International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research

Emerald Article: Destination brand components Melodena Stephens Balakrishnan, Ramzi Nekhili, Clifford Lewis

Article information:
To cite this document: Melodena Stephens Balakrishnan, Ramzi Nekhili, Clifford Lewis, (2011),"Destination brand components", International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 5 Iss: 1 pp. 4 - 25 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181111111726 Downloaded on: 08-01-2013 References: This document contains references to 91 other documents To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com This document has been downloaded 16709 times since 2011. *

Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *

Melodena Stephens Balakrishnan, Ramzi Nekhili, Clifford Lewis, (2011),"Destination brand components", International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 5 Iss: 1 pp. 4 - 25 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181111111726 Melodena Stephens Balakrishnan, Ramzi Nekhili, Clifford Lewis, (2011),"Destination brand components", International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 5 Iss: 1 pp. 4 - 25 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181111111726 Melodena Stephens Balakrishnan, Ramzi Nekhili, Clifford Lewis, (2011),"Destination brand components", International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 5 Iss: 1 pp. 4 - 25 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181111111726

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Destination brand components

Melodena Stephens Balakrishnan, Ramzi Nekhili and Clifford Lewis

Melodena Stephens Balakrishnan is based in the Faculty of Business and Management, and Ramzi Nekhili is based in the Faculty of Finance and Accounting, both at the University of Wollongong in Dubai, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Clifford Lewis is based in the Faculty of Commerce, University of Wollongong, Australia.

Abstract Purpose This study matches destination brand components with motives and identies those components that are most important for the consumer during various stages of the decision process. This study also aims to classify various functional and symbolic brand components. The ndings take the customers point-of-view in identifying those descriptors that affect consumer choice preference and create destination loyalty. Design/methodology/approach The research is exploratory. Through a detailed literature review, destination brand components are identied, simplied and then classied as symbolic or functional. They are also classied by motive. The review is followed by a quantitative study that uses open-ended questions to nd the relationship between destination brand components and the stage of decision making. This study also presents a conceptual model with taxonomy of brand components. Findings Functional brand components seem to play a major role in a consumers description of place brands during the various decision making stages. This nding highlights the importance of stressing functional components in the destinations branding strategy. Originality/value This study is the rst of its type and can serve as a platform for future research, practically helping destinations create more effective communication. Keywords Brands, Brand awareness, Symbolism Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Importance of brand image Governments are investing over 12 percent of world investments into tourism-related industries and infrastructure; receiving revenues of an average of ten percent of the world GDP (Arnold, 2007; WTTC, 2007). Destination marketing has a tremendous scope to grow. However, though the industry is growing, its share is declining with respect to the export of commercial services from 32 percent in 2000 to 27 percent in 2006 (WTO, 2007). A symbiotic relationship between destination marketing organizations (DMOs), local governments and private sector can have a positive effect on destination growth (Bennett, 1999; Prideaux and Cooper, 2003). With more destination and place brands emerging, the challenges of branding are increasing (assuming destinations are service brands, see Moorthi, 2002). Destination branding is complex because the concept includes elements of product, service and corporate branding. Destination brands act as an umbrella brand to a multiplicity of products which may or may not be related and has a diversity of customers (Balakrishnan, 2008; Fan, 2006). Destination branding falls under tourism destination image (TDI) (see Gallarza et al., 2002 for a background). Brand image is a function of the person interpreting the image; this makes destination branding harder to study (Meenaghan, 1995). When differentiation between destinations is low, it is the brand image that creates a perceptual difference 35-65 percent of the time (Hosany et al., 2007; Palumbo and Herbig, 2000).

Received: November 2008 Revised: December 2008 Accepted: March 2009

PAGE 4

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH

VOL. 5 NO. 1 2011, pp. 4-25, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182

DOI 10.1108/17506181111111726

A strong correlation exits between favorable image and intention to visit (Leisen, 2001). Ataman and Ulengin (2003, p. 246) nd that consumers tend to choose brands whose perceived images are similar to consumers actual, ideal, social, ideal-social and situational-ideal-social images. This statement means perceived image self-congruity affects brand preferences and hence sales. A strong support for brands to have a multiplicity of image attributes is indicated. The same study suggests that 90 percent of the variation in sales (this study involves the Turkish beverage industry) is being caused by the brands image while only 10 percent is due to factors like distribution, advertising, brand loyalty. Destinations being more complex can have different results. Destination marketing has four potential outlets for marketing information (Moutinho, 1987): primary or word of mouth (WOM); secondary (mass media), tertiary (travel agents, tour operators, exhibitions) and fourthly (personal experiences). Destination image is a sum of complex messages given by a variety of stakeholders, through a variety of communication mediums. Incongruent advertisements for familiar brands have easier brand recall, but harder advertisement recall; while incongruent advertisements for non-familiar brands have harder brand recall (Lange and Dahlen, 2003). Country of origin (COO) for products affects brand equity. Positive COO affects brand loyalty, brand distinctiveness, brand awareness and brand associations (Yasin et al., 2007). Lee and Ganesh (1999) suggest that when consumers are not familiar with a country, they rely more on COO information as a reection of a destinations image and countries with a favorable image receive a more positive country product evaluation from consumers. While consumers tend to categorize brands by COO, their perceptions are often inaccurate (Balabanis and Diamantopoulos, 2008). When customers are unfamiliar with a country, they tend to be reluctant to trust the product image for consumer goods (Lee and Ganesh, 1999). By extrapolation, this lack of familiarity will also dissuade travelers from buying a destination as a product of investment opportunity as the risks of destination investment are higher. Tourism is used as an example of halo marketing that helps conrm or modify a target customers self-image and helps match social motivations with the customers reference group (Ross-Wooldridge, 2004). Research indicates that consumers use projective techniques to identify or associate brand image characteristics (Hussey and Duncombe, 1999). The t between corporate (in this case overall destination image) and the service extension (destination sub-products like hospitality, infrastructure) must be strong otherwise it affects perception on sub-product quality and overall image of the corporate brand (Pina et al., 2006). Destination brand associations are multi-dimensional since they differ across various products and also because there is a dependency on how well known the brand image is (Low and Lamb, 2000; Kirmani et al., 1999). For destinations to maintain image, they must monitor sub-products quality. All these factors can affect customer loyalty. Public relations inuences customer loyalty conditional to a positive brand image (Hsieh and Li, 2008). Through a qualitative and quantitative study, OCass and Grace (2004) nd service brand associations relate positively toward the attitudes directed towards a branded service which in turn relates positively to the intension to use. A study on brand components may lead to additional insights on customer propensity to visit a destination or purchase of a destination experience. These insights should allow for a more long-term strategic approach for success. Preference for quality and greater place attachment leads to higher expenditure (Alegre and Juaneda, 2006). Hence image of destinations is a key aspect of the branding strategy. Destination brand image is an intricate topic and the concept of image needs to be simplied into key components; these components must be classied into elements of the destination brand components (DBC) and then these DBCs must be related to what customer value (see Hankinson, 2005; Leisen, 2001). The nature of the study of destination brand components is multidisciplinary in nature (Gallarza et al., 2002). Low and Lamb (2000) nd brand associations for various products are different and further are inuenced by

VOL. 5 NO. 1 2011 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 5

brand familiarity. This nding suggests that DBCs may change as consumers move up from various stages of the decision making process as the consumption of destination sub-products will vary during the entire process. This indicates a gap in literature with respect to importance of DBCs and the decision making process.

