Preferences and Trip-planning Behavior of the U.S. Outbound Pleasure Travel Market

Activity

S. R. RAO, EDWARD G. THOMAS,

AND

RAJSHEKHAR G. JAVALGI

This article examines the findings of a survey of American pleasure travelers, who represent an attractive market in terms of size and economic potential for the travel industry. The study provides market-based information pertaining to American outbound pleasure travelers’ destination activity preferences and their travel-planning behavior. More specifically, the study examines the travelers’ trip-planning behavior and the importance attached to a variety of activities, amenities, and locational variables in considering four foreign destinations (Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean Islands, and Europe). Marketing implications of the findings are delineated.

Undeniably, tourism has been one of the most significant and consistent growth industries in the world. Tourism ranks third among all export &dquo;industries&dquo; and represents 25% of the international trade in services; spending for both domestic and international travel contributes approximately 12% to the world’s gross national product (D’Amore 1988; Waters 1987). In dollar terms, including money spent on fares, the United States is the highest-spending market, accounting for $28.1 billion in 1985 (U.S. Department of Commerce 1988, p. 227). In terms of numbers of tourists, the United States is the second largest international outbound travel market in the world after West Germany (or, after reunification, Ger-

many). This article focuses on the U.S. pleasure travel market, which is large and growing (Taylor 1987, 1989; Menezes and Chandra 1989; Dybka 1988, 1987; Woodside and Carr 1988). A report published by Tourism Canada (1986) points out that in 1985 a total of 130.6 million people took a total of 468 million personal pleasure trips; the typical U.S. pleasure traveler takes 3.6 pleasure trips a year lasting four days on the average. As the Gulf War and the early-1991 economic recession in the United States so vividly demonstrated, political and economic conditions may drastically affect the decision making of pleasure travelers in the short term. However, in the long term, prospects for the continued growth of U.S. outbound pleasure travel appear to be promising. This assertion is based on a consideration of changing consumer demographics, the increasing use of technology in travel planning, the general broadening of consumer tastes, and the increasingly apparent interest in foreign destinations for pleasure travel as reflected in the numbers above. All in all,

S R Rao Is Associate Professor of Marketmg, Edward G Thomas is Professor of General Administration, and Rajshekhar G Javalgl Is Associate Professor of Marketing at the James J Nance College of Busmess Administration at Cleveland State Umversrty, Cleveland, Ohio The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Gordon Taylor

these factors suggest that the U. S. outbound pleasure travel market will continue to challenge travel marketers to devise new strategies and pursue new directions in the marketing of foreign travel. In this competitive tourism industry, it is of paramount importance for travel marketers to identify U. S. pleasure travelers’ preferences for destinations, as these travelers face a great number of choices. The present study focuses on the stated activity preferences and travel-planning behaviors of U.S. outbound pleasure travelers. THE STUDY OBJECTIVES

Clearly some foreign lands have more competitive advantages than others in attracting U.S. pleasure travelers, perhaps because of the proximity of the destination to the United States, the existence of a desirable climate, or the availability of recreational activities which appeal to U.S. travelers. While travel marketers cannot do anything to change the actual location of a destination, its climate, or the activities available, they may be able, through advertising or other promotional means, to have an impact on the way these attributes are perceived by potential consumers. It is important, therefore, for travel marketers to understand what American pleasure travelers think is important in choosing destinations for a particular type of trip. Data on activity preferences can provide such information. This study provides market-based information pertaining to American outbound pleasure travelers’ destination activity preferences and their trip-planning behavior. More specifically, the study addresses two specific questions: 1. What are the travel-related activity preferences of U.S. travelers in selecting foreign destinations for various types of pleasure trips? 2. What information sources do U.S. pleasure travelers use for their outbound pleasure-trip planning? Answers to these questions will assist travel marketers in devising competitive marketing strategies and exploring new business opportunities in the U. S. pleasure travel market. To accomplish the objectives listed above, the study uses data from a national study of U.S. travelers conducted by Tourism Canada. While other research studies have used the 3

