Abstract
Although there are many studies addressing the purchase of souvenirs, a few provide practical insights for practitioners in the souvenir industry regarding tourist’s preferred souvenir attributes, what they purchase, and how much they spend. Furthermore, little is known about souvenir collectors’ preferences. To address these gaps, this study analyzes tourists’ souvenir purchasing behavior with both quantitative (277 responses to a questionnaire) and qualitative (85 interviews) methods. The results indicate that the quality of the souvenir, gift appropriateness, and having the name or design of the place visited were the souvenir attributes most valued by the tourists. The results also reveal the importance of souvenir collectors, since they buy more souvenirs and spend higher amounts per souvenir. Further insights are given regarding the purchase of souvenirs, providing practical implications for practitioners in the souvenir industry.
Introduction
Souvenir shopping is a common practice in the travel experience when visiting a destination (Héroux and Church, 2014; Kong and Chang, 2016) and is considered to be one of the tourist’s main activities (Lasusa, 2007). Many tourists shop to fulfill their need for leisure (Timothy and Butler, 1995). Tourists’ expenditures for shopping account for a significant part of their total travel spending (Law and Au, 2000; Litirell et al., 1994). Producing, selling, and buying souvenirs is an important part of the touristic experience that is worth billions of dollars (Swanson and Timothy, 2012).
Different studies evidence the importance of souvenirs. First, studies have shown that a significant number of travelers purchase souvenirs (Littrell et al., 1994; Paraskevaidis and Andriotis, 2015; Sthapit, 2018). Consequently, souvenirs are economically important for many retailers located in touristic destinations (Swanson and Horridge, 2002). In fact, studies have highlighted the positive economic impact of souvenirs sales (e.g. Lacher and Nepal, 2015). Retail and souvenir shops have even been found to influence tourists’ overall satisfaction with a destination (Le and Dong, 2017). More, tourists satisfied with their souvenir shopping are more likely to be loyal to the destination (Suhartanto, 2016). Kong and Chang (2012) argue that with the right planning and promotion, souvenirs can stimulate the economic growth of a destination. Given their importance, a better understanding of tourists’ purchase of souvenirs is paramount to offer them products adjusted to their preferences and needs.
Although there are several studies addressing the purchase of souvenirs, most focus on motivations to purchase (e.g. Wilkins, 2010), or on the factors that can influence their purchase, such as travel motivations (e.g. Kong and Chang, 2016; Swanson and Horridge, 2002), attitude towards souvenirs (e.g. Kim and Littrell, 1999), or social and cultural factors (e.g. Park, 2000). Many studies also focus on understanding symbols and meanings of souvenirs and their authenticity (e.g. Decrop and Masset, 2014; Elomba and Yun, 2017; Shenhav-Keller, 1993). However, for the purpose of this study, souvenirs will be looked at from a commercial perspective, that is, as commodities purchased by tourists during their travel to keep for themselves or for gift-giving. From a marketing perspective, it is important to commoditize the intangible meanings of souvenirs into tangible products (Swanson and Timothy, 2012). In this sense, the main aim of this study is to examine the purchase of souvenirs to provide useful insights for those involved in the souvenir business (manufacturers and sellers). Thus, the study was designed with the following research objectives:
To identify the most purchased souvenirs, for whom they are bought, and amount spent; To determine the most important attributes tourists consider when purchasing souvenirs; To investigate which attributes are most valued by large buyers; To examine the relationships between tourists’ socio-demographic characteristics and their souvenir shopping; To compare souvenir collectors with non-collectors.
Furthermore, and more generally, from the previous points, the study provides clues to souvenir producers and retailers regarding the souvenirs that should be designed, produced, and sold according to tourists’ characteristics (whether they are collectors or not, which type of souvenirs they purchase, demographics, etc.)
The findings of this study are of great relevance to the souvenir literature since they provide valuable information by listing the most important souvenir attributes. Furthermore, the study carried out is based on a mixed methods approach, since it combines both qualitative and quantitative data, which leads to a better understanding of the topic and provides useful insights for practitioners in the souvenir industry.