Research objective
Image and perception relate closely to each other (White, 2005). Brand image affects perception of a destination. Meenaghan (1995) explains that though the image of a destination sent to the customer is controllable, the image that the target customer receives or perceives is not. This study focuses on learning what brand components best describe destination brands and their impact on brand image from a customer point of view. The research has three sub-objectives. First there is a need to simplify existing knowledge on DBCs. Second, existing literature in brand components needs to be classied into the simplied form. Third, the importance of DBCs at each stage in the decision making process needs to be evaluated in terms of overall brand image. The nature of this study is exploratory, and its key focus is on DBCs. Through the development of a conceptual framework, the paper will present a practical platform for destination marketing organizations (DMOs) to build brand strategies. First through a detailed literature review, current popular classication of brand components is identied. Based on the denitions of the classications of brand components and their areas of inuence, the various components identied are segregated. Second, these DBCs are related to the Pierce travel experience ladder through the motives behind them. This relationship is used to formulate a conceptual framework and present taxonomy of DBCs. The four hypotheses derived from the literature review and conceptual model are tested. Finally the results are discussed and future research areas are identied.

Literature review
A literature review on DBCs (Bhat and Reddy, 1998; McWilliam and de Chernatony, 1989; Echtner and Ritchie, 1993; Hankinson, 2005; Mowle and Merrilees, 2005; Wood, 2007) identies the following key brand attributes: functional and symbolic or intangible and tangible attributes. Brand constructs include personality and emotions (Aaker, 1997; de Chernatony, 1997). Maklan and Knox (1997) nd that brands can be measured using variables like interpersonal relationship, word of mouth, country of origin, names and usage intensions. The de Chernatony and Rileys (1997) double vortex model suggests than in addition to functional and symbolic capabilities; legal identities, heritage and values, and psycho-social match also affects brand image.

Functional brand components Two attitudes drive customers when purchasing brands (Cooper, 1989). The rst attitude is utilitarian in nature and involves brand perceptions of benets, physical justications, beliefs about value for money and availability. This attitude is commonly reinforced by functional attributes of the brand. Functional DBCs relate to the core function/service of the brand (Maklan and Knox, 1997) which is associated with immediate practical needs (Bhat and Reddy, 1998; Wood, 2007), rational assessment of product benets or functional performance (de Chernatony et al., 2000; Mowle and Merrilees, 2005; Wood, 2000). Functional characteristics are mainly tangible in nature and are often dened as being measurable (Hankinson, 2004). The product can manifest as functional characteristics (Mowle and Merrilees, 2005) or physical attributes which contribute to the intrinsic advantages of the product (Orth and Marchi, 2007). Wood (2007) estimates that the products functional performance inuences the products market image by as much as 20 percent.

PAGE 6 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 5 NO. 1 2011

Symbolic brand components Symbolic components represent the other common brand component identiable in literature review. Symbolic components are those features and benets that are over and above the core product (Wood, 2000); and relate to non-product attributes (Keller, 1993). Symbolic brand components relate strongly to intangible components (Hankinson, 2005; Mowle and Merrilees, 2005; Wood, 2000) which are likely to be more extrinsic in nature to the product (Keller, 1993). Symbolic DBCs satisfy needs over and above functional requirements; and manifest as higher order needs like self-expression, self-esteem, prestige (Bhat and Reddy, 1998; Hankinson, 2005; Wood, 2007); emotional values and feelings (Mowle and Merrilees, 2005); and social approval (Hankinson, 2005; Meenaghan, 1995). Since they are psychological, they cannot be directly observed (Echtner and Ritchie, 1993) and the meaning develops through the individuals socialization process (McWilliam and de Chernatony, 1989). Experiential brand components Hankinson (2004, 2005) and de Chernatony and Riley (1997, p. 1076) identify the experiential components of the brand as the symbolic components that represent higher order needs. Experiential components may be manifest in how the brand relates to the customer self-concept, intuitive likes and dislikes, its ability to convey exclusivity (how it relates to other customers), customer lifestyle, way of life and fashionability (Cooper, 1989; Solomon, 1983). In the three-tier brand creation model, higher tiers correspond to emotional and value services which are essentially non-product attributes that are external to core product function looking at dimensions of the marketing mix, imagery, feelings and experience (Keller, 1998; Maklan and Knox, 1997). Being a sensory process, experiential marketing in the context of tourism and hospitality marketing, creates value through entertainment, educational, estheticism or escapism (Williams, 2006). A 13 country study by Lindstrom (2005) indicates that 99 percent of brand communication focuses on two of the key senses sight and sound, though emotional connections are more effective as it uses the synergy of all ve senses. OCass and Grace (2004) suggest that people, word of mouth, servicescape (ambience) and experiences are important when considering service brands.

Destination brand components: a simplied classication

Two basic underlying dimensions of brands exist: a functional dimension consisting of tangible or practical attributes or the delivery of key benets; and a symbolic or emotional dimension consisting of more intangible attributes (Mowle and Merrilees, 2005; Sirgy and Su, 2000). There is an overlap in areas, for example in the case of tangible reminders, souvenirs/memorabilia may be functional as they are tangible yet may have a symbolic association (memories) with the brand (Human, 1999; Gordon, 1986; Williams, 2006). Destinations have an intangible component and intangible products need tangible references points to help customers evaluate their perceptions of the service offerings (McDonald et al., 2001). Hankinson (2004) nds image attributes like history, heritage and culture frequently associated with tangibles like buildings and architectural environment. Symbolic aspects like interactions (between consumer or/and staff) are manifest through physical aspects like staff uniforms and training (McDonald et al., 2001). Chhabra et al. (2003) nd that authenticity of heritage tourism (functional DBC) depends on perceived authenticity which is partly controlled by media and to a greater extent by WOM (symbolic-DBC). DBCs and motivations Keller (1993) associates functional benets with Maslows motivation. Pearce (1991) extends this concept of motivation specically to the tourism context. Functional DBCs have an association with basic motivations like physiological and safety needs, which involve a desire for problem removal or avoidance (Keller, 1993). Organic images which are perceptions built over a long period of time and are strongly associated with the brand, are

VOL. 5 NO. 1 2011 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 7

actually functional in nature (Hankinson, 2004). Lower-order needs also manifest through functional destination brand components. Experiences, which are symbolic, fall under motivations like social needs, esteem, personal expression/self-actualization (Keller, 1993). Higher-order needs as described earlier manifest as symbolic components. There is an overlap of motives with functional and symbolic brand components. The brand components can be identied from a variety of sources (see articles like Anholt, 2006; Balakrishnan, 2009; Hankinson, 2004). Within each motive we can look at components as either functional or symbolic. Physiological motives relate to the destinations intrinsic benets. They are benets that relate to the core of the destination service that a customer wants to experience like adventure and culture and destination purpose (de Chernatony and Riley, 1997). Physiological DBCs are pull factors: tangibles (physical places) or intangibles (rest and relaxation) (Law et al., 2004). Attractions act as pull factors for place attachment and development (Gross et al., 2008). Physiological motives act as offshoots of the intrinsic benets. These motives are destination descriptors and increasingly relate to the context (Hankinson, 2005). For example: is the destination suitable for young children, entertainment, enjoyment and recreation (Hankinson, 2004, 2005). Hankinson (2004) describe them as functional clusters of attributes associated with a destinations economic activity, accessibility or even organic images associated with history, culture and heritage. They can be rules and regulations like visa restrictions and entry charges which act as barriers for entry and require policies to be put in place (Trueman et al., 2004). Physiological motives can also be sensory (besides visual). Associations with blue skies, sunny weather, yellow sand, emerald islands, and green forests. Food is a functional DBC as it is a basic requirement (Gross et al., 2008) and can be an important destination differentiator. Halal food is an important criterion for Muslims, pure vegetarian food (no egg, ginger, onion, garlic, meat including sh) for Jains and kosher food for Jews. These dietary requirements can become a destination barrier. Tangibles, acquired through shopping are functional elements and appeal to the visual element even aiding recall (Hankinson, 2004). As explained before, these shopping items can also be symbolic components. Interpretations or perceptions of destination become symbolic attributes when they relate to the senses (pyramids as a representation of Egypt, Petra for Jordan, Statue of Liberty for New York or as a symbol of freedom). The perception of the personality of a place (personal interpretation/experience) is symbolic (Ibrahim and Gill, 2005) and affects customer satisfaction with destination experience. Motivation factors like safety needs manifest themselves as functional DBCs. They span attributes like basic accommodation (Hankinson, 2004), accessibility and cost (Hankinson, 2005). Cleanliness and hygiene which are functional in nature, act as security needs for physical health (Orth and Marchi, 2007; Solomon, 1983). Safety motivations are based in symbolic perceptions (Ibrahim and Gill, 2005). It expresses itself as tolerance of the visible signs of poverty. Someone who has a prior experience of poverty will not nd it too disturbing but for rst-time experiencers, it may spoil the destination experience. Destination consumers may perceive the presence of police on horseback less threatening than police in cars or army security personnel standing with guns. These perceptions (barbed wire at checkpoints, whether guards smile, riots or even the recent Mumbai blast) affect destination experience. Social DBCs which are symbolic satisfy the consumers self expression needs (Bhat and Reddy, 1998) while sending social signals on behalf of their consumer (Meenaghan, 1995). Relationship needs are the associations customers develop within the place with other people like celebrities and indigenous population who are considered locals to that destination (Ibrahim and Gill, 2005). Relationship with other tourists and friends are an example of self-congruence which is also symbolic (Hankinson, 2005). The quality of friendliness of locals has been found to be a symbolic component that can affect brand image (Ibrahim and Gill, 2005). However Baloglu and Brinberg (1997) perceive it to be functional. Friendliness of locals may be functional DBCs prior to visit, when it forms part of

