Travel Manitoba Conversion Study February 14, 2011

Transcription

1 Travel Manitoba 2010 Conversion Study February 14, 2011

2 Travel Manitoba 2010 Conversion Study February 14, 2011 This file is designed for maximum interactivity. Before moving to the next slide, ensure you are in slide view mode. Click this symbol to read more information about that fact. If you wish to see the results visually depicted in graphical form, click this symbol to do so. February tmb03 final 2

3 Table of contents Introduction Visitor kit Respondent profile Travel to Manitoba Travel intentions Manitoba Homecoming 2010 Vacation attributes Travel conversion Trip profile Trip satisfaction and loyalty Vacation planning and profile Demographic profile Summary Recommendations Appendix A February tmb03 final 3

4 Introduction Background Study purpose: Calculate conversion of tourism inquiries into visits Gather data on travel preferences and influencers, quality of information and vacation planning behaviour Follow-up to conversion studies conducted since 2001 Respondents are categorized by: Type of media Path (initial method of inquiry or contact) VFR (visiting friends or relatives) Information request (IR) respondents Travel intention (TI) respondents Methodology Telephone and online surveys 1,109 completed surveys from: TMB s inquiry database (937) Travel Intentions survey (172) Contact outcomes Survey response and completion rates are again higher this year for telephone surveys than online 42% response rate and 27% completion rate for telephone 16% response rate and 15% completion rate for online February tmb03 final 4

5 Introduction, continued Questionnaire Minor revisions to ensure year-toyear comparability Regional markets Regional markets: Manitoba Alberta Other Canada Primary U.S. (consisting of 12 states IA, IL, IN, KS, MI, MN, MO, ND, NE, OH, SD, and WI) Margin of error The margin of error (MOE) is 2.68% (at the 95% confidence level) Fielding waves Telephone interviews were completed in two waves: Wave 1: October 4 to 26, 2010 all IR and TI contacts to date Wave 2: November 29 to December 17, 2010 new IR and TI contacts, and Wave 1 respondents planning a trip to MB by Wave 2 interviewing February tmb03 final 5

6 Introduction, continued Data analysis All survey results are weighted by region to match the regional breakdown of the two source databases Study data is recoded and crosstabulated for statistical significance Reporting Findings are compared to previous studies (2001, 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2009) Results for TI respondents are separate from IR to maintain comparability over time February tmb03 final 6

7 Respondent profile Regional breakdown Canada s total share of IR respondents reached 87% in 2010 after fluctuating and hitting a low in 2008 (37%) Since 2008 the share of Manitoban information requesters has decreased from 28% to15% A greater share of TI respondents are from MB (51%, compared to 15% of IR) Inquiry prompt Respondents identified what prompted them to inquire As in previous years, the most popular reasons for inquiry are: To see what is available Interest in Manitoba Past trips Traditional advertising/media sources did not prompt many inquiries The share who cited these sources dropped Individual advertising/media sources are cited by 2% or fewer February tmb03 final 7

8 Respondent profile, continued Inquiry / contact path The most common inquiry/contact path is still the Internet Internet inquiries (88%) have been increasing from 67% to 95% (2009) TI contacts are more likely Manitobans Other Canadians are most likely web-based requesters TMB media code (inquiry prompt) Internet is still the largest category at 82% in 2010 Trending upward since 2004 (50%) Other prompts with fewer responses are consistent over time: Referrals (9%) General (6%) Paid print (3%, with the exception of a jump to 21% in 2007) February tmb03 final 8

9 Respondent profile, continued Website visitors TI respondents and website inquirers were asked which website pages they visited The most frequently visited pages in 2010: Why visit the website? Most visit to learn about MB for travel purposes Other reasons were each given by fewer than one in ten online respondents Accommodations Festivals and events Family or couples vacations Outdoor adventure/eco-tourism Responses are similar to 2009 Manitobans (36%) and Americans (37%) visit the fishing page most Lone and VFR travellers are most likely to click on arts and cultural February tmb03 final 9

