1

EFFECTS OF PACKAGE HOLIDAY INFORMATION PRESENTATION ON

DESTINATION CHOICE

Walaiporn Rewtrakunphaiboon, Ph.D.

Harmen Oppewal, Ph.D.

Published in 2008 in:

Journal of Travel Research, 47, 2, 127-136

2

EFFECTS OF PACKAGE HOLIDAY INFORMATION PRESENTATION ON

DESTINATION CHOICE

Walaiporn Rewtrakunphaiboon*

Harmen Oppewal**

*Department of Tourism and Hotel, Bangkok University, Rama 4 Road, Klongtoey, Bangkok

10110, Thailand, Email: walaiporn.r@bu.ac.th

Telephone: +66 2 3503500 ext. 1670, Fax: +66 2 3503662

** (Corresponding author) Department of Marketing, Monash University, PO Box 197, Caulfield

East, Victoria 3145, Australia, Email: harmen.oppewal@buseco.monash.edu.au

Telephone: +61 3 9903 2360, Fax: +61 3 9903 1558

Author biographical notes:

Walaiporn Rewtrakunphaiboon, Ph.D., is a lecturer in the Department of Tourism and Hotel at

Bangkok University, Thailand.

Harmen Oppewal, Ph.D., is a professor in the Department of Marketing at Monash University,

Victoria, Australia.

Original Submission Date: 21 October 2006

Revised Submission Date: 7 August 2007

Acceptance Date: 21 August 2007

3

EFFECTS OF PACKAGE HOLIDAY INFORMATION PRESENTATION ON

DESTINATION CHOICE

ABSTRACT

Holiday travel packaging is an important tool for destination marketing. However, little is known

on how presentation of travel package information influences tourists’ decisions. This paper

reports an experiment that tested whether package information and package heading can

influence destination choice. It is hypothesized that destinations with a less favorable image will

benefit from being presented in a format with more attribute information and with a price

heading. The hypotheses were tested with 200 university students and 200 UK residents. They

were asked to evaluate experimentally designed beach package holidays to Mediterranean

destinations. Results show that effects of package presentation format do not differ between less

favorable and more favorable image destinations. Variations in package presentation format show

similar effects regardless of the destination presented. The student sample shows a higher

intention to visit when price is used as the package heading. Implications and avenues for future

research are discussed.

Keywords: package holidays, information format, destination choice, tourist decision-making,

bundling

4

INTRODUCTION

Package holidays are prevalent and play an important role in the tourism industry. In the UK, for

example, nearly 50% of residents’ overseas holiday visits are in the form of package holidays

(National Statistics 2005). Consumers value package holidays because of their perceived lower

price, lower risk and higher convenience compared to items purchased separately (Sheldon and

Mak 1987; Laws 1997; Middleton and Clarke 2001; Money and Crotts 2003). Package holidays

are typically presented in advertisements online and offline with brief descriptions such as ‘Spain

for £350’ or ‘Portugal, 4 nights, four-star hotel for £350’, often with the destination name as the

main caption. This particular presentation format does highlight the destination name as the main

attribute differentiating the package offers. However, if the focus is on low cost, destination

marketers may choose to present price as the package heading. To what extent should destination

marketers present package information details and what attribute should be the package heading

in order to positively influence consumers’ destination selection? These are the main questions

addressed in this paper.

Previous research in marketing suggests that different information formats of bundled products

can influence consumer evaluation and their purchase intention (Harlam et al. 1995; Munger and

Grewal 2001). To date, the effects of package holiday information presentation on tourist

decisions have remained unexplored. Given the prevalence of package holidays, this lack of

research is rather surprising. The issue becomes even more relevant when considering the

marketing of destinations with a less favorable image. For such destinations, marketers will

probably aim to diminish the importance of destination. One potential option for doing this is by

highlighting price, or other attributes on which these destinations have a better chance to

5

compete. Indeed, previous research suggests that attribute presentation or prominence does affect

consumer decision-making. For example, a study of in-store wine promotions found that sales of

Texan wines decreased instead of increased when these wines featured in a promotion of regional

wines (Areni et al. 1999). The explanation offered was that Texas does not have a reputation for

producing quality wines. The accentuation increased the importance of the attribute “region”,

thereby decreasing the attractiveness of the promoted wines and hence their sales. A potential

implication of these findings for destination marketers is that destinations with a less favorable

image should not be promoted using destination as a package heading but instead should use

other attributes that they can more easily compete on, such as price. This notion is therefore

relevant to test in the tourism arena.

