Evaluating the Effectiveness of Online Destination Marketing Campaigns from a Sustainability and Resilience Viewpoint: The Case of “This Is Athens & Partners” in Greece

Abstract

The need for a consistent marketing evaluation framework has been highlighted by destination authorities, who in collaboration with academia and marketing professionals have sought to formulate methodologies for measuring the impact of their campaigns. Although several attempts have been made, no simple solution has emerged for evaluating destination marketing activities. This study draws on This is Athens & Partners to reveal the interaction that should take place when destination authorities employ external experts to implement and evaluate their marketing campaigns. The collaboration required adopting the appropriate destination marketing evaluation methodology, which is presented. The adapted methodology, formulated through consultation, resulted in the selection of the advertising tracking survey as the data collection method and the adaptation of a measurement instrument. The research findings show that destination marketing can positively influence the funnel process potential travelers consider when deciding on a travel destination, only when digital tools are combined with effective strategic marketing planning and, more recently, with references to resilience and sustainability. Insights from this paper regarding the importance of establishing an informative evaluation methodology to mitigate potential deficiencies in planned marketing initiatives may prove of added value to destination authorities and stakeholders.

1. Introduction

The stimulating role of unpaid and paid marketing campaigns in destination decision making has been outlined in the literature since the 1970s when the importance of the Internet and social networks could not have been predicted [1,2,3,4]. Marketing actions can raise destination awareness, build destination image, and lead to destination inclusion in a consumer’s set of possible choices [2,5,6,7,8]. The importance of destination marketing and branding is evident in the Travel and Tourism Development Index (previously known as the Travel and Tourism Competitive Index), which is published every two years by the World Economic Forum (WEF) and includes the pillar Prioritization of Travel and Tourism that can be improved if more effective marketing and branding strategies are adopted by the destination [9].

While destination authorities and Destination Development Management and Marketing Organizations (DDMMOs) are aware of the influence of destination marketing, the limited available financial resources make effective marketing actions imperative. Τhe need mentioned above has become more acute since 2009 when the European economy experienced a severe economic crisis [10]. Destination managers were in a state of emergency and had to create long-term marketing strategies, design engaging campaigns, and make smart targeting decisions. Moreover, the pressure on destination authorities to provide evidence on the effective investment of public and private capital has intensified. Thus, a debate has started on the marketing evaluation frameworks that destination authorities should use to measure the effect of their marketing actions [8,11,12,13,14,15,16].

Having said that, the lack of structure and capacity in terms of marketing by many destinations urged them to employ external experts such as content creators and media planners to design the campaigns and implement the dissemination actions [17,18]. The advent of digital marketing increased the need for expertise. External experts are contractually expected to produce evaluation reports on the outcomes of promotions, but frequently both the quality of these reports and the destination authority’s capacity to understand and analyze them result in inefficiencies [14].

While published papers attempt to explain how online advertising, social media, and user-generated content influence consumer intention to travel or increase the destination positive image [19,20], limited research aims to explain the process that collaborative destination marketing should adopt to understand stakeholder expectations regarding the destination online marketing imp act [14,21,22]. Furthermore, in the past, destination managers attempted to monitor the conversion rate and other indicators linked to the return on investment because they were interested in the later phases of the marketing funnel [14,21]. Till today, a few efforts have been detected perceiving destination marketing as a process aimed at supporting the whole destination system and trying to assess the marketing outcome as the consumer moves through the marketing funnel [14]. Having the above in mind, This is Athens & Partners (a coalition of destination stakeholders aiming to promote Athens as a city-break destination) is used as a case study to provide destination authorities with insights on how to work together with external experts and stakeholders to adopt and implement a suitable evaluation framework for their marketing campaigns. This research will also help destination authorities to avoid potential deficiencies, cope with emerging conflicts, and prevent limitations.

2. Literature Review

The intangible nature of the tourism product, the gap between the time of purchase and the time of consumption, and the fact that there is no possibility to try the product in advance make travel purchase a non-spontaneous action. As a result, while the travel decision-making process may follow the same steps as the goods decision-making process, it takes longer to complete. In terms of destination choice, the literature presents structural models of the consumer funnel that depict how information search and processing lead to the evaluation of alternatives and the final choice. These models suggest a funneling-down procedure through which the potential traveler first forms an awareness set of destinations and then goes through a ranking process into a preferred set, to later arrive on a group of destinations that they intend/are likely to visit and finally come to make the final choice [5,23,24,25,26]. Thus, a potential traveler becomes initially aware of several alternative destinations, called an awareness set, without revealing any intention to visit them [5]. Based on funnel logic, there should be a smaller number of destinations that travelers may consider visiting and for which they collect information and make comparisons to arrive at a preferred set [14]. The number of destinations under consideration is gradually reduced until the final decision is made [26]. The inclusion of a destination in the awareness set is associated with increased possibilities of being selected or at least considered as a preferred choice [23,27].

