Assessing and Influencing Repeat Visits to Visitor Attractions

Tourism and Hospitality Consultancy

The Anchor Group

Fotios Ntagiantas

Justin Poliah

Alexandra Grace Longden

Alesia Martishonak

Anastasia Prodan

Laura-lye Samba

December 2015

Word Count: 5,740

Page | 1

Table of Contents

Executive Summary Page 2 1. Project Background Page 4 1.1 Context Page 4 1.2 Significance & Scope of Repeat Visitation Page 4 1.3 Objectives Page 6 2. Research Method Page 6 2.1 Survey Page 6 2.2 Interview Page 8 3. Project Findings Page 8 3.1 Visitor Profile Page 8 3.2 Repeat Visitation Page 9 3.3 Propensity to Revisit Page 10 3.4 Factors Influencing Propensity to Revisit Page 12 4. Recommendations & Conclusion Page 14 4.1 Visitor Surveys Page 14 4.2 Repeat Visitation Model Page 14 4.3 Effective Ways to Stimulate Repeat Visits Page 15 4.4 Fourth Street Benefits Page 16 5. Reference List Page 17 6. Appendices Page 18

List of Tables

Table 1: Information Needs Page 6

List of Figures

Graph 1: Survey Sample by Market Segments Page 9 Graph 2: Repeat Visitation by Market Segment Page 9 Graph 3: Elapsed Time by Market Segment Page 10 Graph 4: Propensity to Revisit by Type of Visitor Page 10 Graph 5: Propensity to Revisit by Elapsed Time Page 11 Graph 6: Repeat Visitation Factors by Market Segment Page 12

Page | 2

Executive Summary

The purpose of this project is to provide insight into the subject of repeat visitation. Undertaken in

fulfilment of our Hospitality and Tourism module for Fourth Street, it first highlights the significance

or repeat visitation for visitor attractions, especially for mature ones that depend on local visitors,

and sets the objectives as following:

1) To provide a better understanding of the relationship between repeat visitation and visitor

performance.

2) To show how a person’s propensity to visit changes once they have visited an attraction, i.e.

all other things being equal, how much time has to pass before that person may once again

be realistically considered a potential visitor and thus a part of the attraction’s effective

market.

3) Based on this understanding, to suggest practical improvements in the way that visitor

projections for new attractions are constructed.

4) To provide recommendations for driving up repeat visits to established attractions.

To meet these objectives, a survey was carried out on the premises of the Old Royal Naval College

(ORNC), an established heritage attraction in London, Greenwich aiming to capture visitors’

behavioural patterns. An interview with the management team of the attraction also took place and

gave us insight into the ORNC’s background. A sample of 111 respondents was then analysed with

the aid of QuestionPro.

Three main market segments were identified during the analysis, each with distinctive behavioural

patterns in terms of repeat visitation: Day visitors (residents), UK tourists, and international tourists.

The main findings are outlined as following:

1) Repeat Visitation

45% repeat visitors were recorded, more than half of them residents.

3 out of 4 residents had visited before but significantly fewer UK and international tourists

(34% and 14% respectively).

38% of residents who had visited before indicated this was their 2nd time within the last 6

months, while a further 31% their 2nd visit within the last 1-2 years. The elapsed time for UK

tourists quite varied (between the last 0-6 months to more than 6 years), while for the

overwhelming majority of international tourists was more than 6 years.

2) Propensity to Revisit

32% of respondents expressed strong intention to revisit within 1 year. When asked about

the possibility to revisit within the next 2-3 years, the figure rose to 53%.

In each case the percentages were quite higher among repeat visitors compared to 1st time

visitors.

It was observed that those visitors with shorter elapsed time since their last visit seemed to

be also the ones more likely to return within the next 12 months or 2 -3 years.

It was estimated that roughly one third of the residents’ sample seemed to visit the attraction

at least 2 times per year.

Page | 3

3) Factors that Influence Propensity to Revisit

Nearly 3 out of 4 UK residents claimed that free entry is vital in their decision of returning

whereas around half of international tourists felt the same.

The majority of London residents suggested that proximity is a key factor in repeating a visit,

while only one third of UK tourists and around one fifth of international tourists deemed

proximity to their place of stay important.

Spending time with family/friends proved quite a popular factor with all market segments.

Overall, 62% of respondents ranked it high.

The possibility of new exhibitions and events was also considered a key factor by many

respondents, albeit in smaller proportions.

The project’s recommendations are fourfold. In terms of:

1) how surveys should be adapted to accurately capture repeat visits, specific questions should be

included to:

Specify the elapsed time since the last visit

Identify the time gap needed before a respondent may return, and assess the strength of

intention to repeat a visit

Evaluate the dynamics of different factors that can influence repeat visitation

2) how this information can be used to accurately forecast repeat visits, a repeat visitation model is

proposed that takes into account:

The overall market size and the rate at which it changes

The visitor’s propensity to visit within a year by each market segment

The rate at which an attraction changes over time

Realistic rates of repeat visitation

3) the most effective ways to stimulate repeat visits, the following are advised:

Implementation of advanced technological equipment

Construction of retail facilities on site

Renewal of the events schedule on a frequent basis

Investment in new exhibits or accommodating temporary ones (e.g. seasonal exhibits)

Development of a multidimensional marketing campaign including but not limited to website

enhancement, social media presence, and public promotion

4) how Fourth Street could best use this research going forward, we believe they can:

Provide their clients with some understanding of how a visitor’s propensity to visit changes

once they have visited an attraction

Advise clients on ways to drive up repeat visits to established attractions

Further develop our repeat visitation model

Compare the metrics proposed by our group in this model with their industry knowledge and

adjust them to further test the validity of their hypothesis that the effective market is

constantly shrinking

Integrate the repeat visitation model into their forecast model so that they can provide more

accurate forecasts of visitor numbers for established attractions

Page | 4

1. Project Background

1.1 Context

This project is concerned with the subject of repeat visitation. It was undertaken in fulfilment of our

Hospitality and Tourism module for Fourth Street, a management consultancy company that

specialises in strategic advice and business planning for unique and unusual destinations.

