text:
Final Report 686
March 2012
Arizona Department of Transportation
Research Center
The Impact of
Arizona Highways Magazine
on Tourism
The Impact of
Arizona Highways Magazine
on Tourism
Final Report 686
March 2012
Prepared by:
Kathleen L. Andereck, Ph.D.
School of Community Resources and Development
Arizona State University
411 N. Central Avenue, Suite 550
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Prepared for:
Arizona Department of Transportation
206 S. 17th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85007
in cooperation with
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
The contents of the report reflect the views of the author who is responsible for the
facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily
reflect the official views or policies of the Arizona Department of Transportation or the
Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard,
specification, or regulation. Trade or manufacturers' names which may appear herein
are cited only because they are considered essential to the objectives of the report. The
U.S. Government and the State of Arizona do not endorse products or manufacturers.
Front cover photos courtesy of Arizona Highways Magazine.
Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No.
2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date March 2012
The Impact of Arizona Highways Magazine on Tourism 6. Performing Organization Code
7. Authors
Kathleen L. Andereck, Ph.D.
8. Performing Organization Report No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
School of Community Resources and Development, Arizona State University,
411. N. Central Ave., Ste. 550, Phoenix, AZ 85004
10. Work Unit No.
11. Contract or Grant No.
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
13.Type of Report & Period Covered
Final Report
Project Manager: Dianne Kresich
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
15. Supplementary Notes
Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
16. Abstract
The purpose of this study was to: 1) examine the effect of Arizona Highways Magazine (AHM) on tourism, 2) determine trip
characteristics of AHM subscribers traveling in Arizona, and 3) calculate a benefit/cost ratio for AHM based on the
magazine's cost and revenues as well as the value-added economic impact. Findings suggest that:
AHM subscribers are demographically similar to other people with an interest in Arizona as a travel destination with
the exception of age and related variables: AHM subscribers are older.
A very high percentage of AHM subscribers have taken trips in Arizona over the past five years, with many visiting
multiple times. Most out-of-state subscribers stay for one to two weeks when they visit, most often traveling with a
spouse or partner.
Subscribers use AHM fairly extensively as a source of travel information.
About 29 percent of out-of-state subscribers who visited in the past five years indicated that AHM influenced them to
visit Arizona on their most recent trip.
In addition to its influence on visitors' decision to select Arizona as a destination, the magazine especially influenced
decisions related to specific destinations or attractions and choices regarding travel routes.
Subscribers have spent an average of over $195.2 million on travel annually over the past five years, and $41.5
million of those expenditures can be directly attributed to AHM and its influence on the travel behavior of out-of-state
subscribers. This amounts to a benefit/cost ratio 7.8 to 1 at the very least.
17. Key Words
Arizona Highways Magazine, tourism, travel, expenditures
18. Distribution Statement
Document is available to the
U.S. public through the
National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161
23. Registrant's Seal
19. Security Classification
20. Security Classification
21. No. of Pages
22. Price
Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol
in inches 25.4 millimeters mm
ft feet 0.305 meters m
yd yards 0.914 meters m
mi miles 1.61 kilometers km
in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2
ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2
yd2 square yard 0.836 square meters m2
ac acres 0.405 hectares ha
mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2
fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL
gal gallons 3.785 liters L
ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3
yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3
NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3
oz ounces 28.35 grams g
lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg
T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams (or "metric ton") Mg (or "t")
TEMPERATURE (exact degrees)
oF Fahrenheit 5 (F-32)/9 Celsius oC
or (F-32)/1.8
fc foot-candles 10.76 lux lx
fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2
FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS
lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N
lbf/in2 poundforce per square inch 6.89 kilopascals kPa
Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol
mm millimeters 0.039 inches in
m meters 3.28 feet ft
m meters 1.09 yards yd
km kilometers 0.621 miles mi
mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2
m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2
m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2
ha hectares 2.47 acres ac
km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2
mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz
L liters 0.264 gallons gal
m3 cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet ft3
m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd3
g grams 0.035 ounces oz
kg kilograms 2.202 pounds lb
Mg (or "t") megagrams (or "metric ton") 1.103 short tons (2000 lb) T
TEMPERATURE (exact degrees)
oC Celsius 1.8C+32 Fahrenheit oF
lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc
cd/m2 candela/m2 0.2919 foot-Lamberts fl
FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS
N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf
kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per square inch lbf/in2
*SI is the symbol for th International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to e comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380.
(Revised March 2003)
Consumer Use of Information .................................................................................... 4
The Search Process ..................................................................................................... 5
Information Sources.................................................................................................... 7
Market Differences ................................................................................................... 11
Information, Visitation, and Expenditures................................................................ 13
Arizona Studies......................................................................................................... 15
Overnight Visits ........................................................................................................ 38
Day Visits by In-state Subscribers............................................................................ 42
Influence of AHM Products ...................................................................................... 44
AHM Costs vs. Revenue ........................................................................................... 46
Direct Economic Impact of All Subscribers ............................................................. 44
Table 1 Response Rates................................................................................................................................. 3
Table 2 Top Visitor Activities and Attractions While Visiting Arizona. ..................................................... 16
Table 3 Purpose of Trip............................................................................................................................... 17
Table 4 Information Sources Used in Final Selection of Arizona as a Vacation Place. ............................... 17
Table 5 Primary Information Sources Used in Final Selection of Arizona as a Vacation Place. ................. 18
Table 6 Importance of Activities. ................................................................................................................. 19
Table 7 Motives for Visit. ............................................................................................................................ 20
Table 8 Information Sources Used Before Trip Began. ............................................................................... 21
Table 9 Gender and Age of Respondents. .................................................................................................... 22
Table 10 Own Home.* ................................................................................................................................ 23
Table 11 Spouse or Partner.*....................................................................................................................... 23
Table 12 Annual Before-Tax Household Income......................................................................................... 23
Table 13 Education Level of Respondents. .................................................................................................. 23
Table 14 Ethnicity/Race of Respondents...................................................................................................... 24
Table 15 Visited Arizona in Past Five Years.*............................................................................................. 24
Table 16 Number of Visits in the Past Five Years. ...................................................................................... 25
Table 17 Plan to Visit in the Future.............................................................................................................. 25
Table 18 Planning Horizon – Make Decision.*............................................................................................ 26
Table 19 Planning Horizon – Make Arrangements.* ................................................................................... 26
Table 20 Information Sources Used Before Trip Began—Extent of Use..................................................... 28
Table 21 Most Important Source of Information.......................................................................................... 29
Table 22 AHM Facebook Fans. .................................................................................................................... 30
Table 23 Meeting Travel Information Needs. .............................................................................................. 31
Table 24 Length of Stay in Arizona. ............................................................................................................ 32
Table 25 Travel Party.* ............................................................................................................................... 32
Table 26 Size of Travel Party. ...................................................................................................................... 33
Table 27 Accommodations Stayed at During Arizona Vacation.................................................................. 33
Table 28 Transportation Used to Arrive in Arizona.* .................................................................................. 34
Table 29 Transportation Used in Arizona. ................................................................................................... 34
Table 30 Activity Participation.................................................................................................................... 35
Table 31 Most Influential Reason to Visit.................................................................................................... 36
Table 32 Familiarity with Arizona.* ............................................................................................................ 36
Table 33 Knowledgeable about Arizona.* ................................................................................................... 37
Table 34 Out-of-State General Population (Non-Subs) Response................................................................ 37
Table 35 Length of Subscription.* ............................................................................................................... 37
Table 36 Interest Levels Toward Arizona as Result of Magazine................................................................ 38
Table 37 Rating of Helpfulness of Magazine. .............................................................................................. 38
Table 38 Retention of Magazine.* ............................................................................................................... 39
Table 39 Sharing of Magazine...................................................................................................................... 39
Table 40 Influence of Specific Magazine Components on Travel Decisions............................................... 39
Table 41 Helpfulness of Specific Magazine Components on Travel Planning. ........................................... 40
Table 42 Influence of Magazine on Travel Plans (Positive Responses)....................................................... 40
Table 43 Extra Days Spent. .......................................................................................................................... 41
Table 44 Influence of Magazine on Travel Decisions.................................................................................. 41
Table 45 Travel Decisions Made Directly Due to Magazine. ...................................................................... 42
Table 46 Day Visits by in-State Subscribers. ............................................................................................... 42
Table 47 Number of Day Trips Taken by in-State Subscribers.................................................................... 42
Table 48 Extent of Influence of Magazine on Day Trip Decisions. ............................................................. 43
Table 49 Travel Decisions Made Directly Due to Magazine. ...................................................................... 43
Table 50 Willingness to Re-Subscribe to Magazine.*.................................................................................. 44
Table 51 Overall Impression of Magazine.* ................................................................................................ 44
Table 52 Merchandise Purchase. .................................................................................................................. 45
Table 53 Interest Levels Toward Arizona as Result of Merchandise. .......................................................... 45
Table 54 Helpfulness Rating of Merchandise............................................................................................... 45
Table 55 Influence of Merchandise on Travel Plans. ................................................................................... 46
Table 56 Extra Days Spent. .......................................................................................................................... 46
Table 57 Travel Decisions Made Directly Due to Merchandise................................................................... 46
Table 58 Total Average Economic Expenditures of Arizona Out-of-State Visitors and In-State Overnight
Visitors............................................................................................................................................... 45
Table 59 Daily Average Economic Expenditures of Arizona Out-of-State Visitors and In-State Overnight
Visitors............................................................................................................................................... 45
Table 60 Expenditure Differences Between Groups. ................................................................................... 46
Table 61 Total Travel Direct Economic Impact of Subscribers. .................................................................. 46
Table 62 Direct Economic Impact Attributed to AHM................................................................................. 47
AHM Arizona Highways Magazine
AOT Arizona Office of Tourism
ISS In-state subscribers
NS Non-subscribers
OSS Out-of-state subscribers
PP Product purchasers
The purpose of this study was to: 1) examine the effect of Arizona Highways Magazine
(AHM) on tourism to and in Arizona, 2) determine trip characteristics of AHM
subscribers traveling in Arizona, and 3) calculate a benefit/cost ratio for AHM based on
the magazine's cost and revenues as well as the value-added economic impact due to its
influence on travel. Findings suggest that:
AHM subscribers are demographically similar to other people with an interest in
Arizona as a travel destination with the exception of age and related variables: AHM
subscribers are older.
A very high percentage of AHM subscribers have taken trips in Arizona over the
past five years, with many visiting multiple times. As well, many in-state
subscribers have taken day trips in the state in the same period.
Out-of-state subscribers tend to decide to visit Arizona more than two months prior
to their trips, but make their travel arrangements closer to the time of their trips.
Subscribers use the information sources of internal information (previous visits) and
friends and family most extensively, followed by AHM.
Most out-of-state subscribers stay for one to two weeks when they visit, most often
traveling with a spouse or partner. In-state subscribers are much more likely than
other groups to travel with friends.
Almost half of out-of-state subscribers stay in a hotel/motel while on their trips in
Arizona, but quite a high percentage stay in a private home (friend or relative).
Slightly more that 40 percent of out-of-state visitors fly in to the state, and nearly all
visitors drive a private or rented vehicle at some point during their visit.
Out-of-state subscribers are very likely to drive to view scenery, engage in activities
at natural and cultural heritage sites, and shop. They also visit family and friends.
Subscribers use AHM fairly extensively as a source of travel information. They
report the magazine has substantially increased their interest in Arizona travel and
is helpful with respect to making travel plans. Subscribers feel the photographs in
the magazine, and the "scenic drive" section in particular, increase their interest in
traveling in Arizona.
AHM merchandise increased interest in visiting the state among about half of
product purchaser respondents.
About 29 percent of out-of-state subscribers who visited in the past five years
indicated that AHM influenced them to visit Arizona on their most recent trip.
Another 27 percent indicated they stayed some extra time due to AHM.
In addition to its influence on visitors' decision to select Arizona as a destination,
the magazine influenced decisions related to specific destinations or attractions and
choices regarding travel routes.
Subscribers have spent an average of over $195.2 million annually over the past five
years, and $41.5 million of those expenditures can be directly attributed to AHM and its
influence on the travel behavior of out-of-state subscribers. This amounts to a benefit/cost
ratio 7.8 to 1 at the very least.
The purpose of this research was to help determine the effects that Arizona Highways
Magazine (AHM) has on tourism in Arizona. It is often assumed that travel-oriented
publications such as AHM have substantial effects on people's decisions to travel to
particular destinations. However, while the effect of tourism promotion efforts on travel
decisions is becoming fairly well understood, the influence of more informal information
sources such as magazines has not been investigated to any great extent. It seems obvious
that a publication such as AHM has an impact on tourism, and some of the research that
has been done in-state certainly suggests that this is the case, but the specific nature and
extent of impact is unknown. This study is an extension of a similar study done in 2004
(Andereck and Ng 2005) and provides the following information:
Demographic profile of AHM subscribers as compared to non-subscribers.
Travel planning and trip characteristics of AHM subscribers who have visited
Arizona in the past five years.
The influence of AHM on people's travel decisions with respect to choosing
Arizona as a destination, as well as other choices such as attractions and activities,
accommodations, travel routes, and so forth.
Visitor spending and the direct economic impact of AHM due to travelers
influenced to visit by the magazine.
Long-term retention of AHM for travel planning.
A benefit/cost analysis of AHM with respect to its costs versus spending generated
via tourism.
