Development of Thessaloniki, Greece as a City Break tourism destination.

School of Economics and Business Administration Consulting Project “Development of Thessaloniki, Greece as a City Break Tourism Destination” Christos Patikas September 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS - 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Abstract…………………………………………………………………………….....3 Introduction………………………….……….………………………………...........4 A.Literature Review………………………………………………………………....5 1. Destination Tourism Development, customer journey and the role of Destination Management Organizations (DMOs)  1.1. THE BASIC ELEMENTS OF A TOURISM DESTINATION………………………………………………………….6  1.2. DESTINATION LIFE CYCLE………………….…….……………7  1.3. THE CUSTOMER JOURNEY………………………..……………9  1.4. THE STRATEGIC ROLE OF DMOs………………………..…….11 2. Urban tourism characteristics, city break travel and decision making models  2.1. URBAN TOURISM CHARACTERISTICS……………....….14  2.2. CITY BREAK TRAVEL………………………………….…..16  2.3. DECISION MAKING MODEL FOR CITY BREAK TRAVEL………………………………………………………...…18 B: Developing Thessaloniki, Greece as a city break tourism destination Presentation of the city of Thessaloniki, Greece: Strengths and tourism assets of the city.  1.1. GENERAL AND HISTORICAL ASPECTS OF THESSALONIKI……21  1.2. CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL HERITAGE ASSETS…………….22  1.3. RELIGIOUS SITES AND ASSETS……………………………….......23  1.4. TRANSPORTATION, ACCOMODATION, BUSINESS AND CONVENTION FACILITIES………………………………………………………………...24  1.5. YOUTH – LEISURE&RECREATION AND MEDICAL ASSETS…..25 The macro environment of the city - International, regional and national level  2.1. INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL MACRO ENVIRONMENT…26  2.2 NATIONAL TOURISM ENVIRONMENT.…………………………..28  2.3. CITY LEVEL MACRO ENVIRONMENT – PESTEL ANALYSIS………………………………………………………………....30 Thessaloniki, Greece as tourism destination – Micro environment analysis  3.1. ORGANIZATIONAL PRESENT SITUATION…………………….....31  3.2. PERFORMANCE OF THESSALONIKI AS TOURISM DESTINATION – RECENT STUDIES AND DATA ANALYSIS - 3.2.1. SOURCE COUNTRIES………………………………….32 -3.2.2. CONCLUSIONS ON SOURCE COUNTRIES RESEARCH………………………………………………………..39 -3.2.3. PRESENT TYPES OF TOURISM………………………..43 -3.2.4. CRUISES…………………………………………….……44 SWOT analysis of Thessaloniki, Greece as a tourism destination………………..45 CONCLUSION AND STRATEGIES PROPOSITIONS……………………….……………………………………………48 References…………………………………………………………………………...52 2 ● Abstract Since the mid-20th century tourism industry has developed to a key sector of national and local economies creating chances of development and prosperity for locals, entrepreneurs and sector employees. From 25 million international tourist arrivals in 1950 the world has reached 1,035 million arrivals in 2012 creating a market developing almost in terms of geometric sequence. Urbanization and evolution of new trends in tourism consumer behavior connected with the experience economy have created the new but growing sector of urban tourism. Cities as a leisure break have nowadays become an almost contemporary phenomenon where tourists can get in touch with local culture and everyday life. Especially the trend of numerous but short vacations combined with the evolution of low cost air travel has created the distinctive type of city creak travel, especially in Europe. Thessaloniki, Greece the second in terms of population Greek city has all the potential of becoming a city break tourism success story. This paper examines the distinctive characteristics of city break travel and explores the potential of Thessaloniki, Greece to expand as tourism city break destination conducting a throughout analysis of the present market position of the city. 3 ● Introduction Although urban tourism and city break travel is not a newly emerged tourism phenomenon, little attention has been paid in analyzing the special characteristics of the field and the unique incentives that lead tourism consumers to bring cities to the center stage of visitation. Over the last two decades short leisure breaks in cities have become a growing field of tourism demand especially in Europe where many urban areas have gained (or regained) unique positions in the tourism destinations map. The unique characteristics of cities offering multiple experiences without need of heavy and risky transportation modes combined with the integration of the tourist to the city’s milieu, everyday life and culture can create a competitive package of experiences for almost all types of traveler’s income status. This democratization of travel, also provided by low cost air travel, followed by the deep urbanization phenomenon and the modern trend of more but short vacation has created a new tourism market, city break travel. According to IPK International’s European Travel Monitor, European city tourism has increased by 20% in 2005, compared with just 3% in sun and beach holidays (Freitag, 2006). This trend towards urban tourism has led to regeneration and rebirth of many post-industrial European cities and urban spaces in general that were excluded out of the tourism market for many years. Bratislava, Tallinn, Budapest, Riga, Valencia are only few of the available examples. Moreover certain urban spaces in developed tourism destinations as Amsterdam, Barcelona, Vienna, Paris or even London have gathered the attention of city break travelers. As a result those destinations achieved to extend their life-cycle by promoting new experiences in emerging urban spaces of each site in cultural (MuseumsQuartier in Vienna, El Raval in Barcelona) or even in spatial terms. Thus it is becoming more evident that city break travel is actually a distinctive type of leisure travel that can be targeted as a market segment for any urban destination. Thessaloniki is a city that in theory can perfectly fit in the city break destination tourism development format. Being the second in terms of population city in Greece, Thessaloniki has a lot of characteristics for a tourism development success story. With unique history background of more than 2300 years Thessaloniki hosts a great variety of remains from different ancient civilizations but also a unique mosaic of modern civilization residents and religions (Jewish, Turks, Bulgarians, Greeks). These characteristics are enough to create a set of different but joint tales that can describe the city’s sense as a unique crossroad of people and history. Apart from the historical aspects Thessaloniki is a modern coastal city with more than 6km of walking waterfront and a well-protected big port which is very important both in geographical but also in economic terms as logistics center. Moreover is the base of 3 Universities with 100,000 students and a major contribution to modern art, musical and artistic events. 4 Although the city seems of being able to use its strengths to compete in the European city break destination market, Thessaloniki’s performance is relatively poor. In the following chapters of the report firstly a throughout analysis of the literature review regarding the city break travel phenomenon and its decision making models is conducted. Secondly, after an analysis of the macroeconomic environment of the city, the report examines in what extend Thessaloniki can fit in the city break travel scheme and which are the main strengths and weaknesses of the city as tourism destination. Finally conclusions and policy propositions are introduced. 5  Part A: Literature Review 1. Destination Tourism Development, customer journey and the role of Destination Management Organizations (DMOs) 1.1 THE BASIC ELEMENTS OF A TOURISM DESTINATION To enter the discussion and analysis over urban tourism development and the special role of DMOs first there is a need of identifying the basic elements of the tourist destination. According to the UNWTO “A practical guide to tourism destination management” (UNWTO, 2007) any destination contains the following basic elements. The perceived quality and accuracy of those elements are deeply influential of the potential tourist’s decision visiting a certain destination.       Attractions. These are often the main and initial motivations for a potential visitor of the destination. Attractions can split to different categories whether being tangible or intangible (e.g. uniqueness) as: 1. Natural (mountains, beaches, weather) 2. Built (heritage monuments, well known buildings, religious buildings, stadiums) 3. Cultural (theaters, museums, art galleries, cultural events) Amenities. In this group are gathered all facilities or services that support visitors’ stay. Including accommodation, roads, public transport, catering services and guides or info services. Accessibility. This element is connected with everything that can make the destination accessible to a large amount of population containing air, road, train and cruise/ships travel services. Image. Another crucial element of destination’s success. Again there is presence of both tangible (sights, scenes) but also intangible assets of the destination such as the friendliness of people, their tourism culture and environmental quality. Price. Especially in recent turbulent economic era pricing is crucial for a destination’s success. Prices in transportation and accommodation can deeply affect customer’s choices. Human Resources. This special aspect of a destination is rarely taken into account from the policy makers but is equally crucial to the former. Well trained workforce of a destination combined with citizens well aware of tourism potential for the city can create miracles in terms of repeated visitation. Even using this simple typology to analyze the characteristics and assets of a destination it is obvious that success of a tourism destination is a multidimensional goal. A net of several actors is acting in the destination’s scene in order to produce 6 what the visitor will perceive as the experience of the destination. Even a minor detail can change the evaluation of the destination to visitor’s eyes with direct consequences to the destination’s image. In those terms every destination needs an organization-director of all the stakeholders connected with the production of the destination’s tourism product. This is the role of DMOs. Destination Management Organizations can operate in a national, regional or even local level. “The DMO’s role should be to lead and coordinate activities under a coherent strategy. They do not control the activities of their partners but bring together resources and expertise and a degree of independence and objectivity to lead the way forward.” (UNWTO, 2007, p.2) Thus DMO’s responsibility is to act as the strategic coordinator of all the destination’s elements, marketing mix and pricing. It is obvious that as crucial is the role of DMO for a destination the difficulties that has to overcome are huge. This is mainly because of the contradicted interests of the destination’s stakeholder. Thus DMO’s credibility has to be secured in order all stakeholders to understand that destination’s tourism development is for their common interest. Unfortunately this is not always the case. 1.2. DESTINATION LIFE CYCLE Every destination has unique characteristics that have to be identified before any action taken. More specifically destination’s popularity is really dynamic. Success of a certain destination is a really hard equation to solve. A main parameter of this equation is the market maturity of the destination. This concept can be made clearer using the graph below of the Tourism Area life Cycle model in Figure 1. Figure 1: Tourism Area life Cycle Source: Butler, R. W. (1980), ‘The Concept of a Tourist Area Cycle of Evolution’ Implications for Management of Resources’, Canadian Geographer, 14, pp. 5-12 7 The above model explains that tourism destination can face five different stages of development.      