Abstract
An analysis of travelers’ satisfaction with a holiday trip to Spain’s Andalusia region found a distinct difference in the information sources used by first-time visitors and repeat visitors. In addition to determining the travelers’ satisfaction with the trip itself, this study also assessed the travelers’ satisfaction with the travel-related information they received before taking their trip. The framework for the study was a rural tourist trip, a little studied area. Repeat visitors relied primarily on their own experience in terms of expectations for their trips, and any external information sources they consulted had no effect on their satisfaction with the trip. Of the several external sources consulted by the first-time visitors, only mass-media advertising was associated with favorable satisfaction results for the first-timers. Other sources, including word of mouth, the internet, and noncommercial media placements (such as news stories), were associated with negative effects on satisfaction, perhaps because these sources created unrealistic expectations. Destination promotions attracted both new and returning visitors, but again the two groups had different views on which types of promotion were most effective. First-time travelers responded primarily to price discounts in some form, whereas repeat travelers were more inclined toward such nonprice promotions as gifts and prize drawings. For hospitality and tourism officials, the findings focus on the need to ensure that information sources are accurate and create appropriate expectations for first-time travelers. This may require more activity in social media, since internet sources apparently created incorrect expectations or simply offered the first-time travelers so much information that they felt overloaded.
Rural tourism constitutes a form of tourism in its own right (Blanco-Herranz 1996), where the main motivation is contact with the rural environment (Fuentes-García 1995, 76; Valdés-Peláez 1996). The growing significance of rural tourism is recognized by a number of key bodies including, at the international level, the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO 2007), and, at the continental level, the European Council (2009). At the national level, in the case of Spain, those entities responsible for tourism have included rural tourism in their strategic planning for tourism development, enshrined in the Programa 2020 program (Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Commerce 2007).
Given that satisfaction is a determinant of tourist behavior (e.g., Tian-Cole, Crompton, and Willson 2002), we sought to analyze determinants of satisfaction, namely, the information sources used by tourists, together with sales promotions. We found surprisingly few studies on information sources as a determinant of satisfaction and few that relate the influence of satisfaction with information sources consulted pre-holiday to the client’s satisfaction with their actual holiday experience. Castañeda, Frías, and Rodríguez (2007) analyze the effect of the tourist’s satisfaction with online information on their post-holiday satisfaction, and Petrick, Morais, and Norman (2001) examine the effect of information gleaned through previous experience on tourist satisfaction. Neither of these, however, measures the differential effect of the information sources consulted—analyzed independently of one another—on overall customer satisfaction, and no work has applied such an analysis to rural tourism.
Similarly, sales promotions are also rarely addressed in the literature as determinants of satisfaction. Instead, the influence of sales promotions on the customer’s purchase decision process has been analyzed in several studies (Álvarez-Álvarez and Vázquez-Casielles 2005; Ndubisi and Moi 2005).
Given that promotions and price incentives can alter the customer’s perception of the benefits and costs of their holiday (K. Peattie and Peattie 1996), it is important to consider their perception of the value of the holiday in that light. Perceived value is considered to be of major importance in marketing management (Woodruff 1997) and is a key antecedent of satisfaction (González-Gallarza and Gil-Saura 2006; Woodruff 1997). Hence, this study looks at the effect on guests’ perceived value of tourist satisfaction with the information sources consulted and with the promotions used by hotels. Beyond that, studies have found differences between first-time and repeat customers or tourists in the purchase processes for goods or services (Alba and Hutchinson 1987; Gensch 1987; Spence and Brucks 1997). So far, the causes of these differences have remained unidentified.
The aim of this study, then, is to analyze the determinants of satisfaction with rural tourism by designing an integrated theoretical model that considers the moderating effect of the tourists’ previous experience. We analyze the differential effect of satisfaction with various external information sources on the tourists’ satisfaction with their rural holiday and the hospitality they experience, and we examine the appeal and effect on satisfaction of the different types of sales promotions, as measured via perceived value.
Understanding the differences between first-time and repeat visitors is of vital importance in developing effective tourism marketing and management strategies, as well as in building travel motivation and decision-making theories (Lau and McKercher 2004; Petrick 2004). Information regarding tourists’ status as first-time or repeat visitors can be useful in market segmentation (Formica and Uysal 1998) and in indicating destination familiarity (Tideswell and Faulkner 1999).
