International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality ResearchDestination brand componentsMelodena Stephens Balakrishnan Ramzi Nekhili Clifford Lewis

Article information:To cite this document:Melodena Stephens Balakrishnan Ramzi Nekhili Clifford Lewis, (2011),"Destination brand components", International Journal of Culture,Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 5 Iss 1 pp. 4 - 25Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181111111726

Downloaded on: 30 October 2014, At: 23:23 (PT)References: this document contains references to 91 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 19909 times since 2011*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Melodena Stephens Balakrishnan, (2009),"Strategic branding of destinations: a framework", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 43 Iss 5/6pp. 611-629Steven Pike, (2005),"Tourism destination branding complexity", Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 14 Iss 4 pp. 258-259Leonardo Dioko, Rich Harrill, Ana María Munar, (2011),"Tourist#created content: rethinking destination branding", International Journal ofCulture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 5 Iss 3 pp. 291-305

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 235887 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information abouthow to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additionalcustomer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) andalso works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Wol

long

ong

At 2

3:23

30

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

Destination brand components

Melodena Stephens Balakrishnan, Ramzi Nekhili and Clifford Lewis

Abstract

Purpose – This study matches destination brand components with motives and identifies those

components that are most important for the consumer during various stages of the decision process.

This study also aims to classify various functional and symbolic brand components. The findings take

the customers’ point-of-view in identifying those descriptors that affect consumer choice preference and

create destination loyalty.

Design/methodology/approach – The research is exploratory. Through a detailed literature review,

destination brand components are identified, simplified and then classified as symbolic or functional.

They are also classified by motive. The review is followed by a quantitative study that uses open-ended

questions to find the relationship between destination brand components and the stage of decision

making. This study also presents a conceptual model with taxonomy of brand components.

Findings – Functional brand components seem to play a major role in a consumer’s description of place

brands during the various decision making stages. This finding highlights the importance of stressing

functional components in the destination’s branding strategy.

Originality/value – This study is the first of its type and can serve as a platform for future research,

practically helping destinations create more effective communication.

Keywords Brands, Brand awareness, Symbolism

Paper type Research paper

Introduction

Importance of brand image

Governments are investing over 12 percent of world investments into tourism-related

industries and infrastructure; receiving revenues of an average of ten percent of the world

GDP (Arnold, 2007; WTTC, 2007). Destination marketing has a tremendous scope to grow.

However, though the industry is growing, its share is declining with respect to the export of

commercial services from 32 percent in 2000 to 27 percent in 2006 (WTO, 2007). A symbiotic

relationship between destination marketing organizations (DMOs), local governments and

private sector can have a positive effect on destination growth (Bennett, 1999; Prideaux and

Cooper, 2003). With more destination and place brands emerging, the challenges of

branding are increasing (assuming destinations are service brands, see Moorthi, 2002).

Destination branding is complex because the concept includes elements of product, service

and corporate branding. Destination brands act as an umbrella brand to a multiplicity of

products which may or may not be related and has a diversity of customers (Balakrishnan,

2008; Fan, 2006). Destination branding falls under tourism destination image (TDI) (see

Gallarza et al., 2002 for a background). Brand image is a function of the person interpreting

the image; this makes destination branding harder to study (Meenaghan, 1995). When

differentiation between destinations is low, it is the brand image that creates a perceptual

difference 35-65 percent of the time (Hosany et al., 2007; Palumbo and Herbig, 2000).

PAGE 4 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH j VOL. 5 NO. 1 2011, pp. 4-25, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182 DOI 10.1108/17506181111111726

Melodena Stephens

Balakrishnan is based in the

Faculty of Business and

Management, and Ramzi

Nekhili is based in the

Faculty of Finance and

Accounting, both at the

University of Wollongong in

Dubai, Dubai, United Arab

Emirates. Clifford Lewis is

based in the Faculty of

Commerce, University of

Wollongong, Australia.

Received: November 2008Revised: December 2008Accepted: March 2009

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Wol

long

ong

At 2

3:23

30

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

A strong correlation exits between favorable image and intention to visit (Leisen, 2001).

Ataman and Ulengin (2003, p. 246) find that consumers ‘‘tend to choose brands whose

perceived images are similar to consumers’ actual, ideal, social, ideal-social and

situational-ideal-social images’’. This statement means perceived image self-congruity

affects brand preferences and hence sales. A strong support for brands to have a

multiplicity of image attributes is indicated. The same study suggests that 90 percent of the

variation in sales (this study involves the Turkish beverage industry) is being caused by the

brand’s image while only 10 percent is due to factors like distribution, advertising, brand

loyalty.

Destinations being more complex can have different results. Destination marketing has four

potential outlets for marketing information (Moutinho, 1987): primary or word of mouth

(WOM); secondary (mass media), tertiary (travel agents, tour operators, exhibitions) and

fourthly (personal experiences). Destination image is a sum of complex messages given by

a variety of stakeholders, through a variety of communication mediums. Incongruent

advertisements for familiar brands have easier brand recall, but harder advertisement recall;

while incongruent advertisements for non-familiar brands have harder brand recall (Lange

and Dahlen, 2003).

Country of origin (COO) for products affects brand equity. Positive COO affects brand

loyalty, brand distinctiveness, brand awareness and brand associations (Yasin et al., 2007).

Lee and Ganesh (1999) suggest that when consumers are not familiar with a country, they

rely more on COO information as a reflection of a destination’s image and countries with a

favorable image receive a more positive country product evaluation from consumers. While

consumers tend to categorize brands by COO, their perceptions are often inaccurate

(Balabanis and Diamantopoulos, 2008). When customers are unfamiliar with a country, they

tend to be reluctant to trust the product image for consumer goods (Lee and Ganesh, 1999).

By extrapolation, this lack of familiarity will also dissuade travelers from buying a destination

as a product of investment opportunity as the risks of destination investment are higher.

Tourism is used as an example of halo marketing that helps confirm or modify a target

customer’s self-image and helps match social motivations with the customer’s reference

group (Ross-Wooldridge, 2004). Research indicates that consumers use projective

techniques to identify or associate brand image characteristics (Hussey and Duncombe,

1999). The fit between corporate (in this case overall destination image) and the service

extension (destination sub-products like hospitality, infrastructure) must be strong otherwise

it affects perception on sub-product quality and overall image of the corporate brand (Pina

et al., 2006). Destination brand associations are multi-dimensional since they differ across

various products and also because there is a dependency on how well known the brand

image is (Low and Lamb, 2000; Kirmani et al., 1999). For destinations to maintain image,

they must monitor sub-products quality.

All these factors can affect customer loyalty. Public relations influences customer loyalty

conditional to a positive brand image (Hsieh and Li, 2008). Through a qualitative and

quantitative study, O’Cass and Grace (2004) find service brand associations relate

positively toward the attitudes directed towards a branded service which in turn relates

positively to the intension to use. A study on brand components may lead to additional

insights on customer propensity to visit a destination or purchase of a destination

experience. These insights should allow for a more long-term strategic approach for

success. Preference for quality and greater place attachment leads to higher expenditure

(Alegre and Juaneda, 2006). Hence image of destinations is a key aspect of the branding

strategy.

Destination brand image is an intricate topic and the concept of image needs to be

simplified into key components; these components must be classified into elements of the

destination brand components (DBC) and then these DBCs must be related to what

customer value (see Hankinson, 2005; Leisen, 2001). The nature of the study of destination

brand components is multidisciplinary in nature (Gallarza et al., 2002). Low and Lamb (2000)

find brand associations for various products are different and further are influenced by

VOL. 5 NO. 1 2011 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH j PAGE 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Wol

long

ong

At 2

3:23

30

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

brand familiarity. This finding suggests that DBCs may change as consumers move up from

various stages of the decision making process as the consumption of destination

sub-products will vary during the entire process. This indicates a gap in literature with

respect to importance of DBCs and the decision making process.

Research objective

Image and perception relate closely to each other (White, 2005). Brand image affects

perception of a destination. Meenaghan (1995) explains that though the image of a

destination sent to the customer is controllable, the image that the target customer receives

or perceives is not. This study focuses on learning what brand components best describe

destination brands and their impact on brand image from a customer point of view. The

research has three sub-objectives. First there is a need to simplify existing knowledge on

DBCs. Second, existing literature in brand components needs to be classified into the

simplified form. Third, the importance of DBCs at each stage in the decision making process

needs to be evaluated in terms of overall brand image. The nature of this study is exploratory,

and its key focus is on DBCs. Through the development of a conceptual framework, the

paper will present a practical platform for destination marketing organizations (DMOs) to

build brand strategies.

First through a detailed literature review, current popular classification of brand components

is identified. Based on the definitions of the classifications of brand components and their

areas of influence, the various components identified are segregated. Second, these DBCs

are related to the Pierce travel experience ladder through the motives behind them. This

relationship is used to formulate a conceptual framework and present taxonomy of DBCs.