PAGE 8 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 5 NO. 1 2011

the expectation or is a representative of the place (natives) as it acts as a key motive for travel. Locals friendliness becomes symbolic when the customer looks back at the memories of the experience, and it affects word of mouth (Gross et al., 2008). Keller (1993) relates this symbolic DBC to the need for social approval but the attribute of friendliness also has overtones with esteem needs. Esteem needs are linked to psychological or emotional needs which are symbolic in nature (Baloglu and Brinberg, 1997). For the travelers it manifests itself through self-congruence reinforcement by being in a happening place (Hankinson, 2005) and exerting self and personal preferences and values. Ambience tends to be symbolic (Hankinson, 2005). For the traveler and his social circle, it becomes a conversation topic and reinforces lifestyle through destination encounter and choice (Gross et al., 2008). The brand gets an aura of exclusivity, prestige and fashionability (Bhat and Reddy, 1998; Mowle and Merrilees, 2005; Solomon, 1983; Wood, 2007). The halo effect adds to the reputation of the place (Simeon, 2006) and this reinforces the reputation/image of a person who visits that same place. Self actualization is the nal state. Self actualization is symbolic as it links to self congruity and the personality of a place becoming a reection of the traveler (Hankinson, 2004; Ibrahim and Gill, 2005). Self-actualization focuses on self-discovery and growth (through the experience), reecting also in celebration of special occasions as a symbolic representation of self-expression (de Chernatony and Riley, 1997; Gross et al., 2008; Mowle and Merrilees, 2005) as the experience creates (lasting) emotions (Baloglu and Brinberg, 1997). Heroes and heroines are part of the functional attributes inherent with a place (Hankinson, 2005) however they can have symbolic characteristics especially if linked to self-congruity. Figure 1 and Table I presents a conceptual model that looks at how travel motives can be correlated with functional and symbolic DBCs as discussed above. Table I correlates DBCs with motivations. Motives can be correlated to both functional DBCs and symbolic DBCs, reinforcing the theory that brands can have a dyadic nature (Bhat and Reddy, 1998; Mowle and Merrilees, 2005). As one moves up the travel ladder in terms of higher order motives, more symbolic DBCs become relevant.

Figure 1 The brand component need hierarchy linkage

VOL. 5 NO. 1 2011 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 9

Table I Destination brand components (DBC) as a function of Pierce travel ladder

DBC Physiological Tangible/visual/functional Intrinsic benets: service delivery process, adjectives, Ingredient/associated brands, sponsorships, events Features: adjectives; physical justications, Business tourism facilities, commercial criteria, events, activities, shopping, things to do, functionality, facilities, amenities Sight: name, logo, trade mark, graphics, symbols, slogans, colors, servicescape Other 4 senses: smell, taste, touch, sound (if distinctive to place for identication) Tangibles: souvenirs, shopping items, postcards, pictures, movies, ads Images; information; buildings architecture, facilities, places of interest, scenery Safety: physical, mental, emotional, perceived, and visual reinforcement Organic images familiarity and ability to identify visual evidence Convenience: access, facilities and amenities, infrastructure, communication, currency Service: government, tourism, information, hospitality etc Intangible/symbolic Interpretations and seeding of ve senses and realistic portrayal of expectations

Security/safety

Social

People as a symbol: leaders, dress, outward local customs, rituals and ability to adopt. Social segregation when required and ability to deliver as per perceptions. Ingredient/associated brands, sponsorships, events

Esteem

Self-actualization

Personal visual transformation from experience (self, gifts and house/habit adoption)

Intrinsic benets: relevance and representation of the personality of place as per perception (culture, heritage, ambience) Features: perception of ability to satisfy intrinsic needs Value/expense perceptions Safety: perception Convenience: perception Service: satisfaction Conform with social values/WOM Travelers-Residents Relationship & bond, familiarity, interaction and empathy. Traveler-Traveler familiarity, interaction and congruence. Traveler-Social Circle: conversation topic Image/roles of People associated with service delivery or destination Perception of others perception (WOM, public relations, publicity; international reputation) how it adds value to self-esteem Halo effect association with other brands, image perceptions and how this adds value to esteem Self-image congruence, personal values, self-personality; lifestyle, self-expression Event/occasion association: ambience Experience that creates an emotions/mood/association with certain senses Internalization and familiarity of legends of heroes/heroine (living, dead and ctitious) Ability to help traveler walk away with personal growth, discovery and fulllment

Adapted from Balakrishnan (2009)

DBC and consumer decision-making process An important but challenging aspect of branding is consistency that is achievable by eliminating negative cues . . . that diminishes, contradicts or distracts from the unity of the theme (Williams, 2006, p. 490). Brand image is longitudinal and can refer to various orientations of time: past, present and future (Williams, 2006). Three focus stages occur for this research. Destination brand image formed during consumption was not chosen because at this stage, the process of consumption evaluation would be incomplete and true destination image would only be acquired post-consumption. Destination image is a sum of cumulative experiences and in its formation process is difcult to pinpoint a single consumption opportunity (Chen and Gursoy, 2001).

PAGE 10 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 5 NO. 1 2011

Consumers decision-making process of a destination begins with the customers ability to make sense of the vast quantities of information collected prior to consumption and purchase and (Kotler and Gertner, 2004). By a process of elimination, which is normally image based; an individual selects a destination they wish or want to visit (Gartner, 1989; Goodrich, 1978; Leisen, 2001; p. 50). Decision making for consumers become easier when destinations focus on a distinct set of tangible and functional destination attributes (Woodside and Dubelaar, 2002; Woodside and Trappey, 2001). Hankinson (2004) nds that functional attributes have a stronger linkage with overall quality and hence destination attractiveness. This is phase I of the decision making process: creation of a wish list. H1. Customers distinguish between destinations based on functional DBCs for creating a wish list prior to consumption.

Studies by Caldwell and Freire (2004); de Chernatony et al. (2000); Jamal and Goode (2001) and Mowle and Merrilees (2005) nd symbolic properties rather than functional qualities are what the consumer prefers and what gives a destination a greater sustainable competitive advantage. This preference is important for selection of destinations (prior to consumption) to create a wish list. Hankinson (2004) nds ambience (symbolic DBC) has a strong inuence on selection. This is Phase 2: nalizing the choice of destinations from the wish list where destinations are substitutable. H2. Customers distinguish between destinations in a choice set predominantly on the basis of symbolic DBC when selecting the nal destination to visit.

