1
Exploring Argumentative Patterns in Destination Marketing:
The role of pragmatic argumentation in attracting visitors
University of Amsterdam Graduate School of Humanities
M.A. Discourse and Communication Studies (DCS)
Student: Birgitte Bay – 11792663 Supervisor: Dr. Eveline Feteris
Second Reader: Dr. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans 15.06.2018
2 Acknowledgements
This project has challenged me not only at an academic level, but it has also enriched me as an individual, in ways beyond what I could have foreseen at the departure point. The completion of this project was only possible due to the support of a number of people to whom I give my deepest gratitude:
I am thankful to my supervisor, Dr. Eveline Feteris, for offering valuable insights, critical remarks, patience and overall guidance during the process with my thesis.
I am thankful to Dr. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans for her encouragement and support in the early stages of my academic journey at the University of Amsterdam, and for agreeing to be the second reader of this paper.
I am thankful to Josè Alfonso Lomeli Hernàndez for offering uplifting and insightful perspectives on student life and pragma-dialectic theory of argumentation when I felt overwhelmed in the beginning.
I am thankful to Olga Krasa-Ryabets from the Centre of Academic Language Support for her useful advice and feedback, and for giving me the confidence I needed in the final run-up towards the completion of the paper.
I am grateful to fellow students and friends who have made my year as a student at the University of Amsterdam an unforgettable one.
Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to my family who are unconditionally supportive and who genuinely believe that I can do whatever I set my mind to. One of my most loyal supporters was my grandmother, Kari Bay Haugen, who cheered on me when I moved to Amsterdam to pursue higher studies in argumentation, rhetoric and communication. During her lifelong career as a journalist, with an extraordinary capacity to connect with people and share their stories, she was an inspiration to any communicator. As I finish my academic year at the University of Amsterdam, I wish to dedicate this paper to her.
Birgitte Bay
3 Abstract
In this paper, it is established how pragmatic argumentation is prototypically used to achieve the communicative goal of destination marketing. A basic argumentative pattern that can be found in this type of marketing is identified. In addition, this paper provides a non-exhaustive overview of the various types of extensions that can be expected to occur within this practice. To illustrate how the argumentative pattern may manifest itself in practice, examples are taken from Norwegian destination marketing websites and it is explained how this pattern can be understood as responses to the critical questions pertaining to pragmatic argumentation. In doing so, possible explanations of these extensions in light of the institutional
preconditions of destination marketing have also been taken into account.
Key words: Argumentation theory, pragma-dialectics, pragmatic argumentation,
argumentative patterns, destination marketing, place branding, tourism
4 Table of content
1. Introduction ... 5
1.1 Destination marketing as a field of research ... 5
1.2 Research question and organization ... 7
2. A pragma-dialectical approach to destination marketing as an activity type ... 9
2.1 Institutional preconditions of destination marketing ... 10
2.2 Argumentative means and criticisms ... 14
2.3 Prototypical argumentative patterns ... 17
3. The role of pragmatic argumentation in destination marketing ... 22
4. Conclusion ... 34
5. References ... 36
List of tables 1: Argumentative characterization of the activity type of destination marketing ... 16
2: Argumentative patterns in destination marketing ... 20
5 1. Introduction
1.1 Destination marketing as a field of research
Until now, research undertaken by argumentation theorists have primarily been situated within the political, the legal, the medical, and the academic domain. However, less attention has been paid to the characteristics and prototypical patterns of argumentative activity types within the commercial domain. Research conducted into medicine advertisements (Snoeck Henkemans, 2017a; Snoeck Henkemans, 2017b; Wierda & Visser, 2014) can be considered an exception in this respect, focusing on the argumentative mechanisms in communicative activity types in which the genre of promotion is central. This paper takes a further step into the commercial domain, by investigating the argumentative means through which a tourism destination is promoted in order to convince potential visitors to visit the destination.
An increasingly globalized and competitive world sets the context of destination marketing, which can be seen as a communicative practice aimed at attracting a variety of target groups to a distinctive destination, place or region, such as potential students, citizens, visitors, businesses and investors. For example, cities often find themselves in a “battle for talent”, illustrated by a spokesperson for Cincinnati, an American city in the state of Ohio:
Despite the fact that Cincinnati was recently ranked one of the top 100 places to start a career by Time, one of the biggest challenges in recruiting people to move here is that they simply don’t know much about the city. Their attitudes aren’t positive or
negative—instead, they’re blank, like an empty slate waiting to be inscribed with a first impression (Chilcote, 2014).
A similar account from Oslo, Norway, suggests that this is a universal challenge:
Noone chooses Oslo by coincidence, no matter if they are deciding on where to travel, invest, work, study or start a business. Today, Oslo is nearly invisible for the many, the world does not know about Oslo. If more people knew about us, more people would have considered Oslo1 (The Oslo Region, 2015, p.9).
1 Translated quotation that appeared in the paper: “Ingen velger Oslo ved en ren tilfeldighet, enten det er valg av
reisemål, sted å flytte, studere, jobbe, starte en bedrift eller investere. I dag mangler Oslo synlighet, verden kjenner for lite til oss. Hadde flere visst om oss, ville langt flere vurdert Oslo».
6
In order to meet the economic and political interests of a destination, destination marketing must set out to increase awareness of a destination and, subsequently, convince people to choose that place. This calls for argumentation to be made in the form of destination
marketing. From an argumentative perspective, the marketer must provide reasons to support the main standpoint that the destination should be visited, and also to address and successfully respond to the relevant critical questions held by the target audience. As stated above, there are various potential target audiences within destination marketing, from skilled workers to tourists. In order to delimit the subject matter, this paper will focus on visitors in the context of tourism. Whilst specific focus will be given to tourists as a target audience, it stands to reason that the principal ideas discussed herein are also applicable to other sub-groups under the destination marketing- umbrella.
Marketing is, in general, by nature a largely argumentative practice. The marketer, as the protagonist, attempts to convince potential customers, as antagonists, of the acceptability of the implicit or explicitly expressed prescriptive standpoint - that he or she should buy a product or a service. Unlike conventional fields of marketing which mainly aim to promote specific goods or services that may be brought to the customer, the field of destination
marketing is distinguishable. Destination marketing seeks to promote, in a coherent manner, a geographically defined area having certain assets that are claimed to provide visitors of that place with desirable benefits or experiences. To illustrate, Visit Norway promotes Norway as a tourism destination by encouraging potential visitors to “join in with one of the world’s happiest people”. They elaborate: “Norway is ranked as “The second happiest country” in the world, on criteria as freedom, honesty, welfare, good health, and generosity. Take part in what makes us happy.” In argumentative terms, this reads: “Visit Norway, because you can take part in what makes us happy”. This specific type of argumentation has consequences for the types of critical questions a marketer may expect from prospective tourists, and thus the possible argumentative extensions that can be expected to occur in destination marketing in light of the macro-context in which the argumentative discourse takes place.
