REGIONAL DESTINATION MARKETING: A COLLABORATIVE APPROACH

Abstract

This article explores how small neighboring destinations with limited tourism products and resources can collaborate in marketing their destinations. Based on a critical literature review, a conceptual framework was developed and empirical data was collected via document analysis, a focus group interview as well as in‐depth semi‐structured interviews with senior executives of three convention and visitors bureaus (CVBs) in Ohio. The research findings suggest that forming partnerships among neighboring destinations is beneficial for all participating CVBs in terms of enhancing product portfolio, cost reduction, and efficiency. However, there can be major challenges in developing and sustaining such long‐term partnerships which include differing priorities, different marketing directions, and limited resources. The research findings further suggest that achieving results from such a partnership may take a considerable amount of effort and time. The research findings imply that executives of CVBs need to be informed and educated not only about advantages of forming such partnerships and how they can form such partnerships but also how they can overcome potential challenges together in this endeavor. The research results also suggest that informal working relationships and trust among executives of neighboring CVBs are crucial in forming and maintaining such a partnership. Discussions and implications based on the study results are also provided.

Keywords:

• Agritourism
• collaboration
• CVBs
• destination marketing organizations
• case study
• qualitative research

INTRODUCTION

Destination marketing organizations (DMOs) often view their neighboring destinations as competitors. Prideaux and Cooper (2002) suggest that too much competition among destinations within a region weakens the overall effectiveness and efficiency of regional tourism development. As a matter of fact, the fast pace of social, economic, and technical changes force destinations to adapt their offerings to meet the needs and expectations of sophisticated consumers (Bramwell & Lane, 1999; Wang & Fesenmaier, 2007), thus gaining and maintaining their competitive advantages (Poon, 1993; Wang & Xiang, 2007). Similarly, increased competitive pressures have prompted collaboration among tourism destinations trying to gain access to new knowledge, markets, and technologies or spread the cost of marketing activities among several destinations in a region (Fyall & Garrod, 2004; Selin, 1993). It is increasingly difficult for individual destinations to make decisions without taking other surrounding destinations' interests and products into account.

In the regional tourism context, the tourism product can be seen as a composite product, and each of the components is supplied by the individual tourism businesses in several destinations within the region (Hall, 1999). A region's tourism product mix comprises of all these product components that are made available to tourists in the region. For smaller destinations and communities representing a limited number of tourism resources and stakeholders in a defined geographical location, these products tend to be fragmented and scattered around a certain geographical area. A regional collective marketing approach has the potential of increasing the attractiveness of the region as a destination by either offering the same benefits and targeting the same market segments or providing complementary products which increase the consumption value of consumers (Fyall & Garrod, 2004). For marketing purposes, a region's product mix can also be widened and diversified through collaborative activities by neighboring destinations in a region (Palmer & Bejou, 1995).

Such a regional destination marketing approach has also been supported by tourism literature underpinning consumers' multi‐destination travel behavior (e.g., Puczko, Ratz, & Smith, 2007; Tideswell & Faulkner, 1999). Tourists aim to maximize their travel benefits by bundling different destinations throughout a region rather than restrict themselves to one part of a region/destination (Hwang & Fesenmaier, 2003). Such a travel pattern is more pronounced with long‐haul travel where value maximization is usually an important part of the consumer's decision making. For example, Hill and Shaw's (1995) research has indicated that a large multiple‐destination tourism segment exists, wherein several destinations in the same region are visited by visitors. They point out that such bundling of destinations is more likely to happen when destinations are in close proximity to one another, and/or they offer compatible tourist products and services. Thus, from a destination marketing perspective, it is important to examine the components of the tourism product from the tourist's point of view (Bahar & Kozak, 2007) and regard the bundle of the various tourism products as the total consumption experience of travel. Destinations in one region should, therefore, realize that they are interdependent and that they should work together to offer a total product that is attractive and satisfying in order to improve their individual positions in the marketplace (Wang & Fesenmaier, 2007).

Despite the importance of the regional approach in tourism development and marketing, very few studies have been undertaken to explore how neighboring small destinations with limited tourism products and resources can collaborate in marketing their destinations. A critical literature review suggests that there is limited knowledge on how tourism destinations can collaborate in promoting their destinations together. In order to be effective and successful in capturing the dynamic and idiosyncratic nature of marketing and development of such destinations, DMOs need to be aware of the critical factors in the process of building and sustaining collaborative relationships, such as the motive for collaboration, factors facilitating or inhibiting collaboration, and the outcomes resulted from such collaborative activities. Having identified this gap in the field, this article aims to explore how collaborative partnerships can be formed among regional destinations. In particular, this study attempts to achieve the following purposes: (a) evaluate the motives for forming partnerships among regional DMOs; (b) identify the facilitating factors in forming partnerships among these DMOs; (c) identify the inhibiting factors to partnership formation among regional DMOs; and (d) assess the outcomes of such collaborative marketing activities among DMOs. This study intends to contribute to the body of knowledge by sharing empirical findings as well as providing theoretical and practical discussions on how neighboring small destinations with limited tourism products and resources can collaborate in marketing their destinations. The study proposes a conceptual framework based on the research findings which can be helpful to practitioners and researchers.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Studies on collaborative destination marketing mainly focus on two levels: the intra‐destination collaboration at the local level (e.g., Wang & Fesenmaier, 2007), and the inter‐destination collaboration at the regional level (e.g., Henderson, 2001). The latter stream of research explores the means by which destinations can work in partnership with other destinations in improving inter‐regional, inter‐state and inter‐destination product. The issue of regional collaboration for tourism development has been raised much in the past. However, progress to date on achieving collaboration has been somewhat slow, anecdotal, and fragmented. For example, based on Teye's (1988) work in Africa, Timothy (2000) outlined the need for greater regional cooperation among border destinations between the United States and Canada, with joint promotion, marketing, and tourism resource management being the several avenues for potential collaboration. He argued that inter‐destination marketing collaboration was crucial to long‐term success based on studies of long‐haul travel trends and the migration to multi‐destination trips. He concluded that it was tourism marketing that provided the primary reason for whatever regional cooperation exists in many countries. This view was supported by the limited offering for tourism products in certain destinations, and the availability of complementary tourism products in neighboring destinations.

