Given the complexity, dynamic and number of actors involved, academicians have been founding themselves in a difficult position when trying to define the tourism product. defines tourism products as “ as

 

As hard as it is too define it, having to evaluate it appears even harder. To facilitate this process proposed a model depicting the tourism product into five distinct elements. The core of this framework is the physical plant (tangible element) – the actual site where the tourism activity takes place (e.g., hotel, museum, theme park), which is encapsulated by the other four elements. The four concentric layers were systematized considering both managerial and consumers’ perspectives. From core to outer layer the elements are distributed as it follows: (intangible element)-solution(s) delivered by a stuff under a manager’s supervision to customers, (intangible element)-memorable sensations staged by a cast under a host’s supervision to guests, (tangible element)- degree of possible options from which a tourist can choose from and (intangible element)- degree of tourist’s implication while consuming the touristic product.

 

The abovementioned framework has served as foundation for a 2009 study where the aim was to evaluate different tourism products. The main findings concluded that regardless of the tourism product, physical plant constitutes the main point of reference, while at the opposite corner involvement ranked the lowest score. This findings mirror Smith framework elements’ positioning. Regarding the other three supporting elements, depending on the tourism product there are obvious discrepancies. Freedom of choice is at most importance in the case of restaurants and retail shops, while service is the main considerate element for casinos.The author personal note with regard to this study is the limited number of participants (only 79 students), therefore rising concerns toward the generalization and objectiveness of these findings.

 

From a personal author opinion, having to apply Smith’s framework for a hotel located in a winter sport region using the research methodology provided in the discussed study-individualized element rating from 1 to 5, where 1 signifies “the most important” and 5 signifies “the least important” , the results would be the following.

• Physical plant – “1”, as the physical setting embodies the core meaning of this particular tourism product (e.g., hotel facilities, room features, products’ quality)

• Service – “4”, as the guest is not looking to solve a problem

• Hospitality – “1”, as the guest is in need of holiday enjoyment and considers the hosts rather facilitators of this goal, than simple employees

• Freedom of choice – “4”, as the hotel main purpose is to provide for a limited range of services

• Involvement –“5”, as this product has rather passive interaction from the guests’ side (there is little to non-existing co-production-there is a given range of room categories to choose from, a specific restaurant menu, strict reception schedule etc.)

 

Bibliography

 

Hemmington, N. (2007). From service to experience: understanding and defining the hospitality business. The Service Industries Journal, 747-755.

Sharma, J. K. (2007). Tourism product and services: Development strategy and management options. New Delhi: Kanishka Publishers, Distributors.

Smith, S. (1994). The tourism product. Annals of Tourism Research, 582-595.

Xu, J. B. (2010). Perceptions of tourism products. Tourism management, 607-610.