1. How to analyse a destination website.
Methodology and recommendations
IV Destination Branding & Marketing Conference
5-7 December 2012
Cardiff, Wales

2. Introduction
 José Fernández-Cavia
 Position
 Research Group
 Research Project:
Online Communication for Destination Brands
www.marcasturisticas.org

3. Introduction
Research Project:
Online Communication for Destination Brands
(CODETUR)
 FUNDING: Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness
 BUDGET: 61.710 €
 TIMING: From January 2012 to December 2014
 TEAM: 11 researchers form 5 Spanish universities
Main research lines:
• Online survey to Spanish DMO managers
• In-depth interview to 10 destinations
• Mobile applications analysis
• Social web analysis
• Official website analysis

4. Introduction
Why is the Internet so important for destinations?
• “60% of the tourists who visited Spain in 2009 used the internet
as a tool for preparing their trip” (Tourism Studies
Institute, Spain)
What kind of actions must a destination take in the
Web?
• Mainly 3: official website, social web, mobile marketing
official website

5. Destination’s official website
Every destination has an official website, but…
• is it really attractive?
• does it provide all essential information?
• does it take advantage of the full potential of the Web (getting
to know the users, selling services, creating relationships)?
• is it actually persuasive?
• how can we avaluate/assess the adequacy or effectiveness of
our website?

6. Destination’s official website evaluation
Methodology
Different topics must be taken into account:
• Home page
• Quality & quantity of content
• Web architecture
• Usability & accesibility
• Positioning
• Commercialization
• Languages
• Brand image
• Persuasiveness
• Interactivity
• Social web
• Mobile communications

7. Destination’s official website evaluation
Methodology
Then we select a SET of INDICATORS for each topic:
• Home page: language preliminary selection, easy
identification, specific tourism brand, shop
online, FAQs…
• Quality & quantity of content: how to get
there, lodging, events, institutional
info, weather…
• Web architecture: structure, browsing, standard
labels, recognisible links, internal search…
• Commercialization: booking and buying systems, integrated
checkout…
• Brand image: functional and emotional identity, visual consistency,
storytelling…
• Interactivity: multimedia, optional downloadings, interactive map, trip
planner, UGC…
• …

8. Destination’s official website evaluation
Topic considered Number of
indicators
Home page 13
Quality and quantity of content 15
Web architecture 10
Usability and accessibility 17
Positioning 8
Commercialization 7
Languages 6
Brand treatment 12
Discursive analyses 8
Interactivity 9
Social web 13
Mobile communications 5
Total 123

9. Destination’s official website evaluation
Methodology
Each indicator must be searched or assessed in a specific level:
 H: Analysis of the Homepage.
 H+10+10: Analysis of the Homepage + 10 first level
web pages + 10 second level web pages.
 H+2+2: Analysis of the Homepage + 2 first level web
pages + 2 second level web pages.
 S: Search the entire website.
 H+S: Analysis of the Homepage + Search in the
website.

10. Destination’s official website evaluation
Methodology
Each indicator has its specific scale:
B2. Cómo llegar. 0-1-2-3
B Información relativa a cómo llegar al destino desde las distintas vías de
comunicación (aeropuertos, mapa de carreteras, estaciones de tren,
estaciones de autobús, puertos,…).
Explicación:
Mal: La web no ofrece esta información.
Regular: Hay información sobre cómo llegar pero es poco clara o está
incompleta.
Bien: Hay información sobre cómo llegar, y además, ofrece enlaces a las
principales compañías de vuelos, tres…
Muy bien: Hay información de calidad sobre cómo llegar, con horarios,
compañías, teléfonos, costes, tiempos de llegada al destino y con un buscador
de las regiones del destino. Ej. La web de Nueva Zelanda en al apartado Travel
and Distances : http://www.newzealand.com/travel/getting-to-around-
nz/travel-times-and-distances/travel-times-and-distances-home.cfm

