Description
This paper aims to recommend a two-step approach to destination segmentation that
incorporates the views both of multiple stakeholders and of tourists
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Segmenting destinations: in the eyes of the stakeholders
Aaron Tkaczynski Sharyn Rundle-Thiele
Article information:
To cite this document:
Aaron Tkaczynski Sharyn Rundle-Thiele, (2011),"Segmenting destinations: in the eyes of the stakeholders", International J ournal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 5 Iss 3 pp. 255 - 268
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181111156952
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:17 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 36 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2083 times since 2011*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Sharyn Rundle-Thiele, Krzysztof Kubacki, Aaron Tkaczynski, J oy Parkinson, (2015),"Using two-step cluster analysis to identify
homogeneous physical activity groups", Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 33 Iss 4 pp. 522-537http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
MIP-03-2014-0050
J ennifer Craik, (2015),"Challenges for Australian fashion", J ournal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International J ournal, Vol. 19
Iss 1 pp. 56-68http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/J FMM-03-2014-0017
J ohn P. Girard, Susan McIntyre, (2010),"Knowledge management modeling in public sector organizations: a case study", International
J ournal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 23 Iss 1 pp. 71-77http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513551011012330
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Segmenting destinations: in the eyes of the
stakeholders
Aaron Tkaczynski and Sharyn Rundle-Thiele
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to recommend a two-step approach to destination segmentation that
incorporates the views both of multiple stakeholders and of tourists.
Design/methodology/approach – Step one applies a case study approach incorporating
semi-structured interviews with 13 destination stakeholders. Step two involves segmenting tourists to
the destination based on a questionnaire survey developed from the semi-structured interviews. The
study compares and contrasts the result with the current DMO approach.
Findings – The two-step approach produces three segments for the destination under study using four
segmentation bases and ten variables. The DMO approach also utilizes all four segmentation bases but
produces six segments with ?ve different variables. The DMO approach captures fewer tourists visiting
the destination.
Research limitations/implications – This study considers one regional Australian destination. Future
research is recommended in a range of alternative destinations to further understand the two-step
segmentation approach. It is recommended that the two-step approach should be extended to
destination branding and positioning.
Originality value – Segmentation guides positioning and branding strategies and the proposed
two-step approach may assist destination stakeholders to reach more of the types of tourists who are
likely to visit the destination.
Keywords Stakeholders, Segmentation, Stakeholder theory, Tourism management
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The importance of segmentation in destination marketing is widely acknowledged
(e.g. Dolnicar, 2008; Johns and Gyimothy, 2002; Pike, 2008). Market segmentation can
assist researchers to understand the ways that tourists to a destination can be classi?ed
most effectively (Perdue, 1996). The marketing segmentation approach can then be utilized
by destination stakeholders to position a destination brand favorably in the minds of actual
and/or potential tourists (Pike, 2008; Morgan et al., 2003). To date, the majority of destination
segmentation studies are tourist-focused involving primary (e.g. Chang, 2006; Kim and Lee,
2002; Lau and McKercher, 2004) or secondary data (e.g. Jang, 2004; Lee et al., 2006; Seiler
et al., 2002) methods. Few studies (e.g. Tkaczynski et al., 2008; Tkaczynski et al., 2009)
apply a stakeholder viewto destination segmentation, despite several authors promoting the
importance of such an approach (e.g. Blain et al., 2005; Morgan et al., 2003; Sheehan and
Ritchie, 2005). This paper presents additional evidence for a stakeholder approach to
destination segmentation incorporating two steps. Step one involves understanding how
multiple destination stakeholders view their market. Step two entails segmenting the
destination based on variables that were commonly identi?ed by a broad range of
destination stakeholders. This paper compares and contrasts the segments currently used
by the destination marketing organization (DMO) with the segments obtained from a
two-step approach.
DOI 10.1108/17506181111156952 VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011, pp. 255-268, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 255
Aaron Tkaczynski is a
Lecturer at The University of
Queensland, Brisbane,
Australia. Sharyn
Rundle-Thiele is an
Associate Professor at
Grif?th University, Nathan,
Australia.
Received: April 2009
Revised: June 2010
Accepted: June 2010
The authors would like to thank
Dr Lisa Ruhanan from the
University of Queensland and
Dr Andrew McAuley from
Grif?th University for assisting
in the review of this paper.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Literature review
Developing an effective destination brand that is appealing to potential tourists is a strategy
that is of growing importance to destination marketers and managers. Destination branding
is a strategy which Morgan et al. (2003, p. 285) argue is a ‘‘powerful weapon in the marketing
armory of contemporary destination managers, confronted by increasing competition,
product parity and substitutability.’’ However, prior to developing a brand, a key issue that
needs to be determined is the approach to be taken when marketing the destination.
Consultation with stakeholders prior to developing a destination brand remains underutilized
in tourism and destination marketing. While the concept of stakeholder theory has been
applied to both destination marketing and branding (Blain et al., 2005; Sheehan and Ritchie,
2005; Sheehan et al., 2007) its application is limited. Stakeholder theory is a management
theory which argues that the interests of all stakeholders are of intrinsic value (Donaldson
and Preston, 1995). A stakeholder is ‘‘any group or individual who can affect or is affected by
the achievement of the organization’s objectives’’ (Freeman, 1984, p. 46). Destination
stakeholders include hotels, restaurants, attractions, city of?cials, transportation companies,
gas stations, incentive planners, airlines, and/or universities (Blain et al., 2005). While the
DMO is usually responsible for the marketing and branding of a destination, it is rarely an
operator of the product (Pike, 2008). Consequently, a DMO relies on stakeholder support to
successfully promote and market the destination.
An issue that has plagued stakeholder theory is how an organization (or destination) should
allocate time, energy and other scarce resources to stakeholders (Freeman, 1984). It has
been noted in the literature that while many stakeholders may have an interest in the
organization (destination), not all of them are essential to the organization’s success.
Clarkson (1995) aims to classify stakeholders based on their level of importance and creates
two stakeholder types: primary or secondary. Clarkson (1995, p. 106) argues that a primary
stakeholder is ‘‘one without whose continuing participation the corporation [or destination]
cannot survive as a going concern.’’ However, secondary stakeholders are de?ned as those
who ‘‘in?uence or affect, or are in?uenced or affected by, the corporation [or destination], but
they are not engaged in transactions with the corporation [or destination] and are not
essential for its survival’’ (Clarkson, 1995, p. 107). Thus, should a primary stakeholder (e.g. a
large, well-established tour operator) withdraw its support to the marketing of the destination
or start promoting an alternate image, a common approach is not being utilized (Clarkson,
1995). For the DMO to guarantee that stakeholders support destination marketing, it needs
to ensure that the collective needs and interests of destination stakeholders are met when
?rst selecting target markets (Sheehan et al., 2007).
Destination stakeholders recognize the importance of effective marketing strategies to their
destination’s collective success with tourism. However, academics and practitioners both
realize that every tourist is different and it is not possible for destination marketers
(e.g. DMOs) to tailor messages for each and every tourist (Dolnicar, 2008). Segmentation is
a marketing strategy that helps stakeholders to effectively market a destination. A review of
the literature reveals that a wide variety of approaches are used in destination segmentation
research (Tkaczynski et al., 2009). Tourism researchers use one or a combination of the four
segmentation bases (e.g. geographic, demographic, psychographic and behavioral)
described by Kotler (1980) to segment markets. Tkaczynski et al. (2009) review 119
academic studies and identify a mixture of the four bases outlined by Kotler to segment
markets. These authors also note that less than ten percent of the studies consider
destination stakeholders’ views to market segmentation. This is a limitation, because unless
the researcher has a complete understanding of destination stakeholders, some variables
that may be relevant to destination stakeholders (e.g. expenditure and/or past experience)
may be overlooked.
Tkaczynski et al.’s (2009) review found that instead of considering a range of stakeholders
relevant to a destination (e.g. DMOs, accommodation providers, tour operators), preference
is given to certain types of stakeholders. Tkaczynski et al. (2009) also identify that the
different types of organizations within one stakeholder category (e.g. the different types of
tour operators) are not considered. As all destination stakeholder types are critical for the
PAGE 256
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
continual operation of a destination, their insights into market segmentation may be useful for
destination marketing and branding purposes as they have been found to be
knowledgeable about tourism at the destination, their tourism markets, and the
promotional message presented in the media (Sheehan et al., 2007).
Step one: understanding segmentation through the eyes of stakeholders
In step one, a case study with semi-structured interviews was used to identify how
destination stakeholders segment their market. The case study approach permits
researchers to investigate complex issues in some depth (Yin, 2003). A single case study
of the Fraser Coast, a regional Australian destination, was deemed most appropriate to
ensure that an in-depth understanding of market segmentation from a destination
stakeholder perspective was obtained (Lee, 1999). A total of 13 semi-structured interviews
were held with primary stakeholders as de?ned earlier by Clarkson (1995). These
stakeholders were the local government organization, DMOs (regional and state),
accommodation providers (backpacker resort, caravan park, self-contained unit provider,
and a low, a medium, and a high star rating hotel), and tour operators (whale watching
operator, a ?shing charter operator, an adventure tour operator, and a museum employee).
This provided a thorough overview of tourism at the destination by considering destination
stakeholders in the broadest sense (Sheehan et al., 2007). Each organization was a
representative of the local tourism board. The size of the organizations varied with four
organizations having less than three employees (mostly owner operators), three having
between three to six employees, and ?ve having greater than six employees.
As a condition of being selected, each of the organization’s representatives was employed in
a managerial role and was knowledgeable about how both the destination and their
organization are marketed to tourists. The destination stakeholders were asked to describe
how they segmented their markets. In instances where formal marketing plans were not
used, probes were applied to understand whether the market was approached as a whole or
in parts. Interviews averaged 40 minutes and were recorded and transcribed for analysis
using an open and axial coding scheme as recommended by Strauss and Corbin (1988).
Step one: ?ndings
Findings for step one are described in detail in Tkaczynski et al. (2009). Brie?y, destination
stakeholders identify all four of the segmentation bases (demographic, geographic,
psychographic and behavioral). Three use only one base, whereas four destination
stakeholders use all four segmentation bases to classify their tourists using their services.
Speci?cally, destination stakeholders deemthe following variables relevant for segmentation
purposes. The variables are age, gender, travel party composition (TPC), income,
(demographic), origin (usual place of residence) (geographic), trip purpose, motivations,
activities sought (psychographic), expenditure, number of nights, and purchasing behavior
(behavioral). For each of these variables, respondents provided the categories. For
example, six common income categories (e.g. under A$40,000, and over A$100,000) are
listed. The most popular variables applied to describe tourists include age and activities
sought (eight responses each), origin [usual place of residence] (seven responses), and trip
purpose (six responses). Segmentation variables that are used less frequently include TPC
and purchasing behavior (two responses each) and gender (one response). Nine
destination stakeholders are able to describe one variable as the most important for
segmenting their tourists. Origin and activities sought are identi?ed twice whereas age,
income, motivations, trip purpose, and purchasing behavior are chosen once.
Step two: survey tourists and identify segments
A tourist survey was then developed on the description of the variables provided from the
semi-structured interviews. The survey development, data collection and research ?ndings
are detailed in Tkaczynski et al. (2010). Minor modi?cations were made to a few variables.
For example, both push and pull motivations were chosen as they represented destination
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 257
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
stakeholders’ responses and also characterize different aspects of a tourist’s motivation
(Yuan and McDonald, 1990). Push motivations represent a tourist’s reason to travel (e.g. to
have a holiday, or to rest and relax), whereas pull motivations consider a tourist’s decision to
choose the destination to ful?ll their need to travel (e.g. the climate, the holiday lifestyle
available at the Fraser Coast).
A total of 39 questions were used for the survey. Activities sought, push motivations, pull
motivations and nights were treated as continuous variables based on the interview
responses. In total, 11 push motivations, 12 pull motivations and six activities sought were
measured. Similar to previous research (e.g. Dolnicar, 2004; Lee et al., 2006; Morrison et al.,
2003), these variables were measured in a binary ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ response format. For data
analysis, the total number of activities sought, push motivations and pull motivations were
chosen as the unit of analysis. The nine remaining questions were designed as categorical
variables, as the stakeholders explained these variables using this method.
Respondents needed to be at least 18, had or would have spent at least a night at the
destination, and had to have been traveling for leisure purposes. The data was collected
using a cross-sectional study design over a seven-month period. This was to ensure that
seasonality at the destination was not an issue. Surveys were collected at a caravan park, a
backpacker hostel, a ?ve star resort, a visitor information centre, a bus terminal, a ferry
terminal, and an airport.
The surveys that were collected were then analyzed using SPSS Version 15.0. Descriptive
statistics was ?rst used to describe the tourists. TwoStep cluster analysis using the
log-likelihood measure was then utilized to reveal natural groupings in the data set using all
of the segmentation variables identi?ed in step one. This method is appropriate in forming
clusters based on both continuous and categorical data (Chiu et al., 2001; Norusis, 2008).
Tkaczynski et al. (2010) provide further details of the TwoStep clustering method.
Step two: ?ndings
A total of 852 tourist surveys were collected. Tables I-III present the descriptive results of the
collected tourist surveys. Almost half of the respondents are aged between 18 and 34. The
ratio of females to males is slightly higher. Travelling as a couple is the most popular option
with a frequency of almost 40 percent. Annual household income varies with the highest
percentage of tourists surveyed earning in excess of A$100,000. The international
destination of Europe is the most common origin point with just over 30 percent of responses.