Over the years, Fourth Street has noticed that many visitor attractions, particularly new ones, often

over-estimate the anticipated rate of repeat visitation. A new attraction may open strongly due to its

novelty and the publicity surrounding its launch but Year 2 will see a significant drop as this launch

effect wears off. According to the conventional wisdom, visitor numbers will then gradually rise as

the attraction establishes itself in the market and naturally stabilise. In contrast, Fourth Street has

noticed that visitor numbers fall steeply in subsequent years before they stabilise at a much lower

position than when the attraction opened.

The company’s hypothesis to explain this trend is that the effective market in which the attraction

operates is constantly shrinking as a result of the repeat visitor factor being lower than anticipated.

According to this hypothesis, the market is not static and its size is affected by the attraction itself.

1.2 Significance & Scope of Repeat Visitation

Significance

Repeat visits are generally regarded as an important element to visitor attractions. As Oppermann

(2000) states, return visits are a testament to an attraction’s success because a return is a positive

indicator of one’s satisfaction, which is the ultimate goal of any attraction. As Ryan (1995) suggests,

repeat visitors can play a significant role in the performance of an attraction because they can work

as a reference group and influence others to visit. According to Black (2005), the significance of

repeat visitors is even more apparent for mature attractions in non-tourist areas, as they depend

heavily on local residents. For them, attracting visitors back is the only way to combat low rates of

attendance. Equally, in terms of a site’s role within local communities, the percentage of repeat

visits may be a crucial reflection of success.

Oppermann (1998) also highlights the financial benefits of repeat visitors for an attraction, as

marketing costs associated with repeaters are lower than those required for first time visitors.

Moreover, repeaters are more likely to get involved in the social and public activities of the attraction

and provide financial support, most commonly in the form of donations. This is critical for many

attractions that rely heavily on fundraising in order to deal with their costs (Black, 2005).

However, some attractions mistakenly underestimate the importance of repeat visitors by showing

over-confidence in attracting new visitors. Anderson (2000) underlines the misconceptions that can

lead to this over-estimation. The first pitfall is the false expectation about market share: attractions

often rely on the fact that people will unconditionally visit them, conveniently leaving aside all of the

‘complex’ variables such as content, marketing and management. The second pitfall is the belief in

Page | 5

an infinite number of possible visits, ignoring the threats imposed by competitors and the limitations

on visitors’ leisure time and budget. The third one is that location is everything; however the

strength of a location ought to be interpreted by assessing the size and nature of visitor flows.

Finally, a very common mistake is double counting visitors, which leads to a false impression of an

attraction’s visitation numbers.

Motivations for Repeat Visitation

An important fact to consider for repeat vitiation is that regular repeat visitors are most likely to be

relatively close to an attraction, living within a 30-minute drive area. In contrast, for the first time

visitors, the time they spend on traveling does not play such a big role in decision-making (Black,

2005). Nonetheless, the question remains: will they be motivated enough to return to the site in the

future after perceived experience?

Literature suggests that analysis of motivations should be based on the two main dimensions of

push and pull factors (Yuan & McDonald, 1990; Uysal & Hagan, 1993). The concept is that people

travel because they are pushed by their own internal forces and pulled by the external forces of

destination attributes. Most of the push factors, which are origin-related, are intangible or intrinsic

desires of the individual travellers. On the contrary, pull factors are those that emerge as a result of

the attractiveness of a destination as perceived by the travellers. They include tangible resources

and travellers’ perception and expectation, such as novelty, benefit expectation and marketed

image of the destination (Baloglu & Uysal, 1996).

Woodside and Lysonski (1989) support that in consumer behaviour and destination selection

models, predicting or explaining behaviour of interest should be linked to demographic,

psychological, and stimulus variables. However, it is important to separate targeted segments into

first time and repeat visitors in order to implement the right strategies for further improvement of

repeat visitor attendance. The reason for this is that those two exhibit different behaviour while at a

destination and are motivated by different factors; repeat visitors are destination-aware and

knowledgeable of a range of activities available.

Furthermore, Rubenstein and Loten (1996, cited in Black, 2005) list new facilities, special temporary

exhibits, socialisation visiting to a museum as a child, stage of life cycle, and most importantly

customer service as some of the key stimulus variables. Black (2005) also argues that the

percentage of an attraction’s audience that can comprise repeat visitors varies depending on how

well they are catered for but other factors ought to be considered as well. These are: the scale of

the tourist audience in the area, the availability of competing venues and how long the museum has

been open to the public.

Moreover, Kruger et al. (2010) support that activities related to relaxation, spending time with family,

escape from daily routine (anomie), and enthusiasm are what typically motivate repeat visitors.

Finally, Fakeye and Crompton (1992) conclude that the central motivation for repeat visitation must

be the conditions for the social interaction, as visitors prefer to come with families and friends.

Page | 6

1.3 Objectives

Acknowledging the significance of repeat visitation for visitor attractions, this project will aim to:

1) To provide a better understanding of the relationship between repeat visitation and visitor

performance.

2) To show how a person’s propensity to visit changes once they have visited an attraction, i.e.

all other things being equal, how much time has to pass before that person may once again

be realistically considered a ‘potential’ visitor and thus a part of the attraction’s effective

market.

3) Based on this understanding, to suggest practical improvements in the way that visitor

projections for new attractions are constructed.

4) To provide recommendations for driving up repeat visits to established attractions.

2. Research Method

In order to meet the project objectives, we needed information from 1) an attraction and 2) visitors.

Table 1 outlines the information:

Table 1: Information Needs

Attraction Visitors

Actual visitor performance over time Profile

Capital and other changes over time Past behaviour

Future plans Future intention

Existing repeat visit rates Motivations for visiting an attraction

In order to obtain information about visitors, we deemed appropriate to carry out primary

quantitative research in the form of a face-to-face survey at an attraction. This allowed us to gather

real data from real visitors. As the identity of respondents would not be disclosed, we were counting

on unbiased answers.

