Promoting Tourism Destination Image (Robert Govers, Frank M. Go and Kuldeep Kumar, 2007).pdf

Journal of Travel Researchhttp://jtr.sagepub.com/ Promoting Tourism Destination Image Robert Govers, Frank M. Go and Kuldeep Kumar Journal of Travel Research 2007 46: 15 DOI: 10.1177/0047287507302374 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/46/1/15 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of: Travel and Tourism Research Association Additional services and information for Journal of Travel Research can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jtr.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/46/1/15.refs.html >> Version of Record - Aug 3, 2007 What is This? Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on February 2, 2012 that is “vicarious experiences” (Kim and Richardson 2003). of course. information sources destination image. the media. Tourism destinations use promotion and marketing communication strategy to influence destination image (Beerli and Martín 2004. projected images influence destination positioning and ultimately the tourist’s buying behavior. Fridgen 1984. Keywords: Tourism promotion. KLM. the consumer creates an image or “mental prototype” (Tapachai & Waryszak 2000. literature. p. Journal of Travel Research.g. what the person or institution actually is. Saura. The findings suggest that tourism promotion does not have a major impact upon the perceptions of travelers and that other sources of information have a much greater bearing on the formation of destination image.100 online Robert Govers is assistant professor in the Master of Tourism program at the University of Leuven in Belgium. this “flood of information” has many sources including promotion (advertising and brochures). Tapachai and Waryszak 2000.” The actuality of tourism has been suggested as being less important than its expressive representations in that “what is depicted or not in destination image advertising. Kuldeep Kumar is a professor of IS at City University of Hong Kong and Florida International University. Go is a professor and director of the Centre for Tourism Management at the Erasmus University Rotterdam in The Netherlands. and Jebel Ali International Hotels. August 2007.com at University of Bucharest on February 2. this article will first place promotion in a wider context. The formation of image has been described by Reynolds (1965.. . At the same time. FRANK M. 2012 . and costs must be carefully assessed.com. AND KULDEEP KUMAR This article examines the role of tourism promotion as a component of destination image formation. the opinions of others (family/friends. Destinations can influence image formation indirectly through secondary place interactions with consumers. Fairweather and Swaffield (2002. literature). and the tourism destination images projected in information space will greatly influence the destination images as perceived by consumers. . the word ‘image’ is used as equivalent to reputation . motion pictures. 70) states: “Often. magazines. that of the tourism destination image formation model (Govers and Go 2004). functional consequences. tourism authorities need to understand that successful tourism promotion is dependent on a broad range of external influences.sagepub. The authors would like to thank research assistant Sandra Perdieus and sponsors Travellerspoint. 293) found that “destination image also sets up criteria for negative evaluation. or music) (CohenHattab and Kerber 2004). Padgett and Allen 1997. It seems that tourism promotion as part of the image building process does not stand alone. It reports the findings of a study in which 1. These are facilitated by intermediaries and produced imagination in. Gartner 1993). “Furthermore. As tourism services are intangible. When visitors encounter settings or experiences that differ markedly from their expectations. GO. The promotional image is largely skewed towards a set of favorable experiences. In the case of destination image. (or expected benefits) and the symbolic meanings or psychological characteristics that consumers associate with a specific destination (or service).. market share. the image will be affected and modified based upon first hand information and experience” (Echtner and Ritchie 2003. With regard to experiential products like travel and tourism. p. 38). TV shows. 667. p. Miami. deploying media and information and communication technology as enablers (Magala 2001). for example.Promoting Tourism Destination Image ROBERT GOVERS. 46. Vol. p. instead it is interdependent with many other available information sources that are often perceived to be biased in nature and influence the decision making concerning projected and perceived images. As Reynolds (1965. television news reporting and documentaries) and popular culture (motion pictures. images become more important than reality (Gallarza. p. involves a more complex question of what comprises the destination and who has the power to define its identity” (Fesenmaier and MacKay 1996. Narratives and visuals. travel agents). p. p. arts. 15–23 DOI: 10. As a result. 50. pp. for instance. versus character. 37) that represents the travel experience. By collecting all of this information. p. by actually visiting the destination. The latter are generally accepted (Echtner and Ritchie 1993. for their contributions. as well as the information sources they used. media reporting (newspapers. 25–26. 69) as the development of a mental construct based upon a few impressions chosen from a flood of information. are used to create meaning in the market. their evaluations can be very negative. consumers are involved in an ongoing search for information (Leemans 1994. 38) to be based on attributes.” The latter could also be referred to as identity. 