Are Destinations Shrinking Their Own Season?

For many destination marketers, strategic plans include an objective to grow shoulder-season visitation. Peak season is strong, accommodations are full, and experiences are busy (maybe even overcrowded). Growing tourism revenues, then, requires growth outside of that peak-season window, so there’s an obvious desire to extend the season. 

In Canada, fall and spring become the focus. And in response, many destinations build campaigns specifically for those periods. Fall colours, seasonal events, and culinary specialties all point to a different kind of visit.

At Rhyme + Reason, we’ve worked on several of these seasonal campaigns in which the spring or fall offering was positioned as distinct from the peak-season offering. But we recently found ourselves wondering if there’s an assumption in this approach that should be examined. What if the path to shoulder season growth isn’t to promote a different experience during those seasons, but to extend the window in which people would consider the destination’s core experience(s)?

Most travellers already have a clear mental picture of a given destination. That picture is usually shaped by peak season—often summer—and it tends to anchor expectations. But much of that core experience often remains in place outside of peak season. Sightseeing, food, culture, and even a good share of outdoor activities remain viable across more of the calendar than we typically show.

So, we asked: if we show more of that calendar, do we make the destination less appealing overall? Or do we expand the timeframe when people would consider visiting?

Working with Environics Research, we conducted a national study with out-of-province travellers across Canada. We tested multiple destination types—urban, coastal, and mountain—using two versions of the same video creative. One version was built entirely with peak-season footage. The other introduced a mix, replacing a portion of the footage with shoulder or off-peak visuals. 

What we found was straightforward. Including off-peak imagery did not reduce the destinations’ appeal. Across the study, blended-season creative performed on par with—and in some cases better than—peak-only executions in terms of overall appeal and connection to the destination.

More importantly, it expanded when people said they would consider visiting. When respondents saw a broader mix of seasons, they were more open to travelling outside of peak months. 

We think there’s a strategic implication in that. Many destinations treat shoulder season as a separate product that needs its own story. And in some cases, that’s appropriate. But if much of the core experience holds up beyond peak season, then marketing can play a role in extending the consideration window.

Clearly the impact will vary depending on the nature of the destination. Places that rely heavily on weather-dependent outdoor experiences may need to be more deliberate in how they apply this approach. Mountain destinations are a good example. In many cases, they don’t have one peak season—they have two distinct ones, built around very different activities. In those situations, blending seasons can introduce ambiguity rather than clarity. But for destinations where the experience is less tied to a single set of conditions, the upside appears to be real, and the downside limited.

None of this suggests that shoulder season campaigns should disappear. But it does point to a different role for seasonality in destination marketing. Rather than segmenting the year into separate stories, there may be value in presenting a more continuous narrative—where the destination feels relevant throughout the calendar. Otherwise, we may be narrowing the window more than we need to.

We’ve published the key findings, including detailed results and methodology. If you’re interested in how this played out across different destination types, you can download the report here.