Vrijednost Marke Destinacije Kod Lokalne Zajednice

8/9/2019 Vrijednost Marke Destinacije Kod Lokalne Zajednice

1/25

IZVORNI ZNANSTVENI RAD ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC UDK:338.48-4>(9

JEL classification: L8

Steven PikeNoel Scott

VRIJEDNOST MARKE DESTINACIJE KOD LOKALNE ZAJEDNICEIZVOR KONKURENTSKE PREDNOSTI ZA ORGANIZACIJE K

UPRAVLJAJU DESTINACIJAMA: SLUAJ BRISBANEA, AUST

DESTINATION BRAND EQUITY AMONG THE HOST CO MM UNPOTENTIAL SOURCE OF COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE FOR DMCASE OF BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA

SA E TA K : Nakon prvog pojavljivanja literature o brendranju destinacije 19istraivalo mjerenje uspjegnosti kampanja za brending destinacije. Jos uvijek poza istrazivanje do koje granice marka desiinacije predstavlja i osjecaj o mjestu zKako je lokaino stanovniStvo kljuini igrac za onog tko upravlja destinacijom - dzmentske organizacije (u daljnjem tekstu DM0), potrebno je provesti istraiivanjkoliko su marketinske komunikacije uspjesne u poboljsavaju povezivanja s maimidia marke koji je uskladen s identitetom marke, Motivirani konceptualnim i ovaj rad izvjestava o testiranju hijerarhije trzisne vrijednosti marke destinacije gaCu (u daljnjem tekstu CBBE/customer based brand equity) iz Perspektive stansudionika u lokalnom turizmu. Sugerir se da snazna razina CBBE-a kod lokalnlja izvor komparativne prednosti za destinaciju koju onda DM0 mo^e proaktivrentsku prednost.

KLJUNE RIJECI : brendiranje destinacije, DM0, triiSna vrijednost marke, loimidi destinacije, upravljanje destinacijom

SUMMARY: Since the emergence ofthe destination branding literature in 1998

few studies related to performance measurement of destination brand campaigns.little interest to date in researching the extent to which a destination brand reprmunity's sense of place. Given that local residents represent a key stakeholder gtion marketing organisation (DM0), research is required to examine the extent communications have been effective in enhancing engagement with the brand, aimage that is congruent with the brand identity. Motivated by conceptual and prper reports the trial of a hierarchy of consumer-based brand equity (CBBE) for a destperspective of residents as active participants of local tourism. It is proposed thCBBE among the host community represents a source of comparative advantawhich the DM 0 couid proactlvely develop into a competitive advantage.

KEYWORDS: destination branding, DM0. brand equity, host community, dedestination management


2/25

s. Pike, N. Scott: VrijednosI wake destinacije kod lokalne zajednice... 161

l U V O D

Pojava koncepta triSne vrijednostimarke tijekom 80-h godina proslog stolje-ca, kao mjerila marketinSke uspjenosti, do-vela je do povecanog usredotoCenja podu-zeca na aktivnosti marketinskog istrazivanjate do razvoja znanstvene literature (Keller,2003). Istrazivanja su potvrdila brojne pred-nosti kod visoke razine vrijednosti markeukljucujuci nize troskove (Keller, 1993),

povecanje namjere za kupnjom (Cobb-Walgren, Beal & Donthu, 1995), povecanjeprodaje, cjenovne premije i lojainost koris-nika, (Aaker 1991, 1996), pojaCanu pozicijukod kanala distribucije (Park & Srinivasan,1994) i konkurentsku prednost (Adams,1995). UnatoC istrazivanju, postoji neslaga-nje 0 tome kako vrijednost marke konceptu-alizirati i operacionalizirati (Yoo&Donthu,2001). Razabiru se dva iroka pristupa: ra-cunovodstveni i marketinski. Vrijednostmarke tradicionaino se vrednovala na razinipoduzeca uporabom raCunovodstvenihmjera kao Sto su neto trenutna vrijednostbuduceg protoka novca, vrijednost dionicaili zivotni cikius korisnika kako bi se proci-jenila vrijednost marke u bilanci poduzeca.Iz marketinske Perspektive, vrijednostmarke je, medutim, koncept koji se temeijina marketinkim percepcijama, jer se kona-fno svaka procjena buduce financijske us-pjeSnosti izvodi iz razmisijanja ponaanjakorisnika. Stoga Keller (1993) tvrdi da pre-dnost marke lezi u onome sto "stanuje uglavama korisnika". Dok se vrijednostmarke temeljem racunovodstvene metodemo2e izracunati iz financijskih podatakapoduzeca bez potrebe kontakta s korisni-kom, vrijednost marke zasnovana na koris-

niku procjenjuje se na temelju ponasanja l mjerama ponaSanja korisnika(Yoo&Donthu 2001)

1 NTRODUCTION

The emergence during the 1980s of brand equity concept as a marketing pformance metric has led to an increasedcus on marketing research activity by fiand a developing academic literature (Kler, 2003). Research studies have identifa number of advantages of a high levelbrand equity including lower costs (Kel1993), increased purchase intention (Cob

Walgren, Bea & Donthu, 1995), increasales, price premiums and customer loya(Aaker 1991, 1996), a strengthened posiin distribution channels (Park & Sriniva1994) and competitive advantage (Ada1995). Despite this research there is a lof agreement on how brand equity shouldconceptualised and operationallsed (YooDonthu 2001) and two broad approacmay be discerned; the accounting and mketing perspectives. Traditionally, braequity has been analysed at the firm leusing accounting measures such as net-psent-value of future cash fiow, share valor lifetime customer value to estimate anset value for the brand on the corporate bance sheet. From a marketing perspecthowever brand equity is a concept thatbased on market perceptions. Since any sessment of future financial performanceultimately derived from customers thinkand behaviour. Thus, Keller (1993) arguthat a brand's advantage lies in what resiin customers' minds. While firm-based counting measures of brand equity may calculated from financial data without aneed to contact customers, consumer basedbrand equity is estimated from consumerattitude and/or behaviour measures (Yoo

Donthu, 2001).In recent years the concept of consumb d b d it (CBBE) h tt t d


3/25

162 Acta turistica, Vol 21 (20 09). No 2, pp 123-2

izmedu procjenjivanja efikasnosti prethod-nog marketinga i predvidanja buduce uspje-snosti. lako nema opee prihvacenog modela

CBBA, istrazivaci su uglavnom davali pre-dnost etirima dimenzijama koje su predlo-zili Aaker (1991, 1996) i Keller (1993,2003): upadijivost marke, asocijacije namarku, kvaliteta marke i lojalnost marki.

CBBE koncept relativno je nov u turis-tickoj literaturi, jednako kao sto je novo imjerenje uspjesnosti marke destinacije. Ne-davno istrazivanje o prvih deset godina lite-rature o brendiranju destinacije, od 1998. do2007., identificiralo je moguce jazove u od-nosu na vrijednost marke destinacije, kaoStojepracenje uspjesnosti marke destinacijetijekom odredenog vremena, procjena vrije-dnosti marke za sudionike (kao sto su pos-rednici i lokalna turisticka poduzeca), kao ido koje razine marka utjelovljuje osjecajmjesta kod lokaine zajednice (Pike, 2009).Smatra se da visoke razine vrijednostimarke kod lokaine zajednice mogu pobolj-sati lojalnost prema lokalnim atrakcijama isadrzajima u kontekstu lokainog stanovnis-tva kao povremenih posjetitelja, ali i doma-cina prijateljima i rodacima koji im dolaze uposjet.

Svrha ovoga rada je izvijestiti o testira-nju CBBBE hijerarhije iz Perspektive lo-kaine zajednice, tj. Brisbanea, glavnoggrada pokrajine Queensland u Australiji.

Queensland je slu2beno podijeljen na 14 tu-ristickih regija. Regionalna turisticka orga-nizacija (RTO), Brisbane Marketing, odgo-voma je za zemljopisne granice koje uklju-cuju lokalna administrativna podrucja: Boo-nah, Brisbane City, Esk, Gatton, IpswichCity, Kilcoy, Laidley, Caboolture, LoganCity, Pine Rivers i Redlands. Regija je raz-nolika i ukljuuje obaine atrakcije kao sto susuptropski otoci i promatranje kitova, ru-ralni i nacionalni parkovi u unutrasnjosti igiavni grad savezne drzave. Regija Brisbane

While there is no universally acceptemodel of CBBE, researchers have generallfavoured four dimensions proposed b

Aaker (1991, 1996) and Keller (1993,2003): brand salience, brand associationbrand quality and brand loyalty.

The CBBE concept is relatively new tthe tourism literature, as is destination branperformance measurement. A recent reviewof the first ten years of destination brandinliterature, from 1998 to 2007 , identifiepotential gaps in relation to destinatiobrand equity, such as tracking a destinatio

brand s performance over tim e, assessinthe value of the brand to stakeholders sucas intermediaries and local tourism busnesses, as well as the extent to which thbrand encapsulates the host com m unitysense of place (Pike, 2009). It is suggestethat high levels of host community branequity might enhance loyalty to local atractions and facilities, in the context residents as occasional local tourists as weas hosts to visiting friends and relative s.

