802
Views & Citations
This contribution conducts a mini-review of the topic
Horizontal Loyalty based on the paper written by Almeida and Moreno (2018).
The traditional
analysis of loyalty centred on a single destination and with a one-dimensional
perspective has recently been questioned. This study analyses horizontal
loyalty, and explains the factors that determine this behavior. This paper also
identifies the differences between the variables that explain horizontal
loyalty and the loyalty to a single destination. This study is the first
empirical application of this focus to a tourist destination. The results help
to understand the necessary change of focus in the study of loyalty in the
tourist context, as well as in the design of strategies, where the emphasis
should be placed on tourists. This way, destinations will be able to improve
their competitiveness.
Keywords: Horizontal Loyalty, Coopetition, Competitiveness,
Segmenting Image Motivations.
SIGNIFICANCE/IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORY AND PRACTICE
Traditionally,
research into loyalty in a tourist destination context has focused its
attention on how a destination relates to tourists to try to establish lasting
and beneficial relationships with them. However, less attention has been paid
to the study from the perspective of tourists and how these relate to
destinations (Araña et al., 2016). In order to allow destinations to be able to
improve their marketing strategies and tourist loyalty, a change of focus is
absolutely necessary (Font & Villarino, 2015; Nordbø, Engilbertsson &
Vale, 2014). “Service-dominant logic”, as articulated by Lusch & Vargo
(2006), claims for a customer-centered focus, where the context of creating
value takes ground in networks of networks (destinations and tourists in this
case). Focusing on tourists and how they establish their loyalty relationships
with different destinations will help to understand how destinations should
relate to both tourists and competitors, and it may be beneficial to foster
coopetition between tourist destinations to improve competitiveness of the
same.
Increasing
competition among tourist destinations is a significant trend (Mariani &
Baggio, 2012). This is accentuated by a larger number of holidays, albeit
shorter ones, per individual, together with the unstoppable growth of the
number of destinations in the market and the development of their offer (UNWTO,
2013), which make this change in focus even more necessary in the analysis of
tourist loyalty. While some tourists may be loyal to a single destination,
there are a large number that share out holidays between different
destinations, which may cooperate and/or compete with each other. In the
current tourism scenario, destinations are forced to increase their
competitiveness, and literature shows that collaboration and cooperation
between tourist destinations (Fyall, Garrod & Wang, 2012; David et al.,
2018), as well as the development of loyalty (Weaver & Lawton, 2011) are
relevant strategies for destinations in achieving competitive advantages in the
long term. Therefore, it is necessary to further analyse this phenomenon.
ORIGINALITY AND INNOVATION
Loyalty
is a construct that has been tackled in literature in a very homogeneous way
and all the different ways in which tourists can show their loyalty have not
been contemplated. According to McKercher, Denizci-Guillet & Ng (2012),
most studies on loyalty in the tourism industry focus on a single unit of
analysis (e.g. a single destination), and apply similar indicators, which shows
a lack of conceptual and methodological innovation. Specifically, according to
these authors, from the consumer perspective, one can speak of the existence of
horizontal loyalty – HL (Almeida & Moreno, 2017) where tourists can be
loyal to more than one supplier occupying the same level within the tourism
system. Thus, tourists can show their loyalty to several destinations at the
same time.
The
study of HL, which is hardly explored in tourism literature, requires an
alternative methodological approach and suggests a better knowledge of the
tourist and an answer to the following question: What factors really explain
the differences between HL and single-destination loyalty (DL)? In literature,
serious efforts have been made to investigate the factors that influence
customer loyalty (Han, Hyun & Kim, 2014), but there are no studies that
analyse the factors that determine whether a tourist is loyal to multiple
destinations. Thus, the objective of this research is to segment tourists
according to the way in which they manifest their loyalty to tourist
destinations and to analyse whether or not the factors that determine HL are
the same as those that determine DL.
METHODOLOGY
Europe
remains the world's largest outbound tourism region, generating more than half
of global international arrivals per year (UNWTO, 2016). For this reason, the
target population of this study was European tourists, aged 16 and over, from
17 of the main outbound European countries in terms of tourists: Austria,
Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Norway, Poland,
Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.