7 1.2 Research question and organization
Just as in other types of advertisements, pragmatic argumentation plays a central role in the promotion of tourism destinations. According to pragma-dialectical terminology, in this type of argumentation the standpoint that a certain action should be carried out is supported by pointing out that the action leads to a desirable result2. By claiming that visiting a specific destination will provide visitors to that place with desirable benefits or experiences (such as taking part in what makes Norwegians happy), marketers attempt to convince the target audience that they should indeed visit the destination. In practice, the target audience may not immediately be convinced about the acceptability of this standpoint – they may be inclined to critically test the grounds upon which the standpoint is based. In anticipation of potential criticism and doubt by the target audience the marketer usually provides supporting
argumentation, in an attempt to increase the acceptability of the standpoint. In doing so, the marketer is supposed to take into account the institutional preconditions of the communicative type, which will result in what can be considered a prototypical argumentative pattern in the discourse (van Eemeren, 2015, p.9).
The aim of this paper is to establish how pragmatic argumentation is prototypically used to achieve the communicative goal of destination marketing. To this end, I will identify a basic argumentative pattern that can be found in this type of marketing. In addition, I will also provide a non-exhaustive overview of various types of extensions that can be expected to occur in practice. To illustrate how the argumentative pattern may manifest itself in practice, I will use examples taken from Norwegian destination marketing websites to explain how this pattern can be understood as a response to the critical questions that pertain to pragmatic argumentation. In doing so, I will also take into account possible explanations of these extensions in light of the institutional preconditions of destination marketing.
2
In addition to this “positive” version of the pragmatic argument scheme, there is also a negative version in which the standpoint is defended. It may be expressed that an action should not be carried out, because it will lead to undesirable consequences (van Eemeren, 2016). In destination marketing, it is typically the positive variant that is used.
8
The paper is organized as follows. Chapter 2 gives an introduction to the pragma dialectical approach to destination marketing as an argumentative activity type, based on theory developed by van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1984; 2004). This serves as an analytical framework for the research at hand. More specifically, the institutional preconditions of destination marketing are discussed, by identifying the institutional aim and genre implemented to achieve this aim. In addition, the conventions applicable to destination marketing are discussed. A characterization of the argumentative means and criticisms is carried out, before identifying a prototypical argumentative pattern that can occur in practice. In Chapter 3 I demonstrate how this pattern may manifest itself in argumentative reality, drawing on examples taken from Norwegian destination marketing websites. Furthermore, I show how the possible extensions can be understood as responses to certain critical questions a marketer should expect. I also take into account possible explanations for these extensions in light of the institutional preconditions discussed in the preceding chapter. In Chapter 4, I summarize my findings and indicate a potential topic for further research.
9 2. A pragma-dialectic approach to destination marketing as an activity type
How can destination marketing be characterized as an argumentative activity type following the pragma-dialectic theory of argumentation? The pragma-dialectic theory of argumentation regards argumentative exchanges to be a part of a critical discussion. Such discussion is aimed at resolving a difference of opinion in a reasonable way by determining whether the standpoints at issue ought to be accepted or not (van Eemeren and Snoeck Henkemans, 2017). The critical discussion is an ideal model which involves at least two participants; a
protagonist who tries to justify the acceptability of a standpoint by advancing argumentation, and an antagonist who has certain doubts about the acceptability of the standpoint.
Analytically, four stages can be distinguished in a critical discussion; the confrontation stage, the opening stage, the argumentation stage and the concluding stage (Van Eemeren and Grotendorst, 1992). The critical discussion does not occur in a vacuum, but is influenced by the context in which the discussion takes place. This context-dependency is accounted for in the extended pragma dialectic theory, wherein the notion of communicative activity types is introduced (Van Eemeren 2010). Van Eemeren (2010, p.139) defines communicative activity types as “conventionalized practices whose conventionalization serves, through the
implementation of certain “genres” of communicative activity the institutional needs prevailing in a certain domain of communicative activity.”When a communicative activity type is predominantly argumentative, it is referred to as an argumentative activity type.
Since destination marketing is largely concerned with providing supporting argumentation for the main standpoint – that a certain destination should be visited – destination marketing can be characterized as an argumentative activity type. According to van Eemeren (2010), in an argumentative characterization of a communicative activity type, the four stages of a critical discussion are seen as a point of departure. Four focal points, corresponding to the four stages, can be distinguished. In a characterization, it needs to be identified or reconstructed how these stages are represented in the argumentative discourse from the specific activity type. Since the aim of this paper is to establish how pragmatic argumentation is prototypically used to achieve the communicative goal of destination
marketing, the argumentative characterization which will be carried out in this chapter focuses primarily on the empirical counterpart of the argumentation stage; the argumentative means and criticisms. On the basis of this, a prototypical argumentative pattern will be identified.
10
In order to provide possible explanations for the argumentative pattern in Chapter 3, an introduction will firstly be given to the institutional preconditions of destination marketing. This includes situating the activity type in the appropriate domain, describing the institutional point and the genre implemented to realize this point, as well as the conventions applicable to destination marketing.
2.1 The institutional preconditions of destination marketing
As a means of taking the macro-context into account when analyzing and/or evaluating argumentative discourse, the pragma-dialectic theory of argumentation distinguishes between different domains of communicative activity, of which legal, political, commercial and interpersonal communications are some examples of such (van Eemeren, 2010). Within each domain, several communicative activity types have emerged in response to the prevailing institutional needs of that domain. Each communicative activity type has been established and has evolved in a more or less conventionalized manner around the ultimate rationale behind the activity, namely to realize a specific institutional point. In which domain is destination marketing as a communicative activity type situated, what is the institutional point of this activity type and which genre is implemented to realize this point?
The institutional point and genre
This paper sees the communicative activity type of destination marketing as first and foremost situated within the domain of commercial communication. The main institutional point of this practice (what the argumentative exchange is all about) is to inspire and convince people to choose a specific destination as a place to visit. However, the purpose of destination
marketing is not limited to the mere commercial aim of increasing the number of tourists who visit a destination. In addition, such marketing can be understood to play an important role in a destination’s broader quest for prosperity and the development of a geographically confined area. This point is underscored by Baker and Cameron (2008, p.94), who rightly observe that due to an increasingly competitive global environment, places - towns and cities, districts, regions and countries - need to differentiate themselves from one another if they are to attract industry and commerce, and to sustain the economic and social development of their
11
They suggest that this specific type of marketing is not limited to increasing tourist arrivals, but plays an important role in regional/ urban development, country positioning and economic development. In fact, Horner and Swarbrooke (1996) go as far as arguing that destination marketing involves using tourism as a means to an end rather than an end in itself for several reasons, including: increasing the range of facilities and amenities available for the local community, giving local residents more pride in their local area, and improving the image of an area to attract industrialists.
