Download A24_09 Rosaria Pereira - Politécnico de Leiria

Instituto Politécnico de Leiria
III Congresso Internacional de Turismo de Leiria e Oeste – 2009
Towards an understanding of epistemology of the brand concept and its use in
tourism
Rosária Pereira
Universidade do Algarve
Abstract
As branding is considered to be one of the most powerful tool in marketing, destination
branding is increasingly becoming an extremely appealing field of research. Academics
and practitioners believe that a destination can be branded like a consumer product or a
service. The concepts of brand, brand image and brand personality are well documented
in marketing literature, but applying them to tourism and tourism destinations is
relatively new. Destinations need to create a brand to help its positioning and
emphasizing the uniqueness of the place. This paper presents a chronological theoretical
framework around the concept of brand. It further examines the concepts of brand image
and brand personality and how they interrelate in order to provide a deeper
understanding of these constructs and its applications in the field of tourism. This
framework will support the development of a taxonomy for tourism destination brand
personality.
Keywords: brand image, brand personality, destination branding, destination marketing,
tourism
1
Instituto Politécnico de Leiria
III Congresso Internacional de Turismo de Leiria e Oeste – 2009
1. INTRODUCTION
Destinations offer an amalgam of tourism products and services, which are consumed
under the brand name of the destination, providing an integrated experience to tourists.
Leiper (1995, p.87) explains that destinations are “places towards which people travel
and where they choose to stay for a while in order to experience certain features or
characteristics - a perceived attraction of some sort”, but a destination can also be a
perceptual concept, which can be interpreted subjectively by consumers, depending on
their travel experience, cultural background, purpose of visit, and psychographic and
demographic characteristics (Buhalis, 2000). Before visiting, tourists develop an image
about destinations as well as a set of expectations based on previous experience, word of
mouth, press reports, advertising, and common beliefs (Chon, 1991 and Baloglu &
Brinberg, 1997), which differentiate one destination from another, within the tourist
imagery. The complex process of brand destination formation appears to be correlated
with the desirable image of the destination, the experience of the destination, and
consequent differentiation between destinations. Ekinci & Hosany (2006) argue that
destination personality moderate the relationship between destination image (cognitive)
and the intention to recommend.
Although there has been a proliferation of ‘branding’ and ‘destination image’ studies
during the past three decades, ‘destination brand personality’ has been largely
unexplored. The term ‘brand’ has been, over time, used for different meanings and in
different contexts. Since ‘brand’ entered marketing in the early 1920’ it has been
associated with several other terms to denominate different concepts.
When ‘brand’ is associated with ‘image’ it relates to the set of feelings, ideas and
attitudes that consumers have about a brand. When ‘brand’ is associated with
‘personality’ it refers to the human characteristics of brand which differentiate it from
its competitors. “Brands are perceived to possess a ‘personality’ that consumers use to
self-express or to experience the emotional benefits of the brand” (Phau & Lau, 2000, p.
52). Similarly, while destination image is a multidimensional construct comprising of
two primary dimensions: cognitive (beliefs and knowledge about the physical attributes
of a destination) and affective (appraisal of the affective quality and feelings towards
the attributes and the surroundings environments) (Baloglu & McClearly, 1999),
destination personality is viewed as a multidimensional construct and is defined as the
“set of human characteristics associated with a tourism destination” (Hosany, Ekincy &
Uysal, 2006, p. 639).
2
Instituto Politécnico de Leiria
III Congresso Internacional de Turismo de Leiria e Oeste – 2009
A clear distinction between brand image and brand personality has been the subject of
many studies but not fully accomplished yet (Patterson, 1999), as a result, the two
concepts have been used interchangeably in the literature. In some studies brand image
has been defined in terms of brand personality (Hendon & Williams, 1985; Patterson,
1999; Plummer, 1985; and Upshaw, 1995). Other authors advocate that brand
personality and brand identity are antecedents of brand image (Heylen et.al., 1995).
Kapferer (1997) conceptualizes personality and self-image as antecedents of brand
identity, along with physical relationships, reflection and culture. Therefore, the lack of
theory development has resulted in some confusion.
This paper will focus on clarifying the concepts of ‘brand image’ and ‘brand
personality’ and its applications in the tourism arena by analysing the evolution of the
use of the term brand, the definitions and key elements of ‘brand image’ and ‘brand
personality’, as well as its applications in the field of tourism. Constructs such as
destination branding, destination brand image and destination brand personality will
also be explored in order to provide a deeper understanding of the importance of those
concepts to tourism marketing strategies. Some avenues for future research are
suggested.
2. BRAND – CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND BACKGROUND
“In the world a brand denotes a name or a mark that is
associated with a product; in the mind, it denotes a mental
representation, an idea or a consumer’s perception of
psychological meanings[…]” (Stern, 2006, p. 219).
Stern (2006) argues that the survival of ‘brand’ is a signal of its vitality as it is one of the
more ancient words in English. It was first found in the Germanic languages that evolved
to Old English [Anglo-Saxon] in which the word ‘brand’ appears as a noun [e.g. in the
epic poem Beowulf], and as verb [in Wycliffe’s religious tract An Apology for Lollard
Doctrines (Todd, 1842)]. In fact, the word is even older, dating from the late fifth century
A.D. when the events of Beowulf took place (Kleaber, 1950). Thus, the word ‘brand’ was
used for at least 15 centuries before it entered Marketing in 1922 when it was used in the
compound ‘brand name’ defined as a trade or proprietary name (Oxford English
Dictionary, 2004, p. II.9, cited by Stern, 2006).
The classification of ‘brand’ as either an entity or a process is based on the fact that it can
be used as either a noun or a verb. As a noun, it refers to entities such as people, places,
things and ideas; as a verb it refers to processes included in a firm’s effort to make
products and services meaningful (Calder & Reagan, 2001). Such efforts include naming
3
Instituto Politécnico de Leiria
III Congresso Internacional de Turismo de Leiria e Oeste – 2009
the product, targeting, positioning, and communicating the benefits. Another common
use of the word ‘brand is combined in multiword noun phrases such as ‘brand reputation’,
‘brand identity’, ‘brand image’, ‘brand commitment’ and ‘brand personality’ as well as in
verbal phrases using the participial ‘ing’ or ‘ed’ form such as ‘branding’, ‘branding
power’, ‘branded product’, amongst others.
