Academic myths of tourism

http://jvm.sagepub.com/Journal of Vacation Marketing

http://jvm.sagepub.com/content/18/4/287The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/1356766712461102

2012 18: 287Journal of Vacation MarketingBruce Prideaux, Jenny Cave, Michelle Thompson and Jonathan Sibtain

outbound touristsRecognising new market opportunities and selecting appropriate segments: Targeting Chinese

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Journal of Vacation MarketingAdditional services and information for    

  http://jvm.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jvm.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

http://jvm.sagepub.com/content/18/4/287.refs.htmlCitations:  

What is This? 

- Oct 31, 2012Version of Record >>

at James Cook University on April 22, 2014jvm.sagepub.comDownloaded from at James Cook University on April 22, 2014jvm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Article

Recognising new marketopportunities and selectingappropriate segments:Targeting Chinese outboundtourists

Bruce PrideauxJames Cook University, Australia

Jenny CaveUniversity of Waikato, New Zealand

Michelle Thompson and Jonathan SibtainJames Cook University, Australia

AbstractMany destinations encounter problems when attempting to adopt a strategic approach to planning. Ifdestinations misread target markets and fail to provide the experiences desired by tourists, they facethe danger of falling revenue, adverse impacts on their image and a disenchanted travel trade sectorthat may make recommendations to its clients to travel elsewhere. This article examines howdestinations are able to use a tourism-specific version of the strategic window of opportunity modelto identify opportunities for participating in new, rapidly growing markets. The utility of the model isdemonstrated by examining how the steps suggested in the model were used in Cairns, Australia, todevelop its Chinese market sector. This article contributes to a gap in the literature regardingstrategies that may be used by destinations searching for new markets.

KeywordsAustralia, Cairns, Chinese, inbound tourists, segmentation, Strategic window

Introduction

As the global demand for tourism experiences con-

tinues to increase, new markets evolve and existing

markets change or in some cases disappear. In

response, destinations need to engage in a constant

search for new markets, while simultaneously

identifying and responding to changes in existing

markets. When potential markets are identified,

destination authorities need to ensure that the

demand-side ‘push’ factors of the potential market

can be successfully matched by the destination’s

supply-side ‘pull’ factors (Kim et al., 2003).

Norfolk Island, an island dependency of Australia,

is an example of a destination that failed to look for

new markets and did not recognise that significant

changes were occurring in its existing markets

(Prideaux, 2007). In terms of the push–pull model

of tourism demand and supply, the change in

demand for holiday experiences by its senior

segment was not adequately addressed by the

supply side and the search for new markets was

Corresponding author:

Bruce Prideaux, School of Business, James Cook University,

PO Box 6811, Cairns, Queensland 4870, Australia.

Email: [email protected]

Journal of Vacation Marketing18(4) 287–299ª The Author(s) 2012Reprints and permission:sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1356766712461102jvm.sagepub.com

at James Cook University on April 22, 2014jvm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

ineffective. As a consequence, the destination

entered a period of long-term decline in the

mid-2000s, which would be difficult to recover

from. Even when new markets are identified,

destinations that fail to deliver on the promise

made to consumers face the danger of falling

revenue, adverse impacts on their image and a

disenchanted travel trade sector that may make

recommendations to its clients to travel elsewhere.

A tool that has been suggested by the business

literature for identifying new markets is the

strategic window of opportunity model (Abell,

1978; Hunger and Wheelen, 2003; Johnson and

Scholes, 1993; Stahl and Grigsby, 2001). This

model employs techniques such as environmental

scanning (Albright, 2004; Beat, 2000) to identify

opportunities that may emerge in the future. By

adopting this kind of a model, destinations are

better placed to identify potential new markets and

use tools such as the push–pull model (Ryan, 2003;

Uysal and Jurowski, 1994) to ascertain whether

they have the capability to exploit these new

markets.

By itself, the strategic window of opportunity

model can only identify potential opportunities

but cannot give guidance for how potential

opportunities can be exploited. This requires

additional steps such as assessing the destina-

tion’s capacity to exploit opportunities and the

development of effective long-term strategies

to meet the needs of the new market. In many

destinations a strategic approach of this nature

is difficult because of the nature of the tourism

sector (Hall, 2008), because of the problems that

may be encountered in coordinating the private

and public sectors and because many destina-

tions lack organisational structures that enable

them to undertake research and plan future

developments. The objective of this article is to

examine how destinations may use an expanded

tourism-specific version of the strategic window

of opportunity model to identify potential

markets and verify that the destination has the

capacity to successfully exploit the opportunities

offered by the new market.

The following discussion is presented in five

sections commencing with a review of the

strategic window of opportunity concept, aspects

of the push–pull model and the role of

destination image and branding in developing

new markets. Section two proposes a model that

is derived by interrelating the push–pull model

with the strategic window of opportunity model.

The third section examines a range of issues

related to the Chinese outbound market, which

is used in this article to assess the capability of

the model at a destination level. The fourth

section outlines the methodology and limitations

and is followed by the final section, which

outlines findings and conclusions.

Literature review

The strategic window of opportunity model is

based on the view that markets are constantly

undergoing change and that the change can be

predicted if an organisation (in this case, a

destination) consistently reappraises its external

environment using a range of tools including

environmental scanning, opportunity analysis,

SWOT analysis and gap analysis (Fletcher and

Brown, 2002; Viljoen and Dann, 2000). Scan-

ning the external environment generally includes

assessments of changes in the regulatory envi-

ronment, new technologies, social changes,

political changes, industrial changes, changes in

consumer demand patterns and market changes

(Albright, 2004). The concept of a window of

opportunity has been applied in a range of

disciplines, ranging from management

(Christensen et al., 1998) to medicine (Emmons

and Goldstein, 1992), and describes how an

opportunity that is not taken advantage of will

disappear. Windows may be either short-term

in nature or of a more strategic nature that may

require significant structural readjustment of an

organisation or destination. In a tourism setting,

a strategic window occurs when an opportunity

develops to fit the key skills and/or resources

of a destination with the needs of a new market

(Wilson and Gilligan, 2008). It should be noted

that the concept of a strategic window is

primarily concerned with marketing; although,

in some circumstances, elements of planning

may be required if heavy investment is needed

in new infrastructure.

