27/09/2026
THEY SAY THERE’S “NO PLAN B”. WE SAY: WHY NOT?
One of the main arguments being used to persuade businesses to vote YES to Wight BID 3 is the fear of what happens if they vote NO.
Who will promote the Isle of Wight?
Who will market the Island?
What happens to Visit Isle of Wight?
The 2026 consultation and the vote YES campaign has put the message particularly starkly, telling businesses that if Wight BID was not renewed, crucial marketing, representation and events support would cease and:
“No replacement body will deliver these services.”
That is a powerful blackmail type message to put in front of businesses immediately before asking how they intend to vote.
But perhaps businesses should be asking a different question of VIOW:
WHY IS THERE NO PLAN B?
Wight BID has existed for ten years.
Everyone has known that BID 2 would eventually come to an end and businesses would have the opportunity to vote again.
Yet businesses are effectively being presented with a binary choice:
Vote YES and accept another five years of compulsory levy, or risk losing Island destination promotion.
We don't think that is good enough when VIOW has had time and money to come up with a plan B, and still do if the ballot is unsuccessful.
TOURISM IS 38% OF THE ISLAND ECONOMY
Wight BID itself has highlighted the extraordinary importance of tourism, putting its contribution at around:
38% OF THE ISLE OF WIGHT ECONOMY
That figure should strengthen the case for having a Plan B, not weaken it.
If tourism really represents 38% of our economy, maintaining and growing the visitor economy cannot reasonably be regarded simply as the responsibility of hotels, attractions, campsites, restaurants and other selected BID levy payers.
Tourism supports employment, transport, shops, hospitality, suppliers and communities across the Island.
Its success matters to the entire Island economy.
And it matters enormously to Isle of Wight Council.
So why is responsibility for funding destination management concentrated so heavily on around 1,380 selected hereditaments?
IF THE COUNCIL CARES ABOUT TOURISM, IT SHOULD SHOW LEADERSHIP
We are not arguing that Isle of Wight Council should simply pay the entire cost of Visit Isle of Wight.
Our argument is much simpler.
If an industry represents 38% of the Island economy, we believe its local authority should show strategic leadership in protecting and developing it.
If Wight BID is rejected, the Council should bring together Visit Isle of Wight, tourism businesses, ferry and transport companies, attractions, accommodation providers, other beneficiaries of tourism and potential public and commercial funding partners.
Then help develop a sustainable alternative.
The Council has statutory power to support tourism promotion.
It has an economic-development role.
It has relationships with regional and national government and other public bodies.
And it is uniquely placed to bring the different parts of the Island economy together.
THAT IS WHAT LEADERSHIP SHOULD LOOK LIKE.
Not: “Vote for another five years of compulsory levy because there is no alternative.”
But: “Whatever happens in this ballot, tourism is critical to the Isle of Wight economy and we will work with the industry to ensure the Island continues to be effectively promoted.”
That is the reassurance businesses deserve.
A NO VOTE SHOULD TRIGGER LEADERSHIP, NOT THE END OF ISLAND PROMOTION.
THE ISLAND WAS PROMOTED BEFORE WIGHT BID
There is also a simple historical problem with the idea that Island promotion inherently depends upon a BID.
Visit Isle of Wight was established in 2012.
Wight BID didn't begin until 2016.
Indeed, when Visit Isle of Wight was created, the Council itself supported the new destination organisation financially.
The Island therefore had destination management and promotion before businesses were required to pay a compulsory BID levy.
The BID is a funding mechanism.
It isn't tourism.
It isn't destination marketing.
And it isn't the only conceivable way of funding Visit Isle of Wight.
MOST DESTINATIONS DON'T RELY ON A TOURISM BID
We've also looked outside the Island.
Our research into VisitEngland's recognised Local Visitor Economy Partnerships found that around 95% are not substantially funded by a compulsory tourism BID levy.
Yet those destinations continue to be promoted, how could that be?
Different destination organisations use different combinations of:
- Public-sector support.
- Commercial income.
- Voluntary industry partnerships.
- Membership.
- Strategic partners.
- Sponsorship.
- Grants and project funding.
The Isle of Wight's compulsory BID model isn't the only way to fund destination management.
In fact, it is unusual.
THE COUNCIL ITSELF PREVIOUSLY SAID OTHER FUNDING SOURCES COULD BE EXPLORED
This is particularly important.
When Isle of Wight Council considered the previous BID ballot in 2021, its own minutes recorded: “If the ballot was unsuccessful further research into other funding sources would be undertaken.”
So even the Council acknowledged that failure of the BID did not necessarily mean the end of destination promotion.
It meant other funding sources could be investigated.
