a 2.0 travel through spanish destinations spanish...

A 2.0 Travel throughA 2.0 Travel throughA 2.0 Travel throughA 2.0 Travel through

Spanish Destinations Spanish Destinations Spanish Destinations Spanish Destinations

ITSC 2009-Breda

“THE �EW TOURIST A�D CO-CREATIO�”

REY JUAN CARLOS UNIVERSITY

1

A 2.0 TRAVEL THROUGH SPA�ISH

DESTI�ATIO�S

AUTHORS

Silvia Arevalo [email protected] E s c u e l a U n i v e r s i t a r i a d e T u r i s m o - U n i v e r s i d a d R e y J u a n C a r l o s

c / C a m i n o d e l M o l i n o s / n 2 8 9 4 3 - F u e n l a b r a d a – M a d r i d - S p a i n

Ana Maria Burbano

[email protected] E s c u e l a U n i v e r s i t a r i a d e T u r i s m o - U n i v e r s i d a d R e y J u a n C a r l o s


Blanca Egido [email protected]

Escuela Universitaria de Turismo - Universidad Rey Juan Carlos

c/ Camino del Molino s/n 28943 - Fuenlabrada –Madrid- Spain

Beatriz Juan [email protected] E s c u e l a U n i v e r s i t a r i a d e T u r i s m o - U n i v e r s i d a d R e y J u a n C a r l o s


Vasilica Margalina



Eduardo Pedraza



Juan Miguel Rodríguez



Sandra Serrano [email protected] E s c u e l a U n i v e r s i t a r i a d e T u r i s m o - U n i v e r s i d a d R e y J u a n C a r l o s


Spanish Coordinators

Mª Teresa Villacé Molinero



Blanca Kraljevic



2

Biographical �otes

Silvia Arévalo Díaz (Madrid, 1986) studied two years of English

Philology at Autonoma University (Madrid). Currently, she studies her

third year of B.A. in Tourism at Rey Juan Carlos University (Madrid)

and works as caretaker and monitor. She has knowledge of English,

French and a little bit of Italian. She would like to work on tourism development in

small villages. This is her first edition in the International Tourism Student Conference.

Ana Maria Burbano (Bogota, 1983) studies her final year of B.A. in

Tourism at Rey Juan Carlos University (Madrid) and works at

Hospedajes Welcome. She has always showed a great capacity to adapt

to new cultures and languages living abroad in Denmark, USA,

Germany and Spain. She speaks fluent English and German. She also has knowledge of

French and Danish. In the future, she would like to focus her professional life on

international cooperation and destination development. This is her first edition in the

International Tourism Student Conference.

Blanca Egido Barbero (Madrid, 1988) studies her third year of B.A.

in Tourism at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos (Madrid). She currently

attends the second year of International Tourism Management and

Consultancy in Breda University of Applied Science as an Erasmus

exchange student. She hopes to finish her degree this year and she would like to

continue her studies in Tourism by attending a Postgraduate course. She has not decided

yet how to orientate her carrier in this sector but she would like to focus on marketing,

tourism development or tourism ICT.

3

Beatriz Juan Puñales (Madrid, 1987) is currently studying her third

year of B.A. in Tourism at Rey Juan Carlos University (Madrid). She

has knowledge of English (Grade 8 by Trinity College of London),

French and a bit of Japanese. She would like to specialize in Luxury Hotels. This is her

first edition in the International Tourism Conference.

Vasilica Maria Margalina (Romania, 1986) studies her third year of

B.A in Tourism at Rey Juan Carlos University (Madrid). She has been

living in Spain since 2005. She speaks fluently Spanish, English and

French. She also has knowledge of German and Italian. She has not decided yet her

professional orientation. This is her first edition in the International Tourism

Conference.

Eduardo Pedraza Salazar (Huesca,1982) studied Development for

Building Projects in the Islas Filipinas Vocational Training Centre.

Currently, he studies a B.A. in Tourism at Rey Juan Carlos University

(Madrid). Last year he attended a semester at Haaga-Helia University

of Applied Sciences in Finland as part of the Erasmus Exchange Programme. He is

currently working as a Hotel Receptionist. He is fluent in English and also has some

knowledge of German. In a near future he would like to focus on Leisure and Events

Management as part of an enhancement of his studies as well as on the MA Degree in

European Tourism Management.

4

Sandra Serrano (Madrid, 1988) is currently studying her third

year of B.A. in Tourism at Rey Juan Carlos University (Madrid).

She enjoys learning languages; she is fluent in English and also has

some knowledge of German and French. She has worked in the

International Tourism Fair (FITUR). This is her first edition in the International

Tourism Conference.

Juan Miguel Rodríguez (Madrid, 1977) studied History in the

University Complutense of Madrid. He also attended Sussex

University, in Brighton (United Kingdom) and has gotten a

postgraduate in Archives Studies and certificates in Prevention

Conflicts and Dutch Society and Culture (University of Utrecht). Currently, he studies

his third year of B.A. in Tourism at Rey Juan Carlos University (Madrid) and works at

Financiera El Corte Inglés. He has experience living abroad in England, Finland and the

Netherlands. He speaks fluent English. He also has knowledge of French. In the future,

he would like to focus on cultural tourism consultancy and events management. This is

his second edition in the International Tourism Student Conference.

5

Abstract

The objective of our research was to determine the use that Spanish

DMOs are given to web 2.0, the degree of interaction with tourists and their place in

the co-creation process. To reach our goal we have used different marketing

investigation techniques: 1. Literature study, 2. Qualitative techniques a) In-depth

tourist expert interviews b) Focus group. 3. Observation and analysis of real life

destination 2.0 websites. As a result we have learned that co-creation through Internet

in Spain is still in a primary stage, given that the web 2.0 Spanish websites are very

young. Formation is essential and the co-creation process is to be made not only by

tourist but by the local town council, local companies, citizens and deputies producing

synergies which are necessary for the creation of the tourist product. As real

application case, we found in La Palma’s case, although young, a great example of co-

creation, in which all of the evolved agents participated in the creation of the tourist

product and the destination web 2.0.

Key Words: Co-Creation, DMOs, Internet, New Tourist, Spain, Social Community,

Travel 2.0, Tourism, Web 2.0.

1. Introduction

Business world has changed during last two decades. New ways of

understanding, new trends in International economic policy and an extensive

development of new technologies have brought a chain of new factors to current

markets, such as: new forms of regulation, easy access to information, and a better

connectivity among participants in business activities. As a result, new emerging

markets and a closer convergence of technologies and industries have turn up in the

business map.

All of these factors have had an enormous influence on the nature of consumers

and companies. Both have changed. Thus, today consumers deal with more information

than ever before, and thanks to new engagement platforms supplied by Internet, are

more connected and networked than other consumer’s generations (Ramaswamy, 2008).

6

On the other hand, today firms keep focusing on innovations to increase product variety

in order to be more competitive. Nevertheless, an increase can be observed in the use of

co-creation and the notion of “value in use” as a basis for the creation of value during

the product design process (Binkhorst, 2005).

