Fighting back Hospitality industry
associations from every sector have responded to the boycott with a
united front in support of Arizona. "Every destination knows that
tomorrow they could be in the same predicament over some political
decision they cannot control," says Michael Gehrisch, president and CEO
of Washington, D.C.-based Destination Marketing Association
International. As a result, he notes, "none of our members want to prey
on business lost by a destination" over such issues.
The U.S.
Travel Association in Washington, D.C., which issued a statement on
April 30 calling for an end to the boycott, has been quietly lobbying
politicians and business on both sides of SB 1070 to take the tourism
industry out of the equation and make immigration reform a federal,
rather than a state, imperative (the same stance being taken by the
Obama administration). While the USTA declined to comment for this
story, Moore says the organization's support has been invaluable in his
ongoing efforts to promote the importance of meetings and conventions
and protect Phoenix from further economic hardship.
When the
Washington, D.C., City Council threatened to enact legislation urging
the district's businesses to boycott travel to Arizona -- following the
lead of cities such as Boston; Boulder, Colo.; El Paso, Texas; San
Diego, and San Francisco -- the American Hotel & Lodging
Association, also based in D.C., issued a stinging rebuke. In a letter
addressed to city council chairman Vincent Gray, AH&LA's president
and CEO, Joe McInerney, wrote, "What if Arizona citizens did not travel
to Washington or host meetings in this city because members of the
Arizona State Legislature did not like the district's stance on the
five-cent bag recycling tax or on allowing gay marriage? Do we really
want to set that type of precedent in the nation's capital city?"
For
her part, Debbie Johnson, president and CEO of the Arizona Hotel &
Lodging Association, which represents more than 34,000 hotel rooms
statewide and has 400-plus members, says, "I have been called every name
in the book from individuals on both sides of this issue, but we will
remain focused. Arizona's reputation has been tarnished and damaged. We
will not let it stay that way."
In mid-May, Gov. Brewer met with
tourism leaders from across the state and charged a 15-member task
force, under the auspices of the Arizona Office of Tourism and funded
with $250,000 from the Arizona Department of Commerce, with launching a
campaign to staunch the flow of lost meeting and conventions business
and encourage local and out-of-state tourism through promotional offers.
The group's initial fact-finding report was due to the governor in
mid-June, with a follow-up report scheduled to be delivered July 12
during the Arizona Governor's Conference on Tourism.
Notes Steve
Moore, a task force member, "I will chair a section on the true power
of meetings and conventions and show how meetings revenue is vital to
sustain state budgets." One objective, he says, is to make it painfully
clear that groups have choices. "Attrition clauses today are not as
narrow and ironclad as they were before 9/11," he says. "Groups don't
sign contracts years in advance anymore, which means they have more
flexibility to pull out closer to their event, which gives them choices
where to spend their dollars. Legislators need to understand this."
Moore
also has formed an important alliance with Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon,
who has been the bureau's strongest spokesperson. "He has gone before
the U.S. Conference of Mayors on our behalf to explain to his colleagues
why boycotts are economic suicide," he notes.
At press time, the
Phoenix CVB had put together an information kit for planners who call
with concerns; it includes a copy of the bill, so interested parties can
see the actual law and its attempts to safeguard against racial
profiling, and a copy of the police training video created to help the
state's local law-enforcement agencies carry out the law's provisions
with all due sensitivity to racial issues.
"But because the
issues on either side are so controversial and the rhetoric so
inflammatory, we will not engage in any discussion of the bill," Moore
says. "Instead, we are giving planners every bit of information we can
get our hands on, so they can make an informed decision."