7/29/2019 Journal of Travel Research 2011 McKercher 121 32
1/13
http://jtr.sagepub.com/Journal of Travel Research
http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/50/2/121The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0047287510362779
2011 50: 121 originally published online 19 March 2010Journal of Travel ResearchBob McKercher and Basak Denizci Guillet
Are Tourists or Markets Destination Loyal?
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Travel and Tourism Research Association
can be found at:Journal of Travel ResearchAdditional services and information for
http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://jtr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/50/2/121.refs.htmlCitations:
What is This?
- Mar 19, 2010OnlineFirst Version of Record
- Mar 7, 2011Version of Record>>
at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 15, 2012jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/50/2/121http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/50/2/121http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/50/2/121http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.ttra.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jtr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jtr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jtr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://jtr.sagepub.com/content/50/2/121.refs.htmlhttp://jtr.sagepub.com/content/50/2/121.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://jtr.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/03/19/0047287510362779.full.pdfhttp://jtr.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/03/19/0047287510362779.full.pdfhttp://jtr.sagepub.com/content/50/2/121.full.pdfhttp://jtr.sagepub.com/content/50/2/121.full.pdfhttp://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://jtr.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/03/19/0047287510362779.full.pdfhttp://jtr.sagepub.com/content/50/2/121.full.pdfhttp://jtr.sagepub.com/content/50/2/121.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://jtr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.ttra.com/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/50/2/121http://jtr.sagepub.com/7/29/2019 Journal of Travel Research 2011 McKercher 121 32
2/13
Journal of Travel Research50(2) 121132
2011 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permission:sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0047287510362779
http://jtr.sagepub.com
Are Tourists or MarketsDestination Loyal?
Bob McKercher
1
and Basak Denizci Guillet
1
Abstract
This study asks whether individual tourists are destination loyal or whether markets can be considered as loyal? Whileloyalty research has focused on the individual, a strong body of evidence suggests that individual tourists revisit internationaldestinations rarely. Yet overall arrivals from mature markets are largely stable, suggesting some form of loyalty. The proposition
of whether individuals or markets are loyal was tested by examining year-on-year visitation and repeat-visitation intentionsof Hong Kong residents to 11 popular destinations. The study identified low individual repeat visitation intention, but overall
market stability. Moreover, the profiles of actual and intended visitors were virtually identical. By contrast, the profiles ofvisitors to different destinations were substantially different. The study concludes, therefore, that markets are broadly loyal.
The findings have significant implications for destination marketing organizations and also raise questions about tourism
loyalty research.
Keywords
destination loyalty, repeat visitation
Introduction
Are individual international tourists destination loyal? A
substantial body of destination loyalty literature has been
developed based on the presumed validity of this proposition.
Yet a competing body of theoretical work supported by
empirical evidence suggests otherwise. The concept of a loyal
consumer seems to be at odds with the belief that variety seek-
ing is an underlying dimension of travel (Castro, Armario, and
Ruiz 2007; Pearce and Lee 2005). The European Travel Com-
mission (2006) has noted a sharp decline in both destination
and product loyalty as the number of opportunities increases
and travel costs fall, while arrival figures, discussed elsewhere
in this article, indicate that repeat visitors represent a minority
of pleasure tourist arrivals from all but the most proximate of
source markets. Pan, Chon, and Song (2008) also remind us
that tourists are now more activity and interest based than des-
tination based. If tourists are not loyal, then, one would expect
volatility in visitor numbers. Yet arrival figures from mature
outbound markets to established destinations change little overtime, with the exception of periodic shocks caused by exter-
nalities (UNWTO 2005, 2008). As a result, some form of
loyalty behavior must exist at a more macro level. This article
examines the proposition that markets or market segments,
more so than individual tourists, are loyal by examining the
travel patterns of Hong Kong residents to 11 popular destina-
tions. It tests the proposition by comparing actual with intended
visitors to the most popular destinations frequented by Hong
Kong residents. The unit of analysis is the country, or in the
case of Europe other than the United Kingdom, the continent.
Loyalty
Loyal customers are defined as frequent, repeat purchasers
who feel a sense of belonging to an organization and who are
reluctant to change even in the presence of similar offerings
from other firms (Henry 2000). Shoemaker and Lewis (1999)
and Reichheld (2002) note the importance of attitudinal
loyalty, where a strong emotional bond occurs between the
customer and firm, which in turn attaches possessive feel-
ings toward that company. Such customers are unlikely to
switch over small price or service differences and moreover
will often display a level of empathy toward the firm and
its employees not seen in other customers. The consumer
behavior literature stresses the importance of building a loyal
customer as the foundation of product or enterprise success,
for loyal customers provide a solid base of regular, heavy
users who generate a reliable revenue stream. They are also
thought to be the most profitable user group, with the costs
of retaining them substantially less than those associated
with attracting new consumers (Haywood 1989; Rosenbergand Czepiel 1984; Oppermann 2000). The belief exists that
the loss of loyal consumers can threaten the very livelihood
of an organization.
1The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong
Corresponding Author:
Bob McKercher, School of Hotel and Tourism Management, The Hong
Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong
Email: [email protected]
at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 15, 2012jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/7/29/2019 Journal of Travel Research 2011 McKercher 121 32
3/13
122 Journal of Travel Research 50(2)
Loyalty is seen to exist along a continuum ranging from
consumers who show no or low loyalty to the deeply loyal
person, with each having a combination of weak or strong
attitudinal and behavioral measures (Day 1969; Dick and
Basu 1994; Gounaris and Stathakopoulos 2004). The more
loyal person has positive attitudes and high repeat propensity,
while weakly loyal people may still be frequent purchasers,but are not as committed to the product. Weakly loyal indi-
viduals may also be infrequent repeat purchasers. A lack of
loyalty may be attributed to a lack of interest, negative atti-
tude toward the brand or positive attitude toward a competitor
(Rowley and Dawes 2000).
Operationalization of the loyalty construct has proven
challenging, in particular because of difficulties involved in
disaggregating the loyal consumer from the consumer who
engages in habitual buying patterns (Bowen and Shoemaker
2003; Henry 2000; Shoemaker and Bowen 2003). Henry
(2000) argues that loyalty exists only when the customer stays
with a company because the value provided by the company
surpasses that of all other competitors. Loyalty can be mea-sured using feelings and attitudes in the forms of preference,
liking, motivation, trust, or behavior patterns such as actual
repeat business and positive word of mouth (Jacoby and
Chestnut 1978; Backman and Crompton 1991; Backman and
Veldkamp, 1995; Pritchard and Howard 1997; Petrick 2004).
