Dissertation Tanja Bacher - Högskolan Dalarna

QUESTIONING THE DIVERSIFICATION OF TOURIST PRODUCTS:
TWO EXAMPLES OF ACHIEVEMENT IN THE MID-FRENCH MOUNTAINS
Tanja Bacher
MA EUROPEAN TOURISM MANAGEMENT
BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITÉ DE SAVOIE
2005

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my thanks to all the staff at Bournemouth University, as well as the
University of Savoie, especially my course tutor, Mike Morgan, and my supervisor, Beatrice
Galey, who supported me with much help and advice. My gratitude also goes to my family
and friends for their understanding and support during this busy year of study, in which some
of them may have felt slightly neglected, not forgetting my fellow students, who made the
experience enjoyable and with whom I spent many happy times.
Special thanks to my family who have supported me throughout my career.

ABSTRACT
In global terms, the mountains are losing their attractiveness as a destination, and are
suffering from stagnation or falling visitor numbers, especially during the winter. Ski resorts,
especially those at lower altitudes, are forced to react to problems like global warming,
changing demand and increasing competition by diversifying their tourist product.
This research investigates the diversification of tourist products in the mid-French mountains,
using the example of one small-sized and one large-sized ski resort. The former is called La
Bresse and situated in the Vosges, while the latter is Orcières -Merlette in the Southern Alps.
Having relatively high visitor numbers compared to other mid mountain resorts, the author
aims to establish the possible factors leading to their success.
The literature review serves as a theoretical way of approaching this topic in order to gain a
better understanding of the resorts’ circumstances and provide a basis for the practical
research (the development of the interview questions). It includes general literature on the
destination life cycle, customer satisfaction (needs/expectations/values), communication
(image) and diversification as well as its adaptation to the reality of those resorts that are
taki ng the initiative in diversifying their tourist products.
In order to define possible factors that will lead to success, an interview survey was
conducted. The data was collected from five responsible persons from the resort and/or the
local and regional tourist boards (OT, CDT, CRT).
The results of the study confirm the importance for a resort to have the capacity to diversify
its facilities and respond to the needs of one or several of its customer target groups. These
factors have been identified as two factors of success amongst others.
The dissertation ends by offering conclusions and recommendations for ski resorts and the
tourism industry, as well as suggestions for further research.
2

LIST OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION……………………………………………….8
1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE TOPIC .............................................................................8
1.2 RESEARCH AIM AND OBJECTIVES .....................................................................9
1.3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY................................................................................9
1.4 STRUCTURE OF THE DISSERTATION ..............................................................10
2 LITERATURE REVIEW..............................................................12
2.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................12
2.2 DESTINATION LIFE CYCLE.................................................................................13
2.2.1 LIFE CYCLE MODEL: ....................................................................................... 13
2.2.2 THE LIFE CYCLE STAGE OF RESORTS UNDERTAKING
DIVERSIFICATION............................................................................................................ 14
2.3 BUILDING CUSTOMER SATISFACTION...........................................................16
2.3.1 CUSTOMER NEEDS, EXPECTATIONS AND VALUES ................................ 16
2.3.2 ADAPTATION TO THE VISITORS TO THE FRENCH MOUNTAIN AREAS
(PROFILES, NEEDS, EXPECTATIONS, VALUES)......................................................... 19
2.4 COMMUNICATION.................................................................................................24
2.4.1 IMAGE CONCEPT.............................................................................................. 25
2.4.2 THE PERCEPTIONS/IMAGE OF MOUNTAINS AND MOUNTAIN
RESORTS............................................................................................................................. 29
3

2.5 DIVERSIFICATION .................................................................................................30
2.5.1 THE ANSOFF MATRIX: .................................................................................... 30
2.5.2 TYPES OF DIVERSIFICATION:....................................................................... 33
2.5.3 DIVERSIFICATION MOTIVES AND LIMITATIONS .................................... 34
2.5.4 INDICATIONS/GUIDELINES FOR SUCCESSFUL DIVERSIFICATION ..... 36
2.5.5 DIVERSIFICATION INITIATIVES IN FRENCH RESORTS........................... 39
3 RESEARCH .....................................................................................41
3.1 RESEARCH METHODS ..........................................................................................41
3.1.1 THE RESEARCH QUESTION ........................................................................... 41
3.1.2 THE SECONDARY DATA COLLECTION....................................................... 42
3.1.3 THE PRIMARY DATA COLLECTION............................................................. 43
3.1.4 RESEARCH ANALYSIS .................................................................................... 46
3.1.5 RESEARCH LIMITATIONS .............................................................................. 50
3.2 RESEARCH FINDINGS ...........................................................................................52
3.2.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE TWO MID FRENCH MOUNTAIN RESORTS.... 52
3.2.2 INTERVIEW ANALYSIS (See Appendix 6) ...................................................... 53
4 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................71
4

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1-1: Structure of the Dissertation 11
FIGURE 2-1: Destination Life Cycle of the French Mountains 15
FIGURE 2-2: Destination Choice 17
FIGURE 2-3 : Customers’ Value Perception 18
FIGURE 2-4: Elements in the Communication Process 24
FIGURE 2-5: Stage-Theories of Destination Image 26
FIGURE 2-6: A General Framework of Destination Image Formation 27
FIGURE 2-7: The Components of Destination Image 28
FIGURE 2-8: Realisation of a Diversification Strategy 38
5

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 2-1: The Ansoff Matrix 32
TABLE 3-1: Comparison of the Ski Resorts Orcières -Merlette and La Bresse 52
6

APPENDIX
APPENDIX 1: The Service Gap Concept 79
APPENDIX 2: The French Mountains and a Analysis of its Domestic Visitors 80
(Winter Sport)
APPENDIX 3 : Categories of Visitors to the French Mountains (Visitor Profile) 81
APPENDIX 4 : Activities pursued during a travel to the French mountains 82
APPENDIX 5 : Diversification Products in Winter Sport Resorts 83
APPENDIX 6: Interview questions (original and changed version) 84
APPENDIX 7: Interview Answers 89
APPENDIX 8 : Management of the French Ski Resort Les Karellis 94
APPENDIX 9: The examined Ski Resorts (Les Karellis, La Bresse, Orcières-Merlette) 95
7

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE TOPIC
This research investigates the diversification of tourist products in the mid-French mountains,
using the example of one small-sized and large-sized ski resort. In global terms, the
mountains are loosing their attractiveness as a destination, suffering from stagnation or falling
visitor numbers, especially during the winter. France, having the world’s-largest ski areas
with up-to -date equipment and lift facilities, is facing similar problems. The stagnation in the
rate of domestic travellers to the mountains and a decline in their average length of stay are
becoming apparent. The growth in the number of skiers from Europe, forming about 90% of
the French mountains’ clients during the winter, is slowing down (AFIT 2000). Some of the
main causes are:
‣ Global heating leading to a lack of snow: particularly the mid-French mountains,
comp rising those parts of the Alps and the Pyrenees with an altitude below 1600m and
the Massif Central below 1200m, are no longer able to guarantee snow for downhill
skiing (Tinard 1994; Baron-Yellès 1999).
‣ The disproportion between supply and demand: the mountains are failing to fulfil the
customers’ needs in terms of quality of service and equipment/activities (a break from
everyday life, get-togethers/community spirit, personal development; AFIT 2000).
‣ The increasing competition on a national as well as an international level: as travelling
is becoming cheaper (growing number of low cost carriers), people may switch to
alternative destinations like the coast, cities, countryside, winter sun destinations, etc.
Ski resorts, “town(s) in the mountains where people stay when on a skiing holiday” (Collin
1994, p. 205), reacting to falling visitor numbers and profits by diversifying their tourist
products in order to retain their existing clienteles and also win new ones.
According to Medlik and Middleton (1973 in Middleton 2001, p. 121), the tourist product
includes the tourist’s “complete experience from the time he leaves home to the time he
returns to it.” The previous definition is one among several others trying to describe the
tourist product. This is difficult, because it involves both objective, tangible elements such as
8

infrastructure and superstructure, as well as subjective, intangible elements such as feelings
and images (Westlake 2004).
Despite the absence of a universal definition of the term ‘diversification’ in the literature, one
can identify a common feature: “diversification is the extension of an enterprise’s activities to
new products and/or markets” (translated from Schüle 1992, p. 8).
1.2 RESEARCH AIM AND OBJECTIVES
The aim of this research is to evaluate the contribution of diversification measures to a
resort’s success. Related to this, the author formed the following hypothesis/question:
Is a resort’s success based on either its capacity to diversify its offers (products and services)
and/or to respond to the needs of one or several of its customer target groups?
From this research aim, the following research objectives can be derived:
‣ To define the process of diversification (concept, types).
‣ To determine the factors that lead to successful diversification.
‣ To identify diversification measures in French resorts and evaluate them (reasons for
diversification, results and limitations).
‣ To ascertain the situation in two middle mountain resorts.
1.3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research will be based on both primary and secondary data sources .
The secondary research consists of the literature review on diversification and its application
to the reality of (mid-) French mountain resorts. A further theoretical basis for a better
understanding of the resorts’ circumstances will be produced, including the destination life
cycle, customer satisfaction (needs/expectations/values) and communication (image). In
addition, information about two resorts, La Bresse and Orcières-Merlette, will be collected,
together with statistical data about tourism in the French mountains, including origins, age,
social conditions, etc. The information is acquired from studies, journals, books, dissertations,
and websites, as well as brochures from the afore mentioned ski resorts.
The primary data findings on the diversification initiatives of La Bresse and Orcières-
Merlette are based on a series of semi -structured (via telephone or face-to-face) interviews
9

with the managers of the resort and/or public tourism organisations (OT Office de Tourisme,
CDT Comité Départemental de Tourisme, CRT Comité Régional de Tourisme).
1.4 STRUCTURE OF THE DISSERTATION
Being an academic piece of work, this dissertation will fulfil certain criteria, such as
providing a literature review in all sections and a critical analysis of the subject. Some parts of
the work are descriptive, as the theoretic models and findings of other authors will be
presented. However, models to show and explain reality in a simplified way will be critically
examined and adapted to the situation of the French mountains. To assist the reader in finding
the different elements of this work, an outline of the dissertation will now be presented. It is
divided into four main chapters:
Chapter 1 gives an introduction consisting of four parts. Firstly, the research is set in context
by giving a general background to the research topic. Then the research aim and objectives
are stated together with the justifications for these. Finally, the methods of data collection are
presented (methodology) and, finally, the dissertation’s structure is defined.
The theoretical part begins in Chapter 2, in which the general literature on the destination life
cycle, customer satisfaction (needs/expectations/values), communication (image) and
diversification will be examined and evaluated. As mentioned above, the models are first
introduced and then adapted to the reality of those resorts that are taking the initiative in
diversifying their tourist products.
Chapter 3, describing the research, is twofold. On the one hand, the research methodology is
presented, including the primary and secondary data collection, the data analysis, and the
limitations of the research. On the other hand, the research findings are presented, together
with a short introduction of the two middle mountain resorts, La Bresse (The Vosges) and
Orcières-Merlette (Southern Alps) in form of a table, the interpretation of the interview
results, and an evaluation (factors of success).
The work concludes with a conclusion in chapter 4 where the research findings are
summarized, recommendations for ski resorts and the tourism industry are offered, as well as
suggestions for further research are made.
10

Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Literature Review
General Literature + Models
Life cycle, customer satisfaction,
communication, diversification
Adaptation of the Models to the
Situation of Resorts in Need of
Diversification
Chapter 3: Research
Research Methodology
Primary + secondary data
collection, data analysis,
research limitations
Research Findings
Introduction of the two resorts, results,
evaluation
Chapter 4: Conclusion,
Recommendations
Figure 1 -1: Structure of the Dissertation
Source: author’s own
11

2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The research about diversification goes back to the 1950s when the increasing technical
progress, competition and changing customer behaviour after WWII led to a real trend
towards diversification. About a decade later, Igor Ansoff developed a model which gained
wide acceptance, and is today often quoted and commonly linked with diversification (Schüle
1992). The concept of diversification is mainly addressed in the literature concerning
economics and strategic management. An abundance of books and academic articles explore
the subject, but only a few in connection with tourism destinations. As far as the French
mountains are concerned, the latest study about diversification in French ski resorts (AFIT
1993) dates from 1993. In addition, few dissertations have been written about the topic of
diversification, but several about product development (e.g. Carole 2005; Van Peer 2003).
Owing to the limited literature about diversification in tourism, the writer consulted literature
that he considered relevant to the topic from the fields of Marketing and Management. The
latter includes the destination life cycle, customer satisfaction (needs/expectations/values),
and communication (image). Further, he collected all kinds of data about tourism and leisure
in the (French) mountains, including statistical data, articles from special mountain journals
about climatic warming, changing customer demands, reactions from professionals to the
changing reality (enlargement of the leisure offer, enhancement of the product and service
quality, etc.) and so on.
In this section, the author will present several models that may elucidate the situation of
French ski resorts in terms of their diversification. Each theory or model will first be
presented and then applied to the situation in these resorts.
12

2.2 DESTINATION LIFE CYCLE
2.2.1 LIFE CYCLE MODEL:
The evolution of tourism echoes the development of destinations, especially resorts. The latter
has to respond to changing and developing markets in order to stay competitive by adapting
their facilities and services. The tourist area life cycle (TALC), also called the destination- or
tourist product-life-cycle (PLC), is a largely discussed and accepted framework that makes it
possible to understand the evolutionary process of destinations and their markets. This goes
back to Butler (1980), who applied the business concept of a product-life-cycle to a
destination (Hovinen 2002). According to Lundtorp and Wanhill (2001, p. 961), “Butler’s
lifecycle model is one of the most significant paradigms used in research concerning the
development of resorts.” “Destinations go through a cycle of evolution similar to the life cycle
of a product (where sales grow as the product evolves through the stages of launch,
development, maturity and decline)” (Cooper et al. 1998, p. 114), only, instead of sales, the
number of visitors is measured on a time scale. The destination’s life cycle curve varies,
depending upon the rate of development, marketing trends, access, government policy and the
competing destinations. Each factor can influence not only the speed of progress, but also the
length of every stage and of the cycle as a whole, as well as capacity constraints, tourist
impacts, planning responses and investment, since, without important financial returns, the
destination will not experience the whole life cycle. The latter consists of the following stages
(generally accepted framework) (ebd.):
Exploration: a few visitors (explorers) discover the destination, which is yet unchanged by
tourism. Factors attracting tourists include: original nature, culture, contact with locals.
Factors keeping tourists away include: lack of access and facilities.
Involvement: visitor numbers increase due to local initiatives to encourage visitors and
advertising measures. Beginning of a market area and of a tourism season.
Development: high visitor numbers, companies from outside move there providing new
facilities. Danger: facilities’ over-use and deterioration, quality loss.
13

Consolidation: the destination has become part of the tourism industry (presence of big
chains, franchises and a recreational business district). Visitor numbers further increase, but
the growth rate starts to decrease.
Stagnation: the reaching of peak visitor numbers; the destination is no longer up-to-date and
builds on repeat visits and business travellers. Problems: the destination often suffers from
negative environmental, social, economic impacts and high competition from other mature
destinations.
Decline : visitors change to newer resorts; the destination has a smaller geographical reach for
short trips (day-/ week-end trips).
Rejuvenation: re-launch of the destination by searching for new markets (clienteles) and
products to fight against seasonality, to depend less on declining market segments and to
stabilise visitation. The successful realisation of this strategy is difficult (Cooper et al. 1998,
Moutinho 2000).
2.2.2 THE LIFE CYCLE STAGE OF RESORTS UNDERTAKING
DIVERSIFICATION
Used more descriptive than normative (where different development of a destination is
possible; Lundtorp and Wanhill 2001), the author will adapt this model to resorts trying to
diversify their tourist products. The latter are usually either in the stagnation or already in the
decline stage (or somewhere in between). They use diversification in order to re-launch or
rejuvenate the destination, by offering, for example, new activities, such as climbing, hiking,
snowboarding, parachuting, etc. In times of globalisation, the concurrence is high and wide
ranging (from local to international level), including other ski resorts (in France, Europe, the
US and Canada) as well as winter sun destinations, and so on. This highly competitive
environment and the fact that many ski resorts resemble each other (similar facilities and
products) renders a destination’s individualisation and re-launch difficult. The following
figure shows the approximate development stages of the French mountains:
14

Involvement: before 1930 the mountains were less frequented, mainly in the summer, by a
wealthy clientele coming for health reasons. In 1936, with the introduction of package
holidays in France, the number of vacationers began to rise.
Development: after WWII, the growing industrial society (1945-70) brought about a change
in consumption behaviour, and tourists began to come in large numbers to engage in winter
sports.
Consolidation: even the economic crisis in the 1980s, entailing increasing unemployment,
failed to hinder people from taking holidays in the mountains. However, the growth rate was
lower than before, linked to relative high prices (Dienot and Theiller 1999; Tinard 1994).
During the last two decades, several mountain areas have been confronted with problem of
stagnation or even decline. Apart from a lack of snow and high prices, “part of the problem
is that the baby boom generation that embraced the sport is aging, and their children have
never really took to the sport” (Randall 1996, p. 56).
Before
1930
From
1936 on
After WWII
1945-1970
1980s
Since 1990s
Visitor numbers
Consolidation
Stagnation
Rejuvenation
Decline
Development
Involvement
Exploration
Time
Figure 2 -1: Destination Life Cycle of the French Mountains
Source: Adapted from Cooper et al. 1998
15

