Visitor Experience and Cultural Asset Evaluation

RIPPON LEA House and Gardens

Anastasia Manuella

1. Assessment of the Site

1.1. Introduction of the Site

Rippon Lea House and Gardens is a 19th century estate situated in a vast

area in the suburb of Elsternwick in Melbourne. The property comprises of a

two-storey mansion and a garden, which features an extensive lawn, a range

of ferneries, lake and a glasshouse. The ownership and construction

background of the estate in 1869 contribute to its historical importance of

Victorian period architecture, especially the water self-sufficiency system for

the house and the garden (Department of the Environment 2015). The ornate

mansion was owned by Sir Frederick Thomas Sargood (1834-1903) and had

been an evident of his wealth and status as a merchant and a politician

(Rickard n.d.).

As with most historical buildings or sites in Australia, Rippon Lea is

managed under the care of the National Trust and has been close to the

community of Melbourne since its opening to the public over 30 years ago.

Being a tourism site associated with its cultural heritage, Rippon Lea is a

display of ‘Victorian Italianate’ style in Melbourne that can modify its setting

for events or other programmes (Department of the Environment 2015).

Although similar house and garden attraction and functions are offered by

tourism site nearby, like Como House in South Yarra, Rippon Lea offers an

authentic experience of the late 19th century architecture and a relaxing

outdoor venue to its visitors.

It appears that the historical mansion of Rippon Lea is popular to a group

of people of over 50 years old, while family with children often prefers the

garden. These circumstances are perceived from the visitors during

weekdays and weekends, as well as the reviews in TripAdvisor as the essential

part of this report.

Figure 1.

A group of visitors inside the mansion

1.2. Content Analysis of Visitor Experience

TripAdvisor ranks Rippon Lea as number one out of three things to do in

Elsternwick (TripAdvisor 2015), although the content analysis as prepared for

this report will further represent the facts assessed by TripAdvisor reviewers

and therefore genuinely describe the visitor experience. To do this, the

research first outlines the content analysis with the sample data from 100

TripAdvisor reviews. The four members of the group had each 25 reviews to

analyse and later formulated the overarching themes, interpretative and free

codes in the group discussions as stated in the Project Log (Appendix 2). The

group also arranged to go to Rippon Lea in two rounds of site visitation; the

first round was done on the weekend and second in the weekday. The group

then analysed the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT)

of the site drawn from the visitor experience in the content analysis as well as

the observation during the group visitation.

The first step of the analysis is to define the overarching themes of Rippon

Lea. There are three themes that are established based on what the visitors

focused on in their reviews: house feature, garden feature, setting feature

and tourist feature.

1.2.1. House Feature

Although Rippon Lea House and Gardens is the whole attraction, the

house and garden features are set apart as different overarching themes

because some visitors mentioned to have only walked around the garden or

gone only for the in-house exhibition. The interpretive codes for the house

feature are the background and the house attributes (Appendix 1). Because

of its significance to original housing during Victoria’s gold boom period

(National Trust of Australia 2007), the house as the core product of Rippon

Lea attracts cultural tourists with comments such as: “This is an outstanding

house and gardens. It is a window into a period of both great wealth and

opulence in Melbourne colonial past”. However, there were reviews

indicating opposite experience, in particular regarding the house

maintenance or the exhibition: “Think some parts of the mansion, e.g. roof,

wall, need bit of restoration” or “People wanted to see the house not a bunch

of sad old wedding dresses put up on display. One room, okay, I could

understand that but the entire house?”

1.2.2. Garden Feature

The majority of the visitors were appreciative towards the garden feature

(Appendix 1). They described that it was beautiful and worth the visit. There

were a lot to occupy themselves with in the garden because of its facilities:

“The gardens have several interesting features - the botany itself is

marvellous, then there's a fountain, a stream, walking paths, an ornate

overbridge and a really nice gazebo that you can climb all the way to the top

of”.

1.2.3. Setting Feature

Under the setting feature, the visitors evaluated the overall facilities more

often than other descriptive codes such as price or signage (Appendix 1).

They were aware of the facilities and mentioned to have utilized them with

dominant positive reviews.

As with criticism, there are several reviews portrayed how the entrance

fee to the house was expensive: “…and it cost $30 for 2 adults (2YO free I

think). This is pretty hefty price given Botanical gardens are free but it is

beautiful…” and the parking was difficult: “There is no parking onsite, but we

easily found a park on a side street”. However, these comments were

compensated by their positive reviews.

1.2.4. Tourist Feature

Several visitors described their experience through their engagement

with the facilities such as having afternoon tea, taking a picnic or even having

wedding reception. In the morning, Rippon Lea is quiet and peaceful that

some of the reviewers suggested coming early right after it opens at 10 a.m.

