Northern and South West Tourism Growth Funds Evaluation Results

1. Northern and South West Tourism Growth Funds Evaluation Results December 2017

2. CONTENTS

3. Northern Tourism Growth Fund (NTGF) • £10m Northern regional tourism funding programme announced by Deputy Prime Minister in late 2014 • Programme objectives: • Develop a coherent strategic approach to grow the value of international tourism in the North of England • Deliver a return on investment in the form of export earnings and job creation • Increase awareness and change perceptions of Northern English Tourism offer in key markets • Create a legacy for the activities and new ways of collaborative working that will continue to facilitate future economic growth • Fund administered by VisitEngland and delivered by a number of national (incl. VisitBritain) and local partner organisations (incl. DMOs) over 2015/16 financial year

4. NTGF Markets and Core Activities • Core activities included: leisure and connectivity promotion, digital, business visits and events, travel trade and business/product development

5. South West Tourism Growth Fund (SWTGF) • £5m South West England regional tourism funding programme announced by Deputy Prime Minister in early 2015 • Programme objectives: • Grow the value of international tourism in the South West, generating higher export earnings • Increase awareness and change perceptions of the South West offer in key markets • Develop the product offer of the South West to the needs of the international visitor • Create a legacy for the activities and new ways of collaborative working that will continue to facilitate economic growth in the future • Fund administered by VisitEngland and delivered by a number of national and local partner organisations (incl. DMOs) over 2015/16 financial year

6. SWTGF Markets and Core Activities • Core activities included; leisure marketing to key overseas markets, international education, product development, business visits and events and travel trade

7. Targets • an additional 2m visitor nights to the North of England, equating to £177m in international visitor expenditure • creation of 3,280 jobs • generate over £150m in coverage for the tourism industry of the North of England in the media • an additional visitor spend created from the campaign of £60m • creation of 1,000 FTE jobs

8. Delivery plan • NTGF • The delivery plan for NTGF was organised into 23 work packages each with a dedicated lead partner (mostly DMOs) • The work packages were grouped into 5 categories: Legacy, On Territory Shorthaul, On Territory Longhaul, UK Based Activity and BV&E On Territory • SWTGF • The delivery plan for SWTGF was developed as a series of 11 work packages • Each market-specific work package had a DMO lead partner. Some of the budget was allocated to VE and VB to allow them to provide support and guidance to the programme • The final work packages were as follows: USA, Germany and Germany speaking markets, The Netherlands and Belgium, Scandinavia, Republic of Ireland, Australia and New Zealand, International Education, Cross-cutting Travel Trade, Business Visits and Events, Product Development, PR and Media Visits and VE Programme Support

9. Key Challenges • Approach to set-up • A bottom-up approach to the design and delivery of the Funds helped to ensure buy-in, but also led to fragmentation and delayed the start of implementation • Timings • The design phase was relatively short given the scale of activity that was planned and ultimately delivered by the March 2016 disbursement date • DMOs were therefore under pressure to design their initiatives, form partnerships and roll them out as quickly as possible • Resource • Limited central and local resource to plan and deliver the Funds

10. Evaluation terms • Logic chain = describes the context and rationale for an intervention, and sets out how inputs and activities were expected to lead to outputs, outcomes and impact and hence achieve desired objectives • Evaluation framework = outlines everything contained in the logic chain in more detail (e.g. lists all of the specific activities, measures, methodologies and timings) • Outputs = quantitative evidence of an activity (i.e. percentages or counts of the number of people reached by an activity) • Outcomes = what the target audience think, feel or do towards the end goal behaviour • Impacts = quantifiable impact of an activity tying back to the original programme objectives and targets.

11. Evaluation Approach • VisitEngland commissioned external evaluation consultancy, SQW to conduct the overall programme evaluation of both the NTGF and SWTGF • Evaluation process and timings: START: May 2015 END: August 2017

12. Results: NTGF Outputs • The majority of NTGF Work Packages hit or over exceeded their output targets • Significant achievements included the following: • BV&E Target Prospect Research, outsourced to ICCA, achieved 194 leads for international events the North could bid for against a target of 50 • Shorthaultrade/consumer events – Vakantiebeurs, the number of Dutch consumer contacts added to a database was 1,700 above a target of 2,000 • On territory travel trade and press activity – China met nearly all its targets • Travel Trade Activity in the US successfully met targets and subsequently transferred some resource to two other WPs • UK-based events for UK-based inbound trade and WP7, UK-based events for overseas trade, met most of their targets