One has to consider the limitations of Butler’s model. His assumption that a destination has
one single tourist product doesn’t correspond with the reality of many destinations offering
different activities or services (Hovinen 2002). Thus, his model isn’t adapted to resorts with a
diversified tourist product, but only to single attraction destinations. A study of Hovinen
(2002) shows a co-existence of some stages in Lancaster County (US). Hence, each business
has its own life cycle (some grow while others decline). Despite these limitations, Butler’s
model is useful for predicting a destination’s decline in the following circumstances: the nonconsideration
of a destination or resort’s carrying capacity as well as the absence of effective
overall management and long-term planning (Hovinen 2002).
2.3 BUILDING CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
As mentioned above, many destinations are confronted with the problem of increasing
competition, because supply is outweighing demand. Being in a phase of maturity or decline,
many mountain resorts regard diversification as the way to stand out from their competitors
(other mountain resorts, winter sun destinations, etc.). To survive, they have to spare no effort
in both keeping existing customers and attracting new ones. This requires very high customer
satisfaction, which again can be achieved through the fulfilment of customers’ expectations
regarding the products and services offered.
2.3.1 CUSTOMER NEEDS, EXPECTATIONS AND VALUES
The way in which customers behave depends on their individual needs, expectations and
values. To fulfil their needs and expectations, a resort has to know well both its existing and
potential clients. In this context, one has to be aware of the buying process (Kotler 2003):
People’s decision to buy a product originates with the recognition of an unsatisfied need or
problem and the motivation to solve it. Somebody who decides to go on holiday may, for
example, feel the need to distance himself/herself from his/her daily working life. He/she
starts searching for information and chooses a certain destination by comparing the offers. If
his/her perception of what could satisfy the need corresponds with his/her perception of the
destination, he/she will decide in favour of th is destination.
16

Consumers’ Need
Push Factors
Consumers’ Perception of
what could satisfy this Need
Pull Factors
Consumers’ Perception of
the Destination
If both correspond
Motivation to visit
the Destination
Destination
Figure 2-2: Destination choice
Source: Frochot 2005
Depending on the person’s individual ideas of how to obtain distance from everyday life,
he/she may choose the mountains for different reasons: to relax, to engage in sport, to
discover the natural landscape, to get to know the local culture, etc. Later in this chapter
(2.3.2), the author will discuss in greater detail people’s particular expectations regarding the
French mountains.
Customer expectations can be based on, amongst other things, their past buying experience,
advice from family and friends and advertising campaigns. According to Mouton (2000),
these expectations are twofold, consisting of the satisfaction of need as well as the demand
for reconnaissance. The former can be achieved through the product itself, the latter by
showing the customer his/her power over the company (as without customers a company isn’t
able to survive). Complaint offices, loyalty programmes, individual customer databases, etc.
are means to strengthen customer bonds and part of the customer relationship management
(Kotler 2003). A company (or destination) that is able to constantly fulfil both expectations
and so renew people’s desire for the company (or destination) will have success in keeping
existing and winning future clients. Mouton (2000, p. 8) calls this “the double interaction of
the desire” (double interaction du désir).
17

Transferred to destinations like mountain resorts, this means that customers attach importance
to both products (catering/accommodation, leisure facilities, access, etc.) and services
(friendliness of the staff, performance/fulfilment of customers’ individual needs, fast
resolution of problems, etc.). There are different ways of measuring tourist satisfaction, like
suggestions and comp laints systems, customer satisfaction surveys, mystery shopping, and
lost costumer analysis (Kotler 2003).
According to Kotler (2003, p. 60), “customers estimate which offer will deliver the most
value. … They form an expectation of value and act on it. Whether or not the offer lives up to
the value expectation affects both satisfaction and repurchase probability”. Hence, customers
choose the offer that promises the highest value, by weighing up the expected values against
the expected costs. The so called customer perceived value (CPV) or customer delivered value
can be calculated by subtracting the total customer cost from the total customer value. The
total customer cost is made up of monetary, time, energy and psychological costs. The total
customer value is the sum of products, services, personnel and image value (Kotler 2003).
TCV (product + service + personnel + image)
- TCC (money + time + energy + psyche)____
= CPV
Figure 2 -3: Customers’ Value Perception
Source: Adapted from Kotler 2003
The higher the customer perceived value, the higher the customer satisfaction. A negative
result shows a gap between customer expectation and perceived value (see Appendix 1: The
service gap concept). The costs outweigh the values and the customer will become
disappointed as the company or destination didn’t fulfil his/her demands in terms of product
and/or service quality.
Product and service quality, customer satisfaction, and company profitability are intimately connected.
Higher levels of quality result in higher levels of customer satisfaction, which support higher prices an
(often) lower costs (Kotler 2003, p. 84).
In order to be successful, a company or destination must constantly improve the quality of its
products, services and processes (total quality management).
18

2.3.2 ADAPTATION TO THE VISITORS TO THE FRENCH MOUNTAIN
AREAS (PROFILES, NEEDS, EXPECTATIONS, VALUES)
In the latest study of SEATM (Service d’Etudes et d’Aménagement Touristique de la
Montagne) (2004), statistics about tourism in the French mountains are published. By
analysing the available figures and tables, the author produced the following results:
Comprising 15% of the entire overnight stays and 12% of the entire day trips, the mountains
are in the fourth place among the French tourism destinations in 2003 (after the coast,
countryside and cities). They are composed of the following six massifs: the Vosges, the Jura
mountains, the (northern/southern) Alps, the Central Massif, the Pyrenees and Corsica. French
skiers, irrespective of the region they come from, prefer the northern Alps to the other massifs
(except inhabitants from the Southeast who mainly go to the southern Alps and people from
the Southwest who frequent the Pyrenees) (see Appendix 2).
Visitors to the French mountains go mainly for two reasons: leisure (70%) and visiting family
and friends (25%). Predominantly visited by domestic tourists, the following categories of
French visitors (visitor profile) can be established (see Appendix 3):
‣ Socio-professional: the retired are the best represented visitor group in “the
mountains outside winter sports” (montagne hors sports d’hiver) and “all spaces”,
(tous espaces) followed by the employees and intermediary professions. As far as
winter sports are concerned, these three clienteles are approximately equal in size,
followed by executives, as well as students from 15 years upwards.
‣ Income: all in all, most of the visitors belong to the middle salary brackets (~1500-
3000 €/month) in terms of winter sports, together with the upper salaries (up to
~7600€/month).
‣ Age: the clientele frequenting the mountains is very large, aged from 15 to over 64.
Two visitor groups are especially prominent; namely people between 35 and 44 going
for the skiing, as well as older people (see above).
19

Mainly travel by car (>80% of the travellers), and visitors to the French mountains primarily
pursue the following activities: People travelling to winter sport places are mainly interested
in skiing/snowboarding (>80%), followed by walking and other snow-related activities.
Besides winter sports, the most practiced activities are in the following order: sightseeing,
walking, and no special activities, as well as swimming, hiking, skiing and other snow
activities (SEATM 2004) (see Appendix 4).
In the French mountains, two holiday periods predominate: winter (01.10. – 30.03.) and
summer (01.04.-30.09.). The clienteles are different in each season:
In the summer, they are more traditional, rational, and guided by reason. They are interested
in culture and distance themselves from the consumer society (looking for authenticity and
simplicity). Further, they are looking for sports as well as relaxation (territory of soft
discovery). Since in the summer the clientele of the mountains differs from that of the coast,
countryside and cities, the latter faces no real/severe competitors.
In winter, the clientele is bigger, including people who do sport or other physical activities to
people who are attracted by nature and others who are searching for urban activities. People
who want to escape the masses, who are disappointed with what the mountain have to offer or
who have various interests, are tempted to change to city or coastal destinations.
The paradox is that the mountains in winter have less to offer, with a large clientele,
whereas in summer, there is more on offer, but the clientele is restricted (SEATM 2004).
The author concludes that diversification measures have a special importance in winter,
aiming to enlarge the offer to fulfil customers’ various expectations and thus win loyal clients
(keeping them from going over to the competitors, such as city and coastal destinations).
As demand is developing, it is no longer sufficient to look only at the present customer
profile, but future development trends have to be considered as well:
An aging population within Europe is enhancing older people’s (economic) power, also in
terms of tourism. Different kinds of customer groups are emerging and changing (e.g. family:
mono-parental family, family, group of families, recomposed family…). Young people are
more and more autonomous in deciding how to spend their leisure time, often going on
holiday without their parents. The average client is being increasingly replaced by a mixture
20

of different clienteles (heterogeneity). Taking several short trips a year, one client may have
very different, even contradictory needs and expectations, depending on the type of
holiday undertaken, on the people travelling with him/her, etc. (AFIT 2000). Nevertheless,
there are three basic needs or motivations that customers have with regard to their holiday
(AFIT 2000). These are as follows:
‣ Break from everyday life: change of surroundings and/or field of activity.
‣ Community: spend time and share experiences with close family and/or friends.
‣ Revitalization/recuperation: take time for oneself.
Wishing to satisfy these needs, today’s visitors to the mountains are looking mainly for
(customer expectations) (AFIT 2000; SEATM 2004):
1. Convenience/comfort: physical and mental accessibility, facility, fluidity; no loss of
time or other forms of micro-stress.
2. Non-commercial: real exchange with the destination and its inhabitants; no purely
commercial relationship.
3. Pleasure: social gathering with family and friends, moments of boisterousness and
fun (to amuse oneself, to play, to laugh).
4. Soft vitality: recharging/relaxing activities in a natural environment, such as walking
and other outdoor activities, effort with moderation, atmo sphere, harmony, quietness,
softness.
5. Wellness/health: recovery, renewal of strength, activities to remain or get into shape
(gymnastics, diet, healthy food, fresh air, quality equipment, etc.).
6. Quality and aesthetics of everyday life: harmony, quality of the place, products and
service/relationship; importance of the details of the offer.
7. Nature: nature as a safe and accessible place, rejection of wild, untamed nature.
21

The French mountains cannot yet sufficiently meet the customers expectations in the first two
areas. As far as points 3 to 7 are concerned, the destination has the potential to win new
clientele and to stay competitive (AFIT 2000; SEATM 2004). This can be achieved through
value maximization and cost minimization of the existing offer. In the following
paragraphs, some concrete examples of how to better adapt the offerings of the French
mountains to the above customer expectations are given:
Being “a person’s feelings of pleasure or disappointment resulting from comparing a
product’s perceived performance (or outcome) in relation to his or her expectations” (Kotler
2003, p. 61), the creation of customer satisfaction starts even before the journey, more
precisely from the information search onwards, as this is the moment where people build up
their expectations. It ends with their return home.
1. Convenience/comfort: Resorts should react to changing customer behaviour (trend
towards taking several short trips/year) by showing more flexibility in terms of
minimum stay (less than 7 days) and days of arrival/departure (also during the week).
Such measures also contribute to reducing traffic jams and thus travel time, ensuring a
more pleasant journey. Besides, information and booking have to be simplified
through standard products, identical tariff zones (to reach an agreement with all the
partners of the resort about the same period of high-/and low-season), websites with a
clear structure, easy vocabulary, etc. The access to the resort can be improved through
better signposting, information and reception premises, etc.
2. Non-commercial: the destination needs to protect unspoilt places and promote them
as such. It has to introduce more non-commercialised offers, such as picnicking,
hiking, services for free, etc. An explanation of the costs creates transparency, giving
the client the opportunity to understand the specificities of the destination
(sensitisation). Resorts need to fight against being purely tourist places by attracting
locals as well (e.g. through price reductions, festivals as an opportunity for a social
gathering, etc.).
3. Pleasure: according to their individual situation, resorts should create new as well as
strengthen existing activities (e.g. new snow sports, igloos, thermal/hot baths). They
22

could make available for customers a range of games/material as well as game rooms
and places for social gatherings (festivals).
4. Soft vitality: the mountains should stress being a welcoming place with a special
ambiance (e.g. typical accommodation (chalets), contrasts of hot and cold (skiing,
saunas). They could develop more products or activities like via ferrata, making it
possible to discover nature in a playful, non-competitive way (e.g. easier, shorter
hikes, etc.). Further, the establishments should grant moments of inactivity to their
clients, for example, by offering more flexible times (weekly courses with day(s) off,
breakfast until the late morning) and appropriate equipment (reading corner, etc.).
5. Wellness/health: the destination should promote its natural strengths, like fresh, clean
air and water, as being good for one’s health. This demands, amongst other initiatives,
to protect the environment. A stronger involvement of visitors and inhabitants in such
measures can be effective insofar as they feel useful and develop an environmental
consciousness. Moreover, the destination could stress the gastronomy using traditional
products, as well as the special rhythm of life there. New products and activities
around the existing activities of hammam, saunas and hot baths could also be
developed.
6. Quality and aesthetics of everyday life: quality should be the focus of attention: this
affects both products (material offer: place, equipment, decoration, etc.) and services
(immaterial offer: relationships, quality of exchange, welcome present, etc.). The latter
have to be functional, aesthetic and in harmony with the place (individual).
7. Nature: To fulfil the expectations of the various clienteles, the offer should be large,
going from totally unspoiled nature to secure footpaths, and so on. Also, the activities’
degree of difficulty should vary, but not only the physical, but also the mental access
to the mountains should be simplified. Visitors fears or doubts about the destination
can be reduced by informing them about the place’s specificities (AFIT 2000).
23

2.4 COMMUNICATION
In the preceding paragraph, the author showed the importance of resorts knowing their
customers’ needs and expectations in order to be able to fulfil them by developing a high
quality product and service. However, “merely possessing outstanding tourism resources is
not sufficient to lure the optimal number of tourists to a tourist destination” (Ahmed 1996, p.
38). In order to be successful, the destination has to communicate a message that matches the
target audien ce’s needs.
The communication process takes place between a sender, the tourism enterprise (tour
operator, travel agency, destination, etc.), and a receiver, the consumer (private or
professional). The message, consisting of symbols (slogan, images, graphics), is transferred
through communication channels from the sender to the receiver. The former encodes the
message, while the latter decodes it. The message should attract the customers’ attention,
interest, and desire, and get them to take action and buy the product (AIDA model). This by
showing the desired benefits that the product and service will bring to the customers (rational
appeals) as well as involving them emotionally (emotional appeals). Consumers respond to
the received message by, for example, higher or lower consumption or by giving their
personal feedback. Noise is distortion that can change the message leading to the message
sent differing from the message received (e.g. a crisis) (Kotler et al. 1999).
Message
Sender Encoding Decoding Receiver
Media
Noise
Feedback
Response
Figure 2 -4: Elements in the Communication Process
Source: Kotler et al 1999, p. 491
24

Tourism promotion is crucial if a destination wishes to distinguish itself from its competitors
and attract an increasing number of visitors. According to Ahmed (1996, p. 38), “tourists’
image of a destination and the attitude of tourists toward the destination seem to be of the
most important factors responsible for this variation”. Hence, destination images have a not
inconsiderable influence on the consumers’ destination choice, their behaviour on the spot,
their level of satisfaction, and their memory of the travel experience. According to Jenkins
(1999, p. 2) “they influence both the decision making behaviour of potential tourists (Mayo,
1973; Crompton, 1979) and the levels of satisfaction regarding the tourist experience (Chon,
1992)”.
2.4.1 IMAGE CONCEPT
Amongst the various definitions of ‘image’, the following recur in the consulted literature:
“Image is the set of beliefs, ideas, and impressions a person holds regarding to an object”
(Kotler 2003, p. 566). As far as destination image is concerned, the person is the tourist and
the object is the destination (Crompton 1979 in Ahmed 1996; Crompton 1979 in Baloglu and
Mc Cleary 1999; Crompton 1979 in Carmichael 1993). The concept of image has been
addressed in different disciplines:
In psychology, ‘image’ tends to refer to a visual representation, whereas in behavioural geography the
concept of ‘image’ is more holistic and it includes all of the associated impressions, knowledge,
emotions, values and beliefs. Definitions from marketing, however, point to the attributes that underlie
image and relate image to consumer behaviour (Jenkins 1999, p. 1).
In this work, the author is mainly interested in the link between image and consumer buying
behaviour. He limits himself to two acknowledged models of tourism, which he judges to be
interesting in this context.
According to Gun (1972 in Jenkins 1999), the destination image develops during seven stages
(before, during and after travel), underlying a constant modification. During this process,
three types of image evolve:
The organic image arises from non-tourist sources of information, to which people are daily
exposed (e.g. journals, magazines, television documentaries, films and the opinions of
friends).
25

The induced image results from commercial tourist information with the aim of informing
the consumers and selling the destination (e.g. publicity, tourist guides, travel brochures,
advice from travel agents). People may modify their initial organic image, having access to
these information sources. The latter aren’t able to give a complete, real image.
This stereotype image changes at the moment when a person visits the destination into the so
called modified-induced image, and becomes more qualified and complex. One can assume
that “the images held by potential visitors, non-visitors and returned visitors will differ”
(Gunn 1972 in Jenkins 1999, p. 3).
1. accumulation of mental images of a place ORGANIC IMAGE
through life
2. modification of images through researching INDUCED IMAGE
prior to the decision to travel
3. the decision to travel based on image
efficiency, anticipated experience but kept
within time, money and other constraints
4. travel to attraction may condition the image
5. participation or experience at the destination, MODIFIED-INDUCED
the activities, accommodation and other IMAGE
services all influence the image
6. return travel allows reflection and evaluation,
including discussing experiences with fellow
travellers.
7. new accumulation occurs after the visit
because the process is circular, the end image
may be the same or different to the original
one.
Figure 2 -5: Stage-Theories of Destination Image
Source: Gunn 1972 in Jenkins 1999, p. 4
26