The
work was done through Computer-Assisted Web Interviewing (CAWI), to a
representative sample of the 16 mentioned countries, from a database of
panelists in each country. A random selection was made based on the variables
of stratification of geographical area and province, on the one hand, and, on
the other, of gender and age, in order to guarantee the representativeness of
the sample with the population of each country. Once the questionnaire was
translated and pre-tested in the language of the potential tourists, and the
relevant corrections were made in those questions that raised difficulties of
comprehension, the fieldwork was carried out. The defined sample was of 8,500
tourists (500 in each country) and the actual sample obtained of 6,964
tourists, between 400 and 459 tourists per country. The selected sample was
sent a personalised email inviting them to participate in the study, with a
link in the mail that led them to the online survey. In order to ensure the
expected number of surveys, during the three months of fieldwork in different countries,
two reminders were held to encourage response.
After
completing the fieldwork and having applied the corresponding quality controls,
we performed a binomial Logit analysis with the latest version of the SPSS
statistical analysis programme. In this case a Logit model based on the theory
of random utility has been chosen. The use of this model guarantees robustness
in the estimated results and the fulfilment of the properties of the
conventional utility functions established by the theory of the consumer.
In
this case, the 7 islands (destinations) that compose the Canary Islands are
considered the competitive set: Tenerife, Gran Canaria, Lanzarote,
Fuerteventura, La Palma, La Gomera, and El Hierro. This destination was chosen,
as well as for convenience, as a well-known European leading destination (Gil,
2003) and because there is an interesting complementarity between the islands
that makes it ideal for the study of HL. Two groups of tourists are
differentiated, those that show DL and those that manifest HL. A tourist can be
defined as being loyal to a single destination if at least two or more visits
to the same destination are observed, without observing other visits to the
rest of destinations considered in the competitive set (a single island of the
Canary Islands in two occasions or more, and no other). On the other hand,
tourists are considered to be HL tourists when they have visited at least two
different destinations in the group (at least two islands among the seven
Canary Islands).
DATA AND
FINDINGS
A review of literature helped to
conceptualise the subject of study: the loyalty to the destination and its
fundamental dimensions, different groups of tourists were identified according
to the type of loyalty shown: loyalty to a destination and horizontal loyalty
to multiple destinations. Subsequently, the differences in their explanatory
variables were analysed with a methodological design based on a questionnaire
made to potential tourists from 17 countries, with a large sample size (6,964
tourists) that allowed consistent conclusions to be drawn (Figure 1).
Regarding the theoretical
implications, the present study supposes the first empirical application of the
factors that determine HL, and its differences with DL, focused on tourist
destinations, where the concept of loyalty has its peculiarities (Alegre &
Juaneda, 2006). Thus, the need for a change of focus in the study of loyalty in
the context of tourist destinations is highlighted, where future work could use
the methodology and conclusions that are developed in the present research.
Traditionally, destinations and their marketing strategies have been analysed
without taking into account other tourist destinations, or the relationship of
tourists with all of them. This study proposes a change of vision in the design
of such strategies, where the emphasis is placed on the community of tourists
and how these relate to many destinations.
On the other hand, the practical
implications are obvious, since the understanding of the differences raised in
the loyalty of the tourist implies different marketing strategies for each
group, allowing the destinations to enhance their competitiveness. Thus,
destination organisations and managers of companies operating in the sector
could maximise their available resources for tourism promotion and could also
establish possible joint marketing strategies.
Specifically, the fact that the
higher the age and the level of income of the tourist influences both the HL
and the DL, means that the destinations must design loyalty programmes
especially directed to these segments, being able to work with partners where
this profile (higher age and income level) is the most common (e.g. airline
loyalty programmes). As for the negative effect of the sun and beach image on
both types of loyalty, this denotes the need for innovation by these
destinations, even with the intention to “get out of the category” of sun and
beach through innovation and differentiation if they want to keep tourists loyal.
In this line, the identification of two factors in the affective image suggests
further studying a new paradigm of the sun and beach image of destinations
(affective image of authenticity, well-being and sustainability). Likewise, the
projected image of its general infrastructures and leisure, to the extent that
they are congruent with that of the markets of origin, are also a good impulse
for loyalty. In any case, social media are an ideal source for communicating
all these proposals, as they promote both DL and HL.
