This article was downloaded by: [The University of British Columbia]On: 10 December 2014, At: 08:43Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Anatolia: An International Journal ofTourism and Hospitality ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rana20

Tourist decision-making: selecting atravel agency in IranNajmeh Hassanlia, Graham Browna & Abolfazl Tajzadeh-Naminb

a School of Management, University of South Australia, GPO Box2471, Adelaide, Australiab School of Management and Accounting, University of AllamehTabataba'e, Tehran, IranPublished online: 26 Jun 2013.

To cite this article: Najmeh Hassanli, Graham Brown & Abolfazl Tajzadeh-Namin (2013) Touristdecision-making: selecting a travel agency in Iran, Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourismand Hospitality Research, 24:3, 438-451, DOI: 10.1080/13032917.2013.805697

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2013.805697

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Tourist decision-making: selecting a travel agency in Iran

Najmeh Hassanlia*, Graham Browna and Abolfazl Tajzadeh-Naminb

aSchool of Management, University of South Australia, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, Australia; bSchoolof Management and Accounting, University of Allameh Tabataba’e, Tehran, Iran

(Received 28 December 2012; final version received 13 May 2013)

This paper identifies factors that influence the decision to select a travel agency whenpurchasing domestic package tours in Iran. The analysis of 176 questionnaires revealsthe relative importance placed on “product features”, “service delivery”, “price”,“advertising”, and “image and accessibility of travel agency”. It is found that femalesattach more importance to “product features” while retirees place more emphasis on“service delivery” compared to other groups. Comparison of questionnaires completedby managers and tourists indicates significant differences in the effectiveness of sevenattributes. Travel agencies can use the findings to more effectively meet the needs oftourist markets.

Keywords: decision-making; travel agencies; domestic tourism; package tours;tourism marketing

Introduction

Iran is located in southwestern Asia, has a population of 75 million, and a land area of

more than 1,648,000 km2 (636,296m2). A prominent role in the politics of the Middle East

attracts the attention of the international media but, outside the country, there is little

understanding of Iran’s social and economic structure including the role played by

tourism. This is surprising as Iran has varied climatic zones, a rich cultural heritage, and a

diverse range of attractions associated with architecture, art, crafts, costumes, music, and

cuisine.

In fact, Iran is famous for having four concurrent yet distinct seasons (Zamani-

Farahani, 2010). Because of these climatic diversities, one can enjoy winter sports in the

northern and western mountains of the country, while at the same time within a few hours

of travel it is possible to swim in the warm waters of the Persian Gulf or enjoy the pleasant

spring weather along the shores of the Caspian Sea.

Many tourism resources are unique to the country and of international significance.

There are 15 historical sites on the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage list, with a further 54 sites nominated for

inclusion. Iran has also seven World Intangible Cultural Heritage elements (UNESCO,

2012). Consequently, the country has been rated among the 10 countries with the greatest

touristic potential in the world (Alavi & Yasin, 2000; Hafeznia, Eftekhari, & Ramazani,

2007; Zamani-Farahani, 2010).

It has been claimed that although travel agents have become more adept at

communicating the positive aspects of the country, tourism generates little more than 1%

of total foreign currency receipts. It is one of the least studied economic sectors in the

q 2013 Taylor & Francis

*Corresponding author. Email: Najmeh.hassanli@unisa.edu.au

Anatolia – An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 2013

Vol. 24, No. 3, 438–451, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2013.805697

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

8:43

10

Dec

embe

r 20

14

country, and there is a lack of published statistics about the industry. However, recent

studies have examined tourism planning and development (Alipour & Heydari, 2005;

Morakabati, 2011; Zamani-Farahani & Musa, 2008), tourism policies (Hafeznia et al.,

2007), tourism market potential (Alavi & Yasin, 2000), and quality of leisure provision

(Sheykhi, 2003). In addition, a number of reports have been published by the government

agency responsible for tourism, Iran Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts and Tourism

Organization (ICHHTO). This includes the National Tourism Development Plan 2020 and

5-year Tourism Plans which demonstrate the government’s commitment to make tourism

a key driver of the national economy (Euromonitor International, 2009). The ICHHTO

was formed in 2005 and authority for the organization rests with the Vice President of Iran

(O’Gorman, Baum, & McLellan, 2007). It is responsible for the issue of permits to travel

agencies which are classified into three different groups. Those with permit A are only able

to sell domestic and international airline tickets. Travel agencies with permit B offer a

wider range of services and can plan, organize, and handle package tours. Permit P

agencies are mainly involved with booking travel for pilgrims and conducting pilgrimage

tours. In 2001, there were 700 travel agencies in Iran but a period of rapid growth saw this

figure rise to 2043 in 2006 with almost half of the agencies (45%) located in Tehran

(Hassanli, 2009). Although there has been an average increase by 5–10% each year for the

number of domestic tourists over the last decade (Zolfaghari, 2007), in 2007 the purchase

of leisure package tours from travel agencies accounted for only 3% of domestic tourist

expenditure (ICHHTO, 2008), with many of the agencies recording recurrent losses and

40% of them being on the verge of bankruptcy (Euromonitor International, 2009). Clearly,

there is uncertainty about the economic viability of this sector.

