Generating and Sustaining Value Through Guided Tour Experiences’ Co-Creation at Heritage Visitor Attractions

ABSTRACT

Experience co-creation has been acknowledged as an important process to generate and sustain value. However, research in the arena of heritage visitor attractions remains limited. A qualitative cross-sectional design was used to assess UK heritage attractions providers’ engagement with guided tour experiences’ co-creation and the barriers faced in the adoption of this process. Findings from 11 interviews with visitor experience managers show most of the heritage attraction providers engage in processes of guided tour experience “co-production” rather than “co-creation”. Barriers include limited knowledge, and “know-how” of value co-creation processes; financial, time, and human resource constraints. Importantly, findings show visitors’ satisfaction with current arrangements influence the type of tour offering. This study reveals the need to further investigate heritage audiences’ variations in preferences and suggests better sector integration in terms of knowledge sharing and best practice to fully explore the benefits and worth of value co-creation in this tourism sector.

KEYWORDS:

• Value co-creation
• co-production
• heritage tourism
• visitor attractions
• visitor experiences
• guided tours

1. Introduction

The relation between tourism experiences and value co-creation has been studied by researchers for some time now (Andrades & Dimanche, 2014; Azevedo, 2009; Binkhorst & Den Dekker, 2009; Campos et al., 2018; Chen, 2018; Grönroos, 2011; Grönross & Voima, 2012; Haahti, 2006; Pine & Gilmore, 1998; Prebensen et al., 2013; Tan et al., 2013; Vargo & Lusch, 2008).

Co-creation as a dynamic and interactive process of designing and delivering an experience in collaboration with the consumer with an aim to generate “value” for both consumers and tourism operators has amply been discussed in relation to its wide-ranging benefits. For example, allowing tourists to own the shaping of their experiences according to their interests often results in higher customer satisfaction (see Arnould et al., 2002; Prebensen & Foss, 2011). Additionally, co-created experiences allow tourism operators to improve service quality and customer satisfaction (Kim et al., 2012). Value in this context is defined as “value—in—experience” (Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010) meaning that value is a result of a co-created experience between the provider and the tourist (Carù & Cova, 2007; Lusch et al., 2008; Minkiewicz et al., 2013; Prebensen et al., 2013).

Heritage attractions are fundamental components of the UK heritage tourism sector and key to the overall UK tourism brand (CEBR, 2018; Historic England, 2018). However, research on experience co-creation as a process to generate and sustain value at heritage visitor attractions has received little attention (Ferrari, 2013; Jonasson & Scherle, 2012; Leask, 2010; Light, 2015; Mason, 2005; Potter, 2016; Puczkó, 2013). Furthermore, research on the challenges that heritage providers face in “creating value through engaging and connecting with the customers in a personal and memorable way” remains lacking (Chathoth et al., 2018; Fitzsimmons & Fitzsimmons, 2000, p. 1; Weiler & Black, 2015).

Building on the discussions presented above, and responding to the need for further research, this study investigated experience co-creation as a means to create and sustain value at heritage tourist attractions. It did so by focusing on guided tour experiences. Traditionally understood as the most popular and well-recognised mediums brokering the tourist encounter with the past (Lee, 2017; UNWTO, 2018; Weiler & Black, 2015); these experiences rely on multiple levels of interaction between the consumers and the heritage attractions providers, and as such, they arguably are optimal lenses through which to study processes of experience co-creation (Carù & Cova, 2007; Jonasson & Scherle, 2012; Scherle & Kung, 2010).

Therefore, in this context, the study investigated (1) the extent to which UK heritage providers jointly co-create experience value with the visitor; (2) and the barriers (if any) preventing UK heritage providers from investing in value co-creation. The results of this study add to the wider understanding of the value and worth of engaging with processes of experience co-creation in the heritage tourism sector and are particularly significant as to date limited knowledge exists from the perspective of the providers (Alves et al., 2016; Chathoth et al., 2018; Kim et al., 2012). Although this research specifically focuses on guided tour experiences this methodology can also be extended and applied to investigate other types of heritage visitor experiences offered at heritage attractions. Furthermore, this research was conducted in the context of UK historic properties. Conducting a similar study at other national and international heritage attractions would help assessing the worth of investing in customer-centric experiences and the challenges for incorporating them into the heritage visitor programming (Hu & Wall, 2005; Leask, 2010; Leask & Fyall, 2006).

