Download Advertising and Publicity: Suggested New Applications for Tourism

Advertising and Publicity: Suggested
New Applications for Tourism Marketers
MARSHA D. LODA, WILLIAM NORMAN, AND KENNETH F. BACKMAN
This research explores two of the basic tools used by
tourism marketers: advertising and publicity. Message stimulus is the independent variable and consists of two parts:
message presentation (i.e., publicity or advertising) and
message sequencing (i.e., publicity only, publicity then
advertising, advertising only, or advertising then publicity).
Four dependent variables are organized in two categories:
message acceptance (i.e., perceived credibility, message
strength) and message response (i.e., attitude toward the
destination, purchase intent). Results of the study show that
publicity, in either presentation or sequencing, created
significantly higher mean scores than advertising for credibility, message strength, and purchase intent. This study
reaffirms that publicity is an important element in the
tourism marketing mix. Furthermore, it suggests that a
publicity-then-advertising strategy is most effective at persuading potential tourists to visit a specific destination.
Keywords:
communication; advertising; publicity; perceived credibility
While different sources of information affect customers’
purchase decisions, it is in mass-media advertising that marketers often invest significant portions of marketing budgets
(Knipp 1996). However, from previous studies, it can be
inferred that print publicity is potentially more credible than
print advertising (Lord and Putrevu 1993; Cameron 1994;
Hallahan 1999). Research is neither abundant nor conclusive. The current research tests whether there is a difference
between advertising and publicity on message acceptance
and response and if the sequencing of message presentation
(i.e., advertising then publicity or publicity then advertising)
affects message processing. Four dependent variables are
studied: message strength, perceived credibility, attitude
toward the destination, and purchase intent.
This study attempts to address marketing issues of
importance to the tourism industry. Message credibility is
critical because of the intangible nature of the tourism product and the risk associated with destination selection.
THE ISSUE OF ADVERTISING
VERSUS PUBLICITY
The belief that publicity is more credible, persuasive,
or effective than advertising is cited in marketing literature (Gartner 1993; Kotler, Bowen, and Makens 1996; Ries
and Ries 2002) but without substantive empirical support.
Marketing texts teach that publicity’s advantages over
advertising include lower costs and increased visibility and
that the third-party endorsement effect inherent in publicity
is assumed to increase its credibility (Kotler 1993).
These claims are countered by Hunt and Gruning (1993),
who note the lack of research evidence that editorial copy
has greater credibility than advertising. Hallahan (1999,
p. 331) agrees and states, “despite widespread acceptance
among practitioners, and general acknowledgement by academicians, little empirical research has been conducted to
test claims about third-party endorsement or the superiority
of news versus advertising.”
Lord and Putrevu (1993) explain the need for greater recognition of the value and importance of publicity. They call for
research to bring practitioners and scholars to a better understanding of what they call an often neglected promotional tool.
Cho (2001) also examined the role of credibility of
information sources in tourists’ information-search behavior
along with the role of prior knowledge and need for information. Respondents rated 10 information sources, ranging
from their own experience to magazines, newspapers, and
the Internet, on a scale of 1 (not at all credible) to 7 (very
credible). Results reveal that “the credibility of sources was
found to have the most crucial influence on the selection and
use of the source, compared with the effects of prior knowledge and need for information” (p. v). However, there was
no distinguishing between advertising messages and editorial messages in the rating process.
