Tourism Management 25 (2004) 463–470

Are loyal visitors desired visitors?

James F. Petrick*

Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences, Texas A&M University, 2261 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-2261, USA

Received 4 February 2003; accepted 28 May 2003

Abstract

Cruise managers strive to increase visitor loyalty for it is generally assumed that retaining current passengers is more viable and

profitable than searching for new passengers. Yet, Opperman (Consumer psychology of tourism, hospitality and leisure.

Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing, pp. 19–37) argues that empirical evidence has yet to show that loyal customers are any better

than new customers, and that loyalty segmentation must account for the vast differences between first time visitors and multiple time

visitors. Thus, the purpose of the current study was to determine if loyal cruise visitors (passengers) are more desirable (based on

repurchase intentions, word of mouth publicity, price sensitivity, money spent and risk-adjusted profitability index than both first

time visitors and less loyal visitors. Results found that loyal visitors were found to be more likely to visit in the future, spread word

of mouth advertising and to offer a lower risk associated with their profitability, while first time visitors and less loyal visitors are less

price sensitive, and spend more. Specific managerial implications are discussed.

r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Affective loyalty; Behavioral loyalty; Revisit intentions; Price sensitivity; Word of mouth; Cruise

1. Introduction

Repeat patrons, or behaviorally loyal patrons, haveconsistently been argued to be an important market fordestination managers (Fakeye & Crompton, 1992;Gitelson & Crompton, 1984; Petrick & Backman,2001; Reid & Reid, 1993). According to Reid and Reid(1993, p. 3) repeat customers represent more than just astable source of revenues, but also act as ‘‘informationchannels that informally link networks of friends,relatives and other potential travelers to a destination.’’It has further been argued (though not empiricallyexamined) that it is six times less expensive to planmarketing strategies for retaining customers, than it is toattract new customers (Rosenberg & Czepial, 1984).Thus, repeat cruise passengers may provide a potentialfor free advertising (word of mouth (WOM)) and maybe less expensive to maintain as a clientele base.Therefore, cruise managers often utilize valuable re-sources in order to better understand and retain theircurrent clientele. In fact, numerous marketing cam-paigns in general are based solely on developing andretaining loyal patrons (Griffin, 1997).

One market of recreation/tourism participants in needof loyalty research is that of the cruise traveler. Recentbuyouts and the events of September 11, 2001 havecreated a highly competitive market, with only threecruise lines conducting the vast majority of all develop-ment (Tuto Crociere, 2002). With loyal patrons beingobserved as an important market, it is believed that anunderstanding of whether or not loyal visitors are goodvisitors and whether or not first time visitors differ fromrepeat visitors (as proposed by Opperman, 2000) wouldbe useful to cruise line management.

The majority of literature related to repurchasebehavior has examined the antecedents (i.e., satisfaction,service quality, loyalty) or causes of repurchase behavior(Backman & Crompton, 1991; Cronin, Brady, & Hult,2000; Petrick & Backman, 2001). The reasoning behindthis field of research is it is believed that understandingthe determinants of repurchase behavior will allowmanagement to alter their services, based on the bestprovision of the antecedents (i.e., improving the specificattributes of satisfaction most highly related to repurch-ase, to increase repurchase behavior). Results of thisbody of research have shown that satisfaction (Petrick &Backman, 2002a; Spreng, Mackenzie, & Olshavsky,1996), perceived value (Jayanti & Ghosh, 1996; Petrickand Backman, 2002b), and quality (Baker & Crompton,

ARTICLE IN PRESS

*Tel.: +1-979-845-8806; fax: +1-979-845-0446.

E-mail address: jpetrick@tamu.edu (J.F. Petrick).

0261-5177/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/S0261-5177(03)00116-X

2000; Oh, 1999), as well as numerous other variables, aregood predictors of repurchase behavior. Thus this bodyof research would suggest that cruise managementshould examine these variables in order to be successful.

Yet, it is only an assumption of these studies thatrepeat visitors are good visitors. It is possible that repeatvisitors spend less, are more price sensitive, or are a lessdesirable market than first time visitors. According toOpperman (2000, p. 28), ‘‘no study has looked atdifferences in tourist behavior or other characteristics ofthe various repeat visitor types.’’ Further, ‘‘one probleminherent in the analysis of purchase sequences is theissue of length of time used for each purchase period(p. 30)’’. Thus, the desirability of repeat visitors mayvary significantly based solely on the intensity of theirvisit frequency (i.e., one trip every year versus one tripevery seven years).

