GERMAN STUDENT’S PERCEPTIONS OF BULGARIA AS A TOURIST

DESTINATION – A MOLECULAR APPROACH TO DESTINATION IMAGE

ASSESSMENT

Stanislav Ivanov, Ph. D.

International University College
3 Bulgaria Str., 9300 Dobrich, Bulgaria
Email: stanislav.ivanov@vumk.eu

Abstract:
The paper presents the results of a study of the image of Bulgaria as a tourist destination
among a group of German students visiting Bulgaria for a first time. Similarly to Ivanov
and Illum (2010) the paper adopts the Lederer and Hill (2001) and Silver and Hill (2002)
molecular approach to branding and combines it with the John et al (2006) brand concept
mapping technique. Respondents prepared individual concept maps of Bulgaria as a tourist
destination which were consequently aggregated to derive a group consensus cognitive
map. Results show that respondents have very narrow perceptions about Bulgaria as a
tourist destination. Managerial implications of the study are also discussed.

Key words: Bulgaria, destination marketing, concept maps, perceptions, destination brand
molecule

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1603494

 GERMAN STUDENT’S PERCEPTIONS OF BULGARIA AS A TOURIST
DESTINATION – A MOLECULAR APPROACH TO DESTINATION IMAGE
ASSESSMENT

Introduction
Destination image, defined as the compilation of beliefs and impressions based on
information processing from various sources over time (Crompton, 1979; Yüksel and
Akgül, 2007), and its measurement have long been on the research agenda (Gallarza, Gil
and Calderon, 2002; Gartner, 1989, 1993; Nadeau, Heslop, O’Reilly, Luk, 2008; Pike,
2002; Rakadjiyska, 2002; Telisman-Kosuta, 1989; White, 2004). This is not surprising
because by creating a favorable image a destination will attract tourists and achieve
profitability (Echtner and Ritchie, 1991; Phelps, 1986).

Existing methodologies on destination image measurement (Gallarza, Gil and Calderon,

2002) try to reconcile the individual perceptions and develop an aggregate picture of
destination image but they suffer from different pitfalls (Ivanov and Illum, 2010). Non-
quantitative methods like free elicitation, focus groups, in-depth interviews, content
analysis (Choi, Lehto, Morrison, 2007; Hankinson, 2004; Prebensen, 2007), provide rich
data, that allow very subtle nuances in a destination’s image to be captured, but
information aggregation is often subject to a researcher’s discretion. They require a lot of
time to implement and data comparability over time and space may be difficult to achieve.
Quantitative methods (Baloglu and McCleary, 1999; Beerli and Martin, 2004; Chen, 2001;
Correia, Oliveira, Silva, 2009; Gartner, 1989; Son and Pearce, 2005) provide comparable
data in a standardized form but the use of preformulated questionnaires to assess the
destination image distorts the primary data because respondents are reminded about
specific attributes of the destination and are fostered to give an answer. As each method
has its own advantage often they are used simultaneously, complementing each other (e.g.
Govers, Go, Kumar, 2007; Hunter and Suh, 2007; Luque-Martinez, Del Barrio-Garcia,
Ibanez-Zapata, Molina, 2007).

Current paper aims at addressing these pitfalls. It goes beyond the above mentioned
methodologies and adopts a relatively new instrument in destination image measurement –
the destination brand molecule. It has been developed by Silver and Hill (2002) as a tool to
identify potential opportunities for rebranding the USA. It is based on the Lederer and Hill

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1603494

(2001) concept of the brand portfolio molecule. The latter is presented as a set of
interconnected atoms, representing individual brands included in company’s portfolio. In a
molecule map, individual brands take the form of atoms clustered in ways to reflect how
customers see them (Lederer and Hill, 2001: 126). Each connection between brand atoms
in a portfolio molecule might exert positive, neutral or negative impact on a customer’s
purchase decision. The strongest point in the Lederer and Hill (2001) approach is that it
relies on customer perceptions about relationships between brands in the brand portfolio
and shows that brands are not perceived by customers in isolation but in their integrity with
other strategic or support brands in a company’s portfolio. The main problem with the
Lederer and Hill (2001) and the Silver and Hill (2002) papers is that authors do not
elaborate the methodology for developing the molecules. They do not explain in details
how the associations were derived and ranked, or how the strength of the links between the
associations was determined.