Research that attempts to explain the motivation for partnership formation has put forth three rationales: strategic, transaction costs related, and learning related. Strategic considerations involve using partnership to enhance a business' competitive advantage through market power or efficiency (Saxena, 2005), gain access to critical external resources (Fyall, Oakley, & Weiss, 2000), deal with rapid technical changes in an industry (Bramwell & Lane, 1999; Wang & Xiang, 2007), overcome financial difficulties (Bailey & Koney, 2000), rapidly enter markets (Fyall & Garrod, 2004; Grangsjo, 2003), or to share risk or uncertainty with their partners (Prideaux & Cooper, 2002). Transaction cost explanations view partnership formation as a means to reduce the production and transaction costs for the businesses concerned (Williamson, 1985), or to exploit economies of scale and scope (Palmer, 2002). Learning explanations view partnership as a means to learn or absorb critical skills or capabilities from working partners (Prahalad & Hamel, 1990; Saxena, 2005), and to access or internalize new technologies and know‐how beyond firm boundaries (Khanna, Gulati, & Nohria, 1998; Wang & Fesenmaier, 2007). These objectives are especially important for destination marketing since destination competitive advantage can only be gained by bringing together the knowledge, expertise, capital, and other resources of the various tourism organizations so that the destinations can offer products which are unique, inimitable, and difficult to substitute (Fyall & Garrod, 2004).

Previous studies highlight a number of facilitating factors with respect to collaboration within and among destinations (Fyall & Garrod, 2004; Palmer & Bejou, 1995). These include efficient and effective exchange of resources for perceived mutual benefit; generation of increased visitor flows and positive economic impacts; and broadening of the destination domain. Evidence is also found in attempts of identifying factors facilitating collaborative relationships in the general business literature. For example, the study by Little, Leverick, and Bruce (1995) reveals that collaboration requires frequent communication among all involved parties, and the likelihood of success is greatly enhanced by the presence of a collaboration champion. Other factors include ensuring that partners contribute as expected, creating the perception of equal benefits among partners, and building trust between partners.

On the other hand, Fyall and Garrod (2004) identify several constraints/inhibitors to collaboration in the tourism context. These include mistrust and suspicion among collaborative partners; inability of stakeholders to work together due to excuses of political, economic or administrative nature; and particular stakeholders fail to recognize the real value of collaboration and remain closed to the benefits of working together. These inhibitors to collaboration have been supported by other studies from different perspectives. First, there can be a concern of leakage to collaborating partners of a business' skills, experience, and general “tacit” knowledge that may form a significant part of the basis of its competitiveness (Hamel, Doz, & Prahalad, 1989). Second, entering into collaborative arrangements is invariably likely to lead to a reduction in the direct control held by one organization over the project in question (Palmer, 2002). Third, although collaboration is frequently promoted as a means of reducing cost and improving efficiency, the additional financial and time costs incurred in managing the collaboration are likely to affect the collaboration process negatively. In the context of regional destination marketing, the broader context within which collaboration takes place is also likely to have a significant bearing. For example, the collaborators' mission and objectives can change along with the changes in the partner destinations' markets, in their competitive fields, in the range of technological resources available, or in the regional/community policies and governance (Wang & Fesenmaier, 2007).

Partnership inevitably leads to outcomes which are usually multifaceted and contingent upon the context in which the collaboration takes place (Palmer & Bejou, 1995). Previous research has indicated that one of the direct outcomes of collaboration is strategy oriented (Henderson, 2001; King, 2002). These outcomes are realized when organizations pool the resources of tourism stakeholders; thereby, increasing destination competitiveness through cooperative branding, image building, and integrated tourism product portfolio (Bennet, 1999; Dwyer, 2003; Hill & Shaw, 1995). A second type of collaboration outcome is related to organization learning (Augustyn & Knowles, 2000; Ritchie & Ritchie, 2002). This is brought about when the respective parties contribute their knowledge, attitudes, and other capacities toward collaborative marketing efforts; this cooperation, in turn, introduces change, improvement, and innovation through learning (Wang & Fesenmaier, 2007). Finally, partnerships can promote learning about the work, skills, and potential of the other partners; develop group interaction and negotiating skills; and ultimately, lead to the development of good relationships (Ritchie & Ritchie, 2002).

STUDY SETTING

The setting for this study is Lorain, Medina, and Wayne Counties—a tri‐county agri‐tourism destination in Northeast Ohio, USA The characteristics of these three counties made it an appropriate setting for studying collaborative marketing among local DMOs for several reasons. First, this destination is representative of numerous other small destinations both at the national and international levels so that general guidelines can be developed and implied to a broader context, especially in relation to how small destinations with limited tourism products and resources can benefit from collaborative regional marketing efforts.

Second, the many years of collaborative marketing initiative among the three DMOs have covered many aspects of cooperative marketing activities between the three destinations in different breadth and depth. As a result, complying with the research objectives, different aspects of partnership building can be illustrated, such as the motivation, facilitating factors and barriers, as well as the outcomes of collaborative activities among these DMOs. For example, all three partnering counties included in this study (i.e., Lorain, Medina, and Wayne) are represented by a local government sponsored CVB/DMO with the major mandate of developing and marketing their individual county as a tourist destination. This has provided an equal platform for all the three counties to be part of many of the cooperative programs. In addition, the geographic structure of the three counties places each of the counties approximately 50 miles apart from each other, totaling a driving distance of approximately 150 miles from the two end points of the tri‐county region (see Figure 1). Such geographic proximity provides a great opportunity for the three counties to form collaborative partnerships and market the region as a single destination. In other words, the geographic structure of this region makes it an ideal drive through tourism destination with overnight stays. Furthermore, the three county area is surrounded by large and medium‐sized cities which serve as the major feeder markets, and these cities include: Akron, Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Charleston (Ohio); Buffalo (NY); Detroit (MI); Indianapolis (IN); and, Pittsburgh (PA). Indeed, the close proximity to these major cities provides the opportunity for the three counties to leverage on collaboratively marketing the region as a single destination to these major cities. From a target market perspective, the distance of Lorain, Medina, and Wayne counties from the surrounding major cities suggests that all three counties' marketing efforts are more than likely directed to the same target markets. The target markets include educational groups such as school‐sponsored tours and middle to upper income multi‐generational families, as well as the motor coach market.

