http://jtr.sagepub.com/Journal of Travel Research

http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/45/3/259The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/0047287506292688

2007 45: 259Journal of Travel ResearchMarsha D. Loda, William Norman and Kenneth F. Backman

Advertising and Publicity: Suggested New Applications for Tourism Marketers  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: 

  Travel and Tourism Research Association

can be found at:Journal of Travel ResearchAdditional services and information for    

  http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://jtr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/45/3/259.refs.htmlCitations:  

What is This? 

- Jan 25, 2007Version of Record >>

at University of Newcastle on September 13, 2014jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Newcastle on September 13, 2014jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Advertising and Publicity: SuggestedNew Applications for Tourism Marketers

MARSHA D. LODA, WILLIAM NORMAN, AND KENNETH F. BACKMAN

Marketing texts teach that publicity’s advantages overadvertising include lower costs and increased visibility andthat the third-party endorsement effect inherent in publicityis assumed to increase its credibility (Kotler 1993).

These claims are countered by Hunt and Gruning (1993),who note the lack of research evidence that editorial copyhas greater credibility than advertising. Hallahan (1999,p. 331) agrees and states, “despite widespread acceptanceamong practitioners, and general acknowledgement by aca-demicians, little empirical research has been conducted totest claims about third-party endorsement or the superiorityof news versus advertising.”

Lord and Putrevu (1993) explain the need for greater recog-nition of the value and importance of publicity. They call forresearch to bring practitioners and scholars to a better under-standing of what they call an often neglected promotional tool.

Cho (2001) also examined the role of credibility ofinformation sources in tourists’ information-search behavioralong with the role of prior knowledge and need for infor-mation. Respondents rated 10 information sources, rangingfrom their own experience to magazines, newspapers, andthe Internet, on a scale of 1 (not at all credible) to 7 (verycredible). Results reveal that “the credibility of sources wasfound to have the most crucial influence on the selection anduse of the source, compared with the effects of prior knowl-edge and need for information” (p. v). However, there wasno distinguishing between advertising messages and editor-ial messages in the rating process.

While some literature exists comparing the persuasiveeffects of advertising and publicity, it is not extensive. In all, 12studies were located (Schwarz, Kumpf, and Bussmann 1986;Anderson and Abbott 1985; Hausknecht, Wilkinson, andPrough 1989; Salmon et al. 1985; Hennessey and Anderson1990; d’Astous and Hebert 1991; Cameron 1994; Chaiken andMaheswaran 1994; Straughan, Bleske, and Zhao 1994; Chew,Slater, and Kelly 1995; Hallahan 1995, 1999). Among these,

Dr. Marsha Loda was a principle in an advertising agency for15 years and the director of marketing for the largest tourism busi-ness in North Carolina. She got her PhD in 2003 and is an assistantprofessor of marketing in the Hull College of Business at AugustaState University in Augusta, Georgia. Dr. William Norman is directorof the Recreation, Travel and Tourism Institute at Clemson Universityin Clemson, South Carolina, where he also serves as associate pro-fessor. Dr. Kenneth F. Backman is associate professor at ClemsonUniversity in Clemson, South Carolina. His research interests includetourism marketing and community tourism development.

Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 45, February 2007, 259-265DOI: 10.1177/0047287506292688© 2007 Sage Publications

This research explores two of the basic tools used bytourism marketers: advertising and publicity. Message stim-ulus is the independent variable and consists of two parts:message presentation (i.e., publicity or advertising) andmessage sequencing (i.e., publicity only, publicity thenadvertising, advertising only, or advertising then publicity).Four dependent variables are organized in two categories:message acceptance (i.e., perceived credibility, messagestrength) and message response (i.e., attitude toward thedestination, purchase intent). Results of the study show thatpublicity, in either presentation or sequencing, createdsignificantly higher mean scores than advertising for credi-bility, message strength, and purchase intent. This studyreaffirms that publicity is an important element in thetourism marketing mix. Furthermore, it suggests that apublicity-then-advertising strategy is most effective at per-suading potential tourists to visit a specific destination.

