As tourism within a destination develops, so do the needs and expectations of the stakeholders involved. The tourism industry is extremely competitive. Countries are aggressively promoting themselves as ideal holidaying destinations in a bid to realize the long term profits available within the sector. Destinations are therefore challenged with having to distinguish themselves from the competition to gain competitive advantage. Recent developments within the industry thus raise the question, how best can tourism success be defined and what does tourism success mean to the stakeholders involved?
(Bornhorst, T., et al., Determinants of tourism success for DMOs & destinations: An empirical examination of stakeholders’ perspectives 2009.06.008)
True to the stakeholder concept, the tourism industry is a great illustration as to why stakeholder management is required in order for a destination to remain competitive. As the tourism sector develops the need to involve the perspectives of various groups’ who are affected or capable of affecting tourism success becomes imperative (Getz et al,). For instance, mass tourism raised awareness on the need to involve the local community and environmental supporters to ensure protection of culture and resource base through sustainable tourism development practices for future tourism.
Establishing tourism success from the perspective of primary stakeholders such as the Destination itself and Destination Management Organizations (DMOs) like the National Tourism Boards is vital. This is because it enables destinations to benchmark their performance in order to measure their success relative to that of their competitors. According Ritchie and Crouch, the success of tourism is dependent on the “input” and “output”. This is indeed true as companies that strive to achieve profit from their products tend to invest heavily in advertising the existence and benefits of their products as a means of generating sales.
The Bornhorst et al. (2009) article affirms the need to incorporate the perspectives of various stakeholders using the study conducted on the Canadian tourism industry. It is through this study that we are able to categorize the determinants of destination success based on input, process and performance variables. These determinants are evidently similar to those required in determining the success of the DMOs.
The perspectives of the stakeholders are indeed beneficial as one realizes that a destinations tourism success does not lie only within its economic measures (output). But also in the destinations product and service (input) and the manner in which this is communicated (process). Thus destinations such as Malaysia are slowly beginning to gain competitive advantage within the international markets. This is because their input variables such as diverse culture complimented with the consumer advertising campaign (process) “Malaysia Truly Asia” and concerted efforts (process) of the Association Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) establish the destination as a competitor within the international markets.
Stakeholder management by DMOs such as National Tourism Boards is also essential to achieve tourism success. For instance, National Tourism Boards act as a neutral body and thus strive to minimize conflict and balance the voices of the stakeholders. This in turn ensures the involvement of stakeholders such as the local community who will not receive the tourist in a hostile manner thereby resulting in low visitor arrival figures. For instance, South Africa’s Xenophobia demonstrates the need for stakeholder management if tourism is to be a success.
It is therefore evident that a relationship exists between the destination and the DMOs despite the fact that they differ on the variables of funding and personnel. Therefore for a destination to achieve tourism success, the involvement of the primary stakeholders such as the destination itself and the DMOs is essential. As indicated by Hales, stakeholder management demonstrates a shift from “centralized, process oriented bureaucracies to a more decentralized” form of management. Thus, “standardized operating systems have been replaced by holistic integrated systems” whereby identified stakeholders are proactively involved in achieving the destinations tourism success. This establishes an agreeable environment that encourages compromise on variables consequently resulting in a cohesive marketing initiative.
References:
- Bornhorst, T., et al. (2009). Determinants of tourism success for DMOs & destinations: An empirical examination of stakeholders’ perspectives. Tourism Management, XXX, 1-18.
- Donald Getz and Seldjan Timur. Stakeholder involvement in sustainable tourism: balancing the voices. 231-245.
- Dimitrios Buhalis and Carlos Costa. Tourism Management Dynamics; trends, management and tools. 87.
Hello Elizabeth,
Being one of the lecturers and supervisors in the second phase of the TDM programme, I would like to react to your article. We will meet later (in Asia).
Good subject. Can you clarify, perhaps, what the definition of “destination” is, related to what you write? It seems to me, while reading your article, that ‘the destination’ is one of the stakeholder. And, it also seems to me, that you identify 1 DMO (government?) per destination. However, if you look at the roles and involvement of each stakeholder (including private sector parties like big hotels, attractions and/or tour operators), I would be interested to know how their involvement in Destination Promotion is, according to you. Since many of these organisation are actively involved in promoting the destination, especially in area’s where the government is more passive or lacks structural funding, they might finally be the DMO. How do you look at this interaction and involvement? Did you find anything related to this in the literature that you used?
Looking forward meeting you (and your classmates) later in Asia.
Greetings from Bangalore (India)
Carin Rustema
(Visiting Lecturer, NHTV, Master TDM programme ITR teacher)
Dear Carin,
Thank you very much for your comment and queries.
