Search results

The purpose of this paper is to widen the understanding of the shifts the tourism industry experienced as it went though the Covid-19 pandemic. To contribute to this question, an empirical comparison is made between the supply of guided tours and sights at an urban destination in the pre- and postpandemic eras, thus gauging the changes in the guiding tours industry after the pandemic.

By conducting a convenience data gathering and a double-level analysis (tours analysis and sights analysis) on the tours and attractions supply at an urban destination, underlying trends come to light, related to the changes in the postpandemic era. This empirical comparison (2019 vs 2022) allows the authors to assess what has and has not changed in the postpandemic context.

Guided tours and attractions supply are evolving in the researched destination, but at a slow pace. Therefore, we conclude that long-term processes in destinations prevail over short-term disruptions, no matter how strong these disturbances are.

The results are of interest to practitioners as they facilitate a better assessment of the impacts of a crisis and greater awareness of the evolution of attractions in urban tourism. While the “staple tours” in a destination are always there, practitioners should keep an eye on new spaces in the city which the sector is opening up and also new touring trends.

This study is one of the few to empirically compare a pre- and postpandemic situation, as far as city-guided tours are concerned. It helps practitioners and authorities in urban destinations to assess the new trends that have emerged in the postpandemic era, and offers a two-level tool for tour analysis that could be applied to any urban destination.

This research finds out to what extent companies’ names are influenced by the place’s attributes versus the official branding policies of a place and, consequently, whether and how local companies “buy into” the place’s strategies put forth by official bodies.

This paper is both conceptual and empirical, as a mixed quantitative and interpretive approach is used. The companies’ names of a tourist industry (the tour and guiding companies) in three destinations are compared and pitched against the branding of these cities. The companies' names are classified into categories to ascertain whether they reflect (or diverge from) the official strategies. Finally, a conceptual model is developed to explain the findings: the strategic naming model (SNM).

Our main finding is that the overall business features of a place being stronger determinants to the naming strategies than tourist destination branding initiatives. The intrinsic features of a place seem thus to be “above” destination branding policies. The researched features account for different naming strategies, such as highly original names, flat names or non-strategic names.

As the work is based on a convenience sample, it cannot claim strong representativity. The fact that each of the three data sets was processed by a different researcher might bring up personal biases.

This work is a call for a more intensive use of naming strategies to the companies’ advantages, as naming is found out to be strategy used to a very low degree. Thanks to this research, companies will understand the different naming possibilities and be able to apply them to their strategies by choosing names which express “uniqueness” or “belonging”. Practitioners will also be aware of whether they are communicating towards the industry or towards the market.

No works were found that empirically pursue our research goals. Therefore, this research might be considered as a novelty. The proposed SNM model explains and relates the most usual company naming techniques, which were unrelated up to date.