The study reported here used an experiment to test for two samples of respondents from the UK

whether the way in which information about beach package holidays is presented can influence

their evaluation and choice regarding beach holiday destinations. Beach holidays are suitable for

investigating the effect of package presentation since products in this category are quite similar

across destinations. For example, tourists from the UK looking for sea, sun and sand can find

beach holidays on offer in many Mediterranean destinations. They may consider popular

destinations such as Spain or Greece but may also be interested in destinations that have a less

favorable image when these latter destinations are brought to their attention in attractive

packages. Beach holiday packages therefore provide an appropriate context where the effects

proposed here should be observable.

The findings reported in this paper however will suggest that even for a case like beach holidays,

where products are close substitutes, package information presentation effects are independent of

6

the name and image of the destination. Hence, the format in which package information is

presented seems not to be an effective instrument for promoting destinations with a less favorable

image. The paper will explain this by first providing a brief review of the three core concepts in

the study: bundling, information completeness and information format. It will then present the

details of the experiment. The paper ends with a discussion of implications and avenues for

further research.

BUNDLING

A package holiday can be defined as ‘a combination of many components of a vacation such as

transportation, accommodation, sightseeing and meals which are sold to the consumers at a single

price’ (Sheldon and Mak 1987:13). Package holidays are a form of bundling. Within the tourism

industry, bundling is a common strategy whereby transportation and lodging are combined.

Bundling is also prevalent in other markets such as fast food (burger, fries and soft drink sold as a

bundle), sport and theatre (where tickets to various events are sold as a bundle) and computers

(selling a computer, printer and software for one price). Stremersch and Tellis (2002:56) define

the term ‘bundling’ as ‘the sale of two or more separate products in one package’. Yadav and

Monroe (1993:350) refer to bundling as ‘the selling of two or more products and/or services at a

single price’.

To date, there are several studies examining the potential effects of bundling on consumers’

evaluation and perception. Yadav and Monroe (1993) studied mixed bundling scenarios to

examine the perception of overall savings when evaluating the bundle versus individual items in

a situation when price reductions are offered. The results show that consumers are willing to buy

7

bundles if they perceive additional savings. A study by Harris (1997) into the effects of

promotional bundling on consumers’ evaluation suggests that bundling of a new product with an

established product will increase perceived product quality and decrease perceived risks of the

new product. These studies suggest that consumers evaluate a product differently when it is in a

bundle. Bundling two or more items together creates a new context of purchase. It forces the

consumers to evaluate the items in the bundle in the context of one another (Harris 1997).

A few tourism studies have given attention to the effects of bundling on consumer evaluation, but

no studies seem to address the effects of the presentation format of the package holidays.

Bojanic and Calantone (1990) studied the use of price bundling in recreation services to

determine the importance of various service attributes and found price to be the most important

attribute. Josiam and Hobson (1995) focused on the effect of decoy package holidays. A decoy

is an alternative that is inferior to other alternatives in a choice set on at least one attribute while

being equally good on other attributes. The authors presented high price, low value decoy

packages to Las Vegas and Disney World and found that the presence of a decoy can shift

consumer preferences to higher priced package holidays. Naylor and Frank (2001) examined

how an all-inclusive price bundle at an upscale spa resort affects consumer perception of value.

Their findings suggest that price bundling increases the perception of value for first-time

holidaymakers. Oppewal and Holyoake (2004) experimentally investigated the effects of

bundling on decisions to accept a holiday package and found that consumers are more inclined to

buy components such as a hotel or flights separately when they are provided with more

information about these components. They also found consumers who had less experience with

beach holidays to have a greater propensity for buying package holidays. Finally, less preferred

8

destinations attracted a relatively larger proportion of bundle purchases than more preferred

destinations.

INFORMATION COMPLETENESS

The first factor involved in the presentation of information for package holidays is the amount of

information provided. In today’s markets, products presented in a store or on the Internet are

seldom fully described and this situation is referred to as the ‘missing information’ problem.

This problem occurs when ‘values for one or more attributes considered relevant for the decision

task are not available for one or more alternatives in the choice set’ (Burke 1995:224). Missing

value is a source of uncertainty since the actual value may be unattractive (Meyer 1981).

The findings of Burke (1995) show that choice processing in situations where there is missing

information is different from processing in those where full information is given. A study by

Johnson and Levin (1985) suggests that the more information is missing, the less favorable the

evaluation. The findings of Kivetz and Simonson (2000) further show that missing information

can affect preference, especially for inferior products, in such a way that missing information is

used as a reason to reject these options. Missing information however does not show an effect on

superior products.

