The United States pleasure travel market

The United States pleasure travel market

J BUSN RES t The United States Pleasure Travel Market Gordon D. Taylor T~i.,m Canc, d , T h e U.S. pleasure travel market is large and complex. Fe...

3MB Sizes 1 Downloads 16 Views

J BUSN RES

t

The United States Pleasure Travel Market Gordon D. Taylor T~i.,m

Canc, d ,

T h e U.S. pleasure travel market is large and complex. Few tourism agencies have had the r e ~ u r e e s to undertake large-scale market research studies of it. This paper reports on the results o f a m a j o r study carried out in t985 by Tourism Canada. While the reason for conducting the study was to assist the Canadian tourism industaT in its efforts to capture a greater share of the U.S. market than bad been done in the past, the data can be used by a wide variety of tourism organizations to e n h a n c e their understanding of the U_S. market. This paper d e m o n s t r a t e s h e w the data that are readily available can be reanalyzed to meet a variety of different user needs. T h e e m p h a s i s has been on U.S. census divisions, but other bases ecmld and should be used. Studies such as this one cap, provide m a n y useful insights into marketing and development problems. While they do not preclude additional research, they m a y well help specific research projects to be tocused m o r e sharply. Introduction T o u r i s m C a n a d a released the results of a m a j o r segmentation study, U.S. Pleasure Travel Market, in early 1986. T h e s e results are of great interest to mnyone who is involved in marketing to the U.S. pleasure traveler. W~nile the main purpose o f the study was to enable the Canadian tourism i n d u s t ~ to improve its p e f f o r m a n ~ in the U.S. market, the data base created by the study has implications well beyond that objective. T h e study that was carried out by Longwood Research, Inc., of TOronto, Ontario, was commissioned in J u n e 1985, and results became available iv. January, 1986. It is based on 9,000 personal in-home interviews that averaged 50 minutes each to administer. In order for the results to be usable and valid both nationally and regionally, the sample was designed to provide 1,000 interviews in each of the nine census divisions of the United States. Field work and sample design were done by National Analysis, Inc. T h e criteria established for respondent selection were designed to ensure the widest possible took at the pleasure travel market, q-he targe~ population represented pleasure travelers age 16 or older who bad taken at least one pleasure trip in the 3 ),ears prior to the study that had taker, them more than 109 miles away from h o m e for at leas. ~ne night, and auring which *.hey had patronized e~ther

t~ "]dress correspondence ~o: Gordon D. Taylor. Manager. Special Projects. Tourism Canada. DTO~ L Go~,ernment ef Canada. Ottawa. Canada K1A 0H5_

Jc~vmM of Business .R~.~earch I.~: ~-'~9,q%-~) Th~s a.~,ie|eis in the ~ h t . ~3~main.

01Zf~.2963~89/y,0.~

2

J BUSN RES

G. D- Taylor

commercial accommodation or transport" tion Just over 75% of the U.S. population age 16 or older met these criteria. Prior to the design of the study questionnaire, a number of focus groups were held across the count o, in order to develop trip types that would be easily recognized by travelers and to aseertai~ the benefits associated with each trip type. Eight trip types were identified, and they provided the basis for data collection and analysis. The trip types are as follows: 1. A visit to friends and relatives is a trip with a prima~ purpose to visit and spend time with friends or relatives. 2. A close-~.9-home leisure trip is a trip to a place close to home where one can enjoy facilities related to a beach, take, seashore, or park. 3. A touring trip is one by car, bus, or train through areas of scenic beauty and cultural and general interest. 4. A ciu ~ip is a jQumey to a city where one can shop, visit museums, enjoy e~rerta~ament, dine, attend plays or concerts, or just stroll around and enjoy the city. 5. A n outdoors trip occurs in a natural area where one can engage in activities such as camping, hunting, fishing, hiking, or rafting. 6. A resort trip is a journey to a resort or resort area where a wide variety of activities ~uch as beaches, skiing, golfing, tennis, etc, arc available nearby or on the premises. 7. A cruise is a trip on a cruise ship where one enjoys all on-board activities and planned stops at points of interest along the way. 8. A trip to a tizeme park. ~rhibition, or special event is taken primarily for the purpose of visiting a major fl',eme park. exilibilion, or special event such as a super bowl, world's fair, or olyI~pic games.

Respond$nts were asked about the n u m b e r o, trips of each type they had taken within the 12 months preceding the study, and for one randomly selected trip they were queried abeut details. Wants. needs, activities, transportation, accommodation, information sources, destination, duration, use of travel agents, and purchase of travel packages were among the items zovered by the in-depth qucstioniug, In addition, respondents were asked about the likelihood of taking trips of different types in the future, and their impressions were garnered of destinations, Canadian and others, that they mi~ht visit. Detailed demographics of each respondent were atso collected. The result is a data base that cai~ provide information for analysis on each of the eight trip Wpes and for each of the nine census regions. Two government dooaments have been published and are readily available to the public: 1. Ton~sm Canadm U.S. Pleasure Travel Market, Canadian PotentiaL- ttig,5ligt~ Report, Ottawa, Department of Regional Industrial Exp~-nsion, Janua~" 1986. 2. Tourism Canada, U.S. Pleasure Travel Market, Canadian Potentiah Mein Report. Ottawa, Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. January 1986. These two reports concentrate on the imolieations of the findings for the Canadian tourism industD'. There is, however, a vast amount of detail that has not yet been published, and it is the purpose of this paper to make available additional information on the U.S. Pleasure T~'avel M a r k e t study. Five main topics will provide the optic for this paper. First, the develomcnt ef major tourist market segmentatio~ s ~ d i e s in Tourism Canada will be described so that the intellectual em4ronment in which the U.S. F;easure Travel M a r k e t study

U.S.

Pleasure Travel Market

,~ ~USN R~S 17'89:11~:t-79

3

was done will be clear. Second, the published reports have focused on the U.S. pleasure travel market to Canada. A more detailed took will be taken at the U.S. census divisions as tourism markets. Third, the study collected a large a m o u n t of image data for destinations in C a n a d a , the United States. and abroad. T h e s e data will be a,lalyzed and their implications developed. F o u r t h , the use o f the Jata to develop usable product s e g m e n t s separate from the trip type segments utilized in the main report, will be described. Fifth. s o m e of t h e specific analyses that have been done will be described. T h e overall objective is to d e m o n s t r a t e the usefiatness to a variety of tourism interests of f u ~ h e r analysis of m a j o r tourist studies, with the U.S. study serving as the example.

S e g m e n t a t i o n S t u d i e s in T o u r i s m C a n a d a R e s e a r c h T h e U.S. Pleasure Travel Market study did not occur as an isolated event. Rather, it is part of a carefully worked out a n d evolving market research plan at Tourism C a n a d a . This section wilI examine the rationale that lay behind the U.S. study and comparable studies o f C a n a d a and of soy,'," overseas mari
Canadian Tourism Attitude and Motivation Study A l t h o u g h m a n y of the characteristics of the Canad;an pleasure travel market have been studied in depth for years, there was ;it*]e knowledge of the underlying values, benefits, a n d related activities and interests that tri~ggered such Canadian travel. A study conducted by Air C a n a d a in t h e mid-1960s concentrated on the air traveler. T h e r e bad been no other comparable studies since that time. In o r d e r to overcome this lack o f motivational a n d attitudinal data o n the Canadian pleasure travel market, the C a n a d i a n g o v e r n m e n t in 1982 authorized funding for a s t u a y that would investigate the topic. Two conditions accompanied the authorization: a) that the results be equally reliable for each of C a n a d a ' s 10 provinces, a n d b) that the study be d c n e in the most cost-efficient m a n n e r possible. T h e Canadian Travel Survey has lzeen conducted by Statistics C a n a d a for Tom'ism C a n a d a since 1978 with the L a b o u r Force S~xvey as the research vehicle. This vehicle has proven to be a cost-efficient m e a n s of c ~ e c t i n g tourism data. A thorough investigation indicated :hat t h e Labour Force Sureey vehicle would m e e t the cost requirements for this new study both in terTns of sample size and the type of data necessary.

4

I BUSN RES

l~89:i.qH 79

G.D. Taylor

The objectives ff*r the study were established "~" ~oltows: "to develop an understanding of the Canadian travel market through the delinitic.n and analysis of population sub-groups based on: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Their Their Their Their

vacation needs attitudes to vacations interests with respect to vacations actual vacation behaviour."

The population to be studied was the adult population of Canada. In order to meet the objecti~'es, the study was clivided into two distinct parts: 1. All respondents were q u o t e d on their past travel behavior and their attitudes to travel 2. Respondents who had traveled for pleasure or vacation purposes in the 12 months preceding the sarvey were asked about the following :terns for a selected trip: a. the t;enefits sought b. the acd'rties/interests that were important in selecting the destination e. details of the trip In this way. recent nontravelers were eliminated from the study of trip benefits, activities, and interests as those key items were related ~.o a specific trip. As a result, this part of the study was based on actual travel experience. tn the approach to the nature of the data to be colleetea, three distinct aspects of travel behavior Were considered to be of prime importance. These three aspects were based on the folloMng assumptions: 1. There are recogniza~e groups in the population based on how people value and organize pleasure trq_:ps. 2. Thor= arc r=ccgn:~zab;e groups in the population based on the benefits sought from specific pleasure trips. 3. There are recognizable groups in ~b_epopuiation based on the act~vit}cs, interests, and facilities required in order to realize the benefits sought from specific pleasure trips. In order to provide for sound management old:,: study, a working ccmmittee with representation from Statistics Canada and Tourism Canada was set up to plan and execute the study. Outside help was deemed necessary in the study design, and. as a result of a competitive tendering process, Market Facts of Canada was engaged. In addition, ex~ensive consultation was carri.'ed out with usels in Tourism Canada, the provincial tourist authorities, and the private sector. Previous segmentation studies had looked at one or more of these three aspects of travel, although few of them had had samples of sufficient size to enable crosstabulation o f the groups. Wittt the i~-ge sample availab!e for this Canadian study. it was decided to attempt a multid~mensional segmentation whereby discrete travel segments would be described on the basis of all three aspects. This decision neeesskated the development of three attribute batteries: one for each of the three elements considered. The initial questionnaire was developed by Market Facts of Canada and revicwed thoroughly by Tourism Canada, Statistics Canada, provincial tourism officials, and

U . S . Pleasure Tra~'~l M a r t ' e t

J a~.~sN RES t9~:]8:1~79

5

]['able 1. Canadian Tourism/xttilude and Mot!"~tioa Study Dislribution el Sample by Provinces Province

Ne',vfoundla~d Prince ErJward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick Quebec Ontario Mani~.oba Saskatchews~ Alberta British ISolurabi~ Tota~

Number of Respondents in Sample

1;509 948 t.346 t,430 1,437 1,g08 "f,6¢~2 1.89"6 '/,158 t,055 14,180

industry repre',e;,t~tix :s. 1¢ was atso subjected to two pretests, the fi~t of which. carried ou~ b,' M-~rkc~ Facts with 530 ivdividaals on their mailing list, was designed to consolidate er:'~ reduce the n u m b e r of attitudina~ and motivatiomd statements. The test showed ",~at this consolidation and reduction could take place. The second pretest, also ~ u c ~ a ~ . , was done by Statistics Canada under Labour Force Sureey zondit:,o~ '.^ :z~:.'z:e '&e ccmpztibfi;.ty of '&e suv,,ey contc.-ts and the research vehicle. "lZne final questionnaire was based on the results of the review process and of the pretests. Field collection of ~he data was carried out in the third ,seek of September !983. The sample size used for the study was large bat t~e requireme,~_t forequaI reliability for all provinces necessitated oversampling in same pz ovinces (see Table 1). Just over 80% of the respondents qualified as a traveler, with the result f i a t the analysis of tbe second part of the study is based op a sample of I1,50,3. All respondents who had traveled were clas~fied into the different segmentation types, philosophies, benefits, activities, and by or.¢ms-cIa.sification ,~to erie ~egrn~.nt that consisted of a philosophy, a benefiL and an act; ~: -'. The final sere'neat has probably received more emphasi~ than it warrants, i2.zcn one of the bread segmentations can be used separately de.~e;~ding upon the purpose !._: winch the available information is required. 5-he study did ant al;ow for the fact t::at people do not always travel for t~.e same reason. Hc~" "~. it was mot possible t - know the different kinds of travel people actually do, so th~ results probably underestimate the true size of the segme'~ts. The Canadian Tourism Attitude and Motivation Study provided a unique opportunity because of the sample size za~d the wealth of ivAormation collected for a detailed diagnosis of one of zbe world's impo~ar:t travel ma,,kets-

U.S. Pleasure Travel M a r k e t Study Tourism Canada, in =oneert with Camp Associates Advertising Ltd. and the Longwoods Research G r o u p Ltd., conducted a major ~ur~ey of the pote,~t~al pTeasure travel market fe~ Canada in the United States in t985. ~ffnisstudy had the fo~!.~ing goals:

6

J B u s s RES i9S9:18:~-79

G.D.