The earliest use of the word ‘brand’ was as a synonym for ‘sword’ which associates it
with war and weapons vocabulary, reproduced in modern connotative marketing
metaphors such as ‘marketing warfare’, ‘battle of brands’ and ‘killer brand’. Thus, in
addition to the literal meaning of the term as a real world identity, there is also a
connotative meaning on metal associations in metaphors such as ‘brand image’. In fact,
that is one of the older metaphor used in branding, dating from 1958 (Mayer, 1958)
defined as the impression of a product in the mind of potential users and consumers.
The various definitions currently found in the literature reveal that ‘brand’ is an
ambivalent construct, having a positive as well as a negative meaning, which contribute
to its multidimensional applicability (Stern, 2006). The negative associations came from
its origins, in the Old Germanic, ‘brinn-an’ meaning ‘to burn’. It was than used as a sign
that communicates the idea of disgrace or to stigmatize. The negative meaning entered
marketing by the hand of Rorty, in 1976, “to compare the Old Gold cigarette brand to an
anonymous, unbranded, and presumably inferior product” (Stern, 2006, p. 219).
When analyzing the literature about ‘brand’, it can be argued that this term, being mainly
used in mass marketing and consumer relationship, has became over defined and that its
meaning assumes different perspectives. Some researchers claim that ‘brands’ consist of
the visual and verbal representations associated with firms and services while others
describe ‘brands’ as images in consumer’s minds of functional and psychological
attributes (Martineau, 1959).
The positive meaning is the association with burning as a mark of identification, which
first appeared in the fifteenth century, when ‘brand’ signified a burn mark or a mark of
ownership impressed for instance on cattle and on horses. By the nineteenth century the
meaning of ‘brand’ as a physical burn mark expanded to include that of a visual-verbal
mark as a sign of quality that refers to a trademark affixed by burning or other means.
Examples of current metaphor used in marketing include ‘brand personality’ which
compares brands and people in terms of their unique traits, ‘brand identity’ which makes
a similar comparison on the basis of the central enduring and distinctive traits common to
4
Instituto Politécnico de Leiria
III Congresso Internacional de Turismo de Leiria e Oeste – 2009
both (Brown et al., 2006) and ‘brand reputation’ which compares “a person’s character –
the condition, quality or fact of being highly regarded or esteemed – with that of the
brand” (Stern, 2006, p 220). When the American Marketing Association (1960)
suggested that ‘brand’ can be defined as “a name, term, sign, symbol, design or
combination of them which is intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or
group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competitors” (cited by Kotler,
1991, p. 442), stressed the idea that brand’s logo and visual features were the basis for
1958
1960
the
‘brand
of
Introduction
metaphor
personality’
1976
1980’
negative
1950
Logos and visual features
when the basis for
differentiation
Used as a noun in the epic
poem Beowulf
1922
a
Over the
19th
century
Assumed
meaning
1842
Introduction
of
the
metaphor ‘brand image’
15th
century
Used as a verb in An
Apology
for
Lollard
Doctrines
Synonym of ‘Sword’
Late 5th
century
Entered marketing used in
the
compound
‘brand
name’.
Meaning burn mark or
mark of ownership
Burn mark expanded to
include visual-verbal. Sign
of quality – trademark
differentiation. Figure 1 represents chronologically the various meanings and uses of the
term ‘brand’ over time.
Figure 1 - Evolution of the concept of ‘brand’
3. BRAND IMAGE (BI)
Brand image is one of the central constructs in marketing and consumer behavior
research, dating from 1950’ and has been used widely and with various applications.
Garner & Levy (1955) were the first to draw a definition of ‘brand image’, they
considered that products had a social, a psychological and a physical nature, and that the
feelings, ideas and attitudes that consumers had about brands were their ‘image’ of the
brand. Thus, it was crucial to the purchase choice. It has been demonstrated that products
are often purchased or avoided not for their functional attributes but because of how, as
symbols, they impact on buyer’s status of self-esteem (Levy, 1959).
5
Instituto Politécnico de Leiria
III Congresso Internacional de Turismo de Leiria e Oeste – 2009
Dobni & Zinkhan (1990) argued that there are numerous definitions of brand image in
the literature, which initially may cause confusion. The authors suggested that to
analyze thoroughly the concept of ‘brand image’ researchers should consider aspects
such as: a) the names given to the concept; b) the definitions that have been developed; c)
the components of the concept of brand image; d) the instruments that have been used to
measure it and e) the perspectives on the origin, creation, formulation and manipulation
of the concept. However, as the purpose of this paper is to understand the epistemology of
the constructs brand image and brand personality, establish some boundaries and find
some common ground between the two concepts, the focus will be on the emphasis given
and new elements in formal definitions.
3.1 Formal definitions of BI
Dobni & Zikhan (1990) provide a cross section of definitions of BI resulting from a
collection for over three decades (1955 – 1987). The authors grouped the definitions into
categories on the basis of their principal emphasis. The five categories found are: blanket
definitions [broad definitions], definitions with emphasis on symbolism [relate
commercial objects to symbols/imagery of the user], definitions with emphasis on
meanings and messages [the underlining (psychological) meaning that consumers
ascribe to a product], definitions with emphasis on personification [attributing human
characteristics to the brand] and definitions with emphasis on cognitive or psychological
elements [concentrate on mental effects, feelings, ideas and attitudes that consumers
have about brands]. In addition, it is also possible to find in the literature definitions with
emphasis on perceptions [of reality or brand associations (information which contains
meaning: attributes, benefits and attitudes)], self concepts [self-image] and
relationship/communication [between the brand and the consumer]. Table 1 presents a
chronological set of definitions of BI.
Table 1 – Critical review of the definitions of BI
Author
Definitions of BI
Emphasis given/ new
elements
Gartner & Levy ‘the social and psychological
(1955)
nature of products’
Cognitive or psychological
Martineau (1957)
‘BI is a symbol of the buyers elements
personality’
Newman (1957)
“everything people associate Perception
with a brand”
Mayer (1958)
‘the impression of a product in
the mind of potential users and Cognitive or psychological
consumers’.
elements
Levy (1959)
‘the symbols by which we buy’ Symbolism
6
Instituto Politécnico de Leiria
III Congresso Internacional de Turismo de Leiria e Oeste – 2009
Herzog (1963)
“the sum of the total Perception
impressions”
Sommers (1963)
‘perceived product symbolism’
Symbolism
Pohlman & Mudd ‘symbolic utility’
(1973)
Swartz (1983)
‘the messages communicated Meanings
by products’
Sirgy (1985)
Hendon & Williams
(1985)
Park, Jaworski &
MacInnis ( 1986 )
‘personality image’
‘brand personality’ or ‘brand Personification
character’
‘the understanding consumers
derive from the total set of Relationship/
brand-related
activities communication
engaged by the brand’.
