What’s going on — the new agency search
- On 18 September 2025 the county commission authorised its purchasing agent to issue a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for “tourism marketing and tourism enhancement services.” (CitizenPortal)
- The RFQ was formally published 19 November 2025 with solicitation ID 2025‑001(KD). Proposals close 16 December 2025. (Bid Banana)
- The aim: to hire one or more organisations (agencies) to provide destination‑marketing services to help “enhance and grow tourism within the county.” (Bid Banana)
- The contract is for one year, but with flexibility — the county reserves the right to terminate with 90 days’ notice. (Bid Banana)
- According to the RFQ notice, the scope includes: building a strategic plan to showcase county attractions (especially outdoor recreation and relaxation), running destination marketing campaigns, coordinating with local governments and chambers of commerce, and driving visitor/tourist growth. (Bid Banana)
- The expected budget “ball‑park” is roughly in the $200,000–$500,000 range for a year, based on scope of services and typical contract size. (Bid Banana)
In short: Sullivan County is explicitly looking to outsource its tourism marketing — not just hire a contractor, but bring in a dedicated agency to lead a professional, coordinated destination‑promotion effort.
Why the County is Doing This — Intent, Goals & What Proponents Say
According to statements made at the commission meeting and RFQ documentation:
- The county hopes a specialist tourism marketing firm will deliver more focused, measurable and effective marketing than what’s been possible with in‑house efforts. Officials argued this could expand the sales‑tax base (via increased visitor spending) and reduce pressure on property taxes. (CitizenPortal)
- The broader goal is to raise Sullivan County’s profile — highlighting its attractions: its outdoors (nature, recreation), heritage, cultural sites (e.g. music history / museums), and other visitor draws — in order to attract more tourists, especially from beyond the local area. (sullivancountytn.gov)
- The RFQ signals the county intends the agency to coordinate with local stakeholders (cities, chambers, local tourism‑related organisations) to unify promotion and avoid duplication, while maximising reach through professional marketing strategies. (CitizenPortal)
Supporters say this outsourcing could yield better results: more visitors, increased spending, more hotel occupancy, and long‑term economic benefits for the county’s businesses and tax base. (CitizenPortal)
What’s Causing Debate / What Opponents Raise — Concerns & Risks
Not everyone agrees — and several commissioners voiced reservations when the RFQ was authorised. Key concerns include:
- Duplicating existing efforts / loss of local control: Some commissioners asked why the county should hire an outside agency when existing organizations (like the regional tourism association Northeast Tennessee Tourism Association — NETTA) already receive funding for tourism promotion. They fear outsourcing may duplicate work or undercut local efforts. (CitizenPortal)
- Use of occupancy tax funds & legal constraints: Under state law, county “occupancy tax” revenues (from hotels/motels) must be used for promoting travel by people residing at least 50 miles away. Some questioned whether certain proposed expenditures (e.g. infrastructure or local‑only events) would qualify under those restrictions. (CitizenPortal)
- Accountability and measurable results: As the marketing will be contracted out, there is an emphasis on reports and accountability. But some fear it may be difficult to evaluate which gains (increase in visitors, spending, occupancy) are directly attributable to the agency’s work vs other factors (seasonality, broader economic conditions). (CitizenPortal)
- Cost vs benefit and sustainability: The proposed budget (200–500 K) is not small, and some worry that a year‑long contract may not be enough time to deliver meaningful, sustainable results — or justify the expenditure if tourism uplift is modest. (Bid Banana)
In short: the debate is between hope for a professionally managed tourism rebound vs caution about cost, duplication, accountability and proper use of public/tax‑derived funds.
What This Could Mean — For the County, Local Tourism & Interested Agencies
If the agency and strategy succeed — Potential Benefits
- Increased visitation and hotel occupancy, which could boost local business revenue (restaurants, shops, lodging, attractions), and generate more tax/revenue for the county.
- More coordinated and professional promotion — consistent branding and messaging for the county, better visibility beyond regional audiences, potentially drawing new demographics (nature tourists, music/history‑tourists, regional conferences/events, etc.).
- Better collaboration between county, towns, local attractions and chambers — a unified tourism push may attract larger events or grants, benefiting the wider community.