Ahmed (1996) recognizes the same influences without assigning them to different stages or a
precise order:
Consumers will factor into their image construction both their conclusions about the patrons of
the destination actually observed (if previously visited) and their expectations of the nature of
the clientele based on marketer-dominated forms of communication (advertising, etc.) as well as
non-marketer dominated forms of communication (word of mouth, etc.) (Ahmed 1996, p. 40).
According to Baloglu and Mc Cleary (1999, p. 870) “researchers in several disciplines and
fields agree that the image construct has both perceptual/cognitive and affective
evaluations”. The two authors offer a general framework of destination image formation
which shows the following determinants or influential factors on image formation:
internal personal factors including psychological (personality, values, motivations, etc.) and
socio-economic characteristics (age, income, education, marital status, etc.) as well as
external stimulus factors like variety, amount and type of information sources, previous
experience and distribution.
PERSONAL
FACTORS
DESTINATION
IMAGE
STIMULUS
FACTORS
Psychological Perceptual/ Cognitive Information Sources
Values
Amount
Motivations
Type
Personality Affective
Social
Age
Education
Marital Status
Others
Global
Previous Experience
Distribution
Figure 2 -6: A General Framework of Destination Image Formation
Source: Baloglu and Mc Cleary 1999, p. 870
27

Echtner and Ritchie developed a model that includes the following three dimensions or
components of destination image:
‣ Attribute vs. holistic: a destination’s image is composed of several attributes
contributing to the attractiveness of the place like its climate, infrastructure, etc. They
differ depending on the tourist’s individual needs and interests. The holistic dimension
corresponds to a general or global image of a destination. “One of the basic problems
of tourist destination image research is that destination images are ‘holistic’
representations of a place and that in attempting to measure them, researchers are
compelled to look at the parts or attributes singularly” (Jenkins 1999, p. 5).
‣ Functional vs. psychological: the functional elements are observable and measurable
whereas the psychological elements are intangible. According to Jenkins (1999), most
of the studies about destination image examine measurable, functional characteristics,
like temperature, whereas only few address less tangible, psychological
characteristics, like the place’s atmosphere, etc.
‣ Common vs. unique: common elements are basic features which also appear in many
other destinations, like transport means, accommodation types, price, service quality,
etc. Unique elements, on the other hand, are special attributes helping a destination to
stand out against its competitors (e.g. special events or sights) (Jenkins 1999).
Common
Functional
characteristics
Attributes
Holistic
Imagery
Psychological
characteristics
Unique
Figure 2 -7: The Components of Destination Image
Source: Echtner and Ritchie 1991 in Jenkins 1999, p. 5
28

2.4.2 THE PERCEPTIONS/IMAGE OF MOUNTAINS AND MOUNTAIN
RESORTS
For the French population, the all year round image of the mountains is linked to the
following attributes: nature (49%), relaxation (34%), health (31%) and exertion (12%)
(http://geotourweb.com/nouvellepage114.htm). The attractiveness of the destination is based
upon the four elements that occur in this location:
‣ Fire expressed as violent, but fascinating thunderstorms, hot sources and volcanoes.
‣ Water as a symbol of purity and physical relaxation (thermal baths) appears in the
form of waterfalls, lakes and snow.
‣ Earth/soil: rocks and mountain peaks invite physical effort and self-discipline.
‣ Air: fresh air is good for health and body (Peyroutet 2005).
Peoples’ images of the mountains as a destination depend strongly upon the leisure activities
pursued there (Debarbieux 1995). Thus, they differ according to the season:
Winter: a study of the French tourism ministry (SEATM 1994) reveals, that the two concepts
“winter holiday” and “the mountains in winter” show an extensive agreement. The main
attributes people mentioned in this context were snow, sunshine, warmth and friendly
atmosphere in another world.
Summer: according to another study (ONT 1999), summer holidays in the mountains are
associated with the following positive adjectives: healthy, relaxing, quiet/calm, active and
enriching. In contrast to this, most of the interviewees think that the place does not facilitate
meetings/friendships and going out.
According to Pelletier (2001), the image of the mountains is boring and serious and doesn’t
match the attempts of the French who want to have fun. As far as winter sport resorts are
concerned, the image of the small resorts being different to the larger ones has been
established (SEATM 1994).
Small resorts are popular for the following reasons: a special, informal ambiance, calmness,
good contact between people, no waiting time at the lifts, few people on the slopes, affordable
prices, quality of the service, good maintenance of the slopes, etc. On the other hand, people
29

complain about the restricted ski area, the lack of snow due to its low altitude, the absence of
basic shops, additional activities and special equipment to counteract the lack of snow (snow
guns, high altitude lifts).
On the other hand, the big resorts offer diverse activities and services nearby, snow cannons
and high altitude lifts, a big and varied ski area with long slopes as well as better access.
People consider as negative crowds of people, missing conviviality, high prices/tariffs,
snobbish and pretentious people, anonymity and a bad, city-like atmosphere.
2.5 DIVERSIFICATION
After WWII, a real trend of diversification started in the important industrial countries. At that
time, a phase of continuous peace, developing technical progress and growing
internationalisation favoured companies’ strategic and organisational changes due to higher
competition. In the USA, Great Britain and Japan, these developments happened earlier and
were more extensive than in the rest of Europe (Schüle 1992).
Diversification can be defined as “a strategy which takes the organisation away from its
current markets or products or competences”(Johnson and Scholes 2002, p. 297). This means
that a company using a new product or know-how or addressing a new clientele enters into a
new competitive environment or area(s) of strategic activity (Pitts and Hopkins 1982 in Very
1991). In the literature, there is no general approved definition or concept of diversification.
However, the term is commonly connected with the Ansoff Matrix, a model for analysing an
organization’s possible strategic growth directions via present and potential products.
2.5.1 THE ANSOFF MATRIX:
Igor Ansoff (1965) distinguishes between a company’s existing and new products and
markets (clienteles), combining them into the following four strategies: market penetration,
market development, product development and diversification.
30

An enterprise which wants to increase its market share by using existing products within
existing markets follows the market penetration strategy. The latter can be appropriate when
a company has a high knowledge and experience of the market but cannot enter new markets,
when competitors leave or when the market has a potential of growth.
Against this, market development means using existing products to enter new markets (new
customers, new market segments or new countries). This strategy may be suitable when
existing products can be easily transferred to other markets or market segments which
promise a better growth potential than the existing market.
Product development involves new or improved products for existing markets and may be a
useful proceeding when customer demand changes or when an organization could enhance its
position and/or economic returns by launching new products in an existing market with good
growth potential, etc.
Diversification is based upon entry to new markets with new products when existing products
and markets become unprofitable, when resources and competences are underexploited or
when the organization wants to address more than one product or market segment (Evans et
al. 2003).
This narrow concept of diversification has been enlarged by other authors, such as Bühner
(1985 in Schüle 1992) who adapted it to the German context. According to Bühner,
diversification includes also ma rket- and product-development. The same applies to France,
where the terms are replaced by market diversification (“diversification marché”) and product
diversification (“diversification produit”) [contrary to Bühler who keeps the English terms].
31

Product
Market
Existing
New
Existing
Market penetration
French: Spécialisation
German: Marktdurchdringung
Market development
Diversification marché
Marktentwicklung
New
Product development
Diversification produit
Produktentwicklung
Diversification
Diversification totale
Diversifikation
Table 2-1 : The Ansoff Matrix
Source: Adapted from Ansoff 1987 in Evans et al. 2003 ; Schüle 1992 ; Helfer et al. 1996
The risk is growing in the above order: the market penetration strategy is the least risky as the
company is based upon a product and clientele it knows well. On the contrary, diversification
is the most risky as it centres on new products (high rate of failure) for new markets.
According to Very (1991), 50 percent of diversification attempts fail. This leads one to
question if, in practice, a company can easily distinguish between these strategies. In other
words, where is the transition-point from an existing to a new product or market? The answer
is that it is difficult to differentiate between these strategies as they follow a continuum.
Sometimes the new activity resembles the existing ones, while sometimes they are totally
different (new technology and new market).
32

2.5.2 TYPES OF DIVERSIFICATION:
In the consulted literature, the following terms recur:
RELATED (CONCENTRIC) VS. UNRELATED (CONGLOMERATE)
DIVERSIFICATION:
Johnson and Scholes (2002, p. 297) define related diversification as “strategy development
beyond current products and markets, but within the value system or 'industry' in which the
company operates”. On the contrary, unrelated diversification goes beyond the company’s
value system or industry. In other words, related diversification is linked to the company’s
industry sectors, whereas unrelated diversification isn’t (totally new products for unfamiliar
markets). Consequently, the latter is more risky.
VERTICAL, HORIZONTAL AND DIAGONAL DIVERSIFICATION:
Evans et al.(2003) further distinguish vertical (forward, backward), horizontal and diagonal
diversification as subcategories of the related diversification. Vertical forward diversification
means that a company tries to work in markets that are served by its distributors or customers
(e.g. a tour operator’s own chain of travel agencies). Vertical backward diversification is
when a company operates in markets which supply resources to it (e.g. a tour operator’s own
airline). In the case of horizontal diversification, an enterprise enters competitive or
complementary markets (e.g. strategic alliance). Poon (1993 in Evans et al. 2003) introduces
the term ‘diagonal diversification’. “This form of diversification (common in service
industries) utilizes a common platform of information-utilizing technology to target a group
of customers with a closely related set of products” (Evans et al. 2003, p. 236; e.g. a tour
operator selling travel insurance, credit cards, etc.).
Although the above strategies refer to a company, they can also be applied to a destination
(see Godfrey and Clarke 2000). A governmental study about diversification in mainly French
ski resorts refers to the larger concept (see AFIT 1993). This seems appropriate, as numerous
initiatives of ski resorts usually address both existing and potential clients without
differentiating between them. The author will follow this process for reasons of simplicity
(the context of the French mountain resorts, the continuum of the strategies etc).
33

Diversification connects to innovation as the first resorts enlarging their offer stood out from
the other resorts by creating something new (a product, service or idea; Kotler 2003).
According to Bergery (2001), there are two main types of innovation:
‣ Incremental innovation responds to customer demands for improvement of the
existing product(s) or service(s). It is addressed to a well-known market (clientele).
‣ Radical innovation, meanwhile, means the creation of a totally new product or
service yet unknown to the customers and involves the risk of rejection by the latter.
One can further distinguish between product/service-innovation and procedure innovation
(e.g. Information Technology: information and reservation on the Internet; Bergery 2001).
A company or resort has to respect the following points in order to be successful: carefully
analyse the market (competitors, clients), gain an advantage over competitors, respect the
client as well as the system capacity, bring a technological evolution and integrate all staff in
its projects (Bergery 2001). It can create value through a superior position, hindering its
competitors from entering the market, making resources difficult to imitate, and grabbing
opportunities quicker (e.g. a new combination of resources to fulfil unmet customer needs) as
well as a gap in the market (e.g. ignored customer segment or new technology). Being a trenddriven,
customer-led and highly competitive sector, tourism destinations and businesses that
ignore changing customer behaviour and needs run the risk of loosing existing and potential
customers to their competitors. However, the rapidly changing nature of tourism makes it
difficult to satisfy an increasingly varied, disloyal and heterogeneous clientele and requires a
high flexibility (Caccomo and Solonandrasana 2001, Callot 2001, Page 2003). To reduce the
risk, in France, most innovation products are imported or rather imitated from elsewhere
(Viard 1998).
2.5.3 DIVERSIFICATION MOTIVES AND LIMITATIONS
Diversification is one possible answer to the following question of a company’s (or
destination’s) marketing plan: How do we get there? It is the choice of a strategy to reach
the company’s objectives . Companies undertaking diversification measures may be in very
different economic situations. Being in prosperity, they follow a growth strategy. Being in
difficulty, the aim is to give a boost to the economy (Helfer et al. 1996). Amongst others, the
34

major reasons for diversification are profit increase, cost reduction, risk compensation or the
decrease, growth, development and valorisation of new or distinctive competences, the
utilisation of surplus resources, advantages over competitors, management interests, and
increased strategic flexibility (Schüle 1992; Helfer et al. 1996).
Adapted to the situation of ski resorts, specific diversification motives or aims include:
‣ Profit increase: additional yield from new portfolios, such as sports and wellness
centres, completing the basic skiing product and compensating for a lack of snow.
‣ Cost reduction: higher productivity from synergy effects (old and new portfolios are
put together). An example may be the collaboration between resorts in terms of
promotion or a central reservation system for all kind of accommodation, leisure
activities, etc.
‣ Risk compensation or decrease: less seasonal and economic variations due to a
combination of a company’s product-market-areas. A new product like wellness, for
example, may be able to attract a large clientele over the whole year.
‣ Growth: a resort’s diversification measures aim at increasing visitor numbers due to a
larger offer adapted to customers’ changing needs and wants (multi-activities).
‣ Development and promotion of new or distinctive competences: a resort having a
long, special experience with childcare, for example, may improve its image by
informing people about this competence (advertising).
‣ Utilisation of surplus resources like unemployed or seasonal workers, unused ski lifts
in summer, etc.
‣ Advantage over competitors through better or different product offers.
‣ Management interests such as the resort’s good reputation.
All in all, the above criteria for diversification try to respond, amongst other things, to a
maturing market, changing demand, seasonality, global warming and environmental
problems.
A resort should not fail to take into account the disadvantages and dangers of diversification
such as high investments, dispersion of resources, difficulty in knowing the different
departments, identity loss, etc. (Schüle 1992; Helfer et al. 1996). The success of
diversification is no natural course of action and the proceedings are not only very risky, but
also bring the following limitations:
35

The influence of diversification on people’s decision to go on holiday and on their destination
choice is marginal. So, these offers have a very small effect on the total visitor numbers, but
are a good way of gaining customers’ loyalty. The diversification products either replace the
ski lifts in the case of a lack of snow or saturation or complete them when used outside the
skiing periods. This means either alternative or additional earnings. On the other hand, when
visitor numbers are falling, the diversification products suffer the first and the hardest.
Further, the products of diversification have no autonomous commercial existence. Their
profitability is linked to the basic product (earnings from ski lifts). With regard to financing,
one must chose between an amelioration of the basic product and an enlargement of the
existing offer, as it is usually too expensive to follow both strategies at the same time. The
former may be preferred to diversification, satisfying existing customers and sometimes being
suitable to attract new clienteles. As diversification products can’t be evaluated outside their
environment of production, it is difficult to establish proof of their real effects. Therefore
professionals are often unwilling to invest much money in such products and instead approve
the development of cheep, additional ones, not forgetting that it takes a long time to change
the image of a resort. Finally, ski resorts often don’t undertake a feasibility or opportunity
study before acting, but without following a real strategy, the success of diversification
measures isn’t inevitable (AFIT 1993).
2.5.4 INDICATIONS/GUIDELINES FOR SUCCESSFUL DIVERSIFICATION
There is no magic formula on how to carry out successful diversification measures. Instead,
the latter have to be adapted to the individual situation of the resort as the costs of
investment as well as the effects of such measures upon consumer behaviour differ from case
to case. Therefore, every resort that plans to diversify its products should pay attention to the
following guidelines:
‣ Study in advance the characteristics of each diversification product with regard to
the available financial means, the attended results, the product investment (creation
and maintenance/administrative costs) and exploitation as well as the gains of a wider
offer compared to the costs of the realisation (e.g. better image and customer loyalty).
36

‣ Evaluate the utility of the diversification product towards the basic product by
strengthening the basic product and choosing activities that complete it (diversification
in order to optimise visitor numbers and satisfaction).
‣ Measure the potentialities of diversification in order to have realistic aims: As the
effectiveness of diversification products depend highly on the snow product, a certain
level of snow activities are necessary. Nevertheless, skiing isn’t inevitably the basic
tourist activity, as, for example, in some middle mountain resorts, priority is given to
summer activities.
‣ Distinguish between diversification and reaction to a crisis: Being a risky growth
strategy, diversification can either help a resort to resist a crisis by choosing the right
substitution products or make the existing problems worse.
‣ Pay attention to the resort’s context of production and commercial environment:
A product isn’t efficient in itself, but depends on other products and the context of
distribution. Therefore a successful diversification strategy demands usually several
coordinated and complementary products instead of a single one.
‣ Adopt a global proceeding: The merchandising, for example, aims at enhancing the
products’ profitability and frequentation by adapting the offer to the market demand
(customers needs) under consideration of a resort’s structural and geographical
qualities (AFIT 1993).
The following figure (AFIT 1993, p. 73) shows how to develop a diversification programme
that is valid for a period of years:
37

Realisation of a
DIVERSIFICATION STRATEGY
Repositioning of the resort
Analysis of the offer and
of the communication
Reorientation of the offer and
of the communication
Diversification programme over several
years
Figure 2-8 : Realisation of a Diversification Strategy
Source: AFIT 1993, p. 73
The repositioning of the resort has to be preceded by a study of the place’s potentialities,
and of the concurrence as well as of customers’ expectations and behaviour. It demands a
clarification of the basic products and strategic choices with regard to the clientele, image and
product range. The analysis of the existing offer and of the communication involves the
products’ classification and the description of the resort’s advertising measures (delivered
image). For a reorientation of the latter, it should be examined how to improve the basic
products and how to modify the product range. A communication policy has to be pursued.
This all under adequate financial means and infrastructure.
38

2.5.5 DIVERSIFICATION INITIATIVES IN FRENCH RESORTS
DIVERSIFICATION PRODUCTS IN WINTER:
According to a national study about diversification in French ski resorts (AFIT 1993), similar
strategies are pursued. The small and middle-sized resorts model themselves on the example
of the 15 big ski resorts. In this study, the initiatives of diversification were put into categories
in order to recognise what role the snow and mountains play. The most frequently developed
activities are as follows (see Appendix 5):
Type 1.) Other forms of gliding/sliding make up 16.5% of the offers. These are in the
following order of importance new glides, other glide products, Nordic skiing, dog sledging,
motorised gliding, sledging, hiking and jumping.
Type 2.) Other snow products make up 12.7%. These are snow shoe walking and pedestrian
slopes.
Type 3.) Other mountain products (without snow and skiing): of the total of 23.5%, 20,5%
are sports activities and the remaining 3% is heritage-related.
Type 4.) No typical mountain tourist and leisure products: At 33.6%, this is the most
represented type, including sports activities (17%), animation, relaxation, business tourism,
leisure equipment, thermal baths and museums, conference halls.
Type 5.) Reception and entertainment for children make up 7%, mainly consisting of
entertainment with an insignificant percentage (~0.5%) of equipment.
Type 6.) and 7.) Commercial initiatives and communication are of marginal significance.
All in all, 68% of the initiatives are linked to sports, such as skiing, ski -jumping, hanggliding,
mountain climbing, squash, swimming, etc. This result shows that the mountains see
this kind of activity as their second pillar. Two other tendencies become apparent: an
emerging, new orientation towards a “discovery of the milieu” (sphere/environment) with
offers like dog sledging, walking runs, snow shoe walking, hiking, heritage and entertainment.
39