Exploration. Small numbers of visitors attracted mainly from nearby sources attracted by cultural heritage or natural resources Involvement. In this phase the destination can offer more organized facilities, locals are more involved, market areas begin to operate and visitors may come from the nearby regions or the whole state. Development. This is the crucial part where a big amount of tourists arrive and professionals of the market start to involve stronger. (Hotel chains, tour operators etc). During this stage visitors arrive in national but also international level. Consolidation. This is the part where tourism becomes a major economic sector of the destination and attracts political but also economical attention. Moreover during this specific part of development some initially built facilities or marketing plans may need reconsideration to get upgraded. Stagnation. In this phase the destination development has reached its peak. This is the crucial moment where the presence of an experienced and well facilitated DMO can rejuvenate the destination and reinvent visitor’s willingness to explore fresh aspects of the destination. If no polices applied the destination will inevitably decline. This model except of being a really useful roadmap for any destination policy maker indicates again the crucial role of the DMOs. Even at a local level it is obvious that the policies applied for a destination’s development are different when the phase of destination’s life cycle is considered. Thus DMO’s role is to asses destination’s present phase and implement the appropriate policies in order to secure destination’s proper development through its lifecycle. Without the presence of well facilitated DMO, decisions are made just by luck or any other coincidences. If different stakeholders involved in the DMO’s operations are acting independently may use wrong amount of resources in inappropriate phases of the destination’s development with obvious consequences to their livability. 8 1.3. THE CUSTOMER JOURNEY Another crucial element of a destination’s development is it’s actors to understand how their consumers are experiencing the whole procedure of choosing, booking and experiencing a destination. The following framework presented by Figure 2 can be exist a useful roadmap for initiating policies that will give specific answers to every step of the visitor’s journey from dreaming of a visit to a destination until actually experiencing and remembering this experience. Figure 2: The Customer Journey Source: UNWTO (2007), “A practical guide to tourism destination management”, p.19 The above diagram represents the 5 phases of a visitor from dreaming of a destination until the final step of the emotions caused from remembering this visit. More specifically in accordance to the diagram the steps are:   Dreaming. The initial part of the process where the customer already knows that will take a vacation but has not chosen a specific destination. This is the part where the potential visitor seeks of motivation on choosing one destination versus another. The role of DMO at this stage is to offer all the appropriate images or multimedia options available to customers. Using updated IT infrastructure, internet and lately the social media can be a competitive advantage for any destination at this level. Planning. The customer has a clearer idea of the broader region or the country they will visit but a search of accommodation, transportation or whether conditions combined with special attractions or events will affect the final call of a certain country or city. A well managed destination can offer solutions for the customer to this phase presenting all of the available alternatives for reaching the destination and easily planning on it. Packaging of experiences at the destination is useful tool for a DMO at this stage. 9    Booking. Search of best value for money options follows. If the customer is price sensitive this stage may affect the customer’s decision regarding the specific region or city that will be chosen. Booking can be made directly or using intermediates such as tour operators or travel agents. Using proper IT technology and a well managed website the DMO can secure that the potential visitor can choose from all the available options for booking. This is actually not just in favor of the destination but also of all the stakeholders providing accommodation or transportation services at the destination level. Experiencing. This is the crucial part that consists of every experience the visitor may have from the time of arrival to the destination until the time of depart. This phase is broader consisting of everything from the type of welcome the customer experience, the transportation and accommodation infrastructure that uses, the attractions accessibility and the general flair of the destination. If a DMO is absent from this procedure it is clear that secure of quality to all of the above is up to every single service provider without any control of the services offered. Remembering. The set of all of the above parts will definitely affect the customer’s perceived image of the destination. The major part of this perception is made of what mix of experience the customer has to remember from the journey. If the overall mix is positive the customer may recommend the destination to others. But if the mix is negative the customer will definitely spread the bad perception or will not recommend the destination. The minor part can be handled through a well organized DMO that will seek to keep in touch with every single visitor using customer relationships management tools in order to keep the experience fresh into customer’s minds. This journey through visitor’s procedure is another evidence of the special role of a DMO for a destination. In order to secure sustainable visitation a destination, as explained above, has to offer certain answers to every step of the customer’s journey. Thus it is obvious that those answers cannot be provided easily of every cluster of the tourism product providers independently. A set of coordinated actions has to be implemented with the participation of every stakeholder of the destination to reassure that the customer’s journey will end up as a multiplier factor of visitation and not as negative advertisement source. Finally involvement of local communities has to be secured to any DMO’s planning procedure. Without the active participation of the local communities through training programs or creative events and incentives the final outcome will not add much to the destination’s perceived image 10 1.4. THE STRATEGIC ROLE OF DMOs The analysis of all of the above characteristics that need to be considered for a destination’s development prove the complexity of the procedure. In order to reassure that a destination will be guided through a growth path, the presence of a well organized, well equipped and sufficiently budgeted DMO is essential. Thus to achieve certain growth results for a tourism destination the joint forces of a local (or a national) DMO have to act as the top management of a business organization. In those terms DMO has the strategic role of governing the destination following the next steps: Figure 3: Strategic destination management steps Market Research and analysis of the competitors SWOT analysis     Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats Destination’s Vision – Goals - Objectives Implementation of strategies Monitoring of results and revision of strategies 11 The strategic approach of the destination’s management should start with a market oriented research of the environment of the destination. First step is to analyze the macro environment and then the inner micro environment of the destination itself conducting a SWOT analysis. The results of the SWOT analysis should lead to a narrow and clear vision of the destination followed by specific goals and measurable actions. Research at the first level is a key part and a crucial duty of a DMO. If a policy or an action plan is implemented without sufficient research and market information of the destination itself but its competitors also, failure will be an inevitable consequence. The second most important part if a proper research is done is implementation. Numerous cases exist where great strategic plans were announced but the implementation part was not executed either lacking political willingness or just lacking resources. Implementation of strategies and action plans is obligatory to be coordinated by the DMO. Because of different stakeholder’s approaches and special interests, only DMO can secure the equal share of budget and benefits for all “shareholders” of the destination. Actually, as UNWTO “A practical guide to tourism destination management” (UNWTO, 2007) really figuratively states, the DMO has to be in charge of the tourism destination “factory” and also be responsible for achieving an excellent return on investment, market growth, quality products, a brand of distinction and benefits to all “shareholders”. What should note is that the DMO does not own the “factory”, neither employee people working on it, nor controls its processes. More specifically a set of actions that could be introduced by the DMO securing destination’s vision can be the following: - Destination marketing (promotional programs, branding) Development of destination’s products and packages Information and visitor services Tourist accommodation Integrated transport infrastructure E-business and information management Events All of the above should be translated into specific action plans with completely measurable targets, specific time deadlines of implementation and personal or organizational responsibility of delivery. Finally, last but not least is the part of monitoring results. DMO is responsible for conducting ideally yearly research programs in order to secure if destination’s direction is in line with its vision and strategies. Using this process destination’s governance can intervene to shift policies or even to redesign destination’s planning. 12 Following this pattern in the second part of the report, research and assessment of the present situation, a SWOT analysis and major policy propositions are made for the destination case of Thessaloniki, Greece. 13 2. Urban tourism characteristics, city break travel and decision making models. 2.1. URBAN TOURISM CHARACTERSTICS More than half of global population lives in urban areas. Especially in Europe, where is the major market of interest of this report, 80% of population lives in towns and cities. Except of the well-known problems this urbanization has caused to local communities it was also a driving factor for emerge of urban tourism and especially the distinctive type of city break travel. Urban tourism entered in the tourism research agenda in the 80s. “Prior to the 80s, research of urban tourism was fragmented and not recognized as a distinct field” (Edwards et al., 2008:1034). Although the majority of studies regarding urban tourism conclude that it is a complex type of tourism some basic characteristic-paradoxes are mentioned by Asworth and Page (2010, pp 1-2):      Urban tourism is an extremely important, world-wide form of tourism. Tourists visit cities for many purposes: Cities that accommodate most tourists are large multifunctional entitles into which tourists can be effortlessly absorbed and thus to become in a large extent economically and physically invisible. Tourists make intensive use of many urban facilities and services but little of the city has been created for tourist use. Tourism can contribute substantial economic benefits to cities but cities whose economies are mostly dependent on tourism are likely to benefit the least. Cities with a large and diverse economic base gain the most from tourism. It is by no means that cities need tourism. Tourism on the other hand needs the varied, flexible and accessible tourism product that cities provide. This creates an asymmetry in the relationship between city and the tourist. To secure better assumptions on urban tourism development a tourist perspective of the use of the city can provide useful information for DMOs and policy makers. The characteristics of how actually tourists use the city can serve as possible roadmap for understanding tourist needs and thus transform part of the services offered by the city in order to gain competitive advantage in the market. According to Asworth and Page (2010, pp. 8-9) the main behavioral characteristics of the urban tourist are:  Selectivity. Tourists tend to use limited proportion of space and services offered by the city. Although this pattern is common even among residents of cities, time-budget restrictions of tourists lead to even more selective choices. Thus tourism is concentrated in specific regions of cities.  