Destination Marketing: A Framework for Future Research
The 15 Cs Framework
Although at a developmental phase, and in no way intended to represent a definitive list, the authors believe that the framework proposed — the 15 Cs Framework — provides a 76 Alan Fyall et al.
suitable synthesis of the key challenges facing the domain of destination marketing for the next decade. Clearly their degree of importance will vary according to the destination in question. However, the omission of even one of the challenges in the design and imple- mentation of destination marketing strategies is likely to hinder the effectiveness of the final plan or strategy in that an inadequate understanding of the wider destination envi- ronment is evident. Each component of the framework is now to be discussed in greater depth.
Complexity
The complexity of the destination product is not in dispute. What remains an issue for the future is that the destination is likely to become even more complex due to the myriad of forces and stakeholders both internal and external to it. For example, the complexity of the destination as a product to be marketed is further increased when the consumer and com- munity dimensions are taken into consideration. For the former, individual consumers of the destination product will frequently differ in their perceptions, expectations and desired satisfactions of the ‘tourism-place’. Few, if any, are likely to regard the destination as a neatly encapsulated bundle of suppliers, as might be the case from the supply perspective (Buhalis, 2000). For the short, medium and longer-term, the destination is likely not only to have multiple stakeholders, multiple components and multiple suppliers but also to con- vey multiple meanings to multiple markets and market segments.
Internally, pressures within DMOs exist to raise revenue from members and stakehold- ers while at the same time presenting marketing strategies that appeal to the needs and wants of an expectant market. These pressures are particularly evident within the UK at present vis-à-vis the devolution and regionalisation of tourism organisation and funding, and the migration from member-led ‘bottom-up’ strategies to centrally funded ‘top down’
strategies determined by the regional development agencies (RDAs) — who have a strate- gic remit for the development of tourism — and the regional tourism organisations (RTOs) who retain responsibility only for the marketing of the destination.
Control
Closely related to the above is the issue of control in that one of the principal frustrations for many destination marketers is their inability to control elements of the destination product as well as its destiny in the marketplace. This viewpoint is shared by Scott, Parfitt, and Laws (2000, p. 202) who argue that ‘the difficulties of co-ordination and control have the potential to undermine a strategic approach to marketing based on destination brand- ing because campaigns can be undertaken by a variety of tourist businesses with no con- sultation or co-ordination on the prevailing message or the destination values being promoted’. Hopper (2002), meanwhile, identifies many of the above issues as contributing to why London has struggled historically to make a sustained impact in terms of brand positioning. Although the emphasis here is on branding, these comments are pertinent to the entire domain of managing destinations. It is true that developments are being made in the need to bring tourism’s information base up-to-date (see Ritchie & Ritchie, 2002) as there is considerable evidence to suggest that the design and implementation of destination management systems (DMSs) are taking place to the extent that for most destinations, Destination Marketing: A Framework for Future Research 77
rather than being an aspirational element of their marketing armoury, they are now afforded necessity status and represent a very real opportunity for destination marketers to gain greater control of their product.
Change
Change is evident in any line of business and is thus not unique to the marketing and man- agement of destinations. One particular aspect of change that is particularly needed in the domain of destinations, however, is the migration from the traditional division that has always existed between the public and private sectors. As discussed earlier, Bennett considers this division as the principal catalyst for change in that it has held back the potential of destination marketing for far too long. To date, most countries around the world — the USA apart — retain a strong public bias in their organisational and funding structures. Not only does this result in the retention of a predominantly public ‘organisa- tional’ mindset but also it serves as a barrier to the raising of additional funding and the speed with which DMOs can react to forces in the external environment.
Crisis
Although crises have always been a feature of tourism, the terrorist atrocities in New York in September 2001 served as a reminder to all destination marketers that crises impact sig- nificantly on the demand for tourism, especially international tourism. Foot and Mouth Disease in the UK, the outbreak of SARS across South East Asia, hurricanes in the Caribbean and terrorism — or the perceived threat of terrorism — in many outposts around the world, have all, to varying degrees impacted negatively on tourism demand. Work by Baral, Baral, and Morgan (2004), Beirman (2002) and Money and Crotts (2003) has begun to explore the dynamics of such crises. One anticipates, however, that this is merely the beginning of what is likely to become a burgeoning domain of research activity. For exam- ple, recent events in India, Sri Lanka, the Maldives, Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia as a consequence of the Tsunami that hit each of their shores in December 2004 — although, clearly tragic for the domestic populations at large — has decimated much of the tourism infrastructure, most notably in Sri Lanka and the Maldives, as has it engendered in the minds of tourists a fear of nature’s elements to an extent hitherto unheard of. The outcomes for all destinations affected are at present clearly uncertain.
Any destination-marketing organisation that does not now incorporate some form of crisis management planning into its strategic marketing planning cycle can now be accused of grossly ignoring the realities of modern tourism. Acknowledging the crisis is one thing.
