- Email: [email protected]
2014 St. Gallen Consensus on destination management
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 4 (2015) 137–142
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jdmm
Conference Communication
2014 St. Gallen Consensus on destination management Stephan Reinhold n, Christian Laesser, Pietro Beritelli University of St. Gallen, Institute for Systemic Management and Public Governance (IMP-HSG), Dufourstrasse 40a, CH-9000 St. Gallen, Switzerland
art ic l e i nf o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 26 February 2015 Accepted 24 March 2015 Available online 20 April 2015
This paper summarizes the main insights of the second Biennial Forum on Advances in Destination Management (ADM), held in St. Gallen (Switzerland). Issues in five domains preoccupied the discourse of scholars and practitioners alike: (1) the definition of ‘destination’, (2) the purpose and legitimacy of destination management organizations (DMO), (3) governance and leadership in destination networks, (4) destination branding, and (5) sustainability. For each domain, this consensus offers a purposeful research agenda grounded in the ADM's community of destination management and marketing researchers. This paper builds on conference participants' collective sense-making efforts expressed over the course of the conference and in a dedicated consensus session. & 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Destination management Consensus Research Practice Agenda
1. Introduction
2. Methodology
Around the time the Journal of Destination Marketing & Management was established, the first Advances in Destination Management (ADM) forum sought to integrate disparate research efforts on destination management. A group of about 40 scholars and practitioners interested in the complexities and challenges of managing and marketing tourist destinations engaged in thoughtprovoking discussions, the outcome of which was published in the first St. Gallen Consensus on Destination Management (Laesser & Beritelli, 2013). Following the success of the first forum of this kind, a second ADM forum followed in June 11–13, 2014, again in St. Gallen. Like its predecessor, the 2014 edition of the St. Gallen Consensus on Destination Management recaps the results and insights of this conference. Based on a refined methodology, we identified five key domains that preoccupied destination management and marketing scholars as well as attendees' discussions and collective sense making: (1) the definition of ‘destination’ (2) the purpose and legitimacy of destination management organizations (DMOs), (3) governance and leadership in destination networks, (4) destination branding, and (5) sustainability. In the spirit of the first consensus, the subsequent sections are intended to contribute to the community of practitioners and researchers that shares a concern for the prospect of tourist destinations. The implication sections for each domain therefore point to avenues for further research, the results of which should be of practical relevance in the close or more distant future.
The reported consensus draws on a five-step methodological procedure. The procedure sought to actively engage conference participants, to continuously record their insight derived from discussions and input sessions, and to build on the main contributions from the work presented as well as on the consent of the community of researchers, whose collective sense making this paper represents. Step 1: throughout the conference, we invited delegates to record their critical thoughts, propositions, and intermediate conclusion by pinning notes to seven pin boards. These boards represented the conference streams and were accessible to conference attendees during all sessions and breaks. Pin board titles included: (1) consumer behavior, (2) conceptualizations, (3) economics and development, (4) management, (5) branding, (6) analytics, and (7) sustainability. Note that all titles related to the root domain destination. This procedure supported attendees' recall in the consensus session at the end of the conference (cf. Step 3). In addition, it helped us to avoid overemphasizing those issues most present from the final sessions and from discussions closest toward the conference's end. A majority of conference participants actively contributed to a total of 127 notes. Step 2: by means of a quick interpretive content analysis (Saldana, 2009), the 127 notes were sorted and a series of topical clusters was proposed that transcended the seven sessions. These proposed clusters served a dual purpose: first, they helped to stimulate vivid and critical discussion of the state of the art in destination management research, and second, to discern the domains that preoccupied the community of destination management researchers across presentations and discussions. Step 3: in a dedicated three-hour consensus session at the end of the conference, attendees were confronted with the proposed
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 41 71 224 2525. E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Reinhold).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.03.006 2212-571X/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
138
S. Reinhold et al. / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 4 (2015) 137–142
clusters. Their discussion and sense making were taped and transcribed in shorthand. The shorthand minutes were projected in real time, visible to the plenary of conference participants. Thus, attendees could amend minutes and express their approval or dissent of the consensus' written formulation as well as create topical links across matters discussed. Step 4: a first draft of the consensus crafted arranged around five domains (cf. subsequent sections) was sent out to all conference participants for ex-post consultation and collected their afterthoughts. This resulted in adding four publication references and eight amendments qualifying or elaborating on statements in the initial draft. Step 5: finally, the final version of the consensus was presented to conference participants and put it up for a vote. Whoever was not willing to support the consensus's final form was offered the option to be deleted from the list of acknowledged supporters (cf. acknowledgments). No one chose to opt out. All attendees support the consensus ‘or at least expressed their overall ''solidarity in sentiment and belief" with the statements’ (Laesser & Beritelli, 2013, p. 46).
3. Structure The subsequent sections represent the five domains around which the ADM forum's discussions and contributions evolved: (1) the definition of destination, (2) purpose and legitimacy of destination management organizations, (3) governing and leading destination networks, (4) destination branding, and (5) sustainability. To make these domains more accessible, we operationalized them as a series of questions: the first domain centers on the definition of the destination: what is a destination? What are the specific implications of production and productivity in defining the destination? The second domain is preoccupied with the purpose and legitimacy of destination management organization – whatever their specific name (e.g. DMO, visitor board, etc.): Do we need destination marketing and management organizations? If yes, what are they good for? The third domain picks up on the topics of governance and leadership in a destination context and asks: what is governing and leading destination (networks) all about? Finally, the fourth and fifth domains cover all contributions and discussions preoccupied with branding and sustainability in a destination context. Particularly, attendees and contributions were asking: what is the future of destination branding and sustainability? Every section is organized in a discussion and implications part. Note that the length of the sections is a rough testament to the richness and length yet not the vividness of discussions with regard to the subject of each domain. As with the previous consensus, there will be no dedicated conclusion section at the end of the paper, as it already portrays discussions over the course of the ADM forum in a very condensed way. Instead, we offer takeaways and a brief comparison between this edition of the St. Gallen Consensus and its predecessor.
extensive discussion of what a destination actually is. Both shed doubt on the usefulness of present definitions. One perspective that brought challenges of present definitions especially to the fore was productivity and a production-systems view of destinations, which included the tourist as a co-producer (cf. Gunn, 1972). To date, there is little research into the productivity of (inclusive) destinations and destination systems. The UNWTO's definition of the ‘tourism destination’ was seen as symptomatic artifact of the shortcomings in dealing with the challenges related to destination formation, operation, and its impact measurement: ‘A local tourism destination is a physical space in which a visitor spends at least one overnight. It includes tourism products such as support services and attractions, and tourism resources within one day's return travel time. It has physical and administrative boundaries defining its management, images and perceptions defining its market competitiveness. Local tourism destinations incorporate various stakeholders often including a host community, and can nest and network to form larger destinations’ (UNWTO, 2002). Conference attendees concluded that the UNWTO definition falls short in providing a meaningful conceptualization of the tourist destination for future research on destination planning and development. At the core, criticism of the UNWTO definition is based on two main arguments: first, it takes an excessively institutional and supply-oriented perspective (i.e. what is offered where and by whom), and second, it neglects the demand side in its impact on processes and outcomes of tourism service production (Beritelli, Reinhold, Laesser & Bieger, 2015). Conference participants agreed on the subsequent alternative definition of the destination concept, which is based on discussions at the 2012 ADM forum and a more detailed understanding of the demand-driven mechanisms that shape a more variable and multifaceted view of the destination (Beritelli et al., 2014): A tourism destination is a market-oriented productive system. By means of their behavior in space and time and household production, tourists, aggregated as flows, activate this productive system. Actors on the supply side support tourists in producing their holiday experience by providing marketable first-nature resources (e.g. nature and culture) and second-nature resources (e.g. infrastructure and services). Together, tourists and supply side actors co-produce an experience – from origin to destination(s) and back. A number of original contributions and discussion inputs by the conference participants illustrate the support for the above definition and shift in perspective:
Tourism develops along flows – no matter whether these flows
4. Domain 1: the definition of destination 4.1. Discussion Recent publications on the destination as a concept (e.g. Beritelli, Bieger & Laesser, 2014; Hristov & Zehrer, 2015; Pearce, 2014; Pearce & Schänzel, 2013; Pechlaner, Kozak & Volgger, 2014) as well as destination management and marketing (e.g. McKercher & Prideaux, 2014; Pike & Page, 2014), on the one hand, and a number of critical contributions of conference participants, on the other, triggered an
were naturally created or artificially initiated. For example, new artificial points of attraction such as Disneyland Paris (i.e. creating a new visitor flow from Paris to Marne-la-Vallée or from Europe to Marne-la-Vallée via the airport hub of Roissy Charles de Gaulle) or new mobility offer creating accessibility (e.g. high-speed trains generating new opportunities by connecting Madrid and Seville or – in the near future – Hong Kong and Guilin). The observable spatial behavior of tourists and actors' decisions varies as a result of those flows. But destination constructs based on a supply-side or political and administrative logic fall short of accommodating these diverse behavioral patterns. Points of attraction extending gravitation of different kinds are inherent drivers of any destination formation. The analysis of visitor movements might help, if necessary, to delimit the geographical boundaries of destinations. However, ‘worth seeing/experiencing’ is not necessarily equivalent to ‘actually going to see/experience’. Many destinations resort to second-to fourthtier points of attraction and are surprised that they fail to attract significant visitor numbers.
