Brand Image[1]

8/8/2019 Brand Image[1]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/brand-image1 1/24

Brand image assessment:international visitors’ perceptions

of Cape TownGirish Prayag

SKEMA Business School, Sophia-Antipolis, Nice, France

AbstractPurpose – The purpose of this paper is to assess the brand image of Cape Town as a touristdestination using a progressive method of unstructured and structured techniques such as wordassociation and free association.Design/methodology/approach – A mixed method study was designed incorporating two phases.Phase one involved in-depth interviews with a convenience sample of 85 international visitors to CapeTown. Phase two consisted of a survey, which resulted in 585 useable questionnaires that incorporatedboth open and closed-ended questions.Findings – The results indicate the strengths and weaknesses of each technique used. For example,word association is effective at eliciting positive images and holistic impressions but weak atidentifying affective images. The free-choice technique offers a more balanced perception of positive,negative, cognitive and affective images of a brand.Research limitations/implications – It is possible through the use of unstructured and structuredtechniques together to identify commonality in image perceptions but also differences in suchperceptions on the basis of visitors’ demographic and travelling characteristics.Practical implications – The ndings highlight the strengths and weaknesses of techniques suchas word association and free association. The results indicate that some image attributes may notalways adequately differentiate the brand from its competitors.Originality/value – The paper contributes to understand the relationship between threecomponents of brand knowledge namely, image, differentiating attributes and choice factors in thecontext of an African city brand.

Keywords Brand image, Tourism, South Africa

Paper type Research paper

1. IntroductionDestination imageremains a popular area of academic interest given the large number of meta-analyses of image studies that exist (Chon, 1990; Echtner and Ritchie, 1991; Jenkins, 1999; Gallarza etal., 2002;Pike, 2002;Beerli andMartin,2004;Tasci andGartner,2007; Tasci et al., 2007). From these, the general agreement is that image is atri-component structure comprising of cognitive, affective and conative elements.However, its operationalisation remains an area of contention. To date, quantitativeapproachesusing structuredmethodshave been the overwhelming choice of researchersfor measurement purposes (Pike, 2002; Tasci and Gartner, 2007), while fewer studieshave employed unstructured techniques involving conversations with visitors and free

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/0263-4503.htm

The author is grateful to the two anonymous reviewers for their suggestions and comments forimproving the paper.

MIP28,4

462

Received June 2009Revised October 2009,November 2009Accepted December 2009

Marketing Intelligence & PlanningVol. 28 No. 4, 2010pp. 462-485q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0263-4503DOI 10.1108/02634501011053577



choice to assess image components (Reilly, 1990; Tapachai and Waryzack, 2000; Ryanand Cave, 2005; Prebensen, 2007). Unstructured methods in particular reveal morerealistic and detailed images of place while avoiding analysis of constructs that areirrelevant about a destination brand given that they offer more salient responses (Ryan,2000). Yet, some authors argue that both structured and unstructured methods revealsimilar results (Tasci et al., 2007). More recently, destination image studies employingthe mixed method have become popular (Lin et al., 2007).The advantage of this approachis that it potentially contributes to a richer understanding of image structure and brandknowledge. For example, the mixed method enables the relationship between the threecore elements of brand knowledge namely, brand image, brand choice and branddifferentiation(Keller, 2003) to be assessed using different techniques, thereby providinga more holistic picture of the brand from the consumer’s perspective. The mixed methodfurther offers the possibility for identication of brand attributes in an exploratory stagethat can be conrmed in a quantitative stage later for better decision making.

Also, the issue of brand image and brand differentiation assessments in a destinationand city contexts remains under-researched (Hankinson, 2001, 2004b). Of existingstudies on brand image assessments (Hankinson, 2001, 2004a, b), the majority usescaling techniques. Measurement using free choice associations has received scantattention despite remaining popular as a technique for product assessment in themarketing literature (Romaniuk, 2006; Romaniuk et al., 2007). Therefore, there is a needfor studies employing free choice associations to assess brand image in a touristdestination context. In addition, none of the existing studies on the inuence of visitors’socio-demographics on image perceptions have done such an assessment in the contextof a city brand (MacKay and Fesenmaier, 1997; Joppe et al., 2001; Beerli and Martin,2004). Given these existing knowledge gaps, the main objective of this study is toevaluate the brand image of Cape Town using a progressive method of unstructuredand structured techniques. The study thus contributes to broaden the literature on

brand image assessment for city destinations by highlighting the strengths andlimitations of using unstructured and structured methods for such an assessment. Next,Cape Town as a tourist destination is described to better contextualise the ndings.

1.1 Background of studyA compelling brand image is quintessential for the success of city brands. In an effortto align the marketing and promotion strategies of the various organizations andagencies engaged in promoting the Western Cape, South Africa, as a tourism, tradeand investment location, the joint marketing initiative was launched in April 2001.This initiative was a partnership between local government of Cape Town andthe provincial government of Western Cape and had a major goal of ensuring that theimage of Cape Town and Western Cape was translated into a single brand (CapeMetropolitan Tourism Annual Report, 2001/2002). The end result was a single brand“Cape Town and Western Cape” that came into existence in 2004. The brand essencewas dened as “discover new experiences or opportunities – be refreshed, inspired andrevitalized” and marketing of the brand fell under the responsibility of the newdestination marketing organization, Cape Town Routes Unlimited (CTRU) (CTRUAnnual Report, 2004/2005).

The creation of this “new” brand enabled the destination to remain an attractivetourist destination for international visitors. For example, the region of Western Cape

Brand imageassessment

463



achieved a 9.2 per cent year-on-year growth in international arrivals for the year2006/2007. International arrivals improved from approximately 1.59 million in 2005 to1.74 million in 2006 (CTRU Annual Report, 2007/2008). The majority of these visitorscame from African countries such as Lesotho and Mozambique, but also, the UK andGermany. The UK remains the number one generatingoverseas market for South Africarecording a total of 497,687 arrivals in 2007. The Western Cape received the secondhighest share of international arrivals in 2007 (1.76 million) when compared to the othereight provinces in South Africa. On the domestic scene, Western Cape has a small share(8.6 per cent) of domestic trips taken in 2006, which represents 3.2 million visitors forthat year. Hence, international visitors were chosen as the focus of this study.

2. Literature reviewThis section reviews the three main concepts measured in this study namely, brandimage, brand choice and brand differentiation, and the inter-relationship among them.These concepts form brand knowledge while brand image in itself summarises the

consumer’s overall brand attitude (Keller, 1998, 2003).

2.1 Destination brand choiceIn a tourism context, a destination brand “represents a unique combination of productcharacteristics and added values, both functional and non-functional, which havetaken on a relevant meaning, which is inextricably linked to that brand, awareness of which might be conscious or intuitive” (Morgan and Pritchard, 1998, p. 140). Cai (2002)suggests that a destination brand brings together two or more products orcommunities of similar natural or cultural compositions of attractions. Prebensen(2007) suggests that the destination brand consists of a mix of brand elements toidentify and distinguish a destination through positive image building. A destinationbrand can also be a fully integrated system of experiences focused on the customer(Taylor and Wheatley, 1999). These denitions suggest that from the destinationmarketer’s point of view, a destination brand should represent a combination of tangible and emotional experiences communicated to the consumer through brandelements that should facilitate brand choice.

