This article was downloaded by: [Lorenzo Cantoni]On: 20 July 2014, At: 02:46Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Travel & Tourism MarketingPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wttm20

Destination Online Communication: Why Less isSometimes More. A Study of Online Communications ofEnglish DestinationsAlessandro Inversini, Lorenzo Cantoni & Marianna De PietroPublished online: 15 Jul 2014.

To cite this article: Alessandro Inversini, Lorenzo Cantoni & Marianna De Pietro (2014) Destination Online Communication:Why Less is Sometimes More. A Study of Online Communications of English Destinations, Journal of Travel & TourismMarketing, 31:5, 563-575, DOI: 10.1080/10548408.2014.883949

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2014.883949

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

DESTINATION ONLINE COMMUNICATION: WHYLESS IS SOMETIMES MORE. A STUDY OF ONLINECOMMUNICATIONS OF ENGLISH DESTINATIONS

Alessandro InversiniLorenzo Cantoni

Marianna De Pietro

ABSTRACT. This research investigates the relationship between Web site design and the Web siteend-user experience of a vast number of English tourism destinations, both local and regional ones.Following recent research in the field, this paper evaluates destinations’ online communication basedon the implemented Web site features and on the effectiveness of the communication itself, borrowingits research methodology from different domains. After content and functionality analysis, a user-experience, scenario-based investigation has been carried out, which demonstrated that complex Websites do not always serve end-users’ needs properly; in other words, Web site complexity is not directlyrelated with good user experience. This research may help destination managers to foster their onlinecommunication if they have fewer content and functionalities but are better focused and clearly user-oriented.

KEYWORDS. DMO online communication, Web site evaluation, online communication,destination management systems

1. INTRODUCTION

The importance of online communication fortourism destination marketing and commerce hasbeen acknowledged by several scholars in recentyears (Buhalis, 2003; Wang & Fesenmaier, 2006).In fact, tourism is one of the domains in which theimpact of new information and communicationtechnologies (ICTs) has actually revolutionizedthe industry (Gretzel, Yuan, & Fesenmaier, 2000).The intrinsic characteristics of tourism, such as itsinformation intensity (Poon, 1993), has made it the

ideal field for technology exploitation and evolu-tion. Technology, especially the internet, enablesfast information exchange between service provi-ders and end-users, thus fully supporting tourismbusiness models (Werthner &Klein, 1999). Privatetourism companies, which are often Small andMedium Enterprises, are not the onlybeneficiaries of this technological (r)evolution intourism (e.g., Inversini, Cantoni, & Buhalis, 2009;Law & Jogaratnam, 2005). Tourism DestinationManagement Organizations (DMOs) have alsogained advantage from ICTs (Wang, 2008).

Alessandro Inversini is a Lecturer in Marketing and Media Communications, School of Tourism,Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, UK (E-mail: ainversini@bournemouth.ac.uk).

Lorenzo Cantoni is Director of webatelier.net and a Professor and Dean of the Faculty ofCommunication Science, Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano, Switzerland (E-mail: lorenzo.canto-ni@usi.ch).

Marianna De Pietro is a Researcher at webatelier.net, Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano,Switzerland (E-mail: marianna.de.pietro@usi.ch).

Address correspondence to: Alessandro Inversini at the above address.

Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 31:563–575, 2014© 2014 Taylor & FrancisISSN: 1054-8408 print / 1540-7306 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10548408.2014.883949

563

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lor

enzo

Can

toni

] at

02:

46 2

0 Ju

ly 2

014

According toHoran and Frew (2007), the advent ofso-called Destination Management Systems(DMSs) has allowed destinations to better managecommunication flows internally and marketing andselling flows externally (Wang & Fesenmaier,2006) before eventually conducting marketresearch. Thanks to DMSs, destinations are actingas communication hubs (Inversini & Cantoni,2009), connecting internal stakeholders with theexternal world. Major destinations are increasinglyshifting promotional budgets from previous predo-minant promotional channels (such as printed leaf-lets, fairs, etc.) to the online environment,producing complex Web sites with a variety ofcontents and functionalities that might serve pro-spective travelers as well as a vast range of otherstakeholders (Inversini, Brülhart, & Cantoni,2011). Destination managers are aware of the com-plexity of the online environment but do not alwayspay enough attention to the experience of end-usersaccessing their Web site with a specific goal in aspecific environment (ISO 9241–11).

This paper investigates the following twoaspects of DMO Web sites: (i) the complexityof contents and functionalities of a number ofEnglish DMO Web sites and (ii) the user experi-ence of prospective tourists that may accessthose Web sites. Results show that, in some ofthe considered cases, having less content andfunctionalities but being well-designed anduser-oriented might help by better servingonline visitors/prospects.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Tourism and ICT

The advent of ICTs in the tourism field hasdramatically changed tourists’ behavior, allow-ing them to access directly a great amount ofinformation and, consequently, increasing thenumber of possible choices and options(Buhalis & Law, 2008). According to Buhalis(2003), present-day tourists are more indepen-dent and sophisticated in their travel planningactivities, using several channels and tools toidentify, customize, and purchase tourism pro-ducts. These channels include, among others,online travel agencies, search engines,

destination management systems, social net-works, and other Web2.0 services, as well asprice comparison sites and the sites of all tour-ism players. In the present information‐overloadera (e.g., Inversini et al., 2009), the most suc-cessful players are those continuously providinghigh quality information and identifying custo-mers’ needs (Buhalis & Law, 2008; Choi,Lehto, & Oleary, 2007). Nowadays, ICTs havea key role in determining the competitiveness ofthe tourism industry by providing tools to sup-port effectively the development, management,and distribution of offers on the global marketas well as interaction with consumers (Buhalis,2003). Direct dialogue with customers, actualones and prospects, is enabled in a cost‐effec-tive way by the internet, which assists tourismsuppliers in the use of a wide range of onlinepromotional activities to integrate, if not substi-tute, offline promotions (Inversini et al., 2011).As a matter of fact, as first acknowledged byBuhalis (1998), the internet is one of the mostrelevant technologies affecting the tourism sec-tor. According to Cantoni and Tardini (2006), ithas clear competitive advantage over other massmedia regarding (i) multimedia (use of differenttypes of media, such as text, audio, picture, andvideo), (ii) interaction (high level interactivity),(iii) persistence (information is archived easilyand navigations are traceable), (iv) in‐depthstudies (online publishing), and (v) immediacy(information is easily updated). ICTs and theinternet have deeply affected the way businessis conducted in the tourism sector (Buhalis &Law, 2008); consequently, tourism businessesand organizations are putting increasing effortsinto developing and improving their online pre-sence and online communications with custo-mers and prospects.