Past trip experiences affect a tourists selection of a destination and this experience has a direct impact on perceptions of safety (Chen and Gursoy, 2001). Since this is a perception of safety, it is functional but since it can be inuenced by other peoples perceptions and experiences, it overlaps with symbolic DBCs. For customers who enjoy variety (which is a large segment), satisfaction is a key driver and though they would not revisit, they will recommend (Castro et al., 2007). This WOM acts like a halo-image and a benchmark for other destinations. WOM helps the traveler move up the travel ladder to higher order motives due to the accumulated information collected, experience and increased expectations. Recommendations can also act as a surrogate for loyalty and can lead to destination performance (Reichheld, 2003). Phase 3 is the next phase in the decision-making process: post consumption experiences. The study includes three scenarios: 1. Best destination. This is an evaluation of an experience and relates to WOM. Travelers were asked to rank destinations in their mind and evaluate their best destination using three attributes. 2. Most consumers rarely revisit leisure destinations as the choice is so large, hence loyalty is measured through unsolicited positive WOM. The question asked is Which destinations are you willing to recommend? 3. This deals with perceptions of the worst location where customers would not want to visit. This can affect negative word of mouth. This evaluation is an internal process. Loyalty is based on WOM and is a relationship or bond between a place and a traveler; hence is symbolic. H3a. H3b. Customers distinguish between destinations (post-consumption) on the basis of symbolic properties. Customers dene destination loyalty by using symbolic attributes.

Hankinson (2004) reports functional attributes are most important when differentiating between destinations (looking at the broader context of countries). H4. Overall when looking at brand image, functional DBCs outweigh symbolic DBCs in importance.

VOL. 5 NO. 1 2011 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 11

Method
A self-administered questionnaire was used to interview respondents. The questionnaire had three sections based on the three key decision making stages. Besides demographic details, the rst part of the questionnaire (Phase 1) dealt with DBCs that affect the customers wish list. Phase 2 dealt with DBCs that were important for the customer in nalizing the destination from the wish list. Phase 3 dealt with the experience of the customer at a chosen destination, post-consumption. It looked at three scenarios: 1. factors used to describe the best destination; 2. DBCs important for recommendation; and 3. DBCs important for describing least favorite destination. Open-ended questions were used to understand the relative importance of DBCs used in describing the brand image of a destination for Phase 1 and 3. In Phase 2 a ve-point Likert scale was used to identify factors important to the customer. These factors were short-listed based on existing studies conducted by Baloglu and McCleary (1999), Beerli and Martin (2004) and Hankinson (2004, 2005). The analyses of the open-ended questions were based on an approach adopted by Finn et al. (2000) and Ibrahim and Gill (2005). Similar responses to the open ended questions were grouped together and categorized under common themes; thus allowing the analysis of those factors. For pre-testing purposes, the questionnaire was administered to a small group of ten respondents who were later interviewed for their opinion about the structure and readability of the questionnaire. Based on their suggestions, a few minor changes in design, content and instructions were implemented when the study was carried out. The pre-test also indicated that on average, the respondent would take around ten minutes to complete the various sections of the questionnaire. This is an important factor as time available to ll the questionnaire was short. Dubai was chosen as the test market. Of its population, 80 percent is expatriates and it is also a tourist destination (Balakrishnan, 2008). The sample was selected based on a quota sampling method by which one-third of the sample was obtained by interviewing residents of the country of study while the remaining two-thirds of the sample represent tourists and other individuals visiting the country. The respondents were selected by adopting a convenience sample based on factors such as accessibility, ability to speak English, and willingness to participate in the research project. Some challenges occurred in collecting the data. In Dubai, collecting market research information in public places without permission from authorities is not allowed. To overcome this limitation, two strategies were used. Residents were contacted based on referrals using personal networks. Tourists were mainly contacted through institutions such as the Government of Dubai Department of Tourism and Commerce Marketing (DTCM) which provided the necessary contacts and permissions within hotel groups and tourist attractions. These contacts included hotel groups such as the Accor group (The Novotel Trade Centre Hotel and The Sotel City Centre Hotel) as well as tourist attractions such as the Big Bus. These sites were selected based on judgment so as to best represent the population of interest (Jankowicz, 2000). This also ensured that we had a signicant sample of English speakers and leisure travelers. A total of 450 questionnaires were distributed and 300 were returned resulting in a response rate of 66.67 percent. After eliminating questionnaires whose responses were incomplete or invalid in regard to the scope of this study, a sample size of 289 respondents were chosen to represent the target population. Though it is recognized that the sample size is small; the sample size is comparable to other studies of a similar nature (Castaneda et al., 2007; Chen and Gursoy, 2001; Law et al., 2004). Respondents characteristics The target population for this study was pre-specied as individuals who travel for tourism or other leisure purposes and who pay for their package themselves. Of the satisfactorily completed questionnaires, 53 percent of the sample was male respondents while 47 percent

PAGE 12 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 5 NO. 1 2011

of the sample represented female respondents. In regards to income, 19 percent of the respondents earned an income of less than 10,000 dollars per annum; 13 percent of the respondents earned an annual income between the 10,000 to 20,000 dollars; 12 percent of the respondents earned an annual income between 20,000 to 30,000 dollars; 12 percent of the respondents fell within the 30,000 to 40,000 dollars annual income range and 31 percent earned an annual income more than 40,000 dollars. Further, the research project was conducted across 46 nationalities with the most dominant nationalities being Indians (25 percent of the sample) and the British (representing 13 percent of the total sample). With regard to family status, 42 percent of the sample was single individuals while 57 percent represented family individuals with an average of two children. Table II shows the details of the sample.

Analysis and discussion

The qualitative data were rst grouped into common themes based on semantic expression and variation and then regrouped into sub-sections under functional and symbolic DBCs (see Tables III-VIII). Functional DBCs have three categories:

Table II Sample demographics characteristics

Factor Gender Male Female Income range Less than 10,000 10,000 to 20,000 20,000 to 30,000 30,000 to 40,000 More than 40,000 Nationality Indian British UAE Filipino Sri Lankan Lebanese Australian, French Jordanian, Pakistani Canadian American, Egyptian German South African Austrian, Danish, Irish, Sudanese, Syrian Cameroon, Dutch, Finnish, Indonesian Iranian, Kuwaiti, Mauritian, Nigerian, Romanian, Swedish Algerian, Armenian, Bangladeshi, Belgian Bruneian, Greek, Italian, Japanese, Malaysian, New Zealander Norwegian, Singaporean, Yugoslavian, Swiss, Thai, Turk Marital status Single Family Number of children (if individual falls into family criteria) No children One child Two children Three children Four children Five children Average children Total Percentage

150 137 55 38 36 34 90 73 39 22 15 12 11 each 9 each 8 7 each 6 5 4 each 3 each 2 each 2 each 1 each 1 each 1 120 166 47 34 51 24 8 2 1.506

51.9 47.41 19.03 13.15 12.46 11.76 31.14 25.26 13.49 7.61 5.19 4.15 3.81 3.11 2.77 2.42 2.08 1.73 1.38 1.04 0.69 0.69 0.35 0.35 0.35 41.52 57.44 28.31 20.48 30.72 14.46 4.82 1.2

VOL. 5 NO. 1 2011 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 13

Table III Responses for functional DBCs: basic physical/infrastructural

Factor Basic physical/infrastructure needs (DBCF1) Accessibility (total) Accessibility from home country Accessibility to other destinations Local accessibility Location Animals/wildlife Architecture/monuments Availability of travel packages Beautiful sites Natural sites/scenaries/attractions and environment Historic places/architecture/constructions/ landmarks Modern architecture and constructions Places within destination/tourist attractions Religious sites Media (photographs) Revisit place/attractions Tourist attractions not visited on previous trip Total Phase 1 Want to visit Phase 2 Choice set Best destination Phase 3 Recommendations Least favorite

