Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
The paper this presentation came from awarded with the Best Full Paper Award and 500€ prize at the 2008 CHME Conference (Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure Conference, Strathclyde University, Glasgow, 2008) Abstract Even the sticking out positivists researchers (Grönroos, 2001; Gummesson, 1994, 2001, 2006; Iacobucci & Ostrom 1999; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2000, 2004) recognize the insufficiencies of traditional services research methodology and claim that the dominant models of service quality’s measurement have failed to conceive the customers’ perspective (Schembri & Sandberg, 2002). Whereas the customer is considered to be the focal point at contemporary Marketing and Services Marketing area, customer’s perspective is claimed to be missing from the dominant theory (Grönroos, 1993, 2006a). This article explores the potential for a modified gap analysis to serve as an alternative marketing tool. A research framework is constructed and tested using data produced by two survey efforts (tourists and tourism services providers) in a heritage destination.
Citation preview
1
Do Tourism Providers Know their Visitors?An Investigation of Tourism Experience at
a Destination
Georgia Zouni, University of Piraeus, Greece
Athanassios Kouremenos, University of Piraeus, Greece
- The paradigm of Ancient Olympia, Greece
2
Presentation Overview
Measurement of Destination Experience
Definition of the scope of the research
Empirical Study
Analysis of findings
Discussion
3
adopts generally the assumptions and principles of the perceived service quality measurement
Limitations when applied in tourism destination research field, due to:
destination product integration and complexity tourist experiences are essentially
individualistic, although it is possible to discern
consensual realities (Ryan 2000, p. 119)
the nature of tourism phenomenon customers overrating their experiences (Vogt & Fesenmaier
1995:766).
Measurement of Destination Experience
4
Customer’s Perspective on Measuring Experience
An outstanding body of academics claim that service quality research does not sufficiently conceive the perceptions of customers (Edvardsson, 2005; Vargo and Lusch, 2004).
Quality is like beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder. It is the experience and expectations of the customer. (Edvardsson, Thomasson
and Øvretveit 1994)
Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2000): organizations must aim to integrate the experience of the customer as a standard.
5
Customer’s Perspective on Measuring Experience
Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (GAPS MODEL 1985) identify five gaps where customers’ expectations and performance evaluations are interpreted by providers.
Brown and Swartz (1989) expand Gaps Model to include a gap which reflects differences between customer’s experience and provider’s perceptions of customer experience.
Despite the recognition of this gap (see Candido & Morris 2000), only one study examines this gap ever since (Vogt & Fesenmaier 1995).
6
GAP of providers’ estimate about tourists’ experience
Tourist experienceTourist experience
--Provider’s estimate of tourist’s experienceProvider’s estimate of tourist’s experience
l
7
Scope of the research
The purpose of the present study Is to provide in favour of the gap as an effective marketing tool for a better understanding of customer prospective by empirically testing it in the context of a tourism destination experience.
8
Research Hypothesis
Ho there is no difference between
tourists’ destination experience and
providers’ estimate of tourists’
experience.
9
Ancient Olympia, Greece
An ancient Greek religious site dating back 10 centuries B.C.
The birth-place of the Olympic Games.
The location of giant gold Statue of Zeus, one of seven wonders of the world
Place where Olympic flame is still lit
An UNESCO Heritage Site
It hosts one of the masterpieces of ancient Greek art, Hermes of Praxiteles.
10
Study Variables
VARIABLES CATEGORY VARIABLES
Travel Patterns
Holiday party composition, prior visit, length of stay, booking type, duration of planning, factors influenced decision
Travel behavior at destination
Primary or secondary destination, destinations before and after, type of transportation, reason of visit, attractions visited, activities during stay, degree of acquaintance with neighboring destinations, type of stay, type of food services , type of tourism trade, total / daily expenses
Assessment Attractions Accommodation Food services Transportation Tourism trade
Satisfaction from Attractions Accommodation Food services Transportation Tourism trade Total Satisfaction
Attitude Attitude towards destination / residents
Loyalty Revisit intentions to country- destination, Recommendations
Profile Nationality, age, gender, education, income.
