US Cities Overlooked by Foreign Tourists

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp

People tend to discount just how much media drives international tourism. If your city isn't appearing in TV, movies, books etc (and importantly, as itself instead of some generic backdrop) no amount of advertising is going draw people in.

I'm not buying this. Yeah, the media plays a role in visitor travel, but isn't a primary factor. LA is, by far, the most media-driven city on earth, but isn't even close to the primate destination, even within the U.S. Much of LA travel is driven by theme parks, not Hollywood. The city is almost besides the point, from a leisure perspective. Paris is the most visited city on earth most years, and not really a huge media deal in the Anglosphere except for weird Amelie-like stereotyping, like Paris were some quaint town. But it's swamped, almost buried, in mass tourism.

Paris is most visited because it's freakin Paris, not because of some manipulated media narrative. Eiffel Tower, Versailles, Louvre, are best-in-class level attractions. Warsaw and Columbus and Edmonton aren't heavily visited, not because of a media narrative, but because they don't offer much. When you look at relative rankings of most visited cities, it makes lots of sense.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Just out of curiosity, how cold is the water in Los Angeles?

Currently reported temps are 64.4F at Los Angeles, 70.5F at Oceanside (about midway between LA and SD), 72.0F at San Diego. Source: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/dat...uide/spac.html

The temps warm pretty rapidly as you go south in southern CA:


http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

Chicago is definitely overlooked domestically as a travel destination.

I'm also not getting this. Chicago is THE city break tourist destination in the American interior. Growing up in Michigan, we were swamped with tourist ads for Chicago. I think you'd have a hard time finding people within a day's drive (which is like half the U.S.) who have never visited Chicago.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I'm also not getting this. Chicago is THE city break tourist destination in the American interior. Growing up in Michigan, we were swamped with tourist ads for Chicago. I think you'd have a hard time finding people within a day's drive (which is like half the U.S.) who have never visited Chicago.

yeah not domestically...theres definitely other destinations that are more overlooked domestically and maybe even less so internationally.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I'm not buying this. Yeah, the media plays a role in visitor travel, but isn't a primary factor. LA is, by far, the most media-driven city on earth, but isn't even close to the primate destination, even within the U.S. Much of LA travel is driven by theme parks, not Hollywood. The city is almost besides the point, from a leisure perspective. Paris is the most visited city on earth most years, and not really a huge media deal in the Anglosphere except for weird Amelie-like stereotyping, like Paris were some quaint town. But it's swamped, almost buried, in mass tourism.

Paris is most visited because it's freakin Paris, not because of some manipulated media narrative. Eiffel Tower, Versailles, Louvre, are best-in-class level attractions. Warsaw and Columbus and Edmonton aren't heavily visited, not because of a media narrative, but because they don't offer much. When you look at relative rankings of most visited cities, it makes lots of sense.

I don't agree here. Media definitely plays kingmaker in travel. And media is also what creates a landmark. Dubrovnik, Croatia, isn't really that unique in Croatia, nor is it even a large city, but it is the tourism epicenter because of its prominence in western TV and movies. Zagreb, which is by far the largest city in Croatia, is mostly an afterthought for foreign tourists.

L.A.'s issue is that media alone can't overcome the reality that the city is a really hard place to visit. The city's car oriented nature means that outsiders can't really wander the city and have spontaneous experiences like they can in NYC or in European capitals. If L.A. had the built form of San Francisco it would be a London, Paris, or Barcelona.

[mhays]

ABSOLUTELY the media plays a big role. It's not as big as the actual quality of the city, but branding works, and people like to see famous things in person. I mean the media in a broad sense...movies, blogs, newspaper articles, literature, and so on. Even ads. And negative media plays a big role in perceptions. Much of perception is built over a lifetime.

Nora Ephron should get a significant chunk of credit for helping turn New York into a top destination, with movies that show Manhattan life in the best possible light -- an accessible, prosperous, interesting, and safe city for Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan vs. the 60s-80s fear held by much of the country.

