An Analysis of Search Engine Use for Travel Planning

Transcription

1 An Analysis of Search Engine Use for Travel Planning Daniel R. Fesenmaier a, Zheng Xiang b Bing Pan c, and Rob Law d fun b School of Merchandising and Hospitality Management University of North Texas, USA philxz@unt.edu c School of Business and Economics College of Charleston, USA bingpan@gmail.com d School of Hotel and Tourism Management Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong hmroblaw@polyu.edu.hk Abstract Search engines have become a central part of the internet marketing strategy of tourism businesses and, as such, it is essential that destination marketing organizations have a substantial understanding of how search engines are used within the travel planning process. This study proposed a three stage framework for examining how online travellers use search engines and how aspects of the travel planning process shapes this use. A series of key relationships were examined based upon a national survey of American online travel planners. The findings provide significant insight into the role of search engines for travel planning. Keywords: Search engine marketing; information search; travel planning; destination marketing. 1 Introduction With the growth of information on all facets of the tourism experience search engines such as Google and Yahoo! have become the Hubble of the internet galaxy, enabling travellers to navigate through this space so as to find information that might be useful in the travel planning process (Xiang, Wöber and Fesenmaier, 2008). Recent studies by the Travel Industry Association of America (TIA, 2009) and others have shown that the majority of U.S. travellers use search engines for vacation planning. As a result, search engines have been recognized as the first step in the online travel planning process, and therefore, a critical starting point with which destination marketing organizations (DMOs) can communicate through techniques such as search engine marketing (SEM) and search engine optimization (SEO). Recently, a number of studies focusing on internet search have been conducted within the tourism context (Döring, 2008; Pan & Fesenmaier, 2006; Pan, Litvin, and O Donnell, 2007; Xiang, Wöber and Fesenmaier, 2008; Xiang, Gretzel and Fesenmaier, 2009). These studies indicate that search engines provide a simplified view of the online tourism domain. Importantly, this view changes on a daily basis

2 and, thus, poses enormous challenges for search engine marketing in tourism. As such, it is argued that search engine marketing is a complex and dynamic process which requires a substantial understanding of how potential visitors use search engines as part of the travel planning process (Moran and Hunt, 2005; Murphy and Kielgast, 2008; Sen, 2005). The goal of this study was, therefore, to build upon this literature to develop a general framework that links together the stages of search and the online travel planning process. It is hoped that this framework will provide a foundation for the development of effective search engine marketing programs for destination marketing organizations. 2 Research Background The research on search engines and information search has largely been based in computer science, information science, and consumer behaviour. Due to the growing importance of online information search in travel, the use of search engines in the travel planning context has become an increasingly important topic in tourism. This section synthesizes the recent literature on consumers and travellers use of search engines and then proposes a general framework that describes the various aspects of this process. 2.1 Related Literature Studies on the use of search engines generally fall into three categories with the focus on the process of search, the nature of user queries, and the interaction between the user and the search interface, respectively. From the process standpoint, using a search engine can be understood as consisting of three distinct steps: 1) query formulation, wherein the user enters a query into the search engine interface (Levene 2006; Slone, 2002); 2) search results generation, wherein the search engine retrieves a number of search results that match the query and then displays them in a predefined format; and, 3) search results evaluation, wherein the user evaluates the search results and then navigates back and forth between the search engine interface and the web pages linked to those results (Jansen, Spink and Saracevic, 2000; Jansen and Spink 2005; Jansen and Pooch 2001; Marchionini, 1997; Su, 2002). With respect to user queries, studies by Jansen and his colleagues, and more recently by Xiang et al. (2008) indicate that users questions tend to be short, consisting of less than four keywords. Studies by Pan et al. (2007) and Hwang, Xiang, Gretzel, & Fesenmaier (2009) also indicate that searchers usually focus on cities as the geographical boundary instead of states or countries. For example, a search for a city combined with a specific hotel or a hotel brand is one of most common queries that occur when travellers perform accommodation-related searches. In addition, they conclude that travellers often combine their searches for accommodations with other aspects of the trip, including dining, attractions, destinations, or transportation; additionally, many travellers engage in a switching behaviour that varies between broad and focused search strategies (Hwang et al., 2009). Several studies have focused on users interaction with the search engine interface, indicating that the rank of web pages significantly influences internet navigation. For example, the majority of search engine users do not look beyond the first three pages

