Prior Experience and Destination Advertising Response

Tourism Analysis, Vol. 19, pp. 351–359 Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. Copyright Ó 2014 Cognizant Comm. Corp.

1083-5423/14 $60.00 + .00 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/108354214X14029467968600 E-ISSN 1943-3999 www.cognizantcommunication.com

PRIOR EXPERIENCE AND DESTINATION ADVERTISING RESPONSE

YEONGBAE CHOE,* JASON L. STIENMETZ,† AND DANIEL R. FESENMAIER* *National Laboratory for Tourism & eCommerce, Department of Tourism, Recreation and Sport Management, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA †National Laboratory for Tourism & eCommerce, School of Tourism & Hospitality Management, Fox School of Business, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Prior experience has been recognized as one of the most important factors affecting travelers’ decision making and travel behavior. However, advertising effectiveness research has largely ignored how prior experience differentiates travelers’ responses to destination advertising. As such, this study examines the relationship between traveler’s experience at the destination, traveler and trip characteristics, and advertising response. The findings of this study clarify these relationships and provide important implications for the improvement of destination advertising response models and, in turn, the design of destination marketing programs. Key words: Destination advertising response; Advertising effectiveness; Conversion

require more information about the destination and tend to do different activities at the destination, they respond differently to travel advertising than repeat visitors. Furthermore, it is posited that understanding these differential responses between first-time and repeat visitors is especially important for destination marketing organizations (DMOs) wanting to attract more travelers through destination advertising in that the number of travelers to the destination is difficult to maintain without a continuous flow of both new and repeat visitors (Kim, Hwang, & Fesenmaier, 2005; Pratt, McCabe, Cortes-Jimenez, & Blake, 2010). Thus, this study seeks to extend recent research in destination advertising response

Introduction Research has demonstrated that prior experience substantially affects travelers’ attitude toward a destination as well as travel behaviors (Chi, 2012; Fakeye & Crompton, 1991; Fesenmaier & Vogt, 1992; Kozak, 2001; Lau & McKercher, 2004; Litvin, 2007; Morais & Lin, 2010; Vogt, Stewart, & Fesenmaier, 1998; Wöber & Fesenmaier, 2004). Unfortunately, little research has considered the differential effects of prior experience (first time vs. repeat) on travelers’ response to destination advertising. However, based on the tourism literature, one would argue that since first-time visitors

Address correspondence to Daniel R. Fesenmaier, Professor and Director, National Laboratory for Tourism & eCommerce, Department of Tourism, Recreation and Sport Management, University of Florida, 300 Florida Gym, PO Box 118208, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

351

352

CHOE, STIENMETZ, AND FESENMAIER

by identifying the differences in traveler experience at the destination and travelers’ response to destination advertising. Background This research builds upon the framework proposed in the DAR model by Park, Nicolau, and Fesenmaier (2013) to assess the effectiveness of tourism advertising. The DAR model is based upon traditional advertising response models (MacInnis & Jaworski, 1989; Mehta, 1994) but differs in two important ways. First, the DAR model incorporates various trip decision facets (e.g., decisions related to choice of destination, accommodations, attractions, restaurants, shopping, and events) within the overall advertising response framework (see Fig. 1) according to hierarchical structure of trip decision making (Choi, Lehto, Morrison, & Jang, 2011; Jeng & Fesenmaier, 2002). Second, the DAR model estimates the contributions of each triprelated decision to overall trip expenditure separately (Stienmetz, Maxcy, & Fesenmaier, in press). This facet-based approach is compatible with traditional economic theories of consumer behavior

Figure 1. The destination advertising response (DAR) model.