In this context, the issue of online informa-tion search (Jang, 2004) is attracting the interestof academics and practitioners as a major trendwithin the travel and tourism field (Pan &Fesenmaier, 2006). The main issue relatedwith information search is the possibility oflocating correct and relevant travel and tourisminformation in the so-called “online tourismdomain” (Xiang, Wober, & Fesenmaier, 2008):the online space that can be accessed from theusers’ preferred gates to the internet—search

564 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lor

enzo

Can

toni

] at

02:

46 2

0 Ju

ly 2

014

engines. Within the overwhelming amount ofWeb pages that can be retrieved in the onlinetourism domain, DMOs’ Web sites play a keyrole in helping prospective travelers to locatecorrect, relevant, and accurate pieces of infor-mation. Customers should use destinations’Web sites as information sources; therefore,they should be designed to match end-users’needs and expectations.

2.2 Destination ManagementOrganizations

DMOs are increasingly using ICTs andexploiting the potential of the internet to facil-itate users’ experiences when considering thedestination in the online environment (Gretzel,Fesenmaier, & O’Leary, 2006). One of the keychannels used by a DMO is its official Web site(Choi et al., 2007); moreover, Wang (2008)states that DMOs use official destination Websites to provide users with relevant informationduring the three phases of tourism goods’ con-sumption and consequently promote the desti-nation’s image. However, in today’stechnology-driven society, just having a Webpresence is not enough (Wang, 2008).Successful Web sites appeal to visitors’ emo-tions, needs, and interests, offering to the end-user the possibility of understanding the keycharacteristics of the destination (Park &Gretzel, 2007). Besides users’ need for qualityinformation and the importance of effectiveinteraction (Beldona & Cai, 2006), another fac-tor DMOs must take into consideration is thatinformation needs change through the vacationplanning process, since it is very dynamic anddeeply influenced by personal knowledge, per-sonal features, and tasks (Pan & Fesenmaier,2006). According to Gretzel et al. (2006), thetourist experience is characterized not only by aconsumption phase, which is the real trip andexperience at the destination, as with any otherproduct or service, but also by extensive pre‐and post‐consumption phases as well. The pre‐consumption phase is dedicated to the planningof the actual trip, while the post‐consumptionphase is dedicated to sharing and reexperiencing

activities. It is therefore clear how the use ofICTs is extended to all the stages of the touristexperience. In this complex context, DMOs arevigorously working on their online communica-tion (Wang, 2008), improving contents andfunctionalities to support consumers throughoutthe tourist experience, from information searchand booking to mobile technologies to be useden route and newsletters, forums, and othersharing opportunities once the physical experi-ence of the trip ends (Choi et al., 2007).

A recent case study by Inversini et al. (2011),about the online communication of the SwissTourism Board, highlighted the complexity ofthe Web site for one of the most popular destina-tions in Europe, particularly describing the tech-nological architecture and its evolution but alsothe growth of the regional (i.e., Cantonal) desti-nations’ commitment towards technologies. Onthe other side, by analyzing the strategy reportsof the destination, the shift that destinations areexperiencing became clear; the promotional bud-get is being conveyed to the online environmentin recognition of the media-convergence of themajority of marketing activities. What is clearfrom this case study is that DMOs’ Web sitesare not mere technological artifacts (e.g.,Inversini, 2011) but complex communicationtools, which impact on several levels—from des-tination management to destination promotionand commercialization. The online channelsallow tourism organizations and companies toengage consumers’ interest and participation aswell as capture key information (Wang &Fesenmaier, 2006); moreover, Web sites’ con-tents are crucial, since they highly influenceusers’ perception of a company or, broadly,about a tourism destination (Choi et al., 2007).It is therefore not possible to consider Web sitesonly as technological tools, which are an exclu-sive responsibility of engineers (Geest, 2001).Web sites are an essential part of a company’sexternal and internal communication (e.g., Pan &Fesenmaier, 2000), and technical competenciesalone are insufficient to achieve quality onlinecommunication (Geest, 2001); on the contrary,running a Web site means considering variousdimensions and, consequently, employing sev-eral competencies and skills.

Inversini, Cantoni, and De Pietro 565

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lor

enzo

Can

toni

] at

02:

46 2

0 Ju

ly 2

014

Cantoni and Tardini (2006) stated in theirWeb site Communication Model (WCM) that aWeb site can be considered as a cluster of (i)contents and services (the actual contents andfunctionalities); (ii) accessibility tools, whichmake those contents and services available(hardware, software, and human computer inter-face); (iii) people who manage (people incharge of projecting, producing, maintaining,promoting, evaluating, and improving the Website, as well as interacting with users); and (iv)users/clients (people accessing the Web site andenjoying its contents and services). It is note-worthy that the first two pillars are things,whereas the third and fourth refer to people.Project and evaluation are considered cross‐pil-lars, indicating that WCM can be used for boththe project and evaluation phases of a Web site.A last key element of the model is the contextbecause it is not possible to consider the fourpillars as isolated; it is necessary to study themas part of a context, of the external world,which influences and affects them.