Opperman (2000) further argues that empiricalevidence has yet to show that loyal customers are anybetter than new customers. He states, ‘‘This myth (thatit is up to six times more effective to retain clientele) hasalso found its way into the tourism literature, albeit withno statistical support (p. 131)’’. He further argues thatthere is vast difference between first time visitors andmultiple time visitors and that loyalty segmentationmust account for this differentiation. Since numerouscruise managers are investing resources in loyaltyprograms, and assuming that loyal patrons are goodpatrons, it would seem fruitful to better understandwhether or not loyal visitors (passengers) are as desired(i.e., spend the same/more money, etc.) as less loyalvisitors and first time visitors.

2. An overview of loyalty research

While repeat visitation infers loyalty, it is welldocumented that true loyalty is a two dimensionalconcept comprised of both a psychological attachment(affective loyalty) and a behavioral commitment tothe service or source (Backman & Crompton, 1991;Backman & Veldkamp, 1995; Pritchard & Howard,1997). Psychological attachment is the underlyingcognitive process which predisposes consumers tobehave in a selected manner toward the service orsource. A review of the state of loyalty research byJacoby and Chestnut (1978), identified 53 distinctmeasures of loyalty and categorized them as eitherbehavioral, attitudinal or composite measures includingboth behavioral and attitudinal measures. Some of themore common behavioral measures include: totalnumber of purchases, intensity of purchases (Brown,1952) and proportion of purchases (Pessemier, 1959).

Backman (1988) utilized this two-dimensional frame-work (affective and behavioral loyalty) to create asegmentation tool. Based on respondents scores on

behavioral consistency and psychological attachment,they were assigned to one of four cells which constitutethe loyalty paradigm. The four categories include: lowloyalty, latent loyalty, spurious loyalty and high loyalty.

More recently, the use of both behavioral andattitudinal measures of loyalty have been shown to bean effective way to operationalize loyalty (Backman &Veldkamp, 1995; Heiens & Pleshko, 1996; Selin,Howard, Udd, & Cable, 1988). Baloglu (2001) andPritchard and Howard (1997) have utilized clusteranalysis of behavioral consistency and psychologicalattachment items to confirm the four quadrant struc-tures proposed by Selin et al. (1988) and Backman andCrompton (1991). These studies have confirmed thatfour distinct types of loyalty exist in a multitude ofsettings.

Yet, Opperman (2000, p. 32) posits that loyaltyresearchers should ‘‘move a step backwards to beha-vioral measures only,’’ since ‘‘measuring attitudes over alonger time period is currently outside our reach’’ and isin most cases impractical. He thus proposed (though didnot operationalize) a loyalty typology based, for themost part, on visit frequency. He argued that loyaltyresearch has not ‘‘actually looked into the issue of howmultiple repeat visits and the length of time betweensuccessive visits affects tourists’ behavior’’ (Opperman1998, p. 132). He further argues that most loyaltyresearch only examines differences between repeatvisitors/purchasers, and neglects a vast portion or theirvisitors (first time visitors).

Opperman (2000) further proposed that consumers ofservices can be classified into the groups of: Non-purchasers (have yet to purchase), Disallusioned (firsttime purchasers, who had a negative experience),Instable (first time purchasers who had a positiveexperience, but switch between providers), Disloyal(first time purchasers who are not switchers) andSomewhat Loyal, Loyal and Very Loyal (multiple visits,differentiated by frequency and intensity of previousvisits). As pointed out by Opperman (2000) this frame-work neglects psychological attachment, and is difficultto operationalize.

Due to the difficulties in measuring affective loyalty(psychological attachment), behavioral measures aregenerally utilized more often to operationalize loyalty.O’Mally (1998, p. 49) suggests that in comparison toaffective measures, behavioral measures of loyaltyprovide ‘‘a more realistic picture of how well the brandis doing vis a vis competitors, and the data generatedfacilitate calculation of customer life-time value, enhanceprediction of probabilities, and assist in developingcost-effective promotions.’’ She further states that recentadvances in database technologies have increased theease of gathering behavioral loyalty data.

Yet, frequent purchase behavior may be caused byexternal forces and may not actually reflect loyalty to a

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ.F. Petrick / Tourism Management 25 (2004) 463–470464

product or service. According to Dick and Basu (1994,p. 100), ‘‘yhigh repeat purchase may reflect situationalconstraints, such as brands stocked by retailers, whereaslow repeat purchase may simply indicate different usagesituations, variety seeking, or lack of brand preferencewithin a buying unit.’’ Thus, behaviorally loyal patronsmay be choosing a product/service solely for its ease ofpurchase, while affectively loyal patrons may desire topurchase a product/service, but may not have the meansto do so. This suggests that analysis of cruise passengerloyalty should include both measures of behavioral andaffective loyalty. Further, reliable composite measureshave yet to be operationalized, and behavioral andaffective loyalty have been argued to be distinctlydifferent (Opperman, 2000). Thus, for the purposes ofthe current study, behavioral and affective measures willbe recognized as distinct, separate constructs, and willnot be combined.