In this regard, similar to Ivanov and Illum (2010), current paper combines the destination
brand molecule with the brand concept mapping technique (John et al, 2006; Hui, Huang
and George, 2008; Martínez and Martínez, 2009). Brand concept maps are used to examine
customer perceptions toward and associations with an existing brand and have been
successfully applied to destination image measurement by Ivanov and Illum (2010).

Methodology
The destination brand molecule of Bulgaria was created by adopting the methodology
developed by John et al. (2006) for the brand concept map for the Mayo Clinic and applied
for Las Vegas by Ivanov and Illum (2010). The study took place in April 2009. Twenty-
two students from Germany and their 2 lecturers visiting Bulgaria for the first time were
asked to participate in the study. Two of the students were from Bulgaria and thus were
excluded from the survey. Finally the cohort included 22 respondents.

The research methodology included the following five phases:

Phase 1.: Elicitation – identification of possible associations to be potentially included in a
molecule.
→Step 1.1.: Preparation of individual lists of associations by the respondents.
The 22 respondents were asked to prepare their own individual and anonymous lists of
associations with the destination brand ―Bulgaria‖ and were allowed about 10 minutes to

3
complete this procedure.
→Step 1.2.: Preparation of the aggregated list of associations.
Respondents’ lists were merged and the frequencies of mentioning of each association
calculated. Descriptive statistics for the association lists are presented in Table 1.
Respondents identified 64 different associations with the brand ―Bulgaria‖ which were
mentioned 140 times, an average of 2.19 times per association. The average length of an
association list was 6.36 which is considered too short (for comparison Ivanov and Illum
(2010) report for one of the surveyed cohorts an average length of an association list to be
15 entries). The full list of mentioned associations and their respective frequencies are
presented in Table 2.
==============
Insert Table 1 here
==============
Insert Table 2 here
==============
→Step 1.3.: Selection of association lists to be used in the next phase of the research –
mapping:
John et al. (2006: 552) suggest that only those associations mentioned in at least 50% of
the individual lists should be selected for the next stages of brand concept map
construction. In current survey we followed Ivanov and Illum (2010) notion that using only
the 50%+ associations would artificially limit the number of associations in the concept
maps and thus we selected for the next phase of the research the associations mentioned by
at least 18-20% of respondents. The final list includes only 10 associations (see entries in
italics in Table 2).

Phase 2.: Mapping – preparation of individual brand molecules for Bulgaria by the
respondents using the association lists from Step 1.3.
Respondents were asked to prepare individual brand molecules of Bulgaria and to apply
the following mapping rules:
● use only the associations from Step 1.3. Respondents were not required to include all
associations from this list in the molecule they created.
● use 1, 2 or 3 lines between associations to denote a weak, medium or strong connection
between the associations, respectively.
● use +, – or 0 to denote a positive, negative or neutral influence of a particular association

4
to the overall image of the destination – a so called ―valence‖ of an association.
The 22 respondents generated 21 molecules that followed the above procedures and could
be used for the research.

Phase 3.: Aggregation – coding and aggregating the individual molecules. We next
calculated the statistics shown in Table 3 and aggregated the data from the individual brand
molecules in Table 4.
==============
Insert Table 3 here
==============
Insert Table 4 here
==============
Phase 4.: Consensus molecule – combining the individual molecules into one consensus
molecule.
→Step 4.1.: Selection of first-order associations – the i-th association is considered to be
of first order if it simultaneously fulfils the following conditions:
M
● R1i - in more than one-half of the individual molecules collected, the i-th
2
association is mentioned as a first-order association
● Ci C - the i-th association has a higher than the average total number of connections
with other associations

● Ci C - the i-th association has an average number of connections with other

associations in one molecule higher than the total average number for all associations in all
collected molecules
The combination of the three conditions means that the i-th association is central (core) to
the destination brand.
→Step 4.2.: Selection of second-order associations – the i-th association is considered to
be of second-order if it fulfils either of the following two sets of conditions below:
Condition Set I: The i-th association fulfils simultaneously the three conditions below:
M
● R2i - in more than one-half of the individual molecules the i-th association is
2
mentioned as a second-order association
● Ci C - the i-th association has a higher than the average total number of connections