To be able to exploit a strategic window, a

destination must first recognise that a strategic

window has opened (Hunger and Wheelen,

2003; Stahl and Grigsby, 2001) and then deter-

mine whether it has the capacity to exploit the

opportunity. Not all destinations will have the

required resources or desire to exploit potential

windows of opportunity. Failure to recognise the

potential of a strategic window early in the

growth cycle of any new market may lead to a

lost opportunity to develop that market in a form

that maximises benefits to the destination. If the

opportunity is lost, the destination may find itself

288 Journal of Vacation Marketing 18(4)

at James Cook University on April 22, 2014jvm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

in the position of a market follower rather than

the preferred course of a market leader.

The ability of a destination to develop new

markets is a complex issue that involves a range

of interrelated factors, including the consumer,

the ability of the destination to provide the

required products and services, and an

understanding of the risks that may be involved

(Edgell et al., 2007). It also includes consider-

ation of the role of the public sector, destination

image, branding strategies, strategic planning as

well as the structure of the industry and

experiences offered, and the issues over which

the destination has no control, such as national

economic and political conditions and crisis

events (Edgell et al., 2007). The push–pull model

(Dann, 1981; Ryan, 2003; Uysal and Jurowski,

1994) is a useful tool to explain how these factors

interact and affect destinations. Push factors are

described as factors that engender a desire to

travel (Crompton, 1979; Dann, 1981; Yuan and

McDonald, 1990), while pull factors are

described as features of the destination that

attract visitor interest (Fakeye and Crompton,

1991; Kim et al., 2003). Despite problems

encountered when attempting to measure and

rank relationships between push and pull factors,

the theory assists in understanding how a range

of factors may impact on specific markets. By

first understanding the target market’s key push

factors and how these are evolving over time, a

destination is better placed to assess its suite of

pull factors and determine whether a match is

possible (Kim et al., 2003).

Prideaux and Watson (2010: 24) identified

four interrelated factors derived from the

elements of the push–pull model that affect the

ability of a destination to develop new tourism

markets:

� a realistic understanding of the pull factors

that the destination is able to offer potential

visitors;

� a realistic assessment of push factors that

motivate an individual to undertake travel

to a destination;

� the ability to respond to consumer push fac-

tors is determined by the destination’s ability

to harness its pull factors to create a tourism

experience; and

� recognition of the changing nature of push

factors.

Although useful, these factors fail to include

consideration of the role of image and other

factors that lie beyond the power of the destina-

tion to influence. For this reason, two additional

factors are suggested:

� the image that consumers have of the

destination; and

� the potential of exogenous factors such as

global financial conditions to affect

consumers’ push factors and the ability of the

destination to deliver the desired pull factors.

The role of destination image andbrand

Henderson (2007) identified the key role of

destination image and branding in attracting the

interest of the retail and wholesale travel sector

as well as consumers to visit a particular destina-

tion. Hunt (1975) noted that all destinations have

an image that the tourists may view as good, bad

or indifferent. As Crompton (1979: 18) observed,

‘destination image is the sum of beliefs, ideas and

impressions that a person has of a destination’. To

build and maintain a positive destination image is

therefore an important, though complex, task. The

complexity is increased when destinations target a

range of markets and offer a range of activities.

The literature (Henderson, 2007) indicates that

if destinations are to achieve a more desirable

position in the market, they must develop and

maintain a positive image. Adverse reports about

aspects of the destination will affect image

(Dwyer et al., 2007).

Branding is also an important issue. Keller

(1993), for example, stated that brand awareness

is an important element in the consumer decision-

making process for a number of reasons,

including the need for a brand to be included in

the consumers’ ‘consideration set’ when making

a purchase decision and the effect that brand

awareness has on the strength of brand image.

For a destination to be successful, it must create

a favourable impression that allows consumers to

believe that the brand has benefits and attributes

that fulfil their needs (Keller, 1993). Brands also

differentiate destinations from their competitors

(Henderson, 2010) and give an indication of value.

Successful branding requires the development and

maintenance of a positive destination image, which

if damaged, will have serious implications for the

brand (Ahmed, 1991).

It is apparent that branding and image are

related issues, although the strength of the

connection has been disputed. Tasci and Kozac

Prideaux et al. 289

at James Cook University on April 22, 2014jvm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

(2006) state that brand and image should support

each other but should not be allowed to merge.

This position is supported by Branwell and

Rawding (1996). Citing the case of Norfolk

Island, Prideaux and Watson (2010) state that

brands should remain subordinate to image, and

if they become intertwined, poor branding has

the potential to weaken an otherwise positive

image. Kotler et al. (1996) observed that

positioning of the brand is an important element

in the branding process, while Crockett and

Wood (1999) state that successful brands must

have a clearly defined core personality of pur-

pose that remains constant when the brand is

introduced into new markets. For these reasons,

it is essential that a destination wishing to

develop a new market sector must pay particular

attention to develop a positive image and must be

supported by effective branding.

The tourism strategic window ofopportunity (TSWO) model

Figure 1 draws on work by Hunger and Wheelen

(2003), Johnson and Scholes (1993), Viljoen and

Dann (2000), Uysal and Jurowski (1994), and

Ryan (2003) to illustrate the relationship

between destination goals, resources and market

opportunities, push–pull theory, and potential

development strategies to develop a tourism

strategic window of opportunity (TSWO) model.

