a marketsearch study south carolina department of parks, recreation, and tourism international...

A MarketSearch Study

South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism

International Tourism and Vacation Brand Image Study

June 2007

MarketSearch Corporation2721 Devine StreetColumbia, SC 29205803/254-6958

Table of Contents

Background and Methodology 1

Key Findings 3

Comprehensive Study Findings 6

Travel Interests When Visiting The US 6

The South Carolina Brand 10

Travel Considerations, Resources, and Planning 51

Reasons For Not Visiting the US 69

Study Demographics 71


Background and Methodology


This report presents the findings of a brand image study conducted on behalf of the South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism. The study was designed to act as a complement to the Domestic Leisure Tourism and Vacation Brand and Image Study conducted for SCPRT in 2004.

We examined three markets in this study: Toronto, London, and

Frankfurt. These markets were selected through discussions with SCPRT and represent some of PRT’s more well-developed international markets.

The study was conducted using an online panel. In order to participate in the study, respondents had to have traveled to the United States for a leisure vacation since 2005.

Prior to being terminated, we asked those who had not visited the US since 2005 to identify the primary reason(s) why they have not visited for leisure travel. Demographic information was also collected for this group in order to help us better understand how visitors (to the US from these international markets) differ from non-visitors demographically.

1


Data were collected between April 13 and 20, 2007. Total sample size is 1,304, broken down by market as follows: London = 502, with a sampling error of +/- 4.4 percentage points; Toronto = 502, with a sampling error of +/- 4.4 percentage points;

and Frankfurt = 300, with a sampling error of +/- 5.6 percentage points.

In many cases, findings among the three markets were similar and a “total” (average for the three markets) has been provided. In other cases, a “total” is not presented, as the responses by market were different enough that a “total” would have been misleading.

All figures in the report are in percent unless otherwise indicated.

2


Key Findings

Key Findings

The key word for South Carolina’s international brand is opportunity. Currently, South Carolina’s brand in these international markets is not particularly strong or well defined. This is not to say that South Carolina is in a bad position – it is not. In fact, South Carolina has a very good base on which to build its brand internationally.

Although many are not particularly familiar with South Carolina as a travel destination, there are few negatives associated with our brand. Negative brand associations can be overcome but take a lot of money and time. Further, while our brand is not particularly well-defined, there is a general recognition of our strengths. For example, despite international travelers’ limited familiarity with South Carolina, our two most highly rated dimensions are “friendly people” and “beaches/coastal areas.”

3

Key Findings

Another positive finding relates to our product offerings, which match up favorably with the activities and interests of internationals visiting the United States. Clearly our strength is the coast, which has nearly universal appeal. Going beyond the coast, South Carolina receives positive scores across the board. One exception to this relates to international visitors’ interest in entertaining/exciting cities. While it is clear that South Carolina would be hard pressed to compete head-to-head with places like New York City, Miami, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles, the state does have some things to offer in this area (Charleston and Myrtle Beach). This might be a consideration for future promotion of the state in these markets.

When looking at those who have actually visited South Carolina, it is clear that the brand is living up to its promise. Those who have visited South Carolina clearly had good experiences. However, the data indicate that South Carolina is not a single destination for most. A large majority of those who visited South Carolina also visited other states. This suggests that South Carolina has an opportunity to persuade international visitors to extend their stays in South Carolina.

4

Key Findings

Another opportunity relates to the issue of interest in visiting versus actual visitation. When respondents are asked what states they would like to visit, South Carolina is positioned more strongly compared to other states than it is on actual visitation. While this speaks well of the state’s brand image in that more people would like to visit than have, this finding also represents an opportunity to turn would-be visitors into actual visitors.

In terms of marketing, the Internet plays a substantial role in these international markets. Most are using travel websites such as Travelocity, destination websites, and/or state websites in conjunction with their travel planning. In fact, travelers in these markets are not all that different from those in domestic markets. One exception is the travel agent, which continues to play a significant role in foreign countries. However, this target should not be pursued at the exclusion of others.

5


Comprehensive Study Findings


Travel Interests When Visiting the US

Travel Interests When Visiting the US

• To begin the study, respondents were asked how likely they are to visit or participate in a range of activities and interests when visiting the US. Although the three markets included in this study are geographically dispersed and culturally different, findings identify fairly similar interests across the markets. For example, exciting cities, beaches/coastal areas, natural areas,

and historic sites comprise the top 4 in each market.