2.3 Tourism Web Site Evaluation

Travel Web site evaluation studies havebecome extremely important to both industrypractitioners and academic researchers throughcreation of a body of literature, which has beensummarized and rationalized by differentresearch papers (e.g., Ip, Law, & Lee, 2011;Law, Qi, & Buhalis, 2010; Morrison, Taylor,& Douglas, 2004). These researches examinethe issues of tourism Web site evaluation, cate-gorizing the methodologies used into qualitativeand quantitative evaluations (Law et al., 2010).Furthermore, a recent study by Ip et al. (2011)classified the studies into (i) evaluation byphases, based on functionality layers encoun-tered by users while navigating a Web site; (ii)evaluation by features, based on analysis ofWeb site content, design, and even content anddesign, and (iii) evaluation by features andeffectiveness, based on analysis of features anduser satisfaction evaluation. One of the interest-ing aspects of the work by Ip et al. (2011) is thatthey overcome the distinction among qualitativeand quantitative evaluation methodologies and

provide a more convincing perspective on thesestudies. Lastly, a less recent but equally inter-esting research by Morrison et al. (2004) dis-cussed the possible parameters andmethodologies to be used while evaluatingWeb sites in the travel and tourism domain,presenting different experiences and case stu-dies and conceptualizing the idea of applyingeconomic concepts, such as the Balance ScoreCard, to Web site evaluation. This approach isproposed also by Stepchenkova, Tang, Jang,Kirilenko, and Morrison, (2010), who evaluatedConvention and Visitor Bureaus’ Web sitesbased on spatial and structural patterns; subse-quently, Lee and Morrison (2010) used theBalanced Score Card method to evaluate hotelWeb site performances. While proposing theBSC methodology, Morrison et al. (2004) alsopredicted that benchmarking activities would bea major approach for future tourism and hospi-tality Web site evaluation. The authors under-line the fact that comparative analytical toolswill be used increasingly in the field to checkone or more Web sites against competitors inthe same (or even in a different) market/domain(Law et al., 2010; Lee & Morrison, 2010).

It is worth mentioning that, to date, noresearches have focused on this particular rela-tionship between contents and functionalitiesand user experience in order to understand com-municative and design issues; additionally, thereare no studies focusing on the analysis ofEnglish Destination Web sites’ online commu-nication (Ip et al., 2011).

3. RESEARCH DESIGN

The main objective of this research is to ana-lyze English tourism destinations’ online presenceand capability to satisfy users’ information andcommunication needs. Following recent researchin the field (e.g., Law et al., 2010; Morrison et al.,2004), especially the one by Ip et al. (2011) thatanalyzed Web site Evaluation Studies in theTourism and Hospitality field from 1996 to2009. This research analyzes destinations’ onlinecommunication “by features and effectiveness”(Ip et al., 2011, p. 253), underlining the Web sitecharacteristics and peculiarities, harvesting and

566 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lor

enzo

Can

toni

] at

02:

46 2

0 Ju

ly 2

014

counting contents and functionalities (e.g., Luna-Nevarez & Hyman, 2012), as well as anticipatingusers’ experience (Essawy, 2006). The methodsused are a content analysis (content and function-ality assessment, related to “evaluation by fea-tures”) and a scenario-based expert evaluation(user satisfaction, “related to effectiveness”).Both methods have already been used success-fully in the travel and tourism domain, but nopaper has yet mixed them in order to get insightson the relationship between Web site complexityand satisfying user experience.

Regarding previous research in the field, thework by Ip et al. (2011) on tourism Web siteevaluation was considered a starting point dueto its detailed review of evaluation methodolo-gies and of their results. Furthermore, the workby Choi et al. (2007), as well as the work byWang (2008), were considered the basis foranalysis of contents and functionalities, as wellas analysis of user experience. The two differentmethods chosen to serve the analysis by fea-tures and effectiveness are presented here. Thefirst is a common methodology analysis withinthe communication domain, already used in theonline communication environment—namely,content analysis (e.g., Inversini, 2011). The sec-ond is a methodology used in Human ComputerInteraction (e.g., Dix, Finlay, Abowd, & Beale,2003) and Usability (e.g., Qi, Law, & Buhalis,2008; Triacca, Inversini, & Bolchini, 2005),based on severity ranking (Nielsen, 1995) ofusers’ scenarios (Carroll, 2000). It is worthy ofmention here that usability assessment has beenused previously in tourism as a strategy toassess destination Web sites (e.g., Essawy,2006; Qi et al., 2008).

3.1 Research Questions and Methods

In order to pursue the main research objec-tive—to analyze English tourism destinations’online communication and capability to satisfyusers’ information and communication needs—two research questions have been elaborated:

RQ1. Is there an informative core, or, in otherwords, a well-defined set of contents

and functionalities, which characterizesEnglish Destinations’ Web sites?

RQ2. Providing more contents and function-alities, does this mean offering a betteruser experience?

As mentioned above, the methods used toinvestigate the research questions are: (i) con-tent and functionality analysis and (ii) scenario-based evaluation.

3.2 Content and Functionality Analysis

Content and functionality analysis allowsdetection and mapping the contents and func-tionalities of a Web site and investigating itslevel of completeness (Cantoni, Fare, Bolchini,Inversini, & Giulieri, 2007). It is performedusing a content and functionality grid (e.g.,Inversini, 2011), featuring a list of indicators,each one representing a single type of content orfunctionality, which is relevant for the domain.Starting from relevant literature review in thefield (e.g., Choi et al., 2007; Wang, 2008),which highlighted a destination’s Web site char-acteristics, peculiarities, and functions, and fromprevious content analysis works in the field(Cantoni et al., 2007; Lizzi, Cantoni, &Inversini, 2011), a bottom-up analysis grid wascreated to investigate destinations’ online com-munication. The analysis grid was created itera-tively by analyzing all the Web sites in thesample. Each time a new type of content orfunctionality was found, it was added to thegrid and the sample re-analyzed.