Tourism Canada data base, they have either concentrated on aspects of the survey results which relate primarily to the domestic U.S. travel market or to the Canadian travel market. The present study focuses on the activity preferences and trip-planning behavior of respondents who had traveled to one or more of four popular foreign destinations: Canada, Mexico, Europe, and the Caribbean Islands. These destinations account for an overwhelming majority of the trips made by U.S. travelers. Travel and Leisure magazine’s World Travel Overview (1988/89) indicates that Mexico attracted 13.5 million U.S. travelers in 1987, and this number is expected to increase some 25% by 1992, with pleasure travelers accounting for three-quarters of the total number of travelers. The same study also shows that Europe attracted nearly 6.2 million U.S. travelers in 1987, with little or modest growth expected by the year 1992; vacation travelers remain the largest travel segment to Europe. Statistics show that Canada holds 33% of the U.S. outbound travel market, Mexico 32%, Europe 16%, and the Caribbean and Central America 11 % (USTTA

1989).

METHODOLOGY The present study is based on the data collected in a research project sponsored recently by Tourism Canada. This project represents the most comprehensive study of the perceptions, preferences, and travel planning behavior of U.S. pleasure travelers ever undertaken by a Canadian organization, and perhaps by any source. As a detailed discussion of the data collection procedure has been published elsewhere (Taylor 1989), only a brief discussion is presented here to avoid duplication. The study’s data base consists of the results of a total of 9,000 personal, in-home interviews, averaging 60 minutes in length. These interviews were conducted in each of the nine U.S. census divisions, with 1,000 interviews per division having been completed. The criteria for participating in the study were that an American adult respondent must have been at least 16 years of age and have taken at least one pleasure trip in the three years preceding the study. This trip must have required the respondent to travel more than 100 miles one way, spend at least one night away from home, and use commercial accommodations and/or transportation. Americans meeting this requirement comprised threefourths of the U. S. population who were 16 years of age and older. The respondents were asked to provide information on (1) their activity preferences for a variety of trip types and (2) their trip-planning behavior. The trip types were defined as follows (Taylor 1989): 1. Touring trip: A trip by car, bus, or train through areas of scenic beauty and cultural and general interest. 2. City trip: A journey to a city where one can shop, visit museums, or enjoy entertainment, dine, attend plays or concerts, or just stroll around and enjoy the city. 3. Outdoors trip: A trip to a natural area where one can engage in activities such as camping, hunting, fishing,

rafting. Resort trip: A journey to a resort or resort area where a wide variety of recreational activities, amenities, and facilities are available nearby or on the premises.

hiking, 4.

4

5. Cruise: A trip on a cruise ship where one enjoys all on-board activities and planned stops at points of interest along the way. 6. Theme park/special event trip: A trip taken primarily for the purpose of visiting a major theme park, exhibition, or special event such as a super bowl, world’s fair, or Olympic games. The lists of activity preference statements for each trip were derived from focus group meetings in the exploratory phase of the research project sponsored by Tourism Canada. There were 38 activity statements for touring trips, 28 for city trips, 28 for trips featuring outdoor activities, 43 for resort vacations, 18 for trips to theme parks/special events, and 19 for cruises. To obtain the information on these statements for each trip type, a scale ranging from 1 (not important to all) to 4 (very important) was used. Respondents were asked to indicate how important various activities were in the choice of a travel destination for each trip type. Only respondents who had taken at least one trip of a particular type to a particular destination were permitted to respond to questions about activity preferences for that trip type to that destination. Thus, the number of respondents regarding activity preferences tends to vary from destination to destination within each trip type (see Tables 1 through 6). While the items in each list are referred to as &dquo;activities,&dquo; the lists actually encompass three types of entries: activities (e.g., &dquo;shopping&dquo;), amenities or services (e.g., &dquo;staying in first-class hotels&dquo;), and locational factors (e.g., &dquo;having predictable weather&dquo;). According to Taylor (1989, p. 36), each list &dquo;is closer to describing the main components of a tourism product than just being the activities of travelers.&dquo; To determine the relative importance of activities, descriptive statistical measures were computed for each destination by each trip type. The average importance scores (means) of the statements for touring vacations, city trips, outdoor vacations, resort vacations, theme/amusement park trips, and cruise trips are presented in Tables 1 through 6, respectively. To facilitate comparisons among the four destinations, each set of importance scores was ranked to indicate how important each activity statement was judged to be relative to the others. The higher the score or rank, the more important the statement to the respondents. To measure the degree of association among the ranked sets of activity preferences, the Kendall coefficient of concordance (W) was computed using the procedure described by Siegel (1956). This statistic can range in value from zero (indicating no association/agreement among the rankings) to one (indicating complete association/agreement among the rankings). In addition to the measure of association, one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) were performed to determine which of the activity preference variables differed significantly across the four destinations. Details concerning the coefficient of concordance and analyses of variance results are presented in footnotes to Tables 1 through 6. The statistics concerning trip-planning behavior are presented in Table 7. The study findings are discussed below, beginning with some general observations, then moving to a