Companies take into consideration the “new face” of consumers, since they have

become more unpredictable and therefore, much more difficult to keep and retain as

loyal customers. Actually, consumers are more independent today. That is reflected in

the way companies search new paths and dialogues with consumers to develop

alternatives to survive in the market. The former system based on company-product

centric view of value creation is moving towards an experience-centric view (Prahalad

& Ramaswamy, 2004). Customers want to be more active, involving themselves

through the planning, enjoying and the review of the visit, and as long as they get better

access and knowledge of the tools provided by new technologies, they are becoming

more involved themselves in the value creation process (Ramaswamy, 2008). “The

customers formerly relegated to the role of end-buyers, have become companies’ most

important asset by playing an active role in the design of the offers they want companies

to propose to them” (Krawtchenko, Morel-Guimaraes & Boly, 2004: 2).

From this new perspective, customers are not longer passive actors but very

active ones. Some authors such as Venkat Ramaswamy think that companies should

adapt this new point-of-view in the value creation process as soon as possible if they

want to reach their future with some guarantees. Nevertheless, some others authors (Jun,

Vogt & Mackay, 2007) still deny the actual existence and weight of a free co-creation

attitude from the current companies. They still think that companies are trying to drive

7

and lead the opinions of customers instead of having a real and free co-operation and

integration between customers and firms.

2. Co-Creation: Collective Intelligence Generating Knowledge.

As the object of the current essay is to analyze the influence of co-creation in the

tourism industry and specially its effect on tourism destinations, we should give an

answer to the following question: what does exactly co-creation mean? And to what

extent tourist industry and DMO’s in particular are implementing co-creation strategies

and therefore, integrating customers in the new product design process?

Co-creation means cooperation. A product design under a co-creation process

should take into account the ideas, tastes and thoughts of the customers during the

product-making process in order to improve the final result. Prahalad and Ramaswamy

(2004) call it the “co-creation experience”. They also talk about “experience

environment” which can be defined as a space where the dialogue between the firm and

the customer takes place. Real co-creation must be developed in an influence-free space.

However, we can still find “stains” in those spaces. Thus, if we talk about tourist

industry, marketers know well that as consumers make up their minds according to the

information they have, what they need to do to make and ensure their profit is to invent

and promote new and more sophisticated strategies for information provision to

consumers.

According to Matt Rhode (2008) there are five different levels in the co-creation

experience: Mass Customization, Real Time Self-Service, Service Redesign, New

8

Product Co-Creation and Community Product Design (see Table 1). In defining these

concepts we've combined arguments stated by authors like Anderson (2004) and Rhode..

Mass Customization is the idea of combining the process of mass production with the

individual needs (Tseng, Jiao 2001) both through regular stores and through the Internet

(Anderson 2004). Real Time Self-Service means that at any stage costumers can get real

time information (McKenna 1997) to make changes if necessary. In Service Redesign

the customer becomes somehow more active in the company given that it refers to

customers changing how they live the experience of getting the product but not the

product in itself (Rhode 2008).

Table 1. Rhode’s Five Levels of Co-Creation

Type of co-creation Who controls? Who is envolved? Who benefits? What is the

legacy?

Mass Customization Brand Customer Customer alone Customer’s

product

Real Time Self-

Service

Brand Customer Customer alone Customer’s

experience

Service Redesign Brand Customer All customers All future

experiences

New Product Co-

Creation

Brand and

Customer

Customer and

External

All customers All future

products

Community Product

Design

Customer Customer and

external

All customers All future

products

Source: Rhode (2008)

In the first three levels of co-creation, control is still held by the company or

brand. Although the costumer is involved, there’s no real change in the product. In the

first two levels the benefit of the whole process goes to each individual costumer. Only

in Service Redesign all of the future experiences for all of the future customers are

changed (Rhode 2008).

9

In The New Product Co-Creation customers or potential ones can participate in

the design of the new product. They are no longer outside the company, they become

part of it. They can tell what they want and see it become real since the company takes

notice of their work. Last but not least the Community Product Design; it is at this level

where the on-line communities act. The customer is no longer helping the Brand; he is

co-creating it (Rhode 2008). The product is completely designed and chosen by the

members of the community. The company does not lose control but it gains competitive

advantage, by providing exactly what consumers want (Hinchcliffe 2007).

Moreover, it is not difficult to see how control changes from one hand to other

during these steps of the process. Thus, in the New Product Co-Creation control is

shared by the brand and the costumers, and both costumers and external individuals

(possible future costumers) can be involved, they create the collective intelligence

(Hinchcliffe 2007). In the Community Product Design, the control relays completely on

the costumers, and again both costumers and externals can be involved. By the last

three levels benefit no longer goes to each individual customer; it reaches all customers,

since they change both the future experience and the future products (Rhodes 2008).

All of these new strategies can be seen as a part of co-creation process, however

limits are unclear. According to Vargo and Lusch (2004) customers require receiving

and sending information in order to co-create the product or service, rather than just

receiving information to make a decision. Receiving information helps tourists learn

about the destination, but it does not involve them in the provision or creation of the

10

destination product (Thompson, 2008). In order to do it, it would be necessary and

essential to focus on reaching the Community Product Design level.

The current approach towards Co-creation process in tourism is the result,

among other factors, of the combination of two crucial terms: New Tourist and Web 2.0.

In many occasions, Web 2.0 has been wrongly misused as co-creation. That leads to

confusion since Web 2.0 tools are used by co-creation to cooperate in the product

design process.

3. Web 2.0: �ew Tourism Marketing Tool

The term Web 2.0 is used to talk about a generation of web development and

design (O’Reilly 2004). The goal in the tourist application is to facilitate the

communication between the tourists and the local population, to help people who travel

to find information and, above all, to give all of us the chance of sharing our opinions

and different experiences in the field of trips. In these webs, it is possible to share

videos, publish a blog or know about the places you should visit in a country or a region,

without moving in front of your computer screen.

The word was created by the Irish Tim O’Reilly in a conference which took

place in 2004. He considered that the Web 2.0 could be a complete revolution in the

businesses and the computer industry. His first idea of innovation was well-received by

the majority of the experts, although not of all them consider him the real forerunner of

the idea.

11

O’Reilly published the “Web 2.0. Compact Definition: Trying Again” article in

2006. He did a brief definition: “Web 2.0. is the business revolution of the computer

industry caused by the move of Internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the

rules for success on that new platform. Chief among those rules is this: Build

applications that harness network effects to get better the more people use them. (This is

what he has elsewhere called: “harnessing collective intelligence”).”

Web 2.0 is applied to tourism in the Travel 2.0 or Tourism 2.0. Edu William

adapted O’Reilly’s definition (Figure 1): “Tourism 2.0. is the bussiness revolution in the

tourism and leisure industry that caused the move to the tourist ecosystem as platform,

and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform. Chief among

those rules is this: build businesses and destinations that harness network effects to get

more productive the more people and bussiness participate in them”. So, “harnessing

collective intelligence”

Figure 1. Travel 2.0

Source: William (2008).

12

The characteristics of Web 2.0 are: user participation, user experience, user who

is playing the leading role, dynamic content, web standard, openness, freedom,

knowledge creation, connecting people, and colective intelligence. The main items that

are used are: search, links, authoring, tags, extensions and signals.