10 Visitor kit Overall effect Again, TMB travel information had a mostly positive effect on recipients Two thirds say it increased interest in visiting One third says it had no effect Visitor kit item influence The items rated as most influential by both groups are: TMB s website Vacation and Accommodation Guide Events Guide Visitor kit items influence TI respondents more than IR respondents Fishing/Hunting and Events Guides appeal to target segments Most useful item IR respondents still rate the Vacation Guide most useful 41% of TI respondents rate the website as most useful up from last year (33%) e-newsletters receive the least most useful ratings Vacation / Outdoor Adventure Guides most influential for outdoor adventurers / eco-tourists February tmb03 final 10

11 Visitor kit, continued Visitor kit impact Usefulness (visitors) MB visitors were asked to rate the usefulness of the TMB information Most rate the information as either very useful (28%) or quite useful (43%) Significant drop in usefulness after 2005, steady since then IR visitors give more positive ratings than TI visitors (only 16% say information was very useful ) Influence (non-visitors) Non-visitors were asked how influential the information was in the decision not to visit Over two fifths say it was not at all influential, a positive finding 14% of IR non-visitors say it was very influential in their decision not to visit (up from 7% in 2009) February tmb03 final 11

12 Visitor kit, continued Impact of information on trip Information affects most trips 1% shortened their stay Over two fifths decided to visit other locations in the province Three in ten decided to do other activities 4% of TI visitors and 13% of IR visitors lengthened their stays Results are similar to previous years Most likely to visit additional locations or do additional activities: Canadians from outside Alberta Those with children Outdoor adventure or ecotourism-seekers February tmb03 final 12

13 Travel to Manitoba Visitors For IR respondents, visitation (at roughly two thirds) is similar to previous years Visitation by TI respondents dropped this year (from 79% to 66%, similar to IR) Non-visitors The top reasons non-visitors did not come to Manitoba include: Personal or family illness / problem No time Other destinations more appealing Personal financial reasons Similar to past top reasons Most reasons are personal and not under TMB s control 10-point increase in the proportion who say other destinations were more appealing in 2010 Increasing since 2004 February tmb03 final 13

14 Travel to Manitoba, continued Previous trips 2010 visitors were asked if they had visited MB in the past two years 38% of IR visitors took a separate trip to MB in the past two years This has declined since its peak of 58% in 2008 A greater share (67%) of TI visitors visited MB in the past two years Future trips When asked how likely they would be to take another trip in the next two years: 39% of IR visitors are very likely (down from 52% in 2009, with previous levels similar - over one half) 62% of TI visitors are very likely (down from 68% in 2009) This proportion also declined (from 75% in 2009) February tmb03 final 14

15 Travel intentions Visitors Most visitors (70% for IR, 61% for TI) had already decided to take a trip when they inquired Travel intentions at inquiry are similar to previous years Outdoor adventurers and ecotourists are least likely to have made a firm decision at inquiry Non-visitors Most non-visitors were planning a trip either in the next year or in more than a year s time Most (83% of IR) are still considering visiting the province in the next two years Similar to TI and previous IR findings: 9% were not considering a trip at the time of inquiry 7% were considering MB but did not choose it as their destination 12% changed their mind about a Manitoba trip February tmb03 final 15

16 Travel conversion Gross conversion rate (GCR) Overall GCR is consistent with the range from recent years: 66% for IR respondents 63% for TI respondents GCR is higher for Manitobans and lower among: IR Canadians (outside of Manitoba and Alberta) and Primary US respondents TI Albertans Net conversion rate (NCR) NCR is 18% among IR respondents (similar to previous years) NCR is 25% among TI respondents (down slightly from last year) MB has higher NCR rates than other regions, meaning information influences a greater share of this group MB s NCR has fallen for IR respondents in 2010 (from 43% to 35%) February tmb03 final 16

