Russia’s Destination Image among American Pleasure Travelersplaza.ufl.edu/svetlana.step/research/MSThesisPresentation.pdf · Russia’s Destination Image among American Pleasure

Russia’s Destination Image among

American Pleasure Travelers

Svetlana StepchenkovaNovember 3, 2005

2003 International Arrivals, millions (WTO, 2004)Add text or graphs in this area

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Russian FederationNetherLands

ThailandMalaysiaPortugal

TurkeyPolandGreece

Hong KongHungaryCanadaMexico

GermanyAustria

United KingdomChina

ItalyUnited States

SpainFrance

From U.S. –281,000

(Rosstat, 2004)

U.S. travelers –world’s leading travel spenders

“A destination must be favorably differentiated from its competition, or positively positioned, in the minds of the consumers” (Echtner & Ritchie, 2003:37).

A desirable differentiation and positioning can be achieved by a destination’s marketing organization by creating and managing the perceptions, or images, that potential travelers hold about the destination.

Such differentiation is problematic without a thorough understanding of what visitors’ perceptions or images are in the first place (Hunt, 1975; Ahmed, 1991).

Research QuestionsTo identify images that U.S. pleasure travelers hold about Russia

as a travel destination.

RQ1: What stereotypical holistic images do American pleasure travelers associate with Russia?

RQ2: What affective feelings does Russia as a travel destination evoke?

RQ3: What unique places and features do American pleasure travelers associate with Russia?

RQ4: What are American pleasure travelers’ perceptions of Russia’s destination attributes? Are they all equally important in influencing the decision to travel to the destination?

RQ5: Does the degree of familiarity with the destination (previous visitations, having friends or relatives in Russia) affect the destination image of Russia and propensity to travel there?

Research HypothesesH1: Americans who have visited Russia have more favorable images of the destination than those who have not. (Favorability variable)

H2: Americans who have friends or relatives in Russia have more favorable images of the destination than those who do not. (Favorability variable)

H3: Americans who give higher scores on Harris’ and Crompton’s attributes will exhibit a higher propensity to travel to Russia in the next five years. (Propensity variable)

DESTINATION

IMAGE

Total impression:Dichter, 1985 Hunt, 1987 Assael, 1984 Fridgen, 1987 Reilly, 1990

Echtner & Ritchie (1991, 1993)

Lawson, Baud-Bovy, 1977 Mazursky, Jacoby, 1986 Baloglu, McCleary, 1999

Gartner, 1993Pike, Ryan, 2004White, 2004

3-element Model

Echtner & Ritchie (1991)

Russia’s Image Study: Operationalization of the Image Components

Overall Impression

Holistic FunctionalOpen-ended

RQ1: Stereotypical Holistic Images:What images or characteristics come to mind when you think of Russia as a travel destination?(E&R)

Affect Holistic PsychologicalOpen-ended

RQ2: Affective Images: How would you describe the atmosphere or mood that you would expect to experience while visiting Russia?(E&R)

Unique Destination FeaturesOpen-ended

RQ3: Uniqueness Images: Please list any distinctive or unique tourist attractions that you can think of in Russia. (E&R)

Cognition Common attributes, functional and psychological35 scale items

RQ4: Perceptions of Attributes: 44 scale items34 (common) – E&R10 (common) – H&C (3 are different from E&R), 7 (Russia specific) – Stepchenkova & Morrison, 2005; Stepchenkova, Chen, & Morrison, 2005.

Behavior RQ5: Behavioral Component:I will visit Russia in the next 5 years (Propensity variable). Scale item.

MethodologyOnline survey:Invitation & follow-upPopulation: Ambassadair members with Internet access (20,000)Random sample of 5,000337 valid responses(~6.7% response rate)

Hypothesis 2 droppeddue to insufficient number of responses

Respondents ProfileGender: Men (44%), Women (56%)Married: 74%Age: Over 45 years old (85%), Education: Bachelor’s or higher degree (70%), Income: Income higher than $75,000 (60%)Job: Professionals (25%), retirees (33%) among the respondents.