The four hypotheses derived from the literature review and conceptual model are tested.

Finally the results are discussed and future research areas are identified.

Literature review

A literature review on DBCs (Bhat and Reddy, 1998; McWilliam and de Chernatony, 1989;

Echtner and Ritchie, 1993; Hankinson, 2005; Mowle and Merrilees, 2005; Wood, 2007)

identifies the following key brand attributes: functional and symbolic or intangible and

tangible attributes. Brand constructs include personality and emotions (Aaker, 1997; de

Chernatony, 1997). Maklan and Knox (1997) find that brands can be measured using

variables like interpersonal relationship, word of mouth, country of origin, names and usage

intensions. The de Chernatony and Riley’s (1997) double vortex model suggests than in

addition to functional and symbolic capabilities; legal identities, heritage and values, and

psycho-social match also affects brand image.

Functional brand components

Two attitudes drive customers when purchasing brands (Cooper, 1989). The first attitude is

utilitarian in nature and involves brand perceptions of benefits, physical justifications, beliefs

about value for money and availability. This attitude is commonly reinforced by functional

attributes of the brand. Functional DBCs relate to the core function/service of the brand

(Maklan and Knox, 1997) which is associated with immediate practical needs (Bhat and

Reddy, 1998; Wood, 2007), rational assessment of product benefits or functional

performance (de Chernatony et al., 2000; Mowle and Merrilees, 2005; Wood, 2000).

Functional characteristics are mainly tangible in nature and are often defined as being

measurable (Hankinson, 2004). The product can manifest as functional characteristics

(Mowle and Merrilees, 2005) or physical attributes which contribute to the intrinsic

advantages of the product (Orth and Marchi, 2007). Wood (2007) estimates that the

products’ functional performance influences the products’ market image by as much as 20

percent.

PAGE 6 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH j VOL. 5 NO. 1 2011

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Wol

long

ong

At 2

3:23

30

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

Symbolic brand components

Symbolic components represent the other common brand component identifiable in

literature review. Symbolic components are those features and benefits that are over and

above the core product (Wood, 2000); and relate to non-product attributes (Keller, 1993).

Symbolic brand components relate strongly to intangible components (Hankinson, 2005;

Mowle and Merrilees, 2005; Wood, 2000) which are likely to be more extrinsic in nature to the

product (Keller, 1993). Symbolic DBCs satisfy needs over and above functional

requirements; and manifest as higher order needs like self-expression, self-esteem,

prestige (Bhat and Reddy, 1998; Hankinson, 2005; Wood, 2007); emotional values and

feelings (Mowle and Merrilees, 2005); and social approval (Hankinson, 2005; Meenaghan,

1995). Since they are psychological, they cannot be directly observed (Echtner and Ritchie,

1993) and the meaning develops through the individuals’ socialization process (McWilliam

and de Chernatony, 1989).

Experiential brand components

Hankinson (2004, 2005) and de Chernatony and Riley (1997, p. 1076) identify the

experiential components of the brand as the symbolic components that represent higher

order needs. Experiential components may be manifest in how the brand relates to the

customer self-concept, intuitive likes and dislikes, its ability to convey exclusivity (how it

relates to other customers), customer lifestyle, way of life and fashionability (Cooper, 1989;

Solomon, 1983). In the three-tier brand creation model, higher tiers correspond to emotional

and value services which are essentially non-product attributes that are external to core

product function looking at dimensions of the marketing mix, imagery, feelings and

experience (Keller, 1998; Maklan and Knox, 1997). Being a sensory process, experiential

marketing in the context of tourism and hospitality marketing, creates value through

entertainment, educational, estheticism or escapism (Williams, 2006). A 13 country study by

Lindstrom (2005) indicates that 99 percent of brand communication focuses on two of the

key senses – sight and sound, though emotional connections are more effective as it uses

the synergy of all five senses. O’Cass and Grace (2004) suggest that people, word of mouth,

servicescape (ambience) and experiences are important when considering service brands.

Destination brand components: a simplified classification

Two basic underlying dimensions of brands exist: a functional dimension consisting of

tangible or practical attributes or the delivery of key benefits; and a symbolic or emotional

dimension consisting of more intangible attributes (Mowle and Merrilees, 2005; Sirgy and

Su, 2000). There is an overlap in areas, for example in the case of tangible reminders,

souvenirs/memorabilia may be functional as they are tangible yet may have a symbolic

association (memories) with the brand (Human, 1999; Gordon, 1986; Williams, 2006).

Destinations have an intangible component and intangible products need tangible

references points to help customers evaluate their perceptions of the service offerings

(McDonald et al., 2001). Hankinson (2004) finds image attributes like history, heritage and

culture frequently associated with tangibles like buildings and architectural environment.

Symbolic aspects like interactions (between consumer or/and staff) are manifest through

physical aspects like staff uniforms and training (McDonald et al., 2001). Chhabra et al.

(2003) find that authenticity of heritage tourism (functional DBC) depends on perceived

authenticity which is partly controlled by media and to a greater extent by WOM

(symbolic-DBC).

DBCs and motivations

Keller (1993) associates functional benefits with Maslow’s motivation. Pearce (1991) extends

this concept of motivation specifically to the tourism context. Functional DBCs have an

association with basic motivations like physiological and safety needs, which involve a

desire for problem removal or avoidance (Keller, 1993). Organic images which are

perceptions built over a long period of time and are strongly associated with the brand, are

VOL. 5 NO. 1 2011 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH j PAGE 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Wol

long

ong

At 2

3:23

30

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

actually functional in nature (Hankinson, 2004). Lower-order needs also manifest through

functional destination brand components.

Experiences, which are symbolic, fall under motivations like social needs, esteem, personal

expression/self-actualization (Keller, 1993). Higher-order needs as described earlier

manifest as symbolic components. There is an overlap of motives with functional and

symbolic brand components. The brand components can be identified from a variety of

sources (see articles like Anholt, 2006; Balakrishnan, 2009; Hankinson, 2004). Within each

motive we can look at components as either functional or symbolic.

Physiological motives relate to the destinations intrinsic benefits. They are benefits that relate

to the core of the destination service that a customer wants to experience like adventure and

culture and destination purpose (de Chernatony and Riley, 1997). Physiological DBCs are

pull factors: tangibles (physical places) or intangibles (rest and relaxation) (Law et al., 2004).

Attractions act as pull factors for place attachment and development (Gross et al., 2008).

Physiological motives act as offshoots of the intrinsic benefits. These motives are destination

descriptors and increasingly relate to the context (Hankinson, 2005). For example: is the

destination suitable for young children, entertainment, enjoyment and recreation

(Hankinson, 2004, 2005). Hankinson (2004) describe them as functional clusters of

attributes associated with a destination’s economic activity, accessibility or even organic

images associated with history, culture and heritage. They can be rules and regulations like

visa restrictions and entry charges which act as barriers for entry and require policies to be

put in place (Trueman et al., 2004). Physiological motives can also be sensory (besides

visual). Associations with blue skies, sunny weather, yellow sand, emerald islands, and

green forests.

Food is a functional DBC as it is a basic requirement (Gross et al., 2008) and can be an

important destination differentiator. Halal food is an important criterion for Muslims, pure

vegetarian food (no egg, ginger, onion, garlic, meat including fish) for Jains and kosher food

for Jews. These dietary requirements can become a destination barrier. Tangibles, acquired

through shopping are functional elements and appeal to the visual element even aiding

recall (Hankinson, 2004). As explained before, these shopping items can also be symbolic

components. Interpretations or perceptions of destination become symbolic attributes when

they relate to the senses (pyramids as a representation of Egypt, Petra for Jordan, Statue of

Liberty for New York or as a symbol of freedom). The perception of the personality of a place

(personal interpretation/experience) is symbolic (Ibrahim and Gill, 2005) and affects

customer satisfaction with destination experience.

Motivation factors like safety needs manifest themselves as functional DBCs. They span

attributes like basic accommodation (Hankinson, 2004), accessibility and cost (Hankinson,

2005). Cleanliness and hygiene which are functional in nature, act as security needs for

physical health (Orth and Marchi, 2007; Solomon, 1983). Safety motivations are based in

symbolic perceptions (Ibrahim and Gill, 2005). It expresses itself as tolerance of the visible

signs of poverty. Someone who has a prior experience of poverty will not find it too disturbing

but for first-time experiencers, it may spoil the destination experience. Destination

consumers may perceive the presence of police on horseback less threatening than police

in cars or army security personnel standing with guns. These perceptions (barbed wire at

checkpoints, whether guards smile, riots or even the recent Mumbai blast) affect destination

experience.