For the present research, a content and func-tionality grid with 189 indicators has beendeveloped and used. Indicators can be under-stood as types of content and/or of functionality,which compose the Web site (Cantoni et al.,2007). The analysis was carried out by visitingeach Web site in the sample and filling the gridby acknowledging the presence or absence of anindicator. Value 1 was assigned when the indi-cator and, consequently, the piece of content/functionality associated with it, was availableon the Web site; value 1 was also attributedwhen there was an external link giving thatpiece of information (e.g., a link to a weather

Inversini, Cantoni, and De Pietro 567

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lor

enzo

Can

toni

] at

02:

46 2

0 Ju

ly 2

014

forecast Web site showing directly the weatherforecast at the landing point for the destination).Value 0 was assigned when the piece of infor-mation or the functionality was absent, or whenthe external link pointed to a generic Web site(e.g., for ticketing and timetables of the localbus company, the link points to the homepageof the bus company, where the user needs toperform a research to retrieve the desired pieceof information).

The indicators were ex-post organized intosix macro areas, which follow a communica-tive/narrative model. The macro areas were cre-ated once all the indicators were collected, andindicators were grouped on a mutually exclu-sive principle. The areas are described below:

1. There is a place: The first macro areacontains indicators related to geography,history, and local culture of the destina-tion. Indicators in this macro area givegeneral introductory knowledge aboutthe destination as a physical place.

2. Where you can go and stay: The secondmacro area presents indicators concerningthe practical organization of a tourismexperience, such as transportation,

accommodation, itineraries, and otherpractical information.

3. And enjoy doing something: The indica-tors in this macro area are related toattractions, eating and drinking, and gen-eral entertainment offers.

4. In a given period of time: The fourthmacro area concerns indicators related toevents and seasonal tourism.

5. That’s me (DMO), which is suggestingyou visit: The indicators contained inthis macro area refer to contents aboutthe DMO itself, including presentation,contacts, and services.

6. General services: The last macro areacontains indicators related to additionalservices and functionalities offered bythe Web site, such as online shop, sitemap, FAQs, submission of reviews, Website personalization, multilingualism, andso forth.

Indicators in a macro area were then subdividedinto 28 areas. Figure 1 shows the grid organiza-tion into (i) macro area: first level of granularityand narration; (ii) area: second level of granu-larity; (iii) indicator: last level of granularity;

FIGURE 1. Content and Functionality Grid Organization

568 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lor

enzo

Can

toni

] at

02:

46 2

0 Ju

ly 2

014

(iv) Web site to be analyzed, and (v) indicatorlabeled according to the presence/absence.

3.3 Scenario-Based Evaluation

Scenario-based evaluation is a common tech-nique used in Human Computer Interaction(e.g., Dix et al., 2003) for Web site design andevaluation. It describes how a Web site is likelyto be used by specific users in specific situa-tions; it is performed by completing actions thatrepresent typical and/or relevant activities, tak-ing into account the level of satisfaction of theuser when interacting with the Web site (Brinck,Gergle, & Wood, 2002; Carroll, 2000; Triaccaet al., 2005). The evaluation is carried outthrough a severity rating for the scenario ofuse. According to Carroll (2000), scenarios arestories about users and their situations of use,and they have three basic elements, which are(i) a setting or context of use, defining location,and situation of use; (ii) agents or actors: ascenario can include different actors; and (iii)goals or objectives, often implying sub-goals ortasks. This research has adopted 17 user scenar-ios, each composed of (i) one user profile; (ii)one goal: the main objective of the user whennavigating the Web site; and (iii) a set of tasks:operations to be accomplished in order toachieve the intended goal. A semi-structuredinterview with tourism expert Richard Veal,managing director of New Mind (UK marketleader for DMO Web sites), allowed validationof nine user profiles and 17 scenarios, which isconsidered realistic and able to cover most con-tents and functionalities that can be found on atourism destination Web site.

The scenario‐based evaluation was per-formed on a sample of Web sites. Startingfrom the results of the contents and functional-ities’ analysis, it was decided to select thosedestinations placed in the first 31 positions ofthe content and functionality ranking. ThoseWeb sites have the highest presence of indica-tors; thus, from a frequency point of view, theyare the most complete Web sites. Using the 31Web sites with the highest number of indicatorsis enough to answer RQ2, which explores therelationship between a high number of contents/

functionalities and user experience. The sce-nario‐based evaluation was performed by navi-gating the Web site and completing—orattempting to complete—actions and tasks toreach the given goals. A severity rating scale(Nielsen, 1995) was adopted to rank scenarios.The possibility to perform a task is evaluated ona 3‐point scale, where “0” was assigned when itwas not possible to complete the given task,“0.5” was assigned when it was partially possi-ble to complete the task, and “1” was assignedwhen it was possible to complete the task. Thefeasibility of a goal derives from the feasibilityof the tasks it comprises. The performance of adestination’s Web site in the scenario-based eva-luation depends on the performance of the des-tination itself in each scenario and,consequently, in each goal.

3.4 Sample

The research sample was selected by movingfrom the English national DMO Web site(www.enjoyengland.com); among the wholelist of promoted English destinations, onlythose having an official tourism Web site havebeen selected, a total of 120 destinations(January 2011). The sample includes 53 singlecity/town destinations (e.g., London, Chester,Bath, etc.) and 67 broader destinations, suchas districts, counties, and regions (e.g.,Somerset, Devon, North East England, etc.).The analysis was performed between Januaryand March 2011.

4. RESULTS

4.1 Results of the Content andFunctionality Analysis

The content and functionality analysis wasperformed to investigate the level of complete-ness of English destinations’ official tourismWeb sites and the frequency of relevant contentand functionalities. The six macro areas of indi-cators were ranked according to the frequencyof their indicators in the whole sample of 120destinations.

