https://skift.com/2023/04/20/why-sedonas-tourism-bureau-fired-its-city-over-destination-marketing/

Why Sedona’s Tourism Bureau Fired Its City Over Destination Marketing

Dawit Habtemariam, Skift

April 20th, 2023 at 10:45 AM EDT

Skift Take

All eyes will be on Sedona, Arizona. If it can fund itself and promote tourism without the city’s dollars, other destinations could potentially follow its example.

Dawit Habtemariam

The Sedona Chamber of Commerce & Tourism Bureau recently ended its tourism partnership with the City of Sedona because the local government wouldn’t allow it to restart destination marketing. The move came in the wake of a November election that saw a mayor and council member voted out and that was seen as a referendum on resident attitudes toward tourism.

“It got to the point where somebody had to make a bold decision,” said city councilman Peter Furman. “The chamber pulled the trigger first.”

The non-renewal of the contract for the next fiscal year represents a broader tale of many places rethinking their spending on tourism promotion. Sedona’s tourism bureau is one of a growing list of entities put under greater pressure from legislators and constituents to redirect funds toward destination management and other community goals. A recent Skift megatrend noted that residents in many parts of the world no longer want to be spectators in tourism.

newspaper

Skift Daily Newsletter

Get the travel industry’s daily must-read email 6 days a week

Tourism Surge, Tourism Slump

Two years ago, the Sedona City Council revised its contract with the tourism bureau, stopping the bureau from spending money on destination marketing.

Before the pause, the tourism bureau spent between $500,000 and $600,000 a year on marketing and advertising per year to attract affluent, longer-staying visitors, said Michelle Conway, CEO and president of Sedona Chamber of Commerce & Tourism Bureau. The promotion expenses were only a minority of its expenditure, with destination management the bulk. Yet for the past two years, it only spent money on destination management.

Not everyone’s happy about the move.

Sedona benefited from a surge in tourism in 2021. But last year, business flagged.

Like other rural destinations, Sedona — a hiking and mountain biking destination — is facing wider competition now that the pandemic is over, international travel is open, and cities are attractive again to tourists.

In 2022, Sedona saw a decline in tourist traffic year over year. Meanwhile, direct competitors like Jackson Hole and Napa Valley haven’t seen the same drop and are eating away at Sedona’s share, Conway said.

Many hoteliers are concerned. Occupancy is now down 6.5 percent from its pre-pandemic level. Average daily rates have been dropping.

Hoteliers had been one of the most active stakeholders years ago in pushing for a 0.5 percent addition to the city’s 3 percent bed tax. The 0.5 percent was originally earmarked specifically for tourism promotion. 

Businesses — 60 percent of which are tourism-oriented — are now “suffering” and “asking for help,” Conway said. Some have seen double-digit drops in revenue. On top of lost visitor spending, business operations costs are above pre-Covid levels.

The tourism bureau thought it was time to restart destination marketing. Yet the Sedona City Council wouldn’t budge. It denied requests to jump-start marketing.

To properly support its business stakeholders, the chamber had to break away from the city, its leaders said. It’s confident it will find alternative sources to support future marketing efforts.

2021: The Turning Point

Something of a split between residents and the tourism industry had been appearing before the marketing pause.

Many locals haven’t been happy with changes in their life due to tourism in the last five years, said Ryan Casago, a resident and local vacation rental owner.

The year 2021 was something of a turning point because of overtourism, said Conway. Like other outdoor destinations during the pandemic, Sedona saw an explosion in visitors, with 3.7 million in 2021, up from its annual 3 million, according to the Sedona Chamber of Commerce.

“We were super successful,” said Furman. “Tourists started to flock to Sedona.”

But there were negative consequences.

The city’s road infrastructure was being pushed “close to its limits,” said Furman.

Traffic congestion, longer wait times at restaurants, and poor habits from new outdoor enthusiasts hit the town of 10,000 people. 

The influx of short-term rental properties has cut available housing and changed the community makeup. Conway said there are now more short-term rental rooms than hotel rooms (2,800), which has added to the angst of the locals.

Affordable and available housing has become harder to come by for large segments of the local workforce, said Furman. 

Such stress on community, physical, and natural infrastructure was a common problem among destinations in 2021 and 2022 in response to unprecedented tourism. What commonly followed were communities questioning the value of tourism promotion. In Jackson Hole, Wyoming, for example, residents have directly questioned its tourism board about ceasing marketing.

Destination marketing tactics like filling in slow seasons and promoting lesser-used trails instead of popular attractions do more harm than good, said Furman. Lesser known trails not set up for parking suffered overcapacity, for example, which pushed the tourist parking to other locations. 

“All those decisions have unintended consequences of pissing off the locals,” he said. 

Tough Choices

The chamber doesn’t have an alternative funding source yet. The details of which funding model to use to replace the loss of bed tax dollars are still being worked out, but the business community said it’s fully behind whatever the chamber does.

Come July 1, when the current contract ends, the chamber will have to do “what it needs to survive,” said Conway. That may include operational and program cuts. Details on who will be responsible for which destination management programs and projects are still being worked out, but the chamber expects to have less on its plate.