consideration of

more

specific topics. FINDINGS

or

Examination of Tables 1 through 6 indicates that certain activities stand out as most important across all trip types. In this section these common activities are first identified and

then discussed in terms of the importance of all the activities for each trip type. Clearly, the factor &dquo;having predictable weather&dquo; was deemed to be most important in selecting a pleasure trip destination. This activity (actually, it is a locational factor) was rated first in importance by respondents for five of the six trip types, and it ranked third in importance for the remaining trip type (i.e., the city trip). Having predictable weather was also important across the four destinations studied, ranking first or second in importance for an overwhelming majority of the destinations across the six trip types. Another general pattern in the findings was that eating appears to be a relatively important activity for most types of trips, with dining at a variety of restaurants and sampling the local cuisine being frequently ranked among the top activity

preferences. Are there differences in the rankings of the various activities across the trip types and destinations? The correlation coefficients computed for Tables 1 through 6 were all significant beyond the .001 level. Thus, the respondents appear to have used essentially the same standards for assessing the importance of the activities in choosing a destination for a particular type of trip (i.e., the four sets of rankings do not differ significantly overall). However, while the rankings were not significantly different from one destination to another for each trip type, the ANOVA results revealed that, for many of the individual items (activity preferences) listed for each trip type, significant differences did exist in item means across the destinations studied. The findings related to individual item differ-

and to the importance below for each type of trip.

ences

rating patterns

are

presented

Importance

of Activities for a Touring Vacation What activities do American travelers prefer to engage in when they are on a touring vacation? Table 1 provides information on the relative importance of a number of activities for touring trips to the four destinations studied. For comparative purposes, ColumnI of Table I presents the means of the statements and the associated ranks for the total sample when the respondents were asked to assess the importance of the activities regardless of the destination. As can be seen readily from Column 1 of Table 1, the most important activity preferences for a touring vacation for the total sample were having predictable weather, visiting natural parks, walking or strolling about, dining at a variety of restaurants, sampling the local cuisine, seeing wildlife, being close to the mountains, visiting small towns and villages, having budget accommodations, and being by the ocean.

How do the preferences vary across the four destinations ? The ANOVA results revealed significant differences (at the .05 level or beyond) in the preference scores (means) on 11 of the 20 most important activities for touring vacations. For example, sampling the local cuisine was more important to those who had taken a touring vacation to Europe than to those who had traveled to Canada. Likewise, taking guided tours was significantly more important to those who have traveled to the Caribbean Islands than to those who had taken a touring vacation to Mexico.

TABLE 1 THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF ACTIVITY PREFERENCES FOR THE FOUR DESTINATIONS: TOURING VACATION

a From the original set of 38 activity preference variables, the least important ones were excluded from the analysis. Therefore, the table presents data on only the 20 most important activity variables. To determine which of these variables differed significantly across the four destinations, one-way analyses of variance were performed. As shown above, six variables were found to be significant at the .05 level or beyond

(indicated by *), and five variables were found to be significant at the .01 level or beyond (indicated by **). To measure the degree of association among the ranked sets of activity preferences, the Kendall coefficient of concordance (W) was computed. The W of .8721 (with an associated Chi-square value of 66.28) was significant at the .001 level, thus suggesting agreement among the rankings. 5

