Journal of Travel Research

http://jtr.sagepub.com/ Are Tourists or Markets Destination Loyal?

Bob McKercher and Basak Denizci Guillet Journal of Travel Research 2011 50: 121 originally published online 19 March 2010 DOI: 10.1177/0047287510362779 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/50/2/121

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Travel and Tourism Research Association

Additional services and information for Journal of Travel Research can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jtr.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/50/2/121.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Mar 7, 2011 OnlineFirst Version of Record - Mar 19, 2010 What is This?

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 15, 2012

Are Tourists or Markets Destination Loyal?

Bob McKercher1 and Basak Denizci Guillet1

Journal of Travel Research 132 50(2) 121 2011 SAGE Publications Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0047287510362779 http://jtr.sagepub.com

Abstract This study asks whether individual tourists are destination loyal or whether markets can be considered as loyal? While loyalty research has focused on the individual, a strong body of evidence suggests that individual tourists revisit international destinations rarely.Yet overall arrivals from mature markets are largely stable, suggesting some form of loyalty.The proposition of whether individuals or markets are loyal was tested by examining year-on-year visitation and repeat-visitation intentions of Hong Kong residents to 11 popular destinations. The study identified low individual repeat visitation intention, but overall market stability. Moreover, the profiles of actual and intended visitors were virtually identical. By contrast, the profiles of visitors to different destinations were substantially different. The study concludes, therefore, that markets are broadly loyal. The findings have significant implications for destination marketing organizations and also raise questions about tourism loyalty research. Keywords destination loyalty, repeat visitation

Introduction
Are individual international tourists destination loyal? A substantial body of destination loyalty literature has been developed based on the presumed validity of this proposition. Yet a competing body of theoretical work supported by empirical evidence suggests otherwise. The concept of a loyal consumer seems to be at odds with the belief that variety seeking is an underlying dimension of travel (Castro, Armario, and Ruiz 2007; Pearce and Lee 2005). The European Travel Commission (2006) has noted a sharp decline in both destination and product loyalty as the number of opportunities increases and travel costs fall, while arrival figures, discussed elsewhere in this article, indicate that repeat visitors represent a minority of pleasure tourist arrivals from all but the most proximate of source markets. Pan, Chon, and Song (2008) also remind us that tourists are now more activity and interest based than destination based. If tourists are not loyal, then, one would expect volatility in visitor numbers. Yet arrival figures from mature outbound markets to established destinations change little over time, with the exception of periodic shocks caused by externalities (UNWTO 2005, 2008). As a result, some form of loyalty behavior must exist at a more macro level. This article examines the proposition that markets or market segments, more so than individual tourists, are loyal by examining the travel patterns of Hong Kong residents to 11 popular destinations. It tests the proposition by comparing actual with intended visitors to the most popular destinations frequented by Hong Kong residents. The unit of analysis is the country, or in the case of Europe other than the United Kingdom, the continent.

Loyalty
Loyal customers are defined as frequent, repeat purchasers who feel a sense of belonging to an organization and who are reluctant to change even in the presence of similar offerings from other firms (Henry 2000). Shoemaker and Lewis (1999) and Reichheld (2002) note the importance of attitudinal loyalty, where a strong emotional bond occurs between the customer and firm, which in turn attaches possessive feelings toward that company. Such customers are unlikely to switch over small price or service differences and moreover will often display a level of empathy toward the firm and its employees not seen in other customers. The consumer behavior literature stresses the importance of building a loyal customer as the foundation of product or enterprise success, for loyal customers provide a solid base of regular, heavy users who generate a reliable revenue stream. They are also thought to be the most profitable user group, with the costs of retaining them substantially less than those associated with attracting new consumers (Haywood 1989; Rosenberg and Czepiel 1984; Oppermann 2000). The belief exists that the loss of loyal consumers can threaten the very livelihood of an organization.

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong

Corresponding Author: Bob McKercher, School of Hotel and Tourism Management, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong Email: hmbob@polyu.edu.hk

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 15, 2012

122 Loyalty is seen to exist along a continuum ranging from consumers who show no or low loyalty to the deeply loyal person, with each having a combination of weak or strong attitudinal and behavioral measures (Day 1969; Dick and Basu 1994; Gounaris and Stathakopoulos 2004). The more loyal person has positive attitudes and high repeat propensity, while weakly loyal people may still be frequent purchasers, but are not as committed to the product. Weakly loyal individuals may also be infrequent repeat purchasers. A lack of loyalty may be attributed to a lack of interest, negative attitude toward the brand or positive attitude toward a competitor (Rowley and Dawes 2000). Operationalization of the loyalty construct has proven challenging, in particular because of difficulties involved in disaggregating the loyal consumer from the consumer who engages in habitual buying patterns (Bowen and Shoemaker 2003; Henry 2000; Shoemaker and Bowen 2003). Henry (2000) argues that loyalty exists only when the customer stays with a company because the value provided by the company surpasses that of all other competitors. Loyalty can be measured using feelings and attitudes in the forms of preference, liking, motivation, trust, or behavior patterns such as actual repeat business and positive word of mouth (Jacoby and Chestnut 1978; Backman and Crompton 1991; Backman and Veldkamp, 1995; Pritchard and Howard 1997; Petrick 2004). Repeat purchase intention is one common metric used to measure loyalty (Machleit, Allen, and Madden 1993; Kahn and Schmittlein 1992).

