Thai hoteliers and government officials would do well to follow the example set by their counterparts in Hong Kong, which faced back-to-back crises that threatened the nation's tourism business. In contrast to Thailand's delayed focus on regional travelers after the tsunami disaster, Hong Kong quickly targeted long-haul travelers. While Thailand put together packages that seemed good but did not meet travelers' needs, Hong Kong's officials carefully researched travelers' responses to travel concerns after 9/11 and the SARS epidemic. The result is that Hong Kong's travel rebounded rapidly after those challenges, while Thailand tourism has struggled.

Hong Kong's response to the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic contrasts to the response of Thai hoteliers and officials to the deadly December 2004 tsunami. Whereas Hong Kong took assertive actions to offset the negative effects of the SARS publicity, efforts in Thailand have been minimal, at best. As explained in this commentary, Hong Kong targeted long-haul travelers, rather than regional markets, and conducted research studies to determine how to win back those travelers' business. Thai officials, by contrast, have offered promotions that lack a research basis.

Keywords: Asian tsunami; Hong Kong; severe acute respiratory syndrome; SARS

**********

Dr. Bongkosh Ngamsom Rittichainuwat has prepared an enlightening, informative, and useful article summarizing her research findings on the impact of the December 26, 2004, tsunami that devastated Phuket and other Andaman coastal areas of Thailand. It is obvious from the description of her research methods and the number of people interviewed that the project was well thought out, objective in procedures, and useful to tourism officials in Thailand and elsewhere. Her descriptions of the current state of disaster recovery in various areas are especially revealing. The body of information included is much needed to help travel providers recover after disasters. When more articles of this type accumulate, it will provide a reference for those who face similar situations in the future.

As I read the article, I had a strong sense of deja vu related to research that I have conducted for the Hong Kong Tourism Board (HKTB) since 1997 (formerly the Hong Kong Tourism Association). Hong Kong has faced a series of crises in that time. The first shock was the handover from the British to the Chinese on July 1, 1997, after which tourism dropped dramatically because travelers assumed that Hong Kong had lost its panache and charm. They thought it would no longer be the distinctive place where East meets West, but instead just another drab communist outpost. Hong Kong used applied research to escape that fate. A worldwide project that I directed resulted in a new positioning strategy that emphasized the destination's dynamic energy ("Hong Kong: City of Life"). Having survived the handover, Hong Kong faced a sequence of problems in the ensuing years, including the worldwide recession that began in mid-1997, multiple outbreaks of bird flu (1997-1998, 2001, 2002, 2003), the drop in air travel after the September 11, 2001, attacks, the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome [SARS] outbreak, and the start of the Iraq War in March 2003 that again rattled travel markets.

Hong Kong also experienced a downturn in tourism following the Andaman Coast tsunami disaster, because travelers were confused about how broad an area was devastated and whether more tsunamis might follow. The most severe tourism problem, however, was the SARS outbreak. Similar to what Dr. Rittichainuwat reports, tourism arrivals to Hong Kong dropped by 70 percent at that time, and many hotels operated at 10 percent occupancy. Some hoteliers faced bankruptcy when they could not meet debt payments. Worse, airlines cancelled flights to Hong Kong when load factors dropped to nearly 30 percent. The future looked bleak and for an unknown period of time. As Dr. Rittichainuwat noted with the tsunami, a media frenzy fueled concerns about the safety of travel to Hong Kong. To be fair, Hong Kong did not face certain problems that persisted in Thailand, however. For instance, Hong Kong did not face the concern about the ghosts of the deceased.

Though the severity of difficulties and the impact on local economies seem similar between the two destinations, the outcomes are not. I believe that the difference is the differential approaches to managing tourism crises. Hong Kong has been proactive in facing its series of crises, using research to understand each problem and to learn about potential coping strategies. This philosophy is summarized in the article I wrote for the November 2005 Cornell Quarterly. (1) In the case of Thailand, in contrast, it seems that the government has been shortsighted. Not only did Thailand not install a tsunami early-warning system even though this had been recommended for years, it was not prepared to handle a disaster of this magnitude, as is evident in Dr. Rittichainuwat's article. Though costs for good research studies are insignificant in the overall scheme of things, the government and the Thai Hotel Association (THA) seem unwilling to undertake tourism studies. Dr. Rittichainuwat apparently received some funding from Siam University but had to rely on unpaid assistance from a variety of people, particularly student volunteers, to complete her project. What a pity she did not have more resources at her disposal, and especially that she was not called upon before decisions were made about how to promote the Andaman Coast and which kinds of travel packages should be offered. The outcome for tourism might have been different.