Keywords: communication; advertising; publicity; per-ceived credibility

While different sources of information affect customers’purchase decisions, it is in mass-media advertising that mar-keters often invest significant portions of marketing budgets(Knipp 1996). However, from previous studies, it can beinferred that print publicity is potentially more credible thanprint advertising (Lord and Putrevu 1993; Cameron 1994;Hallahan 1999). Research is neither abundant nor conclu-sive. The current research tests whether there is a differencebetween advertising and publicity on message acceptanceand response and if the sequencing of message presentation(i.e., advertising then publicity or publicity then advertising)affects message processing. Four dependent variables arestudied: message strength, perceived credibility, attitudetoward the destination, and purchase intent.

This study attempts to address marketing issues ofimportance to the tourism industry. Message credibility iscritical because of the intangible nature of the tourism prod-uct and the risk associated with destination selection.

THE ISSUE OF ADVERTISINGVERSUS PUBLICITY

The belief that publicity is more credible, persuasive,or effective than advertising is cited in marketing litera-ture (Gartner 1993; Kotler, Bowen, and Makens 1996; Riesand Ries 2002) but without substantive empirical support.

at University of Newcastle on September 13, 2014jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Hallahan (1999) reports that 2 studies supported that publicitymessages are more credible than advertising, 7 were inconclu-sive, and 3 had methodology issues that confounded theirresults. Hallahan concludes, “the evidence suggests news doesnot uniformly outperform advertising” (p. 339).

One exploratory study reported on the extent and role ofpublicity programs in the promotional strategy of 10 nationaltourism organizations. It reports that publicity programs con-ducted by destinations are often “deliberate, planned, method-ical and coordinated with a clear set of objectives” (Dore andCrouch 2003, p. 137). Some respondents reported receiving agreater annual value from their publicity programs than fromany other promotional strategy. Dore and Crouch call for fur-ther research to examine the impact of publicity with otherforms of messages and to study consumer behavior issuesincluding the effect of publicity on destination choice.

THE IMPACT OF MESSAGE SEQUENCING

Conversely, how consumers process and integrate vari-ous sources of information has been the subject of consider-able study. Researchers examining this issue often use theexpectancy-value (EV) theory of Fishbein and Ajzen (1975).This is a model of reasoned behavior or central-route pro-cessing wherein consumers carefully consider message con-tent (Petty and Cacioppo 1986). In these cases, the successof persuasive communications (i.e., message acceptance)depends on the degree to which consumers accept messageclaims (Smith and Vogt 1995). Factors that influence mes-sage acceptance include perceived credibility and messagestrength (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). The theory of reasonedaction was extended to the theory of planned behavior(Ajzen and Driver 1992) that ads subjective norms and per-ceived behavioral control as predictors of actual behavior.

According to Smith and Vogt (1995), the EV model iden-tifies which variables are important in information response,that is, the degree to which attitudes are changed by persuasivecommunication. However, Anderson’s (1971) information-integration theory describes how information from differentsources (i.e., advertising and publicity) is combined whenpeople form evaluations. According to information-integrationtheory, the sequence of exposure to informational stimuli is animportant issue. In their integrated information responsemodel, Smith and Swinyard (1982) propose that consumers’belief strength can be affected by message sequencing.Exposure to a credible initial message source such as directexperience generates “a powerful information base for attitu-dinal development” (p. 84).

Lord and Putrevu (1993) recognized the potentialsequencing impact of publicity with advertising. They statethat multiple promotional messages interact in such a way asto yield advantages for the publicity-then-advertising order-ing relative to an advertising-then-publicity sequence. Theycall for specific research to confirm and better understandthese potential sequencing effects.

Using the EV model as a theoretical framework, Smithand Vogt (1995) studied the sequencing effects of advertisingand negative word-of-mouth publicity on tourism messages.A test was conducted using four experimental groups: adver-tising only, negative word-of-mouth only, advertising thennegative word-of-mouth, and negative word-of-mouth thenadvertising. Results revealed that negative word-of-mouth

communication reduced the perceived credibility of advertis-ing as well as brand attitudes and purchase intent for a spe-cific vacation destination. This study was based on a priorexperiment by Smith (1993), who studied the integrationeffects of advertising and trial for a cola product.

