market research about the interest and wishes of central

MARKET RESEARCH ABOUT THE INTEREST
AND WISHES OF CENTRAL-EUROPEAN TOUR
OPERATORS REGARDING TOURISM TO
FINNISH AND RUSSIAN KARELIA
ENPI CBC ”Karelia - developing competitive tourism resort with
collaborative platform” -project.
JK Kehitystoimisto Oy
Jani Karjalainen
Niina Seppänen
30.4.2014
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
3
2. BACKGROUND OF THE RESEARCH
4
2.1 TOURISM BETWEEN RUSSIA AND SCHENGEN COUNTRIES
NOWADAYS
2.2 VISA FREEDOM
2.3 REVIEW OF THE NEED AND DEMAND BASE OF THE RESEARCH
4
5
6
3. THE GOALS AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
RESEARCH
7
3.1 THE GOALS
3.2 THE IMPLEMENTATION
7
8
4. THE RESULTS OF THE RESEARCH
9
4.1 QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF THE RESPONSES
4.2 THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION OF THE RESPONDENTS
4.3 THE INTEREST REGARDING TOURISM TO FINNISH AND
RUSSIAN KARELIA
4.4 THE TARGET GROUP, STRUCTURE AND CONTENTS OF THE
NEW TOURIST PRODUCT AIMED TO FINNISH AND RUSSIAN
KARELIA
4.5 PREVIOUS RUSSIA COOPERATION OF THE TOUR OPERATOR;
EXPERIENCES AND FEEDBACK
4.6 SALES AND MARKETING OF THE TOURIST PRODUCT AIMED TO
FINNISH AND RUSSIAN KARELIA
4.7 COOPERATION REGARDING ELECTRONIC BOOKING SYSTEM
9
9
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
22
6. LIST OF SOURCES
24
7. APPENDICES
25
2
12
13
15
18
19
1. INTRODUCTION
Cross-border cooperation with Russia is one of the strengths and opportunities of the tourism
of North Karelia region. The cooperation-based development work has been supported by
EU since 1996. During the programme period 2007-2013 the theme-connected projects are
financed, for example, through Karelia ENPI CBC programme.1
ENPI means the programme entity of European neighbourhood and partnership, by which
the external relationship programmes between an EU-country and a third country are being
financed. Karelia ENPI CBC is a cross-border cooperation programme of Kainuu, North
Karelia and North Ostrobothnia regions and the Republic of Karelia, which is aimed at
increasing the wellbeing in the region by means of cooperation. Karelia ENPI CBC is divided
in seven different themes, and several projects of each theme have received financing. 2
”Karelia - developing competitive tourism resort with collaborative platform” is a project,
financed by Karelia ENPI CBC programme, and it is administered by the Central Karelia
Development Company KETI Ltd. (www.keti.fi). The central aim of the project is to increase
the number of tourists in North Karelia and the Republic of Karelia. In addition to this, one
aim is also to enhance the cooperation between the operators and companies in tourism
industry on both sides of the border, and also to create and take into use a new electronic
operational model for marketing of tourist services. The Finnish partners of the project are
Pielinen Karelia Development Center Ltd PIKES (www.pikes.fi), Joensuu Regional
Development Company Ltd. JOSEK (www.josek.fi) and Karelia Expert Tourist Service Ltd.
(www.visitkarelia.fi). In Russia the partners are Sortavala branch of the tourist information
centre of the Republic of Karelia and Sortavala branch of Tourist Association of the Republic
of Karelia. The project budget is 605 298 euros and it is financed by the European Union,
Finland and Russian Federation.3
One of the central goals of the project ”Karelia - developing competitive tourism resort with
collaborative platform” is to survey the interest of Central European tour operators towards
the tourist services on both sides of the Finnish-Russian border. In order to clarify the
mentioned issue there was carried out a market research aimed at the Central European tour
operators. The most important goal of the research was to find for the company network of
the project such tour operator partners that would take the products developed in the project
into their product offering. In addition to this the project also clarified the quality and contents
requirements as well as marketing methods of these products. The research also surveyed
the readiness of tour operators to expand their activities to the Russian Karelia after the
possible visa freedom has entered into force, and which kind of destinations, programme
services, cooperation structures and other travel related issues they would be interested in
then.
The research was ordered from JK Kehitystoimisto Oy and it was carried out during October
2013 - February 2014. This report is a summary of the implementation and results of the
research.
3
2. BACKGROUND OF THE RESEARCH
2.1
TOURISM BETWEEN RUSSIA AND SCHENGEN COUNTRIES NOWADAYS
Nowadays it is easier for Russian tourists to travel to Schengen countries than it is for
citizens of Schengen countries to Russia. When travelling, for example to Finland, the
Russian citizen applies for a Schengen visa, which in Russia is issued by the Embassy of
Finland in Moscow and the Consulate General of Finland in St. Petersburg (branches also in
Murmansk and Petrozavodsk). The Schengen visa gives the person a right for travelling and
short-term stay in all 26 Schengen countries, anyhow altogether 90 days during six months.
For travel longer than three months one should apply for a residence permit, and if working it
is necessary to have a work permit.4
The Central European tourist, on the other hand, when travelling to Russia applies for a
Russian visa the same way as a Finnish tourist. If the tourist (group) would like to travel also
to Russia when travelling to Finland he/she should apply for tourist or endorsed visa. The
visa application should be admitted in due time before the planned journey (at least for three
weeks). The visa is to be applied through the Russian visa centres, which are located in
Helsinki, Turku, Lappeenranta and Mariehamn. When applying for Russian tourist or
endorsed visa the passport has to be valid for at least six months after the expiry date of the
visa. The price and handling time for the citizens of Schengen countries are the same as for
Finns.5
The preconditions for receiving a visa are the following: a) the ground for visa reception:
invitation/endorsement (for example tour operator’s endorsement), b) valid and original
passport, c) filled visa application form, d) photo and e) insurance valid in Russian territory.
The visa fee for EU citizens is 35 euros. Handling time 7-10 calendar days. Fee for express
handling (3 days) is 70 euros. The handling times and fees for the third country citizens vary
depending on nationality of the applicant. 6
According to legislation when arriving to Russia the EU citizen has to register ones visa
within seven weekdays from the arrival date. In case the journey is shorter than seven days
there is no need for registration. In case the traveller stays in a hotel, most hotels register
their clients automatically. Otherwise the registration has to be done with the help of the
inviting organisation or in the local passport and visa office (OVIR). The foreign citizen
arriving to Russia has to fill in the migration card (A and B) and receive in it a stamp from the
border officials. The card has to be kept during the whole journey. When leaving Russia the
B-part of the card is to be given back to the border officials. Hotels do not accommodate
client in case he/she does not have a filled in migration card, or the border officials’ stamp is
missing.7
4
2.2
VISA FREEDOM
In case visa freedom enters into force it would have special effect on tourism between
Finland and Russia from the Russians’ point of view. It would also have an impact on
traveling of the Central European tourists, for example, by relieved border formalities.
In accordance with surveys the number of Russian tourists in North Karelia could reach by
year 2025 up to 1,36 million (daily tourists and the ones staying overnight altogether / year).
The increase would be really remarkable, because, for example, in 2012 in our region there
were 263 000 tourists (daily tourists and the ones staying overnight altogether / year). In
accordance with estimates the Russian tourists will use over three times more money in
North Karelia by year 2025 even without visa freedom. In case visa freedom enters into force
the use of money might even be 4,5 times more, and this would mean that the Russian
tourists would leave app. 370 million euros in the region.8
The actual realisation of visa freedom is anyhow still an open issue. EU and Russia have
already in 2003 agreed that visa freedom is their common goal. In practise visa freedom
would mean abolishment of the current visa policy, and simple border formalities would be
enough. In 2007 the process progressed so, that a visa facilitation agreement between EU
and Russia entered into force relieving the visa application process for certain groups. The
agreement concerns close relatives, students and the representatives of official delegations,
and it, for example, limits the visa handling time and the number of documents required from
the applicants. 8
In 2011 EU and Russia agreed about common footmarks which, if realised, would lead to
visa freedom. Preconditions have been imposed on both parties and after fulfilment of the
conditions the negotiations for visa freedom can be started. Some of the conditions are
political and hard to measure (for example, counteraction in corruption), and some conditions
are technical, like, for example, the development of passport granting process and population
register in Russia, and also intensification of border control both in Russia and EU. There
has also been a proposal as one condition for visa freedom to abolish the obligatory
registration of foreign citizens in Russia. The technical obstacles for visa freedom seem to
diminish by time in Russia and the biometric passports are becoming more common, also in
Russia.8
EU has not put any schedule for realisation of visa freedom. The latest estimate of Finnish
specialists is based on the survey “Controlling of growing border traffic” carried out on
assignment of the Ministry of the Interior. In accordance with the study the earliest possible
time for realisation for visa freedom is year 2018. The visa freedom is, anyhow, a very
important issue for the political leaders of Russia. President Putin has hoped that visa
freedom would be realised as soon as possible, and at the moment the parties are studying
the conditions for the beginning of the visa freedom negotiations. 8
5
The number of Russian tourists in the beginning of 2014 has decreased after the
implementation of this research because of the weakening of rouble and the crisis in Ukraine.
In case the crisis should prolong the economic sanctions entering into force might hinder the
growing conditions of Russia also in the future. The visa negotiations between EU and
Russia have also been interrupted temporarily because of the Ukrainian crisis.
