180 likes | 194 Views
EXPECTATIONS AND MARKET SEGMENTATION RESULTS OF THE 2007-2008 ONLINE SURVEY. Klaus Ehrlich José Manuel Ortega Egea* *University of Almería (Spain). Research methodology. Questionnaire development Service quality expectations in rural tourism Five-point likert scales
E N D
EXPECTATIONS AND MARKET SEGMENTATIONRESULTS OF THE 2007-2008 ONLINE SURVEY Klaus Ehrlich José Manuel Ortega Egea* *University of Almería (Spain)
Research methodology • Questionnaire development • Service quality expectations in rural tourism • Five-point likert scales • 4266 valid reponses to web survey • Confidence level 95% • Period July 2007 – September 2008 • Results biased by inequal absolute number of reponses from differente websites – corrected in evaluation • Factor analysis (SPSS v14.0) • Segmentation: Latent classCluster analysis (Latent Gold v4.0)
Results – Descriptive Statistics CONCEPTS ASSOCIATED WITH RURAL TOURISM
Results – Descriptive Statistics ¿EXPERIENCE ABROAD?
Results – Descriptive Statistics PREFERRED BOOKING METHODS
Results – Descriptive Statistics PREFERRED BOOKING METHODS
Results – Descriptive Statistics INFORMATION SOURCES
Results – Descriptive Statistics INFORMATION SOURCES
Results – Descriptive Statistics IMPORTANCE OF QUALITY RATINGS & LABELS
Results – Factor Analysis • Labeling of Service Quality Factors: • Factor 1: Basic Benefit (Attractiveness and Reliability of Service) • Factor 2: Modern services • Factor 3: Personal/Local Contact • Factor 4: Leisure choice and services
Results - Segmentation • Optimal solution: Three segments or clusters. Cluster sizes: Cluster 1= 58%; Cluster 2 = 38.5%; Cluster 3 = 3.5%
Results - Segmentation • Difference between Segment 1 and 2: largest segments.
Results - Segmentation COUNTRY DIFFERENCES
Results - Segmentation DIFFERENCES IN BOOKING METHODS
Results - Segmentation DIFFERENCES IN INFORMATION SOURCES
Results - Segmentation RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF QUALITY RATINGS IN SEGMENTS
Conclusions • The results yield four factors of Perceived Service Qualityamong surveyed European rural tourists: • Basic Benefits • Modern Services • Personal / Local Contact • Leisure choices • Three segments have been identified: • Clusters 1 & 2 account for aprox. 96% of repondents. • Different Expectations about most of the factors (except for Leisure Choice). • Providers of R.T. services should account for the specific characteristics of each of these two segments. • Cluster 3: much smaller group. • Homogeneous demographic profiles across segments; more differences based on tourism-related perceptions (eg, booking preferences). • Quality Rating > Specific Certifications > Brand labels
Conclusions -2 Problems and outlook • Source data do not reflect adequately the total rural tourism market (overweight of Farm-Tourism based replies) • More appropriate research designs needed to account for differences between • domestic and international destinations • Farm-Tourism versus more generic “Rural” Tourism • Differences between source markets and their understanding • Conjoint research designs (latent class choice statistical methodology) • Identification ofmore different segments • Analysis of respondents “trade-offs” in more realistic purchase situations.