The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-6119.htm
IJCHM
20,2
126
Received 11 May 2007
Reviewed 15 July 2007
Revised 8 October 2007
Accepted 8 October 2007
International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality
Management
Vol. 20 No. 2, 2008
pp. 126-141
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0959-6119
DOI 10.1108/09596110810852113
Destination marketing:
competition, cooperation or
coopetition?
Youcheng Wang
University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, USA, and
Shaul Krakover
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to understand the business relationships among the tourism
industry stakeholders in conducting collaborative destination marketing activities.
Design/methodology/approach This research takes a case study approach by focusing on the
investigation of the business relationships among tourism industry stakeholders in Elkhart County,
Indiana. Interviews with five staff members from the Elkhart County Convention and Visitors Bureau
as well as 32 tourism industry representatives were conducted in order to answer the research
questions.
Findings The interview results indicate that different relationships of cooperation, competition and
coopetition coexist among the tourism stakeholders. Four cooperative relationships with various
degrees of formalization, integration, and structural complexity are involved. In addition, four factors
have been identified as affecting this relationship configuration. The perceived relationship between
cooperation and competition was also found to be vital with reference to the marketing of a
destination.
Research limitations/implications Given the exploratory nature and case study approach of the
research, caution is required in interpreting the results of the study, particularly in generalizing the
study results to other destinations.
Originality/value The paper provides practical implications to tourism businesses in their efforts
to collectively market their destination, particularly in relation to how they balance the relationship
between cooperation and competition, individual benefits and common benefits in order to achieve
success for both the destination and their individual businesses.
Keywords Tourism, United States of America
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Understanding the working relationships among tourism businesses in a destination is
a critical prerequisite to the success of many collaborative destination-marketing
programs (Terpstra and Simonin, 1993). When tourism stakeholders/businesses in a
destination participate in collaborative marketing, there are many relationship forms
they can choose, ranging from loosely connected to more formal and integrated
relationships (Bailey and Koney, 2000). For example, informal affiliation manifested by
loose linkages and connections may represent the least developed and integrated
working relationship since this type of relationship only requires organizations
involved to demonstrate similar interest and sometimes good faith of mutual support
(Bailey and Koney, 2000). At the other end of the relationship continuum, joint venture
might represent a more developed and integrated relationship in which two or more
members work together on a separate project (Ring and van de Ven, 1994). Other forms Destination
of working relationships might also appear in this continuum of arrangement (Bailey marketing
and Koney, 2000). In the tourism context, what is more common is the loosely formed
alliance of tourism organizations, such as regional or local tourism associations and
other marketing alliances initiated and organized by local destination marketing
organizations (Henderson, 2001; Prideaux and Cooper, 2002; Saxena, 2005; Wang and
Fesenmaier, 2007; Wang and Xiang, 2007). 127
Though there is a significant and growing number of theoretical and empirical
research devoted to understanding the formation of these relations (Watkins and Bell,
2002), a systematic definition and description of relationships as seen by the tourism
industry would contribute to the understanding of how businesses perceive their
relationships with their counterparts and how they move from one existing mode of
relationship to another (Watkins and Bell, 2002). Relating to this, an understanding of
the driving factors behind the dynamic configuration of the business relationships will
not only provide theoretical contribution but also offer practical guidelines to the
successful and sustainable operation of destination marketing alliances (Palmer, 2002).
In addition, the fragmentation of the tourism industry and the complexity of
destination marketing call for a collective approach to destination marketing, and how
the tourism industry in a destination keeps the balance between cooperation and
competition determines, to a great extent, the effectiveness of their destination
marketing efforts as well as the long term competitiveness and success of the
destination (Palmer and Bejou, 1995). However, a review of the related literature
indicates that answers to the above questions are either too indefinite or anecdotal to
offer theoretical contribution or provide practical direction. Such research is even
scarcer in the tourism literature. Identifying the significance of the issue and taking a
case study approach, this paper is aimed at achieving the following objectives:
. examine the forms of business relationships among tourism industry
stakeholders in a destination in their collaborative destination marketing efforts;
.
identify the factors contributing to the different business relationship
configuration in a destination; and
.
understand the relationship between cooperation and competition from the eyes
of local tourism industry stakeholders in a destination.

