INTRODUCTION

Managing destinations

Although pivotal to the travel and tourism system, the destination is widely acknowledged to be one of the most difficult products to manage and market due to the numerous products, stakeholders and organisational bodies and individuals that combine to deliver the destination 'product' (Fyall et al., 2006). A number of authors argue that to best manage the destination, managers and marketers need to adopt more collaborative means of pooling resources and develop more integrated management and delivery systems (Buhalis and Cooper, 1998; Telfer, 2001; Prideaux and Cooper, 2002; Fyall and Garrod, 2005; Blumberg, 2005). This is supported by Pavlovich (2003: 203) who argues that the 'relational perspective is particularly relevant in the tourism industry, as groupings of organisations cluster together to form a destination context'. Referred to by King as the 'network economy' (2002) collaboration does, however, represents just one of the 15 components identified in the 15 Cs Framework advocated by Fyall et al. (2006) which serves as the central focus of this paper. Identifying future issues and strategic challenges is a common practice, as is highlighted by Joppe (2003). The challenge for the industry is to take due notice of the forces at play and to market destinations accordingly.

Previous studies conducted by King (2002) and Bennett (1999), among others, identified a number of issues impacting on the future marketing of destinations. These include channels of distribution, channel power, changing market conditions and patterns of booking, and the tendency of many destination management organisations (DMOs) to remain focused on 'what the destination has to offer' and their continued use of 'mass marketing techniques more suited to the passive customer'. They also advance the need for more effective branding of destinations, with greater emphasis to be given to the creation and promotion of holiday experiences that link key brand values and assets with the holiday aspirations and needs of key customers. For Bennett (1999) in particular, it is in fact the longstanding 'dividing line' between the public and private sectors that remains the prime catalyst for change; a dividing line that he considers to have been holding back the potential of destination marketing for far too long.

Although the authors of this paper are in agreement with many of the sentiments and issues raised above, the 15 Cs Framework provides an effective means of conceptualising the key issues and challenges which continue to confront destinations. The framework advocated by Fyall et al. (2006) also offers an effective means by which destination marketers can synthesise a series of generic issues that for their own destinations will warrant a quite specific management response. The remainder of this paper will outline the framework and examine the contemporary issues and challenges to be dealt with by those marketing the cities of London and Edinburgh in the UK.

Aim of the study and methodology

The aim of this paper is to apply the 15 Cs Framework to the marketing of two major destinations in the UK over the coming decade: London and Edinburgh. As significant destinations within the UK, both domestically and internationally, London and Edinburgh represent interesting case examples in the emerging devolved structure that exists currently in the UK. The framework adopted was not one that was derived from any one particular study. It was in fact derived from the combined experience of the authors, both academic and practitioner, and from a series of focus group discussions with postgraduate students at Bournemouth University throughout the academic years 2003–2004 and 2004–2005. This framework was in fact first initiated as a means of disseminating to postgraduate students of tourism the forces at play in the wider environment which are impacting on the future management and marketing of destinations. Specific to this paper, however, a number of face-to-face interviews were conducted with key stakeholders in both destinations in addition to a thorough review of the prevailing literature.

The destinations

London

In response to the succession of external threats in recent years, destinations around the world have been forced to re-evaluate their marketing strategies to accommodate changing trends and perceptions in the marketplace (Ladkin et al., 2006). London is no exception, for in 2001 it was estimated to have lost £1.1bn in tourist receipts due to the combined effect of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) and 911 (GLA Economics, 2003a). With the launch of a second war in Iraq early in 2003, initial estimates were that London was to lose a further £0.5bn. Although considerable, this projection excluded the threat of a direct terrorist attack on London itself — something that was unfortunately looming on the horizon vis-à-vis the events of 7th July, 2005.

Tourism represents a key component of the London economy. It accounts for approximately 10 per cent of London's GDP with total tourism spending amounting to around £15bn per annum. Tourism also supports approximately 8 per cent of London's workforce while a 1 per cent sustained increase in overseas visits to London corresponds to a 1.28 per cent increase in London jobs (Visit London, 2006a). For domestic visits, the equivalent figure is 0.34 per cent. Overseas visitors also represent major investors in London's cultural landscape in that they purchase approximately 30 per cent of theatre tickets and account for half of all visits to London attractions (Visit London, 2006a). With regard to tourist expenditure per trip, it is estimated that London requires three and a half domestic visitors and two near-European visitors to compensate for the loss of one American visitor (GLA Economics, 2003b). This imbalance is indicative of the structural weakness of London's tourism position and its over-reliance on individual markets (Ladkin et al., 2006). London is thus disproportionately reliant on overseas tourism and is, therefore, particularly vulnerable to unpredictable external events.