Understanding its impact is, however, a little more difficult in that many destinations are still coming to terms with the changing tourist flows that accompany crises and their related spend and accommodation requirements. In London, for example, the loss of one visitor from the United States in economic terms requires two European visitors and three and a half domestic visitors to compensate. This statistic alone highlights the need for continued market diversification with less reliance on traditional markets and continual new product development, promotion and public relations.
78 Alan Fyall et al.
One crisis that is often overlooked is that of economic crises. Economic crisis in the major generating countries such as Germany or Japan are economically far more damag- ing for tourist receiving countries than more high-profile — media-hungry — events such as 911, the outbreak of Chicken Flu in Thailand and the recent Tsunami in Asia.
Complacency
Continual change and fear of crises should be sufficient in themselves to prevent compla- cency among those marketing destinations. One of the problems for many destinations, however, is that for so long now specific markets have been such reliable sources of cus- tom. Although destinations can perhaps be excused in the past for being slow to react to forces in the external environment, recent crises alone ought to be sufficient in themselves to demonstrate that that the status quo of visitors to destinations can no longer be taken for granted. 9/11 was significant in one way in that although many destinations clearly suf- fered from very rapid drops in demand, tourists continued to travel albeit intra-regionally or domestically. Tourism has thus yet again been proved to be a highly robust phenome- non in that although travel patterns may change, the act of travelling remains steadfast in that to many markets it is now a necessity rather than a luxury; especially in the developed world.
Customers
The complexity of the destination as a product to be marketed is further increased when the consumer dimension is taken into consideration. For example, individual customers of the destination product will frequently differ in their perceptions, expectations and desired satisfactions of the ‘tourism-place’. Few, if any, are likely to regard the destination as a neatly encapsulated bundle of suppliers, as might be the case from the supply perspective (Buhalis, 2000). The task of managing the tourist destination is therefore never going to be an easy one for the destination is likely not only to have multiple stakeholders, multiple components and multiple suppliers but also to convey multiple meanings to multiple mar- kets and market segments.
In many instances, destination marketers need to be more innovative in their adoption of marketing techniques and strategies in meeting the needs of more demanding cus- tomers. For example, the highly competitive global market for tourists serves as a catalyst for tourism destinations to seek more innovative ‘relationship’ marketing strategies so as to engender a degree of loyalty and stimulate lucrative repeat business among their visitor base.
Studies conducted by a variety of authors (see for example, Bowen & Shoemaker, 1998;
Fyall, Callod, & Edwards, 2003; Kozak, 2001; Oppermann, 2000; Riley, Niininen, Szivas,
& Willis, 2001; Wang, 2004; Yuksel, 2001) have begun to explore many of the issues but far greater insights are required to move the debate and application of such strategies on.
For example, in a context of many destinations competing in price-driven, low-margin markets, the costs and benefits to be derived from relationship marketing require signifi- cant research before tourism destinations are able to accept the concept as a new paradigm or potential solution to maintain/expand their share of the market for visitors. In view of Destination Marketing: A Framework for Future Research 79
the inherent imbalance of power, resources and experience between tourism destination
‘actors’, generating cohesion, mutual trust and respect within the tourism system stand as significant challenges for those marketing tourism destinations in the future.
Culture
The issue of culture is relevant to both demand and supply-side perspectives of destination marketing. For example, as identified in the component of change, the cultural division between the public and private sectors within tourism continues to represent a barrier for progress across many countries. Although there is evidence to suggest that change is beginning to happen, albeit slowly, the particular characteristics of the destination and its fundamental reliance on ‘public goods’ as part of its wider appeal is likely to ensure that the two cultures will have to continue working alongside each other for the foreseeable future. On the demand side, however, one means by which destinations — and especially those that have acquired ‘commodity’ status in recent years, can differentiate themselves in the future is via the development of niche tourism strategies; often driven by the devel- opment of cultural products, more often than not of a heritage genre — for the more dis- cerning visitor. Further work is clearly needed in determining the true worth of such strategies to domestic and international markets.
Competition
The aforementioned need to differentiate the destination product is testament to the sheer number of destinations now available for sale in the ‘tourism supermarket’. In the European context the dearth of destination competition has been driven ostensibly by the continual growth of discount airlines making hitherto inaccessible destinations real alter- natives for many tourists from the key generating markets of the UK, Scandinavia, and Germany. The surge in ownership of second homes — most notably in France and Spain
— also serves as an indirect competitive threat in that an increasingly significant percent- age of the market now no longer needs variety in their choice of destinations as via their purchase of a second home they have expressed their loyalty, albeit to varying degrees, to a particular destination. Competition is at its most cutthroat post-crisis with evidence from recent disasters suggesting that although the overall volume of trips taking place remains relatively static, the shift in travel patterns is significant in that domestic and intra-regional travel to more familiar and perceived ‘safe’ destinations have become the norm.
