How to co-create with a stranger? The Gap between real
demographic profile of customers and service providers’
perceptions of this profile
Georgia Zouni
PhD Candidate of Tourism Marketing,
Department of Business Administration,
University of Piraeus, Greece
Contact details:
80, Karaoli & Dimitriou St.
185 34 Piraeus, Greece
Tel: 30 210 4142000
Fax No.: 30 210 4142328
e-mail: gzouni@unipi.gr
Athanassios Kouremenos
Professor of Marketing,
Department of Business Administration,
University of Piraeus, Greece
Contact details:
駺眢眢甒甒畅甒
80, Karaoli & Dimitriou St.
185 34 Piraeus, Greece

Abstract
Purpose
The aim of this research paper is to investigate the existence of discrepancies or gaps
between the actual demographic profile of visitors and providers’ estimate of this profile
within the context of a tourism destination. This study is the first in marketing literature
to investigate such a gap.
Methodology
A modified gap analysis is used to measure and interpret the results. A research
framework is constructed and tested using data produced by two survey efforts
(tourists and tourism services providers) in an established Greek heritage destination,
Olympia, the birthplace of the Olympic Games.
Findings
Results highlight the importance for providers of acknowledging visitors’ most
observable and measurable variables, such as demographic characteristics, in order to
develop sustainable destination strategies.
Practical implications
Assessment of gap analysis helps to know whether management has clear perceptions
of who are the visitors of the destination.
Originality/value of paper
This gap analysis may prove to be an extremely useful tool for destination marketing
managers in charge of the market segmentation and the destination marketing
strategy.
Keywords: Demographic segmentation, Tourism marketing, Modified gap analysis,
Destination measurement, Heritage
Type of paper: Empirical paper – research paper

1. Introduction
The importance of market segmentation as a basis for developing a destination
marketing strategy is widely acknowledged (e.g. Bieger and Laesser, 2002; McCleary
and Uysal, 1995; Tkaczynski, et al., 2008) and there has been a distinguished body of
researches into tourism destination segmentation research (Frochot, 2005; Johns and
Gyimothy, 2002).
The aim of destination marketing organisations (DMOs) in relation to tourism market
segmentation is to create a well designed marketing mix targeted at a clearly defined
target market to move a destination into the consideration set of that specific market
(Woodside and Lysonski, 1989). However, destinations have a range of stakeholders
represented by a number of organisations including local, state and national
governments and their agencies, environmental groups, chambers of commerce, trade
associations, civic groups and the private sector (Dolnicar, 2006). While destination
marketing organisations DMOs have little control over activities of destination
stakeholders, these entities can exert a major influence over the destination brand
(Morgan, et al., 2003). As such, destinations face peculiar marketing and segmentation
challenges.
This paper investigates the gap between the demographic profile of destination visitors
and providers’ estimate of this profile, using a modified gap analysis. In detail, the
discrepancies between the perception of tourism providers concerning the
demographic profile of destination visitors and the actual profile of visitors are the focus
of the study.
The implicit assumption of this investigation is that the possession of spherical
knowledge of destination visitors’ profile by local destination stakeholders is crucial for
the successful operation, sustainability, and long-term viability of the destination. This
notion has never been examined before. By empirically testing this gap the purpose of
this study is double-edged: on the one it sheds more light on the importance for
providers of acknowledging visitors’ most observable and measurable variables, such
as demographic characteristics, and on the other hand it constitutes an effective
marketing tool helping destination marketers in the task of market segmentation and
the destination marketing strategy.
2. Literature review
2.1 Tourism market segmentation research
Tourism researchers acknowledge that market segmentation is a widely accepted
strategic marketing tool in tourism industry (Hanlan, et al., 2005). Middleton (2001)
suggests that segmentation in tourism research may be defined as a process of
dividing a total market, such as all tourists, into manageable sub-groups. The basic
idea underlying tourism market segmentation is to identify or define groups of tourists
who are similar with respect to the construct of primary interest, for instance, travel
behaviour, travel motives and patterns of expenditure (Dolnicar, 2006).
Market segmentation research has a long history in tourism research (Bieger and
Laesser, 2002; Kastenholz, et al., 1999; Cha, et al., 1995). Both a priori (Mazanec,
2000) or commonsense (Dolnicar, 2004) and post-hoc (Myers and Tauber, 1977) or a
posteriori (Mazanec, 2000) or data-driven (Dolnicar, 2004) segmentation studies have
frequently been undertaken to gain an in-depth understanding of the tourism market in
order to improve the possibilities of targeting marketing activities towards attractive
sub-markets.