Literature review
Souvenirs as memories, evidence, and gifts
Souvenirs are reminders of special moments, places, or events (Swanson, 2004). For travelers, a souvenir provides them with memories when they return home (Collins-Kreiner and Zins, 2011; Swanson and Timothy, 2012) and is a way of making one’s memories real (Lasusa, 2007). That is why it is not surprising that souvenirs are considered to be special objects with meaning (Decrop and Masset, 2017).
The purchase of souvenirs is a popular and normal touristic behavior (Paraskevaidis and Andriotis, 2015). Many tourists purchase souvenirs for many different reasons. Studies have operationalized the purchase of souvenirs motivations in three dimensions: souvenirs as memories, souvenirs as evidence, and souvenirs as gifts (Boley et al., 2013; Wilkins, 2010). The topic on why people purchase souvenirs has been largely investigated.
Travelers purchase souvenirs to remember places they have visited (Paraskevaidis and Andriotis, 2015). This seems to be one of the most important reasons, especially for younger age groups (Olalere, 2017).
Several studies have also demonstrated the importance of souvenirs as evidence. For instance, Wilkins (2010) argues that tourists not only want to remember their experience, but they also want to prove it. Furthermore, he highlights that the souvenir itself can be a way for tourists to communicate with others about their experience. Several other studies have highlighted the motivation to purchase as a souvenir as evidence (Gordon, 1986; Kim and Littrell, 2001; Olalere, 2017; Swanson and Timothy, 2012).
Although souvenirs are normally viewed as objects to remember the travel experience and to provide evidence of travel, another motivation to purchase souvenirs, as mentioned previously, is to offer as gifts. In fact, it has been considered to be one of the major parts of tourist shopping, regardless of the purpose of the trip (Cai et al., 2008; Park, 2000).
Several studies have shown that gift-giving is an important motivation to purchase souvenirs and that a significant number of travelers purchase souvenirs as gifts (e.g. Li and Ryan, 2018; Littrell et al., 1994; Olalere, 2017; Paraskevaidis and Andriotis, 2015; Wilkins, 2010). For instance, in Littrell et al. (1994) study, 69% of the respondents bought souvenirs to offer to family and friends. Gifts are mostly for family members, with an average amount of US$30 per gift (Holiday Inn, 2015). In eastern cultures, souvenir shopping is even more relevant, since they have a more gift-given culture (Lin, 2016).
An earlier study addressing the purchase of souvenirs (Littrell et al., 1994) found that the type of souvenirs tourists most bought were postcards and booklets about sites visited (72%), t-shirts, sweatshirts, other clothing with location names or logos (68%), crafts (61%), and local food products (52%). Although later studies have used different souvenir classifications, making it more difficult to compare findings, there seems to be similar patterns. Tourists seem to be more likely to purchase crafts from the area (such as jewelry and carvings) and specialty products (such as local food and wine) (Fairhurst et al., 2007; Swanson and Horridge, 2002; Swanson and Horridge, 2006; Wilkins, 2010), photographs, postcards, and paintings of the region (Wilkins, 2010), antiques, and books about the area (Swanson and Horridge, 2006). Interestingly, studies have reported that souvenirs such as key rings, mugs, and magnets are purchased less frequently (Wilkins, 2010). Among Chinese tourists it is very popular to give food as a gift souvenir, in particular pastries and cookies (Lin, 2016).
Souvenir attributes
Product attributes refer to the various characteristics of a product that influence a customer’s decision to purchase or not to purchase the product (Swanson and Horridge, 2004). Rather than comparing the products themselves, individuals tend to value certain attributes more than others (Gwin and Gwin, 2003). It is important to examine which attributes are most important when purchasing a souvenir, not only to attract tourists more effectively (Kong and Chang, 2012) but also because “the correct souvenir product assortment can affect whether a tourist will purchase a souvenir” (Swanson and Horridge, 2006: 672).
An early study addressing the purchase of crafts as souvenirs revealed that the most important attributes were appealing colors and design, workmanship or techniques of high quality, being able to display in the home, cost, and making a good gift (Littrell et al., 1994). The aesthetic properties of souvenirs have been consistently found to be one of the most important criteria (Kim and Littrell, 2001; Swanson and Horridge, 2002; Swanson and Horridge, 2004), regardless of the type of souvenir (rug, placemat, or t-shirt) and regardless of whether the souvenir was for self or gift-giving (Kim and Littrell, 2001).
