BEST VALUE

REVIEW OF ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL

TOURISM SERVICES

Tim Addison

Head of Tourism Services

April 2002
Index 2

Executive Summary 3

Improvement Plan A-Strategic TSR1 5

Value and Impact of Tourism TSR2 8

Current IoW Tourism Functions TSR3 9

Tourist Information Centres TSR4 11

Tourism Development Plan TSR5 13

B -Operational 15

C -Implementation 19

CHALLENGE 20

CONSULT 22

COMPARE 26

COMPETE 35

Appendix - All appendices have been collated as a separate document

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Isle of Wight Tourism’s team has embraced the principles of Best Value and are committed to properly challenging its services to ensure Tourism on the Isle of Wight is developed in line with residents’ needs, businesses are properly supported and that public investment is justified.

Isle of Wight Tourism is a brand that is shared by the Isle of Wight Council (Tourism Services Department) and the Island Tourist Industry Association to promote and develop the Island’s tourism industry. Approximately two thirds of IWT’s budget is generated from the private sector that ensures significant interaction between the Council and its partners. In addition, a review of the Authority’s current partnership arrangements (including the Tourism Partnership Limited see Appendix 8) has been undertaken by Angela Blowman, District Audit. That review will be included in the Appendix and this report should be considered in the context of its findings.

Therefore this review has been mainly directed towards improving the service’s understanding of strategic concerns which the industry may have and identifying realistic proposals in order to improve matters.

Throughout the review’s consultation, key stakeholders have been asked:

“What do you think about Isle of Wight Tourism’s services?”

“What should we stop doing and what could we do better?”

“Do you feel that proposed changes are in line with your expectations?”

“Is it likely that tourism services will improve as a consequence?”

It should also be noted that despite input from many hundreds of individuals and stakeholders, the key consultation review stages have not been well attended by senior officers and directors, and members of the Isle of Wight Council. This is particularly disappointing as the review has been undertaken over a 12 month period, during which the Isle of Wight Council structure and organisation has been subject to significant changes with decisions seemingly taken without reference to this review. The review was also conducted in parallel with the UK tourism crises precipitated by Foot & Mouth Disease and the terrorist attack on America.

In summary, this report concludes that stakeholders understand and appreciate the way IWT functions and that the Isle of Wight Council’s involvement in supporting the tourism industry is valued. It identifies a number of service improvements that have been categorised as either strategic or operational, together with a mechanism for them to be incorporated into IWC service planning. The majority can be achieved with little or no additional funding from the Council.

The priority for tourism services is improved strategic direction and effective policy development. Creating a sustainable tourism industry for the Isle of Wight rather than focussing internally on the management of IWT.

This report therefore concludes with a question:

“Would the Island benefit from developing and implementing a sustainable master plan for its tourism industry?”

If the answer to that question is “Yes”, a second question arises, “Should the Isle of Wight Council lead this process”? It would undoubtedly require leadership and a new strategic framework. A significant commitment of time and reorganisation of resources would be required in order to encompass the number and range of ways in which the tourism industry affects the lives of Island people, the economy and the environment.

If the answer is “No”, then the Isle of Wight Council may have to consider other ways to justify one of its current corporate objectives.

IMPROVEMENT PLAN

The Best Value consultation exercise has successfully identified several issues for consideration as part of the Review. These have been categorised in order to deliver an Improvement Plan that has been separated into strategic and operational recommendations:

A - STRATEGIC

1. FRAMEWORK FOR TOURISM (TSR1)

1.1 PROPOSED ACTION SUMMARY

Tourism services should consider changes to the way in which the service is currently delivered. Three options could be considered and are set out as follows:

i. Do nothing – Tourism Services continue to operate within the Finance and IT Directorate with existing partnership working relationship with the tourism industry via the Tourism Partnership Limited.

ii. Integrate relevant services within the Council – this would require a significant shift in current Council policy and practice and the creation of an entirely new Strategic Unit. The following is an illustration of services which could benefit from clear leadership within IWC and have strategic links, clearly others could also be considered (planning policy, countryside services etc, see Appendix 1):

	Isle of Wight Council New Strategic Leader

Isle of Wight Tourism

Wight Leisure

Economic Development

Community Development

Other services – beaches, property services, planning policy…?

iii. Move Service outside of the authority– Isle of Wight Tourism would clarify its role and responsibility and operate outside of the IWC via a service level agreement. This independent organisation is likely to be a not for profit private company operated in conjunction with the tourism industry.