Repeat purchase intention is one common metric used to
measure loyalty (Machleit, Allen, and Madden 1993; Kahn
and Schmittlein 1992).
Destination Loyalty and Tourism
Most destination loyalty research is framed conceptually
within the broader product and service loyalty literature
(Oppermann 1998, 2000; Pritchard and Howard 1997), in
spite of the recognized unique features of tourism. Desti-
nation loyalty measures include willingness to recommend,
intention to return, and actual repeat visitation propensity
(Castro, Armario, and Ruiz 2007; Chen and Gursoy 2001;
Chi and Qu 2008; Kim and Crompton 2002; Niininen, Szivas,
and Riley 2004; Oppermann 2000; Pritchard and Howard
1997; Yoon and Uysal 2005). Demographic variables such as
education, gender, age, and travel behavior are believed to
influence loyalty (Homburg and Giering 2001; Skogland and
Siguaw 2004). Typically, most destinations use either repeat
visitation or repeat visitation intention to define loyal cus-tomers, since these data can be gathered relatively easily in
standard departing visitor surveys conducted by destination
management organizations (DMOs). Both measures are used
in this study.
The degree of loyalty and the underlying likelihood of
tourists ever becoming loyal are still being debated. One
argument holds that tourists may show a high propensity to
be loyal. Tourism is something that must be purchased at a
distance, without the opportunity to pretest before buying. As
such, an elevated level of risk of a poor experience is associ-
ated with trying a new destination, whereas it is lessened
when returning to a known one. Risk aversion, therefore,
may induce loyalty (Jones, Mothersbaugh, and Beatty 2000).
Proponents of this argument identify brand equity, quality,
value and image as well as satisfaction, activity involvement,trust, and risk perception and high switching costs as factors
thought to influence loyalty directly or indirectly (Bowen
and Shoemaker 2003; Chen and Gursoy 2001; Chi and Qu
2008; Huang and Chiu 2006; Jang and Feng 2007; Lee, Graefe,
and Burns 2007; Yoon and Uysal 2005; Yuksel and Yuksel
2007). Others identified social (Morais, Kerstetter, and
Yarnal 2006) or demographic (Homburg and Giering 2001;
Skogland and Siguaw 2004) factors as playing a role, with
older customers and those who are less adventuresome pre-
sumed to have firmer destination loyalty than others.
But an alternate argument suggests loyalty may be low,
with the unique nature of tourism challenging the validity of
applying product theory to the destination. Andreassen andLindestad (1998) note tourism is an infrequent purchase,
with an international trip often being a once a year or less
frequent activity, making it difficult to determine loyalty with
any great degree of accuracy. Underlying travel motives of
wanderlust (Crompton 1979), novelty seeking, and self-
development (Pearce and Lee 2005) may push some people to
seek different destinations. Choice, limited travel barriers, and
low opportunity costs may also push variety seeking. A study
conducted by Castro, Armario, and Ruiz (2007) on visitation
to a Spanish city, for example, revealed that 70% of respon-
dents surveyed had medium to high need for variety in their
tourist experiences. Oppermann (2000) found that about 5%
of his sample of New Zealanders who had visited Australia
previously could be described as very loyal, having visited six or
more times in the previous 10 years. Niininen, Szivas, and
Riley (2004) found much higher loyalty rates in their study of
English tourists, with 59% visiting selected destinations three
or more times in a 5-year period and 16% visiting each year.
Previous studies attempting to examine this phenomenon
have faced significant sampling, definitional, conceptualiza-
tion and scale problems. Both Niininen, Szivas, and Riley
(2004) and Oppermann (2000) relied on a sample of fewer
than 150 people. They also encountered low response rates
to postal surveys, which likely induced some element of
response bias. Destination studies conducted by Castro,Armario, and Ruiz (2007) and Chi and Qu (2008) had larger
sample sizes but were limited to a single locale and a single
point in time.
The use of repeat visitor as a proxy for a loyal consumer
is even more challenging, for the application of who consti-
tutes a repeater is not time bound. As Oppermann (1999)
discusses, repeaters could include someone who returns to
the same destination often in the same year or someone who
at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 15, 2012jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/7/29/2019 Journal of Travel Research 2011 McKercher 121 32
4/13
McKercher and Guillet 123
visited once possibly many decades earlier. An examination
of departing visitor surveys conducted by many DMOs
found that most do not set a time limit on when the person
repeated (McKercher and Chan 2005). The United Kingdom
(VisitBritain 2005), for example, adopts a 10-year time hori-
zon, while Malta (Malta Tourism Authority 2006) asks if
people had visited previously at any time and whether theyvisited in one of their two most recent holidays.
Perhaps the greatest conceptual challenge, though, lies in
the concept of destination as product. The assumption
that destinations function as products lies at the core of
applying generic product theory. But is it valid? While desti-
nations can clearly be branded and promoted as singular
entities (Morgan, Pritchard, and Pride 2002), they are not
products per se. Instead, they are discrete geographic spaces
where an amalgam of products and experiences are concen-
trated. The UNWTO (2002) defines a local destination as
physical space that includes tourism products such as
support services and attractions, and tourism resource. It has
physical and administrative boundaries defining its man-agement, and images and perceptions defining its market
competitiveness.
Two further related questions arise. The first is what exactly
is the loyal tourist loyal to? The second is does an expression
of loyalty need to be geographically bound? Loyalty has
been examined at many scales, ranging from the firm to a
destination (Barsky and Nash 2002; Mattila 2001; Shoemaker
and Lewis 1999; Skogland and Siguaw 2004). Collectively,
this research suggests that tourism loyalty can exist on many
levels and need not be spatially bound. Someone who is loyal
to Club Med, for example, can express that loyalty in dozens
of resorts offering all styles of holiday experiences in more
than 30 countries. Such a person may be firm loyal but not be
destination loyal. Others may be vacation-style loyal.
People who prefer sea, sand and sun, golf, skiing, or
urban styles of vacations can express that loyalty in any
number of destinations around the world and at any number of
firms operating within each style of destination. These obser-
vations suggest that while destination loyalty may be a critical
concern for DMOs, it may not be as relevant to tourists, and
especially to international tourists.
Finally, the empirical evidence supporting destination
loyalty at an international scale is ambiguous at best. Table 1
highlights the share of first-time visitors to selected destina-
tions where either the pleasure market has been disaggregatedfrom the general tourist population or where the destination
attracts primarily pleasure-oriented tourists. The figures for
Hong Kong, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom repre-
sent the former instance, while those for Malta, Mauritius,
and South Africa represent the latter cases. Most pleasure
visitors from the majority of source markets are first-time
visitors, with the proportion of first-time visitors increasing
with distance. While a minority of arrivals from proximate
markets are first-timers (China, Taiwan, and Singapore in
relation to Hong Kong; Australia in relation to New Zealand;
European countries to the United Kingdom), the majority of
tourists from medium- and long-haul markets have never
visited before. This table suggests that destinations need to
replenish between 67% and 90% of arrivals from medium- to
long-haul markets each year if they are to retain their exist-ing volume of arrivals.