The merits and limitations of two key approaches to market segmentation (see
Dolnicar, 2004, 2006; Kara and Kaynak, 1997; Wind, 1978) highlight the number of
subjective decisions inherent in typical studies (Hoek, et al., 1996; Everitt, 1974). It is
argued subjective decisions influence the results of segmentation studies and must,
therefore, be made explicit in any research findings (Hanlan, et al., 2005).
Finally, in terms of statistical sophistication of tourism segmentation research, Dolnicar
(2004) offers a review of all tourism segmentation studies published in the Journal of
Tourism Research over the last twenty years and grouped them into the following four
main conceptual approaches. The author estimates that 53% of these studies have
adopted an a-priori approach (see also Court and Lupton, 1997; Meric and Hunt, 1998;
McKercher, 2001), 36% were a combination of a-priori sub-groups divided into data
driven or post-hoc segments, 11% were a combination of more than one a-priori
segment and 5% of the studies were post-hoc (Bieger and Lasser, 2002).
2.2 Demographic segmentation research
In reviewing the tourism marketing literature, demographic (e.g. Burnett and Baker,
2001; Juaneda and Sastre, 1999; Galley and Clifton, 2004), psychographic (e.g.
Baloglu and Uysal, 1996; Cha, et al., 1995), geographic (Bonn, et al., 2005; Moscardo,
et al., 2001) and behavioural characteristics (Bonn, et al., 1999; Kastenholz, et al.,
1999) are the most frequently used segmentation bases. Researchers use these bases
either singularly (e.g. Kim and Lee, 2002; Reece, 2004; Simpson and Bretherton, 2004)
or in combination (e.g. Baloglu and Shoemaker, 2001; Bojanic and Warnick, 1995;
Court and Lupton, 1997; Dolnicar and Fluker, 2003; Etzel and Woodside, 1982;
Morrison, et al., 1994) to develop tourist profiles for chosen destinations. In particular,
there has been an emphasis on psychographic and behavioural segmentation in the
recent tourism literature (e.g. Frochot, 2005; Simpson and Bretherton, 2004) as these
segmentation variables are more able to predict tourist behaviour (Johns and
Gyimothy, 2002). Finally, whilst most segmentation studies have collected visitor data
using quantitative data via questionnaire surveys (e.g. Baloglu and Shoemaker, 2001;
Dolnicar and Fluker, 2003), there are few cases where qualitative research has been
utilised (Laws, et al., 2002; Scott and Parfitt, 2005).
Within the broad areas of tourism segmentation it is widely acknowledged that
demographic segmentation is the most common approach to market segmentation for
destination marketing (Tkaczynski, et al., 2008). Demographic segmentation
categorises visitors by variables such as age (Anderson and Langmeyer, 1982),
gender, family life cycle (Fodness, 1992), income (Juaneda and Sastre, 1999),
occupation, education, religion, race, nationality (Bowen, 1998) and socio-economic
status (Gartner, 1996; Morrison, et al., 1996).
Generally, sociodemographic variables have been considered as quite usable, since
they are easy to assess (Lawson, 1995) and inexpensive, while segments based on
demographics are easy to form (Moriarty and Reibstein, 1986; Bonoma and Shapiro,
1983; Griffith and Pol, 1994) and measure (Brayley, 1993; Bowen, 1998).
However, they have also been identified as inadequate (even poor) determinants of
tourist behaviour (e.g. Baloglu and Brinberg, 1997; Kastenholz, 2002; Gitelson and
Kerstetter, 1990; Cha, et al., 1995; Morrison, et al., 1996; Johns and Gyimothy, 2002).
Whilst demographic segmentation have been popularised as a basis for segmenting
markets (Brayley, 1993), there is evidence to suggest that demographic segmentation
bases are poor predictors of tourist behaviour (e.g. Andereck and Caldwell 1994; Cha
et al. 1995; Johns and Gyimothy, 2002; Letho, et al., 2002; Morrison, et al., 1996;
Prentice, et al., 1998). Yankelovich (1964) was probably the first to criticize the use of
demographic variables. Haley (1968) argued that market segments based on