Inversini, Cantoni, and De Pietro 569

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lor

enzo

Can

toni

] at

02:

46 2

0 Ju

ly 2

014

The macro area named “And enjoy doingsomething,” which comprises indicators relatedto tourist attractions, tourist activities, and cater-ing providers, achieved the top position, with40.8% frequency within the sample. The macroarea “There is a place,” which includes indica-tors related to geography, history, and localculture, closely follows with 40.3%. This isfollowed by the macro areas “In a given periodof time” (40.0%), which pertains to events andseasonal tourism, and “Where you can go andstay” (39.2%), which is devoted to transporta-tion, itineraries, and accommodation. Indicatorsfor contents about the DMO are contained in the“That’s me” macro area, with 32.8% frequency;meanwhile, “General services” occupies lastposition, with 28.8%.

Without considering macro areas, single indi-cators were ranked as follows (Table 1).

The most frequent indicators in the macro area“There is a place” are “Destination map,”“Destination description,” “Cultural/historicalplaces,” “Main cities/places,” and “Informationabout the natural environment,” which are pre-sent in more than 92% of destinations’Web sites.Concerning the second macro area devoted toaccommodation and travel to the destinations,the indicators listed as “Hotels,” “List of accom-modations,” “Grading,” “Apartments,” and “Bed& Breakfast” are the ones most present, withmore than 95% frequency.

Table 1 shows that the vast majority of Websites in the sample (99%) use the indicators“Places of interests” and “List of attractions”;meanwhile, for events and seasonal tourism, themost frequent indicators are “List of events”

(96.7%), “News/what’s on,” “Event searchfunctionality,” “Cultural events,” and “List ofvenues” (93.3%). In the “That’s me” macroarea, which presents contents and functionalitiesabout the DMO, “Contacts list,” “Addressesand maps,” “List of tourist offices,” “Web con-tact,” and “About us” were the most recurringindicators. Among the general services offeredby Web sites, the “Internal search engine” isused by 73.3% of the Web sites, followed by“Accessibility statement,” “Web site map,”“Guide download,” and “Brochure downloadfunctionality.”

In the category User-Generated Content-related indicators, the indicator “Link to socialnetwork official page” (i.e., Facebook and/orTwitter) prevails with 41.7% of destinations pre-senting it; on the other hand, forums have nopresence. The remaining indicators are less than12%, with link to an Official YouTube channeland an official blog of the destination recording11.7% and 10.8% respectively, and indicatorsrelated to consumer reviews recorded as 4.2%.

Concerning the category online booking-related indicators, more than half of the destina-tions (57.5%) provide accommodation onlinebooking functionality, while attractions andevents’ ticketing functionalities are used by10% of the sample; tour ticketing and bookingis provided by 8.3% of destinations. Text con-tents prevail in the category Multimedia-relatedindicators (68.3% for “Brochure download” and70.8% for “Guide download”). Picture galleriesand videos are used by 36.7% and 28.3% ofdestinations respectively, while the indicatorrelated to audio contents in the form ofPodcasts is present on 15% of studied Websites. The least used indicator is “Virtualtours,” appearing in just 4.2% of the cases.Personalization-related indicators show in thetop position indicator “Suggestions and guidesfor families,” with 56.7% of destinations usingit. It is followed by three indicators appearing inmore than 40% of destinations’ Web sitesrelated to information for groups (41.7%),Meeting & Incentive tourism (43.3%), and dis-abled visitors (48.3%). The less common indi-cators are “Suggestions and guides for LGBTmarket” with 7.5% and “Studying here tips” forstudents, with 1.7%.

TABLE 1. Indicators Frequency

Indicator Frequency %

Places of interests 99.2List of attractions 99.2Hotels 97.5Attractions descriptions 97.5List of accommodations 96.7List of events 96.7Activities and things to do 95.8Destination map 94.2Destination description 93.3Cultural/historical places 93.3

570 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lor

enzo

Can

toni

] at

02:

46 2

0 Ju

ly 2

014

4.2 Results of the Scenario-BasedEvaluation

As stated in the methodology, after the con-tent and functionality classification was com-pleted, the 31 highest-ranked Web sites wereconsidered for the qualitative scenario-basedevaluation. These 31 Web sites were checkedagainst the scenarios, especially goals and tasks’feasibility, which are presented here.

Concerning the feasibility of goals, the goalwith the highest feasibility in the sample is “Getmaps and guides,” with 87.7% of feasibilitywithin the sample. It is observed that the topfive goals have a feasibility level higher than70% within the sample. They are related to“Food and Drink” (“Find restaurants to eat typi-cal Indian food,” 71.0%), general informationabout the destination, such as destination over-view, history, and how to get there and movearound (71.8%), attractions (“Obtain attractioninformation and book tickets,” 75.2%), andaccommodation (“Find and book a Hotel,”86.2%). The lowest position is occupied bythe goal “Obtain information about surroundingareas,” with 27.0% feasibility, suggesting a ten-dency in the online communication to considera destination as an isolated entity or in competi-tion with neighboring destinations. This is pre-ceded by the goal “Experience recall,” with afeasibility of about 30% (Figure 2).

It was then possible to identify the singletasks with the highest feasibility. The top posi-tion is shared by three tasks concerning retriev-ing basic information about accommodation(“Find hotel contact information”), events(“Find ticketing information”), and activities(“Find venue contact information”); these threetasks can be fully completed in the whole sam-ple of 31 destinations. Tasks related to listingand filtering products by type (“Find the list ofthe attractions,” “Find attractions by type,”“Find the list of the events,” “Find culturalevents”) and gathering information about res-taurants and accommodation (“Find hotel infor-mation,” “Find contact information -restaurant”), have very high feasibility as well.