4. what people believe about a person or an institution. Frank M. and Garcia 2002.100 respondents from around the globe described their previsit perceived image of seven sample destinations. p. the impact of marketing communication decisions on measurables such as revenue.1177/0047287507302374 © 2007 Sage Publications Downloaded from jtr. p. p. 57). and on whose authority it is selected. The article then illustrates the importance of promotion in building perceived images based on a survey among 1. and popular culture (e. 37). p. As a consequence. In order to clarify the relative position of promotion and its influence on destination image. 23). it can create a tourism development strategy gap. Little empirical research has focused on how image is actually formed . Saura. and tourists’ sociodemographical variables. This tourism development strategy formulates a tourism “product. This model provides the basis for the detailed deconstruction of the destination image paradigm.. 197–201) calls these “induced destination image formation agents” (“overt” and “covert”). p. analyzing its dynamic nature by investigating the influences on its structure and formation . situational or temporal influences. . . Second. and Russo 2004. Van Riel 1996.16 AUGUST 2007 respondents from around the globe. 2012 . the body of literature on destination image has grown to a respectable size. However. This is mediated by FIGURE 1 THE 3-GAP TOURISM DESTINATION IMAGE FORMATION MODEL Downloaded from jtr.com at University of Bucharest on February 2. It results in a projected tourism destination image through the use of planned marketing and communication or vicarious experiences. but also the respondents’ information sources that these images were based upon. Cohen-Hattab and Kerber 2004. The research objective of this article can hence be stated as follows: to identify the relative importance of tourism promotion as an image formation agent. first. with a thorough overview being provided by Gallarza. However. 34). Onians 1998. who reviewed 142 papers. pp. tourists’ geographical locations. 869) suggest “most studies have largely focused on its static structure by examining the relationship between image and behavior” from a construct measurement perspective. This makes it possible to assess the relative importance of tourism promotion within the totality of the image formation processes. if the tourism product and the way it is communicated are not in line with the destination’s identity. p. Zeithaml. especially in the absence of previous experience with a destination. and Garcia (2002) as well as Pike (2002). trip purpose. as Baloglu and McCleary (1999. . MacCannell 1973). . It is discussed in Govers and Go (2004) from a 3-TDS (tourism development strategy. the image as projected by the destination. promotional images and secondary place interactions form the basis for a perceived destination image in the mind of the consumer prior to the visit. Studies have concentrated on the relationship between destination image and a plethora of variables such as destination preference and visitation intention. destination familiarity and the impact of previous visitation. The interactive nature of the Internet can add whole new dimensions to the possibilities of projecting these destination images. p. Noordman 2004. Lee. Van Rekom and Go 2003. any destination image or tourism promotion projected by the local tourism industry should be anchored to some extent on a true destination identity (Go. THE TOURISM DESTINATION IMAGE FORMATION MODEL In recent years. To summarize.sagepub. 44] and with major contributions from Baloglu and McCleary [1999]. The study set out to assess not only the image of seven sample destinations. and tourism demands specifications) gap perspective (based on the idea of the 5-gap service quality analysis model by Parasuraman. and Gartner [1993]). and Berry [1985. (Baloglu and McCleary 1999. Fesenmaier and MacKay [1996]. 869) Figure 1 therefore depicts the destination image formation model and subsequently identifies those elements that have a dynamic influence on how the perceived destination image is formulated in the mind of the consumer.” commercializing the offer using this identity and the authenticity of place (staged or real) (Cohen 1988. Gartner (1993. p. tourism delivery and supply. the tourism experience is not delivered according to appropriate standards and scripts. pp.sagepub. However today. tourists will adjust their perceptions of places if what was experienced in consuming the tourism product did not correspond to their perceived destination image. 2005b). But remember. potential temporal environmental or situational influences (Gartner and Hunt 1987) (or autonomous agents according to Gartner [1993. or solicited or unsolicited organic agents in Gartner’s terminology [1993. fantasy. Summarizing. The research questions are: • What are the various information sources that consumers use to form destination images? • What is the relative importance of tourism promotion? • Does the relative importance of tourism promotion vary among destinations? THE SURVEY In October–November 2004. The lack of understanding of the experiential nature of tourism among tourism industry decision makers (Gretzel and Fesenmaier 2003) can easily lead to a mismatch in that the way in which the tourism product is delivered is often not a true reflection of a destination’s identity (or just a poor abstraction of all its multisensory. in turn. Sirgy and Su 2000]). and Vrooman 2002]. your story will probably be short. Imagine that next week you will visit Destination X for the first time. If you know little about Destination X. as the researcher would have had to process a daunting number of pages of qualitative text and code them. It would go beyond the object of this paper to explain the detailed working of the program any further. Until recently. to assure reliability of the results. or feel. as well