The predominant genre implemented to realize the institutional aim(s) of destination marketing is promotion. According to Boone and Kurtz (1974), there are three objectives of the genre of promotion: firstly, to present information to consumers and others; secondly, to increase demand; and thirdly, to differentiate a product. From the perspective of a destination marketer, promotion entails the presenting of information about the assets and possible experiences of a place, increasing the number of visitors, and differentiating the destination from other destinations. How is destination marketing different from other activity types implementing the genre of promotion?
Line and Wang (2017) offer four ways in which destination marketing differs from traditional marketing. Firstly, destinations are challenging to manage and market due to the complexity of the relationships between, and amongst, the various local stakeholders from both the public and private sectors. Secondly, although there are a large number and variety of stakeholders involved in the developing, producing and delivering of tourism offerings to visitors, no single entity has ownership of all product offerings during this process. Thirdly, the stakeholders involved in a destination represent a collection of diverse (and sometimes conflicting) interests and political agendas, and integrating these competing interests into a shared vision that will support the entire destination requires a comprehensive approach to stakeholder management. Finally, although most service providers at a destination tend to be small and medium-sized enterprises, some destinations are dominated by a number of large companies representing a very different power structure of tourism suppliers. Such an arrangement requires both political and managerial savviness in convincing all stakeholders, large or small, that there should be congruence between the strategic marketing of the destination as a whole and the efforts of each supplier at the destination, since the overall image and the holistic experience of the visitors will be derived from numerous encounters with all suppliers (Line and Wang 2017, p. 86).
12
These distinct characteristics are all a part of the macro-context in which destination marketing takes place. In this manner, it can be expected that these four characteristics will contribute to the argumentative moves taken by marketers in their efforts to promote a certain destination. In addition, the degree of conventionalization has an influence on the
argumentation found within the activity type. It is therefore useful to discuss in what ways destination marketing is conventionalized.
The conventionalization
The way in which activity types are conventionalized to achieve the institutional point may vary. The conventions could be drawn up by explicit rules and regulations posing restrictions on how the stages of a critical discussion should be carried out, but it could also be partly implicit and formalized to a lesser degree in looser regulations (van Eemeren, 2015, p.9). Depending on the country, there are different legal requirements marketers must take into account when creating and distributing promotional content. In general, these seek to protect consumers and ensure that ethical considerations are not overstepped. For the purpose of this research, marketers of Norwegian tourism destinations are chosen as a point of departure. In Norway, the relevant law for destination marketers is called The Marketing Control Act3, which states for instance that marketing should not be misleading (Lovdata, 2009).
It is worth noting that The Marketing Control Act is general in its guidelines:
The Marketing Control Act is general and applies to marketing of all types of goods and services. There are also special provisions about marketing in other Acts. TV advertising, for example, is regulated in the Broadcasting Act, and the prohibition against alcohol and tobacco advertising is found in the Alcohol Act and the Act Relating to Harmful Effect of Tobacco, respectively.
(Marketing, Ministry of Children and Equality, 2018)
This is to illustrate that the specific argumentative activity type of destination marketing is formalized to a lesser degree in looser regulations.
3
13
Indeed, when comparing regulations applicable for destination marketing in general with, for example, those laid out for medicine advertisements, as presented by Snoeck Henkemans (2017), it also becomes clear that destination marketing is a relatively less regulated activity type. This could be explained by the fact that medicine advertisements are associated with a higher potential risk of detrimental effects, and thus require a higher level of regulation to protect the public from misleading advertising. This is not to say that a destination marketer does not face other, more informal conventions of how destination marketing should be done; these are related to common marketing practice and industry know-how. Indeed, as explained by van Eemeren (2015), the conventionalization might simply reflect established practices, which is largely the case for the activity type at hand.
Activity types belonging to the domain of commercial communication are inevitably shaped by market forces and trends. If a marketer fails to take into account current trends and reflect market demand, the marketing efforts will be less effective as a result. One specific example is the choice of medium used to distribute the marketing content. Depending on the medium chosen there are associated constraints, which include the short attention span of the audience in a world of distractions and information, the limited space on a visual poster a website, and restrictions in the word count of a promotional article. Although destination marketing can manifest in various forms, as suggested above, it appears to be a convention of the activity type to mainly promote the destination through a persuasive and informative website
(Woodside, Ramos Mir & Duque, 2011). Indeed, industry specialists have pointed out that a website can be seen as the single most impactful piece of marketing for a destination
marketing organization seeking to influence travelers to visit a certain destination (Tourism & Destination Digital Marketing, n.d.). For this reason, the examples of argumentative discourse to be analyzed in this paper are all taken from destination marketing websites. Research on web browsing behavior suggests that an important constraint associated with websites as a medium of distribution is that the marketer has limited time to communicate clearly the value proposition (Liu, White &Dumais, 2010). In the case of destination marketing the value proposition is the unique experiences claimed to be found at the destination.
Finally, due to the aforementioned stakeholder complexity involved in marketing a destination, implicit or explicit expectations and interests from various stakeholders may further shape the way in which a destination is marketed. One aspect of the complexity of this
14
relationship may be a sense of obligation. A destination marketing organization, for instance, may feel obliged to feature certain stakeholders more than others, or to convey a particular image of the destination, preferred by a certain stakeholder. Consequently, having to balance market trends and demands with the expectations of any stakeholders, whilst complying with relevant legal rules, are all aspects of the conventionalization and hence the institutional preconditions of destination marketing.
2.2 Argumentative means and criticism
Having provided the institutional preconditions that constitute the macro-context of destination marketing, the focus now turns to the argumentative characterization of the activity type. As explained, it needs to be identified or reconstructed how the stages of a critical discussion are represented in the argumentative discourse of the activity type concerned. In order to provide a general overview, table 1 (p.16) summarizes the
key characteristics of each stage. However, for the purpose of this research, the argumentation stage is the main focus of the characterization. This characterization will in turn lay the basis for the final sub-section of this chapter, wherein a prototypical argumentative pattern is identified.
The argumentative means and criticisms relate to the realization of the argumentation stage, which is where the marketer attempts to persuade the audience in a reasonable yet effective way to visit the destination in question. When a protagonist attempts to convince the antagonist to accept a standpoint in which an action is advocated or discouraged through reference to advantageous or disadvantageous effects of the action, this is called pragmatic argumentation (van Eemeren, 2016). This description arguably fits well with the type of argumentation predominantly found in destination marketing, wherein visitors are usually encouraged to visit a destination through reference to certain advantageous or desirable experiences offered by the place. In the pragma-dialectical theory, pragmatic argumentation is seen as a type of argumentation that is based on a causal relation (van Eemeren and
Grootendorst, 1992, p.97). Other terms used for this type of argument are means-end argumentation, instrumental argumentation, teleological reasoning, practical reasoning, and argumentation on the basis of advantages/ disadvantages (van Poppel, 2012, p.109).