Many of the tourists were also motivated to visit Rippon Lea because of the

event and exhibition held in the house: “Went specifically to see the Miss

Fisher costume exhibition, which was really lovely”.

Some people gave general comments about the overall experience and

showed their wanting to visit Rippon Lea again. Having seen some similarities

with other cultural heritage site, there was a visitor that recommended, “…to

combine with a trip to Como House nearby”.

1.3. Interpretation Methods with 6 Tilden’s Principles

1.3.1. “Any interpretation that does not somehow relate what is being displayed or being described to something within the personality or experience of the visitor will be sterile”

Many visitors cherished their moments in Rippon Lea because they

enjoyed the activity of sightseeing around the house and gardens, which are

the core elements connecting the visitors of the present time with the

heritage value of the past. The experience increased when the visitors

mentioned that they did the activity in the house during the events or

exhibitions. Tilden’s (1977) approach required the relation between the

attraction and the personal experience of the visitors. This relation only

occurred when Rippon Lea held a significant exhibition for the visitors to

engage with, such as Miss Fisher exhibition. The visitors were allowed to try

on some available authentic costumes (Figure 2) and be photographed in

them. There is also an opportunity to solve Miss Fisher murder mystery with

the engagement of communication technology device like hiring an

electronic tablet.

Figure 2.

A staff with Miss Fisher costume on display

1.3.2. “Information, as such, is not interpretation. Interpretation is revelation based upon information. But they are entirely different things. However, all interpretation includes information”

Another interpretation of the house is also limited to only delivering

information. Although the interpretation of an attraction is revealed according

to information, the visitors understand better when information as well as

engaging activities are provided (Tilden 1977). The tour of the mansion is

actually an attractive way to have a glimpse of an experience and look at the

way of life in the era of the past. Guided curated tours are also available for

the visitors to attend to where they will be provided with explanation of the

costumes of Miss Fisher. Providing these tours is an approach of Rippon Lea

to provide information about the heritage importance in the past and the

present. However, there was not much information available among all the

furniture or rooms to explain the history or unique architectural importance of

the house—as it is known for its underground watering system in the

nineteenth century. This circumstance may not affect the guided visitors, but

those self-guided ones may have less interesting experience inside the house

because of their lack of knowledge and therefore historical understanding.

1.3.3. “Interpretation is an art, which combines many arts whether the materials presented are scientific, historical or architectural. Any art is in some degree teachable”

Rippon Lea offers education program for the visitors, particularly their

student visitors. There is a range of programs: full day Primary Program with

engaging activities and old fashioned games for Prep to 6 year-olds, Mrs

Sargood Incursion Program with an experience of a nineteenth century

classroom, and other programs for children. These particular programs

suggest that education is part of Rippon Lea’s method to translate the cultural

heritage experience to a simple understanding for young audience.

1.3.4. “The chief aim of interpretation is not instruction, but provocation”

The guided tour is highly evaluated by most of the reviewers. The fact that

the tour guides resourcefully interpreted the historical essentials is engaging,

they were considered as: “… a very knowledgeable guide who did not rush us

too much”.

1.3.5. “Interpretation should aim to present a whole rather than a part and must address itself to the whole man rather than any phase”

The activities for the house and the garden in Rippon Lea are not

integrated as a single attraction. Some visitors would wander around the

garden without the willing to visit the house. The visitors who would only like

to participate in the Miss Fisher exhibition only recommended arranging casual

walking in the garden in a separate visit.

1.3.6. “Interpretation addressed to children should not be a dilution of the presentation to adults, but should follow a fundamentally different approach. To be at its best it will require a separate program”

The education programs seemed to be in line with Tilden’s (1977)

approach to design separate platform for children—with any methods that are

demonstrable—and yet to generate similar understanding as for adults. The

use of different platform is suitable for Rippon Lea because it has different

groups of visitors who have different preferences. There was a visitor with a

toddler who expressed personal preference: “The mansion…it would have

been interesting but I assume boring for a 2 yo. so we prioritized the garden”.

1.4. Online Presence of Rippon Lea

In terms of its online presence, Rippon Lea House and Garden uses a

website as a service to communicate with its visitors. This type of media

ensures that the National Trust controls its public communication, as

described by Mitsche et. al. (2008), to distribute the information and extend

the heritage significance of Rippon Lea to the visitors before, during and after

their visits.