(Becker, 1971; Lancaster, 1971) whereby each trip decision alters the perceived cost of travel, which in turn ultimately influences all subsequent travel decisions (Stienmetz et al., in press). The DAR model has been extended in several recent studies by Stienmetz and his colleagues (Choe, Stienmetz, & Fesenmaier, 2013, in press; Stienmetz et al., in press; Stienmetz & Fesenmaier, 2014) and includes each trip facet decision (e.g., destination choice, attractions, restaurants, accommodations, events, and shopping) as well as moderating variables suggested by Moutinho (1987) and others (Choe et al., 2013, in press; Gretzel, Hwang, & Fesenmaier, 2012; Grønflaten 2009) such as group size, trip purpose, length of trip, information channel, trip budget, and travel distance. The tourism literature has clearly demonstrated that prior experience with a travel destination is an important factor affecting travel decision making. In particular, this research demonstrates that there are significant differences between first-time and repeat visitors in terms of traveler characteristics (e.g., gender, age, income), trip characteristics (e.g., length of trip, trip budget), trip-related decisions (e.g., activities and attractions visited), total trip

PRIOR EXPERIENCE AND ADVERTISING EFFECTIVENESS

expenditures, and even psychological aspects (e.g., perceived image, motivation, loyalty) (Chi, 2012; Fakeye & Crompton, 1991; Kozak, 2001; Kruger, Botha, & Saayman, 2012; Kruger, Saayman, & Ellis, 2010; Lau & McKercher, 2004; Li, Cheng, Kim, & Petrick, 2008; Litvin, 2007; Morais & Lin, 2010; Okamura & Fukushige, 2010; Shani, Reichel, & Croes, 2012; D. Wang, 2004). Importantly, this literature indicates that the respective groups differ significantly in terms of experiences they have while visiting the destination and therefore they tend to have different attitudes toward destination. That is, first-time visitors tend to go to the most “famous” places at the destination (e.g., large icons and events) whereas repeat visitors are more like to have a specific (single) purpose for their visitation (e.g., visiting family and friends, shopping) and to engage in activities related to local culture and life (Fakeye & Crompton, 1991; Kruger et al., 2010; Lau & McKercher, 2004; D. Wang, 2004). Also, prior experience is closely related to knowledge and familiarity with the destination (Fakeye & Crompton, 1991; Kruger & Saayman, 2013; Oppermann, 1998). That is, repeat visitors tend to be more knowledgeable of the range of activities available at the destination (Lau & McKercher, 2004; D. Wang, 2004); first-time visitors, on the other hand, tend to seek variety at the destination and therefore they tend to search for the information about the destination from many different information sources (Fesenmaier, 1985; Kruger et al., 2010; Shani et al., 2012; Vogt et al. 1998). Furthermore, first-time and repeat visitors differ significantly in their level of involvement in trip planning and trip behavior (Okamura & Fukushige, 2010; C. Y. Wang & Wu, 2011) in order to reduce risk while repeat visitors tend to simplify the decision-making process based on prior experience (Fesenmaier, 1985; Jeng & Fesenmaier, 2002; Shani et al., 2012). Concomitantly, repeat visitors have more confidence and perceive less risk and uncertainty compared to first-time visitors because they are more familiar with the destination and can utilize their own experiences and internal memory when travel information is needed (Roehl & Fesenmaier, 1992; Gursoy & McCleary, 2004; Shani et al., 2012). Finally, repeat visitors may become emotionally attached to the destination so as to develop loyalty toward the destination, which in turn leads to increases in their intention to visit the destination

