8
Impact of E-WOM on Destination Brand Awareness and Destination Brand Image: The Case of Ly Son Island
Nguyen Hoang Ngan1*, Nguyen Van Chinh1
1 Economics Faculty, Pham Van Dong University, Quangngai, Vietnam
*Corresponding Author: [email protected] Accepted: 15 September 2020 | Published: 30 September 2020
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract: This study aims to explore and test the relationship between electronic word of mouth, destination brand awareness and destination brand image. 257 tourists who have visited Ly Son are surveyed. The SEM model is used to test the relationship between the three mentioned concepts. Results show that: (1) Electronic word of mouth has a positive effect on destination brand awareness; (2) Electronic word of mouth has a positive effect on destination brand image. From the results, research provides the relevant administrators with some implications. Some suggestions for future research are also provided.
Keywords: e-WOM, destination brand equity, destination brand awareness, destination brand image
___________________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction
The tourism industry has been growing strongly with great influence on the economies of the countries. The tourism industry has made a real change in the lives of millions of people by promoting growth and growth, generating huge revenues, thereby creating jobs and reducing poverty for countries. (Webster & Ivanov, 2014). Tourism has the potential to create a high effect and encourage other sectors of the economy to develop. The factors driving the choice of tourist destinations in the current period are innovations in the field of science and technology, demographic transformation and socio-economic growth. The future of tourism greatly depends on the ability of a country to provide tourism products with high potential to continuously meet the interests, expectations and requirements of tourists around the world.
The importance of the tourism industry is tourist satisfaction, including word of mouth (WOM) after traveling. Tourists who experience and are satisfied with the travel service and destination attribute can be a source of motivation for their family and friends through WOM and they will be more likely to revisit those destinations. WOM is considered a functional media to support consumers in assessing the quality of services, by attracting or reducing their intention to use them (Jalilvand et al., 2012). The advanced level of WOM is electronic WOM (e-WOM) currently being spread by various platforms making travel service evaluation more useful.
Brand equity has been interests by many researchers since the late 1980s primarily from a customer-based perspective. Researchs on brand equity does not only stop at tangible products or services but also it has gradually spread to tourist destinations (Tran et al., 2019).
The studies of destination brand equity appeared the first time in the research of Konecnik &
Gartner (2007). There is currently very little research on destination brand equity due to its complexity and other influential factors. Destination brand equity creates the differentiation
9 and improves the competitiveness of the tourism destination (Huang et al., 2013). Destination brand equity include four components: destination brand awareness, destination brand image, destination perceived quality and destination brand loyalty (Konecnik & Gartner, 2007, 2010;
Boo, 2009; Kim & Lee, 2018; Saeed & Shafique, 2019; Tran et al., 2019).
In recent years, Ly Son is a tourist destination attracting numerous domestic and foreign tourists. This is an ideal stop by pristine scenery and friendly people. The island is about 15 nautical miles northeast of Quang Ngai Province with 5 mountains in the middle of the ocean.
Along with nearly 100 cultural and historical sites, Ly Son is truly a great tourist destination for many people. The majestic landscapes, cultural and historical relics, special festivals and the vast onion and garlic fields have attracted tourists to this island. In 2019, the island has welcomed 265 thousand visitors. The total revenue from tourism is over VND 276 billion (Minh et al., 2019). However, Ly Son tourism still faces a number of difficulties such as difficulty in moving, the tourism management has not kept up with the number of tourists visiting the island and is not synchronized. Ly Son's tourism growth is almost "vertical", however, the "hot" growth rate is very vulnerable to the island's natural capital. It can be seen that Ly Son tourism has not been developed synchronously, not focused on destination tourism brand. To attract more tourists to the island, it is important to improve brand awareness and brand image of Ly Son Island. With the development of science and technology, under the impact of Industry 4.0, the act of using the Internet to evaluate or search information about a destination has become popular. Most people use social networking sites and travel sites to find reviews about previous travel experiences, thus making a decision to choose a travel destination. Therefore, this study aims to identify the relationship between e-WOM, destination brand awareness and destination brand image.