Through the website, the National Trust invites visitors to have a brief

information about Rippon Lea. The general information of the core attraction

is available online, as well as the details on planning the visit and links to

follow more resources of Rippon Lea. The quality of a destination starts from

the beginning of the travel when the destination manager is able to build

interaction with the visitors acquiring information they need prior to travel

(Russo & Van der Borg 2002). Moreover, ensuring the use of Information and

Communication Technology (ICT) for cultural heritage sites will also cause

better-informed visitors (Ross & Economou 1998). So, it is a provoking way to

learn that there is a 3D interactive photography menu on the website that the

visitors may explore—before their real visit—inside the mansion and around

the gardens within the reach of their fingertips.

It would be a more interesting website content to have more education

components of the cultural heritage site, particularly with regards to its

preservation attempt. This is rather answered by the links that the website

provides when the visitors click on the menu of Rippon Lea’s Significance.

Most of the links leads to the website of the Department of Environment of

the Australian Government where the history, official values and statement of

significance of Rippon Lea are specified.

Arranged at the top of the menu and sidebar, the events and exhibition

are the menu on the overall website display as it is also the crucial selling

point of Rippon Lea. In fact, the current exhibition of Miss Fisher’s Murder

Mysteries has its own detailed website at www.missfisherexhibition.com.au.

These two features, events and exhibition, appear to be the result of word of

mouth in social media like Facebook. People would tag their locations in

Rippon Lea during their wedding events or participation in the exhibition

activity. As a result, their circle of friends shared comments of interest to go to

Rippon Lea. This shows that the marketing strategy of word of mouth may be

effective in obtaining visitors, in particular through social media. However, the

link in Facebook is the unofficial page of Rippon Lea, meaning that the

National Trust does not utilize the marketing buzzes of Facebook or any other

social media to attract more visitors.

1.5. Existing Event Activities

As a heritage site that offers a beautiful venue, people would book

Rippon Lea House and Gardens for their private occasions. Many events and

exhibition have been taking place in Rippon Lea’s extravagant mansion or

garden, or probably both. Ranges of events include birthday parties,

wedding ceremonies or reception, corporate events, garden parties, or even

live music. McKercher and du Cros (2002) supports this condition as a

strategic benefit for the National Trust as the heritage operator to improve its

business profit while making the attraction more accessible to public.

During the group visitation, Rippon Lea was still featuring the Miss

Fisher’s Murder Mysteries Costume Exhibition as its five-months major

exhibition. The visitors who are interested in this exhibition can follow up link

on the Rippon Lea website to go to Miss Fisher Exhibition website. Despite

being the only current exhibition, Miss Fisher exhibition completely captures

the visitors’ attention. As described in their reviews in TripAdvisor, they were

eager into trying on the replica costumes, interacting with the props from the

show. Another activity offered in Rippon Lea is murder mysteries. Some of the

reviewers in TripAdvisor also mentioned their participation in solving crimes

by looking out clues in the mansion, as they were also given the option to hire

an electronic tablet to do so. This experience allowed the visitors to explore

the mansion and to learn the TV show scripts and costume making.

The fact that the National Trust, together with a third party assistance,

organizes this exhibition to acknowledge the historical nuance of the 1920s

era, is a good opportunity to offer to the visitors. Rippon Lea is the attraction

as Leiper (1995, as cited in Weidenfeld & Leask 2013) calls it ‘nucleus’ or the

core attraction that the tourists look for in their travel. This central position is

enhanced with the presence of the exhibition. In some degree, however, the

events and exhibition are overpowering the house and gardens as the main

charm of Rippon Lea. Connecting the core attraction with several integrated

events—particularly events of similar significance with the heritage site—is

suitable, but the events and exhibition need to be observed as different

priorities from the actual attraction (Weidenfeld & Leask 2013). It would be a

challenge for Rippon Lea to be more appealing when the events and

exhibition end, because they are not the ‘nucleus’ as both are periodic and

venue-based.

2. SWOT Conclusions and Recommendations

2.1. SWOT Analysis

This report analyses the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats

(Table 1) that Rippon Lea has throughout its operation as a cultural heritage

site and attraction.

Table 1 SWOT Analysis of Rippon Lea House and Gardens

Strength (Internal) Weakness (Internal)

• Historical Significance • Location • Accessibility by public transport • Staff service • General facilities (garden, house) • Events • Reputation of National Trust

• Signage in general • Signage in other languages • Online presence: no social media

sites • Reliance on exhibitions • Parking • Gift shop (prices and items for sale

and overall aesthetics) • Maintenance

Opportunities (External) Threats (External)

• Growth in domestic visitor markets • Growth of Asian (Chinese visitors) • Package/bundling ‘value for

money’ • Capitalizing on cultural awareness

of 1900’s i.e. Great Gatsby popularity

• Competition - Como • Competition - Other Melbourne

attractions i.e. The Zoo, Museum, Eureka Tower etc.

