AN EXPLORATORY EVALUATION OF RURAL TOURISM WEBSITES
Srikanth Beldona, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Management University of Delaware
Liping A. Cai, Ph.D.* Professor Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management Purdue University
This paper was initially presented at the The Fifth Biennial Tourism Conference. May 23-25, Hong Kong SAR, 2002.
All Correspondence to Prof. Liping Cai Purdue University, 1266 Stone Hall West Lafayette, Indiana 47907-1266, USA Email:
[email protected] Phone: 1-765 494 4739 Fax: 1-815 846 4881
AN EXPLORATORY EVALUATION OF RURAL TOURISM WEBSITES ABSTRACT An evaluation of 50 rural tourism websites in the United States was undertaken using 23 parameters of stickiness drivers. The parameters measured the websites’ effectiveness in the three areas of Content, Interactivity and Promotional Value. The study found that rural tourism websites were largely driven by vertical contents, demonstrated poor interactivity, and had only marginal promotional value in them. Results indicate the need for rural DMOs to work closely with neighboring destinations to enhance horizontal content, such that they improve the drawing power of their websites. Also, findings suggest the need for websites to better exploit the interactive capabilities of the Internet to capture tourist imagination in the travel purchase decision-making process. Key Words: Rural Tourism, Internet Marketing, Website Evaluation, Stickiness, Marketing Effectiveness
AN EXPLORATORY EVALUATION OF RURAL TOURISM WEBSITES INTRODUCTION
Rural tourism has experienced relatively steady growth in some western European countries, yet its development in many others, including the United States, is characterized by stagnation. Since the early 1980s, rural communities in the U.S. have increasingly resorted to tourism as a popular mechanism to help meet the challenge of generating growth and employment. Yet, destination marketing organizations (DMOs) in rural areas – mostly convention & visitors bureaus (CVBs) in the case of the United States – are constantly struggling in effectively promoting their communities as a travel destination through traditional media. Fast-evolving trends in information technology, the Internet infrastructure, the Internet culture, and the Internet marketing are changing the way people find information and purchase travel (USDM, 2001). Therefore, if a DMO does not have online presence, the destination is not on sale in its key markets (WTO Report, 1999). This is largely because of the nature of a destination as an experience good, which consumers cannot “test drive” before they make a purchase decision. For the prospective tourist to be more inclined to “purchase” the destination without actually feeling and touching this unique product, information must be communicated effectively. In this context, the Internet affords a more powerful tool than any traditional media for a DMO to reach out to a greater and more targeted audience, because of its wide reach and rich interactive capabilities. As such, an increasing number of rural DMOs have strived to develop online presences with an aim to exploit the capabilities of this new promotion and distribution
channel. The objective of this study was to assess the status quo of the use of the Internet by rural DMOs through the evaluation of rural tourism websites specific to the United States.
CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATION Destinations are regarded as well-defined geographical areas, such as a country, an island or a town (Hall, 2000; Davidson & Maitland, 1997). To promote an area, a DMO needs to present an integrated destination product that encompasses all specific tourist attractions and services provided at that destination. In the context of rural tourism, the destination product is the entire rural setting. It includes the whole rural way of life, expressed by its natural landscape, village churches, local architecture, craft shops, local theatre, and heritage museums, as well as festivals and events of unique local flavor. However, due to the intangibility of the tourism product, it means that a destination cannot be physically inspected or displayed at the point of sale, and therefore it is almost entirely dependent upon representations and descriptions to help tourists make a purchase decision. Thus, the availability of up-to-date, accurate, attractive, and accessible information is regarded as crucial for the success of a destination product. A website is the most advanced medium to address such need. However, a website does not just serve as an informative tool. Its many features and capabilities allow a business to actually market a product, and effectively so, as it is able to target and draw customers through expressions unique to the destination product. It can initiate key emotions and feelings that would eventually enable the purchase decision. What differentiates a destination website from others is that when a traveler makes a purchase decision of a destination product, he or she is looking at the total experience that will be derived from the interdependent functions of many supplementary product and service