Stuart, ‘brand meaning’
Durgee &
(1987)
Friedmann & Lessig
(1987)
Runyon & Stewart
(1987)
Kotler (1991)
Meanings
‘the psychological meaning of
products’
“ the product perception”
Perception
‘the set of beliefs held about a
particular brand’
Biel (1992)
‘the imagery of the user’
Keller (1993)
‘BI is a perception about a
brand as reflected by the brand
associations held in consumer
memory’
Upshaw (1995)
Upshaw (1995);
Aaker (1996)
‘set of associations, usually
organized
in
some
meaningful way’
Aaker (1996)
‘Brand Image is significantly
related
to
customers’
self-concepts’
Aaker (1996) and ‘brand as a person’
Aaker (1997)
de Chernatony & ‘Brand Image is significantly
Dall’Olmo
Riley related
to
customers’
(1998);
Solomon self-concepts’
(1999)
Patterson,
(1999) ‘brand image as an element of
and Hosany, Ekinci, brand personality’
& Uysal (2006)
Cognitive or psychological
elements
Symbolism
Perception
Personification
Meanings
Self concepts (self-image)
Personification
Self concepts
Personification
Adapted and extended from Dobni & Zaihan, 1990
The conclusion that can be drawn from the definitions above are that ‘brand image’ is: 1)
held by the consumer; 2) a perceptual process resulting from interpretation that can be
reasoned as well as emotional; 3) affected and influenced by marketing, context variables
7
Instituto Politécnico de Leiria
III Congresso Internacional de Turismo de Leiria e Oeste – 2009
and characteristics of the receiver and finally 4) strongly based on perception of reality
rather than reality itself. Regarding the categories suggested by Dobni & Zinkhan (1990),
some of these are deeply interrelated, for instance, meanings can be found in most image
definitions seeing that meanings is particularly related to symbolism and
personification, Moreover, cognitive and psychological elements are implicit in all
definitions since the first conceptualizations.
Moreover, the chronological analysis of the definitions shows that symbolism,
perception and cognitive and psychological elements had been base for BI definitions,
while personification, relationships/communication and self-concepts (namely
self-image) have been more recently introduced. However, those elements should not be
ignored since, from a psychological perspective, consumers can develop relations dyads
with brands that are “humanized” by advertisers (Fournier, 1998). That idea had been
suggested by Sirgy (1985) when arguing that a product is more likely to be enjoyed if
there is congruity between its image and the actual ideal self-image of the user. From that
humanization or personification of brands emerged the concept of brand personality.
4. BRAND PERSONALITY (BP)
4.1. Conceptualization
The term personality is used differently in the context of brands (attributes, benefits,
price, and user imagery) and in the context of persons (appearance, traits and behaviour).
BP is not being used here in a strict literal sense, but as a metaphor. Although brands are
not people, they can be personified (Aaker & Fournier, 1995). That is, brands can be
characterized by personality descriptors such as ‘youthful’, ‘colourful’ and ‘gentle’
resulting from the firm’s communication (Plummer, 1985). Reinforcing this idea, De
Chernatony (2001) argued that personality features are the most fruitful ingredient in
designing an appealing brand positioning and are readily translatable into appealing
communication imagery.
As consumers tend to associate brands with celebrity characters or famous historical
figures (Aaker, 1997; McCracken, 1989; Plummer, 2000), a brand can be characterized
by endowing unique personality traits and dimensions. The perceived personality of a
brand also provides consumers with the means to express him or herself (Belk, 1988),
ideal self (Malhotra, 1988) or specific dimensions of the self (Kleine et al., 1993). This is
consistent with the symbolic meaning of consumption, where consumers exploit brands
to construct and maintain their identity (Fiske, 1989; Kassarjian, 1971) and to experience
emotional gratification (O’Donohoe, 1994). In order to establish a parallel with the
definitions of ‘brand image’, the same analysis was done to the concept of ‘brand
8
Instituto Politécnico de Leiria
III Congresso Internacional de Turismo de Leiria e Oeste – 2009
personality’. Table 2 chronologically summarizes the main definitions of BP according to
the emphasis given/new elements found.
Table 2 – Critical review of the definition of BP
Author
Definition
Emphasis given / new
elements
Biel (1992)
‘brand personality’ is a component
of ‘brand image’.
Brand image
Keller (1993)
‘brand personality’ is a component
of ‘brand image’.
Aaker (1995)
‘a set of human characteristics
associated with a brand which tend to
serve a symbolic or self expressive Personification / Self-concept
function rather then and utilitarian
function’.
Allen & Olson ‘specific set of meanings which
(1995)
describe the inner characteristics of a Meanings
(attributed
to
brand’
brands)
Aaker (1996)
‘brand personality’ is a component
of ‘brand image’.
Brand image
(Aaker, 1997)
‘the set of human characteristics
associated with a brand’.
Personification
Kapferer
‘brand personality’ is only one
(1997)
component of brand identity’
Brand identity
Keller (1998)
‘a set of human characteristics
associated with a brand which tend to
serve a symbolic or self expressive Personification / self-concept
function rather than and utilitarian
function’.
Azoulay
& ‘the unique set of human personality
Kapferer,
traits both applicable and relevant to Personification
(2003)
brands’.
‘brand personality’ is only one
Blythe (2007)
component of brand identity’
Brand identity
Firstly, BP has been conceptualized in terms of ‘brand image’ or a component of ‘brand
image’ (Biel 1992 and Keller, 1993). Only since the mid 1990’ the concept suffered
significant developments such as considering BP as the personification of the brand
(Aaker, 1995; Aaker, 1997; Azoulay & Kepferer, 2003 and Keller, 1998). Attributing
human personality traits to a brand requires that the brand performs intentional
behaviours.
9
Instituto Politécnico de Leiria
III Congresso Internacional de Turismo de Leiria e Oeste – 2009
4.2. The five key dimensions of BP
“Although ambiguously, the dimensions of BP resemble the big
five dimensions of human personality (…). BP researchers can
profit from the development of a BP taxonomy, just as human
personality taxonomists do” (Milas & Mlacic, 2007, p. 626).