• Competition for funding from National Trust

• Lack of knowledge of Australian history & understanding by Australians

• Exhibition competition - NGV, Melbourne Museum

2.1.1. Strengths

Rippon Lea is located in the suburb of Elsternwick, within 20 km of

Melbourne. It is easily reachable with public transportation; it is only 450

meters or 7 minutes walk from Rippon Lea station. The authenticity of Rippon

Lea as one of period mansions in Melbourne made it itemized on the

National Heritage List in August 2006 (Department of the Environment 2015).

The reputation of its operator, National Trust, also intensifies the significance

of Rippon Lea as a national heritage site.

Most of the TripAdvisor reviewers presented positive comments

regarding the heritage significance and the overall setting of Rippon Lea. The

facilities provide options for the visitors to do activities on the site and

because of which they commented about having an exciting day in Rippon

Lea. The staff service quality was also a component which the reviewers

expressed their fondness. These reviews are based on their experience on

doing activities, such as strolling around the nature walks, having picnic or

simply being guided inside the mansion.

2.1.2. Weaknesses

The experience of the visitors varies in reviews. The group visitation to the

site also confirmed some reviews found in TripAdvisor, particularly those

disagreeable ones. Although the distance from Rippon Lea station is not an

issue, the lack of directions to the site is apparently unhelpful for the first time

visitors. As for the visitors with cars, parking lot is not available.

There are a lot of historical facts of Rippon Lea (for example the furniture,

variety of room functions, unique brickwork material, heritage orchard), but

there is not much of message for the visitors to learn, other than information

told by the tour guides. There is a safety concern in the garden as well, but

signage to make sure the visitors’ awareness around the lake, lookout tower

or waterfall is less likely to find. Overall maintenance of the house and

gardens is necessary as some visitors mentioned how the place looked tired.

With the increasing of diverse types of visitors, Rippon Lea also does not have

social media to draw young adults attention or signage in other foreign

languages especially for the increasing Chinese visitors.

At the time visiting Rippon Lea, the group visitation’s first encounter was

the reception and gift shop at the front gate. These two services were too

swarming to be in a small space, because people were coming in and out as

well as looking round the souvenirs. The items on sale seemed to be

overpriced and mostly were the items with the current exhibition branding.

As such, the major exhibition like the existing Miss Fisher is likely the only

magnetic charm of Rippon Lea at current state and, consequently, there is

less display of the actual attraction of a heritage site.

2.1.3. Opportunities

The number of Chinese and domestic markets to Rippon Lea is growing,

however groups of people of certain age or families with children appeared

to be dominant at a certain visit time. The visitors coming from diverse origins

tend to be more aware of cultural heritage sites such as Rippon Lea. This

circumstance could be a chance for Rippon Lea to uniquely create new

distinct activities for each type of visitors, particularly activities signifying the

essence of nineteenth century cultural heritage. Additionally, it could be

more appealing for the visitors to try when these activities for different

audience are joined together for all audience but come with a special fee.

2.1.4. Threats

Despite facing competition from other tourism attractions in Melbourne,

Rippon Lea might also face a competition with other similar cultural heritage

tourism product in Melbourne—such as the period mansion of Como House,

which is also under the care of the National Trust. One review in TripAdvisor

explicitly voiced a disappointment to the National Trust for the inadequate

funding given to Rippon Lea. The reasoning was in a matter of maintenance

of the entire place and the over-dependence on volunteering staffs.

There is also an ironic concern about how the lack of awareness of

authentic Australian culture and heritage essentially comes from the

Australians. School lessons are not including the history and culture of

Australia for students, and for this reason, visiting a culture heritage site is not

a stimulating option for these groups of people in the future. The motivation

of going to Rippon Lea is most likely because of the exhibition, as shown from

the visitors’ reviews. Yet, larger private operators organize other competing

exhibitions in Melbourne; this could also intimidate the existing periodic

exhibition in Rippon Lea.

2.2. Recommendations

Rippon Lea needs significant capabilities to attract visitors because, as

Silberberg (1995) described, a culture heritage site might be an effective

tourist attractions when it has the capability to evaluate its culture heritage

assets. Its success also depends on whether the visitors are able to consume

these assets, and therefore this report agrees with McKercher and du Cros’

(2002) commodification of culture.

Different types of visitors require different treatments from the culture

heritage operator (Cohen 1979). In order to understand its culture heritage

assets, Rippon Lea may need to understand the different experiences among

different types of visitors. Based on the analysis in previous sections, this

report tries to respond to the mentioned issues occurred within the

management of Rippon Lea through five recommendations.

