Sociodemographic segmentation variables include gender, age, family lifecycle, household education, occupation and income. Such variables are popular as segmen- tation criteria because they are easily collected (though respondents often withhold or misrepresent their income) and often associated with distinct types of behaviour.
gender and gender orientation
Gender segmentation can be biological or sociocultural. If construed in strictly bio- logical terms, gender is a readily observable and measurable criterion in most instances.
Some activities (notably hunting) are an almost exclusively male domain (Lovelock 2008), while it is commonly alleged that ecotourists are disproportionately female (Weaver 2012). Females are also overrepresented as patrons of cultural events within Australia. During 2009–10, 19 per cent of Australian females 15 or older attended at least one theatre performance, compared with 13 per cent of males. Similar discrepan- cies were found in dance performances (13 and 7 per cent respectively) and musicals and operas (21 and 12 per cent) (ABS 2010). More subtly, female shoppers among Chinese visitors to the United States were found to place a higher value than males on communication with sales assistants to learn about products, and were more likely to express dissatisfaction with employees who did not engage with them accordingly (Xu & McGehee 2012). A survey of young and single Norwegian tourists revealed that females placed a much higher value on having a travel companion with whom to bond with, share experiences, and feel safe by night as well as day. Companionship among males, in contrast, was more superficial and transient (Heimtun & Abelsen 2012).
Gender can also be construed in terms of sexual orientation, and in this sense three stages and modes of development can be identified:
1 For many years, gay and lesbian tourism was either ignored by the tourism industry, or existed only as an informal fringe element. A ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ attitude often prevailed, and gay expression was largely an ‘underground’ phenomenon.
2 With the liberalisation of sexual attitudes in the late twentieth century, this com- ponent of tourism became more visible through the emergence of specialised formal businesses and activities, particularly in the areas of accommodation (e.g. Turtle Cove Resort north of Cairns), tour operators, special events (e.g. the Gay Games) and the cruise ship sector.
3 Since the late 1990s, the mainstream tourism industry has recognised the for- midable purchasing power of gays and lesbians and has actively and openly pur- sued these markets. Some estimates suggest that the pink dollar accounts for 10–15 per cent of all consumer purchasing power. Destinations that are regarded as gay and lesbian ‘friendly’ include Sydney, San Francisco, London, Cape Town and Amsterdam. Sydney in particular is making a concerted bid to be recognised as a major gay and lesbian tourism destination, with its highly successful annual Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras, and its hosting of the Gay Games in 2002. The 2006 Mardi Gras attracted an estimated 450 000 participants, the majority of them heterosexual (Markwell & Tomsen 2010).
4 Gay and lesbian activists who resent the ‘invasion’ of gay environments by ‘main- stream’ tourists and businesses create their own ‘queer’ spaces where they can feel more empowered and less like performers at a show. This also reflects the high pro- portion of gay and lesbian people who do not feel safe travelling home from events such as the Mardi Gras due to the risk of attack from homophobic individuals (Markwell & Tomsen 2010).
age and family lifecycle
Age and lifecycle considerations are popular criteria used in sociodemographic seg- mentation, since these can also have a significant bearing on consumer behaviour.
Specific consideration is given in the following subsections to older adults, young adults and the traditional family lifecycle.
Older adults
Along with the emergence and growing acceptance of the gay and lesbian community, the rapid ageing of population is one of the dominant trends in contemporary Phase Four societies (see chapter 3). In the year 2010 the first baby boomers turned 65, and this has accelerated interest in the ‘older adult’ market segment. Traditionally, the 65+ market was assumed to require special services and facilities due to deteriorating physical condition. Their travel patterns, moreover, were believed to be influenced by the dual impact of reduced discretionary income and increased discretionary time caused by retirement. Finally, older adults were commonly perceived to constitute a single uniform market.
All these assumptions, however, are simplistic. In postindustrial Phase Four societies the 65-year age threshold is no longer a strict indicator of a person’s retirement status.
Many companies facilitate early retirement options, while there is a concurrent trend to remove artificial age-of-retirement ceilings established during the industrial era. As for income, the current cohort of retirees is likely
to be better off financially than their predecessors.