The domestic state of New South Wales (NSW) is also dominant with one in four respondents
travelling fromthis location. Approximately two-thirds of the tourists travel to the Fraser Coast
for the purpose of to have a holiday. The largest percentages of tourists spend under $50 per
day in each expenditure variable of accommodation, activities, and food and beverages.
Fraser Island is the most frequently identi?ed activity that tourists seek when coming to the
destination, with almost two-thirds of the sample choosing this option. Over 40 percent of
tourists seek one activity when coming to the Fraser Coast, and one quarter consider two
activities. Of the respondents, 40 percent or more chose six push motivations. ‘‘Rest and
relaxation’’ was the most common choice (54 percent). The number of push motivations was
similar between categories, with the top three identi?ed by just less than one-?fth of
respondents. Despite 12 pull motivations presented to tourists, more than 20 percent of
respondents considered only three. Half of the pull motivations were taken into account by
10 percent or less of the sample. The weather is the most identi?able pull motivation with just
over one-third of tourists attracted to the destination based on this aspect. Over
three-quarters of respondents have between zero and two pull motivations. The number of
nights that tourists stay at the destination varies. Over half the respondents (54 percent)
spent between two to four nights at the destination.
TwoStep cluster analysis revealed segments based on the 13 segmentation variables
identi?ed by destination stakeholders in step one. Three clusters formed based on a sample
of 569 tourists. Three segments are revealed within the tourism data set. Three of the
variables are:
PAGE 258
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Table I Descriptive statistics (categorical variables)
Percentage
Age
18-24 19.25
25-34 26.17
35-44 14.08
45-54 13.73
55-64 15.85
65+ 9.62
Missing 1.29
Gender
Male 46.12
Female 52.46
Missing 1.41
Travel party composition
By myself 11.27
Couple 38.97
Family 16.78
Adult group 27.58
Other 2.58
Missing 2.81
Annual household income (A$)
Under $20,000 16.31
$20,000-$39,999 12.32
$40,000-$59,999 12.32
$60,000-$79,999 9.62
$80,000-$99,999 12.91
$100,000+ 21.94
Missing 14.55
Origin
North America 4.93
Europe 32.27
Asia Paci?c 3.05
Queensland 14.55
New South Wales 24.06
Victoria 10.68
Australia (other) 7.04
Missing 3.40
Trip purpose
To have a holiday 66.08
To visit your friends 14.55
To visit your family 16.08
Business purposes 3.29
Daily accommodation expenditure (A$)
Under $50 44.95
$50-$99 15.14
$100-$149 13.49
$150-$199 8.69
$200+ 11.27
Missing 6.46
Daily activities expenditure (A$)
Under $50 31.92
$50-$99 23.36
$100-$149 15.26
$150-$199 7.39
$200+ 9.51
Missing 12.56
Daily food and beverages expenditure (A$)
Under $50 44.84
$50-$99 28.17
$100-$149 11.85
$150-$199 3.17
$200+ 4.34
Missing 7.63
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 259
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Table II Descriptive statistics (continuous variables)
Percentage Number Percentage
Push motivations
To rest and relax 54.11 0 4.34
To go to a place you have not been before 51.41 1 9.86
To go sightseeing 50.35 2 16.78
To have fun 49.30 3 17.37
To see something different 42.37 4 14.44
To escape from your everyday lifestyle 39.55 5 12.32
To spend time with your partner 26.99 6 9.27
To experience a different culture 21.48 7 7.63
To be together with your family 21.13 8 4.34
To participate in recreational activities 19.25 9 2.28
To get away from the demands of home 16.78 10 0.82
11 0.23
Pull motivations
The weather 34.74 0 21.95
It was recommended by someone 25.23 1 25.12
To experience a relaxed lifestyle 20.19 2 28.17
It is a convenient stop-over point 17.72 3 13.03
The untouched nature 15.61 4 6.34
There’s a variety of things to see and do 13.73 5 3.17
To go camping 10.45 6 1.06
It is a family-oriented destination 10.21 7 0.70
The competitive price 7.75 8 0.23
The friendly locals 7.75 9 0.12
The safe environment 7.51 10 0.12
The luxury accommodation 6.22
Activities sought
Fraser Island 60.45 0 16.90
Beaches 28.40 1 42.02
Whale watching 21.48 2 25.82
Nature activities 13.73 3 11.62
Fishing 11.85 4 2.93
Beach activities 7.86 5 0.70
Table III Number of nights
Number Percentage
1 4.93
2 16.31
3 20.07
4 17.61
5 8.92
6 3.52
7 8.45
8 1.88
9 1.41
10 2.23
11 1.06
12 0.94
14 1.88
15 0.35
16 0.23
17 0.23
18 0.23
19 0.12
20 0.35
21 0.94
Over 21 3.87
Missing 4.46
PAGE 260
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
1. gender;
2. number of activities sought; and
3. trip purpose do not distinguish segments and therefore removed from the analysis.
Cluster analysis is performed once again with the remaining ten variables. Student t-tests
and chi-square tests con?rmthat each of the ten variables vary between segments. A cluster
solution with ten segmentation variables is, therefore, accepted as the ?nal solution (see
Table IV).
The three segments are described in detail in Tkaczynski et al. (2010) with their key
distinguishing characteristics outlined here. The ?rst segment is the largest (41 percent).
The key distinguishing feature of this segment is their higher income (67 percent earn over
A$80,000) and high daily accommodation, activities, and food and beverages expenditure.
This segment is, therefore, labeled wealthy travelers. The second segment is similar in size
(39 percent). The key distinguishing features of this segment is that the tourists are young
(89 percent aged under 35) and travel from Europe (71 percent). Because of these features,
this segment is labeled young Europeans. The third segment is the smallest (20 percent).
This segment is distinguishable based on its long length of stay (17 nights). This segment is,
therefore, labeled long-stay travelers.
Comparison to DMO segments
The segments derived from the two-step approach are then compared with the Fraser Coast
segments that are currently promoted by the DMO and the state tourism authority (Tourism
Queensland) as described in Table V. Tourism Queensland classi?es tourists to the Fraser
Coast based on a domestic market segmentation approach incorporating demographic,
psychographic, and behavioral descriptors:
B accommodation;
B mode of transportation;
B dining;
B social interactions; and
B holiday patterns.
The state tourism authority argues that by dividing the Fraser Coast domestic market into six
segments based on their needs and wants, destination stakeholders can discover valuable
insights into tourists’ emotional connection to what they expect from a holiday (Tourism
Queensland, 2009). The size of the segments (see Table V) is based on the number of
Australian tourists that traveled domestically within Australia in 2008. For example,
connectors represent 4.8 million Australian tourists (32 percent).
Table IV Final cluster solution
Wealthy travelers Young Europeans Long-stay travelers
Demographic variables
Age 25-54 , 35 . 55
Income . A$80,000 , A$20,000 , A$40,000
TPC Couple and family Adult group Couple
Geographic variable
Origin (usual place of residence) NSW and Europe Europe QLD
Psychographic variables
Number of push motivations 4.1 4.8 3.0
Number of pull motivations 1.7 1.4 2.5
Behavioral variables
Daily accommodation expenditure . $100 , $100 , $50
Daily activities expenditure $50-$149 , $100 , $50
Daily food and beverages expenditure $50-$149 , $50 , $50
Nights (number) 4.3 3.7 17.0
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 261
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
T
a
b
l
e
V
D
M
O
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
s
S
e
g
m
e
n
t
A
c
t
i
v
e
e
x
p
l
o
r
e
r
s
(
1
1
%
)
S
t
y
l
i
s
h
t
r
a
v
e
l
e
r
s
(
5
%
)
S
e
l
f
-
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
e
r
s
(
1
2
%
)
U
n
w
i
n
d
e
r
s
(
1
5
%
)
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
s
(
3
2
%
)
S
o
c
i
a
l
f
u
n
-
s
e
e
k
e
r
s
(
2
5
%
)
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
H
o
l
i
d
a
y
s
a
r
e
a
l
l
a
b
o
u
t
p
u
s
h
i
n
g
t
h
e
i
r
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s
a
n
d
f
e
e
l
i
n
g
a
l
i
v
e
L
o
o
k
f
o
r
u
n
i
q
u
e
a
n
d
e
x
o
t
i
c
h
o
l
i
d
a
y
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
s
t
h
a
t
m
a
k
e
t
h
e
m
f
e
e
l
d
i
s
c
e
r
n
i
n
g
,
s
t
y
l
i
s
h
a
n
d
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
A
b
o
u
t
j
o
u
r
n
e
y
s
o
f
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
y
,
e
n
r
i
c
h
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
s
e
l
f
,
a
n
d
a
n
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
d
s
e
n
s
e
o
f
w
e
l
l
b
e
i
n
g
D
o
n
o
t
l
i
k
e
t
o
t
r
a
v
e
l
t
o
o
f
a
r
.
H
o
l
i
d
a
y
s
a
r
e
a
b
o
u
t
c
a
t
c
h
i
n
g
t
h
e
i
r
b
r
e
a
t
h
,
f
e
e
l
i
n
g
c
a
l
m
a
n
d
p
e
a
c
e
f
u
l
,
a
n
d
g
a
i
n
i
n
g
p
e
r
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
H
o
l
i
d
a
y
s
a
r
e
a
b
o
u
t
b
o
n
d
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
f
a
m
i
l
y
a
n
d
f
r
i
e
n
d
s
L
o
o
k
f
o
r
l
o
t
s
o
f
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
a
n
d
p
l
e
n
t
y
o
f
p
e
o
p
l
e
t
o
s
h
a
r
e
t
h
e
f
u
n
w
i
t
h
.
A
l
w
a
y
s
s
e
e
k
i
n
g
n
e
w
d
e
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
o
f
t
e
n
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
)
A
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
s
t
o
p
e
n
t
o
s
t
a
y
i
n
g
i
n
h
o
s
t
e
l
s
,
e
c
o
-
l
o
d
g
e
r
e
s
o
r
t
s
o
r
c
a
m
p
i
n
g
g
r
o
u
n
d
s
M
a
y
s
t
a
y
w
i
t
h
f
r
i
e
n
d
s
a
n
d
r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
s
i
n
a
l
u
x
u
r
y
h
o
t
e
l
/
r
e
s
o
r
t
o
r
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
m
o
t
e
l
J
u
s
t
n
e
e
d
s
t
o
b
e
c
l
e
a
n
a
n
d
c
o
m
f
o
r
t
a
b
l
e
L
u
x
u
r
y
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
R
o
o
m
s
m
u
s
t
b
e
a
i
r
-
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
e
d
a
n
d
w
e
l
l
f
u
r
n
i
s
h
e
d
w
i
t
h
l
a
r
g
e
b
a
l
c
o
n
i
e
s
a
n
d
s
p
e
c
t
a
c
u
l
a
r
v
i
e
w
s
M
u
s
t
o
f
f
e
r
u
p
-
t
o
-
d
a
t
e
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
a
n
d
e
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
t
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
I
d
e
a
l
l
y
,
a
d
a
y
s
p
a
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
x
L
u
x
u
r
y
r
e
s
o
r
t
,
h
o
t
e
l
o
r
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
d
a
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
p
o
o
l
/
s
p
a
R
o
o
m
s
m
u
s
t
b
e
a
i
r
-
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
e
d
w
i
t
h
u
p
-
t
o
-
d
a
t
e
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
E
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
t
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
p
r
e
f
e
r
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
h
a
v
e
a
g
e
n
u
i
n
e
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
p
o
l
i
c
y
L
u
x
u
r
y
r
e
s
o
r
t
o
r
h
o
t
e
l
-
s
t
y
l
e
o
r
c
l
e
a
n
a
n
d
c
o
m
f
o
r
t
a
b
l
e
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
c
o
o
k
i
n
g
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
W
i
l
l
s
a
v
e
o
n
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
a
l
l
o
w
m
o
r
e
h
o
l
i
d
a
y
s
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
h
o
t
e
l
r
o
o
m
,
s
e
l
f
-
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
h
o
u
s
e
,
a
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
r
h
o
l
i
d
a
y
u
n
i
t
M
u
s
t
b
e
c
l
e
a
n
,
c
o
m
f
o
r
t
a
b
l
e
,
c
h
i
l
d
-
f
r
i
e
n
d
l
y
w
i
t
h
c
o
o
k
i
n
g
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
T
h
e
l
a
t
e
s
t
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
c
o
n
v
e
n
i
e
n
c
e
s
a
n
d
d
a
y
s
p
a
s
a
r
e
n
o
t
s
o
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
A
c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
t
o
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
i
s
v
a
l
u
e
d
L
u
x
u
r
y
r
e
s
o
r
t
o
r
h
o
t
e
l
w
i
t
h
p
o
o
l
a
n
d
s
p
a
,
d
a
y
s
p
a
a
n
d
h
e
a
l
t
h
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
s
O
r
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
,
c
l
e
a
n
a
n
d
c
o
m
f
o
r
t
a
b
l
e
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
i
o
n
H
a
p
p
y
t
o
s
a
v
e
o
n
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
i
o
n
,
s
o
h
a
v
e
m
o
n
e
y
t
o
s
p
e
n
d
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
M
o
d
e
o
f
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
L
i
k
e
l
y
t
o
d
r
i
v
e
M
a
y
?