A six-step process is postulated commencing with

step 1, which requires the destination to identify

its long-term goals including the image it wishes

to project, types of tourists it wishes to receive,

the capacity of the host community to welcome

new visitors and issues related to environmental

sustainability. Based on this understanding and

using techniques such as environmental scanning

(Albright, 2004), step 2 is to undertake an envi-

ronmental scan or similar to search for potential

markets. A key element of this scanning process

is a thorough understanding of the capacity of the

destination’s key pull factors to either meet the

push factors of potential markets or be adapted

to match a potential market’s push factors.

The cumulative output of steps 2 and 3 is the

identification of potential markets (step 3). A

sifting process should then be undertaken as part

of step 3 to eliminate the potential candidates

that do not fit the destination’s pull profile and its

destination goals. Prior to making a decision to

invest in a new market, a risk assessment should

be undertaken (step 4). Risk assessment can be

described as an evaluation of problems that may

arise when establishing a new market (Richie,

2009). Typical risks may include the displace-

ment of existing markets, over-dependency,

Environmental scan or similar

Identify potential strategicwindows

Risk identification

Destination resources(pull factors)

Market factors(push factors)

Identify destinationgoals

Strategy development basedon most

desirable options

Step 2

Step 3

Step 5

Step 1

Step 4

Confirmation that the newmarket is satisfied with the

destination

Step 6

Figure 1. Tourism strategic window of opportunity model.

290 Journal of Vacation Marketing 18(4)

at James Cook University on April 22, 2014jvm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

unintended impacts on destination image and

brand, difficulties in developing the physical and

human infrastructure required, and consideration

of exogenous factors that may generate negative

impacts. If the risk potential is small, the

destination is then able to move to step 5, where

the strategies are developed to exploit the win-

dow. The success of this process is postulated

to be a function of the rate of growth of visitors

from the newly identified market (now able to

be regarded as a target market), the ability of the

destination to demonstrate that its key attractions

provide the experience sought by the new target

market and the level of satisfaction with the

destination. Finally, step 6 involves confirming

that the development of the new market has been

successful through an assessment of visitor

satisfaction with their experiences in the

destination.

At this point, it is postulated that the model

has a second capability that is concerned with

changes to existing markets. No market segment

is static and destinations that fail to identify

changes in existing markets stand to lose volume

and revenue if the original match between pull

and push factors in a particular market becomes

unbalanced, as was the case in Norfolk Island

discussed earlier. Applying steps 2–4 to existing

markets assists destinations to continue to meet

demand-side push factors with its supply-side

pull factors.

The process postulated in the model is based

on a process involving decisions made by

organisations that have some formal responsibility

for tourism planning and marketing. However, the

entry into a new market may not always follow a

formal process and may occur when inbound

agents offer new tour itineraries without reference

to the destination’s marketing organisations. In

these cases, the strategic window may be

identified by individual companies well before a

destination marketing organisation undertakes the

type of process outlined in Figure 1.

Cairns, Australia, is one of the examples of a

destination where the tourism industry has

identified a strategic window of opportunity in

the Chinese market and developed a strategy to

build this market. Through its strategy-building

process, the destination has attempted to

maximise its reputation as a nature-based

destination able to offer a high standard of

service. However, the ability of the destination

to continue to take advantage of this strategic

window of opportunity hinges on a number of

factors, including: the retention of direct flights

to China; the willingness of local tour, attractions

and hotel operators to offer services that meet the

specific needs of Chinese visitors; and the ability

to maintain the integrity of the destination image

and brand.

The Chinese outbound market

The rapid rise of Chinese outbound tourism is a

fascinating story that has been recounted by a

number of authors (Guo et al., 2007; Kim

et al., 2005; Li and Carr, 2004; Xie and Li,

2009; Yoo et al., 2004). Major issues identified

in the literature include the structure of the

Approved Destination Status (ADS) policy

(Dwyer et al., 2007), the cost of air travel (Guo

et al., 2007), a range of issues related to shopping

(Prideaux et al., 2005), destination-specific

issues (Li and Carr, 2004; Pan, 2003; Pan and

Laws, 2003) and the operation of the commercial

outbound sector in China (Pan, 2003; Tse and

Hobson, 2008). It is apparent from the literature

that major concerns have been raised about

the structure of Chinese outbound tourism and

how this may affect destinations. The enormous

growth in Chinese outbound tourism has opened

a strategic window of the type illustrated in step

3 of the TSWO model and encouraged numerous

destinations to target the Chinese market, often

without undertaking a risk analysis of the type

outlined in step 4.

The mass tour package has emerged as the

primary form of travel for Chinese citizens

authorised by the Chinese government under its

ADS system. An ADS is a bilateral tourism

agreement between the Chinese government and

another nation that allows leisure travel by

groups (Department of Foreign Affairs and

Trade, 2004). This structure has, to a large

extent, been responsible for the emergence of

an outbound tour sector largely characterised

by low-yield mass tourism.

As Dwyer et al. (2007) noted, the structure of

low-cost package tours has raised concerns about

issues related to shopping and the ability of

inbound operators to operate profitably. The

acute price sensitiveness of many Chinese

consumers has seen the growth of zero-fee tours

in China’s domestic market and also in overseas

tour operations (Zhang et al., 2009). Dwyer et al.

(2007) identified problems in the Chinese market

primarily involving the payment of commissions.