2.3 REVIEW ON THE NEED AND DEMAND BASE OF THE RESEARCH
Tourism is a global growing industry. Regardless of business cycle the industry has grown in
Finland during five years over 20 %. The international and national forecasts are promising
also in the future. The growth during the next few years is forecasted to be around 5 %.
Nowadays the value of tourism as an industry in Finland is over 13 billion euros. Directly
tourism industry employs 130.000 persons and by the end of programme period 2007-2013
the number of new workplaces is estimated to achieve additionally 50.000. The incomes
brought by foreign tourists, which can be equated with export incomes, is approximately 4
billion euros per year.9
The Finnish Tourist Board has defined the “Modern humanists” as the main target group of
marketing of Finland abroad. 12 Strong interest towards nature experiences and culture are
characteristic for the target group, main emphasis being in history, folklore, authenticity and
local way of life. Other growing international trends are, in accordance with forecasts,
wellness tourism based on mental wellbeing and traditional treatment methods, and growth
of ethical and sustainable tourism. The attraction of Northern areas and demand of winter
products has also been forecasted to grow. The future tourist clients are more frequently
looking for authentic and real experiences and “virgin” objects (”Once in a Lifetime
Experiences”).10
The change of purchase and booking behaviour of international tourism consumers will go
on. The reservation and marketing operations of tourist services are becoming more
electronic and mobile. Even over 50 % of the operations on searching and booking of a
journey will be carried out by using mobile devices, tablet PC or smart phone. The social
media is more and more in the main role when making the decision about the journey. The
journey duration and booking cycle are shortening. The tourist attractions that use a lot of
new technology will be the winners in the future market regardless of their location. At the
same time the price-quality ratio as a competitive factor will be emphasized, because the
service offering and the comparison possibilities are increasing because of the enormous
quantity of available electronic information. 9,11
Especially the border area between Finland and Russia could in the future offer interesting
tourist services, which are based, in addition to the above mentioned contents, on unique
exoticism of the East. In accordance with the Trends of tourism demand by 2030 one of the
most important growth factors of the industry is the development of cross-border tourism and
cooperation with Russians.13 Good experience has already been received from the use of the
nature and cultural contents on both sides of the border in the international tourism, for
6
example from Kuusamo (Far North concept / Rukapalvelu Oy) and Kuhmo (Wild Taiga
nature and culture services).12, 13
The tourism in North Karelia forms, in its versatility, a unique entity, which has great
opportunities to answer to the above mentioned change and demand trends. Our unique
tourist centres (the tourist areas of Koli, Joensuu, Bomba, Ruunaa, Pajarinhovi, Ilomantsi
and Outokumpu), the network of living villages of the region, the nature and national parks,
versatile culture and event offering and the closeness of Russia form a solid base for growing
of national and international nature and culture tourism.14 The “Karelia cooperation”, which
has been going on for many years, the company and cooperation networks based on it
combined with functioning border crossing services (and possible visa freedom) enhance
the remarkable future growth of international tourism based on tourist products offered on
both sides of the Finnish-Russian border. The opportunities for remarkable growth of the
above mentioned cooperation would be enhanced especially in case of realisation of the visa
freedom between EU and Russia.
The current competition situation and the existing offering from Finnish Lapland to Russia
were studied on basis of tour operators’ brochures in a market survey of “Zakuska” project,
which was implemented in Rovaniemi. The main emphasis was on German speaking market
area combined with the Benelux countries. In accordance with the results there is no actual
offering and knowledge about the tourism through Finland to Russia. In the offering of tour
operators Finland and Russia are usually sold separately. Of Russian city destinations
especially Moscow and St. Petersburg are interesting for the Central European tourists, but
the offering of Russian destinations is widening constantly. 15
The experiences of Finnish programme service entrepreneurs about working in Russia were
studied in a survey within project “White road”, implemented in the region of Kainuu. The
same survey also studied the attraction factors, challenges and development ideas of
tourism to Russia from entrepreneurs’ point of view. The survey stated that Russia is an
interesting destination, the main attraction factors of which are exoticism, culture, nature and
fish. It was stated that in practise the precondition for successful cooperation is a partnership
with a Russian tourist operator. The forms of cooperation, which were interesting for the
entrepreneurs, according to the survey, are direct cooperation with Russian tourism
entrepreneurs and cooperation and common marketing with Russian and Central European
tour operators. The survey stated that obstacles for cooperation are the hard accessibility of
Russia, and in some cases bad price-quality ratio.16
3. THE GOALS AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESEARCH
3.1 THE GOALS
The goal of this research was to 1) survey the interest of Central European tour operators
towards the tourist services on both sides of the Finnish-Russian border, and also towards
the products built on their basis, 2) clarify the quality and contents requirements of this kind
7
of tourist services and also the marketing methods for the services, 3) study the readiness of
Central European tour operators to branch their activities to Russian Karelia in case the visa
freedom enters into force and 4) study what kind destinations, programme services,
cooperation structures and other travel related issues tour operators would be interested in if
the visa freedom enters into force.
3.2 IMPLEMENTATION
The market research was divided into following stages: 1) implementation of background
study, 2) drafting of the questionnaire and the covering letter, and sending them to the tour
operators, 3) gathering of the e-mail lists and addresses, 4) sending of the questionnaire to
the tour operators, 5) sending of a reminder letter, 6) analyse of the answers, 7) clarifying
phone interviews and 8) gathering of the results in the form of report.
The research was carried out as a questionnaire interview. The questionnaire was formed so
that the answers to its questions would give as representing answers as possible for the
research questions. The questions of the form consisted of seven sections (Appendix 1),
which were aimed to clarify the requirements of Central European travel agencies regarding
the quality and overall functionality of the tourist services in Karelia region (accommodation,
programme services, accessibility, transfers). The asked sections were the following: 1) the
information regarding the respondent/tour operator, 2) the interest towards tourism to Finnish
and Russian Karelia, 3) the structure and contents of a new tourist product aimed to Finnish
and Russian Karelia, 4) tour operator’s previous Russia cooperation; experiences and
feedback, 5) sales and marketing of the tourist product aimed to Finnish and Russian
Karelia, 6) cooperation regarding electronic booking system and 7) wishes & feedback. In
questionnaire were taken into account the tour operators already organising journeys to
Russian Karelia, and also those operators who do not yet work with Russia, but would be
interested in cooperation in the future.
The questionnaire and covering letter (Appendix 2) were first written in Finnish and then
translated into English and German. The covering letter included a detailed presentation with
a map about the research and project ”Karelia - developing competitive tourism resort with
collaborative platform”; about the goal to find a market niche for the new tourist product
aimed to Finnish and Russian Karelia. The aim of the covering letter was to arouse interest in
respondents and to improve the response rate from the predicted.
The first e-mails to the tour operators were sent 25.11.2013. Total number of sent e-mails
was about 270 (Appendix 3) and about 250 (pcs.) got through to the receivers. The number
of messages sent was considered to be big, but when planning the research it was taken into
account that the response rate might be low. The questionnaire was sent to the travel
agencies which were already known to deal with tourism to Finland, and to other European
travel agencies offering journeys to Scandinavian countries. The research covered mainly
small and medium-sized tour operators who operate with large-scale tourism.
8
After the first e-mail round it was decided to complement the questionnaire with a possibility
to answer to the questions in internet. This was implemented by Karelia Expert Tourist
Service Ltd. through Survey Monkey application. The link to the internet questionnaire was
sent to the respondents with a reminder letter 2.12.2013. The response time for the internet
version was the same as for the questionnaire sent earlier by e-mail (approximately one
week). English was chosen as the language for the internet questionnaire because it was
easier and quicker to carry out taking the situation into account.
On basis of the received electronic answers the research was completed by a phone
interview with 22 respondents (Appendix 4). The interviews were carried out by Nurmijärven
luonto- ja eräkeskus Oy (www.eräkeskus.fi) as subcontractor for JK Kehitystoimisto Oy. Mrs.
Simone Kuhnt, who carried out the interviews, has earlier worked in Swiss travel agency’s
sales department and as an entrepreneur in tourist industry, so she was able to use her
experience during the implementation of the interviews. The respondents’ actual interest
towards tourism to Russian Karelia was studied more detailed during the interviews.
4. RESULTS OF THE RESEARCH
4.1 QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF THE RESPONSES
28 tour operators answered to the questionnaire (Appendix 5). Four responses were
received by e-mail and 25 by Survey Monkey application. The response rate of the
questionnaire was 11 % (of the number of 250 e-mails which got through to the receivers)
(Appendix 3). For the countries the most active respondents were the German (ten
responses) and the French (five responses) tour operators.
When the questionnaire was planned all possible problems, which the tour operators could
face, could not have been taken into account. A common observation was, that even after
editing, our questionnaire was too extensive, and because of that, it seems that many
respondents did not carry out the answering after having opened the attachment to the email. The form was, in some parts, also difficult to fill in and some of the questions were hard
to understand. In addition to this some of the questions were by nature aimed to the
management of the travel agencies and not all respondents had the possibility or knowledge
to answers them. In addition to actual answers the respondents told also a lot of other
information in their responses connected with the questionnaire itself, but also with their
hurries and their operation regions. Many respondents had studied the questionnaire only
superficially, but, on the other hand, some respondents gave very thorough answers to the
questions.