While many studies attempted to explain the traveler’s decision-making process in the past, the complicated nature of human cognitive processes stresses the need for further elaboration on its influencing factors [20,28,29]. One of those factors that influence whether a destination progresses from one step of the funnel to the next is marketing [11,12,22,23,30]. This can create or reveal the need for travel, raise consumers’ awareness about alternative destinations, create or enhance interest, provide information about the destination attributes, change consumers’ evaluation criteria, and lead to action. Thus, a marketing plan can improve consumer awareness of a place [23,28]. It is evident that paid or unpaid marketing efforts can make a destination, which was previously categorized as being in the consumer’s unawareness set, the final selection [5,22]. Marketing is also a tool to confront constraints that may lead to the destination’s rejection [15]. For example, an effective marketing strategy can reduce the sense of insecurity and cultivate familiarity [29]. The importance of destination marketing becomes even more intense in turbulent eras like that of the COVID-19 pandemic [27].

Given the importance of destination marketing and the need for destination authorities to assess the effectiveness of their actions and the derived return on investment, several attempts have been made in the past to develop suitable evaluation frameworks [21]. In general, destination authorities tend to apply econometric modeling, behavioral experiments, advertising tracking, and conversion research methods to measure the outcome of their campaigns [14,16,27,31,32]. Conversion research aims to evaluate the conversion rate of inquiries to visitors, the extension of stays, the additional party size (additional party size refers to people who travel to the destination due to marketing activities) or visits (additional visits refer to visits that occurred (actual) or will occur (potential) due to marketing activities) and to end up with a return-on-investment index (ROI) [12,13,16]. Conversion research is conducted by sending questionnaires that are designed to measure incremental spending to users who subscribed to the destination’s newsletter or asked for information when the campaign was live [21]. Ease of use, low cost, and ease of interpreting their outcomes made them popular among destinations and academia [16,21]. Since the 1970s, conversion research has advanced as the Gross Conversion Rate (GCR), which had been used until then, was considered inappropriate because the sample included individuals who had booked before the campaign’s exposure and requested more information without being influenced. The GCR was adjusted by excluding those individuals and the Net Conversion Rate emerged [33]. Then, the destination advertising response (DAR) model was developed to measure the destination advertising effectiveness by assessing the contribution of each trip-related decision (e.g., destination choice, visit to attractions, restaurant selection, other destination activities) to overall trip expenditure [34].

On the other hand, tracking studies are used to reveal the change in brand awareness and consumer perception due to marketing actions. They measure brand performance change in terms of raised interest, differentiation, likability, etc., after the completion of the campaign [27]. Because tracking studies are expensive, they are recommended for domestic markets. While tracking studies are adopted by destinations, there are a limited number of recent studies that apply tracking in destination marketing [11,21,33]. This is largely related to the fact that marketing experts in destination marketing lack the time and motivation to disseminate their knowledge [14].

As destination collaborative marketing and branding initiatives gained ground among DMMOs due to limited funding opportunities and a turbulent external environment, the need for a tailored marketing evaluation framework emerged [34,35]. Environmental disasters and risks such as floods, wildfires, tsunamis, and earthquakes put DMMOs in a rush to protect their destination image and to secure their place in the marketing funnel by adopting a range of destination marketing techniques [36,37]. Examples are coming from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, China, etc., [38,39,40,41]. COVID-19 has exacerbated the need for collaboration, forcing cities to build coalitions with tourist enterprises, stakeholders, and specialists to ensure that the place’s brand promise is achieved [35]. In addition, aside from the environmental factors, an economic crisis can also act as a catalyst for the development of collaborative marketing initiatives [21]. The need to defend funding and convince stakeholders to participate and invest has become more intense today [21]. Although in Vlassi and Papatheodorou [21] destination stakeholders share the same goals when working together on building the marketing strategy of the destination and the structure of the partnership, this alignment might not be met in other collaborative initiatives.

The few conversion and tracking studies that provide insights have been applied in cases where the DMMO follows a stand-alone process or works under a bilateral agreement on a specific campaign. Conversion studies have primarily been applied to travelers who request information in response to advertising programs [16,34]. The same trend can be observed in the published tracking studies [13,14] while there are a few cases where tracking studies have been adopted to evaluate a collaborative online marketing initiative [42]. There are also studies that aim to examine the outcome of collaborative campaigns in the different stages of the marketing funnel, which use qualitative methods [32]. Consequently, a process is needed to help destinations design and implement an appropriate evaluation framework for collaborative marketing campaigns [21].

Advertising Tracking Research

Advertising tracking models aim to explain the travel decision process and are based on the marketing funnel process that potential travelers go through when it comes to deciding on their vacation destination [11,43,44]. Thus, while consumers move from awareness to conversion, they experience targeted marketing actions. Following the Siegel and Ziff-Levine [27] model, consumers are first exposed to advertising and then through cognitive processing react to the information given through advertising. While advertising can raise a traveler’s awareness, information processing can build a positive image of the destination. These steps result in an outcome that can be an expressed opinion or a communication outcome such as recall or brand recognition [44]. Later, potential travelers act either by inquiring for more information or by booking a vacation.

