Download The role of destination branding in the tourism stakeholders

The role of destination branding in the tourism stakeholders system.
The Campi Flegrei case 1
Marcello Risitano
Business Studies PhD
Research Fellow at Marketing Laboratory
Department of Business Management
Faculty of Economics - University of Naples Federico II
Via Cinthia – Campus of Monte S. Angelo
80126 – Naples (Italy)
Phone +3981675355
Mobile +393479077241
E-mail [email protected]
Abstract
The aim of the paper is to analyze the place branding strategies finalized to growth the competitive of
the tourist destinations. Therefore, the following main issues are developed: 1. the role of branding
management in tourism industry, analyzing the place branding literature review on marketing theory
and the main destination brand models existing in tourism and vacation marketing academic area; 2.
configuring a proposal model of destination branding, with the identification of the main brand value
driver as key dimensions to define the brand identity and the brand knowledge in the tourists
perspective. 3. validating this model of destination branding, verifying - through an empirical research
- the descriptive capacity of this framework to explicate the destination branding process in a specific
geographical context, the area of Campi Flegrei.
Campi Flegrei is a tourist destination located in the west side of Naples city and its province (southern
Italy). This is a destination with high intensity of cultural and landscape resources.
1. Introduction
The tourist destination product (TDP) is a composite offering system based on the relationships among
the contextual resources, the destination marketing organizations (DMOs) and the enterprises involved
in the building and marketing of destination tourist services: these links are several and interdependent
(Weaver, Oppermann, 2000; Grängsjö, 2003). However, the constellation of stakeholders involved –
in the “tourism stakeholders system”, as defined by Weaver and Oppermann (2000) – which has to be
coordinated in a co-evaluative dynamic, makes the approach to the development of a tourist
destination a complex aim. In fact, the several local stakeholders could have different goals and
strategies, different visions of the destination’s growth, different resources, competencie s and
knowledge base; in other words, a different approach to tourist destination marketing. The reason that
will be developed the paper will concern the tourist destination and the tourist destination management
1
I thank Prof. Luigi Cantone – Full Professor of Marketing, Federico II University – that is a irreplaceable source of ideas, methodology and
support in my growth of marketing researcher. Particularly, this research was born by our reflections during my PhD Course on Business
Studies; moreover, I want thank him because in this work are presented some results of a field research project on Campi Flegrei area direct
by Professor (Cantone, 2005). Finally, I want thank also Dr. Pierpaolo Testa, that was co-author - with Professor and me - of a precedent
paper on “Heterogeneity resources and Destination Management” presented in another International Conference (Cantone, Risitano, Testa,
2005).
1
in a customer-based perspective, more generally in the perspective of the stakeholder-based theory
(Freeman, 1984).
In particular, in the paper will be analysed one of the most valuable resource of a tourist destination,
the destination brand (Hankinson, 2001, 2004; Cai, 2002; Gnoth, 2002; Kaplanidou, 2003); it gives
expression to the identity and the distinctive characters of the TDP. The destination branding is a
management process in the tourism industry that play its role upon two level: first of all, it’s the
cognitive linking pin with the perceptive and evaluative system of the customers; moreover, it is a
mean to align the behaviour of the several stakeholders involved to market the area as an unified
tourist destination product. In other words, the brand has seen as a relational resource, both towards
the customers and towards the other several local stakeholders (local firms and other tourist
destination organizations) involved to offer the single elements of the TDP.
The ideas of the proposal paper will be based upon the assumptions of Resource-Based Theory
(Barney, 1991; Peteraf, 1993; Grant, 1991; Prahalad and Hamel, 1994).
More specifically, the aims of the paper are fundamentally three:
• defining the role of branding management in tourism industry, in primis analyzing the place
branding literature review on marketing theory, defined in two major domains: urban planning and
tourism and vacation marketing; in secundis analyzing the main destination brand models existing
in tourism and vacation marketing academic area;
• configuring a proposal model of destination branding, with the identification of the main brand
value driver as key dimensions to define the brand identity and the brand knowledge in the tourists
perspective. This latter, in a customer-based approach, could be an useful mean to increase the
value of the local heterogeneous resources system under the point of view of the potential tourist.
• validating this model of destination branding, verifying - through an empirical research - the
descriptive capacity of this framework to explicate the destination branding process in a specific
geographical context, the area of Campi Flegrei. It will be analyzed the destination brand identity
projected by Campi Flegrei tourism stakeholders and it will be evaluated the main destination brand
value drivers (awareness, image and free association) perceived by tourists.
The aims and reasons of the paper will be developed even on the base of some evidences of 1. an
explorative research that involved 15 local stakeholders – policy maker (6), tour operator (4),
destination marketing organizations (1), cultural resources managing organizations (CRMOs)(3),
entrepreneurs organizations (1) – in the destination of Campi Flegrei, to analysing the destination
brand equity projected by tourism stakeholders system; 2. a pilot survey (face-to-face
methodology) on a sample of 400 tourist – Italian and foreign - interviewed at local sites (Solfatara
Vulcan, Castle of Baia, Greek city of Cuma), using a questionnaire wit h open and closed questions, to
measuring the destination brand equity perceived by tourists.
The area of Campi Flegrei is a destination positioned at the west side of Naples city and its province.
It’s formed by several municipalities (Pozzuoli, Bacoli, Monte di Procida, Quarto) and districts of
Naples city (Bagnoli and Fuorigrotta). It is an area with an high intensity of cultural, landscape and
environment resources (place-specific resources), in which – at present - there is an economic
development related to tourist and rural regeneration.
2. The branding management in tourism industry: a literature review.
In many business industries, characterized by complex offerings that drive functional, symbolic and
experiential benefits, the brand represents the main relational resource (Ambler, 1995; Fournier, 1998;
Codeluppi, 2000) to create and to maintain a competitive advantage. Moreover, in the actual hypercompetitive markets – with the decreased effectiveness of traditional marketing tactics and the
emergence of new marketing tools (Keller, 2003a) - the brand becomes one of the most important
2
assets for the organization that intends to build and manage significant relationships with all business
player presents in own value constellation (Normann, Ramirez, 1994) , mainly with the final customer.
As regards the consumer products, place products are more complex and therefore they present a
significant challenge for the destination marketer (Morgan et al., 2002). First of all, places exist both
as holistic entities or nuclear products and as collections of contributory elements or individual
services and facilities2 . Secondly, the place product can be assembled uniquely by each visitor from
their experiences of a chosen set of individual contributory elements (Ashworth and Voogt, 1990). As
a result, the destination marketer may not have full control above the product experience3 . Thirdly,
places are multi-functional. The same place can offer historical buildings, shopping facilities, sports
facilities and entertainment venues (Hankinson, 2005). In accordance with Cai (2002), place branding
results in a consistent attributes-based image across multiple communities - in mountain cooperative
sites - as perceived by tourists, but it builds stronger linkages of the image to the brand identity and
more favourable affective and attitudes-based brand associations for a region than for individual
communities.