In the early 2000s, the average Australian aged 55 to 64 had a net worth of $671 000 (Snoke, Kendig & O’Laughlin 2011). The assumption of physical deterioration is also false, as the 65-year- old of 2014 is in much better physical condition than their counterpart of 1950. A 65-year old male and female resident of New South Wales in 2009 could expect to live respectively to the ages of 83.7 and 86.8 (ABS 2011) (see figure 6.3). Finally, the assumption of market uniformity is also untenable, as demonstrated by cluster analysis of Australian
FIgURE 6.3 Older adults can be healthy and active tourists.
older adults that differentiates between such substantial sub-segments as ‘enthusiastic connectors’ (about 20 per cent), ‘discovery and self-enhancers’ (26 per cent), ‘nostalgic travellers’ (29 per cent) and ‘reluctant travellers’ (25 per cent) (Cleaver Sellick 2004).
Young adults
In contrast to the 65+ cohort, Millennials and other young adults are often associated with higher levels of high-risk behaviour. This is especially evident in ritual events such as the ‘spring break’ phenomenon in the United States (Litvin 2009) and Australia’s
‘Schoolies Week’ (the celebration of a student’s completion of high school), which destination managers on the Gold Coast have attempted to convert into an orderly festival. Involving up to 30 000 young visitors, Schoolies Week is regarded with ambivalence by local residents (Weaver and Lawton 2013). There is parallel evidence, however, that young adults are also very interested in activities such as volunteer tourism that focus on self-improvement and the wellbeing of destination communities.
Family lifecycle
The family lifecycle (FLC) consists of a series of stages through which the majority of people in a Phase Four society are likely to pass during the time from young adult- hood to death (see figure 6.4). The FLC stages are associated with particular age brackets, although there are many exceptions to this. All stages are also related to probable significant changes in family status, such as marriage, the raising of children, and the death of a partner. Retirement (i.e. change in work status) is also identified as an important stage transition.
TRADITIONALFAMILYLIFECYCLE
NON-TRADITIONALFAMILYGROUPS
Young singles
Young couples (no children)
Full nest l (pre-school children)
Full nest ll (school-age children)
Full nest lll (older children)
Empty nest l (still working, no children)
Empty nest ll (retired)
Solitary survivor (retired) Single parents
Permanent singles
Full nest (fur babies)
Child-free couples
Blended families
Permanent full nest
Gay or lesbian couples
Multigenerational families
Autumn–spring remarrieds
FIgURE 6.4 Impact of non-conforming elements on the traditional family lifecycle
The importance of family lifecycle as a segmentation criterion is demonstrated by patterns of resort patronage in the United States identified by Choi, Lehto and Brey (2011). They found that couples with young children displayed the lowest levels of product loyalty, as expressed in modest emotional attachment, service satisfac- tion, employee regard, and perceived value for money. It is therefore more difficult to cultivate repeat visit intentions in this segment. Another finding was that young couples with no children do not rate employee regard as important but would prefer to develop personal rapport and friendships with staff. Resort employees therefore need to be trained to display different types of behaviour in the presence of different lifecycle segments. Finally, the non-traditional segment of single parents distinguished itself (unexpectedly) as the highest spending and least likely to give value for money as a reason for being loyal to the resort.
One major drawback of the traditional FLC is the increasing number of non- conforming people. Exceptions include permanently childless (or ‘childfree’) couples or those who have children relatively late in life, divorced people, family groupings that combine individuals from both marital partners (blended families), single parents, long- term gay and lesbian couples, multigenerational families, ‘permanent singles’, families where the children never leave the nest, older solitary survivors who marry and start new families with younger people (‘remarrieds’) and those whose spouses die at an early age. In essence, the conventional FLC reflects the traditional nuclear family of the 1950s and 1960s rather than the present era of familial diversity. In addition, even if indi viduals do conform to the FLC, this is not necessarily reflected in the composition of travel groups. People in relationships may decide to travel by themselves, or with a group of friends, while married couples may be accompanied by one or more parents, nephews or other married couples. Older children (e.g. 16-year-olds) often decline to accompany their younger siblings on annual family holidays. Another confounding factor is pet ownership and the increasing tendency of individuals in all stages of the FLC to regard their animals as family members (sometimes described as ‘companion animals’ or ‘fur babies’) and desirable travel companions who significantly influence and constrain their travel-related decisions (see Contemporary issue: Travelling with my best friend).
