EXPECTATIONS AND MARKET SEGMENTATION

RESULTS OF THE 2007-2008 ONLINE SURVEY

Klaus Ehrlich

José Manuel Ortega Egea**University of Almería (Spain)

Research methodology Questionnaire development

Service quality expectations in rural tourism Five-point likert scales

4266 valid reponses to web survey Confidence level 95% Period July 2007 – September 2008 Results biased by inequal absolute number of reponses

from differente websites – corrected in evaluation

Factor analysis (SPSS v14.0)

Segmentation: Latent class Cluster analysis (Latent Gold v4.0)

Results – Descriptive Statistics

54,10%48,05%

31,67%

37,58%

18,50%13,36%

26,32%

46,86%

0,00%

10,00%

20,00%

30,00%

40,00%

50,00%

60,00%

A workingfarm settingwith animals

etc. /Agrotourism

B&B or roomsin rural setting

Holidaycottage

Rural hotel orguesthouse

Holidayapartment in a

ruralhousehold

Camping A rural holidaycomplex

Activeholidays(riding,

cycling, hikingetc.)

Concepts associated with Rural Tourism...

CONCEPTS ASSOCIATED WITH RURAL TOURISM

Results – Descriptive Statistics

Experiences with R.T.: In home country

77,35%

22,65%

Yes

No

Experiences with R.T.: In other countries

28,48%

71,52%

Yes

No

¿EXPERIENCE ABROAD?

Results – Descriptive Statistics

PREFERRED BOOKING METHODS

5,77% 4,74%9,45%

16,83%

63,22%

0,00%

10,00%

20,00%

30,00%

40,00%

50,00%

60,00%

70,00%

1 2 3 4 5

Directly w ith the hosts

28,22%

19,13%

23,37%

17,86%

11,42%

0,00%

5,00%

10,00%

15,00%

20,00%

25,00%

30,00%

1 2 3 4 5

Through a travel agency

Results – Descriptive Statistics

PREFERRED BOOKING METHODS

20,79% 20,18%

26,82%

20,51%

11,70%

0,00%

5,00%

10,00%

15,00%

20,00%

25,00%

30,00%

1 2 3 4 5

Through an association or recognised brand

50,59%

16,06% 14,53%9,14% 9,68%

0,00%

10,00%

20,00%

30,00%

40,00%

50,00%

60,00%

1 2 3 4 5

Arrival w ithout a previous booking

7,38% 7,50%

15,52%

22,34%

47,26%

0,00%

10,00%

20,00%

30,00%

40,00%

50,00%

1 2 3 4 5

Online booking through the Internet

Results – Descriptive Statistics

INFORMATION SOURCES

6,28% 7,29%

13,60%

23,04%

49,79%

0,00%

10,00%

20,00%

30,00%

40,00%

50,00%

1 2 3 4 5

Recommendation by friends

12,56%

16,90%

31,67%

26,89%

11,98%

0,00%

5,00%

10,00%

15,00%

20,00%

25,00%

30,00%

35,00%

1 2 3 4 5

Public Tourist Information offices

11,35%14,70%

30,71%28,74%

14,51%

0,00%

5,00%

10,00%

15,00%

20,00%

25,00%

30,00%

35,00%

1 2 3 4 5

Guide books

24,54%

19,55%

27,47%

20,60%

7,83%

0,00%

5,00%

10,00%

15,00%

20,00%

25,00%

30,00%

1 2 3 4 5

Travel agencies

Results – Descriptive Statistics

INFORMATION SOURCES

3,14% 3,89%

12,03%

26,75%

54,20%

0,00%

10,00%

20,00%

30,00%

40,00%

50,00%

60,00%

1 2 3 4 5

Internet

12,26%16,41%

30,12%

25,34%

15,87%

0,00%

5,00%

10,00%

15,00%

20,00%

25,00%

30,00%

35,00%

1 2 3 4 5

Promotional material from providers or associations

24,87%

18,26%

25,15%

18,59%

13,13%

0,00%

5,00%

10,00%

15,00%

20,00%

25,00%

30,00%

1 2 3 4 5

Online Community websites (e.g. Tripadvisor etc)