There are clearly further models that could be considered should this option be explored. (See Appendix 2).

1.2 BACKGROUND

The Isle of Wight Council is currently formed into four ‘strategic’ directorates (see Appendix 3 & Appendix 4). Tourism was relocated to Executive Services in June 2001 and now sits within Finance & Information. This reorganisation placed Leisure Services (Wight Leisure), Beaches Parks & Gardens within Education & Community Development, which is also responsible for attractions (Dinosaur Island and Ventnor Botanic Gardens), which are directly managed by Education. Isle of Wight Council responsibility for Tourism has changed from being run via the directorate of Environment Services to Executive Services and presently to Finance & Information since 2000.

Stakeholders identified the lack of a coherent structure for Tourism and tourism-related services within the Council as a significant drawback. The relationship particularly between Tourism Services, Economic Development and Leisure is not well understood with a perceived lack of integration that inhibits delivery of service.

Visitor expenditure is currently reckoned to support around 50% of the Island’s private sector economy and 25% of GDP (see Appendix 5). Nationally, tourism has been one of the UK’s growth industries creating one in five of all new jobs since 1996. The Foot & Mouth Disease crisis during 2001 has significantly raised general understanding of tourism’s importance to the economy and social fabric, particularly in rural areas. The Government published its Tourism Strategy in 1998, which precipitated changes to the structure for tourism nationally and subsequently in order to achieve one of its strategic objectives “creating the right framework to get things done.”

1.3 EVIDENCE/CONSULTATION

Stakeholder Challenge Days Isle of Wight Tourism Team Development

Island Tourist Industry Association Wight Leisure Best Value Review

Transport Best Value Review Economic Development Best Value Review

Beaches Best Value Review DCMS Tourism Strategy “Tomorrow’s Tourism”

Regional Tourism Strategy IW Partnership Regeneration Strategy

1.4 RECOMMENDATION

A strategic review is undertaken by an IWC Select Committee in consultation with the tourism industry to recommend a new Isle of Wight Council structure in line with stakeholders’ requirements.

1.5 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

None.

2. VALUE AND IMPACT OF TOURISM (TSR2)

2.1 PROPOSED ACTION SUMMARY

Stakeholders have underlined the importance of accurate information on the value and impact of tourism on the Island’s economy and to develop ways to measure its effect on the Island’s community and environment.

2.2 BACKGROUND

Isle of Wight Tourism, whilst producing much useful research information is not able to undertake a macro economic analysis for the Isle of Wight (e.g. The value of the Isle of Wight’s economy, analysis on employment sectors, etc). It is also unable to place this information into proper context with other factors affecting the Island. There are a number of organisations that could benefit from accurate and timely intelligence both within and outside the public sector. It is also likely that considerable efficiencies could be gained by rationalising the provision of such Island information.

2.3 EVIDENCE/CONSULTATION

Stakeholder groups DCMS Tourism Strategy “Tomorrow’s Tourism”

Isle of Wight Tourism Strategy Isle of Wight Council Policy and Practice

2.4 RECOMMENDATION

Consideration should be given to establishing a central intelligence unit within the authority that can undertake consistent, accurate and timely market research as the basis for improved planning. This would have Island-wide benefits and would enable Isle of Wight Tourism to concentrate upon specific market research issues that add detail and clarity.

2.5 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

No costs should be incurred by the review. Proposed changes ought to identify more efficient use of current resources.

3. CURRENT ISLE OF WIGHT TOURISM FUNCTIONS (TSR3)

3.1 PROPOSED ACTION SUMMARY

Current Isle of Wight Tourism functions could be extended in a number of ways:

· Isle of Wight Tourism could create new posts to deal with policy & strategy and sustainable tourism.

· Other agency departments could develop initiatives to improve integration of tourism issues into Island policy and strategy and for developing sustainable tourism.

· Isle of Wight Tourism could commission existing specialist agencies to develop sustainable tourism initiatives on its behalf.

3.2 BACKGROUND

The Review has shown how tourism affects a range of departments within the authority as well as functions undertaken elsewhere. Quality input is required from the tourism sector to add to a range of strategic plans as diverse as Transport, Social Inclusion, Environmental Sustainability and Access to Cultural Services.

Stakeholders have broadly supported existing products and services provided by Isle of Wight Tourism subject to the proposals put forward as part of this Review (see Appendix 6).