as when the interaction with the host is not in line with the tourist’s realistic expectations (as influenced by tourism promotions). there is no right. but try to write in story format. but unrealistic tourist demands that are based on an idealistic perceived destination image. creating serious time and resource demands. Tell us your story. not just loose words. pp. whether positive or negative. your story might be very long. Gretzel and Fesenmaier (2003) and Ryan (2000) have advocated CATPAC as being a valuable tool for content analysis in tourism research. with computerized neural network content analysis software such as CATPAC. This is where the tourism delivery and supply gap can play an important role because what is delivered in terms of product offering often tends to be different from the tourist’s expectations that might have been falsely raised by tourism promotion. The content of your response will have NO impact whatsoever on your chance to win the grand prize. From where? Please list your sources. visitors to the virtual travel community Travellerspoint. Respondents were asked the following two questions: 1. but for a good overview please refer to Woelfel and Stoyanoff (1993). More specifically. What do you think your experience in Destination X would be like? What images and thoughts immediately come to mind? What would you expect to see. as the above explanation is a simplification. Such interactions result in knowledge about a particular destination and. In this case. 204–205] refers to as organic agents). Govers and Go 1999). please refer to Govers (2005a. and the direct or indirect interaction with other consumers (word of mouth/mouse [Riedl. using complete sentences. it would have been challenging to analyze the large quantity of qualitative data that this kind of approach generates. 11). hear. Another way in which tourists can become dissatisfied is when the host and intermediaries do not perform according to their projected promise and the delivery of the product or service. 2012 . smell. these types of constraints have been eliminated. “CATPAC is able to identify the most important words in a text and determine the patterns of similarity based on the way they are used in the text” (Woelfel 1998. 203–204]).e. Downloaded from jtr. The relative importance of tourism promotion among the other destination image formation agents is the central topic of this article.JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 17 the person’s identity (i. For a complete description of the methodology. In such a case the perceived destination image will also be affected (through what Gartner [1993. Among others. 201–203]). Konstan. A second tourist demands specifications gap occurs in this respect when expectations are not met due to specified. there are no limits. p. although Dubai was oversampled). set the tourist’s quality expectations. 2. In this case. Share your ideas about Destination X with us right now. wrong or best model answer. taste there? Without any research or additional information. Respondents were first asked to indicate which of the seven sample destinations they had not visited before and one of these was then subsequently randomly selected and inserted as Destination X in the following survey question (in other words. The level to which these expectations are met or exceeded during the actual tourism experience is what is referred to as tourist satisfaction (Chon 1990. in the space below. even if the latter turned out to be realistic. MacKay and Fesenmaier 2000. each respondent would provide feedback for just one destination they had never visited and respondents were assigned to destinations randomly. CATPAC identifies subtle and complex patterns in any document or qualitative survey response it processes and is therefore ideal for analyzing long pieces of text or high-quantity qualitative data in order to identify the main concepts that authors of such text or respondents like to convey. Make your response as detailed or as brief as you like. at least two other researchers would have had to go through the same process. If you already have clear ideas about Destination X.com at University of Bucharest on February 2.com were able to participate in a research study measuring the destination image for seven sample destinations. self-congruity [Baloglu and McCleary 1999. the actual tourism experience typically causes the perceived destination image to re-align with the perceived reality. simply express your own ideas about Destination X. Then. CATPAC is a self-organizing artificial neural network software package used for content analysis of text. The ideas that you presented in your story must have come from somewhere. and emotive aspects) and it fails to incorporate the full potential of the prospective-rich tourism experience. kindly be spontaneous and share with us whatever thoughts come to your mind right now. and NOT what you think we want to hear.. and North Americans and Europeans that moved to Asia.18 AUGUST 2007 Destination Selection The selection of sampled destinations was the result of a combination of considerations. Females comprised 54. compares to Dubai in terms of being the entertainment capital in the region.7% . worthy of investigation. a compelling and relevant topic. Eighteen percent of respondents indicated a different country than their country of residence to consider their homeland. contrasting modernity with tradition. Based on country of residence. this being an online study. Florida.com. Flanders and Wales. and Wales. and 12% between 40 and 49 years of age. 2012 Residency Cultural background 39. This would indicate a response rate of 3. Flanders (142).9% 26.000 words of destination image descriptions (for an average description of roughly 100 words per respondent. although it is very difficult to be conclusive about that as it