How to analyse a destination website.

Methodology and recommendations

IV Destination Branding & Marketing Conference5-7 December 2012Cardiff, Wales

Introduction

José Fernández-Cavia

Position

Research Group

Research Project:

Online Communication for Destination Brands

www.marcasturisticas.org

Introduction

Research Project:

Online Communication for Destination Brands (CODETUR)

FUNDING: Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness

BUDGET: 61.710 €

TIMING: From January 2012 to December 2014

TEAM: 11 researchers form 5 Spanish universities

Main research lines:• Online survey to Spanish DMO managers

• In-depth interview to 10 destinations

• Mobile applications analysis

• Social web analysis

• Official website analysis

Introduction

Why is the Internet so important for destinations?

• “60% of the tourists who visited Spain in 2009 used the internet as a tool for preparing their trip” (Tourism Studies Institute, Spain)

What kind of actions must a destination take in the Web?

• Mainly 3: official website, social web, mobile marketing

official website

Destination’s official website

Every destination has an official website, but…

• is it really attractive?

• does it provide all essential information?

• does it take advantage of the full potential of the Web (getting to know the users, selling services, creating relationships)?

• is it actually persuasive?

• how can we avaluate/assess the adequacy or effectiveness of our website?

Destination’s official website evaluation

Methodology

Different topics must be taken into account:

• Home page

• Quality & quantity of content

• Web architecture

• Usability & accesibility

• Positioning

• Commercialization

• Languages

• Brand image

• Persuasiveness

• Interactivity

• Social web

• Mobile communications

Destination’s official website evaluation

Methodology

Then we select a SET of INDICATORS for each topic:

• Home page: language preliminary selection, easy identification, specific tourism brand, shop online, FAQs…

• Quality & quantity of content: how to get there, lodging, events, institutional info, weather…

• Web architecture: structure, browsing, standard labels, recognisible links, internal search…

• Commercialization: booking and buying systems, integrated checkout…

• Brand image: functional and emotional identity, visual consistency, storytelling…

• Interactivity: multimedia, optional downloadings, interactive map, trip planner, UGC…

• …

Destination’s official website evaluation

Topic considered Number of indicators

Home page 13

Quality and quantity of content 15

Web architecture 10

Usability and accessibility 17

Positioning 8

Commercialization 7

Languages 6

Brand treatment 12

Discursive analyses 8

Interactivity 9

Social web 13

Mobile communications 5

Total 123

Destination’s official website evaluation

Methodology

Each indicator must be searched or assessed in a specific level:

H: Analysis of the Homepage. H+10+10:  Analysis of the Homepage + 10 first level web pages + 10 second level web pages. H+2+2: Analysis of the Homepage + 2 first level web pages + 2 second level web pages. S: Search the entire website. H+S: Analysis of the Homepage + Search in the website.

Destination’s official website evaluation

Methodology

Each indicator has its specific scale:

B2.B

Cómo llegar.Información relativa a cómo llegar al destino desde las distintas vías de comunicación (aeropuertos, mapa de carreteras, estaciones de tren, estaciones de autobús, puertos,…). Explicación:Mal: La web no ofrece esta información.Regular: Hay información sobre cómo llegar pero es poco clara o está incompleta.Bien: Hay información sobre cómo llegar, y además, ofrece enlaces a las principales compañías de vuelos, tres…Muy bien: Hay información de calidad sobre cómo llegar, con horarios, compañías, teléfonos, costes, tiempos de llegada al destino y con un buscador de las regiones del destino. Ej. La web de Nueva Zelanda en al apartado Travel and Distances : http://www.newzealand.com/travel/getting-to-around-nz/travel-times-and-distances/travel-times-and-distances-home.cfm

0-1-2-3

Destination’s official website evaluation

Methodology

Each indicator has its specific weight within the topic:

Topic: A. Home Page

Indicators A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 A13 TOTALLevel of analysis H H H H H H H H H H H H H Scale 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1-2 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 Weight 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3

