Business models of multisided platforms for in-destination tours and activities: a morphological analysis approach

ABSTRACT

In-destination tours and activities multisided platforms (T&A MSP) are growing ventures at the forefront of digitalizing tour and activity sector. While these platforms are transforming this sector, understanding of their business models and how they create, deliver and capture value is limited. To address this gap, we developed a morphological matrix to facilitate alternative business model exploration and discovery. Derived from three iterations, this matrix visually represents and describes the characteristics of T&A MSP business models. Utilizing this tool, T&A MSP can evaluate and make transformative adjustments to their business models, thereby enhancing performance, adapting to evolving tourists’ preferences and generating greater value.

KEYWORDS:

• Tour and activity
• multisided platforms
• digital business
• business models
• tourism industry
• morphological analysis

Introduction

The tourism industry has experienced significant growth and diversification in recent decades, evolving into one of the largest global economic sectors (Bapiri et al., 2021; Raisi et al., 2024). Within the tourism industry, the in-destination tours and activities (hereafter referred to as T&A) sector encompassing day tours, activities, attractions, and other local leisure offerings, has gained significant attention (Esfandiar et al., 2023; Hsu et al., 2016). This segment, also known as “experiences,” has become increasingly popular among tourists and is projected to exceed pre-pandemic levels by 2024, with global revenue reaching $260 billion (Phocuswright, 2023).

The growth of the T&A sector can be attributed in part to the digital revolution, which has transformed various aspects of tourism business activities including data collection, personalization, marketing, and product development (Leung & Ma, 2020; Presenza et al., 2021; Rojas-Bueno et al., 2023). This transformation has prompted new business models, which have played a pivotal role in reshaping the T&A segment by offering more diverse and immersive experiences (Ardolino et al., 2020; Presenza et al., 2021; Pung et al., 2022).

Multisided platforms (MSPs) are a major development in this digital ecosystem (O’Connor, 2023). MSPs have disrupted the tourism industry and its sub-sectors such as accommodation and transportation (Gössling & Hall, 2019; Pomykalski, 2019). They have gained considerable attention due to their disruptive capacity (Presenza et al., 2021). Their influence has been so significant that not only large firms and technology startups, but also an increasing number of incumbent companies in traditional markets are adopting these business models (Fehrer et al., 2018).

In addition, MSPs have redefined traditional business models within the T&A sector, facilitating new forms of interaction between service providers and consumers (Pompurová et al., 2022; Presenza et al., 2021). Furthermore, the emergence of MSPs has led to the reintermediation of traditional travel agencies (TAs) and global distribution systems (GDSs), allowing them to reinforce their intermediary roles through the utilization of MSPs. Notable examples include “Airbnb Experiences,” which provides users with authentic experiences led by locals across the globe (Melián-González et al., 2022). The role of MSPs in this evolution is particularly noteworthy, as they not only contribute to the growth of the tourism industry but also enable locals to establish microbusinesses and become essential contributors in the creation and delivery of activities (Presenza et al., 2021), thereby facilitating the democratization of tourism (Batle et al., 2020).

Despite significant attention from industry players, academia has not, as yet, comprehensively examined T&A MSPs. As a result, there is a dearth of scholarly literature on T&A MSPs and their corresponding business model characteristics (Melián-González et al., 2022; Pung et al., 2022). To address this research gap, this study presents a framework that dissects T&A MSP business models and explores their alternative configurations for MSPs. The proposed framework, in the form of a morphological matrix, has the potential to stimulate innovative business models for T&A MSPs and fill a significant research gap in the literature.

As a result, this study aims to advance the literature on MSPs and T&A sector from a business model perspective, contributing to the understanding of business model innovation. Additionally, it proposes a framework that illustrates the key dimensions, attributes, and alternate conditions of T&A MSPs’ business models. In doing so, it responds to the call for empirical investigation of business models within a specific context as noted by Remane et al. (2017) by unravelling, describing, and discovering the business models of T&A MSPs.

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. Firstly, relevant literature on the business models of MSPs is reviewed. The methodology of this study is then outlined. This is followed by a discussion of the results, implications, as well as recommendations for further research and limitations.

Literature review

Multisided platforms as disruptive business models

Today’s tourism industry is witnessing the emergence of novel business models based on digital developments that challenge traditional thinking with their competitive capacity (Hsu et al., 2016). Exploration of these emerging business models is essential to comprehend the impact of digital disruption. Analyzing new business model’s configuration in tourism and decoupling their major components can help uncover innovative avenues for value creation and revenue generation (Perelygina et al., 2022).

MSPs, as defined by Hagiu and Wright (2015), are digital technology-enabled marketplaces that facilitate direct interactions and value exchange among multiple distinct yet interdependent customers. These platforms play a pivotal role in shaping consumer behavior, often embodying characteristics such as user collaboration, reputation-driven competition, and multisided user engagement, as outlined by Doligalski (2023). Such marketplaces are characterized by four key conditions: 1) connecting independent actors from both demand and supply sides through a digital platform, 2) enabling direct interactions for initiating and completing commercial transactions, 3) establishing an institutional and regulatory framework for transactions, and 4) primarily serving as facilitators without substantial involvement in the production or trade of goods or services (Täuscher & Laudien, 2018).

Unlike traditional linear value chains, MSPs introduce a more dynamic approach where costs and revenues exist on both sides (T. Eisenmann et al., 2006). This indicates their non-linear value chain which reflects a circular flow where “value may be created, changed, exchanged or consumed in a variety of ways and places” (Parker et al., 2016). This co-creation leads to mutual value for both consumer and supplier sides (Sthapit et al., 2023). Tourism MSPs act as intermediaries connecting travelers with a wide range of (local) service providers offering tours, experiences, activities, etc. These platforms facilitate value co-creation by bringing together tourists and service providers, enabling a more diverse and interactive travel experience. Traditional travel agencies primarily offer packaged services, while MSPs create a dynamic marketplace for various tourism offerings, enhancing customer choice and engagement. These platforms often integrate innovative technologies and tools that simplify operations for travel intermediaries, suppliers, and distributors, leading to improved workflow and operational efficiency (Aamir & Atsan, 2020). In nature, MSP is a marketing platform which is different from travel agencies.

In the tourism industry, there is a common tendency to use the terms platforms, online travel marketplaces, MSPs, and online travel agencies (OTA) interchangeably (Perelygina et al., 2022). OTAs typically act as intermediaries providing various travel services, while online travel marketplaces or MSPs act as platforms facilitating interactions and transactions among diverse user groups, including suppliers, distributors, and buyers (Aamir & Atsan, 2020; Hsu et al., 2016). OTAs can adopt either merchant or agent (or both) revenue model configurations. OTAs using the merchant model act a reseller purchasing travel services at a wholesale price, reselling them to consumers and collecting payments. The agent model, in contrast, is closer to the MSP model, with the travel supplier deciding on the price and inventory allocation, and collecting payments but the OTA acting as merchant of record (Liao et al., 2019; Perelygina et al., 2022).