3. Variables related to loyalty

Cruise managers strive to increase visitor loyalty for itis generally assumed that retaining current passengers ismore viable and profitable than searching for newcustomers. According to Kotler, Bowen, and Makens(1998), market segments must be measurable, substan-tial, actionable and accessible, if they are to besuccessfully utilized by management. Measurabilityrefers to the degree to which a segment’s size andpurchasing power can be measured, while substantialityis related to the degree to which a segment is largeand/or profitable. Actionability is related to the degreeto which programs can be effectively designed to pleasea segment and accessibility is the degree to which asegment’s size and purchasing power (substantiality) canbe measured. Thus, in comparison to less loyalpassengers, loyal passengers would be preferred if theywere more measurable, substantial, actionable andaccessible. Some of the variables related to a marketbeing substantial include: repurchase/revisit behavior,WOM publicity, price sensitivity, spending behavior,and spending risk.

Past research has revealed that repeat customers aremore likely to repurchase a product or service in thefuture (Petrick, Morais, & Norman, 2001; Sonmez &Graefe, 1998). This behavior, called cumulative inertia(McGinnis, 1968) suggests that the more behaviorallyloyal current visitors are, the more likely that they willrepurchase their experience in the future. Thus, onevariable which should be related to cruise passengers’customer loyalty, is intentions to repurchase.

It has also been suggested that loyal visitors mayprovide free WOM publicity. According to Shoemakerand Lewis (1999), loyal customers are more likely topositively discuss past service experiences than non-loyal

customers, creating a potential for WOM publicity at noextra cost to the service provider. Further, research hasshown good correlations between visitors revisit/re-purchase intentions and positive WOM publicity (Oh,2000; Oh & Parks, 1997).

Another potential benefit of loyal visitors is that theymay be less price sensitive. While not commonlymeasured in the field of tourism, marketing researchreveals that less price sensitive customers are preferredover more price sensitive customers (Dolan, 1995; Lynch& Ariely, 2000). Price sensitivity, which is similar toprice elasticity, is a measure of how much of an affectincreases in price will have on customers willingness topay. Thus, cruise passengers who are less price sensitiveshould be more desirable than customers who are moreprice sensitive.

While seemingly obvious, visitors who spend moremoney are generally more desirable than visitors whospend less. Past research has suggested that beyondmoney spent, it is also important to determine the riskassociated with a market’s spending (i.e., is the marketspending stable). Lang, O’Leary, and Morrison (2002),introduced the risk-adjusted profitability index (RPI)from the field of finance, in order to simultaneouslyanalyze profitability and risk in evaluating travel marketsegment attractiveness. RPI is a measure which repre-sents the average expenditure, divided by the standarddeviation times one hundred. Thus, cruise passengerswho have higher RPIs, should be more desirable thantheir counterparts.

4. Purpose of the study

With an increasingly competitive market, is hasbecome crucial for cruise lines to better understandtheir clientele in order to be successful (Tuto Crociere,2002). Additionally, numerous resources have beenutilized to develop passenger loyalty programs, thoughlittle research has been conducted to determine if loyalpassengers are actually desirable. It is thus believed thatcruise management would want to know how loyalvisitors compare to less loyal and first time visitorsregarding price sensitivity, money spent and WOMpublicity. Therefore, the purpose of the current study isto determine if affectively loyal and behaviorally loyal(by proportion, intensity and total number of visitors)visitors are more desirable (based on repurchaseintentions, WOM publicity, price sensitivity, moneyspent and RPI) than both first time visitors and lessloyal visitors.

Thus, five research questions were developed in orderto guide this study:

(1) Do cruise passengers who have taken a greaternumber of cruises with a cruise line, differ in their

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ.F. Petrick / Tourism Management 25 (2004) 463–470 465

intentions to revisit, WOM publicity, price sensitiv-ity and money spent from passengers who havetaken fewer cruises and first time visitor?

(2) Do cruise passengers who have taken a greaterintensity of their cruises with a cruise line, differ intheir intentions to revisit, WOM publicity, pricesensitivity and money spent from passengers whohave taken a lower intensity and first time visitors?

(3) Do cruise passengers who have taken a greaterproportion of their cruises with a cruise line, differin their intentions to revisit, WOM publicity, pricesensitivity and money spent from passengers whohave taken a lower proportion and first timevisitors?

(4) Do cruise passengers who are more affectively loyal(attached) to a cruise line, differ in their intentionsto revisit, WOM publicity, price sensitivity andmoney spent from passengers who are less affec-tively loyal?

(5) Do cruise passengers who are more loyal (greaternumber of cruises, higher proportion, higherintensity, more affectively loyal) differ from pas-sengers who are less loyal or first time cruisers intheir risk associated with market spending (RPI)?