2. Literature Review 2.1. The research concepts
Electronic Word of Mouth (e-WOM)
Word of mouth is one of the oldest marketing tools (Huete-Alcocer, 2017). Word of Mouth (WOM) is informal marketing communications which customers transmits messages to others about ownership, usage, products / services characteristics or the sellers (Westbrook, 1987). Whereas, according to Armstrong and Kotler (2013), they define WOM as an influence on purchasing behavior and friend’s suggestions for personal beliefs, acquaintances or other customers. WOM has a great impact on consumer attitudes and intentions (Xia and Bechwati, 2008; Daugherty and Hoffman, 2014). For intangible products such as tourism and hotels, it is very difficult for consumers to evaluate before use. WOM provides information about a service, helps customers evaluate service quality and leads to intent to use that service (Wang et al., 2017). Therefore, WOM is an important tool to support purchasing decisions (Jalilvand and Samiei, 2012).
WOM includes traditional WOM and electronic WOM. With the Industrial Revolution 4.0, more and more consumers are using the internet to search for information about products or companies. WOM is proposed on virtual servers, and it is called e-WOM (Minxue et al., 2011). E-WOM (electronic word of mouth) is defined as “any positive or negative statement made by potential, actual, or former customers about a product or company which is made available to multitude of the people and institutes via the Internet (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004). According to Kim and Lee (2018), e-WOM is defined as information obtained from the internet about other people's experiences and recommendations. Consumers can use a variety of internet tools to share experiences related to assessing goods and services through
10 the company's website, discussion forums, social media, private agencies, chat rooms, emails, blogs, instant messaging (Fang, 2014).
e-WOM is a supportive tool for classic interpersonal communication in the modern world (Abubakar et al., 2017). Several studies have shown that e-WOM is also an effective way of promoting goods and services. E-WOM is an important means by which consumers can get information about the quality of products or services (Chevalier & Mayzlin, 2006). E-WOM can reduce risk and uncertainty, thus affecting customer’s shopping behavior (Chatterjee, 2001). With e-WOM, the identity of the assessor cannot be determined, so e-WOM improves the negativity of traditional WOM by eliminating the information bias of friends, relatives and family (Abubakar et al., 2016).
e-WOM is an effective form of online reviews in helping customers make decisions in case of intangible products / services such as tourism and hotels (Bronner & de Hoog, 2011). The advantage of e-WOM is the ability to quickly access information, expand to many recipients without the presence of reviewers in a place with the intention of disseminating information (Luo and Zhong, 2015).
Destination brand equity
A destination is defined as a geographic area that brings value to visitors, created from a combination of products and services of many businesses (Wagner &
Peters, 2009). Destination brands are the names, logos or graphics used to identify and distinguish between locations (Ritchie and Ritchie, 1998). Successful brands create added value for their destinations by creating a unique identity, which leads to differentiation from competitors (Kladou et al., 2017).
Brand equity plays an important role in marketing and has received a lot of attention from researchers (Keller, 2003). Aaker (1991) defined brand equity as “a set of brand assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its name and symbol that add to or subtract from the value provided by a product or service to a firm and/or to that firm’s customers”. Brand equity is also defined as the overall value and utility of a brand compared to competitors based on consumer perceptions (Tasci, 2018). Aaker’s brand equity model (1991) was applied in many later studies (Yoo et al., 2000; Tong et al., 2009; Buil et al., 2013; Ngan et al., 2019).
In the field of tourism, destination brand equity is being considered an attractive and inclusive concept (Kaushal et al., 2019). Brand equity is a measure of the branding success in the tourism industry (Pike & Page, 2014). Many subsequent studies have applied Aaker's brand equity model (1991) to measure destination brand equity (Boo et al., 2009; Konecnik &
Gartner, 2010; Chi et al., 2019; Saeed et al., 2019; Tran et al., 2019). It includes four components: destination brand awareness, destination perceived quality, destination brand image and destination brand loyalty. According to Keller (2003), brand awareness and brand image are the main dimensions of brand equity.