Demographic profiles of visitors (n1=54) versus non-visitors (n2=283): No significant differences at 0.05 level.

MethodologyProcedure for content analysis of digital textual data (Stepchenkova & Morrison, 2005) was tested on responses to open-ended questions to:

better answer RQ1, RQ2, RQ3;provide the means of testing H1 on textual data.

Two-step Procedure:Identification of destination image variables in textual responses using CATPAC (Woelfel, 1998)Counting the occurrences of these variables in every response with WORDER (Kirilenko, 2004)

The problems of content analysis, such as different spellings, multi-word concepts, synonyms, singular/plural, negatives, are addressed and solved by WORDER.

ResultsRQ1: Stereotypical Holistic Images

Variable Freq Variable Freq Variable Freq cold 69 museums 19 Hermitage 9 beautiful 55 churches 19 music 9 people 54 cities 18 winter 9 history 45 large 15 dark 8 buildings 39 interesting 13 different 8 poor 38 onion 13 places 7 architecture 37 art 13 orthodox 7 Red Square 36 great 12 open 7 St. Petersburg 34 vast 12 vodka 6 Moscow 30 food 12 exotic 6 country 28 culture 12 sites 6 old 25 friendly 12 Volga 5 Kremlin 24 domes 10 river 5 palaces 23 countryside 10 spaces 5 weather 19 snow 9 ballet 5

Grouped using Factor Analysis into images of more holistic nature

Stereotypical Holistic ImagesAdd text or graphs in this area

Cold weather, snow.


Beautiful architecture and old buildings.


Poor people, country, lodgings, and food choices.

Add text or graphs in this area

Historical sites and places.


Moscow, Red Square, and Kremlin.


St. Petersburg, the Hermitage, palaces, and museums.


Vast country, lots of open spaces.Beautiful countryside.


Orthodox churches with onion-shaped domes.


Big cities, interesting old cities.


Great, different culture. Beautiful music, ballet, art.


Volga River

Friendly/Unfriendly people

Vodka (6 occurrences)

RQ2: Affective ImagesRussia’s Affective Image Variables

Variable Freq Variable Freq Variable Freqfriendly 85 free 11 alcoholism 6somber 47 open 11 hardworking 6depressing 45 interesting 11 festive 5unfriendly 28 austere 11 contrasts 5cold 18 hostility 10 happy 5poor 18 unhappy 10 uncomfortable 5reserved 17 pleasant 10 serene 4exciting 15 difficult 9 safe 4tense 15 sad 8 hopeful 4unsafe 15 cosmopolitan 8 ruthless 4good 15 cordial 8 seedy 4upbeat 14 cautious 7 historical 4awesome 14 boring 7 unpleasant 3undeveloped 13 fascinating 7 relaxing 2

Favorability: OperationalizationAffective Variable Favorability Scores: Averaged evaluations

of 35 experts, scale -2, -1, 0, +1, +2

Variable Score Variable Score Variable Score fascinating 1.97 serene 1.53 tense -1.11 friendly 1.92 relaxing 1.47 boring -1.19 happy 1.83 cosmopolitan 1.44 difficult -1.19 exciting 1.81 upbeat 1.43 seedy -1.28 festive 1.78 free 1.36 uncomfortable -1.36 good 1.72 open 1.36 sad -1.42 awesome 1.72 contrasts 1.06 hostility -1.44 hardworking 1.69 reserved 0.08 ruthless -1.53 historical 1.67 cold -0.31 unhappy -1.56 safe 1.64 cautious -0.33 unfriendly -1.64 interesting 1.61 somber -0.39 depressing -1.67 pleasant 1.58 austere -0.41 unpleasant -1.68 cordial 1.56 undeveloped -0.58 alcoholism -1.75 hopeful 1.53 poor -1.00 unsafe -1.78

Favorability Variable OperationalizedSurvey question: What images or characteristics come to mind when you think of Russia as a travel destination?Response example: “Fascinating country. Overall, people are friendly but reserved. Boring nightlife, dullfood, though”:Fascinating=1.97; Friendly=1.92; Reserved=0.08Boring=Dull= -1.19Response overall favorability value:1.97+1.92+0.08-1.19-1.19=1.59

