Idea Transcript
ASAC 2007 Ottawa, Ontario
Dr. Sean M. Hennessey Dr. Roberta MacDonald Melissa MacEachern University of Prince Edward Island
EXAMINING GOLFER CHARACTERISTICS: A FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING VISITORS TO A DESTINATION
The purpose of this study is to determine whether there are differences among visitors to a destination based on their golfing frequency in the previous year. In this study, profiles of golfers to a destination, based on their golfing frequency, are created. By constructing a framework for understanding the golf traveller, golf and tourism industry representatives can better understand the contribution that golfers make to a destination based on factors such as satisfaction, value, trip length, expenditures, travel decisions, and motivations. Findings from this research may provide golf and tourism marketers information that will lead to market segmentation models, target market development, and relationship management strategies.
Introduction The golf market is a dynamic and growing activity for tourists globally (Hinch and Higham, 2001) and if developed and marketed appropriately, can be a very successful, and profitable, niche tourism product. The international golf market consists of over 57 million people with 27.4 million golfers in the US, 5.5 million in Europe, 14 million in Japan, and 5.95 million in Canada (The Golf Research Group Global Golf Report, www.nitb.com, and RCGA Canadian Golf Survey, 2006). Canada has one of the highest participation rates in the world for golf, with 21.5% of the population golfing each year with an average of 15.5 rounds played per year. SRI International (2002) found that the golf is a major industry in the U.S. accounting for $62 billion of economic activity in 2000. This is higher than the economic impact of the motion picture and sound recording industries and of the amusement, gambling, and recreation business. The golf market represents a significant opportunity to grow and maintain visitation to a destination, and generate substantial revenues for the tourism industry and government. With the very high fixed development costs associated with golf courses, golf marketers need to understand the visitor in order to improve profitability and competitiveness. As a niche product offering, golf’s ability to attract certain types of visitors may lead to higher returns for the tourism destination. Tourists visit a destination for a variety of reasons, often personal in nature, and driven by a number of internal and external forces. The relationship between the numerous variables influencing behaviour must be researched in order to fully understand current and potential visitors to a destination. To be able to construct appropriate models and profiles of visitors, it is important to recognize the
46
influences on the decisions made. This study provides a framework for developing profiles that can be used to gain a greater understanding of golfing visitors and their behaviour.
Literature Review Market segmentation is a well-established marketing strategy (Kotler and Armstrong, 2006) that, when used constructively can lead to a high return on investment. There are various segmentation approaches including demographic, psychographic, behavioural, and geographic dimensions (Crane and Berkowitz, 2006). Behavioural dimensions focussed on usage have been successfully employed in segmenting the travel market (Kotler et al., 1999; Woodside et al., 1987; Morgan, 1996). Heavy, medium and light users of travel and travel related products and services have been explored and documented in this literature. Litvin (2000) argues that usage-based segmentation is a valid approach to use for various niche offerings and their usage-based visitors. Intentions to visit and to revisit destinations can be drawn from tourists’ recommendations (Oppermann, 2000). These recommendations are partially derived from satisfaction levels experienced at the destination. Measuring satisfaction is a basic “parameter used to evaluate the performance of destination products and services” (Noe & Uysal, 1997). Within this context, it is important to understand how current visitors experience particular products and services and their perceptions regarding satisfaction. Satisfaction has been extensively researched in the tourism literature both at a macro and micro level. Satisfaction with products and services is based on perceived and real experiences including expectations. In a study of visitors to Singapore, Kau and Lim (2004) developed segments based on motivation to visit and found these segments differed significantly in their levels of satisfaction and likelihood of recommending to others, but this variation did not relate to likelihood to revisit the destination. It is important to note that satisfaction does not directly correlate to repeat visitation. Other factors such as motivation impact the relationship between satisfaction and repeat visitation (Yoon and Uysal, 2003). Tourism researchers and marketers need to better understand satisfaction and the psychology of loyal and repeat visitation in order to improve destination competitiveness. (Petrick, 2002) The literature regarding visitor’s motivation to travel and the use of psychology to develop marketing strategies to attract visitors has been well documented (McGuinnan et al, 1995). Motivations to visit and “benefits sought” is one of the most commonly used market segmentation approaches in the tourism industry (Kau and Lim, 2004). Motivations for travel are based on push and pull forces (Dann, 1981). Motivations have been used to describe and to segment markets and are useful to understand the desire for travel (push) and to explain choice of destinations (pull) (Crompton, 1979). Push forces are internally driven and based on a tourists’ desire and pull motivations are based on the destination attractiveness and positioning (Cha, McCleary & Uysal, 1995). Kau and Lim found distinct differences among visitors to Singapore, based on motivation to visit and utilized these motivations as the basis to successfully segment the tourism market for Singapore. Understanding needs and wants is basic marketing orientation, and is paramount to attracting consumers and visitors. By understanding motivations, gauging satisfaction and value, destination marketers can better manage the demand and supply of tourism. Research on the golf market is an emerging segment of the tourism field. The majority of literature that considers golfers as tourists is focussed on satisfaction and value (Petrick et al. 2001, 2002).
