Tourism vs. Hospitality

“Tourism” appears to just happen. Sonoma has a nice milieu and tourists enjoy it. Yet intentionality can be brought to bear by city and county governments to manage the flavor of our regional tourism. Some kinds of tourism are more benign and sustainable than others.

One pitfall in the management of a visitor-oriented economy is allowing tourism to turn into hospitality only. This is what we see in Napa County: dominant, well-developed hospitality. Other prime hospitality examples include Aspen, CO, and the Greek Islands. Many in Sonoma County have expressly noted that this is something to avoid.

There is a strong sense here in Sonoma County that tourism is out of control. What is really happening is that hospitality has grown out of balance with tourism.

What is the difference between hospitality and tourism?

Hospitality has one client only, the visitor. There is just one goal, to provide that visitor with services the visitor is willing to pay for. Hospitality is primarily centered on hotels and restaurants and associated services. In Sonoma those services are spas and wineries. Hospitality gains a formulaic quality. Visitors are encouraged to come and consume a generic set of services that stand in place of a genuine tourist experience. Hospitality tends to high-end services, especially in the Bay Area where many can afford luxury prices. Locals are displaced, outsiders gain economic power and the community suffers dissolution.

Tourism, in contrast, is about overall economic development of a destination, not simply about services for visitors. Tourism has three clients: visitors, residents and the future. For tourism to be sustainable, all three of these clients must benefit.

• Tourists want more than good service; they want a genuine experience and activities that will provide discovery, education, great memories, and self-growth. The destination must develop cultural and/or natural assets into products that will attract and interest tourists, not just a draw of good restaurants and hotels.

• For residents, tourism should be a means of wealth creation, good jobs and businesses. Tourism should be a means of improving local lives. Good jobs and wealth creation does not mean more chambermaids and line cooks but rather more entrepreneurs, shop owners, and economic diversity.

• The future; we do not want to destroy what we are developing. We want to plan for overall community benefit and sustainability, hence, integral economic, environmental and cultural/social issues are important to consider when planning and developing local tourism.

Local governments in tourist locales manage their tourism using different tactics and strategies. Tourism can be planned and directed so as to have it benefit tourists, residents and the future. If not, what we see is a trend to domination and control by the hospitality industry.

Sonoma and Sonoma County have genuine attractions in place, and it’s not too late to refigure the costs and benefits of our predominant local economy. To avoid negative hospitality outcomes of low wages, inflated prices, and lowered demographic diversity, what we need is a firmer government hand that guides us to a future where all may benefit – visitors, residents and the future alike.

Leaving such important policy decisions to private entities who then appropriate wealth and dissolve the community is poor planning. Changing our focus to community-serving tourism from individual-serving hospitality is the best course for Sonoma’s future.