Descriptive Statistics

337 -6.0832 8.7222 .326728 2.2402324337

FavorabilityValid N (listwise)

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Hypothesis 1: Test ResultsFavorability of textual responses

Levene's Test for Equality of

Variances t-test for Equality of

Means Visitation N Mean F Sig. t df p-value

visitors 54 0.808 3.572 0.060 1.726 335 0.085 non-visitors 283 0.235

n1=54: Normal distribution confirmed

RQ3: Uniqueness ImagesUnique Russian Features: 273 out of 337 responses

# Unique Features Freq Mean Freq Mean Freq Mean1 St. Petersburg 113 0.34 25 0.46 88 0.312 Red Square 92 0.27 19 0.35 73 0.263 Kremlin 75 0.22 11 0.20 64 0.234 Moscow 73 0.22 23 0.43 50 0.185 Hermitage/Winter Palace 44 0.13 19 0.35 25 0.096 churches/cathedrals 38 0.11 10 0.19 28 0.107 museums 37 0.11 11 0.20 26 0.098 art 35 0.10 11 0.20 24 0.089 architecture 26 0.08 4 0.07 22 0.0810 czars (Imperial Russia) 25 0.07 8 0.15 17 0.0611 palaces 22 0.07 9 0.17 13 0.0512 cruises 15 0.04 8 0.15 7 0.0213 Summer Palace 12 0.04 10 0.19 2 0.0114 Siberia 11 0.03 3 0.06 8 0.0315 small towns 9 0.03 7 0.13 2 0.0116 St. Basil's cathedral 8 0.02 4 0.07 4 0.0117 Lenin's tomb 8 0.02 3 0.06 5 0.0218 onion-shaped domes 8 0.02 1 0.02 7 0.0219 Black Sea 8 0.02 1 0.02 7 0.0220 Trans-Sib 8 0.02 1 0.02 7 0.0221 Volga river 8 0.02 1 0.02 7 0.0222 Leningrad 4 0.01 1 0.02 3 0.0123 Chernobyl 3 0.01 0 0.00 3 0.0124 Baikal 3 0.01 1 0.02 2 0.01

All respondents n=336

Visitors n1=54

Non-Visitors n2=283

Petersburg Moscow

Black SeaTrans-Sib

Baikal

Volga riverSiberia

RQ4, Hypothesis 1: AttributesScale 1 (most favorable) to 5 (least favorable)

Differences found: 19 No differences: 25N n1=54 n2=283

Destination Attributes Mean Mean Mean p-valueSites/Museums 1.64 1.20 1.72 .000**Architecture 1.65 1.43 1.70 .010*Opportunity to Learn 1.87 1.58 1.92 .002**Arts 1.87 1.48 1.95 .000**Non-capital Russia 2.18 1.91 2.23 .004**Cities 2.22 2.00 2.27 .042*Tourist Attractions 2.28 1.69 2.40 .000**Cruises 2.32 1.98 2.38 .000**Combined Trips 2.33 2.06 2.38 .006**Hospitality/Friendliness 2.45 2.06 2.52 .000**Nightlife 2.47 2.26 2.52 .028*Tours/Excursions 2.57 2.15 2.65 .000**Costs/Price Levels 2.65 2.19 2.74 .000**Fame/Reputation 2.90 2.28 3.02 .000**Climate 3.20 2.69 3.30 .000**Transportation 3.21 3.02 3.25 .034*Shopping Facilities 3.27 3.00 3.32 .023*Political Stability 3.44 3.21 3.48 .041*Crowdedness 3.60 3.83 3.55 .007**Propensity to Visit 3.33 3.13 3.37* - significant at 0.05 level ** - significant at 0.01 level