11
Research Methodology
TOURISTS SURVEY PROVIDERS SURVEY
Study population
Tourist population was determined using EUROSTAT and WTO
Providers’ population was determined using Tourism Satellite Account of WTO.
Samples National and international tourists, 15+ years old, that visited Olympia.
Lists of the local chamber of commerce. Providers were defined as owners or managers.
Sample size 268 95
Period 2 months 2 months
Data collection method
Personal interview using a structured questionnaire in 6 languages
Personal interview using structured questionnaire
Sampling Two stages Random sampling
Inventory method
Questionnaire Collection
71% or 268 tourists 76, 5% response rate or 95 providers
12
Analysis of Findings – Tourist Profile (1/4)
NATIONALITY
18.4
15.8
13.2 13.2
10.2
7.15.3
18.9
32.6
14.7
3.2
17.9
7.4
3.2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
UK French German Greek Italian Spanish Nederlands
%
Tourists
Providers’ estimate
13
Analysis of Findings – Tourist Profile (2/4)
AGE32.5
22.8
17.916
4.5
9.8
30.5 30.5
24.4
4.9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
19-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 15-18
%
Tourists
Providers’ estimate
14
Analysis of Findings – Tourist Profile (3/4)
EDUCATION
27.225.3
22.220.6
4.7
16.9
0
44.9
7.9
30.3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
University graduate Postgraduate College graduate University Student Basic
%
Tourists
Providers’ estimate
15
Analysis of Findings – Tourist Profile (4/4)
INCOME (monthly)41.9
26.5
17.214.4
26.7
21.1
14.4
37.8
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
3000€ + 1500 - 3000 Less than 800€ 800 - 1499
%
Tourists
Providers’ estimate
16
Analysis of Findings – Destination Assessment (1/4)
ATTRACTIONS3.8
4.12 4.044.25
3.44 3.523.463.73
2.56
4.18
3.49 3.35
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Access todestination
Access toattractions
Cleanliness ofattractions
Interest ofattractions
PersonnelPrompt Service
PersonnelFriendliness
Tourists
Providers’ estimate
17
Analysis of Findings – Destination Assessment (2/4)
ACCOMMODATION3.65 3.45 3.37 3.34
2.93 2.782.42 2.42
3.38 3.373.88
3.322.8 2.93
2.68 2.68 2.512.11
1.56 1.35
2.42.25
2.6 2.54
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
44.5
Tourists
Providers’ estimate
18
Analysis of Findings – Destination Assessment (3/4)
FOOD SERVICES
2.89
3.26 3.323.03
3.55 3.48
3.02 3.133.39
3.23.35 3.28
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Cleanliness Quality of foodproducts
Food variety Competitive price PersonnelPrompt Service
PersonnelFriendliness
Tourists
Providers’ estimate
19
Analysis of Findings – Destination Assessment (4/4)
TOURISM TRADE
3.91
3.48 3.43 3.383.67 3.73
3.06
3.47 3.41 3.413.65
3.81
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Cleanliness Quality ofproducts
Competitiveprice
Productsvariety
PersonnelPrompt Service
PersonnelFriendliness
Tourists
Providers’ estimate
20
Analysis of Findings – Total Satisfaction
SATISFACTION3.46
2.66 2.6 2.5 2.57
2.913.12
2.48 2.47
2
2.492.78
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Attractions Accommodation Food Transportation Tourism Trade OverallSatisfaction
Tourists
Providers’ estimate
21
Gap Analysis Results Matrix
Major Gaps
Minor Gaps No Gaps
Travel Patterns
Travel behavior
Destination assessment
Satisfaction
Attitude
Loyalty
Demographic Profile
22
Discussion
Stereotypes about destination tourists’ characteristics Olympia is a mature heritage destination
Senior management contact with tourists In order to gain first-hand knowledge of tourists'
perceptions constant interaction between managers and tourists is required.
23
Implications
This research demonstrates the importance of primary and timely research among tourists.
Useful tool for management in order to propose an ‘integrated solution’ to customer needs and wants (Buhalis, 2000).
In line with the notion of “co-creation marketing”
24
Thank you
very much!
