Personal Cultural Orientation, Destination Brand Equity and Revisit Intention: The Case of Cali, Colombia

Dissertation Proposal

Adolfo Rudy Cardona

TUI

Abstract

This study investigates perceptions by tourists to travel destinations based on

personal cultural orientation and its effect on destination brand equity ( i.e., image, value

and quality) and tourist behavior. Likewise, it attempts to explore the possible mediating

effects of destination brand image, value and quality on brand equity and revisit intention

from the tourist perspective. The proposed model is based on social identity theory and

brand equity theory literature. Drawing from recent research studies, and aiming to

provide a framework to understand tourists’ decisions and their intention to revisit with

respect to the destination brand and based on their cultural orientation. The research will

use the city of Cali in Colombia, South America as the site study, and will focus on a

sample of United States tourists. It is hoped the results will provide significant theoretical

and practical implications, both for destination managers and marketers to help build

competitive strategies for destination in order to sustain meaningful relationships between

tourists and their destination.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Personal Cultural Orientation impact on destination branding and revisit intention of tourists traveling to Cali, Colombia

Abstract 2

Chapter 1: Introduction 4

Aims ` 5

Main framework 7

Chapter 2: Literature Review 9

Personal cultural Orientation

Dimension of Culture 12

Future Behavioral Intent 14

Destination brand Image 18

Destination brand Value 20

Destination Brand equity

Chapter 3: Methodology 25

Research Site: Cali, Colombia25

Pilot Study 28

Recruiting Respondents & Data Collection 32

References 34

Appendix A 40

Appendix B 41

Appendix C 44

Perceived Destination Image Study 47

Appendix D 49

Appendix E 50

Introduction

Destination branding has become, in recent years, an increasingly important area

of focus for academic and business communities. Many governments have realized the

importance of tourism as an economic industry and, to a greater extent, are committed to

developing the right brand for their destination.

With an increase in global tourism there has been a related increase in global (and

domestic) competition (Smeral & Weber, 2000) and therefore the creation and applica-

tion of destination branding strategies is a rapidly growing area of investigation. As new

global tourism markets emerge, marketing effectively to consumers with differing cul-

tural values is becoming important. A brand marketer may face a bumpy road of progress

by ignoring culture of the country of operation because consumers behave according to

the cultural norms of their country (Banerjee 2007). Much work is still to be done to de-

termine the factors involved in these tourists’ revisit intentions and their relation to other

constructs within destination brand equity.

Chernatony and McDonald (2001) equates a successful brand to ‘‘an identifiable

product, service, person, or place, augmented in such a way that the buyer or user

perceives relevant, unique added values which match their needs most closely [and] its

success results from being able to sustain these added values in the face of competition.’’

“Brand equity,” is herein defined as the sum of factors (or ‘‘dimensions’’)

contributing to a brand’s value in the consumer’s mind. According to Aaker (2000, p. 9),

brand equity is a strategic asset that can be the basis of competitive advantage and long-

term profitability.

The concept of customer-based brand equity and its measurement have emerged

in the destination marketing context (Konecnick & Gartner, 2007; Qu et al., 2010).

Destinations are far more multi-dimensional than consumer goods and other kinds of

services (Kim & Kim, 2005). Hence, this study is concerned with exploring customers

perception of brand image, brand value and brand quality as the dimensions of the

customer-based brand equity of a destination. Floreck and Insch (2007) argue that that the

results of assessing the equity of destination brands provide destination marketers with

information about which brand equity elements may strengthen a destination brand, and

illustrate what are the possible relations between these components.

Aims of the study

The objective of the study is to develop a theoretical framework for understanding

destination brand equity, expressed in testable hypotheses, to explore the interplay of

relationships among the five constructs of this study, including personal cultural

orientation, destination brand image, destination brand quality, destination brand value

and revisit intention.

In the context of the research on destination brand, this study investigates

perceptions by tourists, with a special focus on the, as yet, under-explored evaluative

construct of personal cultural orientation. The study will include a consideration of

tourists’ socio-demographic characteristics, such as income, age and education. It will

also examine the relationship between personal cultural orientation, perceived destination

brand image, brand value and brand quality and destination revisit intention, as well as

the mediating effects of destination brand image, destination brand value and destination

brand quality.

To begin, this study will review the concepts of perceived personal cultural

orientation and its relationships with factors such as destination brand image, destination

brand value; destination brand quality and destination revisits intention. This author

intends to further extend current theories through empirical testing of the hypotheses,

employing previously published scales.

The study will also attempt to assess the mediating effects of destination brand

image, value and quality on revisit intention. The study will then present and defend the

following proposed research questions and model, and base the study’s hypotheses in the

context of previous findings. Following this, the study will describe the research site and

explain the rational behind its selection. It will then outline the research methodology and

describe the sample to be used. Next, the study will present its findings, elaborating on

the practical and theoretical implications for the academic field of destination branding,

marketing and management. The study will conclude by discussing those ways in which

it has extended current theories of destination branding and by indicating what further

work remains to be done in the field.

In order to address the above issues, the following research questions are proposed:

1) Does personal cultural orientation influence tourists’ perception of destination

brand image, destination brand quality and destination brand value?

2) Do tourists’ destination brand image, destination brand quality and destination

brand value impact their revisit intention?

3) Do tourists’ destination brand image, destination brand quality and destination

brand value mediate the influence of personal cultural orientation on revisit

intention?

Conceptual Framework

SIT (“Social Identity Theory) is used to ground the study on the structural relationship

between personal cultural orientations and revisit intention, as well as the mediating ef-

fects of brand equity and the chosen dimensions of brand image, value, and quality. In

1979 Henri Tajfel and John Turner proposed the Social Identity Theory which held that

there are three cognitive processes relevant to a persons being part of an in-group, or of

an out-group. Such group membership being, depending upon circumstances, possibly as-

sociable with the appearance of prejudice and discrimination related to such perceived

group membership. Three conditions of social identity were identified by Tajfel, self-con-

ceptualization (the “identification” stage: a cognitive component, i.e., the sense of aware-

ness of membership), group self-esteem, (an evaluative component (i.e., the sense that

this awareness is related to some value connotations) and commitment to the group (An

emotional component, i.e., affective investment in the awareness and evaluations), which

when met; lead a tourist to not only feel connected to their in-group but also valuing his

or her belongingness with a brand. As a result, all other groups become out-groups and

are rivals for status and resources as well as a -source for comparison. This can lead to

discrimination in favor of the in-group or against other out-groups as well as stereotyping

and prejudice when a perceived threat occurs (Redmond, 2009).

In the context of destination branding, SIT provides a complete foundation for

studying visitors’ responses to destination brand equity components (i.e., image, value

and quality). SIT posits that people identify with groups based on a blend of their self

concept (e.g., self identity, social identity, ethnic identification with brands), attitudes

(e.g., attitudes toward brands with cultural values, attitudes toward brands featured in im-

ages), and behaviors (e.g., dispositions toward visiting destination brands featured with

cultural cues) (Reed 2002; Tajfel and Turner 1985).

This study proposes that tourist visitors may develop tourist-brand destination

identification. In other words, a belief that they share the same self-definitional attributes

with the destination brand. Therefore, a tourist who has already positively identified with

“their destination," will do anything to keep that “destination” in a positive light, so that

they do not damage their own self-esteem. It can be then assumed that a tourist's behavior

(i.e willingness to revisit) will be affected by their positive association with their “in-

group", when their self-esteem and/or status are elevated by that association as brands

can represent self-relevant social categories with which customers identify (Belk 1988;

Fournier 1998) and because meaning can be transferred between brands and the self (Mc-

Cracken 1988).

The language of social identity and self-categorization theory has a strong collec-

tivist flavor and tends to focus predominately on the collective self (Hogg, 2001). From a

cultural orientation perspective, Triandis’ (1995) suggests some defining attributes

unique to individualist and collectivist cultures. The first attribute that has been a popular

method in defining I/C is the definition of the self. Collectivists define themselves in

terms of their in-group where the “self” is interdependent with other in-group members.

Conversely, individualists define themselves as unique and view the “self” as indepen-

dent. The second defining attribute is goal structure. Collectivists tend to possess goals

that overlap with the goals of the group while individualists are driven by their unique

personal goals. Moreover, when personal goals and group goals conflict, collectivists will

prioritize group goals over their personal goals and individualists will likely place their

personal goals ahead of the group. Another attribute distinctive in I/C are predictions of

social behavior. The social behavior of a collectivist is best predicted by cultural norms,

and perceived duties and obligations. Conversely, social behavior predictions of individu-

alists are based on personal attitudes and other internal processes. Lastly, weighing the

costs and benefits of relationships helps to define I/C. When the costs of a relationship

outweigh the benefits, collectivists tend to remain in the relationship while individualists

are more likely to terminate the relationship (Triandis, 1995).

Traditionally, collectivist behavior is interpreted as to be ‘good’ and acceptable

group member behavior, whereas individualist behavior is seen as deviation from group

norms. Based on the four attributes of individualism and collectivism (Triandis, 1995),

social norms theory would predict that collectivists, being more interdependent, will

adhere more to the group’s social norms.

This strong emphasis on collectivism is not surprising, however, when we consider that

conformity and endorsement of the group’s goals and norms are usually beneficial for the

group’s success and well-being. A group fares well when its members give preference to

social goals over their personal goals and when they are generally concerned with

maintaining harmony (Hofstede, 1980). In contrast, although individualism is generally

valued in western society because of its association with freedom and uniqueness, it is

likely to be less appreciated than collectivist behavior within a group context. In fact,

individualism within many groups and organizations may reasonably be interpreted as

deviance because it threatens the unity and productivity of the group.

The effects of the perceived value, quality and image of a destination brand on

targeted visitors are consistent with Social Identity Theory (SIT) (Tajfel and Turner

1985). In other words, when membership in a social group enhances people’s self-image

(e.g., higher levels of self-esteem as a result of one's cultural orientation group

membership), SIT posits that people assign themselves to social categories (e.g.,

Ecotourism group), which helps them to define their self identity and may lead them to

respond favorably to stimuli (e.g., images) that recognize their social category

distinctiveness (Tajfel 1978a, 1981).

By understanding the relationships and practical implications for personal cultural

orientation, destination brand equity and destination intention to revisit destination

tourism managers would better know how to build up a distinctive and attractive image

and improve their marketing efforts to maximize their use of resources.

Definition of key terms

The key evaluative constructs in this research are: perceived cultural distance,

destination brand image, destination brand value, destination brand quality and

destination revisit intention. The definition, use and findings with respect to each of these

terms is discussed further in the literature review in Chapter 2, but basic definitions of

each term are provided in the following section.

Destination Marketing Organization

A destination marketing organization or DMO is a stand-alone business entity

governmental, corporate, or nonprofit - that is responsible for leading and coordinating all

of the marketing efforts on behalf of a particular destination.

Personal Cultural Orientation

Personal cultural orientations consist of shared cultural values and norms, as well

as personal beliefs based on unique individual experiences (Sharma 2010).

Brand

Definition of a brand was originally provided by the American Marketing

Association as a name, term, sign, symbol or design, or a combination of these intended

to identify the goods and services of one seller or a group of sellers and to differentiate

them from those of competitors’ (Kotler et al ., 2002: 469).

Destination Branding

Geographic locations, like organizations or products, can also be branded. The

goal of such branding is to make people aware of a location, and to then link desirable

associations to create a favorable image to entice visits and businesses (Keller 2003).

