This is the author’s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for pub-lication in the following source:
Pike, Steven D.&Murdy, Samantha(2012) Perceptions of visitor relation-ship marketing opportunities by destination marketers : an importance-performance analysis. In2nd Advances in Tourism Marketing & Manage-ment Conference, May 2012, Corfu, Greece.
This file was downloaded from: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/58036/
c
Copyright 2012 (please consult the authors).
Notice: Changes introduced as a result of publishing processes such as copy-editing and formatting may not be reflected in this document. For a definitive version of this work, please refer to the published source:
Murdy, S. , & Pike, S. (2012). Perceptions of visitor relationship marketing opportunities by destination marketers: An importance-performance analysis. 2nd Advances in Tourism Marketing & Management Conference. Corfu, Greece. May.
Perceptions of visitor relationship marketing opportunities by destination marketers: An importance-performance analysis
Abstract
Customer relationship marketing (CRM) initiatives are increasingly being adopted by businesses in the attempt to enhance brand loyalty and stimulate repeat purchases. The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which destination marketing organisations (DMOs) around the world have developed a visitor relationship marketing (VRM)
orientation. The proposition underpinning the study is that maintaining meaningful dialogue with previous visitors in some markets would represent a more efficient use of resources than above the line advertising to attract new visitors. Importance-performance analysis was utilised to measure destination marketers’ perceptions of the efficacy of CRM initiatives, and then rate their own organisation’s performance across the same range of initiatives. A key finding was that mean importance was higher than perceived performance for every item. While the small sample limits generalisability, in general there are appears to be a lack of strategic intent by DMOs to invest in VRM.
Keywords:customer relationship marketing,CRM, visitor relationship marketing, VRM, destination marketing organisations, importance-performance analysis.
Introduction
Customer relationship marketing (CRM) has become one of the fastest growing practices within business (Raman, Wittman & Rauseo, 2006). CRM is a customer-orientated and cross-functional business strategy process integrated with business technology (Goldenberg, 2000), rather than merely a software package (Harker & Egan, 2006). CRM is a process that is used
to assist an organisation create ongoing relationships with high yield customers, which is considered more cost-effective than a series of one-off transactions with new customers. The key goals are to create and enhance brand loyalty, increase customer retention, and stimulate repeat purchases (Chang, Yen, Ku & Young, 2002, Marchand, 2006, Ozgener & Iraz, 2006). By increasing customer loyalty, value is added to the life of the customer (Beaujean,
Davidson & Madge, 2006) and reduces the overall cost of marketing (Ozgener & Iraz, 2006). This reduced cost is emphasised by the suggestion that it is at least five times more cost-effective for an organisation to retain existing customers, as opposed to continually acquiring new ones (Ozgener & Iraz, 2006).
Of interest to this study was the proposition by Pike (2007) that maintaining meaningful dialogue with previous visitors is a more efficient use of resources for destination marketers than traditional above the line advertising to attract a continual stream of new visitors. This is an important consideration given most destination marketing organisations (DMO) must use scarce resources for marketing communications across an increasingly fragmented media space, in multiple and diverse markets of interest to stakeholders, and in ways that effectively positions the destination against an almost unlimited range of direct and indirect competitors. Pike’s qualitative research explored the extent to which regional tourism organisations (RTO) in Australia were employing visitor relationship marketing (VRM) initiatives in their most important domestic market. While all the senior management of the RTOs acknowledged the potential for VRM in the future, the key findings included: i) the inability of RTOs to track repeat visitors, ii) a lack of communication with previous visitors, and iii) the assumption that accommodation operators were engaged in CRM. The purpose of this study was to extend Pike’s research by examining the extent to which DMOs in other parts of the world have adopted a VRM orientation and implemented VRM initiatives.
