Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research

ISSN: 1094-1665 (Print) 1741-6507 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rapt20

Tourism destination marketing – A tool for

destination management? A case study from
Nelson/Tasman Region, New Zealand

Katrin Blumberg

To cite this article: Katrin Blumberg (2005) Tourism destination marketing – A tool for destination
management? A case study from Nelson/Tasman Region, New Zealand, Asia Pacific Journal of
Tourism Research, 10:1, 45-57, DOI: 10.1080/1094166042000330218

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1094166042000330218

Published online: 02 Feb 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 947

View related articles

Citing articles: 10 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rapt20

Download by: [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] Date: 04 October 2017, At: 04:07
 Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 10, No. 1, March 2005

Tourism Destination Marketing – A Tool for

Destination Management? A Case Study from
Nelson/Tasman Region, New Zealand
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 04:07 04 October 2017

Katrin Blumberg
Department of Tourism, University of Otago, New Zealand

Tourism destination marketing is now widely recognized as an essential component in the

management of destinations. In harmony with the general marketing literature, which
understands marketing as a management tool, some researchers understand destination
marketing as a form of ‘market-oriented strategic planning’ and hence as a strategic
approach to place development rather than a promotional tool. Based on the results of
a case study of tourism destination marketing in the Nelson/Tasman Region, New
Zealand, this article examines the suitability of tourism destination marketing as a tool
and of Destination Marketing Organizations (DMO) as a vehicle for tourism destination
management and development. A discussion of several difficulties in the implementation
of tourism destination marketing in Nelson/Tasman Region leads to the conclusion that
DMOs are unlikely to be able to claim too much responsibility for destination manage-
ment but that they can play an important part in the management of the destination
product.

Key words: destination marketing, destination management, cooperation, destination

marketing organization (DMO)

Introduction interest, however, has not been accom-

Intensifying competition between tourist desti-
nations and the increasing recognition of mar-
keting as indispensable for the tourism
industry has led to the evolution of (tourism)
destination marketing as a topic relevant to
tourism in both theory and practice. This
panied by a large amount of empirical work
on how destination marketing is actually
implemented, who participates in it, or even
to what extend it is accepted by the persons
and institutions affected. The understanding
of marketing itself has, over the last decades,
undergone a profound shift of paradigm and


E-mail: bluka811@student.otago.ac.nz

ISSN 1094-1665 print/ISSN 1741-6507 online/05/010045–13 # 2005 Asia Pacific Tourism Association
DOI: 10.1080/1094166042000330218
 46 K. Blumberg
evolved as a central business management
concept. Originally, marketing focused on
the supply side and was mainly concerned
with the sale of the existing products (goods
or services) with the help of sales increasing
instruments (Freyer, 2001). In contrast,
modern marketing is a concept of business
management, philosophy and culture where –
in the interest of the achievement of the com-
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 04:07 04 October 2017
pany’s goals – business activities are oriented
towards the current and future conditions of
the market (Freyer, 2001).
The aim of this article is to briefly recon-
struct this conceptual change within the
wider field of general marketing for the
sub-discipline of tourism destination market-
ing, and subsequently put the new understand-
ing of destination marketing on trial
empirically.
The Concept of Tourism Destination
Marketing
Tourism Destination Marketing
In contrast to the originally spatially confined
notion of a tourist destination as the ‘end of
the journey’ (Vukonic, 1997, p. 98), a newer,
more functionally orientated conception sees
the destination “as an amalgam of individual
products and experience opportunities that
combine to form a total experience of the
area visited” (Murphy et al., 2000, p. 44;
italics added). This understanding of the desti-
nation as an integrated unit moved it into the
core of the tourism macro-product (Travis,
1989; Vukonic, 1997) and therefore also into
the center of tourism competition (Ritchie &
Crouch, 2000). While destinations can there-
fore be regarded as tourism products and
thus as marketing units, the concept of a
place-product is not limited to tourism but
enjoys much more generic application:
No longer are places merely the settings for business
activity. Instead, every community has to transform
itself into a seller of goods and services, a proactive
marketer of its products and its place value. Places
are, indeed, products, whose identities and values
must be designed and marketed. Places that fail to
market themselves successfully face the risk of econ-
omic stagnation and decline. (Kotler et al., 1993,
p. 10).
In congruence with the ‘new’ concept of
marketing, destination marketing is here
understood as “market-orientated strategic
planning” (Kotler et al., 1993, p. 16, italics
added) and therefore as a strategic approach
to place development rather than a sales or
image making tool (Buhalis, 2000). Kotler
et al. (1993, p. 18) consider it successful if
“stakeholders such as citizens, workers, and
business firms derive satisfaction from their
community, and when visitors, new
businesses, and investors find their expec-
tations matched”.
In the literature, there is a disagreement to
what extent the marketing of a region can
and should achieve the standards of modern
rather than classic marketing. Collier (1999),
for example, does not see much opportunity
to extend (tourism) destination marketing
greatly beyond its narrower understanding of
targeted promotion, stating that in “destina-
tional marketing [. . .] the core product is the
destination and this cannot, to any great
extent, be modified. This means that it is
usually necessary to try to find a segment or
segments of the market whose needs match
the core product rather than developing a
product to meet identified needs” (Collier,
1999, p. 419).