demographics rely on descriptive factors rather than causal factors and they are thus
"less than optimum bases for segmentation strategies" (Haley, 1968, p.30). Several
others have also criticized the use of demographic variables (Griffith and Pol, 1994;
Moriarty and Reibstein, 1986; Verhallen et al., 1998; Mitchell and Wilson, 1998).
Moreover, Griffith and Pol (1994) note that there are difficulties associated with the
definitions of the variables.
But, sociodemographic variables are still more objective and measurable than the
unobservable variables. Despite the rather strong criticism that the use of
demographic variables has had to face lately (see Martin for a detailed review), the use
of them as a first step toward a more integrated method can be justified. Bonoma and
Shapiro (1984) argue that although demographic variables do not directly reflect the
underlying needs of customers, the advantages lie in the ease of implementation and
the low-cost. These are some of the primary reasons that indicate why these variables
have been widely used as bases for segmentation by tourism researchers and
practitioners. Cornish and Denny (1989) offer a comprehensive discussion on the use
of demographic variables, in which they clarify the roles that demographics can play
and how their use should be applied in different situations.
2.3. Towards a modified gap analysis in demographic characteristics
measurement
This paper investigates the gap between the demographic profile of visitors and
providers’ estimate for this profile using a modified gap analysis. The implicit
assumption of this investigation is that the possession of market knowledge by local
destination stakeholders is crucial for the successful operation, sustainability, and long-
term viability (Atuahene-Gima, 2005; Avlonitis and Gounaris, 1997) of the destination.
Parasuraman et al. (1985) identified five gaps where customers’ expectations and
performance evaluations were interpreted by providers. Brown and Swartz (1989)
expanded the Gaps Model to include a gap which reflect the differences between
customers’ experiences and providers’ perceptions of customer experiences (i.e., Gap
= customer perceptions – providers’ estimate of customer perceptions).
Brown and Swartz (1989) study medical care services and put professionals (doctors)
to answer according to what they believe that customers would answer and afterwards
they compare the results with the evaluation of visitors themselves for the experience
of service. Apart from subjects that measure diagnostic practices, the grades of visitors
are higher than the level that the doctors expect that customers would answer.
Despite the recognition of the last gap from many authors in service marketing (see
Candido and Morris, 2000), only one study examined this gap ever since, doing this in
tourism trade sector (Vogt and Fesenmaier, 1995). Vogt and Fesenmaier (1995) in
their study find that service providers (retailers ) do not understand the level at which
customers evaluate their experience and tend to underrate the customer experience,
confirming thus Brown and Swartz’s (1989) research results.
This paper investigates this gap in relation to the demographic profile of visitors, a
notion that have never been examined before.
Schematically, the following equation depicts this gap:
Gap = visitors’ demographic profile – providers’ estimate of tourists’ demographic
profile.
2.4. Justification of this modified gap analysis

The interactive nature of services (Laing et al. 2002) and the simultaneity of production
and consumption (Vargo & Lusch, 2004) underline the need to examine the
perceptions of both parties involved in the service encounter. On the one hand,
providers' perceptions directly affect the design and delivery of the services offered,
whereas on the other hand, consumer perceptions determine evaluation of the services
consumed. Hence, both parties are very important and must be considered as dyads, if
a more thorough understanding of service quality is to be gained.
Although service quality and marketing scholars have, quite often, emphasised the
importance of the multi-directionality between actors in a service encounter, research
has seldom considered the service provider's view (i.e., bidirectional perspective) or
any third-party view (i.e. multilateral perspectives) involved in service encounters (for
review, see Svensson, 2001). Only a few attempts have been made to explore both
perspectives in service encounters (Svensson, 2003, 2001; Dedeke, 2003; Chow-Chua
& Komaran, 2002; Tam & Wong, 2001).
From a marketing perspective, and given the fact that all management and staff actions
are customer oriented, we could detect a paradox. That is, while customers establish
the evaluation criteria (Zeithaml, Parasuraman, & Berry, 1990), the responsibility of
interpreting those criteria lies with the service provider (Vogt & Fesenmaier, 1995). In
this approach, the phenomenological nature of the service experience means that
these viewpoints will always be distinct (Johns, 1999).
Further dichotomies may be found within each of these perspectives. From the
provider's point of view, the service process contains elements of core delivery and
interpersonal performance, which are present to different extents in different service
industries and processes and need to be managed in different ways. The customer's
experience contains elements of core transaction and personal experience, which are
present in different proportions in different service outputs and encounters and
contribute in different ways to each individual's experience.
Present study by recognizing that the intrinsically interactive nature of service
encounters remains relatively unexplored, and that the complexity and dynamics of the
construct have not been sufficiently studied (Svensson, 2001, 2006), adopts
Gummesson’s cue (2001) that when researchers are faced with questions that
traditional methodologies cannot address, they must turn to other options. So, it
proposes and wishes to promote the adoption of the alternative research approach
implied with the use of the aforementioned Gap, for the study of service quality in
service encounters.
3. The Study
In order to examine the extent which visitors’ actual demographic profile and providers’
perceptions of this profile coincide or not, research formulated the main research
hypothesis:
Ho: there is no difference between tourists’ destination experience and providers’
estimate of tourists’ experience.
The heritage destination of Ancient Olympia, Greece constituted the field of study for
this investigation. Olympia is one of the most famous and visited heritage destinations
in Greece (NSSG, 2008). This is one of the prominent UNESCO World Heritage Sites -
since 1989- dedicated to Olympian Zeus, father of both gods and men. Closely
associated with the fame of Olympia is the fact that it is the birthplace of the Olympic
Games, which were held in Olympia every four years beginning in 776 B.C. Moreover,
the Archaeological Museum of Olympia, one of the most important museums in Greece
(Hellenic Ministry of Culture, 2008), presents the long history of the most celebrated
sanctuary of antiquity.

