1997 WINTER INQUIRY STUDY: MONITORING MEDIA EFFECTIVENESS AND ASSESSING VERMONT=S SKI MARKET

Transcription

1 1997 WINTER INQUIRY STUDY: MONITORING MEDIA EFFECTIVENESS AND ASSESSING VERMONT=S SKI MARKET Walter F. Kuentzel William A. Valliere Varna M. Ramaswamy 357 Aiken Center School of Natural Resource University of Vermont Burlington, VT Prepared for the Vermont Department of Tourism and Marketing July 15, 1997

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION...3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...4 MEDIA EFFECTIVENESS...11 Visitor Ratio...11 Respondent Recall of the Promotion...12 Persuasive Effect...15 The Travel Decision...17 Future Visits to Vermont...20 Estimating a Conversion Rate...20 TRIP CHARACTERISTICS...22 Past Visits to Vermont...22 Group Size...22 Type of Transportation Used to Travel to Vermont...25 Length of Stay...26 Overnight Accommodations...27 Region of the State Visited...28 THE VERMONT SKIER...30 The Trip Planning Process...30 The Decision Process...30 Information Sources...34 Package Vacations...35 Preference/Performance Of Vermont=s Ski Area Amenities...35 Reasons for Not Taking a Ski Vacation...38 Vermont=s Ski Area Competitors...38 Vermont vs. Colorado as a Ski Destination...39 RESPONDENT PROFILE...42 Age...42 Income...42 Education...44 Children...45 Gender...45 APPENDIX 1 - METHODS...47 Sampling...47 Measurement...48 Analysis...50 APPENDIX 2 - QUESTIONNAIRE...51

3 3 INTRODUCTION This study is the 10 th in a series of studies designed to assess the impact of the Vermont Department of Tourism and Marketing=s (VDTM) advertising campaigns. The current study surveyed winter, 1997 visitors and potential visitors from two media markets that the state targets its advertising: Boston and New York. This series of studies drew its sample from people who called the VERMONT telephone inquiry line requesting travel information about Vermont. The primary purpose of these studies was to assess the impact of the VDTM=s promotional efforts. Additionally, the questionnaire gathered information about visitor=s trip characteristics. This particular study also surveyed visitors from the Eastern U.S. who called VERMONT but were switched to the the Vermont Ski Areas Association phone line because of their interest in ski related vacations. The primary purpose of this part of the study was to gather information about the Vermont skier market in the Eastern United States. Funding for this study was jointly provided by the Vermont Department of Tourism and Marketing (VDTM) and the Vermont Ski Areas Association (VSAA). Specifically, the study was designed to address four research issues: 1) media effectiveness, 2) trip characteristics of Vermont visitors, 3) travel decision process, and 4) the skier market. The first two research questions have been the motivation for these inquiry studies since first conducting them in This study continued to assess the effectiveness of the state=s media promotions by evaluating the respondent=s recall of the advertisement that prompted them to call VERMONT, and recall of the fulfillment materials sent to them. The study also investigated the persuasive effect of this information, and the degree that this information helped potential visitors plan their trip to Vermont. This study also explored the trip characteristics of winter 1997 Vermont visitors and visitors who have visited Vermont prior to the winter of Like previous research, this study looked at visitor=s length of stay, accommodations used, group size, type of transportation used, and region of the state where they spent most of their time while visiting. The questionnaire also asked past visitors in what season they visited on their most recent trip to Vermont. Finally, this study specially explored the skier market of visitors from the Eastern United States. The survey gathered information on the decision-making process that goes into choosing a ski destination, what features of a ski destination a visitor prefers and what they experienced when in Vermont on their most recent ski trip (preference/performance analysis). Skier preference for various features of a ski destination comparing Vermont and Colorado, what barriers visitors have to skiing in Vermont, and finally, a profile of skiers to Vermont.

4 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Media Effectiveness Visitor Ratio. About half of the people surveyed (50.1%) made winter time trips to Vermont. This visitor ratio continues to support our past findings that roughly half of the people who make a travel inquiry will actually visit Vermont. From the New York sample, 41.4% made winter trips to Vermont, while 38.7% made winter trips to Vermont from the Boston sample. Nearly two-thirds of the people in the VSAA sample (67.6%) took a winter trip to Vermont. Advertising Effectiveness. Over one-half of the visitors (278 or 54.0%) said they remembered the advertisement that prompted their call to VERMONT. Visitor recall of the winter advertising had slipped from previous advertising seasons. Since the Summer season of 1995, respondent recall of Vermont advertising was well above two-thirds of the sample, and sometimes above three-fourths of the sample. During the Winter of 1997, visitor recalled just surpassed 50%, but did not exceed two-thirds of the sample.