Clarke (2000) has identified six benefits of branding related to tourism destination products (TDPs): 1.
as tourism is typically high involvement, branding helps to reduce the choice; 2. branding helps in
reducing the impact of intangibility; 3. branding conveys consistency across multiple outlets and
through time; 4. branding can reduce the risk factor attached to decision making about holidays; 5.
branding facilitates precise segmentation; 6. branding helps to provide a focus for the integration of
producer effort, helping people to work towards the same outcome.
Brands are generally considered to be a marketer’s main tool to creating product differentiation.
Brands differentiate products and they represent a promise of value. Brands incite beliefs, brands
evoke emotions and prompt behaviour. Brands have social and emotional value to users. They have
personality and they speak to the user (Kotler and Gertner, 2002).
Afterwards, therefore, is analyzed particularly the role of branding in tourism destination marketing,
explaining: 1. a place branding literature review on marketing theory; 2. the main destination
brand models existing in literature;
2.1 Place branding literature review on marketing theory
In marketing literature, the most important studies above branding – in customer-based approach were proposed by David Aaker (1991, 1996 and 2000), Jean-Noel Kapferer (1992, 2001, 2004) and
Kevin Keller (1993, 1998, 2001 and 2003b). The main goals of these works were defining brand
identity and building, managing and measuring brand equity. These are two main brand constructs to
define branding strategy and to position brand in customer’s mind (Risitano, 2004). Several studies
(e.g. Ambler, 1995; Fournier, 1998; Busacca, 2000) have extended the role of branding to
conceptualize the relationships that consumers form with brands.
Instead, the literature on the places marketing can be found in several academic areas; it is most
systematically defined in two major domains: urban planning and tourism and vacation marketing
(Hankinson, 2004). However, these two domains take a very different approaches:
• the urban planning perspective. The urban planning literature focuses on the nature of the place
product, its historical development (Ward, 1998) and the marketing implications of its distinctive
features (Van den Bergh, Braun 1999; Ward, Gold, 1994). Sleipen (1998) argues that the place
product is dualistic , and he distinguishes the ‘nuclear’ product (the place as a holistic entity) from
the product’s contributory elements (the services, activities and features of which the place has
comprised). Van den Bergh and Braun (1999) divides the place product into three levels: the
individual good or service (e.g. a tourist attraction), clusters of related services (e.g. urban
2
Thus, a city can have an overall reputation as an old industrial city, while individual (contributory) elements, for example sports facilities,
museums or shopping centres, can have their own individual reputations for totally independent reasons (Hankinson, 2005)
3
The tourism destination product (TDP) is made up of an amalgam of tourism products, offering an integrated experience to consumers
(Buhalis, 2000) of not only the service providers — hotels and guesthouses, restaurants and travel companies — but also the informal
contacts with local people (Foley, Fahy, 2004).
3
•
tourism) and urban agglomeration, referring to the collection of goods and services which make up
the place;
the tourism and vacation marketing perspective. To the tourism marketer the location is a
destination, a place that people (and organization) visit. As such, tourism is a distinctive aspect of
….. economic development of a location. The literature in this area emphasises the importance of
establishing a balance between competing objectives and environmental objectives relevant to the
tourist (Walker, Hanson, 1998).
In this research, the definition and role of branding – and the destination brand model proposal - is
analyzed in second literature perspective. According to Hankinson (2004) - that classified several
research on branding in tourism perspective - in this paper are identified three main streams of
destination brand conceptualisation4 .
1. Destination brands as communicators . The works take this perspective focus own research
mainly on formulation and implementation of branding strategy. Gnoth (2002), for example, sees
destination branding as a management process that leads to a strategic plan to build a brand identity
based upon destination attributes selected on the basis of competitiveness, uniqueness and desired
identity. Hall (1999) defines the core objective of destination branding as the production of a
consistent, focused communication strategy, based upon the selection of a collection of core intangible
values existing in the mind of the consumer. Contrasting, Pride (2002) combines a communicator
perspective with a relationship perspective in which tangible attributes play a key supporting role
within the communication framework, providing reasons for the consumer to believe. Other articles
also link these perspectives. Kotler and Gertner (2002), for example , adopt the American Marketing
Association’s definition of a brand, but they link this to a brand personality that speaks at the
consumer. Morgan et al. (2002) argue that increasing product parity requires destinations to create
unique identities in order to differentiate themselves from their competitors. In addition they set out a
brand equity, that includes the development of a personality, as the focus of consumer relationships
with the brand.
2. Destination brands as perceptive entity. Brand image or perceptual perspectives dominate the
literature5 . The literature above destination images includes studies of specific destinations and studies
identifying common attributes across a sample of destinations at regional national and international
levels. This perspective is also reflected in several conceptual models 6 (Echtner, Ritchie, 1991;
Baloglu, Mc Cleary, 1999; Gallarza, Saura, Garcìa, 2002; Larsen, George, 2004; Hankinson, 2005).
Destination image has a key role for tourism marketers; several researchers (e.g. Mayo 1973, Mayo
and Jarvis 1981, Woodside and Lysonski 1989) have illustrated that destination image and tour ist’s
purchase decisions are positively correlated. Woodside and Lysonski (1989) set out a general model of
traveller destination choice. The model suggests that intentions to visit reflect a destination’s level of
traveller awareness, its propensity to become part of the choice set and its affective associations or
level of perceived emotional attraction. Therefore, destination image results an important issue in a
individual’s travel purchase related decision making and that the individual traveller (dis)satisfaction
with a travel purchase depends on a comparison of his expectation about the destination or a
previously held destination image, and his perceived performance of the destination (Chon, 1990).
3. Destination brands as relationships . This perspective was illustrated by Sirgy and Su (2000) who
argue that a destination’s environment influences the formation of stereotypic images of the kinds of
people which typically visit the destination. The propensity to visit is due to a match between the
destination visitor image and the tourist’s self-concept. Westwood et al. (1999) analyse the destination
4
These are not independent of each other. Indeed, they are arguably inextricably linked to each other through input-output feedback
relationships Hankinson (2004).
5
In this analysis perspective, Pike (2002) has defined a systematic review of 142 papers on destination image published during the period
1973-2000.
6
Echtner and Ritchie (1991) set out a conceptual model of the components of a destination image based upon three categories of brand
association; individual attributes versus holistic impressions, functional versus psychological characteristics and common versus unique
characteristics.
4
brand equity in the relationship perspective, arguing that the role of brands is building a meaningful
relationship with the consumer in order to secure higher profits. The conceptualisation of brands as
relationships is arguably part of the increasing acceptance of the relational paradigm of exchange. The
relational exchange paradigm characterises exchange as a continuous process focused on the creation
of value through relationships with all stakeholder groups not just consumers (Payne, Holt, Frow,
2001). These include employees, suppliers, alliance partners, shareholders, government agencies, and
so on. This conceptualisation puts brands at the centre of marketing activities. It also widens the focus
of branding activities beyond communications to include behaviours, a focus of considerable
relevance to destination branding (Hankinson, 2004).