Social DBCs which are symbolic satisfy the consumers self expression needs (Bhat and

Reddy, 1998) while sending social signals on behalf of their consumer (Meenaghan, 1995).

Relationship needs are the associations customers develop within the place with other

people like celebrities and indigenous population who are considered locals to that

destination (Ibrahim and Gill, 2005). Relationship with other tourists and friends are an

example of self-congruence which is also symbolic (Hankinson, 2005). The quality of

friendliness of locals has been found to be a symbolic component that can affect brand

image (Ibrahim and Gill, 2005). However Baloglu and Brinberg (1997) perceive it to be

functional. Friendliness of locals may be functional DBCs prior to visit, when it forms part of

PAGE 8 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH j VOL. 5 NO. 1 2011

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Wol

long

ong

At 2

3:23

30

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

the expectation or is a representative of the place (natives) as it acts as a key motive for

travel. Local’s friendliness becomes symbolic when the customer looks back at the

memories of the experience, and it affects word of mouth (Gross et al., 2008). Keller (1993)

relates this symbolic DBC to the need for social approval but the attribute of friendliness also

has overtones with esteem needs.

Esteem needs are linked to psychological or emotional needs which are symbolic in nature

(Baloglu and Brinberg, 1997). For the travelers it manifests itself through self-congruence

reinforcement by ‘‘being in a happening place’’ (Hankinson, 2005) and exerting self and

personal preferences and values. Ambience tends to be symbolic (Hankinson, 2005). For

the traveler and his social circle, it becomes a conversation topic and reinforces lifestyle

through destination encounter and choice (Gross et al., 2008). The brand gets an aura of

exclusivity, prestige and fashionability (Bhat and Reddy, 1998; Mowle and Merrilees, 2005;

Solomon, 1983; Wood, 2007). The halo effect adds to the reputation of the place (Simeon,

2006) and this reinforces the reputation/image of a person who visits that same place.

Self actualization is the final state. Self actualization is symbolic as it links to self congruity

and the personality of a place becoming a reflection of the traveler (Hankinson, 2004;

Ibrahim and Gill, 2005). Self-actualization focuses on self-discovery and growth (through the

experience), reflecting also in celebration of special occasions as a symbolic representation

of self-expression (de Chernatony and Riley, 1997; Gross et al., 2008; Mowle and Merrilees,

2005) as the experience creates (lasting) emotions (Baloglu and Brinberg, 1997). Heroes

and heroines are part of the functional attributes inherent with a place (Hankinson, 2005)

however they can have symbolic characteristics especially if linked to self-congruity.

Figure 1 and Table I presents a conceptual model that looks at how travel motives can be

correlated with functional and symbolic DBCs as discussed above. Table I correlates DBCs

with motivations. Motives can be correlated to both functional DBCs and symbolic DBCs,

reinforcing the theory that brands can have a dyadic nature (Bhat and Reddy, 1998; Mowle

and Merrilees, 2005). As one moves up the travel ladder in terms of higher order motives,

more symbolic DBCs become relevant.

Figure 1 The brand component – need hierarchy linkage

VOL. 5 NO. 1 2011 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH j PAGE 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Wol

long

ong

At 2

3:23

30

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

DBC and consumer decision-making process

An important but challenging aspect of branding is consistency that is achievable by

‘‘eliminating negative cues . . . that diminishes, contradicts or distracts from the unity of the

theme’’ (Williams, 2006, p. 490).

Brand image is longitudinal and can refer to various orientations of time: past, present and

future (Williams, 2006). Three focus stages occur for this research. Destination brand image

formed during consumption was not chosen because at this stage, the process of

consumption evaluation would be incomplete and true destination image would only be

acquired post-consumption. Destination image is a sum of cumulative experiences and in its

formation process is difficult to pinpoint a single consumption opportunity (Chen and

Gursoy, 2001).

Table I Destination brand components (DBC) as a function of Pierce travel ladder

DBC Tangible/visual/functional Intangible/symbolic

Physiological Intrinsic benefits: service delivery process,adjectives, Ingredient/associated brands,sponsorships, eventsFeatures: adjectives; physical justifications, Businesstourism facilities, commercial criteria, events,activities, shopping, things to do, functionality,facilities, amenitiesSight: name, logo, trade mark, graphics, symbols,slogans, colors, servicescapeOther 4 senses: smell, taste, touch, sound(if distinctive to place for identification)Tangibles: souvenirs, shopping items, postcards,pictures, movies, ads – Images; information;buildings architecture, facilities, places of interest,scenery

Interpretations and seeding of five senses andrealistic portrayal of expectations

Security/safety Safety: physical, mental, emotional, perceived, andvisual reinforcementOrganic images – familiarity and ability to identifyvisual evidenceConvenience: access, facilities and amenities,infrastructure, communication, currencyService: government, tourism, information, hospitalityetc

Intrinsic benefits: relevance and representation of thepersonality of place as per perception (culture,heritage, ambience)Features: perception of ability to satisfy intrinsicneedsValue/expense perceptionsSafety: perceptionConvenience: perceptionService: satisfactionConform with social values/WOM

Social People as a symbol: leaders, dress, outward localcustoms, rituals and ability to adopt. Socialsegregation when required and ability to deliver asper perceptions.

Travelers-Residents Relationship & bond, familiarity,interaction and empathy. Traveler-Traveler familiarity,interaction and congruence. Traveler-Social Circle:conversation topic Image/roles of People associatedwith service delivery or destination

Esteem Ingredient/associated brands, sponsorships, events Perception of others’ perception (WOM, publicrelations, publicity; international reputation) – how itadds value to self-esteemHalo effect association with other ‘‘brands’’, imageperceptions and how this adds value to esteem

Self-actualization Personal visual transformation from experience (self,gifts and house/habit adoption)

Self-image congruence, personal values,self-personality; lifestyle, self-expressionEvent/occasion association: ambienceExperience that creates anemotions/mood/association with certain sensesInternalization and familiarity of legends ofheroes/heroine (living, dead and fictitious)Ability to help traveler walk away with personalgrowth, discovery and fulfillment

Adapted from Balakrishnan (2009)

PAGE 10 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH j VOL. 5 NO. 1 2011

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Wol

long

ong

At 2

3:23

30

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

Consumers’ decision-making process of a destination begins with the customers’ ability to

make sense of the vast quantities of information collected prior to consumption and

purchase and (Kotler and Gertner, 2004). By a process of elimination, which is normally

image based; an individual selects a destination they wish or want to visit (Gartner, 1989;

Goodrich, 1978; Leisen, 2001; p. 50). Decision making for consumers become easier when

destinations focus on a distinct set of tangible and functional destination attributes

(Woodside and Dubelaar, 2002; Woodside and Trappey, 2001). Hankinson (2004) finds that

functional attributes have a stronger linkage with overall quality and hence destination

attractiveness. This is phase I of the decision making process: creation of a wish list.

H1. Customers distinguish between destinations based on functional DBCs for creating

a wish list prior to consumption.

Studies by Caldwell and Freire (2004); de Chernatony et al. (2000); Jamal and Goode (2001)

and Mowle and Merrilees (2005) find symbolic properties rather than functional qualities are

what the consumer prefers and what gives a destination a greater sustainable competitive

advantage. This preference is important for selection of destinations (prior to consumption)

to create a wish list. Hankinson (2004) finds ambience (symbolic DBC) has a strong

influence on selection. This is Phase 2: finalizing the choice of destinations from the wish list

where destinations are substitutable.

H2. Customers distinguish between destinations in a choice set predominantly on the

basis of symbolic DBC when selecting the final destination to visit.

Past trip experiences affect a tourist’s selection of a destination and this experience has a

direct impact on perceptions of safety (Chen and Gursoy, 2001). Since this is a perception of

safety, it is functional but since it can be influenced by other people’s perceptions and

experiences, it overlaps with symbolic DBCs. For customers who enjoy variety (which is a

large segment), satisfaction is a key driver and though they would not revisit, they will

recommend (Castro et al., 2007). This WOM acts like a halo-image and a benchmark for

other destinations. WOM helps the traveler move up the travel ladder to higher order motives

due to the accumulated information collected, experience and increased expectations.

Recommendations can also act as a surrogate for loyalty and can lead to destination

performance (Reichheld, 2003).

Phase 3 is the next phase in the decision-making process: post consumption experiences.

The study includes three scenarios:

1. Best destination. This is an evaluation of an experience and relates to WOM. Travelers

were asked to rank destinations in their mind and evaluate their best destination using

three attributes.

2. Most consumers rarely revisit leisure destinations as the choice is so large, hence loyalty

is measured through unsolicited positive WOM. The question asked is ‘‘Which

destinations are you willing to recommend?’’

3. This deals with perceptions of the worst location where customers would not want to visit.

This can affect negative word of mouth. This evaluation is an internal process. Loyalty is

based on WOM and is a relationship or bond between a place and a traveler; hence is

symbolic.