MSPs and virtual communities are also confused while they serve different purposes. Community building is a key activity of platforms and a core element of their business model (Choudary, 2015). MSPs need to attract a sufficient number of participants on all sides to sustain the business (Tani et al., 2022). They recognize that attracting one side may eventually attract other sides. Therefore, the community factor plays a crucial role in generating interaction and creating the network effects (Guttentag & Smith, 2017). However, virtual communities, such as TripTogether and TravelMassive (Perelygina et al., 2022), are voluntary association of actors united by a shared instrumental goal, typically lacking a priori common organizational affiliation. Nonetheless, dissenting approaches exist with some consider platforms such as YouTube and eBay as communities, while others view them as MSPs (Doligalski, 2023).

There is also a lack of clarity regarding the distinction between sharing economy and MSP. For instance, Perelygina et al. (2022) have differentiated between online travel marketplaces (e.g. Viator, GetYourGuide) and peer-to-peer sharing platforms (e.g. Airbnb, GetMyBoat) in their taxonomy of business model configurations in the travel industry. This is in contrast with Täuscher and Laudien’s (2018) approach that classify peer-to-peer sharing platforms such as Airbnb as a multisided business model. Pung et al. (2022) also categorize MSPs such as Viator, GetYourGuide, and Airbnb as sharing economy platforms that offer tours, activities, attractions, and experiences. Wirtz et al. (2019) assert that academia and the press utilize a variety of terms to describe platform business models in the sharing economy. They argue that the current literature primarily considers peer-to-peer business models as the sharing economy, but this economy also includes platforms that provide access to the assets, services, and resources of non-peers such as marketers, suppliers, and even the platform itself.

Multisided platforms in in-destination tours and activities

Viator, a leading T&A MSP, makes a distinction between tours and activities: “Tours are guided explorations. Typically, travelers participate in tours as observers, although some call for more direct involvement.” However, “Travelers participate in activities directly. Classes, games, tastings, and sports are all examples of activities … .” Viator also offers tickets/passes to tourist attractions, transfers between transportation hubs and destinations, and rentals such as snowboards and jet skis (Viator, nd.). Airbnb refers to its tours and activities as “experiences” and defines them as “in-person or online activities hosted by inspiring local experts. From horse whispering to canyon hiking, experience hosts share their passion for cooking, animals, music and so much more.” (Airbnb, nd.).

The T&A sector is the third largest tourism sub-sector after accommodation and transportation (Pompurová et al., 2022), and attracts 10% of total travel budget (Pung et al., 2022). The oportunity to experience destinations in a different way is key to fulfil the rising expectations of the growing number of travellers who seek local, authentic, and personal experiences (Bimonte & Punzo, 2016; Paulauskaite et al., 2017). Current trends enable various in-destination tour service suppliers such as local guides, tour operators, and other businesses to offer appealing T&As to tourists, and have also contribute to the competitiveness of destinations (Batle et al., 2020; Melián-González et al., 2022).

Key characteristics of tourism products make them highly dependent on efficient and effective distribution. Due to perishability, an unsold T&A cannot be stored and subsequently reoffered for sale at a later date, making selling each product each session critical to success (O’Connor, 1999). Tourism products are also intangible and thus cannot be inspected or experienced prior to consumption. Potential customers thus seek out detailed, topical information to minimize their purchase risk (Özturan et al., 2019). This has traditionally been accessible in two ways; directly from suppliers or through intermediaries such as travel agencies, tour operators, or destination management organisations (Leung et al., 2014). Each acts as an information broker, leveraging their knowledge, experience and systems to selectively filter information to find the product/service that most closely matches customers’ needs (Ku, 2022). The growth of digital allowed them to sort through the rapidly expanding range of travel options/combinations available, as well as make bookings electronically, improving efficiency. However, since such systems were technical and expensive to develop and operate, they remained the preserve of the larger suppliers such as airlines and hotels, in effect creating a digital divide for smaller operators such as those providing T&As, who typically lack the resources to be able to participate in such initiatives (Schegg et al., 2013).

As a result, T&A MSPs have been instrumental in establishing links between tourists and T&A providers in destinations (Cetin & Yarcan, 2017). With the recent entrance of Airbnb, this sector has grown significantly, but due to its novelty, it is an area that has not been extensively explored in the literature (Melián-González et al., 2022). While only 20% of in-destination T&As are purchased online, there is still huge opportunity for T&A MSPs to expand and dominate the market (Pung et al., 2022). T&A MSPs typically distribute a wide range of specialized and customized long-tail travel products, which are highly fragmented and not widely popular (Huang et al., 2020; Lew, 2008). The provision of such tailor-made and experiential in-destination T&As has become increasingly important due to the rapid expansion of in-destination tour services, an increased desire by tourists to book through digital channels (C. Li et al., 2023) and a decline in tourists’ interest in standardized products (Hsu et al., 2016).

T&A MSPs support tourism micro-entrepreneurs who provide unique and authentic experiences (Kc et al., 2021; Prayag & Ozanne, 2018). Airbnb claims that its providers are locals willing to share their passion, expertise, and assets in a different way from that of the traditional offer (Batle et al., 2020; Esfandiar et al., 2024; Melián-González et al., 2022). van Nuenen and Alvares (2016) discovered that T&A sharing economy platforms highlight the providers’ freedom to create their own activities and the personal contact between the providers and tourists. At the same time, Airbnb emphasizes the opportunity for locals to earn some income and that they can launch a business based on its platform. Thus, providers are requested to fulfil a double role: as locals that offer novel activities based on their knowledge and skills, and as entrepreneurs that can develop a business using the platform. However, there are some criticisms about sharing economy including potential negative social effects, lack of sustainability, and economic implications (Gössling & Hall, 2019).

Based on the above discussions, this study defines a T&A MSP as an online marketplace that provides tourists with access to tours, activities, and experiences of varying durations, offered by peers, micro-businesses, or other traditional businesses, such as licensed tour operators, in the destination. This study also argues that T&A MSPs can adopt a wide spectrum of business model configurations. Discovering and understanding the various configurations are vital for innovation and competition. Business models play a crucial role in determining firm performance. Peters et al. (2015) emphasize the significance of distinctive and innovative business models for firms to remain competitive, as solely relying on innovative products is no longer sufficient for success. Continuous monitoring, redesigning, and improving of the business model is essential for achieving success. Massa et al. (2017) further highlight that business model innovation presents new opportunities, alongside innovation in products, processes, and organizational structure. Foss and Saebi (2017) note that business model innovation involves modifying or transforming major components of the business model in new ways.

