William C. Gartner
University of Minnesota, USA
Abridgement:Destination brand equity is a recent line of enquiry within the academic community. The topic is still not well understood from a theoretical standpoint. This chapter attempts to frame the conceptual question of how to develop brand equity by providing some theoretical constructs for the nature of destination. Brand characteristics with respect to tangible and experiential products are examined, followed by the identification of its dimensions. Awareness, image, loyalty, quality, and value are identified as different dimensions existing within destination brands. Research that has dealt with these dimensions is discussed, with suggestions on how to build brand equity using market characteristics and their relationship to the different dimensions. Case studies are used to illustrate some of the main points from the theoretical discourse, including the issue of who controls brand identity under different development scenarios.Keywords:brand equity; destination brands; brand dimensions;
image.
Tourism Branding: Communities in Action
Bridging Tourism Theory and Practice, Volume 1, 51–63 Copyrightr2009 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 2042-1443/doi:10.1108/S2042-1443(2009)0000001006
INTRODUCTION
Brand equity is an elusive concept when it comes to destinations. Its literature deals with a single product or a collection of like products marketed under the same name. What is clear is that branding is all about ownership. For example, marking livestock was a way to designate assets for producers. In its current marketing form, it is about creating a sense of ownership for customers, and it is through this process that brand equity is created.
According toRoom (1992), the modern form of branding appeared in the 19thcentury and now includes legal instruments, logos, companies, identity systems, image, personality, and relationships. Using brands for marketing is probably one of the earliest forms of product differentiation. Under the Coliseum in Pula, Croatia, a structure dating back to the 1st century, a display of ancient amphora brands can be found. Amphorae, the vessels used to transport wine, were made of clay and were not meant to be returned to the producer. Yet, many amphorae are imprinted with the name of the producer. These names appear in a variety of script. One can assume the producer names, personally attributed, on non-returnable containers for an important beverage that could vastly differ in taste and quality must be some form of marketing to create brand equity. Adding value is the basis for all branding strategies (de Chernatony and McDonald 2001) and that is what these early wine producers were apparently attempting to do. Brands can add value, which gives equity. But can branding, as a part of a marketing strategy, be used to create brand equity for a destination is not yet known.
The more inclusive definition of brands (Room 1992) suggests it can. The work in this area is still in its infancy (Cai 2002).
DESTINATION BRAND EQUITY
Brand equity is the process of not only creating ownership for a particular brand but the value of that ownership. It emerged originally from the literature on financial valuation in the 1990s (Barwise 1993). Yet, actually being able to measure it remains elusive (Yoo and Donthu 2001). For a consumer, product brand equity measurement should be pretty straightforward. It is simply the additional monetary return associated with the name of the brand. The difference between a generic equivalent and its branded counterpart is the additional amount of money that can be acquired in the marketplace from selling the brand name. However, if a generic equivalent does not exist, then its
equity measurement becomes problematic. This is especially true for destinations as there is no generic equivalent to a geographic place. The valuation of a product brand therefore cannot be the same as occurs for destinations, which are not branded commodities, freely bought and sold, in an open marketplace. They are instead set places with a collection of assets both natural and sociocultural, making up unique properties of destinations and giving rise to its touristic value. In this sense, destination brand equity is related more to the number of tourists who choose the destination and their expenditure levels and length of stay. Poorly performing places, as will be discussed later in this chapter, would expect to receive fewer tourists, with shorter lengths of stay and lower levels of spending.
Brand Characteristics
Understanding the nature of destination brand equity requires an examina- tion of the differences and similarities between product and destination brands. One of the major differences is brand stability. The former is enhanced when the customers know what they are buying. Its predictability arrives through product stability, meaning that it will deliver the expected performance no matter where it is purchased. Fast food companies have historically used product predictability to grow their market through franchise operations. However, many such brands slightly modify their products for different consumer tastes in international markets. For the most part, what makes them work is that customers, with a high degree of assurance, know what they are getting when they purchase the product. This is not the case for destination brands. They are dynamic places and change depending on the season and over time as the resident population fluctuates due to in- and out-migration. Destination known for winter skiing cannot sell the same experience during the summer. They also change in terms of development, service quality, and markets, as they move through the lifecycle (Butler 1980).
One major difference between destination and product brands is the experiential factor. The former are functional goods. They have substance that can be seen and felt. They have tangible features that can be identified and quantitatively measured, with relatively low risk associated with a purchase. Even products with a high price tag, and therefore higher risk associated with making the wrong purchase decision, generally have test periods where they can be returned for a full refund. Some purchases, such as over-the-counter medicine, fast food, and household cleaning products, may not always be returned if they do not perform as advertised, but
consumers bear little financial risk from these inexpensive items. However, the cost of travel is not low, and tourists assume risk when they decide to take a trip. Since the tourism product is experiential and essentially different for each consumer, there is little predictability, stability, or recourse if expectations are not met. Delivering what is promised becomes a major concern for those trying to develop and support destination brands.
Novelty is an area of agreement between product and destination brands.