• Further, findings are also fairly consistent when comparing the interests of international leisure travelers to domestic leisure travelers (2004, conducted among travelers in states east of the Mississippi). There does, however, appear to be a key difference between

domestic and international travelers: with a greater level of importance placed on all factors, findings suggest that many international travelers visit the states looking to “do it all.” (There is further evidence of this in that 83% of those who have visited South Carolina also visited other states.)

6

US Vacation Interests and Activities(mean on scale from 1 to 10, where 10 = most positive response)

3.4

4.9

6.3

6.7

7.2

7.7

7.7

7.9

8.3

0 2 4 6 8 10

Exciting Cities

Beaches/Coastal

Natural Areas

Historic Sites

Arts/Cultural

Small Towns

Family Activities

Adventure Travel

Golf

7Q1

US Vacation Interests and Activities(mean on scale from 1 to 10, where 10 = most positive response)

Toronto London Frankfurt

Visit entertaining/exciting cities 8.2 8.4 8.4

Visit beaches and coastal areas 7.8 7.8 8.2

Visit natural areas such as lakes, rivers, and mountains

7.3 7.9 7.9

Visit historic landmarks and sites 7.5 7.7 7.9

Enjoy arts and cultural attractions 7.3 7.4 6.7

Enjoy family-oriented activities 6.6 6.5 5.7

Visit quaint small towns or rural areas 6.5 6.7 7.0

Participate in adventure travel or extreme sports (kayak, mountain bike, hike)

4.5 5.5 4.8

Play golf 3.4 3.8 2.8

8Q1

US Vacation Interests and Activities(comparing international and domestic consumer leisure travelers)

Total International

Total East of Mississippi

Visit entertaining/exciting cities 8.3 6.2

Visit beaches and coastal areas 7.9 7.2

Visit natural areas such as lakes, rivers, and mountains

7.7 7.0

Visit historic landmarks and sites 7.7 5.8

Enjoy arts and cultural attractions 7.2 5.8

Visit quaint small towns or rural areas 6.7 5.7

Enjoy family-oriented activities 6.3 7.3

Participate in adventure travel or extreme sports (kayak, mountain bike, hike)

4.9 NA

Play golf 3.4 2.79

Figures represent mean on scale from 1 to 10, where 10 = most positive responseQ1


The South Carolina Brand

Smiling Faces, Beautiful Places

• Early in the study, respondents were asked, on an open ended basis, to identify the state with which they associate the tagline Smiling Faces, Beautiful Places.

• While a high percentage of respondents said they didn’t know (38%), most did at least try to guess. Overall, forty-seven (47) states and Washington DC were mentioned. Ultimately, only 6% correctly identified the tagline as that belonging to South Carolina.

• It should be noted that, with few exceptions, taglines have very limited recall. Further, although South Carolina has used its tagline in these markets, tagline recall has not been a priority for South Carolina.

10

With What State Do You Associate “Smiling Faces, Beautiful Places?”


Florida 12 12 17

California 10 17 30

South Carolina 6 8 3

Hawaii 5 4 12

New York 4 5 2

Open Ended. This table shows top 5 mentions overall (among total sample). 11Q12

If Thinking About Vacation in US, What Places Would You Think Of?

• South Carolina is a first- or second-tier travel destination in each of the three study markets. Florida, New York, California, and Hawaii comprise the top four in each market. Colorado, Washington, DC and Nevada are in the top 10 in each market.

• South Carolina’s position varies somewhat by market but falls inside the top 20 in all three markets, making it a strong second-tier state, particularly in Toronto and London.

• Specific rankings for South Carolina follow. 10th in Toronto, 12th in London, and 16th in Frankfurt.

12

What States Have You Visited?

• Interestingly, South Carolina does not do as well in terms of actual visitation. When looking at actual visitation, South Carolina ranks: 15th in Toronto (down from 10th), 17th in London (down from 12th), and 20th in Frankfurt (down from 16th).

• While the discrepancy speaks well of South Carolina’s brand image in that more people would like to visit than have, the state needs to create opportunities to turn would-be visitors into actual visitors.