The purpose of this paper is to report thtrial of a hierarchy of (I^BBE, from the pespective of the host community, for Bribane, the capital of the state of QueenslanAustralia. Queensland is divided into 14 oficial tourism regions. The regional tourisorganisation (RTO), Brisbane Marketing, responsible for a geographic boundary th

includes the local government areas oBoonah, Brisbane City, Esk, Gatton, Ipwich City, Kilcoy, Laidley, CabooltureLogan City, Pine Rivers, and Redlands. Thregion is diverse and includes coastal atractions such as sub-tropical islands anwhale watching, a rural and national pahinterland, and the metropolitan state captal. The Brisbane region provides tourisopportunities for residents as well as vis

tors, and so it is argued local residenshould be regarded as an important stakh ld b h RTO f l f


4/25

s. Pike, N, Scott: Vrijednost marke destinacije kod iokalne zajednice... 163

kao vaznu skupinu sudionika zbog cetirikljucna razloga.

Kao prvo, Brisbane Marketing fmancirase iz konsolidiranih fondova lokalne admi-nistracije kojoj je glavni prihod lokaini po-rez na nekretnine. Na temelju ovoga svi vla-snici nekretnina neizravno doprinose bu-dzetu RTO-e. Kao drugo, lokaini stanovniciugoScuju rodbinu i prijatelje koji dolaze izdrugih gradova te su im vrlo cesto i lokainituristiki vodici. Scott i Clarke (2005:11)citiraju nalaze istrazivanja navodeci da su stanovnici grada odigrali vaznu ulogu ukomuniciranju usmenom predajom atrakcijai karakteristika grada potencijalnim posjeti-teijima . Preko 90% posjetitelja Brisbanea,koji dolaze u kratku posjetu rodbini i prija-teljima, odsjeda u privatnom smjestaju (To-urism Queensland, 2006). U 2007. godiniTourism Queensland (2007) je procijenio daje segment potrosaca koji posjecuje rodbinui prijatelje najbrojniji segment turistickihposjetitelja te na njih otpada 35% svih tu-

rista. Postoje dokazi da ovi posjetitelji ko-riste iste sadrzaje atrakcije kao i pravi tu-risti (Morrison, Hsieh & O'Leary, 1995).Kao trece, lokalno stanovnitvo je znacajansegment posjetitelja za lokalne atrakcije idogadaje. Jedan od glavnih prodajnih kata-loga, Brisbane Visitors Guide, u proslosti sedistribuirao lokalnim kucanstvima. MisijaBrisbane Marketinga izravno se obraca lo-kalnoj zajednici i kao ciljnom tritu i kao

onima koji imaju gospodarsku drustvenukorist:

Nasa m isija je promovirati Brisbane injegovu okolinu okalnoj, nacionalnoj i me-unarodnoj publici s krajnjim ciljem os-tvarivanja dntstvene i ekonomske koristi zalokalnu zajednicu, stanovnistvo i poduzecarisbane Marketing, 2007:4).

Kao etvrto, lokaini stanovnici odiaze nakratke odmore unutar svoje regije. Kratki

First, Brisbane Marketing is funded biocal government consolidated funds, fwhich a major component of revenue is d

rived through a residential property tax. Othis basis, all property owners are indireccontributing to the RTO budget. Seconresidents host friends and relatives from oof town, and often act as local guides. Scand Clarke 2005:11 ) cited research findingsindicating residents of the city played important role in communicating the attrtions and features of the city to potentivisitors often by word of mouth . Over 90of Brisbane's 'visiting friends and relative(VFR) short break visitors stay in privaresidences (Tourism Queensland, 2006). Fyear ended June 2007. Tourism Queensla(2007) estimated that of all visitors to Brbane, VFR is the largest sector in terms reason for visit, accounting for 35% of atravellers. There is evidence that VFR traellers to Queensland use the same facilitiand attractions as holiday travellers (Morson, Hsieh & OXeary, 1995). Third, resdents are a sizable segment for local attrations and events, with one of the RTO'major sales brochures, the Brisbane VisitoGuide, distributed in the past to locahouseholds. Brisbane Marketing's missiostatement explicitly refers to the local community, both as a target market, and as social and economic beneficiaries:

Our mission is to promote Brisbane andits surrounds to local, national and interna-tional audiences, with the ultimate goal ofachieving optimum social and economicbene fits for the local com munity, residentsand businesses Brisbane Marketing,2007:4).

Fourth, residents do take short breakwithin their own region. Short break holdays of one to three nights taken by thpopulation within a 400 kilometre radius


5/25

164 Acta turistica. Vol 21 (2009), No 2, p

vazno trziste za Brisbane Marketing. Podru-je Brisbanea ini manje od 1% povrsineQueenslanda, ali u njemu zivi v5e od polo-

vice ukupnog stanovnitva (TourismQueenskland, 2004). U 2005. godini Tou-rism Queensland (2006) je procijenio da jegotovo polovina posjetiteija na kratkomodmoru (unutar radijusa od 400 km) bila ukategoriji posjeta rodacima i prijateljima.Lokaino stanovnistvo predstavijalo je naj-veci segment posjetiteija. Na njega je ota-palo 27% svih posjetiteija koji su bili ukratkom posjetu unutar Brisbane RTO regije

i koji U

u prosjeku proveli 1,6 nocenja te suostvarili ukupno 852.000 nocenja.U vrijeme kada je istrazivanje prove-

deno tema marke destinacije je bila Bris-bane - It's happening . Tema je osmisljenakako bi se Brisbane repozicionirao i odma-knuo od percepcije malog uspavanoggrada koju je imao na vaznim domacim tr-zitima Sydneya i Melboumea. Dva kljucnaproblema Brisbanea na ova dva trita bilaSU i) nedostatak svijesti o turistikim atrak-cijama regije Brisbanea, narocito kod seg-menta koji nije posjecivao tu regiju, te ii)percepcije da je ono ato nudi Brisbane slaboprivlacno (Tourism Queensland, 2004).Kljuni atributi koje je trebalo portretirati unovoj marki bili su: sUkovit, ziv, uzbudljiv,zabavan, britak, pomalo bezobrazan, miad,gostoprimljiv, prijateijski, opusten, siguran,kulturoloki raznovrstan, proaktivan (Tou-rism Queensland, 2004).

Jasno je da su percepcije lokalnog sta-novnitva o pozeljnosti i privlanosti nji-hove regije vazan iimbenik uspjenosti turi-zma u Brisbaneu. Stoga je ovo istrazivanjeprovedeno s ciljem da se procijeni razinasukiadnosti izmedu identiteta marke desti-nacije Brisbanea te imidza marke kod lokal-nog stanovniStva koritenjem hijerarhijskogCBBE modela.

Queensland's land area, but is haround half of its population (TQueensland, 2004). In the year en

cember 2005, Tourism Queenslandestimated that almost half of all shvisitors (from within a 400 kilometrwere in the VFR category. Local were the largest segment, with 27short break visitors from within tbane RTO region, staying an averagnights, for an estimated 852.000 ntotal.

At the time that this research wducted the destination brand the'Brisbane - It's happening'. This wmarily designed to reposition Brisbfrom being perceived as a 'sleeptown' in the important domestic imarkets of Sydney and Melbourne. problems for Brisbane in these marbeen i) a lack of awareness of thetourism attractions, particularly amvisitors, and ii) perceptions that wbane offered was of little appeal (Queensland, 2004). The key magutes to be portrayed in the new bracolourful, vibrant, exciting, entesavvy, slightly irreverent, youthfhospitable, casual, friendly, safe, cdiverse, and 'can-do attitude (TQueensland, 2004).

Clearly, the perceptions of re

about the desirability and attractionregion is an important factor for thof tourism in Brisbane. As a resultsearch was conducted with the aimsessing the level of congruence Brisbane's destination brand identhe brand image held by the host cousing a hierarchical CBBE model.