Taylor

1. To identify the basic pleasure lravel motivations, including lifestyle, vacation style. benefits, and producLcactivity needs in the United States. 2. To ide_n_tify and describe the size, travel characterislics, attitudinal, and demographic characteristics of the U.S. pleasure travel markets. 3. To identify- :he awareness and perception of the various Canadian travel products. i.e.. brand ~.w~reness

Sample Desig~z Overview. Th~ sample design builds on National Analysts' m a s t e r sample of the U n i t e d States. It is a multistage area probability design d r a w n anew following the completion o5 the 1980 U.S. census. It contains 240 Primary Sampling U n i t s (PSU) representiEg the nine U.S. census divisions and t h r e e levels of u r b a n i z a t i o n (i.e., central cities, s u b u r b a n and n o n m e t r o p o l i t a n areas) therein. It is fully representative o f the U.S. p o p u l a t i o n as it was in 1985. W i t h i n the framework of the m a s t e r sample, a sampling plan was custom designed to m e e t the needs of the study. Specifically, a sequential modified probability plan was created to sample area segments, sample housing units, a n d r a n u o m eligible c o n s u m e r s ~uithin households. A t all stages, probabilistic principles were e m p l o y e d so that deta were p r o j e c t a b l e with k n o w n sampling e r r o r m the divisions and to the U n i t e d States as a whole. Selection of Ran~om Aduh withb~ the Household. T h e n a m e s of all eIigib!e pote:~t~al respondent3 were o r d e r e d according to age. Interviewers t h e n selected r e s p o n d e n t s according to p r e d e t e r m i n e d q u o t a s by sex a n d a t a r g e t e d distr;.bution across age. Caffbacks to eligible houses were left to interviewers" discretion. A sample weighting model was used to bring the disproportion?~e sampling (e.g., of regions, income segments, sample dweifing units, a n d sex quotas) into balance a n d to portray a true a n d accurate picture of the !985 potential travel m a r k e t for C a n a d a in the U n i t e d States. Research Design T h e m a j o r s e g m e n t a t i o n analysis a d o p t e d in this study was the "'occasion-based" s e g m e n t a t i o n niodet p i o n e e r e d by National A n a b s t s . U n l i k e all o t h e r forms of m a r k e t s e g m e n t a t i o n that force c o n s u m e r s into only o n e s e g m e n t o n the basis of t h e i r similarity to o t h e r m e m b e r s in t h a t s e g m e n t , occasion-based s e g m e n t a t i o n ailows the r e s p o n d e n t to a p p e a r in as m a n y "'occasion-specific" segments of whir a he or she is a participant. Because co- sumers x~ant different types of vacation experiences, the segmentation a p p r o a c h a d o p t e d here allow:zd the potential d e m a n d for each of the various types of specific vacation e×pefiences to be measured. T h u s , a r e s p v a d e n t w h o expresses a "'high i n t e r e s t " ie taking two, t h r e e , or e v e n m o r e different types of specific vacations appears ~n two, t h r e e , o r m o r e segments. This step was i n s e ~ e d ;nto the study to o v e r c o m e the w e a k n e s s pointed o u t for C . T . A . M , S . t h a t e~cia individuai was finally slotted into a single segment. Different data were collected for each trip type; h e n c e , it is nearly impossible to reanalyze the d a t a wi'_l~out reference [o the trip type.

U.S.

Pleasure Travel Market

J BUSN R.ES 1989:18:t~79

7

Multicountry Resee.rch &udies (Oversea;.) A f t e r the m a j o r studies of the domestic and U.S. m a r k e t s , the next step i~ the series was the overseas area. Tourism C a n a d a ( D e p a r t m e n t of Regional Industrial E x p a n s i o n ) a n d the U.S. Travel and Tourism A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ( D e p a r t m e n t of C.~mmercc) h a d similar research needs and priorities h~ ~tese m a r k e t s , :.3 :i'~c~, agze~,a to cooperate. This c o o p e r a t i o n was formalized into a 5-year a g r e e m e n t . In 1986 the cou~tries studied were as follows: 1 2. 3. 4.

Japap West t_ ermany U n i t e d Kingdom France

in 1987, studies of H o n g Kong, Singapore, a n d Switzerland were completed; studies of Australia, Brazil, ttaty, a n d Mexico were planned for 1988.

Use of Results T h e principal use of the study results is to provide a basis for m a r k e t planning in each of the countries including the identification of promising potential m a r k e t s , targeting the e l e m e n t s of the m a r k e t i n g mix, and the choice of the c o n t e n t included in p r o m o t i o n a l material. T h e information n e e d e d to guide these efforts includes general information on the life-style, vacation style, benefit segments, activity/ p r o d u c t s segments, travel habits, and preferences of the pleasure travelers of each country; the position of C a n a d a and the U n i t e d States as pleasure travel d e s t i n a t i o n s c o m p a r e d to competitive alternatives; a n d travel p r o d u c t s most assoO.a~.ed with C a n a d a a n d the U n i t e d States as well as specific i n f o r m a t i o n such as the level of s p o n t a n e o u s awareness of C a n a d i a n and U.S. destinations, the tevet of awareness of particular C a n a d i a n provinces and U.S. states or regions of b a t h countries, a n d the likelihood of visiting C a n a d a andior the U n i t e d States. T h e studies also provide inputs to tourism d e v e l o p m e n t planning, construction of p r o d u c t - m a r k e t models, a n d studies required for tourism develot~ment, as welt as to sound e c o n o m i c a n d policy planning. T h e results are available t o C a n a d i a n provinces a n d territories and U.S. states a n d to the tourism industry in C a n a d a a n d the U n i t e d States.

Data Collection Objectives In o r d e r to m e e t the broadly defined user n e e d s outlined a b o v e , five data collection objectives were established: 1. To identify the basic long-haul travel motivations, benefits sought and product/ activity needs in each of the countries. 2. To identify and describe the size, travel characteristics, attitudinal, and awareness characteristics of the long-haul travel market in each of the countries. 3. To identif3, the awareness and per,:eption of the various Canadian travel and U.S. travel products, i.e., brand awareness. 4. To identify the print media habits of the various long-haul travel markets in each of the countries,

8

.~ BUSN RES 1989:18:1-79

G.D.

Taylor

The Target Group in Each Country For the overseas studies, long-haul travelers were defined as adults (age 18 or older) who had traveled, in the case of the European countries, beyond Europe and North Africa ~n the past 3 years on a pleasure trip by air of 4 nights or more and/or who definitely intended to do so in the next 2 years. In the case of the Asian countries, a region eqJivalent to E u r o p e and North Africa was defined for each country.

The Sample In order to obtain a sufficient data base for segmenting the travel market and to provide a reliable description of the potential travel markets for Canada and the United States, a sample ranging from 1,200 to 2,000 respondents drawn from the target group in each country was employed. "I-he sample design allowed projection of the results to the entire target group in each country.

The Study The study consisted of the collection and analysis of the information required to meet its objectives. Particular emphasis was placed on the segmentation of the market based upon attitudes to vacation travel; benefits sought from vacation travel; and the activities, facilities, and intelests required to meet these benefits. Data on actual travel, life cycle, life-style, trip types, and demographics are used as descriptors of the segments. The strategic objective of the research program can be stated briefly as identifying those segraents in each of the international markets that are prime target~ for travel to Canada and/or the United States. The marketing objective is to convert potential travel to an actual vacation in Canada ancb'or the United States. To facilitate this objective, the research must answer the following types ~,~ -~ que_~z~,~s: ~'" Who are out target travelers? What do they want to get out of a vacation trip? What activities~facilities~environments do they need to get what they want? D o they see Canada or tl~e United States as providing these features? (Or do they think of Canada or the United States at all?) H o w do they implement a vacation? W h e r e do they find/look for vacation destination ideas/information? In these studies, the multidimensional segmentation of C . T . A . M . S . has been maintained as hu~ ti~ trip type of the U.S. study. In this way, a greater flexibility should be possible in meeting a wide variety of user needs.

Pleasure Travel Market by Census Divisions T h e sample used as the base for the U.S. Pleasure Travel Market study is large enough for a description of the travel markets of the nine U.S. census divisions as well as the nation as a whole. It is possible with the data available to prepare a detailed report for census divisions that would parallel the main report published by Tourism Canada. That

U.S. Pleasure Travel Market

J BUSNRES 1989:18:1-79

9

report focused on the entire U.S. pleasure travel market. The purpose at this time is t~ provide an idea of the wealth of data that is available by census divisions. In this section the divisional markets are looked at from two perspectives: 1. A summary of the main pleasure travel characteristics by division 2. An examination of the similarities and difference between the divisional markets This examination should provide a flavor of the kind of information that can be derived for regional purposes from a large national sample. The distribution of trip type for each census division is presented in Table 2. S u m m a r y of Divisional Markets

Pacific Division The Pacific Division bad 14.5% of the n a t i o ~ population in 1985, and it accounted for 14.5% (19,200,000) of all U.S. pleasure travelers. It also produced 14% (790,000) of the pleasure travelers to Cr -~:~da, The distribution of the trip types taken by Pacific pleasure travelers is pre :ed in Table 2. The incidence of travelers as defined lot this study amounted to 76%, second only to New England. Foreign destinations favored by travelers from the Pacific in the 3-year period 1983-1985 were Mexico (28%), Canada (24%), Europe (10%), and the Caribb, ~'a (5%). In terms of trip intentions during the period 1986-1987, the leading foreign destinations were Canada for touring and theme parks trips; Mexico for resort trips; Europe for touring and city trips; and \ustralia, the United Kingdom, and Asia for touring trips,

Mountain Division The Mountain Division, with 5.3% of the national population, generates 5.3% (6,900,000) of all U.S. pleasure travelers. It generates only 2% (110,000) of the pleasure travelers to Canada. The dis~.-ibution of the trip types taken by Mountain pleasure travelers is presented in Table 2. The incidence of travelers in the Mountain Division amounted to 75% of the adult population. Foreign destinations favored ~,y travelers from the Mountain Division in the 3-year period t983-1985 were Mexico (27%), Canada (18%), Europe (10%), and the Caribbean (6%). In terms of trip intentions over ihe period 1986-1987, the leading foreign destinations were Canada for touring; outdoor, and theme park trips; Mexico for resort and outdoor trips; Europe fo, ~ouring avd city trips; followed by the United Kingdom, Australia, and Asia for touring trips.

West North Central Division The West North Central Division has 7.4% of the national populztic-, and it accounts for 7.6% (9,900,000) of all pleasme travelers. It produced 8.4% (470,000) of the U.S. pleasure travelers to Canada. Distribution of the trip types taken by residents of the West North Central Division is presented in Table 2.

l0

J BUSN RES 1989:18:1-79

k9 ca

rao

~a

u O

c

Q

o

[... ¢J

ca_

e,i ~

F"

~

~

o

~

0~ ~

LI.S.

Pleasure Travel Market

J1989:18:1-79 BUSNRES

11

incidence of pleasure travelers in the West North Central Division was recorded at 74% of the adult population. Foreign destinations most popular with travelers from the division in the, 3-year period t983-1985 were Canada (24%), Mexico (14%), Europe (7%), and the Caribbean (7%). In terms of trip intentions in 1986 and 1987, pteasurc travelers from the West North Central Division were thinking of Canada for outdoors and touring trips, Europe for louring trips, and the United Kingdom for touting trips.

East North Centr,zl Division The East North Central Division, with 17.6% of the population, produces I7.2% (22,500,000) of the nation's r~.easure travelers. This division generates more travelers than any ether, althoug~ it is only slightly ~head ol the Middle Atlantic. The travel incidence, a~ ,~i%, is the third lowest. The East North Central provides 25% (1,400,000) of \~ S. pleasure travelers to Canada aad is the second most important source of travei~:s to that country. The distribution of the trip types by East North Central pleasure travelers is presented in Table 2. Foreign destinations most popular with travelers from East North Central during 1983-1985 were Canada (32%), Mexico (9%). Europe (8%), and the Caribbean (7%). In terms of future travel in 1986 and 1987, the most popular destinations were Canada for outdoor and city trips; Europe for outdoor, city, and resort trips; and Mexico for resort trips.

New England Division New England with 5.3% of the national population is credited with 5.9% (7,700,000) of the pleasure travelers. The division generated 11.7% (650,000) of U.S. pleasure travelers to Canada. The travel incidence rating of 77% is the highest for any of the census division, except Middle Atlantic, which has the same rate. Distribution of the trip types taken by pleasure travelers from ,,~T,~.uEngland is presented in Table 2. Foreign destinations reported to be the most popular during 1983-1985 were Canada (36%), Europe (14%), Caribbean (14%), and Mexico (6%). Travel intention questions indicate that Europe for touring and city trips; Canada for touring, city, and outdoor trips; and Mexico for cruise trips are first choice with New Englanders.

Middle Atlantic Division The Middle Atlantic Division, with t5.7% of the population, produces 17.1% (22,300,000) of all U.S. pleasure travelers, and is second only to the East North Central as a source of travelers. It is the leading source of visitors to Canada, 28.9% (!,610,000) percent of the U.S. total. Travel incidence rating is 77%, the same as New England. Distribution of the trip types taken by pleasure travelers from the Middle Atlantic is presented in Table 2Popular foreign destinations in the three years i983-1985 were Canada (36%),

12

J BUSN RES ! 9~,9: t8: 1 - 7 9

G.D.

Taylor

Caribbean (t8%), Europe (14%), and Mexico (10%). Travel intention questions indicate that Canada for touring and city trips, Europe for touring, and Caribbean and Mexico for resort and cruise trips arc all potential destinations.

South Atlantic Division The South A~lav,tic Division accounts for 16.7% of the population, and it has 16_!% (21,009,000) of the pleasure travelers. It is the third-most-important source of all travelers, and it produces 4.8% (270,o00) of U.S. travellers to Canada. A travel incidence rating of 69% puts it at the second lowest in the countq:, ahead of East South Central. The distributien of the trip types taken by South Atlantic pleasure travelers is presented in Table 2. Foreign destinations favored by travelers from the South Atlantic in the 3-year period 1983--1985 were Canada (12%), Caribbean (!1%), Europe (10%), and Mexico (8%). Travel intention questions show that Europe, Canada, and the United Kiudom for touring and city trips, and Mexico for resort and touring, rank high in the plans of South Atlantic travelers.

