A 2[1].0 Travel Through Spanish Destinations

ITSC 2009-Breda “THE NEW TOURIST AND CO-CREATION” A 2.0 Travel through Spanish Destinations REY JUAN CARLOS UNIVERSITY

A 2.0 TRAVEL THROUGH SPANISH DESTINATIONS AUTHORS Silvia Arevalo s.arevalod@alumnos.urjc.es Escuela Universitaria de Turismo - Universidad Rey Juan Carlos c/ Camino del Molino s/n 28943 - Fuenlabrada –Madrid- Spain Ana Maria Burbano am.burbano@alumnos.urjc.es Escuela Universitaria de Turismo - Universidad Rey Juan Carlos c/ Camino del Molino s/n 28943 - Fuenlabrada –Madrid- Spain Blanca Egido b.egido@alumnos.urjc.es Escuela Universitaria de Turismo - Universidad Rey J uan Carlos c/ Camin o d el Moli no s/n 2894 3 - Fu enlabrada –M adrid - Spain Beatriz Juan b.juan@alumnos.urjc.es Escuela Universitaria de Turismo - Universidad Rey Juan Carlos c/ Camino del Molino s/n 28943 - Fuenlabrada –Madrid- Spain Julita Korpalska j.korpalska@alumnos.urjc.es Escuela Universitaria de Turismo - Universidad Rey Juan Carlos c/ Camino del Molino s/n 28943 - Fuenlabrada –Madrid- Spain Vasilica Margalina vm.margalina@alumnos.urjc.es Escuela Universitaria de Turismo - Universidad Rey Juan Carlos c/ Camino del Molino s/n 28943 - Fuenlabrada –Madrid- Spain Eduardo Pedraza e.pedraza@alumnos.urjc.es Escuela Universitaria de Turismo - Universidad Rey Juan Carlos c/ Camino del Molino s/n 28943 - Fuenlabrada –Madrid- Spain Juan Miguel Rodríguez jm.rodriguezr@alumnos.urjc.es Escuela Universitaria de Turismo - Universidad Rey Juan Carlos c/ Camino del Molino s/n 28943 - Fuenlabrada –Madrid- Spain Sandra Serrano a.serrano@alumnos.urjc.es Escuela Universitaria de Turismo - Universidad Rey Juan Carlos c/ Camino del Molino s/n 28943 - Fuenlabrada –Madrid- Spain Spanish Coordinators Mª Teresa Villacé Molinero teresa.villace@urjc.es Escuela Universitaria de Turismo - Universidad Rey Juan Carlos c/ Camino del Molino s/n 28943 - Fuenlabrada –Madrid- Spain Blanca Kraljevic blanca.kraljevic@urjc.es Escuela Universitaria de Turismo - Universidad Rey Juan Carlos c/ Camino del Molino s/n 28943 - Fuenlabrada –Madrid- Spain 1

Biographical Notes Silvia Arévalo Díaz (Madrid, 1986) studied two years of English Philology at Autonoma University (Madrid). Currently, she studies her third year of B.A. in Tourism at Rey Juan Carlos University (Madrid) and works as caretaker and monitor. She has knowledge of English, French and a little bit of Italian. She would like to work on tourism development in small villages. This is her first edition in the International Tourism Student Conference. Ana Maria Burbano (Bogota, 1983) studies her final year of B.A. in Tourism at Rey Juan Carlos University (Madrid) and works at Hospedajes Welcome. She has always showed a great capacity to adapt to new cultures and languages living abroad in Denmark, USA, Germany and Spain. She speaks fluent English and German. She also has knowledge of French and Danish. In the future, she would like to focus her professional life on international cooperation and destination development. This is her first edition in the International Tourism Student Conference. Blanca Egido Barbero (Madrid, 1988) studies her third year of B.A. in Tourism at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos (Madrid). She currently attends the second year of International Tourism Management and Consultancy in Breda University of Applied Science as an Erasmus exchange student. She hopes to finish her degree this year and she would like to continue her studies in Tourism by attending a Postgraduate course. She has not decided yet how to orientate her carrier in this sector but she would like to focus on marketing, tourism development or tourism ICT. 2

Beatriz Juan Puñales (Madrid, 1987) is currently studying her third year of B.A. in Tourism at Rey Juan Carlos University (Madrid). She has knowledge of English (Grade 8 by Trinity College of London), French and a bit of Japanese. She would like to specialize in Luxury Hotels. This is her first edition in the International Tourism Conference. Julita Korpalska (Lipno, 1986) after she finished the International Baccalaureate course in Poland, she went to a commercial school in Madrid and got a diploma in Commerce and Marketing. Currently, she attends her last year of B.A. in Tourism at Rey Juan Carlos University (Madrid) and works as a Travel Consultant in training. She can speak fluent English, and Italian. She also has some knowledge of German. In a near future, she would like to get a master's degree in Tourism Management and focus on cultural and language tourism development. Vasilica Maria Margalina (Romania, 1986) studies her third year of B.A in Tourism at Rey Juan Carlos University (Madrid). She has been living in Spain since 2005. She speaks fluently Spanish, English and French. She also has knowledge of German and Italian. She has not decided yet his professional orientation. This is her first edition in the International Tourism Conference. Eduardo Pedraza Salazar (Huesca,1982) studied Development for Building Projects in the Islas Filipinas Vocational Training Centre. Currently, he studies a B.A. in Tourism at Rey Juan Carlos University 3

(Madrid). Last year he attended a semester at Haaga-Helia University of Applied Sciences in Finland as part of the Erasmus Exchange Programme. He is currently working as a Hotel Receptionist. He is fluent in English and also has some knowledge of German. In a near future he would like to focus on Leisure and Events Management as part of an enhancement of his studies as well as on the MA Degree in European Tourism Management. Sandra Serrano (Madrid, 1988) is currently studying her third year of B.A. in Tourism at Rey Juan Carlos University (Madrid). She enjoys learning languages; she is fluent in English and also has some knowledge of German and French. She has worked in the International Tourism Fair (FITUR). This is her first edition in the International Tourism Conference. Juan Miguel Rodríguez (Madrid, 1977) studied History in the University Complutense of Madrid. He also attended Sussex University, in Brighton (United Kingdom) and has gotten a postgraduate in Archives Studies and certificates in Prevention Conflicts and Dutch Society and Culture (University of Utrecht). Currently, he studies his third year of B.A. in Tourism at Rey Juan Carlos University (Madrid) and works at Financiera El Corte Inglés. He has experience living abroad in England, Finland and the Netherlands. He speaks fluent English. He also has knowledge of French. In the future, he would like to focus on cultural tourism consultancy and events management. This is his second edition in the International Tourism Student Conference. 4

