Michigan State University Extension
Tourism Educational Materials - 33701999
06/06/02
Communication and Marketing Practices of Minnesota Convention and Visitor Bureaus
Source: Minnesota
ID: CD-FO-3842
Format: Full Text
Author: Christine A. Vogt
Year: 1989
"Archived Document: This Extension Bulletin is no longer
available from the publishing state and may contain
outdated information."
Tourism Center
Minnesota Extension Service
University of Minnesota
Introduction
This report examines the communication and marketing
practices of convention and visitor bureaus (CVBs) in
Minnesota. CVBs are private, nonprofit organizations that
promote tourism in the community and provide services to
the tourism industry. In Minnesota, 24 CVBs have been
established for communities such as Minneapolis, Duluth,
New Ulm, and Marshall.
CVBs are responsible for developing an image that will
attract conventions, business meetings, and tourists to
their geographic area. Thus, the CVB's role in
communication and marketing can influence the success of a
community's hospitality industry.
How do Minnesota CVBs fulfill their communication and
marketing function? What techniques do they use and how do
CVBs measure their effectiveness? To obtain answers to
these and related questions, a survey of Minnesota CVBs
was conducted in the spring of 1989, funded by the Tourism
Center of the University of Minnesota. A description of
study methods appears at the end of this report.
Budget and Orientation
The marketing methods that each CVB employs are determined
by their budgets and chosen orientation towards attracting
tourism or marketing for convention business. In
Minnesota, CVBs can be classified into four categories
based on their budgets and orientation: (1)
tourism-oriented and budget greater than $200,000, (2)
tourism oriented and budget equal to or less than
$200,000, (3) convention-oriented and budget greater than
$200,000, and (4) convention-oriented and budget equal to
or less than $200,000 (Table 1).
The total budget of the 19 CVBs taking part in the survey
is $6 million. Budget data was not available from five
CVBs. The six metro area CVBs (Minneapolis, St. Paul,
Bloomington, North Metro, Bursville, and Shakopee) account
for $3.8 million, or 63 percent, of the total CVB budgets.
The 19 reporting CVBs employ 76 full-time professional
employees and 65 part-time employees.
TABLE 1. CVBs by category (orientation and budget)
_____________________________
Tourism orientation*
_____________________________
$200,000+ Less than $200,000
budget budget
Duluth Burnsville
Rochester Brainerd
North Metro Shakopee
Albert Lea
Alexandria
New Ulm
Northfield
____________________________
Convention orientation*
____________________________
$200,000+ Less than $200,000
budget budget
Minneapolis Mankato
St. Paul Marshall
Bloomington Owatonna
Fargo
St. Cloud
_______________________
*50% or more of CVB's resources (time and money)
Communications Plans
Nine respondents have a formalized communications plan
that includes market analysis, product and service
reviews, strategies, and evaluations; these plans are in a
report format. The CVBs that do not have a communications
plan include two large metro CVBs, five small to medium
size tourism-oriented CVBs, and one convention-oriented
CVB. Of the CVBs with a communications plan, two review
their plan quarterly, three semi-annually, and four
annually. Ten CVBs frequently measure a marketing
program's effectiveness and performance with original
objectives, and six report that they do so sometimes.
Thirteen CVBs indicate that they would like additional
types of communications in their program, such as video,
slide show, computerizing the office, hotel feedback,
telemarketing, imaging, advertising in periodicals,
personal selling of meeting space to businesses, and WATS
lines. Of these 13 CVBs, nine cite money as the factor
keeping them from incorporating the idea into their
program. Other factors include disapproval from CVB
advisory board, lack of cooperation from hotels due to the
competitive nature of the hotel business, shortage of
staff, and personnel limitations.
Fourteen CVBs report that there is an audience they would
like to communicate with more often or more effectively.
Audiences mentioned include the local industry on the
value of tourism business, tourists, business travelers,
group tours, sports industry, a broader reach in general,
people with disabilities, and people interested in
history. Six of these 14 respondents state that money is
preventing them from communicating with the audience along
with limited time and staff and lack of experience in
acquiring contacts.
