Tourism Recreation Research

ISSN: 0250-8281 (Print) 2320-0308 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtrr20

The DMO is dead. Long live the DMO (or, why DMO
managers don’t care about post-structuralism)

C. Michael Hall & Ekant Veer

To cite this article: C. Michael Hall & Ekant Veer (2016) The DMO is dead. Long live the DMO
(or, why DMO managers don’t care about post-structuralism), Tourism Recreation Research,
41:3, 354-357, DOI: 10.1080/02508281.2016.1195960

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2016.1195960

Published online: 08 Aug 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 133

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtrr20

Download by: [Kainan University] Date: 19 October 2016, At: 06:48

TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH, 2016
VOL. 41, NO. 3, 354–357
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2016.1195960

RESEARCH PROBE

The DMO is dead. Long live the DMO (or, why DMO managers don’t care about
post-structuralism)
C. Michael Halla,b,c and Ekant Veera
a
Department of Management, Marketing & Entrepreneurship, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand; bDepartment of Geography,
University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland; cLinnaeus University School of Business and Economics, Linneaus University, Kalmar, Sweden

Destination marketing and/or management organisa- Termination and temporal analysis

tions (DMOs) are undoubtedly a significant component
In contrast to private sector tourism organisations,
of the tourism system. The extent to which they repre-
where termination is regarded as frequent and wide-
sent a potentially redundant artefact of the organisation
spread, especially with respect to entrepreneurship
of tourism in the late modern context provides a useful
(e.g. Hall & Rusher, 2004), accounts of public organisa-
discussion point about both the future and the past of
tions occur in a very different context. The seminal
tourism, including the embeddedness of tourism and
work of Kaufman (1976), for example, posed the ques-
its study within political and structural shifts in contem-
tion ‘Are government organizations immortal?’ Using a
porary society.
sample of organisations within the ‘Executive Office of
There is little doubt that the DMO is, depending on
the President’ and within US federal departments
the jurisdiction and its particular policy milieu, regarded
from 1923 to 1973 Kaufman found that 27 organisa-
as a significant tourism policy tool (Hays, Page, & Buhalis,
tions had been terminated and 294 had been estab-
2013). They may originally have arisen as a result of gov-
lished during this period. Such findings were
ernment intervention or as an outcome of self-organised
regarded as supporting the ‘immortality thesis’. Never-
business and tourism interest or, more likely in the
theless, subsequent studies found that Kaufman’s
majority of cases, as the result of co-production pro-
research had substantial failings with respect to sam-
cesses and sub-government relationships between the
pling both the range of organisations examined and
state and industry (Tyler & Dinan, 2001; Wray, 2009).
sampling points, for example not acknowledging orga-
Regardless, it has come to be perceived as integral to
nisations established after 1923 but which had been
destination growth, usually defined in terms of the
terminated before 1973 (Lewis, 2002; Peters &
number of visitor arrivals and their expenditure, and
Hogwood, 1988). Nevertheless, substantial issue still
hence ‘success’. Even if tourism was not an industry
remains as to what termination means and how
that is part-founded on images and their semiotic fabri-
change is to be assessed.
cation, perceptions would still be important. But here
Assessing the past and future of DMOs necessitates an
the perceptions that count, often on the basis of ‘fuzzy’
understanding of temporal analysis: ‘systematically situ-
conceptualizations (Markusen, 1999), are that such orga-
ating particular moments (including the present) in a
nisations important for destination competitiveness
temporal sequence of events and processes stretching
(Hall, 2014). Dredge has mentioned rightly in his lead
over extended periods’ (Pierson, 2004, p. 2), and is essen-
probe ‘Are DMOs on a path to redundancy?’ that much
tial to understanding change. There are four ideas
of the DMO literature certainly fails ‘to fully take into
involved in the notion of change (Kay, 2006):
account a range of large scale, transcendental social,
political and economic changes that affect where the
locus of control lies and power relations with respect . an enduring thing;
to managing tourism’ (see also Hall, 2011a, 2011b). . its various possible states;
However, where this response takes leave of Dredge’s . the identification of an initial and a final state by the
arguments is with respect to the implications that this temporal index; and
has for DMOs, tourism and change. . the characterisation of these states.