HYPOTHESES

According to Smith and Vogt (1995), the extent of per-suasion that occurs from a promotional message depends onthe degree to which consumers undergo message accep-tance. Factors that influence message acceptance includeperceived credibility (i.e., truthfulness and accuracy) andmessage strength (i.e., weak or strong reasoning in messageclaims), two dependent variables tested in this study.

Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) model of reasoned behaviorstates that attitude leads to behavioral intent. Attitude towardthe brand and purchase intent are common variables ofmarketing-research projects (Hallahan 1999). Therefore,attitude toward the destination (i.e., a predisposition torespond favorably or unfavorably) and purchase intent (i.e.,a stage of motivation that precedes behavior) are studied.

Message stimulus is the independent variable of thisstudy and consists of two parts: message presentation (i.e.,publicity or advertising) and message sequencing (i.e., pub-licity only, publicity then advertising, advertising only, oradvertising then publicity). Four dependent variables areorganized in two categories: message acceptance (i.e., per-ceived credibility, message strength) and message response(i.e., attitude toward the destination, purchase intent).

Two hypotheses were examined concerning whether thereis a difference in message acceptance and message responsedepending on how the message is presented (advertising orpublicity) and whether sequencing matters.

Hypothesis 1: There will be greater message acceptancefor publicity only than for any other message sequence.

Hypothesis 2: There will be greater message response forpublicity only than for any other message sequence.

METHODOLOGY

The research was conducted as an experiment in theform of a posttest-only control group. To explore thehypotheses, five experimental groups were used: (1) adver-tising only, (2) publicity only, (3) advertising then publicity,(4) publicity then advertising, and (5) a control group. Theposttest-only group design assured that subjects are notbiased by previous exposures or learning effects throughpretests (Kirk 1982). University student subjects were cho-sen because they generally represent a homogeneous groupthat travels frequently (Jamrozy 1996). The research con-sisted of five stages: selecting the specific destination tostudy, selecting attributes of that destination to include instimulus materials, developing the stimulus materials, test-ing the stimulus materials, and data collection.

Product and Attribute Selection

Procedures for selecting the specific destination and desti-nation attributes tested replicated those used in the Smith and

260 FEBRUARY 2007

at University of Newcastle on September 13, 2014jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Vogt (1995) study. To select the destination, 27 subjects weresurveyed concerning destinations they would realisticallyconsider if they had the time and money to travel. Beach des-tinations dominated the pretest. Four islands received multi-ple mentions. The island of Aruba was selected because itreceived the least multiple mentions. A lesser known destina-tion was desirable to limit preconceived attitudes.

Another survey was conducted in which 21 differentsubjects were asked to determine which attributes weresalient when choosing an island vacation destination.Following the free-elicitation procedure of Fishbein andAjzen (1975), the respondents listed the attributes they con-sidered important when selecting an island vacation. Thefive most frequently mentioned attributes were incorporatedinto stimulus materials. These attributes were activities (e.g.,hiking, snorkeling, scuba diving, sightseeing), white sandbeaches, good weather, inclusive and reasonable price, andinteresting or native foods.

Stimulus Materials

Three one-page print advertisements and three one-pagemagazine publicity articles, each incorporating the five mostsalient attributes, were created and pretested. Following aquantitative analysis of 5 months of tourism advertisementsand articles in Southern Living magazine, stimulus materialswere designed to closely resemble one-page advertisementsand articles in the magazine. Southern Living was chosen asthe prototype after surveying a sample of 27 students ontheir magazine-reading habits. Stimulus materials werepretested and revised to arrive at one article and one adver-tisement. The final materials were rated by respondents asequally persuasive (using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is notat all persuasive and 10 is extremely persuasive). Both ofthe promotional messages were presented with four-colorphotography and in a full-page format.