Journal of Travel Research 50(2) distance, without the opportunity to pretest before buying. As such, an elevated level of risk of a poor experience is associated with trying a new destination, whereas it is lessened when returning to a known one. Risk aversion, therefore, may induce loyalty (Jones, Mothersbaugh, and Beatty 2000). Proponents of this argument identify brand equity, quality, value and image as well as satisfaction, activity involvement, trust, and risk perception and high switching costs as factors thought to influence loyalty directly or indirectly (Bowen and Shoemaker 2003; Chen and Gursoy 2001; Chi and Qu 2008; Huang and Chiu 2006; Jang and Feng 2007; Lee, Graefe, and Burns 2007; Yoon and Uysal 2005; Yuksel and Yuksel 2007). Others identified social (Morais, Kerstetter, and Yarnal 2006) or demographic (Homburg and Giering 2001; Skogland and Siguaw 2004) factors as playing a role, with older customers and those who are less adventuresome presumed to have firmer destination loyalty than others. But an alternate argument suggests loyalty may be low, with the unique nature of tourism challenging the validity of applying product theory to the destination. Andreassen and Lindestad (1998) note tourism is an infrequent purchase, with an international trip often being a once a year or less frequent activity, making it difficult to determine loyalty with any great degree of accuracy. Underlying travel motives of wanderlust (Crompton 1979), novelty seeking, and selfdevelopment (Pearce and Lee 2005) may push some people to seek different destinations. Choice, limited travel barriers, and low opportunity costs may also push variety seeking. A study conducted by Castro, Armario, and Ruiz (2007) on visitation to a Spanish city, for example, revealed that 70% of respondents surveyed had medium to high need for variety in their tourist experiences. Oppermann (2000) found that about 5% of his sample of New Zealanders who had visited Australia previously could be described as very loyal, having visited six or more times in the previous 10 years. Niininen, Szivas, and Riley (2004) found much higher loyalty rates in their study of English tourists, with 59% visiting selected destinations three or more times in a 5-year period and 16% visiting each year. Previous studies attempting to examine this phenomenon have faced significant sampling, definitional, conceptualization and scale problems. Both Niininen, Szivas, and Riley (2004) and Oppermann (2000) relied on a sample of fewer than 150 people. They also encountered low response rates to postal surveys, which likely induced some element of response bias. Destination studies conducted by Castro, Armario, and Ruiz (2007) and Chi and Qu (2008) had larger sample sizes but were limited to a single locale and a single point in time. The use of repeat visitor as a proxy for a loyal consumer is even more challenging, for the application of who constitutes a repeater is not time bound. As Oppermann (1999) discusses, repeaters could include someone who returns to the same destination often in the same year or someone who

Destination Loyalty and Tourism

Most destination loyalty research is framed conceptually within the broader product and service loyalty literature (Oppermann 1998, 2000; Pritchard and Howard 1997), in spite of the recognized unique features of tourism. Destination loyalty measures include willingness to recommend, intention to return, and actual repeat visitation propensity (Castro, Armario, and Ruiz 2007; Chen and Gursoy 2001; Chi and Qu 2008; Kim and Crompton 2002; Niininen, Szivas, and Riley 2004; Oppermann 2000; Pritchard and Howard 1997; Yoon and Uysal 2005). Demographic variables such as education, gender, age, and travel behavior are believed to influence loyalty (Homburg and Giering 2001; Skogland and Siguaw 2004). Typically, most destinations use either repeat visitation or repeat visitation intention to define loyal customers, since these data can be gathered relatively easily in standard departing visitor surveys conducted by destination management organizations (DMOs). Both measures are used in this study. The degree of loyalty and the underlying likelihood of tourists ever becoming loyal are still being debated. One argument holds that tourists may show a high propensity to be loyal. Tourism is something that must be purchased at a

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 15, 2012

McKercher and Guillet visited once possibly many decades earlier. An examination of departing visitor surveys conducted by many DMOs found that most do not set a time limit on when the person repeated (McKercher and Chan 2005). The United Kingdom (VisitBritain 2005), for example, adopts a 10-year time horizon, while Malta (Malta Tourism Authority 2006) asks if people had visited previously at any time and whether they visited in one of their two most recent holidays. Perhaps the greatest conceptual challenge, though, lies in the concept of destination as product. The assumption that destinations function as products lies at the core of applying generic product theory. But is it valid? While destinations can clearly be branded and promoted as singular entities (Morgan, Pritchard, and Pride 2002), they are not products per se. Instead, they are discrete geographic spaces where an amalgam of products and experiences are concentrated. The UNWTO (2002) defines a local destination as physical space that includes tourism products such as support services and attractions, and tourism resource. It has physical and administrative boundaries defining its management, and images and perceptions defining its market competitiveness. Two further related questions arise. The first is what exactly is the loyal tourist loyal to? The second is does an expression of loyalty need to be geographically bound? Loyalty has been examined at many scales, ranging from the firm to a destination (Barsky and Nash 2002; Mattila 2001; Shoemaker and Lewis 1999; Skogland and Siguaw 2004). Collectively, this research suggests that tourism loyalty can exist on many levels and need not be spatially bound. Someone who is loyal to Club Med, for example, can express that loyalty in dozens of resorts offering all styles of holiday experiences in more than 30 countries. Such a person may be firm loyal but not be destination loyal. Others may be vacation-style loyal. People who prefer sea, sand and sun, golf, skiing, or urban styles of vacations can express that loyalty in any number of destinations around the world and at any number of firms operating within each style of destination. These observations suggest that while destination loyalty may be a critical concern for DMOs, it may not be as relevant to tourists, and especially to international tourists. Finally, the empirical evidence supporting destination loyalty at an international scale is ambiguous at best. Table 1 highlights the share of first-time visitors to selected destinations where either the pleasure market has been disaggregated from the general tourist population or where the destination attracts primarily pleasure-oriented tourists. The figures for Hong Kong, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom represent the former instance, while those for Malta, Mauritius, and South Africa represent the latter cases. Most pleasure visitors from the majority of source markets are first-time visitors, with the proportion of first-time visitors increasing with distance. While a minority of arrivals from proximate

123 markets are first-timers (China, Taiwan, and Singapore in relation to Hong Kong; Australia in relation to New Zealand; European countries to the United Kingdom), the majority of tourists from medium- and long-haul markets have never visited before. This table suggests that destinations need to replenish between 67% and 90% of arrivals from medium- to long-haul markets each year if they are to retain their existing volume of arrivals.