y
M
o
s
t
l
i
k
e
l
y
t
o
v
i
s
i
t
m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
U
n
l
i
k
e
l
y
t
o
g
o
o
n
d
a
y
t
r
i
p
s
P
r
e
f
e
r
t
o
?
y
,
t
h
e
n
h
i
r
e
a
c
a
r
O
p
e
n
t
o
t
a
k
i
n
g
a
c
r
u
i
s
e
L
i
k
e
l
y
t
o
?
y
,
t
h
e
n
h
i
r
e
a
c
a
r
P
r
e
f
e
r
t
o
?
y
M
o
r
e
l
i
k
e
l
y
t
h
a
n
a
l
l
o
t
h
e
r
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
h
o
l
i
d
a
y
a
t
a
s
i
n
g
l
e
d
e
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
L
i
k
e
l
y
t
o
d
r
i
v
e
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
t
h
e
j
o
u
r
n
e
y
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
N
o
t
a
v
e
r
s
e
t
o
?
y
i
n
g
L
i
k
e
l
y
t
o
d
r
i
v
e
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
t
h
e
j
o
u
r
n
e
y
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
O
n
c
e
a
t
t
h
e
i
r
d
e
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
,
p
r
e
f
e
r
n
o
t
t
o
d
r
i
v
e
m
u
c
h
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
PAGE 262
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
T
a
b
l
e
V
S
e
g
m
e
n
t
A
c
t
i
v
e
e
x
p
l
o
r
e
r
s
(
1
1
%
)
S
t
y
l
i
s
h
t
r
a
v
e
l
e
r
s
(
5
%
)
S
e
l
f
-
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
e
r
s
(
1
2
%
)
U
n
w
i
n
d
e
r
s
(
1
5
%
)
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
s
(
3
2
%
)
S
o
c
i
a
l
f
u
n
-
s
e
e
k
e
r
s
(
2
5
%
)
D
i
n
i
n
g
N
o
t
l
o
o
k
i
n
g
f
o
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
d
i
n
i
n
g
o
p
t
i
o
n
s
P
r
e
f
e
r
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
b
l
e
f
o
o
d
W
i
s
h
t
o
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
t
a
s
t
e
s
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
f
o
o
d
a
n
d
w
i
n
e
a
r
e
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
l
L
o
o
k
f
o
r
n
e
w
f
o
o
d
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
s
S
e
e
k
o
u
t
r
e
g
i
o
n
s
f
a
m
o
u
s
f
o
r
f
o
o
d
L
o
o
k
f
o
r
w
a
r
d
t
o
v
i
s
i
t
i
n
g
w
i
n
e
r
i
e
s
E
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
i
n
g
n
e
w
t
a
s
t
e
s
a
n
d
l
o
c
a
l
c
u
i
s
i
n
e
i
s
a
m
u
s
t
L
o
o
k
f
o
r
?
n
e
d
i
n
i
n
g
r
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
s
a
n
d
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
c
a
f
e ´
s
S
e
e
k
t
o
e
s
c
a
p
e
t
h
e
d
a
i
l
y
g
r
i
n
d
o
f
c
o
o
k
i
n
g
U
n
l
i
k
e
l
y
t
o
d
i
n
e
o
u
t
e
v
e
r
y
n
i
g
h
t
F
a
v
o
r
c
a
s
u
a
l
d
i
n
i
n
g
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
s
w
i
t
h
f
r
e
s
h
,
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
I
s
a
b
o
u
t
g
e
t
t
i
n
g
f
a
m
i
l
y
/
f
r
i
e
n
d
s
t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
t
o
e
n
j
o
y
g
o
o
d
f
o
o
d
T
a
k
i
n
g
a
b
r
e
a
k
a
n
d
h
a
v
i
n
g
s
o
m
e
o
n
e
e
l
s
e
c
o
o
k
i
s
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
C
h
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
a
b
r
e
a
k
a
n
d
t
o
h
a
v
e
s
o
m
e
o
n
e
e
l
s
e
c
o
o
k
S
e
e
k
c
a
s
u
a
l
,
r
e
l
a
x
e
d
s
o
c
i
a
l
o
c
c
a
s
i
o
n
s
E
n
j
o
y
n
e
w
o
r
l
o
c
a
l
c
u
i
s
i
n
e
S
o
c
i
a
l
i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
E
n
j
o
y
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
m
i
x
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
o
t
h
e
r
s
T
r
a
v
e
l
w
i
t
h
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
a
n
d
f
a
m
i
l
y
T
r
a
v
e
l
a
s
a
n
a
d
u
l
t
c
o
u
p
l
e
M
a
y
t
r
a
v
e
l
w
i
t
h
f
a
m
i
l
y
H
a
p
p
y
t
o
m
i
x
i
n
p
a
s
s
i
n
g
,
b
u
t
d
o
n
’
t
s
e
e
k
o
u
t
s
o
c
i
a
l
i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
y
t
r
a
v
e
l
w
i
t
h
a
c
o
m
p
a
n
i
o
n
o
r
f
a
m
i
l
y
g
r
o
u
p
O
p
e
n
t
o
t
r
a
v
e
l
i
n
g
a
l
o
n
e
H
a
p
p
y
t
o
m
i
x
i
n
p
a
s
s
i
n
g
,
b
u
t
d
o
n
’
t
s
e
e
k
o
u
t
s
o
c
i
a
l
i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
y
t
r
a
v
e
l
w
i
t
h
a
c
o
m
p
a
n
i
o
n
o
r
f
a
m
i
l
y
g
r
o
u
p
M
a
y
t
r
a
v
e
l
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
i
r
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
o
n
l
y
L
i
k
e
l
y
t
o
t
r
a
v
e
l
w
i
t
h
f
a
m
i
l
y
H
a
p
p
y
t
o
m
i
x
w
i
t
h
o
t
h
e
r
s
i
n
p
a
s
s
i
n
g
M
o
s
t
l
i
k
e
l
y
t
o
t
r
a
v
e
l
w
i
t
h
a
g
r
o
u
p
o
f
f
r
i
e
n
d
s
W
i
l
l
a
l
s
o
t
r
a
v
e
l
w
i
t
h
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
o
r
f
a
m
i
l
y
E
n
j
o
y
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
m
i
x
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
n
e
w
p
e
o
p
l
e
H
o
l
i
d
a
y
p
a
t
t
e
r
n
s
T
h
i
n
k
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
h
o
l
i
d
a
y
t
i
m
e
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
t
h
e
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
h
a
t
c
a
n
b
e
t
r
a
v
e
l
e
d
E
n
j
o
y
w
e
e
k
e
n
d
b
r
e
a
k
s
a
n
d
w
i
l
l
t
a
k
e
t
h
e
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
t
o
b
u
i
l
d
h
o
l
i
d
a
y
s
a
r
o
u
n
d
s
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
e
v
e
n
t
s
F
l
e
x
i
b
l
e
w
o
r
k
p
a
t
t
e
r
n
s
o
f
f
e
r
p
l
e
n
t
y
o
f
h
o
l
i
d
a
y
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
w
e
e
k
e
n
d
s
a
w
a
y
H
o
l
i
d
a
y
o
v
e
r
s
e
a
s
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
o
n
c
e
e
v
e
r
y
f
e
w
y
e
a
r
s
T
h
i
n
k
o
n
l
y
o
v
e
r
s
e
a
s
h
o
l
i
d
a
y
s
a
r
e
‘
‘
r
e
a
l
h
o
l
i
d
a
y
s
’
’
F
l
e
x
i
b
l
e
w
o
r
k
p
a
t
t
e
r
n
s
o
f
f
e
r
p
l
e
n
t
y
o
f
h
o
l
i
d
a
y
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
o
v
e
r
s
e
a
s
t
r
a
v
e
l
H
o
l
i
d
a
y
s
a
r
e
b
u
i
l
t
a
r
o
u
n
d
v
i
s
i
t
s
t
o
f
a
m
i
l
y
a
n
d
f
r
i
e
n
d
s
T
e
n
d
t
o
t
a
k
e
s
h
o
r
t
e
r
b
r
e
a
k
s
,
b
u
t
d
o
n
’
t
o
f
t
e
n
g
o
a
w
a
y
f
o
r
w
e
e
k
e
n
d
s
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
s
i
n
?
u
e
n
c
e
h
o
l
i
d
a
y
c
h
o
i
c
e
s
H
o
l
i
d
a
y
s
a
r
e
b
u
i
l
t
a
r
o
u
n
d
f
a
m
i
l
y
a
n
d
f
r
i
e
n
d
s
W
e
e
k
e
n
d
s
a
w
a
y
a
r
e
r
a
r
e
,
b
u
t
c
o
u
p
l
e
s
l
o
o
k
f
o
r
a
s
h
o
r
t
b
r
e
a
k
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
o
n
c
e
a
y
e
a
r
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
k
i
d
s
O
p
e
n
t
o
p
a
c
k
a
g
e
h
o
l
i
d
a
y
s
T
a
k
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
s
h
o
r
t
b
u
t
i
n
d
u
l
g
e
n
t
b
r
e
a
k
s
T
r
a
v
e
l
o
v
e
r
s
e
a
s
e
v
e
r
y
f
e
w
y
e
a
r
s
L
i
k
e
t
o
?
n
d
a
n
e
w
h
o
l
i
d
a
y
d
e
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
e
v
e
r
y
y
e
a
r
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
A
d
a
p
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
T
o
u
r
i
s
m
Q
u
e
e
n
s
l
a
n
d
(
2
0
0
9
)
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 263
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
TourismResearch Australia (2009) argues that the connectors is the market which the Fraser
Coast should pursue. After conducting focus groups and an on-line survey with connectors
within Brisbane and a 400-kilometer radius of the Fraser Coast, the national tourism
organization suggests that the Fraser Coast can ful?ll this segment’s needs for connecting
with friends and family. Further, many of their holiday needs such as value for money, easy
access, great holiday atmosphere, activities for children and beaches can be satis?ed
through a Fraser Coast experience.
The DMO and Tourism Queensland, in partnership with other local destination stakeholders
such as the regional council, market the destination to potential tourists. Destination
attributes that are promoted include:
B the opportunity for beach, island and country experiences;
B World Heritage listed Fraser Island;
B warm sunny weather;
B a variety of accommodation styles;
B whale and dolphin watching tours and activities; and
B and 4WD adventures (Tourism Queensland, 2007).
In comparing the proposed two-step approach to the DMO segmentation approach, many
discrepancies exist. Despite both approaches considering the origin as a segmentation
base (DMO segments are based on domestic tourism) the ?ve descriptors listed in Table V
are not identi?ed in the stakeholder-orientated segmentation approach. Conversely, the
DMO segmentation approach does not apply age, gender, income, pull motivations, and
activities expenditure. Despite not being considered as descriptors, the four other
segmentation variables in the proposed two-step approach are comparable to the current
DMO segmentation approach. Daily accommodation expenditure relates to
accommodation, daily food and beverages expenditure incorporates elements of dining,
nights is comparable to holiday patterns and mode of transportation, and push motivations
and TPCare part of social interactions. Despite the differences, both approaches use all four
segmentation bases as proposed by Kotler (1980). However, while the DMOemphasizes the
needs and wants of tourists in their segmentation approach (psychographic and behavioral
emphasis), the two-step approach treats each of the ten segmentation variables equally.
The second discrepancy is that the DMO segmentation approach has twice as many
segments as the recommended two-step approach. In addition to the difference in the
number of segments, a comparison between the segmentation approaches is dif?cult. The
two-step segmentation approach de?nes its segments based on categories and
simultaneously lists:
1. the most popular; and
2. number of push and pull motivations.
Each of these segments varies based on the ten variables. For example, the level of income
and origin are clear differentiators for each of the segments. While the DMO segmentation
approach provides ?ve descriptors that present an in-depth representation of the segments
that was not provided in the two-step segmentation approach, no categorical or continuous
data determine if these characteristics represent the type of tourists that travel to the Fraser
Coast. For example, in the connectors segment, it is unknown whether the tourist is more
likely to travel with or without their family. Conversely, the accommodation of social
fun-seekers suggests that these tourists may stay in a luxury resort or a cheaper option
(happy to save on accommodation). Based on the data collected in this study, it cannot be
determined whether the target market of connectors can be attained though the two-step
approach designed within this study.
As the DMO does not actively target international tourists, it is noticeable that segment two
from the two-step approach is not considered. This represents 40 percent of the tourists in
the current study. Furthermore, despite representing 20 percent of the tourist market, the
PAGE 264
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
third cluster was not de?ned by the DMO. Older age and length of stay which de?ne this
segment cannot be identi?ed within the DMO approach.
Conclusion
The importance of developing an effective destination branding and marketing strategy is
identi?ed as increasingly important by a number of academics (e.g. Blain et al., 2005;
Morgan et al., 2003; Sheehan et al., 2007; Sheehan and Ritchie, 2005). Due to issues such
as increased competition from other domestic and international destinations, stakeholders
at a destination need to ensure that they develop an effective strategy that will improve their
chances of targeting the appropriate tourists with their preferred message. This study
considers an alternative approach to segmenting tourists by proposing a two-step approach
to segmentation that allows the views of stakeholders to be gathered prior to analyzing
tourist data. This approach ensures that relevant variables are considered and utilized by
destination stakeholders.