From a consumer’s point of view, the destination brand is a cluster of perceptionsattached to various destination experiences sold under a specic brand name (Ephron,1996). The brand name can positively inuence consumers’ nal destination choiceby reducing the number of alternatives considered within the consideration set(Ballantyne et al., 2006). In the tourism literature, various models of destination choiceexist that are similar, given that their foundation rest upon functional decision-makinginuenced by various psychological and non-psychological variables (Woodside andLysonski, 1989; Um and Crompton, 1990; Mansfeld, 1992; Sirakaya and Woodside,2005). That is, tourists are conceived of as individuals that act rather rationally andevaluate options in the pursuit of maximal benets (Bargeman and van der Poel, 2006).For example, Um and Crompton’s (1990) “structure of vacation destination choice sets”suggest that individuals go through a step-by-step process in selecting their nalvacation destination. Mansfeld’s (1992) “destination choice model” follows a similarapproach despite the stages and factors identied differ.Therefore, the consensus is thatthe destination choice process is complex, structured, and sequenced (Nicolau andMas, 2005). Also, this destination choice process is affected by potential visitors’

MIP28,4

464



motives, personal characteristics and the attributes of the destination (Nicolau and Mas,2006). Most empirical evidence that exist use destination attributes as explicativedimensions of visitors’ destination choice (Nicolau and Mas,2006). Hence, perceptions of destination attributes affect this process and depending on the positiveness ornegativeness of these perceptions, potential visitors either select the destination forfurther scrutiny or discard it from their consideration sets (Seddighi et al., 2001).

Perceptions of destination attributes emerge from the image of the place derivedfrom organic sources and projected brand communications referred to as “organic” and“induced” image, respectively, (Gartner, 1993; Beerli and Martin, 2004; Govers et al.,2007; Tasci and Gartner, 2007). Organic image is a function of non-commercialinformation sources such as word-of-mouth and actual visitation and is more difcultto control by destination marketers (Tasci and Gartner, 2007). Induced image refers tomarketing and promotion efforts of the destination through the use of media andinformation to ultimately inuence for example, destination choice and positioning(Govers et al., 2007). Gartner (1993) argues that the projected brand image has a verysmall role in destination image formation in comparison to organic sources, which havemore credibility, reach and impact. Therefore, image whether derived from organic orinduced sources is an important factor affecting brand choice. In fact, a distinctivebrand image results from a successful brand positioning strategy that facilitatesconsumer’s brand choice (Morgan and Pritchard, 1998).

Besides, image, the literature suggests that motivation is another critical factordetermining brand choice (Klenosky, 2002; Kim et al., 2003; Swarbrooke and Horner,2004; Nicolau and Mas, 2006). Existing studies suggest that motives can bedecomposed into “push” and “pull” factors (Klenosky, 2002; Andreu et al., 2005;Hong et al., 2006). While “push” factors install a desire to travel and refer to fullmentof needs such as relaxation, personal development and new cultural experiences, “pull”factors refer to the attractiveness of a destination as shaped by destination attributes

(Klenosky, 2002; Swarbrooke and Horner, 2004). It is usually accepted that push factorsare present before pull factors can be effective (Andreu et al., 2005) and strong linkagesbetween these travel motivations and destination choices have been documented in theliterature (Jang and Cai, 2002). Also demographic and psychographic characteristics of visitors have been shown to exert some inuence on both motivations (Beerli andMartin, 2004) and image (Joppe et al., 2001; Ryan and Cave, 2005; Prebensen, 2007)thereby affecting destination choice. For example, Nicolau and Mas (2005) showed thatincome, household size, age, occupation, size of the city of origin, and opinion of takinga vacation have a signicant effect on the nal destination chosen. Despite destinationbrand choice being a complex process for the consumer, the literature above suggeststhree dominant factors, namely destination image, motives and visitors’ owncharacteristics as being inuential in this process. Given the focus of this paper, the

next section considers in more depth perceived brand image.

2.2 Perceived brand imageAs suggested by others, the attractiveness of a destination for potential visitors residesin its image (Gartner, 1993; Hu and Ritchie, 1993; MacKay and Fesenmaier, 1997).Consequently, many researchers have equated the development of a destination brandwith the creation of an image or identity to entice potential travellers (Catalaca andYurtseven, 2003). This destination projected brand can be shaped around two aspects.


465



First, its functional attributes such as transport and infrastructure, tourist amenitiesand accessibility. Second, its symbolic attributes such as family orientation andafliation with celebrities, thereby the brand experience for the visitor is shaped by thedestination’s cognitive and affective attributes (Gnoth, 2002). Similarly, these twoelements, cognitive and affective, along with a holistic component constitute thestructure of destination image as perceived by visitors (Echtner and Ritchie, 1991;Baloglu and McCleary, 1999; Jenkins, 1999). Gartner (1993, p. 45) denes “the cognitiveimage component as the evaluation of the known attributes of the product according tofact”. The affective component relates to motives (Gartner, 1993) while the holisticcomponent represents theessence of thebrand, summarising its functional andsymbolicimage attributes (Morgan et al., 2002). Baloglu and McCleary (1999, p. 870) have equatedthis holistic component to a “global impression about an object or destination”.Therefore, a hierarchical relationship exists between the three components of destination image where the affective is dependent on the cognitive while the holisticis dependent on the other two components. Specically, the affective component has arelationship with “push” and “pull” factors discussed earlier.

Themost commonly used framework for understanding and operationalisation of thedestination image construct is that of Echtner and Ritchie (1991, 1993). According totheir framework, cognitive image attributes can be categorised and measured as eitherfunctional or psychological attributes of a destination but also as either common orunique attributes of a destination. Gartner (1993) suggests that visitors’ perceptions of cognitive attributes are derived from either organic or induced sources. Most studieshave operationalised the cognitive component via structured methods, that includevisitors rating of attributes using either likert or semantic-differential scales (Gallarzaet al., 2002; Pike, 2002). Of studies (Gartner, 1993; Ryan andCave, 2005; Prebensen, 2007)that have used unstructured methods, the most commonly used technique is the wordassociation applied via the use of the question: “what images or characteristics come tomind when you think of [ . . .] as a travel destination” (Echtner and Ritchie, 1991, p. 11).

The affective component is more psychologically oriented and relates to thevocabulary of motive (Gartner, 1993). Psychologists describe affect as a set of dimensions such as pleasure, excitement, distress, and so on, with each dimensionvarying independently of the others (Russell, 1980). There is a vast amount of literatureon the emotion-affect relationship but there is little convergence on how an emotion isto be dened (Russell, 2003):

At the heart of emotion and any other emotionally charged event are states experienced assimply feeling good or bad, energized or enervated. These states described as core affectinuence cognition, perception and behaviour but visitors may have no direct access to thesecausal connections (Russell, 2003, p. 145).

Owing to the complexity of the emotion-affect relationship, in destination imageliterature, the Russell et al.’s (1981) affective grid scale consisting of four semanticdifferential scales (pleasant-unpleasant, relaxing-distressing, arousing-sleepy andexciting-gloomy) is the most widely used measurement tool in quantitative studies.However, qualitative studies tend to use either a broad question such as “how do you feelabout theplace/describe theplace” (Ryan andCave, 2005) or projective techniques such aspicture association and collage to identify affective states of visitors (Prebensen, 2007).