First, a clear idea should be established on prioritizing cultural heritage

essence of the house and gardens, while at the same time the operator could

lessen its reliance on major exhibition. Although, it may be a critical success in

attracting visitors, exhibitions are temporary event. The operator of Rippon

Lea should continuously elaborate creative programs for each market

segment. Otherwise, the visitors would likely be uninterested with

monotonous attraction (Carlsen et. al. 2008).

Second, an effective interpretation method is often a way to enhance the

visitors’ experience and induce environmental awareness (Powell & Hamm

2008; Wallace & Gaudry 2008, as cited in Skibins, Powell & Stern 2012).

Storyboards inside the mansion and description boards for significant

heritage trees and plants in the garden could be an initiative to present useful

knowledge to the visitors. The interpretation method should also incorporate

the interests from multi-lingual market. The ICT approach on using electronic

tablet for Miss Fisher Murder Mystery exhibition could be applied for these

initiatives.

Third, the establishment of social media advance is more likely to be

effectual because the growing domestic and international market lives in an

urban upbringing that demands information through virtual spaces (Stuedahl

& Lowe 2014). Some market segments have been familiar with Rippon Lea

through its unofficial page in Facebook. The National Trust could start to

rebrand Rippon Lea by creating Facebook official account as its first initiative

on social media approach.

Fourth, visitors tend to seek culture heritage tourism product that is value

for money (Silberberg 1995). There are several activities in Rippon Lea that

can be packaged together in a fixed reduced price, instead of setting up a

separate program in the house and the gardens. Additionally, there is an

external opportunity to be considered. Despite of being a competitor to one

another—and since both are managed by the National Trust, Rippon Lea and

Como House trip could be bundled, for example, in a heritage trail using an

interactive interpretation.

Fifth, the items on sale in the gift shop need to be assorted and offered in

a more reasonable price. The selection of items are mostly related to Miss

Fisher exhibition, but rarely found with Rippon Lea branding.

All of these recommendations are not in a certain order. Nevertheless,

this report is expected to answer the issues in improving the experience

quality, and therefore, the visitors’ satisfaction of Rippon Lea House and

Gardens.

Appendix 1: Content Analysis of Visitor Experience (TripAdvisor)

Overarching Theme: House Feature

Interpretive Codes

Free Codes + - Freq. %

Background Historical significance 31 - 31 6,2

House Attributes

Interior design & setting, physical characteristics, maintenance, other

47 18 65 12,9

Overarching Theme: Garden Feature

Interpretive Code

Free Codes + - Freq. %

Garden Attributes Gardens of special interest, maintenance, overall setting

58 4 62 12,3

Garden Facilities Nature walks, lake, picnic areas, others 35 3 38 7,5

Overarching Theme: Setting Feature

Interpretive Code Free Codes + - Freq. %

Facilities (mentions of these in general)

Guided tours, gift shop, tea house / coffee shop, functions, education services, wedding receptions, ceremonies, exhibitions, free game tool rentals, bathrooms

39 2 41 8,1

Transportation Parking, public transport 9 6 15 3,0

Price Price 3 6 9 1,8

Staff Staff service 10 - 10 2,0

Child/Family Friendly

Child/family friendly 10 - 10 2,0

Signage Signage 3 2 5 1,0

Overarching Theme: Tourist Feature

Interpretive Codes Free Codes + - Freq. %

Fellow Guests General recommendations 38 4 42 8,3

Tourist Behaviours (mentions of participating in the following)

Gift shop, coffee shop, functions, education services, wedding receptions, ceremonies, exhibitions, picnic, website

54 9 63 12,5

Tourist Motivations Tourist motivations 32 1 33 6,5

Tourist Preferences Visit time, combo trip (Como House nearby)

9 1 10 2,0

Repeating Experiences Previous visit, tendency for a visiting again

14 - 14 2,8

Trip Experiences General comment on their experience 52 4 56 11,1

Appendix 2: Project Log

Meeting 1 - Agenda

Overview Meeting Date: 10 August 2015 Meeting Time: 6pm Place: HB35.1 Goals To gain a further understanding of the Rippon Lea Estate and develop the content analysis Schedule 1. Overview of findings on Rippon Lea Estate 2. Run through of part 1 of the assignments questions

• A brief introductory statement describing the attraction, its heritage and tourism-related significance to the Victorian market, and tourism core markets. (approx.. 300 words)

• A peer-to-peer content analysis of visitor experience at the site drawn from TripAdvisor. This will provide you with real data on the attitudes of some visitors regarding the attraction's strengths and weaknesses according to visitors. Use this analysis as supporting evidence for your SWOT analysis and recommendations for improving the visitor experience of the asset undertaken in Part 2. (approx. 500 words)