Recommendations have been received for additional functions which Isle of Wight Tourism should consider undertaking:

i. Policy and Strategy – to ensure consistent response for strategic planning input and development of policy on the Isle of Wight.

ii. Sustainable Tourism Development – growing understanding of the impact of tourism development on the communities and the environment highlight the need to develop and implement responsible development programmes for tourism (Appendix 22).

3.3 EVIDENCE/CONSULTATION

Stakeholder Challenge Days

Countryside Agency Strategy

Regeneration Economic Development Strategy

Agenda 21

IWC corporate objectives

3.4 RECOMMENDATION

i. Policy and Strategy – funding is identified to support a resource within Isle of Wight Tourism to undertake policy development and to consult on strategic plans affected by Tourism.

ii. Sustainable Tourism – funding is identified to secure a dedicated resource to establish a service level agreement with Island 2000 Trust which has successfully undertaken pilot work on sustainable tourism. Marrying Island 2000 expertise on environmental matters with Isle of Wight Tourism’s ability to engage the private sector would deliver sustainable tourism objectives as set out by the Island’s Green Grading Scheme.

3.5 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The cost of providing both services would be approximately £65,000.

4. TOURIST INFORMATION CENTRES (TSR4)

4.1 PROPOSED ACTION SUMMARY

Develop and implement a 3-year plan for managing Tourist Information Centres that would:

· Undertake to carry out a full refurbishment of the network.

· Ensure Information Technology is in line with current visitor expectations.

· Justify TIC locations and put forward proposals for improvement.

· Restructure the management of TICs to improve service delivery.

· Evaluate the costs and benefits of opening the TIC network throughout the year.

The development of a mobile tourist information centre should be investigated to enable tourism services to be represented at Island events such as Cowes Week, County Show, Garlic Festival, as well as being available for promoting the Isle of Wight at mainland events such as New Forest Show, Southampton Boat Show, Royal Show, etc. It could also be designed to add value to the Isle of Wight Council programme of consultation

4.2 BACKGROUND

Isle of Wight Tourism operates 7 Tourist Information Centres across the Island. These are located in Newport, Ryde, Sandown, Shanklin, Ventnor, Cowes and Yarmouth. 14 full time staff are employed with a further 6 full time equivalent temporary staff during peak periods.

The service deals with 500,000 face-to-face enquiries per annum that include 4,000 accommodation bookings. In addition, cost of operation is offset by retail sales of approximately £500,000 per annum.

In addition to basic functions, the tourist information centres also represent the visible face of Isle of Wight Tourism and in many ways represents the Island’s tourist industry. Stakeholders feel that presentation of TICs is currently sub-standard and it is strongly felt that all Centres should be opened throughout the year in order to lead the process of overcoming seasonality.

TICs do not benefit from modern information technology, although it was noted that a project was ongoing, aimed to improve this situation. Since operating the TIC within Newport Guildhall, it has been noted that there is a clear link between an improved retail environment and increased revenue.

Strong views were also held over representation of tourism services at major Island events.

4.3 EVIDENCE AND CONSULTATION

Stakeholders Challenge Days

Isle of Wight Tourism team development

ITIA

Tourism Partnership Limited

TIC Visitor Survey

4.4 RECOMMENDATION

That all options put forward under Action Required are implemented with costed proposals forwarded to the Isle of Wight Council Executive for decision.

4.5 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Refurbishment of TIC network £90,000 (capital)

Provision of Mobile TIC £45,000 (capital with ongoing revenue from hire charges)

Investment in management structure to cover

Costs of re-evaluating new positions and opening

TICs throughout the year £56,000 (one off in first year with reduced ongoing revenue)

5. TOURISM DEVELOPMENT PLAN (TSR5)

5.1 ACTION PROPOSED SUMMARY

A plan should be produced which sets clear policies and objectives for the tourism industry over the next ten year whilst demonstrating clear linkages to other strategic planning both on the Island and at a regional level. Most importantly this includes Island Futures the community plan for the Isle of Wight. This should include a review of Isle of Wight branding which could be shared across tourism, inward investment and other IWC services, for improved island identity.

5.2 BACKGROUND

Given the impact of tourism on the island’s economy, social fabric and environment there is clearly a need to map out how this industry should be developed over the next ten to fifteen years. This development plan should be owned by the tourism industry and the Isle of Wight Council and seek to assist in the delivery of sustainable policy which meets the needs of the Island and its people. (Government views on future tourists Appendix 23).