Like Thailand, Hong Kong also promoted deeply discounted travel packages in managing the SARS crisis, but Thailand's marketing strategy focused on nearby Asian markets while Hong Kong targeted longer-haul travelers. Compared to the regional travelers, the long-haul group stays longer, uses upscale hotels, spends more during their visits, and, most important, is more venturesome and willing to accept some risks when they travel. To know when to start a new promotion campaign and what kind it should be, the HKTB commissioned a U.S. study I directed that addressed the following fundamental questions:

* How many persons delayed or cancelled trips because of concerns about SARS?

* How long would it be before they would consider a trip to Hong Kong?

* What evidence would convince them that it was now safe to visit the city-state?

* What types of packages and offers would attract some travelers to travel to Hong Kong earlier than they had planned?

We interviewed visitors to Hong Kong's North American Web site, since we believed that these persons would be more likely to visit Hong Kong at an earlier date than a general sample of international travelers. The two waves of interviews were separated in time by only two and a half weeks because of the urgent need of hoteliers and other travel providers to determine how soon they could begin to expect improvement. Only a small portion of the data will be presented here to indicate how research can help in developing strategies and in timing those strategies. In the first wave, 22 percent cancelled planned international leisure trips to Hong Kong because of a concern about SARS. That number rose to 31 percent in the second wave. Other possible concerns (e.g., Iraq War, terrorism, soft economy) were far below SARS as a concern. Though answers to these two questions suggested continuing difficulties for the destination, the results were tempered by changes between the two waves of data collection, even though they were separated by only seventeen days. Before they would consider returning to Hong Kong, respondents wanted official, independent verification that SARS was under control (as stated by 54 percent in the first wave and 59 percent in the second wave). Exhibit 1 points out how soon travelers might consider visiting the area again after the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) officially stated that the SARS epidemic had been controlled. Note that in the first wave, only 4 percent would consider taking that trip within thirty days. That figure increased to 19 percent by the second wave. The results are also dramatic in looking at a sixty-day horizon for the trip (i.e., just 7 percent for the first wave but 34 percent in the second). These data indicate that the market was quickly turning in a positive direction.

Even greater hope is evident in looking at responses to another question. Three deeply discounted travel packages were described to respondents that included round-trip air and up to four nights at three- and four-star hotels. Respondents were asked their degree of interest in each package. After making a choice, the travelers were then asked about the likelihood they would purchase the package if their choice was available. Exhibit 2 presents those results.

Changes in attitude between the two waves are dramatic and demonstrate how quickly the mindset of travelers can change. More than twice as many participants indicate an interest in purchase by the time of the second wave. Clearly, deep-discounted packages can motivate travelers to take trips they might not have been considering, even within a short period of time after a major tourism crisis. Hong Kong implemented the results suggested in the research with great success. Within two weeks, airline load factors and hotel occupancy increased and, over the course of three months, it was possible to phase out money-losing packages.

Conclusions

Although important differences exist between Thailand's tsunami disaster and the SARS epidemic faced by Hong Kong, the similarities and lessons learned should not be overlooked. The following conclusions grow out of experiences of working with numerous destinations facing crises during nearly forty years of conducting travel research and consulting with destinations.

1. During the time that sensational news headlines continue to occur, no program designed to increase tourism is likely to have much effect. Therefore, a rush to get a special offer into the marketplace would likely fail. The waiting game for press coverage to decline may be two to eight weeks, depending upon the type of difficulty encountered. Fortunately, memories about disasters in the minds of travelers last only a third as long as when I first began conducting tourism studies. During this down period, hoteliers and other travel providers must develop strategies to survive what will be a severe revenue shortfall. Research should be conducted (1) to learn how travelers have reacted to the situation, (2) to determine which specific areas of a destination they probably would consider returning to first, (3) to estimate when they might consider returning, and (4) to assess what promotional packages would be most effective in stimulating travel. More than one promotional package or offer should be tested. Dr. Rittichainuwat agrees, stating that research is an essential foundation to help the tourism industry learn how to cope with disasters of this type.

