1. Assessing and Influencing Repeat Visits
to Visitor Attractions
Tourism and Hospitality Consultancy
The Anchor Group
Fotios Ntagiantas
Justin Poliah
Alexandra Grace Longden
Alesia Martishonak
Anastasia Prodan
Laura-lye Samba
December 2015
Word Count: 5,740

2. Page | 1
Table of Contents
Executive Summary Page 2
1. Project Background Page 4
1.1 Context Page 4
1.2 Significance & Scope of Repeat Visitation Page 4
1.3 Objectives Page 6
2. Research Method Page 6
2.1 Survey Page 6
2.2 Interview Page 8
3. Project Findings Page 8
3.1 Visitor Profile Page 8
3.2 Repeat Visitation Page 9
3.3 Propensity to Revisit Page 10
3.4 Factors Influencing Propensity to Revisit Page 12
4. Recommendations & Conclusion Page 14
4.1 Visitor Surveys Page 14
4.2 Repeat Visitation Model Page 14
4.3 Effective Ways to Stimulate Repeat Visits Page 15
4.4 Fourth Street Benefits Page 16
5. Reference List Page 17
6. Appendices Page 18
List of Tables
Table 1: Information Needs Page 6
List of Figures
Graph 1: Survey Sample by Market Segments Page 9
Graph 2: Repeat Visitation by Market Segment Page 9
Graph 3: Elapsed Time by Market Segment Page 10
Graph 4: Propensity to Revisit by Type of Visitor Page 10
Graph 5: Propensity to Revisit by Elapsed Time Page 11
Graph 6: Repeat Visitation Factors by Market Segment Page 12

3. Page | 2
Executive Summary
The purpose of this project is to provide insight into the subject of repeat visitation. Undertaken in
fulfilment of our Hospitality and Tourism module for Fourth Street, it first highlights the significance
or repeat visitation for visitor attractions, especially for mature ones that depend on local visitors,
and sets the objectives as following:
1) To provide a better understanding of the relationship between repeat visitation and visitor
performance.
2) To show how a person’s propensity to visit changes once they have visited an attraction, i.e.
all other things being equal, how much time has to pass before that person may once again
be realistically considered a potential visitor and thus a part of the attraction’s effective
market.
3) Based on this understanding, to suggest practical improvements in the way that visitor
projections for new attractions are constructed.
4) To provide recommendations for driving up repeat visits to established attractions.
To meet these objectives, a survey was carried out on the premises of the Old Royal Naval College
(ORNC), an established heritage attraction in London, Greenwich aiming to capture visitors’
behavioural patterns. An interview with the management team of the attraction also took place and
gave us insight into the ORNC’s background. A sample of 111 respondents was then analysed with
the aid of QuestionPro.
Three main market segments were identified during the analysis, each with distinctive behavioural
patterns in terms of repeat visitation: Day visitors (residents), UK tourists, and international tourists.
The main findings are outlined as following:
1) Repeat Visitation
 45% repeat visitors were recorded, more than half of them residents.
 3 out of 4 residents had visited before but significantly fewer UK and international tourists
(34% and 14% respectively).
 38% of residents who had visited before indicated this was their 2nd time within the last 6
months, while a further 31% their 2nd visit within the last 1-2 years. The elapsed time for UK
tourists quite varied (between the last 0-6 months to more than 6 years), while for the
overwhelming majority of international tourists was more than 6 years.
2) Propensity to Revisit
 32% of respondents expressed strong intention to revisit within 1 year. When asked about
the possibility to revisit within the next 2-3 years, the figure rose to 53%.
 In each case the percentages were quite higher among repeat visitors compared to 1st time
visitors.
 It was observed that those visitors with shorter elapsed time since their last visit seemed to
be also the ones more likely to return within the next 12 months or 2 -3 years.
 It was estimated that roughly one third of the residents’ sample seemed to visit the attraction
at least 2 times per year.

4. Page | 3
3) Factors that Influence Propensity to Revisit
 Nearly 3 out of 4 UK residents claimed that free entry is vital in their decision of returning
whereas around half of international tourists felt the same.
 The majority of London residents suggested that proximity is a key factor in repeating a visit,
while only one third of UK tourists and around one fifth of international tourists deemed
proximity to their place of stay important.
 Spending time with family/friends proved quite a popular factor with all market segments.
Overall, 62% of respondents ranked it high.
 The possibility of new exhibitions and events was also considered a key factor by many
respondents, albeit in smaller proportions.
The project’s recommendations are fourfold. In terms of:
1) how surveys should be adapted to accurately capture repeat visits, specific questions should be
included to:
 Specify the elapsed time since the last visit
 Identify the time gap needed before a respondent may return, and assess the strength of
intention to repeat a visit
 Evaluate the dynamics of different factors that can influence repeat visitation
2) how this information can be used to accurately forecast repeat visits, a repeat visitation model is
proposed that takes into account:
 The overall market size and the rate at which it changes
 The visitor’s propensity to visit within a year by each market segment
 The rate at which an attraction changes over time
 Realistic rates of repeat visitation
3) the most effective ways to stimulate repeat visits, the following are advised:
 Implementation of advanced technological equipment
 Construction of retail facilities on site
 Renewal of the events schedule on a frequent basis
 Investment in new exhibits or accommodating temporary ones (e.g. seasonal exhibits)
 Development of a multidimensional marketing campaign including but not limited to website
enhancement, social media presence, and public promotion
4) how Fourth Street could best use this research going forward, we believe they can:
 Provide their clients with some understanding of how a visitor’s propensity to visit changes
once they have visited an attraction
 Advise clients on ways to drive up repeat visits to established attractions
 Further develop our repeat visitation model
 Compare the metrics proposed by our group in this model with their industry knowledge and
adjust them to further test the validity of their hypothesis that the effective market is
constantly shrinking
 Integrate the repeat visitation model into their forecast model so that they can provide more
accurate forecasts of visitor numbers for established attractions