4.2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION OF THE RESPONDENTS
23 of the tour operators responding to the questionnaire (82 %) told that they mainly work
with group clients. Most popular content themes are activity and special interest tours, as
well as nature and adventure tours. Picture 1.
9
In open answers to the question were emphasized the cottage accommodation and
experiencing of nature. According to the responses traditions, landscapes and silence, and
also the arctic surroundings especially in winter attract the clients most. The most common
contents of the summer activity and special interest journeys offered by the tour operators
are cottage accommodation, landscapes, silence, hiking, canoeing, nature and wildlife
watching and photographing. In winter package the most common contents were
snowmobiling, dogsledding, northern lights and cross-country skiing.
Other trip
11
Theme tours
17
Bus trips or touring
20
Nature and adventure tourism
22
Group travel
23
Activity and special interest tours
23
0
5
10
15
20
25
Picture 1. Segmentation of the existing offering of the tour operators responding to
questionnaire.
In accordance with the answers regarding the size of client group, most of the respondents
organise services nowadays for groups of 10-35 persons (16 respondents). Only four
respondents informed that they organise tours for individual persons (number of persons in
group 2-4).
23 respondents informed that they have organised tours to Finland already earlier. Eight
respondents informed that they have organised tours to Eastern Finland, they mentioned
such places as Koli, Joensuu and Bomba. 11 respondents informed that they offer journeys
also to Russia, especially to St. Petersburg and Moscow, but also to the Republic of Karelia
(for example, to Paanajärvi).
Only few of the responded tour operators informed, that they use DMC services (in this case
Karelia Expert), instead many of them told that they operate directly with the tourist operators
in their destination area. Couple of the companies informed that they themselves offer also
DMC services at the same time. The tour operators that use DMC services are mainly
satisfied with the received services. The respondents hoped, as a development idea, for
10
more targeted marketing and communication/product sales from the DMC company’s side, in
North Karelia from Karelia Expert. In addition to this the respondents wished for even quicker
activity/reaction time for answering to questions and inquiries.
During telephone interviews the meaning of DMC services for the respondents was studied
in more detail (Picture 2). They were asked from whom they would buy the tourist services
which include services of many local companies in the destination (overall package). Most of
the respondents giving answer a) use services of Karelia Expert, by which the “whole
package” is taken care of at once. The electronic answers gave hints about that many travel
agencies, answers b) acquire all services in the destination by themselves directly in
cooperation with the local operators. Most popular are the operators which have good
connections and experience of “taking the clients in their hands” straight after arriving to the
airport, when the journey is beginning or ending. Appendix 6.
Table 1. Info: Destination Management Company.
Info: Destination Management Company = DMC.

Destination Management Company = DMC is a name commonly used within
tourist industry, it means a travel agency that takes care of organisational tasks
in the destination. DMC agencies tailor, for example allover programmes for
incentive travels, conferences and also other auxiliary programmes. One can
assign to DMC agency everything or only part of the organisational tasks. The
DMC agencies offering services in destination take care of, for example, hotel
and meeting room bookings, transfer services, lunches and dinners, theme
parties, company visits, guides, meeting assistants and trips.
One fifth of the respondents are using big travel agencies which operate also as DMC
agencies at the same time. Rest of the respondents chose either a- or b-answers. It is worth
mentioning as interviewer’s comment that the travel agencies offering bus tours often use
services of DMC companies that are located in a different country than the actual travel
destination.
3
7
6
6
Vaihtelevasti sekä DMC - toimijoilta että matkakohteen yrityksiltä
All-in-one -paketit ei paikalliselta DMC -yritykseltä
Kaikki palvelut suoraan matkakohteen toimijoilta
11
All-in-one -paketit paikalliselta DMC -yritykseltä
Picture 2. Use of DMC services amongst tour operators (number of answers / 22
respondents taking part in telephone interview).
4.3 INTEREST REGARDING TOURISM TO FINNISH AND RUSSIAN KARELIA
This question section was aimed to respondents that did not have offering to Russia, in
accordance to their previous answers. The attention in questions was especially paid to the
fact if the respondents would be interested in organising nature and culture tours to Finnish
and Russian Karelia, and if they would be interested in cooperation with Russian tourist
operators.
We received altogether 12 responses from operators which were interested in offering
journeys – four companies notified about their immediate interest and six were interested in
cooperation in case the visa freedom enters into force. Seven tour operators were interested
in cooperation with Russian tour operators and offering of extended tour packages (journey
includes Finland and Russia at the same time). Picture 3.
During telephone interviews the respondents were asked how they would estimate their own
interest regarding the tourism to Finnish and Russian Karelia and which practical issues the
interest depends on in addition to possible visa freedom. 15 respondents (68 %) informed
that their interest depends mostly on the tour package and its contents. Tour packages
attract clients if the attractiveness of the destination, service quality and marketing are right.
The rest seven respondents (32 %) on the other hand were sceptical about the tourism to
Finnish and Russian Karelia. Three respondents did not believe in quick realisation of visa
freedom and four thought that the growth of tourism to the region was unrealistic because of
the unfamiliarity of the region and the narrow niche market of the products and services.
Appendix 6.
2
4
6
Kyllä
Kyllä, mutta ainoastaan jos viisumivapaus toteutuu.
12
Ei
Picture 3. Tour operators’ interest towards tourism cooperation to Finnish and Russian
Karelia (tour operators that have not organised journeys to Russian Karelia).
During telephone interview the respondents were asked in more detail about the possible
wish to cooperate with Finnish or Russian tour operators. The question described a situation
when the tour operator would be offered a ready all-in-one product. 16 respondents would
like to cooperate with Finnish partner and four a Russian one. Two respondents thought that
it would be good to have a partner on both sides of the border. In interviewer’s opinion the
fact that mainly influenced to the matter was the appreciation of the functioning payment
system of Finland (SEPA) and risk-free currency exchange. The respondents giving the
answer b on the other hand think that it is easier to negotiate with Russian partner. Appendix
6.
4.4 TARGET GROUP, STRUCTURE AND CONTENTS OF THE NEW TOURIST PRODUCT
AIMED TO FINNISH AND RUSSIAN KARELIA
Ten respondents estimated the age of the most suitable client group for the product, of which
five thought that the product suits for all ages and five that it suits for age group of 40-50
years. The most suitable group size was considered to be quite small (2-15 persons), but
anyhow up to 35 persons. In this connection it necessary to notice that most of the
responded tour operators informed that they nowadays organise services for groups of 10 –
35 persons (16 respondents). Only four respondents told that they organise journeys for
individual persons (number of persons 2 – 4).
What it comes to the contents and the structure of the product the tour operators would offer
the new tourist product aimed to Finnish and Russian Karelia especially to tourists who are
interested in adventures, nature and culture. The greatest support received nature activities
(both winter and summer), unique nature attractions and local way of life and tradition
tours/countryside. Experiencing of culture and landscapes was considered to be essential
part of the tour in order to receive a full experience. Local food and cultural attractions were
also considered important as well as the exoticism of Russia and the East. In responses was
emphasized the production of different kind of experiences and feelings for the client. A total
feeling of locality with all aspects was considered as one of the preconditions of successful
journey. Picture 4.
The respondents were of the same opinion regarding the duration and time of the tour –
duration of the journey organised both summer and winter was proposed to be app. one
week (+2 days). Both summer and winter tours received support. Opinions on “the starting
point” of the tour were divided to two groups. Some supported clearly the Kuopio airport and
some Joensuu airport. Important was the fact that both the beginning and the end of the
journey would preferably be located max. 1,5 hours distance from the viewpoint of the actual
destination. Some respondents considered the expensiveness of internal flights of Finland to
be a problem because of which they suggested that the starting point for the clients should
13
be Helsinki. The bus transfers from airport to the destination were also considered to be
important for the success of the tour. One respondent also considered important to have a
possibility to rent a car near the airport.
During telephone interviews the question whether the start or end of the extended tour
packages should be in Finland or in Russia was discussed in more detail. In the answers one
opinion prevailed: the start and the end should be in Finland. The main reasons for the
answer seemed to be the good airline connections and fluent border crossing services of
Finland. What it comes to bus tours it was considered best to organise the visit in Russian
Karelia only as one stage or programme number/activity. For the individual tourists travelling
in their own or rented car the start in Finland was considered to be a more sensible
alternative and the visit to Russian Karelia should be carried out from Finland during the
journey. Table 2. Appendix 6.
Local food
4
Welfare services
1
Military history
1
The local way of life, traditional tours/countryside
Russian & Eastern exoticism
8
3
Nature activities, winter (e.g. snowmobiling, dog sled rides, fishing,
skiing)
Nature activities, summer (e.g. hiking, bird / animal watching,
fishing, hunting, canoeing, white water rafting, buggy safaris)
City destinations, shopping opportunities
Cultural attractions (museums, churches, buildings, tourist
attractions, etc.)
Unique natural sites (national parks, protected areas, landscapes)
5
7
3
6
9
Picture 4. The most interesting contents themes of the new product to be developed (the
number of those tour operators who have not organised tours to Russia earlier).
Table 2. Recommendations for the contents and structure of the new product to be
developed (on basis of the responses of tour operators who have not organised tours to
Russia earlier).
