กระบวนการตอบสนองของนักท่องเที่ยวต่อการสื่อสารทางการตลาดนิตยสารบนเครื่องบิน

Abstract

The purpose of this study aims to study tourist’s responding process towards marketing communications of inflight magazines. This research was the mixed method research. In terms of quantitative research, The samples were 400 tourists using a questionnaire as a survey tool. Semi-structured interview were used in qualitative research to collect data from 4 experts and specialists. Data were analyzed statistically using the percentage, means (x̅), standard deviation, and the test value “t” (t-test) in order to compare respondents’ respondence between nationality, sex, and type of airlines. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare respondents’ respondence by age, highest education, and income interval. If the results had been significantly different at the level .05 then the Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) Method would have been employed. The results were as followed; 1. The majority of the respondents were male whose age was between 26 – 35 years old. They graduated from bachelor's degree with their incomes more than 30,000 baht per month. In addition, they travelled with low–cost airlines service. 2. The majority of the respondents frequently read inflight magazine. The most-read article was tourism. Travel360 (AirAsia) was tourists’ most well-known magazine. Furthermore, they spend an average of 10 – 15 minutes per time reading inflight magazine each. 3. The most significant responding process towards marketing communications of inflight magazines was Appeal (X = 3.92, S.D. = 0.695) 4. Comparison respondents’ respondence by gender, there was no significant difference between male and female at 0.05 levels. However, comparison motivation by nationality was significant difference at .05 levels in all aspects and comparison motivation by type of airlines was significant difference at .05 levels in Ask. 5. Comparison respondents’ respondence by age and highest education interval, there was no significant difference at 0.05 levels. But, Comparison respondents’ respondence by income interval, there was significant difference at .05 levels in all aspects excluding Awareness.