Consequently, according to advertising tracking studies, conversion may emerge from awareness raising and image [34]. Awareness prompted by advertising can affect a consumer’s decision. Advertising can raise potential travelers’ awareness and can make the destination a top-of-mind alternative among competitors [11,21,45]. At the same time, it is difficult to prove that awareness derives from advertising and is not the outcome of a long-term process [46].

Thus, successful advertising can lead to the formation of a positive image for the destination [2,5,45]. Destination image is a set of brand perceptions reflected in the associations held in consumers’ memory [45]. Brand associations build a structured network of interlinked nodes that formulate brand meaning in the consumers’ minds [45]. Advertising, previous experience of consumption, personal observation, word of mouth, and any other action that produces information contribute to the formation of the destination brand image. When advertising is used effectively, it can enhance or build a positive image and can stimulate a traveler’s motivation to visit the place [44]. Lately, transformative experiences and links to social sustainability are considered key elements in successfully promoting an urban destination [46,47,48,49].

While information inquiry is perceived as a prerequisite to purchase in conversion studies, in advertising tracking studies, it is considered optional or as the final outcome [32,43]. This is a limitation of conversion studies as there are users who might be influenced by the content of the ads, but they are not willing to contact the destination authority for additional information. Several attempts to overcome this limitation have been made. In the case of Visit Wales, a slide-in survey (slide-in survey appears on the website of the destination while users browse information) was utilized to engage audiences that are exposed to destination ads but do not contact the destination directly for information [14]. ECOTEC [13] also suggested a panel survey be employed.

Other advertising tracking studies employed the taxonomic framework (Section 4.3) to measure the influence of destination advertising on all the possible groups [11,43]. These studies require that an experiment be conducted where two groups participate and then be compared to each other. Thus, a treatment group (a group of people who have been exposed to the campaign) and a control group (a group of people who have not been exposed to the campaign) are needed [43]. While in conventional marketing it is difficult to ensure the absence of treatment exposure, in digital marketing, exposure to online advertising can easily be captured via cookies (cookies are installed on browsers to save browsing information in order to personalize the online experience). Although the Internet can be used as a research tool in destination marketing, limited research has been published to date [27,49,50,51].

The literature review resulted in the following hypotheses:

H1: 

Destination prompted and unprompted awareness are positively related to the likelihood of visiting the destination.

H2: 

Destination inclusion in the consideration set is positively related to the likelihood of visiting the destination.

H3: 

Campaign’s actual awareness is positively related to the likelihood of visiting the destination.

H4: 

Campaign’s claimed awareness is positively related to the likelihood of visiting the destination.

H5: 

Destination marketing campaigns raise destination awareness.

H6: 

Destination marketing campaigns raise the probability of a destination to be included in the consideration set of the potential visitor.

3. Study Approach

In tourism, knowledge often remains within individual organizations and managers and fails to spread and stimulate progress [14]. This study captures the collaborative process adopted by a destination authority, external experts in the field of marketing and research, academics, and other destination stakeholders to develop an evaluation framework for the co-creation campaign that was designed to address the negative effects of an economic crisis. It highlights the steps required to adopt and apply a suitable evaluation framework for destination marketing given the constraints (Figure 1). Firstly, interviews and group meetings were held to collect the diverse opinions of This is Athens and Partners stakeholders (Aegean Airlines, Athens Development & Destination Management Agency—ADDMA, and Athens International Airport—AIA) on the expected key performance indicators. In detail, the three interviews took place from April to October 2018 (

Table 1. Details about the conducted interviews and group meetings.

Date	Interviewees	Scope
07/2018	Marketing Director of This is Athens and Partners Marketing Communication Manager of ADDMA	To detect the expected KPIs
07/2018	Communication Manager of AIA	To detect the expected KPIs
07/2018	Head of Destination Marketing at Aegean Airlines	To detect the expected KPIs
08/2018	Marketing Director of This is Athens and Partners Marketing Communication Manager of ADDMA	To check the first draft of the questionnaire and provide feedback
09/2018	Representative of the University of the Aegean Senior Director South Europe and Tourism, Sojern Product Manager of Sojern Representative of onDevice Marketing Director of This is Athens and Partners Marketing Communication Manager of ADDMA	To check the draft of the questionnaire and provide feedback
10/2018	Senior Director South Europe and Tourism, Sojern Marketing Director of This is Athens and Partners Marketing Communication Manager of ADDMA Digital Marketing Manager @ThisisAthens in ADDMA	To finalize the questionnaire

).