Method
This study examines destination loyalty through a comparison of actual with intended visitors to 11 popular destinations frequented by Hong Kong residents. The unit of analysis is the country, or in the case of Europe other than the United Kingdom, the continent (because of data aggregation needs to ensure suitable cell sizes for analysis). The study relies on secondary data analysis of annual pleasure travel surveys conducted by The Hong Kong Polytechnic Universitys School of Hotel and Tourism Management. The survey has been operating since 2000 and to date, eight rounds have been conducted with more than 9,450 residents interviewed. Data were collected via telephone interviews, with collection contracted to one of two local universities that employ a computer-assisted survey team (CAST) system to select candidates. CAST uses a modified random-digit-dialing (mRDD) strategy to generate a sample list of prospective respondents, who were then contacted. As such, the sample approximated the profile of the population. Interviews were conducted during the winter and involve a sample of between 750 and 2,000 residents, depending on budget availability. The survey instrument was designed to gather information on pleasure travel in the preceding 12 months, future travel intentions in the upcoming 12 months, motives and the demographic profile of the respondent. In addition, beginning with the 2004 survey round, respondents were asked to rate, on a 5-point Likert-type scale, the importance of engaging in pleasure travel every year and indicate their level of agreement about the importance of a series of motivational statements affecting their decision to travel. Questions about recent pleasure travel activity were divided into two parts for surveys conducted between 2000 and 2003 and three parts for surveys conducted afterwards. All respondents were asked to indicate if they had traveled into the immediate hinterland areas of Macau and Guangdong Province in China, and if so, to identify the number of overnight trips taken. Prior to 2004, they were then asked about all other international travel, including trips elsewhere in China. Since 2004, this section was divided into two parts, travel to the China mainland and to other international destinations. Respondents who traveled were asked to indicate the total number of overnight pleasure trips taken and then to provide details on their most recent trip, including

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 15, 2012

124
Table 1. First-Time Visitors as a Share of Arrivals

Journal of Travel Research 50(2)

Hong Kong (vacation New Zealand United Kingdom overnight (Fully Independent (Holiday market 2004, Malta Mauritius Tourists)b excluding expatriates)c (all arrivals)d (all arrivals)e visitors)a

South Africa (all arrivals)f

All 45%, including China Holiday 68% 42% 68% Austria 75 44 81 83 Australia 59 26 53 76 Canada 62 64 47 China 36 85 62 40 79 43 91 72 France Germany 70 74 46 79 82 42 55 Hong Kong Italy 77 53 82 91 Japan 60 72 57 74 75 72 85 Korea Malaysia 51 37 Netherlands 76 28 83 New Zealand 69 50 Scandinavia (or Sweden) 71 30 82 87 Singapore 24 50 58 92 South Africa 67 36 60 Switzerland 66 29 79 71 Taiwan 38 49 69 Thailand 37 24 United Kingdom 74 59 46 84 United States 63 67 47 78
a

51 60 69 70 54 69 70 54 67

46 63

Hong Kong Tourism Board (2007). New Zealand Ministry for Tourism (2008). c VisitBritain (2005). d Malta Tourism Authority (2006). e Government of Mauritius (2005). f South African Tourism Strategic Research Unit (2007).
b

destination identity, length of stay, organization (package vs. independent), and expenditure. All respondents, irrespective of whether they had traveled, were then asked about the likelihood of taking an overnight pleasure trip in the upcoming 12 months. This metric is measured using a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from definitely will not travel to definitely will travel. Those who answer with a 4 or higher were asked to identify their likely future main destination city and country. Less than half who selected 4 (unsure) identified a future main destination. This figure compared poorly with the three-quarters or more of those who answered 5 to 7 (likely will, very likely will, and definitely will travel) who specified a destination. As such, respondents who offered the equivocal answer (4) were not included in this study. Two cohorts of respondents are identified: actual visitors and intended visitors. The Actual Visitor group includes 2,528 respondents who traveled internationally (outside of the China mainland and immediate hinterland areas) over the 8 years. The Intended Visitor group includes those individuals who indicated a positive response (5 to 7) to the

intent to travel question and who specified a main destination outside of the China mainland. This sample consists of 2,542 people composed of 187 Actual Visitors who intended to return to the same destination the following year, 952 Actual Visitors who intended to travel to different destinations, and 1,403 people who either did not travel or who restricted their travel to the China mainland or Macau, but intended to travel internationally in the coming 12 months and named a destination outside of China. The total sample therefore consists of 3,931 cases, of which 1,139 appeared in both categories. Another 1,389 discrete cases appeared in the Actual segment representing 54.9% of that cohort, and 1,403 cases or 55.2% appeared uniquely in the Intended segment. The two groups of respondents were considered as discrete groups for analysis purposes. The sample was derived by aggregating the eight survey rounds. This technique had been used previously with the

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 15, 2012

McKercher and Guillet

Table 2. Volume of Hong Kong Visitors to Main Destinations and Popularity Rank of These Destinations Thailand Japan Taiwan Singapore South Korea United Kingdom Malaysia United States Australia Canada Europe Total outbound travela 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