In essence, Chinese wholesalers have been able to

pressure ground operators in destination countries

to offer low prices to Chinese wholesalers who in

Prideaux et al. 291

at James Cook University on April 22, 2014jvm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

turn offer cheap itineraries to the Chinese retail

travel sector. Under this arrangement, the price

paid by the consumer is below the cost of services

offered. The loss is borne by ground operators in

the destination (Dwyer et al., 2007) who bid for

tour groups at prices that are below cost to win the

business. To meet this shortfall, inbound operators

adopt a range of practices, including taking tour

members to shops that pay a commission to the

ground operator, up-selling commissionable tours,

providing services at a level below those

advertised and forcing guides to collect tips in lieu

of a wage. Practices of this nature emulate similar

practices that operate in the Korean and Taiwa-

nese inbound markets (Prideaux and Kim, 1999)

and to a smaller degree in the Japanese market.

These practices have been a matter of consider-

able concern in a number of countries, including

Australia (Dwyer et al., 2007). From a destination

perspective, these practices may have a negative

impact on the destination’s brand and its image

and are best avoided.

A number of strategy options are available

to tourism destinations that wish to develop a

Chinese market. At the destination level, the key

issues that must be addressed include the type

of experience to be offered and which, if any,

subsector of Chinese visitors are to be targeted

as well as how the related issues of brand and

image are to be managed. Decisions of this

nature are best made early in the growth cycle

of a new market and certainly before the

destination’s inbound sector becomes locked into

providing a specific type of experience for which

it then becomes known. The question of which

specific sector, if any, is to be targeted is a

fundamental issue that is often neglected or

difficult to resolve. In the case of China, many

cities, some of which have a population larger

than Australia, can legitimately be considered as

stand-alone target markets.

Destinations have three broad options to

pursue under the current structure of the Chinese

market. The first option is to focus on the ADS

low-cost group sector that generates high visitor

numbers but low yields. The second option,

based on high-yield groups and a small but grow-

ing Free Independent Traveller (FIT) sector, may

result in lower visitor numbers but will produce

higher income for destination businesses and

avoid many of the issues associated with low-

yield package tours, including the controversy

surrounding shopping commissions. The third

option is a mix of high- and low-yield tourists.

The latter option may be difficult to achieve if

problems in the low-yield sector taint the desti-

nation’s image and brand and, in so doing, affect

its appeal to the high-yield end of the market.

There are advantages and disadvantages of each

approach, particularly in the long term, when

existing structures and relationships may change,

as they have done in the past.

In 2010, Australia attracted 454,000 Chinese

tourists, making China the nation’s fourth-largest

inbound leisure market (Tourism Research

Australia, 2011). Most of these visitors (83%)

had not previously visited Australia. It is not

surprising that China has been identified as a

major market by Tourism Australia (TA), the

national tourism marketing organisation, as

well as Tourism Queensland (TQ), a state

government-funded tourism marketing organisa-

tion. However, Australia’s distance from China

and the relatively high cost of accommodation

and other tourism services compared with many

Asian destinations are a deterrent to many

Chinese visitors and in effect limit the potential

for developing this market. For these reasons,

Australia’s tourism industry needs to take care to

develop a reputation for quality experiences

combined with service excellence and, in so doing,

build a positive destination image supported by a

brand that aims to meet the aspirations of Chinese

visitors. However, a high-quality product capable

of generating high yields may not be possible if

the emphasis is on mass, low-price tour packages

that feature a range of unethical practices such as

shopping commissions.

Objective and methodology

The objective of this research is to examine

how destinations may use the tourism-specific

version of the strategic window of opportunity

model to identify and build new markets. From

a destination perspective, a key element of this

approach is to demonstrate that it has the capac-

ity to successfully meet consumer push factors.

Demonstration of a successful match of push and

pull factors is postulated to be achieved if the

following three criteria are met:

1. the destination is able to show significant

growth in the target market;

2. the destination’s key pull factors align with

the key push factors of the target market and,

3. members of the target market demonstrate a

high level of satisfaction with the experi-

ences it provides.

292 Journal of Vacation Marketing 18(4)

at James Cook University on April 22, 2014jvm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

To verify the utility of the model in a destination

context, a two-stage research methodology was

developed. Stage 1 involved examining the

development of the Chinese inbound market in

Cairns between steps 1 and 5 of the framework

outlined in the TSWO model. Stage 2 was

designed to test step 6 by identifying the strength

of the match between tourist push and destination

pull factors as well as assessing the level of

satisfaction with the destination.

Results of stage 1

The following discussion first outlines the

current status of the Chinese market in Cairns and

then examines the steps that were taken in the des-

tination to develop the Chinese market. By 2011,

Cairns was Australia’s third-largest destination

for Chinese visitors, achieving a growth rate of

85% in 2010 (The Cairns Post, 2011). Tourism

Tropical North Queensland (TTNQ), the region’s

marketing authority, has forecasted that Chinese

visitor numbers will increase from 70,035 in

2010 to in excess of 244,000 in 2015, assuming

that the direct air services between Cairns and

China are opened. Recent changes in aviation

arrangements can be viewed as a component of

the factors that comprise the strategic window and

offer Cairns a significant opportunity to continue

to develop the Chinese inbound sector, although

not without risks.

Most Chinese groups spend two nights in

Cairns, typically visiting the Great Barrier Reef

and undertaking a rainforest experience. As of

2011, three locally based ground operators

owned by ethnic Chinese provided ground

services in Cairns. A different group of ground

operators provide such services in other cities.

Commissions in the Cairns market are mainly

generated by the up-selling of optional activities

on existing tour inclusions. Shopping is not

currently a major activity for Chinese visitors

in Cairns, with this aspect of the tour being

generally reserved for the Gold Coast, Sydney

and Melbourne legs of tours.