Further, over half of the activities are linked to the mountains and a third to urban leisure,
indicating that the resorts see themselves as leisure sites (well-equipped in terms of
entertainment and relaxation; AFIT 1993).
In historical terms, a change from an enrichment of the product skiing to a diversification of
the leisure activities on offer has occurred. Being collective actions previously, nowadays two
procedures prevail: an amelioration of the basic/main product or a development of new leisure
forms or practices. In a word, additional versus individual, autonomous products. This is true
of most diversification initiatives. They are mainly connected to the basic product skiing or to
the mountains, trying to get away from only skiing and nothing else. This is achieved through
activities before and after skiing as well as new leisure and relaxation offers. Another
important tendency comes to light: All kind of resorts try to enlarge their basic products,
whereas mainly the big resorts go for a new positioning, since they are already effective in the
product skiing. Benefiting from higher visitor numbers and a better turnover, the latter can
undertake a more expensive, high risk strategy. Most of the product diversification strategies
focus on keeping existing customers by fulfilling their needs and wants through an
enlargement of the offer instead of gaining new ones. The result is a very heterogeneous
product without a clear positioning or choice, a global vision, coordination between
professionals or marketing reflection (AFIT 1993).
40

3 RESEARCH
Chapter three is subdivided into two main parts; namely, research methods (3.1) and research
findings (3.2).
3.1 RESEARCH METHODS
In this section, the research methods used to gather the relevant data in order to achieve the
established research aims and objectives are presented. A discussion of alternative ways of
data collection, an account of the primary and secondary data analysis, the evaluation criteria
and research limitations will also be included.
3.1.1 THE RESEARCH QUESTION
The aim of this dissertation is to assess the existing diversification measures in mid French
mountain resorts with regard to the following questions:
When is diversification successful? Are these initiatives capable of keeping existing clienteles
and of gaining new ones? Are they adapted to existing and/or potential customers? Related to
this, the author has formed the following hypothesis: two major success factors of resorts are
to have the capacity to diversify the offer and – in accordance with the marketing theory – to
address oneself to one or several specific target groups. The objectives are first to find
diversification concepts, types and general goals, then to critically analyse and adapt this
theory to the reality of French mountain resorts. Existing diversification products shall be
evaluated with regard to the results achieved and the limitations of such measures. In addition,
factors for successful diversification shall be determined and finally examined in two middle
mountain resorts, La Bresse (Vosges) and Orcières-Merlette (Southern Alps).
According to Veal (1997, p. 33), “in planning a research project it is advisable to consider
whether it is necessary to go to the expense of collecting new information (primary data,
where the researcher is the first user) or whether existing data (secondary data, where the
researcher is the secondary user) will do the job”. This research is based upon both methods
41

of data collection, which will be explained in the following paragraphs. In Chapter Two (the
literature review), secondary data sources were consulted, introducing the reader to the topic
by putting it into its overall context. Chapter Three (the research), relating to real cases,
makes use of primary and secondary data.
3.1.2 THE SECONDARY DATA COLLECTION
Reflecting the level of research on the topic and stimulating his ideas, the author is making
use of existing information. All sections contain reviews of the relevant literature and a whole
chapter is devoted to a literature review. Veal (1997, p. 76) is convinced of the importance of
secondary data collection, noting that “reviewing previous research or writing on a topic is a
vital step in the research process” from which every researcher can benefit. Especially in
young and multi-disciplinary fields such as leisure and tourism, “there is a great need for the
consolidation of existing knowledge which can come from good literature reviews” (Veal
1997, p. 69). The dissertation is based upon the following secondary data sources:
The national stock of books in France were found at the website http://www.sudoc.abes.fr.
Relevant books have mainly been obtained from the following three university libraries:
Chambéry (“Université de Savoie”), Grenoble (“Université Grenoble 2/3”) and Heilbronn
(“Fachhochschule Heilbronn”). In addition, the author borrowed books from city libraries
(Chambéry, Gap), professors, and fellow students. As tourism is linked with other disciplines,
looking at leisure and tourism studies isn’t sufficient. Therefore the researcher went beyond
this specific area, consulting also books on strategic management and marketing.
According to Bell (1999, p. 75), “the frequency of publication makes journals a more fruitful
up-to-date source of information than books”. Consequently, academic journals were
consulted from the above universities, as well as online from Bournemouth University (UK)
and Högskolan Dalarna (Borlänge, Sweden). These are, amongst others “the Annals of
Tourism Research” and “Cahier Espaces”, and articles from special mountain journals, such
as “Montagne leaders” were also consulted.
Data about tourism in France and the mountain areas was obtained from the government
website (http://www.tourisme.gouv.fr) and from studi es mainly carried out by the institutions
42

AFIT and SEATM. On a regional and local basis, the tourist boards (Comité regional du
Tourisme, Comité départemental du Tourisme) also publish information and statistics.
Background information about the resorts and their products were found via the Internet and
brochures from the resort’s tourism office (http://www.orcières.com; http://www.labresse.net;
http://www.karellis.com). This data source is inexhaustible but should be used with caution,
since it contains a lot of unqualified information. The search machine Google offers a search
option specially for students (www.scholargoogle.com) which is worth consulting.
Dissertations from previous years are also available online, for example, at the Dalarna
University homepage (www.du.se).
3.1.3 THE PRIMARY DATA COLLECTION
Searching for information beyond the published literature, the author needs to collect new
data. Being a aid to achieving the research aim and objectives, the method has to be chosen
carefully. According to Veal (1997, p. 68), “every technique has its place” and “techniques
are not considered to be intrinsically good or bad, but are considered to be appropriate or
inappropriate for the task in hand”.
Weighing up the pros and cons of the different methods, the researcher decided that a
qualitative approach is better suited to this work, giving him a better understanding of the
interviewees’ decision-making, opinions and attitudes (Saunders et al. 2003). This method of
data collection involves acquiring as deep and detailed information as possible from a few
persons rather than limited information from a big sample (Peterson 1994). In the present
research, the researcher was at first interested in examining the theory on the basis of two
successful middle mountain resorts (“La Bresse”, “Orcières -Merlette”) without any claim to
generalization. The latter were chosen for the following reasons:
‣ Geographical context: diversification is more widespread in middle mountain resorts,
as resorts at this altitude suffer the hardest from the lack of snow and are thus forced to
find alternative products to skiing (Lemar, employee at the national tourism board
specialised on mountain tourism in France).
43

‣ Success/image: both resorts are popular destinations being relatively economically
sound and attracting relatively hig h visitor numbers, mainly from France and the
surrounding areas (regional public).
‣ Diversification: Orcières -Merlette, as well as La Bresse, have both diversified their
leisure facilities.
It was difficult to find two mid-mountain resorts which are at the same time successful and
also have diversified their facilities. Recommended by experts from the university and
national tourism board (maison de la France) on the basis of the above criteria of choice, the
two resorts of Orcières-Merlette and La Bres se were finally chosen. Five interviews were
conducted, each with responsible persons from the resort and/or from the local and regional
tourist boards (OT, CDT, CRT). To discover the factors of success, the researcher is
interested in both the facts (e.g. investment in and profit from diversification initiatives) and
opinions (e.g. value of diversification) about diversification within these resorts. This
information will be collected by means of interviews:
Interviews can be defined as “a purposeful discussion between two and more people” (Kahn
and Cannell 1957 in Saunders et al. 2003, p. 245). Discussions between two persons, namely
the interviewer and interviewee, are called one to one interviews . Face-to-face interviews
and telephone interviews belong to this kind of tête-à-tête. On the other hand, focus group
interviews occur, as the name implies, with a group of people (one interviewer, several
interviewees) and fall under the category of one to many interviews .
The research employs individual one to one interviews, as interaction is less important for this
study. Each interviewee is separately asked to share his knowledge and opinions about
diversification measures within the resort in question. The interviews will take place both on
the spot as well as on the phone. Telephone interviews were chosen because the resort was at
a distance from the researcher and helped to save a considerable amount of time and money
spent on the road. Besides these forms of interaction, one can further distinguish different
types of interview, such as structured/semi-structured/unstructured, standardised/nonstandardised,
and respondent/informant interviews:
44

Structured interviews require that the researcher establishes in advance a set of standardised
questions. On the contrary, non -standardised interviews, such as semi-structured and
unstructured ones, allow more flexibility. In semi-structured interviews , the questions as
well as their order may vary according to the course of the discussion. Unstructured
interviews do not use a list of questions. The interviewee can go more into depth and talk
freely about his/her feelings and opinions in relation to the topic. Either he/she answers the
questions asked by the interviewer in his/her own words (respondent interview), or he/she
steers the discussion him/herself in one direction (informant interview; Saunders et al. 2003).
The researcher estimates that semi-structured interviews are the most suitable to this
explanatory study. This method gives him both a minimum of guidance and a maximum of
flexibility. On the one hand, he is able to pre-formulate a list of questions according to the
information he wants to obtain as a satisfactory reply to the research question. On the other
hand, depending on the interview situation, he can react spontaneously by changing the order
of the questions or allowing space for new, unforeseen points of view which may be
noteworthy.
According to Peterson (1994), a successful qualitative study has to take into consideration the
following important steps:
‣ Choice of participants: each interviewee has to contribute to the overall research
aim. The directors of the resort, local and regional tourist boards were selected
because they know well the network of tourist resorts in that location. Sharing their
practical experience with the researcher, the participants can help the latter to achieve
a better understanding of the facts of diversification in these resorts and in general.
‣ Development of a list of questions: the author used a maximum of open questions
which can’t be answered by a simple yes or no. This kind of question avoids bias,
encouraging the interviewees to develop their answers and to go in depth. The
interview consists of 14 questions, plus some sub-questions. The author considered it
necessary to increase this to 22, as new, interesting questions emerged from the initial
interviews. Linked to the research aim and objectives, they are mainly about the new
services proposed in the resort, customer target groups, investment in and profit out of
diversification measures, their importance for the resort, and the possible success
factors.
45

‣ Selection and training of the interviewer(s): owing to a limited number of
interviews, this survey will be carried out by the researcher himself. This has the
advantage that no other interviewers have to be trained to conduct the interviews.
Further, the researcher can steer the conversation in the right direction, knowing well
the goal of the research. He also appears more competent to the interviewee, having
collected a maximum of information about the resort and the topic in question.
‣ Data analysis: The interpretation of the results depends on the study’s aim and
objectives. An evaluation of the diversification measures within the two resorts
demands a knowledge of the offer, demand, effects of diversification measures, etc.
In the following paragraph, the data analysis will be discussed in greater detail.
3.1.4 RESEARCH ANALYSIS
According to Saunders et al. (2003, p. 378), “the nature of qualitative data … has implications
for both its collection and its analysis”. Based on the words’ meanings, qualitative data can
neither be collected nor analysed in a standardised way. Usually, researchers puts relevant
data (words, sentences) into categories (codes, labels), to serve as a basis for further analysis.
This is true for the present research, where the following five categories were chosen:
46

CATEGORY/SUBJECT
QUESTION
RESUMPTION
Development of the resort
Diversification type and motives
1. What was the resort’s
situation initially?
2. What is its situation
today?
3. Has a new product or
service been introduced into
the resort during the last five
years?
4. During the same period,
has any product or service
been cancelled?
Similarities and differences in
terms of size, product, clientele,
strategy
If yes, which one and when? Why
and how was the decision made?
Why and how was the decision
made?
5. On which product is the
resort focussing?
Major/strong product(s) and
service(s)
6. What position does the
ski market occupy within the
resort?
How does the resort react to
periods with a lack of snow?
7. In future, are they trying
to develop new products or
services?
Principal market, mature market,
market in a period of adjustment.
Investment in artificial snow and
lifts
If yes, which ones and for what
clientele? Why and how was
the decision made?
8. When are the opening
periods?
Have these changed
during the last five years?
20. For what reasons and
when did the resort decide
to diversify its facilities
Season (year- round/summer/
winter).
If yes, why and how was the
decision made?
Compensation for the decrease in
skiing, creation of a strong image,
etc.
Target group(s)
9. Is your offer adapted to
one or several specific
clienteles or are the
proposed services addressed
to the whole public?
Customers’ age, socio-professional
category, geographical origin. If
the offer is addressed to one or
several target groups, which
one(s)?
10. Which argument(s)
determined this choice of
clientele and the offer
adapted to the latter?
11. What is their
consumption behaviour and
how has the product or
service been adapted to it?
47
Customers’ attempted and
practiced activities.

12. Has the choice of
clientele been changed
during the last five years?
13. In future, do you try to
attract new markets/
clienteles?
If yes, why and how was the
decision made?
If yes, which one(s)? Why and
how was the decision made?
Competitiveness/Differentiation
14. How do you situate
your offer in relation to
your close competitors?
15. Does the resort follow a
strategy?
Identification of competitors
(other resorts in the area, other
small or big ski resorts),
similarities and differences with
the latter, the resort’s
competitive advantage/
strengths, innovativeness,
market share.
If yes, which one? Positioning
towards the competition
(amelioration of snow products
or dropping, segmentation of
activities).
48

Diversification impacts
16. Do you know what
percentage of your annual
budget is invested in new
products and services?
18. What has been your
average progression in terms
of turnover and number of
visitors during the last 5
years?
21. State more precisely the
impact of the new services
in the last five years in terms
of visitor numbers, turnover,
and image of the resort.
22. For the present and
the near future, do you
think the measures for
diversifying the resort’s
offer are indispensable,
complementary or have
no priority?
Return on investment, profit increase
since diversification
17. What is your progression If no figures are known, rating on a
objective in terms of Likert scale from 1 to 5
turnover and number of (1 = no or insignificant progression, 2
visitors during the next five = weak progression, 3 = medium
years?
progression, 4 = strong progression, 5
= very strong progression)
If no figures are known, rating on a
Likert scale from 1 to 5
(1 = no or insignificant progression, 2
= weak progression, 3 = medium
progression, 4 = strong progression, 5
= very strong progression)
19. Through which Distinguished visitors’ book,
indicator(s) do you measure suggestions box, etc.
the
economic
effectiveness of your
products and/or customer
satisfaction?
Likert scale (1 = no effect, 2 = little
effect, 3 = medium effect, 4 = strong
effect, 5 = major explanatory factor).
What kind of image does the resort
have?
Why? (Give reasons)
Borttaget:
49

Further, the researcher tries to find relationships or patterns within and between the categories
and advances a hypothesis which is tested for accurateness. In the present research, the latter
is: Is a resort’s success based on either its capacity to diversify its facilities (products and
services) and/or to respond to the needs of one or several of its customer target groups?
If necessary, this interactive process of data collection and analysis requires the development
of a new hypothesis or change categories. Different strategies of data analysis can either be
assigned to the deductive or to the inductive approach or to both (a combination of the two
approaches). The former takes the theory as a starting point for the development of the
research aim and objectives. The latter takes several relevant cases as a basis on which to
build the theory. The researcher combined both approaches: he posits a research hypothesis
and questions on the basis of the consulted secondary literature, which includes both the
theory about diversification as well as practical national surveys about the situation in French
ski resorts.
3.1.5 RESEARCH LIMITATIONS
Before undertaking a study, the researcher should think about and prepare for restrictions
which exist in every research. Possibly, he/she may has to make concessions and if necessary
lower his/her sights. As far as the present case study is concerned, some of the limitations
were predictable, whereas others only became apparent during or after their execution.
As mentioned above, the choice of which two resorts to examine was difficult due to a lack of
available information. For this reason, the author conducted further interviews, which proved
contrary to his initial expectations.
Using a fairly small, purpose-chosen sample (six directors from the resorts, and the local and
regional tourist boards), “the findings from a qualitative research effort must be regarded as
informed hypotheses, not as proven facts” (Peterson 1994, p. 188). To make generalizations,
the starting hypothesis needs to be proved on the basis of further stud ies and a bigger sample
which wasn’t possible because of time and money constraints. Hence, the success of
diversification initiatives in the two resorts La Bresse and Orcières-Merlette is not definitely
attributable to the established factors. It may depend on other or additional factors such as the
generation of the resort, its location, and so on.
50

Being no skilled researcher, drawing up and formulating appropriate research questions was
no easy task. The same applies to the interpretation of the collected data. This involves both
the danger of obtaining data which is irrelevant to the research aim as well as the danger of
provoking misunderstandings and misinterpretations. The researcher tried to counteract this
by constantly keeping in mind the research aim, by following the theoretical guidelines and by
testing the interviewee’s comprehension through certain techniques of questioning (e.g.
reformulation, probing, backtracking). In two interviews, the respondents preferred to speak
freely without followi ng the questions set in advance. The disadvantage to this is that they
failed to answer all the questions making supplementary interviews necessary, while the
advantage is that new issues arose (enlargement from 14 to 22 questions). Despite the
relatively large number of questions, the interviewees devoted a lot of time to answering them
in detail. However, they didn’t have all of the information the author was searching for, as the
resorts aren’t run by a single manager with all the data about the resort at his/her disposal, but
by several authorities.
Further, interviews involve the danger of bias reducing the reliability of the results. The
interviewers’ verbal or non-verbal behaviour, for example, may have an effect on the answers
given from the respond ent (interviewer bias). Vice versa, the interviewee can have an
influence on the researcher’s method of data interpretation; for example, if he/she doesn’t
appeal to him/her or isn’t credible enough (interviewee bias; Saunders et al. 2003). Realizing
their existence, the researcher tried to limit the creation of bias by paying as much attention as
possible to: objective/neutral behaviour (no/little comments or language speech), attentive
listening, tests of understanding, data recording, etc. The latter was unsuccessful due to
technical problems, so the researcher had to rely heavily on his written notes.
51