Figure 1 Lorain, Medina, and Wayne Counties, the Tri‐County Region, Northeast Ohio, USA

While the three counties under study share common tourism products and services, they are also complementing each other with their individual unique tourism products. The commonality among the three counties' tourism products is reflected by their agriculture‐oriented product development on the one hand and a lack of a major and/or unique tourist attraction on the other. Examples of this region's agri‐tourism products include woodlands, horticultural gardens, vineyards and wineries, crop and animal farms, and petting zoos. In addition to the similarities among the three counties' tourism products, each county has a few small unique tourism products that complement the region as a single destination. Some of these complementary products include Tappan Square and Oberlin College, a horticultural garden display of 2,000 to 3,000 bulbs and plants (Lorain County); America's Ice Cream & Dairy Museum, house of an original dairy building of the Victorian era (Medina County); and the Amish Country display of non‐electric products spreading over an acre of land under one roof (Wayne County; Tri‐County Cornucopia of Farm and Gardens Brochure, 2006–2007).

The long existing collaborative relationship between these three counties provided a platform to facilitate new collective initiatives. All three counties included in this study recognized the importance and implications of collaborative partnerships to a great extent. In the late 1990s the three CVB directors formed a collaborative partnership to market the three counties as a single agri‐tourism destination. They have aimed to create an image for this region as an agri‐tourim destination. Their collaborative marketing strategy was comprehensive which leveraged on the commonalities among the three counties' tourism products, as well as the complementary nature of the destination with each of the counties' unique tourism products. The outcome of the tri‐county regional collaborative partnerships and collaborative destination marketing has been a single destination known as the Tri‐County Cornucopia Farm and Gardens which offers a variety of tourism packages to their target markets.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

For this exploratory in‐depth research project, it was decided that the most appropriate research strategy would be to employ a case study approach and collect data via qualitative data collection methods. This was because the case study approach would provide an opportunity to explore complex collaborative marketing issues in depth through the systematic piecing together of detailed evidence in their context (Creswell, 2003; Yin, 2003). As there is limited knowledge in this area, it was believed that employing the case study approach would be useful in order to achieve a deeper understanding of the investigated issues (Eisenhardt, 1989). According to Robson (1993) and Yin (2003), several elements need to be clearly included in the design of a case study. These include proposing a set of research questions, justifying a sound sampling strategy, and choosing appropriate data collection methods. These guidelines were followed in the design of the study.

In relation to data collection methods, it was thought that the questionnaire technique would not be so helpful since researching on how to establish joint collaborative marketing efforts among different destinations often deals with a sequence of events and developments over a long period of time where many stakeholders are involved, their roles change, and their attitudes and behaviors may be recast. Therefore, it was decided that rich qualitative and factual data needed to be collected to cope with the dynamic perspective of collaborative marketing strategies. In particular, the data collection methods chosen for this study were focus group interviews and in‐depth semi‐structured interviews and document analysis. First, it was believed that interviewing key informants would provide invaluable and rich information about collaborative marketing activities and their implications. Second, documentary analysis was also chosen as another appropriate data collection method. The variety of documents for analysis included letters, agendas, minutes of meetings, and formal reports and brochures. These are often referred to as “mute evidence” and it is argued that documents can provide crucial information to every case study topic because they may cover a long span of time and many events and settings and give exact names, references, places, and details of events (Yin, 2003). It was believed that these documents could also support and relate to the findings from interviews and would provide an opportunity to cross check the research findings.

In order to carry out semi‐structured interviews with key informants, an initial semi‐structured interview protocol was designed based on a critical review of previous research. This helped when preparing for interviews and identifying specific interview questions. The researchers carried out in‐depth semi‐structured interviews with the executive directors of three CVBs for Marion, Wayne, and Lorain Counties, respectively, which is a tri‐county agri‐tourism regional destination in Northeast Ohio. The Director of Medina County was first approached. Based on discussions with this executive, the two other counties' CVB executives were identified and approached believing that they could provide detailed information about the investigated issues. Hemmington (1999) refers to this as purposive sampling or key informants sampling. After explaining the purpose of the research project, he agreed to arrange a formal joint meeting with all three CVB directors and one of the researchers. This focus group interview took place in Medina County and it lasted over 4 hours. The researcher acted as the moderator of this meeting and asked the directors questions and let them talk about their collaborative marketing partnerships. When necessary, probing questions were asked by the researchers. All the notes taken during this focus group interview were transcribed and later shared with the directors. In addition, each director was approached and interviewed again on the phone using an interview protocol to guide the interview. There were two main reasons for this. First, several issues that emerged from the focus group interview were further discussed and elaborated on. Second, the researchers wanted to get their independent opinions about this collaborative marketing partnership. Interviews were carried out in the form of telephone interviews which lasted from 30 minutes to 1 hour. Each interview was tape‐recorded and then transcribed in verbatim format for data analysis.