15
The basic form of pragmatic argumentation is represented in the following scheme:
1. Action X should be carried out, because 1.1 Action X will lead to positive result Y, and
(1.1’) (If action X leads to a positive result such as Y, then that action should be carried out) (van Emeren, 2016; Chapter 2 of this volume)
Based on this, it is possible to construct a scheme that is applicable in the activity type of destination marketing:
1. Visit destination X
1.1 Visiting destination X leads to unique experiences
(1.1’) (If visiting destination X leads to unique experiences, then destination X should be visited)
For each argument scheme, there are different critical questions that serve as assessment criteria for an analyst to assess whether the argument scheme is correctly applied (van
Eemeren and Grootendorst, 1992). The questions can also be used to anticipate doubt held by the antagonist, and, as such, serve as a point of departure for a protagonist that seeks to counter potential criticism and eventually remove doubt about the standpoint in question. According to van Eemeren, Houtlosser and Snoeck Henkemans (2007, p. 177-185), the general critical questions pertaining to this type of argumentation are:
1. Does the proposed cause (X) indeed lead to the mentioned (un)desirable result? 2. Could the mentioned result be achieved or counteracted by other means as well? 3. Are there any other factors that have to be present, together with the proposed cause, in order to create the mentioned (un)desirable result?
4. Does the mentioned cause (X) not have any serious undesirable side-effects?
5. Is that what is presented as result (Y) in the argumentation indeed desirable or undesirable?
In argumentative reality, the critical questions should be customized to the specific activity type in question. For pragmatic argumentation in destination marketing, the specific critical questions can be reconstructed as follows:
16
1. Does traveling to destination X indeed bring about the mentioned desirable experiences? 2. Could the mentioned desirable experiences not be found in other destinations?
3. Are there any other conditions that need to be met (in addition to traveling to destination X) for the mentioned experiences to be found?
4. Does it not have any undesirable side-effects to visit destination X? 5. Are the experiences put forward indeed desirable?
Table 1: Argumentative characterization of the activity type of destination marketing
Genre Initial situation
Starting points Argumentative means Outcome Promotion - Implicit discussion between marketer and general audience. - Anticipated non-mixed disagreement on whether the intended audience should visit destination X. - The advertiser`s argumentative means are loosely regulated by The Marketing Control Act - Implicit constraints related to form of advertisement - Advertiser fulfills role of protagonist; intended audience fulfills role of antagonist. - Pragmatic argumentation in defense of the prescriptive standpoint - Argumentation presented in anticipation of specific critical questions to test pragmatic argumentation and bridging premise - Implicit resolution by the intended audience`s perlocutionary act of choosing destination X as a place to visit. -Possible return to initial situation as the audience can see an
advertisement over and over again.
17 2.3 Prototypical argumentative patterns in destination marketing
By building on the argumentative characterization above, the focus now turns to a closer investigation of the prototypical argumentative pattern. In order to realize the aim of this paper, I set out to identify a basic argumentative pattern that can be found in destination marketing. In addition, I aimed to provide a non-exhaustive overview of various types of extensions that can be expected to occur in practice. This is what will be done in this section. According to van Eemeren (2015, p.14), in conducting an argumentative exchange, the
arguers are supposed to take into account the institutional preconditions of the communicative type and the critical reactions that can be expected when a certain argument scheme is used. This will result in what can be considered a prototypical argumentative pattern in the
discourse. In light of the institutional goal – which is to inspire and convince people to choose a specific destination or region as a place to visit – it is reasonable to reconstruct the main standpoint as simply “visit destination X”. This standpoint, in combination with the pragmatic argument in which it is claimed that visiting the destination will lead to unique experiences, can therefore be seen as a basic argumentative pattern in destination marketing.
………..&……
Moreover, the arguer can advance different types of sub-arguments –claims - as a means of dealing with the relevant critical questions for this type of argumentation, as described in the characterization. As a result, the basic pattern may be extended in a number of ways.
In combination with the main argumentation, such extensions can be seen as prototypical argumentative patterns found in destination marketing. The main, pragmatic argument has a key role in accomplishing the communicative goal of destination marketing, by attempting to convince a target audience that visiting destination X indeed leads to certain unique
experiences, and that those experiences are indeed desirable.
1. Visit destination X
1.1 Visiting destination X leads to unique experiences
(1.1’) (If visiting destination X leads to unique experiences, then destination X should be visited)
18
All the possible argumentative extensions are attempts to address and successfully respond to the critical questions and thereby increase the acceptability of the standpoint “visit destination X”. What follows is an introduction to extensions commonly found in the discourse of
destination marketing websites. The extensions and how they relate to specific critical questions will be further explained in the next chapter.
Sub-argument 1: Such experiences are desirable. Visual elements such as images and
videos on a destination marketing website play an important role in inspiring and eventually convincing potential visitors about the desirability of the experiences claimed to be found at the destination. This can be reconstructed as visual argumentation (Kjeldsen, 2013).
An example of this is the header video on Norway’s official tourism website,
www.visitnorway.com, which showcases and amplifies desirable aspects about visiting Oslo, the capital of Norway.
Sub-argument 2: Endorsers claim that visiting destination X leads to unique
experiences. This argumentative move is prototypically used by referring to the opinions of
others as a means of supporting the pragmatic argument that visiting the destination leads to unique experiences. The following, again taken from Visit Norway’s website, illustrates this argumentative move: “Norwegian travel blogger of the year shares here favourite
destinations. With her blog Reiselykke, Mette Solberg Fjeldheim has gone all over the world. Here are her top picks when travelling closer to home”. The jury of the award “Travel blog of the year” write: “The blog shows great diversity, is user friendly and easy to navigate. It features beautiful pictures and an inspiring, fresh design. There is a personal touch but no navel gazing. And-perhaps most importantly- it’ll make you want to travel” (“The travel blogger’s Norway”, n.d). The latter sentence explains why Visit Norway chooses to display the blogger’s favourite Norwegian destinations – in her own words and pictures – on their website.
Sub-argument 3: The destination is awarded. Another possible extension that may be used
in support of the pragmatic argument is that the destination (or central parts of it) has received some form of award. An example of this can be witnessed on the official destination
marketing website of Ålesund, a port town in the west coast of Norway. One of the top attractions of the region is the Geirangerfjord, which is introduced with the following
19
statement: “Geirangerfjord features on the prestigious UNESCO World Heritage List. You will not find more beautiful fjord in the world! Be amazed by Geirangerfjord, a place you simply cannot miss” (Top Attractions Geirangerfjord, n.d.). Here, the fact that the fjord is awarded with an UNESCO-status is used as evidence for the unique experiences claimed to be found at the destination.
Sub-argument 4: It is possible to have unique experiences with limited time available.
