Wulai is probably the easiest place to find a bit of nature outside the bustling metropolis that is Taipei. The little aborigine hot spring town two hours south of the city has enough attractions to keep a traveler busy for most of the day. Some nice shops, beautiful rivers and waterfall, as well as hot springs to soak in. The air is cleaner than the city, and the ever-green mountains surrounding the town provide a beautiful background for some walks. It is only unfortunate that not many foreign travelers know about the place, especially when compared to the famed day-trip sight Jiufen.
But going to the place for the second time, after a trip few years back, provides the traveler with much more perspective than pure enjoyment of its natural environment and various activities. One becomes much more critical, capable of seeing beyond the obvious good points about the place as a tourist site and discern potential points for improvement. Usually, it is about how the sights can better attract travelers, with better services, better facilities, and more convenience. Even the smallest details become worthy of ideas and suggestions to better fit with travelers' demands.
On one hand, being so critical of details is a good thing for the sight in question. Having people make suggestions on improvements is exactly what sights want. They not only can understand exactly what would draw tourists to come and spend money, but by making the improvements actually happen, they can also attract goodwell of travelers who appreciate being listened. It makes sense, then, for tourist sights to prominently put up suggestion boxes, run surveys of visitors, and encourage guests to sign visitors' books in order to hear opinions of visitors.
Yet, on the other hand, the fact that travelers have so much to say about how a certain place can improve in so many different ways also speak to a distinct lack of preparation among local travel industry leaders to cater to needs of non-first-time visitors. Evidently, but overly focusing on those big prominent sights that can draw visitors for the first time, many places neglect the more nuanced needs of second-time visitors, who simply do not get the same "wow" effects out of the same prominent sights. The effort to keep people coming back is just not there.
Behind the lack of attention to non-first-time visitors is likely an economic calculation on the part of local travel industry leaders. Sometimes the sights themselves are simply way too famous that they will get a revolving door of first-time visitors as long as access to the sights themselves are good enough (Jiufen is a perfect example of such logic in Taiwan). There is much better return on investment if little funds are spent on improving access rather than improving service and other auxiliary, non-essential elements, especially considering that such nuanced improvements cannot be easily marketed to the general public.
However, not all sights can depend on one or a few big prominent sights to keep drawing tourists in. Travelers are notoriously fickle in their desires and tastes. If place B emerges to offer the same thing for cheaper price than place A, then A can quickly fade away as a tourist spot. To keep itself worthy of visit, A must continue to differentiate itself from B. Here is where suggestions of non-first-time visitors become pivotal. Even if B can offer the same thing as A, if A can signal itself to travelers that it is willing to listen and change, then it has opportunities to poach back people who already visited B but want the same sight again.
In such a case, the calculations for investment changes for A. The focus is no longer on getting people to come for the first time, but getting them to go to a similar sight again. B can have most of the first-time travelers, but A will ensure that those who visited B will want to go again by investing on services that make B much better than A. To improve on such services involves much more than just listening to travelers' suggestions. It depends on complete shift in investment strategies where the focus is on overall traveler experiences rather than just the sights themselves.
A place like Wulai is exactly where such a strategy might have the biggest payoff. Hot springs and waterfall are not unique. Indeed, there are much bigger, better ones not just in other countries but also abroad. But hot springs in particular are places that attract repeaters. People who like hot springs will go to them multiple times, and they are quite open about going to different hot springs towns due to supposed differences in the water's chemicals. Among the many hot springs towns, the choices will ultimately be made by difference in facilities, the service, and the general environment, rather than the water itself. Those auxiliary elements will make the place worthy of a second-time visit.
But going to the place for the second time, after a trip few years back, provides the traveler with much more perspective than pure enjoyment of its natural environment and various activities. One becomes much more critical, capable of seeing beyond the obvious good points about the place as a tourist site and discern potential points for improvement. Usually, it is about how the sights can better attract travelers, with better services, better facilities, and more convenience. Even the smallest details become worthy of ideas and suggestions to better fit with travelers' demands.
On one hand, being so critical of details is a good thing for the sight in question. Having people make suggestions on improvements is exactly what sights want. They not only can understand exactly what would draw tourists to come and spend money, but by making the improvements actually happen, they can also attract goodwell of travelers who appreciate being listened. It makes sense, then, for tourist sights to prominently put up suggestion boxes, run surveys of visitors, and encourage guests to sign visitors' books in order to hear opinions of visitors.
Yet, on the other hand, the fact that travelers have so much to say about how a certain place can improve in so many different ways also speak to a distinct lack of preparation among local travel industry leaders to cater to needs of non-first-time visitors. Evidently, but overly focusing on those big prominent sights that can draw visitors for the first time, many places neglect the more nuanced needs of second-time visitors, who simply do not get the same "wow" effects out of the same prominent sights. The effort to keep people coming back is just not there.
Behind the lack of attention to non-first-time visitors is likely an economic calculation on the part of local travel industry leaders. Sometimes the sights themselves are simply way too famous that they will get a revolving door of first-time visitors as long as access to the sights themselves are good enough (Jiufen is a perfect example of such logic in Taiwan). There is much better return on investment if little funds are spent on improving access rather than improving service and other auxiliary, non-essential elements, especially considering that such nuanced improvements cannot be easily marketed to the general public.
However, not all sights can depend on one or a few big prominent sights to keep drawing tourists in. Travelers are notoriously fickle in their desires and tastes. If place B emerges to offer the same thing for cheaper price than place A, then A can quickly fade away as a tourist spot. To keep itself worthy of visit, A must continue to differentiate itself from B. Here is where suggestions of non-first-time visitors become pivotal. Even if B can offer the same thing as A, if A can signal itself to travelers that it is willing to listen and change, then it has opportunities to poach back people who already visited B but want the same sight again.
In such a case, the calculations for investment changes for A. The focus is no longer on getting people to come for the first time, but getting them to go to a similar sight again. B can have most of the first-time travelers, but A will ensure that those who visited B will want to go again by investing on services that make B much better than A. To improve on such services involves much more than just listening to travelers' suggestions. It depends on complete shift in investment strategies where the focus is on overall traveler experiences rather than just the sights themselves.
A place like Wulai is exactly where such a strategy might have the biggest payoff. Hot springs and waterfall are not unique. Indeed, there are much bigger, better ones not just in other countries but also abroad. But hot springs in particular are places that attract repeaters. People who like hot springs will go to them multiple times, and they are quite open about going to different hot springs towns due to supposed differences in the water's chemicals. Among the many hot springs towns, the choices will ultimately be made by difference in facilities, the service, and the general environment, rather than the water itself. Those auxiliary elements will make the place worthy of a second-time visit.
Comments
Post a Comment