INTERNATIONAL PRICE COMPETITIVENESS OF

AUSTRALIAS MICE INDUSTRY

Larry Dwyer and Nina Mistilis, Centre for Tourism and Hospitality Research
University of Western Sydney1
Peter Forsyth, Monash University
Prasada Rao, University of New England

L. Dwyer, N. Mistilis, P. Forsyth, P. Rao International Price Competitiveness of Australias MICE Industry,
International Journal of Tourism Research Vol 3, No. 2, 2001 pp 123-140

The research for this article was made possible by a Foundation Research Grant from the University of Western Sydney

ABSTRACT

A special interest tourist market which holds out great promise for continued growth well into the
next century is that of MICE (meetings, incentives, conventions, exhibitions). At the same time,
changing prices in particular destinations relative to others are regarded as one of the most
important economic influences on destination shares of total international tourism flows. The
question arises as to the price competitiveness of major competing MICE destinations. While
earlier research has recognised that a destinations price competitiveness differs according to a
visitors country of origin there has been relatively little attention paid to tourism price
competitiveness from the perspective of those having different motives for travel.
This paper has four major aims: First, to provide a method by which price competitiveness of
tourism by journey purpose can be estimated; second, to construct price competitiveness indices
which measure, absolutely and relative to major competitors world-wide, the price
competitiveness of Australias MICE tourism industry; third, to compare Australias price
competitiveness as a MICE destination with its price competitiveness for total inbound tourism;
fourth, to discuss the implications of the results for travel and tourism decision makers in both the
private and public sectors.

International Price Competitiveness of Australias Mice Industry

ResearchMICE/Pricemicelatest/ 06/11/13

INTRODUCTION
A special interest market which is expected to continue to grow steadily over the next decades is
that of MICE (meetings, incentives, conventions, exhibitions). MICE is growing particularly
rapidly in the Asia Pacific region (Dwyer and Mistilis 1997, 1999).
The MICE industry consists of various components - conventions, conferences, meetings,
seminars, trade shows, exhibitions and incentive travel. The various definitions and classifications
of such concepts as meetings, exhibitions, incentive travel, conventions etc. will not be
discussed or analysed here.2 The discussion in this paper is intended to apply to the components of
MICE tourism however they are precisely defined.
Forecast growth rates of tourist arrivals to Asia Pacific countries are, on average, double the
forecast world average (3.6 per cent, see World Tourism Organisation, 1994). Growth has been
rapid for MICE tourism in Australia and is forecast to continue. In 1996, ICCA data ranked
Australia fourth, with 5.78% of the world market, in terms of the number of international
convention events held in 1995. This represented a rise in its world ranking from ninth in 1995.
Ahead of Australia was the United States (6.73%), followed by Japan (6.04%) and the United
Kingdom (5.94%)(Australian Tourist Commission, 1997b). In the five year period 1992-1996,
while total visitor numbers to Australia increased by 60%, there was a 167% increase to about
113,000 inbound visitors attending an international conference or convention (Australian Tourist
Commission, 1997a).
Australia increased its MICE market share in the Asia Pacific region by 2% to 17% in the year to
1995/96, second only to Japan. Growth for inbound convention visitors to Australia was forecast
to continue from all continents, with the highest potential being from Asia, excluding Japan
(Australian Tourist Commission, 1997a). The Bureau of Tourism Research (1999) estimates that
in Australia MICE tourism generates $2-3 billion annually in direct expenditure.

A number of factors are presently working in Australia's favour as a MICE destination. The rapid
expansion of tourism and travel and business links within the Asia Pacific region (World Tourism
Organisation 1994) provides countries in the region with the opportunity of hosting a growing
number of regionally based trade shows and meetings. Several determinants of tourism flows are
changing in ways conducive to greater travel and tourism in the Asia Pacific region (Forsyth &
Dwyer 1996).

Although MICE tourism is growing, so too is the extent of competition between destinations
within the Asia Pacific region. For example, Japan, Malaysia and Singapore have government
plans to increase the number of international conventions hosted (Department of Tourism, 1995)
presenting strong competition for Australian MICE tourism. Large funding support by competitive
destination governments adds to the intensity of competition in this special interest tourism sector.

2 In Australia recently the various MICE Industry representatives - the Association of Australian convention Bureaux, the Meetings Industry Association of Australia, the Australian
Incentive Association and the Exhibition Industry Association of Australia have attempted to specify more clearly the nature and scope of the tourist activity which they represent
(Commonwealth of Australia 1995:39). The attempts to more clearly define the various components and sub components of MICE are to be welcomed and there are great advantages
in use of consistent terminology, especially where this conforms to internationally accepted meanings.

International Price Competitiveness of Australias Mice Industry

ResearchMICE/Pricemicelatest/ 06/11/13

Recent statistics suggest that in the meetings sector Australia has overtaken its Asia Pacific
regional competitors in 1998, the last fully reported year (ICCA Data, 1999 November). In 1998
Australia hosted 109 international meetings, compared to 104 meetings for Japan. Australia
ranked seventh globally in terms of the number of international meetings held, after United States,
United Kingdom, Spain, France and Germany (192, 161, 160, 132 and 131 meetings respectively).
It appears that, at present, the more general tourism destinations of Asia are not necessarily
Australias major competitors in the MICE tourism market. Apart from Japan, other destinations
in the region have much fewer international meetings, for example South Korea (46 meetings),
Singapore (42 meetings), Taiwan and Thailand (31 meetings), India (20 meetings), China (19
meetings), Malaysia (16 meetings), Hong Kong (15 meetings) and Indonesia (10 meetings). With
large amounts of public funds being allocated to MICE tourism throughout Asia it is uncertain
how long Australia can maintain this dominance. To some extent this will depend on the price
competitiveness of its MICE sector and the sensitivity of visitor numbers to price factors.
In a major report published recently the authors examined the price competitiveness of Australia
as a tourist destination. This was done by comparing the price of Australian tourism services with
the price of similar services in a range of competing destinations through the development of
indices of international price competitiveness (Dwyer et al, 1998). While much of the discussion
in this major report focuses on total tourism flows to Australia from its main existing and
emerging markets, it also presents some findings which indicate that the competitiveness of
Australian tourism differs according to purpose of journey (Dwyer et al. 1999a). The implications
of these findings must be carefully considered by tourism destinations in assessing their
international price competitiveness. The results have particular significance for MICE tourism
given the extent of rivalry between competing destinations and the ongoing objective of
destinations to achieve price leadership in this rapid growth sector.

The focus of the present study is to extend the analysis of the associations between tourism price
competitiveness and journey purpose. The paper will focus on the price competitiveness of MICE
tourism to Australia as compared with the countrys price competitiveness for tourism in general.
This paper has four major aims: First, to provide a method by which price competitiveness of
tourism by journey purpose can be estimated; second, to construct price competitiveness indices
which measure, absolutely and relative to major competitors world-wide, the price
competitiveness of Australias MICE tourism industry; third, to compare Australias price
competitiveness as a MICE destination with its price competitiveness for total inbound tourism;
fourth, to discuss the implications of the results for travel and tourism decision makers in both the
private and public sectors and MICE stakeholders in particular.