The components of image structure, often communicated via few key attributes andassociations by destination marketers (Morgan and Pritchard, 2000), is linked to

MIP28,4

466



a network of information derived from organic sources in the visitor’s mind along withthe actual experience of the place. From this interaction, develops the complex image of a destination, which represents the interaction between actual experience andpreviously held images (Hankinson, 2004b). This complex image can be equated tovisitors’ perceived brand image (Morgan et al., 2002; Hankison, 2004b). It has beensuggested that the more symbolic experiences are for tourists, the more complex is theperceived brand image and the more successful is the brand in the long-term (Gnoth,1998). This perhaps explains the widespread use of emotive images in brand positioningaimed at building the affective component, but these would not be necessarily interpretedin the same way by all potential visitors (Nickerson and Moisey, 1999). Existingcomplexities in dening the term for a destination brand have led to researchers usingdifferent methods and measurements tools for assessing perceived brand image. Forexample, some authors (Tapachai and Waryszak, 2000; Hankison, 2004b; Ryan and Cave,2005; Prebensen, 2007) using a qualitative approach, favouring in-depth interviews,repertory grids, and projective techniques as measurement tools. Others (Echtner andRitchie, 1991, 1993; Beerli and Martin, 2004; Lin et al., 2007) suggest the mixed method asan alternative approach, if quantication of results is necessary, thereby favouringstructured or semi-structured survey instruments as measurement tools.

Given the complexity of the image structure and the difculty in accurately deningperceived brand image, it is not surprising that there are few case studies on the issuein a city brand context (Rainisto, 2003). For city brands, the notion of brand image iseven more critical given that their brand awareness is often tied to national or regionalbrand awareness (Anholt, 2008). Nonetheless, the importance of using simple, relevantand credible image associations is applicable to city brands as well. Existing studies oncity branding (Hankinson, 2001; Rainisto, 2003; Trueman et al., 2004, 2008; Kavaratzisand Ashworth, 2006; Hall, 2008) suggest that functional and symbolic imageassociations contribute to brand success. For example, Kotler et al. (1993) and

Trueman et al. (2008) suggest that image of cities can be shaped around the people or theplace itself in order to reinforce or alter brand perceptions, but also to differentiate oneneighbourhood and city from another. Therefore, brand image is more than shaping of adistinct identity using destination attributes. It is also about forging of brandassociations that are on par and unique to a brand vis-a -vis its competitors (Keller, 1998;Kavaratzis and Ashworth, 2006). Brand differentiation and brand personality are thekey ingredients to building a powerful brand image (Aaker, 1996). In relation tofunctional and symbolic attributes forming brand image, brand differentiation andbrand personality are “not so much separate attributes as restatements of the samefeature from different perspectives” (Kavaratzis andAshworth, 2006, p. 187). The brandimage is in itself an instrument of differentiation. Thus, brand differentiation isdiscussed next given that it has received scant attention in the tourism literature as

opposed to brand personality (Hosany et al., 2006, 2007; Prayag, 2007).

2.3 Perceived brand differentiationBrand differentiation is considered as one of the core principles of marketing theoryand practice (Levitt, 1980; Romaniuk et al., 2007). Differentiation suggests that thebrand has to be perceived as offering something more valuable to the customer incomparison to competitors (Ries and Trout, 1986; Keller, 1998). This valued differencemay emanate from the functional, symbolic or even trivial aspects of the product.


467



For tourist destinations, differentiation can originate from unique tourist attractions,tourist activities, and service levels (Bordas, 1994). It may also emanate from naturalfeatures, climate, cultural and social characteristics, general infrastructure,accessibility and transport facilities, attitudes of locals towards tourists, cost/pricelevels, economic and social ties or any combination of the above (Mihalic, 2000).Therefore, meaningful differentiation reinforces a destination’s positive competitiveposition (Bordas, 1994; Ritchie and Crouch, 2000). Ultimately, the goal of differentiationis the establishment of point-of-difference associations. These associations are uniqueto the brand and are also strongly held and favourably evaluated by potential visitors.The more abstract and the higher the level of association, the more likely it is to be asustained source of competitive advantage (Keller, 1998). Hence, holistic and symbolicimages may be more effective at creating such associations given that Ballantyne et al.(2006) argued that it is through the manipulation and moulding of brand image thatmeaningful differentiation and brand meaning can be achieved.

Keller (1998) goesfurther andsuggests that these associations do notnecessarily haveto be unique but may in fact be shared with other brands. Potential visitors may viewthese as being necessary to be a legitimate and credible product offering. For example,value for money is a point of parity association for many emerging destinations. Theseassociations represent necessary but not sufcient conditions for brand choice.Point-of-parity associationsalsopertain to associations that are designed to negate otherdestinations’ point-of-differences. In other words, if a brand can “break-even” in thoseareas where its competitors are trying to nd an advantage and can achieve advantagesin some other areas, then the brand must be in a strong competitive position. Often thekey to positioning is to achieve competitive points of parity with other destinations(Keller, 1998). However, there is an argument that if brand differentiation exists, wherebya brand appeals to a dened customer base that particularly value the differentiatedfeature, then it can be expected that the types of customers the brand attract should

differ (Romaniuk et al., 2007). Yet, brand user proles may rarely differ greatly indemographics or other meaningful characteristics (Kennedy and Ehrenberg, 2001).

3. MethodThe choice of the mixed-method of inquiry for this study was guided by the ability of such a method to add breadth and richness to the ndings for the achievement of theresearch objectives (Flick, 1998). The study was conducted in two phases. First, aqualitative phase that focused on the use of unstructured methods to identify imagecomponents followed by a semi-structured instrument that used free associations forquantication purposes. Each phase is described in more depth below as well as thesampling method used.

3.1 The qualitative phaseThe rst phase, the qualitative inquiry, involved personal interviews with aconvenience sample of 85 international visitors to Cape Town. These interviewsemployed the semi-structured technique and lasted approximately one hour. Visitorswere interviewed at different accommodation including backpackers, guest housesand hotels so that diverse motives for brand choice and perceived images could becaptured given that guest proles varied for these accommodation units. Two broadopen-ended questions were asked of visitors:

MIP28,4

468



(1) What made you choose Cape Town?(2) How does Cape Town compare to other similar destinations you have been to?

The rst question was aimed at identifying the major factors inuencing brand choicewhile the second aimed at identifying differentiating factors for the destination brand.The transcripts for the interviews were analysed thematically but for brevity sake,only ndings relevant to the quantitative phase is provided in this study. More detailedndings of the qualitative phase can be seen elsewhere (Prayag, 2006).

3.2 The semi-structured survey instrument The second phase of the research was more quantitative in nature, but, employed acombination of open and close-ended questioning. This approach was adopted togather multiple perspectives on the brand image of Cape Town and to quantify theimage associations, choice factors and differentiating attributes. A common methodused to measure brand associations is free choice, “pick any” approach, where

consumers choose which attributes, from a list, are associated with a brand (Romaniuk,2006). Based on the ndings from the qualitative phase, a semi-structured surveyinstrument was designed comprising of two open-ended and two close-endedquestions. The rst question was a word association technique, “When I say theword ‘Cape Town’, what are the rst ve words that come to your mind?” It enabledbrand images to be identied and was limited to ve words in order to identify themost salient attributes. Such a technique potentially reveals both positive and negativeassociations with a brand (Prebensen, 2007; Prayag, 2007). The second open-endedquestion was, “What are the four main factors that inuenced your choice of CapeTown as a destination?” This question was aimed at conrming ndings derived fromthe previous phase about the “push” and “pull” attributes guiding choice.

