Problems identified in the Agora 2.0 questionnaires

As mentioned the number of questionnaires collected is a cardinal point in this type of analysis. In order to make definitive conclusions the number of questionnaires should be +1200 and precautions should be taken when handling out the questionnaires, for example that the questionnaires are collected over a hole season so as to get a picture of a hole year and not just one day or month. For example, when there are no more then 100 – 300 filled out questionnaires, an extraordinary day with a bus full of Spanish visitors that all fill out a questionnaire will give a misleading idea about the percentage of Spanish visitors and the percentage of the distribution between foreign and local visitors. Recommendations based on this kind of misleading information would ultimately result in a waste of resources and could be potential harmful for the attraction. If the questionnaire is used by attractions after the end of the Agora project, which we recommend, these considerations should be kept in mind. Continuing to use the questionnaire has the advantage of tracking changes over many years. This gives each attraction valuable insights about the effects of product developments as well as marketing efforts in relation to demand.

Therefore, the overall recommendations are that:

- The number of questionnaires should be +1200, although it was agreed in the AGORA 2.0 project that a minimum of +500 would be satisfactory

- Questionnaires should be collected over a whole season or on specific dates spread out over the duration of one year

- To remember that misleading information ultimately will result in a waste of resources - To continue using the same questionnaire, as it has the advantage of tracking developments

over many years

As is the case most projects the Agora 2.0 project has experienced some problems with the collection of data from the attractions. Problems are easier to pinpoint in retro perspective than they are to anticipate.

There were several problems discovered with the questionnaires. There are many examples of visitors putting in two answers to questions where only one is allowed. This is a general problem and the result is often that no answer is registered. It is also obvious that many visitors have misread the question about how many they are traveling together. A lot of visitors write that they are traveling with someone, but when writing how many they are traveling with, including themselves, they only write one. This situation can be undone by simply adding one person, but in all the cases where people are traveling in a group larger than two, the right answer is not obvious. There have

186

also been cases where several people have filled out the same questionnaire resulting in no answer of gender and age.

There have also been several problems with the distribution of the questionnaires at the individual attractions. First of all the majority of the attractions in the AGORA 2.0 project has either not handed out any questionnaires at all or has only collected data in one of the two years 2011 and 2012. Of those attractions that have been handing out questionnaires, none has collected enough to generate any conclusive results and not over a sufficient timeframe.

Furthermore, there is reason to believe that some attractions might have read the questionnaire out laud to the visitor instead of the visitors reading it themselves and that attraction has lacked questionnaires in English. These are serious methodological problems because the visitor will be more inclined to answer what he/she can remember instead of being able to look at all the answer at the same time. If there are no questionnaires in English, then there is no way for foreign guests to participate and then the data won’t reflect the opinions of this group of visitors at the attraction. Last but not least there has not been the sufficient amount of participation in the joint partner meetings during the project. These meetings have been the primary forum to explain the use of the questionnaires. Unfortunately, the result is that no attraction in the project has collected sufficient data to make really significant conclusions. The precondition required for making product development suggestions based on the questionnaire data was that each attraction in the project groups collected data, because the product development suggestions had to be transnational. Below there is an overview of the data collected during the project. The data is divided into project groups:

187 Overview 3: Received questionnaires

Received data materials, Agora 2.0 questionnaires:

Country: Attraction: Collection year 2011: Collection year 2012:

Castles:

Lithuania Bistrampolio Manor: 0 432

Finland Häme Castle: 499 82

Estonia Narva Castle: 394 159

Finland Olavinlinna Castle: 111 117

Lithuania Sesuoleliu Manor: 0 467

Sweden Skokloster Castle: 151 0

Red Brick Gothic:

Germany Dominican Monastery, Prenzlau: 27 22

Germany Town Hall, Lüneburg: 0 0

Germany Cultural Centre Saint Spiritus: 0 0

Germany St. Johannes Church, Lüneburg: 108 0

Germany St. Mary’s Church, Greifswald: 147 53

Germany St. Michaels Church, Lüneburg: 63 1

Germany St. Nicolai’s Church, Greifswald: 199 0

Germany St. Nicholas’ Church, Lüneburg: 95 73

Estonia Saint John’s Church, Tartu: 0 366

Sand Dunes:

Russia Curonian Spit, Kaliningrad: 1000 0

Poland Lebork, Slowinski national park: 100 402

Lithuania Neringa Municipality: 0 501

Forests:

Latvia Ligatne, Latvia: 0 0

Latvia Slitere, Latvia: 0 0

Belarus Vitebsk, Belarus: 0 0

Stones:

Estonia Estonian Heritage Society: 0 0

TOTAL 2894 2675

Comments to the table above:

The Danish attractions are not included in this matrix because they are not partners in the project and therefore they have not had the opportunity to hand out and collect questionnaires. Their role has mainly been to give inspiration for further development of attractions and theme groups.

The aim of the collection year 2012 was to get between 500 and 1200 filled questionnaires from each attraction and preferably collected over a sufficient timeframe. If achieved, this would give reliable data capable of providing the attractions with an idea of the present situation among its customers; however it will not be very good at describing any developments. On the other hand, the attractions will be able to track developments themselves if they follow the guidelines of the use of the questionnaires after the end of the AGORA 2.0 project.

However, the platform of the data collection and combined with the BASTIS webpage will be extremely useful to the attractions in the future and potentially more valuable than the project itself.

188

This requires that the attractions take advantage of these tools in the years to come, because these will provide the information needed to improve their business.

In regards to solutions, most of these problems can be addressed with sufficient training of the personnel at the different attractions and with a clearer set of guidelines. Another solution is to pay a company for making the demand analysis. As demand information is extremely important for decision making it must be recommended if the attractions themselves cannot carry out the task to get the data.