Destination Brand Image

This term is best understood as “an interactive system of thoughts, opinions, feelings,

visualizations, and intentions toward a destination” (Tasci et al., 2007: 200). Jenkins

(1999) highlighted its significance when he noted the following: “Destination images

influence a tourist’s travel behavior at a destination, decision-making, and cognition as

well as satisfaction level and recollection of the experience” (p. 1).

Destination Brand Quality

Brand quality is defined as ‘the perception of the overall quality or superiority of a brand

relative to relevant alternatives, and with respect to its intended purpose’ (Keller, 2003,

p.238).

Overview of the Research Model Figure 1.1 Proposed Research Model

Chapter 2

Literature Review

International travelers have an array of destination choices from around the world.

Global proliferation and emerging competition in tourism makes some destinations

increasingly substitutable and difficult to differentiate (Ekinci & Hosany 2008) and can

impact on tourist’ revisit intention. By considering personal cultural orientation as an

evaluative construct, it is hoped this study will add to previous research which has

investigated destinations in a tourism context, (Prayag 2009; Saraniemi 2009; Machado,

Santos and Sarmento 2009; Qu, Kim, & Im 2010; Hosany, Ekinci and Uysal, 2006 and

Tasci and Gartner 2008). In practical terms, it augments current thinking about the

relationships between cultural differences and evaluative constructs in destination revisit

intention by providing further evidence of their applicability.

This study attempts to investigate the differences of perceived personal cultural

orientation (“PCO”) and their relationship to the constructs of brand value, brand image

and brand quality in the context of destination branding. The individualism-collectivism

distinction represents the most broadly used dimension of cultural variability for cross-

cultural comparison (Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey, 1988), and the core insights in the

field are focused on this classification. This study suggests however, that the exploration

of other distinctions can yield important new insights and perhaps a better understanding

of the link between culture, brand equity and intention to revisit . Specifically, we

examine the implications of a recently proposed distinction within individualist and

collectivist categories. This classification emerged from the observation that American

or British individualism differs from, say, Swedish or Danish individualism in much the

same way that Korean or Japanese collectivism differs from the collectivism of the Israeli

kibbutz. Describing a delineation of different “species” of individualism and

collectivism, Triandis and Gelfand (1998) proposed that, within each category, some

societies are horizontal (valuing equality) whereas others are vertical (emphasizing

hierarchy).

Specifically, this study will investigate if destination brand image, destination

value and destination quality have effects on consumers’ destination revisit intention. As

previously discussed, using the proposed model and by interviewing a random sample of

visitors it is hoped that the findings will be beneficial in elucidating further theoretical

and practical considerations for destination branding and the larger discipline of

marketing.

Although the words ‘brand’, ‘destination branding’ and ‘brand destination image’

have been considered in a number of previous research in the context of a country

branding, (Bosjnak, Bochmann and Hufschmidt 2007; Sun 2009), no apparent effort has

been made to empirically investigate the relationships between the personal cultural

orientation of tourists and brand equity factors (i.e., image, perceived value, quality), as

well as the destination revisit intention.

The goal of this study is to understand the interactions between key evaluative

constructs of personal cultural orientation, destination brand image, destination brand

value, destination brand quality and the effect on destination revisit intention, hereby

described. Results from the study will provide important baseline observations for future

research in this direction.

Personal cultural orientation

Personal cultural orientation, (“PCO”), is often defined as the accumulation of

shared meanings, rituals, norms, and traditions among members of a society; it is this

collective programming of the mind that distinguishes members of one society from

another (Soloman 1996). Differences in culture have long been recognized as a likely

reason why people in different countries make different decisions (Tahir and Larimo

2004), but research into the impact of culture on destination branding has been limited.

Understanding the effect of personal cultural orientation of tourists on destination brands

is essential to effective marketing and to ultimately establish a lasting bond with

consumers. As Banerjee (2008:312) states, “the major task is to identify the uniqueness

of the cultural heritage of the country and skillfully fit the brand into the culture to get an

easy acceptance by target consumers.”

PCO is a result of personal learning through interactions with social environments

such as family, workplace, community, host country, and media (Yoo & Donthu, 2005).

Hence, a personal cultural orientation is an inclination to think, feel or act in a way that is

culturally determined.

Personal cultural orientation has been successfully established as the antecedent to

a variety of consumer behaviors and attitudes (Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck 1961; Rokeach

1973; Wallendorf and Reilly 1983). For example, Yoo and Donthu (2005) examined the

relationships between cultural orientation and consumer ethnocentrism. They proposed a

causal model that investigated how cultural orientation affects consumer ethnocentrism

and tested their hypotheses using perceptions and behaviors of U.S. consumers toward

Japanese products. The results were an overwhelming support of how cultural orientation

does have an effect on ethnocentrism. Understanding the role that cultural orientation

plays in forming consumer attitudes and behaviors toward destination brands is therefore

important.

The significance of this study is theoretical as well as practical. By considering

personal cultural orientation an evaluative construct, it is hoped this study will add to

previous research which has investigated destinations in a tourism context, (Prayag 2009;

Saraniemi 2009; Machado, Santos and Sarmento 2009; Qu, Kim, & Im 2010; Hosany,

Ekinci and Uysal, 2006 and Tasci and Gartner 2008. In practical terms, it augments

current thinking about the relationships between cultural differences and evaluative

constructs in destination revisit intention by providing further evidence of their

applicability.

Individualism-Collectivism, Horizontal and Vertical Dimensions

In the context of destination marketing, most research which aims to better

understand the influence of culture on tourist behavior and behavioral intentions have

referred to the pioneering work of Geert Hofstete (Pizam and Sussman 1995; Pizam and

Jeong 1996; Reisinger and Turner 1999; Crotts and Edermann 2000). In his conceptual

framework, Hofstede (1980) identified four value dimensions that distinguish peoples

from various nations: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism-collectivism,

and masculinity-femininity. Hofstede (2001) later added one more dimension: the

Confucian dynamic of long-term-short-term orientation. The Confucian dynamism

dimension describes cultures that range from short-term values with respect for tradition

and reciprocity in social relations, to long-term values with persistence and ordering

relationships by status.

Of the above proposed dimensions for study, the most relevant and challenging to

this study from a marketing standpoint is the dynamics between individualism and

collectivism. Two important cultural orientations relevant to working with destination

branding based on to Hofstede’s work are collectivism and individualism (Hofstede,

2005).

Collectivism can be defined as a social pattern of closely linked individuals who

define themselves as interdependent members of a collective (e.g. family, co-workers).

Collectivism is known also to be associated with an emphasis on interdependence,

belongingness, pursuing common goals with others, and maintaining harmonious

relationships (Hofstede, 1980; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1995). Hence, for

those with a collectivistic cultural orientation, social behavior is largely determined by

the goals, attitudes, and values shared with one’s in-groups. Individualism, on the other

hand, is a cultural pattern that stresses individual autonomy and independence of the self

(Markus and Kitayama 1991; Triandis 1995). For an individualistic cultural orientation,

social behavior is largely determined by one’s personal goals and attitudes. Individualism

is associated with an emphasis on independence, self-reliance, and a desire to be unique.

The described social patterns are characterized by differences in things such as family

living arrangements (e.g. collectivists tend to have larger families and extended families

living under the same roof), social behavior (e.g. collectivists tend to show greater

conformity to group norms), beliefs (e.g. individualists tend to be more tolerant of

practices such as divorce), political ideologies (e.g. individualists tend to be far more

libertarian), and so on (Vandello and Cohen 1999). In this study, the focus is on personal

cultural orientation of individualism and collectivism and understands the view that

individualistic societies are “me”-oriented and collectivist societies are “we”-oriented.

To explain cultural differences, most research have focused on the previously

mentioned individualism-collectivism constructs of Hofstede’s (1980), which have been

interpreted empirically in a multi-dimensional manner (see, for example, Chan 1994;

Hofstede 1980). Although all five dimensions have been validated (Hofstede 1980,

2001), the individualism- collectivism dimension has had the strongest impact on cross-

cultural research. Triandis & Gelfand, (1998) extended the view on the individualism

and collectivism dimensions by proposing that, nested within each INDCOL category,

some societies are horizontal (valuing equality) whereas others are vertical (emphasizing

hierarchy). The horizontal/vertical distinction is conceptually related to personal values

such as power, achievement, self-direction, and conformity (e.g., Schwartz & Bilsky,

1987, 1990). In basic terms, people with a horizontal cultural orientation value equality

and view the self as having the same status as others where as those with a vertical cul-

tural orientation view the self as differing from others along a hierarchy—they accept in-

equality and believe that rank has its privileges (Triandis, 1995). This dimension com-

bined with individualism– collectivism produces four cultural orientations: horizontal in-

dividualism (HI), vertical individualism (VI), horizontal collectivism (HC), and vertical

collectivism (VC; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). See Table

Sharma (2011), extends previous research work on the horizontal and vertical cul-

tural orientations (Singelis et al. 1995; Triandis and Gelfand 1998) by introducing power

and social inequality as two positively correlated dimensions of Hofstede’s power dis-

tance factor. It further addresses recent suggestions to distinguish between the power and

equality aspects of the power distance factor, which the horizontal–vertical dimension is

not able to (Oyserman 2006). Moreover, by conceptualizing the power and social in-

equality as two separate dimensions, it addresses the inability of the Horizontal–Vertical

Individual–Collectivism scale (Triandis and Gelfand 1998) to adequately distinguish be-

tween the horizontal–vertical dimension due to its overlap with the IND-COL dimension

(Li and Aksoy 2007).

Sharma’s (2011) develops a 40-item multidimensional scale that measures

Hofstede’s culture at individual level. The scale was psychometrically sound, establishing

the validity, reliability, and cross-cultural measurement equivalence. He re-

conceptualized Hofstede’s culture as ten dimensions of personal cultural orientations. In

his analysis, Sharma (2011) argues that Individualism and Collectivism maybe opposite

of each other and many not represent two ends of a continuum. It further affirms Triandis

(1995) multidimensionality of IC by defining Individualism as a personal cultural

orientation associated with acting independently, a strong self-concept, a sense of

freedom, autonomy, and personal achievement; and Interdependence as a personal

cultural orientations associated with acting as a part of one or more in-groups, a strong

group identity, a sense of belongingness, reliance on others, giving importance to group-

goals over own individual goals, and collective achievement (Sharma, 2011).

According to Sharma (2011), The new 40-item personal cultural orientations

(PCO) scale introduced helps managers look beyond Hofstede’s national scores or self-

report scales based on his five cultural factors, to understand a wider range of cultural dif-

ferences at individual level, especially in multi-cultural countries such as Brazil, India,

and Mexico, which are also large emerging markets. The new scale will also help global

marketers segment their customers more effectively, by using a wider range of personal

cultural orientations (i.e., independence vs. interdependence, power vs. social inequality,

risk aversion vs. ambiguity tolerance, masculinity vs. gender equality, and tradition vs.

prudence).

As previously stated in the aims, this study seeks to explore the perceived

personal cultural orientation from the perspective of individualism and collectivism

solely within the context of United States tourist visitors to Cali, Colombia. Several

researchers call for the examination of culture not only at the country and organizational

level of analysis, but at the individual level due to significant in-culture variations (Hong

and Chiu 2001; Straub, Loch et al. 2002; Ford, Connelly et al. 2003). Hence, additional

attempts have been made to study culture at the individual level of analysis (Weisinger et

al. 2002; Srite et al. 2006; Gregory & Prifling & Beck 2008). For example, culture has

been analyzed at the individual level using the concept of espoused national cultural

values. This approach acknowledges the fact that national culture is only observable at

the individual level in terms of the degree to which an individual’s behavior incorporates

the national culture values (Srite et al. 2006).Using Sharma (2010) work on the constructs

of Collectivism and Individualism, this author will explore cultural differences at the

individual level and examine their relationship to destination brand image, destination

brand value and destination brand quality.