The approach adopted by Cairns to develop

the Chinese market broadly follows the steps

outlined in the TSWO model, with several

notable omissions. The first Chinese tour groups

to visit Cairns arrived shortly after the Chinese

government gave approval for its citizens to

travel to Australia under the ADS scheme, and

during that time, few organisations in the

destination recognised the ultimate potential of

this market. There is little evidence that any

specific attempt was made to articulate the desti-

nation’s goals as a start point for the programme

of entering the Chinese market. The Cairns tour-

ism industry first recognised the potential of the

Chinese outbound market through an informal

process that parallels steps 2 and 3. The process

was informal in that the first steps to develop the

Chinese market were taken by individual firms

but not by the destination’s marketing organisa-

tion, in part, because the destination’s marketing

organisation only has a mandate to undertake

strategic marketing but not strategic planning.

Even after the potential of the Chinese market

was recognised, no formal actions were taken

to identify risks of the nature outlined in step 4,

although privately many firms operating in

Cairns were aware of the risks that could emerge

if large numbers of low-yield package tourists

visited the region.

In line with step 5, the destination’s marketing

organisation, TTNQ, now undertakes marketing

campaigns in China usually in association with

TQ, TA and a number of attractions and other des-

tination businesses. The major themes promoted

in the Chinese market are Cairns’ position as a

gateway to the Great Barrier Reef and its role as

a ‘must-do’ experience that offers the Great

Barrier Reef, the Wet Tropics Rainforests and

Australian wildlife. The destination’s current

branding campaign, Cairns and the Great Barrier

Reef, is built around these attractions. Destination

image-building has been assisted by the opening

of a number of shopfronts in major Chinese cities

to market the region. The first shopfront was

opened in 2007. This strategy has, in conjunction

with other marketing strategies, been very success-

ful in creating awareness and building the Cairns

and the Great Barrier Reef brand. Until the research

reported on in this article, no effort has been made

to confirm that the destination has successfully

matched the push factors of the Chinese market

with the pull factors of the destination (step 6).

As the preceding discussion highlights, Cairns

has been successful in developing a positive

destination image and brand that has been able

to generate a growing volume of Chinese

tourists. In this respect, the destination has

successfully followed steps 2, 3 and 5 of the

model outlined in Figure 1. The lack of attention

given to risk assessment (step 4) may become a

problem in the future if a large number of low-

yield group tours visit the destination and issues

with shopping, for example, begin to become a

concern. Another concern is the lack of attention

that has been given to identifying the match

Prideaux et al. 293

at James Cook University on April 22, 2014jvm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

between push and pull factors and the level of

satisfaction with the destination.

Results of stage 2

The aim of stage 2 was to test step 6 of the model

in the context of the Chinese market in Cairns

and involved assessing the strength of the desti-

nation’s main pull factors and the overall level

of satisfaction with the destination. This was

achieved with a visitor exit survey administered

to Chinese visitors departing Cairns airport.

Items used in the survey paralleled those used

previously to identify visitor motives and

satisfaction, which had been developed in con-

sultation with the local tourism industry (McNa-

mara and Prideaux, 2011; Prideaux et al., 2012).

As in previous surveys, participants were asked

to respond to a series of sociodemographic

questions, including age, city of residency,

occupation and income, to assist in visitor segmen-

tation. Respondents were also asked to use a 1–5

likert scale (where 1 indicated least interest and 5

indicated greatest interest) to rank the importance

of 23 motives for visiting Cairns. Other questions

included yes/no responses to activities undertaken

during their visit and satisfaction with the destina-

tion. In the latter question, a 10-point likert scale

was used with 1 indicating least satisfied and 10

indicating most satisfied.

The survey instrument was first developed

in English, translated into Chinese and back-

translated to English to test for accuracy. The

instrument was piloted at Cairns airport, and the

amendments were subsequently made in relation

to the questions about city of origin and educa-

tion levels. The interviewer who administered

the survey instrument was an experienced

non-Chinese research assistant who was able to

converse with respondents in basic Mandarin.

Use of a research assistant with Chinese

language skills made a significant positive

difference to the number of Chinese visitors who

agreed to participate. After identifying potential

respondents, the research assistant approached

the person, identified that they were a Chinese

national and then asked if they were interested

in participating in the survey. A total of 484

persons were approached, and of them, 421 agreed

to participate, giving a response rate of 86%.

Given the layout of the terminal and the

manner in which potential respondents dis-

persed, it was not possible to use a randomised

survey, and a convenient sampling approach was

adopted. Data were analysed using V18 of the

SPSS statistics package. Surveys were collected

over the period from 17 to 20 February 2010

(Chinese New Year (CNY)) and over the period

from 1 to 4 May (Labour Day (LD)) 2010. A total

of 217 valid surveys were completed during the

CNY period and 204 during the LD holidays, total-

ling 421 valid responses. The original intention of

the research was to combine the results of both the

surveys; however, analysis of each survey indi-

cated a number of differences between the two

groups. For this reason, both the results are

reported separately.

As with any survey, there are inherent

limitations that should be noted by readers. The

findings presented in this report relate only to

Chinese visitors during the CNY and LD public

holiday periods. Results may therefore not repre-

sent visitor profiles of Chinese visitors over the

remainder of the year, and, for this reason, care

should be exercised in generalising the results.

Demographic profile

The ratio of males (50.5%) to females (49.5%)

was consistent during both the CNY and the LD

periods. The overall budget per trip for the travel

party (including airfares, accommodation, tours

and other expenses) in Australian dollars for CNY

visitors travelling alone was approximately $4000,

couples spent $8750, while families with children

budgeted $10,000. The LD survey indicated that

those travelling alone had a budget of $4250,

couples spent $6500 and families with children

spent $11,500. These are significant amounts

given that China’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

in 2010 averaged US$7600 (AUS$7442) per

person (CIA, 2011).