CONTACT C. Michael Hall michael.hall@canterbury.ac.nz Department of Management, Marketing & Entrepreneurship, University of Canterbury, Private
Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand
© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

A thing’s potential to change is limited by the range of
possible states admissible for the type set of which it is a
member. This is not as abstract as it sounds and is critical
for explaining tourism policy with respect to changes in
things and changes in kind (Hall, 2010). If the thing is
tourism policy or its organisational form such as a
DMO, for example, only certain states are possible; that
is, only certain things can be a tourism policy or organi-
sation. If the boundary is overstepped, the thing (tourism
policy) becomes another thing (another policy field – say
environment), rather than a different value of the same
thing. However, the identity of the thing through time,
the endurance, raises an awkward philosophical
question:
if a changing thing really changes, it cannot literally be
one and the same thing before and after the change:
however, if a changing thing literally remains one and
the same thing (that is, it retains its identity) throughout
the change, then it cannot really have changed. (Kay,
2006, p. 6)
Again, this is not philosophical irrelevance as many
debates over public policy are debates about things
and values that are politically contested, for example in
the case of DMOs representations of identity in tourism
advertising and promotion, for example, gender or
place (Truong & Hall, 2013). This identity through time
is even more complex when the thing is composite and
in flux, as is often the case of tourism policy and the orga-
nisations that implement it. For example, is tourism policy
under a Keynesian welfare state a different thing from
neoliberal tourism policy, or is it a different value of the
same thing? (Hall, 2010). Similarly, tourism may have dif-
ferent policy associations at different times but there may
still be a recognisable tourism organisation (Mac-
Carthaigh, 2012; Zapata & Hall, 2012). Public policy also
consists of many processes operating at different
speeds. Therefore, it is important to distinguish
between the role of events (an abrupt change) with
process (a more gradual change) (Hall, 2016). Much of
the focus in research on tourism and change, including
organisational and policy dimensions, is often on the
role of high-profile high-magnitude events; however,
the role of ‘normal’ process is perhaps even more impor-
tant to understanding changes in policy and organisa-
tional states in either composition or time. This is
especially so as adaptation and policy learning is some-
thing that is often highly valued in tourism. Indeed, in a
general public agency setting Boin, Kuipers, and Steen-
bergen (2010, p. 404) observed that with respect to orga-
nisational survival, ‘the name of the game is not design
for survival but design for adaptation’.
These are significant issues because many DMOs have
now been in existence, though sometimes in different
TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH 355
forms but with a clear organisational lineage, for 40–50
years and longer. In that time political philosophies
with respect to the roles of government, including with
respect to tourism, have changed, but DMOs even with
their recognised limitations (Pike & Page, 2014) have sur-
vived. Organisational characteristics actually seem to
have relatively little influence on public agency survival
(Adam, Bauer, Knill, & Studinger, 2007; Lewis, 2002),
though the effects of some variables change over time.
In the American context having a committee/board
structure increases a public agency’s risk initially
although after 6.5 years this design feature appears to
work to the advantage of agency survival. Independence
shows a similar pattern. Initially a liability, it becomes an
asset for survival after a slightly shorter period (Boin et al.,
2010). Nevertheless, there is some evidence that the
extent of political turnover (change of party in govern-
ment) increases the risk of agency termination (Lewis,
2002), while termination appears less likely when politi-
cians are fiscally constrained and more likely during
periods of unified government (Carpenter & Lewis,
2004). The results of such research are significant as
they suggest that public organisation survival may be
connected more to political factors than wider economic
and technological change. Indeed, some of the issues
that affect public agencies, such as societal and
problem pressures (Adam et al., 2007), are not significant
environmental issues for DMOs. Providing DMOs are per-
ceived as continuing to attract tourists they will be
regarded as serving a useful role by industry interests
as well as other stakeholders. This also includes with
respect to the attraction of public funds for tourism pro-
motional and other campaigns that would otherwise not
be obtainable to support industry. If this occurs then the
growth coalitions and tourism interests that formed the
DMO will likely continue to advocate its necessity and
continuation. In the case of tourism many destinations
are not undergoing significant problem pressure on an
ongoing basis because of the continued growth in inter-
national tourism on a global scale, and which is forecast
to continue well into the foreseeable future. This is also
important because it means that some of the account-
abilities that are often very transparent for single-issue
agencies (Peters, 2001) are not such an intrinsic
problem for DMOs. Undoubtedly there is unevenness