353

again and again (Kruger et al., 2010; Morais & Lin, 2010). As such, the research literature generally concludes that although first-time visitors typically visit spend more money at the destination, the cost of acquiring these visitors is significantly higher as it requires making them aware of the destination and ultimately persuading them to visit the destination. This compares to repeat visitors who tend to spend less money, but cost much less to retain and they tend to stay longer at the destination (Vogt et al., 1998). Based on this research, it is argued that because of the differences between first-time and repeat visitors in visitor characteristics and travel behavior, they adopt substantially different information search and decision processes. Indeed, Lehto, Kim, and Morrison (2006) found that prior experience and knowledge with a destination influenced both the content of online search and the degree of search while planning a trip; specifically, their study found that online search effort decreases with experience and search content changes. This study is consistent with previous research by Vogt et al. (1998), indicating that travelers who are likely to use travel information consider themselves skilled and experienced travelers, are familiar with the destination, and have strong intentions of visiting the destination. However, while there are clear differences in information search and visitation behavior, little research has been conducted that examines directly the extent to which first time visitors respond differentially to destination advertising. Thus, the goal of this study is to examine the impact of prior experience on the information search process and, in particular, travelers’ responses to destination advertising. Method Two research questions guide this study: 1) What are the differences in destination advertising responses (i.e., destination choice, attractions, restaurants, accommodations, events, and shopping) and overall expenditures based on the level of prior destination experience? 2) To what degree does prior destination experiences affect the relative impacts of trip decisions and trip characteristics on overall expenditures during the visit to the destination? Data for this study were generated using an online

354


survey of American travelers who had requested travel information from 20 different destinations located throughout the US during calendar year 2011. The survey questionnaire took approximately 10 minutes to complete and included several questions such as the nature of the travel information obtained, travel party, and trip characteristics. This study applied two strategies to increase the response rate: 1) a three-step survey collection process (an initial invitation, a reminder, and the final request) and 2) randomly awarding a $100 Amazon.com gift card to one respondent from each destination marketing program. In total, 264,317 online survey invitations were delivered to US travelers 18 years and older. These efforts resulted in 17,785 usable samples (6.7% response rate). A nonresponse bias test was conducted prior to addressing the study’s research questions in order to accurately estimate travelers’ destination advertising conversion ratios and total trip expenditures. This study used the weighting adjustment technique based on inverse propensity scores first proposed by Rosenbaum and Rubin (1984) and implemented in travel research by Park and Fesenmaier (2012). As a result of this technique, the original sample (unweighted sample) and the weighted sample (applied inverse propensity scores) were statistically compared to identify nonresponse bias. The results showed no statistical difference in conversion ratios; however, the use of the unweighted sam ple resulted in an underestimation of approximately 6.7% in terms of overall trip expenditure. Therefore, further analyses were based on the weighted sample that corrects for nonresponse bias. Prior experience was measured using a single item in the questionnaire where the response options included “once”, “2 to 5 trips,”, “6–10 trips,” and “11 or more trips.” Because previous research shows that repeat visitors are not homogeneous based on the frequency of prior experience (Kruger, Botha et al., 2012; Kruger, Saayman et al. 2010; Oppermann, 1999), this study categorizes repeat visitors into two different groups: a “2 to 5 trips” group and a “6 or more trips” group. Among the three groups, the first-time visitor group is the largest and includes 50.9% of the respondents, followed by the 2 to 5 trips group (45.6%) and the 6 or more trips group (3.5%). Once the three segments of travelers were identified, a series of analyses

wase performed including analysis of variance (ANOVA), cross-tabulations (with chi-square tests), and multivariate regression analysis. Results Descriptive analyses using cross-tabulations were first conducted to identify differences in demographic characteristics and trip characteristics among the three groups (see Tables 1 and 2). As seen in Table 1, there are significant (α = 0.05) differences in terms of annual household income (χ2 = 28.4, p = 0.029), but no statistical differences in gender (χ2 = 0.1, p = 0.957) and age (χ2 = 16.5, p = 0.087) among the three groups. Based on the pairwise comparisons, the 2 to 5 trips group has a slightly lower proportion of income between $20,000 and $29,999 and higher proportion of elderly people (65 years or older). Based on these results it is argued that traveler characteristics had little impact on travelers’ decisions to revisit the destination. Table 2 shows much clearer statistical differences among the prior experience groups in terms of trip characteristics including purpose (χ2 = 434.0, p = 0.000), length of stay (χ2 = 217.4, p = 0.000), group size (χ2 = 14.0, p = 0.030), time of planning (χ2 = 278.1, p = 0.000), and travel distance (χ2 = 833.1, p = 0.000). In general, the results show that first-time visitors are more likely to be taking a vacation (43.7%), and less likely to be visiting friends and relatives (34.8%) or taking a weekend getaway (24.0%), compared to the repeat travelers. This finding contrasts sharply with the other two repeat visitor groups, which show the exact opposite pattern. In terms of the group size, the travelers in the 6 or more trips group (14.6%) are slightly more likely to visit the destination alone compared to other groups of travelers (10.7%, 9.0%). Interestingly, the travelers who have more experience within the destination (i.e., the 6 or more trips group) are more likely to spend less time at the destination (i.e., day trip) and plan their trip at the very last moment (i.e., never planned or planned less than 1 week), wereas the first-time visitors are more likely to spend more time (i.e., 6–11 nights or more) and plan their trip earlier (i.e., plan 5–8 weeks before, plan 2+ months before). These results clearly show that frequent visitors are more flexible, but visit the destination transiently. Lastly, and as expected,


