Presentation done by Giacomo Del Chiappa and Andrea Zara, during "Distribution systems" workshop, of the ENTER2015 eTourism conference.

1. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 1
Offline vs. online intermediation:
a study of booking behaviour of
tourists travelling to Sardinia
Giacomo Del Chiappaa
& Andrea Zarab
A
University of Sassari and CRENoS, Italy
gdelchiappa@uniss.it
B
University of Cagliari & CRENoS, Italy
andrea.zara@crenos.unica.it

2. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 2
Overview
• Literature overview
• Aims of the research
• Methodology
• Findings
• Conclusions
• Managerial implications
• Limitations and future research

3. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 3
Literature Review (1)
• Disintermediation (Buhalis, 1998), Cybermediation
(Anckar, 2003) and the relevant role of OTA on
tourist choices (Anderson, 2009; Del Chiappa, 2012; Park et
al., 2007)
• Double perspective: choice between information
sources (TA vs service providers) and between
information channels (face-to-face vs Internet)
(Grønflaten, 2011)

4. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 4
Literature Review (2)
• Factors influencing travellers' choices (e.g. Beldona et al.
2005; Fodness & Murray, 1999; Law et al., 2004; Morrison et al,
2011):
– personal characteristics, situational characteristics,
product characteristics, travel party, prior visits to the
destination, novelty of the destination, presence of VRFs
• Consumers mix online and offline information
sources (Ho et al., 2012).
• TA still play an important role in the marketing mix
(Ku et al., 2011; Stuart et al., 2005)

5. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 5
Gaps and Aims of the research
• Most existing research focus on reservation
intentions rather than actual reservation behavior
(Kim & Kim, 2004), this study was carried out:
– To investigate whether significant differences in the
channel strategy (offline vs online intermediation) do
exist based on:
• socio-demographic characteristics;
• type of tourism product;
• prior experience;
• geographical distance;
• length and the time of the stay

6. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 6
Methodology
• Quantitative research, stratified random
sampling, with strata being:
– the nationality (Italian vs international)
– time of tourists’ stay (low season vs high season)
– gateway to the island (port and airport)
• Data collection: ad-hoc survey administrated face-
to-face by 10 trained interviewers
• Period of data collection: May-October 2012
• Sample: 1,461 complete questionnaires
• Data analysis: SPSS (version 19.0

7. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 7
Findings (1)
• The most part of respondents were:
– male (51%), aged 36-50 (36%), with a university degree
or PhD/Master (49%) and owing a yearly family income
between 30,000 and 60,000 euro (42%)
• 58% of respondents stayed in hotels
• The most part of respondents did not use any
form of intermediation (64,4%)
– 39.6% of respondents relied on online or offline
intermediaries, of which 45,6% used a traditional
travel agency

8. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 8
Age Offline % Online % Tot. X2
18-24 26 51.0 25 49.0 51 11.040*
25-35 50 36.8 86 63.2 136
36-50 89 45.4 107 54.6 196
51-65 50 48.1 54 51.9 104
>65 22 66.7 11 33.3 33
Level of education Offline % Online % Tot. X2
University, Master’s, PhD 29 70.7 12 29.3 41 14.406*
High School 112 47.5 124 52.5 236
Secondary school 96 39.5 147 60.5 243
Employment Offline % Online % Tot. X2
Unemployed/retired 65 58.0 47 42.0 112 8.933*
Employed 172 42.2 236 57.8 408
Note: * Significance at 5% level
Findings (2)
Older and more educated people are more likely to use offline
intermediary, employed respondents tend to prefer an online
intermediary

9. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 9
Findings (3)
Nationality Offline % Online % Tot. X2
Italian 161 51.4 152 48.6 313 10.888*
International 76 36.7 131 63.3 207
Geographical haul Offline % Online % Tot. X2
National 161 51.3 153 48.7 314 10.436*
European 72 37.1 122 62.9 194
Intercontinental 4 33.3 8 66.7 12
Travel party Offline % Online % Tot. X2
Alone 14 30.4 32 69.6 46 13.271*
With partner 85 40.5 125 59.5 210
With family 110 54.7 91 45.3 201
Friends 28 44.4 35 55.6 63
Time of stay Offline % Online % Tot. X2
High season 150 51.5 -3.1 48.5 291 9.493*
Low season 87 38.0 3.1 62.0 229
Note: * Significance at 5% level

10. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 10
Findings (4)
Gender offline % online % Tot X2
Female 121 49.4 124 50.6 245 2.712
Male 116 42.2 159 57.8 275
Income offline % online % Tot X2
>60.001 € 36 40.4 53 59.6 89 5.192
30.001-60.000 € 95 42.0 131 58.0 226
≤30.000 € 106 51.7 99 48.3 205
Length of stay offline % online % tot X2
≤4 15 38.5 24 61.5 39 5.534
5-10 152 43.2 200 56.8 352
≥ 10 70 54.3 59 45.7 129
Prior visitation offline % online % tot X2
0 64 43.0 85 57.0 149 1.335
1-3 99 47.1 111 52.9 210
4-8 30 42.3 41 57.7 71
>8 44 48.9 46 51.1 90
Type of tourism experience offline % online % tot X2
Active/sport tourism 9 39.1 14 60.9 23 0.555
Sun, sand and sea tourism 177 45.6 211 54.4 388
Ecotourism 31 45.6 37 54.4 68
Other 20 48.8 21 51.2 41

11. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 11
Conclusions (1)
• Significant differences do exist based on:
• age, education and nationality (e.g. Lorenzo et al., 2014)
• geographical haul: international tourists use online
intermediaries more than domestic tourists: this contradicts prior
studies (e.g. Law et al., 2004; Pearce & Schott, 2011)
– Differences in the internet penetration ratios?
• Travel party: people travelling with family prefer offline
intermediary
– The needs of managing complexity of holiday package outweigh the
“perceived” convenience of online distribution channels?

12. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 12
Conclusions (2)
• No significant differences do exist based on:
• Gender: this confirm prior studies (eg. Ip et al., 2012) and suggest to
consider gender-identity based perspective (Ramkissoon & Nunkoo,
2012)
• Income: this contradicts prior studies (e.g. Law et al., 2004)
• Length of stay: this contradicts prior studies (e.g. Woodside &
Ronkainen, 1980; Del Chiappa & Balboni, 2013
• Prior visitation
• Type of tourism experience

13. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 13
Conclusions (3)
• The mixed picture of similarities and differences
between our findings and prior studies suggest that
other moderator factors should be deeply
considered (Pearce, 2008):
– the location of travel decision-making and distribution
– the geographical characteristics of the final destination
– the e-presence of tourism providers

14. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 14
Managerial implications
• Enhance the direct distribution strategy, especially
using their official websites
• Do not ignore offline bookers, 45.6% of travellers
who relied on a tourism intermediary used a TA
– bonus loyalty points to guests returning in the hotel by
booking directly
• Use a mix of information channels and sources that
reflect the characteristics of the market target, and
the contextual factors arising from the specific
geographical location of the destination

15. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 15
Limitations
• Even if a stratified sampling approach was used,
findings are highly site-specific and cannot be
generalized
• We ignored some moderator factors (e.g. risk
perceptions, purpose of travelling, etc)

16. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 16
Future Research
• To apply a cluster analysis to profile respondents
• To repeat the study in other tourism destinations
in order to run cross-validation
• To repeat the study over time so that it could be
possible to obtain time-series to be used to
better take into account the dynamic nature of
the disintermediation/reintermediation process