In addition, we thought wise to conduct primary qualitative research in the form of an interview with

the management team of the attraction, as this would give us insight into the attraction’s

background.

Finally, secondary quantitative and qualitative research was used to compare our findings and

support our recommendations.

2.1 Survey

Design

A survey questionnaire was prepared by the team consisting of 15 questions [Appendix A]. We

aimed to keep the questionnaire short but to-the-point to enhance the response rate. The 1st part of

the questionnaire (Questions 1-4) focused on the present visit, aiming to identify the primary reason

for the visit, factors that influenced their decision to visit, and the quality of the visitors’ experience.

Page | 7

The 2nd part intended to distinguish 1st time visitors from repeat visitors and specify the elapsed time

since the last visit of the repeat visitors (Questions 5-6). The 3rd part looked at the intention of the

visitors to return to the attraction and the dynamics of the factors that could influence their

propensity (Questions 8-9). Finally, a number of questions were added to ascertain the

demographics (Questions 10-15).

The questions were short and simple and were followed by multiple choice answers, with the

exception of the last one. For a number of questions, we used nominal scales (Questions 3, 7, 8, 9).

Feedback was taken into consideration by the lecturer of this module, Fourth Street, as well as the

management of the attraction where the survey was conducted to make sure the survey meet the

needs of the project. Once the survey was finalised, a risk assessment was carried out and an

ethical approval form was signed-off by the lecturer [Appendices E & F].

Conduct & Sampling Method

For the conduct of the survey, we followed a non-probability judgement sampling method. Our aim

was to carry out the survey at an established attraction with relatively static product (as opposed to

programming based attractions like theatres or opera houses). The Old Royal Naval College

(ORNC) in Greenwich, London was proposed by Fourth Street, who acted as the intermediate and

granted us permission into their grounds.

The survey was held in front of the two most popular attractions on site (the Painted Hall and

Chapel) so that we could capture visitors of the attraction itself and not of the site in general and

place on 2 days: Saturday and Tuesday. This was a request from the ORNC because they wanted

to identify possible different trends of visitation. For this reason, our team split into 2 groups: 3 of us

went on Saturday, 28/11/2015, and the other 3 on Tuesday, 01/12/205. On both days, the groups

stayed on site for around 3 hours, from 10am to 1pm.

A quota sampling technique was adopted to ensure various visitors are represented. We aimed for

a minimum of 100 replies in total (both days included) so that we can draw safe assumptions. In the

end, we gathered 111 replies. The sample varied significantly in size on the 2 days: 78 replies on

Saturday versus 33 on Tuesday. This is due to the fact that during the weekend the ORNC

experienced considerably bigger traffic than on the weekday, thus collecting answers on Saturday

proved quite easier.

Analysis

For the analysis of the results, we entered the data from the hard copies into QuestionPro, a

website that summarises survey answers using pivot tables, segmentation tools, etc. Then, we

stored the results in an Excel file that we used as a working paper for our findings [Appendix C].

The analysis focused on the overall sample of 111, as it would enable us to draw safer conclusions.

However, separate data for the 2 days is also available upon request.

We assume that the data set is normally distributed, thus a standard +/-3 deviation can be applied

and a confidence level of 95%.

Page | 8

2.2 Interview

We decided to go for a semi-structured interview, as we had certain topics in mind that we wanted

to raise but we were also open to gain further information about the attraction. The main topics were

related to the attraction’s target market, marketing strategy, future plans, existing knowledge of

repeat visitation rates and idea of what motivates someone to visit.

Fourth Street acted again as the intermediary, arranging the details of the interview. 3 members of

our group and 2 employees from the ORNC in managerial positions were present: Mrs Sarah

Duthie, the Public Engagement Director, and Andrew Thomson, the Marketing Manager. The

interview took place at 1/12/2015 at the Offices for Greenwich Foundation and lasted approximately

40 minutes. It was

The interview was recorded upon mutual agreement and later transcribed. Thematic analysis was

used to highlight the key points [Appendix B].

3. Project Findings

3.1 Visitor Profile

The overall sample was generally well balanced in terms of demographics. An even split of male

and female visitors was captured, spreading across all age groups, with the “18-24 years old”

bracket taking the lead at 27%. With regards to employment status, the museum was most popular

with full-time professionals (45%), while students comprised one quarter of the sample.

Noticeably, the overwhelming majority of respondents cited “leisure” as their primary reason for their

visit (78%), while approximately half of them had visited a museum 4 or more times during the last

year.

3 main market segments were identified while analysing the surveys, each with distinctive

behavioural patterns in terms of repeat visitation:

1) Day visitors: These are residents of Greenwich and the rest of London.

2) Domestic tourists: These are tourists from the UK that make a trip to London. The surveys

captured a good mix of UK visitors from places that are within close proximity to London,

such as Woking, Kent, and Brighton, but also far away, such as Wales, Scotland, and

Ireland.

3) International tourists: These are inbound tourists visiting London. USA, Germany, Italy, and

France are only some of the countries of residence included in the sample.

As Graph 1 illustrates, there was a balanced split between the 3 segments in the sample. This is

consistent with our interview findings, with the exception that residents are believed to comprise a

slightly bigger market share than the other 2.

Page | 9

Graph 1: Survey Sample by Market Segments

3.2 Repeat Visitation

Overall, a significant 45% of visitors had visited the attraction before. Of those, more than half were

London residents, as Graph 2 suggests. Noteworthy is that the ORNC Visitor Survey (2014) reports

very similar overall repeat visit rate (40%).

Graph 2: Repeat Visitation by Market Segment

A closer look at the segments shows that 3 out of 4 London residents had visited before. 38% of

those indicated this was their 2nd visit within the last 6 months, while a further 31% their 2nd visit

within the last 1-2 years.