As for San Diego, I bet the airport is a big part of its problem. It should be the "easy" version of LA.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by mhays

ABSOLUTELY the media plays a big role. It's not as big as the actual quality of the city, but branding works, and people like to see famous things in person. I mean the media in a broad sense...movies, blogs, newspaper articles, literature, and so on. Even ads. And negative media plays a big role in perceptions. Much of perception is built over a lifetime.

Nora Ephron should get a significant chunk of credit for helping turn New York into a top destination, with movies that show Manhattan life in the best possible light -- an accessible, prosperous, interesting, and safe city for Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan vs. the 60s-80s fear held by much of the country.

As for San Diego, I bet the airport is a big part of its problem. It should be the "easy" version of LA.

SD is nice, and is the closest thing to LA there is. It might not have LA's faults, but it doesn't have all the trendy/cool stuff (not just Hollywood) LA has everywhere either. That's a big part of LA's vibe/uniqueness. Parts of Long Beach have this more than San Diego. I like La Jolla, and some people compare to Beverly Hills or Santa Monica. It's not. La Jolla was surprisingly quiet imo. Upscale/rich but I thought it would be more lively. Idk.

It's much easier to get around SD as a tourist, no doubt.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by mhays

ABSOLUTELY the media plays a big role. It's not as big as the actual quality of the city, but branding works, and people like to see famous things in person. I mean the media in a broad sense...movies, blogs, newspaper articles, literature, and so on. Even ads. And negative media plays a big role in perceptions. Much of perception is built over a lifetime.

Nora Ephron should get a significant chunk of credit for helping turn New York into a top destination, with movies that show Manhattan life in the best possible light -- an accessible, prosperous, interesting, and safe city for Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan vs. the 60s-80s fear held by much of the country.

As for San Diego, I bet the airport is a big part of its problem. It should be the "easy" version of LA.

^^^^
The San Diego airport location is just a couple of miles from downtown, the center of the tourist area (including nearby Balboa Park and also close to Mission Bay and beaches). It is probably the most conveniently located and close in big city airport. Of course it only has one runway, so it cannot grow. It would also help if a trolley line extended to the airport. This may happen.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp

I can speak slightly less anecdotally on San Diego, since my job involves looking at these numbers direct. Historically San Diego has done well with domestic tourism but poorly internationally. For the last year I have data on (2018), only 17% of visitors were international and 76% of those were from Mexico. Only 3.9% of SD's tourists were from overseas, the largest contingent being from the UK.

The Zoo and the theme parks are good domestic draws, but they tend to fall flat internationally when stacked up against Disneyland, Universal Studios, or the Hollywood Walk of Fame. SD's overseas tourist advertising doesn't focus on them heavily. SD's "brand" is mainly focused on the beaches and beach culture, sort of like a more outdoorsy LA. More recently we've been trying to play up a bit of an urban vibe as well with Gaslamp and PB, the idea being you can get the beach experience and big city fun in the same place.

People tend to discount just how much media drives international tourism. If your city isn't appearing in TV, movies, books etc (and importantly, as itself instead of some generic backdrop) no amount of advertising is going draw people in. Which is why you're going to be seeing a lot more glory shots of San Diego in Top Gun 2....

I think cities in the same region are complimentary and help each other attract tourists. When a European or Asian tourist (or one from the eastern U.S.) flies to California on a multiday vacation, most will visit a number of cities and places--- S.F., L.A., Las Vegas and the Grand Canyon, San Diego, Yosemite, etc. etc. etc. The places compliment each other and draw more tourists to the region. Because of all the things to do in the southwest and California coast, it is a massive tourist draw (or was before covid). It will be again. The whole region must be in the top 5 "must see" regions in the world.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

I think cities in the same region are complimentary and help each other attract tourists. When a European or Asian tourist (or one from the eastern U.S.) flies to California on a multiday vacation, most will visit a number of cities and places--- S.F., L.A., Las Vegas and the Grand Canyon, San Diego, Yosemite, etc. etc. etc. The places compliment each other and draw more tourists to the region. Because of all the things to do in the southwest and California coast, it is a massive tourist draw (or was before covid). It will be again. The whole region must be in the top 5 "must see" regions in the world.