355

Table 1 Demographic Characteristics of Visitors Based on Prior Experience

Gender Female Male Age 18–24 years 25–34 years 35–44 years 45–54 years 55–64 years 65 years or older Household income Less than $10,000 $10,000–$19,999 $20,000–$29,999 $30,000–$39,999 $40,000–$49,999 $50,000–$59,999 $60,000–$69,999 $70,000–$79,999 $80,000 and over

First-Time

2 to 5 Trips

6 or More Trips

Overall Group

60.6 39.4

61.0 39.0

61.1 38.9

60.8 39.2

1.1 6.0 11.8 27.6 33.3 20.1a

0.7 5.3 10.5 27.3 33.2 23.1a

0.9 6.6 10.9 23.6 37.1 21.0

0.9 5.7 11.2 27.4 33.4 21.5

1.3 3.0 6.4a 9.5 9.8 11.6 10.7 10.3 37.3

1.6 2.3 4.7a,c 8.5 9.3 12.7 10.8 10.6 39.5

2.3 1.9 8.5c 11.3 5.2 11.3 9.4 11.7 38.5

Chi-Square

p Value

0.09

0.96

16.48

0.09

28.35

0.03

1.5 2.7 5.7 9.1 9.4 12.1 10.7 10.5 38.4

Note: Bonferroni’s method was used to compare column proportion: acomparison between first-time group and 2 to 5 trips group; bcomparison between first-time group and 6 or more trips group; ccomparison between 2 to 5 trips group and 6 or more trips group.

prior experience and visitation are highly related to the travel distance whereby travelers in the 6 or more trips group are more likely living within the same state, whereas the first-time travelers are living in a nonadjacent state. Next, ANOVA was used to investigate the differences in advertising response and total trip expenditures at the destination among the three groups. The results of these analyses show that except for the decision regarding overnight accommodations, travelers’ response to the destination advertising and total trip expenditures differ significantly depending upon prior destination experience (see Table 3). In particular, travelers who are visiting the destination for the first time are least likely to have any trip-related decisions (including attractions, restaurants, events, and shopping) influenced by travel advertisements. However, this finding contrasts sharply with travelers who have visited previously, as they are much more likely to be influenced by destination advertisements. Interestingly, travelers have shown different response patterns for destination-related advertising and accommodations. Additionally, the first-time visitors and 6

or more trips groups are less likely to be influenced by destination-related advertising, whereas the 2 to 5 trips group is more likely to be influenced. These results may be a reflection of travelers seeking novelty for the first time they visit a destination, but not after they have become familiarized with the destination. Lastly, and importantly, the first-time visitors tend to spend significantly more money at the destination than travelers in the 2 to 5 trips group; interestingly, travelers in the 6 or more trips group lie somewhere in between them. The final analysis of this study used multiple regression analysis to assess the relationship between destination advertising response for each trip-related decision (the independent variables) and the natural log of total trip expenditure (dependent variable) among the prior experience-defined groups. The results are presented in Table 4 and indicate that the regression models explain between 32.6% (2 to 5 trips group) and 39.1% (first-time visitors) of the total variance in the log of total spending at the destination. As can be seen, individual and trip characteristics were also included in the regression models as control variables, and these variables