H3a. Customers distinguish between destinations (post-consumption) on the basis of

symbolic properties.

H3b. Customers define destination loyalty by using symbolic attributes.

Hankinson (2004) reports functional attributes are most important when differentiating

between destinations (looking at the broader context of countries).

H4. Overall when looking at brand image, functional DBCs outweigh symbolic DBCs in

importance.

VOL. 5 NO. 1 2011 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH j PAGE 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Wol

long

ong

At 2

3:23

30

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

Method

A self-administered questionnaire was used to interview respondents. The questionnaire

had three sections based on the three key decision making stages. Besides demographic

details, the first part of the questionnaire (Phase 1) dealt with DBCs that affect the customers’

wish list. Phase 2 dealt with DBCs that were important for the customer in finalizing the

destination from the wish list. Phase 3 dealt with the experience of the customer at a chosen

destination, post-consumption. It looked at three scenarios:

1. factors used to describe the best destination;

2. DBCs important for recommendation; and

3. DBCs important for describing least favorite destination.

Open-ended questions were used to understand the relative importance of DBCs used in

describing the brand image of a destination for Phase 1 and 3. In Phase 2 a five-point Likert

scale was used to identify factors important to the customer. These factors were short-listed

based on existing studies conducted by Baloglu and McCleary (1999), Beerli and Martin

(2004) and Hankinson (2004, 2005). The analyses of the open-ended questions were based

on an approach adopted by Finn et al. (2000) and Ibrahim and Gill (2005). Similar responses

to the open ended questions were grouped together and categorized under common

themes; thus allowing the analysis of those factors. For pre-testing purposes, the

questionnaire was administered to a small group of ten respondents who were later

interviewed for their opinion about the structure and readability of the questionnaire. Based

on their suggestions, a few minor changes in design, content and instructions were

implemented when the study was carried out. The pre-test also indicated that on average,

the respondent would take around ten minutes to complete the various sections of the

questionnaire. This is an important factor as time available to fill the questionnaire was short.

Dubai was chosen as the test market. Of its population, 80 percent is expatriates and it is

also a tourist destination (Balakrishnan, 2008). The sample was selected based on a quota

sampling method by which one-third of the sample was obtained by interviewing residents of

the country of study while the remaining two-thirds of the sample represent tourists and other

individuals visiting the country. The respondents were selected by adopting a convenience

sample based on factors such as accessibility, ability to speak English, and willingness to

participate in the research project.

Some challenges occurred in collecting the data. In Dubai, collecting market research

information in public places without permission from authorities is not allowed. To overcome

this limitation, two strategies were used. Residents were contacted based on referrals using

personal networks. Tourists were mainly contacted through institutions such as the

Government of Dubai Department of Tourism and Commerce Marketing (DTCM) which

provided the necessary contacts and permissions within hotel groups and tourist attractions.

These contacts included hotel groups such as the Accor group (The Novotel Trade Centre

Hotel and The Sofitel City Centre Hotel) as well as tourist attractions such as the Big Bus.

These sites were selected based on judgment so as to best represent the population of

interest (Jankowicz, 2000). This also ensured that we had a significant sample of English

speakers and leisure travelers.

A total of 450 questionnaires were distributed and 300 were returned resulting in a response

rate of 66.67 percent. After eliminating questionnaires whose responses were incomplete or

invalid in regard to the scope of this study, a sample size of 289 respondents were chosen to

represent the target population. Though it is recognized that the sample size is small; the

sample size is comparable to other studies of a similar nature (Castaneda et al., 2007; Chen

and Gursoy, 2001; Law et al., 2004).

Respondents’ characteristics

The target population for this study was pre-specified as individuals who travel for tourism or

other leisure purposes and who pay for their package themselves. Of the satisfactorily

completed questionnaires, 53 percent of the sample was male respondents while 47 percent

PAGE 12 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH j VOL. 5 NO. 1 2011

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Wol

long

ong

At 2

3:23

30

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

of the sample represented female respondents. In regards to income, 19 percent of the

respondents earned an income of less than 10,000 dollars per annum; 13 percent of the

respondents earned an annual income between the 10,000 to 20,000 dollars; 12 percent of

the respondents earned an annual income between 20,000 to 30,000 dollars; 12 percent of

the respondents fell within the 30,000 to 40,000 dollars annual income range and 31 percent

earned an annual income more than 40,000 dollars. Further, the research project was

conducted across 46 nationalities with the most dominant nationalities being Indians (25

percent of the sample) and the British (representing 13 percent of the total sample). With

regard to family status, 42 percent of the sample was single individuals while 57 percent

represented family individuals with an average of two children. Table II shows the details of

the sample.

Analysis and discussion

The qualitative data were first grouped into common themes based on semantic expression

and variation and then regrouped into sub-sections under functional and symbolic DBCs

(see Tables III-VIII). Functional DBCs have three categories:

Table II Sample demographics characteristics

Factor Total Percentage

GenderMale 150 51.9Female 137 47.41

Income rangeLess than 10,000 55 19.0310,000 to 20,000 38 13.1520,000 to 30,000 36 12.4630,000 to 40,000 34 11.76More than 40,000 90 31.14

NationalityIndian 73 25.26British 39 13.49UAE 22 7.61Filipino 15 5.19Sri Lankan 12 4.15Lebanese 11 3.81Australian, French each 9 3.11Jordanian, Pakistani each 8 2.77Canadian 7 2.42American, Egyptian each 6 2.08German 5 1.73South African 4 1.38Austrian, Danish, Irish, Sudanese, Syrian each 3 1.04Cameroon, Dutch, Finnish, Indonesian each 2 0.69Iranian, Kuwaiti, Mauritian, Nigerian, Romanian, Swedish each 2 0.69Algerian, Armenian, Bangladeshi, Belgian each 1 0.35Bruneian, Greek, Italian, Japanese, Malaysian, New Zealander each 1 0.35Norwegian, Singaporean, Yugoslavian, Swiss, Thai, Turk each 1 0.35

Marital statusSingle 120 41.52Family 166 57.44

Number of children (if individual falls into family criteria)No children 47 28.31One child 34 20.48Two children 51 30.72Three children 24 14.46Four children 8 4.82Five children 2 1.2Average children 1.506

VOL. 5 NO. 1 2011 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH j PAGE 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Wol

long

ong

At 2

3:23

30

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

Table III Responses for functional DBCs: basic physical/infrastructural

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3Factor Want to visit Choice set Best destination Recommendations Least favorite

Basic physical/infrastructure needs (DBCF1)Accessibility (total) 149 8Accessibility from home country 3 12 17Accessibility to other destinations 9 3 3Local accessibility 6 194 10 22 21Location 2Animals/wildlife 9 3 0Architecture/monuments 7 7 1Availability of travel packages 2Beautiful sites 26 28 13 3Natural sites/scenaries/attractions andenvironment 75 50 26 6Historic places/architecture/constructions/landmarks 23 10 5Modern architecture and constructions 3 1 0Places within destination/tourist attractions 69 30 23 11Religious sites 4 1 0Media (photographs) 3Revisit place/attractions 8Tourist attractions not visited on previous trip 13Total 237 343 176 114 49

Table V Responses for functional DBCs: experiences (related to product)

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3Factor Want to visit Choice set Best destination Recommendations Least favorite

ExperiencesAdventure 8 5 3Entertainment and enjoyment/recreational 39 140 48 32 13Food 35 175 49 24 25Children – activities 7 5 1Shopping 35 140 32 7Special occasions and events 1 127 3 0Uniqueness sites/poverty 3 184 6 8 2Total 128 766 148 75 40

Table IV Responses for functional DBCs: basic product needs

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3Factor Want to visit Choice set Best destination Recommendations Least favorite

Basic product needs (DBCF2)Cleanliness and hygiene 7 9 6 20Climate 54 179 71 50 27Commercial and business 13 3 0 2Accommodation/hotels/resorts 2 211 10 29 2Cost or economic value 17 192 22 87 13Holiday and leisure 12 3 1Quality of telecommunication 145Rules and regulations 1 6Special meeds 1Total 106 727 119 173 70

PAGE 14 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH j VOL. 5 NO. 1 2011

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Wol

long

ong

At 2

3:23

30

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

1. basic physical/infrastructure needs;

2. basic product needs; and

3. experiences (which overlap with basic product needs).

According to the brand component-need hierarchy linkage, these three categories fall

between physiological, security and safety needs. Destination perceptions and

relationships can be grouped into symbolic DBCs. According to the brand

component-need hierarchy linkage, symbolic DBCs fall between social, esteem and

self-actualization needs. After categorizing the DBCs, quantitative analysis was conducted

by looking at mean responses (see Table VIII). The mean responses for DBC preferences are

different across the various phases.

