Don't let America's tourism marketing go dark: Why slashing Brand USA Is a costly mistake

Travel Weekly

13 hours ago

As an executive at the former creative agency of record for Brand USA, I've seen firsthand how powerful a well-funded national tourism campaign can be. That's why the proposed 80% budget cut to Brand USA is both baffling and dangerous. This isn't just bean-counting; it's effectively pulling the rug out from under an entire sector of our economy.
Dulani Porter is executive vice president and partner at Spark, a creative and strategy agency, which was recently the creative agency of record for Brand USA.
Travel and tourism supports millions of American jobs and generates trillions of dollars in economic output. Gutting the nation's destination marketer would ripple far beyond lost ads; it would harm local businesses, cost jobs and diminish America's standing on the world stage.
Brand USA is one of those rare public programs that more than pays for itself. Independent research has shown that its marketing efforts deliver some of the highest returns in the industry, translating into real dollars spent by international travelers. Since its inception, Brand USA's work has driven millions of additional visitors and helped inject billions of dollars into communities across all 50 states. These visitors don't just touch down in major cities; they fan out to small towns, mountain regions, coastal hideaways and desert parks. They fill hotels, dine in restaurants, visit attractions and shop on Main Street. In doing so, they help sustain tens of thousands of U.S. jobs every year, not only in hospitality but also in manufacturing, construction, finance and retail sectors that benefit indirectly from tourism.
Let's dispel the myth that tourism marketing only helps big coastal cities or giant corporations. In truth, the vast majority of travel-related businesses in America are small businesses, from family-run outfitters in Alaska to B&B owners in Appalachia. These are the businesses that often lack any marketing presence abroad. Brand USA's storytelling is often the only megaphone they have on the global stage. Its campaigns have long encouraged travelers to go beyond the usual tourist hubs and explore hidden treasures, like a blues festival in Mississippi, a mountain town in Colorado or a barbecue trail in Kansas. In my work with Brand USA, I saw firsthand how highlighting these places helped spread visitor spending in meaningful ways. When international tourists venture off the beaten path, they're booking local tours, buying from local artisans and eating at local diners, spending money that might never have reached these communities otherwise.
Now, imagine turning off this marketing engine. What happens if we stop telling America's story to the world? Unfortunately, we don't have to imagine: history offers a cautionary tale. In 1993, Colorado eliminated its state tourism promotion budget to save money. The result was an economic disaster: within two years, Colorado's share of U.S. tourism plummeted about 30%, costing the state over $1.4 billion in lost revenue annually. It took years for Colorado to claw back its reputation and visitor numbers.
Fast forward to 2011, when Washington State became the only state in the nation with no tourism office due to budget cuts. Industry leaders practically begged them not to do it; Colorado's tourism director famously called Washington's decision "foolish," noting how badly his state had suffered when it made the same mistake.
The lesson from these examples is laid out plainly: when you stop marketing, visitors stop coming. Once lost, travel demand is hard to rebuild, and the businesses that fold in the interim don't magically reappear when you realize the error.
We must also consider the broader competitive landscape. Pulling 80% of Brand USA's funding is akin to unilateral disarmament in a global tourism battle. Rival destinations in Europe, Asia and beyond are spending aggressively to attract the very travelers we'd be ignoring. If America goes dark, we essentially concede market share to our competitors. Fewer people will choose the U.S. for their vacations if they aren't being reminded of what makes this country special. And those who do still come might stick to the obvious attractions, bypassing the smaller cities and rural areas that no longer have a national campaign spotlighting them. This would hurt thousands of communities that rely on tourism dollars. The U.S. Travel Association warned that not funding Brand USA would "effectively end international travel promotion for regions that simply can't afford to reach global travelers on their own," especially hurting non-metropolitan areas that need those jobs the most.
Even before this proposal, America's share of global long-haul travel was shrinking -- not due to lack of appeal, but because other countries are out-marketing us. Slashing Brand USA now would pour gasoline on that fire, just as worldwide travel is rebounding. It's a formula for losing visitors, losing revenue and losing our competitive edge.
The timing couldn't be worse. The next few years will bring the U.S. onto some of the biggest stages imaginable. These are moments we've been planning for and dreaming of. In 2026, the United States will co-host the FIFA World Cup, with matches in cities across the country. And we'll commemorate America's 250th birthday with a yearlong semiquincentennial celebration in all 50 states. Just two years later, in 2028, Los Angeles will welcome the world for the Summer Olympics. These events will thrust America into the global spotlight and have the potential to draw millions of international visitors. Brand USA has been gearing up by developing campaigns, partnerships and itineraries to capitalize on the surge of interest. To pull the plug on funding now, on the eve of these bonanza events, is strategically incoherent. It would be like hosting a huge party but ditching the invitations and welcome signs. If we underfund our marketing at this critical moment, we risk squandering the tourism windfall these events should bring. The world will literally be watching us; we want them booking trips, not just watching from afar because we failed to make the case to visit.
Finally, consider the intangible stakes. Tourism is a form of public diplomacy. When we invite someone from abroad to discover America, we're also shaping their perceptions of our country. Every traveler who hikes in our national parks, chats with locals at a farmers' market or attends a jazz festival in New Orleans goes home with their own small understanding of what America is really about. That kind of person-to-person connection is invaluable.
Brand USA's mission from the start has been not only to fuel our economy through tourism but to "enhance the image of the United States worldwide." In an era when misinformation and geopolitical tensions often skew how nations perceive each other, welcoming visitors is one of the most effective, organic forms of soft diplomacy we have. I've watched Brand USA craft campaigns that celebrate our diversity and warmth, essentially countering negative stereotypes by letting people experience the true fabric of America. Pulling back on these efforts would forfeit tourist visits and diminish America's voice in the global conversation. It's telling the world that we don't care to reach out, that maybe we're closed off. That is the opposite of what made America a beacon for generations of travelers and admirers.
The budget bill passed by the Senate reduced funding by 80%, but the House of Representatives must reject this draconian cut for what it is: a penny-wise, pound-foolish move that undermines a proven economic engine and America's brand all at once. Brand USA has a proven track record of success, boosting visitation, creating jobs and generating a return on investment that private companies would envy. It helps ensure that small businesses thrive, that all regions share in the tourism pie and that the American story is told by us, not by our competitors. With so much at stake, from a once-in-a-lifetime convergence of global events to the livelihoods of workers in travel, hospitality and creative industries, now is the time to double down on Brand USA, not to abandon it. The cost of cutting Brand USA far outweighs any short-term savings. In fact, it's not really savings at all - it's forfeited revenue, forfeited jobs, and forfeited influence.
As someone who has spent a career sharing America's wonders with the world, I can say confidently: this is an investment worth protecting. Let's keep the welcome mat out for the world and keep Brand USA doing what it does best - inviting travelers to experience the United States, and in turn, keeping America's economy and spirit open for business.
___________________________________________________________
Travel Weekly accepts opinion pieces on subjects of interest to the travel industry and, most importantly, to travel advisors. Forums should be 550 words and must be exclusive to Travel Weekly; no part of the writing can have been published anywhere else. Forums must not be self-promotional and should be submitted with the understanding that Travel Weekly reserves the right to edit the content for length, style, spelling, clarity, structure, etc. Submissions, along with a high-resolution headshot and a short bio, should be emailed to editor in chief Arnie Weissmann and deputy managing editor Gerry Bourbeau.