2.2 The main destination brand models in tourism studies
A destination brand is a brand relating to a defined geographical region that’s understood by its
tourists as an unique entity 7 , with a political and legislative framework for tourism marketing and
planning (Buhalis, 2000). Destinations are amalgams of tourism products, offering an integrated
experience to the consumers. This amalgam of tourism products and services offered by a destination
is consumed by tourists under the brand name of the destination during their period of stay (Buhalis,
2000).
Instead, Cai (2002) defines destination branding as “selecting a consistent element mix to identify and
distinguish it through positive image building”. And further, he explains that the main aim to create
value to the destination is building a brand image amounts to identifying the most relevant
associations and strengthening their linkages to the brand.
In another studies, Kaplanidou and Vogt (2003) define destination brand about “how consumers
perceive the destination in their minds”. It is about capturing the distinct elements of the destination in
the brand and communicating these elements through the brand’s components.
Kaplanidou and Vogt identify a destination brand model to create and manage the place value in the
tourist perspective. It incorporates many components that work together to form the destination brand
concept. The core of the model is the defining and building of brand identity. This is how brand
strategists want the brand to be perceived. In the Kaplanidou and Vogt’s model (2003), destination
brand identity is founded by a set of unique brand associations: these associations imply a promise to
customers from organization members. Brand identity should help establish a relationship between the
brand and the customer by generating a value proposition involving functional, emotional or self
expressive benefits (Aaker, 1996). In this framework five bases are defined to manage destination
brand identity: brand image, brand personality, brand essence (or soul), brand character and brand
culture. Managing these components, the DMOs define the principal factors of the own destination
brand strategy, creating an unique positioning of the destination brand in the consumer's mind
(Kaplanidou, Vogt, 2003).
Moreover, the main studies on place marketing literature which explain destination brand models , in
primis it defines the core brand value (or brand identity) promise to customer, in secundis it examines:
a. the process communicating this value (or identity) to the tourists (Cai, 2002);
b. the role of all business local player and internal/external stakeholders creating and managing this
value (or identity) in DMOs perspective (Hankinson, 2004).
In the first case, Cai’s model (2002) considers destination branding as a recursive process that
revolves around the central axis formed by brand element mix, brand identity – the core of the
model - and brand image building. The process described in the model starts with carefully choosing
one or more brand elements to serve as trademarkable devices. These factors distinctly identify the
destination and begin the formation of strong and consistent brand associations that reflect the
7
As emphasized previously, a place - continent, country, region, city, attraction - differs from other products in that it is a composite product
comprising of a number of different brands (and/or components of brands). Consequently, those involved in branding a place face a number
of unique challenges as there are many, diverse stakeholders, little control of the varying components and more often than not, an
underdeveloped identity (Morgan, Pritchard and Piggott, 2002).
5
attributes, affective , and attitudes components of an image 8 (3A of the model). This makes it
possible to assess the gap between the perceived and the projected. The assessment then provides input
in building the desired image that is consistent with brand identity and through marketing programs ,
marketing communications , and managing secondary associations (3Ms in the model) 9 . Moreover,
Cai (2002) defines four components on the model’s outer circle specify the contextual preconditions
(4Cs) in which destination branding takes place: existing induced image , destination size &
composition, positioning & target market and existing organic image. Therefore, the model is
recursive, centring on building destination identity through spreading activation10 , which results from
dynamic linkages among brand element mix, image building, brand associations (3As), and marketing
activities (3Ms). The model also specifies that spreading activation take place under the four
conditions of existing organic image, existing induced image, destination size and composition, and
positioning and target markets (4Cs).
Instead, in the second case, Hankinson’s model (2004) - referred to as the ‘relational network
brand’ - is represented by a brand core and four categories of brand relationships. These relationships
are dynamic and evolve over time. Stakeholder partners may also change as the brand develops and
repositions. The brand core represents a place’s identity, the blueprint for developing and
communicating the place brand. It may be the vision of one or a number of organisations, and it could
be defined by three elements (Hankinson, 2004) :
• brand personality. This is characterised by functional attributes, symbolic attributes and - most
importantly in the context of tourist destination products - experiential attributes;
• brand’s positioning . This defines the brand’s point of reference with respect to the competitive
set by identifying the attributes which make it similar to other places and then identifying the
attributes which make it unique within that set.
• brand reality. Developing the core brand is not about creating an image that presents an highly
selective identity like a means of selling the place, as suggested by some authors (Barke, Harrop,
1994), or it is a sales pitch that sees the place through rose-tinted spectacles. The successful
branding of destinations results from a combination of imaginative marketing supported by
investment in the key services and facilities required to deliver the experience on offer. Unless
sufficient funds are invested in the brand and its services and facilities, there will be no
reinforcement of the core brand values and no repeated consumption.
In Hankinson’s model (2004), the ultimate success of a place branding strategy relies on the effective
extension of the core brand through effective relationships with stakeholders , each of which extends
and reinforces the reality of the core brand through consistent communication and delivery of services.
The model groups these relationships into four macro-categories of stakeholders: primary services
providers , the infrastructure services providers , the media and communications players and the
consumers of the destination.
8
Several studies emphasize either how perceptions of a destination are formed on the part of tourists (Baloglu and McCleary 1999) or what
factors affect formation of a destination image. In Cai’s model (2002), image formation goes beyond the tourist-oriented approach to
encompass what image a destination marketing organization (DMO) wants to project through each of the 3As.
9
In the context of destination branding, marketing programs such as tourist experience enhancement, attraction development, channel
selection (for instance, push vs pull channels of distribution), cooperative advertising, and value pricing are designed to enhance the brand
identity through spreading activation. Marketing communications are concerned with selecting an optimal mix of media (including
television and magazines) and other options (like direct response advertising, trade promotions, and event marketing and sponsorship) to
support marketing programs and enhance brand identity through spreading activation. Associations are considered secondary in
destination branding when this relationship with a place as perceived by tourists do not result from a DMO’s direct marketing programs
and communications, and are usually beyond its direct control. In this sense, secondary associations resemble (Cai, 2002).
10
Drawing on the concept of spreading activation (Anderson, 1983), the model explicates that a brand image, which consists of three
hierarchical components, is indeed only one part of destination branding process. To brand a destination, an image must be built by choosing
an optimal brand element mix and identifying the most relevant brand associations. Associations and their linkages to the brand identity must
be consistent and strengthened by equally consistent and effective marketing activities. Further, destination branding must be preceded by
taking into consideration the four conditions of existing organic image, existing induced image, destination size and composition, and
positioning and target market s. The model facilitates a comprehensive understanding of the role of destination image in the overall scheme of
destination branding. it emphasizes the importance of selecting a brand element or element mix to represent the brand identity (Cai, 2002).