In contrast, others regard tourism desti-
nation marketing as a much broader exer-
cise (Buhalis, 2000; Ashworth & Voogd,
1994): In their opinion, it should not be
restricted to a tool for attracting more
visitors to a region, as it has been the
case for a lot of destinations; instead, it
should operate as a mechanism to facilitate
the achievement of tourism policy coordi-
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 04:07 04 October 2017
nated with the regional development stra-
tegic plan and other regional development
objectives, thereby “adopting [. . .] a
concern for the total impact of tourism
development and not just economic conse-
quences, an eye to the long term as
opposed to short-term effects, and an
overall objective of sustainable develop-
ment.” (Ritchie & Crouch, 2000, p. 2).
So, “often DMOs [Destination Marketing
Organizations] provide leadership in policy
and planning, marketing, product develop-
ment, industry advocacy and coordination,
and increasing professionalism in tourism
through education and training” (Pearce
et al., 1998, p. 221).
Middleton (1994) differentiates between
two alternative strategies in tourism desti-
nation marketing. The so-called pro-
motional strategy follows the classic
notion of marketing and concentrates on
promotional and particularly on advertising
efforts. Its aim is to create awareness and
interest and requires comparatively large
resources in order to be effective. In con-
trast, the facilitation strategy requires close
cooperation between the DMO and individ-
ual tourism operators joining resources in
order to achieve the shared goals of desti-
nation marketing. Requiring fewer
resources, the main roles of the DMO
are, in this case, initiation and coordination
(“facilitation”) (Middleton, 1994; Collier,
1999).
Tourism destination marketing 47
The Organization of Tourism Destination
Marketing
The responsibility for tourism destination mar-
keting often lays with so-called Destination
Marketing Organizations (DMOs), insti-
tutions that need to have the “will and
ability” (Ashworth, 1991, p. 139) to pursue
strategic goals and to devise and implement
an overall destination marketing strategy.
They “may be in the public sector, may be a
public/private sector cooperative, or in some
cases, may exist totally within the private
sector. Such organizations are often linked to
[. . .] tourism boards and provide the frame-
work within which tourism operates at the
destination level.” (Cooper et al., 1998,
p. 107). Accordingly, Local (LTO), Regional
(RTO) and National (NTO) Tourism Organiz-
ations, which are generally multifunctional
with marketing commonly being their domi-
nant function (Pearce, 1992), can all fulfill the
role of a DMO for their particular destination.
One of the problems of any DMO is the
limited influence on the elements of the mar-
keting mix (product, price, place/distribution,
promotion) since those responsible for desti-
nation marketing are typically not the same
as those concerned with the production, oper-
ation and pricing of its components (Bieger,
1999, p. 182). So again, destination marketers
are often seen as accepting “the local tourism
product as given” (Ashworth and Voogd,
1990, p. 12).
In order to overcome or at least minimize
this problem, cooperation between the
various stakeholders within the tourism
system is increasingly recognized as essential.
Public-private partnerships in the form of
joint activities and committees are suggested
as possible ways to somewhat offset the
restricted influence of DMOs and to obtain
financial resources to supplement the limited
 48 K. Blumberg
DMO-budget (Horner and Swarbrooke,
1996). However, difficulties stem from the
constantly shifting mosaic of stakeholders,
the fragmentation of the tourism industry, the
dominance of small businesses, the perceived
loss of autonomy in cooperative structures,
costs, rivalry/competition/adversary between
tourism operators and the seemingly different
interests and benefits sought by the various
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 04:07 04 October 2017
stakeholders (Cooper et al., 1998; Buhalis,
2000; Shields & Schibik, 1995; Palmer &
Bejou, 1995; Buhalis & Cooper, 1998). Accord-
ingly, “a measure of many destination marketing
agencies’ effectiveness is related to the degree of
involvement and support they achieve from
their stakeholders.” (Batchelor, 1999, p. 187).
Research Objectives
Plenty of advice on destination marketing has
been published in handbooks (e.g. Klemm
and Herle, 1992); however, comparatively
little research can be found on its actual
implementation, and disagreement persists as
to what extent tourism destination marketing
can be a tool for destination management.
Studies of tourist organizations and their func-
tions and activities, as well as destination image
analyses, have occasionally touched these ques-
tions but very few studies have focused on the
‘new’ concept of marketing or examined the
extent and structure of cooperation between
the public sector DMO and the tourist indus-
try. Aim of the empirical research was therefore
to assess to what extent tourism destination
marketing in a chosen region, Nelson/Tasman
Region in New Zealand, is used as a tool for
destination management and preferably come
to a conclusion about its general suitability as
such a tool. Attention is also paid to the
extent of cooperation between the DMO and
the commercial operators.
The Setting – Geographic and Tourism
Context
Nelson/Tasman Region, situated in the western
half of the top of the South Island of New
Zealand, encompasses two local authorities:
Tasman District and Nelson City. Due to
three national parks and plenty of natural
(e.g. coastlines with beautiful beaches) and
cultural (e.g. wine and seafood industries and
a diverse and popular arts and crafts cul-
ture) attractions, it is particularly suited for
tourism, which is the fourth most important
economic sector in the region. The RTO
(Tourism Nelson Tasman Ltd., trading as
‘Latitude Nelson’) fulfils the role of the regional
DMO, which is heavily dependent on support
from and collaboration with the private-
sector tourism industry and thus pursues a
cooperative approach to destination marketing
making it particularly suited for this study.
Research Design and Methodology
The research has been designed as an explora-
tive case study of the implementation of the
destination marketing of a single tourist
region. A region was chosen as the spatial
unit of focus as regional or local DMOs – in
contrast to NTOs – have more direct contact
to all elements of the tourism system at the des-
tination including tourists, residents, local/
regional government and businesses and there-
fore typically have more direct influence on the
design of the destination product than NTOs.
Two lines of research were pursued: Firstly,
the implementation of destination marketing
by the RTO was investigated by the means
of an analysis of the companies’ strategic
documents as secondary sources and through
semi-structured expert interviews with the
main decision-makers of Latitude Nelson:

