Marketing Segmentation of Culinary Tourists

《Marketing Segmentation of Culinary Tourists》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Marketing Segmentation of Culinary Tourists（15页珍藏版）》请在装配图网上搜索。

1、7th Global Conference on Business & EconomicsISBN : 978-0-9742114-9-7Marketing Segmentation of Culinary TouristsTanya MacLaurinUniversity of GuelphSchool of Hospitality & Tourism ManagementMacdonald Stewart HallUniversity of GuelphGuelph, ON N1G 2W1Phone: (519) 824-4120 ext. 56309Fax: (519) 823-5512

2、E-mail: tmaclauruoguelph.caJulia Blose, Ph.DCollege of Charleston5 Liberty StreetCharleston, SC 29401Phone: (843) 953-7659Fax: (843) 953-5697E-mail: blosejcofc.eduRhonda Mack, Ph.DCollege of Charleston5 Liberty StreetCharleston, SC 29401Phone: (843) 953-6565Fax: (843) 953-5697E-mail: mackrcofc.eduAB

3、STRACTThe tourism industry has witnessed a dynamic evolution with increasing focus on the use of technology, relationship formation, and ever-expanding fields of tourism. While the excitement surrounding the eco-tourism movement of the previous twenty years continues, a new focus on culinary tourism

4、 has arrived. Since one-third of travel dollars go to food, strategic decision makers wanting to capitalize on the growth in culinary tourism must identify and better understand culinary tourists to achieve more profitable segmentation. While some studies have addressed segmentation within the culin

5、ary tourism market, researchers have made little headway into understanding differences across the various sub-segments. For instance does the “agri-tourist” behave differently from the “festival tourist” and are they different from the “restaurant tourist?” Do they manifest similar culinary behavio

6、rs? Early efforts have been targeted broadly and the question regarding the possible existence of a “culinary generalist” has not been closely addressed. This study examines culinary tourists from the perspective of whether there is a “culinary generalist” and attempts to clarify differences across

7、any existing sub-segments. The study sample includes 550 individuals in a U. S. tourist city. The existence of a culinary generalist identified in the study has major implications to the tourism industry. Also, the identification of the culinary innovator is interesting as is the identification of a

8、 large percentage of respondents in this study comprising a potentially sizeable segment of very engaged culinary consumers. Given their innovative behavior, these are likely to be heavy users in the market. The studys results present evidence of a significant segment which is quite enthusiastic acr

9、oss a wide variety of culinary tourism activities. This speaks to potential economies of scale in successfully communicating with and attracting culinary tourists.INTRODUCTIONThe tourism industry has witnessed an extremely dynamic evolution in recent years seeing an increasing focus on the use of te

10、chnology, relationship formation, and ever-growing fields of tourism. While the excitement surrounding the eco-tourism movement of the previous twenty years continues, an exciting new focus on culinary tourism has arrived. Culinary tourism is a relatively newly defined niche tourism market segment t

11、hat intersects and impacts both the travel and food/beverage industries (Wolf, 2002).The term culinary tourism was first used by Dr. Lucy Long in 1998 to express the idea of experiencing other cultures through food (Wolf, 2002). Dr. Long states that “culinary tourism is about food; exploring and dis

12、covering culture and history through food and food related activities in the creation of memorable experiences” (Long, 2005).The International Culinary Tourism Association in an effort to designate an encompassing classification and frame what culinary tourism in-fact entails, has adopted a definiti

13、on stating, “Culinary tourism refers to the search for prepared food or drink while in a travel context.” Within this defining field, culinary tourism is a subset of cultural tourism denoting that cuisine is an expression of local culture. Culinary tourism can include agri-tourism activities and may

14、 stem from an urban or rural experience (International Culinary Tourism Association, 2006). Examples presented by the ICTA included: “restaurants, wineries, breweries and road-side stand” (Van Dongen, 2004b). Culinary tourism describes a form of tourism that has food as the focal point of travel. Fo

15、od is a manifestation of a destinations culture and provides endless opportunities for the tourism industry to provide authentic experiences (Hotel Industry News, 2005).Limited research has been conducted on various aspects of culinary tourism. Research has looked at food as a tourism attraction and