During the evaluation, it was impossible toperform several tasks in 29 destinations’ Websites out of 31. The tasks are mainly related toretrieving information about surrounding areasand excursions, finding restaurants’ menus, spe-cial offers devoted to couples, and downloadingan events’ calendar.

5. DISCUSSION

The content and functionality analysisallowed ranking the destinations in the sampleaccording to the level of completeness of theirofficial tourist Web site. London was the most

FIGURE 2. Scenarios Goals’ Ranking

Inversini, Cantoni, and De Pietro 571

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lor

enzo

Can

toni

] at

02:

46 2

0 Ju

ly 2

014

complete Web site in the sample, with 138indicators out of 189, corresponding to 73.0%.The top five ranked Web sites include foursingle city destinations (London, Blackpool,Brighton, and Bath) and one county(Lancashire). Two city destinations(Kenilworth and Rugby) shared the lowest posi-tion with less than 12% of the indicators (22indicators out of 189). With regard to RQ1, itwas possible to define an informative corebased on three main issues, which are (i) desti-nation attractiveness—places of interests, attrac-tions, activities, things to do and events, culturaland historical places; (ii) destination accommo-dation facilities—list of accommodations; and(iii) mobility issues—destination map, destina-tion descriptions, occurring in most Web sites(from 99.2% to 93.3%, threshold 90%).

Furthermore, as stated in the methodologysection, the scenario-based evaluation was per-formed on a reduced sample of destinations—namely, those ranked in the first 31 positions ofthe content and functionality analysis, whichwere the most complete in terms of contentand functionality. Nevertheless, it was possibleto compare the ranking of the scenario-basedevaluation with the ranking of the content andfunctionality analysis (first 31 positions). Thecontent and functionality analysis assessed thecompleteness of DMOs’ Web sites in terms ofoffered information and functionalities, whilethe scenario‐based evaluation verified whetherthose contents and functionalities are suited tothe fulfillment of users’ goals.

The content and functionality analysis doesnot provide in itself a quality evaluation; there-fore, a Web site that performs well in that ana-lysis is not implicitly performing the same inthe scenario‐based evaluation, possibly becausea content might be present but was not easilyaccessible or a functionality might not be work-ing properly. By comparing the results of thecontent and functionality analysis with those ofthe scenario‐based valuation, it is possible toinvestigate the use destinations make of theironline contents and functionalities. A differentdegree of importance was given to the scenariosstarting from the work of Choi et al. (2007).

Table 2 highlights the differences between thetwo rankings. In the top five, several changes

occurred, with only Blackpool (moving to firstposition) and London (ranking third, with a lossof two positions) able to confirm their leadingposition; the second and fourth positions areheld respectively by Bournemouth—gainingeight positions—and Wiltshire, moving up 16positions. Bournemouth and Wiltshire providesignificant examples of Web sites performing bet-ter in the scenario‐based evaluation than otherdestinations’ Web sites having an equal or evengreater amount of indicators. Bournemouth hadthe same content and functionality score asYorkshire, but Yorkshire lost six positions whenevaluated for its Web site’s capability to respondto users’ goals and tasks. Meanwhile,Bournemouth gained eight positions; again, aWeb site like Brighton’s, even though it is morecomplete in terms of indicators thanBournemouth, registered a worse performance inthe scenario‐based evaluation.

It is possible to state that a DMO Web siteproviding a limited amount of information andfunctionalities can put effort into making thosecontents relevant, accessible, and useful in orderto allow users to fulfill their online goals.Content and Functionality Analysis is merely aquantitative methodology. Two Web sites withthe same amount of indicators do not necessa-rily provide the same type of contents andfunctionalities; a DMO Web site could providecontents that are more relevant for the fulfill-ment of goals than those provided by anotherWeb site, consequently performing better in thescenario‐based evaluation.

Destination managers should check not onlythe quantity of online contents they are provid-ing to their online visitors but also their quality,relevance, and accessibility.

6. CONCLUSIONS

This study provides insights into destina-tions’ online communication, both in terms ofcontents and functionalities that are available ondestinations’ Web sites and the user experience.It provides destination managers with two toolsto investigate and evaluate their online commu-nication strategy. Firstly, there is a quantitativetool—the content and functionality analysis—

572 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lor

enzo

Can

toni

] at

02:

46 2

0 Ju

ly 2

014

focusing on the quantity of information andservices provided and measuring the “complete-ness” of a destination Web site; secondly, thereis a more qualitative tool—the scenario-basedevaluation—focusing on the quality and avail-ability of the information and services.

By performing the two analyses, destinationmanagers are able to understand the strengthsand weaknesses of their Web sites in terms ofquantity and quality of contents and functional-ities. However, in terms of online communica-tion, a large amount of information does notimply that those pieces of information are easilyaccessible for the end-users. At the same time, aWeb site with few contents and functionalitiescould prove extremely useful for tourists need-ing specific information and who are willing to

perform specific tasks. To use an analogy, hav-ing more ingredients does not mean that a cakeis better; it may just become too sophisticated.Sometimes, less—high quality—ingredientsmay provide a better recipe for a destination’sonline communication manager.