17 Travel conversion, continued Potential conversion rate (PCR) PCR is 30% in 2010, similar to previous years With GCR, 96% of inquirers have visited or are considering visiting MB in the next two years GCR is lower for travellers with longer trip planning times Have not yet taken their trips Visitor spending estimates Spending estimates are: $6.4 million (GCR / all who visited) $1.9 million (NCR / all non-firm inquirers who visited) $3.0 million (PCR / those considering a visit within two years) Potential total: $9.5 million Decrease from 2009 is due to a drop in inquirers Average spending shows modest increase since 2008 February tmb03 final 17

18 Manitoba Homecoming 2010 Awareness 17% of IR non-visitors were aware of Manitoba s Homecoming year Visitor awareness was higher 49% of TI visitors and 30% of IR visitors knew about Homecoming before their visit One in ten became aware of Homecoming once they arrived in MB Many TI (40%) and IR visitors (59%) remained unaware throughout their trip Attendance One in ten visitors attended a Manitoba Homecoming 2010 event 6% of TI and 10% of IR attendees visited MB specifically to attend a Homecoming event After Manitobans, Albertans were: Most aware of Homecoming before and during their trips Most likely to attend a Homecoming event (6% did) February tmb03 final 18

19 Trip profile Trip purpose Most popular reasons for MB travel are consistent and still include: Leisure To visit friends or relatives (VFR) In transit to/from a destination Three fifths of VFR travellers visited a destination with friends/family Past observations still hold true: Manitobans take leisure trips Albertans visit family and friends Other Canadians are often just passing through Americans and group travellers fish and hunt Nights in Manitoba Average stays in MB are similar for TI (6.86 nights) and IR visitors (6.56 nights) Increased from 4.98 for IR visitors in to 7 nights is the most frequent stay length (19% for TI, 23% for IR) Less than 5% stay more than 30 nights 7% of TI visitors and 6% of IR visitors did not spend the night February tmb03 final 19

20 Trip profile, continued Travel party age and size MB tends to attract older visitors Most common age categories are 45 to 54 and 55 to 65 Party members 18 to 24 are least common 27% of IR parties include one or more travellers aged 65+, this is higher among: US travellers (38%) Visitors in transit (41%), Telephone inquirers (45%) Map users (39%) Travellers with income under $20,000 (42%) Travel party composition IR visitor party compositions are similar to previous years 51% travel in a party of two adults 17% travel in a party of 3+ adults 16% travel as two adults with child(ren) TI visitors show more travel parties with 2+ adults and fewer with two adults and child(ren) than in 2009 Those with high household incomes are most likely to travel with children February tmb03 final 20

21 Trip profile, continued Accommodations Hotels/motels most common (46% of IR visitors) RV park use is increasing (from 6% in 2005 to 15% in 2009, currently 14%) Other popular accommodations: Campgrounds (30%) Home of friend/relative (23%) Length of stay Accommodation types typically used for longer stays: Visitor s own vacation or second home (average of 14.2 nights for IR) Home of friends/relatives (5.7 nights) Rental condo/home (4.6 nights) Shorter stays at B&Bs and hotels/motels Visitor expenditures Travel party and per-person expenditures increasing since 2008 From $60 to $99 per person (IR) Three quarters of parties spend $200/day or less Visitor centre usage Visitors were asked if they visited a TMB Visitor Centre As in 2009, The Forks and Whiteshell are most popular, while Boissevain is least-visited Lower TI visitation to The Forks and Emerson in 2010 February tmb03 final 21

22 Vacation attributes Respondents were read a series of statements about MB and asked to indicate agreement On average, most agree that MB is a great place for: Summer outdoor activities Touring small towns, village and interesting landscapes Abundant lakes and sandy beaches A family vacation Resorts, camping and other accommodations Fishers/hunters most likely to see MB as great place for a family vacation Equally likely to take vacation as couples, as families w/ children or in groups Those from the US are most likely to see MB as a safe place Respondents do not see MB as a place for winter or arts/cultural activities February tmb03 final 22