CONSTRUCTING
JOURNEY.

PRICE

COMPETITIVENESS

INDEXES

BY

PURPOSE

OF

Earlier attempts to determine the price competitiveness of tourist destinations using Consumer
Price Index (CPI) data and exchange rate movements (eg. Martin & Witt 1987) are unsatisfactory
for two reasons. The first is that tourists typically purchase a different basket of goods and
services as compared to the resident population, rendering use of CPI data problematic. The

International Price Competitiveness of Australias Mice Industry

ResearchMICE/Pricemicelatest/ 06/11/13

second reason is that CPI and exchange rate movements tend to measure changes in the
competitiveness of a tourist destination but provide no indication of the levels of competitiveness.
To overcome such difficulties, the following method was used to construct competitiveness
indexes for Australian inbound tourism for total tourism flows and for purpose of journey.
Firstly, a set of origin countries was determined. This was taken to be that group of countries
which is forecast to provide 80% of international visitors to Australia by the year 2000. The
origin set comprises the following 13 countries:
Japan
New Zealand
United Kingdom
Unites States of America
South Korea
Indonesia
Singapore

Taiwan
Hong Kong
Thailand
Germany
Malaysia
China

A reality check was performed on this origin set. Discussions as to the appropriate set took
place with representatives of the tourism industry, the Commonwealth Department of Science,
Industry and Tourism and the Australian Tourist Commission.
This set of origin countries also contributes a substantial proportion of MICE tourists to Australia.
The following Table indicates that around 70% of convention visitors to Australia come from the
markets in the origin set.

INSERT TABLE 1 HERE

International Price Competitiveness of Australias Mice Industry

ResearchMICE/Pricemicelatest/ 06/11/13

Secondly, a set of competitor destinations was determined using the results of primary research
conducted by the Australian Tourist Commission. The following 19 tourism destinations are
taken to comprise Australias major competitors:

Global Competitor Set

Asia

Europe

North America
Pacific Region

Japan
Hong Kong
Taiwan
Indonesia
Malaysia
France
United Kingdom
Germany
Switzerland
United States of America
Canada
New Zealand

Singapore
South Korea
Thailand
China
Spain
Turkey
Italy

Among these destinations are some of Australias major competitors in the MICE tourism market,
namely and Japan, Singapore and Korea in Asia, United Kingdom, Spain, France, Germany and
Italy in Europe and United States of America and Canada in north America (ICCA Data, 1999
November). These countries have greater numbers or slightly fewer numbers of international
conventions than Australia, as reported in 1998. New Zealand, Switzerland, and the other Asian
nations had a negligible number of international conventions, and were not considered
competitors.
Main convention visitors are defined as those respondents whose main purpose of their visit was
to attend a convention, conference or trade fair. All convention visitors are defined as those
respondents whose main purpose of their visit was to attend a convention, conference or trade fair,
or those who attended one during their trip or those who accompanied a visitor who had attended
one during their trip (Peters and Jones, 1996). These data do not therefore include incentive
visitors other than those incentive visitors who attended a conference. For this reason, some
numbers of MICE visitors and MICE expenditure data may slightly differ from others reported.
As Table 1 indicates, the main individual generating countries for all convention visitors to
Australia were United States of America (15%), New Zealand (12%), and Japan (10%). These
were also the main individual generating countries for main purpose convention visitors. However
their proportions differed with New Zealand (20%) having a much higher proportion and the
United States of America (12%) and Japan (8%) slightly lower. Most of the other individual
generating countries in Asia, Europe and Canada remained very similar for all and main purpose
convention visitors; each had small visitor proportions of 4% or less.

International Price Competitiveness of Australias Mice Industry

ResearchMICE/Pricemicelatest/ 06/11/13

The third task was to estimate tourism price competitiveness indices. Several steps were involved
here:
(i)
Identify expenditure patterns of tourists from different origin countries and for different
purpose of journey.
Data from the 1997 International Visitor Survey gave the expenditure patterns of tourists to
Australia from different origin countries for total tourism flows. The latest available data on
expenditure by MICE tourists was for 1996.This data is available from the Bureau of Tourism
research (BTR 1998). Adjustments were made to account for the presence of ground component in
package tours.
Visitor expenditure in Australia includes (Bureau of Tourism Research 1995b:x):

all money spent by the respondent for him/herself and other visitors travelling in the party,
during the visit, or payments made after departure for goods and services consumed in
Australia;
all pre-paid amounts relevant to the Australian component of the trip, except where paid as
part of an inclusive package tour;
expenditure made on behalf of the traveller relating to the Australian leg of the trip by persons
or companies in other countries and moneys drawn from bank accounts or deposits usually
kept in Australia.

The data used to assess expenditure on MICE tourism were analysed from the International Visitor
Survey (IVS) 1997. These were the most recent data available at the time of writing; much of
these data does not appear in the published reports and must be accessed electronically. The IVS
consists of a survey of about 12,000 international visitors, who were departing Australia,
conducted at Australias major international airports. The data used in this study have not
previously been published by the Bureau of Tourism Research and have remained unanalysed
within the computerised databases of visitor statistics.
(ii)

Compile relevant price data from each destination country in the competitor set.

A major source of price data with respect to the ground component of a tourist visit is the
International Comparison Program (ICP), which provides data on prices of 255 categories of
products (World Bank 1993). While the ICP also provides data on accommodation, additional
data on accommodation prices were obtained from tourist industry surveys (Pannel- Kerr Forster
1996a, b).

(iii)

Establish a correspondence between tourist purchasing patterns and price data to derive
Purchasing Power Parities (PPPs) for each category of tourist expenditure, for both total
tourism and MICE tourism.

Since price data are available at a very disaggregated level (255 different goods and services)
while expenditure patterns are reported for only 14 broad categories (eg. accommodation, food,
shopping, entertainment, etc.), it is necessary to establish a correspondence between items in ICP
categories and International Visitor Survey (IVS) Expenditure categories. Correspondence
between ICP and IVS categories was based on a weighting procedure developed by Adams and
Parmenter (1992)

International Price Competitiveness of Australias Mice Industry

ResearchMICE/Pricemicelatest/ 06/11/13

(iv)

EstimateTourism Purchasing Power Parities (PPPs).

PPPs are estimated from the above data, adjusted for changes in exchange rates. PPPs indicate
the levels of expenditure required in different countries to purchase the same basket of tourist
goods and services.

(v)

Construct price competitiveness indices for the destination. These are estimated by
comparing Australian prices for the different components of tourist goods and services
purchased with those prices obtained for the same items in competing destinations. The
aggregation for ground component items is undertaken using the Tornqvist index which is
a weighted geometric mean of the commodity specific PPPs. Once the PPPs for different
countries are obtained, competitiveness indices are derived by comparing PPPs with
respective exchange rates. The Competitiveness index is defined as the ratio of the
exchange rate and the purchase power parity, ie
Price Competitiveness Index = Exchange Rate x 100
Purchasing PowerParity

RESULTS

MICE Expenditure Patterns

INSERT TABLE 2 HERE

Table 2 provides data on total expenditure in Australia by all conference/conventions visitors to

Australia, averaged over all origin markets. The largest expenditure items are accommodation
(27.5%), shopping (24.7%) and food and drink (16.2%).