5. Methodology

Participants were sampled on two separate HollandAmerica Line (HAL) seven-day Caribbean cruises onboard the same vessel. In order to avoid the potential ofhaving one person fill out the survey in consecutiveweeks (some passengers had booked back to backcruises), the questionnaires were not distributed inconsecutive weeks. One questionnaire was distributedto each cabin on board the vessel accommodated by apaying cruiser on the second to the last evening of thecruise. A total of 591 questionnaires were distributedduring the first cruise, and 592 during the second. Ofthese 394 (66.7%) and 398 (67.2%) completed ques-tionnaires were returned from the first and secondcruises respectively (N ¼ 792). Among passengers whoparticipated, the average age was 51.6, the medianhousehold income was $75,000–$99,999, 58.7% werefemale and, on average, respondents had taken 8.1cruises in their lifetime.

Number of visits was measured by asking participantsthe number of cruises they had taken with HAL in theirlifetime. Intensity of visit was operationalized as theaverage amount of cruises taken with HAL per year.This was done by taking the total amount of cruises withHAL, divided by the number of years they have beencruising with HAL. Proportion of cruises was operatio-nalized by dividing the total number of cruises therespondent has taken with HAL, divided by the total

number of cruises that the respondents had taken intheir lifetime. Similar to Backman and Crompton (1991)and Petrick and Backman (2001), psychological attach-ment was measured with a five-item, seven point Likert-type scale from the evaluative domain of the semanticdifferential scale.

Similar to Grewal, Monroe, and Krishnan (1998)intentions to repurchase was measured with a two-item,five point Likert-type scale asking respondents thelikelihood and possibility that they will repurchase acruise with the cruise line again. WOM publicity wasmeasured by asking respondents to rate how negativelyor positively they would talk to others regarding theirvacation on a seven point scale anchored by ‘‘extremelynegatively,’’ and ‘‘extremely positively’’.

Price sensitivity was measured with Lichtenstein,Bloch, and Black (1988) 3 item price sensitivity scale,with the sum of the three items resulting in the measureof price sensitivity. Each of the items were placed on fivepoint scales from 1 ‘‘strongly disagree’’ to 5 ‘‘stronglyagree.’’ An example of one of the items is ‘‘When itcomes to buying a cruise, I rely heavily on price.’’

Money spent was operationalized by asking passen-gers to indicate the range for the ‘‘average amount ofmoney’’ they spent on board per day. The use of rangesis consistent with past research (Jayanti & Ghosh, 1996;Rao & Sieben, 1992) which suggests that consumers canmore accurately recall the amount of money they havespent when given ranges. The median point in the rangewas recorded as the measure of money spent.

In order to be able to compare differences betweenloyalty segments, each of the loyalty measures weretransformed into logical categorical variables. Totalnumber of cruises taken with Holland America CruiseLine was transformed into five categories: first cruise,two cruises, three cruises, four to six cruises and seven ormore cruises. The five categories of intensity of cruiseswere: first timers, 0.25 (1 cruise every four years) or less,0.26–0.50, 0.51–0.75 and 0.76 or more. Similarly,proportion of cruises was transformed into the cate-gories of: first timers, 0.25 (1 HAL cruise per four taken)or less, 0.26–0.50, 0.51–0.75 and 0.76 or more.Psychological attachment was transformed into fourcategories: total score of 28 or less (not attached), 29–30(low attachment), 31–34 (moderately attached) and 35(high attachment). Since affective loyalty can beachieved after only one visit, differences between firsttime visitors and repeat visitors, regarding affectiveloyalty was not analyzed.

6. Results and discussion

In order to examine whether or not passengerscomprising the different categories of loyalty differedin WOM, intentions, price sensitivity and money spent

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ.F. Petrick / Tourism Management 25 (2004) 463–470466

(Research Questions (RQ) 1–4), multivariate analyses ofvariance (MANOVA) was employed. Results of theMANOVA examining the first research question (RQ1)found a significant (F4;2148 ¼ 2:45; po0:001) multivari-ate effect between groups based on total cruisestaken, and explained 5.3% of the variance (Wilk’sLambda=0.947). Follow-up One-way ANOVAs wereutilized to examine differences in the various indepen-dent variables. A significant difference (F4;705 ¼ 5:3;po0:001) was found between loyalty groups in theirintentions to revisit, while no significant differences(p > 0:05) were found for WOM, price sensitivity ormoney spent.

Post hoc analysis was conducted with Tukey’s HSDt-tests. Tukey’s HSD was chosen because it controls fordifferent error rates between groups while allowing forgroups of different sizes. Further, Tukey’s HSD waschosen because it is moderately conservative. Accordingto Ott (1993), Tukey’s is more conservative than Fisher’sleast significant different test and Student–Newman–Keuls procedure, yet less conservative than Scheffe’smethod for multiple comparison. Results found thatfirst timers and those that have taken three cruises wereless likely to have intentions to revisit than those thathad taken seven or more cruises (Table 1).