This paper contributes to the wide body ofliterature about destination Web site analysis andquality (Xie, Kerstetter, Mattila, Buzinde, &Morais, 2012). This body of literature can beseen as framed in the wider Web site quality area(e.g., Hoffman & Novak, 2009), where the qualityof information is seen as a means to incrementWeb site performances and usefulness (Kim &Niehm, 2009). Furthermore, this research adds anew element to the above-mentioned discussion:Nowadays, when society is dominated by

TABLE 2. Comparison Between Content and Functionality Analysis andScenario-Based User Experience Analysis

Destination C&F score Rank Scenario-based Rank Change in the ranking

London 50 1 36.24 3 (−)2Blackpool 45.29 2 37.71 1 (+)1Brighton 44.21 3 33.67 9 (−)6Lancashire 42.03 4 33.82 8 (−)4Bath 42.03 4 32.57 12 (−)8Bristol 42.03 4 35.65 5 (−)1Cornwall 41.67 7 30.25 18 (−)11Devon 41.31 8 29.41 21 (−)13Newcastle Gateshead 39.5 9 35.63 6 (+)3Bournemouth 38.77 10 36.25 2 (+)8Yorkshire 38.77 10 31.15 16 (−)6Hampshire 36.96 12 25.51 28 (−)16Winchester 36.23 13 31.87 14 (−)1Windsor and Maidenhead 36.23 13 32.34 13 (=)York 35.51 15 30.11 19 (−)4Liverpool 34.79 16 33.23 10 (+)6Peak District and Derbyshire 34.42 17 32.87 11 (+)6North East England 34.06 18 31.16 15 (+)3The English Riviera 34.06 18 25.51 29 (−)11South East England 33.7 20 28.44 23 (−)3Wiltshire 33.7 20 35.67 4 (+)16Cambridge 33.7 20 33.93 7 (+)13Middlesbrough 32.97 23 26.8 27 (−)4Lincolnshire 32.97 23 28.25 24 (−)1Leicestershire 32.97 23 28.55 22 (+)1County Durham 32.25 26 27.15 26 (=)Isle of Wight 31.52 27 25.43 30 (−)3Tunbridge Wells 31.52 27 27.67 25 (+)2Leeds 31.52 27 29.73 20 (+)7Essex 31.52 27 30.78 17 (+)10Birmingham 31.52 27 22.51 31 (−)4

Inversini, Cantoni, and De Pietro 573

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lor

enzo

Can

toni

] at

02:

46 2

0 Ju

ly 2

014

information (Webster, 2006) and (online) users areoverwhelmed by information (Inversini et al.,2009), Web site designers as well as (in this case)destinations’managers should focus their attentionon tailoring Web sites’ content and functionalitiesfor their users’ needs.

Following the guiding idea of the book “TheParadox of Choice - Why More Is Less”(Schwartz, 2003), it is possible to argue that desti-nation managers should focus more on the qualityof the destination Web site’s contents and func-tionalities more than on their quantity. It is demon-strated here that the best Web sites, in terms ofcontents and functionalities, do not always serveusers’ needs; on the other hand, Web sites usingfewer elements demonstrated being very welldesigned and performed well in terms of servedgoals. Destination managers should improve theironline communication starting from a user-driven,goal-oriented reasoning and not from a pure tech-nological reasoning. The use of scenarios and theinvolvement of end-users during the whole Website production stages (Brinck et al., 2002) mightbe a helpful starting point for tourism managers toorientate their communication towards their end-users and not to mirror (as often may be the case)their internal organization.

REFERENCES

Beldona, S., &Cai, L. A. (2006). An exploratory evaluation ofrural tourism websites. Journal of Convention & EventTourism, 8(1), 69–80. doi:10.1300/J452v08n01_04

Brinck, T., Gergle, D., & Wood, S. D. (2002). Designingweb sites that work : Usability for the web. SanFrancisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

Buhalis, D. (1998). Strategic use of information technologiesin the tourism industry. Tourism Management, 19(5),409–421. doi:10.1016/S0261-5177(98)00038-7

Buhalis, D. (2003). ETourism : Information technology forstrategic tourism management. Harlow, England:Financial Times Prentice Hall.

Buhalis, D., & Law, R. (2008). Progress in informationtechnology and tourism management: 20 years on and10 years after the internet—the state of eTourismresearch. Tourism Management, 29(4), 609–623.doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2008.01.005

Cantoni, L., & Tardini, S. (2006). Internet. London; NewYork: Routledge.

Cantoni, L., Faré, M., Bolchini, D., Inversini, A., & Giulieri,F. (2007). European cities and web tourism

communication, an indicators-based pilot study. InProceedings of the Travel Distribution Summit, Europe,Research Conference (pp. 45–54). London: AxonImprint.

Carroll, J. M. (2000). Making use: Scenario-based designof human-computer interactions. Cambridge, MA: MITPress.

Choi, S., Lehto, X. Y., & Oleary, J. T. (2007). What doesthe consumer want from a DMO website? A study ofUS and Canadian tourists’ perspectives. InternationalJournal of Tourism Research, 9(2), 59–72.doi:10.1002/jtr.594

Dix, A., Finlay, J. E., Abowd, G. D., & Beale, R. (2003).Human-computer interaction (3rd ed.). Harlow, UK;New York: Prentice Hall.

Essawy, M. (2006). Testing the usability of hotel websites:The springboard for customer relationship building.Information Technology & Tourism, 8(1), 47–70.doi:10.3727/109830506778193878

Geest, D. T. M. van der. (2001). Web site design is com-munication design. Philadelphia, PA: John BenjaminsPublishing Company.

Gretzel, U., Fesenmaier, D., & O’Leary, J. T. (2006). Thetransformation of consumer behaviour. In D. Buhalis &C. Costa (Eds.), Tourism business frontiers:Consumers, products and industry (pp. 9–18).Burlington, MA: Elsevier.

Gretzel, U., Yuan, Y.-L., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2000).Preparing for the new economy: Advertising strategiesand change in destination marketing organizations.Journal of Travel Research, 39(2), 146–156.doi:10.1177/004728750003900204

Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (2009). Flow online:Lessons learned and future prospects. Journal ofInteractive Marketing, 23(1), 23–34. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2008.10.003

Horan, P., & Frew, A. (2007). Destination WebsiteEffectiveness – A Delphi-Based eMetric Approach –A DMS Perspective. Conference papers. Retrievedfrom http://arrow.dit.ie/tfschmtcon/7

Inversini, A., & Cantoni, L. (2009). Cultural destinationusability: The case of visit bath. In W. Höpken, U.Gretzel & R. Law (Eds.), Information and communica-tion technologies in tourism 2009 (pp. 319–331).Vienna: Springer Vienna.