While “being easy to care for or clean” and “being easy to pack or carry” (items from the factor labeled as care and travel) were not important attributes as predictors of souvenir purchase intentions considered in a broad sense (Kim and Littrell, 1999), they were found to be important when purchasing t-shirts and rugs (Kim and Littrell, 2001). This demonstrates that the attributes may vary depending on the type of souvenir. For instance, Hu and Yu (2007) found that when purchasing crafts as souvenirs, high quality of workmanship and aesthetic satisfaction were found to be important attributes. The importance attributed to souvenir attributes may also vary depending on whether it is for a gift or not. Tourists’ attitude towards the care and portability of souvenirs has a stronger effect on intentions to purchase souvenirs when the souvenirs were considered as gifts rather than for themselves (Kim and Littrell, 2001).
Other souvenir attributes that influence the purchase of souvenirs have been uniqueness/clever idea (Kim and Littrell, 1999; Sthapit, 2018; Sthapit and Björk, 2017; Swanson and Horridge, 2004), make a good gift, or fit into a collection (Li and Cai, 2008; Swanson and Horridge, 2004), made by well-known artisans (Swanson and Horridge, 2002; Swanson and Horridge, 2004), quality (Li and Cai, 2008), and having a name, design, or representation of the place visited (Li and Cai, 2008; Olalere, 2017; Park, 2000; Sthapit, 2018; Swanson and Horridge, 2002).
It is important to stress that Le and Dong (2017) found that retail and souvenir shops had a positive effect on overall tourist satisfaction. Retail and souvenir shops were assessed by the quality, variety, and price of the merchandise, as well as the practicality of the souvenirs and having locally connected souvenirs. These results show the importance of having a great variety of souvenirs and with certain attributes.
Effect of socio-demographic variables on the purchase of souvenirs
Several studies have shown that socio-demographic variables affect travelers’ behavior (e.g. Amaro et al., 2016; Hanet al., 2009). Regarding the purchase of souvenirs, studies have yielded mixed results. For instance, Swanson and Horridge (2004) found that tourist demographics (age, income, and education) had no influence neither on the souvenirs purchased nor on souvenir attributes. Wilkins (2010) also found that for both women and men, the most popular souvenir category was photographs, postcards, and paintings of the region.
However, several studies have reported different shopping behaviors among women and male tourists. Women tourists have been found to spend significantly more (Lehto et al., 2004) and purchase souvenirs more frequently than men (Wilkins, 2010). Wilkins (2010) reported that women also buy regional specialty arts and crafts and other local specialty products significantly more than men and are also more likely to buy souvenirs as gifts. Men, as well as tourists with higher education levels, also seem to care more about certain souvenir attributes such as the cultural meaning, if it represents features of the attraction, overall quality, and memory of the trip (Li, 2012).
Specifically focusing on the relationship between the purchase of souvenirs and age, Li (2012) found that tourists over 60 were more concerned with whether the souvenir could help them to remember the trip or whether it appropriately represented the attractions than were those in the other age groups. Lehto et al. (2004) study was about tourism shopping in general and they found that age influenced items bought by travelers. Younger age groups were more likely to buy clothes, while older groups preferred to buy tobacco or wine products. It is interesting to note that younger travelers consider purchasing souvenirs more important than older travelers (Holiday Inn, 2015).
Souvenir collectors
Collecting can be defined as “the process of actively, selectively, and passionately acquiring and possessing things removed from ordinary use and perceived as part of a set of non-identical objects or experiences” (Belk, 2013: 67). Although it is widely recognized that many people collect souvenirs, with Gordon (1986) affirming that “almost everyone is, in one way or another, a collector of souvenirs” (p. 135), there is limited scientific research addressing souvenir collectors. Moreover, there is limited research comparing collectors to non-collectors. A study focusing on collectors, in general, found that they have a predisposition towards collecting as a way of being different and signaling their status (Blanco-González et al., 2012). Regarding souvenirs, research found that only 10% of the travelers inquired were souvenir collectors (Holiday Inn, 2015). Lasusa (2007) argues that tourists collect souvenirs “as a means of demonstrating that they have indeed lived up to the must see social imperative” (p. 283). This research will shed some light on the limited research addressing souvenir collecting.