The article defined the destination as the country itself which I thought was very interesting. I would not have considered the destination as a stakeholder unless i was addressing the impact of tourism from a sustainable viewpoint. But I do agree with the authors, as they identify aspects such as product & service offerings, location/accessibility and quality of the visitor experience as being determinants of tourism success from a destination viewpoint. The DMO (Destination Management Organization) was also defined as being a government body while hoteliers, tour operators and attractions were identified as suppliers.
I do believe the role of each tourism stakeholder is indeed important and thus contributing to the industries complexity. Especially the roles of suppliers such as hotels, attractions and tour operators as they have a lasting impact on the quality of the visitors experience.
Private sector organizations also contribute tremendously towards Destination Promotion. Particularly in a country such as Kenya where Government funding is limited and tourism is viewed by the Government as self sustaining (tourism will flourish regardless of how much you invest). It is the joint effort of the two (private and public sector) that enables Kenya to promote itself as a potential tourist destination. The article also does highlight the importance of tourism suppliers by addressing the importance of effective internal stakeholder management as being imperative to DMO success.
Reference
Bornhorst, T., et al. (2009). Determinants of tourism success for DMOs & destinations: An empirical examination of stakeholders’ perspectives. Tourism Management, XXX, 1-18.
The role of the private sector is therefore more vital in areas where Government is passive and lacks structural funding. However, i do disagree that they will eventually be the DMO; this is because their objectives are driven from a strategic viewpoint as opposed to the moral viewpoint taken by Government bodies such as Tourism Boards. If they took on the DMO role, they would inevitably experience conflict of interest in terms of achieving their objectives and that of the stakeholders.
It would definitely be interesting to hear your views on their involvement in Destination Promotion and whether they are capable of finally being DMOs.
I am not sure if i can speak for everyone in class, but i am definitely am looking forward to the second phase of the programme. I believe it will be a great opportunity to test the theories learnt. I am also looking forward to meeting you; hopefully we will have an opportunity to hear your views on Tourism Destination Management. It would also be great to hear your experience and insights on Bangalore.
Kind Regards
Elizabeth
Hey Lizzy,
It was very interesting for me to read your article, one reason being that I based mine on the same report by Bornhorst et al.
I agree with Carin Rustema on her feedback regarding the other big stakeholders and the importance of their influence on destination development and promotion – however, I know as well that they were not in the focus of Bornhorst’s research.
What I was wondering about is “South Africa’s Xenophebia” you briefly mentioned. I would like to read more about that subject and wanted to ask from which sources you have this knowledge?
Thanks in advance for your advice,
Kim Hueneke
(Student TDM Masterprogramme, NHTV)
Hi Kim,
What a coincidence, even in research we get to see how small the world is as opposed to the reality.
I do agree with you that Bornhorst’s research did not focus on the importance and influence of other stakeholders in destination development and promotion. The authors merely mentioned it in passing. It would be informative to read some articles that address this perspective as well just to gain insights on the different points of view.
The Bornhorst’s research indicated the importance of internal stakeholder relations as a key variable in determining tourism success from the DMO perspective. I do agree with the authors and research that effective stakeholder management is important and that “South Africa’s Xenophobia” illustrates the need for leveraging effective positive communication from stakeholders such as the press if tourism within a destination is to flourish. For instance when the situation happened, some of the media were portraying the attacks as being on foreigners in general when it was specifically against immigrants. This portrayal may have had a negative impact on South Africa’s tourism for the wrong reasons. I therefore think it is important that all stakeholders realize their importance and ability to influence tourism in a positive as opposed to negative manner.
I am not sure if academic research has covered the topic extensively as I was only able to obtain newspaper articles which might be biased in their analysis as its one person interpretation. . There is only an editor’s comment available under the academic research tools. Hopefully you can access it using this link http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy1.dom1.nhtv.nl/ehost/pdf vid=3&hid=106&sid=a54c476d-7d6f-40a4-b352-991e5f629f47@sessionmgr112.
Kind Regards
Elizabeth
hey,Liz
are you the last one to submit the assignment?so it is on the top,then everyone will read your article more or less,just a joke.I think the destination needs competitiveness,like you said in the article,but maybe the competitive of several stakeholders will be or should be limited by the others or other power groups.It is very difficult to measue the tourism success,is there some method to deal with it?maybe I should read this book:Determinants of tourism success for DMOs & destinations.
Best regards
Hi Sun,
I actually had no idea that it would end up being the first one. If I knew, I would probably have submitted my article first instead of last to avoid the pressure of being on the homepage! But it’s turned out to be a great experience as i am getting different views on the topic.
