SURVEY: High end tourists—good idea or a flop?

[Trujillo]

What exactly is a "bottom feeder tourist"?

[ChipButty]

27 minutes ago, Trujillo said:

What exactly is a "bottom feeder tourist"?

Take it anyway you want

[Trujillo]

"Take it anyway (sic) you want"? 

 

Okay, I take it as nonsense. 

 

All tourists are valuable to many sectors of Thai commerce. While you can pay 20,000 baht a night at the Banyan Tree, most often you will find rooms in the 1,000 baht range. 

Thai souvenirs are priced the same for a summer holiday tourist as for Bill Gates. Tours and food are priced for the every-man tourist. 

 

The "bottom-feeder tourist" is a meaningless slur. 

[Trillian]

We were in Chiang Mai last year and saw a number of Western hitch hiking backpackers on the road leading to Pai, it's hard for me to imagine their value to Thai commerce is worth very much at all.

[5633572526]

20 hours ago, ozz1 said:

Everyone that i know with money  are all staying put till this all blows over  and Thailand is not the place for high end tourists  maybe the Maldives or the Adriatic coast  but Thailand has been out of favour for a while now maybe some wealthy Chinese but they have enough trouble at the moment  so  ithink they are flogging a dead horse

Wealthy Chinese will be going to Cambodia. Beautiful Casinos plenty of ladies and no immigration hassles. 

[newnative]

14 hours ago, worgeordie said:

I keep hearing that Pattaya is a high end family resort.....from TAT mostly,

or from local government,when something bad happens,like someone

getting shot in the street,and they say the perpetrators are sullying the

famous image of Pattaya,in 30 odd years living here,it's about the only

place in Thailand I have not been to .

regards worgeordie

 

     Perhaps one day you'll visit and see for yourself.  I think you'll find that the beaches are nice and being kept clean--especially the newly-widened Pattaya Beach.  I think you'll find that there are, indeed, some nice family-oriented parts of Pattaya, such as Jomtien, Wongamat, and Cosy, where a family certainly can have a nice holiday by the sea with plenty to do away from the adult entertainment areas. 

     As far as crime goes, I find Pattaya very safe, as I do other parts of Thailand. The rare shooting does garner publicity but I feel far safer in Pattaya than I would in most places in the US, where I am from.  The other weekend there were 100 shootings in Chicago. 100!  In just one weekend.  Glad I don't live there.  Check us out sometime.  

[Fairynuff]

23 hours ago, Suddenplans said:

Bhutan charges USD $250 per person per day.  The quality of guests to Bhutan is quite high.  Next store to Bhutan is Nepal that gets all the back packers.  Thailand could charge $25 a day.

The only thing Bhutan and Thailand have in common is Buddhism. Beyond that there’s nothing. My trip to Bhutan was one of my best ever trips and worth every penny. 

[Fairynuff]

21 hours ago, Airalee said:

Bhutan doesn’t even have a million people.  
 

Thailand’s GDP is more than 150 times Bhutan.

 

How many people have been, or would go to to Bhutan twice?

I went 3 years ago, loved every second of the trip and still keep contact with our guides. I would definitely go back again.

[ravip]

23 hours ago, Suddenplans said:

Bhutan charges USD $250 per person per day.  The quality of guests to Bhutan is quite high.  Next store to Bhutan is Nepal that gets all the back packers.  Thailand could charge $25 a day.

$25 a day would be exorbitant to many who complain about 20 Bahts.

The high end guys don't even know that anything like TVF exist - they arrive, enjoy their vacation and go back to their comfortable lives. 

No, they don't waste their time whimpering...

 

[thaibeachlovers]

23 hours ago, brommers said:

Thailand is not making the best of its unique culture, cuisine and character by appealing to the bottom feeder tourists that visit in their tens of millions. But a sweeping change to high end tourism is simply a pipe dream, and will provide very little in the way of numbers. And this country badly needs numbers to soak up the unemployment following the lockdown. It is not a binary decision that is needed but a long term and well managed move away from trash tourists to a more middle market. Bhutan is no model for this and neither are most markets because they become fixated, like TAT are,  on chasing volume. Tourism is highly destructive unless very carefully controlled.

Well said about high end tourists. IF high end tourists ( and that is doubtful to me ) were attracted they would employ very few Thais. LOS needs loads of tourists to fill the guest houses and cheap hotels or face a catastrophe in employment.

Not going to happen anyway as LOS is way too dirty, chaotic and broken to attract the really rich in sufficient numbers. There is a niche market where they avoid all the mess during transit to their multi star resort accommodation and either never leave for the duration or go on lux coach and launch tours between multi star accommodations. That market is already catered to.