5.3 EVIDENCE AND CONSULTATION

Stakeholders Challenge Days Island Future consultation Isle of Wight Tourism team development

MORI polls ITIA Tourism Partnership Limited

5.4 RECOMMENDATIONS

A group should be formed to lead the development of the process under the direction of the Tourism Partnership Limited (This initiative started in October 2001 see Appendix 7).

5.5 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

During the first year it was agreed to retain Peter Moore OBE to chair the lead group and a budget of £20,000 was created from within existing marketing budgets to facilitate this.

B - OPERATIONAL

Ref	Recommendation	Timescale	Financial	Responsible
TOR1 TOR2 TOR3 TOR4 TOR5	Isle of Wight Branding – redefine IW brand for next two years. Building on three years brand consolidation. Looking forward to TDP proposals for following ten years. Lifestyle Event marketing – review success of 3 year walking, cycling, sailing programme with recommendations for 2003. ICT – identify opportunities to improve IWT ICT integration with IWC, Agree draft service level agreement. Market Intelligence – expand on proposals already identified by Tourism Development Plan Lead Group to gain a more detailed understanding of current and future market sectors. On-Line Marketing – review progress of Islandbreaks.co.uk and develop recommendations in conjunction with industry stakeholders	By June 2002 By October 2002 By December 2003 By September 2002 By October 2002	£5000 Within IWT existing budget Nil Nil TBC Nil	IWT IWT IWT IWC ICT Dept IWT IWT & IW Marketing Strategy Group
TOR6 TOR7 TOR8 TOR9 TOR10 TOR11 TOR12 TOR13 TOR14 TOR15 TOR16 TOR17	Marketing of Attractions – undertake consultation with Island attractions to improve coordination of marketing products and services. Overseas Marketing – develop proposed objectives for overseas marketing for consultation with industry. Review working partnership with BTA and Regional Tourist Board proposals to include identification of target markets abroad, product development and people skills required to deliver. Distribution Review – an annual review process to be implemented in order to ensure alternative delivery mechanisms are evaluated, including use of ICT and storage arrangements. Island Tourism – develop and implement a programme for improving the understanding and appreciation of the impact of tourism amongst Island residents, promoting access to facilities and Green Tourism initiatives Customer Satisfaction – introduce an improved structure for undertaking customer satisfaction surveys utilising IWT Call Centre as a potential resource Internal Communications – improve inter-department communication and links with key outside agencies. Certain changes have already been undertaken but will require the development of performance indicators and regular monitoring to measure effectiveness. Training – Team development plans to be incorporated in all new department business plans with the introduction of an annual Training Strategy document. Regional Tourism – continue to monitor and consult over proposed changes to the organisation of regional tourism, ensuring Island business stakeholders are informed and involved. Quality Standards – IWT to continue discussions with main accommodation inspection agencies, seek improvements over self-catering accommodation and monitor introduction of national grading for attractions. Planning Policy – seek to establish regular meetings with Planning Policy and Development Control to ensure consistent advice on issues relating to Tourism & Leisure development. Emergency Planning – following impact of FMD and American terrorist attacks, it is important for IWT to develop agreed plans on dealing with future major incidents that affect tourism. Develop and agree an Emergency Planning Document. National Benchmarking – continue to monitor IW PIs	By May 2002 By March 2003 November 2002 By March 2003 November 2002 IWT Summit October 2002 May 2002 Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing December 2002 Ongoing	Nil Review - Nil. Proposals - tbc Nil TBC Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil	IWT IWT & Marketing Strategy Group IWT IWT IWT IWT IWT IWT IWT IWT/IWC Planning Department IWT/IWC Emergency Planning/ITIA IWT/Select Committee

C - Implementation of Improvement Plans

Strategic

If approved, it is proposed that each of the 5 Strategic recommendations is incorporated into forward work programmes for the Economic Development, Tourism & Leisure Services Select Committee. (Priority to be agreed). Specific recommendations can then be adopted and forwarded to the IWC Executive for approval in due course.

Operational

IWT will seek to adopt all operational recommendations into its annual Business Plan in line with timescales proposed, subject to any amendments.

IWT Business Plan

Other suggestions and improvements not covered above and particularly those coming from IWT Team consultation have been incorporated directly into the current Business Plan for 2002/2003 (see Appendix 14).

CHALLENGE

Isle of Wight Tourism is a brand name that is shared between the Isle of Wight Council’s Tourism Services Department and the Island Tourist Industry Association (ITIA) (see Appendix 8). The Tourism Partnership Limited, a board of directors equally representing the members of the Isle of Wight Council and representatives of ITIA, as well as the Economic Development, Planning, Tourism & Leisure Services Select Committee, currently oversees this partnership.