The third question was close ended and comprised of a list of 30 attributes derived

from the previous phase to conrm brand associations, measured on a nominal scaleusing the “yes-no” options. The nal question asked respondents to identify attributesthat strongly differentiated Cape Townfromother similar competing destinations usinga list of 20 attributes derived from the previous phase, measured on a nominal scale of “yes-no” options. The nominal scale for measurement was chosen because it has beenargued that items recalled from memory are thought to be stored as concepts andgenerally either retrieved or not.Therefore, salience of attributes should be measured viaa “yes-no” measure as opposed to “degrees of association” such as rating scales(Romaniuk and Sharp, 2004). Also, Barnard and Ehrenberg (1990) showed thatconsumers’ beliefs about different attributes of competitive brands are similar whenusing scaling, ranking and free-choice for measurement purposes. A list of demographics including age, country of origin and gender, as well as travellingcharacteristics including purpose of visit, length of stay, and visitation level were alsomeasured. Thequestionnaire was pre-testedon 20 international visitorswithno problemidentied given that the structure of the questionnaire and techniques employed weresimple and comprehensive for respondents.

3.3 Sampling and data collectionInternational visitors were selected at different locations including V&A Waterfront,Kirstenbosch Gardens, Cape Point National Park, Camps Bay Beach and Cape Town


469



International Airport for an interviewer completed survey. These locations werechosen based on their popularity as tourist attractions in Cape Town, except for theInternational Airport which was chosen on the basis that it provided a venue wherevisitors’ experiences of the brand were “complete”. These locations also provided asampling frame of visitors with diverse perceptions, motives and experiences as wellas being ideal for questionnaire administration in terms of visitors’ availability andcomfort to complete the tasks required of them. Three interviewers systematicallyapproached every tourist to conrm their international status and selected everysecond international tourist to participate in the survey. The starting point was decidedon the basis of the “next-to-pass” method at the entrance of these locations (Chenand Hsu, 2000). At the end of data collection, 585 international visitors had completedthe survey.

4. FindingsThis section presents the ndings from both the qualitative and quantitative phases.

It begins with an overview of the demographic and travelling characteristics of bothsamples followed by the results obtained from using unstructured methods in thequantitative phase supported by the qualitative ndings. Then, the results of the morestructured methods including free choice are presented.

4.1 Demographic proleThe socio-demographics of the qualitative phase indicated that the sample was younger(avg. age ¼ 27). These visitors were primarily from the UK (51.8 per cent), the USA andCanada (16.5 per cent) and Germany (14.1 per cent). Males (67 per cent) constituted amajority of the sample. These visitors were mainly on holiday (82 per cent) and onaverage had spent 18 days in Cape Town. They were primarily (71.7 per cent) rst timevisitors. In comparison, visitors in the quantitative phase were older (avg. age ¼ 40)

as shown in Table I. They were primarily from the same countries as in the qualitativephase but almost an equal number of males and females participated in this phase of thestudy. The quantitative sample also had a similar proportion of holiday makers(77.1 per cent) but they stayed for fewer days in comparison to the qualitative sample.In short, there are some similarities between both samples and these proles reect theofcial statistics which showed a majority of visitors from the UK, and travelling forholiday purposes. However, one major difference is that both samples included visitorsthat stayed longer on average in comparison to the 6.9 nights forCape Town from ofcialstatistics (CTRU Annual Report, 2007/2008).

4.2 Image associations with Cape TownThe word association technique from the semi-structured survey revealed that of the2,057 responses recorded, 47 per cent of respondents mentioned table Mountain as theword they associated the most often with the destination. The list of open-endedresponses included a combination of unique (e.g. words such as “Table Mountain”,“Cape Point” and “Robben Island”), common (e.g. words such as “sun”, “beach” and“nightlife”), psychological (e.g. words such as “apartheid”, “cosmopolitan” and“laid-back atmosphere”) and functional attributes (e.g. words such as “weather”,“shopping” and “location”) of a destination. These responses showed the existence of cognitive, affective and holistic images of the place as shown in Table II. The word

MIP28,4

470



association technique revealed more positive images than negative ones as expected,given that visitors had invested in the decision to visit Cape Town.

Beyond positiveand negative images of a brand, it wasalso evident in the qualitativestudy that the same attribute can generate bothpositive and negative perceptions, whichalso inuenced the type of affect they generated for the brand. For example, with regardsto the attribute “Table Mountain”, one British visitor commented:

The cable car up Table Mountain is the most exhilarating experience. The revolving cable caroffers a 360 degrees panoramic view of the city. It’s breathtaking, it gives a view of the CampsBay beaches, the waterfront, it is like seeing everything at once.

This quote shows not only positive cognitive image but also an affective image(e.g. words such as “exhilarating” and “breathtaking”).

Another German visitor commented:

I don’t see what the fuss is all about [Table Mountain]. It is overrated as an attraction in thecity [. . .] it’s a big piece of at rock and too “touristy”.

This quote illustrates that the same attribute can be perceived in a negative way bysome visitors. This duality in perceptions for destination attributes is not uncommonfor visitors given that they have different motives guiding choice and perceptions of place attributes (Ryan and Cave, 2005).

Moreover, the ndings indicated that the cognitive component of the imagestructure is easiest to recall, but differed from existing lists of functional attributes,in that it included unique attractions such as Robben Island and geographical locationof the place at the tip of Africa and also associations with the supra-brand“South Africa”. The inuence of political leaders can also be seen with the brand imageassociation of “Nelson Mandela”, thereby suggesting that visitors’ construction

Qualitative phase ( n ¼ 85) % Quantitative phase ( n ¼ 585) %

Average age 27 Average age 40Country of originUK 51.8 UK 44.3USA and Canada 16.5 Germany 20.2Germany 14.1 USA and Canada 7.2The Netherlands 4.7 The Netherlands 9.4Israel 4.7 Switzerland 1.9Other 8.2 Other 17.0Gender Male 67.0 Male 49.1Female 33.0 Female 50.9 Main purpose of visit Holiday 82.0 Holiday 77.1VFR 6.2 VFR 8.6Business 0 Business 7.5

Other 11.8 Other 6.8Average length of stay in Cape Town (days) 18.6 Average length of stay in Cape Town (days) 10.9Visitor statusFirst timer 71.7 First timer 68.0Repeater 28.3 Repeater 32.0

Table I.Demographic and

travelling characteristicsof samples


471



of brand image is place specic and draw from the political, economic, andsocio-cultural contexts. The affective images identied conform to some extent toRussell et al.’s (1981) affective grid scale. The holistic images identied suggest aninterplay between motives (e.g. the word “holiday”) and image components asindicated by words such as “westernised” and “incomparable”. These results may alsosuggest the inuence of organic sources of information on image creation given thatvisitors elicited positive and negative attributes of Cape Town while induced sourceswould not necessarily highlight negative perceptions. In short, the word association

Percentage of respondentsAttributes Cognitive images Affective images Holistic image

Table Mountain 47.0Sea & beach 33.3Sun 29.6Friendly people 21.5Food 19.3Weather/climate 17.3V&A waterfront 16.4Wine 15.6Inexpensive 13.9Cape point 12.5Scenery/nature 12.1Other mountains 9.9Flora/Fauna 6.3Robben Island 5.6

Windy 5.1Unsafe/crime 4.1Cultural diversity 3.9Kirstenbosch gardens 3.3South-Africa 2.7Variety of things to see and do 2.7Nelson Mandela 2.6Shopping 2.4Apartheid/history 2.2Location at tip of Africa 2.2Clean 1.9Township 1.4Big city 1.4Poverty 0.9

Nightlife 0.7Beautiful/lovely 28.9Relax 4.4Fun 4.1Exciting 4.1Interesting 2.1Laid-back 0.5Holiday 3.8Cosmopolitan/westernised 2.6Incomparable to other destinations 1.5Different lifestyle 1.0Destination similar to home 0.9

Table II.Word associationswith Cape Town

MIP28,4

472



technique is particularly effective at identifying cognitive images but to a lesser extentaffective and holistic impressions. In comparison to purely quantitative methods, theeffectiveness of unstructured methods in capturing holistic impressions, uniquefeatures and auras is highlighted by such a technique (Prebensen, 2007; Prayag, 2007).