In increasingly competitive tourism markets, travellers have an almost unlimited choice of destinations. However, research has shown (see Crompton, 1992, Pike, 2006 and Woodside & Sherrell, 1977) that there are only two and six destinations within a consumers’ evoked set, which they will seriously consider during decision making. An advantage for a destination in a consumers’ decision set is an increase in the propensity of a consumer to visit that
destination (Pike, 2006). Pike’s longitudinal study, which found a relationship between previous visitation and decision set membership, supported previous research indicating the more familiar a consumer is with the destination, the greater the propensity to return in the future (see Fakeye & Crompton 1991, Milman & Pizam 1995). For some travel segments, such as short breaks to near home destinations there are high levels of repeat visitation. In Australia, for example, the Victorian state tourism organisation reported up to 90% New Zealand visitors had previously visited Australia, along with 60% of Singaporean visitors and 10% of Japanese visitors (Harris, Jago & King, 2005). Similarly, Tourism Queensland (2006) found 93% of New Zealanders were repeat visitors.
It is proposed therefore that VRM represents a potentially cost effective means of capitalising on existing brand loyalty. However, while the concept of CRM has been widely accepted in the literature there has been a lack of research related to practical applications by destination marketers (Fyall, Callod & Edwards, (2003). The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which destination marketing organisations (DMOs) around the world have
developed a VRM orientation.
Methodology
The sample frame was a database of 1,435 DMOs, which was developed for this study from an online search. The database included representation of DMOs at different levels, which were national tourism organisations (NTO) worldwide, state tourism organisations (STO) in the USA, Canada and Australia, regional tourism organisations (RTO), regional tourism boards (RTB) visitor/tourist information centres (VIC/TIC) in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, and convention and visitors bureaus (CVB) in the USA and Canada.
A questionnaire was developed with the aim of understanding destination marketers’ perceptions of the importance of CRM initiatives, as well as their perceptions of firm performance, to enable an Importance-performance analysis (IPA). Developed by Martilla and James (1977), IPA enables a simple graphic representation of data that is easily interpreted by practitioners will little research training. An example of the IPA matrix is presented in Figure 1. The cross-hairs, or the intersecting lines which form a cross, can be placed using the discretion of the researcher in terms of providing the greatest insight. Previous placements include either using the grand means of the scales, the median of the scales, or the scale mid-point (Bruyere, Rodriguez & Vaske, 2002). The use of IPA has been
widely reported in the tourism marketing literature (see for example Crompton 1979, Crompton & Duray 1985, Hollenhorst, Olson & Fortney 1992, Hudson & Shephard 1998, O’Neill & Charters 2000, Uysal, Chen & Williams 2000).
Figure 1 – Importance-performance matrix
Adapted from Martilla & James (1977)
No VRM scale index had been reported at the time of the study. Therefore a review of critical success factors (CSFs) from the wider CRM literature was conducted, identifying 42
attributes (see Bose, 2002, Wilson, Daniel & McDonald, 2002, Bielski, 2003, Beaujean, Davidson & Madge, 2006, King & Burgess, 2006, Lin, Lin, Huang & Kuo, 2006, Ozgener & Iraz, 2006, Marchand, 2006, Raman, Witman & Rauseo, 2006). These attributes, when compared to a list of 78 attributes compiled by Sin, Tse and Yim (2005), were similar. Sin et al. (2005) reduced the list to 23 items using factor analysis, before a final 18 item scale was implemented. As this was an exploratory study in a different context, the 23 item scale was
deemed the most appropriate. Using a 7-point Likert type scale, participants were ask to rate the importance of each item before being asked to rate the performance of their DMO on each item. The questionnaire was only produced in English. DMOs were emailed the link to the questionnaire, which was hosted online by the university. Questionnaires, where possible, were sent to specific email addresses. Otherwise general enquiry forms were utilised. As an incentive, participants were offered a prize draw of 10 tourism marketing texts. Following Sue and Ritter (2007) a reminder email was sent.
Results
From the 1,435 emails sent, 174 were returned without reaching the intended participant due to out of date e-mail addresses and SPAM filters. From the 1,265 believed to have reached the intended participant, 65 responses were received, representing a useable response rate of 5.2%. The sample characteristics are shown in Table 1. The majority of participants were from North America (51%) and the United Kingdom (28%). Unfortunately, Asia, Africa and South America yielded no responses. In terms of DMO type, CVBs were the largest group (46%), followed by RTOs (20%) and TIC/ VICs (20%). Almost half of the participants represented DMOs with staff numbers of 10 employees of less (48%). Only three DMOs (5%) had more than 150 staff. Considering this questionnaire originated from Australia, there was a disappointing response from DMOs (3.1%).