In addition, London plays an important role in welcoming overseas visitors who then travel to other destinations across the UK, including Edinburgh. In fact, over half of all overseas visitors spend time in London while 45 per cent come only to London. In addition, approximately 75 per cent of all overseas visitors pass through London as their 'gateway' to the UK (Visit London, 2006b). London is unusual, however, in that although business visitors contribute significantly to the tourist economy, it is largely reliant on high-value overseas leisure markets (Ladkin et al., 2006). This is more so than for London's principal competitors. Perhaps London's perennial burden to growth, however, is the longstanding perceptions of the capital as an 'expensive' destination; this most notably being the case for domestic visitors.

Edinburgh

Described as 'the jewel in Scotland's tourism crown' (Jeffrey, 2005), the success of tourism activity in Edinburgh forms a key part of the city's economic policy. The sector employs 30,000 people, with visitors contributing in the region of £1bn to the economy per annum (www.lothianexchange.net, 2006a). The recent creation of the Edinburgh City Region Brand confirms, however, that this activity should not be viewed in isolation, rather as a prime target within a broader context (www.edinburghbrand.com, 2006). This World Heritage city consistently retains its position as the UK's second most important destination and acts as a gateway for visitors to Scotland. Research undertaken for the City Region Brand Project was interesting in establishing the external view of Edinburgh as a destination for a UK short city break, with those not having visited Edinburgh considering the city to be on a par with York, Stratford or Chester, while those who had visited identifying competitor destinations such as Barcelona, Amsterdam and Prague (www.lothianexchange.com, 2006b). Obviously, this creates some interesting challenges for those marketing the city destination and its positioning.

Edinburgh differs from London with it demonstrating a lower reliance on the volatile North American market, relying far more on those from continental Europe that now accounts for 47 per cent of all the overseas visitors to the city. Recent years have seen strong growth in the number of UK and European visitors, with a relative decline in those from Scotland and overseas. In terms of the balance of visitor motivations, 33 per cent of trips are for business purposes, with the City having a huge reliance on Association conference business. Interestingly, growth in the under-35 age group has been significant, who now constitute 53 per cent of the total visitors, naturally requiring alterations to the tourism products and services on offer (www.scotexchange.net, 2006a).

APPLICATION OF THE 15 C's FRAMEWORK

Each of the individual components of the 15 C's Framework is now addressed in turn with the specific implications for both London and Edinburgh raised where appropriate.

Complexity

The complexity of the destination product is not in dispute as all destinations to varying degrees are comprised of multiple stakeholders, multiple components and multiple suppliers, and convey multiple meanings to multiple markets and market segments. Perhaps that issue most pressing in the context of complexity is the pressure for the public sector to increase revenue from private sector sources at a time when considerable pressure is being put on the public purse within the context of emerging destination management structures and the increasing devolution and regionalisation of tourism organisation and funding.

A precursor to the way in which tourism was to be structured and delivered in England was first highlighted in 1999 with the establishment of nine English Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) and the publication by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) of 'Tomorrow's Tourism — a Growth Industry for the New Millennium'. Much of what is now accepted as the future direction for tourism was encapsulated in the DCMS document which laid down a framework to take domestic and in-bound tourism to a higher level of consciousness and within a wider scope of UK economic activity (DCMS, 2004). This period also coincided with the transfer of responsibility of some activities of Government under devolution in Scotland (1998 Scotland Act) and Wales (1998 Government of Wales Act) to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly, respectively.

While devolution in Scotland and Wales brought about changes to the administration of government in those two home nations, a form of devolution also occurred in England in 2003 when the mantra of greater leadership by regions in tourism strategy was expanded when strategic responsibility for regional tourism was devolved by Government to the RDAs. In the case of London, it is the Mayor of London who carries the statutory responsibility for the promotion of tourism growth in the capital and as a 'gateway' to the rest of the UK. Where London then mirrors the rest of England is in the decision by the Mayor's Office to delegate the responsibility for the development and promotion of tourism in London to the London Development Agency (LDA) using resources devolved to the Mayor by the DCMS. The strategic direction for the development of tourism in London does, however, remain with the Mayor. In addition to providing suitable direction to overcome London's traditional dependence on volatile overseas markets, Visit London: The Mayor's Plan for Tourism in London serves as the necessary strategic platform for London's development as a world-class tourist destination in that it represents a single coordinated tourism plan for London (Ladkin et al., 2006). The selected delivery agent for the plan was the London Tourist Board and Convention Bureau which in 2003 became Visit London (VL). In providing a suitable delivery structure, the Mayor's Plan advocated a structure that was to be fast and flexible, one that would instigate a step change in marketing performance, represent a mix between the public and private sectors and establish a broader industry and borough engagement across London. In addition, it was deemed that there would exist a clear distinction between policy/strategy (LDA) and delivery (VL) with a desirable consistent approach to branding for London.