With the contract over, Conway is “excited” about the new opportunities for creative marketing now that it won’t have its hands tied. One area of interest is potentially expanding marketing to include the greater Verde Valley that Sedona sits in — highlighting the region’s diversity of towns, wine country, and art communities.

Meanwhile, the city council is looking at hiring a consultant to help internally manage and mitigate the impacts of tourism.

“I don’t see a lot of energy in the near term to do destination marketing,” said Furman.

Tags: arizona, destination management, destination marketing, destination marketing organizations, funding, outdoor tourism, rural tourism, sedona, sustainable tourism, tourism boards, tourism marketing, us travel

Photo credit: Sedona’s tourism agency fired its city council and went its own way to pursue destination marketing. Source: Unsplash.

City council debates freedom of speech, rejects 2 proposed restrictions

By Tim Perry

The members of the Sedona City Council refused to approve proposed changes to the council’s rules of procedure at their March 28 meeting on the grounds that the modifications would interfere with freedom of speech.

City attorney Kurt Christianson proposed three significant alterations to Rule 6, which deals with residents’ interaction with the council. The first amendment, to Rule 6.A.1, would have specified that subjects addressed by speakers during the public forum would have to be “within the jurisdiction of the council.”

The second amendment, to Rule 6.A.3, would have struck out the three-minute standard time limit for speakers and prohibited advocacy for or against any candidate or ballot measure. The third amendment, to Rule 6.B, would have added language stating that “members of the public shall not engage in disorderly, disruptive, disturbing, delaying or boisterous conduct, such as, but not limited to, handclapping, stomping of feet, whistling, making noise, use of profane language or obscene gestures, yelling or similar demonstrations, when such conduct substantially interrupts, delays, or disturbs the peace and good order of the proceedings of the council.”

Council members were not persuaded of the need for all of these changes. Councilman Pete Furman described them as unwarranted.

“I would rather be on the side of free speech than not,” Furman said.

“I find Councilor Furman’s argument for free speech to be compelling,” Councilman Brian Fultz agreed.

“Our citizens think everything’s in our jurisdiction,” Councilwoman Jessica Williamson said, addressing the proposed change to Rule 6.A.1. “The airport’s in our jurisdiction. ATVs weren’t in our jurisdiction, yet we’ve certainly embraced doing something about them, so I’m not sure that I think this is needed.”

“People are going to talk about whatever they want to talk about,” Councilwoman Melissa Dunn commented.

“I’d rather spend three minutes listening to them than spend two and a half minutes trying to cut them off,” Mayor Scott Jablow said.

“This is a problem that doesn’t exist,” Vice Mayor Holli Ploog said.

The council elected to preserve the addition of language to the rule reminding speakers to address their remarks to the council as a whole, but rejected the imposition of a content limitation.

Council also found the language of the second proposed alteration to the rules to be unacceptable, although Christianson argued that it was necessary to conform to state statutes prohibiting the use of city property for electioneering.

“I do not agree with Rule 6.A.3,” Councilwoman Kathy Kinsella said. “I think this is a forum for people to get up and speak about ballot measures, especially because some of them are city ballot measures … I want to know where the public stands on state ballot measures … I think this limits speech. I do not support this additional language.”

“I am really opposed to this, and I do not believe that a court is going to hold us accountable for a member of the public who comes up and speaks for three minutes, who has a right to free speech,” Ploog said.

“I would rather lean toward allowing it than cutting it,” Jablow said.

By consensus, the council decided to reject the new language.

The proposed changes to Rule 6.B, which would have involved the insertion of two new paragraphs, prompted more discussion and a somewhat different approach from council.

“Tighten that language up,” Furman suggested. “Don’t have that list.”

He argued that the language of 6.B.1, governing residents’ behavior, should be as similar as possible to the language of 6.B.2, governing council members’ behavior.

“I like the image of us having an equal playing field. I actually think the city council should be more limited,” Furman said.

Christianson explained that he had used the language from an ordinance of Costa Mesa, Calif., that had been found to be constitutional by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Acosta v. Costa Mesa in 2013. He described the inclusion of a list of prohibited actions as “a bit of a warning to the public … it’s always going to be a case-by-case basis.”

“I support this language change because it makes it clear that it’s only when the conduct disturbs,” Kinsella said. “It clarifies that if somebody does clap, it’s OK.”

“I don’t read it that way,” Furman said. “I think the public would interpret this as we’re telling them they can’t clap.”

Williamson said allowing nonverbal expression at council meetings could lead to proponents of minority views being “booed and hissed,” but acknowledged that such a concern was “overruled by the intent of free speech” and expressed support for Christianson’s choice of language.

“The notion of erring toward free speech has come up multiple times,” Fultz said. “I support Kurt’s assertion that following the Circuit Court language specifically is sufficient.”

“I believe, based on what I’ve heard out of this discussion, that this council wants to increase its commitment to freedom of speech, and I’m very confident with what we have in place right now,” Fultz added.

Furman agreed to accept the language approved by the Ninth Circuit, but reminded the council that the mayor also has the latitude to manage meetings as he sees fit, after which the council voted to accept the proposed changes to Rule 6.B.

The council also approved a modification to Rule 4.A.4.f.1 that brings the city into compliance with state law by removing the mayor’s power to order the closing of any business during a state of emergency.