Analyzing qualitative data is defined as both interpretative and eclectic in nature and it is argued that there is no one right way to analyze such voluminous data (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Researchers can employ both a “tight,” more theoretically driven approach, or a “loose,” inductively oriented approach (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Yin, 2003). Both inductive and deductive analyses can be mixed and used together (Orton, 1997; Pettigrew, 1997). Given this, both modes of data analysis were employed for this investigation. The theory‐driven approach was adopted from recommendations made by Miles and Huberman, and Yin (2003), as these authors suggest that through employing this approach, existing theories can be evaluated. A coding scheme was derived from the literature review which reflected the research objectives highlighting key elements that emerged. Much of the data analysis consisted of breaking down the interview transcripts as well as documents into manageable blocks in order to classify them under each code/grouping. Following Ritchie and Spencer's (1994) guidelines, a “cut and paste” approach was adapted whereby “chunks” of verbatim texts or summary notes were regrouped according to their categories. Each passage of text was annotated with a particular reference and entered on the chart. The original text was cross‐referenced so that the source could be traced and the process of abstraction could be examined and replicated. This was carried out by each of the researchers and comparisons were made among the authors' findings. Alongside the theory‐driven approach, the inductive mode of analysis was also employed for this study. This mode of analysis was adopted from recommendations made by Miles and Huberman (1994). Employing this inductive approach provided the researchers an open mind to look at how DMOs developed and implemented collaborative marketing strategies. The inductive approach helped the researchers analyze the data freely without following a framework or where the framework failed to offer any directions. Overall, employing both of these approaches (the theory driven and inductive) helped to clarify the meaning of the data and also suggested ways of obtaining a deeper understanding of collaborative marketing activities in the participating destinations. Through these iterative data analysis processes, a case study report was developed (Yin, 2003) and was re‐visited many times and improved accordingly.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

The following discussion presents the research findings within the context of the questions based on the research themes. These questions are: (a) motives for forming collaborative partnerships among DMOs; (b) the facilitating factors in forming partnerships; (c) the inhibiting factors to partnership formation; and (d) the outcomes of such collaborative marketing activities. For ease of interpretation, the research findings pertinent to the above research questions are summarized and presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2 Key Areas in Collaborative Regional Destination Marketing

Motives for Forming Partnerships Among DMOs

Based on the research findings gathered through a focus group interview, semi‐structured interviews, and documentary analysis, the motives for forming partnerships among the participating CVBs are grouped into three closely related categories which are: enhancing tourism product portfolio; leveraging on each county's unique tourism products; and costs reduction and efficiency. Each of them is briefly explained below.

Enhancing Tourism Product Portfolio

The research findings revealed that enhancing the tourism product portfolio was one of the major motivational factors for the participating CVBs to form collaborative partnerships among themselves. This was clearly stated by all key informants. For example, the Lorain County CVB executive director, a 10‐year founding partner in the tri‐county region collaborative partnership, stated that

Because of the commonalities of the three counties, it seemed correct to form a union… none of the three counties has major attractions like a Rock & Roll Hall of Fame; if we took what we had and worked together, we could promote our vast agricultural areas and it would have a bigger impact than it would by promoting individually.

The Wayne County CVB executive director echoed the same sentiment: “if we combined the three counties then we would have more products to offer.” These sentiments suggest that enhancing their tourism product portfolio was a major motivation for forming a collaborative partnership among the three CVB executive directors. There are two major commonalities among the three counties' tourism portfolio. The first one is that each of the counties' tourism products are agriculture based. This was reflected in the comments of all three CVB executives. Medina County's CVB executive director noted that “agriculture geared us towards the collaborative partnership.” He commented that “the three counties have large portions of agriculture” and that agritourism seemed to be the in‐market to be selling. The second major commonality among the three counties emphasized by the informants was that neither of the counties has a major attraction. In other words, the lack of major attractions and diversity in the three counties' tourism product portfolio was therefore a motivational factor for collaborative partnership among these counties' CVBs.

Leveraging on Each County's Unique Tourism Products

The marketability of any destination depends greatly on the destination's tourism products portfolio. This was one of the major drawbacks of Lorain, Medina, and Wayne Counties as individual destinations. Even though each county had large amounts of agricultural products that could be marketed as tourism products, they are each dependent on a few similar offerings rather than a diverse product portfolio. The executives of the three counties' CVBs recognized the importance of expanding their markets and developing a portfolio of attractions for their individual destinations. They realized that the only way to expand their markets and develop a portfolio of attractions was through product bundling. For example, the Wayne County executive director stated that “if we combined the three counties then we would have more products to offer.” This was supported by the Lorain County CVB executive who stated that “promoting each county independently was a challenge; therefore it was beneficial for all parties to work together”. She stated that “we could promote our vast agricultural areas so that it would have a bigger impact than it would by promoting them individually.” These findings are consistent with the literature, that gaining access to critical external resources is one of the reasons for partnerships among companies (Fyall et al., 2000; Oliver, 1988).

Costs Reduction and Efficiency

The executives from the three CVBs openly stated that cost reduction and maximizing the marketing dollars were major motivational factors for Lorain, Medina, and Wayne Counties' CVBs to work together. This is certainly consistent with previous research studies in this area (e.g., Wang & Fesenmaier, 2007). Comments from executives included “we could do travel showcase together,” “we could split the cost of booths three ways,” “by doing that we share resources and get better benefits than performing by themselves,” and “it has helped us save money in advertisements and printing costs.”

The executive from Medina County stated that “Our promotions are 1/3 of the costs, and we are able to reach more with the same amount of resources. By itself, Medina County could have one advertisement, but by joining resources, we could get two or three ads.” He further claimed that shows are 2/3 less expensive if they join forces, therefore they enjoy cost benefits. The interview findings reveal that the three CVBs entering into partnerships were driven by the need for efficiency with the emphasis on sharing cost for more efficient marketing activities.

Facilitating Factors for DMOs Partnership

Several facilitating factors for partnerships among the tri‐county CVBs emerged from the research findings. These include: independent CVBs with common operating philosophies; geographic structure and the broadening of the destination domain; homogeneity of target market; common but complementary products; good personal relationship and constant communication; and fair share of benefits and responsibilities.