Our study contributes to the literature in the following aspects: (1) by taking two antecedents that are little examined in the literature—external information sources and sales promotions—and measuring the effect of each one (analyzing them independently from one another) and of each type of promotional tool used by hotels (again, independently) on customer satisfaction, (2) by measuring the moderating effect of the customer’s previous experience on these antecedents of satisfaction, (3) by developing an integrated theoretical model of these determinants on satisfaction using formative and reflective indicators together, and (4) by applying the proposed model to the rural tourism sector, which is a little measured growth area.
Literature Review
Relationship between Satisfaction with Information Sources and Satisfaction with the Holiday and Hospitality
Tourists may consult many types of information sources regarding a destination, including mass-media advertising, unpaid advertising, travel agencies, tourist offices, the internet, and friends and relatives. Most of the customer behavior models include the search for external information as an important component of the overall purchase decision-making process (e.g., Gursoy and McCleary 2004). It is also important to understand how the information provided can influence the tourist’s overall satisfaction with their chosen holiday and hospitality.
Overall satisfaction has been defined as the customer’s evaluation of a good or service (Jones and Suh 2000). Some authors consider that satisfaction with information about the prospective purchase is an antecedent to overall satisfaction (Petrick and Backman 2002; Spreng, MacKenzie, and Olshavsky 1996). Spreng, MacKenzie, and Olshavsky (1996) showed that satisfaction with the information provided prior to the purchase explains a significant amount of the variance in customer satisfaction. These authors defined satisfaction with information as a subjective judgment regarding information used in the choice of a tourist destination. Customers develop expectations based on the information they use to choose a destination and accommodation, and dissatisfaction with either the information or the experience can follow when such expectations are not fulfilled.
The relationship between satisfaction with the information and overall satisfaction has been proposed and tested in different contexts: e-satisfaction (McKinney, Yoon, and Zahedi 2002; Szymanski and Hise 2000), information systems (DeLone and McLean 1992), products (Spreng, MacKenzie, and Olshavsky 1996), and tourism (Castañeda, Frías, and Rodríguez 2007; Petrick and Backman 2002). One of the main conclusions of the tourism studies is the importance of tourist satisfaction with pre-trip information as a condition for having a gratifying experience (and repeating the purchase). Once tourists have chosen their destination with the information obtained through a variety of sources, this information should help them to adapt their holiday plans to their needs. In this sense, the quality and quantity of information obtained during the decision-making process should have an impact on satisfaction with the destination (Peterson, Balasubramanian, and Bronenberg 1997; Szymanski and Hise 2000). Therefore, on the basis of the foregoing discussion, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: The greater the tourist’s satisfaction with the information consulted, the greater their satisfaction with their holiday and accommodation.
Relationship between the Appeal of Different Types of Promotional Tools and Perceived Value
Sales promotion, usually in the form of a monetary incentive, represents between one-third and one-half of companies’ marketing budgets worldwide (Hu, Parsa, and Khan 2006; Information Resource, Inc. 2006; Nusair et al. 2010). Promotions influence sales, perceptions of quality, and business profitability (Raghubir 2004; G. A. Taylor 2001).
Monetary sales promotions, particularly discounts, are nearly universal in the tourism sector, and nonmonetary promotions are also common (K. Peattie and Peattie 1993a, 1993b, 1996; K. Peattie, Peattie, and Emafo 1997). In that regard, Monty and Skidmore (2003) analyze guests’ willingness to pay for a set of additional services in the hospitality sector and housing—the so-called hedonic price model—which can be regarded as a promotional tool that is not based on sales price.
Customer’s perceived value can be affected by the type of sales promotions undertaken by a hotel. In this regard, the customer’s view of perceived value balances that which they “obtain” (perceived benefits) against what they “give up” (perceived costs or sacrifices; Zeithaml 1988).
Sales promotions can heighten the perceived value of the service offered by manipulating the price-quality relationship, or they can add value by offering the customer something extra (K. Peattie and Peattie 1996). Not all customers respond in the same way to a particular type of promotion. Response depends on, among other things, price sensitivity (Huang et al. 2012) and on the type of promotion employed (Kalra and Shi 2010).