47
Petrick and Backman (2002a) found that current measures of perceived value may be inappropriate to measure golfer satisfaction and intentions to repurchase. Petrick (2002b), in a related study, examined golfographic variables (rounds of golf per year, golf vacations taken, number of years played, handicap, etc.) as a means to predict factors of novelty for golfers and its impact on their future vacation activity. Petrick’s reported that golfographics were not necessarily indicative of “thrill” seeking vacationers and do not predict future golf vacation activity. Petrick and Backman (2002b) found that golfographics variables are poor predictors of golf travellers’ perceived value, but still may still be useful in identifying markets of golfers. The utilization of golfographics as primary variables to segment golf markets has been mostly unexplored. This study utilizes a golfographic variable, frequency of play, as the basis for segmentation.
A Framework for Understanding the Golf Traveller In the literature, little seems to be known about golfers’ personal variables compared to perceived value and satisfaction (Petrick and Backman, 2002a, 2002b). The purpose of this study is to gain a better understanding of golf visitors demographics and golfographics compared to their perceived values, motivations, and levels of satisfaction. The paper attempts to provide insights into the interaction of variables that may trigger knowledge of golfers prior to their visits to a destination and their potential experiences and outcomes during the visit to golf courses. This is of interest to tourism planners and policymakers since golf is an important niche market for sports tourism. Based on the literature, an exploratory framework was developed to profile golfers. It is a structural behavioural model that is examined in an empirical study using quantitative data. The framework helps to develop the multi-variable profiles of golfers, and provides a process for evaluating the inter-dynamics of golfers and their choices. The concept of using frameworks to profile tourists is not new. Woodside et al. (1989) and MacDonald and Woodside (1995) link service, quality of the offering, satisfaction, and behavioural intentions, and provide mapping for in-depth traveller profiles. Figure 1 illustrates the framework used in this paper.
Description of the Model There are three sets of variables that might be considered when trying to understand the golf traveller: influence sets, decision sets, and outcomes. Box 1 is the influence sets - the demographic, behavioural, and environmental variables that already exist for the golf traveller before they plan or take their trip. These are factors that will influence the decision to travel, where to travel, and what to do when at the selected destination. Box 2 are decision sets - the motivations and golfographic variables that require actions or decisions either prior to or during a trip. Petrick and Backman ( 2002a, 2002b) highlight many of the variables for understanding golfographics (Box 2) in relation to satisfaction and value. Box 3 are the outcomes - the value and satisfaction variables that can predict future travel plans. The resulting framework can be used to profile golf travellers, to gain an understanding of this segment of tourists to a destination. In addition, the framework provides a means for conceptualizing the complexity and dynamics of golfers’ behaviours and outcomes to impact tourism planning. The framework’s variables are not inclusive, but do offer a dynamic model for the development of an effective golf tourism strategy for an area. The proposed framework is a three-stage process, shown by the boxes, that indicate the influences, decisions, and outcomes for a golf traveller. The arrows in the Figure indicate directly and indirectly the triggers or predictors of golfers outcomes. These are the interactive relationships among the variables that
48
will impact strategy development. Within the boxes the variables are interactive and likely impact on each other. The three stages in the process are pre-trip, during trip, and post trip. Box 1 contains the influences that relate to the decisions/motivations and outcome set variables in Boxes 2 and 3 respectively. Boxes 1 and 2 indicate the variables to consider for a golf tourism strategy and their impact on the satisfaction levels and perceived value outcomes in Box 3. Box 3 outcomes loop as feedback to Box 1 to allow monitoring and to provide insights for ongoing changes. Not all of the variables will be discussed directly in this paper. Rather the paper focuses on variables where survey data was available.