The village of Olympia offers a variety of tourism services apart from historic and
cultural attractions (see Appendix).
3.1 Research methodology
Data was collected from visitors and service providers in the tourism destination of
Olympia, throughout two separate survey efforts during full summer season (August to
October, see Appendix). A multi-stage sampling scheme adopted to approach the
sampling elements (i.e., tourists), during the field research figures in the following two-
level stage units: first stage units were the opening hours of the destination’s main
attractions (Archaeological Site and Museum), whereas second stage units comprised
of the people that visited the archeological attractions. On the other hand, the local
Chamber of Commerce provided lists of destinations’ services provided that constituted
the sampling frame. After the completion of the questionnaire phase correlations were
run to investigate possible random discrepancies (i.e., year-to-year fluctuations) of the
data.
3.2 Questionnaire design and measurement
An eight-page structured questionnaire developed after extensive literature review,
Delphi technique with experts, pre-testing and experimental techniques (double loop-
template process). Study variables for this study were developed based on five
demographic variables: nationality (U.K, French, German, Greek, Italian, other), gender
(male, female), visitors’ age (15-18, 19-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, more that 60+),
visitors’ level of education (primary education, secondary, university students,
university graduates and postgraduates), and finally visitors’ monthly income (less
than 800 euros, 800-1499, 1500 – 3000, more than 3.000 euros). Each provider
completed a questionnaire largely identical to that the customer completed. In some
parts of the questionnaire, statements were transformed from the customer’s to the
employee’s perspective. Finally, the questionnaire was translated in six languages
(depicting the mix of tourist demand in the destination).
4. Results
Univariate analysis and chi square tests were performed to evaluate the
difference in means between tourists' and providers perceptions. A total of 268
usable questionnaires (response rate of 71%) were collected from the visitors of the
destination under study over the course of two months. On the other hand, the service
provider self-completion survey achieved a 76.5% response rate or 95 usable
questionnaires.
The demographic characteristics of visitors along with providers’ perceptions of these
variables are presented in Table 1.
Table 1 about here.
Table 1 demonstrates that the majority of tourists that visit the destination is British and
French (1 out of 3 visitors), of both genders, young, aged from 19 to 29 (32.5%),
university graduates and postgraduates (50.4%) and of middle-up monthly income
(1500-3000 euros). However, tourism providers believe that destination visitors are

British, of both genders, older people aged from 40 to 50 (30.5%), college graduates
(45%) and of the lowest monthly income (less than 800 euros). These differences are
pictured in Graph 1.
Graph 1 about here.
Graph 1. Demographic Profile of Destination Visitors and Providers’ estimate of
visitors’ profile
Visitors’ actual demographic profile
Providers’ estimate of visitors’ profile
Finally, Chi-square and tests provided support the gap in providers’ perceptions of
tourists profile and actual profile (Table 2).
Table 2 about here.
5. Discussion
This study investigates the gap between the perception of tourism providers concerning
the demographic profile of destination visitors and the actual profile of visitors portrayed
in the study. Research hypothesis was verified almost in its total, as only one of the five
partial hypotheses was rejected (that about visitors’ gender).
Results show that the majority of visitors of the destination are young, British and
French (one out of three), of both genders, hold a university degree and their monthly
income ranges from 1.500 – 3.000 euros. On the other hand, results show a false
estimation of tourism professionals for the majority of demographic characteristics of
visitors (with the exception of gender). Namely, tourism professionals hold the
perception that destination visitors are uneducated, poor and older that they really are.
Consequently, we could detect a major ‘under-estimation’ of visitors’ educational and
income level.
The aforesaid finding is of particular importance for Marketing researchers and
practitioners, considering both the significance of demographic characteristics for the
buying behavior of consumers, and the extensive use of those characteristics in market
segmentation and the identification of distinctive market segments/target groups. An
example that reflects the impact of this gap can be traced in connection to destination
visitors’ age. According to providers’ estimations visitors of the destination are senior
people. This perception leads destination marketing managers to the delivery of
tourism offerings and services adjusted to senior visitors. The existence of a pleonasm
of jewellery shops in the destination – product that traditionally target older visitors
(Turner and Reisinger, 2001) - argues in favour of the finding of the study. On the other
hand, younger visitors’ traditionally spend more on music or multimedia tourism
applications, books and gifts for others (Kim and Littrell, 2001). This example clearly
demonstrates the fact that false perceptions might lead to ineffective decision making
for marketing in terms of segmentation, positioning and marketing mix formulation.
To conclude, results highlights that tourism providers’ misconceptions about the
demographic characteristics of the destination visitors might have serious impact on
the planning and delivery of the tourism service and experience.

