Staff and Guest Perceptions of the Importance of Theme Park Attributes in an ... environmental factors, such as cleanliness or crowding, which can add to or ...
Staff and Guest Perceptions of the Importance of Theme Park Attributes in an Asian Theme Park.
John Ap (Associate Professor) Department of Hotel and Tourism Management Hong Kong Polytechnic University Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong Tel: Hong Kong (852) 2766 6348
Fax: Hong Kong (852) 2362 9362
&
Peter John Sandiford (Research Student) Department of Hotel and Tourism Management Hong Kong Polytechnic University Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong Tel: Hong Kong (852) 2766 6356
Fax: Hong Kong (852) 2362 9362
Introduction Theme parks today represent a sizable part of the tourism and leisure sector internationally. This paper describes an early stage of a longitudinal study of the relative importance of various theme park attributes, carried out in an Asian theme park. Kotler (1991:369) suggested that particular product attributes can offer a competitive advantage to organisations. Thatch and Axinn (1994) elaborated on this concept, linking theme park attributes to ‘the consumer’s evaluation of park attractiveness.’ In their study of American theme park patrons, they saw park attributes as influencing both choice of theme park and enjoyment of visits. Various studies have approached one or both of these concepts, although the distinction between the two is not always obvious, especially as past experiences, both good or bad, seem likely to influence future visitation decisions. For example, Thatch and Axinn (1994) were concerned with the enjoyment of parks, and developed two lists of important attributes related to particular parks which respondents enjoyed most or least. However, Moutinho (1988) sought to find the importance of park factors in the choice of park. These two studies targeted American and Scottish samples respectively, and, despite the slightly different research questions, they presented fairly similar rankings of attributes It seems that the attributes highlighted by the studies described could be further divided into two types that could be summarised as attractions, such as rides and shows, and environmental factors, such as cleanliness or crowding, which can add to or detract from the enjoyment of a visit. McClung (1991) developed this distinction by seperating the two categories in his large survey of American households. He developed two ranked lists of park attributes, one presenting the influencing factors (or environmental factors) in the theme park visit decision making process and the other showing which attractions were seen as most appealing to visitors. This paper intends to further discuss the issues raised by theme park attribute research. The study’s primary objective was to find if there was a significant difference between guests and staff perceptions of the importance of certain park attributes. It was also hoped to ascertain how guests decided the attributes’ levels of importance, in an attempt to better understand customers’ perceptions. The first phase, reported here, compares the perceptions of a group of guests of a large Asian Theme Park with those of a sample of it’s staff. It was felt that it would be useful to include staff perceptions of park attributes, as employees play an important role in delivering such attribute. Thus, any major differences identified could help highlight possible problem areas for management to address. The park management recognised that such a study presented an opportunity to better plan training and communication programmes that could help focus more on guest needs. Methodology A short questionnaire was designed, asking respondents to assess the level of importance to their enjoyment of their visit to the park attributed to ten park attributes (see appendix 1). The questionnaire items were based on the results of Thatch & Axinn’s (1994) study that identified various attributes of varying importance to a sample of American respondents. 2