5 5 More three quarters visitors overall remembered receiving the brochures and other materials sent to them by the Vermont Department of Tourism and Marketing (78.3%). This ratio also had slipped from previous advertising seasons when brochure recall was typically above 90%. The slip in visitor recall of the advertisement and the fulfillment materials was primarily due to the VSAA sample. Because they often sought ski conditions, they often did not recall an advertisement that prompted their call, and sometimes did not receive fulfillment materials. The state=s travel promotions may have had a persuasive effect on 16.6% (85 people) of the sample. The best conversion estimate comes by calculating the proportion of visitors who had not previously planned trips and were convinced to come to Vermont by promotional materials (43 people or 8.4%). A more inclusive conversion estimate includes visitors who had previously thought about visiting Vermont and were stimulated to follow through on their plans by the promotional materials (21 people in the current sample). An even more inclusive estimate is one which includes those nonvisitors who said they had never thought of visiting Vermont, but who may take a future visit after having received the Traveler=s Guidebook from the state (21 people). Advertising recall was significantly lower in the winter 1997 study than in the previous three inquiry studies. However, the persuasive effect was significantly higher among the Boston and New York samples. Specifically, the ratio of visitors who said they had never thought about visiting Vermont before being exposed to the state=s travel promotion had

6 increased substantially. Usually, this ratio is well below 5%. In the summer/fall 1996 inquiry study, this ratio was 1.7% for both the Boston and new York samples. This winter, however, the ratio had jumped to over 10% for both samples. Further, the ratio of nonvisitors who said they plan a future trip because of the persuasive effect of the promotions also increased over previous studies. In spite of the increased persuasive effect of the winter advertisements, most winter visitors had already planned to take a vacation to the state and wanted planning information. About three quarters of visitors (202 people out of 266) called the VERMONT number to request information to plan their trips (75.9%). The same is true for nonvisitors in the sample. Over a quarter of the nonvisitors are the perpetual collectors of free information who have no intention of actually visiting Vermont. The majority of nonvisitors, however, were requesting information to plan a trip they plan to take in the future. Nearly two-thirds (156 people or 63.4%) of the nonvisitors responded in this way. When respondents were asked if they plan a visit to Vermont within the next 12 months 174 people (34.1%) said Aprobably yes,@ while 273 people (53.4%) said Adefinitely yes@. In other words, nearly 9 in 10 respondents (87.5%) plan a specific trip to Vermont within the coming year. Another 38 people (7.4%) said Aprobably not,@ and 26 people (5.1%) said Adefinitely not.@ 6 TRIP CHARACTERISTICS Respondents were asked how frequently they had visited Vermont in the past. Out of 538 people in the sample, about 1 in 10 (11.0%) have never visited Vermont before. Nearly half of the respondents visit Ararely@ (14.3%) or Aoccasionally@ (30.1%) while a similar percentage (44.6%) visit Vermont Aoften@ or Aall the time@. A significantly higher percentage of respondents from the VSAA sample visit Vermont Aoften@ or Aall the time@ than either the Boston or New York samples (χ 2 =74.24, df=8, p=.00000). This may indicate that skiers east of the Mississippi River who visit Vermont to ski tend to come back year after year. Half of the trips to Vermont during the winter of 1997 were extended weekend trips. Overall, visitors from Boston (42.1%) were more likely to take weekend only trips than visitors from either New York (25.6%) or the VSAA sample (25.9%) (χ 2 =17.12, p=.002). Visitors from the VSAA sample were less likely to stay in hotels or motels and less likely to stay in Bed & Breakfast establishments than people in the Boston and New York samples. Conversely people in the VSAA sample were more likely to stay in rented condominiums or

7 cottages. Additionally, New Yorkers were more likely to stay at Bed & Breakfast establishments and less likely to stay in vacation homes or rented cottages than the other two samples. On average, Vermont skiers travel to the state in groups of 5.42 people. Boston residents tended to travel in smaller groups than the others, New Yorkers tended to travel in groups of 2 to 4 people, while visitors in the VSAA sample were more likely than people in the other two samples to travel in large groups of 12 or more people. Nearly two-thirds of the visitors in the current sample (59.4% or 141 out of 235 people) traveled without children. This ratio is significantly lower than summer studies, suggesting that skiing is more of a family activity than are summer time activities offered in Vermont. More than 9 out of 10 visitors use personal automobiles or rental cars to visit Vermont. While few people used the train to visit Vermont, 4% of the Boston sample came to the state by train, suggesting a possible increase in awareness of the train as a transportation option. On average, skiing visitors to Vermont stayed for nearly four nights (3.98 nights), with 8.5% of Vermont skiers visiting for the day. Overall, just over a quarter of visitors (29%) to Vermont in the winter of 1997 stayed at a hotel or motel, and about one in six (16.7%) stayed in inns or bed and breakfasts. More than one-third of the visitors (37.7%) sampled stayed in rental properties such as a condo or rental cabin, while 9.3% stayed with friends or relatives. The remainder (3.4%) stayed in vacation homes. About 8.5% of the visitors in the winter of 1997 were day visitors and required no accommodations. About 4 in 10 visitors (41.5%) spent most of their time in the South Central Mountain Region of Rutland and Killington, while about a quarter of the visitors spent most of their time in the Central Mountain Region of Stowe, Waterbury and the Mad River Valley (22.9%), and the Southern Region around Manchester, Bennington and Brattleboro (22.5%). Less than 1 in 10 visitors spent most of their time in the Burlington/Champlain Valley Region (7.2%), while an even smaller percentage spent their time in the Northeast Kingdom (4.2%) and the Capitol Region in and around Montpelier and Barre (1.7%). 7 The Vermont Skier Nearly 9 out of 10 skiers sampled (88.2%) chose a resort and made reservations to travel in the same month, while 96.4% made reservations within one month of deciding on a specific destination.