• A critique of the interpretation methods at the attraction using Tilden’s approach and in the context of its core markets and sustainable preservation. (approx. 500 words)

• A critique of the online presence of the attraction in the context of its core markets and sustainable preservation. (approx. 500 words)

• A critique of the existing event activity engaged in by the attraction. (approx. 500 words)

3. Discussion of trip advisor reviews: common themes & things worth noting 4. Set date for Ripponlea Estate Visit

5. Plan of action for the week ahead including:

• Set dates for full content analysis data to be submitted • Your suggested SWOT analysis

6. Set date for next meeting

Meeting 1 - Minutes

Meeting Start Time: 6.10pm Meeting Finish Time: 8.30pm Present At Meeting: Rebecca, Anastasia, Eugena, Jessica Minute Taker: Jessica

General Discussion Anastasia: looked at reviews – divided positive and negative. Questions what should be included in the intro. Content analysis Rebecca: went through reviews: tried to put in categories. Group like: Events, Interior Design, Outdoor spaces, tea room, accessibility, gift shop, services (tour guides, maintenance, exhibitions). Negative feedback trend is accessibility- couldn’t see from outside or too far, parking problem. Tea room references negative. Jessica: More feedback when the exhibitions are on. Just need to agree upon the codings. Eugena: Family and child friendly environment. Anastasia: Exhibition activities, price often noted in reviews. Jessica: Quat Quatta E: should guided tours and events/weddings to link directly to facilities Group Questions: How should we do our logbooks? J: Our log books will all be the same, sign and submit with our individual assignments Content Analysis Group agreement: Follow the style of the Panda article J: list of feature on site – should be its own category and then broken into augmented product The below was agreed upon by the group as the structure for the content analysis. This was the bulk of our group discussion: Key Bold = Overarching Theme Italic = Interpretative Codes Plain = Free Codes

House: Background

− Historical significance House Attributes

− Interior Design & Setting − Physical Characteristics − Maintenance − Other

Garden: Garden Attributes

− Lake − Gardens of special interest − Maintenance

Garden facilities − Nature Walks − Picnic Areas − Other

Setting Features: Facilities

− Guided tours − Gift and coffee shop − Functions − Education services − Wedding receptions − Ceremonies − Exhibition

Transportation − Parking − Public transport

Price − Price

Staff − Staff service

Child/Family Friendly

− Child/Family Friendly Tourist Features Fellow guests

− General recommendations

Tourist behaviors − Guided tours − Gift and coffee shop − Functions − Education services − Wedding receptions − Ceremonies − Exhibition

Tourist Motivations − Tourist motivations

Tourist Preferences − Visit time

Trip Experience − Previous visit − Would you visit again

Tripadvisor reviews broken up into: 1-25 = Rebecca 26-50 = Jessica 51-75 - Anastasia 76-100 - Eugena Actions:

1. Write a brief summary of what you found out about Rippon Lea Estate (ALL) Due Date: Next Wednesday 19 August 2015

2. Content Analysis Table where people can make suggestions (add/remove) and edit (Jess) Due Date: Wednesday

3. Create individual content analysis tables for each person to fill in (Jess) Due Date: Friday 14 August 2015

4. Content analysis (tables/frequencies filled out) (ALL) Due Date: Next Wednesday 19 August 2015

5. General ideas of suggested SWOT Analysis (ALL) Due Date: Next Wednesday 19 August 2015

6. Create Minutes (Jess) Due Date: ASAP

Agreed next meeting: Wednesday Site Visits: Rebecca & Jessica Saturday 15 August 2015, Eugena & Anastasia Sunday 16 August 2015.

Meeting 2 – Agenda

Overview Meeting Date: 24 August 2015 Meeting Time: 6pm Place: HB35.1 Goals To discuss our findings of our individual content analysis and make suggestions for the SWOT analysis. Schedule

1. Discussion of our site visits to Rippon Lea Estate 2. Discussion of content analysis including:

• Any recurring themes • Any points to note • Any questions

3. Discussion of SWOT analysis 4. Any outstanding questions Meeting 2 – Minutes

Meeting Start Time: 6pm Meeting Finish Time: 7.30pm Present At Meeting: Rebecca, Anastasia, Eugena, Jessica Minute Taker: Jessica General group discussion of site visits. Key points to note:

• Lack of signage • Underwhelming and overpriced gift shop • Safety concerns • Transportation options everyone took

Content Analysis discussion. Key points to note:

• Everyone found this OK • Any reviews that stood out (group discussion on reviews that were

funny/terrible) SWOT Analysis discussion. Suggestions:

Strengths (Internal) • Historical Significance

• Location • Accessibility by public transport • Staff service • General facilities (garden, house) • Events • Reputation of National Trust