Webs 2.0 are being applied in several areas such as higher education, public

diplomacy, government, economics and, of course, tourism.

However, not everybody agrees with this useful creation. Some executives and

managers point out that nobody knows what really Webs 2.0 are, and consider they are

just blogs and wikis that are shared from people to people but without a real goal. It is

also said that their infrastructures present certain cultural claims about media, identity,

and technology. They also embody problems like the increased flow of personal

information across networks and fear of increased corporatization of online social and

collaborative spaces and outputs. (Graham 2005).

What cannot be denied is that through the constant use of this new tool new

user’s profiles are being made, thus, affecting, obviously, the tourism industry too.

Nowadays, tourism cannot be understood as just a means of having some enjoyment

and a break from normal, everyday life. In fact, tourism and especially travel is also an

expression of taste, style and a way of establishing class status. We are living the

outbreak of a new tourism era. Contemporary tourism is defined by the appeal to

intellectualism and professionalism.

13

4. The �ew and Upgraded Tourist: What future does it hold!

In order to define the so-called “New tourist" we must take into account several-

present-day-important-theories since this concept is linked to the co-creation element

which is quite new and sometimes unclear.

First approach:

During the 2008 ICT Solutions Conference, which took place at the Rey Juan

Carlos University, the ICT specialist Tirso Maldonado alleged that; the new tourists are

analyzed at different stages, starting at the very moment of the travelling needs until he

comes back home right after the trip.

The classification would be divided as follows:

-“Consumer”,

-“Prosumer”,

-“Adprosumer”.

The “Consumer” is a regular customer who prefers to be helped by tourism

professionals when he plans and books his trips. The Consumer is very loyal to his

principles, he doesn't use the Internet and he prefers package tours.

The “Prosumer” creates his very own product that he will consequently

consume. He uses the Internet, but he doesn’t feedback or creates a view of the journey

and unlike the Consumer, the Prosumer is not a loyal customer. Regarding the kind of

trip he would consume, we can say he is an Alocentric Tourist who makes no use of

package tours. We have to explain here that Alocentric Tourists are those who are

14

attracted to a destination by learning more about the lives of others and those who prefer

to seek pleasure within their own company (Stanley Plog, 1972).

No es exactamente así, si no que al nuevo cliente se le denomina "Adprosumer". Prosumer

porque publica y comparta fotos, videos, comentarios, valoraciones. Consumer porque consume

información generada por otros usuarios y miembros de su red de contactos que tienen un

perfil afín al suyo, y Ad porque cuando tiene una buena experiencia con un producto, servicio,

organización, se convierte en el hombre anuncio. La mejor fuerza de venta de cualquier OMD.

Finally “Adprosumer” is the result of adding The Prosumer and the 2.0

complement. This costumer frequently publishes and reports on the Internet about his

trips and at some point he “loyalize” the destination, meaning that, although he doesn’t

come back to the place reported, his feedback helps other people when planning to go

to the destination.

Second approach:

The second approach is what we call "The 5 i's Theory" by Isaac Vidal (2006),

Marketing and Communications Area Director of the Valencian Bureau of Tourism.

The 5 i's refer to the 5 i's costumer, who is reported as Informado (Informed), Infiel

(Unloyal), Innovador (Innovative), Ilusionado (Excited) and Impaciente (Impatient).

These concepts are the stages that the customer goes through when he needs to travel

and to use the Internet.

The customer is very well informed thanks to all the data and the unlimited

information that exists on the Internet, but this also can lead him to a big indecision yet

because of all the blogs and information which could alter his purchase behavior. The

15

customer becomes also an innovative user because he is concerned about the use and

running of new tools (web 2.0). All the information that the costumer finds on the

Internet leads him to believe that, at the destination, he will find what he has been

looking for, and this “Nirvana” makes him feel excited and satisfied and therefore he

becomes impatient when he needs to satisfy his traveling needs in a short period of time.

5. A Short Journey on the Spanish Tourism Context

Spain is one of the leading powers in tourist industry according to UNWT (2008)

Statistics and surveys show that Spain is one of the most important destinations in the

world. Spain received 57’4 million foreign tourists in 2008 (IET, Spanish Tourism

Studies Institutes, 2008). Nevertheless, the UNWTO announced that Spain could have

lost its second place in the most-tourist-country ranking in 2008, descending on the

third position, behind France and the USA. Forecast for 2020 places Spain between

fourth and fifth place in the ranking. That should lead Spanish tourist administrators to

search new ways of selling their products in a much more competitive business world,

in order to avoid a “free-fall” of role of Spain in the International tourism context. As

the Spanish Tourism Studies Institute (IET) has mentioned, during the year 2008,

Spain’s residents travelled more than during 2007 (Table 2.), recording an increase of

7%, but both, national and international Spanish tourism markets, have a negative

perspective indeed because of the world financial and economical crisis. It seems that

betting for new forms of marketing is a good alternative to keep increasing in

consolidated markets and reach new emerging markets. In order to analyze and

understand how Spain has adopted new technology in tourism industry, a brief historical

process will be explained below.

16

Table 2. International Tourist Arrivals

International Tourist Arrivals Rank Million Change (%) Series

1 2006 2007* 06/05 07*/06

1 France TF 78.9 81.9 3.9 3.8

2 Spain TF 58.2 59.2 4.1 1.7

3 United States TF 51.0 56.0 3.6 9.8

4 China TF 49.9 54.7 6.6 9.6

5 Italy TF 41.1 43.7 12.4 6.3

6 United Kingdom TF 30.7 30.7 9.3 0.1

7 Germany TCE 23.5 24.4 10.1 3.9

8 Ukraine TF 18.9 23.1 7.4 22.1

9 Turkey TF 18.9 22.2 -6.7 17.6

10 Mexico TF 21.4 21.4 -2.6 0.3

Source: World Tourism Organization, (UNWTO), (2008)

All in all, one of the most important technological advances was the spreading of

Internet using. Thanks to the implantation of web 2.0 Internet produced important

transformations in the tourist sector, especially in the private sector. Spanish business

reaches the European Union average of Internet using. But the average of the particular

users is 5% lower comparing with the European Union average. Only 20% of Spanish

people bought products using Internet, while the European average is of 32%. The

European Union says that this market has a fast growth in Spain. Social webs are the

protagonist of the Spanish Internet Use. In fact, according to current studies, Spain is

the second larger user of social-webs in Europe, just behind United Kingdom (El País,

2009). The public administrations, concerning destinations, are at the beginning of a

long path in the implantation of this technology but we can find some examples such as:

Madrid, La Palma, La Rioja and Comunidad Valenciana.

According to the annual report from 2008 made by The Spanish Inbound

Tourism Survey (FRO6TUR) about International Tourist Using Internet Relating with

17

the Journey, from a total of 55 675 618 tourists, more than 50% used Internet for

searching information, booking and paying transport, accommodation and activities.

Nevertheless, still there are enormous regional differences in the access and use

of Internet in Spain. Big cities as Madrid, Barcelona or Valencia have easier access and

much more users than small towns in the South-West of the country.