2. Literature review

2.1. Generating and sustaining value through tourism experience co-creation

Co-creation in tourism has been defined as a development of tourism products in collaboration with the users and it is the dynamic interaction with the product or service that leads to the emergence of co-creative processes and a higher level of engagement and dialogue at every stage of the value creation process (Payne et al., 2008; Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010; Walls et al., 2011).

The now seminal work by Pine and Gilmore (1998) on the advent of “the experience economy” well illustrated the need for business providers to focus on experiences creation as a new source of economic value generation. As the authors pointed out

when a person buys a service, he purchases a set of intangible activities carried out on his behalf. But when he buys an experience, he pays to spend time enjoying a series of memorable events that a company stages to engage him in a personal way. (1999, p. 2)

Pine and Gilmore (1998; 1999) and Gilmore and Pine (2000) proposed shift from a service to an experience economy highlighted businesses’ need to move away from traditional marketing; invest into relationship marketing and embrace the recognition of the value of providing rewarding (and memorable) customer experiences for business differentiation and competitive advantage (Fournier, 1998; Walls et al., 2011).

Service marketing literature similarly emphasised the need to redraft business notions of value propositions to reflect (and capitalise on) changing consumer behaviour patterns. The important works of Grönroos (2008) and Vargo and Lusch (2006; 2008 and 2012) for example, whilst arguing that service provision is at the core of all modern economic exchanges, suggested value creation (for both consumers and providers of tourism) is to be found in the co-design and co-delivery and co-evaluation of engaging and interactive experiences (Kim et al., 2012) rather than simply in their co-production (Chathoth et al., 2014b; Lovelock & Young, 1979).

Service always comes with an experience (Johnston & Kong, 2011) and experience is created in service processes, in interactions between the customers and the service provider, and through processes of the servicescape (Carù & Cova, 2003 and Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). Yet, as Payne et al. (2008) and Chathoth et al. (2018, p. 33) point out, value generation “does not involve a firm’s own viewpoint of how the customer-firm interaction should take place”. Rather, value is co-created (rather than co-produced) through use and in context, meaning the customer is always an active participant of the value creation process across all stages of the customer journey (Vargo & Lusch, 2006).

Different authors studied the importance of the emotional aspect of the tourist experience (see for example Arnould & Price, 1993; Schmitt, 1999). Tourism experiences are arguably different from other service experiences since they tend to be more hedonic and symbolic-oriented (Kwortnik, 2008). As Kim (2010) point out: experiences in tourism are of special importance. They allow tourists to fulfil their dreams and to build long-lasting memories (Larsen, 2007; Mehmetoglu & Engen, 2011) through engaging in activities and connecting with other people (Binkhorst & Den Dekker, 2009; Rihova et al., 2014). Tourists travel mostly voluntarily, not because they have to, but because they want to and, in so doing, they participate in the production of their own experience through their time, effort, and money (Bjőrk, 2014; Chen & Chen, 2010; Prebensen et al., 2013). As such, it is arguably not surprising that the notions and benefits of experience co-creation as a process to generate value have featured highly in recent tourism research literature (see for example Binkhorst & Den Dekker, 2009; Campos et al., 2016; Haahti, 2006; MacLeod et al., 2009; Prebensen et al., 2013; Richards & Wilson, 2006).

Tourist experiences (here arguably heritage experiences) emerge in relation to a tourist journey, as a consequence of travelling, in sequences of events (Zouni & Kouremenos, 2008). In this context, tourists are not simply passive recipients of services, rather crucial operant resources in the value creation process, co-applying their knowledge, skills, and expertise through their actions, processes, and performances (Alves et al., 2016; Carù & Cova, 2007; Prebensen et al., 2013).

The underpinning benefit of co-creating tourism experiences is that it enables “the organization and the customer to use each other as a productive resource to co-shape the expectations of the latter” (Chathoth et al., 2014b, p. 34). In this sense, co-created tourism experiences- firmly centred in the interaction of people, products, and services alter experience value for both visitors and organisations and as such they position themselves as crucial mechanisms to not simply generate, rather sustain long term business value in tourism (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Prebensen et al., 2013).

2.2. The challenges to generate value through experience co-creation at heritage visitor attractions

Vargo and Lusch (2004; 2006) highlighted how organisations that fail to understand the differences between value co-production (i.e. where the organisation viewpoint still controls customers-businesses interactions; length and depth of dialogues) and value co-creation may be still operating under “goods-dominant logic” and production-centric business modalities. On a similar vein Chathoth et al. (2018) argued: “to fully capitalise on value co-creation, the focus should be on anticipated engagement of customers […] at every stage of the experience value creation process” through ongoing dialogue and for the purpose of innovation; rather than “simply a process of adding value at each stage and then marking up the price at the end of then value chain” (p. 32). Furthermore, these authors recommended transitioning towards “service-dominant logic” business modalities and co-creative service offerings requires an honest and careful analysis (on the part of the providers) of the business value proposition as well as an identification of the internal (e.g. front-line training and capacity building; technological limitations; time and costs; resistance to change, etc.) and external barriers to change (e.g. consumer’s willingness and social, intellectual abilities; perceptions and attitudes towards the experience provider).