the CEO, the directors and the mayors of the
two councils as representatives of the organiz-
ation’s shareholders. The transcripts of the
interviews were examined in a qualitative
content-analysis. Secondly, the extent of
cooperation of the regional tourism industry
with the DMO was explored through a mail-
back survey amongst the commercial oper-
ators. For this purpose, an address database
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 04:07 04 October 2017
of all known tourist operators was obtained
from Latitude Nelson. The data received
through the survey was subjected to standard
statistic procedures and calculations.
Results – Implementation Of Tourism
Destination Marketing In Nelson/
Tasman Region
Latitude Nelson – Company Structure
and Funding
Latitude Nelson is the RTO of Nelson/Tasman
Region, set up in 1994 by the two local auth-
orities, Tasman District Council (TDC) and
Nelson City Council (NCC). It is responsible
for the regional provision of visitor infor-
mation and the coordination of the develop-
ment and marketing of Nelson/Tasman
Region as a visitor destination (“destination
marketing”). The organization is equally
owned by the two shareholders Tasman Dis-
trict (TD) and Nelson City (NC) and is set
up as a Local Authority Trading Enterprise
(LATE), a company structure that allows
shareholders’ input into the strategic direction
and avoids dominance of any parochial inter-
ests (Altments & Ward, 1999).
The shareholders provide a base funding for
Latitude Nelson slightly exceeding the level of
the costs for administration and operation
of the Visitor Information Centers (VICs).
The larger portion of the budget, however,
Tourism destination marketing 49
comes from the tourism industry, either in
form of contra investment (products/services
in kind, e.g. for media visits) or as cash relating
to information center commissions, user
charges and marketing projects and programs
that individual tourism businesses can buy
into (e.g. the regional Visitor Guide).
Between 1994 and 2001, this industry contri-
bution has increased by 309% from
NZ$192,000 to NZ$785,000, while local
government funding for Latitude Nelson has
increased only by 175% from NZ$120,000
to NZ$330,000 (Paul Davis, CEO, pers
comm.). Accordingly, the councils’ share of
the overall funding has fallen from 38% in
1994 to 30% in 2001.
The Main Activities of Latitude Nelson
One of the main functions of Latitude Nelson
is, according to their shareholder’s briefing,
the provision and coordination of visitor infor-
mation within the region (Paul Davis, CEO,
pers comm.). Accordingly, Latitude Nelson
owns and operates the Nelson VIC as a separ-
ate business unit, operates the Golden Bay VIC
in a joint venture with the local promotional
group and provides base funding for other
visitor information centers within the region.
Brochure and poster display in the VICs are
available to the tourism operators for a fee,
and bookings are made on a commission
basis. Latitude Nelson also developed and
maintains the regional website (www.
nelsonNZ.com), which consists of several
sub-pages with information for potential visi-
tors (including information about various
tourism operators) and residents, for the
tourism trade and for conference organizers.
As part of their second key role, the develop-
ment and marketing of Nelson/Tasman
Region as a visitor destination, Latitude
 50 K. Blumberg
Nelson initiates, coordinates and administers
marketing activities that operators can buy
into. Examples are an annual visit to New
Zealand’s largest international showcase of
tourism and travel products, two member-
ship-based marketing cooperatives (the Inter-
national Marketing Group IMG1 and the
Nelson Conference Bureau) but also print
and electronic communication: In addition to
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 04:07 04 October 2017
the website mentioned above, Latitude
Nelson produces regional tourism sales litera-
ture including the Visitor Information Guide
and the Trade Directory.
In addition, Latitude Nelson pursues three
main strategies in order to influence the
image of Nelson/Tasman Region as a destina-
tion. Firstly, the RTO runs a successful ‘Visit-
ing Media Program’ for hosting visiting (both
national and international) media and secur-
ing contra industry investment: Regional
tourism operators offer their services in kind;
in return, they get the opportunity to feature
in the article or show. Secondly, in order to
achieve some consistency in the use of
imagery, the RTO maintains a library of high
quality images (in digital and analogue form)
of the region and its tourism industry. These
images are not only used in Latitude
Nelson’s own (print and electronic) communi-
cation material but are also for free use by
the commercial operators and anybody, who
is interested in them (media, NTO etc.). In
addition, Latitude Nelson manages the
regional brand “Nelson – live the day” and
the corresponding logo, which they encourage
operators to use in their own promotion, e.g.
by inclusion in their brochures.
In 1994, the tourism businesses in the region
were characterized by immaturity and frag-
mentation, so – especially in the early years
1
The IMG is set up as a small, exclusive and – compared to any other of Latitude Nelson’s activities – comparatively
expensive group that invests in marketing initiatives aimed to be of benefit to both its members and the overall destination.
of its operation – the main challenges for Lati-
tude Nelson were the organization of coopera-
tive networks to gain industry support for the
destination marketing activities, as well as the
support of and advice for the industry in order
to raise the quality of tourism products and
enterprises. In 1999, the two shareholders
commissioned a review of the structure,
funding and achievements of Latitude Nelson
in order to assess the necessity and effective-
ness of their spending on the RTO. Three
key issues emerged: Firstly, tourism is recog-
nized as an important part of the regional life-
style, offering residents numerous recreational
opportunities and supporting a large amount
of employees and a lot of businesses that are
not strictly tourism businesses but nevertheless
benefit heavily from the visitor industry
(including retailers, restaurants, artists).
Accordingly, the whole region rather than
only the core tourism industry benefits from
a thriving tourism sector. Secondly, this under-
standing calls for continuation of the local
government funding. Thirdly, the report
states that the industry had matured signifi-
cantly within the previous five years and rec-
ommended a shift from the former industry
development and organization to a stronger
strategic focus on destination marketing.
The Understanding of Destination
Marketing
Analysis of the company documents. A first
step in the analysis of the implementation of
destination marketing by a DMO was the
examination of its strategy-related company
documents including the “Strategic Directions