Abstract The objective of our research was to determine the use that Spanish DMOs are given to web 2.0, the degree of interaction with tourists and their place in the co-creation process. To reach our goal we have used different marketing investigation techniques: 1. Literature study, 2. Qualitative techniques a) In-depth tourist expert interviews b) Focus group. 3. Observation and analysis of real life destination 2.0 websites. As a result we have learned that co-creation through Internet in Spain is still in a primary stage, given that the web 2.0 Spanish websites are very young. Formation is essential and the co-creation process is to be made not only by tourist but by the local town council, local companies, citizens and deputies producing synergies which are necessary for the creation of the tourist product. As real application case, we found in La Palma’s case, all though young, a great example of co-creation, in which all of the evolved agents participated in the creation of the tourist product and the destination web 2.0. Key Words: Co-Creation, DMOs, Internet, New Tourist, Spain, Social Community, Travel 2.0, Tourism, Web 2.0. 1. Introduction Business world has changed during last two decades. New ways of understanding, new trends in International economic policy and an extensive development of new technologies have brought a chain of new factors to current markets, such as: new forms of regulation, easy access to information, and a better connectivity among participants in business activities. As a result, new emerging markets and a closer convergence of technologies and industries have turn up in the business map. All of these factors have had an enormous influence on the nature of consumers and companies. Both have changed. Thus, today consumers deal with more information than ever before, and thanks to new engagement platforms supplied by Internet, are more connected and networked than other consumer’s generations (Ramaswamy, 2008). 5

On the other hand, today firms keep focusing on innovations to increase product variety in order to be more competitive. Nevertheless, an increase can be observed in the use of co-creation and the notion of “value in use” as a basis for the creation of value during the product design process (Binkhorst, 2005). Companies take into consideration the “new face” of consumers, since they have become more unpredictable and therefore, much more difficult to keep and retain as loyal customers. Actually, consumers are more independent today. That is reflected in the way companies search new paths and dialogues with consumers to develop alternatives to survive in the market. The former system based on company-product centric view of value creation is moving towards an experience-centric view (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). Customers want to be more active and as long as they get better access and knowledge of the tools provided by new technologies, they are becoming more involved themselves in the value creation process (Ramaswamy, 2008). “The customers formerly relegated to the role of end-buyers, have become companies’ most important asset by playing an active role in the design of the offers they want companies to propose to them” (Krawtchenko, Morel-Guimaraes & Boly, 2004: 2). From this new perspective, customers are not longer passive actors but very active ones. Some authors such as Venkat Ramaswamy think that companies should adapt this new point-of-view in the value creation process as soon as possible if they want to reach their future with some guarantees. Nevertheless, some others authors (Jun, Vogt & Mackay, 2007) still deny the actual existence and weight of a free co-creation attitude from the current companies. They still think that companies are trying to drive 6

and lead the opinions of customers instead of having a real and free co-operation and integration between customers and firms. 2. Co-Creation: Collective Intelligence Generating Knowledge. As the object of the current essay is to analyze the influence of co-creation in the tourism industry and specially its effect on tourism destinations, we should give an answer to the following question: what does exactly co-creation mean? And to what extent tourist industry and DMO’s in particular are implementing co-creation strategies and therefore, integrating customers in the new product design process? Co-creation means cooperation. A product design under a co-creation process should take into account the ideas, tastes and thoughts of the customers during the product-making process in order to improve the final result. Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) call it the “co-creation experience”. They also talk about “experience environment” which can be defined as a space where the dialogue between the firm and the customer takes place. Real co-creation must be developed in an influence-free space. However, we can still find “stains” in those spaces. Thus, if we talk about tourist industry, marketers know well that as consumers make up their minds according to the information they have, what they need to do to make and ensure their profit is to invent and promote new and more sophisticated strategies for information provision to consumers. According to Matt Rhode (2008) there are five different levels in the co-creation experience: Mass Customization, Real Time Self-Service, Service Redesign, New 7

Product Co-Creation and Community Product Design (see Table 1). In defining these concepts we've combined arguments stated by authors like Anderson (2004) and Rhode.. Mass Customization is the idea of combining the process of mass production with the individual needs (Tseng, Jiao 2001) both through regular stores and through the Internet (Anderson 2004). Real Time Self-Service means that at any stage costumers can get real time information (McKenna 1997) to make changes if necessary. In Service Redesign the customer becomes somehow more active in the company given that it refers to customers changing how they live the experience of getting the product but not the product in itself (Rhode 2008). Table 1. Rhode’s Five Levels of Co-Creation Type of co-creation Who controls? Who is envolved? Who benefits? What is the legacy? Mass Customization Brand Customer Customer alone Customer’s product Real Time Self- Brand Customer Customer alone Customer’s Service experience Service Redesign Brand Customer All customers All future experiences New Product Co- Brand and Customer and All customers All future Creation Customer External products Community Product Customer Customer and All customers All future Design external products Source: Rhode (2008) In the first three levels of co-creation, control is still held by the company or brand. Although the costumer is involved, there’s no real change in the product. In the first two levels the benefit of the whole process goes to each individual costumer. Only in Service Redesign all of the future experiences for all of the future customers are changed (Rhode 2008). 8

In The New Product Co-Creation customers or potential ones can participate in the design of the new product. They are no longer outside the company, they become part of it. They can tell what they want and see it become real since the company takes notice of their work. Last but not least the Community Product Design; it is at this level where the on-line communities act. The customer is no longer helping the Brand; he is co-creating it (Rhode 2008). The product is completely designed and chosen by the members of the community. The company does not lose control but it gains competitive advantage, by providing exactly what consumers want (Hinchcliffe 2007). Moreover, it is not difficult to see how control changes from one hand to other during these steps of the process. Thus, in the New Product Co-Creation control is shared by the brand and the costumers, and both costumers and external individuals (possible future costumers) can be involved, they create the collective intelligence (Hinchcliffe 2007). In the Community Product Design, the control relays completely on the costumers, and again both costumers and externals can be involved. By the last three levels benefit no longer goes to each individual customer; it reaches all customers, since they change both the future experience and the future products (Rhodes 2008). All of these new strategies can be seen as a part of co-creation process, however limits are unclear. According to Vargo and Lusch (2004) customers require receiving and sending information in order to co-create the product or service, rather than just receiving information to make a decision. Receiving information helps tourists learn about the destination, but it does not involve them in the provision or creation of the 9

destination product (Thompson, 2008). In order to do it, it would be necessary and essential to focus on reaching the Community Product Design level. The current approach towards Co-creation process in tourism is the result, among other factors, of the combination of two crucial terms: New Tourist and Web 2.0. In many occasions, Web 2.0 has been wrongly misused as co-creation. That leads to confusion since Web 2.0 tools are used by co-creation to cooperate in the product design process. 3. Web 2.0: New Tourism Marketing Tool The term Web 2.0 is used to talk about a generation of web development and design (O’Reilly 2004). The goal in the tourist application is to facilitate the communication between the tourists and the local population, to help people who travel to find information and, above all, to give all of us the chance of sharing our opinions and different experiences in the field of trips. In these webs, it is possible to share videos, publish a blog or know about the places you should visit in a country or a region, without moving in front of your computer screen. The word was created by the Irish Tim O’Reilly in a conference which took place in 2004. He considered that the Web 2.0 could be a complete revolution in the businesses and the computer industry. His first idea of innovation was well-received by the majority of the experts, although not of all them consider him the real forerunner of the idea. 10