Independent CVBs with Common Operating Philosophy

The executives from these partnering CVBs noted that the tourism industry in each of the three counties is represented by a local government sponsored CVB. The mandate of these CVBs is to develop and market each county as a tourist destination. It was apparent that this provided an equal platform for the three countries' CVBs to be part of many cooperative programs. Though independent, the common philosophy of destination marketing shared by the three participating CVBs provided a great fit for a collaborative marketing relationship.

For example, according to Medina County's CVB executive, what facilitates their collaborative partnership is that each of the CVBs believes that “the destination is stronger in working together by regions versus by counties.” When asked about the role of politics in their collaborative efforts, the Medina County CVB executive explained that the politicians understand that they are not a stand‐alone entity and that the three counties achieve more by working together. According to this executive, politicians realize that there are county limits but they also understand that regional efforts are important. Politics in collaborative destination marketing as a facilitating factor is important to discuss because in many tourism destinations it is a major inhibiting factor for collaborative partnerships (e.g., Selin & Chavez, 1995). This facilitating factor is particularly crucial for regional tourism destination marketing because being territorial does not provide the opportunity to leverage and maximize resources of the region.

Homogeneity of Target Market

The geographic location of Lorain, Medina, and Wayne Counties to major large‐ and medium‐sized cities places the region in an ideal location to generate and increase the visitor flow with positive economic impact to the region. The interview results further indicate that the target markets of each county is homogeneous which include educational groups such as school‐sponsored tours, middle to upper income multi‐generational families, as well as the motor coach market and retirees. Targeting the same tourism markets facilitates a more efficient and effective exchange of financial and marketing resources that provides mutual benefits to the partnership.

Common but Complementary Products

The three participating counties in this collaborative partnership share similar agriculture base tourism products and services, as well as unique tourism products which complement each other. The executives noted that having complementary products does not only broaden but also diversifies the tourism product portfolio in the regional destination. In other words, it was emphasized that the common but complementary products of the tri‐counties facilitate the efficient and effective exchange of resources that support and maintain the collaborative partnership which provides mutual benefits to all parties. The Wayne County CVB executive director noted that, “if we combined the three counties then we would have more and different products to offer.”

Geographic Structure and the Broadening of the Destination Domain

The executives noted that the geographic structure and location of Lorain, Medina, and Wayne Counties provided them an opportunity to form collaborative partnership among these three counties. As discussed earlier, each of the counties is approximately 50 miles apart, totaling a driving distance of approximately 150 miles from the two end points of the tri‐county region. It was noted by these executives that collaborative marketing by these three CVBs has allowed broadening of the region's domain to 1,471 square miles as a destination. In other words, the geographic structure of these three counties is a natural facilitating factor for the collaborative partnership among the three counties' CVBs, and it has served them as the foundation for a regional tourism destination. In addition, the executives of the three CVBs noted that through their collaborative marketing efforts, they wanted to create brand name for their region. The initial impression of the authors was that these three counties focused more on the physical part of collaborative marketing. However, further to listening to their comments, it emerged that they wanted to create a brand for the region as an agri‐tourism destination.

Good Personal Relationships and Constant Communication

Another important facilitating factor required to establish a sustainable collaborative partnership is the close personal relationship among the partners. The CVB executives echoed the same sentiment. What seems to have helped the relationship is that the three directors were good friends prior to the group coming together and that is why the relationship has been so strong. Long‐term good personal relationships among working partners have helped manage the trust factor which is crucial for sustainable collaborative relationships. It was also revealed from the interview findings that for the relationship to sustain, formal and particularly informal communication should be frequent among all involved parties. This is especially important given that most of their collaborative relationship is not a formal contractual agreement; rather, it is based on their personal relationships with each other which is usually maintained through frequent communication. Throughout the 10‐year successful operation of the tri‐county collaborative partnership, the CVB executives seemed to have engaged in frequent communication with each other about the direction as well as the implementation of various collaborative activities.

Fair Share of Benefits and Responsibilities

The research findings support this as a key facilitating factor to collaborative partnerships. For example, the Lorain County CVB director stated that “if we are going to get together to work as a team then we will have to see that all members get benefits and all members work equally hard.” The research findings suggest that the tri‐county collaborative partnership has been conducted in a “democratic style,” electing to use a voting process for major partnership decisions. They maintain records of conversations held with other participants and set goals and agendas for partnerships. They also attribute their collaborative partnership success to the way they conduct their partnership business. One executive described their relationship as “a gentleman's agreement.” It has worked well over the years because they have been very democratic and transparent in discussing important issues, and usually a voting process takes place. This serves as a mechanism to make sure that the collaborative process is fair, especially when benefits and responsibilities are concerned.

Inhibiting Factors for DMOs Partnership

The interview findings revealed that there was a positive experience during the formation of the collaborative partnerships in the region which has continued over the years. However, several inhibiting factors were encountered when forming and developing collaborative marketing efforts from the perspectives of both the CVB members and other stakeholders in the destination.

Inhibiting Factors Within the CVBs Partnerships

Members of any partnership normally bring barriers to the relationship from time to time. The research findings revealed that this was the case in a few of the regional marketing efforts. For example, when developing several collaborative programs, the directors did not all agree on the direction the marketing efforts should take. In addition, the collaborative initiatives required more daring actions from its members which at times were lacking. Furthermore, the focus of the collaborative programs was not at the level it should have been. The lack of initiatives and daring actions from its partners could be a result of limited human and financial resources. This was reflected by the Lorain County CVB executive statement that “our focus is not at the level it should be, and this could be a result from dealing with limited staff and limited budgets.” However, they all agreed that this highlighted the need for more collaborative initiatives in the future since most of the collaborative projects were designed to utilize both human and financial resources in a more efficient and effective way.

The executives interviewed shared how they overcame the barriers they encountered within the partnership. For example, to overcome the barrier of disagreements on the direction of the marketing efforts, a voting process is usually taken to reach a consensus. This was important to note, since their collaborative partnership was not a formal or official agreement. It was based on a “gentleman's agreement” according to the participating executives. In addition, the personal relationship has played a key role when disagreements surfaced. This is certainly important in overcoming potential barriers in the collaborative process. Another factor acknowledged by the executives that has helped them overcome potential barriers to their collaborative relationship is the culture shared by the destination, which believes that “the destination will be stronger if counties involved work together rather than individually.” It was also apparent during the interviews that they wanted to create an image for the region as an agri‐tourism destination.