The data collection phase involved four survey efforts, the results of which are presented
in Section III. One survey was administered to a sample of 603 people who purchased an
AHM related product over the past year, such as a calendar or book. Another survey was
administered to a sample of 826 in-state AHM subscribers (out of 94,859 total in-state
subscribers) and was stratified by self subscriptions (n [denotes sample size]=650) versus
gift subscriptions (n=178). A second mail survey was administered to 1072 out-of-state
AHM subscribers (out of 166,176 total out-of-state subscribers), also stratified according
to self (n=508) versus gift (n=564) subscriptions. As well, the specific number of
subscribers surveyed corresponded to the proportion of in-state (43 percent) versus out-of-
state (57 percent) subscribers. The final survey was administered to a general
population of prospective visitors to Arizona. The general population sample of 1198
people was drawn from the Arizona Office of Tourism's information inquiry list from the
preceding year's inquiries. The two samples allowed us to determine the extent to which
the magazine has influenced decisions to travel to Arizona and whether AHM subscribers
are more likely to become Arizona tourists than are others with an interest in the state.
A technique devised by Dillman (2000) was modified and used for survey distribution.
This technique employs a series of mailings to achieve maximum response rates. For a
mail survey, an initial mailing that provides a questionnaire, a cover letter, and a postage-paid
reply envelope is sent to the sample. This is followed by a reminder postcard to
increase sample size. When email addresses were available, participants were asked to
complete an Internet version of the questionnaire. The Web survey procedure is similar to
the mail procedure, with the use of e-mail letters rather than regular mail and a link to the
Web survey provided. For those who did not respond to the Internet questionnaire the full
mail procedure was conducted as a follow-up. The final sample sizes and response rates
for each of the surveys are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Response Rates.
Sample numbers
Initial sample 603 826 1072 1198 3699
Bad address returns/
17 20 9 232 278
Effective sample 586 806 1063 966 3421
Number of returns 207 332 396 104 1039
Response rate (%) 35 41 37 11 30
Consumer Use of Information
Understanding tourists' decisions to purchase specific tourism products or services is
becoming increasingly important to tourism marketing managers (Jun, Vogt, and
MacKay 2007). The process of consumer behavior encompasses several stages: searching
for information, purchasing a product or service, using a product, evaluating a product,
and disposing of the product or service (Moutinho 1987). One of the major factors
influencing consumer decisions to purchase a product or service is information sources
about the product or service. Information search or information seeking is the process of
consulting various sources before making a purchasing decision. Consumers recognize
the need for more knowledge, which activates the decision to search for information
about alternatives (Moutinho 1987). They recognize the need to evaluate alternatives
based on different attributes. If memory, also called internal information search, does not
provide enough information, consumers look to other sources to reduce purchase risk and
uncertainty (Petrick, Li and Park 2007; Li et al. 2009). Awareness of a particular product
or service and resulting purchase decisions largely depend on the information consumers
are able to gather and the credibility of such information (Raitz and Dakhil 1988). The
availability of information in tourism is especially important because often consumers are
located far from the product or service of purchase, or the product or service is a one-time
event (Wicks and Schuett 1991).
Many studies in the United States and in other countries have considered traveler use of
destination information. Much of the foundational and conceptual work on which the
body of literature is built emerged in the 1980s and continued into the 1990s. Consumers
search for information to help them reduce the risk of purchasing products or services.
There is evidence that services, such as travel products, are perceived as riskier purchases
than goods (Li et al. 2009; Murray 1991; Zeithaml 1981). Zeithaml (1981) was one of the
first researchers who contended that because services are more difficult and riskier to
evaluate prior to purchase, consumers use different processes and cues than when
evaluating goods. Although consumers tend to seek limited information in many
situations, higher perceived risk as well as high price, many product alternatives, greater
product importance, less experience with a product, and situational determinants will tend
to encourage information search (Capella and Greco 1987). Vacation decisions often are
associated with many of these factors, suggesting that some external information search
probably occurs (Capella and Greco 1987). With respect to tourism specifically, Gitelson
and Crompton (1983) built on this idea and suggested that external information searches
are important in tourism for related reasons:
1) A trip involves using discretionary money and free time, and is a high-risk
2) The intangible nature of services suggests that secondary or tertiary sources must
be used, as a consumer is not able to actually observe the potential purchase.
3) Vacationers are often interested in visiting new, unfamiliar destinations as a
primary travel motive.
All travel information is to help travelers make informed decisions. Research over the
past several years has documented that some individuals tend to plan various aspects of a
vacation in advance (Petrick et al. 2007; Walter and Tong 1977). Planning and
information search gives tourists the opportunity to reduce the risk of uncertainty and
disappointing experiences (Jackson, White and Schmierer 1996; Roehl and Fesenmaier
1992). Vogt and Fesenmaier (1998) suggested four aspects that define functional
information needs: 1) acquisition of product knowledge as a way to help with decision-making
and to enrich one's memory, 2) level of consumer uncertainty and the amount of
risk individuals will accept about need satisfaction of a product, 3) utility, or the
perceived value an individual gains from information, and 4) efficiency which is the
ability to function in the most effective and productive manner possible. Thus, consumers
search for information to make purchase decisions and to reduce purchase risks. They
will conclude their search when their knowledge base is perceived as sufficient or the
costs of searching exceed the benefits (Vogt and Fesenmaier 1998).
The Search Process
The search process may be spontaneous and short lived or occur over a longer period and
involve intense exploration of the product or service. Fodness and Murray (1998) were
the first to propose a conceptual typology based on previous research that suggests
information search strategies involve three dimensions: spatial, temporal, and operational.
Spatial Information Search. The spatial dimension reflects the locus of search activity,
either internal or external. This is the area that has been researched most extensively
(Fodness and Murray 1998). Information may be sought internally from an individual's
memory, usually from a previous trip to the same or a similar destination (Wicks and
Schuett 1991). When consumers feel they do not possess adequate internal information
about a destination, they are likely to conduct an external search. External information
search involves an active process in that information must be sought. The more
unfamiliar the destination, the more time and effort will be spent on prepurchase
information search (Fodness and Murray 1999). An information source such as Arizona
Highways Magazine is clearly an external source of information.
Temporal Information Search. The temporal dimension represents timing of search
activity (Fodness and Murray 1998). Prepurchase information search precedes a specific
and imminent purchase decision, while ongoing information search is the acquisition of
information regardless of impending purchase needs (Bloch et al. 1986). Prepurchase
search is primarily motivated by the need to make better consumption choices (Punj and
Staelin 1983). Ongoing search takes place for two reasons: to create a knowledge base for
future decision making or for the satisfaction of the search activity in and of itself (Bloch
et al. 1986; Fodness and Murray 1998). There is evidence that ongoing information
search is related to ongoing interest in a destination (Pearce and Kang, 2009). Readers of
Arizona Highways are engaged in what would be considered ongoing information search.
Information search is not only used to find useful information; people also search for fun,
entertainment, social status, and symbolic reasons (Li et al. 2009). A few studies have
considered the effect of information on affect (emotions experienced) and the manner in
which this influences the destination image (Baloglu and McCleary 1999; Li et al. 2009;
Martín and Bosque 2008). Vogt and Fesenmaier (1998) developed the most
comprehensive framework and measurement instrument looking at affective dimensions
and found evidence that ongoing information search occurs because consumers have
information needs that go beyond the functional needs described previously. They
proposed four additional needs that are met by ongoing information search: hedonic,
innovation, aesthetic, and sign. Although travelers rated the importance of functional
needs most highly, the other needs met by information search clearly exist. The first three
needs, discussed below, have particular relevance to an information source such as
Arizona Highways Magazine.
Considering only functional information needs has led researchers to ignore recreational
readers and the experiential aspect of consumption. A hedonic perspective is not intended
to replace the functional decision-making perspective, but to capture the pleasurable
aspect of information search. The hedonic perspective views consumers as pleasure
seekers engaged in activities that elicit enjoyment, amusement, arousal, fun, and sensory
stimulation. One aspect of hedonic consumption is the recognition of the entire
experience or phenomenon, including the internal or subjective aspects. A second aspect
of hedonic consumption is searching and processing information as a leisure pursuit, a
hobby, or an experiential form of entertainment and pleasure. This is especially important
when considering experiential "products" such as travel and recreation — products with
which consumers tend to be highly interested and involved. A third aspect is that
information search uses all human senses including sight, taste, sound, smell and touch.
A final consideration is that hedonic needs are a form of emotive stimulation, particularly
positive emotions such as enjoyment (Vogt and Fesenmaier 1998:558).
The concept of innovation suggests that there is a segment of consumers who adopt new
products, essentially serving as pioneers in a new frontier. Such individuals have a
propensity to try new products, with "new" based on the individual's own perception.
Innovation incorporates the concept of something that is of a different kind or novel to
the consumer. It also refers to the breadth or variety of objects of interest. Finally,
innovative needs have also been related to creativity or the act of generating something
new and original (Vogt and Fesenmaier 1998:559).
Another information need is the need for aesthetics. The nature of aesthetic experiences
and objects differs from functional needs in that it is abstract and subjective. Aesthetic
value can be verbal and visual, real and imaginary. Information is viewed as a stimulus to
visual thinking, imagery, and envisioning of a place that is real and obtainable.
Fantasizing, the act of producing multisensory images not drawn directly from personal
experience, is yet another form of mental phenomena. Thus aesthetic information need
appears to describe two dimensions: stimuli for imagery and for fantasizing (Lee et al.
2010; Vogt and Fesenmaier 1998:561).
The final need included in the search model is one describing the interpersonal, social,
symbolic, or more general sign aspects of information acquisition. The other four
functional, hedonic, innovation, and aesthetic domains focus on intrapersonal or
individual-based needs, while sign needs focus on the social component. In the field of
tourism marketing, numerous studies have shown the importance of recommendations
from family members and it is with this sign role that its effect is considered. Since this
exchange between people denotes status and personality type, another form of signifying
position is through social interaction. Therefore, the sign-need construct is defined by its
two subconstructs or factors: symbolic expressions and social interaction (Vogt and
Fesenmaier 1998:562)
Operational Information Search. The operational dimension represents actually
conducting the search, the particular information sources used, and their relative
effectiveness for problem solving and decision making (Fodness and Murray 1998).
Several information sources may be used (Hyde 2006; Moutinho 1987; Pearce et al.
2009; Runyon and Stewart 1987). External sources can be:
1) Interpersonal sources such as friends, family, or other social contacts.
2) Marketer-dominated sources such as advertisements or promotional materials, and
3) Public sources such as newspapers and magazines.
4) Objective sources such as product rating and consumer information services.
5) Experiential sources accessed by direct experience with, or observation of, the
product (Berkman and Gilson 1986; Fodness and Murray 1998; Lee et al. 2010).
The effectiveness of information sources varies with specific consumer markets. A
consumer will only pay attention to an information source if it provides pertinent
information. An information source may be decisive and have a major influence on
product choice, or it may be contributory and add to knowledge about a product but not
directly stimulate a purchase choice (Pearce et al. 2009). An information source may also
be ineffective and have no impact on decision making. For the most part, people use
more than one source of information when making travel decisions. Fodness and Murray
(1998) reported between three and four information sources being used, on average, by
Florida welcome center visitors. As well, individuals use different sources of information
depending on their specific search strategies (Fodness and Murray 1998).
Information Sources
The combination of using multiple information sources used by travelers has been called
"information search strategies" (Hyde 2006; Snepenger and Snepenger 1993).
Information search strategies vary greatly. Travelers often use a portfolio of sources,
though researchers have shown how different types and amounts of sources are used,
depending on trip goals and information needs (Hyde 2006). Gitelson and Crompton
(1983) found the use of different types of information depends on the type of trip,
distance traveled, and amount of money spent on the trip. Routine trips tend to be linked
mostly to using friends and relatives as an information source. As the trip becomes more
complex, a variety of information sources becomes more important (Snepenger and
Snepenger 1993). Perdue (1985) found that information sources for a destination often
come from destination-specific literature, such as maps, brochures, and travel guides.
Etzel and Wahlers (1985) found that travelers who visit a destination more than twice are
less likely to request additional information, and destination-specific information is less
likely to influence destination decisions. If the trip is more complex, the use of travel
agents and tour operators increases (Pearce et al. 2009; Cheyne et al.2006; Sheldon and
Mak 1987; Woodside and Ronkainen 1980). Overseas destination decisions often include
use of package tours essentially as information sources (Sheldon and Mak 1987).
Snepenger et al. (1990) found first-time visitors who were travelers for reasons other than
visiting friends and relatives were most likely to use one of three strategies:
Use of travel agent only.
Use of travel agent and other sources of information.
Other sources and no travel agent.
The majority of travelers used travel agents only (Snepenger et al. 1990). Those
purchasing package tours were also more likely than independent travelers to use travel
agents, as opposed to using the Internet or other sources (Gronflaten 2009; Pearce et al.
2009), while travel agents were preferred over the Internet for overseas vacation
purchases and for travel to unfamiliar destinations (Cheyne et al. 2006).
Prior Experience and Information Search. Typically internal information, or memory, is
used as the consumer's first source of information. It is often considered to be a
determinant of further information search. The consumer then moves to external search
for information from a variety of sources (Murray 1991). The factor that seems to most
affect internal information is past experience with a destination. Past experience and
knowledge influence expectations, preferences, and motives. A participant's evaluation
of an experience is largely determined by individual expectations, which are often based
on previous experiences, or experience use history (Schreyer and Lime 1984; Webster
1991; Williams et al. 1990). Travel consumption research has shown that past experience
is one of the strongest information sources and influences on destination image, vacation
choice, and trip consumption (Andereck and Caldwell 1993; Raitz and Dakhil 1988),
particularly when only one information source is used (Fodness and Murray 1997). When
a participant has no experience use history, as is often the case with the purchase of
travel-related services, external sources of information, such as name familiarity,
reputation, direct observation, price, alternatives, and advertising (Garretson et al. 1995;
Webster 1991), and non-directed information such as television and books (Pocock 1992)
are used.