According to Hosany, Ekinci & Uysal (2006), BP constructs achieved validity through
Aaker’s brand personality scale (BPS). The five basic BP dimensions identified by
Aaker (1997) were sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication and
ruggedness. These are derived from 15 personality facets of brands, as shown in table
3. These facets can be further deconstructed into 42 personality traits. The study was
carried out on brands from 39 product categories and these brands have been identified
as consistently possessing these five major dimensions in personality. It is also
suggested that the personality dimensions of sincerity, excitement and competence
cover an innate part of the human personality, while sophistication and ruggedness
relates to dimensions that an individual desires but does not necessarily have (Aaker,
1997). Studies have also shown that the development of a brand’s personality can be
influenced by consumers’ personality, (Aaker, 1994) self-congruity (Kassarjian, 1971
and Sirgy, 1982), culture (Aaker, 1998) and demographics (Aaker, 1996).
Table 3 – Aaker’s (1997) brand personality dimensions and traits
Sincerity
Excitement
Competence
Sophistication
Ruggedness
Down to earth
Daring
Reliable
Upper class
Outdoorsy
Honest
Spirited
Intelligent
Charming
Tough
Wholesome
Imaginative
Successful
Cheerful
Up-to-date
Family-oriented
Trendy
Hard-working
Glamorous
Masculine
Small-town
Exciting
Secure
Good-looking
Western
Sincere
Cool
Technical
Feminine
Rugged
Real
Young
Corporate
Smooth
Original
Unique
Leader
Sentimental
Independent
Confident
Friendly
Contemporary
Aaker, 1997
In subsequent studies, the concept of brand personality has proven to be helpful in
explaining the relationships between people and their brands. For instance, Aaker (1999)
reveals that people tend to select and use brands with different salient personality
10
Instituto Politécnico de Leiria
III Congresso Internacional de Turismo de Leiria e Oeste – 2009
dimensions to emphasise certain aspects of their own personality in various situational
contexts.
Aaker, Martínez & Garolera (2001) stated that “as in human personality, brand appears
to be consistently organized around five dimensions” (2001, p. 506), when studying brand
personality in Spain and Japan. In contrast, Caprara, Barbaranelli & Guido (2001) found
that the big five do not replicate when describing brands. They also found that human
personality descriptors have different meaning when applied to different brands.
In addition, more recent studies on the relationship between brands and people (Aaker et
al., 2004) show that brand personality traits can have a direct influence on the way the
relationship between brand and owner is formed and maintained. That is, Aaker et al.
(2004) find that in line with implications of the brand personality concept, relationships
with sincere brands deepen over time, whereas consumer–brand relationships for exciting
brands show a more short development over time. This relationship allows consumers to
establish a reflexive evaluation with a product (Solomon, 1983). As a result, consumers
exhibit a strong desire to build relationships with brands that project personality that they
are comfortable with as though they are interacting with someone they like (Aaker, 1996;
Phau & Lau, 2001).
Azoulay & Kapferer (2003) also agree that consumers perceive brands as having
personality traits. They demonstrate that brand scales do not measure BP, but instead
merge a number of dimensions of BI. Most of the research papers on BP are based on
Aaker’s scale, merging all human characteristics applicable to brands underneath one
word – personality - thereby losing the distinctiveness of the facets of BI (personality is
just one of them). As stated before those authors suggest that the concept of BP should be
seen as “the unique set of human personality traits both applicable and relevant to
brands” (2003, p. 153).
5. DESTINATION BRANDING (DB)
Although branding has been a concept used by marketeers since the late 80s, tourism DB
is a relatively new development. It combines marketing products and services and the
commoditization of people’s culture and environment. Lack of research regarding
destination brand measurement indicates that conceptualizing how tourists evaluate a
destination brand is complex (Boo, Busser & Baloglu, 2009). The complexity of this
issue requires a particular focused effort by tourism researchers since it comprehends “a
multiplicity of concerns needing a multidisciplinay response” (Gnoth, 1998, p. 759).
11
Instituto Politécnico de Leiria
III Congresso Internacional de Turismo de Leiria e Oeste – 2009
The development of DB is one example of tourism practitioners who borrow and use
ideas with little regard to academic debates (Murphy, Morscado & Benckendorff, 2007).
Several authors have suggested specific DB processes, making a number of statements
about the value of the branding concept for improving tourism destination marketing
(Morgan & Pritchard 2002; Morgan, Pritchard, & Piggott 2003). Their arguments are
based on the assumption that a strong brand can have a positive differential marketing
effect because: 1) it attracts more favourable attribute and benefit perceptions and
overall preference, 2) it can attract greater price premiums and 3) it can result in
consumers paying greater attention to communications, retaining more information
from them and reacting in a more positive way (Hoeffler & Keller 2003).
DB can be defined as “perceptions about a place as reflected by the associations held in
tourist memory” (Cai, 2002, p. 273). Such a concept serves to enhance destination
marketing by providing potential tourists with information that allows them to identify a
destination, differentiate it from its competitors and build expectations about the likely
holiday experience offered by the destination. Furthermore, a destination brand can
assist tourists in consolidating and reinforcing their perceptions of the destination after
their travel experience (Ritchie & Ritchie, 1998). Cai (2002) further conceptualized DB
as “selecting a consistent element mix to identify and distinguish [a destination]
through positive image building” (2002, p. 722). DB has also been considered
synonymous with (re)positioning (Gilmore, 2002), image-building (Curtis, 2001),
image-reconstruction (Hall, 2002) of a destination and analogous to corporate or
umbrella branding, whereby a destination functions like a company that produces
various product/service brands (Gnoth, 2002; Papadopoulos & Heslop, 2002).
Furthermore, the key for DB is to develop an emotional link with tourists (Morgan,
Pitchard & Pride, 2004).
Another definition of this concept comes from Morrisson & Aderson (2002) who argue
that DB is “[the] process used to develop a unique identity and personality that is
different from all competitive destinations” (2002, p. 17). Tourism literature is
consistent when illustrating the process of branding a destination as a collective effort
(Kaplanidou & Vogt, 2003; Morgan et al, 2002; 2003; 2004 and Morrison & Anderson,
2002). However, some consider the concept of DB a myth and a misleading notion due
to the lack of clear ownership and control (Mundt, 2002). The process of destination
branding can only be successful if all the destination stakeholders are involved. A
synergetic interaction, unity and collaboration among stakeholders is a essential feature
for a positive outcome as far as destination brand is concerned, making this process a
“highly complex and politicised activity” (Morgan et. al, 2003, p. 2869)
12
Instituto Politécnico de Leiria
III Congresso Internacional de Turismo de Leiria e Oeste – 2009
6. THE APPLICATION OF BI AND BP CONCEPTS IN TOURISM
6.1 Destination image (DI)
Several statements emerge in tourism literature about DI. For instance Blain, Levy &
Ritchie (2005) suggested that DI should be included in the definition of destination
brands; Cai (2002) considered brand image building to be an important component in
the formation of a DB model. Building a destination brand image essentially means
identifying the most relevant associations for the destination and strengthening their
linkages to the destination brand (Keller, 1993).
