Social Media and Sustainable Tourism Marketing …
311
Geopark (VCLG). In this dimension, the resulting key topics are: the VCLG’s awareness index; the motivations of companies to disseminate specific content related to
the Geopark; the limitations inherent in this communication process; the nature of
the published content; and the most effective strategies in promoting VCLG.
VCLG’s notoriety is classified as low and very low by all interviewees in the
present study: ‘VCLG is not yet widely recognized as it is in its launching phase
and becoming known’ (EAT1); ‘People do not know what the VCLG is, because
nobody assumes its dissemination in a professional way’ (EAT3); ‘There are national
Geoparks that are much better known and consequently preferred by my clients’
(EAT4); ‘It has enormous potential, but few people know what VCLG is’ (EAT6).
Regarding the motivations for promoting this tourism product in SM, companies
highlight the diversification of services and seasonality: ‘To combat seasonality and
circumvent competition we try to promote different offers on social networks, such
as VCLG nature tourism’ (EAT2). In a global way, it is possible to affirm that the
interviewed companies consider the presence of VCLG in their SM as a positive
factor of the organisation’s differentiation, as well as added value in the services
they offer. The companies perceive the VCLG as an alternative to the offers of mass
tourism products, and it sometimes generates curiosity with the consumer, which
motivates a greater search within the companies’ digital communication channels.
The main contents related to the promotion of VCLG are based on two elements,
those related to nature tourism and those based on cultural tourism offerings: ‘We
use social networks to promote the natural and cultural resources of the VCLG: an
example is horseback riding and guided walks’(EAT1); ‘We are very interested in
promoting and are available to highlight the natural and cultural resources of VCLG’
(EAT6).
The limitations assumed by the interviewees in the process of promoting the
VCLG are fundamentally based on the lack of dissemination and institutional
support, namely in the articulation of information between the political power and
the economic agents of the tourism area: ‘It is difficult to find information about the
VCLG, and the local political organisations have to professionalise this communication”(EAT2); ‘At VCLG, there seems to be a lack of concern in communicating
with stakeholders’ (EAT5); ‘In my opinion, there should be more meetings between
public entities and local organisations to develop and enhance the VCLG’s tourism
potential, as well as the need for partnerships and networking’ (EAT4); ‘There was
a relevant public investment for the creation of the VCLG, but there is a lack of
coordination with private entities. At the same time, there is a lack of cooperation in
the dissemination and interpretation work, where the involvement of the local population is essential’ (EAT6). Additionally, the lack of human resources with specific
training for a professional interpretation of the Geopark and the consequent provision of a professional service, is assumed as another major limitation: ‘There are no
technicians with specific training and ability to interpret the VCLG’ (EAT3); ‘It is
important for professionals to be trained to be official specialised guides” (EAT6).
Finally, in terms of defining the most effective strategies associated with the public
management of this space, the companies surveyed consider that good practices
carried out in similar spaces should be used, with particular reference to the Arouca
311
Geopark (VCLG). In this dimension, the resulting key topics are: the VCLG’s awareness index; the motivations of companies to disseminate specific content related to
the Geopark; the limitations inherent in this communication process; the nature of
the published content; and the most effective strategies in promoting VCLG.
VCLG’s notoriety is classified as low and very low by all interviewees in the
present study: ‘VCLG is not yet widely recognized as it is in its launching phase
and becoming known’ (EAT1); ‘People do not know what the VCLG is, because
nobody assumes its dissemination in a professional way’ (EAT3); ‘There are national
Geoparks that are much better known and consequently preferred by my clients’
(EAT4); ‘It has enormous potential, but few people know what VCLG is’ (EAT6).
Regarding the motivations for promoting this tourism product in SM, companies
highlight the diversification of services and seasonality: ‘To combat seasonality and
circumvent competition we try to promote different offers on social networks, such
as VCLG nature tourism’ (EAT2). In a global way, it is possible to affirm that the
interviewed companies consider the presence of VCLG in their SM as a positive
factor of the organisation’s differentiation, as well as added value in the services
they offer. The companies perceive the VCLG as an alternative to the offers of mass
tourism products, and it sometimes generates curiosity with the consumer, which
motivates a greater search within the companies’ digital communication channels.
The main contents related to the promotion of VCLG are based on two elements,
those related to nature tourism and those based on cultural tourism offerings: ‘We
use social networks to promote the natural and cultural resources of the VCLG: an
example is horseback riding and guided walks’(EAT1); ‘We are very interested in
promoting and are available to highlight the natural and cultural resources of VCLG’
(EAT6).
The limitations assumed by the interviewees in the process of promoting the
VCLG are fundamentally based on the lack of dissemination and institutional
support, namely in the articulation of information between the political power and
the economic agents of the tourism area: ‘It is difficult to find information about the
VCLG, and the local political organisations have to professionalise this communication”(EAT2); ‘At VCLG, there seems to be a lack of concern in communicating
with stakeholders’ (EAT5); ‘In my opinion, there should be more meetings between
public entities and local organisations to develop and enhance the VCLG’s tourism
potential, as well as the need for partnerships and networking’ (EAT4); ‘There was
a relevant public investment for the creation of the VCLG, but there is a lack of
coordination with private entities. At the same time, there is a lack of cooperation in
the dissemination and interpretation work, where the involvement of the local population is essential’ (EAT6). Additionally, the lack of human resources with specific
training for a professional interpretation of the Geopark and the consequent provision of a professional service, is assumed as another major limitation: ‘There are no
technicians with specific training and ability to interpret the VCLG’ (EAT3); ‘It is
important for professionals to be trained to be official specialised guides” (EAT6).
Finally, in terms of defining the most effective strategies associated with the public
management of this space, the companies surveyed consider that good practices
carried out in similar spaces should be used, with particular reference to the Arouca