O’Reilly published the “Web 2.0. Compact Definition: Trying Again” article in 2006. He did a brief definition: “Web 2.0. is the business revolution of the computer industry caused by the move of Internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform. Chief among those rules is this: Build applications that harness network effects to get better the more people use them. (This is what he has elsewhere called: “harnessing collective intelligence”).” Web 2.0 is applied to tourism in the Travel 2.0 or Tourism 2.0. Edu William adapted O’Reilly’s definition (Figure 1): “Tourism 2.0. is the bussiness revolution in the tourism and leisure industry that caused the move to the tourist ecosystem as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform. Chief among those rules is this: build businesses and destinations that harness network effects to get more productive the more people and bussiness participate in them”. So, “harnessing collective intelligence” Figure 1. Travel 2.0 Source: William (2008). 11

The characteristics of Web 2.0 are: user participation, user experience, dynamic content, web standard, openness and freedom. The main items that are used are: search, links, authoring, tags, extensions and signals. Webs 2.0 are being applied in several areas such as higher education, public diplomacy, government, economics and, of course, tourism. However, not everybody agrees with this useful creation. Some executives and managers point out that nobody knows what really Webs 2.0 are, and consider they are just blogs and wikis that are shared from people to people but without a real goal. It is also said that their infrastructures present certain cultural claims about media, identity, and technology. They also embody problems like the increased flow of personal information across networks and fear of increased corporatization of online social and collaborative spaces and outputs. (Graham 2005). What cannot be denied is that through the constant use of this new tool new user’s profiles are being made, thus, affecting, obviously, the tourism industry too. Nowadays, tourism cannot be understood as just a means of having some enjoyment and a break from normal, everyday life. In fact, tourism and especially travel is also an expression of taste, style and a way of establishing class status. We are living the outbreak of a new tourism era. Contemporary tourism is defined by the appeal to intellectualism and professionalism. 12

4. The New and Upgraded Tourist: What future does it hold! In order to define the so-called “New tourist" we must take into account several- present-day-important-theories since this concept is linked to the co-creation element which is quite new and sometimes unclear. First approach: During the 2008 ICT Solutions Conference, which took place at the Rey Juan Carlos University, the ICT specialist Tirso Maldonado alleged that; the new tourists are analyzed at different stages, starting at the very moment of the travelling needs until he comes back home right after the trip. The classification would be divided as follows: -“Consumer”, -“Prosumer” -“Adprosumer”. The “Consumer” is a regular customer who prefers to be helped by tourism professionals when he plans and books his trips. The Consumer is very loyal to his principles, he doesn't use the Internet and he prefers package tours. The “Prosumer” creates his very own product that he will consequently consume. He uses the Internet, but he doesn’t feedback or creates a view of the journey and unlike the Consumer, the Prosumer is not a loyal customer. Regarding the kind of trip he would consume, we can say he is an Alocentric Tourist who makes no use of package tours. We have to explain here that Alocentric Tourists are those who are 13

attracted to a destination by learning more about the lives of others and those who prefer to seek pleasure within their own company (Stanley Plog, 1972). Finally “Adprosumer” is the result of adding The Prosumer and the 2.0 complement. This costumer frequently publishes and reports on the Internet about his trips and at some point he “loyalize” the destination, meaning that, although he doesn’t come back to the place reported, his feedback helps other people when planning to go to the destination. Second approach: The second approach is what we call "The 5 i's Theory" by Isaac Vidal (2006), Marketing and Communications Area Director of the Valencian Bureau of Tourism. The 5 i's refer to the 5 i's costumer, who is reported as Informado (Informed), Infiel (Unloyal), Innovador (Innovative), Ilusionado (Excited) and Impaciente (Impatient). These concepts are the stages that the customer goes through when he needs to travel and to use the Internet. The customer is very well informed thanks to all the data and the unlimited information that exists on the Internet, but this also can lead him to a big indecision yet because of all the blogs and information which could alter his purchase behavior. The customer becomes also an innovative user because he is concerned about the use and running of new tools (web 2.0). All the information that the costumer finds on the Internet leads him to believe that, at the destination, he will find what he has been 14

looking for, and this “Nirvana” makes him feel excited and satisfied and therefore he becomes impatient when he needs to satisfy his traveling needs in a short period of time. 5. A Short Journey on the Spanish Tourism Context Spain is one of the leading powers in tourist industry according to UNWT (2008) Statistics and surveys show that Spain is one of the most important destinations in the world. Spain received 57’4 million foreign tourists in 2008 (IET, Spanish Tourism Studies Institutes, 2008). Nevertheless, the UNWTO announced that Spain could have lost its second place in the most-tourist-country ranking in 2008, descending on the third position, behind France and the USA. Forecast for 2020 places Spain between fourth and fifth place in the ranking. That should lead Spanish tourist administrators to search new ways of selling their products in a much more competitive business world, in order to avoid a “free-fall” of role of Spain in the International tourism context. As the Spanish Tourism Studies Institute (IET) has mentioned, during the year 2008, Spain’s residents travelled more than during 2007 (Table 2.), recording an increase of 7%, but both, national and international Spanish tourism markets, have a negative perspective indeed because of the world financial and economical crisis. It seems that betting for new forms of marketing is a good alternative to keep increasing in consolidated markets and reach new emerging markets. In order to analyze and understand how Spain has adopted new technology in tourism industry, a brief historical process will be explained below. 15

Table 2. International Tourist Arrivals International Tourist Arrivals Rank Million Change (%) 1 Series 2006 2007* 06/05 07*/06 1 France TF 78.9 81.9 3.9 3.8 2 Spain TF 58.2 59.2 4.1 1.7 3 United States TF 51.0 56.0 3.6 9.8 4 China TF 49.9 54.7 6.6 9.6 5 Italy TF 41.1 43.7 12.4 6.3 6 United Kingdom TF 30.7 30.7 9.3 0.1 7 Germany TCE 23.5 24.4 10.1 3.9 8 Ukraine TF 18.9 23.1 7.4 22.1 9 Turkey TF 18.9 22.2 -6.7 17.6 10 Mexico TF 21.4 21.4 -2.6 0.3 Source: World Tourism Organization, (UNWTO), (2008) All in all, one of the most important technological advances was the spreading of Internet using. Thanks to the implantation of web 2.0 Internet produced important transformations in the tourist sector, especially in the private sector. Spanish business reaches the European Union average of Internet using. But the average of the particular users is 5% lower comparing with the European Union average. Only 20% of Spanish people bought products using Internet, while the European average is of 32%. The European Union says that this market has a fast growth in Spain. Social webs are the protagonist of the Spanish Internet Use. In fact, according to current studies, Spain is the second larger user of social-webs in Europe, just behind United Kingdom (El País, 2009). The public administrations, concerning destinations, are at the beginning of a long path in the implantation of this technology but we can find some examples such as: Madrid, La Palma, La Rioja and Comunidad Valenciana. According to the annual report from 2008 made by The Spanish Inbound Tourism Survey (FRONTUR) about International Tourist Using Internet Relating with 16

the Journey, from a total of 55 675 618 tourists, more than 50% used Internet for searching information, booking and paying transport, accommodation and activities. Nevertheless, still there are enormous regional differences in the access and use of Internet in Spain. Big cities as Madrid, Barcelona or Valencia have easier access and much more users than small towns in the South-West of the country. On the other hand, Spanish Government has developed a plan for increase the investment in technology and innovation. The so called “Plan Nacional de I+D+I” (National Plan of I+D+I) held by the Innovation and Science Office, is trying to help companies and local administration to improve their technological equipments and to impel new researches in technology. For that reason, this plan has developed different strategic actions such as the “Avanza (Advance) programs, focused on telecommunications and information technologies. Tourist industry will be beneficed by these programs. All the same, it seems that the new-line in technology implementation is the use of Web 2.0. to co-create in the product design process. Are the tourist destination administrators and managers using this new tool successfully? 17