Friends, Family, and Social Networks. Word of mouth is often the most influential source
of external information on participant expectations (Webster 1991). Some non-experienced
participants develop unrealistic expectations based on word of mouth
(Arnould and Price 1993), especially with respect to special events or visits to well-
known sites, such as national parks. A number of studies have indicated that of all the
external sources of information available to tourists, the interpersonal sources of family
and friends or other word-of-mouth communications are often relied on most heavily
(Gronflaten 2009; Pearce et al. 2009; Rao et al. 1992; Raitz and Dakhil 1988; Capella and
Greco 1987; Gitelson and Crompton 1983; Walter and Tong 1977; Nolan 1976).
Internet. Recent studies have begun to investigate the use of the Internet in information
searching. There is a growing reliance on the Internet for promotion and sales of tourism
products (Tierney 2000). Tourism Industries of America (1997) found that, though only
17 percent of respondents made reservations on the Internet, around 30 percent searched
for information. More recent studies show similar patterns, with a much higher
percentage of tourists using the Internet for information than for making purchases (Jun
et al. 2007; Pearce et al. 2009). McLemore and Mitchell (2000) studied individuals who
requested information about Arkansas state parks via the Internet, finding 68 percent of
requestors did indeed visit and this mode of information provision to be quick and cost
effective. Similarly, Andereck et al. (2003b) discovered that those who requested Arizona
travel information via the Internet were more likely to visit than those who requested
information via several other methods, with over 60 percent actually visiting the state.
Thapa et al. (2001) noted that 17 percent of college students booked their trips on the
Internet. Weber and Roehl (1999) learned that, in general, those using the Internet to
search for travel product information and those that purchased travel products online
tended to be younger, have post-secondary education, and have higher incomes than non-users.
There were no gender or race/ethnicity differences. Bonn et al. (1999) also found
that Internet users tended to be younger, have a higher education, and have a higher
income than non-users. Internet users were also more likely to stay overnight in
commercial lodgings, and spend more money on ground transportation, lodging, and
shopping. More recently, Gronflaten (2009) identified that travelers who use the Internet,
as well as those who stay in hotels, were more likely to repeat visits to a particular
destination. Business travelers were less likely to use the Internet than leisure travelers
(Gronflaten 2009; Li et al. 2009). Jun et al. (2007) found the product being investigated
influenced online versus offline search and the online purchase of the product. Pan and
Fesenmaier (2006) and Li et al. (2009) noted that online information search may have
more effect on emotional aspects of destination image that other forms of information.
The most recent Internet-related research considers the effect of consumer-generated
content on travel. Such content, also called social media, consists of blogs, virtual
communities, wikis, social networks, collaborative tagging, and media files shared on
sites such as YouTube and Flickr. To date there is very little research that investigates the
role of social media in tourism information search and none that goes beyond self reports
of social media usage volume. Because social media competes with traditional forms of
tourism information and is generated by the consumer rather than a tourism marketer, it
will likely change the nature of online tourism information search (Xiang and Gretzel
Magazines and Newspapers as Information Sources. Other than the previous AHM study,
no research specifically considers the influence of magazine or newspaper publicity on
people's travel decisions. It is clear that these information sources are used by some
segments of the traveling public, however. Fodness and Murray (1998) learned that
nearly 15 percent of the respondents in their sample of welcome center visitors used
magazines as an information source, while Gitelson and Crompton (1983) found 14
percent of welcome center visitors used travel magazines and 10 percent used other
magazines. A study by Andereck et al. (2003a) revealed that 19 percent of travelers who
requested information from the Arizona Office of Tourism used magazines. As well,
Andereck and Caldwell (1993), Capella and Greco (1987), and Henshall et al. (1985) all
found magazines rated as an "important" information source.
Fodness and Murray (1998) identified a clear division of magazines and newspapers from
all other information sources investigated in their study. They also found a small but
distinct cluster of travelers who are the heaviest users of magazines or newspapers as
contributory information sources. They suggest the reason for this is that magazines and
newspapers are used in ongoing, as opposed to prepurchase, information searches.
Travelers who use magazines or newspapers to plan a trip acquire their information on a
regular basis regardless of an impending purchase. Magazines and newspapers also tend
to be used in conjunction with several other external information sources that provide
detailed information, such as where to stay and where to eat (using friends, relatives,
highway information centers, and automobile clubs). The other cluster that used
magazines fairly extensively was made up of travelers who use a mix of several
contributory information sources.
The previous AHM study (Andereck and Ng 2004) found the magazine to be a very
influential source of travel information for subscribers. As is usually the case, internal
information (via previous visits) and friends and family were the most important sources
of information, but this was followed by the magazine. A larger percentage of subscribers
(42 percent or more) used the magazine as an information source prior to the trip on
which they reported as part of the study. Even among nonsubscribers, more than 11
percent used the magazine for information, a higher percentage than used several other
information sources. A very large percent of subscribers (81 percent) noted that the
magazine increased their interest in Arizona as a travel destination and they found it
helpful as a source of travel information (91 percent). Most kept the magazine for future
reference (79 percent) and most shared it with others (80 percent). Of the various
components of the magazine, photographs and feature stories had the most influence on
travel decisions.
Other Sources. Clearly, there are many other sources of information used by travelers.
Researchers have specifically considered the influence of highway welcome centers
(Andereck et al. 2003b; Gitelson and Perdue 1987); brochures (Andereck 2003; Zhou
1997); travel agents (Snepenger et al. 1990); and state tourism office information
(Andereck et al. 2003a).
Market Differences
Past studies have found that consumers differ in their likelihood to seek out product
knowledge (Gronflaten 2009; Moutinho 1987; Thorelli and Engledow 1980), ranging
from intensive seekers to those who engage in very limited searches. Consumers also
differ in the number of sources consulted for product or service information and the
importance placed on the sources; frequently consumers seek information from several
sources prior to making a purchase decision. Numerous factors may influence a
consumer's information-seeking behavior. Past information-seeking research based on
information search theory has found several general relationships between consumer
characteristics and search behavior (Gronflaten 2009; Hyde 2006; Snepenger et al. 1990;
Raitz and Dakhil 1988; Capella and Greco 1987; Runyon and Stewart 1987; Newman
Demographic/trip Characteristics. Individual demographic characteristics may influence
information-seeking behavior (Hirschman and Wallendorf 1982), though results tend to
be inconsistent. Research in consumer behavior has generally found that people of higher
income and education search for product and service information to a greater extent than
do other people (Runyon and Stewart 1987; Robertson et al. 1984; Newman 1977). Age
tends to be inversely related to amount of search, while the relationship between search
behavior and other demographic characteristics, such as social class and occupation,
tends to depend on the product or service being investigated (Newman 1977).
Certain demographic characteristics of travelers have been linked to information search
behavior. Studies have found that college-educated individuals were more likely to use
destination-specific literature (Gitelson and Crompton 1983), and people of higher socio-economic
class frequently used travel agents as information sources (Cheyne and Legg
2006; Woodside and Ronkainen 1980). Gitelson and Crompton (1983) and Hyde (2006)
found that older people were more likely to use a travel agent than younger people, as did
Gronflaten (2009). Older people have also been reported to heavily rely on information
from friends and family (Capella and Greco 1987). Raitz and Dakhil (1988) and Schreyer
and Lime (1984) suggested that younger people value information provided by peers
more highly than that provided by family members, and may rely on a narrower set of
information sources. Snepenger et al. (1990), however, found no difference in
information search strategy based on average age among visitors to Alaska, although it
appeared that men were less likely to use travel agents than women. Other findings have
suggested that family groups are more likely to gain information from the media than
other groups (Gitelson and Crompton 1983). Snepenger et al. (1990) and Fodness and
Murray (1997), however, found that information search strategy did not vary by travel
group size or composition, but Gronflaten (2009) and Pearce et al. (2009) found
independent travelers were less likely to use travel agents than those on organized tours.
From the trip perspective, Fodness and Murray (1997) reported travelers who visited
longer, visited more destinations, visited a greater number of attractions, and stayed in
paid lodging were all more likely to spend more time on information search and use a
greater number of sources. Likewise, they found an association between greater time and
effort spent on information search and higher tourism expenditures as did Etzel and
Wahlers (1985).
Social-psychological Factors. Perceived benefits of information search will influence
search behavior. Consumers that already have knowledge of the product will usually
engage in limited search activity, perceiving that the benefits of additional information
search are minimal (Robertson et al. 1984). Studies of the relationship between
experience and information search have had mixed results, however. Likely the
relationship is mitigated by many factors, such as product and service satisfaction
(Runyon and Stewart 1987). Generally, however, it seems that consumers with more
knowledge of a product or service engage in different types of information search than
those with limited knowledge, and frequently less information-seeking behavior will
occur (Anderson et al. 1979). Such individuals will rely more heavily on internal
information search. Two tourism studies related to this idea found that: 1) information
seeking for travelers to South Carolina was related to previous visitation, with
professional sources used more by first-time visitors (Woodside and Rokainen 1980); and
2) information seeking was greater with unknown destinations (Van Raaij 1986).
Information search behavior also may partly depend on consumer preferences for
information sources and preferences for sources in particular purchase situations. It seems
that the specific product or service being purchased influences preferences for
information sources, as does the specific point in time during the purchase process
(Runyon and Stewart 1987). Pearce et al. (2009), for example, found independent
travelers most often used the Internet to find transportation and accommodations
information, but used word of mouth and brochures for information about attractions and
activities. Hyde (2006) reported similar results. Friends and relatives and guidebooks
rated highest for planning where to go and what to see and do. Internet and guidebooks
rated highest for accommodations, and Internet and travel agents highest for airfare.
Finally, motives for visitation can influence information seeking. Motivation is a state of
need that "pushes" a person toward actions that may bring satisfaction. In the case of
tourists, motivation is related to the need for optimal arousal and is largely affected by
social factors (Moutinho 1987). It has been proposed that by tourist motivation one
intends "a meaningful state of mind which adequately disposes an actor or group of
actors to travel, and which is subsequently interpretable by others as a valid explanation
for such a decision" (Dann 1981). Although propensity to travel is related to favorable
perceptions of a destination, which can be influenced by information, actual travel to the
destination will not occur without specific motives (Henshall et al. 1985). It is consumer
needs and motives that activate goal-oriented behavior. Specific motives for travel are
related to past vacation experiences, personal experience and knowledge, and information
gained from interpersonal, marketer-dominated, and objective sources (Moutinho 1987).
A few studies have found that travel motives influence information search behavior. The
vacation motive of novelty or variety and a search for variety in the trip can both lead to
more intensive information searches and the use of a greater variety of sources
(Crompton 1979; Engle et al. 1973). Fodness and Murray (1997) found travelers whose
primary motive for the trip was vacation were more likely to spend more time and consult
more sources that those traveling to visit friends and family or for other reasons. Hyde
(2006) noted that those visiting friends and family considered those people as their major
source of information. Motives for visitation may also affect the types of information
sources used. Market segments of visitors to Alaska, based on Cohen's (1972, as cited by
Snepenger 1987) novelty-seeking topology, differed in the amount of search behavior and
the specific sources most people utilized (Snepenger 1987). Finally, Dey and Sarma
(2010) found the most influential information sources differed based on motive-defined
Information, Visitation, and Expenditures
The study of the relationship between tourism information, visitation, and tourist
expenditures is most often conducted using conversion studies. Conversion studies have
been popular in the tourism industry because they "represent tangible, quantifiable
evidence that [a] marketing campaign is working in terms of generating leads" (Burke
and Lindblom 1989:33). Conversion studies attempt to determine the effectiveness of
tourism advertising and information in converting people from information seekers to
actual visitors. One can determine a conversion rate, which is the percentage of
information inquirers who visit after being exposed to the promotional information
(Burke and Lindblom 1989). The rate is estimated through a process described by
Woodside and Dubelaar (2003:80), as follows:
1) An advertisement is placed in a customer environment, e.g., TV program watched
or magazine read.
2) A share of customers is exposed to the advertisement.
3) A share of ad-exposed customers requests the free information described in the
4) All customers requesting the free information receive it.
5) A share of customers receiving the free information attends to it.
6) A share of customers attending to the free information buys the brand.
7) To estimate conversion, a survey is made of inquirers who requested the free
8) The buyers' and inquirers' conversion shares are estimated based on the survey
A final step is to determine the economic impact of the visitors that choose a destination
based on the information they receive. When evaluating the effect of tourism information,
the process may begin with the advertisement or with the information inquiry list.
Several assumptions of conversion studies must be taken in to account. Two methods
have been developed to mitigate these potential problems.
1) The motivation for requesting information is to help choose a destination for a
discretionary trip.
People ask for destination information for many reasons. They may have already
chosen the destination and are looking for additional information. Others may
request information about a destination to prepare for a move or retirement or for
a school project. Thus the information may not have actually converted people to
visitors; it may simply have provided them with more information to make
decisions regarding specific parts of their visit (Pratt et al. 2010; Burke and
Gitelson 1990).
2) A destination's advertising is responsible for the economic impact of those people
visiting after having received the requested information.
The consumer decision-making process is complex and can be influenced by a
number of information sources, including friends and relatives, colleagues, other
advertisements, or previous experiences. Likewise, including expenditures of
those who were not actually converted inflates conversion estimates. While all
tourists to a destination may make some impact on the economy, it is not accurate
to assume that all of the expenditures of every visitor who requested information
are attributable to the information (Burke and Gitelson 1990).
To avoid erroneously attributing visitation and its resulting economic impact to the
tourism information, respondents are asked if the information caused them to visit the
destination. This results in a more accurate calculation.
