive exposure due to Obama and Liz are going to harm the economy, or make no difference at all somehow?

Once we get that out of the way, the only question is how beneficial it is, which is hard to measure. It may benefit us by less than the total cost of the trips (although that seems unlikely). Or it may benefit us to the tune of billions by preventing US and other overseas investors from pulling out in droves, or encouraging them to invest, by getting the 'open for business' message out there to counter the 'riots on the streets' images that abounded in the world media while Fianna Failure were flying the economy into the mountainside.

later10 wrote: »

Agree absolutely. Irish tourism stats may pick up this year (we won't fully know until 2012-13) but it would be wrong to draw unsafe causal relationships. I think most people would agree that it is ludicrous to suggest that the Queen's visit caused a 400 man job loss at St James's Gate, yet that is exactly the sort of bizarre correlation=causation conclusion that will be drawn should any pick up in tourism imports be observed. competitiveness, CPI/HICP, and an improving European economy relative to our own, will be gleefully overlooked.

kippy

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Total straw-man nonsense. Do you think the positive exposure due to Obama and Liz are going to harm the economy, or make no difference at all somehow?

Once we get that out of the way, the only question is how beneficial it is, which is hard to measure. It may benefit us by less than the total cost of the trips (although that seems unlikely). Or it may benefit us to the tune of billions by preventing US and other overseas investors from pulling out in droves, or encouraging them to invest, by getting the 'open for business' message out there to counter the 'riots on the streets' images that abounded in the world media while Fianna Failure were flying the economy into the mountainside.

Of course they have made a difference. The only measurable one being the cost it was to put them up, a cost might I add, it appears we still don't know but its South of 35 million (in direct measurable costs, no doubt there are other costs which weren't so easy to measure)
The news on BBC the first morning of the queens visit was that of a bus with a bomb on it being intercepted in Kildare, as well as the usual negativity that goes with such a report. Granted the remainder of the visit passed off without incident, which is straightforward enough when you've spent that much money on security, closing manholes, vetting residents and indeed ensuring the queen didnt get within an asses roar of the commoners.
(I understand that all the above is a good thing, god help us if something had gone wrong)
As for the investors crap - lets be fair here, the American multinationals are more worried about our corporation tax rate (staying static), the cost of doing business here (generally reducing) and political stability - which to be fair, isnt under any pressure at the moment.
No doubt there MAY be benefit that would not have been there otherwise, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to measure but yet again, agencies will no doubt use these visits as reasons for positives in the economy.

Also, what do you mean by "strawman nonsense". What I have said above is perfectly logical.

Monty Burnz

kippy wrote: »

Also, what do you mean by "strawman nonsense". What I have said above is perfectly logical.

Are you a sock puppet for Later10 or something? I didn't address your comments...

kippy

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Are you a sock puppet for Later10 or something? I didn't address your comments...

You know what I hate? Confused faces used in a sarcastic manner.

I was replying to your comment - which while directed at later10, can be responded to by anyone (otherwise you would have PM'd him, wouldn't you)

Monty Burnz

kippy wrote: »

You know what I hate? Confused faces used in a sarcastic manner.

I didn't intend that sarcastically, I was genuinely confused. Text isn't the best medium to pick up nuances though.

kippy

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I didn't intend that sarcastically, I was genuinely confused. Text isn't the best medium to pick up nuances though.

Confused at what?
As I said if your post was just for later10 a PM would suffice.
The fact that your post was aimed at someone else does not invalidate my points.

mike65

bump! http://www.examiner.ie/breakingnews/ireland/number-of-tourists-increase-521741.html

The number of overseas visitors to Ireland increased by 9% between May and July.

New figures from the CSO show the overall number for the year to July was up by 167,100.

So was that 9% bump down to the visit or just a natural recovery in traffic?

Monty Burnz

mike65 wrote: »

bump! http://www.examiner.ie/breakingnews/ireland/number-of-tourists-increase-521741.html

The number of overseas visitors to Ireland increased by 9% between May and July.

New figures from the CSO show the overall number for the year to July was up by 167,100.

So was that 9% bump down to the visit or just a natural recovery in traffic?

Well things have continued to go down the toilet internationally, so it seems like we won a larger slice of a smaller pie. We must have got some good advertising out there, great work Bord Failte!

Gumbo

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Well things have continued to go down the toilet internationally, so it seems like we won a larger slice of a smaller pie. We must have got some good advertising out there, great work Bord Failte!

Not only Bord Failte!
Dublin City Council has a Cruise Tourism Project ongoing throughout Europe, promoting Dublin as a cruis stop point, and so far this, there has been 84 Cruise Liners dock here for at least one day, next year already has over 70 bookings.

one day 2 weeks ago, 2750 people got off one boat and entered the City centre for the day!

http://urbact.eu/en/projects/port-cities/ctur/partner/?partnerid=261