11. Destination’s official website evaluation
Methodology
Each indicator has its specific weight within the topic:
Topic: A. Home Page
Indicators A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 A13 TOTAL
Level of analysis H H H H H H H H H H H H H
Scale 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1-2 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1
Weight 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3
BRAND CCAA URL
Andalucía http://www.andalucia.org/ 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0,94
http://www20.gencat.cat/portal/site/cat
Cataluña alunya-act 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 0,67

12. Destination’s official website evaluation
Methodology
Then a combined index is built for each topic:
K. Web
Social
Topic: K Social Web
Indicators K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 K7 K8 K9 K10 K11 K12 K13 TOTAL
Level of analysis B B B B B B B B H H H H H
Scale 0-1-2 0-1-2 0-1-2 0-1-2 0-1-2 0-1-2-3 0-1-2-3 0-1 0-1-2 0-1-2 0-1-2 0-1-2 0-1-2 Máx.
Weight 3 2 3 5 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 2 86
MARCA CCAA URL
Andalucía http://www.andalucia.org/ 0 2 1 2 0 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 0 0,59
http://www20.gencat.cat/portal/site/catalu
Cataluña nya-act 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 0,27
MARCA Capital CCAA
Barcelona http://www.barcelonaturisme.com/ 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 1 2 1 2 0,38
Madrid http://www.esmadrid.com/es/portal.do 0 1 2 1 2 1 3 0 0 1 1 1 0 0,49
Santiago de Compostela http://www.santiagoturismo.com/ 2 2 0 2 2 1 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 0,84
MARCA Región
Rías Baixas http://www.riasbaixas.depo.es/web2009/ 2 0 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 1 1 0,41
MARCA INTERNACIONAL
Estocolmo http://www.visitstockholm.com/ 2 2 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 0 0,35
Gales http://www.visitwales.co.uk/ 0 1 0 0 1 1 3 1 0 1 1 1 0 0,36
Roma http://www.turismoroma.it/ 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0,20
http://www.myswitzerland.com/es/inicio.h
Suiza tml 2 2 1 0 2 1 3 1 1 1 2 2 0 0,64

13. Destination’s official website evaluation
Methodology
Then an overall index is calculated for each website (combining all 12
topics):
TOTAL
A B C D E F G H I J K L
Pag Ini Conte Arqui UsyAc Posi Comer Idio Marca Discur Inter Social Móvil
MARCA CCAA
1 Andalucía 0,94 0,78 0,79 0,60 0,67 0,70 0,41 0,82 0,80 0,43 0,59 0,00 0,63
2 Cataluña 0,67 0,55 0,74 0,57 0,39 0,30 0,49 0,67 0,60 0,26 0,27 0,00 0,46
MARCA Capital CCAA
1 Barcelona 0,85 0,78 0,68 0,89 0,71 0,88 0,54 0,82 0,30 0,52 0,38 0,77 0,68
2 Madrid 0,79 0,90 0,79 0,78 0,69 0,50 0,62 0,51 0,30 0,48 0,49 0,00 0,57
3 Santiago de Compostela 0,79 0,82 0,74 0,59 0,71 0,90 0,62 0,69 0,40 0,72 0,84 0,50 0,69
MARCA Región
1 Rías Baixas 0,52 0,39 0,63 0,40 0,45 0,20 0,35 0,47 0,80 0,17 0,41 0,00 0,40
MARCA INTERNACIONAL
1 Estocolmo 0,73 0,78 0,84 0,81 0,71 0,76 0,76 0,63 1,00 0,39 0,35 0,00 0,65
2 Gales 0,55 0,76 0,84 0,59 0,69 0,46 0,57 0,65 0,50 0,24 0,36 0,00 0,52
3 Roma 0,70 0,69 0,84 0,75 0,61 0,32 0,49 0,57 0,50 0,24 0,20 0,00 0,49
4 Suiza 0,58 0,93 0,74 0,71 0,86 0,72 0,95 0,92 0,60 0,57 0,64 0,73 0,74
Media 0,71 0,74 0,76 0,67 0,65 0,57 0,58 0,68 0,58 0,40 0,45 0,20 0,58