While some literature exists comparing the persuasive
effects of advertising and publicity, it is not extensive. In all, 12
studies were located (Schwarz, Kumpf, and Bussmann 1986;
Anderson and Abbott 1985; Hausknecht, Wilkinson, and
Prough 1989; Salmon et al. 1985; Hennessey and Anderson
1990; d’Astous and Hebert 1991; Cameron 1994; Chaiken and
Maheswaran 1994; Straughan, Bleske, and Zhao 1994; Chew,
Slater, and Kelly 1995; Hallahan 1995, 1999). Among these,
Dr. Marsha Loda was a principle in an advertising agency for
15 years and the director of marketing for the largest tourism business in North Carolina. She got her PhD in 2003 and is an assistant
professor of marketing in the Hull College of Business at Augusta
State University in Augusta, Georgia. Dr. William Norman is director
of the Recreation, Travel and Tourism Institute at Clemson University
in Clemson, South Carolina, where he also serves as associate professor. Dr. Kenneth F. Backman is associate professor at Clemson
University in Clemson, South Carolina. His research interests include
tourism marketing and community tourism development.
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 45, February 2007, 259-265
DOI: 10.1177/0047287506292688
© 2007 Sage Publications
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
260
FEBRUARY 2007
Hallahan (1999) reports that 2 studies supported that publicity
messages are more credible than advertising, 7 were inconclusive, and 3 had methodology issues that confounded their
results. Hallahan concludes, “the evidence suggests news does
not uniformly outperform advertising” (p. 339).
One exploratory study reported on the extent and role of
publicity programs in the promotional strategy of 10 national
tourism organizations. It reports that publicity programs conducted by destinations are often “deliberate, planned, methodical and coordinated with a clear set of objectives” (Dore and
Crouch 2003, p. 137). Some respondents reported receiving a
greater annual value from their publicity programs than from
any other promotional strategy. Dore and Crouch call for further research to examine the impact of publicity with other
forms of messages and to study consumer behavior issues
including the effect of publicity on destination choice.
THE IMPACT OF MESSAGE SEQUENCING
Conversely, how consumers process and integrate various sources of information has been the subject of considerable study. Researchers examining this issue often use the
expectancy-value (EV) theory of Fishbein and Ajzen (1975).
This is a model of reasoned behavior or central-route processing wherein consumers carefully consider message content (Petty and Cacioppo 1986). In these cases, the success
of persuasive communications (i.e., message acceptance)
depends on the degree to which consumers accept message
claims (Smith and Vogt 1995). Factors that influence message acceptance include perceived credibility and message
strength (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). The theory of reasoned
action was extended to the theory of planned behavior
(Ajzen and Driver 1992) that ads subjective norms and perceived behavioral control as predictors of actual behavior.
According to Smith and Vogt (1995), the EV model identifies which variables are important in information response,
that is, the degree to which attitudes are changed by persuasive
communication. However, Anderson’s (1971) informationintegration theory describes how information from different
sources (i.e., advertising and publicity) is combined when
people form evaluations. According to information-integration
theory, the sequence of exposure to informational stimuli is an
important issue. In their integrated information response
model, Smith and Swinyard (1982) propose that consumers’
belief strength can be affected by message sequencing.
Exposure to a credible initial message source such as direct
experience generates “a powerful information base for attitudinal development” (p. 84).
Lord and Putrevu (1993) recognized the potential
sequencing impact of publicity with advertising. They state
that multiple promotional messages interact in such a way as
to yield advantages for the publicity-then-advertising ordering relative to an advertising-then-publicity sequence. They
call for specific research to confirm and better understand
these potential sequencing effects.
Using the EV model as a theoretical framework, Smith
and Vogt (1995) studied the sequencing effects of advertising
and negative word-of-mouth publicity on tourism messages.
A test was conducted using four experimental groups: advertising only, negative word-of-mouth only, advertising then
negative word-of-mouth, and negative word-of-mouth then
advertising. Results revealed that negative word-of-mouth
communication reduced the perceived credibility of advertising as well as brand attitudes and purchase intent for a specific vacation destination. This study was based on a prior
experiment by Smith (1993), who studied the integration
effects of advertising and trial for a cola product.
HYPOTHESES
According to Smith and Vogt (1995), the extent of persuasion that occurs from a promotional message depends on
the degree to which consumers undergo message acceptance. Factors that influence message acceptance include
perceived credibility (i.e., truthfulness and accuracy) and
message strength (i.e., weak or strong reasoning in message
claims), two dependent variables tested in this study.
Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) model of reasoned behavior
states that attitude leads to behavioral intent. Attitude toward
the brand and purchase intent are common variables of
marketing-research projects (Hallahan 1999). Therefore,
attitude toward the destination (i.e., a predisposition to
respond favorably or unfavorably) and purchase intent (i.e.,
a stage of motivation that precedes behavior) are studied.
Message stimulus is the independent variable of this
study and consists of two parts: message presentation (i.e.,
publicity or advertising) and message sequencing (i.e., publicity only, publicity then advertising, advertising only, or
advertising then publicity). Four dependent variables are
organized in two categories: message acceptance (i.e., perceived credibility, message strength) and message response
(i.e., attitude toward the destination, purchase intent).
Two hypotheses were examined concerning whether there
is a difference in message acceptance and message response
depending on how the message is presented (advertising or
publicity) and whether sequencing matters.
Hypothesis 1: There will be greater message acceptance
for publicity only than for any other message sequence.
Hypothesis 2: There will be greater message response for
publicity only than for any other message sequence.
METHODOLOGY
The research was conducted as an experiment in the
form of a posttest-only control group. To explore the
hypotheses, five experimental groups were used: (1) advertising only, (2) publicity only, (3) advertising then publicity,
(4) publicity then advertising, and (5) a control group. The
posttest-only group design assured that subjects are not
biased by previous exposures or learning effects through
pretests (Kirk 1982). University student subjects were chosen because they generally represent a homogeneous group
that travels frequently (Jamrozy 1996). The research consisted of five stages: selecting the specific destination to
study, selecting attributes of that destination to include in
stimulus materials, developing the stimulus materials, testing the stimulus materials, and data collection.
Product and Attribute Selection
Procedures for selecting the specific destination and destination attributes tested replicated those used in the Smith and
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 261
TABLE 1
SCALE AND RELIABILITY MEASURES
α
Perceived credibility (3 items, scored from 1 to 7 [highest])
In the materials you just read:
How credible do you think the claims were
.90
Message strength (3 items, scored from –3 to +3 [highest])
I think the message/arguments in the materials were:
Easy to understand/not easy to understand
Strong reasons/weak reasons
Clear/unclear
.75
Attitude toward the destination (3 items, –3 to +3 [highest])
I feel Aruba as a vacation place is positive/negative
I feel Aruba as a vacation place is good/bad
I feel Aruba as a vacation place is interesting/uninteresting
.92
Purchase intent (2 items scored from 1 to 7 [highest])
How likely are you to select Aruba as your vacation place
How likely would you be to recommend Aruba as a vacation place to a friend
.89
Vogt (1995) study. To select the destination, 27 subjects were
surveyed concerning destinations they would realistically
consider if they had the time and money to travel. Beach destinations dominated the pretest. Four islands received multiple mentions. The island of Aruba was selected because it
received the least multiple mentions. A lesser known destination was desirable to limit preconceived attitudes.
Another survey was conducted in which 21 different
subjects were asked to determine which attributes were
salient when choosing an island vacation destination.
Following the free-elicitation procedure of Fishbein and
Ajzen (1975), the respondents listed the attributes they considered important when selecting an island vacation. The
five most frequently mentioned attributes were incorporated
into stimulus materials. These attributes were activities (e.g.,
hiking, snorkeling, scuba diving, sightseeing), white sand
beaches, good weather, inclusive and reasonable price, and
interesting or native foods.
Stimulus Materials
Three one-page print advertisements and three one-page
magazine publicity articles, each incorporating the five most
salient attributes, were created and pretested. Following a
quantitative analysis of 5 months of tourism advertisements
and articles in Southern Living magazine, stimulus materials
were designed to closely resemble one-page advertisements
and articles in the magazine. Southern Living was chosen as
the prototype after surveying a sample of 27 students on
their magazine-reading habits. Stimulus materials were
pretested and revised to arrive at one article and one advertisement. The final materials were rated by respondents as
equally persuasive (using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is not
at all persuasive and 10 is extremely persuasive). Both of
the promotional messages were presented with four-color
photography and in a full-page format.