Furthermore, a possible sub-argument is the claim that it is possible to have unique
experiences with limited time available. Typically, this claim takes the form of inspirational guides on the destination marketing website, showing potential visitors various attractions and/ or activities they can do within a day or two. An example of this which will be further explained in the following chapter is the guide “48 hours in Bergen” (n.d.) which can be found on www.visitbergen.com.
Sub-argument 5: It is possible to have unique experiences on a budget. Similar to the
sub-argument above, this claim is related to another commonly found travel constraint; money. This claim often takes the form of articles such as “Travel on a budget” (n.d.), which is the title of an article found on the destination marketing website www.fjordnorway.com. In this example, the marketer further elaborates; “it is possible to travel on a budget in Fjord Norway! Below you will find some tips on how to make your holiday more affordable- without missing out on great experiences!”
Sub-argument 6: The experiences are easily accessible. This sub-argument can be
reconstructed from the various types of articles which intend to provide potential visitors with tips on practicalities, for instance how to get to the destination and where to stay. Providing such information can be seen as an attempt to make it easier for potential visitors to agree with the implicit bridging premise from the main argument, that if visiting the destination leads to unique experiences, it should be visited. An example of this is the page ”Plan your trip” (n.d.) on www.visitnorway.com, wherein it is stated that “travelling to Norway has never been easier” and “modern conveniences have made it much easier to get around in Norway. These days, trains, boats, and a network of small airports are all making it quite practical to see any part of the country”.
20 Table 2: Prototypical argumentative patterns in destination marketing
Basic pattern:
1. Visit destination X
1.1 Visiting destination X leads to unique experiences
(1.1’) (If visiting destination X leads to unique experiences, then destination X should be visited)
Support for premise 1.1:
1.1.1a Such experiences are desirable
and/or
1.1.1b Endorsers claim that visiting destination X leads to unique experiences
or
1.1.1b The destination is awarded
Support for bridging premise (1.1’):
(1.1’).1 It is possible to have unique experiences with limited time available
or
(1.1’).1 It is possible to have unique experiences on a budget
or
(1.1’).1 The experiences are easily accessible
Above is a summary of the prototypical argumentative pattern which has been identified and described. The extensions are subordinate argumentation in support of premise 1.1 and bridging premise (1.1’) in anticipation of critical questions. They become sub-standpoints which can be further supported separately. The argumentation can be classified as different variations of symptomatic argumentation. In this type of argumentation, a standpoint is defended by citing in the argument a certain sign, symptom, or distinguishing mark of what is claimed in the standpoint. On the grounds of this concomitance, the arguer claims that the standpoint should be accepted (van Eemeren and Snoeck Henkemans, 2016).
21
One could argue that these claims simply have an explanatory or informative nature. Can, for example, providing information about how to access the experiences be seen as being
argumentative? What eventually justifies treating the utterances as being a part of
argumentative discourse is the “maximally argumentative interpretation”. This states that “when in doubt, it is advisable to be cautious and treat the explanation, elaboration, or clarification as an argument” (van Eemeren and Snoeck Henkemans, 2017, p.37). Moreover, when taking into account the main communicative goal of the activity type, it becomes clear that the predominant purpose of the discourse found on destination marketing websites has an argumentative function serving to realize this goal.
This chapter aimed to provide an analytical framework for the research at hand, by giving an introduction to the pragma-dialectical approach to destination marketing as an argumentative activity type. Following discussion of the institutional preconditions of destination marketing, exploration was conducted into the characterization of the empirical counterpart of the
argumentation stage of an ideal critical discussion. Finally, a prototypical argumentative pattern for destination marketing was identified.
22 3. The role of pragmatic argumentation in destination marketing
In this chapter, I use examples taken from Norwegian destination marketing websites to illustrate how the argumentative pattern may manifest itself within the practice of destination marketing. I explain how the argumentative pattern that has been identified as prototypical in destination marketing can be understood as responses to the critical questions pertaining to pragmatic argumentation. I also take into account possible explanations for these extensions in light of the institutional preconditions of destination marketing.
In the first sub-standpoint it is emphasized that the unique experiences which the destination is claimed to offer are in fact desirable. The marketer anticipates that it is not enough simply to state or to list the unique experiences; rather the desirability of these experiences should be magnified. This is often done by “showing, not telling”- or showing- in combination with telling. Visual argumentation plays an important role in this respect. As pointed out by Kjeldsen (2013), visual elements such as images can function as arguments and evidence. Both the extensive use of video and images can be seen as a conventionalized element of destination marketing. As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words, and this is thus an effective means of communication. The need to be persuasive in an effective way can be seen as a result of the time constraint imposed by the medium used by the marketer. As pointed out in the previous chapter, websites are a common medium used for destination marketing and the marketer has limited time to communicate the desirability of the
experiences. Visual elements can be reconstructed as an implicit argument; “such experiences are desirable”. For example on the official destination marketing website of Tromsø
(www.visittromso.no/en), a city in northern Norway, great priority is given to the visual elements. The header of the website is a picture of the city by night, under a sky lit up by the famous northern light. The header title reads “fulfill your northern lights dream”:
23
The argument in this example can be reconstructed as follows: 1. Visit Tromsø
1.1 Visiting Tromsø lets you fulfill your northern lights dream
(1.1’) (If visiting Tromsø lets you fulfill your northern lights dream, then Tromsø should be visited)
1.1.1a (As the picture proves,) experiencing the northern lights in Tromsø is a desirable experience
The pragmatic argument 1.1 is supplemented with the subordinate argument 1.1.1a to give the intended argumentative effect of convincing the audience that experiencing the northern lights in Tromsø city is actually a desirable experience. The use of visual argumentation as a means of amplifying the desirability of the experiences can be seen as a response to two of the critical questions pertaining to pragmatic argumentation4, namely (1) whether destination X indeed brings about the mentioned experiences, and (5) whether those experiences are indeed desirable.
4
24
To make it clear that these two critical questions can be answered positively, marketers may opt for advancing another “second layer” of defense of the pragmatic argument: that visiting destination X leads to unique experiences. This takes form as an experience-based authority argument, which can be reconstructed as “endorsers claim that visiting destination X leads to unique experiences”. The unexpressed bridging premise here is that “if endorsers claim that visiting destination X leads to unique experiences, then the destination should be visited”. Snoeck Henkemans (2017, p.100) explains that the reason why marketers choose this type of argument is that they may think it is more convincing to refer to the opinion of others, rather than making claims themselves. For some types of advertisements related to the
communicative domain of health certain endorsements – such as argument from expert opinion – are forbidden. However, in contrast, in destination marketing there are no such restrictions found in the institutional preconditions. The loose regulations on this area, as seen in Chapter 2, in combination with the effectiveness of such argumentative means, may explain the widespread use of variations of endorsements in destination marketing. These can for instance take the form of travel reviews or other types of user-generated content, such as blog posts, travel videos or Instagram posts, brought forward by the marketer. The following example, taken from the Visit Norway website, shows not only the potential influence from social media content for travel inspiration, but also how user generated content can be employed as an argumentative move by the marketer. An article on their website reads: “Discover Norway as seen by someone who just fell in love with it. Alon and Chen decided to go to Norway after seeing a photo on Instagram. Now, the video they made from their own trip surely deserves to be a viral hit”.