8 8 Travel Decision Process. On average, skiers made reservations for their trip less than a month and a half in advance (1.3 months). Nearly half (45.1%) made reservations for their trip in the same month that they took the trip. More than 8 out of 10 skiers made their reservations 2 or less months in advance of their vacation. A majority of skiers said they got information via word of mouth (60.1%), brochures from individual ski resorts (54.4%), and toll free information lines like VERMONT (51.9%). Nearly half of the skiers surveyed also said they got information from ski guidebooks (48.1%), other regional guidebooks (47.2%) and maps (45.9%), while about 4 in 10 skiers got information from newspaper advertising (40.6%). Nearly a third of the skiers surveyed (30.2%) got their information from newspaper and magazine articles. Nearly a quarter of the skiers (23%) got information for their ski trip from the Internet. Most of the skiers surveyed indicated that they were somewhat proficient in the sport. Over half (56%) indicated that they were intermediate level skiers, while nearly one third (30%) said they were advanced skiers. Only 8% said they were novice or beginners, while 6% said they were expert skiers. A relatively small percentage of skiers surveyed took advantage of packaged ski trips - only 16.4%. The Vermont Ski Areas Association was interested in knowing what ski area amenities customers prefer when choosing a ski destination. They were also interested in knowing how well Vermont=s ski area amenities match the expectations and preferences of winter 1997 ski visitors to the state. Snow conditions were the most important aspect of the visitor experience, and was rated as very important (0 = 4.2). The availability of lodging, friendliness of employees, the number of trails, the cost of a lift ticket, and the quality of base lodge facilities were all rated from moderately to very important with average ratings from 3.0 to 3.4. Proximity of the ski resort to home, the quality of ski instruction, and availability of snowboard and other non-skiing activities were somewhat to moderately important with an average importance score between 2.2 and 2.3. Finally, indoor sports facilities, availability of activities for teens, and daycare facilities were not at all to somewhat important to skiers, with average importance scores from 1.5 to 1.9.

9 The performance ratings ranged from a low rating of 2.3 (fair to good) to a high rating of 3.7 (good to very good). The highest performance rating was for the friendliness of resort employees (average rating=3.7). Similar ratings were received for snow conditions (3.6), the number of trails (3.6), availability of lodging (3.5), the quality of base lodge facilities (3.3) and the quality of ski instruction (3.2). Additionally, several items scored slightly lower. For example, activities for snowboarding (2.9), the cost of a lift ticket (2.8), the proximity to home (2.8), the availability of indoor sports facilities (2.8), availability of activities for teens (2.6) and day care (2.3) were, on average, all rated as fair to good. Vermont ski areas perform fairly well, relative to customer preference, on most ski area amenities. In 10 out of 12 items, respondents rated the performance of Vermont ski areas higher than their preferences. The only exceptions were snow conditions and the cost of a lift ticket. On these variables, performance was rated lower than importance (p <.05). Visitors to Vermont rated the importance of snow conditions higher than what they actually found in Vermont. They also preferred a lower cost lift ticket than what they found in Vermont. Respondents were asked to compare Vermont as a ski destination with Colorado as a ski destination on a number of items. Nearly all skiers (99%) indicated that Vermont was closer to their home than Colorado, about two-thirds of the skiers surveyed indicated that Vermont has superior ski instruction (66.8%) and said that Vermont resorts were closer to the greatest number of other ski areas they might like to visit (65.8%). A majority of skiers said that Vermont had better things to do other than ski (60.1%), the better skiing value for their money (59.5%), better moguls (55.1%), and better all-inclusive ski packages (54%). Opinion was evenly split on whether Vermont has better snowboarding terrain (49.8%) or better ski area facilities (48.5%). 9

10 Skiers felt that Colorado was superior on several variables. A clear majority of skiers indicated that Colorado has a better variety of skiing terrain (57.8%) and a greater number of trails (59.5%). About three quarters of the skiers surveyed indicated that Colorado has better snow conditions (70.4%) and better powder snow (75.7%). Respondents who did not take a ski trip in the winter of 1997 were asked a series of questions about why they decided against a ski vacation (Figure 29).The largest proportion of people (22.2%) who did not take a ski vacation last winter cited lack of time as the chief constraint. Other commonly cited reasons for not taking a skiing trip last winter included undesirable weather (10.4%), injury or difficult physical challenge (9.6%), proximity of ski resorts to home (8.7%), the cost of a winter vacation (7.8%), snow conditions (7.7%), and a lack of energy (6.9%) prevented them from taking a ski trip in the winter of Less frequently cited reasons for not taking a ski vacation last winter included the cost of a lift ticket (3.5%), the quality of customer service at ski resorts (2.7%), the size of ski resorts (2.7%), lack of daycare facilities (1.7%), poor quality food (0.9%), and availability of lodging (0.9%). 10

11 11 MEDIA EFFECTIVENESS Visitor Ratio Figure 1 shows that overall, about half of the people surveyed (50.1%) made winter trips to Vermont. This visitor ratio continues to support our past findings that roughly half of the people who call a travel inquiry number will actually make a visit to the destination. However, the visitor ratios for the three samples differ markedly. While, the visitor ratios for the Boston and New York markets are quite similar, visitor ratio from the VSAA sample was much higher. From the New York sample, 72 people (41.4%) made winter trips to Vermont, while 60 people (38.7%) made winter trips to Vermont from the Boston sample. The visitor ratio of the VSAA sample differs significantly from both the Boston (t = 5.54, p =.000) and New York (t = 5.16, p =.000)samples. Nearly two-thirds of the people in the VSAA sample (67.6%) took a winter trip to Vermont. The addition of a VSAA sample to the Winter 1997 study helps explain the recent drop in the visitor ratio among winter samples. The Winter 1996 study showed a dramatic decline in the visitor ratio of VERMONT callers (Figure 2). We speculated that this decline was due to the way calls were captured by the Vermont Department of Tourism and Marketing. Starting in the fall of 1995, callers whose primary information was ski information were sent to a different telephone number, and their