 Motivation of the tour: interest towards the unique nature attarctionsd and local
culture/way of life
 Age: 40-50 years
 Size of the group: 15 - 35
 Duration: approximately one week (both winter and summer)
 The most important contents themes: Unique nature attarctions, local way of
life and culture
 Form of product: Circular tour 7 days (+ 2 days)
 Arrival: By plane to Kuopio or Joensuu airport, from where transfer in minibus
 Start and end of tour in Finland
 Multilingual guide available for the group all the time
14
4.5 PREVIOUS RUSSIA COOPERATION OF TOUR OPERATOR; EXPERIENCES AND
FEEDBACK
This section of questions was aimed for those tour operators who are at the moment offering
journeys to Russia (11 respondents). Nine respondents have organised journeys to Russia
for 5-40 years, and two have expanded their activities to Russia during the last 1-2 years.
The contents of the existing tours were activities and speial interests, or city destinations, in
which the cultural attractions and shopping formed the main contents. Table 3. Picture 5.
Table 3. Contents and destinations of the tours which are being organised to Russia at the
moment (11 respondents).
Answers for contents
City trip St. Petersburg, motor safari to
Paanajärvi
City trips, round trips, cruises, cultural
tours
Snowmobile tours
Winter Snowmobile Trips
Hiking, adventure roundtrips,
Transsib, skiing
Biological excursions in the North,
South, and East, also far east of
Russia. Nature and culture.
Visa free tours to St. Petersburg. City
sightseeing and museum visits.
Nature and culture
Answers for destination
St. Petersburg, Moscow, Golden Circle, Wolga
River cruises, Kazan, Nischnyi Novgorod
St. Petersburg, Paanajärvi
Karelia
Karelia
Baikal, Caucasus, Siberia, Kamchatka, Karelia,
Altai
Karelia (several times), Altai, Baikal (twice),
Kamtschatka. Moscow, St. Petersburg. interest
travel
St. Petersburg and Moscow
All over the country from Petersburg to
Kamtchatka
It should be noted that also all the tour operators who have earlier organised journeys to
Russia were interested in expanding their offering regarding the tourist products of Finnish
and Russian Karelia. In addition to this also five tour operators who have not organised
journeys to Russia earlier had given a positive answer to the question. Altogether the total
number of tour operators who are interested in further cooperation was 16. Picture 6.
Regarding the requirements for the tourist services aimed to Finnish and Russian Karelia,
the tour operators were asked about their opinion for four sections: a) accessibility of the
region/destination b) accommodation c) programme services and d) entity of quality/services.
In accordance with the received answers the relatively easy access to the destination was
considered very important, as well as the location of airport from start and end points of the
tour. Accommodation and its quality were also considered a very important requirement. In
addition to this, the offering of small private accommodation services (for example families)
was highly appreciated, as well as local food. The quality of food was also considered a very
meaningful factor. The programme services as such and also their quality was considered
important, especially for longer tour packages (7-12 days). In short, a functioning entity of
15
good quality is a good selling factor, for which special attention is to be paid when developing
a new tourist product. Table 4.
Theme tours
6
Bus trips or touring
7
Nature and adventure tourism
7
Group travel
9
Activity and special interest travel
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Picture 5. Main themes of the tours already being organised to Russia (number of answers /
tour operators that already organise journeys to Russia).
2
Kyllä
Ei
16
Picture 6. Tour operators’ interest towards new products to be organised to Finnish and
Russian Karelia (operators already organising tours – 11 respondents and seven answers
from operators not organising tours to Russia earlier).
FUNCTIONING ENTITY OF HIGH QUALITY MAKES A
DIFFERENCE!
16
Picture 7. The most important success factor of tourist product.
Table 4. Answers regarding question about the contents requirements of tourist services
(nine respondents).
Accessibility
It is important that the next airport isn't not further than 1,5 h away from start or end point
of the tours/ For Russia it would be really important to simplify the visa procedures.
Off the beaten track.
Excursions by car and by foot, not too difficult.
Roads needs to be suitable for busses.
Accommodation
Small, private accommodations, which are runned by families and which provide good food
from the region.
Good quality hotel and good food.
Good middle class hotels, may be families.
Good quality of food and hotel standards.
3-star hotels at least.
Programme services
We need tour packages, which are at least 7 days long (winter) and at least 12 days
(summer).
Quality!
Excursions in towns and in the wilderness.
Professional guides in German, English, French and Dutch.
What ever the client asks.
For seniors also.
Satisfaction regarding the entity of quality and services
Until now, yes!
It is impossible to have Finland and Russia in the same line regarding the questions, it is
absolutely different
We are waiting to see at the moment.
The quality of the accommodation should be improved in both Finland and Russia. For
Russia the infrastructure should be improved. For Winter there should be cross country
skiing trails in Russia. Cost effectiveness in Russia isn't adequate.
Not really by the food and by the prices
Satisfied
I am very satisfied with Finland, can´t say about Russia
On basis of the above mentioned responses the tour operators are mainly satisfied with the
quality and level of the services in their tour destinations. The main development proposal
was the price and quality relationship. In Finland the operators were mostly satisfied with the
relationship but there was slight dissatisfaction noticeable regarding the tours to Russia. The
right quality of accommodation and food compared to the price guarantee satisfaction. If also
the programme services and transfers work properly the level of satisfaction is really high.
17
In telephone interviews the tour operators were asked an open question regarding the three
most important factors that should be included in tour package to Russian Karelia. The
received answers are shown in table 5 (Table 5). Appendix 6.
Table 5. The most important requirements regarding the product contents mentioned by the
tour operators during telephone interviews
BUS TOUR OPERATORS
”INDIVIDUAL TRAVEL” OPERATORS
 Accommodation in Russian family/farm/farm
 3 star hotel accommodation
house/hostel-type accommodation – simplicity
 Evening parties in Russian way,
where groups can hang about  ”A day with a local/Russian” – contents of the
day, for example, fishing, farm work, handicraft
and have dinner sitting together
etc.
and observing the events at the
same time (dance, singing,
“gambling”)
COMMON FACTORS
 English-speaking guides in Russia
 Tour package the contents of which cannot be booked directly in internet – the element
of surprise
 Local food
 Showing of the Russian specialities in the tour contents (something that you cannot
find in Finland)
 Shopping, for example, local handmade souvenirs and food
 Importance of the service package – one person or a tour leader from the Russian side
who takes care of the whole package and can at the same instruct the tour leaders of
the group
4.6 SALES AND MARKETING OF THE TOURIST PRODUCT AIMED TO FINNISH AND
RUSSIAN KARELIA
The goal of the question section was to find out what marketing and sales channels the
respondents considered to be best for the products aimed to Finnish and Russian Karelia. In
accordance with the received answers the traditional brochures and newsletters in travel
magazines were still holding their position alongside with the online-marketing. Websites and
services of social media (for example Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest and the own websites of
tourist communities) were seen as recommendable channels for reaching the clients. Many
respondents appreciated the visibility in different exhibitions. Many respondents, for example,
asked whether the project will take part in Finnish Tourist Exhibition “Matka”, these contacts
were directed to Karelia Expert Tourist Service Ltd. Picture 8.
18
An electronic booking system and supporting
network
4
Websites
16
Social media
6
Trade fairs (eg tourism trade fairs)
10
Brochures
12
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Picture 8. Tour operators’ recommendations as marketing channels for new products
(answers pcs.).
4.7 COOPERATION REGARDING ELECTRONIC BOOKING SYSTEM
In this question section the tour operators were asked about their general interest regarding
the possible visitkarelia.ru –platform and opinions regarding the technical implementation of
the system. In accordance with the received answers eight tour operators would be
interested in the cooperation possibilities brought by the new electronic system (Picture 9).
Ten respondents were not interested in cooperation and justified their opinion by telling that
this kind of electronic system is not needed for sales and marketing of such limited special
products (”niche products”). Generally speaking, the ones giving a negative answer were
also thinking about the expenses of the system and whether it is really possible to organise
the compatibility with their own systems. Many respondents also thought that the time is not
right for them to acquire a new electronic platform/service. What it comes to the development
needs and strengths of the electronic system itself, the respondents emphasized its novelty
value (differentiating factor compared with the competitors), high quality, flexibility, ease of
use and the special service made possible by it (for example “the possibility to tailor” the
products). Most of the respondents giving a positive answer for cooperation were interested
in technical solutions in which the electronically transmitted information would be used:
- for representation of the travel offering of Karelia (products/destinations,
product/destination information, prices, availability) in the distribution channels used by
the tour operators (for example websites) in such way, that the information search would
require a targeted search in the tour operators’ websites (six positive responses)
- as a link in tour operators’ websites in such way, that the link directs the clients first to a
narrowly targeted view in VisitKarelia, for example, in accordance with the chosen
language and target group (seven positive responses)
19
-
as a XML-feed in tour operator’s website (requiring a reader solution in tour operator’s
website) (seven positive responses) (Picture 9).
8
Kyllä
Ei
10
Picture 9. Tour operators interested in VisitKarelia.ru cooperation.
Would you display information on your site if it was available as an
embedded applet (code placed on the site), which would
automatically retrieve information about availability and related
matters from the database at VisitKarelia?
3
Would you display information on your site, if it was available as an
XML feed but this would require installing a a feed reader solution
on your site? (Live digital content publishing)
4
2
5
Could you link your site to a view on VisitKarelia targeted to your
customers (language version, target group definition)?
7
Would you display Karelian tourism presentations (products /
attractions, related information, rates, availability) on the
distribution channels that you use (e.g., web pages) if this involved
conducting a search on the site?