S. Reinhold et al. / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 4 (2015) 137–142
Productivity in an experiential system like tourism is mostly about
output – not only for the consumer but also as an input to other industries. This includes non-economic domains such as satisfaction. Given a system's perspective, one also needs to account for the interactions and the many externalities, which are inherent in this system. Productivity in the system is the ‘sum of both industry and consumption productivities resulting from co-creation. This is why we cannot separate these domains. System productivity is ultimately about collaboratively sharing and allocating resources (ceteris paribus, such as output). A system's productivity increases when this is achieved well. Destination management of the future needs to empower economic growth and productivity gains. This is to be achieved by enabling actors to improve their performance and by making them future-ready by means of providing them with essential immaterial and intellectual resources.
4.2. Implications Based on the above considerations, conference participants arrived at four conclusions with implications for future research: First, a wider group of stakeholders needs to assume responsibility for allocating first-nature, publicly accessible resources (e.g. nature and culture) while DMOs and other organizations interact with other production entities to determine the allocation of responsibilities for coordinating tasks (wherever necessary and if applicable). The tasks related to first-nature resources are of particular importance when rivalry of consumption increases with rising tourist numbers (e.g. overcrowded tourist hotspots that can no longer accommodate daily demand). Second, there is a profound lack of research on the productivity of destination systems. The reason for this gap is a mismatch between highly aggregated existing productivity data collected, on the one hand, and visitor flows, which describe strategically relevant tourist behavior and drive production, on the other. The former is based on the amalgam conception of the destination (Buhalis, 2000), whereas the latter conceptualizes the destination as a multifaceted system, a space of flows (Beritelli et al., 2014; Castells, 2005). To date, common knowledge is that tourism is not the most productive of industries. However, seriously addressing the productivity gap could be a promising way to address many other challenges in tourism – such as wages for example. Third, productivity is hard to measure in tourist systems because many individuals are not working for market salaries (e.g. family members serving in a family restaurant or hotel). In order to understand the real productivity of destinations, we need studies addressing the value of non- or underpaid work in the tourism sector. To this end, economists' studies measuring the value of non-paid domestic work might provide interesting methodological leads. Finally, little is known about the transaction costs associated with collaborations in destinations (e.g. Fyall, Garrod & Wang, 2012). The destination system increases productivity if the marginal gain, measured as a delta in participating actors' bottom line, exceeds the marginal costs (including transaction costs) of collaboration and resource allocation. This seems to suggest that funding common interests and values as well as a clear business purpose drive the destination actors' propensity to collaborate Behavioral antecedents aside, to what extent this proposed link reflects the practice of productive destination systems remains open to test for future research.
139
5. Domain 2: purpose and legitimacy of destination management organizations 5.1. Discussion The second domain that spurred vivid discussion was concerned with the purpose and legitimacy of DMOs. Discussion on this matter was initiated by means of a statement based on an empirical observation: ‘we find tourists and tourism in places where there are no destination management organizations (e.g. in Antarctica). In contrast, there are other places managed and marketed by multiple DMOs that struggle to attract any significant number of tourists. Why so?’ At present, Europe is blanketed in DMOs. However, as public budgets are increasingly squeezed and austerity measures dominate the agendas of government bodies at different levels, this dense coverage of DMOs in Europe is likely to thin out, as is already the case in countries such as Italy and the United Kingdom. Moreover, discussants pointed out that money will only be spent on tourism hotspots in the future, i.e. in places where we find significant numbers of flows of tourists. Conference participants agreed that the kinds of market failures DMO's were established to address cease to exist more and more. This is especially apparent when it comes to the DMO's core tasks of information dissemination. By now, the market failure regarding production and dissemination of information are mostly eliminated: ‘10 years ago, you would look at a DMO's website, but nowadays, information exchange on social networks or Trip Advisor and the like are much better’ and probably more relevant to prospective travelers' decision processes. Production and dissemination of information have become scalable beyond the DMOs' reach and control. The developments in reality that put the raison-d’être of DMOs into question also challenge the belief that destination marketing is only and perhaps best done by the DMO. Many other stakeholders are indeed involved in attracting tourists to a specific place. In addition, visitors' decision making is not influenced by the DMO to the extent these organizations would wish for. A very cynical question synthesized the progress of the discussion nicely. Given that the cause-and-effect links between DMOs' activities and desired behavioral implications on the demand side need questioning, ‘[…] are there tourists because there is a DMO or are there tourists despite the existence of a DMO?’ In summary, attendees consented that the present archetype of the DMO with its current core tasks will lose its legitimacy to exist. However, given a change in their overall organizational setup, DMOs might still benefit tourist destinations as the next subsection will detail. 5.2. Implications Based on the discussion outlined above, conference participants drew five conclusions with regard to the future relevance and legitimacy of destination management organizations: First, any attempt at marketing and managing a destination should be linked to the core task of improving the productivity of the destination as an experiential system. This may include activities such as the provision of appropriate leadership, processes, tools, intellectual resources, and the like. In this context, DMOs increasingly become enablers and facilitators of this system that co-produces experiences. Specifically, this includes measures that benefit collaboration of tourism enterprises as well as services of travel facilitation and convenience, which enhance visitors' travel experience. The implication is not, however, that existing DMOs can simply assume responsibility for a couple of new services and expect other actors to top up the DMO's budget to
140
S. Reinhold et al. / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 4 (2015) 137–142
cover these new efforts. Factor input should be assumed stable, at best. Second, as the role and requirements of DMOs shift, they need to become less monolithic and accommodate more flexibility in their (hierarchical) structures, functions, tasks, and associated processes. As a source of inspiration for further research in this domain, Clegg and Baumeler (2010) offer the metaphor of a liquid organization that points to the positive (e.g. adaptability and resilience) as well as challenging aspects of more ‘fluid’ organizational forms (e.g. disengagement and fickle solidarity). In contrast, from a practical perspective, DMOs should reorient toward tasks that can be managed and benefit collaboration such as building knowhow in specific domains (e.g. events and MICE), certain backoffice processes (e.g. human resources, finance, etc.), or supporting regional collaboration in general. Third, turning to a more variable and perhaps ‘liquid’ destination concept challenges the identity of these production systems. Conference attendees agreed that, most likely, minimal boundaries and borders will need to persist. However, they should no longer lock DMOs into the activity patterns and self-concept that create the present problems. In this context, it will be interesting to see how the identity of destination actors changes or displays inertia as concepts (including coordinating institutions) and tools of destination management build on a more variable and multifaceted view of the destination. The fourth conclusion is related to the productivity measurement issues attested in the first domain. As DMOs engage in partnerships aimed at enabling production based on visitor flows, they need to account for the efficiency and effectiveness of their actions. Thus, as tourism research investigates the measures of destination productivity and the reliability of the underlying mechanism, it can also help to build a foundation for a more effective use of DMO resources – whether these funds come from private or public sources. Finally, some conference attendees suggested relabeling destination marketing organizations as destination communication organizations. This shift signifies attendees' concern with the congruence between destination marketing messages sent on the one hand and service delivery in the destination on the other. It is a noble but somewhat questionable undertaking to significantly and sustainably increase the number of temporary residents and thereby the overall economic activity in a given area just by means of communication measures. A conference attendee formulated the gist of the conclusions like this: ‘pull the plug on traditional DMOs and their focus on ‘marketing’; instead, focus on topical market failures’. The above considerations may imply that the job profile of a future destination manager might look differently but ‘[…] at the end of the day, we either educate real destination managers according to the new needs or we substitute DMOs with consultants and local project managers’. This is not a call to arms to identify the next universal DMO archetype. Instead, we encourage scholars and practitioners to think about the (new) ways (e.g. competences, network ties, work arrangements, practices etc.) in which decision makers can make destinations and DMOs fit for these ‘new needs’.