Five years later, where is that research?
Why wasn't the intervening period used to develop contingency options?
And why should the absence of a Plan B now be used as a reason for businesses to vote YES?
THE FAILURE TO DEVELOP AN ALTERNATIVE DOESN'T PROVE THAT AN ALTERNATIVE DOESN'T EXIST.
THE COUNCIL HAS THE POWER TO SUPPORT TOURISM
There also seems to be a misconception that Isle of Wight Council simply cannot contribute towards destination promotion.
It can.
Local authorities have express statutory powers to encourage people to visit their areas.
That doesn't mean Council Tax should simply replace the BID levy.
But surely an industry representing 38% of the Island economy warrants consideration of some public contribution as part of a broader mixed funding model?
Destination management on an Island this dependent upon visitors isn't merely advertising for a handful of tourism businesses.
It is part of the Island's wider economic development.
AND THE COUNCIL NOW HAS ADDITIONAL SECOND-HOME COUNCIL TAX REVENUE
Something significant has also changed since the previous BID ballot.
From April 2025, qualifying second homes became subject to a 100% Council Tax premium, and second homes is a benefit of of our Islands tourist appeal.
When Isle of Wight Council modelled the policy, it identified 2,894 second homes and estimated approximately £4.27 million of additional Council Tax revenue for itself, before the distribution of Council Tax income between the relevant authorities.
The Council subsequently incorporated around £4.2 million from the premium into its financial planning.
Compare that with BID 3.
The proposed compulsory levy averages approximately:
£1.12 MILLION A YEAR
We are not suggesting the second-home premium should simply be handed to Visit Isle of Wight.
The Council has many competing demands on its finances.
But it demonstrates why claims that there is simply nowhere else to look for funding deserve scrutiny.
If tourism represents 38% of our economy, shouldn't some contribution from the Council's broader resources at least form part of the discussion?
WHY SHOULD ONE FUNDING SOURCE PROVIDE ALMOST EVERYTHING?
This may be the fundamental weakness in the “No Plan B” argument.
Plan B doesn't require somebody else to replace the entire BID levy with one cheque.
A sustainable destination organisation could potentially combine:
- Council and other public-sector support.
- Strategic transport and industry partnerships.
- Voluntary tourism membership.
- Major business partnerships.
- Commercial advertising and website income.
- Sponsorship.
- Grants and project funding.
- Other commercial services and activities.
That is diversification.
And there is an interesting contrast in the BID's own financial projections.
The current 2021–26 Business Plan projected approximately £1.738 million of non-levy/other Visit Isle of Wight income over five years.
BID 3 projects only around £531,000, while projected compulsory levy income rises from approximately £2.945 million to £5.605 million.
So rather than reducing reliance upon compulsory business funding, BID 3 appears to become considerably more dependent upon it.
Surely a sustainable Plan B should seek to diversify funding rather than concentrate it.
In the press last week the BID congratulated the CEO for rebuilding the funding model, but we say he's failed on that count. Coming up with a plan to tax businesses more whilst reducing other funding sources and relying on a ballot to implement it, doesn't seem like a job well done to us.
And there is now another potential source of future tourism funding. The Government has recently confirmed new powers for English local leaders to introduce an Overnight Visitor Levy ('tourist tax'), with revenues capable of being reinvested in the visitor economy.
This creates yet another potential funding stream that should be explored as part of a future Plan B (something the Council has already acknowledged), rather than assuming a compulsory BID levy on selected Island businesses is the only answer.
WHO SAYS PLAN B NEEDS £1.12 MILLION A YEAR ANYWAY?
This question is easily overlooked.
Approximately £1.12 million is what BID 3 proposes to raise annually through its levy.
That doesn't automatically mean £1.12 million is the minimum amount required to market the Isle of Wight effectively.
Before asking:
“Where could we find another £1.12 million?”
perhaps we should first ask:
“HOW MUCH DOES EFFECTIVE ISLAND DESTINATION MANAGEMENT ACTUALLY NEED TO COST?”
Determine the essential services.
Decide what outcomes the Island needs.
Cost them properly.
Then construct a fair and sustainable funding model around them.
Don't start by assuming that any alternative has to reproduce BID 3's proposed spending.
PLAN B COULD EVEN BE A BETTER BID
There is another possibility that rarely seems to feature in the “No Plan B” argument.
A NO vote doesn't necessarily mean:
“No Wight BID ever again.”
It can simply mean:
“NO TO THIS BUSINESS PLAN.”
If businesses reject BID 3, the BID proposer could listen carefully to why businesses voted NO, go back to the drawing board and develop a better proposition for a future ballot.