Table 1: Sample characteristics
Characteristics n Valid Percent
Location North America 33 50.8
United Kingdom 18 27.7 New Zealand 8 12.3 Europe 3 4.6 Australia 2 3.1 Asia 0 0 Africa 0 0
Central/ South America 0 0
Other 1 1.5 Total 65 100 Level CVB 30 46.2 RTO 13 20 TIC/ VIC 13 20 NTO 5 7.7 STO 1 1.5
Other 3 4.6
Total 65 100
Number of staff Less than 10 31 48.4
11-20 16 25 21-30 6 9.4 31-40 4 6.2 51-100 2 3.1 41-50 1 1.6 101-150 1 1.6 More than 150 3 4.7
Total (One missing) 64 100 CRM Specialist No CRM specialist 48 23.1
Full-time CRM specialist 15 3.1 Part-time CRM specialist 2 73.8
Total 65 100
Table 2 outlines the means of both the importance and performance for each of the scale items. The means for attribute importance ranged from 6.7, for ‘employees being willing to help visitors in a responsive manner’ to 5.4, for ‘maintaining a comprehensive database’. All items had a mean above the scale mid-point, suggesting a high consideration of the importance of VRM functions, in line with the literature (Fyall et al., 2003, Pike, 2007). The grand mean for the importance attribute items was 6.0. The means for DMO performance ranged from 6.3, ‘Our employees are willing to help visitors in a responsive manner’, to 4.3, ‘We maintain a comprehensive database of our visitors’. Again, all means were above the scale mid-point. The grand mean for the DMO performance items was 5.1, which is lower than the grand mean for the importance attribute items. The results are outlined in Table 2, and graphically illustrated in an IPA matrix in Figure 3. In Figure 2 a gap analysis highlights the differences in the means for item importance and DMO performance.
Of most interest in an IPA matrix are those attributes in Quadrants 1 and 2, as these are relatively more important than the items in Quadrants 3 and 4. Of the most important items, three are found in Quadrant 1. These items represent VRM initiatives where improvement in DMO performance is most pressing:
Having effective interdepartmental communication.
Top management supporting the acquisition and deepening of visitor relationships.
Items in Quadrant 2 represent six VRM initiatives considered more important and where the DMO is perceived to perform well:
Responding to visitor requests promptly.
Employees being willing to help visitors in a responsive manner.
Understanding the needs of key visitors.
Prompt service from employees of the organisation. Treating all key visitors with great care.
Making an effort to find out what key visitor needs are.
It could be argued that the items in Quadrant 1 are related to proactivity, whereas the items in Quadrant 2 are generally related to reactivity.
Table 2: Results
Quadrant Attribute Item Mean
(Import-ance)
Mean (Perform-ance) 1 Having clear goals for visitor acquisition and
retention.
1 6.0 4.9 Having effective interdepartmental
communication.
3 6.1 5.0 Top management supporting the acquisition and
deepening of visitor relationships.
17 6.0 5.1 2 Responding to visitor requests promptly. 13 6.6 6.1
Employees being willing to help visitors in a responsive manner.
14 6.7 6.3 Understanding the needs of key visitors. 15 6.5 5.2 Prompt service from employees of the
organisation.
18 6.4 6.0 Treating all key visitors with great care. 19 6.5 5.9 Making an effort to find out what key visitor
needs are.
20 6.4 5.7 3 Employee training to help acquire and deepen 4 5.9 4.7
visitor relationships.
An organisation structure that is designed around visitors.
5 5.5 4.4 The sales and marketing expertise and resources to
manage visitor relationships.
6 5.8 4.9 Establishing and monitoring performance
standards relative to visitors.
7 5.6 4.8 The right personnel for the technology used to
build visitor relationships.
8 5.7 4.8 Having the right software to serve visitors. 9 5.5 4.5 Having the right hardware to serve visitors. 10 5.4 4.5 Maintaining a comprehensive database of visitors. 12 5.4 4.3 Providing ongoing, two-way communication with
key visitors.
16 5.9 4.9 Working with key visitors to customise the
destination’s offerings.