Marketing Methods
Marketing methods include advertising, public relations,
promotion, and personal selling. Examples of advertising
are brochures, toll-free numbers, and magazine ads. Public
relations techniques include news releases, open houses,
and speeches. Examples of promotions are festivals and
contests. Personal selling includes telemarketing, bid
presentations, sales letters, and trade fairs.
These four marketing methods were ranked by the CVB
executive directors on the characteristics of importance,
expense, time, and effectiveness for both tourism and
convention business. The ranking was on a scale of 1 to 4,
with 1 = most and 4 = least. Within a response, the CVBs
were grouped according to orientation (tourism or
convention) and budget size.
TABLE 2. CVBs' opinions about tourism marketing methods
________________________________________________
Characteristic Most Least
________________________________________________
Importance Advertising Public relations
Personal selling* Personal selling**
Expense Advertising Public relations
Promotions Personal selling
Time Advertising** Advertising***
Promotions Personal selling**
Personal selling*
Effectiveness Promotions Personal selling
Advertising** Advertising*
Public relations* Public relations**
_____________________________________________
*Convention-oriented CVBs
** Tourism-oriented CVBs
***Convention-oriented CVBs, budget more than $200,000
Table 2 outlines the ranking by 16 CVBs of tourism
marketing methods. Twelve (75%) of these CVBs consider
advertising to be the most important tourism marketing
method and also the most expensive. Public relations is
considered as the least important by 14 CVBs, with 12 CVBs
spending the least amount of marketing dollars on public
relations. More than half of the CVBs report that they
spend the most amount of time on promotion and the least
amount of time on selling.
Twelve CVBs responded to questions about marketing methods
they applied to convention sales (Table 3). Advertising is
considered by 10 CVBs to be the least important marketing
method for conventions. Ten CVBs also consider advertising
to be the least effective marketing method for convention
business. Advertising requires the least amount of time
for all 12 of CVBs responding. Eight of 12 CVBs spend most
marketing dollars on promotions and the least on public
relations. Personal selling ranked as most important
marketing method by 11 CVBs, most effective (9 CVBs), and
most time-consuming (10 CVBs).
TABLE 3. CVBs' opinions about convention marketing methods
____________________________________________________
Characteristic Most Least
_____________________________________________________
Importance Personal selling Advertising
Promotions
Expense Promotions Public relations
Advertising* Advertising**
Personal selling** Personal selling*
Time Personal selling Advertising
Public relations Promotions**
Effectiveness Personal selling Advertising
Promotions* Promotions**
_____________________________________________
* Budget less than $200,000
** Budget more than $200,000
The data regarding ranking of marketing methods were
analyzed to summarize the strongest rating (most and
least) for each marketing method in the categories of
importance, expense, time, and effectiveness, both for
touristm-oriented and for convention-oriented CVBs. Table
4 shows the marketing methods that received the highest
score for each characteristic.
For tourism-oriented CVBs, promotions received the highest
scores in two positive categories: least time and most
effective. Selling received the highest scores in two
negative categories: most time and least effective.
For convention-oriented CVBs, selling received the highest
scores in two positive categories: most important and most
effective, and one negative category: most time.
Advertising received the highest score in two negative
categories: least important and least effective, and one
positive category: least time.
Promotional Mix
Promotional mix is the use of the various marketing
methods-advertising, public relations, promotions, and
personal selling-to communicate to selected target
markets. Sixteen CVBs responded to questions regarding
promotional mix.
Advertising is used by 13 of the responding
CVBs to attract family vacationers; advertising methods
used include brochures, billboards, newspaper ads, and
direct mail. Only one CVB uses advertising to reach
businesses that are not CVB members.