The repeat visit rate for UK tourists was significantly lower (34%), with the elapsed time varied

between the last 0-6 months to more than 6 years.

31%

32%

37% Residents

Domestic Tourists

International Tourists

52%

34%

14%

Residents

Domestic Tourists

International Tourists

Page | 10

The rate for international tourists was as low as 14%, with the overwhelming majority having visited

the ORNC more than 6 years ago. Graph 3 summarises the elapsed time for the 3 segments:

Graph 3: Elapsed Time by Market Segment

3.3 Propensity to Revisit

Overall, 32% of respondents expressed strong intention to revisit within 1 year. When asked about

the possibility to revisit within the next 2-3 years, the figure rose to 53%. Noticeably, as Graph 4

presents, in each case the percentages were quite higher among repeat visitors compared to 1st

time visitors, most of whom were UK and international tourists.

Graph 4: Propensity to Revisit by Type of Visitor

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0-6 monthsago

6-12 monthsago

1-2 years ago 2-3 years ago 3-6 years ago More than 6years ago

Mark

et

Seg

men

t

Elapsed Time

International Tourists Domestic Tourists London Residents

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Within the Next 12 Months Within the Next 2 -3 Years

% o

f R

esp

ecti

ve S

am

ple

Time Gap

1st Time Visitors Repeat Visitors

Page | 11

A deeper look at the elapsed time enabled us gain better insight into visitors’ propensity to revisit.

Graph 5: Propensity to Revisit by Elapsed Time

While analysing the survey results, a certain behavioural pattern of repeat visitation was identified:

Those visitors with shorter elapsed time since their last visit seemed to be also the ones more likely

to return within the next 12 months. Likewise, those who took longer time to revisit seemed to be

less likely to repeat a visit within that time period, meaning a longer time gap would be needed

before their next visit. In addition, it is observed that the likelihood to revisit rises as the time gap for

future visitation increases to 2-3 years, albeit at different rates.

As Graph 5 demonstrates, a staggering 86% of those that visited the ORNC within the last 6 months

expressed strong intention to come back within the next 12 months1. Based on Graph 3, these were

mostly London residents and seem to constitute the established visitor base of the ORNC, as

interpretation of the data indicates they could typically visit at least twice per year. Some of them

could be of membership status, hence more engaged with the attraction, as the Public Engagement

Director mentioned during the interview. It is estimated that these comprised roughly one third of the

London residents’ sample.

In contrast, only half of those who visited within the last 6-12 months expressed strong intention to

return within the next 12 months, while the figure fell to approximately one third for those that had

visited 1-2 and 2-3 years ago. The likelihood for all of those increased considerably when asked

with regards to 2-3 years’ time, as Graph 5 displays. Based on Graph 3, those were a mix of

London residents and UK tourists and seem to repeat visits to the ORNC rarely, perhaps once in a

year but more commonly once in a few years, ranging from 2 to more than 5, as data analysis

denotes.

1 Strong intention = Respondents that rated 4 or 5 on a scale from 1 to 5 (5 = very likely)

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

0-6 monthsago

6-12 monthsago

1-2 years ago 2-3 years ago 3-6 years ago more than 6years ago

Lik

ely

ho

od

to

Rev

isit

Time since Last Visit

Within the Next 12 Months

Within the Next 2 -3 Years

Page | 12

Finally, none of those who visited 3 or more years ago showed serious intention of returning within

the next 12 months, while only a small portion responded positively when asked about 2-3 years’

time. These were a combination of UK and international tourists and it is safe to assume that they

may visit the attraction once in several years.

3.4 Factors Influencing Propensity to Revisit

Consideration of the criteria for repeat visitation is deemed crucial in order to better understand

what will attract visitors again. Those criteria include: free entry, proximity to place of stay,

exhibitions, events, and the social factor, i.e. spending time with family/friends. Graph 6 displays the

proportion of each segment that deemed each of those factors determining in repeating a visit2.

Graph 6: Repeat Visitation Factors by Market Segment

Free entry

Nearly 3 out of 4 UK residents claimed that free entry is vital in their decision of returning whereas

around half of international tourists felt the same. This could be explained by the fact that the latter

are familiar with the concept of paying an entry fee for attractions, as this is a common practice in

many countries around the world. However, the introduction of an entry fee would most likely have a

negative impact on visitations from London and the rest of the UK residents.

Proximity to Place of Stay

The majority of London residents suggested that proximity is a key factor in repeating a visit, which

makes sense as the short distance they need to cover in order to reach the ORNC makes it

convenient for them to return. However, only one third of UK tourists and around one fifth of

2 Determining factors = Factors that were rated with 4 or 5 on a scale from 1 to 5 (5 = very important)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Free Entry Proximity Exhibitions Events Social Factor

% o

f M

ark

et

Seg

me

nt

Factors

London Residents

UK Tourists

International Tourists

Page | 13

international tourists deemed proximity to their place of stay important. This shows that once they

are in London, they are willing to commute in order to visit the ORNC. Noteworthy is that the

attraction is in a very popular destination with close transport links such as the Maze Hill and the

Cutty Sark station, which connect DLR to Canary Wharf and other hot spots of London, thus making

Greenwich and the ORNC easily accessible.

Social Factor

Spending time with family/friends proved quite a popular factor with all market segments. 62% of the

total sample ranked it high, which highlights the importance of marketing a heritage attraction visit

as a social activity. This was acknowledged during the interview, according to which families

constitute a big proportion of the ORNC’s target market.

Exhibitions

The possibility of new exhibitions on site was also considered a key factor by many respondents,

albeit in smaller proportions. Slightly more than half tourists ranked it high, while the figure fell to

41% among London residents. This could mean that when it comes to heritage attractions, many

visitors value the experience on site as a whole rather than based solely on the content. However,

the ORNC Visitor Numbers (2015) show that the Painted Hall conservation project caused an

increase of 24% to 413 thousand visits in 2013-2014 compared to the previous year. As per

interview, the ORNC plans to continue investing in the exhibition factor by undertaking further

conservation for the Painted Hall, the completion of which is projected in 2019, updating the

Discover Greenwich exhibition, and organising scaffolding tours.