and Issues Report 1995 – 2000” and the
annual Statement of Corporate Intent (SCI).
The former report, one of the first projects
of the newly formed RTO in 1994, was
based on the outcomes of an extensive public
consultation process and contains a frame-
work outlining then current and future issues
and a strategy for the visitor industry in the
Nelson/Tasman Region. It states that
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 04:07 04 October 2017
. . . tourism growth seems assured, so [. . .] Tourism
Nelson’s approach is not simply about ‘going for
growth’. The key issue is managing the growth
likely to occur, planning and directing it so that
the visitor/tourism industry develops in a way
acceptable and of most benefit to those of us who
live here. (Tourism Nelson Tasman Ltd, 1995, p. 1).
This approach laid the foundation for the
emphasis on the management role and is
reflected throughout the various strategic
objectives of the report.
The annually prepared SCI, which covers a
three year period, sets out the intentions and
expectations of the organization including
strategic, tactical and financial directions. It
describes the nature and scope of activities to
be undertaken. The current four key areas of
action include
Destination Marketing (the marketing and pro-
motion of Nelson Tasman region as a visitor desti-
nation), Tourism Development (assistance with the
development of products and services designed for
visitor to the regions industry education), Visitor
Information Provision (coordinating and managing
the shareholders’ interest in visitor information
centres throughout the region) and a move to
greater participation in planning and development
processes, as they relate to tourism (described
initially as destination management). (Latitude
Nelson, 2001, p. 4, italics added)
Tourism destination marketing 51
This is the first explicit reference to ‘destina-
tion management’, allowing the assumption
that it is becoming a progressively more
important functional part of Latitude Nelson.
Part of the SCI is the Tactical Plan, a
regional marketing program, which, covering
the period of the future year, outlines public
relations, visitor information services, human
resource management, financial management
and marketing and promotion projects. It
also allocates staff and financial resources to
short-term projects and specifies performance
targets for all activities. Despite some activities
remaining essentially the same (e.g. visiting
media program and coordination of visitor
information provision) the year-to-year
changes in the tactical plans from 1995/96 until
today reflect both the growing maturity and
involvement in destination marketing of
parts of the tourism industry and the increas-
ing shift of focus from tourism development
to destination marketing as well as the higher
levels of base funding and especially industry
contribution. However, the progressively
more important “move to greater partici-
pation in planning and development pro-
cesses, as they relate to tourism” (Latitude
Nelson, 2001: 4) has not been anchored in
the tactical plan as yet.
Results of the expert interviews. The
decision-makers’ understanding of destination
marketing is another crucial point in the
analysis of a DMO and has been explored in
semi-structured interviews. Asked to describe
their conception of (tourism) destination mar-
keting the respondents touched but certainly
did not embrace the ‘new’ concept of destina-
tion marketing as it has been derived from the
literature before. The most comprehensive
description came from the chairman of Lati-
tude Nelson’s Board of Directors: “It is the
promotion of a region to outside parties to
 52 K. Blumberg
encourage visitor growth, and visitors can be
generally described as those who are coming
for a holiday, to work, to set up, to live, to
invest, to put in their homes and businesses;
and to enhance the region for those who live
within it so as to encourage the retention
of people as well.” (Paul Dalzell, Director,
pers comm.).
When asked to describe the function of Lati-
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 04:07 04 October 2017
tude Nelson and the direction the organization
is heading in, six of the eight interviewees
(three of which actually used the word ‘man-
agement’) saw securing sustainable manage-
ment of the region’s and its tourism
industry’s attractions and resources as one of
the main functions, which confirms that the
wider concept of destination marketing/man-
agement is increasingly finding entrance into
the strategic role of Latitude Nelson. Or, as
one of the directors puts it:
The role of Latitude Nelson was originally received
as a narrower tourism promotion focus, but I think
that Latitude Nelson’s responsibilities particularly
in the last couple of years are growing beyond
that, and so it actually has a wider destination mar-
keting focus and that goes as far as trying to influ-
ence infrastructure, trying to ensure that we get a
good coordination of regional planning that takes
into account tourism needs, and the provision of
information to enable people to make good business
decisions. (Nigel King, Director, pers comm.).
He is not the only one to perceive a change in
the company’s function: Overall, four out of
the eight interviewees expressed the view that
Latitude Nelson’s function is currently under-
going a transformation. It emerges that the
shift to a stronger focus on destination market-
ing, brought about by the shareholder review
in 1999, has been and still is leading to a
very recent process of change from a destina-
tion marketing to a destination management
organization, hitting the very center of the
concept of destination marketing: “Increas-
ingly we are seeing destination marketing as
a tool to manage, rather than a means of
simply obtaining, the business for the
region” (Paul Davis, CEO, pers comm.).
Extent of Cooperation of the Tourism
Industry with the DMO
Through the mail-back survey, the extent of
participation of the tourist businesses in the
RTO’s tourism destination marketing was
investigated. From 523 questionnaires sent
out, 181 useable questionnaires were received
(return rate of 34.5%). The lack of a postal
follow-up did not allow any testing for non-
response bias. The profiles of the respondent
businesses support the notion that the
tourism industry consists of an array of
SMEs, many of which are fairly young and
lack both in professionalism and resources
(e.g. Buhalis and Cooper, 1998).
A summary of some of the results in regard
to the extent of the operators’ cooperation
with and contribution to Latitude Nelson is
portrayed in Table 1, which clearly shows
that the overall involvement of the companies
in destination marketing is rather low.
Notable exceptions are the Visitor Infor-
mation Guide and the brochure display in
the Visitor Information Centers, confirming
the significance of sales literature as the main
marketing tool in tourism (destination) mar-
keting. The results of a question that asked
respondents to rank several real and potential
aims of the DMO suggest that operators
would wish Latitude Nelson to focus on the
promotion of the region, and particularly its
tourism industry, in order to stimulate visitor
growth, rather than engage destination mar-
keting for other purposes (e.g. attract more
 Tourism destination marketing 53