Destination brand awareness
Destination marketing aims to raise awareness of a destination by creating a unique brand.
Awareness plays an important role as the first step in building and increasing brand equity (Gartner & Konecnik, 2011). Brand awareness is defined as the ability of a potential buyer to recognize or recall that a brand is a member of a certain product category (Aaker, 1991).
Based on it, destination brand awareness refers to “the consumer’s ability to recall and recognize a destination and the strength of that destination in consumer’s mind” (Gomez et al., 2015). Destination brand awareness raises a positive sense of a brand, leading to tourists’
travel intentions. Brand awareness is one of the main factors to create brand’s performance in the tourism industry (Konecnik & Gartner, 2007). It is very important to increase destination
11 brand awareness through specific emotions and connections to the destination (Murphy et al., 2007). In destination selection, brand awareness plays an important role (Kashif et al., 2015).
If a potential tourist knew of a destination before it became popular, it is a successful tourist destination (Tran et al., 2019).
Destination brand image
According to Keller (2003), brand image relates awareness or sentiment of customers associated with a specific brand. Destination brand image includes a set of brand associations in the minds of consumers, helping consumers recall the brand in memory (Chi et al., 2019).
The concept of a destination brand image has received a lot of attention, but there is still no unified concept in the tourism industry. According to Yuwo et al. (2013), destination brand image can be seen as anything that links the mind of visitors about the attributes of a particular city; the general impression that a visitor to a destination can be a country, an island or a town; or an interactive system of thoughts, opinions, emotions, visual images and intentions towards a destination. Destination brand image is defined as an individual's spiritual expression of the knowledge (beliefs), emotions and the overall perception of a specific destination (Fakeye & Crompton, 1991). The more consumers have familiar associations with the brand, the more brand equity will increase. Besides, the unique and powerful images that consumers store in their memory are the consumers' connection to destinations. Destination brand image helps minimize risks for tourists in choosing a less popular destination. Destination brand image are also used to promote awareness of destination attributes that differentiate them from competitors. Cai (2002) argued that destination brand image building has great significance for destination brand models. The cognitive and affective associations that exist in the consumer's mind influence the destination brand image (Vinh & Phuong, 2017).
2.2. Research hypotheses
2.2.1. Relationships between e-WOM and Destination brand awareness
Consumer awareness is a basic element of brand equity (Aaker, 1991) and brand awareness plays a key role in consumer choices. Awareness which created by e-WOM's efforts leads to higher brand equity. Consumers have a wide range of brands to choose, but with online comments, the choice will favor the most popular brand. It's clear that e-WOM is a powerful advertising tool that can raise brand awareness. This is to support brand awareness and visibility. In fact, sales can be improved depend on brand awareness through all forms of media including social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter and MySpace. Research conducted by Ha (2004) shows that e-WOM has a special strength, can raise awareness and then affect consumer behavior. According to Jansen et al. (2009), e-WOM plays an important role in expressing brand satisfaction and will have an impact on brand awareness. Companies can increase their brand awareness and knowledge by encouraging satisfied consumers to communicate their experience through digital media such as Facebook, Google and YouTube (Brown et al., 2007). The influence of e-WOM as content generated through social media on destination brand equity awareness has been verified through previous studies (Aluri et al., 2015; Aydın, 2016; Kim and Park, 2017; Dedeoğlu et al., 2019). Therefore, the proposed hypothesis is:
H1: e-WOM has a positive effect on destination brand awareness.