East South Central Division The East South Central Division, with 6.4% of the population, generates 5.3% (6,900,C:'~) of at! U.S. pleasure travellers. It accounts for 1.5% (85,909) of American travelers to Canada. A travel incidence rating of 61% places this divisic~ at the lowest level in the country. The distribution of trip types taken by travelers from the East South Central is presented in Table 2. Foreign travel from this division is the lowest in the United States, but for those people who do travel to foreign destinations, the popular places are Canada (9%), Mexico (8%), Caribbean (7%), and Europe (6%). Future travel intentions show a continued low ievel of interest in foreign travel.

West South Central The West South Central Division with 11.1% of the population, generated 10.9% (14,21)9,000) of U.S. pleasure travellers. A travel ineldeP.ce rating of 74% is about at the nationa~ average, tt produces !90,00,9 travelers to Canada, or 3.4% of the total. The distribution of trip types taken by travelers from the West South Central is presented in Table 2. Mexico (16%) is by far the most popular foreign destination for travelers from this division. Canada (9%) is next, followed by Europe (7%) and the Caribbean (6%). The three current top destinations are also the top three in future travel plans: Mexico for resort trips, fallowed by Canada and Europe for touring trips.

Discussion This brief overview of the travel characteristics of the U.S- pleasure traveter~ when they are examined from the standpoint of the census divisions, reveals that there are some noticeable differences by division.

U.S. Pleasure Travel Market

_,1989:18:1-79 ~,~s.~ RES

13

T~,e incidence of travel ranges from a low of 61% in the East South Central to a high of 77% in Middle Atlantic and New England, with a national average of 74%. Trips to visit friends and relatives are the most popular trip type in each division, but the degree of participation ranges from a high of 72% in the Mountain Division to a low tff 39% in New England. The national average is 52%. Close-to-home leisure trips are the second-most-popular trip type in all divisions, with a high of 42% in the Mountain Division and a low of 25% in the Middle Atlantic. The national average is 30%. The third-most-popular trip type is shared by four trip types. ~~ne outdoor trip is in third place in the Pacific, Mountain, and East North Central divisions; touring occupies third spot in New England, Middle Atlantic, and West Nortb Central, where it is tied with city trips. City trips are third in the East North Central and West South Central divisions, while resort trips occupy third place in the South Atlantic. It would seem that after the two most common trip types are looked at, the next most popular trip reflects to a great extent the resources of the division. Foreign travel is far more popular in the Pacific and Middle Atlantic divisions, and it is at its lowest level in the three southern divisions. Proximity to international gateways would seem to be an important facet in encouraging foreign travel. Size of the Pleasure Travel Markets In the previous section, general characteristics of the pleasure travel markets by census division were examined. The objective of this section is to describe the size ~, the market in each of the nine census divisions. Six measures wilt be used in this description; number of travelers by trip type, the average number of trips of each type taken in a year, the total number of trips taken, the average number of nights per trip, the total number of nights per trip type; and the distribution of the market by trip type based on the number of nights recorded. In this way, the broad dimensions of the market will be made clear. When the market is examined on the basis of its divisional breakdowns, it follows the population distribution fairly closely. All parts of the United States are contributors to the total pleasure travel market, and the overall differences between divisions are relatively small. The average number of trips per trip type taken is lowest in the East South CentraI at 1.81 and highest in the Mountain Division at 2.51. Average number of nights per trip is highest in the Pacific at 4.7 and lowest in the Middle Atlantic and West "-~,o,~,~r-~,,_~ ...... at a.... 1 Visits to friends and relatives is the most-popular trip type in all divisions with a high of 51% of all nights spent by South Atlantic travelers and a tow of 29% of all nights spent by New Englanders. The second-most-popular trip type based on number of nights varies by division. Close-to-home leisure ranks second in New England, South Atlantic, East South C e n t r a l and Padfie; touring is second in Middle Atlantic, Eac,~ North Central, West N o r t h Central, and West South Central; and outdoors is second in the Mountain Division. These rankings differ from those given in the previous section, where the comparison was based on the number of trips. The time spent on trips is a better marketing m e ~ u r e than is the volume of trips. Both measures, however, should be examined in any market assessment. If we accept the hypothesis that trips to visit friends and relatives, close-to-home

14

RES 1989:18--I-79

J BUSN

G . D . Taylor

leisure, and outdoors are relatively unpIanned and are often short in both time and distance, major tourism marketers are faced with the prospect that from 62% to 72% of the pleasure travel n~aH:et is r~ot within their frame of reference. Instead of a market of 130 million travelers, the effective market is only 43 million traveIers. It is important for tourism marketers to understand the actual size of the market, its distribution in the United States, and the needs of that one-third of the total market that can be marketed to effectively. There is no suggestion here that the three trip types cannot or should not be targets for marketing. The concept expressed is to divide the market into two broad categories: 1. A large, short-duration market that provides excellent opportunities for a Ioea!~zed marketing activity 2. A smaller market that involves more time and distance ~r,d where regional or national marketing can come into pIay (see Tables 3-i i) D i f f e r e n c e s in T r a v e l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s by D i v i s i o i i a i M a r k e t s This section examines some details of divisional travel, and identifies some specific differences in the markets. These differences are important to any organization in the travel business that markets in any or atl parts of the country.

Transportation Mode The transportation mode that travelers use on their trips is an important piece of marketing information. If the transportation mode is consistent by trip type across all divisions, the marketing problem is quite differt nt than if a wide variation in m o d e exists. The transportation element for five trip types is considered. Th_e touring trip type is examined first. While the automobile is the most popular mode for transportation for this trip type, there is a wide variation in the extent of its share across the divisions. The national share is 59%, but by division the share ranges from a low of 40% in New England to a high of 70% in the East South C e n t r a l The use of the airplane varies from a high of 36% in New England to a low of t 0 % in East North Central. Bus transportation ranges from a high of 31% in New England to a low of 5% perce~t in East South Central (see Table 12). Distribution of transportation modes does not differ significantly between Middle Atlantic, South Atlantic, West North Central, and Mountain. East South Central and East North Central do no differ, while New England differs significantly from all other divisions, as does the Pacific. Thus, four regional groupings emerge: the Atlantic Seaboard (south of New England) and the Southwest; a Ceptra[ Region between the Mississippi and the Appalachians; and New England and the :~acific. The heavy reliance of New England upon commercial modes of transportation should be noted. The same wide variation in popularity of mode is also apparent for the city trip type. Again, the automobiie is the most popular mode. 70% nationally, and far more popular for this trip type than ir was for touring. T h e automobile is at its greatest popularity for city trips in West North Ceotral and East South Central at 76% and at its lowest in New England at 58%.

RES ~9139,18:1-79

J PUSN

-r

°

,6

~

~" o ~ . ~

<

15

16

J aUSN RES 1989:18: ! -7')

<

J B U S N fXES 1989:18:1-79

o

Z

~l ~ eu

~

17

18

J B U S N RES |9t¢9:18: t - 7 9

Z

~

~

~ ~e-ie-i*4,.-;cSc~

0

Z

r~

[.,,,

_'2

06

J BUSN RES t989:18;I-79

i ,<

W r~

t.: d~

19

20

J BUSN RE$ 1989:18: 1-79

u.

J~

0

m

J BUSN RES 1989;18: ~~ 7 9

~

u'~ ~

~

t~ ~

~

~

~'~

I~

6~

~z

O

°

+!

21

27

J BUSN RES 1989:[8:I-79

~z

[-,

!

J BUSN RES 1989:18',1-79

Z~

~

m

~

~z

15

I

t~tl

o

~

23

24

J BUSN RES 1989:18:1-79

k~

Ua

02

L~

z~

O

on~ .~ tO

LI.S. Pleasure Travel Market

J BUSr~RES lggg:IS:l-79

25

The divisions group into five regions for city trips on the basis of similarity of distribution patterns, West South Central and Mountain; East North Central and South Atlantic; and East South Central and Pacific. New England and Middle Atlantic are different from each other and from all otheis. They share the lowest rating for the automobile but differ markedly on the selection of commercial forms of transportation (see Table 13). Wide differences in the m o d e of transportation used for resort type trips are also readily apparent between the divisions. The automobile is again the most pop ~:~r mode, but there is a range from a low of 53% in New England to a high of 84% in the South Atlantic. A i r travel is consistently in second place but, again, there is a wide range from a low of 7% in East South Central to a hlgh of 48% in New England. Recreational and related vehicles are important in the West North Central and Mountain divisions (see Table 14). The automobile is predominant in the field of outdoor travel, and, if recreational and related vehicles are included as private transportation, it is clear that commercial forms of transportation have little roles to play in this form of tourism. The recreational vehicle as a separate mode of transportation exceeds the automobile in importance in the Mountain Division (see Table 15). The automobile overwhelmingly predominates .the transportation m o d e for close-to-home leisure trips. Recreational and related vehicles are of particular importance in the Mountain and West North Central divisions (see Table 16). The marketing of tourism by transportation companies must be selective by trip type. If the 44% of all trips that are to visit friends and relatives are excluded and the further 23% that are accounted for by outdoors and close-to-home leisure trips are also excluded because of the high incidence of automobile usage, the ~mmercial transportation companies are restricted to seeking their customers from about onethird of the total pleasure travel market. In the case of these touring, city, and re~ort trips where the automobile is the top transportation choice, the potential commercial m o d e market is reduced even more. Plane travel dominates the com,~:ercial transportation share of ~he markets created by the three trip types. Innovative products in the outdoers area might provide an opportunity for the commercial forms of transportatinn to make a move into this largely untapped market.

Accommodation Used The type of accommodation used on pleasure trips is another important element of tourism marketing information. A c c o m m o d a t i o n and transportation account for the largest portion of travelers' expenditures, and both are essential on tourism trips. People who take touring trips prefer to use commercial accommodation in the form of hotels and motels. T h e r e seems to be a particularly Oose relationship between the use of the automobile and staying in a motel° A separate analysis ~f package travel has shown that travelers on a touring-type trip who have purchased a travel package have a strong tendency to combine hotels with the selected commercial mode (Tourism Canada, 1986). These travelers represent just over onefifth of all touring type trips and provide an opportunity for close market cooperation between accommodation and transportation in developing and marketing

26

J BUSN RES 1989:18:1-79

< ~1

,~

Z

Z

Z

ua~

z~ z~ c-

O

2~

J BUSN RES 1989:18;!-79

<

~J Z

2~

0

k~

~3

Z

_

<-

<

0

oa ,.

~i~o m

~-i~ ~. ,o Z.;,

27

28

$ BUSN R E S [989; I8:il-79

o .>_ ¢2 r~

.r~ h' ~o~

~

¢~ ~

~q

~

O

'r, ~:

J B U S N RES I ~)8~: t8:1 -'/9

~3

..t,1

~J Z

:E L) z

g ; .~. ,::, ~ ~ -e

~j

Z 0 ;=

Lfli~

0

.9 U

29

~0

t BUS:N R E S 19&~: 18: ~- 7 °

G . D . Taylor

products. Yhus, it would appear that one ~;f tne key markets for motel owners is the touring travelers who uses an automobile, while the package traveler is a much betb:r market for hotels, in order to understand these markets, the motel and hotel owners should understand the benefits and activities that are important to the tc~;ri:~g market when its members travel independently by car or as part of a package (see Table 17). Hotels and motels do~:~;~ :re the accommodation preferences of travelers in city t ~ e trips, with the hotel :e~:W. ~iighfly more poputar than the motel except with people from West North Central, East South Central, West South Centrai. and Mauntain divisions, where the motel is more popular. Note *~-~ ex-_-~mes in distribution between New England wi*b 7 t % hotel use and West South Central with 19%. Travelers on a city trig use 1.1 forms of accommodation per trip, whereas touring travekzs use 1.3 (sec ~Lable 18). As a city trip has a more focuseo destination than a touring trip. the city trip trave!er would be inclined to stay put at one place rather than move around like the touring trip traveler does. The pattern of a c c o m m o d a t i ~ w e f e r e n c e for resort type trips is much more diverse than for touring and city *ype trips. Apartments, condominiums, and lodges are important in the selcctio~ of accommodation. Because a resort trip is defined as a trip to a resort or resort inca, :'... -;ide variety of resorts ranging from northern fishing camps ~o complex oceanside areas indicates that a much more detailed examination of the relationship bow,con accommodation and resort trips is required before an individual operator or group of operators can describe their market. The techniques outlined in the section cn product segment d e v e l o p m e n t should be applied in this case (see Table 19). Campgrounds and trailer parks dominate the accommodation choice for outdoortype trips. Cottages are impor*zn~ :.n three divisions; New England, East North Central, and West North Central. Commercial forms of accommodation such as hotels and motels are relatively unimportant for this market segment (see Table 20). A variety of accomodation preferences are evident for the close-to-home leisuretype trip. While the m o d e of transportation is predominantly the automobile, no accommodation type stands ou~. The motel is the most popular form, followed by hotel. Campgrounds and trailer pz:ks are popular in West South Central and Mountain, while cottages are important in New England. As close-to-home leisure trips are relatively short, an average of 2.7 nights each, the local supply of accommodation would have a major effect on the type chosen (see Table 21),

Use of Package Travel A n o t h e r piece of key tourism rnarketi;-~ information relates to how people organize their trips. A useful division can be made into package travel, where the arrangements are all made in advance and there is often group involvement, and independent travel, where the traveler does not go with a~ organized group and makes his own arrangements as he or she goes along. While there can b~ many vat;eats on this dichotomy, a notion of the size of the package travel market is important, particularly for tour companies, and suppliers of facilities, especially accommodation. Two of the five trip t3,pes that have been examined so far in this report,

J BUS~ RES 1989,, 18' 1-7~)

L~

l I

4

C~

8

31

32

J BUSN RES 1989:18:1-79

~J

~J

O Z c~

t,:.l Z

e~

L~

13. <

t~ O "O

g

O O

o cJ

'r- ~:

J 8USN RES 1989:18:1-79

i g.h

O

~Z

t~

L~ Z

tO

O

<

s~

33

34

J B U S N P.ES 1989:18:1~79

U e~

G r-. O

uq

i z

~o O

O

O O

¢J

BUrN RF.S

I~)89: I B: l~7tJ

i i i i

m <

I

I I

i~

~ = ~ .

i

t

i

U

I

z~

<

3~

36

J BUSNRES 1989:18:1-79

G . D . Taylor

outdoors and close-to-home leisure, are not reported by the respondents as trips for which they purchase packages. The other three (touring, city, and resort) will show an important package element. The propensity of travelers from the nine census divisions to purchase package travel shows some wide variations. New England is a key package market for the three relevant trip types. The impact of this use of packages shows up in the popularity of plane travel and hotel accommodation with New England travelers. Tounng packages are aiso importam to IraveEers from the Middle Atlantic and South Atlantic. A major market for this type of travel is found along the entire eastern seaboard of the United States. Resort touring packages are also popular in the East North Central and Pacific divisions. Package travel is particularly undeveloped in the East South Central Division (see TaMe 22).