6/25

s. Pike, N. Scott: Vrijednost marke destinacije kod lokalne zajednice... 6

2. PREGLED LITERATURE

Literatura koja se odnosi na percepciju

lokalnog stanovnistva o marki njihove des-tinacije jos uvijek je u povojima. TijekomviSe od tri desetljeca stalno se provode istra-zivanja 0 misljenjima lokalnog stanovnitva0 turizmu i turistikom razvoju (Doxy 1975,Pizam 1978, Dav is, Allen Cosenza 1988,Akis, Perisitianis Wamer 1996, Williams Lawson, 20 01 , Huh, Vogt Huh 2008).Medutim, u sredistu ovoga islrazivanjauglavnom je mjerenje razina podrske zafinanciranje destinacijskog marketinga iprihvacanja utjecaja koje turizam ima nalokainu zajednicu. Prvu sludiju o odnosuizmedu miljenja lokalne zajednice o turi-zmu te 0 njihovim percepcijama imidza onjihovoj regiji objavio je Schroeder (1996)koji je otkrio da je imidz stanovnika Dakote0 njihovoj drzavi bio pozitivno povezan snjihovom podrskom turizmu. U literaturi obrendingu mjesta, Merrilees, Miller, Herin-gton i Smith (2007) istrazivali su odnoseprema Cairnsu iz Perspektive stanovnikakao povremenih turista. Phillips i Schofield(2007) ispitivall su percepcije stanovnikaurbane destinacije kao trzisnog segmenta.Istrazivali su i lokalne poglede o Stoke-on-Trent kao dnevnoj destinaciji za njegovestanovnike. Stoke-on-Trent je netradicio-nalna turisticka destinacija koja pokusava

razviti turizam kao dio strategije revitaiiza-cije kako bi se premostili gubitci u gmcar-skoj industriji i s time povezanim padomgradanskog ponosa. U prvom istrazivackomtekstu 0 brendingu destinacije, Donald iGammack (2007) dali su interdisciplinamuteoretsku bazu za razumijevanje brendiranjagradova kao kultumog i politickog feno-mena. Njihova trogodisnja studija Sangaja,Sydneya i Hong K onga bio je pokusaj holi-

sticke interpretacije marke mjesta ukljuci-vanjem iskustava stanovnika o mjestu, utje-

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature relating to residents' per-

ceptions of their destination brand is in itsinfancy. There has been a steady stream ofresearch reported about community opin-ions of tourism and tourism developmentfor over three decades (see Doxey 1975, Pi-zam 1978, Davis, Allen Cosenza 1988,Akis, Peristianis Warner 1996, Williams Lawson 200 Huh, Vogt Huh 2008).However, the focus of this research has forthe most part been concerned with gauginglevels of support for destination marketingfunding and acceptance of tourism impacts.The first study of the relationship betweenhost community opinions about tourism andtheir perceived images of their region waspublished by Schroeder (1996), who foundthat a resident's image of the state of Da-kota was positively associated with theirsupport for tourism. In the place brandingliterature. Merrilees, Miller, Herington andSmith (2007) Investigated attitudes towardsCairns from the perspective of residents asoccasional tourists. Phillips and Schofield(2007) exatnined urban destination percep-tions of residents as a market segm ent. Theyinvestigated locals' views of Stoke-on-Trentas a day trip destination for residents. Stoke-on-Trent is a non-traditional tourism desti-nation attempting to develop tourism as part

of a regeneration strategy to overcome theloss ofthe pottery manufacturing sector andresultant decline in civic pride. In the ftrstresearch-based text on destination branding,Donald and Gammack (2007) provided aninterdisciplinary theoretical basis for under-standing city branding as a cultural and po-litical phenomenon. Their three year studyof Shanghai, Sydney and Hong Kong at-tempted a holistic interpretation of place

brands by incorporating residents' experi-ences of place, the effect of cultural repre-

i i i ' i d h


7/25

Acta turistica. Vol 21 (2009), No 2, pp 123-2

pogleda lokalne zajednice kako bi se osigu-ralo da je ono sto se komunicira u brendingudestinacije realno i pHkladno. Henderso-

nova istraivaCka studija lokalnih stanov-nika navodi da postoje jazovi izmedu per-cepcija stanovnika i identiteta marke kojinamjerava plasirati DMO:

Kada se stanovnike poziva da zive vrije-dnosti marke radi ostvarivanja turistickihciljeva, vjerojatno postoji opasnost da stru-cnjaci za marketing preuzmu previse utje-caja te se m ora ponovno uspostaviti osjecajravnoteze. Ni drustva ni mjesta ne mogu se

izgraditi ili proizvesti za turisticku potros-nju a da se ne izgitbl autenticnosti. U kona-cnosti posjetitelji to prepozna ju i odlaze tra-ziti autenticnost na nekom drugom mjestu str. 215).

Holcolmb (1999.) je otisao i dalje suge-rirajuci da unutar lokalne zajednice mozdapostoji pog led da je turisticki brendingmjesta neprikladan i pita se nije Ii prodajagrada turlstima Faustovska nagodba:

Vpak irati i promovirati grad turisttmamoze unistiti njegovu dusu. Grad postajeroba, njegov oblik i dusa iznova su naci-njeni kako b se prilagodili potrebama trzi-sta, a ne snovima stanovnika. Lokalna dr-zava i poslovne elite tajno kolaborirajukako bi nanovo izgradili grad u kojem cenjihovi posebni inleresi biti od najvece vaz-

nosti; u meduvrem enu sredstva za kvartove isocijalne usluge, gdje su potrebne, preu-smjerava ju se drugdje str. 69).

U poCetku se koncept turistiCkog brendi-ranja sporo prebacivao iz marketinSke litera-ture, alije u posljednjih dvadeset godina ubr-zano prihvacen. Tema brendinga pojavila seu marketinskoj literaturi tijekom 40-ih godinaproslog stoljeca (vidi Guest, 1942), ali prviznanstveni Clanci o brendingu destinacijenisu se pojavili do 1998. (vidi DoSen, Vran-

host community to ensure what is beicommunicated in the destination brandingrealistic and appropriate. Henderson's e

ploratory study of local residents suggesgaps between residents' perceptions and tbrand identity intended by the destinatimarketing organisation (DMO);

When residents are called on to live thvalues of the brand in pursuit of tourisgoals, it would seem that marketers are idanger of assuming too much influence aa sense of balance needs to be restored. Scieties cannot be engineered or place

manufactured for tourist consum ption w itout a loss of authenticity which is ultimaterecognised by the visitor who will move to seek it elsewhere (p. 215).

Holcolmb (1999) went further to suggthere might be a view within a host commnity that tourism branding of place is nappropriate, and asked whether selling a cto tourists is a Faustian bargain:

Packaging and promoting the city tourists can destroy its soul. The city commodifled. its form and spirit rema de conform to market demand, not residentdreams. The local state and business elitecollude to remake a city in which their spcial interests are param ount; mea nwhileresources are diverted away from needneighbourhoods and social services (p. 69)

The concept of branding in tourism winitially slow to be transferred from tmarketing literature but has been adoptrapidly over the past two decades. The topof branding emerged in the marketing lerature during the 1940s (see Guest, 194but the first journal articles relating to desnation branding did not appear until 19(see Dosen, Vransevic Prebezac 199

Pritchard Morgan 1998). Yet five yealater, Keller (2003) wrote that the brandi


8/25

s. Pike. N, Scott: Vrijednost marke destinacije kod lokaine zajednice... 167

da bi fokus svih marketinSkih komunikacijatrebao biti jacanje identiteta marke. Kao stosmo prethodno raspravljali, nekih 71 radova

0 brendiranju destinacije publicirano je iz-medu 1998. i 2007. godine (vidi Pike, 2009)a razvoj identiteta marke destinacije je klju-no podruja istrazivanja. Pregled ovih ra-dova identificira mjerenje uspjesnosti kam-panja za marku destinacije kao podnicja gdjeje potrebno dodatno istrazivanje kako bi seistrailo do koje je granice marketinska ko-munikacija DMO-e biia efikasna u stimulira-nju sukladnosti izmedu zeljenog identiteta

marke i stvamog imidza marke kako ga do-zivljavaju sudionici na odabranim trzistima.

Koncept CBBA moze se koristiti kakobi se promatrala efikasnost brendiranja, alido danas je u turistickoj literaturi publici-rano malo izvjeStaja o CBBE modeliranju.Primjeri koristenja CBBE ukijucuju mjere-nje vrijednosti marke kod sudionika konfe-rencije (Lee&Back,2008) i vrijednosti

marke hotela (Cobb-Walhgren, Ruble&Do-nthu, 1995, Kim,Kim & An 2003, Kim, Jin-Sun & Kim, 2008). Prve CBBE destina-cijske studije ispitale su vrijednost markeSlovenije u Hrvatskoj (Konecnik 2006,Konecnik & Gartner, 2007), te CBBE zaLas Vegas i Atlantic City u kontekstu de-stinacija za ljubitelje kockamica (Boo, Bus-ser & Baloglu, 2009). Chi i Qu (2008) su te-stirali odnos izmedu imidza destinacije, za-

dovoljstva i lojalnosti, au nisu mogli pro-naci niti jednu prethodnu studiju koja je is-trazivala CBBE hijerarhiju iz Perspektivelokalnih stanovnika kao aktivnih sudionikalokalnog turizma.

Nakon Aakera (1991, 1996) i Kellera(1993, 2003) CBBE hijerarhija, kao sto po-kazuje Slika 1, konceptualizirana je tako daima ietiri konstrukta koji su hijerarhijski

poslozeni. U ovom modelu CBBE je egzo-geni konstrukt, a ostala cetiri su endgenakao sto pokazuje smjer strelica Peta dimen-

above, some 7 destination branding papewere published between 1998 and 2007 (sPike. 2009) with the development of a de

tination's brand identity as a key area of rsearch. A review of these papers identifieperformance measurement of destinatiobrand campaigns as a area where further rsearch was needed In order to analyse thextent to which the DMO's marketingcommunications have been effective istimulating congruence between the desirebrand identity and actual brand image heby stakeholders in target markets.