12 names and addresses were not included in the VERMONT sample. We thought that skiers who are calling for information about ski conditions may be more likely to visit Vermont. The data from the Winter 1997 study show this to be true. The Boston and New York samples, which do not include ski information calls, roughly mirror the visitor ratios from Winter 1996 (33.3% for Boston and 38.7% for New York). However, when skiers= calls handled by the VSAA are added to the sample, the aggregate visitor ratio rebounds to the usual 50%. Therefore, during the winter travel season, the VSAA receives information requests from the more motivated potential visitors, while the VDTM receives information from the less motivated potential visitor to Vermont. 12 Respondent Recall of the Promotion The data showed that respondents were for the most part, not by the Vermont promotions. Respondents were asked a series of questions about their recall of the promotional material, the reason they responded to the ad, the perceived effect the promotion had on their travel plans, and past experience visiting Vermont. All respondents were asked if they remembered the advertisement they responded to and if they remembered the follow-up information the state sent. Figure 3 shows that half of the people (54.0%) remembered seeing the advertisement to which they responded. Nonvisitors were just as likely as visitors to remember the advertisement and there were no differences in recall across the different samples. Figure 4, however, shows that respondent recall of Vermont advertising slipped during the Winter 1997 season from the previous three promotions seasons. Visitor recall of the promotion was 57% for the Boston and New York sample in the current study as compared to 71% in the Summer 1996 study (t = 3.55, p =.004), 70% in the Winter

13 13

14 1996 study (t = 2.15, p =.032) and 70% in the Summer 1995 study (t = 2.80, p =.005). Since the Summer season of 1995, respondent recall of Vermont advertising was well above two-thirds of the sample, and sometimes above three-fourths of the sample. During the Winter of 1997, visitor recalled just surpassed 50%, but did not exceed two-thirds of the sample. 14

15 As in previous studies, the follow-up brochures made a bigger impact on people. Over three quarters of the people remembered receiving the Vermont Travelers= Guidebook that the state sends VERMONT callers (Figure 5). Across the entire sample, 78.3% of the respondents remembered the follow-up material they received. This recall ratio differed significantly between different samples. Recall rates for people in the Boston (90.4%) and New York (92.9%) samples were similar to each other and to brochure recall rates from previous inquiry studies (Figure 6). However, significantly fewer people in the VSAA sample remembered receiving materials sent to them (54.8%). This may be because not everyone in this sample was sent fulfillment materials in response to their call. Some of the people in the VSAA sample may have called for current snow conditions and had no use for fulfillment brochures. In all, the advertisements themselves made an impact on over half of the sample. The follow-up brochures made an impact on three quarters of the respondents in the sample, although skiers have less need of fulfillment brochures about travel opportunities in Vermont. 15

16 16

17 17 Persuasive Effect Respondents were next asked why they responded to the travel promotion by calling the VERMONT number. Visitors to the state were asked to respond in one of three ways. They could either respond never thought of visiting Vermont prior to seeing the ad and wanted to find out more, A 2) AI thought about visiting Vermont, but needed help deciding whether or not to come,@ or 3) AI planned a trip to Vermont and wanted information to help plan my trip.@ Nonvisitors were given three response options worded somewhat differently, but with the same measurement intent. Nonvisitors could either respond 1) AI was curious about Vermont, but have no plans to visit in the near future,@ 2) AI never thought about visiting Vermont before seeing the advertisement, but may visit in the near future,@ or 3) AI had decided to visit Vermont before seeing the advertisement, and wanted information to plan a future trip.@ Table 1 shows that the advertisements were primarily an information source for people already planning to visit Vermont. Among winter visitors, the majority of people had already planned to take a vacation to the state and wanted planning information. About three quarters of visitors (202 people out of 266) called the VERMONT number to request information to plan their trips (75.9%). Only 21 people (7.9%) said they had not completely decided to visit before seeing the advertisement. In addition, 43 people (16.2%) said they had never thought of visiting Vermont prior to seeing the advertisement. This figure is substantially higher than in previous inquiry studies. The Summer/Fall 1996 promotions had a persuasive effect on only 12% of the visitors. The difference is probably due to different sampling procedures used in this study. The VSAA sample was drawn from callers who live anywhere east of the Mississippi river. This is further away than the typical metro markets used for past inquiry studies. Those more distant visitors in VSAA sample were probably less frequent visitors of Vermont ski areas, and therefore more likely to have never thought about Vermont as a ski destination before. Therefore, about a quarter of the visitors to Vermont (24.1%) said that the promotion had a persuasive influence on their decision to visit Vermont in the winter of Table 1. Reasons for calling the VERMONT number. I never thought of visiting Vermont prior I thought about visiting Vermont but needed I planned a trip to Vermont and wanted