Theoretical background
An extensive and critical review of the literature in the general business area indicates
that different terms have been used to describe the working relationships between and
among businesses. For example, Fyall and Garrod (2004) used the term coordination
and described it as a process whereby two or more organizations create and/or use
existing decision rules that have been established to deal collectively with their shared
task environment. Others use the term cooperation to refer to the links that bring
organizations together, thereby enhancing their ability to compete in the market place
(Lynch, 1990). Palmer (2002) applied the cooperative concept to marketing stating that
cooperative marketing groups are groups of independent businesses that recognize the
advantages of developing markets jointly rather than in isolation.
Beyond coordination, collaboration is a commonly used term to describe a more
formal type of working relationship between businesses and organizations (Selin, 1993;
IJCHM Wood and Gray, 1991). Wood and Gray (1991), p.146) defines it as a process when a
20,2 group of autonomous stakeholders of a problem domain engage in an interactive
process, using shared rules, norms, and structure, to act or decide on issues related to
that domain. They argue that collaborative interaction is considered as a relatively
more formal process involving regular, face-to-face dialogue. This view is supported by
other researchers who argue that collaboration is an intensive form of mutual
128 attachment in which actors are bound together by the mutually supportive pursuit of
individual collective benefits (Huxham, 1996). Jamal and Getz (1995) applied the
concept of collaboration to community-based tourism planning and defines it as a
process of joint decision-making among autonomous, key stakeholders of an
inter-organizational, community tourism domain to resolve planning problems of the
domain and/or manage issues related to the planning and development of the domain.
Other researchers use the term strategic alliance to refer to a more formal and
structured working relationships between organizations (e.g. Parkhe, 1993; Terpstra
and Simonin, 1993). Strategic alliance is defined as organizational arrangements and
operating policies through which separate organizations share administrative
authority and form social links through more open-ended contractual arrangements
as opposed to very specific, arms length contracts (Witt and Moutinho, 1989). Strategic
alliances are concerned with issues of how to obtain resources through partnership
(Henderson, 2001; Witt and Moutinho, 1989). The concept has been applied to tourism
marketing alliances which are contractual relationships undertaken by tourism
businesses whose respective products complement each other in the marketplace (Fyall
and Garrod, 2004; Palmer and Bejou, 1995).
As can be seen, the majority of the literature describing inter-organizational
relationships tends to focus on the cooperative aspect of the relationship; the
competitive aspect of the relationship is usually neglected. In addition, there is limited
evidence to provide systematic and empirical support as to why organizations switch
between the different modes of relationships, particularly in relation to cooperation and
competition. Doz (1988) attempts to make a link between the various relationship
configuration with exogenous environmental dynamics, arguing that a shift in the
strategic priorities of a firm, or a loss of leadership which makes a partner less
attractive than it was earlier, are all drivers to shift the balance from more cooperative
to more competitive mindset. Koza and Lewin (1998) try to understand the issue from a
market perspective. They believe that the proximity of an activity to its customer
seems to be of importance for the division between cooperative and competitive
interactions. That is, the cooperative or competitive relationship are divided due to the
closeness of an activity to the customer, in that firms compete in activities close to the
customer and cooperate in activities far from the customers.
This leads to another term coopetition introduced by other researchers (e.g.
Bengtsson and Kock, 2000; Gnyawali and Madhavan, 2001) who argue that
organizations do not always engage in either competitive or cooperative relationships
with each other; rather, both relationships can oftentimes co-exist. In this stream of
literature, the term coopetition is defined as simultaneous cooperation and competition
(Brandenburger and Nalebuff, 1996). However, the two traditional research
perspectives of competition and cooperation have evolved as different research
streams. In competition, the focus is on value appropriation strategies whereas in
cooperation, the focus is on collective strategies for value generation (Gnyawali and
Madhavan, 2001; Moore, 1993). In the tourism context, in order to provide the products Destination
and services for consumption, destinations have to effectively coordinate resources and marketing
capabilities between participating businesses, which require both cooperation and
competition. However, there is no coherent theoretical basis for understanding the
balance between competition and cooperation in management literature, as well as how
tourism businesses in a destination can engage in coopetitive relationships supported
by tourism literature. 129

Research method
Study setting and data collection
Given the exploratory nature of this study, a qualitative case study approach was
adopted (Yin, 1989). Elkhart County in northern Indiana was selected as the venue for
the study. Interview protocols were developed to guide interviews of representatives
from both the Elkhart County Convention and Visitor Bureau (ECCVB) and the local
tourism industry. The Elkhart County CVB is the major destination marketing
organization representing the local community and the convener of most of the
collaborative marketing campaigns. Thus, it is important that employees of the
Elkhart County CVB be interviewed and their opinions examined. In this study, five
staff members from the Elkhart County CVB were interviewed individually: the
Director, and managers for public relations, group tours, advertising, and sports
markets, respectively.
Based on the specific nature of the tourism industry in the destination, four different
sectors of the local tourism industry were included in the study:
(1) Accommodation (e.g. hotels and motels, B&Bs).
(2) Attractions (e.g. natural and man-made tourism attractions).
(3) Cultural, arts and event organizers.
(4) Retailers (e.g. antique shops, souvenir shops, Amish furniture and quilt shops).
A total of 32 industry interviews were conducted representing eight individual tourism
businesses each from the four tourism sectors. A letter stating the purpose of the study
as well as the broad interview questions was sent to each of the representatives
selected for the study, followed by personal phone calls to schedule the date and time
for the interview. Interviews were conducted by the researcher at the interviewees
business location and their responses were audio-taped for data analysis. The
interviews with both the CVB staff and industry representatives were conducted in two
weeks in July 2003.

