- Email: [email protected]
Characteristics of effective tourism promotion slogans
RESEARCH
NOTES AND
REPORTS
Research Notes
Characteristics
of Effective
Tourism
Promotion
Slogans
David B. Klenosky
Purdue University, USA Richard
E. Gitelson
Arizona State University West, USA );ear, state tourism dcpartmcnts spend considcrablc sums of money to advertise and promote their region to potential visitors. A state’s promotional campaign is typically organized around a central advertising theme or slogan (Hawcs, Taylor and Hampc 1991; Richardson and Cohere 1993). The state’s choice of slogan is considcrcd a critical decision, since it is used to represent the oftentimes diverse.geographic and cultural regions within a state while at the same time serving as a centerpiece for state advrertising.efforts and economic development initiatives. Finding a satisfactory and effective tourism promotion slogan is a diflicult and uncertain endeavor. While advertising agencies, tourism officials, and image consultants have some general ideas about what makes me slogan more effective than another, little empirical research exists in the tourism literature to guide efforts in developing a slogan (for a notable exception, hovvever, see Richardson and Cohen 1993). Rcscarch rclatcd to slogans commonly involves studies that are proprietary, state-specific, and focused on tourists (i.e., their perceptions of the state and reactions to potential slogan ideas). This paper reports on responses to slogans from travel agency mariagcrs. Trawl agents provide a critical intcrfacc in the tourism marketing system. In addition to helping travelers make reservations, the? play a key role in the travel planning process, making suggestions about primary and secondar) destinations, side trips, and attractions to see along the vvay, as well as transportation, lodging, and dining options. In short, their recommendations of what to see and what to avoid can be critical to the success of a particular tourism operation or region. Previous research has examined the travel agents’ role as a marketing intermediary (Bitner and Booms 1982; Michie and Sullivan 1990) and provider of travel information (Snepenger, Meged,
Each
236
RESEARCH NOTES AND REPORTS
Snelling and Worrall 1990) but has not explored their views regarding the effectiveness of the tourism promotion tools or strategies states might use to attract their clients. Similarly, previous research has examined the use and usefulness of a number of different promotional elements, including traveler welcome centers and information centers (Fesenmaier, Vogt and Stewart 1993; Gitelson and Perdue 1987), informational brochures (Gilbert and Houghton 1991), p ress kits (Gladwell and Wolff 1989), travel trade shows, and other tourism sales-promotion techniques such as sales blitzes, educational seminars, and familiarization trips (Pizam 1990), but has only recently begun to explore issues related to tourism promotion slogans (Richardson and Cohen 1993). The present research is intended to contribute to current knowledge in both of these areas. More specifically, its purpose is to summarize travel agents’ views regarding the characteristics of effective state tourism slogans. The data reported here were collected as part of the 1988 Pennsylvania Travel Trade Awareness Study conducted by the Center for Tourism and Travel Research at the Pennsylvania State University (Gitelson, Everett and Klenosky 1988). Telephone interviews were conducted with a national sample of 260 US travel agency managers. Study participants were selected based on a systematic random sampling approach and were chosen to represent each major geographical region of the country. The study’s main purpose was to provide baseline data on awareness levels of Pennsylvania’s advertising efforts among members of the travel trade prior to the state’s introduction of a new tourism promotion campaign and slogan. A secondary purpose was to address issues that might be helpful in developing the new campaign. Specific questions from the study examined in this note focused on assessing travel agents’ perceptions of state tourism promotion slogans. To determine travel agents’ views about state tourism promotion slogans, respondents were asked “Of all the state tourism slogans that you have seen, read, or heard about, which one do you consider to be the best?” Analyses indicated that just over one out of every four respondents (26.2%), considered New York’s slogan “I Love NY!” to be the “best”. The next best was Florida’s “When You Need It Bad, We Got It Good”, mentioned by 6.9% of the sample; followed by “Virginia is for Lovers”, mentioned by 4.6% of the sample. Other state slogans were mentioned but by relatively few respondents. These include California’s “Discover the