Table 3 provides expenditure patterns for all convention visitors to Australia. The data cover the
13 major origin markets for all inbound tourism to Australia. The data is for the latest available
year, 1996.

INSERT TABLE 3
Table 3 indicates that the convention visitors spent a total of A$501,741,000 in Australia during
their visit in 1996. A$104,021,000 (20.7%), was from the USA convention visitors,
A$94,636,000; (18.9%) was spent by New Zealand visitors and A$55,500,000 (11.1%) was spent
by UK visitors. Expenditure from these origin countries thus accounted for just over half of the
expenditure of conventions visitors to Australia. The major expenditure from these visitors is

International Price Competitiveness of Australias Mice Industry

ResearchMICE/Pricemicelatest/ 06/11/13

attributable to those from the USA, followed by those from New Zealand, UK, Japan and
Indonesia. These visitors allocated the largest share of their expenditure to food, drink, and
accommodation (46.0%), and shopping (20.7%). The next largest expenditure item was
convention registration (10.5%). Taken together, these items accounted for 77% of all expenditure
by those who visited Australia and attended a conference. Expenditure on each of the other
categories of items was a fairly low proportion of overall expenditure.
Table 3 reveals, also, the proportion of total expenditure which visitors from different origins
allocate to different industry sectors. Thus visitors from the USA allocate 26.85% of their
expenditure to accommodation and only 16.51% to shopping, while Indonesians allocate only
15.61% to accommodation and a huge 33.34% to shopping. The price competitiveness of
Australia from the perspective of MICE visitors from the USA and from Indonesia will therefore
depend importantly on the respective prices of accommodation and shopping, relative to the prices
of these items in competitor destinations.
Table 4 provides expenditure patterns for only those visitors who have indicated that conference
attendance was the main reason for their visit to Australia. The data covers the 13 major origin
markets for all inbound tourism to Australia. The data are for the latest available year, 1996.

INSERT TABLE 4 HERE

Table 4 provides useful data on expenditure by visitors from these major origin markets where
conference attendance was the main motive for the trip to Australia. Their expenditure totalled
almost A$106 million. The greatest expenditure from these markets comes from visitors from the
USA (A$22,000), followed by New Zealand (A$21,000). These visitors inject around twice the
total expenditure into Australia than the third largest spenders, namely UK (A$11,000) and Hong
Kong (A$10,000). These were followed by Indonesia (A$ 9,000) and Malaysia (A$7,000).
Table 4 also provides useful information on those industry sectors, which receive the greatest
proportion of expenditure by convention visitors. Shopping represents the largest single
expenditure item (23.2%), followed by food and drink (21.9%), accommodation (20.5%), and
convention/registration expenditure 15%. It is the prices attached to these products and services,
which will largely determine the price competitiveness of the MICE sector as a whole.
Indices of Price Competitiveness

Indices of Price Competitiveness of destinations as MICE destinations are set out in Tables 5 and
6. Interpretation of the price competitiveness indexes is straightforward. Australia is taken as base
and its index is 100. For any destination with a price competitiveness index greater than 100, it is
indicated that the destination is more price competitive than Australia. Similarly, a figure below
100 indicates that the destination is less price competitive than Australia. The values of the
indexes allow destinations to be ranked according to their price competitiveness. For each origin
market, Australias price competitiveness is ranked relative to other destinations in the competitor
set. The number 1 indicates the top ranking; 20 the lowest.

International Price Competitiveness of Australias Mice Industry

ResearchMICE/Pricemicelatest/ 06/11/13

The absolute values of the indexes can also be compared to determine the extent to which different
destinations vary in price competitiveness in tourism. Both types of information can be used to
measure Australia's price competitiveness in tourism in relative and absolute terms.
The Tables provide estimates of the price competitiveness of Australia as a destination for all
those visitors who attend a conference whilst in the country (Table 5) and for those visitors who
have indicated that conference attendance was the main motive for the visit (Table 6). Australias
price competitiveness as a MICE destination can be determined from the perspective of visitors
from different origins according to their purpose of visit.
Figure 1 displays the ranking of Australia as a MICE tourism destination from the viewpoint of
all MICE visitors as opposed to those who indicated that conference attendance was their main
motive for the visit.

INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE

For each origin market, Australias price competitiveness in MICE tourism can be ranked relative
to other destinations in the competitor set. Figure 1 compares Australias rankings for all MICE
tourists and for just those conference participants who indicated that conference attendance was
the main reason for the visit to Australia. In general, Australias price competitiveness ranking is
the same for both categories of MICE visitor. The exceptions are for the Indonesians, where
Australia is ranked lower for the main category and for China where the all category is lower
ranked. As Figure 1 shows, Australias price competitiveness, from the perspective of each origin
market, ranges between 11th and 14th for all MICE visitors and between 11 and 15 for main
MICE visitors.
Since Australias highest ranking is 11th from the competitor set of 20 (Australia plus 19
competitors), it is concluded that it ranks relatively low in price competitiveness as a MICE
destination from the perspective of visitors from major origin markets. The price competitiveness
indices in Tables 5 and 6 suggest that, from the perspective of the different origin markets,
Australia ranks worse than the Asian price competitive MICE destinations, and worse than North
America and New Zealand, but better than European destinations (except Turkey) and also better
than Hong Kong and Japan.
It is also interesting to compare Australias price competitiveness as a MICE destination, from the
perspective of different origin markets, with its price competitiveness as a destination for all
purposes of visit combined. That is, to compare Australias price competitiveness in MICE
tourism with its price competitiveness as an outbound tourism destination from the viewpoint of
an average or typical tourist from each origin market. Indices of Australias price
competitiveness for all purposes of visit have been published in previous studies (Dwyer et al.
2000). Figure 2 displays Australias rankings, facilitating a comparison of its price
competitiveness for total tourism and MICE tourism.

INSERT FIGURE 2 HERE

International Price Competitiveness of Australias Mice Industry

10

ResearchMICE/Pricemicelatest/ 06/11/13

Figure 2 reveals that, for every major origin market, Australia is relatively more price competitive
as a total tourism destination than as a MICE tourism destination. While Australia is ranked
between 9 and 11 for total tourism from the perspective of these origins, its ranking ranges
between 11 and 15 for MICE tourism.
For some origin markets eg. USA, Germany, UK, Taiwan, Hong Kong, China, Australia ranks 9th
overall in its price competitiveness as a total tourism destination, placing it in the top half of the
competitor set. The reasons for this are to be found in the types of goods and services purchased
by the different types of tourists. Total tourism has a large proportion of holiday visitors and their
different purchasing patterns as compared to MICE visitors will determine the price
competitiveness ranking of Australia from the perspective of those visitors.