149 3 9 6 9 7 26 75 23 3 69 4 3 12 3 10 3 7 28 50 10 1 30 1 8 13 176 17 3 22 2 0 1 2 13 26 5 0 23 0

194

21

3 6

11

237

343

114

49

Table IV Responses for functional DBCs: basic product needs

Factor Basic product needs (DBCF2) Cleanliness and hygiene Climate Commercial and business Accommodation/hotels/resorts Cost or economic value Holiday and leisure Quality of telecommunication Rules and regulations Special meeds Total Phase 1 Want to visit Phase 2 Choice set Best destination Phase 3 Recommendations Least favorite

7 54 13 2 17 12

179 211 192 145

9 71 3 10 22 3 1

6 50 0 29 87 1

20 27 2 2 13

6 173 70

1 106

727

119

Table V Responses for functional DBCs: experiences (related to product)

Factor Experiences Adventure Entertainment and enjoyment/recreational Food Children activities Shopping Special occasions and events Uniqueness sites/poverty Total Phase 1 Want to visit Phase 2 Choice set Best destination Phase 3 Recommendations Least favorite

8 39 35 7 35 1 3 128

140 175 140 127 184 766

5 48 49 5 32 3 6 148

3 32 24 1 7 0 8 75

13 25

2 40

PAGE 14 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 5 NO. 1 2011

Table VI Responses for symbolic DBCs: perceptions and relationships

Factor Perceptions Multi-cultural History/culture Personality/perception of place Political issues Popularity of place (noisy/congested) Quality of life/lifestyle (not suitable for tourist) Celebrities Similar to other countries/destinations WOM Safety Relaxation and peace (boring) Positive emotions Experience knowledge/not been there before Personal experience Previous experience Total Relationships Local people Other tourists Friendliness of locals (lack of relationships) Service/facilities/hospitality Language/communications Relationships (friends/family) Characteristics of others wanting to go there Total Phase 1 Want to visit Phase 2 Choice set Best destination Phase 3 Recommendations Least favorite

3 78 19 4 12 2 15 3 13 11 57

158

2 50 11 0 5

0 25 2 2 1

7 9 4 17 4 6

218

1 8 18 4 9 7 115 75

217 33

376 125 66 190

0 63 5 0 5 24 2 129 36

27 6

5 85 42 1 10 21

2 5 39 79 381

6 4 30 115

15 8 0 14 73

73

1. basic physical/infrastructure needs; 2. basic product needs; and 3. experiences (which overlap with basic product needs). According to the brand component-need hierarchy linkage, these three categories fall between physiological, security and safety needs. Destination perceptions and relationships can be grouped into symbolic DBCs. According to the brand component-need hierarchy linkage, symbolic DBCs fall between social, esteem and self-actualization needs. After categorizing the DBCs, quantitative analysis was conducted by looking at mean responses (see Table VIII). The mean responses for DBC preferences are different across the various phases.

Phase 1: Creating a wish list Overall in phase 1, functional DCBs are more in number (61 percent) than symbolic DBCs. This supports H1. In creating a wish list, the study nds that basic physical/infrastructure (functional DBCF1, see Table VII) accounts for 26 percent of total DBCs. In this category key tourist perceptions of the brand are dependent on places to see which form 92 percent of the sub-category. The importance for destination marketing organizations projecting places is further reinforced by the fact that places to see accounts for 29 percent of the total DBCs (see Table III). In the second functional DBC category, basic product, key touchpoint for the brand is weather which accounts for 51 percent of the DBCF2 category (see Table IV). Overall this accounts for 7 percent of the total DBCs in terms of importance in Phase 1. In the third functional DBC category, experiences (DBCF3 see Table V), three factors stand out. The rst is entertainment (30 percent of category), food (27 percent of category) and shopping (27 percent of the category). Combined, they account for 12 percent of total DBCs in Phase 1.

VOL. 5 NO. 1 2011 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 15

PAGE 16 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 5 NO. 1 2011

j
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Subcategory total (% of total DBC) 237 106 128 471 217 79 296 767 (100) 2,593 (39) 757 (29) (100) (24) (11) 376 381 (40) (53) 115 115 230 673 (61) 1,836 (71) 443 (66) (13) (16) (34) (100) (26) (9) (11) 343 727 766 (37) (61) (66) 176 119 148 (19) (10) (13) 114 173 75 362 129 73 202 564 (12) (15) (7) (64) (14) (10) (36) (100) 49 70 40 159 85 73 158 317 (5) (6) (4) (50) (9) (10) (50) (100) 919 1,195 1,157 3,271 922 721 1,643 4,914 (19) (24) (24) (67) (19) (15) (33) (100)

Table VII Percentage responses

Functional DBC 1 Basic physical/infrastructure number of responses (percentage of subcategory responses to total) 2 Basic product, No. responses (percentage total) 3 Experience, No. responses (percentage total) 4 Total functional DBC as a percentage of total in each phase (1 2 3)

Symbolic DBC 5 Perception, No. responses (percentage total) 6 Relationship, No. responses (percentage total) 7 Total symbolic DBC as a percentage of total in each phase (5 6) 8 Total: functional symbolic DBC (percentage of overall) (4 7)

Table VIII Mean responses

Phase 1 Functional DBC Basic physical/infrastructure mean Basic product mean Experience mean Symbolic DBC Perception mean Relationship mean Phase 2 Phase 3

0.82 0.37 0.44 0.75 0.27

1.19 2.52 2.65 1.30 1.32

0.61 0.41 0.51 0.40 0.40

0.39 0.60 0.26 0.45 0.25

0.17 0.24 0.14 0.29 0.26

Analysis of the rst category of symbolic DBCs, perceptions (DBCS1), the study nds history and culture account for 36 percent of the category, while experience knowledge accounts for 26 percent (see Table VI). Overall they respectively account for 10 percent and 7 percent respectively of the cumulative total of DBCs for Phase 1. Newer locations with little past history need to focus on the experience knowledge. In the symbolic DBC category, relationships (DBCS2); local people account for 42 percent of the category; and relationship with family and friends account for 49 percent (see Table VI). Local people and relationships together account for 10 percent of the total DBCs. In summation, key DBCs that a leisure tourist perceives as important in the overall context for creating a wish list are: tourist attractions (28 percent); history culture and experience knowledge (26 percent); food, shopping and entertainment (12 percent); climate (7 percent) and local people and relationships (10 percent). Leisure tourists choose a wish list with an objective to see or experience something. From a DMO point of view it is important to match the customer prole with activity. Phase 2: Selection of a choice set In Phase 2, for selection of a choice set, customers rank functional brand components (71 percent) as key drivers of the brand. Symbolic DBCs account for just 29 percent of the total DBCs (see Table III). The ndings do not support H2. Accessibility (total and local) seems to be a unanimously important DBC (100 percent) for basic physical/infrastructure needs (see Table III). Overall, accessibility accounts for 13 percent of the total DBCs in this Phase. In the basic product category (see Table IV), the factors that stand out are: climate (25 percent of the category), accommodation (29 percent), economic value (26 percent) and telecommunications (20 percent). The impact of each as a percentage of total DBCs in this phase, affecting the choice selection ranges between 8-6 percent. In the product-related experiences (see Table V); the factors that seem important are uniqueness of site (24 percent of this category), food (23 percent), recreation/entertainment (18 percent); shopping (18 percent) and celebration of events/special occasions (17 percent). These factors each account for 7-5 percent of the total DBCs in Phase 2. In the symbolic category of perceptions (see Table VI), a clear focus on safety (58 percent of category) and history/culture in perceptions (42 percent) occurs. Safety has an overall impact of 8 percent in contribution to total DBCs for this category. History and culture is 6 percent. In the symbolic category of relationships (see Table VI), local people and their friendliness cannot be ignored as they contribute to 83 percent of the category almost equally, and overall account for 12 percent of total DBC. For Phase 2, selection from a choice set, the DBC emphasis from a tourist point of view on the overall brand is rst accessibility (13 percent of total DBCs); accommodation (8 percent); safety (8 percent); climate (7 percent); uniqueness of site (7 percent); economic value (6 percent); food (6 percent); history and culture (6 percent); local people (6 percent); friendliness of local people (6 percent); and shopping (5 percent). It is interesting that hygiene factors are important in this stage and can prevent a place customer from deciding