The concept of CBBE can be used tomonitor the effectiveness of branding however there has been little modelling oCBBE reported in the tourism literature tdate. Examples of the use of CBBE includthe measurement of conference attendebrand equity (Lee & Back, 2008), and hotbrand equity (Cobb-Walgren, Ruble &Donthu 1995, Kim, Kim, & An 2003, Kim,Jin-Sun & Kim, 2008). The first destinatioCBBE studies examined Croatian-basebrand equity for Slovenia (Konecknic 200Konecknik & Gartner 2007), short breadestination brand equity for an emergindestination (Pike, 2007), and CBBE for LVegas and Atlantic City, in the context ogambling destinations (Boo, Busser & Baloglu, 2009). Chi and Qu (2008) tested threlationship between destination imagesatisfaction and loyalty but were unable tfind any previous study investigating thCBBE hierarchy from the perspective oresidents as active participants of locatourism.

Following Aaker ( 991, 1996) and Kel-ler (1993, 2003) the CBBE hierarchy, asshown in Figure 1, is conceptualised ahaving four constructs arranged as a hierarchy. In this mode , CBBE is an exogenouconstruct and the other four constructs arendogenous as indicated by the direction oth A fifth di i d b


9/25

168 Acta ruristica, Vo 21 (20 09 ). No 2, pp 123-2

melju hijerarhije je upadljivost marke kojapredstavlja snagu svijesti o marki. Opci pri-stup mjerenju upadijivosti je pomocu nep-

mognute svijesti o marki ili pomocu sjeca-nja o marki. Kod razvijanja upadijivosti ciljje menadzera da ga se pamti po razlozimakojih jedina namjera nije bilo ostvariti opcusvijesti (Aaker, 1996). Premda svijest o de-stinaciji lokalnom stanovniku moze izgle-dati kao oita stvar, upadljivost zahtijeva dase stanovnikov grad smatra relevantnimglede turistickih mogucnosti.

Druga razina u CBBE hijerarhiji su aso-cijacije marke pod koje spada sve sto je po -vezano sa sjecanjem na marku (Aaker,1991:109). Recentni pregled literature ostrukturi pamcenja pokazuje da se najsireprihvacena konceptualizaeija ostvarujeSirenjem djelovanja (Cai, 2002). Ovo podu-pire model mreze asocijativnog pamcenja(Anderson, 1983) u kojem se pamcenje sa-stoji od cvorova i spojeva. Cvor predstavljauskladistenu informaciju o konceptu i dio jemreze veza s ostalim cvorovima. Veza iz-medu cvorova se aktivira prilikom obradevanjskih informacija ili kada se informacijedoziva u pamcenju. Kada se vor konceptopozove, snaga asocijacije (a) odreduje kojice se drugi vorovi aktivirati iz pamcenja.

Marka destinacije moze se onda kon-ceptualizirati na nacin da predstavlja cvorkoji ima brojne asocijacije s ostalim Cvor

konceptima. U studiji o destinacijskom imi-dzu asocijacije korisnika su uobicajcno pod-rucje prouCavanja (za provjeni vidi Gal-larza. Saura & Garcia 2002, Pike 2002,2007b). Od posebnog interesa za ovu studijuje operacio nal izacij a destinacijskog imidzakao destinaeijske privianosti Sto predlaiMayo i Jarvis (1981 :203). Slijedeci Good-richovo (1978) istrazivanje Mayo i Jarvissugeriraju da destinacijska privlacnost "ima

dosta veze sa specifinim koristima kojeputnik zeli i sposobnoScu destinacije da te

hierarchy is brand salience. which represents the strength of awareness ofthe branThe genera approach to measuring salien

is by way of unaided brand awa renes s brand recall. In developing salience, a maagers' aim is to be remembered for the resons intended not just to achieve geneawareness (Aaker, 1996). Thus, w hiawareness of the destination to a residemight appear obvious, salience requires tresidents' city to be considered relevant an opportunity of tourism.

The second level in the CBBE hierarc

is the brand asso ciations w hich are "anthing 'linked' in memory to a bran(Aaker. 1991, p. 109). A recent literatureview on memory structure found the mcommonly accepted conceptualisation hbeen by spreading action (Cai, 2002). Tunderpins the associative network memomodel, in which memory consists of nodand links (Ande rson, 1983). A node repsents stored information about a conce

and is part of a network of links to othnodes. Activation between nodes is thouto take place when processing external formation or when information is retrievfrom memory. When a node concept is called, the strength of association(s) detmines what other nodes that will be avated from memory.

A destination brand may then be coceptualised as representing a node withnumber of associations with other noconcepts. In the study of destination imassociations held by consumers are a comon area of study (for reviews see GallaSaura & Garcia 2002, Pike 2002, 2007Of particular interest to this study is the erational isation of destination image a s dtination attractiveness proposed by Mand Jarvis (1981, 203). Following resear

by Goodrich 1978), Mayo and Jarsuggested destination attractiveness "hagreat deal to do with the specific bene


10/25

s. P ike, N, Scott: Vrijednost marke destinacije kod lokalne zajednice... 169

da vaznost atributa vjerojatno varira izmedusegmenta i situacija (vidi npr. Barich & Ko-tier, 1991, Crompton 1992) te je bilo jako

malo ponavljanja istrazivanja unatoc popu-lamosti teme. Potrebno je razviti skalu kojaukijuuje genericke destinacijske stavke kaoi one koje su specifine danom turistickomkontekstu (Hu & Ritchie, 1993). Procjenju-juci odiicnost istrazivanja na polju turis-tikog marketinga Ritchie (1996:62) po-dvlai deset manjkavosti: Nazalost, kao stosvi dobro znamo, postoje brojna podrucjakoja radije ne bismo priznali ili koja uspije-

vamo prilino redovito odbacivati . Medunedostacima je i turisticki kontekst, jer su sestudije imidzu destinacije uglavnom pro-vodile bez eksplicitne definicije konteksta ukojem je putnik donio ocjenu.

Treci konstrukt je percipirana kvalitetakoja se dfinira kao percepcija sveukupnekvaitete ili superiornosti proizvoda ili us-luge u odnosu na relevantne alternative

uzimajuci u obzir namjeravanu svrhu(Keller, 2003:238). Ova se procjena temeljina tome kako korisnik percipira uspjesnostmarke vezano za atribute kvaitete upadlji-vosti. Na primjer, kvaliteta ostalih destina-cija koje su tijekom svojih putovanja posje-tili stanovnici Brisbanea najvjerojatnije ceutjecati na njihova ocekivanja vezano za lo-kalni turisticki proizvod. Lojalnost marki jekonacna dimenzija na vrhu CBBE hijerar-

hije i defmira se kao navezanost korisnikau odnosu na marku (Aaker, 1991:39). Lo-jalnost se manifestira kroz odnos u smislunamjere kupnje, kao i kroz ponasanje upu-ivanjem drugih putem usmene predaje iponovnom kupnjom. Nedostaje publieiranihistraiivanja vezanih za lojalnost destinaciji(Oppermann, 2000). Ovaj se rad bavi proc-jenom razine uskladenosti izmedu imidzamarke destinacije Brisbane i imidza markekod lokalnog stanovniStva koristenjem pre-dlozenog CBBE modela.

research however, there has been no univer-sally accepted index of scale items. The rea-son for this is that attribute importance is

likely to vary between segments and situa-tions (see for example Barich & Kotier1991, Crompton 1992), and there has beenvery little replication research in spite of thetopic's popularity. What is required there-fore is the development of a scale that in-cludes generic destination items as well asthose specific to a given travel context (Hu& Ritchie, 1993). In assessing tourism mar-keting research 'state of the art', Ritchie

(1996:62) highlighted ten shortcomings: Unfortunately, as we all know, there are anumber of areas which we prefer not to ac-knowledge, or which we manage to ignoreon a fairly regular basis . Among these wastravel context, since destination imagestudies have generally been undertakenwithout explicitly defining the context inwhich the traveller decision is being made.

The third construct is perceived qualityand is defined as perception of the overallquality or superiority of a product or servicerelative to relevant alternatives and with re-spect to its intended purpose (Keller, 2003:238). This assessment is on the basis of howthe consumer perceives the brand toperform on salient quality attributes. For ex-ample, the quality of other destinations ex-perienced by Brisbane residents during theirtravels is likely to impact on their expecta-tions of the local tourism product. Brandloyalty is the final dimension at the peak ofthe CBBE hierarchy and has been defined as the attachment that a custom er has to abrand (Aaker, 1991:39). Loyalty manifestsattitudinally in terms of intent to purchase,as well as behaviouraliy through word ofmouth referrals and repeat purchase. Therehas been a lack of published research relatedto destination loyalty (Oppermann, 2000).This paper is concerned with assessing thelevel of congruence between Brisbane's


11/25

170 Acta turistica. Vol 21 (2009). No 2, pp 123-

Slika I: CBBE koncept CBBE conceptualisation

Lojatnost marki rand ov llv

Percipiranavrijednost

/ Perceivedquality

sociJacije namarkuBrand

associations

uocljiovstmarke

Brand salience

3. M E TO D A

Kako bi se operaconalizirao CBBE mo-del prikazan na Slici 1, koriStenje strukturi-rani upitnik na ije je atribute na ljestvici zasvaki od cetiri konstrukta teoretski utjecalaliteratura. Sudionici su pitani da ocjene us-pjesnost Brisbanea kao turisticke destinacijeza 21 alribut na ljestvici koristeci ljestvicuod sedam stupnjeva, pri cemu je 1 ) snazno

se protivim a (7) snazno se slazem . Tab-lica 1 prikazuje 21 atribut koji su u odsustvuopee prihvacenih atributa usvojeni iz izvora

3. M E T H O D

To operationalise the CBBE modshown in Figure 1, a structured questinaire was used, for which scale items each of the four constructs were theorcally informed by the literature. Participawere asked to rate Brisbane's performaas a tourism destination across 21 scitems using a seven pobt scale, anchored'strongly disagree' (1) to 'strongly agr(7). Table 1 lists the 21 items, which , in absence of an accepted scale, were adap


12/25

s. Pike, N. Scott: Vrijednost marke destinacije kod lokalne zajednice. 171

regiji, zatim ii) Jesu u proteklih 12 mjeseciprimili u goste prijatelje i ili rodbinu. Upit-nik zavrava otvorenim pitanjem gdje se is-

pitanici pitaju imaju II opaske o tome kakobi se Brisbane kao destinaciju moglo po-boljati i, ako 2ele, mogu ih navesti.

the region, and ii) whether they had hostvisited friends and/or relatives hosting duing the previous 12 months. The questio

naire concluded with an open-ended quetion asking participants if there were ancomments they would care to make abohow Brisbane could improve as a destintion.