In addition to the previously described assumptions, there are other concerns to be
mindful of as well. One question is if the survey sample is representative of the
population of interest. If the survey sample does not accurately reflect the population,
then estimates of visitation and subsequent economic impact will not be accurate. For
example, people who have visited a destination are more likely to respond to the
questionnaire, so the conversion rate must be adjusted to account for this (Ellerbrock
Many studies reported in the academic literature have noted the link between advertising
or tourism information and increased visitation (Kim et al. 2005). A smaller number of
studies have taken this relationship a step further and estimated economic impact of
tourism due to promotional campaigns. Using typical conversion study techniques, Reid
et al. (2008) found an Atlantic Canada tourism promotion campaign resulted in increased
tourism expenditures over a six-year period. Likewise, Pratt et al. (2010) found that 18
different promotion campaigns for destinations in the United Kingdom resulted in tourist
visitation with resulting economic impacts.
While no studies to date have considered the relationship between a travel magazine,
visitation, or tourist expenditures, a few studies had considered the effect of information
other than advertising and fulfillment pieces. Several authors have found brochures are
effective at increasing visitors to a destination (e.g., Andereck and Caldwell 1993) while
two recent studies considered the use of guidebooks (Nishimura et al. 2007; Wong and
Lui 2011).
Arizona Studies
Tourism is considered Arizona's second-largest industry. It has a direct annual economic
impact of nearly $18.5 billion and directly employs over 166,900 people. Visitors
contribute over $2.5 billion annually in tax revenue. Most of the visitors to Arizona are
domestic leisure travelers (Arizona Office of Tourism 2009a).
A large percentage of tourists to Arizona participate in natural area activities. The
Arizona Office of Tourism (2009b) reports that visitors' top activities are shopping, fine
dining, and visiting national and state parks. Many visitors also report casinos, historic
sites, and hiking trails as primary attractions (Table 2). The purpose of the trip was most
often visiting family and friends, visiting to experience scenic beauty, history and culture,
and to be outdoors (Table 3). This is significant in that AHM has a heavy focus on natural
and cultural sites and areas as story subjects, suggesting it might be an important
information source for visitors interested in these types of activities and attractions.
Many sources of information are used to plan trips to Arizona. Tables 4 and 5 report on
the sources of information used by the 1480 visitors who requested information from the
Arizona Office of Tourism (AOT) (Andereck et al. 2003a). Table 4 lists the percentage of
respondents who used each source of information, while Table 5 lists the primary sources
of information used by respondents. The AOT travel packet emerges as particularly
important because of the nature of the sample (i.e., those who requested the travel
packet). About 18 percent of all respondents used an article from a magazine or
newspaper as an information source, with 5 percent reporting an article was a primary
information source.
Table 2. Top Visitor Activities and Attractions While Visiting Arizona.
Percent of Respondents
Activities/Attractions (selected all that apply)
Overnight non-residents
Shopping 37 28
Fine dining 27 17
National/State parks 24 17
Casino 14 7
Landmark/Historic site 19 12
Swimming 19 11
Bar/Disco/Nightclub 15 13
Hiking/Backpacking 11 15
Museum 13 7
Beach/Waterfront 12 5
Art gallery 11 5
Camping 7 12
Business meetings 10 4
Fair/Exhibition/Festival 7 5
Spa 7 4
Golf 7 3
Theater/Opera/Dance/Symphony 7 3
Fishing 5 7
Prof./College sports events 7 2
Biking 7 1
Source: Arizona Office of Tourism (2009a)
Table 3. Purpose of Trip.
Purpose of trip
Reasons for visiting Overnight non-residents
Overnight residents
Visiting friends/relatives 40 38
Touring to experience scenic beauty,
history, and culture
15 12
Outdoors 5 15
Special event 9 5
City trip 5 5
Casino 2 5
Resort 3 3
Theme park 1 1
Cruise 1 1
Skiing/snowboarding 0 1
Conference/convention 5 3
Other business 10 8
Source: Arizona Office of Tourism (2009b)
Table 4. Information Sources Used in Selecting Arizona as a Vacation Place.
Percent of Respondents
Information Sources (selected all sources)
Own past experiences in Arizona 54 48
AOT travel information packet 50 45
Recommendation from someone 41 40
Motor club information (e.g., AAA, Mobil) 24 25
AOT website 20 26
Article from a magazine or newspaper 19 16
Information from convention and visitor's bureau
or chamber of commerce
10 10
Travel book purchased in a bookstore 9 14
Other website 7 11
TV program 7 7
Travel agent 6 4
Table 5. Primary Information Sources Used in Final Selection of Arizona as a
Vacation Place.
Percent of Respondents (selected
Information Sources main source)
Own past experiences in Arizona 23 24
AOT travel information packet 20 23
Recommendation from someone 12 15
Travel book purchased in a bookstore 11 6
Other 9 1
Motor club information (e.g., AAA, Mobil) 7 7
AOT website 5 7
Article from a magazine or newspaper 5 4
Travel agent 2 1
Information from convention and visitor's bureau
or chamber of commerce
2 2
Other website 2 7
TV program 2 1
The most recent welcome center study in Arizona was conducted by Andereck et al.
(2003b) and was administered to visitors who stopped at the Arizona State Welcome
Center on Interstate 40 on the state's eastern boundary, or at the chamber of commerce
office in either Holbrook or Springerville. This study also asked visitors about their
primary activities and motives for visiting, as well as information used to help plan the
trip. Again, activities that are consistent with the focus of AHM emerged as the most
important to visitors with sightseeing, visiting the Grand Canyon, cultural, arts, or
heritage activities, and natural area activities being the most important activities to
tourists (Table 6). Viewing scenery, seeing interesting sights, having fun, experiencing
new and different places, experiencing nature, and learning about history and culture also
emerged as primary motivators for visitors (Table 7).
Respondents were provided an extensive list of information sources they may have used
before their trip began. As shown in Table 8, the most common information sources used
to plan before the trip began included: previous visits, friends and relatives, maps,
brochures, and travel guides and tour books. AHM was used by 13 percent of the visitors
as an information source, but it is not known whether it was a primary or contributory
Table 6. Importance of Activities.
Activities WC(1) means H&S(2) means Total means
Sightsee 4.2 4.3 4.3
Visit the Grand Canyon 3.8 3.0 3.6
Cultural, arts, heritage activities 3.1 3.5 3.2
Natural area activities 3.0 3.3 3.1
Visit family and friends 2.7 2.6 2.7
Shop 2.0 1.9 2.0
Other 1.8 2.0 1.9
Explore retirement areas 1.7 1.7 1.7
Adventure activities 1.6 1.7 1.6
Stay at a resort/spa 1.6 1.7 1.6
Conduct personal or family business 1.5 1.5 1.5
Entertainment 1.4 1.3 1.4
Play golf 1.3 1.3 1.3
Sports activities 1.3 1.4 1.3
Watch sports events 1.3 1.3 1.3
Stay at a dude ranch 1.2 1.2 1.2
A business engagement or convention 1.2 1.2 1.2
Explore new jobs/business opportunities 1.2 1.3 1.2
Scale: 1=not important to 5=extremely important
(1) WC denotes Welcome Center
(2) H&S denotes Holbrook and Springerville
Table 7. Motives for Visit.
Motives WC(1) means H&S(2) means Total means
View scenery 4.4 4.4 4.4
See interesting sights 4.3 4.2 4.2
Have fun 4.2 4.1 4.2
Experience new and different places 4.0 4.1 4.0
Experience nature 3.6 3.8 3.6
Learn about history/culture 3.5 3.7 3.6
Get away from everyday life 3.6 3.7 3.6
Take it easy/rest/relax 3.6 3.4 3.6
For the nice weather 3.4 3.5 3.5
Learn about the natural environment 3.3 3.6 3.4
Experience other cultures 3.3 3.4 3.3
To do many different things/activities 3.3 3.2 3.3
Feel safe and secure 3.2 2.9 3.2
For excitement/adventure 3.1 3.1 3.1
Spend time with family/friends 3.1 3.0 3.1
Get away from crowds 2.9 3.2 3.0
Be physically active 2.9 3.1 3.0
Have a romantic experience 2.3 2.1 2.2
Scale: 1=not important to 5=extremely important
(1) WC denotes Welcome Center
(2) H&S denotes Holbrook and Springerville
Table 8. Information Sources Used Before Trip Began.
Sources WC(1) % H&S(2) % Total %
Previous visit 52 63 55
Friends/relatives 55 47 53
Map 50 57 52
Brochures 44 42 44
Travel guide/tour book 42 46 43
State welcome center 40 19 34
Arizona official visitors guide 29 26 28
Travel club (AAA, etc.) 26 21 25
Other website 18 23 19
AOT website 16 15 16
Arizona Highways magazine 12 16 13
Other 7 9 8
Convention and visitor bureau 6 12 8
Road sign 6 5 6
Television 5 4 5
Newspaper travel section 4 7 5
Billboard 3 1 3
Employee at destination 2 4 3
State travel office 2 4 3
Travel agent 2 1 2
Radio 0 0 0
(1) WC denotes Welcome Center
(2) H&S denotes Holbrook and Springerville
In sum, visitors to Arizona are largely interested in sightseeing and nature-based and
cultural heritage tourism. This is significant for AHM in that the magazine is particularly
well known for showing Arizona's spectacular scenery with a focus on natural and
cultural heritage attractions. Arizona visitors use a variety of information sources, in
particular their own past experience, word of mouth, and information provided by AOT.
There is evidence that some visitors use magazines as an information source, including
AHM specifically, but the extent and nature of this use is not yet known.
Results from the survey are presented in this section. Data are reported separately for
product purchasers (PP), in-state AHM subscribers (ISS), out-of-state AHM subscribers
(OSS), and non-subscribers (NS). A total of all the groups combined is also presented. A
few members of the general population group (5.3 percent) indicated they were AHM
subscribers and have been coded as OSS for analysis. Note that the three sub-samples
were tested to determine statistically significant differences among the groups. These
tests included chi-square tests and analysis of variance tests, all of which are used to
determine whether any differences among groups are meaningful. Tables or individual
variables that are marked with an asterisk are statistically significantly different.
The demographics portion of the questionnaire was completed only by respondents who
were willing to do this section (n=1,016 for most). They were nearly equally divided
between men and women, and though the proportions differed somewhat for the three
sub-samples, these were not statistically significant differences (Table 9). It is also
important to note that sample gender proportions probably do not reflect actual gender
proportions among the groups sampled, given biases in the names attached to
subscriptions. Most respondents own their own homes (Table 10). The majority of
respondents were either married or had a partner with whom they lived, with PP and OSS
less likely to be married, likely related to their older average age (Table 11). About 10
percent of respondents had children living in their households, most often one or two
children. Non-subscribers were more likely to still have children at home, again likely
due to their lower average age. The dominant income categories were $25,001 to $50,000
and $50,001 to $75,000, although a fairly large number of respondents also fall into the
$75,001 to $100,000 range (Table 12). Most respondents had at least some education
beyond a high school diploma, with a large percentage (58 percent) having at least a four-year
college degree (Table 13). The majority of respondents consider themselves Euro-
American/White (Table 14).
Table 9. Gender and Age of Respondents.
Gender/Age PP % ISS % OSS % NS % Total %
Female 52.9 47.0 49.6 46.2 49.1
Male 47.1 53.0 50.4 53.8 50.9
Mean Age (Yrs)* 68.01 63.99 66.25 55.79 64.83
Table 10. Own Home.*
Response ISS % OSS % NS % Total %
Yes 95.0 87.6 93.3 91.2
No 5.0 12.4 6.7 8.8
*Statistically significantly different.
Table 11. Spouse or Partner.*
Marital status PP % ISS % OSS % NS % Total %
Yes 72.4 82.8 72.0 87.5 77.1
No 27.6 17.2 28.0 12.5 22.9
Average no. of children* 0.07 0.20 0.14 0.56 0.19
*Statistically significantly different.
Table 12. Annual Before-tax Household Income.
Income Categories PP % ISS % OSS % NS % Total %
$25,000 or Less 5.3 9.5 9.7 3.7 8.1
$25,001-$50,000 25.7 22.1 23.1 13.6 22.4
$50,001-$75,000 18.1 23.2 21.2 27.2 21.8
$75,001-$100,000 26.3 16.7 19.1 17.3 19.6
$100,001-$125,000 9.4 13.7 9.7 14.8 11.4
$125,001-$150,000 8.2 6.5 5.3 6.2 6.3
$150,001 or More 7.0 8.4 11.9 17.3 10.3
Table 13. Education Level of Respondents.
Level of Education PP % ISS % OSS % NS % Total %
Less than high school grad. 0 1.9 1.0 1.0 1.1
High school graduate 9.8 9.7 14.4 6.7 11.2
Some college/tech school 33.7 29.4 28.3 31.7 30.1
College degree 26.3 26.2 25.9 32.7 26.8
Masters degree 22.4 24.7 20.9 25.0 22.8
Doctoral degree 7.8 8.1 9.4 2.9 8.0
Table 14. Ethnicity/Race of Respondents.
Race/Ethnicity PP % ISS % OSS % NS % Total %
Euro-American/White* 94.5 94.1 93.3 86.6 93.1
Hispanic/Latino 3.0 1.6 1.3 4.1 2.0
American Indian 2.0 1.3 2.4 2.1 1.9
Asian-American 0 0.7 0.5 0 0.4
African-American/Black 0 0 0.3 1.0 0.2
Other 3.5 4.3 4.5 7.2 4.5
Note: respondents were able to select more than one category.
*Statistically significantly different.