The really high end go to the Maldives for beaches, Dubai for shopping etc. They are not going to subject themselves to sunning on a beach and being hassled every few minutes by those pesky hawkers, or ripped off by songtheaw drivers. They also are not going to stay anywhere where the hordes destroy the ambience and the environment.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, newnative said:

     Perhaps one day you'll visit and see for yourself.  I think you'll find that the beaches are nice and being kept clean--especially the newly-widened Pattaya Beach.  I think you'll find that there are, indeed, some nice family-oriented parts of Pattaya, such as Jomtien, Wongamat, and Cosy, where a family certainly can have a nice holiday by the sea with plenty to do away from the adult entertainment areas. 

     As far as crime goes, I find Pattaya very safe, as I do other parts of Thailand. The rare shooting does garner publicity but I feel far safer in Pattaya than I would in most places in the US, where I am from.  The other weekend there were 100 shootings in Chicago. 100!  In just one weekend.  Glad I don't live there.  Check us out sometime.  

There are dozens of better beaches in LOS for families to go to. IMO they only go to Pattaya because they see the fake photo shopped pictures in the travel brochures and get sucked in by the travel agents.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, Trujillo said:

What exactly is a "bottom feeder tourist"?

It's what people that consider themselves to be superior call less well off people. Up to them they'd be the only ones allowed into LOS, IMO.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, Trillian said:

We were in Chiang Mai last year and saw a number of Western hitch hiking backpackers on the road leading to Pai, it's hard for me to imagine their value to Thai commerce is worth very much at all.

Then you, apparently, have not enough imagination. They spend a lot of money and employ many people with their contribution, but not, apparently in the sort of accommodation or areas you like to stay at.

Perhaps they, individually, spend less than yourself, but multiply them by hundreds of thousands and that is a very big a pile of cash that the lower demographic of Thai people get to spend.

BTW, many Thais stay in similar low end places as they- are they also not "worth it"?

[pineapple01]

3 hours ago, Trujillo said:

What exactly is a "bottom feeder tourist"?

Fan Roomers.

[geriatrickid]

The Thai proposal has been taken out of context. Thailand will remain welcoming for most everyone. It's planned strategy is intended to  avoid the segment of people who cause many of the tourist related problems.The marginal  tourists are the ones who are usually;

-  involved in the fights and petty crime.

- unable to pay their medical expenses

- unable to  take care of themselves due to health or mental illness.

 

Backpackers will continue to be welcome, but it will be backpacking kids discovering the world, not 30-40 year old losers who preach the benefits of new age meditation, enemas and consuming  drugs as they try to  quell their inner demons.

Families of modest means will still be welcome as they will use the same hotels as Thai families.

The Danish/Norwegian/Swedish/Finnish retiree visitors will still be welcome.

[Trillian]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Then you, apparently, have not enough imagination. They spend a lot of money and employ many people with their contribution, but not, apparently in the sort of accommodation or areas you like to stay at.

Perhaps they, individually, spend less than yourself, but multiply them by hundreds of thousands and that is a very big a pile of cash that the lower demographic of Thai people get to spend.

BTW, many Thais stay in similar low end places as they- are they also not "worth it"?

The discussion was about the value of a single wealthy tourist being a trade off against a large number of very low spenders on the bottom end, it was not a personal attack it was discourse! But you confirm the point very well when you say to "multiply that person by hundreds of thousands and its a big pile of cash". Government has said it doesn't want hundreds of thousands of low spenders from the mass tourism market, they want a much smaller number of bigger spenders and I think that makes sense. 

[Robin]

High end tourists, whatever they are, and no back-packers, have been to dreams of governments and TAT from the days of the Prem. era, but never realised as Thailand simply is not ready for them.  

When you can get through Immigration as quickly as in Singapore, and then get an air-con, taxi, with English speaking driver, to you hotel, without the usual endless hassle about using the meter, the highway, etc...  Thailand will be on the way to becoming a normal Tourist destination, that might start to get the high-end tourist they want, but at the moment it has no chance, and is only going backward.

Whatever the government might think, Thailand is all about cheapskate tourists, back-packers and losers looking for chap sex.  

[newnative]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

There are dozens of better beaches in LOS for families to go to. IMO they only go to Pattaya because they see the fake photo shopped pictures in the travel brochures and get sucked in by the travel agents.

