Recommendation Date
Recipient Name
MSA
Text
That it include in the proposed Commercial White Water Rafting Code of Practice: A requirement for raft operators to show passengers an audio-visual summary of the demands of the rafting experience before they embark on the trip,...
Reply Text
Since my letter of 29 April 1996 when I provided you with the MSA's initial views on this proposal, we have taken the opportunity to discuss it with a Working Group elected by the rafting industry to establish a New Zealand Rafting Association. This group, which represents a wide cross-section of operators and guides, has indicated that it is not in favour of introducing compulsory pre-trip customer viewing of a video of rafting activity.
The reasons for the group's attitude largely reflect the MSA's preliminary views which were underlined in my letter to you of 29 April 1996, and include:
• a belief that the pre-trip use of audio-visual aids would be unlikely to give clients a better perspective of the demands of the rafting experience over the information already available through brochures and other promotional material. Many rafting clients, particularly overseas visitors, more often than not already suffer from a surfeit of audio-visual advertising trailers on white water rafting in New Zealand. These can begin with promotional videos of New Zealand in their home country, adventure tourism video clips on the plane trip to New Zealand, similar clips run on hotel in-house TV channels, and finish with advertising videos playing continuously in a number of rafting companies' booking offices. In many cases, the scenes depicted are dramatic and include clients being thrown out of rafts but, not surprisingly from a marketing perspective, still project an image of fun/enjoyment.
• In Queenstown, where the most serious rafting accidents have occurred in recent years, I believe that most, if not all, operators have videos running continuously in their booking offices. In the event that a new audio-visual safety video was to be introduced, it would be difficult to package the information in a way that is sufficiently different from what they perceive to be great fun and relatively safe. Indeed, part of the problem which operators face is that clients often "don't want to know". This was borne out by members of the Working Group and an MSA survey of rafting company clients carried out in 1995. Indeed, the client survey concluded the "people's reviews of these factors (advertising brochures, statistics, company shop displays etc.) were firmly oriented to the positives, and any negative information was typically rationalised and diminished in value".
• Practical difficulties associated with the video proposal. For example, it would be difficult to get all clients to view a video presentation. While it would not be a problem to get clients leaving for the river from a booking office to turn up a bit earlier for an audio-visual presentation, it would be much more difficult to catch those who have booked their trip by phone (either directly, or through a hotel or agent) and arrange to turn up at the riverside ready to raft. Their means of transport could be private car, helicopter or jet boat depending on the particular package they have booked. This phone/fax style of booking rafting trips is becoming more prevalent with on-line computer booking etc.
• It would impose additional costs on the industry for no apparent significant benefit. Apart from the direct costs to operators for providing the video, there could be indirect costs if, for example, the additional time involved reduced the number of trips that an operator could run during the day.
The Group agreed that there is an issue of how to make rafting company clients more aware of the demands and risks associated with river rafting so that they may make a more informed decision on whether to raft or not and, having made a decision to proceed, be better able to respond to the demands that are placed upon them during the trip. However, they believe that this is better addressed by other safety requirements included in the draft Code of Practice which focus on direct verbal and physical safety instruction/demonstration both on and off the water. This would include the safety card proposal put forward by TAIC (recommendation 020/96) which is discussed below. An improvement in the opportunities for clients to opt out of the trip which are provided for under the draft code will also help. In conclusion, taking into account the rafting industry's comments and our own assessment of TAIC's recommendations, the MSA has decided to ... reject recommendation 015/96 concerning the mandatory use of audio-visual presentations.
The reasons for the group's attitude largely reflect the MSA's preliminary views which were underlined in my letter to you of 29 April 1996, and include:
• a belief that the pre-trip use of audio-visual aids would be unlikely to give clients a better perspective of the demands of the rafting experience over the information already available through brochures and other promotional material. Many rafting clients, particularly overseas visitors, more often than not already suffer from a surfeit of audio-visual advertising trailers on white water rafting in New Zealand. These can begin with promotional videos of New Zealand in their home country, adventure tourism video clips on the plane trip to New Zealand, similar clips run on hotel in-house TV channels, and finish with advertising videos playing continuously in a number of rafting companies' booking offices. In many cases, the scenes depicted are dramatic and include clients being thrown out of rafts but, not surprisingly from a marketing perspective, still project an image of fun/enjoyment.
• In Queenstown, where the most serious rafting accidents have occurred in recent years, I believe that most, if not all, operators have videos running continuously in their booking offices. In the event that a new audio-visual safety video was to be introduced, it would be difficult to package the information in a way that is sufficiently different from what they perceive to be great fun and relatively safe. Indeed, part of the problem which operators face is that clients often "don't want to know". This was borne out by members of the Working Group and an MSA survey of rafting company clients carried out in 1995. Indeed, the client survey concluded the "people's reviews of these factors (advertising brochures, statistics, company shop displays etc.) were firmly oriented to the positives, and any negative information was typically rationalised and diminished in value".
• Practical difficulties associated with the video proposal. For example, it would be difficult to get all clients to view a video presentation. While it would not be a problem to get clients leaving for the river from a booking office to turn up a bit earlier for an audio-visual presentation, it would be much more difficult to catch those who have booked their trip by phone (either directly, or through a hotel or agent) and arrange to turn up at the riverside ready to raft. Their means of transport could be private car, helicopter or jet boat depending on the particular package they have booked. This phone/fax style of booking rafting trips is becoming more prevalent with on-line computer booking etc.
• It would impose additional costs on the industry for no apparent significant benefit. Apart from the direct costs to operators for providing the video, there could be indirect costs if, for example, the additional time involved reduced the number of trips that an operator could run during the day.
The Group agreed that there is an issue of how to make rafting company clients more aware of the demands and risks associated with river rafting so that they may make a more informed decision on whether to raft or not and, having made a decision to proceed, be better able to respond to the demands that are placed upon them during the trip. However, they believe that this is better addressed by other safety requirements included in the draft Code of Practice which focus on direct verbal and physical safety instruction/demonstration both on and off the water. This would include the safety card proposal put forward by TAIC (recommendation 020/96) which is discussed below. An improvement in the opportunities for clients to opt out of the trip which are provided for under the draft code will also help. In conclusion, taking into account the rafting industry's comments and our own assessment of TAIC's recommendations, the MSA has decided to ... reject recommendation 015/96 concerning the mandatory use of audio-visual presentations.
Related Investigation(s)