Understanding the effect of PCO on brand equity and intention to revisit of tourist

is at the core of this investigation. Mittal and Kamakura (2001) have contended that

customers, who display different personal characteristics amongst each other, also display

differences in their future behavioral intention. Social identity theory posits that favorable

attitudinal and behavioral responses to personal cultural orientation-related stimuli stem

from peoples’ understanding of their self concept. Thus, Social identity theory should be

able to provide extensive and novel insights into the mediating effects of the components

of destination brand equity (e.g., quality, value and image) and on intention to revisit.

Social identity theory further suggests that members of a social group identify with that

group, view themselves as representative of that group, and model their attitudes,

emotions, and behaviors accordingly (Maldonado, Tansuhaj, and Muehling 2003; Reed

2002; Tajfel and Turner 1985). In terms of the effect of a tourist cultural orientation, one

can argue that a collectivist tourist with its own nature of interdependence, need for

belongingness and pursuing common goals with others will favor destinations brand

quality, value and image if the images and values associated with each dimension are

inline with who they are and as long as the destination brand helps tourist to differentiate

he/she from others, thereby solidifying their uniqueness (Tajfel, 1978), then it can

ultimately validate and enhance their self image hence, reinforcing their belief that they

are similar to that destination brand.

Intention to Revisit

As previously illustrated, destination brand has emerged as a critical concept (Qu,

Kim and Im 2010) within tourism and marketing literature. A destination brand comes

packaged with images and values that may resonate with tourist visitors (i.e., people who

embrace their cultural orientation) to better and develop more positive attitudes about that

destination brand, which in turn may induce more favorable attitudes and stronger revisit

intentions for the brand (Appiah 2001a; Elliott and Wattanasuwan 1998; Forehand and

Deshpandé 2001). Hence, a “well packaged” destination brand image, quality and value

may persuade targeted tourist visitors leading to their revisit intention. In fact, research

has demonstrated that tourists’ perceptions about particular destinations predict

destination choice (Molina, Gomez and Consuegra 2010). In the tourism literature,

tourists’ behavioral intention to revisit a destination has also been found to be influenced

by destination image perceptions. For instance, Bigne et al. (2001) found destination

image to positively impact re-visitation intentions. Likewise, intention to revisit has been

used as predictor of future behavior in the tourism literature (Bigné et al., 2001; Lee et

al., 2005, Chi & Qu, 2008).

The future behavioral intention of tourists has been measured using mostly two

dimensions, intention of repurchase and willingness to recommend (Cronin & Taylor,

1992; Bigné et al., 2001; Chen & Tsai, 2007). In the context of destination branding,

these two dimensions are indicators of loyalty (Bigné et al., 2001; Chen & Gursoy, 2001;

Petrick, 2004). Empirical research has also revealed a positive impact of perceived value

on behavioral intentions. In fact, perceived value and quality have all have been shown to

be good predictors of future behavioral intentions (Baker & Crompton, 2000; Bojanic,

1996; Cronin et al., 2000; Petrick, 2004; Tam, 2000).

According to Faircloth et al. (2001) “brand equity” is a “behaviorally oriented

construct influenced by a consumer’s image and attitude of the behavior’s object.” Brand

image, for instance, has been considered as the “reasoned or emotional perceptions con-

sumers attach to specific brands (Keller, 2003).” It has too been identified as an important

source of brand equity (Keller, 2003; Lassar et al., 1995). In fact, there is a positive rela-

tionship between the perceived value of a product’s brand and future behavioral inten-

tions characterized as repurchase or revisit intention (Tsai, 2005; Kim et al., 2009; Chen

& Tsai, 2007).

Intention to revisit is also related to a destination’s brand. Most destinations

would like to retain repeat visitors since in today’s world competitiveness it is harder and

more costly to attract new visitors (Petrick et al., 2001). Cai (2002) defines a destination

brand as ‘the perceptions about a place as reflected by the associations held in tourist

memory.’ A destination brand can be developed through pre-trip information that allows

the reader to identify with and differentiate a destination from its competition (Murphy et

al., 2007). Ritchie & Ritchie (1998) argue that a destination brand can assist tourists in

consolidating and reinforcing their perceptions of the destination even after their travel

experience.

There is a general assumption that culture is an antecedent to human thought and

behavior (e.g., Berry et al. 1992; Triandis 1994). Triandis (1980) proposed that social be-

havior is a function not only of prior habits but also of self-instructions (intentions) to act

in specific ways in particular social situations. Such self-instructions are determined by

socio-cultural norms about appropriate behavior, expectations about possible conse-

quences of performing the behavior, and affective reactions. Thus, the utility of the be-

havior in the social as well as in the personal domain is a fundamental component of the

intention to perform it. By addressing how people perceive and categorize themselves

and others, SIT describes how group affiliations may influence peoples’ behaviors (Tajfel

1981). For example, how does having an individualistic cultural orientation influence re-

sponses to a destination brand that is perceived as of high value (e.g., prices compared to

other places). This is further asserted by individuals of collectivist cultural orientation,

where relationships are of the greatest importance as previously established. Even if the

costs of these relationships exceed the benefits, individuals tend to stay with the relation-

ship. It is generally assumed that there is a positive relationship between group identifica-

tion and acting for the benefit of the group (Branscombe et al., 1993; Doosje & Ellemers,

1997; Doosje et al., 1995; Postmes et al., 1999;Wann & Branscombe, 1990). Relate this

to ingroup and out of group Among individualists on the other hand, when the costs ex-

ceed the benefits, the relationship is often dropped. Therefore, the decision to revisit

made by collectivists could then be based on the relationship with the brand rather than

the cost or utility of the destination brand, subsequently remaining loyal (i.e. intention to

revisit, willingness to recommend) to the destination brand with whom a relationship has

been established.

After the previous marketing literature perspective, one can safely assume that cultural

orientation can have an effect on tourist’s revisit intention. Furthermore, that a positive

perception of a brand image, brand value and quality is positively related to intention to

revisit.

Brand Equity and Customer-Based Brand Equity (CBBE)

A number of perspectives have been considered when evaluating brand equity.

According to Kim et al. (2003), usually two perspectives of brand equity are considered:

the value of the brand to the firm (from a financial perspective), and the value of the

brand to customers (in the decision-making context). This means that brand equity is

considered from two different views, the producer and consumer points of view. AMA

(2006) defines brand equity from a consumer perspective as based on consumer attitudes

about positive brand attributes and favorable consequences of brand use”. One

perspective of brand equity seems to focus on brand equity outcomes. For instance, price,

market share, profit, and future cash flows. On the other hand, “customer-based brand

equity” (Keller, 1993) seems to posses attitudinal associations as its core (Montgomery

and Lieberman, 2005). From the consumer behavior perspective therefore, brand equity is

considered as consumer response to the marketing of the brand (Aaker, 1996; Keller,

1993) based on their experiences with the brand (Fournier, 1998). This whole view of

brand equity is defined by Brandt and Johnson (1997) as “the unique set of real and or

perceived distinctions attached to a brand by customers”. It has further been referred to as

to the sum of factors (or ‘‘dimensions’’) contributing to a brand’s value in the consumer’s

mind (Konecnick and Gartner 2007).

The Customer-Based Brand Equity (CBBE) model Keller (1993), which

approaches brand equity from the perspective of the consumer. He noted that, from a

marketing perspective, brand equity is referred to as consumer-based brand equity. The

model is based on the premise “that the power of a brand lies in what customers have

learned, felt, seen and heard about the brand as a result of their experiences over time” (p.

59). He defines CBBE “as the differential effect that brand knowledge has on consumer

response to the marketing of that brand” (p. 60), which emerges from two sources: brand

awareness and brand image. The actual measurement of customer-based brand equity is

considered an important element of branding (Pappu et al., 2006). This study

hypothesizes both perceptual (i.e., brand image, brand value, brand quality) and

behavioral categories (i.e., intention to revisit) as the components of brand equity and a

causal relationship between perceptual and intention to revisit. There are some

advantages of taking both perceptual and behavioral dimensions into account when

measuring brand equity, Consumer perceptions are clearly an antecedent to behavioral

manifestations of brand equity. Although behavioral measures of purchase reflect the

existence of equity, they fail to reveal the factors actually driving equity without

measuring the perceptual dimension of brand equity (Cobb-Walgren et al. 1995).

In the context of brand destination, to ensure success, a marketer should be

proactive enough to identify the main cultural differences of the country in question and

its effect on its marketing endeavor (Banerjee, S. 2008). Social science literature suggests

brand equity may have disparate formation and influence on consumers’ (re)purchase

behaviors in cross-cultural settings (Broyles, Leingpibul, Ross and Foster 2010).

Following from this, it has been suggested that an emic perspective (each culture is best

understood in its own context), as opposed to an etic perspective (potentially

generalizable across cultures) is more appropriate for international strategies (Broyles,

Leingpibul, Ross and Foster 2010). Hence, brand equity is related to the values of the

perceptions of brand dimensions held by tourists. If brand bias exists, positively or

negatively, brand equity will be affected (Tasci, Gartner and Cavusgil 2007).

Destination branding

Branding is a powerful marketing strategy tool use frequently in destination

marketing. Branding is all about ownership. It is through the process of instilling

customer ownership that brand equity is created. Destination branding is defined as a way

to communicate a destination’s unique identity by differentiating a destination from its

competitors (Morrison & Anderson, 2002). Keller (1993) suggests that destination

branding is best achieved by identifying the most relevant associations of a destination

and then linking these to the destination brand.

Kotler (2003) defines the conditions that support branding in tourism as: easy

identification by consumers, perception of good value for the price, easy maintenance of

quality and standards, a large enough demand for the general product for a chain, and the

existence of economies of scale. A country or city manages and markets itself both in

terms of its unique physical attributes and experiential intangibility.

Destinations are geographically defined places with a collection of assets ranging

from the natural to the socio-cultural which Tasci and Gartner (2007) refer to as image

capital. A destination brand is therefore the mix of tangibles and intangibles that evoke an

image or name of a place. The place name is therefore, in effect, the destination brand.

Indeed, Gnoth (2007) stated that the shape of a destination brand is more like a corporate

or umbrella brand rather than a product brand as there is no obvious owner of the

destination brand, but there are number of stakeholders involved. To brand a destination

therefore, a destination needs to project an identity through all the features and activities

that differentiate the destination from other competing destinations. Tourists therefore,

perceive the image of the destination brand, which is formed and stored in their minds

(Florek et al., 2006), thus branding a destination means offering destination brand values

for tourist consumption (Saraniemi 2009). Further, as cultural, social, natural and

economic values are transformed into capital assets on which the promises of the brand

must be based, they too form the essence of the destination brand and must be taken into

account (Gnoth 2007). Morgan, Pritchard and Piggott (2002) stated that strong

destination brands have rich ‘emotional meaning’, ‘great conversation value’ and provide

‘high anticipation’ for their potential tourists.