Importance of Activity Preferences for a City Trip In selecting a destination for a city trip (see Table 2), the U.S. traveler seems to prefer big-city destinations that offer dining at a variety of restaurants, shopping, predictable weather, both budget accommodations and first-class hotels, and opportunities to sample the local cuisine, to stroll about, dine at elegant restaurants, and to go to concerts and the theater. With regard to differences in activity preferences across the four destinations, the ANOVA results revealed that, on nine of the 17 most important activities, there were significant differences across the four destinations. For example, having the opportunity to walk or stroll about was significantly more important for those who had traveled to the Caribbean Islands than for those who had taken a city trip to Mexico. On the other hand, being able to attend sports events was more important to those who had traveled to Mexico than to those who had taken a city trip to the Caribbean Islands. to

Importance of Activity Preferences for Outdoor Vacation

an

What activities appeal to U.S. outbound travelers for a destination for an outdoor vacation? Table 3 presents the activity preferences of the respondents who had taken outdoor vacations in one or more of the four overseas destinations. The outdoor activities American pleasure travelers perceived as being most important were having predictable weather, being by a lake, being close to the mountains, exploring wilderness areas, visiting natural parks, walking

selecting

strolling about, having budget accommodations, seeing usually not seen, swimming, and fresh-water fishing. Significant differences across the destinations were identified for six of the 15 most important activity variables. In all six cases, the highest mean on the item in question was exhibited by the respondents who had taken outdoor vacations to the Caribbean Islands. On the item having to do with visiting natural parks, the visitors to the Islands differed significantly from those who have traveled to Europe. On exploring wilderness areas, the largest mean difference was or

wildlife that is

with those who had visited Canada. On swimming as an important activity, the visitors to the Caribbean differed from both those who had visited Mexico and those who had traveled to Europe for outdoor vacations.

Importance

of Activities for Resort Vacations

The activities deemed to be most important for U.S. in selecting a trip to a resort area were as follows (see Table 4): having predictable weather, dining at a variety of restaurants, being by the ocean, walking or strolling about, swimming, sunbathing, sampling the local cuisine, being by a lake, staying in first-class hotels, and being close to the mountains. When the differences in item means were examined using the ANOVA procedure, 13 of the 25 most important activities were found to differ significantly across the destinations. For example, being in a resort area by the ocean was more important for Caribbean travelers than for those who had taken resort vacations to Mexico. Being by a lake was more important to those who had traveled to Mexico and to Canada than for those who had visited the Caribbean.

pleasure travelers

TABLE 2 THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF ACTIVITY PREFERENCES FOR THE FOUR DESTINATIONS:

CITY TRIP

.............~ ..~..................

----

-

-.-...

-..

-

. -

-....

_

--

-

-

-

-

a From the origmal set of 28 activity preference vanables, the least important ones were excluded from the analysis. Therefore, the table presents data on only the 17 most important activity vanables. To determine which of these variables differed significantly across the four destinations, one-way analyses of variance were performed. As shown above, six variables were found to be significant at the .05 level or beyond

(indicated by *), and three variables were found to be significant at the .01 level or beyond (indicated by **). To measure the degree of association among the ranked sets of activity preferences, the Kendall coefficient of concordance (W) was computed. The W of .9064 (with an associated Chi-square value of 58.01) was significant at the .001 level, thus suggesting agreement among the rankings. 6

Having budget accommodations

was

significantly more im-

portant for those who had vacationed in Mexico than for those who had visited

resort areas

in

Europe.

Importance of Activities for Theme/ Amusement Park Trip For a trip to a theme park, exhibition, or special event, the following activities were deemed most important by U.S. travelers (see Table 5): having predictable weather, having

budget accommodations, walking or strolling about, dining at a variety of restaurants, taking rides (at amusement parks), sampling the local cuisine, staying in first-class hotels, shopping for arts and crafts of the area, going to live concerts or live theater, and dining in elegant, sophisticated restaurants. Across the four destinations, significant differences existed on seven of the 10 most important activities. Having predictable weather, for example, was equally important for travelers to theme parks and special events in Mexico, Canada, and the Caribbean, but less important for those who had traveled to Europe on this type of trip. Having budget accommodations was significantly more important to those who had traveled to Mexico than to those who had visited theme parks or special events in Europe. Having the opportunity for walking or strolling about was more important to those who had made theme park trips to Canada and Europe than to those who had visited the Caribbean for this type of trip.