3 of search results (Henzinger, 2007; Pan et al., 2007), which implies that only a relatively small number of search results are relevant from the marketing perspective. Studies also show that users trust more organic listings, which, in turn, have a higher conversion rate (Jansen and Spink, 2006). Recently, Pan et al. (2007) found that the order of search results presented by Google, etc. dramatically affects selection of the respective link; specifically, the subjects were significantly more likely to select the first and second suggested links, that the those links presented 8th 10th were also likely to be chosen, and those links presented 3rd 7th were very unlikely to be chosen, due to the scrolling effects. Additionally, Kim and Fesenmaier (2008) suggest that the use of search engines has a significant effect on impression formation, and consequently on the selection and overall evaluation of the website of the tourist firm. 2.2 A General Framework of the Use of a Search Engine for Travel Planning While past literature in both computer/information sciences and the tourism field has defined a new research area in travellers use of new technology, most of existing studies have focused on the search process (i.e., the interaction, user queries, search strategies, etc). Building upon this research, a framework is proposed to describe search engine use in relation to the travel planning process. This framework views the use of a search engine for travel planning as a system with its antecedents as well as certain outcomes and feedbacks. As shown in Fig. 1, the first stage, i.e., Pre-Search Conditions, sets the foundation for the actual search process. These conditions include travellers online information search activities (e.g. searching for a destination, prices for trip, etc.) for travel, the use of various online travel-related tools (e.g. websites provides by airlines, travel agencies, etc.) to find this information, whether or not (yes/no) the traveller will use a search engine as well as the perceived usefulness of the search engine for the current trip planning task. The second stage, i.e., Search Process, describes the basic frames the traveller uses to guide use of the respective search engines within the travelling planning effort. These frames affect the nature of the search query as well as their evaluations of search engine results pages (SERPs). The third stage, i.e., Overall Evaluation, focuses on the overall assessment of search engines as a result of the travel planning process. This stage of search engine use not only results in an overall evaluation (i.e., level of satisfaction), but also attitude formation toward search engine use for future travel planning including the perceived quality of the trip plan, ease of use, as well as whether the search engine was trustworthy. Finally, it is important to note that this third stage provides the feedback to Stage 1 and sets the stage for future use of search engines for trip planning.

4 Info search activities Usefulness of Internet tools Use of search engine for travel planning First planning task Task specificity Search queries SERPs evaluation Overall satisfaction Ease of use Plan quality Trust Pre-Search Conditions Search Process Overall Evaluation Fig. 1. A General Framework of the Use of a Search Engine for Travel Planning More specifically, it is hypothesized that two constructs, i.e., the various types of information search activities (Fodness and Murray, 1998; Vogt and Fesenmaier, 1998) and the past use of the various tools/websites on the internet for trip planning (Brandt and Uden, 2003; Hendry and Efthimiadia, 2008; Jansen and Molina 2006; Su, 2002), determine whether or not the traveller regularly will use a search engine as part of the online travel planning process. Thus, it is expected that people who actively seek information about a destination and consider search engines very useful would also consider search engines essential for the specific task of finding information about a particular or alternative destinations. The search process (the second stage of the framework) describes the sequential aspects of using a search engine including the initial user query, the level of task specificity, and the evaluation of SERPs. The initial user query is conceptualized as the first planning task, i.e., where to begin the search with, e.g., either a destination or accommodation (given a destination has already been chosen). Also, the degree of task specificity (i.e., general vs. specific) is important in that it affects the keywords entered into the search engine as well as the number of search results considered (Jansen and Pooch, 2001). For example, one might expect that when the traveller has already decided the destination and wishes to seek information about places to visit or, perhaps, a hotel at the destination, he/she would use the name of the destination as the keyword within a search engine; and, it might be expected that the number searches he/she would evaluate would be relatively limited. The third stage, i.e., Overall Evaluation, can be defined using four constructs. First, the traveller forms an overall evaluation of search engines for the use of travel planning, which can be reflected in a general satisfaction measure (Pan and Fesenmaier, 2006; Su, 2002). It is hypothesized that this experience is translated into attitudes towards search engines in terms of trust, ease of use, and their efficacy in supporting the travel planning process (Gefen, Karahanna and Straub, 2003; Gretzel, Fesenmaier and O Leary, 2006; Nakamura, et al, 2007; Pan and Fesenmaier, 2006;