On the other hand, Spanish Government has developed a plan for increase the

investment in technology and innovation. The so called “Plan 6acional de I+D+I”

(National Plan of I+D+I) held by the Innovation and Science Office, is trying to help

companies and local administration to improve their technological equipments and to

impel new researches in technology. For that reason, this plan has developed different

strategic actions such as the “Avanza (Advance) programs, focused on

telecommunications and information technologies. Tourist industry will be beneficed by

these programs.

All the same, it seems that the new-line in technology implementation is the use

of Web 2.0. to co-create in the product design process. Are the tourist destination

administrators and managers using this new tool successfully?

18

6. Study of the range of Web 2.0 and co-creation practices

implemented in the Spanish tourism market.

6.1 Methodology:

The goal of our research was to determine the role of co-creation in innovative

strategies implemented by the Spanish DMO-s (Destination Management Organizations.

The structure of our work is the following: 1. Literature study. 2. Qualitative analysis a)

In-depth tourist expert interviews in order to analyses the suppliers’ perspective. b)

Focus group, Internet and web 2.0 adapted: Post in a social network for tourism

professionals with the intention of analyzing the demand point of view. 3. Observation

and analysis of real life destination 2.0 websites.

The literature study provided the necessary background and basis to generate

general insights about the Web 2.0. General concept related information and documents

were consulted. Several papers presenting research at the Spanish leading tourism ICT

conference TURITEC in the year 2008 were the main sources to achieve this general

understanding as well as to ascertain the approach of our research. Furthermore, a

decision was made to initiate in-depth expert semi structured interviews (see Appendix

1). Eight Spanish experts where consulted during the last week of February and the first

fortnight of March 2009 (see Appendix 2). The chosen individuals are indeed ‘elite

interviewees’ in the Spanish tourism ICT scope, since they occupy representative

positions in the field in different tourism companies. The Spanish tourism fair FITUR

was a good opportunity to get in contact with some of the interviewees while others

were reached via Comunidad Hosteltur, a social networking Website for tourism

professionals.

19

Due to the impossibility of undertaking interviews face-to-face, phone call was

considered the best option. A test interview was performed to a tourism ICT researcher.

The test was proved to be a good starting point since some mistakes and technical

failures were identified and taken into account in further interviews. Half an hour was

the average time employed to discuss all the topics satisfactorily.

The social networking website mentioned above, Comunidad Hosteltur (see

Appendix 3), was also used to post a blog on the 03/03/2009 regarding the topic of our

research in an attempt to initiate a debate to identify the different opinions, as an online

possibility for a focus group.

In order to make a selection of a paradigmatic DMO’s website among the seven

different real life official platforms in the frame of the Spanish entities two criteria were

followed.

The first criterion was a consulting-based selection, for which the panel of

experts was asked to state several remarkable DMO’s Website. This allowed collecting

a data base that included nine official websites. A non Spanish destination website

example was also analyzed since several experts mention it as an interesting example.

We also decided it would provide a possibility of comparison and would give us an idea

of the Spanish websites situation. For the final selection, a list of the main 2.0 items

was elaborated. A review of the literature reveals that there is a wide range of electronic

media such as email, instant messaging, websites, blogs, virtual communities,

chatrooms, product review sites, photo-sharing, video-sharing, podcasts, interactive

geographical referencing, etc. (Litvin, S.W et al. 2008; Alonso Amedia, M. et al., 2008).

Nevertheless, not all of them are considered to be part of the co-creation system. The

list elaborated for this research was built on the Web 2.0 framework (Fundación Orange,

20

Internality) and with the collaboration of one of the experts interviewed. Other issues

were also included regarding the users in an attempt to take the participation and use of

the chosen website into consideration. If these issues had not been included, this

research would have been meaningless because the supply of a 2.0 website from a DMO

does not guarantee the co-creation between the different actors. Later on, we will

illustrate Table 3, which displays the items included in the different Spanish DMO’s

websites that were analyzed. The selection was made as the result of a simple

comparison among the different websites with the most completed one being chosen.

6.2 Results.

In-depth tourist expert interviews

As a part of our research, as mentioned above, a selection of the Spanish tourist

and marketing industry’s top experts were asked what they think about the use of new

technology and strategies of co-creation in destination marketing. An elaborated semi

structured questionnaire for all participants in these “in-depth” interviews made analysis

and interpretation easier afterwards.

The analysis revealed that companies in the tourism industry mainly implement,

in a wide range, the use of Internet but, nevertheless, this fact does not bring a more

effective customer implication. Therefore, according to the experts, in spite of the fact

that the impact of Internet and the turning up of New Channels of communication has

been crucial in the tourist commercialization in the last 5-10 years, there is still a lack of

general knowledge and implantation of the web 2.0. as a tool to implement co-creation

strategies in the destination product design.

21

All experts agree that Internet is a bilateral information channel and there is no

doubt that by using Internet there is not need of distributor in commercial transactions

between customers and companies. Direct commercialization is one of the clear results

and consequence of the use of Internet. Thus, as some of the experts point out, Internet

has promoted the improvement of a much more direct user-company relationship,

although none mentioned if we have already reach the last step of the five-level-list

elaborated by Matt Rhode to analyze the co-creation experience (see above).

However, it seems that Destination Marketing Organizations (DMO’s) are not

taking advantage of all of the potential opportunities that a bilateral information channel

as Internet offers and, by the moment, they are just making a partial use of these

opportunities. Most of the interviewed experts agree that the Web 2.0. represents a

management change and an alteration in the making process. Contrary to what DMO’s

are doing, experts estimate that Web 2.0. and co-creation can be used at all levels

including internal uses in a company. Indeed, by interiorizing the Web2.0 from a

company or firm (DMO’s in our case), the internal structure of contact with customer

changes from a vertical to a more horizontal one. Although experts reach to see this

change, they conclude that process of change is still slow. And under their point-of-

view, that is dangerous because it could be mean a lack of competitively and capacity.

Therefore, our panel of experts proposes an evolution of the DMO’s

management, which also means that local companies must be evolved if Spain really

wants to reach the “destinations 2.0” level in every relevant targeted destination. Thus,

new management policy with new approaches and attitudes must be introduced in

22

destinations. Consequent to this approach, an expert has defended the use of coaching

for those who will be in charge of managing the content of the web.

One general idea is shared by each expert: the function of the Web2.0 is to make

clients (users) be heard. Destinations need to know what clients (tourists) really think

about them. By having information from consumers, destinations can elaborate a list of

pros and cons that can be used to improve the destination product. In fact, the displayed

user-made information affects the DMO’s decision making. Nevertheless, a specific

question that calls our attention is: the control of the information published by

consumers in the Web thanks to 2.0. technology. It is not difficult to guess that DMOs

have fear of the uncontrolled reviews published by the users. Consumers can be very

captious and accurate when they analyze a destination. Many personal negative opinions

could sink many tourism businesses in economical terms if these opinions are taken into

consideration by a large number of tourists. That’s the reason why most of the

destination webs have some kind of control. There is not legislation about it and it is not

clear if DMOs should censure contents in their webs or should let consumers publish

whatever they wish in order to create a real “experience environment” aiming to use it

in a co-creation process. Some control comes from the fact that every consumer/user

must register firstly and have a profile. According to some experts, the credibility of any

post comes from the respect and reputation of the user in the web-community.