INFORMATION FORMAT

The term ‘information format’ refers to ‘the presentation and organisation of information about

the available alternatives and their attributes’ (Cooper-Martin 1993:240). Researchers have

9

shown that the format in which product information is displayed affects the way consumers

process the information. Consumers are adaptive and construct or reconstruct their preferences in

reaction to the demands of the decision task (Bettman, Luce and Payne 1998). Consumers will

process information in ways that are congruent with the format in which it is presented (Bettman

and Kakkar 1977; Bettman and Zins 1979; Stoddard and Fern 1996).

A study by Bettman and Kakkar (1977) found that the format in which information is presented

encourages a particular type of information processing. Findings from Simonson and Winer

(1992) show that changing the information format can influence consumer product evaluations

and purchase intentions. The study shows that, when all else is kept equal, information format

affects evaluation. Other studies also show that the way a product is displayed influences the

importance consumers assign to various attributes when making a purchase decision. The

importance of an attribute increases when products are displayed according to a specific attribute

e.g. by brand or by price (Tversky 1969; Glass and Holyoak 1986; Simonson 1999). Areni et al.

(1999) found that highlighting a specific attribute increases the importance of that particular

attribute. Munger and Grewal (2001) studied the promotional discount format (rebate,

conventional discount, free options) of bundling. Their results suggest that the presentation

format for bundles affects consumer evaluations.

HYPOTHESES

The presented literature suggests that information completeness and information format can

influence consumer product evaluation and choice. Consequently, it is of relevance for

destination marketers to know which attribute to present or highlight when promoting particular

10

destinations. Based on the previous studies, this study proposes two hypotheses and aims to

empirically test them in a context that is relevant for tourism marketing.

The first hypothesis concerns the effect of the amount of information presented. Previous

research appears to suggest that presenting incomplete package information diminishes the

attractiveness of destinations that have a less favorable image. If these destinations are presented

without other package attributes, the prominence of the destination will increase. This kind of

presentation format thus benefits destinations with a more favorable image. For less favorable

destinations, it is expected that presenting other attributes along with the destination name will

turn attention away from the destination name to those other attributes. As a result, consumers

would be willing to consider new alternatives including those with a less favorable image. The

first hypothesis is therefore as follows:

H1: For destinations with a less favorable image, presenting packages with the destination name

along with other attributes instead of the destination name only results in: (a) higher intentions

to visit and (b) higher probabilities of being selected as the chosen destination.

The second hypothesis focuses on the effect of package heading. As previously discussed, past

studies suggest that information format can influence consumer evaluation. Presenting products

by a specific attribute increases the importance of that particular attribute. An implication for

destinations with a less favorable image is that they should highlight the attribute such as price on

which they can compete well rather than focusing on the inferior attribute such as the destination

name. It is expected that presenting price as a package heading will turn attention away from the

11

destination name toward price, thereby enhancing the relative attractiveness of destinations with a

less favorable image. The second hypothesis is therefore as follows:

H2: For destinations with a less favorable image, presenting the package heading with price

instead of the destination name results in (a) higher intentions to visit and (b) higher

probabilities of being selected as a chosen destination.

METHOD

The hypotheses were tested in an experimental questionnaire in which participants were asked to

plan a beach holiday. An experimental setting and treatments were developed for three groups:

one control group and two experimental groups. To test the effects of information completeness,

the control group was presented with the destination name only while the experimental groups

were presented with the destination name along with other attributes. To investigate the effects

of package heading, there are two experimental groups. Experimental group 1 (Exp1) received

the destination name as a package heading while experimental group 2 (Exp2) received price as a

package heading. Identical package attributes were used in both experimental groups. An

example of the stimuli for experimental group 1 is shown in Figure 1a and an example for

experimental group 2 is shown in Figure 1b. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of the

three groups, so there were no systematic differences between the groups. An elaborate

experimental design based on the so called Solomon design was added to control for possible

order effects of exposure to any of the destination names.

12

Insert Figures 1a and 1b

This section will explain in detail for the three stages how the respondents were exposed to the

experimental treatments. It begins with the hypothetical scenario, pre-test and the presentation of

the experimental stimuli. It further describes the main dependent variables and the design of the

experimental stimuli.

Hypothetical scenario

The questionnaire first asked about the respondent’s travel experience, holiday preferences and

then introduced a hypothetical situation as shown in Figure 2. In this situation, they were asked

to assume that they had won a voucher for an overseas beach holiday. These details were

provided to standardize the decision situation across all respondents.