356

CHOE, STIENMETZ, AND FESENMAIER Table 2 Trip and Planning Characteristics of Visitors Based on Prior Experience

Trip purpose Vacation Weekend getaway Special/sporting event VFR Business Other Length of stay Day trip 1 night 2 nights 3–5 nights 6–10 nights 11 or more nights Group size 1 person 2 persons 3–5 persons 6 or more persons Time of planning Never planned Plan day of trip Plan 1–6 days before Plan 1–4 weeks before Plan 5–8 weeks before Plan 2+ months before Travel distance In state Adjacent state Nonadjacent state

First-Time

2 to 5 Trips

6 or More Trips

Overall Group

43.7a,b 24.0a,b 7.2a,b 34.8a,b 6.3 6.4b

30.3a 39.5a 9.2a 39.3a 5.7c 7.0c

29.9b 46.6b 11.5b 42.2b 9.4b 14.4b,c

10.1a,b 10.4 21.3a 32.1 18.5a,b 7.6a

12.8a,c 12.1 29.3a 30.9 10.0a 4.9a,c

10.7 49.3 32.9 7.1

Chi-Square

p Value

37.1 31.9 8.3 37.1 6.1 7.0

433.97

0.00

23.8b,c 7.4 23.0 28.5 8.6b 8.6c

11.8 11.1 25.0 31.4 14.3 6.4

217.38

0.00

9.0c 49.9 34.4 6.7

14.6c 48.7 29.1 7.7

10.1 49.6 33.5 6.9

13.99

0.03

4.0b 2.3a,b 12.1a,b 28.8a 24.6a,b 28.2a,b

4.3 3.3a 18.6a,c 36.5a 20.6a,c 16.6a,c

7.1b 5.6b 30.2b,c 33.3a,b 13.1b,c 10.7b,c

4.3 2.9 15.7 32.5 22.4 22.3

278.07

0.00

23.1a,b 35.4a,b 41.5a,b

50.9a,c 32.6a,c 16.6a

64.0b,c 22.0b,c 14.0b

37.3 33.6 29.1

833.07

0.00

Note: Bonferroni’s method was used to compare column proportion: acomparison between first-time group and 2 to 5 trips group; bcomparison between first-time group and 6 or more trips group; ccomparison between 2 to 5 trips group and 6 or more trips group.

Table 3 Ad Influence and Total Trip Expenditures for Prior Experience Groups

First-Time

2 to 5 Trips

Trip decisions Destination Attractions Restaurants Events Shopping Accommodations Total travel party spending

0.11a 0.61a,b 0.45a,b 0.28a,b 0.34a,b 0.38 696.78a

0.20a,c 0.66a 0.53a 0.41a,c 0.43a 0.39 582.43a

6 or More Trips

Overall Group

F

p Value

0.09c 0.72b 0.57b 0.56b,c 0.50b 0.42 611.17

0.15 0.63 0.49 0.35 0.39 0.39 641.59

65.283 9.392 22.711 70.214 27.010 .729 24.844

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.00

Note: Scheffe’s post-hoc analysis was used: acomparison between first-time group and 2 to 5 trips group; comparison between first-time group and 6 or more trips group; ccomparison between 2 to 5 trips group and 6 or more trips group.

b


357

Table 4 Results of Multiple Regression Analyses for Prior Experience Groups

Variables (Constant) Vacation Getaway Special/sports event VFR Business 1 night 2 nights 3–5 nights 6–10 Nights 11 or more nights Plan day of trip Plan 1–6 days before Plan 1–4 weeks before Plan 5–8 weeks before Plan 2+ months before 2 persons 3–5 persons 6+ persons $10–20 $20–30 $30–40 $40–50 $50–60 $60–70 $70–80 $80 and over 25–34 years 35–44 years 45–54 years 55–64 years 65 years or older Gender: Female TV/radio ads Mag./newspaper ads Internet ads Other ads Attitude towards ads Destination Attractions Restaurants Events Shopping Accommodations Fit indices