Heritage visitor attractions are a well-established and popular component of the heritage tourism sector and an important source of local and national economic growth in the UK (Boyd, 2002; UNWTO, 2018; VisitBritain, 2017). As Timothy (2011) highlights people by the hundreds of millions travel worldwide each year to seek out and experience sites of historical significance and this trend does not seem to wane away. Despite this notion, research on issues related to heritage attractions remains fragmented, mostly focusing on capturing the visitor’s viewpoint rather than the management perspective (Leask, 2010; Milman, 2001; Richards, 2002). When available, research shows how processes of marketisation and “tourismification” (Salazar, 2009) pose great strains to heritage attractions providers as indeed they demand the design and delivery of heritage tourism experiences capable of satisfying new consumers sensibilities and protecting the interests of a wide variety of stakeholders (e.g. volunteers; public sector organisations; curators; archaeologists; local communities as well as visitors) and the heritage assets alike (du Cros & McKercher, 2020; Hewison, 1987; Jansen-Verbeke & Russo, 2008; Leask, 2010; Melpignano & Azara, 2018; Smith, 2016; Smith & Richards, 2013; Timothy, 2011).

Furthermore, it shows that the unique mix of individual resources and sites, varying levels of management and staff skills; technological infrastructure capabilities; workforces configuration (e.g. contingent; seasonal; transient) and often fluctuating patterns of visitor demand (Andrades & Dimanche, 2014; Buhalis et al., 2006; Leask, 2010, p. 159; Richards, 2018; Timothy, 2011) adds an additional layer of complexity in the co-design and co-delivery of heritage tourism experiences (Chathoth et al., 2014b; Chen et al., 2014; Grönroos, 2008; Hansen & Mossberg, 2017; Larsen & Meged, 2013; Prebensen et al., 2013; Walls et al., 2011; Weiler & Black, 2015; Zatori, 2013). These challenges are further compounded by the systemic lack of national sector funding and limited cross-sectorial network collaboration, which arguably affect the level innovation and quality of resource deployment necessary to the effective use of the heritage assets (Costa & Buhalis, 2005; Gravari-Barbas et al., 2016; Leask, 2010; Leask & Fyall, 2006; Richards, 2002 and 2007; UNWTO, 2018).

In this operating environment, embracing the tenets of co-creation (as well as developing the technical know-how required) could potentially benefit the management of day-to-day activities at heritage tourism sites, increasing, for example, the overall visitors’ perception of quality and satisfaction. Importantly, it could also aid in the strategic achievement of sustainable heritage tourism management goals (du Cros & McKercher, 2020; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Smith & Richards, 2013).

However, research on experience co-creation as a process to generate and importantly to sustain value at UK heritage visitor attractions has thus far received little attention (Ferrari, 2013; Jonasson & Scherle, 2012; Light, 2015; Mason, 2005; Potter, 2016; Puczkó, 2013). Importantly, research on the challenges that UK heritage attractions providers face in creating value through engaging with experiences that connect with the customers “in a personal and memorable way” remains little investigated (Chathoth et al., 2018; Fitzsimmons & Fitzsimmons, 2000, p. 1; Leask, 2010).

Guided tours are considered a key component of the overall visitor experience at UK heritage attractions (Visit Britain, 2017) for their ability to broker visitors’ encounters with the setting and other visitors and to performatively co-create places and spaces (Azara & Crouch, 2006; Jonasson & Scherle, 2012; Timothy, 2011).

As Weiler and Black (2015) point out, despite developments in information communication systems together with innovations in the arenas of augmented and immersive reality (Chu et al., 2012; Chung et al., 2018; Jung et al., 2018) heritage providers still predominantly rely on guided tours to provide enriching, educational experiences (Zatori, 2013). On a similar vein, Lee (2017) and du Cros and McKercher (2020) point out providers’ mixed response to the incorporation of technology into their menu offering may also be linked to visitors’ needs and characteristics. Indeed, these authors suggest, much of the bulk of heritage visitors still seek and expect to get more traditional forms of guided tours.

