Tourism Communications

Tourism Dynamics State Department issues travel warnings for the world's different countries and territories. For Mexico, these warnings are rather comprehensive, providing not just a state-by-state breakdown of the security situation but in some cases a town-by-town one. In some cases, routes are prescribed: "U.S. government personnel are authorized to use Federal toll road 15D for travel to Mexico City; however, they may not stop in the town of La Barca for any reason" (State Department, 2015).

Even laypeople, when you tell them you are going to Mexico, get a look of concern on their faces, and feel obliged to tell you that it is not safe there. Yet Mexico ranks 15th in the world in international overnight visitors, with 24.1 million per year, according to the World Bank (2014). Mexico is, in fact, one of the world's most popular tourism destinations.

It is not the only country with a poor security reputation to attract tourists, either: Russia ranks 5th in the world, and South Africa attracts between 9 and 10 million tourists per year. So what drives people to visit countries that are widely believed to be unsafe? There are several factors, and they will be explored in this paper. In some cases, the security situation is highly dependent on location -- the parts of these countries where tourists go are considered to be much safer than other parts.

In other cases, the attractions are just too great. Mexico is full of UNESCO World Heritage Sites and beach resorts; South Africa is one of the most beautiful countries in the world; and even otherwise dangerous cities like New Orleans can draw people in with their exceptionally rich culture. The second issue addressed in this paper will be what tourism boards and governments can do to attract visitors to areas that are perceived as unsafe.

Approaches with respect to security, and with respect to marketing, will be discussed in this section. Perception of Risk Media plays a significant role in the perception of risk, but usually the media is relaying an element of truth. There really are parts of Mexico where one should not go. There really is a high level of crime in South Africa. Perception, in that sense, usually does mirror reality. But there are mitigating factors. Familiarity can be a mitigating factor, for example.

Most people know about their own countries, and the surrounding ones, but the further one gets from his or her home, the less he or she is likely to know anything beyond the headlines with regards to risk This is why some people will caution you against going to Mexico -- they simply have a low level of understanding of the actual risks involved.

South Africa, far away from its target markets, must combat the media coverage of the country as being unsafe, in order to attract tourists (Ferreira & Harmse, 2000). The experiences of friends and family also play a role in the perception of risk as well as one's own experiences. Someone who has been traveling to Mexico for years will not perceive risk the same way as someone who has never been.

Similarly, those closest to a person may become a source of information, and such individuals can play an important role in filling in the information gaps from the media. They can tell someone, for example, that even though Honduras has the world's highest murder rates, Roatan is isolated from that and therefore very safe. Thus, tourists perceive a destination as unstable and dangerous when a) it is and b) when their information sources portray it as such.

Roughly in order of importance as sources of information are one's own experiences, the experiences of trusted individuals, the media and marketing. Tourism board marketing is rightly seen as being one-sided, and downplaying any risks, which makes it the least-trusted. The media can be trusted, any many people have no other information sources about most destinations.

Thus, it is imperative for destinations that have a negative perception to counter the effects the negative press in order to increase their attractiveness to tourists, by reducing the perception of risk -- Mexico has many past visitors to vouch for it, but Colombia needs to use the media to help change its perceptions. The Draw There are many reasons that people engage in leisure travel. Each destination is distinct, with its own characteristics, and is also distinct in terms of the target markets.

Ukraine is one of the top destinations in the world because of traffic from Russian tourists; likewise Malaysia is a popular destination for Singaporeans and people from Muslim countries. Among the more dangerous destinations on the World Bank's list of most-touristed places, diversity of attractions is one of the key traits. South Africa has safaris, world famous cities, wine regions, and stunning scenery. Mexico has urban escapes, a rich culture, ancient ruins and beaches.

Brazil is also considered dangerous, but it too has a rich urban environment, nature in the Amazon, beaches and culture. The more popular destinations in the world -- France, the U.S., Spain, China -- also possess a wide variety of draws, but their relative safety allows them to draw many more tourists that the dangerous countries. Papatheodorou (2001) notes that most tourists also have pragmatic considerations. They look at places that are easy to get to, that have ample tourism infrastructure, and often they look at cost as well.

This is why so much tourism is domestic in nature. The nations at the top of the tourism list are generally well-connected, and with a high level of tourism infrastructure. It is the same for places on the most-dangerous list. The three nations mentioned above are all large, and have multiple tourism centers. That allows them to have sufficient infrastructure to host millions of visitors. Arguably, many "dangerous" places do not have sufficient infrastructure to host millions of tourists, in part because security problems are often anathema to economic development.

Mexico is the most popular "dangerous" location. It has multiple international points of entry, allowing each to focus on specific target markets. Baja is full of Californians, Huatulco has been built for Canadians almost exclusively, and Cozumel has been able to focus on the cruise ship trade. Infrastructure is high in many area, but particularly in the major tourism centers of Mexico. South Africa has a high density of accommodation in the area around Kruger National Park, and in Cape Town, its two most popular destinations.

In Brazil, both Rio and Foz do Iguacu have high densities of hotels for foreign tourists, and other locations have ample infrastructure as well, having been built for domestic tourism. Thus, having attractions and infrastructure are both important draws. When these areas are compared with nearby countries with similar attractiveness, but lower levels of infrastructure, the role that infrastructure plays becomes apparent. Guatemala ha similar attractions to the Yucatan, but attracts far fewer visitors.