     Well, Pattaya Beach is looking pretty darn good right now--pity you can't see it in person and judge for yourself.  Hope you saw the gorgeous photos of it on another post awhile back.  But, I think you are missing the point a bit.  It's not just about the beach for lots of families going on holiday.   For many years when I lived in the US my extended family spent a week every summer having a big family holiday reunion.  

       We always selected a resort town with a beach.  BUT, it also had to have nearby golfing for those who liked to golf.  It needed a wide variety of restaurants because we liked to go out to dinner a lot--who wants to cook when you are on holiday?  It needed a good selection of places to rent for the week with nice pools--because we spent lots of time just hanging out at the pool catching up.  It needed attractions and amusements to entertain us.  It needed places we could take day trips to.  And, some wanted good shopping, aw well.  

     If you look at Pattaya, it's got all that. Lots of places to stay on or near the beaches with pools.  Lots of golfing nearby including a beautiful new course near Silver Lake.  Lots of restaurants with all varieties of food and some right on the beach.  Day trips to the islands.  Attractions and amusements like the Aquarium, 3 water parks, the Kaan show, go carts, Nong Nooch Gardens and the shows there, Floating Market, Dolphinarium, Teddy Bear Museum, and others.  Lots of shopping at Central Festival, Terminal 21, night markets, etc.  

[Trillian]

3 minutes ago, Robin said:

Whatever the government might think, Thailand is all about cheapskate tourists, back-packers and losers looking for chap sex.  

You see that's where you give away how little you understand about the country, it's a casual observers view or one from a person who only visits the tourist locations. That used to be a mainstream view, today it's a view that is rapidly slipping down the list of reasons. The Chinese for example in the main don't use beer bars and act like mongers on Beach Road, those are mostly Western activities and have been since the Vietnam war....turn around and look the other way and you'll see large numbers of people doing more normal things.

[ravip]

TBO, speaking of tourism, any country will always welcome any foreigner.

The tourism agencies will have a wide range of choices that will suit the spending capacity of the traveller.

What the authorities obviously don't want are the drug peddlers, scammers and other riff raff, who are nothing but trouble.

 

The bottom feeders and top feeders categories are hallucinations of frustrated beings, passing away their idle time without having anything better to do.

 

[PingRoundTheWorld]

2 hours ago, 5633572526 said:

Wealthy Chinese will be going to Cambodia. Beautiful Casinos plenty of ladies and no immigration hassles. 

Nobody is going to Cambodia with their draconian policy at the moment. $3000 and risk quarantine if another passenger tests positive? That's almost guaranteed to happen. If/when they change it, maybe.

[Trujillo]

"We were in Chiang Mai last year and saw a number of Western hitch hiking backpackers on the road leading to Pai, it's hard for me to imagine their value to Thai commerce is worth very much at all."

 

They have to eat, which means at a restaurant almost certainly owned by a Thai and operated by Thai staff. They have to sleep somewhere, in a place owned by a Thai and operated by Thai staff. They have to buy snacks, from a stall owned and operated by a Thai. They have to buy fishermen pants, from a shop owned and operated by Thais...

 

Are you getting the picture yet?  

[Trillian]

2 minutes ago, Trujillo said:

"We were in Chiang Mai last year and saw a number of Western hitch hiking backpackers on the road leading to Pai, it's hard for me to imagine their value to Thai commerce is worth very much at all."

 

They have to eat, which means at a restaurant almost certainly owned by a Thai and operated by Thai staff. They have to sleep somewhere, in a place owned by a Thai and operated by Thai staff. They have to buy snacks, from a stall owned and operated by a Thai. They have to buy fishermen pants, from a shop owned and operated by Thais...

 

Are you getting the picture yet?  

I refer you to post 106, just in case you didn't understand the point of the debate.

[Trujillo]

"That's almost guaranteed to happen (having a fellow airplane passenger test positive on landing)."

 

Considering that A) few people will be traveling on the plane with you and B) everyone must have a non-positive test no more than 72 hours before boarding the plane, your chances are very good, I'd say, of not testing positive on landing. 

 

And then you are off on your trip as usual. 

 

[Trujillo]

"The discussion was about the value of a single wealthy tourist being a trade off against a large number of very low spenders on the bottom end, ..."

 

Actually, the discussion has nothing to do with anything about one wealthy tourist equaling a "large number of very low spending" tourists. 

 

The discussion, per the OP, is about a survey regarding high-end tourists -- "A good idea or a flop." 

[Trillian]

9 minutes ago, Trujillo said:

"The discussion was about the value of a single wealthy tourist being a trade off against a large number of very low spenders on the bottom end, ..."

