Total Valid Percent
4.3 Analysis of the Information Sources used During the decision making Process
Having provided empirical support for the choice set model presented in this research, the chapter will now continue by analysing the role of tourist information sources used in the destination decision making process. The discussion follows a top down approach, beginning with the information sources that created awareness of the destinations and those used in the Early Consideration Stage. Following on from this, sources accessed at the Late Consideration Stage are analysed in detail to uncover how they are used to aid destination decision making.
4.3.1 The Awareness Set
Initially, for destinations to be included in the Early Consideration Stage, decision makers must have an awareness of those destinations. While this awareness may have originated from previous experience, initial awareness often originates from external sources including friends and relatives and the media such as adverts produced by destination management organisations. Luecke’s (2003) research into advertising effectiveness showed that digital media including TV was more effective than printed media in creating enduring images of tourist destinations than printed sources. Kim et
al (2005) also found that although printed media allows for the formation of rational and considered
images over a longer period of time, the recalled awareness of adverts for a destination was higher when they are delivered via digital media rather than printed media. Their research did not include friends and relatives as an information source through which awareness is created, but these three predominant sources, digital media, printed media and friends and relatives have been compared in this research. The data correspond to the 158 people that stated that they considered a total of 405 destinations which they did not go on to research actively, i.e. they were aware of the destinations, but eliminated them at the Early Consideration Stage. The rationale for selecting this group of respondents rather than the overall sample is that they are making decisions based on internally sourced information (i.e. from memories of adverts or discussions) and therefore did not have contact with destination information through their active information search which may interfere with the veracity of their responses.
150
Table 12: Do you remember hearing about the destination from the following media?
Digital Percent Print Percent
Friends and Family Percent Yes 258 63.7 222 54.8 270 66.7 No 147 36.3 183 45.2 135 33.3 Total 405 405 405
Of the 405 destinations that were the subject of this element of the research (presented in Table 12), results show that respondents recalled 270 (66.7%) of destinations being talked about by friends and relatives. This was the most frequently recalled source of the three involved at this stage of the decision making process which serves to once again emphasise the resilience of word of mouth as a prominent information source. Respondents remembered hearing about 258 (63.7%) of the destinations through digital sources, and finally 222 (54.8%) of the destinations were remembered from printed information relating to the destination. With regards to digital and printed sources, the results of this research demonstrate that digital media is more effective than printed media in creating destination awareness. While Kim et al (2005) did not include friends and relatives as an information source in their research, their results for digital and print media were similar to those in this research; 68.4% of their respondents remember digital adverts and 48.9% remember printed adverts. When friends and relatives were included in research, authors such as Dey and Sarma (2010) found word of mouth communication to be ranked above digital and print sources as a medium for creating destination awareness. Choi et al (2012) also found friends and relatives to be the most influential source in the early stages of destination decision making with 65.9% of their respondents remembering hearing about a destination through this source. The results of this research are not entirely consistent with those found by Sparks and Pan (2009) whose respondents ranked television first (60%), followed by friends and relatives (57%) and then printed sources (54%), however, the percentage scores for both digital/television and printed media are very similar to those of obtained in this research.
Overall, the results pertaining to the power of the three passive information sources to create long term awareness of a destination reflect those found in similar studies. Word of mouth communication continues to be the most enduring source, followed by digital media and finally printed media. Daft and Lengel, (1984) provide an explanation for the endurance of information
151 shared verbally by friends and relatives, citing the social aspect of sharing travel experiences and its richness as a way of communicating through numerous cues.
4.3.2 The Early Consideration Stage
Having identified which sources create the strongest top of mind awareness for destinations, further analysis was conducted into the effect that these information sources have on how the destinations are perceived. At this stage of the decision making model, destinations are either placed in the exclusion set because they are seen to be either inept or unavailable, surrogate set or evoked set. If there are significant relationships between information sources that create awareness of destinations and the way in which they are subsequently perceived and treated, it is important for marketing groups to understand these relationships in order to maximise the efficiency of their communication resources.
An initial inspection of the results appeared to suggest that destinations that had been seen though digital media were less likely to be considered inept than destinations that had not been seen in digital media (see Table 13). Of the 146 destinations that had not been seen in digital media, 40.4% (n = 59) were considered inept; this figure dropped to 29.3% (n = 76) if the destination had been seen in digital media. These results were tested for significance using a chi-square test for independence and the results supported the existence of the relationship; x2(1, n = 135) = 4.660, p =
.031, phi = -.113. The results of the chi-square test for printed media and friends and relatives found no significant relationship between these sources and destinations being considered inept. This was not unexpected as Pan (2009) and Pan et al’s (2011) research on the effect of watching TV adverts on inclination to visit the destination featured in the advert found that this type of media is a powerful positive image formation agent. Furthermore, these results are similar to the research findings of Kim, Hwang and Fesenmaier (2005) who found TV (digital) media to be more effective than printed media in creating advertising awareness which, importantly, was then converted into requests for information. In their research, 14.9% of respondents who remembered a destination from a TV advert went on to request information; this figure decreased to 8.6% for respondents who remembered destinations from printed sources. Clearly these results show that digital media is more effective than printed media and friends and relatives in creating a positive image of the destination and avoiding it being perceived as inept.