Yeoman (2012) identifies traditional forms of guided tours as (1) “group tours” predominantly targeting the “unexperienced traveller” as their role is more passive, and they perceive the guide as a presenter or entertainer who is in control. (2) experience-focused group tours which consider visitors as actors and aim to involve them either passively or actively in the experience. However, the guide is still in control of the tour experiences. And finally, (3) “personalised tours” which offer opportunities for visitors to customise their experience with the attraction provided and which also have the potential to foster processes of co-creation (i.e. both tour guides and visitors share control of the experience). Especially in this latter, the role and performance of the tour guide is central to value co-creation as visitors seek engagement in the planning, design, and production of their own experiences (Binkhorst & Den Dekker, 2009; Richards & Wilson, 2006).

Along these reasonings and because of their potential to greatly enhance visitor satisfaction and service quality perception (Carù & Cova, 2007; Prebensen et al., 2013; Scherle & Kung, 2010; Weiler & Black, 2015), guided tours can be considered as optimal lenses through which explore the issues under investigation.

3. Methods

A qualitative cross-sectional research design was deployed in order to investigate how heritage providers jointly co-create heritage experiences such as guided tours and identify the barriers (if any) preventing UK heritage attractions from investing in value co-creation. This approach was considered the most fitting to explore an area to date little investigated (Silverman, 2016). Furthermore, a cross-case analysis allowed for deeper and meaningful comparison and evaluation of the problem under investigation (Baxter & Jack, 2008; Bryman, 2012).

3.1. Participants

A criterion sampling strategy was used to identify participants to the study (Patton, 1990). Specifically, visitor experience managers of 50 UK heritage attractions were initially contacted on the basis that: (1) these attractions featured in the list of most popular UK paid historic properties measured by Visit Britain (2017) in terms of annual visitor numbers and (2) they offered a range of traditional tour guiding experiences (Yeoman, 2012). Participants were initially contacted via email requesting either a face to face or phone interview. The email advised that, should they wish to participate in the research, they could contact the researcher via email to arrange a feasible date, time for the interview. A total of 11 self-selected respondents contacted the researcher agreeing to participate in the interview (please see Table 1 for heritage providers characteristics).

Table 1. Heritage attractions sample characteristics.

Heritage attraction	HA1	HA2	HA3	HA4	HA5	HA6	HA7	HA8	HA9	HA10	HA11
Type of heritage attraction	Museum/historic property	Historic House/House and Garden/Palace	Historic properties	Castle	Industrial historic property	Historic House /House and Garden	Historic House /House and Garden	Historic House /House and Garden	Historic property	Historic House/House and Garden	Historic House/House and Garden
Location	Somerset	Greater London	Derbyshire	Kent	Derbyshire	Shropshire	Derbyshire	Derbyshire	Yorkshire	Cheshire	Warwickshire
Numbers of visitors per year (2017)	1,300,000+	900,000+	200,000+	300,000+	200,000+	400,000+	300,000+	600,000+	400,000+	200,000+	400,000+
Type of Guided Tours (GT) offered	Public GT; private GT; Behind the scenes GT; Audio Guides; Children’s GT; British sign language audio guide	Audio Tours; live interpretations and costumed GT; GT for disabled; bespoke private GT; roof GT	Costumed GT; Guided walks	Adult (public) GT; schools GT; Behind the scenes GT; Themed GT with workshop attached	Public GT; Village GT; Costumed GT; Specialist GT	Public GT; Behind the scenes GT; Re-enactment GT	Interactive/behind the scenes GT; Guided walks	House and garden GT; Buggy tours of the gardens; Educational GT; Closed season GT; Estate walking tours; Multi-media Guide	Public GT; Garden GT; Group GT; Schools GT	Themed GT; Behind the scenes GT; Public GT; Guided walks	Public GT

3.2. Survey instrument

Semi-structured telephone interviews lasting approximately 1½ hour were conducted over a period of three months between January—March 2019. Interview questions were derived from the literature and specifically asked participants to elaborate on: (1) the type of guided tours offered and the type of visitors that used them (Weiler & Black, 2015; Yeoman, 2012) (2) to elicit heritage providers’ views on value co-creation (Arnould et al., 2002; Bartella, 2014; Hansen & Mossberg, 2017; McIntyre, 2010; Minkiewicz et al., 2013; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2003; Prebensen et al., 2013; Prebensen & Foss, 2011). (3) to identify the barriers to generate value co-creation through the staging of guided tour experiences (Chathoth et al., 2014b; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Prebensen et al., 2013; Weiler & Black, 2015).