TRAVELLINg WITH MY bEST FRIEND
In developed countries such as the United Kingdom, United States and Taiwan, almost one-half of families own pets, but it is still unclear how pet ownership influences the travel behaviour of these families. This is important not only because of the magnitude of ownership, but also because owners often have deep attachments to their pets, often regard them as family members, and derive many psychological and other benefits from their company (Zilcha-Mano, Mikulincer & Shaver 2012). A recent study in Taiwan focused on 216 dog-owning domestic excursionists participating in various leisure activities (Hung, Chen & Peng 2012). The researchers found that owners who were strongly attached to their pets were highly motivated to include them in their travel plans. However, they faced structural constraints such as added financial and time costs, uncertainty about how their dog could participate in the activity, and the need to care for their animal.
Interpersonal constraints included discomfort from the fact that other participants may not like dogs, the dog’s potential unfriendliness towards other people, and situations where they are the only one with a dog. Finally, specific constraints (i.e. specific to that particular dog) included limited self-control, unsuitability for the target activity, and a tendency to tire easily or to prefer the home environment. Thus, to participate in a mutually satisfying way with their dogs, owners recognised the need to obtain reliable and thorough information about the accommodation of pets, and to adjust their interpersonal relations so that they have more contact with pet-friendly co-participants, businesses and friends. They also appreciated the need to manage their time better to allow sufficient time to arrange an enjoyable experience for both themselves and their pets. Businesses such as ‘pet-friendly’ hotels that can provide these needs are likely to thrive as companion animals become an increasingly central part of the postmodern family unit.
education, occupation and income
Education, occupation and income are often interrelated in terms of travel behaviour, since education generally influences occupation, which in turn influences income level.
University education, for example, often leads to higher-paying professional employ- ment. Income and education are often accessed indirectly by targeting neighbourhoods that display consistent characteristics with regard to these criteria. Not surprisingly, high levels of income and education, as well as professional occupations, are associ- ated with increased tourism activity and in particular with a higher incidence of long- haul travel. One important implication is that high-income earners are usually less concerned with financial considerations when assessing destination options, and less likely to alter their travel plans in the event of an economic recession. Destinations and products that cater to high-income earners are therefore themselves less susceptible to recession-induced slumps in visitation. Distinctive forms of educational segmentation include international students, schoolies and participants in school excursions.
race, ethnicity and religion
There is a general reluctance to ascribe distinctive character and behavioural traits on the basis of race, ethnicity or religion, and none of these are, therefore, commonly used for generic segmentation purposes. However, these are commonly used as segmen- tation criteria for specialised attractions that cater to particular racial, ethnic or religious groups. Examples include the marketing of heritage slavery sites in western Africa to African-Americans, and religious pilgrimages and festivals to applicable religious groups.
In the case of Australia and New Zealand, it is likely that Indigenous Australian and Maori people constitute a growing portion of their respective domestic and outbound tourism sectors, yet research on ‘Aboriginal tourism’ and ‘Maori tourism’ are almost exclusively focused on the product side. We know almost nothing about the ‘Indigenous Australian tourist’ or ‘Maori tourist’ as distinct market segments. Moreover, as Australia and New Zealand move from a mainly Anglo-European to a multicultural society, these three criteria are likely to become more important to domestic tourism managers and marketers. For example, almost 529 000 and 476 000 Australians respectively indicated their affiliation with Buddhism and Islam in the 2011 census, but little is known about their behaviour as distinctive single or multiple market segments (ABS 2012).