VOL. 5 NO. 1 2011 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 17

to buy a leisure product. Also this category had the most responses; more than three times the number than any other phase. This is a neglected area and can affect brand perception of a place. The perception of the people of a place also has a high impact on brand value of a place. This reinforces the service aspect of a destination brand. Phase 3: Post-consumption: scenario 1 best destination In Phase 3, Scenario 1, which looks at a tourists interpretation of their best destination experience, the study nds that functional DBCs account for 66 percent of total DBCs (see Table VII). We nd that a holistic experience across functional and symbolic DBCs is recorded for the best destination. The functional DBCs that are important for describing best locations in the physical/infrastructural needs category (see Table III) are sceneries, sites, and tourist attractions (78 percent). This factor accounts for 20 percent of the total DBCs. An analysis of DBCs for basic product needs (see Table IV), nds that climate is important for describing best locations (60 percent of the category). Overall this accounts for 10 percent of total DBCs in this Phase. With DBCs related to product experience (see Table V), entertainment and food account for 66 percent of DBC descriptors, each having equal weight. Overall each of their contributions to total DBCs is 7 percent. Symbolic DBC in the perception category (see Table VI) that travelers highlighted for describing the brand components of their memories of the best destinations was based on culture/history (44 percent of category). This accounts for 7 percent of the total DBCs. In the Symbolic DBC relationships category, local people account for 65 percent of the weight in this category but overall this accounts for 11 percent of total DBCs in Phase 3 Scenario 1. The most important factors in Phase 3, Scenario 1 are: tourist attractions (20 percent of overall DBCs); local people (11 percent); climate (10 percent); entertainment (7 percent); food (7 percent) and history and culture (7 percent). If tourist attractions and history and culture are related they totally account for 27 percent of total DBCs. DMOs must plan their strategy ensuring places have backgrounds (history) and ensure access and experience for tourists are rewarding. Climate which is uncontrollable seems to have a 10 percent impact on the destination brand. Phase 3: Post-consumption: scenario 2 recommendation of a place In Scenario 2 (for recommendations) functional DBCs account for 64 percent of total DBCs (see Table VII). In the sub-category basic physical/infrastructural DBCs (see Table III), the two key factors are accessibility (37 percent of category) and tourist attractions (60 percent). Tourists attractions account for 12 percent of overall DBCs while accessibility accounts for 7 percent. In basic product needs (see Table IV), economic value (50 percent of category) comes to play highlighting its importance in perceived value and the risk payoff at the stage of actually taking a decision. In terms of overall importance, economic value accounts for 15 percent of total DBCs in this category. The other factors are climate (29 percent of category) and accommodation (17 percent). Climate accounts for 9 percent of total DBCs in this category and accommodation accounts for 5 percent. For experiences (see Table V), the sensory factors play a key role in recommendation, they are entertainment (32 percent of category) and food (33 percent). Entertainment accounts for 6 percent of total DBCs while food contributes a 4 percent impact. This seems to be the least important functional component. In symbolic DBCs, looking at perceptions (see Table VI), safety plays a key role in perceptions (49 percent of category). This has an overall 11 percent impact on brand. Customers do consider perceptions of safety when recommending a place. In symbolic relationship DBCs, local people have a 49 percent impact in the category which translated to an overall impact of 6 percent in total DBCs for this phase. Overall the key brand components that affect the destination brand are: economic value (15 percent of total DBCs); tourist attractions (12 percent); safety (11 percent); climate (9 percent); accommodation (7 percent); entertainment (6 percent) and local people (6 percent).

PAGE 18 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 5 NO. 1 2011

Hygiene factors play an important role here. The importance of these factors are different from Phase I suggesting that destinations must manage information and brand communication keeping in mind various stages of the consumer decision making process. Recommendations are a manifestation of loyalty and for destination loyalty, DMOs needs to reinforce convenience, value, experience and relationships. Phase 3: Post-consumption: scenario 2 least liked destinations For Scenario 3, least liked destinations, brand perceptions are equally matched between functional and symbolic DBCs. This category had the least responses. This is the only place symbolic DBCs match in terms of number of references with functions DBCs. Key functional descriptors (see Table III) are accessibility (43 percent of category) in infrastructure; climate (39 percent of category), and cleanliness and hygiene (29 percent of category) in basic product needs (see Table IV); and food (63 percent of category) in experiences (see Table V). Accessibility accounts for 9 percent of overall DBCs in this phase; climate accounts for 8 percent; cleanliness and hygiene for 6 percent and food accounts for 8 percent. Key symbolic descriptors (see Table VI) are safety (32 percent of category) in perceptions; local people (58 percent), language (29 percent) in relationships and congestions and noisiness (20 percent). Overall this translates to safety having an 8 percent overall impact on DBCs; local people have a 14 percent impact, language a 7 percent impact and congestion and noisiness (crowds) have a 4 percent overall impact. People with a 14 percent overall impact in total DBCs affect negative word of mouth, followed by accessibility (9 percent). Climate, food and safety each have an 8 percent impact of total DBCs. DMOs must realize service providers of tourism products must be trained as must residents. H3a states that post-consumption, customers distinguish between destinations on the basis of symbolic properties. The study nds partial support only in scenario 3. Scenario 1 and 2 receives no support. Scenario 3 identies possible hygiene factors like convenience in transportation to tourist places, perceptions of cleanliness and hygiene and availability of food. DMOs must align customer perceptions of reality with reality for a positive experience. Popular may mean a manifestation of a crowd to one tourist, but while one views it positively, another may think of it negatively as being too noisy. H3b receives little support as the study nds that loyalty follows more frequently in terms of functional attributes rather than symbolic attributes. Some other interesting ndings are discussed. Relationships (symbolic DBCs) surprisingly had no difference in responses in creation of a Phase 1, and in Phase 3, Scenario 2 and 3 (positive or negative). This could be because they are highly personal and situation specic indicating that this need is for more emotionally and socially intelligent populations or people who have travelled up the travel ladder. Perceptions of safety seem to be a recurring underlying theme destinations need to reassure leisure travelers about safety by communicating this attribute both implicitly or explicitly. Customers also want destinations to have key attractions marked out for them and accessibility to those attractions must be convenient. Overall importance of DBC type Respondents prefer using functional DBCs (67 percent) rather than symbolic (33 percent) to describe locations. This nding conrms H4 which states: Overall when looking at brand image, functional DBCs outweigh symbolic DBCs in importance.

Effect of gender and income on DBCs

Analysis was also conducted to test the existence of any relationship between respondents gender and income. The analysis used is a multivariate discriminant analysis and is based on the Wilks Lambda statistical test along with its p-value (see Tables IX-XI). Values of Wilks lambda that are close to 1 indicate that the means of the group are not too different. The p-values indicates whether the statistical test is signicant ( p-values less than 0.10) or not. There is an absence of effect of income in all the responses in all phases.