Weaknesses (Internal) • Signage in general • Signage in other languages • Online presence: no social media sites • Reliance on exhibitions • Parking • Gift shop (prices and items for sale and overall esthetics) • Maintenance

Opportunities (External) • Growth in domestic visitor markets • Growth of Asian (Chinese visitors) • Package/bundling ‘value for money’ • Capitalising on cultural awareness of 1900’s i.e. Great Gatsby popularity

Threats (External) • Competition - Como • Competition - Other Melbourne attractions i.e. The Zoo, Museum,

Eureka Tower etc. • Competition for funding from National Trust • Lack of knowledge of Australian history & understanding by Australians • Exhibition competition - NGV, Melbourne Museum

Actions: 1. Rebecca and Eugena to visit the Exhibition 2. Site visit write ups to be produced:

• Rebecca: Her original visit where Rebecca and Jessica were present • Eugena: Her second visit where Rebecca and Eugena were present

(exhibition visit) • Anastasia: Her original visit were Anastasia and Eugena were present • All due ASAP

3. Jessica to write the meeting minutes *It was decided amongst the group that another meeting was not needed and all remaining questions could be discussed via email and WhatsApp

Group Visitation 1

Date : Saturday, 15 August 2015

Time : 10.00 am - 1.00 pm

Attendees : Rebecca and Jessica

FINDINGS

Getting there: Rebecca went by train while Jessica drove there. Rebecca found her way with Google map, as there were no signages around the station and on the way, yet it was not too hard. The only signage was seen right in front of the front gate of Rippon Lea House and Gardens. The site:

• We were directed to enter the site through the gift shop. (The other way was going directly on the driveway to the garden)

• We didn’t enter the house in the first visit. • The garden was huge and comprehensive, with attributes such as lake,

boat house, waterfall, bridge, tower, etc. But there was no signage in the site showing the direction.

• Storyboards were found besides the tower and the in front of the kitchen stating the historical information about the place.

• There was a farm-like area besides the tower, but nothing was there, we assume it’s because of the winter.

• Two young girls were having a picnic on the grass although the weather was a bit cold.

• More than 2 couples were seen doing venue visit with the staff, should be planning to have their wedding there.

• Area around the swimming pool was a bit old and lack of maintenance. • There was lack of warning signs for the lake area and steep staircases. • Toilets were a bit hard to find. • Kitchen area was locked on the day of our visit. • The service and food in the teahouse were both nice; there were posters

of the exhibition on the wall of the teahouse. Pricing is very reasonable.

Group Visitation 2

Date : Sunday, 16 August 2015

Time : 11.00 am - 12.30 pm

Attendees : Anastasia and Eugena

FINDINGS

Getting there: Visiting Rippon Lea for the first time with public transportation, the group members found it hard to locate the site from the train station. There was no direction on which way to go. The group members only relied on the GPS of Google maps. Also, there were groups of over 45 years old women getting of at Rippon Lea station and trying to locate the site with a traditional map.

The site: • The group members only went about the garden. The next visit was

intended to do the house/mansion visit. • At the time of visit, Sunday around 11.00 in the morning, the group

members only encountered two staffs at the reception, which was located together with the gift shop in a small house by the entrance.

• The garden is well maintained and has a lot of varieties, but there was no descriptive board as to explain the trees and plants in the garden (knowing that Rippon Lea garden and fernery are acknowledged for its heritage plants like heritage orchard).

• The fernery also has a variety of trees and plants, but it looked empty with no one to attend to, so the group members did not go in.

• There was a swimming pool between the side entrance of the mansion and the fernery.

• There was a lake with a tiny island in the middle, a lookout tower, fernery, and a waterfall. Having several facilities that require safety such as lookout tower, bridge over the lake or slippery soil around the waterfall, Rippon Lea does not sufficient signages to alarm the visitors.

• There were not much of people walking around the garden. What could be seen were a couple with a child (2 or 3 years old), an old woman with her granddaughter, and a couple with no children. There was also a group of old women in line to buy the exhibition ticket and visit the house.

• Education programs are part of the activities Rippon Lea conduct for target market like small children or elementary students. At the time of visit, the group members noticed a message attached on the lake house’ door advising the education programs are cancelled.

• Amenities such as toilet, tea/coffee shop, are available. Although, the toilet was only available in the entrance house and that would require a long walk from the garden.

• When the group members left by the exit, which was the same way as the entrance, there were more people coming in and ranging from family with children, old people and couples or friends. The family with children headed straight to the garden, while the other groups walked towards the garden and the house, too.