An additional consideration is that the influence of the type of promotion on the customer’s attitude will depend on whether the promotion on offer is congruent, incongruent, or irrelevant relative to the type of tourism undertaken. If the promotional information received by individuals is congruent, they are likely to recall it more easily, and their attitude will be significantly more positive compared with the case of incongruent or irrelevant information (Magnini, Garcia, and Honeycutt 2010; S. E. Taylor and Crocker 1981).
Beyond this, we have found little information about the influence of different promotional tools on tourist perceived value, particularly in specific sectors, including rural tourism. The literature concludes that, in the tourism sector, promotional activities tend to be undertaken jointly, or one type of promotional tool is used that embraces several others. Hence, K. Peattie and Peattie (1996) point to the need to analyze the tools individually, paying attention also to the specific sector in which they are being applied (Hu, Parsa, and Khan 2006; S. Peattie and Peattie 1994; K. Peattie and Peattie 1996).
We seek to fill this information gap by analyzing the effect of different types of promotion on perceived value, with the understanding that neither costs nor benefits are evaluated equally by all customers and some will respond to promotions more than others. For this reason, our study examines both monetary and nonmonetary promotions, with the latter being differentiated between those that have no direct relationship with the tourism activity undertaken and those that are congruent with the activity.
The following hypotheses, then, are proposed:
Hypothesis 2: The perception of the appeal of the monetary sales promotions offered by rural hotels will have a positive influence on perceived value as viewed by the guest.
Hypothesis 3: The perception of the appeal of the nonmonetary sales promotions offered by rural hotels, that have no direct relationship to the tourism activity undertaken, will have a positive influence on perceived value as viewed by the guest.
Hypothesis 4: The perception of the appeal of the nonmonetary sales promotions offered by rural hotels that are congruent with the tourism activity undertaken will have a positive influence on perceived value as viewed by the guest.
Effect of Perceived Value on Satisfaction with the Holiday and Hospitality
While most of the literature considers perceived value to be a key antecedent of satisfaction (Sánchez-Fernández and Iniesta-Bonillo 2006; Setijono and Dahlgaard 2007), a small number of works consider satisfaction to be an antecedent of perceived value (Khalifa 2004; Sakthivel and Raju 2006). This relationship is particularly marked in the tourism sector, given that the tourist’s satisfaction constitutes a key variable in this sphere and is a major consequence of perceived value, as demonstrated in the works of González-Gallarza and Gil-Saura (2006) and Moliner et al. (2006).
Even though research has extensively analyzed this relationship, it has never been tested out in the rural tourism sector. We wanted to study this important relationship for the rural sector. Thus the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 5: The tourist perceived value of a rural holiday and hospitality will have a positive influence on the tourist’s satisfaction.
The Moderating Effect of Experience of the Holiday and Hospitality
Previous studies have shown that tourists repeating their visit will buy more goods and services than first-time tourists (Petrick, Morais, and Norman 2001). Meanwhile, other studies reveal that destination knowledge accumulated via previous visits tends to affect perceptions of a place (Anwar and Sohail 2004; Fakeye and Crompton 1991). First-time and repeat visitors have a significantly different image of a destination, probably because repeat visitors’ images are based on their actual experiences whereas first-time visitors must rely on external sources.
The tourism literature also suggests that destination experience significantly affects the tourist’s decision-making process (Gursoy and McCleary 2004; Li et al. 2008). Some studies show that for repeat visitors their own destination experience is their major source of information for planning their trip (Assael 2004; Woodside and Dubelaar 2002). Meanwhile, other works conclude that repeat visitors utilize a wider variety of information sources than first-time visitors (Shanka and Taylor 2004). These findings match those obtained by Lehto, O’Leary, and Morrison (2004), who found that tourists’ information search efforts do not necessarily decrease as their experiences with a specific destination increase.
So we see that the difference between the two types of tourists is that first-time visitors exclusively use external information sources whereas repeat visitors can use both external and internal sources. When external information is needed, repeat travelers’ information search is greatly affected by their trip experience (J. Chen and Gursoy 2000). In this sense, Beerli and Martín (2004) indicate that repeat visitors tend to have more knowledge than first-time visitors due to the first-timers’ reliance on independent or external information sources. Hence, for repeat tourists, their satisfaction with the holiday and hospitality should be less affected by their satisfaction with external information sources than in the case of first-timers, leading to the sixth hypothesis of this research:
Hypothesis 6: Previous experience of a holiday and hospitality in the same rural tourism destination moderates the effect of satisfaction with the information source consulted on overall satisfaction with the holiday and hospitality.