6. Study of the range of Web 2.0 and co-creation practices implemented in the Spanish tourism market. 6.1 Methodology: The goal of our research was to determine the role of co-creation in innovative strategies implemented by the Spanish DMO-s (Destination Management Organizations. The structure of our work is the following: 1. Literature study. 2. Qualitative analysis a) In-depth tourist expert interviews in order to analyses the suppliers’ perspective. b) Focus group, Internet and web 2.0 adapted: Post in a social network for tourism professionals with the intention of analyzing the demand point of view. 3. Observation and analysis of real life destination 2.0 websites. The literature study provided the necessary background and basis to generate general insights about the Web 2.0. General concept related information and documents were consulted. Several papers presenting research at the Spanish leading tourism ICT conference TURITEC in the year 2008 were the main sources to achieve this general understanding as well as to ascertain the approach of our research. Furthermore, a decision was made to initiate in-depth expert semi structured interviews (see Appendix 1). Eight Spanish experts where consulted during the last week of February and the first fortnight of March 2009 (see Appendix 2). The chosen individuals are indeed ‘elite interviewees’ in the Spanish tourism ICT scope, since they occupy representative positions in the field in different tourism companies. The Spanish tourism fair FITUR was a good opportunity to get in contact with some of the interviewees while others were reached via Comunidad Hosteltur, a social networking Website for tourism professionals. 18

Due to the impossibility of undertaking interviews face-to-face, phone call was considered the best option. A test interview was performed to a tourism ICT researcher. The test was proved to be a good starting point since some mistakes and technical failures were identified and taken into account in further interviews. Half an hour was the average time employed to discuss all the topics satisfactorily. The social networking website mentioned above, Comunidad Hosteltur (see Appendix 3), was also used to post a blog on the 03/03/2009 regarding the topic of our research in an attempt to initiate a debate to identify the different opinions, as an online possibility for a focus group. In order to make a selection of a paradigmatic DMO’s website among the seven different real life official platforms in the frame of the Spanish entities two criteria were followed. The first criterion was a consulting-based selection, for which the panel of experts was asked to state several remarkable DMO’s Website. This allowed collecting a data base that included nine official websites. A non Spanish destination website example was also analyzed since several experts mention it as an interesting example. We also decided it would provide a possibility of comparison and would give us an idea of the Spanish websites situation. For the final selection, a list of the main 2.0 items was elaborated. A review of the literature reveals that there is a wide range of electronic media such as email, instant messaging, websites, blogs, virtual communities, chatrooms, product review sites, photo-sharing, video-sharing, podcasts, interactive geographical referencing, etc. (Litvin, S.W et al. 2008; Alonso Amedia, M. et al., 2008). Nevertheless, not all of them are considered to be part of the co-creation system. The list elaborated for this research was built on the Web 2.0 framework (Fundación Orange, 19

Internality) and with the collaboration of one of the experts interviewed. Other issues were also included regarding the users in an attempt to take the participation and use of the chosen website into consideration. If these issues had not been included, this research would have been meaningless because the supply of a 2.0 website from a DMO does not guarantee the co-creation between the different actors. Later on, we will illustrate Table 3, which displays the items included in the different Spanish DMO’s websites that were analyzed. The selection was made as the result of a simple comparison among the different websites with the most completed one being chosen. 6.2 Results. In-depth tourist expert interviews As a part of our research, as mentioned above, a selection of the Spanish tourist and marketing industry’s top experts were asked what they think about the use of new technology and strategies of co-creation in destination marketing. An elaborated semi structured questionnaire for all participants in these “in-depth” interviews made analysis and interpretation easier afterwards. The analysis revealed that companies in the tourism industry mainly implement, in a wide range, the use of Internet but, nevertheless, this fact does not bring a more effective customer implication. Therefore, according to the experts, in spite of the fact that the impact of Internet and the turning up of New Channels of communication has been crucial in the tourist commercialization in the last 5-10 years, there is still a lack of general knowledge and implantation of the web 2.0. as a tool to implement co-creation strategies in the destination product design. 20

All experts agree that Internet is a bilateral information channel and there is no doubt that by using Internet there is not need of distributor in commercial transactions between customers and companies. Direct commercialization is one of the clear results and consequence of the use of Internet. Thus, as some of the experts point out, Internet has promoted the improvement of a much more direct user-company relationship, although none mentioned if we have already reach the last step of the five-level-list elaborated by Matt Rhode to analyze the co-creation experience (see above). However, it seems that Destination Marketing Organizations (DMO’s) are not taking advantage of all of the potential opportunities that a bilateral information channel as Internet offers and, by the moment, they are just making a partial use of these opportunities. Most of the interviewed experts agree that the Web 2.0. represents a management change and an alteration in the making process. Contrary to what DMO’s are doing, experts estimate that Web 2.0. and co-creation can be used at all levels including internal uses in a company. Indeed, by interiorizing the Web2.0 from a company or firm (DMO’s in our case), the internal structure of contact with customer changes from a vertical to a more horizontal one. Although experts reach to see this change, they conclude that process of change is still slow. And under their point-of- view, that is dangerous because it could be mean a lack of competitively and capacity. Therefore, our panel of experts proposes an evolution of the DMO’s management, which also means that local companies must be evolved (No se entiende) if Spain really wants to reach the “destinations 2.0” level in every relevant targeted destination. Thus, new management policy with new approaches and attitudes must be 21

