RESEARCH STATE OF PLAY T
he 2010 benchmark review Trends in the Hotel Spa Indus- try by Colliers PKF Consulting USA, is the fourth annual review of an industry which up until
2008 had experienced enormous growth over the previous two decades and was crying out for robust market and fi nancial intelligence. T e 2009 PKF Consulting review, which cov- ered data from 2008, was described by Elaine Fenard, senior vice-president of spa develop- ment and operations at Spa Strategy as “an excellent report with good year-on-year com- parisons”. Indeed, 63 hotels contributed to the fi rst survey in 2007, steadily increasing to 128 by 2009. T e 2010 survey, based on 2009 fi gures, boasts only 81 contributors – a decline of 37 per cent on the previous year – since PKF relied on spa data extracted from its annual survey of hotel fi nancial statements “without seeking any data from properties outside of that sample”, according to Robert Mandelbaum, PKF’s direc- tor of research and information services.
The new Trends in the Hotel Spa Industry survey has just been released. We analyse the figures, compare them to the previous three surveys and ask key industry players for their view on the findings
As Mandelbaum expected, “2009 was a hor-
rible year for the US lodging industry, with record declines in both revenues and profi ts. T e luxury segment was hurt the most and luxury hotels have a high proportion of spas.” While revenue per spa varied between just under us$1m (€724,600, £614,350) for spas with less than 6,000sq ſt (557sq m) to almost
No. of hotel spas (survey sample) Sq ft/spa facility
Treatment rooms/property Stations/property
Department income** US$ per sq ft of spa facility % of spa departmental revenue
TABLE 1: CONTRIBUTING HOTELS – 2010 SURVEY* TYPE OF HOTEL Urban 18
7,979 10
4.0
35.20 21.6%
* Based on 2009 fi gures ** Before deducting undistributed and fi xed charges 34 spa business handbook 2011
www.spahandbook.com 5.0
36.13 27.4%
us$3.7m (€2.7m, £2.3m) for larger spas which covered more than 15,000sq ſt (1,394sq m) in the 2009 survey, the range in the 2010 study (based on the smaller sample of 81 hotels) is from us$843,000 (€610,750, £517,800) to us$2.9m (€2.1m, £1.8m), respectively. Com- paring fi gures, for the same sample between 2009 and 2010, shows that there’s been year- on-year decline of around 19 per cent. The range on a per square foot basis is
equally large, yet inverted, with the smaller spas boasting higher per square foot revenue levels. Spas with less than 6,000sq ſt reported total spa department revenues per square foot of just over us$280 (€202, £172) in the 2009 survey and us$228 (€165, £140) in the 2010 survey, while the larger spas with 15,000sq ſt or more, averaged just over us$142 (€102, £87) of revenue per square foot in the 2009 sur- vey and us$125 (€91, £77) in the 2010 survey. T us, irrespective of the sample or the year, while larger spas generate more income over- all, their yield per square foot is nearly half
Resort 63
13,606 14
SPA REVENUES US$3m+ 11
26,727 21
8.0
54.42 35.4%
Written by Leonor Stanton, contributing editor, Spa Business
US$1m – US$3m Less than US$1m 39
31
12,849 14
5.0
34.52 24%
6,635 8
3.0
13.29 14.4%
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212 |
Page 213 |
Page 214 |
Page 215 |
Page 216 |
Page 217 |
Page 218 |
Page 219 |
Page 220 |
Page 221 |
Page 222 |
Page 223 |
Page 224