It is important to note the lack of demographic differences among the three sub-samples
in this study, with the exception of age and variables related to age. This implies that
other than age, the three groups are similar demographically and therefore other
differences discovered are likely not due to any demographic differences other than age.
This section reports results from those respondents who traveled within Arizona at some
time in the five years preceding receipt of the questionnaire (n= 879). Out-of-state
visitors were asked to provide specific information with reference to their most recent trip
to Arizona within the five-year time frame. In-state subscribers were asked to provide the
information with reference to their most recent overnight trip within the state during the
five-year period. First, respondents were asked to indicate whether they had taken a trip
in Arizona in the past five years. Most respondents had visited Arizona (Table 15),
though PP were less likely to have done so. Though the other three groups were similar in
the percentage who visited Arizona, it is notable that the PP who did visit, as well as the
OSS who visited, came to Arizona significantly more times than NS, though ISS took
more trips on average than the other groups (Table 16). NS who had not visited were
somewhat more likely to indicate continued interest in visiting Arizona than the
subscriber groups, however, this again may be related to the higher average age of
subscribers (Table 17).
Table 15. Visited Arizona in Past Five Years.*
Response PP % ISS % OSS % NS % Total %
Yes 69.1 81.5 78.0 81.4 78.8
No 30.9 18.5 22.0 18.6 21.2
*Statistically significantly different.
Table 16. Number of Visits in the Past Five Years.
Number of visits PP % ISS % OSS % NS % Total %
1 10.2 6.4 19.6 35.7 14.9
2 19.0 9.4 15.8 25.7 15.1
3 21.2 10.2 14.5 8.6 13.7
4 8.8 9.1 8.4 7.1 8.6
5 11.7 11.7 14.8 5.7 12.4
6 3.6 4.9 5.8 2.9 4.9
7-10 13.1 20.8 8.7 10.0 13.7
11-20 7.3 16.2 9.0 2.9 10.6
21or above 5.1 11.3 3.5 1.4 6.3
Mean number of visits*
4.23 8.74 3.63 1.86 5.23
Note: Outliers (extreme values) were removed from analysis.
*Statistically significantly different.
Table 17. Plan to Visit in the Future.
Future visit PP % ISS % OSS % NS % Total %
Yes 47.4 58.6 57.1 85.7 56.6
No 52.6 41.4 42.9 14.3 43.4
A portion of each questionnaire was dedicated to respondents' descriptions of planning
for their most recent trip in Arizona, partly to see how AHM subscribers differ from other
visitors. The results indicate that visitors had a long planning horizon. The respondents
were asked two questions: how long before their trip had they made the decision to travel
in Arizona, and how long before their trip had they made their travel arrangements. As
shown in Tables 18 and 19, visitors from out of state planned their trips fairly far in
advance, while residents planned in-state trips in the shorter term, as expected. The
decision to visit was most often made four or more months in advance for out-of-state
travelers, with OSS having a longer decision horizon than NS, while ISS often made
decisions a month or less in advance (Table 18). Most respondents made their
arrangements somewhat less time in advance than they made their destination decision,
with NS making arrangements further in advance than other groups (Table 19).
Table 18. Planning Horizon – Make Decision.*
Advance Planning Time PP % ISS % OSS % NS % Total %
1 to 6 days 2.4 11.5 4.2 3.8 6.0
1 to 2 weeks 9.4 17.0 6.2 3.8 9.8
3 to 4 weeks 17.3 36.6 16.1 7.5 21.6
5 to 8 weeks 18.1 16.6 16.7 11.2 16.3
9 to 12 weeks 13.4 8.5 16.1 26.2 14.4
4 to 5 months 16.5 4.3 39.0 26.2 23.5
6 to 7 months 9.4 2.1 0 8.8 3.1
8 months or more 13.4 3.4 1.8 12.5 5.3
*Statistically significantly different.
Table 19. Planning Horizon – Make Arrangements.*
Advance Planning Time PP % ISS % OSS % NS % Total %
1 to 6 days 10.2 24.4 10.0 8.8 14.3
1 to 2 weeks 13.3 23.1 12.5 11.2 15.7
3 to 4 weeks 23.4 29.1 20.1 12.5 22.6
5 to 8 weeks 18.8 10.7 19.8 18.8 16.7
9 to 12 weeks 14.1 6.8 17.3 28.8 14.8
4 to 5 months 9.4 3.0 19.5 15.0 12.3
6 to 7 months 6.2 1.3 0 2.5 1.7
8 months or more 4.7 1.7 0.9 2.5 1.9
*Statistically significantly different.
Respondents were also asked to indicate the extent to which they used several
information sources, and then select the one main information source they used to make
their final decision on Arizona as a travel destination (Tables 20 and 21). The most
extensively used sources were previous visit, friends and relatives, and AHM. As would
be expected, subscribers and PP, especially ISS, were much more likely to use AHM than
were non-subscribers. They were also more likely to use previous visits, not a surprising
finding given their higher average visitation levels than NS. With the exception of
previous visits and friends and relatives, which are the sources that almost always emerge
as travelers' primary information sources, the primary source of information for
subscribers was AHM for decisions related to the most recent trip. The use of social
media such as Facebook and Twitter is not emerging strongly among these older
travelers. Only about 9 percent of subscribers are a fan of the AHM Facebook page (Table
Two groups of respondents, OSS and NS, were asked several questions regarding the
kinds of needs beyond just basic travel information met by AHM versus the state official
visitor guide (Table 23). For most attributes, results suggest that AHM performs better
than the official visitor guide.
Table 20. Information Sources Used Before Trip Began—Extent of Use.
Sources Means
PP ISS OSS NS Total
Previous visit 4.40 4.19 4.20 3.33 4.15
Friends/family 2.92 2.82 3.33 2.85 3.06
AHM magazine 2.99 3.01 2.89 1.83 2.83
Travel book/travel guide 2.47 2.09 2.20 2.09 2.20
Brochure/pamphlets 2.11 2.12 2.02 2.04 2.07
Other website(s) 1.61 1.97 1.44 2.03 1.69
Travel/auto club (s) 1.76 1.56 1.68 1.51 1.64
Convention & visitor bureau 1.54 1.45 1.53 1.72 1.53
Other source 1.78 1.37 1.45 1.72 1.53
Newspaper(s) 1.58 1.88 1.31 1.21 1.52
Information from AOT 1.70 1.30 1.56 n/a 1.50
AOT website 1.45 1.17 1.40 2.22 1.43
AHM website 1.54 1.43 1.32 n/a 1.40
AHM television 1.33 1.80 1.05 n/a 1.36
Arizona welcome center 1.46 1.19 1.34 1.65 1.35
Another magazine 1.39 1.40 1.29 1.35 1.35
Other TV story or program 1.31 1.36 1.32 1.39 1.34
Travel agent 1.06 1.09 1.19 1.27 1.15
AHM Facebook 1.24 1.21 1.07 n/a 1.15
Arizona tourism Twitter n/a n/a n/a 1.05 1.05
AHM Twitter 1.04 1.01 1.01 n/a 1.02
AHM blog 1.05 1.00 1.01 n/a 1.01
AOT print visitors' guide n/a n/a n/a 2.23 n/a
AOT electronic visitors' guide n/a n/a n/a 1.62 n/a
Arizona official state Facebook page n/a n/a n/a 1.24 n/a
Scale (Extent of use): 1=Not at all; 2=A little; 3=Some; 4=A fair amount; 5=A lot
Note: respondents were able to select more than one category.
Table 21. Most Important Source of Information.
Sources PP % ISS % OSS % NS % Total %
Previous visit 50.8 45.6 44.6 31.8 44.8
Friends/relatives 16.1 13.4 25.5 27.3 20.3
Arizona Highways Magazine 11.0 16.6 14.4 1.5 13.3
Other source 5.1 2.3 5.4 10.6 4.9
Travel book/travel guide 5.1 3.7 2.0 7.6 3.6
Other website(s) 0.8 5.1 0.7 3 2.3
Information from AOT 1.7 0.9 3.4 n/a 2.0
Another magazine 1.7 1.8 1.3 0 1.4
Travel/auto club (s) 2.5 1.8 0.3 1.5 1.3
AHM television 1.7 2.8 0 n/a 1.1
Brochure/pamphlets 0.8 2.8 0.3 0 1.1
AOT website 0.8 0.5 0.7 4.5 1.0
Newspaper(s) 0 1.8 0.3 0 0.7
Convention & visitor bureau 0.8 0.9 0.3 0 0.6
Other TV story or program 0 0 0 4.5 0.4
Travel agent 0 0 0.3 3.0 0.4
Arizona welcome center 0 0 0.3 1.5 0.3
AHM website 0.8 0 0 n/a 0.1
AHM Facebook page 0 0 0 n/a 0
AHM Twitter 0 0 0 n/a 0
AHM blog 0 0 0 n/a 0
AOT print visitors' guide n/a n/a n/a 1.5 n/a
AOT electronic visitors' guide n/a n/a n/a 1.5 n/a
Arizona official state Facebook n/a n/a n/a 0 n/a
Arizona tourism Twitter n/a n/a n/a 0 n/a
Table 22. AHM Facebook Fans.
Response ISS % OSS % Total %
Fan of AHM Facebook page
If yes:
9.2 8.6 8.9
Posted a comment 9.1 18.5 14.3
Responded to someone else's comment 0 7.1 4.0
Posted a photograph 0 3.7 2.1
Linked to another website from the page 14.3 7.1 10.2
Found the page to be useful to you 47.6 40.7 43.8
Note: respondents were able to select more than one category.
Table 23. Meeting Travel Information Needs.
Information needs Out State
Subs Non-Subs Total
"Hear" the sounds of the desert and mountains 3.64 2.92 3.53
"Smell" the fresh air 3.63 2.97 3.52
"Taste" the foods I discover 3.53 2.92 3.43
Be entertained 3.66 3.08 3.57
Be prepared for all aspects of a trip 3.60 3.40 3.57
Become excited about other cultures 3.77 3.08 3.66
Become excited about travel 4.03 3.56 3.95
Consider a place for its attractiveness 4.14 3.45 4.03
Dream of exotic places 3.56 2.83 3.44
Experience the local culture 3.90 3.30 3.80
Reduce likelihood of being disappointed 3.52 3.25 3.47
Find bargains 3.09 3.05 3.08
Get a good idea 3.81 3.32 3.73
Keep well-informed 3.88 3.34 3.79
Learn about prices 3.26 3.11 3.23
Learn about unique events 3.89 3.40 3.81
Locate information that is concise 3.70 3.36 3.64
Locate the best available information 3.60 3.45 3.57
Realize experiences that I think about 3.67 3.00 3.56
Reduce likelihood of a disastrous trip 3.47 2.92 3.38
Fantasize about places 3.60 3.06 3.52
See how beautiful a place is 4.35 3.43 4.19
Think about and see a place 4.18 3.39 4.05
Understand the personality of a community 3.65 3.05 3.55
Wonder about daily life of an area 3.59 2.94 3.49
Scale: 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither agree nor disagree, 4 = Agree, 5 =
Strongly disagree.
Note: respondents were able to select more than one category.
A portion of the questionnaire was dedicated to respondents' descriptions of their most
recent trips to Arizona, including length of trip, composition of the travel party, type of
accommodations and transportation utilized, activities pursued, and expenditures. The
length of visits ranged greatly. However, outliers were removed from analysis of average
length of stay (Table 24). All of the groups differed significantly from one another, with
OSS staying for the longest average period of time.
Table 24. Length of Stay in Arizona.
Number of days PP % ISS % OSS % NS % Total %
1 to 7 57.2 94.0 51.5 76.5 68.2
8 to 14 23.9 4.9 26.2 16.5 18.2
15 to 30 10.9 0.8 9.4 5.9 6.6
31 or more 8.0 0.4 12.9 1.2 7.1
Mean length of stay* 8.03 3.24 9.35 5.29 6.73
Note: Outliers were removed from analysis. *Statistically significantly different.
A majority of respondents indicated that they traveled as couples—specifically with
spouses or partners (Table 25). About a fifth of the travel parties included children or
grandchildren, and a few included other relatives. Generally, there were two adults in the
travel party, and those with children had one or two children accompanying them. The
ISS and NS groups were more likely to include spouses or partners traveling together. NS
were more likely to have children in the group, while ISS more often included friends.
The average party size was similar for the groups. Mean party sizes were similar though
composition differed (Table 26).
Table 25. Travel Party.*
Travel party PP % ISS % OSS % NS % Total %
Alone 15.7 5.4 17.5 6.8 12.5
Spouse/partner 67.1 81.3 64.8 81.8 71.9
Child(ren) 16.4 18.7 19.9 28.4 19.8
Parents 2.1 2.7 6.2 8.0 4.7
Grandchild(ren) 5.7 4.7 4.0 2.3 4.3
Other relatives 6.4 14.3 12.1 14.8 12.1
Friends 20.0 25.3 15.3 9.1 18.4
Business associate(s) 0.7 1.2 1.6 1.1 1.3
Other 2.9 0.8 2.4 1.1 1.9
*Note: Respondents were able to select more than one category.
Table 26. Size of Travel Party.
Number of people PP % ISS % OSS % NS % Total %
1 12.9 5.1 16.1 5.8 11.2
2 56.4 55.9 51.1 47.7 53.1
3 9.3 6.6 7.7 14.0 8.3
4 11.4 17.2 13.4 19.8 14.9
5 2.1 2.7 4.6 3.5 3.5
6 or more 7.9 12.5 7.1 9.3 9.1
Mean travel party size* (M) 2.28 2.72 2.57 2.77 2.61
* Note: Outliers were removed from analysis.
The most frequently reported form of accommodation used was hotel or motel.