Disc~ssion Regional variations exist in the way U.S. pleasure travelers execute the~,r travel. A detailed examination of the data available by census division would give tourism marketers a clear idea of who their specific markets are, what it is they want to purchase, and how they go about organizing their individual trips. A c t i v i t y P r e f e r e n c e s by C e n s u s Divisi~Jn Data on activity preferences can be used to indicate what the travelers think is important in the selection of a distinatiou for a particular trip. In the U.S. Pleasure Travel Market Study. respondents were asked to indicate on a four point scale how important each of the following items on a list of activities was to them: Very Important Somewhat Important Now Very Important Not Important at all A separate and distinct list was utilized for each of the eight trip types, although there was some overlap between lists. Results for each item are available in absoluZe numbe~, percentages, and a mean score based on values of 4 for "Very Important" and 1 for " N o t Important At All." The ind~.vidual items in each list while labeled activities in published reports actually cover three area~ c5 interest--activities, amenities or services, and locational factors. This list is closer to describing the main components of a tourism product than just being the activities of travelers. Detailed tables have been prepared for the activity list for three trip types by census di-ds~ons. The three trip types selected were those that were identified earlier as being amenable to marketing by major commercial interests. Two trip types, cruise and visits to theme parks, that met the commercial criteria have not been used because the numbers involved were too small to make detailed analysis meaningful. The data on activities can be used in a number of ways. O n e way is to see if there are differences in pIeferences by trip type. Tables have been prepared for

J BUSN RES 1989~18:1-79

~.

~ i

L~

7,

Z

r)

7

t,xl

~.,,t m

m

L~

3'7

38

J B U S N RES

G.D.

t 9b'9:18:1-79

Taylor

the Middle A t l a n t i c and Pacific divisions and for the n a t i o n as a whole showing the m e a n scores for the 21 c o m m o n items across three trip types. With the information that can be o b t a i n e d from this type of analysis, a m a r k e t e r can discern where to place emphasis. Being by the o c e a n is more i m p o r t a n t for resort trips than for o t h e r two, while budget a c c o m m o d a t i o n is less i m p o r t a n t . First-class hotels are m o r e i m p o r t a n t for city a n d resort trips than for touring. Shopping is closely associated with city trips a n d guided tours with touring trips, T h u s . the i n f o r m a t i o n is available to answer the question of what features should bc stressed in m a r k e t i n g messages. A second type o f information that can be he-,eloped deals with locational factors. A n example that d e m o n s t r a t e s these d a t , has b e e n p r e p a r e d for the resoi~ type trip. Four tocational factors (proximity to the o c e a n , m o u n t a i n s , lakes, a n d wilderness areas) are available. Proximity to the o c e a n is the ,hOSt i m p o r t a n t of the locational factors nationally a n d in all o f the census division~, except in West N o r t h C e n t r a l , where it is superseded by lakes, a n d in M o u n t a i n , w h e r e it is replaced by m o u n t a i n s . In the Pacific a n d West South Central divisions, oceans and m o u n t a i n s are equally imp o r t a n t . T h e i m p o r t a n c e of the locafional factors in m a n y ways reflects the physical resource base of 1he division, i.e., the lakes of Wisconsin and M i n n e s o t a o r the m o u n t a i n s a n d o c e a n available along the Pacific Coast, T h e r e would seem to be good evidence t h a t regionally different p r o d u c t s can be d e v e l o p e d and m a r k e t e d . A m o r e dc~ailcd analysis of the activity preference s t a t e m e n t s yields b e t t e r i n f o r m a t i o n t h a n is available from this initial type of analysis. T h e results of a m o r e detailed analysis form the basis for t h e next section (see T a b l e s 23-29).

Development

of Product Segments

S e g m e n t a t i o n for the L(S. Ple~z~ure TraP,el M a r k e t study was des~.~n-ed o n the basis of eight trip types. Trip d a t a were collected from r e s p o n d e n t s for o n e selected trip for o n e trip type. D~,taiIs were not collected for one trip type: visits to friends a,~d relatives. ~ i i e d e m o g r a p h i c a n d trip characteristics were a s k e d uniformly across all trip types, the attitude s t a t e m e n t s relating to benefits and activities were different for each type. H e n c e , a separate b a t t e r y of s t a t e m e n t s was d e v e l o p e d for a benefit sector a n d a n activity o n e for each type. T h e r e were seven different arrays of benefit s t a t e m e n t s a n d a n equal n u m b e r of activity c,ne~. A total o f 96 activity s t a t e m e n t s were used. T h e num!~er of s t a t e m e n t s p e r trip w p e were as fotlewsTheme park

t8

Cruise

t9

City Outdoors

28

Close to h o m e

35

Touring

38

Resort

43

U.S. Pleasure Travel Market

J1989:18:1-79 BUSN RES

39

Only o n e s t a t e m e n t was c o m m o n across alt seven trip types. W h e n the benefit s t a t e m e n t s are e x a m i n e d in the same way, the n u m b e r of s t a t e m e n t s per trip type works out as follows: T h e m e park

12

Outdoors

16

Close to h o m e

17

City

20

Cruise

20

Resort

20

Touring

22

Seven of the s t a t e m e n t s are c o m m o n to all seven trip types. For the four trip types with the largest n u m b e r of s t a t e m e n t s - - c i t y , cruise, resort, a n d t o u r i n g - - t 7 are c o m m o n . W h e n o u t d o o r trips are a d d e d in, the n u m b e r drops to 13. T h e net result of this a r r a n g e m e n t of key attribute s t a t e m e n t s is that the d a t a d o not lend t h e m s e l v e s to a n y type of cluster analysis in o r d e r to form m a r k e t s e g m e n t s o t h e r t h a n those established at the start of t h e study. While the trip type s e g m e n t a t i o n has p r o v e n useful, particularly for advertising purposes, they h a v e b c c n ~ar less useful in providing an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the p r o d u c t s e g m e n t s t h a t are necessary for b o t h m a r k e t i n g a n d d e v e l o p m e n t purposes. T h e t e r m product segment, as used in this context, refers to that b u n d l e of activities, facilities, a m e n ities, and location t h a t the c o n s u m e r s see as b e i n g related and i m p o r t a n t in t h e i r choice of travel destinations. It has b e e n necessary,, t h e r e f o r e , to study t h e d a t a carefully to see if any research techniques can b e applied to t h e m in o r d e r to p r o d u c e product s e g m e n t s that are meaningful for m a r k e t i n g and d e v e l o p m e n t pin'-poses. D a t a o n benefits a n d activities were collected in the survey on the basis o f w h e t h e r specific items were: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Very Important Somewhat Important N o t Very I m p o r t a n t Not I m p o r t a n t at All

(x4)

(x3) (x2) (xl)

to the r e s p o n d e n t in the selection of trip destination. M e a n scores were calculated o n t h e basis s h o w n a b o v e for all benefit a n d for all activity statements. T h e first a t t e m p t m a d e to d e t e r m i n e if product segments could be d e v e l o p e d was to e x a m i n e the activity, s t a t e m e n t s one by one. W h e n this p r o c e d u ; e was followed, t h e r e w~s n o obvious grouping o f similar or related activities. If the s t a t e m e n t " a t t e n d i n g ethnic festivals o r e v e n t s " is isolated, the o t h e r high r a n k i n g s t a t e m e n t s for a t o u t i n g trip are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Visiting small t o w n s a n d villages Sampling the ~ocet cuisine H a v i n g predictable w e a t h e r W a l k i n g o r strolling a b o u t

40

J BUSN RES t959:i8:1-79

G. D. Taylor

Table 23. Activity Preferenees--~ity, Touring, Resort Type Trips, U.S. Pleasure Travel Market Mean Scores City

Touring

Resort

Being by the ocean Having predictable weather

Activity

2_4 2.9

2,6 3. I

3.0 3.2

Dining at a variety of restaurants Dining at eleganL sophisticated restaurants First-class hotels Budget accommodation Shopping Nightclubs/discos Gambling Live theatres, concerts Ethnic festivals and events Taking tides Shopping, a~s, and crafts

3.0 2.4 2.5 2_8 2.9 2. I 1.6 2.4 2.3 2.0 2.4

3.0 2.2 2.3 2.8 2.7 1.8 1.5 2. i 2.5 1.9 2,5

3.1 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.1 1.7 2.2 2.1 1.9 2.1

Indoor activities Attending sports events Golf Tennis

2,0 2.2 1.5 ! .5

2.0 1.9 1.5 1.4

2.0 2.1 1.7 1.6

Walking, strolling about Local cuisine Guided tours Bars and pubs

3.0 29 2.3 1.9

3.0 3.0 2.6 1.7

3.0 2.5 2.2 1.5

5. Dining at a variety o f restaurants 6. Visiting natural parks 7. Visiting m u s e u m s and galleries Only the last of t h e s e s~atements could be considered to be related. Similar results w e r e o b t a i n e d for the s a m e kind o f analysis against city a n d resort trips. In the latter two cases, n o related cultural activity a p p e a r e d near the top o f the list. T h e next a p p r o a c h taken was to spht the file by trip type for each s t a t e m e n t . T h e p r o c e d u r e used was to separate all r e s p o n d e n t s who r e p o r t e d an activity very o r s o m e w h a t i m p o r t a n t fi-om t h o s e w h o r e p o r t e d it not very o r not impo_rt_ant at all. T h e data for all o t h e r activity s t a t e m e n t s , benefit s t a t e m e n t s , and d e m o g r a p h y w e r e recalculated on the basis o f this split. T h e m e a n score for each s t a t e m e n t was calculated for the very important a n d s o m e w h a t i m p o r t a n t groups, t h e n c o m p a r e d t o the grand m e a n for the s t a t e m e n t for aii ~e~pondents for each trip type. T h e deviation from the grand m e a n was calculated, and the s t a t e m e n t s w e r e rank o r d e r e d on the basis o f the size o f t h e devD~ion. The analysis was b a s e d o n the idea that the gLeater their i m p o r t a n c e , the m o r e emphasis the r e s p o n d e n t s placed o n these items. T h e high positive deviation items were rank o r d e r e d t o d e t e r m i n e if particular p a t t e r n s o r bundles o f activities emerged. T h r e e m a j o r p r o d u c t s e g m e n t s have b e e n d e v e l o p e d o n the basis o f this analysis: a big city p r o d u c t , a cutt~aral p r o d u c t , and a small-town and village product. _*~ne results o f this analysis f o r m the balance o f this section,

BUSN RES 1989:18:1-79

U.S. P l e a s u r e T r a v e l M a r k e t

J

T a b l e 25. A c t i v i t y P r e f e r e n c e s - 4 2 i t y , To~_tring, R e s o r t T y p e T r i p s , Pacific D i v i s i o n Mean Scores Activity

City

Touring

Resort

Being by the ocean H , w n g p-, "~;ctable weather Dining at a variety of restaur'mts Din:.ng at elegant, sophisticated restaurants First-class hotels Budget accommodation Shopping Nightclubs/discos Gambling Live tl~eatres, concerts Ethnic festivals and events Taking rides Shopping, arts, and cra.~s Indoor activities Attending sports events Golf Tennis Walking, strolling about Local cuisine Guided tours Bars and pubs

2.7 2.7 3.0 2.4 2.4 2.7 2.7 2.1 2.0 2.4 2.2 2.0 2.3 2.0 2.2 1.7 1-5 3.0 3.0 2.t 2.3

2-8 3.0 2.8 2.1 2.3 2.6 2.8 t .8 1.7 2.2 2.3 t .7 2.5 1_9 1.9 1.5 1,4 2.9 3.0 2.4 1.7

3.0 3.1 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.8 2.3 2.1 2.4 2_2 2.0 2.4 2- l 2.4 1.7 1.7 3.0 2.8 2.2 1.9

T a b l e 2,1. A c t i v i t y P r e f e r e n c e s - - - C i t y , T o u r i n g , R e s o r t T y p e Trips, M i d d l e A t l a n t i c D i v i s i o n Mean Scores Activity

City

Touring

Resor~

Being by the ocean -'aving predictable weather Dining at a variety of restaurants Dining at elegant, sophisticated restaurants First-class hotels Budget accommodation Shopping Nightclubs/discos Gambling Live theatres, eonee~s Ethnic festivals and events TaPing rides Shopp;ng, z,,'ts, and crafts Indoor activities Attending sports events Golf Tennis Walking, suolting about Local cuisine Guided tours Bars and pubs

2,7 3.3 3.4 2.8 2.7 3.1 3.3 2.3 1.7 2.6 2.7 2.2 2.7 2.2 2_2 1.5 1.7 3.2 2.8 2.7 2.9

2.4 3_3 3.2 2.4 2.3 2.9 2.9 2.0 16 24 2 S 2 "~ 27 2.9 1.8 1.4 1.4 3.0 3.i 2.8 1.8

3.0 3.3 3.1 2.5 2.7 2.5 2.6 2.2 1.7 2.4 2.3 1.9 22 2.0 2. I 1,7 i "7 3. ! 2.9 2.3 1-5

41

42

J BUSN RES 1989:18.1-79 T a b l e 26. I m p o r t a n t L o c a t i o n a i F e a t u r e s - - R e s o r t

Type Trips Mean Scores

Division

Being by the Ocean

Being Close to Mountains

Bcing by a Lake

Exploring Wilderness

New England Middle Atlantic East North Central West N o a h Central South Atlantic East South Cemral West South Central Mountair, Pace,fie

3.1 3.0 2.9 2,4 3.3 3,2 2.6 2.6 3.~,

2.2 2.3 2. t 2. t 2.2 2,3 2.6 2.9 3.0

2.1 2.a 2.6 2.6 2.3 2.5 2.5 2,2 2.8

1.8 1.9 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2. -1 2.4 2.5

U.S.A.