5. Page | 4
1. Project Background
1.1 Context
This project is concerned with the subject of repeat visitation. It was undertaken in fulfilment of our
Hospitality and Tourism module for Fourth Street, a management consultancy company that
specialises in strategic advice and business planning for unique and unusual destinations.
Over the years, Fourth Street has noticed that many visitor attractions, particularly new ones, often
over-estimate the anticipated rate of repeat visitation. A new attraction may open strongly due to its
novelty and the publicity surrounding its launch but Year 2 will see a significant drop as this launch
effect wears off. According to the conventional wisdom, visitor numbers will then gradually rise as
the attraction establishes itself in the market and naturally stabilise. In contrast, Fourth Street has
noticed that visitor numbers fall steeply in subsequent years before they stabilise at a much lower
position than when the attraction opened.
The company’s hypothesis to explain this trend is that the effective market in which the attraction
operates is constantly shrinking as a result of the repeat visitor factor being lower than anticipated.
According to this hypothesis, the market is not static and its size is affected by the attraction itself.
1.2 Significance & Scope of Repeat Visitation
Significance
Repeat visits are generally regarded as an important element to visitor attractions. As Oppermann
(2000) states, return visits are a testament to an attraction’s success because a return is a positive
indicator of one’s satisfaction, which is the ultimate goal of any attraction. As Ryan (1995) suggests,
repeat visitors can play a significant role in the performance of an attraction because they can work
as a reference group and influence others to visit. According to Black (2005), the significance of
repeat visitors is even more apparent for mature attractions in non-tourist areas, as they depend
heavily on local residents. For them, attracting visitors back is the only way to combat low rates of
attendance. Equally, in terms of a site’s role within local communities, the percentage of repeat
visits may be a crucial reflection of success.
Oppermann (1998) also highlights the financial benefits of repeat visitors for an attraction, as
marketing costs associated with repeaters are lower than those required for first time visitors.
Moreover, repeaters are more likely to get involved in the social and public activities of the attraction
and provide financial support, most commonly in the form of donations. This is critical for many
attractions that rely heavily on fundraising in order to deal with their costs (Black, 2005).
However, some attractions mistakenly underestimate the importance of repeat visitors by showing
over-confidence in attracting new visitors. Anderson (2000) underlines the misconceptions that can
lead to this over-estimation. The first pitfall is the false expectation about market share: attractions
often rely on the fact that people will unconditionally visit them, conveniently leaving aside all of the
‘complex’ variables such as content, marketing and management. The second pitfall is the belief in

6. Page | 5
an infinite number of possible visits, ignoring the threats imposed by competitors and the limitations
on visitors’ leisure time and budget. The third one is that location is everything; however the
strength of a location ought to be interpreted by assessing the size and nature of visitor flows.
Finally, a very common mistake is double counting visitors, which leads to a false impression of an
attraction’s visitation numbers.
Motivations for Repeat Visitation
An important fact to consider for repeat vitiation is that regular repeat visitors are most likely to be
relatively close to an attraction, living within a 30-minute drive area. In contrast, for the first time
visitors, the time they spend on traveling does not play such a big role in decision-making (Black,
2005). Nonetheless, the question remains: will they be motivated enough to return to the site in the
future after perceived experience?
Literature suggests that analysis of motivations should be based on the two main dimensions of
push and pull factors (Yuan & McDonald, 1990; Uysal & Hagan, 1993). The concept is that people
travel because they are pushed by their own internal forces and pulled by the external forces of
destination attributes. Most of the push factors, which are origin-related, are intangible or intrinsic
desires of the individual travellers. On the contrary, pull factors are those that emerge as a result of
the attractiveness of a destination as perceived by the travellers. They include tangible resources
and travellers’ perception and expectation, such as novelty, benefit expectation and marketed
image of the destination (Baloglu & Uysal, 1996).
Woodside and Lysonski (1989) support that in consumer behaviour and destination selection
models, predicting or explaining behaviour of interest should be linked to demographic,
psychological, and stimulus variables. However, it is important to separate targeted segments into
first time and repeat visitors in order to implement the right strategies for further improvement of
repeat visitor attendance. The reason for this is that those two exhibit different behaviour while at a
destination and are motivated by different factors; repeat visitors are destination-aware and
knowledgeable of a range of activities available.
Furthermore, Rubenstein and Loten (1996, cited in Black, 2005) list new facilities, special temporary
exhibits, socialisation visiting to a museum as a child, stage of life cycle, and most importantly
customer service as some of the key stimulus variables. Black (2005) also argues that the
percentage of an attraction’s audience that can comprise repeat visitors varies depending on how
well they are catered for but other factors ought to be considered as well. These are: the scale of
the tourist audience in the area, the availability of competing venues and how long the museum has
been open to the public.
Moreover, Kruger et al. (2010) support that activities related to relaxation, spending time with family,
escape from daily routine (anomie), and enthusiasm are what typically motivate repeat visitors.
Finally, Fakeye and Crompton (1992) conclude that the central motivation for repeat visitation must
be the conditions for the social interaction, as visitors prefer to come with families and friends.

7. Page | 6
1.3 Objectives
Acknowledging the significance of repeat visitation for visitor attractions, this project will aim to:
1) To provide a better understanding of the relationship between repeat visitation and visitor
performance.
2) To show how a person’s propensity to visit changes once they have visited an attraction, i.e.
all other things being equal, how much time has to pass before that person may once again
be realistically considered a ‘potential’ visitor and thus a part of the attraction’s effective
market.
3) Based on this understanding, to suggest practical improvements in the way that visitor
projections for new attractions are constructed.
4) To provide recommendations for driving up repeat visits to established attractions.
2. Research Method
In order to meet the project objectives, we needed information from 1) an attraction and 2) visitors.
Table 1 outlines the information:
Table 1: Information Needs
Attraction Visitors
Actual visitor performance over time Profile
Capital and other changes over time Past behaviour
Future plans Future intention
Existing repeat visit rates Motivations for visiting an attraction
In order to obtain information about visitors, we deemed appropriate to carry out primary
quantitative research in the form of a face-to-face survey at an attraction. This allowed us to gather
real data from real visitors. As the identity of respondents would not be disclosed, we were counting
on unbiased answers.
In addition, we thought wise to conduct primary qualitative research in the form of an interview with
the management team of the attraction, as this would give us insight into the attraction’s
background.
Finally, secondary quantitative and qualitative research was used to compare our findings and
support our recommendations.
2.1 Survey
Design
A survey questionnaire was prepared by the team consisting of 15 questions [Appendix A]. We
aimed to keep the questionnaire short but to-the-point to enhance the response rate. The 1st part of
the questionnaire (Questions 1-4) focused on the present visit, aiming to identify the primary reason
for the visit, factors that influenced their decision to visit, and the quality of the visitors’ experience.

