Agenda item

Mr Mike Denby, Director of Inward Investment & Place Marketing at Leicester City Council has been invited to attend for this item.

The Commission considered a report of the Director of Public Health, Law and Governance, the purpose of which was to provide an update on the work of the Place Marketing team for Leicester and Leicestershire.  A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 10’ is filed with these notes.

The Chairman welcomed Mike Denby, Director of Inward Investment & Place Marketing at Leicester City Council to the meeting and who had attended to present on this item.

Arising from discussion, the following points were made:

(i)               In response to questions from members about the extent to which it remained a challenge to encourage visitors who were drawn to Leicester City to also visit attractions in the wider county, and whether initiatives such as joint ticketing could assist in improving cross-promotion, Mr Denby advised that there had historically been an “invisible border” but that collaboration across the area had improved year-on-year. It was noted that the growth strategy included specific objectives to strengthen cross-area working, with events acting as a key driver of external visitors.

(ii)              Current work to align and link events (for example, coordinating itineraries around major events such as the county fair and local food markets) so that visitors were encouraged to extend their stay and attend multiple activities across the City and County was welcomed.

(iii)            Members asked for a breakdown of where visitors were travelling from, including the proportion coming from outside the area compared with local residents. The Director confirmed that this data was tracked and could be presented in more detail in future reporting. However, the current position was that approximately 67% were local visitors and 33% external visitors.  External visitors had increased over recent years from around 27% three years previously.

(iv)            Members questioned the branding of the service as “Visit Leicester”, and why the title did not more explicitly reference the county.  Members also expressed concerns that social media content appeared to be more city-focused than county-focused. Mr Denby explained that the name had been informed by a perception survey undertaken when the organisation was first established some years ago. This had indicated that “Leicester” was the most widely recognised destination “hook” for visitors from outside the area, and that once visitors were attracted, the offer promoted experiences across the whole region. Mr Denby provided assurance that the service sought to operate fairly and transparently across both areas.  Members suggested that the branding might benefit from being reviewed given the time since it had last been considered.

(v)             A “Hidden Gems” campaign was being developed as part of the new strategy. Alongside promoting major “anchor” attractions, the campaign would focus on a “next tier” of lesser-known places, such as Charnwood Forest that had applied for UNESCO status. These were places/experiences that local residents might be familiar with but which visitors from outside the area had not yet discovered.  This would include, within larger attractions, smaller individual venues or café facilities for example.  Members noted that work with district partners was underway to compile a comprehensive list of ‘hidden gems’ and to use this to encourage visitors to undertake additional activities during evenings or on subsequent days, thereby supporting longer stays and wider dispersal of visitor spend. It was noted that the campaign was expected to roll out within the coming months and run over an extended period, supported by a dedicated budget.

(vi)            Members commented that, while the report contained strong performance figures, it would be helpful to include comparative information, for example, benchmarking tourism and inward investment outcomes against other comparable areas.  Mr Denby confirmed that comparator analysis was undertaken but had not been included in the report on this occasion. He undertook to incorporate this in future reports.

(vii)          Members queried whether reported social media reach and influencer engagement represented good value, noting that view counts did not always appear significant in social media terms. It was acknowledged that viral reach could not be guaranteed.  Influencer selection was intended to draw audiences from outside the area. However, local influencers were also used and their content shared as performance tended to be stronger where content aligned with the influencer’s existing locality and therefore did not require significant travel.   

(viii)         Members raised concerns regarding proposals for a visitor levy/tax, particularly the potential impact on small hospitality and tourism businesses given the administrative burden involved.  It was noted that the service had engaged with businesses and fed back sector views through the government consultation process. Mr Denby advised that, as currently framed, the tax would be payable by the visitor and so could affect demand and disproportionately impact lower-cost stays.

(ix)            Members questioned what factors deterred visitors from coming to the area and what could be done to address “blockages”, including issues such as congestion, car parking and public transport.  It was noted that deterrents varied and whilst in rural areas challenges could include how to get to attractions, including bus routes and the availability of nearby overnight accommodation, in urban settings, perceptions of issues such as antisocial behaviour, cleanliness and parking would likely be a factor.  The service sought to respond to these perceptions through campaign messaging.

(x)             Members asked what arrangements were being developed to maintain local intelligence and engagement currently provided through district councils, in the context of potential local government reorganisation and changes to district structures. Mr Denby advised that, while he could not comment on the future structure of local government, the Service would continue its core role of promoting the region for tourism and investment and would maintain close working relationships with people and partners across the area to demonstrate business-as-usual during this period of change.  

RESOLVED:

That the update now provided on the work of the Place Marketing team for Leicester and Leicestershire be noted.