5
with other associations

● Ci C - the i-th association has an average number of connections with other

associations in one molecule higher than the total average number for all associations in all
collected molecules
Condition Set II:
● in more than one-half of the individual molecules the i-th association is linked with a
first-order association selected in previous Step 4.1.
Analogically, we derived the third- and higher-order associations.
→Step 4.3.: Determination of association connections – only those mentioned by at least
25% from the respondents were selected for inclusion in the consensus brand molecule.
→Step 4.4.: Determination of the strength of connection between two associations:
● weak – Lij 1;1.5

● medium –- Lij 1.5;2.5

● strong – Lij 2.5;3

→Step 4.5.: Determination of the valence of an association in the consensus molecule:

● positive – V i 0.5;1

● neutral – V i 0.5;0.5

● negative – V i 1; 0.5
→Step 4.6.: Use of suitable colors and dashing to show the different associations, their
valences and the strength of connections between them.

The final result of Phase 4 was the consensus brand molecule of Bulgaria, generated by the
responses of the German students. It should be noted that this molecule represents the
predominant views of the respondents, not the perceptions of a single person.

Phase 5.: Validity analysis – a check to determine whether the aggregations performed are
methodologically correct. Following John et al. (2006) and Ivanov and Illum (2010) a
random half-split of the individual molecules was performed. A new consensus molecule
was derived (named ―validation consensus molecule‖) and compared the associations
included in it with the associations in the original consensus molecule.

Results

6
The consensus destination brand molecule of Bulgaria is presented in Figures 1.
===============
Insert Figure 1 here
===============
All associations with the brand ―Bulgaria‖ are considered of being of first order, because
more than 50% of respondents mentioned a direct link between them and the core item
―Bulgaria‖. However, the strength of the links is not equal. The strongest association link
with ―Bulgaria‖ is ―Sunny beach‖ (L=2.35), while the weakest is ―rich/poor‖ (L=1.47). It
is interesting to note that neither respondents depicted any association as third or higher
order – all of them were shown as either first or second order associations.

There seam to be 3 clusters with not very complex links among the associations included
in them:
1. The first one includes the sea-side resorts ―Sunny beach‖ and ―Golden sands‖, ―Black
sea‖ and ―cheap‖. ―Black sea‖ has nearly the same strength of the association links with
―Sunny beach‖ (L=2.29) and ―Golden sands‖ (2.27). Both resort associations have
connections with ―cheap‖, but these links were mentioned by less than 50% of
respondents. ―Sunny beach‖ and ―Golden sands‖ are also connected in respondents’ minds
(L=2.17). It should be emphasized that all 4 associations in this cluster have a positive
valence, i.e. they contribute to the positive image of the destination.

2. A second cluster is related with political and economic issues of the destination. It
includes associations that have predominantly neutral valence and have weaker
connections with the brand ―Bulgaria‖ compared to the entries in the previous cluster –
―Eastern Europe‖ (V=0, L=1.81), ―ex-communist‖ (V=0, L=1.69), ―Transformation‖
(V=0, L=1.94), ―Rich/Poor‖ (V=-1, L=1.47) and ―Sofia‖ (V=0, L=2.22). The five
associations in the cluster are also interconnected – being an Eastern European country,
Bulgaria is perceived as ex-communist, that experiences transformation in economic,
social and political aspects, which results in division between rich and poor strata of the
society, especially visible in the capital Sofia.

3. ―Mountains‖ stays as a relatively isolated association that is linked only with the core
brand (L=1.44) but exert a positive impact on the image of Bulgaria among respondents.

7
To validate the aggregation, one-half of the individual molecules were randomly selected
to create a new validation consensus brand molecule. It was found that all associations,
connections between them from and valences the original brand molecule were replicated
in the new validation molecule denoting that the original aggregation was performed
correctly.