Insert Figure 2

The hypothetical situation shown in Figure 2 introduces the respondents to the experimental

setting which controls for cost, time, trip duration and social influences such as friends and

families. Considering these issues, the hypothetical situation of this study specifies the

availability of budget, time and travel companion to allow the respondents to make decisions

within a standardized set of travel constraints. Regarding the use of the voucher, the situation

also provided an option for not using the voucher if the respondents did not feel like taking

holidays. Rebates were also available to discourage the respondents from purchasing the most

expensive package holidays in order to use up the entire voucher at once.

13

Pre-test

After reading the hypothetical scenario, respondents were presented with a list of four

destinations and asked to indicate for each destination their intention to visit, on a rating scale

with extremes 1 (will definitely not visit) and 7 (will definitely visit). This measure served as a

pre-test. The four presented destinations were a subset from a total list of eight Mediterranean

beach destinations that had been selected as the master list for this study. These eight

Mediterranean beach destinations had been selected on the basis of the number of UK resident

visits from the UK National Statistics (2002). Spain, Greece, Italy and Portugal were the top four

beach holiday destinations in terms of number of UK resident visits and were pre-selected to be

destinations with a more favorable image. Cyprus, Turkey, Malta and Tunisia had lower number

of visits from UK residents and were therefore pre-selected as destinations with a less favorable

image in the context of beach holidays. The four destinations presented at this stage were

systematically varied such that all destinations appeared equally often and independently of each

other across the respondents, to control for destination name exposure effects.

Presentation of experimental stimuli

After the pre-test, respondents were exposed to two series of four package holidays, presented in

a format in accordance with their assigned experimental condition. Both series had the same four

destinations per respondent but they varied in the nature of the package attributes. Similar to the

pre-test, the selection of the four presented destinations varied across respondents such that all

combinations of four out of the total list of eight destinations were presented equally often and

each combination of pre-test and experimental presentation also occurred equally often.

14

Consequently, each respondent received two new destinations and two destinations that had been

displayed in the pre-test. Respondents were asked for each series to rate the attractiveness of each

of the packages on a rating scale with extremes 1 (not at all attractive) and 7 (very attractive).

This task was similar to a standard conjoint analysis task.

Main dependent variables

After completing the task explained above, all the respondents were asked to indicate their

intention to visit for the total list of eight destinations selected for this study on a rating scale with

extremes 1 (will definitely not visit) and 7 (will definitely visit). At this stage, destinations were

listed by name and not associated with particular packages. For any participant, six of the listed

destinations were the ones they had previously seen in the pre-test and/or the package evaluation

task . The seventh and the eighth were new destinations that the participants had not yet

encountered in the task. All destination combinations were rotated across respondents such that

each destination appeared equally often. Participants selected one destination from this list as

their final choice, assuming the listed eight destinations were the only available options for

spending their holiday voucher. This was followed by additional questions about perceptions,

familiarity and overall destination image of each holiday destination.

Design of Experimental Stimuli

Within each of the two experimental groups, the presentation format of the package attributes

was varied according to a separate experimental design. The package attributes presented in the

two experimental groups, in addition to price and destination name, were hotel star rating,

15

number of nights and name of travel agent, as shown in Figures 1a and 1b. It should be noted

that these two figures illustrate stimuli for only one of the possible eight destinations. Each of the

attributes had two different levels as shown in Table 1 while destination had four possible values,

or names, selected in accordance with the pre-test manipulations as previously described.

Insert Table 1

The design for the package attributes comprised an 8 * 24 fractional factorial main effects design

in 16 treatments plus its ‘fold-over’ (mirror image) to ensure that all attribute effects could be

assessed independently from their pairwise interactions. This is a design approach commonly

applied in conjoint analysis (see Louviere 1988). Hence, there were 32 different package holiday

profiles that varied in terms of package attributes, including the destination names that were also

varied independently of each other. The 32 profiles were divided into four blocks of eight

profiles. Each respondent received one block consisting of eight profiles to evaluate. Profiles

were presented with either destination name as a package heading or price as a package heading

depending on the respondent’s experimental group. The design ensured that each set of packages

contained an equal number of destinations with more and less favorable images.

Sample

To enhance the generalizability of the findings, the experiment was conducted on two different

samples. The first sample consisted of two hundred students from one university in the South

East of England who volunteered to participate after their classes had ended. The second sample

consisted of two hundred UK residents recruited from the general public (18 years and older) at

16

two school fairs. In each sample, eighty respondents were assigned to each of the two

experimental groups while forty respondents were assigned to the control group.

The student sample descriptives show that almost one third (32.5%) of the student respondents

were male while two-thirds of the respondents (67.5%) were female. The average age of the

student respondents was 21 years. For this sample, the most preferred type of overseas holiday

was a beach holiday (63%). Fifty-nine percent of the sample had traveled overseas at least five

times in the past five years and over half (52%) had taken overseas beach holidays at least three

times in the past five years.