5 Su, 2002). Thus, it is expected that a person that is very satisfied with their use of search engines would consider search engines as trustworthy, easy to use and the results they provide enable the traveller to make better decisions. Finally, it is hypothesized that these evaluations (and resulting attitudes) shape (or reshape) the mental model that travellers have of the internet (and travel planning tools) as well the use of search engines. 3 Methodology A national survey was conducted from January 5 th 15 th 2009 of Americans that travelled and used the Internet during calendar year A quota sampling procedure was used whereby 10,000 members of the online panel of Americans maintained by Survey Sampling International (SSI) were invited to participate in the survey, and the first 1,000 respondents (at least) meeting specific conditions were selected. The conditions for participating in this study were that the respondents had to have taken at least one business or pleasure trip (that was at least 50 miles one way from home, or included an overnight stay) and they had used the internet for travel planning including getting information about destinations, checking prices or schedules on the Internet during calendar year The respective panel members were invited once by SSI to complete the survey with the promise of a small monetary incentive which is established by SSI for all panel members. This effort resulted in a total of 2,508 respondents (representing a 25.1% response rate) completing the initial filter questions; 1,288 respondents actually met all conditions of the study and completed the survey. The online survey was organized into five sections. The first section included a series of filter questions relevant to all respondents and focused on their use of the internet, their skills and knowledge of the internet, travel and involvement in the travel planning process. The second section of the survey focused entirely on various aspects of online travel planning including the types of information sought, their attitudes towards various types of websites such as travel agencies, general travel sites and their use of search engines for travel planning. The third section of the survey included questions regarding the respondent s attitudes toward paid listings and other forms of search engine advertising. The next section included a series of questions related to overall satisfaction with the online travel planning process, the use of search engines as well as their attitudes towards search engines in terms of their ability to support the travel planning process. The last section of the survey included a series of questions regarding age, gender, marital status, income and race of the respondent. Frequency and Chi square analyses were conducted to assess the nature and extent to which online American travellers include search engines as part of their travel planning effort and to assess a set of key relationships within the proposed framework. Chi square analysis was considered appropriate in this exploratory analysis as most of the responses to the questions were discrete, and some questions solicited unstructured responses. Specifically, the analyses focused on testing the following: 1) the relationships between information search activities, evaluation of travel websites and use of search engines for travel planning (Stage 1); that is, this analysis sought to identify the differences between search engine users (SETs) and non users (NSETs) in terms of their online information search activities and the types

6 of websites they use; 2) the relationships between the frames travellers establish (i.e., first planning task and specificity of search) and the nature of their search query used and their evaluation of SERPs (Stage 2); 3) the relationships between overall evaluation (i.e., satisfaction with the use of search engines as part of the travel planning process) and their attitudes toward search engines including trust, perceived ease of use, and the quality of the trip plan (Stage 3); and, 4) the relationships between the attitudes toward search engines (i.e., trust, perceived ease of use and trip plan quality) and information search activities and evaluation of travel websites. 4 Results The results of the survey show that the respondents were equally distributed in terms of gender (52% women and 48% men). Many of the respondents considered themselves skilful with using the internet and they were relatively successful in finding what they want on the internet. In addition, the results indicate that most respondents were highly involved in travel planning in that about 50 percent indicated that they tend to devote a lot of time to planning a trip. 4.1 Search Engine Use for Travel Planning The analyses indicate that the huge majority of online American travellers (86%) use general search engines to assist in their travel planning efforts; indeed, 44 percent of the respondents indicated that they used 2 3 different search engines while 15 percent indicated that they regularly used 4 or more different search engines to assist in travel planning. Also, a majority (65%) indicated that they use search engines most of the time or almost always (25%). However, most respondents rated general search engines only somewhat useful for travel planning, and very few considered them an essential travel planning tool. Last, search engines were seen as essential for finding maps and/or driving by 35% of the respondents, followed by information about a particular destination (23%). 4.2 Pre-Search Conditions Descriptive analyses show that most respondents searched for information about a particular destination (76%), searched for hotel prices or places to stay (69%), or searched for airline fares and/or schedules (62%). Relatively few persons searched for 800 numbers (8%), information about stores (24%) or cruises (23%). However, it appears that there is substantial agreement in the degree to which online travel agencies, company websites, destination site and search engines are considered useful in the travel planning process. Specifically, 65% of the respondents indicated that general search engines were very useful or essential to the travel planning process, 62% similarly rated company websites and 57% indicated that online travel agencies such as Expedia and Orbitz were very useful or essential. It was hypothesized that search engine use can be determined by the types of online information activities as well as evaluations of the usefulness of other types of online planning tools. The results of the Chi Square analyses, as shown in Table 1, indicate that there are consistently significant (α = 0.05) differences between SETs (search engine users for travel planning) and NSETs (non users) in terms of their online search activities as well as use of the various online travel planning tools. For