Discussion and conclusion

Study results show that respondent had too narrow view of Bulgaria as a tourist
destination. Forty-seven out of 64 of the associations (74%) identified during the elicitation
stage were mentioned by only 1 or 2 respondents while only one (the Black sea) was
mentioned by more than half of them. The association lists were very short as well with an
average length of 6.36 entries denoting the lack of information about the destination among
respondents. Being first-time visitors they did not have any prior experience that could
influence their perceptions but the latter were shaped only by the previous information
about the country and perceptions formed during the first days of the visit to Bulgaria.
Results are in line with Rakadjiyska (2002) conclusions about the tourists’ perceptions of
destination Bulgaria – respondents in our survey show a positive attitude towards the
tourist resources of the destination, but neutral or negative towards the political and
economic development of Bulgaria.

Looking at the consensus brand molecule of Bulgaria we can conclude that the tourism
related associations (―Sunny beach‖, ―Golden sands‖, ―Mountains‖, ―Black sea‖), although
having strong connections with the core brand ―Bulgaria‖, do not prevail in respondents’
perceptions about the destination. Therefore, government authorities responsible for the
promotion of the destination should put greater emphasis on the provision of rich and
abundant information about the destination, including the tourist resources, resorts, leisure
activities, special events, etc. A greater presence of Bulgaria in the media in a positive
light, participation in travel fairs (Ivanov and Webster, 2008), improved destination
websites of the country as a whole and of different towns/regions/resorts in Bulgaria, a
more focused branding of the destination would have a positive impact on potential
tourists’ perceptions about Bulgaria and increased visitation. Only when potential tourists
have positive perceptions about a destination they will include it into their consideration
set when selecting a destination for their holidays.

8
The research is not without limitations. The sample included only 22 students and lecturers
visiting Bulgaria on an educational trip. This distorts the data on the basis of the
demographic and educational characteristics of respondents. Further research should
expand the sample to make it representative for all foreign tourists in Bulgaria. The
influence of previous visits to Bulgaria on the tourists’ perceptions could also be examined.

Acknowledgments:
The author is grateful to Prof. Harald Pechlaner and his students from the Catholic
University of Eichstaett-Ingolstadt, Germany, for taking part in the research.

References:
Baloglu, S., K. W. McCleary (1999). A model of destination image formation. Annals of
Tourism Research, 26(4), 868-897.
Beerli, A., J. D. Martin (2004). Factors influencing destination image. Annals of Tourism
Research, 31(3), 657–681.
Chen, J. S. (2001). A case study of Korean outbound travelers' destination images by using
correspondence analysis. Tourism Management, 22(4), 345-350.
Choi, S. X. Y. Lehto, A. M. Morrison (2007). Destination image representation on the
web: Content analysis of Macau travel related websites. Tourism Management, 28
(1), 118–129.
Correia, A, N. Oliveira, F. Silva (2009). Bridging perceived destination image and market
segmentation – An application to golf tourism. European Journal of Tourism
Research, 2(1), 41-69.
Crompton, J. L. (1979). An assessment of the image of Mexico as a vacation destination
and the influence of geographical location upon that image. Journal of Travel
Research, 17(4), 18-24.
Echtner, C. M., Ritchie, J. R. B. (1991). The meaning and measurement of destination
image. Journal of Tourism Studies, 2(2), pp. 2–12.
Gallarza, M. G., I. Gil, H. Calderon (2002). Destination image. Towards a conceptual
framework. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 56-78.
Gartner, W. (1989). Tourism Image: Attribute Measurement of State Tourism Products
Using Multidimensional Techniques. Journal of Travel Research, 28(2), 16–20.
Gartner, W. (1993). Image Formation Process. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing,
2(2/3), 191–215.