Although many see the government’s recent Gasoline Rationing Plan, as a threat to the

country’s tourism industry (Ghaderi, 2011), it can also serve as an opportunity for travel

agencies to promote package tours. According to this plan, private vehicles are allowed a

limited subsidized petrol ration, above which their owners have to pay a higher price.

Those seeing it as a threat argue that it would result in a decline in domestic travel with

private cars.

To better understand the domestic tourism market in Iran, this study was conducted to

identify factors considered important by leisure tourists when selecting a travel agency.

The study had two main objectives for this work. First is to identify and rank factors that

influence the selection of a travel agency for domestic leisure tours. Travelling for leisure

is considered to be the fastest growing market in Iran (Ghaderi, 2011) and therefore the

main focus of this study. Second is to examine whether there are any significant

differences caused by the demographic characteristics of tourists. It is believed the

findings could help travel agencies in better responding to the needs of their customers,

especially in a time when they can take advantage of the opportunity provided by the

government’s Gasoline Rationing Plan.

Literature review

A travel agency receives commission for travel-related services that are sold on behalf of

tourism industry principles (Ng, Cassidy, & Brown, 2006). Leiper (1995) has claimed that

travel agencies fulfil seven different roles: motivating, informing, booking, purchasing,

planning, organizing, and supporting. A survey in Canada found travel agencies to be the

second to only friends as the most important source of travel information (as cited in

Lawton & Page, 1997). Despite an increase in direct selling by tourism industry principles

and the adoption of new technologies such as Internet, it is argued as long as travel

Anatolia – An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research 439

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

8:43

10

Dec

embe

r 20

14

agencies strengthen their consultative capacity, they could remain secure in the chain of

distribution as the most effective way of communication with tourists (Lawton & Page,

1997; Ozturan & Roney, 2004). It is noted that the greatest ability of travel agencies is

organizing and interpreting large amounts of data that delivers the best value for customer

(Frias, Rodriguez, & Castaneda, 2008). Based on a study by Law, Leung, and Wong

(2004), travellers rely on travel agents rather than travel web sites for providing the human

touch and professional services.

When choosing a travel agency, the knowledge and experience of travel consultants

have been found to be important attributes while travel reward programmes were less

important (Ng et al., 2006). A study by Hui andWan (2005) used factor analysis to identify

interactive agent quality, pricing, news advertising, convenience, tour accommodation,

magazine advertisement, image of travel agency, TV advertising, and destinations as key

attributes. According to Heung and Zhu (2005), the selection process is based on

interactive ability, guest satisfaction, service quality, tour facility estimation, travel

agency image, and service characteristics. In a similar study, agency reputation was the

most important attribute, followed by word-of-mouth communication and attitude of staff.

The factors derived for this study were interactive agent quality, formal communication,

overall convenience, pricing, product features, and image (Heung & Chu, 2000).

Lam and Zhang (1999) used the SERVQUAL instrument to study the service quality

of travel agencies in Hong Kong. Five factors were derived using factor analysis:

responsiveness and assurance, reliability, empathy, resources and corporate image, and

tangibility. The most important factor in customers’ satisfaction was reliability, followed

by responsiveness and assurance. Resources and corporate image were the least influential

factor. This result was different from LeBlanc’s study in 1992, in which corporate image

appeared as the most determinant factor in affecting travellers’ evaluation of the service

quality of the agency. In another study by Bosque, Collado, and Martin (2006) on the

influence of expectations in satisfying travel agency customers, six factors were identified:

experience, communication, tangibles, image, satisfaction, and loyalty.

In developing a scale to measure customer satisfaction in travel agencies, Millan and

Esteban (2004) concluded that there are six factors to take into account: service

encounters, empathy, reliability, service environment, efficiency of advice, and additional

attributes. According to Wong and Kwong (2004), tour safety was the most important

attribute while TV advertisements and travel programs were found to be the least

important attribute when selecting an all-inclusive package tour. Based on a study by

Chiam, Soutar, and Yeo (2009), price was considered to be the most crucial attribute for

Singaporean consumers when purchasing package holidays either online or offline.