This is a good point. I think LA and SF and Vegas benefit from each other in this regard, because they're all under an hours flight from each other (and dirt cheap airfare), so it's easy for international tourists to combine it all into one 2-3 week trip. If you go to Italy, you're likely to hit up Rome, Florence, and Venice. For Japan, Tokyo, Kyoto, and Osaka. For Thailand, Bangkok and Phuket.

In addition to the major cities, you've also got the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, and to a lesser extent, Tahoe, as major natural attractions for day or multi-day side trips offered by tour bus companies. When people travel to SF or LA, they're likely to include some combination of the above. If people don't care for Vegas, then they might venture to SD or maybe Monterey/Big Sur/Wine Country, or for the more nature inclined check out places like Death Valley, Joshua Tree, Sequoia National Forest, Zion, etc.

It'd be interesting to see which National Parks draw the most international tourists. Great Smoky Mountains is the most visited but I suspect the vast majority is domestic visitors.

Edit:

Found something.

Five other national parks are within a six-hour drive from the Grand Canyon, making it very convenient for foreign visitors to see two or more parks within one visit. Last summer, 35 percent of foreign visitors to the Grand Canyon also visited another nearby park, according to Visa estimates. This option was most popular with European travelers, as at least 40 percent included a park in either California, Utah or Nevada in their trip.

https://usa.visa.com/partner-with-us...-tourists.html

[Commentariat]

I’m a foreigner (Australian) who has visited about 20 states and dozens of cities in the US over multiple trips. I agree with the general consensus in this thread.

- Most foreign tourists are obviously going to concentrate on the big attractions. They might only visit the US once in their life. Why would they pick Minneapolis or St Louis?

- Outside a few cities, ‘urban’ tourism can be hard in the US. Transit is generally poor, attractions are spread out, downtowns are small, and there are sketchy areas (which genuinely worry foreigners, who don’t want to randomly walk into trouble). I’d also say many US cities are pretty poor at making their urban attractions accessible to outsiders. Philly may have great neighbourhoods and LA has interesting Mexican-American culture, but the average foreign tourist has no clue how to enjoy these aspects of the cities.

- Realistically, most second and third tier US cities don’t hold huge appeal to the average foreign tourist. They might be nice places to live, and I’ve enjoyed a day or two in plenty of them as part of a road trip, but I wouldn’t travel halfway around the world specifically to see them.

- Chicago is probably the most overlooked city, and it’s definitely because it’s in the Midwest, which just lacks other attractions for foreigners.

I’ve been to the Northeast (all the big cities), South (Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, the Carolinas, Virginia, West Virginia, Texas briefly) and all of the West Coast from San Diego to Seattle and inland to Denver. My favourite trip was a 6 week road trip around California and the national Parks of the Southwest. I’d love to do that again. Otherwise, one day I’d like to drive from Chicago or Detroit to Houston, but only really because that’s the biggest part of the country I haven’t seen.

[Will O' Wisp]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I'm not buying this. Yeah, the media plays a role in visitor travel, but isn't a primary factor. LA is, by far, the most media-driven city on earth, but isn't even close to the primate destination, even within the U.S. Much of LA travel is driven by theme parks, not Hollywood. The city is almost besides the point, from a leisure perspective. Paris is the most visited city on earth most years, and not really a huge media deal in the Anglosphere except for weird Amelie-like stereotyping, like Paris were some quaint town. But it's swamped, almost buried, in mass tourism.

Paris is most visited because it's freakin Paris, not because of some manipulated media narrative. Eiffel Tower, Versailles, Louvre, are best-in-class level attractions. Warsaw and Columbus and Edmonton aren't heavily visited, not because of a media narrative, but because they don't offer much. When you look at relative rankings of most visited cities, it makes lots of sense.