13

If Thinking About Vacation in the Southeast US, What Three Places Would You Think Of?

• In addition to wanting to know if South Carolina’s position improved when respondents were asked about the southeastern United States, there was an interest in finding out if the term “southeast” means anything to international visitors.

• Overall, findings indicate that the term does not work for international visitors, as states like California and New York were mentioned as appealing southeastern vacation destinations. Further, “don’t know” responses ranged from 30% to 40% when respondents were asked about their second choice for a southeast travel destination. “Don’t know” responses were in the 40% to 50% range when respondents were asked about their third choice for a southeast travel destination.

• Although South Carolina’s rank order did improve (ranked in the top 5 overall), South Carolina was mentioned as a southeastern destination by 3% as their first choice, 5% as their second choice, and 4% as their third choice.

14

Ranking The Southeastern States

• Finally, respondents were provided with a list that included Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia and asked to rank the states in terms of what they have to offer for vacation opportunities.

• In our analysis, we took the percentage of respondents who ranked each state as #1 or #2. Not surprisingly, Florida emerged as the dominant state. South Carolina, however ranks second in each market. While there is not a great deal of distance between the 2nd and 3rd ranked states in London and Frankfurt, South Carolina is 18 percentage points ahead of 3rd place (Georgia) in Toronto.

15

Ranking The Southeastern States(% ranking each state #1 or #2)


Florida 76 70 75

South Carolina 40 31 30

Georgia 22 23 23

Virginia 18 27 27

North Carolina 19 17 15

16Q15

Familiarity with South Carolina

• South Carolina has an opportunity to make international travelers more familiar with the state in terms of what it has to offer as a vacation destination. Currently, mean “familiarity” ranges between 3.3 and 3.8 (on a 10-point scale where 10 = very familiar). To put these figures in context, familiarity with South Carolina as a vacation destination is: 4.3 among all domestic travelers (2005) and 5.3 among domestic travelers from states East of the

Mississippi (2006).

• Although age is not a factor, familiarity with South Carolina tends to increase with income and education.

17

Impressions of South Carolina

• Despite their limited familiarity, international travelers have fairly positive impressions of South Carolina. Although impressions are not strongly positive, the absence of negatives indicates that South Carolina has no significant barriers to overcome. When negatives are present, they can be very costly to overcome.

• Currently, mean “impressions” range between 5.8 and 6.1 (on a 10-point scale where 10 = very positive). Again, as a means of comparison, impressions of South Carolina as a vacation destination are: 6.2 among all domestic travelers (2005) and 6.9 among domestic travelers from states East of the

Mississippi (2006).

• Impressions of South Carolina are consistent across demographic segments.

18

Familiarity with and Impressions of South Carolina(mean on scale from 1 to 10 where 10 = very familiar/positive)

3.35.8

3.85.8

3.66.1

3.66.0

0 2 4 6 8 10

Total

Toronto

London

Frankfurt

Familiarity Impressions

2006: Familiarity/Impressions among domestic travelers East of Mississippi = 5.3/6.92005: Familiarity/Impressions among domestic travelers = 4.3/6.2 19

Q16,17

Impressions of South Carolina

• Respondents were asked to rate their impressions of South Carolina on 17 dimensions. The first thing to note is how positively South Carolina is viewed on the range of factors.

• Second, it is interesting, given international travelers’ limited familiarity with South Carolina, that the two most highly rated dimensions are “friendly people” and “beaches/coastal areas.”

• The combination of an absence of negatives associated with our brand and a recognition of our brand’s strengths represents a good base from which to build our brand internationally.

