D
Deleted member 95430
Guest
Could we move this to The Lounge at least, i feel this has diverted well away from any sort of photography discussion
and please use their services
The Cost of Seeing
- Thread starter NCV
- Start date
- Messages
- 4,344
- Name
- Martin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
When I was in France in June, we stayed for a while in a lovely little town called Dinan. On the outskirts of Dinan there was a castle/abbey and it was completely free to enter and look around and there were a few boards explaining how it came about and some history of the area. I think the reason it's free is because France has more castles and abbeys than you could shake a stick at and to try to charge people entry to them all would be financially pointless because each site would require paid staff and the footfall-per-attraction would be too low because there are so many. Add to that the fact that France is very big and the population is relatively small and you have a low visitor/attraction ratio. Compare that to the UK where the population is very dense (in more ways than one), our castles and abbeys are larger, grander, and in many cases, still occupied, so require expensive upkeep that the many French establishments do not since many are relics.
Some heritage sites in the UK are good value, some not so much, and it is up to the potential visitor to judge how much they are willing to spend. Personally, I like a well-kept country house and gardens to have a look around and don't consider, say, £15 or £20 too onerous, but places like Stonehenge at £26 is an affront to the casual visitor and probably leaves a very bad taste in the mouth of visitors (especially foreign ones) who may well have been expecting rather more for their money. Overseas visitors probably leave the country with some very poor opinions of British culture and this is a shame because we have one heck of a history here, probably one of the richest in the world, I would say.
Some heritage sites in the UK are good value, some not so much, and it is up to the potential visitor to judge how much they are willing to spend. Personally, I like a well-kept country house and gardens to have a look around and don't consider, say, £15 or £20 too onerous, but places like Stonehenge at £26 is an affront to the casual visitor and probably leaves a very bad taste in the mouth of visitors (especially foreign ones) who may well have been expecting rather more for their money. Overseas visitors probably leave the country with some very poor opinions of British culture and this is a shame because we have one heck of a history here, probably one of the richest in the world, I would say.
OP
- Messages
- 139
- Name
- Nigel
- Edit My Images
- No
France has always been much more on the ball than the UK when it comes to promoting tourism. They are also much less "free market" than the UK, where everything it seems, has to turn a profit. Monuments are a big draw for tourism and I quess the French subsidise this sector, hoping to create wealth in the service sector. Italy follows this model somewhat too.
But I think you will find all churches and religious sites in France are free to to enter. I guess they got the "money lenders in the temple" message.
OP
- Messages
- 139
- Name
- Nigel
- Edit My Images
- No
No, it is about photogrphy. It is all about all the cost and problems we face, when we want to photograph a very popular photographic subject.
Just one of the hassles we face if we want togo out and do some photography.
- Messages
- 767
- Edit My Images
- No
I live in a tourist destination in Norfolk. We see some contribution to the local economy in the few remaining locally owned shops and some employment in the boat yards for the broads but the accommodation rented is usually owned by non-residents and most of the money is spent in nationally owned supermarkets and chain restaurants. A few minimum wage jobs, a bit of business rates and the profits spirited away, isn't showing much advantage for the locals. Meanwhile residents foot the bill for the infrastructure to support tourists.
There may be a net benefit to the area, but it certainly isn't visible to most private residents not involved directly in tourism.
As I said there are many free attractions in the UK or you are welcome to go somewhere else to spend your holidays. I don't think the National Trust or English Heritage are going to pay any attention to your opinion on their pricing polices.
In the UK we have a crisis in hospitality with more jobs than people able or willing to work them - since the UK decided to leave the EU we're desperately short on staff across hotels, restaurants and bars.
If higher prices at attractions results in fewer, lower spending tourists from other countries - then that helps, not harms what resources are available to serve those who do come from outside the UK.
OP
- Messages
- 139
- Name
- Nigel
- Edit My Images
- No
Before telling me and other visitors from abroad to go somewhere else if they do not like certain pricing practices in the UK. Maybe the figures below might make you and others stop and think.
International tourism expenditure in the United Kingdom rose significantly in 2022 over the previous year, after dropping sharply with the onset of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Overall, international tourism spending in the UK amounted to roughly 26.5 billion British pounds in 2022, increasing by nearly 21 billion British pounds from 2021 but remaining below pre-pandemic levels. In 2023, the inbound tourism expenditure is forecast to grow further, reaching an estimated 30.9 billion
I am sure EH and NT will not listen to criticism of their questionable pricing practices, bur maybe they should, looking at the figures above.