Data analysis
An important challenge in this study was to discover consistencies in the perceptions
(and the language used to describe these perceptions) related to building partnerships
as provided in the 37 interviews. The analytical process used in this study followed the
approach proposed by Miles and Huberman (1994) consisting of three concurrent flows
of activity: data reduction, data display and verification. That is, data analysis
conducted in this study was not seen as a discrete phase but rather as an ongoing
continuous process of data collection and analysis. Following this approach, the data
collected from the five interviews with the Elkhart County CVB employees and the 32
IJCHM local tourism industry representatives were analyzed using the following steps and
20,2 procedures:
(1) Transcribe data and identify major ideas.
(2) Define appropriate unit of analysis.
(3) Develop categorization schemes.
130 (4) Confirm categories.
(5) Identify themes and use relevant theory if necessary for interpretation.

Study results
The purpose of the study is three-fold: to understand the business relationships among
tourism organizations in a destination when they conduct collaborative destination
marketing activities; to identify the factors contributing to the different business
relationship configuration in a destination; and to understand the relationship between
cooperation and competition from the eyes of local tourism industry in a destination.
Interviews with five staff members of ECCVB and 32 industry representatives from the
local tourism industry generated a large amount of text data. For the purpose of the
study, the information obtained from the 37 informants is organized and presented
following the order of the study objectives.

Forms of business relationships in collaborative destination marketing

Findings from the interviews indicate that tourism businesses engage in various forms
of relationships in their destination marketing efforts, ranging from competition to
cooperation to the hybrid behavior comprising competition and cooperation referred to
as coopetition. The relationship can be best demonstrated in Figure 1 where
competition and cooperation are two diametrically different logics of behavior, where
coopetition behavior can be observed in between from time to time. The competitive
behavior is observed when individual tourism businesses try to maximize their own
interests and do not participate in collective action. The different self-interests are often
in conflict with each other, and as a result, businesses compete against each other to
best fulfill their own self-interests. The cooperative behavior is based on a
diametrically opposite rationale by which individual tourism businesses participate in
collective actions to achieve common goals. The coopetition relationships are complex
as they consist of two diametrically different logics of interaction. Tourism businesses
involved in coopetition are involved in a relationship that on the one hand consists of
competition due to conflicting interests and on the other hand consists of cooperation
due to common interests. The study results reveal that most of the interviewees
focused much of their discussion on cooperation rather than competition or coopetition,
indicating that cooperation is taking the central stage as the dominant way of thinking
when it comes to destination marketing.
The interviews indicate that the cooperative relationships among the tourism
organizations in destination marketing exist at different levels with different forms.
These alternatives range from loosely connected relationships to those that are very
formal and integrated. Many times tourism organizations find no need for them to
enter into a formal and complex relationship if their intention is merely to exchange
information about a particular issue or client. The arrays of relationships can be
broadly manifested in four forms in a continuum defined by various degrees of
 Destination
marketing