Methodology

In this study, in line with previous research on business model discovery and derivation (e.g. Ardolino et al., 2020; Im & Cho, 2013; Plewnia & Guenther, 2018; Täuscher & Laudien, 2018), morphological analysis (MA) was applied to systematically explore and identify T&A MSP business model characteristics. MA is a well-established method to holistically understand the characteristics of a particular phenomenon such as business models, by systematically deconstructing and analyzing its components and attributes (Peters et al., 2015; Täuscher & Laudien, 2018). It helps to qualitatively analyze multidimensional phenomena, decreasing the complexity and number of variables involved (Ritchey, 2011). MA is typically used to understand existing business models and discover new configurations through recombination of conditions (Remane et al., 2017). It is a three-step process of (1) identifying attributes, (2) finding various conditions of each attribute, and (3) designing a morphological matrix as a visual output of analysis (Im & Cho, 2013). Since MA is an iterative process of data collection, analysis and synthesis (Mozuni & Jonas, 2018), in this study, T&A MSP business models were deconstructed in three consecutive iterations. Figure 1 depicts the three iterations of MA, which will be elaborated upon in the following sections.

Figure 1. Three iterations of the morphological analysis.

First iteration: analysis of grey literature

We based our initial morphological matrix on Täuscher and Laudien’s (2018) extensive work investigating the business model of 100 digital marketplaces across various industries to ascertain the business model characteristics (attributes and alternate conditions) common among MSPs. However, further refinement was necessary for this matrix as we sought to identify the business model characteristics of T&A MSPs, which have unique characteristics. We curated professional interviews, industry-related web articles and reports, critical reviews, and market research as sources of information to create our initial morphological matrix (See appendix 1). This approach was adopted to compensate for the scarcity of academic literature specifically focusing on T&A MSP business models. Information from grey literature, as highlighted by Paez (2017), offers insightful knowledge that often remains outside the realm of peer-reviewed channels. This proved crucial for our study, considering its substantial yet unorganized and unreviewed knowledge about T&A MSPs. To address this, we employed a process of secondary data analysis, as outlined by Johnston (2014), to refine and enhance the initial morphological matrix:

1. Research questions development: Our primary focus was on understanding how T&A MSPs create, deliver, and capture value, alongside identifying their unique business model characteristics. Accordingly, our data collection was specifically tailored to gather information pertinent to these aspects of T&A MSPs.

2. Dataset identification: In this stage, we meticulously selected relevant keywords and phrases for efficient web searches. This process involved retrieving, collecting, and systematically organizing the data.

3. Dataset evaluation: It was crucial to ensure that the collected data directly addressed our research questions. We assessed the credibility of each data source by examining the background of the publisher, authors, interviewers, and interviewees, as well as the medium of publication. Furthermore, we intentionally omitted content published before 2010 to avoid including outdated information.

4. Data analysis: We converted all gathered data, whether visual or audio, into a consistent text format. These texts were then subjected to thematic analysis to extract pertinent insights and patterns.

The data analysis adopted a qualitative approach, initially focusing on the concepts of value creation, value delivery, and value capture as the most general conceptualization of a business model (Curtis & Mont, 2020). We employed Täuscher and Laudien’s (2018) framework for the identifying the initial business model characteristics, guiding a deductive content analysis. This involved structuring the analysis based on existing knowledge and coding the data according to pre-existing categories. Concurrently, we utilized an inductive content analysis, as outlined by Elo and Kyngäs (2008), commencing with open coding, leading to the creation of categories and abstraction, enabling the identification of characteristics unique to T&A MSP business models.

Audio data was transcribed into text, with manual review for accuracy, and visual data, like infographics, were summarized in text form. We followed Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase framework for thematic analysis, involving familiarization, initial code generation, theme searching, theme reviewing, defining and naming themes, and producing the final report.

Two authors diligently prepared the texts, annotating them with details such as the information source, internet link, and publication date at the top of each text. Subsequently, each author independently read all the texts. After familiarizing themselves with the texts, they conducted a manual and independent second reading, coding the texts using English alphabets for the attributes of the T&A MSP business model, such as value proposition and revenue model, and numbers for the corresponding alternative conditions. This process took place during the deductive phase. During the inductive phase, the authors sought emerging attributes and alternative conditions (themes). Finally, all authors engaged in a debate over the attributes and alternative conditions and their naming.

Variables used in the first iteration are detailed in Table 1, including keywords and phrases like “tour and activity platform,” data types like professional interviews and market research, and data formats ranging from text to infographics. Data sources included websites like www.skift.com, www.phocuswire.com, and others, with the search period spanning from March 2022 to April 2022.

Table 1. Description of the first iteration variables.

#	Variables	Description
1	Keywords, key phrases	Tour and activity, tour and activity platform, tour platform, tour and activity multisided platform
3	Data type	Professional interviews, industry-related web articles and reports, critical reviews, market research
3	Data format	Text, video, audio, infographics
4	Data sources	www.skift.com, www.phocuswire.com, www.eye-for-travel.com, www.crunchbase.com, www.youtube.com, etc.
5	Search period	March 2022- April 2022

Second iteration: multiple-case studies

To ensure that no essential characteristics was missed, we conducted a multiple-case study as the second iteration. This involved dissecting the business models of 43 T&A MSPs to refine the attributes and alternate conditions identified in the previous iteration. The use of multiple-case studies, a method where several cases are examined to deepen understanding of a subject (Piscicelli et al., 2018), is a common approach in examining platform business models, as demonstrated in studies by Ardolino et al. (2020) and Kim (2016). The outcomes of this process (second iteration) are detailed in Appendix 2.

Following the approach of Ranta et al. (2021), we selected the cases both purposively and sequentially, guided by specific criteria. Our first criterion was the “maximum variation” sampling strategy, which ensured the inclusion of a diverse range of T&A MSPs, each with distinctive business model characteristics. This approach involves identifying the main dimensions of variation and then selecting cases that are as varied as possible, thereby incorporating distinctive and even unique instances (Benoot et al., 2016). Our selection encompassed cases with different types of services, service providers, market orientation, and different geographical locations. In this phase, we used www.crunchbase.com (leading platform for company insights) and www.google.com to find cases (See appendix 3). Additionally, we focused on successful cases, or best practices, to guarantee the inclusion of leading T&A MSPs with mature and diverse business models.

To be included in the study, all cases had to comply with the T&A MSP business model definition, which excluded platforms that were essentially resellers. Additionally, the MSPs had to be actively trading and have an English language version available. Although some MSPs may have referred to themselves using different terminology such as “website,” “platform,” “marketplace,” or “OTA,” this study did not focus on the terminology used. Instead, the research team compared the business processes and activities of the MSPs against their definition.