Californians” (3.1%), Hawaii’s “The Hawaiian Islands: Where the World Wants to Be” (2.3%), Michigan’s “Yes Michigan” (1.9%), and Pennsylvania’s “You’ve got a friend in Pennsylvania” (1.5%). Respondents’ choice of best state slogan was followed with the question “Why do you consider that (particular state) slogan to be the best?” Respondents were prompted to provide multiple reasons. A content analysis revealed that most of the responses referred to characteristics of the slogan itself. For example, the slogan was “easy to remember” (accounting for 17.1% of the mentions), accurately “conveys/describes the state” (6.8%), “appeals to the right people/markets” (5.4%), “is clever/amusing” (4.9%), “is simple” (1.5%). (3.9%), “catches your eye” (3.9%), and “projects fun/excitement” The other mentions were related to the use of a song or music in advertising the slogan-is “associated with a catchy song” (9.3%) and “makes you want to sing along” (2.9%)-or to other execution aspects of the advertising campaign itself-“is advertised often” (7.8%), “is advertised everywhere” (4.4%), and “well done” (2.9%). Of those choosing the “I Love NY!” slogan as best, many noted that its association with music and a catchy song (“one that sticks in your head” and “makes you want to sing along”) strongly contributed to its memorability. Several other mentions for this slogan included references to its usefulness
RESEARCH
NOTES
AND
REPORTS
237
in promoting the variety of assets the state has to offer (e.g., particular attractions, and resources). Of those selecting Florida’s slogan regions, “When You Need It Bad, We Got It Good” as best, several referred to its usefulness in connecting the major attributes and resources of the state (most notably its weather, beaches, and theme parks) with the desires and benefits sought by the state’s main market targets (northerners and families). “Virginia is for Lovers” was mentioned as best mainly for its effectiveness in catching attention and interest. To summarize, the state slogans most often mentioned as “best” in this study included the slogans from New York, Florida, and Virginia. Respondents’ reasons for viewing these slogans as best revealed several interesting characteristics of slogans and their associated advertising campaigns. Most of the responses referred to characteristics of the slogan itself-e.g., that it is easy to remember/memorable, conveys the image of the state, appeals to the right markets. It is notable that many of these concerns refer to some of the key objectives involved in tourism marketing and promotion-e.g., achieving and maintaining awareness, interest, and liking; securing a desired image or positioning strategy; and encouraging visits from specific market segments. As such, they suggest several useful measures or criteria that might be helpful in developing and evaluating alternative slogans or tracking The other reasons mentioned generally slogan effectiveness over time. referred to factors that enhance a slogan’s memorability-e.g., that it is associated with music or a catchy song or is advertised widely and often. These issues relate directly to the quality and scope of the advertising campaign used to introduce and promote a particular slogan. Apparently, these execution-related efforts are not wasted on the travel trade. q 0 David Klenosky: Department of Health, KineCology, and Leisure West Lafayette IN 47907, USA. Email [email protected].
Studies,
Purdue
University,
REFERENCES Bitner, M. J., and B. H. Booms 1982 Trends in Travel and Tourism Marketing: The Changing Structure of Distribution Channels. Journal of Travel Research 20(4):39-44. Fesenmaier, D. R., C. A. Vogt and W. P. Stewart 1993 Investigating the Influence of Welcome Center Information on Travel Behavior. Journal of Travel Research 3 1(3):47-52. Gilbert, D. C., and P. Houghton 1991 An Exploratory Investigation of Format, Design, and Use of U.K. Tour Operators’ Brochures. Journal of Travel Research 30(2):20-25. Gitelson, R., P. Everett, and D. B. Klenosky 1988 Pennsylvania Travel Trade Awareness Study. State College PA: The Pennsylvania State University, Center for Travel and Tourism Research. Gitelson, R., and R. R. Perdue 1987 Evaluating the Role of State Welcome Centers in Disseminating Travel Related Information in North Carolina. Journal of Travel Research 25(4):15-19. Gladwell, N. J., and R. M. Wolff 1989 An Assessment of the Effectiveness of Press Kits as a Tourism Promotion Tool. Journal of Travel Research 27(4):49-5 1. Hawes, D. K., D. T. Taylor and G. D. Hampe 1991 Destination Marketing by States. Journal of Travel Research 30(1):11-17. Michie, D. A., and G. L. Sullivan 1990 The Role of the International Travel Agent in the Travel Decision Process of Client Families. Journal of Travel Research 29(2):30-38.