Destination Attributes N=337Culture 1.77Scenery 2.01Family or Adult Oriented 2.17Unique Natural Resources 2.33Trans-Sib 2.38Different Cuisine 2.43Atmosphere 2.52Fairs/Festivals 2.61Knowledge of Rus. History 2.64Fishing/Hunting 2.66Life of people 2.69Nature Preserves 2.77Quality Food 2.93Safety 2.98Ease of Communication 3.04Quality of Service 3.05Opportunity for Adventure 3.05Sports Activities 3.06Restaurants 3.09Rest and Relaxation 3.15Beaches 3.22Accomodations 3.23Cleanness 3.27Accessibility 3.35Economic Development 3.84

Harris’ & Crompton’s Attributes1) safe drinking water and clean sanitary facilities; 2) assuredness of being safe from physical harm; 3) finding real scenic beauty; 4) cost of trip; 5) friendly and welcoming people in the country; 6) good weather and climate; 7) ability to visit famous cities; 8) good quality food; 9) chance to see how people really live;

10) knowing something of a country’s history.

Hypothesis 3Non-visitors (N=273). K-means clustering procedure.

Cluster

Information

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances

t-test for Equality of Means

Attribute # N Mean F Sig. t df p-

value Scenery/ 1 139 1.66 13.15 0.00 -9.22 241.05 .000** Landscape 2 134 2.47 Cities 1 139 1.76 5.21 0.02 -12.57 254.03 .000** 2 134 2.81 Costs/Price Levels 1 139 2.46 25.05 0.00 -6.65 268.48 .000** 2 134 3.03 Cleanness 1 139 2.93 7.95 0.01 -8.14 270.08 .000** 2 134 3.54 Climate 1 139 2.95 6.30 0.01 -7.22 259.51 .000** 2 134 3.65 Safety 1 139 2.55 2.14 0.14 -10.57 271.00 .000** 2 134 3.49 Hospitality/ 1 139 2.02 4.38 0.04 -13.02 259.12 .000** Friendliness 2 134 3.04 Good Quality Food 1 139 2.64 8.23 0.00 -7.93 263.31 .000** 2 134 3.32 Knowledge of 1 139 2.42 7.80 0.01 -5.91 255.51 .000** Russian History 2 134 3.10 Chance to See How 1 139 2.43 0.03 0.87 -5.75 271.00 .000** People Really Live 2 134 2.93 ** - significant at 0.01 level

Hypothesis 3: Test ResultsVariable: Propensity to go to Russia in the next five years


Variances t-test for Equality of

Means Non-visitors N Mean F Sig. t df p-value

Cluster 1 139 2.990 3.761 0.054 -5.663 271 .000*** Cluster 2 134 3.740 *** - significant at 0.01 level

Variable Pearson

Chi-Square df p-value (2 sided)

Gender 0.346 1 0.625 Education 2.075 6 0.913 Job 18.114 10 0.053* Age 6.342 6 0.386 Marital Status 2.19 4 0.701 Income (recoded) 10.841 7 0.033**

* - significant at 0.1 level; ** - significant at 0.05 level

Cluster1 – higher income

Russia’s Destination Image Factors

Characteristics of the Solution:N=337

Correlation Matrix SamplingAdequacy – 0.902Bartlett’s Test – Sign at 0.001Communalities – 0.500+Factor Loadings – 0.40+Variance explained – 60.05%Weak items – 10 out of 44

FACTORS F1 Traditional Tourism F5 History F9 F2 Infrastructure F6 Food&Culture Family F3 Niche Tourism F7 Service Adult VARIABLES F4 Safety F8 Adventure Variance Explained 12.84 8.36 8.01 7.46 5.66 5.49 5.42 4.26 3.56 Cronbach's Alpha 0.86 0.74 0.77 0.73 0.62 0.62 0.58 0.48

Sites/Museums 0.740 Architecture 0.700 Tourist Attractions 0.693 Cities 0.692 Non-capital Russia 0.634 Learning 0.610 Scenery 0.540 0.437 Hospitality 0.433 Transportation 0.681 Restaurants 0.616 Shopping Facilities 0.576 Sports Activities 0.575 Natural Resources 0.689 Fishing/Hunting 0.686 Cruises 0.526 Beaches 0.483 Trans-Sib 0.454 Political Stability 0.763 Safety 0.692 Cleanness 0.601 Economics 0.434 0.457 Russian History 0.747 Fame/Reputation 0.491 Combined Trips 0.421 0.445 -0.426 Tours/Excursions 0.442 Different Cuisine 0.673 Customs/Culture 0.616 Good Quality Food 0.452 0.515 Quality of Service 0.701 Accommodation 0.425 0.642 Fairs/Festivals 0.638 Communication 0.754 Adventure 0.450 Family/Adult 0.855