First Time (1) Marginal B Effect

2 to 5 Trips (2) Marginal B Effect

3.63*** 37.55 0.17*** 1.19 0.16** 1.17 0.06 1.06 −0.16*** 0.85 0.32*** 1.38 0.55*** 1.73 1.00*** 2.71 1.37*** 3.93 1.43*** 4.19 1.52*** 4.58 −0.38* 0.68 −0.01 0.99 0.10 1.10 0.18 1.20 0.24* 1.27 0.10 1.11 0.27*** 1.32 0.70*** 2.01 0.36* 1.44 0.20 1.22 0.27 1.31 0.31 1.36 0.43* 1.53 0.39* 1.48 0.57** 1.77 0.55** 1.74 0.02 1.02 0.04 1.04 0.04 1.04 0.03 1.03 0.08 1.08 −0.04 0.96 −0.03 0.97 −0.06 0.95 0.07* 1.07 0.07 1.07 0.01 1.01 −0.09 0.91 0.28*** 1.32 0.19*** 1.21 0.13** 1.14 0.06 1.06 0.19*** 1.21 R 2 = 0.401, Adj. R2 = 0.391, F(43) = 41.215, p = 0.000

4.13*** 61.97 0.13** 1.14 0.12*** 1.22 0.10 1.11 −0.18*** 0.83 0.18* 1.20 0.41*** 1.51 0.81*** 2.26 1.13*** 3.10 1.31*** 3.72 1.64*** 5.15 −0.09 0.91 0.03 1.03 0.09 1.09 0.18 1.20 0.23* 1.25 0.09 1.09 0.17** 1.19 0.47*** 1.60 −0.28 0.76 0.07 1.07 0.12 1.13 0.07 1.07 0.07 1.07 0.16 1.17 0.28 1.32 0.34* 1.40 0.13 1.14 0.28 1.32 0.15 1.17 0.14 1.15 0.09 1.00 −0.17*** 0.84 −0.05 0.95 −0.03 0.97 0.09* 1.10 0.02 1.02 0.00 1.00 0.11* 1.12 0.16*** 1.17 0.12** 1.13 0.07 1.08 0.03 1.03 0.19*** 1.20 R2 = 0.337, Adj. R2 = 0.326, F(43) = 31.280, p = 0.000

Note: Dependent variable: ln total trip expenditures. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

6 or More Trips (3) Marginal B Effect 2.31* 10.08 0.09 1.09 0.04 1.04 −0.02 0.98 −0.10 0.91 0.02 1.02 0.53 1.70 0.97*** 2.64 1.11*** 3.05 1.18*** 3.26 2.15*** 8.54 0.44 1.55 0.11 1.11 0.42 1.52 0.24 1.27 0.44 1.56 −0.09 0.91 0.11 1.11 0.17 1.19 1.27 3.56 1.01 2.75 1.24* 3.46 1.55* 4.71 1.52* 4.56 1.42* 4.13 1.34* 3.82 1.54** 4.66 0.85 2.34 0.54 1.72 0.46 1.58 0.44 1.56 0.61 1.84 −0.18 0.83 −0.15 0.86 0.00 1.00 .45* 1.57 −0.03 0.97 0.02 1.02 0.13 1.13 −0.15 0.86 0.10 1.10 −0.03 0.97 0.45* 1.57 0.17 1.18 2 2 R = 0.500, Adj. R = 0.369 F(47) = 3.832, p = 0.000