Table 1 Participation in the Marketing Opportunities/Programs Offered by Latitude Nelson;

Majority Emphasized (n ¼ 176)

Marketing program/ Participation – Yes Participation – No

opportunity
Visitor Guide 52.3% (61.8% of them with a photo) 47.7%
Web Page 46.6% (77.8% of them 53.4%
with a link to their own web page)
Trade Directory 35.8% 64.2%
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 04:07 04 October 2017

Nelson VIC 67.0% 33.0%

Golden Bay VIC 33.3% 66.7%
Conference Group associated: 3 respondents; 94.9% (20% of them
full member: 6 respondents consider joining)
International 7 respondents 96.0% (11.7% of them
Marketing Group consider joining)

Source: own data.

businesses or residents) or even destination administrative boundaries of different DMOs

management.
Difficulties of Tourism Destination
Marketing in Nelson/Tasman Region
The study revealed a number of problems in
the implementation of destination marketing
through Latitude Nelson and in the relation-
ship between the DMO and other regional
tourism stakeholders.
Product delimitation and definition (including
name/brand). As argued principally by geo-
graphers, a destination as a place-product
has problems of delimitation as a “fundamen-
tal and intrinsic quality of all places is that
they exist at a particular scale” (Ashworth
and Voogd, 1994, p. 7) and the “scale selected
by the producer may not be the scale that is
being purchased by the customer” (Ashworth
and Voogd, 1994: 8). This can get particularly
important if the destination perceived by
the consumer does not match but crosses
(Gartner, 1996).
In the case of Nelson/Tasman Region, the
spatial delimitation of the destination is set
according to existing administrative bound-
aries joining the areas of the two adjacent
councils. This has caused two problems.
Firstly, the area embraces several distinct geo-
graphic units – including Nelson City, Nelson
Lakes, the mountainous Kahurangi National
Park and the coast along the Abel Tasman
National Park – that offer very different
tourist experiences and opportunities,
making it more difficult to market them as
one coherent unit and to identify appropriate
target segments for the whole region. Sec-
ondly, the regional tourism attractions and
facilities are distributed irregularly throughout
the region. The larger part of the natural
attractions and outdoor experiences is situated
in the Tasman District including the Abel
Tasman National Park, the region’s main
draw card. Nevertheless, Nelson City
obtained nearly five times as many visitor
nights in YE June ’01 than Tasman District
 54 K. Blumberg
(Tourism NZ, 2002). Imbalances like that lead
to confusion about the product definition and
the appropriate alignment of the destination
marketing. For example, John Hurley, the
mayor of TDC, regrets that the name ‘Tasman’
does not feature sufficiently in the work and
trading name of Latitude Nelson. He feels his
district to be underrepresented in the regional
marketing (John Hurley, Mayor, pers comm.)
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 04:07 04 October 2017
– despite pictures of the Abel Tasman National
Park, part of the TDC, being at the forefront
of most promotional activities.
The problem of funding. Level and source of
funding for any DMO are largely determined
by its organizational structure (public or
private sector body). It is often claimed that
destination marketing should be funded by
the whole community through taxes paid to
public sector bodies, because primary pro-
motion is a collective or public good in that
it is both non-rival and non-excludable
(Bonham & Mak, 1996). More and more pol-
itical authorities, however, ask the travel
industry to share a larger burden of financing
destination marketing (Bonham & Mak,
1996; Bowes, 1988). This also applies to Lati-
tude Nelson, who regards the current level of
funding as the main difficulty for their work
as the budget the organization has to operate
with does not allow any marketing or pro-
motional activities beyond a very basic level.
More public money, however, is unrealistic:
The shareholders NCC and TDC decline sub-
stantially higher funding levels, as they believe
more financial support for a single industry to
be politically unreasonable and not justifiable
to the electorate. This viewpoint fails to
acknowledge that many industries other than
the core tourism industry (e.g. retailers,
petrol stations) as well as the residents
(through more and higher quality recreational
facilities) benefit from tourism much more
than from most other economic sectors. The
financial investment by the private sector
into destination marketing, however, is not
without dilemmas either: Although industry
contribution has been rising consistently
since 1994, this trend might not persist. In
addition, the amount is not guaranteed,
which makes it hard to budget with.
Limited influence of the DMO. A DMO
willing to take part in destination management
can try to exert influence on the two central
players within the tourism industry: the
public and the private sector. In regard to the
latter, Latitude Nelson’s influence is limited
to advice, information and education. In
regard to the public sector, Latitude Nelson
is owned by the two councils and therefore
dependent from the local government. Since
it cannot afford strong conflict with its share-
holders, its political influence is equally
restricted to advice and persuasion, so that
Latitude Nelson acts as an advisor to both
councils and all other government agencies in
all issues related to tourism. For example, in
response to a need based around the environ-
ment and the Department of Conservation
(DoC) rather than the councils, a quarterly
meeting between Latitude Nelson’s CEO, the
Head Planners of TD and NC and the
Regional Conservator of DoC has been estab-
lished in order to discuss tourism matters,
identify issues and problems and generate
ideas for their solution. Topics include the
management of the frequently over-crowded
Abel Tasman National Park, the annual plan-
ning of the councils and the allowance for
tourism in those plans.
Cooperation. Cooperation has been ident-
ified as the key factor in destination marketing
in order to overcome both resource con-
straints and limited influence (Dickman,