There are other places to see big game in Africa, but places like Kenya or Tanzania draw a fraction of South Africa's visitors. Risk? What Risk? The role that risk plays in selecting a destination appears to be fairly important. As Sonmez (1998) notes, when there is a direct threat to tourists, the risk does scare many away. Terrorism and violence directed at tourists are usually exceptionally bad for business.

Colombia could not attract tourists when it was known as a narcocracy, but today it is one of travel's emerging hot spots. Bali's tourism numbers fell off a cliff after the night club bombing (AP, 2012). In both cases, tourism numbers suffered because of the (quite reasonable) perception that tourists would be targeted by violence. Thus, security is an antecedent for building a successful tourism industry.

When your mother worries about you going to Mexico, what she is failing to realize is that Juarez is not indicative of the security situation in the entire country. The reality is that the areas where tourists go have the best security situations in the entire country. This is true, more or less, in South Africa as well. In Brazil, Rio is famous for its crime, and while people do get robbed on Copacabana, the reality is that most of the crime is confined to the favelas.

Nobody goes to New Orleans thinking they will be shot on Bourbon Street -- they might drink a little less if they perceived there to be the same risk in the French Quarter as in the Ninth Ward. The same story can be told in questionable areas all around the world -- security situations can vary dramatically within a country, and tourist perceptions will likewise follow those perceptions.

Yucatan State saw one murder in 2014 for the entire state -- tourists thinking about going there know this; there appears to be high awareness to the differential risks in different parts of the country. There are few places in the world where tourists are willing to flout obvious risks in order to see a site. When it happens, there are usually other circumstances at work. The number of genuine thrill-seekers is rare, but there is always somebody willing to hop a bus and go to Pakistan.

Younger travelers, and those who are specifically seeking out adventure, are the most likely to travel to riskier places because they perceive risks differently than the mainstream tourism audience (Lepp & Gibson, 2008). Most people, however, are not cavalier, and they seek to minimize their risks, veering away from areas that they perceive to be riskier, illustrating that most tourists are risk-averse (Kozak, Crotts & Law, 2007).

Dealing with Risk The first thing governments can do to reduce the perceptions of instability and risk in their countries is, not sparingly, to increase stability and security. The creation of the necessary infrastructure to host increasing amounts of tourists depends on the government being able to create a safe zone where high numbers of tourism can be sustained. Moreover, tourists are willing to travel to otherwise unsafe places if they perceive that the areas they will be visiting are safe. For example, Cape Town is generally perceived as safe.

It has some of the highest murder rates in South Africa, but the tourist areas see little of that violence, so tourists visiting feel safe in their areas. By creating a secure zone, the perception of security can be improved dramatically. Colombia's tourist resurgence has occurred largely because of the end of the narco-wars and the defeat of rebel groups. When people visit there, they report back to family and friends. So in that respect, attracting the thrill-seekers can be important.

Some people are less risk averse, and more experiential in their travel tastes, and those people are the early adopters. They will likely to be more well-informed about risk, and willing to move quickly when a destination becomes secure, in order to enjoy the experience before the masses arrive. Working with such early adopters can be valuable. If a destination has a campaign ready, it can work with the early adopters via social media, to promote the destination.

For example, if a country has a tagline that can be used as a hashtag, that can be promoted aggressively so that anyone who visits knows it. Those people might then use such a hashtag when posting about their travels, thus spreading the tagline to everyone they know, most of whom will not be early adopters. But the early adopters will be the first who vouch for a destination and its security, and people do tend to trust their friends and family more than any other information source.

The media of course, plays a critical role in spreading the message about improved security. The media can create the impression of instability in a region. The problem is not that media outlets report on crime and instability, it is that they often do not balance that coverage with other stories. When a security situation improves, that will receive less press than if it deteriorates. Public relations is a critical component to attracting better media coverage for a region, especially a region where the security situation has improved.

An area that is trying to counter negative perceptions that have built up over years of bad coverage will likely need to balance that with years of good coverage. It can be a slow process, and will require some investment, in particular in getting some travel media to visit the country. A major public relations coup can come in the form of a major event. A major global showcase event can highlight the ability of a country to provide security for foreign visitors.

South Africa and Brazil have both hosted World Cups successfully, with minimal incidents of crime against tourists. In both cases, this creates a tremendous amount of positive publicity for these countries. The World Cup is a means by which these countries have used the media to help counter perceptions that were created largely by media coverage. In other cases, it is basically fluke -- Bali's tourism recovered on the back of Eat, Pray, Love (AP, 2012).

Without the benefit of such a major event, a region can focus on smaller events, in order to build up over time positive perceptions and media coverage. Finally, governments can focus on the positive traits of their destination in order to overcome negative perceptions about security. The "dangerous" places that sell today have a high level of public knowledge about their positive attributes -- everybody can say something positive about Rio, New Orleans or Mexico -- and that is why people ignore the negative perceptions.

In other cases, the negative is all people know about a place. Media campaigns -- advertising -- may not be entirely trusted with respect to accurately portraying the downside of a destination, but there is little reason to distrust positive advertising messages. Thus, advertising campaigns can sell the upside of a destination, as a means of convincing people that whatever risk they perceive is probably overblown, and that the destination is worth it. Papatheodorou (2001) notes that differentiation is a key factor in destination choice. Consumers choosing between.