Methodology
Data for this research were collected in two different phases, using a mixed methods methodology. The first phase was a qualitative approach in which the topic was explored by conducting interviews. The findings were then used to develop a questionnaire for the second phase. This methodology has the advantage of first exploring the topic qualitatively and then follow up with a quantitative phase to verify if the qualitative results can be generalized (Creswell and Clark, 2017).
Phase 1: Interviews
In the first phase of this research, 85 interviews were conducted to tourists visiting Viseu, a city in the Center of Portugal that has been considered the “best city to live” in the past three years. Tourists were approached at touristic areas of the city and at hotels by the interviewer who introduced the study and asked if they were willing to participate. The interviews were conducted based on a semi-structured script (see Appendix 1) and recorded for later transcript and analysis. Each interview took between 8 and 20 min. It should be noted that interviews conducted in the street are normally shorter (Veal, 2017). The first topic was respondents’ identification and why they were traveling. The second topic addressed specific issues with the purchase of souvenirs, such as why, for whom, and other aspects that are important in their choices of souvenirs. Interviews were conducted in Portuguese, English, and French. Following the procedures indicated by Veal (2017), a content analysis of the interview transcripts was conducted with QSR’s NVivo 11 software. With the results obtained and based on the literature review, the questionnaire was developed for the second part of the study.
Phase 2: Questionnaire
In addition to the interviews, a self-administered questionnaire, available in Portuguese, English, and French, was distributed to tourists in the city of Viseu. One of the researchers is native in English and Portuguese, while another is native in French and Portuguese, which helped to develop the questionnaires in these three languages.
The questionnaire began with some questions to contextualize the trip to the city. Then, the respondents were asked to rate the importance they gave to 24 souvenir characteristics, such as quality, weight, and fragility, on a scale of 1–7 where 1 = not important and 7 = extremely important. In order to simplify the study of these characteristics, reducing the number of items to be analyzed, the 24 items were factor analyzed using principal component analysis and Varimax rotation. Five factors were obtained, but some items were excluded from the factor analysis because they had low commonalities or low loadings. These items were studied individually.
The last part of the questionnaire contained questions related to the purchase of souvenirs in this city. In order to ascertain the validity of the answers, and following the recommendations of Oppenheimer et al. (2009), the questionnaire included the following statement “For control, don't answer this one” to verify respondents’ attention. With this procedure, 24 questionnaires were eliminated and a total of 277 valid questionnaires were considered for analysis. The full questionnaire can be found in Appendix 2.
Data were analyzed in IBM SPSS and described by means (M) along with standard deviations (SD), regarding numerical variables, while categorical variables were summarized using frequencies and percentages. Group comparisons were made by t-test, Mann–Whitney test, ANOVA, Kruskal–Wallis test, or Qui-square test and Pearson correlation coefficients were used to evaluate associations. Significance was established for p-values of less than 0.05.
Results and discussion
Interviews
The findings of the first phase provided useful insights to gain a deeper understanding on the purchase of souvenirs. A total of 85 interviews transcripts were analyzed. Most of the interviewees were Portuguese (56%) followed by the English (4%) and the French (4%).
Although the existing souvenir literature had already identified several souvenir attributes, with the content analysis new attributes such as the intended purpose and the utility emerged. It also highlighted other relevant aspects for this research, such as the habit of buying or collecting souvenirs and the amount spent on souvenirs. From the statements of the tourists interviewed and from the literature review, 24 items were identified which served to establish a typology of souvenirs’ attributes for the questionnaire used in the second part of the research.