Method
This study examines destination loyalty through a compari-
son of actual with intended visitors to 11 popular destinations
frequented by Hong Kong residents. The unit of analysis is
the country, or in the case of Europe other than the United
Kingdom, the continent (because of data aggregation needs
to ensure suitable cell sizes for analysis). The study relies on
secondary data analysis of annual pleasure travel surveys
conducted by The Hong Kong Polytechnic Universitys
School of Hotel and Tourism Management. The survey hasbeen operating since 2000 and to date, eight rounds have
been conducted with more than 9,450 residents interviewed.
Data were collected via telephone interviews, with collection
contracted to one of two local universities that employ a
computer-assisted survey team (CAST) system to select can-
didates. CAST uses a modified random-digit-dialing (mRDD)
strategy to generate a sample list of prospective respondents,
who were then contacted. As such, the sample approximated
the profile of the population. Interviews were conducted during
the winter and involve a sample of between 750 and 2,000
residents, depending on budget availability.
The survey instrument was designed to gather informa-
tion on pleasure travel in the preceding 12 months, future
travel intentions in the upcoming 12 months, motives and the
demographic profile of the respondent. In addition, begin-
ning with the 2004 survey round, respondents were asked to
rate, on a 5-point Likert-type scale, the importance of engag-
ing in pleasure travel every year and indicate their level of
agreement about the importance of a series of motivational
statements affecting their decision to travel.
Questions about recent pleasure travel activity were
divided into two parts for surveys conducted between 2000
and 2003 and three parts for surveys conducted afterwards.
All respondents were asked to indicate if they had traveled
into the immediate hinterland areas of Macau and Guang-dong Province in China, and if so, to identify the number of
overnight trips taken. Prior to 2004, they were then asked
about all other international travel, including trips elsewhere
in China. Since 2004, this section was divided into two parts,
travel to the China mainland and to other international desti-
nations. Respondents who traveled were asked to indicate
the total number of overnight pleasure trips taken and then
to provide details on their most recent trip, including
at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 15, 2012jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/7/29/2019 Journal of Travel Research 2011 McKercher 121 32
5/13
124 Journal of Travel Research 50(2)
destination identity, length of stay, organization (package vs.
independent), and expenditure.
All respondents, irrespective of whether they had traveled,
were then asked about the likelihood of taking an overnight
pleasure trip in the upcoming 12 months. This metric is
measured using a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from
definitely will not travelto definitely will travel. Those who
answer with a 4 or higher were asked to identify their likely
future main destination city and country. Less than half who
selected 4 (unsure) identified a future main destination. This
figure compared poorly with the three-quarters or more of
those who answered 5 to 7 (likely will, very likely will, anddefinitely will travel) who specified a destination. As such,
respondents who offered the equivocal answer (4) were not
included in this study.
Two cohorts of respondents are identified: actual visitors
and intended visitors. The Actual Visitor group includes
2,528 respondents who traveled internationally (outside of
the China mainland and immediate hinterland areas) over
the 8 years. The Intended Visitor group includes those indi-
viduals who indicated a positive response (5 to 7) to the
intent to travel question and who specified a main destina-
tion outside of the China mainland. This sample consists of
2,542 people composed of
187 Actual Visitors who intended to return to the
same destination the following year,
952 Actual Visitors who intended to travel to differ-
ent destinations, and
1,403 people who either did not travel or who
restricted their travel to the China mainland or Macau,
but intended to travel internationally in the coming
12 months and named a destination outside of China.
The total sample therefore consists of 3,931 cases, of which
1,139 appeared in both categories. Another 1,389 discrete
cases appeared in the Actual segment representing 54.9% of
that cohort, and 1,403 cases or 55.2% appeared uniquely in
the Intended segment. The two groups of respondents were
considered as discrete groups for analysis purposes.
The sample was derived by aggregating the eight survey
rounds. This technique had been used previously with the
Table 1. First-Time Visitors as a Share of Arrivals
Hong Kong
(vacation New Zealand United Kingdomovernight (Fully Independent (Holiday market 2004, Malta Mauritius South Africavisitors)a Tourists)b excluding expatriates)c (all arrivals)d (all arrivals)e (all arrivals)f
All 45%, including China Holiday 68% 42% 68%
Austria 75 44 81 83Australia 59 26 53 76 51Canada 62 64 47 60China 36 85 62 40 69France 79 43 91 72 70Germany 70 74 46 79 82 54Hong Kong 42 55Italy 77 53 82 91 69
Japan 60 72 57 74 70Korea 75 72 85Malaysia 51 37Netherlands 76 28 83 54New Zealand 69 50Scandinavia (or Sweden) 71 30 82 87 67
Singapore 24 50 58 92South Africa 67 36 60Switzerland 66 29 79 71Taiwan 38 49 69Thailand 37 24United Kingdom 74 59 46 84 46United States 63 67 47 78 63
aHong Kong Tourism Board (2007).bNew Zealand Ministry for Tourism (2008).cVisitBritain (2005).dMalta Tourism Authority (2006).eGovernment of Mauritius (2005).fSouth African Tourism Strategic Research Unit (2007).
at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 15, 2012jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/7/29/2019 Journal of Travel Research 2011 McKercher 121 32
6/13
McKercher and Guillet 125
same data set (McKercher 2008) and is considered valid,providing the data are internally consistent. Consistency
was measured by comparing annual data for each cohort
using demographic variables, the importance of travel, travel
experience, and responses to motivational questions. Over-
all, the sets were internally consistent, with only minor
differences noted. Mean household incomes of actual vis-
itors for six short-haul destinations of Japan, Thailand,
Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, and Taiwan differed some-
what, but the income patterns were similar in all cases.
Household incomes dropped during periods of economic
hardship and increased during periods of GDP growth.
Small but statistically significant differences were noted in
age and income among people who intend to travel to Taiwan
and Japan.
Secondary data represent a valid data source for tourism
research providing the survey instrument and resultant data
satisfy reliability, sensitivity, fitness, and validity criteria for
the desired purpose (Pizam 1994; Churchill 1995; Saunders,
Lewis, and Thornhill 2000). Reliability and sensitivity crite-
ria relate to the extent to which data can provide consistent
results and subtle enough detail for the purpose of the research.
