Product Development & Innovation

Perceptions of tourism products

​

Xu (2010) investigates the question “What makes a memorable and successful experience for a tourist” (Xu, 2010:1). The complexity of tourism product is discussed; a real definition of a tourist product is missing, as the product basically is whatever is promoted: a park, hotel or a destination.  Research shows that a tourist product is the complete experience and can be divided into leisure or business. Tourist products are being investigated through Smith’s five elements: physical plant, service, hospitality, involvement and freedom of choice. Smith ranked the elements after management control and consumer participation. In this study has Xu (2010) chosen to define the tourist product from a marketing perspective and focus more on demand instead of supply.

​

A survey, with 79 tourist students in Hong Kong ranking the importance of the five elements for different tourist products, showed that physical plant was overall ranked as the element of most importance while the other four where ranked relatively equally. When looking into the products separately could it be confirmed that depending on product was different elements ranked higher or lower, for example for a festival product was the plant not so important but the involvement of a higher importance and freedom of choice was most important when it came to restaurants and retail.

​

Xu (2010) could through the study conclude that the physical plant is the core element and the other four seen as support elements and

draw it into a circular model. Tourist products come into existence when all five elements are successfully integrated and therefore catch

the attention of the tourist. Managers must see the products in a holistic view and include both core and support elements in today’s

experience economy. The support elements can be seen as the experience-based elements, but the plant needs to remain the core.

It is highlighted at the end of the study the importance for tourist to feel individual and due to the differences within tourism can the model

only be used to secure competitiveness.

 

Personal reflection

As Xu (2010) mentions in the article, is there a limitation in the size of the sample, only 79 students and a small different in culture, age and background. Even though it is still a lot left to research is it a good start and shows to what more can be researched within the area. The study does confirm “common sense” in certain areas where it is stated that hospitality is not very important when ranking casinos, museum and nature or that the plant is not that important for festival events.

When building a tourist product can it be very helpful though, as Xu states, to assure to have the elements ranked important to secure competitiveness in a very crowded industry. Looking more exactly into a hotel in a winter sport region is it showed through the study that the core is the plant, so the rooms and the building itself, and the soft skills around are the support elements where hospitality and service are ranked high and freedom of choice is more important that there is a choice of restaurants close by or maybe even within the hotel.

​

Xu, Jing Bill (2010). Perceptions of tourism products. Tourism Management, 31(5), 607-610.