22 5.7 4.8 Assessing whether visitors feel services should be
modified.
23 5.9 4.9 4 Committing time and resources to managing
relationships with visitors
2 5.7 5.2 Having individual visitor information available. 11 5.8 5.3 Providing customised services to key visitors. 21 5.9 5.4
Figure 3: IPA data points
Discussion
Fyall et al. (2003) argued there had been a lack of literature relating to the uptake of CRM initiatives by DMOs. The purpose of this research was to extend the exploratory research of Pike (2007) by investigating the level of VRM orientation by DMOs around the world, underpinned by the proposition that maintaining dialogue with previous visitors represents an efficient use of resources. Pike’s qualitative interviews with management of 11 RTOs in Australia had found an interest in the potential of VRM but a total lack of implementation. Sin et al.’s (2005) CRM orientation scale index of 23 items was adapted to suit the DMO context. In terms of the suitability of Sin et al.’s CRM scale index, the mean importance for all 23 items was above the scale midpoint. This supports Pike’s (2007) finding that
destination marketers recognise the importance of VRM initiatives. The mean performance for each of the 23 items was also above the scale midpoint, suggesting the participating DMOs are progressing with VRM initiatives. However, given the mean performance was
IPA Matrix 4 6.0 4 5.1 6.222 Performance Importance 7 7 14 13 18 19 15 20 21 11 2 17 12 5 9 10 3 1 16 23 6 4 7 8 22
lower than performance for all items, indicates the DMOs are not satisfied with the extent to which they are maintaining dialogue with previous visitors.
While the small sample size limits the generalisability of the data, it is felt the findings do highlight the need for more research in this area. In particular the results of importance-performance analysis point to a lack of strategic intent relating to VRM, as three initiatives that rated more important relate to proactivity. The other more important initiatives where the DMOs were perceived to perform relatively well generally relate to reactivity. Thus while the participants consider their organisation to perform well in terms of responsiveness to visitor enquiries and understanding of visitors’ needs, there is a general acknowledgement of the need to develop an organisational VRM orientation. The destination marketing literature would benefit from cases studies of successful and unsuccessful attempts by DMOs to develop a VRM orientation.
With regard to the small sample, survey targeting businesses tend to have a lower response than those involving consumers (Sheehan & McMillan, 1999, p. 46, Frazer and Lawley, 2000, p. 74). Also, previous attempts to survey DMOs often have not yielded high responses For example, a study of DMOs around the world by Blain, Levy and Ritchie (2005) in relation to destination branding, attracted a sample of 99. Another study by Park and Petrick (2006) was sent to 25 DMOs. Only eight of these responded. Park and Petrick identified some of the reasons that DMOs chose not to participate, including nondisclosure policies and uncertainties about how their organisation would progress with the topic being surveyed. These suggestions may help explain the low response rate of this type of study. Also, the low response rate might point to a general lack of VRM orientation. For example, one non-participating DMO voiced a concern about the survey, being relevant only to visitor centres. Another non-respondent argued that they had neither the mandate nor the funding and deemed it the responsibility of the tourism operators.
References
Beaujean, M., Davidson, J., & Madge, S. (2006). The 'moment of truth' in customer service. McKinsey Quarterly, 2006(1), 63-73.
Bielski, L. (2003). Taking CRM step-by-step. ABA Banking Journal. 95(4) 57.
Blain, C., Levy, S. & Ritchie, J. (2005). Destination Branding: Insights and Practices from Destination Management Organizations. Journal of Travel Research, 43(4) 328-338. Bose, R. (2002). Customer relationship management: key components for IT success.
Industrial Management + Data Systems, 102(1/2) 89-97.
Bruyere, B., Rodriguez, D. & Vaske, J. (2002). Enhancing Importance-Performance Analysis through Segmentation. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 12(1) 81-95.
Chang, J., Yen, D., Ku, C.-Y., & Young, D. (2002). Critical issues in CRM adoption and implementation. International Journal of Services and Technology Management, 3(3), 311-324.
Crompton, J. L. (1979). An assessment of the image of Mexico as a vacation destination and the influence of geographical location upon that image. Journal of Travel Research. Spring: 18-23.
