Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Enter2014 mich website quality regional tourist boards  alps  10 years later
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Enter2014 mich website quality regional tourist boards alps 10 years later

102
views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Education

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
102
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. The Website Quality of the Regional Tourist Boards in the Alps: Ten Years Later Luisa Mich ENTER 2014 Research Track Slide Number 1 Department of Industrial Engineering University of Trento, Italy
  • 2. Agenda • Goal of the study and context: – Re-evaluating the quality of the official B2C websites of the Alpine regions to check their evolution • Method: ENTER 2014 Research Track Slide Number 2 • Method: – Cross-country analysis applying an updated evaluation table derived from the 7Loci met-model • Results: – almost all the websites have improved their quality, but there are margins of improvement
  • 3. Goal of the study & context: 1 • Tourism plays an important role for the Economy of the Alps • The organization of the tourism sector in the Alps is based essentially on regional ENTER 2014 Research Track Slide Number 3 • The organization of the tourism sector in the Alps is based essentially on regional tourism boards (RTBs) • The quality of the alpine RTBs websites was evaluated in a large project on tourism in the Alps realized from 2000 to 2003
  • 4. Goal of the study & context: 2 • An in-depth evaluation of the official websites of the RTBs highlighted a number of best practices and critical issues as well • Ten years later, the RTBs’ awareness of: ENTER 2014 Research Track Slide Number 4 • Ten years later, the RTBs’ awareness of: – the importance of their role as destination management organisations (DMOs), and – building up and maintaining a quality website has increased
  • 5. Goal of the study and context: 3 • The last decade has seen significant changes in the Web: – the term Web 2.0 was not popular yet (O’Reilly wrote his seminal article in 2005) ENTER 2014 Research Track Slide Number 5 wrote his seminal article in 2005) – many of social networking websites like Facebook or Twitter did not exist • Ten years later, we re-evaluated the quality of the B2C websites of the RTBs of the Alps, to update the results obtained in 2002
  • 6. Method: 1 • Set-up phase: – revision of the URLs of the websites of the RTBs included in the first project ENTER 2014 Research Track Slide Number 6 RTBs included in the first project – revision of the evaluation table, to take into account the evolution of the technologies and of the DMOs web presence strategies
  • 7. Method: 2 • URLs of the RTBs websites: 46% of have modified their URLs – some RTBs have adopted a more intuitive and meaningful domain name, e.g., suedtirol vs. hallo, visittrentino vs. trentino; or shorter domain name e.g., ENTER 2014 Research Track Slide Number 7 visittrentino vs. trentino; or shorter domain name e.g., burgenland vs. burgenland-tourismus – others have moved to new top-level domains, e.g., info vs. .com, .it vs. .to • Not all the changes are good: – some RTBs have not redirected the old URLs to the new ones (Piemonte, Veneto, Slovenia), or adopted an URL that is still not intuitive (e.g., piemonteitalia.eu)
  • 8. Method: 3 • The quality evaluation table: – the model used in 2002 was defined in an iterative process to ‘instantiate’ the 7loci meta-model and contains 95 Boolean questions: Identity: 15; Content: ENTER 2014 Research Track Slide Number 8 contains 95 Boolean questions: Identity: 15; Content: 27; Services & Identification: 12; Maintenance: 8; Usability: 18; Feasibility: 3 – the table had to be changed carefully to allow the comparison of the results with those obtained in 2002 – 15 of the questions were modified and 13 new; changes due to technical evolution, new tools, social networking but also to ‘innovative’ features
