Author: Thinh Joey
Design: Travellive

Before, during, and after the Covid-19 pandemic, the market structure of Vietnamese tourism remained almost unchanged: the top five markets – China, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan (China), and the United States – still accounted for 55% of the total international visitors. This led those interested in tourism to ask themselves: "Is it time to stop pursuing tourism development based solely on numerical KPIs and instead prioritize quality?"

To find the answer, Travellive interviewed Mr. Bobby Nguyen - Founder and Chairman of Rustic Hospitality Group, one of the pioneering community-based tourism models in the Mekong Delta, and also a consultant in the Swiss Sustainable Tourism Project (SSTP) in Vietnam.

Our beaches are more beautiful than Bali's, but why can't we compare them to Bali's?

The fact that the structure of Vietnam's international tourist arrivals has remained unchanged for many years—does this reflect stability or risk, in your opinion?

The recent conflicts in the Middle East demonstrate that in today's unpredictable era, over-reliance on large markets carries significant risks. When a country depends on a single market, political or economic instability can lead to a noticeable decline in tourism to other countries.

Furthermore, relying on a few specific markets risks hindering product diversification and adaptation. For example, the Halal market (Muslim countries) or the Indian market require very different product lines. High-end and mass-market customers both demand specific products, requiring significant investment in intellectual capital, something we haven't yet achieved.

This is a cardinal sin in business, because companies always need to diversify their products to avoid risks, especially in the current period of global crises and supply chain disruptions.

Compared to other countries in the ASEAN region, how would you assess the current state of Vietnamese tourism?

In terms of numbers, Vietnam's tourism industry is still growing: 21.1 million visitors in 2025 compared to 12.6 million in 2023. But from the perspective of product diversification, I fear we are stagnating. Many questions need to be asked, such as "Is revenue per visitor increasing?" or "Are the product lines diversified?".

Product diversification will create more demand and jobs for society. If a country only receives a few million tourists from a few specific countries each year, the revenue will essentially remain within those groups and will not have a significant ripple effect on society.

There are many tourism products that the world truly needs, but Vietnam has not yet clearly developed them. For example, "wellness tourism" or "transformative tourism" are both popular and have great potential, but in Vietnam, they are currently only found in a few isolated locations and have not yet formed a trend. Meanwhile, the potential is very clear; many locations in the northern mountainous region, such as Ha Giang and Son La, have excellent natural energy and are suitable for small-scale tourism models offering 3-5 day stays to recharge the body.

To make a significant impact, we need to diversify tourism types, from high-end to mass-market, themed tourism, etc. Only then can revenue be stable and products have unique characteristics. However, at this point, when it comes to unique tourism products in Vietnam, I regret to say there isn't anything truly outstanding. For example, our beaches are very beautiful, even more beautiful than Bali's, but our reputation on the world tourism map still can't match Bali's!

It's better to have fewer but higher-quality customers who are willing to spend more and return.

If given the opportunity to offer advice to policymakers, what would he recommend to improve the quality of tourism in Vietnam in the future?

In my opinion, a long-term vision is essential. Tourism development must be linked to conservation, regeneration, and nurturing. Exploitation must go hand in hand with preservation, just as an apple tree only bears 20 apples; if you harvest them all today, what will you eat tomorrow? Instead, nurture the tree so it can bear fruit again next season.

Currently, we are still following a model where we go to beautiful spots, guide locals in developing tourism, and then exploit them, instead of nurturing and regenerating the surrounding areas. Over-exploitation without restoration will lead to the death of tourism.

Next is the product story. Many people still say that we need to relax visa requirements to attract tourists, but in my opinion, that's not the key issue. The problem is, once tourists arrive, what do we have for them to do or shop for? The most important thing is still developing and diversifying tourism products and maintaining consistent service quality.

Finally, and very importantly, we need to reposition the national tourism brand as soon as possible. To put it simply, backpacker tourists often view Vietnam as a cheap destination. Ha Giang attracts many visitors, but Western tourists mainly rent motorbikes to drive around, eat cheap meals costing 50,000-100,000 VND, and stay in inexpensive homestays. Revenue from this group is very modest; roadside vendors don't sell much, while the number of tourists visiting Ha Giang remains overwhelming.

Therefore, we need to be selective about our products and target customers. It's better to attract fewer but high-quality tourists who are willing to spend more and return, rather than attracting many tourists who generate little revenue and put pressure on the local people.

Many countries are currently experimenting with selective tourism models, limiting the number of visitors but increasing the average value per visitor. In your opinion, does Vietnam have the necessary infrastructure, products, and brands to adopt this approach within the next 5-10 years? If not, what model would be most suitable?

Vietnam could implement a selective approach at specific locations such as Hoi An, Con Dao, or Son Doong. We could target the right customer segment or develop eco-friendly products. I believe this is entirely possible within the next 5-10 years.

First, we need to assess the carrying capacity of the destination. Hoi An could follow Switzerland's model, limiting the number of visitors to 500, 1,000, or 2,000 during specific time slots each day. If the capacity is 10,000 visitors per day, a clear allocation is needed: 5,000 in the morning and 5,000 in the afternoon. This is a selective approach to reduce pressure on the destination based on the actual carrying capacity of its infrastructure and population.