7 example, over 80% of the SETs indicated that they normally search for information about the destination vs. only 56%t of NSETs; 72% of SETs searched for hotel prices or places to stay as compared to 49% of NSETs; and, 59% of SETs search for maps as compared to 35% of NSETs. Also, SETS tend to use many more of the online travel planning tools including online travel agencies (SETs = 69% vs. 42 for NSETs), company websites (64 % vs. 51%), destination websites (47% vs. 33%) and community websites (25% vs. 8%). 4.3 Search Process The results indicate that online travel search generally starts with one of three tasks: Accommodations (29%), destination selection (29%), or transportation (23%). Very few respondents indicated that they started the online travel planning process by considering shopping alternatives (0.7%), attractions (7.0%), or routes (9.4%). However, the results also indicate that most travellers have some sort of general frame of reference (58.5%) which guides their planning process; that is, 24 percent of the respondents reported that they usually start planning their trip with a specific of where and when they will travel. It appears that, in large part, this frame is defined by a destination as the majority (55%) of respondents reported that they used all (or part) of the name of the destination to initiate the search process. This finding contrasts sharply with that only 10 percent of the respondents indicating that they use the name of an online travel agency (OTA) or that 13 percent that searched for an online travel agency. Last, the results indicate that many (31%) American travellers use only the top three search results; and, an additional 20 percent typically use the results reported in the top page (i.e., the top 10 results). This later finding is consistent with the literature which indicates that many people (50% of the respondents) limit their selection to the first page of search results and an additional 18 percent limit their search to 2 pages (Pan et al, 2008). Table 1. Information search activities, evaluation of travel websites and use online search engines Construct: SETs NSETs Types of information searched during 2008 (% yes) % % Searched for info. about a particular destination Searched for hotel prices or places to stay Searched for airline fares and schedules Searched for and printed out maps, driving instructions Searched for things to do at the destination Searched for any type of travel discount or promotion Searched for potential destinations to visit Searched for dining and entertainment at the destination Searched for rental car prices and availability Searched local event calendars at the destination Searched for travel packages for resorts, etc Searched for stores or other places to shop Searched for cruises Searched for sites that distribute free travel brochures Searched for 800 numbers

8 (Table 1. Continued) Types of travel-related websites (% very useful/essential) % % General search engines such as Yahoo!, Google or AOL Online travel agencies (i.e., Expedia, Orbitz, Travelocity) Company sites such as airlines, hotels, rental cars Destination sites such as those provided by a city or state General travel sites that provide free brochures Travel search engines such as Kayak or Sidestep Community sites such as Tripadvisor and Virtual Tourist Travel guidebook sites such as Fodors or Lonely Planet Newspaper/magazine sites such as NY Times/Conde Nast Travelers Consumer content generates sites such as Youtube and Flickr Social Networking sites such as Myspace and Friendster Note: Types of information was measured using a yes/no response format; Types of websites was measured using: 1 = not at all useful, 2 = somewhat useful, 3 = very useful, 4 = essential, and 5 = don t know. Chi-square tests were conducted comparing responses for each item to those not using search engines (NSETs) and those respondents indicating they used search engines for travel planning (SETs). All Chi-squared tests were significant at α = Two Chi-Square analyses focused on the relationship between the planning task, task specificity and the keyword they first used to initiate the information search process. As can be seen in Tables 2, there are significant (α = 0.05) and meaningful relationships between the keywords one uses and the first task in trip planning that define the search process. Table 2 shows that most people use the name of the destination as the keyword used first but the percentage varies substantially by the initial task within the trip planning effort. In this study 34 percent of those using a destination as a keyword consider the destination as the starting point; however, 30 percent of these online travel planners consider accommodations as the initial planning task, and 18 percent indicated that transportation was their starting point. This finding contrasts sharply with those entering the name of an online travel agency where transportation related issues was the most popular task (36%), accommodations was the second most popular (29%) and destination was the third most frequent starting task (24%). Last, 40 percent of those persons knowing the website address focused first on destination and 25 percent started with transportation-related planning. An additional analysis considered the relationship between task specificity and the keywords used to initiate the search process. As discussed previously, most respondents use the name of the destination to start the search process; however, the results indicate that the types of keywords used differ significantly (α = 0.05) depending upon the search frame. For example, 82 percent of those that searched for an online travel agency had a general idea in terms of travel planning effort, as compared to only 35 percent of those entering the name of a slogan or advertising, or