Eighty-one percent of respondents buy souvenirs when traveling and are willing to pay at least 1–5 euros for a souvenir. The most that they are willing to pay is 10–20 euros. Only 22% affirmed that they collected souvenirs. The most popular souvenirs mentioned are magnets, keyrings, postcards, and typical local products. The important attributes when choosing a souvenir are price, usefulness, purpose, size, and quality. Concerning what respondents were looking for with the purchase of souvenirs, the memories and the symbolism were expressed in their answers. From those who do purchase souvenirs, 85% purchase souvenirs for gifts, mostly for family members. The content analysis also revealed why some people do not buy souvenirs (“I prefer to spend the money on typical food here than on those things” and “I think it is a waste of time and money”). Many respondents prefer to take pictures of the places they visit than to buy souvenirs (“it is the most practical and interesting way to remember the trips I take” and “the phone saves the memories of the places that we visited”).
Questionnaire
A total of 277 valid responses were collected from 18 different nationalities. More than half of the respondents were from Portugal (64%), but the sample also includes British (11%), Spanish (7%), French (6%), Americans (3%), German (2%), and the remaining were from other nationalities. Fifty one percent were women and respondent’s average age was 35 (SD = 11.2). Regarding education level, more than half of the respondents reported having more than 15 years of education.
As shown in Table 1, a very high percentage of respondents (86%) intended to purchase a souvenir. Interestingly, only 47% intended to buy a souvenir for themselves, while 78% planned to purchase souvenirs as gifts. Respondents purchase souvenirs as gifts mostly for family (64%), although some purchase them for friends (27%).
Respondents’ purchase of souvenirs behavior.
Fifty-three percent of respondents collected souvenirs, with women being more likely to be souvenir collectors than men (59% vs. 47%, p < 0.05).
Regarding the number of souvenirs, only 18% of respondents reported their intention to purchase only one, while 67% intended to buy at least two souvenirs and 41% at least three. When questioned about the highest price willing to pay for a souvenir, 68% of respondents reported values between 5€and 20€. Respondents were also inquired about the highest price ever paid for a souvenir and 70% referred values between 10€ and 50€.
Women are more likely to buy more souvenirs than men (M = 2.8 vs. M = 2.2, p < 0.05), supporting the results of earlier studies (e.g. Wilkins, 2010). However, no significant differences were found regarding the amount willing to pay for a souvenir, contradicting a recent study that found that male tourists showed a higher willingness to pay for a souvenir (Shtudiner et al., 2019). The purchase of souvenirs as gifts was more common for women than men (85% vs. 70%, p < 0.01). Women also bought more frequently for their children (29% vs. 17%, p < 0.05).
Respondents look mostly for typical local products and magnets, as shown in Figure 1. T-shirts and key chains are also popular souvenirs. The less purchase souvenirs were bags, books, pens and pencils, and clothing items. Magnets and typical local products are preferred by women (47% vs. 26%, p < 0.01; 44% vs. 30%, p < 0.05, respectively). No significant relationship was found between age and the type of souvenir, nor with the number of souvenirs to purchase. Furthermore, age was not significantly related with the highest price willing to pay for a souvenir, contrary to Shtudiner et al. (2019) study.
The most purchased souvenirs.
To simplify the analysis of the most important souvenirs attributes, a factorial analysis was conducted (explained variance = 62.7%, KMO = 0.69). Fourteen items were aggregated into 5 dimensions: Handling properties (“size,” “weight,” “fragility,” “easy to carry,” and “can be displayed at home or work”), Intention (“purpose,” “usefulness,” and “suitable or appropriate for the recipient”), Singularity (“unusual” and “uniqueness”), Cost (“price” and “being on sale”), and Aesthetics (“appealing design” and “appealing colors”). Table 2 presents the means obtained concerning the importance of each feature and dimension. The top three attributes are the quality of the souvenir, its appropriateness as a gift and the fact that it has the name or design of the place visited.
Means of importance of souvenir attributes.
Note: Factorial dimensions are bolded to easier distinguish them.
A significant positive association was found between the number of souvenirs the tourist intends to buy and the importance given to aesthetics (r = 0.151, p < 0.05), being an accessory (r = 0.138, p < 0.05), being easy to care or clean (r = 0.126, p < 0.05), and handling properties (r = 0.125, p < 0.05). This means that there is a significant, although small, relationship between the number of souvenirs a tourist intends to buy with the importance given to these attributes. Thus, aesthetics, accessories, ease of care, and handling are attributes that should be considered to attract travelers that purchase a larger number of souvenirs.