networks, will also have implications for the management of this organizational type. With the DMO assuming responsibility as an enabler and facilitator of co-producing experience systems, this organization will require less of a lone leader that personifies and tries to direct the entire destination like a corporate CEO. Instead, participants consented that destinations will be looking for moderator, facilitator, and orchestrator types, which take responsibility for designing (and maybe operating) processes. As a metaphor, discussants referred to them as composers shaping the rhythm and structure of a hymn (i.e. the flows and processes of a system over time). Influence on the destination system will not depend on formal hierarchical power (if it is explicitly presented and agreed upon by the actors at all) but ground in the network-based power this person or organization is endowed with (e.g. financial or intellectual in character). To this end, they need to be able to influence leadership networks within and across destinations. In this context, these increasingly polycentric networks are always means to a higher-order end (e.g. improve the bottom line) rather than ends in themselves. Moreover, it is questionable whether and to what extent a sole individual is able to pave the way to a consensus in decision-making when resources, expertise, leadership influence, and skills reside in diverse destination actors who contribute in different ways to various parts of the experience system. While there is research into destination leadership (e.g. Kozak, Volgger & Pechlaner, 2014; Pechlaner et al., 2014), conference participants pointed out that there are still many open questions with regard to the underlying mechanisms that shape destination networks. However, systems research does alert us to the fact that systems can reach local or even global optima without leadership or the intervention of a guiding hand. The proprietary claims on a given resource or networks of resources and supply network could serve as indicators to assess influence, power, and control in destinations. 6.2. Implications From the discussion on leading and governing destination networks, conference attendees concluded, that future destinations will essentially need people ‘who nudge and incentivize a system’. In addition, attendees contented on four priorities for further research in this domain: first, we lack research into polycentric governance structures in general and relationship in particular. Scholars, but also practitioners, often talk networks and systems, but there is little tourism – specific research to back their statements. Second, it might be fruitful to investigate the challenges of managing DMOs from a human – resource perspective, given unique contingencies of this organization type. Third, the assembled researchers were also in favor of doing more research into the political market of tourism and destinations. Finally, as small and medium-sized enterprises characterize much of destination supply, it might be worthwhile having a special focus on their role in destination development, management, and marketing as well as leadership in destinations (cf. Thomas, Shaw & Page, 2011).
7. Domain 4: destination branding 6. Domain 3: governing and leading destination networks
7.1. Discussion
6.1. Discussion
Overall, discussants unanimously agreed that branding faces increasing limitations (also see remark on market failure in domain two) in tourism and concentrated on four issues: First, a main driver of this development is providers' and destinations' increasing loss of control over communication. This includes communication about ‘their’ market offers as well as any other
The discussion summarized in this section was a direct follow up of participants' exchange on the contents of the previous domains. Conference attendees concluded that the prospective evolution of a DMO's tasks, as it develops into a leader of supply
S. Reinhold et al. / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 4 (2015) 137–142
communication that also affect brand perception. The basis for this claim lies in the almost boundless scalability of peer-to-peer communication in demand networks, be it online- or offline. Symmetric, peerto-peer communication has progressively been replacing asymmetric provider-to-peer message exchange. In consequence, this leaves providers and destinations with the task to provide impetus for positive peer-to-peer communication (i.e. ‘storyfication’ of products and services as the foundation of building brand value) (e.g. Tussyadiah, 2014). Attendees highlighted two means to this end: on the one hand, the match between what you would expect (on the basis of different cues, including branding campaigns) and what you actually get can potentially trigger this behavior. On the other hand, they stressed the benefits of investing in tourist resources, infrastructures, and great services to create a narrative (either while they still are in the destination or after their stay) that is worth telling peers. A second aspect around which a number of statements evolved was the validity of the cause-and-effect link between destination branding and tourist behavior that benefits destination actors. While brands do create equity for consumables, discussants seriously put into question whether the same link is valid for branding something as vague as a destination: ‘brands in tourism are often not much more than a logo and a claim or slogan, lacking the foundation, which you would very often find for consumables or durables’. Conference attendees attested an unfortunate detachment between brand design and creation on the one hand, and the elements that constitute a brand, on the other (e.g. products, mental anchors of products, etc.). In addition, the role of brand awareness' in defending investment in destination branding was seen as part of the issue. Being aware of a brand does not necessarily and reliably transfer to a purchase as the case of aspirational destinations like Canada illustrates. A third issue in the discussion was the political nature of destination branding exercises. Discussants pointed out that destination branding processes are often misused for political ends and thus internal marketing in the broadest sense. Alternatively, they were also perceived to reflect an inability to allocate resources of intellectual and monetary nature to more complex matters of destination management such as trying to influence demand- and supply-side networks to address destinations' economic prospects. In both cases, destination branding serves DMOs as legitimizing device. Finally, it was pointed out that challenges of destination branding might relate to the fact that a destination is not a product and therefore a destination brand is an experiential brand. Moreover, conference participants hinted that different destination types and other contingencies need to be considered when investigating destination branding. For example, branding as a city destination might be different from branding a rural area. For a start, most cities already enjoy a higher level of awareness and are easier to differentiate from each other because they are fewer in number. 7.2. Implications Based on the above considerations, conference participants agreed on two main areas that warrant further research into destination branding: First, given a loss in control over destination- and brand-related communication, how can tourism marketing influence relevant people and other communication multipliers in demand networks that influence others in their travel decisions? There is a gap in research that looks at mechanisms connected to concepts such as word-of-mouth. Second, the debate on cause-and-effect links points to the daunting challenge to empirically establish a causal connection between destination branding (and investment therein) and tourists' actual purchases of tourism services (cf. Dolnicar & Ring, 2014). Differences in destination type and other contingencies might serve as moderators to this link.
141
8. Domain 5: sustainability 8.1. Discussion Discussants challenged the use and operationalization of the sustainability concept in tourism research. In particular, they raised two main concerns: sustainability as an end in itself and a micro-tomacro divide. Conference participants agreed that sustainability should be an aspiration of destination management and that it can be a successful end as locally implemented measures like saving water or favoring local produce demonstrate. However, they were also rather critical of an increasing use of sustainability as a buzzword in promotion and academic writing. Thus, participants challenged the community to reflect whether it is just greenwashing itself by promoting sustainability without actually securing its implementation. While discussants welcomed the local benefits of sustainability measures and the way they act as a foundation for a qualitative growth in destinations, they questioned the prevailing micro perspective on sustainability issues. Conference attendees concluded that they would welcome research on the macro, i.e. further reaching sustainability concerns connected with tourism. This includes, for example, the externalities of tourists' travel activities and how they connect to broader social developments like increasing leisure mobility of people outside traditional first world markets. Finally, one specific solution was discussed connected to the ‘storyfication argument’ in destination branding: how could we create more immersive and engaging experiences, which encourage visitors to stay at a destination for longer and thus create less negative externalities connected to transportation? 8.2. Implications Finally, conference attendees also expressed consent with regard to two aspects of the sustainability literature in tourism research that concerns matters of destination management: First, it would be helpful if the literature was clearer about the specific stance it takes on the multifaceted sustainability concept (e.g. economic, environmental, cultural, etc.) to allow for a better connection between results across individual authors' work. Second, work that connects sustainability at a macro-level to tourism's broader concerns and core functions might benefit our understanding of how to achieve a greater impact that benefits destination actors. This work might benefit from connecting micro and macro level developments.