Tablica I: CBBE stavke skate / CBBE scale items

Atributi na ljestvici / Scale itemsUoljivost m arke I Brand salienceBrisbane je dobro poznata turisticka destinacija /Brisbane is a well known tourism destination

Svjestan sam raspona turistickih atrakcija u Brisba-neu /1 m aware of Brisbane s range of tourism at-tractions

Svjestan sam promotivnog slogana Brisbanea // am a ware of the slogan used to promote Brisbane

Vidio sam dosta poruka koje promoviraju Brisbanekao turisticku destinaciju// have seen a lot of advertising promoting Brisbaneas a tourism destination

Asocijacije na marku / Brand associationsDobra klima / Good climate

Prekrasan krajolik / Beautiful scenery

Oputajuci / Relaxing

Otvoreni Ijui / Friendly peopleDobro iskoristen novae / Good value for moneyDobri kafici i restorani / G ood cafes and restaurants

Puno za vidj eti i napraviti /Lots to see and do

Izvor / Source

Konecnik Gartner (2007),Boo et el (2008)KoneCnik Gartner (2007),Boo et el (2008), Lee Back(2008)Konecnik Gartner (2007),Kim, Jin-Sun Kim (2008),

Washbum Plank (2002), Yoo Dontu (2001)Konecnik Gartner (2007)

KoneCnik Gartner (2007), Hu Ritchie (1993)

Konenik Gartner (2007), Hu Ritchie (1993), DavisStemquist(1987)KoneCnik Gartner (2007),Davis Stemquist (1987)Davis Sternquist (1987)KoneCnik Gartner (2007)KoneCnik Gartner (2007),Boo et al (2008), BalogluBrinberg(1997)KoneCnik Gartner (2007)


13/25

172 Acta turistica. Vol 21 (2009), No 2, pp 123-2

Percipirana kvaliteta / Perceived qualitySmjeStaj visoke kvalitete / High quality accomm oda-tionInfrastruktura visoke kvalitete / High quality infras-tructureVisoke razine cistoce / High levels of cleanliness

Visoke razine turisticke usiuge/ High levels ofhospitality serviceVisoke razine osobne sigumosti / High levels of per-sonal sa fell

Lojalnost marki / Brand loyalty

Ponosan sam ato imm u Brisbaneu /lamproud tlive in BrisbaneOtici cu na kraci odmor od 1-2 nocenja u regiji Bris-bane / / will take a short break ofJ-2 nights in theBrisbane regionPreporuCio bih Brisbane kao turistiiku destinaciju / /would recom mend Brisbane as a holiday destination

Brisbane je ugodna destinacija / Brisbane is a plea-sant destination

Konenik Gartner (2007 ),Davis Sternquist(1987)

Koneenik Gartner (2007)

Konecnik Gartner (2007)Kone cnik Gartner (2007)

Konecn ik Gartner (2007)

Phillips Schofield (200 7)

Koneenik Gartner (2007)

Konenik Gartner (2007),Boo et al (2008)Konenik Gartner (2007),Baloglu Brinberg (1997 ),

W almsley Young (1998)

Upitnik je prethodno testiralo 12 sveuci-linih stmcnjaka koje se bave marketingom.Ovo je rezultiralo manjim promjenama uformulacijama dvaju pitanja. Zbog budzets-kih ogranienja koristene su dvije metodeuzorka. Prva grupa predstavljala je panel od209 sudionika iz prcthodne studije o turi-

zmu u Brisbaneu, a koja je pokazala sklo-nost suradnjc u buducim ispitivanjima. Ti-jekom srpnja 2008. godine sudionici su po-zvani da putem e-mail-a tspune online upit-nik koji se nalazio na serveru fakultetskogureda za informatiku. Druga grupa je biookvir prigodnog uzorka koji se sastojao odstudenata s dva sveuCilista u Brisbaneu. Unjega su bila ukljucena dva razreda preddi-plomaca turizma i jeda n razred poslijedip-

lomaca marketinkog istrazivanja. Iako seprihvaca da koristenje studentskog uzorka

tj ti j k j d t j t

The questionnaire was pretested amo12 marketing academ ics. This resulted minor changes to the wording of two quetions. Due to budgetary limitations twsampling methods were used. The figroup was a panel of 209 participants froa previous Brisbane tourism study who hindicated a willingness to participate in fture surveys. An email during July 2008 ivited participants to complete the survonline, the URL for which was hosted the Faculty's Information technology officThe second group was a convenience saple frame consisting of students from twBrisbane universities. These involved twundergraduate tourism classes and one pograduate marketing research class. While

is acknow ledged that the use of a studesample can afect external validity of finings it has been argued that students are a


14/25

s. P ike. N, Scolt; Vrijednost m arke destinacije kod lokalne zajednice... 7

der, Philips & Tybout 1981, Yoo i Donthu2001), sto je i bila svrha studije. Svaki jesudionik pozvan sudjelovati u nagradnoj igri

u kojoj je glavna nagrada bio vaucer za pu-tovanje u vrijednosti od $ 250 .

4. R E Z U LTAT I

Ukupno su zaprimijena 374 ispunjenaupitnika. Medutim, neki su od studenata bilistrani studenti koji su tek pristigli u Bris-bane. Odiuceno je da se ne koriste upitnici

ispitanika koji su u Brisbaneu boravili ma-nje od sest mjeseci. Nakon toga ostao jeupotrebijiv uzorak od 319 upitnika, to jedovoljno veiik broj koji omogucuje modeli-ranje putem strukturne jednadzbe (vidiKline, 2005:14-15). Tablica 2 naglasava ka-rakteristike sudionika gdje, u usporedbi sasirom populacijom Brisbanea, previadavajuneudane zene u dobi izmedu 18-24 godine.Bez obzira na gomje, uzorak je generalno

prikladan za temu istrazivanja, jer je u pret-hodnih godinu dana 52% ispitanika bilo nakratkom putovanju (1-2 nocenja) unutar re-gije Brisbane, a 67% ih je u Brisbaneu ugo-stilo prijatelje ili rodbinu. Prosjena duzinastanovanja u Brisbaneu bila je dvije godine.Ukupno je 149 sudionika (47%) dalo kvali-tativne primjedbe.

Dcskriptivne statistike za CBBE Ijes-tvicu s 21 atributom nalaze se u Tablici 3.Srednje vrijednosti za dvije stavke vezanoza svijest o marki bile su ispod sredisnjetocke Ijestvice, dok su srednje vrijednosti zadruge dvije stavke bile tek umjereno pozi-tivne. Uz izuzetak uzbudljiv , srednja vri-jednost za preostalih 17 atributa bila je iz-nad sredisnje tocke Ijestvice. U svezi iden-titeta marke Brisbanea te teme o pozicioni-ranju , Brisbane ...its happ ening , srednja

vrijednost za dva atributa zabrinjava (Uzbu-dljiv = 3,97, Pun aktivnosti = 4,27) i uka-zuje na slabu do umjerenu vezu izmedu ie-

Yoo & Donthu 2001), which was the pur-pose ofthe study. All participants were in-vited to enter an incentive prize draw for a

$250 travel voucher.

4. RESULTS

A total of 374 completed questionnaireswere received. However, some participantswere international students who had onlyrecently arrived in Brisbane. It was decidedto filter out those participants who had re-

sided in Brisbane less than six months. Thisleft a useable sample of 319, which is suffi-ciently large enough to enable structuralequation modelling (see Kline, 2005:14-15).Table 2 highlights the characteristics ofparticipants, which, in comparison to thewider Brisbane population were dominatedby single females aged 18-24 years. None-theless, the sample was generally suitablefor the research topic, given that during the

previous 12 months, 52% of participantshad taken a short break of 1-2 nights withinthe Brisbane region, and 67% had hostedfriends or relatives in Brisbane. The meanlength of residence in Brisbane was twoyears. A total of 149 participants (47%)provided qualitative comments.