As previously identified, the most purchase souvenirs are local typical products and magnets. Tourists who showed interest in these souvenirs were compared to those who did not, in order to identify the attributes that differentiate them. Tourists looking for typical local products find quality (p < 0.05), having the name or design of place visited (p < 0.05), singularity (p < 0.05), aesthetics (p < 0.05), being handmade (p <0.05), and being an accessory (p < 0.05) more important than those who do not seek for this type of souvenirs (Table 3).Tourists interested in magnets demonstrated a higher appreciation for having the name or design of place visited (p < 0.01), intension dimension (p < 0.05), resistance (p < 0.05), aesthetics (p < 0.05), cost (p < 0.05), and being an accessory (p < 0.05). This suggests that, for both types of products, typical local products and magnets, the souvenir industry must invest in souvenirs that have the name or design of the place visited, with good aesthetics and that are accessories. As for typical products, quality, uniqueness, and craftsmanship must also be enhanced, since they are the attributes most appreciated by tourists who seek this type of souvenirs. The manufacture of magnets should also privilege resistance and low cost.
Differences between tourists regarding their intention to buy typical local products and magnets.
*Significant differences with p < 0.05; **Significant differences with p < 0.01
Note: Factorial dimensions are bolded to easier distinguish them.
As expected, the highest price tourists are willing to pay for a souvenir, in their visit to Viseu, is inversely associated with the importance given to cost (r = −0.172, p < 0.01), that is, tourists willing to pay more for souvenirs do not consider the cost attribute important. Interestingly, however, it is directly associated with the appreciation of accessories as souvenirs (r = 0.178, p < 0.01). This indicates that tourists that appreciate accessories as souvenirs are more likely to pay more. Likewise, analyzing the association between the highest price ever paid for a souvenir and the importance given to souvenirs attributes, again a significant negative association was found with cost (r = −0.305, p < 0.01) and a positive association with the importance given to accessories (r = 0.119, p < 0.05). Furthermore, a positive relation was found with quality (r = 0.149, p < 0.05), appropriateness as a gift (r = 0.141, p < 0.05), and the intention dimension (r = 0.129, p < 0.05). Thus, souvenirs with these attributes enhance tourists increased spending on the purchase of souvenirs.
Mean comparisons by gender show that only the aesthetics dimension is different between men (M = 4.38) and women (M = 4.73, p < 0.05). For all the other attributes, no significant differences were found between men and women.
Regarding other demographic variables, education years were significantly related to the aesthetic dimension (r = 0.145, p < 0.05), meaning that more educated tourists tend to be the ones who seek the most aesthetic souvenir. Yet, no relation could be established between income and the importance given to any souvenir feature, not even with cost. There was also no significant relationship between age and preferred souvenir attributes.
Mean comparisons between collectors and non-collectors are more contrasting (Table 4). As expected, the best souvenir buyers are the collectors. Indeed, collectors intend to buy more souvenirs than non-collectors (p < 0.001), spend higher amounts on them (p < 0.001), and pay higher prices for souvenirs (p < 0.001). Regarding the products they buy as souvenirs, collectors only differentiate themselves from non-collectors for being more interested in magnets (43.5% vs. 28.5%, p < 0.01) and bags (8.8% vs. 0.8%, p < 0.01). Collectors find quality to be more important than non-collectors (p < 0.05). Collectors also rate the aesthetics dimension higher than non-collectors (p < 0.01), as well as the singularity of the souvenir (p < 0.01) and accessories (p < 0.05). Furthermore, they purchase most frequently for themselves (59.9% vs. 33.1%, p < 0.01) and for family (72.1% vs. 55.4%, p < 0.01), especially for their parents (43% vs. 19%, p < 0.01) and children (29% vs. 16%, p < 0.01). They are also more likely to purchase a souvenir as a gift (83% vs. 72%, p < 0.05).
Differences between collectors and non-collectors.
*Significant differences with p < 0.05
** Significant differences with p < 0.01
*** Significant differences with p < 0.001
Note: Factorial dimensions are bolded to easier distinguish them.