introduced in destinations. Consequent to this approach, an expert has defended the use of coaching for those who will be in charge of managing the content of the web. One general idea is shared by each expert: the function of the Web2.0 is to make clients (users) be heard. Destinations need to know what clients (tourists) really think about them. By having information from consumers, destinations can elaborate a list of pros and cons that can be used to improve the destination product. In fact, the displayed user-made information affects the DMO’s decision making. Nevertheless, a specific question that calls our attention is: the control of the information published by consumers in the Web thanks to 2.0. technology. It is not difficult to guess that DMOs have fear of the uncontrolled reviews published by the users. Consumers can be very captious and accurate when they analyze a destination. Many personal negative opinions could sink many tourism businesses in economical terms if these opinions are taken into consideration by a large number of tourists. That’s the reason why most of the destination webs have some kind of control. There is not legislation about it and it is not clear if DMOs should censure contents in their webs or should let consumers publish whatever they wish in order to create a real “experience environment” aiming to use it in a co-creation process. Some control comes from the fact that every consumer/user must register firstly and have a profile. According to some experts, the credibility of any post comes from the respect and reputation of the user in the web-community. Another factor that has been taken into account is the peculiar and unambiguous political structure of Spain. That means that policy in tourism affair has been transferred to each of their political autonomous regions. To what extent is the Spanish tourist destination policy affected by this political structure? We found different perspectives 22

from our panel of experts. Some of them think that Spain and the management of Web2.0 from DMO is not affected by this particular structure. However, some others think that Spanish political structure make not easy a collaboration between public and private sector, and between national, regional and local communities and administrations. That can explain the lower use of Internet in Spain in comparison to other developed countries. Again, this asseveration is not shared by all experts. Some think that Spain is far away from the use-level of Internet and Web2.0 in USA. Other experts think that Spain is not only close to USA but point out (supported by some press articles) that Spain is the European country with more social communities on-line. A good example is Tuenti, a Spanish social community that had a large and fast development during 2008, becoming a strong rival of Facebook in Spanish native-speakers countries. Among other opinions given by the experts, it is important to conclude that the implantation of Web2.0. should be done both in small and big destinations. Also, according to experts, it is vital not to forget that any approach to consumer must be done taking into consideration each segment of the tourist audience. In fact, elder people in Spain do not use new technologies as much as Nordic elder people, and therefore DMOs can not focus on them as easy as on younger users. To conclude, the web’s managers agree that there has not been any clear and free co-creation strategy in the Spanish destinations because they have been working on it during a short period of time. However, they predict and estimate that results will arise and emerge soon. 23

Focus group, Internet and web 2.0 adapted: Post in a social network for tourism professionals As part of understanding all different perspectives, and interested in the demand perception, we targeted our on-line focus group to tourists and tourism interested individuals, since the blog was posted in a tourism social network. Interesting points of views were observed. We wrote a critical article, where we let in evidence our general disappointment with the lack of implantation of the Web 2.0 in the Spanish destinations, with the intention of gaining plenty of participation. We observed different reactions to our point of view. For some, DMOs are behind the private destination companies. But others said that the companies were also left behind compared to international standards. Many agreed, not without showing some frustration, that some websites are still 1.0. And destinations are still expecting to “captivate” tourists by giving them the official information. There was a general opinion that DMOs are frightened to openly receive opinions and have users being able to communicate among themselves. Another important general idea is that destinations managers still don’t know the potential benefits of the implantation of the Web 2.0, or are in the worst cases not even familiar with the concept. 24

Combining both examples set by the experts and the people who commented on our post we proceeded to complete a Web 2.0 table (Table 3), with al the examples set by the experts and gained by comments to our Post. Observation and analysis of real life destination 2.0 websites Seven Spanish websites and one international one were analyzed. The items on the left provided the reference of data to be search in each webpage. By doing so we could visually compare the implantations levels of the 2.0 tools. As mention in the methodology we have used the New Zealand example since many experts mention it. We also thought it would provide an international reference for the Spanish websites. When analyzing the data we’ve reached some main conclusions; some of the Spanish websites only provide information in Spanish. While others seem to be more internationally focused as they include different languages. We can also see that webblogs and videoblogs are not available in some of the analyzed webs. Therefore, the user content can’t really be generated. It is also shown that, none of the pages have content being created by the use of wikis, and no Spanish case has a network. On the other hand, in all this pages one must register himself for to be allowed to participate. Regarding the registration and number of users we can observe that the Spanish websites are recent and for this reason the users’ numbers are low. 25

It is important to mention that the development cycle, which means the needed time for upgrading new information varies in each case. We’ve come to the conclusion that the webs with a slower development cycle are the ones with more official information and less user generated content. Finally, the criterion used to classify the webs was: participative (official web, comments, and punctuation, controlled content, there’s only collective intelligence.) Collaborative (official web, conversation, semi-controlled content, collective intelligence and users relations.) active (under the institutional umbrella, generates experiences, sensation transfers, collective intelligence, the client is the star, users relations, knowledge is generated.) To conclude, once we have analyzed pros and cons of each chosen web, the next step was to designate the best case option to be asset and evaluated. According to our research and taking into account all criterion data results, La Palma seemed to be the most suitable case. 26

Table 3: Destination Websites comparison according to the Web 2.0 criteria (see Appendix 5). Lanzarote La Palma Madrid Marbella Soria Valencian La Rioja New community Zealand . Language 3 1 6 2 1 7 1 6 English Spanish Spanish Spanish Spanish Spanish, Spanish English Spanish English English Valencian German German French english Japanese Russian French, Chinese Chinese German Korean Japanese Chinese Japanese Users Yes 109 680 No No Chat: 20080 87 70 Forum:20304 Weblogs Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Podcasting No Yes No No No No No No Videoblogs No Yes No No No No No 188 Wikis No No No No No No No No Maps Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Social networks Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes (groups) Networking No No No No No No No Yes Tagging No Yes Yes No No No Yes No Pictures Yes 454 3357 Yes Yes No Yes 731 Videos Yes 38 32 No No No No 188 Searchers Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Creative No Yes No No No No Yes Yes Commons Recommendations Yes, Yes No Yes No Yes No No User contents Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Content and news No Yes Yes No No No Yes No with user’s votes. Ideas panel No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Register Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes User profile Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No according activity. Information Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No Quality Development 24/7 24/7 Weekly Information Weekly Weekly 24/7 24/7 cycle. not available RSS No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Web Type Colaborative Active Participative Participavive Participative Colaborative Active Active Source: Our research, based on the visual Web 2.0 map of the Fundación Orange and Internality (2007). Some Items with the collaboration of Tirso Maldonado, and our own web analysis. As shown in Table 1. although recent (it was launched just a month ago), the most complete example that we found during this research according to our point-of- view is La Palma’s website. 27