Two items (‘fun atmosphere’ and ‘souvenirs and merchandise’) were added at the request of the theme park management. A five point likert scale was used to find the attributes’ level of importance (ranging from 1 = very low importance, to 5 = very high importance) in line with that used in the original survey and others investigating service attribute importance (Min & Min 1997). Three surveys were conducted, one targeting staff and two surveying guests of the theme park in an attempt to identify any differences in perception between the two groups. In all cases the questionnaire was self-administered, although the guest sample had field-workers present during the survey and staff questionnaires were delivered by the park’s internal post system. Thus, the guests had the opportunity to ask interviewers for clarification if necessary. The guest surveys were conducted during two regular exit surveys of park guests, administered as a supplementary questionnaire. They were conducted using a quota sampling strategy based on demographic variables over a three day period. The staff survey was based on a semi-stratified random sample, including individuals from all departments and various levels of authority and responsibility. Additional questions were added to enable comparisons with different types of staff to be made. Independent sample t-tests were used to identify significant differences of mean scores between staff and guests, and one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) found differences between the mean scores when more than two groups were compared (e.g. guests, front-line and non-front-line staff. In addition to the questionnaire it was decided to conduct a series of in-depth interviews with park guests, in an attempt to understand their responses more fully and obtain guests’ insights towards the features listed. It should be noted that questionnaires, such as the one utilised here, do have various limitations. For example, the middle item of a likert scale (3 in this case) is somewhat ambiguous – ‘does it imply a neutral position (no opinion) or an on-the fence (undecided) position’ (Coolican 1990:98). Closed ended questions may also present validity problems, as respondents may give an answer even if they do not fully understand the question ‘without revealing their ignorance’ (Chisnal 1986:122). It was partly in an attempt to combat such problems that the in-depth interviews were conducted. It was felt that such interviews would help identify any problems with the questionnaire as well as help undersigned the perceptions of respondents – moving ‘beyond the limitations of each technique by probing systematically through the incorporation of different methods, for both convergent and divergent data’ (Arnould & Price 1993:28) Thirty one (31) in-depth interviews were conducted over the four days of one of the guest surveys. The sample was based on a mixture of different criteria (e.g. tourist/guest, male/female, family group/with friends, old/young) in an attempt to cover a wide crosssection of guests. Each respondent was first asked to compete the questionnaire, then questioned in an attempt to examine and gain an understanding of the responses given. All interviews were recorded on audio tape, to enable accurate and full translations and transcriptions to be prepared for analysis.
3
Interviewers were briefed on the aims of the project, and were given a written interview guide outlining the type of data required, examples of specific and probing questions, and interviewing strategies. All interviews were semi-structured, allowing considerable flexibility to interviewers in an attempt to gather rich data. Interviewees were asked to identify the most and least important attributes, if there was any doubt from the questionnaire responses. Attention was also given to mid-range responses (scoring 3), to establish precisely what such a mark meant to each. They were then asked to explain their answers, giving reasons for specific answers and identifying areas of concern (for example, if ‘cleanliness’ was mentioned a respondent may be asked to refer to specific areas of the park). Respondents were also asked to identify other attributes not included in the questionnaire which they considered important. The data were analysed by creating various categories concerned with the major research questions (e.g. reasons given for most important attributes, reasons given for less important attributes and other important attributes). All the interview transcripts were thoroughly and systematically examined to identify any trends or differences. Study Limitations This study was exploratory in nature. The in-depth interviews were carried out to develop an understanding as to how respondents perceived the importance of the attributes. The results should not be seen as representative of all park guests, nor was the purpose of the study to generalise the findings, due to the small number of interviews carried out. If further information and more reliable data is required, a further investigation may be conducted. The in-depth respondents were all guests who interviewed while exiting the theme park, and most did not want to be delayed too much, so the interviews were often rather short (lasting approximately 15 minutes), and did not allow probing to be as deep as would be preferable. However, a number of interesting and important ideas were highlighted. Questionnaire Results Seven hundred and seventy two (772) guests