3.0

2_4

2-5

2.1

Big City Product In the analysis reported in this sectiom data were selected and analyzed to determine if a specific bundle of activities could be isolated and described as the main components of a big city product. A review of the questionnaire showed that the activity "visiting big cities" had been included for the re!lowing trip types: touring, city, close-to-home leisure, theme park, and c~,Sses. All respondems in these five trip types who reported visiting big cities as very important or somewhat important were identified. Special computer prkaouts were then prepared for these respondents based on the f~i~wing tropical. Benefits 2. Activities 3. Deme~aphics

Size of the Projected Big City Product Segment A total of 2,791) respondents were identified by the setectign criteria referred to above. This group re,reseats just over 39% of the total sample. The distribution of the responden-:s by trip type and the proportion they constitute of each trip type is shgwn in Table 33 (see also Table 30). The f~ct of visiting a big city is important to nearly half of the respondents in the ~'.'e trip types where the activity was listed. t-he respondent~ in each trip type were analyzed as separate groups, and then an attempt was made to combine them into a single big city product %ee Table

3D. .Au example of the analysis performed ig shown in Tab!e 34. In the touting ease Even ~n the table, the key distinguishing factors ~re readily identified as: 1. Dining at elegar, t and soph.~sticated restaurants 2. Shopping 3. Visiting museums and galleries -~-. Taking guided tours

J BUrN R I ~ ]9~9:18', 1-70

c-i ~

c-,i cd ~

c.i c.i ,-,.i cd ,..i c4 ~

c-.i

. . . .

.-.i c,i c.i r.i t.-.i ,--:

~-i .-.'~ c-i c-i ,-H - ; c,i -i c-.i ,--,i c-i c-i ~i ,-2 t.,i

. . . .

¢-i ,-'] c.i e.i c-,i --: '

. . . .

c.i e-i c.i ~i c.i .-;

. . . .

c.i c.i c-; c..i c.,i - -

e-i ~-.i e.i ~.i e~ c-i ,--i .-.i ~

<~

43

¢-i ,H ..~ e-i ~

~

--: r.i t'-i c'.i ,".i t'-.~ ~

.-2 e-i e-i ,'-i r-i ¢--~ t'.i ,---i

,--i ,~ c-i r~ e-i -~' t,,i ~

,-d ,--.i c-i ~

,,..i

.~

L~

~z z

z~ m

<~

,@.l b"

~m t~

r"

-

~

ic~

~

~

,-,-~, "m~

"'u

~+,.+

..~

.d'+

:z.

'5

"~ u

p."

~ , ~

==

-~ .~

,,..,

~

tmt~ +'+''+~ ~

44

J BUSN KES 191~9:18:1--79

d

r4 c-.i ¢4 c,i c,i c,i ¢-i c,~ c-i c,'~ c,i c,i ¢-d c i ~

c-ie,ic'.i~c,,ic.ic,ir6

,-~ c,i v,i

c, i c , i r , i c , i ~ , - i ~ , ~ c - i c , i

~ ¢q ¢-,i ~ ,.-,i c,i c,i ¢~ c,i ¢-i r,i t-i .-i ¢,I ..4 ,-:. t4 c,i

M tq eg ~.i N ~,,i ,~i ~ ,-4 rd e.i ¢-I ,.g t.,i c.i .-; c,i ,..,:.

,,-.i c,i ¢-i ¢,i r.i c.i c,i c,i ¢.i ¢-i ¢-.i r,i ¢,,i ¢ i c.,i ,-; c,i c-i

d

u~

a,i c,.i c,i c,i r-6 c,i t--,i ~-4 ~

rd r i c,i c,i ¢-.i ,-~ ,-4 c-i c,i

nj

~

t~

< -

~

~

~'~

~N

~

"~

8~

c~

J BUSN RES

N

~

M

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

M ~ M ~ M I 4 ~

~ M ~ ¢ 4 M M M M M ~ N M M ~ M M M ~ M

~ e 4 ~ M M N M M ~ M ~ M ~ M M M M M ~

M~MN~M

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

M~N

NM

~

~i~

m:

r~ u~

q~

45

46

J BUSN RgS 1999:18:[-79

e~

e,ie,ie, le, i , q e - i , . q eq N e q e 4 e - i

~d

rg,

¢g M

. . . . .

e4---.~

J BUSN RE5 1989: ]8:1-79

t,i

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

~

e.~ r q .-~ ,.d

-" c.. .d

-" . d , _ ~d

,,"

.d. - ;

r.i

.

e,i

.

_

,.q

.

.

. . . .

ed

,d.

..d. ~

-~

t'.'-i

. . . .

ei

"- ..~ ,.d

,~

.< .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

e4eq

~

"

"

' ~i

"-.¢,,.dei----..:,

e-iM

,--: ~ - -

'

e-i

'

'

"

"~

Z

U

el

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

e6

"

"

" "S, t"~ *'-i ,.d, .,d

.-~ e 6

d

.- ,

.--:

,.= Z

~2

.~." .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

td

ed

r .

.

.

.

.

.

.

. r~.

"~

"7--. a

47

~l~l

(I. !). Taylor

I nUSN RF:~

Table 30, Visiting Big City I~.cSl~lmtk,'nt~; Trip Type

Number of P,cspoadents

Percentagc of Rcspo.dent~ for Trip Type

Touring City Close to home Theme park Cruise Total/average

907 835 7t6 254 78 2,7th)

55.0 63.0 36.0 a0.0 52.0 48.0

5. Staying in first class hotels 6~ Sunbathing 7. Going to live concerts or live iheater A similar proced-,re was followed for all benefit statements and all activity statements for the five trip types. A second analysis was performed that examined the overall mean scores for the items for each respondent. In this way, an item that had not 0emonstrated a noticeable deviation from the grand mean for the trip type but was still rated important could be con,:idered in the definition of the product segment. This pro~.~dure was particularly useful with city trip respondents, where the selection of respondents on the basis of visiting big cities did not result in major shifts of emphasis.

Big City Product Group The a~mlysis of m e benefits and activities as well as demographics across the five trip types showed that a distinct big ci:y group could be described. This new group cut acro~s trip types. As a ~c.~;utl, the big city ;:, impert~,..nl tn a specific group of cons-mers who travel by d i f t e r c ~ means to reach a desirc, d de~|ination and achieve a certain experience. The characteristics of this big city procluct group are listed below.

Table 31. Activ ities--Touring Trip Type, Wh~re Visiting Big Cities is V e r y o r S o m e w h a t Important Item

Deviation

Mean

Grand Mea.

Dining at elegant, sophisticated restaurants Shopping Visi:ing museums and galleries Taking guided to, rs Staying in first-class hotels SurtbatV,ing Going 1o live conceits or live theatre Having predictable weather D i n i n g a'~ n variety of resta~rants Sampli6g the lecal cuisine

+0.4 +0,3 + 0.3 +0.3 ~ 0.3 + 0.3 +0.3 +0.2 +0.2 t-0,2

2.5 3.0 2.9 2.9 2,6 2,5 2.4 3? 3.2 3~2

2.1 2.7 2,6 2.6 2.3 2.2 2.1 3.0 3.0 3.0

O.,~;. Plc~lstireTravel M'lrkel

I'rimary Activities Sunbathing Go~3g to live concerts or live theater Taking graded tours Going to bars and discos Attending ethnic festivals and events T~king, rktes at amuseme~=~, parks b;l,~pping for ~lrts and or;ills of the area

Secondary Activities Visiting museums and galleries Viewing science exhibits

Amenities Dining in elegant, sophisticated restaurants Staying in first-class hotels Dining in a variety of r~stauialli~

Location Being by the ocean

Benefits Spending time with someone special llaving fun, being entertained Getting away from pressures and responsibilities Just resting and relaxing Being together as a family

Benefits ~ Special Emphasis Finding thrills and excitement Meeting people with similar interests Having lots of different thing~ to see anc, do ~3zing pampe=ed, having all of one's needs attended to Taking advantzge ~f rcdta.::ed fares

:l IIUSNRt_.'S 19b19:| B: 1-79

49

50

J ~tl~':NI¢~

G . D . Taylor

Demograt~hics The respondents who constitute the big city product group have no distinguishing demographic characteristics. Their demographics are very similar to those of the entire sample.

Geographic Location The~c :~rc no distlngui~hing characteristics as far as geographic distribution by census division is concerned.

hnplications A big city p~,,duct ~egment tha" has c o m m o n requirements in terms of activities and that seek~ a set of mutual benefits has Leen described. The size of this product segment is muc~ larger than that described in the original report as a city trip type. Very nearly one-third of the big city groups were originally classified as touring, and one-quarter were in the close-to-home leisure group. The analys~s demonstrates that for the big city product group, ti,,~re are related activities and benefits; the respondents report attaining their product needs by different modes of travel. The big city pro.duct group shows some c o m m o n cLaraeteristics with the cultural product group. The culture group has a narrower range of interests and has some demographic and Le ~graph~c charactcrist,~cs that differentiate it from the total travel population. 7I've big city group has a wider range of interests and is representative of the travel population. By distinguishing tw~ product groups within the urban setting, the appeal that a city cad make te the market can be targeted more precisely. A marketing perspective ibr thi~ ~'o:,p can be developed as follows: 1. Segment 2. Activities 3. Amenities 4. '.Location 5. iBe~tefits o. Target

Big cities V a r i e t y - - e m e r t a i n m e n t , shopping, festivals, culture, ~ightseeing ~irst-class accommodations and restaurants; variety ~mportant A city located by an ocean would have an advantage Variety, escape, fun t~ large group that f t s within the characteristics of aU American travelers

Cultural Product The purpose of the analysis reported in this part of the paper is to determine if a cultural product can be described from the data available in the 1985 U.S. Pleasure Tram'el Market study. The bali,: approach taken in the analysis was to d~iel~Jaiii~ if a gr~u~ing of cultural activities existed that wourd allow the designation of a bundle of activ}ties that could qualify as a cultural product. A sl,-zble activity that was clearly a cuttura! one was selected, and then all of the other activit] :s were examined to determined if any clustering could be observed. Two trip types were sei~cted for the analysis, touri~g and city, as well as one

U.S. Plca,,;ure Travel Marke*

I tIDSNRES

51

I tl89.18: 1 - 7 9

i'able 32. Activities---Touring Trip Type. Where Visiting Museums and Galleries is Very o: Somewhat Important Item

Deviation

Mean

Grand Mean

Attending ethnic festivals or events Shg?.p'~ng for arts and crafts in the area Taking guided tours Viewing science exhibits Visiting .~mall towns and villages Visiting big cities Shol)ping Seeing wildlife o n e d n c s n ' | usually see G o i n g to zoos or wildl;fc eahibils Slaying in first-class hotels Dining in elegant, sophisticated restaurants G o i n g to live concerts or live thez'lre

+0.4 +0.4 +03 +0.3 + 0.2 +0.2 +tl.2 +~L2 +0.2 +0.2 +I).2 +0.2

2.9 2,9 2.9 2.7 3, I 2.7 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.3

2.5 2.5 2.6 2,,I 2,0 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.1

activity, visiting museums and galleries, reported as very or somewhat important. The respondents who met this definition were then isolated, and special computer printouts were produced that covered the following: 1. Benefits 2. Activities and interests 3. Demographics

Size of Projected Cultural Segmcnl A total of 1,322 respondents were identified by the selection criteria referred to above. This group represents 15% of the total sample but also, and more important, 60% of the touzing group and 57% of the ctty trip group. The respondent groups were exz:,:lined as separate entities for both trip types, and then they were combined to form a single culture segment (see Tables 32, 33).