Almost one-third of CNY respondents were

aged between 30 and 39 years (31.5%) and just

over a quarter were aged between 40 and 49 years

(27.0%). The age distribution for the LD respon-

dents was slightly different, with three groups

collectively representing three-quarters of

respondents (20–29 years (26.4%); 30–39 years

(27.8%); 40–49 years (22.8%)). Results of both

the surveys indicate that respondents were well

educated with 46.5% of LD and 43.5% of CNY

respondents holding a bachelor’s degree and

20.0% of LD and 22.9% of CNY respondents

possessing a postgraduate qualification. Of the

remainder, 21.2% of LD and 13.8% of CNY

respondents held a diploma-level qualification.

Only a small number of respondents had

previously visited Cairns (9.4% of the LD group

and 20.2% of the CNY group).

294 Journal of Vacation Marketing 18(4)

at James Cook University on April 22, 2014jvm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Figure 2 shows that 22.4% of LD respondents

worked in education (CNY ¼ 7.0%), 14.2% in

management (CNY ¼ 19.2%), 13.0% indicated

‘other’ (CNY ¼ 5.6%) and 11.4% were

self-employed (CNY ¼ 8.8%). CNY respon-

dents indicated that 19.2% worked in manage-

ment (LD ¼ 14.2%), 18.6% were students

(LD ¼ 3.9%), 16.7% were professionals and

8.8% were self-employed (LD ¼ 11.4%).

Of China’s 22 mainland provinces, 15 were

represented in the data (Figure 3), indicating that

many respondents were from areas other than

those that are specifically targeted by TTNQ

promotional campaigns. Considerable differences

were noted between the two groups of respondents.

During the LD holiday, 28.9% of respondents were

from Jiangsu Province (11.1% in the CNY period)

followed by 18.9% from the south-central prov-

ince of Guangdong (25.3% in the CNY period),

12.5% from the eastern province of Zhejiang

(12.0% in the CNY period) and 11.4% from Shan-

dong Province (0.5% in the CNY period). Both

Zhejiang and Jiangsu provinces border Shanghai,

while Shandong is situated north of Jiangsu.

Respondents ranked the importance of a series

of motives for visiting Cairns using a scale of 1

(not at all important) to 5 (very important).

Figure 4 indicates that the Great Barrier Reef was

the most important motive (mean ¼ 4.38) for

visiting Cairns, followed by having free time to

relax and enjoy (mean ¼ 4.15), visit a famous

natural environment (mean ¼ 4.09), to see

unusual animals (mean ¼ 4.06), to see Austra-

lian wildlife (mean ¼ 3.98), standard of accom-

modation (mean ¼ 3.77), visiting a tropical

rainforest (mean ¼ 3.76), having Chinese

language services (mean ¼ 3.77), always want-

ing to try new things (mean¼ 3.76) and enjoying

an affordable activity package (mean ¼ 3.63).

Based on the findings of this element of the sur-

vey, respondents from both the LD and the CNY

holiday groups exhibited similar motives, indi-

cating that their primary interest in the region

is its iconic natural environment. While signifi-

cant, affordability was ranked 10th as a reason

for selecting the destination which, combined

with respondents’ high average budget spend,

indicated that this group can be classed as high-

yield visitors.

Respondents were also asked to indicate their

satisfaction with the destination using a 10-point

likert scale, where 10 indicated highly satisfied.

The score for the combined group was 8.6,

indicating a high level of satisfaction with

respondents’ holiday experience in Cairns.

Findings

The validity of the TSWO model as a method

for developing new markets can be established

by demonstrating its ability to satisfy the

following three criteria: (1) the destination is

able to show significant growth in the target

market; (2) the destinations’ key pull factors

align with the key push factors of the target

market; and (3) members of the target market

demonstrate a high level of satisfaction with

the experiences it provides.

In case of Cairns, criterion 1 is validated by

the status of Cairns as Australia’s third-largest

destination for Chinese visitors and data that

indicate the continued growth of the Chinese

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

Educa

tion

Man

agem

ent

Other

Self-em

ploye

d

Office

/cleri

cal

Service

indu

stry

Retired

/semi-r

etired

Profes

siona

l

Man

ual/f

actor

y wor

k

Studen

t

Public

serv

ice

Occupation

% o

f re

spon

dent

s

LD

CNY

Figure 2. Occupation of respondents.

Prideaux et al. 295

at James Cook University on April 22, 2014jvm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

market. Criterion 2 is validated by results shown

in Figure 4, where the destination’s main attrac-

tion factors for Chinese visitors match those that

are used in its marketing in China. The strength of

these factors (the Great Barrier Reef, Wet Tropics

Rainforest, natural environment and wildlife)

closely match the main attractions of the destina-

tion in other markets (Prideaux et al., 2012).

Criterion 3 is validated by the high level of

satisfaction with respondents’ holiday experience

in Cairns. In the current state of development of its

Chinese market, Cairns has been able to attract

high-yield group tours. As interest in overseas

travel increases, there will be additional opportu-

nities to develop the Chinese market; however,

there are risks to the destination if the volume of

low-yield tour groups increases. At the time this

research was undertaken, there was no evidence

of this occurring.

Discussion and conclusion

The objective of this research was to examine

how destinations may use the tourism-specific

version of the strategic window of opportunity

model to identify and build new markets and

identify changes in existing markets. Two almost

parallel trends are apparent. First, in a changing

world, existing markets cannot be taken for

granted and as they evolve, new opportunities

may emerge, while demand for some existing

experiences may decline. Where existing market

0.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.505.00

Visit Great B

arrier R

eef

Free time to relax and enjoy

Visit a famous n

atural environment

See unusual animals

See Australian wildlife

Standard of accomodation

Visit a tro

pical rainforest

Having Chinese language services

Always want to

try new things

Affordable activites p

ackage

Motivation to visit Cairns

% o

f re

spon

dent

s

Figure 4. Motivations for visiting Cairns.