completed the questionnaire, 98.4% of the exit survey respondents, and two hundred and sixty seven (267) completed questionnaires were returned by members of staff. Comparison of Importance of Park Attributes Between Guests and Staff Table 1 shows the ranking of attributes by mean score. There seem to be relatively few major differences in ranking, although some significant differences in mean scores were highlighted by the t-tests (see table 2). The most striking differences were that staff seemed to perceive that prices were relatively more important than guests did, and the control of lines/queues was seen as less important by staff. The staff mean scores also show a much smaller range over all attributes (from 3.11 to 4.14 for staff and from 2.38 to 4.56 for guests)
4
Table 1. Ranking of Park Attributes by guests and staff Guests n=772 Rank Attribute 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 a
Cleanliness of the park Nice scenery/surroundings Control of lines/queues Fun Atmosphere Shows Family atmosphere Rides in general Overall prices in general Food Souvenirs & merchandise
Staff n=267 Mean Rank Attribute Score a 4.46 1 Overall prices in general 4.28 2 Cleanliness of the park 4.27 3 Nice scenery/surroundings 4.18 4 Fun Atmosphere 4.11 5 Family atmosphere 3.97 6 Shows 3.88 7 Control of lines/queues 3.80 9 Rides in general 3.53 10 Food 2.86 11 Souvenirs & merchandise
Mean Score a 4.14 4.06 4.04 4.03 4.01 3.89 3.82 3.74 3.30 3.24
Based on a scale from 1 to 5 (1=very low importance, 5=very high importance)
Table 2 summarises the mean scores of each attribute. It also compares the mean scores given by staff and guests, showing any significant differences highlighted by the t-test results. ‘Cleanliness of the park’ received the highest mean score (4.36), indicating this is the most important attribute for the combined sample. Four other attributes received a mean score of more than four, namely ‘Nice scenery/surroundings’ (4.22), ‘Control of lines/queues’ (4.15), ‘Fun Atmosphere’ (4.14) and ‘Shows’ (4.05). The attribute perceived as least important was ‘Souvenirs and merchandise’ (2.86). Nine of the ten items showed significant mean score differences when staff and guest perceptions were compared. One item showing a significant difference appears to represent overestimation by staff of guest perceptions (‘Souvenirs & merchandise’ by 0.38). The remaining eight items indicate an underestimation by staff of guests’ perception of the importance of attributes. Table 2. Comparison of Park Attributes’ Perceived Importancea by Staff and Guests Guests Staff Total T valueb n=772 n=267 n=1039 Cleanliness of the park Nice scenery/surroundings Control of lines/queues Fun Atmosphere Shows Family atmosphere Rides in general Overall prices in general Food Souvenirs & merchandise
4.46 4.28 4.27 4.18 4.11 3.97 3.88 3.80 3.53 2.86
4.06 4.04 3.82 4.03 3.89 4.01 3.74 3.65 3.30 3.24
5
4.36 4.22 4.15 4.14 4.05 3.98 3.84 3.76 3.47 2.96
7.83 * 4.28 * 7.20 * 2.65 * 3.71 * -0.79 2.27 * 2.25 * 3.18 * -6.20 *
Comparison of Importance of Attributes Among Staff Table 3 shows any significant differences identified between the guests’ perceptions of the importance of park attributes and those of various different types of staff. Non front-line staff perceptions were generally closer to the guests’ mean scores than front line staff in most cases. Only three (3) significant differences in mean were found when comparing guests and non front-line staff (namely ‘Cleanliness of the park’; ‘Control of lines/queues’; ‘Souvenirs and Merchandise’). Front-line staff, however, generally placed less importance on the attributes when compared to the guest sample’s responses, with nine (9) items showing significant differences, 8 of which had lower scores than guests. Similarly management and supervisory level employees had closer mean scores than general staff, with only two (2) items being significantly different to guest responses, compared with 9 significantly different items for general staff.
6
Table 3. Significant Differences of Perceived Importance of Park Attributes by Different Categories of Staff with Guests
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A11
Cleanliness of the park Control of lines/queues Family atmosphere Fun Atmosphere Food Nice scenery/surroundings Overall prices in general Shows Souvenirs & merchandise Rides in general
FrontLine Staff n=147
Non FrontLine Staff
Management/ General Supervisory Staff
n=114
n=61
n=179
Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes U Yes U No No No No No No Yes O No
No No Yes O No No No No No Yes O No
Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
U U U U U U U O U
U U U U U U U O U
Yes = significant difference between category of staff and guests, two tail probability
