See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/269114247

A LITERATURE REVIEW ON DESTINATION MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION

(DMO)

Article · December 2014

CITATIONS READS

5 2,685

2 authors:

Neha Itty Jose Paul Bindi Varghese

Mount Carmel College Christ University, Bangalore
9 PUBLICATIONS   7 CITATIONS    22 PUBLICATIONS   32 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Strategic Interventions of DMO in tourism View project

Medical Tourism View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Neha Itty Jose Paul on 19 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ZENITH International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research _______________ISSN 2231-5780
Vol.4 (12), December (2014)
Online available at zenithresearch.org.in

A LITERATURE REVIEW ON DESTINATION MANAGEMENT

ORGANIZATION (DMO)

BINDI VARGHESE*; NEHA ITTY JOSE PAUL**

*PH.D,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
CHRIST UNIVERSITY,
DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM STUDIES
HOSUR ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560029,
KARNATAKA, INDIA.

** RESEARCH ASSISTANT
CHRIST UNIVERSITY,
DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM STUDIES
HOSUR ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560029,
KARNATAKA, INDIA.

ABSTRACT:
This article is focused on the literature reviews that revolves around four themes mainly: Marketing,
Destination Management Organization (DMOs), Destination Management and Branding. A methodological
review was conducted on more than twenty articles that varied from research based articles (empirical
studies), literature reviews articles, case studies, book reviews, conference proceedings, conceptual papers and
so on to derive clarity on the DMO concept. The review gathered that the DMO has various functions other
than traditionally known marketing function, the structure and type of the DMO varies according to the
destinations. The paper concludes on the note that DMOs are necessary for the long term sustainability of the
destination.

KEY WORDS: Destination Management Organization (DMOs), Marketing, Management, Methodological

Reviews.

INTRODUCTION:

To gather a through understanding of what a Destination Management Organization (DMOs) is a

methodological literature review of the articles on various bases was conducted. The review studied articles
from various angles such as the type of DMO, the destination areas covered by the article (country or region),
variables broad that were identified in the paper, indicators of those variables (sub-variables), measuring
parameters of the variables, objectives of the study, measuring parameters of objectives, assessing parameters
that is the pros and cons of each paper, the outcome and implications of the paper, the reviewers assessment
and evaluation of the paper and lastly the summary of the paper. The vast methodological review gave way to
draw conclusions on the topic.

The reviews on the domain of the DMO category showed that researcher(s) used the DMO
terminology varyingly, and supports the definition of the UNWTO which states that DMOs can take the form
of “an National Tourism Office (NTO), a Government Tourism Administration (GTA), Bureau of Tourism
Research (BTR) it could be a public sector organization such as a Public Sector Management (PSM) or a

82
ZENITH International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research _______________ISSN 2231-5780
Vol.4 (12), December (2014)
Online available at zenithresearch.org.in

Public Tourism Office (PTO)” (Tian, Huang & Busby, 2011). The methodological reviews covered articles
from approximately 36 countries of these 27 Countries have been identified with functioning DMOs.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:
The main function of the DMO is examined by various authors such as, Presenza, Sheehan and
Ritchie (2005) who gives various views of DMOs as a Destination Marketing Organization and Destination
Management Organization. It tries to propose a model that describes the possible activities of DMOs as
belonging to an External Destination Marketing (EDM) function or an Internal Destination Development
(IDD) function. Conceptualizations and descriptions are offered by EDM and IDD, and their respective
activities. Similarly Morrison, Bruen and Anderson, gives the five fundamental functions that DMOs perform,
they are: an “economic driver” generating new income, employment, and taxes contributing to a more
diversified local economy; a “community marketer” communicating the most appropriate destination image,
attractions, and facilities to selected visitor markets; an “industry coordinator” providing a clear focus and
encouraging less industry fragmentation so as to share in the growing benefits of tourism; a “quasi-public
representative” adding legitimacy for the industry and protection to individual and group visitors; a “builder
of community pride” by enhancing quality of life and acting as the chief “flag carrier” for residents and
visitors alike (Presenza, 2005, p. 2)(as cited by Borzyszkowski & Marczak (n.d.) p.38). These functions give
clarity on the DMO concept the manner in which they function as well as their duties and responsibilities.
The concept of DMO is applicable on various stances as the World Tourism Organization (2004)
defines DMOs as organizations responsible for the management and/or marketing of destinations and
generally falling into one of the following categories: (1) National Tourism Authorities or Organizations,
responsible for management and marketing of tourism at a national level; (2) Regional, provincial or state
DMOs, responsible for the management and/or marketing of tourism in a geographic region defined for that
purpose, sometimes but not always an administrative or local government region such as a county, state or
province; and (3) Local DMOs, responsible for the management and/or marketing of tourism based on a
smaller geographic area or city/town. Therefore there is no one standard form followed by countries across
the world.
Several researchers compared the DMOs of two countries: Palmer and Bejou (1995) studies upon the
marketing alliances built in a tourist destination, the most developed form of UK tourism alliance is
associated with Tourism Development Action Programs (TDAPs). Where as in the American system there
has been a strong motivation to create a collaborative body with a specific focus on tourism. The motivation
coming from within a Chamber of Commerce has often been combined with a desire by other public and
private sector agencies to create such a body. A common result has been the development of Visitor and
Convention Bureaus (VCBs). Like TDAPs, VCBs generally only exist in areas where there is popular support
for their introduction among potential collaborators (p.623). Therefore, a DMO can be setup by collaborating
stakeholder either in connection with the stakeholders or not, also the stakeholders in UK and US tourism
industries have formed different patterns of marketing alliances to suit their unique requirements.