Measurement Scale Development
The measures all used 7-point scales that were based on
those used by Smith and Vogt (1995). Perceived credibility
was measured with three Likert-type scales asking how
truthful, accurate, and credible a specific stimulus was to the
respondent. These measures were developed by Darley and
Smith (1993) and Smith and Hunt (1978). Message strength
was measured with a 3-item scale developed by Miniard,
Bhatla, and Rose (1990) and Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann
(1983). This scale asked respondents to rate message claims
from weak to strong. Attitude toward the destination was
measured globally with three semantic differential scales
(Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum 1967). Respondents used
bipolar attribute fields to rate the destination as good, positive, and interesting. This measurement was developed by
MacKenzie and Lutz (1989), Miniard, Bhatla, and Rose
(1990), and Smith (1993). Purchase intent was measured
with two 7-point scales developed by Smith (1993). The
questions asked how likely the respondent was to select the
destination and how likely he or she would be to recommend
the destination to a friend. Responses range from not at all
likely to extremely likely. For all multi-item measures, mean
scores were combined and averaged to generate one statistic
for each dependent variable. Five versions of the instrument
were created and pretested (see table 1).
Data Collection Procedures
The study population for this research was students at a
university in the southeastern United States. A sample size
of 150 (30 per group) was used so that the central-limit theorem would apply and normal distribution would be assured
for each group (Salkind 1994). As Smith and Vogt (1995)
did, involvement was encouraged of all groups. To create
reasonably high processing involvement, participants were
asked to “consider yourself a person who has saved their
funds, and now has the time and money to take a vacation
this summer.” Participants were instructed to read the materials carefully, told to form an evaluation of the destination,
and informed that they would be asked some questions
about the destination later.
Each participant was randomly assigned a booklet containing instructions, stimulus materials, and survey questions to be completed following exposure to the stimulus.
Subjects were instructed to spend as much time as they
needed to thoroughly read the stimulus materials (depending
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
FEBRUARY 2007
TABLE 2
FIGURE 2
RESULT OF MULTIVARIATE TESTS
(WILKS’S LAMBDA)
DIFFERENCES IN PERCEIVED CREDIBILITY
BY TREATMENT GROUP
F
Significance
Power
2.61
5.82
.018
.001
.85
1.00
Test
Message acceptance
Message response
FIGURE 1
(M = 5.48)
5.4
(M = 5.33)
5.2
5.0
DIFFERENCES IN PURCHASE
INTENT BY TREATMENT GROUP
(M = 4.87)
(M = 5.25)
5.4
ad only
pub only
ad then pub
pub then ad
Treatment
5.0
Mean
(M = 4.97)
4.8
4.6
(M = 5.55)
5.8
5.6
Mean
262
4.6
(M = 4.77)
4.2
Note: Measured using a 3-item, 7-point scale with 1 as not at all
truthful/accurate/credible and 7 as completely truthful/accurate/
credible. Dotted lines show areas of significant difference.
(M = 4.30)
3.8
3.4
(M = 3.03)
3.0
ad
only
pub
only
ad then
pub
pub then
ad
control
Treatment
Note: Measured using a 7-point scale with 1 as zero likelihood and 7 as certain. Dotted lines show areas of significant
difference.
on the experimental group). Next, the dependent measures
were collected (subjects were not allowed to turn back to the
stimulus materials). Following exposure to the treatment,
data were collected to measure the four dependent variables.