Novelty, as it is used here, means providing a product or experience different from competitors. If a particular one is seen as providing a higher level of benefit than its competitor, its brand equity will be higher. Destinations also thrive on novelty. Since travel is a relatively expensive undertaking, those which can set themselves apart from their competitors on an experiential level are better able to enhance their brand equity. Travel is about difference both between home and destination and among different choices of locations. Without novelty they cannot be differentiated. The focus on novelty has led many to use their slogan or tagline to declare difference (Pride 2007). The slogan does not usually result in increased brand equity.
One reason for this is that a destination must be seen as different, on a number of levels, to be considered as a worthy (time and money) place to visit. Difference is given when a potential tourist is in a destination selection mode. Its attributes cannot simply be declared as different but must be functionally so. Consumers must be aware of the difference vs. other destinations and what currently exists in the home environment. Novelty cannot simply be declared, it must be earned.
Brands have both internal and external perspectives. The first one relates to those providing the good or service.de Chernatony and McDonald (2001) argue that this occurs when managers emphasize the use of resources to achieve a customer response. Alternatively, an external perspective occurs in the way customers interpret brand meaning and use it to enhance their personal purchase decision. An example of internal branding occurs when new employees are assigned to training courses that serve to instill the corporate culture. In the process, the meaning and the benefits of a company brand are emphasized, and all employees should be able to communicate them to distributors and consumers. Destinations, on the contrary, are an agglomeration of businesses often competing for the same customers. They may be very effective at selling the benefits of their own brand but not as good at promoting a destination brand, especially if the destination marketing organization has not been active in developing a community-wide internal perspective. The external perspective, how the customer views the brand, may also be problematic. For example, destinations that rely on tour operators for
tourists may not even be in control of their own brand building. A number of external perspectives may be working against each other leaving potential tourists with unclear expectations of the destination brand, a situation that will become more apparent later when discussing specific places.
Brands have dimensions (Aaker 1991;Yoo and Donthu 2001), for both product and destination brands. What these dimensions are has led to a relatively new set of research studies to uncover how they affect destination brand equity. Konecnik and Gartner (2007) uncovered four brand equity dimensions that apply to destinations. They are awareness, loyalty, image, and quality. These are the same dimensions identified by Aaker (1991)and Yoo and Donthu (2001). Tasci, Gartner and So (2007b) used these dimensions and added another: value. They found that different tourist segments evaluated each of these dimensions in different and significant ways.
Brand Equity Dimensions
Awareness is an essential dimension. It is the first step in building equity. A place must be known, in some context, before it can even be considered as a potential destination. Goodall (1993),Woodside and Lysonski (1989), and Howard and Sheth (1969) have uncovered four levels of awareness. From high to low, they are dominant, top of mind, familiarity, and knowledge.
Dominant awareness does not always translate into enhanced brand equity.
A case in point is the world’s ‘‘hot spots’’ such as Iraq, Darfur, and Chad.
These places have received extensive media coverage, but the human conflict that is portrayed does not translate into increased travel flow. The dominant or top of mind awareness is of negative value, in these cases, to building brand equity. That may not always be the case as awareness can lead to higher levels of future travel, such as for Vietnam, when the conflicts that created the awareness have receded into history. Awareness is the first step in creating brand equity, but it must be of a positive nature.
Image is a dimension that has received the most attention in the academic literature. Pike (2002, 2007) and Gallarza, Saura and Garcı´a (2002) have reviewed the extensive literature on tourism image. By their count, over 140 papers have been published on the subject. Image was initially viewed as encompassing all the other brand dimensions (Ritchie and Ritchie 1998), but this view is changing. ‘‘Image formation is not branding, albeit the former constitutes the core of the latter. Image building is one step closer, but there still remains a critical missing link: the brand identity’’ (Cai 2002:722).
Images refer to the attributes or benefits one expects a destination to possess.
They are formed on many different levels and throughout one’s lifetime
(Gartner 1993a, 1993b). Because of the high risk factor when choosing a destination one knows very little about, images are used to create awareness.
There is no money back guarantee for tourists, and therefore, destinations use images extensively in their promotional literature to gain awareness for the attributes and benefits that set them apart from competitors. The same are also used to counteract negative attributes that may have been acquired through media awareness. Creating and projecting images is a staple of destination promotion.
Loyalty refers to repeat visitation or in the case of singular products repeat purchase. It can be of either the behavioral or attitudinal variety.
Behavioral loyalty may be due to a number of reasons. Business travel to a particular destination does not involve free choice. Such tourists go to where their business or customers are located, but this does not necessarily mean they would return given a choice. Awareness of the destination is a given, but the image dimension may be weak as its attributes may not be important in the decision process for these tourists. Behavioral loyalty in this case affects brand equity only to the extent that the destination can maintain a healthy business community. Behavioral loyalty may also arise from past travel and be tied to tradition. For example, the lake-based resorts in the United States thrived for years on selling week long holidays. There were few if any opportunities for stays less than a week.
The reason for this business model was based on traditional vacation patterns that were continued by succeeding generations. If parents took their children to the same resort each year, this tradition was often passed down to the next generation. However, the pattern appears to be fading as smaller lake-based resorts have declined in number with most now offering flexible stay options.