9 59 percent of those entering a name of a destination. Almost 30 percent of those searching a travel-related company such as a hotel or airline indicated that they had a specific problem when starting the travel planning process; this compares to 24 percent of those searching for a destination and 22 percent that are searching for an online travel agency. Table 2. Relationship between First Online Planning Task and Keywords Used First Aspect of Trip Usually Planned First (%) Which keywords do you use first? A* B C D E The name (all or part) of a destination The name (all or part) of a travel-related company The name (all or part) of an online travel agency The name (all or part) or an online travel magazine A company (all or part) slogan or advertising The name or address of a website *: A. Accommodation; B. Attraction; C. Destination; D. Route; E. Transportation. All Chi-squared test was significant at α = Overall Evaluation of Search Engine Use Generally speaking, online travellers are fairly satisfied with the results provided by search engines. A series of analyses between satisfaction and the twelve items used to measure attitudes toward search engines indicate that those persons that are extremely satisfied with search engines were significantly (α = 0.01) more likely to trust the results of search engines, consider them easy to use, and to agree that their use improves the quality of the travel plan. In particular, 41 percent of those extremely satisfied agreed that search engines are reliable (vs. 9% for those somewhat satisfied); 61 percent of those extremely satisfied felt that search engines make travel planning easier to complete as compared to 24% of those somewhat satisfied with search engines; finally, 59 percent of those satisfied strongly agreed that the use of search engines enable them to make better travel decisions vs. 22 percent of those only somewhat satisfied (see Table 3).

10 Table 3. Relationship between Satisfaction with Search Engines for Travel Planning and Attitudes Toward Search Engines Extremely Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Attitude construct: General search engines (% strongly agree) Trust are reliable are almost like real experts in assisting me provide quality information needed to plan my trip Ease of Use provide easy access to a lot of information about travel Make travel planning easier to complete are easy to use are easy to learn are clear and understandable Plan Quality enable me to make better travel decisions enable me to do what I want to do find suitable travel plans improves the quality of my travel planning enable me to make better decisions Chi-square tests were conducted comparing respondents attitudes toward the use of search engines and their overall satisfaction level with the use of search engines for travel planning. All Chi-squared tests were significant at α = Conclusions and Implications This study proposes a conceptual framework to describe travellers use of search engines for travel planning. The results of this study confirm that most Americans use general search engines extensively for travel planning along with many other online tools. The results also show that there are strong and consistent relationships between the respective constructs in that those using search engines tend to be very active and involved travel planners; also, they tend to use a variety of online tools websites within the overall travel planning effort. Importantly, the search frame (as defined by the first task of the online planning process and the level of specificity) sets the stage for the keywords used to start the search effort, which, in turn, affects the depth of search. Last, the results clearly indicate that most online American travellers differ substantially in terms of their satisfaction with the results of general search engines such as Google and Yahoo! and that this satisfaction is reflected in the extent to which search engines can be trusted, are perceived to provide useful results and the extent to which they enable the traveller to make good travel decisions. The findings have several implications for the development of an effective program in search engine marketing. First, it is clear from this and past research that search