MANOVA was also used to examine differencesbetween groups based on intensity of visits (RQ2). A

significant (F4;2145 ¼ 2:49; po0:001) multivariate effectwas found between groups for total cruises taken, andexplained 5.5% of the variance (Wilk’s Lambda=0.945). Follow-up ANOVA’s revealed significant differ-ences between intensity groups for intentions to revisit(F4;705 ¼ 4:2; p ¼ 0:002) and money spent (F4;705 ¼ 3:6;p ¼ 0:006).

Tukey’s post hoc analysis revealed that first timevisitors were significantly (po0:05) less likely to intendto revisit than both those with an intensity of 0.51–0.75and 0.76 or greater (Table 1). Regarding money spent, itwas found that those with an intensity of 0.51–0.75spent significantly less per day than those with anintensity of 0.25 or less and first time visitors (Table 1).

In order to examine whether differences existedbetween groups based on proportion of cruises takenwith Holland America Line (RQ3), MANOVA was alsoemployed. Results found a significant (F4;2145 ¼ 2:33;p ¼ 0:002) multivariate effect between groups, andexplained 5.1% of the variance (Wilk’s Lamb-da=0.949). Follow-up ANOVA’s revealed significantdifferences between proportion groups for intentions torevisit (F4;705 ¼ 4:0; p ¼ 0:003). Tukey’s post hoc analy-sis revealed that first time visitors were significantly(po0:05) less likely to intend to revisit than boththose with an intensity of 0.51–0.75 and 0.76 or greater(Table 1).

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 1

Mean differences by loyalty group

Group WOM Intention Price sensitive Money spent RPI

Number of cruises with HAL

First timer (n ¼ 470) 5.88 7.73a 9.91 116.41 132.27

2 cruises (n ¼ 111) 6.02 8.14 9.70 103.83 131.04

3 cruises (n ¼ 42) 5.79 7.86a 9.71 99.70 106.21

4–6 cruises (n ¼ 48) 5.96 8.52 10.25 104.95 134.49

7 or more (n ¼ 40) 6.30 9.00b 10.65 87.81 141.08

Intensity with HAL

First timer (n ¼ 470) 5.88 7.73a 9.91 116.41b 132.27

0.25 or less (n ¼ 51) 5.88 7.86 9.51 125.74b 139.54

0.26–0.50 (n ¼ 65) 5.95 8.23 10.48 94.42 138.52

0.51–0.75 (n ¼ 58) 6.17 8.59b 10.21 79.31a 102.92

0.76 or more (n ¼ 66) 6.02 8.47b 9.73 105.30 134.37

Proportion with HAL

First timer (n ¼ 470) 5.88 7.73a 9.91 116.41 132.27

0.25 or less (n ¼ 69) 6.14 8.25 10.28 96.92 113.39

0.26–0.50 (n ¼ 71) 5.85 8.07 10.28 106.34 144.39

0.51–0.75 (n ¼ 64) 6.17 8.61b 9.89 96.29 119.08

0.76 or more (n ¼ 36) 5.89 8.44b 8.94 105.21 139.93

Attachment to HAL

Not attached (n ¼ 120) 4.14a 5.25a 9.24a 121.56 122.51

Low (n ¼ 124) 5.77b 7.38b 9.86 103.13 134.59

Moderate (n ¼ 129) 6.19c 8.33c 10.24b 120.83 144.86

High attach (n ¼ 253) 6.64d 9.21d 10.28b 104.25 134.12

Grand mean 5.94 7.97 9.92 110.24 130.83

Means with different letters are significantly different at the 0.05 level.

J.F. Petrick / Tourism Management 25 (2004) 463–470 467

A final MANOVA was used to investigate differencesbetween groups with different psychological attachmentlevels (RQ4). Results revealed a significant (F4;1638 ¼48:66; po0:001) multivariate effect between groups, andexplained 55.4% of the variance (Wilk’s Lambda=0.446).Follow-up ANOVAs revealed significant differences be-tween attachment level groups for WOM (F3;622 ¼ 196:1;po0:001), intentions to revisit (F3;622 ¼ 204:2; po0:001),and price sensitivity (F3;622 ¼ 3:1; p ¼ 0:027).

Tukey’s post hoc analysis revealed that passengers notattached spread significantly (po0:05) less positiveWOM than those with low attachment, moderateattachment and high attachment. Further, those withlow attachment spread significantly (po0:05) lesspositive WOM than those with moderate and highattachment and those with moderate attachment spreadsignificantly (po0:05) less positive WOM than thosewith high attachment (Table 1).