152
Table 13: Crosstabulation; Do you remember hearing about the destination through a digital information source * Did you exclude the destination as inept?
Excluded Inept Total
Yes No Digital Source Yes Count 76 183 259 % within Digital 29.3% 70.7% 100.0% No Count 59 87 146 % within Digital 40.4% 59.6% 100.0% Total Count 135 270 405 % within Digital 33.3% 66.7% 100.0%
The results were next analysed to identify whether the type source that created the awareness had an effect on whether the destination was perceived to be unavailable. Digital and printed media were both found to have a significant influence on whether a destination is considered unavailable or not (see Table 14 for digital media and Table 15 for printed). Perhaps unexpectedly, there was a positive correlation between a destination being seen in both digital and printed media and that destination being rejected as unavailable. 57.9% (n = 150) of destinations that had been seen in digital media were considered unavailable compared to only 37.0% (n = 54) of destinations that had not been seen in digital media (x2(1,n = 204) = 15.553, p = <.001, phi = .201). While the effect size for
printed media is smaller, there is still a significant difference in the number of destinations considered unavailable that had been seen in printed media (55.7%, n = 123) and those that had not (44.0%, n = 81), (x2(1, n = 204) = 4.981, p = .026, phi = -.116). This may be put down to the fact that
both digital and printed media are indiscriminate mass media channels which successfully serve to raise awareness, but do not necessarily serve specific needs of specific individuals in the audience. For this reason, while destinations may be presented in such a way as to induce a positive image, the content of the message may present what may be considered structural or situational inhibitors which rule them out of further consideration. As destinations that had not been heard about through digital or printed media were less likely to be rejected as unavailable, this implies that the information source that created the awareness (e.g. friends and relatives) is more effective in persuading the decision maker that the destination is a viable option. Decrop’s (2010) qualitative research also uncovered awareness of destinations that were perceived positively, but that were not realistic alternatives.
153
Table 14: Crosstabulation; Do you remember hearing about the destination through a digital information source * Did you exclude the destination as unavailable?
Excluded Unavailable Total
Yes No Digital Source Yes Count 150 109 259 % within Digital 57.9% 42.1% 100.0% No Count 54 92 146 % within Digital 37.0% 63.0% 100.0% Total Count 204 201 405 % within Digital 50.4% 49.6% 100.0%
Table 15: Crosstabulation; Do you remember hearing about the destination through a printed information source * Did you exclude the destination as unavailable?
Excluded Unavailable Total
Yes No Printed Source Yes Count 123 98 221 % within Print 55.7% 44.3% 100.0% No Count 81 103 184 % within Print 44.0% 56.0% 100.0% Total Count 204 201 405 % within Print 50.4% 49.6% 100.0%
Digital and printed media was also found to have a significant impact on whether a destination is held as a surrogate or not (Table 16 for Digital Media, Table 17 for Printed Media). For destinations that were seen in digital media, only 12.7% (n = 33) were held as a surrogate compared to 22.6% (n = 33) of destinations that were not seen in digital media (x2(1, n = 66) = 5.715, p = .017, phi = -.126).
Once again, printed media produces similar results; 10.4% (n = 23) of destinations seen in printed media held as a surrogate compared to 23.5% (n = 43) that were not held as a surrogate (x2(1,n = 66)
= 11.746, p = .001, phi = -.177). These results are similar to the results for destinations excluded because they were perceived to be unavailable; digital and printed media may be effective in creating an awareness of destinations amongst decision makers, and they may present positive images, but they are ultimately not as suitable to the destination decision makers’ requirements as other alternatives that are available.
154
Table 16: Crosstabulation; Do you remember hearing about the destination through a digital information source * Did you hold the destination as a surrogate?
Excluded Surrogate Total
Yes No Digital Source Yes Count 33 226 259 % within Digital 12.7% 87.3% 100.0% No Count 33 113 146 % within Digital 22.6% 77.4% 100.0% Total Count 66 339 405 % within Digital 16.3% 83.7% 100.0%
Table 17: Crosstabulation; Do you remember hearing about the destination through a printed information source * Did you holf the information source as a surrogate?
Surrogate Total Yes No Printed Source Yes Count 23 198 221 % within Print 10.4% 89.6% 100.0% No Count 43 141 184 % within Print 23.5% 76.6% 100.0% Total Count 66 339 405 % within Print 16.3% 83.7% 100.0%
When rejected destinations had been recalled from information provided by friends and relatives, no significant differences were found from destinations not heard about by friends and relatives as can be seen from Table 18 below which summarises the results discussed above.