 

Actually, the discussion has nothing to do with anything about one wealthy tourist equaling a "large number of very low spending" tourists. 

 

The discussion, per the OP, is about a survey regarding high-end tourists -- "A good idea or a flop." 

May I suggest that you read the thread and understand the course of the discussion rather than just dive in and pick out one post, completely out of context.

[Bassosa]

As others have mentioned already, Thailand is too dirty, too chaotic and too broken to attract high net worth individuals. And that won't change in a hurry because the general chaos also has to do with the Thai mindset.

 

Go look at what the Omani's did south of Muscat to see how you'd have a reasonable chance of attracting high spenders. No way Thailand could pull it off.

 

Thai hospitality entrepreneurs are horribly let down by their (local) government(s) and organizations like the TAT. They could do so much more. If someone succeeds in hospitality/tourism in Thailand it's DESPITE local governance, not because of it. 

I mean, you could start with cleaning up the beaches, which are filthy. But even that's too much to ask. Quite frankly, Thailand doesn't deserve the tourism dollars but I'll doubt they'll learn from what's happening now. It will be "same same" when the tourists do come back.

Edited June 29, 2020 by Bassosa

[raiden8411]

If a holiday to Bangkok cost the same why would the majority of rich people going to Paris , Barcelona , London , Switzerland , Rome  Italy , New York those places  write off those holidays to go to Bangkok perhaps they want to go watch Barcelona play football in Spain  , or drink very expensive wine in Paris ect not everything evolves around Thailand  , Thailand has many things some other countries do not have like the street food experience and the fake products , Temples ect  and market shopping yes of course there are expensive hotels and shopping malls in Bangkok  but you not going to steal other holiday makers that wanted to go to other countries for a totally different experience.

 

Thailand already cater for Rich people some Hotels in Bangkok are High end and  got amazing Hospitality and Hotels  in the Islands already 

 

 

Focus on what you are good at and Thailand offer a unique experience for Holidays  keep doing what you good at and SMILE see travelers as Guest not Aliens.

 

 

I

Edited June 29, 2020 by raiden8411

[Trujillo]

The discussion, per the OP, is about a survey regarding high-end tourists -- "A good idea or a flop." 

 

That's the topic here. Yet, I think I'm being trolled or baited or flamed or whatever applies here. >..<

 

------------------------------------------------------

 

I think the government -- shock, horror! -- is trying to pull a rabbit out of a hat. 

 

There issue here is the fact that 90 percent of accommodations (for example) are not in the "wealthy" classification, and rightly so. Part of the reason tourists come is because it's affordable. That doesn't mean "cheap" in the sense of poor quality for little money. 

 

I will give you are real life example. Take the Banyan Tree resort in Koh Samui. The "best available rate, average," is 15,443.98 baht a night (according to their website). 

They are nice rooms and it's a beautiful beach (I used to go there with the dogs before any development had ever taken place. We used to call it the "secret beach."). 

 

But then look at Crystal Bay Yacht Club at Silver Beach (or Crystal Bay, as it seems to be listed now). Another amazingly pretty beach, not next to traffic and rooms for under 1,000 baht. Both have child-friendly beaches (soft, gently sloping sands) and in fact, the Yacht Club is within a short walk of several places to dine, something that the "wealthy-catering" resort does not, as it is totally self contained. 

Yes, the Yacht Club is not a 5-star place, but then it's comfortable and clean. And it's right on the beach (you don't need to ring the front desk to get a golf cart to come pick you up, no joke).

 

My point being that you don't need to spend a wealthy amount of money to get good value and basically the same or similar views (and better beach accessibility). Personally, I never understood people staying in a place that cost 5,000 baht when two resorts down you got virtually the same thing for 1/5th the price. 

 

I think the whole concept of "quality, wealthy" tourists is flawed from the outset. 

 

Instead of trying "up the quality of the visitors," why not up the quality of the resorts and shops and restaurants that will cater to the new wave of tourists? 

 

 

[Brunolem]

41 minutes ago, Trujillo said:

Personally, I never understood people staying in a place that cost 5,000 baht when two resorts down you got virtually the same thing for 1/5th the price. 

Having done both, I can guarantee that it is not the same, not even virtually.

 

Maybe a 5,000 baht room is not 5 times better than a 1,000 baht room...but what does such a comparison mean anyway.

 

It's like with any product, the closer you get to the top, the more you overpay, because the sellers know that at a certain level the price is not the priority for the buyers...the latter are ready to pay more for a brand name, a location, a view, a reputation and so on.