3.2 RESEARCH FINDINGS
3.2.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE TWO MID FRENCH MOUNTAIN RESORTS
AND THEIR TOURIST PRODUCTS
ORCIERES-MERLETTE
LA BRESSE
Age: Created in 1962
Type:
3 rd generation resort
Location: Massif: Southern Alps
National Parc (Ecrins)
1967
Village-resort (station village)
Vosges
Regional nature park (Ballons des Vosges)
Altitude:
Size:
Village: 1 850 m
Slopes: up to 3 000 m
Big resort (from 5 000 (1968/69) tourist
Beds to 15 000 (2005)).
650 m
900 – 1 350 m
Small village/resort (5 000 inhabitants; 8000 tourist
beds). The most important winter sport resort in the
East of France.
Ski area:
From 14 ski lifts and 60 km slopes (70s)
to 29 ski lifts and 100 km slopes (2005),
an altitude snow park,
3 areas: Bresse-Hohneck, -Lispach, -Brabant with:
34 ski lifts and 40 slopes; 50 km cross-country
slopes and 40 km snowshoe paths, bobsleigh slopes
and footpaths.
Artificial snow: since 1992; from 3 snow guns
(1992) to 33 (2005).
280 snow guns
Management: a private operator (Remy Loisirs) and
a mixed economic society ( public and private
authorities)
Leisure offer(winter):
-Facilities: Sports arena (with swimming pool, ice
rank, sauna, hammam, fitness, bar/restaurant,
bowling, cinema, cyber-space, events room, etc.);
slalom stadium, igloo village, house of children
(with day nursery, snow garden, school).
- Activities: skiing (downhill, cross country),
snowboard, snowshoe walking, free ride, hike with
ski, quad, motor- or mountain-bike, new glides (e.g.
snowscoot), paragliding, dog sledging.
- Events: snow race, Jazz Festival, ski
games/competition (9-13 years), hockey on ice (9-10
years), quad/motorbike on the forest -slopes.
Private operator (Remy Loisirs) and public
municipality (e.g. Office de Tourisme)
Leisure complex (with swimming pool, sauna,
hammam, solarium, gym, muscle/fitness room,
tennis, bowling, climbing, cinema, playing room);
library; slalom stadium, snow-park, nursery school,
picnic hut.
Skiing (downhill, cross country), snowshoe walking,
go-kart, bobsleigh, biathlon, sylphe, hot air balloons.
World championship in cross-country skiing, ski
festival (slalom), St. Nicholas, Christmas concert
and Christmas market.
- Labels: ISO 9001 (quality certificate for ski
area and ski lifts), Petits montagnards, Station Kid
Petits montagnards (French resort for families and
children), label La belle montagne (the beautiful
mountains) under development.
Table 3-1: Comparison of the Ski Resorts Orcières -Merlette and La Bresse
Source: adapted from CDT and CRT du Massif des Vosges 2004; Maison du Tourisme
Champsaur et Valgaudemar 2005; OT La Bresse 2004; OT Orcières 2002; OT Orcières
2005, Schwadrohn 2004 ; www.labresse.net ; www.orcières.com
52

3.2.2 INTERVIEW ANALYSIS (See Appendix 7)
In the following section, the author will first compare the results obtained from the resorts of
Orcières-Merlette and La Bresse and then relate them to the diversification success -factors
discussed in the theory section (Chapter 2). On closer examination of both resorts in relation
to the topics, one may observe the following similarities:
Context:
The first two questions belonging to the category context are intended to give the author more
detailed information about the development of each resort. The answers reveal that both La
Bresse and Orcières-Merlette were built after World War II, more precisely, during the
60s/70s. La Bresse was itself a small village, whereas Orcières-Merlette was constructed
around a small village (Merlette) (OT Orcières 2002). According to Garier, the director of the
ski resort Bresse- Hohneck, the former is a integrated Canadian resort which is 8 km away
from the village (village-resort). The latter belongs, like most French ski/mountain resorts, to
the so-called 3 rd generation resorts, built between 1962 an d 1974 (Tinard 1994). At that time,
as a result of peoples’ changing consumption behaviour, a real ski boom became apparent (see
Figure 2.1, p. 8 àdevelopment stage). Hence, the 3 rd generation resorts’ products are
orientated towards fulfilling skiers’ demands, and are designed and organised as a whole,
taking the form of an integrated architecture (access routes, ski runs, ski lifts, accommodation,
sports- and cultural equipment, etc.). Purpose-built, the buildings are located near the slopes,
accommodatin g as many visitors as possible (Tinard 1994). Although modifications, like the
modernisation of the rented flats, have been made since, one can see that Orcières-Merlette
belongs to this generation of resorts. All of the facilities are in walking distance, and the
blocks of flats are next to the slopes, situated around a central focal point.
Although different in size – Orcières -Merlette was, from the beginning, a big resort, whereas
La Bresse was a small resort – both resorts increased and continue to increase their capacity,
indicating a healthy development. According to Giraudmarcellin, the director of the tourist
office of Orcières -Merlette, the resort has tripled its capacity from 5,000 to 15,000 tourist
beds between 1962 and 2005. By 2007, this number will be further increased to 17,500. La
Bresse was initially a small village with about 150 to 200 beds that today houses 5,000
inhabitants in the village, plus around 400 to 500 beds in the adjoining resort.
53

First only a winter destination, both reso rts tried to extend their season by offering a variety of
activities in the open countryside. Accoding to Poirot, the director of the tourism office of La
Bresse, the resort, profiting not only from tourism but also from other economic activities like
its textile industry, succeeded in becoming a year-round destination (opening period: 6months
in summer, 4months in winter). On the other hand, Orcières-Merlette only opens for two
months in the summer, but has, compared to other resorts, relatively high visitor numbers
(July: 40-60% of the resort’s total capacity, August: 80%). Unlike many other resorts that
target families, Orcières -Merlette and La Bresse have always concentrated on this clientele.
Having a long experience with and a good knowledge of this clientele may be advantageous
for the resorts’ image, leading to greater confidence in their product (Labels : petit
montagnard, station kid).
Diversification Products and Motives:
Questions 3 to 8 relate to diversification products. The author hoped to obtain information
about whether or not the resort has diversified its products in the past or planned to do so in
future. Further, he was interested in what kind of product(s) and/or service(s) they are
concerned with, and if these take into consideration peoples’ changing consumption
behaviour and needs. Finally, this category involves the diversification motives and eventual
process initiatives (e.g. feasibility studies, etc.). On the basis of these answers, it becomes
apparent that Orcières -Merlette and La Bresse have both diversified their offer in the past and
will continue to do so in the near future (period of time: 5 years). They intend to do this by
introducing several new products and services, as well as by restructuring or cancelling
existing ones such as:
Orcièrs -Merlette:
‣ New products and services: children’s house with supervision, underground car park
for 700 vehicles, residences, two new ski lifts, extension of the ski area up to 3,000 m.
‣ Restructured products and services: renovation of existing apartments and ski lifts,
reorganisation of access routes, transformation of cross-country paths into snow shoe
paths.
‣ Cancelled products and services: none.
54

The resort is preparing to increase its visitor numbers. To avoid saturation and quality loss,
the extension has been thoroughly studied in advance on the basis of a regional development
planning project. It includes not only the enlargement of the resort, but also of the ski area as
well. Further, the existing facilities have to be brought up -to-date to keep up with the new
products and services. The fact that no products and services have been cancelled for five
years shows that they are profitable and that the customers make use of them. Hence, this
indicates the visitors’ satisfaction with the existing facilities. An increasing demand for snow
activities other than just skiing is indicated by the decrease in cross-country skiing. The resort
is adapting itself to this changing demand by transforming the cross-country paths into snow
shoe paths. In the near future, it will continue developing artificial snow and working on the
enlargement of the domain.
La Bresse:
‣ New products and services: enlarged and lit ski slopes, lifts, school products
(including reception, special infrastructures, ski school with ski instructors, pedagogic
supervision), etc.
‣ Cancelled products and service: body shaping (forme la Bresse) for wealthy,
middle-aged women going on a short-trip, due to a lack of demand.
One may assume that the resort is aiming to adapt its elf to the changing customer demands
by, for example, fulfilling their desire for new, special experiences like skiing by night. The
new school product, basing on a recommendation by the Ministry of Education and the Arts,
reflects the trend towards learning through play in the community. Even the cancelled
product, body shaping, expresses the resort’s efforts to move with the times. Although
nowadays this product enjoys increasing popularity, La Bresse failed to attract the relevant
clientele (middle-aged women with a good purchasing power going on a short-trip). Poirot is
unaware of the reasons for this lack of demand, which may be diverse (e.g. offer too
expensive, insufficient advertising, lack of preparatory research and so on). The resort has not
stopped developing its facilities and, next season (winter 2005), it will open an ice rink which
can be used in all weathers as the roof can be removed.
Many of the above mentioned diversification measures are connected to children and snow
activities . This indicates an adaptation to customer demands, as families with children are the
resorts’ principal target group and skiing is their basic or strongest product in winter. This
55

eality conforms the statistics that show that most visitors to winter sport resorts come for the
skiing or other glides (snowboard, etc.; see Chapter 2.3.2. p. 13). Like most other resorts,
Orcières-Merlette and La Bresse have improved their basic product, skiing. They react to
times when there is a lack of snow by developing artificial snow rather than by enlarging their
leisure offers. Orcières-Merlette, for example, bought its first snow guns in 1992 in reaction to
a season without snow. This is also true for many other ski resorts suffering from declining
visitor numbers due to poor snow-conditions (global warming). They hope to overcome their
financial problems and boost the economy (profit increase) through the improvement of the
basic product (the production of artificial snow). This shows that the diversification product
isn’t autonomous but additional, completing the basic product (people who don’t want to go
skiing will not come only for the resort’s diversification products, whereas people who come
for the skiing may, in fact, choose the resort because of its diversification pro ducts; see
Chapter 2.5.5., p. 33).
As far as the opening times are concerned, these are orientated towards visitor demand and
linked to the snow conditions. Thus, according to Giraudmarcellin, Orcières-Merlette had to
reduce its summer season due to decreasing demand. As mentioned above, La Bresse
distinguishes itself from most other resorts by being a year-round destination, thanks to its
economic activity as a second support pillar. This means that the resort is not simply a tourist
product, but also a living space and thus less susceptible to fluctuations in visitor
numbers/frequency (mono -activity is more risky).
It is clear that the chosen diversification products and services stay within the resorts’ industry
sector, namely winter sport tourism. This type of diversification is called related
diversification (see Chapter 2.5.1., p. 26), which is less risky than unrelated diversification,
as the businesses stay within their area of competence. More precisely, both resorts follow
Ansoff’s product development strategy: they create new products for their present clientele
(families with children). However, the restructuring of existing products and services for the
existing clientele belongs to the so -called market penetration strategy which doesn’t fall
under diversification. Both strategies involve the existing clienteles, which makes sense in
times of changing customer behaviour, as it is cheaper for a company or resort to keep its
existing customers than to win new ones (see Chapter 2.5.1., p. 24).
56

Target group:
The resort’s positioning/targeting is the subject of discussion in questions 9 to 13. The
interviewer asked about the resort’s target group (the general public or a specific target group,
large targeting or narrow targeting), their special needs, and if or rather how the offer has
been adapted to them. The reason for this choice were also explored to see if, for example,
there has been any research into which clientele corresponds best to the resort’s conditions,
such as its infrastructure, location, etc. Finally, it was established whether or not the resort’s
positioning has changed in the past or will change in future in order to determine whether it is
pursuing a short- or long -term strategy. The results are as follows:
From the preceding answers, it already becomes clear that both resorts have always focussed
on attracting families with children. [The concept of a family has changed over time and has
been adapted to today’s reality: initially a family was understood to be two parents with a
child or children, but nowadays the resort defines a family also as one parent’ with a child or
children and even grand-parent(s) with a grand-child or grand-children (Jabaudon, Director of
the ski resort Les Karellis).] This long -term targeting gives th em an advantage over many
other resorts insofar as they have had long experience with this clientele. For both resorts, this
is a political decision and dependent on their character (middle mountain resorts). Like many
of the bigger resorts that are successful in the basic product of skiing (see Chapter 2.5.5, p.
33), Orcières-Merlette will, so Giraudmarcellin, in future try to enlarge its target group. Thus,
the resort will, in addition to its product development strategy, follow a market development
strategy, using present products in order to gain new clientele (markets; see Chapter 2.5.1., p.
24). On the other hand, La Bresse, being a small resort, will continue to address itself to
families, with the aim of enhancing the loyalty of its present customers.
According to the interviewees, the clients of both resorts are better off in winter than in
summer and come mainly from destinations in proximity: Visitors to Orcières -Merlette are
mainly workers, employees, executives, middle ranking professionals and farmers (La Bresse:
no data about socio -professional category is available). Situated in the north-eastern part of
France, La Bresse mainly attracts people from Alsace-Lorraine, North-Pas-de-Calais (Lille),
Paris and the Benelux countries. Orcières -Merlette belongs to the region PACA (Provence-
Alpes -Côte d’Azur) and more than 40% of its clientele comes from this region. In future,
Orcières-Merlette wants to attract an increasing number of foreign visitors as well, who make
up about 5% of its clientele today. These details match with the latest national study (SEATM
57

2004) that suggests that a large proportion of the visitors to the French mountains are
domestic visitors who belong to the socio-professional categories of employees and middle
ranking professionals as well as to the middle- and upper salary brackets (see Chapter 2.3.2, p.
12). All age groups are represented and targeting families allows for a wide coverage. In
Giraudmarcellin’s opinion, the director of the tourism office of Orcières -Merlette, resorts that
succeed in attracting families have a big advantage: they respond at the same time to other
groups’ attempts as the product is highly diversified. In addition, these resorts are better
prepared for an increasingly heterogeneous future clientele, demanding wide facilities (see
Chapter 2.3.2., p. 13-14).
The present overrepresentation of neighbouring visitors indicates customers’ changing
consumption behaviour, since they tend to take several short trips a year and attach an
increasing value to quality and comfort. According to Poirot, Director of the tourist office of
La Bresse, the day visitors go mainly for the skiing, whereas the overnight visitors want to try
different activities. Both resorts adapt themselves to these new realities by making their
present facilities more flexible and by creating new products and services (see Chapter 3.2.2,
p. 46-47 ).
As short -trips are increasingly in demand, La Bresse has developed some short stay products.
The resort has further reduced its minimum stay to two nights, whereas Orcières-Merlette and
most other resorts rent only for the whole week. In terms of quality and
convenience/comfort, both resorts have increased their production of artificial snow in order
to guarantee skiing. They have also invested in the renovation of existing or the construction
of new accommodation. According to Garier, Director of Bresse-Hohneck, 50 to 150
apartments will be constructed near the slopes within the next three years. Orcières-Merlette
has undertaken a global project of regional development planning comprising, the creation of
1,100 new tourist beds by 2007, the construction of an underground car park and 2 ski lifts as
well as the reorganisation of the access routes. The tourist office further spends an increasing
amount on the creation of a new website (online reservations and sales; see Chapter 2.5.2, p.
27). In both resorts, the ski pass as well as the ski equipment (package price) can be reserved
in advance.
To guarantee a multi-experience, both resorts have in relation to their size rather large ski
and leisure facilities on offer: facilities like a slalom stadium, various slopes and paths (cross-
58

country paths, footpaths, snowshoe paths), a sports/leisure complex with swimming pool, a
wellness -area, a gym, bowling, a cinema, etc. allow visitors to engage in all kinds of
activities. In La Bresse, a snow park was built where snowboarders can practice their sport
without disturbing the skiers. Further, special children facilities have been established, such as
the House of Children in Orcières -Merlette and the school in La Bresse (OT Orcières 2003,
2005; OT La Bresse 2004). These activities will fulfil most customers’ expectations: they can
be practised alone or together with others, are fun, and are good for the body and soul
(pleasure, soft vitality and wellness/health). As customers are increasingly interested in
guided activities (learning by doing), professionals offer courses in certain disciplines and are
sensitise to the environment (nature). In summer, both resorts offer, for a small fee, a card or
passport giving reductions on all kind of activities. In Orcières-Merlette, the latter is valid not
just for the season but for the whole year (non -commercial; see Chapter 2.3.2., p. 14).
Through these measures, both resorts seek to enhance their value and reduce the prices of
their facilities for their customers, by establishing a wide-ranging, high quality product,
service and image, and by facilitating the access to the resort, offering special reductions, and
so on. The resorts’ present offers match their customers’ expectations quite well (for quality,
convenience/comfort, play/pleasure, soft vitality, wellness/health, nature/naturalness and concommerciality),
containing several of the recommendations or good examples outlined in
Chapter 2.3.2. To remain attractive, both resorts continue to adapt their facilities to meet
costumers’ demands. According to Giraudmarcellin, Orcières-Merlette will in near future
enlarge its ski area to 3000m and transform the less popular cross-country paths into snow
shoe paths. Next season, La Bresse will open a new ice rink which can be used in all weathers
as the roof can be taken off (see Chapter 3.2.2., p. 47).
Competitiveness/Differentiation:
The following two questions (14, 15) treat the resort’s specificity or uniqueness as possible
reasons for its success (showing differences and similarities with other resorts, competitive
advantages, strengths, innovations). Both Orcières-Merlette and La Bresse have evolved and
enjoy a slight advantage over their competitors (other nearby massifs). Orcières-Merlette
started to invest in innovation products and services a few years after its construction, in
times of high demand (60s/70s). This was a strategic choice by the mayor at that time who
wanted Orcières-Merlette to be a “resort where the children live like kings”. In 1967,
Orcières-Merlette opened France’s first and one of its nicest snow kindergartens (Jardin des
59

