With respect to the various tourism system configurations, in the literature there is a debate on the superiority of one configuration over the other ones (meant as capability of supporting the sustainable development of a specific territorial area). Actually, till date there is no study capable of producing univocal empirical evidences of such superiority.
Conversely, it seems more meaningful to assume that the ability of a tourism system to generate competitive products is not only a function of its configuration, but also of the consistency between the configuration itself and a number of contingent factors related to the territorial area and the competitive system.
- the emphasis laid on the various elements making up the product; in this case a distinc- tion can be made between the definitions which mostly relate to the individual tourism services and the definitions referring to the tourism system as a whole.
The combination of the two variables identifies four ideal types of tourism product:
● Territory product, related to Lewis’s and Chambers’s definition (1989), meant as a whole set of natural and/or anthropic attraction factors which a specific area can provide to a specific typology of tourist
● Service product, meant as a whole set of goods and services differently provided to tourists during their stay in the destination, in line with Borghesi’s definition (1994)
● Benefit product, meant as the bundle of activities, services and benefits which contribute to determining the tourist satisfaction level (Medlik & Middleton, 1973)
● Experience product, meant as the tourists’ overall experience of the destination result- ing from their cognitive processes during their interaction with the area attraction fac- tors. This definition was suggested by Rispoli and Tamma (1995).
While these four definitions differently emphasise the features of the tourism product, a number of convergent elements can be found in them.
Firstly, it is possible to highlight that, in defining the tourism product, all of them (although to a different extent) refer to the demand/supply interaction and to the unitary re-arrangement of the bundle of resources within the tourists’ cognitive system. Actually, through their discretional actions, tourists make a selection of the available resources — choosing the ones which are more consistent with their way of thinking and their motiva- tions — and link them within a unitary experience framework. The tourism product is then recognised as a product having a systemic nature and the capability of creating synergies resulting from the participation of the various resources in the same tourism enjoyment process. Lastly, the organisational dimension of the tourism product and the resulting value Tourism System Dynamics: A Multi-level Destination Approach 123
1. Territory
product 2. Service product
4. Experience
product 3. Benefit product
Tourism system
Tourism services Supply
Demand
Figure 8.5: Different concepts of tourism product.
Source: Our data processing.
are considered by all approaches illustrated here as the joint result generated by the supply and demand process (Figure 8.6).
As to this point it is worth stressing that the ability of the tourism system to generate organised supply forms translating into a value added for the demand side is limited by some specificities related to the system stakeholders:
- High supply fragmentation; the number of firms involved in the tourism system is quite high and they usually are small-sized firms
- Limited scope of the business; firms have a short-term strategic vision and their scope of action is limited to their own core business
- High level of heterogeneity; firms are quite varied as to their main business and their legal status.
These features hinder inter-firm co-operation making the creation of spontaneous forms of tourism products quite complex.
In this field there is a wide scientific production which, adopting the point of view of small tourism firms, analyses their capability of establishing win–win relationships with other players within the system. Lowe (1988) focused on the composition of the systems and observed that the “extended family” approach, also described by Quinn, Larmour, and McQuillan (1992) and Lee-Ross and Ingold (1994) can be applied. The author maintains that firms view economically important subjects linked to them by social relationships (e.g. consumers, employees, distribution channels) as part of their family network; from this network other subjects are excluded, such as banks or accountants with which formal and rigid relationships are established.
124 Enrico Bonetti et al.
Proc sso di domanda Tourism supplyTourism demand
Supply system
Demand system
TOURISM PRODUCT
Supply process
Demand process
Figure 8.6: Origin of tourism product.
Source: Our data processing.
Adopting the small firm’s perspective, Morrison (1994), focusing on the relationships between small tourism firms and product distribution channels, identified four typologies of organisations as potential partners (wholesalers, private sector retailers, public sector retailers, voluntary consortia) highlighting their costs, benefits and main implications in terms of power management.
Littlejohn, Foley, and Lennon (1996), analysing accommodation facilities consortia, identified a positive attitude of individual firms in creating networks with promotional aims and supporting the creation of new products. Conversely the authors highlighted that, also in case of high co-operation levels, limited effects on the business performance are produced.
As to the origin of the tourism product, the literature recognises three different modes through which it is generated (Rispoli & Tamma, 1995). The first one includes the organ- isational activity of the tourist who, taking care of what is necessary to organise his/her vacation, actually assemblies the product (point-point approach). Tourists devise their own vacation, select the individual operators, purchase the relevant services, plan the activities to enjoy the products and services provided, manage unexpected events.
The second mode of “genesis” recognises instead the existence of an organisation arranging the tourism product (e.g. a tour operator or a travel agency). This organisation deals with all most important issues linked to the management of the vacation in a specific destination (from planning to organisation, purchasing of the various product components, implementation of the actions required in case of unexpected events) providing tourists with a structured service package (package approach).
The third mode of “genesis” identifies in the mutual co-operation among local organi- sations the basic principle to facilitate the tourism activity. Through a multiple network of relationships, the various players differently contribute to defining joint marketing policies and/or joint tools to enjoy the services provided (network approach). By so doing tourists are given additional benefits compared to those provided by the individual services:
● Timely organisation of the vacation; e.g. by proposing a portfolio of ideas and options linked to the stay in the specific area
● Cost effectiveness, e.g. through discounts linked to the joint purchase of different services
● Facilitating service purchasing, e.g. thanks to joint telematic booking services
● Guarantee of the product quality, e.g. by using shared standards
● Facilitating payment of the services provided, e.g. by pre-paid cards
● Efficiency in visiting local attractions, e.g. by organising local mini tours.
These three different forms of aggregation of the local tourism resources generate a spe- cific value proposition through which the territorial sub-system qualifies as tourism prod- uct. Simultaneously, the services which are part of it make the satisfaction level promised to tourists explicit.
Consequently the value proposition has to be: easily recognisable by tourists while organising their vacation and enjoying it; accessible from the space and time standpoint;
usable in a way which is consistent with the tourist’s expectations.
The different models originating the tourism product determine the different level of inclusion of the value proposition key attributes in the product (Figure 8.7). Actually, assuming that the tourist has self-organised the whole product, the value proposition might Tourism System Dynamics: A Multi-level Destination Approach 125
be highly recognisable, but the level of accessibility might be low and the level of use not always in line with the expectations. When the product organisation is made by a single operator (e.g. a tour operator) the value proposition might be highly recognisable and the level of accessibility quite adequate, but the level of use might be too full with constraints and then would not meet the tourist’s needs.
Lastly, when operators co-operate to facilitate self-organisation, the level of use might meet the tourist’s needs, the level of accessibility might be adequate, but the value propo- sition might not be very recognisable.