6
3. A proposal of Destination Branding Model
The most important phases of destination branding processes are based to define and communicate to
the tourists the main brand value driver of place. To achieving these aims, the first step of branding
strategy is the definition of destination brand identity, identifying the principal element that compose it
(e.g. Keller, 2003; Kapferer, 2004). Moreover, to managing strategically the place value proposition, is
indispensable to analyze and to measure the destination brand knowledge perceived to the tourists; this
is related to the cognitive representation of the destination brand.
On based these statements, the destination branding model proposal in this paper represents
exhaustively these two kind of brand equity, analyzing: 1. the brand identity, through the element of
projected brand equity defined by the DMOs (or policy makers, development agency, an so on); 2.
the brand knowledge, through the components of perceived brand equity on costumer based
perspective (see Figure 1)
In the case of destination - as illustrated on previous section - the analysis of resources, competences
and capabilities of the place is the ground to define the destination brand identity. In the destination
branding model proposal, the brand identity is based on six elements 11 :
•
•
•
•
•
•
Brand culture is about the system of characteristics based on the cultural aspects of the people
(spirit, traditions, event, gastronomy, an so on) and the country (historical sites, monuments,
archaeological sites, churches, an so on). Often, this is the essence of a destination and it
represents its core value proposition;
Brand character is related to its internal constitution, how it is perceived in terms of integrity,
trustworthiness and honesty (Upshaw, 1995). This is also related with the promise of the brand to
deliver the experience associated with its distinctive value proposition;
Brand personality is the set of human characteristics that are associated with the destination. It
includes several characteristics as sincerity, excitement or competence (Aaker J., 1997) or gender,
age, socioeconomic class, as well as human personality traits such as warmth and sentimentality
(Aaker, 1996);
Brand name often is the original name of the destination, in domestic or English language: this
choice is more important, because it is strongly related with communication strategy on tourist
targets. Brand name should have many strength and unique associations, it should be distinctive,
pronouncability and recallability (Keller, 2003b);
Brand logos (and symbols) is a fundamental element to define a destination. A beautiful view, a
famous monument or an unique tradition are examples of symbols that – in destination case –
could be the main logos to communicate a clear and distinctive value proposition compared to
another competitive places;
Brand s logan represents a promise that DMO – or another business player – defining to the tourist
targets. It’s based on the main functional, emotive or experiential attributes of the destination,
related to the benefits and value provided by the place offering. Naturally - also about this element
- is more important to choice strength and unique associations for communicating clearly these to
the tourists.
It’s more important selecting brand elements to represent the identity and analyzing its cohesiveness
that depends on the consistency of these (Keller, 2003a). Consistent brand elements reinforce each
other and it serves to unify the entire process of image formation and building, which in turn
contributes to the strength and uniqueness of brand identity (Cai, 2002). Therefore, the systematic,
unitary and coherent management of the elements of destination brand identity allows to define the
brand equity projected by DMOs (or policy makers, development agency). This player/s is the sender/s
of the messages – defining brand communication strategy, based on collaborative approach with media
11
T he first three elements illustrated in the model are macro-characteristics related to the resources or capabilities of the place; the last
three elements, instead, are specific tools to synthesize and communicate the destination value proposition.
7
and distribution channels – for positioning destination brand in tourists’ mind (Brand
Communication & Positioning Strategy).
Brand Communication
SENDER(S) & Positioning Strategy
Projected Destination
Brand Equity
RECEIVERS
Perceived Destination
Brand Equity
Brand
Awareness
Brand
Culture
Brand
Personality
Brand
Character
Brand
Identifying
Perspective
Brand Identity
Brand
Symbols
Brand
Slogan
Brand
Knowledge
Differentiating
Perspective
Associations
Brand
Name
Brand Image
Brand Tracking &
Feedback
Figure 1 - The Destination Branding Model proposed in the research (Source: Our elaboration).
On the right of the destination branding model (see Figure 1), instead, there is the destination brand
knowledge , the core of the brand equity perceived by tourists (receivers). Consumer [destination]
brand knowledge could be defined in terms of the personal meaning about a brand stored in consumer
memory, that is, all descriptive and evaluative brand related information (Keller, 2003b). The
knowledge of a destination brand can be defined as perceptions about the place as reflected by the
brand associations held in tourist memory. This definition of brand knowledge and its relationship to
destination branding model proposal in this study is rooted in the psychological theory of Adaptive
Control of Thought introduced by Anderson (1983) in his seminal work “The Equity of Cognition”.
The principal concept within this theory is spreading activation. To understanding its relevance for
branding, it is useful to think of one’s knowledge structure or memory “as a simple network in which
all elements or units are nodes and the connections among them are links” (Anderson, 1983). The
nodes represent various pieces of information - which can be verbal, visual, or abstract - stored in
memory and links represent the strength of associations between them.
In destination branding model, the associations network perceived by tourists allow the brand
positioning in the customers’ mind, through maximizing the identifying perspective of the
[destination] brand and the differentiating perspective compared with [place] competitors (Cantone,
Risitano, 2005). Moreover, the brand knowledge is based – according to Keller (1993, 1998) – on two
sources of customer-based equity: brand awareness and brand image.
Brand awareness is defined as “the capacity of a potential customer in recognizing or to
remembering that the brand is present for a certain type of offering” (Aaker, 1991). In accordance with
8
Keller (2003) , brand awareness is defined as brand’s ability to be remembered and recognized that
comes from the mental process used by the consumer in identifying it. Two levels of brand awareness
are identified, based upon the consumer’s own brand knowledge. The first is brand recognition,
describing the consumer’s ability to recognize the destination brand under a series of explicit external
stimuli. The second is brand recall, describing the ability to remember the destination brand due to it
being present in the consumer’s mind, independent of explicit external stimuli (Cantone, Calvosa,
Risitano, 2003).
Brand image , finally, is described by the consumer’s perception of the drivers associated to the
destination brand. This perception is determined by the attribution of values as well as significant
particularities of the DMO’s value proposition. According to Keller (1998), the image is founded by
the types of association to develop and the characteristics that they should have (strength, uniqueness,
favourability). Therefore, destination image is a mental construct developed by the tourist on the basis
of a selected associations among the flood of total associations. Thus, one would expect especially
associations based on personal experience and/or strong tie associations to be among the few selected
impressions and associations, upon the basis of which tourists generate destination images whereas the
probability of destination marketers’ advertising being part of the few selected associations is low(er)
(Blichfeldt, 2003).
Naturally, the coherent between the two form of destination brand equity must be checked by DMOs
DMOs (or policy makers, development agency, an so on) through field analysis on the tourists - actual
and prospect - to verify the planned positioning of the destination (Brand Tracking & Feedback).