After deciding on the research design, a first draft of the questionnaire was prepared, delivered to the participants, and then revised in response to their feedback. This study reveals the process by which the destination authority moved from receiving reports presenting output indicators (output indicators are related to specific outputs of marketing activities such as campaign response, campaign reach, etc.) from external marketing experts to participating in the adaptations of an evaluation framework that measures outcome indicators (outcome indicators are related to changes in consumer attitudes due to marketing activities such as awareness, intention to visit, etc.). This study goes beyond the micro-level of the destination authority as the knowledge gained has been disseminated among the network of the participating stakeholders. This study also presents the pilot testing of the developed framework, and it briefly analyzes the collected data as an effort to prepare and educate destination authorities for the evaluation process stages. Both quantitative analyses following the methodology of ECOTEC [13] and a taxonomy framework [11] developed by McWilliams and Crompton [43] and later used by Kim et al. [11] have been used. The implications may prove interesting for destination authorities trying to cope with a lack of expertise and limited resources.

3.1. Case Study: This Is Athens & Partners

3.1.1. Setting the Scene

This is Athens & Partners (TAP) is a long-term marketing agreement formed in 2016 between Athens International Airport, Aegean Airlines, and Athens Development and Destination Management Agency aiming to enhance Athens’ brand awareness and to promote Athens as a city-break destination. Bloomberg Associates offered support and guidance to TAP in building an appropriate marketing strategy and an evaluation framework to improve the well-being of the residents of Athens and to overcome the economic crisis through tourism development [52]. This initiative was a part of the Resilience Strategy (the strategy can be found here https://resilientathens.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/athens_resilience_strategy_-_reduced_pdf-compressed.pdf accessed on 24 August 2024) that was also carried out, discussed with stakeholders, and alongside placemaking interventions in the city center, led to a new narrative for the city as a destination [53,54].

As the need for an evaluation framework was intense, a team consisting of ADDMA, Sojern (Sojern is a media planning expert), OnDevise (OnDevice was the research consultant responsible for running the survey), and the representatives of the University of the Aegean, Greece, was formed and worked closely to adapt existing knowledge to current conditions, needs, and constraints. Bloomberg Associates offered their consultation throughout the process. This started with the recommendations of Bloomberg Associates on practices and the tools that other DDMMOs had used in the past. Thus, it was suggested to measure conversion using a certain questionnaire structure, but for technical reasons, this proved not feasible. TAP was still in its infancy and lacked structure and capacity, which posed a barrier to the use of a conversion survey. Although TAP had its own website entitled “This is Athens”, no attempt had been made to collect users’ emails through subscription to a newsletter and consequently the application of conversion research was not possible. Moreover, the microsite that accompanied the specific campaign did not receive many requests for additional information or sales during and after the first wave of the campaign late in June. Under these circumstances, the idea of a conversion survey was rejected. Sojern agreed to run a panel survey on behalf of TAP in cooperation with OnDevice. Taking parties’ opinions into consideration, a brand tracking panel survey enriched with questions that attempted to measure conversion and additionality was employed.

Then, an experiment was co-designed by the participants and an online panel of Internet users who were interested in traveling was employed. A co-created campaign was launched in a segment of users, and two distinct samples—those who watched the advertisement and those who did not—were invited to answer the questionnaire. This approach enables the detection of the differences in consumer behavior caused due to advertising promotion [11].

3.1.2. Detecting the Suitable Metrics

The first step in this process was to detect the key performance indicators (KPIs) that the three partners would perceive as important when assessing the outcomes of the co-created campaign. We held meetings with each partner separately and then discussed the issue in a group meeting (Table 1). Destination awareness, perception, emotional proximity, campaign awareness, and return on investment (ROI) were some of the KPIs that partners mentioned as important metrics (see

Table 2. Important KPIs per partner.

Partners	KPIs That Are Perceived as Important	Quotes from the Field Notes Taken during Meetings
AIA	Destination awareness Campaign awareness Campaign engagement Intention to visit Conversion	“Our main aim is to enhance destination awareness”, “Indicators such as destination awareness, intention to visit, conversion rate and campaign awareness and engagement”
Aegean	Conversion Average cost per visitor ROI	“Our goal is to increase the tourism demand of Athens”, “We would like to check the average cost per visitor and the ROI”
ADDMA	Perception, Emotional proximity Conversion Additional spending	“We would like to estimate the impact of the campaign on tourism demand and additional spending. We would like also to know if the perception of the audience and the feelings about the city changed due to the campaign. KR (KR was the representative of ADDMA. Acronyms are used to keep his/her identity silent) added that the impact on destination’s awareness was also important”. “We aim to: increase awareness, increase demand, increase conversion, create positive feelings about Athens”.

).

Based on the initial framework of Bloomberg Associates, a questionnaire was designed that included questions aimed at monitoring the change in awareness and perception of potential visitors, exploring their intention to visit Athens, and the actual conversion caused by the campaign. Then, internal meetings followed between ADDMA and the representatives of the University of the Aegean to receive feedback on the draft of the questionnaire. A revised version was prepared and sent back to ADDMA. Sojern in collaboration with OnDevice received the questionnaire and used it as a guide to choose the most appropriate and feasible solution for the specific case. Meetings with Sojern, OnDevice, and ADDMA were held in order to finalize the questionnaire that was then sent to Bloomberg Associates for review. The final version of the questionnaire was ready for use after a three-month process that started on 30 July 2018 and lasted until 10 October 2018.