Many contributions to the literature and practice can be identi?ed from this research. From a
theoretical perspective, the ?rst major contribution is that all four segmentation bases as
de?ned by Kotler (1980) are identi?ed using this approach. In this study, age, income, TPC
(demographic), origin (geographic), push motivations, pull motivations (psychographic),
activities expenditure, food and beverages expenditure, accommodation expenditure, and
nights (behavioral) produce three segments.
From a practical perspective, the two-step approach is applicable for simultaneously
segmenting all tourists traveling to a destination. Through step one of this research, the
approach was able to ?rst identify the segmentation variables relevant to destination
stakeholders. Tables I –III provide a descriptive overview for Fraser Coast stakeholders that
can be used for destination marketing and positioning purposes. Through then applying the
second step, the key characteristics of the three Fraser Coast segments can be identi?ed
and can be targeted in future marketing and branding material. A practical implication is to
consider the usage of the discarded variables (number of activities sought, gender, and trip
purpose) from step one of the two-step segmentation approach as a guide for
decision-making for all three segments. Most tourists in these segments (both genders)
travel to the Fraser Coast to have a holiday (trip purpose) and to experience Fraser Island
(activity sought). Communication for all of the three segments should emphasize these
motives. The ten variables included in the two-step segmentation approach help to
distinguish between groups. The destination can use these variables to create different
messages for each segment – more targeted messages for speci?c media.
Consistent with prior studies (Kim and Lee, 2002; Bansal and Eiselt, 2004; Sirakaya et al.,
2003), this study suggests that tourism motivation is multidimensional. Push and pull
motivations represent different aspects of tourists’ motivation. For example, the most popular
push motivation was to go to a place where you have not been before and the weather pulled
tourists most frequently to the destination. A notable theoretical contribution from this
approach is that the two-step cluster analysis combines 11 push motivations, twelve pull
motivations, and six activities with a number of push motivations, number of pull motivations,
and number of activities sought, and tested for their signi?cance at the individual level. Thus,
the individual motivation and activity variables do not dominate the solution and results at the
individual level showcase that differences exist in the push and pull motivations and
activities sought between clusters. This contributes to the literature by arguing that individual
activities and motivations should be analyzed at the individual and combined level to identify
if signi?cant differences exist.
A practical implication for Fraser Coast marketers is that the number of motivations varies
between the segments. For example, young Europeans have the higher number of push
motivations, whereas the long-stay travellers consider more pull motivations. This suggests
that destination marketers (e.g. DMOs) need to understand that tourists travel for a variety of
different reasons and multidimensional measures of motivation can help researchers to
understand this multitude of reasons.
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 265
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
A ?nal theoretical contribution is that the proposed two-step approach provides tourist
segments that vary considerably from the current DMO segmentation approach. It can be
concluded that a common segment is not identi?able between the two approaches. As it is
widely argued that there is no correct way to segment a market (e.g. Dolnicar, 2008), careful
considerations need to be made when arguing the most appropriate strategy. However, as
the DMO is classifying tourists based on domestic segmentation, a large percentage of
tourists that travel to the Fraser Coast are not being targeted. Two segments, wealthy
travelers and young Europeans, have tourists that come from Europe. These segments
represent approximately 60 percent of the usable tourist sample for this study. The two-step
approach may be a more appropriate segmentation method as it is capable of assisting
tourism marketers to target more of the tourists frequenting the destination. Currently, the
DMO segments target less than half of the types of tourists visiting the Fraser Coast. The
results of this study suggest that many dollars may be wasted targeting tourists that are not
likely to travel to the destination and not targeting those who would.
Managerial implications
The ?ndings from this study present many managerial implications for destination marketers
and managers. The two-step approach to segmentation identi?es three distinct tourist
segments for the destination under study and this has important implications for destination
branding. A single destination image or message or one-size ?ts all approach will not yield
the best outcomes for the destination. Some consideration of the different needs and wants
of the three distinct tourist groups will allow the destination to achieve the best outcomes in
terms of initially attracting and later satisfying tourists who choose to travel to the destination.
While the Fraser Coast brand needs to convey rest and relaxation, accommodation and tour
options need to cater to a diverse range of tourist needs and wants.
Domestic marketing efforts by the DMO currently target approximately half of the tourists
traveling to the Fraser Coast. A major limitation of the current approach is that a substantial
segment (young Europeans) is not targeted by the DMO. While this segment is less likely to
spend as much on accommodation and food and beverages as wealthy travelers, this
segment spends a considerably greater amount on activities expenditure. While tour
operators (e.g. whale watching operators, adventure tour planners) may attract tourists that
have different demographics, the different segments of tourists may have similar activity
choices and activity expenditure patterns. DMOs need to ensure that they focus on this
identi?ed segment as it can present ?nancial bene?ts to the destination such as activities
expenditure and occupancy in lower end accommodation.
A managerial implication is to subdivide some of the categories within the research. Indeed,
Europe is a large source market, which represents many countries with populations in
excess of 20 million people such as the UK, Spain, France and Germany. Identifying if the
majority of tourists come from one country, region or state has marketing implications.
Designing speci?c packages for tourists from European countries such as the UK or
Germany may increase the growth of tourism from these countries to this destination. As
many wealthy tourists travel fromEurope, as well as those with limited incomes, this could be
a ?nancially attractive option.
Limitations and future research
This study considers one regional Australian destination. While this ensures that a
recommended two-step approach could be outlined and compared with the current DMO
segmentation method, the results of this study is not generalizable to other destinations. Future
research is required in a range of alternate destinations to further the application of the
recommended two-step approach to segmentation. Research should be conducted in urban
destinations, rural locations, cities and winter resorts. Comparisons can be made between
destinations to identify if similar or different approaches have been applied based on the type
of destination of location of choice. In addition, researchers could consider the usefulness of
the two-step segmentation approach for state- and country-level marketing efforts.
PAGE 266
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This research was conducted using a cross-sectional research design. Future research
should be conducted longitudinally to see if the segments described by the proposed
two-step approach are better able to predict the types of tourists traveling to the destination.
A further opportunity is to determine the process of how the DMO and other stakeholders
can collaborate to effectively target the three segments for the destination. Current research
in the tourismmarketing literature has focused on destination marketing alliances (Wang and
Xiang, 2007), tourism planning (Sautter and Leisen, 1999), and promotion (Sheehan et al.,
2007). By identifying the input fromall primary stakeholders interviewed within this research,
it can be determined if they have an in?uence in the decision-making process, and whether
their priority markets are chosen.
A ?nal opportunity presented from the ?ndings of this research is to extend the two-step
approach to destination positioning and/or branding. Here, stakeholders at a destination can
be asked about their thoughts on the current positioning strategy of the destination as
presented by the DMO. Additionally, a stakeholder approach to destination branding could be
identi?ed. Tourists to a destination can then be approached following a similar method
presented here to identify their perceptions of the destination’s positioning strategy. This
approach could present howa destination is positioned by considering a multiple stakeholder
approach. Here, it will be identi?ed which destination stakeholders are involved in the design
of the positioning message. It will also determine whether destination stakeholders that may
be considered primary (Clarkson, 1995) but not involved in the process understand the
current positioning strategy and whether they consider it as relevant to the destination.
Second, it will evaluate how tourists that have traveled to the destination perceive the
destination. This will identify the image/s and attributes of the destination suggested by
destination stakeholders. Lastly, the tourism destination perceptions of the destination
stakeholders and the tourists will be compared to identify whether if any differences exist in the
positioning message. If differences exist, these can be useful for managerial purposes at the
destination. This could include determining how to design a positioning message more
effectively to tourists. Furthermore, this could contribute to the literature by suggesting that
destination stakeholders and tourists perceive a destination’s message differently.
References
Bansal, H. and Eiselt, H.A. (2004), ‘‘Exploratory research of tourism motivations and planning’’, Tourism
Management, Vol. 25, pp. 387-96.
Blain, C., Levy, S.E. and Ritchie, J.R.B. (2005), ‘‘Destination branding: insights and practices from
destination management organizations’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43, pp. 328-38.
Chang, J. (2006), ‘‘Segmenting tourists to aboriginal cultural festivals: an example in the Rukai tribal
area, Taiwan’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 27, pp. 1224-34.
Chiu, T.D.-P., Fang, J., Chen, J., Wang, Y. and Jeris, C. (2001), ‘‘Arobust and scalable clustering algorithm
for mixed type attributes in large database environment’’, paper presented at 7th ACM SIGKDDD
International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, San Francisco, CA.
Clarkson, M.B.E. (1995), ‘‘A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social
performance’’, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, pp. 92-117.
Dolnicar, S. (2004), ‘‘Tracking data-driven market segments’’, Tourism Analysis, Vol. 8, pp. 227-32.
Dolnicar, S. (2008), ‘‘Market segmentation in tourism’’, in Woodside, A. and Martin, D. (Eds), Tourism
Management, Analysis, Behavior and Strategy, CABI, Cambridge, MA.
Donaldson, T. and Preston, L.E. (1995), ‘‘The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence
and implications’’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, pp. 65-91.
Freeman, R.E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, Boston, MA.
Jang, S. (2004), ‘‘Mitigating tourism seasonality: a quantitative approach’’, Annals of Tourism Research,
Vol. 31, pp. 819-36.
Johns, N. and Gyimothy, S. (2002), ‘‘Market segmentation and the prediction of tourist behavior: the case
of Bornholm, Denmark’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 40, pp. 316-27.
Kim, S.-S. and Lee, C.K. (2002), ‘‘Push and pull relationships’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 29,
pp. 257-60.
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 267
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Kotler, P. (1980), Principles of Marketing, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Lau, A.L.S. and McKercher, B. (2004), ‘‘Exploration versus acquisition: a comparison of ?rst-time and
repeat visitors’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 42, pp. 279-85.
Lee, G., Morrison, A.M. and O’Leary, J.T. (2006), ‘‘The economic value portfolio matrix: a target market
selection tool for destination marketing organisations’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 27, pp. 576-88.
Lee, T. (1999), Qualitative Methods in Organisational Research, Sage, London.
Morgan, N.J., Pritchard, A. and Piggott, R. (2003), ‘‘Destination branding and the role of the
stakeholders: the case of New Zealand’’, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 9, pp. 285-99.
Morrison, A.M., Yang, C.-H., O’Leary, J.T. and Nadkarni, N. (2003), ‘‘Comparative pro?les of travellers on
cruises and land-based resort vacations’’, The Journal of Tourism Studies, Vol. 14, pp. 99-111.
Norusis, M. (2008), SPSS 16.0 Guide to Data Analysis, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Perdue, R. (1996), ‘‘Target market selection and marketing strategy: the Colorado downhill skiing
industry’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 34, pp. 39-46.
Pike, S.D. (2008), Destination Marketing, Butterworth-Heinemann, Burlington, MA.
Sautter, E.T. and Leisen, B. (1999), ‘‘Managing stakeholders: a tourism planning model’’, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 26, pp. 312-28.
Seiler, V.L., Hsieh, V.L., Seiler, M.J. and Hsieh, C. (2002), ‘‘Modeling travel expenditures for Taiwanese
tourism’’, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 13, pp. 47-60.
Sheehan, L.R. and Ritchie, J.R.B. (2005), ‘‘Destination stakeholders – exploring identity and salience’’,
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 32, pp. 711-34.
Sheehan, L.R., Ritchie, J.R.B. and Hudson, S. (2007), ‘‘The destination promotion triad: understanding
asymmetric stakeholder interdependencies among the city, hotels, and DMO’’, Journal of Travel
Research, Vol. 46, pp. 64-74.
Sirakaya, E., Uysal, M. and Yoshioka, C.F. (2003), ‘‘Segmenting the Japanese tour market to Turkey’’,
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 41, pp. 292-304.
Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J.M. (1988), Shaping a New Health Care System: The Explosion of Chronic
Illness as a Catalyst for Change, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Tkaczynski, A., Rundle-Thiele, S.R. and Beaumont, N. (2008), ‘‘Insights into how regional tourism
operators view their marketers’’, International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, Vol. 13, pp. 16-27.
Tkaczynski, A., Rundle-Thiele, S.R. and Beaumont, N. (2009), ‘‘Segmentation: a tourist stakeholder
view’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 30, pp. 169-75.
Tkaczynski, A., Rundle-Thiele, S.R. and Beaumont, N. (2010), ‘‘Destination segmentation: a recommended
two-step approach’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 49, pp. 139-52.
Tourism Queensland (2007), Fraser Coast Destination Management Plan.
Tourism Queensland (2009), Understanding Our Consumers – TQ Domestic Market Segmentation.
TourismResearch Australia (2009), ‘‘Understanding the connector market: howdoes the Fraser Coast ?t
with connectors’ ideal domestic holiday?’’
Wang, Y. and Xiang, Z. (2007), ‘‘Toward a theoretical framework of collaborative destination marketing’’,
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 46, pp. 75-85.
Yin, K. (2003), Case Study Research – Designs and Methods, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Yuan, S. and McDonald, C. (1990), ‘‘Motivational determinants of international pleasure time’’, Journal of
Travel Research, Vol. 29, pp. 42-4.