Measurement Scale Development

The measures all used 7-point scales that were based onthose used by Smith and Vogt (1995). Perceived credibilitywas measured with three Likert-type scales asking how

truthful, accurate, and credible a specific stimulus was to therespondent. These measures were developed by Darley andSmith (1993) and Smith and Hunt (1978). Message strengthwas measured with a 3-item scale developed by Miniard,Bhatla, and Rose (1990) and Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann(1983). This scale asked respondents to rate message claimsfrom weak to strong. Attitude toward the destination wasmeasured globally with three semantic differential scales(Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum 1967). Respondents usedbipolar attribute fields to rate the destination as good, posi-tive, and interesting. This measurement was developed byMacKenzie and Lutz (1989), Miniard, Bhatla, and Rose(1990), and Smith (1993). Purchase intent was measuredwith two 7-point scales developed by Smith (1993). Thequestions asked how likely the respondent was to select thedestination and how likely he or she would be to recommendthe destination to a friend. Responses range from not at alllikely to extremely likely. For all multi-item measures, meanscores were combined and averaged to generate one statisticfor each dependent variable. Five versions of the instrumentwere created and pretested (see table 1).

Data Collection Procedures

The study population for this research was students at auniversity in the southeastern United States. A sample sizeof 150 (30 per group) was used so that the central-limit the-orem would apply and normal distribution would be assuredfor each group (Salkind 1994). As Smith and Vogt (1995)did, involvement was encouraged of all groups. To createreasonably high processing involvement, participants wereasked to “consider yourself a person who has saved theirfunds, and now has the time and money to take a vacationthis summer.” Participants were instructed to read the mate-rials carefully, told to form an evaluation of the destination,and informed that they would be asked some questionsabout the destination later.

Each participant was randomly assigned a booklet con-taining instructions, stimulus materials, and survey ques-tions to be completed following exposure to the stimulus.Subjects were instructed to spend as much time as theyneeded to thoroughly read the stimulus materials (depending

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 261

TABLE 1

SCALE AND RELIABILITY MEASURES

α

Perceived credibility (3 items, scored from 1 to 7 [highest]) .90In the materials you just read:

How credible do you think the claims were

Message strength (3 items, scored from –3 to +3 [highest]) .75I think the message/arguments in the materials were:

Easy to understand/not easy to understandStrong reasons/weak reasonsClear/unclear

Attitude toward the destination (3 items, –3 to +3 [highest]) .92I feel Aruba as a vacation place is positive/negativeI feel Aruba as a vacation place is good/badI feel Aruba as a vacation place is interesting/uninteresting

Purchase intent (2 items scored from 1 to 7 [highest]) .89How likely are you to select Aruba as your vacation placeHow likely would you be to recommend Aruba as a vacation place to a friend

at University of Newcastle on September 13, 2014jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

on the experimental group). Next, the dependent measureswere collected (subjects were not allowed to turn back to thestimulus materials). Following exposure to the treatment,data were collected to measure the four dependent variables.

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Two MANOVAs were used to test the hypotheses (seetable 2). The first hypothesis tested message acceptance(i.e., perceived credibility and message strength) without thepresence of a control group (respondents could not ratethese variables because they were not exposed to stimulusmaterials); it revealed that the relationship was significant(F = 2.61, p = .018). The second hypothesis tested messageresponse (i.e., attitude toward the destination and purchaseintent) and included a control group (respondents could ratethese variables without seeing stimulus materials). It wasalso significant (F = 5.82, p = .001). Hence, according tothis study, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that mes-sage acceptance and message response generated by tourismcommunication differ significantly depending on whetherthe message is presented in the format of an advertisementor an article and depending on which format is seen first.

A series of one-way ANOVA tests were performed toidentify areas of significance. Publicity consistently pro-duced higher scores on all dependent variables than didadvertising. Although the highest score for a variable mayhave been publicity then advertising rather than publicity

only, the highest score for any dependent variable wasalways led by publicity in some form, never advertising onlyor advertising then publicity. Means scores for publicitythen advertising were highest for three variables: perceivedcredibility (M = 5.48), message strength (M = 6.60), andattitude toward the destination (M = 6.73). For the variablepurchase intent, publicity only received the highest meanscore (M = 5.55).