Regarding intentions to revisit, it was revealed thatthose not attached were significantly (po0:05) less likelyto revisit than those with low attachment, moderateattachment and high attachment. Further, those withlow attachment were significantly (po0:05) less likely torevisit than those with moderate and high attachmentand those with moderate attachment were significantly(po0:05) less likely to revisit than those with highattachment (Table 1). It was further revealed thatpassengers who were not attached were significantly(po0:05) less price sensitive than those with moderateattachment and high attachment (Table 1).

Results of the first four Research Questions suggestthat there is little difference in WOM Advertising andPrice Sensitivity between behaviorally loyal groups(total number, intensity and proportion). Differenceswere found between groups based on Intensity regardingmoney spent, with less loyal and First-Timers spendingmore than those that are more loyal. While statisticaldifferences were not found in the other loyalty measures,First-Timers were found to spend more than all othergroups based on total number and proportion. Thisfinding suggests that First-time visitors are a very viablemarket, as they spend more than repeat visitors.

Yet some caution should be taken regarding differ-ences in expenditures, as it is not known where thespending differences occurred. It is possible that repeatvisitors spent less on tours ashore, and on expendituresoff of the ship, while spending on board the ship doesnot decrease with loyalty. Further, it is anticipated thatsome learning regarding expenditures takes place witheach cruise. Thus, passengers with more visits mayspend less because they are able to find better bargains,or are able to avoid unnecessary expenditures. Furtherresearch is necessary in order to better understand thesephenomena.

For all behavioral loyalty segments, it was found thatFirst Time visitors are less likely to intend to revisit than

those that are more loyal. This finding is similar toMcGinnis (1968) proposition of cumulative inertia.Suggesting that current loyalty leads to future behavior,and the more often somebody has visited you, the morelikely that they will in the future. This perpetuatingeffect of loyalty suggests that a consistent visitor basecan be accumulated by increasing loyalty.

Regarding attachment, it was found that less attachedvisitors were less likely to spread WOM advertising andto intend to revisit than more highly attached visitors.Yet, visitors who were not attached were found to beless price sensitive and spend more, than those withmore attachment. These findings suggest that increasingaffective loyalty in visitors will result in free WOMadvertising, and future visitation, but these visitors willbe more price sensitive and spend less.

In order to examine the final Research Question(RQ5), the RPI was computed for each of the loyaltygroups (Table 1). Regarding total number of cruises, itwas found that the more cruises that passengers hadtaken, the higher their risk adjusted profit to the cruiseline, as those that had taken 7 or more cruises(RPI=141.08) and 4–6 cruises (RPI=134.49), had thehighest indexes. Regarding intensity, it was found thatpassengers with lower intensities are more profitable tothe cruise line, as the two groups with the lowestintensities had the highest risk adjusted profits to thecruise line.

It was further found that passengers with a moderateproportion (0.26–0.50) and those with a high proportion(0.76 or more) were more profitable to the cruise linethan the other groups. Finally, it was revealed thatpassengers with a moderate attachment to HAL weremore profitable than the other groups, and passengersthat were not attached were the least profitable.

Thus, the RPI analysis revealed that even though firsttime cruisers on average spend more, their RPI is lowerthan repeat visitors. This suggests that first time cruisersare a more volatile (risky) market than repeat visitors. Itwas also revealed that the safest visitors (regardingprofitability) are those that have taken multiple cruiseswith you, with a low frequency (intensity), a moderateproportion and moderate attachment. This marketwould probably consist of older or retired persons, withmoderately high incomes.

7. Conclusions

Since loyal visitors have consistently been identified asan important market segment, and little is known aboutdifferences between first-time visitors and repeat visitors(Opperman, 2000) it is believed that results of thecurrent study have potential application for tourismmanagers. Results revealed that the more behaviorallyloyal visitors are, the more likely they are to intend to

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ.F. Petrick / Tourism Management 25 (2004) 463–470468

revisit. This finding suggests that focusing marketingefforts towards current clientele, should result in aconsistent base of future clientele.

Regarding affective loyalty (attachment), it wasrevealed that attachment is positively related to WOMadvertising and intentions to revisit. This finding issimilar to Reid and Reid (1993) who proposed that oneof the main benefits of having repeat visitors is the freeadvertising that they provide via their networks offriends and relatives. It was further found that the moreaffectively loyal visitors are, the more price sensitivethey are. Thus, while affectively loyal visitors are moreapt to visit in the future than less loyal visitors, they aremore apt to search for lower prices than their counter-parts. Therefore, in marketing to affectively loyalvisitors, price and value are probably more importantthan when marketing to less affectively loyal visitors.This finding suggests that cruises which are offered at adiscount, are more likely to attract loyal visitors.Through yield management, cruise management willneed to assess whether or not the loss in revenues due tooffering discounts, is worth the rewards of attractingpast visitors.