The situation in Edinburgh is similarly complex in terms of tourism management and destination marketing. In April 2005, a single national tourism network was established via the integration of the existing national tourism organisation VisitScotland and Area Tourist Boards. The VisitScotland Edinburgh Network Office is one of 15 UK offices which represent VisitScotland's local champions, and represent the organisation in all its activities. They ensure the achievement of local objectives linked to the national vision and strategies through developing strong partnerships with businesses, local authorities and local enterprise companies (www.scotexchange.net 2006b). The Edinburgh Convention Bureau effectively still exists under this network office, though it is now a company limited by guarantee. One resulting significant change for those in tourism is that the Network Office is not a membership body so there is some concern that the local voice of tourism businesses may be lost. Partly as a result of this the Edinburgh City Chamber of Commerce has mooted ideas to set up a tourism business membership body to provide an avenue for businesses to be heard. In addition, the Edinburgh Tourism Action Group (ETAG) is the first public and private sector tourism partnership within the destination. Set up in 2001, it aims 'to ensure that the City becomes a 'must see' contemporary European destination'. Other organisations at destination level with a keen interest and involvement in tourism are the City of Edinburgh Council, who provide significant public funding and policy support for tourism within the City and The City Region Brand Project, and Scottish Enterprise Edinburgh and Lothians (SEE&L) with their responsibility for the economic prosperity of the Lothians. This involvement by so many organisations potentially means that at the destination level there are a variety of aims, objectives and policies to be considered in any tourism decision making and considerable complexity on the establishment of remits, responsibilities and consensus of opinion. The argument of VisitScotland (Carter, 2006) is that the reorganisation of VisitScotland is a benefit to overcoming the complexities and that tourism businesses need to take a long-term view, placing the need to bring visitors to Scotland and then Edinburgh before the need to attract them to individual businesses. One particular point of discussion in Edinburgh relates to the balance of public and private funds available and the level of public funding available to tourism businesses. One other contentious point relates to the recently formed www.VisitScotland.com, a consumer website, established as a joint-venture owned by several bodies including VisitScotland. Tourism businesses pay to feature on this website and can provide links to their own details, though any booking incurs a commission fee payable to VisitScotland.com. Critics consider this to restrict the freedom of tourism businesses and complain that a fee is levied. Exponents say that the site provides visitors with instant access to national and local information and that it can compete with the larger online travel sites such as Expedia, enabling businesses to reach a much larger volume of potential customers. Critical to this argument is the need to ensure that the complexities experienced by tourism business at the destination and individual level are not communicated to the consumer and that their experience is clear and simple.

Control

One of the primary frustrations for many destination marketers is their inability to control elements of the destination product. This issues was raised by Scott et al. (2000: 202) who argued that 'the difficulties of co-ordination and control have the potential to undermine a strategic approach to marketing based on destination branding because campaigns can be undertaken by a variety of tourist businesses with no consultation or co-ordination on the prevailing message or the destination values being promoted'. Historically, this has been one of the reasons why London has failed consistently to make a sustained impact in terms of brand positioning (Hopper, 2002). Much has, however, changed with considerable budget increases awarded to Visit London in recent years. In addition, the 'top down' nature of strategy making and the large sums made available to 'make things happen' have afforded a step change in marketing activity within the capital and a greater ability for the tourism authorities to retain a sense of control over how the destination is positioned and marketed.

One of the consequences of a greater 'top down' orientation is the tendency to ignore the smaller players many of whom in the past were members of previous forms of destination management structures and tourist boards. This is particularly true of Edinburgh whereby the new network structure is no longer membership based. That said, tourism businesses do still have the opportunity to participate and are perhaps now freer to do this. The view in Edinburgh is that there is a need to balance the needs of the individual and the destination by establishing the delivery of a total visitor experience, from the point of enquiry to departure, perhaps only possible via a change in attitude and view for all those involved in tourism.

Change

As introduced by Bennett (1999), the migration from the traditional division that has always existed between the public and private sectors is beginning to change. That said, both London and Edinburgh retain a strong public bias in their organisational and funding structures. Not only does this result in the retention of a predominantly public 'organisational' mindset but it serves as a barrier to the raising of additional funding — particularly match funding — and the speed with which destination marketers can sometimes react to forces in the external environment. In the case of recent crises, however, London has been particularly adept at responding to the severity of the external threats as is discussed below.

Edinburgh tourism organisations have the benefit of accessing VisitScotland's consumer and market research results alongside those available from the destination's own Network Office. The advantage here is that Scotland as a whole is a relatively small destination, albeit with a vast range of products, with a recently increased marketing budget. This allows the main office to undertake research and activities on which local destinations can act. The recent lengthy consultation and restructuring of the tourism network in Scotland has, however, resulted in resources being directed towards reorganisation and administration, rather than marketing activity per se, with a need to now swiftly establish relationships and responsibilities.