Importance

of Activities for

Cruise

Trip The most important activities for a cruise trip, where one enjoys onboard activities and planned stops at points of interest along the way, can be readily determined from Table 6. The highest rankings overall were for the following activities : having predictable weather; being by the ocean; dining a

in elegant, sophisticated restaurants; dining at a variety of restaurants; swimming; shopping for arts and crafts of the area; visiting museums and galleries; sunbathing; having budget accommodations; and sampling the local cuisine. Significant differences were found on four of the 12 most important activities across the destinations studied. Having predictable weather was more important to those who had taken cruise trips to Mexico than to those who had taken similar vacations to Europe. Swimming as an activity on a cruise trip was more important for those who had &dquo;cruised&dquo; to the Caribbean than for those who had taken a European cruise. Having the opportunity to attend ethnic festivals or events was a more important activity for European travelers than for Caribbean visitors on cruise trips. So far our discussion has pertained to the relative importance of the activity preference in selecting a destination for pleasure trips. As vacation choice decisions frequently involve considerable time and money, they are likely to be viewed as important decisions, involving much informationseeking and other trip-planning behavior. The ensuing section focuses on the trip-planning behavior of U.S. outbound pleasure travelers.

Trip-planning

Behavior

Survey respondents were asked to indicate their planning horizons (i.e., how far ahead of the trip they began planning seriously for trips to each destination). The results are presented in the first section of Table 7. When U.S. travelers consider Europe and the Caribbean Islands as destinations for pleasure trips, they appear to start planning somewhat earlier than for trips to Canada and Mexico. Over 20% of the travelers to Europe and the Caribbean Islands start planning from six to 11months ahead of time compared to fewer than 10% who start planning that early for trips to Mexico and

TABLE 3 THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF ACTIVITY PREFERENCES FOR THE FOUR DESTINATIONS: OUTDOOR VACATION

a From the original set of 28 activity preference variables, the least important ones were excluded from the analysis. Therefore, the table presents data on only the 15 most important activity variables. To determine which of these vanables differed significantly across the four destinations, one-way analyses of variance were performed. As shown above, five variables were found to be significant at the .05 level or beyond

indicated by *), and one variable was found to be significant at the .01 level or beyond (indicated by **). To measure the degree of association among the ranked sets of activity preferences, the Kendall coefficient of concordance (W) was computed. The W of .9516 (with an associated Chi-square value of 53.29) was significant at the .001 level, thus suggesting agreement among the rankings. 7

TABLE 4 THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF ACTIVITY PREFERENCES FOR THE FOUR DESTINATIONS: RESORT VACATION

a From the onginal set of 43 activity preference variables, the least important ones were excluded from the analysis. Therefore, the table presents data on only the 25 most important activity variables. To determine which of these vanables differed significantly across the four destinations, one-way analyses of variance were performed. As shown above, seven vanables were found to be significant at the .05 level or

beyond indicated by *), and six vanables were found to be significant at the .01 level or beyond (indicated by **). To measure the degree of association among the ranked sets of activity preferences, the Kendall coefficient of concordance (W) was computed. The W of .9773 (with an associated Chi-square value of 93.82) was Significant at the .001 level, thus suggesting agreement among the rankings. TABLE 5 THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF ACTIVITY PREFERENCES FOR THE FOUR DESTINATIONS: THEME PARK

a From the original set of 18 activity preference vanables, the least important ones were excluded from the analysis. Therefore, the table presents data on only the 10 most important activity variables. To determine which of these variables differed significantly across the four destinations, one-way analyses of variance were performed. As shown above, five variables were found to be significant at the .05 level or beyond

(indicated by *), and two variables were found to be significant at the .01 level or beyond (indicated by **). To measure the degree of association among the ranked sets of activity preferences, the Kendall coefficient of concordance (W) was computed. The W of .8250 (with an associated Chi-square value of 27.70) was significant at the .001 level, thus suggesting agreement among the rankings. 8