The results (Table III) from the free association technique showed that the top threeattributes associated with Cape Town were namely, “breathtaking scenery” (74 per cent),“inexpensive” (70.1 per cent) and “hospitable people” (67.5 per cent). The high level of association with these attributes, which is similar to the ndings from the unstructuredmethod of word association used earlier, showed that the two techniques arecomplementary in identifying brand images. However, the free association techniquegives a more realistic perception of the brand given that the list of attributes evaluatedincludes both cognitive and affective attributes. While the word association techniquefavours elicitation of mostly cognitive images, the free association allows other cognitiveattributes such as “variety of activities” (52.7 per cent) and “clean and hygienic facilities”(52.1 per cent) as well as affective attributes such as “relaxed atmosphere” (63.8 per cent)and “vibrant atmosphere” (42.4 per cent) to be identied. There is a more balanced view of cognitive and affective attributes associated with a brand using the free choice method.

The x 2 -test was used to identify relationships between these attributes and visitors’

demographics and travelling characteristics. The results (Table III) indicated somerelationships for 15 of the 30 attributes. Visitors’ country of origin, for example, had thestrongest relationship with image attributes given that signicant differences existedon all 15 attributes. A review of these attributes suggested they were mostly cognitiveimage items. The results indicated a higher proportion (55.9 per cent) of visitors from theUK associated the attribute “inexpensive” with the brand in comparison to visitors fromGermany (13.7 per cent) and The Netherlands (7.3 per cent). A lower proportion of German visitors associated “lush and green environment” (10.1 per cent) and “outdooradventurous feel” (11.8 per cent) with the brand in comparison to visitors from the UK.

The status of visitors as rst-timers or repeaters had a signicant relationship withattributes such as “relaxed atmosphere”, “cosmopolitan city” and “vibrant atmosphere”suggesting a relationship with both cognitive and affective items. For example, a higherproportion of rst-timers (60.1 per cent) associated “cosmopolitan city” with Cape Townin comparison to repeaters (39.9 per cent). This is not uncommon given that previousstudies such as Beerli and Martin (2004) showed strong associations between cognitiveimages and rst-time visitors while repeat visitors had stronger associations withaffective images. Gender had a relationship with only two cognitive items namely“cosmopolitan city” and “poverty”. A higher proportion of femalesassociated the former(56.1 per cent) and latter (55.3 per cent) attributes with the brand.

The ndings also revealed that signicant differences existed on attributes such as“exciting ambience”, “many street children” and “crime” when assessed on purpose of visit. For example, a high proportion of those visitors who did not associate “many streetchildren” (80 per cent) and “world class facilities” (80.6 per cent) with the brand wasvisiting for holiday purposes. A high proportion of those associating “crime” (73 per cent)with the destination, was visiting for holiday purposes. Given that actual length of staywas measured, the data were recoded to form categories suchas one to ve days, six to tendays, 11-15 days and greater than or equal to 16 days. Cross-tabulations revealed forexample that a higher proportion of visitors (37.9 percent) staying between six to tendaysassociated the attribute “inexpensive” with the brand in comparison to those staying


473



I m a g e a t t r i b u t e s

D e m o g r a p h i c s a n d t r a v e l l i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

C o g n i t i v e a t t r i b u t e s

Y e s ( % )

N o ( % )

V i s i t a t i o n s t a t u s

G e n d e r

C o u n t r y o f o r i g i n

P u r p o s e o f v i s i t

L e n g t h o f s t a y

A g e

B r e a t h t a k i n g s c e n e r y

7 4 . 0

2 6 . 0

* * *

I n e x p e n s i v e

7 0 . 1

2 9 . 9

* * *

* * *

H o s p i t a b l e p e o p l e

6 7 . 5

3 2 . 5

* * *

* * *

C o s m o p o l i t a n c i t y

5 6 . 1

4 3 . 9

* *

* *

*

V a s t / s p a c i o u s l a n d s c a p e

5 3 . 3

4 6 . 7

* *

*

V a r i e t y o f a c t i v i t i e s

5 2 . 7

4 7 . 3

*

C l e a n a n d h y g i e n i c f a c i l i t i e s

5 2 . 1

4 7 . 9

* * *

*

D i v e r s e l o c a l p e o p l e

5 1 . 8

4 8 . 2

*

P o v e r t y

4 8 . 5

5 1 . 5

*

* * *

*

* *

L u s h / g r e e n e n v i r o n m e n t

4 7 . 2

5 2 . 8

* * *

F a s c i n a t i n g c u l t u r e

4 0 . 9

5 9 . 1

*

H i g h s e r v i c e l e v e l s

4 0 . 7

5 9 . 3

* * *

*

U n s p o i l e d t o u r i s t a t t r a c t i o n s

3 8 . 1

6 1 . 9

* * *

N o v e l t y d e s t i n a t i o n

3 5 . 2

6 4 . 8

* * *

W o r l d - c l a s s f a c i l i t i e s

3 1 . 1

6 8 . 9

* *

* * *

*

* *

M a n y s t r e e t - c h i l d r e n

2 6 . 7

7 3 . 3

* * *

* * *

* * *

C r i m e

1 9 . 7

8 0 . 3

*

*

*

U n s a f e

1 6 . 2

8 3 . 8

R a c i a l t e n s i o n

1 4 . 5

8 5 . 5

* * *

*

* *

S u p e r c i a l a t t r a c t i o n s

1 0 . 8

8 9 . 2

* *

*

P o o r r o a d s i g n s

9 . 4

9 0 . 6

S u b - s t a n d a r d s e r v i c e

4 . 6

9 5 . 4

C r o w d e d f a c i l i t i e s

3 . 9

9 6 . 1

E x p e n s i v e

3 . 1

9 6 . 9

A f f e c t i v e a t t r i b u t e s

R e l a x e d a t m o s p h e r e

6 3 . 8

3 6 . 2

*

* *

V i b r a n t a t m o s p h e r e

4 2 . 4

5 7 . 6

*

* * *

*

O u t d o o r / a d v e n t u r o u s f e e l

4 0 . 7

5 9 . 3

* * *

*

* *

E x c i t i n g a m b i e n c e

3 6 . 6

6 3 . 4

*

C o n s e r v a t i v e a m b i e n c e

1 0 . 1

8 9 . 9

*

S l e e p y a t m o s p h e r e

4 . 5

9 5 . 5

N o t e : S i g n i c a n t a t :

* p ,

0 . 0 5 ; * * p , 0 . 0 1 ; * * * p , 0 . 0 0 1

Table III.The relationship of visitors’ demographicswith brand associations

MIP28,4

474



between one to ve days (14 per cent). In general, the longer visitors stayed, the higherwere their association levels with the attributes, except for attributes “crime” and“poverty”, where the longer visitors stayed, the less they associated them with the brand.As for age, the older visitors were, themore they associated attributes such as “hospitablepeople”, “supercial attractions”, “many street children”, “crime”, “high service” and“outdoor adventurous feel” with the brand. However, the older visitors were, theyassociated less “world class facilities”, “clean and hygienic facilities”, and “racial tension”with the destination.

