Chinese Outbound Tourism Spendings

Today a short news I have read on china view about the spendings of Chinese outbound Tourists. Besides the regional differences due to Nielson, I think it is not surprising, that the Chinese Tourist spends 2,597 to 3,506 U.S. dollars. I am asking myself if this amount has really increased?

Actually with the weak dollar these days statistics based on the US Dollar should be evaluated carefully.

4 Comments to “Chinese Outbound Tourism Spendings”

  1. cepy says:

    I need to join with you

  2. Kay says:

    How may I help you?

  3. Paul Martin says:

    Yes, this amount is true, and maybe underestimated. Our agency China Elite Focus has conducted research, and we have found that the average spending of outbound Chinese tourists in the United States was between 5,000 USD and 10,000 USD. Some rich Chinese tourists spend more that 100,000 USD per person in luxury shopping. The reason is because Chinese tourists buy luxury goods for all their family and friends, so they receive money on their credit card before they travel, and have lists of products to buy (3 or 4 Louis Vuitton bags, Rolex for all the family !!)

  4. stevevsi says:

    Thanks for creating this blog. I have been working on the visa issue with USTA and NTA. Specifically we seek to have the State Department use videoconferencing in order to localize the mandatory visa interview for Chinese visa applicants. We believe the time to address this issue is now given the unemployment crisis our country is dealing with. All of the solutions being put forth call for increasing the deficit and more appropriations. That is why we believe a huge opportunity exists to get jobs growing again without new investment, if we are simply willing to look outside our borders. International visitors represent new export revenue and new jobs. This opportunity is being lost due to our current visa process that serve to close our borders to legitimate visitors.
    There are two forms of visa denial. Direct and indirect. Direct denial is the decision by an interviewing officer to refuse granting a visa to an applicant. This figure is relatively low (5-20% depending on country). It is the indirect denial issue that we seek to raise. Indirect denials are the process barriers our system imposes that have the same impact as a direct rejection. If access to an interviewing officer is an unreasonable challenge, i.e. if a person has to travel 1000 miles to an embassy to be interviewed, indirect denial due to the access barrier is the consequence. Likewise, having to wait weeks (in the case of China this summer, reportedly over 100 days) to get an appointment time for an interview is a second form of indirect denial. This availability issue can only be solved by hiring more interviewing officers.

    Each new officer hired, using cost accounting principles, is totally self funding. Specifically the visa application fees generated by a new hire in the course of a year can be over $3 million (100 interviews/day for 250 days X $140 visa application fee) compared to the cost of a fully deployed officer of $400,000 (GAO data). There is no need for additional Congressional appropriations. As long as demand, documented by the number of weeks of wait time for an interview appointment, exceeds supply (available interviewing officers), State directly increases its fee revenues simply by hiring.

    Solving the barriers of “access” and “availability” is not competing with what State refers to as “other technological and systemic innovations, such as online visa application, streamlined business visa processing, and online interview appointments”. These are not mutually exclusive. They are in fact highly complementary.

    We know that State “fully supports and encourages legitimate international travel to the United States”. We know that the direct denial rate “is actually quite low”. We know that the indirect denial rate, caused by access and availability barriers, is extremely high. Specifically we presume these barriers explain why the percentage of citizens from visa waiver countries entering the US is 27 times greater than the percentage of citizens from non-visa waiver countries who visit the US. We know that these barriers can be removed without requiring new appropriations or adding to the federal deficit. New interviewing officers are self funding and offsite videoconferencing visa application centers, whether funded privately or by State, can be fully self supporting based on videoconferencing fees assessed for the convenience of “localizing” the interview process.

    What prevents action? Presumably the same reason that the Rice/Chertoff Initiative failed. State’s concern: “The technology is viable but there are serious security matters at stake which cannot be outsourced”. We understand the interview itself cannot be outsourced and does not need to be with videoconferencing interviews. We understand from meetings with the State Department that the offsite videoconferencing visa application center would not have to be as secure as an embassy but would be expected to have a level of security equivalent to a “neighborhood bank branch”. There can be legitimate questions about remotely capturing fingerprints or other biometric date in a secure, encrypted fashion over secure data networks. We know we have the technology to address each of these issues.

    What appears to be lacking is the prioritization of this issue and perhaps political will. We continue to press for this matter to be addressed based on the belief that State is the gatekeeper to our economic recovery. Opening our doors to millions of fully qualified international visitors can create billions in exports and millions of new jobs. After 9/11 security trumped our economic interests. The pendulum swung too far in favor of “closing our doors”. State’s “Secure Borders and Open Doors” policy as articulated by the Rice/Chertoff Initiative was an attempt to bring the economic interests of the country back into balance with our security interests. The economic crisis and the very slow, “jobless” recovery will eventually force Congress to seek new solutions. Once the true value of an international visitor to our country is understood (25 new visitors = 1 new job) we believe both Republicans and Democrats will seek to attract new visitors in the most efficient and effective manner possible assuming our security screening process is as thorough as present.

    Our hope is that State will be proactive in this political/educational process to include setting a goal of 5 million additional international tourists by 2015. The travel industry can help. As a member of both USTA and NTA I will gladly do my part to create the government/private industry dialog that will be essential to meet this goal. State may rightfully say growing exports is the job of the Commerce Department but State’s role as the gatekeeper of international tourist exports requires State’s direct involvement.

Leave a Reply to Kay