125

2005

485,876 (1) 528,125 (1) 559,985 (1) 571,098 (1) 691,205 (1) 723,876 (1) 615,075 (1) 465,183 (2) 460,283 (3) 484,510 (3) 521,200 (3) 479,804 (2) 586,380 (2) 578,140 (2) 420,094 (3) 468,688 (2) 525,526 (2) 538,232 (2) 414,545 (3) 536,071 (3) 555,307 (3) 302,192 (5) 339,333 (4) 331,909 (4) 314,284 (4) 268,519 (4) 310,208 (4) 367,456 (4) 313,003 (4) 278,708 (5) 277,106 (5) 253,266 (5) 200,028 (5) 220,040 (5) 233,828 (6) 177,757 (8) 185,540 (9) 172,086 (9) 191,159 (7) 192,728 (6) 215,499 (6) 238,044 (5) 172,247 (10) 215,663 (7) 219,364 (6) 193,106 (6) 172,588 (8) 200,371 (7) 196,793 (9) 219,117 (6) 217,551 (6) 218,175 (7) 187,119 (9) 152,735 (9) 184,668 (9) 205,117 (8) 199,039 (7) 201,287 (8) 205,679 (8) 190,950 (8) 178,834 (7) 192,386 (8) 224,236 (7) 176,910 (9) 180,251 (10) 157,563 (10) 158,241 (10) 126,335 (10) 149,114 (10) 142,495 (10) 129,681 (11) 137,949 (11) 151,660 (11) 155,471 (11) 129,790 (11) 158,115 (11) 150,996 (11) 4,174,724 4,611,113 4,791,485 4,709,289 4,427,787 5,002,734 4,956,893

Source: Hong Kong Tourism Board (2006). Note: Popularity rank in parentheses. a. Data include all departures but exclude travel to the China Mainland.

same data set (McKercher 2008) and is considered valid, providing the data are internally consistent. Consistency was measured by comparing annual data for each cohort using demographic variables, the importance of travel, travel experience, and responses to motivational questions. Overall, the sets were internally consistent, with only minor differences noted. Mean household incomes of actual visitors for six short-haul destinations of Japan, Thailand, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, and Taiwan differed somewhat, but the income patterns were similar in all cases. Household incomes dropped during periods of economic hardship and increased during periods of GDP growth. Small but statistically significant differences were noted in age and income among people who intend to travel to Taiwan and Japan. Secondary data represent a valid data source for tourism research providing the survey instrument and resultant data satisfy reliability, sensitivity, fitness, and validity criteria for the desired purpose (Pizam 1994; Churchill 1995; Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill 2000). Reliability and sensitivity criteria relate to the extent to which data can provide consistent results and subtle enough detail for the purpose of the research. Fitness recognizes that data collected for one purpose may not be relevant, timely, or suitable for another purpose. Validity refers to the degree to which the instrument can predict a criterion. While the data set used in this study satisfies these criteria, some limitations inherent with the use of this set must be recognized. In particular, the survey instrument adopts intention to return within 12 months as the single measure of loyalty. As discussed earlier, repeat purchase intention is a valid measure of loyalty even though intentions do not always correspond directly to actions. In addition, the use of a 12-month repeat time frame is recognized as being short, given that many people may only take one or two international trips a year.

In addition, Hong Kong Tourism Board (HKTB) data derived from Immigration Department departure statistics are used to provide broader background on tourist flows and context for this study. Departure statistics for the period 1999 to 2005 are included. The HKTB/Immigration Department ceased maintaining such records after 2005, when Hong Kong shifted to e-channels for resident departures. All departures are recorded, regardless of trip purpose, and so the figures include business, pleasure, visiting friends and relatives, and other travel purposes. It is estimated that about 78% of outbound travel to destinations other than China and Macau is pleasure oriented (UNWTO 2006), with the proportion of pleasure tourists highest among short-haul destinations and relatively smaller in long-haul destinations.

Results
This section is divided into three parts. The first part determines whether Hong Kong residents can be considered as destination loyal in aggregate, based on an analysis of HKTB/ Immigration Department figures. The second and third sections analyze data collected from our own resident surveys. Section 2 examines individual destination loyalty through an analysis of year-on-year repeat visitation intentions. Section 3 examines segment or market loyalty by comparing actual and intended tourists to the 11 selected destinations and further conducting a between-destinations analysis of market profiles. Over time, the relative ranking of destinations visited by Hong Kong residents has changed little as shown in Table 2 (Kendals W test revealed c2 = 3.657, p = .57). Thailand remains Hong Kongs preferred destination of choice, even though it registered the greatest volatility in share change. Japan and Taiwan compete to be the second and third most popular destinations, with Singapore consistently ranking fourth and South Korea generally coming in as the fifth most

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 15, 2012

126
Table 3. Destination Loyalty, 2000 to 2008 (Intention to Revisit in the Upcoming 12 Months) Japan United Kingdom United States Europe Thailand Canada Australia Taiwan Other (non-China) Singapore Malaysia Korea Total
Source: PolyU Resident surveys.

Journal of Travel Research 50(2)

n 478 91 149 114 474 97 141 349 221 104 117 193 2528

Number Intending to Return the Next Year 71 11 16 9 37 7 8 15 7 2 2 2 187

% Intending to Return the Next Year 14.9 12.1 10.7 7.9 7.8 7.2 5.7 4.3 3.2 1.9 1.7 1.0 7.4

popular destination. The overall ranking of Australia, Canada, and Europe has changed little as well. The United Kingdom seems to be gaining in popularity as the post-handover backlash is receding, while Malaysias popularity has changed somewhat. Volatility in departures can be attributed largely to externalities related to the Hong Kong economy and various crises that have affected the region. For example, departures to the United States still have not recovered from 9/11, while the decline in arrivals to Thailand in 2005 can be attributed to a post-tsunami effect. Overall, departures grew sharply between 1999 and 2000 and then remained largely stable before declining substantially in 2003 because of the combined impact of SARS and a deep economic recession. The city entered a period of strong economic recovery in 2004, resulting in a jump in outbound travel, which stabilized in the 2005. But the stability in visitor numbers cannot be attributed to high year-on-year repeat loyalty intentions on behalf of individual consumers, as shown in Table 3. This table presents summary statistics of the number and share of visitors who intend to return to the same destination within 12 months of their last visit. Results are presented in an aggregate form because of the small cell sizes year on year. (Kruskal-Wallis test revealed no significant differences in the proportion of respondents intending to return each year.) Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States registered the highest yearon-year loyalty rate. But in each case, only 10% to 15% of existing visitors intended to revisit the following year. Stated another way, between 85% and 90% of them did not intend to return. Most other destinations recorded revisit intention rates of between 4% and 8%, with Korea registering the lowest revisitation intention level of only 1%. Overall only 7% of tourists intend to revisit the same place the following year, with almost none of the visitors to Korea, Malaysia, or Singapore intending to return.