Brand associations

Hankinson (2004: 109) identified the brand as a perceptual entity or image, the brand

as a value enhancer, and the brand as a relationship. He summarized these relationships

as the match between destination image and visitors’ self-image, or a match between the

brand and consumers, where consumer’s needs and a brand’s symbolic values and

functional attributes match. Brands as perceptual entities and images have been the focus

of many researchers in recent years (see Doyle 1994; Keller 1993). Indeed, the brand

concept is a bundle of associated attributes which essentially translate as tangible and

intangible benefits.

In this study the brand image, brand value and brand quality component are actually

brand association. As Keller clearly stated, brand value, brand image and brand quality is

defined as “perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand associations held in con-

sumer memory” (p. 2). Brand associations influence consumer evaluations toward the

brand and revisit intention (i.e., future intentions to visit or purchase) (Aaker 1991, 1996;

Keller 1993, 1998). In the branding literature, brand associations are classified into three

major categories: attributes, benefits, and attitudes (Keller 1993, 1998). According to

Keller (1993, 1998), attributes are those descriptive features that characterize a brand. An

attribute is therefore what a consumer thinks the brand is, or has to offer, as well as what

is involved with its purchase or consumption. The benefits received on the other hand, are

the personal value consumers associate with the brand attributes in the form of functional,

symbolic and experiential attachments. In other words, what the consumer think the

brand can do actually for them. Ultimately, brand attitudes are consumers’ overall evalua-

tions of the brand and are the basis for consumer behavior (e.g. revisit intention). Strong

destination brands therefore provide consumers beneficial functional, emotional, eco-

nomic, and psychological values; thus, there exist meaningful, strong, effective and last-

ing bonds and relationship between the destination brand and its consumers, (Tasci, Gart-

ner, Cavusgil 2007).

Destination Brand Image (DBI)

Previous marketing studies have argued that brand image is an important factor

affecting brand equity (Biel, 1992; Biel, 1993; Villareji-Ramos and Sanchez-Franco,

2005). In the context of tourism and hospitality brand image has been considered a main

dimension of brand equity (Konecnik & Gartner, 2007; Kim & Kim, 2005). Brand image

has also been considered to be an important component in the formation of a destination

branding model Cai (2002). Keller (1993) defined brand image as “perceptions about a

brand as reflected by the brand association held in consumer memory”. These associa-

tions refer to any brand aspect within the consumer’s memory (Aaker, 1996). Brand im-

age has been further viewed as the emotional perceptions that consumers attach to spe-

cific brands (Dobni & Zinkhan, 1990; Keller, 2003). Tsai (2005) described brand image

also as the consumer’s perceptions of social approval. Furthermore, brand image de-

scribes the consumer’s thoughts and feelings towards the brand (Roy and Banerjee,

2007). In other words, brand image is the overall mental image that consumers have of a

brand, and its uniqueness in comparison to the other brands (Faircloth, 2005).

The measurement of brand image has had multiple approaches (Lassar et al.,

1995; Low & Lamb, 2000; Tsai, 2005). Lassar (1995) for instance, introduced a scale for

measuring consumer-based brand equity, where the image dimension is referred to as the

social image, which is understood as the consumer’s perception of the esteem in which

the consumer’s social group holds the brand.

In the context of tourist destinations, brand image has been though of as a main

dimension of brand equity (Konecnik & Gartner, 2007; Kim & Kim, 2005). The

destination branding topic has been for the most part covered under the label of

destination image studies (Konecnik and Gartner, 2007) and vice versa. In recent years,

the evaluation of destination image has been a prevailing issue in destination literature

(e.g. Hankinson, 2005; Hosany et al., 2006; Prebensen, 2007). Echtner & Ritchie (1991;

1993) have described destination image in terms of attribute-based and holistic

components. Attribute-based components refer to the perception of individual attributes

or destination features and tend to correspond to cognitive images. On the other hand,

holistic components reference the mental pictures or imagery of a destination brand

(cognitive and affective images). These authors further suggest that attribute-based and

holistic components possess functional (measurable) and psychological (abstract)

characteristics (Lin et al., 2007). Some of these attributes are common to all destinations

such as scenery, weather and climate, while others are specific to a destination such as

icons, local cuisine and friendliness (Echtner & Ritchie, 1991, 1993; Lin et al., 2007;

Pike & Ryan, 2004). Destination brand image has also been measured using multiple

attributes which assess functional elements. This includes things like scenery, climate,

facilities, and attractions (Echtner & Ritchie, 1991, 1993; Jenkins, 1999).

Destination brand differentiation can be based on physical attributes, people, location or

image (Kotler et al., 1999). The literature on tangible product brands leans on the propo-

sition that brand differentiation cannot be solely based on the objective functions of a

product, hence, must involve the use of subjective and intangible aspects such as sym-

bols, logos, names and designs (Poiesz, 1990). As Tasci and Gartner (2007) delineate, is-

sues such as image and branding of a geographical entity starts with a capital at hand, in-

cluding historical, socio-cultural, physical, political, legal, and economic situation at the

destination, which are either static and uncontrollable or semi-dynamic and semi-control-

lable to some extent. However, destination image researchers have an essentialist ap-

proach toward destination differentiation, proposing that destinations can be differenti-

ated by offering unique benefits which can meet the needs and motivations of target mar-

kets better than the competitors (Bramwell and Rawding, 1996; Baloglu and McCleary,

1999; Murphy, 2000; Joppe et al., 2001). To the extent that “you are what you sell”

brands help to create an image and establish a positioning (Keller 1998, p. 14). Destinations

can actually create their own images by attaching unique associations to the quality of the

experience they want tourist to have. Hence, destination brand image is essential in the

context of tourist destination as images play an important role in heavily influencing

tourist behavior. In this study the destination brand image is limited to the predominantly

cognitive attributes such as natural resources, accommodation facilities and transportation

(Gartner, 1989; Crompton et al., 1992; Botha, Crompton, and Kim, 1999; Chen and

Uysal, 2002).

As previously stated, prior studies support a positive relationship between brand

image and value (Michell, King, & Reast, 2001; Cretu & Brodie, 2007; Tsai, 2005. The

image of a destination brand can convey the cultural values of groups. Destination brands

with strong cognitive attributes (i.e., vibrant images and values) can allow a group to cat-

egorize and differentiate themselves from others, thereby solidifying their self identity

and uniqueness. Given the “me” view of the collectivist personal orientation, they may

view positively and be more responsive to (in-group) destination brands that reflect the

cultural values of their own personal cultural orientation. It is therefore safe to assume

that visitors with collectivistic personal cultural orientation would perceive their in-group

as more positive than they would an out-group. Social Identity Theory also tells us that

when a group identify positively with the in-group it will do whatever it takes so as to not

knock their own self-esteem. Hence, it can be assumed that a positive perceived destina-

tion brand image is positively related to intention to revisit. This study will seek to pro-

vide results of this based on visitors to Cali, Colombia.

Destination Brand Quality

Brand quality is known to be a key dimension of brand equity (Aaker, 1996;

Keller, 2003; Lassar et al., 1995). Brand quality has also been used interchangeably with

perceived quality by customers (Aaker, 1991; Zeithaml, 1988). Perceived quality has a

high association with the prestige and respect that a brand holds (Aaker, 1996). A review

of past research studies dealing with destination, highlighted that only a few covered the

topic of perceived quality (see Fick and Ritchie 1991; Keane 1997; Murphy, Prichard and

Smith 2000; Weiermair and Fuchs 1999).Yet, the authors assert that quality is a vital ele-

ment affecting consumer behavior. Since a consumer evaluation of a destination includes

the mix of products, services and experiences available, quality takes a pivotal role. How-

ever, while it is a significant factor, integrating the concept of 'quality' into destination

evaluation has not been easy to operationalize.

With his Metaphysics of Quality, Pirsig (1970) addresses the question of, equat-

ing ‘goodness’ with his favored term ‘Quality’, along with its sister term: ‘value’. In a

1997 paper, Keane reiterated this point and attempted to qualify it further by linking the

quality dimension with pricing. Price has also been acknowledged by researchers in the

development of destination as an `important dimension (Baloglu and Mangaloglu 2001;

Crompton 1979; Echtner and Ritchie 1993). Price is therefore one of the important extrin-

sic quality cues. Equally important in the perception of quality is the attribute of image.

Baker and Crompton have stated that ‘‘much of the image research reported in tourism

measures perceptions of quality of a destination’s attributes’’ (2000:788). In the image

studies of Baloglu and McCleary (1999:881), the ‘‘quality of experience’’ is one of the

factors in conceptualizing the image construct.

Brands signal quality, they reduce perceived risks and ensure consumer about

satisfaction (Blain et al., 2005). In discussing destination brands, elements including

environment and service infrastructure should be considered in measuring destination

brand performance (Buhalis, 2000; Murphy et al., 2000; Williams et al., 2004). Similar to

tangible products, a destination product’s brand equity also includes quality of service

and tangible aspects of the destination (Gartner et al., 2007). According to Low and

Lamb (2000) perceived quality is central to the theory that strong brands add value to

consumers’ purchases. Perceived quality lends value to a brand in several ways: high quality

gives consumers a good reason to buy the brand and allows the brand to differentiate itself

from its competitors, to charge a premium price, and to have a strong basis for the brand

extension (Aaker, 1991). In a destination context, Murphy et al. (2000) noted that

perceived trip quality positively affected perceived trip value. Additionally, Deslandes

(2003) found that perceived quality of a tourist destination was positively related to the

perceived value of the destination. Brand quality has also been identified as a main

dimension of customer based brand equity when applied to a destination (Konecnik and

Gartner 2007). Finally, a positive relationship between perceived quality and revisit

intention has been found (Cretu & Brodie, 2007; Jayanti & Ghosh, 1996; Michell et al.,

2001).

Because brands signal quality, it can also convey the cultural values of groups.

Members of a group maybe more responsive to (in-group) destination brands that reflect

their own cultural values of their personal cultural orientation after being categorized by

the values, individuals seek to achieve positive self-esteem by positively differentiating

their in-group from a comparison out-group on some valued dimension. This study

hypothesize that personal cultural orientation affects both perceived

brand quality and that perceived quality affects intention to revisit.

Destination brands quality can allow a group to categorize and differentiate themselves

from others, thereby solidifying their self identity and uniqueness. Given the “me” view

of the collectivist personal orientation, they may view positively and be more responsive

to (in-group) destination brands that reflect the cultural values of quality with their own

personal cultural orientation. It is therefore safe to assume that visitors with collectivistic

personal cultural orientation would perceive their in-group as more positive than they

would an out-group. Social Identity Theory also tells us that when a group identify

positively with the in-group it will do whatever it takes so as to not knock their own self-

esteem. Hence, it can be assumed that a positive perceived destination brand quality is

positively related to intention to revisit. This study will seek to provide results of this

based on visitors to Cali, Colombia.

Destination Brand Value

In broad terms, customer value is known to be the amount of benefit that a

customer will get from a service or product relative to its cost. Some businesspeople

explain customer value as “realization” compared to “sacrifice.” Realization is a formal

term for what customers get out of their purchases. Sacrifice is what they pay for the

product or service. There is in fact little or neither consistent nor a generally accepted

definition of customer value (Day & Crask, 2000; Flint,Woodruff, & Gardial, 2002;

Parasuraman, 1997). The most popular definition has been a price-based definition

(Sweeny, Soutar, and Johnson, 1999; Tsai, 2005). Lassar et al. (1995) stated that

customer choice of a brand depends on a perceived balance between the price of a

product and its utility. In essence, the focus is on value rather than specific functional

benefits. Hence, destination brand value would have a higher association in relation to

the practical utility of visiting the destination and experiencing the place.