VOL. 5 NO. 1 2011 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 19

Table IX Effects of gender on various phases

Wilks Lambda Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 0.991 0.984 0.991 0.979 0.762* p-value 0.757 0.472 0.772 0.305 0.052*

Best destination WOM 2WOM

Note: * Signicant at 10 percentage levels so group means are different

Table X Effects of income on various phases

Wilks Lambda Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 0.987 0.989 0.953 0.979 0.998 p-value 0.434 0.658 0.794 0.438 0.320

Best destination WOM 2WOM

Table XI Phase 3, part 3 (least favorite)

Functional DBC (% gender dispersion) Infrastructure Basic Experience Male Female Total 31 18 49 (63) (37) (100) 39 31 70 (56) (44) (100) 23 17 40 (58) (42) (100) Symbolic (% gender dispersion) Perceptions Relationship 53 31 84 (63) (37) (100) 50 24 74 (68) (32) (100)

Note: Male:female ratio: 1.13: 1

No gender effect occurred for any of the variables in all phases of the study with the exception in least favorite place in Phase 3 (Scenario 3). Men use more symbolic DBCs to describe their negative brand perception. Beerli and Martin (2004) found that women tend to rank destinations more favorably than men; conversely we can assume men tend to rank them more negatively. Men also tend to emphasize social and psychological risk dimensions (Kumf, 1978, see Mitchell, 1998), have greater expectations, higher involvement and hence greater negative cues (Stendardi et al., 2006).

Discussion
The study conrms the importance of functional DBCs as Hankinson (2005) nds. Function DBCs are a growing concern as most destination branding is moving towards symbolic imagery. Images cannot be static. Jacobson and Mizik (2008) state that brands that are able to adapt to customers changing needs and trends do far better than more static brands. A study by Gallarza et al. (2002) nds the balance between functional and psychological attributes has not changed over 20 years though they acknowledge that image is not static. Longitudinal studies may yield more ndings. Some key ndings for DMOs are that they must communicate to customers keeping in mind that different DBCs have different priorities for the customer at various stages of the decision making process. For creation of a choice set, DMOs could focus on tourist attractions, history or culture and the experience knowledge (especially if they dont have strong historical roots). To help the customer nalize a destination, DMOs must focus on providing information on the brand that reinforces the destination accessibility, economic value, comfort (accommodation), communication and safety. Reinforcement on heritage, culture and people are areas that can help consumers take a decision to visit the destination.

PAGE 20 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 5 NO. 1 2011

Post-destination experience, this study nds that when customers recollected their best destination experiences, the top of mind recall descriptions are tourist attractions, culture or heritage, people, food and entertainment. Worst locations were described by DBCs that looked at hygiene factors like accessibility, cleanliness and hygiene, food, safety, local people, language and noise. This suggests perceptions play a key role. DMOs must take care not to build up expectations that cannot be met as it can then lead to negative word of mouth. Climate seemed to be a constant factor in all phases and scenarios. Places like Goa, have embraced the climate (sun/fun and monsoon season) and has done so relatively successfully. For WOM, consumers chose experiences in terms of tourist attraction, economic value, entertainment, food, local people and safety as DBCs. Food has a tendency to be a hygiene factor and to become a motivator, DMOs must encourage food establishments to cater to tourist groups dietary restrictions. Restaurant classications or certication can help increase tourist trust. Future studies can analyze these attributes in detail for case specic destinations. There is a need to conduct an empirical study on the how different DBCs may be correlated in terms of importance based on type of destination (leisure, business or mixed). DBCs may vary according to demographic characteristics especially education and exposure to media, and this constitutes a vast area of potential research. Nevertheless, some limitations could be seen in this study with a particular concern in the sample size and the fact that the study was not longitudinal in nature. However, the key results of this study highlight the importance of DBCs and its mutation based on various stages in the consumer decision making process. The result will help DMOs plan their destination brand strategy. By identifying, from the customer point of view, those DBCs with the most values, destinations would be in a position to create a more customer-centric branding strategy and further be able to differentiate from competitors focusing on combinations of components that are unique. For example Okumus et al. (2007) nd food/cuisine a great potential place differentiator. Chhabra et al. (2003) suggest that authenticity is positively correlated to higher tourist expenditures and repeated staged events that reect authentic heritage result in increase repeat visits. Um et al. (2006) argue that destination perceived attractiveness rather than satisfaction is an important indicator of revisit intension. Future studies might attempt to link the type of tourist preferences with motive. Tran and Ralston (2006) nd that adventure tourism relates to the need for achievement while the need for afliation is linked with culture tourism. This type of method may be applicable for service branding as sectors like hospitality are important contributors to the tourism industry.

References
Aaker, D. (1997), Dimensions of brand personality, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 347-56. Alegre, J. and Juaneda, C. (2006), Destination loyalty: consumers economic behavior, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 684-706. Anholt, S. (2006), The Anholt-GMI City Brands Index: how the world sees the worlds cities, Place Branding, Vol. 2, pp. 18-31. Arnold, T. (2007), Breaking Barriers Managing Growth, Summit Highlights 2007/World Travel & Tourism Council, available at: www.wttc.org (accessed 10 October 2007). Ataman, B. and Ulengin, B. (2003), A note on the effect of brand image on sales, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 237-50. Balabanis, G. and Diamantopoulos, A. (2008), Brand origin identication by consumers: a classication perspective, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 39-71. Balakrishnan, M.S. (2008), Dubai a star in the east. A case study in destination branding, Journal of Place Management & Development, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 62-91. Balakrishnan, M.S. (2009), Strategic branding of destinations a framework, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 43 Nos 5/6, pp. 611-29.

VOL. 5 NO. 1 2011 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 21

Baloglu, S. and Brinberg, D. (1997), Affective images of tourism destinations, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 11-15. Baloglu, S. and McCleary, K. (1999), US international pleasure travelers images of four Mediterranean destinations: a comparison, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 44-152. Beerli, A. and Martin, J.D. (2004), Factors inuencing destination image, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 657-81. Bennett, O. (1999), Destination marketing into the next century, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 48-54. Bhat, S. and Reddy, S.K. (1998), Symbolic and functional positioning of brands, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 32-43. Caldwell, N. and Freire, J.R. (2004), The differences between branding a country, a region and city: applying the brand box model, The Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 50-61. Castaneda, J., Fras, D. and Rodrguez, M. (2007), The inuence of the internet on destination satisfaction, Internet Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 402-20. Castro, C.B., Armario, E.M. and Ruiz, D.M. (2007), The inuence of market heterogeneity on the relationship between destination image and tourists future behaviour, Tourism Management, Vol. 28, pp. 175-87. Chen, J. and Gursoy, D. (2001), An investigation of tourists destination loyalty and preferences, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 79-85. Chhabra, D., Healy, R. and Sills, E. (2003), Staged authenticity and heritage tourism, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 702-19. Cooper, P. (1989), Comparison between the UK and US: the qualitative dimesions, Journal of Marketing Research Society, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 509-20. de Chernatony, L. (1997), Integrated brand building using brand taxonomies, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 56-63. de Chernatony, L. and Riley, F.D. (1997), Modelling the components of the brand, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 Nos 11/12, pp. 1074-90. de Chernatony, L., Harris, F. and Riley, F.D. (2000), Added value: its nature, roles and sustainability, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 Nos 1/2, pp. 39-56. Echtner, C. and Ritchie, B. (1993), The measurement of destination image: an empirical assessment, Journal of Travel Research, Spring, pp. 3-13. Fan, Y. (2006), Branding the nation: what is being branded?, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 5-14. Finn, M., Elliott-White, M. and Walton, M. (2000), Tourism and Leisure Research Methods Data Collection, Analysis and Interpretation, Longman, New York, NY. Gallarza, M.G., Saura, I.G. and Garca, H.C. (2002), Destination image: towards a conceptual framework, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 56-78. Gartner, W.C. (1989), Tourism image: attribute measurement of state tourism products using multidimensional scaling techniques, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 15-19. Goodrich, J.N. (1978), The relationship between preferences for and perceptions of vacation destinations: application of a choice model, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 8-13. Gordon, B. (1986), The souvenir: messenger of the extraordinary, The Journal of Popular Culture, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 135-46. Gross, M.J., Brien, C. and Brown, G. (2008), Examining the dimensions of a lifestyle tourism destination, International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 44-66. Hankinson, G. (2004), The brand images of a tourism destination: a study of the saliency of organic images, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 6-14. Hankinson, G. (2005), Destination brand image: a business tourism perspective, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 24-33.

