Tourism Social MediaTransforming Tourism practices

Ana María MunarCenter for Leisure and Culture Services

Tourlex Conference, 30 October, 2014

STUDIES

• How and why do tourists contribute to social media? A case of mass tourism.

• What do digital review making tell us about the heritage experience? A case of cultural tourism.

Study 1 - Objectives

1. When, where and types of content shared

2. Motives for sharing3. New method – (not

online panel) but an route exit survey. Destination based.

Acknowledging complexity in social media surveysThe approach of the study

• Combination of the multiple categories’: diferentiation of type of site, control of audience and between textual and visual content

• Comparison with non-electronic media and with Web 1.0 media.

• Relevance of nationality and type of destination

Motivation schemes of experience-sharing in tourism social media

Social cognitive theory: Individual actions in specific environments are based on personal cognition (Hsu et al 2007).

Self-efficacy

Personal outcome expectations that may lead to

motivation

E-literacy, Individualism Self-centred Community-oriented

Personal cognition

Motivation schemes of experience-sharing in tourism social media

Self-centred outcome expectations:

Social capital (reputation) Pleasure & entertainment

Efficiency and efficacy

Community-related

expectations:Helping the

community to achieve its goals or to

continue operatingJoint-affirmation

AltruismSocial support

Method MethodThe study is based on self-instructing questionnaires in Danish and Norwegian

Denmark & Norway

Among the world highest ICT use and high levels of English

proficiency

Sample: In total 434 respondents travelling with scheduled and charter flights57% females, 50% has higher education

Selected respondent characteristics and e-literacy (%)

Results: Involvement

• Facebook (and similar sites with control of audiences) most popular

• Social media more important for sharing (specially visual content) than for decision-making

• More lurkers than posters (78% have a FB profile only 42% shared visual content)

• More important as platforms of sociability than as information sources

Resultsinvolvement in social media (UGC)

Poor real-time effect

Resilience of traditional practices in

tourism

Results MotivationDominance of community-centred expectations

Despite the popularity of rewards/ranking systems, increased social recognition is not important

ResultsMotivation and IT use for trip

Membership , usage of social media and age matters for self-centred expectations

Discussion & conclusion (1)

1. Increase use of social media for experience sharing and as information source, but weak relevance for decision-making

2. Resilience of personal non-electronic sources and Web 1.0. Relevance of accommodation (also related to social media review sites)

3. Social media type matters; involvement differs depending of type and genre.

4. Clear preference for sharing visual content

Discussion & conclusion (2)

5. Overestimated ‘real-time’ effect 6. Younger and self-centred motivations:

Generational divide matters - younger tourists consider self-centred motivations to be more important

7- Intensive IT users and self-centred motivations: Self-efficiency matters - tourists with intensive social media and internet use consider self-centred motivations to be more important

What do digital review making tell us about the heritage experience?

Research streams1. NOVELTY: The heritage product is unique, part of the

tourist’s quest for cultural authenticity and local experiences.

2. FAMILIARITY: Tourists want to experience authenticity based on their own preconceived images of what is authentic about a particular destination

3. MANAGEMENT: the heritage site must be accessible and meaningfully conserved.

4. POLITICS & NATIONHOOD: Heritage sites are often used to represent and symbolize a society and culture; they are even used as social engineering devices

Case & Method

Tourist Review 1: Partial views on heritage

• Tourists’ reviews are not centred on cultural or historical expertise but on personal experiences

• Historical knowledge is to be found elsewhere• Experiential value is expressed as a type of

lifeworld knowledge/daily life knowledge

I will not go on about the individual buildings as others have already described them far better than I can do.(Acropolis, WestSaxon)

Tourist Review 2: Immediacy and authenticity

• Reflex vs. reflection• Raw emotionality

All I can say is WOW WOW WOW, it is one of the most amazing places I have been to.

(Forbidden City, Aussielea)

The forbidden city is SO disappointing! (Forbidden City, CRSM)

Tourist Review 3: The practical tourist

• Risk reduction: physical and emotional anxiety• ‘embodiment’ of the heritage experience

Just one important reminder wear comfortable shoes and take some water!!! Enjoy ...

Interaction1. Joint-affirmation

• Shaping and Reaffirmation of preconceptions• Ritualization of the tourism experience

A visit here certainly makes you feel like you can check a box in your ‘Things to See Before You Die’ list.

(Acropolis, uncvic)

Interaction 2. Socialization and meritocracy

• free revealing innovators • collaborative online systems that reward

expertise and merit

This is a big area to view and there are many big groups of tourists, often wearing matching baseballs caps and moving as one, like ants on the march!TripAdvisor, Forbidden City, elizalily

(Munar and Ooi, 2011)

Interaction 3: Paradox

CONCLUSION

• Complementarity of different types of knowledge on the historical site

• Missing voices: The host should get lost!• The quality of the content remains an issue• By concentrating on the uniqueness of the

heritage, promoters are ignoring tourists’ concerns and the imagination and embodiment of tourism, which are an important part of the heritage experience

Thank you!

amm.int@cbs.dk