In an attempt to investigate differences in perception of the importance of travel

agency service attributes between providers (travel agents) and the users or potential users,

Oppermann (1998) stated that “agent is courteous and friendly” was perceived by the

travel agency managers to have the highest priority amongst their customers followed by

“agent understands clients’ priority”. On the other hand, when asked about the importance

of travel agency service attributes, price issues emerged as being the most important for

customers: “agent gives the client the best deal” and “agent is willing to search for lowest

fare”. In order to study the consumers’ travel agency selection factors for foreign package

tours, Meiden (1979) divided the respondents into two age groups: those under 45 and

those 45 and above. The agency communication ability was much more important for

younger customers while flight and hotel service quality was considered by older

customers as the most important factor in selecting a travel agency.

440 N. Hassanli et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

8:43

10

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Methodology

The methodology adopted in this research was designed primarily to overcome a lack of

prior research into travel agencies and the effective factors into their selection in Iran.

After an extensive literature review (Bigne, Martinez, Miquel, & Andreu, 2003; Bosque

et al., 2006; Chiam et al., 2009; Heung & Chu, 2000; Heung & Zhu, 2005; Hui & Wan,

2005; Lam & Zhang, 1999; Leblanc, 1992; Litvin, 2002; Meiden, 1979; Millan & Esteban,

2004; Ng et al., 2006; Oppermann, 1998; Tao, 2004; Wong & Kwong, 2004), a two-stage

process was adopted. First, interviews with travel agency managers in Tehran were

conducted in order to test the relevance of the current literature about tourists’ selection of

travel agencies in Western settings, and also to identify other issues that may be specific in

an Iranian setting. In the second stage, a survey using information gleaned from the first

stage was distributed among consumers using travel agency services in Tehran.

Interviews were conducted with 30 managers of travel agencies with permit A or B in

Tehran. They were chosen based on convenient sampling through personal contacts or

references from peers or colleagues. These managers were asked in their native language

what they consider to be the most important factors when tourists select a travel agency to

purchase domestic leisure tours. By combining all answers, a total of 38 attributes were

included in a survey which was distributed among the same managers, asking them to

choose one of the following options for each attribute: (1) it has an effect on the selection

of a travel agency when purchasing domestic leisure tours, (2) it does not have an effect on

the selection of a travel agency when purchasing domestic leisure tours, and (3) I do not

know.

After analysing these responses with the use of test (Cronbach’s a, 0.79), three

attributes, associated with toll free numbers, tour guarantees, and hours of operation, were

deleted. This left 35 attributes. At the suggestion of the managers, some of the wording

was changed to improve comprehension for tourists. For instance, “word-of-mouth

communication” was changed to “recommendations from others such as friends and

relatives”. In addition, improvements were made to make the style more direct. For

instance, “agency contacts customers” was changed to “the agency contacted you”. The

final version of the questionnaire comprised two parts. The first dealt with the

demographic background of the respondents (gender, marital status, age, income level,

education level, occupation). In the second part, the respondents were asked to rate the

importance of each of the 35 attributes when purchasing a domestic leisure tour using a

five-point Likert scale. According to a survey undertaken during the Norooz holiday

period (Iranian New Year) in 2001, most domestic tourism is generated in the urban areas

in particular Tehran, followed by the other larger cities (Alipour & Heydari, 2005).

Tehrani residents who had purchased a domestic leisure tour from a travel agency were

chosen as the target population, and respondents were selected for inclusion with the use of

clustering sampling method. Initially, 10 travel agencies were randomly selected from a

database of agencies in Tehran which held permit A or B. Then, from each travel agency,

one domestic tour was selected and questionnaires were distributed to tourists

participating in that tour. On some tours, the researcher travelled on the tour, distributed,

and collected the questionnaires herself. On other tours, instructions were given to tour

manager/leader who took responsibility for distributing the questionnaires and returning

them back to the researcher. The destinations of these tours are shown in Figure 1.

Three of the tours were not far from Tehran and in the same province, the other seven

were to other cities and provinces. Since the survey was undertaken in winter time, the

tours were mainly headed to southern and central parts of Iran where the weather was quite

Anatolia – An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research 441

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

8:43

10

Dec

embe

r 20

14

warmer. A total of 200 questionnaires were distributed with 176 completed, representing a

response rate of 88%. Data were analysed initially with descriptive statistics including

means and standard deviations. Principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation

was then applied to the 35 attributes. Reliability analysis was used to assess the internal

consistency of the attributes retained in each factor. The Cronbach’s a for the overall scale

was equal to 0.92, which indicates a high level of internal consistency as the scale of a is

close to 1.00. Finally, independent sample t-test and one-way analysis of variance

(ANOVA) were employed to examine whether the mean perception scores of the factors

differed significantly according to the demographic profile of the respondents. The

statistical package used was SPSS.