Would you display Karelian tourism presentations (products /
attractions, related information, rates, availability) on the
distribution channels that you use (e.g., web pages) if they were
available from the "Professional" sections of VisitKarelia?
Kyllä
Ei
1
6
2
7
0
1
2
3
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
Picture 10. Answers regarding technical implementation of VisitKarelia.ru cooperation (tour
operators giving a positive response for cooperation).
On behalf of the telephone interviews the question section was complemented with three
open questions. The interviewees were asked about their general opinion about the
electronic booking system, whether they would use it and thirdly, which are the main
20
requirements regarding this kind of electronic booking system. The received answers are
shown in table 6 (Table 6). Appendix 6.
Table 6. The answers received to the questions regarding Visitkarelia.ru cooperation in the
telephone interviews.
 ”The booking system has to be aimed either for travel agency or directly for the clients.
If it is aimed for both, then it does not have any meaning for us”
 ”We do not quite understand how this system should look like and how it should
function”, but it sounds like some kind of standard booking system which offers tour
packages and information which can already be found elsewhere”. The respondent is
interested in such special products which make the journey especially interesting and
at the same time “tie” the client to them. If the same tour package will be offered in
many other companies they will not take it into use. In general they are interested in
tour packages that are tailored in accordance with their own wishes and needs.
 ”Electronic system is too inflexible and non-adaptive. We need flexibility in order to
tailor the tour packages for our clients. That’s why we prefer direct contacts with the
destination operators or a DMC company.”
 ”The booking system might be a good idea for distribution of general information and
online-booking of “easy” tourist packages, but I see it rather as a platform between tour
operators and consumers, than between travel organisations and tour operators.”
 ”If there are any figures published about the tour prices in this system we need for our
own packages at least a 20 % price discount”.
 ”The system might work for big bus groups which have simple programmes, but for
offering of our own theme journeys (special activities) or for individual tourists this
system does not suit.”
 ”All systems in which the booking is easy and prices reasonable are ok for us. It does
not matter if the system is electronic as long as the booking is simple and the
confirmations about availability and services are received immediately.”
 ”If the booking system will be as complex and inadequate as the Finnish site of Karelia
Expert, we most certainly will not use it”
 ”If the basic tourist packages look good and we can use them we are willing to give
support by using it, by adding its link to our website and by marketing it to our clients”.
 ”Supposedly we will start with good basic packages which suit our clients’ needs.
When we will receive the order figures of them and see if there is demand for this kind
of tours, then we can estimate our plan for future. In case Karelia Expert should
surprise us and create a great demand in Europe within short time, you can really start
to think about investing bigger sums into this kind of booking system.”
21
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The goal of this research was to 1) survey the interest of Central European tour operators
towards the tourist services on both sides of the Finnish-Russian border, and also towards
the products built on their basis, 2) clarify the quality and contents requirements of this kind
of tourist services and also the marketing methods for the services, 3) study the readiness of
Central European tour operators to branch their activities to Russian Karelia in case the visa
freedom enters into force and 4) study what kind destinations, programme services,
cooperation structures and other travel related issues tour operators would be interested in if
the visa freedom enters into force.
In accordance with the results there is a clear interest amongst the European tour operators
towards the tourist services and built on their basis products located on both sides of the
Finnish-Russian border. The conclusion can be justified especially on basis of the answers to
the question which was aimed to the operators who have already organised journeys to
Russia (Picture 6). On basis of the same result it can be assumed that the interest will also
grow in the future – according to the answers most tour operators who already now organise
tours to Russia will continue their activities and develop them further, and they are not giving
up these services. The conclusion is also supported by relatively high level of interest also
among those tour operators who have not organised tours to Russia earlier. (Picture 3).
According to results the possible visa freedom would also have great impact on tour
operators’ interest in cooperation (Picture 3), although some respondents relate to its
realisation sceptically. The current situation of Russia – the crisis in Ukraine and the visa
negotiations which have been interrupted because of it – have proved that the suspicions are
at least partly justified. On the other hand the current visa policy did not appear in the
answers as an obstacle for planned tourism cooperation development (with the exception of
individual answers – table 4). The conclusion is also supported by the answers of those tour
operators who already organise journeys to Russia, because they did not mention the issue
as an obstacle for future development of tourist services. It has to be noted that the current
situation has not created any noticeable obstacle for tourism from Finland to Russia. The
situation might be completely opposite – the current visa and border crossing operations
function normally and travelling to Russia is nowadays remarkably cheaper because of the
lower exchange rate of rouble.
The most important factor effecting the planned “border tourism cooperation” is, on basis of
the received answers, the contents and quality of the new products. In developing and
communication related to the products it has to be noted that we are talking about tourism
business which offers niche product for niche market. In this connection it is good to brand
the new product as a “Once in a lifetime” -experience including unique nature and culture
experiences, which no one else in the world can offer. By this it is possible to answer to the
most important attractiveness factor mentioned by tour operators in their responses – the
attraction and familiarity of the products, and their marketing in a way that “wakens” the
clients up.
22
On basis of the answers received for the research it is easy to define the most popular
standard structure of the products. What it comes to target groups, the new products are to
be built for small groups of 10-35 persons aged 50+ years, who are especially interested in
above mentioned unique nature attractions and local, authentic culture experiences. It is
advisable to plan for both summer and winter seasons one own main product with duration of
approximately one week (+2 days). The product accessibility is to be developed so that the
clients will arrive on normal scheduled flights first in Finland (in Joensuu airport, which is
closer to border crossing points), from where they will be picked up to the first destination
with minibus that will be in their disposal for the whole journey. At the airport the clients are to
be met by group’s own multilingual guide who will take care of the fluency and practical
organisation of the journey during the whole tour. The basic structure of the product is a tour
in which the accommodation place of the group is always located as near as possible to the
nature and culture attraction to be visited, and the place can be changed almost every night.
The form of accommodation can be either a hotel or individual accommodation, for example,
with local families.
In accordance with the received responses the product contents are to be based on the
earlier mentioned observation of nature attractions and on small-scale physical nature
exercises in the destinations. Through the offered nature experiences the client should also
be offered a possibility for peaceful, personal experience and feeling of nature, and by that
also a possibility to experience silence and to quiet down. What it comes to cultural
experiences the contents should include personal participation and familiarisation with local
life and also visiting remarkable places (for example orthodox churches and living Karelian
villages and towns). Local food and connected with it evening parties with local people are
also to be included in programme.
On basis of the tour operators’ answers “a good medium level” can be taken as quality
requirement and expectation for the products, which is recommended to be exceeded every
now and then by surprisingly high quality accommodation, experiences and food services. In
the answers the best phrase describing the tour operators’ quality requirement is their
expectation for “overall functionality” of the product. This can be understood to mean the
fluent and as easy as possible cooperation connected with the marketing, sales and
implementation of the product. What has been promised to the client will be arranged and
successful, fluent, safe and of high quality.
The cooperation structure of using a DMC operator in implementation of the new product is
partly connected to the above described “overall functionality”. On basis of the answers it is
easy to reason that the organisational tasks of the new product in the destination are best to
be carried out with one local DMC operator, for example with Karelia Expert Tourist Service
Ltd. (from viewpoint of the fluency of the arrangements they have to be in “one pair of
hands”).
23
This requires, anyhow, development of the existing operation model to the direction in which
the products offered to the European tour operators through a DMC are updated and clarified
as explained above, and that high quality implementation networks and contracts have been
put together for them (with Finnish and Russian tourist operators). In addition to this in sales
of the products more resources have to be put directly in personal sales work with the tour
operators who took part in the research, by which it will be possible to enhance the
cooperation activity and communication, which were mentioned in responses as issues to be
developed.
On basis of received answers the sales and marketing of the new developed products, in
addition to the above mentioned DMC structure, should be primarily based on electronic
channels and on traditional marketing methods supporting them. What it comes to electronic
marketing, the attractiveness and familiarity of the product are to be increased by websites
and social media supporting them. It was maybe somehow surprising that the tour operators
still recommend the use of traditional marketing methods (Picture 8). According to the
recommendation it is worthwhile to produce high quality brochure and presentation materials
for the new products, and in addition, it is still recommended that the product should be
presented in tourist exhibitions.
Some of the tour operators are also interested in common use of the electronic service
platform (visitkarelia.ru) which was also a part of the research. In accordance with the
responses the cooperation should not be built as “too laborious”, not at least at the first
stage. This was partly justified by the fact that the cooperation is based on quite limited
product offering, which, in tour operators’ opinion, can be taken care of also without “new
electronic systems”. Later, when the product offering might be wider, the electronic solutions
would also bring advantage compared with the competitors, for example, by the diversified
information offering and the tailoring possibilities.