6. Conclusion and Implications
In the present paper an attempt was made to extend the Gap model and thus
contribute the recent call (Schembri & Sandberg, 2002; Gummesson, 2001, 2007;
Edvardsson, 2005; Svensson, 2006) for further customer orientation in Services
Marketing research and practice.
The purpose of the present study was to provide an effective marketing segmentation
tool for a better understanding of customer’s demographic profile by empirically testing
it in the context of a tourism destination. This study is the first in marketing literature to
investigate such a gap. Overall, results provide strong support for the notion of this gap
analysis. More specifically, findings indicate that discrepancies between providers’
perceptions concerning the demographic profile of visitors and the actual profile of
visitors might have serious impact on the planning and delivery of the destination
experience.
Moreover, this gap analysis might constitute an effective marketing tool helping
destination marketers in the task of market segmentation and the destination marketing
strategy. Surveying both visitors and providers on a regular basis, as part of gap
analysis, is an excellent tool to show different ways on how tourism managers are
able to reach each target market with a suitable range of offerings and propose an
integrated solution to customer needs and wants (Buhalis, 2000).
In conclusion, there is of course a strong need for further and more detailed evaluation
of the nature, structure and dynamics of this gap (e.g. the degree of "closeness to
customers", and the need for the inclusion in measurement of all types of employees
involved in delivering the service and the imperative of measuring the totality of the
customer’s experience. In adition, research should cast a light to the consituent
components of this gap, by maping the various discrepancies between manager’s
perceptions of customer’s pecreptions and customer’s actual perceptions in various
service settings, before and after a major new service introduction or before and after a
repositioning effort. In that respect, critical antecedents of effective service
implementation would emerge and crystalised across service industries, service
settings and service firms offering the much needed Ariadne’s clue to the development
of a coherent service quality paradigm.

References
Andereck, K.L. and Caldwell, L.L. (1994), “Variable selection in tourism market
segmentation models”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 40-46.
Anderson, G., and Langmeyer, L. (1982), “The under-50 and over-50 travelers: A profile
of similarities and differences”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 20–24.
Atuahene-Gima, K. (2005), Resolving the capability-rigidity paradox in new product
innovation”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62, pp. 61-83.
Avlonitis, G.J. and Gounaris, S.P. (1997), “Marketing orientation and company
performance”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 2, pp. 385-402.
Baloglu, S. and Brinberg, D. (1997), “Affective Images of Tourism Destinations”, Journal
of Travel Research, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 11-15.
Baloglu, S. and Shoemaker, S. (2001), “Prediction of Senior Travellers' Motorcoach Use
for Demographic, Psychological, and Psychographic Characteristics”, Journal of Travel
Research, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 12-18.
Baloglu, S. and Uysal, M. (1996), “Market segments of push and pull motivations: a
canonical correlation approach”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 32-38.
Beiger, T. and Lasser, C. (2002), „Market segmentation by motivations: The case of
Switzerland”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 68-76.
Bojanic, D. and Warnick, R. (1995), “Segmenting the market for winter vacations”, Journal
of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 85-90.
Bonn, M., Joseph, S. and Dai, M. (2005), “International Vs Domestic Visitors: An
Examination of Destination Image Perceptions”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43 No.
3, pp. 294-301.
Bonoma, T. and Shapiro, B. (1984), “Evaluating Market Segmentation Approaches”,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 13, pp. 257-268.
Bowen, J.T. (1998), “Market segmentation in hospitality research: no longer a sequential
process”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 10 No. 7,
pp. 289-296
Brayley, R.E. (1993), “Psychological Segmentation”, in Var T. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
hospitality and tourism, VNR,: New York, NY, pp. 902-909.
Brown, S. and Swartz, T. (1989), “A Gap Analysis of Professional Service Quality”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 92-98.
Buhalis, D. (2000), “Marketing the competitive destination of the future”, Tourism
Management, Vol. 21, pp. 97-116.
Burnett, J.J. and Baker, H.B. (2001), “Assessing the Travel-Related Behaviours of the
Mobility-Disabled Consumer”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 4-11.
Candido, C. And Morris, D.S. (2000), “Charting service quality gaps”, Total Quality
Management, Vol. 11No. 4, pp. 463-472.
Cornish P. and Denny M. (1989), “Demographics are Dead - Long Live Demographics”,
Journal of the Market Research Society, pp. 363-373.
Court, T. and Lupton, R. (1997), “Customer profile development, Modelling destination
adopters, inactives and rejecters”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 35-43.
Crompton, J.L. and Love L.L. (1995), “The Predictive Validity of Alternative Approaches to
Evaluating Quality of a Festival”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 11-25.
Chow-Chua, C. and Komaran, R. (2002), “Managing service quality by combining voice of
the service provider and voice of their customers”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 12 No.
2, pp. 77-86.
Dedeke, A. (2003), “Service quality: a fulfillment-oriented and interactions-centered
approach”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 276-89.
Dolnicar, S. (2004), “Beyond Commonsense Segmentation - a Systematics of
Segmentation Approaches in Tourism”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp.