Inhibiting Factors From Other Stakeholders

The interview results revealed that stakeholders in the destination may create barriers for collaboration. Given the nature of the agriculture destination, farmers are usually major stakeholders involved in collaborative initiatives. The CVB executives noted that farmers in the region have been hesitant to add their farms to the regional destination portfolio of tourism products. According to the executives interviewed, the major reason for farmers' hesitation for participation is the farmers' inability to secure liability insurance because it is either too costly or not available. One executive stated that “farmers are concerned with who will be liable if visitors fall if the floor is muddy.” The nature of agri‐tourism products are another barrier to adding products to the regional destination portfolio. For example, the weather conditions have great impact on farms and farmers' livelihood. According to Lorain County CVB executive, “farmers are victims of Mother Nature so they are not willing to have visitors if their farms have suffered damages from rain, for example; they would much rather do their own chores and fix their farms instead”.

According to the research findings, farmers brought some other barriers such as hours of operation, additional labor, and resources to support employee training and customer service. For example, a tourist attraction like a corn maze requires longer operation hours, more labor, resources, and training of their workers. According to Wayne County CVB executive, these challenges occurred because both the executives of partnering CVBs and farmers did not initially realize that all these resources and training were needed. Using her words, “it was an opportunity that they weren't prepared for.” In addition, some farmers did not recognize the real value of collaboration and therefore they have been reluctant in the collaborative partnership efforts.

Hotels have also been one of the key stakeholders in the Tri‐County Cornucopia Farm and Garden Tours collaborative partnership. The interview results indicate that hotels in the region have not always honored the prices in some of the tour packages. Some hotels do not like to participate in tour packages because they believe that it is not worth due to the small number of hotels in the area. Again, this supports the observation that certain stakeholders may not recognize the real value of long‐term collaboration and remain closed to the benefits of working together with other counties. One of the CVB executives attributed hotels' non‐participative attitude to the lack of education, knowledge, as well as high management turnover. The executives interviewed noted that they would like the farmers and hoteliers to be more engaging and cooperative because it is important to the success of the partnership and the destination.

Outcomes of the Collaborative Partnership

The outcomes of the tri‐county (Lorian, Wayne, and Medina) CVBs' collaborative partnership are aligned with the motivations and goals for partnership formation and collaborative approaches identified in the literature (e.g., Fyall & Garrod, 2004; Wang & Fesenmaier, 2007). The study results provide support for and add new findings to the tourism literature relating collaboration and partnership building. The following themes emerge out of the interviews as the outcomes of collaborative marketing activities among the three counties: (a) a formal regional destination marketing program; (b) wider market reach; (c) cost efficiency; and (d) regional economic contribution.

A Formal Regional Destination Marketing Program

Bringing together Lorain, Medina, and Wayne Counties CVBs/DMOs knowledge and expertise in destination marketing together with their capital and tourism resources resulted in the formation of a single agri‐tourism destination in Northeast Ohio: “The Tri‐County Cornucopia Farms and Gardens.” The interview findings revealed that the tri‐county CVBs' collaborative partnership was beneficial for the region as an agri‐tourism destination. One of the executives stated that “agritourism was fairly new at the scene when we started to work together; there were very few areas promoting agriculture at the time,” that “we had a new product in the marketplace that attracted group tours and self‐guided tours and this initiative has helped us build collaboration with people that otherwise would have never built collaboration with such as farmers and greenhouses.”

Evaluation of the Tri‐County Cornucopia Farm and Gardens' marketing materials and the research findings revealed that this collaborative partnership has evolved into a well organized and sophisticated regional destination marketing program. The Tri‐County Cornucopia Farm and Gardens marketing materials highlight the effective use of the knowledge, expertise, capital, and other resources of the counties to achieve the goals for the collaborative partnerships. These marketing materials indicate that the CVB executives' goal to expand, diversify, and enhance their product portfolio have been realized in the “Tri‐County Cornucopia Farms and Gardens” (T‐CFAG) marketing program. Some of the major products developed based on the T‐CFAG regional destination are:

	A Taste of Lorain, Median & Wayne Counties (3‐day tour);
	Magical Bag Tour: Discover the Treasure of Tri‐County Cornucopia (3‐day tour);
	Tri‐County Farm & Garden Tour (4‐day tour);
	Tri‐County Cooking and Farm Tour (4‐day tour); and
	Other 1‐day tours such as Red Hatter Rendezvous, Wayne, Medina & Lorain County and Made Right Here Tour, Wayne, Medina & Lorain Counties.

Wider Market Reach

Rapidly entering wider markets is a key motivation for collaborative partnership (Fyall & Garrod, 2004; Lei &d Slocum, 1992). The interview findings indicate that reaching a wider portion of the leisure market was a direct outcome of the tri‐county collaborative partnership. The CVB executive of Medina County, Mr. Dan Hostetler, stated that “we were able to reach more people in the leisure market as a group” because “we did some advertisement in places that we wouldn't have done on our own.” Very similar to the above statements, the Wayne County executive stated that “tour operators were not aware of the closeness between the three counties and are now willing to travel between three of them.”

Cost Efficiency

Reducing production and transaction costs is a major motivation for partnership formation (Williamson, 1985). The interview results indicate this was a major outcome of the tri‐county CVBs collaborative partnership. The executives were able to reduce their individual county's production and transaction costs for promoting their regional destination by splitting booths and promotional material costs. For example, representing a single destination allowed them to share a booth at travel shows, splitting the costs of the booths three ways. This cost efficiency made it possible for them to attend more shows which allows them to expand their target markets. In addition, this cost reduction allowed them to invest in more high quality promotional materials. For example, the promotional materials of each of the counties 10‐years ago were simple black and white brochures which were created and produced in‐house. Examination of the 2006–2007 brochures suggested that by splitting their promotional material costs, the tri‐county collaborative partnership were able to contract professionals to create, develop, and produce high quality colorful brochures. This is indeed important for small destinations with limited financial resources.