6. LIST OF SOURCES
1. Border cooperation. Regional Council of North Karelia (2011). http://www.pohjoiskarjala.fi/Resource.phx/maakuntaliitto/raja/rajayhteistyo.htx
2. Website of the programme Karelia ENPI CBC. http://www.kareliaenpi.eu/
3. Project release of “Karelia – developing competitive tourism resort with collaborative
platform”, Pikes Oy (2012).
http://www.pikes.fi/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=7b7d2173-f008-4acb-a2ce92316d08d170&groupId=69174
4. Regional Council of North Karelia: Impact of the visa freedom between EU and Russia in
North Karelia region. FCG Konsultointi Oy (2013).
http://www.pohjoiskarjala.fi/dman/Document.phx/~maakuntaliitto/Julkiset/POKETTI/viisu
mivapausselvitys?folderId=~maakuntaliitto%2FJulkiset%2FPOKETTI&cmd=download
5. Russian visas for foreigners. Matka-Prima Oy (2013).
http://www.primatours.fi/travel/fi/VIISUMIT-1-48/Venaja-7-63/Venajan-viisumitulkomaalaisille-7-89.html
24
6. Visa issues. Consular Section of The Embassy of Russian Federation (2013).
http://www.rusembassy.fi/SuomVisaInf.htm
7. Visa registration. Saimaa Travel (2013). http://www.saimaatravel.fi/viisumin-rekisterointivenajalla
8. Impact of the visa freedom between EU and Russia in North Karelia region. FCG
Konsultointi Oy (2013).
http://www.pohjoiskarjala.fi/dman/Document.phx/~maakuntaliitto/Julkiset/POKETTI/viisu
mivapausselvitys?folderId=~maakuntaliitto%2FJulkiset%2FPOKETTI&cmd=download
9. Ministry of Employment and the Economy. (2014). Future perspectives of tourism in
Finland. View to year 2030. TEM raportteja 2/2014.
http://www.tem.fi/files/38499/Suomen_matkailun_tulevaisuuden_nakymat.pdf
10. Finnish Tourist Board. (2012). Modern humanists and traveling to Finland. TNS Gallup
Oy & Matkailun edistämiskeskus 2012.
http://www.mek.fi/studies/modernit-humanistit/
11. Puhakka, R. (2011). Demand trends in tourist industry by year 2030. Lahti University of
Applied sciences. Faculty of Tourism. TULEVA – Future tourists -project.
12. Far North concept / Rukapalvelu Oy.
http://www.e-julkaisu.fi/rukapalvelu/farnorth
13. Wild Taiga nature and culture services
http://www.wildtaiga.fi.
14. Tourism offering of North Karelia. www.visitkarelia.fi.
15. Rovaniemi Vocational Adult Education Centre, project Zakuska (2004). Zakuska –project
Rovaniemi-Murmansk. Market survey in Central Europe.
http://omat.lao.fi/files/20050301123253.pdf.
16. Inka Makkonen (2013). Production of programme services in Russia from viewpoint of
Finnish entrepreneurs.
http://www.kamk.fi/loader.aspx?id=d6db53bc-fc69-4821-8088-1b606d4a1470
7. APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Questionnaire.
Appendix 2. Covering letter sent to the tour operators.
Appendix 3. List of tour operators whom the questionnaire was sent
Appendix 4. Tour operators who took part in telephone interviews.
Appendix 5. Contact information of the tour operators responding to the questionnaire.
Appendix 6. Summary of telephone interviews.
25
APPENDIX 1. QUESTIONNAIRE
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR TOUR OPERATORS
Dear Respondent. If your company organizes trips to Russia as well as Finland, please answer
questions 1-5 and 12-21. If your company does not (yet) organize trips to Russia, please
answer questions 1-11 and 17-21. If your company does not offer trips to Finland, please
answer questions 1-3 and 20-21.
I. RESPONDENT / INFORMATION ABOUT THE TOUR OPERATOR
1) Please provide your contact information
Name: ___________________________________________________________
Position: _________________________________________________________
E-mail: ______________________________________________________
Phone: _________________________________________________________
2) The tours that my company organizes for its clients are best described by the following
product descriptions. (circle the appropriate items and fill in the required information)
a) Activity and special interest tours; the most common activity or special content for
the tour is
_______________________________________________________________
b) Group travel; the average group size is: ________________________
c) Nature and adventure tourism; the key content of the trip is: ________________
d) Bus trips or touring; the key content of the trip is:_______________________
e) Theme tours; the key theme of the trip is: _____________________________
f) Other trip; the key content of the trip is: _________________________________
3) Does your company organize / offer tourism services/products? (circle the appropriate
items and fill in the required information)
a) To Finland?
Yes, where: _____________________________________________________
No. Go to question 20.
b) To North Karelia in Finland? (see the cover letter and its links)
Yes, where: _____________________________________________________
No.
4) The service chain and co-operation that your company requires in Finland for the trips that
it organises:
a) What kind of network does your company have with Finnish tour operators /
programme service producers? Do you cooperate with a "Destination Management
Company" on your tours?
b) What kind of cooperation are you involved in?
c) How does this cooperation operate? Proposals for improvement?
5) Does your company already organize trips to Russia / Russian Karelia? (circle the
appropriate item)
a) Yes Go to question 12
b) No
II. INTEREST IN TOURISM TO FINNISH AND RUSSIAN KARELIA
6) In future, would your company be interested in organising nature and cultural tours,
particularly in Finnish and and Russian Karelia? (circle the appropriate items and fill in the
required information)
a) Yes
b) Yes, but only if progress is made on visa-free travel
c) No, why? ____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
(If you answered No, you can proceed to question 20).
7) Cooperation with Russian tour operators ? (circle the appropriate items and fill in the
required information)
a) Do you already have a Russian partner?
Yes
No
b) Would your company be interested in cooperation?
Yes
No
c) Would your company be interested in providing enhanced travel packages, Finland
+ Russia or Russia + Finland on the same tour?
Yes
No, why? ________________________________________________
III. STRUCTURE AND CONTENT OF A NEW TOURISM PRODUCT FOR FINNISH AND
RUSSIAN KARELIA
8) Please describe the customer group to which you would like to market a possible tourism
product and service developed for Finnish and Russian Karelia. (please write your
answers)
a) Customer Type?
b) The age class of the target group?
c) The potential size of the target group? (number of persons)
d) Other? (anything else to which your company would like to draw attention in
providing the service)
9) What is the key customer expectation that a new product / service oriented towards Finnish
and Russian Karelia should fulfil? (circle the appropriate items and fill in the required
information)
a) Unique natural sites (national parks, protected areas, landscapes)
b) Cultural attractions (museums, churches, buildings, tourist attractions, etc.)
c) City destinations, shopping opportunities
d) Nature activities, summer (e.g. hiking, bird / animal watching, fishing, hunting,
canoeing, white water rafting, buggy safaris)
e) Nature activities, winter (e.g. snowmobiling, dog sled rides, fishing, skiing)
f) Russian & Eastern exoticism
g) The local way of life, traditional tours/countryside
h) Military history
i) Welfare services
j) Local food
k) Other customer expectation,
what___________________________________________
10) What is the most appropriate time and duration for a trip to Finnish and Russian Karelia
(summer / winter)? (please write your answers)
11) Accessibility of trips to Finnish and Russian Karelia - should trips begin from Helsinki,
Joensuu, or Kuopio (from the airport), or how else would you want transport for such a trip
to be organised for your clients? (please write your answers)
IV. THE TOUR OPERATOR'S PREVIOUS COOPERATION IN RUSSIA: EXPERIENCES AND
FEEDBACK (COMPLETE THIS SECTION ONLY IF YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY ORGANIZED
TOURS IN RUSSIA)
12) How long has your company been organizing trips to Russia? (please write your answer)
13) Please describe the tourism products that your company has organised in Russia. (circle
the appropriate items and fill in the required information)
a) To what regions in Russia do you organise trips?
b) Would you be interested in offering your customers tourism products directed
towards both Finnish and Russian Karelia?
Yes
No, why? ________________________________________________
14) What kind of tourism products does your company organise in Russia? (circle the
appropriate items and fill in the required information)
a) Activity and special interest travel; the most common activity or special content for
the trip is
_______________________________________________________________
b) Group travel; the average group size is: ________________________
c) Nature and adventure tourism; the key content of the trip is: ________________
d) Bus trips or touring; the key content of the trip is:_______________________
e) Theme tours; the key theme for the tour is: _____________________________
f) Other tours, the key content of which is: _____________________________
15) For how many clients does your company organize tours to Finland/ Russia each year?
(write the required answer)
16) What demands does your company make in respect to the provision of tourism services for
the destinations you offer in Finland / Russia each year? (write the required answer)
a) Accessibility of the area / destination
b) Accommodation
c) Programme services
d)
Are you satisfied with quality / overall services? Proposals for improvement?
IV. SALES AND MARKETING OF TOURISM PRODUCTS AIMED AT FINNISH AND RUSSIAN
KARELIA: A SHARED QUESTION FOR EVERYONE
17) What kind of marketing and sales channels would you consider best for products related to
Finnish and Russian Karelia (circle the appropriate items and fill in the required information)
a) Brochures
b) Trade fairs (eg tourism trade fairs)
c) Social media, how?
d) Websites
e) An electronic booking system and supporting network
f)
Other, what?