For the general public sample, almost one third (34.0%) of the respondents were male while two-

thirds of the respondents (66.0%) were female. Like the previous sample, the most preferred type

of overseas holiday for this sample was a beach holiday (47.5%). Fifty-seven percent of the

sample had traveled overseas at least five times in the past five years and nearly half (41%) had

taken overseas beach holidays at least three times in the past five years.

RESULTS

Two manipulation checks were performed on both samples. The first check was on the use of the

voucher after reading the hypothetical situation. One student and two respondents from the

general public sample indicated they would not want to use the voucher. These respondents were

therefore excluded from further analyses. The second check was to verify the pre-selection of

destinations with more and less favorable image. The results shown in Table 2 confirm that Italy,

Spain, Greece and Portugal were the destinations with a more favorable image. The results of t-

17

tests confirmed that there was a significant difference in overall destination image between

destinations with a more favorable image and those with a less favorable image in the student

sample, t(1596)=10.54, p<.01 and the general public sample, t(1583)=11.71, p<.01.

Insert Table 2

A two-way ANOVA was conducted on both samples to test the impact of destination image and

information format on intention to visit. The results are shown in Table 3. The mean intention to

visit ratings for more favorable image destinations and less favorable image destinations for each

information format are shown in Table 4.

Insert Table 3

Insert Table 4

As expected, destinations with a more favorable image received a significantly higher intention to

visit rating than destinations with a less favorable image, in both the student sample and the

general public sample, F(1,1555)) =114.78, p<.001 and F(1,1475)) =131.76, p<.001 respectively.

The difference between information format conditions was not significant, neither in the student

sample, F (2, 1555)) =2.69, p<.07 nor in the general public sample, F (2, 1475)) =.842, n.s.

Contrast analysis revealed that there was no significant difference between presenting the

destination name only and presenting the name of destination with other package attributes.

However, the price heading had a significantly higher intention to visit rating (M= 4.96) than the

destination heading (M = 4.76), F (1, 1558) = 4.83, p<.03 in the student sample. In contrast to

18

what was hypothesized, neither of the samples showed a significant interaction between image

and information format, F (2, 1555) = .22, ns. and F (2, 1475)) = .32, ns. respectively.

Another ANOVA was conducted to test the effects of early or late exposure, . A four level factor

representing the pre-test and package presence conditions was added to the previous ANOVA

which included only destination image and information format. The results did not show any

significant effects, neither as a main effect nor as interaction with destination image or package

heading. This confirms that the order in which destinations were presented to the respondents did

not systemically influence the responses. Inclusion of the pre-test scores in the analysis as a

covariate did not lead to any improvement in the model.

Logistic regression was performed to test the effect of image and presentation format on the

probability of a destination being selected as the final choice for using the voucher as described

in the hypothetical situation. For both samples, the results from logistic regressions show that

only the main effect, or the overall difference between destinations with more and less favorable

images, is statistically significant (see Table 5). The destinations with a more favorable image

are 3.11 times (students) and 3.12 times (general public) more likely to become the selected

destination. The choice results show a similar pattern as the intention to visit ratings.

Insert Table 5

The results from both analyses thus reveal that there is no indication that destinations with a less

favorable image would benefit from variations in presentation format, neither by embedding

them with other package attributes nor by presenting them in packages with price as a heading.

19

A final analysis concerns the preferences as measured in the conjoint analysis tasks. Since the

second hypothesis implies that there should be differences in attribute importance between the

two presentation format conditions, regression analyses were conducted to analyze the effect of

the package attributes on the attractiveness ratings that respondents in each experimental group

produced for their eight package profiles. To assess whether there were significant differences

between the two experimental groups, dummy interaction terms representing each attribute were

added to the regression model to check how the attribute effect differs between the two

experimental groups. The regression results for both samples are shown in Table 6.

Insert Table 6

The first five predictors in the model show the effects of the attributes measured across the

experimental conditions. They show that in both samples the destination name and hotel rating

have the largest effects on attractiveness, followed by number of nights. Price and travel agent

have no significant effects. For the student sample, the destination image and hotel rating have

similar size effects (.31 and .30). For the general public sample, the destination image has by far

the largest effect (.44), while hotel rating and number of nights have smaller effects (.19 and .08).

The insignificance of price is surprising but this may be due to the use of a voucher in the

scenarios. Providing respondents with a hypothetical voucher of £1000 may have reduced their

price sensitivity. The remaining predictors in the model represent the differences between the

experimental groups. Clearly none of the attributes had a significantly different effect in either of

the two groups. This provides further evidence that the second hypothesis should be rejected.