2.2.2. Relationships between e-WOM and Destination brand image
Some previous studies have suggested that e-WOM has a positive influence on destination brand image. Jalilvand and Samiei (2012) investigated the impact of e-WOM on brand image and purchase intent in the car industry in Iran. The results show that e-WOM has a positive
12 influence on the destination image. According to Sandes and Urban (2013), public comments affect brand image. In addition, Charo et al. (2015) also conducted a study to analyze the impact of e-WOM on brand image and purchase intent on the application of online comments. Based on the findings of the study, e-WOM has been shown to influence brand image. The findings of these studies indicate that e-WOM affects destination images.
Although they focus on products, these studies provide empirical evidence to develop similar research in another area, namely tourism destinations. This result is also proved in tourism studies by Ishida et al. (2016), Al Halbusi & Tehseen (2018), Andriani et al. (2019).
Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H2: e-WOM has a positive influence on the destination brand image.
2.2.3. Relationships between Destination brand awareness and Destination brand image Brand awareness is a prerequisite for forming a set of brand associations (Aaker, 1991).
Destinations brand awareness is one of the important cognitive indicators of tourist behavior.
The higher destination brand awareness, the higher destination brand image (Pike et al., 2010). Konecnik (2010) suggested that there was a relationship between destination brand awareness and destination brand image. Research results of Pike et al. (2010), Myagmarsuren
& Chen (2011) and Tran et al. (2019) demonstrate that destination brand awareness has a positive impact on destination brand image. Therefore the following hypothesis is proposed:
H3: Destination brand awareness has a positive influence on destination brand image.
2.3.3 Conceptual Framework
Based on the relationships between e-WOM, destination brand awareness and destination brand image, a conceptual framework are illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Conceptual framework
3. Methodology
The scale of this study is inherited from previous studies. E-wom scale consists of 3 observed variables and destination brand awareness scale includes 4 observed variables developed from Stojanovic et al (2018). Meanwhile, four items for destination brand image is were adapted from Boo et al. (2009). A questionnaire based on the above scales is used to
13 interview tourists who have visited Ly Son. The questions were designed to include three dimensions with 11 items. All factors were assessed based on a Likert scale of five levels, from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). The questionnaire includes two parts: part 1 to evaluate observed variables related to research concepts and part 2 focuses on personal information of respondents.
The survey is conducted in 2 ways: direct survey with paper questionnaire and online survey.
With paper questionnaires, interviews were conducted directly with tourists in Ly Son in November-December 2019. In the form of online surveys, questionnaires are posted to Facebook to collect information. A total of 257 valid responses were collected. Data were processed using software SPSS 22 and AMOS 22.
The results of the sample description are presented in Table 1.
Table 1: Sample characteristics
Characteristics Frequency %
Sex Male 134 52.1
Female 123 47.9
Age Under 30 years old 140 54.5 30 years old and above 117 45.5
Job Student 134 52.1
Officer 82 31.9
Other 41 16
Income Under 10 millions 127 49.4 10 millions and above 130 50.6
4. Results
4.1. Cronbach’s alpha and EFA analysis
Cronbach's alpha results show that all scales are reliable because cronbach's alpha coefficients are all greater than 0.7. The item-to-total correlations of all observed variables are all high (> 0.3), except the DBI4. Therefore, DBI4 (Visiting Ly Son reflects who I am) was deleted. The remaining observed variables were further analyzed by EFA.
EFA analysis uses principal components factor with varimax rotations and stops when the extracted elements EFA eigenvalue = 1. The results (Table 2) shows that there are 5 factors with the total variance explained is 69.701%. KMO coefficient = 0.759 > 0.05 and sig. = 0.000, indicates a quite high level of significance. All factor loading of the scales are satisfactory (> 0.5). Thus, the scales are satisfactory for the next analysis.
Table 2: Cronbach’s alpha and EFA results
Items Factor
loading
Eigen value
Cumulated variance explained
(%)
Cronbach’s alpha
eWOM 1.598 69.701 0.809
ewom1 - I will share in details about my trip on social media that I use.
0.843 ewom2 - I will recommend Ly Son as a travel destination
on social media.
