Destination Management

E-Portfolio:Destination Management Tim Müller

Contents 1. Network analysis on the example of Flims Laax Falera and Lech-Zürs 2. Commonalities and differences within the two networks 3. Advantages and disadvantages of the corporate and community model 4. The ideal destination model

Flims Laax Falera Image 1: Laax, Source: Laax, 2018a

Flims Laax Most Important Tourism Stakeholders Falera Weisse Arena Gruppe (WAG) § Weisse Arena Bergbahnen AG (100%) § Weisse Arena Gastro AG (100%) § Weisse Arena Leisure AG (100%) § Mountain Adventures AG (100%) § Mountain Vision AG (100%) § Rocksresort (61,6%) § Startgels AG (41,7%) § Finanz Infra AG (18,2%) § Flims Laax Falera Management AG (Flims, Laax, Falera, WAG, Waldhaus Flims AG…) § Waldhaus Flims AG § Hotels / B&B (31 listed) § Apartments (284 listed) § Graubünden Ferien Source: Gemeinde Flims, 2014; Laax, 2018b; Weisse Arena Gruppe, 2017

Flims Laax Leader of the Destination Network Falera Weisse Arena Gruppe (WAG) § Very central and close to most stakeholders § High power/control over others § Integrates many core services of the destination à Corporate model Image 2: Weisse Arena Gruppe logo, Source: Weisse Arena Gruppe, 2018 Source: Beritelli et al., 2007; Gajdošík et al., 2017

Lech-ZürsImage 3: Lech-Zürs, Source: Sport Brändle, 2018

Lech-Zürs Most Important Tourism Stakeholders § Lech Zürs Tourismus GmbH § Vorarlberg Tourismus GmbH § Ski Arlberg (88 Cable Cars and Lifts) § Auenfeldjet Seilbahn GmbH & Co. KG § Bergbahn Lech-Oberlech GmbH & Co. § KGFlexenbahn GmbH § Rüfikopf Seilbahn AG § Seillifte Oberlech GmbH & Co. KG § Skilifte Roter Schrofen GmbH & Co. KG § Skilifte Lech Ing. Bildstein GmbH § Ski Zürs AG § Hotels, Hotel Garni and B&Bs (150 listed) § Private Rooms, Holiday Homes and Apartments (103 listed) Source: Lech Zürs Tourismus GmbH, 2018; Ski Arlberg, 2018

Lech-Zürs Leader of the Destination Network Lech Zürs Tourismus GmbH § Marketing of the destination § Coordination between stakeholders § Destination strategy BUT, not dominant in terms of power and influence and does not own core services. Interrelated network of individual shareholders that shapes the final tourism product. à Community Model Source: Beritelli et al., 2007; Gajdošík et al., 2017

Commonalities and DifferencesImage 4: Laax logo, Source: Weisse Arena Gruppe, 2018 Image 5: Lech-Zürs logo, Source: Wanderdörfer, 2018Corporate Model vs. Community Model

Commonalities and DifferencesDimension Corporate Model Community Model HighNumber of stakeholders Low (one big integrator)Size of stakeholders One big leader, some smaller ones Small to big, many SMEsLeadership of destination One dominant leader No clear leadership, interrelated networkMarketing of destination Mainly through network leader Through DMO and individual enterprisesTransaction costs Generally low Generally highInterdependence Strong between dominating firm and Diverse, depending on integration of services municipalities and market portfolioTrust/Control Ensured by control mechanisms and contracts Need for mutual trustKnowledgePersonal connections Detailed and specific Diffuse and general Limited, among few actors Many within a network Table 1: Own representation, based on: Beritelli et al., 2007; Gajdošík et al., 2017

The Major advantagesCorporate § Low transaction costs § Central management Model § Quick and easy decision implementation § More focused and differentiated strategies possible § Specific knowledge within leading firm Major disadvantages § Lack of flexibility § Power imbalance (individual firms could feel underprivileged) § Possible lack of individuality and authenticity § Lack of personality can cause employee dissatisfaction Source: Beritelli et al., 2007; Gajdošík et al., 2017

The Major advantagesCommunity § Individuality, authenticity and cultural diversity § Social equity Model § More powerful DMO which can represent also small stakeholder § Informal network, cooperation and mutual trust § No dependency on a major leader Major disadvantages § Difficult to manage § Difficult to implement common long-term strategy § No leadership, diffuse structure à inefficiency and high transaction costs § Lack of control mechanisms between stakeholders § Diffuse and general knowledge Source: Beritelli et al., 2007; Gajdošík et al., 2017

The ideal … does not exist, as every destination is different and one has todestination see first what is given in terms of e.g. natural resources, infrastructure, stakeholders, DMO etc. The current status has to model… be analyzed to identify areas of improvement and then an appropriate model can be implemented integrating all stakeholders. A mix between a corporate and community model will probably be ideal for most destinations. A good destination model, however, should cover the following aspects: § Inclusion of all stakeholders in fundamental decisions, strategy and innovation § Assurance of flexibility in individual units in accordance with common goals and strategies § Continuous improvement of (service) quality, efficiency and guest experience § Share of knowledge between stakeholders § Support of local identity, individuality and authenticity represented e.g. in small individual businesses

§ Image References: Laax (2018a). Tickets. Available at: https://www.laax.com/en/ski-resort/aktuelltickets Sport Brändle (2018). Sport Brändle. Available at: http://www.sportbraendle.at/wp-content/uploads/ bilderwelt241.jpg Wanderdörfer (2018). Lech Zürs am Arlberg. Available at: https://asset.erhebung.at/asset/show/ id/4264 Weisse Arena Gruppe (2018). Media: Downloads. Available at: http://weissearena.com/en/media/ downloads/ § Content References: Beritelli, P., Bieger, T. & Laesser, C. (2007). Destination Governance: Using Corporate Governance Theories as a Foundation for Effective Destination Management. Journal of List of Travel Research, 46 (1), 96-107.references Gajdošík, T., Gajdošíková, Z., Maráková, V. & Flagestad, A. (2017). Destination structure revisited in view of the community and corporate model. Tourism Management Perspectives, 24, 54-63. Gemeinde Flims (2014). Informationsblatt Gäste und Tourismustaxengesetz der Gemeinden Flims, Laax und Falera (Destination Flims Laax). Available at: http://www.gemeindeflims.ch/data/ pages/documents/Infoblatt_-_Tourismusgesetz_(26.03.2014)-1.pdf Laax (2018b). Hotels. Available at: https://www.laax.com/en/accommodation/hotels Lech Zürs Tourismus GmbH (2018). Accommodations. Available at: https://booking.lech-zuers.at/ lechbook/en/accommodation/list?customHeader=true Ski Arlberg (2018). Impressum. Available at: http://www.skiarlberg.at/de/impressum Weisse Arena Gruppe (2017). Laax: Facts and Figures. Available at: http://weissearena.com/wp-content/ uploads/Mediakit_LAAX_EN_2017_2018.zip