Concise.pdf - Brugge Plus

12
BRUGGE 2002
The new “look & feel” of an atmospheric city
As I have already said, the resonance of BRUGGE 2002 and the result in the city itself,
amongst the public that came and saw, must principally be seen in relation to our
communication. From the outset we realised that communication was hugely important.
Obviously this is always the case, but even more so in our situation. We were
faced with the task of battling against the compelling image of Bruges, away from the
image of the atmospheric city, of showing that Bruges is more than what everyone
already knows about it. This is why we resolutely went in search of an approach and
image that were far from the familiar. In each case we made considerable efforts with
specialists, until we achieved the now well-known results.
Alongside image, information, mainly via the press, also had a large part to play. The
press was partly responsible, with sufficient critical sense, for making BRUGGE 2002
a success.
Then there was also the information aimed directly at the public itself. This was
always meticulous: from the different editions of the newsletter Blauwdruk via the
unique programme guide to the bi-monthly magazine Hour by hour, and also the
many one-off publications providing the public with information.
It worked! Bruges caught the attention, different and challenging. BRUGGE 2002 was
recognised. This too is deepening: looking for and finding different ways of making
people aware of Bruges. Communication provided the figures, clearly, but it also
ensured that the project received the right content and tone. The communication of
BRUGGE 2002 followed on naturally from the programme, and was primarily a pointer
for Bruges to how things could be done differently and with what results.
For the time being, however, we must conclude that those responsible have not yet
understood that this is actually the case. Many tourist services fall back too easily on
the familiar image of Bruges. They are always concerned primarily with turnover, not
content, which can be so disruptive to quantity. It looks as if the so convincing possibilities
that BRUGGE 2002 threw up with its communication are not sufficiently visible.
And this despite the fact that the University of Antwerp was convinced primarily
by our external communication when awarding the Prize for Cultural Management
2002 to BRUGGE 2002.
It will still have to be repeated many times that you firstly have to have something that
is worth the trouble in order to obtain good sales results. And you don’t simply get a
good product - alongside insight and work this also requires lucidity and dexterity. A
good product produces good figures - perhaps more slowly, but on a more lasting basis.
© MARC MAILLARD
The hard figures
Let us now take a look at the figures.
In the rest of this report, on the following pages, the figures
are explained at various points, but for now just a little
information.
In total, BRUGGE 2002 received 1,590,629 visitors, of
whom 760,594 had paying tickets. The remainder included
the number of visitors at free events. The City of
Bruges was visited by around 700,000 people on the back
of BRUGGE 2002. 9% of all Belgians visited a BRUGGE
2002 activity - this is almost 1 in 10.
As mentioned previously: you can announce a programme
– which we did extensively – but you only really
know what it is in its entirety after the facts. Which
explains why we can only now say that in total 156 programmes
were made available, together accounting for
1,227 activities.
Freaks