The data also allows for the construction of aggregate price competitiveness indexes of the MICE
sector for all destinations in the competitor set. The aggregate index is estimated for visitors who
attended a conference whilst in Australia, and also for those MICE tourists who indicate that
conference attendance was the main purpose of their visit. Each index is derived as a weighted
average of indices for each origin market with respect to every destination. The index is weighted
by total visitor numbers to Australia from each origin market.

The aggregative rankings appear as the final columns of Tables 5 and 6 and are displayed in
Figure 3. Since the same rankings apply to the two types of MICE visitors (all and main),
Figure 3 has a single column for each destination.

INSERT FIGURE 3

Figure 3 reveals that Australia is ranked 12th on the aggregative price competitiveness measure
for both all and main MICE tourism. The top ranked destination is China, followed by
Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. Australia is ranked behind most of the Asian destinations and
also behind Canada, USA and New Zealand. On the other hand, Australia is ranked as more price
competitive in this sector than all of the European destinations, except Turkey, and is also more
price competitive than Hong Kong and Japan.
We can compare these aggregative rankings for MICE tourism in any destination with the overall
price competitiveness of that destination. Information on the latter has been published elsewhere
(Dwyer et al. 2000). Interestingly, the rankings for each destinations MICE tourism sector is the
same as its ranking for total tourism. Thus China is the most price competitive destination for both
MICE tourism and total tourism, Indonesia second ranked etc. When we look at the index
numbers themselves, however, some interesting results emerge. To explore these results we need
to compare the actual price competitiveness indices for each destination for the three types of
tourism which are of interest here: total tourism, MICE all and MICE main. These indices
appear in Table 7.
INSERT TABLE 7 HERE

International Price Competitiveness of Australias Mice Industry

11

ResearchMICE/Pricemicelatest/ 06/11/13

Table 7 allows one to go beyond the rankings to compare the price competitiveness indices for
different motives of visitors. The eleven top ranking countries each have higher price
competitiveness indices from the perspective of those whose main motive for the visit is to attend
a conference than for total visitor flows. For example, the top ranking destination, China, is 12%
more price competitive for main conference visitors (992.4) than for total tourism (886.5). Given
that Australia is base country, this implies that Australia is relatively less price competitive in its
MICE sector than in total inbound tourism, even though its ranking is the same for the different
motives for visit. It is worth noting that MICE International visitors to Australia spend more
visitor nights in cities (81%) rather than regional areas (19%), compared to other International
visitors (72% and 28%; Mistilis and Dwyer, 1999). Perhaps the difference in locality of their
visitor nights has some influence on price competitiveness.

IMPLICATIONS FOR MICE STAKEHOLDERS IN AUSTRALIA

The results have policy implications in that they indicate Australias price competitiveness as a
tourist destination differs for total inbound tourism flows and for MICE tourism flows, not only
for the average visitor in each category but from the perspective of different origin markets.
MICE tourism is a multifaceted industry, its activities requiring, many different players including
transport (international and domestic), accommodation, pre- and post-conference touring, purpose
built convention centres, exhibition facilities and hotels and catering and audiovisual services. The
price competitiveness of Australia in MICE, as compared to total, tourism, will depend on the
relative prices of the various components of the MICE product. Tables 2-4 reveal that the largest
expenditure items associated with MICE tourists to Australia are food and drink, accommodation,
shopping and conference registration fees. Given the importance of these items in the visitor
purchasing profile it follows that Australias price competitiveness in MICE will largely be
dependent on the price competitiveness of the products and services falling under these
expenditure categories.
In a previous study, some of the present authors explored the price competitiveness of key tourism
products and services in Australia (Dwyer et al 1998). The results for the items most relevant to
MICE visitors are as follows:
Accommodation: Rank 6
Food & Drink: Rank 9
Shopping:
Rank 16
Given the large proportion which MICE visitors from Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, South
Korea, China and Thailand allocate to shopping (see Table 3), it is not surprising that, overall,
Australia is ranked fairly low in terms of its destination price competitiveness.
As regards conference registration fees, these, for the most part, are re-injected by conference
organisers on the provision of products and services related to conference administration. Thus,
they will be spent on such items as fees to PCOs, meals and drinks to conference delegates,
printing of brochures, rental of conference facilities and audio-visual equipment, hire of coach
transport, entertainment etc. While such expenditure represents only around 10-15% of total

International Price Competitiveness of Australias Mice Industry

12

ResearchMICE/Pricemicelatest/ 06/11/13

conference-related expenditure (see Tables 1-3), cost leadership in this area will impact favourably
on the price competitiveness of the total MICE package.

While cost leadership represents an important strategy to achieve competitive advantage the
options of industry stakeholders are often limited. For the most part, a destinations
competitiveness in total tourism or in some market segment, will be the outcome of its industry
structure, the conduct and performance of firms, industrial productivity, and government
microeconomic and macroeconomic policies, past and present (Dwyer et al. 1998; Crouch and
Ritchie 1999). Since the tourism sector has wide ranging links to a myriad of other industries there
is often very little that tourism operators can do to influence the price competitiveness of their
products and services in the absence of reforms elsewhere in the economy. Notwithstanding this,
industry stakeholders can employ these results to help assess the impacts of alternative
government policies on their international competitive.

Although individual industry operators have no control over general price levels which inevitably
influence the lowest prices they can charge for delivery of their particular products and services, it
is useful for them to understand how visitors use price in their purchasing decisions. This
understanding enables managers to anticipate and influence customers reactions to pricing
decisions (Nagle and Holden, 1994). It also enables them to better understand the relevance of
non-price factors in destination choice.
In the case of MICE tourism, visitor price sensitivity must be assessed on two levels at least: first,
at the level of the conference convenor who puts in a bid for a particular conference venue to be
adopted; second, at the level of the conference participant who makes a decision as to whether
conference expenses will be cost effective enough to warrant attendance. Of course these
decisions are interrelated-the conference convenor must have an understanding what amounts of
expenditure potential visitors are prepared to outlay. Many potential conference participants, for
their part, are dependant on funding from their employers or other funding sources which
themselves have expectations of appropriate prices.
Of further interest is the role of National Tourism Organisations in monitoring price
competitiveness. Clearly it is important to use purpose of journey, further to refine any analysis of
price competitiveness for a destination, rather than a uniform index for all inbound sectors. More
exact analyses may also then lead to refinement of policy development for particular sectors, as
well as development of more discriminating destination marketing.
Space limitations preclude further discussion of these issues. Suffice to say that knowledge of
those factors affecting price sensitivity of the different decision makers is necessary if MICE
stakeholders in a destination are to anticipate responses to alternative price scenarios. To our
knowledge, no research has been undertaken on this important topic.