It is important to highlight that in contrast to the analysis of publicly available grey literature initially used, in the second iteration we solely relied on information available on the platform’s official website. While the grey literature offered us general insights into the T&A sector and T&A MSP business models, the platform’s website provided specific details about its unique business model configuration and operational processes. Consistent with prior empirical research on business models (Presenza et al., 2021; Täuscher & Laudien, 2018; Trabucchi & Buganza, 2020), data about the business model of our cases was collected primarily from corporate videos, platforms’ websites (different pages including “terms and conditions,” “about us,” “how it works,” “privacy policy,” “help center,” “frequently asked questions,” etc.), and platforms’ press releases between April and October 2022. Data for each case was recorded in an Excel spreadsheet. Like the first iteration, each attribute was coded with an alphabetic letter, and each alternate condition with a number. We then determined which alternate condition was present in each platform’s business model, marking it with the corresponding code. We also looked for emerging attributes and alternate conditions, which were then recorded using new letters and numbers. In cases where new characteristics were identified, each case was re-examined with the updated criteria, ensuring a comprehensive and thorough analysis. Figure 2 illustrates the sampling (case selection) process for the second iteration.

Figure 2. Sampling (case selection) process for the second iteration.

Third iteration: focus group interviews

In the third iteration of the study, we conducted focus group interviews across two separate sessions, engaging with 10 experts in each group. These experts were a mix of academics and practitioners with extensive experience and knowledge in platform business models and tourism. The primary objective of this iteration was to validate our findings and finalize the morphological matrix, as detailed in Table 3. Focus groups allow participants to share and freely discuss their ideas. The focus groups were held online (e.g. Google Meet). The first focus group interview lasted 2 hours and 10 minutes, with the second lasting 2 hours and 33 minutes. Each focus group had two trained facilitators: one leading the interview and the other making notes and capturing online textual comments. Each group was composed of a mix of academics and practitioners. Academics were recruited with research backgrounds in the fields of business model, MSPs and tourism. Practitioners were founders and senior managers of T&A MSPs. The profile of the expert panelists in the focus group interviews is shown in Table 2.

Table 2. The profile of panelist in the focus groups.

Characteristics	Focus group 1 (No. of panelists: 10)	Focus group 2 (No. of panelists: 10)
Gender	Male: 6 Female: 4	Male: 7 Female: 3
Background	Academic: 4 (researcher and lecturer) Industry professional: 6 (2 MSP founders, 1 CEO, 2 marketing managers, 1 software developer)	Academic: 3 (researchers and lecturers) Industry professional: 7 (3 MSP founders, 1 chairman, 1 CEO, 1 marketing managers, 1 R&D manager)
Years of experience	Academics: 10 years (average) Practitioner: 11 years (average)	Academics: 9 years (average) Practitioner: 8 years (average)

In this stage, to validate the previous results, “group model building” was applied. In this technique, focus group members discussed whether the factors (e.g. business model attributes and alternate conditions) should be modified, merged, removed, or added. Each factor’s content validity ratio was calculated, and if it fell within the acceptable range, the factor was retained. The ratio, which is widely used to quantify content validity, is calculated according to the following formula (Lawshe, 1975):

$\text{CVR=}\frac{\text{ne}(\text{N/2)}}{\text{N/2}}$

Where ne is the number of panelists in the focus group indicating a factor is “essential” and N is the total number of panelists. Each panelist can comment on whether a factor is “essential,” “useful but not essential,” or “not necessary.” According to Lawshe (1975), for a group of 20 panelists, factors whose content validity ratio is greater than 0.42 should be retained. In addition, we evaluated feedback from group members on the terminology and taxonomy of the characteristics, including attributes and alternate conditions, using this method.

Results and discussion

A morphological matrix of T&A MSP business models was created from the three iterations, as shown in Table 3. This matrix visually represents and describes the characteristics of T&A MSP business models. The matrix is based on three dimensions: value creation, value delivery, and value capture, which are divided into attributes according to the literature on business models (e.g. Curtis & Mont, 2020; Täuscher & Laudien, 2018). Each attribute has two or more alternate conditions, which can be combined in different ways to create unique and innovative business model configurations. T&A MSPs can adopt a specific condition or multiple conditions for each attribute. The following section discusses the attributes and alternate conditions in detail.

Table 3. The morphological matrix of T&A MSP business models.

Value creation

Value creation involves enhancing value through processes and activities, generating benefits that exceed perceived loss by leveraging various resources (Chesbrough et al., 2018). Value creation in T&A MSP involves several key elements, including platform openness, supplier groups, supplier type, review system, supplier identity, quality control, and price discovery as discussed below:

Platform openness

The concept of openness can be applied across supplier, consumer, and technology levels (T. R. Eisenmann et al., 2009). This study specifically addresses the access of suppliers to T&A MSP and its features, which is crucial for the platform’s eventual success (Veisdal, 2020). Supplier access can be categorized as open, selective, or closed. Some T&A MSPs are open to all suppliers, with simple and easy sign-up procedures in place (e.g. Showaround), while others are more selective and require proof of responsibility and quality. A few specialized platforms targeting niche markets have rigorous selection procedures and grant access only to authorized and recognized experts (e.g. GuideBase). MSPs need to optimize their level of openness, as being too closed may exclude suitable candidates, while being too open may compromise service quality by letting in undesirable participants (Broekhuizen et al., 2021).

Supplier groups

T&A MSPs can diversify their inventory by onboarding a diverse range of suppliers, which provides a greater opportunity for scaling and a shorter time to achieve critical mass (Evans & Schmalensee, 2008). T&A suppliers encompass tour operators, tourist guides, local businesses, local insiders, non-profit organizations, and digital creators. Tour operators, licensed to design, organize, package, and market trips, play an important role in the industry (Pompurová et al., 2022). They usually focus on offering multi-day tour packages (e.g. TourRadar). Tourist guides, licensed to interpret cultural and natural heritage (WFTGA, 2003), often provide more customized T&As (e.g. ToursByLocals). Local businesses such as art galleries, though not part of the traditional travel trade, offer in-destination activities desired by tourists. Local insiders, typically residents, familiar with a destination’s highlights and hidden gems, aim to connect with new people, share their passion, and earn income (e.g. City Unscripted). Non-profit organizations often showcase their social and environmental projects on volunteer tourism platforms (e.g. Volunteer World). Additionally, digital creators produce and publish audio, video, and virtual content on T&A MSPs (e.g. Beeyonder and VoiceMap).

Supplier type

Suppliers for T&A MSPs can be categorized as either professional or non-professional entities. Professional suppliers, which can be businesses (e.g. Bookmundi) or individuals (e.g. ToursByLocals), typically prioritize profitability, offer a wider range of services, hold required licenses, generate higher levels of income, and maintain their business for a longer period compared to non-professional suppliers (Casamatta et al., 2022). Professional T&A suppliers usually provide services on a daily and regular basis and often have a presence on multiple MSPs (Melián-González et al., 2022). On the other hand, non-professional suppliers, such as local insiders found on platforms like LocalBini, are usually individuals who pursue their passion more casually to seek extra sources of income (Batle et al., 2020).