9
Govers, R., F. M. Go, K. Kumar (2007). Virtual destination image. A new measurement
approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(4), 977–997.
Hankinson, G. (2004). The brand images of tourism destinations: A study of the saliency
of organic images. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 13(1), 6-14.
Hui, S. K., Y. Huang, E. I. George (2008). Model-based analysis of concept maps.
Bayesian Analysis, 3(1), 1-34.
Hunter, W. C., Y. K. Suh (2007). Multimethod research on destination image perception:
Jeju standing stones. Tourism Management, 28(1), 130–139.
Ivanov, S., S. F. Illum (2010) Destination Brand Molecule. Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1586263
Ivanov, S., C. Webster (2008) Marketing the Bulgarian Tourism Product—the Economic
Geography of Long-term and Short-term Investments. Paper presented at
GEOTOUR 2008 Conference, 26-28 June 2008, Krakow, Poland. Available at
SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1331064
John, D. R., B. Loken, K. Kim, A. B. Monga (2006). Brand concept maps: A methodology
for identifying brand association networks. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(4),
549-563.
Lederer, C., S. Hill (2001). See your brands through your customers’ eyes. Harvard
Business Review, 79(6), 125-133.
Luque-Martinez, T., S. Del Barrio-Garcia, J. Ibanez-Zapata, M. A. R. Molina (2007).
Modeling a city’s image: The case of Granada. Cities, 24(5), 335–352.
Martínez, J.A., L. Martínez (2009). La calidad percibida en servicios deportivos; mapas
conceptuales de marca. Revista Internacional de Medicina y Ciencias de la
Actividad Física y el Deporte, 9(35), 232-253.
Nadeau, J., L. Heslop, N. O’Reilly, P. Luk (2008). Destination in a country image context.
Annals of Tourism Research, 35(1), 84–106.
Phelps, A. (1986). Holiday destination image – the problem of assessment. An example
developed in Menorca. Tourism Management, 7(3), 168-180.
Pike, S. (2002). Destination image analysis—a review of 142 papers from 1973 to 2000.
Tourism Management, 23(5), 541–549.
Prebensen, N. K. (2007). Exploring tourists’ images of a distant destination. Tourism
Management, 28(3), 747–756.
Rakadjiyska, S. (2002). The image of tourism-oriented Bulgaria as a competitive
advantage. Proceedings of the Tourism Marketing Conference, 31st May – 2nd June

10
 2002, Grand hotel Varna.
Silver, S., S. Hill (2002). Selling brand America. Journal of Business Strategy, 23(4), 10-
15.
Son, A., P. Pearce (2005). Multi-faceted image assessment: International students’ views
of Australia as a tourist destination. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 18(4),
21-35.
Telisman-Kosuta, N. (1989). Tourism Destination Image. In S. F. Witt and L. Moutinho
(Eds.), Tourism Marketing and Management Handbook (pp. 557–561). Cambridge:
Prentice Hall.
Yüksel, A., O. Akgül (2007). Postcards as affective image makers: An idle agent in
destination marketing. Tourism Management, 28(3), 714–725.
White, C. J. (2004). Destination image: to see or not to see? International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 16(5), 309-314.

11
Table 1. Descriptive statistics in individual association lists
Statistic Value
Total number of associations 64
Times all associations mentioned 140
Average times one association mentioned 2.19
Total number of association lists 22
Average length of one association list 6.36

Table 2. Aggregated association lists

Association Times mentioned Percent mentioned
Bulgarian respondents (n=22)
Black sea 12 54,55%
Sunny beach 9 40,91%
Sofia 8 36,36%
ex-communist 5 22,73%
cheap 5 22,73%
rich/poor 4 18,18%
mountains 4 18,18%
transformation 4 18,18%
Eastern Europe 4 18,18%
Golden Sands 4 18,18%
parties 3 13,64%
football (in 1990s) 3 13,64%
good food 3 13,64%
nature 3 13,64%
friendly people 3 13,64%
Orthodox 3 13,64%
USSR 3 13,64%
destroyed streets 2 9,09%
crimes 2 9,09%
8 million inhabitants 2 9,09%
chaotic traffic 2 9,09%
thermal springs 2 9,09%
sun and beach 2 9,09%
Varna 2 9,09%
monasteries 2 9,09%
big hotels 2 9,09%
good wine 2 9,09%
hospitality 2 9,09%
European union 2 9,09%
beautiful landscape 2 9,09%
differences 1 4,55%
waste 1 4,55%
ruins 1 4,55%
agriculture 1 4,55%
warmer weather than Germany 1 4,55%
folklore 1 4,55%