34,13%

20,07%22,36%

15,82%

7,59%

0,00%

5,00%

10,00%

15,00%

20,00%

25,00%

30,00%

35,00%

1 2 3 4 5

Tourism Fairs and Exhibitions

Results – Descriptive Statistics

IMPORTANCE OF QUALITY RATINGS &

LABELS6,31%8,42%

24,99%

30,92%29,37%

0,00%

5,00%

10,00%

15,00%

20,00%

25,00%

30,00%

35,00%

1 2 3 4 5

Quality Rating

21,33%23,18%

32,11%

16,50%

6,87%

0,00%

5,00%

10,00%

15,00%

20,00%

25,00%

30,00%

35,00%

1 2 3 4 5

Belongs to a trade mark or brand

12,26%16,03%

30,24%

25,60%

15,87%

0,00%

5,00%

10,00%

15,00%

20,00%

25,00%

30,00%

35,00%

1 2 3 4 5

Certified w ith a specific Label

Results – Factor Analysis

Factor 1: Basic Benefit (Attractiveness and Reliability of Service)

Factor 2: Modern services

Factor 3: Personal/Local Contact

Factor 4: Leisure choice and services

Labeling of Service Quality Factors:

Results - Segmentation Optimal solution: Three segments or clusters.

Cluster sizes: Cluster 1 = 58%; Cluster 2 = 38.5%; Cluster 3 = 3.5%

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

Bas

ic b

enef

it

Mod

ern

se

rvic

es

Per

sona

/ L

oca

l con

tact

Leis

ure

cho

ice

and

serv

ices

Cluster1

Cluster2

Cluster3

Results - Segmentation

Difference between Segment 1 and 2: largest segments.

-0,8

-0,6

-0,4

-0,2

0

0,2

0,4

0,6

Bas

ic b

enef

it

Mod

ern

se

rvic

es

Per

sona

/ L

oca

l con

tact

Leis

ure

cho

ice

and

serv

ices

Cluster1

Cluster2

Results - Segmentation

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Austria Belgium Denmark Bulgaria France Germany Latvia Spain UnitedKingdom

Others

Distribution of Segments across Countries

Cluster 3

Cluster 2

Cluster 1

COUNTRY DIFFERENCES

Results - Segmentation

Booking Preferences (mean values)

00,5

11,5

22,5

33,5

44,5

5

Directly with thehosts

Through a travelagency

Through anassociation or

recognised brand

Arrival without aprevious booking

Online bookingthrough the

Internet

Cluster 1

Cluster 2

Cluster 3

DIFFERENCES IN BOOKING METHODS

Results - Segmentation

DIFFERENCES IN INFORMATION SOURCES

Preferred Information Sources (mean values)

00,5

11,5

22,5

33,5

44,5

5

Recommendation by fri

ends

Public Tourist In

formatio

n offices

Guide books

Travel agencies

Internet

Promotional m

aterial fr

om prov...

Online Community websites (e

...

Tourism Fairs

and Exhibitions

Cluster 1

Cluster 2

Cluster 3

Results - Segmentation

RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF QUALITY RATINGS IN SEGMENTS

Quality Ratings & Labels (mean values)

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

Quality Rating Belongs to a trade mark orbrand

Certif ied w ith a specif ic Label

Cluster 1

Cluster 2

Cluster 3

Conclusions The results yield four factors of Perceived Service Quality

among surveyed European rural tourists: Basic Benefits Modern Services Personal / Local Contact Leisure choices

Three segments have been identified: Clusters 1 & 2 account for aprox. 96% of repondents.

Different Expectations about most of the factors (except for Leisure Choice).

Providers of R.T. services should account for the specific characteristics of each of these two segments.

Cluster 3: much smaller group. Homogeneous demographic profiles across segments; more

differences based on tourism-related perceptions (eg, booking preferences).

Quality Rating > Specific Certifications > Brand labels

Conclusions -2

Problems and outlook

Source data do not reflect adequately the total rural tourism market (overweight of Farm-Tourism based replies)

More appropriate research designs needed to account for differences between domestic and international destinations Farm-Tourism versus more generic “Rural” Tourism Differences between source markets and their understanding

Conjoint research designs (latent class choice statistical methodology) Identification of more different segments Analysis of respondents “trade-offs” in more realistic purchase

situations.