18 to seeing the ad and wanted to find out more. help deciding whether or not to come. information to plan my trip. 18 VISITORS 43 (16.2%) 21 (7.9%) 202 (75.9%) I was curious about Vermont, but have no plans to visit in the near future. I never thought about visiting Vermont before seeing the ad but may visit in the near future. I had decided to visit Vermont before seeing the ad and wanted more information to plan a future trip. NONVISITORS 69 (28.0%) 21 (8.5%) 156 (63.4%) The same is true for nonvisitors in the sample. Table 1 shows that just over a quarter of the nonvisitors are the collectors of information who have no intention of visiting Vermont. Most nonvisitors, however, were requesting information to plan a future trip (156 people or 63.4%). Twenty-one nonvisitors (8.5%) stated that they had never considered a Vermont vacation, but after having seen the promotion may consider a future trip. Together, the visitor and nonvisitor findings indicate that the state=s travel promotions had a persuasive effect on 16.6% (85 people) of the sample. On the other hand, 69.9% (358 people) of the inquiry sample had Vermont travel plans prior to seeing the promotional material. Thus, Table 1 indicates that visitors use the information primarily for planning purposes and less for decisional purposes. These results show a significant increase in the persuasive effect of the Winter 1997 promotion over the previous winter (t = 2.30, p =.021), particularly among Boston and New York residents. The state=s advertising had a persuasive effect on 21.8% of the Boston sample, on 20.5% of the New York sample and on 8.6% of the VSAA sample (Figure 7). The VSAA sample was slightly below the average persuasive effect from previous inquiry studies, possibly because many of the skiers who call the VERMONT telephone number are calling for ski conditions and may not have been prompted to call by an advertisement. The persuasive effect among Boston and New York residents is a significant increase over previous inquiry studies. These data indicate that recall of Vermont travel advertising was down but persuasive effect was up in the New York and Boston markets.

19 19 The Travel Decision Data from this and other studies show that most of the people who call the VERMONT number are calling for information to help plan a trip they had already decided to make. Nevertheless, the state=s promotions do have some influence that induces people=s latent decisions into action. Therefore, the questionnaire asked respondents how much the advertisement and follow-up brochures help them decide to either visit Vermont (visitors) or think about visiting Vermont (nonvisitors). Figures 8-12 show the results from these questions for both visitors and nonvisitors. Among visitors who remembered seeing the advertisements, 53 people (37.6%) said they were Avery helpful@ in their decision to visit Vermont (Figure 8). On the other hand, 55 people (39.0%) of the visitors who remembered the advertisements said they were of little or no use in deciding to come to Vermont. Figure 9 shows that the follow up brochures contributed slightly more to people=s decisions to visit the state. Over 40% of the visitors who remembered receiving the brochures (83 people) said the Traveler=s Guidebook was very helpful in deciding to come to Vermont. However, a third of the visitors (68 people) said the brochures were of little or no help in deciding to come to Vermont. There were no significant differences between visitors from each of the different samples on these two variables. So the state=s promotions appear to contribute in part to the travel decision of as many as 40% of the sample.

20 The questionnaire asked nonvisitors to Vermont if the advertisements made them think about coming to Vermont, and if the brochures increased people=s interest in visiting Vermont. Nearly three-fourths of the nonvisitors who remembered seeing the advertisements (73.3% or 102 people) said the advertisements made them think about visiting Vermont either or Aa (Figure 10). The brochures had a similar effect. Again, 74.2% of the nonvisitors said the fulfillment brochures increased their interest in visiting Vermont (Figure 11). Conversely, roughly 1 in 4 people said these 20

21 promotional materials did not or only slightly stimulated interest in Vermont. These measures of influence are not comparable to the visitor measure of influence since thinking about visiting Vermont is different from deciding to visit Vermont. 21 Future Visits to Vermont Figure 12 shows that overall, when respondents were asked if they plan a visit to Vermont within the next 12 months, 174 people (34.1%) said Aprobably yes,@ while 273 people (53.4%) said Adefinitely yes@. In other words, nearly 9 in 10 respondents (87.5%) plan a specific trip to Vermont within the

22 coming year. Another 38 people (7.4%) said Aprobably and 26 people (5.1%) said Adefinitely These results show that both visitors and nonvisitors alike are interested in visiting in the future. While some of these people were not influenced to visit Vermont this year, they may visit in the future. Additionally, people who did visit Vermont this winter appear ready to come back next year. 22 Estimating a Conversion Rate The visitor ratio for this sample was 50.1%. This figure includes many visitors who were already planning a visit to the state and were taking advantage of an information source offered by the Department of Tourism and Marketing. In other words, it includes many who were not technically Aconverted@ by the promotional materials. In this study we provide three conversion estimates (Table 2). The best conversion estimate calculates the proportion of visitors who had not previously planned trips and were convinced to come to Vermont by promotional materials (43 people in the current sample). A more inclusive conversion estimate includes visitors who had previously thought about visiting Vermont and were stimulated to follow through on their plans by the promotional materials (21 people in the current sample). An even more inclusive estimate is one that includes nonvisitors who said they had never thought of visiting Vermont, but who may take a future visit after having received the Traveler=s Guidebook from the state (21 people in the current sample). Table 2 shows that the conversion estimates for the current sample range from a low of 8.4%, if only group 1 is included, to a high of 16.6% if visitors and nonvisitors intentions to visit are included.