When the control group was used, all means plots fol-lowed a similar pattern (see example in figure 1), with treat-ment groups in this order: advertising only (lower), publicityonly (higher), advertising then publicity (lower), publicitythen advertising (higher), and control group (lowest). Forthose analyses that did not use a control group (perceivedcredibility and message strength), the same initial patternwas present (see example in figure 2). The advertising-onlyscore was always lower than the publicity-only score, andthe advertising-then-publicity score was always lower thanthe publicity-then-advertising score.

While this pattern was present in all analysis results, thedifferences in mean scores were not always significantexcept for the control group, whose mean score was con-sistently, significantly lower than the treatment group.Significant findings are summarized in table 3.

For the variable perceived credibility, publicity only wassignificantly higher than advertising only (p = .028), andpublicity then advertising was significantly higher thanboth advertising only (p = .004) and advertising then pub-licity (p = .014). For message strength, publicity thenadvertising was significantly higher than advertising only(p = .003). For the variable attitude toward the destination,no stimulus-oriented treatment achieved or approached sig-nificance; only the control group was significantly differ-ent. Lastly, for the variable purchase intent, publicity onlywas significantly higher than both advertising only (p =.001) and advertising then publicity (p =. 012), while pub-licity then advertising was significantly higher than adver-tising only (p = .046).

262 FEBRUARY 2007

TABLE 2

RESULT OF MULTIVARIATE TESTS(WILKS’S LAMBDA)

Test F Significance Power

Message acceptance 2.61 .018 .85Message response 5.82 .001 1.00

FIGURE 1

DIFFERENCES IN PURCHASEINTENT BY TREATMENT GROUP

5.8 (M = 5.55)(M = 5.25)

5.4

5.0

4.6 (M = 4.77)

4.2

3.8

3.4(M = 3.03)

3.0

Treatment

(M = 4.30)

adonly

pubonly

ad thenpub

pub thenad

control

Mea

n

Note: Measured using a 7-point scale with 1 as zero likeli-hood and 7 as certain. Dotted lines show areas of significantdifference.

FIGURE 2

DIFFERENCES IN PERCEIVED CREDIBILITYBY TREATMENT GROUP

5.6(M = 5.48)

5.4 (M = 5.33)

5.2

5.0

(M = 4.87) (M = 4.97)4.8

4.6

ad only ad then pub pub then ad

Treatment

Mea

n

pub only

Note: Measured using a 3-item, 7-point scale with 1 as not at alltruthful/accurate/credible and 7 as completely truthful/accurate/credible. Dotted lines show areas of significant difference.

at University of Newcastle on September 13, 2014jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The results of the current study extend existing knowl-edge about how potential tourism consumers accept andrespond to mass communication. First, this study comparesthe effects of tourism advertising to publicity. This issue isimportant because of the conflicting results reported by pre-vious comparison studies of advertising and publicity in thegeneral marketplace. This study is consistent with those thatindicated publicity messages had greater credibility thanadvertising (Gartner 1993; Cameron 1994; Hallahan 1995).

The current study adds to the body of knowledge abouthow consumers integrate different message sources. Noother sequencing studies were located that combined adver-tising with publicity, although the practice is widely used inmarketing. In today’s media-saturated environment, it isimportant for tourism marketers to understand how public-ity and advertising affect each other. In the current study, thepublicity-then-advertising sequence of information pro-duced significantly higher means scores as compared toadvertising-only information when subjects evaluated per-ceived credibility, message strength, and purchase intent ofthe ad. Indeed, the ability to increase the positive effects ofadvertising can be a major benefit of publicity that has notbeen adequately captured previously.

Applications

Based on these findings, there are various marketingimplications from this study. Four major applications mayhelp increase tourism marketing’s effectiveness when pro-viding information to potential visitors. These are (1) pub-licity generally outperforms advertising; (2) to increaseadvertising’s effectiveness, precede it with publicity; (3) pub-licity is less effective when it follows advertising; and(4) campaigns must be planned well in advance. These appli-cations support experiential suggestions by Ries and Ries(2002, p. xii), who said, “Advertising is a continuation ofpublic relations by other means and should be started onlyafter a PR program. . . . Furthermore, the theme of an adver-tising program should repeat the perceptions created in themind of the prospect by the PR program.”