Data and Methodology Prince Edward Island (PEI) is Canada’s smallest province, with a population of just 140,000 and 5,684 square kilometres of land. PEI is separated from its sister provinces of Nova Scotia (NS) and New Brunswick (NB) by the Northumberland Strait. In 1997, the Confederation Bridge was opened providing a permanent link to the mainland. PEI has been called "the million acre farm," and agriculture is the biggest industry. PEI is known for its potatoes, and fields with rows of green potato plants set in the red soil of the Island are a common sight. The combination of the red and green of the fields, and the blue of the water makes for striking scenery, and is one of the reasons why tourism is the Islands’ second largest industry. In the mid-1990s, in an attempt to diversify the tourism product offered, the PEI Department of Tourism made golf a core part of its tourism marketing strategy. Golf Prince Edward Island (Golf PEI) is an industry association devoted to the promotion and development of golf on PEI. In 2005, Golf PEI consisted of 25 members representing golf courses across the province. In addition, the provincial government provided financial support to the organization. The combination has resulted in Prince Edward Island (PEI) becoming a golfing destination for visitors from across the country and continent. To determine visitors impressions of golfing on PEI, Golf PEI undertakes periodic surveys of golfers on their member courses. From June through October 2005, Golf PEI implemented a golf experience survey. The survey was developed by Golf PEI and was distributed to golfers who played 24 of the 25 member golf courses. The survey was distributed by course employees to golfers after they finished their round. The distribution of the surveys was at the discretion of the course and, likely, the people working in the clubhouse. Participation in the survey was voluntary, but a small gift was provided to respondents who returned the completed surveys. The survey contained 69 questions and is available from the authors on request. The population for the survey consisted of all golfers who played a round of golf at one of Golf PEI’s courses. In 2005, there were 407,327 rounds of golf played at the Golf PEI member courses. Over the course of the 2005 golfing season, 3,397 surveys were completed by golfers at one of the 24 participating courses. This data was made available to the researchers and is the basis for this paper. While there is likely some sampling bias with the survey, with the very large sample size, the data collected should be reliable and valid. The subset of data from the survey that is used in this paper is based on the response to the question concerning the number of rounds of golf that the respondent played anywhere in the last 12 months. There were seven options provided for the question: 1, 2-3, 4-5, 6-10, 11-20, 21-25, and over 25. For the purpose of this paper, the seven options were reduced to three: 5 or less, 6-25, and over 25. The first group are considered occasional golfers and are termed infrequent for the paper. The second group
49
are termed moderate golfers for the paper. The final group are heavy golfers and are termed dedicated for the paper. Table 1 provides a summary of the survey numbers. In total, 2,302, or about 68%, of the respondents answered this survey question. Of these 574 were permanent residents of PEI and were excluded from the sample used for this paper. So, the final sample consisted of 1,651 completed surveys for people that will be classified as tourists. Note that in the results that follow, the responses for many of the survey questions will not total 1,651 as some people did not respond to all of the questions. Also note the very high percentage of these golfers that are repeat visitors to PEI. This issue is discussed in more detail below. Following Huff (1990), a mapping procedure was applied to the proposed framework. This process shows the dimensions of categories and hierarchies among the variables allowing detailed profiles to be developed. A map shell of four sets of variables from Figure 1, for three golfer categories based on golfing frequency, are the basis for the mapping. The four sets of variables are demographics/environmental, golfographics, motivations, and outcomes of satisfaction and perceived values.