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Two MANOVAs were used to test the hypotheses (see
table 2). The first hypothesis tested message acceptance
(i.e., perceived credibility and message strength) without the
presence of a control group (respondents could not rate
these variables because they were not exposed to stimulus
materials); it revealed that the relationship was significant
(F = 2.61, p = .018). The second hypothesis tested message
response (i.e., attitude toward the destination and purchase
intent) and included a control group (respondents could rate
these variables without seeing stimulus materials). It was
also significant (F = 5.82, p = .001). Hence, according to
this study, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that message acceptance and message response generated by tourism
communication differ significantly depending on whether
the message is presented in the format of an advertisement
or an article and depending on which format is seen first.
A series of one-way ANOVA tests were performed to
identify areas of significance. Publicity consistently produced higher scores on all dependent variables than did
advertising. Although the highest score for a variable may
have been publicity then advertising rather than publicity
only, the highest score for any dependent variable was
always led by publicity in some form, never advertising only
or advertising then publicity. Means scores for publicity
then advertising were highest for three variables: perceived
credibility (M = 5.48), message strength (M = 6.60), and
attitude toward the destination (M = 6.73). For the variable
purchase intent, publicity only received the highest mean
score (M = 5.55).
When the control group was used, all means plots followed a similar pattern (see example in figure 1), with treatment groups in this order: advertising only (lower), publicity
only (higher), advertising then publicity (lower), publicity
then advertising (higher), and control group (lowest). For
those analyses that did not use a control group (perceived
credibility and message strength), the same initial pattern
was present (see example in figure 2). The advertising-only
score was always lower than the publicity-only score, and
the advertising-then-publicity score was always lower than
the publicity-then-advertising score.
While this pattern was present in all analysis results, the
differences in mean scores were not always significant
except for the control group, whose mean score was consistently, significantly lower than the treatment group.
Significant findings are summarized in table 3.
For the variable perceived credibility, publicity only was
significantly higher than advertising only (p = .028), and
publicity then advertising was significantly higher than
both advertising only (p = .004) and advertising then publicity (p = .014). For message strength, publicity then
advertising was significantly higher than advertising only
(p = .003). For the variable attitude toward the destination,
no stimulus-oriented treatment achieved or approached significance; only the control group was significantly different. Lastly, for the variable purchase intent, publicity only
was significantly higher than both advertising only (p =
.001) and advertising then publicity (p =. 012), while publicity then advertising was significantly higher than advertising only (p = .046).
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 263
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS
Dependent Variable
Treatment
Perceived credibility
ad only
ad only
ad then pub
ad only
control
ad only
ad only
pub only
control
Message strength
Attitude toward the destination
Purchase intent
M
4.87
4.87
4.97
6.14
5.44
4.30
4.30
5.55
3.03
Treatment
pub only
pub then ad
pub then ad
pub then ad
all
pub only
pub then ad
ad then pub
all
M
p
5.33
5.48
5.48
6.60
6.57a
5.55
5.25
4.77
4.97a
.028
.004
.014
.003
.001
.001
.046
.012
.001
a. Average mean of all treatment groups.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The results of the current study extend existing knowledge about how potential tourism consumers accept and
respond to mass communication. First, this study compares
the effects of tourism advertising to publicity. This issue is
important because of the conflicting results reported by previous comparison studies of advertising and publicity in the
general marketplace. This study is consistent with those that
indicated publicity messages had greater credibility than
advertising (Gartner 1993; Cameron 1994; Hallahan 1995).
The current study adds to the body of knowledge about
how consumers integrate different message sources. No
other sequencing studies were located that combined advertising with publicity, although the practice is widely used in
marketing. In today’s media-saturated environment, it is
important for tourism marketers to understand how publicity and advertising affect each other. In the current study, the
publicity-then-advertising sequence of information produced significantly higher means scores as compared to
advertising-only information when subjects evaluated perceived credibility, message strength, and purchase intent of
the ad. Indeed, the ability to increase the positive effects of
advertising can be a major benefit of publicity that has not
been adequately captured previously.