20

Impressions of South Carolina(mean score on scale from 1 to 10, where 10 = very positive)

6.8

6.9

6.9

7.0

7.1

7.3

7.4

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Friendly People

Beaches/Coastal

Natural Areas

Small Towns

Historic Sites

Things I Like To Do

Family Activities

1 of 2

21Q18


6.2

6.2

6.4

6.5

6.6

6.6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Unique Culture

Close To Other Areas of Interest

Exciting Cities

Arts/Cultural

Golf

Adventure Travel

2 of 2

22Q18



Friendly people/hospitality 7.5 7.4 7.2

Beaches and coastal areas 7.8 7.1 6.7

Natural areas (lakes, rivers, mountains) 7.1 7.3 6.9

Quaint small towns or rural areas 7.1 7.2 6.6

Historic landmarks and sites 7.1 7.0 6.4

Having types of things you like to do on vacation

7.1 6.8 6.4

Family oriented activities 7.0 6.8 6.3

1 of 2

23Q18



Having a unique culture 6.7 6.8 6.0

Being close to other areas of interest 6.7 6.6 6.3

Entertaining/exciting cities 6.5 6.6 6.4

Arts and cultural attractions 6.5 6.5 6.2

Golf 6.8 6.1 5.1

Opportunities for adventure travel/ extreme sports

6.1 6.5 5.9

2 of 2

24Q18

The Brand Experience

• The following is an exercise designed to illustrate how our product compares to expectations. In this “performance analysis” we looked at respondents who have visited South Carolina (ever). To get the “performance” rating, we subtract: The percentage of those who rate that activity/interest a 9 or

10 when visiting the United States from The percentage of those who rate South Carolina very

positively on a factor (% rating South Carolina as 9 or 10).

• For example, the performance score of +12 on golf indicates South Carolina is exceeding visitor expectations on golf. In contrast, the performance score of - 33 on exciting cities indicates we are falling short of visitor expectations/interests.

• Note: This table was provided as an illustration and should be taken as a general indicator only. For example, the expectation question (how likely are you to visit/participate in) was asked about travel to the US, not South Carolina.

25

The Brand Experience: A Performance Analysis(Among those who have visited South Carolina, n = 281)

Factor Interest in Activity

(% rating 9 or 10)

Impression of SC

(% rating 9 or 10)Performance*

Golf 19 31 + 12

Adventure travel/Extreme sports 19 18 - 1

Quaint small towns or rural areas 40 31 - 9

Beaches/Coastal areas 55 44 - 11

Family oriented activities 37 26 - 11

Historic sites 46 31 - 15

Arts/Cultural attractions 37 21 - 16

Natural areas (lakes, rivers, mountains)

52 34 - 18

Exciting cities 57 24 - 33

* A positive score means SC is exceeding expectations, a negative score means SC is falling short of expectations 26Q17,18

Places Would Visit in South Carolina

• Those who rated their familiarity with South Carolina as “3” or higher were asked, open ended, what places they would be most likely to visit if they were to travel to South Carolina for a leisure vacation.

• Domestic leisure travelers consistently identify Myrtle Beach as the top destination/destination they are most likely to visit. International visitors are more likely to mention Charleston (although the difference is within the margin of error). In another departure from domestic travelers, Columbia ranks second among Frankfurt respondents.

27

Places Would Visit in South Carolina

Total Toronto London Frankfurt

Charleston 21 19 21 23

Myrtle Beach 19 27 17 9

Beaches 11 18 7 5

Hilton Head 8 10 7 3

Columbia 7 5 6 15

Historical places 4 5 2 3

Golf course 3 5 1 3

This table shows top 7 mentions overall. 28Q19

Familiarity With SC Destinations

• Respondents are more familiar with some of our destinations than they are with the state overall. For example, while familiarity with the state of South Carolina is 3.6, familiarity with Myrtle Beach is 4.5 and familiarity with Charleston is 4.2.

• Even with areas like Hilton Head Island and Columbia, respondents are as familiar with these destinations as they are with the state.

29

Familiarity with South Carolina Destinations(mean on scale from 1 to 10, where 10 = very familiar)


Myrtle Beach 4.5 5.4 4.2 3.4

Charleston 4.2 4.2 4.5 3.7

SC’s Coastal Areas 3.9 4.0 4.1 3.7

Hilton Head Island 3.6 3.6 3.8 3.1

SC’s State and National Parks 3.6 3.2 4.0 3.6

Columbia 3.5 3.0 4.0 3.4

The Mountains and Foothills of SC 3.5 3.2 4.0 3.2

Greenville/Spartanburg 3.0 2.7 3.4 2.8

30Q20

Impressions of SC Destinations

• Further, impressions of South Carolina’s top destinations are more positive than those for the state in general. The state’s mean impression score is 6.0. Impressions of individual destinations/area range between 6.3 and 7.3.