providers and value adders at multiple levels. With increasing popularity of online booking for travel-related services, today’s travelers demand experiences that blend products and services from a wide variety of hospitality and travel enterprises customized exclusively for them (Olsen, 1999). This they can do by personally bundling them together based upon their travel desires and plans. Further, the tourist will begin to rely upon destination marketing systems to select hotels, restaurants, and attractions once the destination is determined, thereby bypassing the current GDS and CRS (Olsen, 1999). Regional and local strategic alliances would be necessary to properly present the wide array of attractions, capacity, and experiences that are available to the tourist. Such changes demand greater links between channel partners in the tourism value chain. As such, a DMO website is the central point from which it directs online visitors to attractions and other providers and value adders such as hotels and restaurants. This is typically a hub and spoke model, with the DMO serving as the nerve center of links and information. Figure 1 describes an example of a hub and spoke model of a DMO website with links to service providers such as accommodations, attractions, dining/nightlife, and maps, etc. A crucial link is the website’s link with neighboring destinations that can significantly add to the drawing power provided of the region as a whole, provided all other destinations in the region reciprocate equally. The overall success of a DMO website depends on the performance of this nerve center in disseminating information, capturing the tourist experience, and enabling the purchase decision. Insert Figure 1 Here
METHODS The population of the study was rural communities in the United States. They are defined based on population density, and are not drawn according to strict county boundaries. This means that a rural area may cover parts of several counties, as the term “county” is a political distinction and is not incorporated in the United States Census Bureau’s classification scheme of a metropolitan statistical area (MSA) or non-MSA (USDA FAQ, 2001). The Census Bureau defines an MSA as one having at least a central location with 50,000 inhabitants and a total MSA population of at least 100,000 (USDA FAQ, 2001). However, rural tourism is promoted by county-level DMOs. The current study decided on a population of 75,000 as the limiting factor to mark out the units of analysis. The study sample consisted of fifty DMO websites. They all met the criterion that a DMO represents a nonmetropolitan area (rural) community with a population less than 75,000. Literature review indicates that critical to the success of a website success is the stickiness built into the website. Stickiness refers to a site’s ability to retain users and drive them further into a site (Beddoe, 1999). “Implying longer and more frequent visits by tourists to a website, stickiness is based on providing unique content and specialized services to vertical market niches” (Business Wire, 1999). The first broad framework that addressed the drivers of stickiness was conceived by Gillespie, Krishna, Oliver, Olsen & Thiel (1999). Comprising four broad components, they suggest that stickiness drivers in a website are content, customization, real-time interaction, and site promotion. Stickiness as a term to measure website effectiveness has gained prominence over the years. However, stickiness is context specific to the types of websites in question. This means that depending on the nature of the website, its revenue model, and its objectives, each type of website will have its own importance key stickiness drivers and associated parameters. In the current study, Gillsepie et al. (1999) framework was adapted to identify these three key drivers of stickiness: 1)
Content, 2) Interactivity, and 3) Promotional Value. Parameters within each stickiness driver were developed by drawing from destination marketing theory and empirical literature. Content. Thirteen parameters were identified to represent content stickiness, including the following twelve vertical content parameters, plus one horizontal content parameter. They are:
Accommodation Dining/nightlife Attractions Performing Arts Transportation Shopping
Sports/Recreation Maps Press Releases Events Calendar Meeting Facilities Tours Information
All of these comprised vertical content. The sole measure for horizontal content was the presence of collaborative marketing efforts with other counties either through links or suggestions. Each website was scored along the number of links provided based on category. This means that each website was gauged based on the number of predefined category links it satisfied and a score was attached to it. The horizontal content was gauged by a single parameter – the presence or absence of any cooperative theme prevalent wherein the destination in question has ties with other counties and destinations outside the scope of the county. Interactivity. Eight parameters were identified to represent the stickiness driver of interactivity. These are website tools that involves the active participation of the site visitor. The eight parameters are:
Media RFP Meeting Planners RFP Online Booking Online gifts
Service Evaluation Site Membership. Site Search Trip Planning Tool
Promotional Value. This stickiness driver was measured by the efficacy of promotional tools used at the website to sustain the interest beyond the actual website visit. Three parameters were identified. They are:
Online Offers Newsletters
E-cards