1999; Buhalis, 2000). Accordingly, this study
has looked at the cooperation between Lati-
tude Nelson and the tourism operators and
revealed that although the DMO does offer
several opportunities for cooperation and
input, the level of participation and distri-
bution of the tourism businesses remains
fairly low. Lack of professionalism and finan-
cial resources on part of the tourist industry, as
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 04:07 04 October 2017
well as the small size of many companies and
communication gaps might constitute con-
tributory factors.
Conclusion
This study has shown that the implementation
of destination marketing in the Nelson/
Tasman Region has undergone several stages
since the foundation of the RTO in 1994.
Over the years, the organization’s original
concentration on industry development has
been supplemented by a strong strategic
focus on destination marketing. The question
posed in this study was whether this destina-
tion marketing adheres to the ‘new’ concept
of (destination) marketing/management. The
research has revealed that the notion of desti-
nation management has been inherent in the
strategic directions of Latitude Nelson right
from the start, and that it has lately been
gaining increasingly more significance,
ranking comparatively high in the goals of
Latitude Nelson as the organization’s main
decision-makers rated them. It is, however,
not such much seen as an intrinsic and concep-
tual element of the destination marketing role
but rather as a supplement to or extension of
that role.
But while the management role is anchored
in the strategy of the DMO, the extent of its
implementation has so far been moderate.
The reasons for that might lie in the problems
Tourism destination marketing 55
that have been revealed by this study and that
cause some doubt about the suitability of des-
tination marketing as a place management
tool. Firstly, it evolved that, despite extensive
cooperative efforts of Latitude Nelson, the
instruments for influencing both the local
governments (responsible for the regional
planning) and the commercial operators
(constituting the regional tourism industry)
remain weak, so that the DMO’s influence is
characterized by advice rather than a sys-
tematic and highly influential involvement in
the destination (and destination product)
planning processes.
Secondly, particular difficulties stem from
the interdependence between a DMO’s
funding sources and its mandate: It has
evolved that both the public and the private
sector contribute to destination marketing in
return for some (though not necessarily finan-
cial) benefit – local authorities are interested in
place marketing (promotion) as an economic
development function (and, in the case of Lati-
tude Nelson, the coordination and provision
of visitor information), and tourism operators
similarly expect a raise of the region’s profile
and a subsequent increase in tourism volume.
In addition, the results from the survey further-
more suggest that the tourism businesses
prefer Latitude Nelson to concentrate on desti-
nation marketing (promotion) rather than
management and to herein focus on potential
visitors as a target group rather than, for
example, potential residents or investors.
So overall, with limited financial funds, as
frequently reported in the literature and
confirmed for the case of Nelson/Tasman,
coupled with only weak instruments of
influence, it seems to be a foredoomed
project for the DMO to claim too much
responsibility for destination management.
The example of Latitude Nelson has,
however, established that DMOs can play an
 56 K. Blumberg
important part in the management of the des-
tination product. Firstly, the RTO’s early
work led to increasing cooperation and profes-
sionalism of at least parts of the regional
tourism industry and thereby clearly influ-
enced the tourism destination product. Sec-