Those who have visited South Carolina have even more positive impressions of our state’s vacation destinations. Impressions among this group range between 6.9 and 7.9.

• Compared to domestic leisure travelers (2006, East of Mississippi), international travelers show less variance in their impressions of our vacation destinations. Still, findings show a similar pattern in terms of rank order.

31

Impressions of South Carolina Destinations(mean on scale from 1 to 10, where 10 = very positive)


Myrtle Beach 7.3 7.5 7.0 6.9



The mountains and foothills of SC 6.9 7.0 6.9 6.8


Charleston 6.8 6.9 6.8 6.7

Columbia 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.4


32Q21



Myrtle Beach 7.9 8.1 7.8 7.6



The mountains and foothills of SC 7.6 7.4 7.8 7.4


Charleston 7.5 7.4 7.6 7.5

Columbia 7.0 6.9 7.3 6.9


Among Those Who Have Visited South Carolina, n = 281

33Q21


Total

International

Total Domestic Leisure*

Myrtle Beach 7.3 7.8

SC’s Coastal Areas 7.2 NA

Hilton Head Island 6.9 7.3

The mountains and foothills of SC 6.9 NA

SC’s State and National Parks 6.9 6.9

Charleston 6.8 7.1

Columbia 6.5 5.7

Greenville/Spartanburg 6.3 5.8

*2006, East of Mississippi.

34Q21

How SC Compares to Other US Destinations

• Respondents were asked to compare South Carolina to other states and travel destinations on seven (7) factors, including: Price/value, Being the kind of place where you would want to live, Being the kind of place you would like to vacation, Being accessible/easy to get to, Being a place that is easy to adapt to, Having a unique culture, and Having unique cuisine.

• Looking at the percentage of respondents who view South Carolina as being better, “being the kind of place you would like to vacation” ranks first (20% feel SC is better).

35

How SC Compares to Other US Destinations

• In terms of a rank order, we see the same general pattern among those who have actually visited South Carolina. There are two key differences, however:

Substantially more visitors feel South Carolina is better on each of the dimensions and

The data indicate that a South Carolina vacation makes quite an impression on Londoners; they are significantly more likely than those from Toronto or Frankfurt to view South Carolina as being better on each dimension.

36

How SC Compares to Other US Destinations (% indicating South Carolina is better)


Kind of place I like to vacation 20 22 21 17

Price/value 18 15 24 14

Unique culture 18 17 23 9

Unique cuisine 17 15 21 14

Place that is easy to adapt to 15 14 17 14

Place where you would want to live 14 14 19 8

Being accessible/easy to get to 13 14 14 11

37Q22

How SC Compares to Other US Destinations (% indicating South Carolina is better)

Total

(n = 281)

Toronto

(n = 122)

London

(n = 101)

Frankfurt

(n = 58)

Kind of place I like to vacation 40 37 47 33

Price/value 35 23 52 33

Unique culture 31 23 44 26

Unique cuisine 31 23 41 33

Place that is easy to adapt to 32 23 43 33

Place where you would want to live 29 20 45 21

Being accessible/easy to get to 30 23 40 26

Among Those Who Have Visited South Carolina, n 281

38Q22

How SC Compares to Other US Destinations:Being the Kind of Place You Would Like to Vacation

40 17

36 21

39 22

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Toronto

London

Frankfurt

About the Same Better

39Q22c

How SC Compares to Other US Destinations: Price/Value

43 14

38 24

44 15

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Toronto

London

Frankfurt


40Q22a

How SC Compares to Other US Destinations: Having a Unique Culture

43 9

39 23

41 17

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Toronto

London

Frankfurt


41Q22f

How SC Compares to Other US Destinations: Having Unique Cuisine

36 14

38 21

39 15

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Toronto

London

Frankfurt


42Q22g

How SC Compares to Other US Destinations: Place That is Easy to Adapt to

42 14

43 17

42 14

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Toronto

London

Frankfurt


43Q22e

How SC Compares to Other US Destinations: Place Where You Would Want to Live

30 8

31 19

33 14

0 10 20 30 40 50

Toronto

London

Frankfurt


44Q22b

How SC Compares to Other US Destinations: Being Accessible/Easy To Get To

44 11

40 14

45 14

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Toronto

London

Frankfurt


45Q22d

Visits to South Carolina

• One in five (22%) respondents say they have visited South Carolina (ever) for a leisure vacation (please note that this is not actual incidence for travel to South Carolina, as respondents have already been screened for visitation to the US in the past two years).

