Is Chicago Tourism mostly Domestic? (Paris, Milan: sales, live, gangs)

[HomeIsWhere...]

Originally Posted by Dream Chaser

I read a article that Emanuel is opening more international tourism offices. Chicago has the least offices compared to NY,LA,SF,LV and Miami. I understand Chicago may not have international tourists in large amounts but Chicago tourist isn't all domestic .Some say Chicago tourists are all from the mid-west, I find it untrue. Chicago has a little over 40 million tourists annually.Even if every single resident from Iowa,Minnesota, Wisconsin,Indiana visited that's only count for half.Tourism industry is good for a city's economy. Emanuel wants Chicago to hit the 50 million annually mark by 2020.

Oddly enough this will be on the NewsViews program with Alan Krashesky later this morning and it concerns the desire of the city to garner more international tourism with the new branding of Chicago as Choose Chicago.

Chicago has plans to open offices in Brazil, Germany and Japan to promote tourism to the city.

NewsViews: Chicago Tourism | abc7chicago.com

[sunnyandcloudydays]

Still cant get over the motto
"Choose Chicago"

How much $$$ is this guy making?

Give me a year and I can come up with two words equal to or bettter than
"Choose Chicago"

International tourism is exciting let's call a spade a spade how many times can you really go to Disney? Vegas?
Sooner or later you will want to experience what a true American city is like.

Fact of the matter I hear many people still think Chicago is Al Capone or Jordanville.

There simply is not to many American Cities that offer the backdrop and mix that Chicago has.

I think bringing in a Pan Am games or some other international sporting even would help dramatically.

The NATO convention is certainly helping shine a spotlight.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by sunnyandcloudydays

Still cant get over the motto
"Choose Chicago"

How much $$$ is this guy making?

Give me a year and I can come up with two words equal to or bettter than
"Choose Chicago"

International tourism is exciting let's call a spade a spade how many times can you really go to Disney? Vegas?
Sooner or later you will want to experience what a true American city is like.

Fact of the matter I hear many people still think Chicago is Al Capone or Jordanville.

There simply is not to many American Cities that offer the backdrop and mix that Chicago has.

I think bringing in a Pan Am games or some other international sporting even would help dramatically.

The NATO convention is certainly helping shine a spotlight.

Most marketing slogans are that simple, and it's especially important in countries where English would not be the first language. The images that go along with these words are just as important.

I wouldn't be too skeptical about the guy and campaign until you actually see the print and video ads.

[FAReastcoast]

Originally Posted by urbanpln

We could do better. It's going to take money, time and serious effort but, it can be done. I used to live in Miami. It's a interesting city but, is nowhere near Chicago on the dynamic scale. I've been to Las Vegas a bunch of times. Outside the strip it's bland. Orlando! Please, it's not a real city. I have nothing against those places. They are all fine towns but, Chicago has far more depth. It is not a light weight culturally.

Many travelers are not really looking for a heavy cultural experience on vacation. Many people just want nice weather and place to blow off some steam.

I think one thing that hurts Chicago with travelers (especially foreign ones) is everything Chicago is known for, NYC has more (better?) of and more well known for.

I am a first generation American, and my family in Italy always talks about NYC, LA, and SF in the US, Chicago rarely comes up. I think a big part of it is that Chicago doesn't have it's own niche.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by FAReastcoast

Many travelers are not really looking for a heavy cultural experience on vacation. Many people just want nice weather and place to blow off some steam.

I think one thing that hurts Chicago with travelers (especially foreign ones) is everything Chicago is known for, NYC has more (better?) of and more well known for.

I am a first generation American, and my family in Italy always talks about NYC, LA, and SF in the US, Chicago rarely comes up. I think a big part of it is that Chicago doesn't have it's own niche.

Exactly. Michael Jordan and/or the Bulls is the first thing that comes up. Other than that, most people overseas are lost when it comes to Chicago. Hell, I grew up a few states over and I thought Chicago was smaller than it really is, and I'd almost never talk about it unless you were talking about the Cubs or White Sox.

It's hard to find a unique niche in this day too. Too bad US history is so young compared to other countries and cities around the world. I'd say something about food, but New York is just as much up there in cutting edge food as some places in Chicago.

