I came up with this topic because of my discussion with my fiancee about the tourism in London and Rome. This discussion arose because of an article on …. about the most visited cities in the world. According to the number of tourists, London is one of the most visited city in the world together with Paris, Bangkok, and Singapore. From this argument, as Romans my boyfriend was questioning: why Rome can be beaten by London and Paris while Rome has more cultural heritage.
My answer was easy, as an Asian tourist, if people ask me which city I would like to visit twice, I would answer London. My rationing is so easy, as an opportunist, Rome only offer me one dimensional tourism while London not. Truth to be told, I really enjoyed Rome but I might not want to spend my money and go back there as a repeater, why? Because for me, with 4 days in Rome I already visited all the landmarks and historical monuments. In another 5 or 10 years Rome will still offer me the same thing: Colosseum, Piazza Navona, Piazza della Spagna, etc. While in London, as a fashion city, I can do one of my hobby: SHOPPING!! I can also go to Museums like Tate and enjoy various theaters and events!! Moreover, by the profile of the city and government, I am also sure in another 5 or 10 years London will offer something new and spectacular while Rome might be stay still.
Statistically speaking, according to the Global Destination Cities Index 2012, which is the ranks of cities in terms of the number of their total international visitor arrivals and the cross-border spending by these same visitors in the destination cities, London is in the first position, while Rome in the 12th. According to Euromonitor, the Top City Destinations Ranking 2011, London positioned itself in 3rd position while Rome in the 14th.
To strengthen my argument, I made a small questionnaire. Thanks to the technology, surveymonkey and Facebook specifically, I can collect 37 answers in one day. Thank you for everyone who participated it. Anyway, even though 37 samples might be rejected immediately for statistical significance, this questionnaire was designed just to roughly support my idea. The questionnaire consisted only 3 questions to address the repeaters’ preference between Rome and London. The profile of the sample mainly have the same characteristic as mine: have university degree with the age between 23 to 35 years old. From 37 samples, 29 person stated that they have been stayed in both Rome and London.
From 29 person who already stayed in both cities, 66% wants to go back to London while the other 34% to Rome. Haha… I was right Fra (my fiancee’s name)!! With this number I can prove that London is preferable to be visited over. But what’s the main reason that London is attractive? From the questionnaire, mostly people coming back to London because of the ambience, the city, shopping (AHA!), and activities. From this quick, small, and statistically insignificant questionnaire, It can be concluded that London is more lively than Rome. In consequence, since 2006, tourism in Rome has been declining in term of position as the most visited cities around the world, defeated by another uprising cities such as Hong Kong, Istanbul, and Kuala Lumpur that have insane growth of tourists. In the future, maybe Rome’s government can be less traditional and can organize some elements into its tourism reflected to the success of London. By adding some activities, giving more lively ambience, plus as Italian city, polishing its shopping activities into tourism can be tried to boost up Rome tourism.
Anyway, this market research is supposed to be larger, deeper, and longer. Nevertheless, it can give us a little bit picture of the differences of repeaters preference. And of course my argument and debate with Fra will be over, since I am gonna shove this result to his face.. Hahahahahaha!! In the end, I dedicated this results to all my friends who had sacrifice their time to take my stupid survey. Thank you guys!
So last question, London or Rome?