4.3 Destination choice factorsThe open ended question of the four main factors that led to the choice of Cape Town asa destination led to a total of 1,275 responses being recorded. Once tabulated (Table IV),the ndings indicated a combination of “push” and “pull” attributes. The most frequentanswers were “pull” attributes such as “weather/climate” (38.3 per cent), “value formoney” (18.3 per cent) and “scenery” (18.1 per cent). As for “push” attributes the mostfrequent elicitations were “VFR” (26.8 per cent), word-of-mouth (14.7 per cent) and “newdestination” (14.2 per cent). While similarities between “pull” attributes and previouslyidentied image attributes exist, some attributes such as “gateway to other places”,“easy accessibility” and “safari/wildlife” only emerged in this question. The complexityinvolved in understanding the “push” attributes “new destination” and “VFR” cannot beassessed solely from the quantication in Table IV. When these ndings are comparedto the qualitative results, the attribute “new destination” is for example associated with

Percentage of respondentsDestination choice factors Pull attributes Push attributes

Weather/climate 38.3Value for money 18.3Scenery 18.1Holiday spot 11.1Tourist attractions 10.3Friendliness of people 7.7Culture 7.6Variety of activities to do 7.2Beach 4.6History 3.6Local cuisine 3.4Easy accessibility 3.3Location of the city 1.5Gateway to other places in Africa 1.5Safari/wildlife 1.5

Political stability 0.5Shopping 0.2VFR 26.8Word-of-mouth 14.7New destination 14.2Work/business 10.6Interest in the city 9.6Previous visit 8.9Part of a tour 2.1

Table IV.Push and pull attributes

for Cape Town


475



the need for novelty. The purpose of visit visiting friends and relatives (VFR) isassociated with the need for social interaction as illustrated in the quote below:

We choose Cape Town because we have family and friends here. It is an opportunity for us tosee them and we get to spend some time with them. My son is married to a South African, weget to see the extended family as well. (British visitor).

Given that that multiple factors drive destination choice, respondents were asked fourmain factors of choice in the semi-structured survey. The qualitative results alsosuggested the same as can be seen from the quote below from an American visitor:

Some of my friends came here last year as part of a student exchange program and theyhighly recommended the place. I heard it was fantastic place to backpack, with themountains, sea and tourist attractions close to each other. I am going to spend 3 months inSouth Africa, see various places and after that I am off to Victoria Falls.

In short, identication of destination choice factors through an unstructured methodgenerates both “push” and “pull” attributes. However, a bias towards “pull” attributes is

not uncommon using this method given that it is easiest for visitors to recall destinationattributes rather than the underlying motives (Klenosky, 2002). When results arecombined with those of a qualitative phase, there is an opportunity to understand thecomplexity of the relationship between motives and destination attributes.

4.4 Differentiating attributesOf the 20 attributes selected from the qualitative phase as being able to differentiate thedestination from others in its competitive set, only ve namely, scenery (43.1 per cent),friendly people (28.9 per cent), Table Mountain (21.9 per cent), value for money(20.9 per cent) and culture (18.3 per cent) were associated as such (Table V).

Differentiating attributes Yes (%) No (%)

Scenery 43.1 56.9Friendly people 28.9 71.1Table Mountain 21.9 78.1Value for money 20.9 79.1Culture 18.3 81.7Beaches 16.8 83.2Variety of things to see and do 11.5 88.5Climate/weather 11.3 88.7Combination of attributes 10.6 89.4Contrast between rich and poor 6.0 94.0History 5.6 94.4

Ambience/atmosphere 5.1 94.9Location 4.4 95.6Lifestyle 3.2 96.8Cosmopolitan city 2.4 97.6V&A waterfront 2.2 97.8Wine farms 1.9 98.1Cape point 1.2 98.8Nightlife and entertainment 1.5 98.5Kirstenbosch gardens 0.5 99.5

Table V.Differentiating attributesof the brand

MIP28,4

476







The ndings provide further evidence that a combination of unstructured andstructured methods is an appropriate alternative method for brand image assessment,in comparison to either qualitative or quantitative approaches alone. By combiningresults derived from a semi-structured instrument with those from a qualitative phase,there is an opportunity to better understand brand image components, complexitiesassociated with measurement of perceived brand image, and the relationship betweenbrand image and brand choice. For example, when comparing an attribute such as“Table Mountain” in the quantitative phase with visitors’ perceptions of it in thequalitative phase, relationships between its functional and affective component canbe identied. Therefore, using unstructured and structured methods to measureperceived brand image in the same instrument highlights similarities and differencesin visitors’ perceptions. When these are evaluated against the qualitative ndings,there are opportunities to better understand the symbolic or functional value of imageattributes.

The existence of contradictory ndings between the qualitative and quantitativephases, and within the latter through the application of different techniques of measurement, suggest that visitors use different attributes to represent their perceiveddestination image. While it is possible to identify commonalities in image perceptionsacross visitors, it is not uncommon that either different visitors evaluate attributes of the same destination differently or the same visitors evaluate differently the sameattributes when asked in a different format. This would explain Gallarza et al.’s (2002)conclusion that image has properties of being complex, relativistic and dynamic as wellas the use of different methods for image assessment. The contradictory ndings withrespect to visitors using different attributes for brand differentiation, depending onthe method used, can be explained by Romaniuk et al. (2007) argument that“differentiation” is a complex construct that should be evaluated using customer“perceived” and “valued” differentiation. Given that this approach was not used, may

explain the contradictory ndings. Yet, the qualitative ndings helped inunderstanding some of these contradictions that existed in the quantitative phase.Therefore, the above demonstrate the possibilities and difculties that exist whenqualitative and quantitative data are used together to explain similarities or differencesin image perceptions.

Also, the ndings indicate relationships between destination choice attributes,perceived image and differentiating attributes. Some similarities in cognitive imageassociations derived from word association and “pull” attributes could be identied,for example, “weather/climate”. Similarly, some associations between affective imagesfrom free choice association and “push” attributes could be identied, for example,“novelty destination”. Affective images are thus related to motives (Gartner, 1993). Therelationship between differentiating attributes and choice factors was also evident, forexample, the association with the word “value for money”. Therefore, the use of aprogressive method of open-ended questioning and free choice assessments allows suchrelationships to be identied similar to quantitative studies (Beerli and Martin, 2004). Infact, the symbolic importance of attributes captured in a qualitative phase can serve toreinforce that some attributes are either important motives of choice or strongerpoint-of-difference associations with competing brands in the quantitative phase.Similar to other studies (MacKay and Fesenmaier, 1997; Beerli and Martin, 2004; Ryanand Cave, 2005; Prebensen, 2007) relationships between visitors’ demographics/


479



travelling characteristics and free choice image associations were also found. Hence, therelationships between the components of brand knowledge are adequately captured bythe use of a mixed-method (Keller, 2003).

From a practice point of view, the existence of similarities and differences in imageperceptions by visitors’ socio-demographics, suggest possibilities for segmentationand brand positioning. For example, age, gender and country of origin can be used assegmentation variables as they have signicant relationships with some of theattributes in Table III. The objective of this is study is not to propose segments but thisprocess would enable target markets that hold the most positive images of the city tobe identied. These visitors can then be transformed into brand ambassadors throughrelationship marketing and encouraging word-of-mouth dissemination in their homecountry. For segments with mostly negative image associations, it will be necessary torst identify the source of information from which such perceptions are derived.Thereafter, using corrective marketing through manipulation of marketing mixelements to alter such negative perceptions. This would not be a short-term strategy if negative perceptions stem from organic sources, as organic images are difcult tochange (Gartner, 1993; Tasci and Gartner, 2007).