Results also disclosed that First Timers and those thatare less loyal, are more likely to spend more than thosethat are more loyal (for all loyalty measures). Yet, afteradjusting the money spent to reflect risk (RPI), it wasfound that First Timers are not as desirable as repeatpassengers. These combined results suggest that whileFirst Time visitors may be a substantial market (able tospend a lot), they are more volatile than repeat visitors.Thus, cruise lines that rely on First Time visitors morethan repeat visitors, may reap the benefits of moremoney being spent per passenger per day. Yet, thesepassengers are less consistent, and could cause fluctua-tions in profits over time. This suggests that short-termsuccess is very possible by marketing directly to FirstTime visitors, but the market’s volatility may not beprofitable in the long run.

Results based on the behavioral loyalty models shouldbe interpreted with caution, as each of the models hadlittle explanatory power (R2o6:0%). This suggests thatthe findings are not by chance, but the variables utilizedare not the major causes of loyalty. Since the purpose ofthe study was not to explain loyalty, but to determinewhich groups are most desirable this is not problematic,but more research is necessary in order better explain thedeterminants of visitors’ loyalty.

The current study was limited to two cruises, on onevessel, on one cruise line. More research is necessary inorder to determine if the fore-mentioned relationshipsexist in other settings, or for other cruise lines. Thecurrent study was also limited in its measures of loyalty.While numerous researchers have suggested a need forbetter (multi-dimensional) measures (Baloglu, 2001;Dick & Basu, 1994; Iwasaki & Havitz, 1998; Pritchard

& Howard, 1997), a reliable and valid multi-dimensionalscale for measuring loyalty has yet to be established(Opperman, 2000). Thus future research should estab-lish accurate, multi-dimensional measures of loyalty.Future research is also necessary in order to confirm ordeny the Rosenberg and Czepial (1984) proclamationthat it costs up to six times less to retain a customer thanto attract a new one. Knowing how much it actuallycosts to retain visitors and/or attract new ones, wouldshed greater light on the desirability of loyal visitors.

Due to the fore-mentioned limitations, caution shouldbe taken in generalizing the results. Yet the currentstudy does shed some light on the potential benefits andproblems associated with the promotion of loyalty andoffer potential managerial direction related to thefindings. Since loyal visitors were found to be morelikely to visit in the future, spread WOM advertising andto offer a lower risk associated with their profitability(more substantial), it is proposed that loyal visitors aregood visitors.

References

Backman, S. J. (1988). The utility of selected personal and marketing

characteristics in explaining consumer loyalty to selected recreation

services. Dissertation Abstracts International. Unpublished Ph.D.

dissertations, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 309pp.

Backman, S. J., & Crompton, J. L. (1991). The usefulness of selected

variables for predicting activity loyalty. Leisure Sciences, 13,

205–220.

Backman, S. J., & Veldkamp, C. (1995). Examination of the

relationship between service quality and user loyalty. Journal of

Park and Recreation Administration, 13(2), 29–41.

Baker, D. A., & Crompton, D. L. (2000). Quality, satisfaction and

behavioral intentions. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3), 785–804.

Baloglu, S. (2001). An investigation of a loyalty typology and the

multidimensional loyalty of international travelers. Tourism

Analysis, 6, 41–52.

Brown, G. (1952). Brand loyalty: Fact or fiction? Advertising Age, 23,

53–55.

Cronin, J. J., Brady, M. K., & Hult, G. T. M. (2000). Assessing the

effects of quality, value and customer satisfaction on consumer

behavioral intentions in service environments. Journal of Retailing,

76(2), 193–218.

Dick, A. S., & Basu, K. (1994). Customer loyalty: Toward an

integrated framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing

Science, 22(2), 99–113.

Dolan, R. J. (1995). How do you know when the price is right?

Harvard Business Review, 73(5), 174–181.

Fakeye, P. C., & Crompton, J. L. (1992). Importance of socialization

to repeat visitation. Annals of Tourism Research, 19(2), 364–367.

Gitelson, R. J., & Crompton, J. (1984). Insights into the repeat

vacation phenomenon. Annals of Tourism Research, 11, 199–217.

Grewal, D., Monroe, K. B., & Krishnan, R. (1998). The effects of

price-comparison advertising on buyers’ perceptions of acquisition

value, transaction value and behavioral intentions. Journal of

Marketing, 62(April), 46–59.

Griffin, J. (1997). Customer loyalty: How to earn it, how to keep it. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Heiens, R. A., & Pleshko, L. P. (1996). Categories of customer loyalty:

An application of the customer loyalty classification framework in

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ.F. Petrick / Tourism Management 25 (2004) 463–470 469

the fast food hamburger market. Journal of Food Products

Marketing, 3(1), 1–12.