I guess the one thing we do have on a place like NYC, LA, San Fran, and DC is that the housing is on average cheaper here and you still get the same sort of city...and our public transit is better than LA, San Fran, and DC's (although I like DC's public transit system). Our weather isn't as good though. I guess if you want to live in a big city like an NYC and don't want to spend $4000/month for a 1 bedroom in Manhattan, then you can come here for sure.

[Dream Chaser]

Honestly the reason Chicago isn't huge destination because the media.

[FAReastcoast]

Originally Posted by marothisu

I guess the one thing we do have on a place like NYC, LA, San Fran, and DC is that the housing is on average cheaper here and you still get the same sort of city...and our public transit is better than LA, San Fran, and DC's (although I like DC's public transit system). Our weather isn't as good though. I guess if you want to live in a big city like an NYC and don't want to spend $4000/month for a 1 bedroom in Manhattan, then you can come here for sure.

Agree, but none of those things really affect a traveler.

[jwaiter]

Originally Posted by FAReastcoast

Many travelers are not really looking for a heavy cultural experience on vacation. Many people just want nice weather and place to blow off some steam.

For me there's only 2 types of vacations... 1) the cultural vacation and 2) the nice weather read a book and relax.

They're totally separate vacations. For #2 I go to St Thomas/St John/Puerto Rico/Florida

For #1 I'll go to a city, any city, I've enjoyed cultural vaca's in Seattle, San Fran, NYC, Toronto, Vancouver, London, and others.

Originally Posted by FAReastcoast

I think one thing that hurts Chicago with travelers (especially foreign ones) is everything Chicago is known for, NYC has more (better?) of and more well known for.

Of course NYC has more culture than Chicago, but I can't continuously go to the same city. Seattle has culture I can't find in NYC. Chicago has culture not in NYC. Toronto too, every city has it's uniqueness. So yea, NYC is the first destination, but subsequently I'm going to try OTHER cities, because as great as NYC is, there's more to the cultural experience than is contained within it's borders.

[FAReastcoast]

Originally Posted by jwaiter

Of course NYC has more culture than Chicago, but I can't continuously go to the same city. Seattle has culture I can't find in NYC. Chicago has culture not in NYC. Toronto too, every city has it's uniqueness. So yea, NYC is the first destination, but subsequently I'm going to try OTHER cities, because as great as NYC is, there's more to the cultural experience than is contained within it's borders.

Agree. Just saying with International travelers (who may only make it to the US once) a trip to NYC (or LA/SF) probably makes more sense than a trip to Chicago. I don't think Chicago has enough that differentiates itself to warrant a trip there for many overseas travelers. Not saying that is accurate, just the perception.

[linicx]

I think the problem is twofold. First the Midwest as a whole is considered "fly over" with no reason o stop. This statement alone is enough to deter visitors to Mpls, Mil and Chicago. Tourists don't usually come to the city to experience the COL or how good transit is in the city; they don't care.

Secondly Chicago does not have the pull of the ocean cities or California weather. Third Chicagoo movies promote the El and the city from under the El. inside of or on top of a train (Blues Brothers, Chicago and Next of Kin). It does not have a reputation for Arts, Performing Arts, Design Houses and Runway shows, book publishers like Random House, trolley cars or the ocean. It does not have Fulton Street, the diamond district, a hansom cab ride, or Hollywood.

When was the last block buster novel set in Chicago? Mike Royko made Chicago come alive for his readers. Museums aside, what does Chicago have? FOOD! FOOD! FOOD! Second City, great tall buildings, sports, Chinatown, Lake Michigan, Michigan Avenue, Union Station, Millennium Park, Buckingham Fountain, history, architecture and a 1000 old neighborhoods most travelers never heard of. It is not compact like NYC. It doesn't even have a hop on/hop off city tour that is affordable for the average resident. Raise your hand if you think $50-$60 per person is cheap.

Someone should put together an architectural tour package that includes city, water and Oak park. What about a package that includes the botanical gardens with Buckingham Fountain. or a zoo package, or even an Arts package that includes Second City ? What about a neighborhood tour package? What about a Taste of Chicago package for foodies?

IMHO there are better ways to promote Chicago internationally than paying for foreign offices with tax dollars.