The multidimensionality of the construct perceived value has been verified by

research (Hall et al., 2001; Sirgy & Johar, 1999). In addition, Aaker (1996) stated that

brand value can be measured by asking customers whether the brand provides good value

for the money, or whether there are reasons to buy one brand over that of a competitor. A

positive relationship has been found between the perceived value of a product’s brand

and future behavioral intentions characterized as repurchase intention (Petrick, Backman,

& Bixler, 1999; Teas & Laczniak, 2004; Tsai, 2005; Woodruff, 1997). Customer value

was additionally positively associated with future behaviors, such as purchase and search

intentions (Oh, 2000) and willingness to buy (Sweeney et al., 1999). A positive

relationship between perceived value and customers’ loyalty has been found (Barrows,

Latuuca, & Bosselmanc, 1989; Chiou, 2004; Kwun & Oh, 2004). All of these results are

inline with the viewpoints that customer value plays an important role in creating

customer loyalty (Grewal, Levy, & Lehmann, 2004), and that customer value does have

an effect on customer loyalty (Oliver, 1980; Zeithaml, 1988). Similar to tangible

products, a destination product’s brand equity also include brand value in terms of price

premiums that can be charged for the destination products compared to its competitors

with similar products. Aaker (1996) mentioned that brand value can be measured by

asking customers whether the brand provides good value for the money, or whether there

are reasons to buy one brand over that of a competitor. Based on Aaker (1996) and

Sweeney and Soutar (2001), this study modifies functional value (i.e., value for money)

for the destination brand context.

Brand destination value can also convey the cultural values of certain groups.

Members of a group maybe more responsive to (in-group) destination brands that reflect

their own cultural values of their personal cultural orientation after being categorized by

the values, individuals seek to achieve positive self-esteem by positively differentiating

their in-group from a comparison out-group on some valued dimension. This study

hypothesize that personal cultural orientation affects both perceived

brand value and that perceived value affects intention to revisit. Destination

brands quality can allow a group to categorize and differentiate themselves from others,

thereby solidifying their self identity and uniqueness. Given the “me” view of the

collectivist personal orientation, they may view positively and be more responsive to (in-

group) destination brands that reflect the cultural values of quality with their own

personal cultural orientation. It is therefore safe to assume that visitors with collectivistic

personal cultural orientation would perceive their in-group as more positive than they

would an out-group. Social Identity Theory also tells us that when a group identify

positively with the in-group it will do whatever it takes so as to not knock their own self-

esteem. Hence, it can be assumed that a positive perceived destination brand value is

positively related to intention to revisit. This study will seek to provide results of this

based on visitors to Cali, Colombia.

Relationship in Theoretical Model Null Hypothesis

Personal Cultural

Orientation and

Destination brand Image

H1: The tourists with collectivistic cultural orientation have

more positive destination brand image than those with

individualistic cultural orientation.

Personal Cultural

Orientation and

Destination brand value

H2: The tourists with collectivist cultural orientation have

more positive destination brand value than those with

individualistic cultural orientation.

Personal cultural

orientation and

Destination brand quality

H3: The tourists with collectivist cultural orientation have

more positive destination brand equity than those with

individualistic cultural orientation.

Destination brand

Image→ Intention to

revisit

H4: Positive perceived destination brand image is positively

related to Intention to Revisit

Destination brand value

→ Intention to Revisit

H5: Positive perceived Destination brand Value is positively

related to Intention to Revisit

Destination brand quality H6: Positive perceived Destination brand quality is positively

→ Intention to Revisit related to Intention to Revisit

Destination Brand Image

and Intention to revisit

H7: Destination brand image will mediate between Personal

Cultural Orientation and revisit intention

Destination Brand Value

and Intention to revisit

H8: Destination brand value will mediate between Personal

Cultural Orientation and revisit intention

Destination Brand Quality

and Intention to revisit

H9: Destination brand quality will mediate between Personal

Cultural Orientation and revisit intention

Personal Cultural

Orientation and Intention

to revisit

H10: Personal Cultural Orientation will have a positive effect

on Intention to revisit

Conclusion

This study aims to provide a better understanding of the five evaluative constructs

chosen and how they operate in marketing and positioning a tourist destination. Some of

the most important practical contributions of this study will include findings that, it is

hoped, will enable tourism government officials and destination marketers to understand

the cognitive and affective dimensions of the destination image of the city of Cali.

Further, that they may then develop sustainable strategies in market segmentation,

positioning, advertising and promotion for the area. The desired outcome of this study,

therefore, is to provide marketing leaders within the tourism industry a clearer

understanding of the perceived strengths and weaknesses of a destination from a cultural

perspective, so that they can integrate this knowledge into their branding process.

Specifically, this study sets out to understand if tourists from “individualistic” and

collectivist cultural perspectives from one country are impacted by the branding quality,

value and image of a destination.

The answers to these questions will provide assistance for destination brands in

the context of cities which do not currently have a framework for monitoring visitors’

perceptions based on their own cultural orientation. The results from the data will

potentially serve as benchmarks to track changes in customers’ perceptions of the

destination over time, thereby highlighting the effectiveness of marketing campaigns in

creating a positive image for tourist destinations. In addition, the author believes the

findings will enable service providers to identify new cultural features that can be added

to their core service/product or to customize their existing products to better suit the

needs of their diverse, international customers. Finally, this study will provide some

broad indications of what determines brand equity and future behavior of visitors.

Chapter 3

Methodology

The proposed theoretical model responds to the gaps revealed by the literature

review, and as set out in the previous chapter. In particular, the influence of personal

cultural orientation on destination brand equity. There is currently no study, the author is

aware of, that has assessed simultaneously the relationship among these variables and the

effect they have on tourists’ destination revisit intention

A crucially quantitative methodology will be used in recognition of the fact that a

traveler’s view of any particular destination is largely a social construction.

A number of authors (Bigné et al., 2001; Um et al., 2006; Castro

et al., 2007; Chen & Tsai, 2007; Weaver et al., 2007) have used a single item to

operationalize intention to revisit where others (Zeithaml et al., 1996; Petrick et al., 2001;

Lee et al., 2005) have used multiple items. For instance, Lee et al. (2005) used two items

(revisit for pleasure trip and revisit again in the next five years) to measure intention to

revisit a destination. Petrick et al. (2001) on the other hand, used 3 items (visit the

destination, visit a show, visit and book a package) to measure repurchase intentions.

Prayag (2001) measured intention to revisit on a 7-point scale anchored

by 1, “Very Unlikely”, and 7, “Very Likely”. Specifically, intention to revisit was

operationalized by asking respondents how likely they would be visiting the destination

in the next 3 years. Within the next 3 years was chosen to more accurately correlate intentions

to actual behavior. As Eagly and Chaiken (1993) argued, the longer the duration from the

intended behavior to the actual behavior, the less likely intentions will be correlated to actual

behavior

The Research Site: Cali, Colombia

Tourism is a vital part of the global economy. Generating roughly $1 trillion in

global receipts in 2008 (up 1.8 percent from 2007), international tourism ranked as the

fourth-largest industry in the world (UNWTO 2009). The breadth of international travel

has also greatly expanded in recent years to encompass the developing world. Once

essentially excluded from the tourism industry, the developing world has now become its

major growth area. However, developing countries encounter significant economic, social

and environmental challenges in maximizing the gains from their national tourism

industries, including the need to strengthen weak inter-sectoral linkages and reduce

excessive revenue leakage from their national economies (UNCTAD, 2010).

In the last few years, many Latin American countries have begun to emphasize

the importance of tourism to their economies and have stepped up efforts to improve

infrastructure and promote their offerings to international visitors, particularly those from

the United States. Signs indicate that these plans have been working. In fact, figures

collected by Colombian Immigration Authorities and the Banco de La Republica show

that a high proportion of tourists to Colombia are citizens of the United States. Currently,

they make up the second largest number of visitors with 235,000 individuals representing

22 per cent of the total annual tally. This study will examine the city of Cali as a tourist

destination and US citizens as tourists – something lacking in the present literature, as

very little research in the field has been conducted in Latin American countries to date.

Tourism has become one of the largest and fastest growing economic sectors in

Cali. In recent years, there has been an increase in both the number of cities marketing

their appeal worldwide and the number of destination places visited regularly by tourists.

Cali is no different. After years of a destructive and negative reputation, the Ministry of

Tourism and Trade is spearheading marketing efforts to position the country of Colombia

as a global destination for tourists. Cali, as one of the biggest city of Colombia, is

pursuing exactly the same. As detailed in the previous chapter, this study will investigate

differences in perceptions of destination image by perceived cultural distance, ethnicity,

past visitation and other socio-demographic characteristics of US visitors to Colombia.

Despite historical problems, Colombia presents a bright future for tourism

because of its vibrant natural and cultural heritage. Colombia ranked 72 out of 133

countries in the Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report 2009 released by the World

Economic Forum. Colombia had dropped one and three places compared to 2008 and

2007 respectively. According to World Tourism Organization UNWTO in 2008

Colombia received just over 1 million international tourists who spent approximately

USD 1.669 billion (Ref needed). Indeed, the 2009 Travel and Tourism survey forecasted

growth to remain at 4 per cent in the following years.

Some of the most important practical contributions of this study will include

findings that can enable tourism government officials and destination marketers to

understand the cognitive and affective dimensions of the brand image of Cali, which can

in turn serve to develop sustainable strategies in market segmentation, positioning,

advertising and promotion. The goal therefore is to be able to provide the tourism

industry in Cali with a clearer understanding of the perceived strengths and weaknesses

of the loyalty to a city as a destination from various cultural perspectives, and that this

understanding can then inform their branding process

Furthermore, the study may provide government officials with a framework for

monitoring visitors’ perceptions and attachment levels. The outcomes may, potentially,

serve as benchmarks to track changes in customers’ perceptions of the destination over

time, thereby highlighting the effectiveness of marketing campaigns in creating a positive

image for Cali as a destination. This will enable service providers to identify new cultural

features that can be added on to their core service/product or to customize their existing

products to suit the needs of their diverse, international customers, and finally, will

provide some broad indications of what determines satisfaction levels and future behavior

of visitors.

Research Methodology

This study proposes a quantitative field survey. The objective for this

methodology including the plans for recruiting correspondents, data collection and

analysis, are explained in the following sections.

Recruiting Respondents & Data Collection

The mayor’s office of the city its office of Tourism and Development has kindly

agreed to both facilitate access to hotels and assist in data collection by supplying

hospitality, research assistants and logistics. In order to obtain responses from a

representative sample of tourists, Cali has been selected, based on the average number of

US American tourists visiting the location in the past five years. The most popular tourist

hotels Cali will be identified and convenience sampling will be used to recruit

respondents staying at these hotels. Respondents will be intercepted randomly by data

collection team members who will be stationed in the hotel lobbies. At this point, the

respondents chosen will be asked to complete the survey. Male and female respondents

will be randomly selected for participation in the study. Respondents will be able to drop

off the surveys with the hotel reception desk, where the researcher’s team will collect the

completed surveys at the end of each day.

In the research model under consideration, the focal groups would be “brand loyal

tourist” – that is, tourists who “intend to return to Cali,” those who are “undecided,” and

those who “do not plan to return to Colombia.” 40 completed surveys will be required

from each of the 3 tourist locations. The data collection team members will distribute

surveys at the hotels for 10 days which will be chosen so that two weekends are included,

allowing the data collection team access to the maximum number of tourists.