23 23 Table 2. Conversion estimates for Boston, New York residents and VSAA sample. FULL SAMPLE (n=512) BOSTON (n=156) NEW YORK (n=171) VSAA (n=185) Visitor- Never Thought About Visiting Before Promotion 43 (8.4%) 23 (14.7%) 18 (10.5%) 2 (1.1%) Visitor-Promotion Helped Me Decide 21 (4.1%) 5 (3.2%) 6 (3.5%) 10 (5.4%) Nonvisitor-May Visit In Future Because of Promotion 21 (4.1%) 6 (3.8%) 11 (6.4%) 4 (2.2%) Cumulative Conversion Estimate 85 (16.6%) 34 (21.8%) 35 (20.5%) 16 (8.6%) In the current study, advertising recall is significantly lower than in the previous three inquiry studies. However, the persuasive effect is significantly higher among the Boston and New York samples. Specifically, the ratio of visitors who said they had never thought about visiting Vermont before being exposed to the state=s travel promotion had increased substantially. Usually, this ratio is well below 5%. In the summer/fall 1996 inquiry study, this ratio was 1.7% for both the Boston and new York samples. This winter, however, the ratio had jumped to over 10% for both samples. Further, the ratio of nonvisitors who said they plan a future trip because of the persuasive effect of the promotions also increased over previous studies. We suspect the persuasive effect among the VSAA sample was more like previous conversion estimates because many were not be prompted to call VERMONT by an advertisement, but instead were only calling for ski conditions. Overall, however, the winter 1997 marketing strategies in the Boston and New York areas were significantly more effective than in previous seasons.

24 24 TRIP CHARACTERISTICS The questionnaire asked a number of questions about the trip characteristics of visitors to Vermont: previous visits to Vermont, group composition, transportation used, accommodations used, and region of the state that they visited. The questionnaire also included questions for 1997 nonvisitors who visited competing ski destinations. Finally the questionnaire asked questions about the trip characteristics of people who visited Vermont but did not ski. Past Visits to Vermont All respondents were asked how frequently they had visited Vermont in the past. Out of 538 people in the sample, about 1 in 10 (11.0%) have never visited Vermont before (Figure 13). Nearly half of the respondents visit Ararely@ (14.3%) or Aoccasionally@ (30.1%) while a similar percentage (44.6%) visit Vermont Aoften@ or Aall the time@. A significantly higher percentage of respondents from the VSAA sample visit Vermont Aoften@ or Aall the time@ than either the Boston or New York samples (χ 2 =74.24, df=8, p=.00000). This indicates a significant portion of frequent ski visitors to Vermont use the VERMONT number to get information on ski conditions and ski accommodations. It also confirms that the toll-free service offered by the VDTM is as much an information service for existing customers as it is for potential customers. Group Size The average group size among all Vermont visitors in the sample was 5.42 people. This group size is higher than previous inquiry studies because of the inclusion of the VSAA sample. Summer visitors typically come in smaller groups that averaged 3.6 people in The winter 1996 sample=s group

25 size averaged 4.7 people. This winter 1996 average matches the Boston average of 4.16 people and the New York average of 4.99 people. The average group size of the VSAA sample, however, was 6.35 people (F = 3.04; p =.04). In other words, people in the VSAA sample were less likely to travel in groups of 2 or 3 people (Figure 14) and more likely to travel in large groups of 20 or more people. Conversely, Boston area residents who live closer to Vermont more frequently traveled in pairs (32%) and less frequently traveled in large groups of more than 6 people (Figure 14). 25 Figure 15 confirms that winter visitors travel in larger groups than summer visitors. Summer 1996 visitors were more likely to travel in pairs (55.2%), and less likely to travel in groups of 4 people or more. Conversely, among winter visitors, less than a third traveled in pairs and nearly a fourth traveled in groups of 4 people. Figure 15 also confirms that the VSAA sample is more likely to engage in some form of group travel. One-fifth of the Winter 1997 sample (20.6%) traveled in groups of more than 6 people. Many of these (6.1%) traveled in what were probably more formal groups (church groups, packaged tours, etc.) of 12 people or more. Figure 16 shows that most Vermont Winter visitors do not travel with children (59.5%). This ratio of people traveling without children is less than the 72.4% of the summer/fall 1996 visitors who did not travel with children. This finding suggests that skiing is somewhat more of a family activity than summer time visits to Vermont. Figure 16 also shows that Boston area residents were slightly less likely to travel to Vermont with children. Slightly more Boston residents traveled without children (65.8%), and slightly fewer Boston residents traveled with 2 or more children than the other two samples. The average number of children accompanying Boston area residents was 0.67, the average

26 26 number of children accompanying New York area residents was 1.18, and the average number of children accompanying people in the VSAA sample was Three people in the VSAA came to Vermont in large groups of children: 1 came with 35 children, another with 16 children, and a third with 10 children. Type of Transportation Used to Travel to Vermont The automobile continues to be the overwhelming favorite form of transportation to Vermont (Figure