Whilst there may be many aspects of this partnership which add value and are appreciated by stakeholders, almost without exception persons in organisations consulted as a part of this review agree that the current arrangements can be somewhat confusing and offer a real opportunity for improvement. Tourism as an industry in the UK has been stereotyped as very fragmented and consisting of mainly small and micro businesses. In addition, it has a reputation of being out of pace with current and future visitor expectations that is often to be down to an absence of coherent strategy, effective organisation and a seeming inability to respond to change quickly.

In addition, issues such as improved quality standards, provision of training and image of the industry need to be understood. Isle of Wight Tourism has taken the view that these are well understood at a national and regional level and therefore its Best Value Review has not sought to duplicate work already completed, but rather to seek an improved situation that works for the Isle of Wight. Currently, tourism represents almost 50 per cent of the Island’s private sector economy. More than two-thirds of Isle of Wight Tourism’s current budgets are made up of private sector investment. This ensures a high level of interaction with industry stakeholders but does not necessarily mean that the services currently provided are in line with stakeholders’ requirements and might simply be the only option available.

The centrepiece of Isle of Wight Tourism’s programme of Challenge was a specially convened event held 03 July 2001. It sought to ask stakeholders the following key questions:

1. What did stakeholders feel that Isle of Wight Tourism currently “did well”?
2. In what areas could Isle of Wight Tourism improve its services in the future?

The results of this event are recorded in Appendix 6 with the majority of concerns addressed within the Improvement Plan.

The Isle of Wight is a member of the Southern Tourist Board. This is one of a number of regional tourist boards that cover England and currently works alongside the South East England Development Agency (SEEDA), Government Office South East (GOSE) and others. During Isle of Wight Tourism’s Best Value Review the organisation of tourism at a regional level has been the subject of a strategic review for the South East involving SEEDA, STB and South East England Tourist Board. Whilst Isle of Wight Tourism sought the views of the STB (Appendix 9) it should be noted that the results of this consultation have yet to be published which will have a significant effect on how Tourism Services on the Isle of Wight need to be developed in order to work effectively within the new regional framework.

Members of Isle of Wight Tourism’s own team undertook the last main vehicle for Challenging Isle of Wight Tourism’s services. A special “Tourism Summit” was organised on 09 October 2001. The main objective of the event was to thoroughly challenge Isle of Wight Tourism’s own corporate objectives to ensure that they are understood, reflect our perceived requirements of the tourism industry and can be related to the work currently undertaken by the service (Appendix 10). This added to previous attitude surveys conducted with the team (Appendix 20).

Finally, Isle of Wight Tourism conducts a raft of ongoing consultation (see page 22) with the tourism industry and other stakeholders to ensure that commercial projects are delivering business benefits whilst improving the visitor experience. Each significant initiative undertaken by Isle of Wight Tourism is regularly challenged via an annual review that is undertaken in consultation with the ITIA Executive.

CONSULT

Isle of Wight Tourism has categorised its stakeholders into 3 main groups:

1. Key Stakeholders (SH)
2. Island Residents (R)
3. Visitors to the Isle of Wight (V)

The consultation can also be identified as ongoing (ie 2xper annum) or in some instances commissioned specific to achieve a consultation objective (objective specific/OS) , or in order to meet requirements of the Best Value Review Process (BV).

The following table identifies consultation initiatives together with the primary stakeholder group, a short description, main objectives and frequency of the consultation.