Commodification
The increase in competition across all regions of the world is such that over periods of time more and more destinations are likely to share similar if not identical ‘selling points’. The
‘commodified’ destination is already a reality — particularly in parts of the Mediterranean, South East Asia and the Caribbean — where the pressure is now to differentiate as much as possible between one destination and another. One of the outcomes of commodification of the destination product is the continual downward pressure on prices. Although highly beneficial to the tourist the reduction in yield poses a significant headache for destination 80 Alan Fyall et al.
markers in that increasingly more marketing — and marketing spend — has to be con- ducted in return for a decreasing yield from tourists. Niche tourism developments are the means to counter such a trend — as best demonstrated by marketing strategies adopted by the Tourism Authority of Thailand and their development of the brand Amazing Thailand brand and its annual niche-oriented marketing ‘straplines’.
Creativity
The aforementioned need for greater branding of destinations is just part of the need for a wider appreciation of greater creativity across the whole spectrum of marketing activity.
Branding is the most obvious development, especially with regard to attempts made to position destinations outside of the mass of commodity destinations around the world. One of the biggest hurdles for destination marketers in this regard, however, is their limited ability to build destination-wide brands. The lack of product control and tight budgets as well as the potential for political interference, all inhibit the ease with which brands can be developed. This in turn helps to explain why there is such a paucity of brand innovation in the destination sector as compared to other sectors within the tourism industry. In part, studies conducted by Caldwell and Freire (2004), Konecnik (2004), Morgan, Pritchard, and Piggott (2002, 2003), Prideaux, Agrusa, Donlon, J. and Curran (2004) and White (2004) have begun to address some of the issues related to branding. That said, far greater work needs to be commissioned with regard to the need for more clarity and consistency with the brand proposition and an even greater emphasis on a strong brand image with clearly identified and projected brand values that resonate with key target segments; more direct engagement with the customer to identify their holiday motivations, anticipate their needs and fulfil their aspirations
Communication
The need for greater creativity is particularly apparent in the context of communication.
Traditionally, a disproportionately high percentage of marketing budgets has been spent on brochures and leaflets and although in many parts of the world this remains the case more varied communication efforts are now needed for a more educated and increasingly sophisticated clientele (Dore & Crouch, 2003; Foley & Fahy, 2004). Clearly, this statement varies according to the generating market in question in that what maybe true for devel- oped markets such as Germany and the UK may not be so for emerging markets such as Korea and Russia. According to King (2002) much greater emphasis needs to be given to the creation and communication of holiday experiences that link key brand values and assets with the holiday aspirations and needs of key customers. In parallel he advocates a move away from a relatively passive promotional role to include greater intervention, facil- itation and direction in the conversion process. The migration to an economy based on
‘experience’ opens the door to the establishment of ongoing, direct, two-way and net- working consumer communication channels, and for key customer relationship strategies to take place with the eventual development of mass customisation marketing and delivery capabilities.
Destination Marketing: A Framework for Future Research 81
Channels
This and the issue that immediately follows — cyberspace — are closely related in that they both are concerned with the aspect of distribution of the destination product. With dis- intermediation of much of the tourism marketing system now taking place — in part driven by the increase in independent travel in many origin markets — as at the same time rein- termediation beginning to take place due to the uncertain travel patterns of some key mar- kets, it is clear that the issue of channels is very much in a state of flux at the current moment in time. Although there have been significant developments vis-à-vis computer reservation systems and global distribution systems, for the destination it is the growth of destination management and marketing systems that are the principal competitive tool for destinations in their quest for gaining greater control over the distribution of the destina- tion product. Irrespective of the location, scale and type of destination in question, the development of a suitable destination management system — whether unilaterally or with other like-minded destination(s) is a priority that can no longer be ignored.
Cyberspace
As alluded to above, the emerging role and influence of the Internet is a significant force in the future distribution and management of tourism across generally and the destination in particular. The emergence over the past decade of virtual intermediaries such as Expedia, Travelocity and Opodo continue to represent a significant threat to destinations in that their expertise and scope of operation brings considerable economies of scale that further enhance their position in the marketplace. The emergence of the Internet and its application in the domains of tourism, travel and hospitality is significant in that it has underpinned significant changing patterns of consumption — as has it impacted the entire buying processes — and the entire means by which tourism, travel and hospitality prod- ucts are packaged and sold. A large number of studies have been conducted in this area — see for example Buhalis (1998) — as academia and the wider industry continue to learn from the e-revolution. The complexity of the destination product and the co-ordinating role practised by destination marketers clearly makes the development, implementation and management of destination-wide web sites particularly challenging. However, as with the rest of the wider tourism industry, it is a challenge that destinations cannot afford to ignore.
Consolidation
The example of Thomas Cook AG represents a typical illustration of a common trend across most industries — the significant growth in recent years in the number of mergers and acquisitions taking place. This trend has impacted significantly on the global tourism industry, most notably in the domains of travel in the form of airlines, hospitality in the form of large international hotel groups and tourism in the form of intermediaries; such as Thomas Cook AG (WTO, 2002). Indeed, according to Wahab and Cooper (2001) it is the development of new integrated corporate structures as a result of alliances, mergers and acquisitions that is likely to cause the greatest structural impact on the tourism industry.
82 Alan Fyall et al.