8. Page | 7
The 2nd
part intended to distinguish 1st
time visitors from repeat visitors and specify the elapsed time
since the last visit of the repeat visitors (Questions 5-6). The 3rd
part looked at the intention of the
visitors to return to the attraction and the dynamics of the factors that could influence their
propensity (Questions 8-9). Finally, a number of questions were added to ascertain the
demographics (Questions 10-15).
The questions were short and simple and were followed by multiple choice answers, with the
exception of the last one. For a number of questions, we used nominal scales (Questions 3, 7, 8, 9).
Feedback was taken into consideration by the lecturer of this module, Fourth Street, as well as the
management of the attraction where the survey was conducted to make sure the survey meet the
needs of the project. Once the survey was finalised, a risk assessment was carried out and an
ethical approval form was signed-off by the lecturer [Appendices E & F].
Conduct & Sampling Method
For the conduct of the survey, we followed a non-probability judgement sampling method. Our aim
was to carry out the survey at an established attraction with relatively static product (as opposed to
programming based attractions like theatres or opera houses). The Old Royal Naval College
(ORNC) in Greenwich, London was proposed by Fourth Street, who acted as the intermediate and
granted us permission into their grounds.
The survey was held in front of the two most popular attractions on site (the Painted Hall and
Chapel) so that we could capture visitors of the attraction itself and not of the site in general and
place on 2 days: Saturday and Tuesday. This was a request from the ORNC because they wanted
to identify possible different trends of visitation. For this reason, our team split into 2 groups: 3 of us
went on Saturday, 28/11/2015, and the other 3 on Tuesday, 01/12/205. On both days, the groups
stayed on site for around 3 hours, from 10am to 1pm.
A quota sampling technique was adopted to ensure various visitors are represented. We aimed for
a minimum of 100 replies in total (both days included) so that we can draw safe assumptions. In the
end, we gathered 111 replies. The sample varied significantly in size on the 2 days: 78 replies on
Saturday versus 33 on Tuesday. This is due to the fact that during the weekend the ORNC
experienced considerably bigger traffic than on the weekday, thus collecting answers on Saturday
proved quite easier.
Analysis
For the analysis of the results, we entered the data from the hard copies into QuestionPro, a
website that summarises survey answers using pivot tables, segmentation tools, etc. Then, we
stored the results in an Excel file that we used as a working paper for our findings [Appendix C].
The analysis focused on the overall sample of 111, as it would enable us to draw safer conclusions.
However, separate data for the 2 days is also available upon request.
We assume that the data set is normally distributed, thus a standard +/-3 deviation can be applied
and a confidence level of 95%.

9. Page | 8
2.2 Interview
We decided to go for a semi-structured interview, as we had certain topics in mind that we wanted
to raise but we were also open to gain further information about the attraction. The main topics were
related to the attraction’s target market, marketing strategy, future plans, existing knowledge of
repeat visitation rates and idea of what motivates someone to visit.
Fourth Street acted again as the intermediary, arranging the details of the interview. 3 members of
our group and 2 employees from the ORNC in managerial positions were present: Mrs Sarah
Duthie, the Public Engagement Director, and Andrew Thomson, the Marketing Manager. The
interview took place at 1/12/2015 at the Offices for Greenwich Foundation and lasted approximately
40 minutes. It was
The interview was recorded upon mutual agreement and later transcribed. Thematic analysis was
used to highlight the key points [Appendix B].
3. Project Findings
3.1 Visitor Profile
The overall sample was generally well balanced in terms of demographics. An even split of male
and female visitors was captured, spreading across all age groups, with the “18-24 years old”
bracket taking the lead at 27%. With regards to employment status, the museum was most popular
with full-time professionals (45%), while students comprised one quarter of the sample.
Noticeably, the overwhelming majority of respondents cited “leisure” as their primary reason for their
visit (78%), while approximately half of them had visited a museum 4 or more times during the last
year.
3 main market segments were identified while analysing the surveys, each with distinctive
behavioural patterns in terms of repeat visitation:
1) Day visitors: These are residents of Greenwich and the rest of London.
2) Domestic tourists: These are tourists from the UK that make a trip to London. The surveys
captured a good mix of UK visitors from places that are within close proximity to London,
such as Woking, Kent, and Brighton, but also far away, such as Wales, Scotland, and
Ireland.
3) International tourists: These are inbound tourists visiting London. USA, Germany, Italy, and
France are only some of the countries of residence included in the sample.
As Graph 1 illustrates, there was a balanced split between the 3 segments in the sample. This is
consistent with our interview findings, with the exception that residents are believed to comprise a
slightly bigger market share than the other 2.