7. Destination, website and the co-creation experience: La Palma: The Beautiful Island The island of La Palma belongs to the Canaries’ archipelago, located 100km from the west coast of Africa. On the archipelago there are 7 major islands and all of them have a volcanic ground. La Palma is known as the green and black Island for its exuberant forests and the characteristic volcanic black soil. Its maximum height in the Roque of the Boys is 2.426 m above the sea level and the base of the island is located almost 400 m below sea level. Its capital is Santa Cruz de la Palma where the hugest telescope in the world “Gran Telescopio Canarias” (Great Telescope Canary) is situated. Problem of identification: An ignored wealth in the African Atlantic waters Colective imagination included La Palma as a beach and sun destination as long as the rest of the Canary Islands. Supporting that wrong idea, most of the tourist approach to the island did not take advantage of its outstanding wilderness and potential ecotourist and adventure-tourism activities. Thus, a lack of real tourist marketing plannning for the island was obvious. Promotion of La Palma was focused on beaches and since the island has not the best beaches of the archipelago, its position in the tourism market was mistaken. That was clear from the beginning for the group of tourism technology consultants who have developed the current La Palma social network with the aid and support of 28

local agents. These consultants realized that a problem of identification was to be resolved. Several elements called their attention: • Unclear identification of a name or a logo used by destination, since the were using 2 logos. • False “Sun & Beach” image, with the result of many unsatisfied visitors. • A lack of cooperation and integrated policy between the local councils and deputies. • Tourist Information Front Desk with not up-dated information. Proposals and development of the project: Let’s work together In La Palma case, tourism developers and consultants made a succesful attempt to involve local agents in the participation and decisions making process. By creating content via wiki, meaning user content that anybody can create, edit or comment, which is used to promote free participation from users in a website, they invited a large number of local organizations, politicians and tourist experts to identify positive and negative impacts of the current tourist planning in order to rebuild a new idea of tourism for La Palma. They wanted to obtain a frame-work of solutions by using collective intellingences and brain-storming techniques. The people consulted were: La Palma Government Instituto Tecnológico Canario (Canary Technological Institute) Agencia Canaria de Investigación, Innovación y Sociedad de la Información (Canary Research Innovation and Information Agency) SODEPAL (La Palma Promotion and Economical Development Society) 29

Tourist Council Local city councils Ashotel Local tourist associations Local journalist Tourist Offices ADER (La Palma Rural Development Association) “Isla Bonita” Association Natour Trecking Inbound travel agencies Tour Operators Non-regular accommodation representers CIT’s (Tourist Initative Centre) All these participants had in common a professional dedication and commitment in tourism or related fields. No regular citizens were allowed to participate in the wiki pre-project. However, all of the agents listed above had a complete access to creating, editing or commenting in the previously built website for this purpose. The starting point of the project arose in a conference on 2.0. tools and tourism during summer 2008 (Innotour 2009). Experts in the topic such as Juan Llantada, Tirso Maldonado and Lasse Rouhiainen backed the spread of the 2.0. tools in the tourism industry. Immediately loads of ideas came and went from all participants and without delay a sort of think-tank in the topic was created by setting up a pre-website using wiki tools as it has been mentioned above. This wiki creation was a prelude of the current La Palma’s social network. The main feature of the wiki creation project was 30

its own constitution and development under a sharing idea of co-creation. All kind of experts and agents were able to participate. Its achievement was not to develop a website to co-create, but to co-create the development of a website. Each participant had to create a profile to sign up in order to upload new ideas, ongoing projects and programs. Within a period of few days participants had free access to change or edit any former comment, post or idea. Workshops were also established to inform, to debate, to determine and to give advice on such a relevant topics as unification of La Palma’s image, clarification and definition of the tourist products of the island, and the innovation and renewing of these products. Consolidation and solutions: re-defining La Palma Among the solutions provided by this co-creation process, a large number of suitable actions were taken to improve La Palma’s tourist context. Aiming to attract visitors to the island, it was suggested to re-define the marketing and promotion planning for La Palma. The main goal was to consolidate a type of tourism that really fits in with La Palma’s attributes. A new planning was elaborated to mature a necessary personality for the island, which would serve as the point of tourist attraction for any future visitors. Thus, the main tourist products such as trekking and eco-tourism started to play an important and crucial role in the construction of this new personality or image. Under the creation of a new and modern website, several actions were added to this integrated plan. Most of these actions were based on three main concepts: 1. A common image and slogan for La Palma. Thus, it was decided to use “Isla bonita” (Beautiful Island) to promote it. The logo is a remembrance of the high peaks above the sea level. 31

2. Trekking as the main attractive activity in the island. Of all modes of travel, it is trekking in the areas of solitude that most gives rise to a romantic gaze and almost spiritual meaning. Several factors have had influence on this change from “Sun & beaches destination” to trekking-adventure & eco-tourist destination: a. More than 1000 km of official tracks b. A National Park (La Caldera de Taburiente) c. Sustainable destination d. Good weather conditions all year long e. Diversity of landscapes f. Reserve of Biosphere 3. Selling experiences. It will fulfill the visitor’s expectations. La Palma offers a wide number of choices to be part of an experience. Beneficiaries of this Experience-based tourism exist (local business, local councils, etc.). It is possible to mix different fields of business in a common tourist experience. Thus, for example, it is available to do trekking through bananas plantations supporting and promoting local products as bananas. Other example is the tourism of the “stars”. Having the great opportunity to hold one of the most important observatories of the world in La Palma, promotion of stars seeing activities are compulsory. Once all these lines and actions were clarified, a website was designed as the final step of this co-creation process. This website (www.lapalma.es) has been created to be more than just a simple common destination website. The co-creation process behind it showed that, nowdays, to provide information, videos and pictures it is not enough. It was necessary to design a web where users could share experiences. Therefore, La Palma website was formulated to give answer to that demand. This strategy of 32

experiental marketing was part of the actions implemented to connect New Tourist and La Palma. Thus, this web not only allows to get information about accommodation, restaurants, paths-tracks, leisure places or advice to travel. It also has a networking (based on professionals) of people who interact between them. The idea of the founders of this web is to fill in the contents with information provided by users. Blogs and post will be future non-official informations used for advices and recommendations. This information will help to develop new ideas in tourism activities in La Palma. Therefore, a circle of information-transfer is made: a website is designed as a result of sharing information and ideas thanks to a co-creation process, and a space of experience is created to co-operate in designing the new tourist product of La Palma destination. Nevertheless, it is not expected that tourists will contribute to a high porcentage of the contents in this web. Locals will be more important in contributing to the improvement of the contents and generating information than any tourist or visitor. That is the reason why the new website is suitable for any new local business or organization. Tourism would be widely spread if locals decided to participate in the Web. That would bring more benefits to the local community. Aiming to gain more local users, La Palma website promoters have designed a number of strategies to call the attention of the local community. For example, food and photography contest in the web. These contests are in fact a way to engage consumers with the new web and, therefore, to open the product and information to local people. 33