Although satisfaction with the destination also differs between first-time visitors and repeat visitors, the results outlined in the literature are inconsistent. While some studies show that first-timers are more easily satisfied with a destination than repeaters (Anwar and Sohail 2004), others report that repeaters indicate a higher level of satisfaction than first-time visitors (Li et al. 2008; Mohr et al. 1993).
Some researchers have started focusing on identifying those factors that differentially affect the level of satisfaction between the two groups. For instance, Fallon and Schofield (2004) revealed that different hierarchies of destination attributes might account for the overall satisfaction of first-time and repeat visitors, notably, secondary attractions, such as shopping and dining opportunities.
In a study of cruise tourism, Petrick (2004) attempted to identify the differences between first-time passengers and those repeating. There were significant differences not only for the antecedents of perceived value between first-time and repeat passengers but also in the predictors of intention to repeat the purchase. For first-time passengers, the predictor was quality, whereas it was perceived value for those repeating.
The effect of promotion on satisfaction can also vary between first-time visitors and repeat visitors. Studies indicate that repeat visitors require less persuasion and lower promotional expenditure for destination marketers to secure their business than do new customers (Lau and McKercher 2004). In accordance with the foregoing, we propose the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 7: Previous experience of a holiday and hospitality in a rural tourism destination moderates the effect of the appeal of sales promotions on perceived value with that destination.
Hypothesis 8: Previous experience of a holiday and hospitality in a rural tourism destination moderates the effect of perceived value on overall satisfaction with that destination.
Method
Sample Design and Data Collection
We gathered information via structured questionnaires with closed questions from a sample of tourists who had undertaken at least one stay in a rural accommodation within Andalusia, which in recent years has become one of the preferred destinations in Spain. In 2008, Andalusia, Spain’s southern-most province, was in the fourth place by the number of beds available in rural establishments, compared with all Spanish regions, with 8 percent of the total.
In undertaking the information gathering, we had the collaboration of the Association of Rural Hotels in Andalusia (ARHA), which has sixty-two affiliated rural establishments representing around 37 percent of the total number of rural tourist beds available in Andalusia. The first step was to brief the ARHA management team on the aims of the research, after which they contacted associated hotels to explain the project and encourage them to take part. Twenty-three hotels eventually participated (37%).
The hotels were briefed by the researchers on the instructions they were to give to guests on arrival, namely, to inform them of the research, request their collaboration, and assign a contact number. As a participation incentive, respondents were entered into a prize drawing, in which three winners would be chosen to enjoy two nights’ bed and breakfast at the ARHA hotel of their choice.
A total of 243 guests agreed to participate in interviews that took place four weeks later, via computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATI). We ultimately obtained 164 valid responses—some 67 percent of those who agreed to participate. Respondents were over eighteen years, had undertaken rural tourism in the previous year, and had used all the external information sources proposed in our research to select their tourist destination. Exhibit 1 shows the technical specifications of the study.
Technical Data.
Note: ARHA = Association of Rural Hotels in Andalusia.
Assuming that the requirements of the random sampling were fulfilled.
Measurement Scales
All questionnaire items were measured with Likert-type or semantic differential scales of five points (appendix).
To measure guests’ satisfaction with the different information sources, we asked, “With regard to the information sources you consulted to obtain information about your holiday, please rate your level of satisfaction (1: dissatisfied; 5: very satisfied).” We then listed information sources representing the following five types:
impersonal, commercial information sources;
impersonal, noncommercial information sources;
personal, noncommercial information sources;
online information sources; and
personal, commercial information sources.
We used a single item to measure satisfaction with impersonal, commercial information sources (namely, mass-media advertising); impersonal, noncommercial information sources (nonadvertising items, such as news stories); and personal, noncommercial information sources (word of mouth). As many authors assert, if the construct being measured is sufficiently narrow or is unambiguous to the respondent, as was the case here, the use of single-item measurements can provide a good option (Nagy 2002; Reichheld 2003; Sackett and Larson 1990; Wanous, Reichers, and Hudy 1997).
