A pdf copy of the research poster can be downloaded here
The Hypothesis
With the rise of more accessible VR headsets, through this intervention we hope to explore our hypothesis that VR can encourage a higher interest in tourism than standard video. For this particular intervention, we have choose to focus on the Giants Causeway in particular and aim to gain insight into how different forms of media such as VR could benefit the tourism industry.
A Breakdown of data collected during Intervention task
|
VR Results
|
Standard Video Results
|
Unfortunately we were unable to have an even split in gender over both groups. With in our standard video group we managed to have a 50/50 split between male and female whereas the VR group was split 60/40 female and male. Although this did not affect the outcome of the results however we found that more males had previously used VR in comparison to the females in the group; despite this having no impact on the results collected from the survey, we observed that there was a sense of hesitation to use the head set from those who had no prior experience. This immediately place the standard video in an advantageous position as 100% of the group and viewed tourism videos before and were only required to view the video on an iMac screen. 70% had experienced VR before the intervention in contrast to 100% of previous experience to the standard video.
The age across both groups were identical, 80% in the age range of 20-21 and 20% in the age range of 22-23; there was no notable difference in the answer selections between these age groups.
It is useful to note that we recorded the most commonly used platforms for VR and Video so that further use of this research could focus specifically on the platforms and how they can be utilised to market and display tourism videos and experiences. The Oculus Rift and Youtube had the highest rates of use from our results. The Oculus Rift is more expensive than most headsets however it is more practical for larger companies to have access to the Rift to use at trade fairs but if the experience is for the masses to view at home the Rift may not be the way to go. Youtube is the most accessible platform and could not only be used to display standard video but also to house 360, AR and VR videos and experiences also. We came to realise after this study that this a key component to our research as it is important for the industry to not invest into high cost platforms which are not accessible so therefore not generate any return revenue.
100% of both groups stated that the intervention activity was a positive experience.
We were hoping for a larger margin of difference between each groups responses in the likely hood of visiting the Giants Causeway after the experience however there was only 4% higher difference in the VR group over the standard video; because of these findings it is hard to really say whether or not VR is a highly effective marketing tool for the tourism industry. Despite this the results may alter if this intervention was carried out on a much larger scale with a wider variety in age group.
In spite of this the engagement levels at the time of the intervention were 20% higher within the VR group over the Standard video and the likely hood of re-engagement with VR was 10% higher at 70% in contrast to the 60% who stated that they would re engage with tourism video again.
There was definitely a more positive response to VR that Standard video on the question in regards to how the experience made the participants feel as 50% of the standard video group felt indifferent to the video where the VR group had a 0% indifference so in terms of making a bigger impacting first impression, VR is the way to go as a marketing tool with a 55% curiosity rate.
At the beginning of this research study we had hypothesised that VR could encourage a higher interest in tourism over standard video but, from these findings it is hard to say whether VR is more proactive at encouraging tourism that standard Video as there is no large definition between the two groups results however more participants enjoyed the VR experience over the standard video experience. I believe it would be worth retesting this on a larger scale as mentioned above to see if there is a similar outcome before moving to test different elements.
For more information into the limitations and observational finding of the project please click here.
The age across both groups were identical, 80% in the age range of 20-21 and 20% in the age range of 22-23; there was no notable difference in the answer selections between these age groups.
It is useful to note that we recorded the most commonly used platforms for VR and Video so that further use of this research could focus specifically on the platforms and how they can be utilised to market and display tourism videos and experiences. The Oculus Rift and Youtube had the highest rates of use from our results. The Oculus Rift is more expensive than most headsets however it is more practical for larger companies to have access to the Rift to use at trade fairs but if the experience is for the masses to view at home the Rift may not be the way to go. Youtube is the most accessible platform and could not only be used to display standard video but also to house 360, AR and VR videos and experiences also. We came to realise after this study that this a key component to our research as it is important for the industry to not invest into high cost platforms which are not accessible so therefore not generate any return revenue.