Corresponding author
Aaron Tkaczynski can be contacted at: [email protected]
PAGE 268
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_708964588.pdf
This paper aims to recommend a two-step approach to destination segmentation that
incorporates the views both of multiple stakeholders and of tourists
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Segmenting destinations: in the eyes of the stakeholders
Aaron Tkaczynski Sharyn Rundle-Thiele
Article information:
To cite this document:
Aaron Tkaczynski Sharyn Rundle-Thiele, (2011),"Segmenting destinations: in the eyes of the stakeholders", International J ournal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 5 Iss 3 pp. 255 - 268
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181111156952
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:17 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 36 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2083 times since 2011*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Sharyn Rundle-Thiele, Krzysztof Kubacki, Aaron Tkaczynski, J oy Parkinson, (2015),"Using two-step cluster analysis to identify
homogeneous physical activity groups", Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 33 Iss 4 pp. 522-537http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
MIP-03-2014-0050
J ennifer Craik, (2015),"Challenges for Australian fashion", J ournal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International J ournal, Vol. 19
Iss 1 pp. 56-68http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/J FMM-03-2014-0017
J ohn P. Girard, Susan McIntyre, (2010),"Knowledge management modeling in public sector organizations: a case study", International
J ournal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 23 Iss 1 pp. 71-77http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513551011012330
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Segmenting destinations: in the eyes of the
stakeholders
Aaron Tkaczynski and Sharyn Rundle-Thiele
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to recommend a two-step approach to destination segmentation that
incorporates the views both of multiple stakeholders and of tourists.
Design/methodology/approach – Step one applies a case study approach incorporating
semi-structured interviews with 13 destination stakeholders. Step two involves segmenting tourists to
the destination based on a questionnaire survey developed from the semi-structured interviews. The
study compares and contrasts the result with the current DMO approach.
Findings – The two-step approach produces three segments for the destination under study using four
segmentation bases and ten variables. The DMO approach also utilizes all four segmentation bases but
produces six segments with ?ve different variables. The DMO approach captures fewer tourists visiting
the destination.
Research limitations/implications – This study considers one regional Australian destination. Future
research is recommended in a range of alternative destinations to further understand the two-step
segmentation approach. It is recommended that the two-step approach should be extended to
destination branding and positioning.
Originality value – Segmentation guides positioning and branding strategies and the proposed
two-step approach may assist destination stakeholders to reach more of the types of tourists who are
likely to visit the destination.
Keywords Stakeholders, Segmentation, Stakeholder theory, Tourism management
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The importance of segmentation in destination marketing is widely acknowledged
(e.g. Dolnicar, 2008; Johns and Gyimothy, 2002; Pike, 2008). Market segmentation can
assist researchers to understand the ways that tourists to a destination can be classi?ed
most effectively (Perdue, 1996). The marketing segmentation approach can then be utilized
by destination stakeholders to position a destination brand favorably in the minds of actual
and/or potential tourists (Pike, 2008; Morgan et al., 2003). To date, the majority of destination
segmentation studies are tourist-focused involving primary (e.g. Chang, 2006; Kim and Lee,
2002; Lau and McKercher, 2004) or secondary data (e.g. Jang, 2004; Lee et al., 2006; Seiler
et al., 2002) methods. Few studies (e.g. Tkaczynski et al., 2008; Tkaczynski et al., 2009)
apply a stakeholder viewto destination segmentation, despite several authors promoting the
importance of such an approach (e.g. Blain et al., 2005; Morgan et al., 2003; Sheehan and
Ritchie, 2005). This paper presents additional evidence for a stakeholder approach to
destination segmentation incorporating two steps. Step one involves understanding how
multiple destination stakeholders view their market. Step two entails segmenting the
destination based on variables that were commonly identi?ed by a broad range of
destination stakeholders. This paper compares and contrasts the segments currently used
by the destination marketing organization (DMO) with the segments obtained from a
two-step approach.
DOI 10.1108/17506181111156952 VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011, pp. 255-268, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 255
Aaron Tkaczynski is a
Lecturer at The University of
Queensland, Brisbane,
Australia. Sharyn
Rundle-Thiele is an
Associate Professor at
Grif?th University, Nathan,
Australia.
Received: April 2009
Revised: June 2010
Accepted: June 2010
The authors would like to thank
Dr Lisa Ruhanan from the
University of Queensland and
Dr Andrew McAuley from
Grif?th University for assisting
in the review of this paper.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Literature review
Developing an effective destination brand that is appealing to potential tourists is a strategy
that is of growing importance to destination marketers and managers. Destination branding
is a strategy which Morgan et al. (2003, p. 285) argue is a ‘‘powerful weapon in the marketing
armory of contemporary destination managers, confronted by increasing competition,
product parity and substitutability.’’ However, prior to developing a brand, a key issue that
needs to be determined is the approach to be taken when marketing the destination.
Consultation with stakeholders prior to developing a destination brand remains underutilized
in tourism and destination marketing. While the concept of stakeholder theory has been
applied to both destination marketing and branding (Blain et al., 2005; Sheehan and Ritchie,
2005; Sheehan et al., 2007) its application is limited. Stakeholder theory is a management
theory which argues that the interests of all stakeholders are of intrinsic value (Donaldson
and Preston, 1995). A stakeholder is ‘‘any group or individual who can affect or is affected by
the achievement of the organization’s objectives’’ (Freeman, 1984, p. 46). Destination
stakeholders include hotels, restaurants, attractions, city of?cials, transportation companies,
gas stations, incentive planners, airlines, and/or universities (Blain et al., 2005). While the
DMO is usually responsible for the marketing and branding of a destination, it is rarely an
operator of the product (Pike, 2008). Consequently, a DMO relies on stakeholder support to
successfully promote and market the destination.
An issue that has plagued stakeholder theory is how an organization (or destination) should
allocate time, energy and other scarce resources to stakeholders (Freeman, 1984). It has
been noted in the literature that while many stakeholders may have an interest in the
organization (destination), not all of them are essential to the organization’s success.
Clarkson (1995) aims to classify stakeholders based on their level of importance and creates
two stakeholder types: primary or secondary. Clarkson (1995, p. 106) argues that a primary
stakeholder is ‘‘one without whose continuing participation the corporation [or destination]
cannot survive as a going concern.’’ However, secondary stakeholders are de?ned as those
who ‘‘in?uence or affect, or are in?uenced or affected by, the corporation [or destination], but
they are not engaged in transactions with the corporation [or destination] and are not
essential for its survival’’ (Clarkson, 1995, p. 107). Thus, should a primary stakeholder (e.g. a
large, well-established tour operator) withdraw its support to the marketing of the destination
or start promoting an alternate image, a common approach is not being utilized (Clarkson,
1995). For the DMO to guarantee that stakeholders support destination marketing, it needs
to ensure that the collective needs and interests of destination stakeholders are met when
?rst selecting target markets (Sheehan et al., 2007).
Destination stakeholders recognize the importance of effective marketing strategies to their
destination’s collective success with tourism. However, academics and practitioners both
realize that every tourist is different and it is not possible for destination marketers
(e.g. DMOs) to tailor messages for each and every tourist (Dolnicar, 2008). Segmentation is
a marketing strategy that helps stakeholders to effectively market a destination. A review of
the literature reveals that a wide variety of approaches are used in destination segmentation
research (Tkaczynski et al., 2009). Tourism researchers use one or a combination of the four
segmentation bases (e.g. geographic, demographic, psychographic and behavioral)
described by Kotler (1980) to segment markets. Tkaczynski et al. (2009) review 119
academic studies and identify a mixture of the four bases outlined by Kotler to segment
markets. These authors also note that less than ten percent of the studies consider
destination stakeholders’ views to market segmentation. This is a limitation, because unless
the researcher has a complete understanding of destination stakeholders, some variables
that may be relevant to destination stakeholders (e.g. expenditure and/or past experience)
may be overlooked.
Tkaczynski et al.’s (2009) review found that instead of considering a range of stakeholders
relevant to a destination (e.g. DMOs, accommodation providers, tour operators), preference
is given to certain types of stakeholders. Tkaczynski et al. (2009) also identify that the
different types of organizations within one stakeholder category (e.g. the different types of
tour operators) are not considered. As all destination stakeholder types are critical for the
PAGE 256
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
continual operation of a destination, their insights into market segmentation may be useful for
destination marketing and branding purposes as they have been found to be
knowledgeable about tourism at the destination, their tourism markets, and the
promotional message presented in the media (Sheehan et al., 2007).
Step one: understanding segmentation through the eyes of stakeholders
In step one, a case study with semi-structured interviews was used to identify how
destination stakeholders segment their market. The case study approach permits
researchers to investigate complex issues in some depth (Yin, 2003). A single case study
of the Fraser Coast, a regional Australian destination, was deemed most appropriate to
ensure that an in-depth understanding of market segmentation from a destination
stakeholder perspective was obtained (Lee, 1999). A total of 13 semi-structured interviews
were held with primary stakeholders as de?ned earlier by Clarkson (1995). These
stakeholders were the local government organization, DMOs (regional and state),
accommodation providers (backpacker resort, caravan park, self-contained unit provider,
and a low, a medium, and a high star rating hotel), and tour operators (whale watching
operator, a ?shing charter operator, an adventure tour operator, and a museum employee).
This provided a thorough overview of tourism at the destination by considering destination
stakeholders in the broadest sense (Sheehan et al., 2007). Each organization was a
representative of the local tourism board. The size of the organizations varied with four
organizations having less than three employees (mostly owner operators), three having
between three to six employees, and ?ve having greater than six employees.
As a condition of being selected, each of the organization’s representatives was employed in
a managerial role and was knowledgeable about how both the destination and their
organization are marketed to tourists. The destination stakeholders were asked to describe
how they segmented their markets. In instances where formal marketing plans were not
used, probes were applied to understand whether the market was approached as a whole or
in parts. Interviews averaged 40 minutes and were recorded and transcribed for analysis
using an open and axial coding scheme as recommended by Strauss and Corbin (1988).
Step one: ?ndings
Findings for step one are described in detail in Tkaczynski et al. (2009). Brie?y, destination
stakeholders identify all four of the segmentation bases (demographic, geographic,
psychographic and behavioral). Three use only one base, whereas four destination
stakeholders use all four segmentation bases to classify their tourists using their services.
Speci?cally, destination stakeholders deemthe following variables relevant for segmentation
purposes. The variables are age, gender, travel party composition (TPC), income,
(demographic), origin (usual place of residence) (geographic), trip purpose, motivations,
activities sought (psychographic), expenditure, number of nights, and purchasing behavior
(behavioral). For each of these variables, respondents provided the categories. For
example, six common income categories (e.g. under A$40,000, and over A$100,000) are
listed. The most popular variables applied to describe tourists include age and activities
sought (eight responses each), origin [usual place of residence] (seven responses), and trip
purpose (six responses). Segmentation variables that are used less frequently include TPC
and purchasing behavior (two responses each) and gender (one response). Nine
destination stakeholders are able to describe one variable as the most important for
segmenting their tourists. Origin and activities sought are identi?ed twice whereas age,
income, motivations, trip purpose, and purchasing behavior are chosen once.
Step two: survey tourists and identify segments
A tourist survey was then developed on the description of the variables provided from the
semi-structured interviews. The survey development, data collection and research ?ndings
are detailed in Tkaczynski et al. (2010). Minor modi?cations were made to a few variables.
For example, both push and pull motivations were chosen as they represented destination
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 257
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
stakeholders’ responses and also characterize different aspects of a tourist’s motivation
(Yuan and McDonald, 1990). Push motivations represent a tourist’s reason to travel (e.g. to
have a holiday, or to rest and relax), whereas pull motivations consider a tourist’s decision to
choose the destination to ful?ll their need to travel (e.g. the climate, the holiday lifestyle
available at the Fraser Coast).
A total of 39 questions were used for the survey. Activities sought, push motivations, pull
motivations and nights were treated as continuous variables based on the interview
responses. In total, 11 push motivations, 12 pull motivations and six activities sought were
measured. Similar to previous research (e.g. Dolnicar, 2004; Lee et al., 2006; Morrison et al.,
2003), these variables were measured in a binary ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ response format. For data
analysis, the total number of activities sought, push motivations and pull motivations were
chosen as the unit of analysis. The nine remaining questions were designed as categorical
variables, as the stakeholders explained these variables using this method.
Respondents needed to be at least 18, had or would have spent at least a night at the
destination, and had to have been traveling for leisure purposes. The data was collected
using a cross-sectional study design over a seven-month period. This was to ensure that
seasonality at the destination was not an issue. Surveys were collected at a caravan park, a
backpacker hostel, a ?ve star resort, a visitor information centre, a bus terminal, a ferry
terminal, and an airport.
The surveys that were collected were then analyzed using SPSS Version 15.0. Descriptive
statistics was ?rst used to describe the tourists. TwoStep cluster analysis using the
log-likelihood measure was then utilized to reveal natural groupings in the data set using all
of the segmentation variables identi?ed in step one. This method is appropriate in forming
clusters based on both continuous and categorical data (Chiu et al., 2001; Norusis, 2008).
Tkaczynski et al. (2010) provide further details of the TwoStep clustering method.
Step two: ?ndings
A total of 852 tourist surveys were collected. Tables I-III present the descriptive results of the
collected tourist surveys. Almost half of the respondents are aged between 18 and 34. The
ratio of females to males is slightly higher. Travelling as a couple is the most popular option
with a frequency of almost 40 percent. Annual household income varies with the highest
percentage of tourists surveyed earning in excess of A$100,000. The international
destination of Europe is the most common origin point with just over 30 percent of responses.