Fyall, Callod, and Edwards (2003) assess relationship marketing in two destinations: Stockholm and
Barbados. Here the DMO is in the form if Stockholm Information Service (SIS) and Barbados Tourism
Authority (BTA). Whereas D‟Angella and Go (2009) explains that the key feature of the DMOs in Barcelona
is that its made up of local authorities and the Chamber of Commerce, the composition of the board members
include indirectly the tourism firms represented by hotel associations, whereas in Vienna the DMO is made

83
ZENITH International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research _______________ISSN 2231-5780
Vol.4 (12), December (2014)
Online available at zenithresearch.org.in

up of the auspices of the regional Parliament and the board embraces only public bodies. Therefore, it can be
said that different countries adapt different means of establishing DMOs.
A DMO can also be consortia Žužić (2012) who proposes an Istrian model to destination management
where a consortium is built, the author argues that the most important aspect of destination management is
identifying destinations special features and to offer it to specified tourists target groups. These consortiums
also see to it that they design special- interest forms of tourism development that could lead to public private
partnership, also serves the marketing function so as to represent the interest of the destinations.
In major events such as the Olympic Games, the DMOs play a very important role in the host country
as it poses an excellent opportunity to raise funds, it benefits local business, it helps build long term market
opportunities, helps position or re-position both the host city and the host destination to a global audience, it
instils in the mass a sense of national pride and patriotism and on the whole is beneficial to the economy, as
Singh and Hu (2008) describes Greece Olympics, where the DMO for the country (GNTO for Greece) offers
extraordinary opportunities to expose the destination‟s image and features.
Castelltort and Mader (2010) examine the utilities of the Monetary Public Value (MPV) means of
analyzing destination image and more over the paper mentions the necessity of DMOs to monitor their
effectiveness and this method would be useful for researchers and practitioners to have a measurement tool in
order to gauge media exposure of tourism destinations. This paper is important to gauge the media image is
also important for Destination Marketing Organizations (DMOs). These organizations, whose purpose is to
promote an identifiable destination and to foster its sustained competitiveness, need to assess a return on
investment of their efforts.
The methodological review saw a myriad of articles from different fields each studying the DMO
from various angles. Several papers such as Dore and Crouch (2003) explore into promotion studies through
studying literatures and analysis the gap is an area that has not been extensively studied upon, the paper looks
into the promotional efforts made by National Tourism Offices (NTOs) so as to publicize a destination and
stimulate tourist demand and thereby compare and contrast the different approaches and outcomes. Also,
Clarke (2009) reviews a book on destination marketing, where he briefly accounts the details of the book, on
few areas where the book unravels and explores the context of DMOs regarding the structural, political,
economic and cultural forces that surround the work undertaken by the DMOs and the processes they adopt
and explore the principles and processes of marketing that are involved in destination marketing.
Pike (2009) reviewed 74 destination branding article of 102 authors from 1998 to 2007 that is the ten year
span of destination branding, here the author states that, “increasing levels of investments being made by
DMOs at NTO, STO, RTO and CVB levels around the world, and the extent that a destination‟s umbrella
theme must somehow represents the interests of a diverse range of active stakeholders, it is surprising that
academic interest in the field has not been stronger” (p.864).
Therefore DMOs are accountable to a diverse range of active and passive publics such as a board of
directors, tourism sector groups, local taxpayers, and government, many of who will have different
viewpoints that are not necessarily based on the holistic perspective expected by DMO management. Pike
(2002) has also analyzed 142 papers revolving around the theme of destination image, the literature assessed
is covered between the years 1973 to 2000 time span where the author states only four papers attempted to
focus on Destination Marketing Organizations (DMOs) in one way or another showing that few studies have
been conducted on DMOs. These extensive literature review based papers give an understanding of how less
DMOs are researched on and why there is a gap that needs to be addressed.
The detailed reviewing also brought to light the various areas dealt by the DMO such as discussed by
Atorough and Martin (2012) where the DMO will involve in enlarging the customer base and raising the