3.1.3. The Marketing Campaign

The first online campaign intended for testing was ‘Athens (City Breaks)’ and was scheduled to run from 15 October 2018 to 26 November 2018, in France. The campaign promoted a three-day experience in Athens and included a walk around the ancient center of Athens from ancient Agora to the Athens Observatory, a culinary adventure, and a philosophical guided tour of Aristotle’s Lyceum combined with wine tasting. The campaign was a collaboration between TAP and Mastercard and was not included in the actions of TAP’s strategic marketing plan. A video (ads in videos on YouTube, websites, and apps) and a display (ads on articles, websites, social media, and browsers) campaign available on mobile and desktop were developed and received 1.5 and 7.2 million views, respectively.

3.1.4. The Measuring Instrument

A framework for advertising effectiveness was developed by integrating the results of the consultation process with the existing literature on destination advertising tracking studies and included prompted and unprompted destination awareness, destination consideration, and advertising awareness (claimed and actual) [11,43] (Figure 2). Information inquiry was not included in the framework as the marketing campaign did not encourage people to ask for additional information.

The first part of the questionnaire examines the demographic characteristics of the respondents such as gender, age, and income level. Both groups, i.e., those who had been exposed to the campaign and those who had not, were asked to state whether they intend to take a city-break holiday during the next 12 months. Only those who answered “yes” could continue to the next questions. Two questions were used to examine both prompted and unprompted awareness. Participants were asked to list five city-break destinations that they were aware of in the first question. In the second, they were given a list of cities and asked to choose the ones that they considered could serve as city-break destinations. All participants were asked to state the cities they would consider visiting in the next 12 months by choosing them from a given list. Thus, whereas the second and third questions assessed consumer awareness, the fourth was designed to show participants’ consideration set based on the consumer funnel. The next step involved assessing conversion by asking participants if they intended to book or had already booked a city break in Athens. The four given answers were as follows:

• Yes—I have already booked and traveled to Athens;
• Yes—I have already booked and I will be traveling in the next 12 months;
• No—but we plan to visit Athens in the next 12 months;
• No—and we do not have any plans to visit Athens in the next 12 months.

The items used to measure prompted and spontaneous awareness, proximity, and conviction to visit Athens followed the framework of Visit Wales [14].

While cookies provide information on actual campaign awareness, the questionnaire included a question to measure claimed awareness. Participants were asked to report if they had come across any digital advertising for Athens during the week while being online. (1 = Yes, 0 = No).

3.1.5. Data Collection

The panel of OnDevice was employed for the purposes of tracking research. It consisted of 3587 active panelists who accepted installing the appropriate cookies on their browsers in order for their consumer behavior to be tracked. A call to complete the online survey was then displayed to the panelists who saw the campaign by using the process of retargeting (AMA (2016) defines retargeting as the process of advertising to Internet users who have already been exposed to the campaign and left before buying). Users who had not been exposed to the campaign were also asked to complete the questionnaire. A total of 300 completed online questionnaires were received; 150 of them came from users who had encountered the campaign, and the remaining 150 from users who had not. The cookies in use enabled the authors to differentiate the two groups and to know respondents’ actual awareness concerning the campaign without relying on their claims. This practice provides value to the approved marketing evaluation process and differentiates it from previous approaches that were used. Starting on 19 October 2018, the questionnaire was accessible until 6 December 2018.

4. Data Analysis

4.1. Descriptive Statistics

More males than females participated in the research (

Table 3. Presentation of the respondents’ demographic characteristics.

Demographic Characteristics	Frequency	Percentage (%)
Respondents’ gender
Female	116	38.7
Male	184	61.3
Total	300	100
Respondents’ age
18 < years ≤ 20 Generation Z/Zoomers	117	39
21 ≤ years ≤ 44 Millennials	162	54
45 ≤ years ≤ 75 Baby boomers and Generation X	21	7
Total	300	100
Respondents’ income
No answer	69	23
≤10,000	109	36.3
10,001 ≤ euros ≤ 17,000	23	7.7
17,001 ≤ euros ≤ 22,000	20	6.7
22,001 ≤ euros ≤ 27,000	14	4.7
≥27,001	65	21.7
Total	300	100

). In detail, 184 (61.3%) men and 116 (38.7%) women filled out the questionnaire. In terms of age, almost 39% of the participants were between 18 and 20 years old and belonged to Generation Z. A total of 54% of participants were between the ages of 21 and 44 and belonged to Millennials. Additionally, only 7% of the participants were over 45. It is important to note that only people over 18 were targeted to participate in the survey.