CONSULTATION	TARGET GROUP AUDIENCE	DESCRIPTION / OBJECTIVES	FREQUENCY
Stakeholder Challenge Days	SH	Open meetings designed specifically to explain current Isle of Wight Tourism services and to encourage these to be challenged as part of the Best Value process. Objectives: i. To explain the current services ii. To identify key issues iii. Direct the process of challenging IWT’s service	BV/Objective specific
Isle of Wight Tourism Team Development – Corporate Objectives	SH	Full IWT team meetings aimed to achieve the highest possible understanding and engagement with the BV process. Specifically to challenge our own mission and corporate objectives (Appendix 13) & understand product dynamics (Appendix 21).	4 per annum
Full Members Meetings	SH	IWT works in partnership with around 850 Island businesses. These regular events are designed to review tourism industry performance, present future marketing plans and encourage public debate on tourism issues and IWT services.	2 per annum
IW Tourism News	SH/R	Regularly updates to all business members with second additional distribution to all key stakeholders including members of IWC, Island opinion formers, influencers and organisations.	4 per annum
Island Tourist Industry Association (ITIA) -Publications Consultations -Monthly meetings	SH	Monthly meetings – ITIA is an independent group representing the Island’s tourism business sector. Representatives of IWC and Tourism Services meet on a monthly basis together with the executive of ITIA, which comprises representatives from all main tourism sub-sectors (serviced accommodation, visitor attractions, transport, etc)	12 per annum
Visitor Surveys · TIC Survey · Destination Benchmarking · Proposed Cultural Survey · Conversion Survey (Call Centre)	V	Various market research service undertaken to establish views and opinions of Island’s tourist industry and IWT services.	BV BV BV OS
Quarterly Monitors	V/SH	Comprehensive visitor market research designed to inform key stakeholders of tourism industry performance. Includes 22,000 face-to-face surveys, business sector statistical returns and actual cross-Solent visitor traffic.	4 per annum
Proposed Business Briefing	SH	New initiatives aimed to disseminate tourism industry statistical information and significant issues, to Banks, Insurance Companies, Solicitors, Accountants, and Building Societies etc. This is designed to improve service industry understanding of tourism issues for the benefit of tourism businesses.	One
Select Committee (Service Planning)	SH	To develop policy and scrutinise service on behalf of Isle of Wight Council	12 per annum
Marketing · Target Market Segmentation · Omnibus Surveys	SH	To measure performance and effectiveness of Isle of Wight Tourism marketing initiatives. Measure propensity to visit the IW and efficacy of marketing campaigns	2 per annum
Citizens Panel	R	IW council consultation initiative to monitor views and opinions of residents
Mori Polls	R	As above (See Appendix 18)
Tourism Partnership	SH	Company limited by Guarantee comprising 12 directors, six nominated by IW Council and six by ITIA. The partnership overseas policy and strategy for Tourism Services	6 per annum
Best Value Appraisal Group	SH	To ensure the Best Value process is formally reviewed at key stages. Emphasis on compatibility with IW Council Mission and Strategic Objectives.	BV
Sustainable Tourism Forum	SH/R	To create a link between Agenda 21 and the development of realistic Sustainable Tourism initiatives	4 per annum

The Island Tourist Industry Association represents an important stakeholder group and has been quite pro-active in responding to this review process. IWT has presented the five main strategic improvements prior to the completion of the report (see Appendix 15) and dialogue to the Council from ITIA has been noted (Appendix 16).

COMPARE

The National Tourism Best Value Group was set up almost 4 years ago with the object of establishing a self-help group for tourism professionals preparing for Best Value. The group is managed by a management group comprising representatives from ETC, LGA, ILAM, the Tourism Society and category heads from 15 county, city, rural and coastal sub groups including the Isle of Wight who are members of County Group2.

British Resorts Association

The British Resorts Association managed the collection and dissemination of data for the benchmarking baseline information collected in the year 2000.

The Isle of Wight as part of the “County 2” group of similar authorities attended a meeting last year to discuss the six proposed national PI and local PI.

This meeting was very useful as it showed the differences between the “Tourism” remit of different LAs as the following table shows:-

Authority	Resources/Organisation	Activity
Isle of Wight	42 Full Time Equivalent Tourism through partnership - IW Tourism	IW Tourism a marketing operation for Isle of Wight Marketing – Accommodation Brochure, campaign design. Public Relations & Promotion – Press & Media PR, Exhibitions Call Centre – Information and Bookings, Distribution of Brochures. Sales – Membership, Brochure Production. TIC – provide information support to tourists
Northumberland	0.5 Full Time Equivalent Tourism part of Communications which is responsible for marketing and promotion of County Council	Regional Tourist Board funded at £33,000 pa via SLA. Economic development makes contributions towards partnership tourism projects and EU funded projects. Districts responsible for TIC and research. Overseas marketing through the England North Country consortium.
North Yorkshire	0.5 Full Time Equivalent Tourism part of Economic Development	Marketing of Yorkshire brand contracted to Regional Tourist Board for £63,000. Districts are marketing actively, some combination as sub-regions. Regional Tourist Board developing European bids. North Yorkshire encourages future development partnerships using EU funding.
Norfolk	1 Full Time Equivalent +% of Economic Development Manager Tourism part of Economic Development	All activity channelled through “Shaping the Future” economic development partnership which involves broad base of organisations and businesses. Partnership contains a countywide tourism group a public/private partnership for locally delivered initiatives and a countywide approach. Sub groups include marketing, research, strategy, communications, training and business development. Funding of 4 staff by % added on to advertising rates via district guides. Council tourism budget in excess of £100,000 supports management/organisation and product development, eg: Cycleway. Public relations via an agency contract for £20,000. Council subs Regional Tourist Board £25,000 pa along with six other counties on the basis of level of tourism.
Devon	4 Full Time Equivalent Tourism part of Economic Development and European Function	EU dimension important as approximately 50% of Devon will benefit from new Objective 2. Main objective to work towards a more prosperous Devon – jobs and economy Majority of marketing through partnerships – overseas with Cornwall, all district/unitaries in both counties. Devon moved to enabler rather than “hands on” marketing. Market intelligence support vital a £20,000 budget with 50% going Regional Tourist Board for regional research programme. PR very important for role for county £25,000 agency contract. Provide advice and business support for investors, signposting to districts. Provide call-centre tourist information service, via tendered contract, operates three touch screens, self-help kiosk on major routes into Devon in lieu of TIC operation. No print produced – avoidance of duplication in key activities, develop opportunities for private sector to promote themselves - via holiday line and increasingly web site development.