Low return intention levels mean that destinations must replace virtually their entire stock of visitors each year. Research on inbound tourism for Malta (Malta Tourism Authority 2006) suggests that Hong Kong is not an isolated case, for similarly low numbers were reported here. Destinations succeed, though, for as discussed earlier, overall visitor volume is stable. Replenishment can come from one of two sources: enticing new visitors or attracting previous but infrequent visitors to return. The third part of the analysis section examines if the pool of actual and potential visitors is similar. If similar, then one could argue that markets might demonstrate a level of destination loyalty not witnessed by individual tourists. This proposition is tested by comparing actual and intended visitors within each destination through a chi-square analysis of most demographic variables, the importance of travel, and perceived travel experience and a t-test analysis of six commonly identified motives and household size. As can be seen from Table 4, which highlights those cases where statically significant differences at the .01 level were noted for ease of interpretation, the profiles of actual and intended visitors to each destination are virtually identical, suggesting each destination does draw replacement visitors from a similar psychodemographic pool of residents. Only minor differences were noted in short-haul markets relating to travel experience and age, where in each case, the intended visitor had less travel experience and was somewhat younger than the actual visitor. In addition, the household income of people who intended to visit Japan was lower than that of actual visitors, while the household size of intended Taiwanese visitors was larger than that of actual visitors. The ratio of intended to actual visitors was also calculated for each destination. Long-haul destinations and Japan recorded intention/visitation ratios of greater than 1.0, while other short-haul destinations and the United Kingdom had scores of less than 1.0. Small changes in visitation numbers suggest

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 15, 2012


Motive 166 103 199 687 82 76 156 301 364 165 87 1.18 1.06 1.75 1.44 * * 0.70 0.73 0.81 * 0.86 * * * 0.80 1.11 0.96 * *

Table 4. Comparing Actual with Intended Visitors

Market

Actual Intended Number Number Ratio Family Meet Level of of Visitors of Visitors Intended Importance and Different Increase Travel Household Household (n = 2528) (n = 2542) to Actual of Travel Friends People Relax Escape Discovery Knowledge Experience Gender Age Education Size Income

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 15, 2012

Australia Canada Europe Japan Malaysia Singapore South Korea Taiwan Thailand United States United Kingdom

141 97 114 478 117 104 193 349 474 149 91

Source: PolyU Resident surveys. Note: Intention 5 or above = likely to definitely will travel. Blank cells indicate no significant differences between actual and intended visitors to the destination. *p = .01.

127

128
Table 5. Differences between Target Destinations Market Japan Thailand South Korea Malaysia Singapore Taiwan United States Canada Australia United Kingdom Thailand 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12 South Korea 6, 8, 9, 12 9 Malaysia 1, 2, 8, 9, 10 1, 9, 10 9 Singapore 2, 4, 8, 9, 10 4, 9, 10 9, 10 4 Taiwan 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11 11 1, 7, 9 7, 9, 10 4, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13 United States 4, 7, 9 ,10, 12, 13 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 4, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13 1, 4, 10, 13 Canada 3, 9, 10, 13 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 8, 10, 13 10 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13

Journal of Travel Research 50(2)

Australia 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12 1, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 7, 9, 10, 12

United Kingdom 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 10, 11, 12, 13 4, 11, 12 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 4, 9 , 11 4, 8, 9, 11 9, 4

Europe 2, 5, 7, 9, 10,12 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12 1, 5, 7, 10, 12, 13 5, 10, 12 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13 4 3, 5, 6, 7 1, 5, 6, 10 10, 11

1, 9, 10, 12 1 8

Source: PolyU Resident surveys. Note: 1 = motive: spend time with family, friends or relatives; 2 = motive: meet different people; 3 = motive: rest and relax; 4 = motive: get away from daily routine/role obligations/stress/troubles; 5 = motive: discover new places and/or things; 6 = motive: increase my knowledge; 7 = level of travel experience; 8 = importance of travel; 9 = age; 10 = education level; 11 = gender; 12 = household income; 13 = household size. Significance levels of 0.05 are represented in the table. Blank cells indicate no significant differences between destinations on selected variables.

that destinations scoring greater than 1.0 may be aspirational in nature, where desire does not necessarily translate into visitation. Instead, they may be traded off for visits to places that scored lower on the intention/visit scale. Strong within-destination-market profile congruity contrasts sharply with the equally large between-destination differences noted (Table 5). Actual and intended visitors have been collapsed into one destination cohort for this analysis, because of their similar characteristics. Different destination cohorts were compared using one-way ANOVAs, and a post hoc Scheffe test was used to identify whether significant differences at the 0.05 significance level existed between destination pairs in terms of six triprelated motive variables, level of travel experience, and importance of travel. For example, the cohort of actual and intended visitors to Japan was compared with the cohort of actual and intended visitors to all other destinations, and likewise until all destination pairs were analyzed. For ease of presentation, variables have been coded and only those cases where significant differences were noted have been included. Substantial differences emerge in the demographic profile, travel experience, and to a lesser degree importance of travel and travel motives in virtually every destination destination pair. The only destination pairs that showed no

differences were Australia and Malaysia, Australia and Singapore, and the United States and Singapore. The greatest number of differences by variable were with education level (36 of 55 destination pairs), age (33 cases), household income (25 cases), level of travel experience (21 cases), average household size (16 cases), the motive of escape (16 cases), gender (14 cases), and overall importance of travel (13 cases). Relatively fewer differences were noted by other motives (between 2 and 12 cases depending on the variable). Discovery and self-development discriminated between Europe and other destinations, while escape was a common motivation variable separating the United States from other destinations.