131

Figure 1.
Relationship configuration
among tourism industry
and the determining
factors
IJCHM formalization, integration, and structural complexity required by the nature and
20,2 mission of the marketing project. These four forms of business relationships can be
termed as: affiliation, coordination, collaboration, and strategic networks (see Figure 1).
It should be noted that though these four forms of relationships follow a logical order of
low to high formalization, integration and structural complexity, they are only
indicative not exhaustive in describing the cooperative working relationships among
132 tourism businesses in the destination. The interviews also support to the observation
that not all the business relationships have to follow such a linearly sequential order;
rather, the relationships are scenario based, depending on the types of organizations
involved and the nature of the projects undertaken. The following is a description of
the observation of the four forms of cooperative relationships.
It is demonstrated by the interviews that affiliation is the most informal linkages
among the tourism organizations, and as a result, can be used most easily. It often
reflects an initial level of trust and commitment among the tourism organizations and
is best maintained when connections or linkages between tourism organizations are
made person-to-person rather than organization-to-organization. This point is made by
many industry representatives who claim that their relationships often times stay at
the personal level, which can serve as the base for further business to business
relationship development. As one industry representative said: In our small
community, everybody knows everybody else. So we do businesses with each other
based on who we know. If it works, we may continue to do more, if it doesnt you
simply quit.
In other words, tourism organizations affiliated with each other continue to operate
independently while supporting one another through the exchange of information,
endorsements, and making referrals, usually on an informal and ad-hoc basis.
Coordination allows otherwise autonomous tourism organizations to align their
activities to support events or services by implementing common tasks. The
integration of staffs or activities is minimal and tied to the accomplishment of specific
tasks. Policies and procedures are generally kept relatively informal. The focus of the
coordination is on the ability of stakeholders to pursue their individual organizational
goals better by arranging their activities with the activities of other compatible
organizations and by aligning self-interest with others interests. Some typical
examples of coordination relationships in the destination are usually fairs and events
related where tourism businesses coordinate their activities and contribute to the
common activities in different forms such as manpower, ideas, and even financial
contributions. Such coordination may include two tourism organizations sharing
information about program activities, decide to change their program content and
schedules in order to better serve their common customers. Such programs may also
include tourism businesses in the destination participating in marketing campaigns
organized by the CVB where they contribute in different forms according to the
resources available. For example, in a collaborative destination marketing campaign
such as a familiarization tour, hotels may provide meeting space and accommodation
services; attractions may provide sightseeing opportunities; restaurants may
participate by providing complementary dining experiences; and transportation
companies may offer easy access to various locations in the destination for the tour
group. In this case, all the stakeholders coordinate with each other to achieve the
common goal: sell the destination. Quite a number of them asserted that they have
developed more formal relationships through CVB or chamber of commerce and regard Destination
the experience of coordination as a commitment to being part of the industry in the marketing
local community.
Tourism organizations may need to go beyond coordinating their operations around
a certain event or practical goal; they may want to develop a joint strategy or common
set of strategies for working collectively toward a shared purpose. In this collaborative
relationship, each person or organization wants to help not only themselves but also 133
their partners become better at what they do. In a collaborative agreement, tourism
organizations usually develop a formal plan for working together on a regular basis.
These relationships are typically defined through memoranda of understanding,
contracts, or other formal agreements. Throughout the interviews, collaboration was
described as a formalized arrangement between two or more complementary entities
for the purpose of securing a longer-term business advantage. Collaboration is more
formalized and requires a longer-term commitment. This type of relationship is
typified by the one between the CVB and the local park district in which both parties
align themselves in a professional and business-like manner to the benefits of both
parties through their many years close working relationship. By adopting
collaborative strategies, gains to the immediate members often flow on to other
businesses or sectors outside the formalized arrangement. In such circumstances,
marketing programs seem to be driven by a motivated entity such as CVB or a small
group of businesses who have a vision for, and commitment to a better and competitive
destination. Through the interview, many of them are willing to take this long-term
collaborative perspective to increase the destinations competitiveness as well as the
bottom line of their own businesses.
It is found that strategic tourism networks are more formal structures that integrate
the shared vision of all tourism organizations involved and take a system orientation in
destination marketing. There are broadly two types of networks in the destination, and
they vary depending on the kinds of organizations participating in them. Horizontal
networks involve organizations that provide similar services such as the local hotel
and motel association, and vertical networks involve organizations offering different
services such as the marketing campaigns facilitated by the CVB. Yet regardless of
type, strategic networks are integrated marketing systems that seek to improve service
delivery by deepening or broadening the scope of services available in the destination
to their consumers. In strategic networks, the emphasis is often on the importance of
the network itself in successfully marketing the destination. In other words, when a
marketing program can be successfully implemented only through the joint efforts of
multiple organizations, then the network itself becomes critical and a focus on
individual tourism organizations is relevant only for understanding how and why each
organization contributes to the overall implementation of the service. This was
demonstrated by one industry representative: In order to be successful as an
individual business, we have to be successful as a destination, and everybody has to be
successful . . . we are tied to the whole network and if we do not think collectively and
look at the big picture, we will be in trouble.
Based on the description of the informants, it is noted that affiliation, coordination,
collaboration and strategic networks describe the cooperative processes that take place
in tourism destination marketing. These different forms of cooperative relationships
are built upon each other along a continuum. That is, when the continuum of the
IJCHM cooperative marketing relationship moves from affiliation to strategic networks, it also
20,2 moves from a low degree to a high degree of organizational integration which requires
a more formal and complex relationship with each other.