3.3. Mode of analysis

Thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2012; Patton, 2001) was used for systematically organising the data set; identifying commonalities of responses to the way a topic was discussed and making sense of those commonalities. In this sense the researchers followed a multi-phase iterative process which involved data familiarisation; generation of coding and finally the development of key themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006). These processes were conducted by both researchers independently of each other. The key themes emerging from the interviews were eventually cross-compared and analysed with an aim of generating the final themes. These are discussed in the section below.

4. Findings

4.1. Producing and consuming heritage guided tour experiences

Findings show heritage providers consider guided tours a key component of the heritage attraction offering as providing conveniently packaged, time-bound, educational experiences which are well recognised by a wide range of tourism audiences (Jonasson & Scherle, 2012; Weiler & Black, 2015; Zátori, 2016; Zillinger et al., 2012):

… if you go to any attraction you see “guided tour”, you know what that is, so I think a lot of people would think: I want to learn about this place, [a] guided tour would tell me everything I need to know. (HA1)

Most providers recognise that audiences are changing with some visitors seeking more participatory and entertaining experiences and that there is scope for designing new, innovative tours to generate consumer experience value across a wide range of demographics: “[…] originally [our tour] it was aimed at purely millennials but last year we found that that sort of millennial mindset […] people wanting high-quality experiences, ones that is something, maybe a VIP or tailored went across the ages” (HA7).

However, all providers acknowledge it is the more traditional forms of guided tours such as daily tours (often included in the admission price), and pre-booked (often private) tours for groups or individuals that remain the most popular types of tours demanded by heritage visitors (du Cros & McKercher, 2020). The former is identified as a “more passive experience” (Mehmetoglu & Engen, 2011; Pine & Gilmore, 1998) aimed at brokering the tourist encounter with the tangible and intangible heritage. The latter offering some opportunities for visitor engagement in the co-production and often customisation of tailor-made components of the experience (Yeoman, 2012).

Along these reasoning, all providers concede, it is the audience needs, characteristics, size, and composition rather than the demographics that heavily influence the type of service provision and the type of value creation modalities:

I think is not about demographics, is more to do with the size of the group and how interactive it wants to be (HA2);

Many of these visitors prefer to just listen to a talk, which is also fine (HA11);

And lot of people come here and they don’t actually know what they have come for. Most are first-time visitors, Some are on a coach trip -[and] They might not even look at our website […], so that’s probably the biggest barrier (HA1);

If people want a private tour, they can say what they are interested in. [For example] they might be a group of architects that are coming around and they’ll want to know more about the design and the building and we provide a tour around this … (HA1)

Most providers highlight how visitors to heritage attractions largely arrive at the site without having made any prior contact with the provider, especially during peak season. As such the marketing strategies adopted by heritage providers reflect the nature of the demand for guided tour experiences: “we profile our visitors to a certain extent. We know that at specific times of the year or on specific days we will get predominantly one type of visitor: the one who will just turn up at the site” (HA6).

Furthermore, despite admitting that social media interaction, as well as online presence (combined with the provision of online booking systems) is important for engaging with heritage visitors; many providers acknowledge that most of the visitors still prefer to communicate and book experiences via telephone or email (Lee, 2017). This is especially so in the context of first-time visitors or those looking at gaining information and to discuss elements of tour customisation.

We have webpage, we have very active social media, we have Instagram, and then we also go to exhibitions and things … but a lot of it [discussing tour specifics and booking] is just over the phone, the old fashion way, which is how a lot of people prefer it. (HA4)

In this respect, on-site advertising of daily guided tours is considered by providers as essential as most of the people still arrive on the site with no prior knowledge:

… we have a welcome leaflet when they arrive at the site that tells them the kind of things they can look out for. We also tell visitors through signage that there are guided tours and the staff also tells visitors about the guided tours and what time they are (HA1);

… every day we provide a list of different tours available on that day at visitor reception … (HA6)

Audience characteristics, needs and behaviour are also acknowledged as heavily contributing (and constraining) the regulation of and the level of interaction between tour guide and visitors during the actual service provision stage. Indeed, many providers state that most of the interaction between the guides and the visitors happen in the form of asking and answering questions. This is recognised as necessary to minimise operational time-constraints and, importantly, to satisfy the wide spectrum of audiences’ needs.

