Dear Editor,
According to St. Maarten Hospitality and Trade Association (SHTA), the country registered nine per cent less room nights this summer compared to last summer. The short piece is an interesting read and it reflects, in the author's opinion, the shortcomings of what we are doing or haven’t done as a tourism reliant destination.
The travel sector is typically one of “monkey see, monkey do.” Destinations keep a close eye on one another and develop variations on what the competition is doing. However, the underlying motivations for travel largely remain. Why then do St. Maarten’s regional rivals fare so much better than the friendly island?
During the pandemic, tourism reliant destinations, including our neighbors, re-imagined their product in a post-pandemic world where travel was anticipated to be much different. Additional funding was allocated to new marketing initiatives and creative approaches to attract travellers.
The premise was straightforward: Predicting high air fares after the airline industry began to recover was not rocket science. Many destinations anticipated this accurately. To entice visitors, the islands must offer plenty of fresh attractions, new hotel brands, and marketing strategies that make the high ticket prices appear worthwhile. Even though our rivals in the area were making advancements in the aforementioned areas virtually on a daily basis, St. Maarten seemed to be oblivious to all of this..
What has SXM done to attract the post-pandemic traveller in a very competitive market? Other than ride the coat-tails of seasonal airlift and claim it as an accomplishment? Instead of casting a wide net, our neighbors used data-driven insights to target specific demographics and segments of travelers who were more likely to visit. This approach allowed for more efficient use of marketing resources.
Collaboration with airlines, travel agencies, and online travel platforms became crucial. Caribbean countries worked closely with these partners to create enticing packages, discounts, and promotions to attract travelers. Lastly, our competition recognized the need for flexibility. They closely monitored the evolving situation, adjusted their strategies accordingly, and communicated any changes transparently to potential travelers.
That calls into doubt the function of our marketing representatives abroad. Another new marketing company was recently contracted by St. Maarten, although its objectives and directives are unknown. We don’t know if they are being creative with the budget allotted or if we are stuck with marketing initiatives from the 90s. In the same context, why did we need a new firm? How did the latter fall short of expectations or fail? What did we learn from it, and how did we change and refocus the new company?
Lest I forget, we need a bigger tourism budget.
Michael R. Granger