Events

Around half of London residents and UK tourists ranked events high whilst only one quarter of

international tourists suggested that an event would prompt them to return. However, considering

that the term “events” is rather vague, it is suggested that different events could have different

impact on visitors depending on the popularity of the content. For example, if an event is of

international appeal, the results could be significantly different for the sample of international

tourists. In addition, considering the importance of the price factor, the ticket price could determine a

visitor’s decision in repeating a visit. As per interview, the ORNC’s event schedule is a mix of free

and paid events. In addition, it is planning to capitalise on this factor by hosting the Greenwich

Music Time Festival, a 3rd party event that is scheduled to occur in summer 2016.

Page | 14

4. Recommendations & Conclusions

Based on our findings, the aim of this section is to outline our recommendations in terms of:

1) The way visitor surveys should be adapted to accurately capture repeat visits

2) The way this information can be used to accurately forecast repeat visits

3) The most effective ways to stimulate repeat visits

4) The way Fourth Street should best use this research going forward

4.1 Visitor Surveys

In order to accurately capture repeat visit trends, it is highly recommended that the survey go

beyond the basic questions of whether a respondent has visited the attraction before or not and

whether they are likely to come back or not.

More specifically, additional questions should be included to:

1) Specify the elapsed time since the last visit in case a repeat visitor is captured, with a wide

range of time gaps offered as an option. (See Question 6 of Survey)

2) Identify the time gap needed before a respondent may return, offering short and long term

choices. (See Question 8 of Survey)

3) Assess the strength of intention to repeat a visit by using techniques such as nominal scale.

(See Question 8 of Survey)

4) Evaluate the dynamics of different factors that can influence repeat visitation by prompting

respondents to rate their importance. (See Question 9)

5) Identify the various market segments, with a focus on distinguishing residents from UK and

international tourists, as our findings concluded that they demonstrate different repeat

visitation behaviour. (See Questions 13-15).

The aforementioned proved essential for the analysis of the results. More specifically, information

gathered from Questions 6 and 8 gave us insight into both past behaviour and future intention, the

combination of which enabled us to recognise distinct repeat visitation patterns as presented in

Graph 4. By integrating them with the results from Questions 13-15, we could further determine

what pattern each segment follows. Similarly, combining the results from Question 9 with those from

Questions 13-15, we could assess how different factors influence the various segments in repeating

a visit.

4.2 Repeat Visitation Model

In order to test the validity of Fourth Street’s hypothesis that the effective market in which an

attraction operates is constantly shrinking, we developed a model (attached with this report) which

takes into account 4 factors:

1) The overall market size and the rate at which it changes (Tab 1 of the model). To assess

that, we looked at 2014 official numbers for the various market segments and the forecasts

for 2015, which we applied for all consecutive years for illustration purposes.

2) The Visitor’s propensity to visit within a year by each market segment (Tab 2 of the model).

Based on the findings presented in Section 3.3, we suggested a propensity rate of 1.3 for

Page | 15

Greenwich residents and 1 for all other segments for 2015. Then we applied the same

metrics for all consecutive years for illustration purposes.

3) The rate at which an attraction changes over time (Tab 3 of the model). Based on the

interview, we identified 2 main changes the ORNC will go through over the next 5 years: The

hosting of the Greenwich Music Times Festival in 2016 and the re-opening of the Painted

Hall in 2019. Based on Graph 6, we evaluated the impact on each segment’s propensity to

visit the attraction within the respective years. For example, we suggested that the

propensity may increase from 1.3 to around 1.7 in 2019 for Greenwich residents.

4) Realistic rates of repeat visitation (Tab 4 of the model). Finally, we gave our own view on

propensity rates over the next 5 years. In general, we suspect that the 2015 rate might be

somewhat lower for residents than the survey suggested. The rationale behind that is that

the sample might represent a bigger percentage of residents belonging to the loyal visitor

base of the ORNC than they are in reality. We also think that this rate might follow a

negative trend over the next years with the exception of 2016 and 2019, due to a possible

decreasing interest in case no action is taken by the attraction.

Noteworthy is that the excel model includes formulas behind the suggested metrics so that it can

produce results based on any other metrics that can emerge from similar research projects.

4.3 Effective Ways to Stimulate Repeat Visits

According to our findings, for the majority of visitors (78% of the sample), the primary reason for

visiting an attraction is the leisure aspect of it. In addition, as Graph 6 suggests, spending time with

family/friends seems to be the most popular reason for returning among all market segments

besides the free entry and proximity to place of stay. Considering that entry to cultural attractions

remains free of charge and proximity is beyond the influence of an established attraction, we

suggest that the main challenge faced within an attraction’s control in order to boost repeat visits is

how to make a visit not only a cultural but also a leisure activity that people will want to repeat with

family and friends. Two of the most effective ways to do so are:

1) Implementing advanced technological equipment. This is a well-known way to make a visit

an interactive and memorable experience that visitors would be keen to repeat (Birchall and

Ridge, 2014). Such equipment includes audio headsets in multiple languages, augmented

reality tours, e.g. the Samsung Gear Virtual Reality tour at the British Museum (2015), and

mobile applications. All these work as a self-guide for visitors and help them explore the

attraction in an entertaining and easy way.

2) Constructing retail facilities on site. This way, a visit to the attraction can become a

complimentary activity to other everyday leisure activities, e.g. shopping, dining, etc.

Other effective ways to stimulate repeat visits that we suggest based on Graph 6 are:

3) Renewing the events schedule on a frequent basis

4) Investing in new exhibits or accommodating temporary ones (e.g. seasonal exhibits)

Page | 16

Marketing

Of course, as the Marketing Manager suggested during our interview, an effective marketing

campaign that reaches the target audience is a vital component of repeat visitation strategy.