is impossible to know exactly how many people read the newsletters and/or saw the additional banner ads on the above Web sites as well as on Mytripjournal. Destination two. and TrekShare. Most respondents reacted to e-mail newsletters sent via Travellerspoint. advertising the survey to the roughly 33. com. Canary Islands (62). without any significant differences between destinations).7% completed upper secondary senior high schooling. compares to Dubai as a new exotic destination with Arabian heritage and expansive desert ecology.7% of the respondents. best practice (Pride 2004. The sample is split between Dubai (598). such as Florida. the sample was subdivided according to continent.3% 2. Instead. Florida (94). some sample destinations were selected because of their resemblance to Dubai on one or more attributes. With Dubai being the central case study of the larger research project.” The spectacular–sense of place paradox is rather salient in the context of Dubai. especially when viewed against the backdrop of its Muslim heritage (Govers and Go 2005). but lack semiotic expressiveness and “‘sense of place. 2001).2% 6. Pritchard and Morgan 1998.0% 14. bad practice (Polunin 2002). Sample In total 1. Also. and Wales (55).com and iTravelnet.6% 37. Major continental migration representing more than 1% of the sample involves Europeans and Asians that moved to North America. words were included in the analysis if they appeared in at least 10% of the responses. the Canary Islands. Destination four. it aimed to test an alternative. This provided additional background information on the destinations involved.and South America Downloaded from jtr. best practice (Ooi 2004).6% 6.102 useable questionnaires were retained in the analysis. the country of origin is equal to the country of residence. qualitative content analysis methodology for assessing perceived image and subsequently identifying differences across destinations.8%.000 members of these three Web sites.1% 12.com at first and later joined by MeetURplanet. The sample is highly educated with 80. Destination one. Spain (Canary Islands).com. 2005b). However. Respondents were also asked to indicate their country of origin or homeland if different from the country of residence.com at University of Bucharest on February 2.5% 26. After an evaluation of data quality and cross-checking of completeness of answers. Morocco. These provided a total of 111.7% of respondents holding a college or university degree or equivalent. 1. This was done through an open question. Singapore (82). Obviously this sample is not representative for the world population or even the online world population. the migration between continents in the sample is limited to 12. Destination three. bias in the sample selection was not perceived to be a major issue. Morocco (68). best practice (Morgan and Pritchard 2004). could be positioned as complete opposites to Dubai in terms of their characteristics as tourism destinations. First. In addition. Finally destinations five and six. Several issues make perceived destination image and its consequences for tourism promotion of Dubai. For each destination. 24% between 30 and 39 years old. Respondents were also asked to indicate on what information sources their perceptions were based. The results are listed in the appendix and described in detail in Govers (2005a. especially in the age when electronic channels of communication play a dominant role. Therefore. the totality of qualitative responses for each destination was processed to identify the most frequently used words to describe salient perceived image elements. compares to Dubai as an exotic sea. Large-scale themed destinations such as Dubai intentionally leverage the “spectacular” in their grand architecture and narrative. 53% being under the age of 30. RESULTS Using content analysis software. several of the selected destinations have been described as case studies in the literature on destination branding. Singapore. This is depicted in the left hand column of Table 1. sun. as presented in the list of most frequently used words produced by CATPAC. according to the destinations on which respondents provided feedback. It needs to be emphasized though that this research did not intend to provide a globally representative description of the perceived image of the sample destinations and information sources used.5% 13. best practice (Ritchie and Ritchie 1998). The selection for a particular narrative approach is significant because it can make the political economies of tourism policy and destination promotion strategy more visible (Govers 2005b). Asians and Australasians that moved to Europe. Singapore. the responses to which were TABLE 1 SAMPLE ACROSS CONTINENTS Europe North America Asia Australasia Africa Middle.6%. Of course if a respondent did not indicate a different homeland.9% 11. This was done to assess the convergent and discriminant validity of the new methodology involved.6% 2. Morocco. compares to Dubai as a rapidly developed city-state and financial and trade center in Asia. This is represented in the right hand column of Table 1. it is not surprising that the sample is young.sagepub. while 16.198 responses were collected. and sand destination. the study reported in this paper was part of a larger research project that included Dubai as the focus (Govers 2005a). next to direct travel experiences (organic agents).5% 23. the convergence of media and information and communications technology will invalidate this point in future (Werthner and Klein 1999. Again. these results seem to confirm the influence of all of the various types of agents on the image formation process. The middle column categorizes the information source according to Gartner’s (1993) typology. News reporting seems to be of little importance for Wales. have a dramatic influence. while for Dubai. but more importantly it emphasizes its dynamic and ephemeral nature and the relative insignificant impact of tourism promotion.1% 7. literature. do indeed have an influence on perceived destination image. and movies. the Internet does not seem to occupy a dominant position even though most respondents are active Internet users (mostly members of virtual travel communities).5% Downloaded from jtr. Movies have had their particular impact on the image of Morocco. as they are mentioned in over 60% of the information sources in the study.6% 5. Table 2 also emphasizes the great importance of solicited and unsolicited organic agents. as a source of image construction also clearly occupies a dominant position. only appear in 16th position. 