Neiges) , followed by a snow school in 1970 that enabled children who visit the resort outside
the school holidays to have lessons. Another innovation was the sports arena opened in 1986,
which was at that time unique in the southern Alps (other resorts invested in artificial snow).
Orcières-Merlette was also one of the first resorts with a global management and its
rehabilitation measures are exemplary (subventions encourage the owners to renovate their
rented-apartments). Today, it is the only ski resort worldwide with 2 telemix cable-cars (OT
Orcières 2002, OT Orcières 2005). According to Poirot, La Bresse, despite its relatively small
size, has been innovative in organising a world championship in cross-country skiing. It was
also one of the first resorts to introduce a paragliding school, an adventure park, artificially-lit
slopes/night skiing and artificial snow.
Another speciality of both resorts is their global communication assigned by the local
government and tourist office: Orcières-Merlette’s advertising measures comprise the
surrounding area of Champsaur-Valgaudemar and La Bresse communicates to the massif of
the Vosges as a whole (tour operators promote the 5 resorts together). Both resorts are located
in a protected natural environment: 3/4 of the resort of Orcières-Merlette is situated in the
natural park of Ecrins and La Bresse is a typical mountain village surrounded by 3000 ha of
forest. Thus it can offer various activities in a special atmosphere (the activities themselves
don’t differ from the ones offered in other resorts) (CDT and CRD du Massif des Vosges
2004; Maison du Tourisme du Champsaur et Valgaudemar 2005; Schwadrohn 2004).
The above innovations refer to the resorts’ products and services (like a snow kindergarten
with lessons and supervision) as well as to their procedures (like global communication).
They fall into the category of incremental innovation , being well adapted to the resorts’
target group families with children (see Chapter 2.5.2, p. 26). Avoiding unnecessary risk, the
resort relies on products, services or procedures that already exist somewhere else like, for
example, Orcières-Merlette’s snow kindergarten in the US and La Bresse’s night skiing in
Japan (OT Orcières 2005). An important criterion for success is the resorts’ unique setting
within a nature reserve, which is difficult to imitate and brings them an advantage over their
competitors (see Chapter 2.5.2, p. 26). This is also because most French people (>49%)
connect mountains with nature (see Chapter 2.4.2, p. 22). Combining the resorts with the
surrounding area responds to the customers’ demand for a large space to discover
(Schwadrohn 2004). Being an external stimulus, advertisements in form of brochures, etc.
influence their destination image construction (expectations of a vast landscape with a lot of
things to see and do; see Chapter 2.4.1, p. 20).
60

In future, both resorts aim to attract new clientele as well as further enlarge and improve their
existing facilities and communication. In order to achieve this, Orcières -Merlette, on the
contrary to La Bresse, follows a well-defined strategy: advertising the resort’s facilities
(equipment and child services) and expanding the whole domain (resort and ski area) in order
to be able to accommodate new clientele (increased carrying capacity). La Bresse continues to
communicate with its clientele and plans to introduce a customer satisfaction survey, allowing
the resort to enjoy well-directed communication through better customer knowledge (with the
emphasis on soft activities).
Economic/Financial Diversification Impacts:
In questions 16 to 22, the researcher tried to establish the importance of diversification for the
current resort. This is achieved both by putting the money invested into new products and
services in relation to the obtained and attended financial returns, and by determining their
impact on the resort’s visitor numbers, turnover and image (Likert scale). In order to judge
their accuracy, the researcher is interested in how the resort obtains these details. In an
attempt to discover the economic and financial impacts of the undertaken diversification
measures, the researcher faced the following problem: the economic effectiveness of the
product is separately measured by each business (e.g. turnover of the reservation head -office,
ski lifts, accommodation, etc.), making it difficult to obtain figures about the whole resort. By
interviewing the directors of the resorts and their tourist offices, the author was able to obtain
only a little information about investment and turnover in Orcières-Merlette and La Bresse.
The latter refers only to the tourist office and the new private operator Remy Loisirs. Without
having data from all of the businesses within the resort, the information is useless in drawing
conclusions about the diversification impact within the resort. The same problems emerged in
a national study about diversification in French ski resorts (AFIT 1993). According to this, the
real diversification effects are difficult to prove as the diversification products cannot be
evaluated outside their environment of production and commercialisation (see Chapter 2.5.3,
p. 29).
As far as customer satisfaction is concerned, Orcières-Merlette undertakes twice a year a
global survey of the whole resort (including all products and services). The latest
investigations reveal high customer satisfaction in terms of infrastructure and equipment, plus
some criticism for the quality of the accommodation. The resort reacted by implementing its
61

current restructuring and renovation measures. At present, La Bresse restricts itself to the use
of distinguished visitor books and suggestions boxes within the tourist office and certain
campsites. According to Poirot, a questionnaire survey is, however, planned for the coming
season. Being a small resort, it is probable that the resort hitherto has not had the financial
means to conduct such a costly survey. This means, that Orcières-Merlette has the necessary
information about its customers’ needs to adapt its facilities accordingly. On the other hand,
La Bresse has only a little information at its deposal, and relies more on suppositions.
According to the estimates of the interviewees, the effect of new products and services have
been relatively strong in terms of visitor numbers, turnover and the image of the resort (on a
Likert scale from 1 to 5: 4-5 (strong to very strong) for Orcières-Merlette; 3-4 (middle to
strong) for La Bresse). Being based on a personal, subjective estimation, this value cannot be
accepted at face value. In terms of visitor numbers, inconsistent with the reality of several
French ski resorts (AFIT 1993), where diversification has only a small effect on visitor
numbers, but a high effect on winning customer loyalty. Moreover, the impact of
diversification measures on the resort’s turnover and image is difficult to establish
(diversification products cannot be evaluated outside their environment of production and
commercialisation, and images only change over a long time period; see Chapter 2.5.3, p. 29).
As far as image is concerned, La Bresse is known as a very sportive, dynamic resort with a
wide range of activities in a special ambience (natural surroundings). According to Poirot
(interviewed on 29.07.05), this image does not effect the resort’s target group of families with
children, who are looking for various activities, inclusive soft activities. In his opinion, the
resort’s advertising should be better orientated towards its clientele. On the other hand,
Orcières-Merlette has established a reputation as a family resort of human size with a big
infrastructure (the only resort worldwide with two telemix cable cars). According to
Giraudmarcellin, the resort has increased its notoriety through new tour-operators advertising
its facilities in their catalogues.
Poirot (interviewed on 29.07.05) revealed that the impact of the diversification initiatives is
difficult to estimate, as they depend highly on the snow conditions. This matches the theory
that the profitability of a diversification product is linked to the basis product (earnings from
ski lifts), as diversification products have no autonomous commercial existence (see Chapter
2.5.3, p. 29). All in all, the diversification of the offer within the prevailing resort is
62

considered to be complementary. Thus, despite a continuous need for renewal, there is no
radical product evolution and the diversification product is linked to the basic product of
skiing.
Having compared the answers for both resorts, the author will now relate the acquired
information to guidelines for a successful diversification in reality (see Chapter 2.5.4). By
examining if they follow the guidelines or not, it is hoped to establish the reasons for their
relative success compared to other ski resorts.
A Study of the Advanced Characteristics of each Diversification Product:
The impact of their diversification products and economic/financial diversification indicates
whether or not the two resorts, La Bresse and Orcières -Merlette, undertook a preparatory
study regarding the benefits and costs of each diversification product. In neither of the resorts
did the person consulted have any information relating to this. As far as La Bresse is
concerned, the failure of the product ‘Body Shaping’ due to the lack of demand implies that
the introduction of the product was not preceded by a study. This assumption is strengthened
by the lack of global data about the consequences of diversification on visitor numbers,
turnover and image within the resort, showing that no beforehand -afterwards study was
undertaken (each business makes its own calculations).
This is also true for Orcières-Merlette. Although that the resort has information about visitor
numbers and customer satisfaction at its disposal, this has not been exploited the introduction
of new products and services (no research directly before and after their introduction).
However, the current restructuring work was preceded by a preparatory study in 2000 (global
project of regional development planning). In the author’s view, these measures (construction
of new residences, an underground car park and ski lifts, reorganisation of access routes) do
not belong to diversification as they are a matter of enlarging the existing facilities rather than
new products. On the basis of the existing information, it is impossible to draw a wellfounded
conclusion about the conducting of research before the introduction of diversification
products at Orcières-Merlette. However, the introduction of diversification products, like the
sports arena or children’s house, was aimed at the target group of families, especially at the
non-skiing part of that group.
63

Evaluation of the Utility of the Diversification Products in Terms of the Basic Product:
In order to establish whether or not the diversification product consists of activities that
complement and strengthen the basic product, the author consulted the previous categories.
This revealed that the basic product of both resorts is skiing and that the diversification
products complement this. In the view of the interviewees (Giraudmarcellin; Poirot), the
diversification product has a relatively strong effect on the resorts’ visitor numbers, turnover
and image, but depends on the ski products (snow conditions). On closer examination of the
new products and services in Orcières -Merlette and La Bresse, the researcher detected that
they either enlarge the leisure facilities (e.g. sport palace/leisure complex) or improve the
basic product (e.g. artificial snow and ski lifts). Hence, two different strategies are pursued in
both resorts. The author’s understanding of diversification is that it involves either a new
product or a new market. This applies to the enlargement of the leisure facilities (new
products for an existing market (families with children) à product development), but not for
the improvement of the basic product of skiing (existing product for an existing market à
market penetration). An examination of the resorts’ leisure facilities reveals the following:
In La Bresse, leisure facilities like playing fields, the swimming pool or the ice rink (opening
winter season 2005/06) can either replace the ski lifts, for example, when there is a lack of
snow, or complement them if used before or after the ski lift opening times. Hence, the
resort’s diversification products are complementary products which either strengthen or
complement the basic product skiing. The same is true for Orcières-Merlette: according to
Borell, director of the CDT Hautes -Alpes and director of the resort’s tourist office for fifteen
years, the sports arena with its swimming pool, ice rank, sauna, hammam, fitness area,
bar/restaurant, bowling, cinema, cyber-space, events room, etc., was introduced as a
complementary product to skiing. Today it is an important criterion for visitors in choosing
Orcières-Merlette as a winter sports resort and strengthening the basic product. The
diversification products’ utility is expressed in high customer satisfaction (according to the
results of a customer satisfaction survey in Orcières -Merlette), as well as increasing visitor
numbers and the notoriety of both resorts.
The Measurement of the Potential for Diversification in order to have Realistic Aims:
According to the guidelines, a certain level of snow activities is necessary, as the
effectiveness of the diversification product is highly dependent on the snow product (AFIT
1993). As mentioned above, both resorts have improved the basic product of skiing through
64

the introduction of new ski lifts and slopes, artificial snow, etc. In addition, they offer a range
of various snow activities, like snowshoe wa lking, bobsleighing, dog sledging, hiking with
skis, quad-bikes, motor-bikes, mountain -bikes, etc.(OT La Bresse 2004; OT Orcières 2005).
According to Poirot, the aim of these products is to gain customer loyalty by creating high
customer satisfaction and a well-known product image. In Orcières-Merlette, customer
satisfaction is regularly measured through a global survey, whereas in La Bresse individual
businesses simply use distinguished visitor books and suggestions boxes. A comparative
study measuring visitor numbers, customer satisfaction and turnover before and after the
introduction of a diversification product could be useful in assessing the approximate
potential of such products and establishing realistic aims. This kind of research should be
pursued for a longer time-period, as the success of new products and services do not happen
overnight and depend on the snow conditions (different effects in seasons with good snow
conditions compared to seasons when bad snow conditions are likely).
The Distinction between Diversification and the Reaction to a Crisis:
As mentioned above, the introduction of the sports arena in Orcières-Merlette was the
strategic choice of the mayor in response to the clientele composed of families with children,
with the aim of developing a summer activity, rather than a reaction to a crisis situation.
Orcières-Merlette and La Bresse both reacted in the same way to crises, such as the season
without snow in 1991, with the production or increase of artificial snow. This means that they
focussed on the improvement of the basic product of skiing than on diversification (no
equation of diversification with the reaction to a crisis). The pursuit of two strategies
simultaneously, namely the improvement of the basic product and the diversification of the
leisure facilities, is expensive but may, in the opinion of the author, help to reduce the risk.
Focussing on the Resort’s Context of Production and the Commercial Environment:
Both resorts attempt to adapt themselves to the natural and human environment. This is
especially true for La Bresse, a typical mountain village surviving not on tourism alone but
also on its economic activity. At the resort, there is, for example a textiles shop, a museum, a
cheese dairy and a sweet shop with a free guided tour and tasting session. Once a week, there
is a welcome reception for visitors, where they may sample local products. They can also rent
typical chalets or spend the night on a mountain farm. Advertising the resort together with the
65

surrounding area, a trip to discover traditional products is proposed, etc. (OT La Bresse 2004).
The purpose-built resort Orcières -Merlette is less integrated into its environment, but not
totally separated from it. There is, for example, a restaurant serving local specialities as well
as a cheese stall. Moreover, the current renovations of the resort’s apartments use traditional
mountain products, and the resort promotes local handicrafts, food and festivals in the region
and also encourages tourists to visit local farms (OT Orcières 2005; Schwadrohn 2004).
Paying attention to the resort’s context of production and commercial environment also means
introducing several co-ordinated and complementary products, rather than a single one, which
is true for both resorts; La Bresse’s leisure complex and Orières-Merlette’s sports arena, for
example, offer a large range of products to suit all kinds of tastes. They replace the basic
product of skiing if the weather- or rather the snow-conditions are bad - and otherwise
complete it. Another example is the Children’s House in Orcières-Merlette and the school in
La Bresse. Both institutions offer various facilities and indoor as well as outdoor activities for
children of different ages, such as a nursery, skiing course, playing fields/rooms, pedagogic
supervision (school lessons), trips to discover the surrounding area, etc. (OT La Bresse 2004;
OT Orcières 2005).
Adoption of a Global Proceeding:
The theme of competitiveness/differentiation contains information about the eventual
presence of a global proceeding. This is true for both resorts, but to a different extent.
Orcières-Merlette and La Bresse both have a reservations head office where visitors can
obtain information about the vacancies within the resort as well as book their accommodation
and ski passes. This procedure saves the customers from having to contact several
accommodation offices and thus signifies greater convenience. Moreover, both resorts
undertake global communication (including with the resort and the surrounding area/massif),
appealing to customers who are increasingly looking for a large space to discover. The
reservations office is to, a large extent, run in conjunction with the tourist office, whose
vocation goes beyond the resort. As far as Orcières-Merlette is concerned, the resort has
global management with a concentration of decision-making power: the private operator
Remy Loisirs, the mayor/city council and local actors meet three or four times per year to
choose a common strategy, involving the advertisement of the resort’s facilities to attract new
clientele (enlargement of the target group). This facilitates the elaboration of a political line
and of a better identification of the resort’s activities (central control/decision -making).
66

Further, a global customer satisfaction survey is conducted twice a year for the whole resort
(all existing products and services), giving information about the customers’ special attempts
and so making the choice of new products and services easier. Moreover, the present
restructuring measures have been preceded by a global project of regional development
planning. This is in order to adapt the new products to the resort’s conditions in order to make
sustainable development possible. In contrast, La Bresse has never yet conducted a global
customer satisfaction survey and each landlord determines the minimum length of stay. This
makes a uniform course of action and adaptation of the whole offer to the changing
customers’ needs (increasing demand for short-trips) more difficult. The whole resort is run
by the single private operator, Remy Loisirs, who is responsible for the skiing and buildings in
the resort. However, the resort’s central reservations head office is run by the tourist office,
which belongs to the mu nicipality (together with the slopes and the nearby village). Finally,
neither of the two resorts has general figures about turnover, which could give them important
information.
One can resume that, on the whole, Orcières-Merlette and La Bresse follow the guidelines for
successful diversification, with the exception of the first guideline; namely, the need to study
the characteristics of each diversification product in advance. The absence of such preparatory
study in the resorts in question is supposed, but unproved. On the basis of the existing
information, the author will now summarize and discuss the resorts’ principal success factors:
Conclusion/discussion:
During the analysis of the interviews, the researcher realized that the interviewees made no
distinction between the modernisation of the basis product and the adaptation to new habits
and real diversification involving new products and/or new markets (enlargement of the
leisure offer). Hitherto, whether consciously or not, in Orcières-Merlette and La Bresse both
strategies have been pursued at the same time, giving the advantage of risk reduction. The
initiatives actually undertaken - market penetration and product development - are less risky
than the introduction of totally new products or services for an unknown market (total
diversification). Moreover, relating it to the industry sector, winter sport tourism enhances the
chances of success, as the resorts stay within their field of knowledge. As far as their
innovations are concerned, the resorts have copied products that already existed somewhere
else and have proved themselves successful. Being insecure themselves, the resorts did not
run a needless risk, which is essential for the success of such measures.
67