16、 component of the tourism experience (Cohen and Avieli, 2004; Hjalager and Richards, 2002; Hjalager and Corigliano, 2000; Quan and Wang, 2003); culinary tourists profile (Wade and Martin, 2005; Hall, 2003; Au and Law, 2002); categorical classification of culinary tourists (Kivela and Crotts, 2005; I

17、gnatov, 2003; Au and Law, 2002; Lang-Research, 2001); culinary experiences as powerful marketing tools for destinations (Kivela and Crotts, 2006), and economic impact (Deneault, 2002; Canadian Tourism Commission (n.d.).Adequately understanding culinary tourists and their behaviors enables the identi

18、fication of market segments. Market segmentation assists in determining culinary tourists buying behaviors, determines their appropriateness for targeting, and provides insight into planning a marketing strategy reflecting their needs, wants and preferences. The recognition that consumers differ in

19、their behavior is basic to traditional marketing strategy development. To date some studies have focused on culinary tourists segmentation but limited research has been designed and conducted on the concept of a culinary tourist generalist, an individual that is interested in an array of culinary to

20、urism activities versus those that are segmented by special interests (Kivela and Crotts, 2005; Ignatov, 2003; Au and Law 2002, Lang-Research, 2001). Johnson studied wine tourists looking at the concept of a specialist versus generalist (Johnson, 1998). Results indicate that the two segments are dif

21、ferent. The potential of niche or special interest tourism such as culinary tourism as a trip generator has been questioned by some researchers (McKercher and Chan 2005). What is known is that food is an experiential tourist component of any tourist experience, there are tourists that will seek out

22、food related activities at a destination instead of going to other attractions and that some tourists travel just for food. This paper attempts to fill this research gap. The purpose of this exploratory research is to examine the concept of a culinary tourist generalist by analyzing self classified

23、culinary tourists responses to a set of culinary tourism activities and to determine the impact of innovativeness on their responses.The results of the study will contribute to our understanding of culinary tourist segmentation to assist tourism product developers and marketers to enhance their mark

24、eting and product development. If a culinary tourist generalist does exist . . . .BACKGROUNDCulinary Tourist ProfilePrevious research studies have profiled the culinary tourist as older, approximately ten years older than the generic tourist, more highly educated and more affluent with annual averag

25、e incomes of $125,000 and spend approximately twice as much as a generic tourists during their visit (Wade and Martin, 2005), while other researchers found that young couples were also interested in culinary tourism (Lang-Research, 2001). Additional research segmenting culinary tourists reveled sign

26、ificant differences among visitors interested in food-based tourism, wine-based tourism, and food and wine-based tourism, with the three segments differing in demographic characteristics, travel activities and spending during travel. Visitors interested in both food and wine tended to have the highe

27、st socio-economic profiles, engaged in more activities than the other two sectors, traveled for different reasons and were most likely to stay at spas, hotels, inns and resorts (Ignatov, 2003). SegmentationMarket segmentation is one of the major marketing concepts with its purpose of achieving more

28、effective and efficient segmentation. The increasing cost of doing business today makes effective segmentation even more important. Organizations must be able to identify segments, derive information regarding their buyer behavior, determine their appropriateness for targeting, and properly plan a m

29、arketing strategy reflecting their needs, wants and preferences. The recognition that consumers differ in buyer behavior is basic to traditional marketing strategy development. Whether an organization is offering automobiles, IPods, a hotel stay, or a gourmet meal, marketing segmentation just makes

30、sense. Since the early 1990s, market segmentation has evolved to consider the ultimate segment of the individual via mass customization and the importance of customer relationship management (CRM) has come to play a large role in the business strategy of many organizations. Companies that recognize

31、the importance of the customer relationship are often able to increase customer value and ultimately the success of the enterprise (Rogers, 2005). Yankelovich and Meer in the Harvard Business Review discussed the evolution of segmentation stating that segmentation initiatives are often disappointing

32、 for three reasons: excessive interest in consumers identities (distracting from the product features); insufficient emphasis on consumer behavior; and absorption in technical segmentation details (Yankelovich, 2006). Even if organizations may find their segmentation strategies falling short of idea