Publicity generally outperforms advertising. Publicityabout a tourist destination, in either presentation or sequenc-ing, created significantly higher means scores than advertising

for three of the four of dependent variables (perceived credi-bility, message strength, and purchase intent). Clearly, tourismmarketers who do not have resources devoted to a publicityeffort should consider doing so. In the face of the consistentresults of the present study, one might question the relianceon advertising by tourism marketers. While it seems publicityprovides distinct advantages over advertising, there are somepractical disadvantages. As Lord and Putrevu (1993) note,publicity—while potentially more persuasive—is less underthe control of tourism marketers. Advertising offers a con-trolled, consistent market presence that is difficult to achievewith publicity alone. However, this study clearly shows thatthe strongest tourism-marketing effect may be achieved by apublicity-then-advertising sequencing strategy.

Increase advertising effectiveness with publicity. Theinformation-sequencing component of the current study pro-duced some potentially important implications for tourismadvertising practices. Results showed the publicity-then-advertising sequence to be more effective than the reversedsequence. When respondents viewed publicity about touristareas before viewing ads, mean scores were significantlyhigher for perceived credibility, message strength, andimportantly to marketers, purchase intent. In addition to theresponse generated, this finding could have sizeable impli-cations for tourism-marketing budgets. For example, whenone full-page advertisement in Southern Living magazinecosts approximately $112,000, tourism marketers want tomaximize the potential results of this investment. In today’scostly and competitive advertising environment, variousstrategies are used to increase an advertisement’s effective-ness, from copy testing to bold creative approaches. Thecurrent study points out that one strategy to increase adver-tising’s effectiveness may be overlooked: precede advertis-ing with publicity.

Do not follow advertising with publicity. Another con-sistent finding from this study indicates that while publicityis a valuable asset to a tourism-marketing program, it maynot be worth the resources expended to acquire it if the pub-licity follows advertising. When advertising then publicitywas found significantly different from publicity then adver-tising, the latter always influenced subjects more. Also,advertising only was never found significantly differentfrom advertising then publicity, suggesting that the publicityin this sequence is dispensable. This study indicates thattiming within a tourism-marketing campaign is critical. The

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 263

TABLE 3

SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS

Dependent Variable Treatment M Treatment M p

Perceived credibility ad only 4.87 pub only 5.33 .028ad only 4.87 pub then ad 5.48 .004ad then pub 4.97 pub then ad 5.48 .014

Message strength ad only 6.14 pub then ad 6.60 .003Attitude toward the destination control 5.44 all 6.57a .001Purchase intent ad only 4.30 pub only 5.55 .001

ad only 4.30 pub then ad 5.25 .046pub only 5.55 ad then pub 4.77 .012control 3.03 all 4.97a .001

a. Average mean of all treatment groups.

at University of Newcastle on September 13, 2014jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

credibility and effectiveness of publicity is markedly dimin-ished if advertising is the first message viewed by a poten-tial visitor. This is likely because of the perception biascreated by advertising (Ray 1992). Or perhaps the publicityprimes the customer, and then the advertising reinforceswhat the publicity stated.

Campaigns must be planned well in advance. Publicityshould precede tourism advertising for maximum impact assuggested by this research. Therefore, tourism marketingcampaigns must be planned well in advance to take advantageof these findings. Publicity can play off the same messagetheme or concept as the advertising. However, the messagefor an advertising campaign must occur well enough inadvance to allow for an aggressive publicity campaign to bedeveloped and implemented before the advertising begins.

Limitations

This research is subject to two major limitations. It islimited to studying a tourism product promoted in printadvertising and print publicity. In addition, as Lord andPutrevu (1993) state, the issues to be addressed in totallycomparing advertising and publicity are broad and cannot beadequately treated in a single study. This study focuses onfour informational constructs: message strength, perceivedcredibility, attitude toward the destination, and purchaseintent. Hybrid messages and other forms of media are beyondthe scope of this study.