Regarding income level, 36% answered that their annual household income was equal to or less than 10,000 euros and almost 22% answered that they earned more than 27,000 euros per year. A total of 69 respondents did not answer and the remaining 19% had an annual household income between 10,000 and 27,000 euros.

4.2. Logistic Regression Attempting to Describe the Probability of Being Intendent to Visit Athens in the Next 12 Months When Exposed to the Specific Campaign

Following the process proposed by ECOTEC [13], a logistic regression was employed (Model A of

Table 4. The relationship among ad effect, general marketing, and the stage of the funnel.

	Model A		Model B		Model C		Model D
	B (Coefficient)	p-Value	B (Coefficient)	p-Value	B (Coefficient)	p-Value	B (Coefficient)	p-Value
Constants	−0.834	0.078	0.832	0.221	2.844	0.042	2.239	0.113
Demographic
Gender (male respondent first)	0.387	0.138	0.361	0.176	0.390	0.150	0.392	0.148
Age	−0.028	0.044	−0.027	0.055	−0.028	0.056	−0.028	0.059
Income
≤10,000		0.026		0.020		0.029		0.030
10,001 ≤ euros ≤ 27,000	0.858	0.012	0.898	0.011	0.865	0.015	0.867	0.015
27,001 ≤ euros ≤ 45,000	0.977	0.060	0.854	0.116	0.865	0.113	0.867	0.113
45,001 ≤ euros ≤ 90,000	0.703	0.192	0.691	0.216	0.609	0.284	0.607	0.286
≥90,001	0.930	0.134	1.085	0.084	1.109	0.079	1.101	0.081
No answer	1.420	0.000	1.495	0.000	1.461	0.001	1.458	0.001
Exposure to Marketing
Exposure to the campaign (Yes first)	0.485	0.049	0.552	0.030	0.604	0.020
Ad awareness (Yes first)			−1.872	0.000	−1.839	0.001	−1.815	0.001
Exposure to the display ad							0.542	0.087
Exposure to the video ad							0.666	0.038
Stage of the Funnel
Unbiased awareness of Athens					0.136	0.656	−1.865	0.127
Biased awareness of Athens					−1826	0.133	0.138	0.651
Inclusion of Athens in the consideration set					−0.420	0.230	−0.408	0.245
Model χ2 (df, sig.)	24.555 (8, 0.002)		39.555 (9, 0.000)		44.515 (12, 0.000)		44.626 (13, 0.000)
Hosmer and Lemeshow test (df, sig)	3.545 (8, 0.896)		7.831 (8, 0.450)		8.536 (8, 0.383)		8.183 (8, 0.416)
Negalkerke R2	0.105		0.166		0.185		0.186
Overall correct%	61.3%		64%		65.3%		64.3%

). The variables in the equation table show that there is a highly significant effect of income on respondents’ intention to visit Athens (Wald = 12.772, p = 0.026 < 0.05). The b coefficient for people who earn income more than 10,000 and less than 27,000 euros is significant and positive. Those who belong to this group are 42% (odds ratio) (1/Exp(b) = 1/Exp(0.858) = 1/2.358 ≈ 0.42) more likely to visit Athens than those who earn less than 10,000 euros. People who refused to answer are 24% (odds ratio) (1/Exp(b) = 1/Exp(1.420) = 1/4.137 ≈ 0.24) more likely to visit Athens than those who belong in the first group.

Exposure to the campaign seems to play a significant role in respondents’ intention to visit Athens (Wald = 3.867 p = 0.049 < 0.05). The b coefficient related to exposure is significant and positive. Exp(b) indicates that a person who has seen the campaign is 61.5% (1/1.624) more likely to visit Athens. Age is also significant in respondents’ intention to visit Athens (Wald = 4.067 p = 0.044 < 0.05). The b coefficient for age is significant and negative. Exp(b) (Exp(b) = Exp(−0.28) ≈ 0.972) indicates that for each year that age increases, the odds ratio of a positive outcome decreases by 5.4% (1–0.972). Finally, gender is not significant as the p value of the Wald test is higher than 0.05 and we accept the null hypothesis.

4.3. A Taxonomy of Reactions to the Destination Advertising

Responses to the advertising campaign were then captured and described following the adapted taxonomy framework of Kim et al. [11]. The taxonomy framework was developed by McWilliams and Crompton [43] and was used by Kim et al. [11] to understand the variation in the probabilities of visiting Illinois in response to the different advertising campaigns.

As we can see in Figure 3, from the 150 respondents that were exposed to the campaign, 56 (37.3%) showed an intention to visit Athens while 94 (62.7%) showed no intention to visit the city.