Discussion
This study tested the proposition that individual international tourists from Hong Kong may not demonstrate a high degree of destination loyalty but that the Hong Kong market, collectively, is loyal. The study confirmed this proposition by demonstrating consistency in the popularity ranking of destinations over time, even though low year-on-year repeat visitation intention was noted. However, the profile of actual and intended visitors to each place was similar, suggesting that outbound markets in totality are loyal, though individual tourists may not display the

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 15, 2012

McKercher and Guillet same level of loyalty. Moreover, destinations replenish their stocks of visitors from intended visitors who share similar psychodemographic profiles to actual visitors. Data limitations necessitated the analysis of aggregate market profiles. The authors recognize that markets are not homogenous. Instead they are composed of a series of segments. But because the range of segments attracted to destinations differs from destination to destination, the composite profile of the market for each destination will be different. For example, Destination A may draw visitors from segments a, b, c, and d; Destination B may draw visitors from segment a, b, e, and f; and Destination C may attract visitors from segments c, d, e, and f. More research on this proposition is required. It is also equally recognized that discrete segments may find competing destinations appealing. Thus, one segment may show a preference for, say, Japan, Singapore, and Taiwan, while another may show a preference for Japan, Thailand, and Australia. The data set did not permit more detailed segment analysis, but it suggests that members of individual segments may cycle through destinations. The idea of cycling has been inferred indirectly by studies of destinationswitching behavior (Uysal, Barrett, and Marsinko 1995) that suggests some people do change destinations. For example, one segment may visit Destination A one year, Destination B on their next trip, and Destination C on their subsequent trip before returning to Destination A, explaining why arrivals from any segment may be relatively stable over time. Thus, a destination may be part of a loyal destination set that may be visited from time to time. Data shown in Table 1 suggest such a set is more likely to occur among proximate, shorthaul destinations, rather than among long-haul destinations. If so, then the challenge arises to shorten the cycle as much as possible to maximize repeat visitation. Effective marketing to position destinations uniquely and eliminate the perception that other destinations may represent acceptable substitute brands can help achieve this goal. Conversely, the observed decline in repeat visitation propensity and intention with distance is explained partially as a function of distance decay. Greer and Wall (1978) illustrated that the number of destination opportunities increases exponentially with distance. McKercher and Lew (2003), Hwang and Fesenmaier (2003), and Tideswell and Faulkner (1999) noted further substantial differences in both travel patterns and tourist behavior between long-haul tourists and short-haul tourists. Long-haul tourists tend to engage in longer-duration, multidestination trips and sought to have multiple trip purposes satisfied. Alternatively, short-haul tourists tend to take shorter-duration, single-destination, single-purpose trips and show a strong preference for package tour travel. Yeoman and Lederer (2005) further discuss the aspirational nature of much long-haul travel and how it is viewed as a rare, often once-in-a-lifetime occurrence. Short-haul travel, by extension, is more common and

129 the motives are more escapist or recreation-oriented. Significantly, McKercher and Lew (2003) identified a threshold region between short-haul and long-haul travel where little tourism activity occurs. This Effective Tourist Exclusion Zone (ETEZ) represents a psychological as well as a physical transition area. Tourists who transcend this zone and engage tend to travel more to have exploration, knowledge building, and other deeper personal benefits met. Those who restrict their travel to the destinations prior to the ETEZ tend to travel more for recreational, escapist, and hedonic reasons. It appears that many tourists will never cross this threshold for a variety of pragmatic reasons, including time availability and cost of travel, as well as psychological reasons relating to the ability and/or willingness to enter a culturally strange landscape. This collective body of research suggests that long-haul tourists are more likely than short-haul tourists to be variety seekers, are less intimidated by cultural distance, and also enjoy an exponentially larger array of destinations to satisfy their wanderlust, explaining low repeat visitation levels. The obverse applies to short-haul tourists. Their desire to seek familiarly and to travel for reset and relaxation, coupled with a smaller destination choice set, may explain higher repeat visitation/intention levels observed. And so, while distance does not define loyalty explicitly, it creates more opportunities to visit more places. In doing so, it makes the jobs of DMOs targeting long-haul tourists all that more important, for they must compete against a much larger potential choice set of destinations. These findings have a number of implications for tourism marketing practice and raise a number of questions worthy of further research. First, as mentioned above, the need for strong and financially well supported DMOs is reinforced, for destinations must virtually replenish their entire pleasure visitor population each year, or risk entering into rapid decline. Oliver (1999) discusses loyalty as existing in four stages, cognitive, affective, conative and action. Cognitive loyalty relates to the belief that one brand is preferable over others while affective loyalty refers to positive attitudes or liking based on satisfied consumption. Conative loyalty reflects a deeper level of commitment by the customer based on the development of behavioral intentions. The final stage is action loyalty, which reflects transfer of behavioral intentions to action and motivation to overcome barriers related to that action. Affective and conative loyalty may exist in tourism but do not necessarily translate to action loyalty. DMO marketing initiatives therefore must reinforce their brands and maintain visibility in a cluttered marketplace to entice the lapsed consumers and those who are unlikely to return to revisit. In addition, they must also attract a continuous supply of first-time visitors, representing more than 80% of all arrivals in many instances, to replace those who will only ever visit once. This task is too large for any single enterprise