0.859 ewom3 - I will recommend Ly Son as a tourist attraction for
my friends and family on social media.
0.809
Destination brand awareness (DBA) 3.342 33.418 0.798
DBA1 - Ly Son has a good reputation. 0.817 DBA2 - Ly Son is a famous destination. 0.783 DBA3 - Ly Son's characteristics come to my mind quickly. 0.719
14
DBA4 - Ly Son is the first place I think of tourist destinations.
0.807
Destination brand image (DBI) 2.031 53.724 0.815
DBI1 - Ly Son suits my personality. 0.851 DBI2 - Friends will appreciate it if I visit Ly Son. 0.873 DBI3 - Ly Son's image matches my image. 0.823
4.2. Confirmatory factor analysis
The CFA result shows Chi-squared = 59.795 with p = 0.002, CMIN/df = 1.869 < 2, CFI = 0.969 (>0.9); TLI = 0.957 (>0.9); GFI = 0.955 (>0.8); RMSEA = 0.058 (<0.08) is satisfactory. Therefore, the general scale model is reliable and suitable for the survey data set.
As evidence of convergent validity, the measurement model is assessed through 3 criteria:
standardised loadings, construct reliability (CR), and the average variance extracted (AVE).
In which, standardised loadings should be greater than 0.5 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). The CR need to greater than 0.7 and AVE must reach the minimum value of 0.5, according to Hair et al. (2010). In Table 3, the standards mentioned above are satisfied. Therefore, convergent validity was achieved.
Table 3: Convergent validity of the measurement model
Construct Items Standardized
Loading
CR AVE
eWOM ewom1 0.716 0.815
0.780 0.822
0.598 0.504 0.607
ewom2 0.885
ewom3 0.706
DBA DBA1 0.690 0.815
0.780 0.822 0.815
0.598 0.504 0.607 0.598
DBA2 0.700
DBA3 0.677
DBA4 0.768
DBI DBI1 0.805 0.780 0.504
DBI2 0.819
DBI3 0.710
According to Fornell và Lacker (1981), discriminant validity was achieved when square of the correlation coefficient is less than AVE of each respective factor pair. The results are shown in Table 4 that all structures achieved discrimination.
Table 4: Discriminant validity of the measurement model
AVE/R2 eWOM DBA DBI
eWOM 0.598
DBA 0.127 0.504
DBI 0.075 0.031 0.607
4.3. Structural equation modeling 4.3.1. The tests of model fit
SEM analysis results (Figure 2) showed that the research model has 32 degrees of freedom with Chi-squared = 59.795 (p = 0.002). Cmin/df = 1.869 (<2), consistent with the standard (Byrne, 2010). Other evaluation indicators such as CFI = 0.969; GFI = 0.955 (> 0.9); AGFI = 0.922 (> 0.8); RMR = 0.063 and RMSEA = 0.058 (<0.08) satisfy the requirements suggested by Hu and Bentler (1999). From the above statistical indicators, it is possible to confirm that the research model is highly consistent with market data.
15
Figure 2: The SEM finalised model
4.3.2. Evaluation of path relationships
The results in Table 5 show that hypotheses H1, H2 are accepted with statistical significance (p <0.05). As hypothesised, eWOM positively impacts on destination brand awareness (SEs = 0.357; p = 0.000).Similarly, eWOM positively impacts on destination brand image (SEs = 0.241; p = 0.003). On the other hand, hypothesis H3 is rejected because p> 0.05, which means a significant relationship is not found between destination brand awareness and destination brand image.