  • 9. Method: 4 • The evaluation table has been applied by experts according to the following criteria: – use the official language of the region – evaluate Identity after Content and Services – complete a parallel analysis of each dimension of the sites of the ENTER 2014 Research Track Slide Number 9 – complete a parallel analysis of each dimension of the sites of the same nation (more homogeneous assessments without having to open all the sites of the 26 RTBs) – whenever possible, apply automatic tools • If a region is known for different types of tourism, focus on the section dedicated to the alpine tourism (all the French regions and 4 out of 7of the Italian regions)
  • 10. Results: 1 ENTER 2014 Research Track Slide Number 10
  • 11. Results: 2 Dimension - # of questions Identity 15 Content 27 Services 12 Identifi cation 12 Mainte nance 8 Usability 18 Feasibility 3 Region Alto Adige 14 23 7 7 6 14 3 Friuli Venezia Giulia 13 20 7 9 7 16 2 Lombardia 10 15 4 8 5 13 2 Piemonte 11 20 6 8 6 12 2 Trentino 15 23 8 11 8 17 3 Valle d’Aosta 14 24 6 4 8 16 3 Veneto 12 18 4 6 7 14 1 Burgerland 12 20 8 7 6 15 1 Kärnten 13 21 5 9 7 15 2 Oberösterreich 13 26 11 11 8 14 3 Niederösterreich 8 24 11 3 8 14 1 ENTER 2014 Research Track Slide Number 11 Niederösterreich 8 24 11 3 8 14 1 Salzburger Land 14 21 10 9 4 14 3 Steiermark 14 24 10 8 7 14 2 Tirol 14 22 9 9 6 13 2 Vorarlberg 14 17 3 10 6 16 0 Graubünden 15 22 8 9 7 14 0 Berner Oberland 10 7 2 3 5 12 0 Zentralschweiz 9 2 3 2 6 11 0 Canton Ticino 14 23 6 10 6 17 2 Canton de Vaud 14 23 7 9 8 16 2 Valais 12 19 6 6 7 12 0 Riviera Côte- d’Azur 13 21 7 10 7 12 0 Provence Alpes- Côte d’Azur 12 2 5 7 5 8 1 Rhône-Alpes 10 17 2 8 5 10 0 Slovenia 13 24 6 10 6 17 3 Bayern 13 23 8 9 8 16 3
  • 12. Results: 3 Region Nation 2012 2002 Oberösterreich A 91% 80% Trentino I 89% 77% Bayern D 84% 73% Canton de Vaud CH 83% 58% Slovenia SLO 83% 62% Steiermark A 83% 74% Canton Ticino CH 82% 83% Graubünden CH 79% 70% Salzburger Land A 79% 66% Tirol A 79% 79% Valle d’Aosta I 79% 67% ENTER 2014 Research Track Slide Number 12 Valle d’Aosta I 79% 67% Alto Adige I 78% 68% Friuli Venezia Giulia I 78% 60% Kärnten A 76% 70% Riviera Côte-d’Azur F 74% 64% Niederösterreich A 73% 75% Burgenland A 73% 74% Vorarlberg A 69% 75% Piemonte I 68% 54% Veneto I 65% 46% Valais CH 65% 66% Lombardia I 60% 62% Rhône-Alpes F 55% 65% Provence Alpes-Côte d’Azur F 42% 63% Berner Oberland CH 41% 45% Zentralschweiz CH 35% 50%
  • 13. Results: 4 • Main result of the comparison: – the adoption of better technologies or a graphical redesign of the websites, which is the ENTER 2014 Research Track Slide Number 13 graphical redesign of the websites, which is the case of most of the investigated websites, can improve its quality, but a real improvement is obtained only with the adoption of a more structured organization for the RTB as DMO
  • 14. Conclusion: 1 • The 2012 study shows that almost all the websites have enhanced their quality performances • A RTB could compare its website with ENTER 2014 Research Track Slide Number 14 • A RTB could compare its website with competitors and identify the weak points for the 7 loci of the quality table • Results of the evaluation can be correctly interpreted and used for decision making activities only in the context of the tourism strategy of a specific region
  • 15. Conclusion: 2 • To better focus these results, they had to be completed with the analysis of the quality of the other online ‘presences’ of ENTER 2014 Research Track Slide Number 15 quality of the other online ‘presences’ of the RTBs, that includes social networks’ profiles, apps et.