When establishing a parallel between the concepts of BI and DI, it is noticeable that
‘brand image’ include elements such as symbolism, personification and meaning
whereas destination image definitions tend to emphasize mainly perception and
cognitive and psychological elements. The cognitive component can be interpreted,
according to Baloglu & McClearly (1999) as beliefs and knowledge about the physical
attributes of a destination. Those elements are common ground to definitions of ´’brand
image’ and ‘destination image’. Table 3 chronologically summarises DI definitions.
Table 4 – Critical review of the definitions of DI
Author
Definition of DI
Emphasis Given /
New Elements
Hunt (1971)
‘Impressions that a person or persons hold
about a state in which they do not live’.
Perception
Hunt (1975)
‘Perceptions held by potential visitors about an
area’.
Crompton
(1977)
‘Organized representations of a destination in a
cognitive system’.
and
Lawson
and ‘An expression of knowledge, impressions, Cognitive
Bond-Bovy
prejudice, imaginations and emotional thoughts psychological
(1977)
an individual has of a specific object or place’. elements
Crompton
‘Sum of beliefs, ideas and impressions that a
(1979)
person has of a destination’.
Phelps (1986)
‘Perceptions or impressions of a place’
Tourism
Canada
(1986-1989)
‘How a country is perceived relative to others’.
Gartner (1989)
‘A complex combination of various products
and associated attributes’.
Meanings
Perception
13
Instituto Politécnico de Leiria
III Congresso Internacional de Turismo de Leiria e Oeste – 2009
Calantone, et al. ‘Perceptions of potential tourist destinations’.
(1989)
Perception
Fakeye
Crompton
(1991):
Kotler
and ‘Image is the mental construct developed by a
potential tourist on the basis of a few selected
impressions among
impressions’.
et
the
flood
of
total Cognitive
and
psychological
a.l ‘The image of a place is the sum of beliefs, elements
(1994):
ideas, and impressions that a person holds of it’.
Parenteau
(1995):
‘Is a favourable or unfavourable prejudice that
the audience and distributors have of the
product or destination’.
Cognitive
and
psychological
elements
Gartner (1993), ‘Destination images are developed by three
Cognitive
(1996):
psychological
elements
hierarchically interrelated components:
cognitive, affective, and conative’.
and
Adapted from Gallarza et.al., 2002 and Echtner & Ritchie, 2003
Ekinci (2003) provides a model or framework for DB that incorporates many of these
arguments. In this model the DI is made up of three components: the overall image, the
destination brand and, within the destination brand, brand personality. The destination
image is then linked to the tourist’s self-image. This connection between self-image and
destination image is consistent with arguments that lifestyle and value systems are key
elements in destination choice processes (Ekinci, 2003). It has been proposed that
consumer decisions are often based on whether or not a product fits into their lifestyle
and/or whether it offers a desirable experience (Morgan et. al., 2002). Such arguments
have also been made with respect to destination marketing. In particular, it is suggested
that travel is increasingly about experiences, fulfilment, and rejuvenation rather than
about “places and things” (King, 2002). The author states that travel and tourism
marketers need to focus on and confirm more of what the customer would like to see in
themselves and their lifestyles, rather than on the tangible properties of the product or
service being promoted. This means that destination marketing organizations need to
place more emphasis on the creation and promotion of holiday experiences that link key
brand values and assets to the holiday aspirations and needs of customers as set out in
the Ekinci’s model (King, 2002).
In spite of the growing importance of destination brands, most conceptual and empirical
research has focused on destination images (Cai, 2002; Hall, 2002; Hankinson, 2005;
Papadopoulos & Heslop, 2002; Prebensen, 2007; Pritchard & Morgan, 2001; Tasci et
al., 2007), for instance, it has been suggested that, despite the pivotal role of visual
14
Instituto Politécnico de Leiria
III Congresso Internacional de Turismo de Leiria e Oeste – 2009
image in brand evaluations, other brand assessment dimensions should be considered
(Hankinson, 2004; Konecnik & Gartner, 2007).
6.2. Destination Brand Personality (DBP)
Despite the growing body of literature on DB, there is little empirical evidence that
visitors can and do associate brand personality characteristics with destinations and that
they can differentiate destinations on the basis of perceived personality and brand
identity.
Tourists receive and interpret the various messages sent by destinations and build a
representation of the ‘behaviour’ of the destination. Personality traits can be associated
with a destination in a direct way through citizens of the country, hotel employees,
restaurants and tourist attractions, or simply through the tourist’s imagery, defined as
the set of human characteristics associated with the typical visitor of a destination
(Aaker, 1997). In an indirect manner, personality traits can be attributed to destinations
through marketing programs such as cooperative advertising, value pricing, celebrities
of the country and media construction of destinations (Cai, 2002).
Accordingly, Ekinci & Hosany (2006) argue that, similar to consumer goods/brands,
tourism destinations are rich in terms of symbolic values and personality traits, given
that they consist of a bundle of tangible and intangible components (e.g., visitor
attractions, hotels and people) associated with particular values, histories, events and
feelings. Adopting Aaker’s (1997) research, Hosany, Ekinci & Uysal (2006, p. 639)
view destination brand personality as a multidimensional constructs defined as “the set
of human characteristics associated to a tourism destination”. The authors also argue
that destination image and destination personality are related concepts: “Brand image
seems to be an encompassing concept and brand personality is more related to affective
components of brand image” (2006, p. 641). The lack of research regarding destination
brand measurement may be an indication of the complexity involved in understanding
how tourists evaluate a destination brand.
DBP has been measured using the brand personality scale originally developed for
consumer goods. Consequently, personality traits found so far for tourism destination
may not fully reflect all the personality characteristics of a destination. It is also hoped
that continued work will lead towards both the development of a BP conceptual
framework more suitable for tourism destinations and a better understanding of the
influence brand perceptions have on destination choice when compared to other factors
influencing perceptions and visitation. Similarly, there is a need for a destination brand
15
Instituto Politécnico de Leiria
III Congresso Internacional de Turismo de Leiria e Oeste – 2009
measure (Blain et al., 2005; Deslandes, 2003; Kaplanidou &Vogt, 2003; Ooi, 2004; and
Ritchie & Ritchie, 1998).