Table 5: Hypothesis testing
Hypothesis Causal path
Standardised estimates
(SEs)
Standard
error CR p-value Test results
H1 eWOM DBA 0.357 .080 4.477 *** Supported
H2 eWOM DBI 0.241 .123 2.957 .003 Supported
H3 DBA DBI 0.091 .123 1.111 .266 Unsupported
5. Conclusion and practical implications 5.1. Practical implications
The findings show that eWOM positively impacts on destination brand awareness (SEs = 0.357; p = 0.000), consistent with results of Ha (2004), Page & Lepkowska-White (2002), Jansen et al. (2009). This shows that the more positive comments and reviews are spread on the Internet, the higher destination brand awareness of Ly Son. This is very important as Ly Son is a new attractive destination recently. Therefore, it is very important to have positive reviews to increase the attention of tourists.
The findings also show eWOM positively impacts on destination brand image (SEs = 0.241;
p = 0.003), in line with results of Ishida et al. (2016), Andriani et al. (2019). With positive word of mouth on the Internet, tourists will have better impressions and associations with the destination, which in turn influences the destination choice decision.
16 Thus, in order to increase brand awareness and brand image of the destination of Ly Son island, the increase in eWOM positively is one of the leading reasons. If a destination has positive eWOM, it will generate more brand awareness and better destination image. In other words, positive eWOM will create a competitive advantage for the destination brand. To get positive reviews from tourists, they must be satisfied with the tourist attractions and services on the island. The higher tourists' perception of accommodation quality, destinations, infrastructure and security, the better their assessment of destination quality. Therefore, destination administrators need to reinforce these aspects to increase traveler satisfaction. At the same time, destination managers should encourage tourists to do eWOM by creating popular hashtags, holding photo contests, blogs, writing reviews, etc. Through social media, eWOM, with the active participation of tourists, will have a greater impact on destination brand awareness and destination brand image.
5.2. Limitations and Future Research
First, this study focuses on one destination, Ly Son Island, meaning that its generalization to other destinations is limited. Therefore, research comparing other tourist destinations is a potential area in the future.
Second, only domestic tourists were required to complete a questionnaire in this study.
Therefore, research results cannot be generalized outside of this group. As such, future research should examine other travelers, such as international visitors, where attitudes and behaviors may differ, to obtain more general results.
References
Aaker, D.A. (1991). Managing Brand Equity; Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand. The Free Press. New York.
Abubakar, A., Ilkan, M. and Sahin, P. (2016). eWOM, eReferral and gender in the virtual community. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 34(5), 692-710.
Al Halbusi, H., Tehseen, S. (2018). The Effect of Electronic Word-Of-Mouth (EWOM) On Brand Image and Purchase Intention: A Conceptual Paper. SocioEconomic Challenges, 3(2), 83-94.
Aluri, A., Slevitch, L., & Larzelere, R. (2015). The effectiveness of embedded social media on hotel websites and the importance of social interactions and return on engagement. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(4), 670-689.
Andriani, K., Fitri, A., & Yusri, A. (2019). Analyzing Influence of Electronic Word of Mouth (EWOM) Towards Visit Intention with Destination Image as Mediating Variable: A Study on Domestic Visitors of Museum Angkut in Batu, Indonesia. Eurasia: Economics
& Business, 1(19), 50-57.
Aydın, B. (2016). Restaurant image in social media: the case of TripAdvisor. Journal of Multidisciplinary Academic Tourism, 1(1), 13-30.
Bronner, F., & de Hoog, R. (2011). Vacationers and eWOM: Who posts, and why, where, and what? Journal of Travel Research, 50(1), 15-26.
Brown, J., Broderick, A.J. & Lee, N. (2007). Word of mouth communication within online communities: Conceptualizing the online social network. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21(1), 2-20.
Buil, I., Martínez, E. & de Chernatony, L. (2013). The influence of brand equity on consumer responses. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 30(1), 62–74.
Cai, L. A. (2002). Cooperative branding for rural destinations. Annals of tourism research, 29(3), 720-742.
Charo, N., Sharma, P., Shaikh, S., Haseeb, A., & Sufya, M. Z. (2015). Determining the
17 impact of ewom on brand image and purchase intention through adoption of online opinions. International Journal of Humanities and Management Sciences, 3(1), 41-46.