100% of both groups stated that the intervention activity was a positive experience.
We were hoping for a larger margin of difference between each groups responses in the likely hood of visiting the Giants Causeway after the experience however there was only 4% higher difference in the VR group over the standard video; because of these findings it is hard to really say whether or not VR is a highly effective marketing tool for the tourism industry. Despite this the results may alter if this intervention was carried out on a much larger scale with a wider variety in age group.
In spite of this the engagement levels at the time of the intervention were 20% higher within the VR group over the Standard video and the likely hood of re-engagement with VR was 10% higher at 70% in contrast to the 60% who stated that they would re engage with tourism video again.
There was definitely a more positive response to VR that Standard video on the question in regards to how the experience made the participants feel as 50% of the standard video group felt indifferent to the video where the VR group had a 0% indifference so in terms of making a bigger impacting first impression, VR is the way to go as a marketing tool with a 55% curiosity rate.
At the beginning of this research study we had hypothesised that VR could encourage a higher interest in tourism over standard video but, from these findings it is hard to say whether VR is more proactive at encouraging tourism that standard Video as there is no large definition between the two groups results however more participants enjoyed the VR experience over the standard video experience. I believe it would be worth retesting this on a larger scale as mentioned above to see if there is a similar outcome before moving to test different elements.
For more information into the limitations and observational finding of the project please click here.
‘VR has the potential to serve as an invaluable tool in the formulation of tourism policy and in the planning process as well’
(Guttentag, 2010)
(Guttentag, 2010)
How our Findings fit into the discussion of VR in the Tourism Industry
|
The topic of VR and Tourism has been widely discussed by academics over the years. It has been argued that VR would save the tourism marketing industry money by reducing ‘the costs of freight and distribution) UNWTO, (2007). A practical guide to tourism destination management. of brochures. Not only this but VR can ‘allow clients to explore a destination on a much deeper level,’(Sussmann & Vanhegan, 2000) allowing for a more realistic expectation for the potential traveller. VR has potential to allow for ‘the ability to provide sensory experiences to the customers.’ So why is VR not as commonly used as the writing suggest it should be? There have been discrepancies around inaccuracies presented on VR, ‘which could lead to damaging misconceptions about a destination.’ (Guttentag, 2010). From our findings, it is also quite hard to define whether the VR experience truly has the upper hand to a standard video experience of a location. Although the engagement rate for VR was higher, there were only 4% difference in the VR group who stated that they would be likely to visit the Causeway in comparison to those who experienced the Standard Video. I feel it is important to mention here that the audio and video for both experiences were different which may have led to these results; the VR had poorer image quality and less cinematic audio than the standard video which may have left it at a greater disadvantage than originally anticipated. So, if test prototypes for the tourism industry have come up against issues such as those that we had face it is understandable to see why there is a reluctance to invest money into VR production. During our intervention, it was also clear to see an apprehensiveness to wear the headset from those who had never experience VR before which then led to the participants not fully utilizing the 360 capabilities of the headset which again is a downfall.
|
However, VR is still an up and coming technology which as many great capabilities; from our findings, I still feel that there was a high enough positive response to the VR experience that it would be useful to test what levels of VR and VE participants are more comfortable to engage with. It is usual for relatively new technologies to be faced with scepticism and uncertainty from industries that are not at the forefront of the develop. For example, those in the gaming industry are much more welcoming to VR than in this case the tourism industry as VR is not being develop with the tourism industry in mind/ at the heart of production process.