Somewhat over half of the respondents reported using this form of accommodation, with
the OSS less likely to use this form of accommodation than ISS or NS (Table 27). The
NS were the least likely to stay in a campground, while OSS respondents were much
more likely to stay in a private home than the other groups.
Table 27. Accommodations Stayed at During Arizona Vacation.
Types PP % ISS % OSS % NS % Total %
Hotel/motel* 52.5 70.3 47.1 60.7 56.6
Resort 18.7 18.0 7.2 12.4 13.0
RV/mobile home 8.6 8.6 10.9 4.5 9.1
Campground 13.7 17.5 11.8 3.4 13.0
Bed and breakfast 3.6 9.8 3.4 1.1 5.2
Dude/guest ranch 0.7 2.3 1.1 0 1.3
Timeshare/second home 5.8 10.5 9.2 9.0 9.0
Private home 26.6 14.8 41.1 27.0 29.1
Other 7.9 5.5 10.6 11.2 8.6
*Note: Respondents were able to select more than one category.
Table 28 shows that the most popular modes of transportation to enter the state of
Arizona on a vacation were commercial airplanes and driving one's own vehicle, though
NS were more likely to arrive in a rental vehicle (Table 28). Respondents were also asked
the primary type of transportation they used during their Arizona visit (Table 29). The
most frequently reported response was own car or RV, or a rented car or RV. As expected
the ISS were more likely to use their own vehicles and least likely to use a rental. When
asked what transportation needs were not met, the primary issue reported was the closure
of rest stops (also see the Appendix).
Table 28. Transportation Used to Arrive in Arizona.*
Types of Transportation PP % OSS % NS % Total %
Own vehicle (not RV) 42.4 42.9 33.7 41.3
Rental vehicle (not RV) 4.0 5.4 22.5 7.9
Own RV 6.1 6.5 3.4 5.9
Rental RV 0 0.5 0 0.4
Commercial airplane 42.4 40.4 37.1 40.3
Motorcoach or bus 0 0.8 0 0.5
Train 1.0 0.5 0 0.5
Other 4.0 3.0 3.4 3.2
*Statistically significantly different.
Table 29. Transportation Used in Arizona.
Types of Transportation PP % ISS % OSS % NS % Total %
Own vehicle (not RV)* 59.4 94.4 54.3 42.5 65.3
Rental vehicle (not RV)* 27.5 3.8 30.4 49.4 24.4
Own RV 10.1 10.7 8.4 3.4 8.8
Rental RV 0 0.4 0.8 0 0.5
Commercial airplane 2.2 0.4 2.2 2.3 1.7
Motorcoach or bus 0.7 1.3 3.5 1.1 2.2
Light rail 2.2 0.9 1.1 0 1.1
Train 0 3.4 1.6 2.3 1.9
Other 9.4 6.0 14.9 5.7 10.5
Note: respondents were able to select more than one category.
*Statistically significantly different.
Visitors engaged in a variety of activities while visiting Arizona (Table 30). The most
frequently identified activity was driving to view scenery, identified by more than three-quarters
of the respondents. Other frequently identified activities included: natural area
activities; visiting friends and family; cultural, arts, and heritage activities; shopping; and
visiting the Grand Canyon. Tests indicated ISS were less likely to engage in several of
the activities than the out-of-state groups. The OSS and PP were more likely to visit
friends and family and the Grand Canyon or stay at a resort than were NS. ISS were less
likely to shop. Of these activities, those listed as the most influential in the decision to
visit the state included: visiting friends and family; natural area activities; driving to view
scenery; and visiting the Grand Canyon (Table 31). The OSS were much more motivated
by visiting friends and family than the other groups. The Appendix includes a listing of
respondents' top one to five destinations or attractions during their trips.
Table 30. Activity Participation.
Activities PP% ISS% OSS % NS % Total %
Visit family and friends* 55.7 36.6 69.8 48.3 55.4
Natural area activities 70.0 67.7 74.4 69.7 71.2
Sightseeing/driving to view scenery 77.1 77.4 79.6 87.6 79.4
Visit the Grand Canyon* 31.4 28.1 38.8 52.8 36.0
Cultural, arts, heritage activities 53.6 44.3 54.0 46.1 50.2
Adventure activities 5.0 6.4 10.1 11.2 8.3
Watch sports events 7.9 8.1 12.1 11.2 10.1
Staying at a resort/spa* 20.0 18.7 11.5 19.1 15.9
Play golf 10.7 6.8 10.3 12.4 9.6
Other sports activities 2.1 7.7 5.2 3.4 5.2
Shopping* 46.4 37.3 50.9 46.1 45.6
Stay at a dude/guest ranch 0.7 2.6 2.3 0 1.8
Entertainment 14.3 17.0 17.0 18.0 16.6
Business or convention* 3.6 9.8 4.3 6.7 6.0
Other 13.7 12.8 19.1 21.3 16.6
Note: respondents were able to select more than one category
*Statistically significantly different.
Table 31 Most Influential Reason to Visit.
Activities PP % ISS % OSS % NS % Total %
Visit family and friends 28.9 18.1 49.4 25.6 34.1
Natural area activities 21.5 28.1 13.2 18.6 19.5
Sightseeing/driving to view scenery 21.5 16.7 12.9 10.5 15.2
Visit the Grand Canyon 7.4 10.0 7.7 19.8 9.6
Other 6.7 6.3 8.0 15.1 8.1
Business or convention 2.2 4.5 2.1 2.3 2.9
Cultural, arts, heritage activities 2.2 3.2 2.5 0 2.3
Play golf 2.2 3.2 1.8 2.3 2.3
Stay at a resort/spa 3.0 3.2 0.3 2.3 1.8
Watch sports events 2.2 1.4 0.6 2.3 1.3
Entertainment 1.5 2.3 0 1.2 1.0
Other sports activities 0 2.3 0.3 0 0.8
Adventure activities 0.7 0.5 0.6 0 0.5
Stay at a dude/guest ranch 0 0.5 0.6 0 0.4
Shopping 0 0 0 0 0
Respondents were asked to rate their familiarity and knowledge about Arizona as a travel
destination. As might be expected, ISS had the highest levels of familiarity and
knowledge, followed by OSS (Tables 32 and 33).
Table 32. Familiarity with Arizona.*
Response PP % ISS % OSS % NS % Total %
Not familiar 1.5 0 0.3 2.3 0.6
Slightly familiar 3.6 3.1 7.9 12.6 6.2
Moderately familiar 25.5 22.9 32.0 56.3 30.7
Very familiar 45.3 41.5 41.0 21.8 39.9
Extremely familiar 24.0 32.6 18.8 6.9 22.7
Table 33. Knowledgeable about Arizona.*
Response PP % ISS % OSS % Non-
Sub. %
Total %
Not knowledgeable 1.5 0 0.5 1.2 0.6
Slightly knowledgeable 4.4 3.1 11.0 17.4 8.2
Moderately knowledgeable 34.3 40.4 39.8 53.5 40.5
Very knowledgeable 40.9 32.9 34.3 22.1 33.7
Extremely knowledgeable 19.0 23.5 14.3 5.8 17.0
*Statistically significantly different.
The next section of this report presents information specifically related to the impact of
AHM on Arizona travel. These questions were answered only by subscribers. All OSS
were asked to answer questions with respect to their most recent visit in the state. As
well, ISS were asked to answer the questions with respect to their most recent overnight
trip within the state. In-state subscribers also had a section of questions to answer
regarding day trips. The general population sample included a few subscribers (Table 34).
Those respondents that were subscribers have been receiving the magazine for varying
amounts of time with over a third being subscribers for more than 10 years (Table 35).
ISS have been subscribers for longer than OSS.
Table 34. Out-of-state General Population (Non-subs) Response.
Familiarity with AHM Yes % No %
Familiarity with Arizona Highways Magazine 46.7 53.3
Subscriber to Arizona Highways Magazine 5.3 94.7
Table 35. Length of Subscription.*
Years of subscription ISS % OSS % Total %
1 to 2 13.2 16.0 14.6
3 to 4 11.8 13.9 12.9
5 to 6 11.2 18.8 15.5
7 to 8 6.2 4.6 5.3
9 to 10 16.1 13.9 14.9
11 or More Yrs 41.4 32.9 36.7
*Statistically significantly different.
Overnight Visits
Several questions were posed to respondents regarding the manner in which AHM
influenced their travel decisions and behavior. A very large percentage indicated the
magazine has moderately to greatly increased respondents' interest in Arizona as a
vacation destination, with no significant difference between the groups (Table 36). They
also indicated that AHM is very helpful with respect to travel planning, with OSS and ISS
being equally likely to find the magazine helpful (Table 37).
Quite a high percentage of respondents keep their AHMs for use as a travel information
source at a later date, with ISS being more likely to keep their magazines (Table 38).
Some also share their copies with others, and though it is not possible to project the
manner in which others use the magazines, this does suggest influence on travel beyond
subscribers alone (Table 39).
Table 36. Interest Levels Toward Arizona as Result of Magazine.
Response ISS % OSS % Total %
Not increased 3.2 6.3 4.9
Slightly increased 5.7 8.9 7.4
Moderately increased 38.7 35.2 37.1
Greatly increased 52.4 49.6 50.6
Table 37. Rating of Helpfulness of Magazine.
Response ISS % OSS % Total %
Not helpful .06 1.0 0.9
Slightly helpful 5.1 6.8 6.0
Moderately helpful 31.6 29.8 30.7
Very helpful 62.7 62.4 62.5
Table 38. Retention of Magazine.*
Response ISS % OSS % Total %
Yes 86.6 76.5 80.7
No 13.4 23.5 19.3
*Statistically significantly different.
Table 39. Sharing of Magazine.
Response ISS % OSS % Total %
Yes 78.0 76.3 76.9
No 22.0 23.7 23.1
In-state and out-of-state subscribers had very similar responses to the components of the
magazine in terms of their influence or helpfulness for travel planning or decision making
(Tables 40 and 41). The photographs in AHM as well as the scenic drive section strongly
influence travel decisions and are also considered quite helpful to respondents. The
magazine is more useful to respondents for making travel decisions than for specific
travel planning.
Table 40. Influence of Specific Magazine Components on Travel Decisions.
Components Mean
ISS % OSS % Total %
Feature stories 3.22 3.11 3.16
Photographs 3.50 3.45 3.47
"Scenic Drive" section 3.52 3.46 3.49
"Hike of the Month" section 2.71 2.68 2.69
"Where is This?" section 2.66 2.50 2.57
Scale: 1 = Not influential, 2 = Slightly influential, 3 = Moderately influential, 4 = Very
Table 41. Helpfulness of Specific Magazine Components on Travel Planning.
Components Mean
ISS % OSS % Total %
Feature stories 3.05 2.77 2.90
Photographs 3.27 3.17 3.22
"Scenic Drive" section 3.25 3.15 3.20
"Hike of the Month" section 2.44 2.37 2.40
"Where is This?" section 2.40 2.20 2.30
Scale: 1 = Not helpful, 2 = Slightly helpful, 3 = Moderately helpful, 4 = Very helpful
A moderate percentage of both ISS and OSS indicated AHM directly influenced them to
visit Arizona on their most recent trip, while an additional smaller percentage planned for
more time on their trips (Table 42). AHM had greater influence on ISS to take the trip in
general, but greater influence on OSS to stay extra days. The OSS who stayed for extra
days due to AHM stayed an average of four and a half days longer, while ISS stayed for
an average of about one and a half more days (Tables 43 and 44).
AHM subscribers reported that the magazine was most influential on their decisions to:
Visit specific attractions or destinations.
Choose Arizona as a primary destination.
Select travel routes in the state.
Select activities such as recreational activities and events (Table 45).
The two groups were similarly influenced. Table 42 shows about a quarter of respondents
made these types of decisions directly as a result of AHM. The specific decisions that
were made are listed in the Appendix.
Table 42. Influence of Magazine on Travel Plans (positive responses).
Influence ISS % OSS % Total %
I decided to include Arizona in my travel plans* 43.5 29.0 34.7
I planned for additional time in Arizona* 18.8 26.8 23.8
*Statistically significantly different.
Table 43. Extra Days Spent.
Days ISS % OSS % Total %
1 28.0 4.9 11.6
2 48.0 29.4 34.9
3 8.0 23.0 18.6
4 12.0 1.6 4.7
5 4.0 11.5 9.3
6 to 10 0 13.1 9.3
11 or more 0 16.4 11.6
Mean extra stay* (M) 1.76 4.50 2.92
Note: Outliers were removed from analysis. *Statistically significantly different.
Table 44. Influence of Magazine on Travel Decisions.
Influence Mean
ISS % OSS % Total %
Taking trip in general/
Arizona as a primary destination
2.20 2.14 2.16
Specific attractions or destinations 2.53 2.53 2.53
Specific special events/festivals 1.96 1.99 1.97
Specific recreation/entertainment 2.06 2.03 2.04
A specific tour 1.65 1.85 1.76
Hiking/biking/horseback riding on a specific
1.52 1.66 1.61
Travel routes 2.11 2.18 2.14
Camping areas/facilities 1.55 1.50 1.53
Other accommodations 1.67 1.62 1.63
Specific shopping areas/facilities 1.68 1.71 1.70
Other 1.24 1.31 1.28
Scale: 1 = Not influential, 2 = Slightly influential, 3 = Moderately influential, 4 = Very
Table 45. Travel Decisions Made Directly Due to Magazine.
Response ISS % OSS % Total %
Yes 22.6 25.4 24.1
No 77.4 74.6 75.9
Day Visits by In-state Subscribers
The vast majority (77.8 percent) of ISS have taken day trips within Arizona in the past
year and have made 6.2 trips during the year on average (Tables 46 and 47). As with
overnight trip decisions, AHM was most influential in choosing specific attractions or
destinations, taking the trip in general, and selecting travel routes for day trips (Table 48).