It might seem counterintuitive, but it is true. LA is the third most popular tourist destination in North America (after NYC and Miami), and urban sightseeing is more popular than visiting theme parks.



It's this sort of thinking that trips up so many cities in trying to attract international tourists. Domestic tourism and international tourism are completely different, what draws one can have little effect on the other. Domestic tourism looks for attractions like theme parks, museums, etc that aren't available in whatever town they're driving in from. With international tourism, you need to start with the assumption that they either already have all these things within their country or are capable of finding an equal quality substitute closer to home. To get someone spending hours of their life stuffed in an airliner like a sardine, you need to sell them on a unique landscape and culture. For LA being "the place where your favorite movies are made" is a big part of this, one even that the major theme parks (Disneyland and Universal Studios) play into.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I'm also not getting this. Chicago is THE city break tourist destination in the American interior. Growing up in Michigan, we were swamped with tourist ads for Chicago. I think you'd have a hard time finding people within a day's drive (which is like half the U.S.) who have never visited Chicago.

Aren’t we talking about non-American tourists?

Who cares where families from Des Moines go for a weekend so they can try a different Cheesecake Factory.

[hipster duck]

Re: Philly.

As great as Philly is, it’s going to fall off most international tourists’ radars because it’s so close to NYC, but everything it does well NYC does better. Most foreign tourists are going to see Philly as a day trip from New York, unless they are coming for business or visiting family.

What they’ll experience are the lively rowhouse neighborhoods of South Philly which are still sleepier than those in Brooklyn, a Rittenhouse square and Walnut street that, while architecturally rich, is still a step down from Bryant Park + Fifth Ave and a fantastic art gallery that is still overshadowed by the Met.

[Don't Be That Guy]

Originally Posted by pj3000

I lived in New Orleans for 3+ years and constantly met and noticed European tourists.

Interstingly, if you go out to Lafayette and Cajun Country, European tourists on side trips from New Orleans seem to outnumber American visitors.

[dc_denizen]

foreign travellers may be unaware of the relatively easy train connections between Philly, DC, NY and Boston. this should be better advertised.

[Skintreesnail]

^^^ can't really argue with Philly being overshadowed by NYC. Philly is pretty big in the history department, though not sure if that really matters too much to foreign travelers. I will say though that Philly could be a draw to travelers that might be overwhelmed by the intensity of NYC. Philly is much more manageable and everything the common tourist would want to see is centralized and walkable with good transit to cut across the city quickly. While the PMA might not beat the Met, it certainly is a world-class museum, with the Barnes and Rodin museums also on the parkway. Same goes with pretty much all the other attractions, like theater, music, food, etc. Plus, it's easy to reach from NYC via Amtrak. Some travelers like to explore the region vs just one city, and Philly has its own personality vs NYC. Same with the other NE Corridor cities.

[dc_denizen]

well its like if you are going to visit france for a week, would you take the train to brussels

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Currently reported temps are 64.4F at Los Angeles, 70.5F at Oceanside (about midway between LA and SD), 72.0F at San Diego. Source: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/dat...uide/spac.html

The temps warm pretty rapidly as you go south in southern CA:


http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf

That's terribly cold. 17°C for LA, 22°C for SD. I just get in above 25°C.

About LA, I decided to check that TV series Lucifer and they have great shots of LA between scenes. Made me want to visit the city. I wonder how easy is to get around there without a car. I hear they greatly improved their subway.

[Skintreesnail]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

well its like if you are going to visit france for a week, would you take the train to brussels

Maybe; I did a 10-day trip to Rome/Siena/Florence. Took the train (pretty cool how fast you can get from Florence to Rome); I preferred Siena the most and Florence over Rome. Maybe most people like to stay in one city, but there's got to be some that like to bounce around. Philly and NYC are much closer.