Factor-Cluster AnalysisTwo-Step Clustering Procedure

Significant differences between clusters:Traditional TourismHistoryServiceInfrastructure (sign at 0.1 level)

Cl 1: Negatives (187)Cl 2: Positives (128)

Factor-Cluster AnalysisDemographic profiles: Education, Age

Propensity & Favorability Variables

Variable Pearson

Chi-Square df p-value (2 sided)

Gender 0.925 1 0.356 Education 20.325 6 0.002*** Job 13.083 10 0.219 Age 10.702 6 0.098* Marital Status 1.341 4 0.854 Income 2.971 7 0.888

* - significant at 0.1 level *** - significant at 0.01 level

Cluster


Variances t-test for Equality of Means Variable # N Mean F Sig. t df p-value

Propensity 1 187 3.600 0.64398 0.423 5.288 313 .000*** 2 128 2.930 Favorability 1 187 -0.045 4.67654 0.031 -3.645 247.509 .000*** 2 128 0.907 ***- significant at 0.01 level

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Percent

TwoStep Cluster Number

12

Implications for the FTALack of knowledge of unique Russian features (19% could not answer the question)Unfavorable perceptions of Russia (129 – negative, 59 – zero, 149 –positive)“Soviet era” image still lingers – poor, undeveloped, hostile towards Americans, ruthless, depressing. Lenin’s tomb, Stalin, Leningrad, Cold WarHospitality/friendliness – undecidedDifferences in attribute evaluation between visitors and non-visitors.Focus of promotional efforts – Harris’ & Crompton’s attributes (propensity). Safety, cleanness.Infrastructure and Service. Promotional of tourism types which are less sensitive to the levels of Infrastructure and service development –eco and adventure tourism.

Implications for AmbassadairPropensity to travel to Russia in the next 5 years:Strongly Agree & Agree – 21%Undecided – 38% (benefits from visitation unclear)Disagree & Strongly Disagree – 41%Target Audience: Well educated, relatively well-off people, age 35 and above. Interested in history and different cultures. Product: Traditional Tourism – historical sites, museums, capital and provincial cities, rich in architecture and cultural heritage, scenery, opportunities to interact with people. Central and North-Western regions. Trans-Siberian Railroad Journey with stopovers in unique nature preserves and cultural/historical locations. Requires more promotional effort.

LimitationsLimited number of responses: could not test Russia’s Image Factors Solution with new data. Could not identify image factors for visitors and non-visitors separately. Hypothesis 2 was dropped.

Generalizability of the results:How well does Ambassadair represent American pleasure travelers? (ETC, 2001)How well does the study population represent whole Ambassadair membership? (Morrison et al., 2004)How well does the obtained sample represent the population under study?

Contribution of the StudyFirst destination image study for modern RussiaPike, S. (2002). Destination image analysis – a review of 142 papers from 1973 to 2000. Pizam, A., Jafari, J., & Milman, A. (1991) – USSR

Successfully tested CATPAC/WORDER two-step procedure on a different type of textual data – very short survey responses

Operationalization of favorability variable allowed testing H1 on textual responses.

Future ResearchRussia as a political entity versus Russia as a pleasure travel destinationRussia’s image in geographically closer markets (might require less effort to ameliorate and positively induce)Cause-effect relationship between favorability and visitation variablesRQ 4 (Importance of the attributes in destination selection choices) needs further study. Should measure importance of every attribute along with attribute evaluation.

Thank you for coming and support during the study!

Questions?

Documents

Russia’s Destination Image among American Pleasure Travelersplaza.ufl.edu/svetlana.step/research/MSThesisPresentation.pdf · Russia’s Destination Image among American Pleasure