4. Destination Branding Model: an empirical research on area of Campi Flegrei.
The third aim of this paper - as illustrated on previous section - is to validate this model of destination
branding, verifying the descriptive capacity of the proposal framework to explicate the destination
branding process in a specific geographical context, the area of Campi Flegrei. Campi Flegrei is a
tourist destination located in the west side of Naples city and its province (southern Italy). This is a
place with high intensity of cultural and landscape resources.
In the next section, it is precisely described the geographical context object of the empirical research;
therefore, they are classified the several place-specific resources of the area of Campi Flegrei.
The area of Campi Flegrei: a synthetic description.
The area of Campi Flegrei is a destination positioned at the west side of Naples city and its province (southern
Italy). It’s formed by several municipalities (Pozzuoli, Bacoli, Monte di Procida, Quarto) and districts of Naples
city (Bagnoli and Fuorigrotta). It is an area with an high intensity of cultural, landscape and environment
resources (place-specific resources), in which – at present - there is an economic development related to tourist
and rural regeneration.
Campi Flegrei place is a tourist destination with high intensity place-specific resources: the culturalarchaeological resources, the landscape and environment resources as well as a constant volcanic phenomena
make this area an unicum in continuous becoming of extraordinary attraction and unparalleled beauty.
Anyway, the resource that strongly characterizes Campi Flegrei place is the archaeological one. The
determinants of competitive territorial advantage are:
1. the quality of the archaeological resources comparable to Rome ones, according to the experts;
2. the geographic concentration of this “cultural repository” (53 archaeological main sites): in little more than
74,4 Kmq (Pozzuoli, Bacoli, Monte di Procida and Quarto) are located some of the archaeological parks
over the world (3) and several archaeological and monumental sites (7);
3. the variety of the tourist resources: Greek archaeology (for example the walls of the Greek city of Cuma),
the Roman archaeology (the archaeological and monumental park of Baia and the Rione Terra excavations)
and the monuments of Bourbon age (as the Bourbon complex of the Fusaro Lake);
4. the co-existence of these goods in a landscape and naturalistic scene without equal in the world.
9
The volcanic phenomena shape the beauty of the Campi Flegrei, modelling its lakes (Fusaro, Averno, Lucrino,
Miseno) its craters (Solfatara, Agnano, Astroni), reefs on the sea, shorelines, forests, pine-forest, Mediterranean
bush (Greco, 2005).
Figure 2 - The resources of Campi Flegrei tourist destination.
Place-specific resources
Campi Flegrei
Differentiating
Campi Flegrei
Not differentiating
Unqualified
Qualified
Tourist
services
Few
Many
Generic
resources
As illustrated in Figure 2, Campi Flegrei has an upper-middle competitive potential because of distinctive and
differentiating place-specific resources but a lack of generic resources, particularly tourist and transportations
ones, and of unqualified tourist and receptive services.
Policy institutions have understood this shortage and they have adopted two projects named PIT -Grande
Attrattore Culturale dei Campi Flegrei e Portualità Turistica - taking advantage by the communitarian funds
(POR 2000-2006) in order to slowly realize a massive plan of investments in heavy infrastructures (involving
ports and transport), recovery of the archaeological patrimony and urban design.
Moreover, the area of Pozzuoli is realizing the more important European Excavations in order to recovery the
three stratified levels of the roman city. The town-council approved in 2002 a plan to improve the port and the
city and wide the receptive structure through the creation of 600 new beds (Risitano, 2005).
Moreover to witness the importance attributed by the political institutions towards the natural resources, in the
1997 has been instituted The Campi Flegrei Regional Park , mainly an archaeological and landscape volcanic
park with areas of integral protection; areas with a generic tie of protection and areas in which is provided the
regeneration of the inhabited places (Greco, 2005).
The offering of primary hospitality facilities of the Campi Flegrei municipalities (Pozzuoli, Bacoli, Monte di
Procida and Quarto) is of 50 accommodations, with 2.550 beds, distributed in 1.320 rooms, mostly equipped
with room services. The offering of complementary hospitality facilities (i.e. camping, tourist villages, lodgings,
bed & breakfast, and so on) is of 12 accommodations with 2628 beds distributed in 629 rooms (Risitano, 2005).
By an interview at the President of the Albergatori Flegrei Associazione Turistica, emerges that, currently, the
utilization of the existing receptive structures does not exceed the 15% of the filling capacity.
According to same incoming tour operators the difficulties of tourist development of Campi Flegrei is to ascribe
mainly to unqualified transportations services, information services, and differentiating services as the
entertainment, whose shortage, makes the tourist destination less attractive towards the wider segments of the
market, the juvenile ones.
These difficulties are also due to the lack of tourist culture in the social-economic community. In the past, in
fact, political institutions, hospitality system, and the same residents never operated in the tourist business given
the industrial characteristics of the previous model of exploitation of the local system. It confirms the
observation that tourist destination growth depends on the specific resources of the destination but it is nurtured
10
by knowledge resources and deeply-rooted competencies, which develop slowly through the creative dialogue
among local stakeholder.
Source: L.Cantone, M.Risitano, P. Testa (2005) – “Heterogeneity of contextual resources and destination
branding management. The Campi Flegrei Case”, paper presented at Conference Sinergie-Cueim
"Heterogeneity, Diversification and Performance” – Cosenza, 7-8 July 2005
The empirical research is based on any evidences of: 1. explorative interviews which involved 15 local
stakeholders – policy maker (6), tour operator (4), destination marketing organizations (1), cultural
resources managing organizations (CRMOs)(3), entrepreneurs organizations (1) – in Campi Flegrei
destination, to analysing the destination brand equity projected by tourism stakeholders system; 2.
a pilot survey on a sample of 400 tourist – Italian and foreigners people - interviewed at local tourist
sites (Solfatara Vulcan, Castle of Baia, Greek city of Cuma), using a questionnaire with open and
closed questions, to measuring the destination brand equity perceived by tourists.
First of all, thought the explorative interviews on the local stakeholder – policy makers (the Mayors of
the City of Pozzuoli, Bacoli, Quarto and Monte di Procida; the Presidents of districts of Bagnoli and
Fuorigrotta ), tour operators, local DMO (Azienda Autonoma Cura Soggiorno e Turismo di Pozzuoli),
local CRMOs (Soprintendenza regionale ai beni ed alle attività culturali, Soprintendenza per i beni
archeologici di Napoli e Caserta, Soprintendenza per i Beni Architettonici ed il Paesaggio. e per il
Patrimonio Storico Artistico e Demoetnoantropologico di Napoli) and the Albergatori Flegrei
Associazione Turistica (senders) - it was analyzed the projected brand equity that describes the Campi
Flegrei identity. These interviews was realized in March-April ’04.
In this specific case the six value drivers of the Destination Brand Identity in proposal Destination
Branding Model are: 1. “Art, Culture & Wine” like brand culture; 2. “Unique experience” like brand
character; 3. “People & Feeling” like brand personality; 4. “Campi Flegrei” – geographic Italian name
- like brand name,; 5. “Sibilla Cumana, Solfatara Vulcan, Virgil” - as archaeological, monumental and
natural sites – like brand symbols 6. “Cultura, mare e tempo libero” like brand slogan.
