Insights June 2010
WHOM DO YOU BELIEVE?
One of the most vexing challenges for the marketers of travel services is that of addressing a fundamental dilemma in contemporary marketing practice: it has become more difficult to influence prospective customers as it has become easier to reach them.
The question of source credibility is therefore one of great interest to marketers of travel services, particularly as it relates to the degree of influence consumers ascribe to the kaleidoscope of information now available on destinations and/or specific travel service suppliers. And given the explosive growth in the number of sources from which consumers can now sample commentary, it’s important to understand they ascribe far greater confidence to the information they receive from some sources than others.
This "Credibility Continuum," as measured in the new Ypartnership/Harrison Group 2010 Portrait Of American TravelersSM, stretches from the personal testimonials of friends and family members (the most credible) to the content found on social networking sites such as facebook, Twitter and YouTube (the least credible). And the hierarchy in between provides some compelling clues as to how to serve up marketing messages that deliver maximum influence.
Word-of-mouth endorsements have been and remain the most believable endorsements for consumers (cited as credible by 81% of active travelers), particularly if delivered by a trusted family member or business associate, hence marketing programs that leverage this credibility typically enjoy a much higher probability of success. The second cluster of credible sources includes travel guidebooks such as AAA (57%), online travel agencies such as Expedia (54%) and travel advisory sites such as TripAdvisor (53%). The third tier of credible sources consists of individual company/destination websites (46%), traditional travel agents (46%) and the information found in general media coverage (43%). Brochures (39%), blogs (33%) and travel advertising (29%) represent the fourth tier of credible sources, while information found on social networking sites such as facebook and Twitter (19%) and YouTube (14%) is considered least credible.
These relationships are revealed below.
Given the fact that it has become increasingly difficult to influence consumers through marketing messages, these insights provide extremely valuable clues as to the mix of media sources that should be scripted into marketing communication programs to yield maximum impact.
To learn more about the Portrait Of American TravelersSM and the extent to which consumers now sample content from each of these media sources please visit the Publications section of www.ypartnership.com.
June 30th, 2010 at 9:06 am
[...] blog post on the ineffectiveness of trying to influence customers in the new media. This article is highly [...]
June 30th, 2010 at 9:18 am
Peter, I am surprised to see under the same category company and destination sites. In my experience destination sites, particularly those recognized as “Official” destination sites have a much better perception from the point of view of the potential traveller, and are seen as an impartial source of information, while private companies are seen as pursuing their particular interest. Any comments on that? Regards and as always thank you for sharing your relevant and timely information!
June 30th, 2010 at 9:55 am
I truly enjoyed the diagram and the concept of thinking about consumer confidence as a continuum. It is my belief that social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter are fairly superfluous–unless you cultivate the community slowly within the site. What’s worked for us is to create an events connected to our sites–developing word of mouth through the event–rather than through the site–and then connecting all of that to our specific destination site. We’ve had a bit of success with drawing media into our events and sites–creating better credibility. Plus, when social media followers and fans meet face-to-face, the relationship changes. They get to know you and you get to know them. Basically, merging the social networking sites with events and a media partnership for your destination not only increases credibility, it also brands the community (who participate on the destination’s sites) as more cohesive. We have just begun our campaign and hope to see much better “stickiness” as we progress. Again, many thanks for the diagram and the reflection on “Insights.”
June 30th, 2010 at 10:04 am
Hi Peter,
If credibility is highest with WOM and lowest with Social Media, what about Social Media being digital WOM? Aren’t we supposed to communicate, have conversations, look after our influentials, have customers talk about their experiences wirh our product and services, and all that to create a digital WOM?
June 30th, 2010 at 11:19 am
Peter,
DMO and umbrella government tourism sites (national/state/County/City) for destinations do not seem to be specified as such. Were they included under one of these other category names used? Possibly ‘Company/Destination site’?
The research, otherwise, seems to confirm some longstanding sources of trust and credibility in tourism information supply and use by prospective visitors. Trust would also inevitably seem to be the biggest factor at work as is to be expected these days.
June 30th, 2010 at 11:39 am
Peter,
Great analysis and very insightfull correlation between the channels. This simply reconfirms the very basic driver of decision making for travel purchases, which is “confidence”. This is why we must always focus first on our clients and what they want and need and how do we build confidence in our products and services with them. We are finding that video clip documentaries that are shared to back up social media comments seem to help fill the gap of the non existing relationship between generator and receiver, particularly when they do recognize each others affinity to the same interests. Thanks for your always challenging insights.