Fitness recognizes that data collected for one purpose may
not be relevant, timely, or suitable for another purpose.
Validity refers to the degree to which the instrument can pre-
dict a criterion. While the data set used in this study satisfiesthese criteria, some limitations inherent with the use of this
set must be recognized. In particular, the survey instrument
adopts intention to return within 12 months as the single
measure of loyalty. As discussed earlier, repeat purchase
intention is a valid measure of loyalty even though intentions
do not always correspond directly to actions. In addition, the
use of a 12-month repeat time frame is recognized as being
short, given that many people may only take one or two
international trips a year.
In addition, Hong Kong Tourism Board (HKTB) dataderived from Immigration Department departure statistics are
used to provide broader background on tourist flows and con-
text for this study. Departure statistics for the period 1999
to 2005 are included. The HKTB/Immigration Department
ceased maintaining such records after 2005, when Hong
Kong shifted to e-channels for resident departures. All depar-
tures are recorded, regardless of trip purpose, and so the figures
include business, pleasure, visiting friends and relatives, and
other travel purposes. It is estimated that about 78% of out-
bound travel to destinations other than China and Macau is
pleasure oriented (UNWTO 2006), with the proportion of
pleasure tourists highest among short-haul destinations and
relatively smaller in long-haul destinations.
Results
This section is divided into three parts. The first part deter-
mines whether Hong Kong residents can be considered as
destination loyal in aggregate, based on an analysis of HKTB/
Immigration Department figures. The second and third sections
analyze data collected from our own resident surveys. Section 2
examines individual destination loyalty through an analysis of
year-on-year repeat visitation intentions. Section 3 examines
segment or market loyalty by comparing actual and intended
tourists to the 11 selected destinations and further conducting abetween-destinations analysis of market profiles.
Over time, the relative ranking of destinations visited by
Hong Kong residents has changed little as shown in Table 2
(Kendals W test revealed c2 = 3.657, p = .57). Thailand
remains Hong Kongs preferred destination of choice, even
though it registered the greatest volatility in share change.
Japan and Taiwan compete to be the second and third most
popular destinations, with Singapore consistently ranking
fourth and South Korea generally coming in as the fifth most
Table 2.Volume of Hong Kong Visitors to Main Destinations and Popularity Rank of These Destinations
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Thailand 485,876 (1) 528,125 (1) 559,985 (1) 571,098 (1) 691,205 (1) 723,876 (1) 615,075 (1)Japan 465,183 (2) 460,283 (3) 484,510 (3) 521,200 (3) 479,804 (2) 586,380 (2) 578,140 (2)Taiwan 420,094 (3) 468,688 (2) 525,526 (2) 538,232 (2) 414,545 (3) 536,071 (3) 555,307 (3)Singapore 302,192 (5) 339,333 (4) 331,909 (4) 314,284 (4) 268,519 (4) 310,208 (4) 367,456 (4)
South Korea 313,003 (4) 278,708 (5) 277,106 (5) 253,266 (5) 200,028 (5) 220,040 (5) 233,828 (6)United Kingdom 177,757 (8) 185,540 (9) 172,086 (9) 191,159 (7) 192,728 (6) 215,499 (6) 238,044 (5)Malaysia 172,247 (10) 215,663 (7) 219,364 (6) 193,106 (6) 172,588 (8) 200,371 (7) 196,793 (9)United States 219,117 (6) 217,551 (6) 218,175 (7) 187,119 (9) 152,735 (9) 184,668 (9) 205,117 (8)Australia 199,039 (7) 201,287 (8) 205,679 (8) 190,950 (8) 178,834 (7) 192,386 (8) 224,236 (7)Canada 176,910 (9) 180,251 (10) 157,563 (10) 158,241 (10) 126,335 (10) 149,114 (10) 142,495 (10)Europe 129,681 (11) 137,949 (11) 151,660 (11) 155,471 (11) 129,790 (11) 158,115 (11) 150,996 (11)Total outbound 4,174,724 4,611 ,113 4,791,485 4,709,289 4,427,787 5,002,734 4,956,893
travela
Source: Hong Kong Tourism Board (2006).Note: Popularity rank in parentheses.a. Data include all departures but exclude travel to the China Mainland.
at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 15, 2012jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/7/29/2019 Journal of Travel Research 2011 McKercher 121 32
7/13
126 Journal of Travel Research 50(2)
popular destination. The overall ranking of Australia, Canada,
and Europe has changed little as well. The United Kingdomseems to be gaining in popularity as the post-handover back-
lash is receding, while Malaysias popularity has changed
somewhat.
Volatility in departures can be attributed largely to exter-
nalities related to the Hong Kong economy and various
crises that have affected the region. For example, depar-
tures to the United States still have not recovered from 9/11,
while the decline in arrivals to Thailand in 2005 can be
attributed to a post-tsunami effect. Overall, departures grew
sharply between 1999 and 2000 and then remained largely
stable before declining substantially in 2003 because of the
combined impact of SARS and a deep economic recession.
The city entered a period of strong economic recovery in
2004, resulting in a jump in outbound travel, which stabilized
in the 2005.
But the stability in visitor numbers cannot be attributed to
high year-on-year repeat loyalty intentions on behalf of indi-
vidual consumers, as shown in Table 3. This table presents
summary statistics of the number and share of visitors who
intend to return to the same destination within 12 months of
their last visit. Results are presented in an aggregate form
because of the small cell sizes year on year. (Kruskal-Wallis
test revealed no significant differences in the proportion of
respondents intending to return each year.) Japan, the United
Kingdom, and the United States registered the highest year-on-year loyalty rate. But in each case, only 10% to 15% of
existing visitors intended to revisit the following year. Stated
another way, between 85% and 90% of them did not intend
to return. Most other destinations recorded revisit intention
rates of between 4% and 8%, with Korea registering the
lowest revisitation intention level of only 1%. Overall only
7% of tourists intend to revisit the same place the following
year, with almost none of the visitors to Korea, Malaysia, or
Singapore intending to return.
Low return intention levels mean that destinations must
replace virtually their entire stock of visitors each year.Research on inbound tourism for Malta (Malta Tourism
Authority 2006) suggests that Hong Kong is not an isolated
case, for similarly low numbers were reported here. Destina-
tions succeed, though, for as discussed earlier, overall visitor
volume is stable. Replenishment can come from one of two
sources: enticing new visitors or attracting previous but infre-
quent visitors to return.
The third part of the analysis section examines if the pool
of actual and potential visitors is similar. If similar, then one
could argue that markets might demonstrate a level of des-
tination loyalty not witnessed by individual tourists. This
proposition is tested by comparing actual and intended visi-
tors within each destination through a chi-square analysis of
most demographic variables, the importance of travel, and
perceived travel experience and a t-test analysis of six com-
monly identified motives and household size.
