Alaska Visitor Statistics Program V:

Project Evolution and Policy Impacts

Prepared for:

Travel and Tourism Research Association

Greater Western Chapter

Presented by:

McDowell Group, Inc.Anchorage · Juneau · Kodiak

March 23, 2007

McDowell Group• Alaska-based research and consulting for

35 years• 15 full-time staff: Juneau, Anchorage,

Kodiak• Tourism, seafood/fisheries, resource

development, social services, economic development– 400+ tourism projects including market

research and analysis, economic impacts, feasibility studies, tourism development, and strategic planning

AVSP Overview and History• Commissioned by

State of Alaska• Two components:

– Visitor Volume– Visitor Survey

• Two time periods:– Summer (May-September)– Fall/Winter (October-April)

• Previously conducted in 1985, 1989, 1993, and 2001

• AVSP I, II, III by McDowell Group, AVSP IV by Northern Economics

Information CollectedYellow: new for AVSP V

• Trip purpose• Trip packages• Transportation (entry, exit, within state)• Destinations (day visits, overnight visits)• Length of stay (overall, in each destination)• Lodging types used• Activities (overall,

in each destination)• Satisfaction ratings• Previous Alaska travel• Trip planning behavior• Demographics• Expenditures

AVSP I-IV Methodology• Three surveys – Random Arrival Survey (RAS): short intercept

survey administered upon arrival into Alaska– Visitor Expenditure Survey (VES): self-

administered diary given to RAS respondents to be filled out during trip

– Visitor Opinion Survey (VOS): mailed to RAS respondents to be completed after trip

• Visitors tallied upon entry into Alaska • Survey locations: airports, cruise ship

docks, highways, onboard ferries

AVSP IV Challenges• Declining response rates– RAS response rates fell from >90% To ~50%– VOS response rates fell from 82% (AVSP I) to

68% (AVSP III) to 19% (AVSP IV)– VES response rates fell from 73% (AVSP I) to

62% (AVSP III) to 15% (AVSP IV)

• Security issues – Access to jetways, docks, etc.

• Funding level not reflective of increased costs

• Small sample sizes prevented subgroup analysis; limited confidence in data

Changes for AVSP V• Exit methodology (survey

and tally) instead of entry• Three surveys (intercept,

diary, mail-out) combined into one intercept instrument

• Survey content streamlined; more relevant to industry needs

• Introduction of online survey to boost sample sizes

Online Survey

• Cards distributed tosimilar sample as intercept

• Survey contentmirrored interceptsurveys

• Each card had uniquepassword

• Incentives– One winner per month won Denali package– One winner per season won cruise package

AVSP V Successes

• Greatly increased sample sizes– 5,659 total surveys

(compared to 3,722 RAS, 714 VOS, 547 VES in AVSP IV)• 2,703 intercept• 2,956 online

– Increased sample sizes allowed for extensive subgroup analysis (50+ separate profiles provided)

– 50,000 travelers tallied for visitor volume

• Intended trip behavior collected in RAS became actual trip behavior; information fresh in visitors’ minds

AVSP V Successes (cont’d)• Greatly increased response rates

– 86 percent compared to 19 (VOS) and 15 (VES) percent in AVSP IV

– Visitors at completion of trip much more willing to be surveyed than arriving visitors

– Fewer time constraints in exit survey– Response rates strong despite long survey length

• Higher than anticipated response rates among online respondents (18 percent)

• Improved survey content more useful to industry (ex: Internet usage, detailed activity participation, length of stay in each destination)

• Methodology changes made funding level reasonable

AVSP V ChallengesCombination of two methodologies: intercept and

online• Respondent bias

– Online visitors from South, Midwest more likely to participate, international visitors less likely

– Online respondents more likely to use Internet, other trip planning sources

• Question misinterpretation– Intercept respondents able to ask surveyors for

clarification– Online respondents did not always follow directions– Online respondents misunderstood some questions– Survey editing/cleaning not as thorough

Solutions• Respondent bias

– Weighted online data by origin– Trip planning source data (usage of

internet, travel agent, additional sources) based only to intercept respondents

• Question misinterpretation– Correction of responses for cruise

overnight data– For all other questions that appeared

to be misunderstood, only intercept data used• Party size• Transportation within state• Activities• Expenditures

AVSP Impacts on Policy• Data already being used

in legislative funding requests

• Expenditure data is used in economic impact analyses– State, regional, local

AVSP Impacts on Policy• Demographic data used when developing

marketing strategy and tactics– Advertising– Direct mail

• Trip planning info guides marketing efforts and visitor information services

• Timing of trip decision and booking

AVSP Impacts on Policy cont.• Data used to gain funding and

track effectiveness of special programs– Developing Alaska Rural Tourism– SEAtrails– Tourism Mentorship Assistance– AlaskaHost– Independent visitor marketing– International visitor marketing

AVSP Impacts on Policy cont.• Provides critical performance measures for

State agencies– Dept. of Commerce– DOTP&F

• AMHS• Alaska Railroad• Airports

– Fish and Game

Lessons Learned• Allow more time for pre-test of online survey– Contract awarded in first week of April;

fielding began on May 1• Compare data early in survey fielding• Give online respondents more guidance to avoid

misinterpretation• Avoid open-ended questions in online survey– Time involved in coding not worth resulting data

• Online component not as economical as anticipated; card distribution time-consuming

• Online component makes sense when visitors are easy to find; otherwise intercept is more economical

Questions/Discussion• Are online respondents as truthful as intercept

respondents? Are they more truthful?• Are there times when questions work better

online? Ex: list of information sources, list of activities

• How does survey timing affect responses? (at end of trip vs. days after trip) Satisfaction? Expenditures?

Thank you

Final report will be available online in early April at:

www.dced.state.ak.us/oed/toubus/home.cfm

McDowell Group, Inc.Anchorage · Juneau · Kodiak

www.mcdowellgroup.net