The domestic state of New South Wales (NSW) is also dominant with one in four respondents
travelling fromthis location. Approximately two-thirds of the tourists travel to the Fraser Coast
for the purpose of to have a holiday. The largest percentages of tourists spend under $50 per
day in each expenditure variable of accommodation, activities, and food and beverages.
Fraser Island is the most frequently identi?ed activity that tourists seek when coming to the
destination, with almost two-thirds of the sample choosing this option. Over 40 percent of
tourists seek one activity when coming to the Fraser Coast, and one quarter consider two
activities. Of the respondents, 40 percent or more chose six push motivations. ‘‘Rest and
relaxation’’ was the most common choice (54 percent). The number of push motivations was
similar between categories, with the top three identi?ed by just less than one-?fth of
respondents. Despite 12 pull motivations presented to tourists, more than 20 percent of
respondents considered only three. Half of the pull motivations were taken into account by
10 percent or less of the sample. The weather is the most identi?able pull motivation with just
over one-third of tourists attracted to the destination based on this aspect. Over
three-quarters of respondents have between zero and two pull motivations. The number of
nights that tourists stay at the destination varies. Over half the respondents (54 percent)
spent between two to four nights at the destination.
TwoStep cluster analysis revealed segments based on the 13 segmentation variables
identi?ed by destination stakeholders in step one. Three clusters formed based on a sample
of 569 tourists. Three segments are revealed within the tourism data set. Three of the
variables are:
PAGE 258
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Table I Descriptive statistics (categorical variables)
Percentage
Age
18-24 19.25
25-34 26.17
35-44 14.08
45-54 13.73
55-64 15.85
65+ 9.62
Missing 1.29
Gender
Male 46.12
Female 52.46
Missing 1.41
Travel party composition
By myself 11.27
Couple 38.97
Family 16.78
Adult group 27.58
Other 2.58
Missing 2.81
Annual household income (A$)
Under $20,000 16.31
$20,000-$39,999 12.32
$40,000-$59,999 12.32
$60,000-$79,999 9.62
$80,000-$99,999 12.91
$100,000+ 21.94
Missing 14.55
Origin
North America 4.93
Europe 32.27
Asia Paci?c 3.05
Queensland 14.55
New South Wales 24.06
Victoria 10.68
Australia (other) 7.04
Missing 3.40
Trip purpose
To have a holiday 66.08
To visit your friends 14.55
To visit your family 16.08
Business purposes 3.29
Daily accommodation expenditure (A$)
Under $50 44.95
$50-$99 15.14
$100-$149 13.49
$150-$199 8.69
$200+ 11.27
Missing 6.46
Daily activities expenditure (A$)
Under $50 31.92
$50-$99 23.36
$100-$149 15.26
$150-$199 7.39
$200+ 9.51
Missing 12.56
Daily food and beverages expenditure (A$)
Under $50 44.84
$50-$99 28.17
$100-$149 11.85
$150-$199 3.17
$200+ 4.34
Missing 7.63
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 259
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Table II Descriptive statistics (continuous variables)
Percentage Number Percentage
Push motivations
To rest and relax 54.11 0 4.34
To go to a place you have not been before 51.41 1 9.86
To go sightseeing 50.35 2 16.78
To have fun 49.30 3 17.37
To see something different 42.37 4 14.44
To escape from your everyday lifestyle 39.55 5 12.32
To spend time with your partner 26.99 6 9.27
To experience a different culture 21.48 7 7.63
To be together with your family 21.13 8 4.34
To participate in recreational activities 19.25 9 2.28
To get away from the demands of home 16.78 10 0.82
11 0.23
Pull motivations
The weather 34.74 0 21.95
It was recommended by someone 25.23 1 25.12
To experience a relaxed lifestyle 20.19 2 28.17
It is a convenient stop-over point 17.72 3 13.03
The untouched nature 15.61 4 6.34
There’s a variety of things to see and do 13.73 5 3.17
To go camping 10.45 6 1.06
It is a family-oriented destination 10.21 7 0.70
The competitive price 7.75 8 0.23
The friendly locals 7.75 9 0.12
The safe environment 7.51 10 0.12
The luxury accommodation 6.22
Activities sought
Fraser Island 60.45 0 16.90
Beaches 28.40 1 42.02
Whale watching 21.48 2 25.82
Nature activities 13.73 3 11.62
Fishing 11.85 4 2.93
Beach activities 7.86 5 0.70
Table III Number of nights
Number Percentage
1 4.93
2 16.31
3 20.07
4 17.61
5 8.92
6 3.52
7 8.45
8 1.88
9 1.41
10 2.23
11 1.06
12 0.94
14 1.88
15 0.35
16 0.23
17 0.23
18 0.23
19 0.12
20 0.35
21 0.94
Over 21 3.87
Missing 4.46
PAGE 260
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
1. gender;
2. number of activities sought; and
3. trip purpose do not distinguish segments and therefore removed from the analysis.
Cluster analysis is performed once again with the remaining ten variables. Student t-tests
and chi-square tests con?rmthat each of the ten variables vary between segments. A cluster
solution with ten segmentation variables is, therefore, accepted as the ?nal solution (see
Table IV).
The three segments are described in detail in Tkaczynski et al. (2010) with their key
distinguishing characteristics outlined here. The ?rst segment is the largest (41 percent).
The key distinguishing feature of this segment is their higher income (67 percent earn over
A$80,000) and high daily accommodation, activities, and food and beverages expenditure.
This segment is, therefore, labeled wealthy travelers. The second segment is similar in size
(39 percent). The key distinguishing features of this segment is that the tourists are young
(89 percent aged under 35) and travel from Europe (71 percent). Because of these features,
this segment is labeled young Europeans. The third segment is the smallest (20 percent).
This segment is distinguishable based on its long length of stay (17 nights). This segment is,
therefore, labeled long-stay travelers.
Comparison to DMO segments
The segments derived from the two-step approach are then compared with the Fraser Coast
segments that are currently promoted by the DMO and the state tourism authority (Tourism
Queensland) as described in Table V. Tourism Queensland classi?es tourists to the Fraser
Coast based on a domestic market segmentation approach incorporating demographic,
psychographic, and behavioral descriptors:
B accommodation;
B mode of transportation;
B dining;
B social interactions; and
B holiday patterns.
The state tourism authority argues that by dividing the Fraser Coast domestic market into six
segments based on their needs and wants, destination stakeholders can discover valuable
insights into tourists’ emotional connection to what they expect from a holiday (Tourism
Queensland, 2009). The size of the segments (see Table V) is based on the number of
Australian tourists that traveled domestically within Australia in 2008. For example,
connectors represent 4.8 million Australian tourists (32 percent).
Table IV Final cluster solution
Wealthy travelers Young Europeans Long-stay travelers
Demographic variables
Age 25-54 , 35 . 55
Income . A$80,000 , A$20,000 , A$40,000
TPC Couple and family Adult group Couple
Geographic variable
Origin (usual place of residence) NSW and Europe Europe QLD
Psychographic variables
Number of push motivations 4.1 4.8 3.0
Number of pull motivations 1.7 1.4 2.5
Behavioral variables
Daily accommodation expenditure . $100 , $100 , $50
Daily activities expenditure $50-$149 , $100 , $50
Daily food and beverages expenditure $50-$149 , $50 , $50
Nights (number) 4.3 3.7 17.0
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 261
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
T
a
b
l
e
V
D
M
O
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
s
S
e
g
m
e
n
t
A
c
t
i
v
e
e
x
p
l
o
r
e
r
s
(
1
1
%
)
S
t
y
l
i
s
h
t
r
a
v
e
l
e
r
s
(
5
%
)
S
e
l
f
-
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
e
r
s
(
1
2
%
)
U
n
w
i
n
d
e
r
s
(
1
5
%
)
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
s
(
3
2
%
)
S
o
c
i
a
l
f
u
n
-
s
e
e
k
e
r
s
(
2
5
%
)
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
H
o
l
i
d
a
y
s
a
r
e
a
l
l
a
b
o
u
t
p
u
s
h
i
n
g
t
h
e
i
r
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s
a
n
d
f
e
e
l
i
n
g
a
l
i
v
e
L
o
o
k
f
o
r
u
n
i
q
u
e
a
n
d
e
x
o
t
i
c
h
o
l
i
d
a
y
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
s
t
h
a
t
m
a
k
e
t
h
e
m
f
e
e
l
d
i
s
c
e
r
n
i
n
g
,
s
t
y
l
i
s
h
a
n
d
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
A
b
o
u
t
j
o
u
r
n
e
y
s
o
f
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
y
,
e
n
r
i
c
h
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
s
e
l
f
,
a
n
d
a
n
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
d
s
e
n
s
e
o
f
w
e
l
l
b
e
i
n
g
D
o
n
o
t
l
i
k
e
t
o
t
r
a
v
e
l
t
o
o
f
a
r
.
H
o
l
i
d
a
y
s
a
r
e
a
b
o
u
t
c
a
t
c
h
i
n
g
t
h
e
i
r
b
r
e
a
t
h
,
f
e
e
l
i
n
g
c
a
l
m
a
n
d
p
e
a
c
e
f
u
l
,
a
n
d
g
a
i
n
i
n
g
p
e
r
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
H
o
l
i
d
a
y
s
a
r
e
a
b
o
u
t
b
o
n
d
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
f
a
m
i
l
y
a
n
d
f
r
i
e
n
d
s
L
o
o
k
f
o
r
l
o
t
s
o
f
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
a
n
d
p
l
e
n
t
y
o
f
p
e
o
p
l
e
t
o
s
h
a
r
e
t
h
e
f
u
n
w
i
t
h
.
A
l
w
a
y
s
s
e
e
k
i
n
g
n
e
w
d
e
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
o
f
t
e
n
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
)
A
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
s
t
o
p
e
n
t
o
s
t
a
y
i
n
g
i
n
h
o
s
t
e
l
s
,
e
c
o
-
l
o
d
g
e
r
e
s
o
r
t
s
o
r
c
a
m
p
i
n
g
g
r
o
u
n
d
s
M
a
y
s
t
a
y
w
i
t
h
f
r
i
e
n
d
s
a
n
d
r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
s
i
n
a
l
u
x
u
r
y
h
o
t
e
l
/
r
e
s
o
r
t
o
r
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
m
o
t
e
l
J
u
s
t
n
e
e
d
s
t
o
b
e
c
l
e
a
n
a
n
d
c
o
m
f
o
r
t
a
b
l
e
L
u
x
u
r
y
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
R
o
o
m
s
m
u
s
t
b
e
a
i
r
-
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
e
d
a
n
d
w
e
l
l
f
u
r
n
i
s
h
e
d
w
i
t
h
l
a
r
g
e
b
a
l
c
o
n
i
e
s
a
n
d
s
p
e
c
t
a
c
u
l
a
r
v
i
e
w
s
M
u
s
t
o
f
f
e
r
u
p
-
t
o
-
d
a
t
e
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
a
n
d
e
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
t
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
I
d
e
a
l
l
y
,
a
d
a
y
s
p
a
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
x
L
u
x
u
r
y
r
e
s
o
r
t
,
h
o
t
e
l
o
r
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
d
a
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
p
o
o
l
/
s
p
a
R
o
o
m
s
m
u
s
t
b
e
a
i
r
-
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
e
d
w
i
t
h
u
p
-
t
o
-
d
a
t
e
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
E
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
t
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
p
r
e
f
e
r
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
h
a
v
e
a
g
e
n
u
i
n
e
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
p
o
l
i
c
y
L
u
x
u
r
y
r
e
s
o
r
t
o
r
h
o
t
e
l
-
s
t
y
l
e
o
r
c
l
e
a
n
a
n
d
c
o
m
f
o
r
t
a
b
l
e
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
c
o
o
k
i
n
g
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
W
i
l
l
s
a
v
e
o
n
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
a
l
l
o
w
m
o
r
e
h
o
l
i
d
a
y
s
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
h
o
t
e
l
r
o
o
m
,
s
e
l
f
-
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
h
o
u
s
e
,
a
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
r
h
o
l
i
d
a
y
u
n
i
t
M
u
s
t
b
e
c
l
e
a
n
,
c
o
m
f
o
r
t
a
b
l
e
,
c
h
i
l
d
-
f
r
i
e
n
d
l
y
w
i
t
h
c
o
o
k
i
n
g
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
T
h
e
l
a
t
e
s
t
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
c
o
n
v
e
n
i
e
n
c
e
s
a
n
d
d
a
y
s
p
a
s
a
r
e
n
o
t
s
o
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
A
c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
t
o
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
i
s
v
a
l
u
e
d
L
u
x
u
r
y
r
e
s
o
r
t
o
r
h
o
t
e
l
w
i
t
h
p
o
o
l
a
n
d
s
p
a
,
d
a
y
s
p
a
a
n
d
h
e
a
l
t
h
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
s
O
r
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
,
c
l
e
a
n
a
n
d
c
o
m
f
o
r
t
a
b
l
e
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
i
o
n
H
a
p
p
y
t
o
s
a
v
e
o
n
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
i
o
n
,
s
o
h
a
v
e
m
o
n
e
y
t
o
s
p
e
n
d
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
M
o
d
e
o
f
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
L
i
k
e
l
y
t
o
d
r
i
v
e
M
a
y
?