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 15, 2012

130 in the destination to achieve alone. Moreover, the interests of the destination may conflict with those of multinational firms that operate in that and other destinations simultaneously. Destination loyalty is less important to these organizations than firm loyalty and indeed may be inimical to it. The findings also highlight the importance of wordof-mouth recommendations. Given that individuals may be unlikely to revisit, their role as destination advocates may be more important than their own repeat propensity. It is worthwhile noting that Korea and Malaysia have witnessed a relative decline in popularity ranking recently. The fact that these countries have the lowest repeat intention rates may not be coincidental. Indeed, low short-term repeat intention may act as a barometer of destination health and likely wordof-mouth impact. The findings suggest that deeper research is needed into the phenomenon of loyalty in international tourism. This study raised the prospect that loyalty could exist on many levels and that tourists could exhibit a high degree of loyalty at one level that may not translate into observed loyalty at another level. This study could not address this issue explicitly, but the findings of market rather than individual loyalty suggests that different sets of dynamics may be at play. More research into this issue is needed. Methodologically, a time dimension needs to be included when using repeat visitation as a proxy for loyalty. An openended time frame can produce misleading results for any previous visitors, regardless of the time between visits, may be wrongly ascribed as being loyal. Others (Oppermann 2000; VisitBritain 2005) used 10 years, which may be overly liberal. Reliance on secondary data meant that this study had to adopt a 12-month time frame, which arguably may be too short. A 3- to 4-year loyalty window may be more suitable. This time frame is often adopted by hotel companies to purge infrequent clients from their databases. Loyalty in tourism is an important construct whose dimensions are still being investigated. This study suggests that research into loyalty needs to extend beyond the individual to the group or market segment. It also raised, but could not test, the intriguing prospect of a loyalty hierarchy. In doing so, it challenged the applicability of a product/ service paradigm as the sole or primary conceptual model to examine loyalty. Instead it suggests that the unique nature of tourism may require a rethinking of the applicability of standard product and service loyalty theory to the tourism context. Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Journal of Travel Research 50(2) References

Andreassen, T. W., and B. Lindestad (1998). Customer Loyalty and Complex Services. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 9 (1): 7-23. Backman, S. J., and J. L. Crompton (1991). The Usefulness of Selected Variables for Predicting Activity Loyalty. Leisure Sciences, 13: 205-20. Backman, S. J., and C. Veldkamp (1995). Examination of the Relationship between Service Quality and User Loyalty. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 13 (2): 29-41. Barsky, J. and L. Nash (2002). Evoking Emotion: Affective Keys to Hotel Loyalty. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 43: 39-46. Bowen, J. T., and S. Shoemaker (2003). Loyalty: A Strategic Commitment. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 44 (5/6): 31-46. Castro, C. B., E. M. Armario, and D. M. Ruiz (2007). The Influence of Market Heterogeneity on the Relationship between a Destinations Image and Tourists Future Behavior. Tourism Management, 28: 175-87. Chen, J. S., and D. Gursoy (2001). An Investigation of Tourists Destination Loyalty and Preferences. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13 (2): 79. Chi, C. G. Q., and H. Qu (2008). Examining the Structural Relationships of Destination Image, Tourist Satisfaction and Destination Loyalty: An Integrated Approach. Tourism Management, 29: 624-36. Churchill, G. (1995). Marketing Research: Methodological Foundations, 6th edition. Forth Worth: Dryden Press. Crompton, J. (1979). Motivations of Pleasure Vacations. Annals of Tourism Research, 6 (4): 408-24. Day, G. S. (1969). A Two-Dimensional Concept of Brand Loyalty. Journal of Advertising Research, 9 (3): 29-35. Dick, A., and K. Basu (1994). Customer Loyalty: Towards an Integrated Framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22 (2): 99-113. European Tourist Commission (2006). "Tourism Trends for Europe." http://www.etc-corporate.org/resources/uploads/ETC_ Tourism_Trends_for_Europe_09-2006_ENG.pdf (accessed February 17, 2010). Gounaris, S., and V. Stathakopoulos (2004). Antecedents and Consequences of Brand Loyalty: An Empirical Study. Journal of Brand Management, 11 (4): 283-306. Government of Mauritius (2005). Profile by Country of Residence 2004. http://www.gov.mu/portal/goc/tourist/file/survey04/profile _2004.pdf (accessed January 13, 2009). Greer, T., and G. Wall (1979). Recreational Hinterlands: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis. In Recreational Land Use in Southern Ontario (Department of Geography Publication Series #14), edited by G. Wall. Waterloo, Canada: Waterloo University, pp. 227-46. Haywood, K. M. (1989). Managing Word-of-Mouth Communications. Journal of Service Marketing, 3 (2): 55-67.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 15, 2012

McKercher and Guillet

Henry, C. D. (2000). Is Customer Loyalty a Pernicious Myth? Business Horizons, 43 (4): 13-16. Homburg, C., and A. Giering (2001). Personal Characteristics as Moderators of the Relationship between Customer Satisfaction and LoyaltyAn Empirical Analysis. Psychology and Marketing Journal, 18 (1): 43-66. Hong Kong Tourism Board (HKTB) (2007). Visitor Profile 2007 Vacation Overnight Visitors. Hong Kong: HKTB. Huang, H. H., and C. K. Chiu (2006). Exploring Customer Satisfaction, Trust and Destination Loyalty in Tourism. Journal of American Academy of Business, 10 (1): 156-59. Hwang, Y., and D. Fesenmaier (2003). Multidestination Pleasure Travel Patterns: Empirical Evidence from the American Travel Survey. Journal of Travel Research, 32: 166-71. Jacoby, J., and R. Chestnut (1978). Brand Loyalty Measurement and Management. New York: John Wiley. Jang, S. C. S., and R. Feng (2007). Temporal Destination Revisit Intention: The Effects of Novelty Seeking and Satisfaction. Tourism Management, 28: 580-90. Jones, M. A., D. L. Mothersbaugh, and S. E. Beatty (2000). Switching Barriers and Repurchase Intentions in Services. Journal of Retailing, 76 (2): 259-74. Kahn, B. E., and D. C. Schmittlein (1992). The Relationship between Purchases Made on Promotion and Shopping Trip Behavior. Journal of Retailing, 68 (3): 294-315. Kim, S. S., and J. L. Crompton (2002). The Influence of Selected Behavioral and Economic Variables on Perceptions of Admission Price Levels. Journal of Travel Research, 41 (2): 144-52. Lee, J., A. R. Graefe, and R. C. Burns (2007). Examining the Antecedents of Destination Loyalty in a Forest Setting. Leisure Sciences, 29 (5): 463-81. Machleit, K. A., C. T. Allen, and T. J. Madden (1993). The Mature Brand and Brand Interest: An Alternative Consequence of Ad-Evoked Affect. Journal of Marketing, 57: 72-82. Malta Tourism Authority (2006). Malta Market Profile Surveys Q4 2006. http://www.mta.com.mt/index.pl (accessed January 4, 2009). Matilla, A. S. (2001). Emotional Bonding and Restaurant Loyalty. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42 (6): 73-9. McKercher, B. (2008). Segment Decay in Urban Tourism. Tourism Management, 29: 1215-25. McKercher, B., and A. Chan (2005). How Special Is Special Interest Tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 44 (1): 21-31. McKercher, B., and A. Lew (2003). Distance Decay and the Impact of Effective Tourism Exclusion Zones on International Travel Flows. Journal of Travel Research, 42: 159-65. Morais, D., D. Kerstetter, & C. Yarnal (2006). The Love Triangle: Loyal Relationships among Providers, Customers, and Their Friends. Journal of Travel Research, 44: 379-86. Morgan, N., A. Pritchard, and R. Pride (2002). Introduction. In Destination Branding: Creating the Unique Destination Proposition, edited by N. Morgan, A. Pritchard, and R. Pride. Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 3-10.