As can be seen from Table 4, which highlights those cases
where statically significant differences at the .01 level were
noted for ease of interpretation, the profiles of actual and
intended visitors to each destination are virtually identical,
suggesting each destination does draw replacement visitors
from a similar psychodemographic pool of residents. Only
minor differences were noted in short-haul markets relating
to travel experience and age, where in each case, the intended
visitor had less travel experience and was somewhat youngerthan the actual visitor. In addition, the household income of
people who intended to visit Japan was lower than that of
actual visitors, while the household size of intended Taiwanese
visitors was larger than that of actual visitors.
The ratio of intended to actual visitors was also calculated
for each destination. Long-haul destinations and Japan recorded
intention/visitation ratios of greater than 1.0, while other
short-haul destinations and the United Kingdom had scores
of less than 1.0. Small changes in visitation numbers suggest
Table 3. Destination Loyalty, 2000 to 2008 (Intention to Revisit in the Upcoming 12 Months)
n Number Intending to Return the Next Year % Intending to Return the Next Year
Japan 478 71 14.9United Kingdom 91 11 12.1United States 149 16 10.7Europe 114 9 7.9
Thailand 474 37 7.8Canada 97 7 7.2Australia 141 8 5.7Taiwan 349 15 4.3Other (non-China) 221 7 3.2Singapore 104 2 1.9Malaysia 117 2 1.7Korea 193 2 1.0Total 2528 187 7.4
Source: PolyU Resident surveys.
at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 15, 2012jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/7/29/2019 Journal of Travel Research 2011 McKercher 121 32
8/13
127
Table4.
ComparingActualwithIntendedVisitors
Motive
Actual
Intended
Number
Number
Ratio
Family
M
eet
Levelof
ofVisitors
ofVisitors
Intended
Importance
and
Different
Increase
Travel
Household
Household
Market
(n=2528)
(n
=2542)
toActual
ofTravel
Friends
People
Relax
Escape
Discovery
Knowled
ge
Experience
Gender
Age
Education
Size
Income
Australia
141
166
1.1
8
Canada
97
103
1.0
6
Europe
114
199
1.7
5
Japan
478
687
1.4
4
*
*
*
Malaysia
117
82
0.7
0
Singapore
104
76
0.7
3
SouthKorea
193
156
0.8
1
*
Taiwan
349
301
0.8
6
*
*
*
Thailand
474
364
0.8
0
UnitedStates
149
165
1.1
1
UnitedKingdom
91
87
0.9
6
*
Source:PolyUResidentsurveys.
Note:Intention5orabove=likelytodefinitelywilltravel.Blankcellsindicatenosignificantdifferencesbetweenactualandintendedvisitorstothedestination.
*p=.0
1.
at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 15, 2012jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/7/29/2019 Journal of Travel Research 2011 McKercher 121 32
9/13
128 Journal of Travel Research 50(2)
that destinations scoring greater than 1.0 may be aspirational
in nature, where desire does not necessarily translate into
visitation. Instead, they may be traded off for visits to places
that scored lower on the intention/visit scale.
Strong within-destination-market profile congruity con-
trasts sharply with the equally large between-destination
differences noted (Table 5). Actual and intended visitors
have been collapsed into one destination cohort for this
analysis, because of their similar characteristics. Different
destination cohorts were compared using one-way
ANOVAs, and a post hoc Scheffe test was used to identify
whether significant differences at the 0.05 significance
level existed between destination pairs in terms of six trip-
related motive variables, level of travel experience, and
importance of travel. For example, the cohort of actual and
intended visitors to Japan was compared with the cohort ofactual and intended visitors to all other destinations, and
likewise until all destination pairs were analyzed. For ease
of presentation, variables have been coded and only those
cases where significant differences were noted have been
included.
Substantial differences emerge in the demographic pro-
file, travel experience, and to a lesser degree importance of
travel and travel motives in virtually every destination
destination pair. The only destination pairs that showed no
differences were Australia and Malaysia, Australia and
Singapore, and the United States and Singapore. The great-
est number of differences by variable were with education
level (36 of 55 destination pairs), age (33 cases), household
income (25 cases), level of travel experience (21 cases),
average household size (16 cases), the motive of escape
(16 cases), gender (14 cases), and overall importance of
travel (13 cases). Relatively fewer differences were noted by
other motives (between 2 and 12 cases depending on the vari-
able). Discovery and self-development discriminated between
Europe and other destinations, while escape was a common
motivation variable separating the United States from other
destinations.
Discussion
This study tested the proposition that individual international
tourists from Hong Kong may not demonstrate a high degree of
destination loyalty but that the Hong Kong market, collectively,
is loyal. The study confirmed this proposition by demonstrating
consistency in the popularity ranking of destinations over time,
even though low year-on-year repeat visitation intention was
noted. However, the profile of actual and intended visitors to
each place was similar, suggesting that outbound markets in
totality are loyal, though individual tourists may not display the
Table 5. Differences between Target Destinations
Market
Thailand
SouthKorea
Malaysia
Singapore
Taiwan
United States
Canada
Australia
UnitedKingdom
Europe
Japan 5, 6, 8, 10,11, 12
6, 8,9, 12
1, 2, 8,9, 10
2, 4, 8, 9,10
2, 6, 7,8, 9, 10,12, 13
4, 7, 9 ,10,12, 13
3, 9, 10, 13 1, 6, 7, 9,10, 12
7, 9, 10,11, 12
2, 5, 7, 9,10,12
Thailand 9 1, 9, 10 4, 9, 10 2, 4,5, 9,
10, 11
4, 7, 9, 10, 11,12, 13
3, 4, 8, 9,10, 12, 13
1, 4, 7, 9,10, 11, 12
5, 6, 7,9, 10, 11,12, 13
2, 5, 6, 7, 9,10, 12
SouthKorea
9 9, 10 11 4, 7, 9, 11,12, 13
8, 9, 10,12, 13
7, 9, 10, 12 5, 7, 8, 9,10, 11, 12
3, 5, 6, 7, 9,10, 12
Malaysia 4 1, 7, 9 1, 4, 10, 13 8, 10, 13 10, 11, 12,13
1, 5, 7, 10,12, 13
Singapore 7, 9, 10 10 4, 11, 12 5, 10, 12
Taiwan 4, 7, 9, 10,12, 13
3, 7, 8, 9,10, 12, 13
1, 9, 10, 12 7, 8, 9, 10,12, 13
5, 6, 7, 10,11, 12, 13
UnitedStates
1 4, 9 , 11 4
Canada 8 4, 8, 9, 11 3, 5, 6, 7
Australia 9, 4 1, 5, 6, 10UnitedKingdom
10, 11
Source: PolyU Resident surveys.Note: 1 = motive: spend time with family, friends or relatives; 2 = motive: meet different people; 3 = motive: rest and relax; 4 = motive: get away fromdaily routine/role obligations/stress/troubles; 5 = motive: discover new places and/or things; 6 = motive: increase my knowledge; 7 = level of travelexperience; 8 = importance of travel; 9 = age; 10 = education level; 11 = gender; 12 = household income; 13 = household size. Significance levels of 0.05are represented in the table. Blank cells indicate no significant differences between destinations on selected variables.
