Letters To The Editor: Tourism Marketing Pays for Itself

» 1 Comment | Post a Comment



Tourism Marketing Pays for Itself
Editor, Times-Dispatch: The recent editorial, "Tourism Inc.," asks a good question: Should the commonwealth be involved in economic development -- in this case tourism and film marketing? To justify any government program we should ensure that it benefits the citizens broadly and cannot be done more effectively by a private organization. In the instance of tourism marketing and film incentives, the Virginia Tourism Corp. fills the bill, and very effectively.

Selling Virginia globally requires coordination and control of the message by the commonwealth. That's precisely why the Virginia Tourism Corp. requires substantial, competitive funding. There currently exists no private statewide tourism marketing effort in this country. As a matter of fact, in 1992, Colorado became the only state to eliminate funding for tourism promotion. The results were catastrophic. Within two years, Colorado's share of the U.S. tourism market dropped by more than 30 percent, and tourism spending dropped by almost $2 billion. The losers were not only the tourism industry, but Colorado taxpayers.

In film production, it often takes about 10 percent in up-front investment to secure productions. For the upcoming film about Secretariat, Virginia did not have the $30 million investment needed, so the movie about a Virginia horse will be filmed in Louisiana and that state will benefit from the $356 million economic impact.

Virginia operates in an extremely competitive environment, the U.S. Southeast. If

The Times-Dispatch

is going to criticize political candidates for supporting economic development, it does so at the risk of diminishing our market share and squandering our product. Rather, let's sell Virginia boldly and unabashedly. Robin D. Carson, Chair, Tourism Committee, Virginia Chamber of Commerce.


Richmond.

Faithful Subscriber Enjoys a Good Read
Editor, Times-Dispatch: I just want to thank you for the stories in recent days about Mary Travers and William Hoffman.

Back in the early 1980s I watched a show on PBS during a fundraising campaign. It had a performance by Peter, Paul, and Mary that to this day was the best concert I have ever watched.

The group performed well-known songs and some others such as "El Salvador" and "Playing Right Field." It was absolutely wonderful. I taped that show and watched it over and over. I lent it to someone (I can't remember whom) and never got it back. I have tried to find out where I might find a copy and simply don't know where else to turn. I fell in love with that group and that particular show. May Mary Travers rest in peace.

While vacationing in Nags Head a few years ago, I picked up a book by William Hoffman called Blood and Guile. I liked it so much that I proceeded to obtain almost every novel and short story that he wrote and have them in my favorite book collection. He was an obscure writer, but a very good one. More people should read him.

I subscribe to your paper because of articles like this and lots of other things that make

The Times-Dispatch a very good read. Keep up the good work!

Ralph Walker.
Chesterfield.



A Copy of the Speech Would Have Been Nice
Editor, Times-Dispatch Congressional courtesy requires that the president give a copy of his speech to members of Congress -- especially a minority leader -- prior to a major address. Such was not the case when President Barack Obama spoke to a joint session recently on health care. The impact of change from our present system could negatively affect our economy if not implemented properly and with much consideration.

"Talk is cheap," and "show me the money" are two statements that sum up the president's health care reform prattle. After months of talk he has not signed one piece of paper that delineates his plan. The plan is just talk and even that is a moving target. The prevarication of that evening is that he has a plan. Where is this plan documented -- or is it still invisible?

There are several ways of taking notes. The original was to remember, talk, and repeat, which often produced gossip. Using paper and pencil was an improvement. Today in the electronic age people multi-task by listening and taking notes on a BlackBerry (the president's favorite tool). Rep. Eric Cantor has been criticized for doing the latter. If Obama had been courteous and passed out copies of his speech -- or even signed off on a plan -- Cantor could have just underlined the sticking points and noted the difference.

John S. Thomasson.
Richmond.

Advertisement

 
View More: letters to the editor,
Not what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
 

Advertisement

Reader Reactions

Flag Comment Posted by dinnypat on September 28, 2009 at 11:18 am

I find it interesting, to say the least, that folks are so fired up over Rep. Cantor’s use of a BlackBerry during the President’s speech are the same folks that are ignoring Rep. Rangel’s thumbing his nose at payment of taxes.  What’s more important, decorum or integrity.  On another note, where were those folks and where was the House’s righteous indignation when Hillary was laughing and rolling her eyes during Pres Bush’s address to Congress after 9-11?  Talk about inappropriate! No wonder their approval rating is in the basement.

Post a Comment(Requires free registration)

  • Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
  • Respect others.
  • Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
  • See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Click here to post a comment.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Online Features
Blogs
DataCenter
Videos
Weekend
 

Advertisement