Phase 1: Creating a wish list

Overall in phase 1, functional DCBs are more in number (61 percent) than symbolic DBCs.

This supports H1. In creating a wish list, the study finds that basic physical/infrastructure

(functional DBCF1, see Table VII) accounts for 26 percent of total DBCs. In this category key

tourist perceptions of the brand are dependent on places to see which form 92 percent of the

sub-category. The importance for destination marketing organizations projecting places is

further reinforced by the fact that places to see accounts for 29 percent of the total DBCs

(see Table III).

In the second functional DBC category, basic product, key touchpoint for the brand is

weather which accounts for 51 percent of the DBCF2 category (see Table IV). Overall this

accounts for 7 percent of the total DBCs in terms of importance in Phase 1. In the third

functional DBC category, experiences (DBCF3 see Table V), three factors stand out. The first

is entertainment (30 percent of category), food (27 percent of category) and shopping (27

percent of the category). Combined, they account for 12 percent of total DBCs in Phase 1.

Table VI Responses for symbolic DBCs: perceptions and relationships

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3Factor Want to visit Choice set Best destination Recommendations Least favorite

PerceptionsMulti-cultural 3 2 0History/culture 78 158 50 25 7Personality/perception of place 19 11 2 9Political issues 4Popularity of place (noisy/congested) 4 0 2 17Quality of life/lifestyle (not suitable for tourist) 12 5 1 4Celebrities 2Similar to other countries/destinations 6WOM 15 1 0Safety 3 218 8 63 27Relaxation and peace (boring) 13 18 5 6Positive emotions 11 4 0Experience knowledge/not been there before 57 9 5Personal experience 24Previous experience 7 2 5Total 217 376 115 129 85RelationshipsLocal people 33 125 75 36 42Other tourists 66Friendliness of locals (lack of relationships) 190 1Service/facilities/hospitality 2 6 15 10Language/communications 5 4 8 21Relationships (friends/family) 39 30 0Characteristics of others wanting to go there 14Total 79 381 115 73 73

VOL. 5 NO. 1 2011 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH j PAGE 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Wol

long

ong

At 2

3:23

30

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

Table

VII

Percentageresponses

Phase

1P

hase

2P

hase

3S

ub

cate

gory

tota

l(%

of

tota

lD

BC

)

Functio

nalD

BC

1B

asi

cp

hys

ical/i

nfr

ast

ructu

renum

ber

of

resp

onse

s(p

erc

enta

ge

of

sub

cate

gory

resp

onse

sto

tota

l)237

(26)

343

(37)

176

(19)

114

(12)

49

(5)

919

(19)

2B

asi

cp

rod

uct,

No.

resp

onse

s(p

erc

enta

ge

tota

l)106

(9)

727

(61)

119

(10)

173

(15)

70

(6)

1,1

95

(24)

3E

xperience,

No.

resp

onse

s(p

erc

enta

ge

tota

l)128

(11)

766

(66)

148

(13)

75

(7)

40

(4)

1,1

57

(24)

4To

talfu

nctio

nalD

BC

as

ap

erc

enta

ge

of

tota

lin

each

phase

(1þ

2þ

3)

471

(61)

1,8

36

(71)

443

(66)

362

(64)

159

(50)

3,2

71

(67)

Sym

bolic

DB

C5

Perc

ep

tion,

No.

resp

onse

s(p

erc

enta

ge

tota

l)217

(24)

376

(40)

115

(13)

129

(14)

85

(9)

922

(19)

6R

ela

tionsh

ip,

No.

resp

onse

s(p

erc

enta

ge

tota

l)79

(11)

381

(53)

115

(16)

73

(10)

73

(10)

721

(15)

7To

talsy

mb

olic

DB

Cas

ap

erc

enta

ge

of

tota

lin

each

phase

(5þ

6)

296

(39)

757

(29)

230

(34)

202

(36)

158

(50)

1,6

43

(33)

8To

tal:

functio

nalþ

sym

bolic

DB

C(p

erc

enta

ge

of

ove

rall)

(4þ

7)

767

(100)

2,5

93

(100)

673

(100)

564

(100)

317

(100)

4,9

14

(100)

PAGE 16 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH j VOL. 5 NO. 1 2011

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Wol

long

ong

At 2

3:23

30

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

Analysis of the first category of symbolic DBCs, perceptions (DBCS1), the study finds history

and culture account for 36 percent of the category, while experience knowledge accounts

for 26 percent (see Table VI). Overall they respectively account for 10 percent and 7 percent

respectively of the cumulative total of DBCs for Phase 1. Newer locations with little past

history need to focus on the experience knowledge. In the symbolic DBC category,

relationships (DBCS2); local people account for 42 percent of the category; and relationship

with family and friends account for 49 percent (see Table VI). Local people and relationships

together account for 10 percent of the total DBCs.

In summation, key DBCs that a leisure tourist perceives as important in the overall context for

creating a wish list are: tourist attractions (28 percent); history culture and experience

knowledge (26 percent); food, shopping and entertainment (12 percent); climate (7 percent)

and local people and relationships (10 percent). Leisure tourists choose a wish list with an

objective to see or experience something. From a DMO point of view it is important to match

the customer profile with activity.

Phase 2: Selection of a choice set

In Phase 2, for selection of a choice set, customers rank functional brand components (71

percent) as key drivers of the brand. Symbolic DBCs account for just 29 percent of the total

DBCs (see Table III). The findings do not support H2.

Accessibility (total and local) seems to be a unanimously important DBC (100 percent) for

basic physical/infrastructure needs (see Table III). Overall, accessibility accounts for 13

percent of the total DBCs in this Phase. In the basic product category (see Table IV), the

factors that stand out are: climate (25 percent of the category), accommodation (29

percent), economic value (26 percent) and telecommunications (20 percent). The impact of

each as a percentage of total DBCs in this phase, affecting the choice selection ranges

between 8-6 percent.

In the product-related experiences (see Table V); the factors that seem important are

uniqueness of site (24 percent of this category), food (23 percent), recreation/entertainment

(18 percent); shopping (18 percent) and celebration of events/special occasions (17

percent). These factors each account for 7-5 percent of the total DBCs in Phase 2.

In the symbolic category of perceptions (see Table VI), a clear focus on safety (58 percent of

category) and history/culture in perceptions (42 percent) occurs. Safety has an overall

impact of 8 percent in contribution to total DBCs for this category. History and culture is 6

percent. In the symbolic category of relationships (see Table VI), local people and their

friendliness cannot be ignored as they contribute to 83 percent of the category almost

equally, and overall account for 12 percent of total DBC.

For Phase 2, selection from a choice set, the DBC emphasis from a tourist point of view on

the overall brand is first accessibility (13 percent of total DBCs); accommodation (8 percent);

safety (8 percent); climate (7 percent); uniqueness of site (7 percent); economic value (6

percent); food (6 percent); history and culture (6 percent); local people (6 percent);

friendliness of local people (6 percent); and shopping (5 percent). It is interesting that

hygiene factors are important in this stage and can prevent a place customer from deciding

Table VIII Mean responses

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

Functional DBCBasic physical/infrastructure mean 0.82 1.19 0.61 0.39 0.17Basic product mean 0.37 2.52 0.41 0.60 0.24Experience mean 0.44 2.65 0.51 0.26 0.14

Symbolic DBCPerception mean 0.75 1.30 0.40 0.45 0.29Relationship mean 0.27 1.32 0.40 0.25 0.26

VOL. 5 NO. 1 2011 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH j PAGE 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Wol

long

ong

At 2

3:23

30

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

to buy a leisure product. Also this category had the most responses; more than three times

the number than any other phase. This is a neglected area and can affect brand perception

of a place. The perception of the people of a place also has a high impact on brand value of a

place. This reinforces the service aspect of a destination brand.

Phase 3: Post-consumption: scenario 1 – best destination

In Phase 3, Scenario 1, which looks at a tourist’s interpretation of their best destination

experience, the study finds that functional DBCs account for 66 percent of total DBCs (see

Table VII). We find that a holistic experience across functional and symbolic DBCs is

recorded for the best destination. The functional DBCs that are important for describing best

locations in the physical/infrastructural needs category (see Table III) are sceneries, sites,

and tourist attractions (78 percent). This factor accounts for 20 percent of the total DBCs.

An analysis of DBCs for basic product needs (see Table IV), finds that climate is important for

describing best locations (60 percent of the category). Overall this accounts for 10 percent

of total DBCs in this Phase. With DBCs related to product experience (see Table V),

entertainment and food account for 66 percent of DBC descriptors, each having equal

weight. Overall each of their contributions to total DBCs is 7 percent.