By contrast, when measuring the rural tourist’s satisfaction with personal, commercial information sources or online sources, we used several items to capture these two sources’ various facets. There are three clear types of personal, commercial information sources that are fairly heterogeneous—namely, traditional travel agencies, tourist offices, and tourism fairs or events. We proposed the following four different types of online information sources: online agencies, web sites belonging to the tourism establishments themselves,; institutional web sites (in this case belonging to national, regional, provincial, or local government in Spain), and online forums.
For this reason, with a view to assuring construct validity, in these cases, we opted for various formative indicators, bearing in mind that the measurements for each of these latent variables represent defining characteristics that, together, explain their significance. None of these latent variables shares a common concept; rather each captures unique aspects of the conceptual domain of the construct with which they are associated (Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer 2001).
We used two-item scales in each of the three categories of possible incentives. For monetary sales promotions, we asked about price discounts and discount vouchers. We also tested gifts and participation in competitions and drawings, which constitute two nonmonetary sales promotions that have no direct relationship to rural tourism. Finally, the choice of two nonmonetary incentives with a high degree of congruence with the rural tourism activity was made in light of the past experience of the rural establishments belonging to ARHA, and of the association’s senior figures’ opinions. Those were the offer of complimentary excursions or the promise to donate a percentage of the price paid to local environmental efforts.
Two Likert-scale items were used to measure perceived value (i.e., the trip was “adequate,” the trip satisfied my desires and needs), based on the approach proposed by Cronin, Brady, and Hult (2000) and applied in various studies of the tourism sector (González-Gallarza, Arteaga-Moreno, and Gil-Saura 2005; González-Gallarza and Gil-Saura 2006). Overall satisfaction with the holiday and hospitality was measured using a three 5-point semantic differential scale adapted from the work of Crosby and Stephens (1987) and Spreng, MacKenzie, and Olshavsky (1996), applied in research on tourism by Baker and Crompton (2000). The pairs were unpleasant–pleasant, negative–positive, and unsatisfactory–satisfactory.
The last part of the questionnaire asked for demographic information and also divided the sample into first-time visitors and repeat visitors. This scale was adapted from the work of J. Chen and Gursoy (2000) and Taks et al. (2009).
Results
Sample Description
The final sample was about evenly divided between men and women (51-49 percent). Just over 50 percent were between thirty and forty-four years of age, whereas the rest were equally distributed between the other two age groups considered (eighteen to twenty-nine years and above forty-five years). Most of the individuals interviewed (80%) had higher or secondary education. The sample was about evenly divided among four income levels.
Perhaps of greatest interest was that most of the respondents were from Andalusia itself—about 85 percent of them, with 15 percent from outside this region, mainly from Madrid and the east coast of Spain. This generally reflects the composition of Andalusia’s domestic travelers (82 percent come from the province itself, according to Familitur 2010). Two substantial cities, Seville and Córdoba, are located in Andalusia, and these urban dwellers could be visiting the nearby countryside. Given that this was mostly a local crowd, it is not surprising that 61 percent (one hundred) were repeat visitors, whereas the remainder (sixty-four, or 39%) stated it was their first holiday in Andalusia.
Theoretical Model and Method of Analysis
We designed a causal model around the concept of overall satisfaction with the holiday and hospitality (see Exhibit 2). In this model, overall satisfaction and perceived value were measured using scales with reflective indicators, as previously used and validated in the literature. For the other scales, formative indicators were chosen, considering that the measurements of each of the latent variables represent defining characteristics that collectively explain their significance.
Theoretical Model.
Techniques or statistical procedures for estimating a causal model differ depending on the aims of the analysis, the statistical suppositions on which they are based, and the nature of the fit statistics they provide (Barroso, Cepeda, and Roldán 2010). On one hand, we find the methods based on covariance analysis (MBC; Lisrel, Amos, EQS), which seek to estimate the parameters of the model, minimizing the discrepancies between the initial covariance matrix of the data and the covariance matrix estimated by the proposed models (Bagozzi 1980; Jöreskog 1973).
On the other hand, a powerful analytical method has recently been developed as an alternative to MBC, known as methods based on variance analysis or partial least squares (PLS; Chin 1998; Lohmöller 1989; Wold 1982). Its advantages over MBC include the minimum assumptions made for measurement scales, specification of measurement models (reflective or formative indicators), sample size, and data distribution (Chin, Marcolin, and Newsted 1996). The aim of PLS is to predict dependent variables, maximizing their explained variance.