Group Visitation 3

Date : Thursday, 20 August 2015

Time : 10.00 am - 12.00 pm

Attendees : Eugena and Rebecca

FINDINGS

Getting there: Rebecca took Eugena’s car to Ripponlea, while Eugena found it was a bit hard to find a place to park, but fortunately there are lots of spaces to park on Hotham Grove, which is very close to the site. The site:

• We headed to Miss Fisher Exhibition, and got a student concession for only $16 per person (original price is $20)

• The attendant at the gate told us briefly about the history of the house, and things need to notice like we cannot touch the wallpaper.

• We were free to try the costumes and act like Miss Fisher. • People were engaged in the exhibition by digital technology (video

broadcasting on the wall, 3D digital portrait) and interactive games (finding clues of murderer, paint your own dress)

• Furniture and wallpaper inside of the mansion are well maintained. • Visitors were a bit of quite while watching the exhibition; there are small

groups of people with their personal tour guides as well. • Maintainers were dressed like old fashion lady, some visitors dressed

like this as well. • Most of the visitors were more than middle-aged people. • Kitchen area was opened and was quite dark and cold inside. • The storyboard about scullery was informative. • There was quite a little dust on the kitchen stuffs. • Upstairs in the kitchen was restricted to access, only National Trust staff

could get onto it.

LIST OF REFERENCE

Carlsen, J, Hughes, M, Frost, W, Pocock, C & Peel, V 2008, ‘Success Factors in

Cultural Heritage Tourism Enterprise Management’, Sustainable Tourism CRC, viewed 5 August 2015, http://www.sustainabletourismonline.com/120/cultural-heritage-tourism/success-factors-in-cultural-heritage-tourism-enterprise-management

Cohen, E 1979, ‘Rethinking the Sociology of Tourism’, Annals of Tourism

Research, vol. 6, no.1, pg. 18-35, doi:10.1016/0160-7383(79)90092-6 Department of the Environment 2015, National Heritage Places - Rippon Lea

House and Gardens, Victoria, viewed 24 August 2015, http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/places/national/rippon-lea/index.html

Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National

University, viewed 26 August 2015, http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/sargood-sir-frederick-thomas-4538/text7435

McKercher, B & Du Cros, H 2002, Cultural Tourism: The Partnership between

Tourism and Cultural Tourism Management, Haworth Hospitality Press, New York.

Mitsche, N, Reino, S, Knox, D and Bauernfeind, U 2008, ‘Enhancing Cultural

Tourism e-Services through Heritage Interpretation’, In: O’Connor, P., Hopken, W. and Gretzel, U. (eds), Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2008: proceedings of the International Conference in Innsbruck, Austria 2008, New York, Springer, pp. 418-429, viewed 28 August 2015, http://eresearch.qmu.ac.uk/228/1/228.pdf

National Trust of Australia 2007, Rippon Lea House and Gardens,

Significance, viewed 28 August 2015, http://www.ripponleaestate.com.au/significance

Ross, S & Economou, M 1998, ‘Information and Communication Technologies

in Cultural Sector, The Need for National Strategy’, D-Lib Magazine, Humanities Advanced Technology & Information Institute (HATII), viewed 31 August 2015, http://www.dlib.org/dlib/june98/06ross.html

Russo, A P & Van der Borg, J 2002, ‘Planning considerations for cultural

tourism: A case study of four European cities’, Tourism Management, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 631-637, doi: 10.1016/S0261-5177(02)00027-4

Silberberg, T 1995, ‘Cultural Tourism and Business Opportunities for

Museums and Heritage Sites’, Tourism Management, vol. 16, no.5, pg. 361-365, doi:10.1016/0261-5177(95)00039-Q

Skibins, J C, Powell, R B & Stern, M J 2012, ‘Exploring Empirical Support for

Interpretation’s Best Practices’, Journal of Interpretation Research, vol. 17, no. 1, pg. 25 (20).

Stuedahl, D & Lowe, S 2014, ‘Social Media as Resource for Involving Young

People in Museum Innovation: A Cultural Studies Approach to Co-Design’, International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development (IJSKD), vol. 6, no.3, pg. 60-80, doi:10.4018/ijskd.2014070104

Tilden, F 1977, Interpreting Our Heritage, 3rd edn, Chapel Hill books,

University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. TripAdvisor 2015, Top Things to Do in Elsternwick, viewed 28 August 2015,

http://www.tripadvisor.com.au/Attractions-g2325584-Activities-Elsternwick_Glen_Eira_Greater_Melbourne_Victoria.html

Weidenfeld A & Leisk A 2013, ‘Exploring the Relationship between Visitor

Attractions and Events: Definitions and Management Factors’, Current Issues in Tourism, vol. 16, no. 6, pg. 552-569, doi: 10.1080/13683500.2012.702736