Review system

To ensure the success of MSPs, it is essential to establish trust among the platform, service suppliers, and customers (Li et al., 2023; Pung et al., 2022). Review and rating systems play a crucial role in building trust among users of the platform and help reduce “information imbalance” while gradually removing unsuitable participants (Curtis & Mont, 2020; Presenza et al., 2021). Reviews on T&A MSPs are typically generated by consumers, although in some cases, suppliers are also permitted to review and rate each other or the offerings (e.g. Synotrip and GuideBase). However, certain platforms choose to have no review system at all (e.g. TravelLocal and HiveSters).

Supplier identity

T&A MSPs have the option to either reveal or conceal the identity of their suppliers. To build trust, T&A MSPs may choose to disclose the identity of their suppliers, allowing users to see who is providing the service. Suppliers may have a dedicated profile page on the platform, where users can find additional information about the suppliers, their offerings, and their ratings (e.g. TakeMeTour). On platforms where the suppliers’ identity is revealed, consumers may be able to leave reviews for both the products and the supplier (e.g. Travelstride). However, other platforms opt to conceal the identity of their suppliers (e.g. GetYourGuide), revealing it only after the conclusion of the deal. While disclosing the identity of the supplier can enhance pre-purchase trust, it may also have drawbacks in terms of competition and discrimination (Abramova, 2022). If an MSP’s brand compensates for the lack of reputation and trust between participants, revealing the identity of suppliers becomes less important (Akbar & Tracogna, 2018).

Quality control

To ensure a high-quality inventory, T&A MSPs may implement low control or high control measures. While most T&A MSPs claim to have stringent quality control processes, some MSPs have fewer measures in place and exert lower control over their inventory (e.g. CheckYeti and Feverup). Several MSPs have “product acceptance criteria” (e.g. Viator) that outline what can be presented to customers. Some MSPs offer verified services, where suppliers and their offerings are inspected or consumed by MSP’s specialists (e.g. LocalBini, SeaBookings). Some MSPs also award badges or accreditations to suppliers, such as Viator’s “badge of excellence” and TourRadar’s “traveler’s choice accreditation.” Future availability, complete product details, a high star rating, a high number of reviews, instant confirmation, and standard cancellation policy are among the Viator’s criteria to grant a badge of excellence. These badges or verification measures can compensate for lack of credentials on the part of suppliers (Pung et al., 2022). Moreover, they motivate service suppliers to improve the quality of their offerings or maintain current quality levels, receive better consumer reviews and higher ratings, secure more bookings and reviews, and earn more income (Doan Do et al., 2023; Liang et al., 2017).

Price discovery

Pricing is a crucial element of MSP success, and various MSPs may utilize different price discovery models. In most T&A MSPs, pricing is decentralized, with the supplier setting the price for their offering (e.g. Tiqets). In a limited number of cases, particularly with entirely tailor-made T&As, two parties may negotiate the price (e.g. Evaneos). In the bidding model, tour requests are forwarded to multiple suppliers to create a travel plan. The customer can then choose the most suitable offer in terms of price and quality (e.g. TourHQ and Showaround). Some platforms, in conjunction with other price discovery models, allow suppliers to offer free T&As (e.g. Civitatis and Musement) or operate under the “pay what you can” model, where customers tip the supplier for the apparently free experience (e.g. Civitatis).

Value delivery

Value delivery encompasses the activities and processes aimed at ensuring customer satisfaction. It involves the distribution, sales, and communication channels through which value is provided to customers (Ibarra et al., 2018). Value delivery in T&A MSP includes components such as mediating interface, value proposition, geographical scope, platform participants, content type, transaction type, market strategy, customization status, trip type, participant interaction, sales model, booking mechanism, payment method, and cancellation policy. Each of these components plays a crucial role in ensuring the success of MSPs, as discussed below:

Mediating interface

To engage with participants, T&A MSPs leverage different mediating interfaces, including web-based systems, mobile apps, and metaverse. This interface serves as a key resource and delivery channel, playing a significant role in value creation and delivery (Täuscher & Laudien, 2018). Many T&A MSPs have adopted a hybrid or even an omnichannel model that combines web-based mobile app interfaces, which are essential for catering to the growing number of in-destination and on-the-go bookings made by tourists (Li et al., 2022; Pung et al., 2022). Considering this, the significance of offering a mobile app has grown considerably. Perelygina et al. (2022) recognize the emergence of “on-the-go” or “mobile-first” platforms, highlighting them as a novel business model configuration. Benefits include “real-time updates, dynamic pricing, constant connection” with travelers, and “personalization.” Metaverse presents a new opportunity for T&A MSPs to promote themselves and serve customers in a unique and innovative manner.

Value proposition

The value proposition serves as a “strategic tool” that communicates how a company plans to deliver value to its customers (Payne et al., 2017). T&A MSPs propose various forms of value, including utilitarian, experiential, customization, and sustainability. Utilitarian value, such as diverse inventory, real-time availability, verified reviews and ratings, last-minute booking, frictionless reservation, various online payment methods, better prices, handling cancellations and complaints, automation, wider distribution, online branding, higher income, and 24/7 support, are essential for both consumers and suppliers. Experiential value is delivered through the promise of memorable and meaningful moments, unique experiences, and connecting like-minded people (e.g. Airbnb Experiences, and Likealocalguide). Customization features provide consumer control over the experience and allow for more supplier creativity (e.g. Evaneos, and Withlocals). MSPs provide sustainable value by highlighting their contribution to the social and economic welfare of local communities and the preservation of the environment (e.g. HiveSters). Most T&A MSPs offer different value propositions to cater to the diverse needs of their customers (e.g. Viator, and Evaneos).

Geographical scope

T&A MSPs can operate at different geographical levels, including local, national, regional, and global. Some platforms facilitate interaction and transaction between consumers and suppliers in close proximity, while others have more global reach. Local T&A MSPs typically serve a small community, city, or state (e.g. Yourist), while national T&A MSPs aggregate their inventory from within a country (e.g. LokaLocal, and HiveSters). As platforms grow, they tend to expand into the international sphere. Regional T&A MSPs’ geographical scope is a continent or part of a continent (e.g. Thrillophilia, and Adrenaline), while global T&A MSPs may not cover all destinations worldwide, but they have a large inventory of T&As from multiple continents (e.g. Viator, and Airbnb Experiences). MSPs can expand into the international market comparatively easily as they do not rely on heavy assets. However, the cost of platform re-coding and product adaptation, taking cash as payment, local law, poor technology infrastructure, and lack of complementary service suppliers may challenge MSP internationalization (Parente et al., 2018).