Rapidity. “Tourists consume urban tourism products rapidly”. Length of stay in an urban destination is much shorter than in any other type of leisure 14 holiday (summer/winter resorts). Depending on the motivation of visit, length of stay can vary from some minutes (must-visit attractions visitation) to two days or more. Management of visitation is totally different for each type of visit.  Repetition. Tourists of urban destinations are less likely to return repeatedly to the same city than visitors to non-urban destinations. This is a crucial factor that differentiates strategies for city-destinations. Many urban tourists are actually collectors of pre-marked cultural, event or unique heritage experiences. Once the expectations of a certain destination have been full field the collection can continue elsewhere. A paradox that occurs is that the more unique an urban attraction is (e.g. Pisa) the less repeated visitation will face. On the other hand the broader is the selling proposition of a destination including city’s general ambiance or flair (e.g. Paris, Barcelona, London) the more repeated visitation will occur. Thus two strategies exist for retaining market position for each type of destination. Whether a destination keeps investing in new markets that will substitute the former or reinvent its product in order to attend visitation from existing markets (Morude, 2007). In conclusion the more extended is the tourism product of an urban destination the more possible is to reinvent itself and attract repeated visitation.  Capriciousness. It is a common truth that tourism as part of human behavior is really suffering from rapid changes in life-style or fashion. Popularity of certain historic time periods or types of art is peaking or declining in different periods of time. In those terms urban destinations connected with specific attractions or purpose-built attractions itself may face certain periods of lack of visitation or extra visitation. Responses to this phenomenon may be several. The most frequent response is the alignment of destinations product propositions with current fashionable celebrity status. This policy can boost a destination but only for a very short period of time until the perception of fashionable change. Several studies have shown that the best answer to this problem is the rapid product differentiation within the destination’s capabilities and the reinvention of a destination’s major attractions and sites. Again the general assumption made from all of the above is that urban tourism is a distinctive type of travel with its own characteristics and paradoxes. Thus to overcome the paradoxes and turn characteristic into growth and economic success the presence of a strategic organizational body is crucial. A local city DMO can act here too as a local coordinator of urban tourism development using methods mentioned in the previous chapter. 15 2.2 CITY BREAK TRAVEL City break represents a distinctive type of leisure holiday. A type of travel that Trew and Cockerell (2002, pp.86) define as “a short leisure trip to one city or town, with no overnight stay at any other destination during the trip”. This special segment of “one city” travel has developed in large numbers during the last decade, especially in Europe. Indicatively, according to IPK International’s European Travel Monitor, European city tourism has increased by 20% in 2005, compared with just 3% in sun and beach holidays (Freitag, 2006). The city break travel phenomenon helped several cities to enter the tourism map and created opportunities for more to come. The main question arising is what are the factors that caused the expansion of this emerging type of travel. As Dunne, Flanagan and Buckley (2010, p.410) state the major factors of the rising popularity of city break travel in Europe are:      Low cost air travel. Increased availability of low cost air travel combined with the point-to-point nature of this type of travel emerged accessibility to new destinations. According to Dobruszkes (2013, p78) study, low-cost intraEuropean air services (EU-27, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland) have climbed from almost 1% of total intra-European air services to 31% in 2012. A possible drawback of this expansion is when a destination growth depends only to low cost carriers. A destination should introduce a tourism product proposition in the market that creates demand that airlines afterwards come to serve. If this procedure implemented in the vice versa way, with the low cost carriers come to serve an emerging destination without tourism development strategy, the destination is totally dependent to carrier’s will. Length of holidays. Europeans tend to take more but shorter holidays. Thus a majority of the population adds one or more trips in addition or adding to their main annual holidays. New perception of cities as travel destinations. Internet. The increasing role of internet in the decision-making process created extraordinary ease for exploring and booking holidays. Thus this easier form of choosing transport and accommodation (which is the basic elements of a short trip) minimized the perceived risk of the potential traveler. Seasonality. City break travel is a year-round holiday pattern. In those terms accommodation providers promote this type of travel that can easily minimize seasonality problem of their units. Although city break type of holiday has mainly be presented as a positive growing factor of the tourist market a number of concerns do exist. Firstly, deep dependence of city break travel to low cost flights results of visitation of types of tourists that manly uses this mode of transportation. Acceptance of mainly low-budget, backpackers or youth type of tourists, which is the main source market of low cost airlines, is not suited to any type of city. An up-market destination may suffer from integrating this type of tourism. Secondly, according to some studies city break travel is expanding 16 against rural or regional tourism. This argument of course is subject to whether a traveler wishing to visit a city would ever have any intention on visiting such areas. Last but not least is the potential consequence of this type of travel to environment and sustainability. CO2 emissions are strongly connected with air travel and emerge of low cost carriers. If any type of green taxation is finally connected to air travel the demand for city break travel may decline. Although literature in city break travel phenomenon is relatively poor, Dunne, Flanagan and Buckley (2010, pp.409-417) after conducted a throughout research in tourism of Dublin have concluded that city break travel can be described and understood using 5 characteristics that make city break a distinctive type of travel. The “The 5 Ds of city break travel”, as entitled by the authors, are:  “Duration”. The major distinctive characteristic of city break travel is the length of stay. Most city breaks are short (usually three nights or less). The reasons behind this pattern are mainly three. Firstly, most city breaks are secondary trips, additional to main summer or winter holidays. Secondly, it is common sense that the majority of attractions and experiences a city can offer can be explored in just a few days. The same pattern is more obvious when city break travel incentive is a certain event taking place in a city. Finally, cities as destinations can serve perfectly the international trend of more frequent but shorter holidays. Cities are usually easily reachable by more than one modes of transportation, offer easy and time-economy ways of in-city transfer and most of the times all attractions are reachable in an organized way. Thus a traveler can spend most of time effectively in leisure and recreation actions and not supplementing procedures.  “Distance”. Because of the limited time of most of city break holidays, this type of tourists tends to prefer nearby destinations that can be easily and quickly reachable mainly via air travel. Obviously expansion of low cost air travel has played a significant role to this tendency. Multiple low cost carriers offering cheap flights from several neighbor source markets are a crucial factor of development of a destination as a city break one. Trains, boats, roads and cruises can also deliver demand but in minor density compared to air travel and mainly depending on destination’s geographical position.  “Discretionary nature”. As mentioned to other previous chapters too, city break travel operates mostly as a secondary trip. In those terms the presence of opportunistic aspect is more frequent. The increasing role of internet has created opportunities of “last minute” travel mainly to nearby city break destinations. Although the former pattern is not a main driving factor of city break development it gives the sense of the consumer’s behavior concerning this type of travel. The main question when a main holiday is planned is the place/city/region that will take place. In contrary to this city break travelers 17 tend to give priority firstly on answering the inner question on whether to go and afterwards deciding where to go. A number of researches have shown that a big proportion of city breakers has answered both questions at the same time, after came across a good city break in economic terms. This also implicates the great value of marketing tool of offers to consumer’s decision of a destination process.  “Date flexibility”. A distinctive characteristic of city break travel is the absence of seasonality bias. Existing as a complementary trip, city break is usually organized in low-demand periods, weekends or around dates of big local events. This creates a relatively lucrative market for the accommodation and transportation sector that suffers from the seasonality pattern.  “Destination travel party”. According to several studies (Flanagan and Dunne, 2005; Trinitry Research, 1989) a high proportion of urban tourists travel without children. This is mainly because the majority of city break travelers doesn’t have children, or use this break in order to escape for few days from parenting. Finally, another reason why city break travelers travel mostly in couples or alone is the perception of cities as unfriendly destinations for children compared to other types of holidays (resort, all inclusive etc). In conclusion the profile of the city break travel, mainly based on Dunne, Flanagan and Buckley’s (2010, pp.409-417) study can be described as secondary trips, short in duration and mainly operated through short haul air travel to neighbor countries. Moreover most trips are made off-season and participants tend to travel with friends or as couples. 2.3. DECISION MAKING MODEL FOR CITY BREAK TRAVEL The above brief description of the distinctive type of city break travel has been analyzed in detail to a second study of Dunne, Flanagan and Buckley (2011, pp.158172) that produced a dominant model towards understanding the procedure of decision making of city break travelers. The findings of the study have proved that city break decision making model does not fit with the traditional models. Therefore the researchers created a new model that could correspond better to the distinctive characteristic of this special type of travel. Figure 4 represents graphically this model. 