27 17). More than 9 out of 10 visitors used personal automobiles or rental cars to visit Vermont (93.7%). All but 1 visitor from New York used a personal automobile to travel to Vermont, while 8.2% of the Boston residents used some form of public or group transportation, and 7.3% of the VSAA sample used some form of public or group transportation. Specifically, VSAA visitors were slighltly more likely to travel on a tour bus (4.4%), and Boston area residents were slightly more likely to take the train to Vermont (4.0%).This ratio of Boston residents who took the train to Vermont is a slight increase over previous surveys, although the difference is not statistically significant. It suggests that Boston residents may be beginning to perceive the train as a viable transportation option to Vermont, although further monitoring of this trend is necessary. 27 Respondents were also asked how many total miles they traveled during the Vermont vacation. On average, visitors traveled miles during their trip to and from Vermont. As expected, Boston area residents traveled the shortest average distance of miles during their trip. This was significantly less than New York area residents who traveled an average of miles. The VSAA sample, however, was from all over the eastern U.S., but primarily concentrated in Northeastern states (see Appendix 1; Table 4). Therefore, while the average distance traveled among the VSAA sample was only miles, the total distance traveled ranged from 15 miles to 6000 miles among this group of visitors. Length of Stay Respondents were asked how many nights they spent in Vermont. Because of their proximity to Vermont, visitors from Boston stayed significantly fewer nights on average than visitors from New York or visitors from the VSAA sample (F = 2.96; p =.05). On average, Boston area residents stayed 2.64 nights, New York residents stayed 3.35 nights, and VSAA visitors stayed 3.27 nights. Figure

28 18 shows that Boston area residents took more day trips and single overnight trips (20.0%) than the other two samples. Conversely, Boston area residents also took fewer long term trips of 6 or more nights (1.3%). Most New York residents took short term trips of 2 to 4 nights (83.2%). Length of stay among visitors from the VSAA sample was more evenly distributed. One in five (21.5) took day trips or overnight trips to Vermont, while nearly a fourth (23.6%) took trips of 5 or more nights. The remaining 52% took trips of 2 to 4 nights. 28 The questionnaire also asked visitors what day of the week they visited Vermont. Figure 19 shows that overall, half of the trips to Vermont during the winter of 1997 (53.8) were long weekend trips that extended across both weekend days and weekdays. The three samples differed significantly in the way they visited Vermont (χ 2 = 13.69, d.f. = 4, p =.008). Boston visitors, because of their proximity to Vermont, were more likely to take shorter weekend trips (38.7%) than were New York residents (16.9%) or people in the VSAA sample (25.4%). There also were slightly more Boston residents willing to take a ski trip during the week, presumably to avoid the weekend crowds. New York residents on the other hand were more likely to take more extended trips that stretched across both weekend days and week days. Averages for the VSAA sample fell between the extremes of the Boston and New York samples, suggesting there were both people who lived close to Vermont and could take quick day or weekend trips, and people who lived further away who needed to take more extended trips to the state.

29 29 Overnight Accommodations Figure 20 shows that overall, nearly a third of visitors (31.4%) to Vermont in the winter of 1997 stayed at a hotel or motel, and nearly a fifth (19.2%) stayed in inns or bed and breakfasts. More than one-third of the visitors (33.7%) sampled stayed in rental properties such as a condo or rental cabin, while 9.3% stayed with friends or relatives. The remainder (3.4%) stayed in vacation homes. About 8.5% of the visitors in the winter of 1997 were day visitors and required no accommodations. The three samples made distinctly different use of accommodations while visiting Vermont (χ 2 = 42.93, d.f. = 12, p=.000). Significantly fewer skiers from the VSAA sample stayed in Bed & Breakfast establishments (6%) than the Boston and New York samples, while a significantly higher percentage of skiers from the VSAA sample (35.3%) rented condominiums than did people in the Boston and New York samples (Figure 20).. Members of the VSAA sample consist mainly of people interested in visiting Vermont to ski. Therefore, they may choose lodging close to or part of the resort where they ski and therefore are more likely to rent condominiums right at the resort. New York residents, on the other hand were more likely to stay in Bed & Breakfast establishments (34.2%), and less likely to stay in vacation homes (1.3%) and rented cottages (5.3%).

30 30 We also compared Vermont skiers with visitors who chose not to ski for their Vermont winter vacation. There were significant differences between skiers and non-skiing visitors (χ 2 = 28.01, d.f. = 12, p =.0001). Skiers tended to stay in rented properties like cabins, cottages and condominiums (39.4%), and hotels and motels (29.5%) probably because these were close to the resort where they skied. Non-skiers, on the other hand, also tended to stay in hotels or motels (21.7%), however, a much higher percentage stayed in bed and breakfast establishments or country inns (47.8% vs. 16.1%). The non-skiing winter visitor is probably looking for the traditional small town experience that Vermont offers, which may be facilitated by staying in a country inn or bed and breakfast establishment. Region of the State Visited We asked visitors in which region they spent most of their time while visiting Vermont. As expected, Figure 21 shows that for 1997 winter visitors, the mountain regions where the major ski areas are located tended to be most popular. About 4 in 10 visitors (42.3%) spent most of their time in the South Central Mountain Region of Rutland and Killington, while nearly a quarter of the visitors spent most of their time in the Central Mountain Region of Stowe, Waterbury and the Mad River Valley (22.2%), and another quarter spent most of their time in the Southern Region around Manchester, Bennington and Brattleboro (21.5%). Less than 1 in 10 visitors spent most of their time in the Burlington/Champlain Valley Region (9.2%), while an even smaller percentage spent their time in the Northeast Kingdom (3.5%) and the Capitol Region in and around Montpelier and Barre (1.4%).