Sometimes you’ve got to be careful that you don’t actively allow too much. Because if you do, you then start running behind (HA3);

… asking questions are a difficult one, because you will often have people who want to ask a lot of questions so they’ll be a couple of people in any group that will want to ask a lot of the questions but you have to be careful because not everyone else in the group is paying to hear someone from their group constantly talking. (HA4)

Here, the role of the tour guide is considered by all providers key in the service encounter as his/her performance directly affects visitors’ experiences. Indeed, this category of tourism workers is envisioned as having the ultimate responsibility to perform the tourist gaze and amend the encounter according to visitors’ willingness to interact (Urry & Larsen, 2011):

It is part of the guide’s role to read the audience and determine how much interaction the audience wants (HA11);

If you’ve got a group of 50 you would not try to do that because it takes too long so you might just mention that you would have bowed 3 times to the throne rather than actually get people to do it … (HA2)

Finally, tour guides are considered vital resources to measure the quality of the service provision with all providers acknowledging that visitors are happier to give verbal feedback straight to their guide rather than using comment cards, visitor surveys or social media:

[…] we encourage to give feedback anonymously through a comment card, email, or social media review […] but most of the feedback are given directly to the guide (HA10);

I say we do review our TripAdvisor and we respond to people and we then thank the guides […] but feedback is mostly given verbally on site. (HA5)

Against this backdrop, findings suggest that most heritage providers engage with processes of guided tour experience co-production and individual/ group customisation rather than co-creation (Chathoth et al., 2018). They highlight how, from a provider’s point of view the perceived visitors’ satisfaction with current arrangements and their unwillingness to engage in the co-creation of guided tours is a key factor determining their lack of engagement with these processes:

I think there might be a barrier from people who are getting in contact, who are actually not interested in co-created anything. (HA3)

Sometimes, I think those kinds of people just aren’t in the market for heritage guided tours. (HA6)

if you want them to engage with it and pay for it, it needs to be something that they actually want. Otherwise [,,,] they would not be interested. (HA5)

4.2. Managerial and operational barriers to “leaving the beaten path”

Findings however also show how shifting towards new styles of guided tours (i.e. co-created tours) and business value modalities also presents important internal managerial and operational challenges, which further prevent providers from leaving “the beaten path” (Chathoth et al., 2018). 6 out of 11 participants for example admit they are unfamiliar with the concept of co-creation, despite appreciating the potential beneficial impacts that this process could have in terms of increasing customer satisfaction, encouraging repeat visits and even engaging traditionally disengaged groups (Melpignano & Azara, 2018).

Interesting … I am not familiar with it, but [with these types of tours] you may get an honest view of what visitors want to see and hear and obviously that would make it a better visit for them and that makes it more likely to return and spend more money and tell their friends. (HA5)

It could help to encourage disengaged communities/ visitors. (HA8)

Furthermore, findings show how among those familiar with the concept and its benefits, only a few display some level of proactiveness towards cross-sectorial collaboration and information sharing:

I think it is important to engage in sharing information and know-how on how to provide what your audience actually wants, especially at the moment. We try to be up-to-date with this consumer trend (i.e. experience co-creation). (HA7)

All of the participants identify both budgetary and time constraints as important barriers further inhibiting their ability to build deeper and trustworthy relationships with customers (Chathoth et al., 2018).

The biggest thing is time, because co-creation and co-created tour do take time to design the processes to actually do, to get people together, I think that’s a big thing and if people are willing to weigh the benefits of it (HA7);

Time and staffing—to get a successful two-way dialogue with visitors takes a lot of time and is labour intensive. (HA11)

In this context, challenges to upskill a contingent and often heterogeneous workforce (often a mixture of FT/PT; paid staff and volunteers) are also identified as important barriers by many providers.

I also think a big barrier, or one that needs managing properly is integration of the concept into the property programme and across the workforce that we have … You really need to think about that and do It well and think about who will it affect, how will it affect and not just think about the visitors [… you need to] think about the volunteers and the staff and how they would respond to something that’s different … people are always worried about them becoming obsolete … (HA7);

It’s difficult … some guides are somewhat reluctant to adapt their style of a tour and would resist the idea of tailoring their tour to visitors, any more than they already do. (HA9)

5. Discussion

This research aimed to explore the challenges to achieve and sustain value co-creation in the context of guided tours experiences offered at heritage visitor attractions (Bartella, 2014; Chen, 2018; Minkiewicz et al., 2013). Guided tours are key, popular experiences commonly offered at heritage visitor attractions, and as such, they arguably are optimal lenses through which to begin unpacking these issues (Hansen & Mossberg, 2017; Lee, 2017; Weiler & Black, 2015).