18 Figure 4: City break decision making model Source: Dunne, Flanagan and Buckley “Towards a decision making model for city break travel” (2011, p.169) This model consists of three steps. This feature of model is notable given that most of other models consist of more, without being simplistic. The first step of recognition of travel is almost commonly the first step of models. What differentiate city break decision making is that this need is affected by certain situational variables such as the need of an escape of routine and daily life. Moreover the initial part of decision making connected to the question of whether or not to take the trip is deeply important. This is because as explained above city break is a discretionary mode of travel that makes question of where to go less important that whether to go or not given the fact that city breaks may come out of the blue under certain circumstances. Thus a distinction has to be made between generic and actual decision on going to a destination or not. The second box consists of three different steps but considered as one. Contrary to traditional models, where travelers actually react distinctively to each part, in city break travel, information search, evaluation of alternatives and even purchase is happening simultaneously mainly because of the ease the internet provides. In some cases the evaluation of alternatives part is bypassed because of attractive low cost or last minute city break packages. Finally the last step which is usual for most decision making models is the post purchase evaluation. The procedure is almost classical except from the fact that usually in this type of travel there are no intermediates to blame for lack of quality of services. 19 In the vertical axis of the three main steps a number of factors appear including internal and external variables, nature of trip and situational factors. In more detail:     Internal variables: motivation, personality, perceived image, lifestyle External variables: push and pull factors, constraints, marketing mix, social class, culture. Nature of trip: This is the most important factor of city break travel because it consists of the crucial components of distance, duration, travel party size Situational factors: Usually those factors are part of external variables but in city break travel those factors can change completely the decision making procedure. 20  Part B: Developing Thessaloniki, Greece as city break tourism destination 1. Presentation of the city of Thessaloniki, Greece: Strengths and tourism assets of the city. 1.1 GENERAL AND HISTORICAL ASPECTS OF THESSALONIKI Thessaloniki, Greece is located in the Northern part of Greece (520 km. north of Athens) in the region of Central Macedonia. Being the second in terms of population city of Greece (population of all the metropolitan area in 2011 reached a total of 1.104.460 inhabitants) and the fifth in Balkans, is the second most populated city that is not a capital after Istanbul. Built near the sea (at the back of the Thermaïkos Gulf), Thessaloniki is Greece's second major economic, industrial, commercial and political centre, and a major transportation hub for the rest of southeastern Europe. Founded in 315 BC by Cassander of Macedon, Thessaloniki's history spans some 2,300 years. An important metropolis by the Roman period, Thessaloniki was the second largest and wealthiest city of the Byzantine Empire. The impregnable walls kept the city free until 904 when Saracen Pirates took the city. In 1185 and 1430 the city passed successively to the hands of the Normands and the Turks. During the Ottoman period, the city's Muslim and Jewish population grew. By 1478 Selânik, as the city came to be known in Ottoman Turkish, had a population of 4,320 Muslims, 6,094 Greek Orthodox and some Catholics, but no Jews. 1492 is the crucial year for the history of Thessaloniki because of the arrival of the Sephardic Jews from Spain followed from more Jews arriving from central Europe, giving the city the name mother of Israel or second Jerousalim. Soon after the turn of the 15th to 16th century, nearly 20,000 Sephardic Jews had immigrated to Greece from Spain following their expulsion. By ca. 1500, the numbers had grown to 7,986 Greeks, 8,575 Muslims, and 3,770 Jews. By 1519, Sephardic Jews numbered 15,715, 54% of the city's population. Those population proportions were established in the region almost until the beginning of 20th century when newly founded Greek state benefited from demolish of Ottoman Empire and captured the city in 1912. The other major event that changed population ethnicities proportions was a major fire in 1917 by accident. Most of the old center of the city was destroyed and the fire swept through the centre of the city, leaving 72,000 people homeless most of them Jewish (50,000). Following the fire the government prohibited quick rebuilding, so it could implement the new redesign of the city according to the European-style urban plan prepared by a group of architects, including the Briton Thomas Mawson, and headed by French architect Ernest Hébrard. This was a major loss for Jewish population of the city which became even worse later on after the majority of Jewish population perished in 1943 after the deportation to Auswitz, Birgenau and Bergen Belsen. By this time demographics of 21 the city changed completely to secure the nowadays state of the city where Christian orthodox Greeks are the vast majority of the inhabitants. This rough presentation of the city’s history is obligatory because the most important asset of Thessaloniki is its turbulent route through history. This special route found the city being part of almost all the important empires of the European history always with a cosmopolitism sense. This special legacy delivered until recent years is resulting a unique mosaic of civilizations, attitudes, architecture, and culture. Until the mid of 20th century the city was home to more than one ethnic proportion creating a unique sense for residents and visitors. This sense, although actually hidden, is present even today creating a unique opportunity for the potential visitor to explore. 1.2. CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL HERITAGE ASSETS As described roughly, Thessaloniki has a unique history background of more than 2300 years. A great variety of remains from different civilizations among of which are the following: Ancient Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Ottoman. Moreover Thessaloniki exists as a unique mosaic of modern civilization residents and religions (Jewish, Turks, Bulgarians, Greeks). These characteristics are enough to create a set of different but joint tales that can describe the city’s sense as a unique crossroad of people and history. 15 World Heritage Monuments of UNESCO are located in Thessaloniki (The City Walls, the Byzantine Bath, the Rotunda and 11 Byzantine churches) which combined with the Archeological Museum and the Museum of Byzantine Culture are an indicator of the city’s strong cultural assets. Moreover, as mentioned above, due to the presence of a long run of different civilizations through time, a lot of remains of Ottoman and Jewish interest are located in Thessaloniki. The house that the politician-symbol of the modern Turkish Democracy, Kemal Ataturk, was born is now a renovated museum and the placesquare where thousands of Jewish citizens of Thessaloniki were gathered by Nazis to violently move to Auschwitz concentration camp are only two of them. Finally the city is located less than an hour from unique global historical heritage sites such as the ancient city of Vergina, capital of the Macedonian civilization (where tombs of Philip II King of the Macedons are found), the ancient city of Pella, the archeological site of Dion and finally the famous Mount Olympus. Except historical heritage assets Thessaloniki has to offer a variety of modern cultural assets too. Home of the 53 years old Thessaloniki international Film Festival, the 2012 WOMEX expo and the Macedonian Museum of Contemporary Art the city has a lot to offer in modern arts too. From the tourism development perspective it is obvious that Thessaloniki is extremely rich in cultural and historical heritage assets of more than 2300 years. A potential visitor can “bring back to life” historical periods thousand years back in time. The emerging tourism market segment of cultural and history tourism has to be a target 22 market for the city both in classical but also in differentiated ways. Except of being a hot spot for ancient and modern history lovers Thessaloniki can offer personalized cultural and heritage experience for different types of nationalities. Besides the obvious Greek and Western Europe market, Thessaloniki’s cultural heritage can target tourists from both Turkey and Israel in a more personalized way. 1.3. RELIGIOUS SITES AND ASSETS Thessaloniki except of a brilliant mosaic of different civilizations through history is also a live museum of different religious monuments. Mainly Orthodox but also Catholics, Muslims and Jewish have created their own churches, mosques and synagogues in new areas but also by transforming other religion’s buildings (according to which dogma was the dominant of the city on specific time). Thessaloniki is nowadays home to unique early Christian and byzantine monuments 9 of which are part of World Heritage Monuments of UNESCO (i.e. Rotonda, Church of Acheiropoiitos, Church of Ag.Dimitrios, Church of Ag.Sofia and more). Some of them transformed into mosques during the Ottoman times of the city but retransformed again in the early 20th century. Moreover less than 150km from the city center is located the world famous Mount Athos. It is a mountain and the easternmost peninsula of Chalkidiki. Home to 20 Orthodox monasteries, it forms a self-governed monastic state. Another UNESCO World Heritage Site, Mount Athos is famous except the obvious religious reasons for the distinctive Byzantine architecture of the monasteries also. Although only men can visit the peninsula, Thessaloniki is the ideal base for a day-trip to Mount Athos. Due to the rapid changes in political and nationality terms through times and especially in the early 20th century, little number of non-Orthodox religious buildings and monuments exist. New Mosque, Alatza Imaret and Hamza Bei Cami are among the most important Muslim religious remaining of the 500 hundred Ottoman domination of the city. Nonetheless they can be considered as landmarks for the city because of their special architecture and historical value. Finally there is almost no Jewish religious remaining mainly due to a major fire back in 1917 that destroyed most of the Jewish part of the city. Except of the historical and cultural interest of all these assets of the city, there is a special religious interest also. Thessaloniki has the opportunity in touristic development terms to be considered as a “Mecca” of Orthodox dogma, without preventing any other dogma visitors, with great impact on its tourism success. Especially in the city-break framework, religious tourism for nearby orthodox Balkan countries can be a great incentive for visitation. The case is such for Russians too even though the distance is bigger 23 1.4. TRANSPORTATION, ACCOMODATION, BUSINESS AND CONVENTION FACILITIES Thessaloniki has developed through time as a major commercial center. Because of its unique geographical position, the city is home of one of the biggest ports in the Mediterranean Sea with a total annual traffic capacity of 16 million tones. As a free port, it also functions as a major gateway for the Balkan hinterland and southeastern Europe. It contains the second largest container port in Greece, after the Port of Piraeus. A cargo terminal with a total storage area of 1,000,000 m2, an oil and gas terminal and an upgraded passenger terminal mainly used for intra-Aegean routes but for cruise ships also. Thessaloniki is also the crossroad of two major Greek and European highways. The Egnatia Highway which connects the city with the Turkish borders, all the Balkan countries borders and the port of Igoumenitsa located in Western Greece and the PATHE Highway which mainly connects the city with Athens and southern Greece. Thessaloniki’s “Makedonia” airport is the major hub of incoming tourism for the city. It is located about 15 km SE of the city center. Although an expansion is in plan, Makedonia Airport is able to serve more than 4,000,000 passengers per year from its two runaways. The expansion of one of the runaways will make the airport able to serve heavier aircrafts that would probably give a boost to the arrivals for the region in general. Although Thessaloniki can be explored from east to west in about 30 minutes walk, owns a convenient and cheap but a bit outdated bus system connecting all suburbs to the city center. In addition plenty of taxis are available for more quick transportation in the city. Hospitality industry in Thessaloniki is a major asset and strength for the touristic development of the city. Thessaloniki has a hospitality capacity of 14,345 beds (24% 5*, 19.2% 4*, 31.63% 3*, 14.37% 2* and 11% 1*). It is obvious that the majority of hotels is average and above which is a really crucial asset of the city as an emerging tourism destination both for leisure but also for business travelers. Moreover most of Thessaloniki’s 4* and 5* has the ability to organize conferences and convention but mainly of a small scale. In business sector, Thessaloniki has also the great privilege of being the host of the so-called International Trade Fare of Thessaloniki. The 1st TIF was organized in 1926 and it has evolved into a significant economic and political event in Greece and the greater Southeastern Europe vicinity although the last years is in deep need of modernization. The most positive outcome of the initiation of the TIF is the HELEXPO infrastructure area. HELEXPO S.A. is the exclusive user of the International Exhibition Center of Thessaloniki which is developed over an 180,000 square meter area in the center of the city and includes conference centers I. VELLIDIS and N. GERMANOS. The calendar of fairs organized by HELEXPO S.A. includes some 20 international sector fairs which run on an annual or biannual basis. 