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

Jiang

su

Guang

dong

Zhejia

ng

Shand

ong

Shanx

i

Henan

Liaonin

g

Hunan

Sichua

n

Fujian

Gangs

u

Hebei

Qingha

i

Yunna

n

Hubei

Province of origin

% o

f re

spon

dent

s

LD

CNY

Figure 3. Origin of respondents by province.

296 Journal of Vacation Marketing 18(4)

at James Cook University on April 22, 2014jvm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

sectors are undergoing change, the relationship

between a destination’s pull factors and the push

factors of its markets may change, sometimes

significantly. Failure to recognise this change

and undertake actions to realign push and pull

factors may result in declining visitation. The

TSWO model is one tool that can be used to not

only search for new market windows, but also

look for change in existing markets.

Second, new markets may emerge quite

quickly and need to be responded to rapidly if the

opportunities they present are to be maximised.

The TSWO model offers one solution that may

be used by destination marketing organisations

to identify new markets early in their life cycle,

assess the opportunities that the new market

may present and then to act while the window

remains open. Earlier in this article, reference

was made to Norfolk Island as an example of a

destination that failed both to recognise that its

existing markets were changing and to identify

new markets. As a consequence, the destination

has suffered a significant decline in tourism

arrivals. Arguably, application of the TSWO

model would have revealed the decline in the

existing market and most likely have identified

some new markets.

In theory, the TSWO model offers a sequenced

method that may be used by destinations search-

ing for new market opportunities. However, given

that many destinations lack the capacity to under-

take long-term planning and in many cases have

no authority to dictate to firms which markets they

may deal with, the model can best be used to

describe a process that may have both formal and

informal elements and act as a framework that

guides actions needed to identify and establish

new markets. To operate effectively, the process

requires high-level support within the estimation

and must be an ongoing process that regularly

reviews existing and potential markets.

In the case of Cairns, the destination’s market-

ing authority is not empowered to undertake

destination planning, does not have funding to

undertake detailed risk analyses of the nature

required in step 4 and has limited funding to

undertake research required by step 6. In spite

of these issues, the destination has now formally

identified a window of opportunity afforded by

the Chinese market and instituted a successful

strategy to develop the market. In the future, and

as the Chinese inbound market evolves, it can

be expected that its push factors will change.

To meet this challenge, the destination should

periodically reapply steps 2–4 to ensure that it

is continuing to maximise the opportunities that

are offered by this market.

As the Cairns case has demonstrated, in

circumstances where there is a less than perfect

application of each step of the model, it does pro-

vide a mechanism that can be used by

destinations to develop new markets that match

the aspirations of the host community, and its

tourism industry is able to recognise shortfalls

between the destination’s pull factors and the

potential market’s push factors, is able to identify

risk, and is able to offers a mechanism for

evaluating the satisfaction of the new market

with the destination’s offerings of experiences

and activities. Cairns is of course not the only

destination that is searching for new markets.

In any destination where new windows of

opportunities are identified, the destination’s

tourism sector will face the type of issues

canvassed in this article, including how to ensure

that new markets will be accepted by the host

community, the ability of the destination’s pull

factors to meet the specific push factors and iden-

tification of potential risks. These are significant

issues and there is obvious scope to investigate

these issues in great depth in future research.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from

any funding agency in the public, commercial

or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Abell DF (1978) Strategic windows. The Journal of

Marketing 42(3): 21–26.

Ahmed Z (1991) Marketing your community:

Correcting a negative image. The Cornell Hotel and

Restaurant Administration Quarterly 31: 24–27.

Albright K (2004) Environmental scanning: Radar

for success. The Information Management Journal

38(3): 38–45.

Beat R (2000) Competing effectively: Environmental

scanning, competitive strategy and organizational

performance in small manufacturing firms. Journal

of Small Business Management 38: 27–47.

Branwell B and Rawding L (1996) Tourism marketing

images of industrial cities. Annals of Tourism

Research 23: 201–221.

Christensen C, Suazey F and Utterback J (1998)

Strategies for survival in fast changing industries.

Management Science 44: s07–s220.

Central Intelligence Agency (2012) The World Fact

Book https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/

the-world-factbook/ (accessed 12 June 2012).

Prideaux et al. 297

at James Cook University on April 22, 2014jvm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Crockett S and Wood L (1999) Brand Western Australia:

A totally integrated approach to destination branding.

Journal of Vacation Marketing 5: 276–289.

Crompton J (1979) An assessment of the image of

Mexico as a vacation destination and the influences

of geographic location upon the image. Journal of

Travel Research 17: 18–23.

Dann G (1981) Tourism motivation: An appraisal.

Annals of Tourism Research 8: 187–219.

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (2004) Agree-

ment between the government of Australia and the

government of the People’s Republic of China relat-

ing to air services. Available at: http://www.info.

dfat.gov.au/Info/Treaties/treaties.nsf/AllDocIDs/A6

B07DF7DBFC9082CA256E610005783D (accessed

4 December 2011).

Dwyer L, King B and Prideaux B (2007) The effects of

restrictive business practices on Australian

inbound package tourism. Asia Pacific Journal of

Tourism Research 12(1): 47–64.

Edgell D, Allen M and Swanson J, et al. (2007)

Tourism Policy and Planning: Yesterday, Today

and Tomorrow. Oxford: Butterworth Hienemann.

Emmons KM and Goldstein M (1992) Smokers who

are hospitalized: A window of opportunity for

cessation interventions. Preventive Medicine 21:

262–269.

