Willem Niemeijer, co-founder and CEO of Khiri Travel Group, ventured into countries when they were just opening up, leading Khiri Travel to become one of South-east Asia’s most innovative DMCs today. Greg Lowe speaks to the man at the reins
What were the key milestones for Khiri over the past 20 years?
Our real first break came in 1997 with the Asian financial crisis. In the early days we were uncertain what would happen, but after a couple of weeks it dawned on us that it was a really good opportunity. Business really took off.
Other key developments were the opening of our Chiang Mai office in 1998. The following year, we opened in Cambodia with our own company. We officially incorporated (in Laos) in 2007, but we had been working out of our own office since 2003.
The most recent major change was reorganising the company about one-and-a-half years ago.
How and why did you restructure Khiri?
We were very much centrally managed out of Bangkok. It was me, my then partner and one or two other people who would develop products for all the countries. We felt there was a need to totally reorganise the business so that each country office was the specialist for their country. The passion for the country is strongest within the country itself, so we decided to capitalise on that. Each of our countries now has its own management team and own foreign and local leadership when it comes to product development.
Khiri has always been a B2B business. Why was that decision made and would you do things differently if you opened up shop today?
Right now it is much more obvious to go B2C and if I were to open an office now that’s probably what I would do, with social media, direct bookings and all that. But in the early 90s, people didn’t understand the destinations at all, especially Asia. Almost everybody we dealt with back then came as a group.
I still very much believe that we add a lot of value for (overseas) tour operators. Everybody is going much more into niche markets. As a tour operator, the more you are pushed into niche markets and away from the hotels booking model, the more you need added value and the more you need people on the ground. That’s what we provide.
How are your products developed?
We give the ideas for tour operators. We come up with new ideas about what to do. We then craft and customise them for every agency’s niche.
The movers and shakers of Khiri Travel Group are speaking with each other about what they have tried, what works and what does not. We officially meet three times a year so we can share best practices and ideas. Every time we meet it’s better. It’s very inspirational. I think we are getting back to the heights of our creativity.
What are your key source markets?
Our main source markets are North America, Canada and Western Europe, especially the Scandinavian countries, Benelux and Germany. The UK is also growing.
Regional markets are also growing for us. Again, it’s not the mass market we’re after. We’re more about smaller quality tours from Singapore, Hong Kong, Shanghai and Beijing.
Do you have any plans to expand your source markets given the growth in inbound tourism from the likes of Russia and China?
Obviously volume is important, but we always need to look at how we can differentiate, how can we open up even more remote locations. So we look for a different type of traveller and that traveller is definitely not from the mass Russian or Chinese markets. So we have deferred our decision to go into those markets for now.
You started Khiri, operating out of a hotel room in Bangkok in the early days. What do you think are the strengths and weaknesses of starting out the way you did?
During the first 12 years or so we didn’t really see it as a business. We still do it for the love of travel and the region, but once you grow you have more responsibilities and so many staff that you have to start seeing it as a business.
I wouldn’t change much, though it would probably be a better idea to do things with a little more investment, more planning and targets.
How do you manage your team?
I try to stay very much hands-on and local. I visit all of our countries. I wish I could do more, but with five countries and 11 offices, there’s only so much you can do.
I also try to help out on product innovation and make sure that our brand has the right vision. Of course, there are the budgets, but I have a new partner who is also our CFO (Mark Remijan) and he’s a real star on that front.
You’ve worked in a number of South-east Asian frontier markets over the years, entering when they first opened. What were the key similarities and differences?
Each case is different. If you look at Cambodia, when I went there first in 1992 there was basically no infrastructure. There were only a handful of hotels and they were generally pretty crappy. Roads were non-existent; security was a major issue. This really was a country which felt unsafe. Destroyed. There was no human capital. You could only find a few people who spoke a few words of English. It was very difficult for the country to start up. Fast-forward to the mid-2000s and you can see how this country had made tremendous progress.
In Laos, there is a much more ideological government which came into power in 1975. You also have a larger country with a smaller population, only a small proportion of which is connected to any kind of grid, electrical or otherwise. There is now a road between Luang Prabang and Vientiane. There have been improvements in northern Laos but they have been very slow. It is very much a rural agricultural country and I think it will remain so for some time.
Vietnam is totally different. When the US lifted the (travel and trade) embargo in February 1994 it started booming. I think there is a stronger parallel between what happened in Vietnam then and what is happening in Myanmar now, than with how things started in Cambodia or Laos.
In Vietnam there was infrastructure. It really wanted to grow but couldn’t because of the embargo. Once that embargo was lifted things took off.
What do you think will happen in Myanmar?
If it continues in the way it’s going now, I fear it will end up like Vietnam where there is not a lot of development for the rest of the country. (Development) all happens in the cities.
I’m hoping that as a way out the Myanmar government will make it much easier to invest in some off-the-beaten-track places. It is already trying to do this to some extent. If it is difficult to get a hotel permit in a key destination, it could make it relatively easy somewhere in the boondocks. This is really important in a huge country like Myanmar, rather than just saying, ‘We already have Yangon, Mandalay, Bagan and Inle Lake, so these are where we’re going to develop.’
What role can the private sector play to make tourism development in Myanmar more sustainable?
The best lessons probably come from Laos and Cambodia. Let’s take Cambodia first. For a long time people would only go to Siem Reap to see Angkor Wat, just flying in and out of one place. It’s only recently that people have started to look at Phnom Penh. More tourists are going there now, but the rest of the country is really lagging behind in development.
Laos is quite similar. People go to Luang Prabang and Vientiane because there is very little infrastructure in places like the Plain of Jars; southern Laos is only now starting to develop.
Once the world knows Laos equals Luang Prabang and Cambodia equals Angkor Wat, it becomes very difficult to get out of that mindset, even for the travel trade.
What are the outcomes for the travel trade if it focuses on a single destination within a country, rather than developing and promoting tourism over a larger area?
Siem Reap is probably the best example of this. In typical Cambodian fashion, anyone can build a hotel there. You get a permit very easily. So now when you go to Siem Reap there are hotels everywhere. In high season they are full, but the average occupancy is not great the rest of the time, save for a few of the larger international chains. You see a lot of price competition there but development does not spread across the country. Even with the price competition people think Siem Reap is still the place to invest.
What role do you think the arrival of the ASEAN 
Economic Community (AEC) in 2015 will have on the region’s travel industry? Will it be a bang or a whimper?
I’m not sure the AEC will have the huge impact some people are expecting. There will be some impact and most of it will be positive. People are looking for opportunities to fill in gaps. The movement of labour, which is what most people are worried about, usually takes place because there is an economic benefit to move. So overall I think it will result in a more even spread of talent. There will be some very short-term commotion but it will settle down.
What would you change across the region?
Visas, immigration systems, TM cards (for Thai immigration), visa on arrival queues, etc − if these could be eradicated it would really help.
They really diminish the travel experience.