10. Page | 9
Graph 1: Survey Sample by Market Segments
3.2 Repeat Visitation
Overall, a significant 45% of visitors had visited the attraction before. Of those, more than half were
London residents, as Graph 2 suggests. Noteworthy is that the ORNC Visitor Survey (2014) reports
very similar overall repeat visit rate (40%).
Graph 2: Repeat Visitation by Market Segment
A closer look at the segments shows that 3 out of 4 London residents had visited before. 38% of
those indicated this was their 2nd
visit within the last 6 months, while a further 31% their 2nd
visit
within the last 1-2 years.
The repeat visit rate for UK tourists was significantly lower (34%), with the elapsed time varied
between the last 0-6 months to more than 6 years.
31%
32%
37%
Residents
Domestic Tourists
International Tourists
52%
34%
14%
Residents
Domestic Tourists
International Tourists

11. Page | 10
The rate for international tourists was as low as 14%, with the overwhelming majority having visited
the ORNC more than 6 years ago. Graph 3 summarises the elapsed time for the 3 segments:
Graph 3: Elapsed Time by Market Segment
3.3 Propensity to Revisit
Overall, 32% of respondents expressed strong intention to revisit within 1 year. When asked about
the possibility to revisit within the next 2-3 years, the figure rose to 53%. Noticeably, as Graph 4
presents, in each case the percentages were quite higher among repeat visitors compared to 1st
time visitors, most of whom were UK and international tourists.
Graph 4: Propensity to Revisit by Type of Visitor
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0-6 months
ago
6-12 months
ago
1-2 years ago 2-3 years ago 3-6 years ago More than 6
years ago
MarketSegment
Elapsed Time
International Tourists Domestic Tourists London Residents
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Within the Next 12 Months Within the Next 2 -3 Years
%ofRespectiveSample
Time Gap
1st Time Visitors Repeat Visitors

12. Page | 11
A deeper look at the elapsed time enabled us gain better insight into visitors’ propensity to revisit.
Graph 5: Propensity to Revisit by Elapsed Time
While analysing the survey results, a certain behavioural pattern of repeat visitation was identified:
Those visitors with shorter elapsed time since their last visit seemed to be also the ones more likely
to return within the next 12 months. Likewise, those who took longer time to revisit seemed to be
less likely to repeat a visit within that time period, meaning a longer time gap would be needed
before their next visit. In addition, it is observed that the likelihood to revisit rises as the time gap for
future visitation increases to 2-3 years, albeit at different rates.
As Graph 5 demonstrates, a staggering 86% of those that visited the ORNC within the last 6 months
expressed strong intention to come back within the next 12 months1
. Based on Graph 3, these were
mostly London residents and seem to constitute the established visitor base of the ORNC, as
interpretation of the data indicates they could typically visit at least twice per year. Some of them
could be of membership status, hence more engaged with the attraction, as the Public Engagement
Director mentioned during the interview. It is estimated that these comprised roughly one third of the
London residents’ sample.
In contrast, only half of those who visited within the last 6-12 months expressed strong intention to
return within the next 12 months, while the figure fell to approximately one third for those that had
visited 1-2 and 2-3 years ago. The likelihood for all of those increased considerably when asked
with regards to 2-3 years’ time, as Graph 5 displays. Based on Graph 3, those were a mix of
London residents and UK tourists and seem to repeat visits to the ORNC rarely, perhaps once in a
year but more commonly once in a few years, ranging from 2 to more than 5, as data analysis
denotes.
1
Strong intention = Respondents that rated 4 or 5 on a scale from 1 to 5 (5 = very likely)
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
0-6 months
ago
6-12 months
ago
1-2 years ago 2-3 years ago 3-6 years ago more than 6
years ago
LikelyhoodtoRevisit
Time since Last Visit
Within the Next 12 Months
Within the Next 2 -3 Years

13. Page | 12
Finally, none of those who visited 3 or more years ago showed serious intention of returning within
the next 12 months, while only a small portion responded positively when asked about 2-3 years’
time. These were a combination of UK and international tourists and it is safe to assume that they
may visit the attraction once in several years.
3.4 Factors Influencing Propensity to Revisit
Consideration of the criteria for repeat visitation is deemed crucial in order to better understand
what will attract visitors again. Those criteria include: free entry, proximity to place of stay,
exhibitions, events, and the social factor, i.e. spending time with family/friends. Graph 6 displays the
proportion of each segment that deemed each of those factors determining in repeating a visit2
.
Graph 6: Repeat Visitation Factors by Market Segment
Free entry
Nearly 3 out of 4 UK residents claimed that free entry is vital in their decision of returning whereas
around half of international tourists felt the same. This could be explained by the fact that the latter
are familiar with the concept of paying an entry fee for attractions, as this is a common practice in
many countries around the world. However, the introduction of an entry fee would most likely have a
negative impact on visitations from London and the rest of the UK residents.
Proximity to Place of Stay
The majority of London residents suggested that proximity is a key factor in repeating a visit, which
makes sense as the short distance they need to cover in order to reach the ORNC makes it
convenient for them to return. However, only one third of UK tourists and around one fifth of
2
Determining factors = Factors that were rated with 4 or 5 on a scale from 1 to 5 (5 = very important)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Free Entry Proximity Exhibitions Events Social Factor
%ofMarketSegment
Factors
London Residents
UK Tourists
International Tourists

14. Page | 13
international tourists deemed proximity to their place of stay important. This shows that once they
are in London, they are willing to commute in order to visit the ORNC. Noteworthy is that the
attraction is in a very popular destination with close transport links such as the Maze Hill and the
Cutty Sark station, which connect DLR to Canary Wharf and other hot spots of London, thus making
Greenwich and the ORNC easily accessible.
Social Factor
Spending time with family/friends proved quite a popular factor with all market segments. 62% of the
total sample ranked it high, which highlights the importance of marketing a heritage attraction visit
as a social activity. This was acknowledged during the interview, according to which families
constitute a big proportion of the ORNC’s target market.
Exhibitions
The possibility of new exhibitions on site was also considered a key factor by many respondents,
albeit in smaller proportions. Slightly more than half tourists ranked it high, while the figure fell to
41% among London residents. This could mean that when it comes to heritage attractions, many
visitors value the experience on site as a whole rather than based solely on the content. However,
the ORNC Visitor Numbers (2015) show that the Painted Hall conservation project caused an
increase of 24% to 413 thousand visits in 2013-2014 compared to the previous year. As per
interview, the ORNC plans to continue investing in the exhibition factor by undertaking further
conservation for the Painted Hall, the completion of which is projected in 2019, updating the
Discover Greenwich exhibition, and organising scaffolding tours.
Events
Around half of London residents and UK tourists ranked events high whilst only one quarter of
international tourists suggested that an event would prompt them to return. However, considering
that the term “events” is rather vague, it is suggested that different events could have different
impact on visitors depending on the popularity of the content. For example, if an event is of
international appeal, the results could be significantly different for the sample of international
tourists. In addition, considering the importance of the price factor, the ticket price could determine a
visitor’s decision in repeating a visit. As per interview, the ORNC’s event schedule is a mix of free
and paid events. In addition, it is planning to capitalise on this factor by hosting the Greenwich
Music Time Festival, a 3rd
party event that is scheduled to occur in summer 2016.