23 Trip satisfaction and loyalty Visitor trip satisfaction Trending downward since 2005 Manitoba trip satisfaction is similar for TI and IR visitors Three fifths were very satisfied and one fifth were neutral/ dissatisfied with their trip Likelihood of recommending Manitoba Most TI (96%) and IR visitors (88%) are likely to recommend MB as a destination Americans are most satisfied and likely to recommend Albertans are least satisfied and least likely to recommend Fishing/hunting remains a MB strength those who travel for fishing/hunting are: Most likely to recommend MB Among those with the highest trip satisfaction Most likely to return within two years Value for money Most respondents feel their trip met or exceeded expectations (94% for IR, 96% for TI) Roughly one in ten said their trip exceeded expectations February tmb03 final 23

24 Vacation planning profile Vacation planning lead time Most respondents take 3 to 6 months to plan vacations, followed by 9 months to a year Low proportions (less than 10%): Plan for more than one year Spend less than three weeks Method of choosing vacation destination Most (61% IR) choose a destination first, then find places to stay and things to do Destinations considered MB s neighbours (SK, ON, MN and ND) are again among destinations most considered by respondents BC and AB were considered by two fifths of IR respondents More than one in ten considered Atlantic provinces, QC, SD and other US destinations Overseas destinations (Europe and Asia) were again least-considered TI respondents are more likely to start either with a budget or with activities February tmb03 final 24

25 Vacation planning profile, continued Sources used to plan trip IR visitors most frequently use: Maps (used by 50%) The TMB website (42%) Past experience (30%) These top sources are all down from 2009 (53%, 48%, 36%) Increased IR use of: Information centre since 2008 (from 17% to 28%) Motor clubs since 2008 (17% to 26%) Top sources are also most used by TI visitors to plan their trips Comparatively lower use of maps, motor clubs and visitor centres among this group Higher use of travel booking websites Most useful sources Most-used sources (maps, the TMB website, visitor centres) are frequently rated as most useful Top sources are similar for TI and IR, though 28% of TI visitors cited TMB s website as most useful (top source for the group) Only 13% of TI visitors rated maps as most useful TMB should work to increase both usage and usefulness of their website, visitor centres and other trip planning resources February tmb03 final 25

26 Demographic profile Gender Roughly equal male-female participation, as in previous years Exception of 2009 (58% men) and 2006 (56% men) Income Household incomes from $40,000 to <$80,000 are the most common income cohort Respondent household income levels are similar to previous years Party composition Travellers were asked about their typical travel party composition More than half of IR respondents typically travel as part of a couple 22% travel as a family with children 6% travel alone Fewer than 5% travel in other party compositions TI parties are similar to IR parties but: Fewer travel as a couple (40%) Family travel is more common (29%) February tmb03 final 26

27 Summary Respondent profile Number of inquirers continues to drop significantly since the study began in 2001 Website/Internet as inquiry path and media source is still most common (trending upward) Most visit TMB s website for travel Visitor kit TMB travel information had a mostly positive effect on recipients (particularly TI respondents) Most influential items remain: TMB s website Vacation/Accommodation Guide e-newsletters consistently receive least most useful ratings Information affects most trips: Two fifths visited other locations Three in ten did additional activities 4% of TI visitors and 13% of IR visitors lengthened their stay Travel to MB Two thirds visited MB this year, similar to recent years 10-point increase in the share who did not visit because other destinations were more appealing 38% of IR visitors took a separate trip in the past two years February tmb03 final 27