The driving factors for relationship configuration in a destination

It appeared that for many of the different sectors of the tourism businesses in the local
134 destination, the experience of providing, coordinating, and delivering collaborative
marketing activities are not an easy one. Although many businesses recognize their
interdependence and the need to align their activities by establishing relationships
either directly with other businesses or through the mediation of CVB, they are also
compelled by competitive forces to maintain their own business advantage. It is
interesting to note that different configuration of relationships exists across the various
sectors of the tourism industry, with some sectors adopting certain relationship
configuration more than others. For example, the interviews revealed that hotels and
motels are more likely to take a competitive perspective compared with the camping
ground business where cooperation is more likely to find its way. The interview results
indicate that the various configurations of the relationships, including the different
levels of cooperative relationships, as well as the cooperation vs competition strategies
adopted by tourism organizations in the destination, is affected by the following
factors: strategic thinking (micro vs. macro), maturity of destination marketing
approach, distance of marketing campaign, and leadership of local DMO. This
observation is also visually presented in Figure 1.
Strategic thinking: micro vs macro. Those holding a competitive viewpoint usually
start from a micro organizational perspective, and their major concern is to generate
more businesses for their individual organizations. This perspective is more
pronounced among those businesses within the same sector, highlighted especially
by the lodging industry which usually views other lodging businesses in the local area
as head-to-head competitors. One hotel manager took competition as one part of their
business and made the following comments: I dont know if someone has a solution to
that [competition], and if someone has, I havent heard of it. We are each caught up on
our own business needs and Im not sure how you can get us to take part of our time
and effort and place at least some importance on the area as a whole. Another hotel
manager explained that competition in their business is common and it happens more
often among small and independent hotels.
However, some businesses broadened the concept of competition beyond this
head-to-head rivalry and acknowledged that competition could be an incentive to gain
more business by working with others, for example, they can refer excessive business
to others in the immediate area instead of losing the business completely from the area.
One camping ground manager explains: Unfortunately we are in competition with
them [other camping grounds]. But I also look at the fact that when we have our fairs
going on we cant accommodate all of the campers . . . we want to send them to the
other camping grounds but we still know that there is competition out there, and Ive
felt it at different times. Many times, they compete with and assist each other
simultaneously under certain circumstances. It appears that these arrangements are
loosely formalized and spontaneous, and often break down as one of the parties fails to
keep the arrangement. One important finding through the interviews is that the
cooperation and competition mentality is affected by how tourism businesses in the
destination perceive the collaborative destination marketing strategy. Those taking a Destination
macro perspective tend to work with each other more by focusing on the common marketing
benefits of the destination; whereas those who take a micro business perspective are
less likely to work with other tourism businesses. Their focus is on how to create and
maintain competitive advantage through conscientious efforts of their own individual
business.
Distance of marketing campaign. Tourism businesses under cooperative 135
arrangement usually share information on a regular basis to support each others
activities in order to compete with other destinations. In other words, the perspective of
cooperation was described as stimulating more business to the destination through
working together. They realize that involvement in networking of any kind is a
mechanism with the potential to generate additional businesses to the community
instead of losing businesses to other communities/destinations. They also realize that
they are less in competition with each other in the community; they are more in
competition with other regions and destinations. This view was elaborated by one
ECCVB staff member: As for collaborative marketing, they [tourism businesses] seem
to understand a lot better. They come to understand that Amish Country is in
competition with Branson or Motor Beach [in Missouri]. They seem to understand that
the bus from Missouri can go to anywhere in the country and for that bus load of 40
people lets work together and get them here.
As expected, this view often affects the participation of cooperative programs
organized by the local CVB. For example, they are more interested in participating in
group marketing activities organized by the ECCVB in order to attract businesses to
the local community/destination, such as sales missions in potential markets, joint
advertising programs to maximize their communication impact as a destination, etc.
However, cooperative initiatives within the destination, such as internal information
sharing, are more difficult and challenging. It seems that the level of cooperation
among the local tourism industry demonstrates a negative relationship with distance
of marketing campaigns: they are more willing to conduct collaborative marketing
campaigns outside of the community in order to compete with other destinations to
bring businesses to the local destination. This observation is best demonstrated by the
following comments from one of the industry representatives: We kind of have an
unwritten rule here. We are companions outside till they [customers] get in and then we
fight for them here. I can say outside 50 miles everyones together; but once inside,
everyones competing.
Maturity of destination marketing approach. At the destination level, this dynamism
and configuration of relationships is a reflection of the maturity of the destination
marketing approach. A more mature destination marketing approach is more likely to
have a cooperative mindset as the mainstream, though one can still find the
co-existence of competition and cooperation. This was demonstrated by one industry
representative: the more mature our destination marketing approach is, the more
cooperation we will have. This view is supported by another representative: There is
a learning curve when we get into business. At first we dont want to cooperate with
anyone else because we see that as threatening. But as we progress and become more
mature in marketing, we understand that our competition is not our next door
neighbor; its another destination. Another one added: our marketing approach in
Elkhart County is very mature relative to anyone else in the state of Indiana and most
IJCHM of the other places in the country, because we see that we are competing against the
20,2 Wisconsin Dells, Branson Missouri, etc. Its a very mature destination marketing
approach.
Leadership of local DMO. It is also interesting to note that a lot of tourism
businesses realize that cooperation programs in a community requires leadership. This
can be demonstrated by a comparison of two towns in the destination: Shipshewana
136 and Nappanee. The former enjoys a high level of cooperation among the local tourism
industry whereas cooperative activities are very rare with the latter. Many
interviewees contribute this difference to the presence and the strength of leadership
in the community, particularly from organizations who take leadership roles in
facilitating tourism business activities in their respective communities, such as
chamber of commerce or convention and visitors bureaus. One industry representative
from Shipshewana had the following observation: I think we have come a long way
here in Shipshewana; weve been so much more blessed that weve been able to jump
on board and support each other, a lot more than Nappanee; they are running a lonely
race; they just dont have the support from within their town. Obviously there has to be
some leadership. CVBs are expected to be able to demonstrate their leadership by
being able to visualize their communities as tourism destinations. The human relations
skills are identified vital to this leadership role since CVBs have to rely on other
businesses and organizations to implement their vision of a great destination. In
addition to these two skill areas, communication skills, knowledge of the tourism
system, and political savvy were identified as other vital qualifications for DMO
leadership.