Crisis

Virtually all destinations around the world have to some degree been impacted negatively by a range of crises over the past few years, most recently with the hurricanes in the Caribbean and southern states of the USA and the impending civil war in Sri Lanka. Work by Baral et al. (2004), Beirman (2002) and Money and Crotts (2003) has begun to explore the dynamics of such crises with destination marketers needing to come to terms with the changing tourist flows that accompany crises and their related spend and accommodation requirements (Ladkin et al., 2006). In London, for example, the loss of one visitor from the United States in economic terms requires two European visitors and three and a half domestic visitors to compensate. This statistic alone highlights the need for continued market diversification with less reliance on traditional markets and continual new product development, promotion and public relations; widely considered to be a crucial component of crisis management (Fall, 2004; Frisby, 2002).

To limit the damage caused to London's tourism economy from the succession of negative external threats, the London Tourism Recovery Group (LTRG) was established by the Mayor's Office (MO) early in 2003. The establishment of LTRG represented a permanent contingency framework designed to support the tourism and hospitality sector in London in times of emergency (Ladkin et al., 2006). At an early stage, the conclusion was drawn that the problems facing tourism in London required a market-led response and as such a Special Marketing Steering Group was set up in March 2003. In turn, a Tourism Industry Recovery Plan (TIRP) was developed whereby TIRP provided the strategic backbone to emergency action and served as a guiding framework to facilitate the choice of marketing strategies and actions to stabilise London's tourism economy in a time of considerable unease and market turbulence (Ladkin et al., 2006). TIRP was designed as an integrated marketing programme that adopted five separate but related phases with specific campaigns directed at Londoners, the regions and near-European markets. Although it was never the intention of TIRP to adhere to the Mayor's Plan, in many instances the actions fed back into the wider structures and benefits were considerable with regard to evaluation, studies and/or reports conducted as part of TIRP that could be used outside of the emergency context (Ladkin et al., 2006).

Edinburgh meanwhile seems somewhat fortunately removed from the above events, in so far as direct impacts. It is argued (Carter, 2006) that the new Network will enable a quicker response to crises and that the relatively small size of the destination assists this response. For example, the national VisitScotland body is the national player in terms of research into consumer needs, international threats and so forth, recently hosting a scenario planning workshop on the impacts of 'Avian flu'.

Complacency

Fyall et al. (2006) commented that continual change and fear of crises ought to be sufficient to prevent complacency among those marketing destinations. For many destinations, however, specific markets have been such reliable sources of custom over many years. Although in the past, destinations could perhaps be excused for being slow to react to forces in the external environment this, however, clearly is no longer the case. Although as a broad phenomenon tourism has proven to be particularly robust, travel and spending patterns do change. Interestingly for London, forecasts for 2006 are mixed in that although overseas visitor numbers are expected to grow, domestic demand and spend is set to fall by 2.1 and 1.9 per cent, respectively in 2006 (Visit London, 2006b). Overall in 2006, total visits to London are expected to grow by 1.2 per cent to 26.6m while visitor spending is forecast to grow by 2.7 per cent to £9.8bn. Of particular note for London is the fact that key growth markets are beginning to prosper vis-à-vis visitors from Eastern Europe, China and India. Furthermore, one would anticipate that with the awarding of the 2012 Olympic Games, this trend will continue to grow with the global profile London is set to experience in the years that precede the games.

As previously stated, the visitor markets for Edinburgh are indicating changes from previous trends, resulting in a younger visitor profile and new markets originating from Western and Eastern Europe. Work has recently been commissioned to establish other UK competition for the lucrative festivals markets, for there is a fear that other destinations may be developing their product and marketing to compete head on with Edinburgh.

Customers

The fact that London and Edinburgh attract visitors from such a diversity of countries only goes to heighten the difficulty of managing destinations when the consumer dimension is taken into consideration. For example, individual customers of the destination product will frequently differ in their perceptions, expectations and desired satisfactions of the 'tourism-place'. Few, if any, are likely to regard the destination as a neatly encapsulated bundle of suppliers, as might be the case from the supply perspective (Buhalis, 2000).

In many instances, destination marketers need to be more innovative in their adoption of marketing techniques and strategies in meeting the needs of more demanding customers. For the first time ever, Visit London now includes television advertising as part of its communication's mix while the launch of its own television channel has gone along way to addressing the media demands of ever more demanding visitors.

The view of VisitScotland appears to be that of concentrating on attracting visitors to Scotland in the first instance, then on directing them to the appropriate destination (Carter, 2006). This approach is positive in the sense that tourism businesses gain access to marketing activities that they could never do individually, for example VisitScotland.com and the recent high profile television and cinema advertising campaigns. That said, the potential disadvantage to this is that visitors may find it difficult to access material specific to a destination. While the previous trade membership scheme may have been cumbersome, it did at least ensure engagement by a broad base of tourism businesses and a clear mechanism for communication of consumer trends and desired experiences. While participation in the Grading & Classification scheme may still be encouraged, there is no longer a requirement to have this in order to participate in local and national marketing activities — surely not conducive to increasing quality standards across all avenues of tourism businesses? Further attempts at encouraging tourism businesses to offer more customer-focussed products, rather than to simply rely on the existing product are required.