28 Summary, continued Travel intentions Firmness of travel decisions at inquiry is similar to previous years Most visitors had already decided to take a trip when they inquired Most non-visitors were planning a trip to MB in the next year or more 83% (IR) are still considering visiting in the next two years Conversion 66% came to Manitoba (IR GCR) 18% had not confirmed, but did visit (NCR) 30% (IR) are still considering visiting in the next two years With GCR, 96% have visited or are considering visiting in the next two years Spending for visitors is $6.4 million ($9.5 million including potential visitors) MB Homecoming 2010 A good proportion of visitors were aware of Homecoming - 49% of TI visitors and 30% of IR visitors 17% of IR non-visitors were aware of Manitoba s Homecoming year One in ten visitors attended a Homecoming event Higher than average attendance and awareness among Albertans February tmb03 final 28

29 Summary, continued Trip profile Leisure is still the most common trip purpose MB attracts more older visitors Two-adult (couple) travel parties are still the most common Hotels/motels are most commonlyused accommodation (followed by campgrounds) Average number of nights spent in Manitoba (IR) is increasing Daily spending (per visitor and per travel party) is up since 2008 Vacation attributes Agreement with statements about Manitoba as a vacation destination is down in general Vacation planning profile Respondents plan trips similar to in previous years: Often start with a destination, then find accommodations and activities TMB website remains a most-cited planning source, second only to maps (both sources down slightly this year) Visitor centre usage continues to rise since 2008 Respondents see MB as a place for summer outdoor-related activities February tmb03 final 29

30 Summary, continued Why is trip satisfaction decreasing? Satisfaction decreasing since 2005 (big drop in 2007) In contrast, Trip diaries data shows slight increase (from 69% very satisfied in 2009 to 72% in 2010) Inquirers may be unique in growing dissatisfaction with trips Though satisfaction is down, the vast majority would still recommend MB as a vacation destination Fishing/hunting remains a MB strength for satisfaction and loyalty Hypotheses: Satisfied return visitors do not inquire again, so future inquirervisitors are less satisfied Fewer fishing/hunting visitors who tend to be highly satisfied Outdoor adventure/eco-tourism is underdeveloped these visitors are least satisfied Economic downturn means more competition from other destinations Increased traveller expectations re: value, leading to lower satisfaction Future research should examine why visitors are dissatisfied: What are their expectations? How could satisfaction be improved? Will dropping satisfaction have an effect on future visitation? Will lead to recommendations for TMB based on findings February tmb03 final 30

31 Summary, continued Why are inquiries decreasing? Inquiries have been declining significantly since 2001 (from 75,545 to only 6,682 in 2010) The share from Canada (excluding MB and AB) is increasing in recent years TI respondents (who do not specifically inquire) may provide more insight into the activities of non-inquirers Higher use of travel booking websites to book trips Hypotheses: Availability of Internet travel resources may mean fewer formal inquiries Repeat inquiries are unlikely Future research should examine why fewer inquiries are occurring: How are past inquirers now planning trips? What motivates inquiries? How do non-inquirers perceive MB through other channels? Will lead to recommendations for TMB based on findings February tmb03 final 31

32 Summary, continued Market summary Manitoba Shorter trip lengths More likely to travel with family/children TI survey respondents Travel for leisure Alberta Travel to visit family and friends Website inquirers Higher awareness and attendance of Homecoming events Other Canada Travel in transit to/from other destinations More likely to stay at an RV park Website inquirers Primary US Travel to fish and hunt More likely to travel with party members aged 65 or over More likely to stay at a resort February tmb03 final 32

33 Recommendations Research opportunities Conversion study allows TMB to affirm ROI (based on inquirer visitor spending) and fine-tune travel information Sharp, continued decrease in inquiries may mean shifts in demographics or decision making Research can explore inquiry motivations, identify trends and lead to recommendations Trip satisfaction continues to drop A study with emphasis on satisfaction drivers will identify causes of shifts in satisfaction Explore why visitors still likely to recommend Open-ended questions will allow for analysis of expectations Marketing opportunities Engage different groups in different ways on the TMB website E.g. Day trip information for locals, info for non-manitobans Enhance outdoor/eco-tourism content to prompt additional/longer visits these tourists see guides as more influential Upsell to US and high income travellers to encourage more locations and additional activities Develop materials for aging tourists Consider worry-free marketing (US view MB as a safe place) Family fishing/hunting packages February tmb03 final 33