9. Takeaways and comparison of the 2012 and 2014 consensus Overall, discussions revealed a more (self-) critical attitude toward the state of the practice in and research on destination management and marketing than the first consensus in 2012. As is reflected in the above discussions, the impulse to scrutinize different domains of destination management is coming from two directions: first, the observation of how destinations and their actors struggle to address the complexity of their business as their context changes, and second, the acknowledgement of limitations of existing research in terms of concepts, tools, and some of the underlying beliefs. Within the identified domains, there are four noteworthy changes between the 2012 and 2014 edition of the St. Gallen Consensus: First, the definition of tourist destination suggested in 2014 is more cohesive than the collection of different perspectives on the destination concept discussed in 2012. This goes along with a more detailed apprehension and appreciation of demand-related
142
S. Reinhold et al. / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 4 (2015) 137–142
mechanisms shaping the destination as a productive system (e.g. visitor behavior in space, co-production and gravitation extending from points of attraction). In addition, unlike in 2012, attendees directly linked the definition of the destination to implications such as the use of different resource types, lack of knowledge in related domains (e.g. productivity and transaction cost) or implications for DMOs and tourism managers. Second, while the 2012 Consensus is mostly descriptive, the 2014 edition actively questions the present scope of DMO activities and their reason to exist. Beyond being critical, the 2014 discussion also provides a threefold sense of perspective. It details the nature of DMOs' future activity profiles, it describes the potential structural profiles of this organization type, and it outlines the job profile of tourism managers engaged in and accountable for future destination management and marketing. However, as in 2012, scarce financial resources are seen as a main driver of change in the purpose and legitimacy of DMOs. Third, the 2012 Consensus lamented the heterogeneous conceptualization of governance in tourism research. In contrast, the present edition highlights the implications of a new conceptualization of the destination and destination management for the governance of polycentric networks (e.g. related to sources of power). While the role of a moderator, orchestrator, or facilitator is apparent in both discussions, the 2014 forum extended this notion by connecting it to DMOs contribution to the destination and capability-based considerations. Finally, in contrast to 2012, the discussion in 2014 revolved around a broader set of sustainability concerns, asking for contributions at a macro level (e.g. touristic travel) and for a clearer conceptualization of sustainability, which could eventually serve to integrate disparate contributions related to economic, sociocultural, and ecological sustainability. Across all five domains, the practical relevance and implications of research in destination marketing and management featured as an underlying theme and shared concern. Attendees critically challenged the relevance of present contributions and asked for research and measurement at a more meaningful level of analysis (e.g. visitor flow) as well as for (re-) assessing the causal links between the market interventions of destination actors and tourists' actual behavioral responses. To these ends, we suggest that the conceptualization of the destination as a productive system activated by tourist flows will benefit both future research and practitioners who struggle with the delicate complexities of destination marketing and management. We are looking forward to continuing these discussions and evaluating their impact at the 3rd Biennial Advances in Destination Management Forum in Vail from June 17 to 19, 2016, right after the 2016 TTRA conference. Acknowledgments This paper was developed with the support/help of the following conference participants listed in alphabetical order: Anantamongkolkul, C.; Crescini, G.; Crouch, G.; De Grandpré, F.; Demetz, M.; Elliot, S.; Fabry, N.; Facundo, M.; Flagestad, A.; Fuchs, M.; Fyall, A.; Heeley, J.; Hristov, D.; Hudson, S.; Isaac, S.; Jones, C.; Joppe, M.;
Keller, P.;Kohler, S.; Le-Klähn, DT.; Maggi, R; Manchen Spörri, S.; Milwood, P.; Nuetzi, R.; Pechlaner, H.; Perdue, R.; Prayag, G.; Prebensen, N.; Ruhanen, L.; Scherrer, P.; Schläppi, F.; Schmidt, F.; Siller, H.; Stettler, J.; Stienmetz, J.; Tkaczynski, A.; Volgger, M.; von Arx, W.; Walters, G.; Wegelin, P; Zehrer, A. We would like to thank the following colleagues for their active participation, support and invaluable contributions to this consensus (listed in alphabetical order): Anantamongkolkul, C.; Crescini, G.; Crouch, G.; De Grandpré, F.; Demetz, M.; Elliot, S.; Fabry, N.; Facundo, M.; Flagestad, A.; Fuchs, M.; Fyall, A.; Heeley, J.; Hristov, D.; Hudson, S.; Isaac, S.; Jones, C.; Joppe, M.; Keller, P.; Kohler, S.; Le-Klähn, DT.; Maggi, R; Manchen Spörri, S.; Milwood, P.; Nuetzi, R.; Pechlaner, H.; Perdue, R.; Prayag, G.; Prebensen, N.; Ruhanen, L.; Scherrer, P.; Schläppi, F.; Schmidt, F.; Siller, H.; Stettler, J.; Stienmetz, J.; Tkaczynski, A.; Volgger, M.; von Arx, W.; Walters, G.; Wegelin, P; Zehrer, A.
References Beritelli, P., Bieger, T., & Laesser, C. (2014). The new frontiers of destination management applying variable geometry as a function-based approach. Journal of Travel Research, 53(4), 403–417. Beritelli, P., Reinhold, S., Laesser, C., & Bieger, T. (2015). The St. Gallen model for destination management (1st ed.). St. Gallen: IMP-HSG. Buhalis, D. (2000). Marketing the competitive destination of the future. Tourism Management, 21(1), 97–116. Castells, M. (2005). Space of flows, space of places: Materials for a theory of urbanism in the information age. In: B. Sanyal (Ed.), Comparative Planning Cultures (pp. 45–63). New York: Taylor & Francis Group. Clegg, S., & Baumeler, C. (2010). Essai: from iron cages to liquid modernity in organization analysis. Organization Studies, 31(12), 1713–1733. Dolnicar, S., & Ring, A. (2014). Tourism marketing research: past, present and future. Annals of Tourism Research, 47(0), 31–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. annals.2014.03.008. Fyall, A., Garrod, B., & Wang, Y. (2012). Destination collaboration: a critical review of theoretical approaches to a multi-dimensional phenomenon. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 1(1), 10–26. Gunn, C. (1972). Vacationscape: designing tourist environments. Austin: University of Texas. Hristov, D., & Zehrer, A. (2015). The destination paradigm continuum revisited: DMOs serving as leadership networks. Tourism Review, 70, 2. Kozak, M., Volgger, M., & Pechlaner, H. (2014). Destination leadership: leadership for territorial development. Tourism Review, 69(3), 169–172. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1108/TR-05-2014-0021. Laesser, C., & Beritelli, P. (2013). St. Gallen Consensus on Destination Management. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 2(1), 46–49. McKercher, B., & Prideaux, B. (2014). Academic myths of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 46, 16–28. Pearce, D. G. (2014). Toward an integrative conceptual framework of destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 53(2), 141–153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0047287513491334. Pearce, D. G., & Schänzel, H. A. (2013). Destination management: the tourists' perspective. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 2(3), 137–145. Pechlaner, H., Kozak, M., & Volgger, M. (2014). Destination leadership: a new paradigm for tourist destinations? Tourism Review, 69(1), 1–9. Pike, S., & Page, S. J. (2014). Destination marketing organizations and destination marketing: a narrative analysis of the literature. Tourism Management, 41(0), 202–227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.09.009. Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Thomas, R., Shaw, G., & Page, S. J. (2011). Understanding small firms in tourism: a perspective on research trends and challenges. Tourism Management, 32(5), 963–976. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.02.003. Tussyadiah, I. P. (2014). Toward a theoretical foundation for experience design in tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 53(5), 543–564. UNWTO. (2002). Destination Management & Quality Programme: Conceptual Framework. 2014, from 〈http://destination.unwto.org/content/conceptual-fra mework-0〉, (04.12.2002).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jdmm
Conference Communication
2014 St. Gallen Consensus on destination management Stephan Reinhold n, Christian Laesser, Pietro Beritelli University of St. Gallen, Institute for Systemic Management and Public Governance (IMP-HSG), Dufourstrasse 40a, CH-9000 St. Gallen, Switzerland
art ic l e i nf o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 26 February 2015 Accepted 24 March 2015 Available online 20 April 2015
This paper summarizes the main insights of the second Biennial Forum on Advances in Destination Management (ADM), held in St. Gallen (Switzerland). Issues in five domains preoccupied the discourse of scholars and practitioners alike: (1) the definition of ‘destination’, (2) the purpose and legitimacy of destination management organizations (DMO), (3) governance and leadership in destination networks, (4) destination branding, and (5) sustainability. For each domain, this consensus offers a purposeful research agenda grounded in the ADM's community of destination management and marketing researchers. This paper builds on conference participants' collective sense-making efforts expressed over the course of the conference and in a dedicated consensus session. & 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Destination management Consensus Research Practice Agenda
1. Introduction
2. Methodology
Around the time the Journal of Destination Marketing & Management was established, the first Advances in Destination Management (ADM) forum sought to integrate disparate research efforts on destination management. A group of about 40 scholars and practitioners interested in the complexities and challenges of managing and marketing tourist destinations engaged in thoughtprovoking discussions, the outcome of which was published in the first St. Gallen Consensus on Destination Management (Laesser & Beritelli, 2013). Following the success of the first forum of this kind, a second ADM forum followed in June 11–13, 2014, again in St. Gallen. Like its predecessor, the 2014 edition of the St. Gallen Consensus on Destination Management recaps the results and insights of this conference. Based on a refined methodology, we identified five key domains that preoccupied destination management and marketing scholars as well as attendees' discussions and collective sense making: (1) the definition of ‘destination’ (2) the purpose and legitimacy of destination management organizations (DMOs), (3) governance and leadership in destination networks, (4) destination branding, and (5) sustainability. In the spirit of the first consensus, the subsequent sections are intended to contribute to the community of practitioners and researchers that shares a concern for the prospect of tourist destinations. The implication sections for each domain therefore point to avenues for further research, the results of which should be of practical relevance in the close or more distant future.