We also need to change our management mindset and adopt digitalization, such as using software to manage tickets instead of selling paper tickets by hand. With modern AI technology, this is entirely feasible. This management method is very scientific: the overall number of visitors remains high, but the tourist destination maintains peace and tranquility. Son Doong Cave is currently doing very well by only welcoming a limited number of visitors each month, and entry is only permitted under certain conditions!

High-quality tourism is easy to talk about, but difficult to implement. In your opinion, where should we start?

Take Bhutan as an example – a country with a very impressive tourism industry. Previously, visitors wishing to enter Bhutan had to pay a minimum fee, for example, $300 per day. They didn't require a large number of visitors, just enough to generate high revenue. They managed to ensure visitors' spending on food, accommodation, and other living expenses met that minimum threshold before granting visas.

For Vietnam to achieve this, the core remains the product. For a long time, the approach to tourism has been very rudimentary: gathering a few local services, assembling them into tours, taking tourists to sightsee, take photos, and then returning. Many tourists go to Ha Giang to sightsee and take photos for free, while the local area doesn't earn a single penny.

Currently, products need depth; they must be designed to create experiences, emotional value, and tour scenarios to increase their value. The Japanese are a successful example. To sell tea, they create a tea ceremony: taking guests to see tea gardens, introducing the tea-making process, how to brew tea, and offering tea... Only after this experiential process do guests buy tea, and Japanese tea sells very well.

Currently, we don't really know how to create products, we don't know how to tell stories, so the value is still very low. When advising local people, I once asked: "If a tourist comes here for 2 days and 1 night, and their goal is to spend 3 million VND, where do you plan to get them to spend it?"

The question seemed simple, but no one could figure it out. Calculating the cost of food, accommodation, souvenirs, etc., it was only around 1 million VND, or less than 50 USD. So what did the remaining 2 million VND go for?

Extremely clear positioning is mandatory.

So how can Vietnamese tourism "tell its story" better?

Our weakness lies in the lack of "stories" and "storytellers." Our country's history is rich and full of interesting things, but it is currently relatively fragmented and underdeveloped, failing to promote those stories effectively for "marketing."

For example, Ireland has whisky festivals. During the festival, locals organize shows, with musicians playing instruments and people demonstrating crafts. Visitors can participate in the art performances, listen to music, and watch the crafts being made completely free of charge. After the show, the locals start selling whiskey.

A typical bottle of wine, which usually costs around $100, sells for $300-$500 here because these are limited editions signed by artists and artisans. The already high quality is further enhanced by the inclusion of an "experience" and a compelling story.

So, if Vietnam has a story and a storyteller, what kinds of tourism products can it develop?

High-quality products with rich cultural content and in-depth experiences are essential. For example, European tourists highly value green and responsible tourism. They prefer places that utilize renewable energy, use local products, and feature architecture that integrates with nature. We can cater to this with centuries-old tea plantations in Ha Giang and Lao Cai, or hot springs…

Tourism in the Mekong Delta's orchards isn't just about taking a boat trip, picking fruit, and then returning home. It offers tourists in-depth experiences of agriculture and a purely natural lifestyle. These are things that are readily available, but haven't been developed enough to create a distinct brand presence.

Marketing expert Philip Kotler once suggested, "Vietnam should position itself as the Kitchen of the World" because our cuisine is incredibly diverse and appealing. Unfortunately, this has yet to become a reality.

In your view, could the Vietnamese tourism landscape develop in this direction over the next 10 years?

In my opinion, Vietnamese tourism will continue to operate with two parallel lines: mass tourism and luxury tourism.

The mass market segment still targets markets like China, India, or domestic tourists who visit specific locations. Meanwhile, the high-end segment, offering in-depth experiences, will aim for Western European tourists, Japanese tourists, or the wealthy class of any country.

For high-end tourists, their experience is a lifestyle ecosystem. They don't come to Vietnam for cheap prices. They want luxury resorts, golf, yachting, and so on. But currently, we lack a synchronized ecosystem: we have golf courses and 5-star hotels, but the surrounding supporting services haven't reached a commensurate level to keep them staying longer.

The ultra-rich can fly to Vietnam on private jets to play golf for a while and then fly to another country to spend their money, because we can't keep them here. To achieve in-depth development, destination management must have a clear strategy: identifying the strengths of each location and targeting the appropriate customer segments.

The mindset of positioning shouldn't be limited to domestic destinations, but should also extend to regional connectivity. Typically, American tourists visiting Southeast Asia don't just visit one place; they often travel to 3-4 countries in a month. So, within that 30-day "pie," how many days can Vietnam occupy?

Cambodia is clearly positioned as the Angkor Wat temple complex. Thailand is a center for entertainment, recreation, and shopping. So what role does Vietnam play? Is it cultural, ecological, heritage, or beach resort? We absolutely must clearly define our function within this interconnected chain. Only when we offer a distinct product ecosystem will tourists understand why they come to Vietnam and be willing to stay longer.

Thank you for your insightful and interesting sharing!