Another factor that has been taken into account is the peculiar and unambiguous

political structure of Spain. That means that policy in tourism affair has been transferred

to each of their political autonomous regions. To what extent is the Spanish tourist

destination policy affected by this political structure? We found different perspectives

23

from our panel of experts. Some of them think that Spain and the management of

Web2.0 from DMO is not affected by this particular structure. However, some others

think that Spanish political structure make not easy a collaboration between public and

private sector, and between national, regional and local communities and

administrations.

That can explain the lower use of Internet in Spain in comparison to other

developed countries. Again, this asseveration is not shared by all experts. Some think

that Spain is far away from the use-level of Internet and Web2.0 in USA. Other experts

think that Spain is not only close to USA but point out (supported by some press articles)

that Spain is the European country with more social communities on-line. A good

example is Tuenti, a Spanish social community that had a large and fast development

during 2008, becoming a strong rival of Facebook in Spanish native-speakers countries.

Among other opinions given by the experts, it is important to conclude that the

implantation of Web2.0. should be done both in small and big destinations. Also,

according to experts, it is vital not to forget that any approach to consumer must be done

taking into consideration each segment of the tourist audience. In fact, elder people in

Spain do not use new technologies as much as Nordic elder people, and therefore

DMOs can not focus on them as easy as on younger users.

To conclude, the web’s managers agree that there has not been any clear and free

co-creation strategy in the Spanish destinations because they have been working on it

during a short period of time. However, they predict and estimate that results will arise

and emerge soon.

24

Focus group, Internet and web 2.0 adapted: Post in a social network for

tourism professionals

As part of understanding all different perspectives, and interested in the demand

perception, we targeted our on-line focus group to tourists and tourism interested

individuals, since the blog was posted in a tourism social network. Interesting points of

views were observed.

We wrote a critical article, where we let in evidence our general disappointment

with the lack of implantation of the Web 2.0 in the Spanish destinations, with the

intention of gaining plenty of participation. We observed different reactions to our point

of view. For some, DMOs are behind the private destination companies. But others said

that the companies were also left behind compared to international standards. Many

agreed, not without showing some frustration, that some websites are still 1.0. And

destinations are still expecting to “captivate” tourists by giving them the official

information.

There was a general opinion that DMOs are frightened to openly receive

opinions and have users being able to communicate among themselves. Another

important general idea is that destinations managers still don’t know the potential

benefits of the implantation of the Web 2.0, or are in the worst cases not even familiar

with the concept.

25

Combining both examples set by the experts and the people who commented on

our post we proceeded to complete a Web 2.0 table (Table 3), with al the examples set

by the experts and gained by comments to our Post.

Observation and analysis of real life destination 2.0 websites

Seven Spanish websites and one international one were analyzed. The items on

the left provided the reference of data to be search in each webpage. By doing so we

could visually compare the implantations levels of the 2.0 tools. As mention in the

methodology we have used the New Zealand example since many experts mention it.

We also thought it would provide an international reference for the Spanish websites.

When analyzing the data we’ve reached some main conclusions; some of the

Spanish websites only provide information in Spanish. While others seem to be more

internationally focused as they include different languages. We can also see that

webblogs and videoblogs are not available in some of the analyzed webs. Therefore, the

user content can’t really be generated.

It is also shown that, none of the pages have content being created by the use of

wikis, and no Spanish case has a network. On the other hand, in all this pages one must

register himself for to be allowed to participate. Regarding the registration and number

of users we can observe that the Spanish websites are recent and for this reason the

users’ numbers are low.

26

It is important to mention that the development cycle, which means the needed

time for upgrading new information varies in each case. We’ve come to the conclusion

that the webs with a slower development cycle are the ones with more official

information and less user generated content.

Finally, the criterion used to classify the webs was: participative (official web,

comments, and punctuation, controlled content, there’s only collective intelligence.)

Collaborative (official web, conversation, semi-controlled content, collective

intelligence and users relations.) active (under the institutional umbrella, generates

experiences, sensation transfers, collective intelligence, the client is the star, users

relations, knowledge is generated.)

To conclude, once we have analyzed pros and cons of each chosen web, the next

step was to designate the best case option to be asset and evaluated. According to our

research and taking into account all criterion data results, La Palma seemed to be the

most suitable case.

27

Table 3: Destination Websites comparison according to the Web 2.0 criteria (see Appendix 5).

Lanzarote

La Palma

Madrid

Marbella

Soria

Valencian

community

La Rioja

New

Zealand

.

Language 3

English

Spanish

German

1

Spanish

6

Spanish

English

French

Russian

Chinese

Japanese

2

Spanish

English

1

Spanish

7

Spanish,

Valencian

english

French,

German

Chinese

Japanese

1

Spanish

6

English

German

Japanese

Chinese

Korean

Users Yes 109 680 No No Chat: 20080

Forum:20304

87 70

Weblogs Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes

Podcasting No Yes No No No No No No

Videoblogs No Yes No No No No No 188

Wikis No No No No No No No No

Maps Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes

Social networks

(groups)

Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes

Networking No No No No No No No Yes

Tagging No Yes Yes No No No Yes No

Pictures Yes 454 3357 Yes Yes No Yes 731

Videos Yes 38 32 No No No No 188

Searchers Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes

Creative

Commons

No Yes No No No No Yes Yes

Recommendations Yes, Yes No Yes No Yes No No

User contents Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes

Content and news

with user’s votes.

No Yes Yes No No No Yes No

Ideas panel No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No

Register Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

User profile

according activity.

Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No

Information

Quality

Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No

Development

cycle.

24/7 24/7 Weekly Information

not available

Weekly Weekly 24/7 24/7

RSS No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Web Type Colaborative Active Participative Participavive Participative Colaborative Active Active

Source: Our research, based on the visual Web 2.0 map of the Fundación Orange and

Internality (2007). Some Items with the collaboration of Tirso Maldonado, and our own

web analysis.

As shown in Table 1. although recent (it was launched just a month ago), the

most complete example that we found during this research according to our point-of-

view is La Palma’s website.

28

7. Destination, website and the co-creation experience: La Palma:

The Beautiful Island

The island of La Palma belongs to the Canaries’ archipelago, located 100km

from the west coast of Africa. On the archipelago there are 7 major islands and all of

them have a volcanic ground. La Palma is known as the green and black Island for its

exuberant forests and the characteristic volcanic black soil. Its maximum height in the

Roque of the Boys is 2.426 m above the sea level and the base of the island is located

almost 400 m below sea level. Its capital is Santa Cruz de la Palma where the hugest

telescope in the world “Gran Telescopio Canarias” (Great Telescope Canary) is

situated.

Problem of identification: An ignored wealth in the African Atlantic waters

Colective imagination included La Palma as a beach and sun destination as long

as the rest of the Canary Islands. Supporting that wrong idea, most of the tourist

approach to the island did not take advantage of its outstanding wilderness and potential

ecotourist and adventure-tourism activities. Thus, a lack of real tourist marketing

plannning for the island was obvious. Promotion of La Palma was focused on beaches

and since the island has not the best beaches of the archipelago, its position in the

tourism market was mistaken.