Literature shows that service providers can use the staging of experiences as a tool for creating value through engaging with the customer in a personal way (Fitzsimmons & Fitzsimmons, 2000). Furthermore, it highlights how organisations that facilitate the active participation of customers in value co-creation processes are able to reduce investment levels (Lusch & Vargo, 2009; Vargo et al., 2008). However, Chathoth et al. (2014a) and Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) highlight, to fully benefit from this new approach to value creation organisations and consumers should display long-term commitment to a joint production process which is equally owned by both parts. That is, only when organisations and consumers use each other’s operant resources (for example integrating and applying specialist competencies such as, for example, skills and knowledge to co-shape each other’s expectations) that co-creation “becomes the foundation stone for business competitive advantage” (Alves et al., 2016, p. 70; Gummesson & Mele, 2010; Vargo & Lusch, 2008).

In the context of this study, however, findings reveal that heritage providers’ engagement with processes of experience value co-creation remain limited (Arnould et al., 2002; Prebensen & Foss, 2011). Heritage providers are mostly still involved in processes of co-production with consumers with mainly elements of customisation being currently incorporated in their range of tour guide offering and throughout every touch point of the customer journey (Chathoth et al., 2018).

Despite findings showing an increased recognition that audiences’ sensibilities and mindsets may be changing (Bartella, 2014; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Prebensen & Foss, 2011); all the heritage providers highlight how the bulk of heritage visitors simply demand entertaining, educational experiences in the form of daily tours or pre-booked tours for individuals or groups, potentially reflecting the massification of the cultural heritage tourism demand (du Cros & McKercher, 2020; UNWTO, 2018). In this context, consumers’ needs and characteristics are perceived as playing a key role in influencing the way organisations are deploying their operant resources (i.e. skills and competencies) to generate experience value (Alves et al., 2016; Prebensen et al., 2013; Visit Britain, 2016). Furthermore, it is the perceived visitors’ satisfaction with current experience offerings as well the perceived unwillingness to engage with other value creation modalities that are identified as shaping the extent of and the level of providers’ efforts to produce guided-tour experiences.

However, Alves et al. (2016, p. 71) and Payne et al. (2008) point out how: “organisations require the appropriate strategic positioning and business guidelines […] to be able to leverage internal knowledge, skills and resources for the development of processes and practices which integrate customers’ resources in the co-creation value process”. Thus, the organisation’ s resources make-up influences the way consumers in turn engage with and choose to use their resources (Arnould et al., 2006). In this context, limited knowledge and understanding as well as know-how can become important barriers to the deployment and implementation of resources (i.e. financial, human, and technological) in the most efficient and effective ways (Chathoth et al., 2014a; 2018).

Findings from this study show most heritage providers are not familiar with the concept, despite many recognising the benefits that co-created guided tours could bring in terms of increased customer engagement and satisfaction and perhaps repeat visit (Gilmore & Pine, 2000; Mathisen, 2013; Prebensen & Foss, 2011). Furthermore, they reveal how financial; time and human resource constraints are perceived by providers’ as further hindering processes of change (Chen et al., 2014; Hansen & Mossberg, 2017; Larsen & Meged, 2013; Prebensen et al., 2013; Walls et al., 2011; Weiler & Black, 2015; Zatori, 2013).

Finally, findings suggest how providers’ resistance to embrace step change may be further compounded by the characteristic limited cross-sector collaboration and knowledge sharing as indeed only few participants consider this mechanism important for enhancing the effective use of the heritage assets and show some level of proactiveness towards it. Whilst this is not atypical across the sector (Costa & Buhalis, 2005; Gravari-Barbas et al., 2016; Leask, 2010; Leask & Fyall, 2006; Richards, 2002 and 2007); research shows that engaging with such processes may be beneficial to foster innovation and the capturing of different market needs (UNWTO, 2018).

6. Conclusion

Value co-creation has been discussed in the academic literature and the arena of tourism for many years now (see, for example, Andrades & Dimanche, 2014; Binkhorst & Den Dekker, 2009; Dong & Siu, 2013; Chathoth et al., 2014b; Campos et al., 2016; Haahti, 2006; MacLeod et al., 2009; Mehmetoglu & Engen, 2011; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Richard and Wilson, 2006; Prebensen et al., 2013). However, limited research exists in the context of heritage visitor attractions. Where present, research mostly focuses on understanding visitors’ needs and behaviour rather than the management perspective (Leask, 2010; Milman, 2001; Richards, 2002).