The comparisons showed the wide variations of resources and organisation structures that existed within the group. IW Tourism is uniquely organised as a partnership of the local authority and business involved in the direct marketing and support of the tourism product. Counties functions are more of an overview of strategic and economic development of Tourism, with far fewer and differently skilled staff. Districts, Unitaries and Town Councils within these counties provide most of the comparable Marketing and TIC support carried out by IW Tourism, but their costs and activities do not appear within the group’s benchmarking data

Comparisons are therefore difficult on a County-by-County basis, as we are not comparing like with like.

Southern Tourist Board

On April 1^st 2001 Southern Tourist Board were contracted by the National Tourism Best Value Group to take over the management function from the British Resorts Association. Since that time a recruitment drive has resulted in a total of 160 local authorities taking part in the project, or 42% of all local authorities in England and Wales.

A further promotion will take place shortly with a target of 50%, to ensure that all participating local authorities have the best possible chance to benchmark themselves against suitable comparable destinations.

Benchmarking Results

Information from Isle of Wight Tourism was input to the Southern Tourist Board, which produced a report on its findings in October 2001.

In our view the results continue to be misleading for a Best Value Review because of the differing functions between the Counties and the Isle of Wight. As an example, the following table shows the Overall Council Net Spend on Tourism per Visitor in County Group 2.

Local Authority	Overall Council Spend on Tourism per Visitor – pence per visitor
Isle of Wight	41
Bedfordshire	0.3
Cambridgeshire	0.2
Durham	9
Essex	1
Hampshire	1
Leicestershire	1
Norfolk	1
Nottinghamshire	2
Surrey	1
West Sussex	1
Average for Group	2

This table gives the impression that the Isle of Wight is spending 20 times the average for the group on Tourism, which indicates something is wrong. However, as stated earlier this is because of incomplete information for the counties. To make them comparable all costs of marketing, promotion, and TIC within a county, which are shared between districts, unitaries and town councils would need to be added. Then a meaningful comparison could be made on a like for like basis. In the foreseeable future, this is unlikely to change because other counties although similarly concerned see some of their major activities as similar.

There are other areas of concern over visitor numbers. These are compiled on different basis such as sample surveys, or recognised models such as Cambridge and Steam by each member of the group. Three of the counties figures on visitors suggest that between half and all the UK population visit them annually. The inclusion of TIC information by just two members, because of organisation responsibility does not assist benchmarking.

To benefit from benchmarking exercises such as this we need to be in a group of authorities with similar characteristics.

The main benefit to date of benchmarking has been the sharing of “best practice” at group meetings, whereas raw data sharing has had limited value as yet, however it is acknowledged it is a relatively early time for the benchmarking process.

We have a benchmarking study based on the report compiled by Southern Tourist Board and we have included the results in Appendix 11.