• Visitation is higher among those: Ages 55 and older (36% vs. 20% for younger counterparts), With household income of $75,000 or more (28% vs. 19% among those

with lower household incomes), and At least some college education (23% vs. 16% among others).

• Respondents in London and Toronto tend to have visited more frequently than those in Frankfurt. Despite the longer distance from London, Londoners have visited nearly as frequently as residents of Toronto.

46

Visits to South Carolina

• In line with findings suggesting international travelers visit the US looking to “do it all,” findings indicate that most international visitors are not visiting South Carolina exclusively. In fact, a strong majority of internationals visit other states. This is particularly true of those from London and Frankfurt, where over 90% say they visited other states.

47

Incidence of Visiting South Carolina (ever)

19

20

24

22

0 5 10 15 20 25

Total

Toronto

London

Frankfurt

Note: This does not represent actual incidence of travel to South Carolina, as study respondents were screened for visitation to the US in the past two years. Instead, this figure represents incidence among who have visited the US in the past two years (but have visited South Carolina ever). In addition, these figures differ from state ranking figures presented earlier in the report. This question asks respondents if they have ever visited South Carolina. The previous question asks what states respondents have visited in the past two years.

48Q23

Number of Times Visited SC for Leisure Travel Vacation

72 9 9 10

56 20 17 7

60 22 8 10

0 20 40 60 80 100

Toronto

London

Frankfurt

1 2 3 4 or More

49Q24

Visited Other States OR SC Only

93 7

91 9

71 30

0 20 40 60 80 100

Toronto

London

Frankfurt

Other States SC Only

50Q26


Travel Considerations, Resources, and Planning

Implications of an Unfavorable Exchange Rate

• For most, an unfavorable exchange rate would have no effect on travel plans. Still, a significant minority (22%) say they would postpone travel until the exchange rate is more favorable.

While this is a potential concern, it is also a factor over which PRT has no control. Further, exchange rates among these countries do not typically fluctuate wildly, making a once-affordable trip suddenly cost-prohibitive.

51

Impact of Unfavorable Exchange Rate on Decision to Travel to US

19

21

26

22

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Total

Toronto

London

Frankfurt

Would Postpone Trip

52Q2

Ease of Access By Air

• Very few respondents say that ease of access by air is “of no importance at all” when selecting a vacation destination in the US. In fact, most say the factor is of “major importance.”

• However, only 15% say they actually decided not to visit a destination in the US because it is not easily accessible by air. This figure, however, should be taken as a general indicator only. This study was not designed to explore this issue in detail. For example, “ease of access” could mean time spent flying, making “ease” comparable to proximity. It could also mean flying on one airline. Ease could also relate to number of layovers, etc.

53

Importance of Ease of Access by Air When Selecting US Destination

33 65

26 69

33 65

31 66

0 20 40 60 80 100

Total

Toronto

London

Frankfurt

Minor Importance Major Importance

96

95*

95

98

*among those who typically fly or fly/drive equally54Q4

Decided Not to Visit Destination in US Because Not Easily Accessible by Air

9

16

17

0 5 10 15 20

Toronto

London

Frankfurt

Yes

55Q5

Airline Loyalty

• On average, just over a third (36%) of respondents say they have an airline or set of airlines to which they are loyal. Incidence of airline loyalty is highest in Frankfurt (43%), followed by London (39%), then Toronto (29%).

• Market leaders tend to be unique in each market. For example, Air Canada dominates in Toronto, British Airways and Virgin Atlantic dominate in London, and Lufthansa dominates in Frankfurt.

• At the same time, many prefer US carriers when traveling to the states. Of the US-based carriers, American Airlines is the most commonly used.

• Regardless of market, New York is the dominant point of entry. Because findings show that most international visitors to South

Carolina also visit other states, it raises a question as to whether international visitors base their travel with South Carolina in mind. For example, it could easily be the case that visitors plan their air travel around another state because South Carolina is not the primary destination.

