This research asks whether tourism-related businesses are using the Internet to promote themselves successfully & discusses what it may mean for businesses who do and do not.

1. Acknowledgements: This project, part of a larger, long‐term assessment of community and business use of
broadband, is supported by the Blandin Foundation of Grand Rapids, Minnesota; the Carlson Chair of Tourism,
University of Minnesota; Southwest Initiative Foundation, Hutchinson, Minnesota; University of Minnesota,
Crookston, EDA Center; and University of Minnesota Extension Center for Community Vitality.
Hans Muessig is Program Director for the Minnesota Intelligent Rural Communities (MIRC) program in the Center for
Community Vitality, University of Minnesota Extension. Tara R. Daun is a research assistant in the MIRC program.
References: A companion paper Assessing the Digital Presence of Rural Minnesota Businesses: Basic Methods & Findings
includes references for the data quoted here. It is available from the authors upon request and can be found on the MIRC web
site http://www.extension.umn.edu/community/mirc.
Are Tourism Businesses Using the Internet?
An Initial Assessment of Digital Presence and Sophistication in Minnesota Communities
Hans Muessig and Tara R. Daun
hmuessig@umn.edu taragreiman@hotmail.com
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
Percent of Tourism Businesses with Digital Prsence
Community
Tourism's Digital Presence by
Community
Websites
Ineffective
Websites
Social Media
Verified
GooglePlaces
Community
Number of
Businesses
% with
Website
% Websites
Scored 0
% with
Social
Media
%
GooglePlace
Activity
Population
(2010
Census)
INTERVENTION
COMMUNITIES
Akeley 84 27.06 17.39 9.52 10.71 432
Hoffman 106 31.13 21.21 9.43 11.32 681
Starbuck 127 44.09 16.07 5.51 12.60 ↓1,302
Sebeka 135 22.96 22.58 1.48 17.04 711
Menahga 181 42.54 14.29 6.08 10.50 1,306
New York Mills 210 34.29 19.44 6.67 7.62 1,199
Jackson 288 46.18 13.53 10.07 14.93 ↓3,299
Windom 350 42.57 14.77 7.71 14.57 4,646
Big Stone
County
403 43.18 21.26 9.68 6.20 ↓5,269
Lac qui Parle
County
465 37.63 21.71 7.74 5.59 ↓7,259
Leech Lake 485 47.01 19.30 9.69 11.75 NA
Cook County 490 53.27 9.20 15.1 24.9 5,176
Thief River
Falls
560 48.57 20.22 10.71 14.64 8,576
Swift County 587 40.20 16.53 7.67 7.33 ↓9,783
Yellow
Medicine
County
598 37.63 13.78 9.70 7.63 ↓10,438
Stevens county 620 40.18 14.62 10.48 15.48 ↓9,726
Chippewa
County
677 39.59 17.54 6.79 11.37 ↓12,441
Worthington 914 43.65 21.50 12.04 12.04 12,764
Benton County 1073 47.53 12.75 13.79 15.00 38,451
Grand Rapids 1236 52.75 14.57 14.08 16.99 10,869
Winona 1432 58.73 16.77 15.36 25.77 27,592
Kandiyohi
County
2173 46.62 15.24 9.57 15.83 ↓41,203
Intervention
Group
Averages
42.15 17.01 9.49 13.17
Controls
Silver Bay 111 49.55 14.55 5.41 18.02 ↓1,887
Osakis 184 34.24 3.17 6.52 11.41 1,740
Warroad 192 54.17 16.35 25.96 10.42 1,781
Slayton 250 44.00 17.27 9.60 12.4 2,153
Lakefield 150 42.00 17.46 11.33 10.67 1,759
Control
Averages
44.79 13.76 11.76 12.58
DISCUSSION
In an increasingly digital and mobile world if a business fails to adapt and
establish a digital presence many customers won’t easily find them. This
may put many of the businesses that rely on tourism at a competitive
disadvantage that will only grow as the number of people who rely on the
web, GPSs and mobile maps for travel information increases. Some tourism
businesses clearly see the necessity of getting online. This is shown in the
number of hotels, motels, and bed and breakfasts with websites. However,
evidence shows that there is ample room for improving digital presence
amongst all sectors and communities.
APPLICATIONS AND IMPORTANCE
These methods may help other communities to analyze their own digital
presence. In doing so, communities can target critical areas for
improvement and further promote the local tourism industry. One MIRC
community, for example, used the data to target which businesses could
most benefit from Internet class. As research continues, we also hope to
identify a series of best practices that will help inform Extension’s Center for
Tourism programs to strengthen Minnesota’s tourism industry.
Rural Minnesota businesses, including tourism, are handicapped by poor or
non‐existent Internet service in their area. This disadvantage is then
compounded by their lack of an effective presence on the Internet. Relying
heavily on out‐of‐towners, tourism‐related businesses are even more likely
to be searched for even before potential customers arrive in town. By
providing a complete, professional, and high‐quality image online,
businesses are able to be seen by a wider variety of people than before;
they are able to engage with potential customers before they walk in the
door and provide a level of engagement previously unseen. Businesses
eschewing digital presence receive none of these benefits. 5/2012
Not only did digital presence vary by type of tourism business, the digital
presence of tourism‐related businessed also varied widely between
communities. Surprisingly, some communities were more likely to use social
media, while others relied more heavily on traditional websites.