15. Page | 14
4. Recommendations & Conclusions
Based on our findings, the aim of this section is to outline our recommendations in terms of:
1) The way visitor surveys should be adapted to accurately capture repeat visits
2) The way this information can be used to accurately forecast repeat visits
3) The most effective ways to stimulate repeat visits
4) The way Fourth Street should best use this research going forward
4.1 Visitor Surveys
In order to accurately capture repeat visit trends, it is highly recommended that the survey go
beyond the basic questions of whether a respondent has visited the attraction before or not and
whether they are likely to come back or not.
More specifically, additional questions should be included to:
1) Specify the elapsed time since the last visit in case a repeat visitor is captured, with a wide
range of time gaps offered as an option. (See Question 6 of Survey)
2) Identify the time gap needed before a respondent may return, offering short and long term
choices. (See Question 8 of Survey)
3) Assess the strength of intention to repeat a visit by using techniques such as nominal scale.
(See Question 8 of Survey)
4) Evaluate the dynamics of different factors that can influence repeat visitation by prompting
respondents to rate their importance. (See Question 9)
5) Identify the various market segments, with a focus on distinguishing residents from UK and
international tourists, as our findings concluded that they demonstrate different repeat
visitation behaviour. (See Questions 13-15).
The aforementioned proved essential for the analysis of the results. More specifically, information
gathered from Questions 6 and 8 gave us insight into both past behaviour and future intention, the
combination of which enabled us to recognise distinct repeat visitation patterns as presented in
Graph 4. By integrating them with the results from Questions 13-15, we could further determine
what pattern each segment follows. Similarly, combining the results from Question 9 with those from
Questions 13-15, we could assess how different factors influence the various segments in repeating
a visit.
4.2 Repeat Visitation Model
In order to test the validity of Fourth Street’s hypothesis that the effective market in which an
attraction operates is constantly shrinking, we developed a model (attached with this report) which
takes into account 4 factors:
1) The overall market size and the rate at which it changes (Tab 1 of the model). To assess
that, we looked at 2014 official numbers for the various market segments and the forecasts
for 2015, which we applied for all consecutive years for illustration purposes.
2) The Visitor’s propensity to visit within a year by each market segment (Tab 2 of the model).
Based on the findings presented in Section 3.3, we suggested a propensity rate of 1.3 for

16. Page | 15
Greenwich residents and 1 for all other segments for 2015. Then we applied the same
metrics for all consecutive years for illustration purposes.
3) The rate at which an attraction changes over time (Tab 3 of the model). Based on the
interview, we identified 2 main changes the ORNC will go through over the next 5 years: The
hosting of the Greenwich Music Times Festival in 2016 and the re-opening of the Painted
Hall in 2019. Based on Graph 6, we evaluated the impact on each segment’s propensity to
visit the attraction within the respective years. For example, we suggested that the
propensity may increase from 1.3 to around 1.7 in 2019 for Greenwich residents.
4) Realistic rates of repeat visitation (Tab 4 of the model). Finally, we gave our own view on
propensity rates over the next 5 years. In general, we suspect that the 2015 rate might be
somewhat lower for residents than the survey suggested. The rationale behind that is that
the sample might represent a bigger percentage of residents belonging to the loyal visitor
base of the ORNC than they are in reality. We also think that this rate might follow a
negative trend over the next years with the exception of 2016 and 2019, due to a possible
decreasing interest in case no action is taken by the attraction.
Noteworthy is that the excel model includes formulas behind the suggested metrics so that it can
produce results based on any other metrics that can emerge from similar research projects.
4.3 Effective Ways to Stimulate Repeat Visits
According to our findings, for the majority of visitors (78% of the sample), the primary reason for
visiting an attraction is the leisure aspect of it. In addition, as Graph 6 suggests, spending time with
family/friends seems to be the most popular reason for returning among all market segments
besides the free entry and proximity to place of stay. Considering that entry to cultural attractions
remains free of charge and proximity is beyond the influence of an established attraction, we
suggest that the main challenge faced within an attraction’s control in order to boost repeat visits is
how to make a visit not only a cultural but also a leisure activity that people will want to repeat with
family and friends. Two of the most effective ways to do so are:
1) Implementing advanced technological equipment. This is a well-known way to make a visit
an interactive and memorable experience that visitors would be keen to repeat (Birchall and
Ridge, 2014). Such equipment includes audio headsets in multiple languages, augmented
reality tours, e.g. the Samsung Gear Virtual Reality tour at the British Museum (2015), and
mobile applications. All these work as a self-guide for visitors and help them explore the
attraction in an entertaining and easy way.
2) Constructing retail facilities on site. This way, a visit to the attraction can become a
complimentary activity to other everyday leisure activities, e.g. shopping, dining, etc.
Other effective ways to stimulate repeat visits that we suggest based on Graph 6 are:
3) Renewing the events schedule on a frequent basis
4) Investing in new exhibits or accommodating temporary ones (e.g. seasonal exhibits)