More than 35 percent of in-state subscribers said that their travel decisions regarding their
most recent in-state trip were the direct result of information in AHM (Table 49). Specific
decisions that were made are listed in the Appendix. Average spending for day trips was
$106.00 per travel party.
Table 46. Day Visits by In-state Subscribers.
Response ISS%
Yes 77.8
No 22.2
Table 47. Number of Day Trips Taken by In-state Subscribers.
Number of trips Percentage
1 7.9
2 10.9
3 20.0
4 10.9
5 12.7
6 7.3
7-10 12.7
11 or more 17.6
Mean number of day trips (M) 6.16
Note: Outliers were removed from analysis.
Table 48. Extent of Influence of Magazine on Day Trip Decisions.
Level of influence (%)
Response Not (1) Slightly
Taking trip in general 24.1 18.2 36.9 20.7 2.54
Specific attractions/destinations 19.2 17.7 35.5 27.6 2.71
Specific special events/festivals 36.5 26.4 21.8 15.2 2.16
Specific recreation/
entertainment 41.3 22.4 22.4 13.8 2.09
Specific tour 58.7 19.4 13.8 8.2 1.71
Hiking/biking/horseback riding
on a specific trail 66.2 13.3 10.8 9.7 1.64
Travel routes 32.8 18.2 34.8 14.1 2.30
Specific shopping areas/facilities 59.9 20.8 14.7 4.6 1.64
Others 86.6 5.2 3.1 5.2 1.27
Table 49. Travel Decisions Made Directly Due to Magazine.
Response In-state %
Yes 35.5
No 64.5
Subscribers to AHM have favorable attitudes toward the publication. Most (almost 80
percent) are very or extremely certain they will re-subscribe, with ISS being more certain
they will do so. More than 94 percent report a very or extremely favorable impression of
the magazine, again with ISS having somewhat more favorable perceptions that OSS
(Tables 50 and 51).
Table 50. Willingness to Re-subscribe to Magazine.*
Response ISS % OSS % Total %
Not at all certain 1.9 3.1 2.7
Slightly certain 1.2 2.4 2.0
Moderately certain 13.7 19.6 16.8
Very certain 35.4 36.6 36.2
Extremely certain 47.8 38.2 42.4
*Statistically significantly different.
Table 51. Overall Impression of Magazine.*
Response ISS % OSS % Total %
Not at all favorable 0 0 0
Slightly favorable 0.9 1.0 1.0
Moderately favorable 1.9 6.8 4.8
Very favorable 47.5 49.4 48.5
Extremely favorable 49.7 42.9 45.7
*Statistically significantly different.
Influence of AHM Products
The group of product purchasers was asked several questions similar to those asked of
subscribers to begin to gain some understanding of the influence of AHM merchandise on
travel. Most of the product purchasers bought calendars, holiday items, travel guides, or
other books (Table 52). While the merchandise is not viewed as influential on travel
decisions and planning as the magazine, it did have some impact. A little over half of
respondents indicated the merchandise increased their interest in traveling in Arizona and
about 54 percent reported it was helpful as a source of travel information (Tables 53 and
54). A small percentage (10.9 percent) indicated the merchandise caused them to take the
trip while 9 percent indicated they stay an average of three extra days (Tables 55 and 56).
Six percent of respondents indicated they made specific travel choices based on the
merchandise (Table 57). The specific decisions that were made are listed in the
Table 52. Merchandise Purchase.
Merchandise PP %
Calendar 77.9
Other book 13.2
Holiday item 12.7
Travel guide 10.3
Scenic/coffee table book 9.3
Jewelry 6.9
Home decor 6.4
Other 5.9
Apparel/accessories 4.9
Food item 3.9
Stationery 2.9
Kitchen item 2.9
Outdoor decor 2.5
Game 0
Note: respondents were able to select more than one category
Table 53. Interest Levels toward Arizona as Result of Merchandise.
Response PP %
Not increased 31.8
Slightly increased 17.4
Moderately increased 32.3
Greatly increased 18.5
Table 54. Helpfulness Rating of Merchandise.
Response PP %
Not helpful 21.2
Slightly helpful 23.8
Moderately helpful 32.6
Very helpful 22.3
Table 55. Influence of Merchandise on Travel Plans.
Influence PP %
I decided to include Arizona in my travel plans 10.9
I planned for additional time in Arizona 9.1
Table 56. Extra Days Spent.
Days PP %
1 22.2
2 33.3
3 0
4 11.1
5 11.1
6 to 10 22.2
11 or more 0
Mean Extra Stay* (M) 3.00
* Note: Outliers were removed from analysis.
Table 57. Travel Decisions Made Directly Due to Merchandise.
Response Prod Subs %
Yes 6.0
No 94.0
AHM Costs vs. Revenue
Although AHM is housed within the Arizona Department of Transportation, it does not
receive state funding, serving instead as an Enterprise Fund organization. Currently, total
costs for the production of the magazine are about $3.0 million with a total budget of
about $5.3 million. Revenue, including subscriptions, newsstand sales, retail products,
and miscellaneous revenue, yields about $5.6 million. This results in net revenue of about
$300,000, indicating that AHM does somewhat better than breaking even. The next
section demonstrates the economic value-added of AHM as a stimulator of tourism.
Direct Economic Impact of All Subscribers
As part of the cost/benefit analysis of AHM, OSS were asked to indicate how much they
spent on their most recent trip to Arizona, and ISS respondents were asked how much
they spent on their most recent overnight trip within the state. Respondents answered this
question only if they had traveled in Arizona in the past year in order to reduce recall
error. In addition, ISS who took day trips in the state were asked to report the amount of
money they spent on their most recent in-state trip. Table 58 reports direct total average
expenditures of the 450 subscribers who answered the expenditure questions, while Table
52 reports direct daily average expenditures. Tests for statistically significant differences
among the three groups (OSS, ISS overnight visitors, and NS) indicate that total
expenditures differ, with ISS spending the least money on average, as would be expected.
A statistic called a t-test that looks for significant differences between means was used.
However, although the OSS and NS groups do not differ with respect to total spending,
there are some differences with respect to spending categories (Table 59). Using these
figures to project total direct economic impact for a one-year period of time, the total
annual direct impact can be estimated at $99,757,925 for OSS, $85,692,433 for overnight
trips among ISS, and $9,725,612 for ISS for day trips (Table 60). This is a conservative
estimate. The reported percentage of people visiting is factored down as previous
research has found those who actually visit are more likely to return their questionnaires
(Table 61).
Table 58. Total Average Economic Expenditures of Arizona Out-of-state Visitors
and In-state Overnight Visitors.
Expenditure Category
Visitors Who
Responded and
Noted Spending in
the Category %
Mean Expenditure
in Category $
Reported $
Lodging 68.9 275.14 123,814
Meals and food 92.6 234.81 105,193
Entertainment &
recreation 53.1 102.35 45,854
Shopping 63.7 149.37 67,066
Airfare 6.7 41.70 18,725
Other transportation
(including gas) 71.3 132.34 59,419
Other 26.5 48.51 21,782
TOTAL n/a 979.72 441,853
N=450; Uses mean total expenditures, per trip, per travel party; outliers have been
removed from analysis.
Table 59. Daily Average Economic Expenditures of Arizona Out-of-state Visitors
and In-state Overnight Visitors.
Expenditure Category
Visitors Who
Responded and
Noted Spending in
the Category %
Mean Expenditure
in Category $
Reported $
Lodging 68.3 56.56 25,000
Meals and food 92.5 46.34 20,390
Entertainment &
52.6 19.87 8,800
Shopping 63.3 24.98 11,091
Airfare 6.7 8.50 3,818
Other transportation
(including gas)
70.9 21.69 9,632
Other 26.3 6.06 2,715
TOTAL n/a 183.84 81,441
Table 60. Expenditure Differences Between Groups.
In-state $ Out-of-state $ Non-sub $
Expenditure Category Total Daily Total Daily Total Daily
Lodging* 234 74 293 37 291 51
Meals and food* 178 59 271 29 326 56
Entertainment &
77 28 128 11 165 28
Shopping* 85 29 207 21 228 38
Airfare* 2 0.2 65 11 119 18
Other transportation
(including gas)*
87 26 173 17 206 32
Other 20 7 92 7 39 4
*Statistically significantly different.
Table 61. Total Travel Direct Economic Impact of Subscribers.
Items Out-of-state
(day trips)
Number of subscribers (#) 166,176 94,859 94,859
Percent visiting-5 yrs. (reported and
conservative %) 78/68 81/76 78/73
Estimated visitors (#) 112,999 72,092 69,247
Average number of trips-5 yrs.
(conservative means) 3.63 8.74 6.16
Mean party expenditure/trip ($) 1,216 680 114
Estimated party 5-yr. expenditure ($) 4,414 5,943 702
Estimated total 5-year impact ($) 498,789,627 428,462,167 48,628,062
Estimated total 1-year impact ($) 99,757,925 85,692,433 9,725,612
Total subscriber annual direct
expenditures $195,175,971
Note: Outliers removed from all analysis; uses conservative numbers.
The next calculation that must be made is the amount of AHM subscribers' tourism
economic impact that can be attributed directly to the magazine. In the tourism industry a
very similar evaluation method is called a "conversion study." This kind of research
determines the extent to which tourism promotional efforts "convert" prospective tourists
into actual tourists. To gain this information, studies specifically ask respondents if the
information source of interest influenced their decisions to include the destination in their
travel plans or influenced them to plan for additional time at the destination. In the case
of AHM respondents, those that visited Arizona from out of state, and in-state overnight
visitors, were asked these same questions. As well, 25 percent of day visitors reported
AHM was moderately to very influential on their decisions to take their most recent trips.
Given the total economic impact of all AHM subscribers who visited Arizona, and the
percentages that indicate the magazine influenced them to visit, $88,548,950 of annual
direct expenditures can be directly attributed to the magazine, $41,503,727 of which can
be attributed to out-of-state visitors (Table 62). It is the expenditures from out-of-state
visitors that are considered the primary economic impact, or the net gain, to a state's
economy as this is "outside" money that is entering the state's economic system. The
argument is that money spent on in-state travel would still be spent in Arizona on
alternative products and services if the trip was not made. It is important to note,
however, that it is probable that at least some of this money would be lost to other states
via resident out-of-state travel or even out-of-country travel (e.g., Mexico) as an
alternative to an in-state trip. For example, the beaches of Puerto Peñasco, Mexico
(Rocky Point) are closer to many Arizonans than are northern Arizona destinations. It
should also be noted that in-state expenditures by state residents are important to many
Arizona communities. Much of the tourism market for rural Arizona communities is
comprised of residents from the Phoenix and Tucson metro areas and, as a result, rural
communities are quite reliant on in-state travel expenditures.
Table 62. Direct Economic Impact Attributed to AHM.
Items Out-of-state
(day trips)
Estimated number of visitors (#) 113,000 72,093 76,836
Percent influence by AHM (%) 29 43 25
Number influenced (#) 32,770 31,000 19,209
Average number of trips-5 yrs. (mean) 3.63 8.74 6.16
Average party expenditure/trip ($) 1,216 680 106
Estimated per party 5 yr. expenditure ($) 4,414 5,943 653
Expenditures due to AHM-5 yrs. ($) 144,648,992 184,238,732 12,542,709
Expenditures due to AHM-1 yr. ($) 28,929,798 36,847,746 2,508,542
Percent staying extra days (%) 26 18
Number influenced (#) 29,380 12,977
Average extra stay days (mean) 4.50 1.76
Average daily expenditure ($) 131 223
Added expenditures--1 trip ($) 17,319,461 5,093,100
Average number of trips-5 yrs. (mean) 3.63 7.50
Expenditures due to AHM-5 yrs. ($) 62,869,643 38,198,247
Expenditures due to AHM-1 yr. ($) 12,573,929 7,639,649
Annual expenditure ($) 41,503,727 44,487,396 2,557,827.00
Total annual expenditures due to AHM $88,548,950
The direct-spending figures for subscribers can be considered conservative numbers for
several reasons. First, for the expenditure calculations, the percentage of subscribers who
actually traveled to or within Arizona has been factored down, given that similar studies
have found that those who do take a trip in the study region are more likely to return
travel-related questionnaires than those who do not take a trip in the region. Second,
outliers for all calculations of mean length of a trip have been removed from analysis and
conservative averages have been used. As well, outliers for all calculations of mean
expenditures have been removed from analysis.
In addition to the conservative nature of the expenditure calculations, there are several
groups that may have been influenced to travel by the magazine but were not included in
the study. One important group that is not included in the study includes those individuals
to whom subscribers have given their magazines. More than three-quarters of both in-state
(over 126,000) and out-of-state (over 81,000 people) subscribers report they share
their magazines with other people. This suggests that thousands of people pass their
magazines along to others at least occasionally, representing a substantial number of
additional individuals who may be influenced to travel in Arizona by AHM. Another
group that is not included in the study is comprised of people who buy AHM from
newsstands, bookstores, or other retail outlets. There were 141,268 magazines on average
sold from retail outlets every month, largely in Arizona. This represents another large
number of people whose travel to and in Arizona may have been influenced by the
magazine. Finally, the mailing list used for the survey included only subscriptions for
individuals; corporate, library, and other such subscribers were not included in the list.
Additional individuals may have been influenced by the magazine by reading it via these
alternative outlets.
