Who goes to events: A comparative analysis of the profile characteristics of visitors to four South Island events in New Zealand

Abstract

This paper presents a systematic comparative analysis of the profile characteristics of visitors to four events in the South Island of New Zealand in 1998: two food and beverage festivals, an air show and a country music festival. A comparative methodology for the study of events tourism is outlined and the results are presented in two stages; firstly, by means an element-by-element comparison of each of the characteristics; secondly, by way of a summary matrix. This comparative analysis emphasises the heterogeneity of the demand for events. While some similarities are found, especially between the two food and beverage festivals, the general picture to emerge from the findings is one of difference. Event-goers do not appear to constitute a single homogeneous market; rather, different events appear to attract different audiences. The implications of these findings are discussed and suggestions for further research are outlined.

Keywords

events festivals comparative research market segmentation profile characteristics visitor surveys

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Formica, S. and Murrmann, S. (1998), ‘The effects of group membership and motivation on attendance: An international festival case’ , Tourism Analysis, Vol. 3, No. 3/4, pp. 197-207 .

Getz 1991, ref. 1 above.

Hall, ref. 1 above.

Formica and Murrman, ref. 1 above.

Baum, T. (1999) ‘Themes and issues in comparative destination research: The use of lesson-drawing in comparative tourism research in the North Atlantic’ , Tourism Management, Vol. 20, No. 5, pp. 627-633 .

Warwick, D. P. and Osherson, S. (1973) ‘Comparative analysis in the social sciences’, in D. Warwick and S. Osherson (eds) ‘Comparative Research Methods’, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ , pp. 3-41.

Pearce, ref. 6 above.

Getz 1991, ref. 1 above.

10.

Seaton, A. V. (1997) ‘Unobtrusive observational measures as a qualitative extension of visitor surveys at festivals and events: Mass observation revisited’ , Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 25-30 .

11.

Nicholson, R. E. (1998) ‘Visitor Experience and Special Events: A Comparative Analysis of Special Event Tourism in the South Island’, MA thesis (unpublished), Department of Geography, University of Canterbury, Christchurch.

12.

Seaton, ref. 10 above.

13.

Duffas, D. A. and Deardon, P. (1990) ‘Non-consumptive wildlife-oriented recreation (NCWOR): A conceptual framework’ , Biological Conservation, Vol. 53, No. 3, pp. 213-231 .

14.

Getz 1991, ref. 1 above.

15.

Light, D. (1996) ‘Characteristics of the audience for “events” at a heritage site’ , Tourism Management, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 183-190 .

16.

Seaton, ref. 10 above.

17.

Warwick and Osherson, ref. 7 above.

18.

Crompton, J. L. and McKay, S. L. (1997) ‘Motives of visitors attending festival events’ , Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 425-439 .

19.

Formica and Murrmann, ref. 1 above.

20.

Smith, (1988) ‘The Festival Visitor: It may not be who you think it is’, Feedback, the official publication of the Waterloo Chamber of Commerce, 1st November; Mohr et al., ref. 5 above.

21.

Getz 1991, ref. 1 above.

22.

Light, ref. 15 above.

23.

Formica and Uysal, ref. 15 above.

24.

Getz 1991, ref. 1 above.

25.

Balcar, M. J. O. and Pearce, D. G. (1996) ‘Heritage tourism on the West Coast of New Zealand’ , Tourism Management, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 203-212 .

26.

Wilson, P. M. (1993) ‘Commercial Wildlife Viewing Tourism in the South Island: a Comparative Analysis’, MA thesis (unpublished), Department of Geography, University of Canterbury, Christchurch.

27.

Getz 1991, ref. 1 above.

28.

Weber, S. (1989) ‘Psychographic segmentation’ in S. F. Witt and L. Moutinho (eds) ‘Tourism Marketing and Management Handbook’, Prentice Hall, Hemel Hempstead , pp. 341-344.