Chi, H. K., Huang, K. C., & Nguyen, H. M. (2020). Elements of destination brand equity and destination familiarity regarding travel intention. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 52.
Daugherty, T., & Hoffman, E. (2014). eWOM and the importance of capturing consumer attention within social media. Journal of Marketing Communications, 20(1-2), 82-102.
Dedeoğlu, B. B., van Niekerk, M., Küçükergin, K. G., De Martino, M., & Okumuş, F. (2020).
Effect of social media sharing on destination brand awareness and destination quality. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 26(1), 33-56.
Fakeye, P. C., & Crompton, J. L. (1991). Image differences between prospective, first-time, and repeat visitors to the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Journal of travel research, 30(2), 10-16.
Fang, Y., 2014. Beyond the credibility of electronic word of mouth: Exploring eWOM adoption on social networking sites from affective and curiosity perspective.
International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 18(3), 67-102.
Filieri, R. (2015). What makes online reviews helpful? A diagnosticity-adoption framework to explain informational and normative influences in e-WOM. Journal of Business Research, 68(6), 1261-1270.
Filieri, R., & McLeay, F. (2014). E-WOM and accommodation: An analysis of the factors that influence travelers' adoption of information from online reviews. Journal of Travel Research, 53(1), 44-57.
García, J. A., Gómez, M., & Molina, A. (2012). A destination-branding model: An empirical analysis based on stakeholders. Tourism management, 33(3), 646-661.
Gartner, W. C., & Konecnik Ruzzier, M. (2011). Tourism destination brand equity dimensions: Renewal versus repeat market. Journal of Travel Research, 50(5), 471–481.
Gomez, M., Lopez, C., & Molina, A. (2015). A model of tourism destination brand equity:
The case of wine tourism destinations in Spain. Tourism Management, 51, 210–222.
Huang, C., Oh, K., Zhang, Q., & Choi, Y. J. (2013). Understanding the city brand in the regional tourism market among college students. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 30(7), 662-671.
Huete-Alcocer, N. (2017). A literature review of word of mouth and electronic word of mouth: Implications for consumer behavior. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 1256.
Ishida, K., Slevitch, L., & Siamionava, K. (2016). The effects of traditional and electronic word-of-mouth on destination image: A case of vacation tourists visiting Branson, Missouri. Administrative Sciences, 6(4), 12.
Jalilvand, M. R., Samiei, N., Dini, B., & Manzari, P. Y. (2012). Examining the structural relationships of electronic word of mouth, destination image, tourist attitude toward destination and travel intention: An integrated approach. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 1(1-2), 134-143.
Jalilvand, M. R., Samiei, N., Dini, B., & Manzari, P. Y. (2012). Examining the structural relationships of electronic word of mouth, destination image, tourist attitude toward destination and travel intention: An integrated approach. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 1(1-2), 134-143.
Keller, K. L. (2003). Understanding brands, branding and brand equity. Interactive Marketing, 5(1), 7-20.
Kim, H. K., & Lee, T. J. (2018). Brand equity of a tourist destination. Sustainability, 10(2), 431.
Kim, W. G., & Park, S. A. (2017). Social media review rating versus traditional customer satisfaction. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(2),
18 784-802.
Kladou, S., Kavaratzis, M., Rigopoulou, I., & Salonika, E. (2017). The role of brand elements in destination branding. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 6(4), 426–
435.
Luo, Q., & Zhong, D. (2015). Using social network analysis to explain communication characteristics of travel-related electronic word-of-mouth on social networking sites.
Tourism Management, 46, 274-282.
Meiners, N., Schwarting, U. & Seeberger, B., 2010. The Renaissance of Word-of-Mouth Marketing: A 'New' Standard in Twenty-First Century Marketing Management?.
International Journal of Economic Science Research, 3(2), 79-97.