Another important factor in these resorts’ current success is their background. Having shown
innovativeness in the past has helped the resorts to gain a lead over their competitors and
build up their image. Since they have always targeted families with children, Orcières-
Merlette and La Bresse benefit in numerous ways from their experience with this clientele: a
mutual familiarity between the resorts and their customers allows a better adaptation of the
facilities to the customers’ needs and the development of an image or reputation. Targeting
families has the advantage of a wide covering so that the resorts facilities appeal to other
customer groups as well. Nevertheless, in the author’s view, this may also have drawbacks,
like the difficulty in making a differentiating offer. A certain group or groups fall behind
others, as the offer can’t respond to everyone in the same way. A special market is missing
which can become a disadvantage, as due to population development, senior citizens will
become an increasingly important target group.
In addition, Orcières -Merlette and La Bresse both make efforts to adapt the offer to the
demand. This is crucial in a service sector that is orientated at the client, especially in times
of increasing supply and competition. Thus, the two resorts continually try to enhance the
customer’s perceived value and reduce the customer’s perceived costs. Orcières-Merlette
conducts a customer satisfaction survey to obtain the necessary information about its
customers’ needs and wants, whereas La Bresse relies on existing secondary data and its
intuition. Both resorts adapt the offer to the environment as well. Unlike the purpose-built
3 rd generation resorts , La Bresse retained its original form and character as a mountain
village. Offering free entrance, guided tours and tasting sessions, the resort tries to introduce
the local companies to the tourists. This responds well to the new customer expectations for
authenticity and tradition. On the other hand, the 3 rd generation resorts to which Orcières-
Merlette belongs, are nowadays often criticized, being out of harmony with the natural and
cultural environment (unsustainable). In Orcières-Merlette, these mistakes are corrected as far
as possible through restructuring and renovating measures, adapted to the resorts conditions
(the construction of an underground car park to avoid saturation and pollution within the
resort, the use of traditional mountain products/wood to renovate the apartments).
These measures were introduced by the private operator Remy Loisirs. The latter specialises
in the provision of tourist equipments (ski lifts and ski areas) as well as accommodation and
restoration. Recognized for its quality products (Remy Loisirs has its own label) and
innovations, the company started in La Bresse and today runs several resorts, Orcières-
68

Merlette included (Schwadrohn 2004). Apart from its experience and professionalism within
the field, the presence of a private operator has further important advantages, like the supply
of necessary capital, the control of costs (h igher productivity from synergy), and a uniform
direction.
Another important point is collaboration instead of competitive thinking, expressed by the
resorts’ global communication. This corresponds well to the changing customer behaviour in
that tourists no longer want to stay permanently in one place, but enjoy discovering the
surrounding area. Thus, advertising the resorts together with the surrounding area (e.g. other
resorts, villages, cities, natural parks, etc.) helps to attract visitors, increase visitor satisfaction
and strengthen the local economy (circulation of visitors).
Finally, both resorts benefit from the absence of serious competition in the direct vicinity,
in terms of size, facilities, setting and price. Although a small resort, La Bresse is the most
important ski resort in the Vosges, and Orcières-Merlette’s strongest competitors, like Serre-
Chevalier, are at a distance of around … km. Both stand out through their varied leisure
facilities (sports arena/leisure complex, children facil ities) in a special atmosphere/natural
environment and at acceptable prices. La Bresse is mainly a day trip destination and less
expensive than its competitors in the Northern Alps. Orcières-Merlette offers average prices
in terms of ski passes and activities, but the rent for ski-equipment is below average.
One can see that most of the above factors relating to the resorts’ current success are not
linked to recent diversification initiatives, like the improvement of the basic product of skiing,
the resorts’ historical background (long-term targeting, innovations in the past), the adaptation
of the facilities to suit the customers and the environment, the support of a private operator,
global communication, the absence of nearby competitors, a well-preserved natural
environment, and reasonable prices. This result can be strengthened by the example of Les
Karellis, a small ski resort in the Northern Alps (middle to upper mountains) which benefits
from very high visitor numbers in winter (>83% of the reosort’s total capacity) without
diversifying its facilities:
The latter opened in 1975 and belongs, like Orcières-Merlette, to the 3 rd generation resorts.
The direction of the resort consists of a superior council (association SACMAC) that manages
all of the services of the resort (maintenance, entertainment, shops, tourist office, etc.). The
69

latter receives a concession from the six tourism associations situated there (the amount
depending on the number of beds). Being an integrated ski resort, it allows little flexibility in
terms of increasing and adapting its facilities to changing demand. Hence, the number of beds
has not increased since 1975 (2 600 beds) and the offer still consists of accommodation with a
ski pass, half-board and 7 days’ minimum stay.
Diversification didn’t occur and, according to the director of the local tourist office,
Jabaudon, nobody assesses the customers’ needs . The basic product is skiing and, beyond
that, not much is offered as the resort’s infrastructure does not allow it (everything is
concentrated in a confined space, a pedestrian precinct in the centre of the resort, no bus
service) and the customers do not demand new snow sports. The resort’s strengths are its
long experience with their target group, families with children, a product offering quality and
comfort (all inclusive, facilities within the resort/in walking distance) and including special
children facilities (day-nursery from 3 months on, children’s clubs for all ages during the day
and in the evenings). Further, it offers uniform opening times, a high solidarity between the
businesses (if one business closes, the others have to pay a higher amount to the council) and
fast decision-making due to the regular meetings are the result of its global management. It
also o ffers relatively low prices compared to other ski resorts, based on the resort’s initial aim
to enable as many people as possible to go skiing (social tourism).
The professional and academic literature refers to diversification as a success factor for
today’s mountain ski-resorts. The reality of the three ski resorts Orcières -Merlette, La Bresse
and Les Karellis shows that their success does not depend (Les Karellis) or depends only
marginally on their diversification. This means that there is only one factor dictating a resort’s
success. Nevertheless, the increasing competition forces the ski resorts to develop and
diversify their facilities. This is confirmed by Jabaudon, director of Karellis’s tourist office.
With the opening of a new resort in the direct vicinity, planned for 2007, he sees the need for
diversification coming closer.
70

4 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
According to the literature review, diversification is a success factor for today’s ski or rather
mountain resorts. The present dissertation has analysed resorts’ diversification measures as a
factor in their success. In relation to this, the starting point of this research was the question
whether a resort’s success is based on either its capacity to diversify its products and services
and/or to respond to the needs of one or several of its customer target groups. This chapter
contains the conclusions and recommendations for ski resorts and the tourism industry, and
also makes suggestions for further research.
Today’s ski resorts, both in Europe an worldwide, are facing similar problems, like
globalisation leading to increasing competition, changing customer behaviour and climatic
warming. For many ski resorts, diversification is regarded as the only solution to remaining
viable. Since diversification is widely practised today, the author wished to discover what
factors lay behind the success of the two case study resorts. The results are as follows:
It can be confirmed that a resort’s success depends on its capacity to diversify its facilities, but
only in part. Several other factors, such as the location, offering high quality at an acceptable
price, the adaptation of the offer both to customers and the environment, the absence of
nearby competitors, innovativeness, a global procedure and long-term strategy, are also
crucial. However, both a national study about diversification in French ski resorts (AFIT
1999) as well as the present research identify the difficulty in proving the true effects of
diversification because a comparative study measuring visitor numbers, customer satisfaction
and turnover before and after the introduction of a diversification product wasn’t undertaken.
Besides, the data are separately measured by each business, making it difficult to obtain
figures about the whole resort. Both studies notice as well that these measures are aimed at
gaining customer loyalty rather than customer renewal. Moreover, the diversification products
are complementary, depending on the basic product of skiing. This means that diversification
measures alone cannot help to overcome the problem of global warming, as those people who
frequent the ski resorts in winter still mainly come for skiing and stay away during times of
poor snow conditions. It was found that the two case study resorts, Orcières-Merlette and La
Bresse, adopt two strategies: the enlargement of the leisure offer and the improvement of the
basic product. However, being expensive and not environmentally friendly (the enlargement
of the slopes leads to erosion and the development of artificial snow uses a large amount of
71

water), this is not a long-term solution. Just as innovation was involved in the beginning of
diversification, so it may introduce a new era of winter tourism. There are many examples
showing that the imagination knows no bounds, such as the existence of a funicular entirely
equipped with baths in Japan and hot water pools on the cross-country slopes in Iceland.
The question whether it is important for a resort to address itself to one or several specific
target groups can also be answered in the affirmative. The targeting of families with children
is advantageous in -so-far as it enables resorts to respond simultaneously to other groups’
attempts, as the product is highly diversified. Further, they are prepared to accommodate an
increasingly heterogeneous future clientele, demanding a rich variety of facilities. One
possible disadvantage of wide targeting is the difficulty of fulfilling all customers’ needs to
the same extent. Hence, other important, often wealthy clienteles, such as senior citizens and
single people may be neglected. In this context, the author noted the importance of long-term
targeting. Being experienced with a certain clientele, resorts can better adapt their facilities to
suit their customers’ needs and build up trust in their product (image).
It is difficult or impossible to generalise and to define a universal model of development.
Specific solutions have to be found for each resort, taking into consideration its prevailing
economic, ecologic and human environment.
On the basis of this research, the author is in a position to draw the following conclusions:
Identifying the different concepts or understandings of diversification between countries and
professionals within the same country, she sees the need for a universal definition at a
European level, as diversification is a key term to understand the reality of modern ski resorts.
In addition, both the national survey on diversification in French ski resorts (AFIT 1999) and
the present research highlights the deficit of tools to measure the effects of diversification in
terms of turnover, visitor numbers and image within the resorts (qualitative and quantitative).
This suggests the general introduction of a before-after study (to have realistic aims and
reduce the risks of such measures). Finally, further research including the policy of territorial
corporations (municipality, department, region, state, other countries) would be valuable,
since these parties may have different interests to those of the resorts themselves.
72

BIBLIOGRAPHY
AFIT 1993. La diversification de l’offre de loisirs dans les stations de sports d’hiver
françaises et étrangères. Analyses et propositions. Paris : AFIT.
AFIT 2000. Carnet de route de la montagne. De l’écoute des clients à l’action Marketing.
Paris : AFIT.
Ahmed, Z.U. 1996. The Need for the Identification of the Constituents of a Destination’s
Tourist Image: A Promotion Segmentation Perspective. Journal of Professional Services
Marketing, 14, 1, 37-58.
Baloglu, S. and Mc Cleary, K.W. 1999. A model of destination image formation. Annals of
Tourism Research, 26, 4, 868-897.
Baron-Yellès, N. 1999. Le tourisme en France. Territoires et stratégies. Paris : Nathan.
Bell, J. 1999. Doing your research project. A guide for first-time researchers in education.
3rd edn. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Belliard, Y. 2004. Fabriquer une offre adaptée aux évolutions de la demande. L’exemple de
l’UCPA. Cahier Espaces 81, 154-163.
Bergery, L. 2000. Les sept piliers de la demande touristique. Cahier Espaces 173, 36-39.
Bergery, L. 2001. Innover ou disparaître. L’innovation, une nécessité marketing. Cahier
Espaces 186, 22-28.
Bouchet, P. and Lebrun, A.M. 2004. Segmentation de l’offre de tourisme sportif à partir des
expériences recherchées. Cahier Espaces 81, 78-89.
Caccomo, J-L. and Solonandrasana, B. 2001 De l’idée au produit. L’innovation touristique,
un effet difficile à mesurer. Cahier Espaces 186, 37-40.
73

Callot, P. 2001. Restauration. L’enjeu de l’innovation est dans la personnalisation. Cahier
Espaces 186, 30-34.
Carmichael, B. 1993. Using Conjoint Modelling to Measure Tourist Image and Analyse Ski
Resort Choice. In: P. Johnson and T. Berry ed. Choice and demand in tourism. London, New
York: Mansell.
CDT Comité Départemental du Tourisme and CRT Comité Régional du Tourisme du massif
des Vosges 2004. Massif des Vosges. Tous les plaisirs de l’hiver. Intertrace - Saint-Dié :
Comemag.
COFREMCA 1993. Pour un repositionnement de l’offre tourisme-loisirs des Alpes
françaises. Paris : COFREMCA.
Collin, P.H. 1994. Dictionary of Hotels, Tourism and Catering Management. Teddington,
(Middlesex): Collin.
Cooper, C., Gilbert, D., Fletcher, J., Wanhill, S. 1998. Tourism. Principles and Practice. 2 nd
edn. Harlow: Pearson.
Debarbieux, B. 1995. Tourisme et Montagne. Paris: Economica.
Dienot, J. and Theiller, D. 1999. Les nouveaux loisirs sportifs en montagne. Les aventuriers
du quotidien. Talence: Maison des sciences de l'homme d' Aquitaine.
Evans, N., Campbell, D., Stonehouse, G. 2003. Strategic Management for Travel and
Tourism. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Frochot, I. 2005. Qualité des services et Satisfaction. Lecture 3 March. Université de Savoie.
Godfrey, K. and Clarke, J. 2000. The Tourism Development Handbook. A Practical Approach
to Planning and Marketing. London, New York: Cassell.
74

Hovinen, G.R. 2002. Revisiting the destination lifecycle model. Annals of Tourism Research,
29, 1, 209-230.
http://www.tourisme.gouv.fr/fr/z2/territo/montagne/
http://www.tourisme.gouv.fr/fr/z2/territo/montagne/chiffres/sommaire.jsp
http://geotourweb.com/nouvellepage114.htm
http://www.labresse.net/
http://www.orcières.com
http://www.karellis.com
Jarreau, P. and Tallieu, J.P. 1996. Stratégies touristiques et projets de stations. Remarques
opérationnelles. Cahier Espaces 47, 123-127.
Jenkins, O.H. 1999. Understanding and Measuring Tourist Destination Images. International
Journal of Tourism Research, 1, 1-15.
Johnson, G., Scholes, K. 2002. Exploring Corporate Strategy. 6 th edn. New York: Financial
Times Prentice Hall.
Kotler, P., Bowen, J., Makens, J. 1999. Marketing for Hospitality and Tourism. 2 nd edn. New
Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Kotler, P. 2003. Marketing Management. 11 th edn. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Kotler, P. 2004. Marketing Management. 11 th edn. Paris : Pearson.
Lainé, P., Verney, J., Magnin, Y. 2002. La station des Karellis. Un exemple de développement
harmonisé. St. Jean de Maurienne : Salomon.
Laushway, E. 1997. Snow a la carte. Europe 363, 33-34.
Lundtorp, S., Wanhill, S. 2001. The resort lifecycle theory. Generating Processes and
Estimation. Annals of Tourism Research 28, 4, 947-964.
75

Macé, H. 1996. Communes touristiques et stations classées. Des chemins pour sortir de la
crise. Espaces 47, 35-39.
Maison du Tourisme du Champsaur et Valgaudemar 2005. Champsaur et Valgaudemar.
Rencontre avec les montagnes. Paris : DDB Nouveau Monde Le Tourisme.
Marion, C. 2004/05. Comment la diversification des loisirs peut-elle amener les stations
moyennes à se positionner sur le marché des sports d’hiver ? Etude de cas : Les Sybelles
(Maurienne). Thesis. Chambéry University of Savoie.
Middleton, V.T.C. and Clarke, J. 2001. Marketing in Travel and Tourism. 3 rd edn. Oxford:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Moutinho, L. 2000. Strategic Management in Tourism. Oxon, New York: CABI.
Mouton, J. 2000. Le marketing du désir. L’indispensable stratégie. 2 nd edn. Paris: Editions.
Nachman, S. 1997. Older skiers veer way off the slopes. Wall Street Journal, 6
ONT 1999. La demande touristique en espace montagne. Paris : ONT.
OT Office de Tourisme La Bresse 2004. La Bresse Hautes-Vosges. Hiver 2004/2005.
Vagney : PRIM+.
OT Office de Tourisme Karellis 2005. Les Karellis 30 ans. Montricher-Albanne :
Pamplemousse.
OT Office de Tourisme Orcières 2002. Orcières Merlette : 40 ans d’ascension. Paris : DDB
Nouveau Monde Le Tourisme.
OT Office de Tourisme Orcières 2005. Orcières, rêvez plus haut ! Hiver 2005/2006. Paris :
DDB Nouveau Monde Le Tourisme.
76

Page, S.J. 2003. Tourism Management. Managing for change. Oxford: Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Pelletier, H. 2001. La Vanoise à la croisée des chemins. Aménagement & Montagne, 172, 22-
25.
Peterson, K.I. 1994. Qualitative Research Methods for the Travel and Tourism Industry.
In: J.R. Brent Ritchie and C.R. Goeldner, ed. Travel, Tourism, and Hospitality Research. A
Handbook for Managers and Researchers. 2 nd edn. New York: Wiley & Sons.
Peyroutet, C. 2005. Le tourisme en France. Paris : Nathan.
Pigeassou, C. 2001. Panorama de l’innovation sportive. Espaces 186, 41-45.
Randall, L. 1996. Shakeout in skiing. Forbes 157, 9, 56-58.
Saunders, M., Lewis, Ph., Thornhill, A. 2003. Research Methods for Business Students. 3 rd
edn. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Schüle, F.M. 1992. Diversifikation und Unternehmenserfolg. Eine Analyse empirischer
Forschungsergebnisse. Wiesbaden: Gabler.
Schwadrohn, G. 2004. Orcières Demain. La lettre pour des propriétaires d’Orcières. Paris :
DDB Nouveau Monde Le Tourisme.
SEATM 1994. Quel avenir pour les petites stations de sports d’hiver. Synthèse de l’étude.
Paris : SEATM.
SEATM 2004. Les chiffres clés du tourisme de montagne en France. 4 th edn. Paris : SEATM.
Strelecky, J. 2004. Do you copy ? Winning by Imitation. Restaurant Hospitality 88, 6, 62-66.
Swarbrooke, J. and Horner, S. 2001. Consumer Behaviour in Tourism. Oxford: Butterworth-
Heinemann.
77

Tinard, Y. 1994. Le Tourisme. Economie et Management. 2 nd edn. Paris : Ediscience
international.
Van Peer, L. 2003. Tourism Development and Strategies for Success in Ski Resorts: A study of
Theory and Practice. Thesis (MA). Bournemouth University.
Veal, A.J. 1997. Research Methods for Leisure and Tourism. A Practical Guide. 2 nd edn.
Harlow: Pearson.
Very, P. 1991. Stratégies de diversification. Nouvelles perspectives. Paris : Editions Liaisons.
Vles, V. 1996. Les stations touristiques. Paris : Economica.
Westlake, J. 1994. The Destination and the Product. Lecture 15 October. Bournemouth
University.
WTO 2003. Climate Change and Tourism [online]. Djerba, WTO. Available from:
http://www.world -tourism.org/sustainable/climate/final-report.pdf
Interviewees :
Borell, Director of the CDT Comité Départemental du Tourisme des Hautes-Alpes. Interview
from 25. July 2005.
Jabaudon, N., Director of the Tourism Office of Les Karellis. Interview from 22. July 2005.
Garier, Director of the Ski Resort Bresse-Hohneck. Interview from 13. August 2005.
Giraudmarcellin, A. Director of the Tourism Office of Orcières. Interview from 28. July 2005.
Poirot, P. Director of the Tourism Office of La Bresse. Interview from 29. July 2005.
78