56

Incidence of Airline Loyalty When Flying to US

43

39

29

0 10 20 30 40 50

Toronto

London

Frankfurt

Yes

57Q6

To Which Airlines Are You Most Loyal?(among those who are loyal to airline(s) when traveling to US)

Toronto

(n = 144)

London

(n = 198)

Frankfurt

(n = 129)

Air Canada 64 0 0

Lufthansa 0 1 62

British Airways 0 61 7

Virgin Atlantic 0 50 0

American Airlines 36 26 18

West Jet 17 0 0

United Airlines 15 14 9

US Airways 13 3 9

Delta 11 7 17

Condor 0 0 9

Northwest 8 3 2

Continental 6 6 2

Open Ended. Not all airlines listed in this table.58

Q7

Point of Entry for Last Trip to US


New York (any) 37 51 33

Miami 7 7 13

Chicago 5 7 11

Washington DC 2 7 6

Atlanta 3 3 5

Other 26 23 30

Did not fly to US when last visited 18 <1 <1

Don’t know 2 1 2

Open Ended. Points of entry mentioned by fewer than 5% omitted.59Q8

Travel Resources for US Travel

• As with many study findings, travel resources used by international travelers are very similar to those used by domestic leisure travelers, with friends/family and destination websites topping the list. As with so many other areas, the Internet has revolutionized travel planning, as evidenced by the percentage of respondents who visited a travel website such as Travelocity and/or visited a destination website and/or visited a state website.

• One notable exception is international travelers’ reliance on travel agents. The use of travel agents continues to be a widespread practice in these markets, particularly in Frankfurt. In addition, travelers in these markets use Internet travel message/bulletin boards. Despite these differences, it should be noted that there are

far more similarities than differences in travel planning resources between international and domestic travelers.

60

Resources Used For Most Recent Visit to US


Friends and family/word of mouth 69 72 66 68

Destination website 60 59 63 56

Travel website (Travelocity, Orbitz, etc)* 55 56 62 43

Travel agents 52 48 50 65

State websites 43 44 43 40

Travel magazines 36 35 37 36

Internet travel message/bulletin boards 33 29 31 44

Information packets call/send away for 33 38 29 30

Tour operators 31 29 32 32

Travel sections in newspapers 29 31 30 24

Travel programs on TV 26 27 25 26

Other 6 6 7 5

* Country specific websites included. LastMinute and FirstChoice in London; Opodo and Tui in Frankfurt.61

Q9

Primary Resource Used For Most Recent Visit to US


Friends and family/word of mouth 20 24 19 18

Travel agents 20 12 27 20

Destination website 16 17 15 15

Travel website (Travelocity, Orbitz, etc) 20 19 27 11

Note: Items not receiving mentions by at least 5% have been omitted.

62Q9b

Travel-Related Internet Usage

• Travel-related Internet usage is high in these markets. For example, 85% say they use the Internet regularly or occasionally to

book airline flights, 84% use the Internet regularly or occasionally to plan (but not

book) trips, and 81% use the Internet regularly or occasionally to book

hotel/motel rooms.

• This level of usage is higher than what has been reported among domestic leisure travelers, where 61% say they use the Internet regularly or occasionally to

book airline flights, 76% use the Internet regularly or occasionally to plan (but not

book) trips, and 68% use the Internet regularly or occasionally to book

hotel/motel rooms.

63

Use Internet to Book Airline Flights

29 57

24 71

37 44

0 20 40 60 80 100

Toronto

London

Frankfurt

Occasionally Regularly

76

95

86

65Q10a

Use Internet to Book Hotel/Motel Rooms

34 46

32 56

35 40

0 20 40 60 80 100

Toronto

London

Frankfurt

Occasionally Regularly

75

88

80

66Q10b

Advance Travel Planning

• Finally, respondents were asked how far in advance they typically begin planning for leisure travel to the United States. While the findings are generally consistent by market, proximity does play a role, as those in London and Frankfurt tend to have a longer planning period.

• Even among international travelers, the planning process is fairly short, with 63% saying they take between one and four months. This is nearly identical to the timeframe used by domestic

travelers, where 68% say they take between one and four months (2004, East of Mississippi).