V. COOPERATION RELATED TO AN ELECTRONIC BOOKING SYSTEM
18) Do users of your online service need information about tourism services in Karelia (Finland
& Russia), and do they seek that information from your online service? (write the required
answer)
19) The ENPI CBC "Karelia - developing competitive tourism resort with collaborative platform"
project is developing an electronic service platform for marketing tourism services
(www.visitkarelia.fi and www.visitkarelia.ru). The site is intended to gather centralized
information on tourism and tourism services in both Finnish and Russian Karelia. The
creation and deployment of the service is still in preparation.
a) Would you be interested in cooperating on this electronic service platform? (circle
the appropriate items and fill in the required information)
Yes
No, why:___________________________________________________________
If you answered No, please go to question 20
b) Would you display Karelian tourism presentations (products / attractions, related
information, rates, availability) on the distribution channels that you use (e.g., web
pages) if they were available from the "Professional" sections of VisitKarelia? (circle
the appropriate item)
Yes
No
c) Would you display Karelian tourism presentations (products / attractions, related
information, rates, availability) on the distribution channels that you use (e.g., web
pages) if this involved conducting a search on the site? (circle the appropriate item)
Yes
No
d) Could you link your site to a view on VisitKarelia targeted to your customers
(language version, target group definition)? (circle the appropriate item)
Yes
No
e) Would you display information on your site, if it was available as an XML feed but
this would require installing a a feed reader solution on your site? (Live digital
content publishing) (circle the appropriate item)
Yes
No
f)
Would you display information on your site if it was available as an embedded
applet (code placed on the site), which would automatically retrieve information
about availability and related matters from the database at VisitKarelia? (circle the
appropriate item)
Yes
No
VI. WISHES & FEEDBACK
20) Do the clients of your travel agency have any new service expectations and needs (new
trends in demand) to which the network of tourism operators in North Karelia could respond
or in which they could offer to cooperate? (write the required answer)
21) Free-form feedback - is there some other development need or feedback that you want to
bring to our attention regarding tourism in Finland / North Karelia, or about this study?
(write the required answer)
THANK YOU FOR YOUR REPLY!
DEAR TOUR OPERATOR
-"Are You Interested in an Expedition into the Last Frontier Wilderness of Europe" We wish to put forward a new proposal for cooperation, which we hope will lead to future growth in the
tourism business organized by your company.
We are engaged in a development that aims to expand the supply of our tourism services in the region
of Finnish and Russian Karelia (Figure 1). The area is unique, and in particular the natural and cultural
services that it offers are unique and diverse(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article2488288/Finland-winter-holidays-A-perfect-Finnish-Karelia.html)
(http://issuu.com/visitkarelia/docs/pohjois-karjalan_imagoesite_2010). The area also has active bordercrossing facilities, and a well-developed network of cooperating tourism companies. In addition, there is
a Destination Management Company - Karelia Expert Matkailupalvelu Oy, which provides professional
and safe organization of the area's tourism services for your customers (www.visitkarelia.fi).
The most essential part of our development work is a
questionnaire and interview study aimed at You, the
travel agent who is also our cooperative partner
(Appendix 1). Its background is Karelia - Developing
competitive tourism resort with collaborative platform
- a project that aims to increase cooperation between
Russian, Finnish, and Central European tourism operators. The project also aims to create and share a new
electronic model for the marketing of tourism services
in the area (visitkarelia.fi and www.visitkarelia.ru).
The main factor behind the development work that we
have launched, however, is the ongoing negotiations
between the EU and Russia on the liberalization of visa
regulations. The EU and Russia already agreed on a
common goal of visa-free travel in 2003, and the most
recent schedule estimates that visa-free travel could be
realized from 2018 onwards. If implemented, visa-free
travel will bring very significant possibilities for growth
in international tourism between Russia and Finland.
The attached questionnaire is intended to survey existing tourism services and offerings, and their
development from the viewpoint of a possibly visa-free future. Our research goal is also to find appealing
customer-oriented content for new products that allow our customers to visit both Finnish and Russian
Karelia on the same trip. This research will help to drive forward development of functional
travel/tourism products, and allow for further development of cooperation networks with potential tour
operating partners.
Dear Partner - we hope that you will find time to answer our cooperation request and to participate in
our attached survey (Appendix 1). Please respond by circling or completing the appropriate items on the
attached questionnaire and returning it, when completed, to [email protected] no later
than the 8th of December 2013. In addition to receiving your answers, we might contact you by phone. If
you have any questions about this study, please send them to the above email address. A prize draw for a
surprise "Karelia"-themed prize will be held for all respondents.
Many thanks
Karelia team, FINLAND (www.keti.fi, www.pikes.fi, www.visitkarelia.fi)
APPENDIX 3. List of tour operators whom the
questionnaire was sent
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Appendix 4. Tour operators who took part in telephone interviews.
Wildlife & Wilderness
United Kingdom
Nordic Team Travel
Germany
Service Reisen
Germany
Travel House
Switzerland
Nordic Fascination
France
Gebeco
Germany
Blueberry Travel
Italy
Mighty Fine Travel
United Kingdom
Schultz Aktiv Reisen
Germany
Zuiderhuis
Belgium
Terres Oubliées
France
BBI Travel
Netherlands
SRS Studienreisen
Germany
Kailas Viaggi
Italy
Nordic Tours
Denmark
Nord Espaces
France
Polarkreis Reisen
Germany
Saga Travel
Germany
Kuoni Reisen Kontiki
Switzerland
Suomi Travel
Germany
Fintouring
Germany
Campfire Adventures
United Kingdom
APPENDIX 5. Contact information of the tour operators responding to the questionnaire
Nro Vastaus pvm
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Nimi
10.12.2013 Philipp Jordi
5.12.2013 Mirjam Hug
5.12.2013 Jerome ROQUES
5.12.2013 Goller, Annegret
5.12.2013 Stefano Serra
5.12.2013 Burckhard Specht
5.12.2013 Patrick Coyle
5.12.2013 Miia Kajander/Tanja
Simrod
5.12.2013 Christoph Gruther
5.12.2013 Scan Britain
5.12.2013 Praire
3.12.2013 Frank Neels
3.12.2013 Charlotte SOUILLARD
3.12.2013 Christina Mack
3.12.2013 Beauvy Quentin
3.12.2013 H. van der Kooi
2.12.2013 Dieter Schetat
2.12.2013 Vivica Boden
2.12.2013 Ronni Knudsen
2.12.2013 Stuart McLeod
2.12.2013 Iira Heinonen-Zeitoun
2.12.2013 Lutz Stickeln
2.12.2013 Verena Duhr
2.12.2013 Terttu Busse-Lunkka
10.12.2013 Ulla Gertsch
25.11.2013 Steve Banner
26.11.2013 Eva Frank
26.11.2013 Hans F. Hassker
Ammatti
Matkatoimisto
Maa
Managing Director
Manager Sales @ Operations
FIT operator & selling
Product Manager Europe
Managing Director
Managing Director
Sales Director
Product Manager
Glur Reisen
Travel House
Nordic Fascination
Gebeco
Blueberry Travel
Nordic Holidays
Mighty Fine Travel
Sveitsi
Sveitsi
Ranska
Saksa
Italia
Saksa
Iso-Britannia
Product Manager
Directeur
Product manager
Trip organisator
Teamleader Skandinavien
Scandinavian product manager
Managing Director
CEO
Responsible Groups
Contracts Manager
Director
Salesadvisor
Managing director
Contracting Northern Europe
President
Managing director
Director
Head of department
Inhaber (omistaja)
Schultz Aktiv Reisen
Pirma Reisen
Scan Britain
Grand Angle
Zuiderhuis
Terres Oubliées
Service Reissen Giessen
66Nord
BBI Travel
SRS Studienreisen
Kailas Viaggi
Nordic Tours
Zenith Holidays
Nord Espaces
Polarkreis Reisen
TUI Wolters
Saga Travel
Fintouring
Wildlife & Wilderness
Service Reisen
VIAfelix
Sähköpostiosoite
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]/
Saksa
[email protected]
Itävalta
[email protected]
Alankomaat [email protected]
Ranska
[email protected]
Belgia
[email protected]
Ranska
[email protected]
Saksa
[email protected]
Ranska
[email protected]
Alankomaat [email protected]
Saksa
[email protected]
Italia
[email protected]
Tanska
[email protected]
Iso-Britannia [email protected]
Ranska
[email protected]
Saksa
[email protected]
Saksa
[email protected]
Saksa
[email protected]
Sveitsi
[email protected]
Iso-Britannia [email protected]
Saksa
[email protected]
Saksa
[email protected]
Puhelin
Vastaustapa
+41612059494 Verkkolomake
+0041432117123 Verkkolomake
+33450649717 Verkkolomake
+494315446515 Verkkolomake
+390794812011 Verkkolomake
+494121791120 Verkkolomake
+44(0)8450720090 Verkkolomake
+4935126625 -34/44
Verkkolomake
+004315808022 Verkkolomake
Verkkolomake
+33476952300 Verkkolomake
+3292670244 Verkkolomake
+33437484990 Verkkolomake
+00496414006711 Verkkolomake
+33478923083 Verkkolomake
+31503136000 Verkkolomake
+004930895100 03 Verkkolomake
+390254108005 Verkkolomake
+4589321119 Verkkolomake
+0203 137 7678 Verkkolomake
+33145650000 Verkkolomake
+4923055499366 Verkkolomake
Verkkolomake
+491738605724 Verkkolomake
Sähköposti
Sähköposti
+496414006710 Sähköposti
+496173327639 Sähköposti
APPENDIX 6. Summary of telephone interviews.