Emphasis should be placed on:

1) The attraction’s webpage. As this is a reflection of an attraction online, it needs to be

appealing and welcoming. Easy navigation enabling visitors to find information rapidly and

enhancement with audio-visual material are proven ways to engage visitors and prompt

them to return to the site (Cyr et al., 2009).

2) Social media. The popularity of Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram with Millennials is an

opportunity for attractions to create a bond with them. Posting regular updates with related

news and articles is bound to raise awareness and work as a constant reminder of the

attraction’s existence.

3) Public advertisement. This could be anything from distributing leaflets to rolling out a tube

campaign.

Nonetheless, it should be noted that a repeat visitation strategy ought to be a collaborative process

with aligned goals set by the Pubic Engagement, the Marketing Director and the rest of the board.

4.4 Fourth Street Benefits

Concluding, we believe this project can be beneficial to Fourth Street, as by using our research they

can:

1) Provide their clients with some understanding of how a visitor’s propensity to visit changes

once they have visited an attraction. The repeat visitation patterns demonstrated by the

various market segments are presented in the Project Findings section of this report.

2) Advise clients on ways to drive up repeat visits to established attractions. These are outlined

in the 3rd part of the Recommendations & Conclusions section of this report.

3) Further develop our repeat visitation model attached with this report to include more factors

that can influence repeat visitation and assess to what extent they impact each market

segment.

4) Compare the metrics proposed by our group in this model with their industry knowledge and

adjust them to further test the validity of their hypothesis that the effective market is

constantly shrinking.

5) Integrate the repeat visitation model into their forecast model so that they can provide more

accurate forecasts of visitor numbers for established attractions.

Page | 17

5. Reference List

Anderson, D. (2000). “Crystal ball gazing”. Locum Destination Review, 2(1), pp. 41-42.[Online]. Available at:

http://www.colliers.com/-/media/files/emea/uk/research/destination-consulting/crystal-ball-gazing.pdf

(Accessed: 08 December 2015).

Baloglu, S. and Uysal, M. (1996). “Market segments of push and pull motivations: a canonical correlation

approach”. International Journal of contemporary Hospitality Management, 3(8), pp. 32-38.

Birchall, D. and Ridge, M. (2014). “Post-web technology: what comes next for museums?” The Guardian. 03

October [Online] Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/culture-professionals-network/culture-

professionals-blog/2014/oct/03/post-web-technology-museums-virtual-reality (Accessed 13 December 2015).

Black, G. (2005). The Engaging Museum. London: Routledge.

Cyr, D., Head, M., Larios, H. and Pan, B. (2009). “Exploring Human Images in Website Design: A Multi-

Method Approach”. MIS Quaterly 33(3). pp. 542-543. [Online]. Available at:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20650308?seq=5#page_scan_tab_contents (Accessed 13 December 2015).

Fakeye, P. and Crompton, J.L. (1992). “Importance of socialisation to repeat visitation”. Annals of Tourism

Research, 19 (2), pp. 364-367.

Kruger, M.,Saayman, M. and Ellis, M. S. (2010) ”Does loyalty pay? First-time versus repeat visitors at a

national arts festival”. Southern African Business Review, 14(1), pp. 79-104.

Old Royal Naval College (2014) “Visitor Survey Report”. London.

Old Royal Naval College (2015) Visitor Numbers. London.

Oppermann, M. (1998). “Tourismus journal”. Tourism Management, 19(4), pp. 395-396.

Oppermann, M. (2000). “Tourism Destination Loyalty”. Journal of Travel Research, 39(1), pp. 78-84.

Ryan, C. (1995). Researching Tourist Satisfaction: Issues, Concepts, Problems. London: Routledge.

Uysal, M. and Hagan, L.A.R. (1993). “Motivation of pleasure travel and tourism”. Encyclopedia of Hospitality

and Tourism, pp. 798-810.

The British Museum (2015) Support us. Available at:

http://www.britishmuseum.org/support_us/your_support/success_stories/samsung.aspx (Accessed: 13

December 2015).

Woodside, A. and Lysonski, S. (1989). A general model of traveler destination choice.

Yuan, S. and McDonald, C. (1990). “Motivational determinants of international pleasure time”. Journal of

Travel Research, 24(1), pp. 42-44.

Page | 18

6. Appendices

Appendix A: Survey

Old Royal Naval College Survey 2015

Hello, we are a group of students from the University of Surrey carrying out a project on visitation patterns.

We would like to thank you in advance for your participation in this survey and assure you that all information will be kept confidential.

So, here we go:

1) How did you hear about the attraction?

Internet TV Magazine/Newspaper Word of mouth

On arrival at Greenwich Other (Please specify)

2) What’s the primary reason for your visit today?

Leisure Learning Business Other (Please specify)

3) On a scale from 1 to 5 (1 = not important at all, 5 = very important), how important were the

following factors in your decision to visit today?

a) Free entry: 1 2 3 4 5

b) Proximity to home/place of stay: 1 2 3 4 5

c) Exhibitions: 1 2 3 4 5

d) Events: 1 2 3 4 5

e) Spending time with family/friends: 1 2 3 4 5

f) Other factor (please specify and rate):

1 2 3 4 5

4) How would you rate your experience today?

Poor OK Satisfactory Exceptional

5) Have you visited the attraction before?

Yes No

6) If yes, when was the last time you visited the attraction?

0-6 months ago 6-12 months ago 1-2 years ago 2-3 years ago 3-6

years ago More than 6 years ago

7) How many times have you visited other museums during the last year?