The reported consensus draws on a five-step methodological procedure. The procedure sought to actively engage conference participants, to continuously record their insight derived from discussions and input sessions, and to build on the main contributions from the work presented as well as on the consent of the community of researchers, whose collective sense making this paper represents. Step 1: throughout the conference, we invited delegates to record their critical thoughts, propositions, and intermediate conclusion by pinning notes to seven pin boards. These boards represented the conference streams and were accessible to conference attendees during all sessions and breaks. Pin board titles included: (1) consumer behavior, (2) conceptualizations, (3) economics and development, (4) management, (5) branding, (6) analytics, and (7) sustainability. Note that all titles related to the root domain destination. This procedure supported attendees' recall in the consensus session at the end of the conference (cf. Step 3). In addition, it helped us to avoid overemphasizing those issues most present from the final sessions and from discussions closest toward the conference's end. A majority of conference participants actively contributed to a total of 127 notes. Step 2: by means of a quick interpretive content analysis (Saldana, 2009), the 127 notes were sorted and a series of topical clusters was proposed that transcended the seven sessions. These proposed clusters served a dual purpose: first, they helped to stimulate vivid and critical discussion of the state of the art in destination management research, and second, to discern the domains that preoccupied the community of destination management researchers across presentations and discussions. Step 3: in a dedicated three-hour consensus session at the end of the conference, attendees were confronted with the proposed
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 41 71 224 2525. E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Reinhold).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.03.006 2212-571X/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
138
S. Reinhold et al. / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 4 (2015) 137–142
clusters. Their discussion and sense making were taped and transcribed in shorthand. The shorthand minutes were projected in real time, visible to the plenary of conference participants. Thus, attendees could amend minutes and express their approval or dissent of the consensus' written formulation as well as create topical links across matters discussed. Step 4: a first draft of the consensus crafted arranged around five domains (cf. subsequent sections) was sent out to all conference participants for ex-post consultation and collected their afterthoughts. This resulted in adding four publication references and eight amendments qualifying or elaborating on statements in the initial draft. Step 5: finally, the final version of the consensus was presented to conference participants and put it up for a vote. Whoever was not willing to support the consensus's final form was offered the option to be deleted from the list of acknowledged supporters (cf. acknowledgments). No one chose to opt out. All attendees support the consensus ‘or at least expressed their overall ''solidarity in sentiment and belief" with the statements’ (Laesser & Beritelli, 2013, p. 46).
3. Structure The subsequent sections represent the five domains around which the ADM forum's discussions and contributions evolved: (1) the definition of destination, (2) purpose and legitimacy of destination management organizations, (3) governing and leading destination networks, (4) destination branding, and (5) sustainability. To make these domains more accessible, we operationalized them as a series of questions: the first domain centers on the definition of the destination: what is a destination? What are the specific implications of production and productivity in defining the destination? The second domain is preoccupied with the purpose and legitimacy of destination management organization – whatever their specific name (e.g. DMO, visitor board, etc.): Do we need destination marketing and management organizations? If yes, what are they good for? The third domain picks up on the topics of governance and leadership in a destination context and asks: what is governing and leading destination (networks) all about? Finally, the fourth and fifth domains cover all contributions and discussions preoccupied with branding and sustainability in a destination context. Particularly, attendees and contributions were asking: what is the future of destination branding and sustainability? Every section is organized in a discussion and implications part. Note that the length of the sections is a rough testament to the richness and length yet not the vividness of discussions with regard to the subject of each domain. As with the previous consensus, there will be no dedicated conclusion section at the end of the paper, as it already portrays discussions over the course of the ADM forum in a very condensed way. Instead, we offer takeaways and a brief comparison between this edition of the St. Gallen Consensus and its predecessor.
extensive discussion of what a destination actually is. Both shed doubt on the usefulness of present definitions. One perspective that brought challenges of present definitions especially to the fore was productivity and a production-systems view of destinations, which included the tourist as a co-producer (cf. Gunn, 1972). To date, there is little research into the productivity of (inclusive) destinations and destination systems. The UNWTO's definition of the ‘tourism destination’ was seen as symptomatic artifact of the shortcomings in dealing with the challenges related to destination formation, operation, and its impact measurement: ‘A local tourism destination is a physical space in which a visitor spends at least one overnight. It includes tourism products such as support services and attractions, and tourism resources within one day's return travel time. It has physical and administrative boundaries defining its management, images and perceptions defining its market competitiveness. Local tourism destinations incorporate various stakeholders often including a host community, and can nest and network to form larger destinations’ (UNWTO, 2002). Conference attendees concluded that the UNWTO definition falls short in providing a meaningful conceptualization of the tourist destination for future research on destination planning and development. At the core, criticism of the UNWTO definition is based on two main arguments: first, it takes an excessively institutional and supply-oriented perspective (i.e. what is offered where and by whom), and second, it neglects the demand side in its impact on processes and outcomes of tourism service production (Beritelli, Reinhold, Laesser & Bieger, 2015). Conference participants agreed on the subsequent alternative definition of the destination concept, which is based on discussions at the 2012 ADM forum and a more detailed understanding of the demand-driven mechanisms that shape a more variable and multifaceted view of the destination (Beritelli et al., 2014): A tourism destination is a market-oriented productive system. By means of their behavior in space and time and household production, tourists, aggregated as flows, activate this productive system. Actors on the supply side support tourists in producing their holiday experience by providing marketable first-nature resources (e.g. nature and culture) and second-nature resources (e.g. infrastructure and services). Together, tourists and supply side actors co-produce an experience – from origin to destination(s) and back. A number of original contributions and discussion inputs by the conference participants illustrate the support for the above definition and shift in perspective:
Tourism develops along flows – no matter whether these flows
4. Domain 1: the definition of destination 4.1. Discussion Recent publications on the destination as a concept (e.g. Beritelli, Bieger & Laesser, 2014; Hristov & Zehrer, 2015; Pearce, 2014; Pearce & Schänzel, 2013; Pechlaner, Kozak & Volgger, 2014) as well as destination management and marketing (e.g. McKercher & Prideaux, 2014; Pike & Page, 2014), on the one hand, and a number of critical contributions of conference participants, on the other, triggered an
were naturally created or artificially initiated. For example, new artificial points of attraction such as Disneyland Paris (i.e. creating a new visitor flow from Paris to Marne-la-Vallée or from Europe to Marne-la-Vallée via the airport hub of Roissy Charles de Gaulle) or new mobility offer creating accessibility (e.g. high-speed trains generating new opportunities by connecting Madrid and Seville or – in the near future – Hong Kong and Guilin). The observable spatial behavior of tourists and actors' decisions varies as a result of those flows. But destination constructs based on a supply-side or political and administrative logic fall short of accommodating these diverse behavioral patterns. Points of attraction extending gravitation of different kinds are inherent drivers of any destination formation. The analysis of visitor movements might help, if necessary, to delimit the geographical boundaries of destinations. However, ‘worth seeing/experiencing’ is not necessarily equivalent to ‘actually going to see/experience’. Many destinations resort to second-to fourthtier points of attraction and are surprised that they fail to attract significant visitor numbers.