Results: Applying the Framework Table 2 provides the golf survey framework based on golfing frequency. A listing of the 24 questions from the Golf PEI survey that are used in the paper, and summary results of the responses is provided. Note that questions 36 to 39 asked for a rating on a four-point scale and in Table 2, the mean response is provided. The final column is an F-stat on the differences in the responses across the three categories of golf visitors. Figure 2 provides golfer profiles and outcomes. This is the completed map shell of summary profiles for the three categories of golfers and the four sets of variables. The literature review revealed limited findings on the golf traveller and linkages of profiles to satisfaction and value perceptions. This study helps to fill this gap with detailed descriptions of golf profiles and decisions made at a destination that impact decisions regarding future golf trips. Table 2 and the profile maps in Figure 2 provide empirical evidence for the dynamic and complex multi-variable triggers that provide golfers profiles and influence their choices and outcomes.
Demographic and Environmental Influences In terms of demographic and environmental influences, the differences across the three golfer categories are significant for all of the variables considered, except gender. Most of the people who completed the survey were males. But in terms of age, income, residence location, golfographics, source of information about golfing, and repeat visitor status, major and significant differences based on golf frequency is evident.2
2
Across the three categories of golfers, almost 71% are repeat visitors. This is a very high rate of repeat visitors and suggests that this large sample of golfers is satisfied with their visitor experience on PEI. This is further reinforced when this result is compared to the rate reported in the 2004 PEI Tourism Impact Study, where 37% of visitors reported that they visited PEI in the previous year; 25% said they had visited PEI at some point in the previous five years. 50
This is particularly the case for dedicated golfers who are significantly more likely to be members of golf courses, have low golf handicaps, and who are older, wealthier, more interested in golf packages, and are more likely to be first time visitors to PEI. The household income level across the three categories of golfers is surprisingly high, much higher than the income level reported in the 2004 Tourism Impact Study. For the sample, 55.8% of respondents reported incomes greater than $100,000. Only 11.4% reported incomes less than $50,000. This implies that the median income of this sample was about $110,000.3 For the dedicated golfers, almost 36% reported income greater than $150,000. This is the group of visitors that PEI wishes to attract. They have much higher disposable incomes, and golf, stay, and eat at the more expensive locations. The average amount they spend would be much higher than the amount spent by the average tourist. One very interesting result in the relatively low reliance placed on TV ads and the visitor information package to gather information regarding golfing on PEI across all three golfer categories. Given that these two media outlets are the highest cost methods of informing potential customers, a cost/benefit analysis is likely warranted on these media forms. These findings suggest there are various ways to reach the dedicated golfer through information sources that will trigger a visit to the Island. Golf packages are worthwhile and ensure the PEI information is available when needed either pre-trip or during the trip. Planners might continue to package hotels and resorts with golfing to provide convenience and desired knowledge. This will help to provide consistent quality and value to the segment. Getting information into visitor’s hands is important. Woodside et al. (1997) report that destination visitors who are high information users tend to participate more in activities, spend more money daily, are positive about their experiences, and have more intent to return compared to low and nonusers of information.
Golfographic Influences Again, the differences across the three golfer categories are significant for most of the golfographic variables. While fewer dedicated golfers reserved their tee times directly with the course, many more used travel agents and the Internet. This may imply that these bookings were made before travelling to PEI. It seems clear that these visitors are committed to golfing prior to coming to PEI. Once they play, however, the majority of the golfers in each category had trouble playing to their handicap. This may attest to the high quality of the golfing product available in PEI. Dedicated golfers stay on PEI for a slightly longer period of time, and a much higher portion stay in hotels and resorts. This implies higher revenues from this segment. The biggest difference across the three golfer groups appears to be for expenditures. Dedicated golfers spend much more in total, across more golfers, so their total golf expenditure, at $891, is 177% more than infrequent golfers and 71% more than moderates. Furthermore, they are much more likely to golf in couples, less so with children. This suggests they are more likely to play the more challenging (and costlier) courses. Clearly, this is a segment the tourism industry wishes to target.