Canada. In fact, almost half of the travelers to Mexico and Canada had a planning horizon of less than one month. Overall, approximately 40% of the travelers have a planning horizon of one to five months. To form images of destinations and environments that have tourist potential, travelers use a myriad of information sources which can be broadly grouped into two types formal and informal (Raitz and Dakhil 1989). Informal sources of information are personal in nature and include conversations with relatives, friends, and acquaintances (Mathieson and Wall 1982). Formal sources, on the other hand, are marketer-dominated sources which can vary widely, from print (newspapers/magazines) to broadcast media (TV/radio) to professional consultants or travel agents who act as links between a particular place and potential travelers (Raitz and Dakhil 1989). Engel, Kollatt, and Blackwell (1973) point out that &dquo;hundreds of studies have found that consumers obtain information about products and services from other people, particularly family members, friends, neighbors, and other acquaintances.&dquo; The results of the present study confirm this. Table 7 shows that informal personal contacts, such as friends and relatives, are the most often-mentioned sources, being used by 70% or more of the travelers, regardless of the destination. The second most important information source for each destination was newspapers, with more than onethird of all outbound travelers mentioning them. Travel agents were third in importance, being mentioned for most destinations by a fourth or more of the respondents. Magazines in general were rated as the least important information source for three of the four destinations, with TV and radio following close behind and being rated least important for information on trips to Europe. Travel magazines were the second most important printed source of travel information. Overall, Table 7 suggests that American pleasure travelers use print media more frequently than broadcast media. For marketers, managers, and advertisers, formal informa-

tion sources are of particular interest as these sources provide direct access to travelers. In the survey instrument, the respondents were asked an unaided question regarding where they might travel for pleasure purposes in the next two years and for what purpose(s) they would travel there. As shown in Table 7, Canada is considered as a multipurpose destination with a strong image for touring, outdoor, and city trip vacations. While the likelihood of visiting Mexico’s resorts is strong, Europe is touted as a desirable destination for touring vacations. The information displayed in Tables 1 through 7 can assist travel and tourism marketers in developing marketing strategies to gain a larger share of the U. S. outbound pleasure market to the four listed destinations. The following section focuses on the conclusions to be drawn from the study and the resulting implications for marketers.

IMPLICATIONS In this section general implications of the findings are discussed first, followed by specific strategies that can be employed to promote the destinations. With regard to the finding that having predictable weather is the most important factor for those planning pleasure trips, an obvious implication is that marketers of travel and tourism services to destinations having predictable weather should emphasize this factor in their marketing appeals and promotional efforts. It should be noted, however, that the factor &dquo;having predictable weather&dquo; may not necessarily mean having &dquo;sunny&dquo; weather or &dquo;good&dquo; weather; apparently, U.S. travelers to foreign destinations simply want to know what to expect regarding the weather. As was pointed out earlier, eating (or dining) is an important activity on most types of pleasure trips. For those trip types and destinations where culinary experiences are rated high in importance, travel marketers should emphasize the

TABLE 6 THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF ACTIVITY PREFERENCES FOR THE FOUR DESTINATIONS: CRUISE TRIP

a From the original set of 19 activity preference variables, the least important ones were excluded from the analysis. Therefore, the table presents data on only the 12 most important activity variables. To determine which of these variables differed significantly across the four destinations, one-way analyses of variance were performed. As shown above, four variables were found to be significant at the .05 level or beyond

(indicated by *). To measure the degree of association among the ranked sets of activity preferences, the Kendall coefficient of concordance (W) was computed. The W of .7745 (with an associated Chi-square value of 34.08) was significant at the .001 level, thus suggesting agreement among the rankings. 9

of restaurants available and/or the opportunity for travelers to sample the local cuisine. Although the activities and locational factors noted above were fairly common across trip types and destinations, the findings revealed a number of differences in activity preferences among the trip types and destinations. Travel marketers can use these findings to differentiate among trip types and destinations, emphasizing those attributes of the trip types and destinations that relate closely to the stated preferences of U.S. outbound travelers.

variety

With regard to trip-planning behavior, the more the expense and the greater the distance involved, the longer the trip-planning horizon is for U.S. outbound pleasure travelers. Thus, travel marketers offering various types of trips and services for Caribbean and European destinations should begin promotional activities several months in advance of specific events or seasons of the year. Those who wish to market trips to Canada or Mexico can take advantage of the much shorter planning horizon of U.S. travelers to these destinations by promoting events and seasons much closer to the time they actually happen.