Research has suffered from the lack of a common theory and of a consensual taxonomy
of personality traits used to describe products. The validity of the early product
personality scales, based on human personality, was questioned because human and
product personalities might have different antecedents. As a result, some dimensions of
human personality might be mirrored in brands, whereas others might not (Kassarjian,
1971, Pereira et. al. 2009).
6.3 The convergence of the concepts
Figure 2 show the interaction between the concepts of BI and BP. It is noticeable that a
significant number of elements are present in both concepts and that is why it is so
difficult to make a clear distinction between them.
Perception
Imagery
Messages
Reputation
Impressions
Brand-related activities
Brand Image
Meanings
Symbols
Self-concepts
(Self image)
Associations
Personality trais
A compoment of
Human
Characteristics
Personification
Psychological
values
Brand Personality
Figure 2 –The common ground between BI and BP and its specific elements
However, while BI is centred on perception, impressions meanings and messages, BP
is centred on personification, being “the soft, emotional side of brand image” (Biel, 1993
cited by Ekinci & Hosany, 2006, p. 131) which implies consumer experience. Only after
establishing a relationship with the brand, the consumer can assess its personality, in other
words, BP is the confirmation or not of the ‘brand image’ held about a brand. As
“consumers establish relationships with brands based on their symbolic value” (2006, p.
128).
16
Instituto Politécnico de Leiria
III Congresso Internacional de Turismo de Leiria e Oeste – 2009
Brand
Psotioning
Communication
strategies
Perceptions
Meanings
Symbolism
Cognitive or
psychological
elements
Self-concepts
Brand Image
Personification
Brand
Personality
Figure 3 – Brand image and brand personality constructs
Furthermore, characteristics are projected from the self-images of consumers in an
attempt to reinforce their own personalities. Figure 3 is illustrates how the elements
presented in both concepts relate and the boundaries between brand image and brand
personality.
7. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH
At the theoretical level the concept of brand, brand image and brand personality were
identified. However, some definitional inconsistencies and the interchangeable use of the
term are easily found. By analysing the definitions and names given to the concept, it is
often difficult to make a clear distinction between thee concepts of BI and BP. BI is
generally conceptualized as a more encapsulating concept, therefore it includes a
number of inherent characteristics or dimensions, such as BP. Agreement is not
achieved because while some authors consider BP antecedent to BI; others suggest that
personality and image are seen as antecedents of brand identity.
In fact, BI and BP concepts are related, especially in what concerns to affective
components as showed in figure 2. Elements such as perception and cognitive and
psychological were found in the majority of definitions of both concepts, however BP
relates to a sound presence of human characteristics associated with brands –
personification. These statements lead to the conclusion that BP is a consequence of BI
when establishing a relationship between the consumer and the brand as illustrated in
figure 3.
Thus, it is necessary to integrate existing knowledge of brand/product personality in the
consumer goods settings with theories of anthropomorphism to identify dimensions of
DBP. As a tourist destination consists of a set of tangible and intangible components, it
can be potentially be perceived as a brand. Furthermore, the holiday experience has an
17
Instituto Politécnico de Leiria
III Congresso Internacional de Turismo de Leiria e Oeste – 2009
hedonic nature and given that tourism destinations are rich in terms of symbolic values,
it is believed that the concept of brand personality can be applied to tourism
destinations. Given that ‘branding’, in its true sense, entails more than logos and
slogans, and must, as alluded to earlier, address the notions of values, personality, and
emotive links, the debate on DB can only advance if further analysis of these key
concepts and their applicability to ‘places’ occurs. As such, Aaker’s (1997) brand
personality scale might be extended to gauge personality traits that tourists ascribe to
destinations. Further research is needed to refine and develop a brand personality model
that is valid and reliable for tourism destinations.
18
Instituto Politécnico de Leiria
III Congresso Internacional de Turismo de Leiria e Oeste – 2009
REFERENCES
Aaker, D 1995, ‘Measuring the human characteristics of a brand’, paper presented at the
annual conference of the Association of Consumer Research, Boston, October.
Aaker, DA 1996, Building strong brands, The Free Press, New York.
Aaker, J 1997, ‘Dimensions of brand personality’, Journal of Marketing Research, vol.
34, pp. 347-356.
Aaker, D 1998, Brand Equity, Elsevier.
Aaker, JL 1999, ‘The malleable self: the role of self expression in persuasion’, Journal of
Marketing Research, vol. 36 February, pp. 45-57.
Aaker, JL, Benet- Martínez, V & Garolera, J 2001, ‘Consumption of symbols as carries of
culture; a study of Japanese and Spanish brand personality constructs’, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 81, no.3, pp. 492-508.
Aaker, J L & Fournier, S 1995, ‘A brand as a character, a partner and a person: three
perspectives on the question of brand personality’, Advances in Consumer Research, vol.
22, pp. 391-395
Aaker, JL, Fournier, S & Brasel, SA 2004, ‘When good brands do bad’, Journal of
Consumer Research, vol. 31, no.1, pp. 1-16.
Allen, DE & Olson, J 1995, ‘Conceptualizing and creating brand personality: a narrative
theory approach’, in JL Aaker & S Fournier (eds.), A brand as a character, a partner and a
person: three perspectives on the question of brand personality, Advances in Consumer
Research, vol. 22, pp. 392-393.
Azoulay, A & Kapferer, J 2003, ‘Do brand personality scales really measure brand
personality?’, Journal of Brand Management, vol. 2, no. 2 143-155.
Baloglu, S & Brinberg, D 1997, ‘Affective images of tourism destinations’, Journal of
Travel Research, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 11-15.
Baloglu, S & McCleary, K W 1999, ‘A model of destination image formation’, Annals of
Tourism Research, vol. 26, pp. 868–897.
Belk, RW 1988, ‘Possessions and the extended self’, Journal of Consumer Research, vol.
2 September, pp. 139-168.
Biel, AL 1992, ‘How brand image drives brand equity’, Journal of Advertising
Research, vol. 32, November/December, RC6-RC12.
Blain, C, Levy, SE & Ritchie, R B 2005, ‘Destination branding: insights and practices
from destination management organizations’, Journal of Travel Research, vol. 43, pp.
328–338.
Blythe, J 2007, ‘Advertising creatives and brand personality: a grounded theory
perspective’, Journal of Brand Management, vol. 14, pp. 284-294.
Boo, S, Busser, J & Baloglu, S 2009, ‘A model of customer-based brand equity and its
application to multiple destinations’ Tourism Management, vol. 30, pp. 219–231.