13. Results: NTGF Outcomes • Overall, NTGF demonstrated positive results in terms of increasing awareness and knowledge of Northern England amongst consumers, the trade and journalists. Examples include: • Northern businesses reported an increase knowledge and understanding of how to cater for international visitors from China and Germany • The brand tracker survey showed that campaign recallers were more likely to travel to the North of England (although initial awareness was relatively low) • A report on the Ellen TV initiative indicated that those who had watched the NTGF clips shown on Ellen had increased awareness and improved perceptions of the North of England • Journalists attending familiarisation trips reported an increase in knowledge and improved perceptions of Northern England • Post-event feedback forms showed the perceptions of buyers and suppliers of the North of England were positively changed as a result of participation in NTGF events and that they were more likely to sell the North of England to their customers

14. Results: NTGF Impact and ROI • Key points to note: • there was a 100% match funding target • the target ROI was not revised after the programme design was signed off • The target set for NTGF was an aggregate based on targets for the different work packages • Around £2m of activity was not included in the ROI measurement of additional visitor spend and therefore did not contribute to the ROI figures (see reasons in full report) • The NTGF almost reached its target return representing a considerable achievementgiven the time constraints

15. NTGF Lessons, Learnings and Legacy 3. Learning and development • Key positives from post-programme consultations: • The intensity of the programme was cited as having two specific benefits: • tight timeframe drove risk-taking and built experience • fostered considerable learning among DMOs 1. Representative and collaborative consultation There was appreciation of the role of the Programme Board, particularly as it included both the larger and smaller destinations and hence brought a range of perspectives to the meetings. The Fund compelled collaboration between Northern destinations (which was not happening before the programme). 4. Central support provided The majority of consultees complemented the support provided by the NTGF Programme Director and VisitEngland. 2. Rising to the challenge The majority of consultees remarked on the way people “rose to the challenge and built capabilities”. DMO staff contributed considerable time and effort, often over and above their usual duties, to ensure the success of the Programme. 5. Legacy effect of collaborative working Multiple interviewees reported that they were continuing to liaise with other DMOs on various initiatives, including bids for the Discover England Fund.

16. NTGF Lessons and Learnings • Some key challenges from post-programme consultations: 3. Limitations with ‘bottom up’ approach 1. Compressed design and delivery time Complications relating to the bottom-up approach to design and delivery. While this ensured buy-in from a wide range of DMOs, it took time to make choices about objectives and work packages and entailed some fragmentation. The most oft-repeated observation among NTGF legacy interviewees was that the one-year timeframe for design and delivery was too shortleading to several negative consequences. 2. Slow sign off times 4. The need for continuation funding There was frustration in the process to getting things signed off that inevitably affected the already short timescales for the programme. Some interviewees thought there was too much scrutiny of the detail of the work packages, which slowed the approval process down. One consultee noted that some plans were not signed off until September, almost halfway through the programme. Some consultees commented on the need for additional funds to make programmes such as these a success. It was observed that in general DMOs did not have spare capacity. NTGF delivered results in part at least because it was short and intense. One consultee questioned whether “there is a danger everything will revert to business as usual now the money has gone?”

17. Results: SWTGF Outputs • Similar to NTGF, most SWTGF Work Packages anticipated achieving a large volume of outputs • For the most part, the Work Packages hit their output target • Collectively, they demonstrate the considerable scale of the SWTGF programme, and the amount of ground the partners covered in its short lifetime. For example: • WP2: Germany and German-speaking Europe – conducted 100 meetings with tour operators and travel agencies • WP6: Australia and New Zealand – engaged with 6,177 travel agencies • WP8: Travel trade – created a comprehensive trade database of 200 key travel trade contacts across all target markets • WP10: Product development – 171 itineraries/experiences were improved and 60 new itineraries/ experiences were created

18. Results: SWTGF Outcomes • Overall, the findings are generally positive in showing an increase in awareness and knowledge of South West England amongst key audiences (although available data is limited). Highlights include: • Survey evidence suggested the advertising campaign led to the South West increasing its visibility in America, especially among younger age groups, families and men, and that people are now more likely to visit the region (although the campaign’s reach was relatively limited, which will reduce its overall impact) • The responses from attendees of the familiarisation trips were positive, with the large majority saying they would be willing to recommend the South West for long-term courses, and all of them saying they expected student numbers to rise

19. Results: SWTGF Impact and ROI • Key points to note: • there was a circa. 45% match funding target • the target ROI was not revised after the programme design was signed off • Compared with the NTGF, SWTGF performed less well against its ROI target, but a parallel process was not followed in setting the target and some workstreams in the SW did not expect to achieve ROI, nor forecast it • A significant portion (circa. £2m) of activity was not included in the ROI measurement of additional visitor spend and therefore did not contribute to the ROI figures (see reasons in full report). • Despite time constraints and other challenges, the SWTGF achieved a moderate level of impact relative to other similar programmes SQW has assessed

20. SWGF Lessons, Learnings and Legacy • Key positives from post-programme consultations: 1. Joined up marketing opportunity 3. Alignment of marketing activity Interviewees noted that it had been a decade or so since there had been region-wide marketing of the South West to external audiences. SWTGF represented an opportunity for some DMOs to participate in international marketing for the first time in many years. The Fund showed there was a gap between national-level marketing to international audiences and that done by individual businesses – the SWTGF addressed that gap in part. 4. Development of new collateral 2. Partnership working There was also appreciation of the opportunity to create new ‘collateral’ for DMOs – itineraries, videos, photography, website material – which can still be used even though the programme has finished. The Fund had allowed new partnerships to be built between DMOs across the region enabling the sharing of knowledge and greater understanding of the challenges DMOs face.