While it was found that U.S. outbound pleasure travelers myriad of information sources, including informal sources, travel marketers typically are able to use only formal sources, such as the print and broadcast media and travel use a

agents. The findings pertaining to information sources suggest that, regardless of the proposed destination, advertisements and feature articles in newspapers and travel magazines should be used to reach potential travelers. The broadcast media appear to be relatively unimportant, as do general interest magazines. Travel agents appear to be the second most important formal source of information, and travel marketers are advised to work closely with such travel professionals to promote particular trip types and destinations. Providing travel agents with details on travel and tourism products and services is essential. Maintaining contact through newsletters, toll-free phone numbers, and other such communication methods would also appear to be useful. We have addressed the implications of some general findings from the study, but identifying salient activity pref-

TABLE 7 TRIP-PLANNING BEHAVIOR OF THE U.S. OUTBOUND

a

b

10

MARKET

Multiple

responses. Data obtained from Taylor (1987); the numbers indicate the number of U.S. travelers who intend to visit the destination for pleasure purposes.

m

the next two years

of U.S. outbound travelers selecting specific trip can help travel marketers design strategies to gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace. For example, the identified key factors (i.e., activity preferences) may lead travel marketers to decide to pursue either a focus strategy or a multiple segmentation strategy.

erences

types and destinations

Focus

Strategy

&dquo;A focus

or specialization strategy aims at building a competitive edge and carving out a market position by catering to the specialized needs of a particular group of customers ...&dquo; (Thompson and Strickland 1989). With a focus

strategy,

a

firm seeks

a narrow

target segment

to which it

appeal (e.g., through advantageous pricing or with some unique product or service offering). Thus, to use a may

focus strategy in the U.S. outbound pleasure travel market, a travel or tourism organization would focus its marketing and promotional efforts on only a portion of the total market by designing an attractively priced travel package or by offering a package with a number of highly desirable or unique features. For example, the focus strategy seems very appropriate for promoting cruise trips to the Caribbean Islands. Those activity preferences ranked important by previous travelers who took cruise trips to this destination should be emphasized in advertisements and promotional materials. Travel agents should be made aware of the activity preferences of those who have taken cruises to the Caribbean Islands, and the agents should be encouraged to let potential travelers know the extent to which these activities, amenities, and locational factors are available on the cruise trip under consideration. Because Mexico was mentioned frequently as a proposed destination for future resort vacations and because Mexico would appear to offer the activities preferred by resort vacationers, the focus strategy would seem to be suitable for travel marketers who wish to promote resort vacation trips to Mexico. Trip packages to Mexican resorts could be designed to emhasize Mexico’s culinary variety, predictable weather, proximity to the ocean, and sunshine-related outdoors activities. Advertising and promotional programs could highlight these important attributes, and incentives could be provided to enlist the aid of travel agents in focusing on this segment of the U.S. outbound pleasure travel market. In addition to emphasizing the unique features of Mexico as a destination for resort vacations, and because of its proximity to the United States, the cost advantages offered by Mexico could also be used to target the more cost-conscious segments of the U.S. outbound market.

Multiple Segmentation Strategy Unlike the focus strategy, which has

a narrow

scope

designed to serve a specific customer group, a multiple segmentation strategy has a broader approach with the intent

cities (such as Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver) that offer the activities and accommodations sought by those taking city trips. Thus, Canada can be promoted as a

cosmopolitan

destination to a wide variety of U.S pleasure travelers. Print advertisements and packages offered through travel agents could emphasize the fact that Canada is a multipurpose destination for pleasure trips. Europe was most frequently listed as a future destination for touring and city trips, and a multiple segmentation strategy could be followed in marketing European travel products or services. For touring vacations, the emphasis should be on the opportunity to dine at a variety of restaurants, to sample the local cuisine, and to visit small towns and villages. For city trips to Europe, shopping and dining opportunities in big cities should be emphasized. Thus, for European tourism marketers, the most appealing strategic directions for attracting U.S. pleasure travelers might be marketing programs based on ( 1 ) quality and variety (fine restaurants and varied cuisines) and (2) giving American travelers more value for their money (budget accommodations or reasonably priced travel packages). Because dining at sophisticated restaurants and staying in fine hotels are expensive, providing more benefits for the cost (i.e., providing more value) could make the European touring vacation or city trip more palatable. Aggressive advertising programs aimed at the broad range of U.S. outbound pleasure travelers could be designed to emphasize Europe’s mystique and its desirability as a destination for touring and city trips, based on the activity preferences identified in this study. It should be noted that the European mystique varies from country to country and city to city. While the present study did not concentrate on specific European countries or cities as destinations for various trip types, it is possible to devise marketing strategies that differentiate between and among the different countries and major cities. For example, information on the activities rated as most important to travelers to England and Italy could be used to differentiate between these two countries. Similarly, those activities rated as most important by those who have taken city trips to Paris and London, for example, could be used as the basis for designing differentiated strategies for marketing city trips to these two destinations.