Fakeye P and Crompton J (1991) Image differences

between prospective, first time, and repeat visitors

to the lower Rio Grande valley. Journal of Tourism

Research 30: 10–16.

Fletcher R and Brown L (2002) International

Marketing: An Asia-Pacific Perspective (2nd edn).

Frenchs Forest, NSW: Prentice-Hall.

Guo YZ, Kim SS and Timothy DJ (2007) Develop-

ment characteristics and implications of mainland

Chinese outbound tourism. Asia Pacific Journal

of Tourism Research 12(4): 313–332.

Hall CM (2008) Tourism Planning: Policies, Processes

and Relationships. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Henderson J (2007) Uniquely Singapore? A case study

in destination branding. Journal of Vacation

Marketing 13: 261–274.

Hunger J and Wheelan T (2003) Essentials of Strategic

Management (3rd edn). MA: Addison-Wesley.

Hunt J (1975) Image as a factor in tourism

development. Journal of Travel Research 13: 1–7.

Johnson G and Scholes K (1993) Exploring Corporate

Strategy (3rd edn). UK: Prentice Hall International.

Keller KL (1993) Conceptualizing, measuring, and

managing customer-based brand equity. Journal

of Marketing 57(1): 1–22.

Kim SS, Lee CK and Klenosky D (2003) The influ-

ence of push and pull factors at Korean national

parks. Tourism Management 24: 169–180.

Kim SS, Guo Y and Agrusa J (2005) Preference and

positioning analyses of overseas destinations by

mainland Chinese outbound pleasure tourists.

Journal of Travel Research 44(2): 212–220.

Kotler P, Bowen J and Makens J (1996) Marketing for

Hospitality and Management. Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Prentice Hall.

Li WJ and Carr N (2004) Visitor satisfaction:

An analysis of mainland Chinese tourists on the

Australian Gold Coast. International Journal of

Hospitality and Tourism Administration 5(3):

31–48.

McNamara KE and Prideaux B (2011) A typology of

solo independent women travellers. International

Journal of Tourism Research 12: 253–264.

Pan GW (2003) A theoretical framework of busi-

ness network relationships associated with the

Chinese outbound tourism market to Australia.

Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 14(2):

87–104.

Pan GW and Laws E (2003) Tourism development of

Australia as a sustained preferred destination for

Chinese tourists. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism

Research 8(1): 37–47.

Prideaux B (2007) Potential impacts of generational

change on destinations: A case of Norfolk Island.

Advances in Hospitality and Leisure 3: 49–70.

Prideaux B and Kim SM (1999) Bilateral tourism

imbalance: Is there a cause for concern? The case

of Australia and Korea. Tourism Management

20(4): 523–532.

Prideaux B and Watson T (2010) Rebranding Norfolk

Island: Is it enough to rebuild visitor numbers? In:

Lewis Cameron A and Roberts S (eds) Marketing

Island Destinations; Concepts and Cases. London:

Elsevier, pp. 23–36.

Prideaux B, King B and Dwyer L, et al. (2005) The

hidden cost of cheap group tours: A case study of

business practices in Australia. Advances in

Hospitality and Leisure 3: 49–70.

Prideaux B, Thompson M and McNamara K (2012)

The irony of tourism: Visitor reflections of their

impacts on Australia’s world heritage rainforest.

Journal of Ecotourism 11: 102–117.

Ritchie B (2009) Crisis and Disaster Management for

Tourism. Aspects of Tourism. Bristol, UK: Channel

View Publications.

Ryan C (2003) Recreational Tourism: Demand and

Impacts. Clevedon: Channel View.

Stahl M and Grigsby D (2001) Strategic Management:

Total Quality and Global Competition. Oxford:

Blackwell Publishers.

Tasci ADA and Kozac M (2006) Destination brands vs

destination images: Do we know what we mean?

Journal of Vacation Marketing 12: 299–317.

298 Journal of Vacation Marketing 18(4)

at James Cook University on April 22, 2014jvm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

The Cairns Post (2011) Cairns and Great Barrier

Reef no. 1 destination for Japanese tourists.

The Cairns Post. Available at: http://www.cairns.

com.au/article/2011/03/10/153555_local-news.html

(accessed 4 December 2011).

Tourism Research Australia (2011) Key Facts

Australian Tourism Sector. Canberra, Australia:

Tourism Research Australia.

Tse TSM and Hobson JSP (2008) The forces shaping

China’s outbound tourism. Journal of China

Tourism Research 4: 136–155.

Uysal M and Jurowski C (1994) Test the push and pull

factors. Annals of Tourism Research 21(4):

844–846.

Viljoen J and Dann S (2000) Strategic Management

Planning and Implementing Corporate Strategies.

Melbourne, Australia: Longman.

Wilson RMS and Gilligan C (2008) Strategic

Marketing Management: Planning, Implementation

and Control (3rd edn). Oxford: Elsevier,

Butterworth-Heinemann.

Xie Y and Li M (2009) Development of China’s

outbound tourism and the characteristics of its

tourist flow. Journal of China Tourism Research

5: 226–242.

Yoo JJE, McKercher B and Mena M (2004) A

crosscultural comparison of trip characteristics:

International visitors to Hong Kong from mainland

China and USA. Journal of Travel & Tourism

Marketing 16(1): 65–77.

Yuan S and McDonald C (1990) Motivational

determinates of international pleasure time.

Journal of Travel Research 24: 42–44.

Zhang H, Yan Y and Li Y (2009) Understanding the

mechanism behind the zero-commission Chinese

outbound package tours: Evidence from case

studies. International Journal of Contemporary

Hospitality Management 21(6): 734–751.

Prideaux et al. 299

at James Cook University on April 22, 2014jvm.sagepub.comDownloaded from