Minh, V., Nhan, T. & Thi, U. (2019). Ly Son spurted out from tourism development, accessed on 10 April 2020. https://tv.tuoitre.vn/huyen-dao-ly-son-but-pha-tu-lua-chon- phat-trien-du-lich-60711.htm
Murphy, L., Benckendorff, P., & Moscardo, G. (2007). Destination brand personality: Visitor perceptions of a regional tourism destination. Tourism Analysis, 12(5-6), 419-432.
Ngan, N. H., Thanh, T. B., Phuong, T. T. K., & Vinh, T. T. (2019). Brand equity and consumer responses: conceptual framework and preliminary testing of scales.
International Journal of Business, Economics and Law, 18(2), 11-22.
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of marketing research, 17(4), 460-469.
Pike, S., & Page, S. J. (2014). Destination Marketing Organizations and destination marketing: A narrative analysis of the literature. Tourism management, 41, 202-227.
Reichheld, F. F., & Sasser, W. E. (1990). Zero defeofions: Quoliiy comes to services.
Harvard business review, 68(5), 105-111.
Riegner, C., 2007. Word of Mouth on the Web: The Impact of Web 2.0 on Consumer Purchase Decisions. Journal of Advertising Research, 47(4), 436-447.
Saeed, M., & Shafique, I. (2019). Customer-based brand equity and destination visit behaviour in the tourism industry: the contingent role of social media. Quality &
Quantity, 1-22.
Sandes, F. & Urdan, A., (2013). Electronic Word-of-Mouth Impacts on Consumer Behavior:
Exploratory and Experimental Studies. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 25(3), 181-197.
Sparks, B. A., & Browning, V. (2011). The impact of online reviews on hotel booking intentions and perception of trust. Tourism Management, 32(6), 1310-1323.
Tasci, A. D. A. (2018). Testing the cross-brand and cross-market validity of a consumerbased brand equity (CBBE) model for destination brands. Tourism Management, 65, 143–159.
Tasci, A. D., Gartner, W. C., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2007). Measurement of destination brand bias using a quasi-experimental design. Tourism management, 28(6), 1529-1540.
Tong, X. & Hawley, J. M. (2009). Measuring customer-based brand equity: Empirical evidence from the sportswear market in China. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 18(4), 262-271.
Tran, V. T., Nguyen, N. P., Tran, P. T. K., Tran, T. N., & Huynh, T. T. P. (2019). Brand equity in a tourism destination: a case study of domestic tourists in Hoi An city, Vietnam. Tourism Review, 74(3), 704-720.
Um, S., Chon, K., & Ro, Y. H. (2006). Antecedents of revisit intention. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(4), 1141-1158.
Vinh, T. T., & Phuong, T. T. K. (2017). Examining the interrelationships among destination brand image, destination perceived quality, tourist satisfaction and tourist loyalty:
evidence from Danang City, Vietnam. International Journal of Tourism Policy, 7(4), 352-374.
19 Wagner, O., & Peters, M. (2009). Can association methods reveal the effects of internal branding on tourism destination stakeholders?. Journal of Place Management and Development, 2(1), 52-69.
Wang, T. L., Tran, P. T. K., & Tran, V. T. (2017). Destination perceived quality, tourist satisfaction and word-of-mouth. Tourism Review, 72(4), 392-410.
Webster, C., & Ivanov, S. (2014). Transforming competitiveness into economic benefits:
Does tourism stimulate economic growth in more competitive destinations?. Tourism Management, 40, 137-140.
Yang, H. K. (2011). The impact of moving pharmaceutical products from prescription only to over-the-counter status on consumer exposure to advertising. International Journal of Human Ecology, 12(2), 1-12.
Yoo, B., Donthu, N. & Lee., S. (2000). An examination of selected marketing mix elements and brand equity. Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 195-212.
Yuwo, H., Ford, J. B., & Purwanegara, M. S. (2013). Customer-based brand equity for a tourism destination (CBBETD): The specific case of Bandung City, Indonesia. Organizations and markets in Emerging Economies, 4(1), 8-22.