Culture

Although culture as a component is relevant to both demand and supply-side aspects of destination marketing, the central role played by culture as a means of product differentiation is crucial for many cities in distinguishing them in a heavily commodity-driven market. The natural and built heritage of both London and Edinburgh help maintain a sense of uniqueness for both cities while the considerable popularity of London Theatre by overseas visitors offers London an iconic appeal which offers genuine distinctiveness in a global market. Culture does also act as the basis for the Edinburgh tourism product, as recognised by the UNESCO World Heritage and City of Literature designations.

With regard to aspects of supply, the cultural division between the public and private sectors within tourism continues to represent a barrier for progress across many countries. Although this may be less so across the UK in view of the devolution of tourism and the regionalisation of priorities, destinations are for the most part still reliant on 'public goods' as part of their wider appeal which in turn raises the issue of who is to pay for their upkeep in the future; the local community or visitors? This does appear to be a particular problem in Edinburgh and the wider Scottish tourism environment, where the reliance on public funding to support tourism products is high and the expectation for this most obvious. One example of this would be the Edinburgh Pass, introduced in 2005 to provide visitors with easy, affordable access to Edinburgh's attractions. This project was heavily subsidised by public funds, but still encountered reluctance on the part of many visitor attractions to participate. For this scheme to succeed it needs a period of goodwill to allow it to become established. Many private operators, however, refused to participate or appear unhappy with the potential 'discounting' that they are required to allow in the initial stages. This attitude of expectation with regard to public money is frustrating to those within the tourism destination, as they see the opportunity for private initiatives to work well and the opportunities afforded by the already significant public funds as substantial.

Competition

Both cities continue to face greater levels of competition from a wide variety of old and new destinations both at home and overseas. In the European context the intensity of destination competition has been driven primarily by the exponential growth of 'no-frills' airlines which are introducing hitherto inaccessible, and sometimes unknown, destinations as alternatives for many visitors from the key generating markets of the UK, Scandinavia and Germany (Fyall et al., 2006). The growth in ownership of second-homes also represents a form of competition that perhaps was not valid only 10 years ago while the ageing of the population and changing lifestyles are undoubtedly having a major impact on destination choice. For London, the single biggest challenge at the current moment in time is in understanding the reasons why domestic visitors are shying away from the capital while visitors from overseas are coming in record numbers. Although it is perhaps too early to say, the events of 7th July may account for some nervousness in the market — particularly among the family market.

For Edinburgh the debate appears to sit with the previously mentioned division between the internal and external view of potential and actual visitors. If Edinburgh is to compete on an international stage for leisure and business visitors, then it must develop accessible products that allow visitors access to the products they want. An example of this would be the development of access to traditional, 'local only' activities and genealogy, those products that make the destination unique.

Commodification

Increased competition from all quarters of the world merely reinforces the need to be different and to offer something unique to visitors that carries currency in the marketplace. Commodification has posed a challenge for marketers in a number of sectors for many years. In the context of destinations it is, however, a relatively recent phenomenon. Commodification is already evident in parts of the Mediterranean, South East Asia and the Caribbean where the pressure is now on to differentiate as much as possible one destination from another (Fyall et al., 2006). In most of these regions the consistent tactic implemented by those marketing the destinations is to reduce prices. Although highly beneficial to the tourist the reduction in yield poses a significant headache for destination markers in that increasingly more marketing — and marketing spend — has to be conducted in return for a decreasing yield from tourists (Fyall et al., 2006).

To counter the above, niche tourism developments are recommended. In recent years London has been particularly active in developing special events, theatre packages, local festivals and packages for the gay market. Likewise, Edinburgh has participated in national marketing campaigns to develop niche markets based around genealogy, the Freedom of Scotland, activity/outdoor breaks and golf, in addition to more locally based festival and event developments, such as Eventful Edinburgh.

Creativity

For some commentators, it is branding that represents the most obvious means by which destinations can distinguish themselves from the mass of commodity destinations around the world (Foley and Fahy, 2004). One of the biggest hurdles for those branding destinations is, however, their limited ability to build destination-wide brands. The lack of product control and tight budgets as well as the potential for political interference all inhibit the ease with which brands can be developed (Fyall et al., 2006). This in turn helps to explain why there is such a paucity of brand innovation in the destination sector as compared to other sectors within the tourism industry. In part, studies conducted by Caldwell and Freire (2004), Konecnik (2004), Morgan et al. (2002, 2003), and Prideaux et al. (2004) have begun to address some of the issues related to branding.

While London is currently going through a major collective branding exercise, Edinburgh announced its Inspiring Edinburgh campaign in May 2005 and supporting development of the Edinburgh City Region Brand. This aims to build on the legacy of creativity in Edinburgh to develop the destination as a place to live and work (and visit!). While it could be said that it has so far been a relatively low-key approach, it has achieved some success in attempting to reposition Edinburgh in a wider context, though further work to make it relevant to individuals and communities is required.

