How the tourist tax could change the rules of subvention

A peculiar contradiction sits at the heart of Europe’s convention bureaux: while they spend much of their time handing out money, they often struggle to secure their own funding. 

Subventions allow cities to compete for lucrative association conferences by offering organisers financial inducements – free venue hire, for example, or money to spend on event marketing. Yet the bureaux who dish out subventions often have to fight tooth and claw for their own budgets, subject as they to shifting local priorities and the caprice of City Hall.

But a change could be coming via a controversial revenue-generating mechanism: the tourist tax or - to use its less abrasive soubriquet - ‘visitor levy’. Edinburgh’s decision to fund its convention bureau for the next three years through its new visitor levy could signal the start of a revolution in destination marketing across Europe. It means for the first time in the UK a bureau’s survival isn’t at the mercy of political cycles. Instead, it’s tied directly to the economic activity it helps generate.

Although Europe is the traditional home of association conferences, convention bureaux - which tend to sit under the auspices of a destination marketing organisation (DMO) - have not been on the priority list of policymakers facing tough choices about how to spend public money. Only an optimist would imagine this scenario changing anytime soon.

The cost of supporting a frontline against Russia in Ukraine, AI’s erosion of entry level jobs, ever-increasing welfare bills, and the spiralling cost of social care and SEND provision in schools, seem likely to keep Europe’s struggling economies in the doldrums for the foreseeable future.

Convention bureaux will always struggle to be heard amid the clamour of competing - and, let’s face it, more pressing - claims for money. Visitor levies offer a solution: a relatively stable income stream derived from the part of the economy association conferences support.

Of course, nothing comes for free - certainly not ‘public money’. The more protected the funding, the more intense the scrutiny will become, especially from the accommodation sector (hotels, guest houses, holiday rentals) which will be required to raise the levies.

Subventions are likely to be looked at more carefully - but, conversely, they could become a way of proving the value business events bring to host cities.

Subvention works in the shadows. A cheque is written, the congress organiser signs, the economic impact is celebrated, and the details disappear into an association’s accounts. Local taxpayers see visitors filling hotels and restaurants, but not much else, and so the line between “incentivising business events” and “paying for business” can feel uncomfortably blurry.

A visitor levy brings that distinction into sharper focus.

Ring‑fenced funding forces convention bureaux to behave less like marketing outposts and more like public agencies with measurable outputs. It moves the conversation from “How big was your event?” to “What did your event achieve?” And that’s where things get interesting.

Because if bureaux want levy funding to endure, they’ll need to demonstrate more than visitor numbers. They’ll need to prove that business events generate real, visible community value.

And that means rethinking subvention itself.

Imagine a world where subvention is no longer a blank cheque designed simply to outbid rival cities, but a structured investment tied to event outcomes voters can see: skills programmes for local students; knowledge exchange between visiting researchers and local SMEs; public lectures or outreach initiatives linked to major congresses; research partnerships catalysed by conferences; sustainability pilots embedded in event delivery; accessible transport or circular-economy projects funded through event incentives. All of a sudden the transactional nature of subvention turns into something else altogether – an opportunity for host city and association to ensure the conference has a social impact beyond the four walls of the convention centre.

These are not fanciful ideas.

They are realistic, measurable, and aligned with what many cities claim to prioritise. If convention bureaux are funded by visitor levies, the case for these initiatives becomes much stronger. The money comes with a built‑in obligation to deliver visible returns.

For decades, convention bureaux have fought for scraps of annual funding while giving away substantial sums via subvention. Visitor levies flip that equation. Suddenly the CVB has a stable, predictable budget – but must justify how it uses the money. Subvention becomes an investment tool rather than a desperate bid sweetener. Transparency becomes a strategic advantage, not a legal necessity. The public sees not only visitors arriving, but long‑term benefits staying. The conference (or business events) industry, in other words, grows up.