21. SWTGF Lessons, Learnings and Legacy • Some key challenges from post-programme consultations: 1. Too short planning and delivery period 3. Limitations with ‘bottom up’ approach The overriding problem with the intervention was perceived as the highly compressed timetable under which it operated. An accumulation of factors (including slow sign off times) reduced the delivery time for most work packages to between three and six months, from October 2015 up to March 2016. One DMO noted that to properly plan an advertising campaign to get best value for money can take 18/24 months; they had only three months in this case. This was compounded by the fact that the South West had not been working collectively as a region before – the ‘bottom up’ approach of the programme meant it had to build many of the relationships and partnerships necessary to deliver the projects from scratch. 2. Limited central resource Tight timetable placed those tasked with managing and coordinating the programme under considerable strain: it was suggested that insufficient time was allowed for programme leadership and management to meet these demands. 4. Limited resource at ground level Major demands were made of the delivery organisations: many of these were small and all had limited resourcescausing great pressure.

22. SWTGF Lessons, Learnings and Legacy (continued) • Some more key challenges from post-programme consultations: 5. Suboptimal timing of campaign 6. More time needed to build relationships Some consultees said the seasonal timing of the campaign also reduced its overall effectiveness. January to March is in many ways a sub-optimal time to be marketing the South West. The landscape does not look its best then, so the photography and video material was not as impressive as it might have been. Another consequence of the compressed timetable was a lack of industry buy-in. This will typically take time to build, and this wasn’t available to the DMOs. Furthermore, consultees felt that time of year is usually too late to influence tourists’ decisions on their next travel. Australians planning to visit the UK, for example, usually make their plans at least six months in advance – advertising needs to be in place by September to influence decision about the following summer, not March of the same year, as was the case here.

23. Overall Learnings and Implications • The NTGF and SWTGF both brought additional resource and opportunities: it was welcomed by local tourism partners, and VB/VE at the centre provided the impetus for engagement and then for commitment to effective working on delivery • The intervention was not positioned as part of a longer-term strategic approach: this was not possible in the circumstances, but its absence caused frustration among partners, as opportunities were created that could not be fully realised • It was impossible to maximise value-for-money over the 12 month period allowed for design and delivery; a longer timescale is essential to realise impact potential • External parameters and programme objectives and drive content, but expectations for impact should be realistic at the outset, and then reviewed as the detailed activities and delivery arrangements are agreed and then modified • Partnership-building is most effective where capacities are known and there are both established relationships and a recognition of mutual advantage: time and money is required on all sides to make them work well, and this type of programme intervention should look beyond the delivery period, to the potential for future gains from collaboration

24. Overall Learnings and Implications (cont.) • Regional programmes are easier to manage and possibly more effective when they are promoting areas / reasons to come that are already familiar to the audience. • These programmes came with parameters that had a material effect on their success i.e. short time frame to understand markets and build relationships, high match target, non-agile sign off process. The potential effects should be recognised and discussed at the outset: VB/VE should consider requesting modifications, at very least to targets for match and return on investment, where potential negative impacts can be demonstrated from the shape, delivery arrangements, and timescale of specific interventions • Public investment in marketing to influence the international consumer should focus on specific relevant opportunities, with only limited resource used to fund ‘nice to haves’; this is particularly so if match funding is sought from private partners • Project funding needs to be sufficiently large to have a realistic chance of generating impact.

25. Learnings and Implications for future funding programmes • Allow sufficient time for planning and delivering activity, includes: • being realistic in terms of what can (and should) be delivered over one financial year (i.e. or over 2+ financial years) • allowing time to concept test and learn what works and what doesn’t • ensuring enough resource is in place from the outset • implementing an efficient sign off process, ensuring expectations are clear about this • Ensure all planned activity is underpinned by up-to-date research • Look to work with a variety of partners (or facilitate collaboration between partners) to ensure optimal delivery of activity (e.g. a mix of private and public organisations) • Ensure project scope (overall and individual activities) and level of funding is sufficient to achieve measurable impact • Ensure joined up and standardised (where it makes sense to) evaluation approach used to compare results and track changes over time • Ensure project leads understand they are accountable for the evaluation of their projects • Revisit targets at regular intervals and make amends where appropriate.

26. FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon Orrell sharon.orrell@visitengland.org Head of VE Research and Evaluation