25
The argument in this example can be reconstructed as follows: 1. Visit Norway
1.1 Visiting Norway makes you fall in love with the country
(1.1’) (If visiting Norway makes you fall in love with the country, Norway should be visited) 1.1.1a (As the holiday video proves,) falling in love with Norway is a desirable experience 1.1.1b Alon and Chen discovered that travelling to Norway made them fall in love with the country
(1.1.1b’) (If Alon and Chen fell in love with Norway, it is true that visiting Norway makes you fall in love with the country)
De Ascaniis and Cantoni (2017, p.188) offer further explanation of the effectiveness of online travel reviews in particular, by stating the following:
The report of others and their opinions are credited because they are based on the first-person experience of the first-person giving the advice. Moreover, it is assumed that authors of online travel reviews are laypeople, similar to us, and not moved by any economic interest when they recommend or criticize something.
Similar to the former sub-standpoint “endorsers claim that visiting destination X leads to unique experiences”, the third sub-standpoint “the destination is awarded” is also an argument by authority. The bridging premise here is that “if the destination is awarded, then it is true that visiting it will lead to unique experiences”. This type of argument is based on the idea that if something is claimed by an authority in the field, then the truth of the premise is established. Authorities in the travel industry may be for instance travel bloggers, travel guide publishers and other individuals who hold significance or influence amongst the relevant audience. An example of an authority in the travel industry is Lonely Planet, the world’s largest travel guide publisher (Fildes, 2007). The selection of a destination for a Lonely Planet “best in travel”-list is not only considered to be a prestigious award, but it also functions as persuasive evidence for the main pragmatic argument. If the target audience is not convinced that traveling to destination X will indeed bring about the mentioned desirable experiences (critical question 1), or is unsure whether those experiences are indeed desirable (critical question 5), the sub-standpoint “the destination is awarded” can be utilized as a supporting argument.
26
An example of this can be found on Oslo’s destination marketing website www.visitoslo.com:
The argument in this example can be reconstructed as follows: 1. Visit Oslo
1.1 Visiting Oslo leads to unique experiences
(1.1’) (If visiting Oslo leads to unique experiences, Oslo should be visited) 1.1.1a Oslo is one of Lonely Planet’s Top Ten Cities 2018
(1.1.1a’) (If Oslo is one of Lonely Planet’s Top Ten Cities 2018, it is true that visiting Oslo leads to unique experiences)
Apart from the critical questions concerning the desirability of the experiences claimed to be found at the destination, the marketer also takes into account other types of critical questions. In critical question 3, it is asked whether there are any other conditions that need to be met (in addition to traveling to destination X) for the mentioned experiences to be found. It could be that the potential visitors are now fully convinced about the desirability of the experiences, yet still have some concerns left that should be addressed by the marketer. The three following possible sub-standpoints in table 2 are all commonly found in the form of articles on official destination marketing websites, and reflect three issues which are often seen as possible obstacles by potential visitors; time, money and practicalities.
27
The first sub-standpoint related to critical question 3 is reconstructed as “it is possible to have unique experiences with limited time available”. This is illustrated by the following example from the destination marketing website of Norway’s second largest city, Bergen
(www.visitbergen.com):
The introduction reads: “Got 48 hours? Bergen offers plenty of experiences! Are you curious about Bergen? Norway’s second city is small geographically, but big on nature and culture. With some clever planning you have time to experience the most iconic highlights Bergen has to offer – and still get some surprises along the way.”
The argument in this example can be reconstructed as follows: 1. Visit Bergen
1.1 Visiting Bergen leads to unique experiences
(1.1’) (If visiting Bergen leads to such unique experiences, Bergen should be visited) (1.1’).1 It is possible to have unique experiences in Bergen even if you only have 48 hours
28
The second sub-standpoint related to critical question 3 can be reconstructed as “it is possible to have unique experiences on a budget”. When taking into account that Norway has a
reputation for being an expensive country to visit, it is reasonable for marketers to anticipate and address this potential criticism. The following example of such argument is an
introduction to an article on the destination marketing website of Visit Oslo:
The introduction reads: “Oslo is often referred to as one of the world’s most expensive cities, but there are still ways to enjoy the city without maxing out your credit card”.
The argument in this example can be reconstructed as follows: 1. Visit Oslo
1.1 Visiting Oslo leads to unique experiences
(1.1’) (If visiting Oslo leads to unique experiences, Oslo should be visited) (1.1’).1 It is possible to have unique experiences in Oslo even on a budget
The third sub-standpoint related to critical question 3 can be reconstructed as “the experiences are easily accessible”. An example is taken from the destination marketing website of the Lillehammer region (en.lillehammer.com/intonorway/information). In addition to time and money, the practicalities of traveling to a destination can be seen as a potential obstacle or a form of doubt held by the target audience. Providing information about where potential visitors can get recommendations on the practicalities of their stay, as well as providing tailor
29
made search engines as a gateway to the myriad of service providers of the destination, can together be seen as attempts to remove this doubt. When the discourse gives the impression that “everything you need” seems to be one click, one telephone call, or one e-mail away, it functions to increase the acceptability of the bridging premise “if visiting destination X leads to unique experiences, destination X should be visited”.
The argument in this example can be reconstructed as follows: 1. Visit Lillehammer
1.1 Visiting Lillehammer leads to unique experiences
(1.1’) (If visiting Lillehammer leads to unique experiences, Lillehammer should be visited) (1.1’).1 (As this search engine and our availability prove,) the experiences are easily accessible
In addition to being a response to critical question 3, this sub-standpoint can also be
understood by taking the broader communicative goal of destination marketing into account. As explained in Chapter 2, the purpose of destination marketing is not limited to the mere commercial aim of increased tourist arrivals. Destination marketing can also be seen as a means to an end, rather than an end in itself, where one of the ultimate goals is to increase the range of facilities and amenities available for the local community.
30
Businesses in the local economy provide goods and services (such as food, accommodation and activities) to both households and visitors. On the basis of the consumption of such goods and services, businesses can prosper and make investments, further contributing to the
development of the destination as a whole. Visitors thus play an important role in the local economy, as they increase the demand for various goods and services. This manifests in jobs and a broader range of goods and services offered, eventually benefiting the local community (Vareide, 2012). In sum, the argument “the experiences are easily available” can be explained in two ways. Firstly, as a response to critical question 3; potential visitors might be concerned that there are practicalities that need to be planned (in addition to traveling to the destination) for the mentioned experiences to be found. Secondly, by virtue of being a “gateway” to a myriad of local providers of goods and services, such argumentative means simultaneously contribute to the broader communicative goal of increasing the range of facilities and amenities available for the local community.