Regional Economic Contribution

Economic contribution to the region was the primary reason behind each county having its own CVB. Therefore, it is safe to assume that economic growth and stability of the region was the driving force behind the Lorain, Medina, and Wayne Counties' collaborative partnerships. Even though economic contribution was the major benefit of this collaborative partnership and marketing effort, the interview findings indicate that Lorain, Medina, and Wayne Counties' CVB executives have not yet reached the stage of measuring the economic contribution of their collaborative efforts. All the executives agreed that it is important to measure the economic impact of the T‐CFAG marketing efforts but due to limited financial resources they have not conducted such studies yet. They claimed that the 10‐year longevity of the partners warrants an economic study.

Some of the key factors that capture the economic impact of travel and tourism to any destination are the number of overnight trips; the travel expenditure of tourists; direct and indirect employment on the account of tourists; the number of lodging facilities and units; the number of persons in the travel party; and the length of stay in the destination. The Longwoods International Study of the Travel and Tourism in Ohio 2005 Travel Year indicates that Northeast Ohio, home of the tri‐county collaborative partnership is a major economic contributor to the state's travel and tourism industry. It indicates that the Northeast Region of Ohio: (a) is the second (25%) main destination of Ohio overnight trips in the state representing 11.2 million overnight trips; (b) captures the highest (34%) travel expenditures; (c) accounts for the highest direct and indirect employment (34.5%); (d) has the greatest number (30.5%) of hotel, motel, and resort facilities; and (e) accounts for the highest (34.5%) direct and indirect employment from travel and tourism in the state. The travel and tourism products which capture the majority of the tourists expenditures are: food and restaurants (34.6%); automobile rental (17.9%); recreation (12.5%); and lodging (9.9%). Since Lorain, Medina, and Wayne Counties are 3 of the 17 counties in the Northeast region, and the fact that these counties are actively involved in promoting the tri‐country region as a destination, one can assume that the tri‐county collaborative partnership is more than likely contributing to the economic impact of the region.

Specific to Wayne County, the 2005 economic impact data of tourism to this area show that tourism in this county has experienced continuous economic growth of $95.01 million in 1998 to $161.60 million in 2005. Direct sales to travelers totaled $161.6 million, including direct and indirect effects; and the county gained $14.9 million and $8.4 million from state and local taxes, respectively. Sales to tourists provided and sustained 4,500 direct and indirect jobs in the county (Wayne County Convention and Visitor's Bureau, 2005).

Another indicator that the tri‐county CVB collaborative partnership and regional marketing efforts are more than likely contributing to the region's economic growth and stability is length of the tri‐county partnership. One can claim that this relationship would not have had such longevity if the region was not reaping some satisfactory level of economic benefits. The findings indicate that approximately a third of the population of Medina County is engaged in agritourism. In the area of festivals which are mainly agriculture based, there is always the need to hire extra people to work for that period as reported by one of the executives. One CVB executive stated that “farmers gain supplementary income” from the collaborative efforts and that “the nursery business has an enormous economical impact in the area.”

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

This study aimed to explore how regional CVBs with limited resources and tourism products can collaborate when marketing their destinations. Such a collaborative effort can be a dynamic process which involves a multitude of issues that are difficult to delineate. This study adopts a strategy of focusing on several critical issues which are essential for such collaborative marketing endeavors. Specifically, the focus of the study has been directed to the following research objectives: to evaluate the main motives for forming such partnerships; to identify the facilitating and inhibiting factors to this partnership; and to assess the outcomes of such collaborative activities. The study collected empirical data through documentary analysis and in‐depth key informant interviews from a tri‐county tourism destination in Northeast Ohio.

Several conclusions emerged from the research findings which have both theoretical and practical implications. First, small destinations with limited resources and tourism products are motivated to adopt a collaborative approach in their marketing efforts by multiple factors. These motivational factors mainly include: expanding, diversifying, and enhancing tourism product portfolio by leveraging on each county's unique tourism products, and achieving cost efficiency. These findings are consistent with previous research supported by both the strategic approach and transaction cost perspective in studying collaboration behavior (e.g., Hamel, 19991; Wang & Fesenmaier, 2007). For example, the strategic behavior approach (Bleeke & Ernst, 1993) focuses on the consequences for the competitive positioning of the organization. According to this view, the formation of inter‐organizational linkages can be explained as the strategic needs of organizations (Hagedoorn & Schakenraad, 1994). From the transaction cost perspective, organizations entering into alliances and partnerships are driven by the need for efficiency with the emphasis on providing incentives for efficient transactions and economizing on transaction costs (Williamson, 1985). The results of the study are not only consistent with the general theoretical principles governing inter‐organizational relations but also highlights the mindsets of small organizations in forming partner relations with other organizations, such as the over emphasis on cost reduction for the time being, without considering the long‐term strategic benefits such collaboration can bring.

Second, forming collaborative marketing partnerships among CVBs was not found to be following a formal, deliberate, and planned process. In fact, in this current study it was found to be a more informal and ad‐hoc process where personal interactions, friendship, and working relationships of different CVBs have made a big difference in forming and maintaining such a partnership over 10 years. The tourism planning literature (e.g., Gunn, 1988), the destination marketing literature (e.g., Fyall & Garrod, 2004), and the traditional strategic planning literature in the strategic management field (e.g., Ring & Van de Ven, 1994) put much emphasis on the rational, formal and step‐by‐step procedures in forming partnerships and alliances. The findings emerged from this study do not provide much support to this rational planned approach to collaborative marketing. The research findings are more in‐line with the learning/emergent school of thought in the strategic management field (e.g., Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, & Lampel, 1998; Okumus & Roper, 1999). This finding implies that when forming such collaborative partnerships, the executives of destinations should get to know each other, understand their personalies and priorities before they discuss potential benefits of forming possible partnerships among their destinations.