ondly, positioned at the interface of the
public and private sectors, Latitude Nelson
proved predestined for a role as mediator
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 04:07 04 October 2017
and facilitator, bundling the interests of the
various stakeholders of the tourist destination
system, monitoring regional (tourism) devel-
opment and initiating response-chains in the
case of – internal or external – threats to the
functioning and well being of the overall desti-
nation and its tourism industry. Subsequently,
its role does need to be considered to go well
beyond the traditional understanding of desti-
nation marketing as place promotion – yet
again providing a rationale for close coordi-
nation with other bodies involved in the
regional planning process: Cooperation with
the various interest groups and the securing
of both their financial and ‘political’ support
therefore emerged as the key factor to
success in destination management.
References
Altments, V. & Ward, D. (1999). Tourism Nelson Tasman
Ltd. Consultant review. Unpublished Report.
Ashworth, G. J. (1991). Products, places and promotion:
Destination images in the analysis of the tourism indus-
try. In M. T. Sinclair and M. J. Stabler (eds.), The
tourism industry. An international analysis. CAB
International, Oxfordshire.
Ashworth, G. J. & Voogd, H. (1990). Can places be sold
for tourism? In G. Ashworth and B. Goodall (eds.),
Marketing tourism places. Routledge, London.
Ashworth, G. J. & Voogd, H. (1994). Marketing of
tourism places: What are we doing? In M. Uysal (ed.),
Global tourist behaviour. International Business Press,
New York.
Batchelor, R. (1999). Strategic marketing of tourism desti-
nations. In F. Vellas and L. Becherel (Eds.), The Inter-
national Marketing of Travel and Tourism. A Strategic
Approach. Macmillan Press, London.
Bieger, T. (1999). Management von Destinationen und
Tourismusorganisationen. 4th edition. Oldenbourg,
München.
Bonham, C. & Mak, J. (1996). Private versus public finan-
cing of state destination promotion. Journal of Travel
Research, 35(2), 3 –10.
Bowes, S. (1988). The role of the tourism board. In
B. Goodall and G. Ashworth (eds.), Marketing in the
tourism industry. The promotion of destination
regions. Croom Helm, Beckenham, Kent.
Buhalis, D. (2000). Marketing the competitive
destination for the future. Tourism Management,
21(1), 97–116.
Buhalis, D. & Cooper, C. (1998). Competition or co-oper-
ation? Small and medium sized tourism enterprises at
the destination. In E. Laws, B. Faulkner and G. Mos-
cardo (eds.), Embracing and managing change
in tourism. International case studies. Routledge,
London.
Collier, A. (1999). Principles in tourism. A New Zealand
perspective. 5th edition. Addison Wesley Longman,
Auckland, New Zealand.
Cooper, C., Fletcher, J., Gilbert, D., Wanhill, S. &
Shepherd, R. (1998). Tourism. Principles and practices.
2nd edition. Addison Wesley Longman, Essex.
Dickman, S. (1999). Tourism and hospitality marketing.
Oxford University Press, Melbourne.
Freyer, W. (2001). Tourismus-Marketing. 3rd edition.
Oldenbourg, München.
Gartner, W. C. (1996). Tourism development. Principles,
processes, and policies. John Wiley and Sons,
New York.
Horner, S. & Swarbrooke, J. (1996). Marketing tourism,
hospitality and leisure in Europe. International
Thomson Business Press, London.
Klemm, K. & Herle, F. B. (1992). Wie erstelle ich eine
Fremdenverkehrskonzeption? – Leitfaden mit prak-
tischen Beispielen. Deutsches Seminar für Fremdenver-
kehr, Berlin.
Kotler, P., Bowen, J. & Makens, J. (1993). Marketing for
hospitality and tourism. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
River, NJ.
Latitude Nelson (2001). Statement of corporate intent for
three years ending 30 June 2004. Latitude Nelson, Nelson.
Middleton, V. T. C. (1994). Marketing in travel and
tourism. 2nd edition. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