Nonetheless, this type of behavioral loyalty should not be discounted as an emotional attachment to a particular resort. In this case, it is an essential ingredient in brand development and enhancement of its equity. Other forms of behavioral loyalty are tied to financial investments in a particular place.
Second home or property ownership (such as time share) is a good example of this type of behavioral loyalty. Due to the financial commitment made in a particular place, loyalty will result. Attitudinal loyalty, on the contrary, is making a choice based on attributes and benefits to be obtained from travel to a particular place modified with ones attitudes toward those benefits. For example, if a destination is of the sun, sand, and sea variety, those not wishing to spend time in the sun or on a beach would possess negative attitudes toward these particular attributes. Destinations that possess
attributes and benefits that match tourists’ expectations have the potential to score high on the attitudinal loyalty dimension. The loyalty concept has been extensively investigated within the marketing literature. By contrast, destination loyalty has rarely been studied.Oppermann (2000)argued that loyalty should not be neglected when examining destination brands.
Quality is a very subjective term, but it can be operationalized through a variety of scale measures, as can all the other brand equity dimensions (Konecnik and Gartner 2007). Since quality is so subjective, it was often subsumed in the image dimension (Pike 2002). As a distinct variable, it has been investigated by Fick and Ritchie (1991), Keane (1997), Murphy, Pritchard and Smith (2000), and Weiermair and Fuchs (1999). It can be viewed as simply meeting or exceeding expectations. Destinations that are comprised of different stakeholders and businesses have a much more difficult time delivering consistent quality over time. Maintaining quality levels is a prerequisite for enhancing product brand equity and it should be for destinations. However, since they do not control service quality for individual businesses, it makes the task more difficult. Destinations that have quality resources, such as a National Park or some other unique natural feature, have a much easier time building brand equity through the quality dimension than those that must differentiate based on service quality alone.
Best defined as return on expenditure, value is the brand equity dimension most recently uncovered (Tasci et al 2007b). It has often been viewed as a component of quality reflected through the price one pays for a product. The importance of price has been recognized by other authors investigating the destination development phenomenon (Baloglu and Mangaloglu 2001;
Crompton 1979; Echtner and Ritchie 1993). Hence, price is seen as one of the important extrinsic quality cues, but it is not always synonymous with quality. Value is a subjective measure; this differs from quality in the sense that value can be tied to the cost of accessing some desired attributes (such as sun) rather than the quality of the services. For example, lodging quality and customer service may be poor, but value is still obtained by the low cost required to reach and stay at the destination. Packaged tours are often driven by value rather than quality service. Extant literature is sparse on destination brand equity dimensions. It is entirely possible that others can be identified, isolated, and tested. The criteria for establishing brand dimensions used by Konecnik and Gartner (2007)andTasci et al (2007b)were that scales used to isolate dimensions must show independence from each other. Operationaliz- ing dimensions through scale measurements is a necessary precondition to isolating additional dimensions.
Building Brand Equity
Destination brand equity is not a direct monetary value as for branded commodity products, but rather the valuation of the overall effect of tourist behavior including length of stay, expenditure level, and tourist arrivals.
Destinations are branded by name that gives the potential tourists an indication of its meaning and value. This information is used in the travel decision process. If, as has been hypothesized, brand equity has a number of dimensions, they should be able to be recognized and evaluated by both potential and current tourists. There should also be separation between the dimensions. In other words, when operationalized, they should have little correlation among themselves. This is the situation found in the studies conducted byKonecnik and Gartner (2007)andTasci et al (2007b). Therefore, building brand equity starts with understanding the importance and influence of each dimension to a particular market. Here is where the evidence is still being assembled. Apart from the two studies mentioned above, there is very little in the literature to support this claim but even less to refute it.
Accepting that different dimensions may be affecting destination brand equity allows for a testable model to be developed. First, the concepts of repeat and renewal visitation must be addressed. Repeat visitation is defined as traveling to a particular destination more than once. Renewal is the recruitment of new tourists, as previous ones, either repeat or first time, decide to frequent other destinations. Recognizing that both of these concepts are fluid and may change from one reporting period to the next, there should be a long-term average that clearly shows repeat and renewal trends. To maintain stable or increasing growth, the renewal market must equal or exceed the loss from the repeat market. When both show increases, a destination may be in a long-term growth cycle.
Brand equity dimensions should affect the renewal and repeat markets in different ways. For first-time tourists (members of the renewal market), the dimensions of awareness and image would seem to be the most important.
Obviously, without awareness, a destination is very unlikely to be chosen.
Due to the inability to ‘‘pre-test’’ the destination, image would be used to inform. For the repeat market, awareness should become less important.
The dimensions of image to reinforce destination attributes, loyalty, quality, and value should be more important. Value and quality may also be very vital, and even more so than image for the renewal market, asKonecnik and Gartner (2007)found that one market in particular scored higher on quality than image. Therefore, the effect of each dimension on different markets should be understood. It is only through this insight that destinations can be