That was clear from the beginning for the group of tourism technology consultants

who have developed the current La Palma social network with the aid and support of

29

local agents. These consultants realized that a problem of identification was to be

resolved. Several elements called their attention:

• Unclear identification of a name or a logo used by destination, since the were

using 2 logos.

• False “Sun & Beach” image, with the result of many unsatisfied visitors.

• A lack of cooperation and integrated policy between the local councils and

deputies.

• Tourist Information Front Desk with not up-dated information.

Proposals and development of the project: Let’s work together

In La Palma case, tourism developers and consultants made a succesful attempt

to involve local agents in the participation and decisions making process. By creating

content via wiki, meaning user content that anybody can create, edit or comment, which

is used to promote free participation from users in a website, they invited a large

number of local organizations, politicians and tourist experts to identify positive and

negative impacts of the current tourist planning in order to rebuild a new idea of tourism

for La Palma. They wanted to obtain a frame-work of solutions by using collective

intellingences and brain-storming techniques.

The people consulted were:

� La Palma Government

� Instituto Tecnológico Canario (Canary Technological Institute)

� Agencia Canaria de Investigación, Innovación y Sociedad de la Información

(Canary Research Innovation and Information Agency)

� SODEPAL (La Palma Promotion and Economical Development Society)

30

� Tourist Council

� Local city councils

� Ashotel

� Local tourist associations

� Local journalist

� Tourist Offices

� ADER (La Palma Rural Development Association)

� “Isla Bonita” Association

� Natour Trecking

� Inbound travel agencies

� Tour Operators

� Non-regular accommodation representers

� CIT’s (Tourist Initative Centre)

All these participants had in common a professional dedication and commitment in

tourism or related fields. No regular citizens were allowed to participate in the wiki

pre-project. However, all of the agents listed above had a complete access to creating,

editing or commenting in the previously built website for this purpose.

The starting point of the project arose in a conference on 2.0. tools and tourism

during summer 2008 (Innotour 2009). Experts in the topic such as Juan Llantada, Tirso

Maldonado and Lasse Rouhiainen backed the spread of the 2.0. tools in the tourism

industry. Immediately loads of ideas came and went from all participants and without

delay a sort of think-tank in the topic was created by setting up a pre-website using

wiki tools as it has been mentioned above. This wiki creation was a prelude of the

current La Palma’s social network. The main feature of the wiki creation project was

31

its own constitution and development under a sharing idea of co-creation. All kind of

experts and agents were able to participate. Its achievement was not to develop a

website to co-create, but to co-create the development of a website.

Each participant had to create a profile to sign up in order to upload new ideas, ongoing

projects and programs. Within a period of few days participants had free access to

change or edit any former comment, post or idea. Workshops were also established to

inform, to debate, to determine and to give advice on such a relevant topics as

unification of La Palma’s image, clarification and definition of the tourist products of

the island, and the innovation and renewing of these products.

Consolidation and solutions: re-defining La Palma

Among the solutions provided by this co-creation process, a large number of suitable

actions were taken to improve La Palma’s tourist context. Aiming to attract visitors to

the island, it was suggested to re-define the marketing and promotion planning for La

Palma. The main goal was to consolidate a type of tourism that really fits in with La

Palma’s attributes. A new planning was elaborated to mature a necessary personality for

the island, which would serve as the point of tourist attraction for any future visitors.

Thus, the main tourist products such as trekking and eco-tourism started to play an

important and crucial role in the construction of this new personality or image. Under

the creation of a new and modern website, several actions were added to this integrated

plan. Most of these actions were based on three main concepts:

1. A common image and slogan for La Palma. Thus, it was decided to use “Isla

bonita” (Beautiful Island) to promote it. The logo is a remembrance of the high

peaks above the sea level.

32

2. Trekking as the main attractive activity in the island. Of all modes of travel, it is

trekking in the areas of solitude that most gives rise to a romantic gaze and

almost spiritual meaning. Several factors have had influence on this change from

“Sun & beaches destination” to trekking-adventure & eco-tourist destination:

a. More than 1000 km of official tracks

b. A National Park (La Caldera de Taburiente)

c. Sustainable destination

d. Good weather conditions all year long

e. Diversity of landscapes

f. Reserve of Biosphere

3. Selling experiences. It will fulfill the visitor’s expectations. La Palma offers a

wide number of choices to be part of an experience. Beneficiaries of this

Experience-based tourism exist (local business, local councils, etc.). It is

possible to mix different fields of business in a common tourist experience.

Thus, for example, it is available to do trekking through bananas plantations

supporting and promoting local products as bananas. Other example is the

tourism of the “stars”. Having the great opportunity to hold one of the most

important observatories of the world in La Palma, promotion of stars seeing

activities are compulsory.

Once all these lines and actions were clarified, a website was designed as the final

step of this co-creation process. This website (www.lapalma.es) has been created to be

more than just a simple common destination website. The co-creation process behind it

showed that, nowdays, to provide information, videos and pictures it is not enough. It

was necessary to design a web where users could share experiences. Therefore, La

Palma website was formulated to give answer to that demand. This strategy of

33

experiental marketing was part of the actions implemented to connect New Tourist and

La Palma. Thus, this web not only allows to get information about accommodation,

restaurants, paths-tracks, leisure places or advice to travel. It also has a networking

(based on professionals) of people who interact between them. The idea of the founders

of this web is to fill in the contents with information provided by users. Blogs and post

will be future non-official informations used for advices and recommendations. This

information will help to develop new ideas in tourism activities in La Palma. Therefore,

a circle of information-transfer is made: a website is designed as a result of sharing

information and ideas thanks to a co-creation process, and a space of experience is

created to co-operate in designing the new tourist product of La Palma destination.

Nevertheless, it is not expected that tourists will contribute to a high porcentage of

the contents in this web. Locals will be more important in contributing to the

improvement of the contents and generating information than any tourist or visitor. That

is the reason why the new website is suitable for any new local business or organization.

Tourism would be widely spread if locals decided to participate in the Web. That would

bring more benefits to the local community.

Aiming to gain more local users, La Palma website promoters have designed a

number of strategies to call the attention of the local community. For example, food and

photography contest in the web. These contests are in fact a way to engage consumers

with the new web and, therefore, to open the product and information to local people.

34

8. General Conclusion

Firstly we must say that our primary idea about Web 2.0 and the idea of co-

creation in tourist destinations were wrong and so during the process of making this

research we have gained knowledge beyond our initial expectations.

After the analysis of our research we agree on some conclusions that we

consider important to take into consideration. Once we have compared theory and real

cases, it seems clear to us that co-creation is still in a primary stage in general terms

according to what Spanish tourism companies and DMOs are doing. However, Web 2.0

tools are quite popular.

The implantation or the real Web 2.0 must be preceded by a good strategy and

marketing plan. Travel 2.0 is not only about Internet. However there’s no doubt that

Internet and especially the Web 2.0 tools are a bilateral communication channel. These

strategic plans must be continually updated and all tourism agents involved must know

its content; training is essential and each participant must know the meaning of Web 2.0.

and which are the main destinations and valuable products. And most of all DMO must

know that having videos or pictures doesn’t make your web 2.0, it is much more.