24 There is a new plan for the International Exhibition Center of Thessaloniki moving outside of the city center creating modern exhibition facilities and a new era for the business tourism sector in the city. Infrastructure of Thessaloniki’s hotels combined with the experience of international trade fairs and the existence of big conference centers offer a great range of conference spaces for large or smaller meetings, up to 2,700 participants. More specifically, as mentioned previously, in the heart of Thessaloniki and inside the installations operated by HELEXPO we find the International Conference Centers IOANNIS VELLIDIS and NIKOLAOS GERMANOS with a capacity of 40 to 2100 seats. Furthermore, Thessaloniki Concert Hall offers a hall with a capacity of 1400 seats, Lazaristes’ Monastery includes of a 700 seat hall, offering a full range of modern amenities, while there are several halls in Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, such as the Ceremony Hall, with a capacity of 800 seats. Although still there is need of further extension of capacities and modernization of services, Thessaloniki is able to host medium and small conference and convention events which can be a turn point to the city’s tourism development because in contrast with the leisure market, business market seems to grow even in crisis times. 1.5. YOUTH – LEISURE&RECREATION AND MEDICAL ASSETS Thessaloniki’s greater modern landmark is its totally renovated waterfront area. By the end of 2013 citizens and visitors of Thessaloniki will be able to walk by the sea to a modern multi-theme area of 6km. Although it seems strange this special area has the ability to become the most value asset of the city because of the images it creates all time of the year for everyone using it. It is the place that can be a trademark of the new spirit of the city. Being the home city of the biggest student and academic community in Greece (1/10 of its population are students and university professors) who are allocated in 3 universities and one technical institution Thessaloniki can easily be described as a lively city despite its age. In addition the city belongs to the European Union’s Innovation Zone, an area designed to house innovative enterprises and research organizations. In recent years local groups have created a great force of creativity keeping the city spirit alive both in academic innovation terms but also in simple youth initiatives and actions. Moreover the wide nightlife of the city adds to its youth preface. A great proof of the above and a great opportunity for the city also, is the nomination of Thessaloniki as the European Youth Capital of 2014. Such an organization can move the center of the city’s main touristic provision from the great history of the city to the present and the future character that needs to create. A key-factor both in negative but also in positive manner is the vicinity of the city to the famous beaches of Chalkidiki peninsula. A potential leisure traveler – visitor of the city can find him/herself to the ideal scenery of one of the Chalkidiki beaches 25 without needing to sleepover. This creates a great opportunity for the development of Thessaloniki as a city-break destination because the potential visitor can easily visit a unique leisure place without need to change the initial plane of residence. It creates a great incentive for a short break traveler who needs to combine leisure and recreation activities having little time to do so. In the same context of leisure and recreation city-break travelers, another asset of the city is the vicinity with a couple of thermal springs again in less than 100km distance. Although these types of facilities are not easily reachable by tourists, thermal springs stand as another major incentive for a potential visitor. Finally, Thessaloniki in the late years has to offer an emerging supply in the medical sector. Top quality medical services combined with modern (mainly privately owned) facilities are another asset of the city that can create tourism development if the bureaucratic drawbacks disappear. 2. The macro environment of the city - International, regional and national level 2.1. INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL MACRO ENVIRONMENT Thessaloniki, as mentioned above, is located 520km north of Athens. Thus the geographical region of interest in tourism terms is the southeastern Mediterranean region and the Balkans. According to UNWTO “Tourism Towards 2030” (UNWTO, 2011) the number of international tourist arrivals worldwide is expected to increase by an average 3.3% per year over the period 2012 to 2030. In absolute numbers international tourists are expected to reach 1.4 billion by 2020 and 1.8 billion by 2030 from the 940 million of 2010. The key fact is that emerging economy destinations including Eastern Europe and Eastern Mediterranean Europe will “grow at double the pace (+4.4% a year) of that in advanced economy destinations (+2.2 a year)”. Thus although travel to Europe are projected to decline as proportion of the international arrivals (from 51% to 41%) this is not the case for the macro environment of Thessaloniki. In other words the region of Eastern Europe and Eastern Mediterranean Europe will absorb a big proportion of the growth in the continent. Another crucial aspect is the differentiation of source markets. Although Europe will still be the leader of outbound tourism, new emerging countries and regions contribute in the international arrivals. China (and the whole Asia and Pacific region) and Russian Federation are expected to play an increasing role in the source markets geographical position. Especially for Russian Federation status, a big source market of Thessaloniki, in 2012 raised its expenditure rates from $42.8 billion to 32.9 in 2011. The following figure 5 presents the international forecast as presented by UNWTO. 26 Figure 5: UNWTO Towards 2030: Actual and forecast 1950-2030 Source: UNWTO Tourism Highlights 2013 Edition (2013, p.14) Another useful trend of the international tourism environment as highlighted in UNWTO Tourism Highlights 2013 Edition (2013, pp.3-5) is that most tourists travel by air and for leisure purposes. The following Figures 6, 7 represent the former mentioned trends. Figure 6: Inbound tourism by mode of transport, 2012 27 Figure 7: Inbound tourism by purpose of visit, 2012 2.2. NATIONAL TOURISM ENVIRONMENT Tourism in Greece is a basic economic sector. According to SETE 2012 Facts and Figures (2013, p.3), Greek tourism contribution in the national GDP is 16.4% and its contribution in employment is 18.3%. Although because of the political instability and the political unwillingness for professional national marketing planning, Greek visitation faced a big decline in recent years, the figures for 2013 are really encouraging. This is mainly because of the instability in neighbor competitors (Turkey, Egypt, and Tunis) and the decline of prices due to decline in domestic demand. As mentioned in the same study Thessaloniki’s airport Macedonia is fourth in international arrival for the year 2012 behind Athens, Heraklion and Rhodes. Another crucial trend of Greek tourism for the year 2012 is that 65, 81% of international tourism receipts are generated from independent travelers and the rest 34, 19 from packaged tours. 28 Figure 8: International Receipts from independent travelers and packaged tours 2012 The following graph (Figure 9) represents the main source markets of Greek Tourism with traditional countries as Germany and the UK holding almost 30% and the emerging, as source country, Russian Federation to account almost 9, 5%. France, Italy and USA follows. Figure 9: Breakdown of international receipts by country of origin, 2012 Source: SETE In conclusion, although Thessaloniki is not the typical sea&sun Greek destination, is the second biggest city of a country that is totally connected with tourism. Source markets are there to be explored and the bet is to take advantage of the huge visitation of the country even in decline periods. Moreover the special trend of non-packaged visitation is a positive factor regarding development of city break tourism. 29 2.3. CITY LEVEL MACRO ENVIRONMENT – PESTEL ANALYSIS Except of the tourism macro environment, Thessaloniki is the second large city of Greece. Since 2009 Greece is the center of the Eurozone debt crisis. In those terms the political environment is turbulent with continuous elections and a period of riots and demonstrations. Fortunately the last months the political climate although in tension seems to be calmer and Greece is not any more the center of negative broadcasting. In economic terms Greece is facing the worst economic crisis since WWII. Unemployment rates have reached 30% of the population and decline in citizen’s income is unique for a European country. Because of decline in demand prices have decline too (even if the decline rate has not followed the decline rate of incomes). In those terms tourism can offer a possible opportunity for the country taking into account that low prices may create increase in demand creating a competitive advantage for the country in the region. Thus social aspects of this crisis period are inevitable for the country and the city of Thessaloniki too. Huge unemployment has created difficult living conditions for a big proportion of the population. Fortunately until now especially for the city of Thessaloniki this is not a drawback for tourism development. Technological aspects follow the European path with Greece being a mature country in technological infrastructure and services. Environment is a special issue of Thessaloniki’s macro environment. This is mainly because the city located among rare natural resources protected by NATURA 2000 scheme. Beside that little attention has be given to the city’s environmental conditions. Thus Thessaloniki used to be a champion in environmental position especially regarding particles in the atmosphere. Nowadays the problem has declined mainly because of the decline in traffic due to economic crisis. 