- Data‑driven decision‑making — with an agency in charge, metrics such as visitor counts, occupancy rates, spending, campaign ROI could be tracked, giving a clearer basis for future tourism investments.
Risks / What Could Happen If It Fails or Is Mismanaged
- Wasted public funds — if the marketing campaign fails to attract sufficient visitors, the county may get little return on its investment.
- Erosion of trust or duplication — existing local tourism organizations or stakeholders may feel sidelined or undermined, leading to friction or inefficiencies.
- Short‑term effort with no long‑term gain — a one‑year contract might not deliver sustainable tourism growth; without follow‑through or longer‑term planning, gains may be temporary.
- Legal/regulatory/policy risks — if funds are mis‑allocated (e.g. for non‑qualifying activities under occupancy‑tax rules), the county may face fiscal or compliance issues.
What the RFQ (And Solicitation) Requires — What Agencies Should Know if They Bid
Any agency interested must:
- Demonstrate experience in destination marketing / tourism marketing, ideally for counties or regions.
- Propose a strategic marketing plan tailored to the county’s strengths (outdoor recreation, heritage, culture, etc.).
- Be ready to coordinate with local government departments, chambers, tourism‑related stakeholders.
- Commit to reporting and accountability — providing periodic reports (quarterly or as required) to the county commission, presumably including visitor metrics, ROI, occupancy data or other performance indicators. (CitizenPortal)
- Work within public‑procurement / county‑purchasing guidelines. Agencies must be registered appropriately with the county procurement office before being awarded a contract. (sullivancountytn.gov)
For reference, the contract could have a budget up to half‑million USD (depending on scope). (Bid Banana)
Context & How It Fits Broader Trends
- The move reflects a broader shift in many US counties and regions — outsourcing destination marketing to specialist agencies rather than relying on in‑house or loosely‑coordinated efforts. Destination marketing organisations (DMOs) increasingly rely on agencies to help them navigate competitive tourist markets, digital promotion, and attract new kinds of visitors.
- For a county like Sullivan — with assets like natural beauty, outdoor recreation, heritage (e.g. music history), and existing attractions/amenities — a well‑executed marketing push can help reposition the county not just as a local getaway, but as a destination for regional, national — even international — visitors.
- The RFQ and debate also illustrate common tensions: balancing public investment, local control, accountability, and optimism about tourism-driven economic growth.
- Good questions — here’s a deeper “case‑studies + commentary” view of what Sullivan County, TN doing by seeking an outside agency for tourism marketing — plus some real‑world precedents and lessons/risks from similar efforts elsewhere.
What Sullivan County’s Plan Reflects — Key Decisions and Rationale
As reported recently:
- The County Commission voted 18 Sept 2025 to issue a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) seeking a firm to provide “tourism marketing and tourism‑enhancement services.” (CitizenPortal)
- Revenues for this contract would come from the county occupancy‑tax receipts. About half of occupancy‑tax revenue still goes to the existing regional entity (Northeast Tennessee Development Association — NEDA), but the other half is now open to contracting with an agency under the county’s purchasing office. (CitizenPortal)
- The outsourced approach is being justified by proponents as a way to bring specialist marketing expertise (beyond what county staff or existing bodies can do), potentially attracting more visitors, expanding the county’s sales‑tax base, and reducing pressure on property taxes. (CitizenPortal)
- The RFQ expects the selected contractor to coordinate with local government, report on progress quarterly, and presumably deliver measurable outcomes (visitation, marketing reach, campaigns). (CitizenPortal)
In effect: Sullivan County is shifting toward a more professional, performance‑oriented tourist marketing strategy — outsourcing to specialists instead of relying solely on in‑house or regional‑body efforts.
How Similar Approaches Have Played Out — Case Studies from Other Counties/Regions
Looking at broader research on destination marketing, and a few real‑world county/DMO examples, we can see what tends to work — and where pitfalls lie.