33、l, however, the belief in the importance of segmentation is strong and the development of marketing strategies not reflecting segmentation considerations would, at best, be quite risky. Segmentation in Tourism MarketingMiddleton lists seven main ways to segment markets which are used in the travel a

34、nd tourism industry: purpose of travel; buyer needs, motivations, and benefits sought; buyer behaviour/characteristics of product usage; demographic, economic, and geographic profile; psychographic profile; geodemographic profile; and price (Middleton and Clarke, 2001). He also continues to stress t

35、hat most organizations target more than one segment. Categories/SegmentsKivela and Crotts examined the presence of a gastronomy-tourism market segment in Hong Kong in 2005 (Kivela and Crotts, 2005). Their results provided evidence that motivation to travel for gastronomy reasons is a valid construct

36、 for use for market segmentation purposes. Ignatov identified segments of culinary tourists from the Travel Activities and Motivations Survey (TAMS) dataset (Ignatov, 2003). The segments were compared in terms of demographics, psychographics, vacation and getaway trip characteristics and media consu

37、mption habits. Three segments of culinary tourists were formed. The results showed Canadian culinary tourists exhibit characteristics and behaviours that clearly distinguish them from other tourists. Segments identified from the research were food, wine, food and wine; and rural, sophisticated, indi

38、fferent and true cuisine. Hjalager used Cohens 1984 phenomenological categorization of tourist lifestyles to develop a model of culinary tourism experiences (Hjalager and Richards, 2002). Four categories recreational, existential, diversionary, and experimental were created to categorize gastronomy

39、tourists (Kivela and Crotts, 2006). Cohen and Avieli attempted to integrate culinary sociology into culinary tourism acknowledging segments such as the “experiential tourist” and the “recreational tourist” stressing that these tourists will approach food differently at destinations (Cohen and Avieli

40、, 2004).Market StrategyCulinary tourism has increasingly gained attention over the last decade, and researchers have made some headway into actually understanding the differences across the various sub-segments of culinary tourism Ignatov, 2003; Lang-Research, 2001; Travel activities and motivationa

41、l survey: Wine and cuisine profile report, 2004). Does the “agri-tourist” behave differently from the “festival tourist” and are they different from the “restaurant tourist”? Do they all manifest similar culinary behaviors? Most early efforts have been targeted broadly and the question regarding the

42、 possible existence of a “culinary generalist” has not been closely addressed. InnovationStrategic decision makers wanting to catch onto the growth in culinary tourism need to be able to identify and better understand culinary tourists in order to more effectively target those segments who make sens

43、e for the bottom line. The importance of the travel innovator has previously been examined with findings indicating they play a vital role in a destinations early acceptance leading to mainstream acceptance (Goldsmith and Litvin, 1998). Innovators in a market are those that are most likely to adopt

44、a new product when it first becomes available. These consumers are described as “venturesomeeager to try new ideas and products, almost as an obsession” (Lamb, Hair and McDaniel, 2006). The extent to which an individual is innovative is thought to vary from one product category to the next.RESEARCH

45、METHODThe two-page self-administered questionnaire was distributed in tourist areas throughout the city of Charleston, South Carolina on different days of the week over a several week period in the fall of 2005. Research assistants were instructed to approach individuals randomly who appeared to hav

46、e the time and willingness to assist with the research. Potential respondents were pre-qualified by asking the following four questions. Do you watch the Food Network? Do you read food and travel magazines? Would your friends call you “a foodie”? Do you seek out new restaurants. The screening questi

47、ons were utilized to obtain individuals that were interested in food and report engaging in food related behaviors. Only those individuals who answered yes to two or more of these questions were asked to complete a questionnaire. A total of 554 surveys were collected.Survey QuestionsA three-section

48、questionnaire was developed for the research. The items were derived from previous research and pilot tested before use.Respondents were first asked to indicate whether they considered themselves a culinary tourist or not. Next, participants read a battery of items related to their participation in

49、culinary activities and were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with each statement. Appendix A lists these items. The first two sections relate to general culinary and vacation behaviors and the remaining three relate specifically to restaurant, festival, and agriculturally oriented