20

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This study focused on two aspects of information presentation related to package holidays: the

presence of package information details and the type of package heading. The aim was to

examine whether the information format of package holidays can influence intention to visit and

choice of beach holiday destinations. Based on previous research, it seemed reasonable to

assume that package information presentation can influence consumer evaluation. Testing this

assumption seemed relevant in particular for tourism marketing since package holiday

presentation format could be an effective tool for promoting destinations that have a less

favorable image. An experimental examination of this issue therefore would contribute to the

knowledge base in tourism marketing. The findings did not, however, reveal any effect of

presentation format on intention and destination choice. Also, destinations with a less favorable

image did not specifically benefit either from being embedded as part of the package holiday or

from being presented with price as a package heading. Respondents’ destination preferences

were not as easily influenced as expected and we had to reject the proposed hypotheses. The

conclusion of this study is that variations in package presentation format have similar effects

regardless of the destinations presented.

The hypotheses were tested in two replications of the same experiment, one among students and

one among respondents from the general public. Additional findings from the student sample

were that presenting price as a package heading increased intention to visit for all destinations,

regardless of their image. This indicates that presentation format can influence evaluation

regardless of the destination. The price heading possibly signaled that the offers were

21

discounted, which would make them particularly appealing to the student sample, assuming

students are more interested in bargain deals than the general public.

Although we do not find support for the hypotheses, the findings and the methodological

approach introduced in this study provide relevant contributions to the study of tourist decision-

making. First, this paper draws attention to the effects of package information presentation on

tourist decisions. The present understanding of these effects in the tourism literature is still very

limited. This study has empirically tested the effects of different information formats for

package holidays appearing widely in various types of travel media and promotions. Second,

this study demonstrates an experimental approach for studies relating to the effects of travel

stimuli on tourist decision-making. For practitioners in particular, the main contribution of the

study is that it gives tourism marketers a basis for rejecting the notion that package information

presentation format can be used to influence consumers’ evaluations of holiday package offers.

Howver, further research should be conducted before the idea is completely discarded. Although

the experimental task in this study facilitated full experimental control, it was only hypothetical.

Also, our manipulation of presentation format was quite subtle and may have been too weak to

show effects. The effects may operate if headings are more prominent while the remaining

attributes are in smaller print or even ‘hidden’ behind a website button that consumers have to

click for additional information. Furthermore, our endeavor to create realistic and competitive

package stimuli that reflect current market offerings may have resulted in stimuli with too limited

attribute ranges. For example, price varied only between £410 and £470 and quality of hotel

between 3 stars and 4 stars. Also, the selected destinations were limited to only eight

destinations. If the respondents have to choose the destination from a greater variety of

22

destinations, as in real life situations, the effects proposed here may well occur. The effects may

also be more prominent in conditions where consumers are under greater time pressure to make

decisions such as last minute holiday bookings.

Another issue for further research is that our respondents only received the destination names and

did not have opportunities for obtaining more information about these destinations during the

experiment. If actual brochures and mocked advertisements had been used, as for example in

Smith and Vogt’s (1995) test of word-of-mouth effects on ad processing, the expected effects for

destinations with a less favorable image might have well occurred. Developing experiments that

present more detailed information and allow information search are obvious avenues for further

research. A related issue to be followed up with more elaborate experiments is respondents’

involvement and the extent into which they have incentives to answer in accordance with their

‘real’ preferences. In sum, there are many avenues for further research into the issue of how the

presentation of travel stimuli affects tourist decisions. We do hope that this paper will draw more

attention from tourism researchers and practitioners to the effects of package holiday information

presentation and stimulate further research into this area.

23

REFERENCES

Areni, C.S., D.F. Duhan and P. Kiecker (1999). “Point-of-purchase Displays, Product

Organization and Purchase Likelihoods.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(4):

428-441.

Bettman, J.R. and P. Kakkar (1977). “Effects of Information Presentation Format on Consumer

Information Acquisition Strategies.” Journal of Consumer Research, 3 (March): 233-240.

Bettman, J.R., M.F. Luce and J.W. Payne (1998). “Constructive Consumer Choice Processes.”

Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (December): 187-217.

Bettman, J.R. and M.A. Zins (1979). “Information Format and Choice Task Effects in Decision

Making.” Journal of Consumer Research, 6 (September): 141-153.

Bojanic, D.C. and R.J. Calantone (1990). “Price Bundling in Public Recreation.” Leisure

Sciences, 12(1): 67-78.