S. Reinhold et al. / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 4 (2015) 137–142
Productivity in an experiential system like tourism is mostly about
output – not only for the consumer but also as an input to other industries. This includes non-economic domains such as satisfaction. Given a system's perspective, one also needs to account for the interactions and the many externalities, which are inherent in this system. Productivity in the system is the ‘sum of both industry and consumption productivities resulting from co-creation. This is why we cannot separate these domains. System productivity is ultimately about collaboratively sharing and allocating resources (ceteris paribus, such as output). A system's productivity increases when this is achieved well. Destination management of the future needs to empower economic growth and productivity gains. This is to be achieved by enabling actors to improve their performance and by making them future-ready by means of providing them with essential immaterial and intellectual resources.
4.2. Implications Based on the above considerations, conference participants arrived at four conclusions with implications for future research: First, a wider group of stakeholders needs to assume responsibility for allocating first-nature, publicly accessible resources (e.g. nature and culture) while DMOs and other organizations interact with other production entities to determine the allocation of responsibilities for coordinating tasks (wherever necessary and if applicable). The tasks related to first-nature resources are of particular importance when rivalry of consumption increases with rising tourist numbers (e.g. overcrowded tourist hotspots that can no longer accommodate daily demand). Second, there is a profound lack of research on the productivity of destination systems. The reason for this gap is a mismatch between highly aggregated existing productivity data collected, on the one hand, and visitor flows, which describe strategically relevant tourist behavior and drive production, on the other. The former is based on the amalgam conception of the destination (Buhalis, 2000), whereas the latter conceptualizes the destination as a multifaceted system, a space of flows (Beritelli et al., 2014; Castells, 2005). To date, common knowledge is that tourism is not the most productive of industries. However, seriously addressing the productivity gap could be a promising way to address many other challenges in tourism – such as wages for example. Third, productivity is hard to measure in tourist systems because many individuals are not working for market salaries (e.g. family members serving in a family restaurant or hotel). In order to understand the real productivity of destinations, we need studies addressing the value of non- or underpaid work in the tourism sector. To this end, economists' studies measuring the value of non-paid domestic work might provide interesting methodological leads. Finally, little is known about the transaction costs associated with collaborations in destinations (e.g. Fyall, Garrod & Wang, 2012). The destination system increases productivity if the marginal gain, measured as a delta in participating actors' bottom line, exceeds the marginal costs (including transaction costs) of collaboration and resource allocation. This seems to suggest that funding common interests and values as well as a clear business purpose drive the destination actors' propensity to collaborate Behavioral antecedents aside, to what extent this proposed link reflects the practice of productive destination systems remains open to test for future research.
139
5. Domain 2: purpose and legitimacy of destination management organizations 5.1. Discussion The second domain that spurred vivid discussion was concerned with the purpose and legitimacy of DMOs. Discussion on this matter was initiated by means of a statement based on an empirical observation: ‘we find tourists and tourism in places where there are no destination management organizations (e.g. in Antarctica). In contrast, there are other places managed and marketed by multiple DMOs that struggle to attract any significant number of tourists. Why so?’ At present, Europe is blanketed in DMOs. However, as public budgets are increasingly squeezed and austerity measures dominate the agendas of government bodies at different levels, this dense coverage of DMOs in Europe is likely to thin out, as is already the case in countries such as Italy and the United Kingdom. Moreover, discussants pointed out that money will only be spent on tourism hotspots in the future, i.e. in places where we find significant numbers of flows of tourists. Conference participants agreed that the kinds of market failures DMO's were established to address cease to exist more and more. This is especially apparent when it comes to the DMO's core tasks of information dissemination. By now, the market failure regarding production and dissemination of information are mostly eliminated: ‘10 years ago, you would look at a DMO's website, but nowadays, information exchange on social networks or Trip Advisor and the like are much better’ and probably more relevant to prospective travelers' decision processes. Production and dissemination of information have become scalable beyond the DMOs' reach and control. The developments in reality that put the raison-d’être of DMOs into question also challenge the belief that destination marketing is only and perhaps best done by the DMO. Many other stakeholders are indeed involved in attracting tourists to a specific place. In addition, visitors' decision making is not influenced by the DMO to the extent these organizations would wish for. A very cynical question synthesized the progress of the discussion nicely. Given that the cause-and-effect links between DMOs' activities and desired behavioral implications on the demand side need questioning, ‘[…] are there tourists because there is a DMO or are there tourists despite the existence of a DMO?’ In summary, attendees consented that the present archetype of the DMO with its current core tasks will lose its legitimacy to exist. However, given a change in their overall organizational setup, DMOs might still benefit tourist destinations as the next subsection will detail. 5.2. Implications Based on the discussion outlined above, conference participants drew five conclusions with regard to the future relevance and legitimacy of destination management organizations: First, any attempt at marketing and managing a destination should be linked to the core task of improving the productivity of the destination as an experiential system. This may include activities such as the provision of appropriate leadership, processes, tools, intellectual resources, and the like. In this context, DMOs increasingly become enablers and facilitators of this system that co-produces experiences. Specifically, this includes measures that benefit collaboration of tourism enterprises as well as services of travel facilitation and convenience, which enhance visitors' travel experience. The implication is not, however, that existing DMOs can simply assume responsibility for a couple of new services and expect other actors to top up the DMO's budget to
140
S. Reinhold et al. / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 4 (2015) 137–142
cover these new efforts. Factor input should be assumed stable, at best. Second, as the role and requirements of DMOs shift, they need to become less monolithic and accommodate more flexibility in their (hierarchical) structures, functions, tasks, and associated processes. As a source of inspiration for further research in this domain, Clegg and Baumeler (2010) offer the metaphor of a liquid organization that points to the positive (e.g. adaptability and resilience) as well as challenging aspects of more ‘fluid’ organizational forms (e.g. disengagement and fickle solidarity). In contrast, from a practical perspective, DMOs should reorient toward tasks that can be managed and benefit collaboration such as building knowhow in specific domains (e.g. events and MICE), certain backoffice processes (e.g. human resources, finance, etc.), or supporting regional collaboration in general. Third, turning to a more variable and perhaps ‘liquid’ destination concept challenges the identity of these production systems. Conference attendees agreed that, most likely, minimal boundaries and borders will need to persist. However, they should no longer lock DMOs into the activity patterns and self-concept that create the present problems. In this context, it will be interesting to see how the identity of destination actors changes or displays inertia as concepts (including coordinating institutions) and tools of destination management build on a more variable and multifaceted view of the destination. The fourth conclusion is related to the productivity measurement issues attested in the first domain. As DMOs engage in partnerships aimed at enabling production based on visitor flows, they need to account for the efficiency and effectiveness of their actions. Thus, as tourism research investigates the measures of destination productivity and the reliability of the underlying mechanism, it can also help to build a foundation for a more effective use of DMO resources – whether these funds come from private or public sources. Finally, some conference attendees suggested relabeling destination marketing organizations as destination communication organizations. This shift signifies attendees' concern with the congruence between destination marketing messages sent on the one hand and service delivery in the destination on the other. It is a noble but somewhat questionable undertaking to significantly and sustainably increase the number of temporary residents and thereby the overall economic activity in a given area just by means of communication measures. A conference attendee formulated the gist of the conclusions like this: ‘pull the plug on traditional DMOs and their focus on ‘marketing’; instead, focus on topical market failures’. The above considerations may imply that the job profile of a future destination manager might look differently but ‘[…] at the end of the day, we either educate real destination managers according to the new needs or we substitute DMOs with consultants and local project managers’. This is not a call to arms to identify the next universal DMO archetype. Instead, we encourage scholars and practitioners to think about the (new) ways (e.g. competences, network ties, work arrangements, practices etc.) in which decision makers can make destinations and DMOs fit for these ‘new needs’.