238
RESEARCH
NOTES
AND REPORTS
Pizam, A. 1990 Evaluating the Effectiveness of Travel Trade Shows and Other Tourism Sales-Promotion Techniques. Journal of Travel Research 29( 1):3-8. Richardson, J., and J. Cohen 1993 State Slogans: The Case of the Missing USP. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 2(2/3):91-109. Snepenger, D., K. Meged, M. Snelling, and K. Worrall 1990 Information Search Strategies by Destination-Naive Tourists. Journal of Travel Research 29(1):13-16. Submitted 16 June 1995 Revised 18 November 1995 Accepted 2 February 1996
A Cross-Cultural
PII:SOlSO-7383(96)00038-2
Application
of the Novelty Scale Soon-Ok Jeong Suk-Hee Park Kyonggi
University,
South Korea
Lee and Crompton (1992) developed a scale to measure novelty seeking in tourism. One of the challenges associated with scale development is assessing the extent of the scale’s generalizability across cultures. The Lee and Crompton scale was developed using four samples in Texas. It operationalized the novelty construct into four dimensions: thrill, change from routine, boredom-alleviation, and surprise; it identified 2 1 items which provided a reliable, valid scale measure of the construct. The study reported here tested the applicability of their scale using a sample of visitors to Lotte World theme park in Korea. The study had two objectives: one, to identify the extent to which the scale’s items and dimensions would be replicated in a different culture, and in the specific context of a short-term theme park experience rather than the longer-term vacation experience with which the original scale was developed; and, two, to differentiate in the degree of novelty experienced by the gender and age cohorts. Data were collected in March 1994 on a weekend. A standardized personal interview was conducted with a convenience sample of 333 Korean visitors to Lotte World, a theme park in Seoul. Visitors who were sitting down and resting were approached and asked to participate in the study. A quota approach to the sample was used to ensure the sample profile was similar to that used in the original study. Thus, 80% were between 17-30 years of age, while 20% were over 30. Lee and Crompton’s 21-item 5-point scale, ranging from 5 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree) was used. Results of the factor analysis are reported in Table 1, where they are compared with the results reported by Lee and Crompton. The Korean sample was very similar to those reported in the original study. The only item which loaded saliently differently on a dimension was “I don’t like to plan a vacation trip in detail because it takes away some of the unexpectedness”. This loaded on the thrill dimension, whereas in the original study it measured the surprise dimension. This may be an aberration since this item does appear to be more consistent with the notion of surprise rather than thrill. t-Tests found a significant difference in novelty motive between the gender
NOTES AND
REPORTS
Research Notes
Characteristics
of Effective
Tourism
Promotion
Slogans
David B. Klenosky
Purdue University, USA Richard
E. Gitelson
Arizona State University West, USA );ear, state tourism dcpartmcnts spend considcrablc sums of money to advertise and promote their region to potential visitors. A state’s promotional campaign is typically organized around a central advertising theme or slogan (Hawcs, Taylor and Hampc 1991; Richardson and Cohere 1993). The state’s choice of slogan is considcrcd a critical decision, since it is used to represent the oftentimes diverse.geographic and cultural regions within a state while at the same time serving as a centerpiece for state advrertising.efforts and economic development initiatives. Finding a satisfactory and effective tourism promotion slogan is a diflicult and uncertain endeavor. While advertising agencies, tourism officials, and image consultants have some general ideas about what makes me slogan more effective than another, little empirical research exists in the tourism literature to guide efforts in developing a slogan (for a notable exception, hovvever, see Richardson and Cohen 1993). Rcscarch rclatcd to slogans commonly involves studies that are proprietary, state-specific, and focused on tourists (i.e., their perceptions of the state and reactions to potential slogan ideas). This paper reports on responses to slogans from travel agency mariagcrs. Trawl agents provide a critical intcrfacc in the tourism marketing system. In addition to helping travelers make reservations, the? play a key role in the travel planning process, making suggestions about primary and secondar) destinations, side trips, and attractions to see along the vvay, as well as transportation, lodging, and dining options. In short, their recommendations of what to see and what to avoid can be critical to the success of a particular tourism operation or region. Previous research has examined the travel agents’ role as a marketing intermediary (Bitner and Booms 1982; Michie and Sullivan 1990) and provider of travel information (Snepenger, Meged,
Each
236
RESEARCH NOTES AND REPORTS