APPENDIX
APPENDIX 1 : The Service Gap Concept
1 Differences between consumer expectations and management perceptions
of consumer expectations.
2 Differences between management perceptions of consumer expectations
and service quality specifications.
3 Differences between service quality specifications and the service actually
delivered.
4 Differences between service delivery and what is communicated about the
service to consumers.
5 Differences between consumer expectations and perceptions of th e quality
of the service received. (Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry, 1985)
Source: Parasuraman et al. 1985 in Swarbrooke and Horner 2001, p. 240
79

APPENDIX 2: THE FRENCH MOUNTAINS AND A ANALYSIS OF ITS DOMESTIC
VISITORS (WINTER SPORT)
80

APPENDIX 3: CATEGORIES OF VISITORS TO THE FRENCH MOUNTAINS
(VISITOR PROFILE)
81

APPENDIX 4: ACTIVITIES PURSUED DURING A TRAVEL TO THE FRENCH
MOUNTAINS
82

APPENDIX 5: DIVERSIFICATION PRODUCTS IN WINTER SPORT RESORTS
83

APPENDIX 6: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS:
Original Interview Questions:
Questionnaire pour entretien :
Utilisation des données : limitées à une communication dans le cadre de l’Université de
Chambéry. Une copie du résultat de l’enquête peut être soumise sur demande à la personne
interrogée avant communication de l’étude.
1. Est-ce que dans les cinq dernières années un nouveau service ou produit a été introduit
dans la station? Si oui, lequel et quand ? Pourquoi et comment la décision a été prise ?
2. Est-ce que dans la même période un autre service ou produit a été supprimé ?
Pourquoi et comment la décision a été prise ?
3. Quel est votre période d’ouverture ? Est-ce que cette période a été modifiée dans les
cinq dernières années ? Dans l’affirmative, pourquoi et comment la décision a été
prise ?
4. Votre offre est-elle adaptée à une ou plusieurs clientèles spécifiques (en matière d’âge,
de catégorie socioprofessionnelle, d’origine géographique, etc.) ou est-ce que les
services proposés s’adressent à tout public ?
5. Si l’offre s’adresse à un ou plusieurs groupes cibles, au(x)quel(s) ?
6. Quel(s) argu ment(s) a déterminé ce choix de clientèle et l’offre appropriée ?
7. Est-ce qu’il y a eu des changements dans ce choix de clientèle au cours des 5 dernières
années ? Dans l’affirmative, pourquoi et comment la décision a été prise ?
8. Comment situez-vous votre offre par rapport à votre proche concurrence ? (part des
similitudes et différences)
84

9. Connaissez-vous le pourcentage de votre budget investit annuellement dans de
nouveaux services et produits ?
10. Quels sont d’ici cinq ans vos objectifs de progression :
‣ En chiffre d’affaires
‣ En nombre de clients
11. Quelle a été en regard votre progression moyenne dans les 5 dernières années ?
‣ En chiffre d’affaires
‣ En nombre de clients
12. Par quel(s) indicateur(s) mesurez-vous l’efficacité économique de vos services et/ou la
satisfaction de votre clientèle ? (retour sur investissement, profit supérieur depuis
diversification, mesure de la satisfaction des clientèles par des enquêtes ou « livre
d’or », boîte à idées…)
13. Précisez dans une échelle de 1 à 5 (1= sans incidence, 2= incidence faible, 3=
moyenne, 4= forte, 5= facteur explicatif majeur) l’impact des nouveaux services des 5
dernières années sur :
‣ Le nombre de visiteurs
‣ Le chiffre d’affaires de la station
‣ L’image de la station
14. Pour le présent et le proche avenir, pensez-vous que les mesures de diversification de
l’offre de la station sont indispensables, complémentaires ou pas prioritaires ?
Merci du temps que vous avez bien voulu me consacrer
Tanja BACHER – 7 juillet 2005
85

Changed Interview Questions:
Questionnaire pour entretien :
Utilisation des données : limitées à une communication dans le cadre de l’Université de
Chambéry. Une copie du résultat de l’enquête peut être soumise sur demande à la personne
interrogée avant communication de l’étude.
1. Quel était l’état général de la station à son ouverture comparé à aujourd’hui ?
(similitudes et différences en taille, produit, clientèle, stratégie).
2. Est-ce que dans les cinq dernières années un nouveau service ou produit a été introduit
dans la station? Si oui, lequel et quand ? Pourquoi et comment la décision a été prise ?
3. Est-ce que dans la même période un autre service ou produit a été supprimé ?
Pourquoi et comment la décision a été prise ?
4. Sur quel produit la station se focalise-t-elle ? (produit principal/fort)
5. Quelle place prend le ski dans la station ? Comment la station a réagi sur des périodes
sans neige ? (investissement dans neige de culture et remontées mécaniques)
6. Dans le futur, cherchez-vous à développer de nouveaux produits ? Si oui, lesquels et
pour quelle clientèle ? Pourquoi et comment la décision a été prise ?
7. Quel est votre période d’ouverture ? Est-ce que cette période a été modifiée dans les
cinq dernières années ? Dans l’affirmative, pourquoi et comment la décision a été
prise ?
8. Votre offre est-elle adaptée à une ou plusieurs clientèles spécifiques (en matière d’âge,
de catégorie socioprofessionnelle, d’origine géographique, etc.) ou est-ce que les
services proposés s’adressent à tout public ? Si l’offre s’adresse à un ou plusieurs
groupes cibles, au(x)quel(s) ?
86

9. Quel(s) argument(s) a déterminé ce choix de clientèle et l’offre appropriée ?
10. Quel est leur mode de consommation et comment le service y est adapté ? (attentes,
activités pratiquées).
11. Est-ce qu’il y a eu des changements dans ce choix de clientèle au cours des 5 dernières
années ? Dans l’affirmative, pourquoi et comment la décision a été prise ?
12. Dans le futur, cherchez-vous à séduire de nouveaux publics ? Si oui, lesquels ?
Pourquoi et comment la décision a été prise ?
13. Comment situez-vous votre offre par rapport à votre proche concurrence ? (part des
similitudes et différences// Avantage concurrentiel/atouts de la station, caractère
innovatif, part de marché par rapport à d’autres stations à proximité).
14. La station poursuivit-elle une stratégie de positionnement face à la concurrence ? Si
oui, laquelle ? (amélioration des produits de neige ou abandon, segmentation de la
gamme d’activités, etc.)
15. Connaissez-vous le pourcentage de votre budget investit annuellement dans de
nouveaux services et produits ?
16. Quels sont d’ici cinq ans vos objectifs de progression :
‣ En chiffre d’affaires
‣ En nombre de clients
(Echelle 1 à 5: 1= pas de progression ou très faible ; 2= progression faible ; 3=
progression moyenne ; 4= forte progression ; 5= très forte progression)
17. Quelle a été en regard votre progression moyenne dans les 5 dernières années ?
‣ En chiffre d’affaires
‣ En nombre de clients
(Echelle 1 à 5: 1= pas de progression ou très faible ; 2= progression faible ; 3=
progression moyenne ; 4= forte progression ; 5= très forte progression)
87

18. Par quel(s) indicateur(s) mesurez-vous l’efficacité économique de vos services et/ou la
satisfaction de votre clientèle ? (retour sur investissement, profit supérieur depuis
diversification, mesure de la satisfaction des clientèles par des enquêtes ou « livre
d’or », boîte à idées…)
19. Pour quelles raisons la station a commencé de se diversifier et quand ? (compensation
du déclin du ski, création d’une image forte ou d’un monopole, etc.)
20. Précisez dans une échelle de 1 à 5 (1= sans incidence, 2= incidence faible, 3=
moyenne, 4= forte, 5= facteur explicatif majeur) l’impact des nouveaux services des 5
dernières années sur :
‣ Le nombre de visiteurs
‣ Le chiffre d’affaires de la station
‣ L’image de la station
21. Pour le présent et le proche avenir, pensez-vous que les mesures de diversification de
l’offre de la station sont indispensables, complémentaires ou pas prioritaires ?
Merci du temps que vous avez bien voulu me consacrer
Tanja BACHER – 28 juillet 2005
88

APPENDIX 7 : INTERVIEW ANSWERS
ORCIERES -MERLETTE
LA BRESSE
Development of the resort
1. Created in 1962
From the beginning was a big resort
with a lot of second homes (3/4 th of
the park).àWell-prepared to receive
individual clients, less prepared to
receive groups.
Orientated towards families with
children àchildren reception (“resort
where the children are kings”)
Creation of child and sports facilities
2. UTN regional development planning
project in 2000:
Restructuring/reorganisation,
creation of new residences, an
underground car park, ski lifts;
reorganisation of access routes).
Today, further enlargement of the
resort in action (ski area,
accommodation).
Larger targeting/public
1. Created in 1967
From the beginning was a small resort
In the beginning, only winter tourism,
but for the past 25 years, also a summer
season.
French family destination from the
beginning.
2. Enlargement to 5000 inhabitants today.
Year-round destination.
89

3. New product or service in the last 5
years: 2000 : opening of the
“childrens’ house”(maison de
l’enfant)
4. No cancelled products/services (still
focuses on ski lifts, leisure facilities,
child service), but transformation of
cross country paths into snowshoe
paths.
3. Introduction of many new products, like
ski slopes, extension of the ski area,
lighting of the slopes, chair lifts, etc.
School products: reception, special
infrastructures (e.g. playing fields),
ski school with ski instructors, pedagogic
issues (exercise books to sensitise people
to the natural environment).
4. Cancelled products: body shaping (forme
la Bresse) aimed at women aged 40 to
55, going on a short holiday and having
a good purchasing power. Reason for
cancelling: lack of demand.
Diversification type and motivations
5/6.Major/strong product: skiing
Owing to a season without snow
(1991), the resort created the SEM
(Sociétété Economie Mixte),
consisting of public and private
members/authorities (ski lift society +
exploitation of leisure activities +
catering trade at high altitude + gite
for groups + tourist office)
à global management.
7. Future products/projects:
transformation of cross-country paths
into snowshoe paths, extension of the
ski area from 1650 m to 3000m
altitude, further development of
artificial snow (>40%).
8. Seasonal opening, depending on
demand for economic reasons.
Winter: before Christmas until Easter
(2005: 10.12.-24.04.)
Summer: during school holidays
(2005: 02.07. – 04.09.)
(previously from 15.-20.06. on
opening à reduction of the
summer season due to decreasing
demand.
Exploitation: Winter: 80%, Summer:
between 40% and 80% (July 40-60%,
August 80%).
5. Major/strong product: skiing (but:
increasing demand for other snow
activities). In summer, different “soft”
sports activities like hiking and walking
as well as relaxing.
6. see 5.
Reaction to periods with lack of snow:
creation or increase of artificial snow.
7. Future products/projects: construction of
an ice rink in 2005, where the roof can
be taken off (indoor and outdoor in one).
8. The opening period depends on snow
conditions and customer demand. The
resort is a year-round destination with
equal nights in summer (6months) and
winter (4 months). Reason: not only
tourist activity, but also economic
activity (e.g. textile industry).
20. Cause of diversification measures
within the resort:
Political choice of the mayor to offer
different facilities (e.g. creation of the
sports arena in 1986); climatic
conditions (lack of snow due to
southern location).
20. Diversification motives: lack of snow
and later continuous quality
Improvements to enhance customer
loyalty.
90

Target group(s)
9. 1 st target group: families with
children (advantage: possibility to
address oneself to the whole public.
Aim: enlargement of the target group
Visitors’ socio-professional category:
workers, employees, executives,
intermediary professions, farmers,
etc. In winter, upper clientele.
Geographical origin: PACA (>40%),
Paris, Rhône-Alpes,
Languedoc-Roussillon àdestinations
in proximity.
Foreign countries : Benelux
countries, Eastern European
countries, E, GB, D, Scandinavian
countries.
10. Choice of the target group depending
on the resort’s development politics/
infrastructure.
11. The product is well adapted to the
customers’ needs.
- Quality + comfort: online
reservations and sales, renovation
and purchase of ski lifts as well
as accommodation, renovation of
the sports arena (2002), further
development of artificial snow,
creation of an underground car
park, reorganisation of access
routes etc.
- Multi-experience: measures to
increase the ski and leisure
facilities (enlargement of the ski
area up to 3000m, leisure base,
transformation of cross-country
paths to snow shoe paths, etc.).
9. Target group: families with children.
Geographical origin: Benelux countries
(B, LUX), Paris, Northern East of France
(Alsace-Lorraine), North-Pas -de-Calais
(Lille). à destinations in proximity.
10. Target group: natural choice in relation
to the environment, products and
services.
11. Consumption behaviour:
- Increasing demand for short trip
holidays. The offer is adapted to this
tendency insofar as customers in
proximity are targeted (aim: loyalty
enhancement) and some short stay
products are offered
(Accommodation: min. stay of 2
nights).
- “Soft” clientele: relaxation,
swimming pool
- Winter: day visitors come for skiing,
overnight visitors want to try
different (snow) activities. The resort
offers many facilities: range of
products and events, such as snow
shoe paths, foot paths, downhill
skiing with torches, weekly
entertainment, championships in
snowboarding and cross-country
skiing, etc.
Professionals teach courses in
certain activities, new products
are developed (opening of an ice rink
in 2005). A flexible
mountain passport gives reductions
on all kind of activities
(10-20%); registration and
consumption just as they like.
- Quality improvement through
artificial snow, restructuring/
rehabilitation of the accommodation
(construction of HLL, small and
comfortable chalets with a camping
ambience being in demand).
12/13. Changing/new clienteles: The
private operator Remy Loisirs
demanded the enlargement of the
target group.
12. No change, families also in the fut ure
are targeted as well as some niche
markets (e.g. senior citizens).
13. Aim: loyalty enhancement of existing
customers/customers (in proximity)
through short stay products.
91

Competitiveness/ Differentiation
14. Real concurrence : other destinations.
Different to other resorts in the
Hautes-Alpes: sports arena
àimportant criterion of choice for
customers.
Other strengths/Innovativeness:
- website (online reservations and
sales)
- worldwide the only resort with 2
telemix-cable cars
- Rehabilitation: encouragement of
owners to renovate their rented
apartments (through subventions)
- Creation of accommodation for
seasonal workers
- Sewage-works for the whole
community
- Communal school, open to
visitors
- 2/3 rd of the resort is located in a
national park (natural, protected
environment)
- the snow garden for children
aged 3 to 6 is one of the nicest in
France (2 ha in size, located in
the resort)
- One of the 1 st resorts with global
management
14. Concurrence: other massifs in proximity
(D, CH, A).
Strengths/specificities:
- communication measures for the
whole massif (global offer)
àpartnership/cooperation instead of
competition
- better range of activities, but:
activities similar to those in other
resorts
- good ambience
- exceptional, preserved natural
environment
- tradition: typical village
- year-round destination (open 10
months of the year)
Innovativeness:
- paragliding school, adventure park,
artificial snow, lighting
of the slopes, world championships
in cross-country skiing
àdynamism.
15. Global strategy/positioning:
- From the target group family to
larger targeting by promoting the
equipment and child service.
- Development of a well-known
product image.
- Expansion of the ski resort/area
15. Strategy: not completely defined. In the
near future, questionnaire surveys will be
employed to acquire better customer
knowledge.
92

16. Figures about the whole resort not
known.
Tourist office:
- Increase of online marketing
from 45% to 70%.
- Decrease of traditional
communication to 30%.
The private operator Remy Loisirs
committed to invest 35 000 € within
18 years to develop the ski and leisure
facilities.
16. Remy Loisirs invests 25 000 € in the
creation of new apartments next to the
slopes which will be built within the next
3 years.
Economic/ financial diversification impacts
17/
18. Figures about the whole resort not
known.
Tourist office:
- Turnover: objective 2005: from
160 000 € (July) to 240 000 €
until the end of the year.
Estimates for the next 5 years are
difficult.
- Visitor numbers: from 16,500
commercialised beds in 2005 to
17,500 in 2007.
19. Indicators of Economic effectiveness:
turnover reservation head-office,
ski lifts, ski school, accommodation
(visitor numbers), etc.
Customer satisfaction: global survey
(1 each season)
including all products within the
resort. Customers’ origin: postcodes
21. Impact of new products and services
in the last 5 years:
Strong to very strong effect (4-5).
Resort’s image: family resort of
human size with a big infrastructure;
worldwide the only resort with 2
telemix cable cars. Notoriety
increased through new tour-operators
selling the product within their
catalogues.
17/
18. Comparable with the last 5 years à
middle progression (no. 3 on the Likert
scale).
19. Customer satisfaction not yet measured,
but a questionnaire survey is planned for
the coming season. Campsites and tourist
offices already use distinguished visitor
books, suggestions boxes, etc.
Moreover, the res ervation head office
holds data about visitor origin,
length of stay, etc.
21. The impact of new products and services
is difficult to estimate
and dependent on the snow conditions.
Estimation: middle to strong effect (3-4)
22. Diversification measures
complementary as no radical product
evolution (expansion of the ski area
up to 3 000 m to compensate for the
lack of snow).
22. Diversification measures are regarded as
indispensable to complementary because
of the continuous need for renewal.
93

APPENDIX 8: MANAGEMENT OF THE FRENCH SKI RESORT LES KARELLIS
94

APPENDIX 9: THE EXAMINED SKI RESORTS (LES KARELLIS, LA BRESSE,
ORCIERES -MERLETTE)
95