Case: Rural / Small‑region DMOs — Structure & Outsourcing (e.g. Tucker County Tourism, WV)
- In a study of rural tourism in Tucker County, WV, researchers found that the many small, fragmented tourism‑related stakeholders (businesses, local government, community groups) struggled to coordinate marketing or present a unified “destination brand.” The study concluded that success depended on establishing a dedicated organisation (or outsourced agency) with clear mission, resources and a mandate to coordinate across stakeholders. (MDPI)
- The authors noted that while “marketing” remains the principal function of such entities, over time their role often expands to broader “destination management”: coordinating events, infrastructure, community interests, and balancing growth with sustainability. (MDPI)
- For Sullivan County — with a variety of attractions (rural/natural, heritage, small towns) — this suggests that outsourcing to a capable agency could help unify messaging, pool stakeholder input, and overcome previous fragmentation.
What worked there / what’s relevant
- A unified, coordinated strategy — rather than many small scattered efforts — helped get clearer messaging, better resource use, and more consistent promotion.
- Outsourcing allowed access to marketing expertise, media buying, campaign design, and destination‑branding skills that small local offices often lack.
What to watch out for
- If stakeholders (local businesses, municipalities, community groups) aren’t coordinated early, an “outside” agency may struggle to reflect local voice or gain buy‑in.
- Sustainability & “management” must go beyond marketing: growth must be balanced with infrastructure, resources, and community support — else tourism boost may spur problems.
Example: Pulaski County Tourism (and similar US counties) — Professional Media Planning + Rebranding
- Pulaski County engaged an external creative/marketing firm to build a “media plan” — including a modern website, messaging campaigns, regional promotion, print design, and PR — moving away from previously ad‑hoc media buying that had low reach or poor targeting. (5pointscreative.com)
- Their revamped marketing resulted in greater visibility for the county, better awareness among potential visitors, and presumably improved tourism-related traffic (though not all publicly disclosed).
Lessons / Why this matters for Sullivan County
- A few smart interventions (modern website, targeted ads + PR, clear messaging) dramatically improve “destination identity” and help attract visitors outside the local area.
- This shows that marketing‑driven tourism growth often depends not just on “spending more,” but on strategic & professional outreach — which an external agency is better positioned to deliver than a small in‑house team.
General Research: Destination Marketing Effectiveness — What Studies Show
- Research on DMOs finds that the most effective “marketing channels” for destinations tend to be well‑designed websites, search‑engine visibility, social media, word‑of‑mouth amplification, and leveraging incentives (e.g. unique attractions, free Wi‑Fi, rental deals) to attract visitors. (ScholarWorks)
- DMOs are often more than promoters: they act as destination managers, coordinating stakeholders, developing local offerings (heritage sites, outdoor attractions, events), and working with local government/industry to build sustainable tourism economies. (MDPI)
- Economic‑impact research shows that well‑funded, well‑executed destination marketing campaigns can generate increased visitor spending — benefiting local businesses and raising tax revenue (hotel taxes, sales taxes). (U.S. Travel Association)
These findings provide empirical support for Sullivan County’s belief that outsourcing tourism marketing could produce measurable economic and social benefits — if properly managed.
What Local Voices & Stakeholders in Sullivan County Are Saying — Debate & Diverging Views
During the county commission’s discussion:
- Pro‑outsourcing voices argue a professional firm could do what local staff can’t — targeted promotion, broader reach, specialized campaigns — thereby increasing tourism and boosting the sales‑tax base. One commissioner predicted this could reduce reliance on property taxes. (CitizenPortal)
- Opponents voiced concern over duplication, asking: why hire an outside agency when the county is already funding a regional tourism body (NEDA) with ~$800,000 annually? They also questioned whether infrastructure‑type projects or local-only events would qualify under state rules (which limit tourism tax‑funded promotions to attracting visitors from more than 50 miles away). (CitizenPortal)
- Other concerns: accountability, transparency, oversight — especially since this would be a publicly funded contract. Some commissioners asked for clarity that any selected contractor returns for final approval before major expenditures. (CitizenPortal)
This reflects a common tension: potential gains through professional marketing vs. risks of cost, duplication, and loss of local control.
What Success Looks Like — And What Would Count as “Winning” for Sullivan County
Based on the case studies and research, here are what I’d call key success indicators for Sullivan County if this agency‑outsourcing strategy works:
- Increased number of out‑of‑county visitors (especially beyond 50 mile radius) — as measured by hotel occupancy, short‑term rentals, or visitor surveys.
- Boost in hotel/motel occupancy, restaurant/retail/recreation spending, overall sales‑tax revenue tied to tourism.