in growth and some destinations do have declines, but
the majority do not over the long term. And the adage
that ‘if there is an increase in visitor numbers it is
because of the successful marketing efforts and if there
is a decline it is because of unavoidable external
factors’ certainly seems to apply to most DMOs. Further-
more, it should be noted that the political reality is that
many DMO campaigns are as much for the consumption
356 C. M. HALL AND E. VEER
of stakeholders internal to the destination area that they
are ‘doing something’ as they are for the potential visitor
markets. So long as they continue to ‘do something’ and
visitor arrivals increase then they are likely to survive.
Constructing agency: actor and network
Undoubtedly changes in media technology and asso-
ciated business practices are also creating pressures on
DMOs. However, this is no different from other tourism
organisations. Furthermore, the ongoing proliferation in
media/distribution channels has been an issue for
DMOs for much of the past 50 years as new media tech-
nologies emerge. But DMOs have adapted like many
organisations (Hays et al., 2013). Responses have
included stronger emphasis on relationship marketing
and customer focus (Grönroos, 1994), including via
social media so as to generate behavioural change,
that is, converting destination awareness to actual visita-
tion, as a result of greater ‘engagement’ which is almost
impossible in an unilateral communication platform (tra-
ditional print/television) (Aaker, Smith, & Adler, 2010).
Furthermore, new tactics, such as guerrilla and viral mar-
keting, have been adapted by DMOs to respond to the
rapid uptake of social media in certain markets. The
key point being that DMOs have already been adapting
to the changes that have been occurring within the
tourism industrial system.
The narratives that have often been associated with
DMOs are often the problem of the frames that research-
ers use, that often ignore the wider political economy of
tourism and especially the socio-technical structures
within which destination trajectories and organisations
and policies are both embedded and constituent (Hall,
2015). DMOs have survived the epistemological and cri-
tical onslaughts of both supposed structural fixities and
post-structural liquidity. The majority of DMOs are likely
not on a path to redundancy in the foreseeable future
so long as they continue to adapt and change to political
and commercial perceptions of what constitutes reality.
In some cases this will also include communities,
though depending on the nature of constituents and
how communities themselves see tourism and its impor-
tance, many citizens and their communities will either
not be involved or not even care. DMOs, like many
tourism organisations, already are examples of fluid
organisational forms as they have come to adapt to
changing circumstances while still maintaining a com-
mitment to visitor/economic growth.
There are clearly many challenges facing communities
and individuals in late modernity, which certainly do
include changes in industrial structure. But for many des-
tinations this will potentially make future DMOs regarded
as more not less important, as further growth in part-
time, contract, de-unionised, at-risk to technology
service jobs – in what should be called the piecemeal
rather than the sharing economy – will likely make
belief in the economic and employment possibilities of
tourism growth even stronger. There is seemingly no
end to the re-envisioning of the canvas of solutions by
which tourism might be organised (Hall, 2015).
However, the only solutions that get taken up are
those that meet financial, economic and market goals.
The vast majority of students of tourism are content
with the so-called mid-level theory because it satisfies
the questions asked and the problems that are set and
many do not see the relevance of deeper philosophical
questions about the organisation of tourism (unless
being set as an essay topic or a section in a thesis on
‘paradigms’). Ontological blind spots exist because they
are not seen. They are not seen because both tourism
and those who make a living from it, including aca-
demics, are enmeshed in the system. In tourism policy,
and increasingly research, well-being and sustainability
are only seen if framed in economic terms for example.
DMOs will continue to survive but, more importantly,
so will the emissions producing and neoliberal capitalism
reproducing industrial system we call tourism that see-
mingly contributes to the marketisation of everything.
This may not be what some researchers think is appropri-
ate, but unless the manner of framing engagement,
understanding social practices of research and of
working towards transitions are changed (Hall, 2015),
then the industrial tourism system will continue to
survive, even if many other species on the planet will not.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
C. Michael Hall is a Professor in the Department of Manage-
ment, Marketing and Entrepreneurship, University of Canter-
bury, New Zealand. He has published widely on tourism,
regional development, environmental history, sustainability
and gastronomy.
Ekant Veer is Associate Professor of Marketing, Department of
Management, Marketing and Entrepreneurship, University of
Canterbury, New Zealand. His work is focused on consumer
research, especially transformative consumer research; social
marketing; advertising effectiveness; and research methods,
including digital and visual research.
ORCiD
C. Michael Hall http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7734-4587