Data Analysis

The data from the surveys will be analyzed using factor analysis to verify the

underlying factor structure of the constructs and multivariate analyses in order to obtain

initial confirmation of the relationships between the constructs. The instruments to be

used for measuring the constructs in the final research model will also be decided upon at

the end of the preliminary data analysis.

The Main Study: A Quantitative Field Study

The main study will consist of conducting surveys in the city of Cali in Colombia.

Sample Size

The target sample size will depend on the final number of items used in the

survey. However, any changes if any are expected to be minimal, amounting to changes

in item wording, and possibly dropping or adding a few items. Based on the original

number of items in the instruments identified in Table 1.1 (88 items) and accounting for

demographic and background information, the total number of items is estimated to be

95. The required sample size is computed for causal analysis (structural equation

modeling) and is estimated to be 95 items. Using a rule of thumb to estimate 5 cases per

item (or indicator) the required sample size is 475 (Bentler & Chou, 1987). Using a more

conservative estimate, the required sample size is computed as 50 cases in addition to 8

cases per item, which would be 810 (Garson, 2010). It must be noted that the final sample

size requirement will vary based on the final number of items included in the survey. The

conservative target sample size of 800 cases is used in order to plan for data collection.

Recruiting Respondents & Data Collection

With the assistance and cooperation of the Mayor’s office of the city of Cali and

its office of Tourism and Development, data will be collected from the most popular

hotels across the top three tourist locations in Colombia. The hotels will distribute the

surveys to their customers when they check in. The customers can return completed

surveys to the hotels’ reception desks, where the researcher will collect them. In return

for the hotels’ participation, the researcher will send a research report to the participating

hotels regarding the tourists’ perceptions of “service interactions” and their intentions in

respect of returning to Cali in the future. This report will be of particular interest to hotels

as it will enable them to improve their service interactions in future. This incentive will

also encourage hotels to help increase customer participation in the study, helping in turn

to improve the overall response rate.

Using an expected response rate of 57%, the rate obtained in prior studies (e.g.

Praya, 2009), it is estimated that 1256 surveys will need to be distributed. In order to

collect the target sample of 800 cases, attempts will be made to collect it in equal

numbers (by distributing the 1256 surveys equally among all participating hotels) from

all hotels that agree to participate in the study. This allows for a more representative

sample to be collected from across popular tourist locations. The data will be collected

using paper surveys.

Limitations

Studying Cali as the site where the research is to be conducted poses some

challenges and limitations. For instance, collecting data will take several weeks. Further,

it involves traveling to various tourist destinations within this large city at considerable

expense. In terms of generazibility, the findings can only be extrapolated to other cities

with similar social and economic conditions in Latin America.

REFERENCES

Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity. New York: The Free Press.

Aaker, D. A. (1996). Building strong brands. New York: The Free Press.

Aaker, D. A., & Shansby, J. G. (1982). Positioning your product. Business Horizons, 25

(3), 56e62.

Aaker, D., and Joachimsthaler E. 2000 Brand Leadership. New York: The Free Press.

Baker, D. A., & Crompton, J. L. (2000). Quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions.

Annals of Tourism Research, 27 (3), 785–804.

Baloglu, S. and McCleary, K.W. (1999) U.S. international travelers’ images of four Mediterranean destinations: a comparison of visitors and nonvisitors. Journal of Travel Research, 38, 144-152.

Baloglu, S., Pekcan, A., Chen, S. L, & Santos, J. (2003). The relationship between

destination performance, overall satisfaction, and behavioral intention for distinct

segments. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 4 (3–4), 149–

165.

Banerjee, S., (2008), Strategic Brand-Culture Fit: A conceptual framework for brand management, Journal of Brand Management,15,(5),312

Barrows, C. W., Latuuca, F. P., & Bosselmanc, R. H. (1989). Influence of restaurant reviews upon consumers. FIU Hospitality Review, 7(2), 84–92.

Basala, S., & Klenosky, D. (2001). Travel style preferences for visiting a novel

destination: A conjoint investigation across the novelty familiarity continuum.

Journal of Travel Research, 40 (2), 172–183.

Beerli, A., & Martin, J. D. (2004). Factors influencing destination image. Annals of

Tourism Research, 31(3), 657–681.

Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C. P. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological

Methods and Research, 16 (1), 78–117.

Biel, A. L. (1992), “How brand image drives brand equity”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol.32 No.6, pp.6-12

Biel, A. L. (1993), “Converting image into equity” in Aaker, D. A. and Biel, A. L. (Eds.),

Brand Equity and Advertising,Hillsdale Associates, Publish

Bigné, J., Sanchez, M. & Sanchez, J. (2001). Tourism image, evaluation variables and

after purchase behavior: Inter-relationships. Tourism Management, 22(6), 607–

616.

Bosjnak, M, Bochmann, V and Hufschmidt, T (2007) Dimensions of brand personality attributions: a person-centric approach in the German cultural context. Social Behavior and Personality 35(3): 303-316.

Black, J. S., & Mendenhall, M. (1991). The U-curve adjustment hypothesis revisited: A

review and theoretical framework. Journal of International Business Studies,

22 (2): 225–247.

Blain, C., Levy, S. E., & Ritchie, R. B. (2005). Destination branding: insights and

practices from destination management organizations. Journal of Travel Research,

43, 328–338.

Bloemer, J. and Ruyter, K. (1998) ‘On the Relationship between Store Image, Store Satisfaction and Store Loyalty’, European Journal of Marketing 32(5–6): 499–513

Botha, C., Crompton, J.L. and Kim, S.S. (1999) Developing a revised competitive position for sun/lost city, South Africa. Journal of Travel Research, 37, 341-352.

Broyles, S., Leingpibul, T., Ross, R., Foster, B., (2010) Brand equity's antecedent/consequence relationships in cross-cultural settings. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 19 (3).

Cronin, J. and Taylor, S. A. (1992) ‘Measuring Service Quality: A Re-examination and Extension’, Journal of Marketing 56(3): 55– 68;

Bramwell, B., and Rawding, L. (1996) Tourism marketing images of industrial cities. Annals of Tourism Research, 23, 201-221.

Cai, L. A. (2002). Cooperative branding for rural destinations. Annals of Tourism

Research, 29(3), 720–742.

Cai, L. A., Wu, B., & Bai, B. (2003). Destination image and loyalty. Cognizant

Communication Corporation, 7, 153–162.

Chen, J. S. (2000). A case study of Korean outbound travelers’ destination images by

using correspondence analysis. Tourism Management, 22 (4), 345–350.

Chernatony de, L. 1999 Brand Management Through Narrowing the Gap Between Brand Identity and Brand Reputation. Journal of Marketing Management 15(1–3):157–179.

Chiou, J. (2004). The antecedents of consumers’ loyalty toward Internet service providers. Information and Management, 41, 685–695.

Clark, T., & Pugh, D. S. (2001). Foreign country priorities in the internationalization process: a measure and an exploratory test on British firms. International Business Review, 10 (3), 285–303.

Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: A re-examination and

extension. Journal of Marketing, 56 (Jul), 55–68.

Cretu, A. E., & Brodie, R. J. (2007). The influence of brand image and company reputation where manufacturers market to small firms: a customer value perspective.

Industrial Marketing Management, 36(2), 230–240.

Crotts, J (2004). The effect of personal cultural orientationon overseas travel behaviors. Journal of Travel Research, 43, 83–88.

Crompton, J. L. (1979) An assessment of the image of Mexico as a vacation destination and the influence of geographical location upon that image. Journal of Travel Research, 17(1), 18-23.

Day, E., & Crask, M. R. (2000). Value assessment: the antecedent of customer satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 13, 53–59.

de Chernatony, L. & McDonald, M. 2001, Creating Powerful Brands in Consumer, Service and Industrial Markets, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford, London.

De Chernatony, L. and Riley, F. D. O. (1999) ‘Experts’ Views About Defining Services Brands and the Principles of Services Branding’, Journal of Business Research 46: 181– 92.

Deslandes, D. D. (2003). Assessing consumer perceptions of destinations: A necessary first step in the destination branding process. (doctoral dissertation). The Florida State University.

Dobni, D. and Zinkhan, G. M. (1990) ‘In Search of Brand Image: A Foundation Analysis’, Advances in Consumer Research 17: 110–19.

Doyle, P. (1994) ‘Building successful brands: The strategic options’, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 77–95.

Echtner, C. M., & Ritchie, J. B. R. (1991). The meaning and measurement of destination

image. Journal of Tourism Studies, 2 (2), 2–12.

Echtner, C. M., & Ritchie J. B. R. (1993). The measurement of destination image: Anempirical assessment. Journal of Travel Research, 31 (4), 3–13.

Ekinci, Y., & Hosany, S. (2006) Destination Personality: An Application of Brand Personality to Tourism Destinations. Journal of Travel Research; 45; 127

Fakeye, P., and J. Crompton (1991) Image Differences between Prospective, First-time, and Repeat Visitors to the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Journal of Travel Research 30(2):10–16.

Faircloth, J. B. (2005), “Factors influencing nonprofit resource provider support decision:

Applying the brand equity concept to nonprofit”, Journal of Marketing Practice and Theory, Vol.13 No.3, pp.1-15

Fick, G., and B. Ritchie 1991 Measuring Service Quality in the Travel and Tourism Industry. Journal of Travel Research 30(2):2–9.

Flint, J. D., Woodruff, B. R., & Gardial, F. S. (2002). Exploring the phenomenon of customers’ desired value change in a business-to-business context. Journal of

Marketing, 66, 102–117.

Florek, M., Insch, A., & Gnoth, J. (2006). City council websites as a means of place brand identity communication. Place Branding, 2(4), 276-296.

Gallarza, M. G., Saura, I. G., & Garcia, H. C. (2002). Destination image: Towards a

conceptual framework. Annals of Tourism Research, 29 (1), 56–78.

Gardner, B. B. & Levy, S. J. (1955) The product and the brand. Harvard Business Review, 33 (March-April), 33–39.

Garson, G. D. (2010). Structural equation modeling, from Statnotes: Topics in

Multivariate Analysis. Accessed 11/10/2010 via http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/statnote.htm

Gartner, W.C. (1989) Tourism image: attribute measurement of state tourism products using multidimensional scaling techniques. Journal of Travel Research, 28, 16-20.

Gartner, W. C. (1993). Image formation process. Journal of Travel & Tourism

Marketing, 2(2/3), 191–215.

Gartner, W.C., Tasci, A.D.A., and So, S.I.A. (2007) Branding Macao: An Application of Strategic Branding for Destinations, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Destination Branding and Marketing: New Advances and Challenges for Practice, 17-19 Dec. 2007, Macao, China., pp. 133-142.

Gartner, W.C., Konecnik, R. M., (2010) Tourism Destination Brand Equity Dimensions: Renewal versus Repeat Market Journal of Travel Research, 2 September 22, 2010

Gitelson, R. J., & Crompton, J. L. (1984). Insights into the repeat vacation phenomenon.

Annals of Tourism Research, 11 (2), 199–217.

Grewal, D., Levy, M., & Lehmann, D. R. (2004). Retail branding and customer loyalty: an overview. Journal of Retailing, 80, 9–13.

Gnoth , J . ( 2002 ) ‘ Leveraging export brands through a tourism destination brand ’ , Journal of Brand Management , Vol. 9 , No. 4 – 5 , pp. 262 – 280.

Hankinson, G. (2004) ‘Relational Network Brands: Towards a Conceptual Model of Place Brands’, Journal of Vacation Marketing 10(2): 109–21.