Symbolic DBC in the perception category (see Table VI) that travelers highlighted for

describing the brand components of their memories of the best destinations was based on

culture/history (44 percent of category). This accounts for 7 percent of the total DBCs. In the

Symbolic DBC relationships category, local people account for 65 percent of the weight in

this category but overall this accounts for 11 percent of total DBCs in Phase 3 Scenario 1.

The most important factors in Phase 3, Scenario 1 are: tourist attractions (20 percent of

overall DBCs); local people (11 percent); climate (10 percent); entertainment (7 percent);

food (7 percent) and history and culture (7 percent). If tourist attractions and history and

culture are related – they totally account for 27 percent of total DBCs. DMOs must plan their

strategy ensuring places have backgrounds (history) and ensure access and experience for

tourists are rewarding. Climate which is uncontrollable seems to have a 10 percent impact

on the destination brand.

Phase 3: Post-consumption: scenario 2 – recommendation of a place

In Scenario 2 (for recommendations) functional DBCs account for 64 percent of total DBCs

(see Table VII). In the sub-category basic physical/infrastructural DBCs (see Table III), the

two key factors are accessibility (37 percent of category) and tourist attractions (60 percent).

Tourist’s attractions account for 12 percent of overall DBCs while accessibility accounts for 7

percent.

In basic product needs (see Table IV), economic value (50 percent of category) comes to

play highlighting its importance in perceived value and the risk payoff at the stage of actually

taking a decision. In terms of overall importance, economic value accounts for 15 percent of

total DBCs in this category. The other factors are climate (29 percent of category) and

accommodation (17 percent). Climate accounts for 9 percent of total DBCs in this category

and accommodation accounts for 5 percent.

For experiences (see Table V), the sensory factors play a key role in recommendation, they

are entertainment (32 percent of category) and food (33 percent). Entertainment accounts

for 6 percent of total DBCs while food contributes a 4 percent impact. This seems to be the

least important functional component.

In symbolic DBCs, looking at perceptions (see Table VI), safety plays a key role in

perceptions (49 percent of category). This has an overall 11 percent impact on brand.

Customers do consider perceptions of safety when recommending a place. In symbolic

relationship DBCs, local people have a 49 percent impact in the category which translated to

an overall impact of 6 percent in total DBCs for this phase. Overall the key brand

components that affect the destination brand are: economic value (15 percent of total

DBCs); tourist attractions (12 percent); safety (11 percent); climate (9 percent);

accommodation (7 percent); entertainment (6 percent) and local people (6 percent).

PAGE 18 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH j VOL. 5 NO. 1 2011

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Wol

long

ong

At 2

3:23

30

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

Hygiene factors play an important role here. The importance of these factors are different

from Phase I suggesting that destinations must manage information and brand

communication keeping in mind various stages of the consumer decision making

process. Recommendations are a manifestation of loyalty and for destination loyalty,

DMOs needs to reinforce convenience, value, experience and relationships.

Phase 3: Post-consumption: scenario 2 – least liked destinations

For Scenario 3, least liked destinations, brand perceptions are equally matched between

functional and symbolic DBCs. This category had the least responses. This is the only place

symbolic DBCs match in terms of number of references with functions DBCs. Key functional

descriptors (see Table III) are accessibility (43 percent of category) in infrastructure; climate

(39 percent of category), and cleanliness and hygiene (29 percent of category) in basic

product needs (see Table IV); and food (63 percent of category) in experiences (see

Table V). Accessibility accounts for 9 percent of overall DBCs in this phase; climate accounts

for 8 percent; cleanliness and hygiene for 6 percent and food accounts for 8 percent.

Key symbolic descriptors (see Table VI) are safety (32 percent of category) in perceptions;

local people (58 percent), language (29 percent) in relationships and congestions and

noisiness (20 percent). Overall this translates to safety having an 8 percent overall impact on

DBCs; local people have a 14 percent impact, language a 7 percent impact and congestion

and noisiness (crowds) have a 4 percent overall impact. People with a 14 percent overall

impact in total DBCs affect negative word of mouth, followed by accessibility (9 percent).

Climate, food and safety each have an 8 percent impact of total DBCs. DMOs must realize

service providers of tourism products must be trained as must residents.

H3a states that post-consumption, customers distinguish between destinations on the basis

of symbolic properties. The study finds partial support only in scenario 3. Scenario 1 and 2

receives no support. Scenario 3 identifies possible hygiene factors like convenience in

transportation to tourist places, perceptions of cleanliness and hygiene and availability of

food. DMOs must align customer perceptions of reality with reality for a positive experience.

‘‘Popular’’ may mean a manifestation of a crowd to one tourist, but while one views it

positively, another may think of it negatively as being too noisy. H3b receives little support as

the study finds that loyalty follows more frequently in terms of functional attributes rather than

symbolic attributes.

Some other interesting findings are discussed. Relationships (symbolic DBCs) surprisingly

had no difference in responses in creation of a Phase 1, and in Phase 3, Scenario 2 and 3

(positive or negative). This could be because they are highly personal and situation specific

indicating that this need is for more emotionally and socially intelligent populations or people

who have travelled up the travel ladder. Perceptions of safety seem to be a recurring

underlying theme – destinations need to reassure leisure travelers about safety by

communicating this attribute both implicitly or explicitly. Customers also want destinations to

have key attractions marked out for them and accessibility to those attractions must be

convenient.

Overall importance of DBC type

Respondents prefer using functional DBCs (67 percent) rather than symbolic (33 percent) to

describe locations. This finding confirms H4 which states: Overall when looking at brand

image, functional DBCs outweigh symbolic DBCs in importance.

Effect of gender and income on DBCs

Analysis was also conducted to test the existence of any relationship between respondent’s

gender and income. The analysis used is a multivariate discriminant analysis and is based

on the Wilk’s Lambda statistical test along with its p-value (see Tables IX-XI). Values of Wilk’s

lambda that are close to 1 indicate that the means of the group are not too different. The

p-values indicates whether the statistical test is significant ( p-values less than 0.10) or not.

There is an absence of effect of income in all the responses in all phases.

VOL. 5 NO. 1 2011 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH j PAGE 19

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Wol

long

ong

At 2

3:23

30

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

No gender effect occurred for any of the variables in all phases of the study with the

exception in least favorite place in Phase 3 (Scenario 3). Men use more symbolic DBCs to

describe their negative brand perception. Beerli and Martin (2004) found that women tend to

rank destinations more favorably than men; conversely we can assume men tend to rank

them more negatively. Men also tend to emphasize social and psychological risk dimensions

(Kumf, 1978, see Mitchell, 1998), have greater expectations, higher involvement and hence

greater negative cues (Stendardi et al., 2006).

Discussion

The study confirms the importance of functional DBCs as Hankinson (2005) finds. Function

DBCs are a growing concern as most destination branding is moving towards symbolic

imagery. Images cannot be static. Jacobson and Mizik (2008) state that brands that are able

to adapt to customers changing needs and trends do far better than more static brands. A

study by Gallarza et al. (2002) finds the balance between functional and psychological

attributes has not changed over 20 years though they acknowledge that image is not static.

Longitudinal studies may yield more findings.

Some key findings for DMOs are that they must communicate to customers keeping in mind

that different DBCs have different priorities for the customer at various stages of the decision

making process. For creation of a choice set, DMOs could focus on tourist attractions,

history or culture and the experience knowledge (especially if they don’t have strong

historical roots). To help the customer finalize a destination, DMOs must focus on providing

information on the brand that reinforces the destination accessibility, economic value,

comfort (accommodation), communication and safety. Reinforcement on heritage, culture

and people are areas that can help consumers take a decision to visit the destination.

Table IX Effects of gender on various phases

Wilks’ Lambda p-value

Phase 1 0.991 0.757Phase 2 0.984 0.472Phase 3 Best destination 0.991 0.772

þWOM 0.979 0.3052WOM 0.762* 0.052*

Note: * Significant at 10 percentage levels so group means are different

Table X Effects of income on various phases

Wilks’ Lambda p-value

Phase 1 0.987 0.434Phase 2 0.989 0.658Phase 3 Best destination 0.953 0.794

þWOM 0.979 0.4382WOM 0.998 0.320

Table XI Phase 3, part 3 (least favorite)

Functional DBC (% gender dispersion) Symbolic (% gender dispersion)Infrastructure Basic Experience Perceptions Relationship

Male 31 (63) 39 (56) 23 (58) 53 (63) 50 (68)Female 18 (37) 31 (44) 17 (42) 31 (37) 24 (32)Total 49 (100) 70 (100) 40 (100) 84 (100) 74 (100)

Note: Male:female ratio: 1.13: 1

PAGE 20 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH j VOL. 5 NO. 1 2011

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Wol

long

ong

At 2

3:23

30

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

Post-destination experience, this study finds that when customers recollected their best

destination experiences, the top of mind recall descriptions are tourist attractions, culture or

heritage, people, food and entertainment. Worst locations were described by DBCs that

looked at hygiene factors like accessibility, cleanliness and hygiene, food, safety, local

people, language and noise. This suggests perceptions play a key role. DMOs must take

care not to build up expectations that cannot be met as it can then lead to negative word of

mouth. Climate seemed to be a constant factor in all phases and scenarios. Places like Goa,

have embraced the climate (sun/fun and monsoon season) and has done so relatively

successfully. For WOM, consumers chose experiences in terms of tourist attraction,

economic value, entertainment, food, local people and safety as DBCs. Food has a

tendency to be a hygiene factor and to become a motivator, DMOs must encourage food

establishments to cater to tourist group’s dietary restrictions. Restaurant classifications or

certification can help increase tourist trust.

