International trade shows, sophisticated public relations, advanced social networking, its own iPhone app … The Sonoma County Tourism Board will spend $2.3 million this year marketing “America’s premiere wine, spa and coastal destination.”
Not included in the promotional juggernaut: The city of Sonoma.
On the recommendation of the major hotels in town, the city council decided not to join the county marketing program. Doing so would have entailed adding a two percent tax onto rooms at the city’s larger hotels, sending up to $400,000 annually to the SCTB.
But the council is eyeing those new dollars to help plug an expected budget deficit. Since it is not prepared to look at both hikes, which would have effectively raised the room tax from 10 to 14 percent, the council’s choice came down to one tax or the other.The decision was unanimous. The Sonoma County Tourism Bureau plan was scrapped, and the council retains an option for future revenue if needed.
The choice was made easier by the “Big Seven,” a group of the largest hotels in the city along with the Sonoma Mission Inn. Speaking for the group, Bill Blum, general manager of MacArthur Place, told the council, “it is our unanimous decision that it is not in our best interests at this time to join. If we felt it would generate more business, we would.”
Kenneth J. Fischang, president/CEO of Sonoma County Tourism Bureau, told The Sun, “We were disappointed that the ‘Big Seven’ hotels did not allow us the opportunity to provide factual input on their decision.”
“There was misinformation about our data and what we’re doing,” he said. “We should have had a seat at the table.”
Fischang said that as a “pay to play organization,” the Sonoma County Tourism Bureau promotes only its members. “We will continue to focus our sales and marketing efforts on tourism businesses (which) fund us,” he said.
Meanwhile, in all Sonoma County Tourism Bureau material, potential visitors “will see a big hole where the city of Sonoma should be.”
Blum said the “Big Seven” is satisfied with the city’s own campaigns, coordinated by the Sonoma Valley Visitors Bureau. “Our existing marketing program has been extremely effective in driving business,” he said. “Other than the recession, we’ve seen steady growth. We equate that success to very aggressive marketing.”
The expertise and focus of the Sonoma County Tourism Bureau is on meetings and convention-type business, Blum said. “Sonoma is not set up for larger groups. That is not our primary focus.”
The “Big Seven” hotels are “the heart and soul of our economy,” said Wendy Peterson, executive director of the Sonoma Valley Visitors Bureau. “I don’t think any of them took this decision lightly.”
Peterson said it was not the role of the Sonoma Valley Visitors Bureau to take a position on the matter. “We really have no stake in this decision,” she said, adding that it was very important that the hotel group and the city arrived at a consensus. “It’s a strong business relationship.”
The two tourism organizations will continue to work closely together on a day-to-day basis, said Peterson, who sits on the Sonoma County Tourism Bureau’s board. The council’s decision will not change what is a productive working relationship, she said.
The 2 percent tax that funds Sonoma County Tourism Bureau’s marketing is realized through the formation of a Business Improvement Area. Once joined, members or cities can’t withdraw. The Sonoma County Tourism Bureau said that policy ensures shared long-term sustainability, but council member August Sebastiani was uncomfortable with the commitment.
“How do you get out? The answer is, you can’t,” he said, which is unlike the Sonoma Valley Visitors Bureau. “The fact that it is optional is very important to me.”
Sebastiani deferred to the “Big Seven” recommendation. “I trust that they know what’s best for their business.” Council member Laurie Gallian agreed, preferring, she said, “the targeted and focused local effort.”
Sonoma County Tourism Bureau proponents like George Webber, who hosts walking tours in Sonoma, argue Sonoma should be included in the bureau’s larger efforts: representation at trade shows, for example, and national public relations campaigns. “They are successful bringing people to the county from all over the world,” he said. “We can’t afford to be without them.”
Webber presented the council a petition signed by local merchants in favor of joining the county effort. “Tourism is not a bottomless well that will continue giving without effective marketing,” he said.
Wineries and restaurants are among the ancillary businesses driven by tourism, said Grant Raeside, executive director of the Sonoma Valley Vintners and Growers Alliance. “We should all be working together,” the Sonoma County Tourism Bureau and the Sonoma Valley Visitors Bureau included, he said. “Tourism is a godsend for this town,” he said. “Let’s not lose it.”
Raeside served on the Sonoma County Tourism Bureau board for two years. He said its efforts would pay off for local businesses, and that Sonoma’s message would not get lost in the county-wide marketing. “You will have input on how the SCTB will spend your dollars.”
Council member Joanne Sanders said that the city, not the Sonoma County Tourism Bureau, should be first to benefit from any room tax hike. “We may need the revenue to run the city as expected, tourists included.” Keeping up the Plaza and other city services are investments in tourism, she said, as “they make the town nice for visitors.”
The Sonoma County Tourism Bureau’s Board of Directors has kept a welcoming door open to the city of Sonoma to join, said Fischang. After five years of lobbying, the effort is beginning to seem misplaced. “We’ve been down this road before,” he said. “If the city doesn’t want to join, that’s its decision.”
Tellingly, nobody from the Sonoma County Tourism Bureau spoke on the matter at the city council meeting. The board, Fischang said, was busy working on a strategic plan to raise TOT revenue by 25 percent by 2014. “The ‘Big Seven’ and the city have already decided,” he said. “We’re moving forward without them.”
For opponents such as Sanders, it’s a case of thanks but no thanks. “We were elected to take care of the city,” she said, “not take care of the county.”