Looking at specific sectors related to tourism, it is clear that the lodging industry is
the furthest along in establishing a digital presence with websites and verified
GooglePlace listings. Lodging businesses were also more likely to have higher quality
websites (fewer websites with a qualitative score of 0). However, restaurants lead in
their use of social media.
INTRODUCTION
Across America, a digital divide exists between rural and metropolitan
communities: Rural communities have slower, less consistent Internet service
and fewer opportunities for broadband Internet connections. Rural
businesses do not necessarily require adequate Internet connections to
promote themselves online. However, having a strong Internet connection
does not mean a business is promoting itself effectively. This study asks
whether rural tourism‐related businesses are using the Internet to promote
themselves and attract the customers they need to survive and prosper.
Recent studies strongly indicate that customers are looking online for their
tourism information. In fact, Google reports that at least 20% of the searches
are location related. Over 70% of consumers research a purchase or travel
decision on the Internet. Additionally smart phone use is skyrocketing.
TripAdvisor reports that 44% of U.S. travelers use their smart phones a
resource while traveling, and 47% use them at their destination to find
restaurants, attractions, and other businesses. It is apparent that these new
customer behaviors create critical new challenges in how tourism‐related
businesses best market themselves.
A 2009 statewide study by the EDA Center at the University of Minnesota,
Crookston found that 72 percent of the businesses surveyed by phone said
they had a business website. And it is widely reported that Google finds that
less than half of Minnesota’s businesses have web sites.
METHODS: ASSESSING DIGITAL PRESENCE
In order to understand if businesses are using online marketing, we examined
the digital presence of businesses in 18 communities that participated in the
Minnesota Intelligent Rural Communities (MIRC) program as well as 4 other
“control” communities not participating in the program. Digital presence
refers to any locally controlled webpages, social media, or GooglePlace pages
devoted to an entity (i.e., a private business, nonprofit, or government office)
within a community. Google, as the top search engine of the web, was our
main tool for assessing presence. All businesses were searched by business
name. Although this technique may not find every business, it does discover
those most likely to be found by potential customers.
Overall we assessed the digital presence of 13,931 rural businesses in the 22
communities (including 85 townships and cities). To do this, lists of
businesses for each area were garnered through InfoUSA, using the North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS). Although we refer to this
simply as a business list, government offices, community organizations,
nonprofits, and educational institutions were also listed (and therefore
assessed). The InfoUSA lists were also supplemented with business directory
information from the websites of chambers of commerce and economic
development authorities from each city.
Websites: Each business on the list was searched first by name or, second, by
name and location in Google. If a website was found, it was scored on a
seven‐point scale for quality. A 0 was assigned if the site’s content failed to
identify the community in which the business is located. If a website for the
business was not found on the first page of the Google search for either of
these searches, the business was reported to have no website. If a blog
appeared, it was counted as a form of social media.
GooglePlaces: We then searched for the same businesses in GoogleMaps. If
Google has an address for a business it will attempt to locate that business on
GoogleMaps, and the business automatically receives a GooglePlace page. A
GooglePlace page is a very simple webpage that shows a business’s address,
phone number, website (if one is known), physical location, and Google user
reviews. If present, this Place page was scored qualitatively on a five‐point scale.
Points on this scale mean that activity has occurred on the Place page.
GooglePlace activity therefore refers to positive comments about the business,
a relevant picture, a description of the business, hours of operation, or
verification by the owner.
For our purposes, the most important feature of this page is owner‐verification.
A page is “owner‐verified” if the business’s owner officially claims and updates
information on the Place page. This is considered an important measure
because several MIRC workshops instruct business owners how and why to
verify their GooglePlace page.
Social Media: A business was considered as using social media if a controlled
form of social media appeared on the first results page of a Google search. The
word controlled is a critical distinction here since many businesses are
automatically given a Facebook page without their knowledge. Such pages are
considered uncontrolled if they have no posts, business information, or “likes.”
We also scored social media use by checking whether a business’s website
included links to any form of social media, including blogs, Facebook, Flickr,
Foursquare, LinkedIn, Tumblr, Twitter, or YouTube.
This poster only presents the digital presence results. Analysis of the digital
sophistication scores (our qualitative measurement) continues.
Generalization: Because neither the 18 MIRC communities nor the 4 controls
were picked randomly it is not appropriate to make statistical comparisons
between communities. Nonetheless, there is much to be learned by looking
how different communities and their businesses – tourism and otherwise – are
using the Internet to promote themselves.
RESULTS
This assessment found that across the 22 communities, an average of 42.8
percent of businesses had a website. On average, 9.9 percent of businesses in
each community used social media. Slightly more businesses (13%) showed
activity on their GooglePlace pages. The following table shows the results across
the communities.