34 Appendix A: Figures Return to start February tmb03 final 34

35 Figure 1: Margin of error Market (region of origin) Unweighted count Population (inquiries) Margin of error (95% confidence level) Manitoba 265 1,222 18% 4.71% Alberta % 8.87% Other Canada 610 4,222 62% 3.39% Primary U.S % 6.57% Travel Intention % 5.14% Information Request 937 6,226 92% 2.72% Total 1,109 6, % 2.68% Click to return 35

36 Figure 2: IR respondent regional breakdown 60% 50% 53% 28% 26% 23% 17% 37% 31% 18% 17% 15% % 5% 6% 7% Manitoba Alberta Other Canada Primary US Click to return 36

37 Figure 3: TI respondent regional breakdown 59% 59% 25% 28% % 10% 6% 3% Manitoba Alberta Other Canada Primary US Click to return 37

38 Figure 4: Inquiry prompts Information Request Travel Intentions Explorers 28% 25% 22% Interest in MB 17% 15% 10% 10% 9% 6% 13% 12% 14% 11% 14% 6% 6% 6% 6% 4% Returners Advertising / media Online Fishing & hunting 13% 8% 8% 5% 5% Click to return 38

39 Figure 5: Inquiry/contact path 95% 88% 82% % 5% 3% 3% 7% 2% 8% Business reply card Schulmans Telephone Internet Click to return 39

40 Figure 6: Change in Internet media code 84% 82% 65% 68% 75% 50% Internet Click to return 40

41 Figure 7: Website pages visited 2010 online respondents 49% 48% 47% 45% 30% 18% 6% Accomm. Family / couples Outdoor adv / eco-tourism Festivals / events Arts / cultural Fishing Hunting Click to return 41

42 Figure 8: Website visitation prompt Information Request Travel Intentions 82% 88% Learn more about MB for travel 80% 81% Business Academic/ research Other travelrelated reason Not seeking 10% 11% 7% 5% travel 2% 3% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3% 3% 2% information Click to return 7% 42

43 Figure 9: Influence of visitor kit items Vacation/Accommodation Guide Travel Manitoba website Events Guide Outdoor Adventure Guide e-newsletters TI 2010 IR Fishing/Hunting Guide Click to return 43

44 Figure 10: Usefulness of information (IR visitors) 49% 57% 27% 25% 23% 28% 49% 57% 27% 25% Very useful 23% 28% 46% 46% 45% 43% Very useful Quite useful Somewhat useful 38% Not useful 30% 14% 4% % 2% % 3% % 4% % 4% % 5% 2010 Click to return 44

45 Figure 11: 2010 travel to Manitoba (>80 km from home) % TI visitors 79% % IR visitors 65% 58% 67% 63% 66% Click to return 45

46 Figure 12: Financial reasons for not visiting (IR) Personal financial reasons High cost of gasoline Poor economic conditions / job concerns Too expensive 23% 30% 22% 31% 19% 12% 12% 6% 12% 6% 11% 12% 11% 10% 14% 11% 7% 2% 4% 3% 4% 3% Click to return 46

47 Figure 13: Other destinations increasingly more appealing Other destinations more appealing 26% 15% 16% 16% 8% 10% Click to return 47

48 Figure 14: Previous Manitoba trips (past two years) 75% 67% 52% 58% 49% 2010 TI 2009 TI 2010 IR 38% 2009 IR 2008 IR 2007 IR % visitors who took trips to MB in the past two years Click to return 48

49 Figure 15: Visitor travel intentions (at inquiry) Information Request visitors Travel Intentions visitors 72% 67% 68% 70% Already decided to take trip 61% 61% Planning trip but no firm decision yet 17% 18% 19% 17% Deciding where to go, considering MB 24% 23% 10% 2% % 2% % 1% % 2% 2010 Not considering a trip to MB this year 13% 1% % 3% 2010 Click to return 49