84
ZENITH International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research _______________ISSN 2231-5780
Vol.4 (12), December (2014)
Online available at zenithresearch.org.in

tourism profiles of both city and rural locations, in order to create a level playing field. Also, Harril (2012)
states that successful DMOs have established partnerships and collaborative networks, the best suggested
means of collaboration are; to employ a strategy of collaboration with stakeholders, to institutionalize the
collaboration with strategic stakeholders by ensuring they are represented by the board of directors, ensure
regular, frequent and clear communication with a triad members using personal relationships and lastly to
receive interpret and disseminate market information.
Other studies give great understanding of how a DMO manager should manage the organization,
details of how the DMO can serve as a facilitator of information is seen here. The implications of the study
conducted by Col, Saumell, García and Fiol (2012) state that, First, DMOs ought to minimize the differences
in perceptions between tourists of different cultures, need their employees to have a cross-cultural training
adequate for interacting with the target public of the tourism destination. Second, DMOs must facilitate
information to stakeholders so that they can differentiate tourists that come from individualistic and low
uncertainty avoidance cultures from those that come from collectivistic cultures with high uncertainty
avoidance. Third, the major international urban destinations have to adapt tourism services to the tourists‟
cultural and social context, which is especially complicated in international tourism destinations, as is the case
of Barcelona, visited by tourists from a wide variety of cultures. These valuable insights are important for the
research on DMOs.As DMO is a rounded organization its role is not limited to the destination management
activities alone role. The DMO actively engages in social responsibility, stewardship and sustainability
agenda. DMO considers how destinations competiveness is measured, and arrives at key performance
indicators (KPIs) so as to achieve growth (Morgan, 2012).
DMOs also have a role to play in destination crisis management as the DMO is responsible for the
overall co-ordination of strategy implementation within the destination, the accountability of implementation
should lie with the professional associations of the various tourism stakeholders. Thereby it‟s very important
for the DMO to strive „„not to develop a culture of fear but rather a culture of preparedness and mitigation‟‟
(Paraskevas & Arendell, 2007). Thus DMOs determines what kind of a tourism environment they want.
The DMO should also avail the latest technology for its advancement in this competitive world the
paper by Neuhofer, Buhalis and Ladkin (2012) mentions this need where is crucial that DMOs still focus on
their core competencies, products and experiences, but in addition to that, utilize ICTs in order to maximize
and enhance the co-created experience for example: Thailand‟s DMO website features tools such as videos,
images and user-generated stories that particularly enhance the virtual pre-travel experience by inspiring, pre-
living experiences and encouraging individuals to come to Thailand.
Luna-Nevarez and Hyman (2012) explains how the internet is an inexpensive tool for promoting
destinations. This paper well explains how destinations make best use of this. In a world where tourism and
travel represent a primary economic activity, DMOs should develop maximally effective online promotional
strategies that can convert virtual visitors into actual visitors. The paper suggests DMOs should refine their
websites for two reasons: firstly as the main interface between a destination and potential tourists, internet
users believe such websites represent destinations and secondly such websites allow visitors to evaluate the
products, services, and experiences (e.g. events, attractions, places to visit, culture) offered by a destination
(Kim, Shaw, & Schneider, 2003).