Cultural Group - - Touring Trip Type The analysis of the benefits, activities, and interests, as well as the demographics, permitted the results to be arrayed under the following headingm 1. Activities a. Primary b. Secondary 2. Prime benefits 3 Amenities 4. Location 5. Who 6. Where On this basis, a group of touring travelers with a strong interest in cultural activities emerges:

52

(), D. Taylor

J I:~I,ISN|iliS ItlSIl: I ~l'll I~ 7t.I

Table 33. Activities---Touring Trip Type, Where Visiting Museums and Galleries is Very or Somewhat lm~ortaoi Item

Deviation

Mean

Grand Mean

Going to zoos or wildlife exhibits Viewing science exhibits Attending ethn;c fetivals or events Taking guided 1ours Walking or strolling about Shnppirlg Sampling local cuisine Visiting big cities Staying in firsl-class hotels Being by tht, ocean Going to live concerts or live theatre Attending sporting events Taking tides at amnseraent parks

+ 0.g +0.5 +0.3 +0.3 +0.2 + 0.2 +0.2 +0.2 + 0.2 +t;+2 4-t).2 + IJ.2 +0.2

3.2 2.8 2.6 2.0 3.2 3. I 3.1 3.0 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.4 2.2

2.4 2.3 2.3 2.3 3,11 2.9 2.9 2.11 2,5 2.4 2.4 2.2 2.0

t . Activities a. P r i m a r y ( t ) Visiting rnuset~m~ and galleries (2) V i e w i n g s c i e n c e exhibits (~) A t t e n d i n g e t h n i c festivals a n d e v e n t s (4) Silopping lot ut~.s a n d crafts o f t h e a r e a

b, Secondary (t) (2) (3) (4)

Shogping Goii~g to live t h e a t e r a n d ~oncerts G o i n g t o zoos o r wiidfife e x h i b i t s S e e i n g wildlife o n e d o e s n ' t usually s e e

2. P r i m e b e n e f i t s a. Fulfilling a d r e a m o f visiting a place o n e has always w a n t e d to visit 3. A m e n i t i e s a. Staying in first-class h o t e l s b. D i n i n g at elegaL, t, s o p h i s t i c a t e d r e s t a u r a n t s 4. L o c a t i o n a. Visiting big cities b. Visiting small t o w n s a n d villag :. 5. W h o a. This g r o u p t e n d s to b e o l d e r , c o n t a i n m o r e r e t i r e d p e o p l e , a n d consist o f m o r e f e m a l e s t h a n t h e total t o u r i n g trip g r o u p 6. W h e r e a. This g r o u p t e n d s to b e c o n c e n t r a t e d in t h e M i d d l e A t l a n t i c C e n s u s Division A r e c o g n i z a b l e culture p r o d u c t g r o u p e m e r g e s that has a s t r o n g i n t e r e s t in viewing culture, is i n t e r e s t e d in q u a l i t y a m e n i t i e s , sees t h e m a i n b e n e f i t as a p r e s t i g e trip, is c ' d e r , a n d c o n t a i n s a m a j o r i t y o f f e m a l e s . W h i l e this g r o u p is f o u n d in all c e n s u s divisions, o n e - q u a r t e r o f its m e m b e r s r e s i d e in t h e M i d d l e A t l a n t i c Division.

U.S. l'Ieasure Travel Market

Jt989: lJUSN aES tS: t~79

53

Culture Group ~ City Trip Type When the selected respondents from the city trip type were dealt with in the same way as those from the touring trip type, a similar culture group emerged: 1. Activities

a. Primary (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Viewing museums and galleries Going to zoos or wildfire exhibits Viewing science exhibits ,Mtending etllnic festivals and events Taking guided tours

b. Secondary (t) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Shopping Going to live theater m d concer::; Taking rides at amusement parks Attending :,porting events Walking or strolling about

2. Prime benefits a. Visiting places important in history b. Experiencing different cultures, ways of fife c. Fulfilling a dream of visiting a place one has ~.~l~sys w~nted to visit 3. Amenities a, Sta?ing in first-class hotels b. Having budget accommodation c, Samplb:g the local cuisine 4, Location a. Visiting big cities b~ Being by lhe ocean 5. Who a. The differentiating demographic characteristics of this group are that they are better educated and more affluent than all city trip travelers 6. Where a. This group tends to be located more in the Middle Atlantic and East North Central divisions and less in the Pacific There is a recognizable cult,,are product group in the city trip type. It is very similar to the group described for the touring trip type in that it has the same interest in v~ewing culture, in quality amenities, and ~n seeing the trip as a prestiguous one. There is a concentration in the Northeast. The interests of this g~oup a~e somewhat wider than the touring one and ~he members are slightly upscale (see Table 34).

A Cuhure Segment The two culture product groups that have emerged nave enough common characteristics so that a bleodiag of the two was attempted to see what would happen. The details of both groups are outlined in Table 34.

54

.! IIIISN RliS

G.D.

Taylor

"fi~bk~ M, A Cultt, rc S c ~ j ~ ' n t l l a s e d i ~ " t b u d n g a n d (?i|~ T r i p T y p e s Reported for Respondents Factor Activities Primary Visiting museums and galleries Viewing science exhibits Attending ethnic lestivals and events Taking guided tours Going to zoos or wildlife exhibits Secondary Going 1o live theatre and concerts Shopping Taking rides at amusement parks Attznding sports events Walking, strotling about Amenities Staying in first-class hotels Dining at elegani, sophisticated restaurants Sampling local cuisine Having budget accommodation Location Big cities Small towns and villages By the ocean Primary benefits Fulfilling a dream of visiting a p|ace one has always wanted to visit Visiting places important in history Experiencing different e~rtr~tre~, way~ of !if,~

Touring

City

X X X X

X X X X X

X X

X X X X X

X X

X X X

X X

X X

X

X X X

=Is a secondary activity or benefit,

The benefits that scored somewhat important or better for both group.,; of culture product users were isolated. Thirteen benefit statements qualified, and, of these, 12 were c o m m o n to both the touring trip type a~ad the city trip type. Thus, it appears that the culture product group is composed of people who seek similar l~enefits and use similar praduc~s but report taking different types of trips. The pertin..nt benefit statements are listed in Table 35. There would seen; to be sufficient evidence to suggest that there is a culture segment that has c o m m o n activities and benefits. The culture segment rziffers from the total sample demographically by bell U olaer, better educated, with more female members, and with a tendency to concentrate in the Northeast of the t!nited S~ates.

Marketing Implications A cuhure segrnenf has been developet~. This group has a high interest in a variety of cultural activities. It would need to be assured that the variety of activities w~u~_d be available and that there is sufficient capacity for them to be visited. The benefit

J BI.I,~I',I RI:S I~J89:Ig.: t-7 ~1

ItLS. I}lcaslu't; T r a v e l M a r k e t

55

Table 35. Benefit Statcnlcnls--~Cullutc (;roup, Stalcmcnls Comtno1~lo Touring Trip and City Trip Rank Order Factor

TmJring

City

! Lots o f different firings to see a n d J o z. S p e n d i n g time with s o m e o n e special 3, Being t o g e t h e r as a family d. G e n i n g a w a y from presstues a n d rc!;ponsibiiitiea 5. H a v i n g tim, being c n z e r l a i n e d o. ,It~st ~4:"¢liag an~l relaxing 7. Vi~;iling places illlllorlanl ill hisll)r F ~ i~siJclit:n~:ill~ dil'ieig~|t ¢ulturc~, way~ o[ lit'c ' 9. Travelling Io places where I feet safe arid secure I|). Fulfilling a d r e a m of visiting a place I have always w a n t e d to visil ! 1. Visiting friends a n d relatives 12..~Aeeling p~,~ple of similar interests

1 2 3 ,1 5 (~ 7 8 9 10 11 12

I 2 3 6 d 5 9 8 7 Il Ill 12

Statement Unique to ??mring Trip T a k i n g a d v a n t a g e of re(i,lced fares Sl(ttcp~Jent UniqJu" tO City 1}ip

Being physically aclivc

to stress would be the idea of prestige. Tile avmiabi!ity of quality amenities is also important. A marketing perspective for this group can be develoved as fol!owq1. Segment

Culture

2. Activities

Variety--museums, galleries, zoos, science exhibits, festivals, events; stress visiting and geeing

3. Benefit

Prestige--a place they have always wanted to visit, is important in history, has a different culture, way of life

4. Target

Older, female, well educated, northeastern United State~

Small T o w n and Village Product In this section, the data are examined to determine if a specific bundle of activities could be isolated and described as the main components of a small town and village product. A review of the questionnaire indicated that the activity "visiting small ~owns and villages" had been included for three trip types: touring, outdoors, and close-to-home leisure. All respondents in the three trip types who reported this ~ctivi~y as very important or somewhat important were identified. Special computer printouts were t~_en prepared for these r,~spondents based on the following variables: 1~ Benefit 2. Aetivides 3. Demographics

'lktble M~, Visi(i~lg Small Town and Village Respondents Trip Type

Number of |~.esporEdents

Totlling Close 1o home Outdoor Total

Percentage of Respondents for T: ip Type

1,184 1,167 65 ! 3,002

71 54 54 61

SL:e of the l'rojecwd Small 7~wn and Village Product A totai of 3,002 r e s p o n d e n t s were identified by the selection eri,c,ia r e f e r r e d to above. Thi,,; g r o u p represents 3 4 % ~ff the total satnpk,. T h e distribution of the r e s p o n d e n t s by tri? type and the p r o p o r t i o n they constitute of each trip type is shown in T a b l e 36. Tiffs activity is much m o r e i m p o r t a n t within the touring type trip than in the o t h e r two. i~ is also evident that tll~ activity does not provide a mutually exclusive group from the big city g r o u p described earlier in this section, particularly as far as the touring trip type is concerned. T h e visiting big city activity a c c o u n t e d for 55% ~)f the touring group, while the sm:;ll town a n d village activity appeals to 71%. T h e r e are, t h e n , some r e s p o n d e n t s w h o feel that b o t h activities are i m p o r t a n t . W h a t is not clear is w h e t h e r two distinct trips would be involved o r o n e trip that c o m b i n e d both activities. It is likely that t h r e e product uses are involved: i. A trip to small towns and villages 2. A trip to a big city 3. A tr~p to b o t h T h e p r o c e d u r e s followed in the analysis for this product g r o u p was identical to lhat for the o~her two trip types described earlier. T h e r e s p o n d e n t s in each type were analyzed as separate groups, and t h e n an a t t e m p t was m a d e to c o m b i n e t h e m into a single grot.,p (see Table 37). A n example of the anlaysis p e r f o r m e d is s h o w n in T a b l e 40. In the o u t d o o r case given in the table, the key distinguishing itents are readily identified as:

Table 37. Activities--Outdoor Trip Type Where Visiting Small Towns and VaYages is Very or Somewhat Important Item

Deviation

Mea~

Grand ~,Se,:n

Shopping for arts and crafts of the area Walking or strolling about Sampling the local cuisine indoor activities Scc!~g ":.'?,21ireone doesn't usually see Having predictable wealhcr Visiting m)tmal parks flaying budget accommodation Swimming Beiu~ b~ the ocean

+ 0.4 + 0.3 ~0.3 + 0.3 + (1.2 +(I.2 +0.2 +0.2 +0,2 +0.2

2.5 3.4 2,7 2.3 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.2 2.7 2.5

2. [ 3. I z.~ 2,0 ~.0 ~0 2.9 3.0 2.5 2.3

U.S. Pleasure Travel Marke!

!. ?. 3. 4.

J BUSNRES 1989', 18:1-79

57

Shopping f,ar arts and crafts ~.ff the area Walking or strolling ab.mt Sampling the local cuisine Indoor activities

A similar procedure was followed fo ~ all benefit and activity statements for the ~cleeted ~espondents for the three trip types. A second anmysis was performed q; ~! examined the overall mean scores for the items for each respondent. In this way, an item that had not demonstrated a aoticcable deviation from the grin," mean for lhc lrip lypc, but was still considered i,nportam, could be included in ihe detiniliou o f the product ScgcnlClll,

Small Town and ~~ilage Product Group The analysis of benefits, activitic;, and demographie.~ for the three trip types showed that a distinct product group could be described. This new group cuts across the predetermined trip type and describes a group of consumers wl~o travel by different means to attain a desired experience. The characteristics of this small town and village produc~ group are listed below.

Primary Activities Visiting natural parks Attending ethnics festivals or evcnts Walking or strolling ab:~.~! Visiting museums and £adieres

Secondary Activilies 5arapliag ~he Ioc:d ,:~,,;,i~e Seeing wi~dtife o~ ' ',~cJ~:sn":usually see Swimming Hiking, b:,,kpack Mg

Amenitie.~" Ha~ m~ ~:u~gct ,cc~.~,}~modation

Loca~ f~;z

Benefit~ Spending time with someone special Being together as a family

58

-,i9R9:18:1-79 BusN RES

G . D . Taylor

J:~st resting and r~iaxing Having lots of things to see arid do Traveling to places where one feels safe and secure Getting away from pressures and responsibilities Having fun. being entertained

Demographics The respondents who constitute this group are similar to the total sample in terms of their demographics, except that those who travel on a touring trip are more likely to be older, female, and retired than the participants from the other two t,s~es.

Geographic Location The respondents are representative of the population distribution except that there is a concentration of touring in Middle Atlantic, outdoors in East North Central, and close-to-home ie~sure in New England.