- Messages
- 15,484
- Name
- Rich
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I live in the UK, but invariably spend holiday money in Northern Europe.
So we have indeed decided to go somewhere else and mainly because its not nice knowing you are getting ripped off.
Eating out and about is particularly bad in that respect, only last week I saw a jacket spud being advertised for just under a tenner.
Also so many cafe/bars don't want to just sell a beer or coffee, always expect you to buy a meal as well.
Just sometimes want a beer or two whilst wandering and perhaps a snack like some Bitteballen.
Even famous attractions are cheaper, Eiffel Tower is about half the price of the Shard to go up top for a look.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 767
- Edit My Images
- No
Any source for your numbers? I doubt very much that attraction ticket prices make much of those numbers, I would anticipate hotels and restaurants see the bulk of that money and it is very unevenly distributed around the UK.
I didn't tell you to do anything - I pointed out that there are lots of free things to do in the UK and that there are also other countries you can visit - more easily than we can as islanders and ex-members of the EU.
4 of the top 10 Tripadvisor attractions are free to enter, 2 more free to view from the outside (Tower of London and Tower Bridge) - or you might prefer paid for by other means inc. UK taxes and lottery money.
If you choose to visit a place then that's your choice - expecting it to meet your expectations of pricing or equivalence with other countries with different funding models is unrealistic.
You pay your money (or not), you make your choice!
Why? Based on your numbers British tourism is thriving despite predatory price gouging of international tourists.
I'm curious to understand who should be paying to maintain NT and EH properties so that ticket prices can meet your expectations of affordability as an international tourist?
You seem to be suggesting the UK should encourage tourism for economic reasons by reducing the revenue collected by tourist attractions?
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 95743
Guest
The figures dropped by 33% in Wales.
Tourism: Overseas visitors to Wales drop by 33%
One business owner says the school summer holiday makes up more than half of his turnover.
www.bbc.co.uk
OP
- Messages
- 139
- Name
- Nigel
- Edit My Images
- No
I got the numbers here
Sure lots of places are free in the the UK. I an a British Ex Pat who visits the UK from time to time, so I know that . I even made a thread that hinted at this here.
This thread caused me to take a good deep look at the governance of the NT and EH. These two entities are charities with trustees and staff who run them with a business logic. They also seem to put a lot of effort into pursuing "fashionable causes" to use an euphemism to avoid argument. Take a look for yourself guys, and be happy or facepalm. On the continent, boring Civil Servants are in charge of historic monuments. Wells cathedral and Bath Abbey cost less to visit, because they do not have to support a large "jobs the boys" Quango.
I speak to many people here in Italy who have taken a holiday in the UK. They all complain about the costs. That 30.9Billion could be higher if there was more incentive to return for a second holiday, benefiting the service industries. The pricing structure of NT and EH seems to benefit those who can visit a lot of monuments over the year. I would just like a fair pricing model for visitors from overseas. Think of the monuments as a loss leader in the Supermarket.
As I mentioned earlier, both are Church properties, so in addition to the revenue from ticket sales they have the revenue from donations, both from visitors and from their congregations.
You are also again ignoring the fact that the EH and NT properties which do charge are using part of their revenue to pay for the upkeep of all the sites which are free to enter, and to purchase any sites which come up for sale from private individuals.
- Messages
- 767
- Edit My Images
- No
Other countries use different models. EH and NT are independent organisations raising and spending their own revenue, they don't see any benefit from a Hilton hotel visit or a meal at Brewer's Fayre. Unless the UK government nationalised them (falling off my chair at the very suggestion) then they're not going to see any benefit by increasing visitor numbers for lower revenue. There is no room for a loss leader, more visitors at lower prices would mean less revenue and more cost than the subscription model they've chosen.
I have no idea what your "fashionable causes" comment is about, I doubt I want to.
As I also said we have a crisis in UK hospitality - hotels, pubs and restaurants are closing because they can't find staff - increasing the number of visitors would ironically increase stress on an already creaking industry and add to the cost of meals and hotels.
The cost of food and accommodation already massively outweighs a visitor attraction ticket.
Hotel prices have been rising dramatically since Brexit and COVID as they struggle to find people able and willing to work in them - add in crippling inflation and a housing crisis who is going to look after these tourists who are put off spending hundreds or thousands of pounds visiting the UK by the £26 admission for Stonehenge?
Last edited: