Читать книгу NEUROMARKETING - Branislav R. Tanasic - Страница 20

Based on the research of Fred van Raaij (1986), on the perception and preferences of tourists, Woodside and Lysonski develop a model of behavior, ie, consumer decision-making in tourism. The proposed Decrop model (A. Decrop) adds: "The general model of Woodside and Lysonski-og (1989), about the choice of a tourist destination, is probably the most popular concept to date," (Decrop, 2006: 30) demonstration model of choice.

Woodside & Lysonski for the proposed model says that there is strong evidence supporting the idea that consumer perceptions and preferences should be the basis of tourism marketing and tourism behavior research (Woodside & Lysonski, 1989: 8). Structural models are popular in consumer behavior research in tourism because they describe the major cognitive, affective and behavioral variables involved in the decision-making process and suggest the steps that link them. The behavioral model of tourists found by Woodside and Lysonsky includes eight groups of variables that make up nine interrelations. (Arrows on Diagram 1 show that the variables are interrelated). The model is limited to a few key variables that make it easy to understand and easy to use in empirical studies and for managerial use. Comparison with some of the previously offered models shows that Woodside and Lysonky are adding a few details like that is the mental categorization of the process between spontaneous destination evocation, destination rejection, non-open-minded destinations, and unavailable destinations but are subject to interest (Decrop, 2006: 31).

Diagram no. 1, A General Model of Traveler Destination Choice,

Source: Woodside & Lisonsky (1989), Journal of Traveler Research, 26(8) 1-9

During the process of collecting and mentoring the destination data, Vudsajd and Lisonus, all destinations that consumers are thinking of are classified into one of four categories: destination for consideration, inert set, inept set, and destinations that are unavailable for various reasons but are tempting and subject to interest and consideration (Woodside & Lisonsky, 1989: 1-9).

Narayana & Markin, define an inept set as destinations for which the consumer knows, but does not consider them during the decision-making process because of the resulting negative perception based on personal experience or negative information (Narayana & Markin, 1975: 1-6 ). The inert set includes destinations that the consumer has ambivalent, neutral attitude, usually due to lack of information about them, so they do not enter into the process of consideration. As far as unavailable destinations are concerned, they are usually attractive tourist sites that may be of interest to you, but realistic circumstances prevent the consumer from seeing them. Limiting factors can be financial, geographical, administrative procedures, visas or some other obstacle (Hanlan, Fuller & Wilde, 2005: 6). Affective model associations, implying the specific feelings that consumers make towards the destination, which may be related to a particular brand, are actually a play that presumes a lot of sunshine, entertainment, prestigious beaches, and quality restaurants. Relationships with favored destinations or destinations are based on these affective associations (Woodside & Carr, 1988: 2-6; Muhlbacher & Woodside 1987: 299-319).

There are also certain limitations of this decision-making model for the destination. First of all, it omits the marketing-mix of process variables, the essential role of people connected with marketing services, the traditional 4P marketing mix. (Hanlan, Fuller & Wilde, 2005: 8)