The role of the DMO in destination branding and image building is also pertinent as (Pike, 2006)
gives a brief insight on several aspects of improving a destination's brand and competitiveness such as for
example: "As Bundaberg had a poor tourist destination image the study was conducted so as to understand
market preferences and thus gain information so the DMOs can improve brand effectiveness". Moreover

85
ZENITH International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research _______________ISSN 2231-5780
Vol.4 (12), December (2014)
Online available at zenithresearch.org.in

observing the destination image continuously is an important aspect for destination marketing organizations
(DMOs) (Cakmak & Isaac, 2012, p.125).
When these are maintained it will help in the building of the competitiveness of the destination, Pyo (2005)
“destination knowledge management contributes in building competitive destinations by supporting timely
decision-making and eliminating duplicate efforts to find the same knowledge” (p.594).
García, Gómez and Molina (2012) states that traditional strategies of some DMOs focusing their
brand management efforts on a fast projection towards visitors, in search of their main goal, could become
counterproductive. Visitors‟ expectations concerning the destination and the existence of imbalances with the
PB, BA, BM, and BE of entrepreneurs and local people can act as elements inhibiting visitors brand value.
This study suggests that DMOs must develop a two-stage strategy, focusing firstly on the stakeholders closest
to the destination, both from the domain of destination management (entrepreneurs) and of society and
employment (local people), and secondly on visitors.
Few concepts were briefed with great detail, functional brand components seem to play a major role in a
consumer‟s description of place brands during the various decision making stages. This paper‟s finding
highlights the importance of stressing functional components in the destination‟s branding strategy
(Balakrishna , Nehikili & Lewis , 2011).These papers give more clarity to the concept of DMOs.
Dragićević, Jovićić, Blešić, Stankov and Bošković (2012) explored the increased need of finding out
destinations competitive (dis)advantages so as to sustain the destination in the long run. The paper speaks on
the province of Vojvodina where business tourism is a major product and comparing Vojvodina‟s business to
a competitive set of three chosen destinations so as to find out the weak point of Vojvodina‟s competitiveness.
These studies can contribute to the framing of an idea on how even Karnataka as a destination should be
assessed on grounds of its competitiveness.
DMOs are key coordinators marketing of a destination where the question of whether or not to involve
stakeholders arises as Bhat and Gaur (2012) questions Who should be considered as destination marketing
stakeholders? How important is Destination Corporation for Indian stakeholders? Do stakeholders in India
have different expectations of the extent that they wish to be involved in destination marketing? What is the
NTO‟s approach to cooperation with stakeholders in India? The answers will assist Indian NTOs to devise an
appropriate strategy of involvement for different stakeholders leading to a greater delivering on destination
promises.
If a DMO is established then the question asked by the above authors can be resolved. As, Buhalis
(2000) states that destination marketing is becoming more complex as tourists consume regions as
experiences, often ignoring that tourism products consist of a great number of individually produced products
and services. Therefore strategic objectives should be set through stakeholders' analysis and match the
appropriate demand with supply, by using the entire range of marketing tools for communicating with
consumers and suppliers, which is the main aim of any DMO.

CONCLUSION:
Thus, it is clear as to the need for the implication of Destination Management Organizations so as to
bring in a body of control that oversees the destination and at the same time achieves visitor satisfaction. A
DMO will be will be the nerve centre of the destination that holds crucial information pertaining to the
market, it brings about a total management system and helps in coordinating and controlling the flow of
tourists, tackles present trends and challenges and be that platform for all stakeholders to come in contact with
the potential tourists. The Destination Management Organization (DMOs) deals with several categories, to
bring to the highlight: destinations‟ overall management, competency of a destination, governance, quality
control, stakeholder management, infrastructural development, marketing, and eventually leading to setting a
benchmark that states a standard of quality services and products that is offered to the tourists and thereby
achieve overall satisfaction of consumers.
REFERENCES:

86
ZENITH International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research _______________ISSN 2231-5780
Vol.4 (12), December (2014)
Online available at zenithresearch.org.in

Atorough, P., & Martin, A. (2012). The politics of destination marketing: Assessing stakeholder
interaction choice orientations toward a DMO formation, using the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode
Instrument. Journal of Place Management and Development, 5(1), 35-55. doi:
10.1108/17538331211209031

Balakrishna , M. S., Nehikili, R., & Lewis , C. (2008). Destination brand components . International
Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 5(1), 4-25. doi:10.1108/17506181111111726