BRAND CCAA URL Andalucía http://www.andalucia.org/ 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0,94

Cataluña http://www20.gencat.cat/portal/site/catalunya-act

1 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 0,67

Destination’s official website evaluation

Methodology

Then a combined index is built for each topic:

Topic: K Social Web

K. Web Social

Indicators K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 K7 K8 K9 K10 K11 K12 K13 TOTAL

Level of analysis B B B B B B B B H H H H H

Scale 0-1-2 0-1-2 0-1-2 0-1-2 0-1-2 0-1-2-3 0-1-2-3 0-1 0-1-2 0-1-2 0-1-2 0-1-2 0-1-2 Máx.

Weight 3 2 3 5 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 2 86

MARCA CCAA URL

Andalucía http://www.andalucia.org/ 0 2 1 2 0 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 0 0,59Cataluña http://www20.gencat.cat/portal/site/catalu

nya-act0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 0,27

MARCA Capital CCAA

Barcelona http://www.barcelonaturisme.com/ 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 1 2 1 2 0,38

Madrid http://www.esmadrid.com/es/portal.do 0 1 2 1 2 1 3 0 0 1 1 1 0 0,49

Santiago de Compostela http://www.santiagoturismo.com/ 2 2 0 2 2 1 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 0,84

MARCA Región

Rías Baixas http://www.riasbaixas.depo.es/web2009/ 2 0 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 1 1 0,41

MARCA INTERNACIONAL

Estocolmo http://www.visitstockholm.com/ 2 2 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 0 0,35

Gales http://www.visitwales.co.uk/ 0 1 0 0 1 1 3 1 0 1 1 1 0 0,36

Roma http://www.turismoroma.it/ 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0,20Suiza http://www.myswitzerland.com/es/inicio.ht

ml2 2 1 0 2 1 3 1 1 1 2 2 0 0,64

Destination’s official website evaluation

Methodology

Then an overall index is calculated for each website (combining all 12 topics):

TOTALA B C D E F G H I J K L

Pag Ini Conte Arqui UsyAc Posi Comer Idio Marca Discur Inter Social Móvil MARCA CCAA

1 Andalucía 0,94 0,78 0,79 0,60 0,67 0,70 0,41 0,82 0,80 0,43 0,59 0,00 0,632 Cataluña 0,67 0,55 0,74 0,57 0,39 0,30 0,49 0,67 0,60 0,26 0,27 0,00 0,46

MARCA Capital CCAA 1 Barcelona 0,85 0,78 0,68 0,89 0,71 0,88 0,54 0,82 0,30 0,52 0,38 0,77 0,682 Madrid 0,79 0,90 0,79 0,78 0,69 0,50 0,62 0,51 0,30 0,48 0,49 0,00 0,573 Santiago de Compostela 0,79 0,82 0,74 0,59 0,71 0,90 0,62 0,69 0,40 0,72 0,84 0,50 0,69

MARCA Región 1 Rías Baixas 0,52 0,39 0,63 0,40 0,45 0,20 0,35 0,47 0,80 0,17 0,41 0,00 0,40

MARCA INTERNACIONAL 1 Estocolmo 0,73 0,78 0,84 0,81 0,71 0,76 0,76 0,63 1,00 0,39 0,35 0,00 0,652 Gales 0,55 0,76 0,84 0,59 0,69 0,46 0,57 0,65 0,50 0,24 0,36 0,00 0,523 Roma 0,70 0,69 0,84 0,75 0,61 0,32 0,49 0,57 0,50 0,24 0,20 0,00 0,494 Suiza 0,58 0,93 0,74 0,71 0,86 0,72 0,95 0,92 0,60 0,57 0,64 0,73 0,74

Media 0,71 0,74 0,76 0,67 0,65 0,57 0,58 0,68 0,58 0,40 0,45 0,20 0,58

Destination’s official website evaluation

Sample

We applied the template to a sample of 10 diverse destinations (July 2012):