Snelling and Worrall 1990) but has not explored their views regarding the effectiveness of the tourism promotion tools or strategies states might use to attract their clients. Similarly, previous research has examined the use and usefulness of a number of different promotional elements, including traveler welcome centers and information centers (Fesenmaier, Vogt and Stewart 1993; Gitelson and Perdue 1987), informational brochures (Gilbert and Houghton 1991), p ress kits (Gladwell and Wolff 1989), travel trade shows, and other tourism sales-promotion techniques such as sales blitzes, educational seminars, and familiarization trips (Pizam 1990), but has only recently begun to explore issues related to tourism promotion slogans (Richardson and Cohen 1993). The present research is intended to contribute to current knowledge in both of these areas. More specifically, its purpose is to summarize travel agents’ views regarding the characteristics of effective state tourism slogans. The data reported here were collected as part of the 1988 Pennsylvania Travel Trade Awareness Study conducted by the Center for Tourism and Travel Research at the Pennsylvania State University (Gitelson, Everett and Klenosky 1988). Telephone interviews were conducted with a national sample of 260 US travel agency managers. Study participants were selected based on a systematic random sampling approach and were chosen to represent each major geographical region of the country. The study’s main purpose was to provide baseline data on awareness levels of Pennsylvania’s advertising efforts among members of the travel trade prior to the state’s introduction of a new tourism promotion campaign and slogan. A secondary purpose was to address issues that might be helpful in developing the new campaign. Specific questions from the study examined in this note focused on assessing travel agents’ perceptions of state tourism promotion slogans. To determine travel agents’ views about state tourism promotion slogans, respondents were asked “Of all the state tourism slogans that you have seen, read, or heard about, which one do you consider to be the best?” Analyses indicated that just over one out of every four respondents (26.2%), considered New York’s slogan “I Love NY!” to be the “best”. The next best was Florida’s “When You Need It Bad, We Got It Good”, mentioned by 6.9% of the sample; followed by “Virginia is for Lovers”, mentioned by 4.6% of the sample. Other state slogans were mentioned but by relatively few respondents. These include California’s “Discover the Californians” (3.1%), Hawaii’s “The Hawaiian Islands: Where the World Wants to Be” (2.3%), Michigan’s “Yes Michigan” (1.9%), and Pennsylvania’s “You’ve got a friend in Pennsylvania” (1.5%). Respondents’ choice of best state slogan was followed with the question “Why do you consider that (particular state) slogan to be the best?” Respondents were prompted to provide multiple reasons. A content analysis revealed that most of the responses referred to characteristics of the slogan itself. For example, the slogan was “easy to remember” (accounting for 17.1% of the mentions), accurately “conveys/describes the state” (6.8%), “appeals to the right people/markets” (5.4%), “is clever/amusing” (4.9%), “is simple” (1.5%). (3.9%), “catches your eye” (3.9%), and “projects fun/excitement” The other mentions were related to the use of a song or music in advertising the slogan-is “associated with a catchy song” (9.3%) and “makes you want to sing along” (2.9%)-or to other execution aspects of the advertising campaign itself-“is advertised often” (7.8%), “is advertised everywhere” (4.4%), and “well done” (2.9%). Of those choosing the “I Love NY!” slogan as best, many noted that its association with music and a catchy song (“one that sticks in your head” and “makes you want to sing along”) strongly contributed to its memorability. Several other mentions for this slogan included references to its usefulness
RESEARCH
NOTES
AND
REPORTS
237
in promoting the variety of assets the state has to offer (e.g., particular attractions, and resources). Of those selecting Florida’s slogan regions, “When You Need It Bad, We Got It Good” as best, several referred to its usefulness in connecting the major attributes and resources of the state (most notably its weather, beaches, and theme parks) with the desires and benefits sought by the state’s main market targets (northerners and families). “Virginia is for Lovers” was mentioned as best mainly for its effectiveness in catching attention and interest. To summarize, the state slogans most often mentioned as “best” in this study included the slogans from New York, Florida, and Virginia. Respondents’ reasons for viewing these slogans as best revealed several interesting characteristics of slogans and their associated advertising campaigns. Most of the responses referred to characteristics of the slogan itself-e.g., that it is easy to remember/memorable, conveys the image of the state, appeals to the right markets. It is notable that many of these concerns refer to some of the key objectives involved in tourism marketing and promotion-e.g., achieving and maintaining awareness, interest, and liking; securing a desired image or positioning strategy; and encouraging visits from specific market segments. As such, they suggest several useful measures or criteria that might be helpful in developing and evaluating alternative slogans or tracking The other reasons mentioned generally slogan effectiveness over time. referred to factors that enhance a slogan’s memorability-e.g., that it is associated with music or a catchy song or is advertised widely and often. These issues relate directly to the quality and scope of the advertising campaign used to introduce and promote a particular slogan. Apparently, these execution-related efforts are not wasted on the travel trade. q 0 David Klenosky: Department of Health, KineCology, and Leisure West Lafayette IN 47907, USA. Email [email protected].