2012 . which are striking in some cases. In addition.8% 5. Television.7% 5. but the top four information sources are remarkably less frequently mentioned in the case of Flanders. However.com at University of Bucharest on February 2.JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 19 analyzed in a similar manner as the image responses using CATPAC. word of mouth appears to be of particular relevance as are the media in general to some extent.1% 13. if television is ranked as the number one information source. Table 2 seems to confirm all relationships predicted in the destination image formation model as described above. are reported in Table 3. p. the Internet. The importance of the various information sources to the different sample destinations has also been assessed through analysis of variance. movies. Autonomous & Organic Covert Induced & Autonomous Covert Induced & Autonomous Solicited & Unsolicited Organic Covert Induced & Autonomous Covert Induced & Autonomous Organic Autonomous Organic Autonomous Covert Induced & Autonomous Overt Induced Covert Induced & Autonomous Covert Induced & Autonomous Covert Induced & Autonomous 23.9% 6. a dichotomous variable was created. indicating if a respondent mentioned the information source or not. The results. this study proves that secondary sources of information are essential agents influencing previsit image. the logical question to ask is to what extent advertising has been consumed as part of this vicarious place experience without consciously registering it as such. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION This article provides initial confirmation that the various components in the bottom half of the destination image formation model.8% 3. as depicted in Figure 1.0% 19. Eleven of the 19 information sources listed in Table 2 include such agents.4% 8. The most frequently mentioned sources of information. Pure overt induced agents.2% 4. Although this was an online research study. Vicarious experiences. but this could be a confirmation of the transitory effects of autonomous agents such as the media coverage of Hurricane Frances at the time that this research study took place. This seems to support the notion that the image of destination Flanders is less developed than for other destinations in this study.7% 3. Covertly induced and autonomous agents.5% 4. such as motion pictures. This illustrates the importance of covert induced and autonomous agents—vicarious place experiences and temporal environmental and situations influences—through television. pictures.4% 4. news reporting is relatively important when referring to Florida. Nevertheless.9% 7. too. However. that is. mentioned by just 4% of respondents.sagepub. word of mouth (mentioned by over a quarter of respondents) and word of mouse (the Internet being in fifth place). in particular. who focused on postvisit image.0% 3. For each information source listed in Table 2. which are the most valuable and richest sources of all.4% 6. Contrary to Beerli and Martín (2004). such as advertising. These data were then treated as interval scale and analyzed using ANOVA. 69). The vital importance of vicarious place experiences through television. Self-congruity is then an important issue. referred to by at least 3% of respondents (35 or more) are listed in Table 2.4% 8. as differences in perceived image across cultural groupings and gender classes are confirmed by Govers (2005a). and magazines is overwhelming in the case of Florida. In addition. TABLE 2 INFORMATION SOURCES Television Travel (elsewhere / in region) Friends Magazines Internet Books Pictures People (other people) Movies Stories Experience News Imagination Newspaper National Geographic Channel Advertisements Articles Media Documentaries Agents Mentioned by Covert Induced & Autonomous Organic Solicited & Unsolicited Organic Covert Induced & Autonomous Covert Induced. 1%d 5. reasoning.4% 2.0% 5.0% 2.2% 3.5% 3. The above findings allude to the importance of applying tourism promotion within the broader context of marketing communications. At the same time.0%a 7.2%c 5.9%a 7.99 1.9%a 7.6% 11.1% 12.9% 4.9% 24..8% 3.93 0.53 0. which represents the most important source of information.1%c 23.6% 5.9%b 10.3% 8.0% 2.3% 13.6%b 10. the “Queen Mother effect” boosted the number of visitors to the United Kingdom and helped counteract memories of the foot-andmouth disease crisis.00 0.6% 12.9% 9.9% 11.0% 5. d are groups with the highest means). Downloaded from jtr.5% 3.48 0. b. such as tourism promotion.4% 29.20 2.5% 0.8% 9.2%b 27. a London-based tourism conference organizer.23 Note: Rows that contain significant variance between groups according to ANOVA’s F-test are indicated in bold.1% 3.5% 19.8% 8. Autonomous agents such as newspapers.2% 14.65 0.7% 1.8% 6.3%a 2.0% 7.9% 5. and consequences of a destination’s overall marketing communication strategy. This would suggest that promotion strategy is likely to result in limited impact if decision makers fail to comprehend that the choice of a tourism promotion strategy and its success is determined by numerous considerations. The case of Florida illustrates the ephemeral character of images and the dynamic influence that autonomous agents.6%b 15.00 0. and television. Some of these factors also have a longer impact on destination image by changing a destination’s identity and/or projected image.0% 7. it can be therefore concluded that the media in general have a primary influence in destination image formation.6% 4.46 0.6% 5.4% 1.. The findings of this study indicate that the relative importance of overt induced agents.3% 9.8% 4.8%c 2.36 0.3% 7.9%c 4.6% 3. These examples illustrate how temporal environmental or situational influences can have a dramatic short-term effect on perceived destination image.26 5.9%b 5.8% 3.80 0.5%a 14.14 0.4% 7.4% 8.8%b 24.3%a 5. it can be assumed it will have a significant impact on image formation (Magala 2001).0% 26.16 0. p.00 0. d) are significantly different at the .7% 2. also solicited and unsolicited agents. In those cases. are essential as well. and many hotels reported occupancy levels close to pre-2001 rates. c.8% 2.2% 0.7% 1. Future research should therefore focus on direct cause and effect analyses of tourism promotions as part of integrated marketing communication efforts that attempt to influence previsit destination images of specific case destinations.5% 10.00 0. this study’s findings support Beerli and Martín’s (2004) conclusion that organic agents. and the influence that various image formation agents have on previsit perceived image also varies across destinations. Solicited and unsolicited organic agents seem to be particularly significant with reference to Dubai.5% 4. Motion pictures have been mentioned specifically in relation to Morocco and Florida.9% 1.5% 8.5%d 7. can have on the model.4%b 6. According to a survey of British tourist boards.9% 2.7% 4. Therefore. primary sources of information.8% 52.5% 5.95 2. literature.1%a 7.sagepub.5% 0. This is occasionally confirmed by the industry as well as can be seen in the media (e-tid 2002).9% 10. avian flu. are also acknowledged by respondents. 2012 .17 0.01 0.1% 2.1% 7.0%b 5.92 1. The second most relevant source of information that respondents refer to is their own travel experience or the experiences of others.2% 3.3% 1.1% 1.5% 5. word of mouth. However.2% 1.9% 9.1%c 23.0% 0.85 1.03 4.4% 16.2% 4.g. they should assess the impact of their promotional decisions on revenues. while the letters indicate a within-row ranking (a are groups with the lowest means.1%d 21.1%a 24. appear to be highly relevant.8% 14.1% 3.8%a 6.0% 16.30 0.2% 0. In particular.9% 2.2%c 15. market share. and terrorism). and benefits within the realm of the various options.04 0. Nevertheless.8%c 26.3% 1.7%b 10.3%a 9.1%c 10. that is. Bookings rose by nearly 20% in Cumbria.9% 17.7% 3.2% 6. 69).2%a 11.3% 3.8% 12.57 0.7% 5.1% 10.g.8% 14.85 0.com at University of Bucharest on February 2. where in the latter case.8% 4.3%b 5.80 1.4% 5. decision makers should ensure that their integrated marketing communication strategy factors in covert induced agents and attempt to capitalize on temporal environmental and situational influences as well as vicarious place experiences (e. SARS. costs. television in general is also an extremely relevant image formation agent.3% 2.0% 0.6% 1. such as news reporting.4% 12. seems to be limited.7% 8.5%b 8.8% 7. the role of the Internet was less important than was expected considering the population sampled. Hence.51 1. televised news. The Telegraph (e-tid 2002) reported that the results of the survey by MICG.0% 9. New Zealand and Lord of the Rings) or aim at reducing its potentially negative impacts (e.56 1.6%a 8.5% 3.20 AUGUST 2007 TABLE 3 INFORMATION SOURCES FOR EACH OF SEVEN SAMPLE DESTINATIONS Television Travel Friends Magazines Internet Books Pictures People Movies Stories Experience News Imagination Newspaper NGC Advertisements Articles Media Documentaries Dubai Flanders Florida Canary Morocco Singapore Wales F p 24.2% 19.2% 6. especially the National Geographic Channel.00 0.04 0.36 0.0% 0. one of the areas worst hit by foot-and-mouth disease. suggested that the Queen Mother’s funeral had more success than official marketing campaigns in encouraging visitors back to Britain. and television in general.0% 4.11 2. are mentioned by respondents.5% 0.7% 5.25 3.5%a 4.28 0.9% 8. as it is predicted that media and ICT will converge in the future (Werthner and Klein 1999.61 6. means with a different superscripted letter (a. while Cornwall showed a similar increase.26 1.05 level according to Duncan’s post hoc test. 1% 14.1% 12.5% 2.7% Downloaded from jtr.4% 38.9% 25.9% 10.3% 9.7% 9.3% 2.2% 13.9% % of 661 meaningful words 20.7% 6.6% 25.9% 3.0% 5.1% 14.5% 2.2% 15.0% 11.com at University of Bucharest on February 2.8% 16.6% 9.1% 15.JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 21 APPENDIX IMAGE DESCRIPTIONS FOR SEVEN SAMPLE DESTINATIONS Dubai (n ⫽ 598.8% 26.1% 12.2% 22. local culture) BLUE (blue water / skies) NATURE (natural) Flanders (n ⫽ 142.7% 16.4% 4.2% 4.8% 11.3% 2.918) % of 3.7% 22.7% 9.7% 4. words ⫽ 13.1% 5.9% 24.0% 10.6% 21.9% 11.6% 3.1% 26.5% 5.4% 24.7% 3.6% 7.9% 13.3% 9.4% 4.8% 3.6% 6.2% 13.3% % of respondents 53. local culture) HISTORY (historic) OLD (as in old town / buildings / castles) STREET (cobbled / narrow / winding streets) FRENCH NEVER (never been there / visited / heard of) SHOP (shops / shopping) BEER CAFÉ(S) FRIENDLY (as in friendly people) Florida (n ⫽ 94.2% 2.5% 22.3% 14.6% 4.5% 21.7% 8. local culture) HOTEL (famous / 7.4% 28.1% 3.3% 25.0% 12. words ⫽ 63.9% 2.6% 23.0% 17.4% 6.6% 21.419) BEACH(ES) ISLAND(S) WATER (water / sea) HOT (warm weather / heat / warm climate) SUN (sunny / sunshine) SPAIN (Spanish) TOURIST (as in touristy) HOTEL (comfortable / nice / good / luxurious / fancy hotel) SAND CULTURE (as in different.0% 12.706 meaningful words % of respondents HOT (warm weather / heat / warm climate) CULTURE (as in different.7% 11.8% 3.5% 3.7% 4.8% 14.2% 35.5% 15. words ⫽ 6.8% 2.5% 2. words ⫽ 7.4% 6.6% 5.6.5-star / luxury / expensive hotel) BUILDING (as in amazing / special architecture / buildings) DESERT SHOP (shops / shopping) ARAB (Arabic / Arabian) MODERN RICH (wealth / wealthy / rich) NEVER (never been there / visited / heard of) LUXURY (luxurious) WOMAN (as in the position of women in Muslim / Arab countries) SMELL (smell of spices / food / fragrances / heat) WATER (water / sea) MARKET(S) BEACH(ES) STREET (busy / lively / people in the street) MUSLIM SAND OIL CAMEL(S) Canary Islands (n ⫽ 62.6% 5.6% 27.260) BELGIUM (Belgian) BUILDING (old / historic buildings / architecture) CHOCOLATE(S) EUROPE (European) CULTURE (as in different.2% 4.5% 21.8% 1.9% 6.3% 2.7% % of respondents 53.3% 21.5% 4.6% 6.8% 3.9% 14.9% 25.9% 4.9% 29.0% 5.1% 4.7% % of 454 meaningful words 16.8% 14.5% 3. 2012 .1% 3.1% 30.3% 2.8% 5.5% 2.7% 32.1% 6.8% 2.5% 11.5% 14.964) BEACH(ES) HOT (warm weather / heat / warm climate) SUN (sunny / sunshine) DISNEY (Disneyland / Disney World) MIAMI AMERICA (American / Americans) EVERGLADES WATER (water / sea) HURRICANE(S) TOURIST (as in touristy) NATURE (Natural) 5.sagepub.8% 24.6% % of 314 meaningful words 12.2% 1.6% 2.1% 14.2% % of respondents 48. 5% 21.4% 2.sagepub.5% 25.2% 3.5% 5.0% .7% 14.22 AUGUST 2007 APPENDIX (CONTINUED) PALM (Palm tree(s)) WHITE (white beach / houses / paving) Wales (n ⫽ 55.7% 7.5% 29.2% 12.0% 8.2% 11.2% 2.7% 2.2% 6.7% 4. words ⫽ 4.6% 24.7% 27.2% 3.9% 7.9% 3.4% 14.5% 5.2% 16.8% 25.5% 14.811) GREEN RAIN (rains / rainy) HILLS NATURE (natural) PUB CASTLE(S) COUNTRYSIDE NEVER (never been there / visited / heard of) BUILDING (old / historic buildings / architecture) FRIENDLY (friendly people) VILLAGE(S) OLD (as in old buildings / castles) COLD (as in cold weather) WALK (walking / longs walks) SHEEP Morocco (n ⫽ 68.5% 25.2% 18.0% 4.2% 13.2% 4.5% 4.298) MODERN CULTURE (as in variety of local culture) CLEAN STREET (busy / lively / people in the street) ASIA(N) BUILDING (as in high-rise buildings / special architecture) HOT (warm weather / heat / warm climate) FRIENDLY (friendly people) SMELL (smell of spices / food / fragrances / heat) BUSY DIFFERENT (as in different culturally) SHOP (shops / shopping) HOTEL (nice / luxurious hotels) MIX (cultural mix) AIRPORT (busy / clean / modern airport) CHINESE COLOUR (colours / colourful) EAST (as in Orient) EXOTIC 2.7% 4.5% 2.4% 18.8% 4.2% 3. 2012 11.763) HOT (warm weather / heat / warm climate) SMELL (smell of spices / food / fragrances / heat) CULTURE (as in different.5% 12.6% 14.0% 6.5% 5.9% 14.7% 6.8% 21.6% 16.5% 3.6% 14. local culture) SPICE (spices / spicy) DESERT COLOUR (colours / colourful) BUILDING (old / beautiful buildings / architecture) ARAB (Arabic / Arabian) MARKET(S) STREET (busy / lively / people in the street) CASABLANCA MUSLIM AFRICA(N) SUN (sunny / sunshine) CAMEL(S) TEA Singapore (n ⫽ 82.2% % of 401 meaningful words 9.5% 25.2% 14.0% 23.2% 3.0% 3.5% 17.6% 5. words ⫽ 8.8% 20.0% 4.2% 6.1% 15.3% 17.0% 4.5% 3.2% 16.7% 30.4% 32.7% % of respondents 32.3% 25.8% 3.0% 3.3% 26.7% 13. words ⫽ 7.0% 3.7% Downloaded from jtr.5% 4.7% 2.6% 5.2% 3.4% 26.4% 13.3% % of respondents 31.7% 3.4% 12.8% 21.7% 5.8% 10.com at University of Bucharest on February 2.2% 11.6% % of 236 meaningful words 8.0% 18.5% 3.7% % of respondents 32.7% 5.5% 7.2% 16.8% % of 374 meaningful words 8.6% 4.7% 11.0% 7.0% 11.7% 2.7% 5.4% 5.5% 26.2% 12.6% 13. . Fesenmaier (2000).” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Australian Marketing Association. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. I. (1984). “Cultural Identities in a Globalizing World: Conditions for Sustainability of Intercultural Tourism. “Image Formation Process. edited by N.” Annals of Tourism Research. MacCannell. 15 (3): 371–386. postpositivism and neural network software. Lemmink.). “Achieving Service Quality through the Application of Importance-Performance Analysis. Ritchie. K..” Information Technology & Tourism. 89–116. N. “A Challenger Brand: Wales. (1990).. and K. R. “A Model of Destination Image Formation. New Zealand: An Interpretative Study Using Photographs of Landscapes and Q Method. 11 (1): 19–39. “Destination Image: Towards a Conceptual Framework. H. “e-Heritage in the Globalizing Society: Enabling Cross-Cultural Engagement Through ICT. and B. —— (2004). I. “An Exploration of CrossCultural Destination Image Assessment. R. and R.. A. 45 (3): 2–9. S. “Brand Singapore: The Hub of ‘New Asia’. Manufactures & Commerce).” In Destination Branding: Creating the Unique Destination Proposition (2nd ed. U. and S. pp. and E.com at University of Bucharest on February 2. R. McCleary (1999). B. (2000). T. J. Pride.” Journal of Vacation Marketing. Hitz. “The Measurement of Destination Image: An Empirical Assessment. V. Chon. Identity and Tourism Representation: Marketing Cymru or Wales?” Tourism Management. Cultural Identity and the Limits of Authenticity: A Composite Approach. “Literature. 4 (4): 283–297.moonshine. Strauss.” RSA Journal (Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts. C. 26 (4): 808–889.” In III International Doctoral Tourism and Leisure Colloquium. pp. “Book Review: ‘Destination Branding: Creating the Unique Destination Proposition’. 31 (3): 657–681. Virtual Tourism Destination Image: Glocal identities constructed. (1998). (2004). J. Rotterdam: Erasmus Research Institute of Management. W. 79 (3): 589–603. (2001). Self Congruity.” California Management Review.” In Destination Branding: Creating the Unique Destination Proposition (2nd ed. “Virtual Tourism Destination Image: Innovating measurement methodologies. Melbourne. D. and J. M. 38 (4): 417–423. Magala.” Revue de Tourisme. W.). J. Morgan. “Culture. CATPAC II: User’s Guide. Go. M.” Information Technology & Tourism.” American Journal of Sociology. Cohen-Hattab. 23 (5): 541–549. Gartner. C. (1988). (2004). M.” In Proceedings of the International AIEST Conference. M. and N. B. and F. from www. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. “The Role of Destination Image in Tourism: A Review and Discussion. “Meeting the destination branding challenge. Ph. Information Technology and Tourism: A Challenging Relationship. Polunin.. “Environmental Psychology and Tourism. 14 (1): 37–48. 49 (4): 41–50. pp. The Multiform Book: Using Information in Purchasing Hedonic Products. Identiteit en Imago: Grondslagen van corporate communication (Identity and Image: Foundations of corporate communication. “A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research. Konstan. Lee. J.” Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing. (1996). S. Echtner. Riedl.” Tourism: An International Interdisciplinary Journal.” Journal of Travel Research. Wien: Springer-Verlag. Pritchard (2004).. N. C.” Tourism Management. and D.” Journal of Travel Research. edited by P. edited by M. Morgan. Gallarza. Van Rekom. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. W. Allen (1997). Australia. and A. Ritchie (1998). R. and J. Gretzel. A. and J. pp. edited by A. 1–5. 161–185. Downloaded from jtr. Richardson (2003).” Journal of Marketing. Research in Management Series Vol.es/ECLIPSE/E7. K. L. Gartner. Ritchie (1993). G. “Motion Picture Impacts on Destination Image. Werthner. e-tid (2002). Klein. “‘Mood Marketing’: The New Destination Branding Strategy: A case study of ‘Wales’: The Brand. Pride. Martín (2004). “Staged Authenticity: Arrangements of Social Space in Tourist Settings. Woelfel. S..” Journal of Travel Research.. (1998). Pritchard. Imagined and Experienced: A 3-gap Tourism Destination Image Formation Model. D. J. MacKay (1996). Fairweather. C. 51 (2): 37–43. R. Wiesbaden: Gabler.D.” Revue de Tourisme. B.). Zeithaml. 29 (1): 56–78. (1994).” Annals of Tourism Research.. R. perceived and experienced (Erasmus Research Institute of Management. F. 7 (2): 73–89. Gall.. The Netherlands: Academic Service. S. “Destination Image Analysis—A Review of 142 Papers from 1973 to 2000.com/viewarticle. and N. Noordman.-S.). Go (1999).. www. Pritchard. “Experience-Based Internet Marketing: An Exploratory Study of Sensory Experiences Associated with Pleasure Travel to the Midwest United States. (1999). Frew. C. and N. Morgan (1998). Switzerland: International Association of Scientific Experts in Tourism. and F. Fridgen.. and R.” In Destination Branding: Creating the Unique Destination Proposition (2nd ed. and P. “Tourist Experiences: Phenomenographic analysis. Cultuur in de Citymarketing. Cohen. and J. Russ (2004). Parasuraman. D. G. W. Saura. and R. and S. Pritchard. Fesenmaier (2003). Fesenmaier. Eastbourne. “Communicating Experiences: A Narrative Approach to Creating Service Brand Image. 69). “The Role of the Consumer in Image Building. C. D. M. Su (2000). Barcelona: ESADE. H. 6 (2): 57–73.” In Service Quality and Management. M. Golf as It Should Be. “An Analysis of State Image Change over a Twelve-Year Period (1971–1983). New York: Rah Press. 38 (4): 340–352. edited by P. “Royal Funeral Raises Britain’s Profile. and C. 2012 . 2 (2): 119–131. “The Meaning and Measurement of Destination Image. 2002. 145 (5484): 40–49. Kerber (2004). —— (2003). 2nd ed. Woelfel. J. 26 (4): 49–62.. O’Connor.sagepub. “Destination Image. and K. Ooi. Garcia (2002). and Travel Behaviour: Toward an Integrative Model.” In Conference Proceedings: Global Frameworks and Local Realities: Social and Cultural Identities in Making and Consuming Tourism.. Vila. Tapachai. (1993).JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 23 REFERENCES Baloglu. B.. Wien-New York: Springer Verlag. A. Waryszak (2000). 22 (2): 167–179. J. J. “An Examination of the Role of Beneficial Image in Tourist Destination Selection. L. 2 (2/3): 191–215. E.. 4 (3): 215–229. P. . 59–78..” Annals of Tourism Research. (2005a). pp.. Pritchard. Delft: Eburon. “The Real England. J.” Journal of Tourism Studies.. J. Morgan (2001). 39 (1): 37–44.e-tid. D. Stoyanoff (1993. S.” Annals of Tourism Research. M. H. Go (2003). edited by N. J.. Ryan. Keller. “Authenticity and Commoditization in Tourism.asp?id ⫽ 17975. A. J. Hunt (1987).” In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism. Van Riel. Under Construction (Identities.. 6 (1): 55–68.. and R. Pike. Word of Mouse: The Marketing Power of Collaborative Filtering. —— (2005). and D. edited by N. Morgan. D. Pritchard.” International Journal of Tourism Research. 242–260. Reynolds.. Communities and Visual Overkill) (ERIM Report Series: Research in Management). C. 52 (2): 165–182. J. M. R. “Projected Destination Image Online: Website content analysis of pictures and text. Govers. (2004). 49–57. J.” Journal of Travel Research.. 159–168. —— (2005b).pdf Pride. K. and A. J. “Factors Influencing Destination Image.” International Journal of Tourism Research. and H. Burns. Kunst. Schoonhoven. 25 (2): 15–19. and L. B.” Annals of Tourism Research.” Journal of Advertising. H.” Eclipse 7 Moonshine Travel Marketing. D.” International Journal of Tourism Research. MacKay. Govers. 7 (3): 69–76. pp. R. Morgan. “Cultural Identities Constructed. Vrooman (2002). Rotterdam: Rotterdam School of Management Erasmus University. “The Branding of Tourism Destinations: Past Achievements and Future Challenges. Leemans. “CATPAC: A Neural Network for Qualitative Analysis of Text. St. New York: Warner Books. 31 (4): 3–13. “Visitors’ and Locals’ Experiences of Rotorua. Beerli. (2002).” Annals of Tourism Research.” Retrieved June 22. Pride. and D.. Sirgy. (1973). (1965). Kim. R. J. 30 (1): 216–237. J. Berry (1985). “Deconstructing Destination Image Construction. UK: University of Brighton. Den Haag: Elsevier / Reed Business Publications. and S. pp. Swaffield (2002).” Journal of Travel Research. and R. M. edited by P. (2002). A. R. Padgett. A. Onians. A. September).