networks, will also have implications for the management of this organizational type. With the DMO assuming responsibility as an enabler and facilitator of co-producing experience systems, this organization will require less of a lone leader that personifies and tries to direct the entire destination like a corporate CEO. Instead, participants consented that destinations will be looking for moderator, facilitator, and orchestrator types, which take responsibility for designing (and maybe operating) processes. As a metaphor, discussants referred to them as composers shaping the rhythm and structure of a hymn (i.e. the flows and processes of a system over time). Influence on the destination system will not depend on formal hierarchical power (if it is explicitly presented and agreed upon by the actors at all) but ground in the network-based power this person or organization is endowed with (e.g. financial or intellectual in character). To this end, they need to be able to influence leadership networks within and across destinations. In this context, these increasingly polycentric networks are always means to a higher-order end (e.g. improve the bottom line) rather than ends in themselves. Moreover, it is questionable whether and to what extent a sole individual is able to pave the way to a consensus in decision-making when resources, expertise, leadership influence, and skills reside in diverse destination actors who contribute in different ways to various parts of the experience system. While there is research into destination leadership (e.g. Kozak, Volgger & Pechlaner, 2014; Pechlaner et al., 2014), conference participants pointed out that there are still many open questions with regard to the underlying mechanisms that shape destination networks. However, systems research does alert us to the fact that systems can reach local or even global optima without leadership or the intervention of a guiding hand. The proprietary claims on a given resource or networks of resources and supply network could serve as indicators to assess influence, power, and control in destinations. 6.2. Implications From the discussion on leading and governing destination networks, conference attendees concluded, that future destinations will essentially need people ‘who nudge and incentivize a system’. In addition, attendees contented on four priorities for further research in this domain: first, we lack research into polycentric governance structures in general and relationship in particular. Scholars, but also practitioners, often talk networks and systems, but there is little tourism – specific research to back their statements. Second, it might be fruitful to investigate the challenges of managing DMOs from a human – resource perspective, given unique contingencies of this organization type. Third, the assembled researchers were also in favor of doing more research into the political market of tourism and destinations. Finally, as small and medium-sized enterprises characterize much of destination supply, it might be worthwhile having a special focus on their role in destination development, management, and marketing as well as leadership in destinations (cf. Thomas, Shaw & Page, 2011).
7. Domain 4: destination branding 6. Domain 3: governing and leading destination networks
7.1. Discussion
6.1. Discussion
Overall, discussants unanimously agreed that branding faces increasing limitations (also see remark on market failure in domain two) in tourism and concentrated on four issues: First, a main driver of this development is providers' and destinations' increasing loss of control over communication. This includes communication about ‘their’ market offers as well as any other
The discussion summarized in this section was a direct follow up of participants' exchange on the contents of the previous domains. Conference attendees concluded that the prospective evolution of a DMO's tasks, as it develops into a leader of supply
S. Reinhold et al. / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 4 (2015) 137–142
communication that also affect brand perception. The basis for this claim lies in the almost boundless scalability of peer-to-peer communication in demand networks, be it online- or offline. Symmetric, peerto-peer communication has progressively been replacing asymmetric provider-to-peer message exchange. In consequence, this leaves providers and destinations with the task to provide impetus for positive peer-to-peer communication (i.e. ‘storyfication’ of products and services as the foundation of building brand value) (e.g. Tussyadiah, 2014). Attendees highlighted two means to this end: on the one hand, the match between what you would expect (on the basis of different cues, including branding campaigns) and what you actually get can potentially trigger this behavior. On the other hand, they stressed the benefits of investing in tourist resources, infrastructures, and great services to create a narrative (either while they still are in the destination or after their stay) that is worth telling peers. A second aspect around which a number of statements evolved was the validity of the cause-and-effect link between destination branding and tourist behavior that benefits destination actors. While brands do create equity for consumables, discussants seriously put into question whether the same link is valid for branding something as vague as a destination: ‘brands in tourism are often not much more than a logo and a claim or slogan, lacking the foundation, which you would very often find for consumables or durables’. Conference attendees attested an unfortunate detachment between brand design and creation on the one hand, and the elements that constitute a brand, on the other (e.g. products, mental anchors of products, etc.). In addition, the role of brand awareness' in defending investment in destination branding was seen as part of the issue. Being aware of a brand does not necessarily and reliably transfer to a purchase as the case of aspirational destinations like Canada illustrates. A third issue in the discussion was the political nature of destination branding exercises. Discussants pointed out that destination branding processes are often misused for political ends and thus internal marketing in the broadest sense. Alternatively, they were also perceived to reflect an inability to allocate resources of intellectual and monetary nature to more complex matters of destination management such as trying to influence demand- and supply-side networks to address destinations' economic prospects. In both cases, destination branding serves DMOs as legitimizing device. Finally, it was pointed out that challenges of destination branding might relate to the fact that a destination is not a product and therefore a destination brand is an experiential brand. Moreover, conference participants hinted that different destination types and other contingencies need to be considered when investigating destination branding. For example, branding as a city destination might be different from branding a rural area. For a start, most cities already enjoy a higher level of awareness and are easier to differentiate from each other because they are fewer in number. 7.2. Implications Based on the above considerations, conference participants agreed on two main areas that warrant further research into destination branding: First, given a loss in control over destination- and brand-related communication, how can tourism marketing influence relevant people and other communication multipliers in demand networks that influence others in their travel decisions? There is a gap in research that looks at mechanisms connected to concepts such as word-of-mouth. Second, the debate on cause-and-effect links points to the daunting challenge to empirically establish a causal connection between destination branding (and investment therein) and tourists' actual purchases of tourism services (cf. Dolnicar & Ring, 2014). Differences in destination type and other contingencies might serve as moderators to this link.
141
8. Domain 5: sustainability 8.1. Discussion Discussants challenged the use and operationalization of the sustainability concept in tourism research. In particular, they raised two main concerns: sustainability as an end in itself and a micro-tomacro divide. Conference participants agreed that sustainability should be an aspiration of destination management and that it can be a successful end as locally implemented measures like saving water or favoring local produce demonstrate. However, they were also rather critical of an increasing use of sustainability as a buzzword in promotion and academic writing. Thus, participants challenged the community to reflect whether it is just greenwashing itself by promoting sustainability without actually securing its implementation. While discussants welcomed the local benefits of sustainability measures and the way they act as a foundation for a qualitative growth in destinations, they questioned the prevailing micro perspective on sustainability issues. Conference attendees concluded that they would welcome research on the macro, i.e. further reaching sustainability concerns connected with tourism. This includes, for example, the externalities of tourists' travel activities and how they connect to broader social developments like increasing leisure mobility of people outside traditional first world markets. Finally, one specific solution was discussed connected to the ‘storyfication argument’ in destination branding: how could we create more immersive and engaging experiences, which encourage visitors to stay at a destination for longer and thus create less negative externalities connected to transportation? 8.2. Implications Finally, conference attendees also expressed consent with regard to two aspects of the sustainability literature in tourism research that concerns matters of destination management: First, it would be helpful if the literature was clearer about the specific stance it takes on the multifaceted sustainability concept (e.g. economic, environmental, cultural, etc.) to allow for a better connection between results across individual authors' work. Second, work that connects sustainability at a macro-level to tourism's broader concerns and core functions might benefit our understanding of how to achieve a greater impact that benefits destination actors. This work might benefit from connecting micro and macro level developments.
