ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 1

Destination Web ReputationCombining explicit and implicit popularity to

build and integrated monitoring system

Valeria Minghetti, Emilio Celotto

CISET-Ca Foscari University Venice, Italyemail: ming@unive.it

http://www.unive.it/ciset

ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 2

Sedimentation and generalization of objective and subjective data

(positive, negative or neutral meaning)

Stereotypes

THE FOUR MAIN PILLARS OF DESTINATION REPUTATION

Che cosa la destinazione è

Objective data ( characteristics, resources, assets, etc.)

What the destination is

Che cosa la destinazione dice di essere

Advertising, P.R., marketing, policies, etc.

What the destination does or

states to be

Through direct experience or by hearsay, via traditional or social media (word of mouth, artciles,

chat, blogs, reviews, etc.)

What others say about the

destination

(Source: adapted from Reputation Institute, 2012)

ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 3

DESTINATION WEB REPUTATION:SOCIAL RATING

Main topics usually analysed

SENTIMENTTone and perception (positive, negative, neutral)

Share of buzzSTRENGTH

TOPICS Main themes, time evolution

VIRALITY No. people reached

SOURCE Type and value of the source

INFLUENCE Identification of influencers

(Fonte: adattato da Cosenza, 2012)

Explicitpopularity

Implicit popularity

ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 4

Main issues

EXPLICIT POPULARITY: THE KPI METRICS

Need of ad-hoc tools to clean, select and rank data, given the ambiguity of language (e.g. Milan (Italian city), Milan (Italian soccer team), Milan (the name of the writer Kundera)

The analysis often disregard the purpose of comment, the nature of reporter and his/her relationship with the destination (tourist, visitor, resident, etc.) (e.g. “Milano is a problematic city” has can a different meanig if said by a resident and by a tourist)

They mainly provide qualitative judgements (reviews), often not detailed (e.g. on different aspects of local tourism suppyl)

Quality of text analysis influenced by many factors: level of logical structures; nature of information source; domain precision; language used. The precision of these analyses is about 60-70% (Piskorski e Yangarber, 2013)

SENTIMENT TOPICS

ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 5

IMPLICIT POPULARITY: THE KPI METRICS

ENGAGEMENT

Conversation rate(no. comments to posts) Amplification rate

(no. sharing)Applause rate

(no. likes)

Growth rate(no. new followers)

STRENGTH VIRALITY

SOURCE INFLUENCE

ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 6

PAESIONLINE AND PLACESRANK

Focus on a specific discussion domain and analysis (the destination, its assets and services)

Main objectives and features

Clear identification of reporter’s profile (e.g. a tourist travelling with his/her date, family, group of friends,……; a resident who tells his/her city/town)

Combination of qualitative judgements (comments and reviews) and scores (the destination as a whole and different aspects of local supply)

Qualitative comments by main themes (e.g. how to reach the destination; what to put in your luggage; what to do), in order to enhance destination knowledge

Participative community and assessment model combining editorial data and user data (scores ) to evaluate the popularity of tourist destinations

The POL-CISET project:evolving the monitoring system currently in use, by integrating users’ scores

and comments with the engagement generated by these judgments

ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 7

THE NEW PLACESRANK SYSTEM PROTOTYPE

EXPLICIT SOCIAL APPRECIATION INDEXComposite index given by:• “emotional” global score (1-10 scale)•service score (mean of scores given to 13 aspects of destination supply: 1-10 scale)

IMPLICIT SOCIAL APPRECIATION INDEXComposite index that takes into account:• passive engagement (no. unique pageviews home; no. downloads of destination guide) (normalised values translated into 1-10 scale)• active engagement (no. comments, scores and likes to posts) (normalised values translated into 1-10 scale)

ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 8

THE NEW PLACESRANK SYSTEM PROTOTYPE: COMBINING EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT

POPULARITYImplicit

social appreciation

index

Explicit social appreciation index

Low

Destinations with high implicit and explicit

popularity(highly appreciated

and many people read/ share contents about

them)

Destinations with high implicit popularity and low explicit popularity(low appreciation, but

many people read/ share contents about

them )

Destinations with withlow implicit and explicit

popularity(little appreciated and few

people read/share contents about them)

Destinations with low implicit popularity and high explicit popularity(highly appreciated, butfew peolple read/share contents about them)

High

High

Low

Medium

Medium

ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 9

THE NEW PLACESRANK SYSTEM PROTOTYPE: PRELIMINARY TEST AND FUTURE RESEARCH

Popularity rankingLow= 6-7.3Medium=7.3-8.6High= 8.6-10

Issues to be considered and addressed:•City positioning and performance can be influenced by different factors (e.g. the fame of the city, effects of advertising campaign, community size, volume of comments and members’ profile )

Future research: integration of members’ narratives into the evaluation of explicit popularity

ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 10

Destination Web ReputationCombining explicit and implicit popularity to build and

integrated monitoring system

Thank you for your attentionValeria Minghetti

CISET-Ca Foscari University Venice, Italyemail: ming@unive.it

http://www.unive.it/ciset