30 3. Thessaloniki, Greece as tourism destination – Micro environment analysis 3.1. ORGANIZATIONAL PRESENT SITUATION Thessaloniki’s present situation in organizational destination management terms is really amateur. Before 2006 all issues connected with the management of the city as tourism destination was on a Prefecture of Thessaloniki’s special office hands. Actually, there was no action taken and the city was operating as tourism destination in the “auto-pilot” mode. In 2007 a DMO called Thessaloniki Tourism Organization and Marketing (TTOM) was introduced. The ambitious plan of the initiation of the DMO was to increase visitation in the city up to 100% until 2013. The initial strategic plan of the DMO was conducted after its introduction and anticipated the commitment of all tourism stakeholders of the city to the governing board (Municipality of Thessaloniki, prefecture of Thessaloniki, Hotelier’s chamber, tourist agents etc). The first action plans were the participation of the DMO to tourism exhibitions worldwide and focus on business and conventional tourism but also city break travel. Although the initial master plan described really ambitious targets, the TTOM was not actually operating until 2009 when the initiatives of the newly elected municipality authority rebirth the organization’s actions. The new governing board of the TTOM consisted of almost all the stakeholders connected to tourism industry and the Mayor himself became the president of the DMO. The operational part was left to an executive director but still the DMO lacked of sufficient budget and staff. The outcome of this rebirth was a new marketing plan and a new logo-brand of the city that until then was the former ottoman prison called White Tower. The new logo called “Thessaloniki: Many stories, one heart” tried to describe the multinational sense of the history of the city and invest in this flair. This logo is still the branding image of the city, although it was not treated as a successful one both from conservatives that demanded of the presence of the old symbol of White Tower but from the majority of citizens and tourism professionals also. Figure 10: “Thessaloniki: Many stories, one heart” logo 31 Thessaloniki’s DMO never actually operated in European standards. Lack of willingness of stakeholders to sincerely participate in behalf of a common target did not let the organization accomplish its targets. Political interventions and a culture of protection of every stakeholder’s own sector interests led to the resign of the general manager of the DMO and the recycle of the governing board in 2013. As a result no major market or other studies have been conducted for the development of Thessaloniki at any level. Instead every individual stakeholder makes its own procurement to extend its own interests from tourism in the city. 3.2. PERFORMANCE OF THESSALONIKI AS TOURISM DESTINATION – RECENT STUDIES AND DATA ANALYSIS  3.2.1 SOURCE COUNTRIES As mentioned above there are almost no studies regarding visitation of Thessaloniki except of the data the Greek statistics authority (ELSTAT) acquires in collaboration with the Bank of Greece or airport, port and borders authorities. Especially for the years 2010-2013 there is sufficient data acquisition from the Thessaloniki Hotels Association regarding nationalities of overnights in Thessaloniki’s hotels. No other Greek authority (ELSTAT, Airport Makedonia authorities, SETE) published or conducted any studies regarding the nationality of inbound tourism of the city. Moreover Thessaloniki hotels association data are more accurate due to the fact that the airport of Thessaloniki is the main terminal station for Chalkidiki peninsula tourists. The following Table 1 and figure 10 represents the top nationalities of overnights in hotels of Thessaloniki for the years 2011 and 2012, the ranking of every nationality and the percentage of increase or decline compared to 2010 and 2011 respectively. 32 Table 1: International overnights in Thessaloniki (Jan-Dec) 2010-2012 International overnights in Thessaloniki (Jan - Dec) Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 23 Country/Year Greece Israel Cyprus Italy USA Russia Turkey Germany Bulgaria Serbia Albania Romania UK Libya France Poland FYROM Spain Australia Holland Ukraine 2011 946336 59064 56770 47015 42168 39486 36629 36478 33763 32723 29744 26265 22680 19261 18736 12298 11594 10211 9363 8543 5723 % 59.04 3,68 3,54 2,93 2,63 2,46 2,29 2,28 2,11 2,04 1,86 1.64 1.41 1,20 1.17 0.77 0.72 0.64 0.58 0.53 0.36 ↑/↓ % N/A 335.86 N/A 32.35 51.98 62.83 36.41 N/A 12.63 18.91 64.38 N/A N/A 22296.51 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Rank 7 2 5 6 3 4 9 8 10 13 11 12 1 14 20 15 16 18 19 17 2012 836803 39387 71799 43321 40278 59248 46790 34569 36283 27612 20652 25428 22419 146937 19746 7881 13272 10813 10334 8315 10529 % 51.28 2.41 4,4 2.65 2.47 3.63 2,87 2.12 2.22 1.69 1.27 1,56 1.37 9.00 1.21 0.48 0.81 0.66 0.63 0.51 0.65 ↑/↓ % -11.57 -33.31 26.47 -7.86 -4.48 50.05 27.74 -5.23 7.46 -15.62 -30.57 -3.19 -1.15 662.87 5.39 -35.92 14.47 5.90 10.37 -2.67 83.98 Source: Research based on data of Thessaloniki Hotels Association data (2011-2013) 33 Figure 10: International overnights in Thessaloniki (Jan – Dec) 2011-2012 International overnights in Thessaloniki (Jan - Dec) 20112012 0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000 Greece Israel Cyprus Italy USA Russia Turkey Germany Bulgaria Serbia 2011 Albania 2012 Romania UK Libya France Poland FYROM Spain Australia Holland Ukraine Source: Research based on data of Thessaloniki Hotels Association data (2011-2013) 34 Using the same pattern , because of the fact that at the time of the research THA had announced only statistics of Jan-Jun of 2013 the following Table 2 and graph (Figure 11) represents the evolution of nationalities of incoming tourists for the first half of the year of each year from 2011 – 2013. Obviously results on half of a year which regarded off-season are not secure but surely represent a tension especially for 2013. Table 2: International overnights in Thessaloniki (Jan - Jun), 2011-2013 Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 83 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Country/Year Greece Israel Cyprus Italy Bulgaria Albania Turkey Germany Russia USA Albania Libya UK France Poland FYROM Spain Australia Holland Ukraine 2011 491974 30039 27237 20772 18066 17658 16829 16783 15323 13690 17658 13 10666 7279 4095 4805 4571 2675 4187 1997 % 3.90 3.53 2.69 2.34 2.29 2.18 2.18 1.99 1.78 2.29 0.00 1.38 0.94 0.53 0.62 0.59 0.34 0.54 0.26 International overnights in Thessaloniki (Jan - Jun) ↑/↓ % Rank 2012 % ↑/↓ % Rank 2013 % N/A 424551 51.59 -15.88 452848 57.62 N/A 7 15992 1.94 -48.35 4 26854 3.42 N/A 2 28969 3.52 5.49 2 31765 4.04 N/A 4 20396 2.48 -1.81 5 19562 2.49 N/A 8 15254 1.85 -15.56 6 18285 2.33 N/A 12 10774 1,31 -38.98 12 10651 1.36 N/A 5 19025 2,87 13 3 28556 3.63 N/A 7 16112 1.96 -0.04 7 16404 2.09 N/A 3 22007 2.67 43,62 1 35698 4.54 N/A 9 13356 1.62 -2.44 8 14805 1.88 N/A 10 10774 1.31 -38.99 12 10651 1.36 N/A 1 131143 15.93 11 11324 1.44 N/A 13 9693 1.18 -9.12 13 10170 1.29 N/A 14 8579 1.04 17.86 14 8991 1.14 N/A 21 2978 0.36 -27.27 18 4057 0.52 N/A 15 5490 0.48 14.02 15 6018 0.77 N/A 16 4266 0.52 -7.15 20 3186 0.41 N/A 20 3218 0.39 20.30 17 4371 0.56 N/A 17 3512 0.43 -16.12 19 3962 0.5 N/A 22 2943 0.36 47.37 16 5474 0.7 Source: Research based on data of Thessaloniki Hotels Association data (2011-2013) 35 ↑/↓ 6.67 67.92 9.65 -4.09 19.87 -1.14 50.10 1.81 62.21 10.85 -1.14 -91.37 4.92 4.80 36.23 9.62 -25.32 35.83 12.81 86.00 Figure 11: International overnights in Thessaloniki (Jan - Jun) 2011-2013 0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000 1400000 Greece Israel Cyprus Italy Bulgaria Albania Turkey Germany Russia 2011 USA Albania 2012 2013 Libya UK France Poland FYROM Spain Australia Holland Ukraine Source: Research based on data of Thessaloniki Hotels Association data (2011-2013) The following figure (Figure 12) represents the evolution for overnights of each nationality for the first half of the years of 2011, 2012, 2013 respectively. The inner circle represents 2011 results while the external circle represents results of 2013. It has to be noted that overnights of Libyans are excluded from the following graph because occurred after Greek democracy offered to hospital some refuges of the civil war. Thus if taken into account change completely and in a wrong direction the proportions of the rest nationalities. 36 Figure 12: Evolution of nationalities for international overnights (Jan-Jun) 2011-2013 International overnights in Thessaloniki (Jan - Jun) 2011-2013 (excl.Libya) UK 4% USA 6% UKR AUS NL 2% ES 2% FYROM1% 2% PL 2% AUS NL UKR ES 1% 2% FYROM2% 2% 2% FR PL 3% 4% UKR ESAUSNL FYROM 2%1% FR 1% PL 2%1% 2% 4% FR 2% 3% UK UK 5% 5% USA 7% ISR 11% ISR 8% ISR 14% CY 14% CY 13% USA 6% IT 10% RUS 7% RUS 14% RUS 11% CY 13% IT 10% GER 8% TK 8% GER 8% GER 7% AL 8% TK 9% BUL 8% BUL 8% IT 8% BUL 7% AL 5% AL 4% TK 11% Source: Research based on data of Thessaloniki Hotels Association data (2011-2013) 37 Finally in Figure 13 is represented the proportions of nationalities for overnights in Thessaloniki for the year 2012 which is the most indicative year of all the available. Again Libyans are excluded for the reasons mentioned in Figure 12. Figure 13: International overnights in Thessaloniki (Jan-Dec) 2012 (exc.Libya) International overnights in Thessaloniki (Jan - Dec) 2012 (excl.Libya) Ukraine Poland FYROM Australia Holland 2% Spain 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% Israel France 7% 4% UK 4% Cyprus 13% Romania 5% Italy 8% Albania 4% Serbia 5% USA 7% Bulgaria 7% Turkey 9% Russia 11% Germany 6% Source: Research based on data of Thessaloniki Hotels Association data (2011-2013) 38 3.2.2 CONCLUSIONS ON SOURCE COUNTRIES RESEARCH Taking into account the available data of international overnights in Thessaloniki’s hotels from 2010 until Jun of 2013 we can assume that the city is averagely accommodating 1,500,000 overnights per year. 60% in 2011 and the 51.28% in 2012 of them are Greeks. This is a traditional tension in tourism development of Thessaloniki. Through times city’s visitation and evolution of hotel industry was actually dependent to Greek tourists. Except of the lack of strategic development planning, this is mainly the reason behind the amateurish tourism development of the city. Tourism professionals secured adequate results based on Greeks. Thus when debt crisis affected visitation of Greeks due to decline of their income, Thessaloniki’s tourism could not easily differentiate its product in order to attend new source markets. Thessaloniki lost more than 10% of its tourism demand in less than 3 years without any substitute option available. In international terms the case of Thessaloniki is clearer. Until 2010 the source of the majority of incoming tourism according to older studies was Germany, UK and the Balkans. Most of tourists visiting the city were attracted by its orthodox religious legacy (Balkan countries) or made a stop-over before their way to Chalkidiki beaches (Germany, UK). Few decades before when the city was a modern business and exhibition center foreign visitors attracted from the city for business reasons too. From 2010 and afterwards, mainly due to individual initiatives from the new municipality authorities and the private sector, the international visitation of Thessaloniki is consolidated to the following status that figure 14 represents. Figure 14: International overnights in Thessaloniki Jan-Jun 2013 (excl.Libya) International overnights in Thessaloniki (Jan - Jun) 2013 (excl.Libya) UK 4% FYROM Australia 2% Spain Holland Ukraine 2% 2% 2% France Poland 1% 4% 2% Israel 11% Cyprus 13% Albania 4% USA 6% Italy 8% Bulgaria 7% Russia 14% Germany 7% Turkey 11% 39 This set of data was chosen, although are just indicative due to the fact that are only representing results of first half of the year of 2013, mainly because is really representing the present situation. Proof of this can be easily found in Figure 12 too. International inbound tourism of Thessaloniki is mainly consisting 6 main national groups: 1. Israel 2. Turkey 3. Russia 4. Cyprus 5. Balkan countries 6. Western European countries The three first source countries (Israel, Turkey and Russia) are those that have grown intensively as source markets of the city. Israelis are accounting 7-14% of the total international inbound tourism of the city for the period 2011-2013 following an exponential growth of 336% from 2010 to 2011. A balanced visitation of 2012 is now followed by a new rise of 68% for the first half of 2013 compared to same half of 2012. Obviously the market of Israel can be a basic and high income market of Thessaloniki. This is mainly