Results

The demographic profile of respondents is shown in Table 1. Approximately 43% were

male and 57% female with 41% of all respondents being married and almost 56%

unmarried. Nearly 49% of the respondents were in the age group of 18–34. Another 32%

belonged to the age group of 35–55 category while nearly 13% were 55 years and older. In

terms of education level, the majority (56%) had undergraduate degrees, while 28% had

postgraduate education levels. As for occupation, almost 26% were students. Private

sector employees, public service employees, retired personnel, and the self-employed

represented about 24%, 13%, 11%, and 20%, respectively. In terms of annual income, the

majority (approximately 38%) had US$3600–7200, while 11% earned US$7200–12,000.

The average family income in urban areas for that year was US$7200 (Iran National Portal

of Statistics, 2009). The perception of the respondents on the 35 attributes were factor

analysed. From the varimax-rotated factor matrix, five factors, representing 54.31% of the

explained variance, were extracted. The varimax process produced a clear factor structure

with high loadings (loadings $ 0.4) on the appropriate factors (Table 2).

Figure 1. The destination of tours in the survey.

442 N. Hassanli et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

8:43

10

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Factor 1, “service delivery”, contained 11 attributes and explained 17.08% of variance

in the data, with an eigenvalue of 5.97. This factor was associated with customer–

employee interactions in the process of service delivery and included the following

attributes: use of computer technology, experienced tour leaders, commitment to

obligations, tour manager follows up the tour, ongoing supply of good service, agency

contacts customers after trip for their comments, in-depth knowledge of staff on

destination and tour, friendly and courteous staff, ability of staff to understand customers’

needs, provision of prompt service (in dealing with complaints, questions, requirements),

and personalized services offered by agency. Factor 2, consisted of 11 attributes and

accounted for 12.62% of variance, with an eigenvalue of 4.418. This factor included items

that are related to the image and accessibility of the travel agency. The attributes were as

follows: appearance of buildings and grounds, convenient location, size of agency,

pleasant atmosphere, number of offices/branches, name of agency (appealing), agency

reputation, comfortable and visually appealing physical facilities, appearance of staff,

customers’ past experience with the agency, and word-of-mouth communication. Factor 3

explained 11.326% of variance and recorded an eigenvalue of 3.96. This “product

features” factor was associated with seven attributes as follows: quality of

accommodation; quality of meals offered in tour; tour security and safety; more

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of respondents.

Demographic characteristics Frequency Percentage

GenderMale 76 43.18Female 100 56.82

Marital statusUnmarried 98 55.68Married 72 40.91Others 6 3.41

Age group18–34 86 48.8635–55 57 32.39. 55 22 12.50No response 11 6.25

Education levelDiploma 24 13.64Bachelors 99 56.25Postgraduate 50 28.41No response 3 1.70

OccupationStudent 45 25.57Housewife 11 6.25Retired personnel 19 10.80Public service employee 22 12.50Private sector employee 42 23.86Self-employed 35 19.89No response 2 1.14

Income level (annually), T3,600,000 (US$3600) 34 19.32T3,600,000–T7,200,000 (US$3600–7200) 66 37.50T7,200,000–T12,000,000 (US$7200–12,000) 19 10.80. T12,000,000 (US$12,000) 15 8.52No response 42 23.86

Anatolia – An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research 443

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

8:43

10

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Table

2.

Resultsoffactoranalysiswithvarim

axrotationtravel

agency

selectionattributes.

Factorloading

Travel

agency

selectionfactor

12

34

5Communality

1.

Ser

vice

del

iver

yUse

ofcomputertechnology

0.6609

0.693

Experiencedtourleaders

0.6482

0.651

Commitmentto

obligations

0.6001

0.731

Tourmanager

followsupthetour

0.5960

0.615

Ongoingsupply

ofgoodservice

0.5960

0.680

Agency

contactscustomersaftertrip

fortheircomments

0.5597

0.694

In-depth

knowledgeofstaffondestinationandtour

0.5377

0.642

Friendly

andcourteousstaff

0.5246

0.678

Abilityofstaffto

understandcustomers’

needs

0.5077

0.616

Provisionofpromptservice(indealingwithcomplaints,questions,requirem

ents)

0.5620

0.591

Personalized

serviceoffered

byagency

0.4900

0.534

2.

Ima

ge

an

da

cces

sib

ilit

yo

ftr

ave

la

gen

cyAppearance

ofbuildingsandgrounds

0.7947

0.667

Convenientlocationofagency

0.7569

0.674

Sizeofagency

0.7378

0.688

Pleasantatmosphereofagency

0.7336

0.653

Number

ofoffices/branches

0.6859

0.563

Nam

eofagency

(appealing)

0.5975

0.658

Agency

reputation

0.4551

0.485

Comfortable

andvisually

appealingphysicalfacilities

0.4469

0.588

Appearance

ofstaff

0.4316

0.512

Customers’

pastexperience

withtheagency

0.4255

0.565

Word-of-mouth

communication

0.4132

0.702

3.