Destination URL

Andalucía http://www.andalucia.org/

Cataluña http://www20.gencat.cat/portal/site/catalunya-act

Barcelona http://www.barcelonaturisme.com/

Madrid http://www.esmadrid.com/

Santiago de Compostela http://www.santiagoturismo.com/

Rías Baixas http://www.riasbaixas.depo.es/web2009/

Stockholm http://www.visitstockholm.com/

Wales http://www.visitwales.co.uk/

Rome http://www.turismoroma.it/

Switzerland http://www.myswitzerland.com/

Results

This methodology allows us to:

a. compare overall results between different destinations (e.g. our direct competitors)

b. discover weak and strong areas (topics) in each website

c. identify good and bad practices

d. recognize in what specific items (indicators) a website is underperforming

Results

a. compare overall results between different destinations (e.g. our direct competitors)

Andal

ucía

Catal

uña

Barce

lona

Madrid

Sant

iago

de

Compo

stel

a

Rías Bai

xas

Stoc

khol

mW

ales

Rome

Switz

erla

nd0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

mean: 0.58

Results

b. discover weak and strong areas (topics) in each website

Home

Page

Conte

nt

Archi

tect

ure

Usabi

lity

Posit

ioni

ng

Trad

ing

Lang

uage

s

Brand

Pers

uasiv

e

Inte

ract

ivity

Socia

l Med

ia

Mobile

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Wales

Mean

Results

b. discover weak and strong areas (topics) in each website

Wales

Website Architecture

Positioning

Usability & Accessibility

Homepage

Languages

Content Quality & Quantity

Interactivity

Web 2.0

Mobile Communication

Persuasiveness

Brand Image

Commercialization

0.00

0.50

1.00Technical Aspects

Communicative Aspects

Relational As-pects

Persuasive Aspects

Results

b. discover weak and strong areas (topics) in each website

Technical As-pects

Communicative Aspects

Relational As-pects

Persuasive As-pects

Wales vs. mean

Results

b. discover weak and strong areas (topics) in each website

Switzerland

Website Architecture

Positioning

Usability & Accessibility

Homepage

Languages

Content Quality & Quantity

Interactivity

Web 2.0

Mobile Communication

Persuasiveness

Brand Image

Commercialization

0.00

0.50

1.00

Technical As-pects

Communicative Aspects

Relational Aspects

Persuasive As-pects

Results

b. discover weak and strong areas (topics) in each website

Switzerland vs. mean

Technical As-pects

Communicative Aspects

Relational As-pects

Persuasive As-pects

Results

c. identify good and bad practices

Andal

ucía

Catal

uña

Barce

lona

Madrid

Sant

iago

de

Compo

stel

a

Rías Bai

xas

Stoc

khol

mW

ales

Rome

Switz

erla

nd0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Home page score for each destination in the sample

d. recognize in what specific items (indicators) a website is underperforming

Results

Home

Page

Conte

nt

Archi

tect

ure

Usabi

lity

Posit

ioni

ng

Trad

ing

Lang

uage

s

Brand

Pers

uasiv

e

Inte

ract

ivity

Socia

l Med

ia

Mobile

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Wales

Mean

Asking languageNo user’s registFAQs hidden

No restaurantsNo flightsNo shopping cart No virtual tour

No UGCNo human click

Results

Does this analysis suggest that a website must contain all the features that other websites offer?

Certainly not.

Not all features are always good for all destinations. It depends on the communicative aims of the website.

But at least this analysis tells us what other competitors are doing in a different way, and forces us to ask why are we not doing the same: because we don’t want to?

Or just because we didn’t know?

A thorough methodology for website evaluation

Specifically built for destinations Some difficults: dynamic objects,

subjectivity (experts choice) Conclusions depend on the website’s

purposes (communication plan) But huge amount of information Useful tool

Conclusions

Thank you very much

Questions welcomed

José Fernández-Caviajose.fernandez@upf.edu

Department of CommunicationUniversitat Pompeu Fabra

Barcelona, Spain