due to historical reasons as Israelis consider Thessaloniki as the second Jerusalem. The strong Jewish legacy of the city, although almost ruined for several reasons, can be a key incentive for visitation both in emotional and actual attractions terms. Thus the previously unexploited Israel market can be an important source market for the city. A perquisite for this is the development of special packages and routes that will serve this special market segment. Turks are following the same pattern. Although history of the city is deeply connected with Ottoman and modern Turkish history, political reasons and tensions between the two countries left this market unexploited. Citizens coming from Turkey accounted 811% of the total international inbound tourism of the city (2011-2013). An increase of 37% in 2011 visitation compared to 2010 and a further increase of 28% in 2012 proves that source market of Turkey has the potential to increase more its share in the following years. This is also proven by the fact that in the first half of the year 2013 visitation of Turks has increased a further 50% compared to the same time period in 2012. The introduction of a direct flight between Thessaloniki and Istanbul was a key factor also. Turkey being an emerging market in international terms can perform as key source market for Thessaloniki. This is because of the rich legacy of the city in ottoman architecture and ruins but also because of the presence of the house where the modern founder of the Turkish democracy Kemal Attaturk was actually born. Kemal Attaturk as a modern leader is treated with full respect of Turkish citizens. Thus the recently opened museum of Kemal in the building where his first house was can serve as a great attraction for Turkish tourists. Finally Turkey as an emerging market will, according to UNWTO, be an emerging source market for international tourism too, both in receipts and absolute tourist numbers. If the city make steps towards 40 organizing special packages and routes for this particular market segment has the potential of being a major economic contributor to city’s visitation. A traditional segment of international tourism of Thessaloniki, despite the long distance, is Russia. Mainly due to the Christian orthodox heritage, Thessaloniki was always attracting visitation from Russian Federation. Nevertheless the type of visitation was a mix of pre-visit to Mount Athos or Chalkidiki. For the time period of the research Russians accounted 7-14% of the total international tourism of the city. An increase of 63% in visitation 2011 compared to 2010 and a further increase of 50% in 2012 creates an extraordinary growth potential proved by a promising further 62% increase for the first half of 2013. That brings Russia to No1 source country of Thessaloniki’s inbound tourism. Note at this point that summer months which traditionally are attracting Russians are not included to 2013 results. This huge increase is mainly because of two parameters. As UNWTO states in its 2013 Tourism highlights (2013, p.13), Russian Federation is the fifth top spender in international tourism expenditure accounting a 37% growth. Moreover the initiation of charter and scheduled flights directly from Russia to Thessaloniki created this phenomenon. A further increase in visitation is achievable again if the city prepare itself in order to create special products and packages that will make this valuable market segment feel welcome and thus create increased visitation via word of mouth or more professional promotion ways. We can assume that those three source markets is a first set of countries that can be treated as one due to the fact that the today’s emerging destinations which if exploited properly can tomorrow be the leaders of the city’s visitation. Together they represent less than the half (≈40%) of international tourism of Thessaloniki. The next group of countries is the region of Balkans. Bulgaria, Serbia, FYROM, Romania and Albania are a steady and traditional part of Thessaloniki’s international tourism. Due to proximity to the city citizens of Balkan countries are a safe source market of the city. Especially Bulgaria which now is an EU-27 member accounts a bigger proportion of the total visitation, followed by Serbia. Highways are the basic mode of transfer for those countries but if a more sufficient way of travel could be established (train or regional flights) could increase visitation especially in the citybreak mode. Western European countries citizens are a considerable proportion of Thessaloniki’s international tourism but reaching steady numbers of visitation. During the last three years tourists from mainly Germany, Italy, UK and France accounted almost a quarter (≈24%) of total visitation. Although this is a big proportion, the absolute numbers are relatively small. Western Europeans accounts almost the half of international travel. Thus for Thessaloniki not to attract frequent travelers, as Europeans, is a major drawback that needs an immediate solution. 41 Low cost air travel carriers, as previously mentioned, have created new markets for emerging destinations in Europe. Thessaloniki was not excluded of this trend. Major low cost carriers such as Easyjet, Ryanair, Germanwings, Travelservices and more took advantage of the low airport fares of Makedonia airport and introduced several routes connecting Thessaloniki with western European cities, mostly in the summer period. Especially Ryanair came into a controversial agreement with TTOM in order to open a base in Thessaloniki in summer of 2011 while a major proportion of TTOM’s budget would be paid in the company. As data show this strategy, although new routes to new source countries open, did not respond the expected results. Visitation from those markets was steady and all the traffic was mainly diverted to Chalkidiki peninsula in the summer period and partly to outbound tourism of the city. Moreover conventional carriers that used to operate in Makedonia airport forced to leave as a result of price war from those carriers. In conclusion western European countries are yet an unexploited source market for Thessaloniki. Investment in creating new routes to those markets is a solution but only if the product proposition of the city exists. Thus the priority is to create a product proposition first and then to create the routes for the source markets to come. Finally a special proportion of the city’s international tourism is Cypriots. Cypriots are mainly act as VFR tourism due to the fact that in Thessaloniki exists a numerous community of young Cypriots studying in Greek universities. Except this the existence of many different air routes from Cyprus offers the opportunity for the city to propose a city break product that would fit Cypriots needs too. Timing for such exploitation may be bad though, due to Cyprus bank crisis in this period of time. The following figure represents graphically the major groups of source markets as analyzed above. Figure 15: Major groups of Thessaloniki international tourism source markets 42  3.2.3. PRESENT TYPES OF TOURISM As mentioned above the lack of research and data regarding Thessaloniki’s tourism development is a fact. Thus there is no strong evidence regarding the type of tourism the city attracts. The only source of information is a study conducted of gbr consulting company behalf of the Thessaloniki hotels association published in May 2012. The research was conducted through a sample of 800 guests of different hotels in Thessaloniki with the qualitative method of questionnaires in the timeframe of 12/2011-02/2012. The main findings of the survey regarding the type of the city’s visitors are:       65% were Greeks 45% of the sample has visited Thessaloniki for business reasons, while 40% for leisure and 13% for VFR (visit of friends and relatives). The remaining proportion’s travel reason was visiting conventions and trade fairs. 39% of the sample made the booking of hotel online. The same proportion was 35% in 2011 and 29% in 2010. 24% of hotels participating in the survey do not have a website and 60% a facebook page. 42.1% used air travel to arrive in Thessaloniki, 37.2% car and only 5.8% train services. 88.8% declares that would return or suggest Thessaloniki to friends and relatives. What this survey actually brings into the surface is the potential of Thessaloniki as business travel destination. As mentioned to the preface Thessaloniki owns a huge trade fair installation and a diverse quantity of small, medium and a pair of large conference spaces. This fact creates an extra unexploited opportunity for the city to develop a conventional face. With an international airport located close to the city and almost half of its hotels capacity in 4* and 5* rooms, Thessaloniki can offer a unique experience for convention and conference organizers (MICE travel). Nevertheless ICCA official reports, ranks Thessaloniki in 124th place of the world rankings and in No.65 place of European cities ranking with just 19 events in 2012. Obviously this is a poor performance regarding the city’s amenities. Conventional and conference tourism can offer unique chances in city’s tourism development and is actually another unexploited field. The survey also proves the big proportion of Greek tourists in the overall results combined with the evolution of the trend of use of Internet and IT for booking. This is also a crucial factor for development of city break tourism. 43 Finally repeated visitation declaration is strong but the business travel bias of the survey should always taken into account.  3.2.4.CRUISES Although Thessaloniki is the home city of one of the biggest ports in the Mediterranean Sea, cruise tourism is only recently discovered. Poor facilities, strong protectionism measures and political unwillingness led Thessaloniki’s port out of big cruise company’s itineraries. According to Port Authorities of Thessaloniki 2013 will be a restart year for cruise tourism with the initiation of a weekly route of at least one cruise ship for summer 2013. Nevertheless it remains another unexploited field of tourism that could add in international visitation of the city if properly managed. 44 4. SWOT analysis of Thessaloniki, Greece as a tourism destination In order to present the broader image of Thessaloniki as a tourism destination that would lead to certain travel propositions (especially in the city break travel field) a SWOT analysis is essential. SWOT is the acronym of the analysis of the strengths, the weaknesses, the opportunities and the threats of a destination. In this chapter the above characteristics will be presented in brief and a reprehensive matrix will follow.  