Figure 3 - Campi Flegrei case: the Projected Destination Brand Equity defined by senders.
SENDERS*
Projected Destination Brand Equity
Art, Culture
& Wine
People &
Feeling
Unique
experience
Campi Flegrei
Identity
Sibilla Cumana,
Solfatara vulcan,
Virgil, an so on...
Cultura, mare e
tempo libero
Campi
Flegrei
Source: Our elaboration
11
Campi Flegrei identity - as just defined - was communicated by tour operators, local DMO (Azienda
Autonoma Cura Soggiorno e Turismo di Pozzuoli) and the Albergatori Flegrei Associazione Turistica
(senders) to Italian and foreign tour operator to win customers in the tourism industry, particularly for
tourists witch are driven from cultural reasons. These business players delineated an unique
communication strategy - presenting a tourist catalogue on BIT in Milan during February ‘05 and on
ITB in Berlin during March ’05 – for Italian and German tourist markets.
The second part of empirical research proposal in this work is a pilot survey on a sample of 400 tourist
interviewed at sites in area of Campi Flegrei. The sample is stratified with two kinds of factors: the
origin of interviewed tourists – Italian or foreigners people - and the place of the tourist
accomodation (in area of Campi Flegrei or out area of Campi Flegrei) (see Table 1).
Table 1 – The stratification of the sample of interviewed tourist.
accomodation
Place of the tourist
Origin of tourists
Italian
Foreign
IN
Campi
Flegrei
area
150
interviewed
(37,50%)
150
interviewed
(37,50%)
OUT Campi
Flegrei
area
50
interviewed
(12,50%)
50
interviewed
(12,50%)
This study was carried out, using a questionnaire with open and closed questions, with face-to-face
interviews in local tourist sites (Solfatara Vulcan, Castle of Baia, Greek city of Cuma). The field
analysis was realized in two periods: the first from 20 May ’05 to 15 June ’05, the second from 25
October ’05 to 10 November ’05. The subject of this study was the analysis of brand value drivers that define Perceived Destination Brand Equity - perceived by tourists.
Figure 4 – The main results of the field research: the distribution perceptual of free association.
Free associations expressed by tourists
(% distribution per tipology of resources)
60,00%
59,16%
55,41%
57,44%
45,00%
35,50% 30,18%
33,06%
30,00%
15,00%
11,26%
7,44%
4,20%
0,00%
Volcanic
Cultural &
archaeological
Italian
Landscape &
natural
Foreign
12
0,45%
2,70%
1,45% 0,76% 0,62%
0,38%
Local
testimonials
Sample
Other tipology
of resources
Particularly, the factors analyzed were: 1. the free associations existing in the customers’ mind - as
expressed by the interviewed tourists – classified for typology of local resources to which is related; 2.
brand awareness, measured with two indicators: the perceptual of the interviewed tourist that knew
the destination before the travel and the analysis of the typology of communication channels trough
which tourists knew the destination; 3. brand image, measured trough three indicators: the value
perceived by tourists related to specific destination distinctiveness (measured on a five level scale:
1=extremely low brand image, 5=extremely high brand image), the global destination image value
(two kinds: value expected before the travel and value perceived during the travel), the destination
image ratio (also called DIR, calculated as ratio between the expected image and perceived image).
The analysis of free associations related to Campi Flegrei expressed by interviewed tourists (see
Figure 4) shows that the several names/objects/tourist sites/or others resources present in consumers’
mind are related to Volcanic local resources in the 57,44% of the total cases named (59,16% and
54,41% respectively for Italian and foreigners people ), to Cultural & Archeological sites in the
33,06% of the total cases, to Landscape & natural resources in the 7,44% of the total cases named
(4,20% and 11,26% respectively for Italian and foreigners people ), to Local Testimonials in the 1,45%
of the total cases (i.e. Sofia Loren, named by six foreign tourists).
Figure 5 – The main results of the field research: the sources of Campi Flegrei recall.
Brand Awareness _ The sources of Campi Flegrei recall
(% distribution of communication channel )
32,87%
31,50%
School
WOM-Word of Mouth
15,32%
Television
9,12%
Tourist Journals
4,99%
Internet
2,41%
Books
1,38%
Newpapers
1,20%
1%
Travel agencies
Other Channels
0%
5%
10%
15%
Italian
20%
Foreign
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Sample
The analysis of destination brand awareness shows that the perceptual of the interviewed tourist that
knew the destination before the travel are the 89,75% of the sample (94,0% and 85,5% respectively for
Italian and foreigners people ). Moreover, the analysis of Campi Flegrei recall (see Figure 5) has
highlighted that the principal typology of communication channels trough which tourists knew this
destination is the School (for the 32,87% interviewers of the total sample, 41,94% of the Italian),
followed by the WOM-Word of Mouth of parents or friends (for the 31,50% interviewers of the total
sample, 34,69 % of the foreigners), followed by the Television (for the 15,32% interviewers of the
total sample, 18,06 % of the Italian), followed by the Tourist Journals (for the 9,12% interviewers of
the total sample, 13,65 of the foreigners).
Finally, the analysis of destination brand image was based on three indicators. The first of these (see
Figure 6) shows that the higher value perceived by tourists related to specific destination
distinctiveness (measured on a five level scale: 1=extremely low brand image, 5=extremely high brand
image) is Climate (4,66), followed by Landscape & natural resources (4,65) and Historical & cultural
resources (4,61). Instead, in the empirical research there were two factors with value perceived by
13
interviewed tourists under the medium score (3,00); they are Transport services (2,83) and
Information & Service for tourists (2,72).
Figure 6 – The main results of the field research: the image of destination distinctiveness.
Brand Image _ The main destination distinctiveness
(five level scale brand image: 1=extremely low, 5=extremely high)
4,66
4,65
4,61
4,5
4,4
4,4
4
3,75
3,41
3,5
2,83
Transport
services
Security
Hotels &
accommodations
Friendly
inhabitants
Local cooking
1,5
Historical &
cultural
resources
2
Landscape &
natural resorces
2,5
Climate
3
2,72
Informations &
services for
tourists
5
1
Moreover, in the image analysis was calculated the global destination image value expected before the
travel (3,79) and destination value perceived during the travel (4,31), naturally both observed during
the travel. For Italian tourists these score were respectively 3,79 and 4,19; instead for foreigners 3,80
and 4,42. Therefore, the third factor defined in the image research is DIR (the destination image ratio
calculated as ratio between the expected image before the travel and perceived image during the
travel). The results were respectively : 1,14 for total sample of interviewed, 1,10 for Italian tourists and
1,16 for foreigners (this score is above 1 if the image value during travel exceed this before travel).
Probably, the result of this indicator could be a proxy of the higher customer satisfaction for the
foreigners people compared with Italian.
