How to co-create with a stranger? The Gap between real
demographic profile of customers and service providers’
perceptions...
Abstract

Purpose
The aim of this research paper is to investigate the existence of discrepancies or gaps
between the actu...
1. Introduction

The importance of market segmentation as a basis for developing a destination
marketing strategy is widel...
The merits and limitations of two key approaches to market segmentation (see
Dolnicar, 2004, 2006; Kara and Kaynak, 1997; ...
demographics rely on descriptive factors rather than causal factors and they are thus
"less than optimum bases for segment...
The interactive nature of services (Laing et al. 2002) and the simultaneity of production
and consumption (Vargo & Lusch, ...
The village of Olympia offers a variety of tourism services apart from historic and
cultural attractions (see Appendix).

...
British, of both genders, older people aged from 40 to 50 (30.5%), college graduates
(45%) and of the lowest monthly incom...
6. Conclusion and Implications

In the present paper an attempt was made to extend the Gap model and thus
contribute the r...
References

Andereck, K.L. and Caldwell, L.L. (1994), “Variable selection in tourism market
segmentation models”, Journal ...
244-250.
Dolnicar, S. (2006), “Data-driven Market Segmentation in Tourism – Approaches,
Changes Over Two Decades and Devel...
pp. 873-895.
Kastenholz, E. (2002), The role and marketing implications of destination images on
tourist behavior: The cas...
%20Culture%20-%20Sports%20-
%20Entertainment&sb=SCI_2&year=2008&timeseries=0&dt=0                  (accessed      at    16...
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...
Table 2. Chi-square statistics and Fisher's exact test (2-sided)

Differences between visitors' demographic profile and   ...
Appendix
Table. Tourism Services at the Destination


         Tourism Services            Population Sample Response Rate
        ...
Table. Methodological Facts of the two Surveys of the Study

                                           TOURISTS SURVEY   ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

How to Co-Create with a Stranger? The Gap between Real Demographic Profile of Customers and Service Providers’ Perceptions of this Profile

3,926 views

Published on

This paper was presented at the 2009 NAPLES FORUM ON SERVICE for Service-Dominant Logic, Service Science, and Network theories (invited speakers:
Evert GUMMESSON, Robert LUSCH, Stephen VARGO)

Evert GUMMESSON,
Robert LUSCH, Stephen VARGO, Professor, University of Hawaii, USA





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.

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
3,926
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
9
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

How to Co-Create with a Stranger? The Gap between Real Demographic Profile of Customers and Service Providers’ Perceptions of this Profile

  1. 1. 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
  2. 2. 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
  3. 3. 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.
  4. 4. 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
  5. 5. 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
  6. 6. 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.
  7. 7. 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
  8. 8. 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.
  9. 9. 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.
  10. 10. 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.
  11. 11. 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,
  12. 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-
  13. 13. %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
  14. 14. Customer Focus Across the Firm (4thedn). McGraw-Hill Irwin, NY.
  15. 15. 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
  16. 16. 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
  17. 17. Appendix
  18. 18. 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
  19. 19. 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.

×