Suggestions for Further Research

While implications reported here should be important inthe communication and tourism fields, this study was limitedby focusing only on print media, specifically magazines,with a student population in a laboratory setting concerninga tourism product. Based on this, the study needs to be repli-cated in other settings, with other populations, and with otherproducts. The impact of influential media such as informalword of mouth, the Internet, hybrid messages, negative pub-licity, and other sources commonly encountered in tourismcommunication should be incorporated in future research.

Certainly, measuring real behavior as opposed to purchaseintent would increase the study’s importance. Therefore, lon-gitudinal research is recommended to accurately capture thepersuasiveness of tourism communication leading to behav-ioral change.

In conclusion, this study supports previous anecdotaland inconclusive reports (Gartner 1993; Cameron 1994;Hallahan 1999) indicating that publicity is an important ele-ment in the marketing mix. It is hoped that tourism mar-keters will find benefit from this study by paying moreattention to the positive effects of publicity and to the timingof messages within a campaign in an effort to maximize theeffectiveness of tourism advertising and influence purchaseintent. The most significant new finding suggests that apublicity-then-advertising sequence could be the most effec-tive strategy for promoting tourism destinations. Tourismmarketers need to develop marketing themes enough inadvance to allow for a publicity campaign, using a similarmessage as the advertising, to precede ad placement.

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I., and B. Driver (1992). “Application of the Theory of PlannedBehavior to Leisure Choice.” Journal of Leisure Research, 24 (3):207–24.

Anderson, N. H. (1971). “Integration Theory and Attitude Change.”Psychological Review, 78: 171–206.

Anderson, P., and S. M. Abbott (1985). “Comparing Infomercial andCommercial on a Newspaper Cable Television Channel.” InMarketing Communications—Theory and Research, edited byMichael J. Houston and Richard J. Lutz. Chicago: AmericanMarketing Association Proceeding Series, pp. 140–44.

Cameron, G. T. (1994). “Does Publicity Outperform Advertising? AnExperimental Test of the Third-Party Endorsement.” Journal ofPublic Relations Research, 6 (3): 185–207.

Chaiken, S., and D. Maheswaran (1994). “Heuristic Processing Can BiasSystematic Processing: Effects of Source Credibility, ArgumentAmbiguity and Task Importance on Attitude Judgment.” Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 66 (3): 460–73.

Chew, C., M. S. Slater, and K. A. Kelly (1995). “Advertising versusProduct Publicity: The Effects on Credibility and Purchase Intent.”Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Education inJournalism and Mass Communication, August 1995, Washington,DC.

Cho, M. (2001). “The Role of Prior Knowledge, Need for Information andCredibility of Information Sources in Tourists’ Information SearchBehavior.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania StateUniversity, University Park, PA.

Darley, W. K., and R. E. Smith (1993). “Advertising Claim Objectivity:Antecedents and Effects.” Journal of Marketing, 57 (4): 100–13.

d’Astous, A., and C. Hebert (1991). “Une Etude Comparative des Effets dela Publicité Ecrite Conventionnelle et du Public-Reportage.” InMarketing: Proceedings of the Annual Conference of theAdministrative Sciences Association of Canada, edited by T.Schellinick. Niagara Falls, Ontario: Administrative SciencesAssociation of Canada, pp. 102–12.

Dore, L., and G. I. Couch (2003). “Promoting Destinations: An ExploratoryStudy of Publicity Programmes Used by National TourismOrganizations.” Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9 (2): 137–51.

Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Gartner, W. C. (1993). “Image Formation Process.” Journal of Travel &Tourism Marketing, 2: 191–215.

Hallahan, K. (1995). “Content Class as a Contextual Cue in the CognitiveProcessing of Publicity versus Advertising.” Journal of PublicRelations Research, 11 (4): 293–320.

——— (1999). “No, Virginia, It’s Not True What They Say AboutPublicity’s ‘Implied Third-Party Endorsement’ Effect.” PublicRelations Review, 25: 331–49.