131
New Zealand Ministry for Tourism (2008). Various Visitor Arrival Statistics for 2007. Available from http://www.tourismresearch .govt.nz/ Niininen, O., E. Szivas, and R. Riley (2004). Destination Loyalty and Repeat Behavior: An Application of Optimum Stimulation Measurement. The International Journal of Tourism Research, 6 (6): 439-47. Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence Consumer Loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63 (4): 33-44. Oppermann, M. (1998). Destination Threshold Potential and the Law of Repeat Visitation. Journal of Travel Research, 37 (2): 131-37. Oppermann, M. (1999). Predicting Destination ChoiceA Discussion of Destination Loyalty. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 5 (1): 51-65. Oppermann, M. (2000). Tourism Destination Loyalty. Journal of Travel Research, 39 (1): 78-84. Pan, S., K. Chon, and H. Song (2008). Visualizing Tourism Trends: A Combination of ATLAS.ti and BiPlot. Journal of Travel Research, 46: 339-48. Pearce, P., and U. I. Lee (2005). Developing the Travel Career Approach to Tourist Motivation. Journal of Travel Research, 43: 226-37. Petrick, J. (2004). Are Loyal Visitors Desired Visitors? Tourism Management, 25: 463-70. Pizam, A. (1994). Planning a Tourism Research Investigation. In Travel, Tourism and Hospitality Research: A Handbook for Managers and Researchers, 2nd edition, edited by J. Ritchie and C. Goeldner. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Wiley, pp. 91-104. Pritchard, M. P., and D. R. Howard (1997). The Loyal Travel: Examining a Typology of Service Patronage. Journal of Travel Research, 35 (4): 2-10. Reichheld, K. (2002). Letters to the Editor. Harvard Business Review, 80 (11): 126. Rosenberg, L., and J. Czepiel (1984). A Marketing Approach for Customer Retention. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 1: 45-51. Rowley, J., and J. Dawes (2000). Disloyalty: A Closer Look at Non-loyals. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17 (6): 538. Saunders, M., P. Lewis, and A. Thornhill (2000). Research Methods for Business Students, 2nd edition. Harlow, UK: FT Prentice Hall. Shoemaker, S., and J. T. Bowen (2003). Commentary on Loyalty: A Strategic Commitment. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 44 (5/6): 47-52. Shoemaker, S., and R. C. Lewis (1999). Customer Loyalty: The Future of Hospitality Marketing. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 18: 345-70. Skogland, I., and J. A. Siguaw (2004). Are Your Satisfied Customers Loyal? Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 45 (3): 221-34. South African Tourism Strategic Research Unit (2007). Annual Tourism Report. http://www2.southafrica.net/satourism/research/ research.cfm (accessed February 16, 2010).

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 15, 2012

132
Tideswell, C., and B. Faulkner (1999). Multidestination Travel Patterns of International Visitors to Queensland. Journal of Travel Research, 37: 364-74. United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) (2005). Yearbook of Tourism Statistics Data 1996-2003. Madrid, Spain: UNWTO. UNWTO (2002). WTO Think Tank Enthusiastically Reaches Consensus on Frameworks for Tourism Destination Success. Madrid, Spain: UNWTO. UNWTO (2006). Hong Kong: The Asia and the Pacific Intraregional Outbound Series. Madrid, Spain: UNWTO UNWTO (2008). UNWTO World Tourism Barometer, 5 (2). Madrid, Spain: UNWTO Uysal, M., R. T. Barrett, and A. Marsinko (1995). An Examination of Trip Type Switching and Market Share. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 4 (1): 45-56. VisitBritain (2005). First Time and Repeat Visitors to the UK. http:// www.tourismtrade.org.uk/Images/Repeaters04_tcm12-12495 .pdf (accessed January 13, 2009).

Journal of Travel Research 50(2)

Yoon, Y., and M. Uysal (2005). An Examination of the Effects of Motivation and Satisfaction on Destination Loyalty: A Structural Model. Tourism Management, 26: 45-56. Yuksel, A. & F. Yuksel (2007). Shopping Risk Perceptions: Effects on Tourists Emotions, Satisfaction and Expressed Loyalty Intentions. Tourism Management, 28: 703-13.

Bios
Bob McKercher is a professor of tourism in the School of Hotel and Tourism Management at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. His diverse interests in tourism research include a desire to resolve apparent differences between theory and observed practice. Basak Denizci Guillet is an assistant professor in the School of Hotel and Tourism Management at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Her specialty area is finance, and she began her career working in marketing, sales, and accounting in various hotels.

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 15, 2012