Section 3: The Tourist
H. Peter Gray
2. Discuss the following statement: ‘The natural tendency of a tourism destination is to attract psy-
166 Chapter 3.8
Exercise
1. Looking at the place where you live, which type
Traveller Typologies 167 Fig. 45. A received Compostela. (Photo courtesy of Alexandre Panosso Netto.)
168 © G. Lohmann and A. Panosso Netto 2017. Tourism Theory (G. Lohmann and A. Panosso Netto) Travel agencies are an important element that pro-
vides travellers with information and recommenda- tions about various tourism products and destinations. Recommendations about where to go, how to go, what to see and what to avoid are essen- tial to the success of many tourist enterprises. For marketing professionals, it therefore becomes espe- cially critical to better understand the factors that can influence travel agents’ recommendations (see
‘Crompton’s destination-choice model’).
Klenosky and Gitelson (1998) proposed a model that analyses the travel agent recommendation pro- cess for tourism destinations, as shown in Fig. 46.
The model presents a four-step process: knowledge, perception/evaluation, intention and recommenda- tion. These steps are influenced by three main cate- gories of factors: agent knowledge variables, destination variables and trip/traveller variables.
The model assumes that, to recommend a destina- tion, the agents must first be aware that it exists. In the model, the act of being aware that the destina- tion exists is seen as a function of two agent knowl- edge variables: degree of exposure to information about the destination and direct tourist experience.
Exposure to information can be provided by vari- ous sources, including marketer-controlled sources (e.g. print and broadcast advertising material), gen- eral media sources (e.g. newspaper and magazine articles) and informal sources (e.g. friends, relatives, customers and other agents). Similarly, direct expe- riences with particular destinations may include the agent’s past experiences as a tourist or even trips sponsored by destinations or tourist enterprises, also known as ‘FAM tours’ (familiarization tours).
The second step in the process – perception and evaluation – refers to the agent’s opinions and per- ceptions of a place and what it has to offer. These feelings can change for better or worse over time, according to what the agent learns from informa- tion obtained and their own experience of the des- tination’s natural and artificial characteristics.
Destination recommendation intention refers to the probability of recommending a destination for a certain type of travel. The model shows these intentions as primarily influenced by destination perceptions and evaluations. There is a strong asso- ciation between the intention to visit a place and the recommendation that will be made about it.
The model considers that the final choice of which destination to recommend is affected by the destination recommendation intentions that have been developed over time and according to the particular trip/traveller variables. These character- istics include the type of trip, the origin, the time of year when the trip will occur, the transport modes that are both suitable and available, and the budget and time available for the trip (Fig. 46). Tourist- specific characteristics can refer to a variety of fac- tors, including demographics, stage of family life, and personal lifestyle and values.
With the increasing disintermediation of the tourism product purchase process and increased opportunities for online recommendations, either through specialized sites such as TripAdvisor or social media, the use of travel agents to purchase and receive recommendations for tourism products and services has declined. However, a large portion of the four-step model proposed by Klenosky and Gitelson (1998) can still be applied to the under- standing of how knowledge, perception/evaluation, intention and recommendation work together to make a travel recommendation, particularly for leisure travel.
Operationalizing
Numerous studies have attempted to model the relationship between tourist satisfaction and the odds of tourists recommending destinations and products (Hui et al., 2007; Lee et al., 2007).
Satisfaction with a tourism product is a fundamen- tal prerequisite for recommending it. The process
3.9 Klenosky and Gitelson’s
Conceptual Model on the Travel
Agent Recommendation Process
Klenosky and Gitelson’s Conceptual Model 169 of obtaining satisfaction involves the first three
steps of Klenosky and Gitelson’s (1998) model:
knowledge, perception/evaluation and intention.
Although their model assumes that knowledge can be gained from either information sources or direct experience with the tourism destination (or prod- uct), direct positive knowledge has the strongest influence on a recommendation. It is therefore very common to use FAM tours to allow travel agents to personally experience the services offered by hotels, tourist attractions, cruises, restaurants and other tourism products and destinations.
New Zealand is characterized by dispersed tour- ists moving around its two islands, often on road trips. It has a tourist information network that spreads across the country, allowing tourists to obtain information and make reservations not only for local destinations but also for other places around the country. Therefore, it is very common for employees of these tourist information centres to receive invitations to visit other destinations,
hotels, restaurants and tourist attractions so that they can recommend them. The tour operators’
investment in these FAM tours aims to increase the travel agents’ level of knowledge, while giving them the opportunity to directly experience these tour- ism products and services.
Exercise
In a simplified manner, try to adapt Klenosky and Gitelson’s (1998) model from the perspective of a travel agent to that of a friend recommending a particular tourism product (e.g. a favourite airline company) or a particular tourism destina- tion. Considering the same four-step structure, which variables would eventually be added or removed for this particular situation? Next, analyse how these variables would change if we were to compare the influence of a friend who is 20–30 years old with that of a family member who is 60–70 years old.
Destination awareness
Destination variables
-Formal marketer-controlled sources (e.g. ads, commission programmes, incentive plans) -Formal general-media sources -Informal sources
-Personal travel -Business travel
-Type of trip -Location
-Landscape/scenery -Climate
-Local culture -Industrial/
commercial development -Transportation infrastructure -Accommodation/
amenities -Attractions/sites -Activity/enter- tainment options
-Trip origin -Time of year
-Transportation modes available -Budget and time available
-Demographics -Life cycle stage -Lifestyle/value system Exposure to information about the destination:
Direct experience with the destination:
Natural factors:
Manmade factors:
Trip-related factors:
Traveller-specific factors:
Agent-knowledge variables
Trip/traveller variables Destination perception/
evaluation
Destinations recommended to client
Destination recommendation intention
Fig. 46. Conceptual model of the process and factors influencing travel agents’ destination recommendations. (From Klenosky and Gitelson, 1998, p. 664.)
170 Chapter 3.9
References
Hui, T.K., Wan, D. and Ho, A. (2007) Tourists’ satisfaction, recommendation and revisiting Singapore. Tourism Management 28, 965–975.
Klenosky, D.B. and Gitelson, R.E. (1998) Travel agents’
destination recommendations. Annals of Tourism Research 25, 661–674.
Lee, C.K., Yoon, Y.S. and Lee, S.K. (2007) Investigating the relationships among perceived value, satisfac- tion, and recommendations: the case of the Korean DMZ. Tourism Management 28, 204–214.
Further Reading
Hudson, S., Snaith, T., Miller, G.A. and Hudson, P. (2001) Distribution channels in the travel industry: using mys- tery shoppers to understand the influence of travel agency recommendations. Journal of Travel Research 40, 148–154.
Kozak, M. (2010) Holiday taking decisions – the role of spouses. Tourism Management 31, 489–494.
McKercher, B., Packer, T., Yau, M.K. and Lam, P. (2003) Travel agents as facilitators or inhibitors of travel: percep- tions of people with disabilities. Tourism Management 24, 465–474.