Pro

du

ctfe

atu

res

Qualityoftouraccommodation

0.7729

0.749

Qualityofmealsoffered

intour

0.690

0.770

Toursecurity

andsafety

0.6835

0.772

More

sightseeingpointsoffered

intour

0.6456

0.577

444 N. Hassanli et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

8:43

10

Dec

embe

r 20

14

New

routesanddestinationsin

touritinerary

0.6409

0.549

Appropriatedeparture

dateanddurationoftour

0.6379

0.556

Freetimeduringtour

0.5742

0.541

4.

Pri

ceFreeservices

offered

0.7636

0.714

Discountsoffered

0.7535

0.749

Valueformoney

0.6653

0.492

Lower

packageprice

oftour

0.7693

0.721

5.

Ad

vert

isin

gBrochures

0.7418

0.719

Media

advertising

0.6504

0.591

Eigenvalues

5.979

4.418

3.964

2.681

1.966

Variance

(%)

17.083

12.624

11.326

7.661

5.618

Cumulative(%

)17.083

29.707

41.033

48.693

54.312

Factormean

4.07

3.26

4.09

3.75

3.42

Number

ofattributes

11

11

74

2Totalscalereliability

0.92

Note:Extractionmethod:principal

componentanalysis;rotationmethod:varim

axwithKaisernorm

alization.

Anatolia – An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research 445

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

8:43

10

Dec

embe

r 20

14

sightseeing points offered in tour, new routes and destinations in tour itinerary; appropriate

departure date and duration of tour, free time during tour. Factor 4, the “price” factor, with

an eigenvalue of 2.68, contained four attributes and explained 7.66% of variance in the

data. This factor was associated with pricing components. These included free services

offered, discounts offered, value for money and lower package price of tour. Factor 5

picked up two attributes with an eigenvalue of 1.966 and explained 5.618% of the

variance. As it included an agency’s use of brochures and media advertisement, it was

named as the “advertising” factor.

With the use of Freedman test, the relative importance of the factors was determined

and “product features” received the highest rank. This was followed by “service delivery”,

“price”, “advertising” and “image and accessibility of travel agency”. Results of t-test and

one-way ANOVA revealed that the priority of the five factors did not differ significantly in

relation to marital status, age, education level, and income level. However, they were

found to be different at the 0.05 level of significance, in relation to gender and occupation.

According to the results, females placed more importance (mean ¼ 4.18) on “product

features” than did their male counterparts (mean ¼ 3.97). It was also found that for the

retired “service delivery” was more important in selecting a tour in comparison with

housewives. In addition, those who were self-employed placed a higher importance on this

factor than public service employees.

Differences between individual attributes were examined according to gender and age

groups, and it was found that “tour security and safety” and “experienced tour leaders”

were more important for females. Males placed more importance on “commitment to

obligations”. “Tour security and safety” was also more important for those aged 55 and

older in comparison with other age groups. The 33–55 age group considered “value for

money” and “prior experience with the agency” to be the most important attributes.

To compare responses by tourists and travel agency managers on the effectiveness of

the attributes in the selection of travel agencies, non-parametric tests of Mann–Whitney U

and Kruskal–Wallis were carried out. To do so, the first two points on the five-point scale

in the tourist questionnaire (very low to low) were coded as non-effective, and the three

other points (average high to very high) were coded as effective. The results of the tests

indicated that a significant difference does not exist between the two groups of respondents

on the overall effectiveness of the attributes. However, the use of test (Cronbach’s a

3.841) revealed a significant difference in the effectiveness of seven attributes between the

two groups of respondents. These attributes, highlighted in Table 3, include media

advertising; more sightseeing points offered in tour, size of agency, number of

offices/branches; personalized services offered by agency, appropriate departure

date/duration of tour, and name of agency.

Conclusion and implications

The discussions with travel agents when designing the questionnaire revealed valuable

insight about the market for domestic tours in Iran. According to the managers, the

services offered by agencies differ very little. Package tours are a recently introduced

product about which there is a low level of market awareness. It was indicated that family

groups often plan trips independently and rarely purchase tours. However, it seems the

recent Gasoline Rationing Plan has provided travel agencies with the opportunity of

promoting package tours as an alternative to independent trips.

Based on the discussions, the tour market comprises two main groups: those who travel

alone and female friends who travel together. The relevant literature (Enoch, 1996; Heung

446 N. Hassanli et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

8:43

10

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Table

3.

Comparisonbetweentouristsandtravel

agency

managersontheeffectivenessofattributes.