In sum, the minimum direct tourism expenditures from visitors who do not live in
Arizona, and that can be considered a direct result of AHM, amount to just over
$41,500,000 annually. Given the annual budget of AHM (about $5.3 million) versus
direct expenditures due to travel by out-of-state visitors, the minimum benefit/cost ratio
of the magazine is 7.8:1; in other words, for every dollar spent on AHM, at least $7.8
enter Arizona's economy.
Arizona Highways Magazine clearly has a substantial impact on tourism to and within
Arizona. A considerable percentage of both in-state and out-of-state subscribers are
influenced to travel in Arizona due directly to AHM. Another group of subscribers are
influenced to increase the length of their trips based on magazine content. Tourists make
a variety of choices based on what they see and read in the magazine, with the
photographs and scenic drive section being particularly influential on travel. AHM is also
perceived as being very helpful with making travel decisions. The magazine is most often
used to help select specific attractions or destinations, to select Arizona as a travel
destination in general, and to determine travel routes.
In addition to use of the magazine in the short term to assist with travel decisions, most
subscribers keep AHM to use at a later time for travel planning, and most share their
magazines with others. Thus the magazine continues to influence travel over time. As
well, even non-subscribers are reasonably familiar with the magazine, with 47 percent of
the non-subscribers reporting awareness of AHM. This is a high awareness level, even for
a tourist population with an interest in Arizona as a destination. There is some likelihood
that these individuals have seen the magazine, have been given copies of the magazine,
have friends or family in Arizona who are subscribers, or were even subscribers
themselves in the past.
AHM subscribers who travel in Arizona differ in a number of ways from other travelers
in the state. Some of the more noteworthy differences between OSS and NS include a
substantially higher average number of visits for OSS than other travelers with an interest
in Arizona and a longer length of stay when visiting among OSS. It must also be noted,
however, that subscribers differ from non-subscribers in ways that tend to not be viewed
as economically beneficial within the tourism industry: they do not spend more money on
average than other travelers, are more likely to stay in a private homes than paid
accommodations than other travelers (probably with friends or family), and are more
likely to visit Arizona primarily to visit friends and family than are others.
The extent to which AHM stimulates travel by state residents is also worthy of comment.
Although the ideal is to have tourists visit from out of state, thereby bringing "new"
money into Arizona, it is also important to keep residents' money at home rather than
having it spent in other states or abroad. As well, many of Arizona's rural communities
are dependent on visitors from the Phoenix and Tucson markets, and certainly AHM
induces travel to these communities when they are featured in the magazine.
Nearly all travelers to Arizona, including AHM subscribers, drive a vehicle in the state
whether it is their own, a rental, or one borrowed from a resident, or they ride in an
acquaintance's vehicle while visiting Arizona. Clearly, tourists are users of the state's
highways facilities. Arizona Highways Magazine subscribers constituted almost 262,000
visitors to and within the state over a five-year period, most of whom took more than one
trip. This resulted in well over 1.5 million person-trips during the five-year period, nearly
all of which included use of state highways and roads. When asked whether they had any
transportation needs that were not met, the primary issue was the closure of rest stops due
to budget cuts.
Arizona Highways Magazine subscribers have spent an average of over $195.2 million
annually over the past five years, and $41.5 million of those expenditures can be directly
attributed to AHM and its influence on the travel behavior of out-of-state subscribers.
This amounts to a benefit/cost ratio 7.8 to 1 at the very least.
Andereck, K.L. 2003. "Evaluation of a Visitor Brochure for an Emerging Destination."
Proceedings of the 2002 Travel and Tourism Research Association Conference.
St. Louis, MO: Travel and Tourism Research Association.
Andereck, K.L. and L.L. Caldwell. 1993. "The Influence of Tourists' Characteristics on
Ratings of Information Sources for an Attraction." Journal of Travel and Tourism
Marketing 2: 171-190.
Andereck, K.L., R.C. Knopf, and C.A. Vogt. 2003. "Arizona Office of Tourism
Marketing Conversion Study Final Report FYs 2001/2003." Unpublished report for
the Arizona Office of Tourism, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ.
Andereck, K.L. and E. Ng. .2005 Arizona Highways Magazine's Impact on Tourism.
FHWA AZ 05 568. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Department of Transportation.
Andereck, K.L., C.A. Vogt, and D. LeClerc. 2003. Arizona Welcome Center Study.
Unpublished report for the Arizona Office of Tourism, Arizona State University,
Phoenix, AZ.
Anderson, R.D., J.L. Engledow, and H. Becker. 1979. "Evaluating the Relationships
among Attitude Toward Business, Product Satisfaction, Experience, and Search
Effort." Journal of Marketing Research 16: 394-400.
Arizona Office of Tourism. 2009a. Arizona 2008 Tourism Facts. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona
Office of Tourism.
Arizona Office of Tourism. 2009b. 2008 Arizona Visitor Profile. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona
Office of Tourism.
Arnould, E.J. and L.L. Price. 1993. "River Magic: Extraordinary Experience and the
Extended Service Encounter." Journal of Consumer Research 20: 24-45.
Baloglu, S. and K.W. McCleary. 1999. "A Model of Destination Image Formation."
Annals of Tourism Research 26: 868-897.
Berkman, H.W. and C. Gilson. 1986. Consumer Behavior: Concepts and Strategies. 3rd
ed. Boston: Kent Publishing Co.
Bloch, P.H., D.L. Sherrell, and N.M. Ridgway. 1986. "Consumer Search: An Extended
Framework." Journal of Consumer Research 13: 199-126.
Bonn, M.A., H. L. Furr, and A.M. Susskind. 1999. "Predicting a Behavioral Profile for
Pleasure Travelers on the Basis of Internet Use Segmentation." Journal of Travel
Research 37: 333-340.
Burke, J. and R. Gitelson. 1990. "Conversion Studies: Assumptions, Accuracy, and
Abuse." Journal of Travel Research 28(3): 46-51.
Burke, J. and L.A. Lindblom. 1989. "Strategies for Evaluating Direct Response Tourism
Marketing." Journal of Travel Research 28(2): 33-37.
Capella, L.M. and A.J. Greco. 1987. "Information Sources of Elderly for Vacation
Decisions." Annals of Tourism Research 14: 148-151.
Cheyne, J., M. Downes, and S. Legg. 2006. "Travel Agent vs Internet: What Influences
Travel Consumer Choices?" Journal of Vacation Marketing 12: 41-57.
Cohen, E. 1972. "Toward a Sociology of International Tourism." Social Research 39:
Crompton, J.L. 1979. "Motivations for Pleasure Vacations." Annals of Tourism Research
Dann, G.M.S. 1981. "Tourist Motivation: An Appraisal." Annals of Tourism Research 8:
Dey, B. and M.K. Sarma. 2010. "Information Source Usage among Motive-Based
Segments of Travelers to Newly Emerging Tourist Destinations." Tourism
Management 31: 341-344.
Dillman. D. A. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. 2nd
Edition. New York: John Wiley Co.
Ellerbrock, M. 1981. "Improving Coupon Conversion Studies: A Comment." Journal of
Travel Research 19(4): 37-38.
Engel, J.F., M.R. Warshaw, and T.C. Kinnear. 1991. Promotional Strategy. 7th ed.
Boston: Irwin.
Engel, J., D. Kollat, and R. Blackwell. 1973. Consumer Behavior. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden
Etzel, M.J. and R.G. Wahlers. 1985. "The Use of Requested Promotional Material by
Pleasure Travelers." Journal of Travel Research 23(4): 2-6.
Fodness, D. and B.M. Murray. 1999. "A Model of Tourist Information Search Behavior."
Journal of Travel Research 37: 220-230.
Fodness, D. and B. Murray. 1998. "A Typology of Tourism Information Search
Strategies." Journal of Travel Research 37: 108-119.
Fodness, D. and B. Murray. 1997. "Tourism Information Search." Annals of Tourism
Research 24: 503-523.
Garretson, J.A., K.E. Clow, and D.L. Kurtz. 1995. "Risk Reduction Strategies used by
Leisure Travelers in the New-buy Hotel Selection Purchase Situation." Journal of
Hospitality and Leisure Marketing 3(3): 35-53.
Gitelson, R.J. and J. Crompton. 1983. "The Planning Horizon and Sources of Information
used by Leisure Travelers." Journal of Travel Research 23: 2-6.
Gitelson, R.J. and R.R. Perdue. 1987. "Evaluating the Role of State Welcome Centers in
Disseminating Travel Related Information in North Carolina." Journal of Travel
Research 25: 15-19.
Gronflaten, O. 2009. "Predicting Travelers' Choice of Information Sources and
Information Channels." Journal of Travel Research 48: 230-244.
Henshall, B.D., R. Roberts, and A. Leighton. 1985. "Fly-drive Tourists: Motivation and
Destination Choice Factors." Journal of Travel Research 23: 23-27
Hirschman, E.C. and M. Wallendorf. 1982. "Motives Underlying Marketing Information
Acquisition and Knowledge Transfer." Journal of Advertising 11: 25-31.
Hsieh, S. and J. O'Leary. 1993. "Communication Channels to Segment Pleasure
Travelers." Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 2: 57-76.
Hyde, K.F. 2006. "Contemporary Information Search Strategies of Destination-Naïve
International Vacationers." Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 21, 63-76.
Jackson, M.S., G.N. White, and C.L. Schmierer. 1996. "Tourism Experiences within an
Attributional Framework." Annals of Tourism Research 23(4): 798-810.
Jun, S.H., C.A. Vogt, and K.J. MacKay. 2007. "Relationships between Travel
Information Search and Travel Product Purchase in Pretrip Contexts." Journal of
Travel Research 45(3): 266-274.
Kendall, K.W. and B.H. Booms. 1989. "Consumer Perceptions of Travel Agencies:
Communications, Images, Needs and Expectations." Journal of Travel Research
27(4): 29-37.
Kim, D.Y., Y.H. Hwang, and D.R. Fesenmaier. 2005. "Modeling Tourism Advertising
Effectiveness." Journal of Travel Research 44: 42-49.
Lee, W., U. Gretzel, and R. Law. 2010. "Quasi-trial Experiences through Sensory
Information on Destination Web Sites." Journal of Travel Research 49: 310-322.
Li, X., B. Pan, L. Zhang, and W.W. Smith. 2009. "The Effect of Online Information
Search on Image Development." Journal of Travel Research 48: 45-57.
Martín, H.S. and I.A. Rodriquez del Bosque. 2008. "Exploring the Cognitive-Affective
Nature of Destination Image and the Role of Psychological Factors in its
Formation." Tourism Management 29: 263-277.
McLemore, C. and N. Mitchell. 2000. "The 1999 Arkansas Internet Conversion Study."
Newsletter of the Travel and Tourism Research Association Spring: 4-5.
Moutinho, L. 1987. "Consumer Behavior in Tourism." European Journal of Marketing
21: 6-11.
Murray, K.B. 1991. "A Test of Services Marketing Theory: Consumer Information
Acquisition Activities." Journal of Marketing 55: 10-25.
Newman, J.W. 1977. "Consumer External Search: Amounts and Determinants." In
Consumer and Industrial Buying Behavior, ed. A. Woodside, J. Sheth and P.
Bennett, 79-94. New York: North Holland.
Nishimura, S., R. Waryszak, and B. King. 2007. "The Use of Guidebooks by Japanese
Overseas Tourists: A Quantitative Approach." Journal of Travel Research 45:
Nolan, S.D. 1976. "Tourists' Use and Evaluation of Travel Information Sources:
Summary and Conclusions." Journal of Travel Research 14: 6-8.
Pan, B. and D.R. Fesenmaier. 2006. "Online Information Search: Vacation Planning
Process." Annals of Tourism Research 33: 809-832.
Pearce, D.G., L. Reid, and C. Schott. 2009. "Travel Arrangements and the Distribution
Behaviour of New Zealand Outbound Travelers." Journal of Travel and Tourism
Marketing 26: 80-97.
Pearce, P.L. and M. Kang. 2009. "The Effects of Prior and Recent Experience on
Continuing Interest in Tourist Settings." Annals of Tourism Research 36(2): 172-
Perdue, R.R. 1985. "Segmenting State Travel Information Inquiries by Timing of the
Destination Decision and Previous Experience." Journal of Travel Research 23
(3): 6-11.
Petrick, J., X. Li, and S. Park. 2007. "Cruise Passengers' Decision-Making Processes."
Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 23: 1-14.
Pocock, D. 1992. "Catherine Cookson Country: Tourist Expectation and Experience."
Geography 77: 236-243.
Pratt, S., S. McCabe, I. Cortes-Jimenez, and A. Blake. 2010 "Measuring the
Effectiveness of Destination Marketing Campaigns: Comparative Analysis of
Conversion Studies." Journal of Travel Research 49: 179-190.
Punj, G.N. and R. Staelin. 1983. "A Model of Consumer Information Search Behavior for
New Automobiles." Journal of Consumer Research 9: 366-380.
Raitz, K. and M. Dakhil. 1988. "Recreational Choices and Environmental Preferences."
Annals of Tourism Research 15: 357-370.
Rao, S.R., E.G. Thomas, and R.G. Javalgi. 1992. "Activity Preferences and Trip Planning
Behavior of the U.S. Outbound Pleasure Travel Market." Journal of Travel
Research 30: 3-12.
Reid, L.J., S.L.J. Smith, and R. McCloskey. 2008. "The Effectiveness of Regional
Marketing Alliances: A Case Study of the Atlantic Canada Tourism Partnership
2000-2006." Tourism Management 29: 581-593.
Roehl, W. and D. Fesenmaier. 1992. "Risk Perceptions and Pleasure Travel: An
Exploratory Analysis." Journal of Travel Research 30(4): 17-26.
Robertson, T.S., J. Zielinski, and S. Wa
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.