244-250.
Dolnicar, S. (2006), “Data-driven Market Segmentation in Tourism – Approaches,
Changes Over Two Decades and Development Potential”, CD Proceedings of the 15th
International Research Conference of the Council for Australian University Tourism and
Hospitality Education (CAUTHE).
Dolnicar, S. and Fluker, M. (2003), “Who's Riding the Wave? An Investigation Into
Demographic and Psychographic Characteristics of Surf Tourists”, Proceedings of the
Council of Australian University Tourism and Hospitality Education (CAUTHE) (pp. 1-16).
Coffs Harbour: Australia.
Dorfman, P.W. (1979), “Measurement and Meaning of Recreation Satisfaction: A Case
Study in Camping”, Environment and Behaviour, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 483-510.
Edvardsson, B. (2005), “Service Quality: Beyond Cognitive Assessment”, Managing
Service Quality, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 127-131.
Etzel, M.J. and Woodside, A.G. (1982), “Segmenting Vacation Markets: The Case of the
Distant and Near-Home Travelers”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp.10-14.
Everitt, B. (1974), Cluster Analysis, Heinemann, London, UK.
Fodness, D. (1992), “The impact of family life cycle on the vacation decision-making
process”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 8–13.
Frochot, I. (2005), “A benefit segmentation of tourists in rural areas: a Scottish
perspective”, Tourism Management, Vol. 26 No. 33, pp. 335-346.
Galley, G. and Clifton, J. (2004), “The motivational and demographic characteristics of
research ecotourists: Operation Wallacea volunteers in southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia”,
Journal of Ecotourism, Vol. 3, pp. 69-81.
Gartner, W.C. (1996), Tourism Development, Principles, Processes, and Policies, Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
Gitelson, R.J. and Kerstetter, D.L. (1990), “The Relationship between sociodemographic
variables, benefits sought and subsequent vacation behaviour: a case study”, Journal of
Travel Research, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 24-29.
Griffith R.L. and Pol, L.G. (1994), “Segmenting Industrial Markets”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 23, pp. 39-46.
Gummesson, E. (2001), “Are Current Research Approaches in Marketing Leading Us
Astray?” Marketing Theory, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 27-48.
Gummesson, E. (2007), “Life is a Network of Relationships and so is Tourism!”
Conference proceedings. Advances in Tourism Marketing Conference (ATMC), Valencia,
Spain.
Hanlan, J., Fuller, D. and Wilde, S. (2005), The travel destination decision process and
the relevance of segmentation studies to the marketing of relevance of segmentation
studies to the marketing of Australian context. Centre for Enterprise Development and
Research Occasional Paper (Number 1).
Hellenic Ministry of Culture (2007), Olympia, available at:
http://www.culture.gr/h/3/eh351.jsp?obj_id=2358 (accessed at 16 December 2008).
Hoek, J., Gendall, P. and Esslemont, D. (1996), “Market segmentation: A search for the
Holy Grail?” Journal of Marketing Practice, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1355-2538.
Johns, N. (1999), “What is this thing called service?” European Journal of Marketing, Vol.
33, No. 9-10, pp. 958-974
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 No. 3,
pp. 316-327.
Juaneda, C. and Sastre, F. (1999), “Balearic islands tourism: a case study in demographic
segmentation”, Tourism Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 549-552.
Kara, A. and Kaynak, E. (1997), “Markets of a single customer: exploiting conceptual
developments in market segmentation, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 11/12,

