A model of customer-based brand equity and its application to multiple destinations

Tourism Management 30 (2009) 219–231

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

A model of customer-based brand equity and its application to multiple destinations Soyoung Boo a, *, James Busser b,1, Seyhmus Baloglu c, 2 a

The George Washington University, School of Business, Department of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Funger Hall, Suite 301s, 2201 G Street, NW Washington, DC 20052, United States b University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Department of Recreation and Sport Management, William F. Harrah College of Hotel Administration, 4505 Maryland Parkway, Box 456013, Las Vegas, NV 89154-6013, United States c University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Department of Tourism and Convention Management, William F. Harrah College of Hotel Administration, 4505 Maryland Parkway, Box 456023, Las Vegas, NV 89154-6023, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 7 November 2007 Accepted 18 June 2008

Lack of research regarding destination brand measurement indicates that conceptualizing how tourists evaluate a destination brand is complex. This study examined empirical information to develop a destination brand model by employing customer-based brand equity models through a scale purification process, ensuring its reliability and validity. The proposed model and the alternative model were tested with an online survey sample of Las Vegas and Atlantic City visitors. The results provide support for the concept of customer-based brand equity and corroborate its application to the destination context. However, multi-sample invariance tests implied that destination-specific items should be considered when developing a destination brand model. Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Destination brand Branding Customer-based brand equity Destination brand experience Multi-sample invariance test

1. Introduction It is generally accepted that a brand is a powerful means of differentiation, and that differentiation is a significant competitive marketing strategy (Kapferer, 1997; Keller, 2003; Kotler, 1988; Pappu, Quester, & Cooksey, 2005; Tasci, Gartner, & Cavusgil, 2007). The extension of the brand concept from products to service industries such as tourism offers implications for resort and travel destination management (Buhalis, 2000; d’Hauteserre, 2001; Konecnik & Gartner, 2007; Ritchie & Ritchie, 1998; Williams, Gill, & Chura, 2004; Woodside, Cruickshank, & Dehuang, 2007). Destination branding is considered a vital aspect of current destination management practice, as broadening tourist opportunities and travel locations have resulted in the increased substitutability and lack of differentiation amongst some destinations (Pike, 2005). The complex characteristics of a destination present a challenge to branding (Cai, 2002; Dredge & Jenkins, 2003; Gnoth, 2002; Murphy, Pritchard, & Smith, 2000). There have been few systematic investigations of brands within tourism destinations (Hankinson,

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 202 994 6629; fax: þ1 202 994 1630. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Boo), [email protected] (J. Busser), [email protected] (S. Baloglu). 1 Tel.: þ1 702 895 0942; fax: þ1 702 895 4109. 2 Tel.: þ1 702 895 3932; fax: þ1 702 895 4870. 0261-5177/$ – see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2008.06.003

2005; Konecnik & Gartner, 2007). In some cases, destination brand research has followed a marketing approach from a retail perspective; however, these were at the conceptual level of exploration (Cai, 2002; Prebensen, 2007; Woodside et al., 2007). In terms of destination brand management, various means to communicate the brand message effectively have been suggested (Jago, Chalip, Brown, Mules, & Ali, 2003; Morgan, Pritchard, & Piggott, 2002; Ooi, 2004). However, specific effects on destination brand management, such as the assessment of brand impact, have not been investigated. Measuring the effectiveness of brands is a crucial aspect of successful long-term destination management (Blain, Levy, & Ritchie, 2005). It has been suggested that the effectiveness of destination brands can be measured from a customer perspective. Furthermore, empirical research that focuses on experienced travelers and their perception of the destination brand should be employed to measure the effects of brands on the customer (Blain et al., 2005; Kaplanidou & Vogt, 2003; Ritchie & Ritchie, 1998). In spite of the growing importance of destination brands, most conceptual and empirical research has focused on destination images (Cai, 2002; Hall, 2002; Hankinson, 2004, 2005; Papadopoulos & Heslop, 2002; Prebensen, 2007; Pritchard & Morgan, 2001; Tasci et al., 2007). This approach, based on image-level conceptualization, implies that the measurement of the effectiveness of destination brands relies solely on images of the destination. It has been

220

S. Boo et al. / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 219–231

suggested that, despite the pivotal role of visual image in brand evaluations, other brand assessment dimensions should be considered (Hankinson, 2004; Konecnik & Gartner, 2007). Most recently, by applying customer-based brand equity to tourist destinations, Konecnik and Gartner (2007) proposed and tested four dimensions of a destination’s brand (i.e., awareness, image, quality, and loyalty) and found a positive relationship among the variables. Their conclusion was that destination image is central to brand evaluation and brand equity, but that the other dimensions are also necessary to truly measure customer-based brand equity. The purpose of this study was to apply and extend the concept of customer-based brand equity to destination brand measurement in an integrated model. This study has the following objectives: to develop a valid and reliable model of consumer-based destination brands, to empirically assess the dimensions of the destination brand construct, to test the relationship among dimensions in a destination brand construct, and to validate the model construct. The process used to establish the model was based on a multi-dimensional perspective of destination brands. The lack of research regarding destination brand measurement may be an indication of the complexity involved in understanding how tourists evaluate a destination brand. Hence, a study measuring customer-based destination brands in an integrated construct is important for several reasons. First, the exploratory work will further define the nature of a destination’s brand, which is the first step in developing a theory of the brand construct. Setting boundaries for the destination brand construct is beneficial to avoid redundancy with other constructs. Second, this study will suggest a different approach to measure destination brands and provide a valid and reliable measurement model. In addition, because there has been no accepted measurement method, it is expected that the findings will spur additional research. 2. Destination brand 2.1. Conceptualization of a brand for tourist destinations Much of the current marketing literature indicates that the principles of product brands do not apply directly to services (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 2003; Knowles, 2001). Konecnik and Gartner (2007) questioned whether the product brand concept can be transferred to tourist destinations. Ooi (2004) also noted that similarities in products and services brands are accentuated, but that differences between them are often ignored by researchers. Hence, studies of destinations suggest that the universality of a brand has to be considered in terms of tourism characteristics and destination attributes (Buhalis, 2000; Konecnik & Gartner, 2007; McIntyre, 1993; Ringer, 1998; Tasci et al., 2007). Definitions of tourism destination brands (Blain et al., 2005; Cai, 2002; Gyimothy, n.d.; Kaplanidou &Vogt, 2003) draw their inspiration from marketing, as the concept may be extended to both tangible and intangible elements (Aaker, 1991; Clifton, 2003; Murphy, 1998; Ward, Light, & Goldstein, 1999). In other words, tourists perceive a destination as a product. They evaluate the attributes of the destination through both cognitive and affective processes (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999). Research has emphasized a unique combination of functional, symbolic, and experiential elements of a brand to create a unique destination identity (Dredge & Jenkins, 2003; Laws,1995; Williams et al., 2004). Also, the role of a destination brand in the customer’s destination decision-making process has been highlighted (Jago et al., 2003; Morgan et al., 2002; Ooi, 2004). Academic interest in destination brands has emerged only recently (Blain et al., 2005; Gnoth, 1998; Konecnik & Gartner 2007; Williams et al., 2004). There is limited availability of destination brand literature regarding the elements that comprise a brand, as well as recommended measurement methods (Kaplanidou &Vogt,

2003; Ritchie & Ritchie, 1998), and components of destination brands (Blain et al., 2005; Deslandes, 2003; Kaplanidou &Vogt, 2003; Pike, 2004). Most research has focused on case studies at the conceptual or exploratory level (Cai, 2002; d’Hauteserre, 2001; Ooi, 2004; Pritchard & Morgan, 2001; Williams et al., 2004). The examination of a destination’s brand is challenging, as the literature lacks a commonly accepted framework (Konecnik & Gartner, 2007). Interestingly, in the field of tourism, destination image has been employed to understand destination brands (Cai, 2002; Edwards, Fernandes, Fox, & Vaughan, 2000; Hall, Robertson, & Shaw, 2001; Hankinson, 2004, 2005; Konecnik & Gartner, 2007; Papadopoulos & Heslop, 2002; Prebensen, 2007; Pritchard & Morgan, 2001; Tasci et al., 2007). Ooi (2004) indicated that most destination brand studies concentrate on how brand images and messages are formulated and presented. In marketing, a brand is also generally recognized as an extension of its image (Keller, 2003). However, Hem and Iversen (2004) noted that ‘‘image formation is not branding, albeit the former constitutes the core of the latter. Image building is one step closer, but there still remains a critical missing link: the brand identity. To advance destination image studies to the level of branding, the link needs to be established’’ (p. 86). Kaplanidou and Vogt (2003) also indicated that a brand can further build upon other destination components after establishing an image that differentiates a destination from its competitors. They suggested that destination brands could be envisioned by identifying other dimensions in the construct. 2.2. Customer-based brand equity The emergence of brand equity has raised the importance of marketing strategies and provided focus for managers and researchers (Keller, 2003). Brand equity is a core concept concerning brand management and it is viewed from different perspectives (Aaker, 1996; Keller, 2003; Lassar, Mittal, & Sharma, 1995; Motameni & Shahrokhi, 1998; Park & Srinivasan, 1994; Simon & Sullivan, 1993; Yoo & Donthu, 2001). There is considerable debate regarding the definition of brand equity and its measurement (Yoo & Donthu, 2001). However, brand equity is accepted as the overall utility that customers place in a brand compared to its competitors (de Chernatony & McDonald, 2003; Vazquez, Belen del Rio, & Iglesias, 2002). Keller (2003) described brand equity as ‘‘a multidimensional concept and complex enough that many different types of measures are required. Multiple measures increase the diagnostic power of marketing research’’ (p. 477). He noted that, from a marketing perspective, brand equity is referred to as consumer-based brand equity. Recently, the concept of brand equity has been employed to measure how consumers assess a brand overall (Ford, 2005). In particular, the measurement of customer-based brand equity is considered an important but challenging aspect of branding (Pappu et al., 2005). Although there have been no consistent measurement techniques, several researchers have explored brand equity measurement based on customers’ perspectives (Park & Srinivasan, 1994; Washburn & Plank, 2002; Yoo, Donthu, & Lee, 2000). Recent studies have highlighted the need to refine and measure the consumer-based brand equity construct (Yoo & Donthu, 2001). De Chernatony and McDonald (2003) indicated that an instrument to measure brand equity from a customer perspective has been lacking despite the increasing importance of the brand equity concept. Similarly, there is a need for a destination brand measure (Blain et al., 2005; Deslandes, 2003; Kaplanidou &Vogt, 2003; Ooi, 2004; Ritchie & Ritchie, 1998). The concept of customer-based brand equity and its measurement have emerged in tourism and hospitality settings (Kim & Kim, 2005; Konecnik & Gartner, 2007; Lee & Back, 2008; Prasad & Dev, 2000). Destinations are far more multi-dimensional than consumer goods and other types of services (Pike, 2005). Low and Lamb

S. Boo et al. / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 219–231

221

(2000) noted that researchers hypothesized that consumer perceptions of brands are multi-dimensional, yet many of the dimensions identified appear to be very similar.

and Croatian tourists. They used ‘‘name’’ and ‘‘characteristics’’ of the destination to measure brand awareness and found that brand awareness was an important dimension in their model.

2.3. The conceptual framework

2.3.2. Destination brand image (DBI) Brand image has been considered as the reasoned or emotional perceptions consumers attach to specific brands (Dobni & Zinkhan, 1990; Keller, 2003). Brand image has also been identified as an important source of brand equity (Keller, 2003; Lassar et al., 1995). Blain et al. (2005) suggested that destination image should be included in the definition of destination brands. Tourism and hospitality brand image has been considered a main dimension of brand equity (Konecnik & Gartner, 2007; Kim & Kim, 2005). Cai (2002) considered brand image building to be an important component in the formation of a destination branding model. There have been a variety of approaches to measuring brand image (Lassar et al., 1995; Low & Lamb, 2000; Tsai, 2005). For example, Lassar et al. (1995) developed a scale for measuring consumer-based brand equity, in which they referred to the image dimension 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. Tsai (2005) considered brand image as the consumer’s perceptions of social approval. However, Martı´nez and de Chernatony (2004) noted that the existing literature shows that brand image is a multi-dimensional concept, without any consensus on how to empirically measure it. Dobni and Zinkhan (1990) argued that there are numerous definitions of brand image in the literature which initially may cause confusion about the best scale to use. In this study, the destination brand image is limited to the social image and self-image of brand personality (Grace & O’Cass, 2005; Kapferer, 1997; Lassar et al.,1995; Sirgy & Su, 2000) because brand image has also been considered an element of brand personality (Hosany, Ekinci, & Uysal, 2006; Patterson, 1999; Phau & Lau, 2002; Upshaw, 1995). Brand image has been significantly related to customers’ self-concepts (Aaker, 1996; Belk, 1988; de Chernatony & Dall’Olmo Riley, 1998; Solomon, 1999). Pitt, Opoku, Hultman, Abratt, and Spyropoulou (2007) support the notion that branding is the process of creating a brand image that engages the hearts and minds of customers. Research supports a positive relationship between brand image and value (Michell, King, & Reast, 2001; Cretu & Brodie, 2007; Tsai, 2005). Destination image also has been identified as a key component of destination loyalty (Hosany et al., 2006). It has been suggested that brand image may have an influence on customer loyalty (Cretu & Brodie, 2007; Zins, 2001).

The review of brand research in destination marketing indicates that it has largely been exploratory without the testing of a comprehensive model (Blain et al., 2005; Kaplanidou &Vogt, 2003; Gnoth, 2002; Pike, 2004). Because it is critical to identify the dimensions of destination brand equity, an exhaustive review of the literature was performed in order to select the most appropriate way to measure each variable considered (Keller, 2003; Lindermann, 2004). The review offers several insights that past research has provided into destination brand considerations. The propositions are presented for the conceptual baseline model in Fig. 1, with the dimensions for this construct explained following Fig. 1. 2.3.1. Destination brand awareness (DBA) Destination marketing aims to raise awareness of a destination by creating a unique brand (Jago et al., 2003). Brand awareness represents the strength of the brand’s presence in the mind of the target audience along a continuum (Aaker, 1996). Aaker (1996) portrayed brand awareness as a pyramid with three different levels. The highest level is top-of-mind awareness that a particular brand is ahead of others in the consumer’s mind; this is the level of awareness chosen for this study. Brand awareness is considered a main component of a brand’s effect in hospitality and tourism (Kim & Kim, 2005; Kaplanidou &Vogt, 2003; Lee & Back, 2008; Oh, 2000) and in the consumer’s purchasing decision (Belonax & Javalgi, 1989; Kwun & Oh, 2004; Oh, 2000; Sivakumar & Raj, 1997; Webster, 2000). Brand awareness is also a sub-component of brand equity (Keller, 2003) and a main attribute of a brand (de Chernatony & McDonald, 2003; Motameni & Shahrokhi, 1998). Brand awareness was found to be an important antecedent of customer value (Oh, 2000; Kwun & Oh, 2004; Webster, 2000) and contributed to hospitality firms’ performance (Kim & Kim, 2005). Konecnik and Gartner (2007) included brand awareness as one dimension in the customer-based brand equity model. In their study, cognitive image and conative image constituted an awareness dimension used to measure Slovenia’s awareness to German

Fig. 1. The proposed baseline model. Note. DBA (destination brand awareness), DBI (destination brand image), DBQ (destination brand quality), DBV (destination brand value), DBL (destination brand loyalty).

2.3.3. Destination brand quality (DBQ) Brand quality is one of the key dimensions of brand equity (Aaker, 1996; Keller, 2003; Lassar et al., 1995). Brand quality has been used interchangeably with perceived quality by customers (Aaker, 1991; Zeithaml, 1988). In a customer-based brand equity model, Keller (2003) identified seven dimensions of product quality: performance; features; conformation quality; reliability; durability; serviceability; and style and design. Among Keller’s seven dimensions, brand performance was included in the model employed in this study to measure destination brand quality because brand performance relates to the ways in which the destination attempts to meet tourists’ functional needs (Keller, 2003). Also, brand performance, as a dimension of brand quality, has been considered as a main determinant of brand equity (Lassar et al., 1995). 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). Perceived quality is a direct antecedent of perceived value (Dodds, Monroe, & Grewal, 1991; Oh, 2000; Teas & Laczbiak, 2004).

222

S. Boo et al. / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 219–231

Low and Lamb (2000) noted that perceived quality is central to the theory that strong brands add value to consumers’ purchases. Murphy et al. (2000) also showed that perceived trip quality positively affected perceived trip value. Deslandes (2003) found that perceived quality of a tourist destination was positively related to the perceived value of that destination. Konecnik and Gartner (2007) identified brand quality as a main dimension of customerbased brand equity when applied to a destination. In addition, a positive relationship between perceived quality and brand loyalty has been found (Cretu & Brodie, 2007; Jayanti & Ghosh, 1996; Michell et al., 2001).

and Gartner (2007) noted the importance of brand loyalty for Slovenia in the brand equity model. In addition, Kim and Kim (2005) found that brand loyalty from the customers’ perspectives affects a firm’s performance in the luxury hotel business. This study limited brand loyalty to the attitudinal and behavioral elements and proposes a significant relationship between brand value and brand loyalty.

2.3.4. Destination brand value (DBV) Though there has been no generally accepted or consistent 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, & Johnson, 1999; Tsai, 2005). Lassar et al. (1995) indicated that customer choice of a brand depends on a perceived balance between the price of a product and its utility. Research has verified that perceived value can be treated as a multi-dimensional construct (Hall et al., 2001; Sirgy & Johar, 1999). Aaker (1996) noted 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 will modify functional value (i.e., value for money) for the destination brand context. There is a positive relationship 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). Also, customer value was positively associated with future behaviors, such as purchase and search intentions (Oh, 2000) and willingness to buy (Sweeney et al., 1999). There is also a positive relationship between perceived value and customers’ loyalty (Barrows, Latuuca, & Bosselmanc, 1989; Chiou, 2004; Kwun & Oh, 2004). These findings are consistent with the viewpoints that customer value plays an important role in creating customer loyalty (Grewal, Levy, & Lehmann, 2004), and that customer value impacts customer loyalty (Oliver, 1980; Zeithaml, 1988).

Each construct in the destination brand model requires scale items that are destination-specific. Reis and Judd (2000) noted that ‘‘the psychometric approach relies on aggregate patterns of data to evaluate a proposed measurement model’’ (p. 341). Hence, multiple items for each dimension are useful to examine construct validation and check the consistency level of a respondent’s self-report of each dimension. Multiple items were used to measure each dimension of destination brand awareness (DBA), destination brand image (DBI), destination brand quality (DBQ), destination brand loyalty (DBL), and destination brand value (DBV). An initial draft set of items was derived from the literature review. A preliminary email survey was then conducted among a small group of academic experts to assure the integrity of the questionnaire. Feedback from the expert panel led to minor rewording of some of the items. Next, two different pretests were conducted on college students in tourism-related classes and on tourists who visited Las Vegas. The data collected from both samples were used to test the validity and reliability of the scale items (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). A sample of 237 college students at a state university in the southwestern US was utilized in the first pretest during March 2006. No issues were found regarding wording, clarity of questions, flow, or layout. The results of reliability tests showed that the item-to-total correlations all exceeded .50 and Cronbach’s alpha values ranged from .915 to .929. However, confirmatory factor analysis showed that the six items for destination image, the five items for destination brand quality, and the six items for brand loyalty did not show good model-fit indices for each latent variable. Tourists visiting Las Vegas, representing a more heterogeneous population, were surveyed for the second pretest. A face-to-face survey was conducted with a sample of 224 tourists in front of the ‘‘Fountain Show’’ at Bellagio, one of the large casino resorts on the Las Vegas Strip. Using data obtained from the tourist sample, all items that had corrected item-to-total subscale correlations above .50 were chosen. Cronbach’s alpha for the 26 items ranged from .943 to .947, indicating that internal consistencies were acceptable. All items except ‘‘This destination has high quality offerings’’ in destination brand quality showed significant correlation. Next, principal axis factoring with promax rotation was conducted. A cut-off of .5 was established for loadings to be salient to the factor (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). The one item in brand image, ‘‘I would be proud to visit this destination,’’ and the other item in brand loyalty, ‘‘If the costs of visiting this destination increased, I would be proud to visit this destination,’’ were cross-loading onto the other dimensions and therefore were deleted. In order to assure discriminant validity of the measures, one item in destination image, ‘‘People similar to me visit this destination,’’ and another item in brand loyalty, ‘‘I am emotionally attached to this destination,’’ were deleted due to low correlations with their respective dimensions (Bearden, Netemeyer, & Teel, 1989). This resulted in the initial 26 items being reduced to 21 items. A series of confirmatory factor analyses with the remaining 21 items was undertaken, with all of the multi-item scales yielding

2.3.5. Destination brand loyalty (DBL) The brand loyalty of the customer base is the core of a brand’s equity (Aaker, 1991). Lassar et al. (1995) noted that ‘‘brand equity stems from the greater confidence that consumers place in a brand than they do in its competitors. This confidence translates into consumers’ loyalty and their willingness to pay a premium price for the brand’’ (p. 11). The ability to create customer loyalty is a major goal of brand management. Keller (2003) operationalized brand loyalty as the main source of customer-based brand equity. Brand loyalty was defined as the attachment a customer has to a brand (Aaker, 1991). Generally, brand loyalty has been considered either an attitude or behavior (Odin, Odin, & Valetter-Florence, 2001). However, in terms of measurement, a review of the literature highlights the lack of clarity about the conceptual nature of brand loyalty. This has resulted in the use of a variety of measurement tools producing inconsistent findings (Odin et al., 2001). Although loyalty has been an important research area in tourism (Baloglu, 2001, 2002; Baloglu & Erickson, 1998; Nininen & Riley, 2004; Oppermann, 2000), there is no definition of destination brand loyalty within the concept of destination brand equity. In tourism and hospitality, Back and Parks (2003) also noted that brand loyalty has been considered a consequence of multi-dimensional cognitive attitudes toward a specific brand. Konecnik

3. Study methods 3.1. Instrument and pretests

S. Boo et al. / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 219–231

a one-factor solution. The final 21 items are presented in Table 1 and were used for the main survey. The items in the Reference column were modified from studies appropriate for casino gambling destinations. Also, this study followed Rigdon (1995) in terms of the number of observed variables, with at least three observed variables per latent variable as recommended for confirmatory factor analysis. 3.2. Data collection Regarding the selection of Las Vegas and Atlantic City as the destination brands studied, this study followed the recommendation of Leuthesser, Kohli, and Harich (1995), which was to choose to analyze brands that are sufficiently well-known to the consumer. Comparative model testing has been found to be the best strategy for evaluating and improving the measurement model (Reis & Judy, 2000). This study employed an online panel survey. Online panelist surveys composed of professional respondents have been shown to be equivalent to other methodologies (Dennis, 2001). Subjects for this study were people who had visited the gambling destinations of Las Vegas, Nevada, and/or Atlantic City, New Jersey. Las Vegas and Atlantic City are in the same destination brand category because these two destinations have similar gambling and entertainment offerings. Additionally, Crimmins (2000) indicated that brand equity is a concept that can be measured in comparison with others in the same brand category. A project manager from Survey Sampling Incorporated (SSI) formatted the survey designed by the authors into an online survey tool hosted by Survey Monkey (www.surveymonkey.com). The sample population for this study was obtained from Survey Sampling Incorporated (SSI), a company specializing in online sampling and surveying (www.surveysampling.com). This particular choice resulted from the difficulty of compiling a complete list of adults who have visited either Las Vegas or Atlantic City or both. Email requests to participate in the survey were sent out to 10,000 SurveySpot members explaining the purpose of the research, along with a link to the online survey site. The welcome

223

screen also provided brief instructions. Because non-probability relevance sampling was employed for more systematic research (Keeter, 2005), only individuals who fit the following were eligible to participate in the survey: (1) at least 21 years of age; (2) had visited Las Vegas and/or Atlantic City to gamble within the last 12 months. Respondents were also informed that they had to click only one link to two different online questionnaires (i.e., one for Las Vegas, and the other for Atlantic City). Respondents were directed to complete only one survey. The questionnaires were posted between May 25, 2006, and June 6, 2006. Participants were asked to use a ‘‘point-and click’’ procedure and a seven-point Likert scale, from strongly agree (7) to strongly disagree (1) with carefully constructed statements. The survey was voluntary and was submitted upon its completion. A project manager of SSI and the authors checked the number of respondents. Establishing a minimum sample size of 200 is considered a rule of thumb in the analysis of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1988; Shah & Goldstein, 2006). A total of 510 respondents completed the survey (Las Vegas ¼ 270 and Atlantic City ¼ 240), representing a response rate 5.1%. This response rate pertains to the invitation emails. The authors limited the sample size to 200 regardless of the survey time frame. In addition, more than 90% of the surveys were reliably and accurately completed. Klassen and Jacobs (2001) noted that, because distribution, collection and data entry costs are minimal for Web surveys, lower response rates may be tolerable if the target pool is broadened. The coded data were downloaded from surveymonkey.com, and transformed into SPSS format. 4. Results 4.1. Profiles of respondents Profiles of respondents from the Las Vegas and Atlantic City samples were similar. The majority of survey respondents were Caucasian and female. Education level and household income level were slightly higher in the Atlantic City sample.

Table 1 The final items for the main survey Dimension

Items

References

Destination brand awareness (DBA)

1. This destination has a good name & reputation 2. This destination is very famous 3. The characteristics of this destination come to my mind quickly 4. When I am thinking about gaming, this destination comes to my mind immediately

1–2. Motameni and Shahrokhi (1998), Oh (2000)

1. This destination fits my personality 2. My friends would think highly of me if I visited this destination 3. The image of this destination is consistent with my own self-image 4. Visiting this destination reflects who I am

1–2. Lassar et al. (1995)

Destination brand image (DBI)

Destination brand quality (DBQ)

Destination brand value (DBV)

Destination brand loyalty (DBL)

1. This destination provides tourism offerings of consistent quality 2. This destination provides quality experiences 3. From this destination’s offerings, I can expect superior performance 4. This destination performs better than other similar destinations

3. Arnett et al. (2003), Pappu and Quester (2006), Yoo and Donthu (2001) 4. Kaplanidou and Vogt (2003)

3–4. Sirgy et al. (1997), Grace and O’Cass (2005)

1–2. Aaker (1991), Sweeney and Soutar (2001) 3–4. Lassar et al. (1995)

1. This destination has reasonable prices 2. Considering what I would pay for a trip, I will get much more than my money’s worth by visiting this destination 3. The costs of visiting this destination are a bargain relative to the benefits I receive 4. Visiting this destination is economical 5. Visiting this destination is a good deal

1. Ambler et al. (2002), Sweeney and Soutar (2001) 2–3. Lassar et al.(1995), Dodds et al. (1991)

1. I enjoy visiting this destination 2. This destination would be my preferred choice for a vacation 3. Overall, I am loyal to this destination 4. I would advise other people to visit this destination

1. Baloglu (2002), Back and Parks (2003) 2–3. Keller (2003), Odin et al. (2001), Yoo and Donthu (2001)

4. Sweeney and Soutar (2001), Grace and O’Cass (2005), Dodds et al. (1991) 5. Oh (2000)

4. Arnett et al. (2003), Bele´n del Rı´o et al.(2001)

Note. The items were randomly arranged on the questionnaires across the samples to reduce order bias.

224

S. Boo et al. / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 219–231

In the Las Vegas sample, the respondents included 88 men (34%) and 169 women (66%). More than half of the respondents were between 40 and 59 years of age (53%) and married (55%). The majority of the respondents were college graduates (76%) and were Caucasian (89%). Nearly 31% of the respondents had visited Las Vegas in the past six months to gamble and 43.0% of the respondents had intentions to visit Las Vegas within six months to gamble. In the Atlantic City sample, there was an overrepresentation of women (65%). The age of respondents was recorded in categories, with the majority of the individuals in their 50s (27%) followed by those in their 30s (23%). Martial status was almost evenly distributed between those who were single (48%) and married (52%). The majority of the respondents were college graduates (81%) and Caucasian (90%). Nearly 41% of the respondents had visited Atlantic City in the past six months to gamble and 49% of the respondents had intentions to visit Atlantic City within six months to gamble. 4.2. Examining data Data screening procedures were conducted for both samples. There were only moderate levels of missing data in the completed responses. As a result, it was assumed that missing data would be random and that Maximum Likelihood Estimation would reduce bias even if the condition of missing at random was not completely satisfied (Little & Rubin, 2002). In all cases, the mean values were substituted for missing values (Tabachinick & Fidell, 2001). The examination of univariate normality estimates indicated 22 outliers for the Las Vegas sample and 12 outliers for the Atlantic City sample. According to Tabachinick and Fidell (2001), whether to omit or retain outliers is a decision that depends on the circumstances surrounding the origin of the case in question, the sample size, and the importance of each case to the research conclusions. The authors decided to retain the outliers, as they were representative of the population (Hair et al., 1998). In addition, skewness and kurtosis values for all variables included in this study were satisfactory (West, Finch, & Curran, 1995). To compensate for this lack of multivariate normality, logarithmic transformation was also necessary (Hair et al., 1998). The multivariate normality of the data was investigated by conducting normality checks through the AMOS software. Similar to the Las Vegas visitor sample, a logarithmic transformation for the Atlantic City sample was successful. 4.3. Proposed baseline model testing As a preliminary analysis of the structural equation modeling, the zero-order correlations between indicators were calculated. Results showed that indicators were moderately correlated (.32 w .78) at the significance level of p < .0005. Model testing was estimated using a two step-approach which applied separate estimation and respecification of the measurement model before proceeding to the simultaneous estimation of the measurement and structural model (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). An exploratory principle-axis factor analysis with an oblique rotation was conducted to determine the underlying structure for latent variables (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). This was determined by examining correlations among the factors obtained from an oblique rotation. The correlation coefficients were significant among the variables. All variables exceeded the cut-off factor loading score of .4 used to screen out weak indicators (Hair et al., 1998). One of the paths from the latent variable to one of its indicators was constrained by assigning it a value of 1.0. The fixed path helps in interpreting manifest indicators with different response patterns (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Table 2 shows the construct reliability and validity of each latent variable. Cronbach’s alpha and composite construct reliabilities

Table 2 Construct reliability and validity Factor

Construct reliability

Validity

Coefficient alpha

Composite reliability

Discriminant validity

Convergent validity

Las Vegas

DBA DBI DBQ DBV DBL

.879 .897 .911 .938 .888

.884 .896 .911 .939 .890

.517–.810 .724–.809 .730–.841 .594–.748 .684–.841

.428–.856 .748–.860 .705–.869 .839–.860 .638–.835

Atlantic City

DBA DBI DBQ DBV DBL

.841 .926 .886 .935 .907

.805 .911 .884 .936 .864

.662–.787 .794–.896 .785–.817 .787–.851 .725–.881

.670–.802 .756–.877 .797–.825 .815–.834 .603–.805

Note. DBA (destination brand awareness), DBI (destination brand image), DBQ (destination brand quality), DBV (destination brand value), DBL (destination brand loyalty).

were computed to assess the internal consistency of the constructs. The results demonstrated that the SEM for the two samples was reliable. Convergent validity measures the degree to which the indicators of a latent construct measure the same construct (Blanthorne, Jones-Faremer, & Almer, 2006). For each set of indicators, the standardized factor loadings were all relatively high. Discriminant validity measures the degree to which two or more latent constructs measure different constructs (Blanthorne et al., 2006). As the confidence interval test to assess the discriminant validity between the factors does not include 1.0, discriminant validity is demonstrated (Anderson & Gerbing 1988). As seen in Table 2, the discriminant validity was confirmed. Overall, the proposed scale of the destination brand equity model is reliable and valid. Also, the goodness-of-fit indices for each dimension using the one-factor solution showed that the indices suggested a satisfactory, yet not perfect, degree of unidimensionality. Results showed that the structural equation model for the data using the two samples did not show a good fit, although it is acceptable; Las Vegas (LV) sample (c2 ¼ 400.092, p ¼ .0005, c2/df ¼ 3.008, TLL ¼ .926, CFI ¼ .953, RMSEA ¼ .086), and Atlantic City (AC) sample (c2 ¼ 330.288, p ¼ .0005, c2/df ¼ 2.664, TLL ¼ .929, CFI ¼ .951, RMSEA ¼ .083). Path analysis showed an inconsistent path relationship among factors across the two samples. The path coefficients indicated that destination brand image was significantly related to destination brand value {LV sample (b ¼ .435, t ¼ 6.391, p < .0005), AC sample (b ¼ .438, t ¼ 5.047, p < .0005)} and destination brand loyalty {LV sample (b ¼ .679, t ¼ 7.863, p < .0005), AC sample (b ¼ .349, t ¼ 4.118, p < .0005)}, respectively, across the samples. Also, destination brand quality was positively related to destination brand loyalty across the samples {LV sample (b ¼ .289, t ¼ 4.409, p < .0005), AC sample (b ¼ .432, t ¼ 5.465, p < .0005)}. Although a significant relationship between destination brand quality and destination brand value was found for the AC sample (b ¼ .412, t ¼ 2.576, p < .05), it was not found for the LV sample. Also, a positive relationship between destination brand value and destination brand loyalty was found only for the AC sample (b ¼ .236, t ¼ .853, p < .005). Interestingly, destination brand awareness did not show a statistically significant relationship with destination brand value across the two samples. As a result, an alternative or rival model was investigated. 4.4. Alternative model building and testing Because of an inadequate model fit and high correlation between destination brand image and destination brand quality, the proposed model was respecified by conceptualizing destination

S. Boo et al. / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 219–231

brand image and destination brand quality as components of a new latent construct: destination brand experience as shown in Fig. 2. This revision was consistent with the branding and brand equity literature. Konecnik and Gartner (2007) noted the problems in identifying variables for the quality dimension because previous studies measured a mix of image and quality attributes. Brand experience is the primary driver of brand equity (Berry, 2000). Recently, there has been an increased emphasis on customer-focused marketing approaches, especially in terms of maximizing brand equity through experience (Ambler et al., 2002). The concept of brand emphasizes the emotional benefits to consumers through purchase experiences (Ambler, 1997; Bhat & Reddy, 1998; Long & Schiffman, 2000). Also, it has been suggested that the tourist experience which was influenced by destination image and destination performance can be the underlying structure for building destination brands (Buhalis, 2000; Hall, 2002; Murphy et al., 2000; Ooi, 2004). Destination brand image and destination brand quality were combined and the second-order confirmatory factor analysis model was examined. Through a series of careful comparisons of measurement model estimates, one measurement model emerged that showed good model-fit indices across the two samples. Three indicators of destination brand image, (‘‘The destination fits my personality,’’ ‘‘My friends would think highly of me if I visited this destination,’’ ‘‘The image of this destination is consistent with my own self-image’’), and two indicators of destination brand quality (‘‘The destination provides quality experiences’’, ‘‘This destination performs better than other similar destinations’’), were chosen for destination brand experience. The model fits well across the two samples, indicating that destination brand image (with three items) and destination brand quality (with two items) comprise destination brand experience for the LV and AC samples; LV sample (c2 ¼ 33.595, p ¼ .005, c2/ df ¼ 2.800, NFI ¼ .980, CFI ¼ .987, RMSEA ¼ .062), and AC sample (c2 ¼ 13.002, p ¼ .293, c2/df ¼ 1.182, NFI ¼ .991, CFI ¼ .999, RMSEA ¼ .028). Also, the path relationship among destination brand awareness, destination brand experience, destination brand value, and destination brand loyalty was examined. In the hypothesized relationship test in the proposed model, the relationship between destination brand awareness and destination brand value was not statistically significant. Therefore, the path from destination brand awareness to destination brand value was deleted. The emerged structural equation model output showed that the alternative model had adequate fit across the two samples even though the c2 tests were significant {LV sample (c2 ¼ 64.206, p ¼ .000, c2/df ¼ 2.918, TLL ¼ .939, CFI ¼ .985, RMSEA ¼ .074), and

Fig. 2. The alternative model. Note. DBA (destination brand awareness), DBI (destination brand image), DBQ (destination brand quality), DBV (destination brand value), DBL (destination brand loyalty), DBEX (destination brand experience).

225

AC sample (c2 ¼ 40.823, p ¼ .009, c2/df ¼ 1.856, TLL ¼ .967, CFI ¼ .992, RMSEA ¼ .060)}. This is not unusual, given the sensitivity of the c2 test to sample size, and hence it rarely provides the basis to reject the tenability of the model. This sensitivity is said to be an issue when the sample size exceeds 200 respondents (Hair et al., 1998). A more useful measure of fit is to divide the c2 statistic by its degrees of freedom (Kline 2005). Kline (2005) suggested that any ratio below 3 is indicative of a well-fitting model with critical n above 200. Therefore, c2/df values for the two samples support an adequate model fit. The path relationships among latent variables were consistent across the two samples. Interestingly, destination brand awareness has a significant effect on destination brand experience across the two samples {LV sample (b ¼ .867, t ¼ 4.376, p < .0005), AC sample (b ¼ .574, t ¼ 5.529, p < .0005)}. Destination brand experience was hypothesized to positively affect destination brand value. The effect was statistically significant across the samples {LV sample (b ¼ .780, t ¼ 6.151, p < .0005), AC sample (b ¼ 1.411, t ¼ 8.764, p < .0005)}. The results also showed that destination brand value had a statistically significant effect on destination brand loyalty across the two samples {LV sample (b ¼ 1.228, t ¼ 4.982, p < .0005), AC sample (b ¼ .919, t ¼ 4.819, p < .0005)}. Another common finding across the two samples is that destination brand experience did not show a statistically significant relationship with destination brand loyalty. Significant pathways are indicated by heavy lines in Fig. 2. 4.5. Invariance test The invariance test attempted to ascertain whether the measurement and structural components of the alternative model remained invariant across different destinations by using MultiSample Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS (Byrne, 2001). This test serves to construct validation of the alternative model across destinations. Koufteros and Marcoulides (2006) noted that measurement and/or structural components of a proposed model may not always be invariant across samples because of differences in sample size or sample-specific attributes. Before conducting the invariance test, an assessment of the fit of the alternative model was conducted on the entire data set collectively. Examining the overall structural model of the total sample (n ¼ 510) incorporated with the LV sample and AC sample showed a good fit (c2 ¼ 35.590, p ¼ .034, c2/df ¼ 1618, TLL ¼ .989, CFI ¼ .997, RMSEA ¼ .035). Also, hypothesized path relationships among latent variables provided identical findings with previous analyses of LV and AC samples. That is, significant relationships were found between destination brand awareness and destination brand experience (b ¼ .917, t ¼ 7.385, p < .0005), between destination brand experience and destination brand value (b ¼ .798, t ¼ 10.577, p < .0005), and between destination brand value and destination brand loyalty (b ¼ 1.076, t ¼ 7.222, p < .0005). However, there was no statistically significant direct relationship between destination brand experience and destination brand loyalty. The best-fit model for the LV sample and AC sample was chosen as a baseline model for testing (i.e., Modela in Table 3). Subsequently, more stringent constraints are placed on each sequential step by specifying the parameters of interest to be constrained across samples in a stepwise fashion. In the constrained model at each step, estimates from the LV sample are fixed parameters in the AC sample. To determine whether the coefficients connecting the latent constructs to the observed indicators were the same across LV and AC, Step 1 imposed equal factor loadings. Any c2 differences between the baseline model and Step 1 indicated that the factor loadings were invariant across LV and AC. Subsequently, the intercept terms were constrained across the samples to determine whether there were significant differences

226

S. Boo et al. / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 219–231

Table 3 Results of the multi-sample invariance test across destination

a

Model Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5

c2

df

NFI

CFI

RMSEA (90% CI)

Dc2

Ddf

141.270 175.762 298.648 308.280 310.670 364.634

67 84 112 122 124 142

.987 .983 .971 .970 .971 .965

.993 .991 .982 .982 .982 .978

.033 .033 .040 .039 .038 .039

– 34.492 122.887* 12.022 2.39 56.354*

– 17 28 10 2 18

(.025–.041) (.026–.040) (.035–.046) (.034–.044) (.033–.044) (.034–.044)

a Baseline model: no equality constraints. Step 1 (equal factor loadings), Step 2 (Step 1 þ equal intercept terms), Step 3 (Step 2 þ equal structural weights), Step 4 (Step 3 þ equal structural covariance), Step 5 (Step 4 þ equal structural residuals). *p < .0005.

between Las Vegas and Atlantic City in terms of the levels of the latent variables. A c2 difference between Step 1 and Step 2 showed mean differences in the latent variables between the Las Vegas and Atlantic City samples, although NFI, CFI, and RMSEA values were acceptable. This implied that Las Vegas and Atlantic City exhibited systematic bias on some posited factors because of different responses to the items. Structural coefficient equality constraints were imposed in Step 3 to identify which path coefficients were different for Las Vegas and Atlantic City. Non-significant c2 differences between Step 2 and Step 3 revealed invariant path coefficients for each destination. The equality of variances and structural covariance was specified in Step 4. The c2 test showed that the variance–covariance matrix underlying items of latent variables was invariant across destinations. In order to test for equality of variances of the residuals across Las Vegas and Atlantic City, Step 5 was estimated. While the NFI, CFI, and RMSEA values were acceptable, the significant c2 results showed that residuals of the latent factors and observed variables are not completely invariant across the two considered destinations. This step led to a deterioration of the fit as compared with Step 4. However, this last step is the most restrictive invariance test. Multi-sample structural equation modeling testing revealed that the alternative model was largely invariant for Las Vegas and Atlantic City. While the model was acceptable, it is important to note that sample-specific measurement items should be developed when the customer-based brand equity applies across the different destination environments. 5. Discussion and conclusions This empirical study began with the recognition of the limitations of research on the evaluation of destination brands. Important assumptions for destination brand measurement emerged through a review of the broad literature in this area. Specifically measurement assumptions included: (1) a destination brand could be measured by employing the concept of customer-based brand equity; (2) destination brands should be evaluated by comparison with other competitive destination(s) in the same destination brand category; (3) the destinations should be well-known and popular among tourists; and (4) tourists must have experienced the destinations as tourists. These assumptions distinguish the unique characteristics of destination brand measurement from destination evaluation. Following the assumptions, a customer-based brand equity model was tested in a destination context and the five-factor structure in the proposed model was examined using confirmatory factor analysis for the Las Vegas and Atlantic City samples because both Las Vegas and Atlantic City are well-known and are competitive casino gaming destinations among tourists. The proposed baseline model was acceptable despite a significant chi-square. However, path coefficients among the factors suggested conflicting findings across the two samples. It could be interpreted that the customer-based brand equity model drawn

from general marketing and focusing on products may not fully apply to a destination context. The conclusion was that the proposed baseline model was questionable. Therefore, this study explored an alternative model (Fig. 2) by conducting a series of measurement model and full structural model tests. A series of model tests proved that the alternative model with four factors fit the two sample data sets better than the proposed baseline model. During the process of creating an alternate model, a new latent variable, destination brand experience, emerged. Indicators of each model construct were modified and the full structural model-fit indices improved. Also, path weights of specified relationships between factors showed similar positive associations across the two sets of sample data. Findings showed that destination brand experience can be considered an emerging concept of the destination brand equity measurement model in terms of a destination context. This is unique and different from the construct that is suggested in retail brand equity measurement approaches. Destination brand experience had a positive effect on destination brand value. However, destination brand experience did not influence destination brand loyalty directly. Furthermore, destination brand awareness affected destination brand experience directly. Top-of-mind awareness can be an important predictor of tourists’ destination brand experiences. However, tourists who have a positive experience at the destination are not necessarily loyal. In both the proposed and alternative models, the mediating role of destination brand value in relation to destination brand loyalty is an interesting finding that requires further investigation. Previous destination brand studies (e.g., Konecnik & Gartner, 2007) did not include brand value as a main dimension of a customer-based brand equity model. Tests of model invariance, as indicated in Table 3, represent an approach to construct validation. In practical terms, the hypothesized model was well represented. Although the chi-square was statistically significant in some steps, the other fit indices were good: NFI and CFI greater than .93 and RMSEA of .08 and smaller. Generally, tested models in each step proved to be applicable, suggesting that factor loadings, variances, and factor residuals were mostly sample-specific. This study offers enhanced insight into how tourists perceive a destination brand, indicating that a respecification of the destination brand measurement model, free from the established relationships in the marketing literature (i.e., relationships among awareness, image, quality, value, and loyalty), needs to be developed. As evidenced in this study, the new construct, destination brand experience, is meaningful. The findings in this study can be discussed by comparing and contrasting related studies. Konecnik and Gartner (2007) applied the concept of customer-based brand equity to evaluate the tourist destination of Slovenia for the German and Croatian markets. Although it is impossible to use absolute comparisons between the present study and Konecnik and Gartner (2007), because this study began with the assumptions presented in the earlier discussion, it is similar in light of the choice of dimensions in customer-based brand equity. However, though Konecnik and Gartner (2007) included awareness, image, quality, and loyalty dimensions in the model, they applied the brand concept in the extension line of destination image studies. That is, the generally accepted three image types (i.e., cognitive, affective, and conative) were elaborated in creating brand equity for a destination brand in their study. They support the importance of an image dimension in the brand equity model. This present study supports the important role of image in the brand equity model, in that destination brand image was identified as a key correlate of destination brand loyalty in the proposed model.

S. Boo et al. / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 219–231

The importance of image in Konecnik and Gartner (2007) makes sense because the image concept of Slovenia is prior to the brand concept for foreign markets (i.e., German and Croatian markets), in particular, for general but heterogeneous groups. In the same vein, this present study tested the model for domestic tourists who have already experienced the casino gaming destinations. That might be the reason why value dimension was more critical to tourists’ loyalty than image because the image of the destination is overshadowed by visitor experiences. Accordingly, it is reasonable that the destination brand experience is a critical factor in the present study. The findings in the proposed model indicated that tourists’ image congruence with a destination was an important influential factor in destination loyalty. This also supports Sirgy (1995), Sirgy and Johar (1999), and Sirgy and Su (2000) in that, if a brand image is perceived as similar to the customer’s self-image in terms of personality attributes, then customers tend to have favorable attitudes toward the brand when making purchasing decisions. Therefore, tourists’ perceptions of self-image can be used to identify loyal destination brand customers. The findings of this study also support Mader, Huber, and Herrmann (2000) in that customers’ brand loyalty was influenced by perceiving their self-concept. In tourism and hospitality the findings support Back’s (2005) positive relationship between self-image and brand loyalty in the lodging industry. Based on this line of reasoning, the findings lend support to Todd (2001), in that the tourist’s self-concept will affect the choice of the tourism product to be consumed. This study also supports the importance of brand value. In the model of perceived value by Dodds et al. (1991), conceptualization is linked with the brand of destination. This means that, just as product attributes accompany perceived value in marketing, so destination attributes go along with perceived value as the key criteria in destination brand loyalty. Specifically, the mediating role of destination brand value, between destination brand experience and destination brand loyalty, was significant in this study. There are several unique features of the present study. This study revealed four factors (i.e., DBA, DBEX, DBV, and DBL) of destination brand measurement from a tourist’s perspective. The alternative model with the four dimensions was developed by adapting the concept of customer-based brand equity to a destination. The alternative model fit was good across destinations, and the significant direction of path relationship among the four dimensions was exactly matched across destinations. A multi-sample invariance test was employed as a strategy to ensure construct validation of the alternative model. This study suggests that examining measurement and/or structural invariance in developing a destination brand model would be worthwhile. In the alternative model, destination brand value which was derived from the destination brand experience should be considered to improve the perception of destination brand loyalty. This points to the need for tourism managers to examine destination brand value more closely, especially the factors that affect the formation of destination brand loyalty for repeat visitors. Respondents had experienced these destinations. Therefore, the model can be used to elicit favorable revisit behavior by creating destination brand loyalty. The results derived from this study can also provide tourism managers with insights into brand-building endeavors. In particular, by examining Internet users’ perceptions, managers will be able to build potential tourists’ destination brand loyalty that results in revisit behavior. There should be an attempt to understand the different influences of destination brand experience and destination brand value. Also, the findings provide some practical implications for casino operators. The results of the present study suggest that casino operators should develop marketing strategies that continuously

227

monitor visitors’ perceptions of a casino’s brand image. Selective target marketing should be carefully considered when using a casino’s own brand image because people may think that casino images and destination images are identical. As mentioned by Sirgy and Su (2000), creating and managing an appropriate destination image and destination personality has become vital for effective positioning. This study suggests that destination marketers, along with casino operators, should develop promotional campaigns that emphasize the distinctive characteristics and attractive elements of tourism destinations, based on the components of visitors’ selfimage. Furthermore, the image traits should fully reflect the unique characteristics that differentiate an operation from its competitors. It is important for managers to analyze the different dimensions that make up destination brand equity. Insights into the importance of the dimensions allow tourism managers to increase their saliency for targeted visitors. This, in turn, allows the identification of destination brands that compete against other destinations from a tourist perspective. This strategy enables managers to evaluate the competitive position of their brand and consider its uniqueness and superiority. In terms of promotional strategy, it provides brand managers with the information necessary for successfully tailoring brands to market segments by communicating the particular benefits that customers within a segment seek. The present study has certain limitations that need to be taken into account when considering the study and its contributions. Multi-sample invariance tests suggested that that there might be an item bias across the Las Vegas and the Atlantic City samples in the scale refinement procedures, although the tested steps were statistically acceptable. Measurement fit across the two samples indicated an incorrect specification of the model as well as problems relating to the measurement of the variables. Every destination has unique characteristics and different environments. Consequently, constructs in the destination brand equity model should be developed to measure its operation and management across destinations. Also, this indicates that the scale items from marketing should address the characteristics of destinations, including the physical, environmental, and socio-cultural features. The applicability of the suggested 21 measurement items is limited only to gambling destinations rather than other types of destinations. Because indicators to measure a latent structure can represent each destination uniquely and differently, this study excluded possible differences of destination characteristics. However, it was difficult to separate the destination characteristics from the casino gaming destination characteristics. In addition, due to initial items extracted from the Las Vegas visitor sample through the pretests, the main test may inappropriately represent the other destination, Atlantic City. Given the problems of Internet coverage of the general population and the difficulty of drawing probability samples for Internet-based surveys (Couper, 2001), the results of this study should be generalized with caution. The sample selection was limited because the subjects of this study were members of surveysampling.com. Also, there is the inability to generalize the findings because of non-response checks. This study examined the relationships rather than identifying population parameters. Furthermore, because only people who have an interest in the survey topic responded, a self-selection and selective dropout may have led to a sample already interested in the topic of destination brand. In addition, respondents’ familiarity level and past visitation would influence the nature of relationships among the variables. Online panel sampling itself has limitations when psychometric approaches are applied. Therefore, the psychometric support for this measure needs to be expanded to include additional evidence of reliability and validity. Although this study demonstrated acceptable internal consistency for destination brand dimensions, the stability of these constructs needs to be examined. A more

228

S. Boo et al. / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 219–231

complete measure of destination brands would be on a tourist-bytourist basis using in-depth interviews to elicit an unbiased picture of a tourist’s perception of a destination. The cross-sectional nature of this study precluded inferences among the latent variables and was concurrently measured. The specified theoretical model was only one plausible model of the data, and the direction of the paths was theoretical. Basically, this study focused specifically on the factors related to destination brand equity. It is likely that other important influences on exogenous variables would contribute to the prediction of endogenous variables. Therefore, a customer-based brand equity model in conjunction with dynamic measurement should be explored in future studies. Nevertheless, within the limitations of this study, the findings provide important information that could be used to examine the nature of destination branding. An extension of this research is needed to validate the findings. Destination Brand: Atlantic City I. The following questions intend to measure your perception of the gambling destination, Atlantic City. Using the scale below, where ‘‘1’’ means ‘‘Strongly disagree’’ and ‘‘7’’ means ‘‘Strongly agree,’’ Please select only one response for each statement.

Strongly disagree This destination has a good name & reputation The characteristics of this destination come to my mind quickly My friends would think highly of me if I visited this destination This destination provides tourism offerings of consistent quality Visiting this destination is economical This destination would be my preferred choice for a vacation I would advise other people to visit this destination The costs of visiting this destination are a bargain relative to the benefits I receive Considering what I would pay for a trip, I will get much more than my money’s worth by visiting this destination From this destination’s offerings, I can expect superior performance The image of this destination is consistent with my own self-image This destination is very famous The destination performs better than other similar destinations This destination fits my personality Overall, I am loyal to this destination When I am thinking about gaming, this destination comes to my mind immediately Visiting this destination reflects who I am

Strongly agree

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

(continued) Strongly disagree Visiting this destination is a good deal I enjoy visiting this destination This destination has reasonable prices This destination provides quality experiences

Strongly agree

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

II. Please response to the following 1. How many times did you visit Atlantic City to gamble? (_________) 2. Did you visit Atlantic City in past six months to gamble? , Yes , No 3. Do you likely to visit to Atlantic City again within six months to gamble? , Yes , No , I don’t know 4. What is your gender? , Male , Female 5. What age group are you in? , Twenties , Thirties , Forties , Fifties , Sixties , Above seventies 6. Please indicate your educational level: , No college , Some college / associate degree , Bachelors degree , Post bachelor’s degree 7. Please indicate your martial status , Single (never married) , Single (divorced, separated, or widowed) , Married , Other 8. Please indicate your annual household income before taxes , Under $35,000 , $35,001w$ 55,000 , $55,001w$75,000 , $75,001w$95,000 , Over $95,000 9. Please indicate your ethnicity? , African American , American Indian or Alaskan native , Asian , Asian American , Caucasian , Hispanic , Native Hawaiian or other Pacific islander , Other 10. What is your home zip code? (_________)

Destination Brand: Las Vegas 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

I. The following questions intend to measure your perception of the gambling destination, Las Vegas. Using the scale below, where

S. Boo et al. / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 219–231

‘‘1’’ means ‘‘Strongly disagree’’ and ‘‘7’’ means ‘‘Strongly agree,’’ Please select only one response for each statement. 7. Strongly disagree Considering what I would pay for a trip, I will get much more than my money’s worth by visiting this destination From this destination’s offerings, I can expect superior performance I enjoy visiting this destination I would advise other people to visit this destination My friends would think highly of me if I visited this destination Overall, I am loyal to this destination The characteristics of this destination come to my mind quickly The costs of visiting this destination are a bargain relative to the benefits I receive This destination has reasonable prices The image of this destination is consistent with my own self-image When I am thinking about gaming, this destination comes to my mind immediately This destination has a good name & reputation The destination performs better than other similar destinations This destination is very famous Visiting this destination is economical This destination provides tourism offerings of consistent quality This destination would be my preferred choice for a vacation Visiting this destination is a good deal This destination provides quality experiences Visiting this destination reflects who I am This destination fits my personality

Strongly agree

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8.

II. Please response to the following 1. How many times did you visit Las Vegas to gamble? (_________) 2. Did you visit Las Vegas in past six months to gamble? , Yes , No 3. Do you likely to visit to Las Vegas again within six months to gamble? , Yes , No , I don’t know 4. What is your gender? , Male , Female 5. What age group are you in? , Twenties , Thirties , Forties , Fifties , Sixties , Above seventies 6. Please indicate your educational level: , No college , Some college / associate degree

9.

10.

229

, Bachelors degree , Post bachelor’s degree Please indicate your martial status , Single (never married) , Single (divorced, separated, or widowed) , Married , Other Please indicate your annual household income before taxes , Under $35,000 , $35,001w$ 55,000 , $55,001w$75,000 , $75,001w$95,000 , Over $95,000 Please indicate your ethnicity? , African American , American Indian or Alaskan native , Asian , Asian American , Caucasian , Hispanic , Native Hawaiian or other Pacific islander , Other What is your home zip code? (_________)

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. Ambler, T. (1997). How much of brand equity is explained by trust? Management Decision, 35(4), 283–292. Ambler, T., Bhattacharya, C. B., Edell, J., Keller, K. L., Lemon, K. L., & Mittal, V. (2002). Relating brand and customer perspectives on marketing management. Journal of Service Research, 5(1), 13–25. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423. Arnett, D. B., Laverie, D. A., & Meiers, A. (2003). Developing parsimonious retailer equity indexes using partial least squares analysis: a method and applications. Journal of Retailing, 79(3), 161–170. Back, K. J. (2005). The effects of image congruence on customers’ brand loyalty in the upper middle-class hotel industry. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 29(4), 448–467. Back, K.-J., & Parks, S. C. (2003). A brand loyalty model involving cognitive, affective, and conative brand loyalty and customer satisfaction. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 27(4), 419–435. Baloglu, S. (2001). An investigation of a loyalty typology and the multidestination loyalty of international travelers. Tourism Analysis, 6, 41–52. Baloglu, S. (2002). Dimensions of customer loyalty: separating friends from well wishers. Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 43, 47–59. Baloglu, S., & Erickson, R. E. (1998). Destination loyalty and switching behavior of travelers: a Markow analysis. Tourism Analysis, 2, 119–127. Baloglu, S., & McCleary, K. W. (1999). A model of destination image formation. Annals of Tourism Research, 26, 868–897. Barrows, C. W., Latuuca, F. P., & Bosselmanc, R. H. (1989). Influence of restaurant reviews upon consumers. FIU Hospitality Review, 7(2), 84–92. Bearden, W. O., Netemeyer, R. G., & Teel, J. E. (1989). Measurement of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 473–481. Bele´n del Rı´o, A., Va´zquez, R., & Iglesias, V. (2001). The effect of brand associations on consumer response. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(5), 410–425. Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 139–168. Belonax, J. J., & Javalgi, R. G. (1989). The influence of involvement and product class quality of consumer choice sets. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 17(3), 209–216. Berry, L. L. (2000). Cultivating service brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 128–137. Bhat, S., & Reddy, S. K. (1998). Symbolic and functional positioning of brands. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 15(1), 32–43. 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. Blanthorne, C., Jones-Faremer, L. A., & Almer, E. D. (2006). Why you should consider SEM: a guide getting started. Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research, 9, 179–207. Buhalis, D. (2000). Marketing the competitive destination of the future. Tourism Management, 21(1), 97–116.

230

S. Boo et al. / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 219–231

Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Cai, L. A. (2002). Cooperative branding for rural destinations. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(3), 720–742. de Chernatony, L., & McDonald, M. (2003). Creating powerful brands in consumer service and industrial markets (3rd ed.). Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. de Chernatony, L., & Dall’Olmo Riley, F. (1998). Defining a brand: beyond the literature with experts’ interpretations. Journal of Marketing Management, 14(5), 417–443. Chiou, J. (2004). The antecedents of consumers’ loyalty toward Internet service providers. Information and Management, 41, 685–695. Clifton, R. (2003). The future of brands. In R. Clifton (Ed.), Brands and branding (pp. 227–241). New York, NY: Bloomberg Press. Couper, M. P. (2001). The promise and perils of Web surveys. In A. Westlake (Ed.), The challenge of the Internet (pp. 35–36). London: Association for Survey Computing. 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. Crimmins, J. C. (2000). Better measurement and management of brand value. Journal of Advertising Research, 40(6), 136–144. Day, E., & Crask, M. R. (2000). Value assessment: the antecedent of customer satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 13, 53–59. Dennis, J. M. (2001). Are Internet panels creating professional respondents? Marketing Research, 13(2), 34–38. 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., & Zinkhan, G. M. (1990). In search of brand image: a foundation analysis. In M. E. Goldberg, G. Gorn, & R. W. Pollay (Eds.), Advances in consumer research, Vol. 17 (pp. 110–119). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research. Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers’ product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 307–319. Dredge, D., & Jenkins, J. (2003). Destination place identity and regional tourism policy. Tourism Geographies, 5(4), 383–407. Edwards, J., Fernandes, C., Fox, J., & Vaughan, R. (2000). Tourism brand attributes of the Alto Minho, Portugal. In G. Richards, & D. Hall (Eds.), Tourism and sustainable community development (pp. 285–296). New York: Routledge. 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. Ford, K. (2005). Brands laid bare: Using market research for evidence-based brand management. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons. Gnoth, J. (1998). Branding tourism destinations. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(3), 758–760. Gnoth, J. (2002). Leveraging export brands through a tourism destination brand. Brand Management, 9(4/5), 262–280. Grace, D., & O’Cass, A. (2005). Service branding: consumer verdicts on service brands. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 12(2), 125–139. Grewal, D., Levy, M., & Lehmann, D. R. (2004). Retail branding and customer loyalty: an overview. Journal of Retailing, 80, 9–13. Gyimothy, S. (n.d.). Branding in tourism and hospitality management Institute for Service Management. Lunds University. Retrieved October 11, 2005 from http:// www.humsamf.auc.dk/edu/snf/turime/. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hall, D. (2002). Brand development, tourism and national identity; the re-imaging of former Yugoslavia. Brand Management, 9(4/5), 323–334. Hall, J., Robertson, N., & Shaw, M. (2001). An investigation of perceived value and consumable goods. Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research, 42(2), 23–31. Hankinson, G. (2004). Relational network brands: towards a conceptual model of place brands. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10(2), 109–121. Hankinson, G. (2005). Destination brand images: a business tourism perspective. Journal of Services Marketing, 19(1), 24–32. d’Hauteserre, A. M. (2001). Destination branding in a hostile environment. Journal of Travel Research, 39, 200–207. Hem, L. E., & Iversen, N. M. (2004). How to develop a destination brand logo: a qualitative and quantitative approach. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality & Tourism, 4(2), 83–106. 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, 638–642. Jago, L., Chalip, L., Brown, G., Mules, T., & Ali, S. (2003). Building events into destination branding: insights from experts. Event Management, 8(1), 3–14. 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. Kapferer, J. N. (1997). Strategic brand management: Creating and sustaining brand equity long term (2nd ed.). London: Kogan Page Limited. Kaplanidou, K., & Vogt, C. (2003). Destination branding: concept and measurement. . Accessed 15.01.05. Keeter, S. (2005). Survey research. In D. Druckman (Ed.), Doing research: Methods of inquiry for conflict analysis (pp. 123–165). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 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. Klassen, R. D., & Jacobs, J. (2001). Experimental comparison of Web, electronic and mail survey technologies in operations management. Journal of Operations Management, 19(6), 713–728. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press. Knowles, J. (2001). The role of brands in business. In J. Goodchild, & C. Callow (Eds.), Brands: Visions and values (pp. 21–90). Chichester: England, John Wiley and Sons. 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. Koufteros, X., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2006). Product development practices and performance: a structural equation modeling-based multi-group analysis. International Journal of Production Economic, 103(1), 286–307. 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. Laws, E. (1995). Tourist destination management: Issues, analysis and policies. London: Routledge. Lee, J., & Back, K. (2008). Attendee-based brand equity. Tourism Management, 29(2), 331–344. Leuthesser, L., Kohli, Ch., & Harich, K. (1995). Brand equity: the halo effect measure. Journal of Marketing, 29, 57–66. Lindermann, J. (2004). Brand valuation. In R. Clifton (Ed.), Brands and branding (pp. 27–45). New York, NY: Bloomberg Press. Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (2002). Statistical analysis with missing data (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Long, M. M., & Schiffman, L. G. (2000). Consumption values and relationships: segmenting the market for frequency programs. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17(3), 214–232. Low, G. S., & Lamb, C. W. (2000). The measurement and dimensionality of brand associations. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 9(6), 350–368. Mader, R., Huber, F., & Herrmann, A. (2000). The contribution of the brand personality construct to explain brand loyalty behavior – findings of a causal– analytical study. Proceedings of the Annual European Academy of Marketing Conference. Rotterdam: Erasmus University. Martinez, E., & de Chernatony, L. (2004). The effect of brand extension strategies upon brand image. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 21(1), 39–50. McIntyre, G. (1993). Sustainable tourism development: Guide for local planners. Madrid: World Tourism Organization. Michell, P., King, J., & Reast, J. (2001). Brand values related to industrial products. Industrial Marketing Management, 30(5), 415–425. Morgan, N., Pritchard, A., & Piggott, R. (2002). New Zealand, 100% pure. The creation of a powerful niche destination brand. Brand Management, 9(4/5), 335–354. Motameni, R., & Shahrokhi, M. (1998). Brand equity valuation: a global perspective. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 7(4), 275–290. 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. Nininen, O., & Riley, M. (2004). Towards the conceptualization of tourism destination loyalty. Tourism Analysis, 8, 243–246. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Odin, Y., Odin, N., & Valette-Florence, P. (2001). Conceptual & operational aspects of brand loyalty: an empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research, 53, 75–84. Oh, H. (2000). Diner’s perceptions of quality, value, & satisfaction. Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(3), 58–66. Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents & consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 460–469. Ooi, C.-S. (2004). Poetics & politics of destination branding: Denmark. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality & Tourism, 4(2), 107–128. Oppermann, M. (2000). Tourism destination loyalty. Journal of Travel Research, 39(1), 78–84. Papadopoulos, N., & Heslop, L. (2002). Country equity & country branding: problems & prospects. 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. Patterson, M. (1999). Re-appraising the concept of brand image. Journal of Brand Management, 6(6), 409–426.

S. Boo et al. / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 219–231 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. Phau, I., & Lau, K. C. (2000). Conceptualizing brand personality: a review & research propositions. Journal of Targeting, Measurement & Analysis for Marketing, 9(1), 52–69. Pike, S. (2004). Destination marketing organizations. Advances in tourism research series. New York: Elsevier. Pike, S. (2005). Tourism destination branding complexity. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 14(4), 258–259. Pitt, L. F., Opoku, R., Hultman, M., Abratt, R., & Spyropoulou, S. (2007). What I say about myself: communication of brand personality by African countries. Tourism Management, 28, 835–844. Prasad, K., & Dev, C. S. (2000). Managing hotel brand equity: a customer-centric framework for assessing performance. Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(3), 22–31. Prebensen, N. K. (2007). Exploring tourists’ images of a distant destination. Tourism Management, 28, 747–756. Pritchard, A., & Morgan, N. J. (2001). Culture, identity & tourism representation: marketing Cymru of Wales? Tourism Management, 22, 167–179. Reis, H. T., & Judd, C. M. (2000). Handbook of research methods in social & personality psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Rigdon, E. E. (1995). A necessary & sufficient identification rule for structural models estimated in practice. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30, 359–383. Ringer, G. (1998). Destinations: Cultural landscapes of tourism. London: Routledge. Ritchie, J. R. B., & Ritchie, R. J. B. (1998). The branding of tourism destinations: past achievements & future challenges. Marrakech, Morocco: Annual Congress of the International Association of Scientific Experts in Tourism. Shah, R., & Goldstein, S. M. (2006). Use of structural equation modeling in operations management research: looking back & forward. Journal of Operations Management, 24(2), 148–169. Simon, C. J., & Sullivan, M. W. (1993). The measurement & determinants of brand equity: a financial approach. Marketing Science, 12(1), 28–52. Sirgy, M. J. (1995). Self-image/product image congruity & consumer decision making. International Journal of Management, 2(4), 49–63. Sirgy, M. J., & Johar, J. S. (1999). Toward an integrated model of self-congruity & functional congruity. European Advances in Consumer Research, 4, 252–256. Sirgy, M. J., & Su, C. (2000). Destination image, self-congruity, & travel behavior: toward an integrative model. Journal of Travel Research, 38, 340–352. Sirgy, M. J., Grewal, D., Mangleburg, T. F., Park, J., Chon, K. S., Claiborne, C. B., Johar, J. S., & Berkman, H. (1997). Assessing the predictive validity of two methods of measuring self-Image congruence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(3), 229–241. Sivakumar, K., & Raj, S. P. (1997). Quality tier competition: how price change influences brand choice & category choice. Journal of Marketing, 61(3), 71–84. Solomon, M. R. (1999). Consumer behavior (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

231

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. Tabachinick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Tasci, A. D. A., Gartner, W. C., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2007). Measurement of destination brand bias using a quasi-experimental design. Tourism Management, 28(6), 1529–1540. Teas, R. K., & Laczniak, R. N. (2004). Measurement process context effects in empirical tests of causal models. Journal of Business Research, 57(2), 162–174. Todd, S. (2001). Self-concept: a tourism application. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 1(2), 184–196. Tsai, S. (2005). Utility, cultural symbolism & emotion: a comprehensive model of brand purchase value. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 22, 277–291. Upshaw, L. (1995). Building brand identity: A strategy for success in a hostile market place. New York: Wiley & Sons. Vazquez, R., Bele´n del Rı´o, A., & Iglesias, V. (2002). Consumer-based brand equity: development and validation of a measurement instrument. Journal of Marketing Management, 18, 27–48. Ward, S., Light, L., & Goldstein, J. (1999). What high-tech managers need to know about brand. Harvard Business Review, July–August, 85–95. 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. Webster, F. E., Jr. (2000). Understanding the relationships among brands, consumers, & resellers. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 17–23. West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: problems & remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, & applications (pp. 56–75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Williams, P. W., Gill, A. M., & Chura, N. (2004). Branding mountain destinations: the battle for ‘‘placefulness. Tourism Review, 59(1), 6–15. Woodruff, R. B. (1997). Customer value: the next source for competitive advantage. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(2), 139–153. Woodside, A. G., Cruickshank, B. F., & Dehuang, N. (2007). Stories visitors tell about Italian cities as destination icons. Tourism Management, 28, 162–174. Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing & validating a multidimensional consumer based brand equity scale. Journal of Business Research, 52, 1–14. Yoo, B., Donthu, N., & Lee, S. (2000). An examination of selected marketing mix elements & brand equity. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 258–270. Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perception of price, quality, & value: a means-end model & synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22. 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.