Cooperation vs competition the strategic choices of the destination

Both the Elkhart County CVB and industry representatives provide the rationale for
cooperation rather than competition in their destination. As the ECCVB director put it:
There will be mixed responses to that. They [tourism businesses] do understand that
it is important to have some umbrella messages sent out about the Amish Country and
that is why the Amish Country exists for us. That is the brand that seems to set us
apart. Others attribute the different strategies to the personal level, probably owing to
the nature of small businesses in the destination. One ECCVB representative explained:
It all comes down to the personal level; you really have to understand the psyche of
the individual businesses, and constantly remind them that even though there are other
businesses involved, you are going to benefit. If they are the small business owners,
you always have to educate them to the fact that people are not going to travel 300
miles for your little thing. Another CVB staff member held the similar view: You
know that the sense of competition is out there because they tell you. What we tell them
is that we market the Amish as a destination. The battle they need to fight with us is to
make travelers come down to Amish Country. They buy into different programs and
work with their competitors to get the visitors down here.
Many industry representatives also argue for the rationale of cooperation. One of
them had the following comments: When I was growing up I was taught that two was
greater than one, and I believe that very strongly. We have to look at things that
complement each other to make sure that customers have a good experience in order
for them to come back. Another one supported the view by adding: We constantly
have to go out there and reach more people and that is what the CVB is good at. If we
are going to be foolish enough not to educate ourselves, to discipline ourselves and Destination
work together to provide a good experience for the people coming in, then we deserve marketing
to fail.
Others try to interpret this from a regional perspective: I think we need to be
cognizant of other activities that are going on in other cities. We complement each
other in the entire area. If you look at St Joe County, Elkhart County, LaGrange County,
they are still partners so long as there is so much to the pie. But if everyone just goes 137
towards one piece or worry about what ours are versus someone elses then we are all
in trouble.
This relationship between cooperation and competition is a dynamic one and is
oftentimes affected by the perspectives adopted by the tourism businesses in the
destination involved in the business interaction based on the benefits they seek as well
as the nature of the projects. It seems that the duck and hare analogy can be applied
to interpret the behavior of the businesses involved in relation to two opposing but
inter-connected views/approaches: whether the business should serve the destination
interest duck (a cooperation perspective) or the destination should serve the business
interest hare (a competition perspective), as is shown in Figure 2. The cooperative or
competitive mindset of the individual businesses depends on the perspective of the
viewer. These different perspectives influence the attitude and interest of the
individual tourism businesses in the marketing of the destination. Both perspectives
exist simultaneously at the destination, but it appears that the businesses involved are
unable to perceive both at the same time. Oftentimes, the businesses are only able to
see one perspective at a time based on the types of the businesses they work with, the
nature of the project, or the type of marketing activities conducted. It appears that the
norms and the values of the individual businesses influence the different ways in
which they are committed to the community. In other words, the dominance of
business relationships (i.e. competition or cooperation) among the tourism stakeholders
in the destination is affected by the fact that the various actors have differing norms
and values, which in turn affects their feeling to the community as a destination, their
perceived relationships with other stakeholders, as well as the business models they
adopt when they interact with other stakeholders as a result of their own strategic
thinking.