Applications
Based on these findings, there are various marketing
implications from this study. Four major applications may
help increase tourism marketing’s effectiveness when providing information to potential visitors. These are (1) publicity generally outperforms advertising; (2) to increase
advertising’s effectiveness, precede it with publicity; (3) publicity is less effective when it follows advertising; and
(4) campaigns must be planned well in advance. These applications support experiential suggestions by Ries and Ries
(2002, p. xii), who said, “Advertising is a continuation of
public relations by other means and should be started only
after a PR program. . . . Furthermore, the theme of an advertising program should repeat the perceptions created in the
mind of the prospect by the PR program.”
Publicity generally outperforms advertising. Publicity
about a tourist destination, in either presentation or sequencing, created significantly higher means scores than advertising
for three of the four of dependent variables (perceived credibility, message strength, and purchase intent). Clearly, tourism
marketers who do not have resources devoted to a publicity
effort should consider doing so. In the face of the consistent
results of the present study, one might question the reliance
on advertising by tourism marketers. While it seems publicity
provides distinct advantages over advertising, there are some
practical disadvantages. As Lord and Putrevu (1993) note,
publicity—while potentially more persuasive—is less under
the control of tourism marketers. Advertising offers a controlled, consistent market presence that is difficult to achieve
with publicity alone. However, this study clearly shows that
the strongest tourism-marketing effect may be achieved by a
publicity-then-advertising sequencing strategy.
Increase advertising effectiveness with publicity. The
information-sequencing component of the current study produced some potentially important implications for tourism
advertising practices. Results showed the publicity-thenadvertising sequence to be more effective than the reversed
sequence. When respondents viewed publicity about tourist
areas before viewing ads, mean scores were significantly
higher for perceived credibility, message strength, and
importantly to marketers, purchase intent. In addition to the
response generated, this finding could have sizeable implications for tourism-marketing budgets. For example, when
one full-page advertisement in Southern Living magazine
costs approximately $112,000, tourism marketers want to
maximize the potential results of this investment. In today’s
costly and competitive advertising environment, various
strategies are used to increase an advertisement’s effectiveness, from copy testing to bold creative approaches. The
current study points out that one strategy to increase advertising’s effectiveness may be overlooked: precede advertising with publicity.
Do not follow advertising with publicity. Another consistent finding from this study indicates that while publicity
is a valuable asset to a tourism-marketing program, it may
not be worth the resources expended to acquire it if the publicity follows advertising. When advertising then publicity
was found significantly different from publicity then advertising, the latter always influenced subjects more. Also,
advertising only was never found significantly different
from advertising then publicity, suggesting that the publicity
in this sequence is dispensable. This study indicates that
timing within a tourism-marketing campaign is critical. The
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
264
FEBRUARY 2007
credibility and effectiveness of publicity is markedly diminished if advertising is the first message viewed by a potential visitor. This is likely because of the perception bias
created by advertising (Ray 1992). Or perhaps the publicity
primes the customer, and then the advertising reinforces
what the publicity stated.
Campaigns must be planned well in advance. Publicity
should precede tourism advertising for maximum impact as
suggested by this research. Therefore, tourism marketing
campaigns must be planned well in advance to take advantage
of these findings. Publicity can play off the same message
theme or concept as the advertising. However, the message
for an advertising campaign must occur well enough in
advance to allow for an aggressive publicity campaign to be
developed and implemented before the advertising begins.
Limitations
This research is subject to two major limitations. It is
limited to studying a tourism product promoted in print
advertising and print publicity. In addition, as Lord and
Putrevu (1993) state, the issues to be addressed in totally
comparing advertising and publicity are broad and cannot be
adequately treated in a single study. This study focuses on
four informational constructs: message strength, perceived
credibility, attitude toward the destination, and purchase
intent. Hybrid messages and other forms of media are beyond
the scope of this study.