Platform participants

The attribute refers to the diverse market structures in which T&A MSPs operate, encompassing business-to-customer (B2C), customer-to-customer (C2C or P2P), consumer-to-business (C2B), business-to-business (B2B), and government-to-consumer (G2C) (Plewnia & Guenther, 2018). In the context of T&A MSPs, three categories have been identified, namely P2P (e.g. LocalBini, and Withlocals), B2C (e.g. Adrenaline, and Bookmundi), and B2B (e.g. Adalte). Some platforms utilize hybrid models where B2C and P2P structures coexist (e.g. Blueskywildlife). While P2P T&A platforms are integral to the tourism sharing economy, their popularity and sphere of influence are still limited, and successful cases are typically acquired by larger players, which undermines their P2P orientation (Batle et al., 2020). B2B T&A MSPs typically function as inventory aggregators, connecting tourism professionals on both sides.

Content type

T&A MSPs provide one or a combination of multi-day tour packages, short experiences, tickets, virtual experiences, and audio tours. Multi-day tour packages are typically offered by professional tour operators (e.g. TravelLocal), while short experiences are hourly, half-day, or daily long-tail activities offered by both professionals and non-professionals (e.g. City Unscripted). Ticket MSPs offer entrance passes to various sights, venues, and events, usually in major tourist destinations worldwide (e.g. Tiqets, and Hop-on-Hop-off). Online experiences, including live and interactive (e.g. Beeyonder, and ToursByLocals) or pre-recorded (e.g. LokaLocal), have become part of the inventory of some T&A MSPs, especially following the outbreak of COVID-19 (Rodrigues & Cheiran, 2020). Audio tours are also gaining popularity, with platforms such as “izi travel” and VoiceMap connecting consumers with destinations, attractions, and events.

Transaction type

The exchanged services can be categorized into three forms: physical, virtual, or hybrid. Typically, tourists are required to physically travel to destinations to partake in T&As, while online experiences and audio tours are considered virtual. A hybrid model is also conceivable, where actual T&As are augmented, enriched, and complemented by virtual experiences (Pantano & Corvello, 2014). An example of this is a tourist listening to an audio guide on VoiceMap while on a self-guided tour purchased from TourRadar. This hybrid approach, which combines actual and virtual realities, can transform the visitor experience (Buhalis & Karatay, 2022).

Market strategy

The tourism industry has been diversifying into niche markets due to the growing interest of tourists in special interest activities (Balderas-Cejudo et al., 2019). T&A MSPs have the option to target niche or mass markets. Some T&A MSPs, such as Adrenaline (adventure activities), GuideBase (climbing activities), and SeaBookings (marine activities) offer specialized T&As catering to specific interests, while others, like GetYourGuide and Musement, target mass markets. While focusing on the mass market can attract more consumers and contribute to positive network effects, it may overlook the unique preferences of individual consumers (Broekhuizen et al., 2021).

Customization status

The aim of customization is to enhance customer satisfaction by involving them in the “product design” process (Bardakci & Whitelock, 2003). T&A MSPs can offer standardized or tailor-made services. While some travelers may prefer the convenience of group tours, an increasing number of them are seeking tailor-made travel services (Dwyer et al., 2009). Some T&A MSPs do not allow for service modification and offer pre-planned and pre-scheduled T&As (e.g. Peek, and Veltra), while others enable consumers to request entirely tailor-made experiences, designed from scratch (e.g. Evaneos, Showaround, and TravelLocal), or make minor modifications to existing T&A programs (e.g. City Unscripted). Hybrid models of standardized and customized T&As are also available on some MSPs (e.g. Travelstride, and TourRadar). Although standardization is favored by T&A MSPs seeking “transactional efficiencies” (Hsu et al., 2016), this may lead to invariability, which could impede the sustainable growth of the platform (Wan et al., 2017). With customization gaining popularity in tourism, and technology development reducing the costs associated with customization (Hsu et al., 2016), an increasing number of T&A MSPs are incorporating customization features into their platforms.

Trip type

This attribute pertains to the relationship between group members in a tour, which can be categorized as either private or group-based. Private T&As are exclusive and typically involve group members who are related to or acquainted with each other, as exemplified by Showaround, Synotrip, and Embark. On the other hand, in group tours, also known as joined tours, tour members are not related to or acquainted with each other, as seen in Klook, Feverup, and CheckYeti. While private tours can be customized on some T&A MSPs, group tours are generally standardized, with activities planned and organized in advance by the supplier. Some T&A MSPs, such as Thrillophilia and TourHQ, offer a hybrid of private and group tours.

Participant interaction

The interaction between consumers (users, potential tourists) and suppliers on T&A MSPs can take place pre-transaction or post-transaction. Pre-transaction interaction, which occurs before and during the booking process, is common on T&A MSPs with customizable options and private tours. The level of interaction varies, with some platforms only allowing participants to request special demands through a message box (e.g. Travelstride), while others provide features for both parties to communicate via an in-platform messaging system to ask questions and exchange comments (e.g. Evaneos). Post-transaction interaction is primarily for coordination between the consumer and supplier, such as learning about the meeting venue or last-minute changes in the program (e.g. Beeyonder). Post-transaction interaction may extend beyond the consumption period, where consumers and suppliers communicate via comments, reviews, etc.

Sales model

The advancement of technology and the internet has significantly transformed the distribution of travel products and services (Law et al., 2015). T&A MSPs have the option to distribute their inventory through direct and indirect channels. Direct distribution channels, which include the MSP’s website and mobile app, allow for distribution without intermediaries. On the other hand, T&A MSPs can also utilize other channels, such as affiliate marketing and the adoption of B2B2C and B2C2C models (Dell’era et al., 2021), to expand their distribution network and achieve broader market penetration, as demonstrated by platforms like Viator and GetYourGuide.

Booking mechanism

T&A MSPs manage their booking requests using two models: instant booking and confirmation-based booking. Instant booking involves the automatic and immediate confirmation of a reservation with the requested supplier, as seen on platforms like Feverup and City Unscripted. While instant booking offers convenience for consumers and improved search visibility for suppliers, it can lead to “overbooking, post-booking negotiations, more cancellations, and loss of visitor discrimination” (Benítez-Aurioles, 2018). In contrast, confirmation-based (or request-based) bookings are subject to the availability of the service and the supplier (e.g. Beeyonder, and Blueskywildlife). In confirmation-based bookings, suppliers are usually required to accept or decline a request within a 24–72-hour deadline; otherwise, it is automatically canceled. Instant booking and confirmation-based booking are different matching strategies, with instant booking being a one-sided design where suppliers are passive and booking is immediately secured, while confirmation-based booking is a two-sided design where consumers reach out to suppliers who are entitled to accept or reject the request (Kanoria & Saban, 2021). Some T&A MSPs (e.g. CheckYeti, and Musement) accept offline bookings over the phone, via email or in person. Many T&A MSPs adopt a hybrid model, particularly those with a wide variety of T&As and diverse types of suppliers (e.g. CheckYeti).