CONCLUSIONS
The paper has provided a method by which price competitiveness of tourism by journey purpose
can be estimated. By addressing one sector, MICE tourism, the paper established the importance
of the purpose of journey variable in methodology used to develop price competitiveness. The

International Price Competitiveness of Australias Mice Industry

13

ResearchMICE/Pricemicelatest/ 06/11/13

method used to construct the various competitiveness indices enables the prices of key tourism
products and services purchased in Australia to be compared to the same types of products and
services purchased in competitor destinations. Such specific information on (exchange rate
adjusted) prices can lead to a better appreciation within the MICE industry in Australia as to areas
where Australia is more or less price competitive internationally. The steps and guidelines can
therefore be applied to price competitive of other tourism sectors.
The results indicate that the MICE competitiveness of Australia as a tourist destination differs not
only according to the origin of visitors but also according to purpose of visitation. Australia is
relatively less price competitive in one of the worlds fastest growing special interest tourism
markets, than it is in total inbound tourism. The extent to which cost leadership plays a role in the
success of destinations in 'winning' conferences is not known but, undoubtedly, has some
influence. Indeed, the growth prospects of individual MICE destinations may increasingly come to
depend on cost relativities.
For all conference visitation Australia's ranking varies between 11th and 14th in price
competitiveness against other destinations in the competitor set. It is ranked relatively more price
competitive from the perspective of visitors from the USA, New Zealand and Taiwan and
relatively less price competitive from the perspective of visitors from Indonesia, Malaysia and
China. This is, to some extent, linked to Australias lack of price competitiveness in tourism
shopping. For visitors from Indonesia, Malaysia and to some extent, China, shopping expenditure
represents a large proportion of total destination expenditure.
For main conference visitation Australia's ranking varies between 11th and 15th in price
competitiveness against other destinations in the competitor set. Again, it is ranked relatively more
price competitive from the perspective of visitors from the USA, New Zealand and Taiwan, but
relatively less price competitive from the perspective of Indonesia (15th), which has the highest
shopping expenditure as a proportion of total visit expenditure (48.5%)
Australia is ranked 12th in aggregate for total tourism for those attending a conference either as a
main reason for their visit or otherwise. Looking behind the rankings to consider index values it
was noted that each of the 11 top ranked nations is more competitive as a 'main' MICE destination
than it is as a total tourism destination. The implication for Australia, taken as base destination
with value of 100, is that it is relatively less price competitive as a MICE tourism destination than
as a total tourism destination.
These findings have implications for MICE industry stakeholders in Australia. While the influence
of prices of goods and services in general is beyond the control of industry operators, they have
some scope to promote efficiencies and productivity increases in those products and services
receiving the bulk of MICE visitor expenditure- food and drink, accommodation and shopping.
While it is beyond the scope of this paper to explore relevant strategies, the construction of the
price competitiveness indices is a necessary step towards formulation of strategies to improve
Australia's competitive position in global MICE tourism.
There is scope for further work in this research area. One area of research is to update the price
competitiveness indices and assess the relative influence of price and exchange rate variations on
destination price competitiveness over time. While the Asian currency meltdown in late 1997
would certainly have enhanced the price competitiveness of the MICE sectors of Indonesia,
Thailand, Malaysia and South Korea, to some extent the overall effect may have been offset by

International Price Competitiveness of Australias Mice Industry

14

ResearchMICE/Pricemicelatest/ 06/11/13

increases in the general price levels in these countries. These countries are currently trading
themselves out of economic difficulties, and this is putting some upward pressure also on
exchange rates. Changes in the underlying factors determining the price competitiveness of MICE
need to be identified and analysed over time.
A second area of research is to explore price structures in the key products and services
comprising MICE tourism. The most important sectors are food and drink, accommodation and
shopping. While MICE industry stakeholders have little control over input prices they can attempt
to promote efficiencies in service delivery as part of a cost leadership strategy. The issues here,
and the requisite steps to achieve cost leadership, demand further exploration.
A third research area is to better understand how MICE visitors use price in their purchase
decisions. This involves study, not only of the 'non price' factors influencing destination choice,
but also of those factors affecting the price sensitivity of MICE tourists.
Given the importance of MICE as a special interest tourism market it is crucial that destinations
seeking to achieve competitive advantage in this market have a good understanding of the
quantitative and qualitative factors underlying destination competitiveness. This paper has
focussed on price factors. Although the Australian MICE industry received emphasis relative to
competitors, the method of constructing the price competitiveness indices is of general
applicability. It is to be hoped that further research on MICE tourism will proceed on some of the
suggested topics.

REFERENCES
Adams P.D. and Parmenter B.R. (1992) The medium term Significance of International Tourism
to the Australian Economy, Bureau of Tourism Research, Canberra
Australian Tourist Commission (1997a) MICE Marketing Brief Working Document. Australian
Tourist Commission: Sydney
Australian Tourist Commission (1997b) Attachments to MICE Marketing Brief: Additional
Information received since January 1997. Australian Tourist Commission: Sydney
Bureau of Tourism Research (1995b) International Visitor Survey 1994. Bureau of Tourism
Research, Canberra.
Bureau of Tourism Research (1999) Meetings Make Their Mark Characteristics and Contribution
of Australias Meetings and Exhibition Sector. Bureau of Tourism Research Occasional Paper no
26. Bureau of Tourism Research: Canberra
Commonwealth Department of Tourism (1995) National Strategy on the Meetings Incentives
Conventions and Exhibitions Industry. AGPS: Canberra.
Crouch, G., (1991) Effect of Income & Price on International Tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research. Vol. 19, No. 3, pp 643-644.

International Price Competitiveness of Australias Mice Industry

15

ResearchMICE/Pricemicelatest/ 06/11/13

Crouch, G., (1995), A Meta-Analysis of Tourism Demand. Annals of Tourism Research. Vol. 22,
No. 1, pp 103-118.
Dwyer L., P. Forsyth, P. Rao, P. Valerio (1998) Australia: a Price Competitive Tourist
Destination? prepared for Tourism Council of Australia by Centre for Tourism and Hospitality
Research and Centre for Efficiency and Productivity, in association with Arthur Andersen,
Sydney, December
Dwyer L., P. Forsyth, P.Rao (2000) The Price Competitiveness of Travel and Tourism: a
comparison of nineteen destinations. Tourism Management. January
Dwyer, L,P. Forsyth, P. Rao (1999a) Tourism Price Competitiveness and Journey Purpose.
Turizam vol 47 (3).
Dwyer, L. Forsyth, P., Rao, P. (1999b) Price Competitiveness of Tourism Packages: Beyond the
Big Mac Approach, Proceedings Asia Pacific Tourism Organisation Fifth Annual Conference,
Hong Kong SAR, China, August 1999.
Dwyer, L. and Mistilis, N. (1999) Development of MICE Tourism in Australia: Opportunities and
Challenges. Journal of Convention and Exhibition Management. Vol 1 No. 4 pp 85-99
Dwyer, L. and Mistilis, N. (1997), Challenges To MICE Tourism In The Asia Pacific Region in
Pacific Rim Tourism Oppermann, M. (editor), CAB International: United Kingdom. pp 219-230.
Edwards, A., (1995), Asia-Pacific Travel Forecasts to 2005, Research Repor., Economist
Intelligence Unit. London.
ICCA Data (1996) Analysis of the World Market for International Meetings. ICCA Data:
Amsterdam
ICCA Data (1999 November) Analysis of the World Market for International Meetings. ICCA
Statistics ICCA Data: Amsterdam. http://www.icca.nl/products/statistics/1998/country.htm
Martin, C.A. and Witt, S.F. (1987) Tourism Demand Forecasting Models: Choice of Appropriate
Variable to Represent Tourists Cost of Living, Tourism Management. pp 223-245.
Mistilis, N. and Dwyer, L. (1999) Tourism Gateways & Regional Economies: The Distributional
Impacts of MICE. International Journal of Tourism Research (formerly Progress in Tourism and
Hospitality Research). Vol 1, pp441- 457
Nagle, T. and Holden, R. (1994) The Strategy and Tactics of Pricing: A Guide To Profitable
Decision Making. Prentice Hall: USA
Pannel-Kerr Forster (1996a) Trends in Hotel Industry (Asia Pacific Region)
Pannel-Kerr Forster (1996b) Eurocity Survey Reports