pp. 873-895.
Kastenholz, E. (2002), The role and marketing implications of destination images on
tourist behavior: The case of northern Portugal. PhD Thesis. University of Aveiro:
Portugal.
Kastenholz, E., Davis, D. and Paul, G. (1999), “Segmenting tourism in rural areas: The
case of north and central Portugal”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 353-
363.
Kim, S. and Littrell, M.A. (2001), “Souvenir buying intentions for self versus others”,
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 638-657.
Kim, S. and Lee, C.K. (2002), “Push and Pull Relationships”,. Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 257-260.
Kozak, M. and Rimmington, M. (2000), “Tourist satisfaction with Mallorca, Spain, as an
off-season holiday destination”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 38, pp. 260-269.
Laing, A., Lewis, B., Foxall, G. and Hogg, G. (2002), “Predicting a Diverse Future:
Directions and Issues in the Marketing of Services”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol.
36, pp. 479-494.
Laws, E., Scott, N. and Parfitt, N. (2002), “Synergies in Destination Image Management: a
Case Study and Conceptualisation”, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 4 No.
1, pp. 39-55.
Lawson, R. (1995), “Demographic Segmentation”, in Witt, S. and Moutinho, L. (Eds.),
Tourism Marketing and Management Handbook, Prentice Hal, London, pp. 306-315.
Letho, X.Y., O’Leary, J.T. and Morrison, A.M. (2002), “Do psychographics influence
vacation destination choices? A comparison of British travellers to North America, Asia
and Oceania”, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 109-125.
Mazanec, J.A. (2000), Market Segmentation. In Jafari, J. (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of Tourism.
Routledge, London.
McKercher, B. (2001), “A comparison of main-destination visitors and through travellers at
a duel purpose destination”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 433-441.
Meric, H. and Hunt, J. (1998), “Ecotourists motivational and demographic characteristics:
A case of North Carolina travellers”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 57-61.
Middleton, V.T.C. (2001), Marketing in Travel and Tourism (3rd ed). Butterworth-
Heinemann, Oxford.
Mitchell, V.W. and Wilson, D.F. (1998), “Balancing Theory and Practice: A Re-appraisal of
Business-to-Business Segmentation”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 27, pp. 429-
445.
Moriarty, R.T. and Reibstein, D.J. (1986), “Benefit Segmentation in Industrial Markets”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 14, pp. 463-486.
Morrison, A.M., Braunlich, C.G., Cai, A. and O’Leary, J.T. (1996), “Profile of the Casino
Resort Vacationer”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 55-61.
Morrison, A.M., Hsieh, S. and O‘Leary, J.T. (1994), “Segmenting the Australian domestic
travel market by holiday activity participation”, Journal of Tourism Studies, Vol. 5 No. 1,
pp. 39-56.
Moscardo, G., Pearce, P. and Morrison A. (2001), “Evaluating Different Bases for Market
Segmentation: A Comparison of Geographic Origin versus Activity Participation for
Generating Tourism Market Segments”, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 10
No. 1, pp. 29-49.
Myers, J.H. and Tauber, E. (1977), Market structure analysis. American Marketing
Association: Chicago.
National Statistical Service of Greece (NSSG, 2008), “Admissions of Museums and
Archaeological Sites”, available at:
http://www.statistics.gr/table_menu_per_year_eng.asp?Dnid=%20-
%20Admissions%20of%20Museums%20and%20Archaeological%20Sites&SSnid=%20-