One more wrong conception regarding co-creation and Web 2.0 for destinations

is that the web management is not to be made only by the local town council, tourist

destinations are a complex system of local companies, citizens and deputies and so

synergies are necessary for the creation of the tourist product. It’s a new concept of

tourist destination and DMOs are not applying it. They should explore new ideas and

35

ways to contact with costumers and make them participate in activities of creation in

their websites. But since it is difficult to obtain participants, it is possible to create

contests, games and local artists can use them to share their pictures of the destination

they live in.

Travel 2.0. is an important tool in destination marketing. Destinations harness

new technologies and their effects. They can create and modify some products because

these tools are within the reach of a lot of people. However it is important to know that

not all tourist segments are reachable by using the web. Although the tendency of

Internet use is growing the major potential visitors are left behind.

Now, talking about co-creation through Internet in Spain it’s too early, given

that the Spanish websites are recently created. We can say that probably most of the

analyzed webs are in the redesign step of Rhodes (2008) co-creation series. The

application of the 2.0 tools exists; but at a level that it’s only changing the service and

relation between the users and the DMOs, but is not affecting the product itself. This is

possible because DMOs are worried of losing its image.

9. Suggestions and recommendations

Firstly, a website of information and interaction that will be consulted by

national and international tourists like the above explained should be at least translated

into English or more languages. It is supposed that local administration and local

businesses are interested in tourists and, therefore should be open to World tourist

demand. For that reason, the official information should be in other languages, since

most of the tourist visitors are non-Spanish speakers. To improve user content in other

36

languages, some marketing strategies can be developed contests like a “destination

related story tale in awards” in English .

Secondly, according to our point of view, networking should use wiki tools in

order to make the web a free space of information. Allowing data to be generated by

using wikis promotes a bulk of collective intelligence interaction that companies and

firms could use. Not only professionals would know the opinion from the locals and

tourists, but the website could be used as a company’s meeting point: a space to share

information, develop new strategies, etc. In conclusion, a place of reference. And so

provinding a meeting point not only for local deputies and companies but also for the

destination interested companies.

Other aspect to comment is the potential limitations and disadvantages of the

lack of participation from local citizens. The selection of participants is normally made

either by the professional planners or by the interested groups who wish to see the

proposals go ahead. However, we think locals would be the ones with a real interest in

the destination. Moreover, locals can provide unofficial information, pictures, videos

and comments. We firmily believe that the local population would persue the execution

of ideas generated in the webs. From the other perpective we can support our view by

mentioning that travelers prefer general websites like tripadvisor or travbuddy to

register, create profiles and share experiences. Having to do so in every destination

website would be exhausting.

37

10. References

Alonso Amedia, M. et al. (2008). El impacto de la tecnología social en las decisiones

de consumo turístico.

http://www.turismo.uma.es/turitec/turitec/paginas/articulos/actas_turitec_pdf/L19_A19.

pdf (Turitec 2008 ) (Data from 02/17/2009)

Anderson, David M. (2004)"Build-to-Order & Mass Customization, the Ultimate

Supply Chain and Lean Manufacturing Strategy for Low-Cost On-Demand Production

without Forecasts or Inventory," ; www.build-to-order-consulting.com/books.htm (Data

from 02/28/2009)

Diéguez Castrillón M.I., Sinde Cantorna A.I., Gueimonde Canto A.I., (2008). New

technologies and managerial results: The case of Rural Galician Tourism. University of

Vigo. Vigo, Spain.

Binkhorst. E. (2005). The Co-Creation tourism experience. Whitepaper Co-creation.

Sitges. http://www.atlas-euro.org/pages/pdf/WUbarcelona/WU%20txt%20Groters-

binkhorst%20experiences.pdf (Data from 03/02/2009)

El País (date of pulication?)

Hinchcliffe, Dion. (2007). ROI for enterprise 2.0: Collaborative research in new

product design.

http://opengardensblog.futuretext.com/archives/2007/08/roi_for_enterpr.html (Data

from 03/08/2009)

Huertas Roig A., (2008). Application of the web 2.0 to the tourist destinations:

implantation and differences.(TuriTec 2008) (University Rovira iI Virgili)

Jaume Mayol J., Tudiri Vila A., (2008). Index of Technological maturity in the Hotel

Sector” (Balears Isles)(TuriTec 2008)

38

Jun, S.H., Vogt, C.A. & Mackay, K.J. (2007) “Relationships between travel

information search and travel product purchase in pretrip context”. Journal of Travel

Research. Vol. 45 (3). 266-274.

Koert de Jager (2008). The New Tourist and Co-Creation as a Key Element of

Tourism: Destinations’ Competitiveness. (article from the 40th anniversary of the

Budapest Business School)

www.hah.hu/opendoc.php?fn=Kurt_de_Jager_Bpresentation.doc (Data from

01/31/2009)

Krawtchenko, P., Morel-Guimaraes, L., & Boly, V. (2004). Implementing customer

relationship attitudes mapping to improve new product development. IAMOT

Conference. Washington D.C. pp. 1-10.

Litvin, S.W et al. (2008). Electronic word-of-mouth in hospitality and tourism

management. College of Business and Economics, USA Florida State University, USA

Mapa Web 2.0. (2007). Fundacion Orange, Internality. Barcelona.

www.internality.com/web20 (Data from 02/10/2009)

Maldonado, Tirso (2004), Consumer, prosumer, adprosumer.

http://tirsomaldonado.com/ (Data from 03/02/2009)

McKenna, Regis (1997). Real Time. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

O, Reilly, T (2006). Web 2.0. compact definition. Trying aganin. . Available at:

http://radar.oreilly.com/2006/12/web-20-compact-definition-tryi.html (Data from

03/04/2009)

Plog, Stanley (1972) Book: Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity. The

Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quaterly.

Prahalad, C.K. & Ramaswamy, V. (2004) The future of competition: co-creating

unique value with customers. Boston: Harvard Business School Press

39

Ramaswamy, V. (2008). “Co-Creation value through customers’ experiences: the Nike

case”. Strategy & Leadeship, 36 (5): 9-14.

Thompson, K. (2008). Tourist decision making and the service centred dominant logic

of marketing. CAUTHE 2008 Conference (Where the Bloody Hell Are We?).

Rhode, Matt (2008). Co-Creation Series .http://blog.freshnetworks.com/category/

series/co-creation-series (Data from 02/28/2009)

Tseng, M.M.; Jiao, J. (2001), Mass Customization, in: Handbook of Industrial

Engineering, Technology and Operation Management.

http://www3.ntu.edu.sg/mae/Admin/Divisions/systems/Faculty/Page%20Document/Tec

hnovation_MC.pdf (Data from 03/01/2009)

Vargo, S.L. & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a 6ew Dominant Logic for Marketing.

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68, 1-17.

