How to analyse a destination website
-
Upload
marcas-turisticas -
Category
Documents
-
view
985 -
download
1
description
Transcript of How to analyse a destination website
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 Ferná[email protected]
Department of CommunicationUniversitat Pompeu Fabra
Barcelona, Spain