0 1 2 3 4 Other (Please specify)

8) On a scale from 1 to 5 (1 = not likely at all, 5 = very likely), how likely are you to visit the attraction

again

a) in the next 12 months? 1 2 3 4 5

b) in the next 2-3 years? 1 2 3 4 5

9) On a scale from 1 to 5 (1 = not important at all, 5 = very important), how important would you

consider the following factors in coming back?

a) Free entry: 1 2 3 4 5

b) Proximity to home/place of stay: 1 2 3 4 5

Page | 19

c) New exhibition: 1 2 3 4 5

d) New event: 1 2 3 4 5

e) Spending time with family/friends: 1 2 3 4 5

f) Other factor (please specify and rate):

1 2 3 4 5

10) Are you a male or female?

Male Female

11) What’s your employment status?

Student Full-time professional Part-time professional Retired

Unemployed

12) What’s your approximate age?

18-24 years old 25-34 years old 35-44 years old

45-54 years old 55-64 years old 65+ years old

13) Are you a UK resident?

Yes No

14) If you are a UK resident, where do you live?

London Rest of the UK (Please specify) __________

15) If you are not a UK resident, please specify where you come from: _____________

Appendix B: Interview

Date: 1/12/15 Location: Offices for Greenwich Foundation Participants: Dir – Public Engagement Director (Mrs Sarah Duthie) Mar – Marketing Manager (Mr Andrew Thomson) F – Fotios Ntagiantas A – Anastasia Prodan Notes taken by Alesia Martsishonak Key Themes: Target Market Marketing Strategy Motivations to Visit Plans Repeat Visitation

F: We would like to know about the market and people you are targeting, are these people international

tourists, UK tourists, leisure, business, a combination of these ?

Dir : What we get currently is a UK market, international market and London market, but more local market;

splits into about thirds but it’s a little bit more for London market; but it’s roughly 30%-40% for each category

and it’s fairly typical for museums and heritage markets.

Mar: In terms of marketing we target London and local people up to Greenwich, and tourists but it’s more for

summer period.

Page | 20

F: How do you target them?

A: Do you have separate channels for targeting?

Mar: Yes we tend to target Londoners using outdoor media, so we do a campaign on tube and posters and

taxis, we also use social media. International tourists, we target more by using leaflets, so we distribute to

hotels, information centres…

A: Are the ads, which you have in tubes, seasonal?

Mar: It’s seasonal as it’s very expensive, so we run it during the summer, busy periods.

Dir: …for people who are coming here; we have a lot of families locally. We identified a lot of people coming

here because of cultural tourism. The world’s heritage gets 9 million people in every year. People are

coming because Greenwich is very famous; people come to see the conservatoire, so we are trying to

convert people when they come through. We have about a million people coming to Greenwich; it was just

under a million last year coming there. Majority are coming to Discover Greenwich and that’s why people

decide to go and see the Painted Hall and Chapel.

F: So you try to attract this 1 million and show them the way to the Painted Hall?

Dir: 42% of people decide to visit on the day. When we ask people what’s your motivations, they need a

lovely environment, that’s one of the key motivations for people, so we need to convert people into

visiting our buildings as well. So that’s whom we really try to target.

F: Nice. Is repeat visitation important? Or you are just happy with new people coming?

Mar: We are keen to attract repeat visitors. I think it will be better when we start a project for the Painted Hall,

because now we don’t offer much reason for people to come back, we have a small events program that

brings people to come back but that’s it really.

A: What is the Painted Hall project?

Mar: In the next year we will start to make conservation projects in the Painted Hall. We will be conserving a

lower hall, cleaning it essentially and building a new visitor centre underneath, it’s for creating events that will

than give people the reason to come back.

A: Do you have strategy for promoting events?

Mar: We do promote events, but that’s separate marketing. We promote events digitally, we have an events

leaflet on site, we use some local advertising for events as well, but a lot of our events go viral on the

newsletter.

F: Are events free of charge?

Mar: A lot of them are.

Dir: We encourage families for events as repeat visitors, because we can engage children into the

environment. Then Greenwich music time, a festival over the summer for 5 nights, so people pay; many

tickets are about £60.

Mar: Τhis is an interesting point about promoting events, because music evets are third party, they are

organised by other company so they tend to do the most promotion for that. We get money for hiring, but not

for tickets. We support them but we don’t promote them.

A: Do you target those people who come for music festivals to visit your exhibitions?

Mar: We try to promote it on the visit. We suggest they come on the day, highlight what they can see.

F: What kind of events and where do they take place?

Page | 21

Dir: In Chapel, 2 concerts per week, public activity (regular congregation of 150 people every week); The

Painted Hall, we sell it more for private activity; we want as many people engaged in this place. Also we do

private hiring events.

Mar: Money comes from commercial activity, includes hire fees, not only Painted Hall, also Admirals House

(not open for public); retail activity – we have a shop in Discover Greenwich and we have filming on site as

well.

A: Does University or Conservatoire (Laban) support you financially?

Dir: Yes we have rents. So they are tenants on site. So half of our income we receive is the rent we receive

from tenants (Trinity Laban, University). Also, we have office space that we rent out to Royal Museum

Greenwich. A lot of different organisations using this site;

A: Do they participate in promotion, University for example?

Dir: They do support us in terms of social media online, but it’s different as they both are educational

institutions.

Mar: Sometimes people walk here and think it’s a part of university, so it’s limiting our benefits. Return visitors

on our website, we got about 30 % of return visitors, the rest are new visitors, which I would like to change so

we would make it more entertaining with videos, interesting articles, in order to make people come again

rather than coming once. We want to see this percentage to go up, it will make people become supporters; we

are doing fund raising at the moment. People coming to website once won’t sign up or become members for

donations, so we need more people coming back to the website, again and again.

F: So that’s the main benefit for repeat visitations… to get support with donations?

Dir: We are a charity, so our objective is to look after the buildings and make sure we are opened for

enjoyment and learning. Charity objective is to get more people through the doors to help engage with site

service. This is a major site in Britain and we get government funding as well as we have public duty. So from

public engagement point of view, we want to get as many people as possible to help them enjoy the building

and understand a lot more. Many people come take photos and leave without any kind of understanding. But

the history is so deep and fascinating, the architecture; the idea of the Painted Hall is to tell a story, that

people can read paintings, read a story of 1700s. We get a huge number of people interested in history, as

well as heritage, we have a number of different stories to tell and help people understand them. But 40% of

visitors are repeat visitors, and when we talk to students or when we bring people around here who don’t

necessarily now know they are allowed in the buildings, they say “This place is amazing! I’m gonna bring my

family and friends over here!”