Communication

Communication with visitors be it pre-, during or post-visit is the lifeblood of many destinations. Although traditionally a disproportionately high percentage of marketing budgets has been spent on brochures and leaflets, more educated and more sophisticated visitors are demanding more varied communication efforts (Dore and Crouch, 2003; Foley and Fahy, 2004). Clearly, this statement varies according to the generating market in question in that what maybe true for developed markets may not be so for emerging markets (Fyall et al., 2006). If one subscribes to the experiential view of marketing posited by King (2002), then much greater attention needs to be given to the creation and communication of holiday experiences that link key brand values and assets with the holiday aspirations and needs of key customers (Fyall et al., 2006). Visit London have heeded this by targeting particular markets quite specifically with a variety of themed campaigns, namely; Totally London Month, Totally London Tour, Totally London — Winter Wonderland, and 'Oxford Street — Dress to Impress'.

In the case of Edinburgh, there is recognition of the need to be able to listen and respond to customers. While communication within the City is relatively successful, with the advantage of size and established networks, there is still a tendency to work within set groups and to work on anecdotal information, rather than established data and research. In particular, ETAG is most successful with communication, with champions having clear roles and responsibilities for particular local issues, such as the new Accommodation Supply and Demand Survey or Promoting Air Routes to Scotland.

Channels

Both London and Edinburgh have directed significant energy and funding into their respective websites that are now fully integrated into all aspects of their individual marketing efforts. In the case of London, the setting up of its very own television channel — although only affordable to perhaps a few cities around the world — is testament to its determination to utilise a multi-channel approach to access its markets. Although Edinburgh does not have the luxury of its own television station, it does consider that the network office and VisitScotland.com websites go someway to tackling disintermediation. There is evidence from the Edinburgh Visitor Survey (EVS) that there is a need to develop the product offering from these sites to present local initiatives. The challenge now is to appeal to potential visitors in the appropriate manner, perhaps a little more informally than has been done in the past.

Although all markets vary in their patterns of behaviour — in part, explaining the mix of dis-intermediation and re-intermediation evident in the marketplace — it is forecast that the issue of channels will remain in a state of flux for a while until markets have settled and until visitors are comfortable with the speed of change in the type of channels available to them to access the destination product. In a marketing management sense, although there have been significant developments in channel systems such as computer reservation systems and global distribution systems, for the destination it is the growth of destination management and marketing systems that will remain for the foreseeable future the principal competitive tools for destinations in their quest for gaining greater control over the distribution of the destination product (Fyall et al., 2006).

Cyberspace

As identified in the preceding component, both destinations have invested significantly in their respective websites. The emergence over the past decade of virtual intermediaries such as Expedia, Travelocity and Opodo have literally forced destinations to get their act together and in this sense both London and Edinburgh have developed extremely powerful and visible web options. For Edinburgh, the key online routes are the network office websites, where businesses buy a package of promotion, and the www.VisitScotland.com site, where businesses pay for different levels of material and can provide links to their own web pages. The advantage of this latter site is that the opportunity is present for all to participate, though it is more oriented to accommodation providers at present. It has to a certain extent acted as a catalyst to improve the online product offering and does allow businesses to make it work for them, rather than relying on Tourist Information Centre referrals.

Consolidation

Greater consolidation has impacted significantly on the global tourism industry, most notably in the domains of travel in the form of airlines, hospitality in the form of large international hotel groups, and tourism in the form of intermediaries. Indeed, according to Wahab and Cooper (2001) it is the development of new integrated corporate structures as a result of alliances, mergers and acquisitions that is likely to cause the greatest structural impact on the tourism industry. To counter the power imbalance that often results from such developments both London and Edinburgh have hastened their development of multi-channel options albeit in developments whereby they remain in control. Particularly in the case of London, most marketing activity is geared towards driving traffic to their website www.visitlondon.com where Visit London can then seek to exert some control over the market. In Edinburgh this activity is via the www.VisitScotland.com website, though obviously this carries nationwide material rather than just that based on Edinburgh. While this consolidation does allow greater coverage and access for customers, it does have the disadvantage of it being difficult to capture and reflect local, anecdotal information, as previously provided by the Area Tourist Boards. Thus, many businesses also pay to appear on the Network Office website at www.edinburgh.org.

Collaboration

To counter the threat of consolidation across much of the industry, it is clear that destinations need to pool resources towards developing an integrated marketing mix and delivery system (Dore and Crouch, 2003; Dredge, 2006). This migration toward a greater collaboration is referred to by King (2002) as the 'network economy', in that those managing destinations will probably enter into strategic relationships with industry partners who can together provide a seamless experience for the customer (Fyall et al., 2006). To achieve such a goal, collaboration is not viewed as a luxury but as a necessity for destinations to survive in the face of considerable competition and environmental challenges. In the case of London, effective collaboration with the London boroughs and cities is fundamental to the development of the wider destination. In extreme crisis situations this is even more so but with the day-to-day management of the public realm in the hands of the local authorities — and not the destination marketing organisation Visit London — collaboration is a prerequisite for the maintenance and development of the destination product.