Bhat, S., & Gaur, S. S. (2012). Managing diverse stakeholder in the context of destination marketing
.Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 4(2), 185-202. doi: 10.1108/17554211211217352

Borzyszkowski, J., & Marczak, M.(n.d.). Destination management organizations in the face of crisis. I.
Tourism and Heritage, 37. Retrieved from
http://www.northseascreen.eu/File/CIT_konferencebog.pdf#page=37

Cakmak, E., & Isaac, R. K. (2012). What destination marketers can learn from their visitors‟ blogs: An
image analysis of Bethlehem, Palestine. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 1, 124–
133. doi: 10.1016/j.jdmm.2012.09.004

Castelltort, M., & Mader, G. (2010). Press media coverage effects on destinations – A Monetary Public
Value (MPV) analysis. Tourism Management, 31, 724–738. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2009.06.007

Col, S. F., Saumell, R. P., García, J. S., & Fiol, L. (2012). Urban destination loyalty drivers and cross-
national moderator effects: The case of Barcelona. Tourism Management, 33, 1309-1320. doi:
10.1016/j.tourman.2011.12.013

D‟Angella, F., & Go, F. M. (2009). Tale of two cities‟ collaborative tourism marketing: Towards a theory
of destination stakeholder assessment. Tourism Management, 30, 429-440. doi:
10.1016/j.tourman.2008.07.012

Dragićević, V., Jovićić, D., Blešić, I., Stankov, U., & Bošković , D. (2012). Business tourism destination
competitiveness: A case study of Vojvodina province (Serbia). Economic Research, 25(2), 311-332.
Fyall, A., Callod, C., & Edwards, B. (2003). Relationship marketing the challenge for
destinations. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(3), 644–659. doi: 10.1016/S0160-7383(03)00046-X
García, J. A., Gómez, M., & Molina, A. (2012). A destination-branding model: An empirical analysis
based on stakeholders . Tourism Management,33, 646-661. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2011.07.006
Harril, R. (2012). Destination management: New challenges, new needs In T. Jamal & M. Robinson
(Eds.), The sage handbook of tourism studies (pp. 432-447). Great Britain: MPG Books Group.
Luna-Nevarez, C., & Hyman, M. R. (2012). Common practices in destination website design. Journal of
Destination Marketing & Management, 1, 94–106. doi: 10.1016/j.jdmm.2012.08.002
Morgan, N. (2012). Time for „mindful‟ destination management and marketing . Journal of Destination
Marketing & Management, 1, 8-9. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2012.07.003
Palmer, A., & Bejou, D. (1995). Tourism destination marketing alliances. Annals of Tourism Research,
22(3), 616-629.
Paraskevas, A., & Arendell, B. (2007). A strategic framework for terrorism prevention and mitigation in
tourism destinations. Tourism Management, 28, 1560–1573. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2007.02.012

87
 ZENITH International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research _______________ISSN 2231-5780
Vol.4 (12), December (2014)
Online available at zenithresearch.org.in

Pike, S. (2002). Destination image analysis - A review of 142 papers from 1973 to 2000. Tourism
Management, 23, 541–549. doi:10.1016/S0261-5177(02)00005-5
Pike, S. (2006). Destination decision sets: A longitudinal comparison of stated destination preferences
and actual travel . Journal of Vacation Marketing,12(4), 319-327.
Pike, S. (2009). Destination brand positions of a competitive set of near-home destinations. Tourism
Management, 30, 857–866. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2008.12.007
Presenza, A., Sheehan, L., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2005).Towards a model of the roles and activities of
destination management organizations. Unpublished manuscript, Retrieved from
http://www.academia.edu/1009194/Towards_a_model_of_the_roles_and_activities_of_destination_m
anagement_organizations
Pyo, S. (2005). Knowledge map for tourist destinations - Needs and implications. Tourism
Management, 26, 583–594. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2004.03.001
Ritchie, R. J. B., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2002). A framework for an industry supported destination marketing
information system. Tourism Management, 23, 439–454.
Singh, N., & Hu, C. (2008). Understanding strategic alignment for destination marketing and the 2004
Athens Olympic Games: Implications from extracted tacit knowledge. Tourism Management, 29,
929–939. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2007.11.005
Tian, X., Huang, R., & Busby, G. An Investigation of DMOs in China: With particular reference to
Beijing Tourism Development Committee BTDC.Atca Touristica, 23, 105-238.

88

View publication stats