FINDINGS The average total score for all websites was 10.3 over a total possible score of 22. Figure 2 illustrates the achieved score for each driver of stickiness against the maximum possible score. Most websites scored high on Content with an average of 8.16 over a possible 12 in vertical content. In horizontal content, no destination was promoted as part of any specific theme that encompassed a group of counties or destinations. As for Interactivity, the average score was a meager 1.53 over a possible high of eight. In Promotional Value, the average score was 0.49 over a possible three. Insert Figure 2 Here Viewed holistically, 64 percent of all website focus lay in Content, with Interactivity and Promotional Value sharing the rest at 19 percent and 17 percent respectively. These values were computed by first deriving the percentage score of each driver over its overall possible value. For example, 8.16 was the mean score of Content over a possible 13 that leads to a percentage score of 63 percent. Similarly, percentage scores of Interactivity and Promotional value were computed. Thereon, percentages were standardized to get the relative performance of each driver over the sum of overall scores. Insert Figure 3 Here
Within vertical content parameters, the highest score was ten, which was achieved by 15 DMO’s, or 30 percent. The next highest score was nine, achieved by nine DMO’s, or 18 percent. The lowest score was only three of one DMO’s website. Within Interactivity parameters, relatively greater focus lay in online bookings, though this was meager on the overall contributing 0.31 in the total pie worth 1.53 (See Figure 4). Insert Figure 4 Here
DISCUSSION The study’s findings revealed that rural DMO websites fared well on the overall content stickiness. Yet, such good performance was as far as what vertical content went. They did poorly on the horizontal content. These sites had none or negligible links to other destinations in the nearby vicinity. Rural destinations, such as DMO’s, were clearly marked by rigid boundaries, which was further reflected in advertising where no collective themes were prevalent. Put differently, none of the websites reflected importance of the primary and secondary tourist interests that are typical of tourist behavior. This is because many visitors look for added value by visiting nearby places of tourist interests (secondary interests) outside the domain of the county in question (primary interest). This is especially true in the case of rural tourism, wherein other competitive destinations are in the near vicinity and tourists club together all activities within a single trip. Rural DMOs need to address this lack of horizontal links and build strategies cumulatively with other organizations. How a DMO addresses this specific gap largely rests on the mode of travel resorted to by visitors in the region. If predominantly by road, rural destinations may want to contemplate collaborative strategies with destinations in the nearby geographical vicinity. If by air, destinations can expand this concept to link with other destinations that will complement its own product.
Understanding primary and secondary tourist behavior and developing products structured around the collaborative value of all destinations within a specific area can play a crucial role in the overall success of destination marketing. One approach to horizontal alliances in rural tourism is cooperative advertising. Cooperative advertising, also called the joint sponsorship of promotional programs (Roche & Cullen, 1996), can prove to be a viable alternative to traditional advertising strategies (Pisierra, McKinney & Chawla, 1998). This is based on the fundamental business principle that sustainable competitive advantage comes from systems of activities that are complementary (Porter, 1995). In a study on cooperative advertising in the tourism context, Pisierra, et al. (1998) found that cooperative advertising benefits were universal despite city/town size or location. The study suggests that small towns should embrace cooperative advertising for effective results to attract tourists. In a case study, Cai (2002) proves the value of cooperative branding for rural destinations if a brand can be built on commonalities of tourist attractions in the region. Rural DMOs will need to compete as well as cooperate to be effective in today’s marketplace. Strategic orientation for destinations should now combine both competitive and cooperative strategies making it a “coopetitive” orientation (Beldona, Cai & Pearson, 2001). Another key reason why destinations should not have boundaries engraved in stone is the radically changed economics of information brought about by the Internet. This means that the Internet enables aggregation of information that no other medium has been capable of. The ability to link to other sources of information built around the great breadth of the Internet is a key aspect that tourists exploit on the Internet. Strategic alliances, collaborative arrangements, and one-stop shopping have become key components of e-commerce strategy. Therefore, there is a very strong likelihood that tourists will seek such additional information from destinations in the nearby vicinity. Future research should study how prospective tourists seek information regarding primary and secondary destinations and the extent to