5. Final considerations
In the research has been analyzed the role of destination branding to manage the place identity in the
tourism stakeholders system. The first DMO’s goal is to define the main constitutive elements of this
identity to communicating and positioning the destination value proposition. Therefore, the first aim of
the paper has been analyzing the place branding literature review on marketing theory, particularly
illustrating the main destination brand models – and the relative brand value drivers - existing in
tourism and vacation marketing academic area. Coherently, in the paper has been defined a proposal
destination branding model that describe exhaustively the two main brand value equity of destination:
the brand equity projected by the DMOs (or policy makers, development agency, an so on) - based on
the components of brand identity - and the brand equity perceived by the tourists, based on the brand
knowledge and its determinants. The paper has also highlighted the role of the network of associations
perceived by the tourists, as base for the best managing of destination brand and its values. Finally, the
empirical explorative analysis on Campi Flegrei destination – carried out through interviews to local
players - has allowed to identify the main elements constituting the Campi Flegrei identity projected
by the local tourism stakeholders system. The Projected Destination Brand Equity was communicated
to the customers’ targets and positioning the TDP in the costumers’ perceptive system. This analysis
has allowed to validate the left part of the proposal Destination Branding Model. Instead, through the
pilot survey on a sample of 400 tourist interviewed has been defined the Campi Flegrei knowledge
perceived by customers. This study was based on free associations analysis, destination awareness
14
indicators and destination image analysis to representing the Perceived Destination Brand Equity (by
tourists). This analysis has allowed to validate the right part of the proposal Destination Branding
Model. Therefore, the three aims of the paper - as illustrated on previous section - has been achieved
through academic and field methodologies.
References
AAKER, D. (1991), Managing Brand Equity. Capitalizing on the Value of a brand names, The Free
Press, New York.
AAKER, D. (1996), “Measuring brand equity across products and markets”, California Management
Review, n°3, spring, pp. 102-120.
AAKER, D. JOACHIMSTHALER, E. (2000) Brand Leadership: The Next Level of Brand Revolution,
Handcover, New York.
AAKER, J. (1997), “Dimensions of Brand Personality”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34
(August), pp. 347-357.
AMBLER, T. (1995), “Brand equity as a relational concept”, The Journal of Brand Management, vol.
2, n° 6.
ANDERSON, J. (1983), The Equity of Cognition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.
ASHWORTH, G.J. VOOGT , H. (1990), “Can places be sold for tourism?”, in ASHWORTH, G.J. AND
GOODALL, B. (EDS), Marketing Tourism Places, Routledge, London.
BALOGLU , S., MCCLEARY, K.W (1999), “A Model of Destination Image Formation”, Annals of
Tourism Research, vol. 26, n°4, pp.868-897.
BARKE, M. , HARROP, K. (1994), “Selling the industrial town: Identity, image and illusion”, in GOLD ,
J. R. AND WARD, S. (EDS) ‘Place Promotion: The Use of Publicity and Marketing to Sell Towns
and Regions’, John Wiley, Chichester.
BARNEY, J. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 17 (1), pp.99-120
BLICHFELDT, B.S. (2003), “Unmanageable Tourism destination Brands?”, Working Paper Universityof
Southern Denmark – Department of Enviromental and Business Economics, November.
BUHALIS, D. (2000), “Marketing the competitive destination of the future”, Tourism Management,
Vol. 21, pp. 97-116.
BUSACCA, B. (2000), Il valore della marca tra postfordismo ed economia digitale , Milano, Egea.
CAI LIPING A. (2002), “Cooperative branding for rural destination”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol.
29, No. 3, pp. 720-742.
CANTONE L. (2005), (ED .), Strategie di sviluppo integrato dei territori. Il sistema locale dei Campi
Flegrei, Il Mulino Editore, Bologna.
CANTONE, L. CALVOSA , P. RISITANO, M. (2003), “La misurazione delle leve generatrici di va lore di
marca in prospettiva customer-based. I risultati di un’indagine empirica e le implicazioni
manageriali” , Presentation at "Le tendenze del Marketing in Europa" – Venezia, 28-29 novembre.
CANTONE, L. RISITANO, M. (2005), “Le relazioni tra il comportamento di acquisto del consumatore le
basi cognitive del valore di marca”, Presentation at "IV Congresso - Le tendenze del Marketing" –
ESCP EAP, Parigi, 21-22 gennaio.
CANTONE L., RISITANO M., TESTA P. (2005) – “Heterogeneity of contextual resources and destination
branding management. The Campi Flegrei Case”, paper presented at Conference Sinergie -Cueim
"Heterogeneity, Diversification and Performance” – Cosenza, 7-8 July.
CHON, K-S (1990), “The Role of Destination Image in Tourism: A Review and Discussion”, Revue du
Tourism , Vol.2, pp. 2-9.
CLARKE, J. (2000) “Tourism brands: An exploratory study of the brands box model”, Journal of
Vacation Marketing, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 329–345.
CODELUPPI V., (2000), “Verso la marca relazionale”, Presentation at “Le tendenze del Marketing in
Europa”, Venezia, 24 novembre.
15
COSTABILE, M. (2001), Il capitale relazionale, McGraw-Hill, Milano.
D’AVENI, R.A. (1994), Hypercompetition. Managing the Dynamics of Strategic Maneuvering, Free
Press, New York.
DE CHERNATONY L., DALL’OLMO RILEY F., (1998), “From Modelling the components of the Brand”,
in European Journal of Marketing, vol. 32, n° 11/12 , pp. 1074-1090.
ECHTNER, C. M. RITCHIE, J. R. B. (1991) “The meaning and measurement of destination image”,
Journal of Tourism Studies, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 2–12.
ECHTNER, C. M. RITCHIE, J. R. B. (1993) “The measurement of destination image: An empirical
assessment”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 31, Spring, pp. 3–13.
FOLEY , A., FAHY, J. (2004), “Incongruity between expression and experience: The role of imagery in
supporting the positioning of a tourism destination brand”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 11,
N° 3, pp. 209-217, February.
FOURNIER, S., (1998), “Consumer and their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer
Research”, Journal of Consumer Research, March, pp. 343, 373.
FRAMKE, W., “The Destination as a Concept: A Discussion of the Business-related Perspective versus
the Socio-cultural Approach in Tourism Theory”, Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism, Vol. 2, pp.92-108.
FREEMAN, R.E. (1984), Strategic Management. A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, London.
GALLARZA, M. G., SAURA, G. L., GARCÌA, H. C. (2002), “Destination Image. Towards a Conceptual
Framework”, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 29, n°1, pp.56-78.
GNOTH, J. (2002) “A country — Can it be repositioned? Spain — The success story of country
branding”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 9, Nos. 4/5, pp. 262–280.
GRÄNGSJÖ, Y. F. (2003), “Destination networking. Co-opetition in peripheral surrounding”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 33, No 5, pp. 427448.