3
Again, this data is much different than the result reported in the 2004 PEI Tourism Impact Study. There only 68% of visitors reported income greater than $50,000, while 23% reported income of between $35,000 and $50,000. Visitors who come to golf have much higher incomes than the average visitor to PEI. 51
Motivation Influences Based on the general survey of tourists to PEI, visiting family and friends is a key motivation for travelling to PEI. This seems to apply to this sample of tourists as well, with one key difference. Significantly more dedicated golfers come to PEI specifically for the golfing experience, and less so to visit family, friends or for a family vacation. Again, this is the group that seems to fit much better with the marketing strategy implemented by the Province of PEI.
Outcomes: Value and Satisfaction While dedicated golfers rated the value of the golf experience for the fees paid significantly lower than other golfers, they also indicated they were more likely to play the course again. The three golfer categories were equally likely to recommend the golf facility and were equally satisfied with their golf experience. In addition, the overall rating of all of these questions for all three golfer categories were quite high at the 3.5 out of 4 level. Finally, the three groups were equally likely to return to PEI to golf in the future. Overall, the choices these golfers made pre-trip and during the trip seemed to result in positive outcomes.
Summary and Conclusion The objective of this study was to determine whether there are differences among visitors to Prince Edward Island, based on frequency of golf played. Golfers were divided into three segments; infrequent, moderate, and dedicated golfers and corresponding profiles were developed based on golfing frequency. Golfers were profiled based on the following variables: 1. 2. 3. 4.
Demographic, behavioural, and environmental (variables that are already existing for the golf traveller before they plan or take their trip). Golfographics (variables that relate directly to golfing such as: handicap, years of play, golf trips taken, golf membership, length of stay, party size). Motivation to visit (issues such as family vacation, golf, visiting family/friends). Value and satisfaction with the golf experience (variables such as will return, will recommend, will play again, value of golf visit).
The results indicate that there are significant differences in these variables based on golfing frequency. Dedicated golfers are very different from infrequent and moderate golfers on three of the four variables. In particular, dedicated golfers are much more likely to be older, wealthier, from outside the Maritime Provinces, first time visitors to PEI, be visiting to golf, golf in couples, and to have made golf bookings prior to coming to PEI. In addition, since they golf more, their expenditures on golf-related items is $483 per golfer, much more than the other two categories of golfers. Although not covered in the survey, it seems clear that dedicated golfers would also spend much more in total on their trip to PEI. They stay in more expensive hotels and resorts and would more likely frequent restaurants and other tourist establishments. Finally, golfers, in general, do not find out about golfing on PEI through TV ads or the visitor information package. Given the high cost of these two media outlets, the industry and government may want to reconsider the large amount of money spent on these media forms. On the last page of the survey, respondents were given the option of providing contact information in order to receive additional information regarding golf on PEI. Amazingly, 1,618 of the
52
1,651 surveys included in the sample, a 98% response rate, provided contact details. This a powerful indicator of satisfaction with the golf experience, and a willingness to consider returning to visit the province in the future. Obviously, the golfers represented by this random sample are an ideal group on which to focus the golf industry’s marketing efforts. Specialized messages and offers can be tailored for the various market segments of golfers that can be developed based on the survey data. This study has only used one variable to segment the market for golfers. Much more can be done with the data. The authors are working on other papers in the area. The results of the survey present an opportunity to the golf industry to develop market segmentation models, very specific target markets, and relationship management strategies. The data can be the basis for developing a rich database of visitors who know PEI and enjoy the golfing experience provided. They would recommend the experience to others, and are older with more leisure time and disposable income. The data describes the characteristics of the golfers, and it appears that these visitors are the exact type that the tourism industry wishes to attract to PEI. In summary, it seems tourism planners should focus their marketing efforts on golfers that have characteristics similar to the dedicated golfers in this study. They are a prime segment that will enhance the positive impact tourism has on PEI. Even if the travel party does not return to the PEI, it is important to ensure positive word of mouth promotion to future travel parties of friends and relatives.