y
M
o
s
t
l
i
k
e
l
y
t
o
v
i
s
i
t
m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
U
n
l
i
k
e
l
y
t
o
g
o
o
n
d
a
y
t
r
i
p
s
P
r
e
f
e
r
t
o
?
y
,
t
h
e
n
h
i
r
e
a
c
a
r
O
p
e
n
t
o
t
a
k
i
n
g
a
c
r
u
i
s
e
L
i
k
e
l
y
t
o
?
y
,
t
h
e
n
h
i
r
e
a
c
a
r
P
r
e
f
e
r
t
o
?
y
M
o
r
e
l
i
k
e
l
y
t
h
a
n
a
l
l
o
t
h
e
r
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
h
o
l
i
d
a
y
a
t
a
s
i
n
g
l
e
d
e
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
L
i
k
e
l
y
t
o
d
r
i
v
e
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
t
h
e
j
o
u
r
n
e
y
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
N
o
t
a
v
e
r
s
e
t
o
?
y
i
n
g
L
i
k
e
l
y
t
o
d
r
i
v
e
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
t
h
e
j
o
u
r
n
e
y
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
O
n
c
e
a
t
t
h
e
i
r
d
e
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
,
p
r
e
f
e
r
n
o
t
t
o
d
r
i
v
e
m
u
c
h
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
PAGE 262
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
T
a
b
l
e
V
S
e
g
m
e
n
t
A
c
t
i
v
e
e
x
p
l
o
r
e
r
s
(
1
1
%
)
S
t
y
l
i
s
h
t
r
a
v
e
l
e
r
s
(
5
%
)
S
e
l
f
-
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
e
r
s
(
1
2
%
)
U
n
w
i
n
d
e
r
s
(
1
5
%
)
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
s
(
3
2
%
)
S
o
c
i
a
l
f
u
n
-
s
e
e
k
e
r
s
(
2
5
%
)
D
i
n
i
n
g
N
o
t
l
o
o
k
i
n
g
f
o
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
d
i
n
i
n
g
o
p
t
i
o
n
s
P
r
e
f
e
r
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
b
l
e
f
o
o
d
W
i
s
h
t
o
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
t
a
s
t
e
s
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
f
o
o
d
a
n
d
w
i
n
e
a
r
e
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
l
L
o
o
k
f
o
r
n
e
w
f
o
o
d
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
s
S
e
e
k
o
u
t
r
e
g
i
o
n
s
f
a
m
o
u
s
f
o
r
f
o
o
d
L
o
o
k
f
o
r
w
a
r
d
t
o
v
i
s
i
t
i
n
g
w
i
n
e
r
i
e
s
E
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
i
n
g
n
e
w
t
a
s
t
e
s
a
n
d
l
o
c
a
l
c
u
i
s
i
n
e
i
s
a
m
u
s
t
L
o
o
k
f
o
r
?
n
e
d
i
n
i
n
g
r
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
s
a
n
d
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
c
a
f
e ´
s
S
e
e
k
t
o
e
s
c
a
p
e
t
h
e
d
a
i
l
y
g
r
i
n
d
o
f
c
o
o
k
i
n
g
U
n
l
i
k
e
l
y
t
o
d
i
n
e
o
u
t
e
v
e
r
y
n
i
g
h
t
F
a
v
o
r
c
a
s
u
a
l
d
i
n
i
n
g
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
s
w
i
t
h
f
r
e
s
h
,
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
I
s
a
b
o
u
t
g
e
t
t
i
n
g
f
a
m
i
l
y
/
f
r
i
e
n
d
s
t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
t
o
e
n
j
o
y
g
o
o
d
f
o
o
d
T
a
k
i
n
g
a
b
r
e
a
k
a
n
d
h
a
v
i
n
g
s
o
m
e
o
n
e
e
l
s
e
c
o
o
k
i
s
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
C
h
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
a
b
r
e
a
k
a
n
d
t
o
h
a
v
e
s
o
m
e
o
n
e
e
l
s
e
c
o
o
k
S
e
e
k
c
a
s
u
a
l
,
r
e
l
a
x
e
d
s
o
c
i
a
l
o
c
c
a
s
i
o
n
s
E
n
j
o
y
n
e
w
o
r
l
o
c
a
l
c
u
i
s
i
n
e
S
o
c
i
a
l
i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
E
n
j
o
y
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
m
i
x
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
o
t
h
e
r
s
T
r
a
v
e
l
w
i
t
h
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
a
n
d
f
a
m
i
l
y
T
r
a
v
e
l
a
s
a
n
a
d
u
l
t
c
o
u
p
l
e
M
a
y
t
r
a
v
e
l
w
i
t
h
f
a
m
i
l
y
H
a
p
p
y
t
o
m
i
x
i
n
p
a
s
s
i
n
g
,
b
u
t
d
o
n
’
t
s
e
e
k
o
u
t
s
o
c
i
a
l
i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
y
t
r
a
v
e
l
w
i
t
h
a
c
o
m
p
a
n
i
o
n
o
r
f
a
m
i
l
y
g
r
o
u
p
O
p
e
n
t
o
t
r
a
v
e
l
i
n
g
a
l
o
n
e
H
a
p
p
y
t
o
m
i
x
i
n
p
a
s
s
i
n
g
,
b
u
t
d
o
n
’
t
s
e
e
k
o
u
t
s
o
c
i
a
l
i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
y
t
r
a
v
e
l
w
i
t
h
a
c
o
m
p
a
n
i
o
n
o
r
f
a
m
i
l
y
g
r
o
u
p
M
a
y
t
r
a
v
e
l
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
i
r
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
o
n
l
y
L
i
k
e
l
y
t
o
t
r
a
v
e
l
w
i
t
h
f
a
m
i
l
y
H
a
p
p
y
t
o
m
i
x
w
i
t
h
o
t
h
e
r
s
i
n
p
a
s
s
i
n
g
M
o
s
t
l
i
k
e
l
y
t
o
t
r
a
v
e
l
w
i
t
h
a
g
r
o
u
p
o
f
f
r
i
e
n
d
s
W
i
l
l
a
l
s
o
t
r
a
v
e
l
w
i
t
h
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
o
r
f
a
m
i
l
y
E
n
j
o
y
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
m
i
x
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
n
e
w
p
e
o
p
l
e
H
o
l
i
d
a
y
p
a
t
t
e
r
n
s
T
h
i
n
k
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
h
o
l
i
d
a
y
t
i
m
e
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
t
h
e
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
h
a
t
c
a
n
b
e
t
r
a
v
e
l
e
d
E
n
j
o
y
w
e
e
k
e
n
d
b
r
e
a
k
s
a
n
d
w
i
l
l
t
a
k
e
t
h
e
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
t
o
b
u
i
l
d
h
o
l
i
d
a
y
s
a
r
o
u
n
d
s
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
e
v
e
n
t
s
F
l
e
x
i
b
l
e
w
o
r
k
p
a
t
t
e
r
n
s
o
f
f
e
r
p
l
e
n
t
y
o
f
h
o
l
i
d
a
y
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
w
e
e
k
e
n
d
s
a
w
a
y
H
o
l
i
d
a
y
o
v
e
r
s
e
a
s
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
o
n
c
e
e
v
e
r
y
f
e
w
y
e
a
r
s
T
h
i
n
k
o
n
l
y
o
v
e
r
s
e
a
s
h
o
l
i
d
a
y
s
a
r
e
‘
‘
r
e
a
l
h
o
l
i
d
a
y
s
’
’
F
l
e
x
i
b
l
e
w
o
r
k
p
a
t
t
e
r
n
s
o
f
f
e
r
p
l
e
n
t
y
o
f
h
o
l
i
d
a
y
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
o
v
e
r
s
e
a
s
t
r
a
v
e
l
H
o
l
i
d
a
y
s
a
r
e
b
u
i
l
t
a
r
o
u
n
d
v
i
s
i
t
s
t
o
f
a
m
i
l
y
a
n
d
f
r
i
e
n
d
s
T
e
n
d
t
o
t
a
k
e
s
h
o
r
t
e
r
b
r
e
a
k
s
,
b
u
t
d
o
n
’
t
o
f
t
e
n
g
o
a
w
a
y
f
o
r
w
e
e
k
e
n
d
s
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
s
i
n
?
u
e
n
c
e
h
o
l
i
d
a
y
c
h
o
i
c
e
s
H
o
l
i
d
a
y
s
a
r
e
b
u
i
l
t
a
r
o
u
n
d
f
a
m
i
l
y
a
n
d
f
r
i
e
n
d
s
W
e
e
k
e
n
d
s
a
w
a
y
a
r
e
r
a
r
e
,
b
u
t
c
o
u
p
l
e
s
l
o
o
k
f
o
r
a
s
h
o
r
t
b
r
e
a
k
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
o
n
c
e
a
y
e
a
r
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
k
i
d
s
O
p
e
n
t
o
p
a
c
k
a
g
e
h
o
l
i
d
a
y
s
T
a
k
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
s
h
o
r
t
b
u
t
i
n
d
u
l
g
e
n
t
b
r
e
a
k
s
T
r
a
v
e
l
o
v
e
r
s
e
a
s
e
v
e
r
y
f
e
w
y
e
a
r
s
L
i
k
e
t
o
?
n
d
a
n
e
w
h
o
l
i
d
a
y
d
e
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
e
v
e
r
y
y
e
a
r
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
A
d
a
p
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
T
o
u
r
i
s
m
Q
u
e
e
n
s
l
a
n
d
(
2
0
0
9
)
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 263
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
TourismResearch Australia (2009) argues that the connectors is the market which the Fraser
Coast should pursue. After conducting focus groups and an on-line survey with connectors
within Brisbane and a 400-kilometer radius of the Fraser Coast, the national tourism
organization suggests that the Fraser Coast can ful?ll this segment’s needs for connecting
with friends and family. Further, many of their holiday needs such as value for money, easy
access, great holiday atmosphere, activities for children and beaches can be satis?ed
through a Fraser Coast experience.
The DMO and Tourism Queensland, in partnership with other local destination stakeholders
such as the regional council, market the destination to potential tourists. Destination
attributes that are promoted include:
B the opportunity for beach, island and country experiences;
B World Heritage listed Fraser Island;
B warm sunny weather;
B a variety of accommodation styles;
B whale and dolphin watching tours and activities; and
B and 4WD adventures (Tourism Queensland, 2007).
In comparing the proposed two-step approach to the DMO segmentation approach, many
discrepancies exist. Despite both approaches considering the origin as a segmentation
base (DMO segments are based on domestic tourism) the ?ve descriptors listed in Table V
are not identi?ed in the stakeholder-orientated segmentation approach. Conversely, the
DMO segmentation approach does not apply age, gender, income, pull motivations, and
activities expenditure. Despite not being considered as descriptors, the four other
segmentation variables in the proposed two-step approach are comparable to the current
DMO segmentation approach. Daily accommodation expenditure relates to
accommodation, daily food and beverages expenditure incorporates elements of dining,
nights is comparable to holiday patterns and mode of transportation, and push motivations
and TPCare part of social interactions. Despite the differences, both approaches use all four
segmentation bases as proposed by Kotler (1980). However, while the DMOemphasizes the
needs and wants of tourists in their segmentation approach (psychographic and behavioral
emphasis), the two-step approach treats each of the ten segmentation variables equally.
The second discrepancy is that the DMO segmentation approach has twice as many
segments as the recommended two-step approach. In addition to the difference in the
number of segments, a comparison between the segmentation approaches is dif?cult. The
two-step segmentation approach de?nes its segments based on categories and
simultaneously lists:
1. the most popular; and
2. number of push and pull motivations.
Each of these segments varies based on the ten variables. For example, the level of income
and origin are clear differentiators for each of the segments. While the DMO segmentation
approach provides ?ve descriptors that present an in-depth representation of the segments
that was not provided in the two-step segmentation approach, no categorical or continuous
data determine if these characteristics represent the type of tourists that travel to the Fraser
Coast. For example, in the connectors segment, it is unknown whether the tourist is more
likely to travel with or without their family. Conversely, the accommodation of social
fun-seekers suggests that these tourists may stay in a luxury resort or a cheaper option
(happy to save on accommodation). Based on the data collected in this study, it cannot be
determined whether the target market of connectors can be attained though the two-step
approach designed within this study.
As the DMO does not actively target international tourists, it is noticeable that segment two
from the two-step approach is not considered. This represents 40 percent of the tourists in
the current study. Furthermore, despite representing 20 percent of the tourist market, the
PAGE 264
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
third cluster was not de?ned by the DMO. Older age and length of stay which de?ne this
segment cannot be identi?ed within the DMO approach.
Conclusion
The importance of developing an effective destination branding and marketing strategy is
identi?ed as increasingly important by a number of academics (e.g. Blain et al., 2005;
Morgan et al., 2003; Sheehan et al., 2007; Sheehan and Ritchie, 2005). Due to issues such
as increased competition from other domestic and international destinations, stakeholders
at a destination need to ensure that they develop an effective strategy that will improve their
chances of targeting the appropriate tourists with their preferred message. This study
considers an alternative approach to segmenting tourists by proposing a two-step approach
to segmentation that allows the views of stakeholders to be gathered prior to analyzing
tourist data. This approach ensures that relevant variables are considered and utilized by
destination stakeholders.