Hankinson, G. (2005),”Destination brand images: A business tourism perspective”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 24-32.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultural consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G., (1989). Organizing for cultural diversity. European Management Journal, 7(4), 390–397.

Hosany, S., Ekinci, Y., Uysal, M., 2006. Destination image and destination personality: an application of branding theories to tourism places. Journal of Business Research 59(5), 638-642.

Jackson, M. (2001). Cultural influences on tourist destination choices of 21 Pacific Rim

nations. Paper presented at the CAUTHE national research conference, pp. 166–

176 Canberra, Australia, February.

Jayanti, R. K., & Ghosh, A. K. (1996). A structural analysis of value, quality, and price perceptions of business and leisure travelers. Journal of Travel Research, 39, 45–51.

Jenkins, O. H. (1999). Understanding and measuring tourist destination images.

International Journal of Tourism Research, 1 (1), 1–15.

Joppe, M., Martin, D. W. and Waalen, J. (2001) ‘Toronto’s Image as a Destination: A Comparative Importance–Satisfaction Analysis by Origin of Visitors’, Journal of Travel Research 39(3): 252–60.

Kavaratzis , M . and Ashworth , G . ( 2005 ) ‘ City branding: An affective assertion of identity or a transitory marketing trick ’ , Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie , Vol. 96 , No. 5 , pp. 506 – 614 .

Keane, M. (1997) Quality and Pricing in Tourism Destinations. Annals of Tourism Research 24 :117–130.

Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based

brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1-22.

Keller, K. L. (1998). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing

brand equity. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Keller, K. L. (2003). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing

brand equity. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kim, H. B., & Kim, W. G. (2005). The relationship between brand equity and firms’ performance in luxury hotels and chain restaurant. Tourism Management, 26,

549–560.

Konecnik, M., & Gartner, W. C. (2007). Customer-based brand equity for a destination.

Annals of Tourism Research, 34(2), 400–421.

Kotler, P. (1988). Marketing management: Analysis, planning, implementation, and

control (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Kotler , P. , Armstrong , G . , Saunders , J . and Wong , V . ( 2002 ) ‘ Principals of Marketing ’ , 3rd European edition, Prentice- Hall, Essex, England, UK .

Kotler, P., Bowen, J. and Makens, J. (2003) Marketing for Hospitality and Tourism (3rd

edn). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Kozak, M. (2001). Repeaters’ behavior at two distinct destinations. Annals of Tourism

Research, 28 (3), 784–807.

Kozak, M. (2003). Measuring tourist satisfaction with multiple destinations attributes.

Tourism Analysis, 7 (3/4), 229–240.

Klenosky, D. and Gitelson, R. E. (1998) ‘Travel Agents’ Destination Recommendations’, Annals of Tourism Research 25(3): 661–74.

Kluckhohn, Florence Rockwood and Fred L. Strodtbeck (1961). Variations in Value Orientations. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Kwun, J. W., & Oh, H. (2004). Effects of brand, price, and risk on customers’ value perceptions and behavioral intentions in the restaurant industry. Journal of

Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, 11(1), 31–49

Lassar, W., Mittal, B., & Sharma, A. (1995). Measuring customer-based brand equity

Journal of Consumer Marketing, 12(4), 11–19.

Lee, J., & Back, K. (2008). Attendee-based brand equity. Tourism Management, 29(2),

331–344.

Leuthesser, L. (1988). Conference Summary: Defining, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity. Report No. 88-104. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

Leuthesser, L., Kohli, Ch., & Harich, K. (1995). Brand equity: the halo effect measure.

Journal of Marketing, 29, 57–66.

Low, G. S., & Lamb, C. W. (2000). The measurement and dimensionality of brand

associations. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 9(6), 350–368.

Maldonado, R., Tansuhaj, P., & Muehling, D. D. (2003). The impact of gender on ad processing: A social identity perspective. Academy of Marketing Science Review, available at http://www.amsreview.org/ articles/maldonado03-2003.pdf.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implication for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.

Mittal, V., & Kamakura, W. (2001). Satisfaction, repurchase intent and repurchase behavior: Investigating the moderating effect of customer characteristics. Journal of Marketing Research, 131–142.

Michell, P., King, J., & Reast, J. (2001). Brand values related to industrial products. Industrial Marketing Management, 30(5), 415–425.

Molina A., Gomez, M., & Consuegra, D. (2010) Tourism marketing information and

destination image management. African Journal of Business Management, 4 (5),

722–728.

Morgan, N., Pritchard, A. and Piggott, R. (2002) ‘New Zealand, 100% Pure: The Creation of a Powerful Niche Destination Brand’, Journal of Brand Management 9(4/5): 335–54.

Morrison, A., & Anderson, D. (2002). Destination branding. Available from: http://

www.macvb.org/intranet/presentation/DestinationBrandingLOzarks6-10-02. ppt Accessed 08.05.11.

Murphy, P., M. Prichard, and B. Smith 2000 The Destination Product and its Impact on Traveller Perception. Tourism Management 21: 43–52.

Murphy, J. (1998). What is branding? In S. Hart, & J. Murphy (Eds.), Brands: The new

wealth creator (pp. 1–12) New York: New York University Press.

Murphy, P., Pritchard, M. P., & Smith, B. (2000). The distinction product & its impact on traveler perceptions. Tourism Management, 21, 43–52.

Nadeau, J., Heslop, L., O’Reilly, N., & Luk, P. (2008). Destination in a country image

context. Annals of Tourism Research, 35 (1), 84–106.

Nebenzahl, I. D., Jaffe, E. D., & Usunier, J-C. (2003). Personifying country-of-origin

research. Management International Review, 43 (4), 383–406.

Oh, H. (2000). Diner’s perceptions of quality, value, & satisfaction. Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(3), 58–66.

O’Leary, S., & Deegan, J. (2005a). People, pace, place: Qualitative and quantitative

images of Ireland as a tourism destination in France. Journal of Vacation

Marketing, 9 (3), 213–226.

O’Leary, S., & Deegan, J. (2005b). Ireland’s image as a tourism destination in France:

Attribute importance and performance. Journal of Travel Research, 43 (Feb),

247–256.

Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of

satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17 (Nov), 460–469.

Opperman, M. (1998). Destination threshold potential and the law of repeat visitation.

Journal of Travel Research, 37(2), 131–137. Oppermann, M. (1999) ‘Predicting Destination Choice: A Discussion of Destination Loyalty’, Journal of Vacation Marketing 5(1): 51–65.

Oppermann, M. (2000_ Tourism Destination Loyalty. Journal of Travel Research 39:78–84.

Ostrowski, P., T. O’Brien, and G. Gordon 1993 Service Quality and Customer Loyalty in the Commercial Airline Industry. Journal of Travel Research 32(3):16–24.

Papadopoulos, N. & L. Heslop (2002). Country equity and country branding: Problems and prospects. Journal of Brand Management, 9(4-5), 294-314.

Pappu, R., & Quester, P. (2006). A consumer-based method for retailer equity

measurement: results of an empirical study. Journal of Retailing and Consumer

Services, 13(5), 317–329.

Pappu, R., Quester, P. G., & Cooksey, R. W. (2005). Consumer-based brand equity:

improving the measurement – empirical evidence. Journal of Product & Brand

Management, 14(3), 143–154.

Parasuraman, A. (1997). Reflections on gaining competitive advantage through

customer value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(2), 154–161.

Park, C. S., & Srinivasan, V. (1994). A survey-based method for measuring & understanding brand equity & its extendibility. Journal of Marketing Research,

31(2), 271–288.

Parkerson , B . and Saunders , J . ( 2005 ) ‘ City branding: Can goods and services branding models be used to brand cities ’ , Place Branding , Vol. 1 , No. 3 , pp. 242 – 264 .

Petrick, J. F. (2004). The roles of quality, value, and satisfaction in predicting cruise

passengers behavioral intentions. Journal of Travel Research, 42 (May), 397–407.

Petrick, J. F., Morais, D. D., & Norman, W. C. (2001). An examination of the

determinants of entertainment vacationers’ intentions to revisit. Journal of Travel

Research, 40 (Aug), 41–48.

Petrick, J. F., Backman, S. J., & Bixler, R. (1999). An investigation of selected factors effect on golfer satisfaction & perceived value. Journal of Park & Recreation

Administration, 17(1), 40–59.

Pike, S. (2002). Destination image analysis – A review of 142 papers from 1973 to 2000.

Tourism Management, 23 (5), 541–549.

Pike, S., & Ryan, C. (2004). Destination positioning analysis through a comparison of

cognitive, affective, and conative perceptions. Journal of Travel Research, 42

(May), 333–342.

Pike, S. (2009). Destination brand positions of a competitive set of near-home destinations. Tourism Management, 30(6), 857-866.

Pirsig, R. M. (1974). Zen & the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance – An Inquiry into Values. UK: Boadly Head.

Pizam, A., & Milman, A. (1993). Predicting satisfaction among first time visitors to a

destination by using the expectancy disconfirmation theory. International Journal

of Hospitality Management, 12 (2), 197–209.

Poiesz, T.B.C. (1989) The image concept: its place in consumer psychology. Journal of Economic Psychology, 10, 457-472.

Plank, R. E. & Minton, A. P. (1995). Persuasion and personal construct systems: An alternative framework for understanding the impact of persuasive communications. In: Southern Marketing Association Annual Conference, Orlando, Florida, USA November 8-11, 1995.

Prayag G. (2009). Visitors to Mauritius:Place perceptions & determinants of repeat

visitation. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Waikato. Hamilton, New

Zealand. Available online at: http://waikato.researchgateway.ac.nz/

Prebensen, N. K. (2007), “Exploring tourists’ images of a distant destination”, Tourism Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 747-756.

Qu, H., Kim, L. H., and Im, H. H. (2010). A model of destination branding: Integrating the concepts of the branding and destination image. Tourism Management, xxx, 1-12.

Rokeach, Milton (1973). The Nature of Human Values. New York: The Free Press.

Roy, D., and Banerjee, S. (2007), “CARE-ing strategy for integration of brand identity with brand image”, International Journal of Commerce and Management, Vol.17 No.1/2,

pp.140-148.

Ryan, C. (2002). The tourist experience. (2nd Ed.). London: Continuum.

Ryan, C., & Cave, J. (2005). Structuring destination image: A qualitative approach.

Journal of Travel Research, 44 (Nov), 143–150.

Saraniemi, S. (2009). Destination branding in a country context: a case study of Finland in British market . Dissertation. 2009, University of Joensuu. ISBN: 978-952-219-265-3.

Sharma, P. (2010). Measuring personal cultural orientations: scale development and validation. Journal of Academic Marketing Science. 38 (787-806)

Shenkar, O. (2001). Personal cultural orientationrevisited: Towards a more rigorous

conceptualization and measurement of cultural differences. Journal of

International Business Studies, 32 (4): 519–535.

Soderlund, M., and Ohman, N. (2003). Behavioral Intentions in Satisfaction Research Revisited.

Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 16, 53–66Soloman, M. (1996). Consumer Behavior. (3rd ed.) Upper River Saddle, NJ: Prentice

Hall.

Smeral. E., Weber, A., (2000) Forecasting international tourism trends to 2010. Annals of Tourism Research 27 (4), P. 982-1006

Sundqvist, S. Frank, L. & Puumalainen, K. The effects of country characteristics, cultural similarity and adoption timing on the diffusion of wireless communications. Journal of Business Research Volume 58, Issue 1 , January 2005, Pages 107-110

Suanet, S., & de Vijver F., (2009). Perceived personal cultural orientationand acculturation among exchange students in Russia. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 119, 182–197.