In the case of destinations that
want to promote DL, in addition to the previous aspects, the projection of an
image aimed at those tourists motivated by a fashionable and prestigious
destination, which allows social exhibitionism, would seem to be an appropriate
strategy, moving away from a cheerful and stimulating destination image, as an
image shared with other places. On the other hand, to promote HL, competing
destinations can carry out joint promotional actions that help them in the conversion
of the intention to visit, working on a shared global image based on common
aspects of their environmental situation. In addition, as a means of avoiding
the tourist’s search for something new and lack of loyalty, destinations can
continually renew their attractions, in addition to being able to offer joint
proposals and itinerant events between the competing group.
Finally, some lines of future
research are suggested: a) in the first place and since this study has focused
only on a geographical area and a competitive set, the set of considered
destinations can be expanded. For example, in the once-in-a-lifetime
destinations, the extent to which these conclusions apply and whether they can
also be networked should be analysed; Furthermore, other additional indicators
may be considered to help explain the visits to each of the different
destinations (satisfaction, quality, familiarity, cultural differences, etc.),
and incorporate vertical and experiential loyalty dimensions; Analyse if the
order in which the different destinations are visited influences HL and the
determination of the number of times the group of competing destinations is
visited; To further analyse the different typologies of social media and
sources of information used by tourists to find out about their travel
destination in the determination of HL and; To evaluate loyalty from a social,
environmental and economic perspective, in its different dimensions (DL, HL)
and its implications in the brand architecture, which would allow to evaluate
the promotional proposals with better criteria.
Alegre, J. & Juaneda, C. (2006).
Destination loyalty: Consumers’ economic behavior. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(3), 684-706.
Almeida-Santana, A. & Moreno-Gil, S.
(2017). New trends in information search and their influence on destination
loyalty: Digital destinations and relationship marketing. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 6(2), 150-161.
Almeida-Santana, A. & Moreno-Gil, S.
(2018). Understanding tourism loyalty: Horizontal vs. destination loyalty. Tourism Management, 65(2018), 245-255.
Araña, J., León, C., Carballo, M. &
Moreno, S. (2016). Designing tourist information offices: The role of the human
factor. Journal of Travel Research, 55(6),
764-773.
David-Negre, T., Almedida-Santana, A.,
Hernández, J.M. & Moreno-Gil, S. (2018). Understanding European tourists’
use of e-tourism platforms. Analysis of networks. Information Technology & Tourism, 20(1-4), 131-152.
Font, X. & Villarino, J. (2015).
Sustainability marketing myopia: The lack of sustainability communication
persuasiveness. Journal of Vacation
Marketing, 21(4), 326-335.
Fyall, A., Garrod, B. & Wang, Y.
(2012). Destination collaboration: A critical review of theoretical approaches
to a multi-dimensional phenomenon. Journal
of Destination Marketing & Management, 1(1), 10-26.
Gil, S.M. (2003). Tourism development in
the Canary Islands. Annals of Tourism
Research, 30(3), 744-747.
Han, H., Hyun, S.S. & Kim, W.
(2014). In-flight service performance and passenger loyalty: A cross-national
(China/Korea) study of travelers using low-cost carriers. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 31(5), 589-609.
Lusch, R.F. & Vargo, S.L. (2006).
Service-dominant logic: Reactions, reflections and refinements. Marketing Theory, 6(3), 281-288.
Mariani, M.M. & Baggio, R. (2012).
Special issue: Managing tourism in a changing world: Issues and cases. Anatolia, 23(1), 1-3.
McKercher, B., Denizci-Guillet, B. &
Ng, E. (2012). Rethinking loyalty. Annals
of Tourism Research, 39(2), 708-734.
Nordbø, I., Engilbertsson, H.O. &
Vale, L.S.R. (2014). Market myopia in the development of hiking destinations:
The case of Norwegian DMOs. Journal of
Hospitality Marketing & Management, 23(4), 380-405.
UNWTO. (2016). Tourism Highlights.
Available at: http://www2.unwto.org/en
UNWTO. (2013). Annual Report. Available at: http://www2.unwto.org/en
Weaver, D.B. & Lawton, L.J. (2011).
Visitor loyalty at a private South Carolina protected area. Journal of Travel Research, 50(3),
335-346.
