Crompton Model Destination Choices

CROMPTON MODEL DESTINATION CHOICES Many models for consumer choice and perception of products and services have been created to describe the purchasing decision-making process and categorize available products and services. In many cases, this mental categorization process shapes the compartmentalization of these products and services based on consumer experiences, advertising, and comments from other consumers or complete ignorance of the brand at hand. For example, Woodside and Lysonski (1989) present an empirical model for choosing a tourist destination in which they describe how factors such as knowledge, preferences and choices are considered by consumers of a tourist destination. Other models have also been proposed, including one by Goodrich (1978), of the relationship between preferences and perception. Um and Crompton (1990) examined the contribution of inhibiting and facilitating factors; Eymann and Ronning (1997) analyze the microeconometrics of spatial choice. Crompton (1992) proposed a model that reflects rational decision making in which tourists have a high level of involvement in choosing the tourist destination to visit. This model includes the process of narrowing the set of tourist destinations; it starts with all the potential destinations for the trip and continues until the final destination is selected. In this model, internal forces (prior knowledge about the destination or previous experience) and external forces (information from friends, advertising, cultural programs) influence the decision-making process. The principles of Crompton's (1992) model are based on different theoretical considerations. The first is that there are two types of tourist destinations: those that tourists are aware of and those that tourists are unaware of. Therefore, it is important to promote tourism destinations through marketing campaigns or excellent tourism experiences that will lead to word of mouth publicity (Jalilvand and Samiei, 2012). Within tourist destinations known to tourists, the model shows two large groups: those that tourists think they would like to visit (initial considerations) and those that would be discarded for different reasons (exclusions). Some tourists are unsure or do not have enough information about the destination, causing them to be excluded from the decision-making process. There are also others including destinations who have a negative impression, either from their own experiences, from other people or from the media. Returning to the set of destinations that tourists will initially consider (Stage 1 and Stage 2) The main difference between initial and final consideration sets is that there is a period of time between them in which the individual can evaluate and reduce the list of destinations from a large and broad group to smaller and reduced amounts. Returning to the set of destinations that tourists will initially consider (Stage 1 and Stage 2) The main difference between initial and final consideration sets is that there is a period of time between them in which the individual can evaluate and reduce the list of destinations from a large and broad group to a smaller, reduced numberStage 3 is achieved when the goal of the decision-making process is to select a final goal based on the choices in the final set of considerations. These actions require an investment of effort and resources. The greater this effort, the more likely the individual is to commit to a goal. The dotted line in Figure 40 shows that individuals reduce the number of alternatives and move from one set of choices to the next, with many goals rejected. As they move from the initial set of considerations to the final set of considerations, discarded goals can become part of the set of rejected goals. This can occur when tourists' evaluation of a destination in consideration, action or interaction changes late from a positive opinion to a negative or ambivalent opinion. Operationalize Decrop (2010), based on a study with 25 Belgian tourists in which data were collected during the 3 months before the summer travel holiday, obtained a typology of seven sets of destination choices. These seven sets are identified as follows: 1. Awareness set, destinations that travelers know about but are not interested in. 2. Evoked set, destinations that the traveler spontaneously mentions as a possibility for a future vacation but not for a future trip. 3. Surrogate set, destinations that are not prioritized by tourists but are saved for possible trips 4. Exclusion set, destinations that the traveler is definitively excluded from ('I would never go there'). 5. Dream set, a destination that is considered an ideal place to travel or visit but is not available permanently due to inhibiting factors. 6. Unavailable set, goals that are temporarily unavailable due to certain limiting factors. 7. Available set, destinations that are stimulating and worth visiting after considering limiting factors Decrop (2010) shows that the number of destinations in the evoked set is quite stable over time, ranging from none to four, with an average of 1.5 destinations per trip. The traveller's final decision, according to Decrop (2010), takes place in three stages. Once destinations have been considered and evaluated, situational and restrictive factors are taken into account, reducing the number of generated destinations to the set of available destinations, which includes only viable alternatives.