Figure 2.
Cooperation or
competition: its about
perspective!
IJCHM Discussion and implications
20,2 Adopting a case study approach, this study intends to understand the business
relationship in the context of destination marketing. Compared with previous
frameworks describing business relationships, the proposed framework in this study
includes competitive, cooperative as well as coopetition arrangements, which
represents an encompassing range of possible relationships. This is an improvement
138 over previous studies in which such arrangements are more characterized as
typologies of discrete business relationships of competition and cooperation,
emphasizing only the structural entities in which particular ways of relating are
facilitated (Bengtsson and Kock, 2000). Indeed, todays business networks are complex
gatherings of different kinds of relationships, which means that the traditional
neoclassical way of analyzing competition and cooperation is no longer valid
(Gnyawali and Madhavan, 2001). In the tourism context, the destination products are
produced in a way that different elements are assembled at the time of consumption in
order to provide the total customer experience (Palmer and Bejou, 1995). This value
creation network, which requires simultaneous coordination and cooperation among
various stakeholders, is different from the value chain production process evident in
the manufacturing industry, which follows a more linear, step-by-step production
approach (Porter, 1985). A tourism business can be involved in several different
relationships at the same time in order to defend its position in the business network.
Some relationships consist of pure competition; others of pure cooperation; and
between the two extremes, there are relationships consisting of a mix of both.
Cooperation is important for utilizing the destinations limited resources in the most
efficient way, whereas coopetition can be regarded as an efficient way of handling both
cooperation and competition between businesses.
From a cooperative perspective, it was found that their relationships could be
demonstrated in four types arranged in a continuum based on the level of formality,
integration, and structural complexity:
(1) Affiliation.
(2) Coordination.
(3) Collaboration.
(4) Strategic networks.
In affiliation, two or more tourism organizations loosely connected with each other,
usually informally, because of their similar interest or interests. In coordination,
otherwise autonomous tourism organizations aligned activities, sponsored particular
event, or delivered targeted services in pursuit of compatible goals. In collaboration,
parties worked collectively through common strategies. In strategic networks, all the
tourism organizations involved in the network had a shared vision and took a system
orientation to achieve group objectives through consistent strategy and concerted
efforts. These terms clarify the extent to which tourism organizations work together to
achieve their goals and describe much of the interorganizational activity occurring
among the tourism industry.
The findings on the factors affecting the relationship configuration are also
interesting. In order to nurture a more cooperative environment among the tourism
industry in the local destination, the following factors were found to play important
roles: focus of strategic thinking; locality of marketing campaign; maturity of
destination marketing approach; and leadership of local DMOs. First, a macro business Destination
perspective is required for the tourism industry to focus on the competitive advantage marketing
of the destination in order to create a win-win situation for all the stakeholders
involved. Given the priority of individual businesses on their own benefits, this
educational responsibility have to fall on the shoulder of certain organizations who can
represent all the stakeholders in the destination, such as the local CVB/DMO. This
educational process has to be long term and continuous in order to reinforce the 139
cooperative mindset within the destination so that they are able to see both the forest
and the trees. In addition, given the observation that the level of cooperation from the
industry in collaborative marketing programs is sensitive to distance of the marketing
campaign, CVBs may take advantage of this mentality and facilitate more activities in
the peripheral markets involved in creating and maintaining competitive advantage
against other destinations. These types of activities/programs can eventually
contribute to a more mature approach of destination marketing, which in turn leads
to a more competitive destination. In order for this to happen, the CVB, as expected by
the local tourism industry, has to take the leadership responsibility to lead the
destination to future success. CVB has to be knowledgeable enough about the
destination, has the communication skills and political savvy to coordinate the diverse
interests of the tourism stakeholders in the destination. CVB needs to take this
leadership role by not only providing knowledge to direct the tourism-related activities,
but also to be politically astute to balance the interests of all constituents, including
industry-members, government officials, and local residents so that the benefits of
tourism activities are seen as being equitably distributed to all affected parties.
The findings about the tourism industrys perceptions about cooperation and
competition are also interesting as well as encouraging. The relationship between
cooperation and competition is vital with reference to the marketing of a tourist
destination, as it often takes place on a number of different levels (Grangsjo, 2003).
From the tourists point of view, the tourist destination offers a unified tourist product
in relation to other destinations on the one hand, but on the other hand, within the
destination there is competition between the different elements of the tourist product.
The development of the destination can be affected by whether the different companies
work with, or against, one another. There is a lack of existing theories and research on
the relationship between competitors, while it is claimed that coopetition is, in fact,
the most mutually advantageous relationship for competitors (Bengtsson and Kock,
2000). Coopetition means that competitors can both have a competitive and a
cooperative relationship with one another at the same time (Brandenburger and
Nalebuff, 1996). It seems that this coopetition mentality is occupying the tourism
stakeholders mindsets when they approach the issue of destination marketing.
As reflected by the interview results, this paradoxical coopetition relationship may
emerge when tourism businesses cooperate in some activities in a collaborative
destination-marketing context, and at the same time compete with each other in other
activities (Bengtsson and Kock, 2000). The cooperative behavior and the competitive
approach adopted by some of the tourism organizations depending on the distance of
the marketing campaign is a good illustration of the coopetition relationship. This
behavior of coopetition involves two different logics of interaction. On the one hand,
there is hostility due to conflicting interests of getting a bigger piece of the business
once the visitors are in the destination; on the other hand, it is necessary to pool
IJCHM resources and develop mutual commitment to achieve the common goal of attracting
20,2 the visitors to the destination. It seems that creating value, a bigger pie, is
fundamentally a cooperative activity that a business cannot accomplish alone. On the
other hand, the act of dividing up the pie is fundamentally competitive. A business has
to keep its eyes on both balls and creating and capturing at the same time. The
coopetition perspective recognizes the need for more complex descriptions of markets
140 and business models where cooperation and competition merge together, and actors
roles, processes and objectives become more complex. CVB needs to manage this
process to make sure that the local tourism industry understands that the well being of
the destination is more important than one business profit maximization from a long
term perspective, and a win-win relationship is possible when each contributes to the
total value creation for the destination, giving rise to a partially convergent interest
and goal structure where both competitive and cooperative issues are simultaneously
present and strictly interconnected.

