TOURISM officials must have been very upset that after spending a lot of money on a full-page advertisement for Jersey in the travel section of Saturday’s The Times, the Island didn’t feature among Britain’s top 50 beaches in an adjacent supplement.

Just to rub salt into the wound, the only Channel Island beach said to be in the top 50 was Petit Bôt in Guernsey. It even had a mention in the introduction.

Now we can argue as much as we like about which beaches should actually feature in Britain’s 50 best, but the fact that some experts don’t believe any Jersey beaches are worth mentioning underlines the problem the Island has in promoting itself.

Up to now, Jersey’s advertising budget has been spread pretty thinly, and perhaps that’s why we don’t immediately spring to mind when travel journalists put together their best this or their best that. In fact, I might be wrong, but I don’t remember seeing a full-page ad for Jersey Tourism in The Times before. So at least this is proof that the tourism department is now trying very hard.

The ad included a striking aerial view of Gorey Castle, so it should get a good response, even though there were plenty of other very attractive competing destinations featured. But this is the tourism industry’s dilemma: we’re a small Island with limited resources to promote ourselves (too limited, many would say), so it’s hardly surprising that our message doesn’t often get through against the likes of Spain, Turkey et al. The result is obvious in the tourism figures.

Regular readers of this column will no doubt be bored with me banging on about the lack of support the tourism industry has received from the States in recent years. Some senior politicians actually like to claim that they are now pouring more money into tourism – they just don’t call it that any more. I would accept that a little more money is now being devoted to the visitor economy, but it’s a dribble rather than a flood.

It’s also well down on what the Island used to spend on promoting one of its biggest revenue earners. The logic is apparently that you spend less because the industry is getting smaller, rather than spending more.

Perhaps those who make these decisions have decided that we can’t afford to support a substantial tourism industry and that we simply can’t compete. That would be rather short-sighted in view of the increasing difficulties facing our major industry and the need to generate new jobs and more varied jobs.

It’s also short-sighted because it ignores the impact that falling tourism numbers has on other areas of Island life. Which brings us neatly to the Jersey Heritage Trust.
Most Islanders would agree that the trust does a good job, preserving, promoting and selling the Island’s heritage, which is an important part of the tourism ‘offering’. They wonder, therefore, why it is that such key attractions as the Maritime Museum and Hamptonne might have to close because the trust is running out of money. As well they might.

Presumably the trust’s takings this year are down about 10%, in line with the fall in arrivals. But the trust has already been given an extra 10% on their £2m budget from the States, so they should just be holding their own. So how is it that a well-managed, reasonably well-resourced organisation gets to the stage where they are going to have to make dramatic cuts just as their revenue-earning season begins?

Those who support the work of the trust would no doubt say that they need more money to operate successfully, but they must surely realise that there is constant pressure on States spending and we have to make sure that every pound of taxpayers’ money is spent wisely and effectively. It’s not enough to just say that heritage is important.

There are plenty of other important things that the States have to do. Another area which has recently come under public scrutiny is the care of those suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. Apparently the States are not spending enough in this area either, according to those in the know. So should money be diverted from the Jersey Heritage Trust to help Alzheimer’s sufferers, or perhaps the money should flow the other way?

All those smug businessmen who constantly criticise the States for wasteful spending might care to ponder on which one they would choose for the axe. So it’s not easy to see a solution to the Heritage Trust’s funding problems, and it may not be wise for the States just to hand over more money.

The real solution for the trust, and perhaps even Alzheimer’s sufferers, is to plough the money into tourism instead. What the Heritage Trust needs most is more customers, so that is what the States should be concentrating on. More customers hopefully means more revenue for all the other businesses that rely, at least in part, on tourists. The most obvious area is transport, but the extra business should mean more profits in many areas, which means more tax, which means more support for Alzheimer’s sufferers.

Jersey has a tremendous amount to offer tourists, if only they were persuaded to try the Island. Unfortunately this requires spending serious amounts of money on advertising and promotion. Drip-feeding a little here and there is better than nothing, but it’s unlikely to make a dramatic difference. In fact, we’ll be lucky just to stand still.
It may seem perverse to suggest spending more on tourism advertising when heritage and Alzheimer’s patients need more money, but that’s only if you subscribe to the current short-term thinking of the States – all they worry about is spending rather than investing for the future.

I’ll admit it requires a certain amount of bravery to spend money in this way and at a time like this, and it might not even work. But at least we’ll have tried.
Peter Body is editor of Business Brief magazine