at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 15, 2012jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/7/29/2019 Journal of Travel Research 2011 McKercher 121 32
10/13
McKercher and Guillet 129
same level of loyalty. Moreover, destinations replenish their
stocks of visitors from intended visitors who share similar psy-
chodemographic profiles to actual visitors.
Data limitations necessitated the analysis of aggregate
market profiles. The authors recognize that markets are not
homogenous. Instead they are composed of a series of seg-
ments. But because the range of segments attracted todestinations differs from destination to destination, the com-
posite profile of the market for each destination will be different.
For example, Destination A may draw visitors from seg-
ments a, b, c, and d; Destination B may draw visitors from
segment a, b, e, andf; and Destination C may attract visitors
from segments c, d, e, andf. More research on this proposi-
tion is required.
It is also equally recognized that discrete segments may
find competing destinations appealing. Thus, one segment
may show a preference for, say, Japan, Singapore, and Taiwan,
while another may show a preference for Japan, Thailand,
and Australia. The data set did not permit more detailed seg-
ment analysis, but it suggests that members of individualsegments may cycle through destinations. The idea of
cycling has been inferred indirectly by studies of destination-
switching behavior (Uysal, Barrett, and Marsinko 1995) that
suggests some people do change destinations. For example,
one segment may visit Destination A one year, Destination B
on their next trip, and Destination C on their subsequent trip
before returning to Destination A, explaining why arrivals
from any segment may be relatively stable over time. Thus,
a destination may be part of a loyal destination set that may
be visited from time to time. Data shown in Table 1 suggest
such a set is more likely to occur among proximate, short-
haul destinations, rather than among long-haul destinations.
If so, then the challenge arises to shorten the cycle as much
as possible to maximize repeat visitation. Effective marketing
to position destinations uniquely and eliminate the perception
that other destinations may represent acceptable substitute
brands can help achieve this goal.
Conversely, the observed decline in repeat visitation
propensity and intention with distance is explained partially as a
function of distance decay. Greer and Wall (1978) illustrated
that the number of destination opportunities increases
exponentially with distance. McKercher and Lew (2003),
Hwang and Fesenmaier (2003), and Tideswell and Faulkner
(1999) noted further substantial differences in both travel
patterns and tourist behavior between long-haul tourists andshort-haul tourists. Long-haul tourists tend to engage in
longer-duration, multidestination trips and sought to have
multiple trip purposes satisfied. Alternatively, short-haul
tourists tend to take shorter-duration, single-destination,
single-purpose trips and show a strong preference for
package tour travel. Yeoman and Lederer (2005) further
discuss the aspirational nature of much long-haul travel and
how it is viewed as a rare, often once-in-a-lifetime occurrence.
Short-haul travel, by extension, is more common and
the motives are more escapist or recreation-oriented.
Significantly, McKercher and Lew (2003) identified a
threshold region between short-haul and long-haul travel
where little tourism activity occurs. This Effective Tourist
Exclusion Zone (ETEZ) represents a psychological as well
as a physical transition area. Tourists who transcend this zone
and engage tend to travel more to have exploration, knowl-edge building, and other deeper personal benefits met. Those
who restrict their travel to the destinations prior to the ETEZ
tend to travel more for recreational, escapist, and hedonic
reasons. It appears that many tourists will never cross this
threshold for a variety of pragmatic reasons, including time
availability and cost of travel, as well as psychological reasons
relating to the ability and/or willingness to enter a culturally
strange landscape.
This collective body of research suggests that long-haul
tourists are more likely than short-haul tourists to be variety
seekers, are less intimidated by cultural distance, and also
enjoy an exponentially larger array of destinations to satisfy
their wanderlust, explaining low repeat visitation levels. Theobverse applies to short-haul tourists. Their desire to seek
familiarly and to travel for reset and relaxation, coupled with
a smaller destination choice set, may explain higher repeat
visitation/intention levels observed. And so, while distance
does not define loyalty explicitly, it creates more opportunities
to visit more places. In doing so, it makes the jobs of DMOs
targeting long-haul tourists all that more important, for they
must compete against a much larger potential choice set of
destinations.
These findings have a number of implications for tour-
ism marketing practice and raise a number of questions
worthy of further research. First, as mentioned above, the
need for strong and financially well supported DMOs is
reinforced, for destinations must virtually replenish their
entire pleasure visitor population each year, or risk entering
into rapid decline. Oliver (1999) discusses loyalty as exist-
ing in four stages, cognitive, affective, conative and action.
Cognitive loyalty relates to the belief that one brand is pref-
erable over others while affective loyalty refers to positive
attitudes or liking based on satisfied consumption. Conative
loyalty reflects a deeper level of commitment by the cus-
tomer based on the development of behavioral intentions.
The final stage is action loyalty, which reflects transfer of
behavioral intentions to action and motivation to overcome
barriers related to that action. Affective and conative loyaltymay exist in tourism but do not necessarily translate to
action loyalty.
DMO marketing initiatives therefore must reinforce their
brands and maintain visibility in a cluttered marketplace to
entice the lapsed consumers and those who are unlikely to
return to revisit. In addition, they must also attract a continu-
ous supply of first-time visitors, representing more than 80%
of all arrivals in many instances, to replace those who will only
ever visit once. This task is too large for any single enterprise
at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 15, 2012jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/7/29/2019 Journal of Travel Research 2011 McKercher 121 32
11/13
130 Journal of Travel Research 50(2)
in the destination to achieve alone. Moreover, the interests
of the destination may conflict with those of multinational
firms that operate in that and other destinations simultaneously.
Destination loyalty is less important to these organizations than
firm loyalty and indeed may be inimical to it.
The findings also highlight the importance of word-
of-mouth recommendations. Given that individuals may beunlikely to revisit, their role as destination advocates may be
more important than their own repeat propensity. It is worth-
while noting that Korea and Malaysia have witnessed a
relative decline in popularity ranking recently. The fact that
these countries have the lowest repeat intention rates may
not be coincidental. Indeed, low short-term repeat intention
may act as a barometer of destination health and likely word-
of-mouth impact.