Inversini, A. (2011). Cultural destinations’ online commu-nication and promotion: Discovering official and unoffi-cial online sources peculiarities of cultural destinationspromotion. Saarbrücken, Germany: LAP LAMBERTAcademic Publishing.

Inversini, A., Brülhart, C., & Cantoni, L. (2011).Myswitzerland.com: Analysis of online communicationand promotion. Information Technology & Tourism, 13(1), 39–49. doi:10.3727/109830511X13167968595741

Inversini, A., Cantoni, L., & Buhalis, D. (2009).Destinations’ information competition and web

574 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lor

enzo

Can

toni

] at

02:

46 2

0 Ju

ly 2

014

reputation. Information Technology & Tourism, 11(3),221–234. doi:10.3727/109830509X12596187863991

Ip, C., Law, R., & Lee, H. A. (2011). A review of websiteevaluation studies in the tourism and hospitality fieldsfrom 1996 to 2009. International Journal of TourismResearch, 13(3), 234–265. doi:10.1002/jtr.815

Jang, S. S. (2004). The past, present and future research ofonline information search. Journal of Travel & TourismMarketing, 17(2–3), 41–47.

Kim, H., &Niehm, L. S. (2009). The impact of website qualityon information quality, value and loyalty intentions inapparel retailing. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(3),221–233. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2009.04.009

Law, R., & Jogaratnam, G. (2005). A study of hotelinformation technology applications. InternationalJournal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,17(2), 170–180. doi:10.1108/09596110510582369

Law, R., Qi, S., & Buhalis, D. (2010). Progress in tourismmanagement: A review of website evaluation in tour-ism research. Tourism Management, 31(3), 297–313.doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.11.007

Lee, J., & Morrison, A. M. (2010). A comparative study ofweb site performance. Journal of Hospitality andTourism Technology, 1(1), 50–67. doi:10.1108/17579881011023016

Lizzi, G., Cantoni, L., & Inversini, A. (2011). When amagazine goes online: A case study in the tourismfield. In R. Law, M. Fuchs & F. Ricci (Eds.),Information and communication technologies in tour-ism 2011 (pp. 355–366). Presented at the ENTER 2011.Innsbruck, Austria: Wien: Springer.

Luna-Nevarez, C., & Hyman, M. R. (2012). Commonpractices in destination website design. Journal ofDestination Marketing &Management, 1(1–2), 94–106.

Morrison, A. M., Taylor, J. S., & Douglas, A. (2004).Website evaluation in tourism and hospitality. Journalof Travel & Tourism Marketing, 17(2–3), 233–251.

Nielsen, J. (1995). Severity Ratings for Usability Problems.Retrieved August 2, 2013, from http://www.nngroup.com/articles/how-to-rate-the-severity-of-usability-problems

Pan, B., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2000). A typology of tourismrelated web sites: Its theoretical background and implica-tions. In: D. R. Fesenmaier, S. Klein, & D. Buhalis (Eds.),Information and Communication Technologies inTourism 2000 (pp. 381–395). Wien: Springer-Verlag.

Pan, B., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2006). Online informationsearch: Vacation planning process. Annals of TourismResearch, 33(3), 809–832. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2006.03.006

Park, Y. A., & Gretzel, U. (2007). Success factors fordestination marketing web sites: A qualitative meta-

analysis. Journal of Travel Research, 46(1), 46–63.doi:10.1177/0047287507302381

Poon, A. (1993). Tourism, technology and competitivestrategies. Wallingford: CABI.

Qi, S., Law, R., & Buhalis, D. (2008). Usability of Chinesedestination management organization websites. Journalof Travel & Tourism Marketing, 25(2), 182–198.doi:10.1080/10548400802402933

Schwartz, B. (2003). The paradox of choice: Why more isless (1st ed.). New York: Ecco.

Stepchenkova, S., Tang, L., Jang, S. S., Kirilenko, A. P., &Morrison, A. M. (2010). Benchmarking CVB websiteperformance: Spatial and structural patterns. TourismManagement, 31(5), 611–620. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.06.015

Triacca, L., Inversini, A., & Bolchini, D. (2005).Evaluating Web usability with MiLE +. In SeventhIEEE International Symposium on Web SiteEvolution, 2005. (WSE 2005) (pp. 22–29). Presentedat the Seventh IEEE International Symposium on WebSite Evolution, 2005. (WSE 2005), IEEE.

Wang, Y., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2006). Identifying thesuccess factors of web-based marketing strategy: Aninvestigation of convention and visitors bureaus in theUnited States. Journal of Travel Research, 44(3), 239–249. doi:10.1177/0047287505279007

Wang, Y. (2008). Web-based destination marketing sys-tems: Assessing the critical factors for management andimplementation. International Journal of TourismResearch, 10(1), 55–70. doi:10.1002/jtr.633

Webster, F. (2006). Theories of the information society(3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Werthner, H., & Klein, S. (1999). Information technologyand tourism - a challenging relationship (1999 inter-national ed.). Wien; New York: Springer.

Xiang, Z., Wober, K., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2008).Representation of the online tourism domain in searchengines. Journal of Travel Research, 47(2), 137–150.doi:10.1177/0047287508321193

Xie, H., Kerstetter, D., Mattila, A. S., Buzinde, C., &Morais, D. B. (2012). Information usefulness versusease of use: Which makes a destination website morepersuasive?. Tourism Analysis, 17(1), 15–26.doi:10.3727/108354212X13330406123972

SUBMITTED: October 10, 2012FINAL REVISION SUBMITTED:

March 25, 2013ACCEPTED: April 16, 2013

REFEREED ANONYMOUSLY

Inversini, Cantoni, and De Pietro 575

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lor

enzo

Can

toni

] at

02:

46 2

0 Ju

ly 2

014