2. A critical element to begin the process of rebuilding tourism is a credible, independent information source that will confirm when the area is safe for visitors to return, or that it has adequately recovered from its problems. No promotional program will achieve much success until good, believable information has been widely distributed. As mentioned, Hong Kong waited until the WHO and CDC issued reports that SARS had been effectively contained. Statements from international tourism organizations, such as Pacific Asia Travel Association (PATA) and the World Tourism Organization (WTO) could also serve as credible sources for Thailand. As mentioned in the article, the THA at least had the insight to put together a road show and get its message to travel suppliers and the public about the area's rapid recovery.

3. The article also points out that the program developed to stimulate tourism focused on nearby Asian markets. In so doing, the THA probably targeted the wrong market on the assumption that short-haul travelers would respond sooner to promotional messages than those coming long distances from other countries. Surprisingly, the opposite often is true. After the July 7, 2005, terrorist bombings in London, local hoteliers reported that bookings from nearby residents dropped considerably but there were few cancellations or falloff in arrivals by international tourists. The greater sophistication of long-haul travelers means that they are better informed about world events and do a better job of determining when it is appropriate for them to return.

4. THA also probably made a poor choice in labeling the discounted travel offer, the "fun package." Fun at a destination that has just seen a major disaster may sound the wrong note, especially because of a concern among Asians about the presence of ghosts of people whose bodies have not been found. A visit to the Andaman Coast could be promoted as relaxing, enjoyable, or culturally enriching, but not fun.

5. Finally, and growing out of the review above, the quick conclusion by hoteliers that deeply discounted travel packages do not work seems off the mark. These can jump start tourism, especially among long-haul travelers, if travelers believe that it is safe to return. Perhaps hoteliers did not understand their guests' motivations. To quote Dr. Rittichainuwat, "The three chief reasons that tourists gave for visiting the tsunami-affected areas were nature, people, and good value for the money." Value for the money creates a strong impression that attractive, discounted packages may have played a part. Some interesting findings grow out of past experience with U.S. airlines and the impact of deep discounts. At one point in the 1980s, both TWA and Continental Airlines faced bankruptcy. U.S. and international travelers increasingly began avoiding these carriers because of a concern that scheduled maintenance procedures were being delayed by these airlines in an effort to save cash. However, when each airline offered deep discounts for travel, bookings soared. Previous "avoiders" now justified their change of heart by suggesting to friends that, after all, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) would not let these airlines fly unless they were safe. They also reasoned that these carriers probably now get closer scrutiny from the FAA than ever. To state the point again, discounted travel packages can motivate people to travel in the right circumstances.

Thailand is a beautiful country whose economy depends heavily on tourism. Phuket alone received more than 4.2 million visitors in 2004 before the disaster and Koh Samui more than eight hundred thousand guests. But Thailand has been slow to control tourism development, and some of the enormity of the tsunami damage is attributable to clear-cutting of natural forests to make way for beach hotels. The government allowed the development of more than 80 percent of coastal areas with little planning or control. Only the Ko Chang area remains relatively pristine. I can only hope that the government will adhere to statements that it will plan and limit growth at Ko Chang's coastal areas and inland native forests. Dr. Rittichainuwat has provided valuable insight into the aftermath along the Andaman Coast and the response to the problem by local hoteliers and government officials. I hope that they will heed her call to conduct more research on how to prepare for and handle future disasters. This view receives support from tourism officials. Peter De Jong, president of PATA, expresses the same sentiment in stating, "We learned painful lessons from SARS and the tsunami. We learned that government transparency is extremely important [and a] verifiable and frequently updated communications network is vital." (2)

Endnotes

(1.) Stanley C. Plog, "Managing Tourism Crises: An Interview with Lily Shum, Former Director, the Americas, Hong Kong Tourism Board," Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 46, no. 4 (2006): 452-60.

(2.) TravelAgent Magazine, March 20, 2006, p. 14.

Stanley C. Plog, Ph.D., is the founder of Plog Research, Inc., and now operates as an independent consultant (scplog@earthlink.net). Among his clients is the Hong Kong Tourism Board.

Exhibit 1:
When Respondents Would Visit Hong Kong after Official Notification Is
Given That Area Is Safe (Percentage Choosing Each Category)

How Soon Would Start Trip          Wave 1     Wave 2

Within two weeks                        2         10
Fifteen to thirty days                  2          9
Thirty-one to sixty days                3         15
Within three months                     9         17
Three to six months                    11         19
Six months to one year                 26         19
More than one year                     29         10
No interest in ever visiting           18          1

Exhibit 2:
Likelihood of Buying a Preferred Package (Percentage Choosing)

                                   Wave 1    Wave 2

Definitely buy it                     6        21
Definitely Buy + Probably Buy        27        57