50 Figure 16: Conversion by vacation planning time GCR by trip planning time No intention 4% PCR (intend to visit) 30% GCR (visited) 66% 62% 77% 78% 71% 65% 50% 49% Total PCR: 96% < 1 wk 1-3 wks 1-2 mths 3-6 mths 7-8 mths 9 mths - 1 yr > 1 yr Click to return 50

51 Figure 17: Awareness of Manitoba Homecoming 61% 12% 41% 17% 30% 11% 49% Became aware once I arrived Was aware before coming 30% IR non-visitors TI non-visitors IR visitors TI visitors Click to return 51

52 Figure 18: Nights spent in Manitoba 23% 2010 IR 2010 TI 19% 10% 14% 13% 15% 14% 10% 16% 11% 6% 7% 8% 6% 5% 4% 6% 6% 2% 5% to 7 8 to to to 30 > 30 Click to return 52

53 Figure 19: Travel party composition (TI) % 39% 11% 9% 18% 13% 4% 2% 1 adult 2 adults 3+ adults 1 adult with child(ren) 26% 12% 2 adults with child(ren) 7% 6% 4% 3% 3+ adults with Large parties child(ren) (10+ people) Click to return 53

54 Figure 20: Travel party expenditures (avg per day) $ $ $ $ $ $ Click to return 54

55 Figure 21: Visitor centre visitation Information Request visitors % 40% 42% 40% 7% 5% 17% 16% 19% 17% 15% 8% Boissevain Kirkella Russell Emerson Whiteshell The Forks Travel Intentions visitors % 48% 32% 31% 4% 3% Boissevain 14% 9% Kirkella 16% 16% Russell 17% 7% Emerson Whiteshell The Forks Click to return 55

56 Figure 22: Manitoba trip satisfaction (IR) Information Request visitors 83% 80% 80% 65% 60% 58% 57% 65% 60% 58% 57% Very satisfied 83% 80% 80% Very satisfied 20% 26% 18% 23% Somewhat satisfied Neutral or dissatisfied 11% 3% 14% 6% 15% 5% 14% 15% 23% 20% Click to return 56

57 Figure 23: Satisfaction with value for money Information Request visitors Travel Intentions visitors 27% 30% 30% 28% 38% 34% Exceeded expectations Met expectations 66% 63% 64% 65% Below expectations 57% 62% 7% 7% 6% 6% 5% 4% Click to return 57

58 Figure 24: Time spent planning a vacation 2009 IR 2010 IR 2009 TI 2010 TI 36% 35% 36% 30% 23% 24% 27% 25% 20% 20% 9% 6% 4% 7% 14% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 12% 9% 8% 6% < 1 mth 1 to 2 mths 3 to 6 mths 7 to 8 mths 9 mths to 1 yr > 1 yr Click to return 58

59 Figure 25: Vacation planning method 60% 61% 57% 56% % 14% 15% 10% 7% 7% 6% 8% 3% 3% 2% 3% 16% 14% 14% 12% Start with destination Start with activities Start with a budget Look for package deals No particular sequence / it changes Click to return 59

60 Figure 26: Most useful trip-planning sources (IR) Maps % 16% 19% MU % TMB website % 23% 21% 17% MU % TMB visitor information centre % 7% 7% 11% Click to return MU % 60

61 Figure 27: Respondent household income 24% 21% 21% 7% 13% 19% 17% 15% 14% 11% 10% 10% 9% 9% Less than $20,000 $20,000 to <$40,000 $40,000 to <$60,000 $60,000 to <$80,000 $80,000 to <$100,000 $100,000 to <$120,000 $120,000 or more 2010 IR 2010 TI Click to return 61

62 Figure 28: Inquiries over time 75,545 46,323 39,607 24,824 14,787 11,024 6, Click to return 62

63