References Bowen, J.T. Market Segmentation in Hospitality Research: No Longer a Sequential Process. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 10(7), (1998), 289-296. Cha, S, McCleary K, and Uysal, M. Travel Motivation of Japanese Overseas Travellers: A FactorCluster Segmentation Approach. Journal of Travel Research, 34(1), (1995), 33-39. Crane F, Kerin, R, Harley, S, Berkowitz, E Rudelius, W. Marketing 6th Canadian Edition. McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Canada, 2006. Crompton, J. Motivations for Pleasure Travel. Annals of Tourism Research, 6, (1979), 408-424. Dann, G.M.S. Tourism Motivation: An Appraisal. Annals of Tourism Research, 8, (1981), 187-219. Goldsmith, Ronald E. and Litvin, Stephen W. Heavy Users of Travel Agents: A Segmentation Analysis of Vacation Travelers. Journal of Travel Research, 8, (1999), 127-133. Hinch T.D. and Higham J.E.S. Sport Tourism: A Framework for Research. International Journal of Travel Research, 3(1), (2001), 45-58. Huff, N.S. Mapping Strategic Thought, Mapping Strategic Thought, ed. A.S. Huff, Wiley Chichester, U.K, 2001. Kau, A.K. and Lim P.S. Clustering of Chinese Tourists to Singapore: An Analysis of Their Motivations, Values and Satisfaction. International Journal of Travel Research, 7, (2005), 321-248. Kotler, P., Armstrong, G. and Cunningham, P. Principles of Marketing, 6th Canadian Edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle, NJ, 2005.
53
Kotler P, Bowen, J. and Makens, J. Marketing for Hospitality and Tourism, 2nd Edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2005. Litvin, Stephen W. (2000). Revisitng the Heavy-User Segment for Vacation Travel Marketing. Journal of Vacation Marketing, (4), (2006), 346-356. MacDonald, R. M. and A.G. Woodside. A Proposed Framework for Travelers’ Choice Decisions, Administrative Sciences Association of Canada Proceedings, Ontario, 1995. McGuinna R, Emerson P., Glaser S. Can Personality Be Used to Predict Vacation Choice. World Marketing Congress, VII-I(4), 1995, 67-74. Morgan, M. Marketing for Leisure and Tourism, Prentice Hall, London, 1996. Noe, FP and Uysal, M. Evaluation of Outdoor Recreational Settings. A problem of Measuring User Satisfaction. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 4(4), (1997), 223-230. Oppermann, M. Tourism Destination Loyalty. Journal of Travel Research, 39,(2000), 78-84. Petrick, James, F. An Examination of Golf Vacationers’ Novelty. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(2)., (2002a), 384-400. Petrick, James F. Experience Use History as a Segmentation Tool to Examine Golf Travellers’ Satisfaction, Perceived Value and Repurchase Intentions. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 4, (2002b). Petrick, James F and Backman Sheila J. An Examination of the Construct of Perceived Value for the Prediction of Golf Travelers’ Intentions to Revisit. Journal of Travel Research, 41, (2002a), 8-45. Petrick, James F and Backman Sheila J. An Examination of the Determinants of Golf Travelers’ Satisfaction. Journal of Travel Research, 40, (2002b), 252-258. Petrick, James F, Backman Sheila J, Bixler, Robert, Norman, William C. Analysis of Golfer Motivations and Constraints by Experience Use History. Journal of Leisure Research; 33(1), ( 2001). Royal Canadian Golf Association Canadian Golf Survey, 2006. SRI International (2002). The Golf Economy Report, December, 2002. Woodside, A.G., Cook, VJ, and Mindak, W.A. Profiling the Heavy Traveler Segment, Journal of Travel Research, (Spring 1987), 9-14. Woodside, A.G., L.L. Frey, and R.T. Daly. "Linking Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction, and Behavioral Intention", Journal of Health Care Marketing, 9, (1989), 5-17. Woodside, A.G., R.M. MacDonald, and R.J. Trappey. "Measuring Linkage-Advertising Effects on Customer Behavior and Net Revenue", Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 14(2), (1997), 214228. Yoon, Y, and Uysal, M. An Examination of the Effects of Motivation and Satisfaction on Destination Loyalty: A Structural Model, Tourism Management, 26, (2003), 45-56.