Sun, Q.. An analytical model of the determinants and outcomes of nation branding. Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Texas, United States -- Texas. Retrieved April 8, 2011, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.(Publication No. AAT 3399456).

Swan, J., 1981. Disconfirmation of expectations and satisfaction with a retail service.

Journal of Retailing, 57 (3), 49–66.

Sweeney, J., & Soutar, G. N. (2001). Consumer perceived value: the development of a multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 203–220.

Sweeney, J. C., Soutar, G. N., & Johnson, L.W. (1999). The role of perceived risk in the quality-value relationship: a study in a retail environment. Journal of Retailing, 75(1), 77–105.

Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups. New York, NY: Academic Press, Inc.

Tsai, S. (2005). Utility, cultural symbolism & emotion: a comprehensive model of brand purchase value. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 22, 277–291.

Tahir, R., & Larimo, J. (2004). Understanding the location strategies of European firms

in Asian countries. Journal of the American Academy of Business, 5 (1/2), 102–

109.

Tasci, A. D. A. and Kozak, M. (2006), “Destination Brands vs. Destination Images: Do we know what we mean?”, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 299-317.

Tasci, A. D. A., & Gartner, W. C. (2007). Destination image and its functional

relationships. Journal of Travel Research, 45 (May), 413–425.

Tasci, A. D. A., W. C. Gartner, S. T. Cavusgil (2007). Measurement of destination brand bias using a quasi-experimental design. Tourism Management, 28(6), 1529–1540.

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Tsai, S. (2005). Utility, cultural symbolism & emotion: a comprehensive model of

brand purchase value. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 22, 277–291.

Shavitt, S., Torelli, C. J., and Wong, J. 2009. Identity-based motivation: Constraints and

opportunities in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Psychology.

Um, S., Chon, K., & Ro, Y. (2006). Antecedents of revisit intention. Annals of Tourism

Research, 33 (4), 1141–1158.

UNCTAD secretariat, (2010). The contribution of tourism to trade and development.

Note by the UNCTAD secretariat. Second session Geneva, 3 – 7 May. Available

online at: http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/cid8_en.pdf

UN World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), Tourism Highlights, 2008 Edition (Madrid: UNWTO, 2008) and World Tourism Barometer (June 2009).

Vandello, J.A.; Cohen, D. (1999) Patterns of Individualism and Collectivism Across the United States. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(2), 279-292.

Villareji-Ramos, A. F. and Sanchez-Franco, M. J. (2005), “The impact of marketing communication and price promotion on brand equity”, Brand Management, Vol.12

No.6, pp.431-444

Wallendorf, Melanie and Michael D. Reilly (1983). “Ethnic Migration, Assimilation, and Consumption,” Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (December), 292-302.

Washburn, J. H., & Plank, R. E. (2002). Measuring brand equity: an evaluation of a consumer based brand equity scale. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Winter 46–62.

Watson, J. J.; Wright K (2000) Consumer ethnocentrism and attitudes toward domestic and foreign products. European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 9/10, 2000, pp. 1149-1166.

Weiermair, K., and M. Fuchs 1999 Measuring Tourist Judgment on Service Quality. Annals of Tourism Research 26:1004–1021.

Wood, L. (2000). Brands and brand equity: Definition and management. Management Decision, 38(9), 662-669.

Woodside, A. G., & Dubelaar, C. (2002). A general theory of tourism consumption systems: A conceptual framework and an empirical exploration. Journal of Travel Research, 41, 120–132.

Woodruff, R. B. (1997). Customer value: the next source for competitive advantage. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(2), 139–153.

Yoo, B., Donthu, N., & Lee, S. (2000). An examination of selected marketing mix elements & brand equity. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 258–270.

Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2005). The effect of personal cultural orientation on consumer ethnocentrism: Evaluations and behaviors of U.S. consumers toward Japanese products. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 18(1-2), 7.

Yoon, Y., & M. Uysal. (2005). An examination of the effects of motivation and

satisfaction on destination loyalty. Tourism Management, 26 (1), 45–56.

Zins, A. H. (2001). Relative attitudes & commitment in customer loyalty models: some experiences in the commercial airline industry. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 12(3/4), 269–294.

Appendix A:

Interviewer Introduction: Hello, I am ……….. from the …., we are currently conducting a survey on tourists in Cali. Your participation in this survey is very important in improving tourism planning and services in Cali. It would take about 10 minutes. I am a PhD student from Trident University in the US. May I ask you few questions?

What is the main purpose of your visit to Cali?

Business

Visiting Friends & Relatives

Pleasure

What is your state of residence?

________________

Your impressions about Cali

I.- Image scales

1-) Please rate Cali as a travel destination in terms of the following attributes on a scale of 7, where 1= Extremely poor and 7= Excellent.

Cali: Tourism Resources

1

Extremely Poor

2

Very Poor

3

Poor

4

Fair

5

Good

6

Very Good

7

Excellent

Variety of natural resources 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Scenic beauty 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Beaches/water resources 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Availability of tourist information 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Amount of cultural/heritage attractions

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Variety of outdoor activities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Weather conditions (e.g. Sunny, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Hot) – you need to make it clear what you mean

Taste of local food 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

People’s ability to speak in your language

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

People’s friendliness/hospitality 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Uniqueness of culture/customs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Shopping opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Exciting features 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Nightlife and entertainment opportunities

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Modern lifestyle 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Overall impression of Cali 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

II.- Quality scales

2-) Please rate the quality of tourism services in Cali in terms of the following attributes on a scale of 7, where 1=Extremely poor and 7= Excellent.

Cali: Quality of Tourism

Services

1

Extremely Poor

2

Very Poor

3

Poor

4

Fair

5

Good

6

Very Good

7

Excellent

Eateries 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Services in restaurants 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Accommodation facilities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Services in hotels 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Services by tour guides 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Local transportation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Services in local transportation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Cleanliness of the environment

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Safety and security in Cali as a whole

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

III.- Value scales

3-) Please rate a vacation in Cali on a scale of 7, where 1= Strongly disagree and 7= Strongly agree.

A Vacation in Cali is

1

Strongly

disagree

2

Disagree

very much

3

Disagree

4

Neither agree nor

disagree

5

Agree

6

Agree very much

7

Strongly agree

Money well spent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Too far from home 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

More of a hassle than a vacation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Very inexpensive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Good value for money 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

IV.- Revisit Intention

4-) Please rate the following statements about Cali on a scale of 7, where 1= Strongly disagree and 7= Strongly agree.

How likely are you to return

to Cali in the next

three years?

1

Strongly disagree

2

Disagree

very much

3

Disagree

4

Neither agree nor disagree

5

Agree

6

Agree very much

7

Strongly agree

A preferred destination for me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The destination for my next vacation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The only vacation destination for me

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

In my future vacation plans 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The destination I recommend to my friends and relatives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The destination I like more than other places

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The destination I least enjoyed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Measure the importance of each:

5-) Please order the following reasons of choosing Cali for your vacation in the level of importance on a scale of 5, where 1=Most important, 2=Very important, 3=Important, 4=Somewhat important, 5=Least important.

Reasons Importance

Variety of attractions and activities in Cali

Cali’s high quality touristic products and services

Cali’s touristic products offering high value for money

My desire to return to Cali

My familiarity with Cali

7-) What do you think Cali is best known for?

8-) When you think of Cali, what comes to your mind? what color comes to your mind?

9-) If you think of Cali as a person, what word best describes Cali’s personality?

10-) How many times have you visited Cali before?

11-) Please choose and rate the top three information sources in helping you form an image of Cali on a scale of 3, where 1=Most important, 2=Important and 3=Least important.

Prior visit

General knowledge about Colombia

Movies or TV shows

Travel agency

People from Cali

Friends and relatives

Newspapers / magazines / travel books

Internet

12-) Please rate the desirability of Cali as a vacation destination on a scale from 1 to 10 by circling the right number below.

Not desirable at all = 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 = Extremely desirable

13-) Please rate cultural similarity of Cali to your own on a scale from 1 to 10 by circling the right number below. Extremely different = 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 = Extremely similar

14-) How many days have you been in Cali so far on this trip? How many more days will you be?

15-) Please rate your satisfaction level with your trip to Cali on a scale from 1 to 10 by circling the right number below. Extremely dissatisfied = 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 = Extremely satisfied

16-) Have you traveled to any other country for vacation purposes so far? Yes (If Yes, how many different countries? )

No (If No, go to question 18)

17-) What was the most recent country you traveled to? What was the most important reason in choosing this country?

Some information about your current trip in Cali

18-) How many people, including yourself are in your immediate travel group?

19-) Who else is in your immediate travel group? (Please check all that apply)

Parents Spouse/partner Grandchildren

Own children Other relatives Friends

Tour group Coworkers/colleagues Other (Please specify)

20-) What type of accommodation did or will you use during your stay in Cali?

Hotel, in _________________________ Hotel Relative/friend’s house

21-) Approximately how much did or will you spend during your visit to Cali, including all shopping, accommodation, and transportation expenses in Cali? (Please indicate currency as well) _________

Some information about you

22-) Is your age between:

25 and under

25-25

35-45

45 and above

23) You are Female Male

24-) Which one of the following best describes your occupation?

Professional/Manager Trader/Small business proprietor Blue collar worker

Public servant Office worker/Administrative worker Unemployed

Other (please specify) _______________________

25- ) What is the highest level of education you have completed?

Less than primary school Secondary school Master’s or Ph.D.

Primary school University graduate Other (Please specify)_____________________

26-) Which one of the following best describes your marital status?

Single Divorced

Married Living with a partner Other (Please specify)_____________________

27-) What do you consider the origin of your ancestors?

Asian- China and SARs European North American

Other Asian African South American

Pacific Islander Middle Eastern Other (Please specify)

Perceived Personal cultural orientation

Scale: Ordinal

Source: Sharma (2010)

Q1. Directions: Please use the following 1 to 7 scale:

1 = Strongly disagree;

2 = Disagree very much

3 = Disagree

4 = Neither agree nor disagree

5 = Agree

6 = Agree very much

7 = Strongly agree

Independence and Interdependence

1

Strongly disagree

2

Disagree very much

3

Disagree

4

Neither agree nor disagree

5

Agree

6

Agree very much

1. I would rather depend on myself than others

1 2 3 4 5 6

2. My personal identity, independent of others, is important to me

1 2 3 4 5 6

3. I rely on myself most of the time, rarely on others

1 2 3 4 5 6

Availability of tourist information 1 2 3 4 5 6

4. It is important that I do my job better than others

1 2 3 4 5 6

Variety of outdoor activities 1 2 3 4 5 6

5. I enjoy being unique and different from others in many respects

1 2 3 4 5 6

Taste of local food 1 2 3 4 5 6

6. I often do ‘my own thing’ 1 2 3 4 5 6

7. The well-being of my group members is important for me

1 2 3 4 5 6

8. I feel good when I cooperate with my group members

1 2 3 4 5 6

9. It is my duty to take care of my family members, whatever it takes

1 2 3 4 5 6

10. Family members should stick together, even if they do not agree

1 2 3 4 5 6

11. I enjoy spending time with my group members

1 2 3 4 5 6

12. Children must respect the decisions made by their parents

1 2 3 4 5 6

Thank you very much for your time and effort in completing this questionnaire!