PAGE 22 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 5 NO. 1 2011

Hosany, S., Ekinci, Y. and Uysal, M. (2007), Destination image and destination personality, International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 62-81. Hsieh, A. and Li, C. (2008), The moderating effect of brand image on public relations perception and customer loyalty, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 26-42. Human, B. (1999), Kodachrome icons: photography, place and the theft of identity, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 11 Nos 2/3, pp. 80-4. Hussey, M. and Duncombe, N. (1999), Projecting the right image: using projective techniques to measure brand image, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 22-30. Ibrahim, E.E. and Gill, J. (2005), A positioning strategy for a tourist destination, based on analysis of customers perceptions and satisfactions, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 172-88. Jacobson, R. and Mizik, N. (2008), The nancial value impact of perceptual brand attributes, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 45 No. 1. Jamal, A. and Goode, M.M.H. (2001), Consumers and brands: a study of the impact of self-image congruence on brand preference and satisfaction, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 482-92. Jankowicz, A.D. (2000), Business Research Projects, 3rd ed., Thompson Learning, London. Keller, K.L. (1993), Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer-based brand equity, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, pp. 1-22. Keller, K.L. (1998), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Kirmani, A., Sood, S. and Bridges, S. (1999), The ownership effect in consumer responses to brand line stretches, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, January, pp. 88-101. Kotler, P. and Gertner, D. (2004), Country as a Brand, product and beyond: a place marketing and brand management perspective, in Morgan, N., Pritchard, A. and Pride, R. (Eds), Destination Branding: Creating the Unique Destination Proposition, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 40-56. Lange, F. and Dahlen, M. (2003), Lets be strange: brand familiarity and ad-brand incongruency, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 12 No. 7, pp. 449-61. Law, R., Cheung, C. and Lo, A. (2004), Proling travel activities for improving destination marketing strategies, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 355-62. Lee, D. and Ganesh, G. (1999), Effects of partitioned country image in the context of brand image and familiarity: a categorization theory perspective, International Marketing Review, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 18-39. Leisen, B. (2001), Image segmentation: the case of a tourism destination, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 49-66. Lindstrom, M. (2005), Broad sensory branding, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 84-7. Low, G.S. and Lamb, C.W. Jr (2000), The measurement and dimensionality of brand associations, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 350-68. McDonald, M.H.B., de Chernatony, L. and Harris, F. (2001), Corporate marketing and service brands: moving beyond the fast-moving goods model, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4, pp. 335-52. McWilliam, G. and de Chernatony, L. (1989), Branding terminology the real debate, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 7 No. 7, pp. 29-32. Maklan, S. and Knox, S. (1997), Reinventing the brand: bridging the gap between customer and brand value, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 119-29. Meenaghan, T. (1995), The role of advertising in brand image development, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 23-34. Mitchell, V-W. (1998), A role for consumer risk perceptions in grocery retailing, British Food Journal, Vol. 100 No. 4, pp. 171-83.

VOL. 5 NO. 1 2011 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 23

Moorthi, Y.L.R. (2002), An approach to branding services, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 259-74. Moutinho, L. (1987), Consumer behaviour in tourism, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 10, pp. 5-44. Mowle, J. and Merrilees, B. (2005), A functional and symbolic perspective to branding Australian SME wineries, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 220-7. OCass, A. and Grace, D. (2004), Exploring consumer experiences with a service brand, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 257-68. Okumus, B., Okumus, F. and McKercher, B. (2007), Incorporating local and international cuisines in the marketing of tourism destinations: the cases of Hong Kong and Turkey, Tourism Management, Vol. 28, pp. 253-61. Orth, U. and Marchi, R. (2007), Understanding the relationship between functional, symbolic and experiential brand beliefs, product experiential attributes, and product schema: advertising-trial interactions revisited, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 219-33. Palumbo, F. and Herbig, P. (2000), The multicultural context of brand loyalty, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 123 No. 3, pp. 116-24. Pearce, P.L. (1991), Fundamentals of tourist motivation, in Pearce, D.G. and Sutter, R.W. (Eds), Tourism Research: Critiques and Challenges, Routledge, London. Pina, J.M., Martinez, E., de Chernatony, L. and Drury, S. (2006), The effect of service brand extensions on corporate image: an empirical model, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Nos 1/2, pp. 174-97. Prideaux, B. and Cooper, C. (2003), Marketing and destination growth: a symbiotic relationship or simple coincidence?, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 35-51. Reichheld, F.F. (2003), The one number you need to grow, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 81 No. 12, pp. 46-54. Ross-Wooldridge, B. (2004), The role of company image as brand equity, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 159-67. Simeon, R. (2006), A conceptual model linking brand-building strategies and Japanese popular culture, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 463-76. Sirgy, M.J. and Su, C. (2000), Destination image, self-congruity, and travel behaviour: towards an integrative model, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 38, May, pp. 340-52. Solomon, M.R. (1983), The role of products as a social stimulus: a symbolic interactionism perspective, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 319-29. Stendardi, E.J., Graham, J.F. and OReilly, M. (2006), The impact of gender on the personal nancial planning process, Humanomics, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 223-38. Tran, X. and Ralston, L. (2006), Tourism preferences: inuence of unconscious needs, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 424-41. Trueman, M., Klemm, M. and Giroud, A. (2004), Can a city communicate? Bradford as a corporate brand, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 317-30. Um, S., Chon, K. and Ro, Y. (2006), Antecedents of revisit intention, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 1141-58. White, C. (2005), Destination image: to see or not to see? Part II, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 191-6. Williams, A. (2006), Tourism and hospitality marketing: fantasy, feeling and fun, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 482-96. Wood, L. (2000), Brands and brand equity: denition and management, Management Decision, Vol. 38 No. 9, pp. 662-9. Wood, L. (2007), Functional and symbolic attributes of product selection, British Food Journal, Vol. 109 No. 2, pp. 108-18.

PAGE 24 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 5 NO. 1 2011

Woodside, A.G. and Dubelaar, C. (2002), A general theory of tourism consumption systems: a conceptual framework and an empirical examination, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 41, pp. 120-32. Woodside, A.G. and Trappey, R.J. III (2001), Learning why some customers shop at less convenient stores, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 54, pp. 151-9. WTO (2007), available at: www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/ its2007_e/its07_trade_category_e.pdf (accessed 15 April 2008). WTTC (2007), World Travel and Tourism: Progress and Priorities 2007, available at: www.wttc.org, (accessed 1 August 2007). Yasin, N.M., Noor, M.N. and Mohamad, O. (2007), Does country of origin matter to brand equity?, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 38-48.

Further reading
Bigne, E., Sancez, I. and Sanchez, J. (2001), Tourism image, evaluation variables and after-purchase behaviour: inter-relationship, Tourism Management, Vol. 22, pp. 607-16. Davis, S. (2002), Implementing your BAM strategy: 11 steps to making your brand a more valuable business asset, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 503-13. Fakeye, P. and Crompton, J. (1991), Image differences between prospective, rst-time, and repeat visitors to the Lower Rio Grande Valley, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 10-16. Konecnik, M. and Gartner, W.C. (2007), Customer-based brand equity for a destination, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 400-21. Martinez, E. and de Chernatony, L. (2003), The effect of brand extension strategies upon brand image, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 39-50. Morgan, N. and Pritchard, A. (2005), On souvenirs and metony: narratives of memory, metaphor and materiality, Tourist Studies, Vol. 5, pp. 29-53. Ostrowski, P., OBrien, T. and Gordan, G. (1993), Service quality and customer loyalty in the commercial airline industry, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 16-24. Pike, S. (2005), Tourism destination complexity, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 258-9.

Corresponding author
Melodena Stephens Balakrishnan can be contacted at: melodenabalakrishnan@ uowdubai.ac.ae

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

VOL. 5 NO. 1 2011 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 25