Payment method

T&A MSPs offer both online and offline payment methods. The digital methods encompass regular currency (e.g. LokaLocal) and cryptocurrency (e.g. Thrillophilia), while some platforms may accept offline settlement, usually in cash, due to factors such as the nature of the offerings, destination, and supplier restrictions. In such cases, T&A MSPs typically deduct their commission or service fee as a down payment, with the remaining sum paid directly to the supplier at the start of the T&A (e.g. SeaBookings). Some T&A MSPs also employ a hybrid model, allowing the supplier to choose between online or cash payment (e.g. TourHQ).

Cancellation policy

As part of their risk management mechanism, T&A MSPs typically implement change and cancellation policies to reduce the “loss of opportunity” for suppliers when a customer modifies or calls off a request or fails to show up (Ditta-Apichai et al., 2020). T&A MSPs offer three types of cancellation policies: standardized, flexible, or no cancellation policy. A standardized cancellation policy applies the same policy to all T&As (e.g. CheckYeti), while a flexible cancellation policy allows for different cancellation policies for each offering (e.g. Rakuten Travel Experience, and Klook). No cancellation policy is common among MSPs offering tickets (e.g. Tiqets). Some platforms, such as TourRadar, offer a special option called “book with flexibility,” where the supplier allows the customer to re-book the tours or change the dates without extra charge.

Value capture

Value capture, a critical aspect of business model innovation, involves reaping the benefits of value creation and redistributing it among the stakeholders including the customers, suppliers, and other relevant parties (Dyer et al., 2018; Sjödin et al., 2020). Value capture in T&A MSP encompasses several components, including value orientation, revenue stream, revenue source, and pricing unit which are discussed below:

Value orientation

The value orientation of a platform determines whether its activities are for-profit or non-profit (Plewnia & Guenther, 2018). T&A MSPs can adopt commercial, social, and environmental orientations. While P2P sharing platforms contribute to sustainability through efficient resource use and the enhancement of social justice and cohesion, they have different missions (Piscicelli et al., 2018). Commercially-oriented platforms aim to maximize profit, whereas those with social and environmental causes adhere to sustainability principles (Curtis & Mont, 2020). Although tourism MSPs have the potential to promote sustainability (Pompurová et al., 2022), the majority of T&A MSPs are commercially-driven. However, some are socially and environmentally oriented, such as HiveSters (social), Blueskywildlife (environmental), and Volunteer World (social and environmental). Volunteer tourism platforms target volunteer tourists, a niche market with a rapid growth rate in which tourists take part in volunteer projects to help marginalized and deprived peoples and places (Woods & Ying, 2021). However, none of the T&A MSPs in this study was purely social or environmental in terms of value orientation.

Revenue stream

To remain viable, businesses must generate revenues that match, or preferably exceed their costs (W. Kim, 2019). Four revenue streams for T&A MSPs include commission fees, transaction fees, subscription fees, and advertising fees. Commission fees, which represent a percentage of the advertised price of the offering, were the most widely adopted revenue stream among the cases studied (e.g. Withlocals). Transaction or service fees, a fixed amount paid by the buyer per transaction (e.g. 3 USD), were the next prevalent revenue stream (e.g. Rakuten Travel Experience, LokaLocal, and GuideBase). Some T&A MSPs adopt a hybrid model of commission fee and transaction fee (e.g. Feverup). Subscription fees, which grant participants access to the MSP, may be charged on a monthly or annual basis or based on usage (e.g. three tours per month), as exemplified by Beeyonder. T&A MSPs may also adopt a hybrid model of subscription fees and commission fees. For instance, on Showaround, consumers must pay a subscription fee but also commission fees. The subscription model operates on both supplier (e.g. Adalte) and consumer sides (e.g. Showaround). Adopting an advertising revenue stream (e.g. izi travel) was not a common practice among the cases studied. However, izi travel has established a commission fee for its paid content, in addition to the advertising fee.

Revenue source

The revenue stream does not specify where the revenue originates (Curtis & Mont, 2020); instead, it is the revenue source that identifies the entity paying for the created value (Afuah & Tucci, 2001). For T&A MSPs, the revenue source can be consumers, suppliers, or third parties. In this study, the primary revenue source for the majority of T&A MSPs was the consumer side (e.g. LokaLocal). Suppliers may also serve as the revenue source when they have to pay subscription or set-up fees (e.g. Adalte). Third-party examples include volunteers, advertisers, sponsors, and others (Curtis & Mont, 2020). In this study, advertisers were the only identified third-party revenue stream (e.g. izi travel).

Pricing unit

The pricing unit is a critical business model attribute for T&A MSPs. This attribute can be specified in five ways: per person, per time, per group, per tier, and per screen. The “per person pricing” model, where the service increases in price at a fixed rate with the addition of each person, is the most common (e.g. Veltra). “Pricing per time” is based on an hourly, daily, or weekly basis (e.g. Showaround and Volunteer World). “Pricing per group” or tour involves a fixed price paid for the entire group in a (usually) private activity (e.g. ToursByLocals); however, a maximum number of group participants is often set in advance. Price tiers are scaled prices that allow suppliers to set different price ranges per person depending on the number of people in each tier (e.g. GetYourGuide and HiveSters). T&A MSPs may restrict pricing to a single unit (e.g. KKday) or allow for hybrid pricing units (e.g. Synotrip and GetYourGuide). TourHQ has also adopted “pricing per screen” for online experiences.

Theoretical implications

By developing this morphological matrix of T&A MSP business models, this paper makes several theoretical contributions. Firstly, it provides a comprehensive framework for analyzing the business models of MSPs in the T&A sector, thereby expanding academic understanding in this field. By synthesizing existing knowledge and integrating insights from three iterations, the morphological matrix provides a structured approach to conceptualizing the diverse characteristics of these business models. Thus, the study addresses the under-theorized nature of MSP business models, as identified by Zhao et al. (2020). Secondly, through the morphological analysis, it identifies key components and dimensions shaping T&A MSP business models, enhancing our comprehension of their intricate dynamics. This delineation enriches our understanding of the complex interplay between stakeholders, value propositions, revenue streams, and other essential elements within these platforms. Thirdly, by facilitating alternative business model exploration and discovery, the morphological matrix serves as a valuable tool for generating innovative solutions within the T&A MSP ecosystem. This theoretical contribution empowers practitioners to adapt and evolve their business models in response to changing market dynamics and evolving tourist preferences. Lastly, the paper emphasizes the transformative potential of utilizing the morphological matrix to refine and optimize existing T&A MSP business models. Through strategic adjustments informed by a deeper understanding of their unique characteristics, MSPs can enhance performance, better align with customer needs, and ultimately generate greater value for all stakeholders. In this sense, the study contributes to the limitations of existing generic business model frameworks and highlights the empirical efforts to unravel, describe, and discover business models within a particular context. Furthermore, the study highlights the independent nature of business models, separate from technology, strategy, and organizational structure, as noted by Zott et al. (2011).

