Sensory inputs in tourists’ nightlife experiences – a study of Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur and Singapore

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to identify the sensory inputs that tourists use to shape their nightlife experiences. Design/methodology/approach The situations in three Southeast Asian cities, Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur and Singapore were examined, using tourist reviews posted on tripadvisor.com. A total of 460 data units concerning Bangkok, 373 data units concerning Kuala Lumpur and 453 data units concerning Singapore were compiled and manually analyzed to reveal the frequency of the primary sensory inputs used by the reviewers. Bivariate correlation analysis was additionally performed to reveal the co-occurrences of the sensory inputs that tourists used to form their impressions of each city. Findings The findings suggest that gustatory inputs were powerful yet unspecific, while visual inputs were vivid and conspicuous. Audio inputs added certain meaningful contributions to some extent for some tourists. However, the distribution of the sensory inputs differed across the three cities. Moreover, the contributions of the olfactory and tactile inputs are largely missing. Practical implications With the management of nightlife businesses (small or micro servicescapes), a thoughtful selection for the drink menu is necessary. When possible, a signature drink should be invented and promoted for each place. With the projection and promotion of tourist destinations as nightlifescapes, a sensory marketing approach should be considered. For example, nightlifescapes could be presented and promoted with unique drinks, good views of the city’s landmarks and interesting local music. Originality/value Prior to this study, little research has been carried out to investigate tourists’ nightlife experiences and their impressions of nightlifescapes. In addition, little has been done to identify the sensory inputs that tourists use to explain their experiences and impressions.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 14 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.