References
Aaker, J., Smith, A., & Adler, C. (2010). The dragonfly effect: Quick,
effective, and powerful ways to use social media to drive social
change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Adam, C., Bauer, M. W., Knill, C., & Studinger, P. (2007). The ter-
mination of public organizations: Theoretical perspectives to
revitalize a promising research area. Public Organization
Review, 7(3), 221–236.
Boin, A., Kuipers, S., & Steenbergen, M. (2010). The life and death
of public organizations: A question of institutional design?
Governance, 23(3), 385–410.
Carpenter, D., & Lewis, D. E. (2004). Political learning from rare
events: Poisson inference, fiscal constraints, and the lifetime
of bureaus. Political Analysis, 12, 201–232.
Grönroos, C. (1994). From marketing mix to relationship market-
ing: Towards a paradigm shift in marketing. Management
Decision, 32(2), 4–20.
Hall, C. M. (2010). Politics and tourism – interdependency and
implications in understanding change. In R. Butler & W.
Suntikul (Eds.), Tourism and political change (pp. 7–18).
Oxford: Goodfellow Publishers.
Hall, C. M. (2011a). Researching the political in tourism: Where
knowledge meets power. In C. M. Hall (Ed.), Fieldwork in
tourism: Methods, issues and reflections (pp. 39–54). London:
Routledge.
Hall, C. M. (2011b). Yes, Virginia, there is a tourism class. Why
class still matters in tourism analysis. In J. Modesale (Ed.),
Political economy and tourism: A critical perspective (pp.
111–125). London: Routledge.
Hall, C. M. (2014). Review of “Competitiveness and tourism”.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 22(5), 842–846.
Hall, C. M. (2015). Intervening in academic interventions:
Framing social marketing’s potential for successful sustain-
able tourism behavioural change. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, Online first. doi:10.1080/09669582.2015.1088861
Hall, C. M. (2016). Putting ecological thinking back in to disaster
ecology and responses to natural disasters: Rethinking resili-
ence or business as usual? In C. M. Hall, S. Malinen, R.
Vosslamber, & R. Wordsworth (Eds.), Post-disaster management:
Business, organisational and consumer resilience and the
Christchurch earthquakes (pp. 269–292). Abingdon: Routledge.
TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH 357
Hall, C. M., & Rusher, K. (2004). Risky lifestyles? Entrepreneurial
characteristics of the New Zealand bed and breakfast
sector. In R. Thomas (Ed.), Small firms in tourism:
International perspectives (pp. 83–97). Oxford: Elsevier.
Hays, S., Page, S. J., & Buhalis, D. (2013). Social media as a desti-
nation marketing tool: Its use by national tourism organisa-
tions. Current Issues in Tourism, 16(3), 211–239.
Kaufman, H. (1976). Are government organizations immortal?
Washington: Brookings Institution.
Kay, A. (2006). The dynamics of public policy: Theory and evi-
dence. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Lewis, D. E. (2002). The politics of agency termination:
Confronting the myth of agency immortality. The Journal of
Politics, 64(1), 89–107.
MacCarthaigh, M. (2012). Politics, policy preferences and the
evolution of Irish bureaucracy: A framework for analysis.
Irish Political Studies, 27(1), 23–47.
Markusen, A. (1999). Fuzzy concepts, scanty evidence, policy
distance: The case for rigour and policy relevance in critical
regional studies. Regional Studies, 33(9), 869–884.
Peters, G. B. (2001). The politics of bureaucracy (5th ed.). London:
Routledge.
Peters, G. B., & Hogwood, B. W. (1988). Births, deaths and mar-
riages: Organizational change in the US. Federal Bureaucracy.
The American Review of Public Administration, 18, 119–133.
Pierson, P. (2004). Politics in time: History, institutions and social
analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Pike, S., & Page, S. (2014). Destination marketing organizations
and destination marketing: A narrative analysis of literature.
Tourism Management, 41(1), 1–26.
Truong, V. D., & Hall, C. M. (2013). Social marketing and tourism:
What is the evidence? Social Marketing Quarterly, 19(2), 110–135.
Tyler, D., & Dinan, C. (2001). The role of interested groups in
England’s emerging tourism policy network. Current Issues
in Tourism, 4(2–4), 210–252.
Wray, M. (2009). Policy communities, networks and issue cycles
in tourism destination systems. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 17(6), 673–690.
Zapata, M. J., & Hall, C. M. (2012). Public–private collaboration in
the tourism sector: Balancing legitimacy and effectiveness in
local tourism partnerships. The Spanish case. Journal of Policy
Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 4(1), 61–83.