The theoretical model proposed in this study is therefore much better suited to the conditions for application of the PLS technique, especially since our sample is relatively small. PLS provides robust estimations of models with a smaller sample size than MBC models (Barroso, Cepeda, and Roldán 2010; Chin 2000; Chin and Newsted 1999). Also our model is not complex as it uses scales with few items, and PLS can assure robustness of results (Qureshi and Compeau 2009).
Estimating the Model and Testing the Hypotheses
The proposed model was estimated using the SmartPLS statistical software developed by Ringle, Wende, and Will (2005). Given the aims of this research, the model was estimated for each of the two subsamples of tourists, first-timers and repeat visitors. For constructs with reflective indicators, the attributes of reliability and validity were evaluated for each of the two groups. Exhibit 3 shows the adequate internal consistency of the scales used to measure perceived value, satisfaction, and behavioral intention in both groups. All the cross-loadings were significant, and the composite reliability and extracted variance (AVE) values were above the recommended limits (0.8 and 0.5). The discriminant validity of the two constructs in each group was tested following the procedure proposed by Fornell and Larcker (1981), in which the square root of the AVEs must be greater than the correlations between constructs.
Measurement Model Attributes with Reflective Indicators.
Note: AVE = extracted variance.
Since we cannot assume that the formative measurements are covariant given their conceptual characteristics, the previous tests for reliability and validity are not at all appropriate for constructs with formative indicators (Bollen and Lennox 1991). In these cases, it is important to evaluate the possibility of multicollinearity of the formative indicators. With this aim in mind, we calculated the variance inflation factors (VIF) for each group and the tolerance index for each of the indicators (see Exhibit 4). In all cases, the tolerance indices were higher than 0.1 and the VIF lower than five, thus refuting the hypothesis of multicollinearity of the formative indicators making up the satisfaction scales for external information sources and appeal of sales promotions.
Assessment of Formative Constructs.
Note: VIF = variance inflation factors.
Exhibit 5 shows the results of the structural model for the two groups of tourists, including the estimated coefficient and t-values resulting from the application of the bootstrap resampling procedure to 1,000 subsamples of identical dimensions to the sample size of each of the two groups, as recommended by Chin (2000).
Structural Model: First-time Groups vs. Repeat Visitor Groups.
Looking first of all at the relationships between satisfaction with external information sources and overall satisfaction with the holiday and hospitality, important differences are observed between the two groups of tourists. Contrary to Hypothesis 1, none of the information sources considered seems to have a significant influence on overall satisfaction for the repeat visitors.
For the first-time visitors, however, significant positive influence was exerted by mass-media advertising (i.e., impersonal, commercial information sources, 0.20), and negative influence by news items appearing in the media (i.e., impersonal, noncommercial sources, −0.36), online information sources (−0.20), and friends or word of mouth (i.e., personal, noncommercial sources, −0.11). In view of these results, Hypothesis 1 can only partially be confirmed, for the case of impersonal, commercial information sources. Likewise, Hypothesis 6 should not be rejected, since a moderating effect of previous experience on the relations analyzed was observed.
With regard to Hypotheses 2, 3, 4, and 7, the results reveal that for nonmonetary sales promotions with no direct relationship to the tourism activity undertaken (gifts and competitions), their perceived degree of appeal has a direct and positive influence on perceived value for both groups (repeat visitors, 0.22, first-timers, 0.29), with no significant differences between the two (p ≤ .05).
However, significant relations with perceived value exist only for monetary sales promotions (price discounts and coupons) for first-timers (0.29) and for nonmonetary sales promotions that are congruent with the tourism activity for repeat visitors (0.27). Price promotions and gifts are what most determine the formation of perceived value for first-time tourists, whereas appropriate promotions and those involving gifts and prize draws are most determinant for repeat visitors. In light of these results, Hypothesis 3 is confirmed and Hypotheses 2, 4, and 7 are partially confirmed.
To test Hypothesis 5, we analyzed the direct effect of perceived value on overall satisfaction. This effect was significant and positive for both groups, thus confirming Hypothesis 5, in line with previous academic literature on marketing in general and on tourism in particular. For first-time tourists, perceived value is an important antecedent of satisfaction (0.73) and is only slightly lower among repeat visitors (0.61). Nonetheless, after comparing all the differences between the two groups, none was found to be significant (p ≥ .05), so the moderating influence of previous experience on the relation between perceived value and satisfaction (Hypothesis 8) cannot be confirmed.