Future studies can analyze these attributes in detail for case specific destinations. There is a

need to conduct an empirical study on the how different DBCs may be correlated in terms of

importance based on type of destination (leisure, business or mixed). DBCs may vary

according to demographic characteristics especially education and exposure to media, and

this constitutes a vast area of potential research. Nevertheless, some limitations could be

seen in this study with a particular concern in the sample size and the fact that the study was

not longitudinal in nature. However, the key results of this study highlight the importance of

DBCs and its mutation based on various stages in the consumer decision making process.

The result will help DMOs plan their destination brand strategy.

By identifying, from the customer point of view, those DBCs with the most values,

destinations would be in a position to create a more customer-centric branding strategy and

further be able to differentiate from competitors focusing on combinations of components

that are unique. For example Okumus et al. (2007) find food/cuisine a great potential place

differentiator. Chhabra et al. (2003) suggest that authenticity is positively correlated to higher

tourist expenditures and repeated staged events that reflect authentic heritage result in

increase repeat visits. Um et al. (2006) argue that destination perceived attractiveness rather

than satisfaction is an important indicator of revisit intension.

Future studies might attempt to link the type of tourist preferences with motive. Tran and

Ralston (2006) find that adventure tourism relates to the need for achievement while the need

for affiliation is linked with culture tourism. This type of method may be applicable for service

branding as sectors like hospitality are important contributors to the tourism industry.

References

Aaker, D. (1997), ‘‘Dimensions of brand personality’’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 No. 3,

pp. 347-56.

Alegre, J. and Juaneda, C. (2006), ‘‘Destination loyalty: consumers’ economic behavior’’, Annals of

Tourism Research, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 684-706.

Anholt, S. (2006), ‘‘The Anholt-GMI City Brands Index: how the world sees the world’s cities’’, Place

Branding, Vol. 2, pp. 18-31.

Arnold, T. (2007), Breaking Barriers – Managing Growth, Summit Highlights 2007/World Travel & Tourism

Council, available at: www.wttc.org (accessed 10 October 2007).

Ataman, B. and Ulengin, B. (2003), ‘‘A note on the effect of brand image on sales’’, Journal of Product

& Brand Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 237-50.

Balabanis, G. and Diamantopoulos, A. (2008), ‘‘Brand origin identification by consumers: a classification

perspective’’, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 39-71.

Balakrishnan, M.S. (2008), ‘‘Dubai – a star in the east. A case study in destination branding’’, Journal of

Place Management & Development, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 62-91.

Balakrishnan, M.S. (2009), ‘‘Strategic branding of destinations – a framework’’, European Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 43 Nos 5/6, pp. 611-29.

VOL. 5 NO. 1 2011 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH j PAGE 21

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Wol

long

ong

At 2

3:23

30

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

Baloglu, S. and Brinberg, D. (1997), ‘‘Affective images of tourism destinations’’, Journal of Travel

Research, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 11-15.

Baloglu, S. and McCleary, K. (1999), ‘‘US international pleasure travelers’ images of four Mediterranean

destinations: a comparison’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 44-152.

Beerli, A. and Martin, J.D. (2004), ‘‘Factors influencing destination image’’, Annals of Tourism Research,

Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 657-81.

Bennett, O. (1999), ‘‘Destination marketing into the next century’’, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 6

No. 1, pp. 48-54.

Bhat, S. and Reddy, S.K. (1998), ‘‘Symbolic and functional positioning of brands’’, Journal of Consumer

Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 32-43.

Caldwell, N. and Freire, J.R. (2004), ‘‘The differences between branding a country, a region and city:

applying the brand box model’’, The Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 50-61.

Castaneda, J., Frıas, D. and Rodrıguez, M. (2007), ‘‘The influence of the internet on destination

satisfaction’’, Internet Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 402-20.

Castro, C.B., Armario, E.M. and Ruiz, D.M. (2007), ‘‘The influence of market heterogeneity on the

relationship between destination image and tourists’ future behaviour’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 28,

pp. 175-87.

Chen, J. and Gursoy, D. (2001), ‘‘An investigation of tourists’ destination loyalty and preferences’’,

International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 79-85.

Chhabra, D., Healy, R. and Sills, E. (2003), ‘‘Staged authenticity and heritage tourism’’, Annals of Tourism

Research, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 702-19.

Cooper, P. (1989), ‘‘Comparison between the UK and US: the qualitative dimesions’’, Journal of

Marketing Research Society, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 509-20.

de Chernatony, L. (1997), ‘‘Integrated brand building using brand taxonomies’’, Journal of Product

& Brand Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 56-63.

de Chernatony, L. and Riley, F.D. (1997), ‘‘Modelling the components of the brand’’, European Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 32 Nos 11/12, pp. 1074-90.

de Chernatony, L., Harris, F. and Riley, F.D. (2000), ‘‘Added value: its nature, roles and sustainability’’,

European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 Nos 1/2, pp. 39-56.

Echtner, C. and Ritchie, B. (1993), ‘‘The measurement of destination image: an empirical assessment’’,

Journal of Travel Research, Spring, pp. 3-13.

Fan, Y. (2006), ‘‘Branding the nation: what is being branded?’’, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 12

No. 1, pp. 5-14.

Finn, M., Elliott-White, M. and Walton, M. (2000), Tourism and Leisure Research Methods – Data

Collection, Analysis and Interpretation, Longman, New York, NY.

Gallarza, M.G., Saura, I.G. and Garcıa, H.C. (2002), ‘‘Destination image: towards a conceptual

framework’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 56-78.

Gartner, W.C. (1989), ‘‘Tourism image: attribute measurement of state tourism products using

multidimensional scaling techniques’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 15-19.

Goodrich, J.N. (1978), ‘‘The relationship between preferences for and perceptions of vacation

destinations: application of a choice model’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 8-13.

Gordon, B. (1986), ‘‘The souvenir: messenger of the extraordinary’’, The Journal of Popular Culture,

Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 135-46.

Gross, M.J., Brien, C. and Brown, G. (2008), ‘‘Examining the dimensions of a lifestyle tourism

destination’’, International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 44-66.

Hankinson, G. (2004), ‘‘The brand images of a tourism destination: a study of the saliency of organic

images’’, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 6-14.

Hankinson, G. (2005), ‘‘Destination brand image: a business tourism perspective’’, Journal of Services

Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 24-33.

PAGE 22 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH j VOL. 5 NO. 1 2011

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Wol

long

ong

At 2

3:23

30

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

Hosany, S., Ekinci, Y. and Uysal, M. (2007), ‘‘Destination image and destination personality’’,

International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 62-81.

Hsieh, A. and Li, C. (2008), ‘‘The moderating effect of brand image on public relations perception and

customer loyalty’’, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 26-42.

Human, B. (1999), ‘‘Kodachrome icons: photography, place and the theft of identity’’, International

Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 11 Nos 2/3, pp. 80-4.

Hussey, M. and Duncombe, N. (1999), ‘‘Projecting the right image: using projective techniques to

measure brand image’’, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 22-30.

Ibrahim, E.E. and Gill, J. (2005), ‘‘A positioning strategy for a tourist destination, based on analysis of

customers’ perceptions and satisfactions’’, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 172-88.

Jacobson, R. and Mizik, N. (2008), ‘‘The financial value impact of perceptual brand attributes’’, Journal

of Marketing Research, Vol. 45 No. 1.

Jamal, A. and Goode, M.M.H. (2001), ‘‘Consumers and brands: a study of the impact of self-image

congruence on brand preference and satisfaction’’, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 19 No. 7,

pp. 482-92.

Jankowicz, A.D. (2000), Business Research Projects, 3rd ed., Thompson Learning, London.

Keller, K.L. (1993), ‘‘Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer-based brand equity’’, Journal

of Marketing, Vol. 57, pp. 1-22.

Keller, K.L. (1998), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity,

Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Kirmani, A., Sood, S. and Bridges, S. (1999), ‘‘The ownership effect in consumer responses to brand line

stretches’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, January, pp. 88-101.