54
Figure 1 Framework for golf travellers profiles
Box 1 Influences Sets: Demographics First/Repeat Visits Travel Party Size Length of Stay Handicap Golf Membership (Years of Play*) (Golf trips taken* Search and obtain data
Box 2
Box 3
Decision Sets: Motivation for Visits: Play golf Family vacation Visit family/friends Golfographics: Make reservations Number of courses played on visit Number of courses plan to play Played handicap today Number in the golf party Accommodation on this trip Overnights on this trip Golf related expenditures How many are in this expenditure Average expenditure per golfer
Outcomes of Satisfaction and Value: Will return to destination and/or course Will recommend to others Perceived Value of golf visit to fees Likelihood to play course again Satisfaction with today’s experience
Table 1 Summary Data for Q. 48: Number of Rounds Played Anywhere in the Last 12 Months?
Golfer Type Infrequent 566 24.6%
Moderate 867 37.7%
Dedicated 869 37.7%
Total 2,302 100.0%
Residency Status Visitors Permanent Resident Summer Resident Number that are Tourists Percentage that are Tourists
280 211 57 337 59.5%
590 167 84 674 77.7%
560 196 80 640 73.6%
1,430 574 221 1,651 71.7%
Number that are: First Time Visitors Repeat Visitors Percentage that are Repeat Visitors
73 209 74.1%
150 435 74.4%
199 364 64.7%
422 1,008 70.5%
Number in sample Percentage of sample
Infrequent are those golfers who play 1 to 5 rounds per year anywhere in the world. Moderate are those golfers who play 6 to 25 rounds per year anywhere in the world. Dedicated are those golfers who play over 25 rounds per year anywhere in the world.
55
Table 2 Golf Survey Framework Based on Golfing Frequency Value/Satisfaction Q. 36: Value of Golf Experience for the Green Fees Paid Q. 37: Likelihood of Playing Course Again Q. 38: Likelihood of Recommending This Golf Facility Q. 39: Satisfaction With Today's Golf Experience Q. 56: First Time or Repeat Visitor to PEI? Percentage that are repeat Q. 61: When Will You Return to this Area to Golf? Percentage that said one year or later Motivation to Visit Q. 57: What is the Primary Reason For Your Trip to PEI? Percentage that said to golf. Vacation, visit family friends Q. 63: How Find Out About Golfing on PEI/this course? Percentage that said friends, family. Golf package. TV ad or PEI information package. Golfographics Q. 5: How Did you Make Your Golf Reservation? Percentage that said direct with course. Percentage that used travel agent or Internet. Q. 40: Number of other Courses Played on PEI Q. 41: Number of other Courses Plan on Playing Q. 43: Are You a Member of a Golf Club? Percentage that are a member Q. 44: What is Your Handicap? Percentage that are under 15. Q. 45: Did You Play Your Handicap Today? Percentage that did. Q. 49: Where Are You Staying on This Trip to PEI? Percentage that stayed in hotel/resort. Q. 54: How Many Nights Did You Stay on PEI? Q. 58: Total Golf Related Expenditures This Trip Q. 60: Number People Included in the Estimate? Q. 60A: Average Expenditure per Golfer? Q. 66: Your Golfing Party's Consists of (percentage)? Single golfer or golf with children. 1 or 2 couples. Demographics Q. 64: What is Your Gender? - Male. Q. 65: What is Your Age? Percentage that were between 35 and 49. Percentage that were 55 or older. Q. 67: 2004 Household Income Before Taxes? Percentage that said less than $75,000. Percentage that said more than $150,000. Q. 69: Where Are You From? Percentage from NS or NB. Percentage from US.