Burke, S.J. (1995). “The Dimensional Effects of Missing Information on Choice Processing.”

Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, 8: 223-244.

Cooper-Martin, E. (1993). “Effects of Information Format and Similarity among Alternatives on

Consumer Choice Processes.” Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 21(3): 239-246.

24

Glass, A.L. and K.J. Holyoak (1986). Cognition. New York: Random House.

Harlam, B.A., A. Krishna, D.R. Lehman , and C. Mela (1995). “Impact of Bundle Type, Price

Framing and Familiarity on Purchase Intention for the Bundle.” Journal of Business Research,

33(1): 57-66.

Harris, J. (1997). “The Effects of Promotional Bundling on Consumers’ Evaluations of Product

Quality and Risk of Purchase.” Advances in Consumer Research, 24: 168-172.

Johnson, R.D. and I.P. Levin (1985). “More than Meet the Eyes: The Effect of Missing

Information on Purchase Evaluations.” Journal of Consumer Research, 12(September): 74-81.

Josiam, B.M. and J.S.P. Hobson (1995). “Consumer Choice in Context: The Decoy Effect in

Travel and Tourism.” Journal of Travel Research, 34(1): 45-50.

Kivetz, R. and I. Simonson (2000). “The Effects of Incomplete Information on Consumer

Choice.” Journal of Marketing Research, 37(November): 427-448.

Laws, E. (1997). Managing Packaged Tourism. London: International Thomson Business Press.

Louviere, J. (1988). Analyzing Decision Making: Metric Conjoint Analysis. Bevery Hills: Sage

Meyer, R.J. (1981). “A Model of Multiattribute Judgements under Attribute Uncertainty and

Informational Constraints.” Journal of Marketing Research, 18(November): 428-441.

25

Middleton, V.T.C. and J. Clarke (2001). Marketing in Travel and Tourism. 3rd ed. Oxford:

Butterworth-Heinemann.

Money, R.B. and J.C. Crotts (2003). “The Effect of Uncertainty Avoidance on Information

Search, Planning and Purchases of International Travel Vacations.” Tourism Management, 24:

191-202.

Munger, J.L., and D. Grewal (2001). “The Effects of Alternative Price Promotional Methods on

Consumers’ Product Evaluations and Purchase Intentions.” Journal of Product & Brand

Management, 10(3): 185-197.

National Statistics. (2002). Travel Trends 2001. London: The Stationery Office.

National Statistics. (2005). Travel Trends 2004. London: The Stationery Office.

Naylor, G. and K.E. Frank (2001). “The Effect of Price Bundling on Consumer Perceptions of

Value.” Journal of Services Marketing, 15(4): 270-281.

Oppewal, H. and B. Holyoake (2004). "Bundling and Retail Agglomeration Effects on Shopping

Behavior." Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 11: 61-74.

Sheldon, P.J. and J. Mak (1987). “The Demand for Package Tours: A Mode Choice Model.”

Journal of Travel Research, 25(3): 13-17.

26

Simonson, I. (1999). “The Effect of Product Assortment on Buyer Preferences.” Journal of

Retailing, 75(3): 347-370.

Simonson, I. and R.S. Winer (1992). “The Influence of Purchase Quantity and Display Format on

Consumer Preference for Variety.” Journal of Consumer Research, 19(June): 133-138.

Smith, R.E. and C.A. Vogt (1995). “The Effects of Integrating Advertising and Negative Word-

of-Mouth Communications on Message Processing and Response.” Journal of Consumer

Psychology, 4(2): 133-151.

Stremersch, S. and G.J. Tellis (2002). “Strategic Bundling of Products and Prices: A New

Synthesis for Marketing.” Journal of Marketing, 66 (January): 55-72.

Stoddard, J.E. and E.F. Fern (1996). “The Effect of Information Presentation Format and

Decision Frame on Choice in an Organizational Buying Context.” Advances in Consumer

Research, 23: 211-217.

Tversky, A. (1969). “Intransitivity of Preferences.” Psychological Review, 76: 31-48.

Yadav, M.S. and K.B. Monroe (1993). “How Buyers Perceive Savings in a Bundle Price: An

Examination of a Bundle’s Transaction Value.” Journal of Marketing Research, 30(August):

350-358.

27

Table 1: Attributes and Levels

Attributes Levels

Att1 – hotel star rating 1 = 3 stars

2 = 4 stars

Att2 – number of nights 1 = 7 nights

2 = 9 nights

Att3 – price 1 = £410

2 = £470

Att4 – name of travel agent 1 = Thomas Cook

2 = Lunn Poly

28

Table 2: Overall Destination Image Mean Scores

Destination

Student sample General Public sample

Mean S.d. Mean S.d.