Marketing Perspective A marketing perspective for the small town and village gro~p can be developed a s fellows: I. Segment

Smali towns and villages

2. Activities

Outdoors with cultural interests

3. Amenities

Budget accommod,'~on

4. Location

Water is an important factor

5. Benefits

Variety., family, 2un, safetb'

6. Target

A large group that fits w~.~b.inthe characteristics of alI American travelers

Product Implications "| ne basic product requirements of three clear segmen.s have been developed. The kmds of facilities, activities, and amenities that constitute the product in the thoughts of the travelers who comprise these segments have been spelled out. The first task for those parts of the tourism industry concerned with product developmerit is to identify all of those places where all of the element3 of the product requirements currently exist. The second task is to bring the owners of the various facilities together to ensure that they recognize the mutual interdependencx that they have in the market place. A third task is to identify those places that have some but not all of the elements present. It would then be necessary to deterrnine if it would be f~asible to add the missing elements or to determine if substitute facilities could be developed.

U.S. Pleasure Travel Market_

J1989:BUSNt 8:1-79RES

59

In this way, the organizations that supply the product will be able to recognize their rote in the total tourism business and, by seeing themselves as part of a product rather than as the product itself, assure themselves of a more profitable operation in the future.

Methodological Limitations It would be possible to develop a wide variety of product groups by the methodology tested in this chapter. For most product purposes, a limited number of groups would seem to be needed, While a variety of ways for limiting the number of groups could be suggested, the most feasiabte one, in a Canadian context, would be to determine if segments emerged similar to those developed by cluster analyms in other Tourism Canada studies. The Canadian Tou,~sm A,m,tude and Motivation Study of 1983 produced six product segments. These segments were as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Outdoor Resort City culture Heritage Bed and breakfast City spree (Burak and Jacobson, 1985)

Th,e international market segmentation studies carried out in the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Japan, and the United Kingdom under the joint sponsorship of the U.S. Travel and Tourism Administration and Tourism Canada in 1986 developed product segments for each country. Frem five to seven product segments emerged for each nation. Some of these segments were common to all countries; a few were unique to a single country. The main product segments derived from the four overseas studies are: Sports and entertainment Culture and comfort Developed resort Big city Culture and nature Outdoors Rural beach All of these segments occur in two or more of the countries. With the experience gained from these five segmentation studies, the number of product segments to be sought from the U.S. study on a practical basis would seem t o b e six or seven. Such a limitation should not prevent specia! product interests from analyzing the data for more specific segmet~-:.. Perception of D e s t i n a t i o n s Respondents in the survey were asked to name destinations that they would like to visit on future trips. For three destinations (one in the United States, one in

60

J ISUSNRES

G . D . Taylor

!989.:18:1-7~

C a n a d a , a n d o n e in a foreign c o u n t ~ ) for a specific trip type, they were asked to rate o n a scale of i - i 0 h o w weil they thougt~t that the selected d e s t i n a t i o n p r o v i d e d a wide variety of services a n d amenities. A s wi~h the a t t ~ b u t e questions that dealt with benefits a n d acti-,, ides, t h e r e were a different n u m b e r of s t a t e m e n t s d e p e n d i n g o n the trip type, a n d the s t a t e m e n t s were not c o m m o n across al.~ trip types. "Une n u m b e r of s t a t e m e n t s p e r trip type were as follows: C~ty type trip

32

T o u r i n g ~,pe tNp

27

R e s o r t type trip

25

Ve D, few o f t h e p e r c e p t i o n s t a t e m e n t s were the same as the activity s t a t e m e n t s . T h e activity s t a t e m e n t s established a m e a s u r e of the i m p o r t a n c e of an a t t r i b u t e , while the p e r c e p t i o n s t a t e m e n t s m e a s u r e h o w well the travelers recognized t h e occurrence of t h e attribute at a specific place. A s a result, it is n o t possible to m e a s u r e t h e relationship b e t w e e n the i m p o r t a n c e of a n attribt~te a n d t h e recognition o f its occurrence. H e n c e , the p e r c e p t i o n results can be d e a l t with only in o n e d i m e n s i o n , t h e d e ~ ' e e of recognition of occurrence. A very v a l u a b l e analysis ~hat links i m p o r t a n c e a n d recognition o f a t t r i b u t e s c a n n o t b e d o n e . It is very import_ant for m a r k e t i n g a n d d e v e l o p m e n t decisions to know a n d u n d e r s t a n d this linkage. A n illustration o f this p o i n t will clarify what it means. In the case of resort trips, t h e r e were 4"," activity s t a t e m e n t s a n d 25 p e r c e p t i o n s t a t e m e n t s , a n d c f these only four are c o m p a r a b l e . H e n c e , it is n o t possible to j u d g e specific resort d e s t i n a t i o n s against the things p e o p l e say are i m p o r t a n t to t h e m . T h e r e is, h o w e v e r , a great deal o f useful analysis t h a t can b e d o n e with the data in looking at h o w destinations c o m p a r e with o n e a n o t h e r o n a tist of i m p o r t a n t criteria. M e a n scores have b e e n d e v e l o p e d for each attribute s t a t e m e n t . A n exa m i n a t i o n basefl o n these m e a n scores will be m a d e o f the p e r c e p t i o n of resort, city, a n d touring destinations.

Resort Destination." D a t a are available for 11 resorts d e s t i n a t i o n s in the U n i t e d States, C a n a d a , a n d Mexico. T h c s e d e s t i n a t i o n s are as follows:

United States Las Vegas Florida I-Iawafi California

Canada C a n a d i a n Rockies Ontario

U.S. Pleasure Travel Market

J1989:18:1-79 r~USNRES

61

Table 38. Average Perception of American, Canadian, and Me×icap Resor¢ Areas Resort Areas American Hawaii California Florida Las Vegas Canada Quebec Pacific Coast Ontario Canadian Rockies

Average Score 7.8 7.5 7.4 6.9 6.8 6.7 6.5 63

Mexico Acopulco Puerto VaHarta Cancun

7_4 7.4 7.3

Pacific Coast Quebec

Mexico Acapuico Cancun Puerto Vallarta These destinations were preselected for use in tee questionnaire, and they were sUected by the respondent from a flash cazd on the basis of one per country for a total of three. The procedure for selecting destinations was similar for all trip types (see Table 38). Hawaii has the highest perception as a resort area, with California, Florida, and the Mexican resorts closely bunched behind, followed by Las Vegas and the C~nadian destinations. The major differences in the mean scores are ca,~sed by three attributes: is a great place for sunbathing, is particularly good for watersports, and has great beaches. If these three attributes are removed from the calculation of the average scores, the differences between the various destinations become much less. While the average score is useful for quick comparison, it can be misleading, particularly if the attribute being measured is physically missing as hi the case of beach-related statements in Las Vegas and the Canadian destinations. Resort travelers heading for Las Vegas and the Canadian Rockies are looking for different experiences than those traveling to Florida or Califo_vnia. The complete list of attribute statements and average scores for !1 resort destinations that emerged as top choices for future resort trips is presented in Table 3% If perception data can be used to measure what it is that gives a destination an edge in the battle for the top choice of travelers, a brief listing of key images of the four U.S. resort destinations can be developed to show this edge:

62

J BUSN IIEN t989:18:1-79

G.D.

Taylor ~ " "

Las Vegas Is an exciting area Has exciting nightlife and e n t e r t a i ; m e n t is different from other resort areas Is a good place to live it up

Hawaff ts a great place for sunbathing Is a weIl-known resort area Has a climate one likes Is a place friends would be interested to hear about Is particularly good for water sports Has great beaches I~ a good place to m e e t someone of the opposite sex Is a good place to experience different cultures and ways of life Has truly beautiful scenery Is a place one would really enjoy visiting Is a good place for just walking or strolling about Florida and California do not have any definite edge except in the perception of distance. W h e n the same examination is applied to the Canadian destinations, some distinct edges appear for each of them

Quebec Is a place popular with travelers Has elegant, sophisticated restaurants Is a place where there is a variety of things to see and do Has exciting nightlift and entertainment Is different from other resort areas Has excellent local cuisine Is a good place to live it up Is a good place to experience different cultures and ways of life Has many points of interest within a short distance of each other

Pacific Coast Is a great place for sunbathing Is particularly good for watersports

1989:18:1-79

Has great beaches Is a place one would really enjoy visiting Is a good place for just walking and strolling

Canadian Rockies Is a place friends would be interested to hear about Is particularly good for fishing and hunting Has truly beautiful scenery Ontario has no specific edge. The edge available to each of the three Mexican resorts can also be determir

Acapulco ts a place popvlar with travelers Is a place where there is a variety of things to see and do Has exciting nightlife and entertainment Is a place friends would be interested to hear about Is a good place to live it up Is a good place to meet people with similar interests Neither Cancan nor Puerto Vallarta have a particular edge on this sel measurements. O n e other measure can be developed, and that is the resort that has the image one each item across all 11 destinations (see Table 40). Hawaii has the image on 11 of attributes, Las Vegas on six, and Florida and the Canadian Roc] on one each.

City Destinations Perceptions were collected on 12 city destinations: five in the United States, f in Canada, and three in Europe. The specific cities selected were as follows:

United States Los Angeles San Francisco New Orleans New York Washington

64

.~ BUSN RES 1989: I ~,;[-79

~'~r-:

~

•~ 8 ~ ~ 8

--

~

~

J ~ u s N RES 1989:1~:)-7~

8

65

(.~

J B'JSN RES !.~2 ::t8:1-79

G.D.

Taylor

abIe 4~. T o p I m a g e ~ c f R e s o ~ Destinat_;ons ,~ t t 6by_to Is an exciting area Is a great F l a ~ for sur ,athing Has elegemt, ~ p h ' q i ~ ed restaurants IS a wel~-krlo~T~ TC2~U ~ r e a Is n o t t o o far f o r o n e o go [email protected] exciting flightilY: '~d entertair~m'~nt Is different from ~the resort areas Ha~ a cILql~,te 0112, ~k :S Is a place fi'Sends wo~ ] a be intereste~ to hear about Has ~ffordzble ~zcoz .modatinn ~s parlSeu~ar!y g m d ". )r water sp-o=t~ Has excellent lrcal c zisine ts a goo~ plae-, t o i i e it up Has great be*_*h e s A good plac, ro mezt someone of the eF.mslte sex Is par'fieu|a*ly good for huntmg ~ d ff.shL~g Hzs traty bea~atiful s c e n e r y is a place er~z wou-~ really e~joy visit.;rg I~ a good F~ace for just w~king and s~rolling about

Top Image Las Vegas H~waH i_as Vegas Hawaii Fiorida Las Vegas r_~s Vegas . - aii i'L~ all [.as Vegas Hz uaii Hawaii Las Vegas Hawaii Hawaii Canadiaa R o c k i e s Ha~aaii Hawaii Hawaii

Can~.ada Vancouver

Toronto

Montreal Quebec C~ty

Europe l_,ondon

Paris Rome Three cities emerge with the highest perception: San Francisco, London, and Paris, with N e w Orleans and R o m e next in rank (see Table 41). The scores for the city destinations are much more closely grouped than they are for resorts. There is probably more sim~darit3, b~t-ween city destinations than there is between resort destinations, at least insofar as this study's examples are concerned. The complete lk~ of att~butes statements and average scores for 12 city destinations that emerged as to F choices for future city trips is presented in Table 45 (see also Table 42). If perception data can be used to measure what it is that gives a city an edge in the battle for top choice with travelers, a brief listing of key images of the five U . S . cities can be developed to show this edge:

U.S. Pleasure Travel Market

J BtJSN RES !98:9:f8:!-79

67

Table 41. Average Perception of U.S., Canadian, and European City Destinations

City Destinations U.S.A. San Francisco New Orleans New Yerk Washington Los Angeles Canada Toronto Montreal Quebec City Vancouver Europe Paris London Rome

Average Score 7.1 7_0 68 6.8 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.4 7. ! 7.1 7.0

San Francisco Is a beautiful city

N e w Orleans Is a city few have seen Is a city one has d r e a m e d o f visiting W o u l d b e different from cities o~e knows Is not an expensive city

Washington H a s many parts of interest within a short distance o f each o t h e r t t a s g o o d m u s e u m s and art galleries is n o t e d for its history N e i t h e r New York nor Los A n g e l e s have a distinct edge over the o t h e r three cities on this list o f attributes. A n examination of the negative aspects of p e r c e p t i o n can be d o n e for the following cities:

N e w York Is a dirty city Is not a beautiful city ts a c r o w d e d city Is an expensive city

68

J BUSN RES 19o°9:18:1-79

G . D . Taylor

Is n o t safe at nigh~ Does n o t h a v e affordable a c c o m m o d a t i o n

Los Angeles Enjoy~ popularity with travelers H a s points of interest within a short distance of each o t h e r Is t o o far away Is n o t different from cities o n e knows ts n o t a famous city Is n o t a city o n e would really e n j o y visiting Is n o t n o t e d for h i s t o ~

Washington D o e s n o t h a v e different culture or ways o l life ts n o t a good place to live it u p Is not a city of e t h n i c contrasts Is n o t a swinging city H a s n o local cuisine, shopping, o r nightlife a n d e n t e r t a i r m e n t N e i t h e r S~.n Francisco n o r New O r l e a n s have any clear n e g a t i v e perceptions. W h e n the t h t e e C a n a d i a n cities are c o m p a r e d in the s a m e way, V a n c o u v e r e m e r g e s as t h e least k n o w n of t h e m . This study was c o n d u c t e d late in 1985. before the start o f E x p o '86. tt would b e interesting to h a v e data collected in late 1986 from a similar target g r o u p to see if the p e r c e p t i o n of V a n c o u v e r has c h a n g e d as a result o f t h e highly s u c c e s s ~ t W o r l d ' s Fair. T h e p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e C a n a d i a n cities is n o t as high as t h a t of the five U.S. cities. E a c h of t h e t h r e e E u r o p e a n cities has a n edge o n a limited n u m b e r o f the attribute-~:

London H a d beautiful parks a n d g a ' d e n s Has good m u s e u m s a r A ar~ galleries

Paris Is a swinging city H a s elegant sophisticated r e s t a u r a m s H a s exciting nightiLe a n d e n t e r t a i n m e n t

U.S. Pleasure Travel Market

J1989:18:1-79 Bust~ RES

69

Rome W o u l d be different from cities o n e k n o w s ~s a c;" ~- ~f ethnic contrasts ~.s ~ z'5,.nate o n e !ikes A s with resorts, one o t h e r m e a s u r e can be developed, a n d that is the city that has the top image o n each item across all t 2 destinations (see T a b l e 43). T h r e e cities ( L o n d o n , N e w York, a n d San Francisco) share top spot with five attributes each.