9. Takeaways and comparison of the 2012 and 2014 consensus Overall, discussions revealed a more (self-) critical attitude toward the state of the practice in and research on destination management and marketing than the first consensus in 2012. As is reflected in the above discussions, the impulse to scrutinize different domains of destination management is coming from two directions: first, the observation of how destinations and their actors struggle to address the complexity of their business as their context changes, and second, the acknowledgement of limitations of existing research in terms of concepts, tools, and some of the underlying beliefs. Within the identified domains, there are four noteworthy changes between the 2012 and 2014 edition of the St. Gallen Consensus: First, the definition of tourist destination suggested in 2014 is more cohesive than the collection of different perspectives on the destination concept discussed in 2012. This goes along with a more detailed apprehension and appreciation of demand-related
142
S. Reinhold et al. / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 4 (2015) 137–142
mechanisms shaping the destination as a productive system (e.g. visitor behavior in space, co-production and gravitation extending from points of attraction). In addition, unlike in 2012, attendees directly linked the definition of the destination to implications such as the use of different resource types, lack of knowledge in related domains (e.g. productivity and transaction cost) or implications for DMOs and tourism managers. Second, while the 2012 Consensus is mostly descriptive, the 2014 edition actively questions the present scope of DMO activities and their reason to exist. Beyond being critical, the 2014 discussion also provides a threefold sense of perspective. It details the nature of DMOs' future activity profiles, it describes the potential structural profiles of this organization type, and it outlines the job profile of tourism managers engaged in and accountable for future destination management and marketing. However, as in 2012, scarce financial resources are seen as a main driver of change in the purpose and legitimacy of DMOs. Third, the 2012 Consensus lamented the heterogeneous conceptualization of governance in tourism research. In contrast, the present edition highlights the implications of a new conceptualization of the destination and destination management for the governance of polycentric networks (e.g. related to sources of power). While the role of a moderator, orchestrator, or facilitator is apparent in both discussions, the 2014 forum extended this notion by connecting it to DMOs contribution to the destination and capability-based considerations. Finally, in contrast to 2012, the discussion in 2014 revolved around a broader set of sustainability concerns, asking for contributions at a macro level (e.g. touristic travel) and for a clearer conceptualization of sustainability, which could eventually serve to integrate disparate contributions related to economic, sociocultural, and ecological sustainability. Across all five domains, the practical relevance and implications of research in destination marketing and management featured as an underlying theme and shared concern. Attendees critically challenged the relevance of present contributions and asked for research and measurement at a more meaningful level of analysis (e.g. visitor flow) as well as for (re-) assessing the causal links between the market interventions of destination actors and tourists' actual behavioral responses. To these ends, we suggest that the conceptualization of the destination as a productive system activated by tourist flows will benefit both future research and practitioners who struggle with the delicate complexities of destination marketing and management. We are looking forward to continuing these discussions and evaluating their impact at the 3rd Biennial Advances in Destination Management Forum in Vail from June 17 to 19, 2016, right after the 2016 TTRA conference. Acknowledgments This paper was developed with the support/help of the following conference participants listed in alphabetical order: Anantamongkolkul, C.; Crescini, G.; Crouch, G.; De Grandpré, F.; Demetz, M.; Elliot, S.; Fabry, N.; Facundo, M.; Flagestad, A.; Fuchs, M.; Fyall, A.; Heeley, J.; Hristov, D.; Hudson, S.; Isaac, S.; Jones, C.; Joppe, M.;
Keller, P.;Kohler, S.; Le-Klähn, DT.; Maggi, R; Manchen Spörri, S.; Milwood, P.; Nuetzi, R.; Pechlaner, H.; Perdue, R.; Prayag, G.; Prebensen, N.; Ruhanen, L.; Scherrer, P.; Schläppi, F.; Schmidt, F.; Siller, H.; Stettler, J.; Stienmetz, J.; Tkaczynski, A.; Volgger, M.; von Arx, W.; Walters, G.; Wegelin, P; Zehrer, A. We would like to thank the following colleagues for their active participation, support and invaluable contributions to this consensus (listed in alphabetical order): Anantamongkolkul, C.; Crescini, G.; Crouch, G.; De Grandpré, F.; Demetz, M.; Elliot, S.; Fabry, N.; Facundo, M.; Flagestad, A.; Fuchs, M.; Fyall, A.; Heeley, J.; Hristov, D.; Hudson, S.; Isaac, S.; Jones, C.; Joppe, M.; Keller, P.; Kohler, S.; Le-Klähn, DT.; Maggi, R; Manchen Spörri, S.; Milwood, P.; Nuetzi, R.; Pechlaner, H.; Perdue, R.; Prayag, G.; Prebensen, N.; Ruhanen, L.; Scherrer, P.; Schläppi, F.; Schmidt, F.; Siller, H.; Stettler, J.; Stienmetz, J.; Tkaczynski, A.; Volgger, M.; von Arx, W.; Walters, G.; Wegelin, P; Zehrer, A.
References Beritelli, P., Bieger, T., & Laesser, C. (2014). The new frontiers of destination management applying variable geometry as a function-based approach. Journal of Travel Research, 53(4), 403–417. Beritelli, P., Reinhold, S., Laesser, C., & Bieger, T. (2015). The St. Gallen model for destination management (1st ed.). St. Gallen: IMP-HSG. Buhalis, D. (2000). Marketing the competitive destination of the future. Tourism Management, 21(1), 97–116. Castells, M. (2005). Space of flows, space of places: Materials for a theory of urbanism in the information age. In: B. Sanyal (Ed.), Comparative Planning Cultures (pp. 45–63). New York: Taylor & Francis Group. Clegg, S., & Baumeler, C. (2010). Essai: from iron cages to liquid modernity in organization analysis. Organization Studies, 31(12), 1713–1733. Dolnicar, S., & Ring, A. (2014). Tourism marketing research: past, present and future. Annals of Tourism Research, 47(0), 31–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. annals.2014.03.008. Fyall, A., Garrod, B., & Wang, Y. (2012). Destination collaboration: a critical review of theoretical approaches to a multi-dimensional phenomenon. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 1(1), 10–26. Gunn, C. (1972). Vacationscape: designing tourist environments. Austin: University of Texas. Hristov, D., & Zehrer, A. (2015). The destination paradigm continuum revisited: DMOs serving as leadership networks. Tourism Review, 70, 2. Kozak, M., Volgger, M., & Pechlaner, H. (2014). Destination leadership: leadership for territorial development. Tourism Review, 69(3), 169–172. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1108/TR-05-2014-0021. Laesser, C., & Beritelli, P. (2013). St. Gallen Consensus on Destination Management. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 2(1), 46–49. McKercher, B., & Prideaux, B. (2014). Academic myths of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 46, 16–28. Pearce, D. G. (2014). Toward an integrative conceptual framework of destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 53(2), 141–153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0047287513491334. Pearce, D. G., & Schänzel, H. A. (2013). Destination management: the tourists' perspective. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 2(3), 137–145. Pechlaner, H., Kozak, M., & Volgger, M. (2014). Destination leadership: a new paradigm for tourist destinations? Tourism Review, 69(1), 1–9. Pike, S., & Page, S. J. (2014). Destination marketing organizations and destination marketing: a narrative analysis of the literature. Tourism Management, 41(0), 202–227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.09.009. Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Thomas, R., Shaw, G., & Page, S. J. (2011). Understanding small firms in tourism: a perspective on research trends and challenges. Tourism Management, 32(5), 963–976. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.02.003. Tussyadiah, I. P. (2014). Toward a theoretical foundation for experience design in tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 53(5), 543–564. UNWTO. (2002). Destination Management & Quality Programme: Conceptual Framework. 2014, from 〈http://destination.unwto.org/content/conceptual-fra mework-0〉, (04.12.2002).