Promotions---festivals, coupons, excursion packages, and
contests---are also used by 11 CVBs to market to family
vacationers. Nine CVBs use promotions to attract bus tour
operators. Door prizes, merchandise, and shows are
promotional techniques used for bus tour operators. One
CVB provides packages to the Minnesota Office of Tourism
as a promotional technique.
Eight CVBs use public relations to communicate to the
chamber of commerce. Public relations techniques used
include news releases, open houses, speeches, lunches,
newsletters, and annual banquets. None of the CVBs uses
public relations for the business traveler target market.
Personal selling is used by nine CVBs for two target
audiences: bus tour operators and travel agents. Trade
fairs are the selling method used on bus tour operators
while trade fairs, phone calls, and letters are selling
methods used for marketing to travel agents. Personal
selling is used by four CVBs to market to the chamber of
commerce. These selling techniques include face-to-face
meetings, direct mail, letters, and phone calls.
TABLE 4. Summary of CVBs opinions about marketing methods
____________________________________________________
Tourism orientation Convention orientation
____________________________________________________
Positive Factors
Most important Advertising Selling
Least expense Public relations Public relations
Least time Promotions Advertising
Most effective Promotions Selling
Negative Factors
Least important Public relations Advertising
Most expense Advertising Promotions
Most time Selling Selling
Least effective Selling Advertising
____________________________________________________
Technology
Seventeen CVBs responded to questions about communications
technology used in daily operations or as a marketing
technique. Communications technology includes computers,
fax machines, videotapes, VCRs, satellites, cable
television, and phone systems. Twelve of the 17 CVBs have
an IBM or IBM-compatible computer; ne CVB uses another
model. All 12 CVBs use the computer for word processing
and mailing labels. Other uses are: desktop publishing
(6), on-line data bases (6), and newsletters or bulletins
to members (4). Four CVBs lease or own a fax machine.
Videotapes have been produced by 12 of the CVBs or by an
individual business in the CVB's membership. Ten CVBs have
a VCR located in their office. None of the CVBs has
produced or received a program on satellite and only one
has used cable television.
Four CVBs are using phone systems purchased before 1985,
and, of these, three are considering buying a new phone
system. Features desired in a new phone system include
more line capability, minimal servicing, centralized
switchboard, more outside lines, intercom, and call alert.
Evaluation
Measurement tools that track effectiveness of CVB
marketing efforts to the local community were analyzed.
Seven CVBs use a formal feedback mechanism to collect
comments from visitors and conventioneers. Examples of
data collection methods are hotel room questionnaires,
post convention and group tour evaluations, personal
follow-up phone calls, greeter programs, visitor surveys
by the CVB and attractions in the area, and the use of
hotel management college students to check convention
service performance. Two additional practices were
mentioned: "keeping an ear to the ground" to listen to
visitors, service employees, and resident responses; and a
program entitled the "Mystery Shopper." In the "Mystery
Shopper" program, the CVB staff from another town visits a
destination for a day and then rates the service levels
for the hosting CVB.
Thirteen CVBs sometimes receive comments other than formal
feedback from visitors and conventioneers in the form of
letters and phone calls, while four report that they
receive comments frequently.
The CVBs were asked if visitor comments have influenced
the development of programs and services by the CVB. The
responses were evenly split with eight CVBs
responding "yes" and eight CVBs responding "no." The CVBs
responding "yes" listed the following areas where comments
have influenced the CVB's programs: service itineraries,
promotional literature, advertising campaigns, extended
greeter programs, and the Canadian exchange rate offered
by local businesses.
Another evaluation method is to count the number of
visitors and conventioneers visiting an area. Twelve
Minnesota CVBs measure or estimate the number of people
traveling to their area. Methods for counting tourism
visitors include: comment box in visitor center,
attraction counts, data from state government departments,
lodging tax, airline counts, bus group counts, shopping
center out-of-town licenses, inquiry tracking systems, and
surveys. Methods for counting conventioneers are hotel
records, convention registration slips, and
post-convention evaluations.