International Price Competitiveness of Australias Mice Industry

16

ResearchMICE/Pricemicelatest/ 06/11/13

Peters, D. and Jones, B. (1996) Measuring the MICE Industry. unpublished paper presented at the
Australian Tourism and Hospitality Research Conference, Coffs Harbour, February 1996
World Bank (1993) Purchasing Power of Currencies: Comparing National Incomes using ICP
Data. International Economics Department, World Bank: Washington
World Tourism Organisation (1994) Current Travel & Tourism Indicators. January. WTO:
Madrid

Table 1 Convention visitors to Australia, 1997, by country of origin

main purpose of visit convention
country of origin:
New Zealand
USA
Japan
Other Asia
Korea
Malaysia
Indonesia
UK & Ireland
Singapore
China
Hong Kong
Thailand
Germ any
Taiwan
Canada
Other Europe
Other Countries
Total
Total (n) = 126838

%
20
12
8
6
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
1
14
8
100

all convention visitors (main purpose, attended, accompanied)

country of origin:
%
USA
15
New Zealand
12
Japan
10
Indonesia
4
Malaysia
4
Hong Kong
4
Germ any
4
China
4
Other Asia
3
Taiwan
3
Singapore
3
Thailand
3
UK & Ireland
3
Korea
2
Canada
1
Other Europe
15
Other Countries
9
Total
100
Total (n) = 170202

source:
Bureau of Tourism Research International Visitors Survey, 1997

International Price Competitiveness of Australias Mice Industry

17

ResearchMICE/Pricemicelatest/ 06/11/13

Table 2 Expenditure data for total MICE tourism to Australia, 1997

%
1 Food, Drink and Accommodation
a) accommodation
46767
b) food and drink
27605
c) food/drink & accomm inclusive
9862
2 Shopping
a) items for use in Australia
1513
b) items to take home
40561
3 Entertainment
2679
4 Self drive cars, rent a cars, camper vans
1346
5 Airfares for travel within Australia
1571
6 International airfares bought in Australia
447
7 Other transport fares
7185
8 Petrol and oil for self-drive cars or other vehicles
856
9 Horse racing and gambling
2219
10 Organised tours
5716
11 Other
a) major equipment
177
b) Education fees*
381
c) Phone, fax &/or postage
2485
d) Other expenditure
18832
Total expenditure in Australia ('000s)
296509
*where purpose of visit other than education
source:
Bureau of Tourism Research International Visitors Survey, 1997

27.5
16.2
5.8
0.9
23.8
1.6
0.8
0.9
0.3
4.2
0.5
1.3
3.4
0.1
0.2
1.5
11.1
100.0

Table 3
International Visitor Survey, 1996
Average Expenditure by all conference visitors (A$)
United
States

Germany

New
Zealand

Japan

South
Korea

UK

Indonesia

Singapore

Taiwan

Hong Kong

Thailand

Malaysia

China

Total

Food, Drink & Accomod

55,866

14,251

18,085

45,692

24,899

3,527

13,200

7,231

5,948

11,729

4,737

14,167

11,441

230,773

46.0

Shopping

17,176

2,666

9,988

17,528

6,887

2,385

14,099

4,210

2,625

5,330

2,605

8,695

9,496

103,690

20.7

Entertainment

2,079

586

2,286

2,372

1,398

374

1,726

385

136

421

296

497

835

13,391

2.7

Self-Drive cars

4,606

1,307

261

1,847

884

483

369

31

1,329

498

28

11,649

2.3

Domestic airlares

3,382

806

461

1,168

1,005

669

257

26

16

199

234

8,230

1.6

Int. airfares pur. in Aus

1,129

48

1,011

1,609

142

115

24

421

4,499

0.9

982

300

909

277

840

121

107

64

36

54

10

3,700

0.7

Taxis, limousines

2,878

358

2,268

2,262

1,949

322

3,351

724

286

724

502

669

942

17,235

3.4

Petrol, oil costs

Train, coach fares

1,280

1,431

79

1,047

451

86

71

189

318

4,957

1.0

Horse racing & gamblin

718

40

2,077

133

331

1,975

779

555

603

889

333

439

1,689

10,561

2.1

Convention/registration

7,251

828

1,369

15,997

10,989

1,684

2,535

1,019

2,376

4,628

361

2,983

826

52,846

10.5

other exp.

4,435

1,132

4,923

4,204

4,517

495

4,577

1,293

469

813

1,082

1,680

3,086

32,706

6.5

Organised tours (no acc

2,239

491

350

500

1,208

579

677

426

36

186

77

589

146

7,504

1.5

104,021

24,244

44,067

94,636

55,500

11,470

42,289

16,604

12,539

26,405

10,054

30,768

29,144

501,741

100.0

Total

Source: Bureau of Tourist Research, international Visitor Survey 1996.

International Price Competitiveness of Australias Mice Industry

19

ResearchMICE/Pricemicelatest/ 06/11/13

Table 3 contd
International Visitor Survey, 1996
Average Shares for all conference visitors to Australia

Expenditure component

United
States

Germany

Japan

New
Zealand

UK

South
Korea

Indonesia Singapore
%

Taiwan

Hong
Kong

Thailand

Malaysia

China

Total
%

Food

16.11

17.63

12.31

14.48

13.46

9.22

9.36

13.06

14.23

13.33

14.13

13.81

Drink

10.74

11.76

8.21

9.66

8.97

6.15

6.24

8.71

9.49

8.88

9.42

9.21

Accomodation

26.85

29.39

20.52

24.14

22.43

15.37

15.61

21.77

23.72

22.21

23.56

23.02

19.63

45.99

Shopping

16.51

11

22.67

18.52

12.41

20.79

33.34

25.36

20.93

20.19

25.91

28.26

32.58

20.67

2.42

5.19

2.51

2.52

3.26

4.08

2.32

1.08

1.59

2.94

1.62

2.87

2.67

Self-Drive cars

4.43

5.39

0.59

1.95

1.59

0.05

1.14

2.22

0.25

5.03

1.62

0.1

2.32

Domestic airfares

3.25

3.32

1.05

1.23

1.81

1.58

1.55

0.21

0.06

0.07

0.65

0.8

1.64

Int. airfares pur. in Aus

1.09

0.2

2.29

1.7

0.26

0.44

0.08

1.44

0.90

Train, coach fares

0.94

1.24

2.06

0.29

1.51

1.05

0.25

0.39

0.14

0.54

0.03

0.74

Taxis, limousines

2.77

1.48

5.15

2.39

3.51

2.81

7.92

4.36

2.28

2.74

4.99

2.17

3.23

3.44

Petrol, oil costs

1.23

5.9

0.18

1.11

0.81

0.02

0.2

0.43

0.02

0.72

1.03

0.99

Horse racing and gamb

0.69

0.16

4.71

0.14

0.6

17.22

1.84

3.34

4.81

3.37

3.31

1.43

5.8

2.10

Convention/registration

6.97

3.42

3.11

16.9

19.8

14.68

5.99

6.14

18.95

17.53

3.59

9.7

2.83

10.53

other exp.