31 There were significant differences between visitors from the three samples (χ 2 = 25.05, d.f. = 10, p=.005). Boston area residents more frequently visited the Stowe, Waterbury, Mad River Valley region (30.1%) than the New York (18.2%) or VSAA (20.1%) samples. New York residents more often visited the southern mountain region of Brattleboro, Bennington, and Manchester (36.4%) than did Boston residents (16.4%) and VSAA respondents (15.7%). Finally, people in the VSAA sample were slightly more likely to visit the Northeast Kingdom and the Capitol region than were Boston and New York area residents. 31

32 32 THE VERMONT SKIER To address some of the questions that the Vermont Ski Area Association had about Vermont skiers, we asked all respondents four types of questions, including items that assessed 1) processes of trip planning, 2) preference for certain ski area amenities, 3) performance of Vermont ski area amenities, and 4) why potential Vermont visitors might instead chose an alternate ski destination. Specifically, we asked respondents about how often they skied each year, and their skiing skill. We asked respondents about their trip planning process, the sources of information they used, and their use of ski vacation packages. We asked people about what services and amenities they expected from a ski area, and how well Vermont ski areas met those expectations. The questionnaire asked people who did not ski in Vermont if they skied elsewhere during winter 1997, and what were the factors that kept them from taking a skiing in the state. Finally, we asked respondents to compare Colorado as a ski destination with Vermont on a number of ski related amenities, attractions, and services. The Trip Planning Process The Decision Process. The VERMONT number is used primarily as an information source on travel in Vermont by people who have already decided to visit the state. We were therefore interested in exploring the decision-making process that skiers go through when deciding to ski in Vermont. Is there a cognitive process where people begin with a general desire to take a vacation, and then progressively narrow down their options to decide on a specific activity at a specific destination? Based on conversations with Tom Kaiden, Executive Director of the Stowe Area Association, we hypothesized a five-step process when individuals make travel decisions. First, the individual must decide to take a vacation. They must block out enough leisure time, and then make the commitment to travel. Second, they must decide on what they are going to do. Will they go skiing, will they spend a week on the beach in Florida, or will they take in some shows at Branson? Third, for those who choose a ski vacation, they must decide where they will ski. Will they ski in British Columbia, Utah, or Vermont. Fourth, those deciding on Vermont must choose a specific destination within the state: Stowe, Smuggler=s Notch, Killington, Mt. Snow, etc.? Finally, having decided on the specific destination in Vermont, the individual must make reservations. In this study, we think of this decision-making process as a temporal progression from general to specific. In this study, we asked skiers what month of the year they made critical decisions about their ski trip. Specifically, we asked skiers 1) what month they decided to take a ski trip, 2) what month they decided on a specific region of the country to ski, 3) what month they decided on a specific resort to visit, 4) what month they made their reservations, and 5) when they actually took their ski trip. We then calculated the length of time between each of these decisions to determine if there is a systematic progression in the decision-making process. There were 322 (59.9%) people in the sample of 538 who took ski trips during the winter of Most of these people took Vermont vacations (288 people), while a few (34 people) took ski vacations to destinations other than Vermont.

33 The results did not confirm this progressive cognitive decision-making process. Overall, the process of deciding to take a ski trip, deciding on what region of the country to visit, and deciding on what specific resort to visit is a simultaneous process. Most people tend to make these decisions at one point in time, then making their reservations far enough in advance to ensure they type of skiing trip they are after. Specifically, Figure 22 shows the number of months between when skiers decided to take a ski vacation and the time they decided on a region of the country to visit. Nearly 9 out of 10 skiers (85.5%) decided on a region to visit in the same month they decided to take a ski vacation. A few people take a little longer to decide on where to ski, and presumably are open to a persuasive advertising process. However, most people who call the VERMONT number make their decision to ski and their decision to ski Vermont simultaneously. Skiing and Vermont may be synonymous to many of these respondents. On average, skiers spent 0.3 months from the time they decided to take a ski vacation to when they decided on a region to visit. 33 We next calculated the time between a skier=s decision on a region of the country and their decision on what specific resort to visit. Once again, Figure 23 shows that about 9 out of 10 skiers (89.9%) choose a region of the country and a resort within that region in the same month. Therefore, most skiers are not comparative shoppers of ski areas after deciding on visiting Vermont. The decision to ski Vermont and the decision on what resort to visit go hand-in-hand for most. On average, skiers decide on a specific ski destination only 0.2 months after deciding on a region to visit.

34 34 We next calculated the number of months between the time one chose a specific ski resort and when they made their reservations to visit that resort. Figure 24 shows also that, on average, skiers decide on a resort at which to ski in the same month they make reservations at that resort. Nearly 9 out of 10 skiers sampled (88.2%) chose a resort and made reservations to travel in the same month. Again, for most skiers, the decision to ski, the decision on a region of the country to ski, the decision on a specific resort to visit, and the reservation process is generally a one-step process. On average, skiers made their reservations only 0.2 months after deciding on a specific ski destination. Finally, Figure 25 shows the number of months between the month of the ski trip and the time reservations were made for the trip. This figure, as expected, shows some lag between when people made reservations and when they actually made their trip. On average, skiers made reservations for their trip less than a month and a half in advance (1.3 months). Only about half (45.1%) made reservations for their trip in the same month that they took the trip. Most skiers (8 out of 10) skiers made their reservations 2 months or less advance of their vacation. On average, the lead time between one=s decision to take a ski trip and the time when they actually take the trip is 2.0 months. In other words, the lead time in the decision making process for most Vermont skiers is short. Therefore, there is not a large window of opportunity for persuading those few people who need help in their decision making process. More importantly, there little time to get the fulfillment materials into the hands of those wanting information for reservation purposes.