For positioning purposes, the results indicate that not all attributes associated with abrand are effective at creating point-of-difference associations with competing brands.While many positive associations exist with brand Cape Town, only few such as“scenery”, “value for money” and “Table Mountain” seem to adequately differentiate thecity. However, as Romaniuk and Sharp (2004) argued, awareness and salience of attributes may play a greater role in brand choice than conventional differentiationtheory. For example, wineries, history and attractions such as Cape Point are unique tothe city brand and the destination in comparison to other destination and city brandsinternationally. At present, these do not adequately differentiate the brand. Consistencyin marketing the brand with such associations or simply using associations that are

more identiable by international visitors may enable brand Cape Town to differentiateitself (Keller, 1998; Romaniuk et al., 2007). The ndings also provide some indication of attributes that can be emphasised in destination advertising and promotion. Forexample, bothstructured and unstructured techniques suggest the use of attributes suchas “climate/weather”, “Table Mountain”, “friendly people” and “relaxed atmosphere” indesigning ads to communicate a distinctive and unique cityexperience. Nonetheless, the“holistic” impressions identied in the study, though, more difcult to capture in an adcampaign, may be the stronger differentiator of the brand.

In conclusion, the study showed that using structured and unstructured techniques inmeasuring brand image enable the identication of strengths and weaknesses of eachtechnique. The structure of image derived from this approach is similar to the literature.When the quantitativendings arecompared to results from a qualitative phase, there is aricher and deeper understanding of brand knowledge, thereby highlighting the strengthsof a “mixed-method” design. This study is, however, not free from limitations. First, thestudy does not attempt to generalise ndings to visitors beyond the city but rather isaimed at showing how free choice and free association techniques are equally useful inimagestructure identication.The useof such techniquesshouldbe extended toother city,provincial and destination brands in order to conrm their usefulness. Second, the roleand inuence of brand personality on image associations were not considered, whichmay have limited the understanding of current image associations and choice factors.

MIP28,4

480



This is an area requiring further attention in the tourism eld as holidays becomeincreasingly an expression of a lifestyle which is reected in the brand personality of aplace. Third, the issue of brand differentiation was measured using only a free choicetechnique, the complexity of the construct is acknowledged in the literature and mayrequire further research to ascertain the attributes that differentiate Cape Town fromcompeting destinations.

ReferencesAaker, D.A. (1996), Building Strong Brands , The Free Press, New York, NY.Andreu, L., Kozak, M., Avci, N. and Cifter, N. (2005), “Market segmentation by motivations to

travel: British tourists visiting Turkey”, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing , Vol. 19No. 1, pp. 1-14.

Anholt, S. (2008), “Place branding: is it marketing, or isn’t it?”, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-6.

Ballantyne, R., Warren, A. and Nobbs, K. (2006), “The evolution of brand choice”, Journal of Brand Management , Vol. 13 Nos 4/5, pp. 339-52.

Baloglu, S. and McCleary, K.W. (1999), “US international pleasure travellers’ images of fourMediterranean destinations: a comparison of visitors and non-visitors”, Journal of Travel Research , Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 144-53.

Bargeman, B. and van der Poel, H. (2006), “The role of routines in the vacation decision-makingprocess of Dutch vacationers”, Tourism Management , Vol. 27, pp. 707-20.

Barnard, N.R. and Ehrenberg, A.S.C. (1990), “Robust measures of consumer brand beliefs”, Journal of Marketing Research , Vol. 27, pp. 477-84.

Beerli, A. and Martin, J.D. (2004), “Factors inuencing destination image”, Annals of Tourism Research , Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 657-81.

Bordas, E. (1994), “Competitiveness of tourist destinations in long distance markets”, Tourist Review, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 3-9.Cai, L.A. (2002), “Cooperative branding for rural destinations”, Annals of Tourism Research ,

Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 720-42.Catalca, H. and Yurtseven, H.R. (2003), “Understanding new Anzacs: a managerial perspective”,

Anatolia , Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 127-42.Chen, J.S. and Hsu, C.H.C. (2000), “Measurement of Korean tourists’ perceived images of overseas

destinations”, Journal of Travel Research , Vol. 38, pp. 411-16.Chon, K.S. (1990), “The role of destination image in tourism: a review and discussion”, Tourist

Review, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 2-9.CMT (2001/2002), Annual Report , Cape Metropolitan Tourism, Cape Town.

CTRU (2007/2008), Annual Report , Cape Town Routes Unlimited, Cape Town.Echtner, C.M. and Ritchie, J.B.R. (1991), “The meaning and measurement of destination image”,

Journal of Tourism Studies , Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 2-12.Echtner, C.M. and Ritchie, J.B.R. (1993), “The measurement of destination image: an empirical

assessment”, Journal of Travel Research , Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 3-13.Ephron, E. (1996), “Brand-centric brain washing”, Advertising Age , Vol. 67 No. 38, p. 27.Flick, U. (1998),An Introduction to Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Applications , Sage,

London.


481



Gallarza, M.G., Saura, I.G. and Garcia, H.C. (2002), “Destination image: towards a conceptualframework”, Annals of Tourism Research , Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 56-78.

Gartner, W.C. (1993), “Image formation process”, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing ,Vol.2No. 3, pp. 191-215.

Gnoth, J. (1998), “Branding tourism destinations”, Annals of Tourism Research , Vol. 25 No. 3,pp. 758-60.

Gnoth, J. (2002), “Leveraging export brands through a tourism destination brand”, Journal of Brand Management , Vol. 9 Nos 4/5, pp. 262-80.

Govers, R., Go, F.M. and Kumar, K. (2007), “Promoting tourism destination image”, Journal of Travel Research , Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 15-23.

Hall, C.M. (2008), “Servicescapes, designscapes, branding, and the creation of place identity:South of Litcheld, Christchurch”, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing , Vol. 25Nos 3/4, pp. 233-50.

Hankinson, G. (2001), “Location branding: a study of the branding practices of 12 English cities”, Journal of Brand Management , Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 127-42.

Hankinson, G. (2004a), “Relational network brands: towards a conceptual model of place brands”, Journal of Vacation Marketing , Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 109-21.

Hankinson, G. (2004b), “The brand images of tourism destinations: a study of the saliency of organic images”, Journal of Product & Brand Management , Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 6-14.

Hong, S., Kim, J., Jang, H. and Lee, S. (2006), “The roles of categorization, affective image andconstraints on destination choice: an application of the NMNL model”, Tourism Management , Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 750-61.

Hosany, S., Ekinci, Y. and Uysal, M. (2006), “Destination image and destination personality: anapplication of branding theories to tourism places”, Journal of Business Research , Vol. 59,pp. 638-42.

Hosany, S., Ekinci, Y. and Uysal, M. (2007), “Destination image and destination personality”,

International Journal of Culture, Tourism & Hospitality Research , Vol. 1 No. 1,pp. 62-81.

Hu, Y. and Ritchie, J.R.B. (1993), “Measuring destination attractiveness: a contextual approach”, Journal of Travel Research , Vol. 32, pp. 25-34.

Jenkins, O.H. (1999), “Understanding and measuring tourist destination images”, International Journal of Tourism Research , Vol. 1, pp. 1-15.

Joppe, M., Martin, D.W. and Waalen, J. (2001), “Toronto’s image as a destination: a comparativeimportance-satisfaction analysis by origin of visitor”, Journal of Travel Research , Vol. 39,pp. 252-60.

Kavaratzis, M. and Ashworth, G.J. (2006), “City branding: an effective assertion of identity or atransitory marketing trick?”, Place Branding , Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 183-94.