Travel

agency

managers(n

¼30)

Tourists(n

¼176)

Non-effective

Effective

Non-effective

Effective

Percentage

Count

Percentage

Count

Percentage

Count

Percentage

Count

x2(a

¼3.841)

Nam

eofattribute

Q1

3.33

180.00

24

15.34

27

84.66

149

2.35

Q2

23.33

773.33

22

19.89

35

80.11

141

0.276

Q3

23.33

773.33

22

22.16

39

77.84

137

0.056

Q4

3.33

186.67

26

6.25

11

93.75

165

0.273

Q5

10.00

380.00

24

14.20

25

85.80

151

0.188

Q6

6.67

276.67

23

1.70

398.30

173

3.58

Q7

30.00

966.67

20

27.27

48

72.73

128

0.175

Q8

10.00

380.00

24

16.48

29

83.52

147

0.508

Q9

10.00

380.00

24

15.34

27

84.66

149

0.33

Q10

6.67

283.33

25

2.27

497.73

172

2.15

Q11

73.33

22

20.00

642.05

74

57.95

102

12.93

Size

Q12

16.67

573.33

22

3.41

696.59

170

10.43

More

sightseeingpoints

Q13

0.00

0100.00

30

1.70

398.30

173

0.519

Q14

0.00

0100.00

30

3.41

696.59

170

1.053

Q15

3.33

196.67

29

23.30

41

76.70

135

6.29

Media

advertising

Q16

3.33

196.67

29

8.52

15

91.48

161

0.96

Q17

3.33

196.67

29

46.02

81

53.98

95

19.49

No.ofoffices/branches

Q18

23.33

766.67

20

11.93

21

88.07

155

3.855

Personalized

services

Q19

0.00

096.67

29

2.84

597.16

171

0.844

Q20

13.33

483.33

25

11.36

20

88.64

156

0.14

Q21

73.33

22

20.00

640.34

71

59.66

105

14.23

Nam

eofagency

Q22

0.00

0100.00

30

2.85

597.16

171

0.87

Q23

0.00

0100.00

30

4.55

895.45

168

1.42

Q24

20.00

670.00

21

4.55

895.45

168

11.39

Departure

date/duration

Q25

6.67

290.00

27

13.07

23

86.93

153

0.886

(Co

nti

nu

ed)

Anatolia – An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research 447

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

8:43

10

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Table

3–

con

tin

ued

Travel

agency

managers(n

¼30)

Tourists(n

¼176)

Non-effective

Effective

Non-effective

Effective

Percentage

Count

Percentage

Count

Percentage

Count

Percentage

Count

x2(a

¼3.841)

Nam

eofattribute

Q26

3.33

186.67

26

6.25

11

93.95

165

0.273

Q27

3.33

190.00

27

3.98

796.02

169

0.01

Q28

3.33

196.67

29

2.27

497.73

172

0.122

Q29

26.67

863.33

19

23.86

42

76.14

134

0.42

Q30

20.00

676.67

23

11.93

21

88.07

155

1.67

Q31

10.00

390.00

27

3.41

696.59

170

2.665

Q32

10.00

386.67

26

2.84

597.16

171

3.74

Q33

10.00

383.33

25

7.39

13

92.61

163

0.37

Q34

23.33

776.67

23

21.59

38

78.41

138

0.045

Q35

26.67

860.00

18

45.45

80

54.55

96

1.99

448 N. Hassanli et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

8:43

10

Dec

embe

r 20

14

& Zhu, 2005; Zamani-Farahani & Musa, 2008) suggests that safety issues motivate

women to purchase tours and this was confirmed in the discussions with the travel agents

and by the findings of the study. The survey of tourists revealed that the “product features”

of a tour was the most important factor when selecting a travel agency. The attribute with

the highest mean score within this factor was “tour security and safety”, and it was found

to be more important for women than men. “Image and accessibility of travel agency” was

the least important factor among Tehrani residents. This could be due to the reason that

many domestic leisure tours are purchased by telephone, and the physical appearance,

image, and location of a travel agency are not the key factors in its selection. Rather it is

affected by more important factors such as service delivery and price. Iranian tourists

regard the features of a tour to be more important than price. This emphasizes the need for

travel agents to develop new products and achieve differentiation based on the product

features of the tours they offer, rather than their price. Specifically, travel agencies should

try to increase the variety of tour products by introducing new routes and destinations in

tour itineraries.

Elements of modern lifestyle often encourage residents in Tehran to escape to the

country and run away from urban life to experience the simplicity of traditional lifestyle.

This tendency among urban citizens is evident in the growing number of homes used for

the purpose of tourist accommodation in rural areas and the formation of a network among

their operators (Khoshesar, 2011). It is clear with the introduction of the Gasoline

Rationing Plan, less people can afford to travel to these often remote and rural destinations

with their private car. Therefore, travel agencies can take advantage of this opportunity by

introducing these new destinations in their tours and thus attracting new markets.