So we do a lot of work with community groups such as ESO students (English Speakers of other Languages),

so we work with Southern College and Greenwich community college bringing ESO students here, may they

haven’t been to this buildings before, but they want to bring their friends as it’s free.

Mar: Every time people come here they say they find something new and different, we run tours every

day; we have free guided walks run by volunteers. And the site has got so much; I work here for 2 years

and still things I’ve never seen before or heard facts.

F: … So you have carried out surveys before for repeat visitation…

Dir: Yes, so we’ve got 40%, so 15% of people who have been here once before, 10 % have been here more

than 3 times, no data on how many people have been here twice but that comes with Bournemouth survey, so

every year we work with university of Bournemouth and they do a detailed survey, so it goes on during

August, September and October, and they have face to face surveys like you and we have postal surveys as

well, and we reach an amount of people at random times across these months .So we are trying to get a good

mix of people that are coming through and they give us survey data, so we talk about 800 people over that

time, so that’s where we get 40% from. We have just surveys for summer 2014.

F: Can we have access to these surveys? So we can compare?

Dir: Yeah it’s quite big, Jasmijn already has it.

Page | 22

A: What do you want to achieve in the nearest future? Would you like to commercialise your place, promoting

more events or exhibitions, or you just want to attract more people and continue working as a charity and

maintain their interest?

Dir: It’s a part of our long- term strategic goals, because these buildings are incredibly expensive. So our bill

for conservation looking after is millions of pounds every year and we are free. So in terms of commercial

income, it becomes very important to us. We are not a museum, so we don’t have exhibitions. British

museums have a collection and ability to change and display all the time. Our collection is our paintings. But

we have a small exhibition space at Discover Greenwich but it’s not chargeable so it’s not an option for us, we

are heritage estate really rather than a museum. In terms why and how we are doing this, how we

commercialise ourselves; very interesting question. We are a charity, so we are committed to open this place

to public, and we still require support.

So what we are doing now is conserving the Painted Hall, it’s an enormous project over for the next 3 years.

This project cost us million pounds and we have worked with heritage fund who gave us 2.8 million towards

that project, so the rest will be fundraised. So that’s where we are involved with trusting foundations, with

individuals. The thing that we don’t charge people for tickets doesn’t mean they don’t want to support us. We

have a membership scheme; people can come and give donations. In Painted Hall you saw a big banner

(“Please give us 3 pounds”) and that helps to reinforce the fact we are a charity. Key benefits for people

becoming members of charities are that they receive free entry (for national museum). People can bring 2 for

1 for our talks, can get discount in the shop, restaurant;

F: what are your objectives from our survey? Is there something specific that you want to get from it?

Dir: From public engagement point of view, we are interested in motivation, what will motivate you to

come here. There is so much to do in London, Greenwich but what difference will make people to come

here? If they want to bring families and friends, what will make their visit very easy for them, what can

we do to support that? What makes them decide? Like in 6 months they wake up and decide to visit painted

hall today? We can build programs around it or improve storytelling, that t is a part of project. So we will do

multi media guides, more books, more tours; there is gonna be soundscape (sounds of the sea as you walk in

as it’s the naval college).

Mar: From a marketing perspective as well, what makes them come back again? Is it free entrance or

opportunity to see and learn something new? What shall we change to make them come back again and

again?

End of Interview

Appendix C: Project Findings Working Paper

Total Visitors Number

Residents 34

Domestic Tourists 36

International Tourists 41

Total 111

Repeat Visitors Number

Residents 26

Domestic Tourists 17

International Tourists 7

Total 50

Total Visitors Number

1st Time Visitors 61

Page | 23

Repeat Visitors 50

Total 111

Repeat Visitors by Elapsed Time

Elapsed Time Number

0-6 months ago 14

6-12 months ago 8

1-2 years ago 9

2-3 years ago 7

3-6 years ago 3

more than 6 years ago 9

Total 50

Propensity to Revisit

Type Within the Next 12 Months Within the Next 2 -3 Years

1st Time Visitors 12 20

Repeat Visitors 24 37

Total 36 57

Propensity to Revisit

Elapsed Time Within the Next 12 Months Within the Next 2 -3 Years

0-6 months ago 12 13

6-12 months ago 4 7

1-2 years ago 3 7

2-3 years ago 2 5

3-6 years ago 0 1

more than 6 years ago 0 2

Total 21 35

Elapsed Time by Market Segment

Market Segment 0-6

months ago

6-12 months

ago

1-2 years ago

2-3 years ago

3-6 years ago

More than 6 years ago

London Residents 12 5 7 2 0 0

Domestic Tourists 2 3 2 5 2 3

International Tourists 0 0 0 0 1 6

Total 14 8 9 7 3 9

Factors by Market Segment

Market Segment Free Entry Proximity Exhibitions Events Social Factor

London Residents 24 24 14 17 21

UK Tourists 29 12 21 19 27

International Tourists 22 9 19 11 21

Total 75 45 54 47 69

Page | 24

Appendix D: Individual Student Contribution Form

Name Contribution

Fotios Ntagiantas Overview of the project

Justin Poliah Recommendations

Alexandra Grace Longden Project Findings

Alesia Martishonak Project Background

Anastasia Prodan Survey Method

Laura-lye Samba Recommendations

Appendix E: Risk Assessment

Risk associated with Applies to

Travel and transportation Travel to and from the destination by underground/train

Loss and damage Personal belongings

Violence (Verbal or physical) Possible physical injuries from aggressive passers-by

Page | 25

Appendix F: Ethical Approval Form