The findings suggest that deeper research is needed into
the phenomenon of loyalty in international tourism. This
study raised the prospect that loyalty could exist on many
levels and that tourists could exhibit a high degree of loyalty
at one level that may not translate into observed loyalty atanother level. This study could not address this issue explic-
itly, but the findings of market rather than individual loyalty
suggests that different sets of dynamics may be at play. More
research into this issue is needed.
Methodologically, a time dimension needs to be included
when using repeat visitation as a proxy for loyalty. An open-
ended time frame can produce misleading results for any
previous visitors, regardless of the time between visits, may
be wrongly ascribed as being loyal. Others (Oppermann 2000;
VisitBritain 2005) used 10 years, which may be overly lib-
eral. Reliance on secondary data meant that this study had to
adopt a 12-month time frame, which arguably may be too
short. A 3- to 4-year loyalty window may be more suitable.
This time frame is often adopted by hotel companies to purge
infrequent clients from their databases.
Loyalty in tourism is an important construct whose
dimensions are still being investigated. This study suggests
that research into loyalty needs to extend beyond the indi-
vidual to the group or market segment. It also raised, but
could not test, the intriguing prospect of a loyalty hierar-
chy. In doing so, it challenged the applicability of a product/
service paradigm as the sole or primary conceptual model
to examine loyalty. Instead it suggests that the unique
nature of tourism may require a rethinking of the applica-
bility of standard product and service loyalty theory to thetourism context.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interests with respect to the
authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research and/or
authorship of this article.
References
Andreassen, T. W., and B. Lindestad (1998). Customer Loyalty
and Complex Services.International Journal of Service Indus-
try Management, 9 (1): 7-23.
Backman, S. J., and J. L. Crompton (1991). The Usefulness of
Selected Variables for Predicting Activity Loyalty. LeisureSciences, 13: 205-20.
Backman, S. J., and C. Veldkamp (1995). Examination of the Rela-
tionship between Service Quality and User Loyalty.Journal of
Park and Recreation Administration, 13 (2): 29-41.
Barsky, J. and L. Nash (2002). Evoking Emotion: Affective Keys
to Hotel Loyalty. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration
Quarterly, 43: 39-46.
Bowen, J. T., and S. Shoemaker (2003). Loyalty: A Strategic Com-
mitment. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quar-
terly, 44 (5/6): 31-46.
Castro, C. B., E. M. Armario, and D. M. Ruiz (2007). The Influ-
ence of Market Heterogeneity on the Relationship between a
Destinations Image and Tourists Future Behavior. TourismManagement, 28: 175-87.
Chen, J. S., and D. Gursoy (2001). An Investigation of Tourists
Destination Loyalty and Preferences.International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13 (2): 79.
Chi, C. G. Q., and H. Qu (2008). Examining the Structural
Relationships of Destination Image, Tourist Satisfaction and
Destination Loyalty: An Integrated Approach. Tourism Man-
agement, 29: 624-36.
Churchill, G. (1995). Marketing Research: Methodological Foun-
dations, 6th edition. Forth Worth: Dryden Press.
Crompton, J. (1979). Motivations of Pleasure Vacations.Annals
of Tourism Research, 6 (4): 408-24.
Day, G. S. (1969). A Two-Dimensional Concept of Brand Loy-
alty.Journal of Advertising Research, 9 (3): 29-35.
Dick, A., and K. Basu (1994). Customer Loyalty: Towards an
Integrated Framework.Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 22 (2): 99-113.
European Tourist Commission (2006). "Tourism Trends for Europe."
http://www.etc-corporate.org/resources/uploads/ETC_
Tourism_Trends_for_Europe_09-2006_ENG.pdf (accessed
February 17, 2010).
Gounaris, S., and V. Stathakopoulos (2004). Antecedents and Con-
sequences of Brand Loyalty: An Empirical Study. Journal of
Brand Management, 11 (4): 283-306.
Government of Mauritius (2005). Profile by Country of Residence
2004. http://www.gov.mu/portal/goc/tourist/file/survey04/profile
_2004.pdf (accessed January 13, 2009).
Greer, T., and G. Wall (1979). Recreational Hinterlands: A The-
oretical and Empirical Analysis. In Recreational Land Use
in Southern Ontario (Department of Geography Publication
Series #14), edited by G. Wall. Waterloo, Canada: Waterloo
University, pp. 227-46.
Haywood, K. M. (1989). Managing Word-of-Mouth Communica-
tions.Journal of Service Marketing, 3 (2): 55-67.
at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 15, 2012jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/7/29/2019 Journal of Travel Research 2011 McKercher 121 32
12/13
McKercher and Guillet 131
Henry, C. D. (2000). Is Customer Loyalty a Pernicious Myth?
Business Horizons, 43 (4): 13-16.
Homburg, C., and A. Giering (2001). Personal Characteristics as
Moderators of the Relationship between Customer Satisfaction
and LoyaltyAn Empirical Analysis.Psychology and Market-
ing Journal, 18 (1): 43-66.
Hong Kong Tourism Board (HKTB) (2007). Visitor Profile 2007Vacation Overnight Visitors. Hong Kong: HKTB.
Huang, H. H., and C. K. Chiu (2006). Exploring Customer Satis-
faction, Trust and Destination Loyalty in Tourism. Journal of
American Academy of Business, 10 (1): 156-59.
Hwang, Y., and D. Fesenmaier (2003). Multidestination Pleasure
Travel Patterns: Empirical Evidence from the American Travel
Survey.Journal of Travel Research, 32: 166-71.
Jacoby, J., and R. Chestnut (1978). Brand Loyalty Measurement
and Management. New York: John Wiley.
Jang, S. C. S., and R. Feng (2007). Temporal Destination Revisit
Intention: The Effects of Novelty Seeking and Satisfaction.
Tourism Management, 28: 580-90.
Jones, M. A., D. L. Mothersbaugh, and S. E. Beatty (2000). Switch-ing Barriers and Repurchase Intentions in Services.Journal of
Retailing, 76 (2): 259-74.
Kahn, B. E., and D. C. Schmittlein (1992). The Relationship
between Purchases Made on Promotion and Shopping Trip
Behavior.Journal of Retailing, 68 (3): 294-315.
Kim, S. S., and J. L. Crompton (2002). The Influence of Selected
Behavioral and Economic Variables on Perceptions of Admission
Price Levels.Journal of Travel Research, 41 (2): 144-52.