Clearly, security and safety of package tours should be emphasized as it was given

priority by women and seniors (55 years and older). This could be achieved by giving

information about the safety of routes and the experience of tour drivers, and encouraging

tour leaders to take courses in First Aid. Agencies should also pay attention to the

education and training of staff so they are knowledgeable about destinations and proficient

in customer service. Staff should be encouraged to take part in short-term courses on

different aspects of tourism offered by ICHHTO or private institutions. The findings also

suggest that travel agencies should consider segmenting the market according to their

demographic characteristics and applying suitable marketing policies to each of the

various segments. This would help them provide more targeted services and, hopefully,

increase demand for tours in the domestic market.

Comparison between tourists and travel agency managers on the effectiveness of the

attributes indicate that in accordance with the high priority of the “product feature” factor

for tourists, appropriate departure dates and duration of tours, and more sightseeing points

offered are considered effective by a higher percentage of tourists than managers, thus

indicating the need for more attention by travel agencies to these attributes. Within

“service delivery” – the next important factor for tourists – offering more personalized

services was also regarded effective by a higher percentage of tourists compared to

managers. However, a lower percentage of tourists regarded media advertising and

number of offices/branches to be effective. This is in accordance with the lower priority of

“advertising” and “image and accessibility of travel agency” factors which these attributes

are a part of, indicating the need for less emphasis upon these attributes by travel agencies.

The results have practical implications for travel agents that are trying to understand

their customers. However, limitations of the study must be recognized when considering

these recommendations. First, this study only examined the perceived importance of

Tehrani residents’ travel agency selection for domestic leisure tours. Results might differ

Anatolia – An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research 449

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

8:43

10

Dec

embe

r 20

14

for tourists when selecting a travel agency for overseas travel or for other types of travel

such as pilgrimage tours. Second, the relatively small sample size may not necessarily

represent the whole population, hence limiting the general applicability of the findings of

the study. These limitations indicate the potential for further studies. In addition, despite

the limited use of Internet by travel agencies in Iran mainly for purposes of providing

information and introducing virtual contents (Alipour, Hajaliakbar, & Javanbakht, 2011;

Farzamnia, Nasserzadeh, & Nalchigar, 2009), future research could investigate the

potential role of Internet as a distribution channel for travel services in Iran.

References

Alavi, J., & Yasin, M. (2000). Iran’s tourism potential and market realities: An empirical approach toclosing the gap. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 9, 1–22.

Alipour, M., Hajaliakbar, F., & Javanbakht, N. (2011). The impact of web marketing mix (4s) ondevelopment of tourism industry in Iran. International Journal of Business and Social Science,2, 267–274. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid¼4&sid¼ed376fba-8749-4659-96b5-71ee82b2763a%40sessionmgr11&hid¼24

Alipour, H., & Heydari, R. (2005). Tourism revival and planning in Islamic Republic of Iran:Challenges and prospects. Anatolia, 16, 39–61.

Bigne, J. E., Martinez, C., Miquel, M. J., & Andreu, L. (2003). SERVQUAL reliability and validityin travel agencies. Annals of Tourism Research, 30, 258–262.

Bosque, I. A. R., Collado, J., & Martin, H. (2006). The role of expectations in the customersatisfaction formation process: Empirical evidence in the travel agency sector. TourismManagement, 27, 410–419.

Chiam, M., Soutar, G., & Yeo, A. (2009). Online and offline travel packages preferences: A conjointanalysis. International Journal of Tourism Research, 11, 31–40.

Enoch, Y. (1996). Contents of tour package: A cross-cultural comparison. Annals of TourismResearch, 23, 599–616.

Euromonitor International. (2009, July). Travel and tourism in Iran. Retrieved from: www.euromonitor.com/Travel_And_Tourism_In_Iran

Farzamnia, A., Nasserzadeh, S. M. R., & Nalchigar, S. (2009). Which internet marketing mix’shas more effect on the passenger’s decision for choosing their travel agency in Iran. In Fifthinternational joint conference on INC, IMS and IDC (pp. 1087–1092). Washington: IEEEComputer Society. Retrieved from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp¼&arnumber¼5331773

Frias, D. M., Rodriguez, M. A., & Castaneda, A. (2008). Internet vs. travel agencies on pre-visitdestination image formation: An information processing view. Tourism Management, 29,163–179.