Building on the above, this study set out to explore guided tour experience co-creation as a means to create and sustain value at heritage visitor attractions (Bartella, 2014; Chen, 2018; Minkiewicz et al., 2013) by conducting in-depth interviews with UK heritage attraction providers. Specifically, it investigated: (1) the extent to which UK heritage providers jointly co-create experience value with the visitor (2) and the barriers (if any) preventing UK heritage providers from investing in value co-creation.

Confirming and extending the work of Chathoth et al. (2014b; 2018), Leask (2010), and Vargo and Lusch (2004; 2006; 2012), this study shows that in the context of heritage visitor attraction, several external and internal challenges are preventing providers from engaging with these processes. These range from visitors’ current level of satisfaction with current tour guides’ modalities and overall unwillingness to engage in processes other than co-production and customisation; to limited providers’ knowledge and understanding of co-creation; and site-specific financial, time, and human resources constraints. Furthermore, confirming and extending the works of Gravari-Barbas et al. (2016), Leask (2010); Melpignano and Azara (2018), and UNWTO (2018) this study shows that across heritage attractions providers’ reluctance to engage with cross-sector collaboration and knowledge sharing is further stifling processes of innovation and change.

6.1. Theoretical implications

This study has academic implications. Firstly, it extends the knowledge and understanding of co-creation as a process to generate and sustain value at heritage visitor attractions. Heritage tourism research literature acknowledge the criticality of designing and delivering innovative heritage experiences capable of satisfying new consumers’ sensibilities (Buhalis et al., 2006; Chen & Chen, 2010; Costa & Buhalis, 2005; Gravari-Barbas et al., 2016; Melpignano & Azara, 2018; Richards, 2002; Smith & Richards, 2013; Zatori, 2013). However less is known about the role co-creation can play in the delivery of these experiences (Antón et al., 2018; Prebensen & Xie, 2017). This study shows that co-creation as a process to generate business value is not fully understood and implemented across the heritage attraction sector provision. Secondly, this study contributes to a better understanding of the challenges heritage providers face in engaging with experience co-creation (Chathoth et al., 2018; Leask, 2010; Richards, 2002; UNWTO, 2018). Evidence from this study suggests their limited knowledge and understanding of experience co-creation as a mechanism to generate and sustain value at heritage attractions and further operational constraints are to a degree stifling processes of change. This study reveals the challenges faced by these providers and highlights an area of research thus far arguably overlooked.

6.2. Managerial implications

This research also has managerial implications. This study suggests providers should focus on gaining a better understanding of their visitors’ needs, characteristics, and preferences as this will help to schedule their tours accordingly. Furthermore, providers should seek to gain a better understanding of the ways customers resources influence their value co-creation (Alves et al., 2016; Prebensen et al., 2013; Prebensen & Xie, 2017). In so doing they will be in better position to evaluate their role in developing these resources as well as the challenges of integrating co-creative processes effectively and efficiently within their heritage attraction programming. Heritage providers should also proactively engage with cross-sector collaboration and knowledge sharing as this would enable to share best practice on guided tours co-creation across the sector and would also aid in the recognition of where site-specific investment is needed in terms of skills; competency and overall capacity building (UNWTO, 2018).

6.3. Limitations and future research

Drawing conclusions on the findings, the process of value co-creation in the heritage tourism academic literature should be further explored from both the providers and consumers’ perspective (Chathoth et al., 2018; Leask, 2010; UNWTO, 2018). As suggested by the findings, the limited UK heritage providers’ knowledge and understanding of the concept together with financial, time, and human resource constraints appear to be contributing to sustain conservative attitudes towards embracing other business value modalities. Taking the study limitations into consideration, such as the number of providers interviewed and their geographical boundedness, it is suggested that future research continues exploring these issues both in the UK and internationally and across other types of heritage attractions to establish whether these are common across heritage attractions providers.

Despite literature suggesting that an increasingly amount of visitors may be inclined to participate in the co-creation of their experience with organisations; it appears that the majority of visitors engaging with guided tours are not interested in active interactions with heritage attractions providers, preferring more passive experiential approaches to the heritage encounter. Furthermore, findings suggest that these consumers still value their experience positively. Thus, research should focus on investigating visitor satisfaction levels (if any) among visitors taking part in co-created tours and those who experience a more passive approach (Mehmetoglu & Engen, 2011; Pine & Gilmore, 1998; 2000). Moreover, research should be carried on understanding visitor’s needs, characteristics, and attitudes towards the use of co-created guided tours. Conducting such studies would help providers to better appreciate the worth of investing in customer-centric experiences and the challenges to integrate consumers into these processes (Hu & Wall, 2005; Leask, 2010; Leask & Fyall, 2006).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).