References
Bailey, D. and Koney, K.M. (Eds) (2000), Strategic Alliances among Health and Human Services
Organizations, Sage Publications, London.
Bengtsson, M. and Kock, S. (2000), Coopetition in business networks to cooperate and compete
simultaneously, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 411-26.
Brandenburger, A.M. and Nalebuff, B.J. (1996), Co-opetition, Currency-Doubleday, New York,
NY.
Doz, Y. (1988), Technology partnerships between larger and smaller firms: some critical issues,
International Studies of Management and Organization, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 31-57.
Fyall, A. and Garrod, B. (2004), Tourism Marketing: A Collaborative Approach, Channel View
Publications, Clevedon.
Gnyawali, D.R. and Madhavan, R. (2001), Cooperative networks and competitive dynamics:
a structural embeddedness perspective, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26,
pp. 431-45.
Grangsjo, Y. (2003), Destination networking: co-opetition in peripheral surroundings,
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 33 No. 5,
pp. 427-48.
Henderson, J. (2001), Strategic alliances and destination marketing in the Greater Mekong
subregion, Pacific Tourism Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 149-59.
Huxham, C. (1996), Creating Collaborative Advantage, Sage, London.
Jamal, T.B. and Getz, D. (1995), Collaboration theory and community tourism planning, Annals
of Tourism Research, Vol. 22, pp. 186-204.
Koza, M.P. and Lewin, A.Y. (1998), The co-evolution of strategic alliances, Organizational
Science, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 255-64.
Lynch, R.P. (1990), Building alliances to penetrate European markets, Journal of Business
Strategy, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 4-8.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd ed., Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Moore, J.F. (1993), Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 71, pp. 75-86.
Palmer, A. (2002), Cooperative marketing association: an investigation into the causes of Destination
effectiveness, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 135-56.
Palmer, A. and Bejou, D. (1995), Tourism destination marketing alliances, Annals of Tourism
marketing
Research, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 616-29.
Parkhe, A. (1993), Strategic alliance structuring: a game theoretic examination of interfirm
cooperation, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 794-829.
Porter, M.E. (1985), Competitive Advantage: Creating & Sustaining Superior Performance, 141
The Free Press, New York, NY.
Prideaux, B. and Cooper, C. (2002), Marketing and destination growth: a symbiotic relationship
or simple coincidence?, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 35-51.
Ring, P.S. and van de Ven, A.H. (1994), Developmental processes of cooperative
interorganizational relationships, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 1,
pp. 90-118.
Saxena, G. (2005), Relationships, networks and the learning regions: case evidence from the
Peak District National Park, Tourism Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 277-89.
Selin, S. (1993), Collaborative alliances: new interorganizational forms in tourism, Journal of
Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 2 Nos 2-3, pp. 217-27.
Terpstra, V. and Simonin, B. (1993), Strategic alliances in the triad, Journal of International
Marketing, Vol. 1, pp. 4-25.
Wang, Y.C. and Fesenmaier, D.R. (2007), Collaborative destination marketing: a case of
Northern Indiana, USA, Tourism Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 863-75.
Wang, Y.C. and Xiang, Z. (2007), Towards a theoretical framework of collaborative destination
marketing, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 46, pp. 75-85.
Watkins, M. and Bell, B. (2002), The experience of forming business relationships in tourism,
International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 4, pp. 15-28.
Witt, S.F. and Moutinho, L. (1989), Tourism Marketing and Management Handbook,
Prentice-Hall, New York, NY.
Wood, D.J. and Gray, B. (1991), Towards a comprehensive theory of collaboration, The Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 27, pp. 139-62.
Yin, R.K. (1989), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage Publications, Newbury Park,
CA.

Corresponding author
Youcheng Wang can be contacted at: raywang@mail.ucf.edu

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints