The social construction of tourism online destination image: A comparative semiotic analysis of the visual representation of Seoul

Tourism Management 54 (2016) 221e229

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

The social construction of tourism online destination image: A comparative semiotic analysis of the visual representation of Seoul William Cannon Hunter Department of Convention Management, College of Hotel & Tourism Management, Kyung Hee University, 1 Hoegi-Dong, Dongdaemun-Gu, Seoul, 130-701, South Korea

h i g h l i g h t s  Seoul online destination image is explored using content and semiotic analysis.  The online image is compared to the projected image found in print media.  Online image is further investigated by comparing keyword image searches among Naver, Google and Baidu.  Online, representations of the Seoul experience differ in certain ways between social-semiotic contexts.  The online Seoul image is a social-semiotic construction rather than the marketers' projected image.

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 30 December 2014 Received in revised form 12 November 2015 Accepted 14 November 2015 Available online xxx

This study examines the destination image of Seoul as represented by photographs online, and compares it to the traditional projected image found in printed brochures and guidebooks by replicating a previous study. Using visual semiotics, the social construction of tourism online destination image is investigated in terms of denotative and connotative signs. Using language-specific keyword searches, ‘Seoul travel’ on Naver, Google and Baidu, three demographic perspectives were examined including Korean, international English speaking and, Chinese. It was found that these different online contexts represent Seoul in different ways. Naver represents Seoul in more detail; Google and Baidu represent a mix of other destinations with Seoul connoting differences in perception, or reflecting the constraints of individual or group travel. The major findings suggest that the organic online self-representation of individual travel experiences by travelers, makes tourism as a soft power more effective, by supplementing the projected image of Seoul. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Constructivism Destination image Online Representations Semiotics Seoul

1. Introduction Seoul, founded in 1394, is a deeply historical city that strongly relies on its structural heritage attractions for tourism destination image projection. Since the 1980's tourism policy has focused on the reconstruction and revision of city districts, waterways and monuments (Hunter, 2012) and more importantly, perhaps, in the hosting and promoting of mega-events. Synecdochical monuments include the Gyeongbok Palace Gwanghwamun Gate and the south city Namdaemun gate were completed in 1395 and 1398, respectively. The Han River and Cheonggye Stream are important physical representations of the city. And mega-events such as the 1988 Olympic Games, the 2002 World Cup, 2010 G20 Summit, and 2012

E-mail address: [email protected]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.11.012 0261-5177/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Yeosu Expo have contributed to transforming tourism into a major sector of the Korean economy and have worked to boost the image (reputation) of the country as a tourism destination (Choi, 2000). Destination image theory continues to stand as one of the basic modes of inquiry in tourism research. In spite of claims that destination image is a ‘nebulous concept’ (Hughes & Allen, 2008), more might agree that it is, rather, a ‘multidimensional concept’ (Gallarza, Saura, & Garcia, 2002) that includes three constructs: 1) destination imagery or the whole touristic landscape; 2) the projected destination image or destination marketing campaigns; 3) and the perceived destination image or the combined effects of marketing and real destination experience on the visitor(s). In the context of expensive high quality promotional materials such as guidebooks and brochures in print form, the distinction between projection and perception is relatively clear as the expense of publishing such materials imparts a certain degree of authority on

222

W.C. Hunter / Tourism Management 54 (2016) 221e229

the marketers' behalf. However in the increasingly dominant online destination image online, the distinction between marketers' intentions and the visitors' uses of social media to communicate or share their experiences breaks down. The purpose, therefore, of this paper is to replicate the methodology and compare Hunter's (2012) analysis of Seoul destination image (as projected through traditional print media) with the Seoul destination image as it appears in photographic representations, online. Online tourism destination image is a more dynamic social construction than the traditional projected image found in print guidebooks and brochures. It is accumulative e or generative e as users continuously upload and share photographic representations of the destination and of their perceptions and experiences in relationship to it. Therefore, it requires a more critical ontological and empirical analysis to determine to what degree destination image theory is a fixed concept or an accumulative process. To accomplish this, the constructivist paradigm is employed to examine online Seoul destination image as an irreducible and accumulative reflection of dynamic social-semiotic systems. Further, this study employs constructivism to examine how destination image is a reflection of online sign systems and may vary dependent upon those systems as evidenced in the context of language, and search engine choice. In this sense, destination image is dependent upon its ‘situatedness’ (Hall, 2004). Online, destination image is embedded in cultural semiotics to the point that representations of the destination work to virtually replace the destination itself. Working as visual cues, representations might guide users and audiences to the identity of Seoul and other globalizing cities and its various developmental and political agendas. Simultaneously, representations will also connote certain kinds of experiences and spaces without imposing any particular type of authority. Online, the destination image works as a form of soft power, inducing sympathetic sentiments and brand image ‘trust’. Based on this premise, the purpose of this study is to explore the social construction of destination image by conducting an online semiotic analysis of the visual representation of Seoul. This study is also designed to compare the online destination image with the projected destination image of Seoul as found in print brochures and guidebooks as identified in a previous study (Hunter, 2012). The goals of the study, therefore, are as follows:  To identify differences in perceptions between demographics via three search engines and three language keyword searches regarding the destination image of Seoul, Korea.  To identify and compare the representation of touristic experiences of said three socio-cultural outlooks through connotative and denotative semiotic analysis.  To compare online destination image with the projected image found in print brochures and guidebooks generated by government and highly empowered corporate interests by replicating a previous study's methodology and research context (Hunter, 2012).  To identify the implications of the emergent and socially constructed realities of the online destination image in contrast to the marketers' traditional projections of Seoul as a tourist destination.

2. Literature review 2.1. Tourism destination image Destination image is one of the most popular themes in tourism research but researchers still struggle with its most basic definition (MacKay & Fesenmaier, 2000). Instead, the theory has been

described by some researchers as a “nebulous concept” (Hughes & Allen, 2008, pp. 30). Other researchers have worked on identifying causal relationships between destination image and the visitor's experience (Pritchard & Morgan, 2001). Beyond the lack of consensus problem and the positivist-causality problem, there are researchers who have been working towards a more constructivist take on destination image theory. They recognize destination image as a dynamic and circular process of negotiation between promotion and experience (Gilbert & Hancock, 2006) or as messages circulating in a “hermeneutic circle” (Ryan, 2002, pp. 965). Destination image, in this sense, has evolved into a multidimensional concept (Gallarza et al., 2002). Its dimensions include: 1) destination imagery or the real or potential topography of the touristic landscape (Wolcott, 1995); 2) the projected destination image or the purposive generation or packaging of verbal or visual representations for marketing or commentary (Pritchard & Morgan, 2001); 3) and the perceived destination image or the effects of individual or collective audiences' encounters with the destination (Hunter, 2012). It is difficult, however, to be fully satisfied with these dimensions when each is examined individually. Destination imagery refers to a complete yet non-specific place that is potentially all things to all people. It includes any number of fragmented and generative versions of a destination. This understanding is both irreducible and unidentifiable in any real sense. Projected destination image is also problematic. As shown by Hunter (2012) it is unclear if destination marketers are not already influenced by their own perceptions when generating a projected image. It is also possible that the projected image might be connoting certain political and economic interests involved in the showcasing of development projects. The perceived image, then, seems to be nothing more than an artifact of projection. In other words, traditionally, the only quantifiable or identifiable version of the perceived image is the projected image as found in print media e and the accompanying guesswork and projections on how that might affect tourist motivations and behavior. The constructivist view recognizes the benefits of working comparatively with the three dimensions of destination image theory for certain research purposes. This view opens up ways to work with multiple dimensions as a complexly confluent whole. Destination image in this sense, is recognized as a cumulative phenomenon rather than some final or total synecdochical representation that is perceived by the audience just as its projectors anticipated. Constructivism is used to investigate the convergence of perceived and projected destination image in relation to the destination's total panorama of imagery. In addition, constructivism represents the bricolage and time dependent evolution of a destination's ‘brand image’ in pace with political, economic, technological and resultant cultural developments. 2.2. Online image and cultural semiotics In constructivism, the projection and perception of destination imagery are theoretically mingled. In no context is this more pronounced than online. The internet has completely changed the rules of cultural semiotics by transforming the representation of place and experience into hyperreal simulation. Baudrillard (1988) suggested that the discourse of advertisers and the analysis of consumption, like any other discourse, is accessible only to those within that professional circle. And by extension of this suggestion, the destination tourism marketer is disconnected from the needs and wants of her or his target market. Baudrillard (1988, pp. 16e17) further observed that via the internet, smart phones and mobile connectivity and, social media, the individual has been endowed with “telematic power” or, the ability to “regulate everything by

W.C. Hunter / Tourism Management 54 (2016) 221e229

remote control”. The individual has taken over control of the projection or representation of the destination image. Without the illusion of authority that expensive print brochures and guidebooks connote (Hunter, 2012), destination marketers face new challenges. Destination image no longer presents the illusion of an authoritative, one way projection or manipulation of visitors' perceptions. Online, it is now a social construction. Photographic representations of the touristic destination image that circulate online can be thought of as reflections of an online culture. Jenks (1993) defined culture as a “context dependent semiotic system’’ (Jenks, 1993, pp. 121) and this liberates culture from any particular geopolitical setting but not necessarily from language or social systems. Thus theoretically the online destination image might vary dependent upon cultural context. The destination itself, the browser and the search engine, the language and keyword search e in certain combinations e could work to manifest a particular type of destination image that is neither projected nor perceived, but constructed through the accumulation of individual actions. Representations have been described as true descriptions (Brown, 1995) because they provide the means to convey or construct a destination's touristic image. They are functional and convey a sense of objectivity (Wolcott, 1995). In combinations they can become commercial products (Mackay & Fesenmaier, 2000). Online, however, the representation becomes a simulacrum (a copy without an original) (Baudrillard, 2006) as its implied claims to authenticity (or authorship) become slippery (Stewart, 2005). As simulacra, representations circulating (or accumulating) online continue to act as believable tactile simulations that replace reality or make reality more real than real. In this sense there is no more projection of a single iconic destination image. The physical construction of monuments, shopping areas and waterways becomes secondary to their virtual presentation (or replacement) online as representations of the destination and destination experience. Photographic representations increasingly work as visual cues shared between experienced and potential travelers within certain demographics that indicate how the travel experience to the destination should be visually signified. The online photographic representation becomes an artifact of the tourism experience. 2.3. Brand and trust as soft power The destination image of Seoul as it appears in print brochures, guidebooks and on official destination marketing websites is the result of traditional physical tourism attractions marketing based on the city's heritage (Hunter, 2012). This projected destination image is distilled into a discreet number of synecdochical representations (where a part can stand for the whole or a whole can stand for a part) that works to contain the complex reality of a large city (Smith, 2005). The synecdoche is a waterway, a newly constructed or restored building, a monument or a city district. It is a representation that appears to be spatially whole (Zukin, 1998) as seen from a privileged view. It takes on a massive and solid appearance (Verschaffel, 1999). The synecdoche is a benchmarking device that is typically used in hard branding or competitive branding for globalizing cities in tourism development and marketing (Zukin, 1998). The problem with city hard branding and benchmarking strategies is that they are often haphazard or the result of political or developmental interests rather than the pursuit of an organic or socially constructed destination image. Marketing strategies, instead, promote some views that cause the disappearance of everything else (Baudrillard, 1988). They fail to recognize urban tourism as an ecosystem consisting of the city, the tourism industry

223

and the tourist (Judd & Fainstein, 1999). In this sense, there must be a co-existence of sameness and diversity in destination image management or an effort to rid the projected image of the subjective, irreducible tourism experience (Judd & Fainstein, 1999). This perspective recognizes tourism destination image projection as a form of soft power that combines brand and trust. Projected destination image in this sense is not an arbitrary collection of highly iconic representations of the city. Instead, it can be conceptualized as ‘brand image’ which connotes reputation. Reputation is a form of trust that is formed through direct experience (earned trust) or vicariously, following the example of other purchasers (trust taken on trust) (Anholt, 2010). Further, “trust formed by many satisfied purchasers creates a ‘cloud’ of trustworthiness” … which can imbue a brand with the resiliency to withstand strong negative direct experience (Anholt, 2010, pp. 20). Destination image as brand image moves toward a convergence of projected (marketing) and perceived (experience) image that reinforces the notion of urban tourism as an ecosystem. In addition, the projected image, when complemented with the online representations of the destination, more closely approximates the goals of national policy that are increasingly interested in seeking global competitiveness through soft power (Nye, 2004). Thus, the purpose of this study is to compare the Seoul projected image as found in print brochures and guidebooks (Hunter, 2012) with its constructed destination image as found online. The methodological approach to this inquiry will be described in the following section. 3. Methodology This paper is driven by constructivism in two ways (Pernecky, 2012). First, as an ontological outlook. There has been a longstanding call for expanding the ontological outlook, and range of research methods used in tourism studies (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). This call comes from the recognition that structural models and other positivist devices do not always capture the generative nature of tourism as a social phenomenon. In contrast, constructivism is a practice particularly suitable to observing and interpreting highly contextual situations in which multiple worldviews or truths are at work (Hollinshead, 2006). Through constructivism, researchers can interpret and map social settings without reducing them to fixed and immobile structures. This non-reductionist paradigm enables researchers to observe tourism as a social construction of reality (Billig, 1995). Second, constructivism is used as a means to (construct) knowledge (as a methodology). In this sense, constructivism works by enabling the observer to recognize different and often confounded worldviews, and to better understand how subjectivity (individual or collective), sign systems and power relations work in dynamic social systems (Meethan, 2011). People construct social realities through the ritual perpetuation and manipulation of various traditions of “sense making” (Gergen, 2009, pp. 4). In tourism, constructivism implies that monumental architectural structures and waterways should facilitate direct interaction with the tourist and the physical site in addition to projecting their inherent symbolic meanings. Architectural structures should work as active tools for meaningful communication between the destination and the visitor (Lenzholzer, Duchhart, & Koh, 2013). Research has examined the production or projection of destination image by focusing on how marketers, travel related websites and DMO's use the internet to promote destinations (Govers & Go, 2004; Choi, Lehto, & Morrison, 2007; Zhou, 2014). These studies select specific websites and analyze their photographic representations alongside text. In this sense they are addressing another form of projected destination image. They focus on the marketing efforts of travel related stakeholders rather than how

224

W.C. Hunter / Tourism Management 54 (2016) 221e229

representations of the destination circulate independently online. Otherwise, Stepchenkova and Zhan (2013), and Zhou (2014) have examined DMO and other user-generated representations concurrently with a view to the effects on the destination image. However in this paper, a constructivist methodology is employed by replicating the methodology of a separate and independently written previous study on Seoul projected destination image via traditional print media (Hunter, 2012) and comparing it to the online representations of the same city. The goal is to compare the touristic image of the same destination by replicating the same methods, in order to understand the differences between the traditional printbased projected image and the socially constructed image that accumulates and circulates online. The practice of this kind of methodological replication is under-represented in tourism research (Zahra & Ryan, 2005; Hunter, 2010). In the methodological sense, constructivism enables the researcher (in this paper) to extract information from the accumulated knowledge constructed by Seoul tourists and other online users. Although people have their own personal experience of the world, the larger meaning only emerges through the negotiation and comparison of viewpoints, in this case viewpoints apprehended as photographic representations of Seoul found online. The constructivist approach employed in this study uses visual methods including forms of content analysis and semiotic analysis that facilitate the identification of visual culture and representation associated with the online Seoul destination image (Crouch & Lubbren, 2006; Pink, 2007). The reflexivity of constructivism helps researchers to observe and interpret multiple and interconnected realities in tourism and to identify their “situatedness” (Hall, 2004, pp. 148). In this study, content analysis is a structured procedure that works to identify denotative signs, in the form of online photographic representations, and then sorts them into identifiable types (categories that are mutually exclusive and exhaustive). Concurrently, semiotics is employed as an unstructured device to identify and interpret denotative and connotative information conveyed by the photographic representations found online. Denotation refers to the real or literal meaning conveyed by the sign, and connotation refers to the social or value-laden implications of the denotation (Barthes, 1977). “Connotators” are made up of signs of the “denoted” system, or in other words, multiple denotative signs can contribute to a connotative interpretation (Barthes, 1977, pp. 91). Denotation and connotation will be further discussed in the following sections. In detail, V methods depend on photographic representations of various visual media as data (Rose, 2007). This study uses visual methods to explore perceived destination image of Seoul, Korea as represented via online photographic representations. This study also uses V methods to compare and contrast that perceived destination image with the projected destination image identified in a previous study (Hunter, 2012). The research method consists of an online keyword search and sampling of photographic representations of Seoul from three different search engines and in three different languages (Govers & Go, 2004; Stepchenkova & Morrison, 2006). The representations are then sorted and analyzed using content analysis and semiotic analysis procedures (van Leeuwen & Jewitt, 2001). The full process is shown in Table 1. Each step is then described in detail in the following sections. 3.1. Sampling The purposive sampling process was driven by an online keyword search. The exploratory online search employed a variety of keyword searches to find which combination of words yielded the highest number of results. The best results were obtained using ‘Seoul travel’ in Korean for Naver, in English for Google and in

Chinese for Baidu (other keyword combinations including ‘visit’, and ‘tourism’ generated fewer search results). That combination of words was then used for sampling. As one goal of the study was to identify differences in perceived destination image and touristic experience in different cultural contexts, three different image searches via three different search engines were performed as follows:  Using Korea's Naver with Korean keywords ‘서울 여행’ (Seoul travel), 210,275 images were found.  Using International Google with English keywords ‘Seoul travel’, 82,100,000 images were found.  Using China's Baidu with Chinese keywords ‘首尔旅游’ (Seoul travel), 983,000 images were found. Search engines use algorithms to determine the relevance and popularity of search queries and therefore automatically refresh image search results in terms of the most recent and most frequently viewed images. Therefore in this study, the top 900 images from each keyword search were selected for content analysis. The rationale was that instead of using a traditional proportional sampling approach of, say, every 10th image out of 82,100,000, that the top-most images would most likely be the ones viewed by a typical user and would be the ones most representative of the Seoul online destination image at the immediate time of sampling. Details on sampling (Noth, 1990) using online keyword search are shown in Table 2. 3.2. Online image content analysis by denotative sign type The top 900 images from each keyword search were saved to separate folders for content analysis. A team of researchers was employed to sort and code the images to prevent micro-analysis (Collier & Collier, 1999) and to improve the replicability of the content analysis. The sort was driven by four principles. First, that the images were denotative signs or types that worked as literal photographic representations of the city's features (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996) and the touristic experiences that take place there. Denotative signs are ‘value free’, identifiable types rather than appearances (Krippendorff, 2003). For example, any number of views of the Han River can be included in the ‘Han River sign’ (type). Second, that an inductive approach to sorting would seek the most recognizable (dominant) and essential type of denotative sign found in the photographs. Third, that the sorting process would seek internal convergence within each category of sign and external divergence between categories (Guba, 1979). And fourth, that additional confirmation of denotative sign types would be made theoretically by comparing results to a previous study on Seoul projected destination image (Hunter, 2012). The sort generated 13 distinct and mutually exclusive representations of Seoul. These denotative sign types (representations) are listed in Table 3, below. In terms of the touristic destination image and in light of previous studies, these 13 signs were theoretically sorted into four thematic categories, including: representations of waterways and cityscapes, medi-ated representations, representations of traditional tourist attractions and, city travel experiences. The 13 types of denotative representations match those found in the previous study (Hunter, 2012) (See Table 4, following) with some notable exceptions. Exceptional denotative signs found in the content analysis are shown in Table 5, following. This significant set of ‘other’ denotative representations of Seoul departs from the unilateral view of the city's destination image as depicted in traditional print media. In other words they do not conform to a singular projected image. Also, the denotative representations found on Naver, Google and

W.C. Hunter / Tourism Management 54 (2016) 221e229

225

Table 1 The visual method for online Seoul destination image. Step

Process

1. Sampling

Comprehensive keyword search using words for Seoul travel and tourism: a. Use keyword search as a purposive sampling tool b. Select representations from the most recent and numerous search results c. Use multiple researchers to check researcher bias Content analysis to identify and categorize image types (categories): a. Primary coding of images by touristic denotative element(s) b. Identify unique connotative themes c. Arrange representative photographs into groups based on themes Interpretation of sign elements within and across image types: a. Denotative elements analogical to reality and interpreted literally b. Connotative elements supplementary to reality & interpreted theoretically c. Thematic relationships exist between categories and are identified using the ‘icon, index, symbol’ approach to analysis a. Identify synecdochical elements of the Seoul destination image b. A single image that stands for the whole, or a whole that stands for a part c. Identify theoretical and operant implications a. Review key components of the Seoul online destination image b. Describe visual themes & compare to previously identified projected image c. Describe implications and make recommendations

2. Content analysis

3. Reflexive semiotic interpretation

4. Synecdoche

5. Synthesis and comparison

Adapted from Hunter, 2012.

Table 2 Purposive sampling using keyword search. Exploratory keyword search and results using Internet Explorer web browser Multiple combinations of ‘Seoul’, ‘travel’, ‘visit’, ‘tourism’ used in exploratory searches Proportional sampling top ranking 900 images for each search engine (see next table) Korea's Naver In Korean, ‘Seoul travel’ (서울여행) 210,275 images

International Google In English, ‘Seoul travel’ (Seoul travel) 82,100,000 images

Keywords used

Search engine and corresponding images found in keyword search

Keywords

Naver

Google

Baidu

서울 여행 서울 방문 서울 관광 서울 관광 여행 서울 여행 방문 서울 관광 방문 Seoul Travel Seoul Visit Seoul Tourism Travel Seoul Travel Visit Seoul Tourism Travel Visit Seoul Tourism 首尔旅游 首尔观光访问 首尔观光 首尔旅行 首尔旅游访问 首尔访问

21,0275 106,822 14,506 1821 1124 56 980 593 0 22 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 0

12,100,000 7,680,000 3,510,000 2,620,000 2,590,000 1,230,000 82,100,000 48,800,000 3,500,000 4,480,000 4,470,000 3,470,000 2,160,000 154,000 984,000 1,780,000 684,000 1,430,000

0 0 0 0 0 0 4000 1930 655 2350 173 1950 983,000 106,000 129,000 123,000 98,300 72,300

Baidu are different from each other. These include 208 representations from the Naver keyword image search, 95 from Google and 189 from Baidu. Naver Korean keyword search produced three unique denotative sign types including: conventions and gatherings; street and exhibited art; signs and posters. Unique to the Baidu search was ‘tourism services for Chinese’. Google and Baidu searches turned up representations of other destinations including Lotteworld and Jeju. Common to all three searches were: transportation modes; aquariums; pure nature; miscellaneous. 3.3. Connotative sign elements Connotative sign elements in the photographs supplement their realistic or literal denotative sign counterparts (Govers & Go, 2004). The connotative sign is identified and interpreted according to

China's Baidu In Chinese, ‘Seoul travel’ (首尔旅游) 983,000 images

socio-political or theoretical considerations. A connotative sign can be based on multiple denotative signs (Barthes, 1977). While sorting denotative sign types produces frequencies and categories, the interpretive analysis of connotative sign elements generates more insight into what is revealed about the destination via online image search. In the content analysis, theoretical differences between this study and Hunter's (2012) study as depicted in Tables 3 and 4 (above) are found. The five categories of denotative representations found online (Table 3) include those found in the projected image as defined in the previous study (Table 4), among other additional categories. There are also theoretical differences between the categories of signs found on Naver, Google and Baidu (see Table 5, previous). In addition to quantitative differences between denotative sign categories, these signs may connote

226

W.C. Hunter / Tourism Management 54 (2016) 221e229

Table 3 Denotative representations of Seoul found online. Denotative representations

Naver (Korea): 900

Category 1. Representations of waterways and cityscapes (Quantity: 25, 128, 88) Han River 2 Cheonggyecheon 17 Cityscapes 6 Category 2. Medi-ated Representations (Quantity: 30, 220, 123) Media projected 6 AR and VR 8 K-POP, Hallyu 8 Maps 8 Category 3. Representations of traditional tourist attractions (Quantity: 116, 188, 187) Architecture, culture, performance 111 Seoul Tower 5 DMZ 0 Category 4. City travel experiences (Quantity: 510, 270, 285) Shopping, street views, & souvenirs 249 Dining & Accommodation 130 Selfies 131 Other (208, 95, 189) Other (See Table 5, below) 208 TOTALS 890

Google (Intl.): 900

Baidu (China): 900

40 22 66

34 19 35

72 114 15 19

36 5 45 37

165 16 7

139 41 7

119 110 41

164 96 25

95 901

189 872

Table 4 Denotative representations of Seoul found in print media. Adapted from previous study (Hunter, 2012) on Seoul projected image; findings based on a sample of 1323 photographic representations Seoul city (951 photographic representations)

Han River (372 photographic representations):

368 cityscapes and tourist districts;

109 landscapes: in daylight (57), at sunset (11), at night (24), at night with fireworks (17); 134 monumental structures: major city gates (53), Seoul Tower (23), built landmarks 82 representations of recreational activities on the river or riverbanks; (27), cultural memorials (21), other buildings (10); 133 festivals, events and performances; 70 maps of the river, the riverbanks and river parks; 123 maps and simulations: maps (105), simulations (18) 60 simulations of futuristic structures and landscape design; 119 culture related; traditional culture (56), museums (54), historical photographs (9); 47 representations of boats (26) and bridges (21), or transportation and tourism infrastructure found on or over the river, and; 74 nature related: Han River (34), Cheonggyecheon (19), parks and mountains (21). 4 representations of landmarks near the river with river as background or foreground. From Hunter (2012).

Table 5 Other representations of Seoul found online. Other representations

Naver, 208

Google, 95

Baidu, 189

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

66 Conventions, events 52 Street & exhibited art 39 Signs and posters N/A No unique representations N/A 10 Transportation modes 5 Aquariums 20 Pure nature 16 Miscellaneous

N/A No representations N/A 4 Other destinations 11 Lotteworld 3 Jeju 15 Transportation modes N/A 22 Pure nature 40 Miscellaneous

10 Tourism services N/A N/A 43 Other destinations 41 Lotteworld 49 Jeju 8 Transportation modes 3 Aquariums 14 Pure nature 19 Miscellaneous

differences in the socio-political construction of tourism visual culture (Harper, 2005) via different languages and search engines. In this sense Seoul online destination image appears to be a socialsemiotic system that can be deciphered in terms of its denotative signs and what they connote (Metro-Roland, 2009). In the next section a semiotic interpretation of this online social construction of destination image is presented.

4. Interpretive analysis and results A comparison of differences in denotative representations in Tables 3 and 4 (above) reveals a number of theoretical issues

regarding differences between the projected Seoul destination image (Hunter, 2012, 2013) found in traditional print promotional media versus the online destination image under investigation in this study. Traditionally the projected destination image features the Han River as major representation of Seoul followed by cityscapes, monumental structures, maps and simulations, culture, and nature (see Table 4). In Table 3, the online destination image is different depending upon search engine which connotes a difference in perception by demographic (Korean, International English speaking, and Chinese). Also there is a more extensive range of destination related representations available online. On Naver, traditional projected representations such as

W.C. Hunter / Tourism Management 54 (2016) 221e229

waterways and cityscapes are conspicuously absent as are traditional tourist attractions such as Seoul Tower and the DMZ. Also, media and Korean Wave related imagery is absent. The absence of this traditional marketing imagery connotes that Seoul is not interested in marketing the destination to residents, and, residents are not interested in that traditional projected image of the city. In fact, the Korean online social-semiotic system seems to consist of representations of everyday city life, including shopping, dining, street views and the like. Also, a new meme appears on Naver in the form of the ‘selfie’. In Table 5, it becomes apparent that Koreans experience Seoul in a very different way than the international tourist. On Naver representations of conventions, street art and signs and posters with highly emic meanings feature strongly online. On Google, a strong reflection of the traditional projected image is evident in the representations of waterways and cityscapes and traditional attractions, including the DMZ (to a lesser extent). Baidu search results are similar. Medi-ated representations refer to new marketing and culture trends in Korea. On Google and Baidu representations of media referring to shopping advertising and Korean Wave (celebrity programming) are circulating. The presence of augmented reality representations on Google suggests that international tourists are using smart tourism to enrich their individual travel experiences. From Table 5, on Baidu, representations of tourism services specifically for Chinese tourists can be found. This suggests a unique market perspective wherein Chinese visitors seek specific tourism experiences, especially those related to the group tour or luxury spa experiences. Additionally, on Google and especially on Baidu, representations of other non-Seoul destinations are found, including Tokyo, Lotteworld and Jeju. This connotes that international visitors may be visiting multiple destinations including Seoul on a single journey. Specific to Baidu, this may also imply that the tour operator has control over what destinations or

227

attractions (Lotteworld, Jeju) Chinese group tourists will visit on a package tour. In summary, the online Seoul destination image reflects the traditional projected destination image found in print brochures and guidebooks, while moving beyond it. By exploring different search engines (Naver, Google, Baidu) using keywords in different languages (Korean, English, Chinese respectively) the user gains insight into the semiotic and operational relationship between the physical city and the city as an experience for the visitor. In Fig. 1 (below) the top row shows examples of traditional representations of Seoul used in marketing (monuments & cityscapes; Han River; culture performances & traditional architecture). The middle row shows representations of new emerging trends in Seoul tourism (online media/advertising; augmented reality/smart tourism; Korean Wave/K-POP). The bottom row shows representations of Seoul from the Korean (Naver) point of view (street views; street art; street-side signs) that the average international visitor might not readily encounter or consider notable.

5. Conclusion In this paper Seoul online destination image has been identified as a social construction of social-semiotic systems. It was further compared to the traditional projected destination image that appears in printed travel brochures and guidebooks (Hunter, 2012) by replicating that study (Zahra & Ryan, 2005). A constructivist approach was used to explore how representations of the Seoul destination might vary dependent upon market, using three different search engines and keyword searches in three different languages (Naver and Korean; Google and English; Baidu and Chinese). A cognitive gap between Korean, international and Chinese tourism users was found. The fluid and accumulative nature of the

Fig. 1. Online representations of Seoul.

228

W.C. Hunter / Tourism Management 54 (2016) 221e229

online destination image is evident in two ways, first in the contrast between language and search engine results and second in the difference between the traditional projected image found in print and that found online. Representations found on Naver reflect Koreans' deeper involvement in the community and its events, exhibitions, sense of place, and in the emic cultural messages conveyed by signs. Representations on Google reflect the international view on Seoul as projected through traditional marketing techniques. But the presence of AR suggests that individual smart travel has become a characteristic of the international visitor. Representations on Baidu reflect the Chinese view on Korea, similar to the general international view but with additional evidence that the tour organizers' influence on a perceived destination image that includes any number of other tourism destinations and attractions, particularly Lotteworld and Jeju Island and also Japanese attractions. This is underscored by the conspicuous lack of AR and VR representations. Souvenir shops and group photos are also featured. Operationally these three search engines reflect three very different constructions of social and cultural experiences in the context of Seoul tourism. By replicating Hunter's (2012) study on traditional projected destination image, it was found that online social-semiotic systems are different in their accumulative nature and their situatedness. Representations circulating online show traditional attractions such as Namdaemun and the Han River, but reach beyond to mediated representations and the ‘selfie’ as well as street related experiences. This situatedness refers to the idea that causality between projected and perceived image cannot be fully established. The presence of traditional representations online might validate the marketer's choices in promoting Seoul or it might suggest that marketers are equally influenced in their choice of photographs, choosing traditional monumental artifacts and spectacular performances. The types of photographic representations found online might also be explained by the theoretical differences between hard branding and soft power. Marketers might be influenced and motivated by certain political and economic interests (or pressures) that force them to conform to a certain policy or protocol that dictates what kind of images get published in a ‘hard branding’ campaign. On the other hand, media and celebrity endorsements, pop culture and the ambient experience in the city reflected in the overwhelming amount of representations of street life, dining and shopping refer to the soft power of Seoul (prosperity, atmosphere, and popular culture). Marketers' incorporation of these views might eventually get international visitors to do more of what the City wants by shaping their preferences. Through the generation of economic prosperity and cultural resiliency, visitors will be naturally seduced into an experience of Seoul that is personally unique yet readily imagined. 5.1. Implications and recommendations for management and for future research The most important implication for management raised in this study is that destination marketing strategies are no longer able to promote views that cause the disappearance of everything else (Baudrillard, 1988). The online image reveals urban tourism to be an ecosystem consisting of the city, the tourism industry and the tourist (Judd & Fainstein, 1999). Decision makers in DMO's and other tourism marketers must realize they no longer have total authority over the image (and may never have had it). Instead, marketers in today's world need to recognize that the organic selfrepresentation of the individual travel experience by travelers makes tourism as a soft power more effective by supplementing the traditional image of Seoul. Marketers responsible for producing and

projecting the Seoul destination image can benefit from the findings produced in this study by including representations generated by visitors and residents of the city which reflect their experiences and their personal constructions of reality. An implication for management and future research raised in this paper is the need for closer collaboration in the research and understanding of smart tourism and other online travel related information technologies and how they support the operational dynamic between destination image and tourism markets. Understanding online destination image as generative and how different languages and search engines reflect that image's situatedness allows researchers and collaborators to explore these social-semiotic systems longitudinally to identify representational ‘drift’ between different markets. Future research should also focus more on how residents see themselves in the imagery of Seoul and how they might play a bigger role in getting international visitors involved in deeper and less stereotypical touristic experiences. Acknowledgements This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF2013S1A3A2043345). References Anholt, S. (2010). Places: Identity, image and reputation. NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Barthes, R. (1977). Elements of semiology (A. Lavers & C. Smith, Trans.). NY: Hill & Wang. Baudrillard, J. (1988). The ecstasy of communication. NY: Semiotext(e). Baudrillard, J. (2006). Simulacra and simulation. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Billig, M. (1995). Banal nationalism. London: Sage. Brown, R. H. (1995). The poststructural crisis in the social sciences: learning from James Joyce. In R. H. Brown (Ed.), Postmodern representations: Truth, power and mimesis in the human sciences and public culture (pp. 134e167). Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Choi, J. W. (2000). The Olympics' economic effects (올림픽의 경제학) Samsung Economic Research Institute. Available at http://www.seri.org Accessed 18.12.14.. Choi, S., Lehto, X. Y., & Morrison, A. M. (2007). Destination image representation on the web: content analysis of Macau travel related websites. Tourism Management, 28(1), 118e129. Collier, J., & Collier, M. (1999). Visual anthropology: Photography as a research method. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Crouch, D., & Lubbren, N. (Eds.). (2006). Visual culture and tourism. NY: Berg. Gallarza, M. G., Saura, I. G., & Garcia, H. C. (2002). Destination image: towards a conceptual framework. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 56e78. Gall, M. B., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction (6th ed.). NY: Longman. Gergen, K. J. (2009). An invitation to social construction (2nd ed.). London: Sage. Gilbert, D., & Hancock, C. (2006). New York city and the transatlantic imagination: French and English tourism and the spectacle of the modern metropolis, 1893e1939. Journal of Urban History, 33, 77e107. Govers, R., & Go, F. M. (2004). Projected destination image online: website content analysis of pictures and text. Information Technology & Tourism, 7(2), 73e89. Guba, E. G. (1979). Naturalistic inquiry. Improving Human Performance Quarterly, 8, 268e276. Hall, M. (2004). Reflexivity and tourism research: situating myself and/with others. In L. Goodson, & J. Phillimore (Eds.), Qualitative research in tourism: Ontologies, epistemologies and methodologies (pp. 137e155). NY: Routledge. Harper, D. (2005). What's new visually? In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 747e762). London: Sage. Hollinshead, K. (2006). The shift to constructivism in social inquiry: some pointers for tourism studies. Tourism Recreation Research, 31(2), 43e58. Hughes, H. L., & Allen, D. (2008). Visitor and non-visitor images of Central and Eastern Europe: a qualitative analysis. International Journal of Tourism Research, 10(1), 27e40. Hunter, W. C. (2010). Groomed spaces on Jeju Island: a typology of photographic representations for tourism. International Journal of Tourism Research, 12, 680e695. Hunter, W. C. (2012). Projected destination image: a visual analysis of Seoul. Tourism Geographies, 14(3), 419e443. Hunter, W. C. (2013). China's Chairman Mao: a visual analysis of Hunan province online destination image. Tourism Management, 34(1), 101e111. Jenks, C. (1993). Culture. NY: Routledge. Judd, D. R., & Fainstein, S. S. (1999). The tourist city. London: Yale University Press. Krippendorff, K. (2003). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (3rd

W.C. Hunter / Tourism Management 54 (2016) 221e229 ed.). NY: Routledge. van Leeuwen, T., & Jewitt, C. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of visual analysis. London: Sage. Lenzholzer, S., Duchhart, I., & Koh, J. (2013). ‘Research through designing’ in landscape architecture. Landscape and Urban Planning, 133, 120e127. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. London: Sage. Mackay, K. J., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2000). An exploration of cross-cultural destination image assessment. Journal of Travel Research, 38(4), 417e423. Meethan, K. (2011). Narrating and performing tourist space: notes towards some conceptual and methodological issues. In C. Mansfield, & S. Seligman (Eds.), Narrative and the built heritage e Papers in tourism research (pp. 129e140). Saarbrücken: VDM. Metro-Roland, M. (2009). Interpreting meaning: an application of Peircean semiotics to tourism. Tourism Geographies, 11(2), 270e279. Noth, W. (1990). Handbook of semiotics. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. NY: Public Affairs. Pernecky, T. (2012). Constructionism: critical pointers for tourism studies. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2), 1116e1137. Pink, S. (2007). Doing visual ethnography. London: Sage. Pritchard, A., & Morgan, N. J. (2001). Culture identity and tourism representation: marketing Cymru or Wales? Annals of Tourism Research, 22(2), 167e179. Rose, G. (2007). Visual methodologies: An introduction to the interpretation of visual materials (2nd ed.). London: Sage. Ryan, C. (2002). Tourism and cultural proximity: examples from New Zealand. Annals of Tourism Research, 29, 952e971. Smith, A. (2005). Conceptualizing city image change: the ‘re-imaging’ of Barcelona. Tourism Geographies, 7(4), 398e423. Stepchenkova, S., & Morrison, A. M. (2006). The destination image of Russia: from the online induced perspective. Tourism Management, 27, 943e956. Stepchenkova, S., & Zhan, F. (2013). Visual destination images of Peru: comparative content analysis of DMO and user-generated photography. Tourism

229

Management, 36, 590e601. Stewart, K. (2005). Cultural poesis: the generativity of emergent things. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1027e1042). London: Sage. Verschaffel, B. (1999). The monumental: on the meaning of a form. The Journal of Architecture, 4, 333e337. Wolcott, H. F. (1995). Making a study ‘more ethnographic’. In J. Van Maanen (Ed.), Representation in ethnography (pp. 79e111). London: Sage. Zahra, A., & Ryan, C. (2005). Reflections on the research process: the researcher as actor and audience in the world of regional tourist organizations. Current Issues in Tourism, 8(1), 1e21. Zhou, L. (2014). Online rural destination images: tourism and rurality. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 3(4), 227e240. Zukin, S. (1998). Urban lifestyles: diversity and standardisation in spaces of consumption. Urban Studies, 35, 825e839.

Dr. William Cannon Hunter is Professor in the Department of Convention Management, College of Hotel and Tourism Management at Kyung Hee University in Seoul, Korea. He has lived as a world citizen in Asia for 20 years. His research focuses on destination imagery and problems related to cultural and touristic representations and subjectivity using visual research methodologies and Q method.