physical and mental condition
Persons with disabilities are often neglected or overlooked as a significant tourist seg- ment, even though it is apparent that the number of such individuals is immense and
their desire to travel as high as the general population’s (Yau, McKercher & Packer 2004; Stumbo & Pegg 2005). According to Australian Bureau of Statistics criteria, 18.5 per cent of the Australian population (or over 4 million people) were considered to have a disability in 2009 (ABS 2009). Four factors that indicate the need for tourism managers to pay greater attention to this segment are the:
• increasing number of conditions that constitute an officially recognised ‘disability’
• ageing of Phase Four populations (given that older adults still have a higher inci- dence of disabilities; for example disability levels increase to 40 per cent among Australians aged 65 to 69, and 88 per cent among those 90 or older (ABS 2009))
• availability of technology to expedite travel by persons with disabilities
• increasing recognition of the basic human rights, including the right to travel, of such persons.
Nevertheless, it is apparent that many tourism-related products and services still do not adequately address the needs of persons with disabilities (see Managing tourism:
Catering to people with disabilities). Similar problems pertain to people who are over- weight or obese (see Breakthrough tourism: Obesity as a tourism issue).
CATERINg TO PEOPLE WITH DISAbILITIES
Tourism can improve the quality of life for people with disabilities, and they comprise a potentially lucrative market for tourism businesses. Australia, however, has been slow to recognise and exploit this opportunity, despite the passing of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. To better understand industry attitudes, Patterson, Darcy and Mönninghoff (2012) conducted semi- structured interviews with 32 Queensland-based
operators listed as providing specialised products and services for people with disabilities. Over one-half of these operators stated that this segment accounted for less than 1 per cent of their business, and none gave a figure above 5 per cent. While operators of large hotels claimed compliance with regulations, only 1 per cent of their rooms on average were accessible and these were not often actually occupied by people with disabilities.
Their existence, however, was necessary to successfully bid for any kind of conference or convention business, and they appealed to some older customers without
disabilities. The need to comply with legal requirements was by far the main reason given by the operators for offering accessible facilities, although a significant minority did recognise the opportunity to increase their customer base and to benefit from good publicity. Only a few felt a moral obligation or sense of personal satisfaction in providing such facilities, and this was especially evident among smaller tour operators offering Great Barrier Reef experiences.
None of the respondents offered any specialised staff training, which was related to the overall sentiment that people with disabilities represented only a very small portion of their customer base. Additional investments, accordingly, were regarded as prohibitively expensive and also impractical, given structural and design constraints in each operator’s current built environment.
The researchers recommended that operators focus on providing renovations that cater to people with disabilities as well as others through, for example, larger bathrooms and wider doors.
ObESITY AS A TOURISM ISSUE
A growing proportion of the population in both the advanced and emerging economies is overweight or obese, and this poses a challenge to a tourism sector that celebrates and flaunts slenderness in its promotional material and in the design of its facilities. The issue is most salient in the airline industry, where seating has become a new contested space. Small and Harris
(2012) found that obese passengers experience discomfort, embarrassment, annoyance, fear and frustration with the
‘one-size-fits-all’ seating practices followed by most airlines.
Non-obese passengers, in contrast, express concerns over violation of rights (i.e. by the incursion of the obese passenger’s body into their seating space), anger, resentment, fear of injury and displeasure at contact with or proximity to obese persons. A few airlines require obese people to purchase two seats while a few others will allocate two seats for the price of one. Other suggested solutions have included
‘excess weight taxes’ and ‘pay by the pound’ policies. In 2013, the latter option was introduced by Samoa Air, a carrier based in American Samoa, a US territory that has one of the world’s highest rates of obesity (Sagapolutele & Perry 2013). Samoa Air has also created an ‘XL’ seating category for those passengers who weigh over 130 kilograms (Pearlman 2013). There are several cases where damages have been paid to people injured from being constricted next to obese passengers, but in general the industry has remained ‘innocent and silent’ on the issue, according to Small and Harris (2012). With 72 per cent of Australians expected to be overweight or obese by 2025, this is an evasion that airlines will not be able to afford much longer (Small & Harris 2012).
Beyond the commercial implications of alienating various passenger segments, there is also the ongoing effort to recognise tourism — and associated transit experiences — as a basic human right. In such cases, whose rights should prevail — obese passengers or their non-obese fellow passengers?