A great example of the capabilities of VR in the tourism industry which looks beyond it as simply a marketing tool comes from The Europapark theme park in Germany which has a VR roller-coaster on which visitors can have a 4D experience ‘through virtual worlds synchronized perfectly to the movement of the roller coaster with the help of their headsets.’ Another great example is The VOID a theme park that is entirely based on offering VR experiences. Giordimaina, says by developing ‘relevant and targeted sensorial experiences’, gives the ability ‘to tap into tourists’ emotions creating positive and long-lasting memories’; Which I believe in the instance of tourism attraction using VR as a feature point on site allows. (Giordimaina, 2008) |
Issues surrounding VR Tourism
|
There will always be a reluctance to invest in something new if there is a high cost and a fear of failure. I think it is important that more studies around VR and tourism are carried out to help build a stronger argument for why VR is such a powerful tool for the Tourism Industry.
Equally the industry may be meet with the uncertainty and reluctance of their clients who have never experienced VR before. Therefore their lack of knowledge prevents them from either engaging at all, particularly with headset, or limiting their experience by not using the full capabilities of the headset as was seen within our study. |
There is also the argument around whether the use of VR to allow those who are unable to travel to ‘travel’ in the comfort of their own home, is really travel? This idea of traveling from the comfort of your own home brings with both positive and negative issues. It is positive in the aspect that it allows those who are unable to travel to experience countries and tourism hotspots they ordinarily would not be able to see in person.
However if this trend of traveling from home becomes wider spread even by those with the capabilities to travel it comes with the risk that damaging economies. ‘Many developing countries are expected to voice their concerns about VR travel, because they rely heavily on the touristic revenue generated on-site for their survivals’ (Sussmann, & Vanhegan, 2000) |
“VR is defined as the use of a computer-generated 3D environment – called a ‘virtual environment’ (VE) – that one can navigate and possibly interact with, resulting in real-time simulation of one or more of the user’s five senses.”
(Guttentag, 2010)
(Guttentag, 2010)
Further areas of research from initial intervention
|
Although mentioned above in regards to the negative effect that VR can have to an counties economy, it can also be used to allow fragile tourism areas such as The Great Barrier Reef, to recover from the high rate of tourist visits. Due to this I believe that testing whether or not potential travellers would be willing to give up seeing their planned destination if it is deemed to be in a fragile state for temporary VR travel as this could help reduce the impact the tourism may have. Although this may not be seen as a major benefit for the Tourism Industry, there is the possibility that they could sell these experiences whilst having a positive impact on fragile environments.
|
Another beneficial direction for a further intervention would be remove standard form video for the equation in its entirety and focus solely on the levels of VR , testing what levels people are most likely to react with. Using the same Virtual Environments tested across a range of VR utilities such as the Oculus Rift, Google Cardboard, Web VR etc. This would allow for the factoring of cost for the industry as not everyone will have access to a Rift it is important to find a viable platform to be used by the Tourism industry. Not only this but certain client my not be comfortable using headsets such as the Rift, therefore Web VR may be more useful to the Industry
|
References
Carnival Cruise Line (2016). Instant Caribbean Vacation (360 Interactive Video) |Carnival Cruise Line. [image] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDfsFuDuHds&feature=youtu.be [Accessed 21 Nov. 2018].
Giordimaina, J. (2008). Multi Sensory Marketing and Its Application in Tourism. Journal of the Institute of Tourism Studies, (2), p.44.
Guttentag, D. (2010). Virtual reality: Applications and implications for tourism. Tourism Management, 31(5), pp.637-651.
Huang, Y., Backman, K., Backman, S. and Chang, L. (2015). Exploring the Implications of Virtual Reality Technology in Tourism Marketing: An Integrated Research Framework. International Journal of Tourism Research, 18(2), pp.116-128.
Sussmann, S., & Vanhegan, H. (2000). Virtual Reality and the Tourism Product Substitution or Complement? In Proceedings of the Eighth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS) (pp. 1077–1083). Vienna, Austria: Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien.
The VOID (2015). First look at THE VOID. [video] Available at: https://youtu.be/cML814JD09g [Accessed 21 Nov. 2018].
UNWTO, .. (2007). A practical guide to tourism destination management.
Williams, P. and Hobson, J. (1995). Virtual reality and tourism: fact or fantasy?. Tourism Management, 16(6), pp.423-427.