19
Instituto Politécnico de Leiria
III Congresso Internacional de Turismo de Leiria e Oeste – 2009
Brown, T, Dacin, PA, Pratt, MG & Whetten, DA 2006, ‘Identity, intended image,
constructed image and reputation: an interdisciplinary framework and suggested
terminology’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 99-106.
Buhalis, D 2000, ‘Marketing the competitive destination for the future’, Tourism
Management, vol. 21, no. 1, pp.97-116.
Cai, L 2002, ‘Cooperative branding for rural destinations’, Annals of Tourism Research,
vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 720–742.
Calder, BJ & Reagan, S 2001, ‘Brand design’, in D Iacobucci (ed.), Kellogg on
Marketing, John Wiley, New York, pp. 58-73.
Caprara, GV, Barbaranelli, C & Guido, G 2001, ‘Brand personality: how to make the
metaphor fit?’, Journal of Economic Psychology, vol. 22, pp. 377-395.
Chon, K S 1991, ‘Tourism destination image modification process: Marketing
implications’, Tourism Management, vol. 12, no. 1, pp.68-72.
Curtis, J 2001, ‘Branding a state: the evolution of Brand Oregon’, Journal of Vacation
Marketing, vol. 7, pp. 75–81.
De Chernatony, L 2001, From brand vision to brand evaluation. Strategically building
and sustaining brands, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford.
De Chernatony, L & Dall’Omo Riley, F D 1998, Defining “brand” beyond the literature
with experts’ interpretations’, Journal of Marketing Management, vol. 14, no.5, pp.
417-443.
Deslandes, DD 2003, ‘Assessing consumer perceptions of destinations: A necessary first
step in the destination branding process’, PHD thesis, the Florida State University.
Dobni, D & Zinkhan, GM 1990, ‘In search of brand image: a foundation analysis’,
Advances in Consumer Research, vol.17, pp. 110-119.
Durgee, JF & Stuart, RW 1987, ‘Advertising symbols and brand names that best
represent key product meanings’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, vol. 4, no.3, pp.
15-24.
Echtner, CM & Ritchie, JRB 2003, ‘The meaning and measurement of destination
image’, The Journal of Tourism Studies, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 37 – 48.
Ekinci, Y 2003, ‘From Destination Image to Destination Branding: An Emerging Area
of Research’, e-Review of Tourism Research, vol. 1, no.2, pp. 21-24.
Ekinci, Y & Hosany, S 2006, ‘Destination personality: an application of brand
personality to tourism destinations’, Journal of Travel Research, vol. 45, pp. 127-139.
Fiske, J 1989, Reading the popular, MA: Unwin Hyman, Boston.
Fournier, S 1998, ‘Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in
consumer research’, Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 24, pp. 343–373.
Friedmann, R. & Lessig, VP 1987, ‘Psychological meaning of products and product
positioning’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, vol. 4, pp. 263-273.
20
Instituto Politécnico de Leiria
III Congresso Internacional de Turismo de Leiria e Oeste – 2009
Gallarza, MG, Saura, IG & García, HC 2002, ‘Destination Image: towards a conceptual
framework’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 29, no.1, pp. 56-78.
Gartner, BB & Levy, SJ 1955, ‘The product and the brand’, Harvard Business Review,
vol. 33, pp. 33-39.
Gartner, W 1993, ‘Image Formation Process’ Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing,
vol. 2, no. 2/3, pp. 191–215.
Gilmore, F 2002, ‘Branding for success’, in N. Morgan, A. Pritchard & R. Pride (eds.),
Destination Branding: creating a unique destination proposition, Butterworth
Heinemann, Oxford, pp.57-65.
Gnoth, J 1998, ‘Conference reports: branding tourism destinations’, Annals of Tourism
Research, vol. 25, pp. 758-760.
Gnoth, J 2002, ‘Leveraging export brands through a tourism destination brand’, Journal
of Brand Management, vol. 9, no. 4–5, pp.62–280.
Hall, D 2002, ‘Brand development, tourism and national identity; the re-imaging of
former Yugoslavia’, Brand Management, vol. 9, no. 4/5, pp. 323–334.
Hankinson, G 2004, ‘Relational network brands: towards a conceptual model of place
brands’, Journal of Vacation Marketing, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 109–121.
Hankinson, G 2005, ‘Destination brand images: a business tourism perspective’,
Journal of Services Marketing, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 24–32.
Hendon, DW & Williams, EL 1985, ‘Winning the battle for your customer’, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 65-75.
Herzog, H 1963, ‘Behavioral science concepts for analysing the consumer’, in P Bliss
(ed.) Marketing and the Behavioral Sciences, Allyn and Bacon, Inc., Boston, pp. 76-86.
Heylen, J P, Dawson, B & Sampson, P 1995, ‘An implicit model of consumer behaviour’,
Journal of Marketing Research Soc, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 51-67.
Hoeffler, S & Keller, K L 2003, ‘The Marketing advantage of strong brands’, Journal of
Brand Management, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 421–445.
Hosany, S, Ekinci, Y & Uysal, M 2006, ‘Destination image and destination personality:
an application of branding theories to tourism places’, Journal of Business Research, vol.
59, no. 5, 638-642.
Kapferer, JN 1997, Strategic brand management: creating and sustaining brand equity
long term, 2nd ed., Kogan Page Limited, London.
Kaplanidou, K & Vogt, C 2003, Destination branding: concept and measurement.
Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources, Michigan State University,
Michigan.
Kassarjian, HH 1971, ‘Personality and consumer behavior: a review’, Journal of
Marketing Research, vol. 8 November, pp. 409-418.
21
Instituto Politécnico de Leiria
III Congresso Internacional de Turismo de Leiria e Oeste – 2009
Keller, L 1993, ‘Conceptualizing measuring and managing consumer-based brand
equity’, Journal of Marketing, vol. 57, pp. 1-22.
Keller, K 1998, Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing
Brand Equity, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River NJ.
Keller, KL & Aaker, DA 1998, ‘ Corporate-level marketing: the impact of credibility on
company’s brand extentions’, Corporate Reputation Review, vol. 1, no. 4 August, pp.
356-378.
King, J 2002, ‘Destination Marketing Organisations: Connecting the Experience Rather
than Promoting the Place’, Journal of Vacation Marketing, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 105–108.
Klaeber, F 1950, Beowulf and the Fight at Finnsburg, 3rd ed., D.C. Health, Boston.
Kleine, RE, Kleine, SS & Kernan, JB 1993 ‘Mundane consumption and the self: a
social identity perspective’, Journal of Consumer Psychology, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 209-35.