STRENGTHS  Rich, diverse and multinational cultural and religious heritage of Roman, Byzantine, Ottoman, and modern history periods  15 World Heritage Monuments of UNESCO  6km of totally renovated walkable waterfront (Thessaloniki Riviera)  International airport located close to the city center and modern 4* - 5* accommodation facilities  Easy but outdated transportation system  Crossroad of major highways (PATHE, Egnatia)  Close to unique historical heritage attraction sites (Vergina tombs, Dion, Olympus mountain) religious sites (Mount Athos) and famous beaches (Chalkidiki peninsula)  Youth spirit - active city – City of festivals (3 universities)  Top class medical installations  Adequate conference and convention centers  Hospitality spirit of citizens  Creative areas  WEAKNESSES  Absence of collaboration culture between tourism industry stakeholders, leadership and strategic approach  Non-operational and low-budgeted DMO  Marketing strategies – IT, website, internet presence  Absence of equipped personnel  Lack of information points  Product propositions-organized packages-routes  Outdated 2*-3* accommodation facilities  Pollution of environment  Unknown destination to majority of target markets  Museums and heritage sites opening hours  Few routes of airlines in winter period  Lack of cruise ship incentives for visitation 45  OPPORTUNITIES  Projections of strong increase of visitation in the region  New development of tourism product is strategic approach applied  Emerging source markets  Investment in emerging economies source markets  Low prices  Unexploited cruise ships visitation  Youth European Capital 2014  Instability in middle East and Northern Africa  THREATS  Competitors evolution in the area  Political unwillingness for strategic tourism development  European and domestic economic crisis  Insufficient airline scheduled flights 46 Figure 17: SWOT analysis matrix STRENGTHS             WEAKNESSES OPPORTUNITIES          Rich, diverse and multinational cultural and religious heritage of Roman, Byzantine, Ottoman, and modern history periods 15 World Heritage Monuments of UNESCO 6km of totally renovated walkable waterfront (Thessaloniki Riviera) International airport and modern 4* 5* accommodation facilities Easy but outdated transportation system Crossroad of major highways (PATHE, Egnatia) Close to unique historical heritage attraction sites (Vergina tombs, Dion, Olympus mountain) religious sites (Mount Athos) and famous beaches (Chalkidiki peninsula) Youth spirit - active city – festival city (3 universities) Top class medical installations Adequate conference and convention centers Hospitality spirit of citizens Creative areas Projections of strong increase of visitation in the region New development of tourism product is strategic approach applied Emerging source markets Investment in emerging economies source markets Low prices Unexploited cruise ships visitation Youth European Capital 2014 Instability in middle East and Northern Africa            THREATS     Absence of collaboration culture between tourism industry stakeholders, leadership and strategic approach Non-operational and lowbudgeted DMO Marketing strategies – IT, website, internet presence Absence of equipped personnel Lack of information points Product propositionsorganized packages-routes Outdated 2*-3* accommodation facilities Pollution of environment Unknown destination to majority of target markets Museums and heritage sites opening hours Few routes of airlines in winter period Lack of cruise ship incentives for visitation Competitors evolution in the area Political unwillingness for strategic tourism development European and domestic economic crisis Insufficient airline scheduled flights 47 5. CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSITION OF STRATEGIES Thessaloniki has all the potential to become a tourism destination success story. On the other hand, as SWOT analysis indicates, the city is a good example of amateurish destination governance and political unwillingness to establish a collaborative strategic approach of tourism development. The absence of a unique coordinating unit that develops and implements a commonly accepted strategy has obvious negative effects. Thus, different stakeholders pursue their own agendas which sometimes are even conflicting. Thessaloniki, as a destination, needs to reassess operational structure of the local DMO (TTOM). More specifically city’s tourism industry stakeholders should provide all available resources to Thessaloniki Tourism Organization and Marketing in order to perform its strategic role as the coordinator of Thessaloniki’s tourism development. The main targets of TTOM should be: - Provide incentives to all of the city’s tourism industry stakeholders for intensive and committed collaboration. Recruitment of specialized personnel. Conduct of visitor’s surveys and marketing research. Development of a strategic plan based on a clear vision, ambitious goals and measurable objectives. Implementation of strategies. As mentioned in literature review the basic elements of city break travel are: Distance, Duration, Discretionary nature, Date flexibility and Destination travel party (5Ds). The first two are strongly connected to destination choice process made from city break travelers. Thessaloniki’s main source markets are close enough to satisfy the “Distance” factor of a city break destination (less than 3 hours flight). Moreover Thessaloniki is easily accessible, the city’s main attractions are located close to each other and the possible excursion sites do not demand more than 1,5 hour drive. Thus a complete product proposition of the city would need a maximum of 4 days/3 nights itinerary. In those terms “Duration” aspect of city break travel is covered too. In conclusion Thessaloniki fits perfect the “5Ds” model of city break travel. Moreover Thessaloniki can provide leisure of all possible kinds for a city break traveler. Cultural, religious, youth, sea&sun, creative, sports or even medical city break travelers can find a suitable attraction or service. Except leisure city break travel, Thessaloniki can benefit also of investing in convention and conference city break travel. In order to exploit this opportunity the city must found a convention bureau as part of the DMO’s processes. This specialized authority should promote city’s capabilities of hosting conferences and conventions in order to create demand in the MICE sector too. Hosting more than 100,000 undergraduate and postgraduate students, a pair of international film events (Thessaloniki International Film festival and Thessaloniki 48 international Documentary festival) and an active nightlife scene, Thessaloniki can strongly benefit of this creative and youthful ambience. According to a recent UNWTO study, by 2020 there will be almost 300 million youth international travelers. Thus a city that has already the resources of responding to this demand should invest more in this field of development. Low cost carriers and low overnights prices of city’s hotels can be of great advantage in this context. Moreover in 2014 Thessaloniki will be the European Youth capital. This is a crucial bet for the city if youth tourism is to be considered. Finally Thessaloniki is in deep need of a new landmark. An image that will be able to represent both city’s turbulent history as a mosaic of civilizations and emotions but also its modern present as a developing European city. Thessaloniki’s 6km of completely renovated and walkable waterfront from Opera house until the port area can offer a unique landmark-Riviera in the region (Thessaloniki Riviera). This unique urban space can become a creative, youth but also recreational zone connecting the city with the sea element. Same areas have helped European destinations rise offering a relaxing product proposition. (e.g., Port Olympic and Barceloneta zones in Barcelona, Valencia waterfront zone and Marseille waterfront area). This image can be completed if the projects of light sea transportation routes come also into reality. STRATEGIES In order to develop as a city break destination Thessaloniki has to invest in the three groups of source markets. Most attention must be given to emerging source markets Russia, Israel and Turkey. In order to achieve increased visitation from those destinations there is a need of an individual, for each country, marketing strategy. Product proposition for Russians, Israelis and Turks have to be offered from the DMO connecting the city with the special emotions that the city generates to those national groups. Specially routes officially designed by the city’s DMO need to be offered in order visitors get emotionally attached and thus become ambassadors of Thessaloniki back home. Each of those three national groups represents an emerging high income tourism market that until now Thessaloniki has not exploited enough. Next is the mature market of Western European travelers. The steady development figures presented previously indicate that those travelers are visiting Thessaloniki either from personal interest, low cost flights routes presence or as a stop before leisure holidays in Chalkidiki. Most of Europeans don’t know the city of Thessaloniki. Thus lot of attention has to be made in conducting special commercial campaigning using branding and marketing tools. Low cost carriers is a great initial incentive for cheap city break travel, but if the product proposition of the city does not exist the competitor destination with a complete product proposition waits around the corner. 49 Finally Balkan countries are the last but not least target market. Those populations are aware of Thessaloniki. That means that the strategy for this specific market segment is completely different. The proposition of an easier transportation mode in collaboration with local train authorities and regional air carriers can increase city break visitation because the barrier of transportation via road will not exist anymore. In combination to those segments, as mentioned above, strategies need to be implemented regarding youth tourism and cruise tourism. Thessaloniki is well known for its festivals and events organization. International Film Festival and International Documentary Festival are just two of those that can attract special market segments and especially youth. The main problem is that they’re not promoted broadly and the experience created out of that is not used for organization of same events in other culture forms. Thessaloniki as a festival and events city can attract young travelers if manage to organize medium/large scale events of this segment’s interest. Next figure (Figure 18) represents the pyramid of the proposed strategies portfolio along with market segments mentioned Figure 18: The pyramid of strategies portfolio of Thessaloniki, Greece destination development as a city break destination MICE Cruises Youth travel Balkan countries source markets (Bulgaria - Serbia) Western European source markets (Germany - Italy - UK - France) Emerging source markets (Russia - Turkey Israel) THESSALONIKI CITY BREAK TRAVEL STRATEGIES PORTFOLIO 50 In conclusion, there are many opportunities for the city to explore in order to improve its tourism performance. This report has attempted to connect this opportunity for success with the city break mode of travel. Thessaloniki’s profile fits with what city travelers demand for such a destination, whether they travel for leisure or for business. Development of specialized products for targeted market segments of this travel mode would probably attract an adequate market share. Building a strong brand and a competitive product proposition can be the next step. The present situation though seems more than an “auto-pilot” mode where city’s tourism development is not driven by a strategically coordinating organization but by individual stakeholder’s intentions and special interests. Change of this problematic perception of tourism development is the first step towards Thessaloniki’s success as a tourism destination. 51 6. REFERENCES 1. Asworthy, G., & Page, S. (2010). Urban Tourism research: Recent progress and current paradoxes, Tourism Management (pp.1-15) 2. Dobruszkes, F. (2013) The geography of European low cost airline networks: a contemporary analysis, Journal of Transport geography 28 75-88 3. Dunne, G., Flanagan S (2006), Dublin visitor survey visitor satisfaction and attitudual analysis 2003. 4. Dunne, G., Flanagan S., Buckley, J. (2010). Towards a decision making model for city break travel, International Journal of Culture, Tourism and hospitality research Vol.5(2) pp.158-172 5. Dunne, G., Flanagan S., Buckley, J. (2010). Towards an understanding of international city break travel, International Journal of Tourism research 12 409-417 6. Edwards, D., Griffin, T, & Hayllar B. (2008). Urban tourism research: developing an agenda, Annals of Tourism research 35(4), 1032-1052 7. European Travel Comission (2013), Trends and prospects Q2/2013 report 8. Freitag R. 2006. Using Market Intelligence in the Commercial World. Presented at 2nd executive summit of the European Travel Commission Symposium on market intelligence, Malta, October 4, 2006. Retrieved March 28, 2008 9. Mordue, T. (2007) Testing governance – a research agenda for exploring urban tourism competitiveness policy: the case of Liverpool 1980-2000, leisure Studies 26(4) 447-462 10. Trew J, Cockerell N. 2002. The European market for UK city breaks. Insights 14(58):85-111. 11. Trinity Research. 1989. The UK Short Break Holiday Market. Trinity Research. 12. UNWTO (2012) A practical guide to tourism destination management 13. UNWTO (2013) Tourism Highlights 2013 52