- Stronger regional identity / brand — e.g., a county “brand” or campaign that resonates: digital presence (website, social media), consistent messaging, broader awareness beyond local or regional only.
- Coordination across local stakeholders — towns, attractions, businesses, community bodies — under unified strategy, reducing fragmentation and maximizing impact.
- Transparent reporting and accountability: periodic (quarterly) reports by the agency to the county commission showing milestones, KPI metrics, return on investment (ROI), number of visitors, spending, conversions, etc.
If these are achieved, the shift from in‑house or regional‑body marketing → professional agency could prove justified.
Risks & What Could Go Wrong — Based on Research & Other Cases
But the history of destination‑marketing efforts also warns of possible failure modes. Key risks:
- Homogenous / unoriginal marketing: Research warns that agencies working with multiple DMOs can produce cookie‑cutter campaigns, relying on popular tourism‑marketing “trends” rather than local uniqueness — which reduces differentiation. (My Tourism IQ)
- Over‑promising, under‑delivering: If marketing hype builds expectations (e.g. “the next big outdoor recreation mecca”) but local infrastructure, services, or attractions don’t match — visitor disappointment, negative reviews, long‑term harm to reputation. Research on DMOs cautions about promoting destinations without supporting the actual service/product side. (MDPI)
- Funding instability or unsustainable cycles: Tourism marketing often relies on tax receipts (e.g. occupancy tax). Economic downturns, seasonal variation, or crises (e.g. pandemics) can threaten funding — in which case marketing efforts may stall, damaging momentum. (publications.hvs.com)
- Duplication of effort / stakeholder conflict: If the newly hired agency doesn’t coordinate with existing regional bodies (e.g. NEDA), municipalities, businesses — you risk overlapping campaigns, conflicting messaging, and waste of public funds (as critics in Sullivan County already warn). (CitizenPortal)
- Lack of local stakeholder buy‑in / community resistance: For rural or small counties, residents sometimes resent increased tourism (traffic, environmental impact, change in local character). If marketing doesn’t come with community engagement and sustainable planning, backlash may occur. Studies of rural DMOs note this as a challenge. (MDPI)
What Sullivan County Should Do — Recommendations if They Want to Maximise Success
Based on the evidence and prior cases, if I were advising the County I’d recommend the following approach to get the most out of the contract:
- Choose an agency with proven experience in rural / small‑region tourism marketing — one that understands rural tourism dynamics, not only big city or “resort‑destination” marketing.
- Require a comprehensive tourism‑development plan, not just ad campaigns — including destination branding, stakeholder coordination (local businesses, municipalities, attractions), infrastructure‑support plan, and sustainability strategy.
- Set clear KPIs and accountability mechanisms — visitor numbers (from outside county), hotel occupancy, local spending, economic impact, conversion/funnel metrics — and require regular reporting to the commission.
- Ensure local stakeholder involvement and buy‑in — involve towns, chambers, local businesses, community groups from the start, to avoid duplication or community pushback.
- Balance marketing with “destination management” and sustainable development — marketing should be tied to real capacity (hotels, services, transport), environmental protection, and long-term visitor experience — not just quick wins.
- Plan for flexibility and long-term funding — tourism cycles fluctuate; the county should consider multi‑year strategy (not one‑year contract only), and possibly combine agency marketing with local/regional partners (e.g. NEDA).
- Use data and digital marketing + modern channels — strong website, SEO, social media, search engine marketing, storytelling, video/virtual‑tour content, and data tracking (visitor analytics, surveys) — to reach beyond local/regional audiences and measure performance.
My Take / Overall Comment on Sullivan County’s Move
I think Sullivan County’s decision to seek an agency for tourism marketing is — in principle — a smart, forward‑looking move. The world of tourism is competitive, and many rural or less‑well‑known areas struggle because they lack marketing expertise, resources, or coordination. Outsourcing can inject professional capacity, fresh ideas, and sharper execution.
That said — the success won’t come automatically. The risk of “marketing without substance” is real; if the county (or agency) fails to coordinate infrastructure, services, stakeholder buy‑in, or long‑term strategy — the marketing may generate short-term buzz, but not enduring tourism growth.
In short: the contract could spark a new era of growth for Sullivan County — if done thoughtfully, inclusively, and with eyes open to both benefits and drawbacks.