Summary
Minnesota CVBs employ advertising, public relations,
promotions, and personal selling to establish and
communicate a community's image and services to target
markets. Examples of advertising used by Minnesota CVBs
are brochures, print ads, and billboards. Public relations
techniques used include news releases, open houses,
speeches, lunches, newsletters, and annual banquets.
Examples of promotions are festivals, special events,
excursion packaging, coupons, and merchandise. Personal
selling includes activities such as telemarketing, sales
letters, and trade fairs.
For tourism marketing, promotions and advertising received
the best rank from Minnesota CVBs, based on the
characteristics of importance, expense, time, and
effectiveness. Personal selling was ranked as the best
method for convention marketing.
Some communication technologies, for example, word
processing, videotapes, and updated phone systems, are
presently used by CVBs to assist with the preparation of
communication pieces or in the actual sending of a
message, but the newest technologies, such as cable
television or fax machines, are used infrequently.
Measurement of CVB activities is a challenge. The number
of visitors and the economic impact of their visits are
common measurement objectives, but are very difficult to
track because of the variety of places from which a
visitor will embark or at which he or she will spend
money. CVBs must look beyond quantitative measurements to
evaluate their impact and must focus on such qualitative
measurements as service levels.
References
Gartrell, Richard B. 1988. Destination marketing for
convention and visitor bureaus. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall
Hunt.
Nichols, Don. 1987. "CVBs: allies in your corner,"
Corporate Meetings and Incentives. (Oct.): 77-81.
Ritchie, J.R. Brent and Charles R. Goeldner. 1987. Travel,
tourism, and hospitality research. New Yor: John Wiley and
Sons.
U.S. Travel and Data Center. 1987-88. Survey of state
travel offices.
Methodology
Following secondary research at the Minnesota Office of
Tourism and the University of Minnesota, a questionnaire
was developed to gather information on communication and
marketing practices of Minnesota CVBs. The questionnaire
covered four topics: general marketing, promotional mix
for selected target markets, communications technology,
and evaluation.
In March, 1989, the questionnaire was sent to all 24 CVBs
in Minnesota. After follow-up phone calls and personal
interviews, 19 questionnaires were completed, for a
response rate of 79 percent.
The questionnaire data were used to classify the CVBs into
four categories based on their budgets and chosen
orientation (i.e., tourism or convention). These
classifications were used to analyze whether like CVBs
market in similar ways.
Additional details, original data, and a full report of
the study are available from the Tourism Center.
This study was funded by the Tourism Center, University of
Minnesota.
Author: Christine A. Vogt, Graduate Student, Business
Administration, College of St. Thomas, St. Paul, MN
Advisors: John Sem, Director, Tourism Center
Barbara Koth, Assistant Extension Specialist, Tourism
Development
Editor: Louise Jones
Tourism Center, 48 McNeal Hall, 1985 Buford Ave.,
University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108; John Sem,
Director
Copyright 1989 by Minnesota Extension Service, University
of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Research. New York:
John Wiley and Sons.
MINNESOTA EXTENSION SERVICE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
Issued in furtherance of cooperative extension work in
agriculture and home economics, acts of May 8 and June 30,
1914, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Patrick J. Borich, Dean and Director of
Minnesota Extension Service, University of Minnesota, St.
Paul, Minnesota 55108.
The University of Minnesota, including the Minnesota
Extension Service, is committed to the policy that all
persons shall have equal access to its programs.
facilities, and employment without regard to race.
religion, color, sex, national origin, handicap, age,
veteran status, or sexual orientation.
This information is for educational purposes only. References
to commercial products or trade names does not imply
endorsement by MSU Extension or bias against those not
mentioned. This information becomes public property upon
publication and may be printed verbatim with credit to MSU
Extension. Reprinting cannot be used to endorse or advertise
a commercial product or company.
This file was generated from data base TD on 09/30/03.
Data base TD was last revised on 06/06/02.
For more information about this data base or its contents please contact
alexande@msue.msu.edu . Please read our
disclaimer for important
information about using our site.