ACTS THAT MAY CAUSE CONFUSION AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON TOURISM 393 Another influential factor is co-dependency. This is generally understood as the necessary networking in which different tourism firms are embedded because of their nature. For instance, hotels and activity providers are interdependent, but the success of their respective businesses is proportional to their level of coordination (Haughland, 2011). Although there is not enough empirical evidence in this area, some scholars have provided significant data as to what some of the effects of imitation in the tourism sector could be (Aarstad et al., 2018). In this scenario, where co-production has a unique role, firms depend on each other to effectively provide their services. Therefore, rivalry must be limited in order to share common goals (Gomes-Casseres, 2003). This is breeding ground for imitation to become a strategy; one where different firms look to adopt other’s assets or models in order to integrate the coproduction network. Such interfirm network is not only well received, but it is considered a vital part for the development of tourism destinations (Maggioni, Marcoz, & Mauri, 2014). The deeper a firm’s ties within the network, the more it will determine its degree of centrality (Freeman, 1979), and such centrality will both influence and be influenced by the firm’s imitation strategy (Aarstad et al., 2018). The ease to imitate is strongly pursued, so firms will display a clustering behavior towards those who can combine proven success and information availability. These pairings can largely benefit both destinations and consumers, since the synergy implies a reduction in the fees and seamless service. Although these imitation strategies are created within the safe limits of the freedom of the imitation principle, they could still cause negative effects, such as numbing the innovation dynamics, at least from a theoretical perspective. In one study (Aarstad et al., 2018), four theories were partially supported, at an empirical level, where imitation influenced or was influenced by the firm’s degree of participation in the interfirm network. The four hypotheses are: 1. A firm’s imitation strategy will have a positive effect on its degree centrality in the interfirm network; 2. A firm’s imitation strategy will have a positive effect on its marginal contribution to clustering in the interfirm network; 3. A firm’s marginal contribution to clustering in the interfirm network will have a positive effect on its imitation strategy; and 4. A firm’s degree centrality in the interfirm network will have a positive effect on its imitation strategy.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==