Some of the above is also true for Edinburgh though it could be argued that while there is still a huge reliance on public sector organisations, the public/private partnership organisation ETAG is successful in raising awareness of the need for greater collective understanding. Carter (2006) thinks it is important to identify the opportunities and appropriate participants to tailor to individual visitor and business needs. It is also important that those outwith the organisations that hold the budgets get the opportunity to contribute to the future strategies and plans.

CONCLUSION

Thursday, 7th July, 2005 saw the single deadliest act of terrorism in the UK since the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988. With the four suicide bombers striking at the very core of Central London, 56 people were killed with over 700 suffering injuries, many of them serious. In addition to the further failed bombing attack on Thursday, 21st July, 2005 London was — and remains — in a state of nervousness vis-à-vis its overall level of security (Ladkin et al., 2006). On the assumption that no further shocks occur, many of the collaborative marketing activities put in place as a consequence of the wider devolution of tourism in England and as a response to previous disasters (ie TIRP), growth in inbound tourism is projected to rebound in 2006 (Visit Britain, 2005). As evidenced earlier in this paper, however, domestic demand is proving to be a more difficult nut to crack for Visit London with both domestic visits and spending forecast to decrease in 2006.

Scotland meanwhile has a goal to increase tourism activity by 50 per cent in the next 10 years (Ferguson, 2005), with Edinburgh expected to contribute significantly to this. It seems fair to say that this can only happen if the strategies of the various organisations are aligned and become more customer-focussed. This is only likely to happen if links between the organisations are forged and trust developed between the new Network Office, tourism bodies and partnerships and local authorities.

For both destinations, the above serves only to reinforce the need to maintain and build on their position in the world and to continually develop their markets and diversify their propositions. In the case of London, in particular, the theme of market development represents one of the four pillars of the Mayor's Tourism Strategy and has at its core four principal targets: the need to develop markets and reduce dependency on any one market; the need to explore and develop markets that will promote diverse and dispersed tourism business and expand the portfolio of London's offer; increase the appeal of London as a tourist destination while managing the costs of tourism and spreading the benefits to all London's communities; and, promote, support and actively develop London's role as the principal 'gateway' to the UK (Fyall et al., 2006). If these four targets can be achieved, then London stands an excellent chance of long-term success.