I agree with you that Destinations need competition, its essential if they are to remain innovative and creative in attracting visitors to the destination.
I also agree with you on the need for competition among internal stakeholders to be balanced but not necessarily limited. How this balance can be achieved is challenging as the DMOs influence on stakeholder competition is restricted. For instance, the competitive rivalry within the tourism industry in Kenya is very high. This to me is great because, it ensures the destination offers “value for money” experience to the end consumer. However, I also believe the rivalry has a negative impact especially when the tourism industry is challenged. This is because different companies implement different strategies when dealing with situations such as low seasons or economic downturn. Some tourism companies tend to opt for low pricing strategies as opposed to “added value” tactics during these situations and this eventually hinders the tourism industries efforts of promoting Kenya as a up market (high end) travel destination. Are there suggestions you could share on how the competitive balance can be achieved.
Measuring tourism success is indeed difficult. The article does a commendable job on identifying ways in which tourism success can be measured from the view point of two very important stakeholders i.e. the country itself (Destination) and Destination Management Organizations (DMOs). The article concludes that both the DMO and the Destination believe tourism success can be determined by community support (process variable), marketing initiatives/activities (process variable) and destination performance (performance variable). These are supported by other variables such as economic success and quality of the visitor experience.
If you have an opportunity to read the article, I would highly recommend it.
Kind Regards
Elizabeth
Hey Liz,
I think you are one of the few to have chosen stakeholder involvement as a subject, though very interesting. I recognise the importance of stakeholder management when you talk about the Xenophobia, I was in South Africa at the time it occured. As you probably know, tourism already is a succes over there and during times of Xenophobia, stakeholders, like DMO’s and local governments should be more involved to slow this process down, although it is complicated to avoid these attacks. I wonder how the situation is going to evolve itself during the World Cup in 2010, stakeholder related. Do you think they are ready and up for this big challenge?
Best regards,
Laura van Meer(student TDM Masterprogramma NHTV)
Dear Laura,
I was also surprised to see that few of us covered the topic of stakeholder involvement.
I agree with you on the importance of stakeholder management especially when we take into account the influence the media has on the end consumer. Portrayal of the situation as being attacks on foreigners instead of immigrants may have impacted negatively on the visitor arrivals. I also believe the situation did negatvely challenge the destinations brand “South Africa it’s possible”.
It is thus crucial that relations with the local and international media as well as community be managed to ensure that they recognize their role in facilitating an ideal tourism environment and building the destinations brand image.
All in all, South Africa is indeed a successful tourism destination. They have ample financial resources and proactive stakeholders within the industry. I believe they are ready to take on the World Cup 2010 without any hiccups.
Kind Regards
Elizabeth
Dear Elizabeth,
I enjoyed reading your contribution, staying with one doubt I am always struggling with: to what extent can national/ government oriented DMO’s pretend to be neutral or objective. It seems to me they always would represent a specific interest of those that promote the type of tourism they think is best for that destination. And the difficulty lies in neutralizing this bias, a challenge!
Hi Jos and Elizabeth (lucky you, to have an article that was on the home page!),
A DMO, linked to the government, objective? Objectivity is difficult here. However, taking (good!) care of the interests of the parties involved (and involved in tourism) could be the real art of such public policy. That often raises the question: how do we identify those parties and ensure that they express their opinion and interests? We have often seen, during destination research, that some parties are totally forgotten about. Also, some parties don’t have the (knowledge) resources to participate in relevant discussions about ‘their future needs’.
That’s probably one of the problems the government planners face, especially at emerging destinations where knowledge about tourism services is relatively low.
Anybody out there with a solution? Education – yes of course. Anything else?
Regards
Carin Rustema
(Visiting Lecturer TDM, currently in India)
This comment refers to the previous comment by Carin Rustema. I would like to add a step that often comes even before educating people: the possibility/ need to establish and provide incentives for locals to participate in tourism development at all – and this not only includes money! However, if this is pushed to the extremes, there is definitely a moral issue in how far one should “persuade” people into something and if the means are the right ones. Is it wrong to offer a local enterpreneur financial support if he changes his attitude towards tourism? Does it make a difference if he changes his attitude because of the money he received or did his opinion actually change? Can local support be bought? Is it morally wrong if it leads in the end to a successful community-based-tourism project that provides benefits for everybody?
I know that I only put up more questions instead of giving answers to Carin’s question – but I think these kind of issues have to be dealt with. Unfortunately, moral and cultural issues are sometimes forgotten in the struggle for economic development.
I think I am going to pick this topic for the next ITC debate workshop and invite my fellow students to join me in this discussion.
Kim Hueneke
(Student TDM Masterprogramme, NHTV)