Suggestions for Further Research
While implications reported here should be important in
the communication and tourism fields, this study was limited
by focusing only on print media, specifically magazines,
with a student population in a laboratory setting concerning
a tourism product. Based on this, the study needs to be replicated in other settings, with other populations, and with other
products. The impact of influential media such as informal
word of mouth, the Internet, hybrid messages, negative publicity, and other sources commonly encountered in tourism
communication should be incorporated in future research.
Certainly, measuring real behavior as opposed to purchase
intent would increase the study’s importance. Therefore, longitudinal research is recommended to accurately capture the
persuasiveness of tourism communication leading to behavioral change.
In conclusion, this study supports previous anecdotal
and inconclusive reports (Gartner 1993; Cameron 1994;
Hallahan 1999) indicating that publicity is an important element in the marketing mix. It is hoped that tourism marketers will find benefit from this study by paying more
attention to the positive effects of publicity and to the timing
of messages within a campaign in an effort to maximize the
effectiveness of tourism advertising and influence purchase
intent. The most significant new finding suggests that a
publicity-then-advertising sequence could be the most effective strategy for promoting tourism destinations. Tourism
marketers need to develop marketing themes enough in
advance to allow for a publicity campaign, using a similar
message as the advertising, to precede ad placement.
REFERENCES
Ajzen, I., and B. Driver (1992). “Application of the Theory of Planned
Behavior to Leisure Choice.” Journal of Leisure Research, 24 (3):
207–24.
Anderson, N. H. (1971). “Integration Theory and Attitude Change.”
Psychological Review, 78: 171–206.
Anderson, P., and S. M. Abbott (1985). “Comparing Infomercial and
Commercial on a Newspaper Cable Television Channel.” In
Marketing Communications—Theory and Research, edited by
Michael J. Houston and Richard J. Lutz. Chicago: American
Marketing Association Proceeding Series, pp. 140–44.
Cameron, G. T. (1994). “Does Publicity Outperform Advertising? An
Experimental Test of the Third-Party Endorsement.” Journal of
Public Relations Research, 6 (3): 185–207.
Chaiken, S., and D. Maheswaran (1994). “Heuristic Processing Can Bias
Systematic Processing: Effects of Source Credibility, Argument
Ambiguity and Task Importance on Attitude Judgment.” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 66 (3): 460–73.
Chew, C., M. S. Slater, and K. A. Kelly (1995). “Advertising versus
Product Publicity: The Effects on Credibility and Purchase Intent.”
Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Education in
Journalism and Mass Communication, August 1995, Washington,
DC.
Cho, M. (2001). “The Role of Prior Knowledge, Need for Information and
Credibility of Information Sources in Tourists’ Information Search
Behavior.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State
University, University Park, PA.
Darley, W. K., and R. E. Smith (1993). “Advertising Claim Objectivity:
Antecedents and Effects.” Journal of Marketing, 57 (4): 100–13.
d’Astous, A., and C. Hebert (1991). “Une Etude Comparative des Effets de
la Publicité Ecrite Conventionnelle et du Public-Reportage.” In
Marketing: Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the
Administrative Sciences Association of Canada, edited by T.
Schellinick. Niagara Falls, Ontario: Administrative Sciences
Association of Canada, pp. 102–12.
Dore, L., and G. I. Couch (2003). “Promoting Destinations: An Exploratory
Study of Publicity Programmes Used by National Tourism
Organizations.” Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9 (2): 137–51.
Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Gartner, W. C. (1993). “Image Formation Process.” Journal of Travel &
Tourism Marketing, 2: 191–215.
Hallahan, K. (1995). “Content Class as a Contextual Cue in the Cognitive
Processing of Publicity versus Advertising.” Journal of Public
Relations Research, 11 (4): 293–320.
——— (1999). “No, Virginia, It’s Not True What They Say About
Publicity’s ‘Implied Third-Party Endorsement’ Effect.” Public
Relations Review, 25: 331–49.
Hausknecht, D. M., J. B. Wilkinson, and G. E. Prough (1989).