1 vs. 2

1 vs. 3

2 vs. 3

* *

* * * *

* * ** *

* *

*

358


have statistically significant impacts on total trip expenditures across all three groups, but to varying degrees. Only two variables—the length of trip and Internet advertising—have a positive and consistent relationship with total trip expenditures for all three groups. However, the results also reveal several important differences among the three groups. First, trip purpose, and group size have consistent relationships with total expenditures for the firsttime group and the 2 to 5 trips group, but no effect is found for the 6 or more trips group. Second, only high income categories have an effect on total trip expenditures for all three groups; but other income categories show a similar pattern of their relationships with total trip expenditures for first-time visitors and 6 or more trips groups. Third, gender (female = 1) has a negative impact for the travelers in the 2 to 5 trips group, and the effects are statistically different between the first-time visitors and 2 to 5 trips groups. Fourth, although the effects of Internet advertising are significant across all groups, the relative importance for travelers in the 6 or more trips group is much higher than the other groups. Table 4 also shows the regression coefficients for the advertisement response for each trip decision and indicates that the relationship between advertising response and total trip expenditures is substantially different among the three destination experience groups. In particular, total trip expenditures for the first-time visitors and 2 to 5 trips groups are influenced to a greater extent by advertising related to attraction, restaurants, events, and accommodation decisions. Interestingly, spending of the 2 to 5 trips group is influenced by response to destination choice-related advertising more than the first-time group, where response to attractionsrelated advertising shows opposite results. However, the expenditures by travelers who have visited the destination more than six times are positively associated to shopping-related advertising, but no other aspects of the trip. Discussion The results of this study builds upon the substantial amount of research confirming that first-time visitors are substantially different than repeat visitors as they differ in terms of traveler and trip characteristics, destination advertising responses, and

total trip expenditures. Therefore, the results of this indicate that the extent of prior experience at the destination is extremely important when designing a destination advertising campaign. In particular, first-time visitors are less influenced by advertising regarding attractions, restaurants, events, and shopping, and those decisions are more highly related to their overall expenditures. In contrast, the destination choice decision for repeat visitors (2 to 5 trips) is more influenced by advertising, but other trip- related decisions (i.e., attractions, restaurants, accommodations) with destination are also associated with total trip expenditures. With these results in mind, it is clear that DMOs need to develop very different campaigns that target the specific information needs of the two very important travel markets. References Becker, G. S. (1971). Economic theory (1st ed.). New York: Alfred Knopf. Chi, C. G. (2012). An examination of destination loyalty: Differences between first-time and repeat visitors. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 36(1), 3–24. Choe, Y., Stienmetz, J. L., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2013). Trip budget and destination advertising response. Tourism Analysis, 18(6), 713–722. Choe, Y., Stienmetz, J. L., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (in press). Travel distance and response to destination advertising. Tourism Analysis, 19(4). Choi, S., Lehto, X. Y., Morrison, A. M., & Jang, S. (2011). Structure of travel planning processes and information use patterns. Journal of Travel Research, 51(1), 26–40. Fakeye, P. C., & Crompton, J. L. (1991). Image differences between prospective, first-time, and repeat visitors to the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Journal of Travel Research, 30(2), 10–16. Fesenmaier, D. R. (1985). Modeling destination patronage for outdoor recreation activity. Journal of Travel Research, 24(2), 17–23. Fesenmaier, D. R., & Vogt, C. A. (1992). Evaluating the utility of touristic information sources for planning midwest travel. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 1(2), 1–18. Gretzel, U., Hwang, Y., & Fesenmaier, D. (2012). Informing destination recommender systems design and evaluation through quantitative research. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 6(4), 297–315. Grønflaten, Ø. (2009). Predicting travelers’ choice of information sources and information channels. Journal of Travel Research, 48(2), 230–244. Gursoy, D., & McCleary, K. W. (2004). An integrative model of tourists’information search behavior. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2), 353–373.