11 engines are mostly used as the initial tool to support the travel planning process; as such, the design and placement of search engine results is a critical part of the communication process and therefore, considerable effort should be invested to make this a positive persuasive experience. Second, search engine users (SETs) are substantially different from the general online travelling population in that they are much more active and involved in the travel planning process. This suggests that destination marketing organizations can and should employ a variety of strategies with which to engage the travel planning including the use of Web 2.0 (i.e., social communities and consumer generated content) to attract and engage potential visitors. Third, the finding that the many people use destination-oriented keywords regardless of the specific planning problem suggests that destination websites should incorporate a range of functions beyond simply providing information about a destination; these functions might include links to travel agencies, accommodations and transportation providers. However, the differences found in this study suggest that it is important to develop smarter search systems that recognize the goals (and search strategy) of the travel planner. Finally, it is an important finding (and, perhaps not unexpected) that SETs are very positive about the role that search engines play in the overall travel planning process. From this, it seems that DMOs should consider ways to build on this goodwill by co-developing new tools with the search engines to better support tourism products. These tools may include destination-specific recommendation engines, virtual communities, and interactive interpretive systems. However, it must be noted that this exploratory model used constructs that were measured in a variety of formats which limit the use of a variety of statistical analyses and therefore, our ability to assess the relative importance of each component of the model. Thus, future research is needed to better define the constructs and their role(s) within this framework. References Brandt, D. S., & Uden, L. (2003). Insights into mental models of novice internet searchers, Communications of the ACM, 46(7): Döring, S. (2008). Search Processes in Tourism, Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller. Fodness, D., & Murray, B. (1998). A typology of tourist information search strategies. Journal of Travel Research, 37(2): Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS Quarterly, 27(1): Gretzel, U., Fesenmaier, D. R., & O'Leary, J. T. (2006). The Transformation of Consumer Behaviour. In D. Buhalis and C. Costa (Eds.). Tourism Business Frontiers, Elsevier/Butterworth - Heinemann: Burlington, MA, Hendry, D. G., & Efthimiadia, E.N. (2008). Conceptual models for search engines. In A. Spink and M. Zimmer (Eds.), Web Search, Berlin: Spring-Verlag, Henzinger, M. (2007). Search technologies for the Internet. Science, 317(5837): Hwang, Y.-H., Xiang, Z., Gretzel, U., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2009). Assessing structure in travel queries. Anatolia, 20(1): Jansen, B. J., & Molina, P.R. (2006). The effectiveness of Web search engines for retrieving relevant ecommerce links. Information Processing and Management, 42(4):

12 Jansen, B. J., & Pooch, U. (2001). A review of Web searching studies and a framework for future research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(3): Jansen, B.J., & Spink, A. (2005). An analysis of Web searching by European Alltheweb.com users. Information Processing and Management, 41(2): Jansen, B. J., Spink, A., & Saracevic, T. (2006). Real life, real users, and real needs: A study and analysis of user queries on the Web. Information Processing & Management, 36(2): Kim, H., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2008). Persuasive design of destination Websites: An analysis of first impression. Journal of Travel Research, 47(1): Knight, S. A., & Spink, A. (2008). Toward a Web search information behavior model. In A. Spink and M. Zimmer (Eds.), Web Search, Berlin: Spring-Verlag, Levene, M. (2006). An Introduction to Search Engines and Web Navigation. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Marchionini, G. (1997). Information Seeking in Electronic Environments. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Moran, M., & Hunt, B. (2005). Search Engine Marketing, Inc.: Driving Search Traffic to Your Company's Web Site. Upper Saddle River, NJ: IBM Press. Murphy, H. C., & Kielgast, C. (2008). Do small and medium-sized hotels expoloit search engine marketing? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20(1): Nakamura, S., Konishi, S., Jatowt, A., Ohshima, H., Kondo, H., Texuka, T., Oyama, S., & Tanaka, K. (2007). Trustworthiness analysis of Web search results. In L. Kovacs, N. Fuhr, and C. Meghini (Eds.), ECDL 2007, LNCS 4675: Pan, B., & Fesenmaier, D.R. (2006). Online information search: Vacation planning process. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(3): Pan, B., Hembrooke, H., Joachims, T., Lorigo, L., Gay, G. & Granka, L. (2007). In Google we trust: Users decisions on rank, position and relevancy. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(3): Pan, B., Litvin, S.W., & O Donnell, T.E. (2007). Understanding accommodation search query formulation: The first step in putting heads in beds. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 13(4): Sen, R. (2005). Optimal search engine marketing strategy. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 10(1): Slone, D. J. (2002). The influence of mental models an goals on search patterns during web interaction, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(13): Su, L T. (2002). A comprehensive and systematic model of user evaluation of web search engines: I. Theory and background, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(13): TIA (2009). Travelers' Use of the Internet. Washington D.C.: Travel Industry Association of America. Vogt, C. A., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (1998). Expanding the functional information search model. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(3): Xiang, Z., Gretzel, U., & Fesenmaier, D.R. (2008). Semantic representatin of the online tourism domain. Journal of Travel Research, 47(4): Xiang, Z., & Pan, B. (2009). Travel queries on cities in United States: Implications for search engine marketing in tourism. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism - Enter Amsterdam, Netherland: Springer. Xiang, Z., Wöber, K., & Fesenmaier, D.R. (2008). Representation of the online tourism domain in search engines. Journal of Travel Research, 47(2):