Touring Destinations D a t a are available for 12 touring destinations in the U n i t e d States. C a n a d a , a n d E u r o p e . Similar to r e s o ~ destinations, these destinations are regional ones. They are as follows:

United States New E n g l a n d California U.S. Rockies

Canada Pacific Coast M a r i t i m e Provinces Ontario Quebec C a n a d i a n Rockie~

Europe Central Europe Southern Europe Scandinavia G r e a t Britain F o u r of the five C a n a d i a n destinations also a p p e a r e d pp~e- the resort category, as did California in the U n i t e d States (see T a b l e 4J" New" E n g l a n d a n d S o u t h e r n E u r o p e have the L~ghest perception rating, foJlowed ctoseIy by California. T h e scores for the touring destinations are not as closely g r o u p e d as were those for cities, but they are closer t h a n for re~o~s.

70

J BUSN RES 1989:18: I ~79

J BUSN RES 1989:18:1-79

/.,.,, a~

"r-, ~.

~'~

~

,~.=

~

~:~

o=

8

71

72

J BUSN RES 1999:lg:t-79

G.D.

T a b l e 43. T o p I m a g e s o f C i t y D e s t i n a t i o n s Attribute

T o p Image

Is popular with trave|ers Is a city few have seen H a s m a n y points of interest within a short distance Is a good place to experience different cultures, ways of life Is not too far away Is a city one has dreamed of visiting Is not a dull city Is not a dirty city Is a good place to live it u p Is a city of interesting people Would be different from cities one knows Is a d r y of ethnic contrasts Is a g o o d city for walking, strolling about Is a swinging city Has excellent local cuisine Is a beautiful city Has elegant, sophisticated restaurants Is a famous city Is not a crowded city H a s well-known landmarks a n d places of interest H a s beautiful parks a n d gardens H a s exciting nightlife and entertainment Is not an expensive city H a s g o o d museum a n d art galleries H a s a climate one likes H a s affordable accommodation

San Francisco Vancouver Washington Paris New York Rome San Francisco Vancouver New York New York Rome New Yo~k London New Orleans New Orleans Rome San Francisco London Vanco,~v¢:~ London London New York Vancouver London San Francisco San Francisco

Table 44. Average Perception of American Canadian and European Touring Destinations Touring Destinations American New England Califomia U.S. Rockies Canadian Pacific Coast Ontario Quebec Maritime Provinces Canadian Rockies European S o m h e m Europe Central Europe G r e a t Britain Scandinavia

Average Score 7.2 7,1 6.5 6.8 6.7 6.7 6.6 6.2 7.2 6.8 6.8 6.8

Taylor

U.S.

PEeasure Travel Market

J BUSN RES 1989:18:I-79

73

T h e complete list of attributes statements and average scores for 12 destinations is presented in Table 45. Again, it is possible to measure which attributes would seem to give some touring destinations an edge o v e r their competition in the battle for top choice with travelers. The following brief listing of key image factors that would distinguish the three U.S. destinations has been developed:

New England Is safe to travel in Has excellent local cuisine Has well-known landmarks and places of interest ls not a dull area Is noted for its history Has many points of interest within a short distance of each other

California Is an area popular with travelers Has great beaches Has elegant, sophisticated restaurants I-ias first-class hotels Has a climate one likes Has affordable accommodation Has places with exciting nightlife and entertainment

U.S. Rockies Is an area few travelers go to Is a good area for viewing wildlife Is a natural untouched r e , o n Is not an expensive area to visit The five Canadian destinations can be examined in the same way:

Pacific Coast Has

great beaches

Maritime Provinces Is an area few travelers go to Has affordable accommodation

74

J BUSN RES 1989:18:1-79

!

°~

,2

o.

<

~'~ .~.

~.~o_

~=~.~°~

~z.~ '~ ~'~'~...o.=~o ~.~ co

~.o

J BUSN~
1989:18:~-79

r~

r~

OG

~','~

~

~

rz

"d-

c~

c~

75

76

J BUSN RES 1989:18:1-79

G.D.

Taylor

Quebec Has elegant, sophisticated restaurants Has first-class hotels Has places with exciting nightlife and entertainment

Canadian Rockies Is a good area for viewing wildlife Is a natural and untouched area Ontario did not s~_and out as a clear leader on any of the statements. While for the three U.S. regions, pictures of the key attractions emerge at least in the minds of the travelers, no suzh clear view exists for the Canadian ones. A n examination of the perception of E u r o p e a n destinations will show if a picture of their perceived attraction emerges with more clarity than was the case with Canada as follows:

Southern Eurove Is a place fdends would be impressed to hear about Has great beaches Has elegant, sophisticated restaurants Is a good place to experience different cultures and ways of life Is an area one has dreamed of visiting Has excellent loca| cuJsfne Has a climate one likes Has affordable accommodation Has many points of interest within a s h o ~ distance of each oti~cr Has places with exciting nightlife and e n t e ~ a i n m e n t

Scandinavia Is a good area for v~;ewing witdlife Is safe to travel in Is a natural, untouched reHon There are no clear edges awarded to G r e a t Britain or Central E u r o p e Southern E u r o p e has a clear and distinct advantage as a touring destination in Europe. The other measure that can be developed is to determine which touring destination has the top image on eazh item across all 12 aestinatiens (see 'Fable 46;. Tiae three touring destinations with the most top attributes are $~uthern Europe (6), California (5), a,~d Great Britain (4).

J BUSN RES 19S9:18:1-79

U.S. Pleasure Travel Market

77

T a b l e 4 6 . T o p In, a g e s o f T o t w i n g D e s t i n a t i o n s Attribute Is an area popular with travelers Is a place friends would be ~impressed to hear about H a s great beaches Has elegant, sophisticated resta,lrant_s Is very different from o t h e r Flaces c a e knows Is an area few travellers g o to Is a g o o d place to experience differeot cultures, ways of life Is safe to travel in is an area one has d r e a m e d of visiting Has excellent local cuisine Has well-known landmarks and places of interest Is a natural, untouched reg':on Has interesting cities and towns Is noted for its history Would have a climate one i:kez H a s many points of interest within a short distance of each other Is a well-known area Has places with exciting l~ghtiife and entertainmea ~ Is not an expensive area to visit Has lots of things to see and d o

T o p Image California Southern Eur.~pe California C=lifornia Southerv Europe Maritime Provinces Southern Europe New England Southern Europe Southern Europe G r e a t Britain Canadian Rockies Southern Europe G r e a l Britain California G r e a t Britain New England California U.S. Rockies Great Britain

Uves o f the Data A I m of information has been presented on how a variety of destinations for resort, cit~,, and touring trips are perceived by a large sample of U.S. travelers. The information clearly differentiates between those destinations zhat have an image that distinguishes them if,gin the others and those that do not stand out. Thus, California has a much clearer .~mage as a city destination thanks te San Francisco and as a touring destination than it does as a resort destination. If Canadian cities wish to compete with U.S. cities for U.S. city trip travelers, they should examine the image they have in comparison to U.S. cities in each attribute. The tete" comparison cannot be made here, but a few examples can be given.

W h e n Montreal is compared with New York, ~he former has a better image for the following: the e|eanliness of the city~ different city, walking and strolling about, a beautiful city, not crowded, beautiful parks and gardens, not expensive, safe at night, affordable accommodation. Thus, on only nine of the 32 vttributes is Montreal ranked higher than New York. !n light of this, Montreal needs to examine carefully where it is ranked below New York and determine if the perception is in keeping with reality. Where the attribute exists in Montreal and can be judged to be as good as in New York, the problem is a communications one - - the market needs to be told about the facilities. If, on the other hand, the perception o f a lower rank is correct, then two possibilities exist: 1. If it is a n a t u r a l o c c u r r e n c e s u c h as c l i m a t e , iitt!e c a n b e d o n e to c h a n g e it although a message of how the climate can be adapted to could help. 2. I f a facility is t a c l d ~ g , ther~ a f t e r full e x a m i n a t i o n a b u s i n e s s d e c i s i o n m u s t b e m a d e e i t h e r t o d e v e l o p t h e miss,.'ng facility o r n o t t o .

78

z19"89:i8:1-79 BUSNRES

O . D . Taylor

This type e f detailed ~xamination should be made by each of the destinations, particularly where two ~reas can be seen as competing for the same market. O t h e r Analysis The data avMlable from the U.S. Pleasure Travel Market study has been used by a number of researchers and tourism agencies to develop a more comprehensive understanding o: this important travel market. Within Tourism Canada, the data have been used to help identify the package tour market, the mature market, and the market priorities by trip type and census di,dsion. These analyses have all been done internally and used as part of an ongoing market pla.:ming process. The Or~tario Ministry of Recreation and Tourism commissioned an analysis of the data. The objective of this anaiy~s was to provide a definitive vew of Ontario's potential within the U.S. pleasure travel market and take a look at the c.:~y market as it relates to Toronto (Ontario, I986). The Quebec Minist~,2¢ of Tourism and the Quebec Region of the federal Departmeg: of Regional Industrial Expansion studied the results of the survey to examine Quebec's potential in the U.S. p!easure travel market (Quebec, 1987). Both the Ontario , , ~ the Quebec studies are good examples of the use that can be made of the survey from a destination viewpoint. Taylor (1987) reported on the results as a means of describing current and potential foreign travel by Americans. His conclusion points out the value of travel related segmentation to travel marketing: "It is apparent that the critical starting tmim is with the segmentation specifically related ~o travel. The geographic and socioeconomic characteristics become descriptions of that market.'" Dybka (1986, 1987) has provided a useful summary of th~ study a!ong with a review of some of the immediate impacts of the results. These impacts include the re-design of Tourism Canada's marketing campaign in the United States and the launching of "a series of pilot projects which wilt evaluate the tourism impact of selected Canadian cultural and multiculturat destinations promoted in the U.S. market in 1986 and 1987." Other research activity, has been stimulated at universities in Canada and the United States, and the results of this work will become available in the near future. In addition, the results have been incorporated into tourism marketing and development courses in several universities and at industry-sponsored educational activities (Taylor, 1986). The author acknowledgesthe contributions made to the preparation of this paper by N. Ceddihey. B. Masson, G. Yates, and J. Batterworth.

References

Bnrak-Jaeobson, Segmentation Analysis for the Canadian Tourism Auit:~de a~.d Motivation Study, Burak-Jacobso~, Inc., Toronto, April, 1985. Dybka, Jerry, Attracting U.S. Tourists to Canada. Tourism Management 7 (Sept. 1986): 262-204.

U.S. Pleasure Trave! Market

J BUSN RES 1989:I8:1-79

79

Dybka, Jerry, A Look at the American Traveller, and The U.S. Pleasure Travel Market. Journal o f Travel Research 25 (Winter !987~: 2-4. Ontario, Tourism Research Section, U.S. Pteasure Travel Market: Ontario Potential, Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, Toronto, May 1986a. Ontario, Tourism Research Section, U.S. Pleasure Travel Market: Toronto PotentiM, Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, Toronto, May 1986b. Qu6bec, Minist~re du Tourism, The U.S. Pleasure T~avel Market: American Tr~'.,et.,~;dentior~s and Perceptions o f the Quebec Tourism Product, Minist~re du Tourism, Qu6bec, 1~87. Stevens, Blair, The U.S. Pleasure Travel Market Study, in Tourism and Technology: A Growing Part,~ership. Travel and Tourism Research Association, Salt Lake City, Utah, November, 1986, pp- 177-182. Taylor, Gordon D., Canada's Mega Travel Research, in Tourism and Technology: A Growing Partnership, Travel and Tourism Research Asso~ation, Sazt Lake City, Utah, No~,.ember, t986a, pp. t64-171. Taylor, Gordon D., Package Tour Planning and Development - - TooLs for Success, in A.B.A.'s 9th Annual lnstitule of Learning. Semina-s, American Bus Association, Washington, D.C., Dec. t986b, p. 10. Taylor, Gordon D., Foreign Pleasure Travel by Americans, Journal o f Travel Research, 25 (Winter 1987): 5-7. Tourism Canada, U.S. Pleasure Travel Market, Canadian Potential-. Highlights ~eport, Department of Regiona! Industrial Expansion, Ottawa, January 1986a. Tourism Canada, U.S. Pleasure Travel Market, Canadian Potenffal: Main Report, Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, Ottawa, January 1986b. Tourism Canada, Package Travel by eamericans, Department of Regional !ndustrial Expansion, Ottawa. September, 1986~.