4.26

4.67

11.17

4.44

8.14

4.32

10.82

7.79

3.74

3.08

10.76

5.46

10.59

6.52

Organised tours (no acc

2.15

2.03

0.79

0.53

2.18

5.05

1.6

2.57

0.29

0.7 0,77

1.91

0.5

1.50

TOTAL

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100.00

Entertainment

Source: Bureau of Tourist Research, International Visitor Survey 1996.

100

11.78 )
7.85 )

Table 4
Expenditure pattern for Main Purpose Conference Visitors, 1996
United States
Food, drink &a

Germany

Japan

New Zealand

UK

South Korea

Indonesia

Singapore

Taiwan

Hong Kong

Thailand

Malaysia

China

Total

11,520

2,413

2,308

8,709

5,452

687

2,171

1,869

2,310

4,275

1 1,299

1,912

1,365

44,991

3,869

673

1,132

3,218

1,915

764

4,291

1,045

1,051

1,891

660

3,166

904

24,579

Entertainment

430

35

20

615

102

154

269

94

58

129

43

103

61

2,113

Self-Drive car

464

51

231

173

615

33

1,574

Domestic airfa

440

154

188

333

80

209

1,419

Shopping

Int. airfares pu

516

67

583

Train, coach f

12

32

448

21

12

26

558

Taxis, limousi

642

178

162

561

734

77

410

176

104

246

140

167

165

3,762

Petrol, oil cos

150

13

52

30

92

25

370

Horse racing &

72

220

44

ill

201

298

150

67

68

28

1,151

Convention/re

3,029

411

353

6,344

1,390

976

879

387

888

2.246

68

1,004

413

16,144

other exp.

645

64

140

341

647

126

184

92

113

238

208

200

79

3,077

Organised tou

563

58

143

71

371

258

121

55

14

59

15

246

37

2,011

21,836

4,019

5,114

20,837

10,977

3,042

8,850

3,933

4,836

9,961

2,526

6,936

3,119

105,986

13.5

12.5

14.9

6.8

7.4

14.3

14.3

12.9

15.4

8.3

Total

Expenditure share (%)

Food

15.8

18

Drink

10.6

12

8.4

9.9

4.5

4.9

9.5

9.6

8.6

10.3

5.5

Accomodation

26.4

30

22.6

20.9

24.8

11.3

12.3

23.8

23.9

21.5

25.7

13.8

21.9

Shopping

17.7

16.7

22.1

15.4

17.4

25.1

48.5

26.6

21.7

19

26.1

45.6

29

23.2

Entertainment

0.9

0.4

0.9

5.1

2.4

1.2

1.3

0.017

1.5

2.0

Self-Drive car

2.1

0.2

2.1

0.2

6.2

0.5

1.5

3.8

3.7

1.6

0.7

2.4

0.1

0.1

1.3
0.6

Domestic airfa

13.1 )
8.8 )
)

42.4

2.5

2.1

Train, coach f

0.1

0.8

8.8

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.5

Taxis, limousi

2.9

4.4

3.2

2.7

6.7

2.5

4.6

4.5

2.2

2.5

5.5

2.4

5.3

3.5

Petrol, oil cos

0.7

0.1

0.5

0.3

0.2

0.9

0.4

3.5

Horse racing a

0.3

4.3

0.2

1.3

5.1

6.2

1.5

2.7

0.9

1.1

Convention/re

13.9

10.2

6.9

30.4

12.7

32.1

9.9

9.8

18.4

22.5

2.7

14.5

13.2

15.2
2.9

Int. airfares pu

other exp.
Organised tou
TOTAL

1.6

2.7

1.6

5.9

4.1

2.1

2.3

2.3

2.4

8.2

2.9

2.5

2.6

1.4

2.8

0.3

3.4

8.5

1.4

1.4

0.3

0.6

0.6

3.5

1.2

1.9

100.000

100.000

100.000

100.000

100.000

100.000

100.000

100.000

100.000

100.000

100.000

100.000

100.000

100

Source: Bureau of Tourist Research, International Visitor Survey 1996.

International Price Competitiveness of Australias Mice Industry

22

ResearchMICE/Pricemicelatest/ 06/11/13

Table 5
6
Price Competititiveness
Indices
for Various
Destination
Countries
Price Competititiveness
Indices for Various
Destinations
Countries
for "All"
Conference Visitors
Year
1996,
Australia
100
( Visitors
Main
Purpose
Conference)
Year= 1996, Australia= 100
Origin
Origin
Destination
Destination
Australia
New Zealand
United
States
Australia
Canada
New Zealand
United States
France
Cangri,q
Italy
France
UK
Italy
Germany
Spain
UK
Germany
Turkey
Spain
Switzerland
TurkeyKorea
South
Switzerland
China
Hong
South Kong
Korea
Singapore
China
Hong Kong
Taiwan
Singapore
Indonesia
Taiwan
Thailand
Japan
Indonesia
Malaysia
Thailand
Ranking
Japan
Malaysia
Ranking

Japan
Japan
100

111.1
127.3
100
128.4
123.9
127.8
78.8
126.3
97.3
74.1
94.1
95.5
82.6
98
86.5
78.7
222.6
96.4
71.7
236.8
161
71.4
783.4
107.8
165.2
134.2
752.1
107.9
181.4
135.1
419.2
182.7
262.6
423.9269.5
271.5
13272
13

United
Germany
States
United
States
100 Germany
100

110.1
100132
112.2
75.5136
93.2
75.3
87
93.2
81.6
93
85.7
82.1
223.2
92.5
71.5
235.2
152.1
72
827.9
95
154.7
138
931.1
94.4
188.9
143
452.3
195.9
244.8
66.1
470.5
285.4
246.4
11
65.5
296.4
11

New
Zealand
New
Zealand
100

UK
UK100

136.4
100
137.8139.7
75.7
141.2
93.3
73.9
86.4
92
82.6
92.7
82.8
82.2
235.4
90.5
72
250.5
155.3
72.2
966
94
159.8
144.2
1124
94
197.6
147.6
475.5
202.3
246.8
66.4
486.5
299.3
253.7
11
66.3
306.3
11

114.4
133.8
100
134.6
113.5
133.4
74
134.6
92.3
75.995.8
80.7
91.782
242.7
94.5
70.9
241
157
71.4
953.8
95.6
158.8
141.4
884.4
97.9
193.6
140.9
464
193.3
256.4
64.7
465.4
292.7
259.1
12
65.2
292.8
12

