Contents
What turns a waterfall, a ruined fortress or a fine regional museum into something a visitor will actually plan a day around? Mostly work that never appears in the photographs. Tourism product development is the process of combining an attraction with access, timing, services, local hosts and a price, so a visitor can buy the experience, enjoy it from the moment they leave the hotel until they return, and recommend it to someone else afterwards.
The attraction is the reason to go. The product is everything that makes going possible and worthwhile. I think the gap between the two is where most destinations lose the visitors they already have, and where most development budgets are spent on the wrong things.
An attraction becomes a product when someone can buy it
The UN Tourism glossary defines a tourism product as a combination of tangible and intangible elements around a specific center of interest, which creates an overall visitor experience, and then adds a sentence that I wish every planning team would print and pin to the wall: a tourism product is priced and sold through distribution channels, and it has a life cycle.
Read that last sentence slowly and it changes the conversation. Priced means someone has calculated what it costs to deliver and what a visitor will pay. Sold through distribution channels means it can be found and booked by the people who actually send visitors: tour operators, travel agents, online platforms, hotel concierges, and the DMC building a program for a group. A life cycle means it will grow, mature and eventually need renewing.
By that definition, a great many things destinations call products are still attractions. A canyon with a car park and a viewing platform is an attraction. A canyon with a guided morning walk, a lunch at a family kitchen in the nearest village, a quiet afternoon at a swimming spot, transport from the coast, a fixed departure on certain days, a net rate for agencies and a clear cancellation policy is a product. The canyon has not changed. What has changed is that someone has taken responsibility for the whole day.
Is this distinction just industry jargon? I don’t think so. It explains why two places with similar assets can have completely different results, and why a famous site sometimes sends visitors home after an hour with very little spent locally.
Where does the day usually fall apart?
Rarely at the attraction itself. Most sites, even modest ones, hold a visitor’s interest for an hour or two. What breaks is everything around those hours, and it tends to break in the same places.
The table below sets the attraction alone next to what a sellable product needs at each point of the day.
| Part of the day | What the attraction alone offers | What the product has to add |
|---|---|---|
| Getting there | A location on a map | Transport that runs at useful hours, or a pickup, and honest travel times |
| Arrival | A ticket window | Someone who welcomes, orients and paces the visit |
| Midday | Perhaps a kiosk | A proper meal, ideally local, with a place to sit in the shade |
| Afternoon | Nothing, or the drive back | A second, gentler activity nearby: a workshop, a walk, a swim, a village |
| Booking and price | A ticket price at the gate | A bookable package with rates agencies can sell and a commission they can earn |
| When something goes wrong | Closed signs | A named operator who answers the phone and has a plan for rain, heat or a late group |
The midday and afternoon rows hold most of the waste. A visitor who has finished at the site by noon and finds nothing to do afterwards heads back to the coast or the city, and spends there. Linking the site with nearby villages, where rural tourism is often waiting for exactly this kind of steady traffic, turns a two-hour stop into a full day. A family that runs a kitchen, a small producer who will open the workshop, a guide who knows a quiet stretch of river, these are the elements that make the difference, and they are almost always residents.
Food deserves its own mention, because it is so often an afterthought. A midday meal is the longest single stop in most day trips, and it is where visitors form a large part of their opinion. Building that stop with local cooks rather than a generic group restaurant costs little, gives a day product real character and ties the product to gastronomy tourism without any extra marketing.
Routes with signs, brochures and nobody selling them
Here our sector, and the consultants and agencies that serve it, have a habit I find hard to defend. A destination receives funding for product development. The project produces a themed route, a set of information boards, a printed map, a website, perhaps a launch event with a ride along the route for journalists. Then the project ends. A year later the boards are fading and almost nobody walks the route, because nobody was ever given the job of selling it, guiding it or keeping it running.
The pattern repeats because the deliverables that are easy to commission and photograph are the physical ones, while the slow, unglamorous parts of product development are the commercial ones: finding an operator who wants to run the day, working out the costs with the village kitchen and the minibus owner, setting a price that leaves everyone a margin, getting the product into the catalogues and booking systems that agencies actually use.
A tourism product is finished only when a named operator can sell it at a fair price, deliver it reliably and earn enough to keep doing so next year.
That is the sentence I would want at the top of every product development brief, and it changes what success means. A route with fewer signs and one committed local operator will outperform a beautifully signposted route with none. It also changes where a destination management plan puts its effort: less in infrastructure that stands alone, more in helping small operators become bookable, insured and visible to the trade.
The physical side still matters. Paths, toilets, shade, parking and signage are the base, and without them no operator can deliver a decent day. The point is that they are the start of product development, not the end of it.
Who tests the day before visitors pay for it?
In the meetings and incentive world, nobody would sell a program they had not walked through. Site inspections, timing runs and supplier checks are part of the job, and a DMC that skipped them would not last long. Leisure product development often skips the equivalent step, and the visitor becomes the tester.
A better sequence is not complicated. Run the day several times with a small group of real buyers: tour operators, agency product managers, guides who will lead it, hotel staff who will recommend it. Time every transfer, eat every meal, sit through the afternoon gap if there is one. Ask the operators what would stop them from putting it in their catalogue, and listen to the answer even when it is about price or reliability rather than beauty. Familiarization trips are often treated as a hospitality gesture; used properly, they are the most honest product review a destination can get.
Testing is also where capacity comes in. A day that works for fifteen people may collapse at fifty, and the village kitchen, the small workshop and the narrow path all have their own limits, which is visitor flow management at its smallest scale. Thinking about tourism carrying capacity at the product level, before the day becomes popular, is far easier than trying to reduce numbers later.
Events can serve as a live test, too. A seasonal festival or a sports event brings a concentrated group of visitors with free hours around the main program, and offering them a well-built half day nearby shows quickly what works. Event tourism is often measured only by attendance; the half days it generates around the venue can be the beginning of products that run all year.
Products age, and so do the places that sell them
The life cycle part of the definition is the one destinations forget most easily. A product that was fresh five years ago may now be sold by every agency in the region at a lower price, with the same lunch stop and the same photo point, and visitors who have seen it on social media arrive with expectations it no longer meets. The decline is gradual, and without destination data on bookings it often goes unnoticed until operators start dropping it.
Renewing a product does not always mean replacing it. Sometimes it means a new season: the same valley sold as a spring walk among blossom, an autumn harvest day and a winter walk with a long lunch, which also helps with seasonality in tourism far more than a discount campaign would. Sometimes it means bringing in a new local host, a different meal, a craft that has just reopened. Sometimes it means admitting that a product has run its course and that the operators would do better building something else.
What all of this asks of a destination is a shift in how it sees its own work. Attractions are inherited; products are built, priced, tested, sold and renewed by people, many of them small local businesses that need support more than they need signage. When a destination next counts its assets, will someone in the room also ask which of them a visitor could actually book for tomorrow, and who would answer the phone if they tried?