References

1. Baral, A., Baral, S. and Morgan, N. (2004) 'Marketing Nepal in an Uncertain Climate: Confronting perceptions of risk and insecurity', Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10, 2, 186–192.
2. Beirman, D. (2002) 'Marketing of Tourism Destinations During a Period of Prolonged Crisis: Israel and the Middle East', Journal of Vacation Marketing, 8, 2, 167–176. | Article |
3. Bennett, O. (1999) 'Destination Marketing into the Next Century', Journal of Vacation Marketing, 6, 1, 48–54. | Article |
4. Blumberg, K. (2005) 'Tourism Destination Marketing: A tool for destination management? A case study from Nelson/Tasman Region, New Zealand', Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 10, 1, 45–57. | Article |
5. Buhalis, D. (2000) 'Marketing the Competitive Destination of the Future', Tourism Management, 21, 1, 97–116. | Article |
6. Buhalis, D. and Cooper, C. (1998) 'Competition or Co-operation: The needs of small and medium sized tourism enterprises at a destination level', in Laws, E., Faulkner, B. and Moscardo, G. (eds), 'Embracing and Managing Change in Tourism', Routledge, London, pp. 324–346.
7. Caldwell, N. and Freire, J. R. (2004) 'The Difference Between Branding a Country, a Region and a City: Applying the Brand Box Model', Journal of Brand Management, 12, 1, 50–61. | Article |
8. Carter, B. (2006) Interview held on 17th January with Area Director of VisitScotland, Network Office, Edinburgh.
9. DCMS. (2004) 'Tomorrow's Tourism Today', Department for Culture, Media and Sport, London.
10. Dore, L. and Crouch, G. I. (2003) 'Promoting Destinations: An exploratory study of publicity programmes used by national tourism organisations', Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9, 2, 137–151.
11. Dredge, D. (2006) 'Policy Networks and the Local Organisation of Tourism', Tourism Management, 27, 2, 269–280. | Article |
12. Fall, L. T. (2004) 'The Increasing Role of Public Relations as a Crisis Management Function: An empirical examination of communication restrategising efforts among destination organisation managers in the wake of 11th September, 2001', Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10, 3, 238–252.
13. Ferguson, P (2005): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/scotland/4457326.stm.Framework for Change document, Edinburgh.
14. Foley, A. and Fahy, J. (2004) 'Incongruity Between Expression and Experience: The role of imagery in supporting the positioning of a tourism destination brand', Journal of Brand Management, 11, 3, 209–217. | Article |
15. Frisby, E. (2002) 'Communicating in a Crisis: The British Tourist Authority's response to the foot-and-mouth outbreak and 11th September, 2001', Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9, 1, 89–100.
16. Fyall, A. and Garrod, B. (2005) 'Tourism Marketing: A collaborative approach', Channel View Publications, Clevedon.
17. Fyall, A., Garrod, B. and Tosun, C. (2006) 'Destination Marketing: A framework for future research', in Kozak, M. and Andreu L. (eds), 'Advances in Tourism Research: Progress in Tourism Marketing', Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 75–86.
18. GLA Economics. (2003a) 'London's Economy Today', GLA Economics, London, Issue 9: May 2003.
19. GLA Economics. (2003b) 'Impact of Gulf War or Terrorist Attack on London's Economy', GLA Economics: London.
20. Hopper, P. (2002) 'Marketing London in a Difficult Climate', Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9, 1, 81–88.
21. http://www.edinburghbrand.com(2006). (accessed 19 January 2006).
22. http://www.lothianexchange.net/issue_1_final_live.pdf, (2006a). The case for a brand (accessed 19 January 2006).
23. http://www.lothianexchange.net/evs_2004-5_final_report_webversion.pdf, (2006b). Edinburgh Visitor Survey (accessed 19 January 2006).
24. http://www.scotexchange.net, (2006a). Tourism in Edinburgh 2004 (accessed 19 January 2006).
25. http://www.scotexchange.net/tourism_organisations/locallevel/vsnetworkoffice.htm, (2006b). Visit Scotland Network Offices (accessed 19 January 2006).
26. http://www.visitlondon.com, (2006a) 'The Importance of Tourism in LondonVisit London, London, (accessed 17 January 2006).
27. http://www.visitlondon.com, (2006b) 'Growth in Overseas Visitors to London to Take Visitor Count to 26.6m', Visit London, London, (accessed 17 January 2006).
28. Jeffrey, R. (2005) in McInnes, N Edinburgh's Tourism industry looks into the future www.scottish-enterprise.com/sedotcom_home/news-se/news-fullarticle.htm(accessed 19 January 2006).
29. Joppe, M. (2003) 'Optimizing Tourism Destination Development in Canada', International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 15, 6, 308–311. | Article |
30. King, J. (2002) 'Destination Marketing Organisations: Connecting the experience rather than promoting the place', Journal of Vacation Marketing, 8, 2, 105–108. | Article |
31. Konecnik, M. (2004) 'Evaluating Slovenia's Image as a Tourism Destination. A Self-Analysis Process Towards Building a Destination Tool', Journal of Brand Management, 11, 4, 307–316. | Article |
32. Ladkin, A., Fyall, A., Fletcher, J. and Shipway, R. (2006) 'London Tourism: Devolution, disaster and diversification, CAUTHE 2006, Melbourne, Australia, 6–9 February.
33. Money, R. B. and Crotts, J. C. (2003) 'The Effect of Uncertainty Avoidance on Information Search, Planning and Purchases of International Travel Vacations', Tourism Management, 24, 2, 191–202. | Article |
34. Morgan, N., Pritchard, A. and Piggott, R. (2002) 'New Zealand, 100% Pure: The creation of a powerful niche destination brand', Journal of Brand Management, 9, 4/5, 335–354. | Article |
35. Morgan, N. J., Pritchard, A. and Piggott, R. (2003) 'Destination Branding and the Role of Stakeholders: The case of New Zealand', Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9, 3, 285–299.
36. Pavlovich, K. (2003) 'The Evolution and Transformation of a Tourism Destination Network: The Waitomo Caves, New Zealand', Tourism Management, 24, 2, 203–216. | Article |
37. Prideaux, B., Agrusa, J., Donlon, J. and Curran, C. (2004) 'Exotic or Erotic — Contrasting images for defining destinations', Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 9, 1, 5–17. | Article |
38. Prideaux, B. and Cooper, C. (2002) 'Marketing and Destination Growth: A symbiotic relationship or simple coincidence?' Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9, 1, 35–51.
39. Scott, N., Parfitt, N. and Laws, E. (2000) 'Destination Management: Co-operative marketing, a case study of Port Douglas Brand', in B. Faulkner, G. Moscardo and E. Laws (eds), 'Tourism in the 21st Century', Continuum, London, pp. 198–221.
40. Telfer, D. (2001) 'Strategic Alliances Along the Niagara Wine Route', Tourism Management, 22, 1, 21–30. | Article |
41. Visit Britain. (2005). Update from the Tourism Industry Emergency Response Group, 9 September 2005. Visit Britain, London.
42. Wahab, S. and Cooper, C. (2001). Tourism in the Age of Globalisation. Routledge, London.