The descriptive statistics for the 21CBBE scale items are listed in Table 3. Themeans for two ofthe brand awareness itemswere below the scale mid-point, while themeans for the other two items were onlymoderately positive. With the exception of'Exciting', the means for the remaining 17items were at or higher than the scale mid-point. In relation to Brisbane's brand iden-tity and positioning theme, Brisbane....itshappening, the means for two attributes areof concern ('Exciting ' = 3.97, 'L ots to d o' =

4.27), indicating a weak to moderate con-nection between the desired brand identityand actual brand im age


15/25

7 Acta turstica. Vol 21 (2009), No 2, pp 123-

Tablica 2: Karakteristike ispitanika / Characteristics of participants

Spol / ender

Starost / Age

Bracno stanje / Martialstatus

Broj djece / Number ofdependent children

Najvisa razina zavrSe-nog obrazovanja / Highest completed level ofeduca I i on

Roden(a) u Australiji /Born in Australia

MuSko / Male

2ensko / Female

Ukupno / Total

18-24

25-44

45-64

65+Ukupno / Total

Neozenjen/Neudata / Single

Ozenjen-Udana/Staini partner/Married/permanent partner

Razdvojen(a), rastavljen(a), udovac/udovica /Separated divorced widowed

Ukupno / Total

0

1-2

3+Ukupno / Total

Srednja Skoia / H igh school

TAFEFakuitet / University graduate

Ostalo / Other

Ukupno / Total

Da / YesN e / N o

Ukupno / Total

n

77

242

319

188

10028

3

319

22187

11

319

213

84

22319

133

32

139

15

319

186

133

319

VALJANI/ VALID

24.1

75.9

58.9

31.3

8.9

0.9

69.3

27.3

3.4

66.8

26.3

6.9

4.7

10.0

43.6

4.7

58.3

41.7


16/25

s. Pike. N. Scott: Vrijcdnost markc dcstinat-ijo kod lokalne zajednice 7

I

I

ie

c

='5':;

>"ua

d

5Si_o"5.

c

i :n

t o

S

S

ed

-

=

ZS*o

c.2

J

-d J.

: ^.2S

. a l

tu

- -

' S:/i

35:

iki ^

2:

ik

r---isk

2

St

1

to

f

"C2

CO

,2

t o

.5

11t o

J

S

M K

B

O

J

UO

n

t/

cd

[ ^

:d

op

a

u

an

J

.nBrs

rr-

r-f'i

0 0o

n0 0

_..

oo

r07

1

nwe

knw

o

a

2j ~

3 1y

K_C

im r

p

u

s

tans

i/ i

u>'

Brsbn

Iam a

3f

sd

( NrN

0

r-f)

.

.2

CO

0

tra

o

a

a

oa

mo

0k -c3i/ i0

im sonko

sek

cC3

U

; ^uCO

ko

u

sc

d

n

an

Brs

bat \

wc

opom

e

oh

0 015

r-f

< N t r

.6

:o

m

in

o

/Or

3^ ^

2

0c0

d

ap

u

koep

sm

0Vid

E:

es

- .

3

ao

u

s

k

d

n

ja

Brs

b2tS

e

sn

pom

n

-Sao-

f N

( N

f /

f ^

r-.4


17/25

176 Acta turistica, Vol 2 f200 9l. No 2, pp 123-

c:e

=o

c 5> f 'St 'c;

S e a

'S

es g -

g

soc/)_o'SI/)

[ ^

2

z

O i)

ce

ls

Sa

^^

-6 ^.w /)

Wl

.

ts

2

St

C^

'S ~ ^CQ

MA

e

i^

"cit o

sCo

.0

:~c

^

tc

5

X

CIJACUE

ASO

.2

::

__~)

1

K O

-

WO

a-r i

G

c

bak

ma

o

.2

0 0x:

, ,''

ro

scn

'

5

ika

ka

.2

iS

;:

K O

7^

1co

.2

OOo

;

l '

r - inon

f i

K O

r o

"SC

i

d

Fe

sretijivi u

J .

ocN

v

en

baon

cQ

.2

( N

0 0

'

o- i

r-

cc

td

ce

\ i

-~-

re

oa

b

k

c

i

o

O I

.2

r-cr,

.

_OV D

l '

OOOOT f

o^m

,2

00

" ;

o^nf^ li '

r-o-

( Nrr

ON

L

so

a

a

vde

ir

n

o

z

.2

(T V

.5

" ^

( N0 0

r-f O

O^r^

ib

v

E

N

Y

21

I

D

DES

IN

iVLNOS

LOJ

sb

eu

jBr

1 ^

S

'.solU SUESOU

O0-

1

.2

.0

r- ^

t - -: 'OO

'

t / 0

r iwo

~'C

1

VeS

mpo

o

"o

o3O

ak

om

ic

cun

k

O

a

'

e

n

d

isb

jeu

m

.2

1

o^J O

r-r^r i

OO

"/o

o ;r o

lao

ishn

sa

3

^

c/5I3

kr r

:h Brsb

X_o

oa.

5

' c

o

ae

m;

sn

up

oo

io

yd

WEaa

:om

n

v OOO

'

oOO

O

r iOO

\deav

ren

a


18/25

s. Pike, N, Scott: Vrijednosl marke destinacije kod lokalne zajednice... 177

Istrazivaka faktorska analiza koja se ko-ristila ML izluivanjem i kosokutnom rota-cijom otkriia je rjesenje s cetiri cimbenika,sto je adekvatno predstavljalo podatke. Nacetiri cimbenika otpalo je 59 varijance.KMO za ovu analizu bio je 0.90, a Bartlettovtest sfemosti bio je znacajan, p= .000. Medu-tim, rjesenje se nije moglo smatrati prihvat-Ijivim jer se II od 21 stavki preklapalo sdruga dva cimbenika. Dodatni dokazi da po-daci nisu bili dobro uklopljeni nalazimo u re-produciranim korelacijama gdje je bilo 39(18 ) preostalih s apsolutnim vrijednostimavecim od .05. Kao alternativa EFA, te kaoprvi korak u analizi podataka, Joreskog(1993) je dao okvimi pristup za model genc-rirajucih modela u analizi podataka gdje is-kljucivo potvrdujuci pristup mozda nije naj-prikladniji model za novo polje istrazivanja.Model koji generira model privremen je ipromjene se rade u SEM dok se ne dode domodela koji se statisticki uklapa te ima i te-

oretski smisao. Istravac specificiraju punimodel u razmatranju koji se onda testira pu-tem serije jednofaktorskih kongenerikihmodela za svaki konstrukt za koji postoji in-teres. Promjene koje imaju smisao mogu senapraviti za svaki konstrukt prije testiranjapotpuno promijenjenog modela. Konstmkti smanje od cetiri stavke mogu se testirati u pa-rovima. Koristeci AMOS 16.0, najbolje pri-lagoden za UOCLJIVOST MARKE bio je s

dva od cetiri stavke, LOJALNOST DESTI-NACm s tri od Cetiri stavke, i PERCIPI-RANA KVALITETA za Cetiri od pet stavki.Najproblematicniji konstrukt je ASOCIJA-CIJE NA MARKU kod kojega su se pojaviledvije dimenzije kod pet od devet izvomihstavki. Rezultat za svaki od ovih potencijal-nih modela prikazan je u Tabeli 4. Modelmarginalno pristaje podacima; Chi-kvad-rat=202.8, DF-67, p=.OOO, GFI-.918,CFI=.923, RMSEA=.O8O. Kako je Chi-kvad-rat statistika osjetljiva na velicinu uzorka,Kli (2005) j dl i k i ij j

An exploratory factor analysis using Mextraction and oblique rotation revealedfour-factor solution that was an adequarepresentation of the data. The four factaccounted for 59 of variance. The KMfor this analysis was .90 and Bartlett's Tof Sphericity was significant at p ^ .00However, the solution could not be regardas clean, with II of the 21 items croloading over two factors. Further evidenthat the data was not a good fit was in treproduced correlations, where there w39 (18 ) of residuals with absolute valugreater than .05. As an alternative to tEFA as the first step in analysing the daJoreskog (1993) outlined an approach model generating models in the analysisdata, where a strictly confirmatory appromight not suit model testing a new fieldresearch. A model generating model is othat is tentative and where changes are min SEM until a model emerges that hasstatistical fit as well as making theoretisense. Researchers specify the full modunder consideration, which is then testeda series of one-factor congeneric models each construct of interest. Changes thmake substantive sense can be made to eaconstruct before testing a full amendmodel. Constructs with less than four itecan be tested in pairs. Using AMOS 16the best fit for BRAND SALIENCE w

with two of the four items, DESTINATIOLOYALTY with three of the four items, anPERCEIVED QUALITY with four of tfive items. The more problematic constrwas BRAND ASSOCIATIONS, in whictwo dimensions emerged with five of tnine original items. The output for each these initial models is shown in Table The model marginally fits the data: Chsquare = 202.8, DF = 67, p = .000, GFI.918, CFI = .923, RMSEA = .080. Since thChi-square statistic is sensitive to sampi Kli (2005) d i d f


19/25

8 Acta turistica. Vol 21 2009), No 2 pp 123-250

Tablica 4: Pocetni modeh imXiM maels

OtLJTVOST / SALIENCE

1.

2.

