Destination Management

E-Portfolio:
Destination Management

Tim Müller

Contents 1. Network analysis on the example of Flims Laax

Falera and Lech-Zürs

2. Commonalities and differences within the two

networks

3. Advantages and disadvantages of the

corporate and community model

4. The ideal destination model

Flims Laax Falera

Image 1: Laax, Source: Laax, 2018a

Flims Laax Most Important Tourism Stakeholders
Falera
Weisse Arena Gruppe (WAG)
§ Weisse Arena Bergbahnen AG (100%)
§ Weisse Arena Gastro AG (100%)
§ Weisse Arena Leisure AG (100%)
§ Mountain Adventures AG (100%)
§ Mountain Vision AG (100%)
§ Rocksresort (61,6%)
§ Startgels AG (41,7%)
§ Finanz Infra AG (18,2%)

§ Flims Laax Falera Management AG (Flims, Laax,

Falera, WAG, Waldhaus Flims AG…)

§ Waldhaus Flims AG

§ Hotels / B&B (31 listed)

§ Apartments (284 listed)

§ Graubünden Ferien

Source: Gemeinde Flims, 2014; Laax, 2018b; Weisse Arena Gruppe, 2017

Flims Laax Leader of the Destination Network
Falera
Weisse Arena Gruppe (WAG)
§ Very central and close to most stakeholders
§ High power/control over others
§ Integrates many core services of the destination

à Corporate model

Image 2: Weisse Arena Gruppe logo, Source: Weisse Arena Gruppe, 2018
Source: Beritelli et al., 2007; Gajdošík et al., 2017

Lech-Zürs

Image 3: Lech-Zürs, Source: Sport Brändle, 2018

Lech-Zürs Most Important Tourism Stakeholders

§ Lech Zürs Tourismus GmbH

§ Vorarlberg Tourismus GmbH

§ Ski Arlberg (88 Cable Cars and Lifts)

§ Auenfeldjet Seilbahn GmbH & Co. KG
§ Bergbahn Lech-Oberlech GmbH & Co.
§ KGFlexenbahn GmbH
§ Rüfikopf Seilbahn AG
§ Seillifte Oberlech GmbH & Co. KG
§ Skilifte Roter Schrofen GmbH & Co. KG
§ Skilifte Lech Ing. Bildstein GmbH
§ Ski Zürs AG

§ Hotels, Hotel Garni and B&Bs (150 listed)

§ Private Rooms, Holiday Homes and Apartments (103

listed)

Source: Lech Zürs Tourismus GmbH, 2018; Ski Arlberg, 2018

Lech-Zürs Leader of the Destination Network

Lech Zürs Tourismus GmbH
§ Marketing of the destination
§ Coordination between stakeholders
§ Destination strategy

BUT, not dominant in terms of power and influence and
does not own core services.

Interrelated network of individual shareholders that
shapes the final tourism product.

à Community Model

Source: Beritelli et al., 2007; Gajdošík et al., 2017

Commonalities and Differences

Image 4: Laax logo, Source: Weisse Arena Gruppe, 2018 Image 5: Lech-Zürs logo, Source: Wanderdörfer, 2018

Corporate Model vs. Community Model

Commonalities and Differences

Dimension Corporate Model Community Model
High
Number of stakeholders Low (one big integrator)

Size of stakeholders One big leader, some smaller ones Small to big, many SMEs

Leadership of destination One dominant leader No clear leadership, interrelated network

Marketing of destination Mainly through network leader Through DMO and individual enterprises

Transaction costs Generally low Generally high

Interdependence Strong between dominating firm and Diverse, depending on integration of services
municipalities and market portfolio

Trust/Control Ensured by control mechanisms and contracts Need for mutual trust
Knowledge
Personal connections Detailed and specific Diffuse and general

Limited, among few actors Many within a network

Table 1: Own representation, based on: Beritelli et al., 2007; Gajdošík et al., 2017

The Major advantages
Corporate § Low transaction costs
§ Central management
Model § Quick and easy decision implementation
§ More focused and differentiated strategies possible
§ Specific knowledge within leading firm

Major disadvantages
§ Lack of flexibility
§ Power imbalance (individual firms could feel

underprivileged)

§ Possible lack of individuality and authenticity
§ Lack of personality can cause employee

dissatisfaction

Source: Beritelli et al., 2007; Gajdošík et al., 2017

The Major advantages
Community § Individuality, authenticity and cultural diversity
§ Social equity
Model § More powerful DMO which can represent also small

stakeholder

§ Informal network, cooperation and mutual trust
§ No dependency on a major leader

Major disadvantages
§ Difficult to manage
§ Difficult to implement common long-term strategy
§ No leadership, diffuse structure à inefficiency and

high transaction costs

§ Lack of control mechanisms between stakeholders
§ Diffuse and general knowledge

Source: Beritelli et al., 2007; Gajdošík et al., 2017

The ideal … does not exist, as every destination is different and one has to
destination see first what is given in terms of e.g. natural resources,
infrastructure, stakeholders, DMO etc. The current status has to
model… be analyzed to identify areas of improvement and then an
appropriate model can be implemented integrating all
stakeholders. A mix between a corporate and community
model will probably be ideal for most destinations.

A good destination model, however, should cover the following
aspects:

§ Inclusion of all stakeholders in fundamental decisions, strategy

and innovation

§ Assurance of flexibility in individual units in accordance with

common goals and strategies

§ Continuous improvement of (service) quality, efficiency and

guest experience

§ Share of knowledge between stakeholders

§ Support of local identity, individuality and authenticity

represented e.g. in small individual businesses

§ Image References:

Laax (2018a). Tickets. Available at: https://www.laax.com/en/ski-resort/aktuelltickets

Sport Brändle (2018). Sport Brändle. Available at: http://www.sportbraendle.at/wp-content/uploads/
bilderwelt241.jpg

Wanderdörfer (2018). Lech Zürs am Arlberg. Available at: https://asset.erhebung.at/asset/show/ id/4264

Weisse Arena Gruppe (2018). Media: Downloads. Available at: http://weissearena.com/en/media/
downloads/

§ Content References:

Beritelli, P., Bieger, T. & Laesser, C. (2007). Destination Governance: Using Corporate
Governance Theories as a Foundation for Effective Destination Management. Journal of
List of Travel Research, 46 (1), 96-107.
references
Gajdošík, T., Gajdošíková, Z., Maráková, V. & Flagestad, A. (2017). Destination structure revisited in view of
the community and corporate model. Tourism Management Perspectives, 24, 54-63.

Gemeinde Flims (2014). Informationsblatt Gäste und Tourismustaxengesetz der Gemeinden Flims, Laax
und Falera (Destination Flims Laax). Available at: http://www.gemeindeflims.ch/data/
pages/documents/Infoblatt_-_Tourismusgesetz_(26.03.2014)-1.pdf

Laax (2018b). Hotels. Available at: https://www.laax.com/en/accommodation/hotels

Lech Zürs Tourismus GmbH (2018). Accommodations. Available at: https://booking.lech-zuers.at/
lechbook/en/accommodation/list?customHeader=true

Ski Arlberg (2018). Impressum. Available at: http://www.skiarlberg.at/de/impressum

Weisse Arena Gruppe (2017). Laax: Facts and Figures. Available at: http://weissearena.com/wp-content/
uploads/Mediakit_LAAX_EN_2017_2018.zip