which rural tourism destinations are enabling this. Studies can also be conducted that examine the potential competitive and cooperative factors in alliances between destinations from a “coopetitive” perspective. As for interactivity, rural DMOs are still treating the web as one-to-many medium and not exploiting the interactive capabilities of the web. Web page interactivity is a reference to dynamic content through two-way communication capabilities between the website and the end user. Interactive web pages in DMO websites can allow the user to interact with the tourism destination in a way that causes the page to respond to the user's input. Interactivity can take on a number of different levels of complexity, depending on the needs of the site and the tools used to create the interactive features. Interactivity can also induce desired emotional reactions that aid the purchase decision in the tourism product. Since the web presents a fundamentally different marketing environment compared to traditional media, marketing activities on the web have to be reconstructed in forms more appropriate so as to be effective (Hoffman & Novak,1996). The first differentiator is the one-to-one context that the web facilitates in comparison with the one-to-many focus provided by traditional media such as television, radio and newspapers. Therefore, interactivity is a key differentiating feature of the Internet, and it is imperative that the website exploits this capability. In fact, websites that are able to provide user interaction make visitors feel connected, with greater possibility for repeat visitation. Capturing the tourist experience while simultaneously providing instantaneous confirmation of bookings is an important aspect in travel websites (Olsen, 1999). Otherwise, the website becomes a mere informational tool and does not exploit the interactive features of the new medium. Tourists would like to book their entire package and receive confirmation then and there – a feature, which is important to a website’s effectiveness. In this context, the
provision of trip planning tools and on-line reservations can significantly add to the ability of the website to capture the tourist experience more effectively as well as provide tangibility to the marketing effort. Also, the poor score on Promotional Value points to the weakness of rural DMO websites in capitalizing on the unique capability of the new medium to target captive tourists and markets. It must be understood that every prospective tourist who visits the website is arguably closer to purchase, a scenario that can be compared to a walk-in customer in a retail store in a shopping mall. Promotional tools on websites can be exploited to target potential tourists more efficiently through relationship marketing. Methods of capturing general information about visitors to the site and getting tourists to give details, such as through online competitions and prize draws, are ways to achieve this (WTO, 1999). Also, offering online sweepstakes/offers and newsletter subscriptions further increase purchase intent amongst prospective tourists. Another key feature about promotional tools is that they render a current and updated image to the website as a whole. This informational value through promotions plays a critical role in encouraging tourists to make decisions on possible visitation. Critical necessities here are brochures, visitors guides, and related materials. Informational value can also be greatly enriched through the use of visuals such as images and video clips.
CONCLUSION Although the findings of this study were set in the United States, the implications are universal. Just like tourism in general, rural tourism is a global phenomenon. Despite the different definitions of “ruralness” from country to country, the basic characteristics of rural tourism are the same. One important common characteristic is of being “local.” It is a local initiative and rooted in local scenery and culture. As such, there has been a strong rising trend
of demand for visitation to rural destinations due to the changing lifestyles and increased pressure, both at the workplace and at home. “The more that the city is stressful, the more that the countryside is reassuring (Grolleau, 1993).” Tourists are in search of a personalized response to their need for physical, emotional, and social appreciation in a simpler environment, such as the countryside, nature, and the rural way of life. The demand for rural tourism will remain, if not become stronger. However, on the supply side, DMOs in rural areas are challenged by the constraints of limited resources in terms of both human capital and financial resources. These constraints prevent rural DMOs from effectively marketing their communities. They are often faced with two dilemmas: 1) the absence of community identities as tourism destinations, and 2) the limited drawing power of individual rural communities. Visitors do not consider rural areas as their primary destinations. They pass through or simply make day trips. This results in either short stays or none at all, thereby keeping tourist expenditures at negligible levels. The two dilemmas constitute different dimensions of the same problem. Each individual rural community is too small to form enough of a critical mass to develop an independent image required of a primary destination to attract and keep visitors. While the web as a marketing medium is not the solution to the problem, it provides a powerful tool to support key marketing strategies in the areas of building strategic alliances, cooperative advertising programs, and relationship marketing. The findings of the study should serve as an alert to DMOs in countries and regions where rural populations are dominant, and which intend to capitalize on rural resources to sustain tourism growth.