50、culinary activities. Within each of these three latter categories innovativeness was measured using the Goldsmith and Hofacker Domain Specific Innovativeness Scale (DSI) (Goldsmith and Hofacker, 1991). as previously modified in a tourism context by Litvin, Goh and Goldsmith (Litvin, Goh, and Goldsmi

51、th, 2001). This scale reveals a respondents tendency to purchase a product soon after it appears on the market. The three sets of DSI items (restaurant innovativeness, festival innovativeness and agricultural innovativeness) are marked with an asterisk. All measures in this portion of the survey uti

52、lized a five-point Likert Scale with strongly disagree and strongly agree as endpoints. The final section of the survey assessed participant demographics.DATA ANALYSISIn order to develop a profile of the culinary tourist and to determine if significantly different segments of culinary tourists exist

53、, cluster analysis was performed. Given the fact that culinary tourism encompasses such a wide range of food-related activities, it was suspected several groups with distinctive attitudes and interests might emerge. The variables chosen for the basis for the clusters are items 15 through 30 from the

54、 survey as listed in Appendix A, those that capture restaurant-oriented, festival-oriented and agriculturally-oriented culinary behavior. Since clustering techniques are sensitive to extreme data points, any observations with values outside plus or minus three standard deviations of the mean for any

55、 of these clustering variables were deleted from the sample. This resulted in a reduced sample size of 517. Also, since a number of these clustering variables were “somewhat too highly” correlated with one another, the variables were factor analyzed using principal components analysis with Varimax r

56、otation and then the uncorrelated factor scores for each observation were used as the basis for clustering. Factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 were included in the analysis.A two-stage clustering approach was utilized. A hierarchical cluster analysis (between linkage with squared Euclidian dist

57、ance) was conducted first on a randomly selected subsample of the data to obtain some idea of what the appropriate number of clusters would be for this dataset. Upon examination of the resulting dendogram and the agglomeration schedule, it appeared a three-cluster solution would be the most appropri

58、ate. Therefore, next, a K-means cluster analysis was generated with a three cluster solution. Cluster 1 includes 161 observations, Cluster 2 includes 134 observations and Cluster 3 includes 222 observations. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONParticipants ages ranged from 18 to 87 with an average age of 45 (SD =

59、 14.12). The sample was pretty evenly split between men (44%) and women (56%). The majority were married (63%) and a little over half (54%) had incomes of $75,000 or more. In order to test whether significant differences existed between the three groups of culinary tourists, a multivariate analysis

60、of variance (MANOVA) was conducted using the clusters as the independent variable and items 1 to 14, the general food-related and vacation activity items as displayed in Appendix A, as the dependent variables. The results of this analysis are displayed in Table 1. Table 1MANCOVA Results and Post-Hoc

61、 ComparisonsMANCOVA ResultsPost-Hoc DifferencesCluster 1Cluster 2Cluster 3FP1 vs. 21 vs. 32 vs. 3Cooking Classes2.933.313.5816.250.00*TV2.993.373.9534.200.00*New Food3.243.764.2734.460.00*Magazines2.863.003.7326.250.00*Specialty Food Stores2.913.103.7732.050.00*Arts3.703.994.149.730.00*Travel Progra

62、ms/Mags3.123.624.0033.630.00*Wineries3.413.644.0011.850.00*Culture3.954.374.4823.340.00*Food Experiences4.014.384.5629.830.00*Information on Food3.343.474.1636.990.00*Purchase Food2.993.333.8129.490.00*Food Tours2.512.663.4545.100.00*Dining Experience4.094.244.4912.690.00*As one can see from the Tuk

63、ey post-hoc comparisons, Cluster 3 members agreed with each item significantly more strongly than Cluster 1 members for all of the variables under consideration. In much the same way, Cluster 3 members agreed significantly more strongly with all but three of the items when compared to Cluster 2 memb

64、ers. More specifically, upon examination of the average responses for each of the three groups, one can see that Cluster 3 members tended to agree more strongly with each statement than did Cluster 2 members who, in turn, tended to agree more strongly with each of the statements than did Cluster 1 members. Thus, while these differences may confirm that some separate, market segments exist among culinary tourists, the results really provide no evidence of important, di