Jeng, J., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2002). Conceptualizing the travel decision-making hierarchy: A review of recent developments. Tourism Analysis, 7(1), 15–32. Kim, D.-Y., Hwang, Y.-H., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2005). Modeling tourism advertising effectiveness. Journal of Travel Research, 44(1), 42–49. Kozak, M. (2001). Repeaters’ behavior at two distinct destinations. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(3), 784–807. Kruger, M., Botha, K., & Saayman, M. (2012). Information source preferences and associated expenditure of firsttime and repeat visitors at a South African wine festival. Tourism Analysis, 17(3), 343–355. Kruger, M., & Saayman, M. (2013). Assessing the viability of first-time and repeat visitors to an international jazz festival in South Africa. Event Management, 17(3), 179–194. Kruger, M., Saayman, M., & Ellis, S. M. (2010). Does loyalty pay? First-time versus repeat visitors at a national arts festival. Southern African Business Review, 14(1), 79–104. Lancaster, K. (1971). Consumer demand: A new approach. New York: Columbia University Press. Lau, A. L., & McKercher, B. (2004). Exploration versus acquisition: A comparison of first-time and repeat visitors. Journal of Travel Research, 42(3), 279–285. Lehto, X. Y., Kim, D. Y., & Morrison, A. M. (2006). The effect of prior destination experience on online information search behavior. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 6(2), 160–178. Li, X., Cheng, C., Kim, H., & Petrick, J. F. (2008). A systematic comparison of first-time and repeat visitors vis a two-phase online survey. Tourism Management, 29(2), 278–293. Litvin, S. W. (2007). Marketing visitor attractions: A segmentation study. International Journal of Tourism Research, 9(1), 9–19. MacInnis, D. J., & Jaworski, B. J. (1989). Information processing from advertisements: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Marketing, 53(4), 1–23. Mehta, A. (1994). How advertising response modeling (arm) can increase ad effectiveness. Journal of Advertising Research, 34(3), 62–74. Morais, D. B., & Lin, C.-H. (2010). Why do first-time and repeat visitors patronize a destination? Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 27(2), 193–210. Moutinho, L. (1987). Consumer-behavior in tourism. European Journal of Marketing, 21(10), 1–44. Okamura, K., & Fukushige, M. (2010). Differences in travel objectives between first-time and repeat tourists: An empirical analysis for the Kansai area in Japan. International Journal of Tourism Research, 12, 647–664.

359

Oppermann, M. (1998). Destination thresholds potential and the law of repeat visitation. Journal of Travel Research, 37(2), 131–137. Oppermann, M. (1999). Predicting destination choice—A discussion of destiantion loyalty. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 5(1), 51–65. Park, S., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2012). Nonresponse bias in internet-based advertising conversion studies. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 6(4), 340–355. Park, S., Nicolau, J. L., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2013). Assessing advertising in a hierarchical decision model. Annals of Tourism Research, 40(10), 260–282. Pratt, S., McCabe, S., Cortes-Jimenez, I., & Blake, A. (2010). Measuring the effectiveness of destination marketing campaigns: Comparative analysis of conversion studies. Journal of Travel Research, 49(2), 179–190. Roehl, W. S., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (1992). Risk perceptions and pleasure travel: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Travel Research, 30(4), 17–26. Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1984). Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79(387), 516–524. Shani, A., Reichel, A., & Croes, R. (2012). Evaluation of segment attractiveness by risk-ad.justed market potential first-time vs. repeat visitors. Journal of Travel Research, 51(2), 166–177. Stienmetz, J. L., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2014). Effects of channel, timing, and bundling on destination advertising response. Tourism Analysis, 19(1), 97–104. Stienmetz, J. L., Maxcy, J. G., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (in press). Evaluating destination advertising. Journal of Travel Research. Vogt, C. A., Stewart, S. I., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (1998). Communication strategies to reach first-time visitors. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 7(2), 69–89. Wang, C. Y., & Wu, L. W. (2011). Reference effects on revisit intention: Involvement as a moderator. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 28(8), 817–827. Wang, D. (2004). Tourist behaviour and repat visitation to Hong Kong. Tourism Geographies, 6(1), 99–118. Wöber, K., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2004). A multi-criteria approach to destination benchmarking: A case study of state tourism advertising programs in the United States. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 16(2/3), 1–18.