17. Page | 16
Marketing
Of course, as the Marketing Manager suggested during our interview, an effective marketing
campaign that reaches the target audience is a vital component of repeat visitation strategy.
Emphasis should be placed on:
1) The attraction’s webpage. As this is a reflection of an attraction online, it needs to be
appealing and welcoming. Easy navigation enabling visitors to find information rapidly and
enhancement with audio-visual material are proven ways to engage visitors and prompt
them to return to the site (Cyr et al., 2009).
2) Social media. The popularity of Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram with Millennials is an
opportunity for attractions to create a bond with them. Posting regular updates with related
news and articles is bound to raise awareness and work as a constant reminder of the
attraction’s existence.
3) Public advertisement. This could be anything from distributing leaflets to rolling out a tube
campaign.
Nonetheless, it should be noted that a repeat visitation strategy ought to be a collaborative process
with aligned goals set by the Pubic Engagement, the Marketing Director and the rest of the board.
4.4 Fourth Street Benefits
Concluding, we believe this project can be beneficial to Fourth Street, as by using our research they
can:
1) Provide their clients with some understanding of how a visitor’s propensity to visit changes
once they have visited an attraction. The repeat visitation patterns demonstrated by the
various market segments are presented in the Project Findings section of this report.
2) Advise clients on ways to drive up repeat visits to established attractions. These are outlined
in the 3rd
part of the Recommendations & Conclusions section of this report.
3) Further develop our repeat visitation model attached with this report to include more factors
that can influence repeat visitation and assess to what extent they impact each market
segment.
4) Compare the metrics proposed by our group in this model with their industry knowledge and
adjust them to further test the validity of their hypothesis that the effective market is
constantly shrinking.
5) Integrate the repeat visitation model into their forecast model so that they can provide more
accurate forecasts of visitor numbers for established attractions.

18. Page | 17
5. Reference List
Anderson, D. (2000). “Crystal ball gazing”. Locum Destination Review, 2(1), pp. 41-42.[Online]. Available at:
http://www.colliers.com/-/media/files/emea/uk/research/destination-consulting/crystal-ball-gazing.pdf
(Accessed: 08 December 2015).
Baloglu, S. and Uysal, M. (1996). “Market segments of push and pull motivations: a canonical correlation
approach”. International Journal of contemporary Hospitality Management, 3(8), pp. 32-38.
Birchall, D. and Ridge, M. (2014). “Post-web technology: what comes next for museums?” The Guardian. 03
October [Online] Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/culture-professionals-network/culture-
professionals-blog/2014/oct/03/post-web-technology-museums-virtual-reality (Accessed 13 December 2015).
Black, G. (2005). The Engaging Museum. London: Routledge.
Cyr, D., Head, M., Larios, H. and Pan, B. (2009). “Exploring Human Images in Website Design: A Multi-
Method Approach”. MIS Quaterly 33(3). pp. 542-543. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20650308?seq=5#page_scan_tab_contents (Accessed 13 December 2015).
Fakeye, P. and Crompton, J.L. (1992). “Importance of socialisation to repeat visitation”. Annals of Tourism
Research, 19 (2), pp. 364-367.
Kruger, M.,Saayman, M. and Ellis, M. S. (2010) ”Does loyalty pay? First-time versus repeat visitors at a
national arts festival”. Southern African Business Review, 14(1), pp. 79-104.
Old Royal Naval College (2014) “Visitor Survey Report”. London.
Old Royal Naval College (2015) Visitor Numbers. London.
Oppermann, M. (1998). “Tourismus journal”. Tourism Management, 19(4), pp. 395-396.
Oppermann, M. (2000). “Tourism Destination Loyalty”. Journal of Travel Research, 39(1), pp. 78-84.
Ryan, C. (1995). Researching Tourist Satisfaction: Issues, Concepts, Problems. London: Routledge.
Uysal, M. and Hagan, L.A.R. (1993). “Motivation of pleasure travel and tourism”. Encyclopedia of Hospitality
and Tourism, pp. 798-810.
The British Museum (2015) Support us. Available at:
http://www.britishmuseum.org/support_us/your_support/success_stories/samsung.aspx (Accessed: 13
December 2015).
Woodside, A. and Lysonski, S. (1989). A general model of traveler destination choice.
Yuan, S. and McDonald, C. (1990). “Motivational determinants of international pleasure time”. Journal of
Travel Research, 24(1), pp. 42-44.

19. Page | 18
6. Appendices
Appendix A: Survey
Old Royal Naval College Survey 2015
Hello, we are a group of students from the University of Surrey carrying out a project on visitation patterns.
We would like to thank you in advance for your participation in this survey and assure you that all information
will be kept confidential.
So, here we go:
1) How did you hear about the attraction?
Internet TV Magazine/Newspaper Word of mouth
On arrival at Greenwich Other (Please specify)
2) What’s the primary reason for your visit today?
Leisure Learning Business Other (Please specify)
3) On a scale from 1 to 5 (1 = not important at all, 5 = very important), how important were the
following factors in your decision to visit today?
a) Free entry: 1 2 3 4 5
b) Proximity to home/place of stay: 1 2 3 4 5
c) Exhibitions: 1 2 3 4 5
d) Events: 1 2 3 4 5
e) Spending time with family/friends: 1 2 3 4 5
f) Other factor (please specify and rate):
1 2 3 4 5
4) How would you rate your experience today?
Poor OK Satisfactory Exceptional
5) Have you visited the attraction before?
Yes No
6) If yes, when was the last time you visited the attraction?
0-6 months ago 6-12 months ago 1-2 years ago 2-3 years ago 3-6
years ago More than 6 years ago
7) How many times have you visited other museums during the last year?
0 1 2 3 4 Other (Please specify)
8) On a scale from 1 to 5 (1 = not likely at all, 5 = very likely), how likely are you to visit the attraction
again
a) in the next 12 months? 1 2 3 4 5
b) in the next 2-3 years? 1 2 3 4 5
9) On a scale from 1 to 5 (1 = not important at all, 5 = very important), how important would you
consider the following factors in coming back?
a) Free entry: 1 2 3 4 5
b) Proximity to home/place of stay: 1 2 3 4 5