An area for improvement we have identified from this study is the need for Isle of Wight Tourism to provide more complete set of information to the National Tourism Best Value Group. There needs to be an investigation into how to provide consistent information for the Isle of Wight on the following Performance Indicators on a regular basis:-

Performance Indicator	Missing Information/Possible Source	Estimated Value for 2000
Visitor Expenditure/Council Net Spend	Total Annual Visitor Expenditure, can be obtained from Anne Hahlo survey	£301,000,000
Day Visitor Expenditure	Total Annual Day Visitor Expenditure, can be obtained from Anne Hahlo survey	£36,800,000
Overnight Visitor Expenditure	Total Annual Overnight Visitor Expenditure, can be obtained from Anne Hahlo survey	£264,000,000
Direct Tourism Related Jobs	Direct Tourism Related Jobs, could be obtained from survey of members, or could be estimated by Cambridge or Steam Models	11,600 from Govt statistics of Distribution, Hotel & Restaurants employment
Indirect Tourism Related Jobs	Indirect Tourism Related Jobs, could be estimated by Cambridge or Steam Models	3,500 estimated from 30% of direct tourism related jobs

Isle of Wight Tourism and Future Benchmarking

We have carried out a study using the Institute of Public Finance Information Service to determine nearest neighbour selection based on population and its density, unemployment, visitors, shops and restaurants for Unitary Authorities. The following table shows the top 10 Unitaries for comparison purposes:-

Position	Neighbour Authorities
1	Torbay
2	Bournemouth
3	Poole
4	North Somerset
5	Herefordshire
6	Southend-on- Sea
7	Bath & NE Somerset
8	Blackpool
9	York
10	North East Lincolnshire

Looking at the current group membership of the National Tourism Best Value Group and attempting a best fit, we believe it is possible that Isle of Wight Tourism could benefit by moving from County Group 2 to Coastal Group 4 which currently comprises.

Coastal Group 4 Membership

North East Lincolnshire

North Somerset

Eastbourne

Restormel

Hastings

Southend-on-Sea

East Lindsey

East Riding of Yorkshire

North Devon

Sefton

A further possibility is the formation of an Island Group consisting of Jersey, Guernsey, Isle of Man, Isle of Scilly and Isle of Wight.

A further option is to investigate the feasibility of benchmarking the functions of Isle of Wight Tourism with other local authorities on a like for like basis including:-

Marketing & Sales

TIC

Press and PR

Call & Distribution Centre

We recommend that discussions take place with Southern Tourist Board who manage the groups, the Islands interested in a potential group, and the group members of Coastal Group 4, to test the feasibility of these options and the best way forward which would benefit both Isle of Wight Tourism and Benchmarking. See also Appendix 12 which shows comparable features of Tourism on the Isle of Wight.

Compete

Tourism does not have a range of national performance indicators. The Isle of Wight Council introduced local Best Value Performance indicators in 2001, these been measured for two years as follows:

DIRECTORATE OF FINANCE & INFORMATION
LOCAL BEST VALUE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS	1999/00	2000/01	2001/02			2002/03	2003/04	2004/05
	Actual	Actual	Target	Estimate	Actual	Target	Target	Target

LBV FIN

T 2

Isle of Wight Tourism membership

820

835

860

840

860

890

900

LBV FIN

T 3

Full membership meetings per annum

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

LBV FIN

T 4

Publish ‘Tourism News’ per annum

4

4

6

4

4

4

4

LBV FIN

T 5

Tourist Information Centres

7

7

8

7

8

8

8

LBV FIN

T 6

Visits to Tourist Information Centres per annum

455,000

450,000

470,000

500,000

500,000

500,000

500,000

Before it is possible to properly look at changing service delivery within individual IWT departments, it is essential to develop effective ways to measure performance. These indicators of performance should go beyond simply looking at cost and seek to understand how stakeholder’s needs are being served. Clearly current IWT services could be delivered in a number of ways, for example:

Public Relations – Potential Delivery mechanisms

i. Unchanged – as an internal IWT department

ii. Negotiate tourism work to be delivered by IWC Corporate Communications

iii. Retain a private sector PR agency

iv. Combination approach (ie Agency retained for proactive campaigns and internal to deal with day-to-day media)

As part of national tourism services benchmarking, a range of new performance indicators are emerging that can be adopted as appropriate. In additional Isle of Wight Tourism has started the process of developing departmental performance indicators that have been detailed in Appendix 19.

All indicators have been proposed by the department head and will be measured over the next financial year 2002-2003 whilst continuing to consult with stakeholders to ensure they are relevant and convey useful information about how well or otherwise the service is meeting targets. Members of the IWC will have a particularly important role to play in adopting local performance indicators via the select committee (see section TSR 1.4 above).

These local performance indicators will be refined and included in all IWT’s Business Plan as from 1^st April 2002 (see Appendix 14).

Where aspects of Isle of Wight Tourism are clearly shown not to be performing in line with local or national expectations alternative methods of delivering the service can be considered.