12
Association Times mentioned Percent mentioned
alcohol excesses 1 4,55%
drunken student 1 4,55%
vodka 1 4,55%
Balkan 1 4,55%
German products 1 4,55%
poor cities 1 4,55%
discos 1 4,55%
bears 1 4,55%
Balkan music 1 4,55%
Bourgas 1 4,55%
family holidays 1 4,55%
big resorts 1 4,55%
relaxed people 1 4,55%
horses in city traffic 1 4,55%
funny speech 1 4,55%
less infrastructure 1 4,55%
underweight girls 1 4,55%
drinking tourism 1 4,55%
dirty 1 4,55%
shy people 1 4,55%
ski 1 4,55%
Cyrillic alphabet 1 4,55%
Eurovision song contest 1 4,55%
Balakov 1 4,55%
not organized people 1 4,55%
Balearics on the Balkans 1 4,55%
summer destination 1 4,55%
ancient 1 4,55%
* Associations in Italics are included in the mapping process

13
Table 3. Coding and aggregation statistics
Statistic Symbol and calculation
Total number of individual destination brand molecules М
Total number of associations mentioned in individual N
molecules
Times i-th association mentioned in individual molecules Ni
Times the connection between i-th and j-th associations Nij
mentioned
Strength of connection between the i-th and j-th associations in Lij
a particular molecule
Average strength of connection between the i-th and j-th Lij
associations in all molecules L ij
N ij
Valence of i-th association Vi
Average valence of i-th association in all molecules Vi
i
Vi
Ni
Number of connections of i-th association with other Ci N ij
associations j

Average number of connections of i-th association with other Ci

associations per one molecule Ci
Ni
Average total number of connections of one association in all Ci
molecules C i

N
Total average number of connections of one association per Ci
one molecule C i

Ni
i
Number of first-order connections of an association – times the R1i
association mentioned in all molecules with a direct connection
with Bulgaria
Number of second-order connections of an association – times R2i
the association has connections with a first-rank association in
all molecules
Number of third- and higher-order connections of an R3i
association – times the association has connections with a
second- or higher-order association in all molecules

14
Table 4. Aggregated statistics from the individual brand molecules of Bulgaria
Associations

Times included in the maps

Number of 2nd order links

Number of 3rd and higher
Number of 1st order links

connections per one

Average number of
Total number of
Eastern Europe
transformation
ex-communist

Golden Sands
Number of +

Sunny beach
Number of 0

connections
Number of -

order links

mountains

molecule
Black sea
rich/poor
Bulgaria
Valence

cheap
Sofia
Associations
Bulgaria - - - - - - - - - 17 11 16 18 17 16 16 16 16 15
Sunny beach 20 16 2 2 1 17 3 0 17 - 0 1 1 14 0 0 0 7 6 46 2,30
rich/poor 20 0 1 19 -1 17 3 0 11 0 - 0 6 0 4 5 3 2 0 31 1,55
mountains 18 13 5 0 1 16 2 0 16 1 0 - 3 1 0 1 1 2 1 26 1,44
Sofia 18 6 11 1 0 18 0 0 18 1 6 3 - 2 4 1 2 2 1 40 2,22
Black sea 19 16 3 0 1 17 2 0 17 14 0 1 2 - 0 1 1 3 11 50 2,63
ex-communist 19 4 6 9 0 16 3 0 16 0 4 0 4 0 - 12 9 4 0 49 2,58
transformation 19 12 5 2 1 16 3 0 16 0 5 1 1 1 12 - 13 3 0 52 2,74
Eastern Europe 18 3 11 5 0 16 2 0 16 0 3 1 2 1 9 13 - 3 0 48 2,67
cheap 19 15 3 1 1 16 3 0 16 7 2 2 2 3 4 3 3 - 6 48 2,53
Golden Sands 19 15 4 0 1 15 4 0 15 6 0 1 1 11 0 0 0 6 - 40 2,11
Total average number of connections of one association in all molecules 21,5
Total average number of connections of one association per one molecule 2,275

15
 2.17
Sunny beach (+) Golden sands (+)

2
1.86 2
2.29 Black sea (+) 2.27
2.35
Cheap (+) 2.12 1.44 Mountains (+)

2.06
BULGARIA 2.22
1.81 Sofia (0)
Eastern Europe (0)
1.69 1.47
1.94 1.83
1.67
2 Rich/Poor (-)
Ex-communist (0)

2.17 Transformation (0) 1.60

Figure 1. Destination brand molecule of Bulgaria

16