That could mean a genuinely reconsidered Business Plan with:
- A fairer levy structure.
- A more equitable distribution of the cost.
- A proper examination of which businesses benefit from tourism and should contribute, or perhaps whether everyone simply contributes to the pot.
- More affordable levy rates.
- Greater diversification away from compulsory levy income.
- Clear, measurable economic outcomes.
- Better evidence demonstrating value for money.
- Meaningful consultation on the actual levy structure before it is finalised.
- A proper role for the Council and other major beneficiaries of the visitor economy.
- And, crucially, a proposal designed to win the confidence of businesses rather than relying upon fear of what happens if they vote NO.
That is what a ballot should allow businesses to do.
A ballot isn't an obligation to accept whatever proposition is put in front of you simply because there isn't an alternative Business Plan sitting beside it.
If businesses believe BID 3 is too expensive, unfairly structured or insufficiently accountable, they are entitled to reject it.
The response should then be:
LISTEN. RECONSIDER. CONSULT. IMPROVE.
And, if appropriate, come back with a better proposition for businesses to consider in a future ballot.
That could itself be one version of Plan B.
Not necessarily the end of Wight BID.
But the end of this version of Wight BID.
A NO VOTE DOESN'T MEAN THE LIGHTS HAVE TO GO OUT
This is another important part of the fear surrounding Plan B.
Visit Isle of Wight's has stated that it has financial reserves to continue as normal into the summer of 2027.
So if at ballot it is a NO to the business plan presented, there are staff and there is time with which a replacement funding arrangement could be developed. This is something they could have done already, but it seems easier for BID to take the lazy route to gamble a ballot win to tax the businesses.
So the choice needn't be:
BID 3 or nothing.
It could be:
BID 3, OR AN OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD SOMETHING BETTER.
The Council knows when the current BID ends.
Visit Isle of Wight knows when it ends.
The industry knows when it ends.
The absence of a developed Plan B is not evidence that Plan B is impossible.
It means one hasn't been developed by VIOW.
SO WHAT COULD PLAN B LOOK LIKE?
The important point is that there isn't just one Plan B.
It could be a mixed funding model without a compulsory BID, like most other LVEP's / destination management organisations.
It could involve greater Council leadership and public-sector participation.
It could combine commercial income, voluntary membership, strategic partnerships, sponsorship and grants.
It could involve major businesses and organisations that benefit significantly from the visitor economy contributing through strategic partnerships.
Or it could ultimately include a substantially redesigned Wight BID, brought back to businesses through a future ballot with a fairer, more affordable and better-considered Business Plan.
The discussion should involve the Council, Visit Isle of Wight, tourism businesses, transport operators, major beneficiaries of the visitor economy and potential funding partners.
Ask:
- What destination-management services does the Island actually need?
- What measurable outcomes should they deliver?
- What should they cost?
- Who benefits from them?
- Who should contribute?
- How can funding be diversified?
- What is fair and affordable?
Then build the funding model around the answers.
A NO VOTE DOESN'T CLOSE DOWN THAT CONVERSATION.
IT OPENS IT UP.
DON'T LET “NO PLAN B” SCARE YOU INTO VOTING YES
Voting NO to Wight BID isn't voting NO to tourism.
It isn't voting NO to Visit Isle of Wight.
It isn't voting NO to promoting the Island.
And it doesn't even necessarily mean there can never be another Wight BID.
It means businesses have rejected the BID 3 proposition currently in front of them.
The Island was promoted before Wight BID.
Most English destinations promote themselves without substantial reliance on a compulsory tourism BID.
The Council has the power to support tourism.
The Council previously acknowledged that alternative funding could be researched.
Public, commercial and partnership funding sources exist.
A different funding model could be developed.
VIOW has the financial reserves and time to develop a plan B.
And if a BID remains part of the answer, its proponents could come back with a better BID that is fairer, more equitable, more affordable, better considered and more accountable.
Above all, if tourism really represents 38% of the Isle of Wight economy, the Council should show leadership in ensuring there is a future for destination management whatever the result of this ballot.
BID SAY THERE'S “NO PLAN B”.
AFTER TEN YEARS OF WIGHT BID, PERHAPS THE REAL QUESTION IS: WHY ISN'T THERE ONE?
A NO VOTE COULD LEAD TO A DIFFERENT FUNDING MODEL.
IT COULD LEAD TO A BETTER BID.
IT SHOULD LEAD TO COUNCIL LEADERSHIP.
WHAT IT SHOULD NOT MEAN IS THE END OF ISLAND PROMOTION.
YOUR BUSINESS. YOUR MONEY. YOUR VOTE.
VOTE NO TO WIGHT BID 3.