REFERENCES Beddoe-Stephens, Paul, Yahoo: gettin’ sticky with I\it, Wired News, March 22, 1999. Beldona, S., Cai, L. & Pearson, T. (2001). Impact of the Internet on the hospitality value chain – towards an information sharing network. Advances in Hospitality and Tourism Research. Volume VI, pp. 25-29 (Abridged). Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Graduate Education and Graduate Student Research Conference in Hospitality and Tourism, January 4-6, 2001, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. Business Wire (1999). Company to Expand Strategic Alliances in Key Vertical Markets by Helping Partners Increase "Portal Stickiness" and Community Development, Business Wire, March 23, 1999. Cai, L. (2002). Cooperative branding for rural destinations. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(3), in press. Davidson, R., & Maitland, R. (1997). Tourism Destinations. Hodder & Stoughton, London. Gillespie, A, Krishna, M, Oliver, C., Olsen, K, & Thiel, M. (1999). Using Stickiness to Build and Maximize Web Site Value. Retrieved June 20, 2001, from http://www.2000.ogsm.vanderbilt.edu Grolleau, H. (1998). Marketing Quality Rural Tourism-Putting Feelings First. European Commission. Hall, C. M. (2000). Tourism Planning: Policies, Processes, Relationships. UK: Prentice Hall. Olsen, M.J. (1999). Macro forces driving change into the new millennium – major challenges for the hospitality professional. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 18, 371-385. Pisierra, V.J, McKinney, W.B & Chawla, S.K. (1999). Tourism and cooperative advertising: do they mix? Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 19(1), 45-59. Porter, Michael interviewed by Richard Pastore, Competing Interests, CIO Magazine, October 1995. Retrieved September 12, 2001, from http://www.cio.com/ Roche, J & Cullen, B. (1996), "Cooperative advertising: co-operation or coercion?" Irish Marketing Review-Dublin, 9, 79-86. USDA FAQ, (2001). What is Rural? Defining Rural. Retrieved September 30, 2001, from http://www.nal.usda.gov/ric/faqs/ruralfaq.html USDM Report, (2001). Dramatic Changes in Travel Marketing are Seriously Redefining DMO Bottom Lines and Business Futures. Retrieved September 12, 2001, from http://www.usdm.net/news_articles_1.asp WTO Report, (1999). Marketing Tourism Destinations Online – Strategies for the Information Age. Marketing Tourism Destinations Online - Strategies for the Information Age. Chapter 1: Introduction. 6 pp. Retrieved September 30, 2001, from http://www.world-tourism.org/
Figure 1 - Hub & Spoke DMO Website Model
Accommodation
Other Product/Service Providers
Attractions
Maps
Sports/Recreation DMO Website Meeting Facilities
Dining/Nightlife
Shopping
Neighboring Destinations
Tour Operators
Figure 2 - Effectiveness by Three Stickiness Drivers
14
13
12 8.16
10
Maximum Possible
8
Achieved Score
8 6 3
4
1.53 0.49
2 0 Content
Interactivity
Promotional Value
Figure 3- Emphasis Distribution among Three Drivers
Promotional Value 17%
Interactivity 19% Content 64%
Figure 4- Interactivity Parameters
0.35
0.31
0.29 0.3
0.25 0.25
0.2 0.2
0.14 0.15
0.12
0.12
0.1 0.1 0.05 0 Meeting Planner's RFP
Service Evaluation
Media
Online Booking
Online Gifts
Site Search
Trip Planning Tool
Site Membership