Having tested the hypotheses by means of the comparative analysis of structural coefficients, the next and last stage consisted of evaluating the predictive capacity of the model. This involved examining the percentage of explained variance of the dependent constructs (R2), as well as their predictive relevance using the Stone-Geisser Q2 indicator (Chin 1998). It is established that if Q2 > 0, the model has predictive relevance.
By analyzing the results obtained for the two dependent variables of our model (Exhibit 5), we can conclude that both overall satisfaction with the holiday and hospitality (first-timers: R2 = 0.60, Q2 = 0.47; repeat visitors: R2 = 0.38, Q2 = 0.34), and perceived value (first-timers: R2 = 0.18, Q2 = 0.15; repeat visitors: R2 = 0.15, Q2 = 0.13) present suitable percentages of explained variance and predictive validity in both groups.
Conclusion and Managerial Implications
The aim of this study was to analyze the determinants of overall satisfaction with a rural tourism holiday and hospitality, particularly the information sources used, by considering the moderating effect of the tourist’s previous experience of the chosen tourist destination. The findings clearly show that satisfaction with the information sources used and the perception of the appeal of the different types of sales promotions offered by hotels have an influence on satisfaction with the holiday and hospitality. This influence is shaped by the type of information source consulted and the type of sales promotion used, as well as by the tourist’s past experience.
Tourism managers can use this study’s findings as a guide to identify the information sources and promotional incentives that are best suited to reaching either new guests or returning travelers. The understanding of the moderating effect of experience on the relationship between the tourist’s satisfaction with information sources consulted and their satisfaction with the holiday and hospitality in rural tourism enables tourism leaders to identify the best information sources for first-time guests, since this study did not find that external sources drove satisfaction for returning guests. More to the point, it also helps identify those that are not suitable for first-timers or those that are being used inappropriately.
We found that mass advertising campaigns were the only source that reached first-time visitors and had a significant, positive effect on satisfaction. The findings indicate that these advertisements create expectations about the destination that fit with what these travelers later find to be true. On the basis of these results, it can be observed that advertising is an advisable approach in the rural tourism sector, being an effective instrument of communication.
Beyond that, for first-time visitors in this study, the information sources we tested do not appear to be entirely appropriate or they are not being used effectively. We found that the tourists’ satisfaction with unpaid advertising, such as news items, and noncommercial, personal sources (typically, friends and relatives), had a negative effect on their overall satisfaction with the trip. We can only conclude that these sources created expectations that were greater than the satisfaction they derived from actually visiting the destination. Despite the idea that these sources are impartial and supposedly more truthful, in practice, these sources apparently offered information that in some way did not reflect the reality and created unrealistic expectations. This outcome is understandable for first-timers who have no factual basis for their expectations.
The same problem seems to occur with information obtained by the customers via the internet. Even though the web allows individuals to collate enormous volumes of information and can help them to plan every detail of their holiday, it can also lead to information overload (Ahuja and Webster 2001; Eveland and Dunwoody 2001). This, in turn, can prevent them from forming a true image of the destination they are to visit.
While a hospitality operator cannot control much of what is posted, hotel and destination officials should endeavor to ensure that the information they convey matches as closely as possible to reality. Social networks provide a method for creating proper expectations.
We believe our finding of no significant influence of satisfaction with the information from travel agents and tourism offices on overall satisfaction stems from the nature of the hotel industry in Andalusia. At first glance, this result is striking in that travel agents are one of the preferred information sources among tourists wishing to enquire about holiday destinations (Baloglu and Mangaloglu 2001). However, as rural tourism is characterized by small-scale hotels, many of which are family businesses, travelers might not consult travel agents, and therefore, they are not a channel of commercialization for such enterprises. As an additional consequence, travel agents tend not to have at their disposal a complete, comprehensive range of information about the real offer in this type of tourism, either in terms of hospitality or with regard to activities that can be undertaken at the rural destination.
For repeat visitors, satisfaction with information sources has no influence on overall satisfaction. These results provide empirical support for the literature, which logically asserts that repeaters rely on their prior experience as a major information source in travel planning (Assael 2004; J. Chen and Gursoy 2001; Fodness and Murray 1997).