Final Report about questionnaire evaluation and interviews
Simone Kuhnt / 17.01.2014
Main questions from phone interviews, based on questionnaire sent to tour
operators:
4) Where do you buy service products and packages that include several local
providers:
a)
all-in-one-packages from local income office
b)
All services directly from local service provider
c)
all-in-one-packages from non-local income offices
d)
Variable, depends on the quality/experience of the local provider
6) how big would you estimated you own interest and the one from possible target
groups in travelling to Russian Karelia and what does it depend on?
a)
It depends mostly on the package and what it will include
b)
Would not like to make any commitments before the visa free
travelling is for sure accepted
c)
Rather small, as the area is not yet known very well
7) Supposing an all-in-one-package will include both Finnish and Russian Karelia,
would you prefer a Finnish or a Russian income agent for this?
a)
Finnish
b)
Russian
c)
One for each part of the package
11) Supposing you get a 5-day-package for Finnish & Russian Karelia, would you like
it to start/end in Finland or Russia, to get it easily included in your existing travel
combinations?
a)
Finland
b)
Russia
c)
Does not matter
16) Give me 3 important “must”-details, a package/service provider should offer, to
make you seriously think about taking it into your marketing channels. (Open
answers)
19) Karelia Expert electronic booking system: what is your opinion about such a
system, would you use it and what would be the most important requirements you
have to such a booking system? (Open answers)
Nurmijärven Luonto- ja Eräkeskus OY
Alakylä 15
FIN-81970 Jongunjoki
www.eräkeskus.com / [email protected]
Special evaluation with selected tour operators, basing myself on their
answers from questionnaire (if they had filled in and returned it in) or giving
them just the short version of questionnaire with my above listed questions (if
they had not filled in and returned the long version)
Wildlife & Wilderness
Nordic Team Travel
Service Reisen
Travel House
Nordic Fascination
Gebeco
Blueberry Travel
Mighty Fine Travel
Schultz Aktiv Reisen
Zuiderhuis
Terres Oubliées
BBI Travel
SRS Studienreisen
Kailas Viaggi
Nordic Tours
Nord Espaces
Polarkreis Reisen
Saga Travel
Kuoni Reisen Kontiki
Suomi Travel
Fintouring
Campfire Adventures
United Kingdom
Germany
Germany
Switzerland
France
Germany
Italy
United Kingdom
Germany
Belgium
France
Netherlands
Germany
Italy
Denmark
France
Germany
Germany
Switzerland
Germany
Germany
United Kingdom
Total 22 our operators
Nurmijärven Luonto- ja Eräkeskus OY
Alakylä 15
FIN-81970 Jongunjoki
www.eräkeskus.com / [email protected]
Results from special evaluation with above tour operators
4) Where do you buy service products and packages that include several local
providers: a)
all-in-one-packages from local income office
34% prefer to use packages provided by local income office (mostly Karelia Expert),
which makes calculating/booking/voucher system easier
b)
All services directly from local service provider
27 % book straight with local providers, mostly those agencies who have long years
of experience and good cooperation with local companies that provides service
from/to domestic airport (transfer, accommodation, guides, food)
c)
all-in-one-packages from non-local income offices
25 % are using big non-local income office, like for example they book all-in-onepackages from Nordic Tours in Denmark or use ready-made packages from ServiceReisen.
d)
Variable, depends on the quality/experience of the local provider
14 % do not make clear answers and let it open; means they probably use a) and b)
Comments: the bus-tour-companies mostly use non-local incoming offices, which are
mostly not even in the country where their clients/tours are travelling to. Here is – I
think – a chance for Karelia Expert to get more involved with local packages sold to
those agencies. The more specific a travel target is (specified active holidays, animal
watching or similar), the more those tour operators are booking straight via local
companies who provide all in one.
6) how big would you estimated you own interest and the one from possible
target groups in travelling to Russian Karelia and what does it depend on?
a)
It depends mostly on the package and what it will include
68% think, that the attractiveness of a package may influence the interest from
customer groups, good packages might bring new customers and the marketing from
the agencies can put efforts in those trips if the packages and services are satisfying.
b)
Would not like to make any commitments before the visa free
travelling is for sure accepted
Nurmijärven Luonto- ja Eräkeskus OY
Alakylä 15
FIN-81970 Jongunjoki
www.eräkeskus.com / [email protected]
12 % don’t really believe that a visa-free-travel between Russia and Finland will
come soon, or don’t want to spend time thinking about how it could be if…
c)
Rather small, as the area is not yet known very well
20 % don’t see a realistic chance in growing tourism to Karelia (both sides), as it is
too much niche product, mostly unknown area and the big stream of tourism is
leading elsewhere. The chance of visa-rules – they think – will not affect the all-over
interest in the area.
7) Supposing an all-in-one-package will include both Finnish and Russian
Karelia, would you prefer a Finnish or a Russian income agent for this?
a)
Finnish 73%
b)
Russian 16 %
c)
one for each part of the package 11 %
Comments: I got the feeling that those answering with a) were mostly appreciating
the easy payment system within SEPA and the non-risk of currency exchange. One
rate in same currency like standard Europe has, makes calculating much easier and
without risks. Meanwhile, from those who prefer a Russian partner, I got somehow
the feeling, that they think the Russians are easier to negotiate with, lower the rates
by sales-discussions. But this was a purely private feeling, nobody said that in words.
11) Supposing you get a 5-day-package for Finnish & Russian Karelia, would
you like it to start/end in Finland or Russia, to get it easily included in your
existing travel combinations?
a)
Finland 84%
b)
Russia 10 %
c)
does not matter 6 %
Nurmijärven Luonto- ja Eräkeskus OY
Alakylä 15
FIN-81970 Jongunjoki
www.eräkeskus.com / [email protected]
Comments: Here everybody was surprisingly having the same opinion: Because of
much easier flight connections to Finland (either Helsinki, or domestic airports like
Joensuu, Kuopio or Kajaani) almost everybody would like to have those packages
starting and ending in Finland. Those traveling by bus with large groups normally
have other parts of Finland included in their tour programs, means the trip to Russia
would be made by same bus and before and after that step-visit, they have other
points of interest in the program. Karelia would be only a little detail in the whole trip.
Meanwhile those who have more individual travellers with often own car or rental car,
believe it is easier to enter Russia with a car from Finland, than finding a rental
station suitable for those places nearby Russian Karelia.
16) Give me 3 important “must”-details, a package/service provider should
offer, to make you seriously think about taking it into your marketing channels.
(Open answers)
I collected the main-answers here and those which were given several times in
almost same words.











Get-together with local Russian Family/Farmer or simple-live
Perfectly English speaking contact persons/guides for the Russian part
3*-accommodation (bus-tour-operators)
Farmhouse-accommodation or local guesthouses (activity-operators and FIToperators)
“a package that cannot be found and booked in internet by clients directly”
Local food, no international kitchen
“find something in Russia, that cannot be found in Finland”
Sharing a day in the life of a local person, joining for fishing, farming,
handicraft or similar (FIT-agencies)
Evening entertainment with local traditions such as dancing, singing,
gambling, where groups can sit and watch and enjoy a nice dinner (bus-tours)
All service in Russia from one hand, no dealing with different partners. We
need a reachable & responsible person during the whole duration of the trip,
which can assist our own guides in all matters.
Good shopping possibilities of handmade local souvenirs and/or transportable
food
In general, the needs from bus tour operators are different than those from individual
operators. Bus groups have more tendency to hotel accommodation and
entertainment, FIT operators look more for the genuine live and simple
accommodation, being part of the urban live in Russia for a short time and
experience something different.
Nurmijärven Luonto- ja Eräkeskus OY
Alakylä 15
FIN-81970 Jongunjoki
www.eräkeskus.com / [email protected]
19) Karelia Expert electronic booking system: what is your opinion about such
a system, would you use it and what would be the most important
requirements you have to such a booking system? (Open answers)
I collected the main-answers here and those which were given several times in
almost same words. I tried to give translations of the main-meaning of their answers,
not a word-by-word-translation.










Any booking system should be either for travel agencies or for direct internet
clients. If it is reachable for both, then it does not make sense for us.
We don’t really understand how this system should look like and work, but for
me it sounds more like a standard-version for general packages and
information. What we would need are more specific products, which make a
journey attractive and connects the client with us. If the same package can be
found in many other agencies, then we will not use it. Generally we prefer to
work individual tailor-made packages according to our needs and wishes.
Electronic system is stoic and not adjustable; we need flexibility in our
packages to make them suitable to our client. Therefore we prefer the direct
communication with providers or incoming office.
It can be a nice idea for general information and easy packages to book
online, but I see it rather as a platform between tour operators and end
consumer, than between providers and tour operators.
If there are any rates published in this system, then we need at least 20 %
lower rates for our packages.
This might work for big busgroups with rather easy programs, but for our
special interest tours and individual travellers it will not be suitable.
Everything which is easy to book and has good rates, is ok for us. It does not
matter if it is an electronic system or other, as long as we can book it easily
and get immediate confirmation of services and availabilities.
If it will be as complicated and incomplete as the Finnish Webpages from
Karelia Expert, we will definitely not use it…
If the basic packages are looking nice and we can use it for our production,
then we are willing also to support it by using it, linking it with our pages and
give it to our customers.
Let’s start first with some good packages that will suit the need of our
customers, then we can see the booking figures for this kind of trips and
evaluate the future planning, and if Karelia surprises us by getting suddenly
big demand all over Europe, then you can think about investing a lot of time in
such a booking system. I think you do it the wrong way, if you first do all the
work for such a system, and then start thinking about what will be in those
packages included in the system.
17.01.2014/Simone Kuhnt
Nurmijärven Luonto- ja Eräkeskus OY
Alakylä 15
FIN-81970 Jongunjoki
www.eräkeskus.com / [email protected]