Svjestan sam slogana koji sekoristi u promociji Brisba-nea 11 am aware of the slogan used to promote Brisbane

Vidio sam dosta poruka kojepromoviraju Brisbane / /have seen a hi of advertising promoting Brisbane

LOJALNOST / LOYALTY

3

Ponosan sam ato ivim uBrisbaneu 1 1 am proud tolive in Brisbane

Otici cu na kratki odmor uokolici Brbsanea u slijedecih12 mjeseci / / wUi lake ashort break within the Brisbane region in the next 2months

Prepomcio bih Brisbane kaoturisticku destinaciju prija-teljima i rodbini / / wouldrecommend Brisbane as aholiday destination to my

friends and relatives

Chi-square = 5.2df=4

p = .265RMR = .087GFI = .994

CFI = .996RMSEA = .O31

KVALITETA / QUALITY1.

3 .

4

Visoka kvaliteta infrastnik-ture / High quality infrastructure

Visoke razine Cistoce / Highlevels of cleanliness

Visoke razine turisticke us-luge / High levels ofhospitality service

Visoke razine osobne sigur-

nosti / High levels of safety

Chi-square= 11.2df=2

p = .003RMR = .052GFl = .982CFI = .972

RMSEA = .I24

ASOCIJACIJE / ASSOCIATIONS

I. Puno toga za vidjeti i raditi /Lots to see and do

2. Uzbudljiv / Exciting3. Susretljivi Ijudi / Friendly

people

4. Oputajuci / Relaxing5. DobrzkWma/Good climate

Chi-square= 10.3df=4

p = .036RMR = .035GFI = .987

CFI = .990RSMEA = .070

5. Z A K L J U C A K

Recentni pomak od imidza destinacijedo vrijednosti marke vazan je korak u turis-tickom istrazivanju Ono Sto bi u buducnosti

5. CONCLUSION

The recent shift from destination mageto brand equity has been an important stepforward in tourism research What will be


20/25

s. Pike, N, Scott: Vrijednost marke destinacije kod lokalne zajednice... 179

korisnu istrazivaiku studiju. Cilj je bio is-pitati CBBE hijerarhiju u kontekstu lokalnezajednice koja je aktivni sudionik u lokal-

nom turizmu. U sluaju Brisbanea pristuptestiranja s modelom strukturalne jednadzbekoji je preporucio Joreskog (1993) pokazaoje podesnost izmedu podataka i CBBE hije-rarhije. Sugerir se da ovaj model testiranjarezultata ima teoretskog smisla i poboljavarazumijevanje prikladnosti CBBE hijerar-hije za destinacije, nakon recentnog dopri-nosa Konecnik (2006) i Konenik i Gartner(2007).

Glavna praktina implikacija istraziva-nja je prijedlog da jake razine CBBE medustanovnicima destinacije predstavljaju izvorkomparativne prednosti za DMO, jer se lo-jalnost destinaciji manifestira u dva vaznaponasanja. Kao prvo, stanovnici ce vjerojat-nije proiriti usmenu predaju na prijateije iroditelje kao i ostale putnike koje susrecutijekom boravka u drugim mjcstima. Kao

drugo, stanovnici ce se vjerojatnije ukljuitiu atrakcije i sadrzaje destinacije i kao dobridomacini prijateljima i rodbini kao povre-meni turisti. Ovakvo se ponasanje DMOmoe ili proaktivno usmjeriti /li prepustitisluaju. Nakon Ritchie i Crouchevog (2000,2000b) modela destinacijske konkuren-tnosti, izazov za DMO je raspored resursakako bi se izvori komparativne prednosti ra-zvili u konkurentsku prednost. Dascalu

(1997) je ponudio praktican primjer koji na-vodi na dva komentara biveg rumunjskogministra turizma koji je bio zabrinut da nje-gova zemlja ima vrijedne turisticke poten-cijale, ali je neuspjesna kao destinacija.Stoga ovi potencijali predstavljaju izvorekomparativne prednosti, ali se ne koriste zapostizanje konkurentske prednosti.

Turisticki potencijal se moze promatratikao bilo sto ato ima bitnu ulogu u privlace-nju posjetiteija u destinaciju (Spotts, 1997).Ovaj rad upucuje na zakljuak da je lokaino

a useful exploratory study in this regaThe aim was to trial the CBBE hierarchythe context of the host community as act

participants of local tourism.In the case of Brisbane the structurequation model testing approach, as reommended by Joreskog (1993), indicatedfit between the data and the CBBE hierchy. It is suggested this model testing outpmakes theoretical sense, and enhances uderstanding of the suitability of the CBBhierarchy for destinations, following the cent contribution of Konecnik (2006) aKonecnik and Gartner (2007).

The main practical implication of the rsearch is the proposition that strong leveof CBBE among the destination host comunity represents a source of comparatiadvantage for the DMO, since loyalty to tdestination manifests in two important bhaviours. Firstly, residents are more liketo extend word of mouth referrals, whiccould be to friends and relatives as well other travellers encountered during sojourin other places. Secondly, residents armore likely to engage with the destinationattractions and facilities, both as good hoto the VFR segment and as occasional touists. Such behaviour can either be proactively targeted by the DMO or left tchance. Following Ritchie and Crouch(2000a, 2000b). model of destination competitiveness, the challenge for the DMO resource deployment to develop sources comparative advantage into a competitivadvantage. A practical example was offerby Dascalu (1997), who cited commenfrom a former Romanian Minister of Touism concerned that his country had valuabtourism resources but that the country wunder-performing as a destination. Thuthese resources represent sources of comparative advantage but were not being usto achieve a competitive advantage.


21/25

180 Acta turstica. Vol 21 (2009 ), No 2, pp 123-2

tvo mogii se shvatiti kao problematicne ikao metoda odvlaenja sredstava za drugadomaca i ili medunarodna trzista koja su od

interesa za lokalna turisticka poduzeca ikljucne posrednike. Prepoznaje se da se ra-zina ukljucivanja u lokalnu zajednicu razli-kuje od mjesta do mjesta. Na primjer, efika-sno otvaranje mogu ucinkovitije ostvaritiDMO-ovi u manjim zajednicaina i destina-cijama neg u vecim gradskim podrucjima.

U slucaju Brisbanea koristenje prevlada-vajuceg studentskog uzorka predstavlja og-ranienje istrazivanja i uopcavanja rezultataza siru lokalnu zajednicu. Ipak. rezultati po-kazuju da je osjecaj za mjesto lokalne zaje-dnice u Brisbaneu mozda drukciji od iden-titeta marke koje je razvio Brisbane Marke-ting. Ovo pojacava potrebu za ovakvomvrstom istrazivanja koja ispituju efikasnoststrategije marke i taktiku marketinSke ko-munikacije. Prepoznaje se da je ova studijanapravljena u destinaciji koja ima visokurazinu posjeta prijatelja i rodbine i visokurazinu sudjelovanja lokalnog stanovniStva.Stoga uopcavanja o primjenljivosti rezultatana druge destinacije mora biti odmjercno.Takve destinacije, na primjer, ukljucuju tu-risticke enklave gdje je iokalna zajednica fi-ziCki i ekonomski izolirana od industrije.Jos jedno od ogranienja studije upucuje napotrebno dodatno istraivanje da bi se boljerazumjelo kako DM0 moze ucinkovito is-

koristiti snazne razine vrijednosti marke kodlokalnog stanovnistva.

L I TE R AT U R A - R E F E R E N C E S

1. Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing BrandEquity. New York: Free Press.

2. Aaker, D. A. (1996). Building Strong

Brands. New York: Free Press.3. Adam s, J. (1995). Brands at the crossro-

d 4 4/ //j g 11(3) 18 20

community is a potentially valuable resourcPolitically however, any marketing commnication activities targeting the host comm

nity could be seen as controversially diveing funds from other domestic and/or intenational markets of interest to local tourisbusinesses and key intermediaries. It is reognised then that the level of engagemewith the host community will differ betweplaces. For example, achieving effective eposure could be achieved more efficiently DMOs in smaller communities and resdestinations than in large metropolitan area

In the case of Brisbane the use of a pdominantly student sample limits the exteto which the results can be generalised to twider host community. Nevertheless the rsults indicate the Brisbane host communitsense of place might be different to the braidentity developed by Brisbane MarketinThis reinforces the need for this type of search that examines the efficacy of tbrand strategy and marketing communicati

tactics. It is acknowledged that this study wundertaken at a destination that enjoys hilevels of VFR tourism and high levels participation by local residents. Therefogeneralisations in applicability ofthe resufor other destinations should be temperSuch destinations include, for example, toism enclaves where the host communityphysically and economically isolated frothe industry. A further limitation ofthe stu

is that ftirther research is required to betunderstand how DMOs can effectively taadvantage of strong levels of host com munbrand equity.

development: The case of Cyprus. Tourism Management. 17: 481-494.

5. Anderson, J. (1983). The Architecture Cognition. Cambridge, MA: HarvaUnivereity Press.

6 Baloglu S Brinberg D (1997 )


22/25

s. Pike, N, Scott: Vrijednost marke destinacije kod lokalne zajednice..

7. Barich, R , Kotier, P. (1991). Aframework for marketing image mana-gement. Sloan Management Review.

32(2): 94-104.8. Bo o, S., Busser, J., Baloglu, S.