When looking at the non-exhaustive overview of the various types of extensions that can be expected to occur, two of the critical questions that pertain to pragmatic argumentation remain unanswered, namely critical questions 2 and 4. How can this be explained? Critical question 2 can be seen as a criticism to the bridging premise (1.1’): Could the mentioned desirable experiences not be found in other destinations? Indeed, as pointed out in Chapter 2, a central part of the genre of promotion entails differentiating the destination from other destinations. On the other hand, the choice of medium suggests that the marketer can expect prospective visitors to have a limited attention span when browsing the destination’s website. A possible explanation could, therefore, be that the marketer chooses to focus on amplifying the
desirability and the uniqueness of the experiences that are claimed to be found at the
destination. Moreover, as discussed in Chapter 2, promoting a destination as a place to visit is different from promoting goods and services that may be brought to the consumer. In contrast to the latter, every destination is inherently different with its own unique characteristics - there is only one city of Amsterdam, like there is only one city of Oslo. This uniqueness in itself implies that this critical question is less likely to arise from the target audience.
31
The final critical question that does not seem to be addressed explicitly is question 4; Does it not have any undesirable side-effects to visit destination X? A possible explanation for this could be found in the institutional preconditions. As for critical question 25, the marketer might choose to focus on the desirability of the experiences instead of devoting scarce space and attention to the addressing of potential undesirable side-effects. It could also be that the marketer anticipates that the potential tourists do not have any persisting concerns about potential undesirable side-effects. We may expect a reasonable arguer to not put forward argumentation which is not relevant. If it is not likely that the side-effect issue is a significant concern and potential critique from the target audience, it would be considered irrelevant to put forward arguments for this. However, while many tourists might not consider potential undesirable side-effects of traveling, there is an aspect to it which might eventually influence the expected argumentative pattern in destination marketing. When looking at the macro-context of the travel industry, the potential detrimental environmental consequences of extensive tourism are receiving increasing attention globally. The United Nations designated 2017 as the International Year of Sustainable Tourism for Development, and stated that they welcome:
the efforts of the World Tourism Organization, the United Nations Environment Programme, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity and others to promote ecotourism and sustainable tourism worldwide (United Nations, 2015).
While Norwegian destination marketers are not obliged by law to promote ecotourism and sustainable tourism, this “call for action” by the UN serves as an indicator of what can be seen as a trend in the years to come. The increased awareness of sustainable tourism amongst the target audience is already reflected in research conducted by Innovation Norway6.
5 See discussion on page 30. 6
The Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries has given Innovation Norway the responsibility for the
development and maintenance of the official travel guide to Norway (Visit Norway, 2018). Innovation Norway’s objective is to be the Norwegian State’s and the county authorities’ main instrument for achieving value-creating business development throughout the country (Innovation Norway, 2016).
32
According to their report Key figures for Norwegian travel and tourism (2016, p.59), the target group has been asked what they think characterizes a holiday in Norway.
From 2014-2016, it was a 3-4 % growth of respondents who stated that “a broad range of sustainable options” characterized a holiday in Norway. If one take these impressions to be expectations held by the target audience, this could eventually become conventions which destination marketers have to take into account when advancing argumentation in support of the main standpoint “visit destination X”7
. Table 3 (p. 33) summarizes how the possible extensions of supporting argumentation that have been discussed can be seen in relation to the specific critical questions pertaining pragmatic argumentation.
In sum, this chapter sought to illustrate, through reference to examples taken from Norwegian destination marketing websites, how the argumentative pattern identified in Chapter 2 manifest itself in the argumentative practice of destination marketing. The first three sub-standpoints were identified as follows; such experiences are desirable (visual argumentation); endorsers claim that visiting destination X leads to unique experiences; and the destination is awarded. It was explained how these sub-standpoints can be utilized to further support the pragmatic argument 1.1, in anticipation of certain critical questions by the target audience. Through the showcasing and amplifying of desirable experiences that are claimed to be found at the destination, destination marketers attempt to convince the target audience to visit the destination. The latter three possible argumentative extensions could be seen as further support of the bridging premise “if visiting destination X leads to unique experiences, then destination X should be visited”. By claiming that it is possible to have unique experiences with limited time available, that it is possible to have unique experiences on a budget and/or that the experiences are easily accessible, the marketer attempt to remove doubt related to three commonly perceived obstacles to traveling; time, money and
practicalities.
7 It should be noted that in association with the UN’s designated International year of Sustainable Tourism and
Development, Visit Norway now certifies Norwegian destinations which follow sustainable principles. After ensuring on their website that this certification is an honor few qualify for, they state the following: “It takes years of work and demonstrating their lasting commitment to providing the best possible experiences for their guests, while keeping the negative impact of tourism to a minimum.” (Sustainability, Take only pictures and keep only memories, n.d.). The consequences this has for my research is that only a few, chosen destinations can use this award (“1.1.1b the destination is awarded the accreditation as a sustainable destination”) as a possible argumentative extension in response to critical question 4. Since this sub-standpoint does not seem to be very widespread among destination marketers (yet), I have chosen to not include it in the overview over possible argumentative extensions that can be expected to occur.
33 Table 3: Supporting argumentation in response to the critical questions pertaining pragmatic argumentation
Possible extensions: Supporting argumentation Critical questions
1.1.1a Such experiences are desirable
1.1.1b Endorsers claim that visiting destination X
leads to unique experiences
1.1.1b The destination is awarded
1. Does traveling to destination X indeed bring about the mentioned desirable experiences?
5. Are the experiences put forward indeed desirable?
It can prototypically be expected that this question is not explicitly dealt with, as the marketer instead chooses to focus on the uniqueness of the
destination
2. Could the mentioned desirable experiences not be found in other destinations?
1.1.1b It is possible to have unique experiences
with limited time available
1.1.1b It is possible to have unique experiences on
a budget
1.1.1b The experiences are easily accessible
3. Are there any other conditions that need to be met (in addition to traveling to destination X) for the mentioned experiences to be found?
It can prototypically be expected that this question is not explicitly dealt with, as the marketer instead chooses to focus on the uniqueness of the
destination.