Practical implications

The practical implications of this study are manifold. Firstly, the proposed framework provides a practical tool for configuring new business models through innovative combinations of conditions. It offers insights into the T&A sector and how its specific characteristics shape T&A MSP business models. By leveraging this tool, existing T&A MSPs can make tailored adjustments to enhance their competitiveness, adaptability, and overall performance, differentiating themselves in the market. Secondly, this tool can help T&A MSP startups and traditional travel companies gain a deeper understanding of the alternative business models potentially available, particularly advantageous in a highly fragmented and complex sector such as T&A, enabling them to make informed decisions regarding their business strategies, and position themselves more effectively in the market. Moreover, the study’s description of components facilitates learning and enables platform owners to assess their current business models against those of their competitors. This comparative analysis supports strategic planning and decision-making, ultimately contributing to the company’s growth and competitiveness. Additionally, the morphological matrix serves as a valuable resource for local microentrepreneurs, enabling them to identify the diverse range of T&A MSPs and select those aligning with their values and goals. This empowers microentrepreneurs to make informed decisions regarding partnership opportunities and business strategies. Lastly, policymakers in tourism destinations can benefit from the study’s insights into MSP operations, aiding in the development of balanced and rational policies. By understanding the intricacies of these platforms, policymakers can address regulatory challenges more effectively, fostering a conducive environment for sustainable tourism development.

Study limitations and future research

This study is not without limitations. Firstly, due to the limited number of selected cases, we cannot claim to have identified all fundamental attributes and existing alternate conditions. Increasing the number of cases analyzed might be helpful. Secondly, T&A MSPs in languages other than English were excluded. Expanding the study’s scope to include different languages would gain insights from a broader range of T&A MSPs and ensure a more representative analysis. Thirdly, verifying the state of a T&A MSP regarding a condition was sometimes challenging due to insufficient, contradictory, vague, or incomplete information. Fourthly, this study adopted an exploratory approach, examining the application of disruptive innovation theories to MSPs as a means to elucidate their market success. Consequently, the adequacy of these theories in capturing the impact of technological advancements requires further investigation. Further research, employing MSPs as case studies within the realm of disruptive innovation is recommended, with the objective of critically examining the applicability of existing theories in the platform era. And finally, this study predominantly made use of secondary data. Future research could collect primary data, such as surveys or interviews, to gain an alternative perspective on the topic.

Regarding future research recommendations flowing from this study, a typology of T&A MSP business models could be developed. This would help categorize T&A MSPs based on their dominant business model characteristics which could be a help in understanding the different types of MSPs and their business models. Future research can also focus on the challenges faced by MSPs in terms of staffing, marketing, and sales efforts, and how MSPs have evolved over time and in response to COVID-19. Future research into the relationships between attributes and the importance of each attribute for the success of the T&A MSPs would also be revealing. This investigation may provide valuable insights into the MSP industry and enable the MSPs to understand what attributes are most important for success.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Appendix 1:

Result of iteration 1

Table

Appendix 2:

Result of iteration 2

Table

Appendix 3:

Selected cases

Table

MSP	Website address	Location	Founded year	Participants
Viator	https://www.viator.com/	USA	1995	P2P, B2C
Airbnb	https://www.airbnb.com/s/experiences	USA	2008	P2P, B2C
Thrillophilia	https://www.thrillophilia.com/	India	2009	B2C
Likealocalguide	https://www.likealocalguide.com/	Estonia	2012	P2P, B2C
Bookmundi	https://www.bookmundi.com/	Denmark	2015	B2C
Adrenaline	https://www.adrenaline.com/	USA	2012	B2C
Veltra	https://www.veltra.com/en/	Japan	1991	B2C
Evaneos	https://www.evaneos.com/	France	2009	B2C
TakeMeTour	https://www.takemetour.com/	Thailand	2015	P2P, B2C
Showaround	https://www.showaround.com/	Malta	2015	P2P
Synotrip	https://www.synotrip.com/	Canada	2005	P2P
TravelLocal	https://www.travellocal.com/	UK	2016	B2C
City Unscripted	https://www.cityunscripted.com/	UK	2014	P2P
Embark	https://www.embark.org/	USA	2013	P2P, B2C
TourHQ	https://www.tourhq.com/	Hong Kong	2013	P2P, B2C
Civitatis	https://www.civitatis.com/en/	Spain	2008	B2C
TourRadar	https://www.tourradar.com/	Austria	2010	B2C
Withlocals	https://www.withlocals.com/	Netherlands	2013	P2P
ToursByLocals	https://www.toursbylocals.com/	Canada	2008	P2P
Rakuten	https://experiences.travel.rakuten.com/	Japan	2011	B2C
Travelstride	https://www.travelstride.com/	USA	2014	B2C
LokaLocal	https://www.lokalocal.com/	Malaysia	2016	P2P, B2C
Musement	https://www.musement.com/us/	Italy	2012	P2P, B2C
GetYourGuide	https://www.getyourguide.com/	Germany	2009	B2C
Klook	https://www.klook.com/de/	Singapore	2014	B2C
HiveSters	https://hivesters.com/	Thailand	2014	P2P, B2C
LocalBini	https://localbini.com/	Switzerland	2020	P2P
Feverup	https://feverup.com/en	USA	2014	B2C
Tiqets	https://www.tiqets.com/	Netherlands	2013	B2C
Headout	https://www.headout.com/	USA	2015	B2C
CheckYeti	https://www.checkyeti.com/	Austria	2014	P2P, B2C
Peek	https://www.peek.com/	USA	2012	B2C
KKday	https://www.kkday.com/en	Taiwan	2014	B2C
SeaBookings	https://www.seabookings.com/	Portugal	2014	B2C
Hop-on-Hop-off-bus	https://www.hop-on-hop-off-bus.com/	UK	2021	B2C
GuideBase	https://www.guidebase.com/	UK	2020	P2P
Yourist	https://yourist.co/	Turkey	2020	B2C
Beeyonder	https://beeyonder.com/	US	2016	P2P
Blueskywildlife	https://www.blueskywildlife.com/	UK	2016	P2P, B2C
izi travel	https://www.izi.travel/	UAE	2013	P2P
VoiceMap	https://voicemap.me/	Singapore	2014	P2P
Volunteerworld	https://www.volunteerworld.com/	Germany	2015	B2C
Adalte	https://community.travel/	Italy	2005	B2B

The websites (case studies) mentioned above were classified as T&A MSP based on specific characteristics that define such marketplaces. These characteristics include: 1) connecting independent actors from the demand and supply side via a digital platform, 2) enabling direct interactions between actors to initiate and realize commercial transactions, 3) providing an institutional and regulatory framework for transactions, and 4) not substantially producing or trading goods or services themselves. This classification was verified through a detailed analysis of their operational models and terms and conditions.