67

Typical Advance Travel Planning for Leisure Travel to US

7 23 33 37

7 24 40 30

17 39 27 17

0 20 40 60 80 100

Toronto

London

Frankfurt

Less than 4 weeks 1 to 2 months

3 to 4 months 5 months or longer

68Q11


Reasons for Not Visiting the US


• In addition to collecting demographic data about non-visitors (to the US in the past two years), we also asked them to identify the reasons (from a list) for not visiting the US for leisure travel in the past two years.

• Most reasons relate to things like financial considerations or being too busy with job or family responsibilities. At the same time, a significant minority (13%) say they haven’t visited due to concerns about being detained or harassed by US Security. Although this concern is expressed by a minority of respondents, it could represent a significant blow to the US tourism economy and, therefore, the overall economy.

69



Not financially feasible 44 33 39 51

Plan to go in next 2 years 21 21 26 17

Plan to go at later time (but > 2 years) 20 10 20 24

Not interested/Prefer to travel closer to home

24 29 25 23

Concerns about being detained/harassed by US Security

13 17 12 12

Job/family responsibilities 21 17 19 20

Other 13 19 12 10

70Q35


Study Demographics

Study Demographics

• Demographically, those who have visited the United States in the past two years are very similar to those who have not. For example, both groups have similar household sizes, are about as likely to have children under 18 living in the household, are roughly the same age, and are consistent with respect to gender.

• There are two key differences and these are income and education. Visitors (those who have visited in the past two years) are more likely to have a college or advanced degree and to have household incomes of $75,000 or more.

71

Household Size(among those who visited US in past 2 years, N=1304)

3

6

19

21

32

19

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

One

Two

Three

Four

Five

Six or More

72Q27

Household Size

Visited US in Past 2 Years

(n = 1304)

Have Not Visited US in Past 2 Years

(n = 2517)

One 19% 21%

Two 32 33

Three 21 22

Four 19 15

Five 6 6

Six or more 3 4

73Q27

Children in Household(among those who visited US in past 2 years, N=1304)

66

34

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Yes

No

74Q28

Children in Household


(n = 1304)


(n = 2517)

Yes 34% 31%

No 66 69

75Q28

Education Level(among those who visited US in past 2 years, N=1304)

30

35

14

16

5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Less than High School

High School/GED

Some college

College graduate

Grad work/advanced degree

76Q29

Education Level


(n = 1304)


(n = 2517)

Less than high school 5% 22%

High school/GED 16 23

Some college or technical school 14 15

College degree 35 22

Graduate work/advanced degree 30 19

77Q29

Age(among those who visited US in past 2 years, N=1304)

2

7

15

23

40

12

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

18-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65 and older

78Q36

Age


(n = 1304)


(n = 2517)

18-24 12% 16%

25-34 40 32

35-44 23 25

45-54 15 16

55-64 7 8

65 and older 2 2

79Q36

Gender(among those who visited US in past 2 years, N=1304)

60

40

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Male

Female

80Q37

Gender


(n = 1304)


(n = 2517)

Male 40% 40%

Female 60 60

81Q37

Income(among those who visited US in past 2 years, N=1304)

10

16

19

24

25

6

0 5 10 15 20 25

Less than $20,000

$20,000- $49,999

$50,000- $74,999

$75,000-$99,999

$100,000-$149,999

$150,000 or more

82Q31

Income


(n = 1304)


(n = 2517)

Less than $20,000 6% 19%

$20,000-$49,999 25 37

$50,000-$74,999 24 21

$75,000-$99,999 19 12

$100,000-$149,999 16 8

$150,000 or more 10 4

83Q31

Ethnicity(among those who visited US in past 2 years, N=1304)

3

14

9

74

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Caucasian

Asian/SouthAsian*

Other

Refused

84

*This includes South Asian countries such as India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh as well as Pacific Island nations.

Q30

Ethnicity


(n = 1304)


(n = 2517)

Caucasian 74% 78%

Asian/South Asian* 9 8

Other 14 13

Don’t Know/Refused 3 2

85Q30

*This includes South Asian countries such as India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh as well as Pacific Island nations.

a marketsearch study south carolina department of parks, recreation, and tourism international...

Documents

vacation brand image

south carolinas brand

marketsearch study background

methodology slide

tourism international

negative brand associations

international travelers

leisure travel