FOOD TOURISTS

An Interdisciplinary Approach to Profiling Foodies

and Exploring Their Travel Patterns and Preferences

Conference Paper Proposal

International Academy for the Study of Tourism, Taiwan, June 2011

By
Donald Getz, PhD
and
Richard Robinson
School of Tourism, The University of Queensland

ABSTRACT

This interdisciplinary and multi-method research is aimed at profiling

foodies and identifying the travel patterns and preferences of highly
involved food lovers. A basic premise is that love of food does not
necessarily lead to food-motivated travel, and so it is necessary to identify
the niche segments, called highly-involved foodies, that do travel with
food-related experiences as a specific goal.

In keeping with profound international trends that all relate to the notion of
the experience economy, food tourism* has become big business.
Numerous cities and whole countries are positioning themselves as food
tourism destinations based on their product. Unfortunately, as with wine
tourism before it, most of the early work on this niche market has been
product oriented - the supply of food experiences might be exceptional,
but without the benefit of market intelligence they run the risk of missing
important niche markets and wasting time and money on mis-directed
communications. Traditional market research does not yield a full
understanding of who food tourists are and what they want.

This research is informed by previous research concerning wine lovers,

who are generally also very interested in high-quality dining experiences
(Brown, Havitz and Getz, 2007). Related theory comes from serious
leisure (Stebbins, 1992) and ego-involvement (Havitz and Dimanche,
1999), both of which have been applied to multiple leisure pursuits (e.g.,
Kim, Scott and Crompton, 1997; Kyle and Chick, 2002) and more recently
to development of the concept of the event travel career trajectory
(Getz, 2008) through the study of mountain bikers (Getz and McConnell,
2010) and amateur distance runners (Getz and Andersson, 2010).

Also relevant is the use of passive (or non-intrusive) net-nography to

examine the social world of foodies, wherein they communicate through
blogs and receive a variety of information from private and commercial
web sites. The social-world frame (from Unruh, 1980) is useful for
exploring the actors, events important in social worlds and in development
of their serious-leisure careers, organizations connected to these social
worlds - including as mediators of travel, and their practices - which
include symbolic acts, travel, and attending events of all kinds.

Following a number of in-depth, structured interviews, a detailed

questionnaire has been developed and implemented in Australia by Getz
and Robinson. A food involvement scale was especially constructed
(although it remains in need of refinement). Analysis enables clustering of
foodies according to a range of attitudinal and behavioral variables, and
correlation of level of involvement with travel patterns and preferences.
Both special events and general destination attractiveness are covered.
Specific product and packaging preferences are tested.

We have data from a sample of graduate students from the University of

Queensland, and a sample of the general Queensland population taken
from an online survey conducted in 2009.
Key findings of the Australian research will be presented. Foodies fall into
at least three categories, as determined by initial results. There are food
lovers who might or might not behave according to health considerations,
and they can be expected to spend money on restaurants and good eating
experiences. There are people who love to cook, often spending a great
deal on their kitchens, shopping for the best produce, and attending
cooking demonstrations and schools. And there are foodies who appreciate
cultural differences in gastronomy, and will travel specifically to learn and
to enjoy authentic culinary experiences. Of course, some foodies embody
all three dimensions, and for some there might be a natural progression
(or trajectory), linked to increased involvement, from eating to cooking to
traveling. Theoretical and practical implications will be discussed.

Net-nography demonstrates the value of using a social-worlds frame to

study foodies, and in particular revealed the language used by foodies
when communicating with each other, their motivations, and the roles of
mediators in event and travel decisions.

Conclusions will cover both theory development and practical implications.

*Terminology:
Food is a generic term that everyone understands, because we all have to
eat. Foodies is gaining in international acceptance, partially through the
mass media and also through the web, to describe people with particular
interests in, or love of food. But people mean different things when they
use the term, and they relate it to their own interests and to their level of
involvement with food, so that people with no particular interests and low
ego-involvement do not describe themselves as foodies. A love of fine
food is associated with the term gourmet, but this has negative
connotations as well, such as elitist and expensive.
Gastronomy and cuisine, according to the Oxford dictionary, can both
refer to the cultural dimensions of food, connected to places and
traditions, so that gastronomic or culinary tourism is connected to
discovering the authentic produce, cooking, and eating experiences of
particular regions and cultures.
References:

Brown, G., Havitz, M., and Getz, D. (2007). Relationships between wine
involvement and wine-related travel. Journal of Travel and Tourism
Marketing, 21 (1): 31-46.

Getz, D. (2008). Event tourism: Definition, evolution, and research.

Tourism Management,
29 (3): 403-428.

Getz, D., and Andersson, T. (2010). The event-tourist career trajectory: A

study of high-involvement amateur distance runners. Scandinavian Journal
of Hospitality and Tourism (in press).

Getz, D., and McConnell, A. (2010). Event tourist careers and mountain
biking. Journal of Sport Management (forthcoming).

Havitz, M., and Dimanche, F. (1999). Leisure involvement revisited: Drive

properties and paradoxes. Journal of Leisure Research, 31 (2): 122-149.

Kim, S., Scott, S., and Crompton, J. (1997) An exploration of the

relationships among social psychological involvement, behavioral
involvement, commitment, and future intentions in the context of
birdwatching. Journal of Leisure Research, 29 (3): 320-341.

Kyle, G., and Chick, G. (2002). The social nature of leisure involvement.
Journal of Leisure Research, 34 (4): 426-448

Stebbins, R. (1992). Amateurs, Professionals, and Serious Leisure.

Montreal: McGill-Queens U. Press.

Unruh, D. (1980). The nature of social worlds. Pacific Sociological Review,

23, 271-296.