(2009). A model of customer-basedbrand equity and its application to mul-tiple destinations. Tourism Management.(In press).

9. Brisbane Marketing. (2007). AnnualReview: 2006-2007. Brisbane.

10. Ca i, L.A. (2002). Coope rative branding

for rural destinations. Annals of ourism

Research. 29(3): 720-742 .ll. C al de r, B.J., Philips, L.W., Tybout,

A.M. (1981). Designing research for ap-plication. Journal of Consumer Rese-arch. ^iSsp): 197-207.

12. Chi, e.G ., Qu, H. (2008). Examiningthe structural relationships of destinationimage, tourist satisfaction and destina-tion loyalty: An integrated approach.Tourism Manag ement. 29: 624-636.

13.Cobb-Walgren, C.J., Beal, C, Don-thu, N. (1995). Brand equity, brand pre-ferences, and purchase intent. Journal ofAdvertising. 24(3): 25-40.

14. Cromp ton, J. (1992). S tmcture o f vaca-tion destination choice sets. Annals ofTourism Research. 19:420-434.

15.Dascalu, R. (1997). Romania plans repa-

rations for nationalised hotels. Reuters.August 11.

16. Davis, B. D., Stemquist, B. (1987).Appealing to the elusive tourist: an attri-bute cluster strategy. Journal of TravelResearch. Spring: 25-31.

17. Davis, D., Allen, J., Cosenza, R.M.(1988). Segmenting local residents bytheir attitudes, interests and opinions

towards tourism. Journal of Travel Re-search. 27(2): 2-8.18 Donald S H Gam mack J G (2007)

19. Dosen, D .O., V ranesevic, T., Prebezac,D. (1998). The importance of brandingin the development of marketing

strategy of Croatia as tourist destination.Acta Turistica. 10(2): 93-182 .

20.Doxey, G.V. (1975). A causation theoryof visitor-resident irritants: Methodologyand research inferences. Proceedings ofthe Tourism Travel Research Associ-ation.

21.G allarza, M.G., Saura, I.G., Garcia,H.C. (2002). Destination image -towards a conceptual framework. Annalsof Tourism Research. 2 9(1): 56-78.

22. Goodrich, J. N. (1978). The relationshipbetween preferences for and perceptionsof vacation destinations: Application ofa choice model. Journal of ravel Rese-arch. ?a \\: S-\ 3.

23. Guest, L.P. (1942). The genesis of brandawareness. Journal of AppliedPsychology. 26: 800-808.

24. Henderson, J.C. (2000). Selling places:the new Asia-Singapore brand. In Ro-binson, M., Evans, N., Long, P.Sharpley, R., Sw arbrooke, J. (Eds).Management, Marketing and the Politi-cal Economy of Travel and Tourism.Sunderland: The Centre for TravelTourism. 207-218.

25. Holcolmb , B . (1999). M arketing cities

for tourism. In Judd, D.R., Fainstein,S.S. (Eds). The Tourist City. New Ha-ven: Yale University Press, pp . 54-70.

26 .H u,Y ., Ritchie, J. R. B. (1993). Mea-suring destination attractiveness: acontextual approach. Journal of TravelResearch. 32 (2): 25-34.

27. Huh, C , Vogt, A., Huh, C. (2008).Changes in residents' attitudes towardstourism over time: A cohort analyticalapproach. Journal of Travel Research.46(4): 446-455 .


23/25

182 Acta turistica. Vol 21 (2 009 ). No 2, pp 123-250

Long, J.S. (Eds). Testing StructuralEquation Models. Newbury Park: Sage.

29 . Keller, K.L . (1993). Conceptualizing,

measuring, and managing customer-ba-sed brand equity. Journal of Marketing.57(January): 1-22.

30 . Keller, K.L. (2003). Strategic BrandManagement. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall.

31. Kim, H .B., K im, W.G.. & An, A.A.(2003). The effect of consumer-basedbrand equity on firms' financial perfor-mance. The Journal of Consumer Mar-keting. 20(4/5): 335-351.

32. Kim, W .G., Jin-Sun, B., & Kim, H.J.(2008). Mulltidimensional customer-ba-sed brand equity and its consequences inmidpriced hotels. Journal of Hospitality< Tourism Research. 32(2): 235-254.

33. Kline. R.B. (2005). Principles and Prac-tise of Structural Equation Modelling.(2 Ed). New York: Guilford.

34. Konecnik, M. (2006). Croation-basedbrand equity for Slovenia as a tourismdestination. Economic and BusinessReview for Central and South-Eastemuro/7e. 8(1): 83-108.

35. Konecnik, M., & Gartner, W.C. (2007).Customer-based brand equity for a des-tbation. Annals of Tourism Research.34(2): 400-421.

36. Lee, J.S., & Back, K.J. (2008). Atten-dee-based brand equity. Tourism Mana-gement. 29:331-344.

37. Mayo, E. J., & Jarvis, L. P. (1981). ThePsychology of Leisure Travel. Massac-husetts: CBi Publishing Company.

38. M errilees, B., Miller, D.. Herington, C ,& Smith, C. (2007). Brand Cairns: Aninsider (resident) stakeholder perspec-

tive. Tourism Analysis. 12(5/6): 409-418.39 M orrison A M Hsieh S O'Leary

activity participation. The Journal ofTourism Studies. 6(1): 48-63.

40 . Opperm ann, M . (2000). Tourism

destination loyalty. Journal of TravelResearch. 39(August): 78-84.

41. Park. C.S., & Sriniva san, V . (199 4). survey-based method for measuring anunderstanding brand equity and iextendability. Journal of Marketing Research. 3 \ (2): 27 \ 28S.

42. Phillips, L.. & Schofield, P. (2007Pottery, pride, and prejudice: Assessinresident images for city branding. Tou-rism Analysis. 12(5/6): 397-408.

43. Pike, S. (200 2). Destination ImagAnalysis: A Review of 142 Papers fro1973-2000. Tourism Management23(5): 541-549.

44. Pike, S. (2007a). Con sum er-based branequity for destina tions: Practical D Mperformance measures. Journa l o f Tra-vel Tourism Marketing. 22(1): 51-61.

45. Pike, S. (2007b). Destination image litrature: 2001 - 2007. Acta Turistica19(2): 107-125.

46. Pike, S. (200 9). Destination branpositions of a competitive set of neahome destinations. Tourism Management. (In press).

47 . Pizam, A. (1978) . Tourism's im p a c tThe social costs to the destination

perceived by its residents. Journal oTravel Research. 16(4): 8-12.48. Pritchard, A., & M organ, N . (1998

Mood marketing - the new destinatiobranding strategy: a case of Wales thbrand. Journal o f Vacation Marketing4(3): 215-29.

49. Ritchie, J. R. B. (1996). Beacons of ligin an expanding universe: an assessmeof the state-of-the-art in tourism markting/marketing research. Journal of Travel Tourism Marketing. 5(4): 49-8 4.


24/25

s. Pike, N. Scott: Vrijednosl marke destinacije kod lokalne zajednice.,. 8

have star genes? Lights Cam era Action- 31st Annual Conference Proceedings.San Fernando Valley, Calif Travel and

Tourism Re>;arch Association.5 1 . Ritchie, J. R. B ., Crouch, G. I.

(2000b). The competitive destination: asustainability perspective. Tourism Ma-nagement. 21 : 1-7.

52. Scott, N., Clark, S. (2005 ). Thedevelopment and tracking of a brandingcampaign for Brisbane. In Prideaux, B.,Moscardo , G., Laws, E. (Eds). Mana-ging Tourism and Hospitality Services:Theory and International Applications.CABI.

53. Schroeder, T. (1996). The relationship ofresidents iniage of their state as a tou-rism destination and their support for to-urism. Journal of Travel Research. 34:71-73.

54. Spotts, D. M . (19 97). Regional analysisof tourism resources for marketing pur-

poses. Journal of Travel Research.Winter: 3-15 .

5 5 . Tourism Queensland. (2004). BrisbaneDestination Management Plan - 2004.Brisbane.

56. Tourism Queensland. (2006). BrisbaneRegion Short Break Market Update.Brisbane: Tourism Queensland.

57. Tourism Queensland. (2007). BrisbaneRegional Snapshot - Year Ended June2007. Brisbane: Tourism Queensland.

5 8.W ashbu m, J.H.. Plank, R.E. (2002).Measuring brand equity: An evaluationof a consumer-based brand equity scale.Journal of Marketing Theory and Prac-tise. 10(1): 46-61,

59. W illiams, J., Lawson, R. (2001 ).Community issues and resident opinionsof tourism. Annals of Tourism Research.28(2): 269-290.

60. Yoo, B., Donthu, N. (2001). Develo-ping and validating a multidimensionalconsumer-based brand equity scale. Jo-urnal of Business Research. 52: 1-14.

Primljeno: 8. travnja 2009. /Submitted: 8 April 2009

Prihvaceno: 9. srpnja 2009. /Accepted: July 2009


25/25

Copyright of Acta Turistica is the property of Acta Turistica and its content may not be copied or emailed to

multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users

may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Documents

Vrijednost Marke Destinacije Kod Lokalne Zajednice