8. General Conclusion Firstly we must say that our primary idea about Web 2.0 and the idea of co- creation in tourist destinations were wrong and so during the process of making this research we have gained knowledge beyond our initial expectations. After the analysis of our research we agree on some conclusions that we consider important to take into consideration. Once we have compared theory and real cases, it seems clear to us that co-creation is still in a primary stage in general terms according to what Spanish tourism companies and DMOs are doing. However, Web 2.0 tools are quite popular. The implantation or the real Web 2.0 must be preceded by a good strategy and marketing plan. Travel 2.0 is not only about Internet. However there’s no doubt that Internet and especially the Web 2.0 tools are a bilateral communication channel. These strategic plans must be continually updated and all tourism agents involved must know its content; training is essential and each participant must know the meaning of Web 2.0. and which are the main destinations and valuable products. And most of all DMO must know that having videos or pictures doesn’t make your web 2.0, it is much more. One more wrong conception regarding co-creation and Web 2.0 for destinations is that the web management is not to be made only by the local town council, tourist destinations are a complex system of local companies, citizens and deputies and so synergies are necessary for the creation of the tourist product. It’s a new concept of tourist destination and DMOs are not applying it. They should explore new ideas and 34

ways to contact with costumers and make them participate in activities of creation in their websites. But since it is difficult to obtain participants, it is possible to create contests, games and local artists can use them to share their pictures of the destination they live in. Travel 2.0. is an important tool in destination marketing. Destinations harness new technologies and their effects. They can create and modify some products because these tools are within the reach of a lot of people. However it is important to know that not all tourist segments are reachable by using the web. Although the tendency of Internet use is growing the major potential visitors are left behind. Now, talking about co-creation through Internet in Spain it’s too early, given that the Spanish websites are recently created. We can say that probably most of the analyzed webs are in the redesign step of Rhodes (2008) co-creation series. The application of the 2.0 tools exists; but at a level that it’s only changing the service and relation between the users and the DMOs, but is not affecting the product itself. This is possible because DMOs are worried of losing its image. 9. Suggestions and recommendations Firstly, a website of information and interaction that will be consulted by national and international tourists like the above explained should be at least translated into English or more languages. It is supposed that local administration and local businesses are interested in tourists and, therefore should be open to World tourist demand. For that reason, the official information should be in other languages, since most of the tourist visitors are non-Spanish speakers. To improve user content in other 35

languages, some marketing strategies can be developed contests like a “destination related story tale in awards” in English . Secondly, according to our point of view, networking should use wiki tools in order to make the web a free space of information. Allowing data to be generated by using wikis promotes a bulk of collective intelligence interaction that companies and firms could use. Not only professionals would know the opinion from the locals and tourists, but the website could be used as a company’s meeting point: a space to share information, develop new strategies, etc. In conclusion, a place of reference. And so provinding a meeting point not only for local deputies and companies but also for the destination interested companies. Other aspect to comment is the potential limitations and disadvantages of the lack of participation from local citizens. The selection of participants is normally made either by the professional planners or by the interested groups who wish to see the proposals go ahead. However, we think locals would be the ones with a real interest in the destination. Moreover, locals can provide an unofficial information, pictures, videos and comments. We firmily believe that the local population would persue the execution of ideas generated in the webs. From the other perpective we can support our view by mentioning that travelers prefer general websites like tripadvisor or travbuddy to register, create profiles and share experiences. Having to do so in every destination website would be exhausting. 36

10.References Alonso Amedia, M. et al. (2008). El impacto de la tecnología social en las decisiones de consumo turístico. http://www.turismo.uma.es/turitec/turitec/paginas/articulos/actas_turitec_pdf/L19_A19. pdf (Turitec 2008 ) (Data from 02/17/2009) Anderson, David M. (2004)"Build-to-Order & Mass Customization, the Ultimate Supply Chain and Lean Manufacturing Strategy for Low-Cost On-Demand Production without Forecasts or Inventory," ; www.build-to-order-consulting.com/books.htm (Data from 02/28/2009) Diéguez Castrillón M.I., Sinde Cantorna A.I., Gueimonde Canto A.I., (2008). New technologies and managerial results: The case of Rural Galician Tourism. University of Vigo. Vigo, Spain. Binkhorst. E. (2005). The Co-Creation tourism experience. Whitepaper Co-creation. Sitges. http://www.atlas-euro.org/pages/pdf/WUbarcelona/WU%20txt%20Groters- binkhorst%20experiences.pdf (Data from 03/02/2009) El País (date of pulication?) Hinchcliffe, Dion. (2007). ROI for enterprise 2.0: Collaborative research in new product design. http://opengardensblog.futuretext.com/archives/2007/08/roi_for_enterpr.html (Data from 03/08/2009) Huertas Roig A., (2008). Application of the web 2.0 to the tourist destinations: implantation and differences.(TuriTec 2008) (University Rovira iI Virgili) Jaume Mayol J., Tudiri Vila A., (2008). Index of Technological maturity in the Hotel Sector” (Balears Isles)(TuriTec 2008) 37

Jun, S.H., Vogt, C.A. & Mackay, K.J. (2007) “Relationships between travel information search and travel product purchase in pretrip context”. Journal of Travel Research. Vol. 45 (3). 266-274. Koert de Jager (2008). The New Tourist and Co-Creation as a Key Element of Tourism: Destinations’ Competitiveness. (article from the 40th anniversary of the Budapest Business School) www.hah.hu/opendoc.php?fn=Kurt_de_Jager_Bpresentation.doc (Data from 01/31/2009) Krawtchenko, P., Morel-Guimaraes, L., & Boly, V. (2004). Implementing customer relationship attitudes mapping to improve new product development. IAMOT Conference. Washington D.C. pp. 1-10. Litvin, S.W et al. (2008). Electronic word-of-mouth in hospitality and tourism management. College of Business and Economics, USA Florida State University, USA Mapa Web 2.0. (2007). Fundacion Orange, Internality. Barcelona. www.internality.com/web20 (Data from 02/10/2009) Maldonado, Tirso (2004), Consumer, prosumer, adprosumer. http://tirsomaldonado.com/ (Data from 03/02/2009) McKenna, Regis (1997). Real Time. Boston: Harvard Business Press. O, Reilly, T (2006). Web 2.0. compact definition. Trying aganin. . Available at: http://radar.oreilly.com/2006/12/web-20-compact-definition-tryi.html (Data from 03/04/2009) Plog, Stanley (1972) Book: Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quaterly. Prahalad, C.K. & Ramaswamy, V. (2004) The future of competition: co-creating unique value with customers. Boston: Harvard Business School Press 38

Ramaswamy, V. (2008). “Co-Creation value through customers’ experiences: the Nike case”. Strategy & Leadeship, 36 (5): 9-14. Thompson, K. (2008). Tourist decision making and the service centred dominant logic of marketing. CAUTHE 2008 Conference (Where the Bloody Hell Are We?). Rhode, Matt (2008). Co-Creation Series .http://blog.freshnetworks.com/category/ series/co-creation-series (Data from 02/28/2009) Tseng, M.M.; Jiao, J. (2001), Mass Customization, in: Handbook of Industrial Engineering, Technology and Operation Management. http://www3.ntu.edu.sg/mae/Admin/Divisions/systems/Faculty/Page%20Document/Tec hnovation_MC.pdf (Data from 03/01/2009) Vargo, S.L. & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68, 1-17. Vidal, Isaac (2006). The5 i's Theory. http://isaacvidal.blogspot.com/2006/11/turista-20- un-cliente-4-i.html (Data from 03/25/2009) William E., Pérez Martell E., (2008). Tourism 2.0: the social web like platform of develop and ecosystem based on the knowledge. http://www.slideshare.net/eduwilliam/tourism-20-definition-and-key-concepts. (Data from 03/21/2009) William, E (2008). From travel 2.0. to tourism 2.0. Available at: http://www.eduwilliam.com/index.php?s=travel+2.0 (Data from 03/21/2009) 39