Kotler, P. and Gertner, D. (2004), ‘‘Country as a Brand, product and beyond: a place marketing and

brand management perspective’’, in Morgan, N., Pritchard, A. and Pride, R. (Eds), Destination

Branding: Creating the Unique Destination Proposition, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 40-56.

Lange, F. and Dahlen, M. (2003), ‘‘Let’s be strange: brand familiarity and ad-brand incongruency’’,

Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 12 No. 7, pp. 449-61.

Law, R., Cheung, C. and Lo, A. (2004), ‘‘Profiling travel activities for improving destination marketing

strategies’’, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 355-62.

Lee, D. and Ganesh, G. (1999), ‘‘Effects of partitioned country image in the context of brand image and

familiarity: a categorization theory perspective’’, International Marketing Review, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 18-39.

Leisen, B. (2001), ‘‘Image segmentation: the case of a tourism destination’’, Journal of Services

Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 49-66.

Lindstrom, M. (2005), ‘‘Broad sensory branding’’, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 14

No. 2, pp. 84-7.

Low, G.S. and Lamb, C.W. Jr (2000), ‘‘The measurement and dimensionality of brand associations’’,

Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 350-68.

McDonald, M.H.B., de Chernatony, L. and Harris, F. (2001), ‘‘Corporate marketing and service brands:

moving beyond the fast-moving goods model’’, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4,

pp. 335-52.

McWilliam, G. and de Chernatony, L. (1989), ‘‘Branding terminology – the real debate’’, Marketing

Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 7 No. 7, pp. 29-32.

Maklan, S. and Knox, S. (1997), ‘‘Reinventing the brand: bridging the gap between customer and brand

value’’, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 119-29.

Meenaghan, T. (1995), ‘‘The role of advertising in brand image development’’, Journal of Product

& Brand Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 23-34.

Mitchell, V-W. (1998), ‘‘A role for consumer risk perceptions in grocery retailing’’, British Food Journal,

Vol. 100 No. 4, pp. 171-83.

VOL. 5 NO. 1 2011 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH j PAGE 23

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Wol

long

ong

At 2

3:23

30

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

Moorthi, Y.L.R. (2002), ‘‘An approach to branding services’’, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 3,

pp. 259-74.

Moutinho, L. (1987), ‘‘Consumer behaviour in tourism’’, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 10,

pp. 5-44.

Mowle, J. and Merrilees, B. (2005), ‘‘A functional and symbolic perspective to branding Australian SME

wineries’’, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 220-7.

O’Cass, A. and Grace, D. (2004), ‘‘Exploring consumer experiences with a service brand’’, Journal of

Product & Brand Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 257-68.

Okumus, B., Okumus, F. and McKercher, B. (2007), ‘‘Incorporating local and international cuisines in the

marketing of tourism destinations: the cases of Hong Kong and Turkey’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 28,

pp. 253-61.

Orth, U. and Marchi, R. (2007), ‘‘Understanding the relationship between functional, symbolic and

experiential brand beliefs, product experiential attributes, and product schema: advertising-trial

interactions revisited’’, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 219-33.

Palumbo, F. and Herbig, P. (2000), ‘‘The multicultural context of brand loyalty’’, European Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 123 No. 3, pp. 116-24.

Pearce, P.L. (1991), ‘‘Fundamentals of tourist motivation’’, in Pearce, D.G. and Sutter, R.W. (Eds),

Tourism Research: Critiques and Challenges, Routledge, London.

Pina, J.M., Martinez, E., de Chernatony, L. and Drury, S. (2006), ‘‘The effect of service brand extensions

on corporate image: an empirical model’’, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Nos 1/2, pp. 174-97.

Prideaux, B. and Cooper, C. (2003), ‘‘Marketing and destination growth: a symbiotic relationship or

simple coincidence?’’, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 35-51.

Reichheld, F.F. (2003), ‘‘The one number you need to grow’’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 81 No. 12,

pp. 46-54.

Ross-Wooldridge, B. (2004), ‘‘The role of company image as brand equity’’, Corporate Communications:

An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 159-67.

Simeon, R. (2006), ‘‘A conceptual model linking brand-building strategies and Japanese popular

culture’’, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 463-76.

Sirgy, M.J. and Su, C. (2000), ‘‘Destination image, self-congruity, and travel behaviour: towards an

integrative model’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 38, May, pp. 340-52.

Solomon, M.R. (1983), ‘‘The role of products as a social stimulus: a symbolic interactionism

perspective’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 319-29.

Stendardi, E.J., Graham, J.F. and O’Reilly, M. (2006), ‘‘The impact of gender on the personal financial

planning process’’, Humanomics, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 223-38.

Tran, X. and Ralston, L. (2006), ‘‘Tourism preferences: influence of unconscious needs’’, Annals of

Tourism Research, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 424-41.

Trueman, M., Klemm, M. and Giroud, A. (2004), ‘‘Can a city communicate? Bradford as a corporate

brand’’, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 317-30.

Um, S., Chon, K. and Ro, Y. (2006), ‘‘Antecedents of revisit intention’’, Annals of Tourism Research,

Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 1141-58.

White, C. (2005), ‘‘Destination image: to see or not to see? Part II’’, International Journal of Contemporary

Hospitality Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 191-6.

Williams, A. (2006), ‘‘Tourism and hospitality marketing: fantasy, feeling and fun’’, International Journal of

Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 482-96.

Wood, L. (2000), ‘‘Brands and brand equity: definition and management’’, Management Decision,

Vol. 38 No. 9, pp. 662-9.

Wood, L. (2007), ‘‘Functional and symbolic attributes of product selection’’, British Food Journal, Vol. 109

No. 2, pp. 108-18.

PAGE 24 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH j VOL. 5 NO. 1 2011

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Wol

long

ong

At 2

3:23

30

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

Woodside, A.G. and Dubelaar, C. (2002), ‘‘A general theory of tourism consumption systems:

a conceptual framework and an empirical examination’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 41, pp. 120-32.

Woodside, A.G. and Trappey, R.J. III (2001), ‘‘Learning why some customers shop at less convenient

stores’’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 54, pp. 151-9.

WTO (2007), available at: www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/ its2007_e/its07_trade_category_e.pdf

(accessed 15 April 2008).

WTTC (2007), World Travel and Tourism: Progress and Priorities 2007, available at: www.wttc.org,

(accessed 1 August 2007).

Yasin, N.M., Noor, M.N. and Mohamad, O. (2007), ‘‘Does country of origin matter to brand equity?’’,

Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 38-48.

Further reading

Bigne, E., Sancez, I. and Sanchez, J. (2001), ‘‘Tourism image, evaluation variables and after-purchase

behaviour: inter-relationship’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 22, pp. 607-16.

Davis, S. (2002), ‘‘Implementing your BAM strategy: 11 steps to making your brand a more valuable

business asset’’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 503-13.

Fakeye, P. and Crompton, J. (1991), ‘‘Image differences between prospective, first-time, and repeat

visitors to the Lower Rio Grande Valley’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 10-16.

Konecnik, M. and Gartner, W.C. (2007), ‘‘Customer-based brand equity for a destination’’, Annals of

Tourism Research, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 400-21.

Martinez, E. and de Chernatony, L. (2003), ‘‘The effect of brand extension strategies upon brand

image’’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 39-50.

Morgan, N. and Pritchard, A. (2005), ‘‘On souvenirs and metony: narratives of memory, metaphor and

materiality’’, Tourist Studies, Vol. 5, pp. 29-53.

Ostrowski, P., O’Brien, T. and Gordan, G. (1993), ‘‘Service quality and customer loyalty in the commercial

airline industry’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 16-24.

Pike, S. (2005), ‘‘Tourism destination complexity’’, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 14

No. 4, pp. 258-9.

Corresponding author

Melodena Stephens Balakrishnan can be contacted at: melodenabalakrishnan@uowdubai.ac.ae

VOL. 5 NO. 1 2011 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH j PAGE 25

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Wol

long

ong

At 2

3:23

30

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

This article has been cited by:

1. Peter Björk, Hannele Kauppinen-Räisänen. 2014. Exploring the multi-dimensionality of travellers' culinary-gastronomicexperiences. Current Issues in Tourism 1-21. [CrossRef]

2. Dr Daphne Halkias, Hameedah Sayani, Melodena Stephens Balakrishnan. 2013. Marketing an Islamic index: perceived valueof KMI30 Index. Management Research Review 36:4, 326-358. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

3. Mohammad Reza Jalilvand, Neda Samiei, Behrooz Dini, Parisa Yaghoubi Manzari. 2012. Examining the structuralrelationships of electronic word of mouth, destination image, tourist attitude toward destination and travel intention: Anintegrated approach. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 1:1-2, 134-143. [CrossRef]

4. Melodena Stephens Balakrishnan. 2011. Protecting from brand burn during times of crisis. Management Research Review34:12, 1309-1334. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Wol

long

ong

At 2

3:23

30

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)