Ghaderi, Z. (2011). Domestic tourism in Iran. Anatolia, 22, 278–281.Hafeznia, M. R., Eftekhari, A. R., & Ramazani, I. (2007). A comparative study on the tourism

policies in pre and post Islamic revolution of Iran case study: Babolsar in the coast of CaspianSea. Journal of Applied Sciences, 7, 3836–3847. Retrieved from http://scialert.net/previous.php?issn¼1812-5654

Hassanli, N. (2009). Identifying the priority of factors affecting choice of a travel agency fromdomestic tourists’ point of view (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of AllamehTabataba’e, Iran.

Heung, V. C. S., & Chu, R. (2000). Important factors affecting Hong Kong consumers’ choice of atravel agency for all-inclusive package tours. Journal of Travel Research, 39, 52–59.

Heung, V. C. S., & Zhu, P. (2005). Factors affecting choice of a travel agency for domestic tourism:The case of Shanghai residents in China. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 19, 13–25.

Hui, T. K., & Wan, D. (2005). Factors affecting consumer’s choice of a travel agency: The case ofSingapore. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 19, 1–12.

Iran National Portal of Statistics. (2009, June). Retrieved from http://www.sci.org.ir/portal/faces/public/sci

Iranian Cultural Heritage, Handicraft and Tourism Organization. (2008). General report on domestictourism.

450 N. Hassanli et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

8:43

10

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Khoshesar. (2011, September). Retrieved from http://khoshesar.com/index.php/1388-12-13-07-20-06.html

Lam, T., & Zhang, H. (1999). Service quality of travel agents: The case of travel agents in HongKong. Tourism Management, 20, 341–349.

Law, R., Leung, K., & Wong, J. (2004). The impact of the Internet on travel agencies. InternationalJournal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 16, 100–107.

Lawton, G., & Page, S. (1997). Evaluating travel agents’ provision of health advice to travellers.Tourism Management, 18, 89–104.

Leblanc, G. (1992). Factors affecting customer evaluation of service quality in travel agencies: Aninvestigation of customer perceptions. Journal of Travel Research, 30, 10–16.

Leiper, N. (1995). Tourism management. Collingwood: TAFE Publications.Litvin, S. W. (2002). The Singapore gold circle: Perceptions of local customers of travel agencies.

International Journal of Tourism Research, 4, 271–281.Meiden, A. (1979). Travel agency selection criteria. Journal of Travel Research, 18, 26–32.Millan, A., & Esteban, A. (2004). Development of a multi-item scale for measuring customer

satisfaction in travel agencies services. Tourism Management, 25, 533–546.Morakabati, Y. (2011). Deterrents to tourism development in Iran. International Journal of Tourism

Research, 13, 103–123.Ng, E., Cassidy, F., & Brown, L. (2006). Exploring the major factors influencing consumer selection

of travel agencies in a regional setting. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 13,75–84. Retrieved from http://search.informit.com.au/browseJournalTitle;res¼IELBUS;issn¼1447-6770

O’Gorman, K., Baum, T. G., & McLellan, L. R. (2007). Tourism in Iran: Central control andindigeneity. In T. Hinch & R. Butler (Eds.), Tourism and indigenous peoples: Issues andimplications (pp. 251–264). London: Butterworth–Heinemann.

Oppermann, M. (1998). Service attributes of travel agencies: A comparative perspective of users andproviders. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 4, 265–281.

Ozturan, M., & Roney, S. A. (2004). Internet use among travel agencies in Turkey: An exploratorystudy. Tourism Management, 25, 259–266.

Sheykhi, M. T. (2003). A general review of the conceptual dimensions of quality of leisure, tourismand sports with a particular focus on Iran. African and Asian Studies, 2, 189–206.

Tao, Z. (2004). Cultural influence on visitors’ perceived quality of a Chinese travel agency(Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Missouri, USA.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2012, September). Retrievedfrom http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/?search¼iran&searchSites¼&search_by_country¼&search_yearinscribed¼&type¼all&region¼&themes¼&media¼&criteria_restrication¼&order¼country

Wong, C. S., & Kwong, W. Y. (2004). Outbound tourists’ selection criteria for choosing all-inclusivepackage tours. Tourism Management, 25, 581–592.

Zamani-Farahani, H. (2010). Iran tourism, heritage and religion. In N. Scott & J. Jafari (Eds.),Tourism in the Muslim world bridging tourism theory and practice (pp. 205–220). Bingley:Emerald.

Zamani-Farahani, H., & Musa, G. H. (2008). Residents’ attitudes and perception towards tourismdevelopment: A case study of Masooleh, Iran. Tourism Management, 29, 1233–1266.

Zolfaghari, H. (2007, June). Potentials and limitations in Iran for developing tourism sector. Paperpresented at GEOMED international symposium on geography, Antalya, Turkey. Retrievedfrom http://web.deu.edu.tr/geomed2010/2007/Zolfaghari.pdf

Anatolia – An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research 451

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

8:43

10

Dec

embe

r 20

14