Respondents who answered that they have seen a campaign about Athens are those with the highest probability of visiting the city regardless of whether they have been exposed to the particular campaign or not (Figure 4). The probability of visiting Athens for those who have seen the specific campaign and answered positively to the claimed ad awareness question is 66.6% while the probability of visiting Athens for those who have not seen the specific campaign and answered positively to the claimed ad awareness question is 100%. The lowest probability was detected for those who were exposed to the specific campaign, but they responded positively to the ad awareness question (33.3%). Furthermore, the analysis detects differences in the likelihood of visitation per response between those who were exposed to the specific campaign and those who were not. The P(Visit|Actual Awareness) is 0.373 while the P(Visit|UnAware_actual) is 0.487. This can be explained by the fact that respondents can be exposed to other marketing activities. The likelihood of visitation per response between those who claimed that they have seen an advertisement about Athens is P(Visit|Claimed Awareness) = 0.80 and is higher than the P(Visit|Actual Awareness) and the likelihood per response of those who did not remember being exposed to any advertising about Athens P(Visit|UnAware_Claimed) = 0.396. It is important to note that the conversion rate for those who were not exposed to the specific campaign and who do not remember any advertisement about Athens at all is higher than zero P(Visit|UnAware_actual and Unaware Claimed) = 0.45. Consequently, we can say that according to the survey, marketing activities increase potential travelers’ intention to visit Athens but there are also other factors that may influence potential travelers’ behavior.

4.4. The Relationship among the Specific Campaign, the General Advertising Effect, and the Intention to Visit to Visit Athens

Then, following the methodology of Kim et al. (2005) [11], a series of regression analyses were conducted to examine the extent to which destination and campaign awareness influenced travelers’ decision-making process (Hypotheses 1–3) (Table 4). Due to the dichotomous variables, logistic regression has been employed. Logistic regression enabled us to examine the relation among destination awareness, advertising awareness, campaign type, and the decision to visit Athens.

In the first model, three of the four variables are statistically significant (p-values < 0.05), but they explain the little variation in respondents’ intention to visit Athens (10.5%). The ad awareness variable was then added as it derived from the taxonomy of the previous chapter that people who were not exposed to the specific campaign responded positively to the ad awareness question. Model B indicates that ad awareness is significant and people who responded “yes” are 84.6% (1–0.154) (Exp(−1.872) ≈ 0.154) less likely to visit Athens. This model explains 16.6% of the variation in the respondents’ intention to visit Athens and 64% of all the cases. Then, more behavioral variables were added according to Morgan et al. [14] and Model C explains 18.5% of the variation in the respondents’ intention to visit Athens and 65.3% of all the cases although the three variables are not statistically significant (p value > 0.05). The findings of this research appear to contradict the existing literature, which suggests a buyer follows a funneling-down process from awareness to conversion.

In Model D, instead of including respondents’ exposure to the campaign, we added two variables representing the exposure to the display ad and the exposure to the video ad. As the model indicates, exposure to video advertising is significant (p value < 0.05) and respondents who were exposed to video advertising are 51% (1/Exp(b) = 1/Exp(0.666) = 1/1.946 ≈ 0.51) more likely to visit Athens. Respondents’ exposure to the display ad is not significant (p value > 0.05).

Moreover, the outcomes of the panel survey do not confirm the fourth hypothesis (see Section 2) as respondents’ exposure to the campaign does not appear to be related to the city’s awareness (the p-value of the chi-square test was 0.088 > 0.05). Finally, since respondents’ exposure to the campaign does not appear to be correlated with Athens’ inclusion in the consideration set, the fifth hypothesis cannot be confirmed (the p-value of the chi-square test was 0.289 > 0.05).

5. Discussion and Further Research

While destination marketing indicates a downward funneling process that the consumer goes through to reach the final choice, the research results did not confirm the literature [5,22,23,24,25]. The first two research hypotheses, regarding the positive association between destination awareness and intention to visit and between inclusion of the destination in the consideration set and intention to visit, could not be supported. It is the same for hypotheses five and six, regarding the positive relationship between destination marketing and destination awareness/consideration. In the case under study, the campaign failed to raise awareness of the destination or persuade those who were exposed to include it in their consideration set.

Concerning the third and fourth hypotheses, the results were contradictory. Following the actual exposure to the campaign, as reported by the cookies, it appears that the third hypothesis can be confirmed. On the contrary, claimed awareness (hypotheses 4), as stated by participants, does not appear to have a positive impact on destination choice. On top of that, participants who stated that they had been exposed to the campaign were less likely to visit Athens. Thus, according to the taxonomic framework, 62.7% of the participants who had been exposed to the campaign stated that they did not intend to visit Athens. The adjusted conversion of the actual awareness (p(visit| Aware actual)—p(visit| unaware actual)) is −0.110 (0.377–0.487), meaning that people who were unaware of the campaign showed a higher intention to visit Athens.

Then, 48.7% of the participants who had not been exposed to the campaign intended to visit Athens. The adjusted conversion of the claimed awareness (p(visit| Aware claimed)—p(visit| unaware claimed)) is 0.404 (0.80–0.396) [11]. This indicates that a greater number of people who claimed to be aware of the campaign showed an intention to visit. One explanation could be that people may have been exposed to the online campaign from a different IP address than the one they joined the panel with. Further research is needed to better understand the use of the Internet and its features in tracking studies. Being able to know whether participants are exposed to a campaign without relying on their claimed response offers a new possibility for researchers if they can use it properly for their research.