Lee, J., A. R. Graefe, and R. C. Burns (2007). Examining the Ante-
cedents of Destination Loyalty in a Forest Setting. Leisure
Sciences, 29 (5): 463-81.
Machleit, K. A., C. T. Allen, and T. J. Madden (1993). The
Mature Brand and Brand Interest: An Alternative Consequence
of Ad-Evoked Affect.Journal of Marketing, 57: 72-82.
Malta Tourism Authority (2006). Malta Market Profile Surveys
Q4 2006. http://www.mta.com.mt/index.pl (accessed January 4,
2009).
Matilla, A. S. (2001). Emotional Bonding and Restaurant Loyalty.
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42 (6):
73-9.
McKercher, B. (2008). Segment Decay in Urban Tourism. Tourism
Management, 29: 1215-25.
McKercher, B., and A. Chan (2005). How Special Is Special Inter-
est Tourism.Journal of Travel Research, 44 (1): 21-31.
McKercher, B., and A. Lew (2003). Distance Decay and the
Impact of Effective Tourism Exclusion Zones on International
Travel Flows.Journal of Travel Research, 42: 159-65.
Morais, D., D. Kerstetter, & C. Yarnal (2006). The Love Triangle:
Loyal Relationships among Providers, Customers, and Their
Friends.Journal of Travel Research, 44: 379-86.
Morgan, N., A. Pritchard, and R. Pride (2002). Introduction. In
Destination Branding: Creating the Unique Destination Propo-
sition, edited by N. Morgan, A. Pritchard, and R. Pride. Burling-
ton, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 3-10.
New Zealand Ministry for Tourism (2008). Various Visitor Arrival
Statistics for 2007. Available from http://www.tourismresearch
.govt.nz/
Niininen, O., E. Szivas, and R. Riley (2004). Destination Loyalty
and Repeat Behavior: An Application of Optimum Stimulation
Measurement. The International Journal of Tourism Research,
6 (6): 439-47.Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence Consumer Loyalty?Journal of Mar-
keting, 63 (4): 33-44.
Oppermann, M. (1998). Destination Threshold Potential and the Law
of Repeat Visitation.Journal of Travel Research, 37 (2): 131-37.
Oppermann, M. (1999). Predicting Destination ChoiceA Dis-
cussion of Destination Loyalty.Journal of Vacation Marketing,
5 (1): 51-65.
Oppermann, M. (2000). Tourism Destination Loyalty.Journal of
Travel Research, 39 (1): 78-84.
Pan, S., K. Chon, and H. Song (2008). Visualizing Tourism
Trends: A Combination of ATLAS.ti and BiPlot. Journal of
Travel Research, 46: 339-48.
Pearce, P., and U. I. Lee (2005). Developing the Travel CareerApproach to Tourist Motivation. Journal of Travel Research,
43: 226-37.
Petrick, J. (2004). Are Loyal Visitors Desired Visitors? Tourism
Management, 25: 463-70.
Pizam, A. (1994). Planning a Tourism Research Investigation.
In Travel, Tourism and Hospitality Research: A Handbook
for Managers and Researchers , 2nd edition, edited by J.
Ritchie and C. Goeldner. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Wiley,
pp. 91-104.
Pritchard, M. P., and D. R. Howard (1997). The Loyal Travel:
Examining a Typology of Service Patronage.Journal of Travel
Research, 35 (4): 2-10.
Reichheld, K. (2002). Letters to the Editor. Harvard Business
Review, 80 (11): 126.
Rosenberg, L., and J. Czepiel (1984). A Marketing Approach
for Customer Retention.Journal of Consumer Marketing, 1:
45-51.
Rowley, J., and J. Dawes (2000). Disloyalty: A Closer Look at
Non-loyals.Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17 (6): 538.
Saunders, M., P. Lewis, and A. Thornhill (2000). Research Meth-
ods for Business Students, 2nd edition. Harlow, UK: FT Prentice
Hall.
Shoemaker, S., and J. T. Bowen (2003). Commentary on Loy-
alty: A Strategic Commitment. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, 44 (5/6): 47-52.
Shoemaker, S., and R. C. Lewis (1999). Customer Loyalty: The
Future of Hospitality Marketing.International Journal of Hos-
pitality Management, 18: 345-70.
Skogland, I., and J. A. Siguaw (2004). Are Your Satisfied Cus-
tomers Loyal? Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration
Quarterly, 45 (3): 221-34.
South African Tourism Strategic Research Unit (2007). Annual
Tourism Report. http://www2.southafrica.net/satourism/research/
research.cfm (accessed February 16, 2010).
at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 15, 2012jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/7/29/2019 Journal of Travel Research 2011 McKercher 121 32
13/13
132 Journal of Travel Research 50(2)
Tideswell, C., and B. Faulkner (1999). Multidestination Travel
Patterns of International Visitors to Queensland. Journal of
Travel Research, 37: 364-74.
United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) (2005).
Yearbook of Tourism Statistics Data 1996-2003. Madrid, Spain:
UNWTO.
UNWTO (2002). WTO Think Tank Enthusiastically Reaches Con-sensus on Frameworks for Tourism Destination Success. Madrid,
Spain: UNWTO.
UNWTO (2006). Hong Kong: The Asia and the Pacific Intra-
regional Outbound Series. Madrid, Spain: UNWTO
UNWTO (2008). UNWTO World Tourism Barometer, 5 (2).
Madrid, Spain: UNWTO
Uysal, M., R. T. Barrett, and A. Marsinko (1995). An Examination
of Trip Type Switching and Market Share.Journal of Travel &
Tourism Marketing, 4 (1): 45-56.
VisitBritain (2005). First Time and Repeat Visitors to the UK. http://
www.tourismtrade.org.uk/Images/Repeaters04_tcm12-12495
.pdf (accessed January 13, 2009).
Yoon, Y., and M. Uysal (2005). An Examination of the Effects
of Motivation and Satisfaction on Destination Loyalty: A Struc-
tural Model. Tourism Management, 26: 45-56.
Yuksel, A. & F. Yuksel (2007). Shopping Risk Perceptions: Effects
on Tourists Emotions, Satisfaction and Expressed Loyalty
Intentions. Tourism Management, 28: 703-13.
Bios
Bob McKercher is a professor of tourism in the School of Hotel
and Tourism Management at The Hong Kong Polytechnic Uni-
versity. His diverse interests in tourism research include a desire
to resolve apparent differences between theory and observed
practice.
Basak Denizci Guillet is an assistant professor in the School of
Hotel and Tourism Management at The Hong Kong Polytechnic
University. Her specialty area is finance, and she began her
career working in marketing, sales, and accounting in various
hotels.
http://jtr.sagepub.com/Top Related