Iwasaki, Y., & Havitz, M. E. (1998). A path analytic model of the

relationships between involvement, psychological commitment and

loyalty. Journal of Leisure Research, 30(2), 256–280.

Jacoby, J., & Chestnut, R. (1978). Brand loyalty measurement and

management. New York: Wiley.

Jayanti, R. K., & Ghosh, A. K. (1996). Service value determination:

An integrative perspective. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure

Marketing, 34(4), 5–25.

Kotler, P., Bowen, J., & Makens, J. (1998). Marketing for hospitality

and tourism (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Lang, C., O’Leary, J. T., & Morrison, A. M. (1993). Activity

segmentation of Japanese female overseas travelers. Journal of

Travel and Tourism Marketing, 2(4), 1–22.

Lichtenstein, D. R., Bloch, P. H., & Black, W. C. (1988). Correlates of

price acceptability. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(3), 243–252.

Lynch, J. G., & Ariely, D. (2000). Wine online: Search costs affect

competition on price quality and distribution. Marketing Science,

19(1), 83–204.

McGinnis, R. (1968). A stochastic model of social mobility. American

Sociological Review, 33, 712–721.

Oh, H. (1999). Service quality, customer satisfaction, and customer

value: A holistic perspective. Hospitality Management, 18, 67–82.

Oh, H. (2000). Diners’ perceptions of quality, value and satisfaction.

Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(3),

58–66.

Oh, H., & Parks, S. C. (1997). Customer satisfaction and service

quality: A critical review of the literature and research implications

for the hospitality industry. Hospitality Research Journal, 20(3),

35–64.

O’Mally, L. (1998). Can loyalty schemes really build loyalty? Market-

ing Intelligence and Planning, 16(1), 47–55.

Opperman, M. (1998). Destination threshold potential and the law of

repeat visitation. Journal of Travel Research, 37, 131–137.

Opperman, M. (2000). Where psychology and geography interface in

tourism research and theory. In A. G. Woodside, G. I. Crouch,

J. A. Mazanec, M. Opperman, & M. Y. Sakai (Eds.), Consumer

psychology of tourism, hospitality and leisure (pp. 19–37).

Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing.

Ott, R. (1993). An introduction to statistical methods and data analysis

(4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Pessemier, E. (1959). A new way to determine buying decisions.

Journal of Marketing, 24, 41–46.

Petrick, J. F., & Backman, S. J. (2001). An examination of golf

travelers’ satisfaction, perceived value, loyalty, and intentions to

revisit. Tourism Analysis, 6(3/4), 223–237.

Petrick, J. F., & Backman, S. J. (2002a). An examination of the

determinants of golf travelers satisfaction. Journal of Travel

Research, 40, 252–258.

Petrick, J. F., & Backman, S. J. (2002b). An examination of

the construct of perceived value for the prediction of golf

travelers’ intentions to revisit. Journal of Travel Research, 41(1),

38–45.

Petrick, J. F., Morais, D., & Norman, W. (2001). An examination of

the determinants of entertainment vacationers’ intentions to visit.

Journal of Travel Research, 40(1), 41–48.

Pritchard, M. P., & Howard, D. (1997). The loyal traveler: Examining

a typology of service patronage. Journal of Travel Research, 35(4),

2–10.

Rao, A. R., & Sieben, W. A. (1992). The effect of prior knowledge on

price acceptability and the type of information examined. Journal

of Consumer Research, 19, 256–270.

Reid, L. J., & Reid, S. D. (1993). Communicating tourism suppliers:

Services building repeat visitor relationships. Journal of Travel and

Tourism Marketing, 2(2/3), 3–20.

Rosenberg, L., & Czepial, J. (1984). A marketing approach for

customer retention. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 1, 45–51.

Selin, S. W., Howard, D. R., Udd, E., & Cable, T. T. (1988). An

analysis of consumer loyalty to municipal recreation programs.

Leisure Sciences, 10, 217–223.

Shoemaker, S., & Lewis, R. C. (1999). Customer loyalty: The future of

hospitality marketing. Hospitality Management, 18, 345–370.

Sonmez, S. F., & Graefe, A. R. (1998). Determining future travel

behavior from past travel experience and perceptions of risk and

safety. Journal of Travel Research, 37(4), 171–177.

Spreng, R. A., Mackenzie, S. B., & Olshavsky, R. W. (1996). A

reexamination of the determinants of consumer satisfaction.

Journal of Marketing, 60, 15–32.

Tutto Crociere, www.Cybercruises.com/nucrpado01may02.htm. pp. 1–2.

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ.F. Petrick / Tourism Management 25 (2004) 463–470470