GRANT, R.M. (1991), Contemporary Strategy Analysis. Concept, Techniques, Application, Blackwell,
Oxford.
GRECO G.R. (2005), “Le risorse paesaggistico-ambientali”, in CANTONE L. (2005), (ED .), Strategie di
sviluppo integrato dei territori. Il sistema locale dei Campi Flegrei, Il Mulino Editore, Bologna.
HAJALAGER, A.M. (2000), “Tourism destinations and concept of industrial districts”, Presentation at
the 9 th Nordic Tourism Research Conference, Bornholm.
HAKANSSON, H., JOHANSSON, J (1993), “The network as a governance structure: interfirm cooperation
beyond markets and hierarchies”, in GRABNER, G. (1993) (ED .), The Embedded Firm, Routledge,
London.
HALL, D. (1999), “Destination branding, niche marketing and national image projection in Central and
Eastern Europe”, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 227– 237;
HAMEL, G., P RAHALAD, C.K. (1994), Competing for the Future, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston.
HANKINSON, G. (2001), “Location branding: A study of the branding practices of 12 English cities”,
in Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 9, n°2, November, pp. 127-142.
HANKINSON, G. (2004), “Relational network brands: Towards a conceptual mode l of place brands”, in
Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 10, n°2, pp. 109-121.
HANKINSON, G. (2005), “Destination brand images: a business tourism perspective”, Journal of
Service Marketing, Vol. 19, n°1, pp. 24-32.
KAPFERER, J.N. (1992), Strategic Brand Management. New Approaches to Creating and Evaluating
Brand Equity, Handcover, London.
KAPFERER, J.N. (2001) Re-inventing the Brand. Kogan Page, London.
KAPFERER, J.N. (2004) Strategic The New Strategic Brand Management. Creating and Sustaining
Brand Equity Long Term, 3° ed., Kogan Page, London.
KAPLANIDOU, K. VOGT, C. (2003), “Destination Branding: Concept and Measurement”, Working
Paper Michigan State University – Michigan State University, Department of Park, Recreation and
Tourism Resources, August.
16
KELLER , K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer-based brand equity”,
Journal of Marketing, vol. 57, January, pp. 1-22.
KELLER , K.L. (1998), Strategic Brand Management. Building, Measurement and Managing Brand
Equity , Pratice Hall, New Jersey.
KELLER , K.L. (2001), “Building Customer-Based Brand Equity: A Blueprint for Creating Strong
Brands”, Working Paper Series Marketing Science Institute, Report n°01-107, MSI, Cambridge.
KELLER , K.L. (2003a), “Brand Synthesis: The Multidimensionality of Brand Knowledge”, Journal of
Consumer Research, vol.29, March, pp.595-600.
KELLER , K.L. (2003b), Strategic Brand Management. Building, Measurement and Managing Brand
Equity , 2° ed., Pratice Hall, New Jersey.
KOTLER, P. GERTNER, D. (2002), “Country as brand, product and beyond: A place marketing and
brand management perspective”, Journal Brand Management, vol. 9, n°4-5, April, pp. 249-261.
KRISHNAN, H.S. (1996), “Characteristics of memory associations: A consumer-based brand equity
perspective”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, vol. 13, pp. 389-405.
LARSEN G., GEORGE V. (2004), “The Social Construction of Destination Image. A New Zealand Film
Example”, Working Paper Series of Bradford University School of Management, working paper
n°04/01, February.
MAYO , E.J (1973), “Regional Images and Regional Travel Behaviour”, The Travel Research
Association Fourth Annual Conference Proceedings , Sun Valley, Idaho.
MAYO , E.J , JARVIS, L.P (1981), The Psychology of Leisure Travel , CBI Publishing, Boston.
MORGAN, N. P RITCHARD , A. P RIDE, R. (EDS) (2002) Destination Branding, Creating the Unique
Destination Proposition, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
NORMANN, R., RAMÌREZ , R (1994), Designing Interactive Strategy. From Value Chain to Value
Constellation, Wiley, Chichester.
P ALMER, A., BEJOU , D. (1995), “Tourism destination marketing alliances”, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 3, pp. 616-29.
P IKE, S. (2002), “Destination image analysis. A review of 142 papers from 1973 to 2000”, Tourism
Management, Vol.23, pp.541-549.
P RIDE, R. (2002), “Brand Wales: Natural revival”, in MORGAN, N. , P RITCHARD, A. AND P RIDE, R.
(EDS) (2002), Destination Branding. Creating the Unique Destination Proposition, ButterworthHeinemann, Oxford.
RISITANO, M. (2004), Le determinanti del valore della marca in una prospettiva customer-based, Final
Doctoral dissertation of PhD in Business Studies - Business Management Department, University
of Naples “Federico II”, Naples, November.
RISITANO, M. (2005), Il sistema locale d’offerta turistica, in CANTONE L. (2005), ( ED .), Strategie di
sviluppo integrato dei territori. Il sistema locale dei Campi Flegrei, Il Mulino Editore, Bologna.
SIRGY, M. AND SU, C. (2000), “Destination image, self-congruity, and travel behaviour: Toward an
integrative model”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 38, May, pp. 340–352.
SLEIPEN , W. (1988), “Marketing van de Historische Omgeving”, Research Institute for Tourism,
Breda, Netherlands, cited in ASHWORTH, G. J. AND VOOGT , H. (1990) Selling the City, Bellhaven,
London.
UPSHAW, L. (1995), Building brand identity: a strategy for success in a hostile marketplace, John
Wiley, New York.
VAN DEN BERGH, L. BRAUN, E. (1999), “Urban competitiveness, marketing and the need for
organising capacity”, Urban Studies, Vol. 36, N° 5/6, pp. 987–999.
VICARI, S (1995), (ED.), Brand Equity. Il potenziale generativo della fiducia, Egea, Milano.
WALKER R.H., HANSON D.J., (1998), “Green marketing and green places: A taxonomy for the
destination marketer”, Journal of Marketing Management, vol. 14 , pp. 623-639.
WARD, S. AND GOLD , J. R. (1994), “Introduction”, in GOLD , J. R. AND WARD, S. (EDS) Place
Promotion: The Use of Publicity and Marketing to Sell Towns and Regions, John Wiley,
Chichester.
WARD, S. V. (1998), Selling Places: The Marketing of Towns and Cities, 1850–2000, Routledge,
London.
17
WEAVERS, D., OPPERMANN, M. (2000), Tourism Management, Wiley, Milton.
WESTWOOD, S. , MORGAN, N. , P RITCHARD, A. INESON, E. (1999), “Branding the package holiday —
The role and significance for brands for UK air tour operators”, Journal of Vacation Marketing,
Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 238–252.
WOODSIDE, A.G, L YSONSKI. S (1989), “A General Model of Traveller Destination Choice”, Journal of
Travel Research , Vol. 27(4), pp. 8-14.
18