Discussion and implications
One of the aims of this study was to examine which souvenir attributes were more important to tourists. The findings are crucial to designers, manufacturers, and retailers that need to consider these features when designing, producing, and selling souvenirs. In this way, they can attract tourist more effectively (Kong and Chang, 2016). This study found, in both phases, that the most important attribute tourists consider when purchasing souvenirs was quality, supporting the results of Li and Cai (2008) study that had found that this was one of the most important attributes among Chinese travelers. It is interesting to note, however, that although travelers value quality, only 30% are willing to spend more than 15 euros. Souvenirs manufacturers and retailers need to consider quality but with a good value, to attract tourists.
The second most important attribute from the quantitative analysis, but also present in the interviews, was appropriateness as a gift. Earlier studies had already noted the importance of this attribute (Li and Cai, 2008; Littrell et al., 1994). Adding to this, the results of this study reveal that a high percentage of respondents purchase souvenirs as gifts (78% from the questionnaire and 85% from the interviews), supporting the results of earlier studies (e.g. Li and Ryan, 2018; Littrell et al., 1994; Wilkins, 2010). Therefore, the importance of souvenirs as a gift is undeniable, not only by the number of respondents affirming to purchase souvenirs as gifts, but also because some of the most important souvenir attributes are gift related (“Appropriateness as a gift” and the Intention Dimension). Therefore, souvenir retailers and manufacturers need to recognize this fact and should not underestimate the importance of a souvenir as a gift. Not only should the attribute “Making a good gift” be considered when designing and producing souvenirs, but retailers should consider aspects such as packaging and gift-wrapping. The simple fact of offering free gift-wrapping in a souvenir shop has been found to improve perceptions of product variety (Héroux and Church, 2014). Packaging also affects consumers value perception and willingness to pay (Joutsela et al., 2016). Larsen and Watson (2001) hypothesize that gifts with enhanced presentation and packaging will be more valued. Additionally, this study found that women are more likely to purchase souvenirs for gift-giving, so packaging and gift-wrapping could also be made in a way to attract female tourists.
The third most important attribute was having the name of the place visited which had already been noted by other researchers (M. Li and Cai, 2008; Olalere, 2017; Park, 2000; Sthapit, 2018; Swanson and Horridge, 2002).Therefore, this should also be considered when deciding which souvenirs to produce and sell. Furthermore, those in the souvenir business could establish partnerships with destination management organizations, as souvenir products with the name of the place visited are a form of advertising the destination.
Tourists that purchase more souvenirs are looking for souvenirs that are easy to clean and to transport, with aesthetic attributes and accessories. Thus, souvenir retailers should therefore offer a wide variety of souvenirs with these characteristics. In fact, souvenir retails should offer a large souvenir assortment considering the attributes most appreciated found in this study, given that a recent study (Sthapit, 2018) highlighted that tourists prefer large choice set when choosing souvenirs.
Regarding souvenir collectors, the qualitative study found that only 22% of the respondents collected souvenirs, while in the quantitative study the percentage was much higher, as 53% affirmed to collect souvenirs. Despite this deviation, souvenir collectors are a very attractive target. Indeed, they intend to buy more souvenirs, spend higher amounts, and they also paid higher prices for souvenirs. Since collectors are most certainly going to purchase souvenirs, retailers need to make their souvenirs stand out and should consider the attributes that they most value: quality, accessories, aesthetics, and singularity.
Typical local products were the souvenirs that tourists most purchase, which is consistent with previous research (e.g. Fairhurst et al., 2007; Wilkins, 2010). Retailers should have these products available for tourists and, ideally, incorporating the attributes most valued by tourists looking for them: quality, aesthetics, uniqueness, accessories, craftsmanship, and name of place visited. It should be noted that both the interviews and questionnaire revealed that one of the most popular souvenirs bought was magnets. This was an interesting finding since earlier studies have indicated that this was not one of the most popular categories (e.g. Littrell et al., 1994; Wilkins, 2010). Perhaps due to the increase in purchasing souvenirs as gifts, tourists may be spending less on souvenirs and are purchasing magnets for being one of the most affordable souvenirs. Aesthetics, resistance, low cost, and name of place visited were attributes most values for tourists looking for magnets, so these should be enhanced by magnet manufacturers. This study also indicates that magnets and typical local products are preferred by women, paving the way for a line of these products especially aimed at the female clients. Accessories are also a type of souvenir that should be enhanced, since appreciation for these souvenirs is positively associated with willingness to spend more and to buy more souvenirs.