20. Page | 19
c) New exhibition: 1 2 3 4 5
d) New event: 1 2 3 4 5
e) Spending time with family/friends: 1 2 3 4 5
f) Other factor (please specify and rate):
1 2 3 4 5
10) Are you a male or female?
Male Female
11) What’s your employment status?
Student Full-time professional Part-time professional Retired
Unemployed
12) What’s your approximate age?
18-24 years old 25-34 years old 35-44 years old
45-54 years old 55-64 years old 65+ years old
13) Are you a UK resident?
Yes No
14) If you are a UK resident, where do you live?
London Rest of the UK (Please specify) __________
15) If you are not a UK resident, please specify where you come from:
_____________
Appendix B: Interview
Date: 1/12/15
Location: Offices for Greenwich Foundation
Participants:
Dir – Public Engagement Director (Mrs Sarah Duthie)
Mar – Marketing Manager (Mr Andrew Thomson)
F – Fotios Ntagiantas
A – Anastasia Prodan
Notes taken by Alesia Martsishonak
Key Themes:
Target Market
Marketing Strategy
Motivations to Visit
Plans
Repeat Visitation
F: We would like to know about the market and people you are targeting, are these people international
tourists, UK tourists, leisure, business, a combination of these ?
Dir : What we get currently is a UK market, international market and London market, but more local market;
splits into about thirds but it’s a little bit more for London market; but it’s roughly 30%-40% for each category
and it’s fairly typical for museums and heritage markets.
Mar: In terms of marketing we target London and local people up to Greenwich, and tourists but it’s more for
summer period.

21. Page | 20
F: How do you target them?
A: Do you have separate channels for targeting?
Mar: Yes we tend to target Londoners using outdoor media, so we do a campaign on tube and posters and
taxis, we also use social media. International tourists, we target more by using leaflets, so we distribute to
hotels, information centres…
A: Are the ads, which you have in tubes, seasonal?
Mar: It’s seasonal as it’s very expensive, so we run it during the summer, busy periods.
Dir: …for people who are coming here; we have a lot of families locally. We identified a lot of people coming
here because of cultural tourism. The world’s heritage gets 9 million people in every year. People are
coming because Greenwich is very famous; people come to see the conservatoire, so we are trying to
convert people when they come through. We have about a million people coming to Greenwich; it was just
under a million last year coming there. Majority are coming to Discover Greenwich and that’s why people
decide to go and see the Painted Hall and Chapel.
F: So you try to attract this 1 million and show them the way to the Painted Hall?
Dir: 42% of people decide to visit on the day. When we ask people what’s your motivations, they need a
lovely environment, that’s one of the key motivations for people, so we need to convert people into
visiting our buildings as well. So that’s whom we really try to target.
F: Nice. Is repeat visitation important? Or you are just happy with new people coming?
Mar: We are keen to attract repeat visitors. I think it will be better when we start a project for the Painted Hall,
because now we don’t offer much reason for people to come back, we have a small events program that
brings people to come back but that’s it really.
A: What is the Painted Hall project?
Mar: In the next year we will start to make conservation projects in the Painted Hall. We will be conserving a
lower hall, cleaning it essentially and building a new visitor centre underneath, it’s for creating events that will
than give people the reason to come back.
A: Do you have strategy for promoting events?
Mar: We do promote events, but that’s separate marketing. We promote events digitally, we have an events
leaflet on site, we use some local advertising for events as well, but a lot of our events go viral on the
newsletter.
F: Are events free of charge?
Mar: A lot of them are.
Dir: We encourage families for events as repeat visitors, because we can engage children into the
environment. Then Greenwich music time, a festival over the summer for 5 nights, so people pay; many
tickets are about £60.
Mar: Τhis is an interesting point about promoting events, because music evets are third party, they are
organised by other company so they tend to do the most promotion for that. We get money for hiring, but not
for tickets. We support them but we don’t promote them.
A: Do you target those people who come for music festivals to visit your exhibitions?
Mar: We try to promote it on the visit. We suggest they come on the day, highlight what they can see.
F: What kind of events and where do they take place?

22. Page | 21
Dir: In Chapel, 2 concerts per week, public activity (regular congregation of 150 people every week); The
Painted Hall, we sell it more for private activity; we want as many people engaged in this place. Also we do
private hiring events.
Mar: Money comes from commercial activity, includes hire fees, not only Painted Hall, also Admirals House
(not open for public); retail activity – we have a shop in Discover Greenwich and we have filming on site as
well.
A: Does University or Conservatoire (Laban) support you financially?
Dir: Yes we have rents. So they are tenants on site. So half of our income we receive is the rent we receive
from tenants (Trinity Laban, University). Also, we have office space that we rent out to Royal Museum
Greenwich. A lot of different organisations using this site;
A: Do they participate in promotion, University for example?
Dir: They do support us in terms of social media online, but it’s different as they both are educational
institutions.
Mar: Sometimes people walk here and think it’s a part of university, so it’s limiting our benefits. Return visitors
on our website, we got about 30 % of return visitors, the rest are new visitors, which I would like to change so
we would make it more entertaining with videos, interesting articles, in order to make people come again
rather than coming once. We want to see this percentage to go up, it will make people become supporters; we
are doing fund raising at the moment. People coming to website once won’t sign up or become members for
donations, so we need more people coming back to the website, again and again.
F: So that’s the main benefit for repeat visitations… to get support with donations?
Dir: We are a charity, so our objective is to look after the buildings and make sure we are opened for
enjoyment and learning. Charity objective is to get more people through the doors to help engage with site
service. This is a major site in Britain and we get government funding as well as we have public duty. So from
public engagement point of view, we want to get as many people as possible to help them enjoy the building
and understand a lot more. Many people come take photos and leave without any kind of understanding. But
the history is so deep and fascinating, the architecture; the idea of the Painted Hall is to tell a story, that
people can read paintings, read a story of 1700s. We get a huge number of people interested in history, as
well as heritage, we have a number of different stories to tell and help people understand them. But 40% of
visitors are repeat visitors, and when we talk to students or when we bring people around here who don’t
necessarily now know they are allowed in the buildings, they say “This place is amazing! I’m gonna bring my
family and friends over here!”
So we do a lot of work with community groups such as ESO students (English Speakers of other Languages),
so we work with Southern College and Greenwich community college bringing ESO students here, may they
haven’t been to this buildings before, but they want to bring their friends as it’s free.
Mar: Every time people come here they say they find something new and different, we run tours every
day; we have free guided walks run by volunteers. And the site has got so much; I work here for 2 years
and still things I’ve never seen before or heard facts.
F: … So you have carried out surveys before for repeat visitation…
Dir: Yes, so we’ve got 40%, so 15% of people who have been here once before, 10 % have been here more
than 3 times, no data on how many people have been here twice but that comes with Bournemouth survey, so
every year we work with university of Bournemouth and they do a detailed survey, so it goes on during
August, September and October, and they have face to face surveys like you and we have postal surveys as
well, and we reach an amount of people at random times across these months .So we are trying to get a good
mix of people that are coming through and they give us survey data, so we talk about 800 people over that
time, so that’s where we get 40% from. We have just surveys for summer 2014.
F: Can we have access to these surveys? So we can compare?
Dir: Yeah it’s quite big, Jasmijn already has it.