F-Stat on Dedicated Differences 3.409 2.96 * 3.526 3.17 * 3.500 0.61 3.405 1.4
Infrequent 3.523 3.408 3.455 3.475
Moderates 3.446 3.491 3.502 3.432
74.0%
74.4%
64.8%
7.43 ^
80.9%
80.7%
78.6%
0.23
21.5% 49.3%
35.2% 39.3%
50.1% 29.0%
53.0% 1.6% 12.8%
47.5% 5.7% 14.6%
41.0% 10.6% 12.9%
59.5% 7.2% 259 120
52.9% 11.2% 926 426
43.4% 19.4% 983 531
11.9%
32.1%
71.8%
259.4 ^
14.2%
24.0%
48.3%
101.7 ^
45.8%
47.3%
49.0%
0.4
17.8% 6.43 $321 1.738 $197
23.6% 7.05 $522 1.998 $314
32.0% 7.12 $891 2.084 $483
2.66 1.01 11.89 ^ 3.56 * 35.04 ^
29.1% 38.7%
28.6% 37.7%
21.2% 48.6%
3.6 *
73.4%
76.6%
77.7%
43.6% 17.5%
40.2% 24.2%
27.2% 47.2%
37.5% 24.3%
25.2% 30.1%
23.2% 35.7%
31.9% 9.1%
32.5% 9.2%
23.0% 20.3%
33.48 ^
3.09 *
3.04 *
1.13 70.57 ^
13.57 ^
14.28 ^
* The results are significantly different across the three categories at the 5% level. ^ The results are significantly different across the three categories at the 1% level.
56
Figure 2 Golfer Profiles and Outcomes Variable
Infrequent golfer
Moderate Golfer
Dedicated Golfer
Demographics/ Environmental
These are mostly males (73%), between 35 and 49 in age (44%), with less than $75m hh income (38%), and largely from NS and NB (32%); only 12% of this group belong to a golf club and only 14% have under 15 handicap; 53% said friends and family provided the information on golfing and only 2% said a golf package; a very low percent of this group found out about golfing through TV or PEI info package (13%); 74% are repeat visitors.
These are mostly males (77%), between 35 and 49 in age (40%), with over $150m hh income (30%), and about a third from NS-NB; 32% of this group belong to a golf club and 24% have an under 15 handicap; 48% said friends and family provided the information on golfing and only 6% said a golf package; a very low percent of this group found out about golfing through TV or PEI info package (14%); 74% are repeat visitors.
These are mostly males (78 %) over 55 in age (47%), 36% have over $150m hh income and they are equally from NSNB and from the USA; 72% of this group belong to a golf club and 48% have an under 15 handicap; 41% said friends and family provided the information on golfing and 11% said a golf package; a very low percent of this group found out about golfing through TV or PEI info package (13%); 65% are repeat visitors.
Golfographics
60% reserve directly with the course, only 7.2% used travel agents and the Internet; 46% played their handicap on the day surveyed; 18% stayed in a hotel/resort for 6.4 nights; about 2 golfers in the party spent $321 for golf on this visit or about $197 each; 29% golfed by themselves or with children, 39% golfed in a party of one or two couples.
53% reserve directly with the course, only 11.2% used travel agents and the Internet; 47% played their handicap on the day surveyed; 24% stayed in a hotel/resort for 7 nights; about 2 golfers in the party spent $522 for golf on this visit or about $314 each; 29% golfed by themselves or with children, 38% golfed in a party of one or two couples.
Only 43% reserve directly with the course, 19.4% used travel agents and the Internet; 49% played their handicap on the day surveyed; 32% stayed in a hotel/resort for 7.1 nights; about 2 golfers in the party spent $891 for golf on this visit or about $483 each; 21% golfed by themselves or with children, 49% golfed in a party of one or two couples.
Motivations
49% came to PEI to visit family, friends, or vacation while 22% came for the golf experience
39% came to PEI to visit family, friends, or vacation while 35% came for the golf experience
29% came to PEI to visit family, friends, or vacation while 50% came for the golf experience
57
Outcomes: Value & Satisfaction
On a 4 point scale, the perceived value for fees paid rated 3.52; the likelihood of playing course again (3.41), or recommending the course (3.46), and overall satisfaction with the golf experience (3.48); 81% said they will return to golf one year or later.
On a 4 point scale, the perceived value for fees paid rated 3.45; the likelihood of playing course again (3.49), or recommending the course (3.51), and overall satisfaction with the golf experience (3.43); 81% said they will return to golf one year or later.
On a 4 point scale, the perceived value for fees paid rated 3.41; the likelihood of playing course again (3.53), or recommending the course (3.5), and overall satisfaction with the golf experience (3.41); 79% said they will return to golf one year or later.
58