“Advertorials: Do Consumers See the Wolf in the Sheep’s Clothing?”
In 1989 AMA Educators’ Proceedings: Enhancing Knowledge
Development in Marketing, edited by P. Bloom. Chicago, IL:
American Marketing Association, pp. 308–12.
Hennessey, J. E., and S. C. Anderson (1990). “The Interaction of Peripheral
Cues and Message Arguments on Cognitive Responses to an
Advertisement.” In Advances in Consumer Research, edited by
Marvin E. Goldbert, Gerald Corn, and Richard Pollay. Provo, UT:
Association for Consumer Research, pp. 17, 237–43.
Hunt, T., and J. E. Gruning (1993). Public Relations Techniques. Forth
Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Jamrozy, Ute (1996). The Effectiveness of Tourism Destination
Advertisements: The Role of Feeling Responses. Dissertation.
Kirk, R. E. (1982). Experimental Design. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Knipp, Helmut (1996). “Pouring Over Budget Line Items Will Cut Costs.”
Hotel & Motel Management, 211 (8): 20–24.
Kotler, P. (1993). Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation and Control. 7th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kotler, P., J. Bowen, and J. Makens (1996). Marketing for Hospitality and
Tourism. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lord, K.R., and S. Putrevu (1993). “Advertising and Publicity: An
Information Processing Perspective.” Journal of Economic
Psychology, 14: 57–84.
MacKenzie, S. B., and R. J. Lutz (1989). “An Empirical Examination of the
Structural Antecedents of Attitude toward the Ad in an Advertising
Pretesting Context.” Journal of Marketing, 53 (2): 48–65.
Miniard, P. W., S. Bhatla, and R. Rose (1990). “On the Formation and
Relationship of Ad and Brand Attitudes: An Experimental and Causal
Analysis.” Journal of Marketing Research, 27: 290–303.
Osgood, C. E., G. J. Suci, and P. H. Tannenbaum (1967). The Measurement
of Meaning. Urbana, IL: Univeristy of Illinois Press.
Petty, R. E., and J. T. Cacioppo (1986). Communication and Persuasion:
Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York/Berlin:
Springer-Verlag.
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 265
Petty, R. E., J. T. Cacioppo, and D. Schumann (1983). “Central and
Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role
of Involvement.” Journal of Consumer Research, 10: 135–46.
Ray, M. L. (1992). Advertising and Communication Management.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ries, A., and L. Ries (2002). The Fall of Advertising and the Rise of PR.
New York: Harper Business.
Salkind, N. J. (1994). Exploring Research. New York: Macmillan College
Publishing Co.
Salmon, C. T., L. N. Reid, J. Pokrwczynski, and R. Willett (1985). “The
Effectiveness of Advocacy Advertising Relative to News Coverage.”
Communication Research, 12: 546–67.
Schwarz, N., M. Kumpf, and W. Bussmann (1986). “Resistance to
Persuasion as a Consequence of Influence Attempts in Advertising
and Non-Advertising Communications.” Psychology, A Quarterly
Journal of Human Behavior, 23: 72–76.
Smith, R. E. (1993). “Integrating Information from Advertising and Trial.”
Journal of Marketing Research, 30: 204–19.
Smith, R. E., and Hunt, S. D. (1978). “Attributional Processes and Effects in
Promotional Situations.” Journal of Consumer Research, 5: 149–58.
Smith, R. E., and W. R. Swinyard (1982). “Information Response Models:
An Integrated Approach.” Journal of Marketing, 46 (1): 81–93.
Smith, R. E., and C. A. Vogt (1995). “The Effects of Integrating Advertising
and Negative Word-of-Mouth Communications on Message Processing
and Response.” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4 (2): 133–51.
Straughan, D., G. L. Bleske, and X. Zhao (1994). “Modeling Format and
Source Effects of an Advocacy Message.” Education in Journalism
and Mass Communication, August, 46–52.
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016