Browse all Articles

Let’s say this bluntly. What you are going to read here represents exactly what is wrong with destination and tourism branding and marketing. Feelings are going to be hurt but the truth will be told.

Various tourism groups in Vermont recently conducted a research project in order to gain preference among nearby tourists to visit the Green Mountain State. The research has been so warmly received by those groups that they are taking it on a road show at various destinations in the state.

Here’s where feelings get hurt and the truth is spoken: The research is meaningless, and was a waste of time and money. And it’s the kind of project destinations undertake all the time, leaving them to wonder why the needle wasn’t moved.

While you’ll read a dismantling of the research here, the purpose is to outline why so many companies and organizations – and not just those in destination and tourism – flounder when it comes to creating preference. They rely on research that fails to ask the right questions and often results in meaningless data that leads to actions that are either folly or not even actionable.

Among many, the most major problem with the research is that it’s all about Vermont. It’s almost nothing about the tourist. Oh, there are demographics in it, separated by regions. But there’s nothing about important considerations from the perspective of the target audience: Switching triggers (getting them to choose Vermont over destinations they are currently choosing), hurdles to be lowered (taking a hard, honest look at the problems Vermont tourism suffers from) and, most importantly, the belief systems that drive behavior in this category.

Mistake No. 1

One of the major revelations of the research is that “Vacationers who have not visited Vermont are significantly more likely not to have seen a Vermont advertisement.”

Let’s pretend for a moment that revelation is actually meaningful. The next question should be, “Why?” Could it be that there is something wrong with the current messaging? As consumers, we see thousands of brand messages a day – even the logo on the pen you use is a message – yet we have learned to filter out most of them. The ones we respond to are the ones that reflect ourselves.

Therefore, if those who have not seen Vermont advertising are the ones not visiting, what is it about the perception of Vermont that’s not resonating?

That question is never asked.

In fact, what is asked is what images respondents most closely associate with Vermont. The highest-ranking images are then recommended as the kind Vermont tourism should use.

It’s hard to know where to begin with this piece of foolishness. So, Vermont should use the same imagery it’s used before even though the audiences Vermont is trying to persuade do not notice the imagery (and messages). In other words, “Just keep doing what you’ve always been doing. Things are great.”

If you conduct a research project and find out that little can be improved, that’s terrible news. That means this is the best it’s going to get. (My suspicion: Research firms are just trying to keep clients happy and clients can feel gratified with the job they’ve done.)

Another point, so who is the target audience here? The ones who have already visited Vermont or those who can actually make Vermont tourism grow? This is basically a strategy to the already converted. It’s like saying, “We’re going to keep selling hamburgers in our attempt to attract those who eat chocolate.”

Mistake No. 2

For a brand to be meaningful, it has to be positioned against the competition so that you represent a true choice. That means you must do two things: Examine your competition so you can position yourself against it and make the position meaningful by ensuring the opposite position could be chosen.

For example, if you base your brand on simplicity, then the opposite (sophisticated) must also be claimable in order for your position to be believed. That’s why positions of “best” are not believable. No one would claim to be the “worst.”

In this study, the competitors are examined by asking what they most closely associate with them. So far so good.

But look at what’s tested. Good value, diverse experience, friendly people, etc. Those are what are called table stakes, what you have to have to even play in the game. Those are just definitions of a destination. What tourist would willingly choose a destination because it is a bad value, a boring experience, and has nasty people?

However, those research results led to a recommendation of one of several Vermont “positions” (more on that later) titled “Vermont Unspoiled” with this message: On top of a mountain or in the middle of a lake, you can find adventures and fun. Outdoor adventure never gets old here. You can play every day and never tire of the fresh air and healthy spirit that permeates our beautiful surroundings.

Is that different and better than the competition? Is it positioned against the competition? (We’ll leave aside whether it’s meaningful or not, for the moment.)

Of course not. The research recommended this position because it tested “keywords” without digging into the reasons why they might be important.

In addition, those keywords – mountain, lake, fresh air and beautiful – are used by all the competitors. A quick perusal of one of the competitors, Colorado, found these phrases:

“Enjoy amazing lake and mountain views…glimpse wildlife in an unspoiled environment…The abundance of lakes and unspoiled acres of land provide many opportunities for recreation…The river’s banks are unspoiled…a perfect opportunity to watch beautiful views of the snow-covered Rockies…Surrounded by unspoiled wilderness with deep blue skies and fresh air…You can walk in unspoiled nature, enjoy fresh air and bathe in sparkling mountain lakes.”

You get the picture.

Summary

In part, the positions are not persuasive because the competition was not seriously examined. It didn’t dig into the emotional reasons why audiences choose nor did it understand what was already claimed.

The thing to remember about switching triggers is that they demonstrate that the target audience lacks for something. For someone to switch means they currently do not have access to it – but want it. You don’t switch for things you already have. Therefore, if you’re trying to get someone to switch from traveling to Colorado, which has the Rocky Mountains, focusing on your mountains isn’t going to cut it.

The purpose here isn’t just to blast Vermont for its lacking research, because it’s too widespread of a phenomenon to be limited to one organization looking to steal market share. It’s a dilemma spreading across most brand research, which is usually intended to satisfy marketing departments but rarely addresses the important issues concerning market share.

One final point. A question that must be asked in a survey such as this is “Why not Vermont?” It was asked here, but the answers range from “haven’t considered it before” to “doesn’t offer the activities I prefer,” which aren’t very actionable. The problem is that it was asked as an open-ended question, a tactic that almost always returns unusable data.

That’s because respondents, when asked an open-ended question, will give you rational answers. For example, many beer companies will ask, “Why do you prefer the beer you drink?” The answer, almost invariably, is “I like the taste.” Ah. So that means if you say you have “great taste,” then the other drinkers will switch because they hate their preferred brand. Of course not. They like the taste of their beer. Who says, “Bartender, this is the worst tasting beer I’ve ever had. Can I please have another?”

This is why beer market share has been so stagnant for years. They think it’s about taste. Yet, in blind taste tests, most can’t tell the difference between Budweiser, Miller and Coors. That means there are other reasons why they are choosing: Emotional ones that must be uncovered with qualitative research, then tested in quantitative research for its projectability to the larger audience.

There’s more to the Vermont survey to dismantle, but you get the point. If you truly want to steal market share, you have to seek the hard truths about yourself, your competition and your target audience. Anything short of that is a waste.