Studies,
Purdue
University,
REFERENCES Bitner, M. J., and B. H. Booms 1982 Trends in Travel and Tourism Marketing: The Changing Structure of Distribution Channels. Journal of Travel Research 20(4):39-44. Fesenmaier, D. R., C. A. Vogt and W. P. Stewart 1993 Investigating the Influence of Welcome Center Information on Travel Behavior. Journal of Travel Research 3 1(3):47-52. Gilbert, D. C., and P. Houghton 1991 An Exploratory Investigation of Format, Design, and Use of U.K. Tour Operators’ Brochures. Journal of Travel Research 30(2):20-25. Gitelson, R., P. Everett, and D. B. Klenosky 1988 Pennsylvania Travel Trade Awareness Study. State College PA: The Pennsylvania State University, Center for Travel and Tourism Research. Gitelson, R., and R. R. Perdue 1987 Evaluating the Role of State Welcome Centers in Disseminating Travel Related Information in North Carolina. Journal of Travel Research 25(4):15-19. Gladwell, N. J., and R. M. Wolff 1989 An Assessment of the Effectiveness of Press Kits as a Tourism Promotion Tool. Journal of Travel Research 27(4):49-5 1. Hawes, D. K., D. T. Taylor and G. D. Hampe 1991 Destination Marketing by States. Journal of Travel Research 30(1):11-17. Michie, D. A., and G. L. Sullivan 1990 The Role of the International Travel Agent in the Travel Decision Process of Client Families. Journal of Travel Research 29(2):30-38.
238
RESEARCH
NOTES
AND REPORTS
Pizam, A. 1990 Evaluating the Effectiveness of Travel Trade Shows and Other Tourism Sales-Promotion Techniques. Journal of Travel Research 29( 1):3-8. Richardson, J., and J. Cohen 1993 State Slogans: The Case of the Missing USP. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 2(2/3):91-109. Snepenger, D., K. Meged, M. Snelling, and K. Worrall 1990 Information Search Strategies by Destination-Naive Tourists. Journal of Travel Research 29(1):13-16. Submitted 16 June 1995 Revised 18 November 1995 Accepted 2 February 1996
A Cross-Cultural
PII:SOlSO-7383(96)00038-2
Application
of the Novelty Scale Soon-Ok Jeong Suk-Hee Park Kyonggi
University,
South Korea
Lee and Crompton (1992) developed a scale to measure novelty seeking in tourism. One of the challenges associated with scale development is assessing the extent of the scale’s generalizability across cultures. The Lee and Crompton scale was developed using four samples in Texas. It operationalized the novelty construct into four dimensions: thrill, change from routine, boredom-alleviation, and surprise; it identified 2 1 items which provided a reliable, valid scale measure of the construct. The study reported here tested the applicability of their scale using a sample of visitors to Lotte World theme park in Korea. The study had two objectives: one, to identify the extent to which the scale’s items and dimensions would be replicated in a different culture, and in the specific context of a short-term theme park experience rather than the longer-term vacation experience with which the original scale was developed; and, two, to differentiate in the degree of novelty experienced by the gender and age cohorts. Data were collected in March 1994 on a weekend. A standardized personal interview was conducted with a convenience sample of 333 Korean visitors to Lotte World, a theme park in Seoul. Visitors who were sitting down and resting were approached and asked to participate in the study. A quota approach to the sample was used to ensure the sample profile was similar to that used in the original study. Thus, 80% were between 17-30 years of age, while 20% were over 30. Lee and Crompton’s 21-item 5-point scale, ranging from 5 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree) was used. Results of the factor analysis are reported in Table 1, where they are compared with the results reported by Lee and Crompton. The Korean sample was very similar to those reported in the original study. The only item which loaded saliently differently on a dimension was “I don’t like to plan a vacation trip in detail because it takes away some of the unexpectedness”. This loaded on the thrill dimension, whereas in the original study it measured the surprise dimension. This may be an aberration since this item does appear to be more consistent with the notion of surprise rather than thrill. t-Tests found a significant difference in novelty motive between the gender