Greece 5.25 1.354 5.12 1.404

Italy 5.29 1.444 5.32 1.506

Portugal 5.14 1.303 5.19 1.240

Spain 5.23 1.626 4.69 1.799

Cyprus 5.01 1.339 4.76 1.422

Malta 4.50 1.334 4.24 1.498

Tunisia 4.17 1.439 3.63 1.666

Turkey 4.18 1.524 4.16 1.582

Note: (1 = very negative, 7 = very positive)

29

Table 3: ANOVA Results for Intention to Visit

Student sample General Public sample

Source df F Sig. df F Sig.

Corrected

Model

5 27.955 .000 5 29.325 .000

Intercept 1 13308.030 .000 1 8678.725 .000

Image 1 114.777 .000 1 131.761 .000

Format 2 2.690 .068 2 0.842 .431

Image*Format 2 0.223 .800 2 0.324 .723

Error 1555 1475

Total 1561 1481

Corrected Total 1560 1480

30

Table 4: Mean Intention to Visit for Package Information Format and Destination Image

Student sample

Image Low High Total

Format Mean S.d. Mean S.d. Mean S.d.

Destination heading (Exp1) 4.28 1.63 5.24 1.46 4.76 1.62

Price Heading (Exp2) 4.50 1.61 5.42 1.50 4.96 1.62

Destination Name only (Control) 4.43 1.70 5.25 1.57 4.84 1.68

Total 4.40 1.64 5.32 1.50 4.86 1.63

General Public sample

Image Low High Total

Format Mean S.d. Mean S.d. Mean S.d.

Destination heading (Exp1) 4.10 1.91 5.13 1.54 4.62 1.80

Price Heading (Exp2) 3.89 1.93 5.09 1.74 4.50 1.93

Destination Name only (Control) 3.93 1.87 5.06 1.70 4.50 1.87

Total 3.98 1.91 5.10 1.65 4.55 1.87

Note: (1 = will definitely not visit, 7 = will definitely visit)

31

Table 5: Logit Parameter Estimates for Choice between Less Favorable Image Destinations

and More Favorable Image Destinations

Student sample General public sample

Variable B S.E. Sig. Exp(B) B S.E. Sig. Exp(B)

Image 1.135 .178 .000 3.113 1.137 .179 .000 3.119

Presenting all attributes -.014 .117 .907 .986 -.016 .117 .891 .984

Heading -.089 .160 .581 .915 .200 .163 .219 1.221

Image* Presenting all

attributes

.019 .140 .893 1.019 .020 .140 .888 1.020

Image*Heading .125 .190 .511 1.133 -.282 .193 .143 .754

32

Table 6: Conjoint Analysis Regression Results

Student sample Adult sample

Attribute B t Sig. B t Sig.

Constant 4.78 104.01 0.00 4.53 91.25 0.00

Image 0.31 6.80 0.00 0.44 8.92 0.00

Hotel rating 0.30 6.54 0.00 0.19 3.82 0.00

Number of nights 0.14 3.07 0.00 0.08 1.69 0.09

Price 0.04 0.92 0.36 0.06 1.27 0.21

Travel agent 0.00 0.06 0.95 0.02 0.41 0.68

Group x Image -0.05 -1.12 0.26 0.08 1.63 0.10

Group x Hotel 0.01 0.25 0.81 -0.01 -0.13 0.90

Group x Nights 0.00 -0.10 0.92 -0.03 -0.65 0.52

Group x Price 0.01 0.21 0.84 -0.01 -0.16 0.88

Group x Agent 0.02 0.50 0.61 -0.02 -0.36 0.72

33

Figure 1a

Experimental group 1: Destination as a Package Heading

Spain 3 star hotel

7 nights £410

Thomas Cook

Figure 1b

Experimental group 2: Price as a Package Heading

£410 3 star hotel

7 nights Spain

Thomas Cook

34

Figure 2: Hypothetical Situation

IMAGINE THIS SITUATION…

Suppose you have won an overseas beach holiday voucher worth £1,000. This voucher

must be spent on flights and accommodation for two persons. It must be used for

booking holidays departing between June and August 2003. Assume that you are able

to arrange a suitable time for this trip. You are free to take anyone with you. Assume

that your travel companion will be happy to go to any destination and will let you decide.

Please note that the voucher cannot be transferred to other persons. If you do not wish

to use the £1,000 voucher at all, you can exchange it for £50 cash. If you do not spend

all of £1,000 at once, you will be given the remainder as a voucher for an overseas

holiday next year.