Many contributions to the literature and practice can be identi?ed from this research. From a
theoretical perspective, the ?rst major contribution is that all four segmentation bases as
de?ned by Kotler (1980) are identi?ed using this approach. In this study, age, income, TPC
(demographic), origin (geographic), push motivations, pull motivations (psychographic),
activities expenditure, food and beverages expenditure, accommodation expenditure, and
nights (behavioral) produce three segments.
From a practical perspective, the two-step approach is applicable for simultaneously
segmenting all tourists traveling to a destination. Through step one of this research, the
approach was able to ?rst identify the segmentation variables relevant to destination
stakeholders. Tables I –III provide a descriptive overview for Fraser Coast stakeholders that
can be used for destination marketing and positioning purposes. Through then applying the
second step, the key characteristics of the three Fraser Coast segments can be identi?ed
and can be targeted in future marketing and branding material. A practical implication is to
consider the usage of the discarded variables (number of activities sought, gender, and trip
purpose) from step one of the two-step segmentation approach as a guide for
decision-making for all three segments. Most tourists in these segments (both genders)
travel to the Fraser Coast to have a holiday (trip purpose) and to experience Fraser Island
(activity sought). Communication for all of the three segments should emphasize these
motives. The ten variables included in the two-step segmentation approach help to
distinguish between groups. The destination can use these variables to create different
messages for each segment – more targeted messages for speci?c media.
Consistent with prior studies (Kim and Lee, 2002; Bansal and Eiselt, 2004; Sirakaya et al.,
2003), this study suggests that tourism motivation is multidimensional. Push and pull
motivations represent different aspects of tourists’ motivation. For example, the most popular
push motivation was to go to a place where you have not been before and the weather pulled
tourists most frequently to the destination. A notable theoretical contribution from this
approach is that the two-step cluster analysis combines 11 push motivations, twelve pull
motivations, and six activities with a number of push motivations, number of pull motivations,
and number of activities sought, and tested for their signi?cance at the individual level. Thus,
the individual motivation and activity variables do not dominate the solution and results at the
individual level showcase that differences exist in the push and pull motivations and
activities sought between clusters. This contributes to the literature by arguing that individual
activities and motivations should be analyzed at the individual and combined level to identify
if signi?cant differences exist.
A practical implication for Fraser Coast marketers is that the number of motivations varies
between the segments. For example, young Europeans have the higher number of push
motivations, whereas the long-stay travellers consider more pull motivations. This suggests
that destination marketers (e.g. DMOs) need to understand that tourists travel for a variety of
different reasons and multidimensional measures of motivation can help researchers to
understand this multitude of reasons.
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 265
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
A ?nal theoretical contribution is that the proposed two-step approach provides tourist
segments that vary considerably from the current DMO segmentation approach. It can be
concluded that a common segment is not identi?able between the two approaches. As it is
widely argued that there is no correct way to segment a market (e.g. Dolnicar, 2008), careful
considerations need to be made when arguing the most appropriate strategy. However, as
the DMO is classifying tourists based on domestic segmentation, a large percentage of
tourists that travel to the Fraser Coast are not being targeted. Two segments, wealthy
travelers and young Europeans, have tourists that come from Europe. These segments
represent approximately 60 percent of the usable tourist sample for this study. The two-step
approach may be a more appropriate segmentation method as it is capable of assisting
tourism marketers to target more of the tourists frequenting the destination. Currently, the
DMO segments target less than half of the types of tourists visiting the Fraser Coast. The
results of this study suggest that many dollars may be wasted targeting tourists that are not
likely to travel to the destination and not targeting those who would.
Managerial implications
The ?ndings from this study present many managerial implications for destination marketers
and managers. The two-step approach to segmentation identi?es three distinct tourist
segments for the destination under study and this has important implications for destination
branding. A single destination image or message or one-size ?ts all approach will not yield
the best outcomes for the destination. Some consideration of the different needs and wants
of the three distinct tourist groups will allow the destination to achieve the best outcomes in
terms of initially attracting and later satisfying tourists who choose to travel to the destination.
While the Fraser Coast brand needs to convey rest and relaxation, accommodation and tour
options need to cater to a diverse range of tourist needs and wants.
Domestic marketing efforts by the DMO currently target approximately half of the tourists
traveling to the Fraser Coast. A major limitation of the current approach is that a substantial
segment (young Europeans) is not targeted by the DMO. While this segment is less likely to
spend as much on accommodation and food and beverages as wealthy travelers, this
segment spends a considerably greater amount on activities expenditure. While tour
operators (e.g. whale watching operators, adventure tour planners) may attract tourists that
have different demographics, the different segments of tourists may have similar activity
choices and activity expenditure patterns. DMOs need to ensure that they focus on this
identi?ed segment as it can present ?nancial bene?ts to the destination such as activities
expenditure and occupancy in lower end accommodation.
A managerial implication is to subdivide some of the categories within the research. Indeed,
Europe is a large source market, which represents many countries with populations in
excess of 20 million people such as the UK, Spain, France and Germany. Identifying if the
majority of tourists come from one country, region or state has marketing implications.
Designing speci?c packages for tourists from European countries such as the UK or
Germany may increase the growth of tourism from these countries to this destination. As
many wealthy tourists travel fromEurope, as well as those with limited incomes, this could be
a ?nancially attractive option.
Limitations and future research
This study considers one regional Australian destination. While this ensures that a
recommended two-step approach could be outlined and compared with the current DMO
segmentation method, the results of this study is not generalizable to other destinations. Future
research is required in a range of alternate destinations to further the application of the
recommended two-step approach to segmentation. Research should be conducted in urban
destinations, rural locations, cities and winter resorts. Comparisons can be made between
destinations to identify if similar or different approaches have been applied based on the type
of destination of location of choice. In addition, researchers could consider the usefulness of
the two-step segmentation approach for state- and country-level marketing efforts.
PAGE 266
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This research was conducted using a cross-sectional research design. Future research
should be conducted longitudinally to see if the segments described by the proposed
two-step approach are better able to predict the types of tourists traveling to the destination.
A further opportunity is to determine the process of how the DMO and other stakeholders
can collaborate to effectively target the three segments for the destination. Current research
in the tourismmarketing literature has focused on destination marketing alliances (Wang and
Xiang, 2007), tourism planning (Sautter and Leisen, 1999), and promotion (Sheehan et al.,
2007). By identifying the input fromall primary stakeholders interviewed within this research,
it can be determined if they have an in?uence in the decision-making process, and whether
their priority markets are chosen.
A ?nal opportunity presented from the ?ndings of this research is to extend the two-step
approach to destination positioning and/or branding. Here, stakeholders at a destination can
be asked about their thoughts on the current positioning strategy of the destination as
presented by the DMO. Additionally, a stakeholder approach to destination branding could be
identi?ed. Tourists to a destination can then be approached following a similar method
presented here to identify their perceptions of the destination’s positioning strategy. This
approach could present howa destination is positioned by considering a multiple stakeholder
approach. Here, it will be identi?ed which destination stakeholders are involved in the design
of the positioning message. It will also determine whether destination stakeholders that may
be considered primary (Clarkson, 1995) but not involved in the process understand the
current positioning strategy and whether they consider it as relevant to the destination.
Second, it will evaluate how tourists that have traveled to the destination perceive the
destination. This will identify the image/s and attributes of the destination suggested by
destination stakeholders. Lastly, the tourism destination perceptions of the destination
stakeholders and the tourists will be compared to identify whether if any differences exist in the
positioning message. If differences exist, these can be useful for managerial purposes at the
destination. This could include determining how to design a positioning message more
effectively to tourists. Furthermore, this could contribute to the literature by suggesting that
destination stakeholders and tourists perceive a destination’s message differently.
References
Bansal, H. and Eiselt, H.A. (2004), ‘‘Exploratory research of tourism motivations and planning’’, Tourism
Management, Vol. 25, pp. 387-96.
Blain, C., Levy, S.E. and Ritchie, J.R.B. (2005), ‘‘Destination branding: insights and practices from
destination management organizations’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43, pp. 328-38.
Chang, J. (2006), ‘‘Segmenting tourists to aboriginal cultural festivals: an example in the Rukai tribal
area, Taiwan’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 27, pp. 1224-34.
Chiu, T.D.-P., Fang, J., Chen, J., Wang, Y. and Jeris, C. (2001), ‘‘Arobust and scalable clustering algorithm
for mixed type attributes in large database environment’’, paper presented at 7th ACM SIGKDDD
International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, San Francisco, CA.
Clarkson, M.B.E. (1995), ‘‘A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social
performance’’, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, pp. 92-117.
Dolnicar, S. (2004), ‘‘Tracking data-driven market segments’’, Tourism Analysis, Vol. 8, pp. 227-32.
Dolnicar, S. (2008), ‘‘Market segmentation in tourism’’, in Woodside, A. and Martin, D. (Eds), Tourism
Management, Analysis, Behavior and Strategy, CABI, Cambridge, MA.
Donaldson, T. and Preston, L.E. (1995), ‘‘The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence
and implications’’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, pp. 65-91.
Freeman, R.E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, Boston, MA.
Jang, S. (2004), ‘‘Mitigating tourism seasonality: a quantitative approach’’, Annals of Tourism Research,
Vol. 31, pp. 819-36.
Johns, N. and Gyimothy, S. (2002), ‘‘Market segmentation and the prediction of tourist behavior: the case
of Bornholm, Denmark’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 40, pp. 316-27.
Kim, S.-S. and Lee, C.K. (2002), ‘‘Push and pull relationships’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 29,
pp. 257-60.
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 267
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Kotler, P. (1980), Principles of Marketing, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Lau, A.L.S. and McKercher, B. (2004), ‘‘Exploration versus acquisition: a comparison of ?rst-time and
repeat visitors’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 42, pp. 279-85.
Lee, G., Morrison, A.M. and O’Leary, J.T. (2006), ‘‘The economic value portfolio matrix: a target market
selection tool for destination marketing organisations’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 27, pp. 576-88.
Lee, T. (1999), Qualitative Methods in Organisational Research, Sage, London.
Morgan, N.J., Pritchard, A. and Piggott, R. (2003), ‘‘Destination branding and the role of the
stakeholders: the case of New Zealand’’, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 9, pp. 285-99.
Morrison, A.M., Yang, C.-H., O’Leary, J.T. and Nadkarni, N. (2003), ‘‘Comparative pro?les of travellers on
cruises and land-based resort vacations’’, The Journal of Tourism Studies, Vol. 14, pp. 99-111.
Norusis, M. (2008), SPSS 16.0 Guide to Data Analysis, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Perdue, R. (1996), ‘‘Target market selection and marketing strategy: the Colorado downhill skiing
industry’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 34, pp. 39-46.
Pike, S.D. (2008), Destination Marketing, Butterworth-Heinemann, Burlington, MA.
Sautter, E.T. and Leisen, B. (1999), ‘‘Managing stakeholders: a tourism planning model’’, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 26, pp. 312-28.
Seiler, V.L., Hsieh, V.L., Seiler, M.J. and Hsieh, C. (2002), ‘‘Modeling travel expenditures for Taiwanese
tourism’’, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 13, pp. 47-60.
Sheehan, L.R. and Ritchie, J.R.B. (2005), ‘‘Destination stakeholders – exploring identity and salience’’,
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 32, pp. 711-34.
Sheehan, L.R., Ritchie, J.R.B. and Hudson, S. (2007), ‘‘The destination promotion triad: understanding
asymmetric stakeholder interdependencies among the city, hotels, and DMO’’, Journal of Travel
Research, Vol. 46, pp. 64-74.
Sirakaya, E., Uysal, M. and Yoshioka, C.F. (2003), ‘‘Segmenting the Japanese tour market to Turkey’’,
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 41, pp. 292-304.
Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J.M. (1988), Shaping a New Health Care System: The Explosion of Chronic
Illness as a Catalyst for Change, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Tkaczynski, A., Rundle-Thiele, S.R. and Beaumont, N. (2008), ‘‘Insights into how regional tourism
operators view their marketers’’, International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, Vol. 13, pp. 16-27.
Tkaczynski, A., Rundle-Thiele, S.R. and Beaumont, N. (2009), ‘‘Segmentation: a tourist stakeholder
view’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 30, pp. 169-75.
Tkaczynski, A., Rundle-Thiele, S.R. and Beaumont, N. (2010), ‘‘Destination segmentation: a recommended
two-step approach’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 49, pp. 139-52.
Tourism Queensland (2007), Fraser Coast Destination Management Plan.
Tourism Queensland (2009), Understanding Our Consumers – TQ Domestic Market Segmentation.
TourismResearch Australia (2009), ‘‘Understanding the connector market: howdoes the Fraser Coast ?t
with connectors’ ideal domestic holiday?’’
Wang, Y. and Xiang, Z. (2007), ‘‘Toward a theoretical framework of collaborative destination marketing’’,
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 46, pp. 75-85.
Yin, K. (2003), Case Study Research – Designs and Methods, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Yuan, S. and McDonald, C. (1990), ‘‘Motivational determinants of international pleasure time’’, Journal of
Travel Research, Vol. 29, pp. 42-4.
Corresponding author
Aaron Tkaczynski can be contacted at: [email protected]
PAGE 268
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_708964588.pdf