Additionally, video advertising was detected to be more effective and to have an impact on potential visitors’ intention to visit Athens. Moreover, younger people with an annual income greater than 10,000 and lower than 27,000 seemed to be more likely to visit Athens. While there are limited financial resources for destination marketing, destination authorities need information about the target market and the effectiveness of marketing tools. Choosing the appropriate campaign type and targeting the market that shows an interest in visiting Athens may lead to a successful marketing outcome. Thus, using video advertising and targeting younger groups that have an annual income greater than 10,000 and lower than 27,000 would be suggested for the campaign under study. Age and income were not considered as selection criteria during the targeting process. Online users searching for information on city breaks were targeted regardless of age and socioeconomic background. Consequently, online behavior needs to be combined with other factors to detect the right market. In light of the aforementioned findings, it is clear that in order to gain influence in the customer funnel and boost conversion, marketing initiatives and tools need to be taken into account as components of a well-organized strategic marketing plan especially when a destination has to cope with an insecure external environment.

6. Conclusions

Thus, the digital era brought several changes in the field of destination marketing that were accompanied by impacts on consumer behavior. Consumers can now search, hold, and compare places online, as well as produce content about their journeys, thanks to information liberalization. At the same time, destinations employ digital marketing to replace some conventional forms of advertising [15]; they take advantage of digital tools’ functions to gain insights about travelers and potential travelers and to receive feedback for their marketing actions [14]. Having said that, it is crucial for destinations to utilize the latest technological advancements without underestimating the value of strategic planning. Digital advertising should be considered as a component of a larger strategy and action plan used to accomplish well-defined objectives. Additionally, while Internet usage and search engine features provide insights into consumer online behavior, these are not enough to drive conversion or even awareness among potential travelers. Conventional targeting strategies combined with recent technical developments can assist destinations in making efficient use of their financial resources.

In the same vein, although collaborative marketing is expected to enhance the effect of destination advertising, this will not happen if the latter is not based on a long-term strategy [21,27]. Adopting a collaborative process and using existing technology efficiently is important not only for the stakeholders that invest their funds in destination marketing but for the sustainable development and resilience of the destination and its community as they are strongly linked with economic and social recovery, especially in those places where tourism contribution is important [32,36]. Working closely with as many stakeholders as possible will help to adjust the marketing practices and frameworks, including evaluation surveys, to the needs of the destination with respect to the situation and the existing conditions. For example, in the case of a place that faces an environmental disaster, the collaborative process will reveal the extent of the post-disaster trauma that locals may cope with and the needed time for recovery [40]. Thus, the marketing evaluation process and the included KPIs cannot be perceived as fixed. This research elaborates on the existing evaluation to arrive at the most suitable one for the case of Athens. The process followed can pave the way for other destinations to work creatively by avoiding possible easy, quick but not so effective solutions.

7. Practical Implications to Be Considered by Destination Managers

Destination authorities should be willing to become involved in the design of the deliverables when using external experts rather than keeping a distance. Through participation, destination authorities will express their aims and expected outcomes and help experts employ a suitable evaluation framework for the marketing campaigns. In addition, the destination authorities will gain knowledge and avoid receiving meaningless reports. In this vein, the outcomes of this research provided insights to destination authorities and stakeholders on how to plan their marketing campaigns and take advantage of the existing technology to prevent potential shortfalls. It also attempts to educate the aforementioned groups on the importance of adopting a suitable evaluation framework for all advertising actions.

Avoiding descriptive metrics and employing more analytical key performance indicators is suggested. Relying on reports that would include output metrics can lead to incorrect conclusions. Although advertising is associated with positive results in terms of awareness and conversion, evidence is needed [11,12,22,23]. For instance, a campaign might receive many impressions, but it might not lead to an increased conversion rate. Setting an evaluation framework that includes outcome indicators is a prerequisite for an efficient marketing strategy.

8. Limitations

Concerning research limitations, when the process of setting the evaluation framework commenced, we had to overcome multiple difficulties. Firstly, since TAP was in its infancy, there was no provision for collecting the contact information of users who might be interested in keeping in touch with the destination. In similar situations, potential visitors tend to sign up to receive the destination’s newsletter or provide their contact details to receive additional informational material about the destination. As a newsletter had not yet been used and ADDMA could not provide additional informational material, there was no way to collect users’ contact details. While these challenges were addressed in the study by selecting alternative approaches, they still need to be taken into account when destination authorities organize their upcoming promotional campaigns. Moreover, as COVID-19 grounded the tourism sector and brought the destination marketing efforts in Athens to a halt, this research could not have been conducted more recently in a meaningful manner. Thus, despite the fact that the research results date back to 2018, they continue to offer value to the literature by providing destination marketers and academia with insights into how to make the best use of limited funds available for marketing resources.