Crompton, J. (1992). Structure of vacation destination choice sets. Annals of Tourism Research, 19(2) 420-434.
Crompton, J. & Duray, N. (1985). An investigation of the relative efficacy of four alternative approaches to importance-performance analysis. Academy of Marketing Science (Journal pre-1986), 13(4) 69-80.
Fakeye, P., & Crompton, J.L. (1991). Image differences between prospective, first- time, and repeat visitors to the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Journal of Travel Research. Fall: 10- 16.
Fyall, A., Callod, C. & Edwards, B. (2003). Relationship marketing: The challenge for destinations. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(3) 644-659.
Goldenberg, B. (2000, 27-29 June). What is CRM? What is an e-customer? Why you need them now. Paper presented at the Proceedings of DCI Customer Relationship Management Conference, Boston.
Harker, M.J. & Egan, J. (2006). The past, present and future of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing Management, 22(1-2) 215-242.
Harris, R., Jago, L. & King, B. (2005). Case studies in tourism & hospitality marketing. Pearson Education Australia: Sydney.
Hollenhorst, S., Olson, D., & Fortney, R. (1992). Use of importance-performance analysis to evaluate state park cabins: the case of the West Virginia state park system. Journal of Park and Recreational Administration. 10(1): 1-11.
Hudson, S., & Shephard, G. W. H. (1998). Measuring service quality at tourist destinations: an application of importance – performance analysis to an alpine ski resort. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing. 7(3): 61-77.
King, S., & Burgess, T. (2006). Beyond critical success factors: A dynamic model of enterprise system innovation. International Journal of Information Management, 26(1), 59-69.
Lin, C., Lin, K., Huang, Y., & Kuo, W. (2006). Evaluation of Electronic Customer Relationship Management: The Critical Success Factors. The Business Review: Cambridge, 6(2), 206-212.
Marchand, D. (2006). Customer Relationship Management Challenging the Myth: Focus on People not the Technology. Perspectives for Managers, 131(1), 1-4.
Martilla, J., & James, J. (1977). Importance-Performance Analysis. Journal of Marketing (pre-1986), 41(000001), 77-79.
Milman, A. & Pizam, A. (1995). The role of awareness and familiarity with a destination: The Central Florida case. Journal of Travel Research, 33(3) 21- 27.
O’Neill, M., & Charters, S. (2000). Service quality at the cellar door: implications for Western Australia's wine tourism industry. Managing Service Quality. 10(2): 112- 122.
Ozgener, S., & Iraz, R. (2006). Customer relationship management in small-medium
enterprises: The case of Turkish tourism industry. Tourism Management, 27(6), 1356-1363.
Park, S. & Petrick, J. (2006). Destinations’ Perspectives of Branding. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(1) 262-265.
Pike, S. (2006). Destination decision sets: A longitudinal comparison of stated destination preferences and actual travel. Journal of Vacation Marketing 12(4):pp. 319-328.
Pike, S. (2007). Repeat visitors - an exploratory investigation of RTO responses. Journal of Travel & Tourism Research.
Raman, P., Wittmann, C., & Rauseo, N. (2006). Leveraging CRM for sales: the role of organizational capabilities in successful CRM implementation. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 26(1), 39-53.
Sheehan, K. & McMillan, S. (1999). Response variation in E-mail surveys: an exploration. Journal of Advertising Research, 1999(July/ August).
Sin, L., Tse, A., & Yim, F. (2005). CRM: conceptualization and scale development. European Journal of Marketing, 39(11/12), 1264-1392.
Sue, V. & Ritter, L. (2007). Conducting Online Surveys. Sage Publications: London.
Tourism Queensland. (2006). Why do kiwis come to Queensland? T.Q. News, 7(Winter): 45-47.
Uysal, M., Chen, J. S., & Williams, D. R. (2000). Increasing state market share through a regional positioning. Tourism Management. 21(1): 89-96.
Wilson, H., Daniel, E., & McDonald. (2002). Factors for Success in Customer Relationship Management (CRM) Systems. Journal of Marketing Management, 18(1/2), 193-219. Woodside, A. & Sherrell, D. (1977). Traveler evoked, inept, and inert sets of