Keller, K.L. (1998), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring and Managing Brand Equity, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Keller, K.L. (2003), “Brand synthesis: the multidimensionality of brand knowledge”, Journal of Consumer Research , Vol. 29, pp. 595-660.

Kennedy, R. and Ehrenberg, A. (2001), “Competing retailers generally have the same sorts of shoppers”, Journal of Marketing Communications , Vol. 7, pp. 1-8.

Kim, S.S., Lee, C. and Klenosky, D.B. (2003), “The inuence of push and pull factors at Koreannational parks”, Tourism Management , Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 169-80.

MIP28,4

482



Klenosky, D.B. (2002), “The ‘pull’ of tourism destinations: a means-end investigation”, Journal of Travel Research , Vol. 40, pp. 385-95.

Kotler, P., Haider, D.H. and Rein, I. (1993), Marketing Places: Attracting Investment, Industry and Tourism to Cities, States and Nations , The Free Press, New York, NY.

Levitt, T. (1980), “Marketing success through differentiation”, Harvard Business Review , January/February, pp. 83-91.

Lin, C.H., Morais, B., Kerstetter, D.L. and Hou, J.S. (2007), “Examining the role of cognitive andaffective image in predicting choice across natural, developed, and theme-parkdestinations”, Journal of Travel Research , Vol. 46, pp. 183-94.

MacKay, K.J. and Fesenmaier, D.R. (1997), “Pictorial element of destination in image formation”, Annals of Tourism Research , Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 537-65.

Mansfeld, Y. (1992), “From motivation to actual travel”, Annals of Tourism Research , Vol. 19,pp. 399-419.

Mihalic, T. (2000), “Environmental management of a tourist destination: a factor of tourismcompetitiveness”, Tourism Management , Vol. 21, pp. 65-78.

Morgan, N. and Pritchard, A. (1998), Tourism Promotion and Power: Creating Images, Creating Identities , Wiley, Chichester.Morgan , N. and Pri tchard , A. (2000) , Advertising in Tourism and Leisure ,

Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.Morgan, N., Pritchard, A. and Piggott, R. (2002), “New Zealand, 100% pure: the creation of a

powerful niche destination brand”, Journal of Brand Management , Vol. 9, pp. 335-54.Nickerson, N.P. and Moisey, R. (1999), “Branding a state from features to positioning: making it

simple?”, Journal of Vacation Marketing , Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 217-26.Nicolau, J.L. and Mas, F.J. (2005), “Stochastic modelling: a three-stage tourist choice process”,

Annals of Tourism Research , Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 49-69.Nicolau, J.L. and Mas, F.J. (2006), “The inuence of distance and prices on the choice of tourist

destinations: the moderating role of motivations”, Tourism Management , Vol. 27 No. 5,pp. 982-96.

Pike, S. (2002), “Destination image analysis – a review of 142 papers from 1973 to 2000”, Tourism Management , Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 541-9.

Prayag, G. (2006), “Destination mix elements: a comparison of visitors’ and stakeholders’perceptions”, paper presented at the New Zealand Tourism & Hospitality ResearchConference, 5-8 December, Dunedin, New Zealand.

Prayag, G. (2007), “Exploring the relationship between destination image and brand personalityof a tourist destination: an application of projective techniques”, Journal of Travel and Tourism Research , Vol. 2, pp. 111-30.

Prebensen, N.K. (2007), “Exploring tourists’ images of a distant destination”, Tourism Management , Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 747-56.

Rainisto, S.K. (2003), “Success factors of place marketing: a study of place marketing practices inNorthern Europe and the United States”, PhD dissertation, Helsinki University of Technology, Helsinki.

Reilly, M. (1990), “Free elicitation of descriptive adjectives for tourism image assessment”, Journal of Travel Research , Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 21-6.

Ries, A. and Trout, J. (1986), Positioning: The Battle for your Mind , McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.Ritchie, B.J.R. and Crouch, G.I. (2000), “The competitive destination: a sustainable perspective”,

Tourism Management , Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-7.


483



Romaniuk, J. (2006), “Comparing prompted and unprompted methods for measuring consumerbrand associations”, Journal of Targeting, Measurement & Analysis for Marketing , Vol. 15No. 1, pp. 3-11.

Romaniuk, J. and Sharp, B. (2004), “Conceptualising and measuring brand salience”, Marketing Theory , Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 327-42.

Romaniuk, J., Sharp, B. and Ehrenberg, A. (2007), “Evidence concerning the importance of perceived brand differentiation”, Australasian Marketing Journal , Vol. 15 No. 2,pp. 42-54.

Russell, J.A. (1980), “A circumplex model of affect”, Journal of Personality & Social Psychology ,Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 1161-78.

Russell, J.A. (2003), “Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion”, Psychological Review, Vol. 110 No. 1, pp. 145-72.

Russell, J.A., Ward, L.M. and Pratt, G. (1981), “Affective quality attributed to environments: afactor analytic study”, Environment & Behavior , Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 259-88.

Ryan, C. (2000), “Tourist experiences, phenomenographic analysis, post-positivism and neuralnetwork software”, International Journal of Tourism Research , Vol. 2, pp. 119-31.

Ryan, C. and Cave, J. (2005), “Structuring destination image: a qualitative approach”, Journal of Travel Research , Vol. 44, pp. 143-50.

Seddighi, H.R., Nuttall, M.W. and Theocharous, A.L. (2001), “Does cultural background of tourists inuence the destination choice? An empirical study with special reference topolitical instability”, Tourism Management , Vol. 22, pp. 181-91.

Sirakaya, E. and Woodside, A.G. (2005), “Building and testing theories of decision making bytravelers”, Tourism Management , Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 815-32.

Swarbrooke, J. and Horner, S. (2004), Consumer Behaviour in Tourism , Butterworth-Heinemann,Oxford.

Tapachi, N. and Waryszak, R. (2000), “An examination of the role of benecial image in touristdestination selection”, Journal of Travel Research , Vol. 39, pp. 37-44.

Tasci, A.D.A. and Gartner, W.C. (2007), “Destination image and its functional relationships”, Journal of Travel Research , Vol. 45, pp. 413-25.

Tasci, A.D.A., Gartner, W.C. and Cavusgil, S.T. (2007), “Conceptualization and operationalizationof destination image”, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research , Vol. 31 No. 2,pp. 194-223.

Taylor, C. and Wheatley, R. (1999), “Brand-aid”, Training & Development , Vol. 53 No. 11,pp. 48-53.

Trueman, M., Cook, D. and Cornelius, N. (2008), “Creative dimensions for branding andregeneration: overcoming negative perceptions of a city”, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 29-44.

Trueman, M., Klemm, M. and Giroud, A. (2004), “Can a city communicate? Bradford as acorporate brand”, Corporate Communications , Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 317-30.

Um, S. and Crompton, J.L. (1990), “Attitude determinants in tourism destination choice”, Annalsof Tourism Research , Vol. 17, pp. 432-48.

Woodside, A.G. and Lysonski, S. (1989), “A general model of traveller destination choice”, Journal of Travel Research , Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 8-14.

MIP28,4

484



Further readingPike, S. and Ryan, C. (2004), “Destination positioning analysis through a comparison of cognitive,

affective, and conative perceptions”, Journal of Travel Research , Vol. 42, pp. 333-42.

About the authorGirish Prayag, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in marketing at SKEMA Business School, France.Having previously held positions at the University of Mauritius and Charles Telfair Institute, hisresearch interests include destination image and branding, airline marketing and island tourismdevelopment. Girish Prayag can be contacted at: [email protected]


485

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Brand Image[1]

Documents