Third, when forming collaborative marketing partnerships among CVBs, there are several facilitating factors which are found to be essential for the initiation and successful implementation of the collaborative relationships. These facilitating factors include: having independent CVBs with common operating philosophy, good personal relationships among executives of partnering CVBs and constant communication, similar target markets, common but complementary tourism products, and fair share of benefits and responsibilities. It should be noted that though some of these facilitating factors might be destination specific and difficult to generalize to other collaborative activities in other destinations, they should have significance in providing implications to other destinations where they can develop and nurture an environment in which partnership initiatives can be facilitated and implemented.

Fourth, besides the facilitating factors, a number of inhibiting factors have been identified which may prevent or slow down the partnership process among CVBs. These inhibiting factors may emerge among CVBs owing to their different priorities and agendas for promoting their individual destination or from financial and human resource constraints on CVBs. Barriers to collaborative partnership among DMOs also come from other stakeholders within the destination. For example, the farmers and hoteliers in the current study setting created problems in collaborative marketing programs. It is apparent that these facilitating and inhibiting factors are closely related to each other and issues in one area can have impact on other areas. It is, therefore, important for DMOs to identify the actual and/or potential facilitating and inhibiting factors when forming partnerships. Identifying these factors can provide an opportunity for DMOs to develop a pro‐active approach to utilize facilitating factors well and also overcome and/or minimize potential inhibiting factors. In addition, it is important to prevent them from wasting valuable resources and time if these barriers are too strong to overcome.

Fifth, partnerships can provide several important outcomes for participating regions. The outcomes that emerged from this study is the ability of the tri‐county partnership to offer multiple tour packages to tourists, contributing to regional economic development and achieving community engagement. The findings of the research imply that it is important for small destinations with limited tourism products and resources to join forces to maximize and leverage on their strengths so that they can better promote their destinations (Tosun, Timothy, Parpairis, & MacDonald, 2005). For example, the main contributing factor for forming partnership among the tri‐county CVBs was that none of the counties have major attractions. Therefore, by working together they could promote their vast agricultural areas as a major agri‐tourism destination, thus creating greater impact than it would by promoting each county individually. Other important outcomes for forming partnerships among the tri‐county CVBs that emerged from the research findings were information sharing, cost reduction and efficiency through joint marketing efforts, and having great market reach.

The current study provides empirical evidence on several critical issues regarding forming strategic partnerships among DMOs with limited tourism products and resources. The study contributes to tourism literature in several ways. First, based on the research findings, this study proposes a collaborative marketing framework (see Figure 2). This framework illustrates different areas and issues when forming a collaborative marketing partnership among tourism destinations. Second, this study highlights the importance of destination marketing as a collective effort when destinations have limited tourism products and resources. To this end, this study demonstrates an important, although preliminary step, toward a research theme focusing on capacity and competence building for regional tourism development within a marketing context. Third, this study further contributes to research on tourism specific partnerships and networks in response to the escalating environmental pressures. Finally, the study suggests that executives of DMOs should have a better understanding of motives as well as the facilitating and inhibiting factors in this process. According to Pearce (1989), tourism organizations can best achieve their goals when the activities of multiple participants work within a formal structure. However, the current study findings suggest that informal structure and establishing good personal relationships among the executives of DMOs are more important than working within a formal structure.

Based on the research findings, several recommendations can be made for practice in order to form such partnerships. First of all, executives of DMOs need to establish good and reliable personal relationships with their counterparts in other DMOs. They should be willing to work together and have a long‐term vision. In addition, all participating DMOs should be prepared to make a fair contribution to this partnership and be patient to see the intended outcomes. It is also important to communicate and educate key shareholders in a destination such as hoteliers about how such partnerships can help the region in the long‐term. In addition, publicizing intended as well as achieved outcomes would be beneficial in convincing shareholders and stakeholders in this journey. It is also equally important for collaborative partners to create a transparent and fair environment in which trust can be easily nurtured and maintained, since, as indicted in this study, trust can be a factor determining the success or failure of a collaborative project. The research framework developed in this study may also be helpful to the executives before and during forming this partnership since it highlights key areas and issues.

The current study, though only focusing on three CVBs as a case, demonstrates that CVBs can unite and pool resources to build a strong position and achieve a common cause for their respective destinations (Mistilis & Daniele, 2004). This is particularly true in the current challenging economic times when state and county governments have major budget deficits and travelers have more financial constraints on travel. Collaborative marketing efforts will definitely help supplement a destination's product offerings and increase the area's ability to attract visitors. The good news is that many destinations at different levels have realized the importance and power of partnership building and lessons and best practices can be learned from each of the cases for benchmarking purposes. For example, in the Chicago area, 16 CVBs joined to form ChicagoPLUS. After 9 years of cooperation, it applied for and received official status as one of Illinois's regional tourism development offices. This cooperative was originally formed by Chicago's suburban bureaus to collaborate on leisure marketing efforts to pool funds for advertising in media that otherwise would be financially unfeasible. The Dallas Metroplex Cooperative operates in a similar way with partners joining forces for specific marketing projects. At the state level, the cooperative called “Rhythms of the South” is a partnership of Atlanta, Nashville, and New Orleans in collaboration with 11 Southern states to produce a regional marketplace for 120 international tours operators and media members. All these examples demonstrate that the combined efforts of several destinations allow them to compete effectively with other destinations.

This is an exploratory research project and therefore it has limitations. One major limitation associated with the study is that the research focused on only one region and the empirical data for this study were collected via interviews and document analysis. Therefore, the research findings may not be generalized for other destinations. Future studies can investigate collaborative marketing efforts among multiple destinations. It is hoped that the findings of this current study and the discussions made in this article will generate further research interest into this important area in the destination management field.