Murphy, P., Pritchard, M. P. & Smith, B. (2000): The des-
tination product and its impact on traveller perceptions.
Tourism Management, 21(1), 43– 52.
Palmer, A. & Bejou, D. (1995). Tourism destination mar-
keting alliances. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(3),
616–629.
Pearce, D. (1992). Tourist organizations. Longman,
Harlow, Essex.
Pearce, P. L., Morrison, A. M. & Rutledge, J. L. (1998).
Tourism. Bridges between continents. Irwin/McGraw-
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 04:07 04 October 2017
Hill, Roseville.
Ritchie, J. R. B. & Crouch, G. I. (2000). The competitive
destination: A sustainability perspective. Tourism Man-
agement, 21(1), 1–7.
Shields, P. O. & Schibik, T. J. (1995). Regional tourism
marketing: An analogical approach to organizational
Tourism destination marketing 57
framework development. Journal of Travel and
Tourism Marketing, 4(1), 105–113.
Tourism Nelson Tasman Ltd (1995). Strategic directions
and issues report 1995 – 2000. Nelson: Tourism
Nelson Tasman.
Tourism NZ (2002). International visitor survey.
www.tourisminfo.co.nz/cir_rand/index.cfm.
Travis, A. S. (1989). Tourism destination area develop-
ment (from theory to practice). In S. F. Will and
L. Moutinho (eds.), Tourism marketing and manage-
ment handbook. Prentice Hall International, Hertford-
shire.
Vukonic, B. (1997). Selective tourism growth. Targeted
tourism destinations. In S. Wahab and J. P. John
(eds.), Tourism, development and growth. The
challenge of sustainability. Routledge, London.