CONCLUSIONS This research on activity preferences and trip planning behavior of U.S. outbound pleasure travelers provides important market-based information and suggests strategic implications for destination marketers. The implications discussed in this study are intended to be illustrative rather than

exhaustive; specific strategic implications appropriate

to

a

(or segments). A business

particular destination will vary according to how the destination is perceived and what its market offerings are. Destina-

multiple segmentation strategy when it attempts appeal to two or more well-defined segments of the market by tailoring different approaches for each specific segment. Because Canada is viewed as land of variety and as a multifaceted destination with a strong attraction for touring, outdoor, and city-type vacations (Taylor 1987; Dybka 1987), a multiple segmentation strategy may be pursued to promote Canada in the U.S. pleasure travel market. Canada offers scenic beauty and outdoor activities (important for touring and outdoors vacations), but it also has well known

tion marketers must remember that American travelers not only have many choice alternatives (destinations) to select from, but they are also becoming more sophisticated in their pleasure travel behavior. Therefore it is becoming imperative to continually explore the preferences of the target market to gain a competitive edge. The real strategic challenge for destination marketers appears to be determining how to meet the broad range of tourism product or service needs and wants in a more efficient manner to attract a much higher share of the U.S. outbound pleasure market.

to

serve

firm to

several customer groups

uses a

11

REFERENCES

Taylor, Gordon D. (1987). "Foreign Pleasure Travel by Americans." Journal of Travel Research, (Winter): 5-7. _ (1989) "The United States Pleasure Travel Market." Journal of

JourD’Amore, Louis ( 1988). "Tourism — The World’s Peace Industry " nal of Travel Research, (Summer): 35-40

Thompson, Jr., A. A., and A. J. Strickland III (1989). Strategy Formulation and Implementation: Tasks of the General Manager. Homewood, IL:

J (1987) "A Look at the American Traveler. The U S. Pleasure Travel Market Study " Journal of Travel Research, (Winter): 2-4 _ (1988). "Overseas Travel to Canada: New Research on the Perceptions and Preferences of the Pleasure Travel Market " Journal of Travel Research, (Spring): 12-15. Engel, James F., David D. Kollat, and Roger D. Blackwell (1973). Consumer Behavior Hinsdale, IL. Dryden Press. Mathieson, Alister, and Geoffrey Wall (1982). Tourism: Economics, Physical and Social Impacts London: Longman. Menzes, Dennis, and Satish Chandra (1989). "The Distant Overseas U.S. Tourist: An Exploratory Study." Journal of Travel Research, (Fall): 6-10. Raitz, Karl, and Meftah Dakhil (1989). "A Note on Information Sources for Preferred Recreational Environments." Journal of Travel Research,

Irwin, Inc Tourism Canada (1986). U.S. Pleasure Travel Market, Canadian Potential: Highlights Report. Ottawa: Department of Regional Industrial Expan-

Business Research, 18: 1-79.

Dybka,

(Spring): 45-48. Siegel, Sidney (1956). Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences.

12

New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.

sion.

Travel and Leisure’s World Travel Overview (1988/1989) . New York: American Express Publishing Company. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (1988). Statistical Abstract of the United States, 108th ed. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. U S. Travel and Tourism Administration (1989). Recap of International Travel To and From the United States in 1988. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. Waters, Somerset R. (1987). Travel Industry World Yearbook — The Big Picture. New York: Child and Waters, Inc. Woodside, Arch G., and Jeffrey A. Carr (1988). "Consumer Decision Making and Competitive Marketing Strategies." Journal of Travel Research, (Winter): 2-7.