11.Appendix Appendix 1. Semi-structured Interview Questionnaire Introduction We are the Rey Juan Carlos University students and we are in the creation process of a Co-Creation and Web 2.0 in Destination case study. The interview is planned to last 30 minutes and we have structured it by themes. I. New Tendencies What changes have occurred in tourism marketing during the last 5-10 years? Regarding consumers and DMO, which has been the technological impact? II. New Tourist Which are the new tourist profiles? What is a tourist expecting from a travelers community? And from a destination website? Do tourists need to be deeply involved with a destination to participate in its website? Are segments being left out? (Which ones) III. Web 2.0 How do destination websites manage to capture tourist participation? 40

Are there different web 2.0 implantation levels for destinations? Which ones? How do different agents play their roles? Which would be the perfect combination for official and user generated content? From the user’s point of view, is this new tool more reliable than traditional methods? Do you think that the fear of losing control over the destination global image is one of the reasons why DMOs are not considering web 2.0 implantation? IV. Spain, analyzing Spain now How does the Spanish political, economical and administrative structure affects the use of the web 2.0 by a DMO? Are state funds available for destinations wanting to apply for web 2.0? Is there cooperation between different state agencies? And between the public and private sectors? Are you of the opinion that our companies and state agencies behind in comparison to other countries? Our state tourist agencies seem to be only using some of the web 2.0 tools, like youtube channels, or isolated blogs. Do you agree? Is there a reason for this? Regarding the 2.0 process, do you know any examples destination well known? In Spain? 41

How is the world financial and economic crisis affecting the web 2.0 development? V. Co-Creation, let’s talk now about co-creation. In the web 2.0 the user-user information is quite valuable, but are DMOs using the user generated information? Do you know real life destination examples, which have changed their products or marketing strategies by using the web 2.0? Are today’s 2.0 tourist networks only for promotion or are they co-creating? In which level does consumers’ integration in the co-creation process benefits the tourist market? VI. Regarding the website. (This part was only asked to DMO websites related experts) How did the whole idea came up? What exactly is it? What is for you the most important concept? What is more important for the users ? What is the most popular item? In which way is your website different from other destinations websites? How do you use a user generated information? Who studies it? Do you pass on this information? 42

Have the marketing strategies changed because of the user generated content? Is there any influence on the communication strategies? Are some products, service or activity design changing? Are there any statistics regarding the visiting impact the website is having on tourists? Can you tell us an approximate percentage (of members, users, registers) of the visits to the website made by foreigners? Are users faithful to this website? Are services personalized? Do you have any control over swearwords? And over negative contents? What strategies do you use to attract new users? To generate more content and opinions? Which are your expectations for the coming times? Last but not least Do you think that the tourist is finding what he is looking for? What is the next step? What should we expect in the near future? VII. Acknowledgements Thank you for your collaboration in our project. 43

Appendix 2. Expert Panel Interview Expert Professional Profile. Schedule: Date, Time, and duration. Pre-test Cristina Figueroa Rey Juan Carlos 02/25//09 University Marketing 17:00 Teacher. 21’48’’ Expert Nº 1 Jimmy Pons ITH (Hotel Technological 02/27/09 Institute) Marketing and 11:00 project director. 30’50’’ Expert Nº 2 Carlos Hernández Hosteltur Manager. (Social 03/04/09 network for tourism 09:00 professionals) 36’45’’ Expert Nº 3 Joantxo Llantada Valencian Community 03/04/09 Promotion Technician. 10:00 (comunitatvalenciana.com) 27’18’’ Expert Nº 4 Pedro Anton SEGITUR (State Society 03/04/09 for the Management of 11:00 Touristic Innovation and 20’30’’ Technologies) Chief Information Officer.. Expert Nº 5 Monica Figuerola La Rioja’s Tourist 03/05/09 Director. 11:00 (winesandblog.com) 9’39’’ Expert Nº 6 Caroline Tensi 4u.esmadrid Marketing 03/05/09 Responsible. 13:00 (4u.esmadrid.com) 28’40’’ Expert Nº 7 Jesús Alvarez University of Barcelona 03/09/09 Technology Teacher. 17:00 21’11’’ Expert Nº 8 Tirso Maldonado Socialtec (Software 03/1109 development, Web 2.0 15:00 formation and consultancy 90’56’’ company) Chief Executive Officer. (lapalma.es) 44

Appendix 3. Post “Inversion 2.0: Dinero tirado a la Basura?” Investment 2.0: Wasted Money? http://comunidad.hosteltur.com/post/2009-03-03-la-inversin-en-2- 0-dinero-tirado-a-la-basura Appendix 4. Table 3 item’s glossary Language: is the number and description of the official languages of the websites. User: When finding data, we’ve provided with the register user’s number. Webblogs: chronological user provided content. Podcasting: subscription distributive hearing data. Videoblogs: video documents; is not the same as sharing videos, in video blogs a document is created. Wikis: user content that anybody can create, edit or comment. 45

Groups: people united in a virtual space, to share common interests and who can share, to mention one, friendship bonds. Networking: professional groups with commercial goals. Tagging: making and classifying tags, which describe or associate different information in order to classify it. Searchers: provides the option to search information within the website. Creative Commons: flexible system of community shared author’s right. Ideas panel: provides user with the option to give ideas. Register: we mention here if in order to participate users must register. User profile according to activity: activity related order; like connected ones, the latest awarded, etc. Information Quality: information that has been voted, commented, read, awarded and so rearranges to be seen at first sight. Development cycle: is the ability to change home, in a website, to give and example tome on-line news papers change every hours, while some change once day RSS: is the subscription tool, that allows receiving data, in which one is interested Webtype: participative (official web, comments, and punctuation, controlled content, there’s only collective intelligence.) Collaborative (official web, conversation, semi- controlled content, collective intelligence and users relations.) active (under the institutional umbrella, generates experiences, sensation transfers, collective intelligence, the client is the star, users relations, knowledge is generated.) 46

Appendix 5. Images of the analyzed websites 1) Lanzarote. www.turismolanzarote.com Data from 03/18/2009. 2) La Palma. www.lapalma.es launched on March 2009. Data form 03/18/2009 47

3) Madrid. http://4u.esmadrid.com Data from 03/16/2009 4) Marbella. www.marbella.com Data from 03/16/2009 48

5) Soria. http://www.ayto-soria.org/ Data from 03/15/2009 6) Valencian Community. www.comunitatvalenciana.com/cvlive Data from 03/16/2009 49

7) La Rioja. www.winesandblogs.com Data from 03/15/2009 8) New Zealand. www.newzealand.com Data from 03/17/2009 50

http://www.turismmarket.com	668
http://evisionturismdotcom.wordpress.com	192
http://evisionturism.com	48
http://www.linkedin.com	2
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com	1

A 2[1].0 Travel Through Spanish Destinations

by Vasilica Maria Margalina

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

5 Embeds 911

Statistics

A 2[1].0 Travel Through Spanish Destinations Document Transcript