23. Page | 22
A: What do you want to achieve in the nearest future? Would you like to commercialise your place, promoting
more events or exhibitions, or you just want to attract more people and continue working as a charity and
maintain their interest?
Dir: It’s a part of our long- term strategic goals, because these buildings are incredibly expensive. So our bill
for conservation looking after is millions of pounds every year and we are free. So in terms of commercial
income, it becomes very important to us. We are not a museum, so we don’t have exhibitions. British
museums have a collection and ability to change and display all the time. Our collection is our paintings. But
we have a small exhibition space at Discover Greenwich but it’s not chargeable so it’s not an option for us, we
are heritage estate really rather than a museum. In terms why and how we are doing this, how we
commercialise ourselves; very interesting question. We are a charity, so we are committed to open this place
to public, and we still require support.
So what we are doing now is conserving the Painted Hall, it’s an enormous project over for the next 3 years.
This project cost us million pounds and we have worked with heritage fund who gave us 2.8 million towards
that project, so the rest will be fundraised. So that’s where we are involved with trusting foundations, with
individuals. The thing that we don’t charge people for tickets doesn’t mean they don’t want to support us. We
have a membership scheme; people can come and give donations. In Painted Hall you saw a big banner
(“Please give us 3 pounds”) and that helps to reinforce the fact we are a charity. Key benefits for people
becoming members of charities are that they receive free entry (for national museum). People can bring 2 for
1 for our talks, can get discount in the shop, restaurant;
F: what are your objectives from our survey? Is there something specific that you want to get from it?
Dir: From public engagement point of view, we are interested in motivation, what will motivate you to
come here. There is so much to do in London, Greenwich but what difference will make people to come
here? If they want to bring families and friends, what will make their visit very easy for them, what can
we do to support that? What makes them decide? Like in 6 months they wake up and decide to visit painted
hall today? We can build programs around it or improve storytelling, that t is a part of project. So we will do
multi media guides, more books, more tours; there is gonna be soundscape (sounds of the sea as you walk in
as it’s the naval college).
Mar: From a marketing perspective as well, what makes them come back again? Is it free entrance or
opportunity to see and learn something new? What shall we change to make them come back again and
again?
End of Interview
Appendix C: Project Findings Working Paper
Total Visitors Number
Residents 34
Domestic Tourists 36
International Tourists 41
Total 111
Repeat Visitors Number
Residents 26
Domestic Tourists 17
International Tourists 7
Total 50
Total Visitors Number
1st Time Visitors 61

24. Page | 23
Repeat Visitors 50
Total 111
Repeat Visitors by Elapsed Time
Elapsed Time Number
0-6 months ago 14
6-12 months ago 8
1-2 years ago 9
2-3 years ago 7
3-6 years ago 3
more than 6 years ago 9
Total 50
Propensity to Revisit
Type Within the Next 12 Months Within the Next 2 -3 Years
1st Time Visitors 12 20
Repeat Visitors 24 37
Total 36 57
Propensity to Revisit
Elapsed Time Within the Next 12 Months Within the Next 2 -3 Years
0-6 months ago 12 13
6-12 months ago 4 7
1-2 years ago 3 7
2-3 years ago 2 5
3-6 years ago 0 1
more than 6 years ago 0 2
Total 21 35
Elapsed Time by
Market Segment
Market Segment
0-6
months
ago
6-12
months
ago
1-2 years
ago
2-3 years
ago
3-6 years
ago
More than 6
years ago
London Residents 12 5 7 2 0 0
Domestic Tourists 2 3 2 5 2 3
International Tourists 0 0 0 0 1 6
Total 14 8 9 7 3 9
Factors by Market Segment
Market Segment Free Entry Proximity Exhibitions Events Social Factor
London Residents 24 24 14 17 21
UK Tourists 29 12 21 19 27
International Tourists 22 9 19 11 21
Total 75 45 54 47 69

25. Page | 24
Appendix D: Individual Student Contribution Form
Name Contribution
Fotios Ntagiantas Overview of the project
Justin Poliah Recommendations
Alexandra Grace Longden Project Findings
Alesia Martishonak Project Background
Anastasia Prodan Survey Method
Laura-lye Samba Recommendations
Appendix E: Risk Assessment
Risk associated with Applies to
Travel and transportation Travel to and from the destination by
underground/train
Loss and damage Personal belongings
Violence (Verbal or physical) Possible physical injuries from aggressive
passers-by

26. Page | 25
Appendix F: Ethical Approval Form