Hausknecht, D. M., J. B. Wilkinson, and G. E. Prough (1989).“Advertorials: Do Consumers See the Wolf in the Sheep’s Clothing?”In 1989 AMA Educators’ Proceedings: Enhancing KnowledgeDevelopment in Marketing, edited by P. Bloom. Chicago, IL:American Marketing Association, pp. 308–12.

Hennessey, J. E., and S. C. Anderson (1990). “The Interaction of PeripheralCues and Message Arguments on Cognitive Responses to anAdvertisement.” In Advances in Consumer Research, edited byMarvin E. Goldbert, Gerald Corn, and Richard Pollay. Provo, UT:Association for Consumer Research, pp. 17, 237–43.

Hunt, T., and J. E. Gruning (1993). Public Relations Techniques. ForthWorth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Jamrozy, Ute (1996). The Effectiveness of Tourism DestinationAdvertisements: The Role of Feeling Responses. Dissertation.

Kirk, R. E. (1982). Experimental Design. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Knipp, Helmut (1996). “Pouring Over Budget Line Items Will Cut Costs.”

Hotel & Motel Management, 211 (8): 20–24.Kotler, P. (1993). Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implemen-

tation and Control. 7th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Kotler, P., J. Bowen, and J. Makens (1996). Marketing for Hospitality and

Tourism. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Lord, K.R., and S. Putrevu (1993). “Advertising and Publicity: An

Information Processing Perspective.” Journal of EconomicPsychology, 14: 57–84.

MacKenzie, S. B., and R. J. Lutz (1989). “An Empirical Examination of theStructural Antecedents of Attitude toward the Ad in an AdvertisingPretesting Context.” Journal of Marketing, 53 (2): 48–65.

Miniard, P. W., S. Bhatla, and R. Rose (1990). “On the Formation andRelationship of Ad and Brand Attitudes: An Experimental and CausalAnalysis.” Journal of Marketing Research, 27: 290–303.

Osgood, C. E., G. J. Suci, and P. H. Tannenbaum (1967). The Measurementof Meaning. Urbana, IL: Univeristy of Illinois Press.

Petty, R. E., and J. T. Cacioppo (1986). Communication and Persuasion:Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York/Berlin:Springer-Verlag.

264 FEBRUARY 2007

at University of Newcastle on September 13, 2014jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Petty, R. E., J. T. Cacioppo, and D. Schumann (1983). “Central andPeripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Roleof Involvement.” Journal of Consumer Research, 10: 135–46.

Ray, M. L. (1992). Advertising and Communication Management.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ries, A., and L. Ries (2002). The Fall of Advertising and the Rise of PR.New York: Harper Business.

Salkind, N. J. (1994). Exploring Research. New York: Macmillan CollegePublishing Co.

Salmon, C. T., L. N. Reid, J. Pokrwczynski, and R. Willett (1985). “TheEffectiveness of Advocacy Advertising Relative to News Coverage.”Communication Research, 12: 546–67.

Schwarz, N., M. Kumpf, and W. Bussmann (1986). “Resistance toPersuasion as a Consequence of Influence Attempts in Advertising

and Non-Advertising Communications.” Psychology, A QuarterlyJournal of Human Behavior, 23: 72–76.

Smith, R. E. (1993). “Integrating Information from Advertising and Trial.”Journal of Marketing Research, 30: 204–19.

Smith, R. E., and Hunt, S. D. (1978). “Attributional Processes and Effects inPromotional Situations.” Journal of Consumer Research, 5: 149–58.

Smith, R. E., and W. R. Swinyard (1982). “Information Response Models:An Integrated Approach.” Journal of Marketing, 46 (1): 81–93.

Smith, R. E., and C. A. Vogt (1995). “The Effects of Integrating Advertisingand Negative Word-of-Mouth Communications on Message Processingand Response.” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4 (2): 133–51.

Straughan, D., G. L. Bleske, and X. Zhao (1994). “Modeling Format andSource Effects of an Advocacy Message.” Education in Journalismand Mass Communication, August, 46–52.

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 265

at University of Newcastle on September 13, 2014jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from