These findings show the importance of information sources consulted by first-time tourists on their satisfaction. Both hotels and public bodies responsible for publicizing a destination should differentiate between these two groups of consumers and design their communication campaigns to create appropriate expectations among first-timers. For repeat guests, any information campaign appears mostly to have the function of reinforcing what they already know and encouraging repeat patronage through appropriate incentives.
Previous studies show that these two customer groups have different models of consumption (Li et al. 2008) and that their reasons for visiting are fundamentally different, as are the types of activities they pursue (Lau and McKercher 2004). While first-time visitors are keen to explore new places (e.g., traveling around the area and visiting new hotels and attractions), repeat visitors seek specific experiences (such as shopping or good food).
Hence communication campaigns aimed at first-time visitors should focus more on the tangible and intangible aspects that a hotel and destination can offer, such as the natural resources of the area or the hotel’s characteristics. For repeat visitors, communication campaigns should include more “emotional” triggers reminding them of happy times spent there during prior visits. Furthermore, given that repeat visitors are more accessible, hotels can undertake direct marketing campaigns aimed at past guests, offering them new experiences.
The moderating effect of experience on the relationship between the different types of sales promotion used by accommodation establishments and perceived value enables the optimum sales promotions for each market segment to be identified. For first-time guests, gift and price promotions are perceived as having the greatest appeal. An immediate price reduction is especially attractive and, therefore, highly valued, when choosing an unknown rural hotel.
In contrast, for repeat visitors, if there is previous experience of a particular hotel, other variables play a part when making an overall evaluation of the holiday and hospitality. For repeat visitors, both gift promotions and those concerning activities related to rural tourism take on special relevance for perceived value. This could be because the promotion is congruent with the service being offered, and the customer perceives it to be within the category of rural tourism. If the customer repeats because they like this type of tourism, their attitude will be influenced by a process of transfer from the category to the promotion. In such a way, sales promotions that include a prize that is well matched to the product category will be perceived as being less manipulative than an unrelated item (D’Astous and Landreville 2003).
With regard to the influence of the appeal of promotional tools on tourist perceived value, it is observed that only one of the promotional tools used—namely, gift promotions—has a significant positive effect for both first-time and repeat visitors. It should be noted that this influence declines slightly when relating to repeat visitors, which could suggest that once a guest has visited a particular rural hotel, they will have a personal opinion based on that experience, as a result of which their decision would be less affected by the offer of potential gifts.
As before, those responsible for managing hotels’ promotional initiatives need to apply different tools according to the selected market segment. To attract first-timers, they should use both price and gift promotions, whereas for repeat visitors, they should use gift promotions together with those concerning activities related to rural tourism. We suggest that promotional spending for returning guests can be set lower, as previous studies reveal that repeat visitors require less persuasion to secure their decision to repeat (Lau and McKercher 2004).
Finally, the influence of the perceived value of the holiday and hospitality for the tourist on their overall satisfaction is positive for both first-time and repeat visitors. The strength of such relationships is slightly reduced in the case of repeat visitors, who perhaps are considering the “opportunity cost” in terms of satisfaction of repeating a trip instead of seeing something new.
These results are consistent with the findings of other studies that assert that first-time visitors are easier to satisfy, due to typically lower expectations (Anwar and Sohail 2004). Making use of this information, the managers of rural hotels should incorporate new incentives and renewed activities, given that their aim is not just to attract new customers, but to encourage former customers to return.
An important limitation of this study concerns the impossibility of differentiating between different types of accommodation to be found throughout rural Andalusia, which has prevented us from making a differentiated, specific profile for each accommodation type. A further limitation is the sample size and its limited geographical scope. The fact that most of our respondents lived in the region may have influenced our findings. Another important limitation is the lack of consideration of variables such as perceived quality, which have been analyzed as antecedents of satisfaction and predictors of the guest’s future behavior. Finally, in the “information sources” dimension of this work we did not distinguish between content to be found on “official” web sites and that available via social networks. This could make for an interesting line of research that we will bear in mind for future works.
Footnotes
Appendix
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) financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This article received financial support through the project entitled “Promover el espíritu emprendedor entre los alumnus y profesores de la Facultad De Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales” supported by Agencia de Innovación y Desarrollo de Andalucía.