Regarding socio-demographic variables (age, gender, education, and income) not many significant differences were found regarding the purchase of souvenirs. Some of the significant differences worth highlighting are that women buy more souvenirs than men, tend to buy more souvenirs as gifts, and are more likely to collect souvenirs. Therefore, it is important for souvenir producers and retailers to consider gender of potential tourists to design and sell the right product that suits their needs and preferences.
Although the objective of the study was not to explore why tourists do not buy souvenirs, the interviews provided some insights on why some tourists do not purchase souvenirs. Preferring to spend money on typical food and preferring to save memories with pictures on smartphones were some of the reasons mentioned.
Conclusion
Both phases of the study revealed that many tourists purchase souvenirs, with 67% indicating that they intended to buy at least two souvenirs, confirming that the souvenir industry is an attractive market. One of the main objectives of this study was to examine the most purchased souvenirs, for whom they were bought and amount spent. Typical local products and magnets followed by t-shirts and key chain are the most purchased souvenirs. The quantitative study also revealed that 78% of the respondents purchase souvenirs as gifts, which highlights the importance of souvenirs as gifts. However, tourists are not willing to spend high amounts with souvenirs, as 68% of respondents reported values between 5€and 20€.
Another objective was to identify the most important attributes tourists considered when purchasing souvenirs. According to the quantitative analysis, the most important souvenir attributes are quality, appropriateness as a gift, having the name of the place visited, and the intention factor (measured with the items “purpose,” “usefulness,” and “suitable or appropriate for the recipient”). The results obtained in the interviews were almost identical, since most interviewees also mentioned the utility, the purpose, and the quality. In particular, tourists that purchase larger amounts of souvenirs are looking for souvenirs that are easy to clean and to transport, aesthetic, and accessories. Regarding demographics, this study highlights the importance of women since they are more likely to purchase souvenirs as gifts, purchase more souvenirs, are more likely to be collectors.
Furthermore, it explored souvenir collectors, which has clearly been overlooked at in other studies addressing the souvenirs topic. This study reveals they are a very attractive segment, since they intend to purchase more souvenirs, spend higher amounts, and they also pay higher prices for souvenirs.
Understanding travelers’ souvenir preferences is crucial in deciding which souvenirs should be made and sold. Indeed, by better understanding tourists’ purchase of souvenirs, souvenir businesses can adapt their offerings and marketing strategies to increase sales.
Limitations and future research
A main limitation of this study is that the sample was conducted in only one city of Portugal, with an overrepresentation of Portuguese tourists. Therefore, generalizations should be made with caution. Future research should consider examining tourists in other cities of Portugal and in other countries. It would be worthwhile to compare if tourists from different nationalities have different behaviors regarding the purchases of souvenirs. Another limitation is that the importance given to the souvenir attributes may vary depending on the type of souvenir (for example, jewelry versus magnets) and this study did not distinguish the type of souvenirs. Future research could study souvenir attributes by product category.
Another line of future research could be to analyze the choices of tourists when buying souvenirs between two products manipulated in terms of attributes. For instance, it would be interesting to study the choice between the same product (e.g. a magnet) with one having the name of the city and a symbol and another without the name. In this way, it would be possible to study the true effect of certain features (in this example, the importance of having the name of the city). Since one of the most important attributes is appropriateness as a gift, it would also be worthwhile to analyze the type of souvenirs that people like to receive. Another interesting line of investigation would be to compare if tourists from different cultures value features differently.
Despite the limitations, the results of this study provide useful insights to those involved in the souvenir business: souvenirs designers, manufacturers, and retailers and even Destination Management Organizations, as providing excellent souvenir shopping experiences will increase tourists’ satisfaction and loyalty towards the destination.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.