14. Destination’s official website evaluation
Sample
We applied the template to a sample of 10 diverse destinations (July
2012):
Destination URL
Andalucía http://www.andalucia.org/
Cataluña http://www20.gencat.cat/portal/site/catalunya-
act
Barcelona http://www.barcelonaturisme.com/
Madrid http://www.esmadrid.com/
Santiago de Compostela http://www.santiagoturismo.com/
Rías Baixas http://www.riasbaixas.depo.es/web2009/
Stockholm http://www.visitstockholm.com/
Wales http://www.visitwales.co.uk/
Rome http://www.turismoroma.it/
Switzerland http://www.myswitzerland.com/

15. Results
This methodology allows us to:
a. compare overall results between different destinations
(e.g. our direct competitors)
b. discover weak and strong areas (topics) in each
website
c. identify good and bad practices
d. recognize in what specific items (indicators) a website
is underperforming

16. Results
a. compare overall results between different destinations
(e.g. our direct competitors)
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60 mean: 0.58
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00

17. Results
b. discover weak and strong areas (topics) in each
website
1.00
0.90 Wales
0.80 Mean
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00

18. Results
b. discover weak and strong areas (topics) in each
website
Website Architecture Technical
Persuasive 0.90 Aspects
Aspects Commercialization Positioning
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
Brand Image Usability & Accessibility
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
Persuasiveness 0.00 Homepage
Mobile Communication Languages
Relational Web 2.0 Content Quality & Quantity
Aspects
Communicative
Interactivity
Aspects
Wales

19. Results
b. discover weak and strong areas (topics) in each
website
Website Architecture
0.90 Technical
Persuasive Commercialization Positioning
0.80 Aspects
Aspects
0.70
0.60
0.50
Brand Image Usability & Accessibility
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
Persuasiveness 0.00 Homepage
Mobile Communication Languages
Relational
Aspects Web 2.0 Content Quality & Quantity
Communicative
Aspects
Interactivity
Wales vs. mean

20. Results
b. discover weak and strong areas (topics) in each
website
Persuasive Technical
Aspects Aspects
Website Architecture
1.00
Commercialization 0.90 Positioning
0.80
0.70
0.60
Brand Image 0.50 Usability & Accessibility
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
Persuasiveness 0.00 Homepage
Mobile Communication Languages
Relational Content Quality &
Web 2.0
Quantity
Aspects
Interactivity Communicative
Aspects
Switzerland

21. Results
b. discover weak and strong areas (topics) in each
website
Website Architecture
1.00 Technical
Persuasive Aspects
Aspects Commercialization 0.90 Positioning
0.80
0.70
0.60
Brand Image 0.50 Usability & Accessibility
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
Persuasiveness 0.00 Homepage
Mobile Communication Languages
Relational
Aspects Web 2.0 Content Quality & Quantity
Communicative
Interactivity Aspects
Switzerland vs. mean

22. Results
c. identify good and bad practices
Home page score for each destination in the sample
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00

23. Results
d. recognize in what specific items (indicators) a website
is underperforming
Asking language
1.00
No user’s regist
0.90 Wales
FAQs hidden
No restaurants
0.80 Mean
No flights
0.70 No shopping
cart
0.60
No virtual tour
No UGC
0.50 No human click
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00

24. Results
Does this analysis suggest that a website must contain all
the features that other websites offer?
Certainly not.
Not all features are always good for all destinations. It
depends on the communicative aims of the website.
But at least this analysis tells us what other competitors
are doing in a different way, and forces us to ask why are
we not doing the same: because we don’t want to?
Or just because we didn’t know?

25. Conclusions
 A thorough methodology for website
evaluation
 Specifically built for destinations
 Some difficults: dynamic objects, subjectivity
(experts choice)
 Conclusions depend on the website’s
purposes (communication plan)
 But huge amount of information
 Useful tool

26. Thank you very much
Questions welcomed
José Fernández-Cavia
jose.fernandez@upf.edu
Department of Communication
Universitat Pompeu Fabra
Barcelona, Spain