%20Culture%20-%20Sports%20-
%20Entertainment&sb=SCI_2&year=2008&timeseries=0&dt=0 (accessed at 16
December 2008).
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L.L. (1985), “A conceptual model of service
quality and its implications for further research”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, pp. 41-50.
Prentice, R.C., Witt, S.F. and Hamer, C. (1998), “Tourism as experience: The case of
heritage parks”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 1-24.
Reece, W.S. (2004), “Are Senior Leisure Travellers Different?” Journal of Travel Research
Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 11-18.
Schembri, S. and Sandberg, J. (2002), “Service quality and the consumer’s experience:
Towards an interpretive approach”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 189-205.
Scott, N. and Parfitt, N. (2004), “Lifestyle Segmentation in Tourism and Leisure: Imposing
Order or Finding it?” Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism:
improvements in marketing, management, and development, Vol. 5 No. 2/3/4, pp. 121-
139.
Simpson, K. and Bretherton, P. (2004), “Market segmentation by consumer lifestyle in a
wine tourism setting”, in Smith, K.A. and Schott C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the New
Zealand Tourism and Hospitality Research Conference, 6-8 December Wellington: New
Zealand, pp. 377-385.
Sukbin, C., McCleary, K.W. and Uysall, M. (1995), “Travel motivations of Japanese
overseas travelers: A factor-cluster segmentation approach”, Journal of Travel Research,
Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 33-39.
Svensson, G. (2001), “The quality of bi-directional service quality in dyadic service
encounters”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 4/5, pp. 357-379.
Svensson, G. (2003), “A generic conceptual framework of interactive service quality”,
Managing Service Quality, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 267-275.
Svensson, G. (2006), “New aspects of research into service encounters and service
quality”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 245-
257.
Tam, J.L.M. and Wong, Y.H. (2001), “Interactive selling: a dynamic framework for
services”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 379-396.
Tkaczynski, A., Rundle-Thiele, S.R. and Beaumont, N. (2008), „Segmentation: A tourism
stakeholder view”, Tourism Management, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 4
September 2008.
Turner, L.W. and Reisinger,Y. (2001), “Shopping Satisfaction for Domestic Tourists”,
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 8, pp. 15-27.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004), “Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 1–17.
Verhallen, T.M., Frambach R.T. and Prabhu J. (1998), „Strategy-Based Segmentation of
Industrial Markets”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 27, pp. 305-313.
Vogt, C.A., Fesenmaier, D.R. 1995. Tourists and Retailers’ Perceptions of Services.
Annals of Tourism Research 22 (4):763-780.
Wind, Y. (1978), “Issues and advances in segmentation research”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 15, pp. 317-338.
Woodside, A., Lysonski, S. (1989), “A general model of traveler destination choice”,
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 8-14
Yankelovich, D. (1964), “New Criteria for Market Segmentation”, Harvard Business
Review, pp. 83-90.
Yuksel, A. and Rimmington, M. (1998), “Customer-Satisfaction Measurement”, Cornell
Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 60-71.
Zeithaml, V.A, Parasuraman, and A, Berry, L.L (1990), Delivering Quality Service:
Balancing Customer Perceptions and Expectations, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Zeithaml, V.A., Bitner, M.J. and Gremler, D.D. (2006), Services Marketing: Integrating

Customer Focus Across the Firm (4thedn). McGraw-Hill Irwin, NY.

Tables
Table 1. Demographic Profile of Destination Visitors and Providers’ estimate of
visitors’ profile (frequencies and ranking)
Tourists' Variable Tourists Providers
Demographi categories
c Profile
Ν % Rank Ν % Rank
Nationality U.K 49 18.4 1 18 18.9 2
French 42 15.8 2 31 32.6 1
German 35 13.2 3 14 14.7 4
Greek 35 13.2 3 3 3.2 6
Italian 27 10.2 5 17 17.9 3
Other 78 29.1 6 12 12.6 5
Sex Women 142 53 1 27 40.3 2
Men 146 47 2 40 59.7 1
Age 19-29 87 32.5 1 8 9.8 4
30-39 61 22.8 2 24 29.3 1
40-49 48 17.9 3 25 30.5 1
50-59 43 16.0 4 21 25.6 3
15-18 12 4.5 5 4 4.9 5
Education University 70 27.2 1 14 15.7 3
graduates
Post 65 25.3 2 0 0 5
graduates
College 57 22.2 3 40 44.9 1
graduates
Students 53 20.6 4 8 9.0 4
Basic 12 4.7 5 27 30.3 2
Income More than 90 41.9 1 24 26.7 3
(monthly) 3.000 €
1500 - 3000 € 57 26.5 2 19 21.1 4
800-1499 € 37 17.2 3 34 37.8 2
Less than 800 31 4 13 1
€ 14.4 14.4

Table 2. Chi-square statistics and Fisher's exact test (2-sided)
Differences between visitors' demographic profile and Chi- Fisher's exact
providers’ perceptions of this profile square test (2-sided)
Nationality .000
Sex .076
Age .001
Education .000
Income (monthly) .000

Appendix

Table. Tourism Services at the Destination
Tourism Services Population Sample Response Rate
(%)
Accommodation services 25 19 76.0
Food services 17 11 64.7
Travel agencies 61 25 41.0
Rent cars 1 1 100.0
Tourism trade 41 24 58.5
Entertainment 10 5 50.0
Miscellaneous 18 10 55.6
Providers’ Sample 182 112 61.5

Table. Methodological Facts of the two Surveys of the Study
TOURISTS SURVEY PROVIDERS SURVEY
Tourist population was determined using Providers’ population was determined using Tourism
Study population EUROSTAT and WTO guidelines. Satellite Account of WTO.
National and international tourists, aged more than Lists of the local chamber of commerce. Providers
Samples 15 years old, which visited Olympia. were defined as owners or managers.
Sample size 268 95
Survey period 2 months 2 months
Personal interview using a structured questionnaire
Data collection method in 6 languages Personal interview using a structured questionnaire
Sampling Quota sampling Inventory method
Questionnaire
Collection 71% response rate or 268 usable questionnaires 76, 5% response rate or 95 usable questionnaires.