108.5
130.8
100
130.2
113.2
132.3
73.5
134.2
88.4
74.7
84
93.689.5
85
214.792.7
69.9
242.1
142.8
70.5
795.2
87.3
154.5
138.4
896.7
95.5
189.7
140
456.3
192
228.8
63.8
462.6
287.3
250.5
12
64
291
12

International Price Competitiveness of Australias Mice Industry

23

South
Indonesia
Singapore
Korea
South
Korea
100 Indonesia
100 Singapore
100

114.2
129.6
100
128.2
118.6
141.5
79.2
138.7
96
74.2
90.6
93.9
84.2
96
87
81.1
209
93.5
76.8
250.374
676.8
104.8135.8
1170.4
107.1
176.4
149.6
365.2
205.2
231.8
71.4
494.3
248.9
286.2
12
68.1
311
12

110.4
132.2
100
133.8
109.7
140.2
81.4
141
102.7
83.5
99.3
105.4
84.8
102.5
103.7
87.4
228.1
105.3
73.2
221.9
172.4
77
837
113
179.5
139.3
903.7
114.2
190
147.7201.8
281.3
71.2285.7
278.2
14
75.7
304.3
15

Taiwan
Taiwan
100

Hong
Kong
Hong
Kong
100

112.4
138.1
100
139.4
112.4
138.2
77.7
139.1
95.3
78.1
87.2
95.5
84.3
94.1
87.5
84.7
234.8
94.2
74
232.1
153.8
74.5
909.4
93.8
153
145.6
891.6
94145.6
454.2
23667.5
447
292.1
232.2
11
67.9
289.3
11

110.5
138
100
139
110.9
140.8
77.8
141.7
95.6
77
87.7
95
84.7
94.1
86
84.6
225
93
74.7
229.6
153.4
74.8
892.5
154145.5
963.1
197.4148.7
461.8
202.9
235
68.8
482.4
295.1
235.8
12
68.5
305.6
12

110.9
131.6
100
132.8
112
135.8
79
136.1
97.9
79.2
93
97.7
83.5
97.8
91.5
84.7
223.1
96.8
73.1
228.2
159.6
74.2
797.4
102.6
157.8
850.4100.2
188.4
440.7193.1
254.8
68.7
444.8
281.6
243.7
12
68.5
286.6
12

ResearchMICE/Pricemicelatest/ 06/11/13

All Destinations
All Destinations

Malaysia
Thailand
Thailand
100 Malaysia
100

111.2
131.7
100
133.2
112.3
132.2
80.1
133.6
98.9
79.6
94.3
99.1
84
98.8
93.1
83.8
228.4
98.7
72.4
231.4
159
72.2
809.9
103.2
158.5
138.9
802.9
102.1
188.5
139.5
441.2
189.767.8
446.4
281.812
67
284.3
12

110
136.6
100
138.1
111.2
142.4
82
143.4
111.8
88
91.5
133.9
85.4
106.3
98.4
88.7
276.6
122.1
74.1
330.7
176.5
77.7
881.1
100.4
215.5
144.6
949.3
114.2
207.7
150.8
529.1
226.5
254.7
75.4
614
28614
87.8
14

China
aggregate
China
100 aggregate
100.0

108.5
131
100
133.4
112.1
136.9
82.2
138.2
100.6
78.4
98.8
98.5
85.4
101.3
91.8
84.1
216.5
97.5
74.1
238.2
161.1
73.2106.4
165
138102.6
185.8
144.5
425.4
197.6
253.5
71.4
472.2
274.9
262.1
14
68.4
298.3
12

111.0
133.1
100
133.9
113.5
136.8
78.2
137.2
97.2
77.8
91.2
99.2
83.7
96.6
89.9
83.7
229.2
97.5
73.0
243.7
158.7
73.5
844.2
100.3
164.7
140.3
926.6
102.0
190.5
144.4
448.7
198.6
248.9
68.6
475.8
282.9
258.8
69.4
294.8

Rank
Rank
12
11
10
13
9
11
10
18
9
14
19
16
14
17
15
16
17
5
15
18
5
7
18
1
13
7
8
1
12
6
8
2
6
4
20
2
3
4
20
3

Table 7
Aggregate Competitiveness Indices Over all Origin Countries, 1996
Base Country: Australia (100)

Destination
Australia
New Zealand
United States
Canada
France
Italy
UK
Germany
Spain
Turkey
Switzerland
South Korea
China
Hong Kong
Singapore
Taiwan
Indonesia
Thailand
Japan
Malaysia

Total

Type of Conference Visitor

Ranking Main
Ranking

100
110.8
133.4
134.7
76.2
94.1
87.8
82.4
93.7
229.4
72
155.3
886.5
96.1
140.9
192.7
459.9
248.4
66.7
290.7

12
11
10
9
18
14
16
17
15
5
19
7
1
13
8
6
2
4
20
3

100
112.7
137.4
138.4
75.5
94
85.9
82.6
92.9
240.4
72.5
158.9
992.4
95.9
145.2
198.8
476.6
252.1
66.6
300.6

12
11
10
9
18
14
16
17
15
5
19
7
1
13
8
6
2
4
20
3

Attend
100
110.6
133.1
134.3
76.1
93.7
87.7
82.2
93.5
227.8
71.9
154.6
879.9
95.9
140.7
192.2
458.7
247
66.7
290

Ranking
12
11
10
9
18
14
16
17
15
5
19
7
1
13
8
6
2
4
20
3

Source: Tables 4, 5, Dwyer (2000)

International Price Competitiveness of Australias Mice Industry

24

ResearchMICE/Pricemicelatest/ 06/11/13

Figure 1
Australias Price Competitiveness Rankings in MICE Tourism
Attend MICE Tourists vs Main MICE Tourists

China

Thailand

Taiwan

Indonesia

UK

Germany

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Japan

Competitiveness Indices

Figure 1

Attend

Destination

Main

Source: Tables 4, 5.

International Price Competitiveness of Australias Mice Industry

25

ResearchMICE/Pricemicelatest/ 06/11/13

Figure 2
Australias Price Competitiveness Rankings for MICE Tourism
As Compared to Total Tourism

Total
Main

China

Thailand

Taiwan

Indonesia

UK

Attend

Germany

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16

Japan

Competitiveness Index

Figure 2

Destination

Source: Tables 4, 5.
For rankings for price competitiveness of total tourism to Australia see Dwyer et al (1999a).

International Price Competitiveness of Australias Mice Industry

26

ResearchMICE/Pricemicelatest/ 06/11/13

Figure 3
Price Competitiveness of MICE Tourism : Rankings on Aggregate Measure

Figure 3

Index

5
10
15
20
Japan

Indonesia

Singapore

China

Switzerland

Spain

UK

France

United States

Australia

25

Index

Destination

Source: Table 4, 5
NOTE: The same rankings apply to all MICE and main MICE Tourism for each destination.

International Price Competitiveness of Australias Mice Industry

27

ResearchMICE/Pricemicelatest/ 06/11/13