June 30th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
I work as a destination services manager and an event planner for Virginia and Washington DC. We are a Virtuoso on-site and most of our referrals come from word of mouth from other Virtuoso agencies who have sent clients to us and they had a very positive experience. We work very hard to make each proposal unique to that client’s needs and interests.
Where we seem to hit a wall is when these clients go on the internet and do their own research. That can really throw a wrench into all the planning as we have customized these trips and they don’t seem to understand that. We offer private tours, guides, transportation, etc. but then they’ll go on the Gray Line website and see tours of DC for almost half the price. I don’t understand why they don’t comprehend that our services are exceptional to being thrown on a tour bus with 50 strangers but you do have to pay extra for special treatment. As they say, you get what you pay for. Even though we stress to the clients this is all private and tailored to their needs and wants, they still access the internet. It can be very frustrating. Any thoughts?
June 30th, 2010 at 2:49 pm
[...] ypartnership blog » Blog Archive » Insights June 2010 [...]
June 30th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
It is not surprising to see the recommendations of family and friends having the highest credibility. That has been the case for decades. What strikes me as odd is that social media is at the opposite end of the continuum when we have the situation today where millions of people communicate with their family and friends on social networks and using social tools to talk about products and services they like or dislike.
It is no surprise that posts by unknowns on Twitter and Facebook would have low trust but they are increasingly used as part of the many items people collect from a variety of sources to make up their own mind. This seems to be supported by the advisory sites ranking high on the chart as these sites often include user recommendations as well as information sharing tools.
June 30th, 2010 at 10:21 pm
Interesting…Facebook and Twitter are less effective than i expected…which makes me think you mean Facebook and Twitter from companies rather than acquaintances (”Facebook friends”)? Does this simplify things too much? Within Facebook and Twitter networks, there will be a range of people from close friends, to colleagues and acquaintances…all of these i think would be trusted a lot more than Facebook and Twitter networks built by companies.
July 1st, 2010 at 1:47 am
My own research on international retirement migration to Mexico over the past 15 years supports much of what you suggest. However, as mentioned earlier, WOM has now been enhanced through email and blogs and people do ascribe more confidence in those mediums DEPENDING UPON the SENDER. The social networks are also LESS Private and while some people do discuss products and experiences, my research suggests that many people may feel that these social networks are NOT the place for serious discussion. This is particularly true for retirees seeking truthful accounts of living in Mexico; moderated forums have become a more common place for serious debate about locations. This suggests that even in the e world, “place” is important especially when it comes to making tourism and retirement migration decisions.
July 1st, 2010 at 7:06 am
Tere, good hearing from you, and many thanks for your comments.
I fully understand your theory on the enhanced credibility of “destination” versus “company” sites, but consumers appear to filter the content of both with the same degree of suspicion. This is presumably because they also understand that destination sites must also, by design, present the destination in the most favorable light!
July 1st, 2010 at 7:09 am
Stephanie, thanks for your additional thoughts on how to leverage “word of mouth” through the use of social media!
July 1st, 2010 at 7:11 am
Raphael, good question. And therein lies part of the complexity of figuring this out. One would think that social media represent a digital surrogate for personal word-of-mouth communications, but the data suggest otherwise. Clearly, this is still an evolving science!
July 1st, 2010 at 7:13 am
Bruce, DMOs would fall under the “destination” heading for respondents.
July 1st, 2010 at 7:27 am
Joyce, wish I could offer some solace here, but your comment is illustrative of the “wild west” atmosphere that prevails online. Any offer (and/or commentary) is fair game, thereby exacerbating the issue if source credibility. My only suggestion would be to give more prominence to your credentials in your communications (as a Virtuoso on-site, explaining what this means and its significance).
July 1st, 2010 at 7:30 am
Joe, we have been tracking this credibility issue for several months now, and the results have been consistent over multiple (separate) samples. My suspicion is that the credibility of the content of social media will improve once more filters are applied to the content, and this aspect of online communication is likely to evolve in a very interesting manner!
July 1st, 2010 at 7:34 am
David, ditto re the comments I just made on Joe’s remarks.
July 1st, 2010 at 11:36 am
Peter,
Interesting…..indicates the current limitations of depending on social media as the channel for WOM.
July 1st, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Agreed. We have much to learn about this evolving medium!