Konecnik, M & Gartner, W C 2007, ‘Customer-based brand equity for a destination’,
Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 400–421.
Kotler, PH 1991, Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, and Control, 8th ed.,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Levy, SJ 1959, ‘Symbols for sales’, Harvard Business Review, vol. 37, no. 4, pp.
117-124.
Leiper, N 1995, Tourism Management. RMIT Press, Melbourne.
Malhotra, NK 1988, ‘Self-concept and product choice: an integrated perspective’,
Journal of Economic Psychology, vol. 9, pp.1-28.
Martineau, P 1957, Motivation in Advertising: motives that make people buy,
Mcgraw-Hill.
Martineu, P 1959, ‘Shaper focus for the corporate image’, Harvard Business Review, vol.
36, no. 1, pp. 49-58.
Mayer, M 1958, Madison Avenue, Harper, New York.
McCraken, G 1989, ‘Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundations of the
endorsement process’, Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 16, no.3, pp.310-321.
Milas, G & Mlacic, B 2007, ‘Brand personality and human personality: findings from
ratings of familiar Croatian brands’, Journal of Business Research, vol. 60, pp. 620-626.
Morgan, N & Pritchard, A 2002, ‘Contextualizing destination branding’, in N Morgan,
A Pritchard & A Pride (eds.), Destination Branding: creating the unique destination
proposition, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 11–43.
Morgan, N, Pritchard, A & Piggott, R 2003, ‘Destination Branding and the Role of
Stakeholders: The Case of New Zealand’, Journal of Vacation Marketing vol. 9, no. 3,
pp. 285–299.
Morgan, N, Pritchard, A & Pride, R 2004, Destination Branding: creating the unique
destination proposition, 2nd ed., Butterworth- Heinemann, Oxford.
22
Instituto Politécnico de Leiria
III Congresso Internacional de Turismo de Leiria e Oeste – 2009
Morrison, AM & Anderson, DJ 2002, ‘Destination branding’, Paper presented at the
Missouri Association of Convention & Visitor Bureaux Annual Meeting.
Mundt, JW 2002, ‘The branding of myths and the myths of branding. Some critical
remarks on the ‘branding’ of destinations’, Tourism, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 339-348.
Murphy, L, Morscado, G & Benckendorff, P 2007, ‘Using brand personality to
differentiate regional tourism destinations’, Journal of Travel Research, vol. 46, pp. 5-14.
Newman, JW 1957, ‘New insight, new progress for marketing’, Harvard Business
Review, November-December, pp. 95-102.
O’Donohoe, S 1994, ‘Advertising uses and gratifications’, European Journal of
Marketing, vol. 28, pp. 52-75.
Ooi, CS 2004, ‘Poetics & politics of destination branding: Denmark’, Scandinavian
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism, vol. 4, no.2, pp. 107–128.
Papadopoulos, N & Heslop, L 2002, ‘Country equity & country branding: problems &
prospects’, Brand Management, vol. 9, no. 4/5, pp. 294–314.
Park, CW, Jaworski, BJ & MacInnis, DJ 1986, ‘Strategic brand concept-image
management, Journal of Marketing, vol. 50 (October), pp. 135 – 145.
Patterson, M 1999, ‘Re-appraising the concept of brand image’, Journal of Brand
Management, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 409-426.
Pereira, R, Correia, A & Schutz, R 2009, ‘Towards a tourism brand personality
taxonomy: a survey of practices’, in A Fyall, M Kozak, L Andreu, J Gnoth & S S Lebe,
Marketing Innovations for Sustainable Destinations, Goodfellow Publishing, Oxford, pp.
254-267.
Phau, I & Lau, KC 2000, ‘Conceptualising brand personality: a review and research
propositions’, Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, vol. 9, no.
1, pp. 52-69.
Phau, I, & Lau, KC 2001, ‘Brand personality and consumer self-expression: Single or
dual carriageway?’, Journal of Brand Management, vol. 8, pp. 428–444.
Plummer, JT 1985, ‘How personality makes a difference’, Journal of Advertising
Research, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 27-31.
Plummer, J 2000, ‘How personality makes are different’, Journal of Advertising
Research, vol. 40, pp. 79–83.
Pohlman, RA & Mudd, S 1973, ‘Market image as a function of group and product type: a
quantitative approach’, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 167-171.
Prebensen, N K 2007, ‘Exploring tourists’ images of a distant destination’, Tourism
Management, vol. 28, pp. 747–756.
Pritchard, A & Morgan, NJ 2001, ‘Culture, identity & tourism representation: marketing
Cymru of Wales?’, Tourism Management, vol. 22, pp. 167–179.
23
Instituto Politécnico de Leiria
III Congresso Internacional de Turismo de Leiria e Oeste – 2009
Ritchie, JRB & Ritchie, RJB 1998, ‘The branding of tourism destinations: past
achievements & future challenges’, paper presented at the Annual Congress of the
International Association of Scientific Experts in Tourism, Marrakech, Morocco.
Runyon, KE & Stewart, D 1987, Consumer Behavior, 3rd ed., Merrill Publishing,
Columbus, OH.
Sirgy, JM 1982, ‘Self-concept in consumer behavior’, Journal of Consumer Research,
vol. 9, pp. 287-300.
Sirgy, MJ 1985, ‘Using self-congruity and ideal congruity to predict purchase
motivation’, Journal of Business Research, vol. 13, pp. 195-206.
Solomon, M 1983, ‘The role of products as social stimuli: a symbolic interactionism
perspective’, Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 10 December, pp.80-84.
Solomon, M R 1999, Consumer behaviour, 4th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River,
NJ.
Sommers, MS 1963, ‘Product symbolism and perceptions of social strata’, in SA Greyser
(ed.), Towards Scientific Marketing, American Marketing Association, Chicago, pp.
200-216.
Stern, BB 2006, ‘What does brand mean? Historical-analysis method and construct
definition’, Journal of the Academic Marketing Science, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 216-223.
Swartz, TA 1983, ‘Brand symbols and message differentiation’, Journal of Advertising
Research, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 59-64.
Tasci, ADA, Gartner, W C & Cavusgil, S T 2007, ‘Measurement of destination brand
bias using a quasi-experimental design’, Tourism Management, vol. 28, no.6, pp.
1529–1540.
Todd, JH 1942, An Apology for Lollard Doctrines, Camden Society, London.
Upshaw, L 1995, Building brand identity: a strategy for success in a hostile market place,
John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Young, S & Petrick, JF 2005, ‘Destinations’ perspectives of branding’, Annals of
Tourism Research, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 262-265.
24