Alternatively, the marketer might argue that:
1.1.1b The destination is awarded the accreditation
as a sustainable destination
4. Does it not have any undesirable side-effects to visit destination X?
34 4. Conclusion
This paper sought to investigate the argumentative means through which a tourism destination is promoted in order to convince potential tourists to visit the destination. The aim of the paper was to establish how pragmatic argumentation is prototypically used to achieve the communicative goal of destination marketing. To this end, I identified a basic argumentative pattern that can be found in this type of marketing. In addition, I also provided a
non-exhaustive overview of various types of extensions that can be expected to occur in practice. The analytical framework for this research was an introduction to the pragma-dialectical approach to destination marketing as an argumentative activity type, based on theory
developed by van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1984; 2004). For the purpose of this research, the empirical counterpart of the argumentation stage was reconstructed. A brief summary of the argumentative characterization of destination marketing as an activity type was provided in table 1. As a part of the analytical framework, the institutional preconditions of destination marketing were also discussed.
I found that in destination marketing, a basic argumentative pattern consisting of pragmatic argumentation for the prescriptive main standpoint can be found, as well as more complex patterns consisting of specific extensions of this pragmatic argument. These
prototypical patterns were summarized in table 2. The extensions are the result of anticipated criticism against the main pragmatic argument. In dealing with anticipated criticism that the target audience might have, marketers defend the claim that the critical questions can be answered satisfactorily. In sum, six typical (sub) claims were identified in relation to the argumentative activity type of destination marketing:
Such experiences are desirable (put forward in the form of visual argumentation)
Endorsers claim that visiting destination X leads to unique experiences
The destination is awarded
It is possible to have unique experiences with limited time available
It is possible to have unique experiences on a budget
35
In table 3, I summarized how the possible extensions of supporting argumentation relate to specific critical questions pertaining to pragmatic argumentation. To illustrate how the argumentative pattern may manifest itself in practice, I used examples taken from Norwegian destination marketing websites and explained how this pattern can be understood as responses to the critical questions pertaining to pragmatic argumentation. In doing so, I also took into account possible explanations of these extensions in light of the institutional preconditions of destination marketing. Notably, due to the medium in which the promotion prototypically takes place, the marketer is constrained by the perceived short attention span of the target audience. This contributes to explaining why the emphasis lies on showcasing and amplifying the desirability of the experiences claimed to be found at the destination, as a means of
distinguishing the destination from other destinations.
Finally, it was discussed why explicit argumentation in response to potential concerns regarding undesirable side-effects of traveling to a destination is not typically found on Norwegian destination marketing websites. Foremost, it was explained that if it is not likely that the side-effect issue is a significant concern and potential critique from the target
audience, it would be considered irrelevant to put forward arguments to address this concern. Furthermore, it was noted that increased attention to the potential negative impacts of
extensive tourism is likely to affect how destination marketing is conventionalized in the future. A critical example of this being the argumentative means that will be adopted in order to achieve a sustainable balance between two potentially conflicting goals; To inspire and convince visitors to travel to destination X, whilst also protecting local communities and their environment.
In Chapter 2, stakeholder complexity was identified as a constituting part of the
institutional preconditions of destination marketing. However, I discovered that it was beyond the scope of this paper to investigate the ways in which this specific characteristic might affect the prototypical argumentative pattern in destination marketing. This, therefore, constitutes an area for further research. As previously stated, less attention has been paid to the characteristics and prototypical patterns of argumentative activity types within the commercial domain compared with those within the political, the legal, the medic, and the academic domain. The insights provided within this paper concerning how pragmatic argumentation is prototypically used in destination marketing can be understood as a contribution in this respect.
36 5. References
48 hours in Bergen (n.d.). Retrieved from https://en.visitbergen.com/ideas-and-inspiration/48-hours-in-bergen
Baker, Michael J., & Cameron, Emma (2008). Critical Success Factors in Destination Marketing. Toruism and Hospitality Research, 8 (2), pp. 79-97
Boone, L., & Kurtz, D. (1974). Contemporary Marketing. Hinsdale, Ill: Dryden Press Chilcote, L. (2014, May 20). The battle for talent: What cities are doing to attract urban
professionals. Soapboxmedia. Retrieved from
http://www.soapboxmedia.com/features/052014-battle-for-talent.aspx
Eemeren, F.H. van and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans. (2016). Argumentation. Analysis and Evaluation. (2nd edition). New York/London: Routledge Taylor & Francis group.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Peter Houtlosser and A. Fransisca Snoeck Henkemans. 2007. Argumentative Indicators in Discourse. A Pragma-Dialectical Study. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers
Fildes, N. (2007). BBC gives Lonely Planet guides a home in first major acquisition. Retrieved from https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/bbc-gives-lonely-planet-guides-a-home-in-first-major-acquisition-395739.html
Horner, S., & Swarbrooke, J. (1996 ). Marketing Tourism, Hospitality and Leisure in Europe. London: International Thomson Business Press.
Innovation Norway (2016). Key figures for Norwegian travel and tourism 2016. Retrieved from
https://res.cloudinary.com/simpleview/image/upload/v1/clients/norway/Key_Figrues_ 2016_1__8402bc6c-f2e7-4851-b279-2bc639f0803d.pdf
Kjeldsen, J. E. (2013). Strategies of Visual Argumentation in Slideshow Presentations: The Role of the Visuals in an Al Gore Presentation on Climate Change. Argumentation, 27(4), pp. 425-443
37
Line, N.D., & Wang, Y. (2017). A multi-stakeholder market oriented approach to destination marketing. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 6 (2017). pp. 84-93 Liu, C., White, R.W., & Dumais, S. (2010). Understanding web browsing behaviors through
Weibull analysis of dwell time. Proceedings of the 33rd international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, 19 July 2010, pp.379-386
Lovdata (2009). Lov om kontroll med markedsføring og avtalevilkår mv.
(markedsføringsloven). Retrieved from https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2009-01-09-2
Pike, S., & Page, S. (2014). Progress in Tourism Management. Destination Marketing Organizations and destination marketing: A narrative analysis of the literature. Tourism Management, 41 (2014). pp. 202-227.
ProjectOsloRegion. Internasjonal profilerings-strategi for Osloregionen (2015). Retrieved from http://www.osloregionen.no/wp-content/uploads/Profileringsstrategi_del-1_norsk.pdf
Snoeck Henkemans, A.F. (2017a). The role of pragmatic argumentation in over-the-counter medicine advertisements.
Snoeck Henkemans, A.F. (2017b). Argumentative patterns with symptomatic argumentation in over-the-counter-medicine advertisements. In F.H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Prototypical argumentative patterns (pp. 139-155). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Sustainability. Take only pictures and keep only memories. Retrieved from https://www.visitnorway.com/about/sustainability/
The travel blogger’s Norway. Norwegian travel blogger of the year shares her favourite destinations. Retrieved from https://www.visitnorway.com/media/news-from-norway/norwegian-travel-blogger-of-the-year-shares-her-favourite-destinations/ This holiday video will make you desparate to travel. Discover Norway as seen by someone
who just fell in love with it (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.visitnorway.com/media/news-from-norway/discover-norway-as-seen-by-someone-who-just-fell-in-love-with-it/