Vidal, Isaac (2006). The5 i's Theory. http://isaacvidal.blogspot.com/2006/11/turista-20-

un-cliente-4-i.html (Data from 03/25/2009)

William E., Pérez Martell E., (2008). Tourism 2.0: the social web like platform of

develop and ecosystem based on the knowledge.

http://www.slideshare.net/eduwilliam/tourism-20-definition-and-key-concepts. (Data

from 03/21/2009)

William, E (2008). From travel 2.0. to tourism 2.0. Available at:

http://www.eduwilliam.com/index.php?s=travel+2.0 (Data from 03/21/2009)

40

11. Appendix

Appendix 1. Semi-structured Interview Questionnaire

Introduction

We are the Rey Juan Carlos University students and we are in the creation process

of a Co-Creation and Web 2.0 in Destination case study. The interview is planned

to last 30 minutes and we have structured it by themes.

I. �ew Tendencies

What changes have occurred in tourism marketing during the last 5-10 years?

Regarding consumers and DMO, which has been the technological impact?

II. �ew Tourist

Which are the new tourist profiles?

What is a tourist expecting from a travelers community? And from a destination website?

Do tourists need to be deeply involved with a destination to participate in its website?

Are segments being left out? (Which ones)

III. Web 2.0

How do destination websites manage to capture tourist participation?

41

Are there different web 2.0 implantation levels for destinations? Which ones?

How do different agents play their roles?

Which would be the perfect combination for official and user generated content?

From the user’s point of view, is this new tool more reliable than traditional methods?

Do you think that the fear of losing control over the destination global image is one of

the reasons why DMOs are not considering web 2.0 implantation?

IV. Spain, analyzing Spain now

How does the Spanish political, economical and administrative structure affects the use

of the web 2.0 by a DMO?

Are state funds available for destinations wanting to apply for web 2.0?

Is there cooperation between different state agencies? And between the public and

private sectors?

Are you of the opinion that our companies and state agencies behind in comparison to

other countries?

Our state tourist agencies seem to be only using some of the web 2.0 tools, like youtube

channels, or isolated blogs. Do you agree? Is there a reason for this?

Regarding the 2.0 process, do you know any examples destination well known? In

Spain?

42

How is the world financial and economic crisis affecting the web 2.0 development?

V. Co-Creation, let’s talk now about co-creation.

In the web 2.0 the user-user information is quite valuable, but are DMOs using the user

generated information?

Do you know real life destination examples, which have changed their products or

marketing strategies by using the web 2.0?

Are today’s 2.0 tourist networks only for promotion or are they co-creating?

In which level does consumers’ integration in the co-creation process benefits the

tourist market?

VI. Regarding the website. (This part was only asked to DMO websites related

experts)

How did the whole idea came up?

What exactly is it?

What is for you the most important concept?

What is more important for the users ? What is the most popular item?

In which way is your website different from other destinations websites?

How do you use a user generated information? Who studies it? Do you pass on this

information?

43

Have the marketing strategies changed because of the user generated content? Is there

any influence on the communication strategies? Are some products, service or activity

design changing?

Are there any statistics regarding the visiting impact the website is having on tourists?

Can you tell us an approximate percentage (of members, users, registers) of the visits to

the website made by foreigners?

Are users faithful to this website?

Are services personalized?

Do you have any control over swearwords? And over negative contents?

What strategies do you use to attract new users? To generate more content and

opinions?

Which are your expectations for the coming times?

Last but not least

Do you think that the tourist is finding what he is looking for?

What is the next step? What should we expect in the near future?

VII. Acknowledgements

Thank you for your collaboration in our project.

44

Appendix 2. Expert Panel

Interview Expert Professional Profile. Schedule: Date,

Time, and

duration.

Pre-test Cristina Figueroa Rey Juan Carlos

University Marketing

Teacher.

02/25//09

17:00

21’48’’

Expert Nº 1 Jimmy Pons ITH (Hotel Technological

Institute) Marketing and

project director.

02/27/09

11:00

30’50’’

Expert Nº 2 Carlos Hernández Hosteltur Manager. (Social

network for tourism

professionals)

03/04/09

09:00

36’45’’

Expert Nº 3 Joantxo Llantada Valencian Community

Promotion Technician.

(comunitatvalenciana.com)

03/04/09

10:00

27’18’’

Expert Nº 4 Pedro Anton SEGITUR (State Society

for the Management of

Touristic Innovation and

Technologies) Chief

Information Officer..

03/04/09

11:00

20’30’’

Expert Nº 5 Monica Figuerola

La Rioja’s Tourist

Director.

(winesandblog.com)

03/05/09

11:00

9’39’’

Expert Nº 6 Caroline Tensi 4u.esmadrid Marketing

Responsible.

(4u.esmadrid.com)

03/05/09

13:00

28’40’’

Expert Nº 7 Jesús Alvarez University of Barcelona

Technology Teacher.

03/09/09

17:00

21’11’’

Expert Nº 8 Tirso Maldonado Socialtec (Software

development, Web 2.0

formation and consultancy

company) Chief Executive

Officer.

(lapalma.es)

03/1109

15:00

90’56’’

45

Appendix 3. Post “Inversion 2.0: Dinero tirado a la Basura?” Investment 2.0:

Wasted Money? http://comunidad.hosteltur.com/post/2009-03-03-la-inversin-en-2-

0-dinero-tirado-a-la-basura

Appendix 4. Table 3 item’s glossary

Language: is the number and description of the official languages of the websites.

User: When finding data, we’ve provided with the register user’s number.

Webblogs: chronological user provided content.

Podcasting: subscription distributive hearing data.

Videoblogs: video documents; is not the same as sharing videos, in video blogs a

document is created.

Wikis: user content that anybody can create, edit or comment.

46

Groups: people united in a virtual space, to share common interests and who can share,

to mention one, friendship bonds.

�etworking: professional groups with commercial goals.

Tagging: making and classifying tags, which describe or associate different information

in order to classify it.

Searchers: provides the option to search information within the website.

Creative Commons: flexible system of community shared author’s right.

Ideas panel: provides user with the option to give ideas.

Register: we mention here if in order to participate users must register.

User profile according to activity: activity related order; like connected ones, the latest

awarded, etc.

Information Quality: information that has been voted, commented, read, awarded and

so rearranges to be seen at first sight.

Development cycle: is the ability to change home, in a website, to give and example

tome on-line news papers change every hours, while some change once day

RSS: is the subscription tool, that allows receiving data, in which one is interested

Webtype: participative (official web, comments, and punctuation, controlled content,

there’s only collective intelligence.) Collaborative (official web, conversation, semi-

controlled content, collective intelligence and users relations.) active (under the

institutional umbrella, generates experiences, sensation transfers, collective intelligence,

the client is the star, users relations, knowledge is generated.)

47

Appendix 5. Images of the analyzed websites

1) Lanzarote. www.turismolanzarote.com Data from 03/18/2009.

2) La Palma. www.lapalma.es launched on March 2009. Data form 03/18/2009

48

3) Madrid. http://4u.esmadrid.com Data from 03/16/2009

4) Marbella. www.marbella.com Data from 03/16/2009

49

5) Soria. http://www.ayto-soria.org/ Data from 03/15/2009

6) Valencian Community. www.comunitatvalenciana.com/cvlive

Data from 03/16/2009

50

7) La Rioja. www.winesandblogs.com Data from 03/15/2009

8) New Zealand. www.newzealand.com Data from 03/17/2009

a 2.0 travel through spanish destinations spanish...

Documents